Who ran the German Democratic Republic?

“Just as in all socialist states, power has been vested in the working class, and this for more than twenty years now. Led by its party, the SED, it has created a socialist state of workers and farmers. It determines government policy. It holds the key positions in the state apparatus. This provides the guarantee that all organs of the socialist state are guided by the interests of the working people, the working class, the cooperative farmers, the intelligentsia and all other sections of the community.

Recruited from the ranks of the working class are 60 percent of all officers of state in the various government departments, 70 per cent of all employees of county and district councils and 75 per cent of all mayors in towns and villages.

Since the working class gives the lead in this state and ideas and proposals, interests and needs of workers are given close attention in our community. No one will find himself at a disadvantage before any institution- whether an authority, housing commission or court of law- because he is ‘only’ a worker. On the contrary, the word of the working man carries special weight at all levels of the state and society.

The Influence of the Trade Unions 

    With a membership of 7.3 million the FDGB is the biggest public organization in the GDR. The working class exerts much of its influence on public affairs through the trade unions. Their sweeping rights concerning large-scale participation in the building of an advanced socialist society in all fields of national life are stipulated in the Constitution.

The trade unions have a group of their own in Parliament. They have the right to initiate legislation and to exercise public control over the observance of the working people’s legally guaranteed rights.

The Government closely cooperates with the trade unions. All important Bills related to working and living conditions are jointly discussed and adopted only in agreement with them. The big social and welfare programme launched in July 1972 was based on a joint decision by the workers’ party, the trade unions and the Government. Suggestions and proposals submitted by the trade unions for the annual economic plans are carefully studied by the Council of Ministers and incorporated in the plan.

Especially after the Eighth Congress of the SED a new and higher quality has been attained in the cooperation of the socialist organs of government and the trade unions. Full consensus on the objective in mind- the growing satisfaction of people’s material and cultural needs- does not exclude discussions on the methods to be employed and a different approach to individual problems.

Who makes the laws and for whom? 

    In whose interests laws are drafted and enacted in a country greatly depends on the social composition of Parliament.

In the People’s Chamber, the GDR’s supreme law-making body, workers make up 43.8 percent of all P.P’s cooperative farmers 15.4 percent, salaried employees 20.4 percent and members of the intelligentsia 20.2 percent. It is easy to imagine that such a Parliament does not adopt legislation ultimately directed against the working population. There are neither lobbyism and corruption nor agreements concluded by companies with individual M.P’s to secure influence in Parliament.

Represented in the People’s Chamber are all political and public organizations united in the National Front of the GDR with the aim of building a socialist society and made up of people from all working sections of the population. The SED, the party of the working class, comes first with 127 deputies. Next comes from the Confederation of Free German Trade Unions (FDGB) with 68. The four other parties in the Democratic Bloc, the Democratic Farmers’ Party (DBD), the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Liberal Democratic Party (LDPD) and the National Democratic Party (NDPD) each have 53 M.P.s. The youth organization (FDJ), the women’s organization (DFD) and the League of Culture are represented by 40, 35 and 22 deputies, respectively.

In the GDR it is now the standard practice to submit important Bills to the whole population for public discussion. Cases in point were the Labor Code, the Family Code, the Socialist Constitution and the Local Government Act. In each instance many thousand constructive ideas and proposals for amendment were made, which were then reconsidered, examined and incorporated into the final version of the Bill. The same was true of the new Youth Act whose draft was discussed in the course of seven months with more than 5. million citizens of all age groups taking part. 4,821 proposals were submitted with the result that about 200 revisions were made before the Bill was passed into law. In this way workers, farmers and intellectuals help shape socialist legal conditions in a very direct manner. Their influence on public affairs is not confined to the election of deputies.

Every individual law is in the interests of the working people and of social progress whether it relates to the introduction of 10-year general polytechnical schooling, the termination of unwanted pregnancy, large-scale social and welfare measures or a modern socialist criminal law doing away with provisions inherited from the age of Prussianism.”

(Source: https://ia800405.us.archive.org/11/items/HowDoPeopleLiveInTheGDR/How%20do%20people%20live%20in%20the%20GDR.pdf )

The Cultural Revolution and how it interacted with the people

“A strict distinction must be made between the two different types of contradictions: those among the people and those between ourselves and the enemy. Contradictions among the people must not be made into contradictions between ourselves and the enemy; nor must contradictions between ourselves and the enemy be regarded as contradictions among the people.

It is normal for the masses to hold different views. Contention between different views is unavoidable, necessary and beneficial. In the course of normal and full debate, the masses will affirm what is right, correct what is wrong and gradually reach unanimity.

The method to be used in debates is to present the facts, reason things out, and persuade through reasoning. Any method of forcing a minority holding different views to submit is impermissible. The minority should be protected, because sometimes the truth is with the minority. Even if the minority is wrong, they should still be allowed to argue their case and reserve their views.

When there is a debate, it should be conducted by reasoning, not by coercion or force.

In the course of debate, every revolutionary should be good at thinking things out for himself and should develop the communist spirit of daring to think, daring to speak and daring to act. On the premise that they have the same general orientation, revolutionary comrades should, for the sake of strengthening unity, avoid endless debate over side issues.”

(Source: http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/GPCR/DecisionOfCCofCCP-ConcerningGPCR-16Points-1966.pdf )

Comrade Kim Il Sung talks about trade unions and quotes Stalin

“Leading Party bodies pay little attention to the guidance of the trade unions. As a result, the trade unions fail to mobilize workers, technicians and office employees fully for the work of rehabilitating and putting factories and enterprises back into operation, raising labor productivity and strengthening labor discipline.

Provincial and city Party committees have underestimated their guidance of the trade unions, which has resulted in many non-Party people coming to hold leading posts in these unions and Communists making up but a small portion of the trade union membership.

Some trade union committees, far from helping the management in its work, offer obstacles to its running of the enterprise. For example, workers in a certain production enterprise in Sadong (which has a trade union) raise an unlawful demand under the “guidance” of a Party member, organized something like a strike and went so far as to beat up the manager and engineers. The workers, though their wages were higher than they had ever been in the years of Japanese imperialist rule, came out with a strong demand for a wage increase. It should be realized that the economic situation in the country does not allow us to grant large wage increases. In order to effect a large wage raise, a quick readjustment and operation of all the productive enterprises and am increase in labor productivity are needed.

In guiding the trade unions, we should not focus attention merely on the question of improving the immediate living conditions of the working class without taking into consideration the long-range interests of the development of the national economy. It is important to make the trade unions enlist the patriotic zeal and creative activity of the working people in the struggle for the rehabilitation and construction of the national economy. Only by so doing can we steadily improve the living standards of the working people.

The Party is not an ordinary organization; it is the highest form of organization of the working class, and an organization that leads all other organizations of the working class. As regards the leadership of the Communist Party over the trade unions and other social organizations, Comrade Stalin said as follows: ‘It only means that the members of the Parth who belong to these organizations and are doubtlessly influential in them should do all they can to persuade these non-Party organizations to draw them nearer to the Party of the proletariat in their work and voluntarily accept their leadership’ (J.Stalin, works, Korean ed., Vol 6, pg. 244-45). This leadership of Comrade Stalin should be the basis of our Party’s work on the trade unions.

Some comrades asser that the direction of the trade unions is none of the Communist Party’s business and that the trade unions need not function under the leadership of the Party. This is a view quite contradictory to Marxism-Leninism. We should relentlessly combat these wrong tendencies.

(Source: On the Work of the Organizations of the C.P.N.K) 

 

Opinion: ‘Brocialism’ is silly and identity politics will never bring actual change

(Source for the image: http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Brocialism#.WTOVvWjyuMp )

This is a really silly image, but I find it fascinating that there are ‘leftists’ that would ever phrase the quoting of the leaders of the past revolutions as ‘dead white dudes.’ I will acknowledge that the comic is mocking a ‘manarchist,’ however this comic was found on a section devoted to talking about brocialism, so it’s linking an anarchistic idea with a socialistic idea, even though the two ideas are very different.

Revolutionary politics isn’t a difficult thing, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to set forward a platform that most people can get behind. However when you submit a platform that you know that only a smaller number of people will rally behind then you can only expect people to shy away from that platform because they aren’t willing to die for those issues. The reason why revolution hasn’t broken out in the first world is because people don’t feel the urge to do revolution, there isn’t a lot of revolutionary need here, granted it would be preferable and it should happen, but the majority of first world people don’t care enough to do it.

Revolution also occurs based on the actual situation within the country, the working class and the peasantry are more likely to actually carry out a socialistic revolution simply based on past experiences, but there has to be an actual need from a group of people to carry out revolution and they have to have some kind of ability to win.

This is why the Asian countries were able to revolt in the manner that they did, the peasantry majority had revolutionary potential  based on their material conditions.

A simple platform for the first world parties would probably consist of the following:

1.) Anti-Imperialism: opposition to foreign wars, withdrawing troops from occupied territory and using that money to rebuild our economies in the west.

2.) A louder voice for unions and workers in general: unions in the United States have historically been the loudest voice for revolution, working class people have been abandoned by the politics of this country and no one really speaks for them anymore. For more information on this subject you should check out Daniel De Leon’s writings, he did a lot of thinking about the role of unions in a socialist society.

3.) Secession for the different peoples within the United States: It’s a right that was given to the people’s of the Russian Empire and it was a right that’s in the Constitution of the United States, there is something wrong with forcing different groups of people to be within a country they don’t want to be part of. It’s understandable that different people won’t be entirely comfortable with this, however there have been calls for secession for different nations within the U.S going back as far as the late 1800’s.

4.) Freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas: As revolutionaries we need to acknowledge that freedom of speech is a right, we need to stand up for people’s right to speak their minds. We cannot allow speech to be stifled because the moment it is for someone else it’ll for sure be for us soon. The libertarians and the Alt-right beat us to this one, they’re the ones that have a monopoly on being the ones in charge of this fight against identity politics, but we as the true left and right need to stand up as well especially because freedom of speech will allow us to speak out against the atrocities going on in the third world.

I’d like to finish this post with a couple of words from Comrade Kim Il Sung

Thank you for reading

-Andross

“Who, then, is to lead this revolution: the working class, or the capitalist class? In the past, the capitalist class of Korea exploited and oppressed the Korean people and decieved the people with the slogans of ‘national reform’ and ‘self-government of the nation’ in collaboration with Japanese imperialism. Of course, we do not mean that there did not exist national capitalists at all who turned against Japanese imperialism

It was the working class of Korea that fought courageously against Japanese imperialism to the bitter end. Though the Communist Party of Korea, founded in 1925, was dissolved in 1928 due to factional strife, that did not mean the end of the communist movement. From the 1930’s on the Communists of Korea fought against Japanese imperialism, weapons in hand.

It goes without saying that the capitalist class of Korea that capitulated to Japanese imperialism and collaborated with it, is not entitled to lead the revolution. Only the working class that fought bravely against Japanese imperialism to the end can and must lead the Korean revolution.”

(Source: The Building of a New Korea and the National United Front)

“Needless to say, as our united front is a united front for the building of a Democratic People’s Republic, a coalition with the lackeys of a Japanese imperialism is utterly inconceivable. We can and should join hands with those consienctious national capitalists who want to build an independent and democratic state. Only the formation of a united front of this type will enable us to build a Democratic People’s Republic and rally together the masses of the people in all walks of life.

The Communist Party must not be inert or passive in this struggle. In the struggle to establish a Democratic People’s Republic the Communists should play the most active and positive role and should be at the head of the masses of the people and lead them forward. Only when they do so will the masses of people follow the Communist Party.”

(Source: The Building of a New Korea and the National United Front)

What a leader should be and how Kim Il Sung embodied that principle

President Trump is a very charismatic figure, he’s a person that I think people are drawn to because of the way he presents himself and the way he’s able to talk to regular people on their level and about the issues they find to be important. If he wasn’t the head of a party dominated by capitalist interests I think I’d feel for him a bit more, and when I forget that he’s now in charge of the U.S war machine I really want to like him, his confidence really draws you to his side. Maybe that’s why a lot of people who are socially awkward feel so strongly towards him, they wish they had his confidence.

In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea their first president Kim Il Sung is regarded as the father of their country, he is looked up to by the people there as their idea of what a leader should be. His son Kim Jong Il wrote an article called The Worker’s Party of Korea is the Party of the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, and in it he talked about some of the qualities of Kim Il Sung, I’d like to show you how they view their leader in the DPRK, and maybe contrast their leadership principle with the leadership principle some wish to ascribe with President Trump.

-Andross

 

“Under Comrade Kim Il Sung’s wise leadership, the Worker’s Party of Korea was established as a working class party of a new type and developed in the flames of struggle for half a century into a trained and seasoned veteran revolutionary party, an unconquerable party enjoyed the unqualified support and trust of the people.”

“The Worker’s Party of Korea is a glorious party, which under the leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung has paved a new road of building a revolutionary party in the age of independence.”

“Comrade Kim Il Sung made strenuous efforts from the early years of his revolutionary activity to found the party that would lead our revolution. With an unshakeable belief that the popular masses are the motive force of the revolution, he waged the revolutionary struggle of organizing these masses.”

“He also did the work of founding the Party, beginning with the laying of its basis in the grassroots, by going to the popular masses to train true communists from among them and forming grassroots Party organizations.”

“The ranks of the communists hard core were trained and toughened, true unity and cohesion were achieved in the revolutionary ranks centering around the leader, and the mass basis for the communist movement was solidly laid, through all manner of hardships in the do or die struggle.”

“Thanks to the solid organizational and ideological bases for founding the Party and the glorious revolutionary traditions, which were prepared during the anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle, our Party was founded opportunely even in the complex circumstances after liberation.”

“The Juche idea is a new scientific world outlook that correctly reflects the popular masses desire for independence and the requirements of the times. It is a great idea that has brought about a historic change in the development of the revolutionary idea of the working class.”

“Comrade Kim Il Sung newly elucidated the fundamentals and basic principles of building a working class party and ways to implement them, and fully systematized the Juche oriented idea and theory of Party building.”

“The solidarity and strength of the party and all the success in party building depends on how the cadres and other members of the party are educated and bound together organizationally and ideologically and how the masses, the socio-class basis of the party, rally behind the party.”

“This force is an integral whole of the leader, the party and the masses. Only under the guidance of the party and the leader can the people hold their position as the driving force of revolution and play their role satisfactorily. In the driving force of revolution, the leader is the top brain and the center of unity, and the party is a political organization that materializes the leader’s idea and guidance.”

“Separated from the masses, the party cannot lead the revolution and construction to victory. The unbreakable unity of the leader, the party and the masses centering around the leader constitutes the solidest and most powerful revolutionary force, as well as a great force of the revolution and construction.”

“The working class party must be built up into the leader’s party, the political organization which realizes the leader’s idea and guidance, and must achieve inseparable unity with the masses. This is a basic requirement for the existence and development of the working class party and a fundamental principle that must be constantly maintained and carried forward in party building.”

“The working class party must be an ideological purity and organizational integrity, the entire party being dyed in its leader’s idea and moving as one under his unified leadership.”

“Under the leadership of Comrade Kim Il Sung, our Party has steadily intensified ideological education to equip all the Party members with the Juche idea, the revolutionary idea of the Party, and has conducted a powerful ideological struggle against flunkeyism, dogmatism, revisionism, factionalism and other unsound ideas.”

“A working class party with no organization or discipline will not only be unable to lead the revolution, but will itself be reduced to a lethargic, nominal existence.”

“By correctly embodying the principle of democratic centralism in Party building and its activity, Comrade Kim Il Sung firmly established the monolithic system of leadership and revolutionary and voluntary discipline within the Party.”

“Democracy means formulating the party’s line and policy by incorporating the will of the party members and giving full play to their voluntary enthusiasm and creativity in the struggle to implement them.”

“A working class party can be invincible only when it welds itself to the masses and enjoys the active support of the wide sections of the population. As a matter of principle, the demand of the working class represents the fundamental interest of the working masses, and the historic mission of the working class is to achieve social emancipation, not only for itself, but for all toiling people.”

“Ours is an era of independence, in which the popular masses have emerged as the masters of history.”

“Comrade Kim Il Sung set the line of building a mass party of the working people comprising workers, peasants and working intellectuals, and put this line into effect with success.”

“The process of building socialism is the process of transforming all members of society on the pattern of the working class, the process of assimilating all members of society to the working class.”

“Since national liberation through a bloody revolutionary war against the Japanese, our revolution has advanced through an unpreccedently complex situation and an arduous struggle. The division of the country by foreign forces, the Fatherland Liberation War against the invasion of the allied forces of imperialism, the ceaseless manoeuvers for aggression and sabotage by imperialism, the turbulent international situation and collapse of socialism in several countries.”

“Our socialism defends and ensures the independence for the popular masses and satisfies their demand for independence to the full. All the members of society exercise equal rights and independence in political, economic and cultural lives, and enjoy valuable and worth while lives free from all manner of social unrest and worry.”

“Our Party has consistently followed the policy of national reunification, a policy based on the three principles of independence, peaceful reunification, and great national unity.”

“If one believes in the people and relies on them one will always remain victorious; and if one is divorced from them and is forsaken by them, one will always fail- this is the concept of ‘The people are my God,’ the motto of respected Comrade Kim Il Sung, and this has become the basic starting point and supreme principle in all the activities of our Party.”

“Respected Comrade Kim Il Sung was the great leader of the people and their father. His ideology, leadership and virtue were based on love for, and trust in, the people. All his life he was among the people, shared joy and sorrow with them and devoted his all to them. He placed deep trust in the strength, wisdom and excellent qualities of our people and solved all problems by relying on them and by giving reign to their revolutionary zeal and creative force.”

“The line of Juche in ideology, independence in politics, self sufficiency in the economy and self reliance in defense, as advanced by Comrade Kim Il Sung, is a revolutionary line of independence run through with the principle of Juche and the spirit of independence.”

(Source: http://www.korea-dpr.info/lib/109.pdf )

How Kampuchea viewed Vietnam invading their country

“Militarization of the Vietnamese economy was creating serious strains. Industrial development was falling increasingly behind schedule (falling short of planned quotas by 15% at the end of 1978, according to Vietnamese official figures). The agricultural sector, still largely unmodernized, was extended to the utmost and encountering serious difficulties- 1978 saw a rice deficit of three million metric tons- and conscription and austerity were producing discontent and resentment among the people. But to abandon the scheme of conquest would mean risking the loss of aid, now vital, from Moscow; so another step was taken on the path of economic and political dependence, and the Vietnamese leadership went back to the bank in the Kremlin. Vietnam joined the CMEA (‘Comecon’) in June, 1978, and signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation, containing a military assistance clause, with the U.S.S.R. in November. Massive shipments of arms from the U.S.S.R. were received shortly thereafter, along with several thousand Soviet military advisers, and by December Hanoi was ready for another try.

This time, in order to provide a Khmer cover for invasion they set up a ‘Front’- a nicety overlooked in 1977. This ‘Front’ has a certain comical aspect: it seems to be composed of people off the street. None of its leading elements are known to have played any notable role in Kampuchean politics before. For example, Heng Samrin, the chairman of the ‘Front’, is variously described in press reports as an army political commissar at various levels, a divisional commander, battalion commander, and a brigade commander, Khmers active in the revolution for many years have never heard of him.

By late December of 1978, the invasion was well under way. At least thirteen divisions- 130,000 troops- had entered Kampuchea, with extremely heavy air support. (Estimates range as high as eighteen divisions.) At this point, the Vietnamese leaders may have been somewhat concerned for their international reputation, on December 23, in Phnom Penh, assassins attacked a guest house in which three Western journalists- Richard Dudman, Elizabeth Becker, and Malcolm Caldwell- were staying, and murdered Caldwell. His sympathy for Kampuchea and his skepticism about the atrocity stories were well known; and, as a respected progressive journalist, his eyewitness testimony in favor of Kampuchea would have had a significant impact on public opinion.

As we go to press, the invaders are in a position rather worse than that of Lon Nol. They hold some of the major cities- though their hold is precarious: Kompng Som has changed hands three times and Pursat twice. They dare not move along the highways, unless they do so in force, and having to rebuild every bridge they come to slows them down a good deal. Their supply lines are extremely extended and vulnerable. Their troops are not ethnic Khmers, and aerial bombardment does nothing to endear them to the Kampuchean people, who supported the government even before the Vietnamese arrived. It goes without saying that the invaders have failed to pacify the countryside. Fighting continues everywhere, especially near the Vietnamese border, where their control ought to be strongest.

Hanoi will not be able to maintain an army of occupation, numbering over 100,000 men, in Kampuchea for any length of time without a vastly increased militarization of their already troubled economy and the consequent total dependence on the Soviet Union. So they must now hope to throttle off any route of resupply from outside the country, expecting that this will cause resistance to collapse. But even if they do succeed in cutting off all external supplies- by no means a certainty- such supplies are not necessary to forces fighting a people’s war.”

(Source: Democratic Kampuchea waging People’s War)

Joseph Stalin talks about Socialism in One Country in a simple way

“The first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between classes in our country. This concerns the sphere of internal relations.

Can the working class of our country overcome the contradictions with our peasantry and establish an alliance, collaboration with them?

Can the working class of our country, in alliance – with our peasantry, smash the bourgeoisie of our country, deprive it of the land, factories, mines, etc., and by its own efforts build a new, classless society, complete Socialist society?

Such are the problems that are connected with the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the affirmative.

Lenin teaches us that “we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete Socialist society.”

Hence we can and must, by our own efforts, overcome our bourgeoisie and build Socialist society.

Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and those other gentlemen who later became spies and agents of fascism, denied that it was possible to build Socialism in our country unless the victory of the Socialist revolution was first achieved in other countries, in capitalist countries. As a matter of fact, these gentlemen wanted to turn our country back to the path of bourgeois development and they concealed their apostasy by hypocritically talking about the “victory of the revolution” in other countries.

This was precisely the point of controversy between our Party and these gentlemen.

Our country’s subsequent course of development proved that the Party was right and that Trotsky and company were wrong.

For, during this period, we succeeded in liquidating our bourgeoisie, in establishing fraternal collaboration with our peasantry and in building, in the main, Socialist society, notwithstanding the fact that the Socialist revolution has not yet been victorious in other countries.

This is the position in regard to the first side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

I think, Comrade Ivanov, that this is not the side of the question that is the point of controversy between you and Comrades Urozhenko and Kazelkov.

The second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country embraces the problem of the mutual relations between our country and other countries, capitalist countries; the problem of the mutual relations between the working class of our country and the bourgeoisie of other countries. This concerns the sphere of external, international relations.

Can the victorious Socialism of one country, which is encircled by many strong capitalist countries, regard itself as being fully guaranteed against the danger of military invasion, and hence, against attempts to restore capitalism in our country?

Can our working class and our peasantry, by their own efforts, without the serious assistance of the working class in capitalist countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of other countries in the same way as we overcame our own bourgeoisie? In other words :

Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?

Such are the problems that are connected with the second side of the question of the victory of Socialism in our country.

Leninism answers these problems in the negative.

Leninism teaches that “the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale” (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.

This is what Lenin says on this score :

“We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer. Meanwhile, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling class, wants to and will rule, it must prove this also by military organization.” (Collected Works, Vol. 24. P. 122.)

And further :

“We are surrounded by people, classes and governments which openly express their hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair’s breadth from invasion.” (Collected Works, Vol. 27. P. 117.)

This is said sharply and strongly but honestly and truthfully without embellishment as Lenin was able to speak.

On the basis of these premises Stalin stated in “Problems of Leninism” that :

“The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital.

“Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of Socialism,” (Problems of Leninism, 1937. P. 134.)

Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that.

No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.

Did not Denikin and Kolchak restore the bourgeois system in the districts they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin or Kolchak?

Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilise the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but “in a system of States,” a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.

The international proletarian ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the working class in bourgeois countries must be increased and strengthened; the political assistance of the working class in the bourgeois countries for the working class of our country must be organized in the event of a military attack on our country; and also every assistance of the working class of our country for the working class in bourgeois countries must be organized; our Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, and the Chemical and Air Defence Society must be increased and strengthened to the utmost.

The whole of our people must be kept in a state of mobilisation and preparedness in the face of the danger of a military attack, so that no “accident” and no tricks on the part of our external enemies may take us by surprise . . .

From your letter it is evident that Comrade Urozhenko adheres to different and not quite Leninist opinions. He, it appears, asserts that “we now have the final victory of Socialism and full guarantee against intervention and the restoration of capitalism.”

There cannot be the slightest doubt that Comrade Urozhenko is fundamentally wrong.

Comrade Urozhenko’s assertion can be explained only by his failure to understand the surrounding reality and his ignorance of the elementary propositions of Leninism, or by empty boastfulness of a conceited young bureaucrat.

If it is true that “we have full guarantee against intervention and restoration of capitalism,” then why do we need a strong Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, a strong Chemical and Air Defence Society, more and stronger ties with the international proletariat?

Would it not be better to spend the milliards that now go for the purpose of strengthening the Red Army on other needs and to reduce the Red Army to the utmost, or even to dissolve it altogether?

People like Comrade Urozhenko, even if subjectively they are loyal to our cause, are objectively dangerous to it because by their boastfulness they – willingly or unwillingly (it makes no difference!) – lull the vigilance of our people, demobilise the workers and peasants and help the enemies to take us by surprise in the event of international complications.

As for the fact that, as it appears, you, Comrade Ivanov, have been “removed from propaganda work and the question has been raised of your fitness to remain in the Y.C.L.,” you have nothing to fear.

If the people in the Regional Committee of the Y.C.L. really want to imitate Chekov’s Sergeant Prishibeyev, you can be quite sure that they will lose on this game.

Prishibeyevs are not liked in our country.

Now you can judge whether the passage from the book “Problems of Leninism” on the victory of Socialism in one country is out of date or not.

I myself would very much like it to be out of date.

I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist.”

(Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm )

Joseph Stalin talks about the contradictions within the capitalist system

“It is said that the law of the average rate of profit is the basic economic law of modern capitalism. That is not true. Modern capitalism, monopoly capitalism, cannot content it-self with the average profit, which moreover has a tendency to decline, in view of the increasing organic composition of capital. It is not the average profit, but the maximum profit that modern monopoly capitalism demands, which it needs for more or less regular extended reproduction.

Most appropriate to the concept of a basic economic law of capitalism is the law of surplus value, the law of the origin and growth of capitalist profit. It really does determine the basic features of capitalist production. But the law of surplus value is too general a law; it does not cover the problem of the highest rate of profit, the securing of which is a condition for the development of monopoly capitalism. In order to fill this hiatus, the law of surplus value must be made more concrete and developed further in adaptation to the conditions of monopoly capitalism, at the same time bearing in mind that monopoly capitalism demands not any sort of profit, but precisely the maximum profit. That will be the basic economic law of modern capitalism.

The main features and requirements of the basic economic law of modern capitalism might be formulated roughly, in this way: the securing of the maximum capitalist profit through the exploitation, ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the population of the given country, through the enslavement and systematic robbery of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and, lastly, through wars and militarization of the national economy, which are utilized for the obtaining of the highest profits.

It is said that the average profit might nevertheless be regarded as quite sufficient for capitalist development under modern conditions. That is not true. The average profit is the lowest point of profitableness, below which capitalist production becomes impossible. But it would be absurd to think that, in seizing colonies, subjugating peoples and engineering wars, the magnates of modern monopoly capital-ism are striving to secure only the average profit. No, it is not the average profit, nor yet super-profit – which, as a rule, represents only a slight addition to the average profit – but precisely the maximum profit that is the motor of monopoly capitalism. It is precisely the necessity of securing the maximum profits that drives monopoly capital-ism to such risky undertakings as the enslavement and systematic plunder of colonies and other backward countries, the conversion of a number of independent countries into dependent countries, the organization of new wars – which to the magnates of modern capitalism is the “business” best adapted to the extraction of the maximum profit – and, lastly, attempts to win world economic supremacy.

The importance of the basic economic law of capitalism consists, among other things, in the circumstance that, since it determines all the major phenomena in the development of the capitalist mode of production, its booms and crises, its victories and defeats, its merits and demerits – the whole process of its contradictory development – it enables us to understand and explain them.”

(Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch08.htm )

Stalin talks about why the U.S.S.R developed nuclear weapons

(This is an interview Joseph Stalin did with the newspaper Pravda)

 

“Question: What is your opinion of the hubbub raised recently in the foreign press in connection with the test of an atom bomb in the Soviet Union?

Answer: Indeed, one of the types of atom bombs was recently tested in our country. Tests of atom bombs of different calibers will be conducted in the future as well, in accordance with the plan for the defense of our country from attack by the Anglo-American aggressive bloc.

Question: In connection with the test of the atom bomb, various personages in the United States are raising alarm and shouting about the threat to the security of the United States. Are there any grounds for such alarm?

Answer: There are no grounds whatever for such alarm. Personages in the United States cannot but know that the Soviet Union is not only opposed to the employment of the atomic weapon, but that it also stands for its prohibition and for the termination of its production. It is known that the Soviet Union has several times demanded the prohibition of the atomic weapon, but each time this has been refused by the Atlantic bloc powers. This means that, in the event of an attack by the United States on our country, the ruling circles of the United States will use the atom bomb. It is this circumstance that has compelled the Soviet Union to have the atomic weapon in order to meet the aggressors fully prepared. Of course the aggressors want the Soviet Union to be unarmed in the event of their attack upon it. The Soviet Union, however, does not agree to this, and it thinks that it should be fully prepared to meet the aggressor. Consequently, if the United States has no intention of attacking the Soviet Union, the alarm of the personages in the United States should be considered as pointless and false, because the Soviet Union does not contemplate ever attacking the United States or any other country.

Personages in the United States are vexed because the secret of the atom bomb is possessed not only by the United States but also by other countries, the Soviet Union primarily. They would like the United States to be the monopolist of the production of the atom bomb. They would like the United States to have unlimited power to intimidate and blackmail other countries. But on what grounds do they think so? By what right do the interests of preserving peace require such monopoly? Would it not be more correct to say that matters are directly the opposite, that it is the interests of preserving peace that require first of all the liquidation of such a monopoly and then the unconditional prohibition of the atomic weapon too? I think that the proponents of the atom bomb may agree to the prohibition of the atomic weapon only if they see that they are no longer monopolists.”

(Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/10/06.htm )