“The motto ‘He who works shall eat’ should be firmly established; the government will no longer supply bread for all the idlers, money-lenders, speculators in gold and black marketeers of town and countryside. Let them work, and they may eat.”- Enver Hoxha

“Now the peasant will no longer be supplied with ration cards. Is this a correct measure? Yes, it is absolutely correct. It is a measure which does not cut the peasant off from supplies of the things he needs, such as manufactured and industrial goods. The fruits of the toil of the working class and of the working masses of the city are for the poor and middle peasant, too. They will be the first to benefit from it, but there should be order and justice in everything. Those who work and sweat the most should be the first to benefit, and at cheaper prices. Is it fair that the workers in the towns, at the construction sites, and in the factories should turn out oil and kerosene, thread and cotton fabrics, extract salt from the sea, build highways and railroads, and can never even see an egg or buy a turkey even at 1,500 or 2,000 leks?

Is it permissible that with one turkey the peasant may buy thread, and kerosene, and rope, and cotton fabrics? No, this is not fair at all, and our peasant himself understands that such a situation cannot go on for long. Harmony must be established in the market and prices, for neither the working masses of the town nor the labouring peasantry benefit from anarchy. The peasants may imagine that they benefit, but in reality, those who profit from this situation are the capitalists of town and countryside who are fishing in troubled waters, encouraging anarchy, confusion, the black market, weakening our state power and preparing its overthrow. Therefore, the new kind of relations between the town and the countryside, the new way of mutual exchanges, is the fairest of all.

The methods of wholesale purchases of grain, of meat, etc., are quite fair, and we should uphold them. In the practical implementation of these ordinances, concessions and mistakes may be made, but we should struggle against them, correct them wherever they crop up, and see that they do not recur.

It was wrong for our state to ensure the break, and at the same price, alike for those who did not work and produce and for those who toiled in production. The motto ‘He who works shall eat’ should be firmly established; the government will no longer supply bread for all the idlers, money-lenders, speculators in gold and black marketeers of town and countryside. Let them work, and they may eat. They will earn their bread with work. But if they continue their trade as speculators, then they will learn that our state and our laws are much more powerful than fifty black marketeers who will not be able to fish in troubled waters for long.

As for the peasants who do not produce or who produce very little grain, our government has given them broad possibilities to earn their bread through their own work. Although they will be provided with something on coupons, this will not completely solve the problem of bread for them. It is right that they should earn their break through work instead of sitting among the rocks with a couple of goats. These peasants should come to work in the big state projects, or in the various projects of their districts and regions, where they will immediately enjoy the same treatment as the workers. Apart from this, when the peasant goes to work on such jobs his family in the village will have their food guaranteed. This is the right way. Or this non-producing peasant, without leaving his region, could get busy procuring various materials which the state needs, and there are plenty of these in our country, which represent a great asset, but which are going to waste. But if these non-producing peasants do not want to work in their interests and that of their families, in the interests of the state and the whole society, is that the fault of the state?”

(Source: https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/ebooks/sw/vol2.pdf )

Advertisements

” The labouring peasantry cannot build a better life without the assistance and the leadership of the working class. This is a scientific Marxist law, and there is no power on earth to change it.”- Enver Hoxha

“Everyone should be fully mobilized for the fulfilment of the plan, and we must continue to make sacrifices, for socialism cannot be built without work and sacrifices. We should sternly combat all tendencies towards lack of discipline at work, in the first place, on the part of people of the state administration and some party members; we should get rid of the lazy and of the idea that everything can be put in order from the offices and that decrees and paper work are all that is required. No, matters are not carried through simply by writing memos about them. All the memos in the world cannot develop agriculture, build factories, machines, tractors, and so on, nor carry out land improvement schemes. Live leadership is what is required, problems should be followed up to their solution, and the people should be helped and supervised in their work. They must be made to face up tot their responsibilities. We shall not allow our state to become a state of red-tape bureaucrats who think only of their wages, and as long as they are sure of their wages the work may go to the devil. Such a state of things must cease, and there is bitter disillusionment in store for anyone who does not carry out his tasks, does not work conscientiously and take full responsibility for the work the Party and the government have entrusted him with, and carry it out regardless of whether he may be a party member, a simple clerk or a senior official. The party members, first of all, and all the others should get a thorough grasp of this advice of the Central Committee of the Party and our government on these matters. Anyone who does not carry out these elementary things is not serving the people properly, and the just struggle of the Party and the people’s power will automatically reject such unconsciousness and parasitical individuals.

Life is earned with honest toil. Bluff, demagogy, and lies are short-lived when confronted with the iron and conscious discipline of our heroic Party which is guiding out people with a sure hand in the construction of socialism. So the labouring peasantry, too, should be fully mobilized in the tasks of agriculture, to get the maximum work done, to open up new land, turn out as much first class produce as possible, adopt new methods of work, apply agricultural science, be militant members of agricultural cooperatives or selling and buying cooperatives, basing themselves firmly on the laws and ordinances of the government. The working peasantry should understand the new economic ordinances correctly and carry them out. They have been issues in the interests of the labouring peasantry and the working class, whose alliance should grow stronger from day to day. The labouring peasantry cannot build a better life without the assistance and the leadership of the working class. This is a scientific Marxist law, and there is no power on earth to change it. Any other road leads the labouring peasant towards the abyss, leads him towards life-long enslavement to the bey and the city capitalist. No, our peasant and our worker have not shed their blood in order to go backward, but to go forward, always forward, to happiness.”

(Source: https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/ebooks/sw/vol2.pdf )

“China is now a country without debts. This great achievement illustrates that China’s socialist economy is daily growing in strength and its financial position is ever more consolidated”- Tsai Cheng

“Adhering to the consistent teachings of our great leader Chairman Mao, China obtains its funds for socialist construction mainly through its socialist economy’s internal accumulation. The income from state-owned enterprises makes up more than 90 percent of the country’s total revenue. In the course of building the country through self-reliance China in a certain period issued national bonds in order to utilize the idle money in the hands of the people to expand socialist reproduction. This was a supplementary measure used by China at that time to raise capital funds. From 1950 to 1958 China floated six national bond issueds with a total value of 3,840 million yuan. Together with 980 million yuan payable in interest, the indebetedness totalled 4,820 million yuan and was paid off by the end of 1968.

In the early days of the Chinese People’s Republic, particularly during the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, the Soviet Union, which was then led by Stalin, extended some loans to China, the principal and interest of which totalled 1,406 million new rubles. China consistently discharged its obligation by repaying these foreign debts on time and, moreover, redeemed the last of them in 1965 before they were due.

China is now a country without debts. This great achievement illustrates that China’s socialist economy is daily growing in strength and its financial position is ever more consolidated. It fully proves that Chairman Mao’s principle of maintaing independence and keeping the initiative in our own hands and relying on our own efforts is the only correct principle for building socialism. It also eloquently demonstrates that a country such as ours, so long as it holds high the great red banner of Mao Tsetung Thought, can with its own efforts gradually change its look of poverty and backwardness and step by step build itself into a powerful socialist state.

Guided by invinciple Mao Tsetung Thought the revolutionary people of all nationalities in China, through arduous efforts in the past twenty years, have brought about earth-shaking changes in China’s national economy. Compared with the early days of the People’s Republic of China, increases ranging from one hundred to several hundred per cent have been registered in the production of grain, cotton, oilseeds and other agricultural crops and in the number of hogs, sheep, goats and other animals. The total output value of the country’s industrial production has gone up more than tenfold. China has set up new branches of industry such as aircraft, motor vehicles, tractors, electronics, petroleum and chemicals. An independent, fairly comprehensive, modern industrial system is taking shape in China. The country’s scientific research, education and health work have made considerable advances. China successfully exploaded its first atom bomb in 1964 and set off a new hydrogen bomb in 1968. On the basis of increased production, the material and cultural life of the Chinese people has improved enormously, markets are thriving and prices are stable.

While expanding its national economy rapidly, China, in the spirit of proletarian internationalism, has done what is within its power to actively support the revolutionary people of the world in their struggles and to assist some newly independent Asian and African countries to develop their economy and apply the principle of regeneration through their own efforts. It is precisely on the basis of the speedy development of our country’s socialist economy that our financial and monetary position is becoming more and more consolidated. Thus not only was the need for funds for large-scale socialist construction met, but all its home and foreign debts were paid off in a short time and China has now become a socialist country without internal or external debts.”

(Source: http://www.bannedthought.net/China/MaoEra/Socialism/China’sRenminbi-StableCurrency-1969.pdf)

Mao Tse-Tung talks about the classes that were in China: A reponse to Queer Kids Stuff

“-A landlord is a person who owns land, does not engage in labor himself, or does so only to a very small extent, and lives by exploiting the peasants. The collection of land rent is his main form of exploitation; in addition, he may lend money, hire labour or engage in industry or commerce. But his exaction of land rent from the peasants is his principle form of exploitation. The administration of communal land and the collection of rent from school land are included in the category of exploitation through land rent.

A bankrupt landlord shall still be classified as a landlord if he does not engage in labor but lives by swindling or robbing others or by receiving assistance from relatives or friends, and is better off than the average middle peasant.

Warlords, officials, local tyrants and evil gentry are political representatives and exceptionally ruthess members of the landlord class. Minor local tyrants and evil gentry are also very often to be found among the rich peasants.

Persons who assist landlords in collecting rent and managing property, who depend on landlord exploitation of the peasants as their main source of income and are better off than the average middle peasant shall be put in the same category as landlords.

Usurers are persons who rely on exploitation by usury as their main source of income, are better off than the average middle peasant, and shall be put in the same category as landlords.

-The rich peasant, as a rule owns land. But some rich peasants own only part of their land and rent the remainder. Others have no land of their own at all and rent all their land. The rich peasant generally has rather more and better instruments of production and more liquid capital than the average and engages in labor himself, but always relies on exploitation for part or even the major part of his income. His main form of exploitation is the hiring of labor (long-term laborers). In addition, he may let part of his land and practise exploitation through land rent, or may lend money or engage in industry and commerce. Most rich peasants also engage in the administration of communal land. A person who owns a fair amount of good land, farms some of it himself without hiring labor, but exploits other peasants by means of land rent, loan interest or in other ways shall be treated as a rich peasant. Rich peasants regularly practise exploitation and many derive most of their income from this source.

-Many middle peasants own land. Some own only part of their land and rent the rest. Others own no land of their own at all and rent all their land. All of them have a fair number of farm implaments. A middle peasant derives his income wholly or mainly from his own labor. As a rule he does not exploit others and in many cases he himself is exploited by others, having to pay a small amount in land rent and in interest on loans. But generally he does not sell his labor power. Some middle peasants (the well-to-do middle peasants) do practise exploitation to a small extent, but this is not their regular or their main source of income.

-Among the poor peasants some own part of their land and have a few odd farm implements, others own no land at all but only a few odd farm implements. As a rule poor peasants have to rent the land they work on and are subjected to exploitation, having to pay land rent and interests on loans and to hire themselves out to some extent.
In general, a middle peasant does not need to sell his labor power, while the poor peasant has to sell part of his labor power. This is the principle criterion for distinguishing between a middle and poor peasant.

-The worker (including the farm laborer) as a rule owns no land or farm implements, though some do own a very small amount of land and very few farm implements. Workers make their living wholly or mainly by selling their labor power.”- Mao Tse-Tung (Source: http://www.bannedthought.net/China/Individuals/MaoZedong/Books/SelectedWorksOfMao-V1.pdf)

 

The Communist Party of the Philippines and Lenin explains what classes are

“In consonance with the topic of your conference, ‘Class analysis in the modern communist movement’, allow us to state our views. We appreciate the position that the definition of the class concept of the proletariat as a revolutionary class is crucial to the formation of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party, in the face of the unceasing attempts of the Brezhnevites and the neo-Brezhnevites to revise the concept.

It is our view that the definition first put forward by Marx and further developed by Lenin in ‘A Great Beginning’ remains valid, historically and currently. It is a definition that is grounded on the mode of production in accordance with historical materialism. Upon the material conditions of large-scale industrial production, the working class arises and grows in contradictions with the dominant capitalist class in capitalist society. Consequently, it becomes the dominant class in socialist society after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and continues to wage class struggle until classes are abolished.

Lenin taught us; ‘Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it.’ He said further that classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.

He pointed out, ‘Clearly, in order to abolish classes completely, it is not enough to overthrow the exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, not enough to abolish their rights of ownership; it is necessary also to abolish all private ownership of the means of production, it is necessary to abolish the distinction between town and country, as well as the distinction between manual and mental workers. This requires a very long period of time.’

He added, ‘In order to achieve this, an enormous step must be taken in developing the productive forces; it is necessary to overcome the resistance (frequently passive, which is particularly stubborn and particularly difficult to overcome) of the numerous survivals of small scale production; it is necessary to overcome the enormous force of habit and conservatism which are connected with these survivals.’

As a dialectical materialist, Lenin recognized first that the classes and class struggle arise in the mode of production and he proceeded to look at the interaction of the superstructure and the mode of production in the course of class struggle. He did not confine classes and class struggle to the mode of production and the development of the productive forces.

He combated the attempts to expand and vulgarize the meaning of proletariat as to include all toilers and the petty bourgeoisie. He also combated the confabulations of the petty bourgeoisie (Kautsky, Martov and the like) about liberty, equality, democracy in general, equality of labor democracy, etc., as the supposed way to solve the problems in the transition from capitalism to socialism. At the same time, he called for the alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry and other revolutionary forces.

The proletariat cannot build socialism by confining itself to economic struggle in the mode of production and without developing its revolutionary theory as guide to its revolutionary movement, without smashing the bourgeois class dictatorship and replacing it with the proletarian class dictatorship and without supplanting the bourgeoise and other antiquated culture with the proletarian-socialist culture.

In the course of socialist revolution and construction, the exploiting classes can be abolished in the economic and legal spheres. Although basically required, socialist economic construction alone cannot automatically create a proletarian-socialist superstructure that can extirpate the vestiges or new shoots of the bourgeoisie in the superstructure. The revolutionary proletariat must make a conscious and deliberate effort to extend and win the class struggle in the superstructure.

In the historical experience of both the Soviet Union and China, the old bourgeoisie and the landlord class took their last line of resistance in the superstructure under many pretenses and eventually a new petty bourgeoisie arose from the new intelligentsia and bureaucracy as a result of uneven development and the errors and shortcomings of the revolutionary party of the proletariat in the conduct of the two-line struggle with the bourgeoisie. Mao observed and fought the new petty bourgeoisie and won against it in his lifetime but his line would still be defeated after his death. ”

(Source: http://bannedthought.net/Philippines/CPP/Rebolusyon/1997/N1-Jan-Mar/Rebolusyon-1997-1-LongLiveLeninStalin.pdf)

 

The bartering system in Democratic Kampuchea

“One unique feature of the new Cambodia is that money has been withdrawn from general circulation. Instead, goods are exchanged through a sophisticated barter system.

I got an explanation of how this works at the Meas cooperative near Kompong Cham, one of the few we were allowed to visit. The 300 residents of this cooperative grow rice in nearby fields and weave cloth for brightly colored checked scarves and sarongs.

Since this cooperative produces more rice than its residents can eat, the rice is ‘sold’ to the central government in Phnom Penh. The cooperative recieves a credit for the rice- 4 riel per ton- and uses those credits to produce things it cannot produce such as gasoline for its tractors.

The accounts of each cooperative are kept on a national registry in Phnom Penh, an offical told us.

‘That is not so unusual,’ he said. ‘In your country you don’t use money often. You use credit cards and checks.’

Cooperatives like Preah Meas are administered by committees. These generally have three members with one person acting as a president.

At Le Bo cooperative in Takeo, we were shown what officials hope will become the norm for Cambodia in the future.

It seemed to be almost entirely self sustaining. Besides its clean huts, the cooperative had a large bamboo chicken coop, neat vegetable plots around the homes and, we were told, a pigpen farther out in the fields.

Neat the communal dining hall and patio was a foundry where agricultural implements were produced. Inventiveness was in evidence everywhere. One man was peddling a bicycle bellows while another melted down brass from spent American ammunition casings. ”

(Source: https://ia600500.us.archive.org/35/items/NewWarInSoutheastAsiaDocumentsOnDemocraticKampucheaAndTheCurrent/NWSEA.pdf)

The Rural People’s Party talks about the ‘labor aristocracy’

“As has been confirmed via numerous of our polemic and on-the-ground practice and action, the Rural People’s Party upholds the principle that the majority of the so-called ‘working class’ in the imperialist epicenter U.S.A. is a bought-off labor aristocracy, with a vested interest in supporting imperialism and glutting themselves on superprofits stolen through the imperialist exploitation of the Third World. This principle applies particularly to the oppressor nations within the imperialist epicenter U.S.A. We applaud the idea of the ‘death of the west’ in the sense of an end to and the destruction of First World capitalism, imperialism and the dictatorship of the bourgoisise and, as a militant communist party of the Juche type, we realize that all physical and mental effort should be applied within the imperialist epicenter U.S.A. for the ‘death of the west’ operating inside the figurative ‘west.’ We attribute the Maoist Internationalist Movement as being the domestic originator of the correct position on the non-revolutionary status of the labor aristocracy.

We apply strict class analysis in tandem with on-the-ground practice and believe that revolution is possible inside North America only when operating on the principle of eschewing the myth of majority U.S.A. worker ‘exploitation’ and dropping all apologetics to the labor aristocracy, bourgeois and petite-bourgeois and upholding class analysis with professional revolutionary effort. According to Kim Il-Sungism, each revolution for socialism and communism must be waged according to the material conditions in one’s own country. Revolutionary potential exists in the imperialist epicenter U.S.A within the lumpenproletariat, oppressed nations and with those coming from the labor aristocracy, bourgeois and petite-bourgeoisie elements who have betrayed their class privilege and become class traitors under democratic centralism and party life, which means actually betraying their own class privilege in the interest of establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat over persons of their own class origin (read: ‘class suicide.’) Would-be revolutionaries following an incorrect line need to drop the sick colonialist attitude of First World intellectuals leading the Third World revolutionaries, whether through fake ‘internationals’ or proclaimed new currents and instead practice non-interference, consolidate our forces with self-reliance under militant communism of the Juche and Songun type and thus strike for the death of the west IN the west, plunging our hands into the waters of hegemonic U.S. imperialism and turning those waters to poison.”

(Source: http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/re_affirming_labor_aristocracy.htm )

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 )

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) 

 

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 )