_
III.THE SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE
1.The Destiny of Russia is the Destiny of the World
«Either a new world order, a transnational dictatorship that confines four
fifths of
the Earth's population to economic and spiritual ghetto, or a restructuring
along
socialist lines. This is the choice, says the Political Report of the CPRF
Central
Committee to the 7th Congress of the Party. Russia today is at the cutting
edge of
this choice. Like in the early 20th century world contradictions have
dramatically
come together in its fate.»
One need hardly say that there is no room for a single, strong and original
Russia in
the imperialist scheme of the global world order. It is in for new trials
and
tribulations and, if globalism triumphs, it is bound to disappear from the
historical
arena, to decline culturally and spiritually, to suffer a demographic
disaster and
collapse as a nation state.
Those who are aware of it observe with dismay that the country has in recent
years
been drawn more and more in the processes of commercial « globalization».
So far we
have been cushioned against its dire consequences by the margin of strength
surviving
since the Soviet times. But it has practically been exhausted. It is time to
move
resolutely to change the situation, otherwise, the consequences of the
mindless
policies of the grim Yeltsin decade may become irreversible.
The coming years will see a veritable «war of worlds» in which the original
«Russian
world», a world of ideals and shrines, a world of centuries old spirituality
and the
national tradition with its lofty behests of «blessed are the needy and the
seekers
of truth», «blessed are the merciful», «love thy neighbour» will challenge
the
apocalyptic world of a cosmopolitan melting pot and liberal egocentrism, the
world of
omnipotence of money and bank interest rates, financial pyramids and
speculation whose
idol is the Golden Calf.
This has been recently sinking in even to our liberal intelligentsia. With
the naive
amazement of a girl in a finishing school who thought that children were
born from
kissing, they admit their mistakes in the pages of Nezavisimaya Gazeta:
«We did not
realize that the West was interested only in the function of capital, but
not in
fostering a civilized form of society in Russia.» And they wax elegiac: «in
the
conditions of globalization the civilizing mission of capital has been
weakened, and
so has its responsibility for creating civilized capitalism in the societies
of the
whole world.» The latter should be construed to mean that there used to be
times when
children were born from kisses, but now the reality is too dreadful to
contemplate. It
is up to the reader to judge whether these lamentations owe more to liberal
stupidity
or liberal hypocrisy.
The West has never been interested in anything but «the function of
capital». Any
object, including man, countries, peoples, cultures, only interest it as a
«function
of capital», that is a means for increasing value. And «civilization» in its
stupid
liberal sense - as a kingdom of humanity and virtue - has nothing to do with
it.
Capital would not stop at any crime, even at gunpoint if it is promised 300%
profit.
And this was written not by Karl Marx, as many think, but by T. Dunning, a
very
moderate English trade unionist in the 19th century.
«Either Russia will become mired in the Third World in which it is doomed
to
disintegration and disappearance or it will revive on a socialist basis:
this is the
stark choice today,» stated the 7th Congress of the CPRF.
But this conclusion has not yet been adopted by everyone. In the patriotic
milieu one
can hear that socialism is unacceptable for Russia as an internationalist
doctrine. In
its extreme form this contention sounds like this: «Socialism is just
another variety
of mondialism which is hostile to national and cultural identity.» This
invites a
closer look.
Indeed if one draws a formal and superficial comparison of doctrines one
may have
the impression that the advocates of imperialist globalization, the new
world order
and the advocates of the socialist and communist future for mankind preach
similar
values and ideals. Indeed, both systems emphasize the drawing closer
together of
peoples and the disappearance of state borders etc.
And no wonder: both ultimately proceed from the fundamental trends in the
development
of productive forces and the world economy that transcends national, state
and
cultural parochialism and isolation.
And yet there is a substantial and fundamental difference between
imperialist
mondialism and socialist internationalism. Because mondialism is based on
the
omnipotence of capital and internationalism on the omnipotence of labour.
A social economic system demonstrates its superiority over the proceeding
system by
delivering higher labour productivity. This is true, but this is not the
whole truth.
The mission of socialism is not to achieve higher quantitative indicators,
but above
all harmonious and lofty development of man, a change of the type and
paradigm of
social development, revision of habitual priorities, a change of direction
of economic
and social progress. It is in the epoch of globalization that takes the
contradictions
of capitalism to the level of contradictions between man and nature,
including his own
human nature that it becomes particularly clear.
2.The New Force
Imperialist globalization has substantially broadened the social base of
opposition to
the omnipotence of capital. One only has to be able to identify the features
of that
force on whose consciousness and organization the destiny of the whole
planet depends.
They are, first, the modern worker or, more broadly, the productive class.
Second, the
national liberation movements. Third, the movements that are struggling to
save
culture from the onslaught of crass materialism.
The working class is changing as the character of productive labour changes.
Our Party
has repeatedly noted in its documents the main trends in the emergence of a
new type
of productive labour. In the course of scientific and technological progress
as
production becomes more science-intensive, becomes automated and robotized,
and
flexible the creation of material wealth increasingly comes to depend not on
the
application of labour and its duration but on the power and scale of the
flows of
substance, energy and information organized and actuated by labour.
Ultimately, on the
degree to which society and the individual, aided by science, master natural
and
technological processes. Productive labour becomes primarily intellectual.
That is why «the development of the social individual» (Marx) becomes the
main basis
of production and wealth. Accordingly the structure of investment changes.
Investment
in the human being comes to the fore - in education and upbringing, in
science and
culture, social security and health. So social wealth is measured not in
terms of
working time and the exchange value created during that time, but by time
saving, that
is leisure time as the space required for constant and all-round development
of the
individual.
A change in the character of labour implies ever greater role of creative
motives and
stimuli. Labour gradually ceases to be a necessity or a chore within the
bourgeois
horizon drawn by the Protestant ethic, and becomes an end in itself. It
acquires an
independent consumer value as a natural mode of existence of the healthy
organism that
most corresponds to human nature, the process of development and use of
creative
abilities of the individual.
With the change of the character of labour the times when production needed
a worker
who was a «cog in a wheel» are receding into the past. In modern advanced
areas the
role of intellectual labour is steadily growing. Research and development,
information
and software support become an inalienable and often the leading part of
production.
Representatives of the scientific and technical intelligentsia are swelling
the ranks
of productive workers. On this basis a new advanced nucleus of the working
class is
gradually taking shape which includes both manual and intellectual workers.
They are
united by scientific organization of labour and conscious discipline, modern
technological processes that require a high degree of coordination of labour
activities, constant creativity and high professional training and general
standard
of culture.
The modern advanced class is the engine of social progress and proponent of
the
interests of the whole people. They are first the producers of substantive,
high
technology and science intensive product (hardware) - scientists, designers,
technologists, managers, skilled workers whose labour is primarily by brain.
Second,
producers of non-material product (software) that ensures the functioning of
production and information system and the social infrastructure. In the
activities of
this group of workers science, knowledge and a high level of individual
development of
the worker are the leading productive force and thirdly, all those who
ensure
reproduction of man as the subject of work and social life - teachers,
doctors,
producers of services in the growing leisure sphere etc. Today their work
absorbs the
main production investments - investments in man and his individual
development. So,
they are productive workers in the full sense of the word. In effect we see
the
formation of a new working class - the working class of the 21st century.
To be sure it will be some time before all the strata and representatives of
the
working class achieve the level of its most advanced unit, but it is this
unit that
is the true pointer to the real strength and historical possibilities of the
working
class as a whole.
Further expansion of this leading nucleus which has features of workers in a
classless
society, the replenishment of its ranks with ever new categories of working
people,
the development of its best and inherent qualities, and gradual expansion
to take in
the whole of society will essentially mean the process of getting rid of
class
divisions.
The Communists see this unit as its main social base. It is to this unit
that they
address their ideas seeking to foster its awareness and a commitment to
pursue its
class interests on the national and international scale. This vanguard
social force,
says the Program of the CPRF, holds in its hands the destiny not only of
Russia, but
of the whole human civilization in the 21st century.
The relationship between this new class and capital throws into bold relief
the fact
that exploitation has two aspects: the material and the humanitarian or the
spiritual.
Globalization reveals a huge area of spiritual exploitation of labour by
capital.
After a worker reaches a certain level of individual prosperity it becomes
clear the
spiritual impoverishment is no less real than a material impoverishment.
Becoming an
appendage of global information networks is no less destructive of the
individual than
becoming an appendage of a machine. Even more horrible and destructive for
the
individual is to become a «consuming machine», a docile link in the
«money-commodity-money» chain of capital turnover. In this chain only
capital is alive
while man is only alive because he is needed as a link in the capital
turnover chain.
Enormous efforts are exerted to hide from man this second aspect of
exploitation.
This accounts for the gigantic machine of sophisticated programming of human
behaviour. Instead of educating the individual there is manipulation of the
consciousness and needs of people through commercial advertising and PR
technologies.
Instead of systematic education there is training in a narrow professional
field and
mass production of a «one-dimensional man». Instead of lofty art there is
primitive
mechanized show business. Personal, cultural and national uniformity.
This is information and cultural imperialism. Intellectual and spiritual
unification
to bring everything to a primitive common denominator. Spiritual production
wilts on
the capitalist soil and on the contrary its diverse surrogates ranging from
occultism
to Herbalife flourish. The threat to spiritual and creative independence and
self-determination of the individual acquires a planetary character.
A new form of capitalism's struggle for world domination is the struggle of
the
«universalists» of all stripes against national individuality of peoples,
the struggle
of liberalism against historical Tradition, the struggle of a handful of
international
financial tycoons against the sovereignty and independence of national
states. In his
«political testament» Lenin linked the victory of socialism with the victory
of the
national liberation struggle for the oppressed peoples.
3.The Experience of Early Socialism
At the dawn of Soviet power Lenin kept repeating that one could and should
«learn
socialism from the organizers of trusts». From the economic point of view
socialism is
a capitalist monopoly put in the service of the whole society, controlled by
society
and which therefore has ceased to be capitalist. But that is still not
enough, it is
just an elementary material prerequisite for a new society. Any monopoly
inextricably
linked with unification and is fraught with the possibility of economic
stagnation,
social decay and political totalitarianism.
The anti-utopias of Orwell, Huxley, Zamyatin and many other less gifted
authors paint
a picture not of socialism, but of state monopoly capitalism transferred
into the
future and carried to the point of absurdity.
Unfortunately the same features were manifested in the practice of socialist
construction because of a number of historical reasons. And ideologues
took on board
the idea, first proposed by A. Bogdanov, one of Lenin's irreconcilable
opponents, to
the effect that «an ideal model» of socialism is «a large capitalist
enterprise viewed
in terms of its labour techniques». But they overlooked Lenin's express
warning that
«this factory discipline that the proletariat will spread to the whole of
society
after vanquishing the capitalists and overthrowing the exploiters, is by no
means our
ideal or our final goal, but merely a step necessary for ... further
movement
forward.»
Eventually all this tended to block the main material and moral basis of
socialism,
the social energy and initiative of working people, free organization of the
people
and resulted in growing elements of economic and political alienation.
Later, when the task of ensuring the country's survival had been
successfully solved
and the task of developing socialism on its own basis was tackled another
crude
simplification of the socialist idea occurred.
The basically correct slogan of «meeting the growing needs of working people
to the
maximum degree» remained an abstract idea of human needs and their links
with the mode
of production that was unconnected with real history. What was overlooked
was that
most human needs are not given by nature, but are molded by society and are
determined
by the level of a person's ability and serve the individual in fulfilling
his or her
potential in the surrounding world.
Unless understood in this way the communist principle «From each according
to his
ability, to each according to his needs» coincides with the bourgeois ideal
of
«superconsumption» and is rendered totally meaningless.
Public wealth and progress were identified with the bourgeois form of «huge
accumulation of goods» and endless proliferation of goods. So in practice
the main
thrust of the Third CPSU Program adopted in 1961 was reduced to the task of
uncritical copying of the Western consumer society on the same production
and
technological basis. That doomed socialist economy to be an eternal loser
in the
race. And on the other hand, it deprived the two other tasks proclaimed in
the Program
of an adequate economic basis. These tasks were the formation of new social
relations
and the fostering of the new man and they were approached as exclusively
«ideological»
and therefore insoluble tasks.
So Lenin never stopped at «learning socialism from organizers of trusts». He
constantly stressed and argued that one should learn communism not from the
«organizers of trusts» but from the experience of the whole world culture.
By
developing it, creating higher and richer forms of communal life than the
«consumer
society» by overcoming the bourgeois mentality.
If we really want to learn communism from the experience of the whole world
culture,
the highest achievements of science it is our duty to move forward, to
profoundly
study a number of new factors and trends that have manifested themselves in
the second
half of the century. Lenin's definition of imperialism as the highest and
last stage
of capitalism remains unassailable. But the modern situation is not totally
described
by these definitions. Our time presents us with the imperative of creative
development of theory. Of creating an effective scientific methodology to
assess the
modern state of humanity.
The upsurge and collapse of the world socialist system, the masking of class
contradictions in the developed capitalist states, the shift of social
tensions to the
geopolitical axis «North-South», the universal upsurge of national and
religious
self-consciousness of peoples - all these facts are crying for a scientific
explanation and, accordingly, a renewal of our ideology. We have no right to
again
fall in the trap of the dogmatic approach which has at one point nearly
killed our
Party which proved to be ideologically helpless when confronted with
dramatic
historical change. So, if we want to survive in the rapidly changing world
of the 21st
century we have to creatively develop the heritage of Marxism-Leninism.
Thus, it is obvious today that Russia does not suit the architects of the
new world
order not only as the main proponent of the socialist way of development
that is an
alternative to capitalism, but, more broadly, as an ancient and original
civilization
with its own system of spiritual, moral, social and state-political values.
It is
obvious that Western strategists see as a major obstacle in the way of
globalization
the Russian people with its thousand-year-old history, with its precious
national
qualities of sobornost (togetherness) and derzhavnost (commitment to the
strong
state) with its profound faith, abiding altruism and rejection of the
commercial
enticements of bourgeois liberal democratic «paradise». It is obvious that
the latest
Western strategy for gaining world domination is being formulated within the
geopolitical doctrines based on juxtaposing the «oceanic empire» of the US
and the
Atlantic big space to the «continental power» of Russia which still controls
the
Eurasian «heart of the world».
This means that we should enrich Lenin's method of analysis of the new world
economic
order with two important aspects which have already proved their
effectiveness in
recent years: the geopolitical and civilizational. In fact, they were used
by Lenin
himself. Thus his widely known words to the effect that «imperialism leads
to the
strengthening of national oppression», and that «the aspiration of a
monopoly to
dominate» is accompanied by «the exploitation of an ever larger number of
small
nations by a handful of the richest nations» accurately describes the modern
picture
of aggressive expansion of the «golden billion» countries which are getting
rich at
the expense of the rest of mankind. Or, to put it in other words, the
expansion of the
West which is using every trick in the book to impose on other
civilizations and
peoples of the Earth its selfish model of a new global world order.
Thus the concepts of «civilization», «geopolitics», «national identity»,
«traditional
values», «religious holies», the cultural-historical type, «sobornost»,
«derzhavnost»
and many others should become to us as basic and indisputable as the
classical
concepts of «productive forces», «class struggle» or a «social economic
system». Only
then shall we be able to create a serious scientific and methodological base
corresponding to the realities of the present world capable of becoming a
powerful
weapon in the preparation of the comprehensive strategy for the revival of
the Great
Russia.
Then it will become clear that what happened at the end of the 20th century
was not
the collapse of socialism as such, but the disintegration of one of its
concrete
historical forms which turned out to be excessively monopolized and
beholden to dogma
and therefore ill-equipped to tackle tasks in the context of rapid world
change. That
a new and more effective form of socialism is already maturing before our
eyes in
spite of the fierce opposition of its persecutors.
In short, the synthesis of Lenin's methodology and the heritage of the best
of Russian
thinkers should provide the basis of modern Russian socialism and guarantee
the
revival of our beloved Russia, the great socialist power.
4. Ways to Achieve a Breakthrough
Socialism can regain initiative only if it dramatically reorients the
productive
forces towards a qualitatively new road with emphasis on planned development
of the
latest trends of scientific and technical progress. The CPRF Program calls
this road
«optimal socialist development».
The key methodological principle for the analysis of changes was the concept
of the
technological mode of production thoroughly developed by Karl Marx in his
«Capital»,
especially in the preparatory notes for it, which for a long time were out
of the
purview of scholars. Any socio-economic system only takes final route when
it creates
productive forces and means of labour which makes the production relations
characteristic of it not only a social, but also a technological truth,
according to
Marx, that is, acquire a corresponding material production and technological
bases.
The main issue, consequently, is on what technological basis will socialism
develop
and whether such a basis is being formed at present. The CPRF Program
maintains that
this is precisely what is happening at present.
The modern global situation dictates to humanity the task of ensuring a just
and
harmonious development by overcoming the wasteful character of the
industrial
civilization. By passing on from the principle of universal exploitation to
the
principle of universal saving -- the natural environment, material
resources and
labour. The possibility of such a change rests in the objective trends of
the
development of productive forces. In the approaching new revolution of
productive
forces, the transition from industrial to post-industrial technologies.
But the ongoing change in the ratio between material and personal factors of
production that put to the fore man as the main goal of production are
increasingly at
odds with capitalist form of progress and call for a qualitative
transformation of the
prevailing forms of production, distribution and consumption. Humanized
consumption as
a function of all-round development of the individual should replace the
socially
unjust consumer race which is devastating nature and destroying the human
individual,
«superconsumption» as a function of the production and circulation of
capital.
On the other hand, natural environmental limits dictate to society a
strategy of
rational economy, of reducing the expenditure of material resources and
energy per
capita. And that in turn will inevitably require that material consumption
should be
increasingly social in character. This means that society undertakes to
ensure for
each of its members a stable and dignified level of individual consumption
and
personal comfort while at the same time a rising and ever more diverse level
of
consumption in the social, collective sphere. The solution of this task
implies a
profound change of the entire infrastructure of daily life, a new stage in
the
development of the systems of public transport, communications, information,
health,
nutrition, the creation of a dense network of centers of education, creative
activities and leisure, clubs, theatres, parks, stadiums, museums, libraries
etc.
Our Program attempts to give a general outline of the post-industrial
technological
basis of the society of optimal socialist development proceeding from the
analysis of
modern trends in the development of science and technology.
The main fundamental change should take place in the relations between
production and
nature to overcome many environmental contradictions and limitations. Its
essence is
to reunite the production and nature restoration processes, which are
separate today,
in a single technological process built in an organic way into living and
inorganic
nature. (farming comes closest to this). Production should become similar to
the
processes of life. And thereby the meaning of man's labour activity should
change
radically. It consists in this, that while up until now nature appeared to
be an
eternal and inexhaustible basis of labour (the industrial type of
technology) now, on
the contrary, labour should become the basis for the preservation and
reproduction of
the natural environment (the post-industrial type of technology).
The main criteria of production effectiveness is security as the overall
quality of
man-machine systems in all its technical, ecological, ergonomic,
social-psychological
and cultural-moral aspects.
Conveyor-belt mass production gives way to flexible automated production
which makes
it possible to individualize it, to customize goods to suit concrete
demands.
The resource of technological systems is increased by building in the
possibility of
continuous modernization. This will address the acute problem of
obsolescence and
save a lot of production cost.
On the basis of improved transport and telecommunications systems rational
deconcentration of productive capacity and deurbanizaiton of the human
environment
takes place.
The following will be the jumping off ground for a technological
breakthrough:
--further improvement of the systems of automated management of production
and
technological processes, accumulation processing and transfer of information
(microelectronics, optical fiber technology, large and global information
networks and
artificial intelligence);
--mastering new sources of energy and means of its accumulation and
transmission
(controlled thermonuclear synthesis, high temperature superconductivity);
--mastering new methods of processing raw materials and manufacturing
(coherent
radiation with high density energy flow, cryogenic technology);
--mastering new natural processes (microbiotechnology, fine chemistry).
Technological progress, in its social and economic dimension, coincides with
the
process of real socialization of labour, that is the strengthening of its
collective
character, growing interconnection between different industries and their
increased
manageability. Socialization of labour is «the main material basis of the
inevitable
advent of socialism», of putting an end to private property and overcoming
the market
element on the basis of planned regulation of production to make it serve
national
and global goals, to social control.
Political transformations in the interests of working people, the
establishment of the
state power and public ownership of the means of production accelerate this
process
and lend it a conscious and planned character. At the same time historical
experience
attests that uneven and diverse technological processes and the inevitable
technological diversity mean that economic diversity will remain for a
protracted
period. There will remain diverse forms of property: public, individual,
and at some
levels private property and their competition on the basis of
commodity-money
relations. The tendency of early socialism to legally socialize
(nationalize) sectors
of the economies that are not ripe for socialization may exert an economic
and social
impact no less negative than artificial preservation of private ownership in
those
sectors which have got rid of it in terms of organization and technology.
This makes one revise the traditional idea of a quick transition to «full»,
developed
socialism. Stable development of the economy mandates that the level of
legal
socialization of production should correspond to the level of its actual
organizational and technological socialization. They form two reciprocal
processes and
require that the state should seek to maintain a reasonable balance between
them.
But the key role in effecting a breakthrough to post-industrial technologies
and
sustained development society will be played by the high technology and
science-intensive socialized sector of production regulated by the state in
which
power will belong to the working majority of the people.
* * * *
In this work we have touched mainly on technical-economic and social class
aspects of
the alternative socialism can and must offer to imperialist globalization.
But the problem is of course broader than that. It affects practically all
aspects of
relations among states, peoples, nations and civilizations. They present
further
research challenges. New methodological approaches should be brought in and
the
results of interdisciplinary studies should be used.
But the main approach leaves no room for doubt. Humanity is objectively and
steadily
moving toward closer and all round unity, and this is not the result of
anyone's good
or ill will. It is an obvious and indisputable fact and a positive fact. Any
attempts
to reverse this movement and revive isolationism should be judged
reactionary. A
solution should always lie ahead and not behind.
But it is by no means immaterial for the destinies of mankind and of Homo
sapiens what
road it will take toward such unity.
Whether it leads to further subjugation of labour to capital or the
liberation of
labour from capital, to making labour a natural need of man.
Whether it leads to unity in diversity, to an association «in which free
development
of all is the condition of the development of each» or to unity in
uniformity, a
regimented world into which the power of capital is driving man and
humanity.
Whether it leads to the establishment of the power of a narrow circle of
people or
democratic interaction and cooperation among sovereign countries and
peoples.
It is here, in the realm of the most general and profound philosophical
issues that
the world social-economic, political and spiritual struggle is unfolding.
And its
outcome is far from being predetermined.
"Pravda" ?? 32, 33, 34
March 23, 27, 29, 2001.
