Kibris'ta Sosyalist Gercek

What's in a Priority?

CHAPTER
-I-

COMMENTARY

A.1. SOVIET UNION - KRUSHCHEVITES and CPSU

The attack upon Stalin's Plan of Building Communism^* did not start with an attack upon Stalin's personality during the 20th Congress. It started just six months after his death - leaving aside the political conspiracies which started immediately after his death, indeed most likely before his death. What is attacked is not his personality but his Plan of Building Communism. Nor is this done behind closed doors but in the open, in the public meeting of the Supreme Soviet of August 1953. I shall here follow this attack, the attack upon Stalin's Plan of Building Communism, specifically on one point - the relatively higher rate of expansion of production of means of production generally known as the priority development of production of the means of production, for historically that is how it starts. You can read the first available example of this attack in,

Malenkov's Speech Before the Supreme Soviet
Pravda and Izvestia, Aug. 9,( 1953. mn ) pp 1-4. Complete
text: (Document I)

Hereby it has now been established by the enemies of Stalin's Plan of Building Communism that, "on the basis of the progress we have made in the development of heavy industry, we have" "the opportunity to develop light and food industry at the same rate as heavy industry." That of course means, "we must first of all concern ourselves with further development and growth of agriculture"

This is the basis of the New Line and it is not the line of "Trotskyite and right-wing capitulators and traitors" we are told, because heavy industry has now been built and dominates the economy.

Whatever these traitors may claim this is the line of Trotskyite and right-wing capitulators and traitors. A line violating the 1951-55 Five Year Plan -a treasonable offence under the Soviet Law-, a line which has been exposed as anti-Marxist by Stalin in his "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.", a line which has been exposed as anti-Marxist, yet again, at the 19th Congress of the Party just a year before this speech by this very Malenkov himself.

As this line requires "the growth of agriculture", the next group of justifications of this line of traitors relates to agriculture directly. You can read this in,

Measures for the Further Development of Agriculture in
the U.S.S.R. by N. S. Khrushchov
Report Delivered at a Plenary Meeting of the C. C., CPSU
3 September, 1953 (Document II)

As you can see, these traitors have now, detected a "discrepancy between large-scale industry and agriculture.", and a "discrepancy between purchasing power of the people and the supply of consumer goods and food", and that they openly declare that they have to change the 1951-55 five year plan in line with their plan, because "..the basic purpose and main task of the socialist mode of production is the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural requirements of the whole of society". Anyone who has studied Stalin's "Economic Problems.." knows that this "consumerist" approach of the traitors to Marxism is nothing new.

The above meeting of the CC Plenum already brings forth interesting changes in agriculture which are followed by the below mentioned decrees; these are detailed and the scope of diversion from 1951-55 five-year plan, i.e., the last Stalin Plan, is obvious to all who simply glance through these decrees. They are only mentioned; the only quotation from them is yet another theoretical justification for the change of the line in relation to priority development of production of the means of production. The detailed descriptions are given in,

Decrees:

i-Decree on Developing Animal Husbandry
(Sept.26 1953),
by the Council of Ministers and the Communist Party Central
Committee.

ii-Decree on Increasing Output of Consumer' Goods
( Oct. 28 1953 ),
by the Council of Ministers and the Communist Party Central
Committee.

iii-Decree on Increasing Output of Food Products
( Oct. 30. 1953),
by the Council of Ministers and the Communist Party Central
Committee.
(DOCUMENTS III)

And yet, it should have been obvious to all concerned that the demands of the New Line could not have been met by agriculture, for, due to the very nature of agriculture, production can not be increased more or less at will -if, that increase is to be sustained. A sustainable increase in agricultural production would have required the application of the "Stalin Plan of Transformation of Nature". But of course if one wants quick and temporary results this is possible to achieve in a country with a large tracks of virgin and "unused" lands. Therefore, the opening of virgin lands and burying of the "Stalin Plan of Transformation of Nature" - that insisted on the sustainable rather than unsustainable -extensive- farming practices-, this Law of the motherland disregarding of which is a treasonable offence, could not be opposed by anyone who did not object to the new line. Thus we find :

Resolution of the Plenum of the Central Committee
on Virgin Lands
23 February- 2 March 1954
(DOCUMENTS IV)

This is only mentioned just like the Decrees.

This of course does not only mean the opening of the virgin lands as such. Opening of such lands require large number of tractors and other machines -therefore large quantities of steel and engineering factories must be built to produce these, and as these lands can carry on producing food stuffs only if they are supplied with plenty of chemical fertilisers -in opposition to Stalin Plan of Transformation of Nature-, they require building of a lot of chemical factories to produce these fertilisers- yet more steel and engineering(and oil and gas) production diverted for this purpose.

In other words, you take one step in the wrong direction and keep at it, it will take you into hell of destruction of communism -if you are a Marxist, or into heaven of destruction of Communism- if you are a traitor.

Reader, of course would be totally wrong in assuming that the proponents of the New Line had it easy, and that things went their way all the time. Not at all. They met with opposition ??? The following document clearly shows the type of opposition that was encountered:

The General Line of Party and Vulgarisers of Marxism.
D. Shepilov.
24/1/1955 Pravda
(DOCUMENTS V)

I would like to say that this Shepilov fellow is mentioned by Stalin in his " Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", (p.50), as follows: "As regards the other questions, I have no remarks to make on the "Proposals" of comrades Ostrovityanov, Leontyev, Shepilov, Gatovsky, etc."

Well, if we look at his new "Proposals", we can see why Stalin did not think much of his proposals.

Shepilov proves that "the higher relative rate of growth of the production of means of production" is "a law of socialist economy" and thereby "defends" the Party Line against its opponents, "defends" Stalin against his distorters.

And yet, his opponents assertion "that, since 1953 the Soviet land has entered on a new stage of economic development, the essence of which lies in a radical change of the Party's economic policy", is solidly based on the above mentioned policy documents, on all the practical steps taken as a result of these documents which are many and varied indeed, and they are correct in their assertion that Party's economic policy has been radically changed. What does he do? As someone who exposes a theoretical change of line, does he also expose the fact that the Party Line has been radically changed? No. He answers this correct judgement by stating that it is wrong, that its exponents are the ones who are "crudely distorting the essence of Party and Government decisions for an increase in mass consumer goods" for, "discovering disproportions which arise in the national economy, the Party constantly takes steps of this kind".

In other words: do what you are doing, by all means, but do not say priority of light industry or words to that effect -for that would be a change of line in theory. Say, correction of discrepancy, and do not even think of reminding anybody that the Party's line has been changed in reality.

With an enemy like this, who needs friends.

There you have it. The proponents of the New Line opposed, Stalin defended and as the speech of N. S. Khrushchov to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the C. P. S. U. and the speech of N. A. Bulganin to The Supreme Soviets immediately after this article prove, they have been defeated as well. Take a look at the folloving documents:

"On Increasing the Output of Livestock Products."
N. S. Khrushchev, Report to the Plenum of the Central
Committee of the CPSU, January 25, 1955 .
(DOCUMENTS VI)

Speech by N. A. Bulganin.
Meeting of The Supreme Soviet of the USSR .
February 8 and 9, 1955
(DOCUMENTS VII)

Is this not typical of opportunism. Say one thing and yet do another. Shepilov, Khrushchov and Bulganin are pretending to defend the principle of priority development of the production of means of production whereby they claim to defend the Party Line and yet they carry on putting into practice everything that the New Line requires. The only thing that changes is the rhetoric.

It is thus that, Khrushchev can appear as the defender of the Party Line, while defending the New Line at the 20th Congress. You can read him and others, as well as the resolution of the Congress on the subject matter in these documents.

Report of The CC of the CPSU to
The 20th Party Congress.
February 1956.
N. S. KHRUSHCHOV
(DOCUMENTS VIII)

Speech by A. I. Mikoyan.
16 February 1956 .
20th Congress of the CPSU
(DOCUMENTS IX)

Speech by G. M. Malenkov.
17 February 1956 .
20th Congress of the CPSU
(DOCUMENTS X)

Speech by V. M. Molotov.
18 February 1956 .
20th Congress of the CPSU
(DOCUMENTS XI)

RESOLUTIONS OF THE 20th CONGRESS OF THE C.P.S.U
(DOCUMENTS XII)

In other words, business as usual. Everything and more will be done to put the New Line into practise, that everything that has been done to put the New Line into practise is correct and must carry on, but we are not Trotskyite and right-wing capitulators, we defend the priority development of the heavy industry???

A.2. WHAT'S IN A PRIORITY?

It is indeed possible to defend the priority development of heavy industry and at the same time to stick to the New Line formulated in August 1953 and began to be put into practise after the decrees mentioned. All one has to do is juggle with the words. "production of means of production, of heavy industry".

Let us read from Stalin:

"Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin
...
The forth point
.....
It should first of all be observed that in this case it is not "means of production" that agriculture produces, but only one of the means of production-raw materials. The word "means of production" should not be juggled with. When Marxists speak of the production of means of production, what they primarily have in mind is the production of implements of production, what Marx calls "the instruments of labour, those of a mechanical nature, which, taken as a whole, we may call the bone and muscles of production," which constitute the "characteristics of a given epoch of production." To equate a part of the means of production (raw materials) with the means of production, including the implements of production, is to sin against Marxism,(my italics -NS) because Marxism considers that the implements of production play a decisive role compared with all other means of production. Everyone knows that, by themselves, raw materials cannot produce implements of production, although certain kinds of raw materials are necessary for the production of implements of production, while no raw material can be produced without implements of production."

J. Stalin
Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.
Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Moscow 1952. (P.60-61)

Indeed, the very use of "priority development of heavy industry" instead of "priority development of means of production" which equate production of means of production with heavy industry can itself be used as such a juggling of words.

What is this famous heavy industry: "chiefly ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, coal and oil, power, engineering, chemicals and building materials." All of these, other than engineering industry, produces raw materials which can very well be directed to agriculture or light and food industry.

The key here is the engineering. It provides the instruments of labour for "ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, coal and oil, power, chemicals and building materials." as well as itself. Therefore, the important key is that part of engineering industry which provides instruments of production for itself, i.e., building of machines to build machines. If one directs the engineering industry into producing instruments of labour for heavy industry and yet direct all of these to achieve a rapid rise in consumer goods and agricultural production, one has achieved the requirements of "priority development of heavy industry" and all the requirements of the New Line as well. This is what was done. Indeed, in USSR , one can achieve "priority development of heavy industry" directing it to produce not the means of production, nor the means of consumption, but the means of destruction! This is what they have done too. In other words, this juggling of words can be used to direct the national economy into destruction while apparently adhering to the policy of "priority development of the means of production". In the mean time, the engineering industry would find it impossible to develop itself steadily and therefore to automate all the production processes, i.e., to lead the way to communism. Game, set and match, as they say.

Priority development of means of production is a law of socialist economy. But by itself, it does not differentiate socialist economy from capitalist economy. Indeed, once industrial capitalism has developed the production of means of production assumed priority for it too. Without this, extended reproduction is impossible even under capitalism.

Under capitalism, this law does not operate continuously and consistently, because the basic law of capitalism(obtaining maximum profits) most readily leads to the priority of not production but destruction of means of production. This is the only way capitalism can achieve its internal balances i.e., resolve its crises of overproduction.

It is otherwise under socialism. Under socialism, this law operates continuously and consistently and only thus can socialism achieve its own balances for this law operates under the law of balanced and proportionate development of socialist economy; as such it provides the most important imputes to balance the economy. The law of balanced and proportionate development of economy is specific to socialism. This law comes into operation under socialism and enables it to develop continuously and consistently i.e., without crises, without the destruction of means of production. And the socialist economy can be balanced only if this balance is achieved to satisfy the constantly rising material and cultural needs of the people utilising the highest and constantly developing technique of production-this is the basic law of socialist economy.

Therefore, the negation of the law of the priority of the production of means of production can be utilised to distort all balances of the socialist economy, to paralyse the law of balanced and proportionate development of socialist economy and thus to put an end to the functioning of the basic law of socialist economy.

Indeed, the New Line began attacking the law of priority development of means of production, using this to violate the five-year plan which was a reflection of the law of balanced and proportionate development of socialist economy. They have later on changed their rhetoric and adapted it to Marxism and carried on as before in the name of correcting discrepancies in the balances of socialist economy. They have themselves created discrepancies and further used these to paralyse the planning organisations that enabled these laws to operate. The results are too well known.

Let us read some more on the subject matter from Stalin:

"In order to pave the way for a real, and not declamatory transition to communism, at least three main preliminary conditions have to be satisfied.

1. It is necessary, in the first place, to ensure, not a mythical "rational organisation" of the productive forces, but a continuous expansion of all social production, with a relatively higher rate of expansion of the production of means of production. The relatively higher rate of expansion of production of means of production is necessary not only because it has to provide the equipment both for its own plants and for the other branches of the national economy, but also because reproduction on an extended scale becomes altogether impossible without it."

".....Such fundamental tenets of the Marxian theory of reproduction as the division of social production into the production of means of production and the production of means of consumption; the relatively greater increase of production of means of production in reproduction on an extended scale; the correlation between Departments I and II; surplus product as the sole source of accumulation; the formation and designation of the social funds; accumulation as the sole source of reproduction on an extended scale-all these fundamental tenets of the Marxian theory of reproduction are at the same time tenets which hold good not only for the capitalist formation, and which no socialist society can dispense with in the planning of its national economy....."

J. Stalin
Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.
Foreign Languages Publishing House
Moscow 1952.(p. 74) and ( P. 89)

B. E. HOXHA AND THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA.

According to some would be Marxists E. Hoxha was one of those who defended Stalin, and therefore Marxism against the Khrushchovite revisionists. How can one defend Stalin if he is engaged in participation of the destruction of the Stalin's Plan of Building Communism? If he is engaged in such an activity and yet claims to defend Stalin, does he not become an even more dangerous enemy of Stalin than the ones who oppose him openly? Is he not just another one of the enemies of Stalin's Plan of Building Communism and therefore an enemy of Stalin, a revisionist of Marxism from yet another direction.

Of course he is.

Read the following text of E. Hoxha:

"ON MEASURES TO FURTHER RAISE THE STANDARD
OF LIVlNG OF THE WORKING MASSES"
Report to the 9th Plenum of the CC of the PLA
December 24, 1953
(DOCUMENTS XIII)

I was thinking of providing the reader with a summary of activities of Khrushchovites until 1956 to show that it is not simply a matter of "priority development of means of production". I gave up the idea when I came across the note 7. of this document that is presented to the reader (and Molotov's speech to the 20th congress). These are indeed perfect summations of Khrushchovism in action. All done, of course, "to reduce the disproportion in the development of industry and agriculture and to improve the living conditions of the people". Should not E. Hoxha sent his thanks to Khrushchov and Shepilov?

And if the reader, or rather the true believer, thinks this is a simple result of the Khrushchovite pressures exerted on the Albanians mentioned above, carry on reading:

"ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF
THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA"
Report to the 3rd Congress of the PLA, by E. Hoxha
May 25, 1956
(DOCUMENTS XIV)

As can be seen from this document, "the PLA did not make any concessions on matters of principle,.., and preserved its Marxist-Leninist general line intact" i.e., the policies mentioned in this document are a part of their general line. And yet one may still think that even this is just a saying, a moral booster, that although there was a temporary diversion from the general line it was corrected as soon as they noticed Khrushchovism, and that is why they say they have not deviated from their general line?

Such an approach to one's mistake would in itself be contrary to Bolshevism, but still...

Unfortunately for the lovers of these traitors such is not the case. The views put forward at the above mentioned document is very much their line. And that is the real reason why they have never objected to the attack on Stalin's plan. Just carry on reading:

"ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF
THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA"
Report to the 4th Congress of the PLA, by E. Hoxha
(Extracts)
February 13, 1961
(DOCUMENTS XV)

Here you can see the way they stick to the Leninist line of "priority development of means of production". First of all, the rates of development of group A and B, are almost equal although, the more backward you are, the more the development of group A has to be forced. Secondly, the development of the means of production consist in developing the raw material basis, not the engineering. In other words, E. Hoxha is juggling with the words means of production in a way we were warned by Stalin. It is this policy which we are asked to accept as Marxism.

This policy leaves the country in such a situation that, E. Hoxha, in his dying days, still has to import agricultural equipments from outside. And why? To turn the collective farms into state farms. According to this Trotskyite our motherland, USSR, was not ready to pass into communism in 1956 as its industry was backward, but Albania was ready for state ownership of collective farms, i.e., for communism in 1980's, although they could not even produce their agricultural equipments. Well, why not. After all they had a "Marxist" Party!?

Let us carry on to insure that we are not making a mistake here:

ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF
THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA
Report to the 5th Congress of the PLA, by E. Hoxha
November 1, 1966
(DOCUMENTS XVI)

Here, not only do we have a faster rate of development of means of consumption but the development of the means of production is basically "the development of the heavy processing industry, which is decisive in ensuring the superiority of the production of means of production".

Nor one must forget the two legged policy of Mao Tse-tung which certainly reflects the Khrushchovite New Line perfectly. "Our Party adheres to the line that we must have not only a developed industry, but also an advanced agriculture, that for our economy to be strong and independent it must base itself on its two legs, both on industry and agriculture. This is a major issue of principle, which has special importance for our country......". Also, youth must go to the mountains. Just like the Chinese Cultural Revolution one might think (more of this later).

One must still not rush. Special conditions you know? Let us read on:

ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF
THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA
Report to the 6th Congress of the PLA, by E. Hoxha
November 1, 1971
(DOCUMENTS XVII)

Cat is clearly out of the box: "In the complex development of industry, priority during this five-year period, too, will be given to the branches of industry extracting minerals and fuels." and this of course means, "in deciding the proportions between heavy and light industries, priority will be given to heavy industry. This has been and remains a correct and unshakeable principle for the development of our industry." Now we clearly know the real meaning of giving priority to the production of means of production.

Let us finish with the continued example of the priority of heavy industry, which to this sort of Marxists is the extractive and processing industry, equipment for which must be bought from outside. We shall be told that it brings in hard cash, some of which will be used to buy agricultural equipment. After all, industry is there to serve agriculture and if it can not make the agricultural equipment it can certainly buy it from the capitalists after forty years of "socialism". Some national independence that will give you! Even the most radically nationalist, "socialist" anti-Marxist can not but give rise to total dependence of his country on the capitalist countries. Such was the fruits of E. Hoxha's work.

ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF
THE PARTY OF LABOUR OF ALBANIA .
Extracts from the report submitted to
the 8th Congress of the PLA, by E. Hoxha
November 1, 1981
(DOCUMENTS XVIII)

C. MAO TZE-TUNG AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA

We start the study of the CPC's approach to the question by some articles on the subject matter written by people other than Mao Tze-tung. Our reason for this approach is that, unlike E. Hoxha, Mao Tze-tung has not left us with an abundance of materials and that some people who can not give up Mao Tze-tung declares that some of the materials which are known to belong to him are not acceptable for they were not printed while he was alive. These people will see that the materials we have utilised were used by the article writers while he was alive. They also provide the reader with a very good historical summation of the activities of the CPC and Mao Tze-tung and our reference to him follows this historical summation. Let us read:

INDUSTRIES TASKS IN 1959
by PO I-PO
(DOCUMENTS XIX)

Here is the famous "two legged" policy which the supporters of Mao, who also support Stalin(?) claim is Marxist -by the way, we have seen that E. Hoxha is also a supporter of this "two legged" policy.

If this two legged policy of these four legged characters is Marxist, what is written in Das Capital by no less a person than Marx and referred to by Stalin above, is not Marxist.

Well, why not. Mao and Hoxha the Marxists. Marx, not the writer, but the reviser of the Capital.

Reader will be able to put two by two and make four, i.e., see that this is a policy put in opposition to Stalin's line of building socialism and communism which is claimed to have walked on one leg of industry -heavy industry at that- while the clever chaps such as Mao and Enver walked on both legs of industry and agriculture, heavy industry and light industry, etc.

Reader shall see that China has also turned its face to agriculture by the end of 1954 and that Mao Tze-tung is one of the authors of this policy and that all the talk of priority of heavy industry, it being the core etc., is based on serving the agriculture and the light industry. That "of course" is the result of China 's special conditions?

The history of the development of this policy can be seen in the following documents:

Agriculture: Foundation of the National Economy
by Yang Ling
(DOCUMENTS XX)

ALL-OUT SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE
Editorial by Renmin Ribao
(DOCUMENTS XXI)

Having provided the documents published in Mao's time, we can now safely go to Mao Tze-tung himself using the writings of him already mentioned in the above documents. We do not have, for we do not need to make any comments.

Mao Tze-tung's Preface to
"Socialist Upsurge in China 's Countryside"
(DOCUMENTS XXII)

ON THE TEN MAJOR RELATIONSHIP
April 25, 1956
(DOCUMENTS XXIII)

ON THE CORRECT HANDLING OF CONTRADICTIONS
AMONG THE PEOPLE.
February 27, 1957
(DOCUMENTS XXIV)

Let us finish with a Party document to insure that Party Line was as expressed in the above mentioned documents.

COMMUNIQU� OF THE TENTH PLENARY SESSION OF
THE EIGHTH CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF
THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA
(DOCUMENTS XXV)

Agriculture as the foundation!

Is it any wonder these people -Hoxha as well as Mao- did not object to the change of Stalin's policy initiated by Malenkov and Khrushchev. They took to it like the fish to water.

D. AN INTERESTING EXAMPLE: THE POLISH EXPERIENCE

GENERAL PREMISES OF ECONOMIC POLICY
BY TADEUSZ LYCHOWSKI
(DOCUMENTS XXVI)

This document shows an approach to the change of policy as a temporary re-balancing act. It is quite similar to Shepilov's approach and proves the damaged caused by the defence of the practise of a change in policy while pretending to oppose it in theory, which inevitably leads one to find excuses for the new policy.

E. THE RESULT

The result of this short search into history is that the attacks on J. V. Stalin and his line of building socialism and communism not only have come from Khrushchovites but also from Mao and Hoxha.

It is a well known proposition of Stalin that the form of opportunism which is not fought against is the most dangerous one. Furthermore, if one does not fight one form of opportunism and adapts its policies, one can not fight the other form of opportunism either.

Did Mao and Hoxha and those who adopted their policies fought against Khrushchovism? Did Khrushchev and those who adopted his policies fought against Maoism and Hoxhaism? Or, did those who took a bit from one and a bit from the other fought them both?

Only the opportunists can claim so. We know about these fights and their practical results for the communists. It is great defeat.

Either clear the field of all opportunist rubbish or go on being defeated.

There is no other choice.