|
What's in a Priority?
APPENDIX
1.
GENERAL CRISIS OF CAPITALISM AFTER THE SECOND
WORLD WAR
Let us read from J. Stalin as to how things stood in this respect in
1952.
"The disintegration of the single, all-embracing world market must
be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World
War and of its economic consequences. It has had the effect of further
deepening the general crisis of the world capitalist system.
The Second World War was itself a product of this crisis. Each of the
two capitalist coalitions which locked horns in the war calculated on
defeating its adversary and gaining world supremacy. It was in this that
they sought a way out of the crisis. The
United States of
America
hoped to put its most dangerous competitors,
Germany
and
Japan
, out of action, seize
foreign markets and the world's raw material resources, and establish
its world supremacy.
But the war did not justify these hopes. It is true that
Germany
and
Japan
were put out of
action as competitors of the three major capitalist countries: the
U.S.A.
,
Great Britain
and
France
. But at the same time
China
and other, European,
people's democracies broke away from the capitalist system and, together
with the
Soviet
Union
,
formed a united and powerful socialist camp confronting the camp of
capitalism. The economic consequence of the existence of two opposite
camps was that the single all-embracing world market disintegrated, so
that now we have two parallel world markets, also confronting one
another.
It should be observed that the U.S.A., and Great Britain and France,
themselves contributed—without themselves desiring it, of course—to
the formation and consolidation of the new, parallel world market. They
imposed an economic blockade on the U.S.S.R.,
China
and the European
People's Democracies, which did not join the "
Marshall
plan" system,
thinking thereby to strangle them. The effect, however, was not to
strangle, but to strengthen the new world market.
But the fundamental thing, of course, is not the economic blockade, but
the fact that since the war these countries have joined together
economically and established economic co-operation and mutual
assistance. The experience of this co-operation shows that not a single
capitalist country could have rendered such effective and technically
competent assistance to the People's Democracies as the
Soviet
Union
is
rendering them. The point is not only that this assistance is the
cheapest possible and technically superb. The chief point is that at the
bottom of this co-operation lies a sincere desire to help one another
and to promote the economic progress of all. The result is a fast pace
of industrial development in these countries. It may be confidently said
that, with this pace of industrial development, it will soon come to
pass that these countries will not only be in no need of imports from
capitalist countries, but will themselves feel the necessity of finding
an outside market for their surplus products.
But it follows from this that the sphere of exploitation of the world's
resources by the major capitalist countries (U.S.A., Britain, France)
will not expand, but contract; that their opportunities for sale in the
world market will deteriorate, and that their industries will be
operating more and more below capacity. That, in fact, is what is meant
by the deepening of the general crisis of the world capitalist system in
connection with the disintegration of the world market.
This is felt by the capitalists themselves, for it would be difficult
for them not to feel the loss of such markets as the U.S.S.R. and
China
. They are trying to
offset these difficulties with the "
Marshall
plan", the war
in
Korea
, frantic rearmament,
and industrial militarization. But that is very much like a drowning man
clutching at a straw.
This state of affairs has confronted the economists with two questions:
a) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Stalin before the
Second World War regarding the relative stability of markets in the
period of the general crisis of capitalism is still valid?
b) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Lenin in the spring
of 1916—namely, that, in spite of the decay of capitalism, "on
the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before"—is
still valid?.
I think that it cannot. In view of the new conditions to which the
Second World War has given rise, both these theses must be regarded as
having lost their validity.
J. Stalin.
Economic Problems of Socialism in the
U. S.
S. R.
(P. 34-37.)
As
can be seen, according to Stalin, the general crisis of capitalism has
deepened after the second world war as a result of formation of two
opposed markets-which shrunk the markets of capitalists- and will
further deepen particularly as a result of fast industrialisation of the
countries of the People's Democracies-which will continually shrink the
markets of capitalists. And thus the changes to the above mentioned
thesis.
These views of Stalin are attacked at the 20th Congress of the CPSU
Let us read from Khrushchov, Shepilov and Mikoyan:
"It should be said that the idea that the general crisis of
capitalism means complete stagnation, a halt in production and technical
progress, has always been alien to Marxism-Leninism. Leninism pointed
out that capitalism's general tendency to decay did not preclude
technical progress or an upswing in production in one period or another.
"It would be a mistake to believe," he wrote, "that this
tendency to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not.
In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain
strata of bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or
lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies."
(Works, Vol. 22, p. 286.) Therefore we must study the capitalist economy
attentively and not over-simplify Lenin's thesis on the decay of
imperialism but study the best that capitalist science and technology
have to offer, in order to use the achievements of world technological
progress in the interest of socialism."
(N. S. Khrushchov. Report of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U to the 20th
Congress. p.14.)
"It does not follow, however, that we should draw simplified
conclusions about a steady down-grade in capitalist production.
Marxist-Leninists have always decisively rejected the theory of
"stagnation" of capitalism-the erroneous and unscientific view
that the decay of capitalism in the imperialist era means the
"bottling up" of productive forces, that a stop is put to
technical progress."
(Speech by D. T. Shepilov at the 20th Congress of the CPSU
February 16 1956. p. 20.)
"In analysing the economic situation of present-day capitalism it
is doubtful whether we get any help from Stalin's thesis in the Economic
Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. or whether it is correct-in
relation to the United States, Britain and France-that, with the
break-up of the world market the "volume of production in these
countries will shrink". This assertion does not explain the complex
and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of
the growth of capitalist production in many countries since the war.
As has been stated in the report of the central committee, Lenin in 1916
in his work on imperialism, having brilliantly illuminated the laws of
imperialism, pointed out that the decline of capitalism does not
preclude a rapid growth of production, that in the epoch of imperialism
individual branches of industry and individual countries display, to a
greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies.
All the facts show that these Leninist theses are in no way outdated.
Incidentally, one cannot but note that other theses of the Economic
Problems as well, if strictly examined, demand from our economists
profound study and critical re-examination from the stand point of
Marxism-Leninism.
(Speech by A. I. Mikoyan at the 20th Congress of the CPSU
February 16 1956. p. 20.)
Criticisms of Khrushchov and Shepilov are clear enough. One can not
readily see who is being criticised if one knows Stalin's "Economic
Problems...". Mikoyan's criticism is even clearer and it is
obviously Stalin and Stalin's above mentioned views which are being
criticised. In these criticisms the talk about technique is used to
cover up the real aim, for Stalin does not air any views as to the
changes in the development of production technique under the new,
deepening general crises of capitalism, indeed he does not preclude the
development of production technology, as can be seen below, and as
industrial militarization he mentions above would require such a
development:
"We are all acquainted with facts from the history and practice of
capitalism illustrative of the rapid development of technology under
capitalism, when the capitalists appear as the standard-bearers of the
most advanced techniques, as revolutionaries in the development of the
technique of production. But we are also familiar with facts of a
different kind, illustrative of a halt in technical development under
capitalism, when the capitalists appear as reactionaries in the
development of new techniques and not infrequently resort to hand
labour. How is this howling contradiction to be explained? It can only
be explained by the basic economic law of modern capitalism, that is, by
the necessity of obtaining the maximum profit. Capitalism is in favour
of new techniques when they promise it the highest profit. Capitalism is
against new techniques, and for resort to hand labour, when the new
technique do not promise the highest profit." ( ibid. p. 47.)
Nor does he refute any increase in production. He simply exposes that
under the than prevailing conditions, capitalism could not develop as
fast as it used to and that they are facing a gigantic crises of
markets, a continuous instability of markets.
The real aim of the critics is precisely to refute Stalin's conclusions
or rather to change the conditions that gave rise to these conclusions.
Let us take another look at the facts which these traitors wanted to
change:
"The result is a fast pace of industrial development in
these countries. (the People's Democracies-mn) It may be confidently
said that, with this pace of industrial development, it will soon come
to pass that these countries will not only be in no need of imports from
capitalist countries, but will themselves feel the necessity of finding
an outside market for their surplus products.
But it follows from this that the sphere of exploitation of the
world's resources by the major capitalist countries (U.S.A., Britain,
France) will not expand, but contract; that their opportunities for sale
in the world market will deteriorate, and that their industries will be
operating more and more below capacity. That, in fact, is what is
meant by the deepening of the general crisis of the world capitalist
system in connection with the disintegration of the world market."
(ibid. p. 35)
If these are facts, all that follow from these are also facts; they can
not be objected to, nor would one have any reason to object to them,
i.e., the two thesis mentioned are no longer valid. But we know that the
critics have turned these facts around with their policies-the fast pace
of industrialisation of the people's democracies and that of U.S.S.R.
has been stopped, and they want to carry on with their traitorous
policies. Under the conditions they began to create, Stalin's views lose
their ground, are groundless, are not correct any more. It is not that
Stalin's views are wrong. It is that, these revisionists have changed
and wish to carry on changing the conditions upon which these views were
based. The opposition of the critics have validity only on the basis of
the removal of the threat from the U.S.S.R. and Peoples Democracies to
the markets of the capitalist countries-the fast pace of
industrialisation of these countries. This criticism is in fact a
declaration to the capitalist countries of the removal of this threat
and the preparation of the theoretical basis for the inevitable
lengthening of the life of capitalism. An inevitable and integral part
of this aim is the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. in
collaboration with the capitalist world.
Reader will take note that not one of the so called supporters of Stalin
has objected to these criticisms. And that this was not part of the
infamous secret speech of Khrushchov, but an open attack on Stalin's
theory- which followed the open attack on his practise as we have shown
above. Reader will take note that to this sort of defenders of Stalin,
what matter is the name calling of Stalin, not the theory and practise
of Stalin which was most clearly attacked in the open during-and
before-the 20th Congress, with Stalin's name and writings being clearly
mentioned. What more one needs to see that Stalin's "Economic
Problems.." and therefore his plan of building communism is under
attack? Does not Mikoyan openly attack these views? Does not Khrushchov
and Shepilov indirectly attack these views? Yes. They do. What more does
a "Stalinist" need to realise that our theory and practise is
under attack? Nothing. Only an opportunist compromiser, only a traitor
can keep quite under these conditions and join them!
2. PEACEFUL ROAD OF TRANSITION TO COMMUNISM
One other proposition of the supporters of Mao and Enver, who used
to travel the same path with him till the end of 1970s, is that
Khrushchev is the proponent of the peaceful road of transition to
socialism which he formulated at the 20th Congress, while these
gentlemen were such revolutionaries.
Lies. Nothing but lies. They are one and the same in negation of the
theory of the class struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie. Let us read.
Speech by D.T.Shepilov, Secretary of the Central Committee of
the CPSU at the 20th Congress of the CPSU
February 16, 1956
"The masses of the people and the Communist and Workers' Parties
have produced much that is new and unique in the course of the profound
social changes that have taken place in each of the European people's
democracies. Still more is the course of the socialist revolution in
China unique. After the revolutionary establishment of the people's
power, the Chinese Communist Party, creatively applying
Marxism-Leninism, concluded that in the conditions of China, "not
only individual private property can be replaced by socialist,
collective property, but also capitalist property by socialist property
by means of peaceful methods, that is methods of persuasion and
education," as comrade Mao Tse-tung has pointed out. Having
isolated and made harmless that vicious enemy of the people, the
comprador bourgeoisie, the Chinese State is transforming, step by step,
private ownership in its various forms into socialist ownership.
From the point of view of pedants whose Marxism is all book-learning,
such an approach to the question of transforming the property of the
exploiters into socialist property is nothing less than a travesty of
the principles of Marxism-Leninism, yet actually this is creative
Marxism-Leninism in action, the masterly, bold and wise application of
Marxist dialectics to the concrete conditions of China by her heroic
Communist Party.
There is no doubt that in the future the creative efforts of the
millions will produce a still greater variety of forms of transition
from capitalism to socialism.
In this connection the precepts set forth in Comrade Khrushchov's report
in the section "Some Fundamental Questions of Present-Day
International Development", among them the precepts on the forms of
transition to socialism in different countries, are of tremendous
theoretical and practical significance."
Soviet News. London. Booklet No. 10. P.12-13.
Buharin declared that kulaks would grow into socialism, under the new
Soviet conditions-the conditions of the dictatorship of proletariat,
replacing the theory of class struggle. The new Buharin, i.e., Mao
Tze-tung proposes the same theory under the new Chinese conditions-with
education and persuasion. And of course, the Soviet Revisionists do not
waist time in making common cause with such comrades of theirs.
Khrushchov's theories on peaceful transition makes full use of Mao's
Buharinist theory. They are themselves nothing but a new version of
Buharin's theories on the growth of kulaks into socialism.
3. TRUE BELIEVERS
Church told us that God made men-and all life on earth-about 5-10
thousands years ago. Than came the fossils of Dinosaurs. Well, the
prophets of the God did not know of them, therefore did not even mention
them. So what? God did not say it. It is the medireview church's fault.
God made them all. Than there came the theory of evolution. God did not
make things as we see them, they have evolved from the simple forms of
life. Rubbish. God made them all, and even if they evolved, who made the
life that evolved? And how there you say we come from the monkeys?.
Engels said that chemistry would solve the problem of the beginning of
life etc. Chemistry did solve it. Life has began as amino acids. So
what? Who made the amino acids? It is a chemical reaction. So what, who
made the atoms and molecules that react chemically to form the amino
acids? Universe as we know it began with the big bang and all the atoms
etc. began to form after that. So what, who made the big bang?
Especially with our professors who for a cool million quid will tell you
that there was no time and space before the big bang, that time and
space began with the big bang, we can show that it is the God Almighty
who was, is and will be who made the big bang. In other words, the very
development of natural sciences has been pushing the God out of creation
and has pushed him now right back to and beyond the big bang.
No worries. God still exists in the timeless and spaceless something
before the big bang.
What a relief.
Time and space was is and will be. Their unity is motion. The most
simple differentiation of motion is that of attraction and repulsion. If
matter is to be comprehended as distinct from motion, then it is the
unity of differentiated motion. Unity of attraction and repulsion is
matter. There is nothing in the universe but time and space, infinite
and infinitely changing giving rise to all other forms of matter,
including life, that we know and we will find out in future as our
knowledge of matter develop. Big bang and the developments since the big
bang is nothing but a passing moment in the movement of the infinite
time and space. Time and space has no beginning and no end. They were,
are and will be.
Any clever idealist who wants to preserve God first of all deviates
attention from the study of human history. For the real solution to
God's coming into being is to be sought in the human history, in the
history of the development of knowledge, not in the history of nature.
There we can determine more or less exactly when the idea of one God was
created by men. Secondly, the clever idealist knows that the question
that has to be answered is that of infinity. For even a fool is bound to
ask that if the God exists before time and space, how is that possible,
what kind of existence is this without time and space and who the hell
made him? The answer has to refer to infinity. God was, is and will be
....Where? Infinitely. But still, where and when? Infinitely say the
man, did you not here? God is the infinite spirit. That spirit was, is
and will be. He made everything from nothing. Now that we know of the
big bang, he, this infinite spirit made the big bang.
Here is the choice which has always faced us. Either matter is infinite:
Was, is and will be. Or this spirit which, as our knowledge of matter
develops, ends up being pushed back and back in time and space. We all
have to choose between the two. There really is no other choice. Give us
a few million quid, and we will choose the spirit even though we are
"a man of science". And why should someone give us a few
million quid to choose the infinity of the spirit instead of the proven
infinity of matter? If everything changes, so must the social conditions
we live in, the private property is nothing immutable. It will come to
pass. Those who have the millions can not have that, and the idea of the
infinite spirit in all its cultural mutations-Islamic, Christian etc.,
help these very finite gentlemen preserve their very finite private
property which by the very logic of finite things is doomed. Everything
is finite and thus has a limit. Everything that is born, must die. Even
God will end up dying, for men has made him after his own image as is
proved by the human history. When the men needs him no more to explain
things, he will die. He is dying in front of our eyes right now. There
is no place for him before the big bang. Time and space did not start
with the big bang. They have changed and gave rise to the conditions
which resulted in the big bang. When the expanding universe starts to
collapse, it will create similar conditions which will give rise to
another big bang. Circular motion is a most general law of motion which
is dialectical. Circular motion give us the form of infinity of motion
and thus of space and time. Only the idiots with a million quid in their
pocket and claim to be a men of science knows not this law of motion.
What is the connection between the true believers of the God and the
so-called Marxist, whom we are told do not believe in God(don't you
believe it. Their theory always leads to idealism which do not believe
in god and that is the last refuge of the God Almighty). The connection
is that, I may sit down and prove the fact that Khrushchov, Mao and
Enver were all Trotskyite, Buharinite traitors, following the every step
they took. The true believer will always find an escape route to defend
them. Some of them, after being pushed quite a lot, came up with the
theory of the big Marxists who commit big mistakes. When you ask them
why is it that Mao or Enver are big Marxists who made big mistakes but
not Khrushchov, they refer to the defence of the latter of Stalin. Than
you show them that Khrushchov, and particularly Brezhnev
"defended" Stalin just like these people, while distorting
Stalin's teachings on building communism, they come up with the theory
of the latter ones being revolutionary. As if we are discussing
"being revolutionary". We are discussing Marxism here
"comrade". When you show them that what makes them
"revolutionary" is nothing special, nothing more than a
rhetoric of revolutionary violence etc., and that such verbal garbage is
common to all sorts of "revolutionaries", that these are no
grounds that separate Marxists from anti-Marxists, they come up with the
theory of the "bridge"! Mao and Enver, by fighting the
Khrushchovites, on revolutionary grounds, formed a bridge from the
Khrushchovite revisionism to Leninism. This theory of bridge is borrowed
from the Luxemburgists. They used to claim that Luxemburgism at least
formed a bridge between the Social Democracy and Leninism. They were
answered: bridge? What bridge you are talking about. If one leg of this
bridge is in Social Democracy and the other is Leninism, to built such a
bridge, you must first have Leninism. And once you have Leninism who on
earth need such a bridge that unites the Leninists with the Social
Democrats. Luxemburgists first fight Lenin, fight the formation of
Leninism, and now wants to be a bridge that unites Leninism to Social
Democracy. No thank you. First rule of Leninism is to break such
bridges. Who ever does not fight such bridges, ends up in Social
Democracy.
Well, our true believers will never give up their bridge made up of
rotten woods of Mao and Enver. They are the true believers indeed. This
is the connection between God and our "revolutionary"
opportunists-the true believers of a fight against Stalin, of a fight
against our motherland. Whatever we do, however we expose their
"God", however we push their Gods beyond the big bang, they
will find a way to defend them even beyond the big bang. Such is the
logic of class struggle. These people can not give up the bridges that
connect them to the bourgeoisie.
Or, as quoted by Marx when he was talking of Proudhon:
"wo Begriffe fehlen
Da stellt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein"
Capital V.I. P. 74. English Edition.
Lawrence & Wishart, London. 1974.
|