September 18, 2020

On Restoration of Capitalism

Download entire book as PDF

On Restoration of Capitalism

“Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilize the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.” (1) “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 “(2)

The question of “Restoration of Capitalism” in countries where the “dictatorship of Proletariat”- commonly called socialism (15) “reigned, with few exceptions, so far has been dealt with a bourgeois and Trotskyite- bourgeois lackeys under left disguise – outlook.

One of these exceptions is the book titled” the question of restoration in socialism” by Hidir Yesil, which takes up the study of the first and most advanced experience in the construction of socialism, the experience of the Soviet Union. In his book, Yesil, largely examines the economic theory and practice of economic construction side of the question of restoration during the phase of building socialism. In his book he is not taking up the social political, the education and cultural aspects of the question. He sees the economic field as the most neglected aspect of the question in the study of the question of restoration.  Unlike most, he stresses that “the whole book deals mostly with mistakes. This is not done to deny or minimize the achievements in the construction of socialism.” He reasons that the construction of socialism in its real meaning and the uninterrupted continuation of the revolution will not be possible in the future without discovering the mistakes of the past experiences in building socialism and thus preventing their repetition. He states that “It is our duty and responsibility to detect and overcome the mistakes of the past experience”. He summarizes the reason for his taken up the subject and for the restoration:

“Undoubtedly, there are a number of studies conducted and efforts made to reveal the material, economic and class basis of corruption. But in my opinion, none of this has been sufficient. In this book, I want to make a complimentary contribution to eliminate this deficiency.

“The concept of “restoration”, which is generally accepted in the Marxist-Leninist ranks, is not a concept that fully describes the truth. What has been experienced in the Soviet Union and the "Eastern Bloc Countries" clustered around it, and in China and Albania, is not a "return to the old” in the sense that the overthrown former rulers came back to the power. In this "return", there is a new type of bourgeoisie emerged and developed from within the socialist system. Restoration brought about a bourgeoisie made up of bureaucrats and technocrats who use their ruling and decision-making positions in the state and in the enterprises for their own interests, and a new type of capitalism, a bureaucratic state capitalism.

Undoubtedly, the first condition that makes a socialism the socialism is the class context of its political power. The political power, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which the proletariat does not share with any faction of the bourgeoisie, is an indispensable precondition for socialism. As this is the case, in a country  if power passes into the hands of revisionists speaking in the name of socialism which was once socialist, and they find the opportunity to implement their own programs, "corruption", "restoration" is inevitable in the process.”  (3)

It is crucially important to study the question of “restoration” in all its aspects. However, it is as crucially important to bear in mind and make the dialectical connection with the facts and the related theories. Yesil considers the economic aspect of the question as the most neglected. As far as a sincere Marxist Leninists study of the individual aspects of the question for the “lessons learned”, he may well be right. However, as a whole, the most neglected, overlooked or consciously disregarded aspects of the question in core is related to the continuing class struggle within the socialist country and with the “capitalist encirclement “abroad. The struggle within against the right and left deviation, and struggle without, against the international capitalist pressure, economic and political blockade in combination plays a decisive role in the process of restoration. Cuba, which has been subjected to economic and political blockade for 60 years is a good example for this - by taking back steps and forward steps in order not to be defeated. The study of the “defeat” - Restoration of capitalism” in Soviet Russia cannot be objective without basing the study on the class struggle within and without and without considering the concrete conditions and situations within those periods; the world war, civil war, famine, plots of counter revolutionaries in aligned with fascist Germany and other imperialists, second world war. One cannot study a question objectively without making the distinction between positive concrete conditions and negative conditions both of which will have different impact on and implications of the application of the economic and social programs. We cannot study a subject with the current or assumed “normal” conditions and mind-set of “now” while the question is related to the conditions and mind-set of “then”. There is no possible way of knowing the exact conditions and thereupon, mind-set of “then” with the second or third hand plus knowledge of “now” related to then. That’s why Marxist Leninists try their best to be objective and study the question as a whole with all the dialectic connections to it. Bourgeoisie and revisionist counter revolutionaries search and handpick the aspects of the question disconnected and isolated from the whole aspects of the question in order to present a conclusion of “inherent failure of socialism “as a system.

Bourgeoisie portrays the question as the “failure” of socialism as a political and economic system. By doing so they try to create the illusion that capitalism is “eternal” because there is no other alternative economic system.  The choice of word “failure” is not a coincidental one. Failure implies not succeeding in the achievement of intended objective, in this case, the lack of “inherent” ability for success, it does not imply being beaten in a struggle. Due to this lack of inherent ability, “failure” suggests giving up and not trying again.

 “Defeat” implies being beaten in a struggle and it is not an end in itself. That’s why the bourgeoisie and variety of Trotskyites use the term or concludes “failure”.

What should be bore in mind is that;

1-     Socialism has not “failed” but been” defeated”.

2-     “Restoration of capitalism “has never been seen as “impossible” by Marxist Leninists. Contrary, the danger and possibility of restoration have always been seen as inevitable in small-peasant countries in particular, and as long as the capitalist encirclement existed in general.

3-     The reasons for the restoration should not be studied “domestically”-internal class struggle- alone but in relation with the “international capitalists” - external class struggle.  A study without this dialectic connection will end up either blaming all to the “internal” mistakes! or justifying, overlooking the “internal mistakes.”

4-     Similarly, approach to the bureaucracy - as the scapegoat for restoration – should not be taken as something existence of which is impossible in Socialist Society- the lower phase of communism, but like the state, as a phenomenon which will wither away during the transition to communist society. It is not something that could be avoided but controlled.

 I will not be dwelling on the bourgeois insidious use of the term “fail” in order to dismiss socialism as an alternative to capitalism. However, their servile Trotskyite approach which purposely disregards the above-mentioned facts is not so much different than that of bourgeoisie for it denies socialism and postpones the revolutions to an indefinite date.

It is beneficial to study the subject in the field of Bureaucracy and Economy. However, this should be done  by stressing the fact that this is not the only and main reason in isolation from the class struggle in general  and from the struggle against  the “right” and “left deviation” in the party in particular.  Due to the same consequence kinship between the two deviations, the victory of either one or both will inevitably lay the ground for and eventually  bring about the defeat of socialism and restoration of capitalism.

Right deviation underestimates the enemy, the danger of capitalist restoration, and fails to understand the nature of the class struggle under the proletarian dictatorship. As Stalin states in his reply; “ I said plainly in my speech that the Right deviation "underestimates the strength of capitalism" in our country, "does not see the danger of the restoration of capitalism," "does not understand the mechanism of the class struggle," "and therefore so readily agrees to make concessions to capitalism." I said plainly in my speech that "the triumph of the Right deviation in our Party" would "increase the chances of the restoration of capitalism in our country." [P168]

On the other side of the kinship, left deviation’s overestimating the forces of enemy, underestimating the possibility of and denial of socialism in one country and underestimating the importance of and animosity to the peasantry, to the  rest of the laboring masses is a tendency that weakens the proletarian dictatorship. As Stalin pointed out; “As to the "Left," Trotskyist, deviation, I said plainly in my speech that it denies the possibility of building socialism in our country, rejects the idea of an alliance of the working class and the peasantry, and is prepared to carry out its fantastic plan of industrialization at the cost of a split with the peasantry. I said in my speech (if you have read it) that "the triumph of the 'Left' deviation in our Party would lead to the working class being separated from its peasant base, to the vanguard of the working class being separated from the rest of the working-class masses, and, consequently, to the defeat of the proletariat and to facilitating conditions for the restoration of capitalism." " [P168]

Stalin, in a Letter to Kaganovich and Molotov criticizing Pravda on the trial says; “They should have said that talk that the Zinovievites and Trotskyites have no platform is a fraud on the part of these scum and a self-deception by our comrades. These scums had a platform. The gist of their platform was the defeat of socialism in the USSR and the restoration of capitalism... As far back as the X party congress, Lenin said that if a faction or factions persist in their errors in their struggle against the party, under the Soviet system they will, without fail, slide down to the level of White Guardism, the defense of capitalism, a struggle against the Soviets, and must, without fail, merge with the enemies of Soviet rule. This proposition by Lenin has now been brilliantly confirmed.”  [ P166]

During his 1938 trial, Bukharin stating that his followers organized a conference at the end of the summer of 1932 in where anticommunist, counter revolutionary bourgeois platform was approved, said “I fully agreed with this platform and I bear full responsibility for it.”  (4)

At the same Court proceedings Vishinsky had summerized the role and consequences of deviations ;

"It is not an accident because prior to the October Revolution as well, Trotsky and his friends fought against Lenin and Lenin's Party as they fight now against Stalin and the Party of Lenin and Stalin.

They come to their shameful end because they have followed this role for many years, have sung the praises of capitalism and have lacked faith in the success of socialist construction and in the victory of socialism.

"That is why they come finally to develop a program of capitalist restoration. That is why they proceeded to betray and sell our native land." (5)

It is clear that the question of restoration is not only limited to one side of subject. Possible victory of the right or left deviation is a tendency that paves the way for the restoration of capitalism through strengthening the capitalist tendencies and weakening the socialist construction attempts in economy.”

 “Restoration of capitalism “has never been seen as “impossible” by Marxist Leninists.

“The revolution can defeat the bourgeoisie, can overthrow its power, even without the dictatorship of the proletariat. “ says Lenin, and follows; “but the revolution will be unable to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, to maintain its victory and to push forward to the final victory of socialism unless, at a certain stage in its development, it creates a special organ in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat as its principal mainstay. " (6)

"The fundamental question of every revolution is the question of power." (Lenin.) Does this mean that all that is required is to assume power, to seize it? No, it does not. The seizure of power is only the beginning.” [ P 171]

Therefore, the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the establishment of Proletarian Dictatorship is the precondition for the economic- socialist revolution and building socialist economy. The economic Policy   of the Proletarian dictatorship becomes the policy of transforming the capitalist (in some cases semi-feudal) economic foundation into a socialist foundation, whereby, at the same time laying the economic foundation for the protection and strengthening of the conquered political power. It is the policy of, as Lenin puts it “laying the economic foundation for the political gains of the Soviet state, or we shall lose them all" [P27]  it was the policy of transition during the period when "capitalism has been smashed but socialism has not yet been built." [P59] with the Policy of “NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." [P350]

Unlike the illusion that the class struggle will cease in the morning of conquering the Political Power Lenin points out that “The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of the class struggle, but its continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class struggle of the proletariat, which has won victory and has seized political power, against the bourgeoisie, which although vanquished has not been annihilated, has not disappeared, has not ceased its resistance, has increased its resistance” [P94]

In reference to the possibility of “restoration”, in a country such as Russia with a dominant peasant economy, “ Lenin's thesis “ says Stalin, “remains valid that "as long as we live in a small-peasant country, there is a surer economic basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism," and that, consequently, the danger of the restoration of capitalism is no empty phrase. “[ P211] “Lenin says that so long as individual peasant economy, which engenders capitalists and capitalism, predominates in the country, the danger of a restoration of capitalism will exist. Clearly, so long as this danger exists there can be no serious talk of the victory of socialist construction in our country.” (10)

"The transition from capitalism to communism," says Lenin, "represents an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch has terminated, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat. the overthrown exploiters -- who had not expected their overthrow, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it -- throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold into the battle for the recovery of the 'paradise' of which they have been deprived, on behalf of their families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the 'common herd' is condemning to ruin and destitution (or to 'common' labour . . .). In the train of the capitalist exploiters follow the broad masses of the petty bourgeoisie, with regard to whom decades of historical experience of all countries testify that they vacillate and hesitate, one day marching behind the proletariat and the next day taking fright at the difficulties of the revolution; that they become panic stricken at the first defeat or semi-defeat of the workers, grow nervous, rush about, snivel, and run from one camp into the other." [P171]

The question of restoration is not only a question of  “bureaucracy” but a question of setting up the economic foundation and creating the culture to root out all the causes for it – which is not a day struggle and work but a struggle that  extends through entire phase of transition from capitalism to communism – in its scientific meaning, the higher stage of communism. The struggle is not only from top down, but also from bottom up, a combined effort that relies on the change of people’s attitudes, habits, culture.

"You will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil wars and international conflicts," Marx said to the workers, "not only to change existing conditions, but also to change yourselves and to make yourselves capable of wielding political power." (See Marx and Engels, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 506.)

Lenin says: "It will be necessary under the dictatorship of the proletariat to re-educate millions of peasants and small proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office employees, officials and bourgeois intellectuals, to subordinate them all to the proletarian state and to proletarian leadership, to overcome their bourgeois habits and traditions," just as we must " -- in a protracted struggle waged on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat -- re-educate the proletarians themselves, who do not abandon their petty bourgeois prejudices at one stroke, by a miracle, at the bidding of the Virgin Mary, at the bidding of a slogan, resolution or decree, but only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against mass petty-bourgeois influences." (7)

Against the revisionist illusion Lenin states that “the transformation into something new by no means eliminates the   old” in all aspects overnight, and “the economic foundations for the withering away of the state”: in this case we also have the “economic foundations” for the withering away of bureaucracy,” (8)

Hand picking one aspect of the question in a way that is dialectically broken off from all the rest of the aspects and studying it, will bound to end in wrong overall conclusions regardless of the correctness of the subject taken.

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" (9)

The reasons for the restoration should not be studied without the dialectic connection of “internal” and external class struggle.

“We have internal enemies. We have external enemies. This, comrades, must not be forgotten for a single moment.” [ P252]

The internal aspect of the question is related to the mutual relations of classes within the country. “The abolition of classes,” says Stalin, “is not achieved by the extinction of the class struggle, but by its intensification.” (11)

The class struggle continues under the proletarian dictatorship although, in altered form. The political Power of Capitalism has been overthrown, replaced by the political power of proletarian and economic foundation for socialism is being built. However, capitalism is far from being uprooted. Especially in early stages it survives with the unavoidable existence of capitalist ideology, of the small producers and unorganized market relations, thus, so the possibilities of a restoration of capitalism. the proletarian dictatorship under the leadership of the Communist Party wages relentless war against the restoration of capitalist conditions, against the remnants of the capitalist system and takes the necessary steps to construct the foundations of the new social order. However, the bourgeoisie has its grounds for making attempts at restoration, because for a long time after its overthrow it remains stronger than the proletariat which has overthrown it. "If the exploiters are defeated in one country only," says Lenin, "and this, of course, is the typical case, since a simultaneous revolution in a number of countries is a rare exception, they still remain stronger than the exploited." (Lenin, Can There Be Equality Between the Exploited and the Exploiter?)

Unlike capitalism which has centuries of experience to draw lessons from, socialism is the first in the history of class society in which the state power is not of the few rich, but of the working masses. Conquering the political power will have to follow a long period of consolidating the rule of working class – the proletarian dictatorship. As for the weakness and yet power of the working class as the ruling class, Stalin states;

“as regards promoting the cultural powers of the working class, developing in it the faculty of administering the country in connection with the carrying out of the slogan of self-criticism Lenin said:

"The chief thing we lack is culture, ability to administer.  ... Economically and politically, N E P fully ensures us the possibility of laying the foundation of a socialist economy. It is 'only' a matter of the cultural forces of the proletariat and of its vanguard."

What does this mean? It means that one of the main tasks of our constructive work is to develop in the working class the faculty and ability to administer the country, to administer economy, to administer industry.

Can we develop this faculty and ability in the working class without giving full play to the powers and capacities of the workers, the powers and capacities of the finest elements of the working class, for criticizing our errors, for detecting our shortcomings and for advancing our work? Obviously, we cannot.

And what is required in order to give full play to the powers and capacities of the working class and the working people generally, and to enable them to acquire the faculty of administering the country? It requires, above all, honest and Bolshevik observance of the slogan of self-criticism, honest and Bolshevik observance of the slogan of criticism from below of shortcomings and errors in our work. If the workers take advantage of the opportunity to criticise shortcomings in our work frankly and bluntly, to improve and advance our work, what does that mean? It means that the workers are becoming active participants in the work of directing the country, economy, industry. And this cannot but enhance in the workers the feeling that they are the masters of the country, cannot but enhance their activity, their vigilance, their culture.

This question of the cultural powers of the working class is a decisive one. Why? Because, of all the ruling classes that have hitherto existed, the working class, as a ruling class, occupies a somewhat special and not altogether favourable position in history. All ruling classes until now—the slave-owners, the landlords, the capitalists—were also wealthy classes. They were in a position to train in their sons the knowledge and faculties needed for government. The working class differs from them, among other things, in that it is not a wealthy class, that it was not able formerly to train in its sons the knowledge and faculty of government, and has become able to do so only now, after coming to power.” [P252]

As for the additional advantage of capitalist Stalin asks the Question “Wherein lies the strength of the overthrown bourgeoisie.? “;

Firstly, "in the strength of international capital, in the strength and durability of the international connections of the bourgeoisie." (See Vol. XXV, p. 173.)

Secondly, in the fact that "for a long time after the revolution the exploiters inevitably retain a number of great practical advantages: they still have money (it is impossible to abolish money all at once); some movable property -- often fairly considerable; they still have various connections, habits of organization and management, knowledge of all the 'secrets' (customs, methods, means and possibilities) of management, superior education, close connections with the higher technical personnel (who live and think like the bourgeoisie), incomparably greater experience in the art of war (this is very important), and so on, and so forth." (See Vol. XXIII, p 354)

Thirdly, "in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale" . . . for "the abolition of classes means not only driving out the landlords and capitalists -- that we accomplished with comparative ease -- it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them, they can (and must) be remolded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work." (See Vol. XXV, pp. 173 and l89.) [P171]

 “The victory of socialism over capitalism and the consolidation of socialism “ Lenin states, “may be regarded as ensured only when the proletarian State, having completely suppressed all resistance on the part of the exploiters and secured complete stability for itself and complete obedience, reorganizes the whole of industry on the basis of large-scale collective production and on a modern technical basis (founded on the electrification of the whole of national economy). This alone will enable the towns to render such, radical assistance, technical and social, to the backward and scattered rural population as will create the material basis for enormously raising the productivity of agriculture, and of agricultural labour in general, thereby stimulating the small tillers of the soil by the force of example and in their own interests to adopt large-scale, collective mechanized agriculture." (12)

Most bourgeois and revisionist so called “studies” take up the question disregarding the fact that peasantry and petty producers still plays a large role in the country.  "As long as we live in a petit-bourgeois country, “Lenin says, “capitalism has in Russia a stronger economic basis than communism" and that, “consequently, the danger of the restoration of capitalism is no empty phrase.” [P211] “Lenin says that so long as individual peasant economy, which engenders capitalists and capitalism, predominates in the country, the danger of a restoration of capitalism will exist. Clearly, so long as this danger exists there can be no serious talk of the victory of socialist construction in our country.” Stalin, Grain Procurements and the Prospects for the Development of Agriculture

In addition the existence of the division between mental and manual labor, inevitable distinguishing categories of managers and technicians apart from the working class as far as the differences in the nature of their work which brings about different life style, higher wages will always make the danger of the emergence of a new type of bourgeoisie and the attempts for and restoration of capitalism possible.

Right and or left deviations” whoever fights against the party and the government in the USSR stands for the defeat of socialism and the restoration of capitalism.” Stalin to Kaganovich and Molotov

The possibility is always there and will be there until the transition from socialism to communism which prerequisites the defeat of capitalism in world scale.

External Class Struggle

The international aspect of the question is related to the relations of proletarian dictatorship with the capitalist countries. Under the conditions of two opposite systems there always will be the danger of armed aggression against the socialist country by imperialist Powers. As Lenin puts it; “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 “(2)

Stalin pointing out the internal and external enemies says; “now the bourgeoisie of the whole world are supporting the Russian bourgeoisie, and they are still ever so much stronger than we are.” [P28] And “only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilize the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.(2)

Stalin, in his speech at the Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I quotes from the Fourteenth Conference resolution in 1925 which summarizes the situation and the internal and external class struggle;

"Generally, the victory of socialism in one country (not in the sense of final victory) is unquestionably possible." And further:

". . . The existence of two directly opposite social systems gives rise to the constant menace of capitalist blockade, of other forms of economic pressure, of armed intervention, of restoration. Consequently, the only guarantee of the final victory of socialism, i.e., the guarantee against restoration, is a victorious socialist revolution in a number of countries. It by no means follows from this that it is impossible to build a complete socialist society in a backward country like Russia without the 'state aid' (Trotsky) of countries more developed technically and economically. An integral part of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is the assertion that 'real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries' (Trotsky, 1922)—an assertion which in the present period condemns the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. to fatalistic passivity. In opposition to such 'theories,' Comrade Lenin wrote: 'Infinitely hackneyed is the argument that they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, that, as certain "learned" gentlemen among them express it, the objective economic prerequisites for socialism do not exist in our country' (Notes on Sukhanov)." (Resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.) on "The Tasks of the Comintern and the R.C.P.(B.) in Connection with the Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.”)

“the international bourgeoisie is filled with furious hatred of, and hostility towards, Soviet Russia, and is prepared at any moment to fling itself upon her in order to strangle her... In Russia, the big landowners and capitalists have not vanished, but they have been subjected to total expropriation and crushed politically as a class, whose remnants are hiding out among Soviet government employees. They have preserved their class organisation abroad, as émigrés, ... These émigrés are striving, with might and main, to destroy the Soviet power and restore capitalism in Russia... This being the internal situation in Russia, the main task now confronting her proletariat, as the ruling class, is properly to determine and carry out the measures that are necessary to lead the peasantry, establish a firm alliance with them and achieve the transition, in a series of gradual stages, to large-scale, socialised, mechanized agriculture.” [P49]

Taking the issue of “external “aspect of the question Stalin says;

“External conditions. We have assumed power in a country whose technical equipment is terribly backward. Along with a few big industrial units more or less based upon modern technology, we have hundreds and thousands of mills and factories the technical equipment of which is beneath all criticism from the point of view of modern achievements. At the same time, we have around us a number of capitalist countries whose industrial technique is far more developed and up to date than that of our country. Look at the capitalist countries and you will see that their technology is not only advancing, but advancing by leaps and bounds, outstripping the old forms of industrial technique. And so we find that, on the one hand, we in our country have the most advanced system, the Soviet system, and the most advanced type of state power in the world, Soviet power, while, on the other hand, our industry, which should be the basis of socialism and of Soviet power, is extremely backward technically. Do you think that we can achieve the final victory of socialism in our country so long as this contradiction exists?

What has to be done to end this contradiction? To end it, we must overtake and outstrip the advanced technology of the developed capitalist countries. We have overtaken and outstripped the advanced capitalist countries in the sense of establishing a new political system, the Soviet system. That is good. But it is not enough. In order to secure the final victory of socialism in our country, we must also overtake and outstrip these countries technically and economically. Either we do this, or we shall be forced to the wall.

This applies not only to the building of socialism. It applies also to upholding the independence of our country in the circumstances of the capitalist encirclement. The independence of our country cannot be upheld unless we have an adequate industrial basis for defense. And such an industrial basis cannot be created if our industry is not more highly developed technically.” [ P211]

Reiterating the possibility of restoration; "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (9). Meaning the victory of socialism in one country does not guarantee the elimination of restoration, only the Final victory of socialism – defeat of capitalism in world scale can guarantee against the restoration.

Revisionist Views

Revisionist views seek to distort the scientific meaning of socialism and communism, the transition and the continuing class struggle within and without and to disregard the actual circumstances of that given time. Most revisionist study of the question rests on or borrows from the Trotskyite so called “critique of Soviets which at best is based on economic determinism that takes the productive forces as primary and politics either as secondary or not important at all. For Marxist-Leninists approach to the question is inseparably connected both economically and politically in which the protection and strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the guidance of the Communist Party has tantamount importance.

With their perverted understanding of “socialism” and consciously created confusion between socialism and communism, revisionists proceed from the claim that socialism never existed in Soviet Russia and or could not have been built. With this understanding, bourgeoisie found accomplices in its struggle to restore capitalism within the party in the form of right and left deviations who promoted reckless and irresponsible policies. Right deviation, specifically the Bukharinist revisionists promoted conciliation with the bourgeoisie. The conciliation was to condemn any effort for the elimination of the capitalist classes and capitalist exploitation and to protect the kulak capitalist class in the rural areas and various capitalist elements in urban areas.

Although lately in decreasing number, some Trotskyite variations who claim Lenin to be a revisionist for he introduced the “state capitalism” in Russia, bank on the lack of theoretical knowledge of the masses. It is worth to quote Lenin on the subject which they distort in order to fit their agenda:

“The restoration of capitalism would mean the restoration of a proletarian class engaged in the production of socially useful material values in big factories employing machinery, and not in profiteering, not in making cigarette-lighters for sale, and in other “work” which is not very useful, but which is inevitable when our industry is in a state of ruin.

The whole question is who will take the lead. We must face this issue squarely—who will come out on top? Either the capitalists succeed in organising first—in which case they will drive out the Communists and that will be the end of it. Or the proletarian state power, with the support of the peasantry, will prove capable of keeping a proper rein on those gentlemen, the capitalists, so as to direct capitalism along state channels and to create a capitalism that will be subordinate to the state and serve the state. The question must be put soberly.” [P28]

 It is no surprise that the Trotskyist, Ernest Mandel cheered the Krushevite coup after Stalin’s death  as revolutionary and  the restoration as “revolution against the counter revolution” later on, greeted the final collapse, the demolishing of Berlin wall as "the sudden access of hundreds of millions of men and women from the Eastern countries to political life."


Readers of the studies concerning the question should understand the fact that unlike capitalism with centuries old history and experience, socialism did not have previous experiences to draw lessons from.

That is why making “mistakes’ were plausible and admitted with self-criticism and followed by correction. The impression that most bourgeois writings in the subject try to give is that as if socialism had so many previous experiences to draw lessons from yet they have made and continued to make mistakes or mistakes are unavoidable due to the fact that socialism inherently does not work. Lenin was clear about the fact that having no previous experiment of socialism trial and error, criticism and self-criticism was utmost important.

“At the beginning of 1918” he said,” we expected a period in which peaceful construction would be possible... But we were mistaken, because in 1918 a real military danger overtook us in the shape of the Czechoslovak mutiny and the outbreak of civil war, which dragged on until 1920.... we made the mistake of deciding to go over directly to communist production and distribution. We thought that under the surplus-food appropriation system the peasants would provide us with the required quantity of grain, which we could distribute among the factories and thus achieve communist production and distribution.

I cannot say that we pictured this plan as definitely and as clearly as that; but we acted approximately on those lines. That, unfortunately, is a fact. I say unfortunately, because brief experience convinced us that that line was wrong, that it ran counter to what we had previously written about the transition from capitalism to socialism, namely, that it would be impossible to bypass the period of socialist accounting and control in approaching even the lower stage of communism. [P27]

It is not that the Soviet Leaders have not seen and were not aware of the possibility of restoration and have not taken the necessary precautions against it. The effectiveness of the precautions is not measured and the determining factor by itself but depends on the existing concrete conditions and the balance of power between the revolutionary and counter revolutionary forces – which way the internal and external class struggle weighing. As long as the vanguard of the proletariat, the party, is in the hands of Bolsheviks the restoration would be difficult if not impossible without a coup or military intervention. Party would take the necessary precautions against it even if it has to take some steps back to prevent the restoration. So, the core of the question of restoration is related to the struggle against the right and left deviations within the party, both deviations of which lays the foundation for - the bureaucracy – “a policy in the service of bureaucracy” (13)  and the restoration of capitalism.

Unlike the anarchist, revisionist claims” abolishing the bureaucracy at once, everywhere and completely, is out of the question. It is a utopia. But to smash the old bureaucratic machine at once and to begin immediately to construct a new one that will make possible the gradual abolition of all bureaucracy--this is not a utopia, it is the experience of the Commune, the direct and immediate task of the revolutionary proletariat.” (15) This “gradual abolition” may extend till the withering away of the “state” depending on the outcome of class struggle within and without. “The economic foundations for the withering away of the state”, Lenin says, “in this case we also have the “economic foundations” for the withering away of bureaucracy... (16)

Each and every other aspect of the question is dialectically connected and stems from the class struggle in general and class struggle within the party in particular. Denying that and or isolating one specific aspect of the question from this fact would not be objective at best, would serve the interests of revisionist at worse.

As history has proven, socialism, even in its early stages, the less developed one, despite all the attacks and blockades of imperialists, does not fail – at least in its primary, minimal objectives – but can only be defeated.   

Erdogan. A

September 2020



Introduction – P3

Lenin, The New Economic Policy and The Tasks of The Political Education Departments – P27

Lenin, The 1918 Decision of The All-Russia Central Executive Committee on The Role of The Peasantry – P28

Lenin, Third Congress of The Communist International – P49

Lenin, Speech in Defense of The Tactics of The Communist

International – P59

Lenin, Report on The Tactics of The R.C.P. – P71

Lenin, From: Tenth All-Russian Conference of the R.C.P.(B.)  - P92

Lenin, Speech at A Plenary Session of The Moscow Soviet – P350

Stalin, Concerning Questions of Leninism – P94

Stalin, to Kaganovich and Molotov – P166

Stalin, Reply to Comrade Sh.- P168

Stalin, The Foundation of Leninism – P 171

Stalin, Interview with Foreign Workers' Delegations – P185

Stalin, Questions & Answers to American Trade Unionists – P187

Stalin, Industrialization of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.) – P211

Stalin, The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission – P252

Enver Hoxha, The Demagogy of the Soviet Revisionists Cannot Conceal Their Traitorous Countenance – P286

Enver Hoxha, Euro Communism is Anti- Communism – P324

Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution – P328

H. Mara, Revisionist “Theories” of Restored Capitalism – P330


(1)   Stalin, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.

(2)   Lenin, 8th Party Congress

(3)   Hıdır Yesil,” The Question of Restoration in Socialism”

(4)   Moscow Court Proceedings

(5)   Vishinsky, Court Proceedings

(6)   Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,"

(7)   Lenin, Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder

(8)   Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind

(9)   Resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the CPSU

(10)   Stalin, Grain Procurements and the Prospects for the Development of Agriculture

(11)   Stalin, The Results of the First Five-Year Plan

(12)   Lenin, Preliminary Draft of Theses on the Agrarian Question

(13)   Lenin, Notes for a Speech at the 10th Congress

(14)   Lenin, State and Revolution, presentation of question by Marx

(15)   Lenin, State and Revolution

(16)   Lenin, Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind