How did it happen that modern revisionists seize the power?

Extract from Programme of (New) Communist Party of Italy

The possibility to come back is inborn in the nature of socialist countries. To deny this possibility means to deny that class struggle continues also after the working class seized the power.

In general the socialist countries in the first phase of their existence made great steps on in the transformation of the property of means of production, the first of the three aspects of relations of production.

“We have essentially completed the socialist transformation of property”, Mao told in the Sixties. However, the individual property continued to subsist in little measure and the group property of workers still existed on a large scale (kolkhoz, communes, cooperative societies). Besides, it was largely unsolved the problem of eliminating the private property of everyone’s labour-force, also of most qualified labour force: technicians, intellectuals, scientist, etc. So it is as regards the first aspect of relations of productions In socialist countries, at the end of the first phase the mass of workers was still far from being able to direct itself.

It was still far from the condition, as Lenin told,in which “also a cook can direct State business”, also if they had made steps on towards this direction and, on historical plan, the material premises for realizing thus condition were fully set by capitalism itself. Until the members of population are not in this condition en masse,who directs is not a simple delegate to carry out a socially necessary function, replaceable with thousands of other people as much able as him at any moment.He disposes of a personal power that the great majority of other individuals are not able to exercise and that however is socially necessary: it cannot be simply suppressed as anarchists uphold. So it is as regards the second aspect of relation of production and of superstructural relations.

At the end of the first phase, the socialist countries were still far from being able to realize a distribution “to everyone according to his needs”, even if they made some steps on towards this direction and, on historical level, already the capitalism itself fully set the material premises to realize this condition. As much this condition is not carried out, in order to accomplish his duties who directs has at his disposal life and work conditions the other members of population do not have en masse. The distribution “to everybody according to quantity and quality of its work” creates by itself great differences among individuals, tends to re-establish relation of exploitation and besides makes thousand small openings to violations of the principle itself. So it is as regards the third aspect of relations of production and the superstructural relations.

In socialist countries, in the first phase of their life there were made great steps on in putting culture, art and science at workers’ service, so as the cultural, artistic, scientific patrimony could serve to workers for understanding and solving the problems of their spiritual and material life. However culture, art and science still were sectors where the bourgeois conception largely predominated. Intellectual, artists and scientists considered themselves as special people and from many points of view lived a secluded and privileged life.

The mass of population still benefited little of cultural, artistic and scientific patrimony of society.In every one of the fields above indicated there was a cutthroat struggle between bourgeoisie and working class. In socialist countries bourgeoisie is essentially constituted by that part of leaders of the new society (of party, State, mass organizations, public administration and other social institutions) that opposed that transformation and follow the way of capitalism.

Their presence makes grow trends and dreams of restoration.Such trends and dreams unavoidably lead to attempts of restoration. This is an objective datum that will continue to exist during all socialist era and in all socialist countries.

What does it makes this possibility real? The mistakes of the left wing. Those mistakes accumulated and weren’t corrected, and so became systematic till they constituted a line of establishment or restoration and suffocation of germs of Communism and allowed promoters and supporters of restoration to take the direction.

Mistake is possible in every new and unprecedented experience. The deep study of the experience of socialist countries and the fraternal collaboration with the communists of the first socialist countries will give the communists the possibility of not doing the mistakes done in first socialist countries and generally of doing less mistakes.

The two lines struggle in the communist party, the consciousness of class struggle, the knowledge of bourgeoisie in socialist countries, the practice of criticism and self-criticism and, in general, the teachings about class struggle within socialist society outlined in Maoism will allow the future socialist countries to go further on.

The main reason why the revisionist regimes collapsed at the end of the Eighties is the general crisis of capitalist world. It did no more allow continuing the slow and gradual erosion of socialism. The bourgeoisie that ruled socialist countries was no more able to face the debt contracted with the banks and international financial institutions.

It was not able to mobilize the masses of socialist countries for facing the consequences of annulling foreign debts and ended with selling out commodities and resources of socialist countries in the imperialist market, so making plunge the internal economical crisis that transformed in political crisis.

The bourgeoisie of imperialist countries needed new fields of investment, new revenues and markets. Besides, it faced with growing difficulty to the action of disturb the socialist countries were bringing in their relations with the masses of imperialist countries themselves and with semi-colonies and in the relations among the imperialist groups themselves. So,the bourgeoisie had to go for broke. It has been a painful match for the masses, but very risky for the bourgeoisie. It threw the mask and now the struggle between the two classes and the two ways is again open in all socialist countries.

Study the Programme of the (n) PCI :
http://www.nuovopci.it./