Declaration of the Communist Party of Norway from its 27th National Congress
The Great Socialist October Revolution of 1917 introduced a new phase of the development of human civilization. For the first time in history, the conditions were created for the abolition of class society, which until then had based its existence on the exploitation of man by man.
As the capitalist conditions of production developed in feudalism, the working class was facing a completely different challenge, where it had to develop its own conditions and means of production. The subjective consciousness of mankind gained a greater significance than ever before in history. The construction of socialism on the on the way to the classless society Â Communism Â has therefore, of necessity, not been able to follow a straight path, but has always depended on corrections. This places great demands on the ability of the party, the working class and the vanguard to be open about one’s own mistakes, and the capacity for criticism and self-criticism.
Shortly after the Socialist October Revolution, specific historical conditions forced the new socialist state of workers and peasants to take several steps back, and, to a significant extent, resurrect capitalist relations by introducing the Â«New Economic PolicyÂ» (NEP).
After the period of the NEP, until the attack by Hitler Germany in 1941, a new foundation for socialism was formed, with the introduction of five year plans and development of the socialist right of ownership. Despite significant human loss and serious errors committed, great results were achieved; not only was the foundation for the defensive capabilities of the Soviet Union strengthened to an impressive degree, but there was also room for growth in material and social standards.
The circumstances for the radical and swift change of the partyÂs direction in the early 1930′s must not be forgotten. During the 20′s and 30′s, fascism emerged as a particularly aggressive form of imperialism, which, encouraged by the old imperialist forces, threatened the existence of the Soviet Union once again. Â«We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush usÂ», Stalin proclaimed on the February 4th 1931. The attack on the Soviet Union came on June 22, 1941.
After the war, the construction of socialism entered a new phase. This increased the need for a clarification in the view on economic laws for the development of socialism. Leaving behind the economic theories of the Trotskyists and the Bukharin wing had not led to an agreement in the party, and the need for clarification on the matter was not fully acknowledged, since other important matters also were at hand. In the early 50′s, an initiative was taken, after thorough discussions involving leading Soviet economists, to consolidate this, by publishing a relatively comprehensive textbook on the subject.
Less than productive confrontations were had between several different theoretical and political movements, where former left-opportunists, among others, had become market proponents, and where the market opponents represented different, divided points of view. Stalin was in the front line of the discussions, and often intervened. He opposed market reforms, while also dealing with the risk of subjectivism and voluntarism, which could easily develop along with a lack of understanding of the effect and significance of the law of value during the construction ofÂ socialism and communism.
He criticized the various slanted non-Marxist views of the law of value, and a widespread lack of dialectical understanding. After StalinÂs intervention and the article Â«Economic Problems of SocialismÂ» written in 1951, and later the release of Â«Textbook on Political EconomyÂ», one would think that a solid theoretical foundation had been formed. But several leading communists and economists kept their unscientific and non-dialectical approach. The reason was mainly the petty bourgeois influence within the party. The way in which this was combated was lacking, and did not provide the necessary results.
It was during StalinÂs long period as party leader that the Soviet Union was developed, and where the greatest economical progress was had. The following period demonstrates the catastrophic consequences of underestimating the perspective of class struggle, and which significance the leading role of the working class would have.
The 20th Party Congress of CPSU (1956) became a turning point in favor of the right wing.
In his ÂsecretÂ speech, Khrushchev blamed all the mistakes of the past on Stalin. He willingly demonized him early on in the speech, by amongst other things implying that he or his men were behind the assassination of Kirov, who was party leader in Leningrad (the fact that Khrushchev must have known that this was not the case is well documented today).
The move towards the right eventually led to an economic policy which weakened the Socialist mode of ownership and central planning, and most importantly neglected to develop a working class capable of specialization and development of its abilities to participate in organizing work, controlling production from top to bottom, and making sure that the intentions of the planning indicators were realized.
At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU (1961), several new erroneous evaluations were made, which led to the thesis of a Â«state of the whole peopleÂ», amongst other things. The CPSU was now a Â«party of the whole peopleÂ». This development contributed to a change of the social constellation the party until the mid-80′s, when the CPSU could barely be considered a workersÂ party. The party lost its revolutionary force.
The fall of Nikita Khrushchev as a leader, partially as a consequence of his self-righteousness and his impulsive and inconsistent policies, which on the whole led to poor results, and created contradictions in the relationship with supporting politicians, strengthened a better course regarding the anti-monopolist strategy, amongst other things, but the formalistic thesis of the Â«state of the whole peopleÂ» remained.
So did the catastrophic thesis on the abolition of class struggle, as well as the conversion of the CPSU to the Â«party of the peopleÂ». Increasingly market-inspired reforms and the expansion of the use of market mechanisms strengthened the foundation for an increasingly right-opportunist development.
In the course of the 70′s, the effect of this erroneous course became more and more clear, and with increasing corruption and black markets as a consequence. People with their own career as a primary goal were easily accepted in the party and the youth movement. The people experienced the party as increasingly unfamiliar, and consisting of fat-cats and their subordinates, and not equal Communist. The people, with the working class as the vanguard, were eventually no longer rulers, but were gradually subordinated to a ruling party.
The practical application of the policies became more and more distant from the official proclamations, industrial and agricultural production declined, parallel with an increasing need to satisfy social demands.
Through perestroika and reforms of the political system in 1988, the Soviet system was degraded to a bourgeois parliamentary system with a limited acting and legislative function, which undermined of the right to have delegates responsible for recallÂ during elections. Soviet democracy was weakened.
This served the needs of counter-revolution. It led to enormous economic disparity, severe recession in the economy, and a social and demographic catastrophe.
The term ÂcollapseÂ in regards to the fall of the Soviet Union and the socialist world system does not properly describe what happened, because it underestimates the severity of the counter-revolutionary activity and the significance of the social basis on which it developed.
The counter-revolution was not a result of an imperialist military intervention, but came from within Â from cliques in the top leadership of the Communist Party (CPSU). We consider these internal factors the most important causes. That is not to say that we underestimate the long-term effect of the imperialist garrison, the arms race of the cold war, and its various interventions. Still, the inner weakening made the counter revolution possible.
The healthy Communist forces which reacted in the last phase of this development, at the 28th Party Congress (1990), were unable to reveal the betrayal by the Gorbachev and Shevardnadze clique and to organize revolutionary counter measures from the working class.
February 22, 2011