Building Up Socialism

Front matter

By N. Bukharin

COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN 16 King Street, Covent Garden, London, W,C.2

Other Works by N. Bukharin:

Chapter 1: Old Problems Again

BUILDING UP SOCIALISM

Chapter I.

OLD PROBLEMS AGAIN.

A NUMBER of cardinal and fundamental questions concerning our revolution have been raised again in an acute manner. It is not possible here to explain in detail the causes of this, but one cannot refrain from pointing out that the fundamental reason lies in the fact that we are living in a period of transition from the so-called process of restoration to the process of building up.

This terminology, in our opinion, is not quite exact and correct; for to define the past phase of development of our economics as a process of restoration is to assume—if we accept the strict meaning of the word—that the revival of our industry and our economic revival generally are proceeding along the same lines as those along which they proceeded prior to the revolution. Only if we assume this can we speak of a process of restoration in the strict sense of the word.

As a matter of fact, after the October Revolution, our economy, particularly and primarily its State sector, revived in such a manner that parallel with the restoration of economy there proceeded an uninterrupted alteration in the relations of production. Our development proceeded upon quite another basis compared with that upon which the economy of the country developed prior to the October victory of the working class. For that reason, when we speak of the process of restoration we must bear in mind that this expression is used conventionally. By it we mean to say that our output has reached the pre-war level, that the material basis of production has been restored to pre-war dimensions. Only in this sense can we speak of the process of restoration; only in this way can we speak of the transition from the period of restoration to the period of building up. Thus, beyond a doubt there now arises before us in all its breadth the task of the reconstruction of our economy, the task of transferring it to a new technical basis. This depends primarily upon our success in acquiring and applying capital, resources to be employed for the expansion of the basis of production, for the construction or the laying down of new enterprises, to a considerable extent upon a new technical basis. It is not hard to realise that this is a task of the greatest difficulty, and the difficulty does not lie merely in the sphere of practice. No, even taken in its theoretical aspect it represents a "hard nut to crack." The difficulty of the task gives rise to wavering in our ranks. It compels us to take up again the fundamental questions of the revolution. It will not be superfluous to mention that the question of basic capital was raised before, comparatively a long time ago (for example the question of electrification raised by Lenin); and it has been raised before by certain of our opponents. In this connection one may mention a work by P. P. Maslov, namely the book he published in 1918 entitled "A Summary of the War and Revolution." Maslov at that time stood entirely on the Menshevik position and in the book referred to he advocated the Menshevik point of view. Of course, he denied the possibility of a Socialist revolution in Russia and this denial in a large measure was based on the alleged impossibility of solving the problems of the new technique owing to the general backwardness of the technico-economic basis of our country. This is what he wrote:

"It is sufficient to know what is the prevailing type of enterprise in agriculture and in home handicraft industry, which employs the largest number of workers in industry, to come to the conclusion that the workers cannot bring into being the Socialist system until capitalist production creates for it the material conditions. In the first few years the Great Russian Revolution will only split off industry from agriculture, will split it off by means of capitalism and only 'in the more or less remote future' will Socialism again unite them in a harmonious whole. Unless it breaks away from agriculture and petty production, industry can never become transformed technically into social production, for the primitive technique of the handicraftsman cannot be preserved, while the change in technique will break up the semi-agricultural economy. Even the revolution, in spite of the tremendous creative power it commands, cannot create new enterprises on a new technical basis out of nothing."

The most characteristic and curious thing in this quotation is the last sentence in which the writer combines the idea of the impossibility of a Socialist revolution in Russia with the idea that there are no sources from which we can obtain the means to establish a new technical basis for our economy.

By what means can we establish the new technical basis? That is the problem. This problem, i.e., the "problem of basic capital," to use a modern expression, is precisely the problem which P. Maslov puts in the forefront, and as, in the opinion of the Menshevik Maslov, it is idle to think of new methods, this serves him as the decisive argument generally to deny the Socialist character of our revolution. From this it follows that the problem of transferring our economy to new lines, the problem оf basic capital, brings us right up against the question of the character of our revolution, the question of the possibility of establishing Socialism in a single country; in a word, it brings us up against the series of questions which at the present time are the subject of controversy in our Party. For this reason it will be useful to glance back and to recall what has been said before as to the Socialist revolution generally and what has been said concerning the possibility of a Socialist revolution in our country. Such an historical reference will bring to light a whole series of arguments which will help to explain the present controversy and will make it possible to trace the intellectual sources of the ideas of the respective sides in the controversy. Here it is necessary, if only briefly, to deal with the question of the "maturity" of modern and primarily of world capitalism in the manner in which that question is presented by the Bolsheviks.

Chapter 2: The Maturity of Capitalism

Chapter II.

THE MATURITY OF CAPITALISM

It is a fact that is fairly well known that the historical prognoses and tactics of the Bolsheviks always rest upon a definite and absolutely objective analysis of the given state of affairs. Three kinds of phenomena, connected with each other and determined by each other, were taken into consideration by the Bolsheviks in determining the question of the maturity of world capitalism. Firstly, its technico-economic basis and its organisational forms. Secondly, the inter-relations of classes: the relative strength of the working class, the petty bourgeoisie and the big capitalist bourgeoisie. Thirdly, the cultural-ideological maturity of the proletariat. It goes without saying that orthodox Marxists presented the question of the cultural-ideological maturity of the proletariat not from the point of view that the proletariat can seize power only when it has developed it own culture and has produced the necessary administrative forces required to manage the State. This is the manner in which A. A. Bogdanov presented the question. According to his theory the proletariat cannot seize power unless it has learned the principles of the "science of general organisation" and has become thoroughly imbued with the all-embracing doctrines of proletarian culture. Of course, Bogdanov's manner of approach would never result in a positive solution to the question of the maturity of capitalism being found. However, the approach of the Bolsheviks to the question was quite different andfrom the point of view of their approach the general maturity of capitalist relations for their transforma tion into Socialist relations was not doubted in the least. The Bolsheviks advanced the postulate of the last, imperialist phase of capitalism, of the centralisation and concentration of capital having reached a sufficient stage, of the special organisational forms of capitalism (finance capital, capitalist monopoly, banking consortiums, etc.), and regard the very fact of the world imperialist war as evidence of the ripeness of capitalist relations—for the imperialist war in itself was nothing more or less than an expression of the gigantic conflict between the growth of the forces of production and their capitalist shell which has already become too tight to permit the further normal development of these forces of production.

Of course, in appraising world capitalism, the Bolsheviks did not start out with the assertion that capitalism was wholly and thoroughly ripe and they did not assume that at every point of the globe the degree of concentration and centralisation of capitalism and the concentration of the working class, etc., was the same and equally adequate for the transition to Socialism. On the contrary, in the person of Lenin the Bolsheviks advanced the postulate of the so-called "law of unequal capitalist development." The law has its foundation in the differences in the structure of capitalism in the various countries. This law draws a strict distinction between the centres of capitalist economy and the colonial periphery of capitalist economy. It lays down that the maturity of capitalism as a whole, as world capitalism, by no means pre-supposes an absolutely equal degree of capitalist development or an equal rate of development in all countries. Lenin's law of unequal capitalist development was the theoretical basis of the Bolshevik approach to the question of the maturity of world capitalist

economy, of the degree of its readiness for transition to Socialist economy, for their approach to the question of world revolution as a complex and prolonged process, which may commence even in a single country.

This is how the Bolsheviks presented the question. The opponents of the Bolsheviks approached the question quite differently. In this connection it should be mentioned that the arguments advanced by the opponents of the Bolsheviks to "prove" the immaturity of capitalist relations had quite a number of variations. There are a number of critical positions directed against the Bolsheviks which claim to refute the Bolshevik thesis on the maturity of capitalist relations in modern world economy. Some say that capitalism has not matured economically; others say that capitalism has matured economically, but that owing to the world war and the impoverishment that has spread during the war it has ceased to serve as a sufficient basis for the transition to the Socialist revolution. Others again put forward a number of quite "original" arguments concerning the cultural immaturity of the proletariat, which as a consequence cannot solve the problem of world revolution.

The first type of criticism of Bolshevism, the criticism from the point of view of the economic immaturity of capitalist relations, is most clearly expressed in the work of Heinrich Cunow. In one of his pamphlets, written in defence of the voting in the German Reichstag on August 4th, 1914, he developed approximately the following positions: He said that to think about the transition to a Socialist system at the present time means merely to harbour empty illusions and utopias. Marx said that not a single economic form ceases to exist until it has utilised all its possibilities and exhausted itself to the very bottom. Take those countries, said Cunow, where capitalism is not yet sufficiently developed; take the markets which are not yet completely capitalist commodity markets; take those countries where capitalism is only at the beginning of its development and it will be perfectly clear that capitalism still has an enormous scope for development. And after the war—so asserted Cunow—owing to the partial destruction of forces of production further scope for development of capitalist relations was created for the reason that to the extent that forces of capitalist production were destroyed during the war to that extent the markets which even prior to the destruction caused by the war were too big to absorb capitalist output will now have become relatively larger; for that reason it is absurd and utopian, anti-Marxian to think that society in the near future will transfer to Socialist lines.

The argument here is so clear and unambiguous that it would be superfluous to refer to other critics who follow the same line of reasoning. It will be sufficient to refer to another critic, a Russian this time, the Marxian or semi-Marxian writer, A. A. Bogdanov. In one of his works, "Questions of Socialism," he says:

"In confirmation of this [the necessity and possibility of the transition to Socialism—N.B.] reference is made to the gigantic growth of those branches of industry in which means of production are produced. And yet, if we take the world output of these two fundamental materials of industry, namely, cast iron and coal and on the basis of their prices, the payment for labour power and the approximate rate of its exploitation calculate what propor or the labour energy at the disposal of humanity is crystallised in the enormous annual output of these products it will be found that it amounts to about two to two and a half, certainly not more than three per cent.; a result which is not at all impressive."

By quoting the figures two to two and a half per cent, of the production of cast iron and coal, A. A. Bogdanov thinks he has proved his postulate that the present phase of development of capitalist relations makes it futile even to think of raising the question of transition to the lines of Socialist revolution and to the lines of direct Socialist construction.

Such criticism can hardly be taken for serious Marxian criticism; it is nothing more than a caricature of Marxism.

For the "critics" start out on an extremely vulgarised and certainly undialectical presentation of the pre-requisites for the collapse of capitalism. In their opinion the capitalist form of production will be destroyed only when it has been completely supplanted (or almost completely supplanted) by other forms of production. As a matter of fact the capitalist system of production will be destroyed very much earlier than that, for long before that stage is reached it develops its inherent contradictions, making its further existence intolerable and objectively impossible (cf. for example world wars, "The Epoch of Wars and Revolutions"). Similarly the "critics" start out from the postulate that the material ripeness of capitalism must be such that after the conquest of power Socialism must be already established embracing wholly and immediately the whole of society. As a matter of fact there can only be talk of the starting points of the movement, of the possibilities of further construction. From the arguments of the "critics" there disappears almost the whole of the transition period which is the period of development of Socialist economic forms among the non-Socialistic forms. Their (the "critics") seeming radicalism is but the reverse side of their profound opportunism. It is hardly necessary to dwell further upon this kind of critic. Enough has been said already, and we can now take up another group of objections.

Chapter 3: Must Capitalism Be Rebuilt?

Chapter III.

MUST CAPITALISM BE REBUILT?

This latter group in general may be described as follows: Socialism, of course, has matured; capitalism has already produced within itself the forces of production which make the question of the Socialist revolution practical politics for to-day; but the war has destroyed everything and now we must adopt a new tone, we cannot now speak of the tasks of the Socialist revolution. The question is presented in this manner by none other than Karl Kautsky who has spoken about the enormous damage caused by the war and about the impossibility of establishing Socialism on the basis of post-war capitalism. Russian Social-Democrats also have presented the question in this manner, for example the well-known Menshevik Lieber. In the preface to his pamphlet "Social Revolution or Social Collapse," published in Kharkov in 1919, after carefully explaining that "unfortunately" he had lost the original manuscript of this pamphlet when he had to flee from the "Communist Okhrana" (Secret Service), he put forward the following arguments:

"I advanced the fundamental 'pessimistic' postulates developed in this lecture already in the period of the 'honeymoon' of our revolution. From the very first days of the Russian Revolution the features of its collapse from decay caused by the war were clearly revealed to me and the flitting will o' the wisps did not for a moment appear to me like revolutionary beacons."

This, which no doubt was intended to serve as a poetic description, contains the following idea: Why do you Bolsheviks talk about-Socialism, international revolution and such like things? Why do you bring these questions to the front now? What is taking place now is not a process of the revolutionary advancement of society, but a process of collapse from decay caused by the war.

In the third chapter of this pamphlet entitled, "Future Prospects and Tasks" in which is described the "anarchy" resulting of the war, the writer openly states that his point of view applies not only to Russia but may be applied to the whole world: "From what I have said it is clear that Socialism at the present time is impossible of realisation."

It is not difficult to see that this argument follows from the opportunist premise of the "painless" transition of capitalism to Socialism. In complete contradiction to the revolution theory of Marx, which forecasted the birth of Socialism in, the midst of catastrophe ("Zusammenbruchstheorie") inevitably accompanied by the destruction of forces of production, the "critics" start out with the possibility of a truly idyllic progress of events. On the other hand the argument we are examining is linked up with the arithmetical conception of the pre-requisites of Socialist construction: it assumes that any deviation from definite phases in the development of the material basis of production immediately renders the transition to Socialism impossible.

The changing relation of class forces, the education and self-education of the proletariat in the course of its battles, etc., all these things are ignored. It is superfluous to mention that an empirical test of this postulate, i.e., the whole of the subsequent course of events completely refutes the arguments of the opportunists who have simply fled from the solution of the problem in the same way as they fled from the revolution itself.

The third group of objections, which appeared to be the most popular, was presented in the form of a theory which was intended to prove that the proletariat cannot capture power at all, for the reason that it represents an arithmetical minority of the population. The capture of power, dictatorship of the proletariat, capture of power by the political party of the working class, construction of Socialism, transition from capitalist society to Socialist society, all this, according to the Social-Democratic critics, absolutely presupposes that the proletariat is in the majority. This question has been discussed in detail in Bolshevik literature and so there is hardly any need to dwell upon it here. Particularly well-known is the argument used against Kautsky on this question by comrade Lenin: dhr} "The principal cause of the failure of the 'Socialists' [read, petty bourgeois democrats] of the Second International" wrote comrade Lenin, "is their failure to understand that political power in the hands of one class, the proletariat, can and must become an instrument for attracting to its side the non-political toiling masses, an instrument for winning over these masses away from the bourgeois and petty bourgeois parties."

A concrete combination of social forces is conceivable in which the proletariat while being in the minority of the population may lead the mass of the petty bourgeoisie. On the other hand it is possible to have an aristocratic degeneration of certain sections of the proletariat, while being in the majority in the country, which would extremely embarrass the proletarian revolution. Hence, only a stereotyped, vulgar, abstract, undialectical attitude towards the question can lead to the Social-Democratic view that a revolution with the proletariat in the minority is impossible.

A curious variation of the theory of the immaturity of the proletariat is represented by the point of view of A. Bogdanov. As is well-known Bogdanov has a special theory of the ripening of Socialist elements in the womb of capitalist society. According to this theory the working class can take up the task of capturing power for the purpose of Socialist construction only when it has at its command a sufficient number of trained men and is able to solve the most complex tasks of Socialist construction. Bogdanov's argument is fairly simple. He takes up a question like that of the "Plan," for example, and says: To draw up a plan of Socialist economy is an extremely complicated task, and if the task is one of organising Socialist society on a world scale, then the difficulties will increase immeasurably. To overcome these difficulties without possessing the necessary cultural-organisational pre-requisites is impossible. In so far as these pre-requisites do not yet exist, it stands to reason that it is impossible to bring forward the question of Socialist construction.

In view of the particularly original position taken up by A. A. Bogdanov we will quote the more characteristic passages in full. On page 38 of his pamphlet "Questions of Socialism," the author writes:

"The systematic organisation of human society pre-supposes the generalisation and socialisation of organisational experience and its crystallisation into scientific form. If that is not obtained it follows that the historic conditions for the fulfilment of this task have not yet ripened. It is as impossible as the system of machine production was impossible without the natural and technical sciences generalising and socialising technical experience."

And further, on p. 68 he says:

"The cultural independence of the proletariat at the present time is a fundamental and undoubted fact which must be honestly admitted and from which the programme for the immediate future must start out. The culture of a class is the combination of its organisational forms and methods. If that is the case, then what malicious irony or childish nonsense are those schemes for immediately imposing upon the proletariat the most radical, most complex and most difficult organisational world transformation in history! And this at a time when before our very eyes the proletariat's own organisations crumble and fall to pieces, frequently not as a result of blows from without."

In a certain sense, not less interesting is the point of view developed at one time by V. Bazarov which is quite close to the position taken by A. Bogdanov. Bazarov starts out from approximately the same premises as does Bogdanov, but he formulates his conclusions much more concretely and distinctly. It is worth while dealing with these conclusions while avoiding the argumentation, the general character of which has just been referred to. This is how they are formulated by the author. Analysing the Western European forms of State capitalism, V. Bazarov draws the the following conclusion:

"In view of what has been said above it seems to us absolutely incredible that the Labour Party in the fairly near future will be able to utilise this new form of the bourgeois system as an instrument for the establishment of a genuinely Socialistic planned economy. The only task accessible to it under present conditions is that formulated by the German opportunists, namely, the conversion of the profit-making system of economy 'into a State economic organisation for supplying the needs of the consumer' (Bedarfsdeckungswirtschaft) as is the clumsy designation of this new invention."

Modifying the ideas of the opportunists in the direction of the necessity for this organisation of State capitalism having an international character the author makes the following summary of his views:

"We are dealing here with a very extensive and complex organisation, but as this organisa does not break with the principles of coercive bourgeois-democratic politics; as, on the other hand, the general contours of this organisation are already beginning to take shape in the spontaneous processes taking place at the present time, a problem arises before contemporary democracy which, in principle, cannot be regarded as insoluble. On the question as to whether the proletariat will be able to show the required initiative and rally around itself the other democratic elements interested in the solution of the problem mentioned depends the progress of world history in the course of the next few decades or even the next centuries."

In a word, according to this Bazarov's argument about the lack of culture of the worker, we shall thank God if we, following the footsteps of the German opportunists, succeed in maintaining State capitalist organisations dominated by the bourgeois; as for constructing Socialism, it is idle to dream of it! For decades and perhaps for centuries, the proletariat will have to be satisfied with the entertaining occupation of supporting the capitalist system in its most concentrated form.

The Bogdanov-Bazarov "theory" of the cultural-organisational ripening of the proletariat in the lap of capitalist relations is utterly wrong; it contradicts the fundamental facts of the development of the working class and is utterly idealistic. It is wrong because it pre-supposes the possibility of the proletariat—the exploited and economically, politically and culturally oppressed class—"ripening" within the capitalist system sufficiently to be able immediately to undertake the management of the whole of society and to have within its ranks forces able to solve the most complex problems of the period of construction. Bogdanov and Bazarov fail to understand the difference in principle between proletarian and bourgeois revolutions, between the ripening of capitalism within the feudal system and the ripening of Socialism with the capitalist system. In this connection we have written:

"Within the capitalist system the proletariat reveals remarkable symptoms of future culture, remarkable possibilities of th future cultural development of humanity: but within this system the proletariat—the culturally oppressed class—cannot develop these symptoms sufficiently to prepare itself for the organisation of the whole of society.

"It will manage to prepare itself for the 'destruction of the old world.' It will 'change its nature and ripen as the organiser of industry' only in the period of its dictatorship." Consequently, the Bogdanov-Bazarov theory is wrong also, because it calls for far too much before the capture of power and because it fails to understand that the period of transition is a period of the cultural ripening of the proletariat. If the principles of Bogdanov's theory were correct, the problem of the proletarian revolution would be as insoluble as the problem of squaring the circle or of "perpetual motion."

Chapter 4: Capitalism in Russia

Chapter IV.

CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA

The criticism of Bolshevism expressed itself in similar forms on the question of the maturity of international capitalism, on the maturity of world economy. Bolshevism itself on this question was united and monolithic: on this question, on the question of immaturity of the capitalist relations, of world economy there have never been any differences in our Party. None of the shades of opinion, none of the tendencies within our Party expressed any scepticism on this question, not a single Bolshevik ever disputed the postulate of the ripeness of capitalism for the Socialist revolution on an international scale, primarily in the so-called advanced countries of Europe.

The situation is quite different, however, if we take up another question, namely, the question of the ripeness of capitalist relations in Russia: the answers to this question sound differently not only when we take the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Social-Democrats, the Socialist Revolutionaries and other compromising parties; this question was presented in various ways and received various solutions even within our own Party. Even now it is being presented in different ways; for the question of the possibility of constructing Socialism in our country is nothing more or less than the question of the character of our revolution. It has been formulated in this way more than once.

Here, too, it will not be without interest and not without utility to hear the opinion of the opponents in the Social-Democratic camp.

The pioneer in the fight against Bolshevism, around the question of the character of our revolution, was the well-known high priest of Social-Democracy, Karl Kautsky, who first came out mildly, then as a renegade and finally as an out and out counter-revolutionary. In his earlier pamphlets he wrote relatively mildly. In the pamphlet to which Lenin replied, Kautsky still kept within the bounds of decency, but even then he objectively served in the role of the subservient ideological hack of the bourgeoisie. In his works Kautsky presented the question of the character of our revolution fairly preciselу, clearly and definitely. In a bulky book bearing the title "The Proletarian Revolution and its Programme," he states directly that our revolution has the typical features of a bourgeois revolution. It could not be otherwise, he argues, because the revolution is taking place in a country, the capitalistic immaturity of which is generally admitted. Marx long ago said, stated this old bookman, that no new society can arise until the old society has exhausted all its productive possibilities. Consequently, Socialism is impossible if the previous stage of social development has not been completed, if the old society has not utterly exhausted itself. Thus armed, he commences a bold attack against the Bolsheviks who, from his point of view, have become absorbed in the role of midwife, but are performing it very clumsily, for they are trying to stimulate the mother to give birth long before she is supposed to, according to the laws of Nature. As a matter of fact, he argues, the Bolsheviks are not accoucheurs at all, but simply charlatan-quacks who advertised themselves as having undergone a course of training in the school of revolutionary midwifery, in the school of Marx. As a matter of fact they have no connection with the school of Marx, he cries. Mother Russia is not giving birth to Socialism at all; she is simply being experimented on by Bolshevik scoundrels.