The Socialist Industrial State

Kevin P. Lane, David Lane

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367287788
• eBook ISBN: 9781000312034
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Before beginning the study of the social system I have chosen to call 'state socialism', it is necessary to define the term and to describe the societies to which it is held to apply. A society may be defined as a behavioural system having three components: a distinct set of central or dominant value and beliefs, a number of social institutions, and patterns of interactions between individuals and institutions. What, then, are the distinguishing features of state socialism? The dominant values are those ofMarxism-Leninism, andthepeculiar institutions of the system stem from the state-owned means of production which determine man's relationship to property. The values laid down in the charter of the society are those of socialism: that is, a system of beliefs focused on the ultimate perfectibility of man, on the determining influence of class forces operating through the laws of historical and dialectical materialism. In state-socialist societies, the dominant institution is the Communist Party, which is considered to lead the working class and provides an authoritative interpretation of the laws of historical development, which in turn legitimate the Party's own political power. The appellation state focuses on the central role played by government and Party institutions in the process of these societies: not only do ownership and control of the means of production legally reside with the state, but it has the authority to mobilise the population to achieve the goals defined in the 'official charter'. In the patterns of interactions between institutions, the state (government and ruling party) plays a dominant role. Let us now turn from analytical concepts to consider some historical generalisations.

Part One
Meta-Theories of State Socialism

1
Marxist Approaches

The Legitimating Ideology of State-Socialist Societies

Every society is held together more or less by a system of values. Such values define what is 'sacred' in the society: they define the allegiances which man should have, they legitimate the distribution of power and justify the unequal division of wealth and status. The political rulers and the mass of the population are bound together by allegiances to these values, for no society is held together solely by force. A society's ideology or belief system attempts to legitimate its political system and to routinise values into obedience by the population. All societies, including state-socialist ones, have ideologies: 'Human societies secrete ideology as the very element and atmosphere indispensable to their historical respiration and life' (Althusser, 1969: 232). Under state socialism, the institutions of society, such as schools, political party, the family, are more or less linked to these values and the direction of social change is justified by them. The value system also acts as a constraint on the political elites: it defines the terms within which the rulers operate and plays a part in formulating policy.

A major distinction must be grasped between Marxism in western capitalist society, where it is critical of and destructive to the dominant ideology, and Marxism-Leninism in state-socialist society, where it legitimates the established order. The ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which developed in the USSR under Stalin, should not be equated with the writings of Marx and Lenin. It is qualitatively something different. Marxism-Leninism, then, is not merely an ideology which condones the domination of a ruling clique, but a value system which both guides and legitimates the activity of the ruling groups. In socialist societies the idea of a classless society lives in their ideology and men must be conditioned and transformed to achieve it. As Althusser has put it: 'In a classless society ideology is the relay whereby, and the element in which, the relation between men and their conditions of existence is lived to the profit of all men.'

It must be emphasised that the central value system of a society or its ideology is not the actual set of beliefs which all the citizens hold in that society, and it does not describe the political processes which take place. Certain groups or classes may oppose some or even all elements of the ideology and may wish to replace it with an alternative. The dominant value system in such a society is what the ruling class or ruling elites define as the normative order; it is the official charter which attempts to direct the activity of the society.

Many writers adopting different political stances emphasise the importance of the 'ruling ideas'. Daniel Bell, for instance, considers ideology in the Soviet Union to be of crucial significance and describes it as 'a self-conscious set of directives to change the society in accordance with a generalised theoretical doctrine'; 'ideological activism' he sees as a parallel to the American value system characterised by Talcott Parsons as one of 'instrumental activism' (Bell, 1966: 81, 174). In defining what is legitimate, by the same token, it specifies what is illegitimate and justifies the sanctions which are exerted against those who violate its charter. It should be made clear that the extent of social integration and the kinds of conflict which occur cannot be known directly from a study of the central or dominant value system but only from an empirical study of the processes of the social system. Recognition of the importance of ideology does not entail confusing it with the actual structure and processes of society. The critical evaluation of ideology and its impact on society and the ways it transforms (or prevents the transformation) of the social structure to achieve certain goals, are some of the most important tasks for study by sociologists. A discussion of the dominant or central system of values serves as a point of reference for analysing the structure and process of the system.

It should be emphasised that the discussion of Marxism-Leninism and other models which follow is not intended to be a description of the way the system actually works. Such description follows in the second and third parts of the book.

The Legitimating Function of Marxism-Leninism

The institutions and processes of all state-socialist societies are predicated on the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism. The legitimacy of the system, in its own terms, based on the theoretical analysis of society carried out by Marx and Lenin as interpreted by the ideological and political elites of a given society. This means that the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism is assumed to be the only true science of society. As the writings of Marx and Lenin are open to more than one interpretation, a second important assumption is that the only true account of their theories can be made by the Communist Party. These two assumptions are in Durkheim's sense 'sacred' and underpin the evolution of the official ideology. In capitalist-type societies the dominant value system is not defined in theoretical terms: in the United States and in France the statements of the Constitution are the nearest one has to an official charter - and these have to be interpreted in conjunction with other generalised values such as Christianity. In state-socialist societies the content of the central value system is more clear-cut. In the Soviet Union, it may be examined in official pronouncements and in the expositions contained in books such as Fundamentals of Marxism (Osnovy Marksizma-Leninizma', 1961), Fundamentals of Scientific Communism (Osnovy nauchnogo kommunizma; 1969) and Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (Marksistsko-Leninskaya filosofiya; 1972). These books, which are carefully composed by the Party elite, serve the purpose of selecting from the writings of Marx and Lenin those ideas which legitimate the structure and processes of the Soviet state. Until the split between the USSR and China these pronouncements were accepted by all states in the Communist bloc; and even since it, most of the essential viewpoints have been generally held.

What, then, are the distinguishing features of the official value system of Marxism-Leninism? They may be itemised as follows First, Lenin's acceptance of the unity of the thought of Marx and Engels which in practice emphasises Engels's interpretation of the 'mature' rather than the 'young' Marx and entails an emphasis on economic structures and class formations. Second, the acceptance of Lenin's theory of imperialism which gives underdeveloped countries an important, if not decisive, role in revolutionary activity in the twentieth century. Third, the addition to Marxist analysis of Lenin's theory of the Party as the articulator of the working class's interest. These components must be seen as forming an organic whole rather than, as is sometimes the practice, being considered in isolation. Hence the Party is seen as applying the laws of historical materialism as defined by Marx and Engels and it cannot realistically and sociologically be analysed as an organisational structure independently of its goals.

These views underpin the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of history and legitimate the actions of the Soviet leaders. In this light, the October Revolution in Russia made Soviet Russia, after a period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the first socialist society in world history. The Marxist-Leninist argument is that capitalism must be analysed on a world scale. Lenin's law of uneven development of the 'world system of imperialism' justifies the breaking down of capitalism at its 'weakest link'. That is where the economic and political contradictions become 'particularly acute', and in such countries 'the ruling classes prove incapable of coping with the revolutionary movement' (Kuusinen, 604). The 'front of imperialism' was broken first in Tsarist Russia. Then in Soviet Russia, the basis of a socialist society was built, thereby 'skipping' the full development of the capitalist stage. It is true that in Marx's original writing, the rise of a socialist system was not thought to occur in the less economically developed countries. Soviet Marxists, however, take the view that an imperialist interpretation of capitalism entails the working out of the laws of capitalist development in a way unforeseen by Marx - nevertheless, they still follow the sequence of the stages of historical development (primitive-communist, slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist). What distinguishes Leninism from Marxism is not that it stresses the 'voluntarist' aspect of Marxist thought as suggested by Bochenski (1966: 62) but the fact that the socialist revolution should be carried out by the Communist Party and in a society which had not completed the bourgeois stage of development. We might emphasise here that Lenin's contribution to Marxist theory involved devising first the law of uneven development which posed the possibility of the evolution of societies missing out the complete capitalist stage, and second, the development of the political party as an instrument of the working class to carry out the proletarian revolution.

The Marxist-Leninist Party is given a central place in the theory of all state-socialist societies. The essential task of the Party is to express 'the basic interests of the working class and to lead it to complete victory' (Kuusinen, 408). The Party is composed of a 'vanguard' of the working class, that is of class-conscious communists. It forms alliances with other parties and groups - especially sections of the peasantry - to overthrow capitalism. The Party's organisational structure is characterised by centralised leadership which unites revolutionary forces to achieve the goal of revolution. 'Absolute centralisation and the strictest discipline of the proletariat constitute one of the fundamental conditions for victory over the bourgeoisie' (Lenin, cited by Kuusinen, 412). The Party's centralism, however, is tempered by democratic participation - the election of the leading Party bodies and their accountability to Party organisations. Leninists (at least in Russia) have no confidence in the spontaneity of the working class to perceive its own class interests, and therefore the Party has to channel the workers' activity into the revolutionary cause. Even with the maturation of socialism, the Party is necessary to articulate and to aggregate the interest of the working class. Students of political theory may note that Lenin and his followers suggest a solution to Rousseau's problem of how the 'general will' of a society is defined and recognised: it is the interest of the working class expressed through the Party.

The Dictatorship of the Working Class: the People's Democracy

These ideas shape the Marxist-Leninist conception of the form of their own society. It is theoretically possible for societies under certain conditions to move to socialism without first completing the full stage of capitalism. This, however, involves an intermediary or transitional stage. In the USSR this social formation was called the dictatorship of the proletariat. This transitional stage lasted in the Soviet Union until 1936. In other state-socialist societies its legal title is that of a People's Republic, which is not quite the same thing as dictatorship of the proletariat. The importance of this stage in the contemporary world is that most of the countries in Eastern Europe (Czechoslovakia is a notable exception) are still passing through it. These states, then, are not yet socialist but, headed by their Communist Parties,* are either creating the preconditions for the development of socialism or are actively building it.

During this period, the class struggle continues and may even become more acute. A workers' state apparatus is strengthened and becomes, as it were, the executive arm of the proletariat and the Communist Party seeks to consolidate its position of power by eliminating class opposition. In doing so, it may form alliances with other classes (such as the poor peasantry) and strata (for instance the employed intelligentsia), thus giving rise to a 'people's democracy' (not all 'the people' are members of the working class). The task of 'socialist construction' follows the consolidation of power and is characterised by state control of most industry and other social institutions. The theoretical nature of the stage of transition may be illustrated by considering the 1954 Constitution of the People's Republic of China.

In the Maoist view it may take several generations and continual struggle on the part of the Party to build a socialist society. In China, the Communist revolution is considered to be the culmination of the struggle of the Chinese people against oppression. Though this revolution was led by the Party of the working class, it was more than a proletarian revolution and its popular character left its imprint on the social order which was created in 1949. The preamble to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1954) makes clear that it is a 'people's democratic dictatorship'. The Communist Party of China, which seeks to bring about the 'socialist industrialisation' of the country, leads 'all democratic classes, democratic parties and groups, and people's organisations'. In 1963 there were nine political parties in existence (the Communist Party of China, the Revolutionary Committe of the Kuomintang, the China Democratic League, the China Democratic National Construction Association, the China Association for Promoting Democracy, the Chinese Peasants' and Workers' Democratic Party, the China Chih Kung Tang, the Chiu San Society, and the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League). These parties, of course, accept the leadership of the Communist Party and its general objectives. The first article of the 1954 Constitution defines the Republic as a 'people's democratic state led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants'. Like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic has state and cooperative forms of ownership, but in addition it also until recently had 'ownership by individual working people and capitalist ownership' (Article 5). Thus the law protected the 'right of peasants to own land and other means of production' (Artide 8) and 'the right of capitalists to own means of production and other capital' (Article 10).

The Constitution of 1975 presents a radically changed picture. The People's Republic is regarded as 'a socialist state of proletarian dictatorship' and the Chinese Communist Party is the 'core of leadership of the whole Chinese people'. No rights to capitalist forms of ownership are mentioned and the main categories of ownership are socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective ownership by masses of working people. The Chairman of the Party is also head of state and commander of the armed forces.

Similar conditions have existed in other People's Democracies and reflect, beside economic position, the cultural heritage of particular countries. In Poland, for instance, not only is. the class of private entrepreneurs important but also the intelligentsia still keeps much of its prestige and life-style inherited from pre-socialist Poland (Szczepanski 1970: Chapter 6). Polish sociologists regard the intelligentsia as something more than a specialised stratum of the working class.

It is in this heterogeneous class context that the Marxist-Leninist Party is conceived of as leading the society forward to socialism. Official Marxism-Leninism accepts the existence of antagonistic contradictions; and the state, as an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat, plays an important role in resolving them. With the advent of socialist society antagonistic classes (those based on private property) disappear, the dictatorship of the proletariat by the Communist Party becomes transformed into a leadership function, and the oppressive role of the state begins to wither away. The relatnioship between the basis and the superstructure of the society is considered to reach a high level of congruity. The Soviet Union was the first and is the most developed model of a Marxist-Leninist socialist society. Let us therefore turn to consider its legitimating ideology.

Socialist Society

The Soviet Union since 1936 has been a socialist society; it has a 'Socialist mode of production . . . based on social ownership of the means of production'. The abolition of private ownership of the means of production and its replacement by 'state socialist property' and control of the 'production process of the entire national economy on a country-wide scale' (Kuusinen, 694) create the basis of a socialist mode of production. On this view, the means of production are owned and directed by those who take part in the productive process, and therefore there can be no class conflict between owners and workers and there can be no class exploitation. 'Since they jointly own social property and jointly participate in the social production process, all peoples are equal and their relations are based on the principles of comradely co-operation and mutual assistance' (Kuusinen, 695). Surplus value and class exploitation cannot exist under Soviet socialism 'because the means of production belong to the working people . . . who cannot exploit themselves'; and surplus product is utilised for the benefit of the people as a whole. It should be emphasised that in Marxist terms 'the basis' of the socialist system, according to the official ideology, is state ownership and control of the means of production. 'On behalf of society, the state directs the whole of the social production as a single process. While the state remains the owner of the means of production, it places the means of production at the disposal of various collective bodies for their use. In saying that under socialism people consciously direct their own social development, one has in mind that they do this through the Party and state, whose function it is to lead and organise the socialist economy' (Kuusinen, 696).

Given the determining role derived from Marxist theory of the basis in relation to the superstructure, it too therefore has a socialist character. The political superstructure, the state (made up of government and the Communist Party) is brought into 'agreement' with the economic base; this was put clearly by Stalin when in 1936 he wrote that there was a perfect correspondence between basis and superstructure. The Communist Part...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• PART ONE: META-THEORIES OF STATE SOCIALISM
• 1 Marxist Approaches
• 2 Non-Marxist Meta-Theories
• 3 A Developmental Approach
• PART TWO: POLITICAL SYSTEM AND PROCESS
• 4 The Political System and Culture
• 5 The Political Elites
• 6 Counterpoints to the Soviet Model
• PART THREE: THE SOCIAL STUCTURE
• 7 Social Inequalities: Occupational and Status Groupings
• Bibliography
• Index