main page

SOCIALISM AND PERESTROIKA: WHO WINS?
(Response to Gorbachev)

by Oleg Arin
(Rafik Aliyev)

It was Bernstein who stated: "Movement is all, goal is nothing." With its Marxist-Leninist foundation, Communist ideology predefined both intermediary and final goals.

Five-year plans, or state law to which they could be referred, were introduced with the intent of pre-evaluating an inevitable fulfillment. With each successive intermediate failure however, these goals became increasingly and most obviously unattainable. In short, Perestroika had begun.

At the onset, the necessity to replace a faulty administrative-command system was clear. With this realization, construction began. Comparative change being the sole model of growth, it blossomed into what became an intense five year search, encompassing economic chaos, political instability, and national conflict. Amidst the turmoil however, the manifesting roots of clearly positive accomplishment, most evidently glasnost, had sprung. With new found insight, the U.S.S.R. evaluated its actual condition. Soviet history was to be re-discovered, and a favorable revolutionary awareness of the exterior world was born.

Politicized masses, including communists, demanded socially oriented expositions of their country's direction compared to that of the Western world. The crucial question -- What is socialism?, was consummate. After 73 years of service, the implications and validity of socialist rule were to be scrutinized.

Laymen and professionals alike, drew conflicting conclusions. Some denied the existence of socialism altogether, others admitted to a distorted one. Fervent hate for discussion of any sort in the light of social deprivation loomed. Still others hailed Andropov's archetype as the prematurely extinguished ideal, replacing a faulty Stalinist predecessor. Even leading officials were confused.

The only objective clear to the country leadership at the time was an end to the disarray. Society, accustomed by government to ideological unanimity and straightforwardness of target, was conceived to be unable to bear the uncertainty.

Replying from the pinch, Mikhail Gorbachev (Initiator of Perestroika in 1985), published what was meant to be the quintessential viewpoint in the Soviet daily newspaper "Pravda" of November 26, 1989. This article is marked by the fact that its main theses became central points in the new draft of the Party's Central Committee platform approved by the Central Committee Plenary meeting in February of 1990. Within the current analysis of socialism, this article has only timidly and abstractly been made reference to. No extractions have been employed in research works or speeches by advocates of socialism.

On the contrary, the article is justified a detailed analysis, just because of its author on whose viewpoints and actions the future of Perestroika depends. Soviet destiny can still be defined unfortunately by one man.

After publication of Gorbachev's article, tremendous changes swept across Eastern Europe. Soviet internal unrest grew in magnitude and in accordance, concessions by Gorbachev concerning the major thesis of his article might have been anticipated. Conversely, however, in adhering to his own belief in the fundamental unchanging "strategical approaches," without which it is "impossible to move forward," Gorbachev denies his country the benefits of a cause and effect lifestyle. It is not the validity of his statement that is in question, but rather a reevaluation of these designated and fundamental approaches; more specifically, framework restructure.

THE MEANING AND DESTINATION OF PERESTROIKA

Gorbachev's article defines the path of Perestroika as being Leninist in fundament: "To explore how the future evolves from the present, and accordingly design plans," it states. Without publicizing this strategy however, Gorbachev voices opposition to "other plans." He writes: "Which alternative conceptions are being offered? They do not exist as such." What then does exist? As Gorbachev depicts, only two choices prevail; the first being the preservation of the so-called "command-administrative system," the second, based on the proof by post revolutionary Soviet history that Great October's ideal fell short of its goal, suggesting society be redirected to capitalism. "Is it possible for us to follow these paths? No, we reject them," he affirms.

This statement leads to many new questions. For whom does Gorbachev proclaim the rejection of these various courses of direction? Are "we" the Politburo, Party Central Committee, the Party itself or perhaps society? Are there not communists in support of Gorbachev rejected viewpoints? Do the leaders of the Leningrad party section reject the administrative-command system? Does the Interregional parliamentary group reject the "capitalization of society?" Finally, is not the style of such an attack on different viewpoints similar to that of the infamous Gorbachev predecessors? Without counterpoising two party leaders, the pertinence of Alexander Yakovlev's quotation: "To play the role of the thought monopolist is the unpardonable vanity and self-deception" is overtly clear.

Less salient however is the subject matter, a fact of which Mr.Gorbachev is well aware. Aside from the two choices already discarded, Gorbachev and the party-state power are actualize their claim to the only feasible alternative. The paradox is that this official concept (of Perestroika) itself comprises both the still existent structure of the administrative-command system and the arising elements of the "capitalization of the society."

Embodying diverse extracts of frequently contradictory conceptions, it establishes the very conditions for the economic chaos and political instability it attempts to resolve.

If stability or a stable equilibrium are achieved as an aftereffect of the transitory period now in existence (a commonly noted phenomenon), society could be destined for development so long as the catalyst has been public and economic freedom. Danger lies, however, in the attainment of stability by way of return to the command-administrative system, thus seeing no conclusion to the degradation of society.

So long as Gorbachev views the country's progress in a socialistic light, then his appeal to revive the Marxist-Leninist thinking which roots go to Marxist ideology and which he considers to be one of the "most influential world ideologies," is unconcealed apparent. The basis of this declaration, however, imparts justified skepticism. Colonel Gadhafi might disagree with Gorbachev because in his opinion, the most influential world ideology is that of Jamakheria The North Korean leaders believe it to be the Chu-Chkhe ideology and most currently, the Maoist ideology for the Chinese was bestowed the same respect.

Here the implication of ideology versus achievement is controvertible One might argue that Western ideologies are indefinable in the shadow of their so visible achievement. Are Swedish, Swiss and Austrian ideologies for example exercised more modestly or "paraded" less than their Soviet counterpart? Francis Fukui concludes that the way of thinking with ideology in contemporary life has exhausted itself. This deduction however, is not necessarily accurate. The existent ideologies of anti-Marxism and consequently, anti-communism inflicts an influence not necessarily weaker than that of Marxist ideology of today.

MARXISM-LENINISM AND THE THEORY OF SOCIALISM

World history here poignantly raised the question of the vitality of the socialist concept. Are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to blame for the severe degree to which those countries employing socialism demonstrated failure?

It is known that Soviet scientists, philosopher Alexander Tsipko for example, concede that "tremendous responsibility for the further evolution of socialism must be directed at Marx and Engels, especially in view of the Marx's Utopia backed strategic program of the Bolsheviks." Mikhail Gorbachev bluntly refutes this thesis He claims that Marx and Engels set forth the "appeal to struggle" for socialism; just the "general theoretical model of tendencies of social progression," without elaborating on future formations. He blatantly discredits the extent to which the founders developed the idea of postcapitalist societies.

Details were in fact not delineated by Marx and Engels; their description of the essential principles of communism was nevertheless thorough. (Suffice it to say that a reading of Engel's "Anti-During" and Marx's "Critics of the Gott program" as well as their correspondences to each other during 1875-1883 best demonstrates this.) Many events they foresaw were actualized, many were not. Marx and Engels were indisputably however, the greatest scholars of their time. Fault for their misunderstood teachings must be directed elsewhere. By whom then and to which extent was socialism elaborated? To a certain strained extent, it refers to Lenin who did not complete the concept either. "He completed only a preliminary outline -- approaches it," accurately remarks Gorbachev. The accomplishment of Lenin was his declaration of the need for external socialist alterations.

This proclamation was however so imprecise, that it allowed for the penetration of Bukharin, Trotsky and Stalin devised versions. The result was a melange of the new Marx-Engels ideas, Lenin's plans and the practices of the newborn republic's formative years. The theory was an abstract-theoretical archetype of socialism that Stalin incorrectly named Marxism-Leninism. Following this exact exemplar, "socialism" in the U.S.S.R. began to develop. The equivalent was promptly imposed upon Eastern European countries, China, North Korea and Indochina; their ensuing fatalistic results are known.

The elaboration of intrinsic aspects in preference to a holistic approach of socialism by its founding fathers, plainly ascertains the unsuitability of its sub-title "Marxism-Leninism and the theory of Socialism." More appropriately, one might designate Marx and Lenin the constructors of the theory of the class struggle and the theory of the revolutions that follow.

SOCIALIST CONCEPT AND SOCIALIST ACHIEVEMENTS

LENIN: "COMPLETE REVERSAL OF THE VIEWPOINT OF SOCIALISM"

Following the October Socialist Revolution, debates concerning its historical inevitability transpired across the West. In the U.S.S.R. this subject was deliberated only after 1985. In response to the question of its inevitability, Gorbachev writes: "Not a single revolution occurs according to pre- meditation, not a single revolution gives the exact results expected from it by it's participants, -- the entire past historical experience confirms it."

This latter statement is axiomatic, however concerning the revolutions, it is possible to agree with Gorbachev only if past and present bourgeois (not socialist) revolutions are implied. Bourgeois Bastille for example was destroyed by the spontaneity of the French under the slogan of "Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood," not "Long Live Bourgeois Revolution." As unexpected for the GDR and Romanian authorities today, are the uprisings under the slogans of freedom and democracy This poses no threat for confusion, since these supposedly socialist European countries are in actuality better defined as feudal-socialistic. Their consequent drive for the free market principles and close co-operation with Western Europe only confirm this conjecture, even if the move is labeled a progressive stage of socialism.

The October Revolution is altogether different. The Bolsheviks, backed by Marx and Engels' theory of the historical mission of the proletariat, the experience of the Paris Commune as well as their own 1905 Revolution, were prepared well in advance. After the February Revolution of 1917 (which occurred with no plan whatsoever) the Bolsheviks "planned" their "socialist revolution" that was implemented in stages after the mutiny led by Kornilov. The precise timing could be defined not even in days but in hours: "Today is early, tomorrow is late," said Lenin's slogan. It was the uprising of the professional revolutionists who knew or at least to whom it seemed exactly what future society they were fighting for. This contrasts sharply with the revolutions of the Cromwell and Robespierre times. The ease with which the Bolsheviks overtook their party in power is an interesting fact, however most important is that the revolution was undertaken with socialist, not democratic slogans.

Did this revolution have an alternate course? History of similar events has proven the feasibility of varied choices. Gorbachev reasons the only substitute recourse to have been "the anarchic revolt and military dictatorship, thus precursing a reactionary, anti-human regime." To accord with this statement, the fact that no single anti-human regime in world history had succeeded Stalinism in the scale of slaughtering its own people must be realized. (Stalinist advocates attempted similar procedures in China and Cambodia.) The October was nevertheless not an error. In their conscious effort at preparing a revolution, the Bolsheviks could hardly have imagined the tragedy for Russia it was to become.

The historical importance of this event remains tremendous. It's results have stood as a deterrent for other countries contemplating similar experiments. Soviet sociologist E. Arab-Ogli humorously remarks: "Russia saved the world for the second time -- initially from the tatar invasion, second from socialism; that is, the one that we have built." Hence Gorbachev's sympathetic response to the effect of the October Revolution being the "great world-scale breakthrough for the future," seems quite inappropriate. It could be a breakthrough had it succeeded as planned. The results unfortunately, were anonymous. It was not a movement forward, but backward to the feudal barrack-like communism.

To a certain extent, the New Economic Policy (NEP), introducing capitalist methods to liven up the sagging socialist economy, stalled the adverse motion. (The NEP that was officially considered the deviation from socialism whence socialism had not yet been conceived.) There was no time however for the building of anything during the stormy Civil War years. One can thus conclude the existence of the socialist idea only.

BUREAUCRATIC DEFORMATIONS OF THE SOCIALIST IDEA

Gorbachev's question of how Stalin succeeded in imposing his program upon the party and the entire society does not procure a direct answer. His revelations do not amplify the victory of Stalinism over socialist rule, and although the socialist distortion has been delineated in the works of Soviet sociologists and journalists alike, Gorbachev's version demands contemplation.

First, I wanted to repeat, there was no theory of socialism. Marx elaborated the theory of communism "in the form of a general theoretical model for the tendencies of the social progress" as is stated in the article. Lenin, as Gorbachev explains, did not go further than the "preliminary outlines, approaches" to the socialist theory Consequently, the followers of Marx and Lenin had a vast creative choice in formulating the socialist conception. Their main consideration shifted from the contents of the theory to a description of their immediate Soviet reality and it's theoretical basis. Thus it was the NEP that adversely influenced the establishment of the future political structure.

During the NEP period, favorable progress of the economy clearly established the dispensability of the strong state power along with the party and it's leadership. This meant that the multi-structure economy, giving way for co-operation, private property and individual enterprises, was leading to the triumph of the free market economy. The futility of power and political battle became self-evident in light of the now freely developing economy. This justified Stalin's fearful sentiments as well as those of his rivals for the security of their respective parties. They soon joined in mutual support of Stalin's policy to smother the NEP.

The economic industrialization policy introduced in 1928, was followed by the inevitable attack on the peasantry. Market principles were ravaged and the subjection of the economy to state rule brought new strength. The remodeled political superstructure became the dominating force and, thanks to the efforts of Stalinist ideologists, was supported by a corresponding economy. The natural laws of development were superseded by the Will alone (bearing strong resemblance to Schopenhauer's theory), and their conscious control and administration of these steps must be speculated. Intuition nevertheless, did not fail "the Father of all Nations" to which Stalin was later referred The theoretical background for all these "anti-natural" measures which almost all post-Lenin Bolshevik leaders participated in forming, presently takes the guise of what is termed "command-administrative system" (CAS). As philosopher V. Mezhuev comments, the conclusion is that the "reality was raped and the idea covered with shame."

Secondly. The question of what was deformed and by whom arises. Either Lenin, with the introduction of the NEP and it's multi-structural, market-element including economy distorted the barrack-like Communism of the Civil war period, or Stalin by his subjection to state rule of everything including freedom of thought, distorted the NEP to the same regressive result. In any case, socialism did not exist and could henceforth not be deformed.

Lenin's belief that the initial forms of socialism were presented in the political superstructure and never actualized in the economy, may be noted for further accuracy. As criteria, Lenin noted the construction of the Marxist party, Marxist ideology and the dictatorship of the proletariat; all components which were destroyed and replaced with the Stalinist party, Stalinist ideology and Stalin's own personality cult.

Third, the infliction of the "socialist theory" on the masses had few obstacles in its path. Minimal intelligentsia remained to pose any opposition since they had been banished from the country, placed into concentration camps or murdered. Being deprived of their intellectual and educating force and being for the most part illiterate themselves, ordinary people consequently accepted Stalin's lie about socialism. When Mr. Gorbachev writes that "in spite of all deformations, deep inside their mind the people preserved a humanistic understanding of socialism, attempting to utilize every given opportunity to its surrender," one cannot help asking where and when the masses acquired this understanding of socialism. It is hardly feasible to assume that this profound socialist cognition occurred simultaneously with the Civil War or after their systematic genocide by the same "socialist" rule.

Gorbachev's extremely merciful estimation of the Stalin period; that era of genocide, crimes and "blunders" in foreign policy as they were called -- the "epoch of original fascism" as Nikolai Berdyaev writes, must also be observed. It is graciously described by Gorbachev as the substructure or "leading to the authoritarian command-bureaucratic administrative system." This pacifistic definition might more appropriately have emanated from the Khrushchev and Brezhnev conservative periods.

Denying the socialist label of the U.S.S.R. political and economic system even in its distorted version of CAS, scholars continue to formulate their definitions. Editor-in-chief German Diligensky of the "World Economy and International Relations" monthly journal states: "It could be defined as a solely state controlled mechanism of production." V.Radaev and O. Shkaratan use the term "etacratism" meaning "society based on the totalitarian power of the state, where all human activity is considered part of the state activity and interests of the people are reduced to those of the state." Even those scholars adhering to the Marxist historical concept employing the terminology of Marx and Lenin, define the Soviet system as a feudal barrack-like communism Western scholars simply call it totalitarianism.

Due to the absence of a parallel in world history, this vast range of definitions is easily explained. "Socialism" however, is not the definite. Although the concept of socialism must first be clarified, it can be said that until April of 1985, the system was a state formation embodying the worst elements of all history since the times of slavery. In addition, both it's economic basis and political superstructure elements were subject only to the forceful degradation of the human being. This idea was most eloquently expressed in 1974 by A. Sakharov's visions of the future totalitarianism in the article "World in the next Century:" "Party and state monopoly in all the spheres of economic, political, ideological and cultural activities, the burden of the hidden bloody crimes of the recent past, permanent oppression of free thought, hypocritical self-praising dogmatic and often nationalistic ideology, separation of these (totalitarian) societies from the free world; the prevention of their citizens from free contacts with those of other countries, the formation of the selfish, immoral and hypocritically ruling bureaucratic class -- these are the groundwork not just for unfavorable conditions within a society, but for a far greater danger to the whole of humanity."

In April of 1985, the Plenary meeting of the Communist Party Central Committee was held. Like the powerful melodic combinations of the "Fantastic Symphony" of Berlioz, it's enlightening innovating spread throughout the Soviet Union as heralds of the thunderstorm. The 27th Party Congress and the All-Union Party Conference maintained hope for change. A captivates world looked to Moscow.

PERESTROIKA AND THE VISION OF SOCIALISM

Most acclaim for the initiation and execution of the revolutionary Perestroika has been directed toward the Party and it's leaders. This commonly accepted notion however, is objectionable.

The Soviet state, harboring sufficient internal explosiveness to obliterate all existent political constructions, was thrust out of necessity into concessions This act of self-preservation as

recognized by the "progressive" party leaders, was not unlike the undertakings in 1860 by Alexander the Second who similarly sensed the faltering foundations of his political framework. So common sense coupled with good hearing might be considered the greatest, most critical assets of the new generation of Party leaders.

In any case, the prosperous Party structures could hardly have been considered the proponents of Perestroika; their party masses being at most dissatisfied with their immediate condition. It was in fact the dissidents, those Soviet immigrants who publicly displayed their outrage at the decayed nucleus of society that initiated the change. Naturally, their same oppressors adopted this vision, and credited themselves with its birth.

Perestroika had begun. According to Gorbachev's article, it was meant to form a new image of socialism, supported by a corresponding forward motion by society. What then is this new image and perhaps more importantly, upon what principles is it based?

Firstly, as quoted by Gorbachev, "the idea of socialism in our today's understanding is basically the idea of freedom," (contradictory in hindsight to our yesterday's understanding of non-freedom). Is it conceivable for the socialist society not to be free, if this definition is obeyed? Allowing for this prospect permits the question of the extent to which it is socialist. Freedom of thought and conscience being the primary concern during the classical bourgeois and actualized in almost all capitalistic societies, bears obvious great resemblance to the freedom of socialism. Mr. Gorbachev clearly states that "The socialist conception of freedom is organically connected with the idea of collectivism and communal values." Here however, the limitations begin.

The affiliation of personal with collective freedom has been a classic tendency by socialist ideologists. In practice, this linkage procures non-freedom. In his time, Soviet democrat Alexander Gertsen presumed the value of freedom to be "a thing in itself, end in itself, and really is what it appears to be. To sacrifice it for something else means to sacrifice the human being as such." Communist ideology varies again, as was expressed with pain by the non-Communist philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, who wrote: "The conception of freedom by communist ideology refers only to the collective and not personal mind. The personality has no freedom within the social collective, boundaries; it has not personal conscience nor self-realization." But, as it is said he is not "our" philosopher. At least Marxist or those considering themselves as such should know that freedom is the economic theory, actualized at the separation of man from his tools of production and when his labor becomes a product. Only under these conditions can a man be free, and that only with the accompaniment of a market economy. This idea was fundamentally elaborated by Milton Friedman in his work "Capitalism and Freedom" of 1961. Outside these economic circumstances, the arguments for freedom become senseless. A society without the development of a market economy could never provide the conditions for true freedom.

Secondly, one of the most important socialist principles is that of factual socialization of production -- the means of production owned not individually but by the whole, it's products retail goods. The possibility of state ruled productions is while not a necessary element, not ruled out as a possibility. Common property is given priority but a variety of other forms are accepted.

At first analysis this combination looks very promising, at second, doubtful, at third absurd. Why is priority given to common property? Private property comparatively has never proven it's economic inferiority, though this fact could not have been tested since there was no "factual" socialization. The very suggestion of this unestablished, unproved idea seems ludicrous. Furthermore, is not the idea of socialization of production absurd in itself when society is replaced with just a dominating state? Even of variety of production forms does not necessarily lead to true socialization so long as controlling and regulating functions are left to the state. The practice of suppressing the co-operative movement in Russia, the movement for establishing the elements of private property, asserts this idea. Gorbachev fails to mention private property which according to (socialist) property law, is not included into the "variety" of property forms. Consequently, no market of labor forces or capital can exist. The so-called "socialist market" is deemed little more than a state-controlled policy. The combination of words in the Party Central Committee program draft "plan-market economy" in reality means neither plan nor market (as is presently visible in the volatile Soviet situation). The principle of socialization, though externally socialistic is in fact a labyrinth of internal disorder.

Thirdly, the principle of humanism and social fairness arises. Gorbachev stresses "the gravitation center here belongs to the socialist theory and there forms its specific difference," thus implying the superiority of socialism in that respect. He maintains that "this gives the strength, not the weakness to the socialist formation." The peremptory tone of these statements is at least shocking In defining the strength of these indications, the establishment of the societies to which they could be applied is imperative. To the entrenched Soviet society aged 70 years plus, the words "humanism" and "social fairness" are shamefully applied. As abstract slogans they are relevant to all societies. Their concrete contents however depend upon what the society understands by it.

Fourthly, Gorbachev quotes: "The essential feature of socialism is the assertion of the true sovereignty of the people." According to Colonel Gadhafi, such sovereignty or "true socialism" in Libya, the "nation of masses" prevails. Perhaps Mr. Gorbachev accords with these sentiments. Soviet reality however dictates the complete absence of this essential feature, consequently that of

socialism as well.

Thereafter, Gorbachev's citation that "socialism is the bearer and protector of democratic and human ideals and values" is clearly absurd. How can such noble humanistic functions be attributed to an undefined, in fact non-existent concept? Without a clear socialist understanding and actualization, it's implications fall little short of idiocy.

THE NEW IMAGE OF SOCIALISM

These words in themselves connote an old socialist conception, understood as embodying the entire post-October history of barrack-like socialism of the Civil War, ten years of NEP, genocide in the form of Eastern tyranny later and finally, the administrative-command system.

All preceding images of socialism excluding NEP were, according to Gorbachev, aimed against humanity. While the old image delineates humiliation and degradation for its society, the new Gorbachev inspired vision might for the sake of simplicity, be termed "humane."

This humane socialism, forming part of the principle thesis of the Party Central Committee platform draft, could not be defines when so requested by the academician Sergei Shatalin at the Central Committee Plenary meeting in February of 1990. Perhaps Gorbachev's article or the entire platform itself are meant to answer it. Clearly however, the concept of "humane socialism" is accepted as is the understanding of the inhumane one, thus admitting to the history of socialism since 1917. This includes the slightly distorted periods of Stalin's butchery, Brezhnev's imbecility and the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

What then can be discerned as new in this "new image of socialism?" Economically speaking, Gorbachev maintains it is the "variety of forms of socialist property." This "variety," basically

synonymous with "socialist market" or state dominance, is enforced by Gorbachev's comment that "we don't need to refuse the generally known advantages of central planning as well as large-scale

planning." A stereotypical vision of the "worldly-known advantages" of central and large scale planning ensues; the unspecified times and locations forming a most intriguing groundwork for Gorbachev's argument to control the economic machine of a modern state. Can one argue a difference from the "old" national economic calamity, encompassing party state power, monopoly of ministers and subsequently the card system of food and life good's distribution?

"The life obliges us to confirm the advantage of our socialist formation on the field of the structural economic changes," announces Gorbachev The results of Gorbachev and Ryzshkov's "Long- term state program for the complex production development of the Far Eastern economic region for the period up to the year 2000," of August 19, 1987 are however, clearly visible. This program, serving only to preserve the old economic structure, ignored not only its goal and the examples of previous failures but further reinforced the lack of credibility where Gorbachev's Soviet economy inferred statements are concerned. The "advantages of our formations" are lucid.

"In the field of politics the modernization of socialism leads to the provision of the true sovereignty of the people by forming the mechanisms of the civilian society and lawful state," Gorbachev continues . The Party Central Committee platform draft correspondingly affirms: "The policy of the Party proceeds from the recognition of the sovereign will of people as the only basis for power. The state, common to all people, excludes the dictatorship of any classes or bureaucratic clans and is the Republic of the Soviets -- providing for all people equal possibilities for governmental posts and the participation in state affairs."

Consequently, if the Marxist foundation (suggested by Gorbachev) is ignored, then the concept of sovereignty of people can clearly be identified as unanimous with such Constitutions as the U.S.A., West Germany or France. "State, common to all people" becomes the fruition of nonsense, since the declaration of "the people's self- government" coerces the abolition of any further institution in itself, be it lawful or not. Conversely, if the state power in its governmental form is preserved, then the self-government of the people dissipates. Furthermore, it is not quite clear how the state, "common to all people" will function without bureaucracy. "Pravda" Party Daily editor A. Ilyin argued "mistakenly": "If the Party loses control over power today, that is, goes out of the hierarchical state structures who will take the bid for power -- the people? It is well known that in any country people themselves do not exercise direct power." Intending to support the Central Committee platform, A. Ilyin reflected sovereignty in its truthful definition. The necessity for a clear understanding of the relations between state and society, democracy and freedom and all implicit interconnections becomes most apparent.

Gorbachev and the platform draft make appeals for a new "democratic socialism." Leninist works expound the idea of democracy as the dictatorship of the majority over the minority and vice-versa. History has also shown democracy in it' s former variant to be exemplified by strength of crowd; this tendency apparent in societies with low cultural levels and most visibly in political cultures. The direct path to personal dictatorship or personality cult was thus inevitable.

According to the Party platform, this potential path is not excluded from developmental possibilities. "The necessity to establish the post of the state leader in the form of presidency arises more and more urgently in the society," states not the society or Party, but the Party Central Committee leaders intent on preserving the current power structure at all costs. With the publication of this article, Gorbachev will already have been elected President thus satisfying his personal aspiration for power. The elections' procedure will definitely have been contrary to any democratic norms (not excluding the bourgeois understanding) and to the standards of the "socialist democracy." Everything maintains it's familiarity -- words remain words, and deeds accord to the practice of the preexisting socialist construction of 73 years.

The Party, as defined by the platform draft is "meant to be the avant-garde of Soviet society." To the question of who decided what is "meant," Gorbachev answers: "To develop the people's

initiative and the processes of democratization of social life within the framework of the one-party system, is the noble and difficult mission of the Party." After continued uprisings resulting in the collapse of the one-party system, this statement was excluded from the Platform draft. Vast changes throughout Eastern Europe further evidenced the foolishness of the system; thus convincing even the most orthodox Central Committee Party Secretaries at the Plenary meeting of February of this year.

Concerning social insurance policies and international relations, Gorbachev's obviously neglectful revelations do not justify discussion.

In concluding his article, Mr. Gorbachev defines socialism as being a "democratic, humane" conception. This widely advertised definition was declared "nonsense" by academician Shatalin of

the February Meeting, one of only two participants displaying any associated interest. "Socialism," declares Shatalin, "can be of only one type -- so-ci-a-lism! But a clear definition is a must." Gorbachev in his definition writes: "Socialism, toward which we are moving in the process of Perestroika, is the society encompassing as basic elements effective economy, scientific technological advancements and a humanized social structure; the democratization of all aspects of social life, thus effectively generating the conditions for active and creative human life." With the exclusion of the word "socialism," one might mistakenly assume that Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, U.S.A. or even Japan are inferred -- these societies all having attained the socialist ideal without Marxism-Leninism, without the Communist Party and without the bloody experiments of socialism. All these so-called "contemporary capitalist" societies appear to coalesce with Mr. Gorbachev's definition precisely.

SOCIALISM, CONVERGENCE ETC.

In likening Gorbachev's definition to those of leading Soviet philosophers, legal experts and politologists, a lack of conclusiveness is uniformly apparent, German Diligensky for example, declares: "Socialism is mainly the value system, humanistic in it's essence." Yevgeny Arab-Ogli asserts that "in an abstract way, it is the liberation of labor, complex individual development, harmonious relations between society and nature, and confidence of people in their future." Not without reason, Professor M. Baglai remarks that without a definition of the socialist concept, discussion of socialist property and socialist market is meaningless. He states: "There are three main requirement for socialism: liberty, labor and social justice." Having complete awareness of the actualization of these principles in Western societies, Baglai comments: "Socialism does not have to invent in all cases it's own democratic institutions of power. In general, they have been formed in world practice and are universal." The unbounded applicability of these definitions is exceedingly conspicuous, to which V.V. Nikitin, First Deputy Prime Minister of the U.S.S.R. accedes as well.

If the country leadership should be committed to building a society that by history's logic is superior to capitalism, what then might this potential superiority be? Sensing their helplessness in defining the essential characteristics of socialism, some ideologists see the solution in the Bernstein formula "Movement is all, goal is nothing," which was ardently criticized by Lenin. Renowned economist Evgeniy Ambartsumov, remembering the "ethical socialism" of Bernstein, suggested that socialism might be considered a "process, movement." The formula seemingly appeases rightists, leftists and populists alike, uniting them as such.

Be that as it may, the socialist-based Perestroika of society could be welcomed, had all talks of democracy, humanism and justice not been contrary to the mechanism of their actualization. In spite of cosmetic repairs to this mechanism, it's predominant structures remained intact; these including central planning, state property, dictatorship of the Communist Party (even in the possible allowance of a multi-party system), and weakness of the congressional institutions (which would further strengthen the establishment of the presidential power). Another esteemed economist Otto Latsis comments: "It would not be correct to identify socialism as plan and capitalism as market Both are inherent to both formations." Perhaps Mr. Latsis truly presumes the existence of a Soviet market. Does he not however realize the opposing natures of Western and Soviet planning? Without the essential destruction of the present mechanism, governmental appeals a behalf of future Soviet economic prosperity will continue to be inflicted upon the society as they have been for the past 73 years.

Some Soviet scientists, supporters of the theory of capitalist and socialist convergence, surmise that having reaped the "prime benefits" from capitalism, Soviet society will unite in the capitalist procession toward civilization. Director of the Institute of Philosophy V. Stepin explains: "The idea of a peaceful solution of two systems toward one united global substance, that could be called world socialism, has the right to exist." The concept of a confrontation of two systems being ideologically incompatible, transforming themselves into co-operation by the pursuit of their mutual complementation and thus forming new conditions for each, seems palpable. Theoretically, Hegel's variant, the struggle between two opposing systems, might well be applied here; capitalism being the thesis and socialism the anti-thesis -- these conditions forming the foundations for the emergence of the synthesis.

In practice however, two factors confirm it's inoperability. The first is the period of the nuclear danger under which condition the struggle was to occurs, so threatening the synthesis altogether,

and the second perhaps more important aspect, being capitalism's lack of an anti-thesis. That is to say, that socialism did not exist as a post-capitalist formation. What was called socialism embodied only select precapitalist features; there was nothing by which capitalism was to be completed. What some may think capitalism borrowed from socialism (state economic planning, social justice), was not at all borrowed, but produced within a capitalist course of development. The state planning theory was thoroughly elaborated by Keynes, while social justice being the product of the worker's struggle for suitable conditions, subsequently became a side-effect dictate by the Scientific Technological Revolution. The Soviet Union in turn was and remains the feudal society with feudal consciousness, a society upholding the belief in a strong dominating figure which is blatantly confirmed by the public fanaticism toward Mr. Gorbachev. It would be irrational for capitalism to merge with feudalism, hence the timely comment of ideologist Vadim Medvedev who declares: "Of course it is of little consequence discussing the convergence of two systems; their unification."

This very idea must be replaced with the understanding that their respective heritage in the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries has lost their historical pertinence. Towards the latter 1990s new circumstances necessitated change in conceptional terminology. Understandably the Marxist-Leninist teaching based upon the so-called class approach exhausted itself. Conceptions and doctrines which reflect human values within the age of the Scientific-Technological Revolution are in dire need. Without recognition of private property, free market and the surrender of economic ideologization, no society can progress. Individual freedom and freedom of thought must be acknowledged as the fundamental criteria for civilized society.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in its current state, must dissolve. A viable solution might by the union of equal states -- formally related through their networks of political and economic agreements, informally through their policies of free will These conditions as a stark minimum in "catching up" with civilization, must be met. It is precisely this minimum which poses the greatest threat to the powerful circles of the Soviet Union. And they have much to lose.

* * *

What does the Soviet Union have now? No doubt process, and most certainly movement. Like the ballerina, it spins on one leg with no forward motion Politics have such grace, such energy and powerful motions -- one can't help but notice.

In the meantime, the "Fantastic Symphony" of Berlioz continues, Part 4 -- Procession to the Execution.

PS This article was rejected to be published by all papers and journals in Moscow. Only in Vladivostok I had a chance to publish it under the title "Socialism and Perestroika: Who is Whom?" -- Dalnevostochnyi Uchyonyi [Weekly Paper of Far Eastern Branch of Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok], 18 - 24 July 1990, 4-5.

Home
_________________________________
DESIGNED & POWERED by RUSGLOBUS