On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism
and Its Historical Lessons for the World:
Comment on the Open Letter
of the Central Committee of the CPSU (IX)
MAO TSE-TUNG (Mao Zedong)
- By the Editorial Departments of Renmin Ribao (People's Daily) and Hongqui (Red Flag),
China, of 14 July 1964. The source is a pamphlet published by Foreign Languages Press,
The theories of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are
the quintessence of Marxism-Leninism. The questions of whether revolution should be upheld
or opposed and whether the dictatorship of the proletariat should be upheld or opposed
have always been the focus of struggle between Marxism- Leninism and all brands of
revisionism and are now the focus of struggle between Marxist-Leninists the world over and
the revisionist Khrushchov clique.
At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU, the revisionist Khrushchov clique developed their
revisionism into a complete system not only by rounding off their anti-revolutionary
theories of "peaceful coexistence" and "peaceful transition" but also
by declaring that the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary in the Soviet
Union and advancing the absurd theories of the "state of the whole people" and
the "party of the entire people".
The Programme put forward by the revisionist Khrushchov clique at the 22nd Congress of
the CPSU is a programme of phoney communism, a revisionist programme against proletarian
revolution and for the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the
The revisionist Khrushchov clique abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat behind
the camouflage of the "state of the whole people", change the proletarian
character of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union behind the camouflage of the
"party of the entire people" and pave the way for the restoration of capitalism
behind that of "full-scale communist construction".
In its Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement
dated June 14, 1963, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China pointed out
that it is most absurd in theory and extremely harmful in practice to substitute the
"state of the whole people" for the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat
and the "party of the entire people" for the vanguard party of the proletariat.
This substitution is a great historical retrogression which makes any transition to
communism impossible and helps only to restore capitalism.
The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the press of the Soviet Union
resort to sophistry in self-justification and charge that our criticisms of the
"state of the whole people" and the "party of the entire people" are
allegations "far removed from Marxism", betray "isolation from the life of
the Soviet people" and are a demand that they "return to the past".
Well, let us ascertain who is actually far removed from Marxism- Leninism, what Soviet
life is actually like and who actually wants the Soviet Union to return to the past.
SOCIALIST SOCIETY AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
What is the correct conception of socialist society? Do classes and class struggle
exist throughout the stage of socialism? Should the dictatorship of the proletariat be
maintained and the socialist revolution be carried through to the end? Or should the
dictatorship of the proletariat be abolished so as to pave the way for capitalist
restoration? These questions must be answered correctly according to the basic theory of
Marxism-Lenin- ism and the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The replacement of capitalist society by socialist society is a great leap in the
historical development of human society. Socialist society covers the important historical
period of transition from class to classless society. It is by going through socialist
society that mankind will enter communist society.
The socialist system is incomparably superior to the capitalist system. In socialist
society, the dictatorship of the proletariat replaces bourgeois dictatorship and the
public ownership of the means of production replaces private ownership. The proletariat,
from being an oppressed and exploited class, turns into a ruling class and a fundamental
change takes place in the social position of the working people. Exercising dictatorship
over a few exploiters only, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat practices the
broadest democracy among the masses of the working people, a democracy that is impossible
in capitalist society. The nationalisation of industry and collectivization of agriculture
open wide vistas for the vigorous development of the social productive forces, ensuring a
rate of growth incomparably greater than that in any older society.
However, one cannot but see that socialist society is a society born out of capitalist
society and is only the first phase of communist society. It is not yet a fully mature
communist society in the economic and other fields. It is inevitably stamped with the
birth marks of capitalist society. When defining socialist society Marx said:
- What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on
its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist
society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still
stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and
Engels, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1958, Vol. 2, p. 23.]
Lenin also pointed out that in socialist society, which is the first phase of
communism, "Communism cannot as yet be fully ripe economically and entirely
free from traditions or traces of capitalism".
[Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, FLPH, Mos- cow,
1952, Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 302.]
In socialist society, the differences between workers and peasants, between town and
country, and between manual and mental labourers still remain, bourgeois rights are not
yet completely abolished, it is not possible "at once to eliminate the other
injustice, which consists in the distribution of articles of consumption 'according to the
amount of labour performed' (and not according to needs)", and therefore differences
in wealth still exist.
[Ibid., p. 296.]
The disappearance of these differences, phenomena and bourgeois rights can only be
gradual and long drawn-out. As Marx said, only after these differences have vanished and
bourgeois rights have completely disappeared will it be possible to realize full communism
with its principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
Marxism-Leninism and the practice of the Soviet Union, China and other socialist
countries all teach us that socialist society covers a very, very long historical stage.
Throughout this stage, the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat goes
on and the question of "who will win" between the roads of capitalism and
socialism remains, as does the danger of restoration of capitalism.
In its Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement
dated June 14, 1963, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China states:
- For a very long historical period after the proletariat takes power, class struggle
continues as an objective law independent of man's will, differing only in form from what
it was before the taking of power.
After the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out a
number of times that:
a) The overthrown exploiters always try in a thousand and one ways to recover the
"paradise" they have been deprived of.
b) New elements of capitalism are constantly and spontaneously generated in the
c) Political degenerates and new bourgeois elements may emerge in the ranks of the
working class and among government functionaries as a result of bourgeois influence and
the pervasive, corrupting influence of the petty bourgeoisie.
d) The external conditions for the continuance of class struggle within a socialist
society are encirclement by international capitalism, the imperialists' threat of armed
intervention and their subversive activities to accomplish peaceful disintegration.
Life has confirmed these conclusions of Lenin's.
In socialist society, the overthrown bourgeoisie and other reactionary classes remain
strong for quite a long time, and indeed in certain respects are quite powerful. They have
a thousand and one links with the international bourgeoisie. They are not reconciled to
their defeat and stubbornly continue to engage in trials of strength with the proletariat.
They conduct open and hidden struggles against the proletariat in every field.
Constantly parading such signboards as support for socialism, the Soviet system, the
Communist Party and Marxism-Leninism, they work to undermine socialism and restore
capitalism. Politically, they persist for a long time as a force antagonistic to the
proletariat and constantly attempt to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat. They
sneak into the government organs, public organizations, economic departments and cultural
and educational institutions so as to resist or usurp the leadership of the proletariat.
Economically, they employ every means to damage socialist ownership by the whole people
and socialist collective ownership and to develop the forces of capitalism. In the
ideological, cultural and educational fields, they counterpose the bourgeois world outlook
to the proletarian world outlook and try to corrupt the proletariat and other working
people with bourgeois ideology.
The collectivization of agriculture turns individual into collective farmers and
provides favourable conditions for the thorough remoulding of the peasants. However, until
collective ownership advances to ownership by the whole people and until the remnants of
private economy disappear completely, the peasants inevitably retain some of the inherent
characteristics of small producers. In these circumstances spontaneous capitalist
tendencies are inevitable, the soil for the growth of new rich peasants still exists and
polarization among the peasants may still occur.
The activities of the bourgeoisie as described above, its corrupting effects in the
political, economic, ideological and cultural and educational fields, the existence of
spontaneous capitalist tendencies among urban and rural small producers, and the influence
of the remaining bourgeois rights and the force of habit of the old society all constantly
breed political degenerates in the ranks of the working class and Party and government
organizations, new bourgeois elements and embezzlers and grafters in state enterprises
owned by the whole people and new bourgeois intellectuals in the cultural and educational
institutions and intellectual circles.
These new bourgeois elements and these political degenerates attack socialism in
collusion with the old bourgeois elements and elements of other exploiting classes which
have been overthrown but not eradicated. The political degenerates entrenched in the
leading organs are particularly dangerous, for they support and shield the bourgeois
elements in organs at lower levels.
As long as imperialism exists, the proletariat in the socialist countries will have to
struggle both against the bourgeoisie at home and against international imperialism.
Imperialism will seize every opportunity and try to undertake armed intervention against
the socialist countries or to bring about their peaceful disintegration. It will do its
utmost to destroy the socialist countries or to make them degenerate into capitalist
countries. The international class struggle will inevitably find its reflection within the
- The transition from capitalism to Communism represents an entire historical epoch. Until
this epoch has terminated, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and
this hope is converted into attempts at restoration.
[Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Selected
Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 61.]
He also pointed out:
- The abolition of classes requires a long, difficult and stubborn class struggle,
which after the overthrow of the power of capital, after the destruction of
the bourgeois state, after the establishment of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, does not disappear (as the vulgar representatives of the old Socialism
and the old Social-Democracy imagine), but merely changes its forms and in many respects
becomes more fierce.
[Lenin, "Greetings to the Hungarian Workers", Selected Works, FPLH,
Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, pp. 210-11.]
Throughout the stage of socialism the class struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie in the political, economic, ideological and cultural and educational fields
cannot be stopped. It is a protracted, repeated, tortuous and complex struggle. Like the
waves of the sea it sometimes rises high and sometimes subsides, is now fairly calm and
now very turbulent. It is a struggle that decides the fate of a socialist society. Whether
a socialist society will advance to communism or revert to capitalism depends upon the
outcome of this protracted struggle.
The class struggle in socialist society is inevitably reflected in the Communist Party.
The bourgeoisie and international imperialism both understand that in order to make a
socialist country degenerate into a capitalist country, it is first necessary to make the
Communist Party degenerate into a revisionist party.
The old and new bourgeois elements, the old and new rich peasants ad the degenerate
elements of all sorts constitute the social basis of revisionism, and they use every
possible means to find agents within the Communist Party. The existence of bourgeois
influence is the internal source of revisionism and surrender to imperialist pressure the
Throughout the stage of socialism, there is inevitable struggle between
Marxism-Leninism and various kinds of opportunism -- mainly revisionism -- in the
Communist Parties of socialist countries. The characteristic of this revisionism is that,
denying the existence of classes and class struggle, it sides with the bourgeoisie in
attacking the proletariat and turns the dictatorship of the proletariat into the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
In the light of the experience of the international working- class movement and in
accordance with the objective law of class struggle, the founders of Marxism pointed out
that the transition from capitalism, from class to classless society, must depend on the
dictatorship of the proletariat and that there is no other road.
Marx said that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the
["Marx to J. Wedemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected Works of Marx and Engels,
FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 452.]
He also said:
- Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary
transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political
transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship
of the proletariat.
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and
Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.]
The development of socialist society is a process of uninterrupted revolution. In
explaining revolutionary socialism Marx said:
- This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class
dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of
class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on
which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these
relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these
[Marx, "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850", Selected Works of
Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 1, p. 223.]
In his struggle against the opportunism of the Second International, Lenin creatively
expounded and developed Marx's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He pointed
- The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of class struggle but its
continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is class struggle waged by
a proletariat which has been victorious and has taken political power in its hands against
a bourgeoisie that has been defeated but not destroyed, a bourgeoisie that has not
vanished, not ceased to offer resistance, but that has intensified its resistance.
[Lenin, "Foreword to the Speech 'On Deception of the People with Slogans of
Freedom and Equality'", Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry, FLPH,
Moscow, 1959, p. 302.]
He also said:
- The dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle - bloody and bloodless,
violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative -- against the
forces and traditions of the old society.
[Lenin: "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder", Selected Works,
FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 367.]
In his celebrated work On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
and in other works, Comrade Mao Tse-tung, basing hismelf on the fundamental principles of
Marxism-Leninism and the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat,
gives a comprehensive and systematic analysis of classes and class struggle in socialist
society, and creatively develops the Marxist-Leninist theory of the dictatorship of the
Comrade Mao Tse-tung examines the objective laws of socialist society from the
viewpoint of materialist dialectics. He points out that the universal law of the unity and
struggle of opposites operating both in the natural world and in human society is
applicable to socialist society, too.
In socialist society, class contradictions still remain and class struggle does not die
out after the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production. The
struggle between the two roads of socialism and capitalism runs through the entire stage
of socialism. To ensure the success of socialist construction and to prevent the
restoration of capitalism, it is necessary to carry the socialist revolution through to
the end on the political, economic, ideological and cultural fronts. The complete victory
of socialism cannot be brought about in one or two generations; to resolve this question
thoroughly requires five to ten generations or even longer.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung stresses the fact that two types of social contradictions exist in
socialist society, namely, contradictions among the people and contradictions between
ourselves and the enemy, and that the former are very numerous. Only by distinguishing
between the two types of contradictions, which are different in nature, and by adopting
different measures to handle them correctly is it possible to unite the people, who
constitute more than 90 per cent of the population, defeat their enemies, who constitute
only a few per cent, and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the basic guarantee for the consolidation and
development of socialism, for the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and of
socialism in the struggle between the two roads.
Only by emancipating all mankind can the proletariat ultimately emancipate itself. The
historical task of the dictatorship of the proletariat has two aspects, one internal and
the other international.
The internal task consists mainly of completely abolishing all the exploiting classes,
developing socialist economy to the maximum, enhancing the communist consciousness of the
masses, abolishing the differences between ownership by the whole people and collective
ownership, between workers and peasants, between town and country and between mental and
manual labourers, eliminating any possibility of the re-emergence of classes and the
restoration of capitalism and providing conditions for the realization of a communist
society with its principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to
The international task consists mainly of preventing attacks by international
imperialism (including armed intervention and disintegration by peaceful means) and of
giving support to the world revolution until the peoples of all countries finally abolish
imperialism, capitalism and the system of exploitation.
Before the fulfilment of both tasks and before the advent of a full communist society,
the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutly necessary.
Judging from the actual situation today, the tasks of the dictatorship of the
proletariat are still far from accomplished in any of the socialist countries. In all
socialist countries without exception, there are classes and class struggle, the struggle
between the socialist and the capitalist roads, the question of carrying the socialist
revolution through to the end and the question of preventing the restoration of
All the socialist countries still have a very long way to go before the differences
between ownership by the whole people and collective ownership, between workers and
peasants, between town and country and between mental and manual labourers are eliminated,
before all classes and class differences are eliminated and a communist society with its
principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs",
is realized. Therefore, it is necessary for all the socialist countries to uphold the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
In these circumstances, the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the
revisionist Khrushchov clique is nothing but a betrayal of socialism and communism.
ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES AND CLASS STRUGGLE EXIST IN THE SOVIET UNION
In announcing the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union,
the revisionist Khrushchov clique base themselves mainly on the argument that antagonistic
classes have been eliminated and that class struggle no longer exists.
But what is the actual situation in the Soviet Union? Are there really no antagonistic
classes and no class struggle there?
Following the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the dictatorship of
the proletariat was established in the Soviet Union, capitalist private ownership was
destroyed and socialist ownership by the whole people and socialist collective ownership
were established through the nationalization of industry and the collectivization of
agriculture, and great achievements in socialist construction were scored during several
decades. All this constituted an indelible victory of tremendous historic significance won
by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people under the leadership of
Lenin and Stalin.
However, the old bourgeoisie and other exploiting classes which had been overthrown in
the Soviet Union were not eradicated and survived after industry was nationalized and
agriculture collectivized. The political and ideological influence of the bourgeoisie
remained. Spontaneous capitalist tendencies continued to exist both in the city and in the
countryside. New bourgeois elements and kulaks were still incessantly generated.
Throughout the long intervening period, the class struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie and the struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads have continued in
the political, economic and ideolgical spheres.
As the Soviet Union was the first, and at the time the only, country to build socialism
and had no foreign experience to go by, and as Stalin departed from Marxist-Leninist
dialectics in his understanding of the laws of class struggle in socialist society, he
prematurely declared after agriculture was basically collectivized that there were
"no longer antagonistic classes"  in the Soviet Union and that it was
"free of class con- flicts" , one-sidely stressed the internal homogeneity of
socialist society and overlooked its contradictions, failed to rely upon the working class
and the masses in the struggle against the forces of capitalism and regarded the
possibility of restoration of capitalism as associated only with armed attack by
international imperialism. This was wrong both in theory and in practice.
[1: Stalin, "On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R", Problems of
Leninism, FLPH, Moscow, 1954, p. 690.]
[2: Stalin, "Report to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) on the Work of
the Central Committee", Problems of Leninism, FLPH, Moscow, p. 777.]
Nevertheless, Stalin remained a great Marxist-Leninist. As long as he led the Soviet
Party and state, he held fast to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist
course, pursued a Marxist-Leninist line and ensured the Soviet Union's victorious advance
along the road of socialism.
Ever since Khrushchov seized the leadership of the Soviet Party and state, he has
pushed through a whole series of revisionist policies which have greatly hastened the
growth of the forces of capitalism and again sharpened the class struggle between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie and the struggle between the roads of socialism and
capitalism in the Soviet Union.
Scanning the reports in Soviet newspapers over the last few years, one finds numerous
examples demonstrating not only the presence of many elements of the old exploiting
classes in Soviet society, but also the generation of new bourgeois elements on a large
scale and the acceleration of class polarization.
Let us first look at the activities of various bourgeois elements in the Soviet
enterprises owned by the whole people.
Leading functionaries in some state-owned factories and their gangs abuse their
positions and amass large fortunes by using the equipment and materials of the factories
to set up "underground workshops" for private production, selling the products
illicitly and dividing the spoils. Here are some examples.
In a Leningrad plant producing military items, the leading functionaries placed their
own men in "all key posts" and "turned the state enterprise into a private
one". They illictly engaged in the production of non-military goods and from the sale
of fountain pens alone embezzled 1,200,000 old roubles in three years. Among these people
was a man who "was a Nepman...in the 1920's" and had been a "lifelong
[Krasnaya Zvezda, May 19, 1962.]
In a silk-weaving mill in Uzbekistan, the manager ganged up with the chief engineer,
the chief accountant, the chief of the supply and marketing section, heads of workshops
and others, and they all became "new-born entrepreneurs". They purchased more
than ten tons of artificial and pure silk through various illegal channels in order to
manufacture goods which "did not pass through the accounts". They employed
workers without going through the proper procedures and enforced "a twelve-hour
[Pravda Vostoka, Oct. 8, 1963.]
The manager of a furniture factory in Kharkov set up an "illegal knitwear
workshop" and carried on secret operations inside the factory. This man "had
several wives, several cars, several houses, 176 neck-ties, about a hundred shirts and
dozens of suits". He was also a big gambler at the horse-races.
[Pravda Ukrainy, May 18, 1962.]
Such people do not operate all by themselves. They invariably work hand in glove with
functionaries in the state departments in charge of supplies and in the commercial and
other departments. They have their own men in the police and judicial departments who
protect them and act as their agents. Even high-ranking officials in the state organs
support and shield them. Here are a few examples.
The chief of the workshops affiliated to a Moscow psychoneurological dispensary and his
gang set up an "underground enter- prise", and by bribery "obtained
fifty-eight knitting machines" and a large amount of raw material. They entered into
business relations with "fifty-two factories, handicraft co-operatives and collective
farms" and made three million roubles in a few years. They bribed functionaries of
the Department for Combating Theft of Socialist Property and Speculation, controllers,
inspectors, instructors and others.
[Izvestia, Oct. 20, 1963, and Izvestia Sunday Supplement, No. 12, 1964.]
The manager of a machinery plant in the Russian Federation, together with the deputy
manager of a second machinery plant and other functionaries, or forty-three persons in
all, stole more than nine hundred looms and sold them to factories in Central Asia,
Kazakhstan, the Caucasus and other places, whose leading functionaries used them for
[Komsomolskaya Pravda, Aug. 9, 1963.]
In the Kirghiz SSR, a gang of over forty embezzlers and grafters, having gained control
of two factories, organized underground production and plundered more than thirty million
roubles' worth of state property. The gang included the Chairman of the Planning
Commission of the Republic, a Vice-Minister of Commerce, seven bureau chiefs and division
chiefs of the Republic's Council of Ministers, National Economic Council and State Control
Commission, as well as "a big kulak who had fled from exile".
[Sovietskaya Kirghizia, Jan. 9, 1962.]
These examples show that the factories which have fallen into the clutches of such
degenerates are socialist enterprises only in name, that in fact they have become
capitalist enterprises by which these persons enrich themselves. The relationship of such
persons to the workers has turned into one between exploiters and exploited, between
oppressors and oppressed.
Are not such degenerates who possess and make use of means of production to exploit the
labour of others out-and-out bourgeois elements? Are not their acomplices in government
organizations, who work hand in glove with them, participate in many types of
expolitation, engage in embezzlement, accept bribes, and share the spoils, also
out-and-out bourgeois elements?
Obviously all these people belong to a class that is antagonistic to the proletariat --
they belong to the bourgeoisie. Their activities against socialism are definitely class
struggle with the bourgeoisie attacking the proletariat.
Now let us look at the activities of various kulak elements on the collective farms.
Some leading collective-farm functionaries and their gangs steal and speculate at will,
freely squander public money and fleece the collective farmers. Here are some examples.
The chairman of a collective farm in Uzbekistan "held the whole village in
terror". All the important posts on this farm "were occupied by his in-laws and
other relatives and friends". He squandered "over 132,000 roubles of the
collective farm for his personal 'needs'". He had a car, two motor-cycles and three
wives, each with "a house of her own".
[Selskaya Zhizn, June 26, 1962.]
The chairman of a collective farm in the Kursk Region regarded the farm as his
"heredetary estate". He conspired with its accountant, cashier, chief
warehouse-keeper, agronomist, general store-manager and others. Shielding each other, they
"fleeced the collective farmers" and pocketed more than a hundred thousand
roubles in a few years.
[Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, No. 35, 1963.]
The chairman of a collective farm in the Ukraine made over 50,000 roubles at its
expense by forging purchase certificates and cash-account orders in collusion with its
woman accountant, who had been praised for keeping "model accounts" and whose
deeds had been displayed at the Moscow Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy.
[Selskaya Zhizn, Aug. 14, 1963.]
The chairman of a collective farm in the Alma-Ata Region specialized in commercial
speculation. He bought "fruit juice in the Ukraine or Uzbekistan, and sugar and
alcohol from Djambul", processed them and then sold the wine at very high prices in
many localities. In this farm a winery was created with a capacity of over a million
litres a year, its speculative commercial network spread throughout the Kazakhstan SSR,
and commercial speculation became one of the farm's main sources of income.
[Pravda, Jan. 14, 1962.]
The chairman of a collective farm in Byelorussia considered him- self "a feudal
princeling on the farm" and acted "personally" in all matters. He lived not
on the farm but in the city or in his own splendid villa, and was always busy with
"various commercial machinations" and "illegal deals". He bought
cattle from the outside, represented them as the products of the collective farm and
falsified output figures. And yet "not a few commendatory newspaper reports" had
been published about him and he had been called a "model leader".
[Pravda, Feb. 6, 1961.]
These examples show that collective farms under the control of such functionaries
virtually become their private property. Such men turn socialist collective economic
enterprises into economic enterprises of new kulaks. There are often people in their
superior organizations who protect them. Their relationship to the collective farmers has
likewise become that of oppressors to oppressed, of exploiters to exploited. Are not such
neo-exploiters who ride on the backs of the collective farmers one-hund-red-per-cent
Obviously, they all belong to a class that is antagonistic to the proletariat and the
labouring farmers, belong to the kulak or rural bourgeois class. Their anti-socialist
activities are precisely class struggle with the bourgeoisie attacking the proletariat and
the labouring farmers.
Apart from the bourgeois elements in state enterprises and collective farms, there are
many others in both town and country in the Soviet Union.
Some of them set up private enterprises for private production and sale; others
organize contractor teams and openly undertake construction jobs for state or co-operative
enterprises; still others open private hotels.
A "Soviet woman capitalist" in Leningrad hired workers to make nylon blouses
for sale, and her "daily income amounted to over 700 new roubles".
[Izvestia, April 9, 1963.]
The owner of a workshop in the Kursk Region made felt boots for sale at speculative
prices. He had in his possession 540 pairs of felt boots, eight kilogrammes of gold coins,
3,000 metres of high-grade textiles, 20 carpets, 1,200 kilogrammes of wool and many other
[Sovietskaya Rossiya, Oct. 9, 1963.]
A private entrepeneur in the Gomel Region "hired workers and artisans" and in
the course of two years secured contracts for the construction and overhauling of furnaces
in twelve factories at a high price.
[Izvestia, Oct. 18, 1960.]
In the Orenburg Region there are "hundreds of private hotels and trans-shipment
points", and "the money of the collective farms and the state is continuously
streaming into the pockets of the hostlery owners".
[Selskaya Zhizn, July 17, 1963.]
Some engage in commercial speculation, making tremendous profits through buying cheap
and selling dear or bringing goods from far away. In Moscow there are a great many
speculators engaged in the re-sale of agricultural produce. They "bring to Moscow
tons of citrus fruit, apples and vegetables and re-sell them at speculative prices".
"These profit-grabbers are provided with every facility, with market inns,
store-rooms and other services at their disposal".
[Selskaya Zhizn, July 17, 1963.]
In the Krasnodar Territory, a speculator set up her own agency and "employed
twelve salesmen and two stevedores". She transported "thousands of hogs,
hundreds of quintals of stolen slag bricks, whole wagons of glass" and other building
materials from the city to the villages. She reaped high profits out of each re-sale.
[Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, No. 27, 1963.]
Others specialize as brokers and middlemen. They have wide contacts and through them
one can get anything, in return for a bribe. There was a broker in Leningrad who
"though he is not the Minister of Trade, controls all the stocks", and
"though he holds no post on the railway, disposes of wagons". He could obtain
"things the stocks of which are strictly controlled, from outside the stocks".
"All the store-houses in Leningrad are at his service." For delivering goods, he
received huge "bonuses" - 700,000 roubles from one timber combine in 1960 alone.
In Leningrad, there is "a whole group" of such brokers.
[Literaturnaya Gazeta, July 27 and Aug. 17, 1963.]
These private entrepreneurs and speculators are engaged in the most naked capitalist
exploitation. Isn't it clear that they belong to the bourgeoisie, the class antagonistic
to the proletariat?
Actually the Soviet press itself calls these people "Soviet capitalists",
"new-born entrepreneurs", "private entrepreneurs", "newly-emerged
kulaks", "speculators", "exploiters", etc. Aren't the revisionist
Khrushchov clique contradicting themselves when they assert that antagonistic classes do
not exist in the Soviet Union?
The facts cited above are only a part of those published in the Soviet press. They are
enough to shock people, but there are many more which have not been published, many bigger
and more serious cases which are covered up and shielded. We have quoted the above data in
order to answer the question whether there are antagonistic classes and class struggle in
the Soviet Union. These data are readily available and even the revisionist Khrushchov
clique are unable to deny them.
These data suffice to show that the unbridled activities of the bourgeoisie against the
proletariat are widespread in the Soviet Union, in the city as well as the countryside, in
industry as well as agriculture, in the sphere of production as well as the sphere of
circulation, all the way from the economic departments to Party and government
organizations, and from the grass-roots to the higher leading bodies. These anti-socialist
activities are nothing if not the sharp class struggle of the bourgeoisie against the
It is not strange that attacks on socialism should be made in a socialist country by
old and new bourgeois elements. There is nothing terrifying about this so long as the
leadership of the Party and state remains a Marxist-Leninist one. But in the Soviet Union
today, the gravity of the situation lies in the fact that the revisionist Khrushchov
clique have usurped the leadership of the Soviet Party and state and that a privileged
bourgeois stratum has emerged in Soviet society.
We shall deal with this problem in the following section.
THE SOVIET PRIVILEGED STRATUM AND THE REVISIONIST KHRUSHCHOV CLIQUE
The privileged stratum in contemporary Soviet society is composed of degenerate
elements from among the leading cadres of Party and government organizations, enterprises
and farms as well as bourgeois intellectuals; it stands in opposition to the workers, the
peasants and the overwhelming majority of the intellectuals and cadres of the Soviet
Lenin pointed out soon after the October Revolution that bourgeois and petty-bourgeis
ideologies and force of habit were encircling and influencing the proletariat from all
directions and wre corrupting certain of its sections. This circumstance led to the
emergence from among the Soviet officials and functionaries both of bureaucrats alienated
from the masses and of new bourgeois elements. Lenin also pointed out that although the
high salaries paid to the bourgeois technical specialists staying on to work for the
Soviet regime were necessary, they were having a corrupting influence on it.
Therefore, Lenin laid great stress on waging persistent struggles against the influence
of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies, on arousing the broad masses to take part in
government work, on ceaselessly exposing and purging bureaucrats and new bourgeois
elements in the Soviet organs, and on creating conditions that would bar the existence and
reproduction of the bourgeoisie. Lenin pointed out sharply that "without a systematic
and determined struggle to improve the apparatus, we shall perish before the basis of
socialism is created."
[Lenin, "Plan of the Pamphlet 'On the Food Tax'", Collected Works, 4th
Russian ed., Moscow, Vol. 32, p. 301.]
At the same time, he laid great stress on adherence to the principle of the Paris
Commune in wage policy, that is, all public servants were to be paid wages corresponding
to those of the workers and only bourgeois specialists were to be paid high salaries. From
the October Revolution to the period of Soviet economic rehabilitation, Lenin's directives
were in the main observed; the leading personell of the Party and government organizations
and enterprises and Party members among the specialists received salaries roughly
equivalent to the wages of workers.
At that time, the Communist Party and the government of the Soviet Union adopted a
number of measures in the sphere of politics and ideology and in the system of
distribution to prevent leading cadres in any department from abusing their powers or
degenerating morally or politically.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union headed by Stalin adhered to the dictatorship of
the proletariat and the road of socialism and waged a staunch struggle against the forces
of capitalism. Stalin's struggles against the Trotskyites, Zinovievites and Bukharinites
wre in essence a reflection within the Party of the class struggle between the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie and of the struggle between the two roads of socialism and capitalism.
Victory in these struggles smashed the vain hopes of the bourgeoisie to restore capitalism
in the Soviet Union.
It cannot be denied that before Stalin's death high salaries were already being paid to
certain groups and that some cadres had already degenerated and become bourgeois elements.
The Central Committee of the CPSU pointed out in its report to the 19th Party Congress in
October 1952 that degeneration and corruption had appeared in certain Party organizations.
The leaders of these organizations had turned them into small communities composed
entirely of their own people, "setting their group interests higher than the
interests of the Party and the state". Some executives of industrial enterprises
"forget that the enterprises entrusted to their charge are state enterprises, and try
to turn them into their own private domain".
"Instead of safeguarding the common husbandry of the collective farms", some
Party and Soviet functionaries and some cadres in agricultural departments "engage in
filching collective-farm property". In the cultural, artistic and scientific fields
too, works attacking and smearing the socialist system had appeared and a monopolistic
"Arakcheyev regime" had emerged among the scientists.
Since Khrushchov usurped the leadership of the Soviet Party and state, there has been a
fundamental change in the state of the class struggle in the Soviet Union.
Khrushchov has carried out a series of revisionist policies serving the interests of
the bourgeoisie and rapidly swelling the forces of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
On the pretext of "combating the personality cult", Khrushchov has defamed
the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system and thus in fact paved the
way for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. In completely negating Stalin,
he has in fact negated Marxism-Leninism which was upheld by Stalin and opened the
floodgates for the revisionist deluge.
Khrushchov has substituted "material incentive" for the socialist principle,
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his work". He has
widened, and not narrowed, the gap between the incomes of a small minority and those of
the workers, peasants and ordinary intellectuals. He has supported the degenerates in
leading positions, encouraging them to become even more unscrupulous in abusing their
powers and to appropriate the fruits of labour of the Soviet people. Thus he has
accelerated the polarization of classes in Soviet society.
Khrushchov sabotages the socialist planned economy, applies the capitalist principle of
profit, develops capitalist free competition and undermines socialist ownership by the
Khrushchov attacks the system of socialist agricultural planning, describing it as
"bureaucratic" and "unnecessary". Eager to learn from the big
proprietors of American farms, he is encouraging capitalist management, fostering a kulak
economy and undermining the socialist collective economy.
Khrushchov is peddling bourgeois ideology, bourgeois liberty, equality, fraternity and
humanity, inculcating bourgeois idealism and metaphysics and the reactionary ideas of
bourgeois individualism, humanism and pacifism among the Soviet people, and debasing
socialist morality. The rotten bourgeois culture of the West is now fashionable in the
Soviet Union, and socialist culture is ostracized and attacked.
Under the signboard of "peaceful coexistence", Khrushchov has been colluding
with U.S. imperialism, wrecking the socialist camp and the international communist
movement, opposing the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed peoples and nations,
practising great-power chauvinism and national egoism and betraying proletarian
internationalism. All this is being done for the protection of the vested interests of a
handful of people, which he places above the fundamental interests of the peoples of the
Soviet Union, the socialist camp and the whole world.
The line Khrushchov pursues is a revisionist line through and through. Guided by this
line, not only have the old bourgeois elements run wild but new bourgeois elements have
appeared in large numbers among the leading cadres of the Soviet Party and government, the
chiefs of state enterprises and collective farms, and the higher intellectuals in the
fields of culture, art, science and technology.
In the Soviet Union at present, not only have the new bourgeois elements increased in
number as never before, but their social status has fundamentally changed. Before
Khrushchov came to power, they did not occupy the ruling position in Soviet society. Their
activities were restricted in many ways and they were subject to attack. But since
Khrushchov took over, usurping the leadership of the Party and the state step by step, the
new bourgeois elements have gradually risen to the ruling position in the Party and
government and in the economic, cultural and other departments, and formed a privileged
stratum in Soviet society.
This privileged stratum is the principal component of the bourgeoisie in the Soviet
Union today and the main social basis of the revisionist Khrushchov clique. The
revisionist Khrushchov clique are the political representatives of the Soviet bourgeoisie,
and particularly of its privileged stratum.
The revisionist Khrushchov clique have carried out one purge after another and replaced
one group of cadres after another throughout the country, from the central to the local
bodies, from leading Party and government organizations to economic and cultural and
educational departments, dismissing those they do not trust and placing their protégés
in leading posts.
Take the Central Committee of the CPSU as an example. The statistics show that seventy
per cent of the members of the Central Committee of the CPSU who were elected at its 19th
Congress in 1952 were purged in the course of the 20th and 22nd Congresses held
respectively in 1956 and 1961. And nearly fifty per cent of the members who were elected
at the 20th Congress were purged at the time of the 22nd Congress.
Or take the local organizations. On the eve of the 22nd Congress, on the pretext of
"renewing the cadres", the revisionist Khrushchov clique, according to
incomplete statistics, removed from office forty-five per cent of the members of the Party
Central Committees of the Union Republics and of the Party Committees of the Territories
and Regions, and forty per cent of the Municipal and District Party Committees. In 1963,
on the pretext of dividing the Party into "industrial" and
"agricultural" Party committees, they further replaced more than half the
members of the Central Committees of the Union Republics and of the Regional Party
Through this series of changes the Soviet privileged stratum has gained control of the
Party, the government and other important organizations.
The members of this pivileged stratum have converted the function of serving the masses
into the privilege of dominating them. They are abusing their powers over the means of
production and of livelyhood for the private benefit of their small clique.
The members of this privileged stratum appropriate the fruits of the Soviet people's
labour and pocket incomes that are dozens or even a hundred times those of the average
Soviet worker and peasant. They not only secure high incomes in the form of high salaries,
high awards, high royalties and a great variety of personal subsidies, but also use their
privileged position to appropriate public property by graft and bribery. Completely
divorced from the working people of the Soviet Union, they live the parasitical and
decadent life of the bourgeoisie.
The members of this privileged stratum have become utterly degenerate ideologically,
have completely departed from the revolutionary traditions of the Bolshevik Party and
discarded the lofty ideals of the Soviet working class. They are opposed to
Marxism-Leninism and socialism. They betray the revolution and forbid others to make
revolution. Their sole concern is to consolidate their economic position and political
rule. All their activities revolve around the private interests of their own privileged
People have seen how in Yugoslavia, although the Tito clique still displays the banner
of "socialism", a bureaucratic bourgeoisie opposed to the Yugoslav people has
gradually come into being since the Tito clique took the road of revisionism, transforming
the Yugoslav state from a dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the
bureaucrat bourgeoisie and its socialist public economy into state capitalism. Now people
see the Khrushchov clique taking the road already travelled by the Tito clique. Khrushchov
looks to Belgrade as his Mecca, saying again and again that he will learn from the Tito
clique's experience and declaring that he and the Tito clique "belong to one and the
same idea and are guided by the same theory". This is not at all surprising.
[N. S. Khrushchov, Interview with Foreign Correspondents at Brioni in Yugoslavia, Aug.
As a result of Khrushchov's revisionism, the first socialist country in the world built
by the great Soviet people with their blood and sweat is now facing an unprecedented
danger of capitalist restoration.
The Khrushchov clique are spreading the tale that "there are no longer
antagonistic classes and class struggle in the Soviet Union" in order to cover up the
facts about their own ruthless class struggle against the Soviet people.
The Soviet privileged stratum represented by the revisionist Khrushchov clique
constitutes only a few per cent of the Soviet population. Among the Soviet cadres its
numbers are also small. It stands diametrically opposed to the Soviet people, who
constitute more than 90 per cent of the total population, and to the great majority of the
Soviet cadres and Communists. The contradiction between the Soviet people and this
privileged stratum is now the principal contradiction inside the Soviet Union, and it is
an irreconcilable and antagonistic class contradiction.
The glorious Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was built by Lenin, and the
great Soviet people displayed epoch-making revolutionary initiative in the October
Socialist Revolution, they showed their heroism and stamina in defeating the White Guards
and the armed intervention by more than a dozen imperialist countries, they scored
unprecedently brilliant achievements in the struggle for industrialization and
agricultural collectivization, and they won a tremendous victory in the Patriotic War
against the German fascists and saved all mankind. Even under the rule of the Khrushchov
clique, the mass of the members of the CPSU and the Soviet people are carrying on the
glorious revolutionary traditions nurtured by Lenin and Stalin, and they still uphold
socialism and aspire to communism.
The broad masses of the Soviet workers, collective farmers and intellectuals are
seething with discontent against the oppression and exploitation practised by the
privileged stratum. They have come to see ever more clearly the revisionist features of
the Khrushchov clique which is betraying socialism and restoring capitalism.
Among the ranks of the Soviet cadres, there are many who still persist in the
revolutionary stand of the proletariat, adhere to the road of socialism and firmly oppose
Khrushchov's revisionism. The broad masses of the Soviet people, of Communists and cadres
are using various means to resist and oppose the revisionist line of the Khrushchov
clique, so that the revisionist Khrushchov clique cannot so easily bring about the
restoration of capitalism. The great Soviet people are fighting to defend the glorious
traditions of the Great October Revolution, to preserve the great gains of socialism and
to smash the plot for the restoration of capitalism.
REFUTATION OF THE SO-CALLED STATE OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE
At the 22nd Congress of the CPSU Khrushchov openly raised the banner of opposition to
the dictatorship of the proleatriat, announcing the replacement of the state of the
dictatorship of the proletariat by the "state of the whole people". It is
written in the Programme of the CPSU that the dictatorship of the proletariat "has
ceased to be indispensable in the U.S.S.R." and that "the state, which arose as
a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, has, in the new, contemporary stage,
become a state of the entire people".
Anyone with a little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism knows that the concept of the state
is a class concept. Lenin pointed out that "the distinguishing feature of the state
is the existence of a separate class of people in whose hands power is
[Lenin, "The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve's
Book", Collected Works, FLPH, Moscow, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 419.]
The state is a weapon of class struggle, a machine by means of which one class
represses another. Every state is the dictatorship of a definite class. So long as the
state exists, it cannot possibly stand above class or belong to the whole people.
The proletariat and its political party have never concealed their views; they say
explicitly that the very aim of the proletarian socialist revolution is to overthrow
bourgeois rule and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. After the victory of the
socialist revolution, the proletariat and its party must strive unremittingly to fulfil
the historical tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat and eliminate classes and
class differences, so that the state will wither away. It is only the bourgeoisie and its
parties which in their attempt to hoodwink the masses try by every means to cover up the
class nature of state power and describe the state machinery under their control as being
"of the whole people" and "above class".
The fact that Khrushchov has announced the abolition of the dictatorship of the
proletariat in the Soviet Union and advanced the thesis of the "state of the whole
people" demonstrates that he has replaced the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the state
by bourgeois falsehoods.
When Marxist-Leninists criticized their fallacies, the revisionist Khrushchov clique
hastily defended themselves and tried hard to invent a so-called theoretical basis for the
"state of the whole people". They now assert that the historical period of the
dictatorship of the proletariat mentioned by Marx and Lenin refers only to the transition
from capitalism to the first stage of communism and not to its higher stage. They further
assert that "the dictatorship of the proletariat will cease to be necessary before
the state withers away" and that after the end of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, there is yet another stage, the "state of the whole people".
[Pravda editorial board's article, "Programme for the Building of Communism",
Aug. 18, 1961.]
These are out-and-out sophistries.
In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx advanced the well-known axiom that
the dictatorship of the proletariat is the state of the period of transition from
capitalism to communism. Lenin gave a clear explanation of this Marxist axiom. He said:
- In his Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx wrote: "Between capitalist and
communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the
other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can
be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Up to now
this axiom has never been disputed by Socialists, and yet it implies the recognition of
the existence of the state right up to the time when victorious socialism has grown
into complete communism.
[Lenin, "The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up", Collected Works,
International Publishers, New York, 1942, Vol. 19, pp. 269-70.]
Lenin further said:
- The essence of Marx's teaching on the state has been mastered only by those who
understand that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for the proletariat
which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period
which separates capitalism from "classless society", from Communism.
[Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol.
2, Part 1, p. 234.]
It is perfectly clear that according to Marx and Lenin, the historical period
throughout which the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat exists, is not merely
the period of transition to the first stage of communism, as alleged by the revisionist
Khrushchov clique, but the entire period of transition from capitalism to "complete
communism", to the time when all class differences will have been eliminated and
"classless society" realized, that is to say, to the higher stage of communism.
It is equally clear that the state in the transition period referred to by Marx and
Lenin is the dictatorship of the proletariat and nothing else. The dictatorship of the
proletariat is the form of the state in the entire period of transition from capitalism to
the higher stage of communism, and also the last form of the state in human history. The
withering away of the dictatorship of the proletariat will mean the withering away of the
state. Lenin said:
- Marx deduced from the whole history of Socialism and of the political struggle that the
state was bound to disappear, and that the transitional form of its disappearance (the
transition from state to nonstate) would be the "proletariat organized as the ruling
[Ibid., pp. 256-57.]
Historically the dictatorship of the proletariat may take different forms from one
country to another and from one period to another, but in essence it will remain the same.
- The transition from capitalism to Communism certainly cannot but yield a tremendous
abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the
dictatorship of the proletariat.
[Ibid, p. 234.]
It can thus be seen that it is absolutely not the view of Marx and Lenin but an
invention of the revisionist Khrushchov that the end of the dictatorship of the
proletariat will precede the withering away of the state and will be followed by yet
another stage, "the state of the whole people".
In arguing for their anti-Marxist-Leninist views, the revisionist Khrushchov clique
have taken great pains to find a sentence from Marx and distorting it by quoting it out of
context. They have arbitrarily described the future nature of the state (Staatswesen
in German) of communist society referred to by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha
Programme as the "'state of communist society' (gosudarstvennost
kommunisticheskovo obshchestva in Russian [Note: written in the pamphlet with cyrillic
letters, which cannot be reproduced here]), which is no longer a dictatorship of the
[M. A. Suslov, Report at the Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU,
February 1964 (New Times, English ed., No. 15, 1964, p. 62.]
They gleefully announced that the Chinese would not dare to quote this from Marx.
Apparently the revisionist Khrushchov clique think this is very helpful to them.
As it happens Lenin seems to have foreseen that revisionists would make use of this
phrase to distort Marxism. In his Marxism on the State, Lenin gave an excellent
explanation of it. He said, "...the dictatorship of the proletariat is a 'political
transition period'. . . . But Marx goes on to speak of 'the future nature of the state
(gosudarstvennost in Russian [Note: cyrillic letters, not reproduced here], Staatswesen
in German) of communist society'!! Thus, there will be a state even in 'communist
society'!! Is there not a contrdiction in this?" Lenin answered, "No." He
then tabulated the three stages in the process of development from the bourgeois state to
the withering away of the state:
- The first stage -- in bourgeois society, the state is needed by the bourgeoisie - the
The second stage -- in the period of transition from capitalism to
communism, the state is needed by the proletariat -- the state of the dictatorship of the
The third stage -- in communist society, the state is not necessary, it withers away.
He concluded: "Complete consistency and clarity!!"
In Lenin's tabulation, only the bourgeois state, the state of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and the withering away of the state are to be found. By precisely this
tabulation Lenin made it clear that when communism is reached the state withers away and
Ironically enough, the revisionist Khrushchov clique also quoted this very passage from
Lenin's Marxism on the State in the course of defending their error. And then they
proceeded to make the following idiotic statement:
- In our country the first two periods referred to by Lenin in the opinion quoted already
belong to history. In the Soviet Union a state of the whole people -- a communist state
system, the state of the first phase of communism, has arisen and is
["From the Party of the Working Class to the Party of the Whole Soviet
People", editorial board's article of Partyinaya Zhizn, Moscow, No. 8, 1964.]
If the first two periods referred to by Lenin have already become a thing of the past
in the Soviet Union, the state should be withering away, and where could a "state of
the whole people" come from? If the state is not yet withering away, then it ought to
be the dictatorship of the proletariat and under absolutely no circumstances a "state
of the whole people".
In arguing for their "state of the whole people", the revisionist Khrushchov
clique exert themselves to vilify the dictatorship of the proletariat as undemocratic.
They assert that only by replacing the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the
"state of the whole people" can democracy be further developed and turned into
"genuine democracy for the whole peop- le". Khrushchov has pretentiously said
that the abolition of the dictatorship of the proletariat exemplifies "a line of
energetically developing democracy" and that "proletarian democracy is becoming
socialist democracy of the whole people".
[N. S. Khrushchov, "Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU", and
"On the Programme of the CPSU", delivered at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU,
These utterances can only show that their authors either are completely ignorant of the
Marxist-Leninist teachings on the state or are maliciously distorting them.
Anyone with a little knowledge of Marxism-Leninism knows that the concept of democracy
as a form of the state, like that of dictatorship, is a class one. There can only be class
democracy, there cannot be "democracy for the whole people".
- Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion
from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people -- this is the change
democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to Communism.
[Lenin, "The State and Revolution", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol.
2, Part 1, p. 291.]
Dictatorship over the exploiting classes and democracy among the working people --
these are the two aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is only under the
dictatorship of the proletariat that democracy for the masses of the working people can be
developed and expanded to an unprecedented extent. Without the dictatorship of the
proletariat there can be no genuine democracy for the working people.
Where there is bourgeois democracy there is no proletarian democracy, and where there
is proletarian democracy there is no bourgeois democracy. The one excludes the other. This
is inevitable and admits of no compromise. The more thoroughly bourgeois democracy is
eliminated, the more will proletarian democracy flourish. In the eyes of the bourgeoisie,
any country where this occurs is lacking in democracy. But actually this is the promotion
of proletarian democracy and the elimination of bourgeois democracy. As proletarian
democracy develops, bourgeois democracy is eliminated.
This fundamental Marxist-Leninist thesis is opposed by the revisionist Khrushchov
clique. In fact, they hold that so long as enemies are subjected to dictatorship there is
no democracy and that the only way to develop democracy is to abolish the dictatorship
over enemies, stop suppressing them and institute "democracy for the whole
Their view is cast from the same mould as the renegade Kautsky's concept of "pure
In criticizing Kautsky Lenin said:
- ..."pure democracy" is not only an ignorant phrase, revealing a lack of
understanding both of the class struggle and of the nature of the state, but also a
thrice-empty phrase, since in communist society democracy will wither away in the
process of changing and becoming a habit, but will never be "pure" democracy.
[Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", Selected
Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 48.]
He also pointed out:
- The dialectics (course) of the development is as follows: from absolutism to bourgeois
democracy; from bour- geois to proletarian democracy; from proletarian democracy to none.
[Lenin, Marxism on the State, Russian ed., Moscow, 1958, p. 42.]
That is to stay, in the higher stage of communism proletarian democracy will wither
away along with the elimination of classes and the withering away of the dictatorship of
To speak plainly, as with the "state of the whole people", the
"democracy for the whole people" proclaimed by Khrushchov is a hoax. In thus
retrieving the tattered garments of the bourgeoisie and the old-line revisionists,
patching them up and adding a label of his own, Khrushchov's sole purpose is to deceive
the Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the world and cover up his betrayal of
the dictatorship of the proletariat and his opposition to socialism.
What is the essence of Khrushchov's "state of the whole people"?
Khrushchov has abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union and
established a dictatorship of the revisionist clique headed by himself, that is, a
dictatorship of the privileged stratum of the Soviet bourgeoisie. Actually his "state
of the whole people" is not a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat but a
state in which his small revisionist clique wield their dictatorship over the masses of
the workers, the peasants and the revolutionary intellectuals.
Under the rule of the Khrushchov clique, there is no democracy for the Soviet working
people, there is democracy only for the handful of people belonging to the revisionist
Khrushchov clique, for the privileged stratum and for the bourgeois elements, old and new.
Khrushchov's "democracy for the whole people" is nothing but out-and-out
bourgeois democracy, i.e., a despotic dictatorship of the Khrushchov clique over the
In the Soviet Union today, anyone who persists in the proletarian stand, upholds
Marxism-Leninism and has the courage to speak out, to resist or to fight is watched,
followed, summoned, and even arrested, imprisoned or diagnosed as "mentally ill"
and sent to "mental hospitals".
Recently the Soviet press has declared that it is necessary to "fight"
against those who show even the slightest dissatisfaction, and called for "relentless
battle" against the "rotten jokers" who are so bold as to make sarcastic
remarks about Khrushchov's agricultural policy.
[Izvestia, Mar. 10, 1964.]
It is not particularly astonishing that the revisionist Khrushchov clique should have
on more than one occasion bloodily suppressed striking workers and the masses who put up
The formula of abolishing the dictatorship of the proletariat while keeping a state of
the whole people reveals the secret of the revisionist Khrushchov clique; that is, they
are firmly opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat but will not give up state power
till their doom.
The revisionist Khrushchov clique know the paramount importance of controlling state
power. They need it for clearing the way for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet
Union. These are Khrushchov's real aims in raising the banners of the "state of the
whole people" and "democracy for the whole people".
Click here to continue article
Transcribed by Rolf Martens in 1997.