Revisionism is not something that suddenly appeared at some point in the history of the international communist movement. Rather it has been present, in various forms, right from the beginnings of the international communist movement in the mid-nineteenth century. Marx and Engels opposed reformist elements in the German Social-Democratic Party, Lenin struggled against the Mensheviks, Stalin led the campaign against Trotsky and other defeatist elements in the CPSU, Mao battled against the Khrushchevites in the Soviet Union and the capitalist roaders in China. On the basis of these concrete experiences we can formulate a preliminary definition of the problem.

Revisionism is the denial of the necessity for the proletariat to bring about the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie; it is the denial of the necessity for the proletariat to exercise all-round dictatorship over the bourgeoisie; it is the denial of the necessity of protracted class struggle throughout the entire period of the socialist transformation of society. Revisionism is the form that bourgeois ideology takes on within the ranks of the revolutionaries and its material basis is the persistance of capitalist relations of production in society. Thus the struggle against revisionism will continue right up until the time when communism is achieved on a world-scale because until then the material conditions which generate the bourgeois world outlook will still be in existence.

While the starting point of any serious study of revisionism must be a critical examination of the problem as formulated and investigated by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others the aim must be to go beyond their work and achieve a more profound grasp of the nature of revisionism. Simply reiterating past analyses will not provide an adequate guide to action now and in the future. After all, despite the resolute struggles of our great leaders against revisionist tendencies in the ICM they did not succeed in decisively defeating this enemy within our ranks. Neither will we unless we achieve a qualitatively higher level of understanding of the problem.

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." - Karl Marx.

For Marxists the key to the understanding and explanation of any social formation is the analysis of praxis, the process whereby people act upon and change the world to satisfy their material needs thus changing the world and in so doing changing themselves, their relationships and consciousness. Social consciousness is part of, a moment in the process of praxis. Thus in analytically conceptualising any mode of social thought, such as revisionism, it is correctly conceived of not just as a system of ideas but also as a set of practices, of definite modes of action. Thus in approaching the question of revisionism we must conceptualise this phenomenon as a unity of thought and action, where a specific set of material practices generate a revisionist outlook which in turn reinforces and shapes those modes of behaviour. We must identify just which features of the material basis of society generate revisionism in various parts of the ideological superstructure of society.

Thus, for example, if we are to properly explain the particular form of revisionism put forward and practised by Khrushchev and his associates during the nineteen fifties then we need to specify what features of the material basis (economic infrastructure) and ideological superstructure of Soviet society during that period were generating revisionist thinking. It simply will not do to put forward explanations in terms of class enemies and imperialist agents infiltrating the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Furthermore while revisionism becomes manifest in definite individuals such as Khrushchev and Brezhnev it should not be seen as peculiar to particular individual persons but rather as an ideological characteristic of a class or stratum in society. As Plekhanov pointed out, individual leaders give expression to the class interests of their followers. Thus the class or stratum whose practice generates revisionism should be identified.

The procedure of materialist dialectics is to investigate the unity and struggle of opposites constituting a phenomenon, to concretely analyse dialectical contradictions. For example, revolutionism and revisionism constitute a dialectical contradiction; one cannot exist without the other. The most developed exposition on dialectical analysis so far has been that put forward by Mao in his essay 'On Contradiction' and we should follow this guidance.

Some very important distinctions made by Mao are between:

1. BASIC and PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTIONS

(a) The basic, fundamental contradiction of any phenomenon which constitutes its very essence. For example the basic contradiction of capitalism is that between the social organisation of production and the private ownership of the means of production.

(b) The different principal contradictions deriving from the basic contradiction and which at the successive stages of development of a phenomenon determine and influence the development of the other contradictions in that phenomenon. For example the most important contradictions deriving from the basic contradiction in capitalism are those between the mode of production and the mode of exchange; between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; between proletarian ideology and bourgeois ideology. During a period of sharp class struggle the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie could be the principal one because it is determining the particular course of development of the other secondary contradictions. During a period of serious economic crisis the contradiction between the mode of production and the mode of exchange could become principal.

2. PRINCIPAL and SECONDARY ASPECTS OF A CONTRADICTION

The principal aspect of a contradiction at a particular time determines its course of development during that period. For example under capitalism in the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie the latter is normally principal but when the proletariat goes on the offensive it can become principal.

3. ANTAGONISTIC and NON-ANTAGONISTIC CONTRADICTIONS

For example, under the dictatorship of the proletariat the contradiction between the proletariat and the peasantry is normally non-anatagonistic but if the relations between the two classes as mishandled then the contradiction can become antagonistic.

4. INTERNAL and EXTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS

The contradictions internal to a phenomenon are normally the causes of its course of development while the contradictions external to the phenomenon are the conditions of its development. Thus, for example, in explaining the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union it is to internal contradictions rather than external contradictions, such as imperialist encirclement, that we need to look in order to produce an explanation. However there can be occasions when an external contradiction becomes principal as possibly was the case when the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany in 1941. It might be argued that at that point the contradiction between the proletarian state and the imperialist states became the principal one determining the development of the contradictions internal to Soviet society.

Any serious assessment of the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union in particular and the ICM in general must proceed in terms of concretely specifying and analysing the development of the relevant dialectical contradictions.

It is not possible to present here a comprehensive approach to this problem but some of the important questions to be raised can be outlined.

Socialism is but the period of transition between capitalism and communism and so the basic contradiction remains the same as it was under capitalism: between the social organisation of production and the private ownership of the means of production. Under capitalism it is the private ownership of the means of production which is the principal aspect of this contradiction but with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat the social organisation of production becomes principal.

In the early stages of socialism private ownership of the means of production remains not just in the form of private peasant plots and petty traders but more importantly in the fact that the great mass of people do not directly exercise control over the means of production. Rather this is done on their behalf by the communist party and the state apparatus controlled by it. In discussing ownership of the means of production it is important to distinguish between de jure and de facto ownership. What really matters is not who nominally in law owns means of production but rather who actually decides how means of production will be used and who receives what is produced. The works of Charles Bettelheim contain extended discussion and analysis of this issue.

It is inevitable that in the early stages of the dictatorship of the proletariat that only the most politically conscious section of the proletariat will be actively involved, through the agencies of the party and state, in the social organisation of production. However unless increasingly wider sections of the masses come to genuinely participate in this process then the effective ownership of the means of production will remain in the hands of a few and thus be essentially private. Given that social being determines social consciousness these few will increasingly come to think and behave in ways characteristic of the bourgeoisie precisely because their objective position is that of the bourgeois, i.e. owning and controlling the chief means of production.

In the case of the Soviet Union we need to examine just how far mass participation in control of the productive process ever went and through what stages and at what times a new type of state bourgeoisie emerged. By means of careful concrete analysis it should be possible to identify a fairly definite point of time at which private ownership became the principal aspect of this contradiction.

The main concrete manifestations of the basic contradiction under socialism are the same as those under capitalism:

1. Between the mode of production and the mode of exchange.

2. Between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

3. Between proletarian ideology and bourgeois ideology.

In addition it is necessary to take into account some external contradictions:

4. Between the Soviet state and capitalist states.

5. Between the CPSU and other communist parties.

In understanding the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union each one of these contradictions must be analysed in its concrete specificity.

Some important questions here are:

To what extent was the operation of the law of value curtailed and transcended? To what extent did the economy continue to be based on commodity production and exchange through the medium of money? To what extent was labour power mobilised by means of material rather than political incentives? Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR may be useful here and some writings by Mao collected under the title A Critique of Soviet Economics.

Also there is the contradiction within the mode of production between the forces of production and the relations of production. Which aspect was principal at different times? Was there not a strong "economist" deviation throughout the Soviet period which tended to see communism as largely arising out of the development of the forces of production and which paid little attention to the revolutionary transformation of the relations of production? The Chinese communists dubbed this approach to socialist construction the "forces of production theory" (see Three Major Struggles on China's Philosophical Front).

The class contradictions of Soviet society also must take into account the peasantry and the intelligentsia. Furthermore, divisions within the different classes and strata must be taken into account as well as the organisational forms which gave expression to class interests. Some of the questions which need to be raised here are:

Did the working class become differentiated into a stratum of relatively highly paid and privileged skilled workers, a sort of labour aristocracy, and the rest who were poorly paid with inferior general living conditions?

What about the class character of the peasantry? Was there any real difference between those on collective farms and those on state farms? What about the survival of peasant plots which provided a very large proportion of vegetables and dairy produce? To what extent did this constitute a survival of petty proprietorship and thus provide a basis for a petit bourgeois outlook?

There is also the question of the intelligentsia. Did they become differentiated into a professional-managerial stratum, possibly a source of and basis of support for an emergent state bourgeoisie, and a larger stratum of lower status, more routine white-collar workers?

What about relations between the working class and the peasantry, the alliance between them being the original social basis of Soviet power? Did the collectivisation programme weaken or strengthen this alliance?

One aspect of the major class division under capitalism is that between mental and manual labour. To what extent was this division of labour broken down in the Soviet Union? Or was it even accentuated in the sense that the ranks of the intelligentsia were greatly augmented? By the nineteen sixties the intelligentsia outnumbered workers and peasants in the membership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

What about relations between the party, the state and the people? Did the party lose the active involvement of ordinary workers and peasants and become essentially a body of professional administrators and managers? If so, how and why did this happen? What about the state apparatus? The Bolsheviks came to power on the basis of winning the support of the Soviets but these progressively became formal bodies lacking any real power. Were there any features of the Soviet state apparatus which constituted a real exercise of power by the proletariat?

By ideology is meant not just a system of ideas but also the institutional practices which embody, express and recreate these world outlooks. Social institutions such as the family, education, religion, science and the arts need to be examined. Some of the questions to be raised are:

Why were attempts to move towards the weakening and abolition of the family abandoned during the nineteen thirties? Was the survival of the bourgeois family a factor in capitalist restoration? Did the education system simply reflect the division between mental and manual labour and thus reinforce it or not? How successful were the campaigns against religious beliefs and institutions? To what extent was Soviet science directed towards serving socialist construction and to what extent did it simply emulate models of scientific practice from the imperialist countries? What was the role of the arts in sustaining or opposing bourgeois culture?

As Mao pointed out, in the early stages of socialist construction the ideas and practices of the old society remain strongly entrenched in the ideological superstructure of society. If these are not consciously and resolutely opposed then the danger of capitalist restoration is very great. In the Soviet Union there was a short-lived Cultural Revolution from 1929 to 1931 but this was wound up and abandoned. While it is true that if the material basis of society is not subject to conscious and progressive rewvolutionary transformation then the revolution is in danger it is also the case that the greatest threat to proletarian power could be located in unreconstructed parts of the ideological superstructure.

The major issue here is the degree to which the relations of the Soviet state with capitalist states were conducted in ways which objectively facilitated the struggles of oppressed people. After all, it was the foreign policy of the Soviet Union during the nineteen fifties, rather than internal affairs, which first drew criticism from the Chinese communists. It has been suggested that the Soviet leaders increasingly equated the interests of the international proletariat with defending the existence of the Soviet state, a nationalist deviation. Was this the case?

The relations between the CPSU and other communist parties are important for examining the rise of revisionism. The communist parties in the imperialist countries had very strong revisionist tendencies. For example, none of them took the question of armed struggle seriously. It is noteworthy that the Communist Party of Italy was not willing to take up arms against the Mussolini fascist regime but did do so when the German fascists assumed power in Italy. Also the origins of the United Front Policy Against Fascism, arguably a revisionist policy, are to be found in the Communist Party of France around 1934 rather than emanating from the Comintern. (See The Twilight of the Comintern by E.H. Carr). It should not automatically be assumed that revisionist lines always originated from within the CPSU. Rather it was a two-way process.

Why was the Comintern abolished in 1943? Was this a retreat from proletarian internationalism?

The questions raised above are far from being comprehensive in their scope. No doubt in the course of any serious investigation of revisionism other questions would arise. At first sight the task proposed seems daunting for a few comrades. However, much of the detailed empirical data necessary for an analysis of the triumph of revisionism in the Soviet Union has already been assembled by bourgeois scholars. What is necessary is not so much fresh primary research but rather to submit this material to a dialectical materialist analysis. This could be done over a reasonable period of time, say a year or two.

The task of analysing the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union is a very practical one in at least two senses. If we are not able to put forward a convincing analysis and clear prescriptions on how such degeneration can be avoided in any future attempt at socialist construction then we will not be able to win over a new generation of recruits to the communist movement. It is a historical fact that the first wave of socialism in the world has failed. The communist movement can only be revived by means of a profound, qualitative advance in revolutionary theory and a central part of this project is the understanding of revisionism and counter-revolution. Without this, even in the unlikely instance of there being some revolutionary breakthroughs these movements would be doomed to the same degeneration and defeat as occurred in the Soviet union and China.

BETTELHEIM, C., Class Struggles in the USSR, 2 vols., Harvester Press, 1976.

BETTELHEIM, C., Economic Calculation and Forms of Property: An Essay on the Transition Between Capitalism and Socialism, Monthly Review Press, 1970.

COLLIER, J., Dynamics of Socialism, Marram Books, 1986.

COORIGAN, P., RAMSAY, H. & SAYER, D., For Mao: Essays in Historical Materialism, Macmillan, 1979.

DUNHAM, V.S., In Stalin's Time: Middleclass Values in Soviet Fiction, CUP, 1976.

GETTY, J.A., Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938, CUP, 1985.

__