Shortcomings Of Marxism-Leninism

The core claims of Marxist-Leninists; being that the USSR and all subsequent societies built on the model of planned-command economy constituted a non-capitalist and non-communist mode of production, that was its own distinct socioeconomic formation colloquially termed Actually Existing Socialism (AES), Historical Socialism, or just Socialism. This is the main point of dispute which determines the core positions one holds, and therefore the correct stance is to defend the core thesis of the Marxist-Leninist position.

While the universals the thesis posits is correct, there are flaws in its components and the meditating links it sets about to explain and understand AES. Stalin's conception, which ML’s and Trotskyists adopt, is fundamentally a break with the abstract definitions and understanding of socialism that Marx, Engels, and further Lenin held. Lenin came close to breaking with Marx and Engels (M&E) position, but he did not live through the NEP and could not, understandably, understand what Stalin did – that the post NEP system constituted its own specific mode of production which abolished capitalism and was simultaneously different from what was envisioned by Marx and Engels, who could only see the first building blocks of socialist formation in practice due to their experience with the Paris Commune and Russian Communes. In retrospect, M&E held a naïve position, and that they have postulated socialism at a time it was a technological impossibility, and that they postulated the utopian horizon of socialism rather than socialism directly.

Stalin claimed direct continuity with M&E and Lenin, and this is a mistake, his attempt of hiding the contradiction in theory led to its blunting, to seeing continuity where there was none, and thus to inability to understand the very contradiction socialism faced in for of bureaucracy and continued existence of the law of value. This is where the ML position is flawed. The rupture must be made apparent and understood. Stalin was a great innovator and understood very well the practical essence of socialism, concretely taking steps at first to combat emerging contradictions like bureaucratism. However, he did not understand, or seek to understand, that he had through practice reached a new form of socialism which did not fit previous abstract theoretical conceptions of it, he failed to see that socialism had inner contradictions. While his core claims and innovations cannot be ignored and are doubtlessly still important.

The secondary mistake he made in the end became a primary contradiction driving theoretical deviation. He failed to Understand the role of the Dictatorship of The Proletariat (DoTP) and class struggle under Historical Socialism, with the official stance that their was a DotP and a socialist organisation of society simultaneously. This is a huge theoretical blunder, and one, while corrigible, set the course for the opportunist takeover of soviet political structures and the victory of bureaucracy over the most advanced party elements. Why? Because by declaring DoTP simultaneously with Socialism, they declared the USSR as in essence, functioning as a society without class distinction, which directly led to the future development of the "State Of The Whole People" which was adopted under the Khruschev administration. Stalin could not see that class contradictions still existed, albeit in a completely new form, unique to this new stage of practical development towards communism, concretized as socialism.

Stalin failed to see that the USSR still had class conflict in which the Proletariat and Peasantry were single and ruling classes. Class struggle manifested itself as struggle within the dominant Proletarian layer as the struggle against bureaucracy. If you are aware of the classic Marxist theory, the following will sound contradictory to you; How can there be a single class if classes are by their nature relational? Marx says as much in Brumaire and the Preface to Critique of Political Economy. What Marxism-Leninism failed to see, at this point, is that AES stood both against national capitalism and capitalism as a world-system. This harkens back to the 2nd most important theoretical development of socialism, although this one is not by itself a necessary universal inner law of motion behind socialism, and that is the theory of socialism within one country. By practically grasping socialism as the mode emerging of the NEP and subsequent collectivization, Stalin concretely proved his theory correct. But a contradiction emerged, and this contradiction he also ignored – the contradiction between national and global modes of production. The USSR was socialist as a concrete territory, but its necessarily stood in opposition to the rest of the capitalist world, which was the dominant mode of production of most economically developed parts of humanity. Thus, the USSR was in an empirically new position, a position neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin anticipated prior or gave thought, nor could they, as it was something that could only be recognised as an empirical phenomenon. It eliminated antagonistic classes, nationally, but did not eliminate them globally, did not strike down capitalism as a whole. Thus, the USSR was suspended in a contradictory position, a real and objective movement which tore apart soviet society. The workers were a class as they were still globally chained to the still capitalist world system, and thus could not disappear.

The USSR achieved a new form of class rule, one which resulted in an openly contradictory move of history. Stalin got it right only halfway through, only the main basics, but failed to understand how the necessary and universal facts connected with contingent circumstances; capitalist encirclement, dependence on capitalism – even central planning depended to some extent on prices formulated under capitalism abroad, especially in foreign exchange, and how these links that mediated this relationship were more complex. The interrelation between working class and capitalist was abolished nationally, but not globally, as the capitalist world-system was not abolished. All subsequent revisionist, anti-revisionist and ML narratives failed to understand this, and only world-systems theory provides the necessary theoretical concepts and methodology to understand this new phenomenon and its relevance to class constitution of the USSR. Theoretically, Stalin and Trotsky both understood bureaucracy as a danger to socialism, but they did not understand why historical socialism inherently and necessarily birthed such bureaucracy – the division of labour was still maintained as the world-capitalist system is based on global capitalist division of labour.

This is what is the link necessary to understand and complete the ML understanding of socialism and bureaucracy and is superior to all thesis of state-capitalism. Anti-Revisionists correctly understand the opportunist takeover which happened in 1953 – by that time ML theory was useless due to the reasons explained above, the deviations which were made under Stalin.

The torch of most developed understanding passed to anti-revisionist theories, as they saw and understood that class struggle unfolded under socialism as well, and that socialism too was a class society. However, this understanding was abstract, they did not understand which was explained beforehand – global divide retaining divisions of labour nourishing the development of bureaucracy. Mao came the closest to practical understanding of this, through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution exactly because it represented the most widescale attack on bureaucracy and attempted to prevent bureaucratic degeneration. Mao understood better than the soviets that the central party leadership and the masses could and must ally again bureaucracy and that they can dislodge them from positions they occupied thus. However, Mao could see how historical socialism itself had to be transformed to cut at the heart of bureaucracy, and how the law of value could be rendered even more obsolete. This is also understandably, for the ultimate solution is not political, but social, in practically developing a higher form of socialism which can eliminate the root cause of development of increasing bureaucracy. It only came up in the 70’s and 80’s, with developing of cybernetics, computer technologies and new scientific understanding of planning in natura (Kantorovich for instance and today Cockshott). Critically take from these perspectives to understand correctly that class and class struggle exist, but also that they failed to understand why this is so. As such it is necessary to fill in the ML understanding of historical socialism with subsequent critiques, but not reduce either to their opposite, and that is done through world-systems theory, Maoist understanding of mass line and bureaucracy and cybernetic planning.

-K.D.