Economic base and infrastructure

It has been argued, many times, that Stalin was interested “only” in the economy issues, the economic base issues etc and not in infrastructure and everything that was connected with this aspect of the problem. This view is rather simplistic.
Stalin was indeed interested in the economic base issues. He was interested in both the development of productive forces and the development of production relations, and he did well. (A basic front that opened in the discussions in the ‘50s concerned precisely this issue). Whether he managed to answer and to what degree the question is a matter of estimation. Had Stalin (namely the communist movement) managed to answer in a complete way, theoretically and practically the questions of the economic base, the question of production relations, he would have rather answered the greater part of the whole problem.
The party was part of infrastructure, particularly the political infrastructure. When the role of the leader of socialist transformation is given to the party this means, besides everything else, that the main role is given to infrastructure.
The revolutionary process is, among others, a process of “shifting” the “authority” from the economic base to the –mainly political – infrastructure. The contradictions, the mobilizing forces are generated in the social and economic base level. These contradictions are formed in theories, ideologies and political views and they organized in various forms of organization, parties, etc. This is the infrastructure level.
The social- finally- overthrows emerge through the form of the dynamic confrontation among political tendencies and forces, to which, through a complex and multiform process, this historic “authority” has been “shifted” to them.
This fact, among others, creates a sense of “powerfulness” for the politics (infrastructure). Indeed, for a certain period, politics (the revolutionary political power) is, if not most powerful, acquiring increased capacity. But this is valid up to a certain point; both qualitative and quantitative. From a quality point of view it has the ability to implement those transformations and social overthrows that have “matured”.
In other words, it has the capacity to solve the contradictions that have emerged in the previous society; the aggravation of those contradictions has “loaded (charged)” the revolutionary process. The “load (charge)” of those contradictions was the one that provided the increased authority to the revolutionary political power. In terms of time, it is being defined more or less, in regards with the process of materializing those transformations.
In other words, it lasts as long as the revolutionary “assignment” lasts. Practically, as it was proved in history, this “assignment” ends along with the physical end of the revolutionary generation. From that point on, the “regular” relation of economic between economic base and infrastructure is functioning. The economic base and the production relations that have been formed “produce” and shape their “own” infrastructure. Actually, this shift starts from the very first moment of revolution, from the first changes. It isn’t understood immediately but later in the course it becomes all the more increased until it is completed. This is the turning point.
The transformations that have been accomplished (the ones, in which the party – the political infrastructure- has played the leading role) form a new economic base. It’s about a base that is – no longer - capitalist and not yet –completely- socialist. It’s an economic base with transitional character, with a socialist “tendency” and direction. This tendency is based on the fact that the new status quo originates from a revolution with a concrete character.
This character is expressed in the social and political forces that dominate this status quo. They dominate the processes and the transformations that are being accomplished and the tendency of continuing these transformation, the ideology that dominates, the “atmosphere” that is being formed with all the above and characterizes the whole of society.
Nevertheless, all these do not ensure completely that things will continue advancing to the same direction. This new economic base, in which exist elements of both socialist and capitalist character, functions inconsistently and may develop to both directions. Meanwhile, it “produces” (or even “reproduces under the new conditions) social forces with respectively contradictory features and interests. There are social forces like the working class that wants social transformations to advance to a socialist direction. On the other hand, there are social forces whose role is connected with conditions that have been formed in this –transitional- society. These forces are characterized by the tendency of sustaining these conditions or changing them to a direction that sustains, reproduces, expands and consolidates their –concessive- role.
There is similar development in infrastructure. “New” theoretical, ideological and political views are being “produced” and formed. These views are connected with the (not always clearly) new economic and social given facts. There are concepts that correspond –in a contradictory way – to both directions. These views and concepts “meet” with the old ones. In other words the infrastructure that has been formed under the new conditions rises in the social front stage, seeks for its “space” and role against the ruling until then, “old” infrastructure.
The new infrastructure “dislocates” the old one; it changes it, it has an effect on a new relation of things in this level, too. The main issue here is that in this new situation there are again both directions. To avoid confusion, we should clarify that the main contradiction is not between the “old” and the “new”. The basic separating line (no matter if it isn’t so obvious) is between advancing the socialist transformation to a communist direction and the opposite course. The question is to what direction and on the basis of which conditions things will develop.