A process of class and social character

The basic revolutionary overthrows and transformations create a new basis, new economic, social and political given facts; a new “environment”. They are the initial-basic, the elemental form of the new socialist relations that overthrow the rule of the old ones; they dislocate, constrain and devastate them. Yet, they cannot be shaped immediately to their completed, communist form.
It is namely the complete, overall and essential socialization of means of production and economy as a whole; the full institution of “authority” of labor in every demonstration of economic and social life, from production to culture. It is the complete, overall and essential hegemony of the working class, the world of labor; the abolition of the distinction between mental and physical workers etc.
This means that under the new conditions survive forms, predicaments and relations of the old society. They don’t survive simply as a shape, an empty shell (it wouldn’t matter at all in that case) but, up to a point, as substance.
This means that in the relations, the new forms that consolidate, survives, “penetrates” –again up to a certain degree and way- the old substance (not only the new in the old but also the old one in the new). This means and entails things of two different directions. Under the new conditions in the pre-socialist forms that survive, their capitalist character and substance has declined. The “environment” they function doesn’t encourage them; it doesn’t feed them, it doesn’t provide them any activity field. Instead their whole function is determined –and limited- by the domination of the socialist system. On the other hand, within the socialist forms and relations that have been established, survive up to a certain degree pre-socialist influence and features. This means that there is no sense in “abolishing” every old form, predicament and relation and in their place establish new ones. If in the relevantly mature socialist relations that have been established survive bourgeois features this means that in the “premature” generated forms and predicaments the old substance will be reproduced immediately, probably in a warped (distorted) way and definitely less “obvious”. One first conclusion is that the dual character of forms that survive and of the new socialist relations means that regression is possible; the question hasn’t been solved definitely. To which direction things will develop, remains a question and above all it is a matter of struggle.
These were the conditions that led Stalin to refer to the new relations; the new content that penetrates the old forms and put aside the old content and gives to the new relations a new content.
“In such a base, we consider that the transformation relations of production (and not only) isn’t something that takes place once and for all. It’s a constant process as a whole and within the “body” of each relation again and again for a whole historic period. On the same logic, we consider this issue not as a technocratic one, an issue of elaboration (necessary of course) but as a (complex) class struggle issue in its main side that goes on during socialism. Similarly, this means that indeed (particularly during the first stage) there aren’t any “purely” socialist or bourgeois relations but their character (this or the other) is defined by their relation with the whole development and course of class struggle”.
This process in its main and substantial aspect is a matter of everyday realization; step by step, in each relation, in every field again and again, the new content over the new one. It is a process that will realize new relations in an, all the more, advanced form; in a, all the more, higher level and in whole scale. This process is a matter of every day realization in every form and relation and every mutual-connection, interrelation, mutual definition and interaction. In other words: the process of overall and complete transformation of production, economic and political relations lasted for capitalism a whole historic period. Actually a great part –of significant importance- developed during and within the frames of feudal society. This very same process, for socialism, is realized within the frames of …socialism and under the domination working class and the socialist view.
But this doesn’t mean at all, that it stops being any more an economic and social process and it turns out into a question of “proper” political decisions and respective regulating authority of some apparatus. It doesn’t mean that it is –in its main aspect- an issue of planning. It doesn’t mean that this plan can replace social development. New relations require some “time” to live before they are completed. And this time cannot be abolished. Planning, apparatus and political decisions are necessary. But the whole process remains in its base, its “time” and substance a process of mainly social character.
All the aforementioned lead us to a very significant issue. This is a task that extends during a whole historic period, a complex and manifold task that embraces and concerns every field and every activity of economic, social and political life. It is a process that will present, inevitably and naturally every day “unpredictable” facts (and it is impossible for them to come under any kind of planning) and it can only be the task of a social force.
This force, by its nature as social will function directly within the structure of economic and social life. At the same time, this force will function wittingly, day by day, overall, with persistence, with contemplation and determination to a certain direction. Not because someone assigned it to do so but because it will result from its nature, its features and properties. This is the working class, obviously class and politically organized to the higher possible level (with its party, organizations etc).
The role of the working class isn’t simply the stable base for socialism; it isn’t simply the force of defense of socialist conquests, the one that will hold a steady “defense” line towards the danger of setback.
It is at the same time, and no one can replace it in its role, the basic force of advancing socialist transformation. If as Lenin said only a class can overthrow another class in this case this is more valid than anywhere else. Only a class in its overall, long-term and manifold move can transform a society.
Here lies the fundamental weakness of Stalin’s view – a view that was correct regarding the rest. What took place in the ‘50s wasn’t simply a theoretical discussion among comrades who sought to find the “correct” answer. It was at the same time (and mainly) the expression of a political-class confrontation that was already being conducted. And due to this, Stalin’s view, theoretically correct, couldn’t develop to its consequences, couldn’t become a political view-line and above all couldn’t find forces to support it- really.
Such forces didn’t participate in the discussions. The reason was because the conditions that would enable them to participate substantially and truly (not only in the discussions but in the whole confrontation) had already declined.
Thus, the intelligentsia coordinated forces, coiled in front of Stalin’s status, “agreed” with his views and they simply waited for his death in order to promote and achieve their goals.