Establish Interpersonal Relations according to Socialist Principles
Return to Fundamentals of Political Economy
14. Establish Interpersonal Relations according to Socialist Principles
People’s Status and Their Interrelations in Socialist Production 1
People’s status and their interrelations are an important component of production relations. After the establishment of the socialist public ownership system of the means of production, it is very important to shape the people’s status and their interrelations to be compatible with this form of ownership system. If this middle link of production relations is grasped and continually improved, the socialist public ownership system and distribution relations will continually be consolidated and developed.
People’s Status and Their Interrelations Have Undergone a Fundamental Change
The Socialist Public Ownership System Is a Negation of All Exploitative Systems
In history, people’s status and their interrelations in production have always been determined by the ownership system of the means of production. The system of slave ownership determined the relationship between the slave owner and his slaves. The ownership system of the feudal lords determined the relationship between the landlord and the peasant. The ownership system of the capitalist determined the relationship between the capitalist and the worker. The relationship of exploitation between the capitalist and the worker is more obscure than the relationship between the slave owner and the slave or between the landlord and the peasant. Often this relationship involves goods and is manifested as the relationship among goods. For a long time, bourgeois economists have written books and fabricated theories on the relationships among goods in an attempt to conceal the reality of class antagonism among people. “Wherever the bourgeois economists saw a relationship among goods (commodity exchanges), Marx revealed a relationship among men.” 2 “What economics studies is not things but interpersonal relations and ultimately inter class relations.” 3
The interrelations in socialist production are established only after the proletariat and the broad masses of laboring people overthrow the bourgeois state machinery with violence and establish proletarian dictatorship and the socialist public ownership system of the means of production.
In socialist society, the relationship which existed in the old society between the ruling and the ruled, with the working class and the collective farmers on one side and the bourgeoisie, the landlords, and the rich peasants on the other, has been reversed. All exploitative relations have been negated. This reversal and negation are the preconditions for transforming the private ownership system of the means of production into the socialist public ownership system. The socialist public ownership system is a coercive economic measure. In this system, the exploitative class is deprived of its means of exploiting the laboring people and is forced to accept transformation by the proletariat and the broad masses of laboring people. On the other hand, with the establishment of the socialist public ownership system, the proletariat and the broad masses of laboring people, once slaves in the old society, become masters of the new society. From here on, the proletariat and the laboring people are in the ruling position in the socialist production process, and the bourgeoisie and all exploitative classes are in the position of being ruled. Socialist interrelations are to be established and developed on this basis.
In the whole socialist historical stage, from beginning to end, there will exist the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. On the one hand, the proletariat and the broad masses of laboring people will try hard to defend and consolidate their position in socialist production and the socialist interrelations in order to achieve the great ideal of realizing communism by eliminating the bourgeoisie and all exploitative classes and all class disparities. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie and all exploitative classes will never forget their past dominant position over the laboring people, the “good old days” when they could reap without work, and they will vainly attempt to free themselves from the restrictions imposed on them by the socialist interrelations and to restore the capitalist relations. Lin Piao’s adherence to Confucius’ extremely reactionary political proposal to “restore fallen states, reinstate their sovereignties, and seek the counsel of cultivated persons in retirement” was a conspiracy to retrieve all fallen exploitative classes, pull down the laboring people as the new masters, and restore the capitalist interrelations. Therefore, the process of consolidation and development of the socialist interrelations is essentially a process of struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
Socialist Interrelations Still Possess Class Overtones
In class society, interpersonal relations are ultimately inter-class relations. How then are the interpersonal relations in socialist production manifested as interclass relations?
To better understand the class relations in socialist production, it is necessary to retrace briefly the class relations in semicolonial and semifeudal China.
The economic substructure of old China gave rise to the following classes, namely, the proletariat, the peasantry, and the urban petty bourgeoisie. At that time, the status of these classes and the inter class relations were as follows: The landlords and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie who controlled the
203 major means of production and the reactionary state machinery and colluded with imperialism occupied a dominant position in social production. They relentlessly exploited and oppressed the proletariat, the peasantry, and the urban petty bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie also possessed a large quantity of the means of production. On the one hand, they were connected in production with imperialism, the landlords, and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie in their exploitation of the proletariat and the laboring people. On the other hand, they were boycotted and hurt by the landlords and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie. The proletariat and the broad masses of poor peasants were in a helpless position in social production subject to triple oppression and exploitation from the imperialists, the feudal forces, and the bourgeoisie.
“To overthrow the old social system and establish a new one is a great struggle and an immense change in the social system and the interpersonal relations.” 4
When China entered the historical period of socialist revolution and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicraft industry, and capitalist industry and commerce was basically realized with socialist public ownership of the means of production as the only economic substructure, “the interclass relations in the whole country underwent changes.” 5
The landlord and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie had already been overthrown and were in the position of being ruled and transformed through social production. The means of production belonging to the national bourgeoisie had already passed into the hands of the proletariat and the whole laboring people. Having lost their controlling position in enterprise, the national bourgeoisie had to accept education and transformation from the working class. The peasants (including individual handicraftsmen) had been transformed from individual producers to collective laborers and, with the working class, became masters of the socialist economy. The urban petty bourgeoisie had been assimilated into the socialist production relations in the socialist transformation. The working class had become the leading class in the country controlling the lifeblood of the socialist economy and occupying a leading position in the whole social production. The old classes of the semicolonial and semifeudal society still existed. But their interclass relations had undergone fundamental changes.
Revisionists from Khrushchev and Brezhnev to Liu Shaoch’i and Lin Piao and their associates publicized a platform stating that when the socialist public ownership system becomes the only economic substructure, all exploiting classes vanish. Consequently, the production relations, which include interpersonal relations, lose their class relation character, and the so-called interpersonal relations become those among “comrades, friends, and brothers.” This fallacy is totally against Marxism and is inconsistent with the reality of socialist society.
In socialist society, although the exploiting class has lost its means of production, it still exists as a class. After the socialist revolution of the ownership 204 of the means of production is basically realized, the existence of classes will rest on the people’s economic relations prior to socialist reform and their political positions in the struggle between socialism and capitalism. In addition, the existence of classes is related to capitalist traditions and influences that still remain in socialist society, to the remaining disparities between the worker and the peasant, the urban and rural areas, and mental and physical labor, and to the bourgeois legal rights that reflect them. In fact, in addition to the continuing existence of the landlord and the bourgeoisie, new bourgeois elements will continue to emerge. From among the educated, bourgeois rightists may still emerge. Agents of the bourgeoisie may even appear inside the Communist Party. Lenin once pointed out:
“To completely eliminate classes, it is necessary not only to overthrow the exploiter, namely, the landlord and the capitalist, and to abolish their ownership system, but also to abolish any private ownership system of the means of production and eliminate disparities between the urban and rural areas and between physical and mental labor. This is a task that can only be realized after a long time.” 6
Although some people concede that there are still exploitative classes in socialist society, they refuse to admit that these classes survive in socialist production relations. They think that these classes exist only in that part of society which is divorced from socialist production relations. The fact is, a society which is divorced from certain production relations simply does not exist. The exploitative classes do not live in a vacuum, but in socialist production relations. In other words, they live in the economy of socialist state enterprises and in the collective economy. The only difference is that they are no longer in a dominant position of being the rulers but in that of being ruled. With the working class and the laboring people, they constitute the relations of the ruled and the ruling. To think that socialist production relations do not manifest relations in which the working class and the laboring people rule and transform the exploitative class will lead to the harmful conclusion that socialist production relations are independent of classes. Some people think that since we all earn our living through labor everyone is the same. Therefore, classes no longer exist. This erroneous concept is closely related to the theoretical negation of the class nature of socialist production relations.
According to China’s conditions, there exist two exploitative classes and two laboring classes. The two exploitative classes are the remnants of the landlord and comprador class and the bourgeoisie and their affiliated intellectuals. The two laboring classes are the working class and the collective peasants and their affiliated laboring intellectuals. The interrelations in socialist production are mainly the relations among and within these four classes. The relations among these four classes are not of equal importance. In the whole historical stage of socialism, the major contradictions are those between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The relations between the dominant proletariat and the dominated bourgeoisie are the basic class relations in socialist society. Interpersonal relations in production are inevitably governed, regulated, and influenced by these relations. Modern revisionists gloss over this class nature of interpersonal relations in production. They loudly say that interpersonal relations are all relations among “comrades, friends, and brothers.” The Lin Piao clique also championed the slogans “while the two struggles turn all people into enemies, the two peaces turn all people into friends” and “within the four seas all are brothers.” These are absurd. Whoever has been exposed to Marxism-Leninism knows that no relations among “comrades, friends, and brothers” are independent of classes in a class society. The hatred of the proletariat for the bourgeoisie originated in the exploitation and oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. “There can never be love without reasons; nor can there be hatred without reasons.” 7 These two classes can never be “friends,” not to mention “brothers.” Is it conceivable that the proletariat and the laboring people will relinquish their rule and be “brothers” and “friends” of the bourgeoisie? The intent of the modern revisionists’ championing of these fallacies is to defend the bourgeoisie, deceive the laboring people, and conceal their conspiracy to transform the socialist interrelations into capitalist interrelations in order to restore capitalism. 8
In socialist production, the two exploitative classes have assumed the status of being ruled. Under the conditions in China, these two classes are treated differently. The landlord and comprador classes are classified as enemies, and the national bourgeoisie is classified as of the people. These two exploitative classes are forced to accept transformation by different methods, but their relations with the worker and the peasant are still based on class antagonism. In socialist production, the laboring people, occupying a dominant position, are the masters in socialist production relations. Through continuous resolute and energetic struggle, the working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants will gradually transform the majority of these two exploitative classes into self-supporting laborers after a long period of labor.
The working class and the toiling people had the same painful experience of exploitation and oppression in the old society. In socialist society, employing the means of production owned by the state or by the collective ownership of the toiling people, they all work, though in different roles, for their own class and society. They shoulder the common burden of reforming the exploiting class and share the same goal — to fight for the idea of communism. Therefore, their basic interests are the same. In socialist production, the relations among the worker, the peasant, and the laboring intellectuals and within each of the three groups constitute daily developing relations among revolutionary comrades based on identical basic interests. This is a basic point which determines the socialist nature of the relations among the laboring people.
But is there a “state in which there are no disparities” and no contradictions of any kind in the relations among the laboring people in socialist production? No! In the relations among the laboring people in production, in addition to the basic relationship of being revolutionary comrades, there is also another aspect involving capitalist traditions and influences. These capitalist traditions and influences are mainly reflected in the disparities between the worker and the peasant, the urban and rural areas, and mental and physical labor. Disparity is contradiction. This contradiction ultimately possesses the nature of class contradiction. At the same time, class struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are inevitably reflected among the laboring people, so that all issues of right and wrong, revolutionary and conservative, advanced and backward are stamped with a class mark. Therefore, contradictions among the people ultimately reflect the contradictions and struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the socialist road and the capitalist road.
The Immensely Active Role of Interrelations
Certain interrelations are based on a corresponding ownership system of the means of production. But the interrelations also play an immensely active role with respect to two other aspects of production relations, namely, the form of the ownership system of the means of production and its corresponding distributive relations.
The function of interrelations with respect to the two other aspects of production relations was very apparent in the historical period before the emergence of socialist society. For example, in order to establish and consolidate the capitalist ownership system and its distributive relations, the bourgeoisie had to establish interpersonal relations based on capitalist principles, namely, relations in which the bourgeoisie ruled the worker. As Marx solemnly pointed out in his criticism of the reactionary arguments that “exploitation is justified” and “oppression is justified” which were championed by the defenders of the American slave system,
“With this relationship of domination and enslavement as a precondition, he [the capitalist] will force the wage laborer to produce both his own wages and also a wage for the supervisor to compensate the supervisor for his labor of dominating and supervising the laborer”. 9
If the capitalist and his agents did not wield absolute dominating power over the worker and if they could not force the worker to work according to the will of the capitalist, then capitalist exploitation would not be realized and the capitalist ownership system and the capitalist distributive relations in which “the laborer does not reap and the reaper does not labor” could never be consolidated and developed. Therefore, the bourgeoisie pays a great deal of attention to the establishment and consolidation of the subordinate status of the worker to capital in order to consolidate and develop the capitalist ownership system and distributive relations.
In socialist society, the transformation of interrelations is also an important link in the transformation of production relations. When this link is grasped and continually improved, it has great significance for consolidating and perfecting the socialist ownership system and the socialist distributive relations and consequently for promoting the development of social productive forces.
The socialist construction in our country demonstrated that when the exploiting classes’ frantic attack on our socialist enterprises had been repulsed, when our contradictions with our enemies had been correctly handled, when we had gradually established, according to socialist principles, the relations among the working people, between the leader and the masses, among the administrators, technicians, and workers, and between the laborers and the peasants, we were able to fully develop their activism and creativity and to orient the direction of our socialist enterprises. We saw our socialist revolution and socialist production thrive, our system of socialization of the means of production strengthen, and our distributive relations incessantly improve. When socialist interpersonal relations are contradicted or even sabotaged and when the remnants of capitalist interpersonal relations are allowed to develop, the position of the masses as masters will be threatened, the socialist activism of the masses will be suppressed and inhibited, and consequently, the socialist ownership system and distributive relations will also be inhibited or may even degenerate.
Interrelations gradually established on the basis of a public ownership system of the means of production and according to socialist principles are not confined to one enterprise. They involve all enterprises, all economic departments, the state ownership system, and the collective ownership system. They are manifested in exchange activities such as production cooperation and exchanges of advanced experience and advanced technology. The development of such mutual exchanges in production, with leadership and planning among enterprises and among departments, embodies the superiority of the socialist public ownership system. They are conducive to the consolidation and development of the socialist ownership system, favorable to fully mobilizing the forces of various economic departments, and favorable to fully tapping economic potentials and promoting rapid development of the whole social productive force.
The importance of the gradual perfection of interrelations with respect to consolidating production relations and developing the social productive forces deserves our full attention. After the establishment of the socialist public ownership system, the issue of interrelations must be continually and seriously resolved.
Consolidate and Develop Socialist Interrelations in the Course of Struggle
Develop Relations of Mutual Support and Mutual Promotion between Industry and Agriculture
From the angle of the whole of social production rather than that of a particular enterprise, interrelations are primarily manifested as relations between industry and agriculture. Industry and agriculture are the two basic material production sectors. The socialist state ownership system which is dominant in the industrial sector and the socialist collective ownership system of the laboring masses which is dominant in agriculture are two forms of the socialist ownership system. From the standpoint of class relations, this economic structure is a relationship between the worker and the peasant. This class relationship is fundamentally different from the relationship between the laboring class and the exploitative class; it is the relation of a worker-peasant alliance in which basic interests are identical and leadership is in the hands of the working class.
After the basic victory had been won in the ownership system of the means of production in China’s socialist revolution, Chairman Mao pointed out: “Interrelations in production and exchange among various economic sectors are gradually being established according to socialist principles. More suitable forms are gradually being sought.” 10 Interrelations among various economic sectors are primarily interrelations between industry and agriculture and, consequently, interrelations between the worker and the peasant. The worker and the peasant are both masters of the means of production. The worker labors in enterprises under the state ownership system. The peasant labors in enterprises under the collective ownership system. The worker and the peasant must trade with each other so that social production can be carried on.
In socialist society, the worker and the peasant are both industrial forces in socialist construction. Their relationship as revolutionary comrades in production is a daily developing one of mutual support and mutual promotion based on the socialist public ownership system. In the production and exchange processes, the worker produces various agricultural machines, chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and industrial products for daily use in the countryside in support of the development of agricultural production and the improvement of the livelihood of the peasant. The peasant produces food grain, raw materials, and various agricultural and sideline products. Furthermore, in accordance with the growth rate of labor productivity in agriculture, he supplies an appropriate amount of labor power in support of the development of industrial production and satisfies the industrial production and livelihood needs of the urban population. Under the leadership of the working class, mutual support and mutual promotion between the worker and the peasant are in line with the basic interests of these two classes and constitute a strong force for consolidating the worker peasant alliance and promoting socialist economic development.
In addition to direct contribution to the financial accumulation of the state through taxation, the exchange activities between the worker and the peasant under the two kinds of socialist ownership system are primarily in the form of commodity exchanges of industrial and agricultural products. Therefore, there may also arise some contradictions based on identical basic interests on matters relating to quantity, variety, quality, and price of industrial and agricultural products, as well as the proportions of marketed and retained agricultural products and tax burdens on the peasant.
The worker-peasant alliance in socialist society is the basis of proletarian dictatorship. Under the leadership of the working class, it is an important task to correctly handle contradictions between the worker and the peasant based on common interests and to develop the socialist relations of mutual support and mutual promotion between industry and agriculture.
The relations between industry and agriculture in socialist production are controlled, restricted, and affected by the major contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The working class (through the Communist Party) must lead the peasant to establish, consolidate, and develop a socialist collective economy and gradually realize agricultural mechanization on the basis of agricultural collectivization so that socialist agriculture will advance along the socialist road, its relations to socialist state industry will be steadily strengthened, and the economic basis of proletarian dictatorship in agriculture will be consolidated. The bourgeoisie always tries hard to induce the peasant to take the capitalist road and attempts to undermine the socialist collective economy by exploiting the serious spontaneous capitalist tendency of a few rich middle peasants. Therefore, the process for developing the worker-peasant relations in socialist production must of necessity be a process of struggle for the peasant between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Because of this, we would commit a gross blunder if, in handling the relations between agriculture and industry and the relations between the exchange of agricultural and industrial products, we saw only the relations between products but not the relations between the worker and the peasant or the relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in their struggle to win over the peasant.
Extend the “Longjiang Style” 11 Develop Relations of Socialist Cooperation
Another important aspect of interpersonal relations in socialist production is the relations among enterprises, among sectors, and among regions. It is mainly manifested in relations of socialist cooperation among these enterprises, sectors, and regions.
Marx said:
“Many people are systematically engaged in cooperative labor in the production process or in different, but related, production processes. This form of labor is called cooperation.” 12
This cooperation has different social characters and different ranges of activity under different production relations.
The private ownership of the means of production by the capitalist confines cooperation in capitalist production to one enterprise or one monopoly capital group. From the viewpoint of the whole capitalist society, systematic cooperation among various production sectors and various enterprises divided by the private ownership system is impossible to establish. Even certain cooperation relations established through contracts are extremely unstable and are often interrupted.
Socialist cooperation based on a public ownership system of the means of production can be developed not only within one enterprise; it can also be conducted in a planned and organized manner over the whole society among different enterprises, sectors, and regions. “When one plant participates, a hundred plants cooperate. When each plant makes one, a hundred plants make a line.” Socialist cooperation creates a new productive force. It is favorable to the development of one specialty and many abilities in enterprises, further contributing to increasing labor productivity. It is conducive to concentrating manpower, material resources, and finances to complete production and construction projects which one enterprise, one sector, or one region could not complete alone. It is favorable to concentrating strength for a short period to overcome weak links in the development of the national economy, thus promoting rapid development of the whole national economy.
The development of socialist cooperation is an important form for continually improving the interrelations among enterprises, among sectors, and among regions. There are no basic conflicts of interest among the constituent parts of the socialist economy. Socialist cooperation requires having the implementation of proletarian politics in command, the breaking down of the boundaries among enterprises, among sectors, and among regions, concern for the whole situation, growth through difficulties, and consideration for other people. It also requires a strict adherence to supply contracts, coordination between the cooperative assignment and the completion of plans, and adoption of effective measures to guarantee the completion of assignments according to variety, specifications, quality, quantity, and schedule. These cooperative relations are fundamentally opposed to the capitalist interrelations based on mutual deception and competition and on capitalist departmentalism. Departmentalism is a conceptual reflection of the private ownership system and will exist in socialist society for a long time to come in varying degrees. “Paying no attention to the overall situation and being indifferent to other sectors, other regions, and other people is the characteristic of this departmentalism.” 13 The following erroneous concepts and actions still exist in cooperative relations: Preferring to play a major role rather than a minor one; reckoning economic accounts at the expense of political accounts; paying attention only to partial interests and not to overall interests, even to the extent of benefiting oneself at the expense of others; disregarding the state’s unified economic plan by cutting corners or, so to speak, entering through the backdoor; and so forth. The appearance of these problems in the process of cooperation is a reflection of the struggles between the two classes, the two roads, and the two lines. The development process of socialist cooperation is a process of struggle with bourgeois influences, especially bourgeois departmentalism. This is essentially a reflection of the struggle between the socialist public ownership system and the capitalist private ownership system.
The unfolding of socialist cooperation requires an extension of the communist work style, a firm adherence to socialist principles, a voluntary observance of state fiscal policies, and the resolute implementation of various proletarian economic policies. Therefore, in the cooperative relations between the state enterprises and the collective enterprises, among state enterprises, among collective enterprises, among sectors, and among regions, the principle of equivalent exchange must be observed, and fair pricing enforced. Mutual support in material resources in the cooperative process must be in accordance with the state plan and have the approval of the leading organ. It is not permissible to indiscriminately engage in “mutual exchanges” in the name of “cooperation,” disrupting the socialist plan.
With the victorious development of socialist cooperation, the laboring people will continually strengthen the proletarian viewpoint of seeing the whole situation and will continually criticize and repudiate bourgeois departmentalism. In the process of struggle, the laboring people’s relations of being revolutionary comrades will steadily develop. The “Anshan Steel Constitution” Is a Compass for Handling Interrelations within Enterprises
The socialist enterprises (including industry, agriculture, communications and transportation, commerce, and all production and circulation departments) are the basic unit of human material production and exchange. Interpersonal relations in production exist in enterprises in large numbers. Interrelations among the laboring people are chiefly of two kinds: The relations between the leadership and the masses and the relations between the management personnel and technicians (mental laborers) on the one hand and the worker and the peasant (physical laborers) on the other. The correct handling of these two aspects of these relations, that is, to
“Create a political situation in which there is centralism as well as democracy, discipline as well as freedom, unified determination as well as individual happiness and vitality” 14,
is an important issue in consolidating and developing socialist production relations and in improving socialist enterprise management. In enterprises, there are also the relations between the worker-peasant laboring people and the two exploitative classes. These relations have been analyzed above.
The socialist enterprise is an enterprise of the working class and the laboring people. The working class and the laboring people are responsible for leading the enterprise through their representatives. This gives rise to an issue of the relations between the leadership and the masses. Although the leadership personnel and the masses in the enterprise hold different jobs in revolution, they are “comrades-in-arms in the same trench” who share the heavy duty of properly managing the enterprise and who labor for a common revolutionary goal. Workers on the Shanghai wharfs put it nicely, “Though jobs are different in revolution, our thinking must be in unison” These words pointed out the key to improving the relations between the leadership and the masses in the socialist enterprises.
In enterprises, it is also necessary to have some people in charge of various management and technical jobs. This gives rise to the issue of the relations between the management personnel and technicians and the worker-peasant laboring masses. There are two categories of China’s management personnel and technicians. One consists of management personnel and technicians left over from the old society. With the exception of a few reactionaries who are hostile to socialist society, the great majority of them love their country, love our People’s Republic, and are willing to serve the people and the socialist state. Another category consists of those intellectuals trained by the proletariat through struggle and through the development of socialist revolution and socialist construction. Though some of them may have been poisoned by the revisionist line in education and their world outlook must still be continually transformed, the great majority are willing to integrate with the worker-peasant masses and make contributions to the socialist and communist enterprise. Therefore, in socialist society, the relations between the leadership and the masses, between the management personnel and technicians and the worker-peasant masses are also daily developing relations of being revolutionary comrades and sharing common interests. But contradictions do exist between them; it is not an “undiversified situation.”
The division of labor in socialist enterprises between the leadership and the masses, between the management personnel and technicians and the direct producers still reflects the division of labor of the old society and is a manifestation of the still existing disparity between mental and physical labor. Under these conditions, if the leadership personnel, management personnel, and technicians who are responsible for organizing and guiding production do not regularly participate in collective production labor, they become divorced from the laboring masses and subject to the corrosion of bourgeois thinking and develop contradictions with the laboring masses. These contradictions often reflect to varying degrees the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For example, some leadership cadres, management personnel, and technicians who have been poisoned by such Confucian and Mencian thinking as “those who use their brains rule, those who use their muscles are ruled” do not treat the masses and themselves with the correct attitude. They think that “the leadership is brighter” and do not treat the worker-peasant masses as masters of the enterprise. They resort to restrictive measures and convert the revolutionary comrade relationship into relations of domination and subordination. These are all manifestations of the lingering poison of the revisionist line and reflect to varying degrees the contradictions and struggles between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. At the same time, though there are no basic conflicts of interest among the masses, some people may also not handle interpersonal relations according to socialist principles because of the influence of bourgeois thinking and the relaxation of socialist education by the leadership. These contradictions among the people in the enterprise embody to varying degrees the nature of class contradictions. Although these contradictions exist, from the standpoint of all the interrelations among the people in the enterprise, this interrelation is still socialist in nature as long as the proletariat assumes the leading position. If these contradictions were allowed to develop and the bourgeois versions were allowed to assume the guiding position, then socialist interrelations would degenerate into capitalist interrelations.
The “Anshan Steel Constitution,” personally announced by Chairman Mao, and his series of instructions such as “Management Is Also Socialist Education” 15 constitute the compass for the correct handling of interpersonal relations in socialist enterprises. The basic spirit of the “Anshan Steel Constitution” is to firmly practice putting proletarian politics in command, strengthen Party leadership, launch mass movements in a big way, implement “two participations, one reform, and three combinations” (namely, insist on having cadres participate in labor and masses participate in management, revise irrational regulations and systems, and implement the three combinations among the worker, the cadre, and the technician), and make technical innovations and technical revolution in a big way. Firm adherence to putting proletarian politics in command and stronger Party leadership are basic principles for the correct handling of interrelations. Under the guidance of these principles, the serious and thorough implementation of the “two participations, one reform, and three combinations” will enable the relationship of being revolutionary comrades to develop steadily between the leadership and the masses and between the management personnel and technicians and the worker-peasant laboring masses.
The participation of cadres in production labor is a big event of fundamental importance under the socialist system. It is also an important aspect in properly handling socialist interrelations. Chairman Mao pointed out:
“We must insist on the system of cadres participating in collective production labor. The cadres of our Party and our state are ordinary laborers and not masters riding on the shoulders of the people. Through participating in collective production labor, the cadre keeps the broadest, most regular, and closest contact with the laboring people. This is a big event of fundamental importance under the socialist system. It is instrumental in overcoming bureaucratism and preventing revisionism and dogmatism.” 16
This is an infallible truth explained by Chairman Mao after summing up the experience and lessons of the international communist movement. Those cadres who can voluntarily and regularly participate in collective production labor are generally more conscious in their resistance to bourgeois thinking and possess more self-knowledge. They show concern and affection for the masses, humbly listen to the call of the masses, are receptive to criticism and supervision from the masses, and can firmly adhere to the socialist direction of the enterprise. They are more familiar with production conditions and seldom give blind commands. There is one song among women textile workers which describes the transformation of a leadership cadre of a factory after her participation in collective production labor: “In the past, she never visited the workshop; now she comes to the side of the machine to ask for advice. In the past, things were delayed; now they are solved immediately. In the past, only big reports were made; now she says what she thinks in the workshop. In the past, she was called a petty bureaucrat; now she is treated like a sister.” The fact is such leadership personnel, management personnel, and technicians are welcomed by the masses. Even if there are contradictions between them, they can be correctly resolved in good time.
The participation of the masses in management is a requirement of their position as masters in socialist production. Only by insisting on having the masses participate in management can the position of the laboring masses as masters in the enterprises be defended and consolidated. The exploitative class always opposes having the masses participate in management. When the persons in power taking the capitalist road controlled the leadership of the enterprises, they relied on a few bourgeois experts. They resorted to restrictive measures in dealing with the worker-peasant masses. This effectively expropriated the right of the masses to manage the enterprise. Under these conditions, the relations between the capitalist-roaders and the worker-peasant masses were nothing but capitalist domination and subordination in disguise. When people with a firm commitment to bourgeois thinking control the leadership of the enterprises, it is also impossible for the masses really to participate in enterprise management. In effect, it is up to a few cadres to do what they want. Therefore, in these enterprises, the socialist interrelations between the leadership and the masses are not perfect. In the process of China’s socialist revolution and socialist construction, especially in the process of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the Campaign to Criticize Lin Piao and Rectify the Style of Work, the power stolen by the capitalist-roaders and bad people has been taken back, the bourgeoisie and revisionists have been criticized and repudiated, and the leadership of the enterprises has been gradually and effectively put into the hands of the Marxists and the laboring people. A new situation of having the masses participate in management has subsequently arisen.
Participation of the masses in management primarily refers to the participation of the direct producers, the worker-peasant masses, in management. The masses who participate in enterprise management must not only direct production, technical knowhow, and accounting, but more importantly, they have to help and supervise the cadres in thoroughly implementing the Party line and general and specific policies. In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the representatives of the worker-peasant masses directly participated in the enterprises’ revolutionary committees. They were not divorced from production, but they still performed their supervisory work. This is a new development in the masses’ participation in management. This is extremely important for achieving close relations between the cadres and the masses, promoting firm adherence to the mass line by the enterprise leadership, serving the people, and perfecting and developing socialist interrelations.
The implementation of the “three combinations” of the masses, the cadres, and the technicians in the production struggle and scientific experiments in order to solve major technical problems of production is not only conducive to stimulating technical innovation on a mass basis, but also to accustoming the intellectuals to labor and the worker-peasant masses to systematic knowledge, narrowing the essential distinctions between mental and physical labor, and further perfecting and developing socialist interrelations.
The reform of irrational regulations and systems in enterprise management is another aspect of continually adjusting and transforming socialist interrelations. Any social production requires certain regulations and systems. But the type of regulations and systems instituted is determined by the production relations in society. Lenin sharply pointed this out with respect to enterprise management in capitalist society: “What concerns the capitalist is how to plunder through management and how to manage through plundering.” 17 The regulations and systems of capitalist enterprise aim at one thing only, that is, how to better restrict the freedom of the worker and how to extract more surplus value from the worker. The numerous regulations and endless rules in capitalist enterprise are all designed to defend, and are restricted by, capitalist production relations. Under socialism, “systems have to be favorable to the masses.” 18 This is the most fundamental difference between socialist regulations and systems and capitalist regulations and systems. Systems having to be favorable to the masses means that such systems have to be favorable to the masses’ role as masters, to the improvement and development of interpersonal relations in the enterprise, to the exercise of 216 socialist activism by the masses, and to the development of the Three Revolutionary Movements of class struggle, production struggle, and scientific experiment. Regulations and systems which are favorable to the masses will certainly be favorable to the development of production as they mobilize the activism of the masses. Under the influence of the revisionist line of Liu Shaoch’i and Lin Piao, the regulations and systems of some enterprises often restricted the masses. The worker’s criticism was that “there are too many systems and regulations and they are created either for the purpose of punishment or coercion.” Under good leadership, the masses should be mobilized to revise, phase by phase, the systems and regulations which are irrational, restrictive, detrimental to production, creating disharmony, and alienating workers. Meanwhile, on the basis of the experience acquired in practice, a new set of healthy and rational systems and regulations which correspond to the need for socialist interrelations and the development of the productive forces should be established.
The Immense Influence of the Superstructure on the Formation of Interrelations
People’s status and the nature of their interrelations in production are determined by the system of ownership of the means of production. But they also form and develop in reaction to the superstructure. Without some influence from the superstructure, people’s status in production and their interrelations cannot be smoothly formed and will not have a chance to consolidate and develop. The ruling class of any society always uses the power of the superstructure to defend by all means the ownership system that has been established and to consolidate and develop the people’s status, their interrelations in production, and the corresponding distributive relations. This is a general law.
Take the capitalist society for example. The bourgeoisie of any country uses the power of the superstructure to establish and extend the capital-labor relationship by force to dominate labor. Marx pointed out that to establish and extend the domination of capital over labor, the newly emerging bourgeoisie “needs to exercise the power of the state.” 19 From the end of the fifteenth century to the first half of the nineteenth century, the well-known “enclosure movement” 20 in England resorted to violent measures to evict a large number of poor peasants who then drifted into the urban areas destitute and “free as a bird” only to become objects of domination by capital. However, the peasants who drifted into the urban areas often preferred to become tramps rather than be subject to the arbitrary rule of capital over labor. To force the destitute peasants into the factory, the British bourgeoisie passed laws to punish tramps in order to “force them to become accustomed to the necessary discipline of wage labor by means of flogging, branding, and torture.” 21 Look how cruel were the means used by the bourgeoisie to establish and develop interrelations in which capital dominated labor.
The relationship of capital dominating labor was established by violence. It could only be crushed by force. In socialist countries under proletarian dictatorship, this relation was in fact crushed.
Because socialist production relations can only be established under proletarian dictatorship, the effect of the socialist superstructure on the socialist economic substructure is especially apparent. Socialist interrelations are determined by the socialist public ownership system. They are also formed and developed under the immense pressure of the socialist superstructure. If we thought that socialist interrelations would automatically form and develop with the establishment of the socialist public ownership system, we would be seriously mistaken.
In socialist interrelations, the relationship of the working class and other laboring people vis-à-vis the bourgeoisie and other exploiting classes is one between the ruler and the ruled and between the transformer and the transformed. Because of their class nature, the exploiters will not voluntarily accept the position of being ruled and transformed. The fact that the proletariat is capable of coercing some of them to accept socialist transformation is due to the powerful state machinery it controls. Without this precondition, the rule over, and the transformation of, the bourgeoisie are impossible.
Among the laboring people, if the relationship of being revolutionary comrades is to develop steadily according to socialist principles, it is necessary to rely on the role of the socialist superstructure to educate and transform ourselves in order to free ourselves from the influence of reactionaries at home and abroad. Chairman Mao pointed out:
“The people’s state defends the people. Only with the people’s state is it possible to educate and transform ourselves through democratic means throughout the whole country and on a total scale in order to free ourselves from the influence of internal and external reactionaries.” 22
Only by insisting on waging socialist revolution in the superstructure, using the proletarian ideology to gradually overcome the bourgeois ideology, and continually expelling the capitalist traditions and influences in interrelations can the relation among the laboring people of being revolutionary comrades steadily develop, and only thus is the way cleared for the formation and development of the interrelations of socialist production.
To sum up, the process of formation and development of socialist interrelations is a long process of political and ideological struggle between the two classes. To defend and develop socialist interrelations, the proletariat must firmly adhere to the basic Party line for the whole historical stage of socialism. After a basic victory has been won in the socialist revolution of the system of ownership of the means of production, it must continue to penetratingly carry-on socialist revolution in the political and ideological lines, liquidate bourgeois ideology and foster proletarian ideology, fight selfishness, and criticize revisionism. This is a fundamental issue in the consolidation and improvement of socialist interrelations. If we thought that after the establishment of the socialist public ownership system the exploitative class vanishes and if we departed from the central issue of the proletariat’s opposition to the bourgeoisie in explaining socialist interrelations, then we would be in opposition to the basic Party line and would fall into the trap of the class extinction argument. If we did not insist on carrying on socialist revolution in the superstructure and allowed the free overflow of bourgeois ideology, then socialist interrelations would degenerate into capitalist interrelations, and the socialist public ownership system would disintegrate. The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union teaches us by way of negative example to understand the scientific truth of Marxism in this regard.
Major Study References
Chairman Mao, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People.”
Chairman Mao, “A Talk at the National Propaganda Work Conference of the Chinese Communist Party”
Review Problems
- Why do we say that the interpersonal relations in socialist production are ultimately class relations?
- What is the significance of the interpersonal relations in production established according to socialist principles in consolidating, perfecting, and developing the socialist public ownership system and distributive relations and in promoting the development of the productive forces?
- Where is the immensely active role of the superstructure in the consolidation, perfection, and continual development of the interpersonal relations in socialist production manifested?
22 Footnotes
