Soviet Revisionist Social Imperialism Joins the Ranks of World Imperialism
11. Soviet Revisionist Social Imperialism Joins the Ranks of World Imperialism
Social Imperialism Is Socialism in Name but Imperialism in Substance 1
In the process of imperialism’s gradual extinction, there emerged, in the mid-twentieth century, Soviet social imperialism. Under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, Russia was once a great socialist country. But after Stalin passed away, the renegade clique of Khrushchev and Brezhnev launched a counterrevolutionary coup, seized Party and government power, restored capitalism in a big way, and transformed the Soviet Union into a social imperialist country.
During the First World War, Lenin denounced Kautsky, the head of the German Social Democratic Party at that time, as being a “‘social imperialist,’ that is, one who is nominally a socialist, but actually an imperialist.” 2 The renegade clique of Brezhnev, like Kautsky, is also social imperialist. The only difference is that it not only peddles revisionism, but also defends imperialism. What is more, it controls state power, and has transformed a great country created by Lenin himself into a social imperialist country. Social imperialism is imperialism with a “socialist” label. The fact that it emerged in the Soviet Union, Lenin’s homeland and once a great socialist country, makes it more deceptive and dangerous. It is a very vicious imperialism indeed.
State Monopoly Capitalism Is the Main Economic Basis of Social Imperialism
The Formation of the Soviet Union’s State Monopoly Capitalism
Whether it is capital imperialism or social imperialism, they are identical in their basic economic characteristics. Their main economic basis is monopoly capitalism. But, in capital imperialist countries, there are two forms of monopoly capitalist economy, namely, private and state monopoly capitalism. In social imperialist countries, monopoly capitalism always takes the form of state monopoly capitalism. State monopoly capitalism is the main economic basis of social imperialism. This difference between social and capital imperialism is determined by the different historical conditions under which monopoly capital was created.
The monopoly capital of the capital imperialist countries was formed gradually in the process of acute competition in the private capitalist economy through capital accumulation and concentration. There, private monopoly capitalism appeared first and existed on a large scale. Only after private monopoly capitalism had developed to a certain extent and when monopoly capital and state power had combined with the state machinery to serve monopoly capital did state monopoly capitalism arise. State monopoly capitalism in the social imperialist country appeared when the people in power taking the capitalist road usurped the Party and government power in the socialist country and, in the process, transformed the socialist economy to restore capitalism.
After the Soviet renegade clique usurped the Party and government power in the Soviet Union, the Russian bourgeois privileged stratum greatly expanded its own political and economic power, assuming a dominant position in the Party, government, military, and economic and cultural spheres and forming a bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie which controls the whole state machinery and social wealth. This new bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie used the state power under its control to transform socialist ownership into ownership by those taking the capitalist road and to transform the socialist economy into a capitalist economy and a state monopoly capitalist economy.
The nature of a society’s economy cannot be determined by its label, but by the ownership of the means of production. In other words, it must be determined by who owns the means of production, who allocates it, and whom it serves. After the renegade clique of Khrushchev and Brezhnev usurped Party and government power in the Soviet Union, it exercised total control over political and economic power and pursued a thoroughly revisionist line in the economic sphere. It extolled the “ruble as a measure of labor merit” and “the ability to earn a profit as the best criterion for evaluating Communist Party members in charge of operations and management.” Under the support of the Soviet revisionist renegade clique, Liberman, an economist of revisionism, proposed a scheme of state enterprise management that relied on profit and material incentives, and the “experiment” was widely disseminated. Since Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev, the “new economic system” has been instituted nationwide. The profit principle of capitalism has been legally affirmed to strengthen the exploitation of the laboring people by the bureaucratic monopolist oligarchy. With these “transformations,” the means of production which formerly belonged to the people of the Soviet Union are now owned by and at the service of the new bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie. The worker and peasant of the Soviet Union have been deprived of their means of production and reduced once more to hired laborers. Although the Soviet Union may still carry the socialist label, the original socialist ownership system has in fact been transformed into an ownership system of the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie.
In socialist society, the state-operated economy based on socialist state ownership is a leading element in the national economy. Once the revisionist renegade clique usurps the leadership of the socialist economy, it is naturally transformed into a state monopoly capitalist economy. This is because the more productive forces the new bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie puts under state ownership representing its interests, the more it can control the whole society’s wealth in the name of the “state.” This way, it not only can continue using the state label to deceive the laboring people, but through state capitalism can also tightly control the national economy. Therefore, the outstanding characteristic of the Soviet Union’s capitalist economy is that state monopoly capitalism controls and commands everything. This situation is rare in the capital imperialist country. In the capital imperialist country, although state monopoly capitalism has undergone sizable development, it has not yet reached the state which prevails in the Soviet Union. Because of exploitation and oppression, the Soviet working class, especially the mass of laboring people, has suffered heavily. Lenin once pointed out:
“Under private ownership of the means of production, more monopolization and nationalization will inevitably lead to greater exploitation and oppression of the laboring masses and to greater difficulties in staging revolts. Similarly, any strengthening of the reactionary military dictatorship will inevitably result in raising the capitalist profits exploited from other classes and in inflicting decades of suffering on the working class who will have to pay the capitalists for the billions of dollars which the military dictatorship has borrowed.” 3
As we read this passage by Lenin, it sounds like an accurate economic analysis of Soviet state capitalism. Nekarsov, a well-known Russian poet, denounced in grief and anger the black rule of the old czar, “In Russia, who can be happy or free?” Today in Russia, the children of the heroes of the October Revolution are suffering multiple hardship with no joy or freedom to speak of. But the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie headed by Brezhnev plunder the state treasury, lead extravagant lives, exercise cruel and arbitrary rule, and suck the blood and sweat of the people of the Soviet Union at will. The bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie headed by Brezhnev is the class basis of social imperialism and a “personification” of state capitalism.
The Trust Is the Basic Form of the Monopoly Organization of Soviet Revisionism
An important form of organization in the state capitalism of Soviet revisionism is the “trust.” The ways in which trusts are established differ from the monopoly organization of capitalist countries. They are formed by merging the big enterprises with many medium and small enterprises through the use of state coercion.
The trust as a form of monopoly organization developed rapidly in the Soviet Union. In 1961, there were only 2 such trusts. Ten years later, in June 1971, there were 1,400 such trusts with more than 14,000 enterprises and 7.7 144 million employees. Nearly one-third of the mining enterprises were trusts. At the “Twenty-fourth National Congress” of the Soviet Union, Brezhnev exclaimed, “The policy to establish trusts and merged enterprises must be carried out more resolutely — in the future, they should become the basic economic accounting unit in social production.” Following the order of the Soviet revisionist leadership group, since 1971 the trust system has extended its sphere of dominance to include all the Soviet Union’s manufacturing sectors.
There are three basic types of Soviet revisionist trusts:
First, the absorbed enterprises “lose their independence and status as legal persons.” The trust becomes “the basic economic accounting unit of social production” and possesses all the rights over its subordinate enterprises.
Second, some absorbed enterprises lose their legal independence, while others “maintain relative independence.”
Third, the absorbed enterprises are “still independent,” but are administered by the trust.
Of the above three types of trusts, Soviet revisionism emphasized the development of the first type. It was modeled after that of Western monopoly capitalist enterprises and “used” their “organization system chart.” Soviet revisionism publicized the trust as “embodying a compressed and dormant future structure of Russian industries” and as being a type of “special Russian consortium.” The trust not only engages in production, but also deals with the supply of raw materials and the distribution of products. The difference between the trust and the Western monopoly capitalist enterprise is that the alliance between the Russian trust and state power is much closer. It is not only a basic economic accounting unit, it also carries out part of the functions originally exercised by the General Control Bureau or even the Ministry of Control with respect to planning, production, supply, and distribution. Large and regional trusts are “not only an integrated production unit but also an economic management organ.” There are no middle organs between the various ministries in charge of economic control and the trusts. The managers of the trust, like the secretaries and deputy secretaries of government ministries, are listed as “leading members of the national economy” of Soviet revisionism. They are important members of the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie headed by Brezhnev. Therefore, the trust is an entity that unifies the state organ and the monopoly organization and is an important form in the administrative system of state monopoly capitalism.
Apart from the fact that the trust is a monopoly organization, the state enterprise of Soviet revisionism has long been capitalistic. In the state enterprise of Soviet revisionism, the working masses have long been reduced from being the masters of the enterprise to slaves of the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie. The leaders of the enterprise are the agents of the leadership group of Soviet revisionism. According to the codes of the “Regulations of Socialist State Production Enterprises,” the manager of the enterprise exercises the “power to recruit and dismiss personnel and makes decisions regarding rewards and punishment for the enterprise’s personnel.” He has the authority to determine the wages and bonuses of the staff and workers and to resell or rent the enterprise’s means of production. In sum, even without the trust, the manager and the plant director are already rulers possessing all the power in state enterprises, and the broad masses of workers are already slaves of the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie. Now, with the trust as a monopoly organization, the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie can further strengthen its control over the pulse of the national economy in the Soviet Union. This new-style big bourgeoisie, using the state enterprises and trusts it controls and availing itself of the name of the state, has used taxation and surrendered profits to unrestrainedly plunder the fruits of the Russian worker’s labor in order to support the extravagant lives of a few monopoly capitalists, suppress the Soviet people, launch aggression, and pursue its social imperialist policy.
While the renegade clique of Brezhnev was developing monopoly organizations in manufacturing and mining in a big way, various types of monopoly organizations were also developed in agriculture. They included: (l) the agricultural trust which is a trust organization of specialized state farms such as the poultry, livestock, and vegetable trusts; (2) the agricultural trust which is an organization of several state farms or collective farms or between state farms and collective farms; and (3) the agricultural-industrial complex, also called the agricultural-industrial joint enterprise which is a trust by which the agricultural enterprise directly operates processing plants for agricultural produce. Through these agricultural monopoly organizations, the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie strengthened their control and plundered the broad Soviet countryside.
The “Shchekino Experiment” Was the Model of the Oppressive System Implemented by Soviet Revisionist Monopoly Enterprise
The neo-monopoly capitalist bureaucrats, having put the national economy under their control and totally restored the capitalist hired-labor system, stepped up their exploitation and oppression of the broad masses. Since 1967, the so-called “Shchekino experiment” has amply confirmed the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
Shchekino was a chemical enterprise located near Moscow which had more than 7,000 employees and produced chemical fertilizers and other chemical products. In August 1967, tailored to the demands of the Soviet revisionist bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie, the enterprise began a so called “economic experiment to strengthen the employees’ concern for increasing production, raise labor productivity, and reduce the number of personnel.” This “experiment” continuously increased the workers’ labor intensity through the measures of concurrent jobs, combined categories of work, and expanded scopes of service and achieved the goal of reducing personnel and raising labor intensity. At the same time, it was decided to freeze the enterprise’s total wage fund for several years, and the wage fund thus saved by personnel retrenchment was left largely to the discretion of a handful of the privileged class in the enterprise. Brezhnev boasted that the “experiment” was a perfect remuneration model, and it has since been disseminated throughout the Soviet Union.
The heart of the “Shchekino experiment” is to “reduce the labor force to increase labor productivity” in order to push the enterprise to “tap its potential.” How was labor productivity increased? The “Shchekino experiment” proved that it could be achieved by increasing labor intensity. According to the statistics of June 1971, since the Shchekino chemical joint enterprise implemented this “experiment,” more than 1,000 workers had been dismissed, or more than one-seventh of the total staff and workers. Of these, 68 workers, or 6 percent, were dismissed due to either greater mechanization or the consequent reduction in labor intensity; while more than 90 percent of the workers were dismissed because of an increase in labor intensity. Marx pointed out, “The crucial problem of the whole capitalist production system is: to increase uncompensated labor through such measures as prolonging the workday, increasing productivity, and consequently making labor power more intense.” 4 In the imperialist stage, the extraction of unpaid labor from the worker by monopoly capital was increased by a hundred times. In capital imperialist countries, monopoly capital used so called “scientific management methods” such as the “Taylor system” to force the worker to increase labor intensity by a big margin in order to increase the extraction of surplus value. The “Shchekino experiment” promoted by the renegade clique of Soviet revisionism was a carbon copy of the “Taylor system” which was strongly denounced by Lenin as a “blood and sweat sucking system.” Its intent was to force one Russian to do several workers’ jobs and maliciously extract more surplus labor and surplus value from him.
As of July 1971, the 121 enterprises which implemented the “Shchekino experiment” had already dismissed 65,000 people. At present, heavy unemployment has begun to emerge in the Soviet Union. This economic system of state monopoly capitalism of Soviet revisionism has already pushed the relationship between capital and hired labor to its limit. It has already met, and will continue to encounter, strong opposition from the Soviet working class and the broad masses of laboring people.
Soviet Revisionist “New International Relations” Is Another Name for Neocolonialism
Economic Unification Is a Major Measure of the Neocolonialism Launched by Soviet Revisionism
To pursue high monopoly profits, monopoly capital, while increasing exploitation of the people at home, inevitably expands externally. Through capital export and by adopting colonial policies, it plunders and enslaves the people of other countries. The monopoly capitalism of Soviet revisionism naturally is not satisfied with the exploitation of the Soviet workers and peasant masses and inevitably extends its paws to foreign countries. The first to be so affected are the “fraternal countries” of that “big socialist family.”
The renegade clique of Brezhnev trapped some Eastern European countries and Mongolia into a so-called “big socialist family.” The nominal relations between Soviet revisionism and the “fraternal countries” of this big family are “new socialist international relations.” Actually, it is a cat and mouse relationship between the imperialist suzerain and the colonies. The Soviet Union resorted to the most brutal and vicious means to tightly control these countries. Militarily, it stationed sizable armed forces in some countries in line with the ‘Warsaw Pact” and other bilateral agreements. It even openly mobilized several hundred thousand troops to invade Czechoslovakia. Politically, it bribed, sabotaged, and even used bayonets to set up puppet governments. Economically, it pushed the so-called “economic unification” through the “Council for Mutual Economic Aid” (COMECON). Some Eastern European countries and Mongolia are virtually under colonial rule and suffer shocking exploitation.
The intent of the “economic unification” promoted by the social imperialism of Soviet revisionism is to dissolve the national economic systems of COMECON members, create a monolithic, lopsided colonial economy, and “unify” the territories, populations, and resources of these countries with the social imperialism of Soviet revisionism. Soviet revisionism’s “international division of labor” and “production specialization” are both subject to “economic unification,” serving the purpose of realizing the abovementioned “economic unification.”
One of the means used by Soviet revisionism to enslave the “fraternal countries” in the name of “economic unification” is to destroy the fuel and raw material industries of the COMECON member countries and to achieve a high degree of monopoly by Soviet revisionism. According to statistics released by COMECON and official Soviet revisionist sources, in the 19661970 period, the percentages of imported fuel and raw materials going from the Soviet revisionists to Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Poland, and Czechoslovakia were: 93 percent for petroleum, 61.9 percent for coal, 86.8 percent for iron ore, 97.5 percent for pig iron, and 64.3 percent for raw cotton. The high degree of monopoly by the Soviet revisionists in the supply of fuel and raw materials to the member countries determined the fate of these countries.
Another means used by Soviet revisionism to enslave the “fraternal countries” in the name of “economic unification” was to force the member countries to specialize in products required by the Soviet revisionists. For example, Poland was forced to develop the shipbuilding industry, Czechoslovakia to specialize in railway rolling stock, the German Democratic Republic to produce mining equipment, Bulgaria to produce vegetables and fruits, and Mongolia to specialize in the livestock industry to provide meat for the Soviet revisionists. This way, the “fraternal countries” were transformed into affiliated processing plants, orchards and vegetable gardens, and livestock ranches for Soviet revisionism.
To accelerate “economic unification” and more effectively control the member countries, Soviet revisionism set up a series of “supranational organizations” such as the “International Metallurgical Industry Cooperative Organization,” the “International Chemical Engineering Industry Cooperative Organization,” the “International Economic Cooperative Bank,” and the “International Investment Bank.” These “supranational organizations” are actually international monopoly organizations controlled by the state monopoly capitalism of Soviet revisionism. Through them, the vital departments of the national economies of the member countries are controlled by Soviet revisionism.
When Soviet revisionism had its hands at the throats of the “fraternal countries,” coercing them to lopsidedly develop their economies in conformity with Soviet needs, it could plunder them through trade using monopoly and colonial rules. According to Soviet revisionist magazines, in 1970 Soviet revisionism accounted for 80 percent of Mongolia’s total foreign trade, more than 50 percent of Bulgaria’s, about 40 percent of that of the German Democratic Republic’s, and about one-third of Poland’s, Hungary’s, and Czechoslovakia’s. Taking advantage of its dominant position, Soviet revisionism has cruelly exploited these countries by trading with them on terms unfavorable to them. The Soviet Union traded Mongolia one bicycle for four horses and one toy lamb for one live lamb. The Soviet import price for electric locomotives from Czechoslovakia was two fifths lower than the import price of the same item from West Germany. But the export price of iron ore from the Soviet revisionists to Czechoslovakia was more than twice as high as that to West Germany. The atomic reactors sold by Soviet revisionism to some Eastern European countries were at a price four times higher than in the international market. A former member of the Planning Commission of the German Democratic Republic complained that the annual loss suffered by his country from trading with the Soviet Union amounted to 2 billion marks.
Like capital imperialism, the social imperialism of Soviet revisionism exported capital to some Eastern European countries and Mongolia calling it “aid.” Up to early 1971, Soviet revisionism exported capital totaling 2.15 billion rubles as long-term “loans.” Through capital export, not only were large sums of money extracted in the form of interest, but the direction of development in the recipient countries was also controlled. Moreover, availing themselves of this exporting, they dumped large quantities of unmarketable commodities and equipment at high prices to obtain high monopoly profits.
While exporting capital, the Soviet revisionists, taking advantage of their predominate position in “economic unification” and under the pretext of the increasing demands by member countries for Soviet exports of raw materials, compelled some countries to provide the funds and manpower for the construction of Soviet plants and the exploration of Soviet mines. They engaged in naked plundering. For example, in 1966 Czechoslovakia was forced to furnish 500 million rubles to the Soviet revisionists for the purpose of buying steel pipes and petroleum equipment to develop the Tuimen oilfield. In 1968, Czechoslovakia was again forced to furnish large quantities of trucks and large caliber piping to construct a pipeline for Siberian natural gas. Soviet revisionism even drafted several tens of thousands of laborers from Bulgaria to do hard labor, thus directly exploiting their surplus labor.
Lenin once denounced the old czar as “treating his neighboring countries according to the principle of prerogative under serfdom.” 5 The conduct of Soviet revisionism toward its neighboring countries today is even worse than that of the old czar. The so-called “international division of labor” and “production specialization” in the service of Soviet revisionist “economic unification” is a “division of labor” between the suzerain and its colonies like the one advocated by the old Japanese militarism under the slogan of “industrial Japan, agricultural China.” The “big socialist family” of Soviet revisionism is merely a different name for an imperialist sphere of influence like the “new European order” of Hitler’s Germany and Japanese militarism’s “East Asian Great Co-Prosperity Sphere.”
Carrying out a Colonial Expansion Policy in Asia, Africa, and Latin America under the Name of “Aid”
Because Soviet revisionism has transformed into social imperialism, it must also be subject to the laws governing imperialism. It naturally is not satisfied with colonial rule within the “big socialist family,” but inevitably tries to monopolize more of the world’s markets for its commodities, raw materials, and investment. Asia, Africa, and Latin America, with abundant resources and backward economies, have been the natural objects of Soviet revisionist colonial expansion.
The renegade clique of Soviet revisionism says it offers “aid” to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But in fact, under the guise of “aid,” it attempts in every way to bring some countries of these regions into its own sphere of influence and to struggle with United States imperialism to win over the third countries.
“Soviet aid” is a trojan horse which breaks its way into the “aid” recipient countries on all sides, carrying harsh political and economic conditions. It consists mainly of “military aid,” namely, the sale of outdated military hardware. By this means, it controls and interferes with the “aid” recipient countries militarily, politically, and economically. Soviet revisionism annually gives one billion rubles in aid to regions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America: 30 percent as “economic aid” and 70 percent as “military aid.” The key areas are the Middle East and the Persian Gulf area; next in line is the South Asian subcontinent. Because the Middle East and the Persian Gulf areas possess immense strategic value and are rich in oil, Soviet revisionism tries very hard in many countries in these areas to establish naval and air bases, control the prospecting, extracting, refining, and transportation of oil, and monopolize the purchase of oil through “Soviet aid.” The South Asian subcontinent possesses not only important strategic value but also abundant natural and human resources. Soviet revisionism has plundered the resources of these areas and interfered with their politics (through exports of military hardware and capital at unfavorable terms of trade) while waiting for favorable opportunities to establish military bases.
In the South Asian subcontinent, India has received the largest share of “Soviet aid.” Her economic pulse has been in the hands of Soviet revisionism. As of the end of 1970, the percentages of Indian industrial production coming from enterprises receiving Soviet “aid” were as follows: 30 percent of its steel output, 60 percent of its oil refining capacity, 85 percent of its heavy machines, 20 percent of its electricity output, 30 percent of its oil products, and 60 percent of its electricity-generating equipment. In the “aid assisted” projects, engineering designs were monopolized and totally controlled during the construction phase by Soviet revisionism. Even in operation, it was still impossible for India to be independent of the control of Soviet revisionism. For the maintenance of equipment and the supply of parts and important materials, it had to rely on the Soviet revisionists. In addition, Soviet revisionism further controlled India’s production by demanding that “Soviet aid” be repaid in kind. Some of India’s leather shoe factories, garment factories, dye factories, leather factories, and light bulb factories were set up to meet the Soviet Union’s demand. The output of these plants was not for India’s consumption, but for export to the Soviet Union to repay debts. It was in these ways that Soviet revisionism sought to take advantage of India’s raw materials and cheap labor and turn India into its affiliated processing plant under the guise of “aid.” The Indian press exclaimed, “India is an egg that sits snugly in the Russian basket.”
The renegade clique of Soviet revisionism boasts that only by relying on Soviet “aid” and entering into “international division of labor” “can the developing countries smoothly attain real political and economic independence and be capable of resisting imperialist power.” This is indeed the greatest lie ever heard. Even Soviet revisionism had to admit that the division of labor between her and the developing countries was “strongly affected by the preexisting division of labor.” Its characteristic is “the exchange of industrial products, especially machinery for raw materials, tropical produce and fuel.” Over 95 percent of the Soviet revisionists’ imports of rubber and 92 percent of their imports of cotton come from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The Soviet revisionists trade their outdated machinery for oil from the Middle East, copper from Chile, tin from Bolivia, meat from East Africa, and uranium from Somalia. Is it not true that this pattern of “international division of labor” between the “industrial Soviet Union” and “agricultural Asia, Africa, and Latin America” is typical of the division of labor between a suzerain and its colonies?
The renegade clique of Soviet revisionism boasts that the interest on its loans, 2.5 percent per annum, is much lower than that charged by the capital imperialist countries and that the loans are “selfless aid.” In fact, Soviet revisionist loans are a disguised form of usury. The usurious interest rate was concealed in the high prices charged for goods supplied. The Soviet loans extended to the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America had to be used for purchasing Soviet goods, consisting primarily of outdated weapons, old equipment, and unmarketable commodities. Not only were the products poor in quality and backward in technology, but they were also higher in price, some 20 percent, 30 percent, or even 100 percent higher than the prices on the international market. In addition, the Soviet revisionist social imperialists often pressed the debtor countries for payment, compelling them to supply the Soviet Union with certain raw materials. It was reported that the Soviet Union had signed an agreement with a Middle Eastern country demanding that the latter pay its debts to the former in oil from 1973 through 1980 at prices 20 percent below the international market price. What is labeled as “selfless aid” is in fact cruel exploitation.
Verbally, the renegade clique of the Soviet revisionists has promised “total support” for the revolutionary struggles of the peoples in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In actuality, they have colluded with all the world’s most reactionary powers to undermine the revolutionary struggles of these peoples and have pursued neocolonialism. They have supplied money and arms to help the reactionary groups of various countries massacre revolutionaries. They have dismembered Pakistan, supported the traitor clique of Lon Nol, engaged in sabotage in many countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, used all means to support the reactionary groups of various countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America in order to extinguish the people’s armed 152 struggle, suppressed national liberation movements, and acted as the military police of the world.
Soviet Revisionist Imperialism Is the Eve of a Second October Revolution
The Extreme Parasitic and Decaying Nature of Soviet Revisionist Social Imperialism
Soviet revisionist social imperialism is monopoly capitalism. It cruelly exploits and oppresses its laboring people and ferociously plunders and enslaves the peoples of other countries, especially the broad masses in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is even worse than capital imperialism. However, like all imperialism, Soviet revisionist state monopoly capitalism is just a paper tiger. Because all monopoly capitalism is necessarily at the same time both parasitic and decaying capitalism, it is moribund capitalism. Soviet revisionist state monopoly capitalism is no exception. Whether in its economic or political aspects, Soviet revisionist state monopoly capitalism reveals in every possible way its extreme parasitic and decaying nature. It will soon be sent to a museum by the people of the Soviet Union and the world.
The extreme decaying nature of Soviet revisionist social imperialism has been primarily revealed in its stagnating economic development. The production relation of Soviet revisionist state monopoly capitalism seriously hinders the development of social productive forces. When the Soviet Union was a socialist country, its industrial production in the ten-year period of 19291938 increased by leaps and bounds at an average annual rate of 17.4 percent. When the Soviet Union turned to social imperialism, the average annual growth rate of industrial production in the ten-year period of 19611970 declined sharply from 8.6 percent to 7.7 percent in 1971 and below 7 percent in 1972. Under the rule of the renegade clique of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, agricultural production in the Soviet Union was even worse. Serious agricultural crises erupted many times and large quantities of food had to be imported from the United States, Canada, and Australia. Owing to industrial recession, declining agricultural output, dwindling livestock, and inflation, severe shortages of commodities and tight market supplies were reported. The livelihood of the laboring people was impoverished.
The extreme decaying nature of social imperialism has also been revealed in its frantic efforts at military expansion and war preparations. To pursue external aggression and expansion, the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie represented by the Brezhnev renegade clique has inevitably followed the Hitler-type policy of “more guns and less butter” to militarize the national economy. According to estimates, the military expenditures of the Soviet revisionists were three to four times higher than those admitted by official sources. The average annual military expenditure since the 1970s has reached 80 billion dollars, or more than 30 percent of the state budget. To fight for naval supremacy, Soviet revisionism has greatly expanded its navy. Military expenditure on battleships has increased sharply year after year. According to estimates, the annual average expenditure in this area in the 1960s was 2 billion dollars. In 1970, it was increased to 3 billion dollars, or 0.9 billion dollars more than the United States spent on battleships in the same year. When large quantities of social wealth are not used to expand production to improve people’s livelihood, but instead to expand armaments, prepare for wars, and pursue external aggression and expansion, it constitutes the most pronounced manifestation of social imperialism’s decaying nature.
The extreme decaying nature of Soviet revisionist social imperialism has also been revealed in its total political reaction and serious deterioration of social life. Chairman Mao pointed out that
“The present Soviet Union is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie, a German fascist-style dictatorship, a Hitler-type dictatorship.” 6
Chairman Mao’s analysis profoundly revealed the class nature and social origin of Soviet revisionist social imperialism, exposing its fascist nature and the lie of the Soviet revisionist renegade clique that the Soviet Union is “a country for all the people.” When the Soviet revisionist renegade clique came to power, it tried very hard to strengthen its fascist dictatorship organ. It not only used the most modern scientific and technological means to equip its police and intelligence agencies to strengthen its suppression of the people, but also widely stationed secret agents in factories, farms, organizations, and associations to keep the masses in line. Today’s Soviet Union is under a reign of white terror. Whoever dares to show discontent and resist the Brezhnev clique is watched, tailed, interrogated, or sent to a “mental asylum,” concentration camp, or prison for the alleged crime of “slandering the Soviet Union or sabotaging the social order.”
In addition to suppressing the people with naked violence, the renegade clique of Brezhnev has also used subtle measures to undermine the people by introducing the rotten culture, vulgar arts, and lifestyle from capital imperialist countries to poison the Soviet people. All the most ideologically backward, reactionary, and rotten things in the world have managed to find fertile soil in Soviet revisionist social imperialism.
Another manifestation of the extreme parasitic and decaying nature of Soviet revisionist social imperialism has been the much higher income of the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie represented by the Brezhnev renegade clique than that received by the ordinary workers and peasants. The difference in income of more than 10 times, or even 100 times, was obtained through high wages, high bonuses, and various types of personal subsidies. This class has also taken advantage of its special economic and political 154 privileges to serve its own selfish interests, engaging in corruption and leading extravagant, parasitic lives. Closely related to this bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie is a revisionist intellectual aristocracy. This revisionist intellectual aristocracy serves the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie in the ideological sphere and leads an equally sensual, parasitic life. Sholokhov, an author known for his writing on the terror of war and bourgeois pacifism, became a billionaire. He owned not only a private car, but also a private airplane. His bank deposits were so huge that even he himself lost track of them.
In sum, a rotten atmosphere characteristic of a decaying social system has pervaded the economic, political, and cultural spheres of Soviet revisionist social imperialism. This social system, like the poisonous fungus growing on a pile of cow dung, is devoid of vitality. A New Historical Period of Opposing United States Imperialism and Soviet Revisionism Has Already Begun
The bloodstained oppression and exploitation of the laboring people at home, the cruel colonial rule over countries in the “big socialist family,” and the aggressive expansion in various parts of the world have inevitably intensified the various contradictions which Soviet revisionist social imperialism faces at home and abroad.
Wherever there is oppression, there is resistance. The oppression and exploitation of the laboring people of the Soviet Union by the Soviet revisionist bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie inevitably meets the resistance of the Soviet laboring people.
The opposition of the Soviet people to the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie takes many varied forms. The workers of many areas in the Soviet Union have resorted to slowdowns, negligence of duty, and strikes to show their discontent and opposition to the ruling clique of Soviet revisionism. In many places, the revolutionary masses have demonstrated many times, opposing the fascist dictatorship of Soviet revisionist authority. In various areas of the Soviet Union, people have frequently published underground materials, distributed leaflets to protest the reactionary rule of the Soviet revisionist renegade clique, and exposed the hidden secrets of the Soviet revisionist privileged class. The heroic children of the October Revolution will never submit to the reactionary rule of the new czar of Soviet revisionism. Under the dark rule of the old czar, Lenin confidently pointed out that “the proletariat of Russia will spare no sacrifice to free the whole of mankind from the humiliation of the czarist monarchy.” (6) Today, the Soviet proletariat, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals must answer Lenin’s call and work for the overthrow of the new czar and the reestablishment of proletarian dictatorship.
Second, the contradiction between the countries and people being persecuted by Soviet revisionist neocolonialism and Soviet revisionist social imperialism has increasingly intensified.
The neocolonialist policy of “economic unification” pursued by Soviet revisionism and the enslavement and plundering of some Eastern European countries and Mongolia has furthered the development of anti-plundering and anti-domination struggles in these countries. The flagrant armed occupation of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet revisionists opened up the watchful eyes of some Eastern European countries and Mongolia and strengthened their struggle against Soviet revisionist social imperialism. Today, Eastern Europe is like a powder keg which may explode at some future date. The invasion of Prague by Soviet revisionist tanks did not demonstrate the might of the Soviet revisionist social imperialism; on the contrary, it was an omen of the beginning of the Soviet revisionist colonial empire’s collapse.
Under the guise of “aid,” Soviet revisionism frantically infiltrates, plunders, and invades the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and sets itself in opposition to the people of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The demonic paws of Soviet revisionist social imperialism have reached some countries in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean by establishing military bases, obtaining port privileges, and controlling and interfering with internal politics and foreign affairs. The Soviet fishing fleet cruises freely around the world, plundering and destroying fishing resources and encroaching on the territorial waters of other countries. The people of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are becoming more aware of the reactionary nature of Soviet revisionist social imperialism. They have solemnly pointed out that the Soviet revisionist renegade clique, which has betrayed “the world’s revolutionary peoples,” is a “neocolonialist” and “another public enemy of the people of the world.” The countries and people who are subject to aggression, control, interference, and ill-treatment from Soviet revisionism and United States imperialism are uniting to victoriously launch an antiimperialist and anticolonial struggle aimed particularly at the two nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.
Third, the frantic external aggression and expansion of Soviet revisionist social imperialism and its fight for commodity markets, supplies of raw materials, and investment outlets has intensified the contradictions among the imperialist countries to an unprecedented degree, especially those between Soviet revisionism and United States imperialism; the two nuclear super powers wrestle for world hegemony.
Today, it is primarily the two nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, who are vying for world hegemony. The strategic point they are fighting for is in Europe because Europe is the heart of the capitalist world. The West always wants to push Soviet revisionism to expand eastward and divert this flood of disaster to China. But China is a tough piece of meat that has been resisting biting for many years. At present, Sovi156 et revisionism, pursuing the strategy of feint attack, has stepped up its struggle in Europe. The Soviet revisionists have stationed two-thirds of their army and air force to the west of the Urals. The Soviet revisionist navy has expanded rapidly in the recent decade. In 1970, it dispatched more than 200 battleships to three oceans and eight seacoasts in a global exercise to show off its naval prowess and stepped up its expansion toward the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. The struggle for world hegemony between the United States and the Soviet Union is the source of world unrest. The struggle has encountered intense resistance from the Third World and created increasing displeasure in Japan and the West European countries. The expanding internal and external difficulties of the two powers put them in an increasingly unenviable and helpless situation.
Imperialism means aggression and war. Soviet revisionist social imperialism is stationing troops along China’s borders, attempting to turn China into its colony. We must follow Chairman Mao’s teachings to “be prepared for war, be prepared for natural disasters, and do everything for the people” and to “dig deep caves, increase grain stocks, and never be aggressive” in order to strengthen preparations against aggressive wars and be on the alert for the outbreak of an imperialist world war, especially surprise attacks from Soviet revisionist social imperialism. We must resolutely, thoroughly, cleanly, and totally annihilate all enemies who dare to invade us.
Chairman Mao pointed out,
“The revolutionary people of the world will never forgive the numerous evil and scandalous deeds committed by Soviet revisionism in collusion with United States imperialism. The peoples of various countries are standing up. A new era opposing United States imperialism and Soviet revisionism is dawning.” 7
In the struggle against the hegemony mentality and power politics, the Third World is awakening and growing. This is a big event in contemporary international relations. The characteristic of the contemporary international situation is perpetual chaos. “Strong winds foretell the coming storm.” This is precisely the contemporary version of the world’s basic contradictions which Lenin analyzed. All countries subject to aggression, sabotage, interference, control, and ill treatment from imperialism have become increasingly united, forming a broad united front and strengthening their struggle against imperialism and new and old colonialism, especially against the hegemony mentality of the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Countries must be independent, nations must be liberated, and people must make revolution. These are irresistible historical tides which will sweep away the United States and the Soviet Union.
On the eve of the victory of the Anti-Japanese War, Chairman Mao prophesied:
“The world will advance and never regress. Naturally, however, we should be prepared to anticipate possible temporary, and even serious, historical detours. There are still very strong reactionary influences in many countries that are reluctant to see their own people and peoples of other countries achieve unity, progress, and liberation. Whoever ignores these factors will surely commit serious political errors. However, the general tendency of history has been determined and cannot be changed.” 8
The presence of Soviet revisionist social imperialism is a temporary historical detour. But, like capital imperialism, it is weighed down by all sorts of contradictions: The contradiction between the Soviet revisionist bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the proletariat and all the laboring people of the Soviet Union, on the other; the contradiction between Soviet revisionist social imperialism and the people of the colonies and the whole world; and the contradiction between Soviet revisionist social imperialism and capital imperialism, especially United States imperialism. All of these are becoming increasingly acute. Because of the existence and development of these contradictions, Soviet revisionist social imperialism will surely be discarded in the museum of history by the people of the Soviet Union and the world. Lenin asserted, ‘Imperialism is the eve of socialist revolution.” 9 Soviet revisionist social imperialism is the eve of a second socialist October Revolution. Chairman Mao pointed out: “The Soviet Union is a socialist country and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was created by Lenin. Although the leadership of the Party and government of the Soviet Union is now usurped by revisionists, I would advise our comrades to firmly believe that the broad Soviet people, Party members, and cadres are good people and want revolution. Revisionist rule will not last long.” 10 Under the great banner of Leninism and with the support of the people of the world, the Soviet people, who have a glorious revolutionary tradition, will eventually bury Soviet revisionist social capitalism. Their success will once again allow the brilliance of proletarian dictatorship, socialism, and Marxism-Leninism to shine over the land of the Soviet Union.
“Let the ruling class tremble before the communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!” 11
Major Study References
Lenin. Lenin, “On the Task of the Third International,” Complete Works of Vol. 29.
Chairman Mao, “Talk with American Correspondent Anna Louise Strong.”
Chairman Mao, “A Congratulatory Telegram to the Fifth Congress of the Labor Party of Albania,” October 25,1966.
Review Problems
- How does one recognize the nature of Soviet revisionist social imperialism from the basic economic characteristics of imperialism?
- Why will the rule of the Brezhnev renegade clique in the Soviet Union not be long?
11 Footnotes
