You can read the original Russian version here.
In this work, Alexei Razlatsky discusses some issues of class-struggle and the development of Communist consciousness under socialism, or the lower phase of Communism. He makes the errors of claiming that the Soviet Union had reached the period of socialism and talks of “constructing Communism” (though in Razlatsky’s case it is more of a semantic error, as all his writings show a deep understanding of Communist revolution), but aside from that, it is a great article and a further development of Razlatsky’s earlier discoveries.
Concerning the lowest phase of Communist society, arising immediately after the transfer of political power and ownership of the means of production into the hands of the proletariat, Karl Marx said:
What we have to deal with here is a Communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. (K. H. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)
How long is this period? What determines its duration?
The half-century of history of socialist society [revolution – Ed.] in our country allows us to pose this question in another way. Separated, as our society is, from capitalism by an entire lifetime, is it not a socialist society arising on its own foundations? An affirmative answer to this question would establish a qualitative distinction between our society and the society discussed by Marx in this citation. It would permit us to declare that our society is characterised by other laws, distinct from the laws of the initial phase of socialism.
However, we can not give an affirmative answer to this question.
Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and Communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent Communism — or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and Communism which has been born but is still very feeble. (V. I. Lenin, Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, 1919)
Thus the struggle between capitalism and Communism is prolonged up until the complete victory of Communism. Socialism, or the lowest phase of Communist society, is the name for this entire period of struggle.
It is perfectly clear that this struggle cannot end, for example, with the complete elimination of the bourgeoisie as a class. It continues even after that, as a struggle against private property tendencies in the consciousness of members of the victorious classes, as a struggle against the system of views inherited from capitalism; a system that is crumbling, but not completely destroyed, and still manifests itself in social relations.
The presence of the “birthmarks” of capitalism must be seen both in the equal right of payment for labour, which, as Marx noted in the ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme,’ remains a bourgeois right, and in the very existence of the socialist state which exists not only to suppress capitalist tendencies, but also to maintain such survivals of bourgeois right as are essential for the society. But this is not all. Such birthmarks are also maintained in the relations between members of society and collectives, in the relations of people to material values, in morals and ethics. They exist in each individual’s consciousness, permeating their personal plans, forms of action, value systems and so forth.
For us this is important to the extent that the action of one social law or another is shaped by the level of development of social consciousness. In this sense, socialist society presents a quite complicated picture. For in it, social laws inherited from the capitalist past remain in force, yet, at the same time, linked with the development of consciousness, ever more favourable conditions are created for the action of different social laws, the laws of Communist society, whose sphere of action has a tendency to grow broader.
But the existence of a general tendency for the influence of the laws of Communism to grow, for the supplanting of bourgeois laws in social life, by no means assures that, in each particular case, the victory of Communist over capitalist laws is guaranteed. In fact quite the opposite, it means that there is an equality of forces in each specific sphere and that, in this stubborn opposition, the victory of Communist over bourgeois laws is only achieved when a revolutionary shift in the consciousness of the masses occurs, when there is a revolutionary change in the relations of the masses to the sum of the phenomena of social life.
We are very often confronted with situations in which communist advancement occurs where the necessary revolutionary shifts have only been realized in the consciousness of a minority. This advancement occurs because it is sustained by the enthusiasm and vital energy of that minority. But enthusiasm is not eternal; after a certain period, it inevitably fades. And if by that point, decisive shifts in mass consciousness have not occurred, then communist advancement is forced to retreat, while bourgeois advancement not only regains its lost ground but also gains certain advantages in an unstable situation and can significantly strengthen its position. It is precisely because of this that leftist daring attacks, and especially leftist persistence, most often lead to the strengthening of reaction and counterrevolution. But even if we advance forward (and only in this way — on the enthusiasm of a minority — can we, only such breakthroughs bring about shifts in the consciousness of the masses), even if the next step in communist development has been sufficiently justified, that is, if it is fundamentally entirely feasible given the level of consciousness achieved, even then, underestimating the specifics of the situation and neglecting a Marxist analysis of achievements and failures can give rise to errors that will undermine the work begun, throw us back, and perhaps destroy the very platform from which the action began. Here it must be stated frankly: the more serious the undertaking we undertake, the more decisive the advance we envisage, the greater the tension of the situation and the greater the risk of defeat and being thrown back. But without this, there is no forward movement. For only situations of extreme tension force the masses to responsibly consider the choice between the old and the new, and without this there is not and cannot be any shift in consciousness, no internal revolution.
Forward movement, toward the new, is always a revolutionary process. Expecting the masses to fully prepare themselves for the new, to develop within themselves the desire to discard, and even simultaneously, old habits and norms of life and acquire new ones, especially identical, similar ones, is existentialist nonsense. In a calmly changing world, such a thing cannot occur immediately in the majority of individual consciousnesses. Even if we ignore differences in individual experience and abilities, the simple difference in age serves as a decisive obstacle.
How then is it, given the obvious existence of individual paths of consciousness, that society progresses all the same, transforms from one stage of development to another?
The essence of the matter is that society is not simply a sum of individuals. Society is society, that is the sum of individuals linked by the relations between them.
Of course, humanity can change qualitatively and can change under influences independent of it, changes in the conditions of existence; change in existence leads to a corresponding restructuring of consciousness. But the root of the self-development of human society lies precisely in the fact of the existence of individuals.
This certainly does not mean that, in order to realise some change, people must come to agreement amongst themselves. Rather, something else follows, namely that it is possible to understand the laws which specify the commonality and similarity of processes which lead to qualitative shifts in the consciousness of society. Such a process can be more or less localised, it can grip the whole of humanity or a single country, or even just a single family, it can concern the most essential aspects of the style of life, or, as in the case of fashion, only the most superficial realms of consciousness; but the sequence of its development is always predictable, always passes through similar phases.
Each step in the development of social consciousness has a completely predictable structure. Contradictions ripening in society are reflected in the consciousness of particular individuals. These individual reflections vary, they depend on the degree of participation in the given contradiction, on the character of the individual and their requirements and experience, particularly emotional experience. In one individual these reflections are only set aside in consciousness, creating an impression in one form or another, while in a different individual, they become a decisive factor for consciousness, that is they define action. In individual cases, such changes in behaviour are habitually explained as anomalies in the particular consciousness of individuals, but their repetition provides convincing evidence of the ripening of the contradiction. These very changes in the form of action are conscious or unconscious attempt to find the resolution of these contradictions.
To the extent that the contradictions grow and the number of individuals preoccupied (in either the literal, or in the case of an unconscious search, figurative sense of this word) with their solution grows, then this concern unites them into a competent force on a social scale, into a socially significant minority. And this minority acts! It performs actions which, in one way or another, intervene in life, in an existence which remains passive in the given relation, the still inert majority. And this is when the minority, perceiving the contradiction more sharply, through the weight of its actions is able to pose the critical question to society as a whole, when the actions of the minority are able, in the most decisive way, to shatter the calm of the majority, to change the course of their existence; it is only then that society is confronted with the necessity of giving a clear answer — how ready is it to settle these existing contradictions, to produce a revolutionary change. And so it is, through the endless repetition of similar processes, superimposing the processes at different scales, through both progressive and reactionary resolution of crises, that society is able to move forward, to create its own future.
This digression into the theory of social development, has, of course, a broader significance than the specific tasks of the present work, but we must certainly clarify that all progress is inconceivable without the sternest struggle, without the hottest battles, in which defeat is as unavoidable as victory.
We are all supporters of the new. We act for progress. We are trained to speak and think in this way; and it is the most brainless garbage, which even intrudes into Marxist propaganda. Even if we actually participate in the struggle for progress in one realm, we remain retrogrades in many other realms. And you can do nothing about it; this is simply human nature which restrains us from rash action, which ties us to conditions, for better or for worse, under which we can exist. And, more frequently than not, we don’t generally think over such progressive changes, on the whole we stress our interest in the quantitative side; more, richer, better. This also assists the forward movement, but is not itself movement, rather it is just the preparation for it. In order to take a step the leg must be lifted, but the leg can be moved up and down many times without taking a step.
To be a Marxist means to truly contribute to the self-development of society, its self-propulsion toward a communist future. And this is not so simple.
To be a Marxist means to be sharp. It means to attentively perceive the tendencies of social movement, to thoroughly study and evaluate them, and to boldly side with progressive tendencies.
To be a Marxist means to be biased. Marxism is objective, but it is objectively on the side of the new. There are too many “Marxists” who call their philistine indifference “objectivity.” A Marxist must be biased; that is, they must support the new not in words or even sympathy, but in action.
And, most importantly, to be a Marxist means to understand that the new can come into existence in no other way than through the cruellest struggle with the old. The genuine supporter of the new does not wait for all-powerful support to appear, but opposes the whole of society. All new forces are provided only with their own, proper force, their energy and enthusiasm. And in this tensest confrontation, any detail can prove to be decisive, any turning point can be critical. Doubling and tripling the forces in this struggle, using the individual energy to maximum effectiveness is possible through the most profound analysis of the situation, through the objective Marxist accounting for all the forces acting in the skirmish, for the applicable laws and tendencies.
So now, having sketched the panorama, we will return to what would seem to be an altogether calm question, who should be occupied with this work?
Having liquidated private property in the means of production, having made short work of the class of capitalists, we got down to the construction of Communism. But do we know how to do this?
We must know which direction to move in. We must know this so well that we are able to understand the tendencies which surround us.
We must be able to detect and take into account all the tendencies of the current moment. Not concealing the sounds of the moment with the thunder of beautiful slogans, but must listen to them most attentively, for it is in the real tendencies, and not in beautiful words, that the slogans of tomorrow are hidden.
We must understand in as much detail as possible the objective laws which are today in force in society. We must always remember that these laws are not proclaimed, but appear, are extracted from the very life of society, from the whole gigantic mass of facts which express this life.
Undertaking the construction of Communism without mastering this knowledge is no different than wandering in a forest without a compass or a map.