The Communist Movement in Russia Today,

Stalin's Contribution to Theory and
What is Socialism?

Talk by Rafael Martinez on behalf of Russian Marxist-Leninists at a forum sponsored by Marxist-Leninist Organizer in New York City in February, 1998 (edited slightly for publication)

First I would like to give a short overview of the history of the modern communist movement in Russia.

By the late 1980s, when perestroika had reached a very advanced stage, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had become an open core of anti-communism. For those that went to the Soviet Union at that time it was very hard to talk to medium and high ranking cadres of the CPSU. In the late '80s the leadership of what became the movement in 1992-93 began to organize, forming various groups like the Communist Initiative, and some other groups that later formed communist parties that are well known abroad. In 1989 and 1990 this movement came out into the streets in small groups in Moscow, Leningrad and other places, exposing Gorbachev as being openly anti-communist and anti-Soviet, who would lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And this is what happened.

At that time, the ideological shape of the movement was very different; it was a small movement that raised basic questions such as the unity of the Soviet Union. Some people in that movement had already come to the position that the dictatorship of the proletariat had been dismantled by Khrushchev, some already talked about Stalin at that time. It was militant, but it was an elementary way of approaching the situation. The ideological shape, both in theory and practice, has changed a great deal since then.

In August 1991 the events in Moscow took place. The CPSU was banned and the Soviet Union was formally dismantled in late '91. These new parties began to arise on the political scene and enlisted many honest communists who were still faithful to the CPSU as well as working class people who had been critical of the CPSU in the last decades and never joined it. They reorganized and tried to form a communist movement. It was in 1991 that the All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik) (AUCP(B)) of Nina Andreeva was formed, and later the Russian Communist Workers Party (RCWP) that included Victor Tiulkin and Victor Anpilov was formed. In 1992 Labor Russia, the mass movement of the RCWP, was built. In 1992 this movement grew large by catching up with the popular protests against the Yeltsin regime which was cutting social guarantees, wages, all the things that raised the mass movement. In February 1992, Labor Russia became a very big organization. It held a huge demonstration in Moscow with over a hundred thousand people, while in '91 they could not gather more than several hundreds. So this was a big leap forward in the formation of the mass movement.

In 1993 the bloody events took place, beginning with Luzhkov's provocation in Moscow during the May Day demonstration when he blocked the road and forced the demonstrators to fight the police. One policeman was killed and Viktor Anpilov was kidnapped shortly after. It clearly showed that Yeltsin's regime was willing to crush the movement. May 9th was a big demonstration of the communist opposition, in which large crowds came out into the streets and this forced Yeltsin's regime to release Viktor Anpilov. He came out in bad shape but alive.

Then came the October events. The regime did not expect such a large popular response. At some point it lost control of the city, the demonstrators took over and the police withdrew. For 24 hours, the situation was not clear, and Yeltsin had to use the military force of the units over which he still had control. They confronted unarmed demonstrators. About 1,000 people were killed or disappeared, both Muscovites and many people who came from the regions to support the mass movement that existed at that time.

The period after 1993 was a very hard, dark one for the opposition. All the leaders of the militant opposition formed during 1992-93 were in jail for about half a year. They were brainwashed, if one can use that term. They all came out under an amnesty of the Duma that had been elected thanks to the participation of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) led by Zyuganov which, despite the deaths and the fascist repression, participated in the election in order to support the regime and the peaceful transition to open forms of capitalism that we have right now in Russia.

First, let me discuss the positive elements of this movement of the early '90s. We all know that the 1980s saw the dismantling of the regime that had been created by Khrushchev and Brezhnev. In the Soviet Union it was forbidden to talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat, about workers' power and workers' control. It was forbidden to talk about Stalin, about what we know to be Marxism-Leninism. So the positive thing that the movement had brought, despite the terrible historical experience that the Soviet people had gone through, especially after perestroika, was that many popular and working class forces came to the surface. People brought out portraits of Stalin, they discussed the elementary basics of Marxism-Leninism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. These basic revolutionary theses of Marxism-Leninism arose spontaneously from many rank and file communists, most of whom were not members of the CPSU. They brought out the historical line of the revolutionary traditions of Lenin and Stalin, of the times in history when the Soviet Union was building socialism and communism, when the revolution was progressing. Those times had remained in the historical memory of many people and came to the surface at that time. The restoration of the figure of Stalin that took place in the early '90s was something great. The majority of the communist movement agrees on the positive role played by Stalin.

On the other hand, this movement, and Labor Russia, led by Anpilov, as the most militant trend of this movement, never went beyond the level of a mass, popular movement. Basically they believed that socialism with all its problems existed until 1991, and since it collapsed only a short time ago, all that they had to do was to organize the Soviet masses on a large scale. They did not talk about classes, they spoke of the Soviet people in general, that would unite the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia. They wanted to raise those masses in a popular struggle that would wipe away the bureaucrats in power, the Yeltsinites, etc. They brought out the famous thesis of the organization of an All-Russia general strike that would be the culmination of the struggle to wipe away the counter-revolutionaries and the stronghold of capitalist repression. Needless to say, this was wrong, and the 1993 events showed what the result of that thesis was. This was a very strong blow to the movement in 1993, and since it was not rooted in the working class but in a popular movement that was not consistent, it was basically defeated very easily. So, the negative part of this movement was that it denied the work in the factories, with the working class, the classical Bolshevik work based on the traditions of Lenin and Stalin. It concentrated on work in the streets, to build the mass movement that it believed would restore the Soviet Union and eventually socialism.

Today, we are seeing the day-by-day shrinkage of this movement since it is not rooted in the working class. This is a big paradox, since Russia is now going through a pre-revolutionary situation, especially in the regions excluding Moscow and Leningrad. Not a single day goes by without a strike, without a hunger strike, there is not a single factory without a strike committee, where the working class is not organized. So even in these conditions, when the anti-communist hysteria that affected large layers of the working class in 1990 and '91 has basically faded away, when it is much easier to go to the factories and organize the working class into revolutionary struggle, when the working class is now more receptive than ever to Marxism-Leninism and the hammer and sickle, this movement is shrinking.

Marxist-Leninists are trying to organize on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, on the basis of work in the factories with the working class, on the organization of the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of socialism. These basic features of Marxism-Leninism have not been put forward in any of the programs that exist now and the question of the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie was basically ignored by this movement. This is the basis for the reorganization of the Marxist-Leninist forces in Russia today.

There are two basic and fundamental questions that I would like to discuss today, a theoretical question and a question with direct practical significance. The first question that is under discussion among Marxist-Leninists in Russia today is the contributions of Stalin to theory: what is Marxism-Leninism today? The second question, which follows from the first one, is: "What is socialism?," "What are we fighting for, are we capable of constructing socialism?" "What do we have to tell the working class in the factories that socialism is, whether the working class is capable of fighting against capitalism and building a new state?" "What happened in 1991, was this the collapse of socialism or the collapse of something else?" We have to clarify this to the working class; without this the formation of a party and the accomplishment of a revolution is basically impossible.

For the first question, I will give some quotations to show the basics of Stalin's contributions to Marxism-Leninism as a higher stage in the development of theory and Leninism. We think this is a fundamental question for communists today.

Stalin's Contributions to Theory

On the 70th anniversary of Stalin's birth, in December, 1949, the Academy of Sciences gave a retrospective look at Stalin's contributions in practice and theory, and made a definition of the stage of Marxism-Leninism at that time. This was even before the publication of Economic Problems, which was a great contribution to Marxism-Leninism. The text [has been] published in [the Indian journal] Revolutionary Democracy [April, 1998, p. 95]. "The epoch of Stalin is the epoch of the victory of socialism in one-sixth of the earth and the step-by-step transition from socialism to communism in the USSR.... Comrade Stalin creatively developed Leninism for this new epoch, showed the laws of this epoch, gave an answer to most complicated questions posed by revolutionary practice. Comrade Stalin enriched Marxist-Leninist theory with new statements and new directives corresponding to the new experience in the class struggle of the working class in the USSR and the whole world. What J.V. Stalin contributed to Marxist teachings is a new, higher stage of development of Leninism. J.V. Stalin is a theorist of victorious socialism, the founder of the scientific theory of socialist society."

There is a tendency among Marxist-Leninists to treat Stalin as just a great leader, a great general, as a great practical person. But people have generally failed to study Stalin's works and the level of Marxism before and after Stalin. First of all we have the definition of Leninism, what Marxism-Leninism is. Stalin defined: "Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular." (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1976, p. 3.) Here Stalin defined Leninism as not only a phenomenon of the Russian revolution, but as having a universal and international character, a higher stage in the development of Marxism. This basic definition of Leninism did not exist in the early 1920s, it was absolutely new. Bukharin, Kamenev and Zinoviev treated Leninism as Marxism for Russia that was not applicable to other countries, that it did not have a universal character. So the very term Marxism-Leninism was used first by Stalin, defined by him as having a universal character. So we have to tell the revisionists as well that when you speak about Marxism-Leninism you are using Stalin's term.

Stalin pointed to the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he concretized and developed what the dictatorship of the proletariat is, and he scientifically substantiated the preservation of the dictatorship of the proletariat under the conditions of the absence of antagonistic classes and the exploitation of man by man. Many revisionists say that, with the liquidation of antagonistic classes, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not needed any more. This was stated in the new program of the CPSU adopted at the 21st or 22nd party congress. In fact, it was necessary to develop the theory and basic function of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and this was done by Stalin. He pointed out that under socialism and the construction of communism, with the liquidation of antagonistic classes, one of the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the repression of antagonistic classes, disappears, but other functions will remain in force until the construction of communism.

He also showed the interrelation and evolution of people's democracy into the dictatorship of the proletariat. The whole apparatus for the construction of people's democracy, the evolution into the dictatorship of the proletariat in Eastern Europe was basically a contribution of Stalin; this was described by the Cominform. It was one of the basic features and development of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat then.

On the national question, we know that he gave the definition of a nation. He said: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture" (Marxism and the National Question). This is the classical definition of a nation made in 1912, and Lenin agreed that this was a great development of Marxism that did not exist before. His elaboration and development of the national question did not stop there, because Stalin is the author of the teaching on socialist and bourgeois nations. Stalin said: "In point of fact the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the USSR is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form; for, under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary 'modern' nations, but socialist nations, just as in content their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeois cultures, but socialist cultures." (Report to the XVI Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), in Stalin, Works, Vol. 12, p. 379.) Thus Stalin basically developed the new concept of socialist nations, which did not exist before in Marxist theory. The Academy of Sciences pointed out: "In his article The National Question and Leninism (1929) and in the Political Report to the XVI Congress of the Party (1930), J.V. Stalin put forward new and most important positions about bourgeois nations and socialist nations. Formerly socialism was conceived in a very general manner, as the system that leads to the abolition of the nation. J.V. Stalin showed that socialism does not lead to the abolition of nations, but only to the abolition of bourgeois nations. He showed that based on the ruins of the old, bourgeois nations appear new, socialist nations that are far more solid and stable than any bourgeois nation, since they are free from antagonistic class contradictions. The statement of J.V. Stalin that in history there exist two types of nations - bourgeois and socialist, that bourgeois nations are linked to the fate of capitalism and that they should disappear with the collapse of capitalism, while the appearance of socialism leads to the creation on the basis of the old nations of new, socialist nations - these statements are a new, great contribution to the development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the national question, to the development of the teaching on socialism." The national question is a crucial question for the revolution, both before and after the revolution. So this was a fundamental problem that had to be solved, because it had not been solved then, it was solved by the practice and theoretical work that Stalin carried out in the Soviet Union.

Political economy is the science that in its modern sense has little meaning without Stalin. His contributions to political economy are especially huge, and modern political economy cannot live without him. First, he gave a classical definition of the object of political economy which is applicable to all modes of production. The object of political economy was defined in a very abstract way by Engels in Anti-Durhing and by Lenin when he talks about Bogdanov. There are two basic definitions of the object of political economy that were not applicable to all modes of production, and Stalin was the first classic of Marxism-Leninism who put forth a more complete definition. He said: "The object of political economy is the production, the economic relations of men. It includes: a) the forms of ownership of the means of production; b) the status of the various social groups in production and their interrelations that follow from these forms, or what Marx calls 'mutual exchange of their activities'; c) the forms of distribution of products, which are entirely determined by them" (Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR). This definition of the object of political economy did not exist before and it is a fundamental question for political economy.

Stalin formulated the main economic law of modern capitalism. Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, had talked about high monopoly profits and super-profits, but he never made a formulation of the law of modern [ie monopoly] capitalism. The capitalists, due to the development of forces of production, have to spend more money on means of production, and proportionally less money on wages - this is the increasing organic composition of capital. Therefore the rate of profits has a tendency to fall. The revisionists conclude from this that capitalism should basically disappear because it is not profitable. This is a reformist stand towards the collapse of capitalism - that it would collapse by itself since the rate of profit falls. Stalin says to this, in Economic Problems: "It is said that the law of average rate of profit is the basic economic law of modern capitalism. That is not true. Modern capitalism, monopoly capitalism, cannot content itself with the average profit, which moreover has a tendency to decline, in view of the increasing organic composition of capital. It is not the average rate of profit, but the maximum profit that monopoly capitalism demands, which it needs for more or less regular extended reproduction" (J.V. Stalin, Economic Problems, FLPH, Peking, p. 43). So for a modern understanding of the development of capitalism, we need a fundamental definition of the main law of [modern] capitalism, and this was formulated by Stalin and not before.

Stalin formulated the general law of the obligatory correspondence of the relations of production to the forces of production. This is a law that is common to all modes of production. He says: "...however much the relations of production may lag behind the development of the productive forces, they must sooner or later, come into correspondence with... the level of development of the productive forces, the character of the productive forces" (Dialectical and Historical Materialism, in Problems of Leninism, FLPH, Peking, p. 860). This means that the relations of production can lag behind, but not forever; at some point, a social revolution or a change must appear. This is a generalization of the history of humankind, and this statement can be very well used to show that what existed in the Soviet Union in Khrushchev and Brezhnev's time had to collapse one day or another. There was no way of retaining under one mode of production such a contradiction as an economy that is run by the law of value and the extraction of surplus value, while at the same time having no unemployment, social guarantees, etc.; this mode of production had to collapse. This is one of the basic theoretical grounds for the analysis of the restoration of capitalism that was made by Stalin.

One of the greatest contributions of Stalin was that he created the political economy of socialism. This did not exist in the 1920s, it was not given by Marx or Lenin. There were some general statements and abstract phrases on which the political economy of socialism was based, because political economy is based on Marxist theory and had to be developed on that basis. Stalin formulated the main economic law of socialism, the highest point that the political economy of socialism reaches, as follows: "The essential features and requirements of the basic law of socialism might be formulated roughly in this way: the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural requirements of the whole society through the continuous expansion and perfection of socialist production on the basis of high techniques" (Economic Problems..., p. 43). This is a scientific definition of the main law of socialism that defined the regulator of labor within socialist society, and this did not exist before. If we want to construct socialism, we have to go through that, so its a classic. He pointed to the non-antagonistic contradictions as the source of development of socialist economy. In the 1920s the most common definition of political economy was made by Bukharin, that political economy studies only pre-socialist modes of production, it studies basically market economies. So when market economies have been basically overcome and ceased to exist, political economy does not exist, and there is no such thing as the political economy of socialism and communism. Stalin based himself on Lenin's thesis that there is a political economy of socialism and communism.

Stalin showed the role of commodity-money relations and the law of value under socialism and further developed the Leninist teachings on the economic categories inherited from capitalism. He said: "it is chiefly the form, the outward appearance, of the old categories of capitalism that have remained in our country, but their essence has radically changed in adaptation to the requirements of the development of the socialist economy" (ibid. p. 59-60). This is a classical statement.

Stalin also formulated the basic conditions for the transition to communism. He developed Lenin's statement on the possibility of the construction of socialism in one country and showed scientifically the possibility that communism can be constructed in one country even under the conditions of capitalist encirclement, and under these conditions the state should be preserved.

These are basically Stalin's greatest contributions to Marxism that make him a classic of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism today is different from what it was after the death of Lenin. It is a theory that not only gives answers to the tasks and requirements of today, but scientifically substantiates the feasibility and inevitability of the transition to communism. So Stalin's teachings are a constituent part of the development of Marxism in the epoch of the victory of socialism and the step-by-step transition to communism. Stalin showed that socialism is a superior form of social organization compared to capitalism. He also showed the inevitability of the collapse and disintegration of the imperialist form of capitalism, which leads to the final collapse of capitalism on earth. Stalin's teachings on the Marxist theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the epoch of the victory of socialism and the step-by-step transition to communism is a higher stage with respect to Lenin's time and is a classic. It is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in the epoch of the general crisis and disintegration of imperialism. This is the epoch that Stalin covers.

Also, Stalin's period covers the epoch of the shrinkage and collapse of imperialism. Stalin pointed out in Economic Problems that imperialism is shrinking, that a new market, a new economy, a new camp, has appeared, the socialist camp, which has limited the imperialist market. He foresaw that the collapse of imperialism, of capitalism in general, would take place first through the shrinkage and dissolution of the imperialist market and then eventually, even if some countries still keep the form of capitalism, it would not have the form of imperialism. So he foresaw the way that capitalism would disappear from the earth, and he concretized the teachings of the previous classics in this respect and developed them by pointing to the creation of the socialist camp of nations. This was unknown to Lenin and Marx and therefore had to be developed.

So this is the theoretical consideration of what we regard as Marxism-Leninism today. Talking of Marxism-Leninism without Stalin is like talking of Marxism without Lenin - it makes absolutely no sense and dilutes theory to the extent that it ceases to be a revolutionary theory. Even though we are now in a lower historical stage, in which socialism does not exist at this time, and imperialism covers the whole world, in this epoch we should still understand that Marxism-Leninism is not only a theory of today, it is a theory of the future as well that substantiates and proves scientifically that we can build socialism. So without Stalin there is no way we can write a maximum program, that we can really be communists, since the ultimate goal of communists is not the overthrow of capitalism but the construction of communism, and that is the basic feature of the discussions of Marxist-Leninists today.

What Is Socialism?

A second question with direct practical significance is "What is socialism?" "What do the Marxist-Leninists have to tell the working class as to what is socialism today?" Socialism is a complex mode of production, a complex society that has many sides, so there are many definitions of socialism. As Stalin generalized, socialism is a superior form of social organization compared to capitalism. It is superior economically, politically, morally and spiritually. It is superior because socialism, as well as communism, is based on the social character of the means of production. It must be stated to the working class that socialism is a superior form of social organization that can solve in 5 years huge problems that capitalism cannot solve in 100 years. Socialism means a rate of growth of the economy that capitalism cannot afford, above a 10% rate of growth, so that such things as housing, health care, education can be solved in a very short period of time, it would take at most a generation for a country to flourish. So people under socialism are able to believe in the future, to know that the country is growing, the people are moving forward, that social needs are above individual needs, and this is a motto for socialist development. We have to explain that capitalism, exploitation is a form of relations that is historically obsolete, that leads to suffering, while socialism will effectively in a short period of time solve these shortages and problems because it is a superior form of social organization.

So we have to be able to explain to the working class, when did socialism, this form of social organization, exist in the Soviet Union, when did this 10 or 15% rate of growth take place, when did the Soviet Union give the working class and people year by year an improvement in their standard of living, solve social problems every day in the eyes of the people, so that people really believed that they were constructing something superior to capitalism. When one goes to the factories and talks to the working class, the workers ask you: "What is it that you are fighting for, what is socialism?" For example, there is a very good statement made by a worker, a coal miner [in the Soviet Union]: "I hate communists because they destroyed the Soviet Union." What does this mean? First, by communists he did not mean Marxist-Leninists but members of the revisionist party, the CPSU, that destroyed the flourishing of socialism, the greatness of their country. So when you go to the working class and say you are defending socialism, they ask "What kind of socialism are you defending? Are you defending Brezhnev's time, or Gorbachev's time?" The working class will not defend Brezhnev's type of "socialism," they will not fight or give their lives for an economy of stagnation, for a society in which they are not ruling but, on the contrary, they are being ruled. When we say that socialism is a superior form of social organization, we cannot tell the working class that socialism existed until 1991, because they will ask you "Where was that superior form of social organization that you are fighting for?" For many communists in the U.S. this is hard to digest, because the conditions of the working class in the Soviet Union in Brezhnev's time and even in Gorbachev's time were still better that those of the working class in the U.S. But you should ask "Did the dictatorship of the proletariat exist in the Soviet Union at that time, and did the power belong to the working class then?" "Was the standard of living and the participation of the working class in production growing, or was socialism dying?" "Is this a model of socialism we can show to the working class?" These questions should be put straight forward to the working class, and we should say that we don't stand for that organization of production.

What is the social formation that existed in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin? The economic reforms started in 1953, the first stage lasted until 1958, which saw a transformation of the means of production into commodities. In 1957 there was the sale of the Machine-Tractor Stations to the kolkhozes [collective farms], the transformation of the tractor stations into commodities, then in industry the means of production were transformed into commodities. Of course, commodity production has objective laws, the law of value, and ultimately the law of surplus value, which is inherent to concentrated commodity production. Afterwards, there were a series of reforms that ended in 1965-1967, in which the whole system of relations of production and the index of the economy was based on the law of value and the extraction of surplus value, it was stated openly that the index that showed whether a company was working well or poorly was profit. If the company made profit it was good; if it didn't it was bad. If we say that the economic basis of what existed then in the Soviet Union was socialism, we wouldn't be communists, we wouldn't be Marxist-Leninists.

What did the revisionists have to retain from socialism? They had to keep universal, free health care, education, full employment, they had to restrain the application of the law of value, which means they didn't allow the free buying and selling of land or the free circulation of capital. They had very high restrictions on the application of the law of value, which does not mean that what existed then was socialism. Since the formation that was established in the Soviet Union in Brezhnev's time came out of socialism, the revisionists were forced to keep these rights in order to avoid civil war, to avoid the working class fighting for them. As a result we have a social formation whose economic basis rested on profit that conceals the appropriation of the surplus value of the working class and the toiling masses, but on the other hand you have economic forms that restricted the application of the law of value and the laws of capitalist exploitation in general. Therefore, these two aspects must lead to a contradiction; this system must collapse. Stalin predicted that, and Enver Hoxha, a supporter of Stalin, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, that it was impossible to have a growing economy if the economic base rested on profit and you have restraints on these economic laws. You have profit, extraction of surplus value as the motor of production, but on the other hand you have no unemployment. How can you develop an economy based on extraction of profit, in which you judge whether the economy is good or bad based on profit, but at the same time you must keep unproductive labor? Under capitalist production, unproductive labor is simply wiped out by being sent to the army of the unemployed. It is impossible to keep production rising with all these elements.

An economic analysis of the evolution of the Soviet economy showed that sometime in the second half of the 1970s the rate of growth fell to zero. This was admitted by Brezhnevite revisionist economists, based on the output of the Soviet economy. You just sum up what was produced the year before, and what was produced this year, and calculate the percentage. The official statistics said there was a rate of growth of 3-6%, but those were calculated in terms of prices, so it was a false growth. The GPD [Gross Domestic Product] was calculated in terms of prices: how many rubles you have in circulation. In the economy you have two ways of raising the total value: either by producing more, or by raising prices. What happened in the Soviet Union was a false inflation of prices of production on which basis some percentage [of growth] was calculated. This left-Brezhnevite economist calculated this same percentage in terms of natural output: tons of steel, tons of wheat, etc., comparing what was produced last year to what was produced this year, and in the second half of the 1970s this economic growth hit zero.

We should be able to explain to the working class that communists offer a way of constructing socialism and communism, that we can do it, and that the socialism which we are struggling for is a society that can solve the problems of the working class.

Click here to return to the Index on Russia