Topic: Experiences and lessons of socialist construction in the Soviet Union.
Author Qin Gang
Paper Keywords, paper source China cadre forum, paper unit.
There are many problems that need to be studied in depth about the experience and lessons of socialist construction in the Soviet Union. This paper can only make some analysis and discussion on several problems involved in compiling the book Basic Problems of Marxism-Leninism.
First, the reasons why Lenin's socialist construction thought was ignored in his later years
When reading the experience and lessons of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, Deng Xiaoping once said: "The Soviet Union has been engaged in socialism for many years, but it has not been fully understood. Maybe Lenin had a better idea and formulated a new economic policy, but then the Soviet model became rigid. " (Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Volume 3, p. 139) As can be seen from this passage, Deng Xiaoping fully affirmed Lenin's socialist exploration.
In fact, Lenin's exploration also had a tortuous process. It was after experiencing "direct transition" and "wartime productism" that he found the idea of building socialism by implementing "new economic policy". In fact, the implementation of the new economic policy is based on the national conditions in which the Russian small-scale peasant economy is dominant, and it adopts circuitous or improved methods to transition to socialism. Lenin put forward a series of theoretical propositions and reform propositions during his serious illness, all of which revolved around this basic idea. Unfortunately, Lenin died too early and failed to further develop his new ideas and make them more mature and systematic. After Lenin died, Stalin quickly terminated the new economic policy, and Lenin's socialist construction thought formed in his later years failed to be implemented in practice.
When people talk about the neglect of Lenin's socialist construction thought with the new economic policy as the core, it is more due to Stalin. Stalin, as the main leader of the Soviet Party and country after Lenin, undoubtedly played a key role in ignoring Lenin's thought and abandoning the new economic policy, but there were other reasons besides Stalin.
Theoretically speaking, Lenin's new economic policy theory is still developing, and his understanding of some problems has certain limitations. For example, it is completely correct and practical to choose the new economic policy as the way to transition to socialism. However, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party still understood the socialist economy as a pure planned economy at that time, and only thought that it was impossible to directly transition to this pure socialist economy at that time. This thought that the socialist economy is regarded as a purely planned economy is deeply rooted and cannot but affect people's later policy choices. For another example, the new economic policy is based on developing productive forces and consolidating the alliance of workers and peasants, allowing capitalism to develop to a certain extent, which is correct. However, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party still equate the commodity economy with capitalism to a great extent, regard commodity production, commerce and currency circulation as the economic category of capitalism, and think that free trade and free trade are the development of capitalism and can only be used in a limited scope. It is precisely because of this historical limitation of ideological understanding that Lenin's new economic policy thought has not been fully rooted in the hearts of the people. Later, Stalin cancelled the market economy and engaged in a single planned economy without much resistance.
From the practical point of view, the implementation of the new economic policy has achieved very obvious results, the economy has been rapidly restored and developed, and politics has become increasingly stable. However, at that time, many people in the Bolshevik Party of Russia and in the * * * producing countries had doubts about the implementation of the new economic policy, thinking that the full implementation of the new economic policy would be difficult to maintain the socialist nature of Soviet Russia and ensure the social development to socialism. Therefore, not only in Brazzaville, Russia, there are factions such as workers' opposition against the new economic policy, but also organizations, factions and individuals who oppose the implementation of the new economic policy internationally. Lenin's speech at the * * * (Bolshevik) th Congress of Russia 1 1 is very telling. He said: "Some people inside the * * * production countries cried like children when they saw us retreating. This happened at the recent enlarged meeting of the * * * Production International Executive Committee. Some comrades, out of the noblest feelings and aspirations of * * * productism, cried bitterly when they saw the excellent Russian producers actually retreat. " (Selected Works of Lenin, 2nd Edition, Vol.4, p.672) Some people in the Bolshevik Party of Russia and in the * * * producing countries are resistant to the implementation of the new economic policy, which also makes it more difficult to implement the new economic policy for a long time.
As for Stalin, he was in favor of the new economic policy at first. After Lenin's death, he followed Lenin's thoughts and methods in practice and promoted the new economic policy. However, Stalin, like many people in the Russian Bolshevik Party, lacked a deep understanding of the new economic policy and regarded it as a stopgap measure and a temporary measure to restore and develop the economy. Based on the understanding of socialism, the judgment of the international situation at that time, and the consolidation and maintenance of the Soviet Union, the only socialist country, Stalin put forward and determined the policy of giving priority to developing heavy industry and promoting industrialization at a high speed. With the rapid advancement of industrialization, there has been a grain purchase crisis. Stalin believes that the emergence of the grain purchase crisis illustrates two problems: first, the small-scale peasant individual economy can no longer meet the needs of industrialization for food and raw materials; Second, the rural capitalist forces used the new economic policy to attack the Soviet regime. Based on this, he put forward the policy of realizing agricultural collectivization in an all-round way and terminated the new economic policy. Stalin's termination of the new economic policy will inevitably interrupt Lenin's socialist construction thought in his later years.
Second, Stalin's merits and demerits in the socialist construction of the Soviet Union
It is a difficult problem to evaluate Stalin's merits and demerits in the socialist construction of the Soviet Union, and it is also a question with different opinions. As far as the current situation at home and abroad is concerned, few people hold a completely positive attitude towards Stalin's historical role, but many people describe Stalin as a sinner in the history of the Soviet Union for their own political needs, completely or basically denying his positive role in history. This is inappropriate.
Stalin's theoretical viewpoint and practice on socialist construction in the Soviet Union contain many complicated situations and huge contradictions. This complexity and contradiction are mainly manifested in the following aspects: in his theoretical viewpoints and the resulting principles and policies, the correct content is often intertwined with the wrong tendency, and some viewpoints are correct, but they have not been well adhered to in practice, or even distorted or completely deviated; Even if great achievements have been made in practice, they are often accompanied by serious mistakes. For example, the Soviet Union under Stalin achieved great success in industrialization, but this success was actually achieved at the expense of agriculture and farmers, which led to the long-term backwardness of Soviet agriculture. For another example, Stalin put the idea of socialist public ownership into practice, established the socialist basic economic system in the 1930s, and put forward two forms of realizing public ownership in practice. However, he prematurely proposed the elimination of individual economy and private economy, and was eager to upgrade collective ownership to ownership by the whole people, which exceeded the actual level of productivity development. In addition, Stalin had many correct and reasonable ideas about the construction of socialist democracy, but they were not seriously implemented in practice. On the contrary, he made serious mistakes such as replacing national laws with personal will, dealing with differences of opinion within the party by class struggle, eliminating counter-revolution and expanding. To understand and evaluate these questions about Stalin, we must adhere to the scientific attitude of seeking truth from facts and use the method of historical materialism. We should measure or evaluate all relevant issues under the specific historical conditions at that time, rather than taking the changed historical conditions as the standard, let alone proceeding from abstract principles. Otherwise, it will be difficult to draw a correct understanding and meaningful conclusions. Stalin's mistakes, deviations and serious mistakes in the socialist construction of the Soviet Union are related to his personal qualities and thinking methods, but they cannot be completely attributed to personal problems. In addition to the reasons why the Soviet Union is carrying out pioneering socialist construction in a very complicated international environment, there are also problems such as the influence of Russian historical tradition, inner-party democracy in the Soviet Union, and imperfect legal system in the Soviet Union, which are all more important reasons. Only by analyzing everything under the historical conditions at that time can we objectively and correctly evaluate Stalin's merits and demerits.
From this historical perspective, understanding and evaluating Stalin's merits and demerits can basically be divided into two aspects. This is: on the one hand, there are indelible historical achievements; On the other hand, there are serious mistakes. A careful analysis and study of its mistakes is conducive to better summing up the historical experience and lessons of socialism. However, it is not advisable and untenable to ignore its correct side and historical achievements and only see the wrong side and adopt a completely negative attitude. Summarize historical experience and don't engage in nihilism; Engaging in historical nihilism will bring serious adverse consequences.
Third, the main lessons of the failure of socialist reform in the Soviet Union.
After Stalin, several generations of Soviet leaders, from Khrushchev to Gorbachev, tried to reform the original system, but they did not fundamentally touch the disadvantages of the original system. In the process of reform, there are advances and retreats, which are capricious. Finally, the reform turned into a change of direction, which led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Looking back today, after Stalin, the Soviet Union had three good opportunities for reform.
The first time was in the mid-1950s. At that time, socialism had been consolidated and developed in many countries, and the situation of capitalism dominating the world had been completely broken. The economic scale of the Soviet Union has also expanded, and it is in urgent need of economic modernization, and the disadvantages of the original system are increasingly exposed. Khrushchev did advocate and implement some reforms, but his reforms were chaotic. The second time was in the early 1970s. The disadvantages of the former Soviet system were exposed more fully and seriously, and its economic and social development was seriously hindered. Although Brezhnev carried out the "new economic policy", reducing the mandatory planning indicators and expanding the autonomy of enterprises, it quickly ended hastily and stopped. At the same time, he used the theory of "developed socialism" to cover up problems, exaggerate achievements, make people content with the status quo and lose the direction of progress. The third time was in the mid-1980s. However, Gorbachev put forward and implemented the wrong line in the critical period of reform, which gradually fundamentally changed the direction of reform, leading to the deterioration of the situation in the Soviet Union and the complete collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union.
When people study and summarize the lessons of the failure of the Soviet Union's reform, different people have different opinions, and many viewpoints and opinions worthy of attention have been put forward. It should be said that the Soviet Union failed to achieve great results after decades of reform, and there were many reasons for its ultimate failure. I'm afraid the main lessons can be summarized as follows:
First, we should pay attention to the adjustment of development strategy. Social development strategy is the axis of social management system. The highly centralized management system formed by the Soviet Union during Stalin's period was largely established and operated around the social development strategy at that time. At that time, a prominent feature of the social development strategy was to emphasize the development of heavy industry. Later, due to the needs of war, special attention was paid to the development of military industry. In the decades after Stalin, the Soviet Union gradually changed from competing with imperialism to maintaining its own survival and development to competing with the United States for world hegemony and conducting a nuclear arms race. It was difficult to fundamentally adjust its development strategy and long-term focused on military industry. Such a development strategy exhausted the national strength of the Soviet Union, which caused serious consequences for economic and social development, and at the same time objectively restricted the reform of the Soviet system. Because the implementation of this development strategy needs a highly centralized economic system and political system to a great extent. Without changing the development strategy, it is difficult to make fundamental changes in the system.
Second, we should emancipate our minds and face the reality. Rigid thinking and dogmatic theory have been a serious problem since Stalin's time. From the 1950s to the mid-1980s, the Soviet Party's understanding of socialism was not much higher than that of Stalin's later period. If you think that the Soviet Union has entered the first stage of capitalism as Marx and Engels said, and further draw the conclusion that the Soviet Union is in the historical stage of transition to capitalism or has built a developed socialist society; It is believed that the basic contradictions in Soviet socialist society are disappearing, and socialist construction is to realize single public ownership of means of production, and it is necessary to restrain the relationship between goods and money. And put forward that the socialist country is a country of the whole people, and the * * * production party is a party of the whole people. These are far from the reality of the Soviet Union. According to this theoretical point of view, how to carry out the reform in depth? Without emancipating the mind, facing the reality, combining Marxism with reality, and proposing and creating new theories, it is impossible to carry out reform.
Third, we must attach importance to and strengthen the building of democracy and the legal system. During Stalin's period, there were many serious problems in the construction of socialist democracy and legal system in the Soviet Union. When Khrushchev came to power, he started with Stalin's destruction of democracy and personality cult, as if to solve the problems in the construction of democracy and legal system, but he didn't want to change the original political system at all. Khrushchev and later Brezhnev and others, under the original political system, are still consciously or unconsciously engaging in cult of personality, paternalism and other things that deviate from democratic principles. Due to the lack of democracy in the party and the imperfection of the national democratic system and legal mechanism, it is difficult for the Soviet Party to produce leading cadres who can adhere to Marxism, adapt to the changes of the times and be brave in reform and innovation. It is also difficult for non-party opinions and demands to be concentrated and become the driving force for promoting the socialist cause. This situation has not been changed for a long time. On the one hand, it has stifled the enthusiasm and creativity of the broad masses of cadres and the masses in party member; On the other hand, it provides soil for the growth of anti-socialist ideological trend in society. This can not help but lay the institutional curse for the failure of reform and the final bias of reform.
Fourth, market mechanism must be introduced. It should be said that in the process of socialist construction, the purpose of socialist production is relatively clear in theory, and it has not deviated from the central work of economic construction for a long time in practice. While focusing on reform, Soviet leaders also aimed at improving labor productivity and constantly improving people's living standards. However, the failure to introduce the market mechanism in the reform is a lesson. This is mainly because the market has always been regarded as the patent of capitalism in theory. Without the introduction of market mechanism, no matter how to reform, it is impossible to fundamentally solve the disadvantages of the original system, such as unreasonable resource allocation, low efficiency and egalitarianism in distribution. The lessons of unsuccessful reform in the Soviet Union show that building socialism in countries with relatively backward economy and culture requires a historical stage of comprehensive and thorough economic development of the market economy. Combining the market economic system with the basic socialist system is a problem that must be solved in socialist reform.