本页主题: From Bernstein to Liu Shao-chi 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

weihong1
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 1081
威望: 1082 点
红花: 10810 朵
贡献值: 0 点
在线时间:273(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-08-13

 From Bernstein to Liu Shao-chi

图片:
图片:



For Your Reference

From Bernstein to Liu Shao-chi

by Kao Hung

Source: Peking Review, No.38, September 19, 1969
Transcribed by www.wengewang.org


    THE "theory of productive forces" is an international revisionist trend of thought. According to this "theory," socialist revolution is absolutely impossible in a country where capitalism is not highly developed and where the productive forces have not reached a high level and the rural economy is scattered and backward, and socialism will come naturally if capitalism is first allowed to develop fully and the productive forces to grow enormously. For more than half a century, from Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky down to Chen Tu-hsiu and Liu Shao-chi, this handful of renegades to the proletariat passed off such an absurd theory as historical materialism, using it as a "theoretical" basis for their opposition to the proletarian revolution.
   It is no accident that the "theory of productive forces" emerged at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. World capitalism at that time had developed to its moribund stage, i.e., the stage of imperialism, in which the proletarian revolution had become the order of the day. To cater to the needs of the imperialists, the old-line revisionists of the Second International— Bernstein, Kautsky and their like — brought out their fallacy in an underhand attempt to oppose and strangle the proletarian revolution from within the workers' movement.
   Bernstein first put forward this fallacy in 1899 in his book The Premises of Socialism and the Tasks of the Social-Democracy. He maintained that with the highly developed social productive forces, capitalism would grow into socialism peacefully. Therefore, he said, revolution by armed force would become a meaningless phrase. He arbitrarily declared that the victory of socialism could only depend on the general social progress, especially on the increase of social wealth or the growth of social productive forces accompanied by the maturity of the working class in terms of knowledge and morality. He concluded: As for the capitalist system, it should not be destroyed but should be helped to further develop.
   The renegade Kautsky also spared no efforts in publicizing the reactionary "theory of productive forces." In his pamphlet The Road to Power written in 1909, he asserted that only where the capitalist mode of production was highly developed could there be the possibility of turning capitalist ownership of the means of production into public ownership by virtue of state power.
  
Lenin waged repeated and effective struggles against this reactionary "theory of productive forces" before and after the Russian October Socialist Revolution. Prior to the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out that victory for socialist revolution would not necessarily be first won in those capitalist countries where the level of productive forces was the highest, but could be lirst won in Russia, the weak link in the capitalist world. The victory of the October Revolution fully confirmed the correctness of Lenin's brilliant thesis-Following the victory of the October Revolution, Kautsky continued to brandish the broken-down weapon of the "theory of productive forces." He became even wilder in opposing the October Revolution and opposing the Soviet people taking the socialist road. Shutting his eyes to reality, Kautsky even clamoured in 1930 that the revolution that had taken place in Russia could only serve to clear the way for the full development of capitalism and that only when capitalism was highly developed was it possible to establish a socialist society. Therefore, he alleged, the industrialized West European countries would inevitably precede the East European countries in their march to socialism. He also babbled that without a comparably high educational standard and a highly developed industry, it was absolutely impossible to achieve and maintain mass agricultural production, and therefore agricultural collectivization in the Soviet Union was only a crude experiment which would definitely meet with failure. This meant that, because of the backward productive forces, the Russian proletariat could not keep in its hands the political power it had seized, but had to let the bourgeoisie take over the rule.
   Taking over the "theory of productive forces" advocated by Bernstein and Kautsky, Trotsky likewise feverishly attacked Lenin's theory that the victory of socialism was possible first in one country, and attacked the October Revolution. In 1922, in his postscript to The Programme of Peace, Trotsky drivelled that Russia had not reached or even approached the stage of establishing a socialist society . . . and that socialism was possible only when there was the basis of developed and thriving productive forces. He further asserted that a real upsurge in the Russian socialist economy was possible only after the proletariat had triumphed in several of the most important European countries. This meant that the Soviet Union, which was economically backward, was not qualified to build socialism. Such a fallacy is, in essence, designed to create counter-revolutionary public opinion for a capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union.
   The great revolutionary teacher Lenin vehemently denounced these absurd and ridiculous theories. He repeatedly stressed the tremendous role which the revolution played in developing production and the tremendous role which the seizure of power and the change in the relations of production played in promoting the development of productive forces.   He incisively pointed out that with the Bolshevik Party, a consolidated worker-peasant alliance and under the leadership of such a Party, it was entirely possible to turn Russia into a mighty socialist country after the revolution. He said: "If a definite level of culture is required for the building of Socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite 'level of culture' is, for it differs in every West-European country), why cannot we begin by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and the Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?" Lenin sharply criticized the advocates of the "theory of productive forces," saying: "They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectic!-."
   The Soviet revisionist Khrushchov renegade clique has completely betrayed Marxism-Leninism and has effected an all-round restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. Out of their counter-revolutionary needs, they prattle that, under socialist conditions, economics is more important than politics,  that the problem of production should be given first place and should be placed at the heart of all Party organization activities and come before all work of the Party organizations. Such nonsense is merely a reproduction of the "theory of productive forces" that was advocated by the old-line revisionists.
   In China, the "theory of productive forces" was first advocated by the renegade Chen Tu-hsiu. In 1923, in his The Chinese National Revolution and All Classes in the Society, he one-sidedly stressed that China's "industry is in its infancy and its culture backward," that "even the bourgeoisie is very infantile and, objectively, the working class is even more infantile." He frantically opposed the proletariat leading the revolution and seizing political power. He ranted: "Under normal circumstances, political power will naturally be in the hands of the bourgeoisie following success in the national revolution." Even in 1938, he still jabbered that "there is still much room for the development of capitalism in China." In preaching this he vainly hoped to completely liquidate revolution.
   Stepping into the shoes of the renegades Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu, the renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi consistently advocated the reactionary "theory of productive forces." He opposed the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat and thus committed towering crimes.
   The great leader Chairman Mao has taught us: "The socialist system will eventually replace the capitalist system; this is an objective law independent of man's will." Those who try to obstruct the advance of history will have a miserable end. Like his predecessors Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky and Chen Tu-hsiu, Liu Shao-chi has been submerged by the mighty torrent of history.
  
Source: Peking Review, No.38, September 19, 1969
Transcribed by www.wengewang.org


  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-02-27 12:33 | [楼 主]
weihong1
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 1081
威望: 1082 点
红花: 10810 朵
贡献值: 0 点
在线时间:273(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-08-13

 

从伯恩斯坦到刘少奇

  高洪

  “唯生产力论”也叫“生产力论”,是一种国际修正主义思潮。按照这种“理论”,一个国家没有高度发达的资本主义,生产力没有达到高度水平,农村经济分散落后,就根本不能进行社会主义革命,应当先让资本主义充分发展,等生产力高度发展了,社会主义就会自然而然产生。大半个世纪以来,从伯恩斯坦、考茨基、托洛茨基到陈独秀、刘少奇,这一小撮无产阶级的叛徒,都用这种谬论冒充历史唯物主义,作为他们反对无产阶级革命的“理论”根据。

“唯生产力论”出现在十九世纪末、二十世纪初,决不是偶然的。当时,世界资本主义已经发展到它的垂死的阶段,即帝国主义阶段,无产阶级革命已经提上议事日程。第二国际的老修正主义者伯恩斯坦、考茨基之流,为了适应帝国主义的需要,就炮制出这种谬论,阴谋从工人运动内部反对和扼杀无产阶级革命。

一八九九年,伯恩斯坦在《社会主义的前提与社会民主党的任务》一书中首先提出这种谬论。他认为随着社会生产力的高度发展,资本主义将来可以和平长入社会主义,因此,“诉诸武力的革命将成为无意义的词句”。他狂妄地宣称:社会主义的胜利,只有“寄托在一般的社会的进步,其中特别寄托于与工人阶级本身的知识的及道德的成熟相伴随的社会的财富的增加或社会生产力的增长”。他的结论就是:对于资本主义制度,“不应破坏它,而应促使它进一步发展”。

叛徒考茨基也极力宣扬反动的“唯生产力论”。他在一九○九年所写的《取得政权的道路》一书中说:“只有在资本主义生产方式高度发达的地方,才有借助于国家政权把生产资料的资本主义所有制转变为公有制的经济可能性。”

列宁在俄国十月社会主义革命的前后,同这种反动的“唯生产力论”反复作过有力的斗争。在十月革命前,列宁就指出,社会主义革命不一定首先在生产力水平发展最高的资本主义国家取得胜利,而能够首先在俄国这个资本主义世界的薄弱的一环取得胜利。十月革命的胜利,完全证实了列宁的英明论断。

考茨基在十月革命胜利后,继续挥舞“唯生产力论”这个破烂武器,更加疯狂地反对十月革命,反对苏联人民走社会主义道路。直到一九三○年,考茨基还闭着眼睛叫嚷:“俄国发生的革命,只能为充分发展资本主义开辟道路,而且只有资本主义得到高度发展后,才有可能建立社会主义社会。因而,在走向社会主义的道路上,工业化的西欧各国,一定走在东欧各国的前面。”他还胡说什么:没有“较高的教育水平和高度发展的工业”,“绝不可能建成能维持下去的农业大生产”,因而苏联的农业集体化不过是“野蛮的试验”,“它一定会失败”。这就是说,由于生产力落后,俄国无产阶级虽然夺取了政权,江山也保不住,还得让资产阶级来坐天下。

托洛茨基继承了伯恩斯坦和考茨基的“唯生产力论”,同样大肆攻击列宁关于社会主义可能在一国首先胜利的理论,攻击十月革命。一九二二年,他在《和平纲领》的《跋》中胡说什么:“我们并没有达到甚至还没有走近建立社会主义社会的阶段……只有在生产力发展和繁荣的基础上,社会主义才是可能的。”他还断言:“俄国社会主义经济的真正高涨只有无产阶级在欧洲几个最重要的国家内获得胜利以后,才会是可能的。”这就是说,经济落后的苏联没有资格干社会主义。这种谬论的实质就是为在苏联复辟资本主义制造反革命舆论。
伟大的革命导师列宁痛斥了这些奇谈怪论。列宁反复强调革命对发展生产有伟大作用,夺取政权,变革生产关系对促进生产力发展有伟大作用。他深刻指出,有布尔什维克党,有巩固的工农联盟,在这样的党领导下,完全能够在革命后把俄国变成强大的社会主义国家。他说:“既然建设社会主义需要有一定的文化水平(虽然谁也说不出这个一定的‘文化水平’究竟怎样,因为这在各个西欧国家都是不同的),我们为什么不能首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提,然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上追上别国的人民呢?”列宁并尖锐地批判“唯生产力论”者说:“马克思主义中有决定意义的东西,即马克思主义的革命辩证法,他们是一窍不通的。”

苏修赫鲁晓夫叛徒集团彻底背叛了马克思列宁主义,在苏联全面复辟了资本主义。他们出于反革命的需要,胡说什么:“在社会主义条件下经济重于政治”,生产问题应该“提到首要地位”,应该“居于党组织活动的中心,居于党组织整个工作的首位。”这种谬论,不过是老修正主义者的“唯生产力论”的翻版。

在中国,“唯生产力论”最早的鼓吹者是叛徒陈独秀。一九二三年,他在《中国国民革命与社会各阶级》中,就片面强调中国“产业幼稚,文化落后”,“连资产阶级都很幼稚,工人阶级在客观上更幼稚了。”他疯狂反对无产阶级领导革命,夺取政权。陈独秀叫嚷说:“国民革命成功后,在普通形势之下,自然是资产阶级握得政权。”到一九三八年,他还胡说什么“资本主义在中国,还大有发展之余地”,妄图从根本上取消革命。

叛徒、内奸、工贼刘少奇,继承伯恩斯坦、考茨基、托洛茨基、陈独秀这伙叛徒的衣钵,一贯鼓吹反动的“唯生产力论”,反对无产阶级革命和无产阶级专政,犯下了滔天罪行。
伟大领袖毛主席教导我们:“社会主义制度终究要代替资本主义制度,这是一个不以人们自己的意志为转移的客观规律。”阻挡历史发展的人是没有好下场的。“尔曹身与名俱灭,不废江河万古流。”刘少奇和他的前辈伯恩斯坦、考茨基、托洛茨基、陈独秀一样,已被伟大的历史洪流所淹没。

1969-08-15 《人民日报》
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-04-01 13:48 | 1 楼
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR DOCUMENTS
 
 

Total 0.016948(s) query 4, Time now is:07-22 18:32, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk