Part I

The Question of Betrayal in the USSR
Many legitimate questions pose themselves and impose themselves. First of all, if the principles which guided the October Revolution and socialist construction in the USSR were correct, how was it that the return to capitalism took place straight after the death of Stalin? How did this handful of bureaucrats develop, and how did they succeed in hijacking the leadership of the party and the state, sabotaging the dictatorship of the proletariat and restoring capitalism in the Soviet Union? How did this handful of bureaucrats emerge and how did they develop to the point where they attained power? How was it that the working class and the labouring masses allowed themselves to be misled so easily and how come they did not react violently to protect the gains for which they had sacrificed everything?
We pose these questions as Marxist-Leninists, and we cannot ignore them. What took place in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin in the manner indicated above, indicates that something was not quite right, despite the great gains which were made under the leadership of Stalin and despite the correctness of the general line of the party. Every Marxist-Leninist militant who has faith in dialectical and historical materialism, rejects all idealist and metaphysical interpretations which would treat the revisionist betrayal in isolation from the inherent subjective and objective factors which prepared the way for it in the preceding period.
It is from this angle and on the basis of the principles of scientific socialism that we are going to try to shed a little light on this experience, with a view to highlighting the potential weak points and the negative quantitative factors which were transformed into a qualitatively new reality. We do not pretend to provide answers to all the questions posed. And before proceeding to analyse the Soviet experience itself, we are going to begin by recalling the general Marxist-Leninist position with respect to the question of capitalist betrayal.

Marxist-Leninist theory and the question of betrayal
Marx and Lenin had already pointed out that the victory of the socialist revolution would not be brought about in a linear way, and that it would experience obstacles and detours. In their analyses, they based themselves on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism. Before the socialist revolution, the bourgeois revolution had known ups and downs before securing victory: a revolution, a counter-revolution, then the revolution once again ...etc. And all this is completely natural in view of the effect of the class struggle between the old classes and the new ones which were on the rise.
The socialist revolution, just like other revolutions which preceded it, evolves through the bitter class struggle between the ascendant proletariat and the declining bourgeoisie. As Lenin argued in his book The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky: "The transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration. and this hope turns into attempts at restoration." (Lenin, Collected Works, English edition, vol. 28, p254).
It is thus that the possibility of betrayal and capitalist restoration remains probable throughout the long epoch of transition of which Lenin spoke. He defined the fundamental sources of this "apostasy", which we can summarise as follows:
1) The overthrown reactionary classes multiply their resistance and their hostility towards the working class, above all after their defeat, with the aim of regaining their paradise lost. Lenin said in this regard: "The experience of the global history of insurrections by the oppressed classes against their oppressors shows that it is impossible to avoid a long and relentless resistance on the part of the exploiters in their struggle to preserve their privileges."
2) Small scale production continues to exist for a given period under the dictatorship of the proletariat up until the elimination of small property (the establishment of the regime of agricultural co-operation etc.). From the class point of view, this type of production represents petty bourgeois element that underpins the birth of capitalism. Lenin said in this regard: "Petty production gives birth to capitalism and to the bourgeoisie in an uninterrupted way and on an extensive scale every day and in every way in a spontaneous fashion." (Lenin, Selected Works vol. 3 p35, French edition, Progress Publishers).
He adds on page 368 of the same edition: "It is a thousand times easier to defeat the centralised bourgeoisie than to overcome the millions and millions of small owners when the latter, in their everyday, normal, hidden, elementary and assiduous way carry out the necessary results of the bourgeoisie."
3) Old and reactionary ideas and traditions which remain attached to the minds of the people, influence their behaviour even after laying the material basis of socialist society.
These ideas and traditions are a fertile ground for the formation of the bourgeoisie once again. Lenin said in regard to this question: "The force of habit among the millions and tens of millions of people is the most terrible force of all."
4) The elements that become bureaucratised within the ranks of the party of the proletariat and its state, under the effect of bourgeois ideology, habits and traditions under the conditions of global imperialist encirclement. Lenin, speaking of the situation in Russia in 1918, said:
"There is a petty bourgeois tendency to transform the members of the Soviets into "parliamentarians", or else into bureaucrats. We must combat this by drawing all the members of the Soviets into the practical work of administration. In many places the departments of the Soviets are gradually merging with the Commissariats. Our aim is to draw the whole of the poor into the practical work of administration, and all steps that are taken in this direction - the more varied they are, the better - should be carefully recorded, studied, systematised, tested by wider experience and embodied in law." (Lenin: The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, Collected Works, English edition, vol. 27, p.272-3, Progress Publishers).
5) External aggression on the part of the imperialist states, in order to crush the proletarian state and permit the return of the exploiters to power.
These are the sources of betrayal as defined by Lenin. Clearly the betrayal in the USSR was the product of neither a coup d'état fomented by the overthrown reactionary classes, since all their attempts to return to power had failed, nor was it the product of petty production, since the Bolshevik party under the leadership of Stalin had succeeded in destroying it at root, above all after the establishment of the co-operatives. Nor did it take place through the channel of external aggression, since the Bolshevik power had always been able to defeat imperialist aggression, notably that of the Nazis in the course of the Second World War. Nor did it take place through the old currents within the Communist movement, such as Trotskyism or Social-Democracy (Bukharinism).
The origins of the betrayal were within the apparatus of the Bolshevik party itself and the proletarian state itself, despite all the ideological and political struggles which Stalin and the party had carried out against the different opportunist currents after the death of Lenin, and despite the fact that Lenin and Stalin were on guard against the danger of bureaucracy.
The elements that organised the betrayal within the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state were the rotten, bureaucratic elements who renounced the interests of the working class. If the fact that these elements had been unable to restore capitalism in the time of Stalin is a testimony to the impassable barrier to betrayal that this great proletarian leader represented, feared by all opportunists including the Khrushchevites, the coup d'état which the latter carried out immediately after his death signifies without a doubt that the conditions had been prepared in advance within the party and the proletarian state, facilitating their task, and that the bureaucratic elements had their own basis within the party and the state. What are these conditions which explain the birth and the evolution of these bureaucratic elements to the point of successfully transforming the first socialist state in the world into a great social-imperialist state?
We do not pretend to provide precise and definitive answers, but we believe that the class struggle continued between the socialist road and the capitalist road, despite the gigantic strides towards the construction of socialism that the Soviet Union made under the leadership of Stalin. This struggle had its objective basis. It is in this way that remnants of capitalism continued to exist within the economy, certainly within much reduced limits since the system of collective ownership of the means of production had been implemented in its essentials. These remnants presented themselves in the guise of a small enclave of private investment in agriculture and commerce (petty commodity production). This signifies that "bourgeois law" at the level of property was not completely eradicated.
In addition, bourgeois law continued to operate in Soviet society at the level of distribution and above all in wage differentials. It seems that these differentials had continued to exist until the 1930s and that the efforts made to bring them to an end were not maintained; thus, though these differentials are inevitable in the lower stage of communism, they constitute a material basis for the emergence of bourgeois elements. Nor did the differences between town and countryside and between manual labour and intellectual labour disappear in Soviet society. These, too, are two elements forming a material base which favoured the return of capitalism. Besides, ferocious imperialist encirclement acted through attempts to corrupt Soviet cadres and to recruit them as spies, as well as through ideological, political, economic and military pressures, all with the aim of destroying socialism in the first communist country.
All the elements quoted here constitute an objective basis for the class struggle in Soviet socialist society. And we believe that many omissions in the practice of the Bolshevik party resulted in this class struggle not following the path predicted by Stalin and by the general line of the party, that is to say in the sense of the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the blocking of all channels through which a possible revisionist "apostasy" could develop.
1) Although Stalin insisted a lot on the danger of internal "apostasy", notably in the context of the struggle against the Trotskyists and the Bukharinists, and although he focused attention on the danger of bureaucracy, we note that in a general sense, the Bolshevik party from 1936 and 1937 fundamentally focused its vigilance on the external danger rather than on the internal danger. The feeling that came to dominate was that the dictatorship of the proletariat, after all the victories that had been won, had become sheltered from the threat of internal enemies, above all those who were emerging within the party. Contrary to what had been expected, the betrayal came from within.
2) Although the Bolshevik party had been the party which led the first socialist revolution in history to victory, and although it had produced great leaders like Lenin and Stalin and had lived through very rich experiences in the ideological and political struggles at both the Soviet and international level, it would appear that certain dangerous weaknesses had progressively penetrated into the ranks of the party, the impact of which had grown sharper with the passage of time. At the time of Stalin's death, these partial weaknesses were transformed into a generalised ailment.
We emphasise in this regard the question of ideological and political education within the Bolshevik party, which seems to have been neglected from the 1930s on. A sense of victory and self-satisfaction held sway, convinced, as one was at that time, that everything had been done and that there was no longer any need to put in a great deal of effort. We can find indices of this ailment within the writings of Stalin (see notably what was written with regard to the struggle against the Trotsky and Bukharin clique). Similarly we can find clear traces of this phenomenon in the proceedings of the XIXth Congress and especially in the document entitled "Summary Report."
This report insists on the fact that a part of the leading cadres had not put in the effort needed to raise its level of consciousness, to complete its knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, and to learn about the historical experience of the party.
It insists also on the fact that many organisations of the party had dropped ideological and political work in the course of the war against Nazism. It adds in this regard: "This sort of practice, that is to say the practice of ideological and political education, has been neglected without anyone taking it into account". It goes on to note that "certain organs of the party focus their attention on economic questions and forget ideological questions." It is normal that these grave dangers should flow from the neglect of ideological and political education. In effect, in the absence of Marxist ideology, bourgeois ideology and the bourgeois style of work come to the fore. The "Summary Report" itself emphasised that this situation in the party hid many dangers, many of which had begun to appear.
The leading organs of the party had begun to become separated from the masses; its combat organisations became administrative organisations, with privileges, their role being reduced to that of giving orders, unable to confront the tendencies which threatened the interests of the socialist state and economy. This signifies that these organisations had become transformed into bureaucratic apparatuses. And as the political and ideological criteria had lost their importance due to the neglect of proletarian education, bourgeois criteria for recruitment of cadres had become operative in certain organisations such as family connections, friendships, allegiance and regionalism.
It is completely normal that many leading structures in the Bolshevik party should be transformed into administrative structures when ideological and practical education is neglected. The relations between these structures and the base become bureaucratic and they are exploited by opportunist elements for their own interests, above all in the euphoria following the victories that the party had won both internally and externally. These leading structures work to kill all critical spirit so that they control everything, and the currency becomes "the leadership knows everything", "Stalin says ..", such that this becomes a pretext for repressing honest militants and educating others into submission and allegiance. Besides, it must be remembered that the Bolshevik party had lost a great number of its best militants in the course of the Second World War and particularly high and middle cadres more than rank and file members.
It is the development of this state of mind within the Bolshevik party (spirit of submission and weakness of ideological and political work) which explains, in our opinion, the passivity with which the ranks and file reacted to the Khrushchevite coup d'état despite its evident attachment to Stalin and to the great socialist achievements that were realised under his leadership.
3) Although Stalin always insisted on the necessity of training militant communist cadres rooted in the working class, in order to prevent their bureaucratisation and their becoming a group elevated above the people, with their own privileges, it is clear that there were faults which sullied the political practice of cadres in the USSR.
The practical negligence of ideological and political education within the Bolshevik party could not but have harmful consequences for the nature of the politics of the cadres in the proletarian state apparatus. This is obvious since the party is the leading force within society. Also, the progress of socialist society is linked to the health of the party. It is therefore not surprising that bourgeois ideology infected many cadres in the state and its different apparatuses.
The relative rise in salaries of high ranking cadres combined with the lowering of the level of ideological and political education lead to the degeneration of the cadres and their deterioration. They are progressively transformed into a scourge within the proletarian state, seeking to enrich themselves through any means, on the backs of the workers, and to occupy important posts within the party and state power in order to monopolise it bit by bit.
It is normal that such cadres do not think of following a correct style in their relations with the labouring masses. They certainly did everything to falsify the decisions of the party and its line in practice, to exploit the respect which the party and Stalin enjoyed in order to stifle the initiatives of the masses and to implement their own reactionary decisions, in the name of the party and of Stalin above all, since the Soviet working class and all the labourers had solid confidence in them.
If these emergent bureaucrats succeeded in realising all this without their activities being brought to an end, it is because control from below, of the state institutions and cadres by the masses, was very weak. This was the case despite the existence of control organs such as "the workers control". Nor were the masses prepared ideologically or politically in an adequate manner to face up to betrayal and to hold on to their gains through using revolutionary violence, if necessary.
The "Summary Report" from the XIXth Congress indicated many actions which the rotten elements had begun to put into effect with a view to weakening the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The report indicates that certain directors of enterprises "are sabotaging the interests of the state by their actions, misleading the government and leading the state into error." It even adds that certain among them, in complicity with certain party structures, were falsifying documents in order to embezzle products and supplementary goods. Still others were trying to use their post as a means of obtaining particular privileges. In order the illustrate the point, the report gives the example of what was happening in the agricultural co-operatives: theft, sabotage ... to which the bureaucratic elements were dedicating themselves.
4) That the bureaucratic elements were able to secure for themselves key posts within the party and state apparatus could not but result in deviations in the relations between the apparatuses of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the labouring masses. Wherever these elements were to be found, their comportment could not be anything other than to do everything possible to distance the masses from political power and to preclude their participation in its management.
It is also possible that these opportunist elements who seemed to be faithful to the party for a long period, had taken advantage of the attacks that the party organised in order to rid itself of counter-revolution. They consolidated their positions and carried out abuses of power at the expense of the workers.
The Bolshevik party, at its XIXth Congress, had taken note of the danger which was threatening it and of the first signs of the symptoms of the ailment which were beginning to surface. Also, the "Summary Report" underscored the fact that: "it is very important at this time to proceed towards a critique and a self-critique from the bottom to the top .. and to consider those who hinder this critique or try to avoid it, as well as those who repress through practising vengeance against the critiques, as bitter enemies of the party and we have to declare a war against them without mercy."
Stalin died in March 1953 (and the XIXth Congress had taken place in December 1952). He did not have the time he needed to carry through this operation to a conclusion in the way he had done against Trotskyism and Bukharinism. It is in this way that the rotten bureaucratic elements took advantage of the leading positions that they occupied in the party and the state in order to prepare a coup d'état. What had previously been weaknesses and deviations, and quantitative aspects, now were transformed into something of a different nature, and a political and ideological line opposed to the line of the Bolshevik party lead by Stalin ...

Some lessons of the experience of the USSR
The revisionist betrayal in the USSR, which led to the degeneration of the socialist regime and its replacement by a capitalist, imperialist and fascist regime, was not a destiny from which it was impossible to escape or something which was inherent in the nature of Marxist-Leninist theory, as some claim. It was the fruit, the bitter fruit, of the weaknesses present in the first socialist experience in the history of humanity. To know how to profit from the lessons of this experience constitutes the best guarantee for the victory of the revolution against the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the construction of socialism, but also for the safeguard of this regime and its protection against the danger of betrayal.
The greatest danger which emerged in the USSR was, as we have seen, that of the bureaucracy and the other ailments that were linked to it, such as technocracy, intellectualism and so on. It is an internal danger, which springs from within the working class party and the proletarian state themselves, and not an external danger which arises from foreign aggression. Also, to avoid what occurred in the USSR forces Marxist-Leninists, not to replace Marxism-Leninism and the socialist regime by a liberal theory and a bourgeois regime as the "revisionists" conclude, but to recognise the importance of certain questions both at the theoretical and practical levels, basing themselves always on Marxism-Leninism throughout the epoch of socialist construction.
The betrayal in the USSR illustrates the necessity of recognising the importance of the internal class struggle as the source of this danger on the same footing as the external class struggle. The external enemy cannot attain its objective of destroying socialism unless it has at its disposal internal agents. These internal agents are not necessarily the remnants of the overthrown classes; they can be rotten bureaucratic elements from within the ranks of the party itself, as can be seen from the Soviet experience. Antagonistic contradictions do not disappear in socialist society; they exist alongside non-antagonistic contradictions.
The struggle against the principle source of betrayal within the party and the state - that is to say the bureaucracy - demands:
First, to centre on the objective factors which could constitute a material base for the emergence of rotten elements, and to bring them under control. We see above all the necessity to work without rest for the suppression of the differences between the town and the countryside, between manual labour and intellectual labour, between the two forms of socialist property, property of the people and co-operative property, raising the latter to the level of the former.
Then, it is necessary to continuously develop the superstructure in order to extend proletarian democracy and in order to bring about the participation of the broad masses in the running of social and political life at all levels. This means that Marxist-Leninists must concern themselves with certain fundamental relations in the context of the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in order to discover adequate solutions. This is a question of:
1) The relation between the leadership of the party and the rank and file, and between the party and the working class and the labouring masses, and their social organisations. The objective would be:
- to combat opportunism and concern oneself with ideological and political education, to develop the control of the leadership by the rank and file by the application of democratic centralism;
- to establish democratic relations between the party and the class: the get the working class to participate in the elaboration of policies to be followed, in the ideological and political struggles, and to give its opinion on the recruitment or exclusion of members and on the formation of leading structures.
- to establish democratic relations between the party and the mass organisations and to avoid transforming the latter into administrative bodies which implement the orders which are handed down to it by the party. As Lenin said, it is necessary to turn these organisations into "schools for communism."
2) The relation within the dictatorship of the proletariat between the elected structures and the administrative structures. This relation must be approached from two angles. The first consists of working to give priority to the elected element in relation to that which is designated within the state apparatus with the view of putting into practice the principle of the election of all state functionaries; the second consists of subordinating the administrative structures (from the government to the smallest administrative cell) to the elected structures, a total submission since the latter express the will of the people and are under their control.
3) The relation between the administrative structures and those which are elected on the one hand, and the working class and the labouring masses on the other, must be established on the basis of control of the former by the latter, a control which must be real and effective.
In this context, it is necessary to give importance particularly to the question of cadres and their relations with the masses. Any deviation in this regard would constitute a basis for the emergence of the bureaucracy. Cadres must be subject to working class conditions of life. In addition, it is necessary to pay particular attention to their ideological and political education, and to make them participate in productive work. By the same token, it is necessary to work towards a continual reduction in the administrative apparatus and to integrate a large part of the latter into production over and beyond the subjection of the cadres to the direct control of the masses.
4) The relation between the administration, which centralises, and the necessity to unleash the creative initiative of the rank and file structures and the masses. This means that the latter must participate in the drawing up of the economic, social and cultural plans and political decision making. All attempts to prevent this must be repressed.
5) The relation between the control from above that the working class exercises in power through its party and its state on the elected structures, and the direct control from below. This latter is one of the fundamental mechanisms for the struggle against bureaucracy. Also, this must be effective and must be carried out through the pressure of the mass organisations of the workers and peasants directly (the workers and peasants control committees).
A correct approach to these different relations in line with the Marxist-Leninist method is our touch stone in the battle against bureaucracy within socialist society.

Part II

Once again on the lessons of an experience
The socialist movement has accumulated some notable experiences over many years, both in terms of the manner of leading the popular masses towards power and in the way to build socialism.
Nevertheless, the risks at the second level outweigh the advantages; it has resulted in the loss of power by the working class in all the countries which have known socialism. This is why it is necessary to undertake a deep process of critique and self-critique in a revolutionary spirit, based on Marxism-Leninism, without leaving any place for sectarianism or sclerosis, and with no concern other than the interests of the movement and what it needs for its further development.
The greatest danger for Marxism has always been and remains the tendency to reduce it to immutable dogmas imposed on reality, which are incapable of assimilating the specificities and the developments, and consequently incapable of responding to what is necessary to transform reality. This tendency runs counter to the revolutionary advance of Marxism. The latter has to be rehabilitated completely in order to advance the theory in light of the experiences accumulated by the progressive movement on a world scale and the transformations it has undergone. If we insist on the necessity of the revolutionary advance of Marxism in the analysis of diverse historical aspects, this is not in order to discard principles whose correctness has been confirmed by experience, but because this path is the only one which permits us to distinguish what is correct from what is false, the principles and the general rules from what is provisional and exceptional, preserving what is still valuable today.
If this process is profound, sincere and objective, the results will be healthy and will help open up new horizons for the working class and the people, who will gain new confidence in their means and their abilities to change the world and to eliminate the bloodthirsty capitalists. Opposition to progress, petrifaction, and the transformation of Marxism into a collection of religious precepts can only benefit the bourgeois strategy which aims to eliminate all reference to Marxism once and for all.
This process of critique and self-critique upon which depends the renewal of the communist movement and the advance of the workers movement and the movement for national liberation, must make a clean sweep of the whole experience of socialism and must uncover the factors which paralysed it and caused its defeat. It is important to point out that it is astonishing that the bourgeoisie is centring its offensive against socialism on the indices of economic development, of democracy, and of the liberation of the individual from oppression. It presents it as if these objectives were incapable of being realised, whereas in reality socialism emerged precisely to surpass capitalism on all these fronts.
Socialism came about to liberate the forces of production which were fettered by capitalist relations of production and to favour their promotion, understanding by this a promotion without handicaps on the means of production, the forms of organisation of work and the individual and collective capabilities of the producers. Equally, it came about to bring about justice and equality on the ruins of the cynical class system of capitalist society, and to introduce a broad and deep democracy in place of bourgeois democracy, which is in fact only the facade of democracy, the democracy of a repressive and exploiting minority. Beyond this, socialism came about in order to liberate the individual burdened with the exclusion concretised by capitalist society, which separates the producer from his product and transforms him into a simple appendage of a machine. Nevertheless, with regard to the historical functions of socialism, all the conditions for their realisation have become ripe in our contemporary epoch, and millions of individuals are being mobilised in the different continents for the realisation of socialism, sacrificing all that they hold dear, it is timely today to look at the reasons why, after such a promising start, in the course of which socialism achieved notable results overthrowing capitalism (the experience of building socialism in the USSR in particular), it was defeated and it retreated massively elsewhere, including Albania which criticised the other experiences, expressed its fidelity to the revolutionary spirit of Marxism-Leninism, presented itself as being the correct example of the vitality of socialism, and remained until the last minute before its fall, the inspiration for millions of progressives and the source of the enrichment of their aspirations.
Thus the working class and the progressive forces have found themselves faced with the following dilemma: socialism, which possesses an enormous capacity for the furtherment and the satisfaction of the material and moral needs of society, is undergoing a grave crisis, while capitalism, which is historically condemned to disappear because of its profound contradictions which can only lead to this end and although it may be outdated, appears today to be the most able to correct itself and adapt itself to circumstances, appearing to challenge socialism in the areas where the latter ought in fact to surpass it.
To be able to respond to this dilemma, it is important to discard simplistic and superficial analyses which explain the events in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin subjectively or in terms of a plot, which are insufficient to provide an answer to the following fundamental question: How was it possible to reject an advanced system of production (socialism) and return to a retrograde system of production (capitalism) without this alerting the working class and the labouring population and provoking them into struggle in defence of their gains? In other terms, what made the masses lose their revolutionary initiative and boldness, and reduced them to a negative mass in the face of changes which were carried out at their expense? Things being as they were, there must have been some essential factors which brought about this state of affairs: erroneous or inadequate conceptions and mechanisms of management, of functioning and of power, having led up to this situation. It is necessary to know what they are, to understand tem, to overcome them, and to strengthen socialism once again both in practise and in understanding. After considering these questions for a long time as the questions that could not be discussed or changed -this approach harmed scalism both in theory and practise- it would be another mistake to ignore them now.
Despite the fact that we do not have enough concrete data regarding the experiences of socialist construction in the USSR, we believe that the reasons for its defeat lies on a series of mistakes, deviations and shortcoming which followed one another and which gradually set a favourable platform for the revisionists. They used these mistakes, deviations and shortcoming to seize power, to strike a hash blow on socalist cnstruction, and to transfer the working class' power into a bourgeois dictatorship which is bureaucratic and fascist internally and expansionist and imperialist externally. The point reached is the crisis and the process of dissolution which is being experienced now.
In our opinion, the determining factor which sabotaged the construction of socalism and paved the way to capitalist restoration was mainly the political factor, namely the one which is to do with the practise of socialist democracy. We especially draw attention to this factor among others because of the central role of the state (in the field of planning, implementing, controlling, the struggle against internal and external reactionary forces, etc.) in socialist construction. Consequently, the closer the state is to the working class and the people, the more powerful it will be in solving problems and in reaching "the open political form which can guarantee the labourers' economic emancipation" (Marx).
In our opinion, what can be said about the socialism in Soviet Union in this framework is this:
1) The failure of the Bolshevik Party in implementing the socialist principles of real participation of the popular masses in state affairs, as Lenin says "in democratic construction of the state life as a whole", in order to penetrate into the popular ranks, to prevent the state from alienating to the working class and the people in the same way as in bourgeois regimes and in all previous regimes based on exploitation, and from turning into a burecratic apparatus.
In order to achive this aim, Lenin says, the following measures must be implemented: State officials (functioners) must be elected, their numbers must be reduced as many as possible, their salary must be kept at the same level as an averageworker's and they must be removable by the labourers if necessary.
If a bureaucratic minority managed to seize power after Stalin's death, this shows that although the above mentioned principles about the participation of the popular masses in state affairs were adopted ideologically, they were not implemented properly or consistently. That is why the bureaucratic apparatus spred and interest groups emerged. These kinds of deviations pose a special threat in a regime where the means of production and the main mechanisms of distribution are controlled by the state.
2) The inter-relation of the Communis Party and the state, the transformation of this relationship into a party-state relation, and the disappearance of exactingness in practise with regard to respecting each one's functions and authorities. In a socialist society, the leading role of the Communist Party is a fundamental question and socialism cannot exist without it. However, a leading role can be obtained through the activity and struggle of the Communist Party within the popular masses and through gaining respect for its opinions and criticisms, but not through decrees giving the superiority to the Party over the state and the people. Leadership through decrees weakens the elected organs of the state and consolidates bureaucracy both in the Party and the state. There rises indifference among the elected people's representatives and broad masses.
This constitutes a great danger in an environment where there are no other political organisations or where they are banned. In the course of time, the dictatorship of the proletariat evolves into the dictatorship of the Party. When unique victories and gains are realised (as was the case for the party), this reinforces the power of the cadres, above all those whose level of consciousness is backward. In this way the control by the rank and file over the leaders is whittled down, the party is reduced to its leadership and then to its general secretary, which in difficult moments renders it incapable of acting and energetically opposing deviations and deviationists, that is to say opportunists and bureaucrats who easily abuse socialist legitimacy.
3) The transformation of the existence of a single party within society from a phenomenon which arose from conditions specific to the revolution in the Soviet Union, to one of the principles for building socialism, which led to the prohibition of the emergence or the existence of all other political expression outside of the party (The 1936 Constitution).
This position is erroneous from the theoretical point of view, and damaging from the political point of view. The desire to organise politically, and independently of the communist party after the success of the social revolution (if there were no politically organisations before the revolution which participated in it) and above all in the course of the first stage of the construction of socialism, cannot be limited to the remnants of the reactionary classes and to the counter-revolutionaries who want to return to the old society. It can equally emanate from individuals or certain sectors of the population in conflict with the communists. Also, although the working class party has to bar the way in front of the remnants of the reactionary classes and the counter-revolutionaries, it must open the door wide to the workers, including on the organisational level (the party, the associations) and centre its relations with the emerging organisations on the democratic struggle which is renewed among the masses of the people. The way in which the party treats these organisations has to change according to the way in which they operate: they could all or in part resort to terrorism and sabotage or to connivance with external forces with the aim of abusing popular legitimacy and overthrowing socialism.
From the political point of view, the consequences of the law on the single party are negative and damaging because it permits the expansion of the bureaucracy within the "party-state" and results in socialism depending on the behaviour of the "party-state", or even of certain leaders, and prevents the masses of the people from intervening and creating independent mechanisms capable of protecting them against any form of reaction or deviations with respect to their interests and their rights. So long as the leadership remains alive and is faithful to socialism, the "machine" functions normally, more or less, and it is possible to rectify and to revise positions and behaviour. But it only requires a decision from the leadership for this "machine", as was the case after the death of Stalin, to block and disorient the rank and file of the party, the working class and the people as a whole, who in effect were not ready to confront the revolt against their interests.
Furthermore, the absence of the freedom to organise, above all politically, is harmful even to the forces which defend socialism within the party when the leadership deviates in whole or in part. This leadership, or certain sections of it, are in a position to easily repress any expression which is opposed to them, and this is due to the traditions of the single party introduced into the culture of the citizens as one of the principles of socialism, whereas if there were the freedom or organise politically (and further, freedom of expression, freedom to meet, and to demonstrate ...), the forces loyal to socialism would be capable of facing their enemies in favourable conditions, since it would then be more difficult for the forces trying to reverse socialism to be able to destroy a vigorous system of rights to which the working class and the labouring masses had grown accustomed. Khrushchev and his team, for example, exploited the situation in the Soviet Union (lack of any legal political expression outside the communist party) in order to easily extend their power over the party, the state and society, and to accuse the others of "treason" and "sabotage".
4) Making mass organisations into appendages of the party at the legal and practical level specifically legitimises the submission of the mass organisations to the party, and by nature permits the emergence and the consolidation of bureaucratic thought, since the party militants come to rely on the law for their leadership of these organisations, and not on their activities within them. Furthermore, this kind of conception undermines the practice of democracy within these organisations when it is a question of choices and policies, and limits their capacity to confront the deviations of the party when they appear.
5) The abolition of certain rights of the workers, such as the right to strike (1936 Constitution) as if the working class no longer had need of them, or as if its interests are henceforth in total conformity with those of the leadership of the enterprises or the government. This sort of abolition of rights deprives the working class of a weapon against any assaults against its rights. The revisionist bureaucracy exploited this situation in order to secure its control over the working class and to repress all its protest movements after the death of Stalin, under the cover of the "defence of socialism."
These are a few fundamental comments on the factors which lead the socialist experience in the Soviet Union towards deviation, since they constituted a platform for the emergence of a bureaucracy which constituted itself into a class and took power after the death of Stalin. What gave these errors and weaknesses a serious dimension was that the Bolshevik party was not theoretically prepared to confront this internal "apostasy". The leadership of the party did not cease to emphasise that socialism had secured its definitive victory after the extension of the co-operative system in the countryside. The leadership also maintained that an internal deviation was no longer possible after the annihilation of the Trotskyist and Bukharinist opposition. Henceforth, the danger could only come from outside (military aggression). These two ideas are erroneous because socialism cannot achieve a definitive victory until it has an internal material base which is both developed and stable, and which can guarantee the workers a standard of life which is better than in the developed capitalist countries. This was not the case in the Soviet Union despite the qualitative leaps forward that were achieved on all levels. At that time, the developed capitalist countries exceeded the Soviet Union in the spheres of economy and technology. On the one hand, this definitive victory depended externally on the victory of the social revolution in many countries and above all in the developed capitalist countries. It is this that would create better conditions for progress, stability and confronting encirclement. This factor was not realised, since the most economically developed countries remained under the yoke of capitalism.
Besides, not foreseeing the risks of an internal deviation limited the vigilance of the working class and the labouring people in general. It is clear that the conditions in which the socialist experience in the Soviet Union occurred, were very difficult and had a harmful influence on this experience. They contributed to the creation of an atmosphere which encouraged the emergence of such deviations and errors. It was the first socialist experience in the history of humanity. The Bolshevik party had to discover the path towards its victory in the framework of a situation which was economically, socially, politically and culturally underdeveloped, in conditions of savage imperialist encirclement, and, furthermore, of nazi aggression in the course of the Second World War which inflicted enormous material and human damage. It deprived it of the services of hundreds of thousands of its best, experienced cadres, who died at the front. The party, led by Lenin and then by Stalin, had to put the backward Soviet society back on its feet. It had also to catch up with and even surpass the capitalist states, while faced with difficult internal and external conditions. Despite everything, the party achieved marvels in a short space of time. Had it not been for the errors and the deviations cited above, the Soviet experience would not have ended in betrayal and defeat, and therefore the international situation would not be what it is today.
The rehabilitation of the critical and revolutionary essence of Marxism, and its utilisation for understanding the different socialist experiences and the international situation today are the key which can permit the international communists and workers movement to reorganise itself. What we have put forward as a critique of the Soviet experience is a part of this framework, and not as certain people could imagine part of a liberal framework. Democracy is the very essence of socialism, and it must also be the nerve which runs through the entire edifice at all levels.
It is capitalism which is, on the contrary, opposed to democracy, since it is founded on the basis of injustice and the exploitation of the labouring majority of society by a minority who own the means of production. Had it not been for revisionism, the opportunity would never have been presented to the capitalist regime to distort socialism and to pride itself on being democratic.
It is therefore the duty of communists to purify the preceding experiences of the errors, deviations and weaknesses from which they suffered and which aided the bourgeoisie's offensive, to consolidate their gains on all levels, and to assimilate all that humanity has achieved by way of progress. They must reflect all these gains in their programmes and plans of action. Relying on flexible and intelligent methods and tactics, the communists will once again rise up and will overcome all obstacles which stand in their way.
The unity of communists on an international scale is of the greatest importance in these conditions. It is therefore indispensable that we work in every way to consolidate, to exchange experiences, and to draw up programmes and co-ordinate our actions.

Part I: Extracts from "Perestroika: a counter-revolution within the counter-revolution", (p.70-82, 89-92), by Hamma Hammani, Tunis 1988

Part II: Extracts from "Socialism or Barbarism" (p.75-95), by Hamma Hammani, 1992.