[Reader-list] Fwd: Latin America & Twenty-First Century Socialism

[Venugopalan K M]

"Alexandra Kollontai, the militant feminist and leader of the Workers’
Opposition, gives an enlightening example:

What would happen if some of the members of the Russian Communist
Party—those, for instance, who are fond of birds—decided to form a society
for the preservation of birds? The idea itself seems useful. It does not in
any way undermine any state project. But it only seems this way. All of a
sudden there would appear some bureaucratic institution which would claim
the right to manage this particular undertaking. That particular institution
would immediately “incorporate” the society into the Soviet machine,
deadening, thereby, the direct initiative. And instead of direct initiative,
there would appear a heap of paper decrees and regulations which would give
enough work to hundreds of other officials.162"



 *Latin America & Twenty-First Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid
Mistakes*

*Marta Harnecker*

*
*

*Bureaucracy: The Biggest Scourge *

*One of the deviations that did the most damage in the historical experience
of Soviet socialism was bureaucratism. Bureaucratism destroys the people’s
energy and creativity, and, as the people are the real builders of the new
society, it prevents the goal of twenty-first century socialism from being
reached. The goal is that women and men develop themselves completely
through revolutionary practice itself.*

*Earlier, in discussing decentralization, we said that one cannot attribute
the existence of bureaucracy in the Soviet state simply to the legacy of the
tsarist past; it is more correct to say that it begins in the excessive
centralization that existed in that state. However, if excessive
centralization inevitably leads to bureaucratism, this phenomenon can also
arise in state institutions, parties, and other kinds of public and private
institutions. Moreover, if it were only a matter of the red tape and being
shunted around, all that would have to be done would be to improve
management methods, but that would not work.*

*Where lies the root of this disaster? It is related to a basic issue: how
management in an institution is conceived of and implemented. Do the top
civil servants or cadres make the decisions—because they think they are the
only ones who have the expertise to do so—or is trust placed in the
membership and the organized people, in their energy and creativity?*

*It was often said in the Soviet Union, devastated by an imperialist war and
a civil war, that progress could only come about if the workers and peasants
en masse were committed to work for the country’s reconstruction. But when
workers and peasants took these remarks seriously and tried to apply them by
taking the initiative (organizing, for example, a people’s cafeteria or a
daycare center), their efforts were rejected by the central authorities.
This was done on various pretexts, but the bottom line was that the
authorities could not stand the fact that people had done things outside
their control.*

*Bureaucratism is the direct negation of people’s autonomous activity. Any
independent initiative, any new thought is considered heresy, a violation of
party discipline. The center must decide and supervise each and every thing
that is done. Nothing can be done if the order didn’t come from the center.*

*Alexandra Kollontai, the militant feminist and leader of the Workers’
Opposition, gives an enlightening example: *

*What would happen if some of the members of the Russian Communist
Party—those, for instance, who are fond of birds—decided to form a society
for the preservation of birds? The idea itself seems useful. It does not in
any way undermine any state project. But it only seems this way. All of a
sudden there would appear some bureaucratic institution which would claim
the right to manage this particular undertaking. That particular institution
would immediately “incorporate” the society into the Soviet machine,
deadening, thereby, the direct initiative. And instead of direct initiative,
there would appear a heap of paper decrees and regulations which would give
enough work to hundreds of other
officials.**162*<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en50>

*Bureaucratism tries to solve problems with formal decisions taken by one
person or a small group, both in the party and in some state institutions,
but the real stakeholders are never consulted. This way of operating not
only restricts the initiative of party members but also that of the nonparty
masses. The essence of bureaucratism is that someone else decides for you.*

*The Need to Encourage Public Criticism *

*As we said previously, a long process of cultural transformation is
required to free ourselves of the muck of the inherited culture. According
to Marx, this transformation can only be achieved after decades of civil
wars and people’s struggles, and history has proved him right. It is not
only difficult for the common people to change; this is also true of some of
those who are members of the political organization itself.*

*Even the parties with the most experience in revolutionary struggle, those
that led wars of national liberation for many years, such as the Chinese
Communist Party or the Vietnamese Communist Party, have suffered from the
scourge of bureaucratism and corruption. In spite of the enormous sacrifices
they made during the long years of struggle to liberate their peoples,
several of the leaders no longer serve the people. They have moved away from
them, and have become comfortable and arrogant; they treat others in a
high-handed, authoritarian manner; they enjoy privileges, and have become
corrupt.*

*Why do these situations arise? We must remember that revolutions carry the
load of an inherited culture on their shoulders, a culture in which those
who held public office had special considerations and privileges. *

*It is natural that these civil servants, if their political future does not
depend on the people, would be more inclined to satisfy the demands of their
superiors than to respond to people’s needs and aspirations. What tends to
happen is that, because they want to please their superiors or to obtain
more monetary rewards, they falsify data or obtain results demanded of them
at the cost of the quality of public works. It was rather common in the past
in socialist countries to inflate production data. This was not only
negative from a moral point of view, it was also negative from a political
point of view because faulty information was provided about an actual
situation. This prevented the party or government from taking the necessary
corrective measures in time.*

*We should also add that what tends to happen is that those who fawn over
their bosses tend to be promoted to posts with more responsibility, whereas
those who criticize and adopt an independent posture are marginalized in
spite of being competent. And, since there is no encouragement for the
people to exercise control over the way cadres behave, misappropriation of
public resources for personal purposes becomes very tempting.*

*How can we fight against these errors and deviations? Can we trust the
party itself to resolve its problems internally by, for example, creating an
ethics committee charged with dealing with these situations? It seems that
this is not the solution.*

*History has shown—especially in one-party regimes or regimes with an
obviously hegemonic party that controls the government and often confuses
itself with the government—that it is necessary for the party to be
controlled from below, to be subject to public criticism. That seems to be
the only way to prevent cadres from becoming bureaucratized or corrupt. As
well, it prevents cadres from thinking they are the lords of the people’s
destiny and putting the brakes on popular protagonism.*

*Mao Zedong explained the need for criticism and self-criticism by using the
image of a room that need cleaning regularly to prevent it from filling up
with dust. His words on this point were: “[T]he only effective way to
prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds
of our comrades and the body of our Party” is, among other things, “to fear
neither criticism nor self-criticism,” to “say all you know and say it
without reserve,” “Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words,” and
“Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you
have not.”**163* <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en49>

*Criticizing Functionaries to Save the Party*

*There are some authors who, when faced with the mistakes and deviations
committed by party cadres, try to convince us that any party or, in my
preferred terminology, any political instrument is bad. I think enough
arguments have been made above to substantiate the thesis that we cannot do
without a party when building socialism. The point, then, is not to try to
do without a political instrument, but to find ways of correcting these
possible deviations.*

*Therefore, in the same way that Lenin thought that to save the Soviet
state, it was necessary to accept the existence of strike movements that
fight against bureaucratic deviations, we today think that to save the
political instrument—which is much more than the sum of its leaders—we must
allow the organized people to question publicly the mistakes and deviations
that some of its cadres may commit. *

*There is a basic argument for this: we must remember that the political
organization is an instrument created so we can achieve the socialist goal
of full human development for all people and that it is therefore the people
and not the party that is most important. The people have the right to watch
over the instrument; they need to make sure that it fulfills its role, that
its cadres really help develop popular protagonism, that they do not stifle
people’s initiatives, or use their positions to gain privileges or
unjustified rewards.*

*If we are realists, we cannot think that the very leaders of the party will
commit harakiri. There is a tendency for them to want to protect themselves
from criticism by their subordinates and by the people in general.
Therefore, it is extremely important that it be the people who supervise the
actions of government and party leaders. For that reason, the people must be
allowed to criticize their leaders’ mistakes, without being accused of
having an “anti-party attitude.” The political instrument has to understand
that getting rid of these arrogant, corrupt officials who are causing it to
lose prestige can only strengthen the party. *

*It is important that the mistakes or deviations made by the leaders are not
suffered in silence. Otherwise, the people’s discontent will build up and
could explode at any movement. But if channels for expressing this
discontent are established, the defects identified can be corrected in time.
*

*An argument often used to condemn public criticism is that enemies employ
it to weaken the party and the transformation process. This is the reason
some accuse those who make criticisms of being anti-party or
counterrevolutionaries.*

*The remarks Fidel Castro made on criticism and self-criticism are quite
important on this point. He made these remarks after half a century of
revolution, in an interview given to Ignacio Ramonet, editor of Le Monde
Diplomatique, at the end of 2005. Some days previously, on November 17, the
leader of the Cuban Revolution said that “a fight to the finish” must be
waged against certain evils that exist in Cuba, such as small-scale
corruption, theft from the state, and illegal enrichment. He also told
Ramonet that they were “inviting the whole country to cooperate in this
battle, the battle against all defects, including small theft and massive
waste, of any sort and in any place.” *

*When Ramonet asked him why the usual method of criticism and self-criticism
hadn’t worked, Fidel replied: *

*We used to trust in criticism and self-criticism, it’s true. But this has
become almost fossilized. That method, in the way it was being used, no
longer really worked because the criticism tended to be inside a small
group; broader criticism was never used, criticism in a theatre, for
example, with hundreds or thousands of people….We have to resort to
criticism and self-criticism in the classroom, in the work place and outside
the workplace, in the municipality, and in the country….We must take
advantage of the shame that I am sure people
feel.**164*<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en48>

*A little later on, after having admitted to various mistakes made by the
revolution, he said: “I am not afraid of accepting the responsibility I have
to accept. We cannot go about being wimpy. Let them attack me, let them
criticize me. Yes, many must be hurting a little…[but] we have to take
risks, we have to have the courage to tell the truth.”*

*However, what I found the most surprising and the most interesting was what
Castro said next: *

*It doesn’t matter what those bandits abroad say….He who laughs last laughs
loudest. And that is not saying bad things about the revolution. That is
saying very good things about the revolutions because we are talking about a
revolution that can deal with these problems, can take the bull by the
horns, better than a Madrid bullfighter. We must have the courage to admit
our own mistakes…because this is the only way to achieve the objective we
set out to achieve.**165*<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#en47>

*To sum up, although public criticism can be used by the enemy to attack the
party and the revolution, it can be better used by revolutionaries to
correct mistakes and to strengthen the party and the revolution.*

*There would be no need for public criticism if the political instrument had
an excellent information system that allowed it to quickly identify which of
its cadres had fallen into errors or deviations, and if, moreover, it took
immediate measures against those cadres. Nor would there be any need for
criticism if this information were provided from outside the party or from
its own grassroots members, and if the party had time to process the
information and adopt the relevant sanctions.*

*However, if these conditions do not exist, and the mistakes and deviations
that occur every day are in full view of everyone, including the opposition,
there is no other option but to denounce them publicly, so as to appeal, as
Fidel says, to the shame of those who are destroying the political
instrument by their attitudes. Is it not better to ask the people, those who
have firsthand experience of these defects in the cadres, to watch over the
cadres’ behavior and, in a constructive manner, denounce the mistakes and
deviations they commit? Is that not better than letting our enemies, filled
with rage and the desire to destroy our revolutionary project, denounce
them?*

*But stressing the need for public criticism does not mean swallowing any
old criticism. We must avoid anarchic, destructive, and ill-founded
condemnation. Criticism must be filled with the desire to solve problems,
not to increase their number.*

*To do this it is necessary that: (a) criticism and denunciations be
well-founded; (b) strong sanctions exist for those who make unfounded
criticisms or denunciations; (c) criticisms are accompanied by proposals for
solutions; and (d) an effort is made to bring criticisms to the party first
(and if they have not been answered after a short time, then they can be
made public). The ideal situation would be for the party to take the
initiative by opening up spaces, so that all those interested can make their
opinions known on how the party and state cadres in a given locality are
operating.*
Notes

   1. 162.    ↩ <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n50> An
   internal current in the Bolshevik Party that advocated greater internal
   party democracy; Kollontai, *The Workers’ Opposition*,
   http://marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/ch03.htm.
   2. 163.    ↩
<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n49>Mao Zedong,
   *On Coalition Government*,* *April 24, 1945,
   http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_25.htm
   .
   3. 164.    ↩
<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n48>Ignacio
Ramonet,
   *Cien Horas con Fidel* (La Habana: Publication Office of the Council of
   State), 677.
   4. 165.    ↩
<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#n47>Ibid.,
682-83.

> > The Political Instrument Needed to Lead the Transition<http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-6.php>

> > Conclusion <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart3.php>

--------------------

Source: http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php

| Top <http://monthlyreview.org/100701harneckerPart2-7.php#Volume> |





-- 


You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a
nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the
foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.
-AMBEDKAR



http://venukm.blogspot.com

http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur

http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com