PRUSSION EXHIBIT NO. 1

INITIAL REPORT ON BASIC PROGRAM

(Report of James S. Allen for the Initiating Committee on Program to the NEC,

May 9, 1958)

In this initial report your Ad Hoc Committee is not presenting you with an outline for a program, nor with component parts of a draft program. Later in the report we will have some suggestions on how to proceed with a systematic examination of the many problems that must be considered in preparing a draft.

The main problem of the program is to make the Socialist perspective meaningful in American terms, to ombine Marxist-Leninist theory with American reality. The problem is not new. Neither the C. P. nor any of the preceding socialist organizations ever had a completely worked out written basic program. But from the earliest pioneer socialist groups to the present time, American Marxists have grappled with the problem of how to open the road to Socialism in the United States. Nothing ever stands still -- neither the theory nor the American and world reality. Thus, while the problem itself is not new, it constantly presents itself in a new setting.

The tempo of world change -- of the transition to socialism and decline of imperialism -- makes it imperative for us, if we are to fully revive the Party and set it on its proper course, to tackle this problem with vigor.

In pondering the question of how and where to begin a systematic work of preparation, of how to find a start this time that will carry through to a successful conclusion, your committee thought it appropriate to re-examine some of the basic concepts about the transition to socialism in the new world reh tion of forces. It may seem at first that we are going over old ground, instead of tackling the down-to-earth questions and estimates of present developmonts upon which the socialist perspective must be erected. But it is our fooling, confirmed by the failure of our previous efforts to launch the program proparations, that there would be little chance for success in this new effort unless wo wore able to establish from the outset a unified view, or at least a community of thinking, with respect to the central concepts of the road to socialism in the presont world context. This is necessary because the re-examination of some of the basic Marxist-Leninist concepts in the light of the new experiences of the past decade has lod to a certain disorientation among us. Thoro have arison distortod and one-sided interpretations, eithor of a rovisionist or dogmatic charactor. have had plenty of trouble on both sides, and wo are still trying to gain clarity on many questions affooting current policy as well as long-range perspective. But in order to arrive at corroct positions, we must strive consciously to got rid of remnants of revisionist thinking, without falling into dogmatic positions or closing the door to fresh and oxploratory thinking about our problems. Wo should approach the tasks of the program with a view to unifying the Party on the basis of olear, unequivocal and preciso positions.

Wo

With this in mind, we propose to examine now some of the key concepts that must enter into program, namely: (1) the concept of our road to socialism, (2) the concept of peaceful transition, and (3) the concept of transitional government. We take as our starting point the new relation of world forces in favor of socialism, the consequent new possibilities for transition to socialism in a period characterized by sharp competition between the two world social systems, and the strengthening of the world peace forces. We also discuss these basic concepts within the framework of the new possibility for extended peaceful coexistence, which derives from the relation of forces to which I have referred. (It is planned to prepare a separate discussion on the world role of American imperialism and the struggle for peace, with special emphasis upon the new problems of foreign policy arising in the present period.)

To some it may appear that the issue of socialism for this country is too remote to require extended discussion. But the issue no longer can be considered "long range in the old sense. One billion people now live in Socialist countries, while other vast sectors of humanity are about to open the road to socialism in their countries in the process of current development. This alone requires that the American people, particularly the working class, gain a better understanding of what socialiam means, in order to overcome the "cold war" propaganda and to fight effectively for peace.

Furthermore, the fight for extended peaceful coexistence takes place within the framework of sharp competition between the two world systems, in which socialism as a system of society is showing its superiority in many basic respects. The impact of this upon the American people will grow, as socialist successes continue and as the general orisis of our society becomes deeper.. Already the impact of this ompetition is felt with respect to many domestic issues, such as unemployment, rate of economic growth, health, education, and science. A new standard of measurement has arisen: How far are we behind, how far ahead, of the Soviet Union on this or that question. In the cold war propaganda, this is presented negatively, as a threat to the country. But the ohallenge of socialism has great positive potentials for our country, once the people begin to understand that here too socialism is required for the wellbeing and survival of the nation. As long as we remain capitalist, we cannot be successful in the peaceful competition of the two systems. Our country will have to take the road to socialism in order to compete successfully, so that it can make its full and proper contribution to progress, in a world at peace.

I. CONCEPT OF THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM

Need for A Definition of our Goal

The experience of the postwar years has shown a great diversity among various countries on the road to socialism. Much is to be learned from a study of this rich historical experience, for it provides many insights into the process of historical change. For one thing, it has shown that each country finds the road to socialism in its own way, in accordance with its national characteristics, traditions, and institutions. The concept "our road to socialism” challenges us to get down to a basic examination of the concrete American reality to a degree we have never before attempted.

When we speak of "our road to socialism" we must have clearly in mind the goal toward which we strive. For amidst all the variety and multiplicity of form, socialism as a system of society has an essence which distinguishes it from capitalism. What, after all, is meant by socialim? The question must be answered clearly, if we are to chart the road in the proper direction.

It is all the more important to provide a clear answer because, under the inpetus of the new world changes and under the impact of the successes of the Socialist world, socialism is coming more and more under discussion in this country. All kinds of concepts are being brought forth. For example, in the recently published symposium, Toward a Socialist America, which contains some excellent contributions and which is an important reflection of the new interest in socialism, there is, however, a preponderance of evolutionary and reformist approaches, Many of these were common to our old Socialist movement before World War I, while others can be classed with the "new phase" reformism, modelled after John Strachey,

Post-Office socialism, municipal socialism, public ownership or public authority socialism, Christian or moral socialism, socialism by constitutional law, as well as the newer versions of capitalism growing into socialiam, are to be found here. No doubt, this is a faithful reflection of the thinking among socialist-minded people in this country, with whom Communists should seek united action on many questions despite ideological differences.

Many of these views of what socialism means find a certain support in a rather loose or misleading interpretation of the new Communist approach in the present period. They are encouraged particularly by the "new" revisionism which interprete "our road to socialiam" to mean a road different in essentials from all other roads to socialism, so unique because of peculiar American conditions as to lead off in any which way, ending up in same nebulous form of mixed society hardly recognisable in socialist terms. Theirs has been a completely misleading and distorted version of the perspective opened up by the new world changes, which were summarized at the 20th Congress.

Definition by Other Parties

The idea of the road to socialim" was discussed at the 20th Congress under the head of "Porms of Transition to Socialim in Different Countries." Note, that this was not a discussion of different roads to socialism. It was a discussion of a variety of forms of transition in different countries, depending upon their specific characteristics. That they referred to were the different ways in which the working class was able to win state power, the variety in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the different tempo at which the socialist transformation of society may be carried out in the various branches of the economy. As a result of the radical changes in the world arena, the 20th Congress saw new prospects for sosialim and also the probability that se socialism gained in various countries there would arise even more forms of transition, in fact, a great multiplicity of forms &

Implicit in this discussion is the idea that the basic features of the road to scoialim and of socialism as a system of society are similar, although the forms vary greatly. This was brought out explicity by various participants at the Congress, and by other parties, notably the Chinese, after the Congress. The emphasis upon multiplicity of forms, however, directed attention to the new paths opened up by the shift in world relations. It was needed to unfreese Fixed and dogmatie positions, and to remove subjective obstacles to the freer development of creative socialist fœroes everywhere. There had to be a break with the old rigidity, formalim and doctrinairim if the new opportunities for advances to socialim, presented by the turn in the world situation, were to be realised.

After the 20th Congress, events like the Polish crisis and the counter-revolutionary attempt in Hungary called for further assessment, particularly of the relationship between the common socialist road and what was different in the read to socialim for various countries, for a more explicit statement of this relationship. The break with dogmatism and all manner of mechanical transference of forms and tempos from one country to another could not be permitted to serve as ground for the rise of revisionism, and thus facilitate the work of world reaction.

In this respect, the Chinese Party, which has operated within the greatest diversity of form and has added much that is new and unique to Marxism-Leninism, made a major contribution in its estimates of the experiences of the dictatorship of the proletariat since its inception, Limiting ourselves to the question that concerns us at the moment, the Chinese formulated what they considered to be the common road to socialism, the basic features of this transformation, midst all the variety of the actual historical experience. They developed the dialectics of the relation between the common road and the concrete national characteristics, which they showed to be a dynamic relationship, conditioned by both the world relation of forces and internal class rek tions as they were developing

These concepts, shared by other parties as well, were given a common expression in the 12-Party Declaration of last November, which was drawn up in consultation with over 50 parties in non-socialist lands. We must reject the idea that this declaration is a revision of the basic approach of the 20th Congress on forms of transition to socialism. What it does is to state more explicitly the relation between the common road and the different forms, and in doing this the Declaration sets up safeguards against a reformist and revisionist interpretation of the new position of the world Communist movement. That is why Gates, among others, claimed the Declaration was a step backward from the 20th Congress. The concrete path was defined in terms of the universal truths or basic laws to be observed in all countries embarking on a socialist course," no matter how greatly varied the national characteristics. The 12-Party summation of the basic laws amounts to a definition of socialism as it has developed and as it is growing in the present-day world.

The experience of existing, living socialism should serve as an excellent basis for our definition of socialia, properly seen in terms of our needs and conditions. We are not among those coustrias embarking on a socialist course, but are

at a preliminary stage of development. Yet, in seeking to chart our road to socialism, we are in a much better position than the Marxists in the period before the Great Russian Revolution, which pioneered the road, or than sa MAZO before World War II, before a mmber of countries took that road. We can define the socialist goal on the basis of a broad range of experience in various countries. That goal is not the specific form of socialism as developed, according to their conditions and needs, in the Soviet Union, China, or any other socialist country. The socialist goal has to be defined in terms of the essential characteristics of socialist society as it has developed amidst a great variety of experience. If future events reveal new elements or variations in substance of the old, there will be time enough to take them into account.

Toward our Definition of Socialism

For purposes of our program, the essential elements of a definition of socialim as a system of society should include:

1) A government led by the working class which is guided by a Marxist-Leninist party, with the participation in goverment of the Negro people, the farmers and the various middle classes -- truly a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

2) Public ownership of the basic means of production and the end of class ploitation, making possible production for use instead of for profit.

3) Public, social planning for full utilisation of our resources and productive forces for the welfare of the people.

4) Development of the fullest economic and political democracy for the people, while safeguarding socialist society against obstruction and sabotage by unreconstructed capitalists.

5) Abolition of all forms of oppression and discrimination against the Negro people and mational minority groups within the country, outlawing of all acts of race prejudice and anti-Semitism, and the abolition of all exploitation and national repression of other nations whether as colonies or as otherwise dependent countries.

6) Working-class internationalim in the interests of permanent world peace, mutual aid in socialist development, and ́special aid to countries formerly exploited by U.8. monopoly.

The first element -- a working-class government or, in Marxist terminology, a dictatorship of the proletariat is the indispensable prerequisite for a socialist transformation. Instead of a goverment led by the capitalists, a government led by the workers; this is the distinctive political characteristic of the shange-over from capitalism to socialism. This is the essence of the change in state power, quite apart from the form of such a government, which in our country would have the characteristics of our national development and political institutions.

Experience has also shown that for the working class to play this liberating role and lead the nation it needs a vanguard party, which knows how to use Marxist-Leninist principles to attain the historic objective. This is quite apart from the possibility that there may be other political parties participating in such a government, which represent the interests of specific classes and strata, or even a political party of anti-monopoly coalition.

This first element has proved to be the main distinguishing mark between the position of revolutionary Marxism and reformism, in its various expressions, Traditionally, Social-Democracy has rejected the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Evolutionary socialists, in this country and elsewhere, have viewed the bourgeois-democratic state as the medium through which socialiam can be legislated, from above. As we shall see later, revolutionary Marxists have modified their view on how the state is to be transformed to serve socialiam, but this modification has nothing in common with the reformist concept of the state as an institution above society. The new-phase revisionism denies the

validity of the dictatorship of the proletariat in any form, sees no use for a vanguard party, and sees socialim as a higher, democratic phase of same kind of organized capitalim.

The second element expresses the essential change in the structure of society that is brought about by socialim. The speed and the extent of such a change in structure is a variable factor, depending upon the specific correlation of forces. Small-scale production on a private ownership basis, mall business in trade and services, and privately owned family-sized farms, for example, may continue for some time after the nationalisation of the big monopolies by a socialist government. In fact, the way things are in this country, socialism can rescue the middle strata from sure obliteration by monopoly, and offer them a long period of adjustment and gradual, step-by-step socialist transformation. China provides a valuable lesson in this respect.

Here again we should distinguish between public ownership in the reformist conception and real socialist collective ownership. In this country, we have many forms of municipal ownership of public utilities and also Federal ownership of power dams, arsenals, and the atomic energy industry. In the reformist concep tion, these are already elements of socialism which will mature into full socialism. According to this idea, no class struggle is essential, no vanguard party, no change in the state. Every new government intervention in the economy, as in the regub tion of utility rates or the rate of interest or in price fixing, is greeted as still another element of socialism, bringing over closer the inevitable growing out of socialism from capitalism. All these forms of goverment intervention in the economy serve the interests of monopoly, whether they appear as concessions to the popular forses or as direct give-aways of national resources to the corporations, as long as monopoly is able to control the government without let or hindrance. Only a working class government can assure the permanent utilization of resources for the people.

Another trend is today arising among reformists and social-democrats. In the name of liberty and free economic activity, they are retreating from their tradetional domand for public ownership, even in its accustomed evolutionary garb. The British Labor Party took this backward step when it retreated from the nationalization demand at its recent Congress, and the Austrian and West Gorman Social-Democrats have just followed suit. This may be a way to seek the good graces of American monopoly and its State Department, but it is a sure way to widen the gap even further between the Right-wing Social-Democrats and the working class. We do not dismiss the fight for various forms of public ownership and government controls, but under specific conditions in response to the needs and struggles of the masses, about which more later.

The third element -- social plaming stresses the fact that for the first time in our country it will be possible for society to control economic forces instead of being controlled by them. Socialism is a full-employment society.

Reformiste point to certain elements of planning which undoubtedly do exist under capitalism, especially within our highly co-ordinated monopoly structure, to sustain their evolutionary, "post-office" concept of socialism. But the essential characteristic of capitalim is its anarchy, the sharp contradictions which generate economic crises and the danger of war and make impossible the rational utilization of science and technology. This is nowhore more apparent than in our country of great know-how, mastery of technique, high level of labor skills, and gigantic productive plant. At this level, planning by a socialist government can do away with poverty, unemployment, the great gap in income distribution, depressed and underdeveloped areas almost overnight.

The fourth element of our definition emphasizes that the limited democracy won under capitalism by the struggles of the people throughout our history will be expanded and deepened to include, for the first time, real economic democracy and people's government on a scale never had here before. At the same time, we would be ignoring the lessons of history if we did not allow for the necessary function of safeguarding scoialist society from counter-revolutionary attempts. To what extent such functions will be brought to bear will depend upon the overt actions of the capitalists themselves, upon their submission to the popular will and the verdict of our historical development. We have no way of knowing undor