 |
| David Apeatu, Inspector General of the Ghana Police |
Nana Kwarteng, Spokesperson of the “Operation Save the
Suffering Masses” (OSSM) in Kumasi has blamed the Ashanti Regional Command of
the Ghana Police Service for the excesses of the “Delta Force”.
In a statement, Nana Kwarteng claimed that the police
had picked up reliable intelligence that the Delta Force was planning an attack
on the Regional Security Council.
In spite of this, he said the Regional Police Command
failed to take appropriate action to stop the vandalisation of state property
and the brutal assault of the Regional Security Co-ordinator.
Nana Kwarteng said on the day of the incident the main
gates to the Ashanti Regional Co-ordinating council should have been maned and
not opened for the Delta Force.
He expressed surprise at what he called the incompetence
of the Ashanti Regional Police boss and urged him to emulate the example of his
predecessor.
Nana Kwarteng was the Ashanti-Regional Chairman of the
Popular Party for Democracy and Development (PPDD) and an activist of the
Akufo-Addo-led Alliance for Change (AFC).
Editorial
YOUNG PEOPLE IN
GOVERNMENT
It is indeed sad that in explaining the defeat of the
Mahama administration in the 2016 election, blame is being heaped on the young
people in that Government.
It is even shocking to note that some of the persons who
are being referred to as young people are more than 40 years old.
That is, they have passed the minimum age allowed by the
1992 constitution for persons seeking office as President.
The demonization of the young people in politics must be
worrying because it is an affront even to the history of Ghana.
At independence the average age of Ministers was around
40 years. Even the Osagyefo was in his 40s.
Former President Kufuor became a Deputy Minister for
Foreign Affairs in the Busia regime at the tender age of 27.
Indeed many Ministers in the Rawlings era were in their
20s and 30s.
We should be careful not to demonise young people in
politics because they are the guarantors of the future.
The ugly noises about the role of young people in
Government must be brought to an end.
LOCAL STORIES:
AMERI power
deal over-priced by $150m - Energy Ministry report
By Edwin Appiah
Government has been advised to re-negotiate a $510m
power deal with UAE-based AMERI energy after a report revealed it was
over-priced by $150million.
The recommendation was contained in a report of a
committee tasked by the Energy ministry to review the February 10 agreement
signed in 2015 with Africa and Middle
East Resources Investment Group’s (AMERI Energy).
Background
Government had agreed to rent 300MW of emergency from
AMERI after severe public pressure to fix a debilitating energy crisis.
AMERI was to build the power plants, own and operate it
for 5years before finally transferring it to the government of Ghana all at a
total cost of $510m.
This was done on a sole-sourced basis after a meeting
between the former President of the Republic of Ghana and the Crown Prince of
Dubai.
The AMERI deal secured parliamentary approval on 20th
March, 2015. But the contract was met with disapproval from energy policy
think-tank African Center Energy Policy (ACEP).
Despite joining in approving the contract, the Minority
said it was misled. The media also jumped on a Norwegian newspaper report which
claimed the deal was over-priced.
Following a change in government, the Energy minister
Boakye Agyarko tasked a 17-member committee chaired by popular New Patriotic
Party (NPP) lawyer, Philip Addison.
Myjoyonline.com has secured a copy of the report which
points out three broad problems with the contract. The report found technical,
financial and legal lapses in the contract.
On the financial side, the committee found out that
although AMERI secured the deal, the contractor PPR which actually built
and financed the plant charged $360million yet AMERI forwarded a bill of
$510million in the BOOT agreement.
 |
| Ameri power plants |
The committee said this is not equitable and recommends
that;
"Ameri Energy should be invited back to the
negotiation table to address and remedy the issues enumerated in this report
and for GoG to aim to claw back a substantial portion of the over US$150million
commission".
The Philip Addison committee advised that "in
the event that Ameri Energy refuses to come to the negotiation table, GoG
should repudiate the Agreement on the grounds of fraud".
It faulted the NDC government of failing to do due
diligence to the extent that it did not have any no information on the shareholders
and directors of AMERI and other third parties.
The report also noted that the AMERI does not have an
licence or permit to operate the plants in Ghana which is contrary to section
11 and 25 of the Energy Commission Act, 1997 (ACT 541).
In another area of re-negotiation recommended in the
report, the committee said the penalties charged AMERI for failing to provide
power at agreed levels is woefully not punitive enough to encourage AMERI
to deliver on its 330MW mandate.
While AMERI pays little for its failures, the report
found out that Ghana pays $8.5million on a monthly basis irrespective of
whether power is delivered or not.
Supporting a claim by NPP MPs that it was misled to
approve the deal in parliament, the report said the terms of a financial
agreement, a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC), was "significantly"
different from that contained in the Agreement that went to Parliament.
A standby letter of credit offers financial protection
to AMERI should something go wrong. AMERI can take away $51million even if
Ghana has genuine invoice dispute between with the parties, the report also
found.
The Philip Addison committee also called for a review of
tax exemptions to AMERI and its third parties because they are too wide. It
said AMERI and other parties do not pay corporate and income tax.
"Basically, Ameri and all its affiliates and
sub-contractors and third parties are not liable to pay any form of tax
whatsoever in The Republic of Ghana".
Government is yet to take a decision on the report.
AMERI power deal
best ‘ever’ – Bawa
 |
| Kwabena Donkor, Former Power Minister |
By Mohammed Awal
A former Energy Consultant for the Energy Ministry and
Member of Parliament for Bongo, Edward Bawa, has dismissed a report by the
Energy Ministry suggesting that the AMERI power deal was bloated.
According to him, the findings contained in the report
are inconceivable, arguing that extreme due diligence was conducted before
government of Ghana signed the $510 million power contract with AMERI.
A report by the 17-member committee put together by the
Energy Minister Boakye Agyarko and chaired by lawyer for president Akufo-Addo
in the famous 2012 election petition Philip Addison uncovered technical,
financial and legal lapses in the $510 million power contract signed between
Ameri Energy and the Ghana government.
As a result, the committee recommended to government to
call back owners of the Dubai-based company for renegotiation, urging that if
AMERI refused to return for re-negotiation the government should abrogate the
contract.
But speaking Tuesday on Morning Starr, Mr. Bawa
said the conclusion of the Philip Addison committee is predictable as the New
Patriotic Party (NPP) in the run up to the 2016 elections expressed clearly
their dissatisfaction with the contract.
“It was very clear that the NPP was bent on ensuring
that they find fault with the AMERI deal…So I’m not surprised that they have to
constitute a committee chaired by a well-known NPP person Philip Addison,”
he told Morning Starr host Francis Abban.
He said the work of the committee lacked credibility as
it shied away from contacting those involved in the AMERI negotiation to answer
to their stewardship.
He said in terms of the “composite generating tariff
AMERI is a better deal,” adding that on “every facet of it, it is a better deal
and all the things suggest that.”
Source:StarrFMonline
STOP BLAMING YOUNG
MAHAMA APPOINTEES-TEIN
 |
| Felix Ofosu Kwakye, Former Deputy Communications Minsietr |
By Mohammed Awal
The Tertiary Educational Institute Network (TEIN) of the
opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) has stated that it is “disturbed”
and “shocked” by attempt by some leading members of the party to lay the cause
of the defeat of the NDC in the 2016 polls at the “door steps of the young
appointees of former President John Mahama.
Not happy with the former National Chairman of the
party, Dr. Kwabena Adjei who stated on Starr Chat last week on Starr103.5FM
that the president’s defeat was as result of the inexperienced hands he
appointed to form the cog of his reelection bid, TEIN said in a statement
Monday that Dr. Adjei’s attempt to blame the team appointed by Mahama to run
his campaign is “steeped in hypocrisy and dishonesty” which must be halted
immediately.
Below is the full statement
TEIN
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA
ACCRA, LEGON.
27/03/17
For Immediate Release
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA
TEIN CALLS FOR CALM, URGES PARTY LEADERS TO UNITE TOWARDS VICTORY 2020.
We, the members of the Tertiary Educational Institute
Network (TEIN) of the NDC of the University of Ghana, Legon, are disturbed by
the shocking attempt by some leading members of our party to lay the cause of
the defeat of the NDC in the 2016 General Elections at the door steps of young
appointees in the Mahama Administration. It is an attempt steeped in hypocrisy
and dishonesty which must be halted at once.
Since the party’s defeat, we have been listening with
shock and horror as these leading members of the party take to the airwaves to
point accusing fingers at the young appointees as the cause (of the party’s
defeat). Matters came to a head last Wednesday when no less a person than Dr.
Kwabena Adjei, the immediate Former National Chairman of the party, in an
interview on Starr FM also made a similar claim.
According to Dr. Adjei, Former President Mahama lost the
elections because he surrounded himself with people he described as “young” and
“inexperience.” He went on to describe himself as a man with a “wealth of
experience”. Basically, he is of the same view as others like Yaw Boateng Gyan,
Former National Organizer of the party who has claimed in several Radio
interviews that the young appointees caused the NDC the 2016 elections.
If the claim of the likes of Dr. Kwabena Adjei and Yaw
Boateng Gyan is true, then why did the NDC win the 2012 elections? Are the
young appointees who are now being accused of our defeat not the same
appointees around President Mills and later President Mahama at the time?
Secondly, the claims that we lost the 2016 elections
because President Mahama, our flagbearer, surrounded himself with young people
means the party will win any election in which the flagbearer surrounds himself
with older and more experienced men. If this is true, then how did the party
lose the 2000 and 2004 elections since the men around the flagbearer, President
Mills, at the time such as Obed Asamoah, Ato Ahwoi, Justice Anann, E.T.
Mensah, Kwamena Ahwoi, Totobi Quakyi, Issifu Ali and Huudu Yahya were well
advanced in years and very experience? By the way, at what age is a person old
enough to serve in government?
All over the world, young persons are being appointed
into governments. Indeed, in some countries, they are being elected by the populace
into leadership positions. Justin Trudeau, the current Prime Minister of
Canada is 46 years old. He became Prime Minister of his country at the age of
44.
In Italy, Matheo Renzi is currently the Prime
Minister. He is 42 years old. He became Prime Minister at the age of 39.
Back home in Ghana, Former President Rawlings became
Head of State at the age of 32. Former President John Mahama, by our
calculation, was 39 years old when he became Minister for Communication. Mr.
Kofi Totobi Quakyi first became a Minister in the Rawlings government at the
age of 26. Messrs Ato Ahwoi, Kwamena Ahwoi and Kwesi Ahwoi were all
appointed into positions in government at the very youth full ages. Was Dr.
Kwabena Adjei not 43 years when he was first appointed Deputy Minister? So what
is wrong with Former President Mahama appointing young persons many of whom are
over 40years now and who have served four years as Deputy Ministers in the
Mills government into his government?
The young persons in the party who are supporting the
spurious claims of Dr. Adjei and other like-minded persons should realize that
they are effectively asking that they, the young ones, be excluded from being
appointed to positions in any future NDC government.
They must therefore think carefully of the consequences
of supporting this flawed claim.
At this point in time that the new NPP government has
shown every intention of running down the legacy of the NDC Administration to
cover-up their own misrule, we expect the seniors in the party to lead in the
defence of the Mahama (NDC) legacy instead of resorting to comments that
only divides the NDC.
Any public attack on the former President and the young
people who worked for him amounts to a public attack on the works and great
legacy of the President, a situation which will leave us with no message going
into election 2020.
As an Intellectual youth wing of the great NDC, who are
concerned about the future of our great party, we wish to humbly call on all
party bigwigs and members alike to as a matter of urgency and duty to the
party, halt all such open attacks even as we await the Prof. Kwesi Botwey
Committee’s findings.
Meanwhile, we congratulate President Mahama for
following the footsteps of Rawlings and Atta-Mills in appointing young persons
to positions in their respective governments.
To the young people across the country, we wish to
reiterate the point that the NDC is a party that gives opportunity to young
people and we will continue to do so. We respectfully call on all party leaders
to refrain from making comments that divides the party. We must focus our
energy on reorganization instead of the blame game.
In conclusion, we the young people are ready to rally
behind the party to bring the NDC back into power in 2020.
Thank You
Solomon Anapansah
TEIN President
University of Ghana, Legon
0207262608
Ernesto A.Jacob Baba
TEIN Communications Director
University of Ghana
BAWUMIA DEFENDS
FREE SHS
 |
| H.E Bawumia, Vice President |
By
Afedzi Abdullah
The
Vice President Dr Mahamudu Bawumia has noted that the implementation of the
Free Senior High School (SHS) Policy is to help build the required human
capital needed for the growth of the economy.
He
said the building of quality human capital remained key to the economic growth
and prosperity of every nation.
He
said it was incumbent on governments of developing countries to pay attention
to education and quality delivery to build the needed human capital.
Dr
Bawumia was speaking as the Special Guest of Honour at the 87th Speech and
prize-giving Day celebration of the St Augustine’s College in Cape Coast.
The
anniversary celebration which was on the theme: “Raising ethical leaders for
nation building: the pivotal role of students,” brought together people from
all walks of life including eminent old boys, present students and staff,
parents and other distinguished personalities from across the country.
President
Akufo-Addo early this year announced that his government would fully implement
the free SHS policy from September.
But
his declaration has been met with tough criticisms from a section of the public
and other groups including a policy Think Tank, IMANI Ghana which opined that
the much hyped free SHS policy was likely to face some setbacks.
However,
Dr Bawumia believed that the policy was an opportunity to improve upon the
human capital base of the country.
The
Vice President said in as much as the Government was committed to building good
quality human capital for growth, it was also putting in place measures to
ensure that there were jobs available.
He
said creating jobs for the youth was necessary to prevent them from indulging
in deviant, unethical and criminal behaviors.
Dr
Bawumia said Government was initiating a comprehensive teacher motivation
programme, which included affordable housing schemes and training opportunities
for teachers to meet the required demands of modern day teaching.
He
also reiterated that the Teacher Trainee allowance would be fully restored in
September.
Speaking
on the theme, the Guest Speaker for the occasion, Professor Francis Ofei, Dean,
School of Medical Science, University of Cape Coast, said Ghana needed to make
some compromises to involve the youth in key national issues in order to have
the desired leaders.
He
said there was the need for the country to make conscious efforts to strengthen
confidence in the youth and in doing so help them to adhere to ethical
practices.
Prof
Ofei suggested that it was about time the nation must start focusing on
correctional activities rather than get tough approach that relied on
punishment as research had shown that such approach often dampen the confidence
and spirits of students.
The
Headmaster, Mr Joseph Connel in his report, called for support to fence the
school compound as the too many outlets to and from the campus was posing a
security threat to students and staff.
He
said the school presented 662 students for the 2016 West Africa Senior School
Certificate Examination (WASSE) out of which 202 got between eight A ones and
four A ones.
He
expressed concern about the spate of abandoned project in the school which
included a two dormitory development, which started in 2007 and 2015 but was
remained uncompleted.
He
also appealed to the Government to employ more staff especially non-teaching
staff to ensure effective management of the school.
Aside
sponsoring the celebration, the 1992 group also refurbished the Science
laboratory, the Arts departments as well as the music room while the National
St Augustine’s Past Students Union also donated a KIA truck to the school.
Awards
were giving to deserving students, teachers and non-teaching staff.
Arthur Kennedy on Africa’s
False Revolutions
 |
| Dr Arthur Kennedy |
By Arthur K. Kennedy
24th February, 1966 was a very important day in Ghana’s
history. It was the day our first President, Kwame Nkrumah, was overthrown.
A few weeks before the Kotoka-Afrifa coup, Nigeria had
been convulsed by Nzeogwu, Aguiyi-Ironsi and others. And Mobutu Sese Seko
Wabenza and Eyadema had arrived a few months before.
In the decades after that there was a parade of false
liberators– Amin, Mengistu, Rawlings and Doe, amongst others. They all promised
change but most of them ended up being worse than those they replaced. They
gave credence to Nobel laureate George Bernard Shaw’s statement that, “No one
can contemplate the condition of the masses without desiring revolution; and
yet revolutions have never lightened the burdens of tyranny, they have only
shifted it on to other shoulders”.
Even when we have democracy, the desire for change on
this youngest of continents is so palpable and overwhelming. Obasanjo, Kibaki, Kufuor
and Wade all rode change to power but so did their successors and the
successors of those successors.
And yet, the masses continue to yearn for change— for
jobs, for Healthcare, for education that equips people for work, for
accountability and for good governance. Unfortunately, despite election after
election, little changes.
When Americans, the French and the Russians talk about
their revolutions, they refer to one period when truly everything changed.
1776.
1789.
1917.
1789.
1917.
They marked big transformational changes, for better or for worse. While the soldiers have clearly failed, it is not clear that civilians have succeeded.
 |
| Jerry John Rawlings, a fake revolutionary? |
Democracy must succeed so that the false revolutions
will end forever. And while we disdain coups and coup-makers, we must never permit
distance and ignorance to make them attractive again to the masses of Africa.
We must educate the youth about the evil of coups while holding the feet of
politicians to the fire. We must never permit the anniversaries of coups to
pass without serious reflection. And we must resist the false glorification of
coups– which occurs regularly in Ghana and other places.
We must remember that if we persist in mis-governance,
coups may return. As the Akan proverb goes, “Good life leads to forgetfulness
“. We must not forget the days of false revolutions and we must never forget
that they can return. Chile was an uninterrupted democracy for a hundred years
before the 1973 coup. All it took was one very bad government.
Democracy must deliver change because “those who make
peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable “.
Let us remember the false revolutions so that we can
avoid returning to them.
Forward Africa. Down with false revolutionaries. Let
democracies deliver positive change.
WHO
ARE THE WORKING CLASS?
 |
| Mine Workers in Ghana |
These words are addressed to the members of the working class. Let us, then, explain whom we mean when we speak of the working class.
In political economy a class is a body of people united by what are called economic interests, or, to put it another way, material interests, or wealth interests, or bread-and-butter interests—the interest, makes the class.
The economic or wealth interests of a class, though they may clash as far as individuals are concerned, are, as against the interests of another class, a united and solid whole.
We do not intend, at this early stage, to go into the matter of what causes the division of society into classes. It is sufficient for the present to say that society to-day is divided into classes—into two classes, one of which is. called the working class, because its members have to work for their living, and the other of which is called the capitalist class because those who compose it, owning the land, mines, factories, machinery, railways, raw material and. the like, use them for the purpose of making a profit.
Now the line between.- those who have to work and. those who do not is not sufficiently clear for us to explain by it the class position of every individual—neither is the line between those who possess and those who do not possess.
Many capitalists work in some capacity or other without becoming thereby members of the working class. While many a working man has a share or two in some industrial concern, but this does not make him a capitalist.
Nevertheless, the fact of possession or non-possession at bottom determines which class a man belongs to, and sets up those distinctions by which we shall show who are the members of the working class.
Since people can only live on the wealth which is produced, and since all the means of producing that, wealth (the land, mines, factories, machinery, and so on) are in the possession of some of the people to the exclusion of the others, it is clear that those who possess and those who do not possess are placed in very different circumstances.
 |
| South African workers |
This is the distinction which marks off the member of the working class from the capitalist. The former is compelled to sell his bodily powers in order to live. In comparison what else matters? What does it matter whether these bodily powers are skilled or unskilled or whether that for which they are sold is called wages or salary?
What does it matter whether the labour upon which those bodily powers are expended is performed with a pen or a pickaxe, or in an office, a workshop, a factory, a mine, or the street? What does it matter whether the worker is well paid or ill paid, or whether he is a professional, clerical or so-called manual worker?
The essential thing is that the member of the working class has to sell his labour-power in order to live. Beside this salient fact all else pales into insignificance. The differences of dress, pay, education, habits, work, -and so on that, are to be observed among those who have to sell their working power in order to live are as nothing compared with the differences which mark, them off from capitalists.
No matter how well paid the former is, or how many have to obey his commands, he himself has a master. He has to render obedience to another, to someone who can-send him adrift to endure the torments of unemployment.
Because he has to sell his labour-power his whole life must be lived within prescribed limits. His release from the need to labour is short and seldom; he has no security of livelihood; he has always to fear that a rival may displace him.
On the other hand, the capitalist, because he is able to deny others access to the means of living, and is therefore, able to compel them to surrender their labour-power to him, is relieved from the necessity of working. His conditions of life are essentially different from those of the worker—different, not in one or two particulars, but in practically every particular. Ease and luxury are only the most obvious features of a life which has little in common with that of the working class.
For the capitalist then are leisure and freedom—for the others the fetters of constant toil; for the capitalist then is conspicuous consumption—for the others, the office prison, the weary workshop, the choking town, or the drab country labour yard. And yet the complete story cannot be told in these inadequate comparisons.
The whole world is the capitalist's, and-the workers live their hard round simply to enable the capitalist to enjoy his world.
Our words, then are addressed to all those who in order to live, have to sell their labour-power, whether “mental” or “manual” “skilled” or “unskilled,” high-paid or low-paid, for wages or salary.
The Development of
Capitalism in Russia
 |
| Vladimir Lenin |
Those who have read Lenin's Left Wing Communism. An
Infantile Disorder, will recall that in an appendix he attacks the
anti-parliamentary Italian "Lefts." This group, despite its extremist
position, remained a part of the Italian section of the Third International
until it was excluded by Stalin for supporting the Russian Left Opposition.
This year the French followers of this group have brought out a very
interesting pamphlet on Russia entitled L'Economie Russe d'Octobre à Nos Jours,
which is summarised below. Note that in what follows we are summarising the
pamphlet and not necessarily expressing our own opinions.
Lenin's plans
Before the Bolsheviks seized power in October, 1917
Lenin developed the theory that, as the Provisional Government was not prepared
to carry the bourgeois revolution to its conclusion, the proletariat must take
power. Once in power the proletariat would have to put into practice a number
of immediate economic measures. These measures would not be socialist, but
state capitalist. Lenin was impressed by war-time Germany where a form of state
capitalism had been operated in the interests of the German capitalist class.
What the proletariat in Russia must do, said Lenin, was to operate a similar
state capitalist system but in their own interests.
War Communism
Once in power the Bolsheviks introduced these emergency
measures ― confiscations, requisitions, various controls, rationing,
nationalisation of the banks and the establishment of a state monopoly for
foreign trade. None of these measures was in any way socialist or, indeed,
regarded as such ― at least not in Russia. At this time the government was a
coalition of Bolsheviks and Left Social-Revolutionaries {the peasant party). In
agriculture the Bolsheviks were forced to grant the SR demand for the division
of the landed estates among the peasants instead of their own demand for the
nationalisation without compensation of landed property. In fact, as Lenin
pointed out, there was nothing that could be done against this as the peasants
had already expressed their views by seizing the land.
When the Soviet Government introduced its New Economic
Policy in 1921 a number of Communists, inside and outside Russia, denounced
this as a betrayal of socialism. As a matter of fact, however, there was
nothing peculiarly socialist about this period of so-called "war communism".
The measures adopted were those which any bourgeois government would have
adopted in the similar circumstances of civil war, foreign intervention and the
threat of famine. One of the measures of this period which particularly
attracted Communists outside Russia was the forced requisition of agricultural
produce from the peasants when needed as this implied the abolition of the
market. But there was nothing socialist about this. The Soviet Government used
the system which had been developed in feudal Russia for distributing corn in
time of famine. Thus the requisitions of this period, far from being a form of
Socialism, were simply the reappearance of a mediaeval phenomenon caused by
special circumstances.
The New Economic
Policy
By 1921 it was obvious that the expected world
revolution had failed to materialise (due to the betrayals of the Social
Democrats). This meant that the Bolsheviks had no choice: they had to let
Capitalism develop in Russia. The Soviet Government realised this and adopted
the policy of "state capitalism" developed by Lenin in 1917. This was
defined as the development of Capitalism under the control and direction of the
proletarian state.
Figures showed that in 1919 industrial production was
only one-seventh of the pre-war figure. The virtual ending of the civil war
allowed Capitalism to be developed again with the full approval of the Soviet
Government. A number of the emergency measures taken in the period of "war
communism" were rescinded to facilitate this development: some factories
were handed back to their owners and a tax in kind was substituted for the
forced requisitions. The Government saw as their main enemy the petty-peasant
economy and decided to rely on Capitalism to do the work of destroying this for
them. Lenin realised that there were dangers involved in this, but unlike those
who accused him of betrayal he was a realist. He knew he had no choice. In his
report to the XIth Congress of the Communist Party in March, 1922 Lenin quoted
a passage from an émigré bourgeois newspaper which read :
“What sort of state is the Soviet government building?
The communists say that it is a communist state and assure us that the new
policy is a matter of tactics: the Bolsheviks are making use of the private
capitalists in a difficult situation, but later they will get the upper hand.
The Bolsheviks can say what they like; as a matter of fact it is not tactics
but evolution, internal regeneration; they will arrive at the ordinary
bourgeois state, and we must support them. History proceeds in devious ways.
(Our emphasis.)
Lenin commented that this was quite possible and went
on,
“History knows all sorts of metamorphoses. Relying on
firmness of convictions, loyalty and other splendid moral qualities, is
anything but a serious attitude in politics. A few people may be endowed with
splendid moral qualities, but historical issues are decided by vast masses,
which, if the few do not suit them, may at times treat them none too politely.
“(quoted p. 57)
Lenin thus realised that nothing the Bolsheviks could do
could prevent the development of Capitalism in Russia or, even, the
degeneration of proletarian rule into the "ordinary bourgeois state".
This is precisely what did happen in Russia. The "vast masses" behind
Stalin working for the ordinary bourgeois state triumphed over the
"splendid moral qualities" of the Left and Right Oppositions
struggling to preserve proletarian rule.
Agriculture
In 1928 occurred the famous "turn to the Left"
and Stalin began his policy of "de-kulakisation ". The kulaks, or
rich peasants, were to be eliminated and peasant farms
"collectivised". This policy was opposed by both the Left and the
Right Opposition because they saw this as a step backward. They regarded it as
the worse possible compromise with the peasant economy. For it smashed private
capitalism in the countryside. But this private capitalism was a progressive
force which NEP had wished to encourage precisely because it would lead to the
weakening of the peasantry.
Stalin's "collectivisation" had the opposite
effect. It has led to the stabilisation of peasant economy. For the collective
farm is a static form which shows no tendency to evolve toward the
expropriation of the peasantry. Khrushchev by denationalising the machine and
tractor stations has strengthened the peasantry even further. The collective
farm is nothing new in Russian history. In the middle ages there existed
similar peasant corporations, the cartels, where the more important means of
production were held in common while the peasants retained their individual
house and surrounding land, some livestock and tools. This is precisely the
position of the collective farm today پ\ and the importance of the private plot
for Soviet agriculture should not be underestimated. In 1960 33 per cent. of
cattle were raised on family plots, 48 per cent. of cows, 31 per cent. of pigs
and 22 per cent. of sheep (p. 80).
Soviet agriculture has been in a state of chronic crisis
since Stalin's forced collectivisation. The table below shows that, except as
far as pigs are concerned, the figures for the various types of livestock per
inhabitant the situation was worse in 1960 than in 1916.
A similar situation exists with regard to grain
production: "the production per inhabitant was 576kg in 1913; it had been
610 kg in 1960 (1950?), but only 588.6 in 1959" (p. 119).
Three sectors in Soviet agriculture can be distinguished
today : State capitalist (the State farms), private capitalist (the collective
farms in their co-operative aspect) and sub-capitalist (the family plot).
LIVESTOCK
(millions)
1916 1960
Cattle 58.8 75.8
Cows 28.8 34.8
Pigs
23 58.6
Sheep/Goats
96.3 132.9
INDEX OF LIVESTOCK (per head)
1916 1960 % change
Cattle 100
82 -18.00%
Cows 100
77 -23.00%
Pigs
100 163 63.00%
Sheep/Goats
100 98
-2.00%
Industrial Development
The Russians and their apologists are very fond of
pointing with pride at the figures showing industrial development in Russia and
saying that only a socialist economy could do this. But consider the figures :
Years Average annual
increase per head
1922-28
23%
1929-32
19.2%
1933-37
17.1%
1938-40
13.2%
1941-46
-4.3%
1947-51
22.6%
1951-55
13.1%
1956-60
10.4%
It is quite clear from these figures that not only is
the law of the decreasing annual rate of increase verified for Russian
capitalism as for others. But they also show that war and invasion provided a
stimulant to expansion as in other capitalist countries. Nor is the increase
due, as the modern Trotskyists claim, to State planning. The figures show that
the highest annual rate was achieved in the years 1922-8 when there were no
plans. The same figure would have been realised if the 1918-22 civil war had
been lost and a huge trust of Western enterprises had developed the country
instead of the Stalinist State. The figures were achieved as "the result
of the revolutionary elimination of mediaeval obstacles to economic
development, and (were) not at all the product of red or white brains" (p.
91).
Conclusion
All we know about the Russian economy has shown us that
the development of production there has followed the directing lines of
capitalism in passing through its two stages: revolutionary installation of
bourgeois economic and social structures first; consolidation of these
structures afterwards. Between 1928 and 1952, Russian pre-capitalism has become
a fully-developed capitalism and this process has transformed Russia into a
modern and "civilised" country.
Apologists for Russia call this "the construction
of Socialism." Furthermore, the fantastic development of production they
call "communism" and they insert between these two stages the
transition from "Socialism" to "Communism," which in fact
is only the stabilisation of the capitalist forms of production and life"
(p. 130).
The present Russian vision of ever-rising wages and
ever-falling prices seems to show that they want to deal with "commodities,
value, money, and all the features of capitalist production forever." But
this has nothing to do with the “communism described time and time again, from
the first erudite texts of the young Marx to the theoretical analyses perfect
in their conciseness, of the fundamental book of our doctrine, Capital ― this
communism will finally realise the end of capital, of wages, of commodities, of
money, of the market and of the firm" (p. 131, their emphasis).
We would agree with this conclusion. There are, however,
a number of views expressed in this pamphlet which we would not endorse. We
would not agree that Russia had a "proletarian state" until the Left
Opposition was defeated. Even under Lenin it was quite evident that the Soviet
Government because it was developing capitalism was coming into conflict with
the Russian working class. Nor would we agree that the rule of the Bolshevik
organisation was equivalent to the rule of the working class. In October, 1917,
not the working class but the Bolshevik organisation seized power. Certainly at
the same time interesting makeshift organs of administration, the Soviets,
appeared, but the Bolsheviks soon saw that their power was replaced by the rule
of the Bolshevik Party. The Russian revolution was, in our view, essentially a
bourgeois resolution. Of course, peculiarly Russian conditions determined the
particular form of this bourgeois revolution ― a revolutionary intelligentsia
leading the working class and peasantry against Tsarism and the bourgeoisie ―
but its content was unmistakenly bourgeois. This is why Bolshevism should be
seen not as a working class trend but as a bourgeois-revolutionary theory using
Marxist terminology and concepts.
The pamphlet can be obtained from "Programme
Communiste," Boîte Postale No. 375, Marseille-Colbert, France, for 4 New
Francs.
