Kim Il Sung and the question of socialist construction
We, the organisations, who make up the Friends
of Korea have made it a tradition to have a meeting in April to celebrate
the birthday of Comrade Kim Il Sung. Like all our meetings focussing on Korea,
the April meetings centre primarily on current events, which in practice means
reporting on the triumphs and setbacks arising in Korea’s struggle for survival
and development in the face of the efforts of international imperialism to
exterminate its socialist system. In addition, in April we especially
endeavour to remind people of why it was that Comrade Kim Il Sung became such a
great leader of the Korean revolution. We do this by turning to his voluminous
works and picking out topics of current interest in order to demonstrate the
superiority of his Marxist-Leninist thinking.
This year I have been asked to address the question
of what Kim Il Sung had to say about questions of building socialism, the
socialist economy and socialist economic planning. Indeed, this is a topic of
primordial importance at this moment in the history of humanity. As we sit
here, the whole edifice of capitalism is crumbling almost audibly all around
us. Everyone can see that the internal contradictions of the capitalist system
are tearing it apart, causing untold disruption to the essential human activity
of production and distribution of the necessities of life. The billionaire
capitalist class, finding it difficult to make profits, is closing down
production units by the thousand in every country of the capitalist world.
Although the billionaires are suffering themselves – it has been reported that
the value of their holdings has in many cases halved since the crisis started
(so that the mogul who once had $20 billion is left with a mere $10 billion),
vast numbers of workers and peasants have been deprived of the very means of
subsistence. Workers are losing their jobs and livelihoods in their millions
and peasants are finding it impossible to sell their produce at prices that give
them enough to live on. In other words, another Great Depression is upon us,
likely to be deeper and to last longer than the one suffered in the 1930s. The
essence of the problem is that workers and peasants are condemned to starvation
because they have produced too much of the things we need! In order to
maximise profits the capitalists who directly exploit the working class pay
them as little as possible, and the capitalists who distribute peasant produce
pay prices that are as low as possible. The result is that the increasingly
impoverished workers and peasants of the world are too impoverished to be able
to buy the ever-expanding mass of commodities brought on to the market by the
capitalist class. Mountains of ‘surplus’ products accumulate – inaccessible to
those who need them because of the latter’s relative poverty. Sooner or later
the whole system seizes up: capitalists stop producing because they cannot
sell, which in turn impoverishes the working masses still more.
Marx explained 150 years ago how this process
works, and the evidence is now absolutely irrefutable that Marx was right. The
unavoidable conclusion is that capitalism must go! Yet this is a conclusion
that not only capitalists but also many of the oppressed workers and peasants have
difficulty in reaching. It is understandable why the super-rich are content to
let the crisis run its course, whatever the cost to human life and wellbeing,
until the cycle moves once more into an upturn and profits start rolling in
again. The question is: how are these exploiters able to convince the
oppressed and exploited masses of the world that capitalism, for all its
literally fatal flaws, should be allowed to hang on, notwithstanding the utter
misery to which it subjects them?
Following the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and the east European people’s democracies, the argument put forward by the
bourgeois media is that awful though capitalism is, there is no viable
alternative. Socialism has been tried and has failed.
Since socialism is in fact the only possible
alternative to capitalism, this is equivalent to saying that capitalism is
irreplaceable. Either the production of the goods and services, necessities
and luxuries alike, are produced under a system where rich people engage in it
as a means of enriching themselves by exploiting workers (keeping for
themselves a substantial part of the values that the workers produce) or the
workers organise through their own state production exclusively to meet the
present and future needs of the producers. The latter system is crisis-free, as
need rather than profit is the regulator of production, as a result of which
there can be continuous expansion of production that never comes up against any
barrier of consumers’ limited spending power. In the Great Depression of the
1930s, whereas all the rich imperialist countries suffered substantial
reductions in GDP, that of the USSR increased exponentially year upon year, so
that in a mere 10 years it was able to transform itself into an economic superpower,
able to muster the wherewithal to inflict defeat on Hitler’s highly
sophisticated military machine.
Yet notwithstanding this self-evident superiority
of the socialist economic system, revisionists – capitalist roaders – appeared
who were able to convince people that only through the application of market
norms could ‘efficiency’ be introduced into socialist production. Comrade Kim
Il Sung strongly disapproved of this: “A certain country is introducing free
enterprise and the decentralisation of economic management by which local
authorities and enterprises draw up plans and dispose of profits as they
please. This is, in the long run, equivalent to the capitalist method of
economic management.
“A socialist society must be governed by
socialist economic laws. Otherwise, it is impossible to build socialism
successfully. The economy of a socialist country must always be managed by the
socialist method, as required by the laws of the socialist economy. If it
adopts a capitalist method of economic management, the socialist economy may go
bankrupt” (‘On increasing the function and role of finance in socialist
construction’, 31 October 1968).
If well-meaning people in their hundreds were
prepared to go along with capitalist roaders, however, there is a reason for
it. The reason is not that socialist methods lead to inefficiency, as is
argued by the counter-revolutionaries, but that socialist methods are
unfamiliar to workers whose understanding of the world has been created through
their life experience in an exploitative capitalist society. Capitalist
methods, and the coercive methods of exploitative societies generally, are
ingrained in the consciousness of the people as a result of their having been
for generations oppressed and exploited. Old slavish habits of thought do not
disappear overnight just because there has been a proletarian revolution. As
Comrade Kim Il Sung pointed out, the key to combating old ideas is not by
resorting to the old coercive methods that embedded these ideas in the first place,
but painstakingly to work at raising the consciousness of the masses:
He wrote: “The producer masses are true masters
of production, and they know about production better than anyone else.
Therefore, the most important guarantee for the development of production and
success in productive activities is to raise the ideological level of the Party
members and other working people and arouse them to voluntary enthusiasm by
means of efficient political work among them. The decisive superiority of
socialism over capitalism consists in giving priority to political work in all
activities so as to encourage the broad masses to participate willingly in
carrying out the revolutionary tasks, displaying their knowledge and talents to
the full. This is the requirement emanating from the essence of the socialist
economic system.”[1]
Kim Il Sung in his writings demonstrated how old
slavish thinking was an obstacle to efficiency in production. For example he
referred to the fact that in exploitative societies work is considered an
imposition and freedom is equated with idleness:
“Some comrades think that in a communist society
everybody will live idly because everyone will be well-off, but this is a
completely wrong idea. True, in a communist society people will be prosperous
in a way we can hardly imagine now, but even then there will be no one who eats
the bread of idleness. That we will all come to enjoy a life of abundance in a
communist society does not mean that we will be able to live without working,
but that when everyone works, the workday will be shorter and work will become
easier and, furthermore, joyful, thanks to technological progress. To hasten
the building of such a good society, we should now work even harder”.[2]
In particular, however, Comrade Kim Il Sung
addressed himself to the way these old attitudes damaged the effective
management of a socialist economy. In exploitative society, management is
undertaken either by members of the ruling class or by special extra-privileged
strata of petty-bourgeois who identify totally with their masters, and from the
point of view of the working class are members of the ruling elite. Under
exploitative systems, the managers are therefore much wealthier than the
workers, do much less work, consider themselves to be above criticism
(especially from the workers), regard the kind of work that workers do as
demeaning, and generally have contempt for the workers who they believe to be
lower class because they are less intelligent, and so on. However, if the
managers have contempt for the workers, the workers are able to repay this
contempt in kind, being highly suspicious of orders received from above.
Workers tend to see only the role of the manager in organising their
exploitation and oppression. There is an understandable tendency to overlook
the fact that managers, to be effective in managing the production process even
under capitalism, need a whole gamut of knowledge and skills, such as are
taught nowadays on MBA programmes, although not so long ago they were mainly
acquired on the job, or passed down from father to son. The subjects they need
to familiarise themselves with include accounting, economics, human resources,
organisational planning, etc.
If these old ideas are rife among managers and
workers, it is not hard to imagine how difficult it is in practice to organise
socialist production. After investigating management practices at the Taean
Electrical Machinery Plant, Comrade Kim Il Sung concluded that the Plant had “done
a great deal of work and contributed greatly to the nation’s economic
development” and yet there were shortcomings that needed to be corrected:
“…The main reason for these defects boils
down to the irrational industrial management structure and guidance system.
“The present system of industrial management
does not come up to the principle of the higher helping the lower in a
responsible way; under this system the main function of the higher authorities
is to give orders and urge people to obey, imposing all burdens upon the lower
echelons and easily shifting all their responsibilities upon the shoulders of
their subordinates. Thus the officials at the higher echelons are supposed to
receive more wages than their subordinates while working less and shirking
responsibilities, while officials in lower units receive less money while doing
more work and shouldering more responsibilities. People at the lower level,
not the higher level, are always liable to punishment in case of failure of
production …
“In a nutshell, the current system of industrial
management retains much of the remnants of capitalist elements. Without
reorganising this system, it would be impossible to guide and manage socialist
industry properly nor develop production speedily…” (‘On improving the
guidance and management of industry to fit the new circumstances, 16 December
1961).
Management was poor because “In most cases …
functionaries of ministries and management bureaus stay in their offices,
wasting their time with superfluous paperwork. Their routine consists mainly
of mechanically dividing planned figures among the factories and enterprises,
issuing order slips for the supply of materials, filing statistics from their
subordinates and sealing the documents they brought. Considering even this a
nuisance, some officials do not readily meet people from lower units and even
let others seal documents, instead of doing it themselves” (ibid.)
The young Korean revolution also lacked
organisational skills when it came to production. Their problem was
exacerbated by the fact that their industry, such as it was, before the
revolution had for the most part been in the hands of the Japanese, so that
local people had little or no experience of organising production. The result
was that materials would not be ordered in time, or material would lie around
unused in one factory that was desperately needed in another, or that one
official was so overworked that he could not do his job effectively while
another had hardly anything to do, and so on and so forth. Comrade Kim Il Sung
proposed a system of regular meetings between production and managerial
personnel as a means of developing systems that would avoid such absurdities.
But higher bodies had no right to sit back and simply blame the lower ones for
their shortcomings. Their personnel should have been supervising the
implementation of economic planning and found out earlier on about
irrationalities that were hindering production. Comrade Kim Il Sung stressed
repeatedly that leadership was not about sitting in an office issuing
instructions, but about getting out to ensure that instructions were being
carried out and helping subordinates surmount problems that were being
encountered in the course of doing so.
Because in the old society managers typically held
their subordinates in contempt, it never occurred to them that there was any
need to consult with workers. Such an approach in a socialist society,
however, is disastrous. “If you want to have a thorough knowledge of your
work, you must maintain contact with the masses and listen to what they say.
If you talk with the workteam leaders, meet those who work properly and ask
their views, and talk with still more people, thus always endeavouring to
listen to the voices of the masses, you will get fully informed of who works
properly and what difficulties the masses have. You lose touch with the real
state of affairs, because, when attending a meeting, for example, you do not
bother to listen to what others say and just hold forth all the time; and you
take no heed of your people’s views, just force your own opinion on them.
“Things cannot go well with the management board
because it works in such a subjective manner without consulting the masses”.[3]
Comrade Kim Il Sung also pointed out that to
correct shortcomings it was necessary to foster an environment where everybody
was free to point out shortcomings with a view to their being corrected. “We
must not be afraid of our defects. One can reveal shortcomings in work. A man
who does not work would have neither success nor make mistakes. But those who
work, particularly those who work a great deal, will achieve many successes and
reveal defects in working. It would be inconceivable that one could be free
from any faults and shortcomings particularly in doing such a difficult and
complicated work as the guidance and management of a socialist industry.
“The point is whether or not one always tries to
find out one’s defects and correct them before it is too late. Just as a man
washes his face every morning to keep it clean, officials must always find out
shortcomings in the management of factories or in all other work and correct
them promptly. You must find out shortcomings in your daily work, review your
monthly work to discover your defects, and repeat the same procedure with your
quarterly and yearly work. Only by doing this will you be able to find out all
your defects, both major and minor ones, and correct them promptly …
“It is in the nature of things that no progress
can be made free from any shortcomings. Shortcomings will appear in the course
of advance, and these are corrected through criticism and thus progress is
made.”
One of the essential management skills that it is
necessary to develop is accounting. In exploitative societies the only function
of accountants appears to be to maximise profit, and it is easy to imagine that
there is no place for accountants in socialist society, but, as Comrade Kim Il
Sung pointed out, nothing could be further from the truth. Accountancy skills
are needed so that an account can be kept of values being consumed in
production, being produced and being distributed. This is needed as a tool for
ensuring that resources are used as effectively as possible to ensure maximum
production for the direct benefit of the masses of the people. It is thus that
“the state uses it [the law of value] as an economic lever for the
management of the economy. Obviously one area where the ability to measure
value comes in handy is in the setting of the price of goods. Under capitalism
prices are arrived at haphazardly according to the balance of supply and
demand. Under socialism, however, it is necessary to know what resources have
been used up in producing any given item because for the most part prices
should reflect this. At the lower stage of communism, before society is able to
produce all that everybody needs, the applicable motto is from everyone
according to their ability, to everyone according to their work, or, as Comrade
Kim Il Sung put it, “The socialist principle of distribution means
distribution according to the quantity and quality of work done. In plain
words, it means receiving according to what you have worked and earned. A big
share is allotted to a person who has worked hard and earned a lot, and a small
share to a person who has worked a little and earned a little” [4].
In order to allocate products to people in proportion to the work that they
have put in, in order to determine what products amount to “a lot” and
what amount to “a little”, it is necessary to calculate the relative
values of those products. This is not to say, however, that the law of value
has been allowed to become a regulator of production. In this situation, it is
being used only as a guide to distribution.
To help people to absorb quickly the new ways of
thinking that would promote more effective production, Comrade Kim Il Sung
sought ways to use their own experience to drive home the lessons. Many
leading comrades, for instance, had fought in the guerrilla army against the
Japanese. For an army to succeed in battle, there must be careful and
effective management of human and other resources:
“The plan drawn up by the State Planning
Commission can be likened to a strategic plan for the army, the plan worked out
by the ministry to an operational plan and the factory plan to a combat plan.
…
“Before forming a combat plan, the regimental or
battalion commanders … always go to the battlefield and investigate the
terrain conditions and the location of enemy forces. They consult with the
artillery and engineering commanders about the number and kinds of guns that
are needed to forestall enemy fire coming from the top of the mountain, as well
as about the amount of explosive and methods that are required to remove the
barbed-wire entanglements and obstacles at the foot of the hill. After closely
checking all the specific conditions in this way, they make a detailed combat
plan …
“The battle may develop unexpectedly from time
to time, so the chief of staff must closely watch the developments of the battle
and opportunely cope with each change…
“This is also applicable to industrial
guidance. At the ministry now they coop themselves up in the office,
mechanically subdividing the national production quotas, before sending them
down. On receiving them from the ministry, the management bureau allots them in
the like manner and dispatches them to the factories; and the management of the
factories, for their part, mechanically portion out the quotas to the
workshops. No realistic plan can be drawn up in this way …”[5]
Success in socialist production depends on the
working class, whether producers, managers or planners, discarding the
attitudes of the old society and developing attitudes appropriate to the new
conditions – never an easy task. However, in formulating the Juche idea,
Comrade Kim Il Sung summed up in a few easily-remembered words the new
attitudes suitable for the working class as the ruling class, that would enable
them best to promote the interests of society:
“Establishing Juche means … having the
attitude of master of the revolution and construction in one’s own country. It
means maintaining an independent stand of rejecting dependence on others and
using one’s own brains, believing in one’s own strength and displaying the
revolutionary spirit of self reliance and so solving one’s own problems for
oneself on one’s own responsibility under all circumstances.” [6]
For countries too, as opposed to individuals, the
Juche idea “means adhering to the creative stand of opposing dogmatism and applying
the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism and the experiences of other
countries to suit the historical conditions and national peculiarities of one’s
own country”. In other words, in the same way that individuals need to get
rid of all remnants of a slavish mentality, so do countries that have
previously been oppressed. They too should develop the habit of solving their
own problems for themselves – which does not of course preclude seeking the
advice and opinion of others where their experience might be helpful.
NOTES:
[1.] On improving the guidance and
management of industry
[2.] For correct management of
socialist agriculture.
[3.] For correct management of
socialist agriculture
[4.] On the correct management of
socialist agriculture
[5.] On introducing new systems of
economic management
[6.] Report to the Fifth Congress