T=========::;=== ijij II r'''''''''''''''''''''~~':'''''·'collections.mun.ca/PDFs/radical/TheSovietUnionAndTheFourthInternational.pdf · parties of the West have no inherited capital.

, ~

~======"~======= T=========::;=== ij~ ~ ijij

II r"""'''''''''''''''''''''~~':'''''·'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ~ II ijij i Soviet Union ijij ijij i and the ijij ij ij ! ij ij ijij Fourth International ijij

II Two Emy, 00 'he "'" """'" II UU of the Soviet State and UU n n Bolshevik Congresses, n n UU once and now UU ijij By ijij ijij ijij ijij LEON TROTSKY . ijij ijij ijij ij ij PRICE - TWOPENCE ij ij ijij ijij nn GLASGOW ~ nn U U g GUY A. ALDRED, 145 QUEEN STREET, C.l § U u

i i I..""""""."""",""""""""""",""~,:":,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,""..\ i i ~ij ijij JllL ________ ~~~~

Publisher's Foreword ~ RO'DSKY'S splendid e:x;planatory essay on the "Class Nature ~ of the Soviet State" was translated into English by Usick

Va",zler and printed and published by the Commuuist League of America. Unfortunately, its price of 10 cents, which means sixpence when postage is paid, makes its circulation absolutely prohibitive in this couutry. Under these circumstances I have decided to issue it as a twopen",y pamphlet and have put on one siele my desire to issue my own pamphlets in favour of publishing this work of Trotsky. It is my ambition to circulate as widely as possible Trotsky's writings in this country because it seems to my mind that he is the most important Socialist writer anel thiuker of our time.

In issuing this pamphlet I call attention to the fact that Trotsky's message, at the time of his exile by the StaUnist regime, was published in the C01nmUltf(l for March, 1929. This was followed up 1<n February, 1933, by a special Trotsl<y issue of the Council in which Trotsky's great services to the revolution were reviewed and in which the lick-spittle attitude adopted towards him at one time by his present Stalinist slanderers was exposed. The reader of this panwhlet would do well to read these two papers and for that matter make a study of the bound volumes of the Coultcil and the Commune.

Trotsky refers in this pamphlet to Myasnikov. I suppose that this is the first time that Myasnikov has been mentioned in an essay circulated in this country outside of the essays I published in the ComnllUltf(l. The reader who wishes to understand the outlook of lIiyasnikov and wants to know the history of the Communist Anti­Parliamentary Group in Russia should read the Commune for November, 1925. In the same paper for February, 1926, Myasnlkov's manifesto from the Tomsk Prison, 1924, was published. I returned to this subject in the Commune for November, 1927, when I asked the question: "Shall Labour liquidate Socialism or Capitalism?" This dealt with the part 'Played by the .sOCialist mayor of Vienna in July, 1927, against the Communist uprising in that city. It is quite true that in 1934 the Austrian Social Democrats made a magnificent stand on the streets against Fascism, but it is equally true that ion· 1927 the Austrian Social Democrats most mistakenly and most grievously alUed themselves with the bourgeoisie against the masses of the common people. Indeed, 1934 is but the historical commentary on 1927. My essay dealing with this matter fully analysed Myasnikov's poSition. It is time these essays were collected and reprinted in popular pamphlet form. But it is essential that first of all Trotsky's call to the Fourth InteI'lnational and his analysis of the place in proletarian history, and also in proletarian struggle of the Soviet Union and of the Comintern should he widely known. The difference between Trotsky's approach and that of the Anarchists is a matter of most important understanding. His distinction between the relation of the Communist Parties and of the Soviet Union to the workers' struggle is taken clearly. His point that the Soviet bureau­cracy is not an independent class but only an excrescence upon the proletariat makes clear e:,actly what attitude the genuine and Intelligent working class revolutionaries must adopt towards the U.S.S.R. and the Third International.

The tendency of the bureaucratic dictatorship over the proletariat is towards the collapse of the Soviet Regime. But until this tendency results in the end of the bureaucratic domination as well as of the workers' republic, the necessity is for the reform, however violent, Qt the Soviet Regime, but not for the overtllrn of Hs property

S

relations, I.e., a new social revolution. Accordingly Trotsky concludes, and thls condemns the impotence of Anarchist cr!t1cism, of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, tha·t to declaim hopelessly against the non-proletsrlan character of the Soviet Union, Is to become the passlve instrument of Imperialism. To reform the Soviet State, the revolutionary international!sts must take upon themselves its defence; nnd the best defence as also the fundamental condition for the rock­bottom reform of the Soviet State is the victorious spread of the ,"orld ,·evOliutwll.

So much for the first essay in this pamphlet. I have addeld, reprinting from the Militant, New York, for February 10, 1934, Trotsky's essay written on the eve of the New Congress of the Thlrd International. I have included this essay because of the magnificent clarity of Its reasoning and of its essential usefulness.

I "IPpeal to my comrades of the Anti-Parliamentary Communist l"ederation, to the Communist I,eague of Oppositioo', and to the Ind~endent Labour Party to rally together to develop the Fourth International. Trotsky Is right. The point is made in my recentiy issued pamphlet, Towards the Socia! Revolutionf that we must have a United Proletariat, the Proletariat Parliamentary, or the Proletariat Anti-Parliamentary, but the Proletariat United: One Nation, One Army, One Movement. I would ILke to develop this idea. The Nation is an industrial one, the working class, tile wage labow'ers or Capitalism, the wealth producers under any social system, the economic bedrock of all social existence. Tile Army is the fighting eXIPression of the Nation, not necessarily tile Nation itself, but Its organised e..xpression; not necessarily the Nation· mobilised for battle, but the definite nucleus of such organisation of action, its centres of political thought and of pr~aredness for action. This army is not all gathered at one place nor does it wear absolutely the same uniform. It arises out of the economic conditions and functions In different ways in every place where the proletariat Is forced by economic circum­stances to live and to foregather. This army is divided into several regiments and these regiments again have their dlvLsions scattered up and down the conn try. But ,,,,hen the Nation is menaced in any gh'e.n place the local battalions of the severai regiments do not sectionalise according to regimental distinctions hut unite according. to military necessity as so mauy segments of the One Army coming together. They do this because they have their Nation -to defend. 'I.'hey do this because to defend tileir nation is to maintsln the glory of tbelr army; and unless the glory of the army Ls main­tained and the Nation is defended the several regiments have, none of them, any regimental honour to defend.

I say, therefore, that it is rigLt for each regiment to be jeaious of its own [peculiar prowess, of its accuracies of understanding and correctness of marksmanship, of all that distinguishes one regiment from another and makes each regiment feei that It Is superior to the other. I say that the Anti-Parliamentarians should be jenious of their accnrate criticism of Parlillmentarism, of their exposures of reformism, of their calis to direct revolutionary action. I say the Trotskyists should be proud of their speCial contribution, or their accuratt' estimation of the futility of the COlUintern, of their splendid war OIl the absurdity of building Socialism in a back"ward country In place of moving through the permanent revolution to the worid proletarian struggle. I daresay, though I can write \\'i~h no authority on thiS subject, that el'en the I.L.P., its John S. C1arkes notwlthstwnding and its Ramsay MacDonald forgotten, may have something to be proud of in its record. If so, let its traditions inspire its members to battie in the revolutionary cause. One thing Is certain. Let these sections or regiments be as proud as tbey like of their several records; let

R

them di;;pu(e amongst vhemseh'es as t hey will as to which regiment merits t he greatest amount of proletarian approml; still, the fnct remains; a regiment ' is not an army and the army Is not the Nation, 'I'herefore the regiments, proud of their respectiye colours, must stil l swing together iut() an arm)' behind the bannet' ()f lh'lng lH"olelaritln l]nity~the Fourth Interllational.

The purpose of the army mllst be not to raise the fit'my aboy~ the Nation but to respect the Natlou above t he army, Anti, Pnrliamelltul'ism is not more iIlliportant than Socialism,- although it may be the most correct, mnd the most useful, and even the only vit"l ea;p,'ession, of Socialism, I will grant it all its adjectiyes, I will acknowledge to the full Its worthiness. I do S() glad ly, for r am llrejudicetl in its favour. All the hi as iu the world, howm'er well, follllded, d()es not alter the fact that there are degrees of Importance.

"Facts are chiels that winna ding, And daurna be disputed."

If we love Anti-l:'arliamelltal'isl1l above Socia li sm aull so Socialism above the iproletariat, we shall el~d our days of stl'uggle ilOt by witnessing the triu.mph of Anti .. Parliamentul'ism hut or iJeing the pal l­bearers of Socialism, We shall turn from the grave of proletariall hopes to salute the triumph of the final expression of Capitalist parasitism, Fascism.

GUY A. AIJDRED. G1Ctsuow, ]JcI'rei! ] 5th, 193-1 .

.Au ~ 1Uadinq,

"THE NEW SPUR"? Edited and Published by

GUY A. ALDRED, Monthly

Annual Subscription 1/6 post free

THE SOVIET UNION AND THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL

ESSAY I.

THE CLASS NATURE OF THE SOVIET STATE

a'he break with the Communist International and the orientation toward the New International have posed anew the question of the social character of the U.S.S.R. Does not the collapse of the Com­munist International also mean at the same time the collapse of that state which emerged from the October Revolution? Here, indeed, in both Instances one and the same ruling organisation is concerned: the Stalinist apparatus. It had aWlied identical methods within the U.S.S.R. as in the Internationai arena. )Ve, Marxists, were never patrons of the double book-keeping system of the Brandlerites accord­ing to which the policies of the Stalinists are impeccable in the U.S.S.R. hut ruinous outside the boundaries of U.S.S.R.' It is our conviction that they are equally rui'nous in both instances. If so, isn't it then necessary to recognise the simultaneous collapse of the Communist International and the liquidation of the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R.?

At first sight such reasoning appears to be Irrefutable. But it is erroneous. 'Vhlle the methods of the Stalinist bureaucracy are homo­geneous in all spheres the objective results of these methods depend upon external conditions, or to use the language of mechaniCS, tbe resistivity of the material. ':l'he Communist Intel'national represellted an instrument that was intended for the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviet government represents an Instrument for the preservation of conquests of an already accomplished overturn. The Communist parties of the West have no inherited capital. Their strength (In reality, their weakness) lies within themselves and only within them­selves. Nine-tenths Of the st"enf}th of the Stalinist appa".atus lies not in itself but in the social chanf}es wI'ouf}ht by the victorious revolution. Still, this consideration alone does not decide the qUe&­tlon: but it does bear a great metbodological significance. It shows us how a nd why the Stalinist apparatus could completely squander Its meaning as the international revolutionary factf)r, and yet preserve a part of its progressive meaning as the gatekeeper of the social conquests of the proletarian revoiution . This dual position-we may add-represents in itself one of the manifestations of the unevenness of historical development.

a'he correct policies of a workers' state are not reducible solely to national economic construction. If the revolution does not expand on the international arena along the proletarian spiral, it must immutably begin to contract along tbe bureaucratic spiral within the national framework. If the dictatorship of the proletariat does not become European and world-wide, it must head towards its own collapse. All this is entirely incontestable on a wide historical per­spective. But everything revolves around the concretE' histori('al periods. Can one say that the poliCies of the Stalinist bureaucracy have led already to the liquidation of the workers' state? That Is the question now.

Against the assertion that the workers' state is apparently already liquidated there arises first and foremost the important methodological position of Marxism. The dictatorship of the proletariat was estab-

"

Ilshed by mea'DS of a political oYertul'll and a civil war of three years. The class tbeory of society and historical e""perieuce both equally testify to tbe impossibility of tbe victory of tbe rproletariat through peaceful methods, that is, without grandiose class batties, weapons in hancl. How, in that case, is the imperceptible, "gradual," bourgeois counter-revolutiou conceivable? Until now, in any case, feudal as well as bourgeois counter-revolutions have never taken place "orgwnically," but tbey bave invariably required the intervention of military surgery. In tbe last analysis the theories of reformism, in so far as reformism generally bas attained to theory, are always based upon the inability to understand that class (£ntagonisms all? pmloun(l and. irreconcilable; hence, tbe perspective of a peaceful transforma­tion of capitalism into socialism. ~Dhe lI1arxian thesis relating to the catastrophic character of the transfer of power from the hands of one class into the hands of another applies not only to revolutionary periods, when history madly sweeps abead, .but also to the periods of counter-revolution when society rolis back!Wards. He who asserts that tbe Soviet government has been· changed gmdl/any from pro­letarian to bourgeois is only, so to speak running backwards the film of reformism.

Our opponents may gainsay, this is a general methodologic pro­position and tbat no matter bow important in itself it is nevertheless too abstract to solve the question. Truth is always coon crete. 'l'be thesis of the irreconCilability of class contradictions should and must direct us in our analysis 'but cannot replace its results. One must probe deeply into the material content of the historical process itself.

We reply, it is true, a methodological argument does not exhaust the problem. But in any case it transfers the burden· of proof to the oPPOsing side. Critics, who consider themselves Marxists, must demonstrate in what manuer the bourgeoisie that had lost power in a three years' struggle could resume this power without any battles. IIowever, since our opponents mal(e no attempt to irn-e~t theil" apP"aisal of the Soviet state with uny sort of serious theoretieal expression we shall try to perform this labour for them here.

The most widespread, popular, and at first sight irrefutable. argument in favour of the non·proletarian character of the present Soviet state is based upon the reference to the strangulation of the liberties of proletarian organisations and to the almightiness of the bureaucracy. Is it really possible to identify the dictatorship of an apparatus, which bas led to the dictatorship of a Single persoon, with the dictatorship of the proletarint as a class? Isn't it clear that tbe dictatorship of the proletariat is excluded by the dictatorshLp over the proletariat7

ISuch enticing reasoning is constructed not upon a materialistic analysis of the process as it develops in reality, but upon pure ideal· Istic schemas, upon the Kantian norms. Certain uoble "friends" of the revolution have provided themselves with a yery radiant concep· tlon of the dicta1:()rshlp of the rproletariat, and they are completely prostrated in the face of the fact that the real dictatorship with all Its heritage of class ba~barism, with all its internal contradictions, with the mistakes and crimes of the leadet'shi:p, falls entirely to resemble that sleek image which they have provided. Disillusioned In their most 'beautiful emotlous they turn their backs to the Soviet Union.

Where and in what 'books can one find a faultiess prescription for It proletarian dictatorship? The dictatorship of a class does not mean by a long shot that its entire mass always partiCipates in the manage· ment of the state. ~his we have seen, first of all, in the case of the propertied classes. The nobility rule(l t","oug" the mona"chy belm'c which the noble Iftood. on his knees. r)'ile dictatorship of the bour-

fl

geoisie too'k on comparatively develQped (]pmocratic forllls only under the conditions of capitalist upswing when the ruling class had nolhing to fear. Before our own eyes, democracy has been supplanted in Germany by Hitler's autocracy, with all the traditional bourgeois parties smashed to smithereens. To-day, Ithe German bourgeo.!-se does not rule directly, politically, it 'is p/euxd 'Iwdel' cOrn/Jlete subject-fi'in to HitLel' and his bemds, :'-ieYertheless, -the dictatorship of the blLurgeoise remains inviolate iill' Germany, because all the conditioll.'"'I (}f Lts social hegemony have been preserved alld strengthe.ned. By ~lJp()pl'.j,.atht{1 the boU"geoi8ie pollUca1ltl, Hitlel' saved it, even il telnporal'Uy. f"om econom'ic ",,,,pl'opria,tion. The fact that the bourgeoisie " ras ('oIU:Pelled to resort to the Fascist regime testifies to the fact that:tls flegcmony was endangered but not at all that it hald fallen, -

Anticipating our suhsequent arguments our opponents ",ill- basten to refute: although the bourgeoisie as ,an exploiting minol'it-H C11n also preserve its hegemony by means of a E'ascist dictatorship, the pro­letariat building a socialist SOciety must manage its government itself. directly drawing ever wider masses of the people into the task of government. In its general form, this argument is undebatable, but in the giv6l> case it merely means that the present Soviet dictatorship 1s a sick dictatorship. The frightful difli('ulties of Socialist construc­tion in an isolated and backward country coupled with the false policies of che leadership-which in the last analysis also reflects the pressure of backwardness and isolatLon-have led to the result that the bureaucrac)' IWB expl'opriateel tile 7Jl'olletariat poUticaUy i.n order to yu,anl its social collque.~ts 'with Us own. method8. The ana tomy of society is determined by its economic relations. So long as the forms of property that have been cr""oted by the October revolution are. not oYerthl'owl1, the proletariat 7'cmail18 the Tltliuy .class.

Dissel'ta,tions upon "the uietatol'f'liip of the l)ul'e:ll1('l'~ICY O\,~1' thp proletal'tnt" WitJlout a much deeper analysis, that is, without a cieRI' e.'l:plallation of the social roots and the class limits of ilureaU(;ratic domination, boit clown merely to high-falluting democratic phrases so extremely popular among the 1\Iensheviks. One need not douht thnt the overwhelming majority of Soyiet workers are dissati~fied with the bureaU(;racy and that a cansiderruble section, by no means the worst, hates it. However, it is not only due Ito repressions that this -dissatisfaction does not assume \'iol.ent mass forms: the '{corkers fear that th",y lOiU clear the field for the clas8 en"'l11/1, il they overthrow the bttreaucI'GGY. The inter-relations betlDeen the bU"cwu(}raClJ and the class are roolly much more complex than they appear to be to the frothy "democrats," 'I.'be Soviet workel's woulel have settled accounts with the despotism of the appa.r.atus had other perspective" apened before them, had ~he Western horizon flamed not with the brown colour of Fascism but with the red of revolution, So long as this does not happen, >the proletariat with clenched teeth, ben rs ("tolerates") the bureaucracy, and in this sense recognises it as >the bearer of the proletarian dictatorship. In a beart to heart con'Ver­sation, no Soviet workers would be spa,ing 01 st!'ong tconls addressed to the Stalinist bUl'eaucl'(wJI. Bllt ,wt a single 011e 01 '/Ihem ,could allow that til'" counter-'revolution has alJreadtl taken plaCIJ. The pro­letariat is the spine of the Soviet state. But in so far as the function <>f g<>verning is concentrated in- tbe hands of an irresponsible bureau­cracy we bave before us an obviously sick state. Can it be c11l'ed? 'WdlI not further attempts at cures moon a fruitless expenditure of precious time? The question is badly pnt. By cures we understand not all sorts of artificial measures separate and apart from the world revolutionary movement, but a furtber struggle under tbe banner of Miarxism. Merciless criticism of the Stalinist bUl'ooucracy, training

7

the cadres of tbe New International, resurrecting the fighting capacity of the world proletarLan vanguard-thls Is tbe essence of the "cure," It ooineitiAJs with the fundamental dil'eetwn of histol'ical progress,

During tbe last few years-appropriately enougb-<lur opponents have told us more than once that we "are lOSing time in vain" by occupying ourselves wi~b curing the Cominfern, We never promised anybodJ' that we would CUTe -the Comintern, We only refused, until the declsiYe test, to pronounce the siel, as dead, or hOl)elessly ill, In any case, we did not waste a single day "curing." 'Ve formed revolUtionary cadres, and, what is no less important, we prepared tbe tu.nQa~ntnl tbeoretical and programmatiC positia-ns of tbe new International.

'Mess"", "Kantian" SOCiologists (we apologise to ~be shade of Kant) often reacb tbe conclusion tbat a "real" dictatorsbip, tbat is, ODe which co'nforms to ~helr ideal norms, existed only in the days of the Paris Commune, or duri'ng tbe first period of the Octob~r revolution, up to tbe Brest-Litovsk peace or, at best, up ~o the NliJP, 'fbis is indeed sharpsbooting: aim a finger a t the sky and hi t the bull's eye! If Marx and Engels called the Paris Commune "the dictatorship of tbe proletariat" it was only because of the force of the possibilities lodged in it. But, by itself the CODlnl1l1le was nm yet the dictatorship of the proletariat. Having seized power, it hal'dly I,now how to use it; ins toad of assurni'lO the offenSive, it waited; it nmlained isolated within the eil'cle of Pm'is; it da,'ed not touch the state bank; it did not, and indeed could not, put th,'ough the overtlln1 ill !WOpeTty relatwIIs because it did ' not wield pOloer 011 a lIaUonal scale, To ~his must be added BLa'nquist one-sidedness and Proudhonist prejudices wbich prevented even the leaders of tbp mo\'empnt from completely nnderstancling tbe Commun€ as tbe dictatorship of the proletal'ia1t.

The reference to the first period of the October revolution is not any more fortunate, Not only up to ,the Brest-Litovsl' peace, but even Ul) to autumn of 1918, tbe social content of the revolution was restrioted to a pettY-IboUl'geois agnc:'lria,n ovel'turn and wOI'kers' control over production, This means that the revolution in its actions hall not yet passed the bonndaries of bOllrgeois society, DUl'ing this first period, soldiers' soviets ruled side by side !oith worl,er8' "ol'icts an<l ojten elbolced them a8i<le, Only toward the autumn of 1918 did the petty bourgeois soldier-agrarian elemental \Ya\'e recede a little to its shores, and tile 'workers 'Went tonca1'd 'Leith the nuNonaU:wtion of the rne(Lns of pl'odltction, Only from this time can olle speak of the inception of a real dictatorship of the proletariat. But even here H is necessary to make certain large reservations. During thosf\ initial years -the dictatorship was geographically confined to the old )Ioscow principality and was compelled to wage a three years' war alol1:! all tbe radii from Moscow to tbe periphery, This means that up to ]921, precisel~' up to ~he NEP that is, !v lw t loellt on IVas ,.tilt tlte st"lt(f(fle to establish the dictatonhlp of the !)I'oletal'iat upo" file lI{ltwllal scale, And since, in the opinion of the pseudo-Marxi,t phili~tines, the dictatorsbip had disappeared with the beginning of the NEI', then it means that, in general, it had never pxisted. To the~e A'entlpmNl, the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply an imponderable concept, an ideal norm not to be realised npon our sinful planet. Small wonder that "theoreticians" of this stripe, in so far as they do not renounce altog&ber tbe very word dictatorship, strive to smear over the irreconcilable contradiction between the latter and bourgeois democracy.

Extremely characteristic, from the ]<Ihora1ory, nnd not the political, point of view, is tbe Parisian sect of "Communist-democrats"

8

(Souvarine & Co.). The very name already implies a break with Marxism. In the critique of the Gotha programme, Marx rejected the name social democracy in view of the fact that it places tbe revolutionary socialist struggle und/C1' the 101'1nal cOllfl'ol of demoCl·UC1/· It is quite ob'l>io1LS that there is 110 difference in principle between Hconwnunist dm1toorats" and "sooialist denwcntts," Rocial democrats, tbat is. There is no hard and iast partition between socialism and communism. Transgression begins only when socialism and commun­ism as a movement or as a state is subordj.nated not to the actual course of the class struggle, not to the material conditious of the histrionical process but to the supra-social and supra-bistorical abstraction, "democracy" which in reality is a weapon of self-defence serving the bourgeoisie a~illst the proletarian dictatorship. If during tbe epoch of the Gotha Programme it was still possible to see in the word "social democracy" only an incorrect and non-scientlfic name tor a proletarian party, wllOse spirit was healthy, then the entire subsequent history of bourgeois and "social" democl'ficy turns the banner of "democratic communism (1)" into the banner of an outright class betrayJal. (2)

An opponent of the Urbabns type will say that the"e has been really no restoration of tbe bourgeois regime as yet, but also tbere Is no longer a worl<ers' state; the present Soviet regime is a supra­class or an inter-class Bona,parlist government. In itR own time we settled our accounts with this theory. Historically, BOIl"llurtL'Ill was and remains the govel'lnment of the bourgeoise dUl'ing periods of cruses in bourgeois society. It is possible and it i8 neces"a r,\' to distinguish between the "progreSSive" BonapartiSOl that consoliclate~ the purely capitalistiC conquests of bourgeois revolution Hnd lhe Bonapartism of the decay of capitalist SOCiety, the convuls!l'''' Bona­partism of our epoch (vanl I'>apen--'Schleicher, DolfuR, and the candi­date for Dutch Bonapartism, Colijn, etc.). Bonupartism ah\'a~'s implies political veering between classes; but under Bonapartism in all its historical transmigrations there is P"eBel've(1 the one OJ/lf! tile sOIme Bomal base: bou"geois P'·Oll1el'tll. Nothing is more nbsurd than to draw the conclusion of the classless character of the Bonapar.tist state from the Bonapartist waggi'l1lg between classes or from the "supra-class" 1P0S'i·tion of the Bonapartist gang. Monstrous nonsense! Bonapartis1n is onl1/ ol/e 01 tile t'aI-iepies of CalJit<tZist ilegcnwnll.

If Urbahns wants to e'--tend tbe concept of Bonapartism to include aiso the presentt Soviet regime then we are ready to "ccept such a widened interpretation-under one condition: if the sociai content of the Soviet "Bonapartism" will be defined with the requisite clarit.y. It is absolutely correct that the self-rule of the Soviet lJureallcrncy was built upon the sool of veering between class forces both internal as well as in-ternatiQJ1lal. In so far !!IS the bureaucratic veering has been crowned by the personai plebiscitary regime of .Stalin, it is possible to speak of Soviet Bonapartism. But while the Bonapartism of botb Bonapal"tes as well as their present pitifui followers has developed and is developing on the basis of a bourgeois regime, the Bonapartism of Soviet bureaucracy has undel' it the BOit of (l Soviet t'e{!il1'/Je. Terminological innovations or histori('al nna}ogies ean serve as conveniences in one manner or another for Ilnalysis, but they cannot change the social -nature of the Soviet state.

-During tbe last period, Urbabns, in.cidentally, has cl·ea·ted a nell­theory: the Soviet economic structure, it appears, Is a variety of "state capitalism." Tbe "progress" lies in that Urbahns IMS deS<?ended from his terminological exercises in the spbere of the political super­structure down to the economic foundation. But this clescent­alas !--dicl him no good.

9

A~corr1lng' to UrbahnR, the newe"t forni o( seJf-c1efenee of th", bOllrgeois r egime is st.:'lte capitalism: one need only tl.lke a look at the corporate "phanned" state in Italy, German.f, and the United States. Accu.::;tomed to broad gestures, Ul"bahns also throw:s in Jlen' the U.S.S.lL We shall speak of this later. In so far as the matter tourhes -the capibalist states, U.-bah'nlS concern s himself with" very important phenomenon of our epoeh. MOIIO/lOly capita! /tas 10llg since­outgl'olcn both tile IJ1'ivate ownel'shi.p of tile ",·ellns Of Ill'oducti,,,, an(i tile bou"dm'ies of the nlltionn! state. P"nJiysed. howe,-cr, b~' its own organisations, the worktllig clm.:s was unable to fJ'ee ill time the pro­ductive forces of societ~· {mm their Cll lJitalist fetters. lIenee llrL~es the protracted epoch of economic and political conyu lsionH. 7'he 1l1'oductive 10rces Ilound aga,inst Ihe ba.I'1'iers of IJ1'ivatlll In-Oller tl! and' 01 natioual bo'undaries. 'j'he- bOllrgeoj~ gm'ermnents I1rp obliged to' pacif.,· the mutiny of their OW'Tl Ill'odurth'e forces with a polk"€" cluh. Tlli .. -iii 1r/Wt constitules the s(}-callerl "/llanned economy." In so 101-a·s til e state attelll/lt.~ to IUlI'IIIll"" (mil' (!i.8ci/)line capit(lrist alwl'clly, it lIUJV be called cOHditiollaUy "s/ate capitalism."

But W~ should remember thut originally Marxists unclel·,tood hy state Oi.lpilalism Qnl~' Ithe independent economic entet"lll'ise....; of tile­state itself. "'hen the reformists dreamed of overcoming eal)ital1sm by means of the muniCil)alisaUon 01' go\-ernmentallsatioll of ever greater numbE>rs of transport an(l industrial enterprise5', the A/m':rixtlf " .. ell to reilly in "e/utatioll: this is lI'Ot socialism, but state C!IpilalislII. Suusequently, howe"eJ", this concept acquired a hroader I)wHning', anti begun to npply to all th~ vnrieties of stat~ in·ten'ention into e('onomy; the li"'renlCh u.se the word "etatisJTI" (slutifitation) ill th is Rf:'Ilse . .

But Urbahns not only exponlld~ the travails of ":-;late enpitali~m" -he appraise~ them IfinN' his own manner. In so far aH it i::; generally possible to unde.rstand him', he 1l1l"ononnces the regime of "state capitalism" to be a nec~~aJ"y find, InOI"f:'O,'er, H l)t'og-ressi"(>­stage in the de,'elopment of society, in the samE> ~(>-lJse as ,fl"u:::t:-; are progressive ('olllllared with the disparate enterprisE's. So f111Hla­lllental an C'lTOt' in appraising capltalist pi.anning is Pllough 19 hury any approach whaLsoe\'er.

While, during the epocll of th~ capltlalist up."ing to whit-iJ the war put an end, it was possible to view-under certain politic" I pre­conditions-the various fOl'ms of statificatioll as progressive lllUHifestfl­tioh.s, tbat is, cOIl~id~r -that .. fMe capit"ri .• ", act" to lCliri ",ocidll fonDol'd ana faoilitates Ille 11£tlll'e ecollolllir labour Of the woletariall dlctato1'ship; the 1H'C8ent "1Jl(11ll1~d economy" 1'//'ust be 1'ielfed as a stafle tllal i8 l'e(wliolUlI'lJ through 01)(1 t/1I'01lIlll: state capitalism stl'in:l.s to tear e('Ollomy away from the world-'wide diviSion of labour, to allal)t the produrtive fOl'ces to the Procrustean bed of the nationat gtate; 10 cOll81rict jJl'o([1tction a'·ti.jid{lfly ill sOllie bmllche., allll to creole jll8t a·, artifiCial/II olher Nnzisln bmllclles bl! menns of e1l01'/1I0!lN 1111" pl'olltable explllllditures. The economic policies of the pl'esent state­beginni!n,g 'with huiff wnlls UPOl! the ancient Chinese lJattel'n and ending witl) the EIDisodes of forbidding bhe use of mu('hinerr under lIttler's &;plunued economy" - attain an unstable reg-ulation fit the C!ost of causing tile national eeonomy to (lpcline, bringing cllaos into world relations, and complf?tely disrupiill.:! the llIonetal'~' systP!lI wilieh will bp verr much needed for socialist pJ.:lIlning. r.rhe presPllt statp capitalism neither prepares nOl" lightens the future worJ\ of the socialist state. but, on the cOJltrary, c .. ~"tes (or it ("olossal ac1riition,,1 diflicu1ti~s. 'I'lle jJ1'oletadat let .,/ip a seric", Of 01l1JOrtlille Ilerio(is tor the seizlt-1"c of lJOlcer. Throngh thiR it has cl"(Ioated thp conditions for Fascist barbarism-in polittcs; and for the deRtrl1ctl\'e work of "state capitalism"-In economy. A1ter tile COIl(11lCst 01 I)Oll'er, tile I"'oletal'iol 1cill Iwve to Ilny eco1lolll'icallv 101' its IlOIi f'ie(l I /a/lse".

1-)

However, what interests us most within the lmit~ of this analrsis is the circumstance that Urbahns attempts to Include also tbe econOJlly of the U.S.S.H. under tbe term "stale cl1[)italism." And while so doing he refers-it is hardly believable i-to Lenin. 'J'here is only one possible way of excplaining this reference: as the ",ter'"al invenlor who creates a new theory a Jllonth, Urbahns has no time to read the books he refers to. Lenin did actually apply the term "&late capitalism" but not to tbe Soviet economy as '" who ie, only to a certali" section of it: the foreign c01Ulessions, the mixed indust!'ial an,(l oon1'lnefoial companites, ancl, in, PO'ft, to the peasant, ancl largely Iouwk co-opera.tives unde,. st(~te control. Al! tllege a,'e in(lubitable elell1ents of cap ita lis,,> ; but since they are controlled by 'the state, anll even ftmction as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to !his OWln. expression "in quotes," cnlle(l these economic fOl'ms, "state oapita lism,lt The conditioning of this term dependecl upon the fact that a pl'oletarian, and not a bourgeois state wos in"o)ved; the quotation mat'!\s were intended to stress just this difference of no little Importance. ITowe"er, in so far as. ·the proletarian state aliowe(l primte capital aud permitted It within definite restrictions to expioit the \Vorl,ers, it shielded bour­geois relations tUJlc1er one of its wings, In this striotly limited sense, one could speak of "state oapltallsm."

Lenin came out with this Yery term at -the time of the transition to the XICP, ,)'hen he presuppossed that the eonce~si()ns and the "mixeLl companies," that is, enterprises baspd upon the ('orrelation of state and lwintte capital, would occupy a major position in SO\'iet economy alongsicle or <the pure stale tru~ls and syndicates. In contra­distinction to the slale capitalist entel'[)l'ises--{'onc~.qsions, cle., that is-Lenin ,lejined the Soviet trust.; and sYlldica/e., a8 "en/erpri.¥., of a consi.jtently socia/i.st type." Lenin en1'isioned tile subsequent develop· of Sot'iet eCOI1C1nl/, 01 industry in lJM"ticu/a,', as a competition betlee6l' the state cl:.pitaN8t and tile pure state eMm·prise.,.

We trust tbut it is cleur now within what limits Lenin tl.'ed this term which has led Urbruhns Into temJ)tation. In order to round out the theoreticai catnstrophe <>f the leader of the "Len en (!) Bund," we must recali that cOlltrat·y to Lenin's original ex;pectations neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role wbatsoever in the de\'elopment of Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generaily of these ".tate capitalist" el1terl>l'i.,e.~. On the other ha.ld, the Soviet trusts whose fate mplJeared so V6l'Y ll1u"ky at the dale" of the NEI' "nderwent a gigantic dellelolnnel1t in tile years (tIler Lenin's (leath. '.rhus, if one were to us€'. Lenin's terminology eoncientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one wonld haye to say that the Soviet ecoJ/omic development !Jassed 01! com­pletelv tile stage of "state capita!isln," and 1mfolded (llong the ohannel Of lhe entJl>l1wises of the "consis/.elllly socialist type."

lIm'e, howe,'el', we must also forestall an;v possible misuntlel'standings, and this time of jnst the opposi·te character. Lenin chose his terms with precision. He called the trusts not sociaH8t enterprises, as the Stalin.ists now label them, but enterpl'ises of the "socLalist type." Under Lenin's peu, this subtle terminologicai distinction impliM that the trusts will lun-e the right ,to be cailed socialist not by type, not by tendency, that Is; but ,by tbeir gennine content, aHer the rural economy will have been revolutionised; aftel' the c~ll,tl'adiclion between the city and the yillage will ha ye been destroyed; after men will huy€" leHl'll NI to full,\' satisfr all humall wants; in othf'I' words, only in proportion -as a real socialist SOCiety would arise on the bases of nationalised industry and coliectiV'ised rural economy. Lenin conceived that the attainment of this goal would require the sn('ces~ive labours of two or three generations, aillI mOl'eovel', ill iudissolulJle connection with the deyel~pment of the intematiollal I'e\·oluti~n ..

11

To summarise. Under &tate capitalism, In the strict sense of the word, we must understand the management of industrial and other enterprises by the bourgeois state on its OW'll, account, or 'the "reguLating" intervention of the bourgeois state into the ·workings or private capitalist enterprises. By state capitalism "in uotes" Lenin meant the control of the proietarian sta,te over private capitalist enter­prises and rela tions. Not one of these definitions applies from !lny side to the present Soviet economy. It r emains a dOPi) secret whut concrete economic content Urbahns himself puts into his undel'stand­Ing of the Soviet "state capitalism." To put it plainly, his ",ewest theory is en,tirely built around a badly read quotation.

There is, however, 19.1so another theory concerning the "nou"­proletarian" character of the Soviet state, much more ingenious, much more cautious, but DOot any more serious. The French social democrat, Lucien Laurat, Bhun's colleague a.nd Souvarine's teacher , has written a booklet defending the view that the Soviet society, being neither proletarian nor !bourgeoise, represents nn absolutely !lew tYr~e of tl class organisation, because the bureaucracy not only rules over the proletaria t politically but also e""Plolts it economically, devouring that surplus value which hitherto fell to the lot of the bourgeoiSie, Laurat Invests his revelations with the weighty formulae of Das Kapital, and In this manner gives an appearance of profundity to his superficial and purely descriptive "sociology." The compilator is obviously un­aware that ,his entire theory had been formulated, only with much more fire and splendour, over thirty years ago by the Russo-Polish revolutionist, l\Iakhalsky, who was su,perior Ito his li"'rench vulgarlser In that he awaited ",either the October revolution 110r the StalinIst bureaucracy in order <to define "tbe dictatorship of the proletarIat" as a scaffold for the commanding posts of an exploiting bureaucracy. But even Makhaisky did not suck thIs theory out of hIs thumb; he only "deepened" socio1ogically and economica lly !f:he alliarchisth:: ~)re­judices against state socialism. Ma khaisky, by the way , also utlllsed Marx's formulae, but in a manner much more consistent than Laul'at's : according to Makhaisky, the author of Das KalJital covered up, with malice aforethought, in his formulae of reproduction (volume II) , that portion of surplus value \V.hlch would be devoured by the socialist intelligentsia (,the bureaucracy).

In our own time, a "thoory" of this kind, but without an exposure of Marx, the e"IPloite.r, was defended by lI1yasnlkov who prockJimed that the dictatorship of the proletariat in, the SO"iet Union had been supplanted by the hegemony of a new class: the .;odal bw·ea"cmey. In all probablllty, Laurat borrowed hIs theory, dIrectly or Indirectly, precIsely from Myasnlkov, investing it only with a pedantically "learned" air. For completeness sake it should also be added that Laurat has assimilated all the mIstakes (and only the mistakes) of Rosa Luxemburg, among them even those that she herself had renounced .

Let us, however, eXl\mlne more closely the "theory" itself. Tbe class has an exceptionally important and moreover a scientiflcally restrIcted meaning to a Marxist. A class is defined not b)' Its parti­cipation in the distrIbution of the nation,al income alone, but by Its Independent role in the gene.ral structure of economy and by Its independent roots in the economic foundation of society. Each class (the feudal ",oblllty, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisIe, t he capltallst bourgeoisie, and the proletariat) works ou,t its own special forms of property. The bureaucracy lacks all these socLaI tmits. It has no Independent position In the process of productIon and distri­bution. It has no independent property roots. Its functions relate basIcally to the poUtical techniquo of class rule. The existence of a bureaucracy, in all its variety of forms and differences in specific weight, characterises every class regime. Its power is of a reflected

12

eharacter. The bureaucracy is indissolubly bound up with ruling economic class, feeding itself upon tbe social roots of the latter, mainbaining itself and falling togetber with it.

Laurat will say that he "does not object" to the bureaucracy being paid for its la,bour i'll, so far as it fulfils the necessary pOlitical, economic, and cultural functions; but what is involved is its un· eon trolled am>roDriation of an absolutely disproportionate part of the national income: precisely in ·this sense does it appear as the "exploiting class." 'l.'his argument, \),ased on un<iubitable facts, does not, however, change the social physiognomy of the bureaucracy.

Always and in every regime, the burea ucracy de"ours no small portion of surplus value. It might not be uninteresting, for example, to compute what portion of the nat'lonal iI/come ·is devoured b!J the Fascist locusts in italy or Germany! B1tt this tact, 0/ ?W 81nall imp07·tance by itself, is entirely insuJllcient to transform the l~ascist bureaucracy into an ilndel)endent ruling class. It is the hireling of the 'bourgeoisie. r£rue, this JJit"€ling straddles the boss's neck, ·tears from his mouth at times the juiciest pieces, Iilnd spits 011 his bald spot besides. Say what you will, a most incol1\'enient hireling! BILt, nevertheless, only a hireling. 'Dhe bOUl"geoisie abides with him because witbout him it and its regime would absolutely go to the dogs.

MILta,tis .uILtanllis (changing what should be cbanged), what has 'been said above can !be applied to the ~talinist bureaucracy as welL It devours, wastes, and embezzles a considerable portion of the na·tional income. Its management costs the proletariat yery dearly. In the Soviet society, it occupies an extremely priYileged pOSition not

o()nly in the sense of having political and 3dministrative prerogatives, but also in the sense of ,possessing enormous material advuntages. :Still, the biggest apartments, the juiciest steaks, and even Holls Royces are not enough to transform the bureaucracy into an lndependent ruling class.

Inequality, moreover, such crying inequality, would, of course, be .:absolutely impossible in a socialist society. But con.trary ·to official .ami semi·ollicial lies tile present Soviet regime is not socUllist, but t,·ansitional. It still bears within it the monstrous heritage of capitalism, social inequality in particular, not only between the bureau­,eracy and the proletariat, but also within ·the bureaucracy itself and within the proletariat. At the given, stage, inequali·ty stlll remains, within certain limits, the bourgeois instrument of socialist progress: ·differentlal wages, bonuses, etc., as stimuli for emulation.

Whlle It explains bhe inequality, the transitional chamcter of the 'present system nowise justifies those monstrous, qpen, and secret 'Prlvlleges that have been. arrogated to themselves by the uncontrolled :tops of the bureaucr3cy. The Left Opposition did not await the revelations of Urba.hns, Lam'rut, Souvarine and .Simone Weil (3), etc., 'before announcing that the burea.ucracy in 3 11 its manifestations Is "pulling apart the moral tie-rods of the Soviet society; engendering" -.an acu·te and a Lawful dissatisfaction among the masses; and pre­'Paring tbe ground for great dangers. Nevertheless, the privileges of the ,bureaucracy 'by themselves do not change the bases of the Soviet .society, because the bm"€aucracy derives i-ts privileges not from any special property relations peculiar to it as a "class," but from those prqperty relations which have been created by the October revolution, an<i whicb are fundamentally adequate for the dicta·tor­ship of .tbe prolebariat.

'£0 put It plainly, in so far as the bureaucracy robs the people (and this is done In, various ways by every bureaucracy), we have to deal not with class exploitation in the sclentific sense of the word,

:but with social parasitism. although on a very large scale. During

13

the middle "ges the clergy consti·tutecl a ~Iass or an estate. in so far as its rule del)ended upou a !;ij)ecific system of land prOI)erty and forced labour. The present-day church constitutes not an exploiting class, hut a parasitic COl'[lOration. It would !be silly to actually s]Jeak 01 the Li1net'ican clergy as (£ s]Jooial "ulil1g cIa8.\'; yet, it is indubitable that ·the priests of the, different co lours and deuomination>~ devout· In the United Stales a big !portion of the surplus yalue. In its traits of parasitism, the bmeaucrHcy, as well as the clergy, approximates to the lumpen-proletariat, which likewise does not represent, as is well known, an independent "class."

The question will stand out befol'e uS in bolder relief if we take it not in its statie, but in its dynamic cross-section. Squandering un­producti\'el.l' a tremendolLS portion of tbe national income, the Soviet bureaucracy is interested at the samt' time ,by its yel'y function, in t1w economic and cultural growth of the countr.,·: ·the higher the nation'11 income, the more copious its funds or privileges. Con­currently, upon the social foundations of the So\'it't state, the economic and cultural u,plift of the lal)ourinp; masseR mURt tcnd to undt'rmine the yery bases of bureaucratic domina·tion. Clearl,', In tI)(~ light of this fortunate historical Yariant. the bureaucracy turn, ont 10 bp only -the instrulllPnt-a bad "nd expensive instrument--{)f the socialiRt state.

But by squundpL'in~ an ever bigger portion of the national in{'ome and hy disrupting the Ibasic proportions of economy-it will be gain­snid----<the bureallCraf',V 1'et(llrds the e<'onomic and cultural growth of the p(lUntry. Absolutely correct! The further unhindered develop­ment of bureau~ratislll 'inevita/JlIJ 1I111St lead to the 00"8alion Of

ecolloillic and cultllral gl'olrth, 10 a terrible "ocinl cri8;", alld 10 tile clolell/rard plunge 01 the entire societlJ. But this would iml)ly not only ·the collapse of the proletarian dictatorship, but at the same­time the end of bureaucratic domination. Tn pLace of the workers' stat!' would COllie not "social bureaucratic," 'but cllJPltalist rela·tions.

"'c trust that by lhus posing the question in perspective we sh.all be able once for all to probe thol'oughly into the controversy O\'er the class nature of the U.S.S.R.; whether we take the variant of further successes fol' the Soviet regime, or, contrariwise, the variant of its collapse" lhe bureaucracy In either case turns out to be not an Independent class but an excrescenCe upon the proletariat. A tumor ran grow 10 tl'elnenclol&~ size alld even "trangle the living organis1II, out (£ tumor can nel'e)' beco'lJIe an independent org((Hi8m.

Finally, we may add for the sake of' coml)lete darity if in thp U.S.S.H, to-day the IIlul'xist parly were in [lowt'r, it would renomle the entire political regime: it would shulTle a nd cleanse the bureau­cracy and place it under the contl'ol of ,the masses; it would tl'<lllsform all of the administrative practlses, and inaugurate a series of capital' refol'ms in the maMagement of economy; but ill no ease would it have to undertake an ot'lerlnm in the p"operly relcttioll8, i.e., a new 800ial I·eralution.

The bureaucracy is not a ruling clas~. But the further de\'elop­ment of the bureaucratic regime can lead to the inception of a new ruling class: not organically, thl'ough degeneration, but through countel'-re'·olulion. 'Ye call the Stalinist appara.tus centrist precisely be~an~p it fulfils a dual role; to-day. "'hen tl'Pre is no 10llger a Marxist leaelership. and none fOl'lhcomin,; OR yet, it defends the pro­letarian dictatorship with its own methods; but these methods are such >1S facilitate the victory of the enemy to-morrow. Whoever fails to un<ler&tand this dual role of Stalinism in the U.S.R.ll. has under­stood nothing.

14

The socialist society will live its life without a part~·, just as it will live without a state. Under the conditions of the transitional epoch th!' political superstructure plays a llecisit'e role, A d,,\'eloped and stable dictatorship of the proletariat presupposses that the party functiolls in the leading role as fl self-acting vanguard; that the pro­letariat is welded together by means of trade unions; that the toilers are indissolubly bound up with the State through the system of Soviets; and finally, that the wOl'kel's' state is aligned through the International into a fighting un.: with the world proletal'iat, In the IIt(J(/,lItiIllIB the bll1'ell1ICracy //(/8 "t/'(ll/f/led tlte !)(/oI'ty al1d tIle trade unions and the Sol'iets lind tile Communist Internationlt/, There is no need to explain here what a gigantic portion of the guil·t fo1' the degeneration oC the proletarian reginw f(Lll.~ ulJon tile illtenwti{)nal socia,! demoorllcy which 'is so splotched wUh crimes and betl'ayft/s­and to 1Chich, bl! tlte ,ray, Jl. IA'IIrat 1.'IQnf/". (4)

Hut whate,'el' the actual aptlortionmeut of the historical respousi· hility may be, the result remains the same: the strangulation of the' pal'ty, the So"'ets, and the tmde unions implies the politil'al atomisa­tion of the proletariat. SOl'ial antagonisms instead of Ibeing overcom,-e IJoWicalllJ are S"lJ/lI'esSltlli adlllillist/'(lbireiJ/, These collect under pressure to tbe same extent that tbe political resources disappear fOl' soh"ing them norm;llly. The first socLul sho('){, external or int("rnal, may throw tllP atolllised Soviet society into civil war. The workers, ha'"iug lost control oyer thl:" state .antI economy, 11U1Y 1le.'Wl't to ma.'iS .!1'''cps as zeell!Jons of .. elf-de/ellce. 'l'he discipline of [he Jictatol'­ship would be broken, Under the onslaught of the worl'ers and be­cause 0[ -the pre'sUl'e of economic dilhcuIties the trusts ,,"ouW be forced to disrupt the pluuned beginnin~.s and enter into competition with one another, The dissolution of the regime woulcl n,ltUl'ally find Hs violent and chaotic echo in the village, and 1Y0ui1i inevitably be throwlI on~r into the army. 'l'he socialist state would collapse, giving place to the ~lpitalist regime, or, more cOl'l'e('tly, to capi,talist chaos,

The IStalinist press, or course, will reprint our warning analysis as U cOlluter revolutionary prophecy, or even as the e:\..1)ressed "desire" of ,the 'l'I'otskyites. 'l'owal'(1 the new'll'l"ller ha~ks of the apparatus we have long since had no other feeling save that of silent cont~rnpl. III our opinion, the situation is dangerous, ibut not at all hopeless, In any case, it would II""Ie 1i1Il act of abysmal cowardice and of direct betrayal to announce that the greatest re\'olutionary post has been lost-before the bat-tle, and without a battie,

l( it is true that the bureaucracy has concentrated all power and all the avenues to power in its hands-alld it is true-then a question arises of no little importance: !low approach the reorganisntion of the Soviet stnte? And is It possillie ,to soh'e this task with peaceful methods'!

We must set down, tirst of all, as all immutable axiolll-that this task call be solvPd onl,\" by 11 re,"olutional'r party. 'l'lle fundamental historic task is to create the revolutionary [Jarty in the U,S,.s,Il. from umollg the healthy e.lements of the old party ancl from among the youth. Later we shall cieRI "'ith the condJotlons under which it can be solved, Let us assnmp, howevel', that such a party Is alrel"ly In existence. Through what ways could it assume powel'? As early as 1927, Stalin said, addreSSing ,the Opposition, "The !,,'esent ",,/illg f/rO!!!J can ue elilninate<l olllJj thrOU[Jh cil-it tva..,-," This challenge, Bonapart­ist in spirit, was addressed not to ,the. Left OppOSition , but-to the party, IJaving concentrated all the le\'ers in its hands, the bureau­cracy proclaimed openly that it would lIOt permit the proletariat to raise its head any longer, The subsequent course of p,'ents has added great weight to this challenge, After the experiences or the

15

last few years, it would be cbildish to suppose that the Stalinist bureaucracy can be removed by means of a lXlI"ty or Soviet Congress. 10 reality, the last con~ress of the Bolshevik party took plflce at the beginning of 1923, the 12th Pal'ty Congress. All subsequent congresses were bureaucratic parades. To-day, even such cougresses have been discarded. No normal "constitutional" ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the pl'oletrl1'ian vanglLaI'a 011111 01/ lorce.

All the hacks will immediately howl in chorus: The "TrotskyiteR," like Kuutsky, are preaching an firmed insurrection against the dictatorship of the proletariat. But Ipt us pass on. The question ot seizing power will ""ise '1S a practical question for the new party only when it will have consolidated around itself the majority of the working class. In the course of such a radical change in the relation of forces, the bureaucl'l3cy would become more and more isolated, more and more split. As we know, the social roots of the bureaucracy lie in the proletariat, if not in its active support, then, at an)' mte, in its "toleration." 'Vhen -the proletariat springs into action" the Stalinist appamtus will remain suspended in mid-air. Should it still attempt to reSist, it will then be necessary to apply a~ainst it not the measures of civil war, bnt rather measures of police chnracter. In any case, what will be involved is not an arnwc1 in~nrrectiorr agaInst the di(l1lator~hip oc the proletariat but the remoyal of a malignant growth upon it.

A real civil war could develop not between the Stnllnist hureau­cracy and the resurgent proletarLat, but between tbe proletariat and the active forces of the connter-revolution·. In the e\'ent of an open clash between the two mass camps, there cannot even Ibe talk of the bureaucracy playing an independent role. Its polar flanks would be flnng to tbe different sides of the barricade. The fate of the subse­qnent development would be determined, of course, by the ou.tcome of the struggle. The victory of the reyolutionary camp, in IW)' case, is conceivable only under the leadership of a proletarian party which would naturally be mised to power by vlctol'Y ove,' ·the counter­revolution.

Which is closer: the danger of the collapse of the Soylet power which has been sapped by bureaucl'l3t1sm, or the hour of the consolida­·tlon of the proletarIat around a new party which Is capable oC saving the October heritage? There is no a. p"ia1'i answer to such fl question.; the struggle l~vll\ decide. A major historIcal test-which may be a war-will 'determIne the relation of forces. It is clear, in an.v case. that with the further decline of the world proletarian movement and the further extension of the Fascist domination, it is not possible to maintain the Soviet power for any len,gth of time by meanR of the internal forces alone. J'h'" Imlda-mental condition 101' tile Onl11 rocl.­bottom "e/on" 01 the Soviet 8tu.te i.~ the victoriOlLS .'p,·earl 01 the <DorIa ,·evol1ttion.

In the West the revolutionary mO\'ement Dlay revh'e e\'erl without a party, ont it can conquer only under the leadership oC the party. Throughont the entire epoch of the social revolution, that is, for a series of decades, lIlP lntel'llational revolutionary party remains the basic instrument of hiRI'ol'ic progress. Urbahns, by l'I3lsln~ the cry that "old forms" are outlived and that something "new" is needed­precisely what?---€xposes ollly the muddle he Is in . in rather old forms. Trade union work, under the conditions oC "planned" capitalism, and the struggle against Fascism and the impending war, will indubitably result in producing divers new methods and types of flghtin~ organisations. Only, instead of indulging like the Brandler­ites In phantaSies upon ·the l!Iegal trade nnlons, one must study

16

attentively the actual course of the struggle, seizing upon the initia­tive of the workers themselves, extending and generalising it. But, first and foremost, a party, i.e., a politically welded core of the pro­letarian vanguard, is required to accomplish this work. Urbahn's position Is subjective: he became disillusioned in the part)', after he had successfully wreCked his own "pa rty" on the rocks.

Among the innovators, a few proclaim-we said "long ago" that new parties are needed; now, at lru>t, the "Trotskyites" have also come around to It; In time, they will also understand that the Soviet Union Is not-a workers' state. Instead of studyIng the actual hIstoric process, these people are busy makIng astronomical "discoveries." As early as 1921, Gorter's sect and the German "Communist Labour Party" decided that the Comlntern was doomed. Since then, there llils been ,no lack of such announcements (Loriot, Korseh, Souvarlne and so forth). However, absolutely nothing came out of these "diagnoses" 'because they reflected only the subjective disillusion of circles and personalities and not the objective demands of the historical process. It is preclsely for this reason that the loud Innovators remain, on the side lines right now. (5)

The course of events follows no pre-arranged route. The Com in­tern ruined Itself by its capitulation qJefore Fascism in the eyes of the masses, and not of individuals. But even "fter the collapse of the Comlntern, the Soviet state still exists; true, with its revolution­ary authority greatly reduced. One must take the facts as they are given by the "ctual development, and not become capricious, and purse one's lips like Simone Weil; one must not take oITeJlce at history, nor ·turn one's back to It.

To build the new parties ancl ihe new International, first of' all, reliable prinCipled bases are required and those that stand upon the level of our epoch. We have no illusions concerning the deficiencies and lapses In the theoretical inventory of the BolsheYik-Leninists. However, their ten years' work \Jas prepared thp fundamental tlueo-ret·ical and st1-ategic pra-requisites to,' the buUdi1lO at the nell> 'nterna·tiona!. IIand in hand with om new allies we will develop these pre-requisites and concret·.p lhem upon the basis of criticism in the aotive course of the struggle.

In the U.KS.R., the core of the ne" party-In reality, the Bol­shevik party revived under n<;w conditions - will be the group of Bolshevik-Leninlsts. Even ,tbe ofllcinl Soviet press during the last few months has testified that our adherents ha,'e been carrying on their work courageously and not unsuccessfully. But lllusions would be out of place here: the party of revolutionary interna tlonalism will be able to free the workers from the decomposing influence of the national bureaucracy only in the event that the International proletarian vanguard will once again appear as a fighting force on the world arena.

From the beginning of the imperialist war, and in developed form -since the Ootober revolution, the Bolshevik party played the leading role in the world revolutionary struggle. To-day, this position has been lost completely. This applies not only to the official caricature of a party. The extremely difllcuIt conditions under wbich the Russian Bolshevlk-Leninlsts work exclnde ,them from the !pOSSibility of playing the leading role on the international scale. More than this; the Left OpPOSition group in tbe U.s.S.R. can develop into a new party only as a result of the successful formation and growth of the new International. Tbe revolutionary centre of gravity has shifted definitely to the West where the immediate possibilities of building parties are Immeasurably greater.

17

Under the influence of the tragic experiences of l'E'ct?nt )'('a1's, a great number of revolutionary elements within the proletariat of all countries has gathered, who await a cl.ear call, anel an unspotted banner. True, the convulsions of the Comintern almost e,'erywhere have imp('lled new strata of workers towards the social democrac~'. But precisely this influx of alarmed masses becomes a mortal d-anger for reformism; it is ripping a,t the seam~, disintegrating illto iuc'tion:::, find everywhere extruding a re\'olutionary wing. Such are the Immecliate political pre-conditions for tbe new International. The corner stone bas been laid already: it is ,tbe declaration of principles by the four organisations.

The condition for further successes is the correct evaluation of the world situation, including ,the class nature of the Soviet Union. Along this line, the new International will be subjected to tests from the very first days of its existence. Before it will be able to reform the Soviet state, it must take upon Itself its defence,

Nvery lJo!itica! tend.e"o/J tha,t 1Vat'eg its hand /1O/lele., .. ly at tile So'Viet Union, under the pretext Of its "1wn-proleta1'ian" Cha1'(wte'l', ,'lI"S the risk ot beco'lning tile pas,,;ve instrument ot i1l11Jeria/-ism. And from our standpoint, of course, the tragic possibility is not e."'l:cluded that the first workers' state, weakened by Its bureaucracy, will fall under the joint hlows of its internal and external enemies. But eyen in the event of this worst possible variant, a tremendous Significance for the subsequent course of the revolutionary struggle will he borne by the question: Wllere are those guilty for the catastJ'ophe? Not the slightest taint ot guilt ",ust tall "IJOn the revol"tionaq'Y internationalists. In the hOI!!' ot mo;rta! danger thelJ ,,,,,st ,'em,ai" on tile last ba.oricade.

To-day, the ruptUl"e of the bureaucratic equilibrium in thp U.S.R.R. would almost surely serve In f"voUl' of the coun·ter­revolutionary forces. However, given a genuine revolutionary Intl?r­national, the inevitable crisi>! of the Stalinist regime would ope)) the possibilHy of revival in the. U.S.s.R. This Is our basic course,

Every day the foreign polici€'s of the Kremlin deal new ' blows to the worlel proletariat. Adrift ~rom the masses, the <.li'\llomali(' functionaries under the lend<>rshlp of Stalin tram.ple Over tile 1I108t e!mnentary "evo!utionary feelings ot t/le .vor/vers ot aU CO,,"t.'i.c8, /b'st ot aI!, to the gl"oalest (/e!1'.ment of the Soviet U1Iion it.'!>"!f, But in this there is nothing une.xpected . The foreign policies or the bureaucracy supplemen,t the domestic. We fight as ",,,ch agaiMt the one as the othe,.. But .oe wage our st1'ugyle t'·O'" the standlJoint of deJell(iing the workers' state.

The functionaries of the decomposing Comln-tern, in different countries, continue to swear their loyalty to the Soviet Union. It would be an act of ine.xcusable stupidity to build anything at all upon these oaths. ]i'o,' the m.ajm·ity of these pOO1Jle, the 11oi811 "de/ence" ot the U.S.S.R. is not a conviction bllt a. p11Ofession. They do not fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat; they mop up !!he tracks of the Stalinist bureaucracy (see, for example, !'H.t1lw.lJite). In the hour of crisis the Barbusslsed Com Intern will be capable of offering no greater support to the Soviet Union ,tlhan the opposition, it had offered to Hitler. But it Is otherwise with the revolutionary inter­nationalists. In{II01'io.~~ly /101t"ded tOI" a (lecade by the b""eaucmcy, thell indeta.ligably caU tile .cor/,ers to the detence ot tile Soviet Union,

On, that day when the new International will demonstrate to the Russian workers not in words but In action that it, und it alone, stancls for -the defence of the workers' state, the pOSition of the Bolshevik-Leninists inside 1Jhe Soviet Union will change within 24

18

hours, The ,WtC }1Iterll(£tiol/(ll Irill offer the Stalinist bu,'e(lucmcjJ a united lront agalinst the COlll1lWll 10e, And if nul' International repre­sents a force, the bureaucracy will be unable to e"ade the ullited front in the moment of dangel', What ~hen will remain of -the many

,years' encrustation of lies and slander? Even in the event of war, the united front with the Stalinist

bureaucracy will not imply a "holy alliance" after the manner of bou.rgeois .\Dd social democratic partie.<;; who during bhe time of an imperialist -brawl suspend "wtua! c"iticis.n in order to better dupe the people thereby, No; even in the e~1Bnt of tOa1', we will m.aintain a. critical irreooncilability tOtVa1'd /11!1'oo,uoralic centrism, which will not be able to covel' up its incapacity to lead a genuine revolutionary war.

The proolem 01 the .vorld ,'evolution ('8 tcell as the 1)1'oblem 01 the Soviet Union "U11/! be summed up fin one and nile same O"W! lormula :

'L'HE FOURTH INtrERNATIONAL,

~otobe,' , 1, 1933,

ESSAY II,

BOLSHEVIK CONGRESSES- ONCE AND NOW

'1'h~ impenLiing congress of tIle ruling party of the Soviet. Union is being called upon to give its approval of the political leadership, the economic plan and the work of the Comintel'll, in accordance with a formula prepared in ad,'ance, However, these three closely inter­conneoted spheres present a number of burning questions which the congress cannot end does not want to answer. Not because these questions conflict with the interests of ,~he workers' state, but because their very presentation, is incompatible with the interests of the ruliug bureaucracy,

First of ell: why wasn't a regular party congress conyened in three years and eight months? Under the most onerous conditions oj' underground struggle and emigration, from the years 1903 to 1907, four congresses took place: in Brussels-London, Geneva, Stockholm, and again in London. The years of rooetion and of the complete decline of the party that set in" interrupted the regular succession of {!ongresses. Only in 1912 did a Bolshevik conference gather in Prague. equivalent in importilnce to a congress. No sooner did the reyolution­ary movement revive (1912-1914) than the war broke out.

In April, 1917, a new party conferen(!e is called, Similarly equal in ill1Portance to a congress_ Four months later, at the end of ,July, 1917, under conditions of semi-illegality, ·the Sixth party congress assembles and sets out the poUtical premises for the October uprising. Eight months later a new party congress Is called upon, ·to solve the Brest--Litovsk disagreements, The following five congresses are ron­vened at regular intervalS of a year, and each of them marks an importaut epoch in the development of tbe party and of Soviet policy, Each congress is preceded by a discussion un,folded with cOllliplete .freedom.

19

Such was the regime prior to the death of Lenin and prior to the declaration of war ' ag'alnst "TrC}tskyism." The 13th and 14th con­gresses already toC}k place after great delays, necessitated by back­stage bureaucratic manoeuvres. The 15th congress w<ts called, contrary to ,the party statutes, more than two years after the 14th: it was necessary first to smash the oPPOsition. In the autumn, of 1927 tbe Central Committee decided-althougb the statutes did not and could not grant it such a right-to convene all future congresses every two years. This decision was carried not without inuer frlctlon in the <tpparatus itself: It was difllcult to explain, openly why the BC}lshevik party as a ruling party was denied the right which it enjoyed in the rf'volutionary underground: the right to control its apparatus and to give it instructions for the future. TI;e 16th congress (June, 1930), however, was cC}nvened not two years after the 15th (January, 1928) but two and a half years after, that is, already in viowtion of the new statutes. Finally, between the 16th and the 17th congresses three and two-thirds years have elapsed. During tbe twenty months that the Central Committee ruled by usurpation, not merely in fact, but according tc} the letter of the statutes as well, not a voice of protest was raised in the party. For two reasons: (1) no one believes that the apparatus congress is capable of changing anything in the work of the rulin,g summits; (2) if anyone would try, in his simplicity, to protest, he would immediately be expelled from ·the party. The "cleansing" which preceded the congress expelled tens of thousands of people for lesser sins. If in the classic period of BC}lshevism a discussion lasting a number of weeks preceded the congress, the present congress was preceded by a bureaucratic cleans­ing which dragged out for half a year. Under these conditions the congress will be a ponderous parade of the bureaucracy.

Liberals and social dem~crats have frequently drawn a very super­ficial analC}gy between- Bolshevism and Fascism. The Late Serrati, former leader of the Italian l\faxlmalists and a Communist during the last years of his life, said to me in 1914: "To OUl' shame, l\fussolinl learned more from ,the Bolsheviks than we did." It is not necessary tc} explain the irreconcilability of the aims which the two principal world currents serve: one wants to perpetuate decaying capitalist society by means of universal pOlice-rule, the other wants to liquidate classes and states by methods of the revolutionary dicta­torship, thus liberating society and the buman being. But in tbe course of a combat mo,·tal enemies frequently exchange weapons. The fact is that if in the struggle for power the Fascists have borrowed greatly from BC}lshevism, then in the last period the Soviet bureau­cracy has familiarised itself with many traits of victorious Fascism, first of all, by getting rid of the control of thtl lParty and establishing' the cult of the Leader.

H is impossible to read without a feeling of embarrassment and sometimes shame, the Soviet press, where in each column· In each article, each telegram and report of a meeting, the "Leader" is honC}ured and praised in the very same unchanged and universally obligatory expressions. Even a journalist like Louis Fischer, who is not very critical with regard to the Soviet bureaucracy, found it necessary to point out the insulIer~ble character of ,these standardised panegyrics.

The connection between deifying the leader and the leaders (local leade,'s are deified within the limits of a definite territory) and the vioLation of the statutes, the abolition of criticism of the summits, the convocation of congresses at arbitrary intervals, after even more arbitrary cleansings-is absC}lutely evident. AU these phenomena in their entirety mean the liquidation of ·the party as an active political whole that checks, elects and renews Its apparatus. The first question

20

\vhtch adses before the congress reads: where and why did lhe BolsheYlk party disappear?

For soci.al deyelopment in general, for proletarian dictalorshil) ill particnlar, a comse and norms of pure reason cannot be prescribetl. It is n"h'e to say tllat the ,Soviet state is not a dicta torship oC the proletariat merely on the basis that the g,ven form of a dictatorshil) does not correspond to our (£ 1)";01" conceptions. But if reality call­not be judged Iby ideal norms, it is just as inadmissable and 110 less dangerous lo eleYate the SOYiet reality into an ideal norlll. The historic failure of the Comintel'l1 is c,a.usetl primarily by the fact that it proclalmed the Soviet state, mOre precisely, the Soviet bureaucracy, asa categoric imperath·e. ~Ieanwllile the internatiollal proletariat as well as the Soviet state itself need nothing more U1'gently thalJ free, unhampered Ma.rxian criticism.

The harsh character of the dictatorship is caused by the neeu of suppressing ·the resistance oC the o\'erthroWll ruling classes and to undermine their economic roots. But according to the official theory this b,asic tasl, of llle workers' stute is in the main· achieved. '.rhe second Five Yeal' Plan will mel'ely lHl\'e to complete it. The 17th Pal'ty C<tn[el'ellce alreauy decidell-this decbion is now relwu.[ed day ill, clay out-tllat the ta:-;I\: of the setollll If'in~ Year Plan is 1I0t only the Hliquidation of capitalist elements and classes in gelleral," Imt "complete liquidation of causes which engender class distinctions alllf exploitation" us well. III the conditions thut the second Five Yeal' Plan is to cl'eate, state powel' will haye nothing mOl'e .[0 do. The struggle against e..\:terllal dangers would require, of course, also in .a socialist society, a p<Hvel'ful milital'Y organisation, hut by no means intemal government coercion, not a regime of class dictatorship. Whel'e the causes disappeal' the consequences also disappeal'.

In reality, no one of the rulers of the U.S.S.R. believes in such a pel'spective. The sec<tncl Fi\'e Year 1'lan, calculated on a fnll and complete liquiootion of class uistin(;tions, does not fOl'esee at all a mitigation of government coercio-ll, nor a decrease in tbe budget of the G.P.U. The rnling blll'eanCracy does not prepal'e in the least to give up Hs commanding positions; on the contrary, it supplies them with ever new and more material guaran,tees. CoerCion, even within the fOl'mal fl'amework of the pal'ty, all'eady has such a hal'sh charac­ter ·~LS it never had during the years of civil war. :Moreovel', in all the official speeches and articles the perspective of a further intensificati<tll of the methods of the dictatorship is !pictured. This crying divergence between two pe.rspectives, the economic untI the political, demonstrates irrefutably tl},at the ruling bllreaucracy_ ob\-lously d<>es not know lww t<t make ,bOtll ends meet theoretically.

Young Soviet theoreticians, it is true, have attempted to present the matter in such a way that the socialist growth of the country and the liquiqation of the classes lead before our very eyes to tilia mitigation ami weakening of purely state functions. Some people believed them. ]~ui,~ Fischer, in one of his generally not very fortunate excwrsions into the realm of theory, tried to present the merging of tbe Commis­sal'iat for Trade with the trade unions as the beginning of the liquida­tion of the state. I t;}] reality, we have only a merging of two bureulI­C1'atie apparatuses. 'l'he new statutes of the ;>arty, which are to be ralified by the 17th congress, make a decisive turn towards the merg­ing of the state and the party,- but how?-by a final a'rld formal replacement of the party as well as of the mass Soviets by the single blll'eaucra.tic apparatus. It ris not a question of the "whithtring" away of tho sla.le in the Engels sense, but Oll the contrary, of .its furtber bureaucratic concentration. It is no wonder _ that the ruling summits severely rebuked the careless young theoreticians for attempting to draw po1itical conolusions from the "liquidation of the classes."

'rhe wlthertng away of the party in the socialdst sense of the word presupposes the Ilquldation of the policies in general, therefore also of state coercion and signifies the approach to an anarchistic society and by DO means to a bureaucratic regime. Is jt this that we see in realiLy? If "politics" has disappeareu in the U.S.S.R. it has disap­peared for the masses oaly . All politics is monopolised, centralised, personalised. It would be the greatest naivete to think that the oon­stant "deification" of the Leader is engendered by pel1Sonal bad tastes and by official subserviency. This purely psychologic e"'planation explains nothing. In reality the deification of the leader is a necessary element of the present political regime of the U.S.S.R. Since the workers are denied the possibility of re-electing and directing thei ,. apparatus, some other instance is necessary to solve strute problems. Disagreements within the 'uncontrolled bureaucracy must be settled from above, by the "Leader" who is but the personification of the apparatus.

But if It is not a question now of the wlt'hering away of the state out of its highest Intensification, there should be deep social contra­dictions which glve rise to 'tbis process. In what direction. must we look for them?

Polemising in 1932 against the author of these lines ill the columns of the Berliner Tageblatt, l~dek explained ,to us with his usual play­fulness that socialism means the nationallsatioll of the means of productiou and distribution and nothing more, and that if working class children do not get enough milk, this Is e:"plalned by the sCllrclty of cows and not by the absence of sociali sm. Despite all its captivating simplicity this theory is radically fa lse. Socialism presnpposes not only the nationallsation of the means of production but also the ability of the latter to satisfy all human needs. Precisely becanse of tbis the old primers stated that socialist society is possible only on a certain levei of de,elopment of the productiye forces .

It is true that social democrats dre\v 'trom this prOPOSition the reactionary conclusion that the Russian proletariat must not take power in general. rl'lleY came to the same conclnslon for Germany of 1918 as well and through the oflicers of Noske brought this admonish­ment forcefully to KiIlrl Lieb'knechl und Rosa Luxemburg. But tbe conclusions of the social democracy are no Jess false than those of Hadek. The tbeory of Kautsky, Otto BaneI', Leon Blum and others assumes un extremely 11;trmonious evolution of socLaI forms: baving reacbed tbe necessary maturitY, the productive forces invite ~lessrs. socialist leaders to power. Everything takes place witbin the frame­work of democracy with full comfort for all tbe participants. In reality, tbe prinCipal characteristic of historic development is tbe constant disruption of tbe equilibrium between the productive forces and poUtics, inside the productive forces themselves, for example, between tbe productiye forces and politics, inside the productive forces tbemselves, for example, between Industry and agriculture, between the social weight of tile bourgeOisie and the weight of the proletariat, between the potential power of the proletariat and the real force of its party, etc. Contradictory historic conditions to'rced the Russian. proletariat to take power first, althougb from the point of view of "senslblp" socialiBt .accountlng it would have been Infinitely more advantageous for the 'proletariat of the United States, England, or Germany to have taken power first. llnd tbe Russian proletariat, however, obeyed the Mensheyiks, not 'seized power in 1917 and ·not nationalised the means of production, nussin would have been doomed to -the fate of Chinn.

.;. .;.

However, the disproportions of the belated ·and jumpy economic and cultural development ilave not disappeared in the dlctatorsilip of

22

,the proletariat: they have merely takell on au ulll'e<!ogni"able form, The productive forces of the U.S.S.n. develop no,,· in a natioualised form, but they 'Still pass the stages left far behind by the advanced capltallst countries-especially if reCkoned 011 a IJer capita. basis. From this foll()w, despite the "liquidfltiou of classes," the social con­tradictions of Soviet society as well as the great theoretical confl.-ioll of the leaders.

Socialism, that is a society of ha L' lllOnious production and (listri­bution" presupposes at any rate that all the childrE'n should drin), milk to their hearts' content. If the cows are Ilationali"ed but their nnnlihel' i~ insutlicient, or the-ir udders dry, it is still not socialism, because for lack of. milk, conflicts ari"e: between the city and the vil lage, between the KoJkhoses, SovkhoRPS .fl)Hl inclivldu.a I peasants, between various layers of the proletariat, between ali the toilers and the bureaucracy. Precisely these shaI1), constant conflicts which take on inevitabJy a social, and in their tendencies, a class' character, deJllilnd the powerful intervention from above, that is, slnte coercloll. Sometimes we see how a fight abQut milk leads to n malicious destruc­tion of dair~ cattle, and this forces the l;overnment authorities to de­nationalise tile cow, giving it back to the peasants as private property. Only -very recently the government found itself obliged for the snme reasons to ,transfer the horses to life-time use of the peasants. The renl key to the puzzle of bureaucratic omnipotence lies in these slmpl~ facts. We sa,', and not at all for paradox's sake, that if cel'tain ancient religi()ns, also because of insllniciency of cattle, based them­selves on the bull Apis, the religion of bUI'eallcra-tic sovereignlty bases itself on the cow-not on the one that exists, but on the olle that is lacking.

The problem is, of course, not exhausted by milk; l,t only begins with milk and brend. The contradictions pass through the whole system of economy and of social relations. The question, h()wever, is too complicated and requires a speclal article.

L. '£R<YDSKY. Janllal'Y 20, 1934.

Author's Notes (1) ·Sage American Brandlerites (the Lovcstone group) complicate the question:

the economic policy ot the StallnlBts, it you please. Is Impeccable, but the poll.Ucal regime In the U.S.S.R. Is bad: there Is no democracy. It d'Ocs not occur to these theoreticians to ask themselves why ,then does Stalin liquidate democracy it his economic pol1cles are COI'wccl and successful? Isn't it out of fear that it: proletarian democracy obtained. the party nnd the working class would express much too restlessly and violently their enthusiasm over his economic policies?

(2) Those who are Interested, if there are such, may become .acQuainted with the "platform" of "communist (!) democrats" themselves . From the viewpoint of the fundamentals ot Marxism It Is difficult to conceive of a more charlatanlstlc docu·ment.

(3) Having fallen Into deSpair over the "unsucc~flul" ex)}erirn('nts of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Simone 'Veil has found solace In a new vocation: the defence at her personality against society. The hoary formula of liberalism. vivified with cheap anarchistic exaltation. And think of It-Simone Well speaks lot'blly about OU1" ··1lluslon.. .. She and tho.. l1ke her require many years ot !ltubborn perseverance In order to free themselves from the most reactionary lower middle class prejudices. Appropriately enough, her new views have founrl a. haven in an organ that bears the obviously Irlonlo name, "The Proletarian Rovolut3on." '£hls Louzon publlca"tlon Is 1deally auited tor revolutionary me-lan­chollacs, and political renUers living on the dividends from their capitni ot recollections and pretentious phllosophlsers who will perhaps adhere to the rfMoJutton. . attf'"c It will have been achieved.

(4) 'l1lls prophet accuses the Russian BolshEll\Tlk-LenJniste of lacking revolu-ttonary declaJvenE!lSle. CoIltusinJ;', in the AuEttro-Marxlst styld, revolution

countC!'-rc;vohl'tron~ a.nd the return to bourgeois democracy with thO' prclSe.rva.'tion of the pl'oIeial'ian dictatorship. Laura.t lcotl11'es Rakovsl..:)' upon revolutljonary atrrU'ggiC''''', 'l'hls same gentlemen in passing adjudges Lenin tl,) be ll. "mediocre thf'orcticin.n." SIl1:lil wonder! Ll"nin, who (Ol'mulated in tho eimlliest manner the mOSit compl£\x theon'tical ~oncluslon8, ('annpt overawe the preltentions phlHstJnc who !i!ndows his U111I and na't genoralisatlons with n. cabalistic air.

LayolLb fo!' a visiting card: "]""ucif'1l J.aural: by :tvocatloll. a rcscn'c thcorelician :uHI r:rtraguUst of tho proiet(tl'inn revolution . for Russia; by profesea 011 , assistant to Leon Blum,"

'I'Il(; insCl'illtion is som~vhat IOIlt::', but con'ectl, Tt is said that this "theoretician" has adherents among the youth . Poln' youth!

(5) By lls vcry na;tu]'E", what llas been said above cannot apply to {hose organisations which have compal'ruUvel1y recently split away from !Lhe Bocial democ\'acy, 01' which. generally. had their own particular type of development (Uke the Socla.Jlst! Revolutionary Pal'ty of HoHand) land which naturally refused to link their fate "with the fate of th(' Comintcrn in the period of its decRy. Tho best or these organisations al'!:' now placing themselves und-c'r the banner of tJ1f' new Jntcl'nrutionaL Othet's wiU place themselves to-rnorr;olV,

GUY ALDRED'S MISSION GUY ALDRED intends, if possible, to conduct a campaign for Socialism and the Social Revolution throughout the country. Socialist organisations, groups and branches, who are willing to co-operate in such a campaign and arrange for meetings in their areas, should communicate with him direct at his office:

145 QUEEN STREET, GLASGOW, c.1.

THE WORKERS' OPEN FORUM Meets every Sunday at 2 p.m. at I.L.P. Rooms, 3 Balmano

Street, for the organisation of its work and the enrolling of new memlbers; and every Thursday at 8 p.m ., open propaganda meeting, at I.L.P. Rooms, 71 S;tfirling Road. All Socialists and other workers, attached or unattached, welcome.

SPECIAL A PPEAL! Comrades who wish to see "he New Spur published regularly, and also want Guy' Aldred's pamphlets and rebel biographies to be issued regularly, should help him to rebuild his press. Address all help to him at his office:

/ GUY ALDRED, 145 QUEEN STREET, GLASGOW, c.1. '1,(.,: . es received are acknowledged in the New Spur,

.u