Bruno Rizzi

The Bureaucratisation of the World

First Published: in April 1939; Translated: from the French for Marxists.org by Adam Buic ; Proofread: by !hris !layton "##$.

Preface
%n this first part &e ma e a Marxist analysis of 'o(iet society) &ith some mention of the Fascist and *a+i regimes &hich are in the process of rapid bureaucratisation and &hich ha(e already ac,uired an anti-capitalist character. e(en though !apital there has not been radically suppressed as in the .''/. /ecent political e(ents &ill a&a en e(en the dullest of minds: the blac ) bro&n and red dictators are recognising) perhaps e(en officially) that the social character of their countries is the same. 0he &orld is on the e(e of a tremendous historical turning point. 1e belie(e that 'talin &ill remember ha(ing been a re(olutionary before ha(ing become a dictator and &ill understand the terrible responsibility &hich lin s him to the international proletariat. 1e &ill 2udge solely on the facts and &e ad(ise &or ers to do the same. 3urope and the &orld must either become fascist or socialist. 0here is no longer any possibility of life for capitalism. 0he .''/ has become the pi(ot of &orld politics and &ill either be the bastion of the proletarian re(olution or a trap for the &orld proletariat. %f it &ants /e(olution it &ill carry the re(olutionary centre into the midst of the 3nglishFrench-American &or ing masses; if it does not do so then it &ill help the fascisation of 3urope and the 1orld. 0he bourgeoisie is a dead social force and) politically) can no longer ta e the offensi(e: it resists) but surrenders day after day4 Manchuria) !hina) Abyssinia) Austria) 'udetenland) Bohemia) 'pain) Albania and so on already amount to a political synthesis. %n reality the forces in play in present-day 'ociety) &hich is a single whole) are not called France) 3ngland) 5ermany) %taly) .''/) 6apan) etc.) but are called !apitalism) Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism and 'ocialism. 0hese are not empty &ords) nor social abstractions) nor politico-administrati(e fictions: they ha(e their social bases. !apitalism is based on the class of those to &hom belong the means of production of the &hole &orld. 0hese are lin ed together by connections of business and interest and by a 1

political solidarity &hich re(ealed itself immediately after the First 1orld 1ar &ith the collecti(e strangling of the /e(olution) and &hich has been continued by the e(ents of Munich. 0his %nternational has al&ays functioned; it is no& creating a capitalist bloc to oppose the in(asion of Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism. %n this bloc they see to suppress proletarian forces as much as possible in order to maintain the old pri(ileges. Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism too has its social base in dominant classes &hich ha(e established their head,uarters in the 'tates in /ussia) %taly. 5ermany) 6apan and the smaller 'tates &ea from the capitalist point of (ie& &hich come &ithin the radius of action of the big totalitarian 'tates. 0his ne& social form is degenerate) but ne(ertheless acti(e) and is more and more imposing itself on a capitalism &hich is dead as a dynamic system and in a state of physical disintegration. 0his bloc has also formed its %nternational in the Anti!omintern) in &hich the .''/ &ill soon appear) in order to s&allo& up by threats or deeds the areas dominated by the old capitalist 1orld. 'ocialism has its social base in the &or ing masses of the &hole &orld. 0hey are the real li(ing force of the ne& 'ociety &hich must replace !apitalism) but they continue to be tric ed by their ignorant or treacherous leaders &ho do not gi(e them a political line of their o&n and &ho ha(e lined them up behind the patriotic bac s of the bourgeois and the fascists. 'ocialism sings the 7%nternationale8 but does not apply it in practice) as do its t&o ri(als; in reality it is the butcher9s meat in the struggle bet&een them. %t is the ob2ect of their exploitation: the good and peaceful ox &hich drags the cart and e(en goes to the slaughterhouse. 0he lesson of 191:-1; &as not enough. At that time the (arious imperialisms thought they &ould sol(e the capitalist crisis by a (ictory &hich &ould gi(e hegemony to some of them) but) t&enty years later at Munich) they ha(e signed their defeat by confirming the senselessness of the past carnage carried on under the banner of <eace) of the true !i(ilisation) of <rogress) of the 1ar to end 1ars) of the fight against barbarians) etc.) etc. 0he social forces in play are three in number) there are three political mo(ements and three classes &hich correspond to them. And it is precisely that class &hich has the greatest social and historical rights &hich is suppressed) partly by a &orld &hich is dying and partly by a ne& monstrous &orld &hich is being born and so badly that it has re(i(ed sla(ery after t&o thousands years of history. %t is not a ,uestion of an 7indi(isible <eace8 but of an indi(isible 'truggle. %t is not on the basis of *ations that the proletarians must recognise their friends and their enemies. As Marx said) it is from classes) from the struggle bet&een classes) from the dialectic and the class struggle that 'ocialism must deri(e its politics) e(en in this period of decaying capitalism. 1or ers) thin about this. 1e &ill soon be publishing the second part of La bureaucratisation du monde &hich &ill deal &ith the totalitarian 'tate and &ith Fascism in particular =analysis of decaying capitalism>. 1ars ha(e al&ays been carried on for the benefit of the dominant classes. 0he only &or ers9 &ar is the /e(olution. 0he &or ers must struggle against !apitalism and against Fascism and must extricate themsel(es from their grasp; they must ha(e their own independent policy. %n flattering oursel(es on ha(ing found this) &e only as to be refuted) corrected or helped by all comrades) &or ers and those &ho &ish to li(e in honour and freedom and &ant to spare the &orld the insu1t of a ne& sla(ery. 0he Author <aris) 1? 6uly 1939.

"

I. The nature of the Soviet State

%t &as in 191@ to&ards the end of Actober =/ussian calendar> that there occurred a political e(ent of great importance &hose date is engra(ed in indelible characters in the boo of history. 0he proletariat of 't. <etersburg and Mosco&) led by the Bolshe(i party) sei+ed po&er. 0&o leaders arose in this great historical e(ent as giants: Benin) the incomparable master of the re(olutionary mo(ement) and 0rots y) the soul and genius of the proletarian insurrection. 0he raging &orld stopped its sa(age &or of destruction for a moment and cast an unbelie(ing and astonished glance at the endless plains of /ussia. A(er the sno& unfurled a red flag) adorned &ith a hammer and sic le. But) once this moment of perplexity &as o(er) people again loo ed straight ahead) as if to say 7&e &ill see later)8 and recommenced their annihilating struggle. Mean&hile a sigh of hope passed through the impo(erished and decimated masses. %n the midst of all this obscurantism) of all this madness) a light had flashed (ery brightly; it did really ha(e some significance for all these poor blighters: 7%t is from the 3ast that a light &ill come8; here &as the ne& 1ord. For the second time in history the do&ntrodden apathetic masses raised their heads from their toil and scanned the hori+on) scenting the air li e animals of prey emerging from their den. %t seemed to them to be good and that the opportune moment had arri(ed. A hundred and forty years pre(iously) these masses had been aroused by the gunfire of Calmy and e(en the men of the mountains) armed &ith pi es and axes) had descended from their remote (alleys. But on arri(ing at the opening of the (alleys) they sa& rising on the plain in the distance some small &hite clouds; then a sho&er of fire came do&n on their ran s: it &as the guns of the 0hird 3state &elcoming them. 0he good highlanders had been tric ed) they turned round and regained their (alley &hich they had left &ith an age-long hope that had suddenly ripened. 0he highlanders beha(ed &isely) they understood that their time had not yet come and they again enclosed themsel(es in their mountains for a ne&) long &ait. 0his time the men of the mountains no longer stopped &here the (alleys opened out onto the plaint; they no longer met fire from the artillery barrage of the bourgeoisie) but o(erran the fields of the lords as masters. 0he &or ers9 and peasants9 'tate &as proclaimed; from the Dremlin to&ers) the signal of the re(olution spread in &a(es and the red guards camped in the courts in the palace of %(an the 0errible. 0he people) the poorest strata) a&a ened from their age-long torpor) left their ho(els) displayed their rags in the main streets of the big to&ns and brought to them the mental state appropriate to the e(e of a re(olution. For three of four years this mounting tide nearly breached the po&erful di es of capitalism; then the &aters receded) gurgling. From time to time the &ater had) as it &ere) some 2umps; these &ere &a(es &hich came from afar li e those produced by the passing of a steamship) but they did not come from the deep mo(ements of the sea. 'o) either the potential force of this mounting re(olutionary tide had been badly employed or it had not been brought into play. %ndeed) the technicians of the re(olution) &here they had been able to transform this potential force into energy later found it dry) isolated and po&erless since the &aters had receded all around. 0he opportunism of the proletarian parties of Actober isolated the /ussian re(olution li e an oasis in the desert) so that there &as no longer any ,uestion of socialism) i.e. of an international proletarian economy. Eo&e(er capitalism must not e(en be mentioned as the nature of the 'tate called 'o(iet. 'o &hat is itF 0hat is the ,uestion.

0he /ussian /e(olution is o(er t&enty years old and it is strange that nobody has got do&n to studying the social outcome of this great e(ent. 0he .''/ pro(ides sub2ects for discussions) commentaries) reports; its supporters and opponents spea of it only from the political aspect and al&ays neglect the social aspect. Eo&e(er) &e do not thin that after t&enty years the /ussian /e(olution can still be considered as being in a period of transition or transformation. By no& it must surely ha(e had some positi(e outcome) ac,uired for the future and fixed in a social crystallisation. 'ome ha(e seen in the /ussian re(olution 70he 3mpire of Forced Babour8 or 70he /e(olution Betrayed)8 others ha(e described it as 70he 0riumph of Fascism)8 others as 70he Band of the 5reat Bie.8 'ome sigh &hen lamenting 70he Gestiny of the /e(olution8; there are others also &ho ha(e made 7An Assessment of the /e(olution.8 1riters of all political shades) from communists to fascists passing by the centre parties) ha(e &ritten &or s of great merit) either as regards arguments or as regards information. /esearchers ha(e interested themsel(es in the sub2ect and ha(e gone to ma e their obser(ations directly on the spot. French) 5erman and American &or ers rushed enthusiastically to the country &here their social hopes &ere to be realised. 0hey returned from it their hearts o(erflo&ing &ith sadness) their souls poisoned) and ha(e left us ob2ecti(e) practical and (ery interesting information on life) &or and liberty in the land of the 'o(iets. 0his enormous mass of publications does not deal at all &ith the social crystallisation of the .''/ and e(en less offers us any conclusion. !ertainly here and there a fe& passing references stand out; these are more of a natural fruit) occasioned by polemic) than the systematic result of a sociological study. 0rots y himself) &ho &e consider to ha(e the deepest no&ledge of the present conditions and e(olution of the 'o(iet 'tate) admits to ha(ing ta en nine paragraphs in an attempt to gi(e a definition of this 'tate. 1hat has been lac ing up till no&) is a panoramic (ie& of the &hole) a synthesis) a crystallised representation of &hat the .''/ is from a social point of (ie&. 1e oursel(es did not succeed in gi(ing an ans&er t&o years ago in our modest &or Where is the USSR going? 0he ,uestion mar &as there precisely to as &hat &e &ere as ing; but &hile &e did not succeed in gi(ing an ans&er at least &e posed the ,uestion. %n 193; our mind ceased to be tormented) for &e had no further doubts. 1hat &as happening in the social field in other countries confirmed &hat &e had ended up by considering as established in the social sphere of the 'o(iet 'tate. 'ince the &orld is from no& on reduced to a single form of ci(ilisation) the capitalist) it follo&s that the social transformation of any 'tate has a great interest for the rest of the planet) since it is in a premature and localised transformation that the &orld can see reflected the image of its o&n future social form. All sorts of things ha(e artificially obscured the problem instead of ma ing it clearer. 0he paid press and hired spea ers ha(e artificially obscured the problem instead of ma ing it clear. 0he greatest stupidities ha(e been uttered and) also) the greatest co&ardice has been sho&n. 0he social phenomenon is in fact (ery difficult to understand) especially for all those 2ournalists &ho (isit /ussia no&ing (ery little or nothing about Marx) Benin and their theories. %n addition the social phenomenon in formation started off in the beginning in a communist direction; then the cessation of the proletarian re(olution in the &orld produced a degeneration &hose social forms ha(e in recent years become fixed. 0oday the social edifice of the 'o(iet 'tate has clear) almost completed lines. 1e at least recognise these lines as such e(en if the specialists on the problem insist on a different theory. 0hese specialists) reduced to a small number) must be sought in the groups of re(olutionaries &ho ha(e abandoned the 0hird %nternational) holding that it has long

since become completely and definiti(ely opportunist. Also) these specialists ha(e come to the ,uestion of the nature of the 'o(iet 'tate solely as a result of internal diatribes in their political factions about the tactics and strategy of the proletarian re(olution. 0hey do not e(en suspect that there could be the possibility of a social crystallisation situated bet&een capitalism and socialism; but in the fire of their polemics the problem of this crystallisation is categorically posed and maintains those doctrinal differences &hich are the basis of the political impotence of these specialists. 1hat is the .''/ todayF 0o begin &ith &e &ill be expressly imprecise in our diagnosis of this society; &e &ill mo(e on later to the details. First of all &e &ant to establish only &hat is unanimously accepted. %t is certainly not a democratic) but clearly an authoritarian 'tate. %ts economy is not capitalist; it is not based on pri(ate property but on the collecti(e o&nership of the means of production. From !itrine to 0rots y and from /oose(elt to Mussolini) it is admitted that) generically) the 'o(iet economy is not socialist. Anly 'talin9s opinion is different for ob(ious reasons; conse,uently &e &ill not pay much attention to it. Go+ens of &riters ha(e made him eat his socialism and his 7most democratic !onstitution in the &orld.8 'talin does not flinch and naturally bans these publications in the land of the 7happy life8 and the most 7democratic in the &orld.8 0here is no doubt about another feature documented by 0rots y) !itrine) Cictor 'erge) !iliga and by a host of &riters of the most different nationalities and political theories: in no capitalist or fascist country is the proletariat in such bad conditions as in 'o(iet /ussia. 0here is no freedom of speech) of meeting or of the press. %nforming is &idespread and the 'tate (ery much a police 'tate. All these &riters are agreed on this: the exploitation of man still exists in the country of the 7happy life)8 being embodied in the famous surplus (alue &hich Messieurs the !apitalists extract from the &or ers. =0he di(ergences appear only &hen it comes to identifying &ho monopolises it.> Another characteristic &hich must not be ignored is that the 'tate demonstrations are only a grandiose theatrical ad(ertisement) as in the totalitarian 'tates of the 1est; li e&ise) the (eneration) real or pretended) for the almost deified Beader is e,ual and perhaps e(en greater. Eierarchy en2oys great prestige there and ser(ility is pushed to the extreme limit. 0he population li(es in an atmosphere of fear as if the &alls could hear and spea ; they ha(e a face for the public different from that as a pri(ate indi(idual. 0he political and social physiognomy of the 'o(iet 'tate comes out &ell defined from these generally admitted facts supplemented by our distinctions and it is this physiognomy that &e no& propose to explain to the reader. 0he principal aim of the Actober re(olution &as to ser(e as a le(er for the re(olution in the 1est. But measures for a socialist economic policy &ere ta en at the same time. Basically pri(ate o&nership of the land and large industrial enterprises &as abolished. 0he economic control of this property passed from the hands of the defeated bourgeois class into that of the triumphant proletariat. 0he economic conditions for a social transformation in the .''/ &ere certainly not (ery good; the country &as composed essentially of agricultural labourers and illiterates) its industry &as (ery inferior to the needs of an ad(anced economy. 0he Bolshe(i s) as soon as they had sei+ed po&er) straight&ay used the radio to incite the (arious proletariats to follo& their example because they understood the necessity of grafting on to the /ussian re(olution the 1estern nations &ith their de(eloped technology and their immense and cultured proletarian class. %f this did not occur) then this /e(olution &as fatally destined to failure in the economic-social field e(en if its arms succeeded in heroically resisting the assaults of the old &orld. 0he 5erman proletariat &as the natural ally of the Bolshe(i re(olution. %ts bourgeoisie) emerging from the &ar defeated and bro en) offered them po&er almost &ithout

stri ing a blo&. But) except for the 'partacist riots and the sacrifice of Darl Bieb necht and /osa Buxemburg) the 5erman proletariat &ent &ithout honour from defeat to defeat. %n 19"3 po&er &as once again offered them) but this proletariat deserted the camp and abandoned it &ithout a struggle e(en to the Eitlerite bands. 1as this the fault of the leadersF Af the 0hird %nternationalF *o) it &as the fault of e(erybody together) including the 5erman proletariat &ho &ere too cold) too attached to order and of a not (ery re(olutionary nature. Fifty years pre(iously) after the collapse of the French bourgeoisie in 1;@#) the &or ers of <aris proclaimed the !ommune and 1##)### of them) &ho had fought &ith only a slight hope of (ictory and in premature economic circumstances) let themsel(es stoically be beaten on the ramparts of <aris. Messieurs the Marxists) &ho deal solely &ith economics and &ho ma e politics only &ith statistics) may &ell get angry) but &e state that the &ea re(olutionary spirit of the 5erman proletariat had a lot to do &ith the defeat of the 3uropean and &orld &or ing class. 'imilarly the strong re(olutionary spirit of the /ussian proletariat had a lot to do &ith the Actober (ictory. 0he 5erman people ha(e ne(er made a re(olution; in their political e(olution they ha(e al&ays follo&ed the other nations and then at least a century later. France) on the other hand) has al&ays spilled its blood for the &orld. 3conomic conditions are certainly the conditions sine qua non on &hich depends the possibility of transforming society. But once these conditions exist and ha(e ripened) the success of the /e(olution is a ,uestion only of re(olutionary spirit as far as those &ho ha(e to do the fighting are concerned) and of re(olutionary ability as far as the leaders are concerned. Bet Messieurs the Marxists explain) if they can) the defeat of the 3uropean proletariat according to historical materialism as it is understood by the orthodox4 1as not the 5erman economy o(er-ripe for the changeF 0o conclude and to repeat &hat has been said in a thousand &ays) &e state that) follo&ing the defeat of the 5erman and 3uropean proletarian re(olution) the dictatorship of the /ussian proletariat found itself isolated in a hostile capitalist &orld. 0here &as a general ebbing of the re(olutionary &a(e that had frightened the bourgeoisie immediately after the &ar. %t follo&ed for any obser(er &ith common sense that the perspecti(e of re(olution had been postponed indefinitely. !apitalism in the meantime regained its breath and until 19"9 increased production) particularly as a result of repair &or in the +ones ra(aged by the &ar and of the reconstitution of stoc s. 0he /ussian re(olution faced the alternati(e of either li(ing sparsely &hile &aiting for the proletarian re(olution in 1estern 3urope or of coming to terms &ith the external &orld and conse,uently changing its internal policy. %t &as the second solution &hich &as chosen; 'talin &as first the inspirer of this and then its pitiless executor. 0his radical change of policy had naturally to be disguised) at least on the surface) both from the /ussian proletariat and from the proletariat of all nations. 0his &as not (ery difficult since for nearly a century &or ers ha(e been systematically tric ed by the 7reds8 of all the parties) and of all shades) &ho ha(e appeared on the political scene. 0he /ussian proletariat and the proletariat of other nations ha(e suffered this enormous mystification and ha(e gi(en only too fe& signs of anger against their leaders) the real traitors. %t could be said that these proletariats ha(e become accustomed to) and indeed ha(e become hardened to mystification. 1ith Benin dead a successor &as needed; the most &orthy figure 2ust as much from the moral as from the intellectual point of (ie& &as 0rots y. Eis re(olutionary integrity and his genius &ould certainly ha(e (ery &ell defended the first and only proletarian 'tate in the &orld. But 0rots y &as cast aside and unanimously ostracised and boycotted by the epigones of the re(olution. 0hose &ho no& a little about socialist and communist parties &ill not be at all surprised at a phenomenon li e this.

%n Benin9s entourage 0rots y rose lie a giant) so they undertoo to neutralise him in order to remo(e a great obstacle &hich &ould ha(e hindered their national and international brain&ashing campaign. 0he reality is still this: the real dictatorship &as that of the Bolshe(i party) a dictatorship centred on the <arty cells not the so(iets. 0hus &as ho& the Bolshe(i party not of the proletariat) the only one not to ha(e betrayed the &or ers before the re(olution) betrayed them as soon as it achie(ed (ictory) i.e. &hen it belie(ed that there &ere no longer any dangers. 0he theorists of the dictatorship over the proletariat &ho en(isaged the Bolshe(i party as) so to spea ) a guide &ithin the democratic so(iet regime in effect en(isaged it as ha(ing a monopoly of proletarian social control. 0hese theorists pro(ided an opening for the bureaucratic degeneration &hich a combination of circumstances much facilitated. 0he proletariat &as dispossessed by men &ho en2oyed their confidence) by those &ho had led them in the assault and to (ictory) and abo(e all by those &ho made up the great mass of par(enus. A political party &ith a far-reaching social programme &hich calls for participation and control by all the &or ers should not aim to set itself up as dictator. 0he only guarantee is the proletarian class &ith all po&er to the so(iets. Carious &riters ha(e recounted in a general &ay all that has happened since the death of Benin) but &hat is of interest for us in this boo is to determine the outcome. 0he officials of the 'tate and Bolshe(i party) in socialising the land an in industrialising the country) more and more undermined the po&er of the &or ers and ended up ha(ing a monopoly of the 'tate. 0o do this they had to ally themsel(es &ith the technical specialists &ho &ere indispensable to them; thus occurred the first great &elding in the process of the formation of the ne& ruling class in /ussia. 0he 'ta hano(ite campaign is an expression of this and at the same time a ne& method of spurring on the mass of &or ers to greater producti(ity. Ather &eldings &ere to follo& &ith the regime9s sycophants through the purchase of high posts in the army and semi-'tate bureaucracy. 1e ha(e thus no& reached a point &here economic and political control is monopolised by the bureaucracy and has been authorised by the ne& !onstitution. 1ithin this bureaucracy there is simply a di(ision of labour &hich) ta en as a &hole) has the aim of maintaining political domination and economic pri(ileges. 0he bureaucrats &ith their families form a mass of about 1? million people. 0here are enough of them to form a class and) since 0rots y assures us that :# per cent of production is grabbed by the bureaucracy) &e can say that this class is pri(ileged too4 0his class is all-po&erful for it controls the economic le(ers) &hich an expressly trained police 'tate protects. %t determines &ages and selling prices to the public as it thin s fit) &ith mar -ups o(er the cost price such that the 7bloodsuc ing8 capitalists of long ago appear to us as 7honest traders.8 0he fe& facts &e ha(e allo& us to state that the mar ups on the cost price of primary necessities are t&o or three times greater than the mar ups employed in the re(iled capitalist countries. !itrine pro(ides us &ith unchallengeable information. 'ometimes the bureaucrats buy corn from the peasants at a (ery lo& price and then re-sell it to the &or ers at a price ten times higher. 0he economic plan is of course the pro(ince of the bureaucracy and in(estments naturally go to the pro2ects &hich most benefit the interests of the ne& class. 0he 'o(iet press itself documents the miserable housing conditions of the &or ers to &hom on a(erage ? s,uare metres of accommodation is allocated. 1ell) instead of building ne& houses for the &or ers) they plan to build for instance a 7Eouse of the 'o(iets)8 3$# metres high) since in reality this is not the Eouse of the 'o(iets but the Eouse of the bureaucracy. %f called upon to 2ustify this misadministration of public

money the bureaucrat al&ays replies that the &or ers did not ob2ect) as they could ha(e done since the &or ers of the .''/ are allo&ed to gi(e their opinion and e(en to oppose the &ishes of their masters. 0here is a solidarity among the bureaucrats =officials) technical specialists) policemen) officers) 2ournalists) &riters) trade union big&igs and finally the &hole communist party> so that mista es are blamed on the &or ers) &ho are tied li e sla(es to the economic machine of the 'tate) &hich the bureaucrats describe &ith cro&ning derision as an organ of the proletarian class. 0he officials go(ern and the technical specialists are also their industrial representati(es. 0he police ha(e the tas of protecting the ne& property and of eeping the citi+ens9 conduct on the political line decided by the top hierarchs. 6ournalists and &riters ha(e the tas of 7scientifically8 tric ing the general public. 0he trade union bosses ha(e become (eritable officials) placed right in the midst of the &or ers in order to sound out their mood and to tric them) as has been and still is done in all &or ers9 organisations) yello& or red) in all capitalist countries. 0here is not much difference bet&een the 'o(iet and American trade union bureaucracies as far as aims are concerned. But there is an essential difference since) &hereas the trade union bureaucracy in the capitalist countries ser(es the bourgeoisie) in the 'o(iet 'tate they ser(e the 'tate bureaucracy and thereby themsel(es. 0he /ussian communist party has become a (ictim to the bureaucrats and the &or ers are (irtually no longer present in its midst. 0his party is nothing else but the dog &hich eeps the sheep in order; 'talin) follo&ing behind &ith his croo on his shoulder and his bag slung across his bac ) is the 7great shepherd.8 %f some sheep lea(es the ran s) the dog bar s and 'talin hits it. 0he floc ta es heed) stands afraid of the dog and addresses its plainti(e bleatings to the 7great shepherd.8 0he proletariat has the right only to &or in the enterprises &hose o&nership is still moc ingly attributed to them e(en though they do not ha(e the least controlling function. 0heirs is only to s&eat blood and &ater since they are spurred on by systems &hich not only are not socialist) but &hich are also &orse than those in fashion in the ne(er-so-re(iled capitalist countries. 0his s etch is not our in(ention) but is only the conclusion dra&n from the treatment of this ,uestion by the 7specialists8 &hose (ie&s &e &ill later be discussing. %t can be seen clearly from this s etch that this society has nothing to do &ith socialism. 3(erybody is agreed on this point) except of course 'talin and the 'o(iet bureaucracy. 0he o&nership of the means of production has been socialised and the economy is planned H this is the big argument of 0rots y and company and all shades of anti-0hird %nternational re(olutionary sects. According to 0rots y) despite e(erything else the 'o(iet 'tate remains &or ing class and the dictatorship of the proletariat is still in force4 1e &ill deal &ith this ,uestion later) no& &e merely &ish to &or out &ith the aid of common sense the nature of the 'o(iet 'tate; &e &ill then go on to examine the arguments &hich are said to be 7scientific.8 %n our opinion) another ruling class) the bureaucracy) has emerged from the Actober re(olution and its receding) &hile the bourgeoisie has been dispensed &ith and) conse,uently) has no possibility of returning. 0he possession of the 'tate gi(es the bureaucracy possession of all mo(able and immo(able goods &hich) although socialised) do not less belong in toto to this ne& ruling class. %t goes &ithout saying that the ne& class ta es good care not to officially declare that it en2oys this possession) but it in fact controls all the economic le(ers and has its property guarded by the 5<. and the bayonets of the 7purged8 army. 3ach enterprise has its 5<. corps &hich mounts guard) but in the large enterprises there is

e(en a soldier of the regular army &ho mounts guard) bayonet on his gun. Ee chec s those &ho go in) examines documents and follo&s the (isitor step by step) e(en if he is an important person &ith &hom care should be ta en li e the trade unionist 1alter !itrine. 0he 'o(iet 'tate is becoming bureaucratic rather than socialist; indeed) instead of gradually disappearing into a classless society) it is inflated beyond measure. Fifteen million indi(iduals are already stuc to the trun of the 'tate and are suc ing its sap. 0he proletarian class is exploited en bloc in accord &ith the transformation of property. 0he bureaucratic class exploit9s the proletariat and) through fixing &ages and the selling prices of commodities in the 'tate shops) determines the standard at &hich this class shall li(e. 0he ne& dominant class has bought the proletariat en bloc. 0he &or ers no longer e(en ha(e the freedom to offer their 7labour po&er8 to different enterprises: it is the monopolising bureaucracy &hich has perfected this system of exploitation. 0he /ussian proletarians ha(e fallen out of the frying pan into the fire. 'ocially this ne& form of society resol(es the untenable contradiction &hich has made capitalist society incapable of any progress. %n capitalist society the form of production has long since been collecti(e) for e(erybody participates directly or indirectly in the production of no matter &hat commodity. But the o&nership of commodities is indi(idual precisely as a conse,uence of the maintenance of pri(ate property. 0hrough the socialisation of property and in its being effecti(ely placed under the control of a class &hich acts as a harmonious &hole) the contradiction existing in the capitalist system of production is made to disappear and is replaced by a ne& system. %n the beginning this system exploits the &or ers ferociously 2ust as capitalism did at one time. 0o the extent that the system strengthens and perfects itself production increases and the ruling class &ill then be in a position to distribute a bigger ration to those it exploits. %n a normal international en(ironment production on a collecti(e basis should &ith certainty gro& e(en though directed by the bureaucracy) since today9s enormous expenditure on armaments &ould be eliminated or at least much reduced. Armaments al&ays do &ell and 'tates are changed into thoroughly militarist organisms. 0his enormous &aste of labour can neutralise) and e(en negate) the impulse &hich production incontestably recei(es follo&ing the collecti(isation of property and organisation of the economy according to a pre-established plan. 0his ne& social system arises in the e(olution of human history as a parasitic phenomenon. <o&er should logically ha(e passed from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat) but this has not occurred clearly because of the political immaturity of the proletariat. %n fact) it has passed to a social control &hich is neither bourgeois nor proletarian. 0he person of the bourgeois capitalist has become superfluous in large-scale production and he is automatically pushed aside. 0he former official) the pen-pusher for the bourgeoisie) by allying himself &ith the trade union bureaucracy and that of the totalitarian 'tate) ac,uires a status: a ne& class rises on the hori+on. Anly the near future can tell if this ne& class) &hich is springing up all o(er the &orld) &ill be able to first smooth out all the difficulties left o(er from imperialism and then to increase the (olume of production by employing the ne& method of economic and political organisation. %t &ill also be seen if this class is able to impro(e the li(ing conditions of the masses; it is here that it &ill gi(e the proof of its 7(irtuosity.8 0he political symptoms tally &ith the nascent bureaucratisation of the &orld. Munich &as only a first coagulation of the bureaucratic consciousness. 0he capitalists and the representati(es of the ne& regimes) after ha(ing reciprocally pushed each other to the edge of the abyss) suddenly came to an agreement; they &ere certainly spurred on by a premonition of the coming e(olution of society. 0he old imperialisms) French) 3nglish

and American) realise that it is useless and impossible to maintain their hegemony o(er a &orld &hich) if it &ants to sur(i(e) can remain imperialist no longer and &hich is (isibly changing in a bureaucratic direction. 0he old democracies play out the role of an anti-fascist policy so as not to a&a e sleeping dogs. 0he proletarians ha(e to be ept ,uiet &hile the transformation of society in the meantime surreptitiously ta es place in their countries. At the same time) and at e(ery moment) the old democracies feed their &or ers on anti-fascism. %t is the doing of these democracies) in order to appease the re(olutionary ardour of the &or ers and to sell the products of their hea(y industry) that 'pain has mean&hile become a (eritable slaughterhouse for proletarians of all nations. %n !hina the &or ers are urged on to an anti-6apanese policy precisely under the leadership of the notorious !hiang Dai-!he ) he &ho still has hands sullied &ith the blood of the flo&er of the !hinese proletariat. %t goes &ithout saying that this time too the &or ers s&allo& all this and go single file) &ithout no&ing anything) almost resigned. 0he &or ers of France) 3ngland and America &ill gradually lose their status of citi+ens and &ill become simply the 7sub2ects8 of a bureaucratic regime &hich &ill nationalise property and ta e many other measures &ith a 7socialist8 imprint. 0he regime &ill not call itself fascism or nationalsocialism) it &ill certainly ha(e another name) but its basis &ill still be the same) i.e.: property collecti(ised in the hands of the 'tate) &ith a bureaucracy as the ruling class; collecti(e and planned organisation of production; finally) the exploitation of the &or er &ill pass from the sphere of the indi(idual to that of the class. At this point the Marxist 0rots y &ill cry at the top of his (oice that) contrary to &hat he tells us about /ussia) not only are the conditions of distribution not socialist but neither are the conditions of production; then he &ill go further and carry on re(olutionary propaganda against the bureaucracy of the &hole &orld4 0he consolidation of this bureaucracy is) according to him) 7a historic possibility and not an already accomplished fact.8 [1] 0hus &e must &ait until the fact is accomplished to gi(e 0rots y the material for his analysis4 0hen the proletariat) already under the tutelage of bureaucratic go(ernments) &ill ha(e to be called upon to act; imagine the result4 0rots y9s study may &ell be scientific and 1## per cent Marxist) but this &ill come too late &hen there is no longer any possibility of doing anything4 Ee may e(en be able to con(ince the bureaucratic leaders &ho) in reply) &ill call him a fascist; % don9t care. 0he accomplished fact exists in /ussia and it must be examined more deeply. 0his fact is (isibly in the course of being accomplished in %taly and 5ermany. And the first signs of this fact are sprouting up e(ery&here) e(en in the big democracies. 0here remains one card for precisely 0rots y to play) but &e are con(inced that he has no desire at all to use it. Eis great figure is slo&ly declining in a grey s y) &hile at the same time the memory of a sunny day is fading) blotted out by the rising t&ilight. Before committing suicide) 6offre &rote 0rots y a letter in &hich he recommended him not to be afraid of isolation as long as he maintained the Beninist line intact. %t seems to us that 0rots y has follo&ed this ad(ice to the letter) but that he certainly has not follo&ed Benin9s &ay. 1hen the /ussian 'ocial Gemocratic party split) &hen <le hano( &as thro&n out of the &indo&) Benin many times begged 0rots y to stay &ith him. Ee did not succeed) but &hen in 191@ Beon 0rots y returned to 't. <etersburg and recognised that he had been &rong) then Benin &elcomed him into the ran s of the Bolshe(i s since he understood that a political mista e &as not a betrayal. 0rots y) on the other hand) has bro en off relations &ith those &ho do not thin li e him. Ee has trained in his school young people &ho follo& 7the line8 according to his system. 0he Ganton of the Actober re(olution does not e(en suspect that he could be &rong. Ee is

1#

too sure of himself. 0his is alright up to a certain point) but it is a real calamity &hen the reasoning is based on doubtful polemical methods. 0his means that one does not ha(e enough confidence in the strength of one9s case. %f this is so) it should prompt the ta ing into consideration of the other person9s reasons and the recognition of one9s o&n faults &ithout fear since any other solution &ill lead to much &orse results. %n our opinion) the .''/ is a ne& type of society) ruled by a ne& social class: that is our conclusion. <roperty has been collecti(ised and belongs effecti(ely to this class &hich has set up a ne& H and superior H system of production. 3xploitation passes from the sphere of the indi(idual to that of the class. 0he political struggles &hich ha(e ta en place in the .''/ since 19"3 &ere all battles in &hich the ne& class in formation fought the proletariat; it is not important that in the beginning these struggles did not ha(e a clearly-defined aim. 0he massacre of the Beninist Ald 5uard) and of all those &ho might offend the bureaucracy) &hich has been the delight of the 'o(iet .nion since the death of Diro( is only the ci(il &ar needed by the ne& class to consolidate its po&er. %t is not a sign of &ea ness) but a demonstration of the strength of this class. 0he .''/ has long since abandoned all re(olutionary tendencies and has fallen at the feet of the Franco-3nglish bourgeoisie. 0he capitalists are fully con(inced that there exists in /ussia today the appearance only) intended for simpletons) of re(olution and socialism; that is &hy they ha(e in(ited and accepted the 'o(iet .nion into their 5ene(a sanctuary. At home the capitalists protest against the re(olutionary manoeu(rings of the !omintern but only to tric the proletarians. 1hat is important are the facts &hich tell us that from no& on and for many years the .''/ has been coupled to the bourgeois train of capitalism. %n fact <aris) Bondon and *e& Ior ha(e clearly recognised in the so-called 'o(iet /epublic a 'tate &hich exploits and oppresses the &or ers. Gespite the real political and social situation in 'talin9s land) Beon 0rots y and his disciples claim that the .''/ is still a 1or ers9 'tate &ith a regime of proletarian dictatorship. 0hey) and those &ho follo& the current of ideas &hich re2ects the policy of the 0hird %nternational) are the only ones &ho in their discussions are interested in the nature of the 'o(iet 'tate) e(en if only indirectly. 1e go on to polemic &ith 0rots y and his disciples because &e ha(e no& definiti(ely formed our 2udgement on the present social nature of the 'o(iet /epublic.

II. In the Camp of Agramant

Giscord among the fugiti(es and exiles from the 0hird %nternational is as great as that &hich reigned in the camp of Agramant. 0rots y no longer e(en replies to his ultra-left opponents since) he says) 7they replace scientific analysis by noisy shouting.8[2] 'plits) expulsions) fins de non recevoir) orders to maintain the discussion on the preestablished line) all these ha(e not ho&e(er been able to stifle the ,uestion. %t barely appears but it does appear all the time) e(en though the circle of members is narro&ing) and acts li e an axe &hich from time to time comes do&n on the trun of the Fourth %nternational before it has gained strength. 0rots y replies to comrades B and ! H not better identified H in an article entitled 7A non-proletarian and non-bourgeois 'tateF8 0his is the reply) superfluous for a Marxist &ho follo&s the Master9s thought to the letter: 70he bourgeois 'tate must be s&ept a&ay by the proletarian re(olution and replaced by the &or ers9 'tate. 0here is no middle &ay for history8 [3]. %t is true that Marx al&ays said this) 2ust as he said other things &hich ha(e not come about since. 1e don9t hold this against him; on the contrary &e belie(e that his greatest

11

merit &as to ha(e taught the study of social facts and to ha(e pro(ided the researcher &ith a &onderful means for interpreting history. %t seems to us that the Marxists should study the facts &hich exist in the light of the Marxist method and that they should not confine themsel(es to chec ing to see if these facts correspond to one of the catalogue headings of the forecasts of the greater thin er or his greatest disciples. 'uch a method is hopeless and the Marxists) in adopting it) change themsel(es into 6esuits) &ho &hen they run short of arguments inundate you &ith ,uotes from some saint or other in order to oppose your (ie&. %f you dare to reply that e(en these blessed ones could be &rong) the 6esuit loses his temper and simply tells you that you doubt the di(inations of the saints so that it is ,uite pointless to prolong the discussion. Iou are not a !atholic) you are among the damned) 2ust as your spirit is damned since it is depri(ed of grace4 Marx has in a sense been sanctified) and if by your reasoning you happen to come to conclusions different from the forecasts of the 6e& of 0rier) your place is among the damned) e(en if in your study of today9s social facts you made use of the Marxist method of research. !omrades B and ! state that the .''/ has ceased to be a 1or ers9 'tate 7in the traditional sense gi(en to this expression by Marxism.8 0hey deny that it is either a bourgeois 'tate or a proletarian 'tate H &e &onder) in passing) &hat ind of 'tate it in fact is. 0hen these comrades admit that the rule of the proletariat 7 can . . . be expressed in a considerable number of go(ernment forms8 and go on to proclaim later that 7the conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat is in the first place not economic) but abo(e all a political category . . . All forms) organs) institutions of the class rule of the proletariat are today destroyed; but this means that the class rule of the proletariat is destroyed8 [4]. 0here is also much confusion in the ideas of B and !) reflecting a state of mind &here ideas are in the process of formation. 0rots y concedes fully that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a completely political category and declares that politics is only concentrated economics and so the 7regime that defends expropriated and nationalised property against imperialism is) independent of the political forms) a dictatorship of the proletariat.8 0hat9s it except) &e &ould add) the bureaucracy &ould not ha(e to be a class &hich found expropriated and nationalised property to be in its interest. !an the nature of a 'tate be 2udged &ithout ta ing into account its political formsF Are the forms of property and relations of production already completely changed &hen a 'tate consolidates itself by o(erthro&ing anotherF %s not this) on the contrary) the tas of the ne& ruling classF Gid the go(ernment of the 0hird 3state in France not support itself for a fe& years on a feudal economyF Guring such periods concentrated economics clearly cannot be politics; politics is rather concentrated potentially in the social class &hich has its hands on the le(ers of control and in the programme &hich it is putting into practice. 0rots y e(en admits that 7during the first fe& months of the 'o(iet regime the proletariat administered a bourgeois economy.8 0his admission &as certainly not made to support our theory) but &ith the aim of illustrating a case of class contradiction bet&een the political form and the economic reality in order to conclude that: 7the concentration of po&er in the hands of the bureaucracy and e(en the encroachment upon the de(elopment of the producti(e forces does not of itself alter the class nature of the society and of its 'tate.8 But) in our (ie&) the main point is to see &ith &hat end in (ie& the expropriated and nationalised property in 'o(iet /ussia is defended from imperialism) supposing this

1"

imperialism still to be an effecti(e force. 1ho can assure us that an in(ader) &hoe(er it be) imperialist or not) &ould change the form of property in the .''/F %f it is true that in the first months of the 'o(iet regime the proletariat administered a bourgeois economy and that no& there exists an opposite case of class contradiction bet&een the economy and the 'tate) &ell) is this a good reason for (alidating the theory that the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a reality in the land of the 'o(ietsF And) finally) for attaching no (alue to the re(erse contradictionF Gecidedly) this is a strange &ay of reasoning4 %n other &ords) if a proletarian 'tate has existed &ith a bourgeois economy) &hy could not a non-proletarian 'tate exist &ith a nationalised economyF <erhaps this cannot be admitted only because a phenomenon of this ind has ne(er been seen or because Marx did not en(isage itF %t seems to us that our theory is the most logical since all the other factors &hich ser(e to characterise the nature of a 'tate ha(e been turned upside do&n in 'talin9s land. *ot in the least) considers 0rots y) e(en the second and in(erse proposition must help pro(e his theory. =Bet us point out that this second proposition ought not to come about in a regime aiming at socialism) &hile the first is understandable and clear to e(erybody.> %n the first months follo&ing the Actober re(olution) the proletarian dictatorship &as a true) real fact; if e(erybody is agreed on this point) e(en though there &as no nationalised property) this means that the dictatorship of the proletariat is in the first place a ,uestion of political and not economic forms) at least during the phase of transition bet&een the bourgeois economy and the socialist economy. From &hat &e no& it follo&s that the proletarian dictatorship is the political form of the &or ing class during this phase) that of social construction. But &hen its specific products cease it is logical to consider that the phase itself has ceased to exist. .ntil the day &hen) on socialism being achie(ed) the proletarian dictatorship disappears) political factors &ill ha(e their &ord to say in the classification of the type of po&er. As it is true) as e(eryone admits) that not e(en as a result of the nationalisation of property is socialism an accomplished fact in the .''/) it seems e(ident to us that the nationalisation of property and the planned economy are not sufficient reasons to pro(e the existence of the proletarian dictatorship. For this the proletariat must also hold po&er H that9s a self-e(ident truth. 0his condition is so important that) &hereas &e ha(e seen a genuine proletarian dictatorship &hile the economy &as still bourgeois) or a 0hird 3state ruling o(er a feudal economy) &e ha(e not yet seen the opposite case appearing in history. 0he .''/ of today is far from con(incing us. %t has to be a form of society &hich is neither capitalist nor socialist) and a form of 'tate &hich is neither proletarian nor bourgeois. 1e still consider that the dictatorship of the proletariat) after realising the nationalisation of property) should continue its &ay) follo&ing the socialist programme. Eo&e(er e(erybody) and 0rots y first of all) accepts that this &ay &as not subse,uently follo&ed in the land of the 'o(iets. 0hus of &hat dictatorship of the proletariat are &e spea ingF Af the dictatorship of the proletariat &hich has &iped out the re(olutionaries and &hich organises) &ith the help of murders and sell-outs) the sabotage of the proletarian re(olution in the &orldF Ar is it perhaps that one &hich ma es the difference bet&een the classes e(er &iderF 70he .''/ does not correspond to the criterion of a 1or ers9 'tate that is ad(anced in our programme ... Eistory ... ga(e us the process of the degeneration of the 1or ers9 'tate)8 0rots y tells us. But &hat is left for us) then) after this degeneration of the &or ers9 'tate and of the dictatorship of the proletariatF 7*ationalised property and the planned economy)8 replies 0rots y. 0hat9s (ery &ell) but &hat is their aimF %s it the realisation of socialismF Ab(iously not) and e(en 0rots y denies that it is. 'oF 'o) if nationalised property and the planned economy remain) this happens because they both

13

suit the interests of the regime in po&er. %n fact) the 'o(iet bureaucracy has no reason to eliminate these inno(ations of the Actober re(olution but) on the contrary) has political and social reasons for maintaining them. From the political point of (ie&) the 'o(iet bureaucracy tric s the &or ers by telling them that the nationalised property is theirs and) from the social point of (ie&) it cannot go against the current) i.e. against the de(elopment of production. 3(en the bourgeois 'tates themsel(es are proceeding more and more to the nationalisation of property and the planning of the economy. %n doing this) they are undermining the sacred right of pri(ate property) but &here this &or has already been accomplished does this right need to be destroyedF %f only for this) a ne& re(erse transformation of property in /ussia is not to be feared. All the facts pro(e to us that this domination of the bureaucracy in the late land of the 'o(iets is real. 0his has lasted for so long that a clear differentiation of classes has been established. All the political and social acts are those of a dominant class concerned &ith maintaining and strengthening its po&er. 1ell) according to 0rots y) it is not scientific to consider that the 'o(iet bureaucracy) &hich monopolises the go(ernment) can be a ne& class4 7%t is not a ,uestion of a ne& bourgeoisie)8 &e are told; or 7it is not yet8 and so it is not a class but a 7cler J4 Although tradition) e(en at home) teaches us that many 7cler s8 ha(e ended up by becoming masters) in the camp of Agramant they are unable to en(isage a ne& class apart from the proletariat and the bourgeoisie) e(en if the latter is &ell dead and the former is &hipped by a ne& master. %t has to be a case of a simple cler ) almost an ordinary bureaucrat) &ho in the case of the .''/ becomes the (alet of &orld imperialism) including) at least one &ould say) %talo-6apano-5erman imperialism4 1e do not thin that Marxism can lead to such nonsense. 'implification has al&ays been a (ice of Marxists) e(en though the essence of the doctrine of their master is uni(ersal. Marx could not foresee the coming of the totalitarian 'tate) dominated first by a cli,ue and then by a social stratum &hich later consolidated itself definiti(ely as a class. But the facts are there to examine and ideas do not fall from the s y. 3(en in the camp of Agramant these ideas fall in rare and large fla es) real signs of a coming sno&storm. 0he Marxists) &ho claim to be orthodox) are not content to examine the facts in a Marxist &ay) they en,uire about &hat9s beneath them4 0hey ha(e disco(ered that &hoe(er reasons li e us is a (ictim of a mirage) &hereas in reality it is they &ho put the &orld on its head li e the idealist philosophers of the past. 0hey ser(e us their no&ledge on plates garnished &ith Marxist dialectic) a dialectic &hich &e hold to be based on the class struggle) but they) the Marxists) do not see that all o(er the &orld a ne& class is crystallising. 0rots y) &ishing to disregard or ignore the bureaucratic class in po&er) tells us in order to explain &hat is no& happening in the land of the 'o(iets: 71ith full 2ustification one can say: the ruling proletariat in a bac &ard and isolated country remains still an oppressed class. 0he source of this oppression is &orld imperialism) the transmission machinery is the bureaucracy.8 0rots y) than s to his mind and s ill) no&s ho& to ma e the most extra(agant theories seem realistic and a superficial obser(er is easily ta en in by the beauty of the explanations of this &ell-established thin er. 0hat may be) but &e are not affected. %t is a fact that if the international proletariat had beaten imperialism as it emerged laden &ith crimes from the bloodbath of 191:-1; &e &ould no& ha(e a &orld so(iet republic de(eloping in a socialist direction. .p to a certain point) therefore) &e can oursel(es also hold that the origin of the oppression comes from imperialism; but the most important ,uestion is to establish &hether the 'o(iet bureaucracy is something other than a transmission machinery.

1:

0he .''/) besieged by capitalism) has degenerated more and more) &hile the machinery of this process is embodied in the 'o(iet bureaucracy. But &hat is the social outcome of this regressionF <erhaps it is not the all-po&erfulness of this 7transmission machineryJF <erhaps it is not the defenestrating of proletarian po&er to ma e &ay for &hat is called the agent of imperialismF <erhaps e(en this supposed (alet of imperialism can be en(isaged as defending the con,uests of the Actober re(olutionF 1e thin ) on the contrary) that such a (alet &ould obey a ne& master and that it &ould gi(e the re(olutionary con,uests a third-class burial. 1e see it in fact emptying the so(iets of their class content) enchaining the proletariat) physically destroying the Marxists and) finally) distinguishing bet&een imperialisms in order to 2oin the strongest and oldest cli,ue. 1e also see it playing roles in the international arena &hich are prompted not &ith a (ie& to re-introducing capitalism into their country) but in exchange for the protection it recei(es for its present regime of sla(ery. %f it becomes patriotic and &arli e this is only for reasons of self-preser(ation. 0rots y does not deny these facts) but he adds that the 'o(iet regime maintains and defends nationalised property: 7As long as this contradiction is not ta en out of the sphere of distribution into the sphere of production . . . the 'tate remains proletarian.8 0rots y and all the Marxists cannot en(isage a society &hich is neither bourgeois nor socialist. A ne& social form &hich organises production on the basis of nationalised property and the planned economy must be basically proletarian) e(en if the measures applied in the sphere of distribution are anti-socialist4 As far as &e are concerned) in /ussia the proletariat after a short period of po&er has only changed masters. 0he bureaucratic 'tate of today maintains the forms of collecti(e property and a planned economy only because these forms accord &ith its nature) 2ust as the /oman 3mpire absorbed the religion of !hrist and the Ane 5od in place of the innumerable pagan gods because this suited its interest. 0hese ne& economic forces are gro&ing up e(ery&here on 3arth) beginning in the &ea capitalist countries &hich are least able to resist the general disappearance of capitalism. 'ince the latter has accomplished its historic tas and the proletarian re(olution has not triumphed) the &orld has been obliged to continue its e(olution &ith a ne& social form) e(en if Marx did not foresee this form and if Messieurs the Marxists ha(e not noticed it4 0he 7cler 8 &ho according to 0rots y is only the transmission machinery of imperialism has dominated /ussia for t&enty years and rules a country &hich is a sixth of the &orld) &ith a population of 1;# million inhabitants. !learly) the cler has alarming proportions) much greater than those of its masters themsel(es. A domination of this ind needs a 7staff8 &hich for us is) on the national scale) a class. 0o strengthen this domination) this class extends into all social spheres and) &here it encounters resistance) o(ercomes it by climbing o(er mountains of bodies. 0he bureaucratic regime in the .''/ has sacrificed first the !ommunist <arty and the 0hird %nternational and then the /ed Army itself. 1or of this magnitude cannot be done by 7cli,ues8 or 7staffs8 or 7cler s)8 but only by classes.

III. Class Property

'ince 0rots y attaches an inordinate importance to the fact that the contradiction has not passed from the sphere of distribution into that of production) he can be considered as concei(ing 'o(iet production to ha(e a proletarian character. %t seems to us that) here again) there is a mirage and that it is not us &ho are its (ictims. <roduction is considered to ha(e a sufficiently socialist character to assure us that the continuation of the 1or ers9 'tate from the sole fact that property is nationalised and

1?

the economy planned. %n reality) the &hole system of production remains collecti(e) as in the organisation of large capitalist enterprises) &hile property passes from the pri(ate to the collecti(e form. %t follo&s) therefore) that if economic characteristics are the only determining factors of the nature of a 'tate) &e are reduced as far as the .''/ is concerned to nationalisation and 'tate planning. %t remains for us to see &hat the nationalisation of property in the .''/ in fact means. %t is here that &e also) &ithout claiming to be orthodox Marxists) &ill allo& oursel(es to loo beneath the facts. 0he nationalisation of property &as certainly the first re(olutionary measure that the proletarian class in po&er decreed &ith a (ie& to constructing socialism. But) &ith the 'talinist degeneration) this construction stopped; since this nationalisation should ha(e been follo&ed by the socialisation of property) it is logical to as &hat it has become from the sociological point of (ie&. 3(erybody in the camp of Agramant is agreed on this point. 0rots y adds that the distribution of products is done in such a &ay that the bureaucracy allocates itself the lion9s share. 1e &onder &hat sort of 7nationalised8 property this is &here the property is exclusi(ely directed by a class &hich then lays hold of the products &ith as much effrontery as the old bourgeoisie. 0here exists in /ussia in fact an exploiting class &hich controls the means of production and &hich beha(es as their o&ner. 0he members of this class do not share this property out but are themsel(es) in a bloc constituting a class) the real o&ners of the &hole nationalised property. <roperty) after ha(ing been e(erybody9s and non-existent for the men of distant times) passed collecti(ely to the communities to be transformed after&ards into pri(ate property. *o& it seems that) as class property) it is again ta ing on a collecti(e form. %n /ussia the exploiting class has become an o&ning class) and so realised its legalsocial nature. 0o a(oid the assault of the &or ers) they fool them &ith the 7nationalisation8 of property as if in fact such property belonged to e(erybody. Gespite this they are afraid and) being unable to carry on their &or in a democratic en(ironment) are condemned) at least for the moment) to construct a police 'tate. <roperty forms must go in line &ith the system of production. %f the exploiting class is not up to the tas &hich history has assigned it) it &ill brea up and a ne& class &ill emerge &hich &e can describe as historically parasitic. <erhaps it is thus that the 2udgment of history is realised. 0he contradiction) peculiar to capitalist society) bet&een the method of production and the form of property has been resol(ed in the .''/) e(en &ithout establishing socialism and &ithout raising the proletariat to be the ruling class. 3xploitation remains but) instead of being exercised by indi(iduals on indi(iduals) is exercised by one social class on another. 0he exploitation of man) under the pressure of ine(itable economic de(elopment) has ta en a ne& form. <ri(ate property has become collecti(e) but of a class. 1e no& of no other &ay of defining this 7national8 property &hich does not belong to e(erybody) &hich is neither bourgeois nor proletarian) is not pri(ate nor socialist either. 0rots y is unable to see the ne& exploiting class in /ussia) he cannot see the progressi(e extinction of the bourgeoisie in the &orld) he does not obser(e the more and more noticeable establishment of class property not only in /ussia but in the totalitarian countries as &ell. Ee sees the &orld 7as a decaying bourgeois society.8 0his is (ery little for a Marxist &ith pretensions to scientific analysis. From Mussolini to Babriola) from 0ardieu to 1allace) all the literature of this ,uarter of a century is only an accusation and a sarcasm directed against old bourgeois society. 0he De Profundis has been sung for capitalism in e(ery language. %t seems to us that the tas of scientific Marxists) the trustees of the dialectic of the class struggle) is not to extricate themsel(es from this difficulty by a commonplace definition. 0heir tas is precisely to see &hat

1$

changes are ta ing place in classes in this epoch &here capitalism is ending and then to identify the ne& property forms and ne& social relationships. 1e thus see that not e(en the famous surplus (alue has disappeared in this enigmatic 'tate &hich is the 'o(iet .nion. 3(eryone is agreed on this) but dissension arises &hen it comes to determining &here this surplus (alue finally goes. Goes it go to the non-existent bourgeoisieF *o. <erhaps it goes to the &or ersF *ot at all) since) if it did) socialism in a single country &ould ha(e been established and it is precisely this that is 7the big lie.8 <erhaps &e should consider that the surplus (alue goes to the 1or ers9 'tateF For the reason 2ust mentioned this &ould be the triumph of 'talinism &hose *K 1 enemy is 0rots y. %f someone claims that surplus (alue has disappeared in the land of the 'o(iets) it &ould then ha(e to be deduced that labour po&er is no longer bought. 0hen socialism &ould be a reality) &hich is against all the e(idence. %n fact there is only one possible reply that can be admitted: the surplus (alue goes to the ne& exploiting class) to the bureaucracy en bloc. 1hen bourgeois society is seen as decaying) this means that it is losing its economic characteristics; this means also that the particular characteristics of the dominant class are disappearing and that society is changing. 0he phenomenon) completed in the so-called 'o(iet 'tate) is ta ing shape e(ery&here in the &orld. 0he class property &hich in /ussia is a fact is certainly not registered &ith any la&yer or in any register of property. 0he ne& 'o(iet exploiting class has no need of such nonsense. %t has the force of the 'tate in its hands and that is &orth much more than the old registrations of the bourgeoisie. %t defends its property &ith machine-guns) &ith &hich its all-po&erful oppressi(e apparatus is pro(ided) and not &ith la&yers9 deeds. %f the thesis that nationalised property really belongs to e(erybody can be supported by fascism &ith its concept of class collaboration and of the 'tate abo(e classes) &e do not understand ho& Marxists) e(en scientific Marxists) can extricate themsel(es on this point. According to Marx and Benin) the 'tate is only the dominant class9s organ of oppression. As long as the 'tate exists in fact) classes remain and property) under the aegis of the 'tate) is managed by the dominant class using its apparatus of domination. 'pea ing li e the Marxist) the concept of nationalised property is nonsense) it is antiscientific and anti-Marxist. According to Marx) property from being pri(ate should become socialist and he understood it to be socialist) or at least potentially) e(en during the period of the proletarian dictatorship. According to the Marxist theory) behind the 'tate there is al&ays a class) and if the possibility of an intermediate form of property =class property> &as not foreseen) this comes almost certainly from the miscalculation of assuming as certain the rapid disappearance of classes after the proletariat ta es po&er. %n reality) during the dictatorship of the proletariat property has a class character) it belongs to the &or ers &ho manage it) so it sho&s its socialist character only potentially. %f property is nationalised in a non-proletarian regime) it loses its character as potential socialist property and remains class property only. %n the case of the .''/) a 'tate &here the bourgeoisie has scarcely any &eight) if the 'tate remains) this means that at least t&o classes are still in existence and are effecti(e. %f common sense refuses to hold that the 'o(iet &or ers are the o&ners of the means of production) it is logical to consider that the o&nership of the means of production belongs effecti(ely to the bureaucracy. A cler 4 Far from it) it is a &ell-established o&ner4 0he fact &hich is (ery probably at the origin not only of the discord in the camp of Agramant but also of the political confusion in the &orld is that a transitional form of property bet&een pri(ate property and socialist property &as not foreseen. %n addition) the &or of 'talin) Mussolini or Eitler is e(ery&here described either as socialism or as capitalism) &hereas in reality it is only bureaucratic collecti(ism.

1@

%n the camp of Agramant terrific efforts are made to a(oid these logical deductions: it could be said that there is a chorus of cats in the mating season there) spending the nights of March tearing apart our soul &ith their mournful ba&ling. Bieutenant *a(ille) &ho had been as ed 7&hat &as the difference bet&een pri(ate property and collecti(e property if a bureaucracy only &as able to benefit from the latter)8 replies 7that there &ould only be a difference of degree bet&een capitalist pri(ate property and the gigantic Lpri(ate9 property of the Lbureaucracy9.8 [5] 1hat a disco(ery4 0he property of many millions of citi+ens) considered as a social group) &ould still remain pri(ate property. But &ill this scientific Marxist then tell us &hat he understands by collecti(e propertyF <erhaps this 'olon ta es human society for a limited company &ith sharesF Euman societies must be considered as single &holes and not as aggregations. <ri(ate property remains such as long as continual 7'tatisation8 does not change its characteristics. 3(en capital is not such until it has attained a certain si+e. Eegel9s dialectical la& of the transformation of ,uantity into ,uality is (alid for property also) &e say so &ith or &ithout the permission of the &hole camp of Agramant. 0he first crystallisation of collecti(e property &as identified &ith class property) e(en under the proletariat. 0he Marxists ha(e not foreseen nor seen this) but that9s another matter. %f) according to *a(ille) the property of the fascist 'tate ta e-o(ers remains pri(ate H e(en if this process is going to totally s&amp capitalism H &e do not see the reason &hy &e should not also consider 'o(iet nationalised property as pri(ate) seeing that in /ussia the process has been completed and the bureaucracy is its great beneficiary4 0his deduction is logical on *a(ille9s reasoning) e(en if it is false. %n reality) the nationalisation of the means of production in /ussia has created a collecti(e) though class) form of property &hich resol(es the capitalist contradiction bet&een collecti(e production and pri(ate appropriation. 1e cannot use t&o measures &hen studying social facts. 1e also state that the basic economic acts of the totalitarian 'tates) in(ol(ing nationalisation and economic planning) are leading to the disappearance of the same contradiction. 0his has social conse,uences) (i+: the appearance of class property and the domination of the bureaucracy) the extinction of the bourgeoisie) and the transformation of the proletarians into 'tate sub2ects. /eferring to bureaucracy in general) *a(ille goes on: 71hether it has property titles or not =and it has not>) the bureaucracy cannot freely control the use of =distribute> either the accumulated capital or the surplus (alue produced. 0heirs is not a case of capitalist pri(ate property) e(en in its 'tate monopoly stage.8 %t seems to us that the opposite is true. 0he 'o(iet bureaucracy in particular controls the use of the amassed capital and distributes the surplus (alue. 0rots y goes so far as to say: 71hat &as only a Lbureaucratic distortion9 is preparing to s&allo& up the 1or ers9 'tate) s in) hair and all) and on the ruins of nationalised economy to build up a ne& possessing class8 [6]. 1e add: &ho directs the economyF 1ho dra&s up the fi(e-year plansF 1ho fixes the selling pricesF And &agesF 1ho decides the public &or s) industrial installations) etc.) if not the 'o(iet bureaucracyF And if they do not control the use of this property &ho then doesF 1ho has responsibility for distributing the surplus (alueF <erhaps the dead 0sarist bourgeoisie or &orld imperialism or the /ussian proletarianF *a(ille does not gi(e us any explanations and continues: 7%s it then a ,uestion of a ne& form of property) of historically established relations on the basis of collecti(e appropriation but for the benefit of a particular class) the

1;

bureaucracyF %n this case) the bureaucracy &ould ha(e to be seen as benefiting from the system like a capitalist class because it &ould expropriate surplus (alue li e a capitalist enterprise.8 Eea(ens) yes) that9s precisely it4 Eo&e(er) the bureaucracy must be seen as benefiting from the class-di(ided system of society not as a capitalist class) but as a bureaucratic class. %t grabs the surplus (alue not as a capitalist enterprise) but as a class exploiting en bloc. *a(ille) on the other hand) replies thus to the ,uestion he timidly posed: 7Eistory sho&s that the phenomenon of the production and appropriation of surplus (alue is not peculiar and limited to liberal capitalism or pri(ate monopoly. 5round rent and surplus (alue) &hich existed at the time of feudalism) became fully significant &ith the commodity economy and then industrial de(elopment. 0hey continue to exist in the .''/) despite the denials of 'talin) Bu harin and their school. Anly the are nationalised and therein lies the essential difference. %f one &ants to clarify the nature of present 'o(iet society) it is on this point also that one must a(oid ma ing errors.8 Gri(en into a corner) finding himself under the ineluctable necessity to admit that surplus (alue is 7fully significant8 in bureaucratic collecti(ism too) 0rots y9s disciple a(oids the obstacle in a hardly scientific manner. Ee supports the ambiguous) antiMarxist and reactionary position according to &hich ground rent and surplus (alue are nationalised in 'o(iet society. Ee sees some essential difference in this4 1e are going to reply &ith the &ords of his master &ho) in !he Revolution "etra ed) expressed himself thus: 7%t is perfectly true that Marxists) beginning &ith Marx himself) ha(e employed in relation to the &or ers9 state the terms state# national and socialist property as simple synonyms. An a large historic scale) such a mode of speech in(ol(es no special incon(eniences. But it becomes the source of crude mista es) and of do&nright deceit) &hen applied to the first and still unassured stages of the de(elopment of a ne& society) and one moreo(er isolated and economically lagging behind the capitalist countries. 7%n order to become social) pri(ate property must as ine(itably pass through the state stage as the caterpillar in order to become a butterfly must pass through the pupal stage. But the pupa is not a butterfly. Myriads of pupae perish &ithout e(er becoming butterflies. 'tate property becomes the property of Lthe &hole people9 only to the degree that social pri(ilege and differentiation disappear) and there&ith the necessity of the state. %n other &ords: state property is con(erted into socialist property in proportion as it ceases to be state property. And the contrary is true: the higher the 'o(iet state rises abo(e the people) and the more fiercely it opposes itself as the guardian of property to the people as its s,uanderer) the more ob(iously does it testify against the socialist character of this state property.8 [7] 0hus it does not seem that so-called nationalisation of property leads to ground rent and surplus (alue being effecti(ely nationalised) i.e. belonging to the &hole people. 0here is no essential difference) except that the bourgeoisie is no longer the exploiting class that recei(es the surplus (alue) but it is the bureaucracy &hich is granted this honour. *a(ille identifies nationalised property &ith socialist property) &hich seems to us neither too scientific) nor too Marxist. 'uch a mista e &as excusable in Marx9s time) but the same mista e amongst his disciples is unpardonable since no& the forecasts of the Master are becoming real) e(en if unclearly. %f one &ants to assess 7the nature of present 'o(iet society8 errors on this point precisely must be a(oided and &hat nationalised property is) sociologically spea ing) must be gone into more deeply. Af course this &or must be done in a scientific Marxist

19

&ay if that pleases the nights of Agramant better. 1e do not claim that our ans&er is complete) &e ha(e only gi(en the outlines. %f they pursue this line of reasoning) the coming of the totalitarian 'tate in the &orld &ill also become clearer to those &ho up till no& ha(e sho&n us a complete incomprehension &ith regard to fascism) holding it to be the preser(er and continuer of capitalism. %n these regimes a ne& ruling class in formation declares that capital ser(es the 'tate) and then ma es the facts conform. 0his class already largely fixes the prices of commodities and the &ages of the &or ers and organises the national economy according to a pre-established plan. Ab(iously) o&nership of the means of production cannot be identified as easily as that of the means of consumption. 0he latter are for personal use) &hile the former are as immo(able as mountains. 0here is no o&ner) nor any class) nor any 'tate &hich can put them on its bac and drag them &here it &ants. %t is thus not surprising that there are times &hen it is difficult to determine &ho is their o&ner. %n our opinion) in the .''/ the o&ners are the bureaucrats since it is they &ho ha(e po&er in their hands. %t is they &ho direct the economy) 2ust as &as normal amongst the bourgeois. %t is they &ho reap the benefits) 2ust as is normal for any exploiting class; those &ho fix &ages and the selling prices of commodities are) once again) the bureaucrats. 0he &or ers count for nothing in the control of society; further) they ha(e no share in the receipts of surplus (alue and) &hat is still &orse) ha(e no interest in defending this alien nationalised property. 0he /ussian &or ers are still exploited and the bureaucrats are their exploiters. 0he nationalised property of the Actober re(olution no& belongs as a 7&hole8 to the class &hich directs) exploits and ... defends it: it is class property. %n the course of the de(elopment of capitalism the system of production became collecti(ised; as a result pri(ate property could not escape collecti(isation. 0his collecti(e property is not ho&e(er under the protection of the proletarian class; but under the protection of a ne& class &hich in the .''/ is an accomplished fact and &hich in the totalitarian countries is in the course of formation.

IV. Bureaucratic E ploitation

7%f it is true that the .''/ has become settled in a ne& stable social form other than capitalism or socialism and that instead of the bourgeoisie another dominant class has arisen) &ill you also explain to us &hat is the ne& form of exploitation and by &hat means the surplus (alue is pumped out of the &or ersF8 'cientific Marxists ha(e the right to spea li e this) or something li e it) and &e &ill do our best to meet their &ishes. 1hile 0rots y agrees &ith *a(ille on the ,uestion of nationalised property as the characteristic of a 1or ers9 'tate) it does not seem that the Master is of the same opinion as the discipline &hen it comes to considering ground rent and surplus (alue as nationalised in 'talin9s land. Eere9s &hat he tells us in !he Revolution "etra ed: 7%f &e translate socialist relations) for illustration) into the language of the mar et) &e may represent the citi+en as a stoc holder in a company &hich o&ns the &ealth of the country. %f the property belonged to all the people) that &ould presume an e,ual distribution of Lshares9) and conse,uently a right to the same di(idend for all Lshareholders9. 0he citi+ens participate in the national enterprise) ho&e(er) not only as 7shareholders)8 but also as producers. An the lo&er stage of communism) &hich &e ha(e agreed to call socialism) payments for labour are still made according to bourgeois

"#

norms H that is) in dependence upon s ill) intensity) etc. 0he theoretical income of each citi+en is thus composed of t&o parts) a M b H that is) di(idend M &ages. 0he higher the techni,ue and the more complete the organi+ation of industry) the greater is the place occupied by a as against b) and the less is the influence of indi(idual differences of labour upon standard of li(ing. From the fact that &age differences in the 'o(iet .nion are not less) but greater than in capitalist countries) it must be inferred that the shares of the 'o(iet citi+en are not e,ually distributed) and that in his income the di(idend as &ell as the &age payment is une,ual. 1hereas the uns illed labourer recei(es only b) the minimum payment &hich under similar conditions he &ould recei(e in a capitalist enterprise) the 'ta hano(ist or bureaucrat recei(es "a M b) or 3a M b) etc.) &hile b also in its turn may become "b) 3b) etc. 0he differences in income are determined) in other &ords) not only by differences of indi(idual producti(eness) but also by a mas ed appropriation of the products of the labour of others. 0he pri(ileged minority of shareholders is li(ing at the expense of the depri(ed ma2ority. 7%f you assume that the 'o(iet uns illed &or er recei(es more than he &ould under a similar le(el of techni,ue and culture in a capitalist enterprise H that is to say) that he is still a small shareholder H it is necessary to consider his &ages as e,ual to a M b. 0he &ages of the higher categories &ould be expressed &ith the formula: 3a M "b) 1#a M 1?b) etc. 0his means that the uns illed &or er has one share) the 'ta hano(ist three) the specialist ten. Moreo(er) their &ages in the proper sense are related as 1:":1?. Eymns to the sacred socialist property sound under these conditions a good deal more con(incing to the manager or the 'ta hano(ist) than to the ran -and-file &or er or collecti(e peasant. 0he ran -and-file &or ers) ho&e(er) are the o(er&helming ma2ority of society. %t &as they) and not the ne& aristocracy) that socialism had in mind.8 1e endorse this entirely) and if 0rots y says that a pri(ileged minority li(es at the expense of a depri(ed ma2ority) &e thin *a(ille too should be con(inced of it4 1e do not e(en dare hope that &e &ill be listened to) but it seems to us in passing that) if the nationalisation of surplus (alue and ground rent benefits only the bureaucrats) it is permissible to consider that the 7nationalised8 property is also the pro(ince of these bureaucrats and that it does not belong to the &hole of society) for then it &ould be genuinely socialist. 0he French lieutenant) as a good disciple) has dra&n from the concept of the Master conclusions regarding 'o(iet property. 0he deduction is exact but it is the premise that is not) so the result could only be &rong. Bet him be annoyed &ith 0rots y if he &ants or let him understand that in this &orld geniuses are only men and therefore fallible) and that e(en mediocrities can sometimes notice the mista es of great men. *a(ille submits to us in this connection an interesting extract from $apital: 70he specific economic form) in &hich unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct producers) determines the relationship of rulers and ruled) as it gro&s directly out of production itself and) in turn) reacts upon it as a determining element. .pon this) ho&e(er) is founded the entire formation of the economic community &hich gro&s up out of the production relations themsel(es) thereby simultaneously its specific political form. %t is al&ays the direct relationship of the o&ners of the conditions of production to the direct producers H a relation al&ays naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the de(elopment of the methods of labour and thereby its social producti(ity H &hich re(eals the innermost secret) the hidden basis of the entire social structure and &ith it the political form of the relation of so(ereignty and dependence) in short) the corresponding specific form of the state. 0his does not pre(ent the same economic basis H the same from the standpoint of its main conditions H due to innumerable different empirical circumstances) natural en(ironment) racial relations) external historical

"1

influences) etc. from sho&ing infinite (ariations and gradations in appearance) &hich can be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically gi(en circumstances.8 [8] Ane &ould say that Marx had 2ust &ritten all this. 1e also fully consider that the innermost secret of a social edifice is re(ealed by the specific economic form in &hich surplus (alue is pumped out of the direct producers. But if this surplus (alue goes to a pri(ileged class and if the ground rent of the collecti(e farmers ta es the same road =as 0rots y sho&s> and does not go to the 'tate as *a(ille &ants to pro(e &ith a naN(e example about a collecti(e farm) that pro(es that the 'o(iet bureaucratic class is not an illusion but that it has the ,ualifications of a ruling and exploiting class. Eere is *a(ille9s example of the collecti(e farm &ith &hich he sho&s us ho& only 3@ per cent of production goes to the &or ers and the remainder to the 'tate) only part of &hich goes directly to the bureaucracy: 7An example. Eere is ho& ground rent goes bac to the 'tate. 0he distribution of products and money in a collecti(e farm is carried on in accordance &ith regulations laid do&n by the go(ernment. First of all) a deduction is made for the benefit of the 'tate &hose amount (aries according to the fertility of the region and &ith a maximum of :1 per cent of the crop. 0hen " to 3 per cent is deducted for administrati(e expenses and 13 to "? per cent for the depreciation of the tractors and agricultural machinery and) finally) 1#.? per cent for the reser(e fund. 0he rest is di(ided amongst the &or ers in proportion to the ,uantity and ,uality of &or carried out by each of them.8 0he essential point is to see if) through the percentages paid directly for the costs of administration) the bureaucrats are paid in line &ith the a(erage &age of a &or er; but it is still more interesting to see &hat the 'o(iet 'tate does &ith the $# per cent of production it corners. Goes it totally put bac this surplus (alue into circulation) in the interests of the mass of the people not in the go(ernment) or does it channel it in &ays particularly dear to its specific ,ualities as a class 'tateF 0he reply is almost pointless: 6esus !hrist also first &ashed his feet so as to then lea(e the Apostles their turn. All the literature of the nights of Agramant) all of it &e repeat) is there to ma e the accusation: 7the extreme differentiation of income bet&een 'o(iet citi+ens)8 7the gro&ing class differences)8 7the ne& bureaucracy)8 7the 'o(iet aristocracy)8 7the lion9s share)8 7the :# per cent of production s&allo&ed up by the bureaucracy)8 7the gro&th of social antagonisms) of ine,uality)8 and so on. %t needs only the candid nai(ety of the philistine *a(ille to suppose that the surplus (alue extracted from the 'o(iet &or ers largely comes bac to them (ia a so-called 71or ers9 'tate.8 %n reality) the bureaucratic 'tate pays the surplus (alue in different &ays to its officials &ho form a pri(ileged class) directly installed in the 'tate. 1e too ha(e ne(er seen a dominant class &ithout a bureaucracy to directly control the 'tate) nor a bureaucracy &hich &as also a ruling class. But &e see this today and &e are also con(inced that &e are not ta ing illusions for reality. 1e are sorry for the nights of Agramant &ho today tilt at &indmills or) better still) &e are sorry for the Gon Ouixotes in(ading the camp cursed &ith the discord &hich a (indicti(e archangel has thro&n there; but &e belie(e this precisely is the social reality. 0hese are the 2o es of history) little re(olutionary incon(eniences for great scientific Marxists and philistines. 0o be fair) &e must agree that *a(ille himself realises that the 'o(iet bureaucrats do not remain indifferent before the mountains of surplus (alue amassed by the 1or ers9 'tate; this is &hat he says: 70he 'talinists repeat that surplus (alue no longer exists in the .''/ since Lthe factories belong to the &or ers9. But there is no point in opposing this absurdity &ith an absurdity 2ust as great) (i+.) that the surplus (alue is produced and distributed as in the capitalist system and that conse,uently the relations of domination and ser(itude) as Marx put it) are the same as in capitalism. %n reality) the specific form in &hich a part of

""

the unpaid surplus labour is appropriated gi(es it the role and function of a semiparasitic caste and) in certain of these strata) the direct tendency to push through as o&ners. 70he extreme differentiation of &ages) a stri ing phenomenon full of significance) does not ho&e(er exhaust the Linnermost secret) the hidden foundation of the entire social edifice4P; the secret of the transitional 'tate &hich is the .''/ and the ne& contradictions &hich it conceals is re(ealed if the real meaning of the nationalisation measures is not lost sight of and if their real character is not mas ed by superficial analogies &ith the fascist 'tatism of Mussolini or Eitler.8 'ee ho& modest *a(ille finds these 'o(iet bureaucrats) precisely he &ho is al&ays heaping insults on them. 0hese bureaucrats appropriate only a 7part8 of the unpaid surplus labour. 1ho no&s &ith &hat instrument he can measure thisF 0hen he sees in the bureaucracy a 7semiparasitic8 caste. 0his is amusing) this 7semiJ4 'imilarly this caste should also be semiruling) semi-exploiting and semi-o&ning4 %t is true that the 7innermost8 secret is not at all exhausted by the 7extreme differentiation of &ages)8 this is only an indicator. 0he innermost secret resides in the relation bet&een the masters of the conditions of production and the direct producers: in algebraic form: mastersQproducers R innermost secret. 0he denominator of this ratio is no&n since the direct producers are a no&n constant in social e(olution =labour>. 0he numerator) on the other hand) (aries since the form of property (aries in the course of economic de(elopment. %t is precisely this term &hich must be identified and &e ha(e found it to be the bureaucracy) the o&ner) as a class) of the means of production en bloc. 'o &e go on to &rite the relationship li e this: bureaucratsQproducers R innermost secret. 1ithout the ne& identification of property the innermost secret &ill remain a mystery4 %f one &ants to no& the relations of domination and ser(itude) the &ay in &hich the surplus (alue is pumped out of direct producers must be sought. %n 'o(iet society the exploiters do not appropriate the surplus (alue directly) as the capitalist does in cashing the di(idends of his enterprise) but they do so indirectly) through the 'tate &hich appropriates the &hole national surplus (alue and then shares it out amongst the officials themsel(es. A good part of the bureaucracy) (i+.) technical specialists) managers) 'ta hano(ites) etc.) etc.) are to a certain extent authorised to deduct directly their (ery high salaries at the enterprise they control. %n addition) they also en2oy) as do all the bureaucrats) the 'tate 7ser(ices8 paid from surplus (alue &hich) in honour of the forms of 7socialist8 life) are (ery important and (ery numerous in the .''/. 0he bureaucracy as a &hole pumps out the surplus (alue from the direct producers through a colossal inflation of the general expenses in the 7nationalised8 enterprises. %t is a ,uestion) not of the " to 3 per cent for administrati(e expenses obser(ed in *a(ille9s famous collecti(e farm) but of enormous percentages &hich ma e the hairs of the most bra+en capitalism stand on end and &hich are mentioned in the &or s of 0rots y himself. 1e see then that exploitation passes from its indi(idual form to a collecti(e form) in accordance &ith the transformation of property. 0here is a class &hich en bloc exploits another in accordance &ith class property) and &hich then goes on to distribute through the 'tate the proceeds internally amongst its members. =0he inheritance of bureaucratic posts is to be expected.> 0he ne& pri(ileged s&allo& up the surplus (alue through the 'tate machine) &hich is not 2ust a machine for political oppression but is also a machine for administering the nation9s economy. 0he machine for exploitation and for the

"3

maintenance of social pri(ileges has been united in a single organ; a perfect apparatus) it could be said4 Babour po&er is no longer bought by the capitalists) but is monopolised by a single master: the 'tate. 0he &or ers no longer go to offer their labour to different employers and chose the one &ho suits them the best. 0he la& of supply and demand no longer functions: the &or ers are at the mercy of the 'tate. 0he general expenses of enterprises increase (ery considerably in the totalitarian 'tates and e(en the big democracies are not spared this; these increasing expenses sho& us that Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism is forming and class property crystallising e(ery&here in the &orld. %n the .''/ &ages are fixed by the 7<lanning8 !ommission) (i+.) the top bureaucracy. 0he selling prices to the public follo& the same course. 0his allo&s us to realise by intuition that it is in the difference bet&een the price of production of commodities and their selling price to the public that the bureaucracy ma es its fortune. 0he bureaucracy costs a lot) so it increases the price of production and in order to co(er its salaries H more or less hidden H it goes on to include enormous mar -ups in the selling prices. 0he trade unionist !itrine) &hen he (isited a shoe-ma ing factory) &as unable to obtain from the manager the selling price to the public of the shoes he &as sho&n. But he &as able to disco(er that in the shop situated inside the factory itself the price of the shoes &as 3" roubles) &hereas in other shops he found the same shoes at @# roubles. %t must be pointed out that the sale of articles in the factories &here they are manufactured is (ery limited: the bureaucracy treats the &or ers as customers and sends them out to buy in the 7'tate shops.8 %n a regime &ith 7socialist tendencies8 a mar -up of 1"# per cent seems to us outrageous) all the more so since capitalist shop eepers limit themsel(es for the same article to an a(erage of :# per cent. %t is the bureaucracy &hich does the accounts of enterprises and of the 'tate) and &hile it does not recei(e di(idends as the old capitalists did) it freely arranges the in(estment of the sums accumulated. 0he &hole meaning of the 7happy life8 &hich 'talin has announced lies in the mar -up of cost and selling prices imposed by the bureaucracy and in the in(estment of the reser(e capital in 7public &or s8 that are useful to the bureaucratic class. Mr. *a(ille &ill tell us that capital is accumulated for the 'tate too) and for the future) through the establishment of large factories) po&er stations) etc.) etc.) but &hat exploiting class has not been obliged to do the sameF 0he bourgeois also) &hile exploiting the proletarian) &as able to lead a happy life and at the same time accumulate capital for man ind. Ee has left us the most perfect structure the &orld has e(er seen. 0he bourgeois did not do all this as a gift to man ind) but because the imperati(es of the de(elopment of production pushed him to perfect his machines) to rationalise &or scientifically and to create model factories. 0hus it &as not philanthropy; the 'o(iet bureaucracy is obliged by the same la&s to accumulate capital for the future) e(en though it still has an especially exploitati(e nature.

V. The Proletariat
1hat has become of this class in the .''/F 3(erybody ta es it to be cheated) oppressed) exploited; but not a (oice is raised to see if by chance the legal status of the &or ers) &hich &as changed follo&ing the Actober re(olution has not undergone a ne& change. Iet the direct producers ha(e often changed their legal form: they ha(e been sla(es) serfs) proletarians) pariahs) etc. *ot a (oice has been raised of course because 7it

":

is &ritten8 that the proletariat &ill be the last exploited class to ha(e the dishonour of appearing on the scene of Eistory; then classes &ill disappear into a humanity of e,uals. Eo&e(er obser(ations are not lac ing: 70he &or er in our country is not a &age sla(e and is not the seller of a commodity called labour po&er8 says Pravda. 0rots y9s reply: 7For the present period this unctuous formula is impermissible bragging. 0he transfer of the factories to the state changed the situation of the &or er only 2uridically. %n reality) he is compelled to li(e in &ant and &or a definite number of hours for a definite &age. 0hose hopes &hich the &or er formerly had placed in the party and the trade unions) he transferred after the re(olution to the state created by him. But the useful functioning of this implement turned out to be limited by the le(el of techni,ue and culture. %n order to raise this le(el) the ne& state resorted to the old methods of pressure upon the muscles and ner(es of the &or er. 0here gre& up a corps of sla(e dri(ers. 0he management of industry became superbureaucratic. 0he &or ers lost all influence &hate(er upon the management of the factory. 1ith piece&or payment) hard conditions of material existence) lac of free mo(ement) &ith terrible police repression penetrating the life of e(ery factory) it is hard indeed for the &or er to feel himself a Lfree &or man9. %n the bureaucracy he sees the manager) in the state) the employer. Free labour is incompatible &ith the existence of a bureaucratic state. 71ith the necessary changes) &hat has been said abo(e relates also to the country.8 [9] But if the 'tate is the employer and the bureaucracy a manager) gi(en that the 'tate is an apparatus and that) from a Marxist point of (ie&) behind the 'tate there is al&ays a class) is it not true that the bureaucrat-manager is also the employer and that the 'tate is only his organ of oppressionF Further on 0rots y adds: 71hen the ne& constitution announces that in the 'o(iet .nion Labolition of the exploitation of man by man9 has been attained) it is not telling the truth. 0he ne& social differentiation has created conditions for the re(i(al of the exploitation of man in its most barbarous form H that of buying man into sla(ery for personal ser(ice of another.8 [10] %s this agreedF Ies) 7the buying of man for the personal ser(ice of another)8 but then say it in a single &ord: sla(ery4 1hat in fact is meant by proletarian on the capitalist free mar et if not the free seller of his labour po&erF 0he proletarian is in the end someone &ho gets his food solely from the use of his muscles in a pri(ate enterprise. Eis &age is go(erned by the relation bet&een supply and demand in a free mar et. 0his la& is not (alid in the .''/. 1ith the mar et closed and competition abolished it is the 'tate &hich determines &ages by using means &hich completely &ipe out the la& of supply and demand. 0o cast aside this la& definiti(ely the 'tate has monopolised labour po&er. 0here is only one employer: it4 %n the past the proletarian used to offer his ser(ices to &hoe(er he preferred; he discharged himself at any moment and left &hen he pleased) he en2oyed trade union freedom and freedom of thought) the press) meeting and religion. 0he proletarian had to suffer the uncertainties of the mar et; he &as li e a free bird soaring high and able to nest any&here on 3arth. 0he 'o(iet &or er has only one master) he can no longer offer his commodity-labour) he is a prisoner &ith no choice. Ee has been put on 7short rations)8 he has been uprooted from his (illage and transplanted &here it suits the 'tate better and) finally) he needs a passport to tra(el internally. Ee is regarded by the 'tate as a function of the national economy) his indi(iduality disappears. 0he proletarian has become merely a

"?

small cog in an immense machine and only has social significance &hen placed in this machine. 0he social relation bet&een proletarians and capitalists &as reduced to the simple expression of an act of buying and selling and the outcome consisted in the payment once a &ee of the &age. Beyond this simple and rapid gesture there &as no other social lin ; each &ent his o&n &ay according to his tastes. %n contrast) the /ussian &or er is no& continually and directly in contact &ith his master at the factory) at home) in school) in the trade union) at the theatre) in the country. Ee has to participate in political 7meetings8 and al&ays says yes; &hether he &ants to or not he must pay his subscription) buy the paper and listen to the claptrap &hich his master lo(ingly prepares as daily food for his mind. %f he &ants to ta e part in politics) there is only one party to choose from; he enters it not as a free thin er but as a soldier. 0he 'o(iet bureaucracy is e(ery&here) li e a di(inity. 0he 'tate) the sole employer of labour) cannot permit itself the capitalist luxury of paying for labour po&er and from then on ta ing no interest at all in the human being &ho produces it. As a monopoly it can no longer restrict itself to the purchase of a certain amount of labour for a gi(en period. %n monopolising labour po&er &ithout any time limit it in fact also becomes the o&ner of those &ho produce it. %n the final analysis) today9s 'o(iet 'tate has purchased en bloc the &hole proletariat and the relation bet&een employers and lenders of labour has completely changed. the &or er of /ussia today has ceased to be a proletarian and has ta en on the characteristic of a sla(e. 3xploitation ta es place 2ust li e in sla(e society) the 'tate sub2ect &or s only for the master &ho has bought him) he becomes his capital) he is the li(estoc &hich must be loo ed after and housed) in &hose reproduction the master is greatly interested. 3(en the part-payment of the so-called &age in goods and 'tate ser(ices must not decei(e us and lead us to assume a socialist form of distribution: this represents in fact only the up eep of a sla(e4 0he only fundamental difference is that in the past sla(es &ere not gi(en the honour of bearing arms) &hereas the modern sla(es are (ery ably taught the art of &ar. 0hey must be ready to let themsel(es be shot through by a machine-gun or shot to pieces by a cannon in the interests of our bureaucracy. From the cradle to the gra(e the 'o(iet &or er belongs to the 'tate. %t is the bureaucratic class that is the master of the &or ing class) they decide the use of its labour po&er and of its blood; they gi(e it the possibility of li(ing at a 7standard8 superior to that of the sla(es of Anti,uity since e(erything is relati(e. But the /ussian &or ing class is no longer proletarian) it is only a sla(e. %t is a sla(e both in its economic sense and in its social manifestation; it goes do&n on its nees &hen the 7little father8 passes and it deifies him) it ta es on all the characteristics of ser(ility and lets itself be dri(en from one end of the immense 3mpire to the other. %t digs na(igable canals) builds roads and rail&ays 2ust as in the past this same class put up the <yramids and the !oliseum. 0here is a small part of this class &hich is not yet lost in the most complete apathy; since it eeps the faith) it meets to discuss in cellars 2ust as in the past the !hristians prayed in the catacombs. From time to time the praetorian guards carry out a raid and round up e(erybody. 7Monster8 trials in the manner of *ero are prepared and the accused ma e their 7mea culpa8 instead of defending themsel(es. All the characteristics of the /ussian &or er contrast &ith those of the proletarian) he has become a 'tate sub2ect and has ac,uired nearly all the characteristics of the sla(e.

"$

Ee has no longer anything in common &ith the free &or er except the s&eat of his bro&. 0he Marxists may as &ell arm themsel(es &ith Giogenes9 lantern if they intend to loo for some proletarian in the 'o(iet to&ns. 0he /ussian &or er) together &ith his trade union) has been incorporated bag and baggage into the 'tate. %n the past he heard the pamphlets &hich Benin &rote read in the Guma by his representati(e; no&) in contrast) he is obliged to ta e part in political meetings to &hich he goes as a sheep; he is only an unconscious element in a manipulable mass &hich the bureaucracy alone controls. A single great sla(e master has arisen on the plains of /ussia: the 'tate. 0he descendants of Marius can &ell sharpen their &eapons4 Marx had not foreseen such an end for the proletarians) but that is not a sufficient reason for denying it. 1e don9t &orship the saints4 6ust as each year the 6e&s go out beyond the ramparts to a&ait the Messiah so the philistine Marxists a&ait the rescue of the proletariat in /ussia; they &ill ha(e to &ait as long as for the Messiah. 1hen the 'o(iet bureaucracy falls stone dead at the foot of the Benin Mausoleum it &ill be the s&ord of Marius that &ill ha(e pierced its heart. 0he Fourth %nternational ',uadron of the !amp of Agramant states) still scientifically) that from no& on there is no need for a social re(olution in the .''/ and that any change &ill reduce itself to a purely political proclamation. 1ell) let them in(o e in order to ,uestion them the souls of Sino(ie() Damene() 0oms y) etc.) the &hole infinite number of obscure martyrs4 0hese &ill reply in chorus: 71e died in the class &ar needed by the bureaucracy to consolidate its social domination; &e &anted something ,uote different. 'addle the horses and brandish the lances48 1hat cro&ning irony: the lances do not come grasped in hand) but bro en for the 7defence of the .''/J4

VI. !ationalisation
0he nationalisation of the means of production in /ussia is the highest 7trump8 the nights of Agramant ha(e played in support of their theory of the 1or ers9 'tate. According to 0rots y) state capitalism means the partial substitution of 'tate property for pri(ate property. 'tatism) on the other hand) means 'tate inter(ention on the basis of pri(ate property. 1hile the former is 7one of the signs that the producti(e forces ha(e outgro&n capitalism and are bringing it to a partial self-negation in practice8 [11]) the latter is only the economic result of the inter(ention of the bourgeois 'tate forced to sa(e pri(ate property. 0rots y does not deny that state capitalism and statism ha(e points of contact but) ta en as systems) he considers them as opposites. 1e are not con(inced that there is such an opposition. %n our opinion) it is only a case of t&o different manifestations of the same phenomenon and in a sense of an internal reaction; an almost natural reaction of the sic social organism that clearly sho&s both the collecti(e form &hich property must ta e and the necessity of introducing a planned economy. 'tatism comes into play to sa(e it as an unconscious reaction of the capitalist organism. But from the sociological point of (ie&) it cannot be seen as ha(ing as its aim the 7preser(ation of pri(ate property at the expense of the producti(e forces8 [12]. As long as the bureaucratic or socialist doctor does not inter(ene) the sic person treats himself. %n our opinion) state capitalism and statism correspond in miniature) and respecti(ely together) to nationalisation and the planned economy. As long as they remained restricted to ha(ing a sporadic nature) they eep the same social characteristics as the economy in &hich they appear) but &hen the phenomenon becomes general it is the type of economy itself &hich changes completely. 0hen the dialectical la& of the transformation of ,uantity into ,uality enters on to the scene) ignorance of &hich has led some ultra-lefts to tax 0rots y &ith the epithet 72uggler.8

"@

%n our opinion) 0rots y9s mista e lies precisely in the fact that he does not apply this la& to the phenomenon of fascism. %f the bourgeois 'tate belongs to the bureaucracy only 7in some respect8 [13] there must conse,uently come a gi(en moment &hen the economy) as a result of the progressi(e de(elopment of 'tate inter(ention and state capitalism) is no longer capitalist and &hen the bourgeois 'tate no longer belongs 7in some respect8 to the fascist bureaucracy. 0he 'tate becomes specifically fascist and the bureaucracy the class on &hich it is socially based. %n the .''/ the 7nationalisation8 of property came in one s&oop follo&ing the Actober re(olution) but) since the concept of nationalisation has no scientific (alidity in /ussia) in effect this &as the generalisation in one s&oop of state capitalism and its foster brother statism. 1hat has happened to the economyF Eas it become socialistF *o) says 0rots y. %s it still capitalistF *o) &e say) precisely because of the la& of the transformation of ,uantity into ,uality; it is Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism. 0rots y considers that 7the foundations of society can TnotU be changed &ithout re(olution and counter-re(olution8 [14] and &e are in full agreement. Eo&e(er) &e &ould as : &hat &as the struggle &hich he himself &aged and enduredF 1as it not the class struggle bet&een the proletariat and the nascent bureaucracyF And is not) perhaps) the storm of crimes &hich has strained /ussia &ith blood for some years the last phase of this struggleF A real class &ar in &hich the ne& ruling class is consolidating its po&erF Goes not 0rots y no& about the struggle bet&een the %talian bourgeoisie and fascismF At the time of the birth of their mo(ement) the Blac shirts freed themsel(es from the proletariat &ith a fe& club blo&s. 1hat has follo&ed since has been a fierce struggle) e(en underco(er) an implacable struggle bet&een the old ruling class and the ne& ruling class in formation. Ance they are beaten) it &ill be difficult for the bourgeoisie to again gather the strength necessary for 7(iolent opposition)8 especially not so as to 7open up great re(olutionary possibilities for the &or ers8 [15]. 7Better the &orse than the &orst8 say the %talian bourgeoisie and instincti(ely the most crafty in(ade the 'tate and change themsel(es into bureaucrats. 0he friction bet&een the original fascists and the recent arri(als has its origin in 2ust this phenomenon. %t is ,uite true that the fascist 'tate is only subordinate to the bureaucracy 7in some respect8; it does not yet belong to it entirely) but &ill happen &ith the complete coming of the totalitarian 'tate. 'ince 0rots y admits that the fascist bureaucracy could transform itself into a ne& ruling class) &hy does he not admit this has already happened in /ussia &here the totalitarian 'tate has already been establishedF Ee continues to delude himself if he thin s that Eitler and Mussolini &ould bump up against the (iolent opposition of the capitalists if they tried to completely nationalise property. %t &ould be too late and for information on this it suffices to as Con 'chleicher) Amendola) *itti or 'enator Albertini. .nfortunately abroad) and particularly in the Marxist camp) the fascist phenomenon has been little understood. %t &as defined first as a petty bourgeois phenomenon) &hereas it &as clearly a capitalist force &hich only later) &hen it &as organising its consolidation as a class) turned to the petty bourgeois. 0he Marxists ha(e seen fascism fling itself on the &or ers9 organisations; and ha(e seen in this only a phenomenon of social reaction. Blinded by the bourgeoisie-proletariat binomy they ha(e been unable to admit that) due to the disintegration of the capitalist economy and the failure of the attempt by the proletariat to sei+e po&er) another class has risen to sol(e) at least in the sphere of production) the great contradiction of capitalist society. 1ithout much noise) as moreo(er in 3ngland during the bourgeois re(olution &hich preceded the French by a century and a half) a handful of determined men ha(e imposed themsel(es on the ruling

";

class &hich had in(ested them &ith temporary po&er. 0hese men &ere soon made to understand that) to stay in po&er) they &ould ha(e to follo& a direction opposed to the immortal principles of the liberal economy. A direction they did not hesitate to follo&. %t cannot be denied that fascism came to po&er by (iolence e(en if &ith the consent of the !ro&n. %t suffices to re-read $orriere della Sera of those days to be con(inced of this. 0he great 2ournal of the liberal bourgeoisie &as not only anti-fascist; one &ould ha(e said that it &as edited by re(olutionaries. 0he Matteotti affair itself) on &hose body one of the most disguising spectacles of Eistory &as made) is only one of the manifestations of this struggle bet&een the bourgeois and the fascists. %t is of no significance that the so-called socialist parties are to be found on the side of the bourgeoisie) for these parties are only in the to& of the old ruling class. 0he proletariat had no other road to ta e but to go into the streets and fight) but they follo&ed a false direction. 0he (arious 0uratis) 0re(es) Modiglianis) *ennis) etc. ad(ised them to remain calm) not to pro(o e anyone and to ha(e the courage of co&ardice. 0oday fascism is so strong that the bourgeoisie is at its mercy. %t is possible that some upset could still o(erthro& it) but the struggle has been o(er for some years no&. 0he 7putsches8 made in their time against Eitler had the same bourgeois basis) but they &ere stifled in blood) 2ust as any resistance to the domination of the 'o(iet bureaucracy is stifled in blood in /ussia today. 0he ,uestion of nationalisation &as already dealt &ith in passing by 3ngels. %n 1;@; he put it precisely: 70he transformation . . . into 'tate-o&nership) does not do a&ay &ith the capitalistic nature of the producti(e forces . . . And the modern 'tate) again) is only the organi+ation that bourgeois society ta es on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as &ell of the &or ers as of indi(idual capitalists. 0he modern state) no matter &hat its form) is essentially a capitalist machine H the state of the capitalists) the ideal personification of the total national capital. 0he more it proceeds to the ta ing o(er of producti(e forces) the more does it actually become the national capitalist) the more citi+ens does it exploit. 0he &or ers remain &age-&or ers H proletarians. 0he capitalist relation is not done a&ay &ith. %t is) rather) brought to a head. But) brought to a head) it topples o(er. 'tate o&nership of the producti(e forces is not the solution of the conflict) but concealed &ithin it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.8 [16] 0he nationalisation of the /ail&ays) <osts and 0elegraphs or 0obacco) &hich too place at the height of capitalist de(elopment) sho&s us the ine(itable and ineluctable transformation of pri(ate property into collecti(e property. 0hese nationalisation measures also began the process of 'tate inter(ention into &hich capitalism is sin ing more and more) and &hich is becoming more and more fre,uent in the present phase of the li,uidation of the old society. 0he process of in(ol(ement and o(er-de(elopment of the 'tate is a conse,uence of the failure of the proletarian re(olution) but the nationalisation measures about &hich 3ngels spo e &ith such foresight in 1;@; ta e on a ,uite different aspect in this period) &hich is a period not only of the decay of capitalism but also of its li,uidation. %n 1;@;) at the height of capitalist de(elopment) nationalisation &as the non plus ultra of the capitalist creation) i.e. the 7ideal personification of the total national capital8 as 3ngels put it. 0oday nationalisation is not confined to tobacco or rail&ays but it besieges industry) commerce) ban ing) insurance) foreign trade and e(en the land; finally) these nationalisation measures in 7nationalising8 pri(ate property destroy it and) conse,uently) extinguish the bourgeoisie as a class.

"9

%t seems to us that 3ngels clearly sa& the social uphea(al &hich is brought about &hen the 'tate pushes nationalisation to its furthest limit. 7Brought to a head) it topples o(er. 'tate o&nership of the producti(e forces is not the solution of the conflict.8 %t topples o(er) &e too say; but &hat 3ngels only &rote about is today a social reality &hose nature must be identified. %t has al&ays been thought that the sei+ure of po&er by the proletariat &as the ey to the solution) but in reality the proletariat has been depri(ed of po&er in the .''/) and in the rest of the &orld has been defeated politically. Mean&hile) the phenomenon occurs and) in the absence of the proletariat) &ho has ta en po&erF 0he bureaucracy) &e reply. 0he officials and technical specialists) &ho carry out this tas ) 2oin together and form a ne& ruling class. %n the .''/ the collecti(isation of the means of production occurred suddenly and &as a collecti(isation tending in a socialist direction) but the cessation of the re(olution in the &orld stopped this process. Anly the collecti(e form of property remains but has passed from the aegis of the proletariat to that of a ne& social class &hich &as born follo&ing the social disintegration. Moreo(er) there is no ne& historical phenomenon here; Eistory does not insist that a ne& ruling class should coincide &ith a former exploited class. %t is sufficient that the economic programme is) in no matter &hat &ay) progressi(e. After the French /e(olution too) it &as not the people &ith their sansculottes &ho too po&er but the bourgeoisie &hich *apoleon Bonaparte embodied.

VII. Bourgeois "estoration

Bourgeois restoration is the b%te noire of the orthodox scientific Marxists. %t roams li e a ghost in the camp of Agramant) upsetting the sleep of these Marxists and filling their dreams &ith anguish. 0hey are all obsessed by the fear of seeing the bourgeois reappear as a result of a metamorphosis of the bureaucracy. %t is an excellent argument suitable as a bogey against those &ho do not &ant to defend the .''/; but it seems to us some&hat difficult to sustain as this argument assumes that economic de(elopment can go bac on its trac s. Marx ne(er made any reference of this sort and history records a constant gro&th of the (olume of production accompanied by the dri(ing out of old methods of economic organisation by progressi(e ones. Aur nights declare that the present producti(e system in the .''/ is better than the bourgeois system) yet continue to in(o e their ghost. 0here is no point in gi(ing a series of ,uotations: their &hole literature is full of it) 0rots y9s abo(e all. Eo&e(er *a(ille goes further and must be ,uoted) e(en if &e regret &asting time on such a tri(ial argument: 70he &a(e of counter-re(olutionary terror &hich the bureaucracy has unfurled on the rail&ays) in the factories and fields) by shooting hundreds of recalcitrant &or ers and officials) is the conse,uence of the ne& !onstitution and of the hope &hich it opens for a series of social strata behind &hom &orld capitalism stands on the loo out. 0he bureaucracy) the e,uerry of this restoration) ho&e(er ris s not mounting into the saddle. %t is this &hich re(eals the contradictory and ambiguous function of the 'o(iet bureaucracy &hich itself undermines the basis of its existence: collecti(e 'tate o&nership of the land) means of production) large-scale industry) houses and trade.8 !apitalism is on the loo out and the bureaucracy is committing hara- iri4 'leep peacefully) gallant night) the bureaucracy has ,uite other intentions4 Further on *a(ille adds: 70he bureaucracy has (oted a ne& !onstitution &hich guarantees a series of its pri(ileges) it has murdered nearly all the old Bolshe(i leaders &hose loyalty to it &as suspect) it has gi(en unparalleled guarantees to the diplomacy of the Beague of *ations:

3#

despite all this it remains lin ed to the property frame&or established at the time of the Actober re(olution) not only by its origins but also by its present method of functioning) recruitment) reproduction and consumption.8 0hese t&o ,uotations alone are enough to ma e any ordinary &or er purse his lips and refuse to ris e(en the nail of a finger for the land of the 7happy life8; but scientific Marxists die hard. 0hey hold themsel(es upright and impassi(e on a dummy breach and slash the air in(aded by ghosts. 0he Actober re(olution needs a second edition. *a(ille9s foresight goes to the extent of detailing the specific form &hich the economy &ill ta e follo&ing the restoration: 75i(en the fundamental difference &hich exists bet&een the 'tate industry of the .''/ and monopoly capitalism in the imperialist system) it is clear that to return to pri(ate capitalism in the fundamental branches of production) the bureaucrac would have to break up too: one &ould then see arising in the .''/ social classes &hich by their &hole mode of existence &ould be the (ictim of the bourgeoisie and e(en of 3uropean fascism.8 0he bureaucracy) because of its mode of economic existence) is already a descendant of the bourgeoisie and fascism is nothing else but its t&in. !alm yourself) Mr. *a(ille) the 'o(iet bureaucracy &ill ne(er brea up and particularly not into monopolies. 'tate capitalism has already been reached for a long time; it is more or less &idely applied in all countries and its application is al&ays increasing. %t does not seem logical to us that there should be a return to monopolies) a capitalist economic form prior to state capitalism4 0rots y has taught that the 'o(iet bureaucracy is the cler of imperialism) but his pupils go further in the march against the course of Eistory: they arri(e at monopolies4 3(en if the .''/ is o(erthro&n by the Anti-!omintern it is difficult to understand &hy the con,uerors should destroy the (ery economic system &hich is being constructed in their o&n countries at the price of enormous sacrifices nationally and internationally. Besides) it is this (ery system &hich explains to us the con,uerors9 appearance in history and their success. %f the totalitarian 'tates o(erthro& the .''/ &e thin that the political form &ill be maintained and that the 'o(iet bureaucracy this time really &ould become a 6apano-%talo-5erman 7cler .8 Gid feudalism e(er ha(e the intention of going bac to sla(eryF Gid capitalism e(er ha(e any nostalgia for feudalismF And did not the celebrated French /estoration establish the uncontrolled domination of the bourgeoisieF 0his &as precisely its reason for existence) its historic tas . %t benefited from *apoleon9s insane megalomanic plans) but on condition that it remanded the defender and propagandist of the 7%mmortal <rinciples.8 0he &hole analogy &hich 0rots y dra&s bet&een the authoritarian regimes and the bonapartist regimes is not (ery appropriate. 0he bonapartist phenomena of the 19th century ha(e nothing to do &ith &hat is happening in /ussia) 5ermany and %taly. 0he bonapartism of *apoleon % and *apoleon %%% left the social-economic basis intact) &hereas the alleged bonapartism of the "#th century uproots precisely the connecting tissues of society. 0he bureaucracy found property already nationalised in the .''/ and till no& has maintained it; if all this is mista enly described as bonapartism there is a danger of historically 2ustifying the phenomenon of 'talinism. 0rots y al&ays has a fortunate hand for choosing 7slogans8; he has an innate s ill and succeeds e(en &hen his s ill causes confusion. Ee has found an uplifting analogy in order to 2ustify the description 71or ers9 'tate8 &hich is thro&n at 'talin9s bureaucratic collecti(ism. Eere it is:

31

7%s the .''/ a 1or ers9 'tateF 0he .''/ is a state &hich is based on the property relations created by the proletarian re(olution and &hich is led by a &or ers9 bureaucracy in the interests of ne& pri(ileged strata. 0he .''/ can be called a &or ers9 'tate in more or less the same &ay H in spite of the enormous difference in scale H that a trade union led and betrayed by opportunists) i.e.) by the agents of capital) can be called a &or ers9 organisation.8 [17] %t follo&s from this that a &or ers9 bureaucracy economically exploits its master) &hich has ne(er occurred under the arch of hea(en. And to gi(e body to the ghosts recourse is had precisely to that 7noisy shouting8 of &hich 0rots y has great horror) i.e.) the 'tate is compared to a trade union4 %t occurs to us to thin of that racist &hose name &e don9t recall &ho) to pre(ent the crossing of Aryans and 'emites) tells us that dogs ma e lo(e to dogs) cats to cats) lions to lions) conse,uently . . . 0hroughout his article !raipeau[18] is rightly indignant and champs at the bit. %t &as a pleasure for us to disco(er this fi(e-footed sheep) a pleasure comparable to that &hich /obinson !rusoe felt &hen he finally found a companion. Eo&e(er &e consider that his concept of a 'o(iet bourgeoisie smells too much of the 7bourgeois.8 0hat the ne& class abandons itself to pleasures of all sorts is logical) since this is to be found in the programme of all dominant and exploiting classes. But !raipeau should not be afraid of the accumulation of &ealth nor its hereditary nature: it is a matter here of property o(er the means of consumption not of production. 0he bureaucracy is not li e an indi(idual bourgeois o&ner. 0he latter displays his goods; but today property is so close =in the e(olution of history> to socialisation) i.e. to its disappearance as restricted property) preser(ing only its character as a means of production) and besides ha(ing ta en a collecti(e form it is also disguised and denied by its present possessors. 1hat is important to the bureaucrat abo(e all is the surplus (alue; but he is obliged to consume it in secret4 And &hy does !raipeau consider that the bourgeoisie has returnedF 'ince he admits the existence of a ne& class &hich is non-bourgeois or at least not yet bourgeois) &hy does he &ant it to transform itself straighta&ay into a bourgeoisie againF %f a ne& class forms it is because) historically or as a matter of fact) it must de(elop a role to play in the historic rise of man ind. Aur conclusion on this point is that the bureaucracy has the tas ) or has assumed the tas ) of organising production on the basis of collecti(e property by planning the economy &ithin the frame&or of the 'tate) &hile only international 7nationalisation8 and the problem of the socialist distribution of the products remain for socialism. !raipeau also 2udges the nature of fascism &rongly. Fascism &as at the ser(ice of the bourgeoisie and also tried to continue &ith the capitalist economy but it found) in the imperati(es of economic de(elopment) conditions e(en more authoritarian than its o&n political mo(ement &hich obliged it to rapidly ta e the road to the totalitarian 'tate. 0o be afraid of these facts is to help the opposite aim; somebody else9s game is played) the film of reformism is &ound in re(erse. 'ince you ha(e noticed precisely this in 0rots y) &hy do you not do so in yourselfF Eas the hypothesis of the Revolution "etra ed &hich you ,uoted[19] really any historical senseF 3specially since the author added the follo&ing phrases to this hypothesis: 7But to spea of that no& is at least premature)8 7the proletariat has not yet said its last &ord8 =it is &e &ho ha(e underline the &ord premature>. Ance the existence of a ne& class in the .''/ is admitted a ya&ning chasm opens up before the Marxist mentality) but this chasm &ill not go a&ay by closing one9s eyes. 0he cup of bitterness must be drun to the dregs) only then &ill it be possible to ta e up the &ire again and follo& it to safety.

3"

VIII. The definition of the #SS"

Eere is &hat 0rots y says[20] follo&ed by our obser(ations: 70o define the 'o(iet regime as transitional) or intermediate) means to abandon such finished social categories as capitalism =and there&ith Lstate capitalism9> and also socialism& But besides being completely inade,uate in itself) such a definition is capable of producing the mista en idea that from the present 'o(iet regime onl a transition to socialism is possible. %n reality a bac slide to capitalism is &holly possible. A more complete definition &ill of necessity be complicated and ponderous. 0he 'o(iet .nion is a contradictory society half&ay bet&een capitalism and socialism) in &hich: =a> the producti(e forces are still far from ade,uate to gi(e the state property a socialist character;8 0hese forces are not only inade,uate for this) but the 'tate property is a class property; it is bureaucratic property. 7=b> the tendency to&ard primiti(e accumulation created by &ant brea s out through innumerable pores of the planned economy;8 0his is ,uite natural) but this does not mean that the planned economy is going to be submerged: economic de(elopment does not go bac &ards. 7=c> norms of distribution preser(ing a bourgeois character lie at the basis of a ne& differentiation of society;8 %t is not a ,uestion of bourgeois norms) but of the norms of a ne& exploiting class. 7=d> the economic gro&th) &hile slo&ly bettering the situation of the toilers) promotes a s&ift formation of pri(ileged strata;8 0hus &e ha(e t&o features &hich pro(e the existence of a ne& exploiting society: the economic system is progressi(e and the pri(ileges remain. %n place of 7strata8 &e &ould read 7class.8 7=e> exploiting the social antagonisms) a bureaucracy has con(erted itself into an uncontrolled caste alien to socialism;8 Ies) but it has become not only a caste or a stratum or a cli,ue) but a class. %ts character is stable and) from no& on) clearly fixed. 7=f> the social re(olution) betrayed by the ruling party) still exists in property relations and in the consciousness of the toiling masses;8 A party &hich go(erns a 'tate can only be the expression of a class &hich finds the established property relations in its interest. 7=g> a further de(elopment of the accumulating contradictions can as &ell lead to socialism as bac to capitalism;8 Beft to itself de(elopment &ill ne(er bring society bac to capitalism) but to&ards the accomplishment of the historic tas based on planned production and collecti(e property. 7=h> on the road to capitalism the counterre(olution &ould ha(e to brea the resistance of the &or ers;8 0he counterre(olution is not on the road to capitalism) but has settled at bureaucratic collecti(ism. 0he &or ers ha(e already been defeated. 7=i> on the road to socialism the &or ers &ould ha(e to o(erthro& the bureaucracy. %n the last analysis) the ,uestion &ill be decided by a struggle of li(ing social forces) both on the national and the &orld arena.8 Full agreement. Eere ho&e(er a 7ne& ,uestion8 arises. 0o defend the .''/ means to defend the ne& exploiting system &hich is imposing itself on the &hole &orld.

33

%n our opinion) the 'talinist regime is intermediate) it thro&s aside outdated capitalism but it does not rule out socialism for the future. %t is a ne& social form) based on class property and class exploitation. 0he inade,uacy &hich 0rots y notes of describing this society as transitional on the grounds that it could lead us bac to capitalism has no 2ustification; it is an intermediate society (i+.) stable until it accomplishes its historic tas . 5i(en that this tas is only a matter of fact) national or international e(ents could pre(ent its accomplishment; then the &or ing class &ould again ta e up its historic tas . Mean&hile this ne& society is a fact. As a result of all its political and moral manifestations it finds itself enclosed in the old &orld instead of that of the hoped-for &or ers9 international. %ts character as a society ruled by a national class &ill al&ays ma e it opposed to internationalist 7fantasies)8 &hile it &ill 2oin (arious 7Beagues of *ations8 according to the particular interests of its ruling class. Ance again the &or ers of the &orld are being tric ed &hen they are pushed to fight against Fascism and in defence of the .''/. <recisely the proletariat &as the only class capable of holding up its head against fascism) but it should ha(e been a proletariat &hich led and not one in to& to the old carcase of capitalism. 0he examples of !hina and 'pain are unambiguous in this respect) and other still more harsh examples are being prepared.

I$. The "ule of the Petty Bourgeoisie

0his is our definition) for this phenomenon) for this phenomenon is general and not 2ust /ussian. %n the .''/ this phenomenon is principally bureaucratic because it &as born from the bureaucracy; but in the totalitarian countries it flourishes naturally among engineers) specialists) trade union and party officials of all inds and all colours. %ts ra& material is dra&n from the large army of the 'tate and semi-'tate bureaucracy) the management of limited companies) the Army) the liberal professions and from the &or ers9 aristocracy itself. 0he so-called sub(ersi(e parties) displaying a complete lac of political s ill) pushed the middle class into the arms of capitalism. 0he time has no& come for this class to gi(e free rein to its grudge against the old masters and those &ho &ere unable to close their eyes to their ine(itable organic &ea ness. 0he proletariat should ha(e conciliated the middle class and made use of their talents &hile lea(ing some satisfaction to their pettybourgeois mentality) but instead they see them lined up against them as the ruling class. 0he &hole economic) political) moral and cultural &orld reflects the mentality of the middle class. *ationalisation is restricted to the large enterprises; this point is being reached in /ussia from an opposite direction. A&nership of the means of consumption becomes sacred and has been re-established in /ussia. 0hey proceed not to the accumulation of capital but to the con,uest of the happy life) this of course in bureaucratic terms. 0here is le(elling do&n but a differentiation is made half&ay and) in order to stabilise the situation) the 'tate is ta en o(er and possessed &ith a firm hand. %ts cult begins to appear; this 'tate is made omnipotent) all-seeing) all-po&erful. 0he economy becomes hierarchical from the top do&n&ards) as happens in all bureaucracies. An the political side parties are reduced to a single one &hich is not e(en a party but an organ of 'tate. 0he petty bourgeoisie) opposed to both capitalist and socialist democracy) is intransigent and absolute since it has no &ell-defined programme. 0he nationalist concepts of heroism) de(otion to the leader) etc. ha(e been exacerbated or brought bac into fashion in /ussia too. 3:

0he morality of the petty bourgeois family returns together &ith its idol) 5od; as &ell as the authority of the father) and of the man o(er the &oman) the practice of abortion for those &ho can pay) etc.) has come bac . 0he /ussian bureaucracy feels itself boss and master) its inner contempt for the &or ers is the logical conse,uence. 7Iou are born to &or )8 that9s &hat it says to itself of them. 1e are not too surprised by this &hole phenomenon. For &hat are the great ma2ority of trade union and party bosses if not petty bourgeois &ho in their shop flatter the proletarian customer &hose dossier has been put under an in pot to sleepF 'o &hen the colleagues of these bosses come to po&er they straighta&ay put themsel(es at their disposal) happy to ha(e found a solid fund &hich does not undergo the fluctuations of the capitalist mar et and &hich is &ell-pro(ided and open on the sole condition of clear bureaucratic obedience. %t &as not difficult for them to come to agreement but &here) may &e as ) &as and is the proletariatF %ts misfortune merits a little something) since in history a class &hich aspires to become dominant should not sho& itself &ea to the point of being sub2ugated by its o&n bureaucracy) e(en in the pre-re(olutionary period. %nstead of a 'tate &hich dissol(es itself into an economic administration from belo&) there is a 'tate &hich has been inflated by the bureaucratisation of the economy controlled from abo(e. 0he Eouse of the 'o(iets) 3$# metres high) &ill remain a symbol of this period and the 7Bastille8 of the bureaucratic &orld.

%ootnotes
1. 'nce (gain# the USSR# and its Defence. 2. !he USSR) *on+Proletarian and *on+"ourgeois State? All the other ,uotes from 0rots y in this chapter come from this same article. 3. 0his seems not to be a direct ,uote from 0rots y but rather /i++i9s summary of 0rots y9s position. 4. Ouoted by 0rots y in his article. 5. All the ,uotes in /i++i9s boo from <ierre *a(ille come from *a(ille9s 7/apport sur la Ouestion russe8 to the congress of the <arti Au(rier %nternationaliste in Actober 193@. 6. !he USSR) *on+Proletarian and *on+"ourgeois State? 7. All /i++i9s ,uotes from 0rots y9s !he Revolution "etra ed are from chapter %V on L'ocial /elations in the 'o(iet .nion9. 8. $apital) Colume %%%) !hapter VBC%%) section %%. 9. !he Revolution "etra ed. 1 . 3nglish (ersion slightly altered to fit in &ith /i++i9s comment &hich follo&s. 11. !he Revolution "etra ed. 12. ,bid. 13. 'nce (gain# the USSR# and its Defence. 14. ,bid. 15. ,bid. 16. Socialism# Utopian and Scientific) part %%%) Eistorical Materialism. 17. 0his is not a ,uote from 0rots y) but from a thesis on the 7Fourth %nternational and the .''/8 adopted at a conference in 6uly 193$ and ,uoted by *a(ille in his report abo(e. 18. 0rots y9s article 'nce (gain# the USSR# and its Defence &as directed against the (ie&s put for&ard by I(an !raipeau. 19. 0he passage from !he Revolution "etra ed that !raipeau had ,uoted reads: 70he means of production belong to the state. But the state) so to spea ) Lbelongs9 to the bureaucracy. %f these as yet &holly ne& relations should solidify) become the norm and be legali+ed) &hether &ith or &ithout resistance from the &or ers) they &ould) in the 3?

long run) lead to a complete li,uidation of the social con,uests of the proletarian re(olution.8 2 . !he Revolution "etra ed.

3$