[page 1]
aN) > \ \\ , 4
[page 2]
INTROLUCIORI NOEL. T is pamphlet is the text of a speech given ly Pierre Trank in August 1967 at a weekend school organised by the International Marxist Groups • the British Soction of tho Fourth Internaticnal. a leading member of the Fourth Internatioral and of the FierIe Frank is French Section, the Ligue Communisto. At one tire a secretary to loon Trotsky, he is nell qualified to acal with tro subject of this pamphlot. matter which closuly concerned Trotsky himsolf. mainly takes up the question of the early davelopment of The pamphiet the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and lays a basis for undorstanding presont-day developments. It will be espocially valuable as an introduction to the subject and some sugrestions for further readine aro zivon bulow.
Tecurbor 1969.
Suggested Further Readings * "The Inconsistencies of Stste Canitalism"
Ey Erost Mandel. 4/- plus 6d post. * "ho Class Nauire of the foriet Union" by Trotsky 4/-plus post inclades an article on borerurtion und tho Workers States "'The Revolution Betrayed" 25/ plus post. a Trotsky Classic.
Theso and a wide rango of othor marxist litoraturo aro availabla from Pioneer Books 8, Townbec St, Iondon, E.1. (01-247 9345).
8, Toynhee St. London E1. This pamphlot published by I.M.G. Publications.
[page 3]
PIERIE FUZ This year we are celebrating the illioth anniversary of Is was 2 gigantic event that, has the October Revolution. changed the worid and which gave great impetus to revolthe world. Today, nobody, utionary movements all over friend nor foe, denies the importance of the neither compare whai actually Horever, i we October Revolution. to what the Marxists were happened in those ILITy yodis thenzing at that time, to the thinting of the most audac ious Marxists of that period, the den who led the revolution, protoky and the attors the sories Trion, during thoss see that the development of the Russian revolution, compiex and more IlIty years nas snown itseli to be more could ever inagine, . for those with perturong tran one the strongest capacity ior imaginamon.
The Russian Revolution, for the men who led it to victory, wos to be the starting point of the socialist revolution in Europe, the most economically developed continent in ore grado is face a calist society sotosedately the world. but to darch towards it and becone a nore egalitarian and The Russiar revolution much freer society than capitalisa. vas launched during the first World her and at that time it appeared as a beacon of internationalis: as opposea to Siropean nationslisis that were aù war, one against the the other. And hat do we have fifty years later? There is no socialist revolution for the time being in Bestern burope, hes where canitalien seems to be wore etalilized then it The revolution has developed, not been ior many gets. towards the underbut towards the last, towaras the west, developed countries. On the cuestion of internationalism, we have today no real revolutionary international as a mass a numerically sual, organization like no vement.
There is bass movement is a cadre organization, but the deprived, as never before for a hundred Jeers, of an Inter_ is exacerbated . the mass movenent; nationa isa national within everywhere, including those states where ce italien tes overthrown. been society in the Soviet Union and the other norters' Cre states, instead of being more egalitari, a ma0g. treen betrees various social contradictions, oi big difierences weave beer ers and there the nasses for a long tige deprived of the most elementary freedous. (1)
[page 4]
Inis big contradiolon between the revolutionary importance and the various aspects or soviet dile and the internel life of the Conaunist this contradiction results from paroles durine this period the phenomenon called Stalinis vich ras been the most disturbing element in the developsent of the worzers' movement and also in socialis, the understen inager perturbing as comuunist, by many wilitants. well during the ascent oi stalinisa, fron the 'twenties the middle 'forties, and it is perturbine bon in this time of decomposition which began 50: 22c.s tie end of the 'forties and the beginning of the 'fifties. I vill deal with this phenowenon of Stalinisa and try to bring about an understanding of what it is. First we will start with a few nords about the theories which have been posed against the Trotskyist thuories of the Soviet Inion and our theory of Stalinis.
You know that we have said that we have been confronted with bureaucratic degeneration of the Russian revolution; with the abror al growth of bureaucracy - a • Lager and not a ciess in ine soviet union, a burea cracy wrich has taren complete conitos or soviet society and the dom unist parties. He have stated that tris was an exceptional phenomenon, the - contination of very defexplanation of which flows fron a inile conditions.
We have said • trat this phenomenon dia not change the nature oi the soviet Urion as a workers' do has only creamed very diminenit and very compstate. licated problens, with cha . we will tel: arout later on. Against this point of viem, there are to essential concep- That the soviet Units mes tot a workers' state, TL01153 0319; dominated by state sapitalisa"; and the other, a state but that in the Soviet Union we have neither a which holds workers' state nor a capitelist state, but a new for, a explo: ting society - a ne social regime unforeseen by arxists up until now. "state capitalist" cunception ia no» a new one. As a The ¡auver of fact, it is the ola p0st-1917, henshevik idea. considered that It was impossible to start The Mensheviks building socialis in Russia, that Russia, as a backward state, necessarily had to follow the path followed by the ost economically cavanced states, 1oe. li had first to become a bourgeois state• That is, 10 had miest to develop a bourgeois socioty.
According to then, it vas only after the Ill expansion oi bourgeois property relatzons that sociali su could be envisaged in fussis.
Ihough there was the revolution frow February to October which overthrew the Czarist regime - in their view, and then the very poot, weak bourgeois denocracy - the said that the Bolshevirs after their October victory were only succeeding in (2)
[page 5]
-sacing a capitalist pociots minere all the property was that the bureauand then 0ecy 0022 0 Say "collective capitalist". That is the ther cracy was row Social Denocrats all over As the Tenshevils. treory of we no i veiy teen on theory, of course, they do the rorI are But for the few of not elaborate that theory very often. then who started to do that in 191? and 1918, Kautsky, fron time to time, that was Hiiferding anu some of thei This theory is also supported by certain their theory. sec also believe tet toe sore union is e capitalistay Bolsheviks coula do nothing other than state and that the create a capitalist society and become the mulors of that the details of this theory I do not enter into society. here; they are not very interesting. Ior those who thought that it was not a capitalist society, bit e new unimorn exploting socion incan, vho presented you will find a large from Rizzi and variety of theories, theirs just before or at the beginning of the second world who some gears ago wrote a It is not tis or that detail in book on "the New Class" this theory which is inportant. The theory is based upon we have a new society wien, the following reasoring: • sviously, is not a capitalist society but yet there is not any socialisa in it. It is a socioty were ali propworkers, as well as the As the erty is nationalised. capitalists, have been unable to bring the society out of to do the job.
It a new class has arisen a major crisis, capicit this society; this ner class is the eterted to has people vino speak of trouble for those The bureaneracy • • is that there is co genuine capitalist "state capitalisn" in the world who will recognize, in the Soviet Union and The developotber similar states, a capitalist society• pent of society in the Soviet Union ana other such states; does not follow te laws oi capitalis: aevelopuent. ¡heir cconomic growin is altogether afterers from capitalist booms. depressions, etc. the new society with its crises, Ite supporters do lass tneory is complete revisionism. not deny thät the relationships of property, aRe coLLective They cone then as they would be in a socialist society. that you may have or the esse celationto the conclusion socialist or the workios cess Fifteen 2o ure and no cer socialist (il hazis views, 95 It is in contradiction vi th cratic. denini te If you follow such
(3)
[page 6]
In int 050es what ve novo cura dissa "Aantalinisation" is
about an expansion, a developaont of the bureaucracy and •I Stalirish, bat has brought about the greetest crises of "nen ruling class"' has show itself as being, rot licca with the development, but on the contrary, in contradiotion to the almost immediate developient of the productive forces in socieur itseli. In the nass of literature er tre Soriet Iro tsiry , one only one to Union, ution Betraved, Fa 152des thai the progress if would enter into contradiction vith bureaucratio rule. I have mentioned briefly these two gro ps of ideas in order that we should delineate more clerig end distinetly our But first of as: I own conception of Stalinisu. want to say a few mords, not on Stalinisa, bat or b reancracy generally• If Stalinis has been sodettins new, surprising, perturns li is not a phenomecon itor was altogether novel. bonethins like it existed already in ine vorkerst movement and it has taxen on a huge coveropuent ana specilic ¡eatures unknorn until now. Bureaucracy in the workins' poverent les coim flost, I would say, since the workers' note ent boome a mass nova- The vanguard of the workers' Lovesent was very well amore of une rescuionary, ana et specifio times; counterrovolutonary, role of the burcesorcer Sa the workers'
Especially the Bolsheries; moverent. ationary vanguord during the first moriu war, denounced the role of bureaucracy - which comributed to the collapse the betra al of August znå, 1917 - in the workers' novement. Bureaucracy 10, In a given society or dovenent or organisation, the product of a difierentiation, in ratch some "specialists" in the leadership people become so-called of workers' norters' novelent at the organisations. beginning was a small move lent mith peoplo who were, of Revertheless, course, unequal in capacit,• chose organisations • vere de ocratic. Ihere vas no other influence of one nail upon another, than his capacity to present his views, to develop nis positions, ama to nave a superior point oi view to anyone elso. But as the porkers? went grew, as the vorking-class orginisations became larger and larger, there developed *. tendeney for the aen who were Leading it, who sometimes lor a year, were elected etcos to become lore and more permanently the Leaders of those organisations. Ener thase peonle bocane (4)
[page 7]
"srecis ista" in the leadership of these organisations. The cies of the lordura of the organisationa became, trereupon, a35 only tho aims for which the organisations were created the strugsie of the workers to overthrow capitalism Fat is, 02 to aciend their day-to-day interests - but the organisation tended to becole, for these specialists, an ain in itself. the facts have shown, And ,that at certain times, and especially the interests of these "specialists"" at decisIve moments, neir own alls, coula come into opposition to the ains for which these organisations were originally created.
We are not anarchists.
We believe there is a necessity for organthe workers' movement. isations in The working class cannot ligit for its liberation by only tenporary organisations. It nas to be organised in a permanent ray ana re understand that the functioning of the organisation requires the presence of full-timers (1).
He do not reject the necessity to have organisations and full-timers as do some people because of the bureaucratio degeneration of the organisations. We try to understand why bureaucratisation cocurs.
The main eason for this situation does not rely on some inherent viciousness in men or in some kind of manoeuvre of this one or other, The fact is that there is a time lag between the political development of the working class and its cultural The masses are brought by the conditions of aevelopment. capitalist exploitation into conflict with capitalism.
They enter into struggless souetines very big struggles, often before even their political consciousness is completely dev- They come eloped. into struggle against capitalist society and they can even, in certain conditions, overthrow capit- Elisa, seine pores, before, long before, they are able to renage the which they have Just society talon into their hands. Sunn a situation occurs not only alter the seizure of power, but before the seizure of pover. I do not dean by saying that that the masses nave no capacity to rule, or cannot understand now to rule their own organisatis. I do not mean that the forcing class, the passes in genoral, are intellectually low.
Iney can stand on their omn in comparison to many; I would saj almost all the people who are on the boards of capitalist firms. But the fact is that the conditions of the working class in capitalist soctaty are such "ne workers give the best of their abilities to capitalism Is the capitalists are tnerefore exhausted by their vor: E==1 the possibility not the paroriel neans to io not have er 1ol even their ow organisations. society after capitalisa has been overtirom, in te the prob- Ine Of managing the econony, the tray, the universities - Ihere are full-tiners and full-timers, prefessioral ravolutionists and burecucrats. (5)
[page 8]
so on and so forth, this laf between the political ability their cultural canacit is nomething which of the messes and for a certain period - must unavoidably leare its influonce, wich will be felt also in the countrius where the working classes are more developed culturally.
But as the revolution hes folloved the path through under-cereloped countries, where we feel all the more this lag illiteracy is overwhelmings between the political consciousness of the masses, who understand the necessity to overthron capitalisa all over the world, their present capacity to menage the new society. and
This question of bureaucracy was not unknown before 1917 by the main larxist theoreticians.
MErX, using ne exa ple oi the paris conne, made some remeres cbout it, Ed benin, in State ana Revolution, takes up the question. Against the danger of burcaucracy is formulated a progremme which was taken from tho Paris Commune experience. The programme of struggle against bureaucracy is father a simple progranme ano it is a very strong one. raised the first question in this programme, which is that no specialist can have wages of a salary superior to those of a qualified worker.
That means thero is a ceiling on wages.
The second thing is that and dali total ate diver servants l thirdly, bureaucrats, be revoked, ricked out, at any time by those This programe is a very good one and it rio elocted is still valid, but life has shor that its application is vory difficult, more difficult than lenin and others thought it to bos I think that today everyone understands the mureaucratio phenorenon than it was understood in the "twenties, It is now krown by weny poople that the phenomenon of bureaucracy plays
are denouncing burecucracy and vaging a strugale against ita It is another question whether they are waging the struggle But the fact is correctly and whether they obtein resulis. that today this pheno ienon of buresucracy is well known, is the dangers are felt more clearly than better understood and mas the case forty verrs ago. In the Soviot Union in the 1920s this phenomenon had taken which have been very perturbing, above all unexpected for is Jenin, in the last year for the leaders oi the revolution. of his political lile, 1922, expressed in many places, in nany felt that : the vorking class in his anxicty. the Soviet union during the civil war nad sutierca more than any working class has ever suffered all over the world. I repeat almost exactly the vorus he used. He says:
What is happening in the Soviet Union?
We have, he says, in Moscow, (6)
[page 9]
I'ar thousandcom unists, the best in the world; the most deroted people, anà then what is happening, who rules this country? re makes tho comparisun vith tides in ancient Who rules whom? ristory where often the victors, Meo had won by sheer force then vanquished by thu conquered who possessed by EIs, were He elso a superior cultural LeveL. at that period, wrote very strong things ageinst the Russion policelen who vore a soviet unifol end who imposed the rule of the State against the peopie who were not Russian. aventually, in his lust docuuent, which is known as the Testament of lenin, he sees the possibility of a split in the party and he cones • to proposais wich are only, I would say, of a political nature.
He tries to have a greater control by the sank and file of the lending bodies of the party. Trotsky also at that time son the danger of the growing bureaucracy • In his last tele with denin he insisted upon ine iaot, end menin sareed, irat burecucracy had not only arlected the state; but also the perty, even the leadership. mien, in Detower 1923, Iratsk, initiated the open struggle sgeinst buresucracy in a scil peuphlet entitled The New course mider then those presented by benin in tis his proposais acre He proposed, of curse, Toste ent. ilso the introduction of greater democracy, elections au various party levels of the secretaries, of those who had the leading function.
But he also introduces some proposals of a econonio nature, beoause he understood that the struggle egainst bureaucracy needed e s0elety cn a bigher econoto and cultural level, and he or jughü up for the firet time the proporels of plenification inl of industriclisation. In the sovict union in the 'tmenties the objective conditions (i.e. the backwardness of the state, the low cultural level) hod favoured the growth uf bureaucracy, just es we see it now ciche? in Asic, AiriCa or in men, under-deroloped countries, Latin Ancrica. But at that tile other factors ployed a more i portant role, and I went to stress the because this combinatiin of factors has given Stalinisa its spocifio festures =a dide of it a unique phenonenon. First of all, though I said thet lonin ecå rotaly nere avare ¡€ is danger oi bureaucracy, we canrot ser the sale of the arter men in the leadership.
It became ali the more clear upter the absence ană desth f lenin. people to held the leadership of the party after tee Lenin (Truisky death of is cotally elmed in nories on the beltseel Burecu) what this pheno enon was. •6 20% anderstend She clesrest 22es are given in the strugales that occuresd between 1923 1329• I suppose that the charades have need the second (7)
[page 10]
volume of Trotsky's biography by Deutscher, where these derelopuents are fully descriocd• one or the bost pameric ungs wizen coros out of lt is that tro oro moso promiment who, one after the other, wore &t the op, or who formally iien Buk deca thought thes were the real leaders, Zinovior first, with his ultra-left course nad bukhain ones beist courses thought not only that they were Beadid becowing the real that they were using the men, Stalin, who was_ecturily woll as Bukharin, Zinoview, Es thought that they had Leader. in Sialin a tool who could be useful to fight for their posbut out of whom they could wake whet they wanted. As a patter of fact, it has been shown in this period thet the ase emerging leader was almost uniceown.
It was Stalin, not hoosuse he had special political capacities - he nad capacities == courso - but beccuse he had no perspective, because he was e most epirical of the people inside the Political Bureau, red es such boccue the true representative of the party appar- During this perioá there sus, and at urly of this coparatus. took place the fusing of the party with the state.
The party =a conguered tho state in 1917, and then in this poriod the eate ce a matter of fact conquered the party. The burcaucracy state and the party bureaucracy became one unit, bureaucracy there was at the same time the remants of ba Izarist bureaucracy and also tany individuals who came ... = the rivolutionery struggle but functioned at a very 1 ty itive political level.
They were not the wen who had ==106 2i the struggle against Czarisa, agrinst capitalisa ==- ... : vocas and pears: they were ion who had come to political been vory devoted in the civil war, cadres of the 3: ma s on, end who hed transferred, after the civil silo rough ways and nears that they had used in the - in the ver into ledusy cia the e inistration. the same time the Ine bureaucracy beca ic at CEC:- 0200 roceracy of the state and of the party. During this period enterea intu the party not only people who went thero to but also many people who went there bearuso it happened to be ruling in the Soviet Union. then another factor played perhaps the most important role in =a develop ent oi Stalinisa's success in the Soviet Union, -ing ii its special features. have already said, benin ticed that thero was a greet werkuning of the working class i- the soviet Union.
I'he working class of the Soviet Union " chet period, in the 'twenties, after the enc of the civil went through a period of a big reduction in its political People wore looking for gy nocoberties of 1lce, and waa 1ost polite intorest. e became accentuated becanec of a big disappointuent ovor grostoot foz the vorla revolution; this is probably, is entErty, the fcotor which played the biggest role ..: = in the (8)
[page 11]
The Soviet morking class and the developuent of Stęlinisa, Soviet onuuniste had made tremendous efforto and sacrifices Ist years and veers with the ider thet they were fighting at the vanguard of the world revolution, They were expecting, if not free day to days then at least iron month to month, somewhete in Europe. the launching of the revolution There had already been the revolution in Geruany in 1913, In 1919 in Bavuria anå Hungary. Ihere were big struggles all over In 1921 - again in Geraany - and then in the second Burope. helf of 1923 there was a period of great hope.
Then the revolution failed and with that there began a loss of confidenco in the revolutionary perspective.
Scenticisn, denoralisation, enterca into the consci usness of the masses in in the Soviet Union, and elso songst comunists, not genera but in the cadres, the very important only in the sank and file, ccares, oven top leaders, of the Comiunist Party of the Soviet I have often given en examnle beca se it impressed me Union. much at the time, ana I think it is not only impressive VOLT but it explains better than aany thories and lectures a lot In 1925-27 in France thoro was no organised left of things. apposition, but there vero many opponents inside the Communist Party who were trying to understand and to follow what happened Some were in direct contact with Piatakov, in the sovict Union. who was at that time the director of the Soviet trade mission in France.
No were infurmed of his personal views.
Who was In his fostenent, Jenin mentions on the one hard Pictakov? Irotsky and Stalin es the two most able ain of the central cormittee, then he mentions auongst the two most able men and oi the vounger genoration, Bukharin and Platarov. Piatakov tino one of the leaders of the left opposition, va: at that bo i in fcot he was completely demoralised and carried the to the fifteenth congress struggle for the Left Opposition up more by a lind of inertia than from conviction. He said "We were lecrning at that time openly to trench C.P. neubers, that it is useless : to think of a revolution in Europe for twenty or thirty years, and the only thing to do is to buila the econody of the Soviet Uniön" • Of course when he capitulated and went back to Moscow,_he • became the builder of the heavy industry in the Soviet Union. I give this exarple because it shows that what played the biggest role in the Soviet Union is the fact that after years of sacrifices, Liny conunists lost their perspective of world revolution for a whole goneration or more.
It led to such deboralisation, such scepticisa Unions in tre Soviet , that the bureaucracy wich kad grown in This society, which had taken on more and nore scope bocause country and where everything was nationalised = is a huga ! here more jobs for all kinds of burecucrate. This lager in i "1 ty took the upper hand, where the morking class was oletely lost and denoralised by its sacrifices and also to feet that the vanguard in its overwhelning najority = lost faith in the future aná had then accepted ana capit- .=oa Debre bureaucracy. I think that this is the nost (9)
[page 12]
1aDrtt Incine did expirins the developaont end features Stelini sui. me should not forget this explanation of One mord 50r93 Pureauciscy is a socicl Icyer. Stclinis.i.
He should not 2S E METhOd DI IULe Oni. A long agair reotime ego - I do not know if it has been burlished ently in English - a docent was writter by Rakovsky• It is certairly the most brilliant thing writton on bureaucracy. motexy mentions it in the Devolution Betraved es the beet "It is a document aí ebout thing writter on the question. twenty pages, in which Rekovsky starts with a compericon to maich mey the Proach Revolution. heaving esire this pert, mean a lot to those who low the French Revolution isirly veris ne shows that cy serzing power, the mill tanüs of the working class novedeni were transferred from the functions i journelists vorking clandestinely, profess unal TOVOLUTIOnists who were acting clandestinely, . leaders oi trade unions in difficult cunditions, people who went to jail and so or and so forth - all those peuple, whatever their origins and borzers, journalists, intellectucls, wore transferred to a differont Toey becano leaders di armies, function. leaders of regiaents?
Leaders of universities, leaders of big Ihese funotional dificrences resulting frun these plants. shifts brought with time social differentiction in their derelopuent. If this document is not low it shula ho printed again. 1fier tho tventics bureaucracy in the Soviet Union acquired #castrove proportione and from the hmocucratic deformations trich cristed alrecay at the time of Ionin and prototy, it to turecucratic dogenoration unüer the Iecdership of the perty consed to be the perty of the Russian Stalin, working class became the political tool of the Soviet burecucracy. ine inequerites became extraordinary. tionedthat in tho progranno of liart and Ierin against bureaucracy there wes a limitation on the wages si civil servants. During the peric of Lenin and fratsky thore was a linit on the wages of coniunists; a co unist coulà not earn above a certain counto The Soviet Union nes compelled to pay more to engineers and technicians and so un, because they wero scarce; but il these highly quelified persons wore members of the O.P. in the Soviot Union they could not earn as much as were 10t he ivers of the Go?.
But at the end of the 'thirties, this rule was "wenties oi aü tho boginning of tho emmulled, and since then we have seen the development of gross There were Soviet millionaires There was concurrently a auntry becero worse and worse. repression.
Everybody Inow ine purges of the Moscow trials. The fact is that Stoiin killed noro comunists in the Soviet Inion ünen ail the capitalists in the whole world, including (10)
[page 13]
Phere has been a sup- Fillor, killed during the same period. rEBSion Df all the elemento of vorkers' democracy, At the sane tine enother phenomenon appeerei putside the soviet the Russian Revolution ked brought forward politically e part of the internationel working olesonovement, which meant that a part oi that novemort sopezated itself fion the traditional refrist aovement and took amunist positions. and comrunist perties con unist Internetionan was creatou, Stelinisa not only took the upper hand in were created. Soviei suciety but also in the connurist covetent created on the appear of the October Povolution. So the pronorenon, which is cortainly one of the bost totaltook on very monstrous proportiona. i tarian we have seen, * jeers end years the workers' nove ont retreated whilst reactivi ruse, and in this retreat tho bureaucracy becade nore and wore powerful, rot uniy in Suviet socicty, but in the convurist wive ent all over the vorld. Hom we will deal with some oí the fortures of the burecucracy. One of the main fortres o1 the curecuerney 1s the it 1s e ernservative layor within Soviet socices, inside the soviet Union. this ruling ager are r dusa roleo on the one nanas = maling logers thet is, the co lootive property end plenning. sucicty, Soviet ere forced as defend smething, which this thos sense , = very important rovolutionary factor to by its nature, WES For yours and yeers anyone in the world, i. cepitclist vorla. siT novonert in the worldwhich was coming up ogainst copitalisa renesperily lookca to the soviet Unden as tho oniy place where On the other hand they had an exa pie, sono moden, sole ape• this consorvative leyer was afraid of revolution. It kid no confidence in the world's working class move ento thereiore "socialisn" it began to deiend the concept of building their In one country, in the Sovict union, end im this nonent armerds they tried i cone to en egree ent with capitalisu Iou penain capon a world scale, to find sure status qua•. itelist or what you like outside the Soviet Union, they said, This is the basic but inside, lot us live our own socialisio
Of course he did it ir the 'thirties and the 'twentiess cinditions other than those that prevailed after the second the sane conception of the burscueracy But it was orld her. to establish the status quo wien the copatelisis, In TREE ONCE DI i. i This concoption expirins is this burceupossible thing• which is very epiricel and without long ter. Politicol • 203= mandative, has been pelle to be be e temp turns; because it mes faced with cuncitiune mon i» ::a hot expect end which it did not anderstard. (11)
[page 14]
Another feature of this burecucracy mas that in as much as it destroyed all the democratio elegents in soviet socicty, it was necessorily compelled to find a solution for the very hainen the veil us infers, botween tom end countes, betwoon a contradictions within the society - the contradictions the people who mere ruling politicolly anå the rulers of the econday, between the rulers of tho econouy anù the workors, The Soviet Uni n was a state end = society full of As there were no eleuents i democrecy left, contradictions. and as the burenucracy arose nore and bore abovo society as a whole, it folt the need to produce fro. within itsele an who could settle all the contradictions in this society. arbiter the arbiter in such difficult conditions, in 0i course to be such e difficult situation, this man had to have cil the qualities inà proporties of a Goa.
That explains why this sciety was coupened to create the "cult" of Stalin, just no past, in ancient history, people becale gods lilre Geesar, Alezander, and so on. The bureaucracy, as I have saià, cano froi a necessity in a cociety where there were big shortages, where the socioty was still stratified, and especially where the working class, even after having overthrown capitalis, had nst the ability t. manage the socicty. The bureaucracy became a kind of necessity in this society, but it should be vell understood that the necessity to have a bureaucrecy is not a justification the privileges it tok, nor for the fact that it eliminated el3 the eleuents of denocracy in that society.
Sone people we don e trink Stalinis. ves unavoidable.
Bureaucratio deferactino vere unevoidable, the victory oi Stalini su Mes n0 te An explanation is rot a justifiection, and even less the justification for one's capitulation to Stalinisn• bureaucrrey, a perasitio layer in this society, played a colerin role, but because of certain conditions it becare more and moro monstrous.
The fact that the bureaucracy is a parasitio cleuent in society and not a new cless, as the cintenders vi "burezucratic collectivis" cleiü, and thet we don't have to deal with a now kind of exploiting society, is revcaled in deny areas, including the real of ideology. bureaucracy tales upon itself the credit for being at the origin of all progress pede by Soviet society.
This is not on tie contrary, me burom but the 1910 OF PArtIC ipated in the economic developent, bureaucracy was rather more negative than positive in this matter, and many things could have boen more developed, or guired at a cheaper prios,. were it not for the big blunders crimes of the bureaucracies, especially the forced colloctivisation of the countryside.
If we pass fron the real of natorial production to the reali of production in idcas, then it is very clear thet burerucracy has not created a single original concept.
The burgeoisie in the pest had ¡us i 1ac010gys tie working ciess has its darxist theory.
[page 15]
If we look at all the ideas waict have been developed by the Coluunist parties and the Soviet docaership during thuso forty veers, we will fina that taero is not a single idea of weir Iney havo only sode er a cigan of Marxisa trans- Inea into an ideology with bourgesis or petit-bourgeois iceology.
In the theoretical production of the Connunist there is not a single distinct original idea. parties Ne now come to the decouposition of Stalinisa.
At the end of the second world wer, in spite of the first intentions of Stalin, which were tu leave unchanged the sucial nature of Eastorn Europe, the node of production wrich existed in the Soviet Union expanded to Eastern Europe, in reaction to impericlist policies. , Dater on, in 1949, despite Stalin's there was the victory of the Chinese revolution. PolicIes, this Icd to an expansion of the node of production in the soviet union to the east. In these years following the second world war all those people who were procisely opposed to bur conceptions of the degenerated workers' state, to our idea of the bureaucracy being a social layer and not a new dess in the Soviet society; e11 these people, the supporters of the theory of state capitalise, of burecucratio collect- "S On, were spearing about the "expansion of ivisa and Stalinisn".
At that tillo, in 1945-46, "expansion of stents 1th then.
We said that there was no of Stalinism, eat there was ra expansion of the Soviet Union's node of Because this node of production was the mode of zzoduction. maduction of workers' states, and because Stalinisa was a remorenon lined to the retreat oi the revolution, this • persion bi no dude or production wuld be the starting wint for a big crisis in Sürlinis. We said that there cummot be en ezpansion of Stali that Stalinish was capienol tinted to the retreat of the revolution; even if It took very peculiar forus, as was the case in most countries ?i bastern europe, the developuent of the revolution was incoupatible with Stalinisu and that no would see the beginning • the crieis of Stalinis. There was c big discussion in because we had = overentg Ingress in 1948, tendoncies vo detendoa the "stete caritatist" ud the"bureaucratic ellectivist" point if view.
Schachtnan -a sthers were present at the Second Forld Congress, and ve ira = long argument with then. is matter has been settled since then. We have seen the - mous crisis vl Stalinis, a decgusition of Stelinisa, i ough it has taken many featuros which ere also not very It started in 1948 when there was the break between 3-03-6.
Then we had in 1953 the uprising in BE: SinviE and Moscow. =net Berlin, the uprisings in the concentration camps in the There Was, "re: union, the beginning of "de-Stalinisation" "wentieth Congress and the big events in Poland -206, the ...
Burgery, anà then in 1959 the beginning i the Sino-soviet (13)
[page 16]
anflict.
And now we see, and see allost every day, manifest- = ions of the escoposition of Stalinisa. The Soviet purerucracy certeinly hes not diseppeared. Neither They are still there. tos its power, nor its rogine.
What we som see is a new relationship of forces between the bureaucracy and the masses in the Sovict Union and the buracucracies of the other wurkers' states; and betweon the burcaucracy in the Soviet uniin end the leaderships of the world's Comurist parties. Compared to that which existed before the second world ear, the Soviet bureaucracy has been compelled to try t adjust itself to this new situation, to theso ner cunditions, in orãco rot to put in jeopardy the regine itself.
They had . to as thet and they did it in an especially intense way between 1953 and 1957. appeered to then at that time as though conditions in tee Soviet Union were very near to breaking point - t a explosion - so they rapial, nade big changes. We now see that though in some cuntries big burecucratic deiriations exist, the role of bureaucracy in socicty is still very Imporvant, we see also sume important developuents like "cultural revoluti›n" in China.
It is certrinly not the politicol revolution against the burenucracy, as some sectarians = la Healy pretend, but in it ne find expression within Chinese ¿ciety to fid itselî of its bureaucratic features. Neither do no have the repetition of what we saw during the 'twenties and Chin" is a big country, a worla power as great as ¡thirties. the Soviet Unin was then.
But never theless it is inpossible Ist the Chinese to repeat what the Sovict Union has done. For esauple: it is impossible for the Chinese bureaucracy to create E 01011 thic systen cons world con unist parties as the Soviet union did during the "twenties all over the connunist world in ile Comintera.
The pra-Chinese groups ore suall, very divided. ¡nu, of ourso, for sell coutries like lugoslavia to the right Cubr. to the left, such a question does not arise. one vi one dean features on the decomposition of Stalinish, is thet the intornational monoli this has coupletely broken down. It does n5t 7ist at 511. But donolithis in a practical way still exists very much on e national scale. I dă not mean that the perties nati nally sre as they were in the past. on an internati nal level, with some exceptions here and there, inside the comrunist parties there are no differences and tensions which appear tu be strong. One exception wild be the Italian But in most of the parties, even the Italian partys the tendency to maintain the nati nal donoli this reains strong. We have seen in the Soviet Union in this period a deconposition It's a certain kind of liberclisation. of Stclinis..
What do I'ne political power during Stalin's time was ve mean oy teet? not even in the hands of representatives oi the bureaucracy 1n funeral, but unly, in very few hands, and Stalin ruled without any control over him.
Today, not in a regular way, but fron tige to tine, it secus that the people who ere at the top of the Soviet (14)