ISR Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From International Socialist Review, Vol.23 No.4, Fall 1962, p.98.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Editor:
Years ago, in a letter addressed to the spokesmen of American Trotskyism, I discussed a theory which considered the present Russian state to be a result of the replacement of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the dictatorship of the peasantry. Historically this theory appeared as a trend within the Russian (and German) left-opposition decades ago. I maintain, as before, that it is the only consistently Marxist-Leninist theory of the post-revolutionary Russian state.
Meanwhile, in the very latest book on Russia, The Taproot of Soviet Society, 1962, Mr. N. Vakar, a university professor, developed a theory of “Soviet society” as one with “peasant taproots” and the Russian government as that of “ex-peasants.” Before the members of what is historically known as the left oppositionist movement get acquainted with this latest achievement of “Sovietology,” a few words in connection with it might prove instructive.
It is to be considered as historically inevitable that the enemies of Marxism-Leninism use any part of Marxism except its essential one: the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a permanence of destruction of classes until the class society as a whole is out of existence. Mr. Vakar’s book is a typical case of the familiar practice – used also by all pseudo-Marxists – which consists of stealing parts of Marxism and directing them against the principles of Marxism.
Throughout the years of the “cold war” a new kind of bureaucracy seems to have been formed in the United States: the Sovietology “bureaucracy.” For years the ordinary members of this school have sung the old song: Russians are fanatic Marxists. This block-headed refusal to admit that pseudo-Marxism is a fact made Russia a sphinx that gave more than three puzzles to the bankrupt mind of the modern West. Meanwhile, a realistic view of the Russian government – excluding, of course, any essential differentiation of Marxism-Leninism from the Russian state – is indispensable to the “free world.” The latest theory seems to catch both flies together. It combines the realistic view of Russian society, and, therefore, a tacit acknowledgment of the fact of pseudo-Marxism – with a manifest mythoplasm on Marxism being identical with peasant socialism.
Whatever is “realistic” (Mr. H.E. Salisbury puts it: “It is Mr. Vakar’s genius” ... to view Russians “as they really are”) in this theory is based on an idea purloined – consciously or unconsciously – from the theoretical arsenal of Marxism-Leninism. The rest is pragmatic mythography.
There is of course “objective ground” for this myth. The reconstruction of the Russian state followed a revolution led by Marxist-Leninists. The same state continuously claims to be “Marxist-Leninist.” Every school boy knows that much.
On the other hand, it is in the interests of the capitalist class, and other possessing classes, to eternalize the idea that Marxism-Leninism, i.e. proletarian communism, is identical with peasant National-Socialism, i.e., pseudo-communism – to see that this assumes the “fixity of popular prejudice.”
Mr. Vakar’s latest theory of the peasant “Soviet” society as a “practical result” of Marxist-Leninist “Utopia” tries to do the utmost in that direction.
In Marxism, as a rule, “theories” are judged not merely by what they say but by what they actually mean. And Mr. Vakar too means to say that “The Russian state of today is the result of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” This is, as far as Marxist-Leninists are concerned what all the enemies of the working class are always out to prove and prove again.
In opposition to this, the Marxist-Leninist conception of the contemporary Russian state, as I consider it, views it as a result of the elimination and replacement of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the dictatorship of the peasant class and of Marxism-Leninism by peasant National-Socialism in pseudo-Marxist disguise.
It is the phenomenon of pseudo-Marxism that should be understood and explained as a historically developed falsity. This can be done only by Marxism itself, the theory of the class struggle, class rule and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
M. Main
New York
Editor:
After having read some issues of your magazine, I noticed that it devotes almost no attention to the arts and when it does so, as in the review of the film Judgment at Nuremberg, there is a great deal of analysis of the background against which the film is set but no mention of the artistic technique, positive and negative, which presented the ideas to best advantage. The aforementioned review used the film as a mere pretext to elaborate on Germany. There was no attempt to analyze the strength or weakness of the presentation. I think your readers may be interested in films, foreign and domestic, which do not have the self-evident message of the film reviewed but which, nevertheless, are making important social comments on society. Since many films are not making such direct statements and have ideas which are more implicit than explicit, their method would have to be analyzed more closely ...
A.R.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Editor:
Have you noticed a recent spate of articles in various places on the general theme of the decline of the union movement? Among these, I have a pamphlet published by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions of Santa Barbara, a section of the Fund for the Republic entitled The Decline of the Labor Movement, by Solomon Barkin; an article from a recent issue of Look entitled Is Labor on the Skids? by Thomas B. Morgan and another from the Sept. 1 issue of The Nation called Labor’s Ebbing Strength by George Kirsten. The latter is, as you have probably seen, Part I of which the second part is called Leisure in an Automated World by Georges Friedman, a translation from the French.
These articles and pamphlet certainly prove that labor’s strength is indeed “ebbing,” if it is not “on the skids.” I think we are obliged to enter this discussion since none of the above authors give a fundamental analysis nor, of course, do they come up with a solution that will work.
Have you thought of something for the ISR on this theme? ...
M.A.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Editor:
Guess it isn’t possible to do away with the high-gloss paper for the Review. But it sure would be easier to read. This is the only thing I would like to have different about the Review. We don’t want to miss one issue, so here is my renewal. Thanks for the fine job of analyzing. Let the truth shine forth, if possible, on not so shiny paper.
M.F.
Lloydminster, Alberta
Editor:
As per agreement, I am sending you the money for another year. Maybe I’ll be reading it that long. I’m only 92 years old, so no telling, but here’s hoping. I enjoy reading socialist literature; been a socialist since 1896. There are a lot more of us now, than there were at that time. The more the better. The idea will encompass the world’s population eventually, but it is too slow for me to ever see that time. I hope to be looking for the Fall number.
W.S.
Vashon, Washington
ISR Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 22 May 2009