Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Socialist Worker, No. 101, 14 December 1968, pp. 2 & 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
|
Socialist Worker has often put forward the view that Russia, Eastern Europe and the rest of the so-called ‘communist bloc’ are not socialist countries, as both they and their capitalist opponents claim, but are varieties of bureaucratic state capitalism. This description of the stalinist regimes is not new and was put forward and widely discussed by members of the Left Opposition to Stalin in Russia in the 1920s. The question of how to define the Stalinist regimes is more than obscure discussion between marxists. It is a vital issue for the working class because it asks ‘what is the basis of socialism?’ Some questions arising from the standpoint that Russia is a state capitalist country are answered by MIKE HEYM |
WHO REALLY runs a ‘communist’ country?
The Russian ruling class is a bureaucracy, that is the top state officials, factory managers, army officers etc. organised through their own exclusive organisation the Communist Party.
This tightly organised group has absolute control over every aspect of life in the country. The state machine, the economy, army, police and mass media are tightly controlled by them.
The slightest threat or criticism is met with fierce repression. The recent events in Czechoslovakia and the violent persecution of critical literary opposition in Russia are ample evidence of this and are only the tip of the iceberg of tyranny.
The working class have no control whatsoever over the state or the economy. There are no democratic workers’ councils. There is no right of democratic discussion either in the trade unions or the Communist Party.
There is no freedom of working-class parties or newspapers; in short, there is no WORKERS DEMOCRACY.
But how can Russia be capitalist when the economy is completely nationalised, there are no capitalists and no right of inheritance?
Nationalisation of property alone is not the basis of socialism. The question is not that the state owns property but who owns the state.
In post-war Britain, the railways and the mines were nationalised. Many socialists hailed this is a great victory for the workers.
But in these industries there were no fundamental changes because the workers had no control of the industry or the state which controlled the industry.
The form of property had changed but the property relations remained the same.
In the state capitalist countries the state owns all industry, land, etc., and the state machine is owned and under the complete control of the bureaucracy.
They control industry as a collective group and not as individuals.
The absence of the right of individual inheritance does not make the bureaucracy any less of an oppressive class group than the hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages, who also did not have the right of individual inheritance.
This might show that Russia has a ruling class but why call them capitalist?
The basis cf capitalism is that it subordinates living labour (the working class) to the accumulation of capital (dead labour).
Historically the capitalist ruling classes have carried out the task of building up the productive forces at the expense of the working class. The ruling bureaucratic class in the state capitalist countries has carried out exactly this task and subordinated the consumption of the working class to the building up of heavy industry.
But if the dynamic of capitalism is competition how can this apply to a fully state-owned economy? .And surely the absence of boom, slump and unemployment show the economy of Russia is socialist?
The dynamic for a state capitalist bureaucracy to accumulate stems not from competition on a national scale but through international competition.
The units of capitalist competition get bigger and can be whole nations. The competition between national economies on a military and economic level drive the bureaucracies to accumulate and reinvest capital at the expense of the working class.
True, the state capitalist economies do not express their crisis in exactly the same way as in the west but the crisis none the less exists.
Unemployment certainly exists in some state capitalist countries, and the general economic crisis showsitself in, among other fields, the continuing agricultural and consumer goods crises in Russia.
The Czechoslovak political crisis was brought about largely by a severe economic crisis which demanded radical political changes.
The fabulous rates of growth of the Russian and Eastern European economies have also slowed down considerably in the last few years. At one time these rates were quoted as the ‘proof’ that the economies were socialist.
Do you therefore think that the Russian Revolution was not a socialist revolution?
October 1917 was the first successful seizure of power by the working class and laid the foundation for the world socialist revolution. But the revolution remained isolated, mainly due to the betrayal of the German revolution by the Social Democrats.
The working class of Russia was severely weakened by the civil war and encircled by a massive peasantry. All these factors cut away the working-class basis of the revolution.
The rise of Stalin and the bureaucracy from 1923 onwards involved the destruction of every socialist element in the revolution and the elimination of every socialist tradition from the Bolshevik Party which had led the revolution of 1917.
This was achieved largely through the physical extermination of thousands of ‘old Bolsheviks’ after mock trials or without trial.
Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev were slandered, and persecuted as enemies of ‘socialism’, that is – the dictatorial, rule of Stalin and his bosses.
The internationalism which inspired Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1917 was replaced by the slogan ‘socialism in one country’. In reality this meant the destruction of socialism.
Stalin’s counter-revolution was not a peaceful affair but involved the destruction o f all working-class and peasant opposition by physical force.
But isn’t Russia the only hope for socialist advance? Things are not as bad as under Stalin and getting better. If you oppose the Soviet Union you are really supporting the imperialist bloc.
Since Stalin’s death in 1953 he has been denounced by his successors for having committed crimes against socialism But those who denounce him were parties co these crimes and remained strangely silent at the time.
While they have denounced Stalin these men have carried on exactly the same sort of policies.
The brutal suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia this year were carried out by a Russian leadership which denounced Stalin but fully deserve the title Stalinist.
Inside Russia the basic inequalities still remain. The working class have in no way increased their rights or powers and although materially better off they still remain an exploited class.
To oppose the Stalinist system is the duty of every revolutionary socialist and marxist.
Most workers reject the system they see in Russia since it offers them no basic difference.
The capitalist mass media gladly identify this with socialism. They do not wish workers to see a real alternative to capitalism and Stalinism..
This alternative does exist in a socialist system base d on WORKERS CONTROL and WORKERS DEMOCRACY.
This is in no way support for imperialism. Indeed we cannot fight imperialism in the West without fighting it in the East.
Oppression and tyranny are worldwide and must be fought internationally.
To the tyrants and oppressors throughout the world all workers must say NEITHER WASHINGTON nor MOSCOW but INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM.
Main Socialist Worker Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 30 October 2020