The Russian “Terrorist” Trial (1936)

From the October 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Truth About A Great Frame-up

Last month we made some comments on the Russian trial based upon newspaper reports. We now have the official report of the trial contained in a special number of “International Press Correspondence,” Vol. 16, No. 41, September 10th, 1936.

The first thing that one notices after reading the dreary document is that it is not the report of the trial at all. All the accused pleaded guilty and the court proceedings that began on August 19th were simply means for them to publicly express their guilt, call themselves scum, traitors and various other names, and also, most importantly perhaps, blacken the character of Trotsky as much as possible.

The second thing one notices is that this alleged full report is not a full report at all but simply reads as piece of Stalinite propaganda, interspersed with some farcical statement, question and reply on the part of the public prosecutor and the accused.

The third thing that strikes one is that the proceedings that actually began several months earlier in secret. One of the accused, V. Olberg, was examined on February 21st. The public proceedings, according to the information contained in the report, did not commence until all the accused had been examined and re-examined and admissions of guilt extracted from them.

The report occupies 41½ large, costly-printed pages, which are apportioned as follows:-

The Indictment ………………                                                7 pages

Proceedings before the Military Collegium (the “Trial”) … 18 ,,

Speech of State Prosecutor Vishinisky ………                      12½ ,,

Final Statement of Accused ……………                                 2 ,,

Verdict ………………                                                              2 ,,

The proceedings commenced on August 19th at mid-day with the reading of the indictment. After this each of the accused repeated the statement he had made at the secret investigation admitting his guilt, and an exchange of question and answer took place. This was followed by Vishinsky’s speech and final statement by each of the accused. At mid-day on August 24th the verdict was given.

We are asked to believe that this was a properly constituted trial, but just consider the matter. Here were sixteen men, alleged to be on trial for their lives, and whole proceedings only lasted five days! The prosecutor, in his final speech (which occupied nearly a day), address the judges as follows:-

“With all thoroughness, you have subjected to investigation and judicial verification each of these proofs, every fact, every event, every step of the defendants, etc.” (Page 1125)

All this careful verification is supposed to have been done in three days of the trial, as the prosecutor was speaking at the beginning of the fourth, yet there are at least 28 volumes of evidence, as in one place “Vol. 28, file 112 of the Record,” is quoted! They certainly are fast workers! At mid-day of the 24th the accused were sentenced. They appealed. The appeal was disallowed and they were shot on the 25th. So the Court of Appeal must have done some fast work, too, if they also went through the volumes of evidence!

No Documents Produced at the Trial

The only evidence produced at the trial was the statement of the accused and the statements of two witnesses brought forward by the prosecution. One of these was Smirnov’s wife and the other was also a “suspect”! No documents were produced as evidence (apart from statements alleged to have been made by the accused in preliminary investigations). A letter is referred to as having been received from Trotsky and destroyed. An open letter that was not read. No information is given of how the authorities got wind of the “plot” and how they were able, for instance, to extract from V. Olberg on February 21st practically all the alleged details of the “plot.” We use the word “alleged” here for reasons that will appear later.

The lack of information on how the authorities knew of the “plot” is striking, because a good deal of it consisted of private conversations in cars, private apartments, etc. The value of the evidence of the accused may be gauged from the opening of the final statement of Yevdokimov:-

“How can anyone believe even a single word of ours? Begins the defendant Yevdokimov. Who will believe us, who played a base comedy at the fresh grave of Kirov whom we had killed, us who only accidentally and through no fault of ours failed to become the murderers of Stalin, and of other leaders of the people! Who would believe us who are facing the court as a counter-revolutionary bandit gang, as allies of fascism, of the Gestapo?” (Page 1137.)

In his final speech, the prosecutor, Vishinisky, also says of them:-

"But where is there proof of this, how can we believe them when they have surpassed all conceptions of treachery, of perfidy, deceit, betrayal, treason?”

And yet it is the words of the “perfidious”gang that is the only evidence of the plot and of their guilt – no other evidence was brought forward.

Let us consider the point. As there was no evidence but their own, how were they induced to give it? Remorse and repentance won’t fit, because if they are the type the prosecution makes out, they could not have suffered from either, and certainly they would not have deliberately asked to be shot! Of Zinoviev it is said:-

“In spite obstinate denial, the accused Zinoviev was compelled by the weight of evidence which was brought against him by the investigation authorities to admit that ‘The main object which the Trotsky-Zinovievite centre pursued was to kill the leaders of the C. P. S. U., and in the first place to kill Stalin and Kirov’,” (Page 1100.)

What was the “weight of evidence” that could compel a man of Zinoviev’s intelligence to admit the direction of a murder plot? The only evidence given in the report is the unsupported statements of people who “have surpassed all conceptions of treachery, of perfidy, deceit, betrayal, treason”! And all these statements were extracted at secret investigations conducted by the secret police!

One of the principal witnesses, the accused Bakayev, is alleged to have given details of a plot that implicated everybody, and made himself out to be an assassin. No information is given of how he came to do that, and yet Vishinsky describes him as follows:-

“Precisely, Bakayev, who is known as a man full of bitter hate, a resolute man, a man stubborn and persevering, with very great will-power, of strong character and endurance, a man who was capable of stopping at nothing to achieve these aims which he set himself!” (Page 1136.)

What dark and terrible means were employed to get such a man to make an abject confession and to end his final statement by declaring that he “realises the entire gravity of his crime and expects a just and deserved sentence from the proletarian court”? (Page 1138.) Perhaps some day we shall know.

“Confessions” that are Incredible

Let us take a look at the statement of one of the accused, remembering that he is also supposed to fit the prosecutor’s edifying description. While doing so the reader should try and imagine what means must have been employed to extract such abject and self-destroying admissions. Limits of space compel us to make our quotations as few as possible.

“During the cross-examination of Kamenev the court dealt in detail with the policy of double-dealing employed by the plotters in addition to terror in their struggle against the Party.

“Vishinsky: How is one to judge the articles and declarations which you wrote in 1933, and in which you expressed devotion to the Party? As deceit?

“Kamenev: No, worse than deceit.

“Vishinsky: Breach of faith?

“Kamenev: Worse.

“Vishinsky: Worse than deceit, worse than breach of faith. Do you find this word? Is it treachery?

“Kamenev: You have said it.

“Vishinsky: Zinoviev, do you confirm this?

“Zinoviev: Yes.

“Speaking of the motives of his conduct Kamenev stated: ‘I can only admit one thing, that having set myself the monstrous and criminal aim of disorganizing the government of the Socialist country, we used such methods of struggle as we considered corresponded with this aim and which were just as vile and contemptible as the aim we set ourselves.’

“Vishinsky: Was your struggle against the leadership of the Party and of the government inspired by low personal motives, by personal thirst for power?

“Kamenev: Yes by thirst for power by our group.

“Vishinsky: Do you not realize that this has nothing in common with social ideals?

“Kamenev: It has just as much in common as revolution and counter-revolution have in common.

“Vishinsky: Do you clearly realise that you are conducting the fight against Socialism?

“Kamenev: We clearly realise that we were struggling against the leadership of the Party and of the government which leading the country to Socialism.

“Vishinsky: Thus you are also against Socialism?

“Kamenev: You draw the conclusion of the historian and prosecutor.” (Page 1113)

Now, Reader, can it be possible that you are gullible enough to swallow the above as an example of a genuine confession? The thing is too utterly childish to pass.

According to the statements in the report, the accused are cross-examined. Here is another sample of the cross-examination, which surely speaks for itself:-

“Bakayev tries to make his responsibility appear less in his statement. He says that out of the whole terroristic activities of the Centre he only knew of the decision to murder Stalin and Kirov, and that the first he had heard of the other acts of terrorism, which were in course of being prepared, was from the indictment.

“Vishinsky: Bakayev, you were a member of the terrorist Centre? Is that correct?

“Bakayev: That is so.

“Vishinsky: In the year 1933, you were commissioned to organise the murder of Comrade Stalin. Is that so?

“Bakayev: Yes.

“Vishinsky: You adopted a number of practical measures in order to carry out this commission, that is to say, to organise several attempts, to organise an attack on Comrade Stalin, which miscarried through no fault of yours?

“Bakayev: That is correct.

“Vishinsky: In addition you took part in the murder of Comrade Kirov?

“Bakayev: Yes.

“Vishinsky: Moreover you went to Leningrad on behalf of the terrorist Centre to cheek up on the preparations for this murder?

“Bakayev: Yes.

“Vishinsky: On returning from Leningrad you reported that everything was in order, that the preparations for the murder were going forward successfully. During your visit you met Kotolinov, Rumiantzev and others?

“Bakayev: Yes.

“Vishinsky: In addition you met Nikolaiev, gave him directions for the murder, and satisfied yourself that Nikolaiev was a determined person and would be in a position to carry out the task which had been set him?

“Bakayev: Yes.

“During the further course of the examination, however, Bakayev tried to make his part smaller by stating that he was only a ‘co-organiser’ in the preparations for the dastardly murder of Comrade Kirov.

“Vishinsky: You give signals, you check up on the times, you checkup on everything that has anything to do with your signal, you carry through an act; does not all that mean being the organiser of the of the crime?

“Bakayev: Yes, that means being the organiser of the crime.

“Vishinsky: Therefore, we are right in saying that you were the organiser of the murder of Comrade Kirov?

“Bakayev: Well, yes, only I was not alone.

“Vishinsky: You were not alone, Yevdokimov was with you. Defendant Zinoviev, you also were an organizer of the murder of Comrade Kirov?

“Zinoviev: In my opinion Bakayev is right if he means that those principally responsible for the dastardly murder of Kirov were myself – Zinoviev – Trotsky and Kamenev, who organised the united terrorist Centre. In this Bakayev played big part, but by no means a preponderating one.

“Vishinsky: The decisive roles were played by yourself, Trotsky and Kamenev. Defendant Kamenev, do you agree with Zinoviev’s statement that you, Trotsky and Zinoviev, were the principal organisers, and that Bakayev played the part of practical organiser?

“Kamenev: Yes.” (Pages 111-12)

“Shoot the Reptiles”

This may be a fitting point to notice that the report is itself a piece of propaganda on behalf the Politburo – the leading members of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party. They are frequently eulogised in it, and whatever there may have been in the statements or attitude of the accused that would tell in their favour at all, no mention is made in the report. Smirnov is a case in point. According foreign journalists who were in Moscow at the time, his attitude at the trial was by no means as abject as the report conveys. The Manchester Guardian correspondent states that Smirnov refused to recant. (Manchester Guardian, August 24th, 1936).

The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (August 21st, 1936) also gives a favourable idea of Smirnov’s attitude. This correspondent makes some further remarks that are worth quoting in full, as they throw an interesting light on the proceedings. In order to understand the opening remarks, we should mention that Sokolnikov, Rykov, Tomsky, Bukharin and Karl Radek had already been accused by the prisoners of complicity in the murder plot.

“Strangely enough, to-day’s newspapers suppress all reference to the charges made against these men, and Government officials state that, except for Sokolnikov, they are not yet under arrest. This adds to the general strangeness to the proceedings.

“To-day’s papers publish articles and resolutions headed “Shoot the Reptiles,” but nowhere do they mention where the trial is being held. Precautions have been taken to prevent the general public noticing arrivals and departures at the court house.

“The 300 people admitted to the court are for the most part newspaper representatives, officials and Secret Police, some in splendid uniforms and others in plain clothes. Some members of the Communist Youth Movement are also allowed to be present. Entirely contrary to all precedent, no photographs have been taken.”

This correspondent describes the arrival of Sofonova, who was brought from prison, where she awaits trial for conspiracy to murder Voroshilov.

“Sofonova, a grey-faced and hollow-cheeked woman of about 35, was dressed in a new drab beige frock with red facings. At the microphone, through which all the prisoners give evidence, she slowly repeated in a dull voice the charges she had made against Smirnov when under interrogation by the Secret Police.”

The prisoners’ evidence was considered sufficient to convict each other, and yet, although it was equally clear in the case of Bukharin and Rykov, we learn since that they have not brought to trial. Another instance of the fake nature of the business. Note in the above that the general public were not admitted to the trial, but some Communist youths were. Was this to give the latter a lesson or because they were too inexperienced to see through the business? Also a microphone was used. People could not see, but they were allowed to hear!

The description of Sofonova giving evidence in dull voice suggests the effects of the secret investigation and what means may have been used to terrify and cow the accused. The Evening Standard writes:-

“Most of the prisoners were near to collapse when the judge pronounced sentence.” (25/8/1936.)

Propaganda for Stalin

Another instance of the extent to which intimidation must have been carried is the obvious putting in the mouth of Kamenev the following self-condemnation and eulogy of the murderous clique at the head of Russia to-day:-

“The morning session of August 20th begins with an examination of the defendant L. B. Kamenev.

“‘The terrorist conspiracy was organised and led by myself, Zinoviev and Trotsky,’ testified Kamenev. ‘I came to the view that the policy of the Party, the policy of its leadership had won in the only sense in which a political victory is possible in the land of socialism, that this policy had been accepted by the toiling masses. Our attempt to speculate on the possibility of a split in the Party leadership also failed. We had reckoned on the Right group of Rykov, Bukharin and Trotsky. The elimination of this group from the leadership and the fact that it was discredited in the eyes of the toilers knocked this trump out of our hands too. We could not hope for any serious internal difficulties to overthrow the leadership which had carried the country through the most difficult stages, through industrialisation and collectivisation. There remained two roads: either honestly and completely to put an end to the struggle against the Party or to continue it, without any hope, however, for mass support, without a political platform, without a banner, i.e., by means of individual terror. We chose the second road. We were guided in doing this by boundless bitterness against the leadership of the Party and country and by a thirst for power to which we had once been near and from which we had been removed by the progress of historical development.’

“Replying to Vishinsky’s questions the defendant Kamenev related to the court how the Zinovievites had established a bloc with the Trotskyites with a view to organising a terrorist struggle against the Party and Soviet state.

“‘We conducted negotiations for a bloc with Smirnov, Mrachkovsky, Ter-Vaganyan not as with authors of independent political directives. They were of value to us as persons who were following with precision and directives of Trotsky. Knowing Smirnov and Mrachkovsky as active Trotskyites, knowing of Smirnov’s trip abroad and of the fact that he had established contact there with Trotsky, we were absolutely convinced that the directive regarding the terrorist policy conveyed by Smirnov and Mrachkovsky and defended by them was a precise directive from Trotsky. On the basis of this and owing to the fact that Trotsky’s directives for terrorism coincided with our own sentiments, we concluded what is referred to here as a “bloc,” and what should be called a close terrorist conspiracy. This conspiracy was built up in 1932 as an organised league which had no other platform and which took as its aim the capture of power by terrorist disorganisation of the government, by elimination and murder of Stalin as the leader of the Party and country and of his closest associates.’” (Page 1112)

The above is a fairly clear illustration of the propaganda side of the trial.

What Were the Secret Police Doing?

Let us now turn to some other points.

In December, 1934, and January, 1935, there were two trials in relation to the killing of Kirov. Kamenev, Zinoviev, Yevdokimov and Bakayev were charged in connection with this business and imprisoned, as were also several others. If there was a group of murder plotters then the government was obviously alive to it and secret police were on the job. In spite of this we are asked to believe that, as late as May, 1936, the plot was still being carried on, partly directed from prison, and that Fritz-David, Olberg, Berman-Yurin and company were still going ahead with the assassination project. Here is the statement from Berman-Yurin:-

“Berman-Yurin: In September, 1935, the congress was to have been convened. I gave Fritz David the Browning with the bullets, so that he would hide it in his apartment. But before the opening of the congress Fritz David informed me that he again was unable to obtain a ticket, but that he himself would be at the congress. We agreed that he then would commit the terrorist act.

“Several days later Fritz David and I met, and he said that he had been unable to shoot. He, Fritz David, had sat in a box; there were many people in a box and there was no possibility of shooting. Thus this plan of ours also failed.

“In December, Fritz David informed me that recently a messenger from Sedov and Trotsky had arrived, and asked for information why the terrorist action had not yet been carried out. Fritz David gave him exact information, and received instructions to seize some other opportunity, some interview for reception, to which I or Fritz David must without fail secure entry and there kill Stalin. In May, 1936, Fritz David informed Berman-Yurin that he had again had a messenger from Trotsky, a German, ‘who spoke extremely sharply with him, accused him of inactivity, of irresolution, of lack of courage, and literally demanded that he make use of any event to kill Stalin. It is necessary to hurry, no time must be lost,’ he said.

“‘At the end of May, 1936, I was arrested, and my terrorist activity was cut short.” (Page1119.)

As one writer has pointed out, the suggestion in the second paragraph above is that delegates at conferences are not allowed to move about freely.

While they were all under suspicion, and knew it, they are supposed to have been traveling freely back and forth reporting and plotting – and they all knew the ramifications and the power of the secret police!

No Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen

All through the business, efforts were made to link up Trotsky as the real director of the conspiracy. Here is Holzman’s statement:-

“After his arrival in Berlin, Holzman told the court, he rang up Sedov, and arranged to meet him at the Zoological Gardens. As Holzman and Sedov did not know one another, it was arranged that each should be carrying the copy of Berliner Tageblatt and the Vorwarts. After the two men met, Sedov proposed to Holzman they take a taxi.

“We drove in taxi – Holzman continues his disposition – but I do not remember the secret. Sedov took me into a flat; there was nobody in the flat. It was on the fourth floor. Here I gave him the report and code. … I met him like this six to eight times in the course of four months. ‘In November,’ Holzman continued, ‘I again ’phoned Sedov, and we met again. Sedov said to me: ‘As you are getting ready to go to the U.S.S.R., I would advise you to go with me to Copenhagen, where my father is.’”

“Vishinsky: That is?

“Holzman: That is, Trotsky.

“Vishinsky: You went?

“Holzman: I agreed, and told Sedov that in two or three days I would go to him in Copenhagen and stay at the Hotel Bristol, where we could meet. I went straight from the station to the hotel, and met Sedov in the lounge.” (Page 1120.)

Let us consider this statement.

The second paragraph states that Holzman went to a flat with Sedov, but Holzman could not remember the street, although he visited the flat “six to eight times in the course of four months.” How very curious?

The second line in the last paragraph is a misprint. Judging by the report printed in Moscow it should run" cealment we could not go together. I arranged with". This paragraph states that they met in 1932 at the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen. Unfortunately for this statement the diplomatic correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (September 17th, 1936) points out that the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen was pulled down in 1917! Possibly one of those who took part in preparing the case had been in Copenhagen during the War but did not know the dirty trick someone had played in 1917!

The above is an excellent specimen of the flimsiness of the evidence at the trial. The case is full of discrepancies and matters that are too much strain on the credulity of intelligent people.

It is worth remembering that in spite of the efforts of the Nazis in the German Reichstag Fire Trial in 1033, George Dimitrov was able to defend himself and eventually to get scot-free, and this was under what Communists are pleased to call “Bourgeois Justice.” Dimitrov did not appear before a packed court, and he was not subjected to the Russian methods of extracting “confessions.” The tone and nature of these confessions stamps them as the product of the Stalinite group and not of the accused.

This case should help to impress upon the workers’ minds the road Dictatorships, with their secret police, are bound to travel. Once free discussion is killed, Dictators have only one means of keeping in touch with mass opinion – secret police. The power wielded by those who control the latter enable them to perpetrate in safety what dark deeds they wish. Behind the scenes the Dictators struggle for control and it is woe for the loser. Ten years ago, Kamenev and Zinoviev united with Stalin to push out Trotsky. Today Nemesis has overtaken them.

The lengths to which the prosecution are prepared to go, in the effort to link up Trotsky with the German Secret Police, are shown in the case of Valentin Olberg, who is accused of obtaining a passport through the German Secret Police. The following dialogue also further illustrates how well the Russian Government have schooled their victims in self-vilification.

“Vishinsky: Who is Tukhalevsky?

“Olberg: ‘Tukhalevsky is director of the Slavonic Library of the Foreign Ministry in Prague. I learned from my brother that he was an agent of the German Secret Police. Tukhalevsky was informed of my visit and told me that he would endeavour to obtain for me the necessary documents. Thereupon I wrote to Sedov in Paris, informing him of the proposal the German Secret Police agent had made and asking whether Trotsky approved an agreement with such an agent. After some time I received a reply sanctioning my action, that is to say, my agreement with Tukhalevsky. Sedov wrote that the utmost secrecy was necessary, and that none of the other members of the Trotskyite organisation should be informed of this arrangement.

"Olberg received the passport through Tukhalevsky and certain Bend, from Lukas Parades, the Central Consul of Honduras in Berlin, who was staying in Prague at that time.

"Olberg: He sold me a passport for 13,000 Czech crowns. I received this money from Sedov.

“Vishinsky: Had any relations with the Republic of Honduras?

“Olberg: No, never.

“Vishinsky: Let me show this to you: Is this the passport? (The court commandant produces the passport.)” (Page 1117.)

Commenting on this the correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (August 29th) gives the following details on Olberg’s life:-

“Olberg’s father was Socialist who left the Soviet Union to settle in Germany. He took out German naturalisation papers, but in 1933 he had to leave Germany with his family, and was deprived of his German citizenship.

“Valentin Olberg settled in Prague with his wife, living in great poverty. He belonged to no political party, but was greatly attracted by the land of his childhood, Russia. He tried to get an academic post in Russia, and applied for a visa at the Russian consulate in Prague in 1934, but was told that he could not have visa unless he had a passport. It is possible to acquire the passports of certain States by purchase, and this has been done by émigrés who have been deprived of their own. Olberg succeeded in buying a Honduran passport for 7,000 Czech crowns (not 13,000 as ‘admitted’ in the trial). His wife’s parents also contributed a sum which they raised by the sale of old jewellery. That he obtained the passport from the Gestapo is, therefore, untrue.”

The correspondent, quite rightly, says that inaccurate “admissions” like this throw doubt on all admissions made by the prisoners.

Who Are the Next “Traitors”?

Vishinsky’s final speech is packed with fulsome flattery of Stalin and his associates – perhaps he also is thinking of his head! The following is a fair sample of it:-

“The whole country responded to the treacherous shot of December 1st, 1934, with a unanimous curse to the murderers. The whole country – millions and tens of millions of people were stirred and again demonstrated their solidarity and unity, their devotion to the great banner of the Party of Lenin-Stalin. Like an indestructible iron wall the whole land of the Soviets stood up in the defence of its chiefs and leaders, for each of whose hairs the criminal madmen will answer to us with their heads. In this boundless love of the millions of toilers for our Party, for the Central Committee, for our Stalin and his glorious companions, in this immeasurable love of the people lies the entire power of the defence and protection of our chiefs, the leaders, the country and the Party against traitors, murderers and bandits!” (Page 1125.)

If these words mean anything, is it not strange that the opposition should be pursued with such ferocity and disposed of with such haste? In such circumstances how was it possible to work up a dangerous conspiracy? And further, why the desperate anxiety to get hold of Trotsky to wipe him out also?

In conclusion let us note the names of the present leaders of Russia. The prosecutor gives them in the second paragraph of his final speech:-

“Terrible and monstrous is the chain of these crimes directed against our Socialist fatherland, crimes each of which deserves the severest condemnation and the severest penalty. Terrible and monstrous is the guilt of these criminals and murderers who raised their hand against the leaders of the Party, against Comrades Stalin, Voroshilov, Zdhanov, Kaganovich, Orjonikidze, Kosier, and Postyshev, against our leaders, the leaders of the Soviet state. Monstrous are the crimes of this band of people who not only prepared terrorist acts but killed one of the best sons of the working class, one among those most devoted to the cause of Socialism, one of the most beloved pupils of the great Stalin, the fiery tribune of the Proletarian Revolution, the unforgettable Sergei Mironovich Kirov.” (Page 1125.) (Italics ours.)

We now await news of the struggle between these six for power. We are not at present to prophesy which of them will be named as traitors!

Gilmac. 

Notes by the Way: The New Lie About Stalin’s Dictatorship (1956)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The New Lie About Stalin’s Dictatorship

Now that the Communists are denouncing Stalin's dictatorship they are putting forward the pretence that his dictatorship was a departure from the principles of Lenin and the Russian Communist Party.

The following declarations made by Lenin and Zinoviev in 1920, give this the lie direct

  "Now we are repeating what was approved by the Central Executive Committee two years ago in an official resolution! Now we are drawn back to a question that was decided long ago, in a manner approved of and made clear by the Central Executive Committee—namely, that the Soviet Socialist Democracy is in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of a class is at times best realised by a dictator, who sometimes will accomplish more by himself and is frequently more needed. At any rate, the principle towards one person rule was not only explained a long time ago, but was also decided by the Central Executive Committee."

(Lenin. Collected Works, Vol. 17, page 89. first Russian Edition).

"Every conscious worker must understand that the dictatorship of the working class cannot be realised otherwise than by means of the dictatorship of its advanced guard—the Communist Party."

O. Zinoviev in the Communist International, June-July, 1920).

How the Other Dockers Live

The £24 million Birmingham Small Arms group, manufacturers of motor cars, cycles, small arms and machine tools, has been in the news through the dismissal of Sir Bernard Docker from his position as Chairman and Managing Director and his replacement by Mr. John Sangster. Quite a number of interesting things have come out

First Sir Bernard Docker declared how small is the ownership of most of the shareholders:—

"There are 17,000 shareholders in the B.S.A. group. Anart from half-a-dozen or so big names, the average holding amounts to only a few hundred pounds."

(Evening Standard, 1st June, 1956). 

Then the report of an income tax case brought out how much one of the “big names" owns. Mr. John Sangster, the new Chairman of B.S.A. The following are extracts from the report in the Daily Mail (4 July, 1956): 

 "Mr. John Sangster, 60-year-old millionaire of the B.S.A. group, paid a cheque for £2,000,000 into his deposit account with a Birmingham bank. It caused him considerable trouble."

(The “trouble" was about the correct amount of tax payable on the interest, not simply the trouble of owning £2,000,000.)

The Daily Mail explains how he came to have a cheque of this not inconsiderable amount.

"In 1951 he sold his Triumph motor-cycle company to B.S.A. for £2,400,000. He said then: ’The threat of death duties forced me to sell.' "

Then we learned interesting tit-bits about Sir Bernard, from Mr. Sangster and abut B.S..A. from Sr Bernard.

It appears from the statement issued by B.S.A. that 

“in one year Sir Bernard received over £44,000 in fees and expenses. Five special Daimlers he ordered cost the company £50,000. He spent over £2,000 attending the Grace Kelly wedding in Monaco."

(Daily Mail, 17 July, 1956.)

Lady Docker also had some entertaining things to say about her ostentatious ways of living. Her main argument was that it was all good business for the B.S.A.'s Daimler car company. But she also claimed that she did it to please the workers. A Daily Telegraph reporter, who interviewed her, talked about her expensive clothes:—

 "Another dress, of rose, fully embroidered, was stated to have cost £580, Lady Docker said she wore at a company dance. ‘I always like to look glamorous for the workers and everybody there. They expect me to. I always dress up, even when I walk round the factories.’" (Daily Telegraph, 13th July, 1956). 

To the attacks on him and his wife Sir Bernard retorted by accusing the B.S.A. bosses of extravagance. He mentioned the £12,500 Glandyl Castle, bought by the company to hold records and management meetings, on which “something like £30,000 must have been spent" on furnishing. (Daily Express, 18 July, 1956). This latter expenditure was made without his knowledge and he did not approve.

With all this tossing about of large sums of money the workers were not entirely forgotten for in October last Sir Bernard announced that at “high cost to the company" the hourly-paid workers of B.S.A. were being offered the chance of entering Pension and Life Assurance scheme, on a contributory basis. (Economist, 10/10/55). Of course they would not be able to provide for their retirement on quite the same scale as Sir Bernard or Mr. Sangster.

The Daily Herald Editorial (19 July, 1956), joyfully welcomed all the rumpus and disclosures about B.S.A., ending, "Tell us more, tell us more, tell us more!"

Certainly we shall tell the Herald more. All of this sort of thing goes on in what the Herald calls the "Welfare State" and it was in full swing when the Labour Government was in office for six years.

Great Ike and Great Anthony

The Communist Daily Worker often says nasty things about. Eisenhower and Sir Anthony Eden. It had better look out or it may find itself out of step with its new heroes Kruschev and Bulganin, for at a dinner in Moscow on 24 June, 1956, these two were toasting Eisenhower and Eden in more than glowing terms. The following is from the Moscow report in the Daily Mail (25 June, 1956):

 "Another incident of an amazing night was Marshal Bulganin's toast to Sir Anthony Eden: 'Along with such a great man as President Eisenhower, to whose recovery my friend Kruschev proposed a toast, I propose a toast to another great man-our friend Eden.' "

The Daily Worker (25 June) carried a report of the same dinner but not the toast to the great pair. Their reporter did, however, record Bulganin as saying that Eden is “an honest, straightforward person, our friend."

If the great, honest, straightforward Eden is a friend of Bulganin should not the Daily Worker be his friend too?

Edgar Hardcastle

By The Way. (1918)

The By The Way column from the December 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

An interesting item of news recently appeared in the Press of this country. Under the heading, "On Ticket-of-Leave: Bolshevist System for the Bourgeoisie," I read that, according to a telegram from Petrograd, new passports for the bourgeoisie have been introduced by decree in the form of testimonial books. It continues—

  "Everybody who makes use of the work of others is to be provided with these—namely, directors of enterprises, members of administrative councils, merchants, brokers, ex-officers and lawyers. Only annotations of these books, saying that the requested work has been accomplished, will entitle the bearers to travel about Russia."—"Evening Standard," Oct. 24th, 1918.

Assuming the report to be true, I think we are entitled to rejoice and be exceeding glad that these blessings of civilization—work and registration cards and similar documents—have been conferred on those who in the past have been graciously pleased to bestow them on members of the international working class. It is the touch ironic.

--0-- 

We have read so many times of late that the Bolsheviks were in the pay of the Germans that it is with difficulty we approach the following—

  "The Matin publishes a telegram from Zurich, according to which the German Press is said to be displaying uneasiness with regard to the activities of the Russian Embassy in Berlin. M. Joffre, it is stated, is suspected of assisting in the importation into Germany of bombs and grenades, which are supposed to have been subsequently hidden in different parts of Berlin."— "National News," Nov. 3rd, 1918.

Therefore, you can pay your money and take your choice. On further reflection it would appear to be so much camouflage in order to obscure the position of affairs in Russia. One thing we know is that the Bolshevik revolution has sustained for twelve months the attacks from within and without.

--0-- 

Another Russian tit-bit also found a place in the newspapers here, doubtless because a "Bolshy" was having a tilt at Kaiser Bill (late of Prussia). According to a telegram the Commissary, M. Zinovieff, in a speech to the Soviet in Moscow, said :—

   "The German Consul has requested me to reply by letter whether it is true that I called the Emperor a brigand, as the German papers say.
Amidst general laughter, M. Zinovieff asked, Is it possible to suspect a Bolshevik of expressing himself disrespectfully regarding a monarch who is God's anointed, marked with God's finger, like William? I do not think I deserve this suspicion."—"Daily Chronicle" Oct. 25th, 1918.

--0-- 

One of the results of the revolution in Germany has been the liberating of Karl Liebknecht, among others, from prison. We read that

  "Liebknecht arrived at Berlin railway station yesterday afternoon, and was received in a triumphant manner by thousands of Berlin workmen and women, who crowded the station and surrounding streets. Liebknecht looked sick and exhausted, and his face told of hard suffering during his two years' imprisonment."—"Daily Chronicle," Oct. 25th, 1918.

In an explanatory note this journal of Liberalism goes on to inform its readers of the fearless and consistent attitude adopted by Liebknecht during the war. It says —

  "Karl Liebknecht is the arch-enemy at home of Prussian militarism. He was elected to the Reichstag in 1912 for Potsdam, the Kaiser's own borough. From the beginning he has opposed the war, and in appeals from prison to the workers he has proclaimed war on the German Government and the Junkers."

Now this is not the first occasion on which the English capitalist Press has given laudatory puffs to opponents of the German ruling class. Strikes on the part of the German workers have been eulogised here, whilst similar occurrences on the part of English workmen have been sufficient to call forth denunciation by that self-same Press and demands made for the immediate despatch to the front line trenches of such traitors to the country. If by a geographical accident Liebknecht had been born in England and had been the "arch-enemy" of militarism, I wonder whether he would have received the same attention in the capitalist Press, and further, would the treatment meted out to him have been any different from that which obtained under the regime of the Kaiser ? From the evidences on every hand I think not.

--0-- 

On this subject, referred to above, an illuminating comment was made in another journal, which is worthy of repetition here. Let me quote :—

  "One of the most interesting and satisfactory incidents of the change in Germany has been the amnesty to political prisoners, including Karl Liebknecht. It is an instance in which there seems to be room for acting upon the old injunction that it is right to learn even from the enemy. We can scarcely, while preaching liberal principles to Germany, refuse to practise them ourselves. Some of the imprisoned "conscientious objectors" are really very little more than political prisoners. If it be argued that the conscientious objectors' crime is not political, the position of the Government becomes even more difficult. For if these men are not imprisoned for political reasons, it is difficult to see why, except on moral or religious grounds, they are imprisoned at all, and the Government have themselves expressly denied their own competence to punish men for their religious opinions."—"Daily News," Oct. 28th, 1918.

This is somewhat severe on the people who are making the world "safe for democracy." Our rulers can undoubtedly "learn even from the enemy" if they desire to do so. We have only to call to mind the Irishmen and women who have been thrown into prison, and without trial, too; the large number of C.O.'s, many of whom are undergoing the second and third sentence; and John Maclean, of Glasgow, to realise how far we are behind the people who yesterday our masters termed the enemy.

--0-- 

Now the Election is upon us and we are hearing so much about the virtues of the Coalition candidates, "our gallant heroes" and their wives would do well to remember the generous treatment which they have received at the hands of the Coalition Governments during the war period. After long and strenuous pressure, and with an election looming in the distance, our legislators suddenly saw the justice of the demand for increased separation allowances, etc., and made some advance, with a further promise of looking into the matter. Compare this generosity with the following: —

  "In the matter of a visit of twelve gentlemen to Dublin, when £31 of public money was spent in two days in drinks and £5 in cigars, the Ministry now state that the officer responsible was reprimanded, and he subsequently resigned." — "Daily News," Nov. 18th, 1918.

This case was reported in the papers some time ago, but I quote what might be termed the inquest story, because it confirms the allegations then made. The quotation above is taken from a memorandum replying to the criticism of the Select Committee on National Expenditure as to the transactions of the Ministry of Information. Truly the devil is good to his own.

--0-- 

We have been obliged to smile at the pantomime performances of Havelock Wilson of late. What with arrogating to himself the right to determine whether or no certain people should be conveyed to the Continent to attend conferences, and then at last having to climb down from this exalted position, it is surely a case of the mighty having fallen. Doubtless this last achievement was facilitated by the fact that "at a special session of the Irish Trade Union Congress and Labour Party held in Dublin it was decided, at the outset of the proceedings, to exclude the delegates of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union as a protest against the members of that Union refusing to facilitate Mr. Henderson, Mr. Huysman, and other trade unionists in attending the International Labour Congresses" ("Reynolds's," Nov. 3rd, 1918). This is most assuredly an object lesson of the biter being bit.

--0-- 

Future historians will be able to place on record the wonderful methods adopted by a parsimonious, cheese-paring ruling class to make more tolerable the condition of its fighters and their dependents. Flag days have become part of our lives, and cadging appeals for this fund and that are of almost daily occurrence, all of which are to provide something that should have been assured by the State to the "men who have saved the Empire" (capital E, please). Ye valiant warriors, note these words—

"In response to the appeal for money to supply soldiers children with boots, "The National News" has received £931 17s. This has enabled us to relieve a thousand of the most necessitous cases in all parts of the country, and we feel that we have shown the way in which the needs of the men's dependents should now be supplied by an official organisation. . . . We must take this opportunity of thanking our readers whose generosity has enabled us to do so much for the bootless "kiddies" of our fighting men."—"National News," Nov. 3rd, 1918.

Capitalist politicians and apologists give utterance to fine words when speaking of the self-sacrifice of the armed forces, but they have as yet failed to translate into deeds their recognition of the hardships endured by the soldiers and sailors and their dependents in making the world safe for their capitalist masters.

--0-- 

How well the Labour fakirs carry out the desires and devices of their capitalist paymasters has been abundantly evidenced in recent times by the "plums" of office which have been bestowed upon them. Therefore, I conclude, it was acting on the principle of one good turn deserves another that friend Clynes has made arrangements for the production of potato flour on an extensive scale to be manipulated by the capitalist for the capitalist in the interest of the capitalist. But let me quote—

  "Mr. Clynes desires to entrust this business to private enterprise rather than to undertake what promises to be a continuing industry with the official staff of the Ministry of Food, and has been authorised by the Treasury to afford generous facilities to persons who have suitable buildings for housing the plant, and the necessary enterprise for starting the factories. The Ministry of Food will supply the potatoes required, and will purchase the whole of the resulting flake on terms which will leave a reasonable margin of profit to the manufacturer, and also enable him to acquire the plant." —"Daily News," Oct. 21st, 1918.

Here we see the gentleman who desires to be returned to the next Parliament to assist in the 
great kidding campaign of "reconstruction," helping to make the world safe for democracy—
pardon, I mean for the capitalist. Though the heavens fall, we must preserve the right of "a 
reasonable margin of profit" to the employing class.

The Scout.

Where Russia Stands. (1921)

From the October 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 3.

Earlier in this series of articles we promised to examine more closely the oft-repeated assertion that the Russian Bolsheviks were carrying further, and in the same spirit, the movement begun by the Paris Communards in March, 1871.

On comparing the Commune with the Bolshevik movement we find that there are fundamental differences between them.

The first (and most important) difference that comes to our notice concerns the method of control. The Commune aimed at, and realised during its short life, control of affairs directly by the whole people; whereas the Bolsheviks aimed at control by a few. It is true the Bolsheviks, in some of their proclamations, have made it appear that the Russian masses were in control, but we have already supplied abundant evidence through these columns illustrating how different the actuality is from the appearance. In order to bring the Bolshevik position on this question clearly to mind again, we submit the following further illustration:

  Nevertheless, we do not for a moment deny that our apparatus is rigidly centralised ; that our policy towards the bourgeoisie and towards the parties of the compromising Socialists is repressive in character; that the organisation of our own Party, as a ruling Party which exercises a dictatorship through the Soviets, is of a militarist type. —(“The Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Russia,” by N. Bucharin in the Workers Dreadnought, 4/12/1920).

Such, is the Bolshevik position—the antithesis of control by the masses.

What was the attitude of the Commune on this question ? Let us permit Engels to give his evidence first.

In his introduction to the German edition of the Civil War in France (see The Paris Commune, NewYork Labour News Co.), Engels points out that :

 The members of the Commune were divided into a majority of Blanquists, who had also predominated in the central committee of the National Guard, and a minority, which consisted for the most part of members of the International Working Men’s Association, who were adherents of the Proudhonian School of Socialism.

He then shows that both the Blanquists and Proudhonists did the very reverse of that which the doctrines of their school proscribed . Of the Blanquists he writes as follows:

  The Blanquists fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, held together by the rigid discipline essential to it, they started from the conception that a comparatively small number of resolute, well-organised men would be able not only to grasp the helm of State at a favourable moment, but also, through the display of great energy and reckless daring, to hold it as long as required, that is, until they had succeeded in carrying the masses of the people into the revolutionary current and ranging them round the small leading band. To accomplish this, what was necessary, above all else, was the most stringent, dictatorial centralisation of all powers in the hands of the new revolutionary government. And what did the Commune do, which in the majority consisted of these very Blanquists? In all its proclamations to the French people in the provinces it called upon them for a free federation of all French communes with Paris for a national organisation, which, for the first time, was to be the real creation of the nation. The army, the political police, the bureaucracy, all those agencies of oppression in a centralised government, which Napoleon had created in 1798, and which since then every new government had gladly used and kept up as ready weapons against its enemies, were to be abolished everywhere, as they had been abolished in Paris. —Page 16.

Lenin repeatedly cries out against the charge of “Blanquism” levelled at his group, and asserts “We are not Blanquists,” yet it is obvious that Engels’ description of the French Blanquists exactly fits the Bolsheviks.

We have previously quoted Zinovief‘s statement that the Russian Communist Party controls the State machine from top to bottom, though the membership of this Party was only a little over 600,000 in April, 1920, some of whom were excluded from voting. Taking Zinovief’s statement with that of Bucharin, quoted above, what is the difference between the Russian party and the Blanquists as defined by Engels? Only this. The Bolshevists are Blanquists in practice, whilst the Blanquists acted directly opposite to the Blanquist idea.

Now let us hear what Lissagaray, the historian of the Commune, has to say.

Of the Central Committee, the committee appointed by the National Guard prior to the promulgation of the Commune, he writes as follows :

  Their farewell address was worthy of their advent : “Do not forget that the men who will serve you best are those whom you will choose from amongst yourselves, living your life, suffering the same ills. Beware of the ambitious as well as the upstarts. Beware also of mere talkers. Shun those whom fortune has favoured, for only too rarely is he who possesses fortune prone to look upon the workingman as a brother. Give your preference to those who do not solicit your suffrages. True merit is modest, and it is for the workingmen to know those who are worthy, not for these to present themselves.
  They could indeed “come down the steps of the Hotel de Ville head erect,” these obscure men who had safely anchored the revolution of the 18th March. Named only to organise the National Guard, thrown at the head of a revolution without precedent and without guides, they had been able to resist the impatient, quell the riot, re-establish the public services, victual Paris, baffle intrigues, take advantage of all blunders of Versailles and of the Mayors, and, harassed on all sides, every moment in danger of civil war, know how to negotiate, to act at the right time and in the right place. They had embodied the tendency of the movement, limited their program to communal revindications, and conducted the entire population to the ballot-box.” —Page 124.

The Central Committee referred to by Lissagaray was composed of delegates appointed by the National Guard. The latter body comprised the able-bodied citizens of Paris after the departure of the Versaillese. The delegates in question were none of them appointed as members of any particular group or party; all were, as, Lissagaray repeatedly emphasises, unknown, obscure men, who voluntarily relinquished the power they held as soon as they had arranged for, and carried through, the elections of the delegates to the Commune itself.

The Bolshevik movement is the attempt at dictatorship on the part of a group within the Russian Communist Party. The Paris Commune, on the contrary, was no dictatorship of a party or group, but an endeavour to realise the participation of the whole of the people democratically in the administration of social affairs.

Much has been written by the Bolsheviks and their supporters around the question of freedom of the Press; volumes of ridicule and abuse have been poured upon the heads of those unfortunates who opposed the suppression of the bourgeois press, or who suggested that there was no point in gagging the press if the Russian masses were sufficiently advanced to understand the position. It must be borne in mind that the Bolsheviks make great capital out of the alleged overwhelming support they received from the workers, soldiers and peasants.

What did the Communards do (with no precedent to assist them) in this connection when faced by a position similar to that facing the Bolsheviks? Let us hear Lissagaray again :

  Sunday the 26th (March, 1871) was a day of joy and sunshine. Paris breathed again, happy, like one just escaped from death or great peril. At Versailles the streets looked gloomy, gendarmes occupied the station, brutally demanded passports, confiscated all the journals of Paris, and at the slightest expression of sympathy for the town arrested you. At Paris everybody could enter freely. The streets swarmed with people, the cafes were noisy ; the same lad cried out the Paris Journal and the Commune ; the attacks against the Hotel de Ville, the protestations of a few malcontents, were posted on the walls by the side of the placards of the Central Committee. The people were without anger because without fear. The voting paper had replaced the Chassepot.— Page 172.

From the above it will be seen that the statements of the Bourgeois were circulated as freely and openly as the statements of the Communards—exactly the opposite of the procedure in Russia. The Bolsheviks suppressed antagonistic journals; put into operation a “Committee of Public Safety” against their adversaries; demolished the Assembly that had been one of their watchwords ; put into operation labour and military conscription; and, in general, ruled with a mailed fist.

The Bolsheviks claim that the working class must break up the capitalist state machine as a preliminary step to the social revolution. On this question they make excessive use of Marx’s phrase, from the Civil War in France, the “working class cannot simply seize the available ready-machinery of the State and set it going for its own ends.” We have already dealt with this point, but a little further examination of it will be useful, particularly as Lenin employs several pages of his The State and Revolution to force an unwarrantable inference from Marx’s words.

In the first place, what constitutes a social revolution? A social revolution goes through three phases : First the educational and agitational phase; then the conquest of power; and finally the reorganisation of society to meet the requirements of the class just arisen to power.

Marx analysed the Commune and showed that once in power (that is to say, having reached the second phase) the Communards provided an illustration of the methods to be adopted by the workers to accomplish the revolution in conditions; that stopping at the mere laying hold “of the ready-made State machinery” would not solve their difficulties; but he nowhere suggests that the workers should abstain from, in the first instance, obtaining control of this machinery. Engels makes the matter quite clear when he says, in the Introduction to the Civil War in France (already quoted) :

  From the very outset the Commune had to recognise that the working-class, having once attained supremacy in the State, could not work with the old machinery of government.  (Italics ours.)— Page 17.

It is necessary to use the evidence of the Commune very carefully in this connection, because at the time a peculiar position had arisen. The French Bourgeoisie had already divested themselves of the greater part of their power by their intrigues and manipulations with Germany. In fact, in order to fight the Commune they had to beg of Bismarck the release of the French soldiers interned in Germany. The general in charge of the operations against the Commune was the same MacMahon who had “sold out” at Sedan.

The break-up of the capitalist State machinery may be a preliminary step to the revolution in social conditions, but it certainly is not a preliminary step to the conquest of power. The Bolsheviks, when blinding themselves with “the break up of the State machinery ” infer that this machinery must be “smashed ” before power can be obtained (it is true they frequently contradict themselves, as we have shown elsewhere), hence their contention that strikes and street insurrections are the main methods of action. For example, in the Socialist Review for July, 1920, there appears a translation of an official document entitled “Parliamentarism and the Struggle for the Soviets.” The following paragraph from this document makes clear the Bolshevik attitude :

  What we would particularly emphasise is the following : The real solution of the question is to be found, under all circumstances, outside Parliament, in the street. That strikes and insurrections are the only methods of resolute war between Capital and Labour is now clear. Therefore, the chief efforts of comrades should be directed to the work of the mobilisation of the masses, the establishment of the Party, the development of its own groups in industry and their control over it, the organisation of Soviets during the course of the struggle, the leading of mass action, agitation for the revolution among the masses—all that in the first line ; Parliamentary action and participation in election campaigns only as one expedient in this work—nothing more ” (Italics ours.)—Page 272.

The above document is signed “G. Zinoviev, President of the Executive Committee of the Communist International,” and dated September 1st, 1919. It must be remembered that Lenin is a leading member of the E.C. of the Communist International.

Many further illustrations could be given, but the above is sufficient to indicate what a subordinate position is given to parliamentary action by the Bolsheviks.

To those who refuse to be carried away by mere verbiage, it must be obvious that to attempt to smash the political machinery, without first getting hold of it, is the best way for the workers to get their heads smashed. If they first get hold of the political machinery (which they can do when the majority so wish) they can then, as Engels puts it, lop off its worst features at once. Engels’ statement, anent the State, made in 1891, is as follows :

  But in reality the State is nothing else than a machine for the oppression of one class by another class, and that no less so in the democratic republic than under the monarchy. At the very best it is an inheritance of evil bound to be transmitted to the proletariat when it has become victorious in its struggle for class supremacy, and the worst features of which it will have to lop off at once, as the Commune did, until a new race, grown up under new, free social conditions, will be in a position to shake off from itself this state rubbish in its entirety. —Page 20. Introd. to German ed. Civil War in France. (Italics ours.)

The above rather brief comparison of the Paris Commune with the Bolshevik movement will convey an idea of the nature of the differences between them.

Before concluding our sketch of the Russian movement there is another point to which we wish to draw attention.

Lenin and other Bolshevik writers frequently contend that they did not base their hopes of success upon an early uprising of the international working class. If we examine their proclamations and the reports of their speeches, however, we find that the contrary is true. The following quotations should set any doubts upon this point at rest :

  If in awaiting the imminent proletarian flood in Europe, Russia should be forced to conclude peace with the present-day Governments of the Central Powers, it would be a provisional, temporary, and transitory peace, with the revision of which the European Revolution will have to concern itself in the first instance. Our whole policy is built upon the expectation of this revolution.” (Italics ours.)—Page 160. From “What is a Peace Programme,” by L. Trotsky. Printed in International Conciliation” (New York, No. 149, April, 1920.)

In the same journal from which the above extract is taken there appears a May 1st Appeal from the Communist International “to the Toilers of the Whole World,” which is signed by the “Executive Committee of the Communist International,”‘ and concludes as follows :

 In 1919 was born the great Communist International.
In 1920 will be born the great International Soviet Republic.—Page 181.

It must be again pointed out that Lenin is a leading member of the Executive that sent out the above appeal, and Zinoviev is the secretary.

In different contributions, Trotzky and others go into ecstacies over the alleged spreading of the Soviet Movement throughout the world. Trotzky, in particular, states (Pravda, April 23rd, 1919) :

  At the present moment one awaits from day to day the victory of the Soviet Republic in Austria and in Germany. 

We are afraid the days are rather long ones, and Trotzky relies too much on wishes and too little on exact information.

However, time will bring the solution to Russian doubts and difficulties, as it has brought the solutions to the problems of the past.

At the present moment nature is playing a tragic part in the business. In ordinary circumstances a drought in Russia is a very serious matter owing to the primitive agricultural methods and the failure of the peasants as a class to make provision for the future. At the present juncture, when a world-wide drought of a particularly severe character has been combined with circumstances due to Bolshevik dictatorship, the results are greatly exasperated and presage disaster to the Bolshevik regime.

This fact, however, is no excuse for jubilation on the part of Bolshevik opponents, nor is the shedding of crocodile tears over the starving peasantry helpful. It should, however, induce the workers—and particularly the self-styled “revolutionists” of the brass band variety—to study the whole of the conditions, so far as information is available, that have given rise to the present state of affairs. By such action they will enlarge their knowledge of principles and tactics, and be capable of taking an understanding part in the struggle for international working class emancipation.

One lesson above all Russia drives home : No backward nation can leap the intermediate stages of development and jump ahead of the vanguard. One nation learns from another, and progress is, on the average, parallel in the advanced countries.

The laws of historical development, which work with an iron-like consistency, are defeating the Bolsheviks more conclusively than any capitalist army.

Gilmac.

A Socialist View of Bolshevist Policy. (1920)

From the July 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

Where We Stand

Ever since the Bolshevik minority seized the control of affairs in Russia we have been told that their “success” had completely changed Socialist policy. These “Communists” declare that the policy of Marx and Engels is out of date. Lenin and Trotsky are worshipped as the pathfinders of a shorter and easier road to Communism.

Unfortunately for these “Bolsheviks,” no evidence has yet been supplied to show wherein the policy of Marx and Engels is no longer useful, and until that evidence comes the Socialist Party of Great Britain will continue to advocate the same Marxian policy as before. We will continue to expose and oppose the present system and all its defenders and apologists. We shall insist upon the necessity of the working class understanding Socialism and organising with a political party to obtain it.

Socialism Far Off in Russia

When we are told that Socialism has been obtained in Russia without the long, hard and tedious work of educating the mass of workers in Socialism we not only deny it but refer our critics to Lenin’s own confessions. His statements prove that even though a vigorous and small minority may be able to seize power for a time, they can only hold it by modifying their plans to suit the ignorant majority. The minority in power in an economically backward country are forced to adapt their program to the undeveloped conditions and make continual concessions to the capitalist world around them. Offers to pay war debts to the Allies, to establish a Constituent Assembly, to compensate capitalists for losses, to cease propaganda in other countries, and to grant exploitation rights throughout Russia to the Western capitalists all show how far along the capitalist road they have had to travel and how badly they need the economic help of other countries. It shows above all that their loud and defiant challenge to the capitalist world has been silenced by their own internal and external weaknesses as we have so often predicted in these pages.

Lenin’s Confessions

The folly of adopting Bolshevik methods here is admitted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Chief Tasks of Our Times (p. 10).

  “A backward country can revolt quicker, because its opponent is rotten to the core, its middle class is not organised; but in order to continue the revolution a backward country will require immediately more circumspection, prudence, and endurance. In Western Europe it will be quite different; there it is much more difficult to begin, but it will be much easier to go on. This cannot be otherwise because there the proletariat is better organised and more closely united.”

Those who say “Russia can fight the world”, are answered by Lenin:

“Only a madman can imagine that the task of dethroning International Imperialism can be fulfilled by Russia alone.”

Lenin admits that

  “France and England have been learning for centuries what we have only learnt since 1905. Every class-conscious worker knows that the revolution grows but slowly amongst the free institutions of a united bourgeoisie, and that we shall only be able to fight against such forces when we are able to do so in conjunction with the revolutionary proletariat of Germany, France, and England. Till then, sad and contrary to revolutionary traditions as it may be, our only possible policy is to wait, to tack, and to retreat.”

State Capitalism for Russia

We have often stated that because of a large anti-Socialist peasantry and vast untrained population, Russia was a long way from Socialism. Lenin has now to admit this by saying:

  “Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about State Capitalism in a short time it would be a victory for us. How could they be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner?  How could they see the chief enemy in State Capitalism? In the transition period from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the small bourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits and position” (p. 11).

This reply of Lenin to the Communists of the Left (Bucharin and others) contains the further statement that,

  “To bring about State Capitalism at the present time means to establish the control and order formerly achieved by the propertied classes. We have in Germany an example of State Capitalism, and we know she proved our superior. If you would only give a little thought to what the security of such State Socialism would mean in Russia, a Soviet Russia, you would recognise that only madmen whose heads are full of formulas and doctrines can deny that State Socialism is our salvation. If we possessed it in Russia the transition to complete Socialism would be easy, because State Socialism is centralisation control, socialisation—in fact, everything that we lack. The greatest menace to us is the small bourgeoisie, which, owing to the history and economics of Russia, is the best organised class, and which prevents us from taking the step, on which depends the success of Socialism.”

Here we have plain admissions of the unripeness of the great mass of Russian people for Socialism and the small scale of Russian production.

If we are to copy Bolshevist policy in other countries we should have to demand State Capitalism, which is not a step to Socialism in advanced capitalist countries. The fact remains, as Lenin is driven to confess, that we do not have to learn from Russia, but Russia has to learn from lands where large scale production is dominant.

Lenin and the Trusts

  “My statement that in order to properly understand one’s task one should learn socialism from the promoters of Trusts aroused the indignation of the Communists of the Left. Yes, we do not want to teach the Trusts; on the contrary, we want to learn from them.” (p. 12)

Thus Lenin speaks to his critics. Owing to the untrained character of the workers and their failure to grasp the necessity of discipline and order in large scale production, Lenin has to employ “capitalist” experts to run the factories. He tells us:

  “We know all about Socialism, but we do not know how to organise on a large scale, how to manage distribution, and so on. The old Bolshevik leaders have not taught us these things, and this is not to the credit of our party. We have yet to go through this course and we say: Even if a man is a scoundrel of the deepest dye, if he is a merchant, experienced in organising production and distribution on a large scale, we must learn from him; if we do not learn from these people we shall never achieve Socialism, and the revolution will never get beyond the present stage. Socialism can only be reached by the development of State Capitalism the careful organisation of finance, control and discipline among the workers. Without this there is no Socialism.” (p. 12.)

That Socialism can only be reached through State Capitalism is untrue. Socialism depends upon large-scale production, whether organised by Trusts or Governments. State capitalism may be the method used in Russia, but only because the Bolshevik Government find their theories of doing without capitalist development unworkable—hence they are forced to retreat along the capitalist road.

The Internal Conflict

Lenin goes on:

  “The workers who base their activities on the principles of State Socialism are the most successful. It is so in the tanning, textile, and sugar industries, where the workers, knowing their industry, and wishing to preserve and to develop it, recognise with proletarian common sense that they are unable at present to cope with such a task, and therefore allot one third of the places to the capitalists in order to learn from them.”

This concession is another example of the conflict between Bolshevik theory and practice, for the very argument of Lenin against Kautsky and others was that in Russia they could go right ahead without needing the capitalist development such as it exists in other countries.

The whole speech of Lenin is directed against the growing body of workers in Russia who took Lenin at his word. These people fondly imagined that after throwing over Kerensky they could usher in freedom and ignore the capitalist world around them. They thought that factory discipline, Socialist education, and intelligent skilled supervision were simply pedantic ideas.

A further quotation from Lenin will make this clear:

  “Naturally the difficulties of organisation are enormous, but I do not see the least reason for despair and despondency in the fact that the Russian Revolution, having first solved the easier task—the overthrow of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, is now faced with the more difficult Socialist task of organising national finance and control, a task which is the initial stage of Socialism, and is inevitable, as is fully understood by the majority of class-conscious workers.”

He also says:

   “It is time to remonstrate when some people have worked themselves up to a state in which they consider the introduction of discipline into the ranks of the workers as a step backwards.” 

And he points out that

  “by the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and landowners we have cleared the way, we have not erected the structure of Socialism.”

How far they have cleared the capitalists out of the way is uncertain, as they are a long way from self-reliance. The long road ahead is admitted by Lenin in these words:

  “Until the workers have learned to organise on a large scale they are not Socialists, nor builders of a Socialist structure of society, and will not acquire the necessary knowledge for the establishment of the new world order. The path of organisation is a long one, and the tasks of Socialist constructive work require strenuous and continuous effort, with a corresponding knowledge which we do not sufficiently possess. It is hardly to be expected that the even more developed following generation will accomplish a complete transition into Socialism.” (p. 13.)

The Rule of the Minority

The denunciation of democracy by the Bolshevik leaders is quite understandable if we realise that only the minority in Russia are Communists. Lenin therefore denies control of affairs to the majority, but he cannot escape from the compromise involved in ruling with a minority. Not only is control of Russian affairs out of the hands of the Soviets as a whole, but not even all the members of the Communist Party are allowed to vote. Zinoviev, a leading Commissar, in his report to the First Congress of the Third International said:

  “Our Central Committee has decided to deprive certain categories of party members of the right to vote at the Congress of the party. Certainly it is unheard of to limit the right voting within the party, but the entire party has approved this measure, which is to assure the homogenous unity of the Communists So that in fact, we have 500,000 members who manage the entire State machine from top to bottom.” (The Socialist, 29.4.20. Italics not ours.)

So half a million members of the Communist Party (counting even those who are refused a vote within the party) control a society of 180 million members. It is quite plain why other parties’ papers were suppressed: obviously they could influence the great majority outside the Communist Party. The maintenance of power was assured by the Bolshevik minority through its control of political power and the armed forces.

Adolph Kohn