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. 

The Race for Space: Rockets Galore (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was 9 a.m. on August 6th, that the Russians fired Major Titov into orbit. The spaceman himself seems to have enjoyed the trip in Vostock II. He even managed to eat three meals and sleep for eight of the 24 hours he was out in space.

Who can deny that the whole thing was an impressive achievement? Indeed, it stands out as yet another example of man’s technical ability and his power to acquire knowledge and apply it to solve the problems he faces. In the space race these must be formidable, yet such has been the fantastic advance in the last few years that Professor Sir Bernard Lovell of Jodrell Bank hardly turned a hair when told of the latest Russian achievement. “I am not a bit surprised,” he said. According to a spokesman at his observatory, the Professor holds the view that a manned flight to the moon is only about five years off and nobody laughs at him for thinking it. Yet it was not so long ago that the British Interplanetary Society talked with daring optimism of perhaps a 50 year wait.

But it is against a background of events here on earth that we must view the Soviet feat. While the Bank holiday crowds in Britain digested the news, and messages of congratulations were heaped on the beaming young astronaut, the Western diplomats and politicians were doubtless reflecting gloomily on this latest indication of Russian rocket mastery. It was just one more worry to add to their already splitting headache over Berlin.

Some British scientists have expressed, the opinion that Vostock II was one of a series of “in between” flights to bridge the gap between Major Gargarin’s single orbit and a manned lunar flight. It should not be regarded, they say, as just a prestige trip. Be that as it may, it has certainly been exploited to the full by Mr. Khrushchev and the propaganda organs of the Soviet ruling class, as a boost to Russian confidence. There is little doubt also that American prestige suffered a corresponding blow, although it remains to be seen to what extent, particularly among the newly rising capitalist states.

The Guardian of August 8th offers a crumb of comfort to the American rulers and tells them not to be downhearted.

“They have some new and powerful rocked corning into service in the next year or two; they may soon be the pacemakers again. If Vostock II was a military weapon, a twelve months start might be technically decisive. In the history of scientific exploration twelve months is the blinking of an eye.”

The last sentence is true enough, but how foolish it is to ignore the war-like potentialities of scientific study in a capitalist world. This neat little piece of “compartmentising” just does not face up to the unpleasant reality that there really is no such thing as research for “peaceful purposes” in private property society.

While Vostock II itself was not a war weapon, it does nevertheless point to the undoubted technical lead currently held by the Soviets, and the military significance of this will not be overlooked by the U.S. and her N.A.T.O. allies. We can all remember the fear expressed in some sections of the British press, when the Russians successfully fired their “Moon Probe” rocket, that it would be possible to set up a military base on the moon, from which a power would be able to bombard its earthly enemies in a future war.

Now, with Major Titov’s flight, similar fears have been given voice in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Richard Russell, has warned that “… a satellite of this size could be utilized as a very dangerous weapon.” On the same day, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson confessed his admiration for the Soviet feat but “prayed that the arms race will not spread to outer space.”

But even ignoring this possibility, the sheer power of the present rockets and their accuracy as inter-continental missiles, give us all a glimpse of the terrifying prospect which we face if the cold war gets hotted up at any time. Mr. Krushchev has told us of Russian military might. When talking on August 7th about the Berlin crisis, he said :

“We are developing various rocket weapons, inter-continental ballistic rockets, of various range, strategic and tactical purpose, with atomic and hydrogen warheads. We also pay the necessary attention to other forms of military hardware.”

It was shortly after this that we heard of the Soviet 100-megaton bomb and his claim that there was a rocket to deliver it.

More specific was the Soviet Governent’s announcement of August 30th that they would resume nuclear testing and that “Titov-type” rockets could be used to carry their new super-powerful bombs to any part of the globe. An acceleration of the arms race can now be confidently expected and the space race is part of it.

And what of America? Although, at. present, she lags behind Russia in rocket development, she will make frantic efforts to catch up and snatch the lead. Already, anyway, there are three very advanced American rockets available—Polaris, Sky-bolt, and Minuteman—all highly mobile, but having warheads of no more than about 1 megaton yield. Now that Russia has broken the three year old moratorium on tests, the U.S. Government has the ideal political excuse to try out a greater range of bombs and develop the rockets to carry them. It is admitted in the Guardian of September 1st that pressure of opinion in favour of this has been building up in American military circles for some time, and designs already exist to increase the yield of Polaris and Sky-bolt to 2 megatons each.

So it is clear that the usual dirty and cynical game has been played by both sides over the past two or three years, and that all their talk of banning nuclear arms has been so much hypocritical eyewash. We shall not here take part in the futile debate on the relative advantages of the Russian and American types of rocket. Is it more desirable to have one that is massively powerful and can deliver 100 megatons, or one that is far less powerful and destructive, but has greater mobility? We neither know nor care. As far as we are concerned both types are highly undesirable.

Despite all these melancholy developments, do not let us lose sight of the tremendous possibilities of rocket propulsion. It is here to stay, and in the years since the end of the second World War, we have seen great strides in its development. There seems little doubt that fairly soon, it will be used in the exciting adventure of landing men on the moon and maybe even on the planets further afield. It could have great potentialities as a means of enhancing our knowledge of the universe. One thing is certain, it will unfortunately suffer perversion and defilement like so many other things in a capitalist world. But do not blame the rocket for this. Get rid of Capitalism.

Eddie Critchfield

Gorbachev and the End of Communism (1988)

From the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Bolsheviks who seized power in Russia in November 1917 drew a distinction, at the insistence of Lenin but unlike Marx and Engels, between socialism and communism.

By “socialism” they meant a society where everybody would be an employee of the state which in turn would own all the means of production; what should more properly be called state capitalism. By “communism” they meant what up to then had more usually been called socialism — a classless, moneyless, wageless, stateless society based on common ownership and democratic control. Thus, in the ABC of Communism, a textbook written to explain the new programme the Bolshevik party had adopted in March 1919, Bukharin and Preobrazhensky stated:

“The communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. Communist society will know nothing of money. Every worker will produce goods for the general welfare. He will not receive any certificate to the effect that he has delivered the product to society, he will receive no money, that is to say. In like manner, he will pay no money to society when he receives whatever he requires from the common store.”

In Bolshevik theory communism could not be established immediately after the capture of political power but only after “socialism” — defined, as we saw, as 100 per cent state capitalism — had been achieved. A moneyless, wageless society was seen as evolving gradually out of the state capitalist society that was the Bolsheviks’ real immediate aim.

This is still the official dogma of the Russian ruling class though their vision of communism, like everything else they inherited from their 1914 Marxist past, has suffered some significant distortions. It is seen as being able to exist on less than a world scale, either in one large country like Russia or the whole Russian bloc but above all the Party (if not the state as such) is seen as surviving into it.

Stalin proclaimed that “socialism” – more or less total state capitalism – had been achieved in 1936. So, ever since, the country has supposedly been heading for communism. Khrushchev, the last previous “liberal” ruler of Russia before Gorbachev, even tried to give this goal a concrete form as a way of enlisting popular support for his anti-Stalinist reform programme. The new Programme of the Russian Party, adopted in October 1961, declared in its introduction:

“Today the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) is adopting its third Programme, a programme for the building of communist society . . . . The supreme goal of the Party is to build a communist society on whose banner will be inscribed: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

and ended with the words:

“The Party solemnly proclaims: the present generation of Soviet people shall live in communism!”

A specific timetable was even laid down:

“The material and technical basis of communism will be built up by the end of the second decade (1971-80) . . . The construction of communist society will be fully completed in the subsequent period.”

The “communist principle of distribution according to need” was to be introduced gradually, even before 1980, before being extended generally in the 1980s:

“In the course of the second decade housing will gradually become rent-free for all citizens. Public transport facilities (trolleys, buses, trolley-buses and subways) will become free in the course of the second decade, and at the end of it such public amenities as water, gas and heating will also be free.

In addition to the existing free medical services, accommodation of sick persons at sanatoria and the dispensing of medicines will become gratuitous.

The transition to free public catering (midday meals) at enterprises and institutions, and for collective farmers at work, will begin in the second decade.”

Free housing, public transport, water, gas, heating, medical services and meals at work – this was the promise for the 1980s that the ruling party made to the Russian workers in 1961. Other promises included falling prices and the abolition of income tax. The fact that not one of these has been realised – Russian workers still have to pay for public transport, water, gas, heating and so on -shows that it is not just Western politicians who make promises that they don’t – in fact can’t – keep.

One of the first things Gorbachev had to do after he became Party leader in 1985 was to admit failure in this respect. As he told the 27th Party Congress held in February 1986:

“Much has changed in our life in the quarter of a century since the adoption of the Third Party Programme. New historical experience has been accumulated. Not all of the estimates and conclusions turned out to be correct. The idea of translating the tasks of the full-scale building of communism into direct practical action has proved to be premature. Certain miscalculations were made, too, in fixing deadlines for the solution of a number of concrete problems.”

He went on to denounce “simplistic ideas about the ways and period of time for carrying out the tasks of communist construction” and to declare that ”as for the chronological limits in which the Party’s targets are to be attained, they do not seem to be needed”; all that could be said on this was that these targets would be achieved after the end of the present century.

Gorbachev was announcing, in other words, that the establishment of “communism” in Russia was being postponed indefinitely. More in fact, since his alternative to Khrushchev’s “construction of communist society” as a mirage to hold before the Russian people — perestroika — amounts to a virtual abandoning of communism as a goal. The essence of perestroika, which is merely the Russian word for restructuring, is the gearing of production of individual state enterprises more to the profitable market demand than hitherto, involving in particular a price reform which, with the ending of state subsidies, is likely to mean a rise — rather than a fall towards zero, as promised by Khrushchev —in the price of many goods and services. Gorbachev said so explicitly at the special Party conference held at the end of June this year:

“The price reform cannot fail to affect retail prices. Today the retail price of many food products, notably that of meat and milk, is considerably lower than the actual cost of producing them, lower than the state’s procurement price. The state is compelled to cover this difference in the form of a subsidy. That is not a normal situation. It undermines the incentive for producing these products and gives rise to a wasteful attitude, especially towards bread.

We know all this perfectly well, comrades. It is absolutely necessary to resolve this problem, no matter how difficult it may be and no matter what doubts and fears it may create at first glance.

Here is our approach: the funds which the state is paying out as subsidies today will be handed over in full to the population as compensation.”(Financial Times, 29 June 1988)

In other words, instead of free services and falling prices being subsidised as a supposed transition to “the communist principle of distribution according to need”, both prices and wages are going to be allowed to rise, so forcing workers to buy what they need at a price corresponding to economic cost as determined by the operation of market forces. Money-commodity relations are to be strengthened rather than gradually abolished, as envisaged in the 1961 Party Programme. Perestroika, in fact, represents a complete repudiation of this perspective.

So where does this leave “communism”, or rather the free distribution by the Russian ruling class to its workers of goods and services? This goal now seems to have been shelved. The original version of the Party Programme adopted at the 22nd Party Congress in 1961 declared that “with the transition to the single form of people’s property and the communist system of distribution, commodity-money relations will become economically outdated and will wither away”. However the revised version adopted, under Gorbachev, at the 27th Party Congress in 1986 affirmed market relations to be inherent to the Russian social system (as indeed they are).

Propagandists for Gorbachev’s reforms go out of their way to emphasise that the goal is now a society in which the market will still exist. Abel Aganbegyan, a top economic adviser to Gorbachev and one of the theorists of perestroika, speaks in his recent book The Challenge: Economics of Perestroika of achieving in the 21st century, not the free distribution promised by Khrushchev for the 1980s and 90s, but “the full supply to the market of all the sought-after goods in order to ensure the full satisfaction of demand”. Another supporter of Gorbachev, Fedor Burlatsky, who in his time was also a  propagandist for Khrushchev, now criticises Khrushchev for having wanted to “leap” into communism. In an article this April in Literaturnaya Gazeta (translated into English and published in the June issue of Marxism Today) he contrasted “state socialism”, of which he sees Khrushchev’s “communism” as a variant, with what he calls “public, self-managing socialism” which he defines as “the planned commodity economy based on individual cost-accounting by enterprises”.

Though they have not done so yet, the Russian Party may end up embracing the same position as their Chinese counterparts who have also made a U-turn on this issue and who now see the “socialist” (in reality, state capitalist} stage, with commodity-production and market relations, lasting for another hundred years.

“In the latest attack on Stalin, the Shanghai journal Shu Lin carried an article attacking him for pressing too rapidly the transition from socialism to communism . . . Nowadays, the article said, China was only at the beginning of a 100-year socialist stage which was laying the foundation for the final realisation of Communism – only hazily defined even by Deng Xiaoping, the senior leader.” (Independent, 27 July 1988)

By that time the workers of the world should long have overthrown both the Russian and Chinese ruling classes and themselves have established a socialist (or communist, for the two words mean exactly the same thing} society based on common ownership and democratic control in which wealth will be produced simply as useful products to satisfy needs and no longer as commodities to be bought and sold on a market.

Adam Buick

Letter: The Progress of Russia (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (W. T. Fielding, Shrewsbury) asks us to comment on an issue of the News Bulletin of the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee. The issue in question (September 10th, 1938) is devoted largely to information and statistics about the progress of Russian industry and services, given in the speeches of the Commissar for Finance, A. G. Zverev, and others. Much of the speeches consisted of figures of State expenditure. The more interesting statements include the following : —

“He stated further that over 80 per cent. of the output of the industry in the U.S.S.R. is being manufactured in enterprises newly built or completely reconstructed during the last ten years. By 1937, the total output of Socialist industry exceeded the pre-War level eightfold. Tsarist Russia occupied fifth place in the world and fourth place in Europe in industrial output; the Soviet Union now holds first place in Europe and second in the world for industrial output.

The continuous progress of the national economy, together with price reductions on consumers’ goods, had resulted in a further considerable rise in the well-being of the people in the Soviet Union; this is shown, for instance, by the projected rise in the total wages of workers and offices employees from 82,000,000,000 roubles in 1937 to 94,000,000,000 roubles in 1938.”

Regarding educational progress, it was stated that there are now 33,000,000 pupils at elementary and secondary schools, and that the number of pupils in higher educational establishments considerably exceeds the number in the higher schools of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan taken together.

Much information was given about agricultural developments, mechanisation, etc. : —

“According to the 1910 census, the peasant farms of Russia had 7,800,000 primitive wooden ploughs, 2,200,000 improved wooden ploughs, 4,200,000 iron ploughs and 17,700,000 wooden harrows.

Now we have 6,158 machine tractor stations, in vehicles, and 104,323 modern threshing-machines, including the latest types. Some 500,000 tractors are working on our Soviet fields.

We now have in our villages our own Soviet skilled workers. We have in the villages of the U.S.S.R. 734,000 tractor drivers, 165,000 combine operators, 124,000 truck drivers, etc.

The peasant from time immemorial dreamed about the land, but he could receive that land only after the victory of the Socialist Revolution. Prior to the Revolution the greatest part of the land belonged to the landlords, monasteries, kulaks, and other exploiters. . . . About two-thirds of the peasants had less than three dessiatines each.

Of the total peasant farms in Tsarist Russia, 30 per cent. had no horses, 34 per cent. had practically no agricultural implements, 15 per cent. cultivated no land.

Now we have in the Soviet Union 243,000 collective farms, uniting over 18,000,000 peasant households (93 per cent. of the total) and embracing 99 per cent. of the total area cultivated by peasant farms.

Prior to the Revolution the landlords and kulaks had 72 per cent. of all the marketable grain. To-day 97 per cent. of the marketable grain is produced by the State and collective farms.

Tsarist Russia harvested annually, on an average, between 4,000 and 5,000 million poods of grain. Our Socialist agriculture already in 1937 produced 7,000 million poods of grain. The number of cattle is increasing year by year in our country. The well-being and culture of the collective farmers are steadily rising.”

The various figures of output, etc., must be considered in relation to Russia’s huge population, of about 170 million people, and in relation to the quality of the products.

Russia claims to occupy second place in world industrial output, U.S.A. holding first place, but the population of the U.S.A. is about 30 million less than that of Russia and it is not seriously disputed that the average quality of American industrial products is higher than that of Russia’s industries, many of which are relatively in their infancy.

The claim regarding the number of students in higher educational establishments is much more impressive because Russia’s population is about 130 million less than the total population of the countries with which comparison is made.

The final test of production is, of course, the standard of living of the mass of the population, and in spite of the rising level, no responsible authority in Russia, as far as we know, claims that it is high by comparison with, say, the standard of living in England or U.S.A. An example is the production of boots and shoes. The U.S.S.R. Handbook (1936) states that in 1934 Russia produced 69 million pairs of leather boots and shoes, and 65 million pairs of rubber boots and shoes. This means that it takes Russia about 2½ years to produce enough leather boots and shoes to provide one pair per head of the population. Production and sales of boots and shoes in Great Britain are about double the 1934 production in Russia, yet the population is only about one-quarter as large. Russian production will have increased considerably since 1934, though it may be mentioned that the production of leather boots and shoes in that year represented a big decline on 1933.

The statements about the progress of Russian agriculture must also be set against the admitted enormous decline in the number of horses, cattle and sheep that took place after 1929, due to deliberate slaughter by rich peasants who were opposed to the collective farms policy. This loss has not been made good.

Avowed opponents of the Russian Government, such as The Times, various oppositionists living in Russia, some visitors to Russia and former Communists who have become disillusioned, allege that the increased quantity of industrial products has been obtained at the cost of quality, for example, by using lower-grade coal and iron ore, poorer quality textiles, etc. Such allegations must be viewed in the light of the source from which they come, but so must the claims of the Russian dictatorship. Until such time as it is made possible for Russian workers freely to organise and to publish their own criticisms of the acts of the Government, the claims of that Government will be open to the charge that they are coloured to suit the interests of the governing clique. Indeed the authorities themselves have publicly admitted that their statistics have been faked by those responsible for compiling them, this being one of the charges against persons tried for alleged “Trotskyism.” A census of the population has just had to be taken again because the first lot of figures were found to be totally unreliable.

On the other hand, reliable testimony about the quality of some Russian factory products is provided by Mr. J. C. Little, President of the A.E.U., and a delegation of working engineers who visited Russia early in 1937. They say that in works they visited the work “equalled in skill and excellence the engineering products of heavy engineering in this country.” (The Times, November 10th, 1938.) It is probable that visitors are shown the more up-to-date works rather than an average selection, a practice not confined to Russia.

One last point is that no defender of the Russian system has been able to explain away the enormous and growing disparity of income between the mass of workers and the favoured group of specialists, officials, writers, bondholders, etc.

Ed. Comm.

Property Society — Russian Style (1977)

From the October 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 they were not making a revolution. The revolution had taken place some months earlier when the Tsarist regime was finally toppled together with the abandonment of feudalism, the build-up of capitalist production relations, and the recognition that this was to be the new form of society. All this had started before the Bolsheviks disbanded what democratic rights then existed in Russia and took control of the state machine. The Lenin coup speeded up this development.

However, Lenin and his conspiratorial clique claimed that they were about to do the impossible—establish Socialism without first having gone through the phase of capitalism. To this day, the Russian dictators claim that the present form of society is something to do with Socialism; is somehow the opposite of what happens in the West. The old joke is absolutely correct—“capitalist society is the exploitation of man by man, but in Russia it is the other way round”.

Almost as soon as Lenin had gained control of the state, the SPGB was able to point out that whatever else might be going on in Russia, it could not be the establishment of Socialism. Information about Russia was scarcer than it is today, but the SPGB had a sound understanding of the way society developed. We were able to point out that the two fundamental requirements for the establishment of the common ownership and control of, and free access to, all wealth and the means of producing it were missing. First, the potential of production in abundance, something which is only possible after capitalism has built up the productive forces; and second, mass Socialist consciousness, that is people ready to take over all wealth in society owned privately or by the state, with the knowledge of how to set up and run Socialist society. In 1977, sixty years later, it is clear to all that capitalism exists in Russia.

Capitalist constitution 

The hall-marks of capitalist society exist there; large amounts of property owned by certain sections of the community with the corollary that other sections do not own property in any meaningful sense, money, and buying and selling, a wages system, production for sale at a profit, a state machine backed up by armed force, and a system of law. This is capitalist society. The Russian Constitution (adopted by the 8th Congress of the Soviet of the USSR on December 5th, 1936, though slightly amended since) proudly and unashamedly boasts of all the major features of capitalism.

A few examples will make the point. To begin with, take the Russian legal system (of which the constitution is a part). Laws first developed when private property first appeared; they exist to maintain private property in the hands of the minority. All laws have this fundamental purpose. The more advanced the society, the more complicated and “mature” its legal system, and the Russian legal system is as complex and thorough as any. The need for a constitution and all that goes with it (judges, police, courts etc.) is only necessary for advanced property society. Their legal system is so similar to that which exists in Britain that W. Wilson MP, after a recent visit to Russia, could write:

The hard wooden seats and the long straight corridors of Leningrad City Court were no different from the wooden seats and long corridors often found in English Courts. The citizens of Leningrad who sat on those benches had the look of fearful expectancy that appears to be the never-changing mien of those who sit and wait outside English Courts. Inside the Leningrad City Court the occupants of the Bench could have been English provincial magistrates. The defendants — two waitresses charged with defalcation of the restaurant takings — appeared little different from two English waitresses in similar circumstances. (Law Society's Gazette, 10th Nov, 1976.)

The same misery and indignity that is imposed on the working class by the capitalist class the world over! Wilson concludes: “There are many aspects of Soviet criminal law that are on all fours with English criminal procedure.”

“Fundamental rights”

This conclusion is detailed in the Russian Constitution: capitalist relations are to exist, by law! The Constitution is divided into thirteen Chapters dealing with aspects of Russian property society. For example. Chapter 1 deals with “The Social Structure”, Chapter 2 “The State Structure”, Chapter 3 “The Highest Agencies of State Power”, Chapter 9 “The Court Structure” and the very revealing Chapter 10 is headed “Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens.” Each Chapter is divided into numbered subheadings (articles) covering the detailed matter of state power and administration. The Russian Constitution boldly protects individual liberties but this is meaningless. The Russian ruling clique has shown such scant regard for the “fundamental rights” enshrined in the Russian Constitution that it is right to say these “liberties” do not exist. Nevertheless, it is instructive to see what the Constitution says they are. In Article 125 of Chapter 10 It is provided as follows:

In conformity with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system, citizens of the USSR shall be guaranteed by law (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of the press; (c) freedom of assembly and meetings; (d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

Those people with any knowledge of western constitutions might think all this is suspiciously familiar. It is. Why is it necessary for the constitution to “declare” these “interests” of the “working people”? Does it mean that these so-called rights could be withdrawn, cut down, or totally ignored? In a Socialist society such meaningless declarations of good intent will be as unnecessary as they are absurd. In a free society there will be no possibility of forcing anyone to do anything, or taking away anything from anyone. If I want to speak, write, assemble with my friends, or march and demonstrate there will be no possibility of anyone preventing it. Socialism will be a voluntary society: the opposite of the coercive form of society that exists in Russia and the so- called “liberal” or “democratic” forms of society that exist in the west. There will be no need for constitutional claptrap.

The system of wage-labour is an essential feature of capitalist society. It is one of the fundamental characteristics that separate capitalism and its form of private property exploitation from every previous form. Right in the centre of the Russian Constitution (Chapter 10, article 118) the wages system is solemnly set forth in these words: “Citizens of the USSR shall have the right to labour, that is, the right to a guaranteed job with payment for their labour in accordance with its quantity and quality.” Article 12 of Chapter 1 makes sure the Russian worker does not miss the point: “Labour in the USSR shall be an obligation and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen in accordance with the principle ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat.’ ” Thus the Russian proletariat is told that it is an honour to produce wealth for the rulers!

Wages and profits

The Council of Ministers of the USSR publishes each year a booklet called USSR in Figures. Their tables for 1975 give average wage and salary levels (“the average wages and salary plus allowances and benefits per worker”) and states that a minimum monthly wage of 70 roubles has now been agreed. Income tax has been abolished for those earning less than 70 roubles (so much for the minimum wage?); also taxes have been reduced for those workers earning less than 90 roubles per month (p. 182/3). The converse of wages is profits. Profits are produced for the capitalist class throughout capitalism by paying the worker less in wages than the value he has produced. The balance left over is appropriated by the capitalist class, and spent as revenue, or accumulated in order to reinvest to produce more profits and so on. The booklet actually prints tables of profits (p. 45) and proclaims that these have increased by 9.6 per cent, against 1974 figures! The Russian workers have made it possible for their exploitation to continue and increase. What capitalist government would not be proud of such efforts?

For a country that claims to have established Socialism many years ago, it is notable that the Russian rulers constantly have to remind their wage slaves that Socialism has been established. The first page of the rules of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (adopted in 1961 and amended in 1966) states: “Under the direction of the Communist Party exploiting classes in the Soviet Union have been liquidated, and the moral and political unity of Soviet society has been formed and strengthened. Socialism has triumphed fully and finally.” Chapter 1 of the Constitution, concludes that in the USSR “the principle of socialism shall be carried out; from each according to his ability, to each according to his labour.”

Socialism has not been established in Russia—it could not have been. When it is established, the world over, the principle will be from each according to his ability right enough, but to each according to his need. Need will be determined by each individual according to his own requirements, not according to his pay-packet. The wages system, money, buying and selling, constitutions, law courts, police and jailers will be unnecessary. The conditions for establishing socialism are now the same in Russia as the rest of the world. It needs a working class politically educated to take the necessary steps for their own emancipation.

Ronnie Warrington

The bear on the rampage (1946)

From the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Delcassé once said “There are two diplomacies in this world that really count, the British and the Russian, for the simple reason that they are the only ones which plan in generations and not in months, in centuries and not in years.”

The unobservant man appears to be under the impression that the foreign policy of a capitalist government is determined by the party in power at the moment, whereas the truth is the track was probably laid down in the dim and distant past. The Labour Party is forced to foster and defend the interests of the Empire, and Stalin is the logical descendant of Peter the Great, the imperialist who laid the foundations of modern Russia. Capitalism has a ruthless code, and, so long as the system lasts., rulers and ruled are compelled to obey its mandate.

Gilbert Murray, in an article, “The Rule—The Lie,” in the current number of the “Contemporary Review,” says that “ When Nansen was distributing relief in Russia in 1921-22, one of the Soviet Government’s stipulations was that he should not reveal that the food came as a good will gift from foreign ‘capitalist' countries.”

The supplies that went from Britain to Russia during the late war are thought by countless numbers of Soviet citizens to have been sent from one part of Russia to the other. The Soviet Government rules by keeping its subjects in the dark, but events are helping to enlighten them. Edgar Bruce, in the “World Review” of May, tells of his experiences with the Russians in Europe who do not wish to go back to Soviet Russia. He was engaged in repatriation work and tried all be could to induce them to return to their native land. He wanted to know why many had no desire to go home. They sent him the following explanation : —

“We object to going back to the Soviet Union, it is all lies what they told us about our better living conditions in the Soviet Union.”

“ As peasants (on collective farms) the Government imposes taxes as follows on each individual: Milk contribution up to 500 litres, meat up to 32 kilo, eggs up to 120 eggs. If we keep our own cow a tax of 350 litres of milk from that cow has to be paid to the State. As workers the Government deducts 10 per cent, compulsory loan and then income tax and culture tax from our wages.

“The Stakhanovite system is a rate-cutting system. The Government gives an outstanding workman the best tools and materials. He sets up a production record which the Government expects the ordinary worker to attain.

“The average pay for a qualified man is 320 roubles a month, for the unskilled 80 or 90 roubles. Out of this ho must buy—black bread at 1 rouble a kilo, meat 12 roubles a kilo, butter 28 roubles a kilo, sugar 6.5 roubles a Kilo.

“The cost to the Government of these commodities is one-tenth and one-fourteenth of what we pay. Punishment for late arrival at work can be six months’ imprisonment. Private work outside the factory is forbidden, espionage is rampant, and one is not safe from denunciation even by a member of one’s own family. Nobody is allowed to choose his work or place of work.” Both peasants and workers in the deputation that came to interview Edgar Bruce stated that the standard of living was at starvation level."

In fairness to Stalin & Co. it must be pointed out. that the above statements are from men who were fed up with life in Russia, and may be overdrawn. This is somewhat different, however, from what we read in Communist publications and contradicts what is said in all countries by the “Friends of the Soviet Union.”

The Soviet Government is making a bid for expansion in Europe and Asia. It is now a matter of life and death for the Kremlin to continue its policy of world deception, it must conceal from the workers in countries outside Russia an understanding of what is happening in the Soviet Union, and also keep from its own wage slaves a real knowledge of the state of things existing in the other parks of the capitalist world. The Russian rulers, having control of the organs of publicity, are at present able to make their dupes believe what they want them to believe, but when disillusionment comes, as come it inevitably will, there may be a dreadful reckoning.

The Soviet Government is, like all capitalist governments, an enemy of Socialism, and aims at using its influence over the workers of other lands as a means of spreading its imperial power. The facts cry beware. What are the aspirations of Stalin & Co.? Let us first take Persia and judge what they are after by what they are doing. Azerbaijan contains oil. During the Russian occupation of the province they started exploiting that oil (they actually bored no less than thirty-five wells) without Teheran’s desire or permission. When, later, Teheran was consulted and refused the oil concessions, an autonomous Azerbaijan Government was set up for the express purpose of ceding those rights. British capitalism is already entrenched in the oilfields of Southern Persia and, of course, sees danger to its position and profits in the Russian incursion.

As Léon Blum says in the Manchester Guardian of May 21st: “The Communists sacrifice liberty to discipline to such an extent that liberty is in danger of disappearance. The Communists always take it for granted that Moscow is right. Communist methods of propaganda are so unscrupulous that they endanger the very fabric of democracy.”

On the last day in March, in Germany, a plebiscite was held to see whether the Social Democrats should amalgamate with the Communists. The result of the voting being a foregone conclusion in an anti-Communist sense, the Russian authorities, in their own particular zone, forbade the plebiscite to be held (they held a separate and special plebiscite in their own zone when the desired result had been well and truly assured). They, incidentally, thereby gave another definition of what they mean by the word “Democratic.”

The Russian spokesman who made, this announcement to the head polling office coined a new masterpiece of Bolshevik jargon: “The plebiscite is not prohibited, but it is not permitted.”

Mr. Voigt, a well known writer on international affairs, says: “ The time will come when Russia will in Western Germany promote a German national ‘proletarian’ revolution against the Western Powers. The revolution, if it succeeds, will inaugurate the anti-Western and more especially the anti-British armed alliance between Russia and Germany ” (“Nineteenth Century,” May).

Mr. Byrnes, speaking on the radio, May 20th, said “The Balkan treaties were blocked mainly by the Council’s inability to agree upon economic clauses and particularly by the Soviet refusal to allow inclusion in the treaties of any provision promising freedom of commerce on the Danube.”

It was German capitalism’s determination to control the inland waterways of Europe that was one of the causes of Anglo-American opposition leading to the late war.

Another writer in the same magazine says: “The information and facts available show that Russia considers herself to possess exclusive rights for economic expansion in the countries of the middle zone. She has concluded with several states at present occupied by Russian military forces trade agreements which would practically bar any outside trade and would eventually lead to melting these regions into the economic system of Soviet Russia. The Soviet trade policy strongly reminds us of that of pre-war Germany, with the difference that it is very much more brutal and thorough.”

The real reason why Russia is so persistent in her attacks on Franco Spain is connected with her ambitions in the Mediterranean. How little it is concerned with combatting a government with Nazi sympathies is shown by the sudden somersault in the Russian attitude to the similar government in the Argentine.

Another sphere of Russian penetration is Manchuria, about which it may be possible to deal in a further article.

Marx said “We should obtain a knowledge of international politics. It is essential if we are to accomplish our task that we should also participate.” Russia is in the new armaments race.

The likely line-up in the next scrap can already he perceived.

The interests of the working class are not served by fostering imperialism, whether practiced by Britain, the United Stales or Soviet Russia. The workers can achieve their emancipation when they refuse to be led by politicians whose object, like that of the Labour Party, is simply to perpetuate existing capitalist institutions. The continuation of capitalism in any form means another world war. The establishment of Socialism means permanent world peace, but this requires a majority of Socialists to bring about. The making of Socialists is the only way it can be done. Therefore, keep on the job.

Charles Lestor

It's that man again (1952)

Film Review from the September 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

As an alternative heading we could have chosen “The Man Who Won the War” or to give the film its real title “The Fall Of Berlin." A local paper advertising the film writes, “ he most stupendous and sensation packed film ever screened." “A Russian film with English sub-titles." “Eighty cameramen lost their lives to get these pictures. Come and see what life is like behind the Iron Curtain. Come and see a faithful representation of Mr. Joseph Stalin. Come and see the miserable end of the once great Adolf Hitler and his Bride of a few hours, Eva Braun. Superbly photographed in a new process—Agfa Colour. You've never seen anything so terrific and magnificent before."

If this lot doesn't make you vomit, then you are no socialist. The film is prefaced by a statement pointing out that the freedom of speech which we enjoy enables us to show such a film in England. Evidently the authorities seem to have some doubts that in Russia considerable hesitancy would arise before a similar American or English film could be shown there.

The technique of production is excellent, the colouring and also the filming, which all shows that Russia has been an able pupil of America in this respect, but the general theme is indeed more childish than most American films, and even they can stoop precious low when required.

If you have any doubts who won the war, then see this film, and it will prove beyond dispute that Generalissimo Joseph Vissarionovitch Stalin was the man! The story opens with a metal worker who broke the world's record for smelting iron. As a result he was sent for by no less a person than Stalin himself. The great man (Stalin we are now referring to and not the iron worker), was digging his garden when the record breaker was led to him by one of his commissars. When the worker saw the “Fuehrer of all Russia " he was so frightened with embarrassment that he tried to run away; but the masterly way and comradely manner in which Stalin shook hands with the simple iron worker, soon put the latter at ease in a way no other human individual could do it.

Then they adjourned for a meal, and round the table was Molotov, Voroshilov, Kalinin, Beria (although it was not stated that he was chief of the G.P.U., now called the N.K.V.D.). The worker then told these “bosses” how he was determined to work even harder and smash further records—and he showed surprise that this met with their approval.

Things then shifted to personal matters as if to display Stalin's greatness in his supreme simplicity, and our iron puddler told Stalin that he intended to get married. The great Stalin did not hesitate to give him some fatherly and friendly advice, as if to demonstrate his authority in this field.

Then the war clouds broke, and after the usual array of flashes, smoke, bangs and blood intended to portray war in all its savagery, our hero loses his comrades one by one until practically he alone is left to hoist the red flag over the Reichstag. He had fought all the way from Stalingrad to Berlin and was fighting his way through the Reichstag when one of his colleagues fell wounded in the chest. Another comrade picked him up and put his hand into his tunic pulling out a handkerchief soaked in blood. The latter with the handkerchief in his outstretched hand was himself a few moments later shot dead, but in his hand continued to hold the bloodstained handkerchief outstretched like a God-given signal and in such a melodramatic way which could occur nowhere but on the films. Please rise and sing :—

“ We'll raise the scarlet banner high !

Beneath this flag we'll live or die !

Tho' cowards jeer, and traitors sneer 1 

We'll keep the red flag flying here ! ! "

Hitler and his gang, Goering, Goebells, Jodi, Keitel, Rundstedt, etc., are clearly portrayed, although it is a little strange to English ears to hear them all speaking in Russian with occasional “Mein Herr's." These guys produce some laughs from the audience from those who could not have laughed at the Great Stalin nonsense. Churchill and Roosevelt are depicted around the table at Yalta, but are so outshone by Stalin's splendour and greatness, and the depth of his remarks, that one scarcely notices them. England only gets one mention in the film, and America is of course played down, not as an ally, but as a power with which the Germans were trying to co-operate, and who were leaving all the fighting for the Russians to do. Towards the end the orders for the German army are to take no notice of the Americans coming in the back door, but to keep the Russians out at all costs!

Then comes the splendid climax which all “stupendous” films must have. Victory is achieved by Stalin (assisted to a small degree by the Red army). They celebrate in Berlin; releasing the Russian prisoners, dance, sing and shout (although nobody has a drink). One would think with all the excitement and shouting that somebody would get thirsty. But still film producers can miss things, or is it that the Russians don’t drink ?

Then what do you think happens ? Yes, it does, and right in the centre of Berlin on the day of victory. Our hero meets his girl friend who was carried off by the Nazis and had just been released so that they can by accident bump into one another again. And then what do you think happens next, you could never guess. Yes, sure enough the Great Generalissimo Joseph Vissarionovitch Stalin himself swoops down from the sky like an angel, but in an aeroplane, and gets out in the middle of the celebrating crowds. They surround him in a large and orderly circle without having to be kept back by police or soldiers. They carried many large photos of him about 20ft square (Gaud knows how they got them there so quickly)—and boy do they give him a greeting for winning the war for them.

Now comes the final climax which brings tears to your eyes or loosens your bowels according to your diathesis. The hero and his girl friend are seen by the benevolent eyes of Stalin, and Stalin remembers him after all those years. The girl runs forward apparently recognizing the great man, and wants to hug him—yes, a simple school teacher actually embraces a being who has come as near to a God as is possible. It all reminds us of the words of Jesus, “suffer little children to come unto me." Well what else do you expect when a modern capitalist state goes all out for the Great Man idea. Had Hitler won and Moscow fallen, practically everything in the film could have been retained, but of course reversed. Oh pot, why do you keep calling the kettle black ?

Horace Jarvis.