|
CHAPTER
2
ANTI-CAPITALIST
SECTARIANISM
IN POWER
The Communist Manifesto,
written by Marx and Engels, begins with the sentence, 'A spectre is haunting
Europe - the spectre of Communism'. In our own time it can be said that
a 'spectre' has haunted revolutionary ANTI-CAPITALISM - the spectre of
Stalin. In more concrete terms, the political phenomenon which became
known as Stalinism, first polluted and then almost terminally infected,
the struggle for communal and socialistic ways of living and producing.
In removing the positive vision of an alternative form of POST-CAPITALIST
society, it also grievously undermined the anti-capitalist struggle. Stalin,
for most of his life, was certainly a determined anti-capitalist, but
one without a shred of humanity within him. Consequently what developed
in Russia was not guided by any firm humane principles. The following
summary of the Stalinist era will, therefore, not only identify sectarianism,
but clearly signal what can happen to a successful anti-capitalist struggle
if it does not contain and retain a strong and tenacious revolutionary-humanist
core.
The period of history
during which Joseph Stalin was undisputed head of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union was one which witnessed some of the most savage and
long lasting repression's ever witnessed in modern times. In its scale
it is equalled only by the Fascist regime of Hitler in Germany. Numerous
works depict and detail the brutality of this period, some try to trace
the causes in various ways. It is obviously not the intention of a single
chapter to re-create the extensiveness of this research and analysis.
However, it is the intention to review what is generally known about the
Stalin era, and relate this to the previously noted characteristics of
sectarianism. For example, throughout the reign of Stalin, the Communist
Party elite in the Soviet Union had an unshakeable belief in the correctness
of their policies, despite the contradictions between that conviction
and the actual developments taking place. It is now common knowledge that
the senior Communist party elite carried out the most bitter struggles
against each other, whilst simultaneously calling for unity. Stalin and
his close associates were characterised by their extreme bitterness, particularly
to rivals within their own party. Stalin, in particular was boastful and
arrogant. After the death of Lenin, he successfully maintained that he
alone held the key to the advance toward a post-capitalist society then
described as socialism. Finally, Stalin and his close associates in the
Communist Party and in the International, never stopped demanding, and
actively working to achieve, the subordination of the whole international
anti-capitalist and working class movement to its own policies and leadership.
All these directly correlate to the sectarian characteristics outlined
in the last chapter.
In this chapter, I
hope, to demonstrate conclusively that Stalinism, as a political trend
- emanating particularly strongly from Stalin - but supported by a whole
layer of high-ranking Party officials, bore all the hallmarks and characteristics
of sectarianism. By using those characteristics we have already established,
we shall be able to see that Stalinism was in fact full-blooded sectarianism,
played out on a vast scale. It was an accelerated development of that
same political trend which Lenin had clearly identified as existing within
the ranks of Bolshevism.
2.1
Background
The interval after
the 1914-1918 war, the first war to be conducted on a world scale, is
generally regarded as a period of great social and political upheavals.
It was one which, in terms of anti-capitalist politics, became dominated
by events in Russia. It is worth recalling that this First World War had
been anticipated and described by most anti-capitalists as a Capitalist
war. That is to say that it was viewed as primarily a war between the
various capitalist classes, who controlled the governmental hierarchies
of their respective nations. The purpose of that war was to determine
which set of capitalists, German, French or British, should dominate the
most important economic resources of the world.
Disagreements on the
nature and real purpose of the First World War were to split the early
anti-capitalist movement as no other previous event. Prior to that war,
the policy of anti-capitalists within the Second (Socialist) International
had been to oppose all future wars. In their resolutions, they refused
to sanction the idea of one section of working people fighting another
section under the flags of their respective countries. It was reasoned
that the working and oppressed people of all countries had nothing to
gain from fighting each other and everything to lose. However humane and
sensible this idea of international brotherhood and sisterhood, the reality
proved different. With the declaration of war this humanistic reasoning
was quickly discarded. War was not only supported, but enthusiastically
promoted by many so-called anti-capitalists who previously claimed to
be opposed to it. Defence of the capitalist 'fatherland' replaced defending
the interests of the international working class; an actual alliance with
the capitalists of their own country replaced the proposed alliance with
foreign workers. This issue first caused a split, and then the collapse,
of this Second International.
The effects of this
ghastly war upon the working classes were numerous and traumatic. During
and after it, they experienced the most extreme conditions imaginable,
and for no tangible gain. Millions of lives were sacrificed following
the half-baked battle schemes and tactical follies of their upper class
commanders. Those who survived returned to their own countries to find
that the capitalist classes had been making fortunes out of the 'war effort'.
The profits, made by many manufacturers and raw material producers, were
almost beyond popular belief. Yet the reward for those ordinary working
people, who survived the war, were conditions of homelessness and large
scale unemployment. In many countries a deep seated mood for radical change
began to surface. France, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Britain and
Germany, all witnessed civil disturbances and upheavals on a massive scale.
The resulting unrest was so severe that serious anti-capitalist revolutions
looked possible in several European countries.
In Russia this possibility
turned into reality. Revolutionary developments there took a decisive
turn in February 1917. This stage of the Russian revolution began as a
democratic movement against certain aspects of Autocratic oppression.
It gathered force in the form of pressure calling for an end to war, for
decent food and better working conditions. Finally, it was transformed
in October 1917 into an anti-capitalist struggle for a better form of
society. These transformations of purpose were sudden and surprising to
many, but not to all. Most of these developments were anticipated and
welcomed by a small group of revolutionary anti-capitalists who had opposed
the First World War and had been part of those who split with the chauvinistic
socialists of the Second International. This group has become known as
the Bolsheviks. As soon as the Bolsheviks felt they might be supported
by a majority in the Committees (Soviets) of workers, soldiers and peasants,
they organised for and declared a Soviet Government. It was then that
the previously noted characteristics of sectarianism accelerated within
the Bolshevik party and quickly flourished in the state and bureaucracy.
2.2
Bitterness and poison
The specific types
of activity covered by the terms bitterness and poison (sectarian characteristic
7) have so far not entered our consideration, but now they need to do
so. In politics, the results of bitterness and poison are manifested by
such actions as lying, double-dealing, and omissions at one end of the
scale, through character smearing, false accusations and expulsions, to
physical intimidation, beating, arrest, torture and physical assassination,
at the other end. In its more usual guises, political sectarianism - as
with politics in general - limits itself to the more moderate end of the
scale. Lying, deceit, omissions and distortions are the daily bread and
butter actions of the politician and sectarian, with only occasional sorties
into the realms of character smearing, false accusations, expulsions and
beatings. However, under certain conditions, control of state power being
one, sectarianism can - and as we shall see did - extend this usual repertoire
across the whole spectrum of sectarian actions.
Arguments over policy,
tactics and strategies were certainly not a new feature of the Russian
revolutionary movement. When they occurred, they were often intense, usually
angry, and more often than not lasted for some time. Yet the methods introduced
by Stalin to win the inner party struggles were of a different magnitude.
In addition to distorted polemic and 'fixing' supposedly democratic debates,
Stalin and his supporters introduced assassination, arrests, torture,
blackmail and frame-ups. It has been generally accepted that such methods
had up to this point only been used by the reactionary Tsarist police.
Henceforth they were used systematically by a small group of Bolsheviks
led by Stalin against every other group of Bolsheviks and other anti-capitalists
who so much as hinted at disagreeing with them. At one point (1926) there
were only three people out of an original 20 plus Political Bureau of
the Communist Party Central Committee who were left alive. Few had died
through natural causes. This is certainly evidence also of the sectarian
characteristic (4) of carrying on serious struggles against each other.
With the previously noted expulsion of Trotsky, Stalin was progressively
able to claim that he was the legitimate anti-capitalist inheritor of
Lenin's 'leadership' position and that he was also the only remaining
capable interpreter and font of Marxist wisdom. To consolidate this position
he also had the head of the Marx-Engels Institute, Ryazanov, removed in
1931 to facilitate a rewriting of Soviet history. This was done by alterations,
deletions and false insertions into the photographic and literary archives
of Russian Socialism and Communism. From then on, Stalinism was presented
to the world as being synonymous with anti-capitalism. Bureaucratic centralism
and sectarian violence became defined as Marxism. Neither was true of
course. Far from it. But not many people inside the Russian communist
party were prepared to argue at the point of a gun or with the threat
of exile or forced labour.
For other party members,
immediate self-interest or naiveté persuaded them to support what
was going on, or at least to turn a blind eye. Few working people knew
the extent or enormity of the outrages which were being perpetrated in
their name, but millions knew something was not right. Bureaucratic and
political oppression was within their daily experience. The result of
this distortion was that millions of working people, the poor and oppressed,
outside the Soviet Union and within, began to see little that was good
positive or humane in Marxism. If Stalinism was the result of Bolshevism,
and Bolshevism was guided by the anti-capitalist critique of Marx, then
who in their right minds would want any part of it? It is in this very
real sense that Stalinism has negated the vision of, and a struggle for,
a more egalitarian post-capitalist society of the future.
By the time Stalin
came to power, millions of workers were beginning to pay for the few advantages
the revolution had secured for them. The payment was in the form of extremely
hard work, accompanied by dictatorial management techniques backed up
with a fascist level of police brutality. This brutality was being used
to persuade any reluctant or faint-hearted working person to do exactly
as they were told. Under Stalin, forced labour camps, compulsory collectivisation
and exile became instruments of Communist Party economic and political
strategy. It is estimated, by one author, that over 20 million working
people died as a result of deliberate sectarian policy and actions during
the 23 year reign of Joseph Stalin and his supporters.
"Taking the conservative
figures of an average over the period 1936-50 inclusive of an 8 million
population of the camps and a 10 per cent death rate per annum, we get
a total casualty figure of 12 million dead. To this we must add a million
for the executions of the period, certainly a low estimate. Then there
are the casualties of the pre-Yezhov era of Stalin's rule, 1930-36: this
includes as its main component the 7 million who perished in the collectivisation
famine itself and the deportations associated with it, and in the camps
before 1937; again, minimal estimates. Thus we get a figure of 20 million
dead, which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase
of 50 per cent or so, as the debit balance of the Stalin regime for twenty-three
years. (The Great Terror. Robert Conquest. Pelican. page 710)
Genocide against one's
own class and comrades extends the extreme end of the sectarian scale
of actions, which exhibit bitterness and which poison the atmosphere of
social and political life. The alleged purpose of this genocide, was to
ensure fulfilment of the 'correct' economic plans and to suppress all
forms of opposition to the leadership in the Communist Party and State.
These purposes are made clear in the many articles and proclamations of
Stalin and his collaborators. They are also clear from the penal codes
legitimising such brutal acts. Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the
Russian Federation of Soviet Socialist Republics, specifically related
to such questions. Any actions designed not only to overthrow and undermine,
but also those to 'weaken' the authority of the Soviet Government, were
declared illegal. 'Weaken' could be interpreted as the act of speaking
out against some policy, or in other ways to criticise the ruling Bolshevik
party. Even attempting to leave the country was a criminal act and if
caught could lead to being imprisoned for up to ten years. Article 58
points (v) and (vi) made unauthorised contact with foreign nationals illegal,
as well as the publication of information on what was actually happening
in the Soviet Union. These specific points of the code, along with a number
of others, were aimed at intellectuals, skilled workers and the armed
forces. However, point (vii) of Article 58 was aimed directly at ordinary
working people. It made a criminal offence:
"The undermining
of State industry, transport, trade, monetary exchange or the credit system
and also of the co-operative network, committed for counter-revolutionary
purposes by means of making use to such ends of State establishments and
enterprises, or by means of impeding their normal functioning,..."(Reproduced
in Conquest page 744.)
To undermine industry,
trade or commerce by means of impeding their 'normal functioning' could
of course be stretched to include anything, from having a forbidden smoke
to being late or careless. However, the main purpose of this Article was
to make it illegal to strike, or even to be absent from work. The judgement
of whether something was counter-revolutionary or whether it 'impeded'
the normal functioning of state enterprises was, of course, left in the
hands of these Communist Party appointed managers. They, in turn were
supported by Party appointed judges, other officials and the secret police
- the much feared Cheka! Throughout the reign of Stalin, not only at the
height of the purges, it was possible for career minded communists to
advance their positions considerably, by denouncing other people as 'counter-revolutionaries'.
Little evidence was needed for such accusations. Where evidence was needed
it was more often than not fabricated. The Cheka and later the KGB, along
with the public prosecutors, preferred confessions. This preference was
inherited wholesale from the previously despised Czarist police and judicial
system. Confessions saved them the trouble of fabricating evidence and
the possible embarrassment of being discovered. Here is an example of
how these so-called comrades obtained these confessions of undermining
state industry or impeding its normal functioning.
"The torture began.
The five men beat viciously. They beat with fists, feet, birch rods, ramrods,
tightly braided towels; they beat with anything anywhere: on the head,
the face, the back, the stomach...most of all on the legs. Someone noticed
that I have sick legs and they began to beat on my legs."We'll fix
your legs for you!"
And they beat, they
beat. The more they beat, the more brutal they become. What annoyed them
most was that I did not scream."Will you scream? Will you holler?
Will you beg for mercy?" Kopetskii cursed and beat, beat....
How long they beat
me I don't know."Well boys take a break," Kopetskii commanded.
My fresh shirt had
turned to bloody shreds. I lay wet on the floor in a pool of blood. My
eyes were swollen. With difficulty I raised my eyelids and as if in a
fog saw my torturers....
They were smoking,
taking a rest.
They cursed me in gutter
talk, insulted me, mocked me, laughed..Someone came up to me and just
then something very painful burned my body. I was convulsed with pain,
and to keep from screaming, I clenched my teeth. And they laughed....Then
it burned again, again, again....I understood. They were putting out their
cigarettes on my body...
The break came to an
end and the beating continued with renewed force....
Everything proceeded
in a determined sequence. Beating, break, putting out cigarettes, again
beating, fainting, coming to, again beating, putting out cigarettes.....
" (Quoted in 'Let History Judge.' Roy Medvedev. Pub. Spokesman. page
265-266)
Such activities not
only poisoned the party atmosphere but the whole of social life and repelled
working people. All this was fraudulently done in the name of anti-capitalism
and the construction of a post-capitalist society which supposedly benefited
working people.
c)
Internal struggles
The sort of depraved
activity described above was carried out systematically against millions
of Soviet citizens and internally against their own Communist Party members
(sectarian characteristic 4) in the name of the struggle against capitalism!
It was done to extract confessions of deviating from the so-called 'CORRECT'
Marxist line and questioning the subordination of factory and party workers,
to the needs of the Communist Party. Sometimes, such activities were used
merely to settle old personal scores, often however, these claims of deviation
were from a peculiarly sectarian belief. It was a belief that there was
such a thing as a 'correct' line and that the ruling communist party members,
from their superior knowledge and understanding, knew what it was. They
arrogantly assumed from this that they were perfectly entitled to pursue
it against others who thought differently. Such acts were carried out
purposefully, in order to subordinate all the working class and anti-capitalist
movements, to the will of a small elite within the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union. These methods of terror and oppression were introduced
systematically to break the spirit and weaken the resistance of working
people and critics within the party. Work quotas were imposed in the economic
sphere, arbitrary and capricious rule in the political sphere. Communal
working under Stalin was conceived and operated by a political and military
elite, which ran an industrial economy as if it were a machine. Working
people were seen primarily as necessary but subordinate and dispensable
cogs in that machine. As we shall see, not only the state, but the trade
unions, the co-operatives, the local and regional committees of workers
and peasants, were all subordinated to the needs of the sectarians in
power.
Incidentally, the
above quoted practice of torture speaks volumes about socialisation -
particularly of men. For this kind of brutality - mostly carried out by
males - has existed and still exists in most parts of the world throughout
the modern epoch. That large numbers of males can descend to such bestial
depths against their fellow human beings is cause for some extreme concern
in the species 'Homo Sapiens', which considers itself wise and prudent.
It should also be stated clearly and unequivocally that such activities
have nothing in common with the struggle against capital and nothing whatsoever
to do with Karl Marx. The struggle for a post-capitalist society in all
its forms, utopian and scientific, was conceived as the humanist solution
to the competition, alienation, oppression and exploitation of Capitalism.
The post-capitalist
society envisaged by ordinary working people and the revolutionary humanism
of Marx, was never viewed as a new form of oppression which condoned brutality
and savagery;- not even against its opponents! Clearly, people who can
do such acts are not fit to found society anew - even though they may
be against capital. But whatever they choose to call themselves, they
are clearly not humanists, nor are they revolutionary. The reason is simple.
Systematic torture, terrorism and inhumanity can create only fear and
reaction. These are social acts, and related emotions, which 'conserve'
the status quo. They split the anti-capitalist movement and can drive
a section of their forces into the camp of the supporters of capital.
Tactics creating terror
and fear 'freeze' revolutionary development at the point it has reached
at that moment. If terror is employed, no further social or revolutionary
progress can take place: only stalemate, and a hankering after the old
days. Terrorist acts cannot render the people carrying them out, 'fit'
to facilitate the development of society in the interests of the majority.
Nor will these actions develop a spirit of revolutionary-humanism in those
who order such acts, or alternatively, look the other way when they occur.
The use of internal, or external terror will not attract the working masses
nor their supporters, or inspire them to support any future system based
upon it. The mass of ordinary people will see only that their oppression
now comes from two directions, their original enemies and those among
them now creating the terror. In terms of the kind of humanity aspired
to in the anti-capitalist struggle, as well as other struggles for equality
and against oppression, the ends do not justify any means. Terror, torture
or other forms of systematic depraved brutality, do not produce humane
results either in the short term or long term. Armed action and defence
of a revolution will undoubtedly be necessary, at some stages, in any
struggle for a better society. However, at all times, the clear humanist
purpose of anti-capitalist revolution will be necessary to inform, direct
and more importantly, temper the action and the defence of that struggle.
Any extension of forms
of struggle in the direction of terror and torture, quickly debases the
purpose of the struggle. It serves to legitimise such actions against
anyone who subsequently becomes labelled an enemy of the anti-capitalist
movement. It is not a question of 'holding off' progress toward a better
society until we have a species of 'perfect' human beings who will not
even think of such acts. It is a question of creating great emphasis and
clear recognition, within the anti-capitalist movement that such actions
are not only ineffective, and counterproductive, but are intolerable.
Where they do occur, by disturbed individuals, these would need to be
dealt with in an acceptable and appropriate manner. But ahead of, and
during any anti-capitalist struggle it will never be appropriate to descend
anywhere near to torture and beatings either in pursuit of an alternative
society, or in defence of it once it is achieved. Such apparent 'softness'
may result in some temporary setbacks in the struggle against a ruthless
enemy, but in the long term the movement will gain respect and strength
from aligning its methods with its aims. This is because from the standpoint
of the working and oppressed classes and of the future of the planet,
it is the continuing struggle against capitalist oppression that is at
stake, not just the outcome of any particular battle or skirmish. It is
better to lose a battle with principles intact than to win one with principles
in tatters. Of course it is even better to win and still have ones principles
intact.
Unfortunately this
was not the opinion of Stalin and his supporters. Internal struggles,
accusations and even executions together with the practice of torture
and beatings became widespread in Soviet Russia during the so-called socialist
period led by Stalin. With the full knowledge, and under the direction
of Stalin and his followers, committed anti-capitalist people - from high
ranking officials down to lowly workers and party members - were regularly
found shot dead, or they simply disappeared! Shooting ordinary citizens
was the 'supreme measure of social defence' as Article 58 of the
Soviet Criminal Code described it. The task of 'loyal' Communist Party
members, under Stalin, was to subordinate themselves, and all organisations
intended for working people to the needs of the ruling sectarian clique.
Loyalty to humane, humanist anti-capitalist or post-capitalist principles,
was not required by this oligarchic sect. Another related task of the
sectarians in power was to eliminate as 'pests' all independently minded
critics within their own ranks or outside them.
The brutality reached
such depths that even some of the torturers and assassins were eventually
sickened by the depravity and flinched from their despicable work. Interestingly,
it took many years of carrying out these 'duties' before some within the
Communist Party, felt sufficiently moved to complain. Such complaints
were labelled as deviations from the 'correct' Party line and those who
uttered them were then declared 'enemies of the people'. It soon became
their turn to be tortured and shot. This practice reached to the very
top of the Communist Party. With regard to the disappearance of the high-ranking
leaders of the Russian Communist Party and their replacement with men
from the lower ranks of the party, former Soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev
remarked:
"Many of the
original leaders of our Party and our country were wiped out. Where had
men like Molotov or Kaganovich or Voroshilov or Mykoyan been when Zinoviev,
Kamenev, Trotsky, Bukharin, and Rykov were running the country? Almost
the whole of the Politburo which had been in office at the time of Lenin's
death was purged." (Krushchev Remembers. Pub. Penguin. page 102.)
Such purges were clear
evidence of the extent and frequency of the internal struggles within
the ranks of the sectarian organisation known as the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union. Even in the 1990's in the Soviet Union and elsewhere,
there were people claiming to be anti-capitalist or communist (some even
claimed to be Leninist) who tried to deny that these barbaric practices
existed. When they could not be denied, due to a failure to cover them
up, they tried to justify them in one way or another. [In this way they
resembled the Fascists who tried to deny the existence of Nazi extermination
camps and gas chambers in Germany and Poland.] Other Communist Party members,
whilst not denying such barbarism, have in the past tried to justify it
on the grounds that it was a necessary price to pay for the rapid industrialisation
of the Soviet Union. Many more communists, and former communists, unable
to bring themselves to justify such depravity nevertheless failed to condemn
it openly or publicly. Their support, either vocal or silent, for Stalinist
sectarianism, was not only a personal betrayal, but they have been party
to a monumental setback for the working and oppressed people of the world
and the anti-capitalist struggle. They failed to correct the tragic and
distorted projection that Stalinism was the same thing as socialism; that
the logical development of anti-capitalism and a post-capitalist society,
was soviet-style communism. Thousands upon thousands of supporters of
Stalinist Communist Parties world wide have declined to acknowledge their
own small role in the existence and continuance of Stalinist sectarianism.
Krushchev is a rare example, and in his memoirs typically fails to indicate
the full extent of his own complicity in supporting and carrying out such
barbaric events, although he did at least admit to 'turning a blind eye':
"I never asked.
We always followed the rule that if you weren't told something, that meant
it didn't concern you; it was the State's business, and the less you knew
about it the better." (ibid p 100.)
If Kruschev, as a
high-ranking official of the Soviet State and the Communist Party, could
argue that certain things were part of the 'states business' and didn't
concern him - just who was the state? The answer Kruschev hopes us to
come to is of course Stalin, or more precisely Stalin and the head of
secret Police, Beria or his replacement, Yezhov. Kruschev would like his
readers to believe that a couple of political gangsters, along with a
small group of armed thugs recruited to carry out the terror were solely
responsible.
But can two or three
people, such as the triumvirate, terrorise millions without the complicity
of hundreds or even thousands of others in key positions? Of course not.
Otherwise there could be no hope for the revolutionary overthrow of any
ruling elite. There could have been no overthrow of the English or French
Aristocracy in the 17th and 18th centuries and none of the Russian Aristocracy
in 1917. To be successful, revolution depends not only upon the strength
or numbers of the oppressed in opposition, but upon the internal dissolution
of the ruling group or groups. As we shall consider in more detail later,
(chapter 12) where the ruling strata remain united and strong, there is
little prospect of successfully overthrowing them, even in the face of
widespread opposition. They control too many positions of power and suppression.
If there had been even moderate opposition to Stalin and his clique by
the ruling strata in the Soviet Union, he could not have lasted months,
let alone years. They would have led an internal political coup, or joined
and fomented an external opposition.
In actual fact, the
State at that time also included Kruschev and a great many other bureaucrats,
who not only carried out repressive measures, and knew when to turn a
blind eye, but did much else. Their advancement through the ranks of the
state and party apparatus was gained by designing, recommending, amplifying
and implementing the thousands of party resolutions and state orders which
underwrote the use of state terror against their own party comrades and
citizens. It is obvious that such extreme practices where they couldn't
be kept secret had to be in some way justified. As we have noted, this
was done cynically by reference to the needs of the anti-capitalist struggle
and progress toward socialism and communism. Later these acts were blamed
exclusively on Stalin. To a justified charge of inhumanity and brutality,
some of the guilty later simply extended their blood-stained arms and
pointed at Stalin.
2.4
Theory into Dogma.
The October revolution
in Russia had been carried out in the name of the anti-capitalist struggle
and for a worker and peasant led post-capitalist society. In that revolution
the Bolsheviks were supposed to be guided by the theories of Marx. We
have read the views of Marx on the role of sectarianism, so in Russia
it became necessary to disguise or justify these inhuman practices. Thus
Stalin began to oversee and organise a systematic distortion of anti-capitalist
theory and a falsification of events and people. In line with this he
also began to expound dogmatic theories and actions (sectarian characteristic's
1 & 15) which he asserted were both Marxist and Leninist. In fact
they did not adhere to Marx's view of anti-capitalist struggle, nor to
all of Lenin's. The theories and dogma which emerged were simply ideological
justifications which served the interests of a new dominant sectarian
and bureaucratic elite. Interesting examples abound. Writing in 1938 on
'Dialectical and Historical Materialism', Stalin shows an impressive grasp
of the language and forms of Marxist discourse. Dutifully quoting Marx,
Engels and Lenin in order to substantiate his assertions, Stalin appears
to expound clearly and logically, the general framework of Marxist theory
in relation to the dialectic. In the thirty pages of this article, a seemingly
concise resume is given of the main arguments for adopting a tough but
optimistic Party line. Seemingly, that is, until one examines the argument
more closely. For example;
"There are different
kinds of social ideas and theories. There are old ideas and theories which
have outlived their day and which serve the interest of the moribund forces
of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they hamper the development,
the progress of society. Then there are new and advanced ideas and theories
which serve the interests of the advanced forces of society. Their significance
lies in the fact that they facilitate the development, the progress of
society: .........Arising out of the new tasks set by the development
of the material life of society, the new social ideas and theories force
their way through, become the possession of the masses, mobilise and organise
them against the moribund forces of society, and thus facilitate the overthrow
of these forces, which hamper the development of the material life of
society." (Problems of Leninism. Stalin. 1938 edition p 726/727)
Although sometimes
confused and abstract, the terminology is all there. 'Material forces',
'progress', 'the masses'. It all appears very Marxist, yet it is a million
miles from Marx. For a start, ideas do not arise from 'society', but from
definite individuals within classes. The term 'society' used in this sense
is simply a useless abstraction. It tells us nothing and obscures much.
The re-categorisation of the class struggle into 'moribund forces' and
'advanced forces', and the content of the ideological struggle as between
'old ideas' and 'new ideas', is also pathetically abstract and distorted.
The article is not so much a primer in anti-capitalism for students, but
a justification for the methods and the 'material interests' of Stalin
and the bureaucracy. The 'new ideas' and the 'advanced forces' are those
of Stalin and his supporters, the 'old ideas' and the 'moribund forces',
are those which speak out against the direction of Stalin and the bureaucracy.
Of course it is then the task of the 'advanced forces' to overthrow the
'moribund forces', or 'smash' them as he goes on to argue. It clearly
indicates how the flexible guidelines of Marx had been turned into the
rigid and abstract dogma. Throughout the whole article there is no hint
of inner contradiction even though the word contradiction is used. It
contains no reference to then prevalent class divisions within the Soviet
Union, even though the working class and peasant class are mentioned.
After all the purges and murders of the 1920's, and after 21 years of
organised brutality in the so-called effort to build socialism, Stalin
had the cynical arrogance (characteristic 8) to include in this article
the following statement:
"Hence, socialism
is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science."
(ibid. page 724.)
From the dreams of
the utopian socialists of the 18th Century, Stalin smugly asserted that
his total distortion of Marx's anti-capitalism had fashioned this dreaming
into a science for building a better future. The implications of Stalin's
erudition (and the main purpose of the article) was to proclaim himself
as the leading and sole surviving exponent and propounder of this science
for a better future. This article, was produced in 1938. We have already
seen one example of how this 'better future for humanity' was being practised
at the time, by the political police on a prisoner's legs. It has also
been well documented that this was no mere temporary aberration, but something
which existed throughout the whole period of Stalin's leadership. Roy
Medvedev, a Soviet academic, provides an additional insight into what
was statistically going on, as Stalin was busy penning the previous words
of 'scientific' enlightenment. Using internal Soviet memoirs, archives
and newspapers, Medvedev, informs us that:
"In 1936-39,
on the most cautious estimates, four to five million people were subject
to repression for political reasons. At least four to five hundred thousand
of them - above all the high officials - were summarily shot; the rest
were given long terms of confinement. In 1937-38 there were days when
up to a thousand people were shot in Moscow alone. These were not streams,
these were rivers of blood, the blood of honest Soviet people. The truth
must be stated: not one of the tyrants and despots of the past persecuted
and destroyed so many of his compatriots." (Medvedev page 239)
Stalin was fashioning
his 'science of a better future for humanity' by shedding rivers of blood.
What utter depravity! This period was not characterised by dedication
to anti-capitalist and post-capitalist progress for humanity. In fact
quite the opposite! Stalin's rule was a veritable cess-pit of bitterness
and poison! The picture of this period has only been gradually put together
over the years and we are still lacking much detail. Stalin and his henchmen
were as systematic and vigorous in covering their tracks as they were
in rooting out and eliminating opposition and criticism of themselves.
Yet, despite the veils of secrecy and lies, many Soviet citizens and Communist
Party members knew horrible and despicable crimes were being carried out
in the name of anti-capitalism. They knew and kept quiet. In spite of
the warnings by Marx about the dangers of 'confused half knowledge' and
'superficially mastered socialist ideas', many who considered themselves
anti-capitalists swallowed all the lies and obeyed all the instructions.
Many of them, like the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg, comforted themselves
with the thought that they were just carrying out orders.
In the Soviet Union
and elsewhere, 'official Marxism' became the gospel according to Stalin.
The name of Marx was used, during this period, to justify the dogmatic
politics of a sectarian oligarchy. The result has been that the humanist
principles propounded by Marx lie buried beneath mountains of excrement
dumped on them by Stalin, senior Communist Party members and their supporters
world wide. It is important not to forget this last point in present or
any future anti-capitalist and post-capitalist struggles. Stalin was an
anti-capitalist, as were most of his supporters, but he, and they, were
certainly no humanists. Most of the Bolsheviks were determined and convinced
anti-capitalists but this determination and conviction was not matched
in anyway by a determined attachment to humanist or humane principles.
We can see from this that simply being an energetic and committed anti-capitalist
is not enough. Anti-capitalism is a necessary but woefully insufficient
condition for constructing any post-capitalist society which is of benefit
to the majority of the population. Anti-capitalism without a firm and
resolute humanist core is quite reactionary. We should ponder this lesson
deeply and also remind ourselves of the dangers of not speaking out against
wrongs that are committed by those who say they are on the anti-capitalist
side. The humanist purpose for the anti-capitalist struggle cannot be
disregarded or discarded without stripping the heart out of it. Remaining
silent on such questions is no better than looking the other way whilst
something horrible is happening to someone else.
As noted, the rationalisation,
that Stalinism was a product of a single despot acting on his own who
just couldn't be stopped, is a simplistic defence of those taking part
in the regime, or supporting it, but not wishing to be blamed for it.
The reality is that as in the case of Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Sadam
and any other oppressive regime, a whole supporting stratum existed within
the power structures which surrounded these autocratic individuals. Such
strata of individuals willingly support and carry out their 'leaders'
policies. This point is worth stressing, for it holds good for all kinds
of sectarian grouplets as well as larger political organisations and states.
No single person or small clique can rule against the wishes of the rest
of the party members or members of society. These elite individuals, be
they self-imposed despots or elected hard-liners, can exist only if significant
numbers - within their own party, within the intelligentsia or armed forces
- support that rule. A dictatorship is always a dictatorial collaboration
of a sizeable group or class using or nominating an individual tyrant.
In the particular
case of the Soviet Union the cynical indigenous state and military bureaucracy
and pro- Soviet Communists in the Comintern supported Stalin to the hilt.
We have noted earlier Kruschev remembering that he never asked questions.
This admission, of course, clearly presupposes that he heard of many things
which were questionable. In his famous 20th Congress speech in 1956 Kruschev
revealed, after Stalin's death, many of the highly questionable malpractice's
which had gone on while Stalin was alive. He could do so accurately for
he and others were personally well aware of them. Yet he does not tell
us that, at the same time that these questionable practices were going
on, he was not only refraining from asking questions, but was sending
greetings to Stalin in the following manner.
"Long live our
wise leader and teacher, the genius of mankind, the best friend and father
of the Soviet people, great Stalin." (Quoted in Russia at War. A.
Werth. Pub. Barrie and Rockliffe. page 10)
Kruschev was not on
his own. Thousands of other high and low ranking party officials and state
bureaucrats were doing the same, hailing Stalin as the great and wondrous
leader, loyally carrying out his dictates and even anticipating them.
They were busily forging and deleting, writing and rewriting eulogistic
histories; energetically processing forced labour permits and death warrants.
Their collective claim, to be acting in accord with Marx, was as fraudulent
and hypocritical as any claim that can be imagined. As representatives
of Bolshevik exploitation, many chose to be timeservers and sycophantic
hacks. Even as late as 1962, the fraudulent and careerist eulogy was still
going on. In that year a Russian scholar, G.N.Golikov, felt able to write
of the period 1926-1940 in terms of a positive advance for socialism:
"One of the great
victories of Socialism was the creation of the new Soviet man, with new
moral and political traits - a conscious active builder of Socialism."
(Information USSR. 1962 edition. page 206)
We have heard from
a victim of how the 'new moral and political traits' were exhibited by
the 'new' Soviet man. Numerous sources, including a former head of State,
have recounted the brutal exploits of the active builders
of a post-capitalist society, as they tortured and murdered their way,
not towards a new humanity, but toward degeneration and eventual collapse.
On the contrary, it was not new traits which were being established, but
quite old ones, they were those of oppression and exploitation. The new
morality was an old morality of false charges and liquidation. The 'conscious
active builders Socialism' were displaying traditions of parasitism, cynicism,
brutality, deceit, and arrogant elitism. Although the Soviet Communist
Party was undoubtedly a mass party, and therefore cannot be classed in
the same way as a mere sect, it is not hard to recognise the presence
of many, if not all, of the sectarian characteristics and traits outlined
in the previous chapter. This clearly demonstrates the fact that sectarianism
is a product of a particular style of politics (or religion) and so can
infect any size of organisation.
In the case of the
Stalinist form of sectarianism these characteristics developed fully within
the bureaucratic-centralism of the Soviet Union, after the successful
seizure of power. They were also manifested in the form of a separation
of the Party and State from the working masses and in particular the working
class. It was a separation which occurred during a period of revolutionary
downturn. The cliques of Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamanev and later Stalin and
Bukharin plus a few trusted others, always acted in relation to the party
in general and the working class in particular, in the manner of an oligarchic
sect. They had separate and secret meetings and they submitted to no discipline
but their own. They placed their own nominees in positions of power and
influence, and they were arrogant and boastful. Stalin, as the leader
of this inner party sect, was characterised by extreme bitterness and
capriciousness. He frequently called for unity (sectarian characteristic
6), but it was always on his terms and he betrayed those who responded
to his unity calls.
With the benefit of
hindsight, it is now easy to see that from the standpoint of the working
masses, Stalinism was essentially reactionary. Some, during his lifetime,
and without the benefit of hindsight, saw this and spoke out. However,
their voices were drowned out and stilled by yes-men, adulators and state
employed assassins. Stalinist sectarianism certainly transformed theory
into dogma (sectarian characteristic 15) and it undeniably became a pernicious
menace.
Another feature of
the Stalin period is interesting from the viewpoint of sectarian characteristics.
Despite the official condemnation of religion in Russia, a religious element
and fervour (characteristic 3) was introduced into party and state affairs.
A semi-religious regard was deliberately developed in relation to the
deceased Lenin and his supposed political infallibility. He alone had
guided the party. An individualistic 'guardian' and 'benefactor' image
was consciously and deliberately orchestrated after Lenin's death. This
religious characteristic and aura of superiority, once created about Lenin,
was later consciously and deliberately grafted onto the person of Stalin
himself. This was something else that Stalin could not and did not do
on his own. A whole series of people within the party and state bureaucracy,
as well as supporters abroad, played conscious and active roles in the
dissemination of a fictional construction concerning the political infallibility
of Stalin - the 'genius of mankind' in Kruschev's eulogy.
The Communist Party,
Central Committee and the Politburo increasingly spoke and wrote, using
abstractions, turning Marx's vocabulary into dogmatic assertions. The
central shibboleth of Stalinism, apart from its alleged theoretical purity
and continuity with Lenin, was 'Socialism in One Country'. This was the
essential distinguishing dogmatic feature used by Stalin and his supporters
in the early struggle within the Soviet Communist Party. It was used to
distinguish themselves from other groupings and factions within the party
and from other anti-capitalists. As a guiding concept it also served,
via the Communist International, to distinguish pro-soviet communists
from other varieties of anti-capitalists. And, through the use of the
Comintern, they succeeded in subordinating large parts of the international
anti-capitalist movement, to the particular needs of the Soviet Bureaucracy.
2.5
Subordinating the International anti-capitalist movement
The Communist International
or 'Comintern' was the third such international organisation founded in
order to unite the struggles of anti-capitalists and working people throughout
the world. The First International had been formed during the lifetime
of Marx and Engels, but had become moribund by 1876. The Second International
had been formed in 1889, and, as noted earlier, had split and deteriorated
soon after the outbreak of the First World War. The Third International
was formed in 1919. However, at the inaugural conference in March of that
year, there were doubts voiced by representatives of the German Communist
Party, about proceeding too quickly. The doubts included pointing out
the failure of the Second International to keep or deliver its promises.
These doubts were a recognition of the all too frequent gap between rhetoric
and reality; between the ease of declaring things, setting organisations
up and the difficulty of sustaining and correctly orientating them.
Nonetheless, the Comintern
was duly inaugurated and the leadership of it was placed in the hands
of three Russian Communist Party members, Zinoviev, Radek, and Bukharin.
Thus, the Soviet Communist Party had, from the start, effective control
of the Comintern. This control was exercised organisationally and politically.
It derived from the dominant material and intellectual influence which
the Russian Communists were able to exert over the anti-capitalist forces
of other countries. This influence and dominance came from the fact that
the Bolsheviks were the first anti-capitalist political party to be carried
to power in any country. The result of being placed in a majority position
by worker and peasant votes in the Russian Soviets was assumed to be evidence
of the political superiority of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party programme.
The fact that the Bolsheviks had assumed power on the basis of this majority
was seen as prima-facie evidence of Bolshevik tactical and strategic superiority.
This victory was not seen, by most, as the result of a surprisingly easy
coup, or even the 'dazzling easy success' as Lenin had called it.
This elevation, together
with the apparent extensive expertise in Marxist theory, personified by
Lenin and then transferred to Stalin, seemed to qualify the Russian Bolsheviks
beyond doubt for organisational 'leadership' of the International anti-capitalist
and working class movement. Once achieved, this domination continued throughout
the bureaucratic life of the Comintern; a life of duplicity, intrigue
and disaster for the struggle against capital. The Comintern's original
aims, in 1919, set against the background of the First World War (1914-1918)
with its horrors of mustard gas, tanks and the bombings of civilian targets,
were made clear:
" In this kingdom
of destruction, where not only the means of production and transportation
but also democratic institutions lie in bloody ruins, the proletariat
must create its own instrument in order above all to weld the working
class together and ensure it the opportunity of revolutionary intervention
into humanity's future development. That instrument is the workers' councils."
(Documents of the first Congress of the Comintern. Pamphlet. page 229)
Despite this rhetoric
of workers' councils, after Lenin's death and until its voluntary liquidation
in 1943, the Comintern was effectively an instrument of Joseph Stalin
and the senior Soviet oligarchy. The Comintern's original task had been
to "generalise the revolutionary experience of the working class"
in the struggle against capital. Under the control of the Stalinists this
task was transformed into one of simply defending bureaucratic exploitation
in Russia. At the same time, the avowed policy of the Soviet leadership
and bureaucracy became building 'socialism in one country', instead of
supporting anti-capitalist struggles elsewhere. Both these modifications
were contrived in order to maintain the sectarians in positions of power
and privilege. The non-Russian workers and anti-capitalists of the world,
instead of being encouraged to create their own democratic institutions
(workers' councils, community action groups etc.), were urged to do no
more than influence existing bourgeois institutions into supporting the
Soviet Union. Such 'pressure' was calculated to make the leaders of the
Capitalist nations think twice about blatant hostile economic and military
attacks upon the Soviet state. The payoff for such appeasement was considerable.
Not only did it mute the political and military attack of foreign governments
upon the Soviet Bureaucracy but also paved the way for lucrative economic
links. At the same time, international support for Stalin and his co-thinkers
brand of 'Marxism', also helped at home. It served to convince some doubters
within the Soviet Union that their leaders must be right to have so much
support among foreign workers.
So it was to the defence
of the Soviet bureaucracy's narrow sectarian interests, that the Comintern
and its affiliated bodies were deliberately subordinated. The parasitic
needs and interests of Stalin and his supporters led quickly to agreements
of mutual-aid between the Soviet leaders and their avowed enemies, the
leaders of a number of capitalist countries. This was not done out of
urgent necessity as the Bolsheviks had been forced to do earlier at Brest
Litovsk. In those earlier days of weakness, a treaty of surrender with
Germany had almost certainly been necessary to prevent total destruction
of the newly formed socialist country. However, by 1930, the Soviet Union
had a degree of external stability and was not in a position of needing
to surrender.
This later Soviet-German
Pact, was signed purely to gain some economic and political advantage
for the Soviet leadership. The agreement was with the very same Nazi Party
Leaders who had purged and eliminated anti-capitalists, socialists, communists,
trade unionists and anti-fascists in Germany. Such betrayal is less surprising,
when we recall that Stalin and his particular brand of sectarian anti-capitalist
supporters were doing exactly the same to other anti-capitalists, socialists,
communists and trade unionists within the Soviet Union.
Stalinist domestic
policies had first led to the subordination and the physical elimination
of organised working-class opposition in Russia, as well as to extreme
forms of exploitation such as slave labour. In this endeavour Stalin and
Hitler shared almost identical tactics and similar goals, so an agreement
based around complementary territorial designs outside their own countries
was an obvious diplomatic possibility. Understandably, such an agreement
needed some slick-tongued rationalisations to explain it away to the ordinary
citizen or rank and file party member. One such rationalisation came from
the lips of a Kremlin apologist named Togliatti. Being a leader of the
Italian Communist Party, made Togliatti ideally placed to defend their
interests. He was able to pose as an apparently impartial outsider. At
the seventh congress of the Comintern, Togliatti scolded the critics of
Stalin's foreign policy;
"There have been
some waverings, individual comrades even getting the idea that the conclusion
of mutual-aid pacts meant losing sight of the prospects of revolution
in Europe...But these few comrades have demonstrated only that they are
unable to distinguish between a retreat and an advance. Could one conceive
a more remarkable success than the fact that a big capitalist country
is compelled to sign an agreement of mutual aid with the Soviet Union,
an agreement which stipulates defence against an aggressor, defence of
peace and of the frontiers of the country of proletarian dictatorship?"
(quoted in F. Claudin 'The Communist Movement' Pub. Abacus. page 187)
In the changed climate
of the 1935 Comintern Congress, voluntary agreements between the heads
of states of capitalist countries and the heads of a so-called anti-capitalist
country for mutual aid, were suddenly hailed as a remarkable success.
Those who doubted this were described as waverers. The understandable
and valid objections to this accommodation with Hitlerite Fascism were
treated as a simple case of short-sightedness. Those who objected were
patronisingly informed that they couldn't tell the difference between
a retreat and an advance. The events in the Soviet Union and the Stalinisation
of the Comintern, not only misled and misinformed those who desired a
humane post-capitalist society in Russia, but had devastating effects
upon the international anti-capitalist struggle. Using its hierarchical
structures, along with personal favours and threats through the Comintern,
Stalin, on behalf of the Soviet bureaucracy, was able to manipulate and
divide the different sections of the international working class. The
purpose of this manipulation was to 'guide' as many of them as possible
along paths most suitable to the needs and interests of the ruling Soviet
bureaucracy. This fact was often openly recognised, even by followers
loyal to Stalin. The function of the Communist International was also
understood in precisely this way by a once highly placed member of the
British Communist Party:
"We had always
publicly denied that the communist International's policies were dictated
by the Russian Party or the Soviet Government - although we realised that
even if this were so it would be permissible, since at all costs the Communist
victory in Russia must be preserved. Now however, the Russians had dictated
that the C.I. was to be brought to an end. If they could do that, then
clearly the C.I must all along have been their pawn." (I Believed'
D Hyde. Pub. Pan page 155)
It would require rather
more evidence than this assertion to agree with Douglas Hyde, that the
International had 'all along' been a pawn of the Soviet Government. Nonetheless,
the description certainly fits from shortly after the time Stalin took
control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Hyde's acceptance
of the defence of the Soviet Union 'at all costs' indicates the success
of the sectarian attempt by Stalin and his supporters to subordinate the
international anti-capitalist and working-class movement to the Communist
Parties and the Communist International (sectarian characteristic 10).
It also demonstrated the ease with which the organisational loyalty and
intellectual shortcomings of many communists and anti-capitalists could
be used to direct them into sectarian blind alleys. In one country after
another, Stalin's interference via the Comintern and the national Communist
Parties, was to have catastrophic effects and outcomes.
This was particularly
so with regard to the struggle against Fascism in Italy and Germany in
the 1930's. Stalin and his supporters, through their hierarchical control
of the 3rd International, were able to 'download' sectarianism to the
international struggle against the capitalist system. After categorising
reformist German workers' organisations and members as Social Fascists,
for example, the Stalinist leadership ordered German Communist Party members
and sympathisers not to side with them in the early struggle against Hitler's
party. This was an important factor in easing the Fascists passage to
political power for they faced a divided opposition. The ultimate cost
of this policy was devastating and horrific as Hitler's armies later butchered
their way through Europe. When Hitler's armies finally turned on the Soviet
Union, it became the turn of Soviet workers and peasants to reap the bitter
harvest sown by Stalinist sectarianism. The fact that Stalin emerged out
of the war, backed by his propaganda machine, as the 'saviour of Russia',
was a double and disgusting irony.
2.6
Boastful, arrogant and repulsive
The sectarian characteristics
displayed by Stalin, particularly those of arrogance and repulsiveness,
were not unknown to his comrades in the Russian Communist Party. Lenin,
in a series of notes, which became known as the 'Lenin Testament' (since
they were written shortly before Lenin died), noted that Stalin had accumulated
unlimited authority in his hands. He went on to express uncertainty, whether
Stalin would use that authority with sufficient caution.
Lenin then called for the removal of Stalin from his position of power.
In a postscript to this 'testament', written in December 1922, he also
expressed the opinion that;
" Stalin is too
rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealings
amongst us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary General."
(Lenin. Collected Works. Volume 33 page 458.)
In a further comment,
Lenin added that Stalin's haste and spite had caused extreme problems
in the Georgian region. He then used the term 'vulgar Great Russian bully'
in a clear reference to Stalin. Knowledge of Stalin's spite, treachery,
and arrogance date back to his early days with the Bolsheviks. These characteristics
were quite well known to many of his associates. Therefore, it is not
so surprising that when he achieved control of a powerful state machine
he would not use it cautiously and with kindness. Anyone acquainted with
the character and methods of Stalin over a twenty year period, could have
predicted with some degree of accuracy what might happen if Stalin came
to absolute power. Lenin knew and acted, albeit only when it was too late.
Many more of Stalin's comrades in the Bolshevik Party must also have been
able to predict the likely outcome. Undoubtedly they were comforted by
the thought that someone with such a relatively low intellectual ability
as Stalin, would be unlikely to succeed Lenin. Perhaps they naively believed
that the power of ideas and intellect in politics would prevail over the
power of armed henchmen.
We have noted in the
previous chapter that the splits within the Russian Communist Party not
only led to repression's and assassinations, but to the expulsion from
the Party of many former Bolsheviks, Leon Trotsky being among them. Prior
to his expulsion Trotsky had organised a 'left opposition'. This was a
somewhat last-ditch and belated attempt to alter the party from within;
an attempt to curb the excesses of the bureaucracy and to re-establish
the central principles of Bolshevism and Leninism. This 'left opposition'
was organised around a platform of demands which were built around two
basic points. The points were summarised in a letter written by Trotsky
and sent to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union on October 8 1923. They were:
"a) the fundamentally
improper and unhealthy regime within the party.
b) the dissatisfaction
of the workers and peasants with the grave economic situation that has
come about not only as a result of objective difficulties but also because
of obvious radical mistakes in economic policy." (Trotsky. Challenge
of Left Opposition. 1923-25. Pathfinder. page 52.)
This fundamentally
improper regime within the Communist Party was accused by the 'left opposition'
of, cliquism; the appointment of secretaries over the heads of the local
organisations; smugness; order giving; a disdain for party members and
a bureaucratic approach to organisation. The letter was not made public
by the Stalin dominated Central Committee, but it was not ignored by them.
Their response came not in the form of answers to the specific points
made by Trotsky, and others, but typically by a smear campaign, and references
to Trotsky's past. Not surprisingly these references were one-sided and
distorted but they nonetheless were successful in discrediting Trotsky
as a person and as a revolutionary anti-capitalist.
The tactic of character
assassination is frequently resorted to by sectarians and groups or individuals
tending toward sectarianism. In all such cases it is primarily designed
to undermine and discredit the ideas being advanced. This form of polemical
ploy, as we shall see later, is still practised on the anti-capitalist
left by sectarians who, confronted by difficult questions and accurate
criticism, cannot deal with them in any other way. Where it is used, it
is calculated to appeal to the prejudice and self-interest of the rank
and file supporters to whom it is addressed. For this reason the ploy
can often succeed. But it can succeed only where the 'audience' allows
it to succeed. In the case of Trotsky and the 'left opposition', the main
audience, in Russia, was made up of the party bureaucrats and a mass of
relatively new Communist Party members, so the outcome in this situation
was fairly predictable.
The very first point
stressed in the letter from Trotsky and his supporters, was that an improper
and unhealthy regime existed within the party. How else would a fundamentally
improper regime react to such criticism, except by character assassination,
false charges, intimidation and eventual assassination? It was perhaps
naively hoping for a miracle to expect Stalin and his followers to hold
up their hands and publicly admit the error of their ways let alone their
grotesque practices. It takes courage and a lack of egotism to do that.
Such courage was not the hallmark of the Stalinist Bureaucracy, nor is
it a characteristic of modern day sectarians. Beside this, many sectarians,
including Stalin, are so arrogant that they cannot, conceive the possibility
that they have made, or are making, serious mistakes or that their actions
are unjustified.
2.7
An unshakeable belief
Despite the improbability
of success of the previously noted criticism, forty six prominent party
members did sign a three page declaration which outlined the essential
points being made. This declaration became known as 'The Platform of the
46'. However, Stalin and his close associates were busy promoting their
own supporters, demoting Left Opposition supporters and issuing warnings.
By the following year (1924) Stalin was successfully rigging elections
to the Party Conference to make sure the Left Opposition was in a minority.
That year Trotsky was ill and missed a number of events and Lenin, after
a number of strokes, finally died. With the death of Lenin, Stalin manoeuvred
to present himself as Lenin's closest colleague. Given Stalin's strategic
position in the party, this was not too difficult a task but one which
required a good deal of stealth. At the Second Congress of Soviets he
made an extravagant and theatrical gesture. His speech was revealing in
the way it deliberately put the policies Stalin wished to pursue in the
now absent mouth of Lenin. It was also a shrewd tactical move to step
into Lenin's shoes and begin the process of deifying Lenin. However, this
speech reveals another aspect of the sectarianism of Stalin and many of
his colleagues within the Soviet Communist Party - an unshakeable belief
in their abilities and correctness. Stalin was able, without contradiction
or subsequent criticism, to say;
"We Communists
are people of a special mould. We are made of special stuff. We are those
who form the army of the great proletarian strategist, the army of Comrade
Lenin. There is nothing higher than the honour of belonging to this army.
There is nothing higher than the title of member of the Party whose founder
and leader is Comrade Lenin.." (History of the Communist Party. Foreign
Languages Publishing House Moscow 1939. Page 268.)
Special stuff indeed.
It takes a very special kind of person to lie, cheat, torture and murder
on such a scale without any qualms. Within this speech we have an unequivocal
assertion of the honour and importance of being different from the average
person (sectarian characteristic 2) or working person. Prompted by the
occasion of Lenin's death, the feeble rhetoric of being at one with the
workers and oppressed, was finally dropped. Stalin, crudely and directly
appealed to the 'esprit de corps' of an elite and no one contradicted
him. This statement, along with the many actions which took place in the
spirit of this elite, clearly indicates that the anti-capitalist sectarian
characteristic which sees the reason for its existence, being not
what it has in common with the working and oppressed classes, but what
distinguishes it from the movement as a whole, was being manifested
by Stalin. It also reveals that it was shared by all at the congress.
In promoting such sentiments and this sectarian characteristic, Stalin
was completely successful, for the characteristic was already endemic
in the party and state. It was an appeal which was particularly effective
in also winning over new recruits to the Communist Party, for membership
of this elite also brought with it access to automatic privileges and
material advantages.
After the death of
Lenin, unofficial factional activity in the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union rapidly accelerated. The struggle for leadership initially appeared
to take the form of competing theoretical and practical positions. These
centred around the form and pace of economic progress and on the question
of self-determination for regions. Despite the dire economic and social
circumstances at the time, what actually took place was a real life and
death struggle between the rival groups within the Bolshevik leadership.
As Lenin had eventually
noted, Stalin as General Secretary, had control of a key position in the
Party. He used this position for his own ends. Having placed large numbers
of hand-picked people in key posts, he was able to use them to ensure
delegates loyal to him were sent to Conferences and Congresses. In this
way, he and his supporters were able to push through all the policies
they wished. Since the Communist Party was the only political organisation
allowed, the Communist Party Congresses were crucial events. After the
death of Lenin, Stalin took great care to orchestrate these Party Congresses,
so they would be certain to carry out his wishes. The 14th Party congress,
was his first complete success in this direction. In summing up this particular
congress, Stalin commented:
"The historical
significance of the Fourteenth Congress, of the C.P.S.U. lies in the fact
that it was able to expose the very roots of the mistakes of the New Opposition,
that it spurned their scepticism and snivelling, that it clearly and distinctly
indicated the path of the further struggle for Socialism, opened before
the Party the prospect of victory, and thus armed the proletariat with
an invincible faith in the victory of Socialist construction." (History
of the Communist Party. page 279)
In fact, the significance
of the Fourteenth Congress was that it backed Stalin and opened up the
possibility for Stalin to become the undisputed leader of the Soviet Communist
Party. Stalin's conviction and invincible faith in his own correctness
was indeed unshakeable. The choice of words used to describe the policy
disagreements within the congress are also interesting and revealing.
The criticism of Stalin's policies, and an alternative choice of policy
direction put by some members of the Party, was attributed to 'scepticism
and snivelling'.
We can begin to see
that the anti-capitalist sectarian (as with other types of sectarian)
has no enduring loyalty, no serious integrity, no real humanity; a fact
which will be further demonstrated in the following chapter. The overall
effect of the Stalinist claim to be establishing Communism and Socialism,
whilst engaged in brutal oppression and extreme exploitation, has been
to repel all those working people and anti-capitalists with committed
humanist perspectives. The role of Stalin and his supporters, from the
standpoint of the opposition to capital, was essentially reactionary.
Stalinism infected the anti-capitalist and workers' movements and caused
severe splits, defeats, desertions and almost terminal demoralisation.
.
2.8
The class structure of the Russian Soviet system
Describing the various
characteristics of Stalinist Sectarianism, does not, however, help us
understand how these characteristics, and not others, were developed and
began to dominate the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The fact that
these characteristics existed in Stalin, and a number of his colleagues,
from as far back as 1910, does not explain how they came to be predominant.
Nor does the death of Lenin automatically explain the ascendancy of this
kind of political tendency over others. It has too often been the case
that the particular politics and individual personality of Stalin have
been seen as the key to understanding the economic and social system set
up under his rule. However, this method is to approach the question upside
down or rather the wrong way around. If we follow Marx, we do not analyse
the political ideology in order to explain the economic system. On the
contrary, we need first to look at the economic relations of production
and understand these in order to then comprehend the political system
and the ideology which arises from it and corresponds to it. We should
note that under the rule of the Bolsheviks and the political and administrative
bureaucracy, there had been created the following broad division of labour
within Soviet society.
1. A Political Elite
(the Communist Party)
2. Managers of State
Apparatus and Enterprises.
3. Specialists.
4 Workers and peasants.
Although there were
many tiers of political elites, and their full-time positions might be
spread across the state, the party, and industry, nevertheless they constituted
a distinct group. The same was true of the Managers and Specialists. Within
soviet society, a very definite hierarchy of position and privilege existed
between these broad groups and this was considered necessary to fulfil
the plan. Between the people in each level of these strata there existed
a considerable degree of competition and tension. There were strains over
one-man management, and production quotas. Tensions and contradictions
existed between the pay, status and privilege of those who did the bulk
of the work and those who did the managing and advising. There were also
difficulties and conflicts between those who drew up the plans and those
who implemented them. In monetary terms the gap between the workers and
specialists and managers was considerable. This alone was enough to cause
unrest and conflict in a social system which had a clear rhetoric of equality,
and high expectations that this would become reality. In addition to pay
differentials there were hidden and not so hidden privileges which all
Party and State officials received, to a greater or lesser degree.
Under these conditions
of inequality, the state could not wither away, as Marx and Engels had
suggested was necessary, and which Lenin, in State and Revolution, seemed
to accept. An armed state is only necessary where irreconcilable contradictions
exist within a given social system. If contradictions are easily reconcilable
within a given social system then a separate power, such as a state, to
forcibly reconcile these contradictions is unnecessary. Under Lenin and
then Stalin, the state grew from strength to strength and it did so in
proportion to the contradictions between the different strata. The state
therefore became a necessity, and with its economic plans it could not
be allowed any degree of neutrality, or partiality toward workers and
peasants. This progressive strengthening of the state, undertaken first
by Lenin and his supporters, then by Stalin and the bureaucracy, was precisely
because the antagonisms within the economic and social system had become
irreconcilable. They could not be kept in check without force. As time
went on and the contradictions and antagonisms grew, Lenin, and later
Stalin, with the support of the bureaucracy, steadily increased the powers
and ruthlessness of the state. Punitive measures were enlarged to such
an extent, that eventually, under Stalin, most sections of the population
lived in an almost perpetual condition of terror and fear of arrest, imprisonment
or murder.
We should not imagine
that it was entirely Stalin's psychological state which drove him and
his supporters to increase the state terror. Rather it was the contradictions
between the real divisions and rewards being given, and the rhetoric of
equality, which had increased to a breaking point. Perpetual terror, from
the Party and State, became the only way to prevent these antagonisms
and tensions from breaking out into open class warfare. Thus the main
factor of instability under Stalin was not imperialist intervention, the
Kulaks, or even the Trotskyist opposition - but the continuing contradictions
and antagonisms created between the various strata of soviet society.
Stalin's paranoia, over the enemy within, which he thought threatened
to overthrow the ruling regime, was not simply the product of a demented
mind. It was also the terrified recognition of the contradiction between
the inhuman conditions of the workers and peasants in Russia, and their
entirely justified human aspirations.
A further revolutionary
overthrow (described as counter-revolution by the Stalinist elite) of
the Bolsheviks was for a time a distinct possibility. Once again the working
classes, the poor and the exploited were oppressed at the bottom of the
social pyramid. In terms of payment, privileges and decision-making they
were no better off than capitalist wage slaves. Once again their labour
was being exploited and their surplus labour and value appropriated. This
led to varied forms of resistance by workers and peasants alike, from
sarcasm and jokes, through absenteeism and sabotage, to strikes open rebellion
and uprisings. Each of these forms of resistance required an arm of the
state apparatus to deal with them and to formalise and legalise proceedings
against those who committed them. Hence the Cheka to root out sabotage
(and incidentally, anti-state or anti-party jokes), the penal code to
punish absenteeism, and a specialised standing army to put down rebellions.
Once created, the
members of these state mechanisms needed feeding, housing, clothing and
expected their own privileges. Thus, further pressure was exerted to increase
the productivity (i.e. the rate of exploitation of labour) of the working
classes in the Soviet Union. This, in turn, further increased the resentment
and resistance of workers and peasants to the political elite and its
managers and hangers on. This process drove the policies and programmes
which Stalin implemented throughout his post-capitalist rule in Russia.
A downward and tightening spiral of oppression and exploitation occurred.
These economic and
social contradictions, however, were not the primary cause of the political
tendency know as Stalinism. The seeds of Stalinist sectarianism, derived
from other sectarian sources, were around before the above-noted contradictions
matured, but when they did mature, the conditions provided fertile ground
for their virulent growth. The economic conditions and the political temperature
of post-revolutionary ferment were therefore, important, but they were
not the originating source of this political tendency.
2.9
Concluding remarks
To sum up then. So
huge loomed the figure of Stalin, and so enormous the brutality, that
we need to frequently remind ourselves that Stalin was not alone. Whilst
he undoubtedly pursued the policies which are linked with his name, he
was surrounded and supported by loyal party leaders and members. Although
it bears his name, Stalinism is a political tendency which occurred without
his physical presence, appeared in many different countries and continued
well after his death. The revolutionary anti-capitalist left may be able
to disclaim direct responsibility for Stalinism, but it cannot be disputed
that it arose as a political tendency - from within the revolutionary
anti-capitalist movement itself. To argue otherwise is to ignore
the facts of Stalin's progress and positions within the Bolshevik Party,
along with the support he had from high-ranking Bolsheviks, up to, and
including, Lenin. To pretend that Stalin's lengthy career as a middle-ranking
and then high-ranking organiser of Bolshevism, was not part of a definite
political trend, is to ignore the number of supporters he and his tactics
and methods had within the Bolshevik tendency and then in the Communist
Party.
This was a level of
support which extended to members and leaders of communist parties throughout
the world. To account for this Stalinist development by reference to so-called
'objective' factors in Russia, is to imply that such objective factors
existed throughout the world in order to explain the adulation of Stalin
and the replication of his sectarian tactics within the thousands of Communist
Party cells in Europe and elsewhere. To focus exclusively upon the bureaucratisation
of the Party and conclude that Stalinism was merely bureaucratic degeneration,
is to miss the point that this tendency existed before the conquest of
power and before the existence of a state and party bureaucracy. To indicate
the later bureaucratic deformities and to apply them generally to the
nature of the Communist Party politics, fails to recognise that bureaucracies
have organisational characteristics, such as routinism, careerism, servility
and hierarchy but not necessarily political characteristics such as propaganda,
agitation and sectarianism.
Communist Party control
of the Soviet State was, therefore, not a bureaucracy which became a sectarian
political tendency, but a sectarian political tendency which also became
bureaucratic. To avoid looking at the sectarian elements within Bolshevik
anti-capitalism and the Communist Party is to miss out an essential element
in the Bolshevik degeneration. To overlook the fact that sectarianism
was a strong and persistent tendency within the Russian Social Democratic
Party, is to ignore Lenin's vigorous and repeated struggle against many
aspects of it. Similarly, to perpetuate the myth that Stalin was a unique
psychopathic individual, who just happened to manipulate his way into
control, due to favourable circumstances, is to try to mislead present
and future generations of working people and anti-capitalists over the
very real dangers of sectarianism.
It is necessary then
to consider Stalinism outside the guise of its main perpetrator. If we
do this it is impossible not to conclude that the symptoms and characteristics
of Stalin and his supporters are other than those which we have identified
with sectarianism: they are in fact identical. Although it is important
to continue to use the term Stalinism to describe the politics of the
Soviet Union under his rule and influence, it is also important to de-individualise
the tendency and acknowledge its direct political origins. A full recognition
of sectarianism (including the Stalinist variety) as a distinct political
tendency within the revolutionary anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist
left is necessary in order to isolate the tendency and defeat it in its
early stages; to ensure, as far as possible, that it cannot ever again
gain control over the forms of struggle for a better future.
Stalinism was an example
of a sectarian elite, with control of an armed force, a state and a party
bureaucracy. This sectarian elite was in turn supported by that bureaucracy,
for this support coincided with the bureaucrats' own material interests.
As such, this form of sectarianism was something new, but its newness,
as we have seen was one of scale, rather than essence. Political sectarianism
mutated into the Stalinist state, via the Bolshevik tendency. It was able
to do so because, as we shall see in a later chapter, Bolshevism already
contained many sectarian characteristics within it, some of which were
elevated into principles. Stalinist sectarianism arose from essentially
the same sources as all forms of sectarianism; the existence, within the
anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist movement of people with force and
ability who, together with their followers, feel themselves and their
understanding is superior to other human beings and are able to suppress
or otherwise dispose of any consistent humanist feelings.
Stalin and his associates
are dead, but unfortunately the political tendency he and they represented
still survives. Sectarianism no longer wields State power in Russia, but
this does not mean it no longer exists. We shall see in the next chapter
that former supporters of Stalin were able to reject Stalin but continue
with sectarianism and we shall see that even those who opposed Stalin
could not wean themselves from the same sectarian tradition. They simply
carried it with them into the next stage of the anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist
struggle.
|