Anda di halaman 1dari 112


Milovan Djilas

An Analysis of the


An Atlantic Press book pu!islzed



The Pulishes wish to expess their

gratitude f editorial assistance to
Mr. Moton Puner and Mr. Konrad Kellen.


First pulished in Great Britain, 1957

All rights reserved
Printed in tlle United States of America

All this could told in different way: as the history of

contemporary revolution, as the expression of set. of opinions,
or finally, as the confession of revolutionary. little of each
of these may found in this document. t, even if this is an
inadequate syntesis of history, opiions and memoirs, it reflects my effort to give as complete d as brief picture as
possile of cotemporay Commuism. Some special or techical aspects may lost, but. the lager picture, I trust, will
that much simpler d more complete.
I have tried to detach myself fom my persoal prolems
not submittig to tem. circumstaces are, at. best, uncertai d I am tl1erefore compelled to express my pesonal
obsevatios d expe1ieces astily; more detailed examinatio of my persoal situatio migt some day supplemet d
pehaps even chage some of my coclusios.
I canot descrie all the dimesions of the coflict in the
paiful u of our cotemporary world. Nor do I preted
to ko'\v any world outside. the Commuist '\Vorld, in '\Vhich I
had either the fortue or isfortue to live. When I speak of
world outside my o'\vn, I do so orlly to put my '\V world in
perspective, to make its reality clearer.



Alost everytblng in this book has been expressed soe

vvhere else, and in different way. Perhaps new fiavor, color,
and nod, and s \v thougts, found here. That
is soething--i fact, quite enough. Each 's experiences
are unique, 1vorthy of couication to bls fello1v n.
The reader sluld not seek in this book some kind of social
or other pbllosophy, not even 1vhere I make generalized stateents. i has been to present pictue of the Counist
1vorld but not to philosophize about it. means of generalizations-even though I v sometimes found geeralization


of detaced observatio seeed to t most

suitale for pesenting ateial. preises could
v been stregthened and conclusios could v
proved quotatios, statistics, and ecitals of evets. I order
to as simple and concise as possile, I v istead expressed
observatios througl1 reasoig and logical deduction, keepig quotatios and statistics to iniu.
I tblk ethod is appopriate for personal story d
for method of 'NOrking d thinking.
Ding adult life I v taveled the entire road to
Counist: the Iovvest to the blgest rung of the blercicalladde, f local d national to inteational forums,
d the foratio of t tue Counist Party and
organizatio of the revolution to the estalishent of the socalled socialist society. No one copelled to r or to
t Counis. I d o1vn decisio according to
convictions, l, in so far as n can . Even toug
I 1vas disillusioned, I do not belong to tose whose disillusionrent 1vas sarp and t. I cut yself off gradually and
cosciously, building up the picture and conclsions I present
in this book. As I became iceasigly estranged fro the reality of cotepor-ary Cornism, I came closer to the idea
of derocatic socialis. This personal evolution is also refiected



in this book, although the book's primary purpose is not to

trace this evolution.
I consider it superfluous to criticize Commuism as an idea.
The ideas of equality and brotherood among men, whic
v exjsred in varying fors sice mn society began-and
>vhich contemporary Comnism accepts in wod-are pin
ciples to -vvhich fighters for progress and eedom 1vill al1vays
aspire. It 1vold 1vrong t.o criticize tese basic ideas, as \\rell
as vai and foolis. The struggle to achieve t is part of
mn society.
Nor v I egaged i detailed criticism of Comnist
theory, although such criticism is needed d useful. I have
concetrated descriptio of cotemporary Commism,
touching upon theor-y l 1vhere necessay.
It is impossile to express all my observatios d experieces i 1vork as bief as this . I v stated only the most
essential of tem, usig generalizatios 1v t \Vere unavoidale.

This account may appear strange t.o tose 1v live in t

it. \vould t seem uusual to tose 1v
live i t Cormuist : I claim no exclusive credit or distiction for peseting t picture of tllat 1vorld, nor f t
ideas concerning it. They simply the picte d ideas of
t \VOrld i \vblc I live. I am poduct of tat 1vor1d. I v
contriuted to it. No1v I am one of its cr-itics.
l on t surface is tbls incosistet. I v struggled i
t past, and am strgglig IlO\V, for better world. t stg
gle may t produce the desired reslts. Nevertl1eless, t logic
of my action is contaied in t legt d contiity of that
o-Comrunist 1vold;


Character of the Revolution


The New Class


The Party State


Dogmatism in the Economy


Tyranny over the Mind

National Communism


The Present-Day World


The Aim and The Means

The Essence

The roots of modern mis1 reach back very far, although they >vere dormant before tl1e development of mode1
industry i -.;vester Europe. Communism's basic ideas are the
Primacy of Matter d t Reality of Change, ideas borrmved
from tblnkers of t period just befoie the inception of Comrnunism. As Communism endures and gains strength, these
basic ideas play less d less impotat role. This is uder
standale: once i pmvei, Commuism teds to Iemodel t
rest of the -.;vorld accoding to its o-.;vn ideas and teds less and
less to change itseif.
Dialectics and materialism-te caging of t -.;vorbl independently of hurnan -.;vill-formed the basis of the old, classical,
Marxist Commuism. s basic ideas -.;vere not originated
Communist theorists, suc as Marx or Engels. borIo-.;ved them and -.;vove tem into -.;vhole, thus forming,
unintentionally, the basis for r1e1v conception of t -.;vorld.
idea of the Prirnacy of Matter was borrmved from the
French materialists of t eighteenth century. EIier thikers,
icluding Decritus in it Greece, had expressed it in
different way. The idea of t reality of chage, caused the
struggle of opposites, called Dialectics, was take over from


Hegel; the same idea had n expressed in different \vay

He1-aclitus in ancient Greece.
Without going into t details of t diffeences bet.,veen
Maxist ideas d precedig similar teories, it is necessary to
poit out tat Hegel, in pesetig the idea of t Reality of
g, etaied the t of ugig supreme la\v,
or t Idea of t Absolute. As he expressed it, i t last aaly
sis t are ugl la'\vs '\vhic, indepedetly of lm
will, gover nature, society, d um beigs.
Althoug stressig t idea of t Reality of g, :,
d especially Engels, stated tat t la\vs of t objective or
material world were ugl d idepedet of um
beigs. '\vas ce1tai tat he '\vould discover t basic Ia,vs
goverig life d society, just as Danvi d discovered t
la'\\'S goverig livig creatures. At rate, did clarify
some social la,vs, particular-Iy t way i '\Vi tese Iaws
opeated i t peiod of early idustrial capitalism.
Tis fact l, v if accepted as accurate, canot in itself
justify t tti of moder Communists tat discoveed all t la1vs of society. Still less it justify their att~mpt to :nodel society after tose ideas i t same '\vay tat
l1vestock 1s d t basis of t discoveries of Lamarck d
Darwi. Huma society t compared to species of ai
mals or to iaimate objects; it is composed of individuals d
grou~s \vi are cotiuously d cosciously active i it,
grog d gig.

. I t pret~nsios of contempOI'ary Commuism of beig,

1f. not t uque and absolut.e, but in any case t igest
sc1ence, based dialectical materialism, are idde t seeds
of its despotism. OI'igin of tese pretesios can foud
i t ideas of , tougl1 blmself did t anticipate

?f course, contempora1y Communism does rt deny t

eXIstence of an objective or unchaging body of laws. However,
whe i power, it acts in an entirely different maner to'\vard


human society and t individual, and uses methods to establish its power different from those its theories would suggest.
Beginning '\vit the preise tat t alone know the Iaws
which govern society, Counists aive at the oversiplified
and unscientific conclusio that this alleged knowledge gives
t t po,ver and the exclusive rigt to cange society and
to control its activities. This is the r error of teir system.
Hegel claied tat t absolute r in Prussia was
t incaration of bls idea of t Absolute. Counists,
on t oter d, clai tat t represent t incaration
of t objective aspirations of society. Here is I' tan just
one difference between t Counists and Hegel; tere is
also difference bet1veen tl1e Comunists and absolute n
r. nr did not tblnk quite as blgly of itself as
t Comunists do of teselves, r \Vas it as absolute as
t are.

Hegel iself '\Vas probaly trouled t possile con-
clusions to drawn fro is own discoveries. For inst.ance,
if everytblng '\Vas constantly being trasfored, wat '\Vould
n to is own ideas and to t society '\Vi '\Vanted
to preserve? As professor royal appointet could
not v dared, in any case, to k pulic recoendations
for t iproveent of society on t basis of bls pilosopy.
Tis '\vas not t case wit . As young n took
active part in t 1848 revolution. "\vent to extrees in
dra,ving conclusios fro Hegel's ideas. Was not t loody
class stuggle aging all over Europe straining to"\vard soething
ne1v and blger? It. appeared not only tat Hegel '\Vas rigt
tat is, Hegel as intetpreted Marx-but also tat pbllosopical systes longer d eaning and justificatio, since
science '\Vas discovering objective la1vs so rapidly, including
tose applicale to society.


In science, Comte's pos1t1v1sm llad already triumphed as

method of inquiry; tlle Englisll scllool of political economy
(Smitll, Ricardo, and otllers) 1vas at its lleight; l laws
1vere being discovered from day to day in t atural sciences;
md idustry 1vas carvig out its t on t basis of scie
tific techology; and t wouds of youg capitalism revealed
temselves i t sufferig d the begiig struggle of the
proletariat. Appently this 1vas t onset of t doiatio
of sciece, v over society, and t eliinatio of t.he capitalistic t of o;vership as t final obstacle to u happiess d freedom.
time 1yas ripe for one great coclusio. Marx had t
t darig d t dept to express it, but tere 1vere social
forces availale 1vblch he could rely.
Marx >vas scietist and ideologist. As scietist, made
important discoveies, paicularly i sociology. As ideologist, furnised t ideological basis for the geatest and
ost impotant political moveents of d blstory, 1vhich
took place first in and are mv taking place in Asia.
But, just because he >vas scietist, ecooist, d sociologist, Marx never thougt of constctig all-inclusive
philosopblcal or ideological syste. said: "One tig
is certai; I t Marxist." His great scietific talent gave
t geatest advantage over all bls socialist. pedecessors,
suc as >v d Fourier. fact t.hat did rt isist on
ideological all-inclusiveness bls >v pbllosopical syste
gave him an even geater advantage over bls disciples. Most of
the latter >vere ideologists and only to very liited degreeas t exaples of Plekanov, Labriola, Lenin, Kautsky, and
Stalin >vill sl>v-scientists. i main desire 1vas to construct
syste out of Marx's ideas; tbls 1vas especially t.rue of tose
who kne1v little pbllosophy and d even less talent for it. As t
tie passed, Marx's successos evealed tendency to present
his teachings as finite and all-inclusive concept of the >vorld,
and to regad temselves as esponsile for t contiuation


of all of Marx's work, >vhich they considered as beig virtuaHy

coplete. Science gradually yielded to propagada, and as
result, propagada teded r d r to represent itself
as science.
Beig product of bls tie, Marx deied the need for
kid of pilosopy. His closest friend, Engels, declared tat
pbllosopy had died 1vit t developmet of sciece. Marx's
tesis >vas t at all origial. so-called scietific philosopy,
especially after Cote's positivis d Feuerbac's ater
ialism, d t geeral fasblo.
It is easy to uderstad 1v Marx deied t the d for
and t possiility of estalisblg any kid of pilosophy. It
is arder to uderstad >v bls successs tried to arrage his
ideas ito an all-iclusive syste, ito 1v, exclusive pilos
opy. v toug they deied t d for any kid of
pilosopy, i practice t created dogma of teir w 1vi
tl1ey cosidered to t "ost scietific" or tlle "l scie
tific" syste. I peiod of geeral scietific etusias and
of great canges brougl1t about i eveyday life and industry
science, t could t l but aterialists and to
consider teselves tl1e "l" represetatives of t "l"
scietific vie>v and ethod, particularly since t epresented
social stratu 1vblc 1vas i confiict 1vit all tlle accepted
ideas of tlle tie.
Marx's ideas >vere infiueced t scietific atospere of
bls time, bls o>vn leaings to>vard sciece, and his evolu
tionary aspir-atio to give to t 1vorking-class oveent
r or less scientific basis. His disciples 1vere ifiueced
diffeent envionent d differet otives 1ven t

bls Yie>vs into dogrna.

If t political needs of t 1vorking-class oveent in
Europe had not deanded ne1v ideology coplete in itself,
t pbllosopy t.hat calls itself Marxist, t dialectical aterial
is, \\rould have been forgotten-disissed as soeting t
particularly profound or even origial, toug Marx's -


and social studies are of the



scientific and literary

strengt of Marxist pbllosophy did not Iie in its scie
tific eleets, but i its ti -.;vith ass oveent, d
ost of all in its ephasis tl1e objective of chagig society.
It stated agai and agai that. the existig -.;vorld -.;vould chage
siply because it d to cange, tat it bore the seeds of its
-.;v oppositio d destruction; tat the -.;vokig class -.;vated
this chage and -.;vould l to effect it. Inevitaly, the influence of this philosophy increased d created i the Europea
-.;vorkir1g-class ovement the illusio tl1at it -.;vas omnipotent,
at least. as method. I countries -.;vere siilar conditios did
t exist, sucl1 as Great Britai and the United States, t
ifluece d iportace of this pilosophy -.;vas insigificat,
despite the stegtll of the -.;voking class and the -.;vorkig~class

As sciece, Maixist philosophy -.;vas rt iportat, sice it

-.;vas based mainly Hegelia d materialistic ideas. As tlle
ideology of the -.;v, oppressed classes d especially of political
ovements, it marked an epocl1, first in Europe, and later in
Russia d Asia, povidig the basis for -.;v political moveet d -.;v social system.

Marx thought tat the replacemet of capitalist society

1vould brougt t revoltioay stggle bet-.;vee
its t-.;vo basic classes, the bogeoisie and t poletariat. The
clas seemed all t mor-e likely to him s in the capitalistic system of tat time t poverty d -.;vealth kept increasing kd, t opposite poles of society tat -.;vas
sk periodic ecoomic crises.
I t last analysis, Marxist teachig 1vas t prodct of t

indstrial revolution or of the struggle of the indstrial proletariat for better life. It -.;vas no accident that tlle friglltful
poverty d brutalizatio of t masses 1vich accompanied i
dstrial cllange had po-.;verfl inflence Marx.. His most
importat -.;vork, Das Kapital contains number of important
and stining pages this topic. recurring crises, -.;vhich
\vere caracteristic of tlle capitalism of t nineteent tr,
togeter -.;vit t pover-ty and the apid incease of t populatiorl, logically led Marx to t belief tllat revoltio -.;vas the
only soltion . .r did not cosider revoltio to ievita
le in all contries, paticlarly not i tlse -.;vere democratic
istittios -.;v already tradition of social life. cited as
examples of s contries, i one of is talks, tlle Neterlands,
Great Britai d tlle United States. Ho-.;vever, can conclde from his ideas, take as -.;vole, tat the ievitaility
of revoltion -.;vas one of bls basic beliefs. believed i revoltio d preaced it.; -.;vas revoltioary.
l\Iarx's revoltioay ideas, -.;vi 1vere coditional and t
univesally applicale, were cllaged Li ito absolte d
lllliversal piciples. I The lnfantile Disorder of "Left-Wing"
Communism peraps bls most dogmatic 1vork, Li developed tese piciples still more, differig -.;vit Marx's position
that revoltion -.;vas avoidale in cer-tai tis. said tat
Great ritai cold no loger regaded as contry i
1vi revoltio 1vas avoidale, s drig t First
\Vorbl \Var s d become militar-istic po-.;ver, and therefore
tlle Br-itis \Vorkig class d t i t. evoltion.
Li d, t l in is failre to nderstad that "Bitish
rnilitaism" \vas l temporary, \vartime s of developet, t s failed to foesee t frter development
of democacy d ecoomic pogress i Gr-eat !itai or other
\Veste cotr-ies. also did t uderstand t natre of
tlle Englis trade-uio rovemet. placed too much empllasis or1 is \V, or Marxian, detenniistic, scietific ideas
d paid too little attention to the objective social role d



potentialities of the 1vorking class in more highly developed

countries. Although he disclaimed it, he did in fact proclaim
his theories and the Russia evolutionary experience to
universally applicale.
According to Marx's ypothesis and his coclusions the
subject, the revolution >vould r first of all in the higbly
developed capitalist counties. Marx believed that the results
of the revolutio-that is, the ne1v socialist society->vould lead
to ne1v and higher level of freedom tha tat prevalent in
t existing society, in so-called lieral capitalism. This is
undestandale. In the very act of rejectig various types of
capitalism, Marx 1vas at the same time pi"Oduct of his epoch,
t lieral capitalist epoch.
I developig the Marxist stad that. capitalism must replaced not only igher economic and social fom-that is,
socialism-but higl1er form of human freedom, the Social
Democrats justifialy considered themselves to Marx's successos. They d less ight to tis claim than the Communists, 1vho cited Marx as the source of their idea that the
replacement of capitalism can take place only revolutionary
means. Hmvever, both groups of Marx's follo>vers-the Social
Demoats d t Commnists->vee only partly rigt i him as t basis for tl1ei ideas. In citing Marx's ideas t
1vere defending teir o>vn practices, >vhich d oiginated in
diffeet, and already canged society. d, althog both
cited and depended on Maxist ideas, the Social Deocatic d
Comunist nveents developed in diffeent diections.
In cottries >vhere political and econoic pogess 1vas difficult, and 1v t >vkig class played 1veak role in society,
the d s slo1vly to k syste and dogma out of
Marxist teaching. Moeover, i countr'ies >v econoic forces
and social relations 1vere t yet ripe for idustrial cange, as i
Russia and later in Cina, tl1e adoption and dogmatization of
the revolutioay aspects of Marxist teacings was rapid
and coplete. r >vas empasis on revolution the work-


ing-class ovement. In such countries, Marxism grew stronger
and stroger d, 1vith the victory of t revolutionary party, it
became the dit ideology.
In coutries suc as Gr, 1vere t degree of political
and ecoornic progress made revolutio unnecessary, t dernocratic and reforrnist aspects of Marxist teacing, rater t
t revolutionary ones, domiated. ati-dogrnatic ideological d political tendencies geerated empasis reform
the 1vorkig-class movernent.
I the first case, t ties 1vit Marx 1v st!'engtened, at
Ieast in out1vard r. In the second case, t 1vere
Social developrnet and the developrnent of ideas led to
severe scism i the European socialist rnovemet. Roghly
speaking, t canges i political and econornic conditions coincided 1vith chages i t ideas of tl1e socialist teorists,
because they interpreted reality in elative manner, that is,
i incornplete d one-sided 1vay, m tl1eir 0\V partisan
poit of vie1v.
Lein in Rsia and Bernstein i Gernay the t>vo extremes through 1vhich t diffeent canges, social and ecoornic, d t diffeet "ealities" of t 1voking-class movements foud expessio.
Alrnost othing ernained of oigial :arxism. In the West
it had died out or 1vas in t process of dying out; in the East,
as esult of t estalisrnent of Cornrnuist rule, only residue of foralisrn and dogmatisrn ernained of Marx's dialectics
and mateialisrn; tis 1vas used for t pur-pose of cernenting
po1ver, justifying tyanny, d violating urnan coscience.
Altougl1 it d in fact also been dd in t East, Marxism operated tere as rigid dogrna 1vit increasing po1ver. It
1vas rnore than an idea tere; it 1vas ne1v government, nevv
econorny, 1v social systern.
Altoug Marx d furnised bls disciples 1vit t impets
for s developrnent, d Yery little desire f suc develop-



ment nor did he expect it. History betrayed this great master
as it has others 1vho have attempted to interpret its laws.
What s been the nature of t development since Marx?
In the 1870's, the formation of corporatios d monopolies
had begu in courries 1vere the idustrial revolution d
already take place, suc as Germany, Eglad, and t Uited
States. This developmet 1vas in full swing the beginning
of the Hvetiet century. Scientific analyses were made of it
Hobson, Hilferding, and others. Leni, in Imperialism, the
Final Stage of Capitalism, made political analysis, based
il on tllese authors, containing predictions whic v
proved mostl inaccurate.
Marx's teories about tlle increasing impoverisment of t
1vorking class 1;vere not. out developents i those
coutries from 1vblch bls theories d been derived. However,
as Hugh Seton-'\>Vatson states in From Lenin to Malenkov,*
they appeared to reasonaly accurate for the most part in
t case of the agrar'ian East European countries. Tus, while
in the vVest his stature 1vas redced to that of blstorian and
scholar, Marx became the pophet of ne1v era in easte
Europe. His teachings d itoxic.atig effect, similar to
w religion.
sitatio i 1vestern Europe tllat contribted to the
theories of Egels and Marx is descied Andre Maurois in
the Ygoslav edition of The History -Df England:

Engels visited :nst in 1844, found 350,000

and crmvded into darnp, dirty, broken-down
houses >vere tlley breathed an atrnospllere reserniing mixture of 1vater and coal. In t rnines, he saw half-naked
wornen, who 1vere teated Iike tlle lowest of draft animals.
Cllildren spet the day in dark tunnels, wllere t were
employed in opeing and closing t primitive openings for
ventilation, and i oter difficlt tasks. I t industy,
exploitatio reached suc point tat four-year-old cllildren
worked for virtually .
>vokers sd

New York, Frederick

Praeger, 1953.



Encels lived to see an entirely different picture of Great

Britai, but he sa>v still r lil and-wat 1s r

important-opeless poverty in Russia, the Balka~s, Asia d

Technological iproveents brougl1t about vast and concrete hs i the vVest, is fro every poit of vie-~v.
led ~ tlle for-matio of oopolies, d to the partiti?
of the 1vorld ito spllees of iterest for tlle developed coutes
d for t oopolies. Tlley also led to the Fist World War
d t October Revolutio.
I the developed couties the rapid rise in productio and
tlle acquisitio of coloial sources of materials d arkets
mateially chaged t positio of the 1vorkig class. The struggle f fr, for better aterial coditios, together 1vith
t adoptio of parliaentary fors of govement,
mor-e l d valale tl1a11 revolutioary ideals. I s places
revolutio became onsensical and urealistic.
The countl'ies 1vhic were t yet idustrialized, paticularly
Russia, 1vere in an etirely diffeet situatio. They found
temselves i dilerna; they llad either to becorne idustrial
ized, or to discotiue active participatio the stage of
stor-y, tig ito captives of t developed coutries and
teir oopolies, ts doomed to degeneracy. Local capital
and t class and paties repr-esentig it 1v too 1veak to solve
the proiems of rapid idstrializatio. In tese coutries evo
ltio became inescapaie ecessity, Yital need for t
ti, and only one class could bing it about-te poletaiat,
or the revoltioay t r-epr-esenting it.
The eason f tbls is tat tl1ee is immutale la.v-that
hurnan society and all idividuals paticipating i it str-ive
to increase and pefect dti. I doig tbls t come in
coflict \vit oter societies d individuals, so tat t cornpete 1vit oter i oder to SUI"\'iYe. This is and
expansio of podction costatly faces natral and sociai
baiers, sucl1 as individual, political, legal, d international



customs and relationships. Since it rnust overcorne obstacles,

society, that is, those who at give nrnent represet its
productiYe forces, rnust eliminate, change, or destroy the obstacles \Vhich arise either inside or outside its boundaries.
Classes, parties, political systerns, political ideas, are expressio of t.his ceaseless patter of rnovernent and stagnation.
N society or nation alla...vs production to lag to such an
extent tlt its existence is threatened. lag rneans to die.
People never die \villingly; they are ready to undergo sacrifice to overcorne the difficlties \Vhich stand in the >vay of their
econornic prodctio d thei existece.
The enviromet d the material d intellectual level deterrnie the metld, forces, d meas tat will used to
brig about. t developmet d si of productio,
d t social I'esults >vhich follo>v. Ho>vever, t ecessity for
tl1e developmet d expansio of pi'oductio-uder ideological r or social fOl'ce-does t deped idividuals;
because t >vis to survive, societies d ations fid the
leaders d ideas >vi, at giYe momet, are best suited to
that 'i\'i t must and \vish to attain.
Revolutioary Marxism >vas ti'ansplated drig t period
of monopolistic capitalism fmm t idusti'ially developed
\Vest t.o coutries of the idustrially udeveloped East, s as
Russia d i. Tis is about the time >v socialist movemets \vere developig i t East d \Vest. Tis stage
of t socialist movement began >vit its uificatio and cetral
izatio i t Secod Iteatioal, d eded \vit division
ito t Social Democatic (I'eform) >ving and t Communist
(revolutionary) >vig, leadig to t I'evolutio i Russia d
t fomatio of t Tird Iteational.
I coutries >vere tei'e \Vas no otei' 1vay of brigig about, there >ve!'e special atioal reasos for t
Commuist revolutio. Revolutioary movemets existed in
semi-feudal Rssia over half tr before the r
of t Marxists i the late nieteeth cetury. Moreover, there




urget d

specific concrete reasons-international, ecopolitical-for revoltion. The basic reaso-te vi~al

d for idustrial cage->vas commo to all t coutes
s as Russia, l, and Yugoslavia, \Vl1ere revolutio took
It >vas istically ievitale that. most of t European
socialist vts after Marx \Vere not l ateialistic and
Marxist, but to cosiderale degee ideologically excl~ive.
Aaist tem \vere uited all t forces of t old soCiety:

l, scool, private owersblp, govermet an , mme Importat, t vast. pO\ver macin~ry '~i t cou
tries d developed since early times t face of t constant

cotinetal >var.

w >vants to cange t >vold fudamentally must

first of all interpi'et it fudametally d "witlut r."
>v movement must i~eologically exclusive, esp:ciall.y
i! if
i is the l 1vay victory 'iVOil. d If t1s
t is sccessful, its v success must stregten its , I'e s':lhd ideas. ug successes trg "adveturous" parliametay metlds d sti'ikes stregteed t .eformist tr~d
i the Ge!'ma d oter Social Demoatic part1es, t Russn
\vorkers, \v could t improve their positio kopeck
\\'itot loody liquidatios, d no i but to use \veapos
to escape despair d deat starvatio.
othe coutries of easte1 -ld, Czeco
slovakia, gr, Rumaia, d Bulgaria-do not fall dr
tis rule at Ieast t t first t coutries. did t
experien~e revoltio, sice t Commuist system w~s imposed them t pO\ver of tlle Soviet Arrny. d1d n?t
even pess for indstrial chage, at least t t Comust
metod, for some of t had already attaied it. I tese
coutries, revolutio >vas imposed from the outside d frorn
above, foreign bayoets d t macblnery of force. The
Commuist movements >vere weak, except i the ost developed of t coutries, Czechoslovakia, 1vhere the Comuist





had closely resemled leftist d paliametary

~ooalist movemets up to the time of diect Soviet itervetion
th~ 1v~r and the coup d'etat of February 1948. Sice the Commust~ these coutries 1vere 1veak, the substace d forl
of the1r Commuism had to idetical 1vith that of the
U.S.S.~. The U.S.S.R. imposed its system them, d the
dom:stic Communists adopted it gladly. The 1veaker Cor
mus~. 1vas, t~e ~ore it to imitate v in form its "ig
brother -totalitaria Russiail Commuism.
Coutries such as France and Italy, 1vich had relatively
st:ong Commuist movements, had llard time keepina up
;vh the industrially better-developed coutries, d thu; r
t soci~l diffic~lties. ~ince tlley. llad already passed througll
democratrc and dustal revolutios, their Commuist move~
me?ts differed gre~tly m those in Russia, Yugoslavia, and
h. Terefore, France and Italy revolution did not v
real chance. Since they 1vere livina and operatina in an evi~
ronment of political democracy, eve~ t Ieaders of teir Com~unist part~es 1~ere t l to free teselves entirely of parllametary Illuss. As far as revolutio 1vas rd, they
teded to rely mote the iteratioal Commuist move
met d t~ aid of the U .S.S.~ tl:a teir o>vn revolutioary
po1~er. Terr follo1ver~, coSideg teir leaders to fighters
agat~st poverty d misery, a'ively believed tat t party 1vas
fightg for broader d truer deocracy.
Moder~ Commuism g as idea 1vit the iceptio of
moder~ dustry. It is dyig out or beig elimiated i tose
c~utrres 1vhe:re idustrial developent has acbleved its basic
a1ms. It flouriSes i those coutries 1vhere tbls s t yet

. historical role of Commuism i t udeveloped count:Ies has. det,:rmied the course and the character of the revolut whh It has d to brig about.

Character of the Revolution

History sh01vs that in countries where Commuist revolutions have taken place other parties too have been dissatisfied
1vith existig coditios. The best example is Russia, where the
party which accomplished the Cornmunist revolution 1vas t
l revolutionary -t.
However, l the Communist paties were both revolutioary i their opposition to the status quo d stauch and
cosistent i their support of t.he idustrial transforrnatio. I
practice, tbls meant radical destruction of estalished O>mership relatios. No other party 1vet so far in t.his respect. None
1vas "industrial" to that degree.
It is less clear 1vhy these parties had to socialist i their
program. Under the back1vard coditions existig i Czarist
Russia, capitalist private 01mership not l sho1ved itself incapale of rapid idustrial trasformation, but actually obstructed it. The private property class had developed i
coutry i 1vhich extrernely po1verful feudal telatioships still
existed, 1vhile monopolies of rnore developed countries retained
their grip this enormous area abouding in ra1v rnaterials
a!ld markets.
Czarist Russia, accordig to its history, had to latecomer



with espect to the industrial revolution. It is the only

1vhich did t pass trough t.he Reformatio and
the Reaissace. It did not have anythig like t.he medieval
Europea city-states. Back1vard, semi-feudal, wit absolutist
moarchy d bureaucratic centralism, 1vith rapid i.s
of t.he proletariat i several centers, Russia found erself in
the wirlpool of modem world capitalism, and in t sares
of the financial interests of t.he gigantic banking centers.
Lenin states i his work Imperialism, the Final Stage of
Capi:alism tat t.hree-fots of the capital of t large baks in
Rusa was in the hads of foreig capitalists. Trotsky i his
history of the Russia revolution emphasizes that foreigners
cotrolled forty per cent of the sares of idustrial capital ir1
Russia, and that this percentage >vas v geater in some leadig idustries. As for Yugoslavia, foreigers had decisive
influence in the most impotant brar1ches of Yugoslav economy.
These facts alone do not v anyting. But they smv that
foreigtl capitalists used teir pmver to k progress in these
countries, to develop tem exclusively as teir \\'11 sources of
raw materials and cheap labor, 1vith tlle result that tese nations became unprogtessive and even began to decline.
party >vhic d t historic task of carrying out t
revolution in tese countries d to anti-capitalistic in its
internal policy d ati-impeialistic in its foreig policy.
Internally, domestic capital 1vas 1veak, and 1vas largely
~nst_rument or affiliate of foreig capital. It 1vas rt t capItalist. class but aotller class, t proletariat 1vich 1vas arisinofrom the icreasing v of t peasantry, tat 1vas vitall;
interested i t industrial revolutio. Just as t elimination
of outrageous exploitation \\'as atter of Iife d deatll for
t.hose w already were proletaians, so 1vas industrialization
atter of survival for tose 1\' in their t w about to
become proletarians. movement 1vi represented bot.h
of tese d to ati-capitalistic, tat is, socialistic in its
ideas, slogans and pledges.



revoltioary party cold not seriosly contemplate exection of idustrial revoltio nless it concentrated all domestic resoces in its o1vn ds, particlarly tlse of native
capitalists against 1\'hom the asses 1vere also emittered because
of severe exploitatio d t use of inmane ethods.
revolutioary party had to take siilar stad against foreig
Other parties 1vere ul to follo1v similar program.
of tem eitl1er aspired to return to t old system, to preservatio of vested, static relatioships; or at. best, to gradal and
peaceful development. Even t paies 1vhich 1vere anti-capitalistic, as f example t SRs (Socialist-Revolutionay Party) in
Russia, aspired to1vard eturnig society to idyllic pimitive
peasant . Even t socialist parties s as t Mensheviks
in Russia did not go farter tan to push for tl1e violet overtro>v of the barriers to f capitalist development. took
t poit of vie1v t.hat it. >vas ecessary to v fully developed
capitalism i der to arrive at socialism later. Ho1vever, the
prolem 1vas different; t etrn to t old system d
uampered development of capitalism 1v impossiie for
tese conties. N eiter solutio 1vas l, dr t given
intematioal and internal coditions, of resolving t urgerlt
im of ftr development of these contries, i.e., teir
industrial revolutios.
l t 1vhic 1vas i favor of the ati-capitalist
revolution d Iapid idustialization d pr-ospects for success. Obviosly tat party d to , i additio, socialist i
its covictions. But sice it 1vas oliged to operate under prevailig conditios i general, d i t labor or socialist
moveents, s party d to deped ideologically t
t of t inevitaility d sefuless of moden industry
as 1vell as t tenet tat revoltion v\'as avoidale. This
concept aleady existed, it \vas ss only to modify it.
concept was Marxis-its 1evolutioary aspect. Associatio 1vit
revolutio-y Marxis, >9it t n socialist move-



ment, \Vas natural for t party the., wit t develop

met of t revoltio and with the orgaizational changes in
t deyeJoped coutries, it became just as essential for it to
separate itself from t reformism of European socialism.
The inevitability of revolution and of rapid industrializatio,
wi exacted enormous sacrifices and involved rutbless violence, required t only promises but faith in t possibllity of
t kingdom of eaven on eart. Advancig, as oters also do,
alog the lie of least resistace, the supporters of revolution
and industrialization often departed from estalised Marxist
d socialist doctrie. However, it. was impossile for them to
shed the doctrine etirely.
Capitalism d capitalist relatiosblps were t proper d
at the give moment the ievitale forms d tecniques
wich society expressed its needs and aspirations for improving
d expandig poduction. In Great Britain, in the first alf
of t ineteenth tu, capitalism improved and expaded
production. And just as t industrialists in Britain had to destroy the peasantry in order to attain higer degree of productio, the industrialists, or t bogeoisie, in Russia d to
become Yictim of the industrial revolution. participats
and the forms wei"e different, but t la\v \Vas t same in both
In t instances socialism \vas inevitale-as sloga d
pledge, as fait d lofty ideal, and, in fact, as particular
for of goverment d O\vnersblp \vblc \vould facilitate the
industrial reYolution and make possile improvement d
pansio of productio.

All the revolutios of t past origiated after \v economic
or social relationsblps d begun to prevail, and the old politi




.:;al system had bec~me the sole obstacle to further development.

None of these revolutions soght tig other t.han the
destruction of the old political forms and an ope~ing o.f ~he
1vay for aleady mate social forces d relationsh1ps e~Ist:ng
in t old society. Even in those cases \veie t reYolt~osts
desired something else, suc as t bilding of econom1:: a~d
social relationsips means of force, as did the ~
the French revoltion, t d to accept faile and S\Vlftly
In all preYious revolutions, force and violence appeared
predomiantly as consequence, as an istrmet of _ne'v ~t
already prevailing economic and social fces d r.el~tnshi_PS
Even 1v f and violece surpassed proper l1m1ts ~tmng
t course of revolutio, in the fial analysis t revolutnary
forces d to directed toward positive and attain~le. goal.
these cases teor and despotism tnigt v been vl
but solely tempoary maifestatios.
All so-called bourgeois revolutios, \veter ac1eved
belmv, i.e., \Vit participatio of t masses as i Fr~nce, or
from above, i.e., coup d'etat as in Germay nd B1smarck,
d to d up i political democracy. t is ude.rstad~~le.
Teir task \Vas ciefiy to destioy t old despotlc pollt.Ical
system, and to pemit t estalishment of political elat~
sips \Vi would adequate for alieady existing rn
and other needs, particularly those concerning t f productio of goods.
case is etirely diffeieilt \vith cotemporary Commust
revolutios. These eyolutios did not occur s ne\V, let
us say socialist, relationsips \vere already existig in t econ

\Vas " overd eve1 d ." the conomy, or because capallsm
trary. did occur because capitalism was not fully ~e
veloped and because it \Vas t l to carry out the industal
transfoimation of t country.
In Ft-ace capitalism had already prevailed in the economy,



in social relationships, and even i the pulic conscience pior

. ~? of the revolutn. The case is hardly compara!e
With soctallsm in Russia, China, or Yugoslavia.
The leaders of the Russian revolutio themselves were vare
of this fa~t. Speaking at the Seventh Congress of the Russia
Commust Party March 7, 1918, while the revolutio 1vas
still in progress, Lenin said:

. One of the fundamental differences bet\vee bourgeois

~ socia!ist revolutions is that in bourgeois revolution,

wh~ch ases from feudalis, new econoic organizations

wlc!1 graduaiiy ~g all aspects of feudai society are pro-

gresSively created

the midst of the old order. In


plishig. this t~sk, ev~ry _bogeois revolution accoplishes

aii that .Is .reqred o_f It:. It. hastes the grmvth of capitalis.

socialist revolut IS etirely differ-et sitatio.

the. extet that coutr-y \vhich had to begi socialist
revoluti_I,_ because
the trasltlo fr-o

of the vagaries of history, is back1vard,

old capitalist relatios to socialist relatios is icreasigly difficult ....
The .diffe~ce ~1v socialist revolutios d bourgeois
I"evoluts l1es speCifically i t fact tat. i the Iatter case
estalished forms of capitalist Ielatios exi~t, 1vhile the sovie~
power-the proletaiiat-does t attai such relatios, if ;ve
exclude t ost de;reloped forms of capitalis, 1vhich actually
eco~passed smaii nuber of top idustries d l very
scatily touclled agriculture,
I quote Lenin, but I could quote any leader of the Communist evolution and umerous other authors, as confirmatio
of the fact that. settled elationships did not exist for the
Pe;v society, but t~at someoe, in this case the "soviet po 1ver,"
must terefore bUild them. If the ne1v "socialist" relatioships
had ~een devel?ped to the fullest in the country in i\'hich Commust evolut 1vas i to emerge victor-ious, there 1vould
have been need for so many assurances, disseitatios, and
efforts embracing the 'uildig of socialism."




This leads to an apparet contradictio. If tlle conditions

for w society 1vere not sufficiently prevalent, tllen wllo
needed the revolution? Moreover, hoiv ;vas the e;rolutio possile? Ho1v could it survive in ;rie1v of the fact that the w
social relatioships 1vere not yet in the formative process in
the old society?
No revolutio or party had ever before set itself to the task
of building social relatioships or ne;v society. But this 1vas
the primary objective of the Commuist Ievolution.
Communist leaders, thougll no better acquaited than others
with the la1vs 1vhich gove society, discovered that in the county in 1vhich thei revolution 1vas possile, industrialization 'Nas
also possile, particularly when it involved tansformation of
society i keeping 1vith their ideological hypothesis. Experiece
-the success of revolution uder "unfavoale" conditionsconfirmed this for them; the "building of socialism" did like1\'ise. This stregthened their illusion that they kne>v the laws
of social development. In fact, they 1vere in t position of
making lueprint for ne;v society, and the of stting to
build it, making coections here and leaving out sometblng
tl1ere, all the while adhering closely to their plas.
Industialization, as inevitale, legitimate necessity of
society, and the Communist 1vay of accomplishing it, joied
forces in t couties of Cornunist revolutions.
However, neither of tllese, though tl1ey progressed togetller
and on paallel tracks, could achieve success oveight. After
the completion of the revolution, someone had to shoulder the
responsiility for industrialization. I the West, tbls l 1vas
taken over t economic forces of capitalism lierated from
the despotic political chains, while in the countries of Communist revolutions no similar forces existed and, thus, tlleir
function had to taken over the revolutionary organs
themselves, the new authority, that is, the revolutionary party.
In earlier revolutions, revolutionary force and violence became hindrance to the m as soor1 as the old order 1vas

overthrmvn In

ommust revolutio11 f
condition for further d
s, orce and vio1ence are
Words of earlier revo1ut1. eve ~m and even progress. In the
onaes force and . I
necessary evil and
v ence were on1y
means to an end I
musts force and .

Il t 1vords of Corn1
v ence are elev t d

f cu1t and an ult"

to t lofty position
1t i In the
t h I
1vh1ch made up
pas ' t asses and forces
ne\v society already xi t d f
tn erupted Th
ore the revoluhave had to ~reat revo1utions are the fi.r-st 1Vhich
Even as tl
ela ~e\v ~Oc1ety and ne\v social fOIces.
le revo utns th vV h d .
democracy after aii the " . es:. 1~~v~taly to end in
the East, the revolutions had ;:::~:7s d . whdrawa1s," i
of terror d vio1ece in the W
despot1sm. The methods
lous, d v hidrace i est be~~m~ eedless d ridicuthe revolutioaries d r 1 a~comp 1Slng the revo1ution for
' tn part"
case was the opposite. Not on1 d"d d
~es. 1n the East, t
East s the tasfo
. 1 . espot1sm cotiue in the

natn of dust

t1me, t, as 1ve shaii see 1ater "t 1 . d

reqred so mucll
t"Ion h ad taken 1.
' 1 aste lonc
d ustrializa~::>


TI!ere are other basic d1"ff

erences betw
vo1utns d ear1ier ones 1"
een ommust rehad reached the point of re d. I~r revolutions, though t
Iess 1n an
Were unale to break out with
economy and society,
We now knmv the geneal cond" .t advatageous conditions.
and success of evolutio Itns necessary for the erption
addition to these geerai .. o;e;er, e~ery revolution has, in
make its planning and c~n It~, Its pecuiiarites whic

cutn possile

. ar, or more precisely, natioai

zt, was unnecessay for ast
Iap~e of t state orgai
Iarger ones. Until no,v w ;.evolutns, at Ieast for the
for the victory of ~
~ver, t Is ~s been basic conditio
must revolutns .
Is Is v valid

true, there the revolution began prior to the
s ivasion, but it cotinued for an entire decade to spread
d finally to emege victios with t d of t war. The
Spais revolution of 1936, 1vblc could v been an exception, did t have time to transform itself ito purely Comrnunist revolution, d, theiefore, ever emerged victorious.
reason 1var 1vas necessary for tlle Commuist. revolutio,
or t do1vnfall of t stat.e machinery, nst sougt in the
immaturity of t m and society. I serios collapse
of system, d particulaly i war 1vhic s usuccess
ful for tlle uling circles and state system, small but
well-organized d disciplined group is ievitaly l to take
autlrity in its hads.
Tus at the time of t Oct.ober Revolution the Communist
Party d about 80,000 members. Yugoslav Commist
began the 1941 revolution with about 10,000 members.
grasp po1ver, the support d active paticipation of at 1east
part of t people is necessary, but in every case the party
which leads t revolution d assmes power is minority
goup elyig exclusively on exceptionally favorale conditions. Furtenore, such party canot majority group
ntil it becomes the permanently estalished authority.
The accomplishment of suc grandiose task-te destruction of social order and t building of w society when
conditions for suc undertaking are rt propitios in the
n or society-is task l to attact l minority,
and at that, only those 1v believe fanat.ically in its possiilities.
Special conditions d particular party are basic characteristics of Comuist revolutios.
The achievemet of v evoltio, as well as of every
victory in 1var, deads cetralization of all forces. Accordig
to the Maltlsia theory, the Frech revolutio 1vas the first
i whic "all t resources of people at. 1var 1vere placed i
the hands of the authorities: people, food, clotig." Tis ust
t case to an v greater degree in Commuist "imCHARACTER OF Tl:fE REVOLUTION






mature" revolution: not only all material means but all in~
tellectual means must fall into the hands of the party, and the
party itself IISt become politically, and as an organization,
cetralized to the fullest extet. l Commuist parties,
politically uited, firmly grouped aroud the ceter, d possessicr idetical ideolocrical vie>vpoits, are to carry out



Cetralizatio of all forces d means as well as some kind

of political uity of the revolutionary parties are essential co~
ditios for every successful evolutio. F the Cornmmst
evoltion these coditios v m irnpotat, since
fom tle very becriicr tlle Communists exclude every otlle
independent political
or party fom beig an ally of
their t. At the same time they demand ifomity of all
vie>vpoits, icldig practical political vieiVS as >vell as theoretical, pllilosopllical, and v moral vie>vs. ' fact tlat the
left-of-cete SR's (Socialist-Revolutionaries) paticipated in
tle October Revolution, d tlat. idividals d groups from
tl parties paticipated i tle evolutios i Cllia and Ygo
slavia, does t disprove t tl fis this propositio:
these grops \v l collaboratos of t Comrnist Party,
d only to fixed degee in the stuggle. After the revolution
tl-tese collabo-atig parties \vere dispersed, or tlley dissolved of
tllei mm d d erged ivit1:t the Communist t. The
Bolsheviks roted the left-of-ceter SR's as s as t latte
ivisled to become idependent, wllile tlle no-Comnnist
grops i Ygoslavia and China that had suppoted the revolutio had, in the meantirne, enounced every one of thei political acti\ities.
The earlier evolutions ivere t caied out sigle political g. sre, in the course of evolution idividual
grops pessured d destoyed aother; but, taken as
whole, the 1evoltio \vas not the >vork of only goup. l
the Frecll revoltio tle is succeeded i maitaiig
thei dictatorship f brief period l. Napoleo's dictato-




ship, which ee;:-ged f: the revolution, sigtified both the

end of the ]111
evoltn and tle becrinnicr
1 f
~ of the r
th ouge01s1e. In v case, although one party played d _
. .
l .

ciSIVe 111 ~ 1~ earl1e revolutions, the other paties did not.
surr~de ~h1 111dependence. Although supp1essio and dispersn e~sted, they could enforced only f brief time.
The parties could n_ot destroyed and would always emerge
anew. Even the s Commue, ivhich the Comrnunists take
as the
. foreuer .of their evolution and thei state, was
mult1-party evolut.
. t may have played the chief, and v an exclusive, role
~n pa~tlcu1a phase of evolution. But no pevious party was
Ideo1oglcally, as. an organization, centalized to tle degree
that _tle Comm_umst Party was. Neithe the Puritas i t
Engllsh revolut the Jacoins in the French revolution
\vere bound tle same phi1osophical and ideo1ogical vie,
althogh tlte first belonged to eligious sect. From the orcran.
1 .
~ 1
zatna po111t of v1ew the Jacoins were fedeation of clubs;
t ~utans i~ere not even that. Only contempoary Comn:st revol~tns ~ushed complsory pties to the foefont,
iVhlch ivere ldeo1ogcally and organizationally monolithic.
In every case one thig is cetain: i all earlie revolutions
th_e ss for ~e:olutionary methods and parties disappea1ed
wlth the d of c1~Il war and of foreign intervention, and these
meth.ods and p_artles d to done v. ivith. After Commust evolutns, the Comunists cotinue >vitl both the
met~ods and the forms of t evolution, d thei t soon
atta~ns the fullest degree of cetalism d ideolocrical ex~
. Lenin exp:essly emphasized tbls during the evolutio itself
111 enumeatg his conditions f acceptance in the Comin.
_In the present epoch o_f acute civil '\Var, Communist Party
will to perfon s duty only if it is ogaized in the

Selected Works, Vol.

New York, International





most centralized manner, only if iron discipline bordering on

military discipline prevails in it, and if its party center is
powerful and authoritative organ, wieldig "\Vide powers d
ig the uivesal cofidence of the members of the party.
And to this, Stalin appended, in Foundations of Leninism:*
This is the positio i regard to disciplie i the party in
the period of struggle precedig the acievemeilt of the
The same, but to v greater degree, must said
about disciplie i the party after the dictatorsip has been
The revolutionary atmosphere and vigilace, insistence on
ideological unity, political and ideological exclusiveness, political d other centralism do not cease after assuming control.
On t.he contt-ary, they become even m01e intensified.
Ruthlessness in met.hods, exclusiveness in ideas, and monopoly
in authority in the earlier revoltions lasted more or less as
lono- as the revolutions themselves. Since revolution in the
Commuist revolution 'vas only t.he fiiSt act of the despotic
and totalitaria authority of goup, it is difficult to forecast
the duratio of that authority.
In earlier revolutions, icludig the Reig of r i
France, superficial attentio 'vas paid to the elimination of real
oppositionists. No attetio 'vas paid to the eliminatio of those
who might become oppositionists. The eadication d persecutio of some social or ideological goups in the religious wars
of the Middle Ages was the only exceptio to this. From theory
and practice, Communists ko'v that they are in conflict wit.h
all other classes d ideologies, and behave accOI'dingly.
are fightig against not only actual but also potetial oppositio. In the Baltic count1ies, thousands of people 'vere liquidated overnight on the basis of documents indicatig previously
held ideological d political views. massacre of several

New York, International






thousad Polis

officers i tlle Katyn Forest was of similar

the case of Communism, long after the evolution
is over, te01ist and oppessive metlds continue to sed.
Sometimes these perfected and become more extensive than
in the revolutio, as in the case of the liquidation of the Kulaks.
Ideological exclusiveness and intolerance are intensified after
the revolution. Even whe it is l to reduce physical oppression, the tendency of the ruling t is to strengthe the
caracter. I

prescried ideology-Maixism-Leinis.

Earlier revolutios, particularly the so-called bourgeois s,

attached cosiderale sigificace to the estalishment of individual freedoms immediately follo,vig cessation of the revolutionary t.eor. Even the revolutionaries cosidered it importat
to assure the legal stats of the citizey. Idepedent
admiistiation of justice '\Vas an ievitale fial result of all
these revolutios. The Commuist regime in the U.S.S.R. is
still remote from idepedent admiistration of justice after
forty years of teure. The fial esults of ea1lier 1evolutios
we1e often greater legal security d greater civil ights. This
cannot said of the Communist evolutio.
There is aother vast differece bet"\veen the earlier revolutions and contemporary Commuist ones. Ea1lier revolutions,
especially the greater s, '\vere pl'Oduct of the stuggles of
the 'vorking c1asses, but ti ultimate results fell to anoter
class uder wose intellectual and often organizational leadersblp t revolutios 'v accomplished. bourgeoisie, in
wose name the revolution '\Vas caied out, to cosiderale
extent avested the fruits of the struggles of t peasats d
sans-culottes. masses of ation also pai'ticipated in
Communist revolutio; ho,vever, t uits of revolution do
t fall to tem, but to the uu. For the bureaucracy
is nothing else but the party '\Vhich caied out the revolution.
In Commuist revolutios, the revolutioary ovemets 'vblch
carried out the revolutios 1 t liquidated. Commuist revolutions may "eat teir own childrer1," but t all of the.



In fact, on copletion of Comunist revolution, rut~less

and nderhanded deals ineYitaly are made between varus
groups and factions which disagree about the path of the future.
Mutual accusations a1~vays reYolve around dogmatic proof as
to who is "objectively" or "subjectively" . gre~;er :~t~:
revoltionary or agent of internal and fore1gn cap1tallsm.
Reo-ardless of the manner in 1vhich these disagreemerlts are
resolved, the group that emerges victorious is the one tb~t :s
the most consistent and determined supporter of industnallzation alono- Communist priciples, i.e., the basis of total
party moo~oly, particularly of state organs i control of productio. The Commuist revolution does t. devour those
of its children 1vho are eeded for its future course-for idus
trializatio. Revolutioaries who accepted the ideas d slogans
of the revolutio literally, alvely believig i their materializatio, are usually Iiquidated. The group wbich understood
that revolutio 1vould secure authority, on social-politicalCommunist basis, as instrument of future industrial transformation, emerges victorious.
The Conunist revolutio is the first in which the revolutionaries and their allies, particularly the authority-1vielding
group, survived t revolution. Similar groups ievitaly failed
in earlier ones. The Communist revolution is t first to
carried out to t advantage of t revolutionaries. They, and
the bureaucracy which forms around tem, arYest its fruits.
This creates in tbem, and in t broader ecelons of the party,
the illusio tat theirs is the first revolution that remained true
to the slogans its baners.

The illusios wi t Communist revolution creates about
its real aims are more pennanent and extensive than those of
earlier reYoltions because the Communist revolutio resolves




relationsllips in ne>v 1vay and brings about ne1v fonn of

mmeship. Earlier revolutions, too, inevitaly resulted in r
or minor changes in property relatioships. But i those revolutios form of pivate Oivneship superseded t others. In
the Communist reyolution this is not the case; t change is
radical and deep-ooted, and collective o>mership suppresses
priYate Oimesip.
The Communist reYolution, >vhile still in process of development, destroys capitalist, Iand-llding, priYate O'i\'11ership, i.e.,
that o>mership \\'hich makes use of foreign labor forces. This
immediately eates the belief tat t reYolutionay promise
of new realm of equality and justice is being fulfilled. The
party, or the state autOiity uder its cotrol, simultaneously
undertakes extensiYe meases for industrialization. This also
intesifies the belief that the time of freedom from >Vat s
finally arrived. Despotism and oppression are there, but. they
are accepted as tempoary manifestatios, to last l utll t
opposition of the expopiated authorities d couter-revolu
tioaies is stifled, d the idustial trasfomatio is cornpleted.
SeYeral essetial chano-es occur i the very process of
idustialization. Idustializatio
in back>vard coutry, especially if it has assistance d is hideed from. _d,
demads cocentatio of all mateial esouces. N atnaliza
tio of idustial pr-operty d the land is t first cocetr-ation
of property in the hads of the ne>v regime. However, it does
not, and can not, stop at this.
ne>vly orio-inated o>mer-ship inevitaly comes conflict
with other form~ of o;vnership. ne1v o>mel'Ship irnposes
itself force on smaller owners who do t employ someone
else's rnapo>ver, or to >vom such manpo>ver is unessential, i.e.,
on craftsmen, >vorkers, small comrnercial merchants, and peasants. This expopriation of small property o'vnes is effected
even >vhen it is not done for economic mot.ives, i.e., i OI"der
to attai igher degree of productivity.



In the course of industrialization, the property of those elernents who were not opposed to, or even assisted, the revolution
is taken over. As rnatter of forrn, the state also becornes the
o~ver of this property. The state adrninisters and rnanages the
property. Private ownership ceases, or decreases to ~ rol~ of
secondary irnportance, but its cornplete disappearance IS subect
to the 1vhirn of the ne1v rnen in authority.
This is experienced the Cornrnunists and sorne rnernbers of the rnasses as cornplete liquidation of classes and the
realization of classless society. In fact, the old pre-revolutionary classes do disappear ~vith tlle cornpletion of idust.rialization
and collectivization. There rernains the spontaneous and unorgaized displeasure of tlle rnass of the people-a displeasure
1vhich neither ceases nor abates. Cornrnunist delusions and selfdeceit about the "remnants" and "influence" of the "class
enemy" still persist. But the illusion that the long-drearned classless society arises tllese rneans is cornplete, at least for the
Cornrnunists themselves.
v revolutio, and even every 1var, eates illusions d
is coducted in the n of unrealizale ideals. During the
the ideals seern real enoug- for tl1e combatants; the
end they often cease to exist. Not so in the case of Comrnuist
revolution. Those who r out the Cornmunist revolution as
well as those anng the lo1ver echelons persist i their illusions
long after the arned struggle. Despite oppression, despotism,
unconcealed confiscatios, and pivileges of the rulig echelos,
sorne of tl1e people-ad especially the Comrnunists-retain the
illusions contained in their slogas.
Although the Comrnunist revolution may start with the rnost
idealistic concepts, calling f 1vondeful heroisrn d gigantic
effort, it s01vs the greatest and the rnost permanent illusions.
Revolutions are ievitale in the lifetime of natios. They
rnay result in despotisrn, but. they also launch nations paths
previously locked to them.
The Communist revolutio canot attain single one of the




ideals arned as its rnotivating force. However, Communist revolution has brought about measure of industrial civilization
t.o vast areas of and Asia. I this way, rnaterial bases
have actally been created for future freer society. Thus 1vhile
bringing about. the rnost complete despotisrn, the Commuist
revolution has also created the basis for the abolition of despotism. As the nineteeth cetury intoduced rnodern industry
to the vVest, the hventieth century will it.roduce rnodern industry to the East. The shado~v of Lein extends over the vast
expanse of Eurasia i one way or another. I despotic form i
Chia, in dernocratic forrn in Idia d Burma, all of the
remaiing Asiatic d other natios are ievitaly eterig an
industrial revolutio. Russia revolutio initiated tis
process. process rernais the icalculale and historically
significat fact of t revolutio.

It rnigt. appear tat Cornrnunist revolutions are rnostly historical deceptios d occureces. In sense this is
true: oter revolutions v required so many exceptional
coditios; oter revolutios pornised so muc d accomplised so little. Dernagogueiy d rnisrepresetatio are ievi
tale arnog tl1e Comrnuist leaders since t are forced to
promise t rnost ideal society and "abolitio of every exploitation."
Ho1vever, it t said tat the Commuists deceived
t people, tat is, tat tl1ey purposely and consciously did
somethig differet. frorn -vvat t had pornised. fact
is simply tis: t 1vere ul to accomplis that in -vvhich
t so fanatically believed. canot ackowledge this
v wen forced to execute policy contrary to everyting
promised before and during t revolutio. Fom their poit
of view, suc ackowledgment would adrnissio that the

revolution was unecessary. It 1vould also admissio that
they had themselves become superfl.uous. Aythig of the sort
is impossile for them.
The ultiate results of social struggle can ever of the
kid evisacred those 1vho carry it out. S such struggles
deped ~ ifinite and complex series of circumstaces beyond the cotrollae rage of huan intellect d action. This
is most true of revolutions that demand superhuman efforts
and that effect hasty and radical changes i society. They ievi
taly generate absolute cofidence that the ultiate i huan
prosperity d Iierty 1vill appear after their victories. The
French revolution 1vas carried out in t n of common
sese, in the belief that lierty, equality, and aternity 1vouid
evetually appear. The Russian revolut.ion 1vas carried out in
the of " purely scientific vie1v of the world," for the purpose of creating classless society. N either revolution could
possily have been created if tlle revolutioaries, alog with
part of the people, d not believed in their ovm idealistic aims.
Counist illusios as to post-revolutioary possiilities
\Vere r prepoderat g the Commuists than among
those who followed them. The Couists should have kown
d, in fact, did kno\V about the inevitaility of industrializatio, but they could l guess about its social results and
Official Counist historians in the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia
describe the revolution as if it 1vere t fruit of t previously
planed actios of its leaders. But only t course of t revolutio and t ared struggle 1vas cosciously planned, 1vhile the
fors 1vblch tl1e revolutio took steed fro the iediate
course of evets and from the direct actio taken. It is revealig
tat Leni, udoubtedly of t greatest revolutionaiies in
history, did not foresee 1ven or in wat fm t revolution
1vould eupt until it was alost u i. I January 1917,
one mt before t February Revolutio, d l ten
mots before t October Revolution wi brougt im




to po1ver, addressed meeting of Swiss Socialist youths:

"We, t older generation, peraps will not live to see the
decisive battles of the approaching revolution. But, I , it
sees to , express 1vit extreme confidece the that the
youth, 1vho work i the 1voderful socialist moveet of
Switzerland d of the wlle w, will v the good fortune
not l t.o fight but also to emerge victorious i tl1e appioachig evolutio of the proletariat."
Ho1v it ten said that Lenin, or else, 1vas l
to foresee the social results arisig after the log d complex
struggle of the revolution?
But v if Connist. aims per se 1vere unreal, the Cornmunists, as distinct from earlier revolutioaies, were fully
ealistic i creating those tings tat were possile. carried it out in the only 1vay possile-by imposig tlleir absolute
totalitarian autlity. Teirs was t fi.I-st revolution in history
i 1vhic t revolutionaries not only remain on t political
scene after victy but, in the most practical sense, build social
relationsblps completely contrary to tose i which t beIieYed and which they proised. Comunist reYolution,
in t course of its later idustrial duation and tansforma
tion, coverts the revolutionaries themselves into creators and
masters of 1v social state.
Marx's t forecasts proYed iaccurate. even
greater degree, t sarne can said for Lenin's expectatios
that free or classless society 1vould created 1vith the aid of
t dictatoship. But t need tat made t revolution inevitaie-industial ttansformation 011 t basis of rnodern technology-is fulfilled.

Abstract logic 1vould idicate tat t Communist reyolution, when it achieYes, under different conditions and state
compulsio, the same things acieYed industrial reYolutions



and capitalism in the West, is nothing but form of state-capitalist revolution. The relationships \vhich are created its
victory are state-capitalist. This appears to even r true
because the ne\v regime also regulates all political, labor, and
other relationships and, what is more important, distriutes the
national income and benefits and distriutes material goods
which actually have been transformed ito state property.
Discussion on \vhether or not the relationships in t U.S.S.R.
d in other Communist countries are state-capitalist, socialist,
or perhaps sometblng else, is dogmatic to cosiderale degree.
However, such discussion is of fundamental importar1ce.
Even if it is presumed that state capitalism is notlling other
than the "antechamber of socialism," as Lenin emphasized, or
that it is the first phase of socialism, it is still t iota easier
for the people \Vho live uder Communist despotism to endure.
lf the character of property d social relationships brought
about t Communist revolution is stregthened and defined,
t prospects for lieration of the people from suc relationsips become more realistic. If the people are t conscious of
the nature of the social relationships i which they live, or if
t do not see way in which they alter tem, their
struggle cannot v any prospect of success.
If the Communist revolution, despite its promises d illusions, is state-capitalist i its undertakings wit state-capitalist
relationships, t only la,vful and positive actios its fuction
aries take are the s tat improve their \vork d reduce
the pressure d irresposiility of state admiistratio.
Comunists do not admit i teor-y tat they are workig in
system ~ state capitalis, but their leaders behave tis way.
cotually boast about improvig t \Vork of t admiistration d about leadig t stuggle "agaist bureaucratism."
. Moreover, ac~ual ~elationsips are not tose of state capitalIsm; tese relatnsh1ps do t provide method of improving
the system of state admiistration basically.



order to est.alis the ature of relatiosblps wblc arise

course of t Communist revolution and ultimately become estalished i the process of industrialization and collectivizatio, it is ecessary to peer further ito the role and manner
of ti of t state under Comunism. At present, it \Vill
sufficient to point out that in Comunis the state maciney is not t instrument wi really determines social
and poperty relatiosips; it is only t instrument \Vblc
tese relatiosips are protected. In truth, everytig is accomplished i t n of t state and throug its regulations.
Communist Party, icluding t professional party bureaucracy, stands above the regulations and behind every sigle one
of t st.ate's acts.
It is the beaucracy \Vi formally uses, adinisters, and
contls t ationalized d socialized poperty as \vell as
the entie of society. role of t bureaucracy i society,
i.e., rnonopolistic administration and control of national income and ational goods, consigs it to special privileged
positio. Social relatios resernle state capitalism. !'
so, because t carryig out of industrialization is effected not
\Vith t l of capitalists but \Vith the l of t state macblne. In fact, tbls pivileged class pefoms tat functio, using
t state machie as cover d as istrurnet.
0\vneip is oting oter tan t right of profit and control. If defines class benefits tis r-ight, t Comunist
states have seen, in the final analysis, t origin of w form
of O\VIleisblp or of ne'v uling and exploiting class.
In reality, tlle Comrnunists \v ul to act differently
fro ruling class that peceded them. Believig that
they \vere building ne'v and ideal society, t built it for
themselves in t only \vay they could. Theii revolution and
t.heir society do not appear eiter accidetal or unatural, but
appear as matter of course for particular coutry and for
pescried peiods of its developmet. Because of tbls, no matter \v extensive and inuman Comunist tyrary s been,
i t



society, in the course of certain period-as long as industrialization Iasts-has to and is l to endure this tr. Furthermore, this tyranny no longer appears as something inevitaie,
but exclusively as assurance of the depredations and privileges of ne"' class.
In contrast to earlier revolutions, the Commuist revolution,
conducted in the n of doig a.vay 1vith classes, has resulted
in the most complete authority of any sigle w class. Everything else is sham and an illusion.

The New Class

Everything happeed differently in the U.S.S.R. d other
Communist countries from 1vhat t leaders-even suc prominet s as Li, Stali, Trotsky, d Bukari-aticipated.
They expected tat the state 1vould apidly 1vitl1er a1vay, that
democracy 1vould stregtheed. ' everse d. They
expected rapid improvemet i the stadard of Iivig-tere
has scarcely chage i this respect and, i t subjugated East counties, t standar-d s even declied. In v instance, t stadard of living s failed to
rise i i to t rate of idustrialization, wi 1vas
m apid. It 1vas believed tat t differeces bet1veen
cities d villages, betwee itellectual and pysical labor,
1vold slo1vly disappear; instead tese differeces have i
creased. Commuist anticipatios i oter areas-icludig
teir expectatios for developmets in t on-Commuist
world-ave also failed to materialize.
The greatest illusio 1vas tat industrialization d collectivizatio i the U.S.S.R., d destructio of capitalist owneiSblp,
would result in classless society. I 1936, 1vhe t ne1v
Costitutio was promulgated, Stalir1 anouced tat the "exploiting class" d ceased to exist. The capitalist and other



classes of ancient origi had i fact been destroyed, but new

class, previously unkovn t.o history, had been formed.
It is understandale that this class, like those before it, should
believe that the estalishment of its po\ver \vould result in
happiness and freedom for all men. The l differece bet\veen this and other classes was that it treated the delay in the
realization of its illusions more crudely. It thus affirmed tat
its power was more complete than the po,ver of any other class
before i history, and its class illusions and prejudices vere
proportionally greater.
This new class, the bureaucracy, or more accuately the polltical bureaucracy, has all the characteristics of earlier ones as
well as some w characteristics of its w. Its origi had its
special characteristics also, even tlugh in essence it was similar
to the beginings of other classes.
Other classes, too, obtained their strength and pover t
revolutionary path, destroying the political, social, d other
orders they met in their vay. Hovever, almost. \vithout exception, these classes attained power after ne\v ecoomic patterns
had taken shape in the old society. The case was the reverse
with new classes in the Communist systems. It did not come
to pover to complete ne\v economic d but to estaish
its w and, in so doig, to estalish its power over society.
In earlier epochs the coming to power of some class, some
part of class, or of some party, \vas the final everlt esulting
from its formation and its development. The reverse was true
in tlle U.S.S.R. There the nev class \Vas definitely formed after
it attained pmver. Its consciousness had to develop before its
economic and physical povers, because t class had not taken
root in the of t nation. This class vie\ved its role i
relation to the \vorld from an idealistic point of vie;v. Its
practical possiilities \vere not diminished tllis. In spite of
its illusions, it represented an objective tendency to;vard i
dustrialization. Its practical bent emanated from this tendency.
The promise of an ideal vrld increased the fait in the raks



of the new class and so;ved illusions arnong the rnasses. At the
same tirne it. inspired gigantic physical undertakigs.
Because this ne\v class had not been forrned as part of the
econornic and social life before it carne to pover, it could only
created in organization of special type, distinguished
special discipline based on identical philosophic d ideological views of its rnernbers. unity of belief d iron discipline
1vas necessar-y to overcorne its ;veaknesses.
roots of the w class 1vere irnplated in special party,
of the Bolshevik type. Lenin 1vas right in his vie1v that his party
vas an exception in tlle history of hurnan society, altllough
did rt suspect that it. >vould tlle begining of nev class.
rnore precise, the initiat.ors of t ne\v class are not
found in the party of tlle Bolsl1evik type as \vlle but in that
straturn of professional evolutioaries 1vho rnade up its
even f it attaied po;ver. It 1vas not accidet tat Lein
asserted after t.he failure of tl1e 1905 revolutio tat only professioal evolutionaries-rne ;vhose sole professio >vas revolutionary work-could build ne>v party of tl1e Bolshevik type.
lt 1vas stillless accidetal that v Stali, t future creator of
new class, \vas the rnost outstandig exarnple of such
professional evolutioay. The >v ulig class s gradually developig frorn tllis ver-y v straturn of revolutionaies. s revolutio-ies composed its core for log period.
Totsky oted tat in pre-revolutioary professional evolu
tionaries >vas the origi of t future Staliist bureaucrat.
\Vhat did rt detect. was t beginig of \v class of
O\Vei's and exploiters.
This is not to say that t v t d t ne>v class
identical. party, o;vever, is tlle of tllat class, and its
base. It is very difficult, peraps irnpossile, to defie t lirnits
of t ;v class and to identify its rnernbers. ne>v class rnay
said to made up of those \v v special privileges d
econornic preferece because of tlle adrniistrative monopoly
they old.



Si?c~ ad~inistation is unavoidaie in society, necessary

a.dmi~Istrative functios may coexistent 1vith parasitic func-

tJons 111 the same person. N ot. every member of tlle party is
member of the ne1v class, tan v atisan or mer
of the city t 1vas bourgeois.
In loose terrs, as the ne1v class becores stronger and attains
.m?re perceptie pl1ysiognomy, the role of the party dirshes. The core d t basis of the ne>v class is created in
the party and at its top, as 1vell as in t state political gans.
The once live, corpact party, full of initiative, is disappeaina
to r transforred into the traditional oliaarcy of the ne 1~

~ ~ss, Irresistiiy dra1vig into its ranks those 1vho aspire to

t 1v class and repressig those >v v any ideals.
party rakes the class, but t. class go1vs as result. and
uses the party as basis. class gro1vs stroger, wile the
part~ grvs ~~eaker; this is the iescapaie fate of every Cor
mst t 111 po1ver.
If it 1vere t. raterially interested in production or if it did
t v 1vithi itself the potentialities for the ceation of
1v class, no pa:ty cold act i so nrally d ideologically
foolhardy fs, Iet l stay in po1ver f Iog. Stalin
declared, afte t end of t Fit Five-Year l: "If we d
rt created the ts, 1ve 1vould v failed!" should
have su.bstitted "1v class" for the 1vord "apparatus," and
everythg 1vold v been cleaer.
It seers unusual :It political party could t beginning
of 1v class. Part1es are geerally t prodct of classes and
strata 1vhich v r itellectually d econorically
str~g.. However, i~ one ~asps the actual conditions i prere\ oltnary Russra and other countries in whic Communisr pievailed over ational forces, it 1vill l that
party of th~s type .is the product of specific opportities d
that thee 1s nothg unusual or accidental in this being so.
A.lthogh the oot.s of Bolshevism far back ito Russia
history, the party is partly t product of the unique pattern


1vhicll Rssia fd itself at

the begiig of the t>vetiet
cetury. Rsia 1vas no longer to live i the roder 1voi1d
as an absolte ronarchy, d Russia's capitalism 1vas too 1veak
d too depedent the iterests of foreign po1vers to rake
it possile to v an idstiial reYolutio. This revoltion
could l implereted ne1v class, or chage in
the social order. As yet, tere 1vas suc class.
In blstory, it is not irportant w implerets process, it
is r important tat. the piocess irplerented. Suc was
t case in Russia and oter cour'ies i 1vich Cormist.
revoltions took place. The revolution created forces, leaders,
organizatios, d ideas which 1vere ecessary to it. Tlle ne1v
class came ito existece for objective reasos, and the 1vis,
wits, d actio of its leaders.



end of the


itt d

The social origin of the w class lies i the proletariat just
as the aristoacy s i peasat society, and the bourgeoisie
i cormercial d atisas' society. h exceptions,
dependig ational coditios, t tl1e proletariat i econorically underdeveloped contries, being back1vard, constitutes t ra>v mateial fom 1vhic t >v class arises.
There are oter reasons 1vl1y the ne1v class all\'ays acts as t
ri of the >vorking class. ne1v class is anti-capitalistic
and, consequently, logically depedet n t 1vorking strata.
w class is supported the pioletarian stggle and t
traditioal faitll of t proletariat. i socialist, Comnist
society were tllere is no brutal exploitation. It is Yitally ir
portant for tlle ne1v class to assre ormal flo1v of prodction,
n it canot ever lose its corection 1vitl1 t proletaiat.
Most irportant of all, tl1e ne1v class cannot acbleve indstriali
zation d consolidate its pmver 1vitout t l of t 1vork-



ig class. the other d, the 1vorkig class sees in expaded

industry the salvation from its poverty d despair. Over Iog
period of time, the iterests, ideas, faith, d hope of the w
class, d of parts of the 1vorkig class d of t poor peasants,
coicide d uite. Such mergers have occurred i the past
amog other 1videly differet classes. Did t. the bourgeoisie
represent the peasantry i the stuggle agaist the feudal lords?
The movemet of the w class toward po1ver comes as
result of the efforts of t proletariat d the poor. These are
t asses upon 1vhich t party or t ne1v class ust lean
and 1vith 1vhic its irlterests are ost closely allied. This is true
util the w class finally establises its po1ver d authority.
Over and above tis, t ne1v class is interested in the proletariat d the poor only to the extent necessary for developig
production d for aitaining in subjugatio t ost aggressive d rebellious social forces.
Tlle morpoly 1vicll tlle 1v class estalislles in the name
of the 1vorkig class over the 1vhole of society is, pimarily,
monopoly over t 1vorking class itself. Tis monopoly is first
intellectual, over t so-called avant-garde pioletai"iat, and the
over the 1vole prolctaiat. This is tl1e iggest deceptio the
class must accomplish, but it sho1vs that the 1v and interests
of the new class lie pr'imarily in idustry. Without industry
the w class cannot consolidate its positio or autority.
Fomer sons of t >vorking class are the most. steadfast membes of the 1v class. lt s al1vays the fate of slaves to
provide for their asters t most cleve and gifted repese
tatives. In this case 1v exploitig d govei"ning class is
from the exploited class.

Wen Comuist


tat teir

systems are being critically aalyzed, it is

fundamental distinctio lies in t fact



that bureaucracy, organized in special stratu, rules over

the people. This is generally true. Ho1vever, more detailed
analysis 1vill show that l special stratum of bureaucrats,
those "\VhO are I10t administrative officials, k up the core of
the govering bureaucracy, or, in my termiology, of the 1v
class. This is actually party or political bureaucracy. Other
officials ai'e only tlle apparatus uder tlle conrol of the w
class; the apparats clumsy and slow but, atter
>vhat, it ust exist i every socialist society. It is sociologically
possile to dra1v t bordelie bet1veen the different types of
officials, but in practice they are practically idistinguishale.
This is true t only because t Communist system its very
natue is bureaucratic, but because Comuists andle t
various important administrative functions. In addition, t
stratu of political ts cannot teir privileges
if t do not give CI'umbs fr'o teir tales to other bureaucratic categoies.
It is iportant to note t fudaental differences bet1vee
the political bureaucracies entioned r and those which
arise 1vith every cetralization in d economy-especially
cetalizations tat lead to collective for-ms of ownersip such
as monopolies, compaies, and state ownersip. nuber
of 'vite-collar 1vorkers is constatly i:easing in capitalistic
monopolies, and also in ationalized industries in t West.
lil Human Relations in Administration/" R. Duin says tllat
state functiona!'ies in t economy are being trasfored into
special stratum of society.
. .. Functionar'ies have the sense of common destiny for
all those who >vok together. They share the same interests,
especially since there is relatively little competition isofar
as pomotion is in terms of seniority. In-group aggression is
thus inimized and this aangement is t.herefore conceived
New York, PrenticeHall, 1951.



to positive1y functional for the bureaucracy. Ho1vever, th~

esprit de corps and informal social organization which typically develops in such situations often leads the pers~nnel t.o
defend their entrenched interests rather than to asSist the1r
clientele and elected higher officials.

While such fuctioaries have mucll in commo 1vith Commuist bureaucrats, especially as regards "esprit de corp~," tlley
are t identical. Although state and oter bureauats ~n
Communist systems form special stratum, tl1ey do not exerCise
authority as the Communists do. Bureaucrats i no-Com~
muist state haYe political masters, usually elected, or o1vners
over tllem, 1vhile Communists have eiter masters nor 0\VIlers
over them. The breaucrats in on-Commuist state are officials in modem capitalist m, 1vile tlle Communists
are somethiodifferent d 1v: ne~v class.
As i other o1vning classes, the proof tat it is special class
lies in its onership d its special relations to otller classes.
I the same 1vay, tlle class to 1vicll member belogs is idi
cated t material d oter privileges 1vhicl1 ownership
brigs to him.
As defined Roman lv, property costitutes the use, enjoyment, and disposition of material goods. Communist
poiitical bureaucracy ses, enjoys, and disposes of natioalized
If we assume that membership i this bureaucracy or w
o1vning class is predicated on tlle use of privileges inl:lerent. in
ownersip-in tis inst.ance natioalized material goods-tl:len
membersip i tl:le 1v party class, or political bureaucracy, is
reflected in larger income in material goods and priYileges
tllan society sl:lold ormally grant for sucl:l functios. In practice, the o1vnership privilege of tlle ;v class maifests itself
as an exclusiYe rigllt, as party moopoly, for tl:le political
bureaucracy t.o distriute the ational income, to set wages,
direct economic deYelopment, and dispose of nationalized and




pr-operty. This is t way it appears to t ordiary man

;vho considers t Communist functioary as being very rich
d as m 1vl10 does not have to work.
o;vnersip of private t s, for m reasos,
proved to unfavale for t estalisl1met of t 1v
class's autlrity. Besides, t destructio of pivate o;vership
1vas ss for t economic tr-asformatio of atios.
ne1v class obtais its po1ver, privileges, ideoJogy, d its cstoms
from specific form of o1vesip-collective 0\vnersip
;vblc t class admiisters d distriutes i t name of tlle
ti d society.
Tlle 1v class maitais tat Ol\'lleblp derives from designated social relationsip. Tbls is tlle relationsip betlveen t
monopolists of administration, 1vllo constitute arro1v and
closed stratum, and tlle mass of producers (farmers, 1vorkers,
and intelligentsia) 1vl llave no rigts. Ho;veYer, tbls elation
sblp is not valid since tlle Communist bureaucacy enjoys
moopoly v t distiution of mateial goods.
fundametal cllange in t social relatiosip bet1veen
tllose 1v moopolize admiistration d tllose 1vl IVOk is
ineYitaly reflected i tlle ownersllip elatiosllip. Social d
political relatios d 01vnersllip-tlle totalitaiaism of tlle
govemmet and tlle moopoly of autllity-are being m
fully bougllt ito accor-d i Commuism tan in otller
sigle system.
divest Commuists of tlleir o1vnersip rigts 1vould to
abolish tllem as class. compel tllem t.o reliquis tl:1eir
other social po1vers, so that 1vorkers may paticipate in sllarig
tlle pofits of their 1vork-1vhich capitalists haYe had to permit
as result of stikes d parliametary action-would mean
that Commuists were being depiived of their moopoly oYer
property, ideology, and govemment. This would the begiig of democracy d freedom in Communism, the d of
Commuist moopolism d totalitaiaism. Util tis happes, there can idication that important, fudamental



changes are taking place in Communist systems, at least not

i the eyes of m 1vho think seriously about social progress.
The o;vership privileges of the ne1v class and membership
in that class are the privileges of administration. This privilege
extends from state administration and the administr-ation of
economic eterprises to that of sports and humanitaria orgai
zatios. Political, party, or so-called "geeral leadership" is
executed the core. This positio of leadersblp caies privileges 1vith it. I his Stalin au pouvoir, pulished i Paris in
1951, Orlov states that t average of worker i t
U .S.S.R i 1935 1vas 1,800 rules aually, wblle tlle and
allowances of t secretay of r committee md
to 45,000 rules anually. situatio s gd sice
the for t ;vorkers d party fuctioaries, but t essece
remains t same. Oter autors v aived at t same
coclusios. Discrepacies bet,vee the of 'vorkers d
party functioaries are extreme; tis could t bldde from
pesons visiting t U.S.S.R. or oter Communist couties i
t past fe;v years.
Other systems, too, '\' teir professiona1 politicians. One
tblnk 1vell or ill of them, but they must exist. Society
canrt live ;vithout state or govemet, d therefOI'e
it t liYe ;vithout those 'vho figt for it.
Ho1veyer, tl1ere are fudametal differeces bet;vee po
fessional politicias in other systems d i the Commuist
system. I extreme cases, politicias i other systems use the
gover'Ilmet to secure privileges for themselves and their cohorts, or t.o fav the ecoomic iterests of one social statum
aother. The situatio is differet with the Commuist syste
;vlrere t po;ver d the goveret are idetical 1vith t
use, ejoyment, d dispositio of almost all t nation's goods.
'\Vho grabs po;ver grabs privileges d idiectly grabs
property. Consequetly, in Commuism, po;ver or politics as
professio is the ideal of those 'vho have the desire or the
pospect of livig as paasites at the expense of oters.



Membership in the Communist Party before the ReYolution

sacrifice. Beig professioal revolutionary '\vas of
the highest hoors. N O'\V that the party has cosolidated its
pmver, party membership meas that belogs to privileged class. d at the core of t party are the all-powerful
exploiters d masters.
For log time t Commuist revolutio ahd t Commuist system v been cocealig teir real nature. The
emergence of the 'v class has concealed uder socialist
phraseology d, more importat, under t 'v collective
~orms. of ?operty o;vnership. The so-called socialist o'vership
1s d1sgse for the real ownership t political bureaucracy.
d i the begiing this bureaucracy 'vas i huy to complete industializatio, and hid its class composition under
that guise.


The development of modern Communism, d t emergence of the ;v class, is evident i the char-acter d roles
of tose wl inspired it.
leaders d their methods, from Marx to Khrushchev
have Yaried and changing. It never occurred to Marx t~
prevent oters from voicing their ideas. Lein tolerated free
discussio in his party and did not think tat forums,
let alone the party head, should regulate the expression of
"proper" or "improper" ideas. Stalin abolished every type of
inta-party discussion, and made the expression of ideology
solely the right of the central forum-or of himself. Oth~r
Communist movements ;vere different.. For instance, Marx's
Interational Workers' Union (the so-called First International) was not Marxist in ideology, but union of varied
goups whic adopted only t resolutios on whic its
rs agreed. Leni's party was an avant-garde group comblning



an internal evolutionary morality and ideological monolithic

stuctue 1vith democracy of kind. Under Stalin tl1e party
became mass of ideologically disinteested men, wl got
their ideas from above, but 1vere 1vholeearted and unanimous
i the defense of system that assured the uquestionale
privileges. Marx actually never created party; Lein destroyed all parties except is o1vn, including the Socialist Party.
Stali relegated even the Bolshevik Party to second ank,
tansformioits core into the of the ne1v class, and
transfoming the party into privileged ipersonal and color
less group.
Marx created system of the roles of classes, and of class 1var
i society, even tlugh he did not discove them, d he saw
that mankind is mostly made of members of disceile
classes, althogh l1e 1vas only restatig Teence's Stoic pllilosophy: i nilzil alienum puto." Lenin vie1ved men as
sharing ideas ather than as beig membes of disceri~le
classes. Stali sa1v in men only obedient subjects or 1s.
died poor emigrat in Ld, t 1v~s valued
learned n d valued i the movemet; Li died as the
leader of one of the t>Qeatest. evoltios, but died as dictator
about. whom cult had already begun to fom; 1vhen Stalin
died, had already transformed himself ito god.
s chages in personalities are l t.he eflection of
chages 1vhicl1 had aleady take place d were t very soul
of the Commuist movement.
did t realize it, Li started the organizao
tion of t 1v class. estalised t t alog Bolsevik
lines d developed tl1e teories of its uique d leadig role
in the buildig of 1v society. Tis is but aspect of is
may-sided d gigatic 1\'0rk; it is t aspect 1vicl1
about from is actios rater tan his 1visl1es. It is also t
aspect. 1vi led t ne1v class t.o revere im.
real d direct 01iginator of tl1e ne1v class, o1vever,
was Stalin. 1vas man of quick eflexes d tendecy to



coarse urnor, rt very educated nor good speaker. But

1vas relentless dogmatician and great administrator,
Georgian 1v knew better than n else witer t new
po1ves of Greater Rssia 1vere takig r. created t ne1v
class the of the most barbaic means, t even sparing
the class it.Self. It 1vas inevitale tat t ne1v class >vich
placed him at t top would later submit to is unbridled
d btal nature. was the true leader of tat class as long
as the class 1vas buildig itself up, d attaining po1ver.
ne1v class 1vas bon1 in the revolutionay struggle in t
Commuist Party, but 1vas developed in t idstrial revolution. Witot t revolution, 1vitout indstJy, the class's
position -.;vould not v secure and its po1ver 1vould
lve been limited.
vVile t.he coutry \Vas being industrialized, Stalin began
to itroduce considerale variations in 1vages, at t same
time allo1ving t developmet to1vard various privileges to
proceed. tgt tat indstrialization would come to
notino- if t ne1v class >veie not made materially inteest.ed

. .
in t process, acquisition of some property for Itself. Witout indstrialization t ne1v class would find it difficult to
old its position, for it would v eiter historical justificatio r the material resources for its contiued existece.
icrease in t membersip of t paity, or of the
breaucracy, 1vas closely conected with tis. I 1927, on t
eve of idustializatio, t Soviet Communist Patty d
887,233 members. In 1934, at tl1e d of t First Five-Year
Plan, the membersip d inceased to 1,874,488. Tis 1vas
phenomenon obviously connected 1vith indstrializatio: the
prospects for t ne1v class and pivileges for its members w
improving. "\Vat is more, t pivileges d t class 1vere
expandig more rapidly than indstrialization itself. It is difficult to cite any statistics on tis point, but the conclsio is
self-evident f anyone 1vho s in mind tat the standard
of living has not kept 1vit industrial productio, 1vhile



the new class actually seized the lio's share of tlle economic
and other progress earned the sacrifices and efforts of t
estalishment of the ne1v class did not proceed smoothly.
It encountered itter opposition from existing classes d from
those revolutionaries 1vho could not reconcile reality 1vith the
ideals of their struggle. In t.he U.S.S.R. the opposition of
revolutionaries was most evidet in the Trotsky-Stalin conflict.
The conflict bet1veen Trotsky and Stalin, or bet1veen oppositionists in t party d Stalin, as 1vell as t conflict between
the regime d the peasantry, became r intense as idus
trialization advanced d the po1ver and authority of the new
class icreased.
Trotsky, an excellent speaker, brilliat. stylist, and skilled
polemicist, n cultured and of excellent intelligece, 1vas
deficient in only one quality: sese of eality. 1vated to
revolutionary in period 1vhe life imposed t comon
place. 1vished to revive revolutioary party 1vhich 1vas
being transformed into something copletely different, into
1v class uconcerned 1vith great ideals d interested l
in the everyday pleasures of life. expected action from
mass alieady tired 1var, hunger, and death, at time 1vhen
t ne1v class aleady str'ongly held the reis d had begun
to experience the s1veetness of privilege. Trotsky's fie~rorks
lit up the distant heavens; but could not ekindle fires i
weary men. sharply oted the s aspect of the ne1v
phenomena but did not gasp their meaning. In addition,
he d never been Bolsevik. This 1vas his vice and bls
virtue. Attacking t party bureaucracy i the name of the
evolution, he attacked the cult of the paity d, althoug he
1vas t conscious of it, tl1e w class.
Stalin looked either far ahead nor far behind. had
seated himself at the head of the ne1v p01ver 1vhich 1vas being
bom-the w class, the political bureaucracy, and bureaucratism-and its leader and oganizer. did not pxeach



-he made decisions. too promised sbling future, but

which bureaucracy could visualize as being real because
its life 1vas impi'O\'ing fiom day to day and its position 1vas
being strengthened. spoke witlut ardor and color, but
the 1v class 1vas better to undestad this kind of ealistic
language. Trotsky 1vished to extend the revolutio to ;
Stalin 1vas not opposed to the idea but this azai'dous undertakig did not prevent him from 1vorrying about Mother
Russia or, specifically, about 1vays of strengtheing the ne1v
system and increasig the po1ver and reputatio of the Russian
state. Trotsky 1vas man of the revolution of the past; Stalin
was m of today and, thus, of the future.
In Stalin's victoiy Trotsky saw the Theidoric reaction
agaist the revolution, actually the bureaucatic corruption
of the Soviet governmet d the revolutionary cause. Conse.
quetly, he understood d 1vas deeply ht the amorality
of Stali's methods. TIotsky was the first, although he was not
a1vare of it, who in the attempt to save the Comrnuist movement discovered the essence of coternporary Comuism. But
he was t of seeig it tough to the end. supposed
that this was l mometay croppig up of bureaucracy,
corruptig the party d the revolution, and concluded that
t solution 1vas in change at the top, in "palace revol
tion." vVhen palace revolution actually took place after
Stalin's death, it could seen that the essence had t
chaged; something deepe!' and more lastig was ivolved. The
Soviet Thel'midor of Stali had t only led to the installatio
of governmet more despotic tha the previous , but also
to the installation of class. This 1vas the contiuatio of that
other violet foreig revolution wich had inevitaly borne
d strengthened the new class.
Stali could, with equal if t greater right, refer to Lein
and all t revolution, just. as Trotsky did. For Stali 1vas the
lawful although 1vicked offsprig of Lenin d the revolutio.
History has previos record of personality like Lenin



who, his versatility and persistence, developed one of t

greatest revolutions kno1vn to men. It also s no record of
personality like Stalin, 1vho took on t enormous task of
stregteing, in terms of po1ver and property, ne1v class born
out of one of the greatest revolutions in one of the largest of
the world's countries.
Behind Leni, w 1vas all passion d tlught, stands the
dull, gray figure of Joseph Stalin, t symbol of the difficult,
cruel, and unscrupulous ascet of the ne1v class to its final
After Lenin and Stalin came what had to come; namely,
mediocrity in the form of collective leadership. And also tere
came the apparently sincere, kind-hearted, no-intellectual "man
of the people"-Nikita Khruschev. The ne1v class longer
needs the revolutionaries or dogmatists it required; it is
satisfied with simple personalities, such as Khrushchev, Malenkov, Bulgani, and Shepilov, wlse every 1vord reflects the average man. 1v class itself is tired of dogmatic purges and
training sessions. It 1vould like to live quietly. It must ptect
itself even from its "\\'11 authorized leader IIO'\V that it s been
adequately strengtl1ened. Stalin remained t same as 1vas
wl1e t class 1vas 1veak, 1v cruel measures 1vere ecessary
against v those in its mvn raks 1vho treatened to deviate.
Today tis is all unnecessary. Without relinquising anyting
it created under Stalin's leadersip, the ne1v class appears to
reoucing his authoity for the past few . But it is
not really renouncing that author-ity-only Stalin's methods
\vi, according to Krushchev, urt "good Communists."
Lein's revolutioary 1vas replaced Stali's ,
i 1vi authOI'ity d O'\versip, d idustr-ialization, were
stregteed so tat the much desired peaceful d good life
of t 1v class could begi. Lei's revolutionary Commuism was replaced Stali's dogmatic communism, whicll in



tur was replaced non-dogmatic Commuism,

collective leadersip or group of oligarchs.
These are the tree pases of developmet of t w class
in the U.S.S.R. or of Russia Communism (or of eve.r'Y oter
type of Commuism i mr !' tr) .
fate 6f Yugoslav Commuism 1vas to uify tese tree
phases i t sigle persoality of Tito, along 1vit ational
d pesonal caacteristics. Tito is great revolutioay, but
1vithout origial ideas; s attained pe!'Sonal pmver, but
1vitout Stalin's distrustfuless d dogmatism. Like s
hv, Tito is represetative of t people, tat is, of t middle-pty strata. d wi Yugoslav Commuism s
t!'aveled-attaiig revolutio, copyig Stalinism, tl1e reoucig Stalinism d seeking its O'\VH form-is s most fully
i t persoality of Tito. Yugoslav Commuism s been
r consistet t otl1er paties i pieseing t substance
of Comunism, yet ever renouncing for 1vi could
of value to it.
tree pases in t developent of the new classLenin, Stali, and "collective leadersip"-are not copletely
divorced fro oter, in substace or i ideas.
Lein too 1vas t-logatist, d Stalin t.oo 1vas evolutioary,
jst as collective leade!'Sip 1vill resort to dogmatis d to
evolutionary metods 1ven necessary. Wat is r, t nondogmatis of t collective leadersip is applied only to itself,
to t eads of t ne1v class. On t oter and, t people
ust all t r pesistently "edcated" in t spirit of
t doga, or of Marxis-Leiis. relaxing its dogmatic
seveity and exclusiveness, t ne1v class, becoing stregteed
econoically, s prospects of attainig greater flexiility.
loic of Counis is past. of its
great leades s eded. of practical has set
in. new class s eated. It is at the height of its



power and wealth, but it is 1vithout ne1v ideas. It. has othing
more to tell the people. The only thing that remains is for
lt to justify itself.

It 1vould not importat to estalish the fact that in contemporary Communism 1v vning and exploiting class is
involved and not merely temporary dictatorship and an ari
trary bureaucracy, if some anti-Stalinist Communists including
Trotsky as 1vell as some Social Democrats had not depicted the
ruling stratum as passing bureaucratic phenomenon because
of 1vhich this ne>v ideal, classless society, still i its s1vaddling
clothes, must suffer, just as bourgeois society had had to suffer
under Crom\vell's and Napoleon's despotism.
But the ne1v class is really ne1v class, with special compositio and special >,r. any scietific definition of
class, v the Marxist definition 1vhich some classes are
lower tha others accding t.o their specific position in productio, 1ve coclude that, i the U.S.S.R. and other Commuist coutries, 1v class of o1mers and exploites is i
existence. The specific characteristic of this 1v class is its
collective o1mership. Communist theoreticias affirm, d some
even believe, that Communism has aived at collective ower
Collective mmership in var'ious forms has existed i all
earlier societies. All anciet Easter despotisms 1vere based
the pe-eminence of the state's or the king's property. I ancient
Egypt after the fifteent century .., arale land passed to
private o>mersblp. BefOie tat time only homes d suound
ing buildings had been privately owed. State land 1vas haded
over for cultivation wblle state officials administered t land
d collected taxes on it. Caals and istallations, as 1vell as
t most. impoat 1vorks, 1vere also state-owed. The state


01\'lled everything util it lost its idd in the first
centry of r era.
This elps to explain t deificatio of the Pharaos of
Egypt d of t emperors, >vhic encouters in all t
acient Easter despotisms. Sch o1vr1ership also explains the
dertakig of gigantic tasks, such as the construction of
temples, tombs, and castles of emperors, of caals, roads, and

The Roma state treated ne1vly conquered land as state land

and owed considerale umbes of slaves. The medieval
Church also had collective property.
Capitalism its very 1vas an n of collective ow
ersblp util the estalisl1met of shareholders' organizatios.
Capitalism contied to of collective o1mership,
even thogh it cold t. do aything against w encroachets collective o>vership d the lgt of its area
of operatio.
The Commists did not ivet collective mmership as
such, t iveted its all-ecompassig character, more 1videly
exteded than i earlier epochs, v r extesive i i
Pharaoh's Egypt. That is all that the Couists did.
The o1mership of the ne>v class, as well as its chaacter, was
fored over period of time d 1vas subjected to costat
chage ding the process. At first, l small part of the
ti felt the d for all ecoomic po1veis to placed i
the hads of political party for the purpose of aidig the
idstrial transforation. The party, actig as the avant-garde
of the proletar-iat d as the "most enlighteed pmver of socialism," piessed for this cetalizatio 1vhich could attaied
only chage i o>mei"Ship. The chage 1vas d i fact
and i for throgh atioalizatio fist of large enterprises
and the of smaller s. The abolitio of private owersblp
1vas preeqisite for idustialization, d for the begiing
of the new class. Ho1vever, >vithot. their special role as admiistatOIs over society and as distritors of property, the



Communists could not. transform temselves into ne\V class,

nor could ne\v class fored d permanently estalised.
Gradually material goods \vere nationalized, but i fact, tough
its rigl to use, enjoy, and distriute these goods, they became
the property of discemile stratum of t party and the
gatl1ered arond it.
In vie\v of the sigificace of O\mership for its po,ver-and
also of the fits of oivnership-the party breaucracy t
rn the extesion of its o>mersllip v v small-scale
piodctio facilities. s of its totalitaianism d moopo
lism, the neiv class fids itself navoidaly at \V >vith evey
tllig 1vhicl1 it does t admiister or hadle, d must
delierately aspire to destroy or conque it.
Stalin said, on the eve of collectivization, tat tl1e qestio
of "1vl 1vill do 1vat to vvom" d raised, v tlugh
the Soviet goverment \vas not meeting serious opposition
politically and economically disited peasantry.
new class felt insecre as long as tere \vere any otl1er O\\rners
except itself. It cold not risk sabotage in food spplies in
agricltral ra>v aterials. This ivas t direct eason for t
attack on t peasantry. Hoivever, tere 1vas second reason,
class reason: t peasants cold dangeros to tl1e ne\V
class in an nstale sitation. neiv class terefore d
to subordinate the peasantry to itself economically and
administratively; this was done tgh t kolkhozes d
maclline-tactor stations, 1vllic reqired an inoease popor
tionate to t size of the neiv class in the villages temselves.
As reslt, r musloomed in t villages too.
fact t.hat t seizre of propety oter classes,
especially small Oivers, led to decreases in prodction
d to s in t 1vas of conseqece to t ne1v
class. Most importat for t ne>v class, as for v Oiver in
history, ivas t attaimet and consolidatio of Oi\rnersllip.
Tl1e class profited from t.he neiv property it d acqired even
toug t.he natio lost t.hereby. The collectivization of peasant



holdings, ivhic ivas ecoomically njustified, was unavoidale

if t nevv class 1vas to secely installed in its power and
its OiVership.
Reliale statistics are not availale, but all evidence confirms
t.hat yields per acre in the U.S.S.R. v not. been icreased
over t yie1ds in Czaist. Russia, and tat t number of Iivestock still does not r t pre-evolutionay figure.
losses i agricltral yields d in livestock
calculated, t the losses i manpo1ver, in the millions of peasants 1v 1vere tl1ro\vn into labor camps, are incalculale.
Collectivizatio was ightfl and devastatig 1var 1vllich resemled isane undertakig-except for the fact that it was
profitale for the ne1v class assig its authority.
various methods, such as ationalizatio, complsory cooperation, hig taxes, d price ineqalities, pivate Oivnersip
1vas destroyed and trasfored into collective oivnership.
estalismet of t o\mesip of t 1v class ivas evideced
in t clges in tl1e psycology, t 1vay of life, d t
aterial position of its embers, depedig t position
t eld on t ieal'Cical ladder. tr homes, t best
ousig, fit, and similar tings ivere acquied; special
qaters and exclsive rest hoes >v estalised for t
higest breaucracy, for tl1e elite of t ;v class. t
secetary d t cief of tl1e secret police in some places t
l tlle igest atorities but obtained t best ous
ing, automoiles, d siilar evidence of privilege. s
beneath tem 1v eligile for l pivileges, deped.
ig upon their positio i t ierarcy. state budgets,
"gifts," and t costrctio and r-econstruction exected for
t eeds of t state and its r-epresentatives t everlastig and iexaustile sources of benefit.s to t political

l in cases where the w class was t l of

maintaining t.he ownersip it d usr-ped, or in cases
where suc ovmerslllp was exoritat1y expensive or politically

dangerous, the o\vnersblp surrendered to other strata ~~ ot?er
forms of O\vnership \v devised. For example, collectiVlzati.on
\Vas abandoned in Yugoslavia because the peasants were res.Istino- it and because the steady decrease in production resultg

from collectivizatio held latet dager for the reg1e. owever, the w class ever reouced the i.ght i such cases to
seize o1vnersip agai or to collectivize. The w class canot
ru this Ii.ght, for if it did, it would loger totalitaria d moopolistic.
. .
No bureaucracy l could so stubborn Its p~r
poses d aims. l those egaged i \V forms of o\Vllership,
1vho tread the road to \V fs of productio, are l of
beig so persistet.
:r foresaw tat after its victory the proletariat would
exposed to dager from the deposed classes 1d fro its own
bureaucracy. vVhe tl1e Commuists, especially those in Yugo
slavia, criticize Stali's administ-ation d beaucratic methods, they geerally refer to 1vhat : aticipated. However,
\Vhat is happenig i Communism today has little conectio
with :r and certainly no conectio \Vith tis anticipation.
Marx \Vas tinkig of the danger fom an i.s in parasitic
bureaucracy, 'vhich is also present in contemporay Communism. It neve occured to him that today's Communist
strong m, who hadle mateial goods bel1alf of their \V
arrow caste's iterests rather tha for the bureaucracy as
whole, would the bureaucracy he was thikig of. I this
case too, :r serves as good excuse for the Commuists,
\Vl1ether t extravagat tastes of various strata of the \V class
or poor admiistration is uder criticism.
Cotemporay Commuism is t l party of certai
type, or bureaucracy \vhich has sprug fom moopolistic
o\Vllership d excessive state itefeiece i the m.
:r tha aything else, the essetial aspect of cotemporary
Commuism is t.he e'iv class of O"\Vers d exploiters.



No class is estalished its O\Vll action, even though its
ascent is organized and accompanied conscious st11ggle.
This olds true for the ne\v class in Communism.
The ne1v class, because it d \Veak relationship to the
m and social structure, d of ecessity had its origin i
single party, \Vas forced to estalish tlle higllest possile orga
izational stucture. Finally it. 1vas forced to delierate and
conscious \vithdra\val fom its earlier tenets. Consequently the
ne\v class is m highly oganized d more blgllly class-co
scious t any class i recOIded history.
Tis propositio is true l if it is take relatively; consciousness d organizational stucture beig take in relation
to the outside 1vorld and to other classes, powers, and social
forces. No otl1er class i history llas as cohesive and singleminded in defendig itself and in controlling that 1vllicll it
llolds-collective and monopolistic mrnership and totalitaria
tlle otller and, t ne\v class is also t most deluded
and least conscious of itself. Every private capitalist or feudal
lod 1vas conscious of the fact t.hat he belonged to special discernile social categoy. usually believed that this category
1vas destined to make t huma happy, and that \vithout
tis category chaos d geneal rui \vould esue. Communist member of the ne\v class also believes that, \vithout his
party, society \vould egess and foundei". But he is not conscious
of the fact that he belongs to \v mvnership class, for he does
not consider himself an o>vner and does t take into account
the special privileges enjoys. thiks that he belogs to
group \Vith sid ideas, aims, attitudes, and 1oles. That
is all he sees. rt see tlt at the same time he belongs
to specia1 social category: the ownerslzip class.
Collective Orleiship, \vhicll acts to reduce the class, at the

same time makes it unconscious of its class substance, and each
one of the collective owners is deluded in that he thinks he
uniqely belongs to movement 1vhic 'ivould abolis classes
in society.
compax-ison of other characteristics of the ?-e:v c~a~s wrth
those of other mvership classes eveals m srmatles ~d
many differences. "\v class is voracios d insatiale, JHSt
as the boaeoisie "\vas. But it does t have the virtes of
frgality f m that t bog~oisie ~. ~e\V class
is as exclusive as t aristocracy t 'vrtot astocracy s efie
met and proud cblvalry.
Tlle ne\v class also s advantages over otller classes. Because
it is more t it is better prepared for greater sacrifices
d eroic exploits. individal is copletely d totally
sbordinated to the 1vlle; at least, tlle pievailig ideal calls
for scl1 sbordinatio v "\ven he is t seekig to better
hiself. ne\v class is strong ng to carry t material
and oter vetres tat oter class was ever l to do.
Since it possesses t nation's goods, t ne\V class is in position to devote itself religiously to t ais it s set and to
direct all t forces of t people to t frterance of tese

"\v o'imeblp

is not t s as t political gover

ent, t is created and aided tat governent. The s,
enjoyment, d distrition of pioperty is t pivilege of t
party and t party's top n.
t rs feel tat authority, that contol over property,
biings "\Vith it t privileges of this "\vorld. C~nseqen~ly, :
srls aition, dplicity, toadyis, and Jealosy evlta
ly must increase. Careeism and v expanding bureaucracy are t incurale diseases of Comuis. Because the
Couists v transformed theselves ito mvers, d
because the road to po,ver d to mateial privileges is
l tiouah "devotio" to t paty-to the class, to "socialo
is"-scrpulos iti must become of the m


"\vays of life d of
of Commuism.





t developmet

I o-Commuist systes, t

of careerism
sign that it is profitale to
ut, or that "\\'11s v parasites, so tat
t adinistration of poperty is left i t ds of employees.
I Corrunisr, careerisr d scruplos aritio testify
t.o t fact tat tere is an irresistile diive tovvad O\vership
d t privileges that the adriistratio of material goods and .
Merbership in oter o1vership classes is t idetical "\vith
tlle versblp of particlar property. This is still less the
case i t Corrist syste isu as owership is
collective. O"\ver joit O"\Vei i tlle Corrnist
syste rs tat eters the raks of the rulig political
r d otblg else.
I tl1e "\v class, jst as i oter classes, s idividuals
costantly fall the 1vayside "\Vile oteis go up t ladder.
I private-mvership classes idividal left his poperty to
his descedats. I the '\v class ierits aythig except the aspii-atio to 1-aise iself to blgher rug of the
ladder. The "\v class is actally beig created fro the lmvest
d broadest strata of the people, and is i costat rotio.
Althougl1 it is sociologically possile to prescrie '\v belongs
to the 1v class, it is difficlt to do so; for the ne"\V class elts
ito d spills v ito the people, ito other lower classes,
and is costarly gig.
The d to the top is theoietically to all, just as evei'y
of Napoleo's soldiers carried arshal's t i is
kapsack. The l thig tat is requiied to get the road
is sicere d cornplete loyalty to tlle t or to the w class.
at. the bottom, the new class becores icreasigly d
eletlessly aro"\ver at the top. Not l is t desire ecessary
f the clib; also ecessary is the aility to derstad and
develop docties, firness in stuggles agaist atagonists, and

nsls iti



ceptional dexterity and cleverness in intra-party struggles, and

talent in strengthening the class. present themselves, but
fe\v are chosen. Although more open ir1 some respects than
other classes, the w class is also more exclusive tha other
classes. Sice one of the ne\v class's most importarlt features is
monopoly of authority, this exclusiveness is stregthened
bureaucratic hierarchical prejudices.
N O\vhere, at any time, has the road been as wide open to t
devoted and the Ioyal as it is i the Commuist system. But t
ascet to t eigts s r1ever at any time been so difficult or
required so muc sacrifice and so many victims. t one
had, Communism is open and kind to 11; or1 t other and,
it is exclusive d intolerat even of its its O\Vll aderets.


fact tat tere is ne\v o'tvnersip class in Communist

countries does not explain everythig, but it is t most importat key to uderstadig t canges wi are periodically takig place i tese couties, especially i the U.S.S.R.
It goes \Vitout sayig that every such chage i each separate
Commist coutry d i t Commuist system as \Vole
must examined separately, i order to determie t
d sigificace of the g i t specific circurnstaces.
do this, O\vever, t system sould uderstood as 'tvole
to t fullest extet possile.
In corectio \Vit curret gs in the U.S.S.R. it \Vill
profitale to point out i passig \vat is occuig i t kolkozes. estalishmet of kolkozes d t Soviet government. policy to1vard tem illustrates clearly t exploitig
nature of t w class.
Stalin did not and Kruscev does not consider kolkozes
as "logical socialistic" form of owner-ship. In practice tis


meas tat t ne\v class s rt succeeded in completely taking
over t management of t villages. rg tlle kolkhozes
d the use of t complsory crop-purcase system, the ne1v
class s succeeded in making vassals of t peasants and grabing lion's s of the peasants' icome, but t w class
s t become the l po,ver of t land. St.alin \Vas completely a\vare of tis. Before his deat, in Econornic Prolerns
of Socialisrn in the U.S.S.R., Stalin foresa1v tat t kolkozes
sold become state property, 'tvhic is to say tat. t breau
cl'acy should become t I'eal a\vner. Criticizing Stalin for is
excess use of prges, Khrushchev did rt owever renounce
Stalin's vie1vs on property in kolkhozes. The appoitment
the e'tv regime of 30,000 party \Varkers, rnostly to pi"esidets
of kolkhozes, was l of the measres i lie wit Stali's
Jst as uder Stali, t w regime, i executing its so-called
lieralization policy, is extedig the "socialist." O\Vlleiship of
the ne\v class. Decetralizatio i the economy does not. m
chage i o\vership, but only gives greater rights to t
lO\\rer strata of the bu!'eauacy or of the \v class. If the socalled liealizatio and decentralization meat anything else,
that \Vould manifest in the political rigt of at least part of
t people to execise some ifluence i the managemet of
material goods. At least, the people wold have the rigl to
criticize t aritrariess of tl1e oligarcy. This 'tVald lead to
the creatio of e'tv political rnovemet, v thog it 1vere
l loyal opposition. H01vever, tis is t v metioed,
just as dernocracy i t.he t is not mentioed. Liealization
and decetr-alizatio in force only for Commuists; first for
the oligarchy, tlle leaders of the e'tv class; d secod, f those
i the lo\ver echelos. Tis is the 1v method, ievitale dr
gig coditions, for t fther stregtheing d consolidatio of moopolistic O'tvnership d totalitaria athority of
the ne>v class.
fact that is ne>v ownig, moopolistic, d total-



itarian class in Cornrnunist. countries calls f the follo>ving

conclusion: changes initiated the Cornrnnist ciefs
dictated first of all the interests and aspirations of tl1e ne>v
class, >vhich, like every social grop, lives and reacts, defends
itself and advances, >vith tl1e i of increasing its po-vve. This
does not rnean, hmvever, that sch canges not ipo
tant f the est of tl1e people as 1vell. Altogl1 t inovations
introduced t ne1v class v not yet aterially alteed t
Conist syste, t st not ndeestiated. It is
ss to gain insigl into t sbstance of tese canges in
order to deteine teir rage and sigificace.
The Cornist regirne, i ivit oteis, st take
into t t rnood d vt of t asses. Because of t exclsiveess of t ist Party d t
absence of free pblic ii i its raks, t regie cannot
discern t real stats of tl1e asses. Hmveve, tl1eir dissatisfactio does peetrate t cosciousess of t top leaders.
I spite of its totalitaria gt, t eiv class is t
iune to every type of oppositio.
i po>ver, t ists v diffilty i settling
teir accounts >vit t borgeoisie d large-estate OV\rne.
istoiical developent is lstile to t and teir property and it is easy to s t asses agaist tl1e. Seizig
property f t bougeoisie d tlle lage-estate ovvners is
quite easy; difficulties arise 1v seize of sall properties is
ivolved. Havig acquired po'ive in t corse of earlier expropriatios, t Couists do v tis. Relatios are
rapidly clarified: tere are r old classes d old o>vers,
society is "classless," or t road to beig so, d v
stated to live i new nr.
Uder s coditios, deads to retu. to t old prerevolutioary relatios s realistic, if rt ridilous.
Material d social bases longer exist for t itn
of s elatios. Couists meet s demads as if
t were jests.


class is ost sesitiYe to deads on t part of t
people for special kind of fd, not for freedo in general
or political freedo. It is especially sensitive to deads for
fd of tougllt and criticis, \\'itin t liits of present
coditions d \\'itbl tlle liits of "socialis"; not for deands f01 retun to pevios social d o\vnersblp relations.
Tis sesitivity origiates fro t class's special position.
ne'iv class instinctively feels tat atioal goods are, in
fact, its t, d tat even t ters "socialist," "social,"
and "state" propety denote get=ral legal fictio. The ne1v
class also tiks tlt any of its totalitaiia tit
ig! ipeiil its O'ivesip. Coseqetly, tl1e \v class
opposes any type of fd, ostensily for t s of
pieserYig "socialist" O'imeip. Ciiticis of t V class's
onopolistic adinistr-atio of t geerates t f of
of possile loss of w. \v class is sesitive to tese
Ciiticiss d deads depedig t extent. to wblc t
expose t nn in >vi it rles and olds power.
Tbls is an iportant contradictio. operty is legally consideed social and national prope1ty. t, in actality, single
g anages it i its o>m inteest. discrepacy bet>veen
legal and actal conditions cotinosly eslts i s and
abnoral social and econoic relatiosllips. It also s tat
t 'i\'ods of t leading g do not coespond to its actions;
d tat all actions eslt i str-egtenig its poperty old
ings and its political position.
Tis cotradiction canot. 1esolved >vitot jeopardizing
tl1e class's positio. Oter rling, propeity-o>ving classes cold
not resolve tis contadictio eiter, uless forcefully depived
of onopoly of pO\\~"er d mmeiSip. Weever t s been
igl1er degree of freedo for society as >vole, t rling
classes llave been forced, in one \vay or, to renounce
l of o>vnersip. Tl1e revese is tre also: 'iverever
onopoly of owersip s been ipossile, freedo, to some
degree, s become inevitable.



In Communism, po1ver and Olv:ership are almost al1vays in

the same hands, but. tis fact is concealed under legal guise.
In classical capitalism, the 1vorker had equality with the capitalist before the la1v, even thougl1 the worker 1vas being
exploited d the capitalist 1vas doig the exploiting. In Communism, legally, all are equal wit respect to mat.erial goods.
The formal o1mer is the nat.ion. In reality, because of monopolistic administration, only the narro1vest st1-atum of administrators enjoys the Iights of o;mership.
Every real demand for freedom in Communism, the kind of
demand that hits at the substace of Communism, boils dmm
to demand for bringing material and property relations ito
accord with 1vhat the law provides.
demad for freedom-based on the position that capital
goods produced the ation can managed more efficietly
society than private moopoly or private o;ver, d
cosequetly should actually in the hads or uder control
of society exercised th1ough its freely elected epiesentat.ives
would force the ;v class either to make concessions to other
forces, or to take off the mask d admit its ruling d exploitig characteristics. type of o;veiSip and exploitation ;vhic the ne>v class creates usig its autority d its
admiistrative privileges is suc tat even the class itself must.
d it. Does t t 1v class empasize that it uses its au ..
tority and admiistrative fuctios in t of t at.ion
as ;vole to preseve natioal p1operty?
Tis makes t legal positio of t w class ucertai d
is also t s of the ne1v class's iggest internal difficulties.
cotadictio discloses tl1e disarmoy betwee words and
actions: \Vile promisig to abolis social differences, it. must
al;vays icrease tem acquirig t p1oducts of the ation's
woksops d ganting privileges to its aderets. It must
pioclaim loudly its dogma tat it is fulfillig its historical mission of "final" lieration of makind from every misery d
calamity while it acts in exactly the opposite way.



between the new class's real mmersblp

position d its legal position can furnish the basic eason for
criticism. This cotradiction has >vitbln it the ability not only
to incite oters but also to corrode t class's mm ks, since
pivileges actually beig d . l fe1v. This cotra
diction, when intensified, holds pospects of real canges in
t Communist system, ;vetei t rulig class is i favor of
the cange or not. The fact tat this cotiadiction is so obvious
has t eason for the gs made t ne;v class,
especially in so-called lieralization and decetalization.
Foced to ;vitdralv d sdr to idividual strata, t
new class aims at cocealing this contadictio d strengten
ig its o1m position. Since o;vnersblp and autority contiue
itact, all measures taken the ne-.;v class-eve tose democratically inspired-smv td to-.;vatd stregtenig the
maagement of t political u. system turns
democatic measues ito positive methods for cosolidatig
t positio of t rulig classes. Slavery in acient times in
tl1e East inevitaly permeated all of society's activities d
compoents, icluding t family. I t same -.;vay, t monopolism and totalitariaism of the ruling class i t Communist
system are imposed on all t aspects of social life, even tough
t political heads are t aimig at tbls.
Yugoslavia's so-called 1vorkers' managemet d autonomy,
conceived at the time of the stuggle agaist Soviet impeialism
as fa-reacblng democatic measue to dept-ive t t of
t monopoly of admiistratio, s iceasingly relegated
to of t areas of party 1vok. Thus, it is ardly possile to
g t present system. aim of creatig ne-.;v democracy troug tbls type of admiistatio ;vill not acbleved.
Besides, freedom canot exteded to t largest piece of the
pie. \Vokes' maagemet s not brougt t saing i
pofits tose 1v d, eite1 on national level in
local etepises. Tbls type of administation s ineasigly
turned ito safe type for t egime. rg varios taxes



and other means, the regime has appropriated even t.he shae
of the pofits 1vhich the 1vorkers believed 1vould give to
them. l crumbs from the taies d illusio have left
to the wokers. Withot iversal feedom t v wokers'
maagemet become f. Clearly, i uf society
rbody can feely decide anythig. The gives have someho>v
obtaied the most value fom the gift of feedom t.hey sp
posedly haded t.he 1vorkers.
This does not. mean that the e'iv class canot make coces
sios to the people, v though it only coides its O'iVIl
iteests. Wokes' management, or decetalizatio, is co
cession to t masses. Cicnstaces may drive the new class,
no matter ho1v moopolistic and totalitaia it may , to retreat before t rnasses. In 1948, 1\'hen the conflict took place
bet'iveen Ygoslavia and t U.S.S.R., t Ygoslav leaders
1v fOI'ced to t sorne eforrns. v t-
it rnio-ht
mean back'i\'ad step, t set reforns as soon as they sa1v
temselves in d. Someting siilar is happeina- today

t eastern Eropean cotr'ies.
In defending its autority, t ruling class ust execute e
fons -., tie it becomes obvious to t people that the
class is teating national property as its O'ivn. Such eforns are
not poclaimed as being 'ivhat they 11 are, but tr as t
of t "fut de-.,elopment of socialism" and "socialist dernocacy." gound1vok f efoms is lai(:l 1\rhe t discep
acy metioned -., becomes pu lic. Forn t istoical
point of vie1v t ne1v class is fOiced to fotify its autority d
o'ivesip costatly, v tg it is uig a>vay frorn t
tut: It mus~ cotatly demostrate 01v it is sccessfully
c~eatg sooety of happy people, all of 1vorn eqal
1gl1ts d feed of -., type of exploitatio. The
e'iv class cannot aYoid falling continuously into pofond i
teal cotadictios; f in spite of its blstoical orio-in it is
not l to make its mvneisip la>vful, d it cannot r:n
o\\rnersip witlut undemining itself. Conseqently, it is




forced to t to justify its increasing atority, invokig abstact

and l prposes.
Tis is class 1vhose po'ive oyer rnen is t ost cornplet
k~o1vn t_o blstor!. F tis eason it is class 'iVit v Iirnite~
:Ie'ivs, vle'ivs >vlci1 false d sf. Closely igo 1\rn, and
comp:ete atlity, tl1e ne'iv class nst. nrealistically
evalate Its O'i\'11 role and tat of t people arond it.
-.,ig i-.,d idustialization, t 1v class can IIO'iv do
noting rnOI'e t stregten its t force d pillage t
people. It ceases to t. Its spiital e!'itage is oYertake
. \Vile t 11e1v class accomplished one of its geatest successes
tl1e revoltion, its metod of control is one of the rnost
sameful pages in In istoy. 1vill rnarel at t
gadiose yentues it accoplised, d 1vill asamed of
t.he means it used to accoplisl1 tern.
vVen tl1e Ile'iV class leaYes tlle llistOI'ical scene-and tis rnust
happen-tee >Vill less soro>v v its passig t tlle!'e
was f ~ o~l1er class. f it. Sote!'ing eYeryting except
1vat sted 1ts ego, It s condemned itself to failue and
sfl ruin



what can and \vat t:anot done, and what depeds

People adjust to t enviromet d to actal
conditios, t-ning to party forums or to organs uder t
party's contol in all importat matters.
The diectio of social orgaizatios and social organs is
accomplished simply tbls method: tlle Commnists form
unit, >vblc turns to autorized political forums i all matters.
Tbls is theoetical; actually it opeates i tis way: In cases
'\Vhere t social organ or organization is managed pei-so
1v also has po1ver in t. party, he will not 1efer to n
regarding lesser matters. Communists become famili with
teir system and >vith t relationsips created it; they
accustom tllemselves to distiguis bet1vee the important and
t unimpotat, and refer to party forums only in especially
importat matters. unit exists l potentially, importat
decisions beig made the party; t opinior1 of those 1v
have elected t governmet or administi-ation of some organization is totally uimportat.
Communist totalitaiaism and the ne>v class took root when
t Commuist Party was prepaing for the tevolution; teir
metod of administeing d maintaiing authority also goes
back to tat time. "directing role" in organs of government
and social oganizations is merely the former Communist unit
>vich has since nd out, developed, and perfected itself.
secod "ditecting role" of t party in the "buildig of
socialism" is otblng but t old teory regarding the avantgarde role of the t >vit respect to t working class, 'lvith
t difference that t tl1eory ten had different significance
for society tan it has no1v. Before the Communists usuped
power, this theoty '\vas necessary in order to ecruit revolutionaries and revolutionary organs; no1v it justifies the totalitaria
tl of t Ile'\v class. One spings from t other, but
is also diffetent from the other. The evolution and its fms


The Party Stafe

The mechanism of Communist po\ver is perhaps the simplest
which can conceived, although it leads to the most refined
tyanny d tlle most brutal exploitation. The simplicity of
this mechanism 01iginates from tl1e fact that one t alone,
the Communist Party, is the backbone of the entire political,
economic, and ideological activity. The entire pulic is at
standstill or moves ahead, falls behind or turns around accordig to \vhat happes in tlle patty foms.
Under the Communist systems the people realize quickly
'\vhat they and \vat they are not penitted to do. Laws and
regulations <.-Io not v an essential importance for them. The
actual and uvritten ules concening t relationship beteen
the governmet and its subjects do. Regardless of la'lvs, everyone
kno1vs tat t government is in tlle hads of the party committees d t secret police. No'lvere is "t directig role"
of t party prescried, but. its autority is estalised in all
oganizations and sectors. No law provides tat t secret police
s the rigt to cotrol citizes, but t police is all-powerful.
No la1v pescries that t judiciary d prosecutors shold
cotrolled t secret police and t party committee, but
they are. Most people know tat tbls is tlle case. Everyoe






vv-ere unavoidale and vv-ere even needed that part of society

1v-hich irresistily aspired to technical and economic progress.
The totalitarian tyranny and control of the 1v- class, 1v-hich
came ito beina duria
the revolution, has become tlle yoke

from under 1v-hich the lood and s1veat of all members of sooety
flo1v-. Particular revolutionary fons vv-ere transfomed into reactioary ones. Tis 1v-as also the case 1vitll the Commuist

There are t1v-o essentia methods through 1vhicll Communist

control of the social macble is accomplisl1ed. The fist is the
unit, the main method in principle and in tl1eory. The secod,
actually more practical one, resticts certain govenment posts
to party members. These jobs, 1vhich are essetial in any
govermet but especially i Commnist , inclde assignments 1vith police, especially the secret police; d the diplomatic and officers corps, especially positions in the information
and political services. In the judiciary only top positios have
til 1v- in the hads of Comnnists. The jdiciary,
sbordiated to the party and police estalishmets, is generally poorly paid, d is attractiYe to Commnists. However,
the tendency 1v- is for jdiciay posts to considered as
priyilege l to party members, d for mebers of the
jdiciary to have icreasing priYileges. Ths, contol over the
jdiciary cold relaxed, if not completely abolised, 1\'it
tl1e assrance that it 1vill ti to r-le according to the
itentions of the party or "in the spirit of socialism."
Only i Commnist state nmber of both specified
and specified positios reserYed for membes of t t.
Commnist govement, lt:g class structre, is
party govement; t Commist army is t army; d
the state is party state. precisely, Commnists ted to
t.reat t army and the state as teir exclsive 1veapos.
exclusive, if itten, la>v- that only party members
can become policemen, officers, diplomats, and hold similar
positions, that l they can exercise actal authority, creates



special pr-ivileged grop of breacrats and simplifies the

mechanism of goyement d administration. In this maner
the party it expanded and m or less t.ook i all tese serYices. As eslt, t nit has disappeared >v-hile tese services
have become an essential area for party activity.
There is no fudamental differece in the Commnist system
bet>veen goYermetal serYices d t orgaizatios, as in
t example of the party and the secret police. The party d
the police mingle yery closely in their daily fnctionig; t
diffeece bet>veen tem is only in the distrition of 1vork.
Tl1e entie goYernmental stt is ogaized in tis
maner. Political positions are reseYed exclsiYely for party
members. Eve11 i11 11011-political goyermetal bodies Commists hold the strategic positios or oyersee admiistratio.
Callig meetig at t party ceter or plishig article
is sfficiet to s the ti state d social mechaism to
begi fnctioing. If difficlties r ay.vhere, t party d
the police v qickly correct t "error."


char-acter of the Commnist Party has already

Tl1ere are otl1er special feates, t.oo, whicll
llelp reYeal tl1e essece of Commist state.
Commist Party does not its iq caracter
solely s it is reYolutioary d cetra1ized d obseryes
military disciplie d otller defiite goals, or s otl1er cllaracteristics. Tllere otl1er paties >v-it similar features, v
tg tl1ese features may stoger i the Commuist Party.
Hovveve, l i tl1e Commist Party is "ideologicality"
or an idetical concept of tlle >v-old d of t deYelopment of
society oligatory for its members. This applies l to persos
w fction i the higer forms of t party. Tlle otl1es,
tllose i lovv-er positios, oligated l to giYe lip serYice



to identical ideological views, while they execute orders handed

do1vn from above. The t.endency, lweYer, is to haYe those in
lower positions adjust their ideological level to that of the
Lenin did not consider that party members were all oliged
to hold the same vie1vs. Ho1vever, in practice, he refuted and
explained a1vay every vie1v 1vhich did not appear "Marxist"
or "the party's"; that is, eYery view tat did not strengthen
the party in the marer which he had originally conceiYed.
His settling of accounts 1vith Yarious opposition groups in t
party 1vas different from Stalin's, because Lenin did rt kill
his bjects, "merely" quelled them. While he was in power
both freedom of expressio and voting privileges were in effect.
Total authority over everything had not yet been estalished.
Stali required ideological unity-oligatory philosophic and
other views-in addition to political unity as meeting ground
for all party rs. This is actually Stalin's contriution
to Leni's teaching about the party. Stali formed the concept
of oligatory ideological uity in his eaily youth: in his tie,
unaniity the U\rritten requireet of all Co
munist parties, and it remains so to the present day.
Yugoslav leaders held and still hold the same vie1vs. They
are still uder Soviet "collective leadesip" and t forus
of other Comuist parties. Tis isistece the oligatOiy
ideological uity of the party is sig that essetial cl1anges
have occurred, and only cofirs the fact that free discussion
is not. possile, or possile only in very liited 1vay, under
today's "collective leadersip."
vVhat does oligatory nity in t party n and 1vhere
does it lead?
Its political consequences are very serios. The power in
every party, especially in the Communist Party, resides i it.s
leaders d igher forums. Ideological it as an oligatio,
especially i t.he cetralized d ilitarily disciplied Co
unist Party, ievitaly brings 1vith it. the po>ver of the centra]


body leadersip over the thoughts of its rs. Althoua-h
ideo_logical unity 1vas attained in Leni's tie through discuss held at the top, Stali hiself -
to re!mlate 1t
Today, post-Stalin "collective leadersip" is satisfied to make
it ipossile for >v social ideas to appear. Thus, Marxism
has become theory to defied exclusively party leader-s.
There is no other type of Marxis or uis today, and
the developmet of aother type is hardly possile.
The social cosequeces of ideological uity have
tragic: Lenin's dictatorship 1vas strict, but Stali's dictatorship
became totalitarian. The abolitio of all ideoloo-ical struo-a-le
. h

1~ t party meant tlle ter-miatio of all freedo in society,
s:nce only though the party did the various strata fid expressn. Intolerace of other ideas and isistence the presumably exclusive scientific ature of Marxis >vere the bea-inin()'
of ideological monopoly party leadership, 1vhich l;ter d:veloped ito complete l over society.
Party ideological unity akes indepedent movemets impossile witi the Couist syste d withi society itself.
v action depends on t party, 1vi has total control
over society; 1vitin it. t is not t sliglltest eedom.
. Id~ological_ unity did t arise sddely t, like everythig
us, developed gradually, reacig its greatest
llei~llt duri~g t struggle for po>ver t various party
facts. It IS not. at all accidental tat, during Stali's ascendacy to po>ver i t id-1920's, it >vas openly demanded of
Trotsky for the first tie tat reject all ideas other than
tose fOI'ulated the party.
Party ideological uity is the spirital basis of persoal dictatoip. Witllot it personal dictatorship t even
imagined. It begets and strengthens t dictatorship, and vice
':ersa. Tis is undeistandale; monopoly over ideas, or obllgatory ideological uity, is l coplemet and theor~tical mask for personal dictatorsblp. Altoug personal
dictatorship d ideological unity were already evident in t


beginnings of contemporary Communism or Bolshevism, both

are firmly estalishing themselves "\Vith Communism's full
po1ver, so that. they, as trends and oft.en as prevailing forms, will
never again abandoned until the fall of Commnism.
The suppressio of ideological differences among the leaders
has also abolished fractions and ts, and thus has abolished
all democracy in Communist parties. Thus began the period of
t Fhrer-principle in Communism: ideologists are merely
people "\Vit pver i the t egardless of inadequate intellectual ability.
The continuance of ideological unity i t.he party is an unmistakale sio-n of the maintenance of personal dictatorsblp,

or the dictatorship of small number of ol1gachs 1vho temporarily work together or maintai balance of p01ver, as is
t case in the U.S.S.R. today. We find tendency to1vard
ideological uity in otl1er parties also, especiall i socialist
parties in teir earlier stages. Ho>vever, tbls is l tendency
in tese parties; i Commuist parties it has become oligatory.
One is oiiged not l to Marxist, but to adopt the type
of Marxism desired and prescied t leadersl1ip. Marxism
s been t.ransformed from free revolutioy ideology ito
prescried dogma. As in anciet Eastern despotism, the top
autority iterprets and prescies t dogma, 1vblle the emperor is the archpiest.
The oligatoy ideological unity of the party, 1vblc s
passed trough various pases d forms, s remained the
most essetial caracteristic of Bolsevik or Commuist parties.
If these parties had not at the same time the begiig
of 1v classes, and if t d t had special blstoical role
to play, oligatory ideological uity could not have existed in
them. Except for the Commuist u, not sigle
class or party i modern history s attaied complete ideological uity. None d, f, t task of tasforming all of
society, mostly t.hrogh political d admiistrative meas. For
suc task, complete, faatical cofidence in t rigt.eous-


ess d oility


vie1vs is necessary. Suc task calls

for exceptional brtal measures agaist oter ideologies and
social goups. It also calls for ideological moopoly over
society d for absolute uity of tl1e ruling class. Communist
paties eeded special ideological solidaity for tis reason.
ideological unity is establised, it operates as po1vefully
as di. Commnists are educated in t idea that ideological tity, or tl1e prescription of ideas from , is t
holy of holies, and tat factionalism i tl1e t is tl1e geatest
of 11 cimes.
Complete control of society could not accomplished IVit
ot coming to terms >Vit oter socialist goups. Icleological
uity, too, is only possile tlougl1 recociliatio >vitin t
party's \\' ranks. t t.he one and t oter approximately simultaneously; i t mids of t aderents of
totalitaianism t appear as "objectively" identical, altlug
t fist is reconciliatio of t 1v class itlz its Jnents)
d the secod is recociliatio itllin tlze ruling class. I
fact, Stali ke1v that Totsky, kli, Zinoviev, d otl1ers
>v t feign spies and traitos to t "socialist faterland."
Ho"\veyer, sice tl1ei disagreement 1vitl1 him obYiously delayed
t estalismet of totalitaia contol, d to destr'oy
tem. His imes 1vitbl t party consist of t fact t.hat
transfomed "objectiYe unfriedliness"-te ideological and
political diffeeces i tl1e party-ito the subjectiYe guilt of
groups d idividals, attriutig to t.hem imes wblc t.hey
did t commit.



t iescapale d of eYery Communist system.

of establising tota1itaian tl, or ideological
nity, may less sevee t Stalin's, t t essece is alvvays
t same. v 1v indtializatio is t t form or con-

tbls is




dition for estaishing totalitarian cotrol, as in Czechoslovakia

and Hungary, tlle Communist bureaucracy is ievitaly compelled to estalish the same fom1s of authority in underdeveloped countties as those estalished in the Soviet Union. Tbls
does not occur simply because tlle Soviet Unio imposed such
forms tllese countries as subordiates, but because it is
1vithin the very ature of Commuist parties themselves d
of their ideologies to do so. Party control over society, identificatio of the government d governetal achiery 1vith
the party, and the right to expess ideas dependent t
aount of po1ver and the positio one holds i the ierarchy;
these are the essential and inevitale characteristics of evet-y
Communist bureaucracy as s as it attai power.
party is tlle mai f of the Commuist state d
governmet. It is the motive force of everythig. It uites 1Vithin itself t new class, the government, 01vnership, and ideas.
For this reason, militar-y dictatorships v t been possile
under Commuism, altlugh it seems that military cospiracies
have occurred in the U.S.S.R. Military dictatotsblps would not
l to encompass all phases of life, nor even convince the
natio temporarily of the d for exceptioal efforts d selfsacrifice. Such accomplished l the pai"ty, d then
only party 1vith belief i sucl1 vast ideals that its despotism
appears to its members and aderets as ecessary, as the
highest form of state and social organization.
Vie\ved from the standpoit of freedom, military dictatorsip in Communist system \Vould denote great progress. It
"\VOuld signify the terminatio of totalitarian patty control, or
of party oligarchy. Theoetically speakig, ho,vever, milit-y
dictatorsblp 1vould possile only i case of military defeat
or an exceptional political crisis. Even in suc case it would
initially form of party dictatorship or it \\'ould have to
conceal itself in the party. But, tbls 1vould inevitaly lead to
change in tlle entie system.
The totalitarian dictatorship of the Communist Party oli-


gar~~y i the ~ommunist system is rt t result of momentary
polltlcal r~la~ns, but. of long and complex social progress.
cha~ge 1t. 1vould not mean cange in the form of government one and tlle same system, but change in the system
~tself, or the beg.inning of change. Such dictatorship is
Itself the system, 1ts body d soul, its essence.
The Communist gove1met very apidly becomes small
circle of party leaders. The claim that it is dictatorsblp of
the proletariat becomes an empty slogan. The process that
leads to tbls develops 1vit the inevitabllity and uncorltrollabllity of t elements, d the theory tat the is an
avant-garde of t proletariat l aids the process.
Thi~ does not mean tat during t battle for pmver t
pai"ty 1s not the leader of the 1vorking masses or tat it. is not
wOI'king i their interests. But the, t pty's role and
struggles are stages and fom1s of its movement. to1vard po1ver.
Althougl1 its stggle aids t "\Votking class, it also strengtens
the party, as 1vell as t future po1ver-holders and the embryonic
ne\v class. As soon as it attains po1ver, the party controls all
po1ver and takes all goods iro its hands, pi"ofessig to the
of t interests of t 1vorkina
class and the
';rorkg people. Except for sort periods during t evolutnai"y battle, t pi"oletariat does not participate or play
greater role in tis tl1an any oter class.
Tis does not mean tat t proletariat, or some of its stata,
are not. temporarily interested in keeping t par-ry in po1ver.
peasants suppoi"ted tose "' professed t intention to
rescue tem from opeless miseiy through industrializatio.
~Vhile individual stiata of t 1vorking classes may temporarlly support tlle party, t governrnet is not teirs nor is
theii' part in tlle government impotant for t course of social
pogress and social relations. In tlle Communist system nothia
is done to aid the \vorkig people, particularly the worki~
class, t.o attain po>ver d ights. It carot otherwise.
The classes and masses do not exercise authority, but the



party does so in their . In every party, includig the most

democratic, leaders play an important role to the extent that
the paty's autlrity becomes the autority of t leaders. The
so-called "dictatosip of the proletariat," 1vhic is t beg~
ing of d under tlle best circustaces s tl1e autor1ty
of t party, inevitaly evolves ito t dictatoship of t
leaders. In totalitarian government of tis type, tlle dictatorship of the proletariat is teoretical justification, or ideo
logical mask at best, for t autority of some oligarcs.
Marx envisioed t dictatohip of t poletiat as democracy 1vithin and for t benefit of t proletariat; tat is,
government in 1vich tere are n socialist streams or parties.
only dictatorsip of t proletariat, the Pais Commune of
1871, on 1vich Marx based his conclusions, \Vas coposed of
several parties, aong 1vhicl1 t Marxist t 1vas neiter t
smallest nor t most significat. But dictatoship of t po
letariat wi 'i\'Ould diectly opeated t proletaiat is
pure Utopia, since no goYernent can operate 'i\'itot political
organizations. Lenin delegated the dictatoip of t proletariat to t atlrity of one party, bls o1vn. Stalin delegated
t dictatorship of the proletaiiat to is o'ivn personal authority
-to bls personal dictatorship in the t and in t state. Since
t deatl1 of t Comnist eperor, bls descendants have
been fortunate in tllat througll "collective leadersip" t
cold distrite atlrity aong themselves. In any case, t
Comist dictatorship of t proletariat is eitller Utopia
ideal or fuctio reseed for elite grop of party leaders.
Li tougl that t Rssia soviets, Marx's "ltiate
discovery," 1vere t dictatorship of t proletariat. I t begirig, because of teir reYolutioary iitiative d because
of tlle participation of t asses, the soviets did s to
sometblg of tis kid. Trotsky also believed tat t soviet.s
were cotemporary political f just as parliaets, 1
i tlle struggle agaist absolte moarchs, have . Ho1vever,
these were illsios. Tlle soviets were transfored from revo-




bodies ito form sitale for the totalitarian

of tlle >v class, or t party.
Tis 1vas also t case wit Lei's demoatic cetralis,
icldig t tl1at of t party alld of t govermet. As
log as ii diffeeces are tolerated in t party, can
still speak of cent::1lism-eve tlug it is t very democatic
f of cetralis. \V totalitaria atlrity is ceated,
cetralis disappeas d t aked despotis of t oligarcy
takes over.
\Ve may coclude f tbls tat t is costant tendency
to tansfmm oligachic dictatorsip ito l dictatmsip. Ideological nity, t inevitale struggle at. t top of
t party, and the needs of the syste as 1vllole tend tmvard
persoal dictatoship. leader 1vl s'Ceeds in gettig to
t top, alog >vit is assistants, is t one 1vllo succeeds in
most logically expessing and protecting t iterests of the
ne>v class at any given time.
is stog tred tmvad personal dictatorsip i oter
blstoical situations: for instance, all forces rnst sbor
dinated to one idea and one 1vill >ven indstialization is being
pressed whe ation is at 1var. t tere is specific and
r Comist reason for personal dictatosip: autority is
the basic i and meas of Cornuism and of tr-ue Co
mnist. tllirst f po>ver is insatiale d iesistile aong
Communists. \it in t stggle for- pmver is eqal to being
raised to diYinity; faile meas t deepest ortificatio

d disgace.

lea<Iers must also tend to


extr-avaof mn
in power t.o

>vi t carot esist s

fr-ailty d because of tl1e it d of tose

recognizable pototypes of billiace d rnigt.
Car-eeis, extravagance, d love of po1ver are inevitale,
and so is ti. It is not matter of t coruptio of
li seats, f tl1is rnay occur less frequetly than in t
state 1vicl1 peceded it. It is special type of corruption d



the fact tat the govemment 1s the ands of singie

political group and is the source of all privileges. "Care of
its men" and their placement in lucrative positions, ?r the
distriution of all kinds of privileges, becomes unav01dale.
The fact that the govemment and the party are idetical witll
the state, d practically 1vit the holdig of all pro~erty,
causes the Communist state to one 1vhic corrupts Itself,
in tat it inevitaly creates privileges and paasitic func~ions.
member of t Yugoslav Comnist Party very picturesquely descried t atmospere in 1vhicl1 regular Co
muist Iives: "I am really tom into three parts: I see tose
w v better aut.omoblle than I have, yet it seems to
tat t are not more devoted to t party and to socialism
tan I am; I Iook down from t eigts on those 1v v
no automoblle, for t haven't really eamed any. So I'm lucky
that I have t one I v."
Obviously, he 1vas not true Commuist, but was one of
those 1vl became Communist because he 1vas an idealist,
d then being disillusioned, tried to satisfied 1vith 1vat
mio-t come to him i normal bureauatic career. true
Communist is mixture of fanatic and urestiained
po1ver-older. Only tis type makes true Communist.
others are idealists or ceerists.
Since it is based on administratio, the Commuist system
is unavoidaly bureaucratic 1vith strict hiearchical orgai
zation. In t Commuist system, exclusive groups are established around political leaders d forums. All policy-makig
is reduced to 1vrangling in tese exclusive groups, in which
familiarity d cliquishess flo1ver. higl1est goup is generally t most intimate. At intimate suppers, hunts, in
conversations bet1veen two or tlee men, matters of state of
t rost vital irportance are decided. Meetigs of party forus, confereces of t government and assemlies, serve no
s but to make declarations and put in an r.


are only covened to confin what has previously been
cooked up i intimate kitcens.
The Comrunists v fetisblst relatio toward t stat.e
or t governmet, exactly as if it 1vere teir o1vn property.
The sare men, t same groups, 1vblch are intirate and familia inside the party become stiff, formal, and pompous individuals 1vhen they act as epresetatives of the state.
Tbls monarcy is anytblg but enlightened. monarch
blmself, t dictato, does not feel himself to eiter
ronarc or dictator. \!n 1vas called dictator, Stalin
ridiculed the idea. felt tat was t representative of
the collective paity 1vill. 1vas right to degree-since
l else in blstory ever had as m personal po1ver.
, like every oter Communist dictator, 1vas 1v that
retreat. f-om the ideological bases of the party, f-om t monopolism of the ne1v class, fom o1vnership of the nation's goods,
or m the totalitaria po1ver of the oligarcy, 1vould result
in his inevitale downfall. Indeed, no suc retreat was v
considered Stalin, as he 1vas t foremost representative
d creator of t system. Ho1vever, even he was dependent
on the system created under bls administration, or on t
opinions of t t oligachy. could do notblng against
them nor could he pass over them.
The fact ererges that in tl1e Communist system one is
idependet, neiter those at the top nor the leader himself.
They are all dependent on one another and must avoid being
separated from their surroudings, prevailing ideas, cotrols,
and interests.
Is there, the, sense i talking about t dictatoship
of t proletariat under Communism?

Commuist teory

in detail


of t state,
and supplemented


worked out

Stali d



favors tlle totalitarian dictatorsllip of t party bureaucracy.

Two elements fudamental in t tlleory: t theory of the
state alone and t theory of tl1e witering v of t state.
t of tese elements are mutually related d togetl1er represent t entire theory. Leni's theory of the state is most
completely presented in his document The State and Revol~
tion, which vvas written vvhile was hiding from tl1e Provisional Government on tlle eve of the October Revolution. Like
everytinc else of Lenin's, t tlleory leans toward tlle revolutionary a:pects of Marxist teaching. I his discussio. ~ tbe
st.ate Leni developed this aspect further and cared 1t to
extremes, utilizing particularly t expeiience of the Russia
revolution of 1905. Considered histOI"ically, Lein's document
was of much greater significance as an ideological 1veapon of
t revolution tllan it 1vas as base for deYelopment of ne1v
autllority built according to its ideas.
Lenin reduced the state to force, or more pecisely, to the
organ of tyranny 1vhicll one class employs f tl1e sake of oppressig t other classes. Tryig to fomulate tl1e t of
tbe state in the most forceful vvay, Lenin oted, " state is
Leni perceived oter functions of tlle state too. But in tese
fuctions also ncovered vvat 1vas f llim t most indispensale role of t state-tlle use of brute f one class
against t others.
Lenin's teory calling for t destructio of tl1e old state apparatus 1vas, in fact, far from being scientific one. Tllis document of Lenin's-extremely significant from t istic poit
of YieiV-1\'0uld make valid all tat is typical of all Communist
teories. In proceeding from immediate needs, t parties
create genealities, ostensily scietific conclusios d tlleories,
d proclaim alf-truths as truts. Tl1e fact tat f d
violece are basic chaacteristics of every state autlrity, or
tbe fact tlt idividual social d political fo:es employ tlle
maclliery of state, particularly i armed claslles, t



deied. However, experiece shows that state macblery is


to society, or the ti, for still tr reaso

fOI' tl1e developmet d uitig of its vaious functios. Communist tlleory, as 1vell as that of Li, ignores tis aspect.
Tllere 1v, log ago, commuities witlut d autllorities. vvere t. social commuities, but sometllig
i tasitio betvvee t semi-aimal and um forms of
social life. tese most p1imitive commuities had some
forms of atlrity. \Vith ieasigly complex forms of social
life, it 'ould 'i to tr-y to pioYe tat t d for the
state vvould disappear i t fute. Lein, i support of
1vho ageed 1vitll t aarcllists t tllis, cotemplated d
tried to estalisll precisely such stateless society. VVithout
eterig ito disssio the extet to 1-vicll his premises 1v jstified, 1ve mst remembe tllat he contemplated
this society as is classless society. Accordig to tis teory
tllere 1vill no classes d class struggles; there will
to oppess d to exploit oters; and tbere will
no d for tlle state. Util tat time, ten, t "most
democratic" state is tlle "dictatorsllip of t proletariat," for
tlle s tat it "abolisl1es" classes, d so doig, ostesily
makes itself gadally unecessy. Tlleefoe, eyerytblng tat
stl"egtes tat dictatoip, or leads to t "abolishig" of
classes, is justified, piogessiYe, d lieal. I tose places
1Vl1ee they are t i contol tl1e Commists are pleaders i
bellalf of the most democi'atic ss because this facilitates
their stggles; i tllose places 1vere tlley maage to get co
trol, t become ts of eYery democratic fo1m as
allegedly ''ourgeois" form. rretly proclaim the
preposte1ous classificatio of demoacy ito ''ourgeois" and
"socialist," althougll tlle l and fair distictio must
dr-a'iv solely tlle basis of t qatity of freedom, or t
iYesality of freedom.
I the ti Leiist Commist tlleory of tbe state,
tere are gaps i tlle scietific as well as t practical poits



of view. Experience has demonstrated that the results are completely cotrary to those envisaged Lenin. The classes did
not disappear under the "dictatorship of the proJ.etariat," and
the "dictatorship of the proletariat" did not begin to wither
a1vay. Actually, the creation of the total authority of the Commuists, and the liquidation of the classes of the old society,
1vas meant to look like the liquidation of classses in geneal.
But the growth of state power or, more precisely, of tlle bureaucracy through 1vhich it enforced its tyranny did not stop with
t dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead it increased.
theory had to patcl1ed up someo1v; Stalin had coceived
still higer "educational" role of t Soviet state before it
"witered." If Commuist tlleory of t state, d especially
its practice, is reduced to its very essence, i.e., to force and coercion as tlle pricipal or only function of t state, Stali's
teory migt said to that t police system has this ig
or "educat.ioal" role to play. Understandaly, l malicious
iterpretation could lead to suc conclusio. And in tllis
teory of Stalin's tere is of t Communist half-truts:
Stali did not ko1v 1v to explai the obvious fact tat t
po1ver d migt of t state machiey cotiually grew i
t already "estalised socialist society." So took of
t fuctios of t state-te educatioal function-as the
main function. 1vas t l to use tyranny since tere no
longer 1vere any opposition classes.
The situation is t same 1vit t Yugoslav leaders' teories
concerning "tm." In t clas 1vit Stalin, t had to
"ectify" his "deviatios" and do something so tat the state
1vould soon begin to "1vither a1vay." It did t matter t.o St.alin
or t.o tem tat tlley 1vere fter promoting d strengtllening
tllat function of t state-foce-whic for tem 1vas the most
important function and one which they based their t
of the state.
St.alin's ideas on llo1v the state 1vithers a;vay while growing
stroger, i.e., the \\' that the state's fuctions contiually -


d and dra1v an ever increasing nr of cltlzes into
temselves, is extremely interestig. Perceivig t ever greater
d expadig role of the state macble, despite t already
"started" trasition ito "completely classless" Commuist.
society, Stali thoght that the state wold disappear having
all the cit.iz~ry ise t.o t state's level d take charge of its
affairs. Li, moieover, talked about. the time 1v "v
ouse1vives 1vill admiister the governmet." Theories resemlig that of Stali circlate in Yugoslavia, as 1ve have s.
Neitl1er these r Stali's are l to bridge the ever increasig
chasm betv.ree t Communist theories of the state, 1vith t
"disappearace" of classes d the "1vitherig a1vay" of t
state i their "socialism" tl1e had, d the realities
of t totalitaia autority of t party bureaucacy the


most. important prolem for Communism, in theory

and practice, is tlle question of t state; the questio is co
stat source of difficlties sice it is sucll obvious cotra
dictio inside Communism.
Commuist regimes foim of latent civil war bet1vee
t govemment and t people. Tlle state is t merely
instrument of tyrany; society as 1vell as t exective bodies
of the state machie is in continuous d lively
to the oligacy, v.rhic aspires to redce tis oppositio
aked force. In practice, t Communists are ul t.o attai
tlle goal of state existig solely on naked force, nor are they
l to subordiate society completely. But t are l to
control the organs of force, tat is, t police and party, wicl1
in turn control the entie state machine d its functions. The
oppositio of tlle organs d fnctions of t stat.e against the
"iatioalities" of t party d police, or of individual polit-



ical fuctioaries, is really the oppositio of society carried over

into the state machie. It is expressio of dissatisfaction
because of the oppression d cripplig of society's objective
aspiratios d needs.
I Communist systems, the state and state fuctios are not
reduced to oro-ans of oppressio, r are they idetical witll
them. As o~o-aizatio of atioal d social life, the. state
is subordinated to these orgas of oppressio. msm IS
ul to solve this icogruity, for the reaso that its o1vn
totalitaria despotism it ievitaly com~s i coflict. 1vit ~is
simila d opposite tedecies of soCiety, tedeCies whiC
are expressed v through the social fuctio of the state.
Because of tbls cotradictio, d the uavoidale d co
stat d of the Commuists to treat. the state predomiatJy
as istnet of force, the Commuist state canot become
la1vful sta te, or state i 1vhicl1 the jdiciary 1vould ide
pedet of the govemmet d i whic la1vs could actually
eforced. The 1vhole Commist systern is opposed to sch
state. v if the Cornmuist leaders 1vished to t lalvful state, t cold t do so 1vithot irnperilig their totalitaria auth01ity.
idepedet jdiciary d t ule of la1v 1vould ievita
l make it possile for oppositio to appear. For istace,
Ia1v i t Cornrnuist systern opposes t f expressio of
ii or t rigt of orgaizatio. La>vs i the Cornrnuist
system garatee all sorts of rigllts to citizes, d are based
t priciple of idepedet judiciary. I practice, tl1ere
is suc tig.
FIeedoms are formally recogized i Cornrnist regimes,
but decisive coditio is peequisite for exercisig them:
feedoms rnust utilized l i t iterest of the syste
of "socialism," IVblc t Comrnist leaders represet, or to teir rle. Tbls practice, cotrary as it is to legal
reglatios, ievitaly d to result i t s of exceptioally
severe d uscpulous ethods police d party bodies.


Legal forrns st protected on the d 1vblle tlle!
moopoly of atority mst ired at t same time.
For the rnost part, i tlle Commist system, legislative
authority t separated fr-om executive authority. Lein
cosidered this perfect soltio. Yugoslav leaders also ai
tain tbls. In one-party system, this is of the sources of
despotis d omipotece i governmet.
I the same 1vay, it has impossile i pr-actice to separ-ate
police autority from judicial autlity. Those 1vho aest also
jdge d eforce puishment.s, The circle is closed: t executive, the legislative, the investigatig, t cort, and the
puisblg bodies are one and t same.
Why does t Communist dictatorsblp have to use la1vs to
the great extet that. it does? vVhy does it have to hide behind
Foreign poJitical pr-opagada is of t reasos. Anoter importat is the fact tat the Comrnist regime
st isure d fix the rigts of those u 1vom it depeds
te ;v class-to maitai itself. La;vs are al1vays >vritte from
the stadpoit of the 1v class's or party's eeds or iterests.
Officially the la1vs must 1vritte for all citizes, but citizes
t rigts of these la;vs coditioally, l if t are
t "eemies of socialism." Coseqetly the Comrnuists
costatly rd tat t rnigt forced to oat
t la1vs tat they v ac:lopted. rf, t al;vays leave
loophole or exceptio 1vich 1vill enale tem to eYade their
For istace, the Yugoslav legislative authorities stand the
priciple that covicted except for act. 1vhich
has exactly forrnlated the la1v. Ho>veYel', most of the
political ti'iaJs are eld the gi"ouds of so-called "hostile
propagada," altough tis t is pposely t defied
t, istead, left to the jdges or secret po1ice.
For these reasos po1itical trials i Comrnuist. regimes are
ostly prearranged. courts haYe the task of demostrating



what the po>ver->vielders need to have dernonstrated; or have

the task of giving legal cloak to the political judgrnent on
the ''hostile activity" of the accused.
I trials conducted this method the cofession of t
accused is most irnportat. imself ust ackowledge tat
is an enemy. Tus, t tesis is confirmed. Evidece, little
as tere may of it, must replaced cofessio of guilt.
political t.rials i Yugoslavia are only pocket editios
of the Mosco>v t.rials. The so-called Mosco>v trials are t most
grotesque and loody examples of jdicial and legal cornedies
in tlle Commuist. system. The majority of other t.rials
similar insofa.r as acts d pishmets are concerned.
How political trials adled?
First, the sggestio of party functioaries, the party
police estalish that someoe is an "enemy" of existing codi
t.ios; tat, if notblg else, bls vie;vs d discssions ;vit close
frieds .represet troule, at least for the local authOI'ities.
next step is t preparation of the legal removal of the enemy.
Tis is done it trogll provocateur) >vho provokes the
'ictim to rnake "embaassing statements," to take part i illegal
organizing, or to commit similar acts; or it is d trg
"stool pigeon" ;vho simply bears \Vitness agaist t victim
accordig to t \vislles of t police. Most of the illegal orgai
zatios in Commnist regimes are CI"eated tlle secret police
i order to lre opponents into them d to pat these opponents in positio \Vere t police can settle ts \Vith
tem. Commnist governmet does t discorage "objectionale" citizes from committig la>v violatios d
crimes; in fact it pods tem into s violations d imes.
Stalin generally operated >vitot. t corts, sing tortre
extesively. Ho\vever, even if tOI'te is t sed and t corts
are sed instead, t essece is t same: Cornmunists settle
accounts 1vitl1 ti opponets not because they v committed
crimes, but. s tl1ey oppoents. It can said tat
most politica1 iminals >vl !' pnised are inocent fro


legal point of view, v though they oppoents of the
regime. From t Comrnuist. poit of vie>v, these opponents
are pnished "due process of la>v," altogh there may
no legal basis for their being convicted.
When citizens spontaneosly trn against t regime's measures, the Commnist athorities handle tem >vitlut I'eQ"ard
to costitutional and legal reglations. Modern history s"' no
record of actios against t opposition of the masses wblcl1
are as brtal, inman, and nla;vful as those of Communist
regimes. actio taken in Poznan is t best. kno>v, but rt
the most brutal. Occupying and colonial po;vers seldom take
sch severe measres, even though t conquerors d
accomplis their actios t use of extraordinary laws d
ss. Comunist. po>ver-wielders accomplish tl1e in
teir very "v" country trapling on teir O\VIl la>vs.
Even in non-political matters, t judiciay and t legislative atorities rt. safe fom the despots. The totalitaian class and its members cannot. help but mix into t affai;
of the judiciary and the legislative authorities. Tis is an
ever-yday occrrence.
An article in t l' 23, 1955, isse of t Belgade ne\vspaper Politika (Politics) offeiS tbls suitale illustrat.ion of t
real l and position of t courts in Yugoslavia (a1tlug
there s al\vays been blger deg.ree of legality in Yugoslavia
tan in oter Counist. countries):

In discussion of polems connected ;vith ciminals operating in t economy, at 2-day annal cofe!'ence, piesided
over puiic prosecutor n Jevemovic, the public pose
cutors of tlle republics, of t Vojvodina, and of Belgade
announced tat coopeation bet>veen t judiciary organs and
the autonomous organs in tlle economy and all political organizations is necess-y for complete success in tlle battle
against criminals operating in tlle economy and all political
orgaizations ....
The public prosecutors tink tat. soc:iety has t yet reacted



sufficient vigor wit regard to ridding itself of suc criminals....

prosecutors agreed tat society's reaction must more
effective. According t.o t tinking of t prosecutors, more
severe penalties and more severe metods of executing penalties are only some of the measures that sould taken....
examples cited in t discussions cofirm tlle opinios
that some ostile elemets wllic have lost t batt.le t
political field v 1v entered t ecoomic field. Cose
quently, t proiem of t crimial i the m is t
only Iegal proiem, but also political , wllich requires
t cooperatio of all government agecies d social orgai
Summing up t discussion, federal puiic prosecutor Brana
Jevremovic emphasized the significance of Iegality in co
ditions resulting from the decentralization tat s take place
i Yugoslavia, d pointed out t justificatio f t severity
1vit 1vhich our highest leades v senteced idividuals
guilty of cimial actio agaist t economy.


It is obvious that prosecutors decide that the courts shall

judge and that. penalties shall iposed according to the
intent of tl1e "highest leaders." What then is left of t.he cots
and of legality?
In the Counist syste legal theories change according
to circustances and the needs of the oligarchy. Vishinsky's
principle 1vhich calls for sentence to based on "iu
reliaility," that is, on political analysis and need, has been
abandoned. v if 01 huane or r scientific piinciples are adopted, the substance 1vill not change util the
relatioship bet1veen t governent and the judiciaiJ' and the
la1v itself is changed. Periodic capaigns for "legality," d
Khrushchev's bragging that the t has "now" succeeded in
putting the police and the judiciary under cotrol, only reveal
canges in t.he for of increased needs of the ruling class for
legal secuity. do not show changes in the rulig class's
position tmvard society, the st.ate, t.he courts, or t.he lvs.



The Comuist legal syste cannot free itself of foralis,
abolish t.he decisive infl.uece of party uits d the police
i trials, electios, and siilar evets. The higher up goes,
the r legality s r ornaet, and the geater
t role of governet i tlle judiciaiJ', in electios, d the
like s.
eptiess and poposity of Counist elections is
generally 1vell kno1v; if I rr coectly, Attlee wittily
called the " race 1vitll horse." It seems to tl1at something should said: vVlly is it tat Comuists canot do
without elections, even tllough tlley llave effect political
relatios; and cannot do 1vitllout sucll costly d empty uder
takig as paliametary estalisllmet?
Again, propagada d foreig policy are anng tlle reasos.
h is also tbls: no gover11et, not even Couist one,
exist 1vitllout everythig beig legally costituted. Under
coteporary coditions this is d eans of elected represetatives. people ust formally cofirm everythig tlle
Comuists do.
Besides this there is deeper and more ipotant reaso
for t parliametai}' syste i Comuist states. It is necessary t.hat the top party beaucracy, or tlle political core of the
1v class, approve t easures taken t govenmet, its
sr body. Commuist govement ignore geeral
pulic opinio, but every Comunist govemment is boud
t pulic ii of t party, and Couist pulic
opinio. Cosequetly, v toug elections v scarcely
ig for Couists, tl1e selectio of tose 1v 1vill i
t parliaet is done v caeflly the top party group. I
the selection, accout. is take of all circustances, suc as services, role d fuction i t vt d i society, t professions represented, etc. F tlle intra-party poit of vk\v,
electios for leadersblp are very iportant: t leaders disr



triute tose party po'lvers in tlle parliament wi t tink

are most important. Tus t leadeisblp s the legality it
needs t.o operate in t of t party, class, and people.
Attempts t.o allo'lv t'lvo or more Communists to contend for
t same seat i parliament have had constructive results.
r \vere several instances \vhere tis 'lvas attempted i Yugoslavia, but the leadership decided tat suc attempts \Vere "disuptincr." Ne'lvs has recently received of large number
.. .
of Commuist candidates competing for the same ss
the eastern Europea countries. The itentio may to have
t\vo or more cadidates for every office, but t!' is little possiility that tllis \Vill d systematically. It \VOuld step
fovard, d migh t v t begiig of turning tmvard
democracy the Commuist system. Ho'lvever, it seems to me
that there is still log 'lvay to go before such measures \Vill
realized d tat developmet in eastern Europe 'lvill first
t.ur in the direction of tl1e Yugoslav system of '\v01kers' ma
agement," instead of becomig political democracy 'lvith its
attedant changes. The despotic core still holds everytig i
its hands, conscious of the fact tat reliquisment of its traditional party unity \vould prove very dagerous. Every fr-eedom 'IVithin the party imperils t only the autority of t
leaders, but totalitarianism itself.
Communist parliamets are t in position to make decisions aything impor-tat. Selected in advace as they are,
flattered tlt t have been tls selected, represetatives do
t have t po'lver or the courage to debate v if t "\Vated
to do so. Besides, since teir madate does t deped the
voters, represetatives do t feel that t are ans'lverale to
them. Communist parliaments are justifialy called "mausoleums" for t. representatives 'lvho compose them. Their rigt
and role consist of uaimously approvig from time to time
tat 1vhic has already been decided for them from the wir1gs.
Another type of parliamet is t requir'=d for this system of



governmet; ideed,

type would

the reproacll could made

superfluous and too costly.


any otl1er


f01ce and violence, i constat conflict with

its people, the Communist state, v if thee external
reasons, must militaristic. The cult of force, especially military force, is no'lvhere so pevalet as in Commuist coutries.
Militarism is the iteal basic d of t "\v class; it is one
of the forces which make possile the "\v class's existence,
strengt, and privileges.
Uder const.ant pressure to primarily and, 'lv ecessary,
exclusively !'g of violence, the Commuist state s
bureauc!'atic state sice t begiig. Maitaied the
despotism of hadful of po'lver-'lvielders, the Communist state
'lvields more po,ver than oter state orgaization does 'lvit
t aid of diveiSe la'lvs d regulations. S after its estalish
met, t Commnist state s replete 'lvitll so regulations that even jdges d la'lvyers llave difficlty i findig
teir 1vay tg tem. Everyting llas to accurately
reglated and cofirmed, even togh little profit is derived
tereby. For ideological reasos Commist legislators ofter1
isse vaios la"\VS 'lvitot taking tlle real situatio d practical
possiilities into consider-ation. Immersed in legal and abstract
"socialist" formlas, t sbject to criticism or opposition, t
compress into paagraphs, 'lvich the assemlies mechai
cally ratify.
Commist govenmet is non-breacratic, however,
'1\'here qestion of the needs of the oligarcy d t 'IVOI"kig
metods of its leades is ivolved. v i exceptioal cases
state and t eads do t like to fetter tllemselves with regu
lations. Policy-makig d tlle right of political determiatio



are in their harids, and these cannot bear procrastinatio or too

strict formalization. In decisions concerning the economy as
1vhole and in all otl1er mat.ters except unimportat, represeta
tional, and formal questions, the heads functio without
excessive restrictions. Tl1e creators of the most rigid type of
bureaucratism d political cetralism are t as idividuals
bureaucrats r are t boud legal regulatios. For example, Stalin \v-as t beaucrat i respect. Disorder and
delay prevail in the offices and estalishments of many Communist leaders.
This does not prevent them from temporarily taking stand
"against bureaucratism," that is, against. both unsci"u~ulous;-ess
and slo\vness in adrninistration. They are today battlg agast
the Stalinist form of bureaucratic administration. Ho1vever,
tlley have no intention of elirninating the l, fudarn~;-tal
bueaucratism rampant i the management of the polcal
apparatus iside the m d state.
In this "bat.tle against bueaucatism," Communist leaders
usually refer to Lenin. However, very careful study of Le;-in
reveals that he did not foresee that the new system 1vas rnovg
to1vard political bureaucracy. In tlle conflict with the bureaucracy inherited partly from tl1e Cza~'s administratio, Lenin
attriuted rnost of the difficulties to the fact that "there are
apparatuses composed from list of Communists or from
list of rnernbel'S of Soviet party schools." The old officials disappeared uder Stalin, and Communists from the "list" stepped
into their places, d i spite of this, beaucatism grew.
Even i places like Yugoslavia 1vhee tere 1vas cosider-ale
1veakeig of beaucratic admiistratio, its essence, the
rnoopoly of political bureaucacy d the relatios resultig
from it, \vas t abolisl1ed. Even 1vhen it is abolished as an
adrninstrative rnethod of maagement, ureaucratism cotiues
to exist as political-social relatio.
The Cornmuist state, or governmerlt, is >vorkig to1vard the
.complete irnpersoalizatio of the idividual, tlle natio, d



v of its o1vn represetatives. It aspires to turn the entire

state into state of functionaries. It. aspires to regulate and
cont.rol, eiter directly or indirectly, \vages, housig coditions,
and even intellectual activities. The Cornmuists do not distinguish people as to \Vhether or not they are functionaries-all
persons are consideed to functionaries-but the amount
of they receive and the number of privileges they enjoy.
meas of collectiyization, even the peasant gradually becomes member of the geeral beaucratic society.
However, this is the exteal vie\V. In the Communist system
social groups are sharply divided. In spite of such differeces
and conflicts, thougl1, t Communist society is as \vole
unified tan any oter. The weakness of the \vole lies
in its compulsory attitudes and relatiosblps d t conflicting
elements of its composition. Ho\vever, every part is dependent
on eyery oter part, just as in single, uge mecanism.
In Commuist gove1ment, or state, just as in absolute
moarchy, t deYelopment of uman personality is an abstract
ideal. In the period of t absolute monarcy, \vhen mecan
tilists imposed the state upon the economy, t cro;vn itselffor example, Cateine t Great-tougt that t goveent
1vas oliged to re-educate tl1e people. Tl1e Comunist leaders
t and tnk in t same >vay. Ho\vever, during the time
of tlle absolute monar-chy, t goverment did this in an attempt to subodinate existing ideas to its mvn. Today, i
the Commuist system, t govenment is siultaeously tlle
owner and t ideologist. This does not mean that the un
personality has disappeared or that it s been changed into
dull, impersoal cog \v rotates i large, meciless state
mechaism, in accordance \vith tlle \vill of an omipotent
scerer. Personalit.y, its O\Vn nature both collective and
idividual, is idestctile, even under t Commuist system.
Of course it is stifled under this syste more t under otller
systes, d its individuality llas to anifested in different



Its world is 1vorld of petty daily cares. vVhen these cares d

wishes collide with the fortress of the system, which holds
monopoly over the material and intellectuallife of t people,
even tis petty 1vorld is not free or secure. In the Connist
system, insecurity is the 1vay of for the individual. The
stat.e gives him the opportunity to make living, but on con~
dition tat he submit. The personality is t.orn bet1veen 1vhat it
desires and 1vat it actually have. It is free to recognize the
iterests of the collective and to submit to them, just as in
every other system; but also it may rebel against the usurpig
representatives of the collective. Most of t individuals in
the Comnist system are not opposed to socialism, but opposed to t way in 1vich it is being achieved-tis confims
the fact tat the Commuists are not developig any sort of
true socialism. individual 1ebels against those limitations
1vich are in t interest of t oligarchy, not against those
1vich are in t interest of society.
Anyone 1v does not live under these systems has hard
time grasping ho1v human beings, particularly such poud and
brave peoples, could v given up their freedom of thought
and work to such an extent. Tl1e most accurat.e, thoug not the
most complete, explanation for this situation is t severity
and totality of tyranny. But at t root of tis situation, there
are deeper reasons.
One reason is historical; t people 1v forced to undergo
t loss of freedom in the irresistile drive toward economic
cange. Anoter reason is of an intellectual and moral nature.
Since indust.rialization had become mat.ter of life or death,
socialism, or Commuism, as its ideal expressio, became the
ideal d hope, almost to t poit of religious obsession
amog some of the populatio at large as 1vell as the Commuists. In the mids of those 1v did t belong to t old
social classes, delierate d organize.d revolt against the party, or agaist t government, would have been tantamout to
treason against t homeland and t ighest ideals.


most important reaso why there was no organized
resistace to Commuism lies deep in tlle all-inclusiveess and
t.otalitariaism of tlle Commuist state. It ltad peetrated into
all tlle pores of society and of the persoality--into the vision
of t scietists, tl1e ispiration of poets, and the dreams of
lovers. rise agaist it meat t. l to die t deat of
desperate individual, but to braded d excommuicated
from society. Tlle1e is air or ligllt uder tlle Commuist
govermet's iro fist.
Neitller of tlle t1vo mai types of opposition groups-tat
stemming from the olde1 classes and tat stemming from origial Commuism itself-found 1vays and eans of combatia
t 1s encroachment tlleir lierty. first. group 1vas tuggig
back1vard, 1\'ile the secod group carried poitless d
tougtless revolutioary activity, and egaged in quiblig
about dogma 1vith tlle regime. Conditios 1vere t yet ripe
for t finding of 1v roads.
Meamvhile, the people 1vere instinctively suspicious of t
1v d and esisted every step and small detail. Today, this;
resistance is t geatest, tl1e most real threat to Commuist
1egimes. Tlle Communist oligarcs loger kr1v \Vllat
t masses thik 1 feel. regimes feel isecure in sea of
deep d dark discotent.
gl1 istoy s recod of oter system so sucessfl in checking its opposition as t Commuist dictatoi"Sip,
n v s provoked sucll pofoud d fa1-reacig discontent. It seems tat t more t consciece is crused and
t less t opportunities for estalishir oraaization exist

t geater t discontet..
Commuist totalitariaism leads to total discotet, i wicll
all differeces of ii are gradually lost, except despaii
d hatred. St resistance-te dissatisfactio of millions 1vith t everyday details of life-is t form of resistace
that the Communists v t l t.o smoter. Tis was
confiied duig t Soviet.-Gera war. vV t Germans



first attacked t U.S.S.R., there seemed to lit.tle desire for

resistance among the Russians. Ho1vever, Hitler soon revealed
that his intentions 1ve1e the destruction of the Russian state
and the caging of t Slavs and oter Soviet peoples into
impersonal slaves of tl1e Herrenvolk. From t depths of t
people tere emerged t traditional, uquenchale love for
the homeland. During tlle entire war Stalin did not mention
either the Soviet govement or its socialism t.o the people;
mentioned only one ting--the homelad. And it \vas \vort
dyig for, in spite of Stalin's socialism.


regies have succeeded in solvig many

baffied t systems they replaced. are
also succeedig i solving the nationality lm as it existed
to the time t came to pmver. They v t been l
t.o resolve t conflict of ational bourgeoisie completely, ow
ever. prolem s reappeared i t Communist regimes
in 'v and more serious form.
National rule is being estalished in the U.S.S.R. trough
higbly developed beaucracy. In Yugoslavia, o1vever, disputes are arising because of friction betwee natioal bureaucracies. Neiter t first nor t secod case conces
national disptes in the old sense. Tl1e Commists are not
nationalists; for tllem, the insistece on nationalism is only
form, just like any oter form, through which they stiengten
teir po,vers. For tis prpose t may v act like vehemet
chauvinists from time to time. Stalin \vas Georgian, but i
practice d i propaganda, 'venever ecessary, \vas raid
Great Russia. Among Stalin's errors, v Khrushcl1ev admitted, was t terrile trt of the extermiatio of entire
peoples. Stalin and Company used t national prejdices of
t largest nation-the Russian nation-just as if it had been


prolems tat d



composed of Hott.entots. The Communist leaders will al\vays

take recorse to anytig they find useful, sch as t preaching
of eqality of rights among the national breacracies, which
is practically the same to them as the demad for equality of
rights among atioalities.
N ational feelings d atioal interest, ho,vever, do t lie
at the basis of the coflict bet,veen t Communist ational
bureacracies. The rnotive is quite different: it is sup1emacy in
's mvn zone, in the sphee 'vich is uder one's administration. The struggle over t reptatio and po,vers of 's o\rn
tepulic does t go m fthe1 than desire to strengtl1e
one's mrn power. The atioal Comrnuist state units have
no sigificance other tha tlt t administative divisios, on the basis of lagage. The Commuist beaucrats
are vehernent local patiiots on behalf of tei1 OWil administrative units, even tg they have t traied for
t part on either lingistic or natioal basis. In sorne
l adrniistrative nits in Ygoslavia (t regional col
cils), chavinism has been greater than in t nationalepulic
Among the Cornmnists one enconter t short.sighted
rti caYinism and decline of ational coscios
ness, v in the very sarne people, depending n opportnities and r-eqirernents.
langages '\'ich the Commnists speak are ardly t
same as tlse of teir o'vn people. The ''ds 1 the sarne, but.
t expessions, the rneaning, t iner sense-all of tese
teii" very o,vn.
\Vile tl:ley atarcical 'vit regard to oter systems and
localistic >vitin their o'\'ll system, t Communists can
fevent inteationalists 'ven it. is t.o teir interest to so.
vaios nations, of \vi once d its o>vn forrn and
color, its o'vn istory and s, stand virtally still no1v,
g and langid, beneath the all~po,vefl, all-kno>ving, d
essentially non-atioal oligarchies. The Comrnnists did not



succeed in exciting or a-.;vakening the nations; in this sense they

also failed to solve nationality questions. vVho knows anything
nowadays about Ukl-ainian -.;vriters d political figures? vVhat
has happened to that nation, >vhich is the same size as Fance,
and -.;vas once the most advanced nation in Russia? You >vould
think that only anrphous and foi"less mass of people
could remai under this impersonal machie of oppression.
However, this is not the case.
Just as personality, various social classes, d ideas still live,
so do the nations still live; they function; they stuggle agaist
despotism; and they preserve their distictive features u
destroyed. If their coscieces and souls are smothered, they
are t broken. Though tlley are under subjugatio, they
have t yielded. The force activatig them today is more than
the old or bourgeois natioalism; it is impe1ishale desire
to their OWil masters, d, their mv free developmet, to attai icreasigly fuller fello>vship -.;vith the rest of
the human race in its eternal existence.

Dogmatism in the Economy

The deYelopment of the economy in Communism is rt the
basis for, but reflection of, the developmet of the egime
itself fiom revolutionay dictatorship to reactionay despotism. This development, trough struggles and disputes,
demonstrates hmv the interference of government in tl1e econorny, necessary at fist, has gradually turned ito vital, personal
interest on t part of t ruling bueaucats. Iitially, t
state seizes all meas of productio in order to contol all
ivestments for rapid industrialization. Ultimately, fter econornic development has come to guided rnaily in the
interests of t ruling class.
Other types of mvers do not act in an essentially different
m1; they are avays motiYated sorne sort of personal
interest. Ho>vever, the tig tltat distinguishes t.he \V class
frorn oter types of o>vers is that it has in its hands, m01e or
less, all the ational resources, and tat it is deYeloping its econornic po>ver in delierat.e and organized manner. delierate
system of unification is also used otl1er classes, suc as political and economic orgaizations. Because tere are number of
O\VIlers and many forms of property, all in mutual conflict,
spotaneity and cornpetition have been preserved in all 103



omies preceding the Cornunist one, at least under norma1

or peaceful coditions.
v the Communist m has not succeeded in repressig spontaneity, but i cotast to all others, it. constantly
insists that spontaneity should achieved.
This practice has its theoretic justificatio. The Commust
!eaders really believe that they kno'.V ecoomic la>vs and that
they can administer production witll scietific accuracy. The
truth is that the l thing they know ho>v to do is to sei~e
t:otrol of the economy. Their aility to do this, just like the1r
victory i the revolution, has created the illusio i their mids
Jhat they succeeded because of their exceptional scientific


of the accuracy of their theories, they administer

the economy largely according to these theories. It is standard
joke that the Commuists first equate ecoomic measure
>vith Marxist. idea d the proceed t.o carry out the measure.
In Yugoslavia, it has officially declared that plaing is
coducted according to Marx; but Marx >vas either planer
r planing expert. I practice, nothing is done accordig
to Marx. Ho>vever, the claim that planing is conducted according to Marx satisfies people's coscieces and is used to
justify tr and economic domiation for "ideal" aims d
according to "scietific" discoveries.
Dogmatism i t m is an iseparale part of t Commuist system. Ho>vever, tlre focig of the m into dogmaric rc1.0lds is t tlre outstanding feate of t Commist
economic s~.stem. In tbls m t leader-s are masters i
"adapting" theo:v; t depart from they >vlre it is to teir
intel"est to 5{).
I additio to being motivated t blstOIical d for
apid idustrializatio, the Commuist bureacracy has been
compelled to estalis type of ecoomic system desiged to
isure t perpetuation of its o;vn po>ver. Allegedly for t
sake of classless society and for the ae.1ition of exploitation,



it s created closed economic system, >vith forms of property
which facilitate t party's domiatio d its moopoly. At
first, t Commists d t.o tur to this ''collectivistic" fom
for objective reasons. N o-vv they colltine to stregte tis
form->vitot considerig >veter not it. is i the interest
of the natioal economy and of ftr idustrializatio-for
teir Ov\'11 sake, for an exclsive Commuist class aim. They
first admiistered d controlled t etire economy for socalled ideal goals; 1ater tlrey did it for t prpose of mai
taiing teir absolte tl and dominatio. t is the i
reaso for suc far-reacl1ig d inflexile political measures
i t Commnist m.

I an itervie>v i 1956, Tito admitted tat. there "socialist elements" in \Vester economies, t tat they are t
"delierately" introdced ito t ecoomies as s. Tis
expesses t \vole Communist idea: l s "socia1ism"
is estalislred "delierately"-by organized complsio-i t
ecoomics of teir cotr-ies must t Communists preserve
the despotic metod of governig and teir o-.;vn moopoly of

Tis iti of great d v decisiYe sigificace to

"delierateness" in t deYelopment of t economy d soci-

ety reYeals t complsy and selfislr clraacter of Commist

economic policy. Otevise, -.;v 1vold suc an insistence on
delieateness necessary?
strog oppositio of Commnists to all foms of Oi\'1lersip except tlse ivlrich t consider to socialist idicates,
above all, thei uncontrollable desies to ui and maitai
pmve. abandoned alteed tis adical attitde, holveYer, 1vlre it >vas agaist ti iterest to old to it; tls t
teated ti o-vv teory badly. I YugoslaYia, for instace,
t fist ceated and ten dissolYed t kolklzes i t name
of "error-fee :arxism" and "socialism." Today t are pursing tir-d, and cofsed, middle-of-tlre-oad lie in tlle s
matter. r are similar exarnples i all Cornrnuist 1-



ties. However, the abolition of all fors of private ownership

except their own is their ur1ehaging purpose.
Every political syste gives expression to econoic forces
d attepts to adiister t. The Conists t attai coplete cotrol over productio, but they have succeeded
i controllic it to suc extet tat they cotinuously subordinate it
teir ideological d political goals. I tis way,
Counis differs fro every oter political syste.


The Couists interpret t special role of those w
produce in tenns of their total O\vership d, even r i
portat, often in ters of the overriding role of ideology i
t n.

Iediately after t revolution, d of ernployet

\Vas curtailed in the U.S.S.R. t t need of the regie for
rapid industrialization did not bring about coplete curtailet of such freedo. This took place only after the victory of
the indstrial revoltion and after t ne\V class had been
created. In 1940 la\V \Vas passed foridding d of e
ployent d punishig people for quitting their jobs. I this
period d r \Vorld War , for of slave labor developed,
naely, t labor s. Moreover, the bordelie between
1vork in the labor s d wok in factories was alost co
pletely eliiated.
Labor s d varios kinds of "voluntary" \VOI"k activities
are only t 1vorst and ost t fors of coplsOI'y labor.
Tbls of teporary character i other systes t
nder nis copulsory l has reaied pennaet
feature. Althogh coplsory labor did not take the s fon
i oter Conist coutries nor develop there t.o the ext.ent
that it has in the U .S.S.R., r of tl1ese contries s co
pletely free eployerlt.




labor in the ist syste is the reslt of

of owersip over all, or alost all, ational property.
The vvoker finds hiself i the position of llavig rt orlly to
sell his l; ust sell it dr conditios 1vhich are d
is control, sice he is ul t.o seek another, better eployer.
There is only eployer, the state. The \Vorker s no choice
t to accept t eployer's ters. \Vorst and ost at"ful
eleent in early capitalis the 1vorker's standpoint-the
l arket-as replaced the onopoly over labor
of the o1mer'Ship of the w class. This has t d t \Vorker
I the Conist syste the 1vorker is t like t anciet
type of slave, t v 1vhe he is i copulsoy labor s:
tl1e acient slave 1vas teated both theoretically d practically
as object. v tl1e greatest id of atiquity, Aristotle,
believed tlt 1vere either fr slaves. Thogh
he believed i um treatent of slaves d advocated the
refor of t slavery syste, he still regarded slaves as tools of
production. I t moder syste of techology, it. is t possile to deal tis >vay 1vith \vorker, s l liter-ate d
iteested vo1ker do the sort of 1vork required. Copulsory
labor i t Couist syste is quite differet slavery
in atiqity in history. It is the reslt of 1si and
political relationships, not, or l to sligt extet, t result
of t tecnological level of poduction.
Sice d1 tecrlogy requires "'orker \Vl can dispose
of cosideale of d, it is i latet conflict
wit coplsory for"s of labor, or ;vith the l of o>vne
ship d t political totalitariais of Cornuis. Uder
Cornrnuis t ;vorker is techically free, but is possiilities
to use is fd extrernely lirnited. The fOI"al lirnitation of d is not irt caact.eistic of Cornu
isrn, t it is pl1enoeon ;vhich occurs ud Cornuisrn.
It is especially apparet 1vith egard to 'vok d t labor
force itself.




Labor cannot f in society 1vhere all material goods are

nopolized one goup. The labor f is indiectly the
r of that goup, altlugh not completely so, since the
worke is an indiYidual hman being 1vho himself ses up t
of his labor. Speaking in t abstr-act, t l f, taken as
1vhole, is factor in total social poduction. ne;v uling
class 1vit it.s material and political monopoly ses this factor
almost to the same extent tat it does t national goods and
elements of production and treats it t same \\', diegard
ing t lman factor.
Dealing 1vit.h labor as factor in poduction, 1vorking conditions in yarios enterpises, or t connection bet;veen 1vages
and profits, are of no concer11 to t uu. \\ages and
\\'Oking conditions are determined in accordance 1vit an abstract concept of labor, or in accordance 1vith indiYidual qualifications, 1vith little no regad for t actual esults of
productio i the respectiYe eterpises or br-ancl1es of indstry.
This is only geneal rule; tl1ere are exceptios, depeclig
coditions and requirements. But the system leads ieYitaly
to lack of interest t t of tl1e actual poduceis, i.e., t
1vorkers. It also leads to lo;v quality of output, decline in l
productiYity d teclological pogress, d deter-ioatio of
plat. The Commuists are costatly strugg1ig f geater
poductiYity on t part of t idiYidual 1vorkers, payig little
or attetio to t poductiYity of t labor force as ;vole.
In suc system, efforts to stimulate t worker are ineYitale
and fequent. The beaucracy offers all kinds of a1vards and
allo1vances to coteract lack of iterest. But. as log as tlle
Comnists do not g the system itself, as long as they
retai teir monopoly of all 1vi and all goyermet, t
canrt stimulate t idiYidual woker for log, much less
stimulate the labor f as ;vlle.
Elaborate attempts to giYe t \Vorkers sare i the profits
have made i Yugoslavia and are now beig contemplated
in t East Europea countries. These quickly result in t




retention of "excess profits" in the hads of the bureaucracy

\vl justify this actio saying that they are clleckig inflation
and ivesting t money \visely. All that remais for the worker
are small, nomial sums and the "right" t.o suggest ho\v they
sould ivested though the t d trade unio organization-tl1og the bureauacy. v\itout the right to stike
and to decide ;vl o;vs \vhat, the \Vk have not had
u n to obtai real s of t profits. It s become
clear tat all tl1ese ights are mutally intevoven with various
forms of political freedom. They canot attained i isolation
from each other.
In suc system, free trade unio oganizations are impossile, d stikes can happen very rarely, suc as the explosions
of \Voker dissatisfaction in East Gerrnay in 1954 d in
z in 1956.
Comrnunists explai the eforced absence of strikes
sayig tat t ";vorking class" is i po>ver and mvs t
s of prodctio trogh its state, so that if it did strike,
it \vold strikig against itself. Tis v explanatio is
based on t fact tat i t Comuist system the o;ver
of poperty is not pr'ivate individual, but, as 1ve kno\v,
caouftaged t fact tlt is collective and forrnally
tide tifiale.

Above all,

stikes uder t Commuist

system are impossile s there is only mme \Vllo is i carge of all

goods d of tl1e ti labor fore. It ;vold ard to take
effective action against i ;vitlut tl1e paticipation of
all t ;vorke. stike of or enterprises-spposing
tat scl1 tig could at all dr total dictatoiSip
-canot eally tleat.e tlt o;vne. His t does not
consist of tose idividal eteprises t of t prodctio
macine as \vlle. The ;v is not harmed losses in
indiYidal enterpises, s the producers, or society as
\vole, must rnake f such losses. Because of this, strikes




political than an


econoic rl


for the


It is not accidetal tat t working class is the ain concenl of the regie; not for idealistic or uaitarian reasons,
but siply because tis is t class 1vi production depends and on ivich t rise and t very existence of t new
class depends.




vVhile inclividua1 st.rikes are alost ipossile, and hopeless as far as potential esults are concerned, there are no
r political conditions for general strikes and they can
occur only i exceptional situations. Wheever idividual
strikes have taken place, they have usually cl1anged ito gl
strikes d have taken on distinctly political chaacter. I
addition, Couist regies constantly divide d disrupt
the 1vokig class eans of paid fuctionar-ies, aised fro
its raks, 1vho "educate" it, "uplift it ideologically," d direct
it in its daily life.
Trade unio organizations and other professioal OIganizations, because of thei purpose d functio, l
the appendages of single o1vner and potetate-the political
oligarchy. Thus, teir "ain" s is t of "buildig
socialis" or increasig production. Teir oter fuctions
to spread illusions and acquiescent d g t
1vorkers. s orgaizations v played only iportant
role-the lifting of the cultal level of the \Vorking classes.
"\Vorkers' ogaizations uder t Couist. syste
really "" "yello1v" ogaizations of special kid.
expressio "of special kid" is used because t
l is at t s tie t goveent and t exponent
of t predoinant ideology. In other systes tlse t1vo factors
are generally separate fro oter, so tat t 1vokers,
even tlug ul to rely either one of t, are at least
l to take advantage of t differences and conflicts betiveen

free lt or free
ivokers' orgaizatios, tere is liit. to exploitatio, even
i t Couist syste. searc for tis liit would
require d d ill01e concete analysis. W will cocern
ourselves l 1vit its ost iportant aspects.
I additio to political liits-fear of dissatisfaction aonD"
the ivorkers and otl1er cosideratios wich are subject. to
g-th are also costant liits to exploitatio: the fs
d degrees of exploitation 1vich too costly for the
syste ust s or later discotiued.
Tus, t decree of April 25, 1956, i t U.S.S.R., t
dti of 1vorkers for tardiess or for quitting t.heir
jobs ivas caceled. Also great n \VOI"kers 1vere released
fro l s; these ivere cases in ivhich it ivas ipossile
to distingish betivee political prisoers d those iv t
gi d tloiv ito labor s because it needed labor
fOI'ce. This decree did t result i copletely freed labor
f, for cosideale liitatios still reained i force, t
it did repeset the ost sigificat pogress d after Stalin's
In spite of


tat. tere



~oplsory slave l brought political difficlties to the

reg1e d also too costly as s as advaced tech-

ology was itroduced i the U.S.S.R. slave laborer, no

matter v little you feed i, costs r tha produce

iv t the adinistrative appaatus eeded to assure
his coercio. His labor s senseless and ust discontinue~. Modern production liits exploitatio in otller ivays.
r canot operated efficietly exausted co
pulsory labor, and adequate lt d cultal conditios
v an indispensale peequisite.
liits to exploitation in the Couist syste are
paralleled liits to the freedos of the labor force. These



freedoms ate detennined the ature of ownership and govemment. Until o-.;vnership d govenment are chaged, the
labor force canot become free d must remai subject to
moderate or severe forms of ecoomic d administrative

Because of its production needs, Commuist regime regulates labor coditios and the st.atus of the l force. Jt takes
maysided and a.encompassing social measures: it regul~tes
such things as -.;vorking hours, vacations, isurace, dt,
the labor of wome and childre. Many of these meases are
largely nominal; many are also of progressively harmful
Commnist system the tedency t.o regulate labor relations and to maintai order and in productio is constant.
single d collective mvner solves labo-force polems
on an all-encompassing scale. Jt canot st "rl" in
anytblng, and certainly rt in t labor f. Jt must eglate
it just as mch as every oter aspect of productio.
The great boast that there is full employment i Commnist.
systems cannot ide t 1vounds 1vi e\'ident as one
looks more closely. As s as all mateiial goods contolled
one body, these goods, like m1v eeds, mst become
t subject of planig. Political necessities play importat
role i planig d tis uavoidaly eslts i t retetio
of number of rs of idustry, 1vich srvive at. t
expense of oters. s planning bldes actal nemploymet.
As soon as sectors of t economy can engage in feer play, or
as s as it becomes unnecessay for the regime to sstain and
stregthe at t s of tr, uemploy
mellt -.;vill r. More extesive ties with t 1vold market
can also cause tis tied.
Cosequetly, full employment is t t reslt of Commuist "socialism" t of an ecoomic policy carried t
command; in t final aalysis, fll employmet is t result
of disharmoy d prodctio inefficiecy. Jt does t eveal


the power but weakness of the economy. Yugoslavia was
sor~ of wor~ers util it acieved satisfactory degree of productn efficiecy. As s as it did, tllere -.;vas uemploymet.
Uemployet 1vould v blgher if Yugoslavia attaied
maximum prodctio efficiecy.
Coniuist econoies full eployent conceals une
ployent. poverty of all coceals t ulr of
s, just as the pheoenal progress of s sectors of t
n coceals the backwardess of oters.
s token, this type of l mvnersblp and
goveme~t is l t.o pevent. econoic collapse, but il
of preventg chroic crises. The selfish interests of the 11ew
class d the ideological caracter of the n k it
ipossile to aintain healthy and llaronious syste.

Marx 1vas t the first. to visualize the of futre
society ld basis. t -.;vas t first, or g t
first, to recogize tat dr r uavoidaly teds
toward planig because, i additio to social reasos, it is
~eig estaliseq tlle basis of scietific teclology.
s 1vere the fiist to l gigatic atioal d iter
atioal scale. Today, planig is geeral and
an iportant eleent of the econoic policy of ost governents, even togh it s differet caracter in indstrially
devel~ped countries fro tat in indstially udeveloped ones.
Planng s necessary when podction reaces an advaced stage d 1ven social, intemational, d other codi
tions are subject to siilar teds. Jt does t llave uch conection with anyone's teories, let alone tllose of , 1vhic
were costr"Ucted on far lo1ver level of social d econoic



vVhen tlle U.S.S.R. became the first country to embark upon

natioal planning, its leaders, who 'vere Marxists, conected
tbls li- 'vit Marxism. The truth is tbls: altlugh

Marx's teacblo-s "\v the idealistic basis of tlle revolut

Russia, bls teacblngs also became the cover for later meases
taken the Soviet leaders.
All of tlle blstorical and specific reasons for Soviet planing
>vere attriuted to correspondig teories. Marx's theory was
the closest d most acceptale because of t social basis and
the past of the Commuist movemet.
Altluo-h Ii- heavily on :r in t beginig, mmuist planing s m profound idealistic and mateial
background. How can m administeed other tha
as planned m vv it s or is going to v sing1e
o>mer? Ho'v cold s tlemedos investments made for
t prpose of idustrializing if t >vere not planed?
Sometblno- mst eeded f it become ideal. So
it is >vit Commnist planig. It is dedicated t.o t developmet of tlse brances of t economy >vi >vill insre t
streo-tenino- of tl1e reo-ime. Tis is t g-eneral
rule, altog-h
in every Commnist contry, especially tllose "\vicl1 become
indepedent of Moscovv, tllere are exceptios to tis rle.
Of corse, the developmet of the national m as
'vole is important for t stiegtening of t regime, for it
is impossile permanetly to sepaate progress in one branc
of prodction from anoter. Plaring empasis i every Commnist system is alvvays directed tmvard brances of t
ecormy tat are considered to of decisive importance in
maitaiing tl1e political staility of tlle regime. s braches
are ones tat enance t role, po,ver, and privileges of t
rr. also are t s tat strengtlten t regime
in its relatios to oter cotries and make it possile for t
regime to idustr-ialize t.o greater degree. Up to now, t
v rs of v and w industries. Tis does t
tat t situation cannot. cange i idividal coutries.



Recently atomic eergy, especially in t U.S.S.R., s begun

to take first place in t plan; I sold say tllat tis is llappenig because of military, foreign and political considerations
rater tan for any otller.
Ever]'tlling is subordinated to tese aims. Cosequely,
m rs of t are laggig and 'vorking
inefficietly; dispoportios d diffilties are inevitale; d
excessive prodctio costs d li iflatio are rampant.
Accordig to Andre Pilipe (i t New Leader, October 1,
1956), investments i v idstry i t U.S.S.R. icreased
from t 53.3 per t of total ivestmets i 1954 to 60 per
cent of total ivestmets in 1955. ,venty-oe per cent of tlle
t atioal icome is beig invested in indstr]', wit co
cetratio on v industry, ltg lleavy indsty l
cotrited 7.4 per t to tlle increase i icome per capita,
6.4 per t of vvblch 'vas d to icreased prodctio.
It is uderstadale >vhy, under scll conditions, the stadard
of livig is t last coce!'Il of tl1e ne'v o>mers, v thog,
as Marx imself maitais, are the most importat factor
i prodction. Accoding to Ed"rard Cranksa>v, vvllo is close
to t Britis Labor t, despeate battle for survival must.
foght i t U.S.S.R. those >v less t 600 rles
motbly. r Schvvartz, the New York Times expert on the
Soviet Uion, llas estimated tllat appoximately eight million
'vorkers earn less than 300 is monthly, and tlle Tribune,
repesenting tlle point of vievv of tl1e Bitisll Labor Party's left
vving, adds tlle comment that tllis, and t tlle eqality of sexes,
is tlle reason for the large nmbe!' of women employed at lleavy
labor. recent 30-per-cet vvage incease in tlle U.S.S.R. llas
applied to tllese lo'N->vage categoi"ies.
Tbls is the >vay it is i the U.S.S.R. It is not. different
in other Comnist contr-ies, not. even in cotr-ies like
Czeclloslovakia vvblch are tecllnologically very advanced. Once
an exporter of agricultral piOdcts, Ygoslavia no>v impts
tem. Accoiding to official statistics, tlle standard of living of



blue- a11d 1vhite-collar \Vorkers is lmver than before World

\Var , whe11 Yugoslavia 1vas 11 u11developed capitalist coutry.
Commu11ist pla1111i11g, devoted t.o political class i11teests, a11d
totalitaria11 dictatorsllip suppleme11t eacll other. For ideologic
reaso11s, Commu11ists ivest i11te11sively i11 certai11 ba11ches of
the eco11omy. All pla1111i11g revolves arou11d tllese braclles.
This leads to deep displaceme11ts i tlle eco11omy whicll can11ot
paid for i11come from 11atio11alized farms take over from
capitalists a11d large lado1v11ers, but. must paid for mai11ly
tllrough t impositio of lo1v 1vages a11d the pillagig of peasats tl1rougl1 tlle compulsory crop-purcllase system.
It migllt said tllat if tlle U.S.S.R. d 110t d such pla1111i11g, or if it d 11ot co11centrated 011 the developme11t of heavy
i11dustry, it 1vould -r e11tered \Vorld W u11armed d
would have 11 tlle easily co11quered slave of tlle Hitler i11vasio11. This :s t, but o11ly to certai11 degree. For gu11s
d ta11ks are 11ot the l stegth of cou11try. If Stali11 had
11ot had imperialistic aims i11 his f01eign policy a11d tyra11ical
aims i11 his i11ternal policy, groupig of po1ves 1vould haYe
left his cou11try sta11ding alone before the invader.
This is clear: t ideological h to pla11ing d developme11t of tlle economy 1vas 11ot esse11tial for tlle developmet of 1var industry. It 1vas put into actio11 because of t
po1ver-holders' 11eed to i11depe11de i11ternally a11d externally; defe11se 11eeds 1vere o11ly associate 11eeds, eve11 tllough
they 1vere i11evitale. Russia could have obtaied tlle same qua11tities of arrnaments, poceedig u11der differe11t pla11s, li11ki11g
r more closely 1vitl1 foreign markets. Greater dd 011
foreign markets would have 11ecessitated differet foreig11
policy. Under prese11t-day co11dit.io11s, 1vl1ere 1vorld i11teests are
i11terlaced a11d 1vhee 1vars are total, butter is almost as impOItant as gu11s i11 the 1vagi11g of 1var. This was confimed 11 i11
the case of the U.S.S.R. Food fom tlle U11ited States 1vas almost
as importa11t f Yictory as war materiel.




The same is true 1vith regard to agriculture. U11der prese11tday coditio11s, progressive agriculte also means idus
trializatio11. Pogressive agriculture does 110t isure that
Communist regime 1vill indepe11det of the outside. Inter11ally it makes t regime depe11de11t 011 the peasat, eve11
though the peasats are membel'S of ' cooperatives. Cose
que11tly steel s give11 priority i t pla11, right beside
kolkhozes 1vith lo1v productio. The plaing of political
1v had to allead of ecoomic progress.
Soviet, or Commuist, planig is of special kid. It has
t eyolved as tlle esult of t tech11ological developmet of
poductio r as the result of the "socialist." cosciousess of
its iitiators. I11stead it s evolved as t result of special
type of governmet and O\V11ers11.ip. Today, tecical d other
factors are i11flue11ci11g this type of lig, but tese other
factors have t ceased to v tlleir effect the evolutio11
of tis type of plan11ing. It is very important to 11ote tis, for
it. is tlle key to u11dersta11di11g tlle cllaracter of this type of planng, a11d of the capailities of Commu11ist eco11omy.
results acieved such 11 eco11omy a11d such pla11ni11g vaied. tti11 of all mea11s to acieve
specific s make it possile for t po1ver-1vielders to
progress 1vith extraordiary speed i11 certai11 s of the
eco11omy. Tlle progress that t U.S.S.R. s achieved i11 some
banclles s eretofore ever 11 acieved a11y1vhere in t
1vorld. Hmvever, 1vl1e11 11 cosides the back\vard conditios
existig in oter branches t progress acieved is 110t. justified
from t ove-all economic point of vie1v.
. Of couse, onc:-back\vard Rsia s attaied secod place
\Vold productn as far as its most importa11t branches of
t eco11omy nd. It s become t mitiest conti
nental pmver in t 1vorld. strong 1vorkig class, 1vide stratum of teclical intellige11tsia, and t materials f consuer
goods productio v created. dictatosip s t



been essentially weakened because of this, nor are there ~ny

reasos to believe that the standard of living cannot n
proved in proportion to the coutry's economic c~pabilities.
01vnership and political cosiderations for whlCh the plan
is only implemet have made it impossile to \Veake~ .the
dictatorship to any extent or to raise tlle standard of livg.
The exclusive moopoly of sigle group, in the ec_onon1y_ as
1vell as in politics, planing tat is directed toward creasg
its po1ver and its interests in the country and troughout the
vorld, continuously postpones tl1e improvement of the standard
of living and harmonious development of the econom~.
absence of freedom is undoubtedly the final d most Important reason for the postponemet. In Communist systems freedom has become the main ecoomic and geeral prolem.

The Commuist planed ecormy conceals within itself an
anarchy of special kind. In spite of the fact that it is planned,
the Commurlist economy is perhaps the most 1vasteful economy
ir1 the history of human society. Such claims may seem stange,
especially if one has in mind the relatively rapid development
of individual branches of the economy, d of t.he m as
1vhole. However, they have solid basis.
\Vastefuless of fantastic proportios was unavoidale even
if this had t group 1vhich cosideed ever-ytblg, i
cludincr the m, from its O\Vll narrO\V owership and
ideolo~ical poit of vie1v. Ho;v could sigle group of this
kid admiister complex modern m effectively d
thriftily-a economy which, in spite of the most complete
plarig, sho;ved yaried d often contradictory iteral and
external tedecies from day to day? The absence of type
of criticism, even of any type of important suggestio, inevitaly
leads to ;vast.e d stagnatio.




Because of . this political and ecoomic omnipotence, .vas tecannot

avoided v wit tl1e es t f
f. u l udertakgs
tents. Ver_y l:le attention is paid t.o wat t.he cost of
these undertakgs 1s _to t.he economy as ;vhole. v great
are the costs to nati~~ of an agiculture which is stagat
because of the su~erstitus ~ommunist fear of the peasant
and unreas~nab!e vestments heavy industry? Wat is the
cost of cap1tal vested i iefficiet. industries? \Vhat is t
cost of ~tagnat trasportation system? What is the cost of
l pa1d \V~rkers, 1v coilSequently "goldbrick" d 1voik
slowly? V:hat Is the cost of poor-quality productio? r is
coutg these costs, r they calculated.
ust as t ~dmi~ister the eccmomy, the Commuist Ieaders
handle everythg way contry to their O'iVIl teach"

t. at. Is, ~ te1r peisoal VIe>vpot. The economy 1s JUSt
an area \ViCh least toleiates aritrainess. v if they -.vished
~ do so, the leaders could t take ito coilSideratio the
t~rests of the m as whole. For political reasos t
:ulg gr~u?, de~;r~r:es ,;v~at is "vitally ecessar-y," "of key
Importance, or deCistve movement. Nothicr stads i
the 1vay of its ~ig out the matte in questi;n, for the
group_ IS ~ot afra1d of losig its 01v or property.
Per~odically _the leades idulge i criticism or self-criticism
d c1te >vhen theie is evidence that sometincr is
not progressig or >v~:. treme_dous ;vaste s become
~_rt. -~~rushc~ev ctici~ed Stal for is agr'icultural policy.
Ito ctiCized h1s __v eg1me for excessive capital ivestmets
and t >vaste of bllllos. citicized imself for t 1"s "
d. .

neglect of t stadad of liYig. But t essence
Iemas t same. same m prolong the same system
about the same metld , util s
and "1"rregu 1ar-Ities
become a~paret. Losses incued no loger resto!'ed,
so t reg1me d tl1e party do t take t responsiility for
t losses have " note d" t h eors d these s '\Vill
"corrected." So let's begin all over againl



There is no evidence that single Communist leader has

suffered because of unproductively expended or fantastically
1vasted means. But m have been deposed because of "ideological deviatios."
In Communist systems, thefts d isappopriatios are inevitale. It is not just poverty that motivates people to st.eal
the "national property"; but the fact that tl1e property does
not seem to belong t.o anyone. All valuales are somel1v
redered valueless, tls creating favoale atmosphere for
tl1eft and waste. In 1954, i Yugoslavia l, over 20,000 cases
of theft of "socialist property" were discovered. The Comunist leaders hadle atioal property as their o1rn, but at
t same time they 1vaste it as if it 1vere somebody else's. Suc
is t nature of overship d govenmet of tl1e system.
The Qeatest waste is t v visile. This is t.he 1vaste of
mapo1ver. The slo>v, uproductive 1vork of disiterested millions toO"ether with the prevetio of all IVOI'k t cosidered

"socialist," is the calculale, invisile, d gigantic 1vaste 1vhic

no Comunist regime has l to avoid. Even thoug they
are adherets of Smith's teory that labor creates value,
theory 1vich Marx adopted, these po1ver-1vielders the least
attetio to labor d mapo1ver, regardig tl1em as somethig
of very little value 1vhich readily replaced.
fear >vhich Commuists v of "tl1e ree1val of capitalism," or of ecoomic cosequeces that 1vould arise fom
arro1v class "ideological" motives, has cost tl1e ti aeme
dous >vealth d t biake its developet. Etire
idties destioyed the state is t in position
to maitain or develop them; only that which is the state's is
cosidered "socialist."
H01v far d 1v log can nation like this?
The momet is appoachig 1vhen idustiializatio, >vhic first
made Commuism ievitale, 1vill throug further developet make the Communist fom of governmet d o>versblp
su perfl uos.


The 1vaste is




because of the isolation of ComEvery Commist m is essetially

autaichic. The reasos for this atarchy lie i the character of
its govermet d o'\vership.
No Commuist t-t v Ygoslavia, which 1vas
oliged to cooperate to greater extet >vith on-Commuist
cout1ies of its coflict >vit Mosco>v-as successful i developig foeig tade d t taditioal g
of goods. Planed poductio larger scale i cooperation
wit otl1er cotries s t attaied.
Commist planig, amog oter things, takes very little
t of t eeds of >vorld makets or of the dti i
oter cot1ies. Partly as reslt of this, and partly as reslt.
of ideological d oter motives, Commuist govemets take
too little accout of tl coditios affectig podction.
uist ecoomies.

ofte costct idtial plats 1vitot avig sfficiet

ra1v materials availale for tem, d almost ever atte

tio to t 1vorbl level of i d dti. d
some prodcts at seveal times t prodctio cost i other
cotries. Simltaeoly, ot11er s of idtry >vblc
cold spass t 1vorld avei"age i prodctivity, or vvic
cold d at lo1ve prices t t 1vold g, are
neglected. ti evv ilstries are beig developed, even
togh >vorld makets sfeited 1vith tlle items tl1ey 1vill
d. 1vorkig people v to f all tbls i OI'der
to make t oligacs "idepedet."
This is aspect of tlle prolem commo to Comnist
regimes. tr is tl1e seseless of tl1e "leadig Socialist
tr"-t U.S.S.R.-to overtake d pass t most igly
developed tis. \\t does tis cost? d were does it
Peraps t U.S.S.R. ovei'take some s of t economy of t most ighly developed tis. ifiite vvaste
of mapo1ver, lo1v 1vages, d neglect of t other



branches of idustry, this may possile. It. is quite another

question 'vhether this is econornically justifiale.
Such plans are aggressive in themselves. What does the nonCornmunist 'vorld think of the fact that the U.S.S.R. is determined to hold first place in the production of steel and
crude oil at the cost of lo>v standard of living? What is left.
of "coexistece" and "peace-loving cooperation" if they consist of competition i lleavy industry and of very small trade
exchages? Wllat is left of cooperation if the Cornmunist economies develop autarcblcally, but penetrate the world rnostly
for ideological reasos?
Such plans d relations waste domestic and 'vorld manpower
d 'vealt and are unjustified from every vie,vpoit except
that of the Communist oligarclly. Techical progress and
chaging vital needs make brancll of tlle econorny irnportat momet d anotl1er tlle t; this is true for nations
d for the world. What >vill h if, fifty years from no>v,
steel d petoleum lose tlle significace tlley hold today? The
Communist leaders take accout of this d m other

Efforts at likig the Commuist ecoomies, tlle Soviet first

of all, to the rest of tl1e >vo!'ld, d at the peetratio of the
'vorld these ecoomies, aie far behid tlle actual technical
d other capabllities of tese is. At tlleir preset stage
these economies could cooperate >vith tlle rest of the 'vorld to
uch greater degree than they actually do. Tlle failure to
use their capabllities for cooperatio wit the outside world
d tlle rusll to peetrate the outer world for ideological and
t reasos are caused tlle l that tlle Couists
lld over tlle and their need to iti po,ver.
Leni 'vas largely right >vhen he stated that politics is
"concentrated ." Tbls has reversed in the Co
unist syste; n has concentrated politics; tllat
i.s, politics play alost. decisive role in tlle n.
Sep-ation fro the 'vorld kt, or the creation of "'vorld




socialist" arket, 'vmcll St.alin iaugurated and to wllich Soviet

leaders still pledge allegiance, represents perhaps tlle r
reason for 'vorld strai and 'vorld-wide waste.
l of ownersblp, antiquated etlds of productionno atter >vhose or wllat kid-are i conflict with the world
econoic needs. Freedo vs. ownership has become world

abolishmet. of private, or capitalist, owership in tlle

back>vard Communist states has d possile rapid, if t
smooth, i progress. Tlle states llave become uco
nnly great physical powers, new d resistant, with selfrighteous and fanatical class which llas tasted tlle fruits of
authority and o>versblp. This developet cannot solve
of tlle questios that 'vere of cocern to classic socialis of
the ineteenth cetury, nor even those that were of cocern
to Lein; stillless can it insure economic advancement. >vithout
intemal difficulties and convulsios.
Despite its po,verful concetration of forces in one pair of
hads and its apid if unbal1eed successes, tl1e Cornunist
economic system has sho>ving deep fissues d weakesses
sice the moment of its complete victory. Even tllougll it has
not yet reached the heigt of its power it is already nnino
into difficulties. Its future is less and less secue; the ~
munist economic syste 'vill have to battle furiously, inside
and outside, for its existece.





Tyranny over the Mind

There is only partial justification for seeking, i Comnist
philosophy, the sources of tyranny over the mind, tyranny
>vich the Communists exeicise >vith cliical refinement >v
t come to po>vei. Commuist mateiialism is possily r
exclusive than any otl1er cotemporaiy vie\v of t >vorld. It
puses its adherets ito the position 1vhich makes it. impossile
for them to hold other vie>vpoint. If tis vie>v >vere not
conected >vitll specific forms of govemment and mvnersblp,
the onstrous methods of oppression and destctio of the
human ind could not explaied the vie\V itself.
Every ideology, v ii, tr-ies to r-epreset itself as the
l true d complete . This is it i an's

It was t t idea itself t the etllod >vi t idea

'Nas applied tllat distingised Marx d Engels. deied
every scietific and progessive socialist vale i t tikig
of their cotemporaries, sally lig sch ideas into 'or
geois sciece," ts banig every serios discssio and study
i advace.

The idea tllat >vas especially arro1v d exclsive \Vitll Marx

and Egels, the idea fro 1vich Comism later could drv

for its ideological intolerace, was that of the isep

arabllity of t political views of cotemporary scietist,
thiker, or artist from is real or scietific vale as tiker
or artist. If 1vas fd i t opposite politically,
is every oter objective or oter 1vork was opposed or disregarded.
This positio of Marx d Egels l partially explaied as the reslt of the furios oppositio of the owners
d po1ver-holders agitated the "specter of Commuis"
from the very begining.
exclsiveess of Marx and Egels 1vas bom d iten
sified soethig else tllat 1vas at the ots of wllat. t had
leamed: coviced tat they d plmbed tlle depts of every
pilosoplly, they tgt tllat it 1vas impossile for t.o
attain aythig sigificant 1vitot takig their \V vie,v of
t world as t basis. t of t scietific atmospere of t
and out of t eeds of t socialist nvemet, Marx
d Egels came to thik that tig tat 1vas t importat
to the, or to the ovement, 1vas t importat, v objectively; that is, if it \Vas indepedet of t movemet, it >vas
t importat.

Cosequetly, they proceeded practically uaware of t

most iportat mids of their time, d disdaied the views
of ts i their \V ovemet. writigs of Marx
and Engels ti entio of s well-know philosopller as Shr or of aesteticist like i. There
is ti of t 1vell-ko'vn 1vriters d artists of teir
period. There is t. v referece to those \vho were
gt i the ideological and social stream to wllic Marx
d Egels beloged. They settled tl1eir ts wit their
oppositioists i the socialist ovemet i fierce d itoler
ant mr. This was peraps not importat for t sociology
of Prodho, t it \vas very iportat for the developmet



of socialism d social struggles, especially i Frace. The

same may said of Bakui. Slaughterig Proudho's ideas,
Marx, i his Misery of Philosophy} scornfully 1vet d
his real role. d Engels did the same 1vith the Ger~a
socialist, Lassalle, as 1vell as 1vith other oppositionists inSide
their o>m movemet.
the other had, t carefully noted t sigificat intellectual phenomena of teir time. They accepted _?anvin.
particularly grasped t cents of the past-anc1et and
Renaissance-from >vi Europea culture had developed. In
sociology they borro>ved from Eglis pol.itical ecorm~ (Sith
d Ricardo) ; in pilosopy, fro class1c German p?Il?sophy
(t, Hegel) ; d i social theory, fro Fr soCialism, or
frorn the currets tat eerged after the Frech revolution.
These 1vere the great scietific, itellectual, d social currents
tat created tlle deocratic d progessive clirnate of Europe
d t rest of t 1vorld.
There is logic and cosistecy i the developrnet of Cornrnuisrn. Marx 1vas rnore of scietist, rnore objective t
Li, 1v 1vas above all great revolutioary, fored uder
t coditions of Czarist absolutisrn, serni-coloial Russian
capitalis, d 1vorld coflicts rnoopolists for sphees of





rnaterialisrn >vas piothat idealisrn was

reactioary. Tis >vas not l one-sided d icorrect, but it
itesified Marx's exclusiveess. It also ernaated from isuffi
cient ko>vledge of historical pilosophy. I 1909, 1v Lein
>vrote his Materialism and Empiro-Criticism} 1vas t closely
acquaited >vit great pilosoper, classical or modern.
Because of t d to overcome oppositionists wose views
idered the developrnet of is party, Lein rejected everythicr
o tat was rt i accord wit Mxist views. im, anv.
thig 1vas eoneous and valueless if it. was t i accord >vith
origial Marxism. It must acko1vledged that, i this respect,

gressive as

l troughout istory, d




bls works are outstadig exarnples of logical and persuasive

Believing tat materialism had always been t ideology of
revolutioary and subversive social movemets, he dre1v the
one-sided coclusio tat materialism was geerally progressive-even,i t.he fields of researc and i the development of
rna's tlugllt-Yvile idealisrn Yvas reactionary. Li cofused
form and method >vit tt and wit scientific discovery.
The fact tat 1vas idealistic i is thinkig was sufficiet
for Lenin to disregard his real value d the value of is discoveries. Lenin extended is political itolerance to practically
the etire history of u tougt.
1920, Bertrand Russell, t Britis pilosoper w welcomed the October Revolution, had accurately rted tl1e essence of Leinist, or Commuist, dogrnatism: *
There is, ho1vever, another aspect of Bolsllevism from whicll
I differ more fundamentally. Bolsllevism is not merely political doctine; it is also religion, 1vitll elaborate dogmas
and inspied sciptures. When Lenin wislles to prove some
poposition, does so, if possile, quoting texts fr'om
and Engels. full-fledged Communist is not merely
man 1vho believes tllat land and capital sllould held in
common, and tlleir produce distriuted as nearly equally as
possile. is man 1vho entertains number of elaborate
and dogmatic beliefs-such as pllilosopllic materialism, for
example-1vllich may true, but rt, to scientific temper, l of being kno1vn >vitll any cetainty. This llait,
of militant certainty about. objectively doubtful mat.ters, is
one from 1vhicll, since tlle Renaissance, t.lle 1vor'ld llas been
gradually emeging, into tllat temper of const.ructive and frit
ful skepticism 1vhicll constitutes tlle scientific outlook. I believe the scientific outlook to immeasuraiy important to
tlle lman race. If more just economic system 1vere only
attainale closing men's minds against free inquiry, and
plunging them back into the intellectual prison of the middle
From Bolsl!evism: Practice and


New York, Harcourt, Brace & Howe.



ages, I should cosider the price too high. lt t deied

tat, over slrt period of time, dogmatic belief is help
i fightig.

But tllis vvas Lei's period.

Stalin vvent further; "deYoloped" Lenin, but vvitout
hayinc Lenin's knovvledce or deptl1. Careful researc vvould
lead to t conclusion tat tis man, vvom KrusleY l1imself
today ackno\vledges to been tl1e ''est Maxist" of bls time,
l1ad t d Marx's Das Kapital, t most impotat
wok on Marxism. Practical sol tat l1e 1vas, and spported
bls extreme dogmatism, it vvas not ecessary for blm t.o
acqaited wit Marx's economic stdies to bild bls band
of "socialism." Stalin vvas t closely acquainted vvitll
pbllosoper. d to>vard Hegel as >vold tmvard
"dead dog," attiuting to m t "reaction of Prussia absolut.ism to t Fr reYolution."
t Stali >vas ucommoly >vell acquaited >vit Li.
al>vays sougt suppo!'t in blm, to geater extent t Lenin
did i Marx. Stalin d coilSiderale ko>vledge of political
blstory only, especially Russia, d d uncommoly
good memory.
Stalin really did t need more t tis for s role.
tig tat did not coincide >vit is eeds and s Yie1vs,
simply proclaimed as 'ostile" and forbade it.
tree men-Marx, Lein, and Stali-are contrasts as
men d are contasts i tlleir metlds of expx-essio. In to being reYolutioay, Marx some>vat simple
scietist. His style \vas pictuesque, baroque, uniestraied, d
witty in Olympian sort of vvay. Lenin seemed to t
icarnation of t revolution itself. His style vvas flamboyat,
incisive, and logical. Stalin tlugllt s po1ver lay in tl1e satisfaction of all uman desires, and belieYed s tinking to
t supreme expression of uman tougt. His style was colorless d monotonous, but its oversimplified logic and dogmatism 1vere convincing t.o t coformists and to common people.




It contained simplicities m t v.tgs of t

faters, not so muc t esult of is religious youtll as tlle
reslt of t fact tat is >vas tlle >vay of expression under
primitive conditions, and of dogmatized Communists.
Stalin's follo>vei"S do not eYen bls crude iternal coesiveness cnor is dogmatic po1vers and convictions. Aveiaa-e
n. i everytblng, t possess an tcomonly stonc sense ~f
realy. Unale to geneate >v systems or ne>v ideas because of
teir commitment to vital bueacratic realities, t l
only to stifle or make impossile tl1e creation of anytig evv.
Tus is t evolution of t dog1natic and exclsiYe aspect of
Comnnist ideology. so-called "furtlle deYelopment of
Maxism" s led to tlle stegtl1ening of t ne>v class d
tlre soYereigty not l of sigle ideology, t the soYeeigty
of togl1t of sigle m or g of oligacl1s. This s
eslted in the itellectal decline d impoYeishmet of t
ideology itself. Alog >vit tbls, itl of oter ideas, d
v of mn tgt as scl1, ls ieased. ideoloQ'V's
progess, lts elemets of tr'Uth, l declied i propoi'tio to
the icrease of pysical po>ver of its disciples.
Becoming incieasigly one-sided and exclsiYe, nt

nis r d ceates llf-trutlls d ties

to jstify t. At first sigt, it seems as if its vie1vs, individually, \Vel'e tr'Ue. t it is icurably ifected with lies. Its halftruts exaggerated d debased to poit of perversion;
t i Iigid d t r ispied it is with lies, t 1
it strengtens the moopolis of its leaders oYer society, d
ths OYel' Cornist t itself.

The proposition Marxis is iversal etld, >i Commists oliged to stad, mst
in practice lead to tyrany i all areas of itellectal activity.



v\'hat. can the unfortunate pysicists do, if atoms do not

v according to t Hegelian-Marxist struggle or according

to the unif01mity of opposites d teir development into

iger forms? Wat of t astroomers, if t cosmos is apatetic to Communist dialectics? Wat of t iologists, if plants
do not. v according to t Lysenko-Stalinist teory on ar
mony and cooperation of classes i "socialist" society? Because
it is t possile for these scietists to lie aturally, t must
suffer t cosequeces of teir 'eresies." v teir discoveies accepted t must make discoveries "cofirmig" t
formulas of Marxism-Leiism. Scietists are i costat
dilemma as t.o weter teir ideas d discoveties ;vill ijure
official dogma. are terefore forced ito opportuism
and compromises ;vit regad to sciece.
same is true of oter itellectuals. In many ;vays contempay Communism is emiiscent of t exclusiveess of
religios sects of t Middle Ages. obsevations on Calviism ;vritte t Seria poet, v Ducic, i bls Tuge
i vedrine (Sorrows and Calms), seem to relate to t itellec
tual atmospere in Commuist coutry:
... And tllis Calvi, jist d dogmatician, ;vhat lle did
not n t funeal , hardeed i tlle soul of the
people of Geneva. itoduced religious triulatio d
pious enuciatio i these lmes ;vhich are v today filled
'''ith tis cold and dakess; plated hatred of all merrimet
d rapte, d damed poetry d music decree. As
politicia and tyrant at t head of the epulic, he foged,
Iike sackles, his ion la1\'S over life i the state, d v
regulated family feeligs. Of all the figures >vhich the Reforatio fostered, Calvin is i the most calloused of the
revolutioary figures, d llis Bile is the most depressig
textbook for livig. . . . Calvi ;vas t. w Cl1ristia
apostle ;vho 1vished to restore tlle faitll to its pristie purity,
siplicity, d s;veetess, as it was 1vhe it sprg forth from
the parabola of N azareth. Tllis Calvi 1vas tlle r ascetic,
who, severig llimself from tlle regime, also severed himself




from love, tlle basic priciple .of bls dogma. created

people, earnest d full of vitue, but also full of llatred of
d full of disbelief i llappiess. Tllere is harsher
religio or m fearful prophet. Of tlle people of Geeva,
Calvi made paralytics forever il of .
are 9 people i the world .to wlm religio llas brougllt as
much triulatio d dreaiess. Calvi was emiet religious writer, as importat to the purity of the Frech la
guage as Luther was importat to the purity of the Gn
laguage, the traslator of the Bile. But he was also the
creator of theocracy which 1vas less like dictatorsllip
t was t Papal moarclly. Wblle uig that he 1vas
feeig ma's spir'itual persoality, degraded man's civil
persoality to the lackest slavery. cofused the people
d failed to brigllte life i way. chaged m
thigs, but completed othig d cotriuted othig. Almost 300 years after Calvi, i Geeva, Stedllal observed
ho1v youg m d youg wome carried coversatios
l about "the pastor" d his last sn, d llow they
kew s sermos heart.
Cotemporary Commuism also contains some elements of
the dogmatic exclusiveess of t Puitas uder Crom1vell d
of t political intolerance of t Jacoins. But t are esse
tial differences. Pitans rigidly believed in t Bile and
t Commuists believe in science. Cornunist po>ver is r
cornplete tan that of the Jacoins. Furter, t differences
emanate m the capailities; religion or dictatorsblp has
been l to aspie to such all-atound d all-iclusive poi\'er
as tat of t Comrnuist systems.
convictio of t Cornmunist leades that t ;vere on
t t leading to t creatio of absolute appiess and an
ideal society gre;v in propoition to t gro;vt of their pmver.
It has been said in jest tat t Communist leaders eated
Cornrnuist society-for temselves. In fact, t do identify
ternselves wit society and its aspirations. Absolute despotism
equates itself ;vit t belief in absolute lman happiness,
toug it is an all-inclusive and universal tyranny.



Progress itself hGs transfonned the Communist power-wielders

into boostes of t 'um cosciousness." Teir concern for
human consciousess s increased as teir po>ver s icreased,
alog 'it t "bilding of socialism."
Yugoslavia s not bypassed tis evolution. Some of t Yugoslav leaders, too, stressed t 'ig level of consciousness of
our people" during t revolutioary period; tat. is, wile
"r people," or some of tl1em, actively suppted tese leaders.
No>v, mvever, the "socialist" cosciousness of t same people,
accordig to tese leaders, is very lo1v and, cosequetly, mst
'ait for democracy i order to raised. Yugoslav leaders
l speak of tlle fact that they 1vill besto>v democracy "1vhe
tere is grmvtll of socialist consciousess"; kind of cocious
ness 1vi t t1st >vill automatically attained troug
industrializatio. Until ten, tese te01eticians of democracy
1vblc is doled out in small doses, m 1vho practice sornetblng
etirely contrary to dernocacy, rnaintai tat t v tl1e
rigt-in tl1e name of future appiess d freedom-to preYent
t faintest rnanifestations of ideas or of consciousess
wi is like teirs.
s only i t begiig 'lvere Soviet leaders forced t.o
maever >vit s sallo1v prornises of democracy "in tl1e
future." r1v sirnply rnaintai tat tis freedom s alIeady been created i tlle U.S.S.R. Of s, t sense
tat freedom is at iVOik tder tllem. costatly "elevatig" consciosess; tl1ey urge m to "produce"; t crarn
rnids 1vitll ar-id Marxist folas d t aiid political Yie'lvs
of tlle leade. \Vorse still, tlley force rne cotatly to acko>vl
edge teir deyotio to socialisrn d teir beliefs i t infalliility d reality of t pmrnises of tlleir leades.
citize i tlle Cornrnuist system liYes oppressed the
constat pags of is si, and t fear tat he has tras
gressed. is al>vays fearful tat will v to dernostate
tllat he is not eerny of socialisrn, just as in the Middle Ages
rnan cotantly d to smv is deYotion to t Clrch.




The scool systern d all social d itellectual activity

'lvork to1vad this type of behavio. Forn irth t.o death rnan
is suouded t solicitude of the ruling party, solicitude
for his cociousness d conscience. onalists, ideologists,
paid witers, special scools, approved rulig ideas, d trerne
dous rnatefial rneans are all enlisted and egaged in this "upliftig of socialisrn.'' I t fial analysis, all nvspaper'S
official. So are t radio and oter sirnilar rnedia.
results are t great. In case are they proportionate
to t rneas and meases ernployed, except for t w class
>vi iVould, in case, coviced. Ho>vever, considerale
results are attained in rnaking it irnpossile to rnaifest co
scio_usess. ~r tan tlle official one, d in cornbatting opposg ns.

v uder Cornrnuism, m tik,

for tlley cannot help

but tblk. \Vat. is rnoe, t tblk differetly frorn t prescried rnaer. Teir thikig s t1vo faces-one for the.
selves, tlleir OiV; t oter for tlle pulic, the official.
EYen i Cornrnuist systerns, rne are t so stupefied unifonn pl'Opaganda tat it is irnpossile for tllern to arrive at t
trut or at 1v ideas. In tlle intellectual field, owever, t
l of t oligacs esults less i productio t i stacr

natn, ut, d decay.
s oligaiclls d soul-saves, tese vigilat protectors 1vl
see to it tat urnan tougt does t. dift into "cirnial
tlugt" or "anti-socialist lies"; tese uscpulous procurers of t and actually t only availale consumer
goods-tese olders of obsolete, uncangeale, and irnrnutale
ideas-ave retarded and frozen t itellectual irnpulses of
thei people. v tougt up t most antilman vvords
-"pluck frorn t lrnan consciousess" -and act. accoding to
tese >vords, just as if t 1vere dealing >Vit oots and weeds
istead of rna's tlugts. stiflig t consciousness of
oters, and ernasculatig uman it.ellect so tat it cannot
take courage and soar, t t.ernselves become gray, n of



ideas, and completely lacking in the intellectual enthusiasm

that disinterested meditation inspires. "\Vithout an
a1ience: the actors play and go into raptures over themselves.
Tl1ey tblnk as autoatically as they eat; their brains cook
toghts in response to the most eleentary needs. This _is hmv
it is 1vith tese ig priests 1v are sinltaneously pol1ceen
and mvners of all the media ,vblc t n intellect can s
to comnnicate its tlugts-press, movies, radio, television,
books, and t Iike-as well as of all substance tat keeps
n i()' alive-food and roof over is d.
Are tere not reasos ten for compaig contemporary Comism "\vith religios sects?

Neverteless, every Commist country achieves tecnical
piogress, even thoug of special kind and in special periods.
Industrialization, r-apid as it is, ceates laige tecnical intelligentsia, "\vi, v if it is not especially igh in quality,
attact.s talents d stimulates the ivetive itellect. reasos tat l to acieve idstrialization rapidly in specific
!'s of t also act. as icetive for ivetive
ess. The U.S.S.R. has not lagged to any extent i "\V-ar techology eiter in World War or since. U.S.S.R. is t
far beblnd t United States in the development of atomic
eergy. Tecnology is advaced i spite of t fact. tat b
reacratic system makes it difficlt. to adopt iovatios; invetions sometimes lie for years i t "\vareouses of state
estaiisments. disinterest of producing organizations ofte
deadens iventiveness still more.
Being very practical n, t Communist leaders immediately
estaiis cooperation wit tecicias d scientists, not paying m attention t.o teir 'orgeois" views. It is clear to t



cannot accomplised "\vithout

t tecnical intelligentsia, and tat tbls intelligentsia cannot
itself dangeros. As in every oter field, Commnists
v simplified and geeally alf-coect theoy >vit relation
to tbls intelligentsia: some other class al\vays pays t specialists, wblle t serve it. Conseqently, >v soldn't t "proIetaiat," or the ne\v class, also do tbls? Acting on this propositio, t iediately develop system of >vages.
In spite of teir tecnical progess, it is fact. that no great
mode!l scientific discovery s been acbleved nder the Soviet
govement. In tis espect, t U .S.S.R. is probaly beblnd
Czarist Rssia, were there were epochal scientific discoveries
in spite of tecnical back>vardness.
Even thogl1 tecnical reasons make scientific discovery difficlt, t main reasons for tbls difficlty are social. ne.v
class is very iterested in seeing tat its ideological monopolism
is not endangered. Every great scientific discovery is the result
of canged vie>v of t >vorld i t mind of the discoverer.
ne>v vie\v does not fit into t fon of the already adopted
official pilosopy. I t Commnist system every scientist
rnst stop sort before tbls fact. or risk beig proclairned
"heretic" if his tl1eories do not coincide >vit t cofirmed,
prescried, and desiale dogrna.
Work discoveries is made difficult to an v greater degee the irnposition of the official vie>v tat Marxism, or
dialectical materialisrn, is the most effective metod for all
fields of scietific, intellectual, and oter activity. r s
not sigle noted scientist in t U.S.S.R. >v s t
d political tl. r v m reasos for this,
t is due to oppositio to the official lie. r have
fe>ver s of tis kid i Ygoslavia, t co
versely, thee are istances of the favorig of "devoted" t
poor scietists.
Comrnnist systes stirnulate tecical progress but also
blder every great research activity "\vhere undisturbed func-

Ieaders that





of the mind is necessary. This may soud contradict.ory,

but it is so.
Wile Comnnist systems are only relatively opposed to
scierific development, t are absolutely opposed to intellectual progress and discovery. Based the exclusiveness of
single philosophy, the systems are expressly anti-philosophic.
In such systems, there has not been born, nor there
born, sigle thiker, especially social thinker-as long as
one does not so consider the po-.;ver->vielders themselves, who
are generally also the "main philosopers" and masters for
the lman consciousness. In Commuism ne1v
tought, or ne1v philosophy and social teory, must travel
very indirect roads, generally the way of literatue or some
branch of art. The ne-.;v thought must first hide d conceal
itself in order to reacl1 the Iight. d begin to live.
Of all the sciences and all tought, social sciences and t
consideration of social proiems fare the worst; they scarcely
manage to exist. W it is question of society or of social
prolem, everytblg is interpreted according to Marx and
Lenin, or everything is monopolized t leaders.
History, especially of its o1-the Communist--period, does
not exist. lmposition of silence and falsification are not only
permitted but are general phenoena.
The intellectual ineritance of t people is also being confiscated. The oopolists act as if all blstory has d just
to let t k teir appearance i t -.;vorld. They easure
t past and everythig in it ti o1vn likeess and for,
d apply sigle su, dividing all and n
ito "progessive" d "reactioary" classifications. I this
fasio t raise up onuents. elevate t pygies
d destroy t great, especially t great of teir own tie.
Their "sigle scietific" etld is ost suitale too in tat
it alone protects d justifies teir exclusive di over
science and society.





Siilar tblgs

are happening i art. Here favors are exin inceasing easure, to already estalised fs and
vie1vs of average quaJity. Tbls is udel'Standale: tere is no
art 1vitout ideas, or -.;vitout some effect t consciousness.
Morpoly over ideas, t fOI"matio of t cosciousness, are
t prerequisites of tl1e rulel'S. Couists are taditioalists
in art, mostly because of t d to aitain teir l
over t mids of t people but also because of teir ignOiance
d one-sidedness. S of t toleate kid of deocratic
freedo in odern art; but this is only acknowledgent tat
t do t understand modern art, d teefore believe tat
t sould it it. Li felt this 1vay about t futuris
of Mayakovsky.
I spite of tbls, back -.;vard peoples i Counist systes experience cul tural renaissance alog >vith t teclical .
Clture becomes IOI'e accessile to the, even tough it comes
Iagely i t for of propagada. The ne-.;v class is ierested
in tl1e sprcad of cltre s indstrializatio bings the
d for higl1er-qality >VOI'k d t d for enlarging itel
lectal oppotnities. The et...vOik of schools and professioal
branches of art has spead very rapidly, soeties even beyond
actal neelis and capailities. Progess in art is udeniale.
After evolution, f the rlig class llas estalised
coplete onopoly, significant -.;vorks of art are generally
ceated. s 1vas tre i the U.S.S.R. prio to tlle 1930's; it
is true today in Yugoslavia. It is as if t evolutio d
a;vakeed donant talents, v tlloug despotis, 1vhic is
also born i tlle revolution, iceasigly stifles art.
t"\vo basic ethods of stiflig t arts are oppositio
to1vard t itellectual-idealistic aspects of it and oppositio t.o innovations in for.
In Stalin's tie things d tlle point were all forms



of artistic cxpression were foridden except those that Stalin

hirnself liked. Stalin did not have particularly good tast.e; he
1vas had of hearing, and liked octosyllaic and Alexandrine
verse. Deutscher has stated that Stalin's style becarne the national style. The adoption of official vie1vs on art forrns becarne
as oligatory as the adoption of official ideas.
It s not avays beer1 like tbls in Cornrnuist systerns, r
is it inevitale that. it sould so. I 1925, in t U.S.S.R.,
resolutio vvas adopted stating that "t par-ty as whole
i 1vay tie devotio to cause i t field of literary forrn."
this t party did t ru its so-called "ideological
aid," that is, its ideological d political cor1trol over artists.
This 1vas t rnaxirnurn dernocracy attained Cornrnuis
in the field of art. Yugoslav leaders are in the s position
today. After 1953, -vvhen the abandonent of deocratic forrns
in favor of bureauct-acy g, the ost priitive and reactionary eleents vveie encoaged; d hnt for "petit bor
geois" intellectals 1vas initiated, which openly airned at controlling t fs. Oveigt, the whole itellectal world
trned against the regie. Consequently, the regie had to
retract, anocing ttogh one of Kardelj's speeces tat
the party cannot prescie f itself, but that it -vvold not
allo>v "anti-socialist ideological cotaband," that is, vievvs
1vhich the regie coilSideed as being "anti-socialist." The Bolshevik parties l1ad take this stad in 1925. This constitted
the "deocratic" liits of the Ygoslav regie tovvard art.
Ho1vever, t iteal attitdes of ost. of the Ygoslav leaders
w far fro canged this. privately coilSider t
etire itellectal and att 1vorld as "isecue," "petit bourgeois," or, pttig it ildly, "ideologically confused." Cited
in Ygoslavia's greatest newspaper (Politika} 25, 1954)
are Tito's "llllforgettale" 1vords: " good textbook is r
valale than any ovel." Periodic ystetical onslaghts agaist
"decadence," "destrctive ideas," and "hostile vie-vvs" in art
have contined.




Ygoslav lt,

unlike Soviet cltre, has at least scceeded

dissatisfied and tubulet
opiions regarding t forrns. Tis has never been possile
for Soviet lt. s1vord hags over Ygoslav cultre, t
the s1vord s drive ito t heart of Soviet culture.
Relative freedo of form) -.;vhich the Couists l
periodically suppress, t cornpletely free the creative perso. Ait, v thoug indirectly, ust. also express w ideas
thiog for itself. Even i Conist systerns vvhere art is
allovved t greatest fieedorn, t cotradiction between prornised for and cornplsory control of ideas rernains
unresolved. This cott-adiction crops t from time to time,
sometimes in attacks on "contraband" ideas, sometimes in the
1vork of artists s they are foiced to use particlar forms.
It crops t. essetially because of conflict bet\\'een the n
curbed moopolistic aspiratios of the regime and the irresistile creative aspiratios of t artists. It is, actally, tl1e sarne
coflict 1vhich exists between creativeness in sciece d Commnist dogmatism; it. s meiely been carried over ito the
field of ai't.
ne-.;v thoght or idea mst first exained in essece,
appioved or disapproved, and fitted ito harmless frarne.
As 1\'it oter coflicts, the Comrnist. leaders canot. resolve
tllis . t they can, as we have s, peiiodically extr'icate
themselves, usally at the expense of real fteedom of artistic
creation. I Commist systems, it has t been possile, because of tllis contradictio, to develop geine subjects for ait
or to develop art theory.
;vok of art, its very nature, is usally criticism of
give sitation d of given relations. In Commnist systems,
therefore, atistic creation based on actal sbjects is t possile. Only praise of given situation or criticism of the
system's opponets is permitted. Under these terrns art

cocealing, rater tan destoyig,

v vale watever.

In Yugoslavia officials and some artists


about the fact



that there are no vvorks of art vvhich can shovv "our socialist
reality." In t U.S.S.R., on t oter lland, tons of vvorks of
art based on actual subjects are eated; but since tl1ey do not
reflect t trut, tl1ey do not have any value and are rapidly
rejected the pulic, later even coming under official criticism.
metod is varied but t.he final result is the same.

The theory of so-called "Socialist Realism" reigns in all
Communist. st.ates.
In Yugoslavia tbls t.heory has been ushed and is now held
l the most reactioy dogntists. I tbls area, as i
others, the regime has been strog enoug to forestall the
developmet of disagreeale theories but has too weak
to impose its >v vie>vs. It said that. t same goes for
t.he oter East Eropean countries.
theory of "Socialist Realism" is t even complete
system. Gorky vvas t fit to use tbls term, l inspied
bls realist. metod. His vievvs vvere tat i ude cotemporay
"socialist" coditios, art mst inspired \\'itl1 ne1v socialist
ideas and must depict eality as faitbllly as possile. Everytl1ig else tllat tbls tlleory advocates-typicalness, empllasis on
ideology, party solidarity, etc.-as eitl1e take over fom
otller t.heories or tlo1vn i because of tlle political needs of
the regime.
Not llavig been evolved ito complete teory, "Socialist
Realism" actually meas ideological moopolism Commuists. It calls f efforts to clothe t.he nao\v, back,vard ideas
of t leades i art forms d for tlleir 1vorks to depicted
romatically and paegyrically. This llas led to Plrisaic
justificaton of t regime's cotrol over ideas d to bueau
cratic censorsip of the eeds of art. itself.
The forms of tbls cotrol v in differet Communist n-



ties, fom party-bureacratic cesorship

to ideological iflu.

Yugoslavia, for istace, has ever d censorsip. Cotrol
is execised idirectly tbls method: i pulisig enterprises, artist's associatios, periodicals, e1vspapers, and tlle
like, party 'membel'S sbmit eveytblg t consider "suspicios" to t piOper autorities. Censorsblp, or really selfcesorsblp, s sprouted fom that very atmospere. Even
tg party membes may psh sometblg or other thi'Ough,
t self-cesorsl1ip 1vi t and oter itellectals must. exercise v tllemselves forces them to dissemle eveything and
make uvorthy insiations. But tbls is consideed progess,
it is "socialist <:lemocracy," istead of bureacratic despotism.
Neite in tl1e U.S.S.R. n in other Communist couties
does t existece of cesosblp absolve creating artists fom
self-censosl1ip. Intellectuals are forced ito self-censorsblp
ti status and t reality of social elatios. Self-censorship
is actually the mai form of paity ideological tl i the
Commuist system. In tl1e Middle Ages men first d to delve
ito the tlloght of the rh on their 1Nk; in the same
m, i Commist systems, it is ss fist to imagie
1vhat kid of performance is expected and, often, to ascertai
t.he taste of tlle leaders.
Cesosblp, self-cesosip, repesets itself as beig
"ideological aid." In tlle same \vay, everytblng in Communism
is represeted as being devoted to the implementatio of absolte appiness. Consequetly, the expressions "the people,"
"the >vokig people," and simila ones-in spite of teir
vagueness-are used freqently i conectio >vitll tlle arts.
Pe!'Sectios, poblitios, tlle impositio of forms d
ideas, humiliations, and islts; t doctr'iaie autllority of
semi-literate bureaucats over geiuses; all tis is d i the
of t people and for the people. Commuist "Socialist.
Realism" is not different even in teminology fiom Hitler's
National Socialism. Yugoslav autor of Hungaria igin,



Ervin Sinko, has made an iterestig compatiso of the "art"

theoreticiatls in the t.wo dictatorships:
Timofeyev, the Soviet theorist, '\vrote in his Theory of Literatue: "Litei"ature is an ideology -..vhich helps ma~ .to ?et
acquainted 1vith and to realize tllat he is partiCipatg
. "
in it."
. .
"Fundamentals of Natioal-Sociallst Cultural 11 states.
"An artist t l an artist, he is also always an educator."
Baldur von Scblrach, leader of the Hitler Youth, stated:
"Every true work of art applies to the entire people."
Zhdanov member of the Politburo of the Central Commlttee of the 'communist Party of the U.S.S.R., stated: "Everything that is creative is ~,ccessile."
In "Fudamentals . . . Wolfgag Schulz stated. Natnal
Socialist policy, even that part of it which is called cultural
policy, is detenined the Fiihrer and those to whom he
has delegated authority."
If we ,vish to know 1vhat Natioal-Socialist cultural pollcy
is we must look to t.hese men, to \vhat they \vere doig and
t~ the directives they issued i order to educate tesponsile
associates for themselves.
At the Eighteeth Congress of the Communist Party of the
U.S.S.R., Yaoslavsky said: "Comrade Stali inspires artists;
he gives them guiding ideas.... Tlle esolutios of the Cential Committee of the Soviet Cornrnunist Party d the report
of . . Zhdanov give Soviet -..vriters completely prepared
;voik program."
Despotisrns, v \vhen they are opposing ones, justify themselves i t sarne ;vay; they cannot even aYoid the use of the
sarne >Voids in doing so.

enemy to thought i the of sciece, m to
freedorn i the n of dernociacy, tlle Cornrnunist oligarclly
t but accomplish cornplete couptio of the mind. Capi-




talist magates d feudalloids used tq artists and scientists

as they could and -..vished, and thus both aided d coupted
them. I Cornrnuist systems, couption is itegral part
of state policy.
The Communist system, as rule, stifles d represses
itellectual activity 1Vith '\Vhich it does !lOt agiee; that is, everytblg that is ptofoud d origial. the oter hand, it
re1vards d ecouiages, d actually coupts, all that it tblks
1vill beefit "socialism," that is, t system itself.
v overlooking such cocealed d drastic means of corruptios as "Stali prizes," the use of persoal ties ;vith t
po1vexs-that-be, d the capricious demads and purcases of
the top beaucrats-all of 1vi represet extremes of t
system-the fact remais tat the system itself corrupts itel
lectuals d, especially, art. Diect re-..vards from t regime
may abolised, just as cesorsblp may , but t spiiit of
couption d oppessio remains.
This spblt is estalised d stimulated party-bureaucratic moopolism over materials and mid. The itellectual
s wr to tur'Il except to>vard tis po1ver, whether for
ideas or for profit. ; tough tbls po1ver may t directly
t govermet's, it exteds troug all estalisments d
o1gaizations. In the final analysis it. makes the decisions.
It is very irnpoitant to t attist tat estraint d centralism
exercised as little as possile, v thoug t essence of
his social positio is t t1 gd. Because of this, it
is muc easie1 for im to 1vk and liYe i Yugoslavia t i
t U.S.S.R.
oppressed huma mid is forced to submit to corruptio.
lf seeks to kno>v >v for quarter of t tl1ee v
scarcely sigificant >vorks, especially in literatue,
in t U.S.S.R., he 1vould find tat corruption has played as
gieat or greater t t oppressio in causig this scarcity.
Communist. system persecutes, suspects, d prods into
self-aiticism its really creative people. It offers its sycopants



attractive "1vorking conditions" and lavish lnorarins, re"\Vards, villas, vacation centers, discounts, automoiles, abas
sadorial andates, agit-prop protections, and "magnanimous
interventions." Thus, as rule, it favors the untalented,
depender, and rn-inventive. It is uderstandale that the
greatest inds have lost their diection, faith, and power. Suicide, despair, alcoholis, and debauchery, the loss of inteal
po1vers and integrity because the artist is foced to lie to himself
and others-these are the most frequer hn in the
Counist syste g those 1vho actually 1vish to, and could

It is generally thoght that Comnist dictatorship practices
brutal class discriiation. This is not completely accrate.
Historically, class discriminatio declines as the revoltion
slackens off, t ideological discriinatio increases. The ill
sio that tlle proletaiat is in po1ver is inaccrate; so, too,
is t.he proposition that Commists st someoe s
is borgeois. Their measres do aim ost arshly at tlle
embers of the ruling classes, especially tlle borgeoisie. t
those borgeois "\vl capitlate, or reorient themselves, are l
to assre for theselves lucrative posts and favor. vVhat is
r, the secret police ofte find l agents i their raks,
'Nhile t.he "\v po\ver-wielders fid them l servats. l
those who do t ideologically approve the Commist eas
res d vie,vs are pished >Vithot. consideration as to their
class or tlleir attitde tmvard nationalization of capitalist
Persecution of <:leocratic and socialist thogt 1vhicll is at
variance witll that of the rulig oligarchy is fiercer <.-1 r
coplete t persection of tlle ost reactionary followers





of the forer regime. This is <:lerstadale: t last naed

are less dangeros since they look to past which has little
Iikelihood of etning an<:l reconquerig.
vVenever Comnists come to pover, their assalt. on private O"\\nersblp creates the illsion that their easres
pimarily difected against the ownership classes for the benefit
of the "\Vorking class. Sbseqent events prove that their eas
ures 1v t. taken for this s t in order t.o estalish
their \\ o"\vnership. Tis ust anifest itself predoiantly
as ideological rather than class disciiatio. If t.his were t
true, if they really stroYe for actal ownership t.he "\vorking
masses, the class discrimiatio actally wol<:l have prevailed.
The fact that ideological disiination prevails leads, at
first sight, to tl1e conclsio tllat "\V religios sect has risen,
sect >vhich igi<:lly sticks to its aterialistic and atheistic prescriptions and focily imposes them oters. Comuists do
behave like religios sect v thogh they are t. I'eally .
This totalitarian i<:leology is t only the I'eslt. of certai
forms of gvt d of mvnership. For its part, the i<:leology aide<:l i their creatio an<:l spports the i every
way. Ideological discriiatio is conditio for the ti
n of the Comunist system.
It >vold "\vrong to thik tllat otller forms of disimia
tio-ace, caste, natioal-are vose tha ideological discrii
ation. They may seem I' tl to all td appearances,
but they are t as efie<:l or complete. They aim at the
activities of society, >vhile ideological <:liso'imination aims at
society as "\Vhole, an<:l at v idiYi<:lal. Other types of discimination may csh huma being physically, "\Vhile ideological <:lisimiatio stikes at tlle thing i the human
beig "\vhich is pehaps most pecliarly his "\V. Tyrany over
the mid is the most complete and most btal type of tyrany;
eYery other tr begis and ends "\Vitll it.
On the hand t.he i<:leological <:liscr'iinatio in Commu-




systems aims at prohiiting other ideas; the other, at

imposing exclusively its O\\'ll ideas. These are t1vo most strikig forms of ubelievale, total tyranny.
Thought is the most creative force. It ucovers 1vhat is w.
Men can either live r produce if they do t think or co
template. v though they may d it, Communists are
forced to accept this fact i practice. Thus they make it. impossile for thought oter tha their w to prevail.
Man may ru much. But he must thik and he s
deep d to express his thoughts. It is profoudly sickeing to
compel1ed to remain silent wen thete is need for exp!'ession. It is tyranny at its 1vorst to compel m t to tik as
they do, to compel m to express thoughts that t their

The Aim and The Means



limitatio of freedom of tougt is rt l attack

specific political d social rights, but an attack on the
human being as such. 's imperishale aspirations for freedom of thougt al-.;vays emerge in concrete from. If they v
not yet become t i Commuist systems, this does t

that t do not exist. Today they lie i dark d apathetic resistace, and in the ushapen hopes of the people. It
is as if totality of oppression -.;vere easig differences i atioal
strata, unitig all people i t demand for freedom of tought
d for freedom i geeral.
History will pardon Communists for much, estalishing tllat
they 1vere forced into many butal acts because of circumstaces
and t. need to defend their existece. But the stifling of every
diverget thought, the exclusive monopoly over thinking for
the s of defendig thei!' pet'Sonal interests, will ail t
Communists to oss of shame i history.

All revolutions

uscrupulous meas


all revolutionaries use oppressive and


Hmvever, earliel" revolutioaries 1ve1e not as conscious of

their metods as t Communists v been. They 1vere unaie
to adapt d use teir metods to t degree that the Commuists v done.
"You do't need to pick d s the means to use agaist
eemies of t movement .... You must punis rt only t
traitors, but also t idifferent; you must punish all 1vl !'
inactive i tl1e repulic, all -.;v do othig for it."
s -.;vords of Sait-Just migt v uttered some
Commuist leader of today. But Sait-Just flug them out i
the heat of t !'evolutio, to presetve its destiy. Commuists speak tl1ese 1vords d act accordig to them constantlyfrom t begiing of their revolutio util they r complete power, and v i teir declie.
Althoug Comuist. methods spass any of tose of other
revolutioaries i rage, duratio, d severity, d-ing revolutio the Commuists v t as rule used all the meas
tat their antagoists used. Ho-.;vever, v toug t metods
of the Comunists migt v been less loody, t became



increasingly more inhumane the farther a;vay they got from

the revolutio.
Like every social and political movement, Commuism must
use methods primarily suited to the iterests and relations of
the po;vers-that-be. Other cosiderations, icludig moral ones,
are subordiated.
Here, ;ve are iterested only in the methods used contemporary Commnism, ;vhich may, accordig t.o coditios,
mild or severe, hman or inhuma, but ;vhich are differet
from those used other political d social movemets and
distinguis Communism from oter movemets, revolutioary
or not.
This distinction does not lie in t fact tat Commuist
etods are peraps ost brutal s dd in istory.
It is tue tat brutality is their most. obvious but not teir
ost itrisic aspect. moveent ;vhic had as its i t
trasformation of the economy d of society eans of
tyranny d to resort to butal methocls. t all otl1er revol
tioary vts had and ;vated to use t s ethods.
Yet, the fact that their tyrany \\7as of slt d-atio >vas the
reason tlt they could not use all tl1ese etlds. In additio,
teir oppressio could t as total as tat of t Cou
nists, because it t ud circstances \\'llicl1 did not
perit it to as total.
It would v less jstifiale to seek t reasos for Co
unist metods in tl1e fact tat Comunists lack etblcal or
oral priciples. Except for the fact tat tlley Comnists,
tlley are men like all otl1ers 1v in relationsblps among te
selves aide tlle l principles cstoary in un
societies. Lack of etblcs among tlle is not tlle reaso f teir
etllods but t esult of tlle. In piciples and in \Vords,
Comuists sbscrie to etblcal piecepts and u metods.
belive that t are "til" foced to resort to
soetig nt to their ethical vie1vs. Connists too
tblnk that it would much if they did t. v to act



cotrary to ilieir etical views. I this tlley are not much dif-

feret from part~cipats in other political movemets, except

that they v d1vorced theselves from humanity i more

and monstrous form.
Nuerous features >vhich distinguish conteporary Comuis from other movemets in ilie use of methods
found. Tl1ese features pedominatly quantitative or are
actuated varied historical conditions and the aims of


H~vvever, there is an integral feate of contemporary Comusm >vhich distinguishes its methods from those of other

political ovements. At first sight tbls feature miot seem

similar to features of some hs in t past. It st;ms from
tlle idealistic aims vvhich the Commists will s any means
to further. s means have become inceasingly reckless as
the aims became nealizale. s of their meiliods, even
for tlle attainment of idealistic aims, canot justified
moal principle. Teir s brands those ;vho use them as n
scrupulous and eciless po;ver->vielders. Tlle former classes,
parties, d forms of O\v'lesblp no longe exist or have
incapacitated, yet methods have t been changed essentially.
Indeed, these ethods are just no\v achieving tlleir fullmeasure
of inhumanity.
As the ne\v exploiting class climbs to pmver, it tries to
justify its on-idealistic metlds invokig its idealistic aims.
Tlle inlmanity of Stali's methods d its Q"I"eatest eio-ht
w he built "socialist society." s the new class must
sho\v that its interests are exclusively and ideally the aim of
society and s it must maintain intellectual and every
othe type of monopoly, t ne\v class mst proclaim tat the
etods it ses not ipotant. end is ipotant,
shot its representatives, eveythig else is tiifling. \Nat is
impoitant is that vve no\v "have" socialism. So do tlle Communists jstify tyanny, baseness, d i.
Of course, the end must assed special istruments"'



the party. It becomes something dominant and suprem~ u~to

itself like the Church in the Middle Ages. quote D1etr1ch

von ieheim, nominal Bishop of V erden, '\\rriting i~ 1411:
"Whe its existence is threatened, the church 1s freed of
mOIal edicts. Unity as an aim lesses all means: perfidy, treachery, tyranny, simony, prisons, d death. For eYeiy. holy order
exists because of the aims of society, and personal1ty must
sacrificed to the geeral good."
These '\Vords, too, sound as if they had been uttered some
contemporary Communist.
There is much of the feudal and faatic in the dogmatism
of contemporary Commuism. But neither are. we livig in
the Middle Aaes nor is contemporary Commusm church.
The empasis ideological and other moopolism l s~ems
to make cotemporary Commuism similar to the medleYal
ur t essece of is tlifferent. Clrch was l
partly ~'\ver and gover'Ilor; i the most extreme cases, it
aspired to perpetuate given social system trough _absolute
contol of t mind. churces persecuted eretlcs, even
for doQ"ffiatic reasons '\Vich 1vere not al1vays called for
direct ;ractical needs. As t Church repesented i_t, it IV~s
attemptig to saye siful, heetical souls de~ti_oyg the1r
bodies. All earthly meas 1vere consideied per1ss1le for the
purpose of attainig the heavenly kin?dom. .
But t Commnists first of all deslie phys1cal or state authority. Itellectual tl d pesecutio exercised ~or dogmatic reasos are l auxiliary aids f stegtheng t
po'\ver of t state. Ulike t Curch, Commuism is t t
support of t system t its embodimet.
The >v class did t aiise sddely, t 1vas developed from
revoltioy to o>versip and reactioary grop. Its
metods too, v tg t seemed the same, gd i
essece fom revolutioary s to tyraical s, from po
tective to despotic ones.
Comruist retods 1vill i essece aroral d u-






scrupulous, v, '\Vhen t are especially severe in form.

Because it is copletely totalitarian, Corunist rule cannot.
allow for u i of eans. And Cornnists are incapale of reruncig t essential ting-the lack of clice of
reans-because of the fact that t want to retai absolute
po'\ver d their >v egotistical interests.
Even if they did not so '\vish, Cornrnunists ust both
o'\vers d despots and rnust utilize reans for tat purpose. In spite of happy teories good inclinatios they
ight haYe, the syster itself drives t to t utilization of
any reans. I case of urgecy, they find thernselves the
oral and intellectual chapions d the actual users of any
reans availahle.

Cormunists speak of "Comruist morale," "the new Socialist m," and sirnilar concepts as if t were speaking of
some higer etical categories. These hazy concepts v l
one practical eaning-the ceeting of Comunist raks and
opposition to foreign ifluece. As act.ual ethical categories,
l1vever-, they do not exist.
Since no special Communist etblcs nor Socialist Man can
emerge, the cast.e spirit of the Communists, and special moral
and oter concepts, which they urse arong temselves, are
are all t more strongly developed. These are not absolute
principles, but changing moral stadards. They are embedded
i the Communist hierarchical system in which almost ay
thing is peritted at. the top-the upper circles-'\vile the s
things are condeed if they are practiced at lower echelonsthe lower circles.
This caste spirit and t.hese morals, changeahle and incomplete, v undergone long d varied development, and
have even often been the stimulus for the further development



of the ne\v class. The end result of this developrnent has been
the creation of special sets of rnoral standards for variou~ castes,
always subordinated to the practical needs of t ol1garchy.
The forrnation of these caste rnorals roughly coesponds t.o the
rise of the ne\V class and is identical with its abandonrnent of
hurnae, really ethical standards.
These propositios require detail~d exposition.
Like all other aspects of Cornrnusrn, caste rnor-als developed
frorn revolutioary morals. At first, in spite of the fact that
they "rere part of isolated movement, tl1ese morals \vere
proclaimed as beig more humane than those ~f sect or
caste. But Commuist movement al\vays begs as of
hio-hest idealism and most selfless sacrifice, attractig into its
ra~ks the most gifted, t bravest, and even the most nole
intellects of t ti.
Tis statement, just as most of t others made here, relates
to countries i \vhic Communism s developed for t most
part because of national conditios, and :vhere it has attai~ed
full pmver (Russia, Yugoslavia, d ~) . Ho\vever, ":1th
some ndificatios this statement also applles to Commusm
in other coutries.
EveyY\vhere, Communism begins as an aspiratio towad
beautiful ideal society. As suc, it attracts and ispires rne
of i moral standards and of oter ig distinction.
. But
since Comnism is also an iteratioal rnovernent, 1t turns,
like sunflo\ver to the sun, to t movement whic is strongest
-until no\v piimarily in t U.S.S.R. Consequetly, even t
Communists of oter countries \veie they are not i power
rapidly lose t featues t d i t begiing d take
on those of t po\ver-\vielding Commuisrn. As result, t
Comrnunist leadeis in the West, and in t places, v accustorned ternselves to play as easily wit t tuth and ethical
priciples as t Comrnuists in the U.S.S.R. v Comrnuist
movement at fil'St also l1as high rnoral featuies \Vhich isolated
idividuals rnay retain even longer d which provoke cises





leaders iitiate amoral proceedings d aritray tu

HistOiy does rt. v rnany movemets that, like Commuism, g teir clirnb "\Vith such high moral prinicples
and \Vith such devoted, etusiastic, d clever fighters, attaced t.o each oter not only ideas and suffering, but also
selfless love, comradesip, solidarity, d tat \Varrn and direct
sincerity that produced only battles i \Vhich men !'
doomed eitel' to \Vin or die. Cooperative efforts, tougts, and
desires; v the nst irese effort to attain the same method
of thinking d feelig, t fidig of personal appiness and
the buildig of idividuality trough complete devotio to
t party d workers' collective; enthusiastic sacrificing f
othes; d potectio for t youg, d teder respect
for the old-these are the ideals of true Comrnunists \v t
movernet is i its inceptio d still truly Comrnuist.
Commuist woma too is rnore tha comade or
It ever forgotte tat she, et.erig t movemet,
decided to sacrifice all-te happiness of t love d of
moterood. Betwee d -.;v i the movemet,
l, odest d w relatioship is fostered: relationship
i which dl s r sexless passio. Loyalty,
ntual aid, frakess about v t ost itimate tougts
these gee!'ally the ideals of true, ideal Comrnuists.
This is t l while t rnoveet is youg, f it has
tasted the fruits of power.
road to t attaimet of these ideals is v long d
difficult. Cornuists d Comrnuist rnovemets fored
f varied social foces d centes. Iternal hornogeeity is
t attaied overnight, but though the fiece battles of vaied
groups and fractios. If coditios favorale, the group
fractio whic wis the battle is the which has
rnost w of t advace towad Comuisrn d \Vi.
w taking v w, is also the rnost moal. Thougt\
rnoal crises, trough political itigues d isiuatios, u-



tual calnniation, unreasoning hatred and barbaric ecounters,

through debauchery and intellectal decadence, the movernent
slo1vly clirnbs, crushing groups d individuals, discarding the
supefluous, forging its core and it.s dogrna, its morals d
atnsphere, and maner of 1vork.

When it becomes truly revolutioary, the Comrnust movemet and its follo1vers achieve, for mornet, the high rnoral
standards descried here. This is mornent. in Cornrnunism
whe it is difficult to separate words fiom deeds, or more accurately, when the leading, most importat, truest, and ideal
Cornmuists sicerely believe i their ideals d aspire to put
the into practice in their rnethods and i their personal .
This is the moment on the eve of t battle for power, moment which occurs only i movement.s whic arrive at tllis
unique point.
True, these are the orals of sect, t they are orals on
high plane. The movement is isolated, it oft.e does t see
the truth, but this does not mean that the vt does not
terefore i at, or tat it does not love, trth.
Int.ernal moral and intellectual fusion are the result of
Jong battle for ideological and operational unity. Without. this
fusio there t v tlught of tr"lle revoltioary
Comunist moveet. "Unity of id and act.ion" is i
possile 'vithout psycic-oral it. And vice versa. But tbls
very psychic and oral unity-for 'vhich no statutes or la,vs
have ,\l:titten, t wich occts spontaeously, to become
custom d conscious hait-ore than ayting else akes
Counists that. indestructile faily, incoprehensile and
ipenetrale to othel-s, inflexile in t solidarity and ide11tity
of its reactios, thoghts, d feeligs. More tha11 anything
else, tlle existece of this psychic-moral u11ity-wich is rt
attained all at and 1vhich is t. eve11 fi11ally fored except as soething to aspire to--is t ost reliale sig that
the Commist vt s estalished itself d has become
irresistile to its follo,vers d to n others, po,verful -




it is fused ito one piece, sol, d body. This

is the proof tat ,v, omogeeous moveet s emero-ed
movemet facing futre completely differer t future whic t oveent foresa'v at the beginig.
o,vever, all tis slo,vly fades, disintegrates, d drowns
during t course of the clib to coplete power and to o'vnersblp t Couists. l t bare fors and observances
wi v no real substace reain.
internal oolitic coesion wi was created in the
struggle 1vith t oppositionist.s and 'vit t alf-Comunist
groups is transfored into unity of obedient couselors and
robot-beaucrats inside the v11t. Durig the climb to
power, itolerance, servility, icoplete thiking, cotrol of
persoallife-wich once 'vas comadely aid but is now for
of oligarcic maageent-hierachical rigidity and itrover
sio, the noinal d neglected l of w, opportuism,
self-centeredess, and outrage repress t once-existet igh
principles. 'vonderful um characteristics of an isolated
nvemet are slowly transfored ito the intolerant and
Parisaical moals of pivileged caste. Tus, politickig and
servility replace the former straightfovardness of the revolution. Where the former eroes 1v w ready to saifi.ce
everything, including life, for otei"S and for an idea, for the
good of the people, have not been killed or pushed aside, they
become self-ce11tered co,vards witout ideas or comrades, willig
to renouce everythig-oor, n, truth, d morals-i
order to keep teir place in t rulig class and t hierachical
circle. The 'vorld s see11 few eroes as ready to sacrifice and
suffer as the Communists were t eve of d dig the
revolutio. It has probaiy never seen suc chaacterless
wretches and stupid defendes of arid forulas as tlley become
after attaining po,ver. Woderful human features were the
coditio for ceating and attctig power for t movemet;
exclusive caste spirit d coplete lack of ethical principles
and virtues have become coditions for the power d main'



tenance of the movement. Honor, sicerity, sacrific, d love

of the truth were once things tllat could understood for
their own sakes; now, delierate lies, sycophancy, slander, deception, and provocatio gradually become the inevitale
attedats of the dark, intolerant, and all-inclusive might of
the new class, and even affect relations between the members
of the class.

Whoever has not grasped this dialectic of the development

Commuism has not been l to understand the so-called
Mosco\v trials. N or can he uderstand why tlle Commuists'
periodic moral crises, caused the abadonret of the sacred
and consecrated principles of tlle day before yesterday, cannot
have the great significance that such crises have for 01dinary
people or other movements.
Khrushchev acknmvledged that truncheons played the main
role i tlle "confessions" and the self-condemnation of Stalin's
purges. claimed t.hat drugs were rt used, altllough there
is evidece that they were. But tlle most potet drugs for
forcing "cofessios" \vere in tlle make-up of t criminal himself.
Commo criminals, that is, those who are not Communists,
do not go into traces and make hysterical confessions and pray
for deat as reward for tlleir "sins." This \vas done only
"men of special stamp"-the Communists. They were first
morally sllocked the violence d amorality of the beatings
ar1d accusations leveled at them secretly the top party leadership, in \vhose coplete amorality tlley could t believe, even
if they had occasionally foud fault \vitll t.hem before. Suddenly, they found themselves uprooted; their own class in tlle
perso of Commuist leadersblp had left them; inocent as
they were, tlle class itself had v ailed them to the cross as




criminals and traitors. Long ago tlley had been educated to
believe and had proclaimed that they were connected in every
fiber of their being to t.he party and its ideals. Nmv, uprooted,
tlley found t.hemselves completely bereft. either did not
kno>v or d forgotten or renounced all of tose outside t.he
Commuist sect and its \v ideas. N ow it \Vas too late to
get acquaited with aytlling but Communism. were
entirely alone.
Man cannot figt or live outside of society. Tllis is his
immutale characteistic, one \vhich Aristotle noted and explaied, calling it "political being."
What else is left to man from such sect wl finds himself
morally crushed and uprooted, exposed to refined and
torture, except t.o aid the class and his "comrades" \Vith his
"confessions"? Such confessions, l1e is convinced, are necessary
to the class to resist the "anti-Socialist" opposition and "imperialists." These confessions are the one "great" and "revolutionary" contiution left that t victim, lost and wrecked,
can make.
Every true Communist s educated and s educated
llimself and otllers in the belief tllat fractions and fractionaJ
battles are among tlle greatest crimes against t.he party and
its aims. It is tue that Commuist t \vblcll was divided
actions could neitller >vin i t.he revolution nor estalish
its dominance. Uity at any price and without consideration
for anytblng else becomes mystical oligatio behind \vblch
t aspirations of t oligax"Cs for complete po1ver entrencll
t.hemselves. v if he has suspected tbls, or even kno>m it,
t.he demoralized Communist oppositionist llas still not freed
blmself of tlle mystic idea of unity. Besides, he may tink tat
leaders come and go, d tllat tese too-te evil, t stupid,
t egotistical, t inconsequential and the po1ver-loving-will
disappear, \Vile t goal \Vill remain. goal is everythig;
llas it t. avays been tus i the party?
Trotsky himself, who was t most inportat of all the -



sltlonists, did not go muc furter ir1 is reasoning. I

moment of self-criticism, souted tat t party is infallile,
for it is t icarnation of istorical necessity, of classless
society. In attemptig to explain, in is exile, t monstrous
amorality of t Mosco-\V trials, leaned ist.orical analogies: Rome, before t conquest of Cristianity; and t
Renaissance, at t beginnig of capitalism; in both of which
also appeared t inevitale phenomena of perfidious urders,
calunies, lies, and monstrous mass crimes. So it must durina- the transition to socialism, he concluded; tese were t
of t old class society wich were still evident i
the ne>v. However, he did not succeed in explaining anyting
troug tis; only succeeded ir1 appeasing is consciece,
in tat did not "betray" the "dictatorship of t proletariat,"
or the Soviets, as the one fon of t transition into t ne>v
and classless society. If d gone into the prolem more
deeply, >vould have s tat, i Communism as in the
Renaissance d oter periods i istoy, >ven ownersip
class is breakig trail for itself, m01al cosiderations play
smaller d saller role as the difficulties of the class increase
and as its domination needs to becorne m complete.
I t same 1vay, those >vho did not uderstad 1vat sort of
social transforrnation 1vas actually at. stake after the Cornrnunists
were vict.orious d to re-evaluate t diverse oral crises
arnog the Cornunists. The so-called process of de-Stalinization, or t unpricipled, sorne\\'at Staliist.-style, at.tacks on
Stalin is former courtiers are also re-evaluated as " rnoral
Moral ises, great or small, are ievitale i every dictatorship, for its followe accustorned to tinkig tat unifonity
of political thougt is the greatest patiotic virtue d t ost
l civil oligatio, rnust dist.ured over the inevitale
eversals d chages.

But the



feel d kno>v that

does not weaken, but rather gets


in such





is its inevitale path; and that rnoral d

play l secodary role, if they are t even
idr. Practice very rapidly teaches tern tbls. Consequently, their rnoal crises, rnatter w profound, end very
quickly. Of course, the Cornrnuists t selective i the
means t use if t desire to acieve the real airn to >vich
t aspire, and >vi t conceal uder the cover of t
ideal airn.

reversals; that


siilar reasos

Moral dmvngradig in t eyes of oter men does not. yet
mean that Commuisrn is weak. Generally, util w, it has
meat t reverse. vaious purges d "Mosco\v trials"
stregtened t Commuist system d Stalin. I all events,
certai stata-te itellectuals 1vitl1 Gide as t most famous
example-reouced Commuism because of this d doubted
tat Commuism as it is today could realize t ideas d ideals
they believed i. Ho>veve, Commuisrn, s as it is, s t
becorne >veaker: t >v class s becorne stroger, rnore secure,
freeig itself frorn rnOIal cosideratios, wadig i t lood
of every adheret of t Cornrnuist idea. Althoug it has been
rnorally downgraded i t eyes of oters, Cornrnuisrn has
actually strengteed i t eyes of its O\V!l class d i its
dorniatio over society.
Oter coditio 1vould necessary for coternporary Cornrnism to lo>veed i tl1e estirnatio of t ks of its
mvn class. It is ecessary for t revolution t only to devour
its >v childre, but-oe rnigt say-devour itself. It is necessary f01 its greatest minds to perceive tat it is t exploiting
class and tat its reig is ujustified. Concretely speakig, it is
necessary for t class to perceive tat i t r future tere
cannot any talk of t >\'itering a>vay of t stat.e, or talk
of Cornrnunist society-i >vhic everyoe will >vork acc01ding


to bls capailities and 1vill receive according to his needs. The
class must recognize that the possiilit.y of such society can
as well refted as it can demonstrated. Ths the means
that this class sed and is using t.o achieve its aim and dominance 1vold become absrd, inhmane, and contrary to
its great prpose-even to the class itself. This 1vold mean
that tere were cleavao-es and vacillations, w cold not
longer cecked, among t ruling class. In oter 1vords, the
battle for its 01vn existence \vould di'ive t rling class it.self,
or individal fractions of it, to renonce the crrent means
it is sing, or renonce t idea tat its goals are \Vitin sigt
d real.
There is no prospect of suc development he1e as prely
teoretic proposition-i of the Commnist conties, least
of all in t post-Stalin U.S.S.R. 1ling class is still compact one tere; the condemnation of Stalin's metods has
evolved, even in teory, into potectig t U.S.S.R. from the
despotism of sl dictatorship. At t T\vent.ieth t
Congess, Kruschev advocated "necessary terroism" against
the "m," in cotast to Stalin's despotism against "good
Commnists." sv did not condemn Stalin's methods
as sch, t only ti s in t ks of the 1ling class. It
seems that the elatios 1vitin t class, \Vhic has become
stog ng to avoid srrender to the absolte dominance
of its leader and police apparats, v canged since Stalin.
class itself d its metods v not consideraly canged
in terms of interal cleavages \vit regard to moral coesion.
first sigs of cleavage, o1vever, pesent; these are
evidecing temselves i t ideological crisis. t i spite of
this it mst realized that t process of moral disintegation
has scarcely begn; t coditions ardly exist for it to happen.
Aogating certain igts to itself, t rling oligacy canot
avoid allo1vig t cmbs of s rigts to fall to t people.
It is impossile for t oligarcy to lecte t lack of
rigts nder Stali even amog t Commists, and not at




same time expect echo amog t masses-1vho are immore deprived of teir rigts. Frenc bor
geoisie finally rebelled against its einperor, Napoleo11, when
his wars and breacratic despotism became intolerale. But
the Fr people eventally got some profit from this. Stal~n's
metods, in '1vhic t dogmatic ypotllesis of ftre soCiety
also played an importat role, will not retr. t tbls does
not m tat the crrent. oligarcl1s 1vill rn tl1e s of
all bls meas, even tlg they t s tem, or tat t
U.S.S.R. will s or overnigt become legal, democratic
Ho1vever, something s gd. rulig class 1vill no
Ionger l to jstify v to itself tat the end jstifies
t means. class 1vill stilllectre t final goal-a Commist society-for if it did oterwise it wold v to rn
absolte dominace. This 1vill force it to resort to any means.
Every time tat it does resort to tem, it will als? :. to
conden tlleir s. stronger po1ver-fear of pbllc
i t 1vorld, fear tat it will bing harm to itself and its
absolte domination-1vill s1vay the class and old back its
and. Feeling itself sfficietly strong to destroy the clt of
its creator, or t creator of t system-Stalin-it simltane
osly gave the deat lo1v to its mvn ideal basis. Completely
dominant, the lig class s begn to abando and lose the
ideology, t dogma which brogt it to power. class s
g to split up ito &-actions. At t top everythig is peac.efl d smooth, but below the top, i the depths, d v
its ranks, 1v toughts, w ideas, are lig and futre
storms bre~ving.
s it had to renouce Stali's methods, the rulig class
will t l to preserve it.s dogma. methods were
actally l the expressio of that dogma, and, indeed, of
tlle practice on 1vblch the dogma 1vas base.d.
It was not good will, still less mt, whiCh prompted
Stali's to perceive t armfulness of Stalin's methmeasraly



ods. It was urget ecessity that prompted the ruling class to

become more "understanding." But, avoiding tlle use of
very brutal metlds, the oligarchs canrt help but plant the
seed of doubt about their goals. The end once served as moral
cover for the use of any means. Reruncing the use of such
means will arouse doubts as to t end itself. As soon as meas
wi ''uld insure end are so"'Il to evil, t end will
so'iv itself as being unrealizale. For t essetial ting in
every policy is first of all t means, assuming tat all ends
appear good. v "t road to ell is paved wit good in-




Absolute brut.ality, or t use of means, is in accord with

the gradiosity, v wit t ureality, of Communist aims.
revolutionary meas, cotemporary Communism s succeeded in demolising one form of society and despotically
settig up anoter. At first it 'vas guided the most beautiful,
primoi'dial uman ideas of equality and broterhood; only
later did it l beind tese ideas the estalishmet. of its
domiatio 'vl1atever means.
As Dostoyevski has bls r Sblgaliev say, quoted another
character, i The Possessed:


"... He's written good thing in tat manuscript," Ver

went .... "Every member of t society spies on
t oters, d it's is duty to iform against them. Every one
belogs to all d all to every one. All are slaves and equal
i their slavery. I exteme cases he advocates slader and
murder, but the great ting about it is equality.... Slaves are
boud to equal. There has ever either freedom ot
equality without despotism...."

Trougout blstory tere v no ideal ends wblch
were attained wit non-ideal, iumane means, just as tere
has been free society wblc was built slaves. Notblg so
well reveals the reality d greatess of ends as t metlds
used to attain tem.
If t d must used to condoe t means, ten there is
sometblng in t end itself, in its eality, wi is not 'vorty.
t wi really lesses the d, 'ivich justifies the efforts
and sacrifices for it, is the means: teir constant perfection,
humaneness, icreasing freedom.
Contemporary Communism has not even reaced t begining of such situation. Instead, it s stopped dead, hesitating
over its means, but always assured about its ends.
No egime i story wblch was democrat.ic-or relatively
democratic 'ivhile it lasted-was predominantly estalished
the aspiratio for ideal ends, but rather on t small everyday
means in sight. Along with this, such regime acbleved,
more or less sporltaneously, great ends. t other d,
every despotism tried to justify itself its ideal aims. Not
sigle one acbleved great ends.

Thus, justifyig the eans because of t d, the d

itself becomes icreasigly more distant d urealistic, wblle
the frightful reality of the meas becomes icreasigly obvious
d itolerale.



some trut in tem. of tem has usually grasped

aspect of Comnunism aspect of its essece.
h are t>vo basic teses the essence of cotemporary

Tl1e fit of them clains tat cotemporary Conmuism is

type of w religion. "\Ve have already s tlt it is neiter
1eligion nor churc, i spite of the fact that it. cotais
elenents of t.
The secod thesis regards Conmuism as revolutioary socialism, tat is, sonetblg >vhic >vas r of noder idustry,
or capitalism, d of the proletariat d its eeds. We have
s that this thesis also is l partially accurate: coten
porary Connuism g in well-developed coutries as
socialist ideology d reactio against the sffering of t
>voking masses i the idustrial evoltion. t after avig
n into po>ver i nderdeveloped aieas, it n sonethig
etirely different-an exploiting system opposed to most of t.he
inteiests of the pioletariat itself.
The tesis has also been advaced that contempOiary Comnnism is only conternpoy forrn of despotisrn, produced
as s as they seize po>ver. The nt of the moder
m, >vhic i every case requies centralized admiistra
tio, has rnade it possile for tis despotisn to absolute.
This tl1esis also has sone tuth in it: modem Cornrnisn is
modem despotisn >vich cannot l but aspire to>vard totalitarianisrn. Hmvever, all types of rnodem despotisrn are t.
variats of Cornrnisrn, r are they totalitaria to t degree
that Cornrnnisrn is.
Tls >vhatever thesis >ve ni, >ve fid tat each tesis
explais one aspect of Cornrnnisrn, t of the trth, t

The Essence

None of the theories on the essence of contemporary
munism treats the matter exhaustively. Neither does this theory
claim to do so. Contemporary Comnunism is the product of
series of historical, econonic, political, ideological, national,
and international causes. categorical theory about its essence
cannot entiely accurate.
The essence of contenporary Communism could not even
perceived until, in the course of it.s development, it. revealed
itself to its very entails. Tbls noment came, and could only
come, because Communism entered particular phase of its
development-tat of its maturity. It. then became possile to
reveal the nature of jrs po>ver, o>vnersblp, and ideology. In
t time tat Communisn was developing and was predominantly an ideology, it >va.s alnost impossile to see trough it
Just as other truths are the >vork of many autors, countries,
and movements, so it is >Vith contemporary Communism. Co
muism .s revealed gradually, more or less parallel to
its development; it. t looked u as fial, because it
has rt completed its developmet.
Most of t teories regardig Commuism, however, v

t t entie tth.

N either my theory t essece of Cornmuisrn

accepted as complete. Tbls is, w, t >veakess of every




especially "tvhe such complex and living matters

as social phenomena are being defined.
N evertheless, it is possile to speak in the most abstract
teoretical "tvay about the essence of contemporary Communism, about what is most essential i it, d wat permeates
all its anifestatios d ispires all of its activity. It is possile
to peetrate deeper into tbls essece, to elucidate its various
aspects; but t essence itself s already exposed.
Communism, d like"tvise its essece, is cotiuously cang
ing from one form to aother. vVithout this cange it cannot
even exist. Consequently, tese canges require continuous
examiation and deeper study of t already obvious trut.
essence of contemporary Communism is t product
of particular conditions, blstorical and others. But. as soon as
Communism becomes strong, t essence itself becomes factor
and creates t conditions for its mvn continued existence.
Consequently, it is evident tat it. is necessary to examine the
essence sepaately according to the form and t conditios in
whic it appears and is operating at given moment.


that contemporary Communism is type of

is not only t most "tvidespread, but
also t most accurat.e. However, an actual understanding of
the t.erm "modern totalitaianis" "tvere Comuis is being
discussed is not so "tvidespread.
Conteporary Communism is tat. type of totalitariaism
wi consists of tree basic factOis for cotrolling the people.
first. is po"tvex; t second, o>vnership; the third, ideology.
are monopolized t one and only political party, oraccordig t.o previous explanation and termirlogy-by
ne'\v class; and, at present, t oligarcy of tat party or of
that class. No totalitarian system in history, not even contemmode totalitaianism



porary oe-'\vith t exception of Communism-has succeeded

in incorporating simultaneously all tese factors for controlling
t people to this degree.
Wen one examies and '\Veigs tese tree factors, power
is t one "tvllic s played and still continues to play t most
iportant role in t development of Counism. One of t
oter factors eventually peyail over pmver, t. it is irnpossile to determie tbls on t basis of present conditions.
I belieye tat po,ver '\vill reain t basic caracteristic of

Commnism fist originated as ideology, '\vblc contained

in its seed Comnism's totalitaxian and onopolistic nature.
It certainly said tat ideas longer play t rnain,
predominant l in Comrnism's control of the people. Cornmunism as an ideology s ainly rn its corse. It does not
haYe many ne1v tblngs to reveal to t '\vorld. This could not
said for t other v factoxs, po1ver and o1vnership.
It can said: po1ver, either pysical, intellectal, or economic, plays role in eYery strggle, even in every social hman
action. r is sorne trut in this. It can also said: in eyery
policy, po>ver, or the strggle to acqire and keep it, is t basic
rl and aim. is some trut in this also. t contemporar-y Commnism is rt l s po1ver; it is something more. It is po1ver of particlar type, po1ver 1vhich
nites 1vitllin itself the contiol of ideas, atl'ity, and owner
ship, po1ver 1vi s become an end in itself.
date, SoYiet Comnis, t type 1vhic s existed t
longest and 1vi is t rnost developed, s passed trogh
thee pases. Tbls is also more or less t of oter types of
Comnism "tvblc v succeeded in coming to power (>vit
t exception of t Cblnese type, "tvllic is still predominantly
in t second s) .
The t pases are: revolutioary, dogatic, d o
dogatic Comunisrn. Rougbly speaking, t principal catch>vords, ais, and persoalities corresponding to tese various



phases are: Revolution, or the usurpatio of power-Leni.

"Socialism," or the bildig of the system-Stali. "Legality,"
or stailization of t system- "collective Ieadersblp."
It is importat to rte tat tese phases are not. distictly
separate fro one another, tat elements of all are foud in
. Dogmatis abounded, d tl1e "building of socialis"
had already begu, in tl1e Leniist period; Stalin did not. renounce revolution, or reject the dogmas, 1vich itefered witl1
tl1e building of the syste. Preset-day, non-dogmatic Comunism is only non-dogmatic conditionally: it just. will not
ru even t minutest practical advantages for dogrnatic
reasons. Precisely s of s advantages, it 1vill at the s
time in positio to persecute uscrupulously tlle miutest
doubt concerig t trutl1 or prity of ilie dogma. s,
Communis, proceedig fro practical eeds d capailities,
s today even fled tl1e sails of revolution, or of its o;vn
miJitary expansion. But it s not renounced one or ilie other.
Trus divisio into tl1ree pl1ases is only accurate if it is taken
ro~ghly and abstractly. Clearly separate pases do not actually
eXIst, nor do tl1ey sd t.o specific periods in the various

boundaries betlveen t pases, >vblc ovelap, d t

forms in >vhicl1 tlle pases appear are varied in diffeent Communist coutries. For example, Yugoslavia s passed throua-IJ
all tllree pases i Ielatively sOI"t time d 1vitl1 tl1e sa~e
persoalities at t sumit. Tbls is obvios in botl1 precepts
and metod of operation.
Po>ver plays major role i all thiee of tese pl1ases. In t
rev~l~tio. it >vas necessay to seize po1ver; in t building of
soclism, It >vas necessar-y to create ne1v system meas of
tl1at p~1ver; today pmver must preserve tl1e system.
Du?g t development, fro t first to t tblrd s,
ilie qntessece of Comunism-po1ver-evolved from being
tl1e means and became an end i itself. Actually power was always rnore or less the d, but Communist leaders, tblnkig tl1at



throg power as eans they would attain the ideal goal,

did not believe it to an end in itself. Precisely because po1ver
served as meas for t Utopian tansfomatio of society,
it could not avoid becorning d i itself and t most
importat airn of Comrnuisrn. Pmver 1vas l to appear as
s in t first d second pases. It can no longer
concealed that in t tblrd s po1ver is t actual principal
aim d essence of Cornmunis.
Because of t fact tat Communism is being extiguished
as an ideology, it must maintai po1ver as t main meas of
controllig the people.
In revolutio, as in every type of >var, it 1vas natural to co
centrate pimarily pmver: the war had to 1von. During
the period of indstrialization, concentrating on po1ver could
still considered natural: t constructio of idstry, or
"socialist society," f 1vhic so m sacrifices d made,
was ss. But as all tbls is beig copleted, it becomes
apparent that i Comunis pmver has rt only been meas
but that it s also t mai, if not t sole, end.
Today po>ver is t t eans d t goal of Comunists,
in order tat t may aintai teir privileges d ownership.
But since tese are special forms of po;vet and owneiShip, it
is only troug po1ver itself tat mvnesblp can exercised.
Po1ver is an d in itself and t essece of cotemporary
Communism. Other classes may l to aintain o>versblp
witout monopoly over pmver, or po>ver witout nl
over o;versip. Until no>v, tis s not been possile for t
w class, ;vblc ;vas formed tug Commuism; it is very
iprobale tat it 1vill possile in t fute.
Trougout all tree of tese pases, pmver s concealed
itself as t bldden, ivisile, nspoken, atural and principal
end. Its role s stroger or 1veaker depeding the
degree of control over t people required at t tirne. In the
first s, ideas were t inspiratio d the prime mover for
t attainment of power; in t secod s, pmver operated



as the whip of society d for its o;vn maitainance; today,

"collective o;vnership" is subordinated to the impulses and
needs of power.
Po;ver is tl1e alpha and the omega of contemporary Comunis, v ;vhen Comunism strives to pievent this.
Ideas, pbllosophical px-inciples d moral considerations,
the nation and the people, their hist.ory, in t v ownership-all changed and sacrificed. But not po;ver. Because
this '\vould signify Communisrn's renunciat.ion of itself, of it.s
vn essence. Individuals can do this. But the class, the party,
the oligarchy cannot. This is the purpose and the eanig of its
Every type of power besides being meas is at the same
time and end-at Ieast for those '\Vho aspire to it. Po'\ver is
alost exclusively an end i Communisrn, because it is both
the source and t guaratee of all privileges. rneans of
and troug po,ver t material privileges d O'\vnership of
t ruling class over national goods ealized. Power detemines t value of ideas, and suppresses or permits thei
It is in this '\vay tat pver in contempoiaxy Cornnnism
differs orn all oter types of pO'iver, and that Communis
itself differs fro every other system.
Comuism has to totalitarian, exclusive, and isolated
precisely because power is t ost essetial mt of
Comuism. If Comuism actually could have had other
eds, it '\vould v to k it possile for oter forces to
sprig up i opposition and operate idepedetly.
Ho'\v cotemporay Comuis '\Vill defied is secondary.
Everyone wl udertakes the '\vork of explaiing uis
fid.s himself faced witl1 t rl of defiig it, even if
actual coditios do t compel him to do tbls-coditios
i which Conists glorify teir system as "socialism," "classless society," and "t realization of me's eternal dreams,"
while t opposing eleent defines Counism as an insensi-



tive tyranny, the n success of teroistic group, and t

damnation of t huma race.
Sciece must use already estalished categories i order t.o
make simple expositio. Is tere category in sociology
ito '\vblc '\Ve can cram tm Commuism if 1ve use
little force?
commo '\vit m authors who started oter positions, I v, i ecent yeais, equated Comuism '\Vit state
capitalism or, more precisely, '\Vit total state capitalis.
Tbls interpretation w out amog t leaders of Yugoslav
Commuists durig t t.ime of teir clas '\Vit t government of t U.S.S.R. But just as Commuists, according to
practical eed.s, easily clnge even t.i "scietific" aalysis,
Yugoslav party leaders canged this interpretation after t
"reconciliatio" 'vit t Soviet goveient, d once more
proclaimed t U.S.S.R. Socialist coutry. At t same time,
t proclaimed t Soviet imperialistic attack on the independence of Yugoslavia-in Tito's '\Vords-a "tragic," "incompreesile" event, evoked t "aritrariness of individuals."
Cotemporary Communism for the most part does esemle
total state capitalism. Its blstorical origin and t polems
'vhic it had to solve-amely, an industrial transfonation
sirnilar to the one achieved capitalism but '\Vith the aid of
the state mechanisrn-lead to such conclusion.
If, unde1 Comrnism, t state 'vere the O'\vner in t
of society and of t nation, the the fms of political po,ver
over society \vould ievitaly change accOIding to the vaying
eed.s of society and of the natio. The state its nature is
an orga of unity d harrnoy i society, and t only force
ove1 it. The state cold not t the vner and rler i
itself. In Comnis it is reve1sed: The state is an instrent
and avays sbordiate excliYely to the interests of one and
t same exclsive O\vner, or of and the same direction in
the economy, and in the other areas of social life.
State ownersblp in the W est migt cosidered more as



state capitalism than it is in Communist countries. The claim

that contempory Communism is state capitalism is prompted
the "pangs of conscience" of those who were disillusioned
the Communist system, but who did not succeed in defiing
it; they therefore equate its evils 1vith those of capitalism.
Since there is really no private o1vnersblp i Communism but
rather formal state mvnership, nothig seems more logical
than to attriute all evils to t state. Tbls idea of state capitalism is also accepted tose w see 'less evil" in private
capitalism. Terefore t like to point out tat Communism
is worse type of capitalis.
claim tat conteporary nis is trasition to
somethig else leads nowere and explais noting. What is
not transition to soeting else?
Even if it is accepted tat it s many of the caracteristics
of an all-encopassing state capitalism, contemporary Communism also s so m of its o>vn cacteristics tat it is
more precise to cosider it special type of new social system.
Contemporary Communism s its o>vn essece wblc does
not permit it to confused >vit any oter. Commuism,
while absoring into it.self all kids of other eleets-feudal,
capitalist, d even slave-o1ig-reais idividual and indepedet at t s tie.

National Communism

In essece, Couism is only one tblg, but. it is realized
in differet degrees and aners i every coutry. Therefore
it is possile to speak of various Counist systes, i.e., of
various fors of t s aifestatio.
differeces >vhic exist bet>vee Couist states-differeces tat Stalin attepted futilely to reove force-are
the result, above all, of diverse historical backgrounds. Even
t ost cursory obsetvatio reveals ho>v, for l, co
teporary So\riet bureaucracy is t >vitout. conectig lik
>vith t Czarist syste in wblc t officials >vere, as Engels
noted, " distict class." Soe>vhat t s tblg can also
said of the nr of govet'Ilet i Yugoslavia. \Vhe ascendig to pmver, the Couists face i the various countries
differet cultal and tecnical levels d varying social rela
tiosblps, d are faced >vith differet ational itellectual
chaacters. s diffeteces develop v farter, i special
\vay. Because the geeral causes \vhich btoght the to pO\ver
are identical, d because t v to >vage stggle agaist
n iternal d foreign opponents, t Couists
in separate couties iediately copelled to fight jointly
d on t. basis of siilar ideology. Iteratioal Com173



munism, '\vhich '\Vas at one time the task of revolutionaries,

eventually tiasfOI-med itself, as did evel]'thig else in Commuism, d became the common giOud of Commuist
buieaucracies, fighting another atioalistic co
siderations. Of the forrner iter11atioal proletar'iat, l
words d empty dogmas emaied. Behid them stood the
aked atioal and ieratioal interests, aspirations, d
plas of t various Commuist oligarchies, comfortaly e

The ature of authority d property, similar iternatioal

outlook, d an idetical ideology ievitaly idetify Commuist states \Vit one arther. N evertheless, it is wrong t.o
ignore and underestimate the sigificance of the ievitale difereces in degiee d mr betwe Commuist. sttes.
degree, mr, d form in which Commuism will
realized, or its purpose, is just as muc of give coditio
for each of them as is the essece of Commuism itself. No
sigle form of Commuism, no ho\v similar it is to other
forms, exists i way oter t as atioal Commuism.
I order to maitai itself, it must become atioal.
The form of govermet d poperty as \Vell as of ideas
differs little or t at all in Communist It canot differ
markedly since it llas idetical atue-total autlity. Ho\vever, if they \vish t.o \vi d continue to exist, tlre Commuists
must adapt the degee and mr of teir authority to
ational coditions.

The differences bet\veen Commuist countr'ies \Vill, as rule,

as gieat as the extet to \Vhich the Communists \v indepedent in comig to po\ver. Concretely speaking, only the
Commuists of tlrree countries-the Soviet Ui, Chia, d
Yugoslavia-indepedetly carried out revolutios or, i their
O\VIl \vay d at their O\VIl speed, attaied po,ver d g
"the buildig of socialism." s three coutries remaied
idepedet as Commuist states v i the peiod wlle
Yugoslavia \vas-as Chia is today-uder the most ext.reme


influece of the Soviet Union; tat is, in 'roterly love" and
in "eterrral friedship" witll it. In . report at closed session
of the T\vetiet Cogress, Khruscev revealed tat clas bet\veen Stali and t Chinese goverrrmet had barely been
averted. The case of the clash wit Yugoslavia was not an
isolated case; but only t most drastic d the first to occur.
I t oter Comunist countries the Soviet government enforced Communism "arrned missionaries"-its arrny. The
diversity of manner and degiee of the development in these
counties has still rt at.tained the stage reached in Yugoslavia
d Chia. Ho\vever, to the extet that rulig bureaucracies
gather stregt as indepedet bodies i these countries, and
to the extet that. they recogize that obediece to and copyig
of t Soviet Ui weaken themselves, t endeavor to
"patterrr" themselves Yugoslavia; that is, to develop ide
pendently. The Communist East European countries did not.
become satellites of the U.S.S.R. because they benefited from
it, but because they were too weak to pevent it. As soon as
they stronger, or as soon as favorale conditions are
created, yearning for indepedence and for protection of
"their own people" from Soviet hegenny will rise among
Wit the victory of Communist revolution in country
ne-.;v class comes into po,ver and into control. It. is uvillig
to suender its o'\vn hard-gaied privileges, even tlugh it
subodinates its interests to similar class in arter country,
solely in t cause of ideological solidarity.
Where Commuist revolutio has \Von victory ideped
etly, separate, distinct path of developmet is ievitale.
Fl'ictio \Vith other Commuist coutries, especially \Vith the
Soviet Unio as the most. importat d most imperialistic
state, follo\vs. ruling national bureaucracy i the coutry
where t victor'ious revolutio took place has already become
indepedet i the course of the armed struggle and has tasted
t lessings of authority and of "atioalizatio" of property.



speaking, it has also grasped and become co

scious of its o\vn essence, "its \V state," its authority, the
basis of >vhich it clatms equality.
This does t mean tat this involves only clash-\ven it
comes to tat-bet\veen t\VO bureaucracies. clas also ivolves
t evolutionary elemets of subordinated coutry, because
t do not usually tolerate dominatio and tlley consider that
Ielatiosllips bet\veen Communist states must as ideally perfect as predicted in dogma. Tlle masses of t nation, \v
spontaneously tblrst for independence, canot remain uper
turbed i sucl1 clas. In every case t nat.ion beefits from
this: it does not v to triute to foreign government;
d t pressure t domestic goverment, \vhic no loger
desires, and is not permitted, to foreign methods, is also
diminised. Such clas also brings in external forces, oter d movements. Hmvever, t ature of t clash
and t basic forces i it remain. Neitl1er Soviet r Yugoslav
Communists stopped beig \\'lt they are-not before, r dur
ing, nor after teir mutual ickerings. Indeed, t diverse
types of degree and anner \Vith whic t insed teir
moopoly led tem mtually to deny t existence of socialism
in the opposite . Afte1 t settled teir differeces, they
again ackno>vledged tlle existence of socialism elsewere, becoming coscious tat t must respect mtual differences
if t \vanted to pieserve that \Vich \Vas idetical in essece
and most important t.o tem.
The sbdiate Commuist governments i East Europe
, in fact must, declare their indepedence from the Soviet
governent. No say >v far tis aspiation for independece >vill go d what disagreements \Vill reslt. The eslt
depends on nume1os unforeseen interal and external circm
staces. Ho\vever, there is doubt tat ational Communist
bureaucracy aspires to more complete autlity for itself. This
is deonstiated the anti-Tito processes i Stalin's time in


cour1t.ries; it is shown also the cu.rrent

emphasis on "'s own path to socialism," wich
has recently come to ligt sharply in Poland d Hugary.
cetral Soviet government s foud itself in difficulty
because of t nationalism existing even in those governments
wich it insfalled in the Soviet repulics (Ukraine, Caucasia),
d still more so \vith regard to those governments installed in
t East European coutries. Playing important ro]e in all
of this is t fact that the Soviet Union was unale, and will
rt l in the future, to assimilate t ecormies of t
East European coutries.
The aspirations to>vard national indepedence must of
course have greater impetus. These aspirations can retarded
and even made dormant external pressure or fear on
the part of tl1e Comists of "imperialism" and the "bourgeoisie," t t canot removed. On the contray, teir
strength will grmv.
It is impossile to foresee all of the foms that relatios
bet>veen Commuist states ,., assume. Even if coopetation
bet\veen Communist states of different countties sllould in
sort time result i mergers and federations, so can clases
bet\veen Commuist states result in \var. open, armed clash
bet\vee t U.S.S.R. and Ygoslavia \Vas averted tt. because
of t "socialism" in one or the other country, but because it
\Vas not in Stalin's interest to risk clas of unforeseeale propotions. Watever >vill bet\veen Communist states \Vill
depend on all tose factors >vich ordiarily affect political
events. The interests of t respective Communist beauc
racies, expressed Yariously as "national" or as "united," alog
\Vit t uncecked tendecy toward ever increasing indeped
ence on national basis, \Vill, for the time being, play an
iportant .role in t relat.ionships among t Comnist






The concept of natioal Communism had no meaning u
til the d of World War , \vhen Soviet imperialism \vas
manifested rt only \Vit.h regard to the capitalist but. the Comnist states as \Vell. Tis concept developed all from
the Yugoslav-U.S.S.R. clash. The enunciatio of Stalin's methods t.he "collect.ive leadeship" of Khushcl1ev-Bulgain may
pehaps modify relatios between the U.S.S.R. d other Commuist countries, but it canot resolve them. In tlle U.S.S.R.
operations are not concemed solely witll Communism but are
simultaneously concerned \Vitll tlle imperialism of the Geat
Russian-Soviet-state. Tis imperialism cllange in form
d method, but it more disappear tha can tlle aspiratios of Commuists of other coutries f01 idepedence.
similar deYelopment a\vaits the other Commuist. states.
According to strength d conditios, tlley too will attempt to
become imperialistic in one \vay or another.
I tlle developmet of the foreign policy of tlle U.S.S.R.
tllere llave t\VO imperialistic phases. Earlier policy was
almost exclusively matter of expasion evolutioary propagada in otller couties. At that time tllere \Ver-e pmverful
imperialistic tedecies (as regards t.he Caucasus) in tl1e policies of its higllest leader-s. But, i my ii, tllere is no
satisfactoy reason for t.he revolutionary phase to categOIically cosidered imperialistic, sice at tllat time it. \Vas more
defesive tan aggressive.
If \Ve do not cosider t revolutioary pllase as imperialistic,
t imperialism began, rougbly speaking, \vith tlle victory of
Stali, or \vit t industrializatio and estalisllmet of t~
autol'ity of ne\v class i tlle l 930's. This cllange was clearly
s\v on tlle eve of t war \V Stalin's goven1met was
l to go ito actio d Ieave behid pacifist d anti-imperialistic pases. It \vas even exp1essed i the g of foreign



policy; in place of tlle jovial and, to ti extent, principled

Litvinov, t.he unscupulous d reserved lVIolotov appeared.
basic cause of an imperialistic policy is completely
idde in t exploitative and despotic t of t \v class.
In order tllat. tat class might manifest. itself as impeialistic,
it \Vas necessary for it to attain prescried strength d to
appear i appropriate circumstances. It already d this
stregtll \vllen ~orld vVar began. The war itself abouded
i possilities for imperialistic comiations. small Baltic
states \Vere rt necessary for t security of so large state as
t U.S.S.R., particularly i modem war. s states \Vere
on-aggressive d v allies; ho\vever, tlley \Vere an attractive
morsel for tlle isatiale appetite of tlle Great Russian Communist uu.
I Wold War Commnist internationalism, up to tat
time itegral part of Soviet foreign policy, came into coflict
with the iterests of tlle rulig Soviet. bueaucracy. vVith tllat,
t.he ecessity for its ogaizatio ceased. idea of dissolution
of tlle Commuist Iterational (Comiter) was conceived,
accordig to Georgi Dimitrov, after tlle subjgatio of t
Baltic coutries, d i t period of cooperation \Vitll Hitler,
altough it. \Vas not effected util the secod phase of tlle war
during the period of alliance wit the W ester states.
Comifon, consistig of the East Europea d t
French and Italian Communist paties, \vas created on Stalin's
iitiative in order to guarantee Soviet domination in the satelJite countries d to intesify its influece in \ Europe.
Cominfor was worse t the former Communist Iter
natioal \vhich, even if it was absolutely domiated Mosco'\v,
at least fomally represented all of the parties. The Cominfor
evolved in the field of real and apparent Soviet influence.
clas witll Yugoslavia revealed that it \Vas assigned to subordinate to t Soviet goverment tlse Commuist states and
parties whic had begun to weake because of the iternal
growth of natioal Communism. After the death of Stalin t.he



Cominform '\VS finally dissolved. Even t.he Soviet govermetlt,

desiring to avoid major and dangerous quarrels, accepted the
so-called separate path t.o socialism, if t ational Communism
These organizatioal changes had profoud economic d
political causes. As log as the Communist parties in East
Europe were weak d the Soviet Union was not. sufficiently
strong economically, the Soviet government \Vould v d
to resort to administrative methods to subjugate t.he East
European countries, even if there had no Staliist arbltrariess d despotism. Soviet imperialism, political, police
and military metods, had to compensate for its vn economic
d otl1er weaknesses. lmperialism i t military form, wi
was only an advanced stage of the old Czarist military-feudal
irnperialism, also corresponded to t intenal structure of the
Soviet Uion ix1 wllicl1 t police d admiistrative apparatus,
centralized in one personality, played major l. Stalinism
was mixture of personal Communist dictatorship d rnilitaristic imperialism.
These foms of imperialism developed: joint stock companies, absorption of t exports of t East. Europea countries
meas of political pressure at prices below t world market,
artificial formation of "socialist '\Vorld market," control of
every political act of subordinate parties and states, trasfor
mation of t traditional love of Communists to'\vard the
"socialist faterland" into deification of the Soviet stat.e, Stalin,
and Soviet practices.
But what happened?
cange witin t ruling class was quiet1y completed in
the Soviet Union itself. Similar canges, i another sense, also
occurred in the East European countries; new national bureaucracies lon? for ever increasing cosolidation of po,ver d property relatns, but at t.he same time t fall into difficulties
becaus: of t hegemonic pressure of the Soviet governrnent.
If earller t d d to renounce national caracteristics


to come to power, no>v suc action d become

to teit further ascendacy t.o po>ver. In addition,
it became impossile fot the Soviet gove1rnet to adhere to
t exorbltat and l1azardous Stalinist foreig policy of military pressure and isolatio and, simultaneously, during t.he
period of t geet-al coloial rnoveents, to old the Europea coutries i infamous bondage.
Soviet leaders d t.o concede, after log vacillatio d
idecisive atgurentatio, tat the Yugoslav leaders \Vete
falsely idicted as Hitle!'ite d America spies just because
they defeded tl1e right to cosolidate d build Comuist
system in their v \vay. Tito t.he most sigificat
pesoality i cotempoary Commuis. The pticiple of
atioal Comuis >vas formally acko,vledged. But wit
that Yugoslavia also ceased to the exclusive creator of ino
vatios in Commuism. The Yugoslav revolutio subsided ito
its goove, d peaceful d matter-of-fact rule g. \Vith
tat t love bet>veen yesteday's eemies did t become
geater, nor >vete the disageemets terminated. This was
merely the beginnig of ne>v phase.
Nv the Soviet Uion td ito t.he predomiatly economic and political s of its iperialistic policy. Or so
it s, judgig curret facts.
Today ational uis is geneal hn i
Communis. varying degees all Comuist ovemets
except that of the U.S.S.R. against >vhic it is diected-ae
gipped atioal Counis. its time, in the peiod of
Stali's ascendancy, Soviet ism also was natioal Comuis. At tl1at time Russia nis dd ite
atioalism, except as an istrument of its foeig policy.
Today Soviet Comunis is copelled, v if idefiitely,
to ackowledge >v eality i uis.
Canging itemally, Soviet impeialis >vas also copelled
to alter its vie>vs to>vard t exteral w01ld. Fro di
tl adiisttative cotols, it advanced t.oward gadual







econoic integration 1vith tlle East European coutries. This

is being accoplished eans of utual planning i ipor

tant branches of r, in which the local Comunist
governments today maily voluntarily concur, still sensig
thernselves weaker externally and iternally.
Such situatio canrt remai for long, because it conceals
fundaental contradiction. On the hand national forrns
of Cornrnuisrn becorne stronger, but. on the other, Soviet i
perialisrn does not dirninsh. Both t Soviet governet d
the governents of the East r contries, inclding
Ygoslavia, rneas of accords and cooperatio, are seeking
solt.ions t.o rntal prolerns 1vhich influece teir very natre
-preservat.ion of given form of athity and of property
01vnership. Ho1vever, v if it is possile to effect cooperation
wit.h respect t.o property mvneiship, it. is not. possile with
respect to authority. Althogh conditions for further itegra
tio 1vit.h the Soviet Union are being realized, those coditios
which lead t.o tlle independence of the East. European Cornrrnist governrnents are being realized even rnore rapidly.
Soviet Union has t d athority in these counties,
nor have the governrnents of these contries renounced their
craving to attain sornething sirnilar t.o Ygoslav indepedence.
The degree of independence that will attained will depend
the state of inteational and inteal forces.
Recognitio of natioal forns of Cornrnnisrn, which the
Soviet governrnet did 1vith clenched teeth, has irnrnense sigificance and conceals witin itself very considerale dano-ers
for Soviet irnperialisrn.
lt involves freedorn of discssion to certain extent; this
rneans ideological idependence too. No1v the fate of ceitai
heresies in Cornnis 1vill depend t only t tolerance
of Mosco1v, t on teir atioal potetialities. Deviatio frorn
Mosco1v tat. strives to rnaintai its ifl.uence i t Cornrnuist
wor-Id "volutary" and "ideologic" basis canot possily




Moscow itself is no loger tat wblch it was. It singleandedly lost t moopoly of the 1v ideas and the rnoral
rigt to prescrie tl1e only permissile "lie." Renocig
Stalin, it ceased to t ideological center. I Moscow itself
t of great Cornrnnist rnonarcs and of great ideas
carne to an end, d tl1e reign of mediocre Comrnnist brea
crats began.
"Collective leadership" did not anticipate that difficlties
and failres were a1vaiting it in Cornrnunis itself-eiter exteally or inten1ally. But wat could it do? Stalin's imperialism was and overly dangerous, d wat 1vas v
1vorse, ineffective. Uder him t orlly the people geerally,
but. v t Cornrnunists, grnled, and t did so at the
tirne of very staied intemational situation.
1vor-Id ceter of Cornunist ideology no longer exists;
it is in the process of cornplete disintegratio. The unity of
t 1vorld Comrnuist rnovernet is incuraly injured. r
are no visile possiilities watsoever tat it can restored.
However, just as t shift from Stalin to "collective leadership"
did rt alter t nature of t systern itself in the U.S.S.R., so
too national Comrnuis s been unale, despite ever increasing possiilities for lieration fro Moscow, to alter its i
tenlal ature, 1vblc consists of total cotrol and rnoopoly
of ideas, and o1VI1ersblp the party bureaucracy. Indeed, it
significantly alleviated t pessure and slowed down the rate
of estalisment of its rnonopoly over property, particularly
in t rural areas. But natioal Cornunisrn either desires
nor is l to transforrn itself ito somethig oter t Co
rnuisrn, d sorneting always spotaeously draws it towad
its source-toward the Soviet Uion. It 1vill ul to separate its fate from that wblcl1 liks it. 1vit t rernainig Comrnuist coutries and movernents.
National ndifications i Cornnnisrn jeopardize Soviet
irnperialisrn, particularly t irnper-ialisrn of t Stali ,
but not Cornunisrn eiter as wole or in essence. On t



contrary, -.;vhere Communism is in control these changes are

l to influence its direction and even to strengthen it and
make it acceptale externally. National Communism is i ar
mony witl1 on-dogmaticism, that is, with the anti-Stalinist
phase in the development of Communism. I fact, it is basic
form of this phase.

N at.ioal Communism is unale to the nat.ure of current

international relationsips bet 1Neen states or withi -.;vorkers'
nvements. But its role in tl1ese relationships may of great
Thus, for example, Yugoslav Communism, as form of national Communism, played extremely important role i t
weakeing of Soviet imperialism d in t dmvngrading of
Stalinism inside tl1e Commuist movement. motives for
changes \vhicl1 occurring in t Soviet Ui and in the
East European counti'ies to found, above all, in the
coutries tl1emselves. d fist i Yugoslavia-in t
Yugoslav -.;vay. And tere, too, t \Vere fist completed. Thus
Yugoslav Communis as national Couism, in t clas
"'it Stalin, actually origiated ne\v, post-Stali s i t
developmet of Communis. Yugoslav Commuis significantly iflueced chages in Communis itself, but did not
fudaetally influece eiter inter-national relationships or
o-Comuist \vorkers' moYemets.
expectatio tat Yugoslav Comunism would l
to evolve to-.;vard democatic socialis or tat it would
l to s as bridge bet-.;veen Social Democracy and Commuism s poved baseless. Yugoslav leaders teselves
-.;vere i coflict over tis question. Durig t time of Soviet
pressure Yugoslavia t demostrated fervent desire for
rapprochement -.;vit t Social Deocrats. However, in
1956, during t period of wit Moscow, Tito anounced



Cominform d t Socialist Iterational -.;vere

despite t fact tat t Socialist Internatioal
uselfisly defeded Yugoslavia -.;vile t Comiform labOIiously attacked Yugoslavia. Preoccupied with policy of socalled active coexistece, which for t ost part correspods
to teir iterests of t t, the Yugoslav leaders declared
tat t organizatios-the Comifol'm d t Socialist
Itel'atioal-we!'e "immoderate" solely because t were
allegedly t product of t-.;vo locs.
Yugoslav leaders cofused their desires -.;vit reality and

t t


cofused teir mometar-y iterests wit profoudly istoric

and socialistic differeces.

At rate, t Coifor-m -.;vas t product of Staliist.
efforts for t creation of an Eastei-n ilitary l. It is impossile to d t fact that t Socialist lnternatioal is liked
-.;vit t Western l, or \vit t Atlantic Pact, sice it operates -.;vithi the fame-.;vork of t West Europea counties.
But it -.;vould exist -.;vitout that l. It is, all,
ogaizatio of Socialists of t deyeloped coutries
in 'Nich political democracy d similar elatioships exist.
Milita-y alliaces d locs are temporary aifestatios,
but t \Veste Socialism d Easter Comuism reflect
mucl1 more edurig d basic tedecies.
Cotasts bet\vee Commuism d Social Demoacy
t the result of diffeet piciples oly-tese least of all-but of t opposing directios of ecoomic d itellectual
fces. Tl1e clas bet-.;vee Mar-tov d Li at the Secod
Cogess of Russia Social Democrats i Ld i 1903
ig the questio of t membel'sip, d ig t
questio of lesse or geater cetralism d disciplie i the
paty-,vhic Deutscher correctly calls the begiig of t
greatest schis i histor-y-\vas of far gl'eater significace tha
its iitiatOI's -.;v l to anticipate. Wit that g not
l the formation of t-.;vo moYements but of t\vo social systems.
schism bet.wee Comunists and Social Democrats is




to bridge until tlle very natures of these movements,

or the conditions themselves 1vhich resulted in differences beveen them, are changed. I the course of half cetury,
despite periodic and separate rapprochements, the differeces
v on t whole increased, d teir natures v become
still r idividualized. Today Social Democracy d Commuism are not l two movements but t1vo 1vorlds.
Natioal Commuism, separating itself from Moscow, has
unale to bridge t.his casm althoug it circumvent
it. This 1vas demonstrated t cooperatio of the Yugoslav
Communists 1vith the Social Democrats, whic was more seemino- than actual and more courteous t sincere, and which
1vithout tangile important results for eiter side.
For completely different reasons, unity has not even been
realized bet.wee W estel d Asian Social Democrats. The
differences bet1veen tem 1vere t as great in essence, or in
priciple, as they 1vere i practice. For ational reasos of their
o>vn, Asia Socialists had to remai separated from West
European Socialists. Even wlle t are opponents of colonialism, W estern Socialists-toug they play no leading role-are
represetatives of cottries wi, solely because t are more
developed, exploit t udeveloped coutries. The cotrast
bet\veen Asia and W estern Social Democrats is maifestation
of contiasts beveen underdeveloped and developed cout.ries,
carried over int.o tlle ranks of t Socialist movement. Despite
tlle fact tat concrete fons of tis cotrast llave to shaiply
defined, proximity in essence-as far as can deduced todayis obvious and ievit.ale.


National Communism similar to that in Yugoslavia could
of immense sigificance in Communist parties
of no-Commuist states. It could : of v greater signifi-



cance there than i Commuist parties 1vhich are actually

i po1ver. This is relevant above all to the Commuist parties
in France and Italy, 1vich ecompass significat majority
of t workig class and whicl1 are, along witll several parties
in Asia, the. l s of major sigificace in the onCom
nnist world.
Until w, the maifestations of ational Communism in
these parties v been 1vitout major signifi.cance d impetus.
Ho1vever, t v beer1 inevitale. They could, in t final
analysis, lead to profoud d essential chages in tese parties.
s parties have to cotend 1vith the Social Democratswho are l to nl the dissatisfied masses tmvard themselves means of their o1vn socialist slogans and activity.
Tis is not. tlle only reaso for t evetual deviatio of these
paties from Moscow. Lesser reasons may seen in the periodic
and unanticipated revesals of Mosco1v and of the other ruling
Communist parties. Such revesals lead these and oter no
ruling Communist parties ito "crisis of conscience"-to spit
1vat util yesterday t extolled, t suddenly to g
teir line. N it oppositionist propaganda nor administa.
tiYe pressure 1vill play fudametal role i the trasfonation
of tllese paties.
Tlle basic causes f deYiatio of tese parties from Moscow
may foud i t ature of t social system of t countries
i \vi: t opeiate. If it becomes eYident-and it appears
Jikely-tlt t 1vokig class of tese counties is l trough
paliamentay forms to i at some improvemet in its position, and also to cange t social system itself, t working
class 'ill abadon t Communists regardless of its revolutioary and oter traditions. Only small groups of Communist
dogmaticists look dispassionately at t disassociatio of
the 1vokeis; serious political leaders in given ti will
edeavor t.o avoid it. v at t cost of weakening ties witl1
Paliamentary electios wblc give huge number of votes



to Communists in these countries do not accurately express

of Communist parties. significat . dethe actual strencth
gree they are expressio of dissatisfaction d delus~1.
Stbbornly follo1ving the Commuist leaders, the mass~s \Vlll
just as easily abadon them t.he moment it becomes obvus to
t.hem that the leaders are sacrificig atioal istitutios, or
the .t prospects of the 1vork~g class, to tl1eir. b~reau
cratic ature, or to t.he "dictatorslp of the proletariat d
ties 1vith :osco1v.
Of course, all of this is ypothesis. But even today these
parties are finding temselvs i ~ difficu~t s~tuatio: If t
really 1vish to adherets of par'llamentaasm, the1r leaders
1vill have to renounce tlleir anti-paliamentay nature, or
chance over to their o>vrl atioal Commuism >vhich 1vould,
since tlley are t in cotrol, lead to disintegratio of their
The leaders of Commuist parties i t.hese coutries are
drive to expeiment with the idea of national Communism
d atioal forms all of these factors: the strengthenig
of tlle possiility that the trasformation of society d tl1e
improvemet of positio of t 1vorkers >vill attained
democratic meas; Mosco-.;v's eversals, whicll the dow
gading of the clt of Stalin ultimately esulted in destruction
of the ideologic center; un of the Social Demoats;
tedencies to>vad nification of the \Vest profound
and eduring social basis as >vell as militay ; militay
stenctheic of the vVestem l which offes iceasigly
fe>ver prospects for 'rothely aid" for the Soviet army; and
the impossiility of -.;v Commuist evoltions >vithout.
>vorld 1var. At t same time fear of the ievitale result of
tansition to parliametaiaism, d of breaking off with
Mosco-.;v, prevents t.hese leaders from doig anythig of real
sigificance. Icreasingly deepei' social diffel'eces bet>vee the
East and the West 1vork with reletless force. The clever



Togliatti is cofused, d the robust Torez is wavering. External d internal par-ty life is begining to bypass t.hem.
Emphasizing that today pai'liament can serve as "form
of trasition to socialism," Kl1rushchev inteded at t.he Twentieth Congress to facilitate manipulatio of the Commuist
parties in '~capitalist countries," and to stimulate the c~oper
atio of Cornrnunists and Social Dernoats d t format of
"People's Fronts." Something like this appeared realistic to
him, according to bls 1vords, because of the gs which d
resulted in the stregtheig of Commnism and because of
i the -.;vorld. With tat tacitly ackrwledged to everyoe t obvious impossility of Commuist revolut.ios in
t.he developed counties, as -.;vell as the impossiility of fter
expasion of Commuism dr ut coditions witout
t dager of -.;v 1vorld war. policy of t Soviet. stat.e
s educed to status quo, while Commuism s desceded to gradual acquisition of -.;v positios in new 1vay.
CI'isis s actually begu i t Communist parties of t.he
no-Commnist states. If they change over to natioal Communism, t risk forsaking their v nate; and if t do
not change v, t face loss of follo>vers. Teir leaders,
tose 1v repesent t spiit of Cornuism i tese parties,
will fol'ced ito t most cuing manipulatios and unscupulous measues if they are to extricate temselves fom
tis cotadictio. It is improbale tat. they will l to
k disoientatio d disitegratio. v reached
state of conflict >vit t real tendencies of development in
tlle world d in tl1eir cour1tries tat. obviously lead to-.;vad
>v relatioships.

N atioal Commuism outside of the Commuist states i

leads toward enunciatio of Communism itself, or
to>vard t.he disintegratio of t Commuist paties. Its possiilities are greater today in t on-Communist st.ates, but
obviously, only along t.he lies of sepai'atio frorn Commism



itself. Therefore, natioal Cornrnuisrn in these parties will

ernerge victorious only witl1 difficulty and slowly, in successive
In the Cornrnunist parties that are not in power it is evidet
that national Cornrnunisrn-despite its intent to stirnulate
Cornrnunisrn d strengthe its ature-is sirnultaneously the
heresy that niles at Cornrnunisrn as such. National Cornrnunisrn per se is contradictory. Its nature is the sarne as that
of Soviet Cornrnunism, but it aspires to detach itself into something of its own, nationally. In reality, national Commnism
is Communism in decline.

The Present-Day World

In order to det.errnine more clearly the intemational position
of contemporary Communisrn, it is necessary briefly to draw
picture of the preset-day world.
The results of the First World War led to the transforrnation
of Czarist Russia ito new type of state, or into country
wit.h w types of social relatioblps. Internatioally the differece between tl1e t.echical level and tempo of t Uited d the coutries of westem Europe deepeed; t
Secod World War was to trasform tis ito ubridgeale
gulf, so that l the Uited States did t udergo major
gs in the structure of its m.
Wars were t t l cause of this gulf betwee the Uited
States and t rest of the world; t l accelerated its coming. The reasos for t rapid advancernent of the Uited States
found, udoubtedly, in its int.ernal potetialities-in
the atural d social coditios d t caracter of t
economy. American capitalism developed i differet circumstances frorn Europea capitalism and it was in full s1ving at
time wen its European couterpart d already begu to
Today t gulf is this wide: 6 per cent of the world popula191



tion, that. of the United States, produces 40 per t. of the

goods and services in the 1vorld. Bet1veen the First d Second
Wold \Vars the United States contrited 33 per cent of world
production; after the Secod Wm'ld War it contriuted 50
per cent. The opposite 1vas true of Europe (excludig the
U.S.S.R.), whose contriution to 1vold production dropped
from 68 per cent in 1870, to 42 per t in the 1925-29 peiod,
the to 34 per t in 1937, d to 25 per t i 1948 (accordig to Uited Natios data).
The developmet of moder industry i colonial economies
'>vas also of special importace, d it 1vas to make it. possile
for most of them, ultimately, to gai teir freedom after t
Second World \Var.
I t period betwee t First. d Secod World 'Vars
capitalism 1vet troug economic crisis so pofound d
1vit cosequeces so geat that l dogma-idde Commuist
~rais, particularly tlse i the U.S.S.R., failed to ackmvledge
.. I. cotrast to the cises of the ieteenth cetury, t.he great
cs1s of 1929 revea!ed tat such cataclysms today sigify dager
to t social order itself, v to the life of the ti as
\vhole. The developed coutries-fist of all t United Stateshad to find ways to emege m this cisis gradually. various
met~ds tlle Uited States esorted to planed m
tl scale. chages i ti wit this w of
epochal importa:e for t developed coutries and for the
rest of t 1vorld, althoug t 1v t recogized sufficietly
fom teoretical poit of vie1v.
I this period vaious foms of totalitariaism developed in
t U.S.S.R. ~nd i capitalist countries suc as Nazi Germay.
Ge~any, contrast to t Uited States, was not l
of solvg t p1o~lem of its iteral and exteral si
normal econom1c meas. \Var d totalitariaism (Nazism)
\vere t~e only outlets for t German monopolists, and t
su bOIdmated temselves to t acist w t.
As >'.' v s, t U.S.S.R. wet over to totalitariaism



oter reasos.

lt was the



for its industrial



Ho1vever, there 1vas aother, pehaps rt very obvious, ele:nent 1vhich was really evolut.ioary for t md 1vold.
his elemet was modern wars. They lead to substatial
changes even 1ven t do not lead to actual evolutios.
Leaving igtful devastation behid tem, t g both
wold relations and elatios witin individual counties.
revolutionay character of modern 1vars is maifested
not only in t fact tat t give impetus to tecical discoveies, but, most of all, i the fact that they g t
ecoomic d social st1ucture. I Geat Bitai, tl1e Secod
vVorJd War exposed d affected relatiosllips to the extet
that cosiderale atioalizatio became ievitale. Idia, Burma, d Idoesia eme1ged m t 1var as idepedet
couties. uificatio of 1veste1 u g as eslt
of the 1var. It urled t Uited States d the U.S.S.R. to t
summit as the two major ecoomic d political po1ves.
Modem warfare affects the Iife of atios d humaity
m more deeply tl did was of ealier epochs. h are
tiYO ss for this: Fist, md '''ar st ievitaly total
;var. Not ecoomic, huma, other souce 1emai
utapped, because tl1e techical lcvel of poductio is ]d
so high that it makes it. impossile for parts of ti or
r of t m to stad to side. Secod, for
t same tecical, ecoomic, d t1 ss, t 1vold, to
iml lg extet, ls become 1vl!e; so t
smallest clges i t brig ft reactios i other
pats as well. v modem ;var teds to g ito ;vor1d

s ivisile




are of

eorous extet d sigificace. m spotaeous

t revolutios

is, t are t br
deed to as geat extet 1vitl1 ideological d gaizatioai
elemets. Terefore, such evolutios make it possile to

f; tat



register in more de!'ly 1vay the tendencies of movemets i

the modern 1vorld.
1vorld as it is today d as it emerged from the Second
World War is obviously rt tl1e same as it was before.
Atomic energy, 1vhich m has t.orn out of the eart of matter
d 1vrested from the cosmos, is t most spectacular but t
the l sign of new .
Official Commuist prognostications on t future of t
uman race declare tat atomic enei'gy is t symbol of Comurlist society, just as stea was t sybol and tlle power
prerequisit.e of idustrial capitalism. However we iterpret
tbls na'ive and iased reasonig, another poit is true: atomic
energy is already Ieadig to canges in individual counties d
i the world as whole. Certainly tese gs do t poit
tvard tllat mis and socialism 1vblc t Communist
"teoreticias" desire.
Atoic energy, as discovery, is t t fruit of ti,
but of centy of work undreds of t most. brilliant
minds of many natios. Its applicatio is also t result of
t efforts-not only scietific but economic-of number of
coutries. If t world llad t already uified, r1eiter
t discovery nor t of atoic energy would llave
been possile.
effect of atoic eergy, i t fist place, will ted
toward t furtller uificatio of t world. t 1vay, it
will satter iexoraiy all ierited obstacles-o1vnersblp relatios d social relations, but above all exclusive d isolated
systes and ideologies, suc as Comuis t before d
after Stali's deat.




toward t ificatio of
of our time. Tbls does rt

world is tlle basic

tllat t world



did t earlier llave td toward urlity, i different

1vay. The td tmvard iding the world togeter means
of the wo!"ld market 1vas already dominant in t mid-nie
tee cetury. It, too, was an epoch of capitalist ecoomies
d national 1vars. World uity of kid was beig acbleved
t, troug ational economies and national 1vars.
The furtller unificatio of t world 1vas effected the
sattering of pre-capitalist forms of productio in t.he undeveloped regions and teir divisio among the developed
countries d teir moopolies. This 1vas t period of monopolistic capitalis, colonial coquests, d 1vars i wblc
iternal conections d interests of t monopolies often
played role more decisive tar1 natioal defese itself. The
tendencies at that time toward world unity were acieved
mainly through conflicts and associations of moopolistic capital. Tis 1vas igher level of unity tan unity of the arket.
Capital poured out of ational sources, penetrated, took hold,
and doinated t entire world.
s tendencies toward unit.y are apparent i other
areas. may found in very ig level of production,
in conterporary s6ence, d in scientific d other thought.
Further advancemet of uity is r longer possile on exclusively national foudations or throug the division of t >vorld
into individual, monopolistic spheres of influence.
trends to'ivard this w unity-unity of prodction
aie being built on tl1e foundations already attained in ealier
stages-that is, on t unity of the arket and tlle unity of
capital. They conflict, llo>vever, 1vitl1 already strained and inadeqate ational, governetal, d, above all, social relations. vVile tlle fomer unities >vere acbleved means of
national struggles or trougll conflicts and 'iVai over spheres
of intel'est, contepoary uity is being formed, and can only
fored, the destruction of the social relationships of
pevious periods.
No one say coclusively i wat rnanner the coordina-



of 1vorld production 1vill effected,

>var or peaceful means. But the!'e can no
doubt that its tendency canot checked.
fiist method of unification-war-1vould hasten unification force, tlt is, the domination of one or another
group. But it 1vould inevitaly leave behind it the sparks of
ne1v conflagrations, discord, and injustice. Uification means
of war would take place at. the expense of the weak d defeated. Even if 1var should brig order ito given relationships
it would leave behid it uresolved coflicts and deeper mistion and




Because the preset world conflict is unfoldig mainly

the basis of opposition between systems, it has more of the
character of class coflict tan of oppositio bet1vee ations
and states. That is t reason for its unusual severity and
sharpness. futre 1var 1vould of world and civil
war bet>vee gove!'mets d nations. N ot only would the
s of t 1var itself friglltful; its effects further free
development 1vould terrile too.
uificatio of the 1vorld peaceful meas, although
slower way, is the l steady, wllesome, and just 1vay.
It appears that the uification of the cotemporary world
\vill effected th!'ougl1 t opposition of systems, in cotrast
to the types of opposition (natioal) trogll 1vhich unificatio
1vas acllieved in earlier periotls.
This does t mean that all contempoa!'y coflicts are
merely due to conflicts bet\veen systems. Ther-e are otller
conflicts, icluding those from former epoclls. Throgh the
conflict of systerns the tendecy to1vard >vorld uity of pr-oduction is r-evealing itself rnost clearly d actively.
It 1vould unealistic to expect the nity of world prodc
tio to achieved in the near fture. The process will t.ake
long tirne, sice it 1vi11 the fr-uit of the ogaized efforts of
the econornic and other Ieading po1vers of hmanity, d because cornplete nity of prodctio actually cannot achieved.


The earlier unities 1vere ever attained as sornethina final this

uty too IS beig estalisl1ed only as tedency, as sornetllina
toward. 1vllich. prodctio, at least t.hat of the most developed
countries, asp1res.

endig of t Secod World War llad already confirmed
t.he tedency t.o divisio of systerns 1vorld scale. All tlle
countries vhic fell nder Soviet influence, even parts of cou
t!'ies (Gerrnany, Kor-ea), acllieved rnore or less t sarne syste.
It 1vas the sarne on t \Vester side.
The Soviet leade 1vere flly a1vare of this piocess. I rernernber that at an intimate party in 1945 Stalin said: "In
rnodern war, tlle victor- vill impose his systern, 1vllich 1vas t
the case i past v." said tllis before the 1var 1vas over, at
tirne 1vhen love, hope, and trst 1vere at their peak arnona
t Allies. In February 1948 he said to us, the Yugoslavs, and
to t Blgaians: "Tl1ey, t Weste po1vers, 1vi11 make
country of their mvn t of \Vest Germany and 1ve 1vill rnake
of our om out of East Ger-rnany-tis is ievitale."
Today it is fashionaie, and to sorne extent justifiale, to
evaluate Soviet policy as it 1vas before d after Stali's deatll.
Ho1vever, Stalin did t invent the systems, nor do tlse 1vho
succeeded irn believe in the less than did. \i\Iat. has
gd since bls deatl1 is t rnethod 1vllich Soviet leades
dl elatios bc:t1vee systerns, not. the systes temselves.
Did t Khrushchev, at the T1vetieth Cogress, mention
is "1vld of socialisrn," is "1vorld socialist systern," as something separate and special? I practice tllis rneans notblna r
t insistece upon divisio into systems, into t.he futher
exclusiveness of Cornrnuis's o1m systern and l1egemoistic



bet1vee t


East is essentially



conflict of systems, it must take on the appearance of an ideo-

logical struggle. Ideological war does not wane, even when

temporary compromises are effected, d it drugs into unconsciousness the minds in the opposing camps. The more the
coflict in the material, economic, political, and other spheres
sharpens, the more it seems as if pure ideas themselves were
in conflict.
In addition to the exponents of Communism d capitalism
there is third type of country, that 'vhich s wrested itself
from colonial dependence (Idia, Idonesia, Burrna, the Arab
coutries, etc.) . s countries are straining to construct independet economies in order to tear themselves loose from
economic dependence. In them overlap several s and
number of systems, and particularly the two contemporary
s emerging natior1s are, pricipally for tlleir own a
tional reasons, t most sincere supporters of the slogans of
ational sovereignty, , mutual understar1ding, and similar ideas. However, they cannot eliminate t.he coflict between
the two systems. They can l alleviate it. In addition they
are the very fields of battle between the two systems. Teir
role can significant and l one but, for the present,
not decisive one.
It is important to observe that both systems claim that the
uification of the 'vorld will modeled on one or the otller.
Both take tlle stand, t, that there is need for world unity.
However, these stands are diametrically opposed. modern
world's tendency toward unity is being demonstrated and realized through struggle between opposing forces, struggle
of unheard-of severity i times of .
The ideological d political expressions of this struggle
are, as we know, Westem democracy d Eastem Communism.
Since tlle unorganized tendencies toward unification are
bursting fort.h more strogly in t West, because of political
democracy and higher tecnical and cult.ural level, t West



also appears as tlle champio of political d intellectual

One or another caracteristic system of owership in tese
coutries may check or stimulate this tendency, dependig u
circumstaces. However, the aspiration toward unity is widespread. definite obstacle to this unification is the monopolies.
They wat unity, in their w interest.s, but t 'vant to accomplisll it an already obsolete metod-in t forr of
speres of ifluece. However, teir opponents-for example,
the English also aderents of unity, but i differet way. tedency toward unity is also strog in Great
Britai, which s caied out natioalization. Moreover, t
United States is carrying out ationalization as well, an even
vaster scale, rt changing t form of owership, but putting considerale portion of the national income into the
ands of the goverr1ment. If t.he United States should achieve
completely nationalized economy, tendecies tmvard the unification of the contemporary world would receive still greater


law of society and man is to expand and perfect pr~

This law evidences itself in t cotemporary level
of science, tecrlogy, tougt, etc., as tendency toward the
uification of world production. This is tendency whic, as
rule, is so muc more iesistile if it involves people on
higer cultural and material level.
W estem tendecies toward world unification are t expression of economic, teclical, d other needs and, behind these,
of political mvnersip and otller forces. The picture in the
Soviet is different. v if there d not been otller
reasons, the Counist East, because it was r backward,
would v been compelled to isolat.e itseJf economically and




ideologically d to compensate for its economic and other

1.veaknesses political measures.
It may sound strange, but. this is true: Communism's socalled socialist mvnership is t main obstacle to 1.vorld uifi
cation. Tl1e collective d total domiance of t new class
creates isolated political and economic system 1.vich impedes
the unification of t 1.vorld. This system d does chage,
but very slo>vly, and almost t at all in regard to mixing d
ite\reaving >vith otl1er systes in the directio of cosolida
tio. Its chages are d solely for the s of icreasing
its o\\rn stregth. Leadig to type of oweship, goveret,
d ideas, tl1is syste ievitaly isolates itself. It ievitaly
oves to>vard exclusiveness.
united >vorld \\'hic even t Soviet leaders desire only
iagined the as r or less identical wit their own
and as beig teirs. peaceful coexistence of systes of
>vi t speak does t to t t iteveavig of
varios systes, but tl1e static continuation of syste l-.
Side anoter, util t poit >vhen tl1e otller system-te capitalist syste-is eiter defeated conodes f witi.
Tlle existece of tl1e coflict bet>veen t t>vo systes
does t n tat atioal and coloial coflicts llave ceased.
t tr, it is tllroug clases of ational d colonial
ature tat t basic coflict of systes is revealed struccle
over t Sez Canal cold ardly kept fro ti ito
strife bet>ve tlle t>vo systes, istead of reaiing \Vl1at it
\Vas: dispte bet1.vee Egyptia ationalis d \Vorld t.rade
wi, coicidece, l1appened to represeted t
old coloial po>vers of Britain d Frace.
Extree strai i all aspects of itenatioal llas been
t inevitale result of s relations. Cold \Var llas
t noral peacetie state of tlle d \Vorld. Its fors
llave cllaged d are caging; it s ilder or r
severe, t it is no longer possile to eliinate it uder a-ive
coditios. It is necessay first to eliiate sti-<:> ~uch



deeper, soetig >vi is i t ature of the conteporary

\VOrld, of conteporaiJ' systes, d especially of nis.
cold \V, today t cause of increasing tesio, \vas itself
t poduct of oter, deeper, d earlier coflicting facts.
Tlle wor'ld i vvic live is 1.vorld of ncertaity. It is
wold of stupefying and uftl llorizos wicll sciece
is revealig to lit; it is also 1.vorld of teile fear of
cosic catastmpe, tllreateed odern s of 1.var.
Tbls vvorld 1.vill cllaged, i 1.vay tr. It t.
remain as it is, diYided and vvit iesistile aspiratio toward nity. \Vorld relatiosips >vi fially r fro
tis entagleet V\7ill eiter ideal r \Vitllout fiction.
-\\r, t 1.vill better t t preset-day s.
Tlle present conflict. of systes, o\vever, does t idicate
tl1at it is goig in t directio of single syste. Tis
type of conflict deostates only tllat t fter ificatio
of t \Vorld or, r tl expressed, t nificatio of
>vold prodctio, will acieYed trougl1 t coflict bet1.vee
(endency to'lvard uity of world prodctio t. lead
everyvvllere to tl1e s type of prodctio, tat is, to tl: same
foms of >vsi, governent, etc. Tis it of prodctio
expresses tlle aspiration tovvard eliinatio of inerited d
artificial obstacl~s to t floisig and geater efficiency of
d prodctn. It eans fuller adjstet of prodction
to local, ~tura~, at.ioal, d oter coditios. td
to\vard t1s fit eally leads to geater coordination
d s of t >vold prodctio potetial.
It is fotuate tat sigle syste does t prevail i tlle
\Vorld. tlle cotrary, tl1e uftt ti is tat tere
~re too fe;v. diffeer:t systes. Most of all, >v:t is eally bad
IS tl1e exclus1ve d Isolated tr of systems, of vatever kind
t may .
Icreasigly greater differeces bet>veen social nits, stat.e
a!ld political systes, in addit.ion to icreasigly ~eater effi-



ciency of production, is one of the la\vs of society. Peoples unite,

man conforms morc and more to the world around him, but
at the same time he also becomes mor-e and more individualized.
The future \vorld \Vill 11 mor-e varied, d, as
such, more uified. Its imminent unification will made
possile variety, not sameess of type d personality. At
least that is the \vay it has up to this time. Sameness of
type d personality would mean slavery d stagnation; not
higer degree of freedom for production than today's.
nation which does not become aware of actual world
processes and tendecies will have to for it dearly. It will
inevitaly lag behid d i the end will ltave to adjust to
t unificatio of the \Vold, no matter what its uerical d
military stregt may . N one will escape this, just as in the
past t one nation could resist t penetration of capital d
the connectio \Vit other natios thug t world market.
t is also t reason why today every autarchical, or
exclusive, national economy-\vatever its form of O\VIlership
or political order, or eyen its techical level-must fall into
unresolvale cotradictions d stagnatio. Tis olds true also
for social systems, ideas, et.c. The isolated system can offer l
very modest livig; it \vould unale to moye forward d
solye t proles brougl about dr tecliques and
odern ideas.
Incidentally, \Vorld deYelopment s already demolised the
Comunist-Staliist teory of the possiility of cost.ruction
of socialist, or Cumuist, society i one country, and s
brougt about the strengthening of the totalitarian despotism,
or t absolute dominance of new exploiting class.
I tese circustances t construction of socialist, or Commuist, or any oter kind of society in one couti-y, or in
large number of countries cut off fro t \Vorld as wole, ineYitaly results in autarcy and t consolidation of despotism.
It also causes the weakening of t national potentialities for


economic and social progress of t countries concerned. It
is possile to haYe, i armony with progiessive economic and
democratic aspirations i t world, more bread and lierty
for people generally, more just dist.riution of goods, and
normal tempo of econoic deYelopen:t. Tl1e conditio for
tis is t canging of existing property and political relationships, particulaly tose i Counis since they are, because
of t onopoly of t ruling class, t most serious-altough
not t only-obstacle to natioal and world progress.


tendency to\vard unification, for ot.her reasons, has also

in property relationships.
The iceased, and v decisiYe, tole of governmet orgas
in t economy, and to large extet in ownership as \vell,
is also expression of the tedency toward \Vorld uification.
Certaily it is manifested in differet \vays in various systems
d countries, and eYen as an obstacle in tlse places whereas i t Couist countries-formal state owership itself
conceals the monopoly and t total doination of new class.
I Great Britain private or, r accurately expressed, monopolist O\Vllership has already legally lost its sanctity and purity
troug Labourite nationalization. Over twenty per cent of
Biitish productiYe po\ver has ationalized. In t Scandinavian countries, in addition to state ownership, cooperative
type of collective O\vnership is deYelopig.
The inceasing role of governent in t is especially caracteristic of the countries whic until recently \Vere
coloies and sei-dependent co1tries, witout regard to
wether they v socialist goYernmet (Bura), parliaetary deocracy (India), or military dictatorsblp (Egypt).
ifluenced canges



government makes most of the investments; it controls

exports, seizes large portion of t export funds, etc.

government appeais evei)''Nl1ee as an initiator of econo~ic

cancre and ationalization is more equently occurng
form of O\vnersip.
The situation is no differet in t United States, t cou
ti)' \vere capitalism is most ighly developed. N ot on:y can
evebody see t icreasing role of the governmen~ lll t
economy from t great isis (1929) to tl1e present tlme, but
fe\v people deny the inevitaility of tbls role.
s laine vValker epasizes, in The Epic of American
Industry:* " growing intiacy bet,veen govenent and
the econoic life s been one of t stiking caacteistics
of t twentiet century."
\Valker cites that in 1938 about 20 per cent of t national
incoe \vas socialized, \vhile in 1940 tllis per-centage \Vent up
to at Ieast 25 per cent. Systeatic goYernent planing of t
national n began \vith RooseYelt. At tl1e s tie, the
nuber of governent \voker-s d goYer-net functios,
particularly tose of the federal govenent, is gowing.
Jolson and Kross, in Tlze Oigins ancl D('velopment of the
Ameican Economy,t to the s conclusions. affirm tat adiistration l1as been separated f owersip
d that t role of t goYer-nent as credito s gro\vn
cosider-aly. "One of tl1e cief caacter-istics of the 20t century," t say, "is t constant augetation of t governent's, especially tlle fedeal govenent's, influence over
econoic affairs."
In is \VOik The Ameican TYay,t Separd . Clough cites
figes tat illustr-ate tese stateets. expenditures and
pulic debt.s of t federal governet, according to , look
like tbls:


Expenditures of tlze Federal

Pulic Debts
(in millions of dollars) (in thousands of dollars)



New York,

. .

Crowell, 1953.


In this "\Vork Clough speaks of t "anagerial revolution,"

to t rise of professional adinis
tratos, \vitout \v mvners longer operate. Teir
ur, role, and solidarity cotirally growing in the
Uited States, and n of great business geius, like D.
Rockefeller, Jolm Wanaaker, ls Sc\vab and oters, do
not eerge any loger in tl1e Uited States.
Fainsod and Gd, i Government and the American
Economy, * rk tat t goYernet s already played
role in t economy d tat various social groups v tied
to k use of tbls role in economic life. Ho"\vever, tere are
now essential diffeeces in this. The reglatiYe role of goYernent, t \vite, has d not only i t sphere of labor
t in productio-in branches of the economy as impoitant
to t ation as tasportatio, natal gas, coal, and petolem.
"Novel d far-reacl1ig changes \vere also eYident in the for
of an expansion of li enterprise and ineased concem
\vit t conservation of natral and un esources. Pulic
enterpr'ise became paiticularly irnpotant in the banking and
ctedit field, in electicity, and in the pioYision of lo\v-cost
housing." They cornrnent that the goYernrnent has begun to
play far more irnportant l than it played alf century
ago, even ten s ago. "The eslt of tese developrnents
has been to prodce 'mixed econorny,' n i \vhich
li eterprise, patially governrnent-contiOlled private enwi uderstads

"New Yo1k, Harper, 1949.

t New York, Prentice-Hall, 1953.


"New York, W. W. Norton, 1941.

terprise, and relatively uncontrolled private ent.erpise all exist
side side."
These and other authors cit.e various aspects of this process
d t growth of t eeds of society for social welfare, educatio, d similar beefits, whic are beig provided government agecies, as well as t continual icrease-both
relative and absolute-i the umber of persos employed
t goven1ment.
It is uderstandale tat this process received immese impetus and intensity during t Second World War because of
military needs. Ho,vever, after the war the process did not
subside but contintted at faster tempo tan during t prewar
period. It ras not just the fact that the Democratic Party was
i power. Even the Repulica government of Eiseower,
which was elected to po1;ver in 1952 the slogan of return
to private initiative, could 110t cange anythig essentially.
The same thing happened 1;vith the Conservative governent
in Great Britai; it did t succeed i bringig about denatioalization except i the steel idstry. Its role in the
economy, compariso 'vit tat of the Labour government,
has t essentially decreased, altoug it has t increased


interferece of t governet in the economy is obviously t result of objective tendecies 'vhich d already
penetated the people's consciousness log time ago. All
serio economists, beginning wit Keynes, have advocated t
intervention of t stat.e in t m. No1;v this is more or
less an actuality trougout t 'vorld. State intervention and
state o'vnership are today essential and i some places
detetmining factor i the economy.
could almost conclude fom t.his tat there is no distinction or source of coflict in the fact tat in the East.ern system
the state plays the major role, while in t Western system
private ownership, or owne1-ship moopolies d compaies,
plays major role. Such coclusion seems all the more war-


since t role of private ownersblp in tlle West is
gradually decliig, t role of t state growio-.
However, this is t t case. Aside from t; other differences betwee systems, tere is an essetial differece i state
ownersblp ~ i~ the rol~ of t state in the economy. Though
state mvers1p 1s teccally preset to s extent i both
systems, . they ~re tw? differet, even contradictory types of
owersh1p. Th1s appl1es to t role of the state in the ,
Not single Western government acts like an owner with
rel~tion to the n. In fact, W estern governmet is
ne1ther the Ol;Ver of natioalized property nor the owner of
funds wblch it has collected trough t.axes. It canot an
owner because it is subject to chage. It must administer and
distriute t.his property under t control of parliament. In
t course of distriutio of property, the governmet is sb
ject to vario inflences, but it is not t owner. All it does
is admiister and distriute, well or badly, property which does
t belong to it.
This is t t~e. case i Commuist contries. The government both adr~1sters ar~d distriutes ational property. The
w class, or Its executive organ-the party oligarcy-botll
acts as the mvner d is the owner. The most reactioary and
~ourgeois govermet can hardly dream of such monopoly
the ecormy.
S~rface similarities in ownership i the West d t East
are fact real d deep differeces, even coflictig elemets.

Even after the ~irst World War, forms of ownersip were
probaly an essetlal reaso for the coflicts between the West
and t U.S.S.R. Monopolies then played much more important role and they could not accept t idea that one part

of the 1vorld-specifically the U.S.S.R.--was escaping fro their
doain. TI1 e Counist rr had just recently
the ling class.
Ov.'Ilersblp relationships have alway~ been v1tal to _the
U.S.S.R. in its deaHngs 1vith other countries. '\Vherever p~sSIle
its pecliar type of mvnership and polit~cal relations~1p w~s
iposed force. No how uch 1t de~eloped 1ts bsi
ness connections 1vith the rest of the 1vorld, It cold not go
beyond the r exchange of goods, 1vhich ~ad been developed
during the period of national st.ates. _This was also tre ~f
Ygoslavia in the period of its break 1v1th Mosco_w. Yugosla_via
could not. develop any kind of significant econoic rt
except for the exchange of goods, although she had and contines to have hopes of achieving this. Her n has reained isolat.ed too.
There are other eleents >vhich coplicate this picture d
tl1ese relationships. If the stengthening of '\Vestern. tendencies
to\vard \VOrld unity of podction ight not n d to undeveloped contries, in practice it \vould lead to the ascend~ncy
of one nation-the United States-or, at best, grop of natns.
the very eleent of exchange, tl_1e n _and the
ational life of the undeveloped contes exploed and
'iorced to subordinated to the developed contries. This
eans that the undeveloped conties can only defend the
selves political rneans, and shuttig thernselv~s i if ~
,vish to surviYe. Tbls is one \vay. The other way 1s to rece1ve
aid forn the otside, fom the deyeloped cotr'ies. There is
no tllid ;vay. Up to no\v thee has been l the beginning
alona the second >vay-aid in insignificant arnonts.
T~day the difference bet\veen the American and the I~Ido
nesian 1voker is greate tha that bet\veen the mr
\voker and the \Vealthy Arneica stockholder. In 1949 v
ihaitant of tlle United States earned average of at least
$1,440.00; the Indonesian \vker eared l/53rd as rncl1, on1y
$27.00, according to United Natios data. d there is j?;eneral


aQeernent that the rnaterial d other differences bet;vee dev~loped and undeYeloped courltries do not diinish; on the
tr, they increase.
The inequality bet\veen the Western developed countries
and the tdeYeloped counties reYea1s itself as beig rnainly
ecoomic. Traditional political dorniatio goyers d
locallords is already on its 1vay out. No,v, as rule, the ecoorny
of an developed t politically idependent, ational gover"rnent is subodiate to sorne oter contry.
Today no single people can willingly accept such subordinate
relationships, jst as single people can 1villigly reounce
the advantaaes
rnade possile geater productivity.

ask Arnerican or West European \Vorkers-not t.o nt

mvners-villingly to rn the benefits offered tern
hig level of tecnology and rnore productive \Vork is as unthinkale as it \vould to pesuade poor Asiatic tl1at he
shold happy that he receiYes so little for his wk.
Mutual aid bet\veen govenrnents d the gr-adual elimia
tion of ecoornic and oter inequalities bet\veen peoples rnust
born of need in order to becorne t child of good >vill.
In t rnain, econornic aid has tus far been extended only
in tose cases "'r udeveloped countries, ;vit low purchasing po\ver and lo\v poduction, haYe becorne brden to the
developed contries. The curet conflict bet\veen t t1vo systes is the ain obstacle to t extensio of real econornic
aid. This is not only s uge surns being spent for
rnilitary and sirnilar eeds; conternporary relationships also
blnder t flouisig of production, d its tendency tmvard
nification, thus locking aid to underdeYeloped coutries and
t progress of t deYeloped coutries thernselYes.
Material d oter differeces bet\veen the developed d
the ndeYeloped coutries v a1so been registered i their
itenal life. It \vold comp1etely iaccurate to interpret
dernocacy i the \Vest only as an expression of solidarity of
rich atios in looting the poor ones; the W esten coutries



were democratic l- before the time of coloial extra-profits,

tluo-h lmver level tha that of today. l coection
betw~e preset-day democracy i tlle Western coutries d
that of t peiiod \\h Marx d Li were alive lies in
the fact of cotiuous developmet betweer1 the t periods.
The similarity bet1vee past d preset democracy is not
gr-eater than that bet\vee lieral or moopolistic capitalism
and odern statism.
I his \vork, Place Fear, the British socialist Aneurin
v observed:

It is necessary to distinguish between the intetio of Li

eralis and its achievemets. Its intentio was to 1vin power
f the w fonns of property t.hrown up the Idust.rial
Revolutio. Its achievement was to wi political power for

the people irrespective of property.

. . The fuctio of parliamentary democracy, uder universal franchise, historically cosidered, is to expose \vealthprivilege to the attack of the people. It is sword pointed at
the heart of property-power. The 1vhere the issues are
joined is Parliamet.t
Beva's observatio applies to Great Britai. It could
expanded to apply to oter Wester countries, but only to the
\Vestern ones.
I t W est, ecoomic meas which operate to\vard \vorld
unificatio have become domiat. I the East, the Commuist side, political meas for such uificatio have always
predomiat. The U.S.S.R. is l of "uitig" l
that 1vhich it coqers. From this poit of vie1v t v the
w regie could chage aything essetially. According to
its ideas, oppressed peoples are l those wl some other
governmet, t the Soviet one, is inflictig its rule. The Soviet
From page 9, Ne'v York edition, Simon & Schuster, 1952.
t From page 6, ibld.


gove1met subordiates

its aid to others,

v i

the case of

to its political requiremets.

Soviet has rt yet reached the point \Vhich
would drive it to 1vorld uification of prodction. Its contradictios d diffi.culties ste maily fro intenal soces. The
system itself can st survive despite its isolatio fr'o the
outside world. This is eonously expesive, t it is acbleved
the widespread use of force. t tbls sitation t last
log; the liit st reached. d this will t begirig
of the d of limited domiation the political bureaucracy, or the 1v class.
Contepoary Commuism cold help achieve the goal of
world unification most of all political meas-by internal
democratizatio d becoing r accessile to the outside
world. Ho1vever, it is st remote from tbls. Is it actually
l of such thing?
What kid of picture does Commnism have of itself d
of the otside world?
, ding the period of monopolies, the Marxism which
Leni ndified conceived the internal d extemal relatio
sltips ito 1vhic Czarist Rssia d siilar countries had fallen
wit degree of accuracy. With this picture to spur it , the
moveet headed Lenin fought d w. I Stalin's tie
this s ideology, again modified, was realistic to the extent
that it. defined, almost accurately, the positio d role of t
r1ew state i iternatioal relatios. The Soviet state, or the
w class, 1vas i good positio exteally d itemally,
subordiatig to itself all that it could acquire.
Now the Soviet leades have hard time orietig t.hemselves. They are loger i of seeig conteporary
reality. The world which they see is t the that really
exists. It is either the that used to exist or t that
they would \Vish to have exist.
Holdig to obsolete dogmas, the Comnst leaders
thoght that all t rest of the world would stagnate and de



stroy itself in conflicts and struggles. This did not happen.

The West advanced both ecormically and intellectually. It
proved to united 1vhenever danger &:om aother system
threatened. The coJoies were freed, but dtd t become Commuist, r did this lead to rupture with the mother countries involved.
The breakdow of Wester capitalism through crises and
wars did not take place. In 1949 Vishinsky, at the Uited Natios i the n of the Soviet leadership, predicted t
begi~ning of geat ne\V crisis in th~ Uited States and i~
capitalism. The opposite happeed. Tts was. .t because ca?ttalism is good or bad, but because t capttaltsm t Sovtet
Ieaders rant about no longer exists. The Soviet leaders could
rt see that Idia, t Arab states, and similar countries had
become indepedent, util they began to appove-for teir
o\vn reasons-Soviet poits of vie\v in foreign policy. Soviet
Jeaders did not. and do not. \V unde-stand social democracy.
Instead, t measure it the yadstick \vit \vhich t
measure t fate of the Social Demoo-ats in their o\vn area.
Basina- teir thinkia- t fact tat thei coutry did not
r t development \vhic the Social Democats foresa\v,
SoYiet. leaders ld that social democracy in the \Vest, as
well, is nreal and "tr."
This is also tue \Vith regad to teir evaluation of the basic
conflict--te coflict betwee systems, or t basic tendecy
to\vard t unification of poduction. Here too teir evaluatio
is out of focs.
declare tat this coflict is stggle bet,veen two diffeet social systems. I of tem-teirs, of course-tey
state tlt there are classes, or tat t classes i t
pocess of liquidatio, and that. teirs is state mvership. In
t other system-te foreign one--tey isist tat tlrere are
ragia- class stra-a-les d crises \Vile all material goods are
i the hands of private indiYidals, d that the goYermet 1s
l the tool of andful of greedy monopolists. Wit tis



yiew of the world, t believe tat t preset coflicts wold

have been avoided if such relatioships had t predomiant i the W est.
That is \Vhere the difficlty lies.
if relat.ionships i the West were t way t Commuists would like them to be-the coflict wold still cotire.
Per-aps the coflict \Vould v more severe in this case.
For not. l forms of o\vnership \vould differ; it wold
matter of different, opposig aspirations, behind whic stand
modem techology d the vital iterests of \vole ations, i
'Nhich yario grops, parties, d classes endeavor to haYe the
same prolem solYed accodig to their eeds.
W t SoYiet leaders rate the modern \Vestem cotries
as lid istments of the moopolies, t are just as \\rg
as they are i iter-pretig their own system as classless
society 1vhere O\ver-ship is i t hads of society. Certainly
the moopolies play importat l in t politics of the
\Vestei"Il coutries, but i no case is t role as great or the
same as before the First \Vorld \Var, r as before the
Second World \V. h is, in the backgrod, something
\v d more essential; an iresistile aspiration toward t
uification of t \Vorld. This is >v expressed more strogly
trouglr statism and nationalizatio-or thg t l of
the goYemmet in tl1e economy-ta it is trogh the iflu
ence d action of the monopolies.
t extent tlrat. one class, party, or leader stifles criticism
completely, or olds absolute po\ver, it or inevitaly falls
into an unrealistic, egotistical, and pretentious judgment of
This is appening today to t Commnist leaders.
do not control teir deeds, but are forced into t eality.
There advantages in this; t are IIO\V m practical m
than t used to . Hmvever, tere are also disadvatages,
because tese leaders basically lack ealistic, or eYen approximately realistic, vie\vs. They spend more time defeding



themselves from world reality and attacking it tan they do

in getting accustomed to it. Their adherence to obsolete dogma
incites them to senseless actions, from 'vhich, on more ature
thoughts, tlley constantly retreat, but with loody heads. Let us
l tat t latter will prevail 'vith the. Certaily, if the
Communists interpreted t world realistically, they might ]ose,
but they 'vould gain as human beings, as part of t huma race.
I any case, the world will cange and will go in t direction i which it llas been movig and must go Oil-to,vard
greater unity, progress, and freedom. po'ver of reality d
the power of life v always been stroger than kind of
brutal force and more real than any theory.