Fayre CONTINUED FROM LAST ISSUE Here is what Bucharin wrote on the subject in 1W7. Revolutions are the locomotives of history. The laccable engineer of that locomotive can even or. ck ard Rut sin be only the prol ariat, but the ptolcta at cannot stay within the limits of the prop city relations of bourgeois society. It marches to power and towards Socialism However, this mis: sion wli is being put on the order of the day in a cannot be fulfilled within :1 Eonal boundv aric Here the working class meets with an insur mountable wall v(Take note; an insurmountable wall, Til which can be broken through only by the battering rain of the INTERNATIONAL NORKERS REVOLUTION. Bucharin. Class Struggle and Revolution in lRussiar, page 34, Rus edition. One could not express himsclt more clearly.
Such were the views held by Bucharin in 1917, two years after Lenin alleged change in 191. Perhaps the October Revolution taught Bucharm lilffcrently? We shall see, In 191. Bucharin wrote on the Subject of the Pi riletarian Dictatorship in Russia and the Vx orld Revolution in. the theoretical organ of theComin tori. saying. Under existing VORLD cco y and the con nections between its parts, wit. the simultaneous interdependence of the various national bourgeois groups, IT STANDS TO REASON (our emphasis) that the struggle in one country cannot and without a decisive victory of one or the other side in SEVERAL civilized countries At that time this. was even.
Further. In the larxian and quail lawman pre war lit erature. the question was many ies raised as to. ictory of Socialism is possible in one country, t of the writers replied to this question in. the negative (And what about Lenin in 191. from which one does not at all conclude at it is impossible or inadmissible to start the rev and to capture power in ore cour , re, »e vident.
same article we read: The per :i of great developme of the pro u ive forces can begin only with vict ry of the aetariat in several large count: From here it follows that an all round devciopmeut of the world revolution and the formation of a strong econ!
ancc of the industrial countries with Soviet. Bucharin, Proletorian in Russia and the World Revolution, The Communist Intérnationai, No 1910. Bucharin statement that a rise in the productive forces, that is, real Socialist development, will be»
gin, only after the victory of the proleariat of the advanced countries of Europe why, that is exactly phrlsc which was used as a basis of all acts of indictment against Trotskyism, including also the indictment read at the Seventh Plenum of the ECC It is only strange that Bucharin, whose only salvation lies in his short, memory, read the indictment. Side by side this com Ital ciW umstance, there is also agic o: e among those indicted was also who ex, pressed. tens of times, the very idea.
Finally, in 1921, six years after Lenin alleged thangc of 1917, and four years after the October Revolution, the program of the Young Communist League, approved by the Central Committee head ed by Lenin and drawn up by a Comm on under. Bucliarinb leadership. sa in paragraph In the political power is already in the hands of the working class, In the course of three years of heroic struggle against world capitalism it maintained and strengthened its Soviet Governv moot. Russia, although it possesses enormous natural resources, is, nevertheless, fro an, industrial point of view, a backward country, in which a pettybourgeois population predominates. It can arrive at Socialism only through the world proletarian revolution, which epoch of develop two have now entered.
This paragraph of the program of the Young Co muoist League not of an accidental article, but of a program renders the attempts of the authors of the draft to prove that the Party 311 may held the construction of a Socialist society poo blc in one country and precisely in Russia, ridiculous and inadequate. If always, why is it that Buchar in wrote such a. paragraph in the pro; gram of the Young Communist League and why was Stalin. looking on? How could Lenin and the Whole Central Committee voice such a heresy?
How was it that no one in the Party noticed this triflefi or raised a voice against it? Does this not look: like a. vicious joke which is a direct mockery of the Party, its history and the Comintern? Is it not high time to put a stop to this? Is it not high time to tell the revisionists: Dare not hide behind icoiu and the theoretical traditions of Marxism? THEZ MILITANT HERE IS THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC DEVIATION What have said is more than sufficient to characterize Bucharin theoretical position of yesterday and today. To characterize his political methods one must recall that having selected in the statements written by the Opposition those which are absolutely analogous with those which he himself (IN THIS CASE in full agreement with Lenin) wrote up to 1927, Bucharin erected on their basis the theory of our Social Democratic Deviation. It appears that in the central question concerning the relations between the October Rev olution and the international revolution, the oppor sition thinks. the same as Otto Biuer, who does not admit the possibility of Socialist construction in Russia, One would think that printing has been discovered only in 1924 and that everything that happened before that has been forgotten. It is all trusted to short memory, However, on the question of the nature of the October Revolution, the Comintcrn settled its accounts with Otto Bauer and other philistines of the Second International at the Fourth Congress.
In my speech (on the question of the New Econ!
omic Policy and the prospcts of world revolution)
authorized by the Central Committee, Otto Bauer position was outlined in a manner which expressed the views of our Central Committee of the time; it did not give rise to any objections at the Con gress and, think, it fully holds good today, So far as Bucharin is concerned, he declined to deal with the political side of the problem since many comrades, including Lenin and Trotsky, had al«
ready spoken on the subject. in other words, Bucharin agreed with my speech. Here is what said at the Fourth Congress about Otto Bauer. The Social Democratic theoreticians, who, on the one hand recognize in their holiday articles that capitalism, particularly in Europe, has outlived its use»
fulness and has become a brake on historical devclr opment, and who on the other hand express the conviction that the evolution of Soviet Russia inev itably leads to the triumph of bourgeois democracy, fall into the most pitiful and flat contradiction of which these stupid and conceited confusionists, are worthy. THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY IS CALCULATED ON CERTAIN DEFINITE CON DITIONS OF TIME AND SPACE. IT IS MANOEUVER OF THE WORKERS STATE VHICH EXISTS IN CAPITALIST SURROUND: INGS AND DEFINITELY CALCULATES ON THE REVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. Such a factor as time cannot be left out of consideration in political calculations. If we admit that capitalism will really be) able to exist in Europe for another hundred or fifty years and that Soviet Russia will have to hdapt itself to it in its economic policy, then the question solves itself automatically because, by recognizing this, we pre suppose the crushing of the proletarian revolution in Europeand the rise of a new epoch of capitalist revival. On what basis? If Otto Bauer has dist covered in the life of present day Austria any miraculous signs of capitalist revival then all that can be said is that the fare of Russia is pre dctev mined. But so far we do not see any miracles, and we not believe in such. From our viewpoint, if the European bourgeoisie will hold power in the course of several decades, it will under the present world conditions signify not a new capitalist bloom, but economic stagnation and the cultural decline of Europe. That such a process might be able to draw Soviet Russia into the abyss can, generally speaking, not be denied. Whether she would have to go through a state democracy, or adopt some other forms, is a question of secondary importance. But we see no reason whatever. for the adoption of Spengler philosophy. Ve definitely look for ward to a revolutionary development in Europe.
THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY IS MERELY AN ADAPTATION TO THE RATE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. Trotsky. Five Years of the Comintem, Social Democratic Criticism. This formulation of the questions brings us back to the point from which we started in deal ing with the draft program, namely, that in the epoch of imperialism one cannot regard the fate of one country in any other way but by taking as a background the tendencies of world develop ment, in which the individual country with all its national peculiarities is included and to which it is subordinated, as a whole. Theoreticians of the Second International exclude the USSR, from the world unit and from the imperialist epoch; they apply to the USSR. as an isolated country, the vague criterion of economic maturity. they declare that the USSR. is not ready for inde»
pendent social constructionfand draw the conclu sion of the inevitability of a capitalist degeneration of the VVorkers State.
The authors of the draft program adopt the same theoretical ground and accept the metaphys ical methodology of the Social Democratic theoret December 17, I928. THE DRAFT PROGRAM OF THECOM icians as a Whole. They too abstract from the world entity and from the imperialist epoch. They stait out from the fiction of isolateo development, They apply to the national phase of the world revolution a vague economic criterion. But their sentence is different.
authors of the draft lies in the fact that they turn the Social Democratic evaluation inside out. How ever, the position of the tlieoreticians of the Second International, no matter how much one would remodel it, is equally bad. One must take. Lenin position which simply REMOVES Bauer position and Bauer prognosis as the exercises of an elementary class.
That is how matters stand with the Social Democratic deviation. Not we but the authors of the draft should consider themselves related to Bauer.
THE DEPENDENCE OF THE S, ONVVORLD ECONOMY The precursor of the present prophets of the national socialist society was no other than Herr Vollmar. Describing in his article entitled An Isolated Socialist State the prospect of indepen»
dent socialist construction in Germany, the prcy letariat of which country advanced much further than that of progressive Britain, Vollmar, in 1878, refers clearly and quite correctly in several places to the law of uneven development which, accord, ing to Stalin, Marx and Engels did not know. On the basis of that law Vollmar arrgves in 1878 at the irrefutable conclusion that. Under thegexisting conditions, which will retain their forces also in the future, it can be foreseen that a simultaneous victory of socialism in all cultural countries, is absolutely out of the question.
Developing this idea still further, Vollmar saysi Thus We have come to the ISOLATED socialist State which is, hope have proven, although not the only possible, the MOST PROBABLE WAY.
Inasmuch as by the term of isolated State one must understand one State under a proletarian dictatorship, Vollmar expressed an irrefutable idea which was well known to Marx and Engels and which Lenin expressed in the quoted article of 1915.
But then comes already something which is purely Vollmar idea. whch, by! the way, is by far not; as one sided and wrongly formulated as the formultation of our sponsors of the theory of socialism in one country. In his construction, Vollmar took as a starting point the supposition that socialist Germany will have live economic rela tions with world caitalist economy, having at the same time the advantage of possessing a highly developed technique and a low cost of production.
This construction is based on the prospect of a PEACEFUL cohabitation of the socialist and cap»
italist systems. But inasmuch as socialism must, as as it progresses, constantly reveal its colossal pror ductive advantages the necessity for a world revr olutioh will fall away in itself, as socialism will be able to settle accounts with capitalism by the sale of goods more cheaply on the market.
The authors of the first draft program and fine of the authors of the second draft, Bucharin, in their construction of socialism in one country, proceed entirely from the idea of an isolated self sufficing economy. In Bucharin article entitled As to the Nature of our Revolution and the Possibility of, Successful Socialist Construction in the USSR. The Bolshevik, N0. 192, 1926. which is the last word in scholastics multiplied by sophistry, all arguments are kept within the limits of isolated, economy. The chief and only argument is the following. Once we have all that is necessary and sufficient for the building up of socialism, it follows that in the process of building of socialism there can be no such a point at which its further construction would become impossible. If We haVe in our courr try such a combination of forcesthat in relation to each past year, we are marching ahead with a greater relative strength of the socialist sector of economy and the socialized sectors of economy grow faster than the private capitalist sectors, then we are enter!
ing every subsequent new year with a greater balance of power.
This argumentation is comprehensible ONCE we have all that is necessary andsufficieilt, SO.
we have it. Starting out from a point which needs to be proven, Bucharin builds up a complete sys mllmu, son of an aristocratic Bavarian familyv was me of the leaders of the German Social Democracy in the days of Babel and the elder Liebknechl, He opposed the Marxian contentions )n the qu csiions of the concentration of capital, on the agrarian )roblem, and me like. He was one of Lhc fatlxers of the evolu lvm mx reformist movement in the German may. During the days ihe Bismmk amirSocialist law, he served a mm in tlle Zwickau nisan. where he wrote a work on the question of an isolaied Social 5: Slater Ed The leftism of the With this issde The Mili tant prints th third in: stallment of The Program of th. Commu»
nist Internatio. Grit ticism of ndamentéls by EJD. Tr ky. This document, a Marxist Leninist submitted by :c sky to the Sixth gress of the :Go ternational mrade Two World Con rhumanist In»
rin and Stalin, important changqs.
tire validity of: and fundamental. mains in spite that it was km; from the Congress and ml by the delegate attention accord distribution to.
the Program and a report the docu ment to the ioren KonI vent of the pgt ess which immediately led the is, sue without disr lissi on. rigid control on this document established forthwith a l, th e few copiesafzthejio iaaegtjylxida were difi ibfif wei:e rel called by the Sr. etariat. Our publication is In authentic without any The sole it was its members of Commission copy which we ave ju st re. ceived, locked the role of. eri can Im»
perialism and t1. fprbspect of new revolution y situations, the revisionist éoty of So!
cialism in one 6 untry, with the Chinese its lessons, and. mation of worl ya and peas»
ants parties ibh Trotsky, in line with Lr ii, condemns in principle. létsky corn!
chiefly with ment on the Third Party Alliance with a Follette, the fight agair which was led by him, will especially interesting to erican com: munists. b; itire docw men: will be ted infull consecutively his and the forthcoming Is of The Militant withou a Its basic impo international qvolutionary movement and e unanswerI able correctnesiiof its posi tion on the bu lag problems of the CommiEst Interna tional make is invaluable contribution to e Bolshevik literature of or period. Editor.
INTER raft. sterpiece of.
terature was finally.
The ma er. discussed chan es. y , our import which depends entirely on the export.
December 17, 1928.
tem of self sufficing socialist economics without any entrances or exits to it. As to the external environment, that is, the rest of the world, Bucha rin as well as Stalin, think of them only from the viewpoint of intervention. When Bucharin speaks in his article about the necessity to abstract from the international factor, he has in mind not the world market but military intervention, Buchan does not have to abstract from the world market because he simply forgets about it in his structure. In harmony with this scheme Bucharin championed at the Fourteenth Congress the idea that if we will not be interfered with by interven tion we will build up socialism although with the speed of a tortoise. The unintermpted struggle between the two systems, the fact that socialism can. be based only on the highest productive forces, in a word, Marxian dynamics in displacing one social form by another on the basis of the growing productive forces all this has been blotted. out.
Revolutionary historical dialectics has been dis placed by a skinflint reactionary Utopia of encirr cled socialism, built on a low technique developing with the speed of a tortorse within national boundaries, connectedwith the external. world only by its fear of intervention, The refusal to accept this miserable caricature on Marx and Lenin doctrine has beendeclared a Social Dem. ocratic deviationfa characterization of our views, has, in general, for the first time been advanced and substantiated.
History will mark that we have fallen into a. Social Democratic deviation for failing to recog nize as inferior version of Vollmar theory of socialism in one country. The proletariat of Czar»
ist Russia could not have taken power in October if Russia had not been a link, the weakest, but yet a link, of the chain of WORLD economy.
The capture of power by the proletariat has not in the least excluded the Soviet Republic from the international division of labor set up by cap!
Like the wise owl which comes outronly in the dusk, the theory of socialism in one country has appeared at the moment when our industry, which exhausts ever greater parts of the old fixed capital, two thirds of which is a crystallization of the def pcudence of our industry on world economics, has manifested an acute demand for a renewing and extension of relations with the world market and when the questions of foreign trade have arisen in their full scope before our economic directors; At the Eleventh Congress, that is, at the last Congress at which Lenin had the opportunity to speak to the Party, he issued the warning that the Party will have to face another examination. An examination which the Russian and INTER?
Nothing strikes the theory of an isolated comr plete socialism sucha death blow as the simple fact that the figures of our foreign trade have in recent years become the corner stone of the fig!
ures of our economic plans; The most stringent place of our economy, including our industry, is And inasmuch as the power of resistance is al: ways measured by the weakest link, the extent of our economic plans is measured by the extent of our import.
In the journal Planned Economy (a theoretical organ of the State PlanningCommission) we read in an article devoted to, the system of planning, that in drawing up our estimates for this year we had to take our export and import balance as. starting point; we had to orientate ourselves on thatin our plans for the various industries and consequently for industry in general and. particularly for the con, struction of new industrial enterprises, etc, etc. January 1927, page 27. The methodological approach of the State Plan!
ning Commission says without any doubt, for all Who have ears to hear, thatthe estimate figures determine the tendency and tempo of our econ omic development but that these estimate figures are already controlled by world economy; not be cause we have become weaker, but because having becoming stronger we have outgrown the narrow enclosed circle. The capitalist world shows us by its export and import figures that it has other, means of persua sion than those of military intervention. Inasmuch as productivity of laborand the produc tivityrof a social system as a whole is measured on the CRITICISM 0F FUNDflMENTAL In the quoted article, this THE MILITANT market by the correlation of prices, to the same extent it is not so much military intervention as the intervention of cheaper capitalist commodities that constitute the greatest, danger to Soviet econr omy. This alone shows that it is by no means merely a question of an isolated economic victory over one own bourgeoisier The Socialist revolution which is meant for the whole world will by no means consist merely in a victory of the proletariat of each country over its own bourgeoisie. Lenin, 1919, Vol. 16, page 388. It is a question of competition and ofa life and death struggle between two social systems one of which only commenced to build on backward pro ductive forces and the other which still rests on productive forces of immeasurably greater strength; Anyone who sees in the admission Of our de?
pendence on the world market (Lenin spoke directr ly of our SUBORDINATION to the world mar!
ket) pessimism, reveals thereby his own provin cial pettyrbourgeois feeblcnesswin the face Of the world market and the pititful character of his countryrbred optimism, hoping to hide froin World economy behind a bush and to get along somehow with his own means. The question of honor for the new thebry has become the curious idea that the can perish from a military intervention, but by no means form its own economic backwardness. But inasmuch as in socialist society the readiness of the toiling masses to defend their country must. be much greater than the readiness of the slaves of capitalism to attack that country, the question is why should a military intervention menace us with destruction? Is it because the enemy is TECHNICALLY immeasurably stronger? Buch arin admits the preponderance of the productive forces only in the military technical aspect. He does not want to understand that Ford tractor is just as dangerous as the Creusot gun, with the only difference that whereas the gun can act only from time to time, the tractor brings its pressure to bear constantly. Besides, the tractor knows that a gun stands behind it, as a last resort.
We are the first Workers StateAa part of the world proletariat together with which we DE!
PEND upon world capital. The indifferent, neu tral and bureaucratically castrated word, connec tion is set in motion only with the object of con»
cealing the extremely difficult and dangerous nature of these connections. If we would pI duce according to the price of the world market. our dependence on the latter, without ceasing to be a dependence, would be of a much less severe character than it is now. But unfortunately this is not so. The very monopoly of foreign trade betrays the severity and the dangerous character of our dependence. The decisive importance of the monopoly in our socialist construction is a result precisely of the existing correlation of forces which is unfavorable to us. But one must not forget for a moment that the foreign trade only regulates our dependence upon the world market, but does not eliminate it. So long as our Soviet Republic, says Lenin. will remain the only border land surrounded by the whole capitalist world, so long will it be an absolutely ridiculous fantasy and Utopia to think of our com plete economic independence and of the disappear ance of any of our dangers. Vol. 17, page 409. The chief dangers arise consequently from the objective position of the USSR. as the only borderland in capitalist economy which is hostile to us. These dangers may, however, diminish or increase. This depends on the action of two factors socialist construction on the one hand, and the development of capitalist economy on the other. The second factor of course, that is, the fate of world economy as a whole, is, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, of DECISIVE significance.
Can it happen and in what particular case that the productivity of our socialist system will constantly lag behind that of the capitalist system which, IN THE END would inevitably lead to the downfall of the Socialist Republic? If we will manage properly our economy in the phase when it becomes necessary to create independently an industrial basis with its incomparably, higher der mands to the management, then our productivity of labor will grow. Is it, however, inconceivable that the productivity of labor in the capitalist countries, or, more correctly, in the predominant capitalist countries, will grow faster than in our country? Withouta clear answer to this question the meaningless and wordy statements that our tempo is in itself sufficient (let us forget the factitious philosophy about the speed of the tor toise. are insolvent. But the very mentioning of Page :By TROTSKY the rivalry of two systems leads us to the arena.
of world ecOnomy and world politics, that is, to the arena of action and decision of the revolutionary International which includes also the Soviet. Republic, but ndt by any means the self sufficfng Soviet Republic, which secures from time to time the support of the International, Before, however, taking up this question we will try to revealits main contradiction, basing ourselves on the draft program. THE ANTAGONISM BETWEEN THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES AND THE NATIONAL BOUNDARIES AS THE CAUSE OF THE REACTIONARY LUTOPIAN THEORY OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY.
The theory of socialism in one country is con; firmed as we have seen by means of several sophist interpretations of Lenin expressions on the one hand and by a scholastic interpretation of the law of uneven developmem on the other. By giving a correct interpretation of the historical law as Well as of the respective quotations we arrived at a directly opposite conclusion, that is, a conclusion at which Marx, Engels, Lenin and all of us in»
cluding Stalin and Bucharin up to 1925, have an rived at.
From theruneven sporadic devolpment of cap italism follow the unsimultaneous, uneven and sp04 radic nature of the socialist revolution; fromfthe Extreme tensity of the interdependence of the various Countries upon each other, follows not only the political but also the econbmic impossibility of the building up of socialism in one country.
From this angle we will examine once again the text of the program a little closer. We have already read in the introduction that. Imperialism. intensifies the contradiction be tween the growth of the productive forces of world economy and national State barriers to an excep tional degree.
We have already stated that this utterance was meant to be the cornerstone of the international program. But it is precisely this enunciation which excludes, rejects and sweeps away before: hand the theory of socialism in one country as a reactionary theory because it is irreconciliably opr posed not only to the main TENDENCY of d9!
velopment of the productive forces but also to the MATERIAL RESULTS which have already been attained. The productive forces are incompatible with national boundaries. From here Ollow not only foreign trade, the export of people andcap ital, the conquest of land, the colonial policy, and the last imperialist war, but also the economic im possibility of a selfesufficing socialist society. The productive forces of CAPITALIST countries have already for a long time broken through the nae tional boundaries. Socialist society however, can be built only on the most advanced productive forces, on electricity and chemistry in the processes of production including also agriculture, in the combination, generalization and culmination of the highest elements of modern technique. We have been repeating since Marx that capitalism is un able to cope with the spirit of new technique to which it has given rise and which breaks asunder not only the private propelty rights of bourgeois property but, as the war of 1914 has shown, also the national limits of the bourgeois State. 86 cialism, however, must not only take over from capitalism the most highly developed productive forces but must immediatey carry them onward, raise them to a higher level and lend them such a state of development which has been unknown under capitalism. The question arises, how can socialism drive the productive forces back into the boundaries of a national state which they have broken through under capitalism? Or perhaps we ought to abandon the idea of unbridled produc»
tive forces for which the national boundaries AND CONSEQUENTLY ALSO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE THEORY OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY are too narrow, and limit ourselves to, let us say, the home productive forces, that is, to our technical backwardness? If this is the case, then we should in many branches of industry stop making progress right now, and decline to a posiv tion even lower than our present pitiful technical level which managed to link up bourgeois Russia with world economy in an inseparable bond and to bring it, into the vortex of the imperialist war for an EXPANSION OF ITS TERRITORY. FOR THEPRODUCTIVE FORCES which had out, grown the State boundaries. i. TO BE CONTINUED