The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 15, 1927, Page 9

Page views left: 0

You have reached the hourly page view limit. Unlock higher limit to our entire archive!

Subscribers enjoy higher page view limit, downloads, and exclusive features.

Text content (automatically generated)

* pi wt By WILLIAM F. DUNNE. -¥ extension of the franchise in the Union of Socialist Soviet republics, every evidence of the further entry of the villages and the peasantry into more active participation in the government of the Soviet Union, is hailed by the socialist and capital- ist press as proof of the disruption of the working class dictatorship, Upon the basis of these iciintines, freely admit- ted by the leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and initiated by them, the counter- evolutionists of the world build a whole structure of bouyant hopes to be realized when the “simple peas- antry” has overwhelmed the “Communist Terror.” The “Marxians” of the second international, now in the camp of the capitalist class, hold out to their allies this will-o-the-wisp of the collapse of the work- ers’ and peasants’ government of the Soviet Union and today this is about the sole consolation the im- perialists of the world have when they are forced to witness the growing might of this rich heritage Lenin left the Russian masses and the rest of the world’s toiling millions. Periodically we hear of “new concessions” forced from the government by the peasantry, of the ex- tension of rank and file control of the unions, of a ‘lessening of the restrictions on social activities, etc. The capitalist press rejoices and the socialist press publishes rapturous predictions of the downfall of the Soviet government. On the anniversary of the death of Nicolai Lenin, whose genius rescued the revolutionary teachings of Marx and Engels from the revisionists of the sec- ond international, and who charted unerringly the course the workers’ and peasants’ government of the Soviet Union is following, it is of interest to show, as Lenin showed at a time when the safety of the Russian revolution, meeting invading imperi- alist armies on all fronts, hung in the balance, that the socalled concessions to the peasantry in the form of increased electoral participation, the new activity of the villages in political and cultural life, the extension of democracy in the unions, etc., rep- resents not a growing weakness _but a growing strength of the revolution. The second international abandoned the revolu- tionary struggle against the capitalist state, twisted and distorted the Marxian teaching concerning the role of the state. To them government became a permanent institution which, by an evolutionary process consisting of securing minor reforms from ‘time’to time, Would take on a socialist character. “Having decided that the role of the socialist par- ties was to work within the capitalist government, their last thought was of destroying this instrument of oppression. As Bucharin says in his “Lenin as a Marxist”: “If these Marxist ‘epigones’ took into account cer- tain new changes in the domain of the capitalist order, of the inter-relation between economics and politics, if they examine under their theoretical mag- nifying glass some new phenomena in the realm of current life, then they would on principle always take into consideration these new phenomena from one aspect, from the aspect of THE INCORPORA- TION OF THE WORKING CLASS ORGANIZA- TIONS INTO THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF CAPI- TALIST MECHANICISM IN AN EVOLUTIONARY MANNER. (Emphasis in the original.) “Ultimately,” continues Bucharin, “the whole rev- olutionary substance of revolutionary Marxism be- gan to melt away.” When the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, the socialdemocratic leaders failed to recognize that here was the most powerful living example of ap- plied Marxism. They charged everything from an- archism and Blanquism to outright aid to capitalism against the Bolsheviks and today, when the working class of Russia, aided by the peasantry, has ruled for ten years under the leadership of the Communist Party, they still refuse to recognize this proletarian power as the concrete expression of the Marxian formula: ~* The state, that is, the proletariat organized as the ruling class, Lenin, especially in his “The State and Revolu- tion,” drove to cover the “Marxists” who had pros- tituted Engels’ sentence, “The state will not be abolished; it will wither away,” on which the so eial-democracy had built almost entirely its whole theory of “peaceful, evolutionary progress towards socialism,” but he also disarmed the anarchists to whom the sacred character of the capitalist state visualized by the socialists had been of great value in their antistate campaigns. Lenin says in this great work: “The first fact has been established with complete exactness by the whole theory of evolution, indeed, by the whole of science—a fact. which the Utopians forgot, however, and which is now forgotten by the present opportunists, afraid of the socialist revolu- tion—that is, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage or époch of TRANSITION from capi- talism to Communism. (Emphasis in the original.) Then Lenin quotes Marx, whose teaching on this subject conveniently had been forgotten or hidden by the “evolutionary socialists.” “Between capitalist and Communist society, there Mes a period of revolutionary transformation from the former to the latter. A stage of political transi- tion corresponds to this period, and the state during this period can be no other than the REVOLUTION- ARY DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.” (Emphasis in the original.) But Lenin was not con- tent with quoting Marx. He explains how Marx came to this conclusion: “This conchision Marx bases on an analysis of the role played by the proletariat in modern capitalist society, on the FACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SOCIETY and on the IRRECONCILABIL- ITY OF THE ANTAGONISTIC INTERESTS of the proletariat and capitalist class.” (Emphasis mine.) The history of the whole struggle in and of the Soviet Union, where the revolution has been victori- ous, and in Germany, Italy, Finland and Bulgaria, where it has so far been defeated, since Lenin brot Bucharin Rykoff a re-birth of revolutionary Marxism, proves to the hilt the correctness of the conclusions of these twin giants of the class struggle. It is a dictatorship of the working class supported by the peasantry that rules in Russia—democracy for the masses, rule of the most rigid kind for the enemies of the workers. It is for this reason that there is so much re- joicing in capitalist, and -socialist) cireles when al- leged evidences of a weakening«of the - ee power are brought forward. But we workers need pay attention to the mouth- ings of the workers’ enemies only to laugh them to scorn. Lenin here too wrested revolutionary Marx- ism from the hands of its defilers and brought the Marxian teachings sharply to the attention of the conscious ‘workers. He tore loose the deceptive veil with which the leaders of the second international had covered the Marxian theory of the state in the transition period, proved that only AFTER the work- ing class headed by its revolutionary party has taken power does the state begin to “wither away.” Said Engels: “The first act of the (proletarian) state, in which it really acts as the representative of the whole of society, mamely the assumption of control over the means of production on behalf of society, is also ita last independent act as a state. The interference of the authority of the state with social relations will then become superfluous in one field after another, and will finally cease of itself. The state wil] not be abolished; it will wither away.” But this withering away of the state does not take place while the revolution is still in combat: with its class enemies—whether these be internal enemies—- the remnants of the old ruling class—or external enemies in the shape of imperialist nations, In the Soviet Union the revolution has not yet been com- pleted—it is in the transition stage and there is not full democracy for all members of society, but only for the working class. Lenin says: “,..., im using the term ‘withering away,’ Engels quite clearly and definitely refers to the period AFTER ‘the taking over of the means of production complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists who shamelessly distort Marx art Chak Geuialld MOE eel Uelth the Weenie aie of the democracy. At first sight this seems very a. But it will only be unintelligible to one Is there alarm over the “withering away” even of democracy—that shibboleth of the capitalist class and its dupes? Does this seem to approach the wild dreams of the anarchists with their vistong of the~ destruction of “the state” in one fell swoop and the ushering in of perfect freedom over night? : Greatest Legacy—The Soviet State But Lenin was nothing if not clear. He comes back to what after all is the main point for worl ers at present—the role of the working class state im the transition period and says: “Again, during the TRANSITION from capitalism .to Communism, suppression is still mecessary; but in thig case it is the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of exploited. A special instrument, a special machine for suppression—that is, the state—is necessary, but this is now a trans tional state, no longer a state in the ordinary sense of the term. For the suppression of the minority... by those who were BUT YESTERDAY wage slaves, is a matter comparatively so easy, simple and na tural, that IT WILL COST FAR LESS BLOODSHED THAN THE SUPPRESSION OF THE RISINGS OF THE SLAVES, SERFS OR WAGE LABORDERS, AND WILL COST THE HUMAN RACE FAR LESS. And it is compatible with THE DIFFUSION OF DEMOCRACY OVER SUCH AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE NATION that the need for any SPECIAL MACHINERY will gradually cease ta exist.” One has only to! read the biased stories carried by the capitalist press about conditions in the Soviet Union to understand that there is less need for SPECIAL MACHINERY to suppress the capitalist class and its agents in Russia today, for instanca, than there was when the workers, led by the Bob sheviks, took power in 1917. Arthur Darling, Yale University professor, writing in Current History for January on the economic report of the Soviet Unioa, says, for instance, that the burden of proof that pro gress is not being made in the Soviet Union will : oom be upon its enemies, Multitudes of similar utterances could be given, but it is necessary only to point to the abolition of “war Communism”-—compulsory labor—to prove thag there is a far wider measure of individual liberty than there was during the more critical days of the working class dictatorship. The meaning of the relaxation of restrictions is NOT that the proletarian power is weakening but that it is growing stronger day by day—that it has a broader base of mass support and that sections of the population which were neutral or hostile during the earlier period now support the proletarian power without qualification. The general tendency in the Soviet Union is towards a broader democracy which will in turn “wither away.” Only in periods of emergency, such as an armed attack by the im- “périalist nations, will there be a temporary Waltin this direction. Socialism is being built in the Soviet Union, not only in the narrow sense of the socializa- tion of industry but in the cultural field as well and together with the extension of the administrative machinery of the proletarian power is creating the finest sense of socia] responsibility that the world has ever seen. What the tendency towards the extension of de- mocracy to the widest possible masses of the popula tion, beginning with the workers, portends, wag ex- plained by Lenin: “Finally, only under Communism will the state become quite unnecessary, for there will be NO ONB to suppress——‘no one’ in the sense of a CLASS, i the sense of a systematic struggle with a definite section of the population ....* . we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses which violate the rules of social life is the exploitation of the masses, their want and poverty. With the removal of this chief cause, excesses will inevitably begin to ‘wither away.’ We do not know how quickly and in what stages, but we know that they will be withering away. With their withering away, the state will also wither away.” ; ‘And how will this come about? Not by a miracle but by a working class free to carve out itg destiny in making over a whole world: “Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has finally been broken, when the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no longer any classes (that is, when there is no differ ence between the members of society in respect of their social means of production), ONLY THEN does the state disippear AND ONE CAN SPEAK OF FREEDOM ...... freed from capitalist slavery, from the innumerable horrors, savagery, absurdities and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually BECOME ACCUSTOMED to the elementary rules of social life, known for centuries, repeated for thousands of years in sermons ..,... without the SPECIAL APPARATUS for compulsion which ig called the state.” The above passage, which read in its entirety is one of the most beautiful expressions in any lan- guage, should be memorized by every class con- scious worker. It gives the goal, the final goal of the Communist revolution. Far from seeing a weakening of the revolution in the extension of democracy in the Soviet Union, it is the best guarantee of the unshakable strength of the proletarian power and an assurance, if any is needed, that the Soviet Union, under the leadership of the Communist Party, is driving straight dowu the path charted for it by Lenin—the most skilful wielder of the weapon of revolutionary “Marxism.

Other pages from this issue: