JOE SLOVO'S strong affirmation that the roots of the crisis in the post-capitalist states are to be found in the absence of socialist democracy is absolutely correct.
But there is a theoretical blind spot on Slovo's part, which mars his analysis. That is the relation of the rise of the bureaucratic caste in the Soviet Union to Stalinist degeneration. Put briefly, Joe Slovo sees the privileged bureaucracy as important to the reproduction of Stalinism, not its main source. I would argue that, on the contrary, the rise of Stalinism went hand-in-hand with the rise of the bureaucracy, and that, theoretically, Stalinism is nothing other than the ideology of the privileged bureaucracy.
replying to Pallo Jordan, comrade Slovo concedes that in his earlier intervention Has socialism failed? he should have dealt with the issue of the bureaucratic elite. However, he then argues that an explanation Stalinism which relies on the rise of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union is 'economic determinism', and vulgar determinist Marxism'.
In reality, he dig uts, the roots of Stalinism were laid before the rise of the bureaucracy: crucially these roots reside in certain ideological practices, which have deep roots in certain conceptions of the Leninist party and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He reinforces his argument by reference to certain ideas put forward in the 1917-22 period by later 'oppositionists', above all Trotsky, which contain unconcrete into the foundations of Stainismour democratic notions which 'helped Joe Slovo's case is very one-sided. In casting a spotlight on the ideological weaknesses of the i Bolsheviks in relation to socialist democracy, which certainly existed and aided the rise of Stalinism, he fails to provide a comprehensive social explanation of the bureaucratic phenomenon and the degeneration of the Bolshevik party itself.
What were the causes of the bureaucratic degeneration in the USSR? I would list them as follows:
1) The Russian revolution was made in an economically and culturally backward country, on the strategic hypothesis of a very rapid spread of the revolution, above all to Germany. In a country, in a situation of scarcity, when the revolution abroad was not successful, the objective pressures towards bureaucratic soviets became a fiction because everything was decided in the Bolshevik party beforehand' administration were immense.
2) In the period of civil war and social dislocation which followed the revolution the mass working class vanguard from the cities, which had made the revolution, largely perished. The working class was dispersed, which was the objective basis for the decline of the Soviets and the rise of the single party administration.
3) After the civil war, as economic life began to be stabilised, a new layer of administrative party bureaucrats. used to exercising power without the check of soviets or any kind of working class supervision, consolidated their position. Many of these people were totally new to the Bolshevik party, or indeed were former Mensheviks or directly from the old Czarist administration.
4) Once the rise and consolidating power of the bureaucracy became clear a huge political battle, tional policy but centring on socialist democracy, took place inside the Bolshevik party, which the political representatives of the bureaucracy won. This battle, one of the most dramatic and important political disputes this century, lasted from 1923 to 1928. It was fought over the very soul and heritage of Bolshevism. While the social pressures of bureaucratic Statin faction, their victory was indeed isolation revolution aided the aided by theoretical weaknesses of the old Bolshevik tradition on socialist democracy, and indeed some of the anti-democratic decisions in the early days of the revolution, which Trotsky and the opposition had been analysis, but I insist it is not 'vulgar Marxism' or 'economic determinism'. Indeed, the rise of the bureaucracy as a crystallised social layer was not 'inevitable just because of economic backwardness. Economic backwardness creates the objective pressures towards bureaucracy. 'administrativism' may well be inevitable in situabackwardness. But it does not automatically create the rule of a privileged bureaucratic layer, which politically expropriates the working class.
That took the political destruction of the Bolshevik party, and the political defeat of the Left analysis, which makes the victory of the Stalin faction in the party the central link in the chain, is weaknesses of the Bolsheviks, and some of their early undemocratic practices, cannot be evaded. Even the most ardent 'Leninist cannot deny obincluded, were too quick and ready, to ban opposition parties during the civil war; they were wrong to ban internal wrong to establish the Cheka, the forerunner of the Without multi-partyism, the democracy of the soviets became a fiction because everything was decided in the Bolshevik party beforehand.
This was compounded by the fatal error of banning factions inside the Bolshevik party in the aftermath of the Kronstadt rebellion. Without the right to form temporary opposition groupings, party democracy is a fiction. In this sense, we have no quarrel with Joe Slovo's critique of such actions, which greatly undermined the future struggle against bureaucracy.
Comrade Slovo has a field day digging up quotes from Trotsky during the civil war period showing that he supported undemocratic actions, and even, for a short period supported the 'militarisation of labour'. Trotskyists like myself have two answers to Joe Slovo on this. First, Trotsky was wrong - dead wrong - on these issues, notwithstanding the difficult conditions of the time. Second, Trotsky's errors at this time in no way invalidate the struggle, begun by Trotsky and the other oppositionists in 1923, against the rule of the bureaucracy and for socialist democracy.
What Trotsky did or did not do from 1918-21 cannot invalidate what Trotsky and the Left Opdid in their titanic battle to restore democracy in the party and the state.
This is the political reality Joe Slovo is running away from, the consequences of which he does not Even if we concede that the oppolitical victory of Stalinism, the slate cannot be wiped clean: Trotsky and thousands of old Bolsheviks fought a courageous battle, in adverse circumstances and faced with continuous repression and intimidation, It is now well known that in his last days Wdh bureaucratisation, and sought an alliance with Trotsky to launch a fight against Stalin on this issue (this is outlined in detail by Moshe Lewin's famous book Lenin's Last Struggle).
The struggle was commenced in 1923 by the The New Course by Trotsky, supported by dozens of old Bolsheviks, centring on the very question of the party regime and socialist democrary. Their ultimate defeat paved the way for the definitive victory of Stalinism and the purThere is just one reference to Trotsky's views after 1921 in what Joe Slovo writes: his assertion supremacy of the party over the Soviets'. Left out
4 theory + practice • FEB 1992 Leaders of the Lefi Opposition in 1927. Trotsky centre, Radek to his right. Christian Rakovsky is on the far left of the back row. is the whole of what Trotsky wrote in key texts like The Revolution Betrayed (1936), in which he specifically argues for the supremacy of the Soviets, for the right of multi- partyism, and for the freedom of internal party groupings and debate. Left out are his very clear assertions, like those in the Transitional Programme (1938) that the workers must be free to choose who they want in the soviets as their representatives, on the basis of freedom for parties and secret elections.
We must grant that Trotsky never explicitly said 'What I did from 1918-21 was wrong'. But the whole programme he defended on socialist democracy reads like an implicit self-criticism.
Ironically however, the one post-1921 text of Trotsky which Joe Slovo refers to, his 1937 'Stalinism and Bolshevism', contains an explicit rebuttal by Trotsky of the view that Stalinism emerged simply from the errors of Bolshevism.
The state built up by the Bolsheviks reflects not only the thought and will of Bolshevism but also the cultural level of the country, the social composition of the population, the pressure of a barbaric past and a no less barbaric imperialism. To represent the process of the degeneration of the Soviet state as the evolution of pure Bolshevism is to ignore social reality, in the name of a few elements, isolated by pure logic' Trotsky could have been talking about Joe Slovo. For the moment, let us leave aside Trotsky and look at the more general case of comrade Slovo. The two 'theoretical practices which he singles out for special attention as contributing to Stalinism are the Leninist party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He is quite right in saying that, in the Stalinist parties, these concepts became progressively synonyms for the monolithic party and authoritarian dictatorship.
In dealinatith the leninist party of sinist emphasises model Stalinist bureaucratic party was often based on the elevation of certain aspects of Lenin's 'What is to be Done?' to the level of dogma, when this text was written about the party in illegality. This is quite correct. It is important to stress that the Bolshevik party itself, even during clandestinity, never had a monolithic internal life, or an all-powerful general secretary, but was full of free discussion, temporary factional groupings, and internal political debate.
The myth of monolithic Leninism was a Stalinist invention to justify later practices. Marcel Liebman's Leninism under Lenin gives ample factual proof of this.
But on crucial aspects of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat Joe Slovo is wrong. It is important to clarify this question, because it is not just a question of democracy, but of fundamental socialist strategy.
By the 'dictatorship of the proletarial Lenin and the Bolsheviks simply meant that the socially ruling class would be the working class. Under Stalinism, the phrase 'dictatorship' was utilised to justify the absence of democracy. But Joe Slovo's Socialism after Stalinism A Socialist Outlook Pamphlet Price fl objections are deeper. He wonders whether the phrase was ever useful, because surely socialism is in the interests of the whole of society, not just the 'working class', narrowly defined.
Democratic socialism is indeed in the interests of the overwhelming majority, not just proletarians. The vast majority of the peasantry, many petty-bourgeois layers, huge swathes of the non-proletarian poor (of which there are millions in city shanty towns round the world) have an interest in replacing capitalism. The question is, historically and internationally, which class is the bearer of new socialist relations? Fundamentally, it is the working class, because it is this class - by its capacity for organisation and its crucial role in production - which can fashion an alternative project for running society. This is not a matter of 'working class chauvinism' or workersm, but of hard-headed revolutionary strategy.
Fundamentally this is a question of the class character of the state. If Joe Slovo objects to the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat and wants to replace it, in certain countries, with 'dictatorship of the proletariat, poor peasantry, and other exploited masses' then we have no objection. advanced capitalist countries, where the working class is the overwhelming majority, such a formula does not work.
The formula 'dictatorship of the proletarial' is thus a profoundly democratic idea, the notion of putting power into the hands of the overwhelming majority. Scrapping the term is not the problem; the problem comes when people from the Communist tradition begin to scrap the content, and with it any form of socialist aspirations.
Leninism means building a party which can unite the most determined sections of the poor and exploited to fight capitalism. Dictatorship of the proletariat means building a society where the poor and exploited have the power.
Both these things should be at the heart of socialist aspirations; it is our task to make them part of socialist reality.
Socialis
•We must grant that Trotsky never explicitly said What I did from 1918-21 was wrong'. But the whole programme he defended on socialist democracy reads like an implicit self-criticism?