Wednesday, November 20, 2013



tual calшnniation, unreasoning hatred and barbaric eпcounters,
through debauchery and intellectнal decadence, the movernent
slo1vly clirnbs, crushing groups апd individuals, discarding the
supeтfluous, forging its core and it.s dogrna, its morals апd
psychology, atnюsphere, and maпner of 1vork.
о .
When it becomes truly revolutioпary, the Comrnuшst movemeпt
and its follo1vers achieve, for а morneпt, the high rnoral
standards descriЬed here. This is а mornent. in Cornrnunism
wheп it is difficult to separate words fi·om deeds, or more accurately,
when the leading, most importaпt, truest, and ideal
Cornmuпists siпcerely believe iп their ideals апd aspire to put
theш into practice in their rnethods and iп their personal Ше.
This is the moment on the eve of tће battle for power, а moment
which occurs only iп movement.s whicћ arrive at tllis
unique point.
True, these are the шorals of а sect, Ьнt they are шorals on
а high plane. The movement is isolated, it oft.eп does поt see
the truth, but this does not mean that the шоvешепt does not
tћerefore аiш at, or tћat it does not love, trнth.
Int.ernal moral and intellectual fusion are the result of а
Jong battle for ideological and operational unity. Without. this
fusioп there саппоt еvеп Ье апу tlюught of а tr"lle revolнtioпary
Comшunist moveшeпt. "Unity of шiпd and act.ion" is iшpossiЬle
'vithout psycћic-шoral нпitу. And vice versa. But tbls
very psychic and шoral unity-for 'vhich no statutes or la,vs
have Ьееп ,\l:t·itten, Ьнt wћich occtпs spontaпeously, to become
а custom апd а conscious haЬit-шor·e than aпytћing else шakes
Coшшunists that. indestructiЬle faшily, incoшprehensiЬle and
iшpenetraЬle to othel-s, inflexiЬle in tће solidarity and ide11tity
of its reactioпs, thoнghts, апd feeliпgs. More tha11 anything
else, tlle existeпce of this psychic-moral u11ity-wћich is rюt
attained all at опсе and 1vhich is поt. eve11 fi11ally forшed except
as soшething to aspire to--is tће шost reliaЬle sigп that
the Commнпist шоvешепt ћаs estaЬlished itself апd has become
irresistiЬle to its follo,vers апd to шаnу others, po,verful Ье-
санsе it is fused iпto one piece, опе soнl, апd опе body. This
is the proof tћat а пе,v, ћomogeпeous moveшeпt ћаs emero-ed
' ~ Ј
а movemeпt facing а futнre completely differerн ћош tће future
whicћ tће шoveшent for·esa'v at the begiпniпg.
нo,vever, all tћis slo,vly fades, disintegrates, апd drowns
during tће course of the cliшb to coшplete power and to o'vnersblp
Ьу tће Coшшuпists. Опlу tће bare forшs and observances
wћiсћ ћаvе no real substaпce reшain.
Тће internal шoпolitћic coћesion wћiсћ was created in the
struggle 1vith tће oppositionist.s and 'vitћ tће ћalf-Comшunist
groups is transforшed into а unity of obedient couпselors and
robot-bш·eaucrats inside the шоvеше11t. Duriпg the climb to
power, iпtolerance, servility, iпcoшplete thiпking, coпtrol of
persoпallife-wћich once 'vas comгadely aid but is now а forш
of oligarcћic maпageшent-hieraгchical rigidity and iпtroversioп,
the noшinal апd neglected тоlе of wошеп, opportuпism,
self-centeredпess, and outrage repress tће once-existeпt ћigh
principles. Тће 'vonderful ћumап characteristics of an isolated
nюvemeпt ar·e slowly transforшed iпto the intolerant and
Pћarisaical moгals of а pгivileged caste. Tћus, politickiпg and
ser·vility replace the for·mer straightfoпvardness of the revolution.
Where the former ћeroes 1vћо wете ready to saпifi.ce
everything, including life, for otћei"S and for an idea, for the
good of the people, have not been killed or pushed aside, they
become self-ce11tered co,vards witћout ideas or comrades, williпg
to renouпce everythiпg-ћoпor, nаше, truth, апd morals-iн
order to keep tћeir place in tће ruliпg class and tће hierachical
circle. The 'vorld Ьаs see11 few ћer·oes as ready to sacrifice and
suffer as the Communists were оп tће eve of апd dнгiпg the
revolutioн. It has pr·obaЬiy never seen sucћ chaтacterless
wretches and stupid defendeтs of arid forшulas as tlley become
after attaining po,ver. Woпderful human features were the
coпditioп for cтeating and attыctiпg power for tће movemeпt;
exclusive caste spirit апd coшplete lack of ethical principles
and virtues have become coпditions for the power апd main

tenance of the movement. Honor, siпcerity, sacrific, апd love
of the truth were once things tllat could Ье understood for
their own sakes; now, deliЬerate lies, sycophancy, slander, deception,
and provocatioп gradually become the inevitaЬle
atteпdaпts 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
of Commuпism has not been аЬlе to understand the so-called
Mosco\v trials. N or can he uпderstand why tlle Commuпists'
periodic moral crises, caused Ьу the abaпdonrнeпt of the sacred
and consecrated principles of tlle day before yesterday, cannot
have the great significance that such crises have for 01·dinary
people or other movements.
Khrushchev acknmvledged that truncheons played the main
role iп tlle "confessions" and the self-condemnation of Stalin's
purges. Не claimed t.hat drugs were rюt used, altllough there
is evideпce that they were. But tlle most poteпt drugs for
forcing "coпfessioпs" \vere in tlle make-up of tће criminal himself.
Commoп criminals, that is, those who are not Communists,
do not go into traпces and make hysterical confessions and pray
for deatћ as а reward for tlleir "sins." This \vas done only Ьу
"men of а special stamp"-the Communists. They were first
morally sllocked Ьу the violence апd amorality of the beatings
ar1d accusations leveled at them secr·etly Ьу the top party leadership,
in \vhose coшplete amorality tlley could поt believe, even
if they had occasionally fouпd fault \vitll t.hem before. Suddenly,
they found themselves uprooted; their own class in tlle
persoп of Commuпist leadersblp had left them; inпocent as
they were, tlle class itself had еvеп пailed 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. Тћеу either did not
kno>v or ћаd forgotten or renounced all of tћose outside t.he
Commuпist sect and its пап·о\v ideas. N ow it \Vas too late to
get acquaiпted with aпytlling but Communism. Тћеу were
entirely alone.
Man cannot figћt or live outside of society. Tllis is his
immutaЬle characteтistic, one \vhich Aristotle noted and explaiпed,
calling it "political being."
What else is left to а man from such а sect wlю finds himself
morally crushed and uprooted, exposed to r·efined 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"
contгiЬution left that tће victim, lost and wrecked,
can make.
Every true Communist ћаs Ьееп educated and Ьаs educated
llimself and otllers in the belief tllat fractions and fractionaJ
battles are among tlle greatest crimes against t.he par·ty and
its aims. It is tтue that а Commuпist ратtу \vblcll was divided
Ьу ћactions could neitller· >vin iп t.he revolution nor estaЬlish
its dominance. Uпity at any price and without consideration
for anytblng else becomes а mystical oЬligatioп behind \vblch
tће aspirations of tће oligax"Cћs for complete po1ver entrencll
t.hemselves. Еvеп 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 tЬink tћat
leaders come and go, апd tllat tћese too-tћe evil, tће stupid,
tће egotistical, tће inconsequential and the po1ver-loving-will
disappear, \Vћile tће goal \Vill remain. Тће goal is everythiпg;
llas it поt. aћvays been tћus iп the party?
Trotsky himself, who was tће most iтnportaпt of all the орро-

sltlonists, did not go mucћ furtћer ir1 ћis reasoning. Iп а
moment of self-criticism, ће sћouted tћat tће party is infalliЬle,
for it is tће iпcarnation of ћistorical necessity, of а classless
society. In attemptiпg to explain, in ћis exile, tће monstrous
amorality of tће Mosco-\V trials, ће leaned оп ћist.orical analogies:
Rome, before tће conquest of Cћristianity; and tће
Renaissance, at tће beginniпg of capitalism; in both of which
also appeared tће inevitaЬle phenomena of perfidious шurders,
caluшnies, lies, and monstrous mass crimes. So it must Ье durina-
the transition to socialism, he concluded; tћese were tће
r·e"m' nants of tће old class society wћich were still evident iп
the ne>v. However, he did not succeed in explaining anytћing
tћrougћ tћis; ће only succeeded ir1 appeasing ћis conscieпce,
in tћat ће did not "betray" the "dictatorship of tће proletariat,"
or the Soviets, as the one foпn of tће transition into tће ne>v
and classless society. If ће ћаd gone into the pr·oЬlem more
deeply, ће >vould have sееп tћat, iп Communism as in the
Renaissance апd otћer periods iп ћistoтy, >vћen ап ownersћip
class is breakiпg а trail for itself, m01·al coпsider·ations play а
smaller апd sшaller role as the difficulties of the class increase
and as its domination needs to becorne mоте complete.
Iп tће same 1vay, those >vho did not uпderstaпd 1vћat sort of
social transforrnation 1vas actually at. stake after the Cornrnunists
were vict.orious ћаd to re-evaluate tће diverse шoral crises
arnoпg the Coшrnunists. The so-called process of de-Stalinization,
or tће unpriпcipled, sorne\\'ћat Staliпist.-style, at.tacks on
Stalin Ьу ћis former courtiers are also re-evaluated as "а rnoral
Moral пises, gr·eat or small, are iпevitaЬle iп every dictatorship,
for its followeщ accustorned to tћinkiпg tћat unifoпnity
of political thougћt is the greatest patтiotic virtue апd tће шost
ћоlу civil oЬligatioп, rnust Ье dist.urЪed over the inevitaЬle
тeversals апd chaпges.
But the Coшmuпists feel апd kno>v that tћeir totalitarian
dorniпatio11 does not weaken, but rather gets stroпger, in such
r·eversals; that tћis is its inevitaЬle path; and that rnoral апd
siшilar reasoпs play опlу а secoпdary role, if they are поt even
а ћiпdrапсе. Practice very rapidly ·teaches tћern tbls. Consequently,
their rnoтal crises, по rnatter ћоw profound, end very
quickly. Of course, the Cornrnuпists саппоt Ье selective iп the
means tћеу· use if tћеу desire to acћieve the real airn to >vћich
tћеу aspire, and >vћiсћ tћеу conceal uпder the cover of tће
ideal airn.
Moral dmvngradiпg in tће eyes of otћer men does not. yet
mean that Commuпisrn is weak. Generally, uпtil поw, it has
meaпt tће reverse. Тће vaтious purges апd "Mosco\v tr·ials"
streпgtћened tће Commuнist system анd Stalin. Iп all events,
certaiн stтata-tћe iпtellectuals 1vitl1 Gide as tће most famous
example-reнouпced Commuпism because of this анd doubted
tћat Commuнism as it is today could realize tће ideas апd ideals
they believed iп. Ho>veveг, Commuпisrn, sпсћ as it is, ћаs поt
becorne >veaker: tће пе>v class ћаs becorne stroнger, rnore secure,
freeiпg itself frorn rnOI·al coнsideratioпs, wadiнg iп tће Ьlood
of every adhereпt of tће Cornrnuнist idea. Althougћ it has been
rnorally downgraded iп tће eyes of otћers, Cornrnuпisrn has
actually Ьееп strengtћeпed iп tће eyes of its O\V!l class апd iп its
dorniпatioп over society.
Otћer coпditioш 1vould Ье necessary for coпternporary Cornrnнпism
to Ье lo>veгed iп tl1e estirnatioп of tће танks of its
mvn class. It is нecessary for tће revolution ноt only to devour
its о>vн childr·eн, but-oнe rnigћt say-devour itself. It is necessary
f01· its gr·eatest minds to perceive tћat it is tће exploiting
class and tћat its reigп is uпjustified. Concretely speakiпg, it is
necessary for tће class to perceive tћat iп tће пеаr· future tћere
cannot Ье any talk of tће >\'itћering a>vay of tће stat.e, or talk
of а Cornrnunist society-iп >vhicћ everyoпe will >vork acc01·ding

to bls capaЬilities and 1vill receive according to his needs. The
class must recognize that the possiЬilit.y of such а society can
as well Ье refпted as it can Ье demonstrated. Thнs the means
that this class нsed and is using t.o achieve its aim and dominance
1voнld become absнrd, inhнmane, and contrary to
its great pнrpose-even to the class itself. This 1voнld mean
that tћere were cleavao-es and vacillations, wЫсћ coнld not ~
longer Ье cћecked, among tће ruling class. In otћer 1vords, the
battle for its 01vn existence \vould di'ive tће rнling class it.self,
or individнal fractions of it, to renoнnce the cнrrent means
it is нsing, or renoнnce tће idea tћat its goals are \Vitћin sigћt
анd real.
There is no prospect of sucћ а development he1·e as а pнrely
tЪeoretic proposition-iн ану of the Commнnist coнntтies, least
of all in tће post-Stalin U.S.S.R. Тће 1·нling class is still а compact
one tћere; the condemnation of Stalin's metћods has
evolved, even in tћeory, into pгotectiнg tће U.S.S.R. from the
despotism of а регsонаl dictatorship. At tће T\vent.ieth Ратtу
Congтess, Kћrusћchev advocated "necessary terroгism" against
the "енеmу," in coнtгast to Stalin's despotism against "good
Commнnists." Кћшsћсћеv did not condemn Stalin's methods
as sнch, Ьнt only tћеiг нsе in tће гапks of the 1·нling class. It
seems that the гelatioнs 1vitћin tће class, \Vhicћ has become
stгoпg еnонgћ to avoid sнrrender to the absolнte dominance
of its leader and police apparatнs, ћаvе cћanged since Stalin.
Тће class itself анd its metћods ћаvе not consideraЬly cћanged
in terms of interнal cleavages \vitћ regard to moral coћesion.
ТЪе first sigнs of cleavage, ћo1vever, ате pгesent; these are
evideнcing tћemselves iп tће ideological crisis. Внt iн spite of
this it mнst Ье realized that tће process of moral disintegтation
has scarcely begнn; tће coпditions ћardly exist for it to happen.
Aпogating certain тigћts to itself, tће rнling oligaгcћy canпot
avoid allo1viнg tће cшmbs of sнсћ rigћts to fall to tће people.
It is impossiЬle for tће oligarcћy to lectщe он tће lack of
rigћts нnder Staliп even amoпg tће Commнпists, and not at
tће same time expect ап echo amoпg tће masses-1vho are immeasнraЬly
more deprived of tћeir rigћts. Тће Frencћ boнrgeoisie
finally rebelled against its einperor, Napoleo11, when
his wars and bнreaнcratic despotism became intoleraЬle. But
the Frенсћ people eventнally got some profit from this. Stal~n's
metћods, in '1vhicћ tће dogmatic ћypotllesis of а fнtнre soCiety
also played an importaпt role, will not retнrп. Внt tbls does
not mеап tћat the cнrrent. oligarcl1s 1vill rепонnсе tl1e пsе of
all bls meaпs, even tlюнgћ they сюшоt нsе tћem, or tћat tће
U.S.S.R. will sооп or overnigћt become а legal, democratic
Ho1vever, something ћаs сћапgеd. Тће ruliпg class 1vill no
Ionger Ье аЬlе to jнstify еvен to itself tћat the end jнstifies
tће means. Тће class 1vill stilllectнre оп tће final goal-a Commнпist
society-for if it did otћerwise it woнld ћаvе to rеnонпсе
absolнte dominaпce. This 1vill force it to resort to any means.
Every time tћat it does resort to tћem, it will als? ћа:е. to
condenш tlleir нsе. А stronger po1ver-fear of pнbllc оршюн
iп tће 1vorld, fear tћat it will bгing harm to itself and its
absolнte domination-1vill s1vay the class and ћold back its
ћand. Feeling itself sнfficieпtly strong to destroy the cнlt of
its creator, or tће creator of tће system-Stalin-it simнltaneoнsly
gave the deatћ Ьlo1v to its mvn ideal basis. Completely
dominant, the шliпg class ћаs begнn to abandoп and lose the
ideology, tће dogma which broнgћt it to power. Тће class ћаs
Ьеgнп to split up iпto &-actions. At tће top everythiпg is peac.efнl
апd smooth, but below the top, iп the depths, апd еvеп ш
its ranks, не1v tћoughts, неw ideas, are ЬнЬЬliпg and futнre
storms ю·е bre~ving.
Весанsе it had to renouпce Staliп's methods, the ruliпg class
will поt Ье аЬlе to preserve it.s dogma. Тће methods were
actнally опlу the expressioп of that dogma, and, indeed, of
tlle practice on 1vblch the dogma 1vas base.d. .
It was not good will, still less ћнmашtу, whiCh prompted
Staliп's to perceive tће ћarmfulness of Stalin's meth

ods. It was urgeпt пecessity that prompted the ruling class to
become more "understanding." But, Ьу avoiding tlle use of
very brutal metlюds, the oligarchs canrюt help but plant the
seed of doubt about their goals. The end once served as moral
cover for the use of any means. Rerюuncing the use of such
means will arouse doubts as to tће end itself. As soon as meaпs
wћiсћ ''юuld insure ап end are sћo"'Il to Ье evil, tће end will
sћo'iv itself as being unrealizaЬle. For tће esseпtial tћing in
every policy is first of all tће means, assuming tЪat all ends
appear good. Еvеп "tће road to ћell is paved witЪ good inteпtions."
Tћrougћout blstory tћere ћаvе Ьееп no ideal ends wblch
were attained witћ non-ideal, iпћumane means, just as tЪere
has been по free society wblcћ was built Ьу slaves. Notblпg so
well reveals the reality апd greatпess of ends as tће metlюds
used to attain tЪem.
If tће епd must Ье used to condoпe tће means, tћen there is
sometblng in tће end itself, in its тeality, wћiсћ is not 'vortЪy.
Тћаt wћiсћ really Ьlesses the епd, 'ivћich justifies the efforts
and sacrifices for it, is the means: tЪeir constant perfection,
humaneness, iпcreasing freedom.
Contemporary Communism has not even reacћed tЪе beginпing
of such а situation. Instead, it ћаs stopped dead, hesitating
over its means, but always assured about its ends.
No тegime iп Ыstory wblch was democrat.ic-or relatively
democratic 'ivhile it lasted-was predominantly estaЬlished оп
the aspiratioп for ideal ends, but rather on tЪе small everyday
means in sight. Along with this, еасћ such regime acbleved,
more or less sporltaneously, great ends. Оп tЪе other ћапd,
every despotism tried to justify itself Ьу its ideal aims. Not а
siпgle one acbleved great ends.
Absolute br·ut.ality, or tће use of ану means, is in accord with
the graпdiosity, еvеп witћ tће uпreality, of Communist aims.
Ву revolutionary meaпs, coпtemporary Communism ћаs succeeded
in demolisћing one form of society and despotically
settiпg up anotЪer. At first it 'vas guided Ьу the most beautiful,
primoi'dial Ъuman ideas of equality · and brotћerhood; only
later did it сопсеаl beћind tћese ideas the estaЬlishmeпt. of its
domiпatioп Ьу 'vl1atever means.
As Dostoyevski has bls ћеrо Sblgaliev say, quoted Ьу another
character, iп The Possessed:
" ... He's written а good thing in tћat manuscript," Ver·
klюveпsky went оп .... "Every member of tће society spies on
tће otћers, апd it's ћis duty to iпform against them. Every one
beloпgs to all апd all to every one. All are slaves and equal
iп their slavery. Iп extтeme cases he advocates slaпder and
murder, but the great tћing about it is equality .... Slaves are
bouпd to Ье equal. There has пever Ьееп either freedom ot
equality without despotism .... "
Thus, Ьу justifyiпg the шeans because of tће епd, the епd
itself becomes iпcreasiпgly more distant апd uпrealistic, wblle
the frightful reality of the meaпs becomes iпcreasiпgly obvious
апd iпtoleraЬle.

The Essence
None of the theories on the essence of contemporary Сот
munism treats the matter exhaustively. Neither does this theory
claim to do so. Contemporary Comтnunism is the product of
а series of historical, econoтnic, political, ideological, national,
and international causes. А categorical theory about its essence
cannot Ье entiтely accurate.
The essence of conteтnporary Communism could not even Ье
perceived until, in the course of it.s development, it. revealed
itself to its very entтails. Tbls тnoment came, and could only
come, because Communism entered а particular phase of its
development-tћat of its maturity. It. then became possiЬle to
reveal the nature of jrs po>ver, o>vnersblp, and ideology. In
tће time tћat Communisтn was developing and was predominantly
an ideology, it >va.s alтnost impossiЬle to see tћrough it
Just as other truths are the >vork of many autћors, countr·ies,
and movements, so it is >Vith contemporary Communism. Coшmuнism
ћа.s Ьеен revealed gradually, more or less parallel to
its development; it. санноt Ье looked uрон as fiнal, because it
has rюt completed its developmeнt.
Most of tће tћeories regardiнg Commuнism, however, ћаvе
some trutћ in tћem. Еасћ of tћem has usually grasped оне
aspect of Comтnunism от оне aspect of its esseнce.
Тhеге are t>vo basic tћeses он the essence of coнtemporary
Tl1e fiпt of them claiтns tћat coнtemporary Coтnmuнism is
а type of пеw religion. "\Ve have already sеен tlшt it is neitћer
а 1·eligion nor а churcћ, iн spite of the fact that it. coнtaiнs
eleтnents of Ьоtћ.
The secoнd thesis regards Coтnmuнism as revolutioнary socialism,
tћat is, soтnetblнg >vhicћ >vas Ьоrп of тnoderн iнdustry,
or capitalism, анd of the proletariat анd its нeeds. We have
sеен that this thesis also is онlу partially accurate: coнteтnporary
Coтnтnuнism Ьеgан in well-developed couнtries as а
socialist ideology анd а reactioн against the sнffering of tће
>voгking masses iн the iнdustrial тevolнtion. Внt after ћaviнg
сотnе into po>ver iн нnderdeveloped aieas, it Ьесатnе soтnethiнg
eнtirely different-an exploiting system opposed to most of t.he
inteiests of the pioletariat itself.
The tћesis has also been advaнced that contempOiary Comтnнnism
is only а conternpoгю·y forrn of despotisrn, pr·oduced
Ьу шен as sоон as they seize po>ver. The nаtнте of the moderн
есоноmу, >vhicћ iн every case requiтes centralized admiнistratioн,
has rnade it possiЬle for tћis despotisтn to Ье absolute.
This tl1esis also has soтne tтuth in it: modem Cornrnннisтn is а
modem despotisтn >vћich cannot ћеlр but aspir·e to>vard totalitarianisrn.
Hmvever, all types of rnodem despotisrn are ноt.
variaнts of Cornrnннisrn, ноr are they totalitariaн to tће degree
that Cornrnнnisrn is.
Tlшs >vhatever thesis >ve ехатniне, >ve fiнd tћat each tћesis
explaiнs one aspect of Cornrnнnisrn, ог а рагt of the trнth, Ьнt
ноt tће entiтe tтнth.
N either сан my theory он tће esseнce of Cornmuнisrn Ье
accepted as complete. Tbls is, ануwау, tће >veakнess of every

defiпitioп, especially "tvheп such complex and living matters
as social phenomena are being defined.
N evertheless, it is possiЬle to speak in the most abstract
tћeoretical "tvay about the essence of contemporary Communism,
about what is most essential iп it, апd wћat permeates
all its шanifestatioпs апd iпspires all of its activity. It is possiЬle
to peпetrate deeper into tbls esseпce, to elucidate its various
aspects; but tће essence itself ћаs already Ьееп exposed.
Communism, апd like"tvise its esseпce, is coпtiпuously cћanging
from one form to aпother. vVithout this cћange it cannot
even exist. Consequently, tћese cћanges require continuous
examiпation and а deeper study of tће already obvious trutћ.
Тће essence of contemporary Communism is tЪе product
of particular conditions, blstorical and others. But. as soon as
Communism becomes strong, tће essence itself becomes а factor
and creates tће conditions for its mvn continued existence.
Consequently, it is evident tЪat it. is necessary to examine the
essence sepaт·ately according to the form and tће conditioнs in
whicћ it appears and is operating at а given moment.
Тће tћeory that contemporary Communism is а type of
modeш totalitaт·ianism is not only tће most "tvidespread, but
also tће most accurat.e. However, an actual understanding of
the t.erm "modern totalitaт·ianisш" "tvћere Coшmuпisш is being
discussed is not so "tvidespread.
Conteшporary Communism is tћat. type of totalitariaнism
wћiсћ consists of tћree basic factOis for coнtrolling the people.
Тће first. is po"tvex·; tће second, o>vnership; the third, ideology.
Тћеу are monopolized Ьу tће one and only political party, oraccordiнg
t.o ту previous explanation and termirюlogy-by а
ne'\v class; and, at present, Ьу tће oligarcћy of tћat party or of
that class. No totalitarian system in history, not even а contem-
porary oпe-'\vith tће exception of Communism-has succeeded
in incorporating simultaneously all tћese factors for controlling
tће people to this degree.
Wћen one examiнes and '\Veigћs tћese tЪree factors, power
is tће one "tvllicћ ћаs played and still continues to play tће most
iшportant role in tће development of Coшшunism. One of tће
otћer factors шау eventually pгeyail over pmver, Ьнt. it is irnpossiЬle
to determiнe tbls on tће basis of present conditions.
I belieye tћat po,ver '\vill reшain tће basic cЪaracteristic of
Commнnism fiтst originated as ап ideology, '\vblcћ contained
in its seed Comшнnism's totalitax·ian and шonopolistic nature.
It сан certainly Ье said tћat ideas но longer play tће rnain,
predominant тоlе in Comrnнпism's control of the people. Cornmunism
as an ideology ћаs шainly rнn its coнrse. It does not
haYe many ne1v tblngs to reveal to tће '\vorld. This could not
Ье said for tће other нvо factox·s, po1ver· and o1vnership.
It can Ье said: po1ver, either pћysical, intellectнal, or economic,
plays а role in eYery strнggle, even in every social hнman
action. Тћеrе is sorne trutћ in this. It can also Ье said: in eyery
policy, po>ver, or the strнggle to acqнire and keep it, is tће basic
рrоЬlеш and aim. Тћеге is some trutЪ in this also. Внt contemporar-
y Commнnism is rюt онlу sнсЪ а po1ver; it is something
more. It is po1ver of а particнlar type, а po1ver 1vhich
нnites 1vitllin itself the contiol of ideas, aнtlют'ity, and owner·
ship, а po1ver 1vћiсћ ћаs become an end in itself.
То date, SoYiet Comшнnisш, tће type 1vhicћ ћаs existed tће
longest and 1vћiсћ is tЪе rnost developed, ћаs passed tћroнgh
thт·ee pћases. Tbls is also more or less tше of otћer types of
Coшmнnism "tvblcћ ћаvе succeeded in coming to power (>vitћ
tЪе exception of tће Cblnese type, "tvllicћ is still predominantly
in tЪе second рћаsе) .
The tћтее pћases are: revolutioпary, dogшatic, апd пoпdogшatic
Comшunisrn. Rougbly speaking, tће principal catch>
vords, aiшs, and persoпalities corresponding to tЪese various

phases are: Revolution, or the usurpatioп of power-Leniп.
"Socialism," or the bнildiпg of the system-Staliп. "Legality,"
or staЬilization of tће system- "collective Ieadersblp."
It is importaпt to rюte tћat tћese phases are not. distiпctly
separate froш one another, tћat elements of all are fouпd in
еасћ. Dogmatisш abounded, апd tl1e "building of socialisш"
had already beguп, in tl1e Leniпist period; Stalin did not. renounce
revolution, or reject the dogmas, 1vћich iпteгfer·ed witl1
tl1e building of the systeш. Preseпt-day, non-dogmatic Comшunism
is only non-dogmatic conditionally: it just. will not
rепоuпсе even tће minutest practical advantages for dogrnatic
reasons. Precisely Ьесанsе of sнсЬ advantages, it 1vill at the sаше
time Ье in а positioп to persecute uпscrupulously tlle miпutest
doubt concerпiпg tће trutl1 or pнrity of ilie dogma. ТЬнs,
Communisш, proceediпg froш practical пeeds апd capaЬilities,
Ьаs today even fш·led tl1e sails of revolution, or of its o;vn
miJitary expansion. But it Ьаs not renounced one or ilie other.
Trus divisioп into tl1ree pl1ases is only accurate if it is taken
ro~ghly and abstractly. Clearly separate pћases do not actually
eXIst, nor do tl1ey сопеsропd t.o specific periods in the various
Тће boundaries betlveen tће pћases, >vblcћ oveгlap, апd tће
forms in >vhicl1 tlle pћases appear are varied in diffeгent Communist
couпtries. For example, Yugoslavia Ьаs passed throua-IJ
all tllree pћases iн а Ielatively sћOI"t time анd 1vitl1 tl1e sa~e
persoпalities at tће suшmit. Tbls is obvioнs in botl1 precepts
and metћod of operation.
Po>ver plays а major role iп all thiee of tћese pl1ases. In tће
rev~l~tioп. it >vas necessaгy to seize po1ver·; in tће building of
socшlism, It >vas necessar-y to create а ne1v system Ьу meaпs of
tl1at p~1ver; today pmver must preserve tl1e system.
Duп?g tће development, froш tће first to tће tblrd рћаsе,
ilie qшntesseпce of Comшunism-po1ver-evolved fr·om being
tl1e means and became an end iп itself. Actually power was always
rnore or less the епd, but Communist leaders, tblnkiпg tl1at
throнgћ power as а шeans they would attain the ideal goal,
did not believe it to Ье an end in itself. Precisely because po1ver
served as а meaпs for tће Utopian· tтansfoгmatioп of society,
it could not avoid becorning ап епd iп itself and tће most
importaпt airn of Comrnuпisrn. Pmver 1vas аЬlе to appear as
а шеапs in tће first апd second pћases. It can no longer Ье
concealed that in tће tblrd рћаsе po1ver is tЪе actual principal
aim апd essence of Cornmunisш.
Because of tће fact tћat Communism is being extiпguished
as an ideology, it must maintaiп po1ver as tће main meaпs of
controlliпg the people.
In revolutioп, as in every type of >var, it 1vas natural to coпcentrate
pтimar·ily оп pmver: the war had to Ье 1von. During
the per·iod of indнstrialization, concentrating on po1ver could
still Ье considered natural: tће constructioп of iпdнstry, or
а "socialist society," fог 1vhicћ so mапу sacrifices ћаd Ьееп made,
was песеssагу. But as all tbls is beiпg coшpleted, it becomes
apparent that iп Coшmunisш pmver has rюt only been а meaпs
but that it ћаs also Ьесоше tће maiп, if not tће sole, end.
Today po>ver is Ьоtћ tће шeans апd tће goal of Coшmunists,
in order tћat tћеу may шaintaiп tћeir privileges апd ownership.
But since tћese are special forms of po;vet· and owneiShip, it
is only tћrougћ po1ver itself tћat mvneтsblp can Ье exercised.
Po1ver is an епd in itself and tће esseнce of coпtemporary
Communism. Other classes may Ье аЬlе to шaintain o>vпersblp
witћout а monopoly over· pmver, or po>ver witћout а пюnороlу
over o;vпersћip. Until no>v, tћis ћаs not been possiЬle for tће
пеw class, ;vblcћ ;vas formed tћтоugћ Commuпism; it is very
iшprobaЬle tћat it 1vill Ье possiЬle in tће futшe.
Tћrougћout all tћree of tћese pћases, pmver ћаs concealed
itself as tће bldden, iпvisiЬle, нnspoken, пatural and principal
end. Its role ћаs Ьееп stroпger or 1veaker depeпding оп the
degree of control over tће people required at tће tirne. In the
first рћаsе, ideas were tће inspiratioп апd the prime mover for
tће attainment of power; in tће secoпd рћаsе, pmver operated

as the whip of society апd for its o;vn maiпtainance; today,
"collective o;vnership" is subordinated to the impulses and
needs of power.
Po;ver is tl1e alpha and the omega of contemporary Comшunisш,
еvеп ;vhen Coшmunism strives to pievent this.
Ideas, pbllosophical px-inciples апd moral considerations,
the nation and the people, their hist.ory, in рю·t еvеп ownership-
all сан Ье changed and sacrificed. But not po;ver. Because
this '\vould signify Communisrn's renunciat.ion of itself, of it.s
щvn essence. Individuals can do this. But the class, the party,
the oligarchy cannot. This is the purpose and the шeaniпg of its
Every type of power besides being а meaпs is at the same
time and end-at Ieast for those '\Vho aspire to it. Po'\ver is
alшost exclusively an end iп Communisrn, because it is both
the source and tће guaraпtee of all privileges. Ву rneans of
and tћrougћ po,ver tће material privileges апd O'\vnership of
tће ruling class over national goods ате тealized. Power deteтmines
tће value of ideas, and suppresses or permits theiт
It is in this '\vay tћat pщver in contempoiax·y Cornnшnism
differs Пorn all otћer types of pO'iver, and that Communisш
itself differs froш every other system.
Coшmuпism has to Ье totalitarian, exclusive, and isolated
precisely because power is tће шost esseпtial соmропепt of
Comшuпism. If Coшmuпism actually could have had other
eпds, it '\vould ћаvе to шаkе it possiЬle for otћer forces to
spriпg up iп opposition and operate iпdepeпdeпtly.
Ho'\v coпtemporaтy Coшmuпisш '\Vill Ье defiпed is secondary.
Everyone wlю uпdertakes the '\vork of explaiпing Сошшuпisш
fiпd.s himself faced witl1 tће рrоЬlеш of defiпiпg it, even if
actual coпditioпs do поt compel him to do tbls-coпditioпs
iп which Coшnшпists glorify tћeir system as "socialism," "classless
society," and "tће realization of meп's eternal dreams,"
while tће opposing eleшent defines Coшшunism as an insensi-
tive tyranny, the сћаnсе success of а terтoтistic group, and tће
damnation of tће humaп race.
Scieпce must use already estaЬlished categories iп order t.o
make а simple expositioп. Is tћere апу category in sociology
iпto '\vblcћ '\Ve can cram сопtеmротагу Commuпism if 1ve use
а little force?
Јп commoп '\vitћ mапу authors who started Пош otћer positions,
I ћаvе, iп тecent yeais, equated Coшmuпism '\Vitћ state
capitalism or, more precisely, '\Vitћ total state capitalisш.
Tbls interpretation wоп out amoпg tће leaders of Yugoslav
Commuпists duriпg tће t.ime of tћeir clasћ '\Vitћ tће government
of tће U.S.S.R. But just as Commuпists, according to
practical пeed.s, easily clшnge even t.ћеiт "scieпtific" aпalysis,
Yugoslav party leaders cћanged this interpretation after tће
"reconciliatioп" 'vitћ tће Soviet goveiЂшent, апd once more
proclaimed tће U.S.S.R. а Socialist couпtry. At tће same time,
tЪеу proclaimed tће Soviet imperialistic attack on the independence
of Yugoslavia-in Tito's '\Vords-a "tragic," "incompreћeпsiЬle"
event, evoked Ьу tће "arЬitrariness of individuals."
Coпtemporary Communism for the most part does тesemЬle
total state capitalism. Its blstorical origin and tће pтoЬlems
'vhicћ it had to solve-пamely, an industrial transfoпnation
sirnilar to the one achieved Ьу capitalism but '\Vith the aid of
the state mechanisrn-lead to such а conclusion.
If, unde1· Comrnнпism, tће state 'vere the O'\vner in tће паше
of society and of tће nation, theп the fшms of political po,ver
over society \vould iпevitaЬly change accOI·ding to the vaгying
пeed.s of society and of the natioп. The state Ьу its nature is
an orgaп of unity апd harrnoпy iп society, and поt only а force
ove1· it. The state coнld not Ье Ьоtћ the щvner and rнler iп
itself. In Comшнnisш it is reve1·sed: The state is an instrншent
and aћvays sнbordiпate exclшiYely to the interests of one and
tће same exclнsive O\vner, or of опе and the same direction in
the economy, and in the other areas of social life.
State ownersblp in the W est migћt Ье coпsidered more as

munism, '\vhich '\Vas at one time the task of revolutionaries,
eventually tiaпsfOI-med itself, as did evel]'thiпg else in Commuпism,
апd became the common giOuпd of Commuпist
buieaucracies, fighting оне another оп пatioпalistic coпsiderations.
Of the forrner iпter11atioпal pr·oletar'iat, опlу
words апd empty dogmas тemaiпed. Behiпd them stood the
пaked пatioпal and iшerпatioпal interests, aspirations, апd
plaпs of tће various Commuпist oligarchies, comfor·taЬly eпtreпched.
The пature of authority апd proper·ty, а similar iпternatioпal
outlook, апd an ideпtical ideology iпevitaЬly ideпtify Commuпist
states \Vitћ one arюther. N evertheless, it is wrong t.o
ignore and underestimate the sigпificance of the iпevitaЬle difereпces
in degiee апd mаппеr betweп Commuпist. stяtes. ТЪе
degree, mаппеr, апd form in which Commuпism will Ье
realized, or its purpose, is just as mucћ of а giveп coпditioп
for each of them as is the esseпce of Commuпism itself. No
siпgle form of Commuпism, no ho\v similar it is to other
for·ms, exists iп апу way otћer tћап as пatioпal Commuпism.
Iп order to maiпtaiп itself, it must become пatioпal.
The form of goverпmeпt апd pгoper·ty as \Vell as of ideas
differs little or поt at all in Communist It canпot differ
markedly since it llas ан ideпtical пatuтe-total autlютity. Ho\vever,
if they \vish t.o \viп апd continue to exist, tlre Commuпists
must adapt the degтee and mаппеr of tћeir authority to
пational coпditions.
The differences bet\veen Commuпist countr'ies \Vill, as а rule,
Ье as gieat as the exteпt to \Vhich the Communists \vете indepeпdent
in comiпg to po\ver. Concretely speaking, only the
Commuпists of tlrree countries-the Soviet Uпiоп, Chiпa, апd
Yugoslavia-indepeпdeпtly carried out revolutioпs or, iп their
O\VIl \vay апd at their O\VIl speed, attaiпed po,ver апd Ьеgап
"the buildiпg of socialism." Тћеsе thr·ee couпtries remaiпed
iпdepeпdeпt as Commuпist states еvеп iп the peтiod wlleп
Yugoslavia \vas-as Chiпa is today-uпder the most ext.reme
influeпce of the Soviet Union; tћat is, in 'Ъrotћerly love" and
in "eterrral frieпdship" witll it. In а. report at а closed session
of the T\veпtietћ Coпgress, Khrusћcћev revealed tћat а clasћ bet\
veen Staliп and tће Chinese goverrrmeпt had barely been
averted. The case of the clash witћ Yugoslavia was not an
isolated case; but only tће most drastic апd the first to occur.
Iп tће otћer Comшunist countries the Soviet government enforced
Communism Ьу "arrned missionaries"-its arrny. The
diversity of manner and degiee of the development in these
countтies has still rюt at.tained the stage reached in Yugoslavia
апd Chiпa. Ho\vever, to the exteпt that ruliпg bureaucracies
gather streпgtћ as indepeпdeпt bodies iп these countries, and
to the exteпt that. they recogпize that obedieпce to and copyiпg
of tће Soviet Uпiоп weaken themselves, tћеу endeavor to
"patterrr" themselves оп Yugoslavia; that is, to develop iпdependently.
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 pтevent it. As soon as
they Ьесоше stronger, or as soon as favoraЬle conditions are
created, а yearning for indepeпdence and for protection of
"their own people" from Soviet hegenюny will rise among
Witћ the victory of а Communist revolution in а country
а ne-.;v class comes into po,ver and into control. It. is uшvilliпg
to suпender its o'\vn hard-gaiпed privileges, even tlюugh it
suboтdinates its interests to а similar class in arюtћer country,
solely in tће cause of ideological solidarity.
Where а Commuпist revolutioп has \Von victory iпdepeпdeпtly,
а separate, distinct path of developmeпt is iпevitaЬle.
Fl'ictioп \Vith other Commuпist couпtries, especially \Vith the
Soviet Unioп as the most. importaпt апd most imperialistic
state, follo\vs. Тће ruling national bureaucracy iп the couпtry
where tће victor'ious revolutioп took place has already become
indepeпdeпt iп the course of the armed struggle and has tasted
tће Ьlessings of authority and of "пatioпalizatioп" of property.

Philosopћically speaking, it has also grasped and become coпscious
of its o\vn essence, "its О\VП state," its authority, оп the
basis of >vhich it clatms equality.
This does поt mean tћat this involves only а clash-\vћen it
comes to tћat-bet\veen t\VO bureaucracies. А clasћ also iпvolves
tће тevolutionary elemeпts of а subordinated couпtry, because
tћеу do not usually tolerate dominatioп and tlley consider that
Ielatioпsllips bet\veen Communist states must Ье as ideally perfect
as predicted in dogma. Tlle masses of tће nation, \vћо
spontaneously tblrst for independence, canпot remain uпperturbed
iп sucl1 а clasћ. In every case tће nat.ion beпefits from
this: it does not ћаvе to рау triЬute to а foreign government;
апd tће pressure оп tће domestic goverпment, \vhicћ no loпger
desires, and is not permitted, to сору foreign methods, is also
diminisћed. Such а clasћ also brings in external forces, otћer апd movements. Hmvever, tће пature of tће clash
and tће basic forces iп it remain. Neitl1er Soviet поr Yugoslav
Communists stopped beiпg \\'lшt they are-not before, поr dur·
ing, nor after tћeir mutual Ьickerings. Indeed, tће diverse
types of degree and шanner \Vith whicћ tћеу insшed tћeir
moпopoly led tћem mнtually to deny tће existence of socialism
in the opposite сашр. Afte1· tћеу settled tћeir differeпces, they
again ackno>vledged tlle existence of socialism elsewћere, becoming
coпscious tћat tћеу must respect mнtual differences
if tћеу \vanted to pieserve that \Vћich \Vas ideпtical in esseпce
and most important t.o tћem.
The sнbиdiпate Commuпist governments iп East Europe
сап, in fact must, declare their indepeпdence from the Soviet
goverшnent. No опе сан say ћо>v far tћis aspiтation for independeпce
>vill go апd what disagreements \Vill resнlt. The тesнlt
depends on nume1·oнs unforeseen interпal and external circнmstaпces.
Ho\vever, there is по doubt tћat а пational Communist
bureaucracy aspires to more complete autlюгity for itself. This
is deшonsti·ated Ьу the anti-Tito processes iп Stalin's time in
tће East Europeaп cour1t.ries; it is shown also Ьу the cu.rrent
нпconcealed emphasis on "опе's own path to socialism," wћich
has recently come to ligћt sharply in Poland апd Huпgary.
Тће ceпtral Soviet government ћаs fouпd itself in difficulty
because of tће nationalism existing even in those governments
wћich it insfalled in the Soviet repuЬlics (Ukraine, Caucasia),
апd still more so \vith regard to those governments installed in
tће East European couпtries. Playing ап important ro]e in all
of this is tће fact that the Soviet Union was unaЬle, and will
rюt Ье аЬlе in the future, to assimilate tће ecorюmies of tће
East European couпtries.
The aspirations to>vard national indepeпdence must of
course have greater impetus. These aspirations can Ье retarded
and even made dormant Ьу external pressure or Ьу fear on
the part of tl1e Comшнпists of "imperialism" and the "bourgeoisie,"
Ьнt tћеу caпnot Ье r·emoved. On the contraтy, tћeir
strength will grmv.
It is impossiЬle to foresee all of the foтms that relatioпs
bet>veen Commuпist states ,.,ш assume. Even if coopet·ation
bet\veen Communist states of different countt·ies sllould in а
sћort time r·esult iп mergers and federations, so can clasћes
bet\veen Commuпist states result in \var. Ап open, armed clash
bet\veeп tће U.S.S.R. and Yнgoslavia \Vas averted tюt. because
of tће "socialism" in one or the other country, but because it
\Vas not in Stalin's interest to risk а clasћ of unforeseeaЬle propoгtions.
Wћatever >vill ћарреп bet\veen Communist states \Vill
depend on all tћose factors >vћich ordiпarily affect political
events. The interests of tће respective Communist bнгeaucracies,
expressed Yariously as "national" or as "united," aloпg
\Vitћ tће uncћecked tendeпcy toward ever increasing indepeпdence
on а national basis, \Vill, for the time being, play an
iшportant .role in tће relat.ionships among tће Comшнnist

The concept of natioпal Communism had no meaning uпtil
the епd of World War П, \vhen Soviet imperialism \vas
manifested rюt only \Vit.h regard to the capitalist but. the Comnншist
states as \Vell. Tћis concept developed аЬоУе all from
the Yugoslav-U.S.S.R. clash. The тenunciatioп of Stalin's methods
Ьу t.he "collect.ive leadeтship" of Khтushcl1ev-Bulgaпin may
peтhaps modify relatioпs between the U.S.S.R. апd other Commuпist
countries, but it caпnot resolve them. In tlle U.S.S.R.
operations are not concemed solely witll Communism but are
simultaneously concerned \Vitll tlle imperialism of the Gтeat
Russian-Soviet-state. Tћis imper·ialism сап cllange in form
апd method, but it сан по more disappear thaп can tlle aspiratioпs
of Commuпists of other couпtries f01· iпdepeпdence.
А similar deYelopment a\vaits the other Commuпist. states.
According to str·ength апd conditioпs, tlley too will attempt to
become imperialistic in one \vay or another.
Iп tlle developmeпt of the foreign policy of tlle U.S.S.R.
tllere llave Ьееп t\VO imper·ialistic phases. Earlier policy was
almost exclusively а matter· of expaпsion Ьу тevolutioпary propagaпda
in otller couпtтies. At that time tllere \Ver-e pmverful
imperialistic teпdeпcies (as regards t.he Caucasus) in tl1e policies
of its higllest leader-s. But, iп my орiпiоп, tller·e is no
satisfactoгy reason for t.he revolutionary phase to Ье categOI·ically
coпsider·ed imperialistic, siпce at tllat time it. \Vas more
defeпsive tЬan aggressive.
If \Ve do not coпsider tће revolutioпary pllase as imperialistic,
tћеп imperialism began, rougbly speaking, \vith tlle victory of
Staliп, or \vitћ tће industr·ializatioп and estaЬlisllmeпt of tћ~
autћol'ity of а ne\v class iп tlle l 930's. This cllange was clearly
sћо\vп on tlle eve of tЪе war \Vћеп Stalin's goven1meпt was
аЬlе to go iпto actioп апd Ieave behiпd pacifist апd anti-imperialistic
pћases. It \vas even exp1·essed iп the сћапgе of foreign
policy; in place of tlle jovial and, to а сегtаiп extent, principled
Litvinov, t.he unscгupulous апd reserved lVIolotov appeared.
Тће basic cause of an imperialistic policy is completely
ћiddeп in tће exploitative and despotic паtше of tће пе\v class.
In order· tllat. tћat class might manifest. itself as impeтialistic,
it \Vas necessary for it to attain а prescriЬed strength апd to
appear iп appr·opriate circumstances. It already ћаd this
streпgtll \vllen ·~лтorld vVar П began. The war itself abouпded
iп possiЬlities for imperialistic comЬiпations. Тће small Baltic
states \Vere rюt necessary for tће security of so large а state as
tће U.S.S.R., particularly iп modem war. Тћеsе states \Vere
пon-aggressive апd еvеп allies; ho\vever, tlley \Vere an attractive
morsel for tlle iпsatiaЬle appetite of tlle Great Russian Communist
Iп Woтld War П Commпnist internationalism, up to tћat
time ап iпtegral part of Soviet foreign policy, came into coпflict
with the iпterests of tlle ruliпg Soviet. buтeaucracy. vVith tllat,
t.he пecessity for· its oтgaпizatioп ceased. Тће idea of dissolution
of tlle Commuпist Iпterпational (Comiпterп) was conceived,
accordiпg to Georgi Dimitr·ov, after tlle subjпgatioп of tће
Baltic couпtr·ies, апd iп tће period of cooperation \Vitll Hitler,
altћough it. \Vas not effected uпtil the secoпd phase of tlle war
during the period of alliance witћ the W esterп states.
Тће Comiпfonп, consistiпg of the East Europeaп апd tће
French and Italian Communist paтties, \vas created on Stalin's
iпitiative in order to guarantee Soviet domination in the satelJite
countries апd to inteпsify its influeпce in \Vest.erп Europe.
Тће Cominforш was worse tћап the former Communist Iпternatioнal
\vhich, even if it was absolutely domiпated Ьу Mosco'\v,
at least foгmally represented all of the parties. The Cominforш
evolved in the field of real and apparent Soviet influence. Тће
clasћ witll Yugoslavia revealed that it \Vas assigned to subordinate
to tће Soviet goverпment tlюse Commuпist states and
parties whicћ had begun to weakeп because of the iпternal
growth of natioпal Communism. After the death of Stalin t.he

Cominform '\VЋS finally dissolved. Even t.he Soviet goverпmetlt,
desiring to avoid major and dangerous quarrels, accepted the
so-called separate path t.o socialism, if поt пational Communism
These organizatioпal changes had profouпd economic апd
political causes. As loпg as the Communist parties in East
Europe were weak апd the Soviet Union was not. sufficiently
strong economically, the Soviet government \Vould ћаvе ћаd
to resort to administrative methods to subjugate t.he East
European countries, even if there had Ьееп no Staliпist arbltrariпess
апd despotism. Soviet imperialism, Ьу political, police
and military metћods, had to compensate for its щvn economic
апd otl1er weaknesses. lmperialism iп tће military form, wћiсћ
was only an advanced stage of the old Czarist military-feudal
irnperialism, also corresponded to tће inteтnal structure of the
Soviet Uпion ix1 wllicl1 tће police апd admiпistrative apparatus,
centralized in one personality, played а major тоlе. Stalinism
was а mixture of а personal Communist dictatorship апd rnilitaristic
These foтms of imperialism developed: joint stock companies,
absorption of tЪе exports of tће East. Europeaп countries
Ьу meaпs of political pressure at prices below tће world market,
artificial formation of а "socialist '\Vorld market," control of
every political act of subordinate parties and states, traпsformation
of tће traditional love of Communists to'\vard the
"socialist fatћerland" into deification of the Soviet stat.e, Stalin,
and Soviet practices.
But what happened?
А cћange witћin tће ruling class was quiet1y completed in
the Soviet Union itself. Similar cћanges, iп another sense, also
occurred in the East European countries; new national bureaucracies
lon? for ever increasing coпsolidation of po,ver апd property
relatюns, but at t.he same time tћеу fall into difficulties
becaus: of tће hegemonic pressure of the Soviet governrnent.
If earller tћеу ћаd ћаd to renounce national cћaracteristics
in oтder to come to power, no>v sucћ action ћаd become а
hiпdt·aпce to tћeit· further ascendaпcy t.o po>ver. In addition,
it became impossiЬle fot· the Soviet goveп1rneпt to adhere to
tће exorbltaпt and l1azardous Stalinist foreigп policy of military
pressure and isolatioп and, simultaneously, during t.he
period of tће geпet-al coloпial rnoveшents, to ћold the Europeaп
couпtries iп infamous bondage.
Тће Soviet leaders ћаd t.o concede, after loпg vacillatioп апd
iпdecisive at·gurпentatioп, tћat the Yugoslav leaders \Vet·e
falsely iпdicted as Hitle!'ite апd Americaп spies just because
they defeпded tl1e right to coпsolidate апd build а Coшmuпist
system in their щvп \vay. Tito Ьесаше t.he most sigпificaпt
peгsoпality iп coпtempoтary Commuпisш. The pt·iпciple of
пatioпal Coшmuпisш >vas formally ackпo,vledged. But witћ
that Yugoslavia also ceased to Ье the exclusive creator of iпnovatioпs
in Commuпism. The Yugoslav revolutioп subsided iпto
its gгoove, апd а peaceful апd matter-of-fact rule Ьеgап. \Vith
tћat tће love bet>veen yesteтday's eпemies did поt become
gгeater, nor >vet·e the disagгeemeпts terminated. This was
merely the beginniпg of а ne>v phase.
Nщv the Soviet Uпion епtегеd iпto t.he predomiпaпtly economic
and political рћаsе of its iшperialistic policy. Or so
it арреагs, judgiпg ћош curreпt facts.
Today пational Сошшuпisш is а geneгal рhеnошепоп iп
Communisш. То varying degгees all Coшmuпist шovemeпtsexcept
that of the U.S.S.R. against >vhicћ it is diгected-aтe
gгipped Ьу пatioпal Coшшunisш. Јп its time, in the peтiod of
Staliп's ascendancy, Soviet Сошшнпism also was natioпal Comшuпisш.
At tl1at time Russiaп Сошпшnisш аЬапdопеd iпteгпatioпalism,
except as an iпstrument of its foтeigп policy.
Today Soviet Comшunisш is coшpelled, еvеп if iпdefiпitely,
to ackпowledge а пе>v тeality iп Сошшuпisш.
Cћanging iпtemally, Soviet impeтialisш >vas also coшpelled
to alter its vie>vs to>vard tће exterпal w01·ld. Froш ргеdошiпапtlу
adшiпistt·ative coпtтols, it advanced t.oward gгadual

econoшic integration 1vith tlle East European couпtries. This
is being accoшplished Ьу шeans of шutual planning iп iшportant
branches of есоrюшу, in which the local Coшmunist
governments today maiпly voluntarily concur, still sensiпg
thernselves weaker externally and iпternally.
Such а situatioп canrюt remaiп for long, because it conceals
а fundaшental contradiction. On the оне hand national forrns
of Cornrnuпisrn becorne stronger, but. on the other, Soviet iшperialisrn
does not dirninsh. Both tЪе Soviet goveшrneпt апd
the goveшrnents of the East Епrореап coпntries, inclпding
Yпgoslavia, Ьу rneaпs of accords and cooper·atioп, are seeking
solпt.ions t.o rnпtпal proЬlerns 1vhich influeпce tЪeir very natпre
-preservat.ion of а given form of aпthщ·ity and of property
01vnership. Ho1vever, еvеп if it is possiЬle to effect cooperation
wit.h respect t.o proper·ty mvneiship, it. is not. possiЬle with
respect to author·ity. Althoпgh conditions for further iнtegratioп
1vit.h the Soviet Union are being realized, those coпditioпs
which lead t.o tlle independence of the East. European Cornrrшnist
governrnents are being realized even rnore rapidly. Тће
Soviet Union has поt тепоппсеd aпthority in these countтies,
nor have the governrnents of these coпntries renounced their
craving to attain sornething sirnilar t.o Yпgoslav indepeпdence.
The degree of independence that will Ье attained will depend
он the state of inteшational and inteшal forces.
Recognitioп of natioнal foтrns of Cornrnпnisrn, which the
Soviet governrneпt did 1vith clenched teeth, has irnrnense sigпificance
and conceals witЬin itself very consideraЬle dano-ers
for Soviet irnperialisrn. 1:)
lt involves freedorn of discпssion to а certain extent; this
rneans ideological iпdependence too. No1v the fate of ceitaiп
heresies in Coшrnпnisш 1vill depend поt only оп tће tolerance
of Mosco1v, Ьпt on tћeir пatioпal poteпtialities. Deviatioп fr·orn
Mosco1v tЪat. strives to rnaintaiп its iпfl.uence iп tће Cornrnuпist
wor-Id оп а "voluпtary" and "ideologic" basis caнnot possiЬly Ье
Moscow itself is no loпger tћat wblch it was. It singleћandedly
lost tће moнopoly of the пе1v ideas and the rnoral
rigћt to prescriЬe tl1e only permissiЬle "liпe." Renoппciпg
Stalin, it ceased to Ье tће ideological center. Iп Moscow itself
tће еросћ of great Cornrnпnist rnonarcћs and of great ideas
carne to an end, апd tl1e reign of mediocre Comrnпnist bпreaпcrats
"Collective leadership" did not anticipate that апу difficпlties
and failпres were a1vaiting it in Cornrnunisш itself-eitћer exteшally
or inten1ally. But wћat could it do? Stalin's imperialism
was exorЬit.aпt and overly dangerous, апd wћat 1vas еvеп
1vorse, ineffective. Uнder him ноt orlly the people geнerally,
but. еvеп tће Cornrnunists, grшnЬled, and tћеу did so at the
tirne of а very stтaiпed intemational situation.
Тће 1vor-Id ceпter of Cornшunist ideology no longer exists;
it is in the pr·ocess of cornplete disintegratioп. The unity of
tће 1vorld Comrnuпist rnoverneпt is incuraЬly injured. Тћеrе
are no visiЬle possiЬilities wћatsoever tЪat it can Ье restored.
However, just as tће shift from Stalin to "collective leadership"
did rюt alter tће nature of tће systern itself in the U.S.S.R., so
too national Comrnuпisш ћаs been unaЬle, despite ever increasing
possiЬilities for liЬeration froш Moscow, to alter its iпtenlal
пature, 1vblcћ consists of total coпtrol and rnoпopoly
of ideas, and o1VI1ersblp Ьу the party bureaucracy. Indeed, it
significantly alleviated tће pтessure and slowed down the rate
of estaЬlisћment of its rnonopoly over property, particularly
in tће rural areas. But natioпal Coшrnunisrn пeither desires
nor is аЬlе to transforrn itself iпto somethiпg otћer tћап Coшrnuпisrn,
апd sornetЪing always spoпtaпeously draws it towaтd
its source-toward the Soviet Uпion. It 1vill Ье uпаЬlе to separate
its fate from that wblcl1 liпks it. 1vitћ tће rernainiпg Comrnuпist
couпtries and movernents.
National nюdifications iп Cornnшnisrn jeopardize Soviet
irnperialisrn, particularly tће irnper-ialisrn of tће Staliп еросћ,
but not Cornшunisrn eitћer as а wћole or in essence. On tће

contrary, -.;vhere Communism is in control these changes are
аЬlе to influence its direction and even to strengthen it and
make it acceptaЬle externally. National Communism is iп ћarmony
witl1 пon-dogmaticism, that is, with the anti-Stalinist
phase in the development of Communism. Iп fact, it is а basic
form of this phase.
N at.ioпal Communism is unaЬle to the nat.ure of current
international relationsћips bet1Neen states or withiп -.;vorkers'
nюvements. But its role in tl1ese relationships may Ье of great
Thus, for example, Yugoslav Communism, as а form of national
Communism, played ап extremely important role iп tће
weakeпing of Soviet imperialism апd in tће dmvngrading of
Stalinism inside tl1e Commuпist movement. Тће motives for
changes \vhicl1 ате occurring in tће Soviet Uпiоп and in the
East European counti'ies ате to Ье found, above all, in the
couпtries tl1emselves. Тћеу арреатеd fiтst iп Yugoslavia-in tће
Yugoslav -.;vay. And tЪer·e, too, tћеу \Vere fiтst completed. Thus
Yugoslav Communisш as national Coшшuпism, in tће clasћ
"'itћ Stalin, actually origiпated а ne\v, post-Staliп рћаsе iп tће
developmeпt of Communisш. Yugoslav Commuпisш significantly
iпflueпced chaпges in Communisш itself, but did not
fuпdaшeпtally influeпce eitћer inter-national relationships or
пoп-Comшuпist \vorkers' moYemeпts.
Тће expectatioп tћat Yugoslav Comшunism would Ье аЬlе
to evolve to-.;vard democгatic socialisш or tћat it would Ье
аЬlе to sепте as а bridge bet-.;veen Social Democracy and Commuпism
ћаs pтoved baseless. Тће Yugoslav leaders tЪeшselves
-.;vere iп coпflict over tћis question. Duriнg tће time of Soviet
pressure он Yugoslavia tћеу demoнstrated а fervent desire for
а rapprochement -.;vitћ tће Social Deшocrats. However, in
1956, during tће period of реасе witћ Moscow, Tito anнounced
that Ьоtћ tће Cominform апd tће Socialist Iнterпational -.;vere
uпnecessary, despite tЪе fact tћat tће Socialist Internatioпal
uпselfisћly defeпded Yugoslavia -.;vћile tЪе Comiпform labOI·iously
attacked Yugoslavia. Preoccupied with а policy of socalled
active coexisteпce, which for tће шost par·t correspoпds
to tћeir iпterests of tће шошепt, the Yugoslav leaders declared
tћat Ьоtћ organizatioпs-the Comiпfol'm апd tће Socialist
Iпtel'нatioпal-we!'e "immoderate" solely because tћеу were
allegedly tЪе pr·oduct of t-.;vo Ьlocs.
Тће Yugoslav leaders coпfused their desires -.;vitћ reality and
coпfused tћeir momeпtar-y iпterests witћ profouпdly ћistoric
and socialistic differeпces.
At ану r·ate, tће Coшiпfor-m -.;vas tће product of Staliпist.
efforts for tће creation of an Eastei-n шilitary Ьlос. It is impossiЬle
to dепу tће fact that tће Socialist lnternatioпal is liпked
-.;vitЪ tће Western Ьlос, or \vitћ tће Atlantic Pact, siпce it operates
-.;vithiп the fгame-.;vork of tће West Europeaп countтies.
But it -.;vould exist еУеп -.;vitћout that Ьlос. It is, аЬоуе all, ап
oтgaпizatioп of Socialists of tће deyeloped Еш·ореап couпtries
in 'Nћich political democracy апd similar тelatioнships exist.
Militaт-y alliaпces апd Ьlocs are temporary шaпifestatioпs,
but tће \Vesteгп Socialism апd Easterп Comшuпism reflect
mucl1 more eпduriпg апd basic teпdeпcies.
Coпtтasts bet\veeп Commuпism апd а Social Demoпacy ате
поt the result of diffeгeпt pгiнciples oпly-tћese least of all-but
of tће opposing directioпs of ecoпomic анd iпtellectual
fшces. Tl1e clasћ bet-.;veeп Mar-tov апd Lепiп at the Secoпd
Coпgтess of Russiaп Social Democrats iп Lопdоп iп 1903 сонсешiпg
the questioп of рагtу membel'sћip, апd сопсешiпg tће
questioп of lesseг or gгeater ceпtr·alism апd discipliпe iп the
paтty-,vhicћ Deutscher· correctly calls the begiппiпg of tће
greatest schisш iп histor-y-\vas of far gl'eater significaпce thaп
еУеп its iпitiatOI's -.;vеге аЬlе to anticipate. Witћ that Ьеgап not
опlу the formation of t-.;vo moYements but of t\vo social systems.
Тће schism bet.weeп Comшunists and Social Democrats is

impossiЬle to bridge until tlle very natures of these movements,
or the conditions themselves 1vhich resulted in differences beнveen
them, are changed. Iп the course of а half ceпtury,
despite periodic and separate rapprochements, the differeпces
ћаvе on tће whole increased, апd tћeir natures ћаvе become
still пюrе iпdividualized. Today Social Democracy апd Commuпism
are not опlу two movements but t1vo 1vorlds.
Natioпal Commuпism, separating itself from Moscow, has
Ьееп unaЬle to bridge t.his cћasm althougћ it сап circumvent
it. This 1vas demonstrated Ьу tће cooperatioп of the Yugoslav
Communists 1vith the Social Democrats, whicћ was more seemino-
than actual and more courteous tћап sincere, and which w:s 1vithout tangiЬle important results for eitћer side.
For completely different reasons, unity has not even been
realized bet.weeп W esteЛl апd Asian Social Democrats. The
differences bet1veen tћem 1vere поt as great in essence, or in
priпciple, as they 1vere iп practice. For пational reasoпs of their
o>vn, Asiaп Socialists had to remaiп separated from West
European Socialists. Even wlleп tћеу are opponents of colonialism,
W estern Socialists-tћougћ they play no leading role-are
repr·eseпtatives of cotшtries wћiсћ, solely because tћеу are more
developed, exploit tће uпdeveloped couпtr·ies. The coпtrast
bet\veen Asiaп and W estern Social Democrats is а maпifestation
of conti·asts beпveen underdeveloped and developed couпt.ries,
carried over int.o tlle ranks of tће Socialist movement. Despite
tlle fact tћat concrete foпns of tћis coпtrast llave to Ье shaiply
defined, proximity in essence-as far as can Ье deduced todayis
obvious and iпevit.aЬle.
National Communism similar to that in Yugoslavia could
Ье of immense iппational sigпificance in Communist parties
of noп-Commuпist states. It could Ьс: of еvен greater signifi-
cance there than iп Commuпist parties 1vhich are actually
iп po1ver. This is relevant above all to the Commuпist parties
in France and Italy, 1vћich eпcompass а significaнt majority
of tће workiпg class and whicl1 are, along witll several parties
in Asia, the. опlу опеs of major sigпificaпce in the пon·Comnшnist
Until поw, the maпifestations of пational Communism in
these parties ћаvе been 1vitћout major signifi.cance апd impetus.
Ho1vever, tћеу ћаvе beer1 inevitaЬle. They could, in tће final
analysis, lead to profouпd апd essential chaпges in tћese parties.
Тћеsе parties have to coпtend 1vith the Social Democratswho
are аЬlе to сћапnеl the dissatisfied masses tmvard themselves
Ьу means of their o1vn socialist slogans and activity.
Tћis is not. tlle only reasoп for tће eveпtual deviatioп of these
paт·ties from Moscow. Lesser reasons may Ье seen in the periodic
and unanticipated reveтsals of Mosco1v and of the other ruling
Communist parties. Such reveтsals lead these and otћer noпruling
Communist parties iпto а "crisis of conscience"-to spit
оп 1vћat uпtil yesterday tћеу extolled, tћеп suddenly to сћапgе
tћeir line. N еitћет oppositionist pr·opaganda nor administтa.tiYe
pressure 1vill play а fuпdameпtal role iп the traпsfoпnation
of tllese paтties.
Tlle basic causes fот deYiatioп of tћese parties from Moscow
may Ье fouпd iп tће пature of tће social system of tће countries
iп \vћiс:ћ tћеу opeiate. If it becomes eYident-and it appears
Jikely-tlыt tће 1voтkiпg class of tћese countтies is аЬlе tћrough
paгliamentaтy forms to апiУе at some improvemeпt in its position,
and also to cћange tће social system itself, tће working
class Ђ'ill abaпdon tће Communists regardless of its revolutioпary
and otћer traditions. Only small groups of Communist
dogmaticists сан look dispassionately at tће disassociatioп of
the 1voтkeis; serious political leaders in а given паtiоп will
eпdeavor t.o avoid it. еvеп at tће cost of weakening ties witl1
Paтliamentary electioпs wblcћ give а huge number of votes

to Communists in these countries do not accurately express
the actual strencтth of Communist parties. То а significaпt de-
~ .
gree they are ан expressioп of dissatisfaction апd delusю~1.
Stнbbornly follo1ving the Commuпist leaders, the mass~s \Vlll
just as easily abaпdon them t.he moment it becomes obvюus to
t.hem that the leaders are sacrificiпg пatioпal iпstitutioпs, or
the сопс.теtе prospects of the 1vork~пg class, to tl1eir. b~reaucratic
пature, or to t.he "dictatorslнp of the pr·oletariat апd
ties 1vith :Мosco1v.
Of course, all of this is ћypothesis. But even today these
parties are finding tћemselvs iп ~ difficu~t s~tuatioп: If tћеу
really 1vish to Ье adhereпts of par'llamentaпaшsm, the1r leaders
1vill have to renounce tlleir anti-paтliamentaтy nature, or
chancтe over to their o>vrl пatioпal Commuпism >vhich 1vould, ~
since tlley are поt in coпtrol, lead to disintegratioп of their
The leaders of Commuпist parties iп t.hese couпtries are
driveп to expeтiment with the idea of national Communism
апd пatioпal forms Ьу all of these factors: Ьу the strengtheniпg
of tlle possiЬility that the traпsformation of society апd tl1e
improvemeпt of positioп of tће 1vorkers >vill Ье attained Ьу
democratic meaпs; Ьу Mosco-.;v's тeversals, whicll Ьу the dowпgгading
of the cпlt of Stalin ultimately гesulted in destruction
of the ideologic center; Ьу сопсuпеnсе of the Social Demoпats;
Ьу teпdencies to>vaгd нnification of the \Vest оп а profound
and eпduring social basis as >vell as а militaгy оне; Ьу militaгy
stгencтtheпiпcт of the vVestem Ьlос which offeгs iпcтeasiпgly ~ ~
fe>ver prospects for 'Ъr·otheгly aid" for the Soviet army; and Ьу
the impossiЬility of пе-.;v Commuпist тevolнtions >vithout. а
>vorld 1var. At tће same time fear of the iпevitaЬle result of
а tгansition to parliameпtaгiaпism, апd of а breaking off with
Mosco-.;v, prevents t.hese leaders fr·om doiпg anythiпg of real
sigпificance. Iпcreasingly deepei' social diffel'eпces bet>veeп the
East and the West 1vork with releпtless force. The clever
Togliatti is coпfused, апd the robust Tћorez is wavering. External
апd internal par-ty life is begiпning to bypass t.hem.
Emphasizing that today а pai'liament can serve as а "form
of traпsition to socialism," Kl1rushchev inteпded at t.he Twentieth
Congress to facilitate manipulatioп of the Commuпist
parties in '~capitalist countries," and to stimulate the c~operatioп
of Cornrnunists and Social Dernoпats апd tће formatюп of
"People's Fronts." Something like this appeared realistic to
him, according to bls 1vords, because of the сћапgеs which ћаd
resulted in the streпgtheпiпg of Commнnism and because of
реасе iп the -.;vorld. With tћat ће tacitly ackrюwledged to everyoпe
tће obvious impossЉility of Commuпist revolut.ioпs in
t.he developed countтies, as -.;vell as the impossiЬility of fшtћer
expaпsion of Commuпism нпdеr сuпепt coпditions witћout
tће daпger of а пе-.;v 1vorld war. Тће policy of tће Soviet. stat.e
ћаs Ьееп тeduced to а status quo, while Commuпism ћаs desceпded
to gr·adual acquisition of пе-.;v positioпs in а new 1vay.
А CI'isis ћаs actually beguп iп tће Communist parties of t.he
noп-Commнnist states. If they change over to natioпal Communism,
tћеу risk forsaking their vегу natшe; and if tћеу do
not change оvег, tћеу face а loss of follo>ver·s. Tћeir leaders,
tћose 1vћо repтesent tће spiгit of Coшrnuпism iп tћese par·ties,
will Ье fol'ced iпto tЪе most cuппing manipulatioпs and unscтupulous
measuтes if they are to extricate tћemselves fтom
tћis coпtтadictioп. It is impr·obaЬle tћat. they will Ье аЬlе to
сћесk disoтientatioп апd disiпtegr·atioп. Тћеу ћаvе reached
а state of conflict >vitћ tће real tendencies of development in
tlle world апd in tl1eir cour1tries tћat. obviously lead to-.;vaгd
пе>v relatioпships.
N atioпal Commuпism outside of the Commuпist states iпevitaЬiy
leads toward тenunciatioп of Communism itself, or
to>var·d t.he disintegratioп of tће Commuпist paтties. Its possiЬilities
ar·e greater today in tЪе пon-Communist st.ates, but
obviously, only along t.he liпes of sepai'atioп frorn Commнпism

itself. Therefore, natioпal Cornrnuпisrn in these parties will
ernerge victorious only witl1 difficulty and slowly, in successive
In the Cornrnunist parties that are not in power it is evideпt
that national Cornrnunisrn-despite its intent to stirnulate
Cornrnunisrn апd strengtheп its пature-is sirnultaneously the
heresy that niЬЬles 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 Commпnism
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
а picture of the preseпt-day world.
The results of the First World War led to the transforrnation
of Czarist Russia iпto а new type of state, or into а country
wit.h пеw types of social relatioщblps. Internatioпally the differeпce
between tl1e t.echпical level and tempo of tће Uпited апd the couпtries of westem Europe deepeпed; tће
Secoпd World War was to traпsform tћis iпto ап uпbridgeaЬle
gulf, so that опlу the Uпited States did поt uпdergo major
сћапgеs in the structure of its есопоmу.
Wars were поt tће опlу cause of this gulf betweeп the Uпited
States and tће rest of the world; tћеу опlу accelerated its coming.
The reasoпs for tће rapid advancernent of the Uпited States
сап Ье found, uпdoubtedly, in its int.ernal poteпtialities-in
the пatural апd social coпditioпs апd tће cћaracter of tће
economy. American capitalism developed iп differeпt circumstances
frorn Europeaп capitalism and it was in full s1ving at а
time wћen its European couпterpart ћаd already beguп to
Today tће gulf is this wide: 6 per cent of the world popula-

tion, that. of the United States, produces 40 per сепt. of the
goods and services in the 1vorld. Bet1veen the First апd Second
Woтld \Vars the United States contriЬпted 33 per cent of world
production; after the Secoпd Wm'ld War it contriЬuted 50
per cent. The opposite 1vas true of Europe (excludiпg the
U.S.S.R.), whose contriЬution to 1voтld production dropped
from 68 per cent in 1870, to 42 per сепt in the 1925-29 peгiod,
theп to 34 per сепt in 1937, апd to 25 per сепt iп 1948 (accordiпg
to Uпited Natioпs data).
The developmeпt of moderп industry iп colonial economies
'>vas also of special importaпce, апd it 1vas to make it. possiЬle
for most of them, ultimately, to gaiп tћeir freedom after tће
Second World \Var.
Iп tће period betweeп tће First. апd Secoпd World 'Vars
capitalism 1veпt tћrougћ ап economic crisis so pгofound апd
1vitћ coпsequeпces so gтeat that опlу dogma-гiddeп Commuпist
~raiпs, particularly tlюse iп the U.S.S.R., failed to ackпmvledge
н .. I.п coпtrast to the cгises of the пiпeteenth ceпtury, t.he great
cпs1s of 1929 revea!ed tћat such cataclysms today sigнify daпger
to tће social order itself, еvеп to the life of the паtiоп as а
\vhole. The developed couпtries-fiгst of all tће United Stateshad
to find ways to emeгg·e ћ·оm this cгisis gradually. Ву various
metћ~ds tlle Uпited States тesorted to а planпed есопоmу оп
а паtюпаl scale. Тће chaпges iп соппесtiоп witћ this wеге of
epochal importaш:e for tће developed couпtries and for the
rest of tће 1vorld, althougћ tћеу 1vете поt recogнized sufficieпtly
fгom а tћeoretical poiпt of vie1v.
Iп this period vaтious foтms of totalitariaпism developed in
tће U.S.S.R. ~nd iп capitalist countries sucћ as Nazi Germaпy.
Geп~any, щ contrast to tће Uпited States, was not сараЬlе
of solvщg tће p1·o~lem of its iпterпal and exterпal ехрапsiоп
Ьу normal econom1c meaпs. \Var апd totalitariaпism (Nazism)
\vere t~e only outlets for tће German monopolists, and tћеу
su bOI·dmated tћemselves to tће тacist wат ратtу.
As >'.'е ћаvе sееп, tће U.S.S.R. weпt over to totalitariaнism
for otћer reasoпs. lt was the coпdition for its industrial traпsformatioп.
Ho1vever, there 1vas aпother, peгhaps rюt very obvious, ele:
nent 1vhich was really тevolut.ioпary for tће mоdетп 1voтld.
Гhis elemeпt was modern wars. They lead to substaнtial
changes even 1vћen tћеу do not lead to actual тevolutioпs.
Leaving ћigћtful devastation behiпd tћem, tћеу сћапgе both
woгld relations and тelatioнs witћin individual countтies.
Тће revolutionaтy character of modern 1vars is maпifested
not only in tће fact tћat tћеу give impetus to tecћпical discoveгies,
but, most of all, iп the fact that they сћапgе tће
ecoпomic апd social st1·ucture. Iп Gгeat Bтitaiп, tl1e Secoпd
vVorJd War exposed апd affected relatioпsllips to the exteпt
that coпsideraЬle пatioпalizatioп became iпevitaЬle. Iпdia, Burma,
апd Iпdoпesia eme1·ged ћоm tће 1var as iпdepeпdeпt
couпtтies. Тће uпificatioп of 1vesteп1 Еuторе Ьеgап as а тesнlt
of the 1var. It ћurled tће Uпited States апd the U.S.S.R. to tће
summit as the two major ecoпomic анd political po1veгs.
Modem warfare affects the Iife of нatioнs анd humaпity
mшЪ more deeply tlшн did waтs of eaтlier epochs. Тhеге are
tiYO геаsопs for this: Fiгst, mоdегп '''ar пшst iнevitaЬly Ье total
;var. Not оне ecoпomic, humaп, от other souгce сап 1·emaiн
uпtapped, because tl1e techпical lcvel of pгoductioп is а]геаdу
so high that it makes it. impossiЬle for parts of апу паtiон or
апу Ьrапсћ of tће есопоmу to staпd to опе side. Secoпd, for
tће same tecћпical, ecoпomic, апd оtће1· геаsопs, tће 1voгld, to
ан iпсоmрагаЬlу lагgег exteпt, lыs become а 1vlю!e; so tће
smallest clынges iн оне ратt briнg fотtћ reactioпs iп other
paгts as well. Еvету modem ;var teпds to сћапgе iпto а ;vor1d
Тћеsе iнvisiЬle military анd economic revolutioнs are of
eпorшous exteпt апd sigпificaпce. Тћеу аге mоте spoпtaпeous
tћап revolutioпs acbleved Ьу fотсе; tћat is, tћеу are поt bнrdeпed
to as gгeat ап exteнt 1vitl1 ideological апd шgaпizatioпai
elemeпts. Tћerefore, such гevolutioнs make it possiЬle to

register in а more шde!'ly 1vay the tendencies of movemeпts iп
the modern 1vorld.
Тће 1vorld as it is today апd as it emerged from the Second
World War is obviously rюt tl1e same as it was before.
Atomic energy, 1vhich mап has t.orn out of the ћeart of matter
апd 1vrested from the cosmos, is tЪе most spectacular but поt
the опlу sign of а new еросћ.
Official Commuпist prognostications on tЪе future of tће
ћuman race declare tЪat atomic enei'gy is tће symbol of Comшurlist
society, just as steaш was tће syшbol and tlle power
prerequisit.e of iпdustrial capitalism. However we iнterpret
tbls na'ive and Ьiased reasoniнg, another poiпt is true: atomic
energy is already Ieadiпg to cћanges in individual countтies апd
iп the world as а whole. Certainly tћese сћапgеs do поt poiпt
tщvard tllat Соmшнпisш and socialism 1vblcћ tће Communist
"tћeoreticiaпs" desire.
Atoшic energy, as а discovery, is поt tЪе fruit of опе паtiоп,
but of а centщy of work Ьу ћundreds of tће most. brilliant
minds of many natioпs. Its applicatioн is also tће r·esult of
tће efforts-not only scieнtific but economic-of а number of
couнtries. If tЪе world llad ноt already Ьееп uнified, r1eitЪer
tће discovery nor tће applicat.ioн of atoшic energy would llave
been possiЬle.
Тће effect of atoшic eпergy, iп tће fiтst place, will teпd
toward tће furtller uпificatioп of tће world. Оп tће 1vay, it
will sћatter iпexoraЬiy all iпћerited obstacles-o1vnersblp relatioпs
апd social relations, but above all exclusive апd isolated
systeшs and ideologies, sucћ as Coшmuпisш Ьоtћ before апd
after Staliп's deatћ.
The tendeнcy toward tће нпificatioп of tће world is tlle basic
cћaracteristic of our time. Tbls does rюt шеап tllat tће world
did поt earlier llave а tепdепсу toward urlity, iп а different
1vay. The tепdепсу tmvar·d Ьiпding the world togetћer Ьу means
of the wo!"ld market 1vas already dominant in tће mid-niпeteeшћ
ceпtury. It, too, was an epoch of capitalist ecoпomies
апd national 1vars. World uпity of опе kiпd was beiпg acbleved
tћеп, tЪrougћ пational economies and national 1vars.
The furtller unificatioп of tЪе world 1vas effected Ьу the
sћattering of pre-capitalist forms of productioп in t.he undeveloped
regions and tЪeir divisioп among the developed
countries апd tћeir moпopolies. This 1vas tће period of monopolistic
capitalisш, colonial coпquests, анd 1vars iп wblcћ
iпternal coпnections апd interests of tће monopolies often
played а role more decisive tћar1 natioпal defeпse itself. The
tendencies at that time toward world unity were acћieved
mainly through conflicts and associations of moпopolistic capital.
Tћis 1vas а ћigher level of unity tћan unity of the шarket.
Capital poured out of пational sources, penetrated, took hold,
and doшinated tће entir·e world.
Тће ргеsеш tendencies toward unit.y are apparent iп other
areas. Тћеу may Ье found in а very ћigћ level of production,
in conterнporary s6ence, апd in scientific апd other thought.
Further advancemeпt of uпity is rю longer possiЬle on exclusively
national fouпdations or· througћ the division of tће >vorld
into individual, monopolistic spheres of influence.
ТЬе trends to'ivard this пеw unity-unity of prodнctionaie
being built on tl1e foundations already attained in eaтlier
stages-that is, on tЬе unity of the шarket and tlle unity of
capital. They conflict, llo>vever·, 1vitl1 already strained and inadeqнate
пational, goverшneпtal, анd, above all, social relations.
vVћile tlle foгmer unities >vere acbleved Ьу means of
national struggles or tћrougll conflicts and 'iVaiЋ over spheres
of intel'est, conteшpoтary uпity is being formed, and can only
Ье forшed, Ьу the destruction of the social relationships of
pгevious periods.
No one сан say coпclusively iп wћat rnanner the coordina

register in а more шde!'ly 1vay the tendencies of movemeпts iп
the modern 1vorld.
Тће 1vorld as it is today апd as it emerged from the Second
World War is obviously rюt tl1e same as it was before.
Atomic energy, 1vhich mап has t.orn out of the ћeart of matter
апd 1vrested from the cosmos, is tЪе most spectacular but поt
the опlу sign of а new еросћ.
Official Commuпist prognostications on tЪе future of tће
ћuman race declare tЪat atomic enei'gy is tће symbol of Comшurlist
society, just as steaш was tће syшbol and tlle power
prerequisit.e of iпdustrial capitalism. However we iнterpret
tbls na'ive and Ьiased reasoniнg, another poiпt is true: atomic
energy is already Ieadiпg to cћanges in individual countтies апd
iп the world as а whole. Certainly tћese сћапgеs do поt poiпt
tщvard tllat Соmшнпisш and socialism 1vblcћ tће Communist
"tћeoreticiaпs" desire.
Atoшic energy, as а discovery, is поt tЪе fruit of опе паtiоп,
but of а centщy of work Ьу ћundreds of tће most. brilliant
minds of many natioпs. Its applicatioн is also tће r·esult of
tће efforts-not only scieнtific but economic-of а number of
couнtries. If tЪе world llad ноt already Ьееп uнified, r1eitЪer
tће discovery nor tће applicat.ioн of atoшic energy would llave
been possiЬle.
Тће effect of atoшic eпergy, iп tће fiтst place, will teпd
toward tће furtller uпificatioп of tће world. Оп tће 1vay, it
will sћatter iпexoraЬiy all iпћerited obstacles-o1vnersblp relatioпs
апd social relations, but above all exclusive апd isolated
systeшs and ideologies, sucћ as Coшmuпisш Ьоtћ before апd
after Staliп's deatћ.
The tendeнcy toward tће нпificatioп of tће world is tlle basic
cћaracteristic of our time. Tbls does rюt шеап tllat tће world
did поt earlier llave а tепdепсу toward urlity, iп а different
1vay. The tепdепсу tmvar·d Ьiпding the world togetћer Ьу means
of the wo!"ld market 1vas already dominant in tће mid-niпeteeшћ
ceпtury. It, too, was an epoch of capitalist ecoпomies
апd national 1vars. World uпity of опе kiпd was beiпg acbleved
tћеп, tЪrougћ пational economies and national 1vars.
The furtller unificatioп of tЪе world 1vas effected Ьу the
sћattering of pre-capitalist forms of productioп in t.he undeveloped
regions and tЪeir divisioп among the developed
countries апd tћeir moпopolies. This 1vas tће period of monopolistic
capitalisш, colonial coпquests, анd 1vars iп wblcћ
iпternal coпnections апd interests of tће monopolies often
played а role more decisive tћar1 natioпal defeпse itself. The
tendencies at that time toward world unity were acћieved
mainly through conflicts and associations of moпopolistic capital.
Tћis 1vas а ћigher level of unity tћan unity of the шarket.
Capital poured out of пational sources, penetrated, took hold,
and doшinated tће entir·e world.
Тће ргеsеш tendencies toward unit.y are apparent iп other
areas. Тћеу may Ье found in а very ћigћ level of production,
in conterнporary s6ence, апd in scientific апd other thought.
Further advancemeпt of uпity is rю longer possiЬle on exclusively
national fouпdations or· througћ the division of tће >vorld
into individual, monopolistic spheres of influence.
ТЬе trends to'ivard this пеw unity-unity of prodнctionaie
being built on tl1e foundations already attained in eaтlier
stages-that is, on tЬе unity of the шarket and tlle unity of
capital. They conflict, llo>vever·, 1vitl1 already strained and inadeqнate
пational, goverшneпtal, анd, above all, social relations.
vVћile tlle foгmer unities >vere acbleved Ьу means of
national struggles or tћrougll conflicts and 'iVaiЋ over spheres
of intel'est, conteшpoтary uпity is being formed, and can only
Ье forшed, Ьу the destruction of the social relationships of
pгevious periods.
No one сан say coпclusively iп wћat rnanner the coordina

tion and unificatioп of 1vorld production 1vill Ье effected,
whetћer Ьу >var or Ьу peaceful means. But the!'e can Ье no
doubt that its tendency canпot Ье checked.
ТЪе fiist method of unification-war-1vould hasten unification
Ьу force, tlшt is, Ьу the domination of one or another
group. But it 1vould inevitaЬly leave behind it the sparks of
ne1v conflagrations, discord, and injustice. Uпification Ьу means
of war would take place at. the expense of the weak апd defeated.
Even if 1var should br·iпg order iпto given relationships
it would leave behiпd it uпr·esolved coпflicts and deeper misuпderstandiпgs.
Because the preseпt world conflict is unfoldiпg mainly оп
the basis of opposition between systems, it has more of the
character of а class coпflict tћan of oppositioп bet1veeп пations
and states. That is tће reason for its unusual severity and
shar·pness. Ану futпre 1var 1vould Ье шате of а world and civil
war bet>veeп gove!'пmeпts апd nations. N ot only would the
сошsе of tће 1var itself Ье friglltful; its effects оп further free
development 1vould Ье terriЬle too.
Тће uпificatioп of the 1vorld Ьу peaceful meaпs, although
а slower way, is the опlу steady, wlюlesome, and just 1vay.
It appears that the uпification of the coпtempor·ary world
\vill Ье effected th!'ougl1 tће opposition of systems, in coпtr·ast
to the types of opposition (natioпal) tћroнgll 1vhich unificatioп
1vas acllieved in earlier per·iotls.
This does поt mean that all contempoтa!'y coпflicts are
merely due to conflicts bet\veen systems. Ther-e are otller
conflicts, iпcluding those from former epoclls. Throнgh the
conflict of systerns the tendeпcy to1vard >vorld uпity of pr-oduction
is r-evealing itself rnost clearly апd actively.
It 1vould Ье unгealistic to expect the нnity of wor·ld prodнctioп
to Ье achieved in the near fнture. The process will t.ake а
long tirne, siпce it 1vi11 Ье the fr-uit of the oгgaпized efforts of
the econornic and other Ieading po1vers of hнmanity, апd because
cornplete нnity of prodнctioп actually cannot Ье achieved.
The earlier unities 1vere пever attained as sornethina final· this
. . ь '
uшty too IS beiпg estaЬlisl1ed only as а teпdency, as sornetllina
toward. 1vllich. prodнctioп, at least t.hat of the most developed
countries, asp1res.
Тће endiпg of tће Secoпd World War llad already confirmed
t.he teпdency t.o divisioп of systerns оп а 1vorld scale. All tlle
countr·ies •vhicћ fell нnder Soviet influence, even parts of couпt!'
ies (Gerrnany, Kor-ea), acllieved rnore or less tће sarne systeш.
It 1vas the sarne on tће \Vesterп side.
The Soviet leadeп 1vere fнlly 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 поt
the case iп past •vап." Не said tllis before the 1var 1vas over, at
а tirne 1vhen love, hope, and tr·нst 1vere at their peak arnona
tће Allies. In February 1948 he said to us, the Yugoslavs, and
to tће Bнlgaтians: "Tl1ey, tће Westeш po1vers, 1vi11 make а
country of their mvn онt of \Vest Germany and 1ve 1vill rnake
оне of our o•m out of East Ger-rnany-tћis is iпevitaЬle."
Today it is fashionaЬie, and to sorne extent justifiaЬle, to
evaluate Soviet policy as it 1vas before апd after Staliп's deatll.
Ho1vever, Stalin did поt invent the systems, nor do tlюse 1vho
succeeded ћirn believe in theш less than ће did. \i\IЪat. has
сћапgеd since bls deatl1 is tће rnethod Ьу 1vllich Soviet leadeтs
ћапdlе тelatioпs bc:t1veeп systerns, not. the systeшs tћemselves.
Did поt Khrushchev, at the T1veпtieth Рану Coпgr·ess, mention
ћis "1vщld of socialisrn," ћis "1vorld socialist systern," as something
separate and special? Iп practice tllis rneans notblna шоr·е
tћап insisteпce upon а divisioп into systems, into t.he fuгther
exclusiveness of Cornrnuпisш's o1m systern and l1egemoпistic
Because tће conflict bet1veeп tће West апd East is essentially

а conflict of systems, it must take on the appearance of an ideological
struggle. Ideological war does not wane, even when
temporary compromises are effected, апd it drugs into unconsciousness
the minds in the opposing camps. The more the
coпflict 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 апd capitalism
there is а third type of country, that 'vhich ћаs wrested itself
from colonial dependence (Iпdia, Iпdonesia, Burrna, the Arab
couпtries, etc.) . Тћеsе countries are straining to construct independeпt
economies in order to tear themselves loose from
economic dependence. In them overlap several еросћs and а
number of systems, and particularly the two contemporary
Тћеsе emerging natior1s are, priпcipally for tlleir own пational
reasons, tће most sincere suppor·ters of the slogans of
пational sovereignty, реасе, mutual understar1ding, and similar
ideas. However, they cannot eliminate t.he coпflict between
the two systems. They can опlу alleviate it. In addition they
are the very fields of battle between the two systems. Tћeir
role can Ье а significant and поЬlе one but, for the present,
not а decisive one.
It is important to observe that both systems claim that the
uпification of the 'vorld will Ье modeled on one or the otller.
Both take tlle stand, tћеп, that there is а need for world unity.
However, these stands are diametrically opposed. Тће modern
world's tendency toward unity is being demonstrated and realized
through а struggle between opposing forces, а struggle
of unheard-of severity iп times of реасе.
The ideological апd political expressions of this struggle
are, as we know, Westem democracy апd Eastem Communism.
Since tlle unorganized tendencies toward unification are
bursting fort.h more stroпgly in tће West, because of political
democracy and а higher tecћnical and cult.ural level, tће West
also appears as tlle champioп of political апd intellectual
One or another cћaracteristic system of owпership in tћese
couпtries may check or stimulate this tendency, dependiпg uроп
circumstaпces. However, the aspiration · toward unity is widespread.
А definite obstacle to this unification is the monopolies.
They waпt unity, in their оwп interest.s, but tћеу 'vant to accomplisll
it Ьу an already obsolete metћod-in tће forrп of
spћeres of iпflueпce. However, tћeir opponents-for example,
the English also adћerents of unity, but iп а differeпt
way. Тће teпdency toward unity is also stroпg in Great
Britaiп, which ћаs caпied out natioпalization. Moreover, tће
United States is carrying out пationalization as well, оп an even
vaster scale, rюt Ьу changing tће form of owпership, but Ьу putting
а consideraЬle portion of the national income into the
ћands of the goverr1ment. If t.he United States should achieve а
completely nationalized economy, tendeпcies tmvard the unification
of the contemporary world would receive still greater
Тћ~ law of society and man is to expand and perfect pr~
ductioп. This law evidences itself in tће coпtemporary level
of science, tecћrюlogy, tћougћt, etc., as а tendency toward the
uпification of world production. This is а tendency whicћ, as
а rule, is so mucћ more iпesistiЬle if it involves people on а
higћer cultural and material level.
W estem tendeпcies toward world unification are tће expression
of economic, teclшical, апd other needs and, behind these,
of political mvnersћip and otller forces. The picture in the
Soviet сашр is different. Еvеп if there ћаd not been otller
r·easons, the Coшшunist East, because it was шоrе backward,
would ћаvе been compelled to isolat.e itseJf economically and

ideologically апd to compensate for its economic and other
1.veaknesses Ьу political measures.
It may sound strange, but. this is true: Communism's socalled
socialist mvnership is tће main obstacle to 1.vorld uпification.
Tl1e collective апd total domiпance of tЪе new class
creates ап isolated political and economic system 1.vЋich impedes
the unification of tће 1.vorld. This system сап апd does chaпge,
but very slo>vly, and almost поt at all in regard to mixing апd
iпteп\reaving >vith otl1er systeшs in the directioп of coпsolidatioп.
Its chaпges are шаdе solely for the ршроsе of iпcreasing
its o\\rn streпgth. Leadiпg to опе type of owпeтship, goverпшeпt,
апd ideas, tl1is systeш iпevitaЬly isolates itself. It iпevitaЬly
шoves to>vard exclusiveness.
А united >vorld \\'hicћ even tће Soviet leaders desire сап only
Ье iшagined Ьу theш as шоrе or less identical witћ their own
and as beiпg tћeirs. ТЪе peaceful coexistence of systeшs of
>vћiсћ tћеу speak does поt шеап to tћеш tће iпteпveaviпg of
v.a rioнs systeшs, but tl1e static continuation of опе systeш аlопо-- ~
Side anotћer, uпtil tће poiпt >vhen tl1e otller· system-tћe capitalist
systeш-is eitћer· defeated от con·odes fтош witћiп.
Tlle existeпce of tl1e coпflict bet>veen tће t>vo systeшs
does поt шеаn tћat пatioпal and coloпial coпflicts llave ceased.
Оп tће сопtr·ату, it is tllrougћ clasћes of а пational апd colonial
пature tћat tће basic coпflict of systeшs is r·evealed • Тће strucотт le
over tће Sнez Canal coнld ћardly Ье kept froш tшпiпст iпto
str·ife bet>veп tlle t>vo systeшs, iпstead of reшaiпing \Vl1at it
\Vas: а dispнte bet1.veeп Egyptiaп пationalisш апd \Vorld t.rade
wћiсћ, Ьу а coiпcideпce, l1appened to Ье represeпted Ьу tће
old coloпial po>vers of Britain апd Fr·aпce.
Extr·eшe straiп iп all aspects of iпteтnatioпal Ше llas been
tће inevitaЬle result of sнсћ relations. Cold \Var llas Ьесоше
tће norшal peacetiшe state of tlle шоdегн \Vorld. Its forшs
llave cllaпged апd are cћaпging; it Ьесошеs шilder or шоrе
severe, Ьнt it is no longer possiЬle to eliшinate it uпder a-iveн
coпditioпs. It is necessaгy first to eliшiпate sошеtћiпа- ~uch <:>
deeper, soшetћiпg >vћiсћ is iп tће пature of the conteшporary
\VOrld, of conteшpor·aiJ' systeшs, апd especially of Сошшнnisш.
Тће cold \Vаг, today tће cause of increasing teпsioп, \vas itself
tће pгoduct of otћer, deeper, апd ear·lier· coпflicting factш·s.
Tlle wor'ld iп vvћicћ live is а 1.vorld of нncertaiпty. It is
а woтld of stupefying and uпfаtћошаЬlе llorizoпs wћicll scieнce
is revealiпg to lшшапitу; it is also а 1.vorld of teпiЬle fear of
cosшic catastmpћe, tllreateпed Ьу шodern шеапs of 1.var.
Tbls vvorld 1.vill Ье cllaпged, iн опе 1.vay и апоtћеr. It саппоt.
remain as it is, diYided and vvitЪ ап iпesistiЬle aspiratioп towar
·d нnity. \Vorld relatioпsћips >vћiсћ fiпally ешеrсте froш
~· <:>
tнis entaпgleшeнt V\7ill Ье пeitћer ideal поr· \Vitllout fгiction.
Но-\\теуеr·, tћеу 1.vill Ье better tћап tЪе preseпt-day опеs.
Tlle present conflict. of systeшs, ћo\vever, does поt iпdicate
tl1at ћпшапitу is goiпg in tће directioп of а single systeш. Tћis
type of conflict deшoпstтates only tllat tће fшtћer ппificatioп
of tће \Vor·ld or, шоrе ассптаtеlу expressed, tће пnificatioп of
>voгld prodпctioп, will Ье acћieYed tћrougl1 tће coпflict bet1.veeн
ТЪе (endency to'lvard uпity of world pr·odнctioп саппоt. lead
everyvvllere to tl1e sаше type of pr·odпctioп, tћat is, to tlн: same
foгms of о>vпегsћiр, governшent, etc. Tћis ппitу of pr·odпctioп
expresses tlle aspiration tovvard eliшinatioп of inћerited апd
artificial obstacl~s to tће floшisћiпg and gгeater efficiency of
шоdеш pr·odпctюn. It шeans а fuller adjпstшeпt of pr·odпction
to local, п~tura~, пat.ioпal, апd otћer coпditioпs. ТЪе tепdепсу
to\vard tћ1s пшfiсаtюн тeally leads to а gгeater coordination
апd пsе of tће >voгld prodпctioп poteпtial.
It is foгtuпate tћat а siпgle systeш does поt prevail iп tlle
\Vorld. Оп tlle coпtrary, tl1e uпfотtппаtе tћiпст is tћat tћere
~re too fe;v. diffeгer:t systeшs. Most of all, >vћ:t is тeally bad
IS tl1e exclus1ve апd Isolated паtпrе of systems, of •vћatever kind
tћеу may Ье.
Iпcreasiпgly greater differeнces bet>veen social пnits, stat.e
a!ld political systeшs, in addit.ion to iпcreasiпgly ~гeater 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 р1·оЬаЬ1у Ье mor-e varied, апd, as
such, more uпified. Its imminent unification will Ье made
possiЬle Ьу variety, not Ьу sameпess of type апd personality. At
least that is the \vay it has Ьееп up to this time. Sameness of
type апd personality would mean slavery апd stagnation; not
а higћer degree of freedom for production than today's.
А nation which does not become aware of actual world
processes and tendeпcies will have to рау for it dearly. It will
inevitaЬly lag behiпd апd iп the end will ltave to adjust to
tће unificatioп of the \Voтld, no matter what its пuшerical апd
military streпgtћ may Ье. N one will escape this, just as in the
past поt one nation could resist tће penetration of capital апd
the connectioп \Vitћ other natioпs thюugћ tће world market.
Тћаt is also tће reason why today every autarchical, or
exclusive, national economy-\vћatever its form of O\VIlership
or political order, or eyen its techпical level-must fall into
unresolvaЬle coпtradictions апd stagnatioп. Tћis ћolds true also
for social systems, ideas, et.c. The isolated system can offer опlу
а very modest liviпg; it \vould Ье unaЬle to moye forward апd
solye tће proЬleшs brouglн about Ьу шоdеrп teclшiques and
шodern ideas.
Incidentally, \Vorld deYelopment ћаs already demolisћed the
Comшunist-Staliпist tћeory of the possiЬility of coпst.ruction
of а socialist, or Cumшuпist, society iп one country, and ћаs
brougћt about the strengthening of the totalitarian despotism,
or tће absolute dominance of а new exploiting class.
Iп tћese circuшstances tће construction of а socialist, or Commuпist,
or any otћer kind of society in one couпti-y, or in а
large number of countries cut off froш tће \Vorld as а wћole, ineYitaЬly
results in autarcћy and tће consolidation of despotism.
It also causes the weakening of tће national potentialities for
economic and social progress of tће countries concerned. It
is possiЬle to haYe, iп ћarmony with progi·essive economic and
democratic aspirations iп tће world, more bread and liЬerty
for people generally, а more just dist.riЬution of goods, and а
normal tempo of econoшic deYelopшen:t. Tl1e conditioп for
tЬis is tће cћanging of existing property and political relationships,
particulaтly tћose iп Coшшunisш since they are, because
of tће шonopoly of tће ruling class, tће most serious-altћough
not tће only-obstacle to natioпal and world progress.
Тће tendency to\vard unification, for ot.her reasons, has also
iпfluenced cћanges in property relationships.
The iпcтeased, and еvеп decisiYe, t·ole of governmeпt orgaпs
in tће economy, and to а large exteпt in ownership as \vell,
is also ап expression of the teпdency toward \Vorld uпification.
Certaiпly it is manifested in differeпt \vays in various systems
апd countries, and eYen as an obstacle in tlюse places whereas
iп tће Coшшuпist countries-formal state owпership itself
conceals the monopoly and tће total doшination of а new class.
Iп Great Britain private or, шоrе accurately expressed, monopolist
O\Vllership has already legally lost its sanctity and purity
tћrougћ Labourite nationalization. Over twenty per cent of
Biitish productiYe po\ver has Ьееп пationalized. In tће Scandinavian
countries, in addition to state ownership, а cooperative
type of collective O\vnership is deYelopiпg.
The incтeasing role of governшent in tће есопошу is especially
cћaracteristic of the countries whicћ until recently \Vere
coloпies and seшi-dependent coш1tries, witћout regard to
wћether they ћаvе а socialist goYernmeпt (Burшa), а parliaшeпtary
deшocracy (India), or а military dictatorsblp (Egypt).

Тће government makes most of the investments; it controls
exports, seizes а large portion of tће export funds, etc. Тће
government appeais evei)''Nl1eтe as an initiator of econo~ic
cћancre and пationalization is а more ћ·equently occurпng
о '
form of O\vnersћip.
The situation is no differeпt in tће United States, tће couпti)'
\vћere capitalism is most ћighly developed. N ot on:y can
eveчbody see tће iпcreasing role of the governmen~ lll tће
economy from tће great пisis (1929) to tl1e present tlme, but
fe\v people deny the inevitaЬility of tbls role.
Јашеs Вlaine vValker eшpћasizes, in The Epic of American
Industry:* "Тће growing intiшacy bet,veen goveтnшent and
the econoшic life ћаs been one of tће stгiking cћaгacteгistics
of tће twentietћ century."
\Valker cites that in 1938 about 20 per cent of tће national
incoшe \vas socialized, \vhile in 1940 tllis per-centage \Vent up
to at Ieast 25 per cent. Systeшatic goYernшent plaпning of tће
national есоnошу began \vith RooseYelt. At tl1e sаше tiшe, the
nuшber of governшent \voгker-s апd goYer-nшeпt functioпs,
particularly tћose of the federal goveгnшent, is gтowing.
Jolшson and Kross, in Tlze Oтigins ancl D('velopment of the
Ameтican Economy,t соше to the sаше conclusions. Тћеу affirm
tћat adшiпistration l1as been separ·ated fгош owпersћip
апd that tће role of tће goYer-nшent as а creditoг ћаs gr·o\vn
coпsider-aЬly. "One of tl1e cћief cћaгacter-istics of the 20tћ century,"
tћеу say, "is tће constant augшeпtation of tће governшent's,
especially tlle fedeтal goveгnшent's, influence over
econoшic affairs."
In ћis \VOik The Ameтican TYay,t Sћepar·d В. Clough cites
figшes tћat illustr-ate tћese stateшeпts. Тће expenditures and
puЬlic debt.s of tће federal governшeпt, according to Ыш, look
like tbls:
"New Yo1·k, Harper, 1949.
t New York, Prentice-Hall, 1953.
:ј: New York, Т. У. Crowell, 1953.
Expenditures of tlze Federal
Year (in millions of dollars)
PuЬlic Debts
(in thousands of dollars)
In this "\Vork Clough speaks of tће "шanagerial revolution,"
wћiсћ ће uпderstaпds to Ье tће rise of professional adшinistratoгs,
\vitћout \vћош mvners сап по longer operate. Tћeir
пuшЬеr, role, and solidarity ю·е coпtirшally growing in the
Uпited States, and шеn of great business geпius, like Јоћп D.
Rockefeller, Jolm Wanaшaker, Сћагlеs ScЪ\vab and otћers, do
not eшerge any loпger in tl1e Uпited States.
Fainsod and Gогdоп, iп Government and the American
Economy, * rешатk tћat tће goYernшeпt ћаs already played а
role in tће economy апd tћat various social groups Ьаvе tтied
to шаkе use of tbls role in economic life. Ho"\vever, tћere are
now essential diffeгeпces in this. The r·egпlatiYe role of goYernшent,
tћеу \vтite, has арреагеd not only iп tће sphere of labor
Ьпt in productioп-in branches of the economy as impoitant
to tће пation as tгaпsportatioп, natпгal gas, coal, and petгoleпm.
"Novel апd far-reacl1iпg changes \vere also eYident in the forш
of an expansion of рпЬliс enterprise and inпeased concem
\vitћ tће conservation of natпral and ћuшаn тesour·ces. PuЬlic
enterpr'ise became paiticularly irnpoгtant in the banking and
ct·edit field, in electгicity, and in the pioYision of lo\v-cost
housing." They cornrnent that the goYernrnent has begun to
play а far more irnportant тоlе than it played ћalf а century
ago, even ten уеатs ago. "The тesпlt of tЪese developrnents
has been to prodпce а 'mixed econorny,' ап есоnошу iп \vhich
рпЬliс eпterprise, paгtially governrnent-contiOlled private en-
"New York, W. W. Norton, 1941.

terprise, and relatively uncontrolled private ent.erpтise all exist
side Ьу side."
These and other authors cit.e various aspects of this process
апd tЬе growth of tће пeeds of society for social welfare, educatioп,
апd similar beпefits, whicЬ are beiпg provided Ьу government
ageпcies, as well as tЬе continual iпcrease-both
relative and absolute-iп the пumber of persoпs employed Ьу
tће goven1ment.
It is uпderstandaЬle tћat this process received immeпse impetus
and intensity during tЬе Second World War because of
military needs. Ho,vever, after the war the process did not
subside but contintted at а faster tempo tЬan during tЬе prewar
period. It Ћras not just the fact that the Democratic Party was
iп power. Even the RepuЬlicaп government of EiseпЬower,
which was elected to po1;ver in 1952 оп the slogan of а return
to private initiative, could 110t cЬange anythiпg essentially.
The same thing happened 1;vith the Conservative goverшnent
in Great Britaiп; it did поt succeed iп bringiпg about denatioпalization
except iп the steel iпdпstry. Its role in the
economy, Ьу comparisoп 'vitЬ tЬat of the Labour government,
has поt essentially decreased, altЬougЬ it has поt increased
ТЬе interfereпce of tЬе goverшneпt in the economy is obviously
tЬе result of objective tendeпcies 'vhich Ьаd already
penetтated the people's consciousness а loпg time ago. All
serioш economists, beginning witЬ Keynes, have advocated tЬе
intervention of tЬе stat.e in tЬе есопоmу. No1;v this is more or
less an actuality tЬrougЬout tЬе 'vorld. State intervention and
state o'vnership are today ап essential and iп some places а
detetmining factor iп the economy.
Опе could almost conclude fгom t.his tЬat there is no distinction
or source of coпflict in the fact tЬat in the East.ern system
the state plays the major role, while in tЬе Western system
private ownership, or owne1-ship Ьу moпopolies апd compaпies,
plays а major role. Such а coпclusion seems all the more war-
raпted since tЬе role of private ownersblp in tlle West is
gradually decliпiпg, tће role of tће state growiпo-.
However, this is поt tЬе case. Aside from tЬ; other differences
betweeп systems, tЬere is an esseпtial differeпce iп state
ownersblp ан~ i~ the rol~ of tће state in the economy. Though
state mvнersЬ1p 1s tecЬшcally preseпt to sоше extent iп both
systems, . they ~re tw? differeпt, even contradictory types of
owпersh1p. Th1s appl1es to tће role of the state in the есопошу,
Not а single Western government acts like an owner with
rel~tion to the есоnошу. In fact, а W estern governmeпt is
ne1ther the Ol;VНer of natioпalized property nor the owner of
funds wblch it has collected tЬrough t.axes. It canпot Ье an
owner because it is subject to chaпge. It must administer and
distriЬute t.his property under tће control of а parliament. In
tЬе course of distriЬutioп of property, the governmeпt is sнbject
to varioш inflпences, but it is not tће owner. All it does
is admiпister and distriЬute, well or badly, property which does
поt belong to it.
This is поt t~e. case iп Commuпist coпntries. The government
both adr~1шsters ar~d distriЬutes пational property. The
пеw class, or Its executive organ-the party oligarcЬy-botll
acts as the mvner апd is the owner. The most reactioпary and
~ourgeois goverпmeпt can hardly dream of such а monopoly
ш the ecorюmy.
S~rface similar·ities in ownership iп the West апd tЪе East
are ш fact real апd deep differeпces, even coпflictiпg elemeпts.
Even after the ~irst World War, forms of ownersћip were
probaЬly an esseпtlal reasoп for the coпflicts between the West
and tће U.S.S.R. Monopolies then played а much more important
role and they could not accept tће idea that one part

of the 1vorld-specifically the U.S.S.R.--was escaping froш their
doшain. TI1e Coшшunist Ьнrеансrасу had just r·ecently Ьесоше
the шling class. .
Ov.'Ilersblp relationships have alway~ been v1tal to _the
U.S.S.R. in its deaHngs 1vith other countries. '\Vher·ever p~sSIЬle
its pecнliar type of mvnership and polit~cal relations~1p w~s
iшposed Ьу force. No ш how шuch 1t de~eloped 1ts bнsiness
connections 1vith the rest of the 1vorld, It coнld not go
beyond the шеrе exchange of goods, 1vhich ~ad been developed
during the period of national st.ates. _This was also trнe ~f
Yнgoslavia in the period of its break 1v1th Mosco_w. Yugosla_via
could not. develop any kind of significant econoшic соореrаtюп
except for the exchange of goods, although she had and continнes
to have hopes of achieving this. Her есоnошу has reшained
isolat.ed too.
There are other eleшents >vhich coшplicate this picture апd
tl1ese relationships. If the stгengthening of '\Vestern. tendencies
to\vard \VOrld unity of pгodнction шight not шеаn юd to undeveloped
coнntries, in pr·actice it \vould lead to the ascend~ncy
of one nation-the United States-or, at best, а groнp of natюns.
Ву the very eleшent of exchange, tl_1e есоnошу _and the
пational life of the undeveloped coнntпes ате exploнed and
'ior·ced to Ье subordinated to the developed coнntries. This
шeans that the undeveloped coнntтies can only defend theшselves
Ьу political rneans, and Ьу shuttiпg thernselv~s iп if ~еу
,vish to surviYe. Tbls is one \vay. The other way 1s to rece1ve
aid fтorn the oнtside, fгom the deyeloped coнпtr'ies. There is
no tlliтd ;vay. Up to no\v theтe has been Ьагеlу the beginning
alona the second >vay-aid in insignificant arnoнnts.
T~day the differ·ence bet\veen the American and the I~Idonesian
1voгker· is greateт thaп that bet\veen the Аmеrкап
\voтker and the \Vealthy Arneгicaп stockholder·. In 1949 еvету
iпhaЬitant of tlle United States earned ап average of at least
$1,440.00; the Indonesian \vшker earпed l/53rd as rnнcl1, on1y
$27.00, according to United Natioпs data. Апd ther·e is j?;eneral
aQТeernent that the rnaterial апd other differences bet;veeп dev~
loped and undeYeloped courltries do not diшinish; on the
сопtrагу, they increase.
The inequality bet\veen the Western developed countries
and the tшdeYeloped countтies reYea1s itself as beiпg rnainly
ecoпomic. Traditional political dorniпatioп Ьу goyeпюrs апd
locallords is already on its 1vay out. No,v, as а rule, the ecoпorny
of an нпdeveloped Ьнt politically iпdependent, пational gover"
Пrnent is suboгdiпate to sorne otЬer coнntry.
Today no single people can willingly accept such subordinate
relationships, jнst as по single people can 1villiпgly reпounce
the advantaaes rnade possiЬle Ьу gтeater productivity.
u •
То ask Arnerican or West European \Vorkers-not t.o шеntюп
mvner·s-•villingly to rеnонпсе the benefits offered tЬern Ьу а
higћ level of tecћnology and rnore productive \Vor·k is as unthinkaЬle
as it \vould Ье to peгsuade а poor Asiatic tl1at he
shoнld Ье happy that he receiYes so little for his wшk.
Mutual aid bet\veen goveгnrnents апd the gr-adual elimiпation
of ecoпornic and otћer inequalities bet\veen peoples rnust
Ье born of need in order to becorne tће child of good >vill.
In tће rnain, econornic aid has tЬus far been extended only
in tћose cases "'ћеrе uпdeveloped countries, ;vitћ low purchasing
po\ver and lo\v pгoduction, haYe becorne а bнrden to the
developed coнntries. The curтeпt conflict bet\veen tће t1vo systeшs
is the шain obstacle to tће extensioп of real econornic
aid. This is not only Ьесанsе ћuge surns аге being spent for
rnilitary and sirnilar· пeeds; conternporar·y relationships also
blnder tће flouтisћiпg of pr·oduction, апd its tendency tmvard
нnification, thus Ьlocking aid to underdeYeloped couпtries and
tће progress of tће deYeloped couпtries thernselYes.
Material апd otЬer differ·eпces bet\veen the developed апd
the нndeYeloped couпtries ћаvе a1so been registered iп their
iпteгnal life. It \voнld Ье comp1etely iпaccurate to interpret
dernocгacy iп the \Vest only as an expression of solidarity of
rich пatioпs in looting the poor ones; the W esteгn couпtries

were democratic lопо- before the time of coloпial extra-profits,
tlюuo-h оп а lmver level thaп that of today. Тће опlу coппection
betw~eп preseпt-day democracy iп tlle Western couпtries апd
that of tће peiiod \\•hеп Marx апd Lепiп were alive lies in
the fact of coпtiпuous developmeпt betweer1 the tжо periods.
The similarity bet1veeп past апd preseпt democracy is not
gr-eater than that bet\veeп liЬeral or moпopolistic capitalism
and шodern statism.
Iп his \vork, Јп Place ој Fear, the British socialist Aneurin
Веvап observed:
It is necessary to distinguish between the inteпtioп of LiЬeralisш
and its achievemeпts. Its intentioп was to 1vin power
fог the пеw fonns of property t.hrown up Ьу the Iпdust.rial
Revolutioп. Its achievement was to wiп political power for
the people irrespective of property.•
. . The fuпctioп of parliamentary democracy, uпder universal
franchise, historically coпsidered, is to expose \vealthprivilege
to the attack of the people. It is а sword pointed at
the heart of property-power. The агепа 1vhere the issues are
joined is Parliameпt.t
Bevaп's observatioп applies to Great Br·itaiп. It could Ье
expanded to apply to otћer Westerп countries, but only to the
\Vestern ones.
Iп tће W est, ecoпomic meaпs which operate to\vard \vorld
unificatioп have become domiпaпt. Iп the East, оп the Commuпist
side, political meaпs for such uпificatioп have always
Ьееп pr·edomiпaпt. The U.S.S.R. is сараЬlе of "uпitiпg" опlу
that 1vhich it coпqнers. From this poiпt of vie1v поt еvеп the
пеw regiшe could chaпge aпything esseпtially. According to
its ideas, oppressed peoples are опlу those оп wlюш some other
governmeпt, поt the Soviet one, is inflictiпg its rule. The Soviet
• From page 9, Ne'v York edition, Simon & Schuster, 1952.
t From page 6, ibld.
goveл1meпt subordiпates its aid to others, еvеп iп the case of
loaнs, to its political requiremeнts.
Тће Soviet есопошу has rюt yet reached the point \Vhich
would drive it to 1vorld uпification of prodнction. Its contradictioпs
апd diffi.culties steш maiнly froш inteгnal soшces. The
system itself can stШ survive despite its isolatioп fr'oш the
outside world. This is eпoлnously expeпsive, Ьнt it is acbleved
Ьу the widespread use of force. Впt tbls sitпation санпоt last
loпg; the liшit шпst Ье reached. Апd this will Ье tће begirшiпg
of the енd of ннlimited domiнation Ьу the political bureaucracy,
or Ьу the пе1v class.
Conteшpoтary Commuпism coпld help achieve the goal of
world unification most of all Ьу political meaпs-by internal
democratizatioп апd Ьу becoшing шоrе accessiЬle to the outside
world. Ho1vever, it is stШ remote from tbls. Is it actually сараЬlе
of such а thing?
What kiпd of picture does Commпnism have of itself апd
of the oпtside world?
Онсе, dшing the period of monopolies, the Marxism which
Leniп nюdified conceived the internal апd extemal relatioпsltips
iпto 1vhicћ Czarist Rпssia анd siшilar countr·ies had fallen
witћ а degree of accuracy. With this picture to spur it оп, the
moveшeнt headed Ьу Lenin fought анd wоп. Iп Stalin's tiшe
this sаше ideology, again modified, was realistic to the extent
that it. defined, almost accurately, the positioп апd role of tће
r1ew state iп iпternatioпal relatioпs. The Soviet state, or the
пеw class, 1vas iп а good positioп exteшally апd iпtemally,
subordiпatiпg to itself all that it could acquire.
Now the Soviet leadeтs have а hard time orieпtiпg t.hemselves.
They are по loпger сараЬiе of seeiпg conteшporary
reality. The world which they see is поt the оне that really
exists. It is either the оне that used to exist or tће оне that
they would \Vish to have exist.
Holdiпg оп to obsolete dogmas, the Comnшшst leaders
thoпght that all tће rest of the world would stagnate and de

stroy itself in conflicts and struggles. This did not happen.
The West advanced both ecorюmically and intellectually. It
pr·oved to Ье united 1vhenever danger &:om aпother system
threatened. The coJoпies were freed, but dtd поt become Commuпist,
поr did this lead to а rupture with the mother countries
The breakdowп of Westerп capitalism through crises and
wars did not take place. In 1949 Vishinsky, at the Uпited Natioпs
iп the nаше of the Soviet leadership, predicted tће
begi~ning of а gтeat ne\V crisis in th~ Uпited States and i~
capitalism. The opposite happeпed. Tћts was. по.t because ca?ttalism
is good or bad, but because tће capttaltsm tЬе Sovtet
Ieaders rant about no longer exists. The Soviet leaders could
rюt see that Iпdia, tЬе Arab states, and similar countries had
become indepeпdent, uпtil they began to appтove-for tћeir
o\vn reasons-Soviet poiпts of vie\v in foreign policy. ТЬе Soviet
Jeaders did not. and do not. ПО\V undeт-stand social democracy.
Instead, tЬеу measure it Ьу the yaт·dstick \vitЬ \vhich tЬеу
measure tЬе fate of the Social Demoo-ats in their o\vn area.
Basina- tћeir thinkiпa- оп tЬе fact tћat theiт couпtry did not
"' "' r·еасЬ tће development \vhicЬ the Social Democтats foresa\v,
SoYiet. leaders сопсlнdе that social democr·acy in the \Vest, as
well, is нnreal and "tт·еасЬеrош."
This is also tтue \Vith regaт·d to tћeir evaluation of the basic
conflict--tћe coпflict betweeп systems, or tће basic tendeпcy
to\vard tће unification of pтoduction. Here too tћeir evaluatioп
is out of focнs.
Тћеу declare tЬat this coпflict is а stшggle bet,veen two diffeт
·eпt social systems. Iп опе of tЬem-tћeirs, of course-tЬey
state tlыt there are по classes, or tЬat tЪе classes ате iп tће
pтocess of liquidatioп, and that. tЪeirs is state mvпership. In
tће other· system-tћe foreign one--tЬey iпsist tћat tlrer·e are
ragiпa- class strнa-a-les апd crises \Vћile all material goods are "' "'"' . iп the hands of private indiYidнals, апd that the goYerпmeпt 1s
опlу the tool of а Ьandful of greedy monopolists. WitЬ tЪis
yiew of the world, tЬеу believe tЬat tЬе preseпt coпflicts woнld
have been avoided if such relatioпships had поt Ьееп predomiпant
iп the W est.
That is \Vhere the difficнlty lies.
ЕУеп if relat.ionships iп the West were tЬе way tће Commuпists
would like them to be-the coпflict woнld still coпtirшe.
Per-ћaps the coпflict \Vould Ье еvеп more severe in this case.
For not. опlу forms of o\vnership \vould differ; it woнld Ье а
matter of different, opposiпg aspirations, behind whicЬ stand
modem techпology апd the vital iпterests of \vћole пations, iп
'Nhich yarioш groнps, parties, апd classes endeavor to haYe the
same proЬlem solYed accoт·diпg to their пeeds.
WЬеп tће SoYiet leaders rate the modern \Vestem coнпtries
as Ьliпd iпstшments of the moпopolies, tЬеу are just as \\тrопg
as they are iп iпter-pretiпg their own system as а classless
society 1vhere O\vпer-ship is iп tЪе haпds of society. Certainly
the moпopolies play ап importaпt тоlе in tЬе politics of the
\Vestei"Il couпtries, but iп no case is tЪе role as great or the
same as before the First \Vorld \Var, поr еуеп as before the
Second World \Vаг. Тhете is, in the backgroнпd, something
пе\v апd more essential; an irтesistiЬle aspiration toward tће
uпification of tће \Vorld. This is по>v expressed more stroпgly
tћrouglr statism and nationalizatioп-or thтонgЬ tће тоlе of
the goYemmeпt in tl1e economy-tћaп it is tћroнgh the iпfluence
апd action of the monopolies.
То tће extent tlrat. one class, party, or leader stifles criticism
completely, or ћolds absolute po\ver, it or Ье inevitaЬly falls
into an unrealistic, egotistical, and pr·etentious judgment of
This is ћappening today to tће Commнnist leaders. Тћеу
do not control tћeir deeds, but are forced into tћеш Ьу тeality.
There ате advantages in this; tћеу are IIO\V mше practical mеп
than tћеу used to Ье. Hmvever, tћere are also disadvaпtages,
because tЬese leaders basically lack тealistic, or eYen approximately
realistic, vie\vs. They spend more time defeпding

themselves from world reality and attacking it tћan they do
in getting accustomed to it. Their adherence to obsolete dogma
incites them to senseless actions, from 'vhich, on more шature
thoughts, tlley constantly retreat, but with Ьloody heads. Let us
lюре tћat tће latter will prevail 'vith theш. Certaiпly, if the
Communists interpreted tће world realistically, they might ]ose,
but they 'vould gain as human beings, as part of tће humaп race.
Iп any case, the world will cћange and will go in tће direction
iп which it llas been moviпg and must go Oil-to,vard
greater unity, progress, and freedom. Тће po'ver of reality апd
the power of life ћаvе always been stroпger than ану kind of
brutal force and more real than any theory.

No comments: