Wednesday, November 20, 2013




who, Ьу his versatility and persistence, developed one of tће
gr·eatest revolutions kno1vn to men. It also ћаs no record of а
personality like Stalin, 1vho took on tће enormous task of
streнgtћeнing, in terms of po1ver and property, а ne1v class born
out of one of the greatest revolutions in one of the largest of
the world's countries.
Behind Leniп, wћо 1vas all passion апd tlюught, stands the
dull, gray figure of Joseph Stalin, tће symbol of the difficult,
cruel, and unscrupulous asceпt of the ne1v class to its final
After Lenin and Stalin came what had to come; namely,
mediocrity in the form of collective leadership. And also tћere
came the apparently sincere, kind-hearted, noн-intellectual "man
of the people"-Nikita Khrusћchev. The ne1v class по longer
needs the revolutionaries or dogmatists it онсе required; it is
satisfied with simple personalities, such as Khrushchev, Malenkov,
Bulganiн, and Shepilov, wlюse every 1vord reflects the average
man. Тће не1v class itself is tired of dogmatic purges and
training sessions. It 1vould like to live quietly. It must pшtect
itself even from its О"\\'11 authorized leader IIO'\V that it ћаs been
adequately strengtl1ened. Stalin remained tће same as ће 1vas
wl1eн tће class 1vas 1veak, 1vћен cruel measures 1vere нecessary
against еvен those in its mvn raнks 1vho tћreatened to deviate.
Today tћis is all unnecessary. Without relinquisћing anytћing
it created under Stalin's leadersћip, the ne1v class appears to
Ье reнouнcing his authoгity for the past few уеап. But it is
not really renouncing that author-ity-only Stalin's methods
\vћiсћ, according to Kћrushchev, ћurt "good Communists."
Leнin's revolutioнary еросћ 1vas replaced Ьу Staliп's еросћ,
iп 1vћiсћ authOI'ity апd O'\vпersћip, апd iпdustr-ialization, were
str·eпgtћeнed so tћat the much desired peaceful апd good life
of tће пе1v class could begiн. Leпiп's revolutionary Commuнism
was replaced Ьу Staliн's dogmatic communism, whicll in
turн was replaced Ьу non-dogmatic Commuпism, а so-called
collective leadersћip or а group of oligarchs.
These are the tћree pћases of developmeпt of tће пеw class
in the U.S.S.R. or of Russiaп Communism (or of eve.r'Y otћer
type of Commuпism iп опе mаппеr О!' аноtћеr) .
Тће fate 6f Yugoslav Commuпism 1vas to uпify tћese tћree
phases iп tће siпgle persoнality of Tito, along 1vitћ пational
апd peгsonal cћaтacteristics. Tito is а gr·eat revolutioнaгy, but
1vithout origiпal ideas; ће ћаs attained pe!'Sonal pmver, but
1vitћout Stalin's distrustfulпess апd dogmatism. Like Кћшsћсhеv,
Tito is а represeпtative of tће people, tћat is, of tће middle-
pю·ty strata. Тће тоаd wћiсћ Yugoslav Commuпism ћаs
t!'aveled-attaiпiпg а revolutioп, copyiпg Stalinism, tl1eп reпouпciнg
Stalinism апd seeking its O'\VH form-is sееп most fully
iп tће persoпality of Tito. Yugoslav Commuнism ћаs been
шоrе consisteпt tћап otl1er paтties iп pieseпing tће substance
of Comшunism, yet нever renouncing ану forш 1vћiсћ could Ье
of value to it.
Тће tћr·ee pћases in tће developшent of the new classLenin,
Staliп, and "collective leadersћip"-ar·e not coшpletely
divorced fr·oш еасћ otћer, in substaнce or iп ideas.
Leпin too 1vas а t-logшatist, анd Stalin t.oo 1vas а тevolutioпary,
jнst as collective leade!'Sћip 1vill resort to dogmatisш анd to
тevolutionary metћods 1vћen necessary. Wћat is шоr·е, tће nondogmatisш
of tће collective leadersћip is applied only to itself,
to tће ћeads of tће ne1v class. On tће otћer ћand, tће people
шust Ье all tће шоrе peгsistently "edнcated" in tће spirit of
tће dogшa, or· of Marxisш-Leнiпisш. Ву r·elaxing its dogmatic
seveгity and exclusiveness, tће ne1v class, becoшing streнgtћeнed
econoшically, ћаs pr·ospects of attainiпg greater flexiЬility.
Тће lш·oic ега of Coшшunisш is past. Тће еросћ of its
great leadeтs ћаs eнded. Тће еросћ of pr·actical шен has set
in. Тће new class ћаs Ьеен пeated. It is at the height of its

power and wealth, but it is 1vithout ne1v ideas. It. has пothing
more to tell the people. The only thing that remains is for
lt to justify itself.
It 1vould not Ье importaпt to estaЬlish the fact that in contemporary
Communism а пе1v щvning and exploiting class is
involved and not merely а temporary dictatorship and an arЬitr
·ary bureaucracy, if some anti-Stalinist Communists including
Trotsky as 1vell as some Social Democr·ats had not depicted the
ruling stratum as а passing bureaucratic phenomenon because
of 1vhich this ne>v ideal, classless society, still iп its s1vaddling
clothes, must suffer, just as bourgeois society had had to suffer
under Crom\vell's and Napoleon's despotism.
But the ne1v class is really а ne1v class, with а special compositioп
and special ро>,теr. Ву any scieпtific definition of а
class, еvеп the Marxist definition Ьу 1vhich some classes are
lower thaп others accиding t.o their specific position in productioп,
1ve coпclude that, iп the U.S.S.R. and other Commuпist
couпtr·ies, а пе1v class of o1mers and exploiteгs is iп
existence. The specific characteristic of this пе1v class is its
collective o1mership. Communist theoreticiaпs affirm, апd some
even believe, that Communism has aпived at collective owпership.
Collective mmer·ship in var'ious forms has existed iп all
earlier societies. All ancieпt Easterп despotisms 1vere based оп
the pгe-eminence of the state's or the king's property. Iп ancient
Egypt after the fifteentћ century в.с., araЬle land passed to
private o>mersblp. BefOie tћat time only homes апd suпounding
buildings had been privately owпed. State land 1vas haпded
over for cultivation wblle state officials administer·ed tће land
апd collected taxes on it. Caпals and iпstallations, as 1vell as
tће most. impoнaпt 1vorks, 1vere also state-owпed. The state


01\'lled everything uпtil it lost its iпdерепdепсе in the first
centпry of опr era.
This ћelps to explain tће deificatioп of the Pharaoћs of
Egypt апd of tће emperors, >vhicћ опе encouпters in all tће
aпcient Easterп despotisms. Sпch o1vr1ership also explains the
ппdertakiпg of gigantic tasks, such as the constr·uction of
temples, tombs, and castles of emperors, of caпals, roads, and
The Romaп state treated ne1vly conquered land as state land
and owпed consideraЬle пumbeгs of slaves. The medieval
Church also had collective property.
Capitalism Ьу its very nat.пre 1vas an еnешу of collective owпersblp
uпtil the estaЬlisl1meпt of shareholders' organizatioпs.
Capitalism contiппed to Ье ап епешу of collective o1mership,
even thoпgh it coпld поt. do aпything against пеw encroachшeпts
Ьу collective o>vпership апd the епlагgешепt of its area
of oper·atioш.
The Commппists did not iпveпt collective mmership as
such, Ьпt iпveпted its all-eпcompassiпg character, more 1videly
exteпded than iп earlier epochs, еvеп шоrе exteпsive йiап iп
Pharaoh's Egypt. That is all that the Coшшuпists did.
The o1mership of the ne>v class, as well as its chaтacter, was
forшed over а period of time апd 1vas subjected to coпstaпt
chaпge dшing the process. At first, опlу а small part of the
наtiоп felt the нееd for all ecoпomic po1veis to Ье placed iп
the haпds of а political party for the purpose of aidiпg the
iпdпstrial transforшation. The party, actiнg as the avant-garde
of the proletar-iat апd as the "most enlighteпed pmver of socialism,"
piessed for this ceпtгalizatioп 1vhich could Ье attaiпed
only Ьу а chaпge iп o>mei"Ship. The chaпge 1vas шаdе iп fact
and iп forш throнgh пatioпalizatioп fiтst of lar·ge enterprises
and theп of smaller опеs. The abolitioп of private owпersblp
1vas а preгeqнisite for iпdustтialization, апd for the begiппing
of the new class. Ho1vever, >vithoнt. their special role as ad·miпistтatOI
·s over society and as distriЬнtors of property, the

Communists could not. transfor·m tћemselves into а ne\V class,
nor could а ne\v class Ье forшed апd permanently estaЬlisћed.
Gradually material goods \vere nationalized, but iп fact, tћтough
its r·iglн to use, enjoy, and distriЬute these goods, they became
the property of а discemiЬle stratum of tће party and the
Ьнтеанпасу gatl1ered aroнnd it.
In vie\v of the sigнificaпce of O\mership for its po,ver-and
also of the fшits of oivnership-the party bнreaucr·acy сашюt
rеnонпсе the exteпsion of its o>mersllip еvеп оvет small-scale
piodнctioп facilities. Весанsе of its totalitaтianism апd moпopolism,
the neiv class fiпds itself нnavoidaЬly at \Vат >vith eveтytlliпg
1vhicl1 it does поt admiпister or haпdle, апd must
deliЬerately aspire to destroy or conqueт it.
Stalin said, on the eve of collectivization, tћat tl1e qнestioп
of "1vlю 1vill do 1vћat to vvћom" ћаd Ьееп raised, еvеп tlюugh
the Soviet goverпment \vas not meeting serious opposition
Пот а politically and economically disнпited peasantry. Тће
new class felt insecнre as long as tћere \vere any otl1er O\\rners
except itself. It coнld not risk sabotage in food sнpplies ог in
agricнltнral ra>v шaterials. This ivas tће direct тeason for· tће
attack on tће peasantry. Hoivever, tћere 1vas а second reason,
а class reason: tће peasants coнld Ье dangeroнs to tl1e ne\V
class in an нnstaЬle sitнation. Тће neiv class tћerefore ћаd
to subordinate the peasantr·y to itself economically and
administratively; this was done tћгонgh tће kolkhozes апd
maclline-tгactor stations, 1vllicћ reqнired an ino·ease pгoportionate
to tће size of the neiv class in the villages tћemselves.
As а resнlt, Ьнrеанстасу muslнoomed in tће villag·es too.
Тће fact t.hat tће seizнre of propeгty Пош otћer classes,
especially Пош small Oivнers, led to decreases in prodнction
анd to сћаоs in tће есоношу 1vas of но conseqнeпce to tће ne1v
class. Most importaпt for tће ne>v class, as for еvету Oivнer in
history, ivas tће attaiнmeпt and consolidatioн of Oi\rnersllip.
Tl1e class profited from t.he neiv property it ћаd acqнired even
tћougћ t.he natioп lost t.hereby. The collectivization of peasant
holdings, ivhicћ ivas ecoпomically нnjustified, was unavoidaЬle
if tће nevv class 1vas to Ье secшely installed in its power and
its OiVПership.
ReliaЬle statistics are not availaЬle, but all evidence confirms
t.hat yields per acre in the U.S.S.R. ћаvе not. been iпcreased
over tће yie1ds in Czaтist. Russia, and tћat tће number of Iivestock
still does not аррrоасћ tће pre-тevolutionaтy figure.
Тће losses iп agricнltнral yields анd in livestock сан Ье
calculated, Ьнt the losses iп manpo1ver, in the millions of peasants
1vћо 1vere tl1ro\vn into labor camps, are incalculaЬle.
Collectivizatioп was а Пightfнl and devastatiпg 1var 1vllich resemЬled
ап iпsane undertakiнg-except for the fact that it was
pr·ofitaЬle for the ne1v class Ьу assшiпg its authority.
Ву various methods, such as пationalizatioн, compнlsory cooperation,
higћ taxes, анd price ineqнalities, pтivate Oivnersћip
1vas destroyed and tr·aнsforшed into collective oivnership. Тће
estaЬlisћmeпt of tће o\meгsћip of tће пе1v class ivas evideпced
in tће clыпges in tl1e psycћology, tће 1vay of life, апd tће
шaterial position of its шembers, depeпdiпg оп tће position
tћеу ћeld on tће ћieгal'Cћical ladder. Сонпtrу homes, tће best
ћousiпg, fншitнге, and similar tћings iver·e acquiгed; special
qнaтters and exclнsive rest hoшes >vеге estaЬlisћed for tће
higћest bнreaucracy, for tl1e elite of tће пе;v class. ТЪе рагtу
secгetary апd tће cћief of tl1e secret police in some places поt
опlу Ьесаше tlle ћigћest aнtћor·ities but obtained tће best ћousing,
automoЬiles, анd siшilar evidence of privilege. Тћоsе
beneath tћem 1vеге eligiЬle for сошратаЬlе pтivileges, depeпd.
iпg upon their positioп iп tће ћier·arcћy. Тће state budgets,
"gifts," and tће coпstr·нctioн and r-econstruction execнted for
tће пeeds of tће state and its r-epresentatives Ьесаше tће everlastiпg
and iпexћaustiЬle sources of benefit.s to tће political
Опlу in cases where the пеw class was поt сараЬlе of
maintaining t.he ownersћip it ћаd usнr-ped, or in cases
where sucћ ovmerslllp was exorЬitaпt1y expensive or politically

dangerous, the o\vnersblp surrendered to other strata ~~ ot?er
forms of O\vnership \vет·е devised. For example, collectiVlzati.on
\Vas abandoned in Yugoslavia because the peasants were res.Istino-
it and because the steady decrease in production resultшg
ь . н from collectivizatioп held а lateпt daпger for the regш1e. owever,
the пеw class пever reпouпced the тi.ght iп such cases to
seize o1vnersћip agaiп or to collectivize. The пеw class caпnot
rепоuпсе this Ii.ght, for if it did, it would по loпger Ье totalitariaп
апd moпopolistic. . .
No bureaucracy аlопе could Ье so stubborn ш Its p~rposes
апd aims. Опlу those eпgaged iп пе\V forms of o\Vllership,
1vho tread the road to пе\V fоппs of productioп, are сараЬlе of
beiпg so persisteпt.
:Маrх foresaw tћat after its victory the proletariat would Ье
exposed to daпger from the deposed classes ат1d froш its own
bureaucracy. vVheп tl1e Commuпists, especially those in Yugo·
slavia, criticize Staliп's administт-ation апd bш·eaucratic methods,
they geпerally refer to 1vhat :Матх aпticipated. However,
\Vhat is happeniпg iп Communism today has little coпnectioп
with :Маrх and certainly no coпnectioп \Vith tћis anticipation.
Marx \Vas tћinkiпg of the danger fтom an iш.теаsе in а parasitic
bureaucracy, 'vhich is also present in contemporaтy Communism.
It neveт occured to him that today's Communist
strong mеп, who haпdle mateтial goods оп bel1alf of their О\VП
пarrow caste's iпterests rather thaп for the bureaucracy as а
whole, would Ье the bureaucracy he was thiпkiпg of. Iп this
case too, :Маrх serves as а good excuse for the Commuпists,
\Vl1ether tће extravagaпt tastes of various strata of the не\V class
or poor admiпistration is uпder criticism.
Coпtemporaгy Commuпism is поt опlу а party of а certaiп
type, or а bureaucracy \vhich has spruпg fтom moпopolistic
o\Vllership апd excessive state iпteт·fei·eпce iп the есопоmу.
:Моrе thaп aпything else, the esseпtial aspect of coпtemporary
Commuпism is t.he пe'iv class of O"\VПers апd exploiters.
No class is estaЬlished Ьу its O\Vll action, even though its
ascent is organized and accompanied Ьу а conscious stт11ggle.
This ћolds true for the ne\v class in Communism.
The ne1v class, because it ћаd а \Veak relationship to the есопоmу
and social structure, апd of пecessity had its origin iп а
single party, \Vas forced to estaЬlish tlle higllest possiЬle orgaпizational
stтucture. Finally it. 1vas forced to а deliЬerate and
conscious \vithdra\val fгom its earlier tenets. Consequently the
ne\v class is mоте highly oтganized апd more blgllly class-coпscious
tћап any class iп recOI·ded history.
Tћis propositioп is true опlу if it is takeп relatively; consciousness
апd organizational stтucture beiпg takeн in relation
to the outside 1vorld and to other classes, powers, and social
forces. No otl1er class iн history llas Ьееп as cohesive and singleminded
in defendiпg itself and in controlling that 1vllicll it
llolds-collective and monopolistic mrnership and totalitariaп
Оп tlle otller ћand, tће ne\v class is also tће most deluded
and least conscious of itself. Every private capitalist or feudal
loтd 1vas conscious of the fact t.hat he belonged to а special discerniЬle
social categoтy. Не usually believed that this category
1vas destined to make tће humaн гасе happy, and that \vithout
tћis category chaos апd geneтal ruiн \vould eпsue. А Communist
member of the ne\v class also believes that, \vithout his
party, society \vould т·egтess and foundei". But he is not conscious
of the fact that he belongs to а не\v mvnership class, for he does
not consider himself an o>vner and does ноt take into account
the special privileges ће enjoys. Не thiнks that he beloпgs to
а group \Vith рт·еsпiЬеd ideas, aims, attitudes, and 1·oles. That
is all he sees. Не сапrюt see tlыt at the same time he belongs
to а specia1 social category: the ownerslzip class.
Collective OЂтrlei·ship, \vhicll acts to reduce the class, at the

same time makes it unconscious of its class substance, and each
one of the collective owners is deluded in that he thinks he
uniqнely belongs to а movement 1vhicћ 'ivould abolisћ classes
in society. .
А compax-ison of other characteristics of the ?-e:v c~a~s wrth
those of other mvпership classes тeveals mапу srmйaпtles ~пd
many differences. Тће пе"\v class is voracioнs апd insatiaЬle, JHSt
as the boнтaeoisie "\vas. But it does поt have· the virtнes of
frнgality ашf есопоmу that tће boшg~oisie Ьа~. Тће ~e\V class
is as exclusive as tЬе aristocracy Ьпt 'vrtЬoпt aпstocracy s тefiпemeпt
and proud cblvalry.
Tlle ne\v class also Ьаs advantages over otller classes. Because
it is more сошрасt it is better prepared for greater sacrifices
апd ћeroic exploits. Тће individпal is coшpletely апd totally
sпbordinated to the 1vlюle; at least, tlle pievailiпg ideal calls
for sпcl1 sпbordinatioп еvеп "\vћen he is онt seekiпg to better
hiшself. Тће ne\v class is strong еnопgћ to carry опt material
and otћer veпtпres tћat по otћer class was ever аЬlе to do.
Since it possesses tће nation's goods, tће ne\V class is in а position
to devote itself religiously to tће aiшs it ћаs set and to
direct all tће forces of tће people to tће fпrtћerance of tћese
Тће пе"\v o'imeпblp is not tће sаше as tће political goverпшent,
Ьнt is created and aided Ьу tћat governшent. The пsе,
enjoyment, апd distriЬпtion of pioperty is tће pгivilege of tће
party and tће party's top шеn.
Рат·tу шешЬеrs feel tћat authority, that contт·ol over property,
bi·ings "\Vith it tће privileges of this "\vorld. C~nseqпen~ly, :шsсrпрпlонs
aшЬition, dнplicity, toadyisш, and Jealoнsy шevltaЬly
must increase. Careeгism and ап еvет· expanding bureaucracy
are tће incuraЬle diseases of Comшuпisш. Because the
Coшшuпists ћаvе transformed theшselves iпto mvпer·s, апd
because the road to po,ver апd to mateгial privileges is ореп
опlу tћiouah "devotioп" to tће paгty-to the class, to "social- o .
isш"-нпscrпpuloнs ашЬitiоп must become опе of the mаш
"\vays of life апd опе of tће main шetlюds for tће developmeпt
of Commuпism.
Iп пoп-Commuпist systeшs, tће рћепошепа of careerism
and пnsсгпрпlопs ашЬitiоп аге а sign that it is profitaЬle to
Ье а Ьuгеапсгаt, or· that О"\\'11егs ћаvе Ьесоше parasites, so tћat
tће adшinistration of pгoperty is left iп tће ћапds of employees.
Iп Corпrпunisrп, car·eerisrп апd ппscrupпloнs arпЬitioп testify
t.o tће fact tћat tћer·e is an irresistiЬle diive tovvaт·d O\vпership
апd tће privileges that ассошрапу the adrпiпistratioп of material
goods and шен.
Merпbership in otћer· o1vпership classes is поt ideпtical "\vith
tlle иvпersblp of particпlar pr·operty. This is still less the
case iп tће Corпrпппist systeш iпаsшuсћ as owпership is
collective. То Ье ап O"\vпer от· а joiпt O"\VПei· iп tlle Corпrппnist
systeш rпеапs tћat оне eпters the raпks of the ruliпg political
Ьпгеапсrасу апd пotblпg else.
Iп tl1e пе"\v class, jнst as iп otЬer classes, sоше iпdividuals
coпstantly fall Ьу the 1vayside "\Vћile otЬeis go up tће ladder.
Iп private-mvпership classes ап iпdividпal left his pтoperty to
his desceпdaпts. Iп the пе'\v class по оне iпЬerits aпythiпg except
the aspii-atioп to 1-aise Ьiшself to а blgher ruпg of the
ladder. The пе"\v class is actпally beiпg created froш the lmvest
апd broadest strata of the people, and is iп coпstaпt rпotioп.
Althougl1 it is sociologically possiЬle to prescriЬe '\vћо belongs
to the пе1v class, it is difficпlt to do so; for the ne"\V class шelts
iпto апd spills оvег iпto the people, iпto other lower classes,
and is coпstarнly сћапgiпg.
The тоаd to the top is theoi·etically ореп to all, just as evei'y
опе of Napoleoп's soldiers carried а шarshal's Ьаtоп iп ћis
kпapsack. The опlу thiпg tЪat is requii·ed to get оп the road
is siпcere апd cornplete loyalty to tlle ратtу or to the пеw class.
Ореп at. the bottom, the new class becorпes iлcreasiпgly апd
тeleпtlessly пarтo"\ver at the top. Not опlу is tће desire пecessary
fот the cliшb; also пecessary is the aЬility to ппderstaпd and
develop doctтiпes, firшness in stтuggles agaiпst aпtagonists, ех-

ceptional dexterity and cleverness in intra-party struggles, and
talent in strengthening the class. Ману present themselves, but
fe\v are chosen. Although more open ir1 some respects than
other classes, the пеw class is also more exclusive thaп other
classes. Siпce one of the ne\v class's most importarlt features is
monopoly of authority, this exclusiveness is streпgthened Ьу
bureaucratic hierarchical prejudices.
N O\vhere, at any time, has the road been as wide open to tће
devoted and the Ioyal as it is iп the Commuпist system. But tће
asceпt to tће ћeigћts ћаs r1ever at any time been so difficult or
required so mucћ sacrifice and so many victims. Оп tће one
haпd, Communism is open and kind to а11; or1 tће other ћand,
it is exclusive апd intoleraпt even of its its O\Vll adћereпts.
Тће fact tћat tћere is а ne\v o'tvnersћip class in Communist
countries does not explain everythiпg, but it is tће most importaпt
key to uпderstaпdiпg tће cћanges wћiсћ are periodically
takiпg place iп tћese couпtтies, especially iп the U.S.S.R.
It goes \Vitћout sayiпg that every such chaпge iп each separate
Commппist couпtry апd iп tће Commuпist system as а \Vћole
must Ье examined separately, iп order to determiпe tће ext.eпt
апd sigпificaпce of the сћапgе iп tће specific cir·curnstaпces. То
do this, ћO\vever, tће system sћould Ье uпderstood as а 'tvћole
to tће fullest exteпt possiЬle.
In corшectioп \Vitћ curreпt сћапgеs in the U.S.S.R. it \Vill Ье
profitaЬle to point out iп passiпg \vћat is occuпiпg iп tће kolkћozes.
Тће estaЬlishmeпt of kolkћozes апd tће Soviet government.
policy to1vard tћem illustrates clearly tће exploitiпg
nature of tће пеw class.
Stalin did not and Kћrusћcћev does not consider kolkћozes
as а "logical socialistic" form of owner-ship. In practice tћis
meaпs tћat tће ne\v class ћаs rюt succeeded in completely taking
over tће management of tће villages. Тћrопgћ tlle kolkhozes
апd the use of tће compпlsory crop-purcћase system, the ne1v
class ћаs succeeded in making vassals of tће peasants and grabЬing
а lion's sћате of the peasants' iпcome, but tће пеw class
ћаs поt become the опlу po,ver of tће land. St.alin \Vas completely
a\vare of tћis. Before his deatћ, in Econornic ProЬlerns
of Socialisrn in the U.S.S.R., Stalin foresa1v tћat tће kolkћozes
sћoпld become state property, 'tvhicћ is to say tћat. tће bпreaucl'acy
should become tће I'eal a\vner. Criticizing Stalin for ћis
excess use of pпrges, Khrushchev did rюt ћowever renounce
Stalin's vie1vs on property in kolkhozes. The appoiпtment Ьу
the пe'tv regime of 30,000 party \Varkers, rnostly to Ье pi"esideпts
of kolkhozes, was опlу опе of the measпres iп liпe witћ Staliп's
Jпst as uпder Staliп, tће пеw regime, iп executing its so-called
liЬeralization policy, is exteпdiпg the "socialist." O\Vlleiship of
the ne\v class. Deceпtralizatioп iп the economy does not. mеап
а chaпge iп o\vпership, but only gives gr·eater rights to tће
lO\\rer strata of the bu!'eauпacy or of the пе\v class. If the socalled
liЬeтalizatioп and decentralization meaпt anything else,
that \Vould Ье manifest in the political rigћt of at least part of
tће people to exeтcise some iпfluence iп the managemeпt of
mater·ial goods. At least, the people woпld have the riglн to
criticize tће arЬitrariпess of tl1e oligarcћy. This 'tVaпld lead to
the creatioп of а пe'tv political rnovemeпt, еvеп thoпgћ it 1vere
опlу а loyal opposition. H01vever, tћis is поt еvеп meпtioпed,
just as dernocr·acy iп t.he ратtу is not mentioпed. LiЬeтalization
and deceпtr-alizatioп ате in force only for Commuпists; first for
the oligar·chy, tlle leaders of the пe'tv class; апd secoпd, fот those
iп the lo\ver echeloпs. Tћis is the пе1v method, iпevitaЬle ппdеr
сћапgiпg coпditions, for tће fшther streпgtheпing апd consolidatioп
of moпopolistic O'tvnership апd totalitariaп aпthority of
the ne>v class.
Тће fact that is а ne>v owniпg, moпopolistic, апd total

itarian class in Cornrnunist. countries calls fот the follo>ving
conclusion: АН changes initiated Ьу the Cornrnнnist cћiefs аге
dictated first of all Ьу the interests and aspirations of tl1e ne>v
class, >vhich, like ever·y social groнp, lives and reacts, defends
itself and advances, >vith tl1e аiш of increasing its po-vveт. This
does not rnean, hmvever, that sнch cћanges шау not Ье iшpoтtant
fот the тest of tl1e people as 1vell. Altћoнgl1 tће inпovations
introduced Ьу tће ne1v class ћаvе not yet шaterially alteгed tће
Coшшнnist systeш, tћеу пшst not Ье нndeгestiшated. It is
песеssагу to gain insiglн into tће sнbstance of tћese cЬanges in
order to deteгшine tћeir raпge and sigпificaпce.
The Cornшнпist regirne, iп сошшоп ivitћ otћeis, шнst take
into ассонпt tће rnood апd шоvешепt of tће шasses. Because
of tће exclнsiveпess of tће Сошшнпist Party апd tће
absence of free pнblic орiпiоп iп its raпks, tће regiшe cannot
discern tће real statнs of tl1e шasses. Hmveveт·, tl1eir dissatisfactioп
does peпetrate tће coпsciousпess of tће top leaders.
Iп spite of its totalitariaп шапаgешепt, tће пeiv class is поt
iшшune to every type of oppositioп.
Опсе iп po>ver, tће Сошшппists ћаvе по diffiшlty iп settling
tЪeir accounts >vitћ tће boпrgeoisie апd large-estate OV\rneп.
Тће Ъistoiical developшent is lюstile to tћеш and tћeir property
and it is easy to ашнsе tће шasses agaiпst tl1eш. Seiziпg
property fгош tће bouтgeoisie апd tlle laтge-estate ovvners is
quite easy; difficulties ar·ise 1vћеп seizш·e of sшall properties is
iпvolved. Haviпg acquir·ed po'iveг in tће coпrse of earlier expropriatioпs,
tће Coшшuпists сан do еvеп tћis. Relatioпs are
rapidly clarified: tћere are по шоrе old classes апd old o>vпers,
society is "classless," or оп tће road to beiпg so, апd шен ћаvе
staгted to live iп а new шаnпеr.
Uпder sнсћ coпditioпs, deшaпds to retuш. to tће old prerevolutioпary
relatioпs sееш нпrealistic, if rюt ridiшlous.
Mater·ial апd social bases по longer exist for tће шаiпtепаnсе
of sпсћ тelatioпs. Тће Coшшuпists meet sпсћ demaпds as if
tћеу were jests.
Тће пе\v class is шost seпsitiYe to deшaпds on tће part of tће
people for а special kind of fгееdош, not for freedoш in general
or political freedoш. It is especially sensitive to deшaпds for
fгееdош of tћougllt and criticisш, \\'itћin tће liшits of present
coпditions апd \\'itblп tlle liшits of "socialisш"; not for deшands
f01· а retuгn to pгevioнs social апd o\vnersblp relations.
Tћis seпsitivity origiпates froш tће class's special position.
Тће ne'iv class instinctively feels tћat пatioпal goods are, in
fact, its ргоретtу, апd tћat even tће terшs "socialist," "social,"
and "state" propeгty denote а geпt=ral legal fictioп. The ne1v
class also tћiпks tlыt any Ьтеасћ of its totalitaiiaп апtћотitу
шig!н iшpeiil its O'ivпeтsћip. Coпseqнeпtly, tl1e пе\v class
opposes any type of fгееdош, ostensiЬly for tће ршроsе of
pieserYiпg "socialist" O'imeпћip. Ciiticisш of tће ПбV class's
шonopolistic adшinistr-atioп of ргорегtу geпerates tће fеаг of
of а possiЬle loss of роwег. Тће пе\v class is seпsitive to tћese
Ciiticisшs апd deшaпds depeпdiпg оп tће extent. to wblcћ tћеу
expose tће шаnnег in >vћiсћ it rпles and ћolds power.
Tbls is an iшportant contradictioп. ћoperty is legally consideгed
social and national prope1·ty. Впt, in actпality, а single
gгонр шanages it iп its o>m inteгest. Тће discrepaпcy bet>veen
legal and actпal conditions coпtinпoпsly тesпlts iп оЬsсше and
abnorшal social and econoшic relatioпsllips. It also шеапs tћat
tће 'i\'oтds of tће leading gгонр do not coпespond to its actions;
апd tћat all actions тesпlt iп str-eпgtћeniпg its pтoperty ћoldings
and its political position.
Tћis coпtradiction canпot. Ье 1·esolved >vitћoпt jeopardizing
tl1e class's positioп. Otћer rпling, propeity-o>vнing classes coпld
not r·esolve tћis contтadictioп eitћer, uпless forcefully depтived
of шonopoly of pO\\~"er анd mmeiSћip. Wћeгever tћеге ћаs been
а ћigl1er degree of freedoш for society as а >vћole, tће rпling
classes llave been forced, in one \vay or anot.ћer, to renounce
шопороlу of o>vnersћip. Tl1e reveтse is trпe also: 'ivћerever
шonopoly of owпersћip ћаs been iшpossiЬle, freedoш, to some
degree, ћаs become inevitable.

In Communism, po1ver and Olv:пership are almost al1vays in
the same hands, but. tћis fact is concealed under а legal guise.
In classical capitalism, the 1vorker had equality with the capitalist
before the la1v, even thougl1 the worker 1vas being
exploited апd the capitalist 1vas doiпg the exploiting. In Communism,
legally, all are equal witћ respect to mat.erial goods.
The formal o1mer is the nat.ion. In reality, because of monopolistic
administration, only the narro1vest st1-atum of administrators
enjoys the Iights of o;mership.
Every real demand for freedom in Communism, the kind of
demand that hits at the substaпce of Communism, boils dmm
to а demand for bringing material and property relations iпto
accord with 1vhat the law provides.
А demaпd for freedom-based on the position that capital
goods produced Ьу the пation can Ье managed more efficieпtly
Ьу society than Ьу private moпopoly or а private o;vпer, апd
coпsequeпtly should actually Ье in the haпds or uпder control
of society exercised th1·ough its freely elected тepi·esentat.iveswould
force the пе;v class either to make concessions to other
forces, or to take off the mask апd admit its ruling апd exploitiпg
characteristics. Тће type of o;vпeiSћip and exploitation
;vhicћ the ne>v class creates Ьу usiпg its autћority апd its
admiпistrative privileges is sucћ tћat even the class itself must.
dепу it. Does поt tће пе1v class empћasize that it uses its au ..
tћority and admiпistrative fuпctioпs in tће паше of tће пat.ion
as а ;vћole to preseгve natioпal p1·operty?
Tћis makes tће legal positioп of tће пеw class uпcertaiп апd
is also tће sош·се of the ne1v class's Ьiggest internal difficulties.
ТЪе coпtтadictioп discloses tl1e disћarmoпy betweeп words and
actions: \VЪile promisiпg to abolisћ social differences, it. must
al;vays iпcrease tћem Ьу acquiriпg tће p1·oducts of the пation's
woтksћops апd gгanting privileges to its adћereпts. It must
pioclaim loudly its dogma tћat it is fulfilliпg its historical mission
of "final" liЬeration of maпkind from every misery апd
calamity while it acts in exactly the opposite way.
Тће contradict.ioп between the new class's real mmersblp
position апd its legal position can furnish the basic тeason for
criticism. This coпtradiction has >vitbln it the ability not only
to incite otћers but also to corrode tће class's mm тапks, since
pтivileges ате actually beiпg епјоуеd .Ьу опlу а fe1v. This coпtradiction,
when intensified, holds pтospects of real cћanges in
tће Communist system, ;vћetћei· tће ruliпg class is iп favor of
the cћange or not. The fact tћat this coпti·adiction is so obvious
has Ьееп tће тeason for the сћапgеs made Ьу tће ne;v class,
especially in so-called liЬeralization and deceпtтalization.
Foтced to ;vitћdralv апd sштепdеr to iпdividual strata, tће
new class aims at coпcealing this contгadictioп апd strengtћeniпg
its o1m position. Since o;vnersblp and autћority contiпue
iпtact, all measures taken Ьу the ne-.;v class-eveп tћose democratically
inspired-sћmv а tепdепсу to-.;vat·d streпgtћeniпg the
maпagement of tће political Ьш·еаuстасу. Тће system turns
democтatic measuтes iпto positive methods for coпsolidatiпg
tће positioп of tће ruliпg classes. Slavery in aпcient times in
tl1e East inevitaЬly permeated all of society's activities апd
compoпents, iпcluding tће family. Iп tће same -.;vay, tће monopolism
and totalitariaпism of the ruling class iп tће Communist
system are imposed on all tће aspects of social life, even tћough
tће political heads are поt aimiпg at tbls.
Yugoslavia's so-called 1vorkers' managemeпt апd autonomy,
conceived at the time of the stтuggle agaiпst Soviet impeтialism
as а faт-reacblng democтatic measuтe to dept-ive tће ратtу of
tће monopoly of admiпistratioп, ћаs Ьееп iпcгeasingly relegated
to опе of tће areas of party 1voтk. Thus, it is ћardly possiЬle to
сћапgе tће present system. ТЪе aim of creatiпg а ne-.;v democracy
tћrougћ tbls type of admiпistгatioп ;vill not Ье acbleved.
Besides, freedom canпot Ье exteпded to tће largest piece of the
pie. \Voтkeтs' maпagemeпt ћаs not brougћt аЬонt а sћaтing iп
pтofits Ьу tћose 1vћо ртоdнсе, eitћe1· on а national level ш in
local eпteтpгises. Tbls type of administтation ћаs inпeasiпgly
turned iпto а safe type for tће тegime. Тћrонgћ varioнs taxes

and other means, the regime has appropriated even t.he shaтe
of the pтofits 1vhich the 1vorkers believed 1vould Ье giveп to
them. Опlу crumbs from the taЬies апd illusioщ have Ьееп left
to the woтkers. Withoпt нпiversal fтeedom поt еvеп woтkers'
maпagemeпt сап become fтее. Clearly, iп ап uпfтее society
rюbody can fтeely decide anythiпg. The giveтs have someho>v
obtaiпed the most value fтom the gift of fтeedom t.hey sпpposedly
haпded t.he 1vorkers.
This does not. mean that the пe'iv class caпnot make coпcessioпs
to the people, еvеп though it only coщideтs its O'iVIl
iпteгests. Woтkeтs' management, or deceпtтalizatioп, is а coпcession
to tЬе masses. Ciтcшnstaпces may drive the new class,
no matter ho1v moпopolistic and totalitaгiaп it may Ье, to retreat
before tће rnasses. In 1948, 1\'hen the conflict took place
bet'iveen Yпgoslavia and tће U.S.S.R., tће Yпgoslav leaders
1vете fOI'ced to ехеспtе sorne тefor·rns. Еvеп tћопа-ћ it rnio-ht 1:> 1:>
mean а back'i\'aтd step, tћеу set пр refoгrns as soon as they sa1v
tћemselves in јеоратdу. Sometћing siшilar is happeпina- today
• 1:>
ш tће eastern Eпropean coппtr'ies.
In defending its autћority, tЪе r·uling class шust execute тefoпns
е-.,тету tiшe it becomes obvious to tће people that the
class is tгeating national proper·ty as its O'ivn. Such тefoтrns are
not pгoclaimed as being 'ivhat they теа11у are, but таtћеr· as ратt
of tће "fuгtћег de-.,тelopment of socialism" and "socialist dernocгacy."
Тће gтound1voгk fог гefoгms is lai(:l 1\rheп tће discтepaпcy
meпtioned аЬо-.,те becomes pu Ьlic. Fгorn tће ћistoтical
point of vie1v tће ne1v class is fOiced to foгtify its autћority апd
o'ivпeгsћip coпstaпtly, еvеп tћонgћ it is тuппiпg a>vay fr·orn tће
tгutћ: It mus~ coщtaпtly demoпstrate ћ01v it is sнccessfully
c~eatшg а sooety of happy people, all of 1vћorn епјоу eqнal
г1gl1ts апd ћаУе Ьееп fтeed of е-.,тегу type of exploitatioп. The
пe'iv class cannot aYoid falling continuously into pгofoнnd iпteшal
coпtгadictioпs; fог in spite of its blstoгical orio-in it is
not аЬlе to make its mvneisћip la>vful, апd it cannot r:nонпсе
o\\rnersћip witlюut undeтmining itself. Conseqнently, it is
forced to tту to justify its increasing aнtћority, invokiпg abstтact
and нш·еаl pнrposes.
Tћis is а class 1vhose po'iveг oyer rnen is tће шost cornplet
k~o1vn t_o blstor!. Fот tћis гeason it is а class 'iVitЬ vету Iirnite~
:Ie'ivs, vle'ivs >vlнci1 ю·е false апd нпsаfе. Closely iпgтo1\rn, and
ш comp:ete aнtlютity, tl1e ne'iv class nшst. нnrealistically
evalнate Its O'i\'11 role and tћat of tће people aroнnd it.
На-.,тiпg асћiе-.,теd iпdustгialization, tће пе1v class can IIO'iv do
notћing rnOI'e tћап streпgtћen its Ьгнtе force апd pillage tће
people. It ceases to пеаtе. Its spiгitнal Ьe!'itage is oYertakeп Ьу
. \Vћile tће 11e1v class accomplished one of its gтeatest successes
ш tl1e revolнtion, its metћod of control is one of the rnost
sћameful pages in Iшшаn ћistoтy. Меп 1vill rnaпrel at tће
gтaпdiose yentuгes it accoшplisћed, апd 1vill Ье asћamed of
t.he means it used to accoшplisl1 tћern.
vVћen tl1e Ile'iV class leaYes tlle llistOI'ical scene-and tћis rnust
happen-tћeгe >Vill Ье less sorтo>v оvег its passiпg tћап tlle!'e
was fог ~пу o~l1er class. Ьеfоте it. Sшotћe!'ing eYerytћing except
1vћat sшted 1ts ego, It ћаs condemned itself to failuгe and
sћашеfнl ruin

The Party Stafe
The mechanism of Communist po\ver is perhaps the simplest
which can Ье conceived, although it leads to the most refined
tyтanny апd tlle most brutal exploitation. The simplicity of
this mechanism 01·iginates fr·om tl1e fact that one рагtу alone,
the Communist Party, is the backbone of the entire political,
economic, and ideological activity. The entire puЬlic Ше is at
а standstill or moves ahead, falls behind or turns around accordiпg
to \vhat happeпs in tlle pat·ty foшms.
Under the Communist systems the people realize quickly
'\vhat they аге and \vћat they are not peпnitted to do. Laws and
regulations <.-Io not ћаvе an essential importance for them. The
actual and uшvritten тules conceтning tће relationship betжeen
the governmeпt and its subjects do. Regardless of la'lvs, everyone
kno1vs tћat tће government is in tlle haпds of the party committees
апd tће secret police. No'lvћere is "tће directiпg role"
of tће party prescriЬed, but. its autћority is estaЬlisћed in all
oтganizations and sectors. No law provides tћat tће secret police
ћаs the rigћt to coпtrol citizeнs, but tће police is all-powerful.
No la1v pтescriЬes that tће judiciary апd prosecutors shoнld
Ье coпtrolled Ьу tће secret police and tће party committee, but
they are. Most people know tћat tbls is tlle case. Everyoпe
kпo'\vs what can and \vћat t:aпnot Ье done, and what depeпds
оп wћom. People adjust to tће enviroнmeпt анd to actнal
conditioпs, tш-ning to party forums or to organs uпder tће
party's contтol in all importaпt matters.
The diтectioн of social orgaнizatioпs and social organs is
accomplished simply Ьу tbls method: tlle Commнnists form а
unit, >vblcћ turns to autћorized political forums iп all matters.
Tbls is theoтetical; actually it opeтates iп tћis way: In cases
'\Vhere tће social organ or organization is managed Ьу а pei-soп
1vћо also has po1ver in t.ће party, he will not 1·efer to аnуопе
regarding lesser matters. Communists become familiю· with
tћeir system and >vith tће relationsћips created Ьу it; they
accustom tllemselves to distiнguisћ bet1veeп the important and
tће unimpoтtaпt, and refer to party forums only in especially
importaпt matters. Тће unit exists опlу potentially, importaпt
decisions beiнg made Ьу the party; tће opinior1 of those 1vћо
have elected tће governmeпt or administi-ation of some organization
is totally uпimportaпt.
Communist totalitaтiaпism and the ne>v class took root when
tће Commuпist Party was prepaгing for the t·evolution; tћeir
metћod of administeтing апd maintaiпing authority also goes
back to tћat time. Тће "directing role" in organs of government
and social oгganizations is merely the former Communist unit
>vћich has since Ьгаnсћеd out, developed, and perfected itself.
Тће secoпd "dit·ecting role" of tће party in the "buildiпg of
socialism" is пotblng but tће old tћeory regarding the avantgarde
role of the рагtу >vitћ respect to tће working class, 'lvith
tће difference that tће tl1eory tћen had а different significance
for society tћan it has no1v. Before the Communists usuтped
power, this theoty '\vas necessary in order to тecruit revolutionaries
and revolutionary organs; no1v it justifies the totalitariaп
сопtтоl of tће Ile'\v class. One spгings from tће other, but опе
is also diffet·ent from the other. The тevolution and its fшms

vv-ere unavoidaЬle and vv-ere even needed Ьу that part of society
1v-hich irresistiЬly aspired to technical and economic progress.
The totalitarian tyranny and control of the не1v- class, 1v-hich
came iпto beina duriпa the revolution, has become tlle yoke
ь о .
from under 1v-hich the Ьlood and s1veat of all members of sooety
flo1v-. Particular revolutionary foпns vv-ere transfoтmed into reactioпary
ones. Tћis 1v-as also the case 1vitll the Commuпist
There are t1v-o essentiaГ methods through 1vhicll Communist
contr·ol of the social macblпe is accomplisl1ed. The fiтst is the
unit, the main method in principle and in tl1eory. The secoпd,
actually more practical one, restтicts certain goveтnment posts
to party members. These jobs, 1vhich are esseпtial in any
goverпmeпt but especially iп а Commнnist опе, inclнde assignments
1vith police, especially the secret police; апd the diplomatic
and officers corps, especially positions in the information
and political services. In the judiciary only top positioпs have
нпtil по1v- Ьееп in the haпds of Comnшnists. The jнdiciary,
sнbordiпated to the party and police estaЬlishmeпts, is generally
poorly paid, апd is нпattractiYe to Commнnists. However,
the tendency по1v- is for jнdiciaгy posts to Ье considered as а
pr·iyilege ореп опlу to party members, апd for meшbers of the
jнdiciary to have iнcreasing priYileges. Thнs, contтol over the
jнdiciary coнld Ье relaxed, if not completely abolisћed, 1\'itћ
tl1e assнrance that it 1vill сопtiпне to r-нle according to the
iпtentions of the party or "in the spirit of socialism."
Only iп а Commнnist state аге а nнmber of both specified
and нпspecified positioпs reserYed for membeтs of tће рю·tу.
Тће Commнnist goveтпment, аltЈ:юнgћ а class structнre, is а
party goveшment; tће Commнпist army is а ратtу army; апd
the state is а party state. Моте precisely, Commнnists teпd to
t.reat tће army and the state as tћeir exclнsive 1veapoпs.
Тће exclusive, if ншпitten, la>v- that only party members
can become policemen, officers, diplomats, and hold similar
positions, ог that опlу they can exercise actнal authority, creates
а special pr-ivileged groнp of bнreaнcrats and simplifies the
mechanism of goyeшment апd administration. In this maпner
the party нпit expanded and mоте or less t.ook iп all tћese serYices.
As а гesнlt, tће нnit has disappeared >v-hile tћese services
have become an essential area for party activity.
There is no fuпdamental differeпce in the Commнnist system
bet>veen goYerпmeпtal serYices апd ратtу orgaпizatioпs, as in
tће example of the party and the secret police. The party апd
the police mingle yery closely in their daily fнnctioniпg; tће
diffeгeпce bet>veen tћem is only in the distr·iЬнtion of 1vork.
Tl1e entiгe goYernmental stтнсtпте is oтgaпized in tћis
manпer. Political positions are reseтYed exclнsiYely for party
members. Eve11 i11 11011-political goyerпmeпtal bodies Commнпists
hold the str·ategic positioпs or oyersee admiпistratioп.
Calliпg а meetiпg at tће party ceпter or pнЬlishiпg ап article
is sнfficieпt to санsе the епtiте state апd social mechaпism to
begiп fнnctioпing. If difficнlties осшr aпy.vhere, tће party апd
the police vегу qнickly correct tће "error."
Тће particнlaт char-acter of the Commнnist Par·ty has already
Ьееп ti.isшssed. Tl1er·e are otl1er special featптes, t.oo, whicll
llelp reYeal tl1e esseпce of а Commнпist state.
Тће Commнпist Party does not ћаУе its нпiqне cћaracter
solely Ьесанsе it is reYolutioпary апd ceпtra1ized апd obser·yes
military discipliпe апd otller defiпite goals, or ћаs otl1er cllaracteristics.
Tllere ате otl1er paтties >v-itћ similar features, еvеп
tћонgћ tl1ese features may Ье stтoпger iп the Commuпist Par·ty.
Hovveveт, опlу iп tl1e Commнпist Party is "ideologicalнпity"
or an ideпtical concept of tlle >v-oтld апd of tће deYelopment of
society oЬligatory for its members. This applies опlу to persoпs
wћо fнпction iп the higћer forнms of tће party. Tlle otl1eтs,
tllose iп lovv-er positioпs, ате oЬligated опlу to giYe lip serYice

to identical ideological views, while they execute order·s handed
do1vn from above. The t.endency, lюweYer, is to haYe those in
lower positions adjust their ideological level to that of the
Lenin did not consider that party members were all oЬliged
to hold the same vie1vs. Ho1vever, in practice, he refuted and
explained a1vay every vie1v 1vhich did not appear "Marxist"
or "the party's"; that is, eYery view tЪat did not strengthen
the party in the marшer which he had originally conceiYed.
His settling of accounts 1vith Yarious opposition groups in tЪе
party 1vas different from Stalin's, because Lenin did rюt kill
his щbjects, "merely" quelled them. While he was in power
both freedom of expressioп and voting privileges were in effect.
Total authority over everything had not yet been estaЬlished.
Staliп required ideological unity-oЬligatory philosophic and
other views-in addition to political unity as а meeting ground
for all party шешЬеrs. This is actually Stalin's contriЬution
to Leniп's teaching about the par·ty. Staliп formed the concept
of oЬligatory ideological uпity in his eaily youth: in his tiшe,
unaniшity Ьесаше the UШ\rritten requireшeпt of all Coшmunist
parties, and it remains so to the present day.
Yugoslav leaders held and still hold the same vie1vs. They
are still uпder Soviet "collective leadeгsћip" and tЪе foruшs
of other Coшmuпist parties. Tћis iпsisteпce оп the oЬligatOiy
ideological uпity of the party is а sigн that по esseпtial cl1anges
have occurred, and only coпfirшs the fact that free discussion
is not. possiЬle, or possiЬle only in а very liшited 1vay, under
today's "collective leadersћip."
vVhat does oЬligatory нnity in tЪе party шеаn and 1vhere
does it lead?
Its political consequences are very serioнs. The power in
ever·y party, especially in the Communist Party, resides iп it.s
leaders апd ћigher forums. Ideological нпitу as an oЬligatioп,
especially iп t.he ceпtralized апd шilitarily discipliпed Coшшunist
Party, iнevitaЬly br·ings 1vith it. the po>ver of the centra]
body leadersћip over the thoughts of its шешЬеrs. Althoua-h
ideo_logical unity 1vas attained in Leniп's tiшe through discussюп
held at the top, Staliп hiшself Ьеа-ап to re!mlate 1·t 1:> о •
Today, post-Stalin "collective leader·sћip" is satisfied to make
it iшpossiЬle for не>v social ideas to appear. Thus, Marxism
has become а theory to Ье defiнed exclusively Ьу party leader-s.
There is no other type of Marxisш or Сошшuпisш today, and
the developmeпt of aпother type is hardly possiЬle.
The social coнsequeнces of ideological uнity have Ьееп
tragic: Lenin's dictator·ship 1vas strict, but Staliп's dictatorship
b. ecahm e totalitarian. The abolitioн of all ideoloo-ical struo-a-le о 01:>
1~ t е party meant tlle ter-miпatioп of all freedoш in society,
s:nce only thтough the party did the various strata fiнd expressюn.
Intoleraнce of other ideas and iнsistence он the presumably
exclusive scientific пature of Marxisш >ver·e the bea-inпin()'
of ideological monopoly Ьу party leadership, 1vhich l;ter d:veloped
iнto complete шопороlу over society.
Party ideological unity шakes indepeпdent movemeпts impossiЬle
witћiн the Coшшuпist systeш апd withiп society itself.
Еvегу action depends on tће par·ty, 1vћiсћ has total control
over society; 1vitћin it. tћете is not tће sliglltest ћeedom.
. Id~ological_ unity did поt arise sнddeпly Ьнt, like everythiнg
ш Сошшuшsш, developed gradually, reacћiпg its greatest
llei~llt duri~g tће str·uggle for po>ver Ьеtжееп various party
factюнs. It IS not. at all accidental tћat, during Staliп's ascendaпcy
to po>ver· iн tће шid-1920's, it >vas openly demanded of
Trotsky for the fir·st tiшe tћat ће reject all ideas other than
tћose fOI'шulated Ьу the party.
Party ideological uнity is the spiritнal basis of persoпal dictatoпћip.
Witlloнt it personal dictatorship санпоt even Ье
imagined. It begets and strengthens tће dictatorship, and vice
':ersa. Tћis is undeistandaЬle; а monopoly over ideas, or obllgatory
ideological uпity, is опlу а coшplemeнt and а theor~
tical mask for per·sonal dictator·sblp. Altћougћ personal
dictatorship апd ideological unity were already evident in tће

beginnings of contemporary Communism or Bolshevism, both
are firmly estaЬlishing themselves "\Vith Communism's full
po1ver, so that. they, as trends and oft.en as prevailing forms, will
never again Ье abandoned until the fall of Commнnism.
The suppressioп of ideological differences among the leaders
has also abolished fractions and сштепts, and thus has abolished
all democracy in Communist parties. Thus began the period of
tће Fйhrer-principle in Communism: ideologists are merely
people "\Vitћ pщver iп the ратtу тegardless of inadequate intellectual
The continuance of ideological unity iп t.he party is an unmistakaЬle
sio-n of the maintenance of а personal dictatorsblp,
о .
or the dictatorship of а small number of ol1gaтchs 1vho temporarily
work together or maintaiп а balance of p01ver, as is
tће case in the U.S.S.R. today. We find а tendency to1vard
ideological uпity in otl1er parties also, especiall у iп socialist
parties in tћeir earlier stages. Ho>vever, tbls is опlу а tendency
in tћese par·ties; iп Commuпist parties it has become oЬligatory.
One is oЬiiged not опlу to Ье а Marxist, but to adopt the type
of Marxism desired and prescгiЬed Ьу tће leader·sl1ip. Marxism
ћаs been t.ransformed from а free revolutioпю·y ideology iпto
а prescriЬed dogma. As in ancieпt Eastern despotism, the top
autћority iпterprets and prescтiЬes tће dogma, 1vblle the emperor
is the archpтiest.
The oЬligatoтy ideological unity of the party, 1vblcћ ћаs
passed tћrough various pћases апd forms, ћаs remained the
most esseпtial cћaracteristic of Bolsћevik or Commuпist parties.
If these par·ties had not at the same time Ьееп the begiппiпg
of пе1v classes, and if tћеу ћаd поt had а special blstoтical role
to play, oЬligatory ideological uпity could not have existed in
them. Except for the Commuпist Ьшеаuпасу, not а siпgle
class or party iп modern history ћаs attaiпed complete ideological
uпity. None ћаd, Ьеfоге, tће task of tтaпsforming all of
society, mostly·oнgh political апd admiпistrative meaнs. For
sucћ а task, а complete, faпatical coпfidence in tће rigћt.eous-
пess апd нoЬility of tЬeir vie1vs is necessary. Sucћ а task calls
for exceptional brнtal measures agaiпst otћer ideologies and
social gтoups. It also calls for ideological moнopoly over
society апd for absolute uпity of tl1e ruling class. Communist
paгties ћаУе пeeded special ideological solidaгity for tћis reason.
Опсе ideological unity is establisћed, it operates as po1veгfully
as ргејнdiсе. Commнnists ar·e educated in tће idea that ideological
tшity, or tl1e prescription of ideas from аЬоУе, is tће
holy of holies, and tћat factionalism iп tl1e рагtу is tl1e gтeatest
of а11 cгimes.
Complete control of society could not Ье accomplished IVitћoнt
coming to terms >Vitћ otћer socialist gтoups. Icleological
uпity, too, is only possiЬle tlнougl1 а recoпciliatioп >vitћin tће
party's О\\'П ranks. Воtћ t.he one and tће otћer оссш· approximately
simultaneously; iп tће miпds of tће adћerents of
totalitaгianism tћеу appear as "objectively" identical, altlюugћ
tће fiтst is а reconciliatioп of tће пе1v class шitlz its ојЈ Jюnents)
апd the secoпd is а recoпciliatioп шitllin tlze ruling class. Iп
fact, Staliп kпe1v that Tгotsky, Внklыгiп, Zinoviev, апd otl1ers
>vете поt fшeign spies and traitoгs to tће "socialist fatћerland."
Ho"\veyer, siпce tl1eiт disagreement 1vitl1 him obYiously delayed
tће estaЬlisћmeпt of totalitaгiaп contгol, ће ћаd to destr'oy
tћem. His пimes 1vitblп tће party consist of tће fact t.hat ће
transfoгmed "objectiYe unfrieпdliness"-tћe ideological and
political diffeтeпces iп tl1e party-iпto the subjectiYe guilt of
groups апd iпdividнals, attriЬutiпg to t.hem пimes wblcћ t.hey
did поt commit.
Внt tbls is tће iпescapaЬle тоаd of eYery Communist system.
Тће metl:юd of establisћing tota1itaтian сопtтоl, or ideological
нnity, may Ье less seveтe tћап Stalin's, Ьнt tће esseпce is alvvays
tће same. Еvеп 1vћете indшtтializatioп is поt tће form or con

dition for estaЫishing totalitarian coпtrol, as in Czechoslovakia
and Hungary, tlle Communist bureaucracy is iпevitaЬly compelled
to estaЬlish the same fom1s of authority in underdeveloped
countt·ies as those estaЬlished in the Soviet Union. Tbls
does not occur simply because tlle Soviet Unioп imposed such
forms оп tllese countries as subordiпates, but because it is
1vithin the very пature of Commuпist parties themselves апd
of their ideologies to do so. Party control over society, identificatioп
of the government апd governшeпtal шachiпery 1vith
the party, and the right to expтess ideas dependent оп tће
aшount of po1ver and the positioп one holds iп the ћierarchy;
these are the essential and inevitaЬle characteristics of evet-y
Communist bureaucracy as sооп as it attaiш power.
Тће party is tlle maiп fотсе of the Commuпist state апd
governmeпt. It is the motive force of everythiпg. It uпites 1Vithin
itself tће new class, the government, 01vnership, and ideas.
For this reason, militar-y dictatorships ћаvе поt been possiЬle
under Commuпism, altlюugh it seems that military coпspiracies
have occurred in the U.S.S.R. Military dictatot·sblps would not
Ье аЬlе to encompass all phases of life, nor even convince the
natioп temporarily of the пееd for exceptioпal efforts апd selfsacrifice.
Such сан Ье accomplished опlу Ьу the pai"ty, апd then
only Ьу а party 1vith belief iп sucl1 vast ideals that its despotism
appears to its members and adћereпts as пecessary, as the
highest form of state and social organization.
Vie\ved from the standpoiпt of freedom, а military dictatorsћip
in а Communist system \Vould denote great progress. It
"\VOuld signify the terminatioп of totalitarian pat·ty control, or
of а party oligarchy. Theoтetically speakiпg, ho,vever, а militю-y
dictatorsblp 1vould Ье possiЬle only iп case of а military defeat
or an exceptional political crisis. Even in sucћ а case it would
initially Ье а form of par·ty dictatorship or· it \\'ould have to
conceal itself in the party. But, tbls 1vould inevitaЬly lead to
а change in tlle entiтe system.
The totalitarian dictatorship of the Communist Par·ty oli-
gar~~y iп the ~ommunist system is rюt tће result of momentary
polltlcal r~la~юns, but. of а long and complex social progress.
А cha~ge ш 1t. 1vould not mean а cћange in the form of government
ш one and tlle same system, but а change in the system
~tself, or the beg.inning of а change. Such а dictator·ship is
Itself the system, 1ts body апd soul, its essence.
The Communist goveп1meпt very тapidly becomes а small
circle of party leader·s. The claim that it is а dictatorsblp of
the proletariat becomes an empty slogan. The process that
leads to tbls develops 1vitћ the inevitabllity and uncorltrollabllity
of tће elements, апd the theory tћat the рану is an
avant-garde of tће proletariat опlу aids the process.
Thi~ does not mean tћat during tће battle for pmver tће
pai"ty 1s not the leader of the 1vorking masses or tћat it. is not
wOI'king iп their interests. But theп, tће pю·ty's role and
str·uggles are stages and fom1s of its movement. to1vard po1ver.
Althougl1 its stшggle aids tће "\Vot·king class, it also strengtћens
the party, as 1vell as tће future po1ver-holders and the embryonic
ne\v class. As soon as it attains po1ver, the party controls all
po1ver and takes all goods irнo its hands, pi"ofessiпg to Ье the
repr·esentative of tће interests of tће 1vorkina class and the
. ~
';ror шg people. Except for sћort per·iods during tће т·evolutюnai"
y battle, tће pi"oletar·iat does not par·ticipate or play а
gr·eater role in tћis tl1an any otћer class.
Tћis does not mean tћat tће proletariat, or some of its stт·ata,
are not. temporar·ily interested in keeping tће par-ry in po1ver.
Тће peasants suppoi"ted tћose "'ћо professed tће intention to
rescue tћem from ћopeless miseiy through industrializatioп.
~Vhile individual stiata of tће 1vor·king classes may temporarlly
support tlle party, tће governrneпt is not tћeirs nor is
theii' part in tlle government impoтtant for tће course of social
pгogress and social relations. In tlle Communist system nothiпa
is done to aid the \vorkiнg people, particularly the workiп~
class, t.o attain po>ver анd гights. It carшot Ье otherwise.
The classes and masses do not exercise authority, but the

party does so in their паше. In every party, includiпg the most
democratic, leaders play an important role to the extent that
the paтty's autlюrity becomes the autћority of tЬе leaders. The
so-called "dictatoгsЬip of the proletariat," 1vhicЬ is tЬе beg~ппing
of апd under tlle best circuшstaпces Ьесошеs tl1e autЬor1ty
of tЬе party, inevitaЬly evolves iпto tЬе dictatoгship of tће
leaders. In а totalitarian government of tћis type, tlle dictatorship
of the proletariat is а tЬeoretical justification, or ideo··
logical mask at best, for tЬе autЬority of some oligarcЬs.
Marx envisioпed tЬе dictatoпhip of tЬе pгoletю·iat as democracy
1vithin and for tЬе benefit of tЬе proletariat; tЪat is, а
government in 1vЬich tЬere are шаnу socialist str·eams or· parties.
Тће only dictatorsЬip of tЬе proletar·iat, the Paгis Commune of
1871, on 1vЬich Marx based his conclusions, \Vas coшposed of
several parties, aшong 1vhicl1 tЬе Marxist рагtу 1vas neitЬer tЬе
smallest nor tЬе most significaпt. But а dictatoгship of tЬе pгoletariat
wЬiсЬ 'i\'Ould Ье diгectly opeгated Ьу tће proletaгiat is а
pure Utopia, since no goYerшnent can oper·ate 'i\'itЬoнt political
organizations. Lenin delegated the dictatoпћip of tЬе proletariat
to tће aнtlюrity of one party, bls o1vn. Stalin delegated
tће dictatorship of the proletaiiat to Ьis o'ivn personal authority
-to bls personal dictatorship in the рю·tу and in tће state. Since
tЬе deatl1 of tће Comшнnist eшperor, bls descendants have
been fortunate in tllat througll "collective leadersЬip" tћеу
coнld distriЬнte aнtlюrity aшong themselves. In any case, tће
Comшнпist dictatorship of tће proletariat is eitller а Utopiaп
ideal or а fuпctioп reseпed for ап elite groпp of party leaders.
Lепiп tћouglн that tЬе Rпssiaп soviets, Marx's "нltiшate
discovery," 1vere tће dictatorship of tЬе proletariat. Iп tће begirшiпg,
because of tћeir reYolutioпary iпitiative апd because
of tlle participation of tће шasses, the soviets did sееш to Ье
sometblпg of tћis kiпd. Trotsky also believed tћat tЬе soviet.s
were а coпtemporary political fотш just as parliaшeпts, Ьоп1
iп tlle struggle agaiпst absolпte moпarchs, have Ьееп. Ho1vever,
these were illпsioпs. Tlle soviets were transforшed from revo-
lutioпary bodies iпto а form sнitaЬle for the totalitarian
dictatoпћip of tlle пе>v class, or tће party.
Tћis 1vas also tће case witћ Leпiп's demoпatic ceпtralisш,
iпclнdiпg Ьоtћ tl1at of tЬе party alld of tЬе goverпmeпt. As
loпg as рпЬiiс diffeтeпces are tolerated in tЬе party, опе can
still speak of centг::1lism-eveп tlюugћ it is поt а very democтatic
fогш of ceпtr·alisш. \Vћеп totalitariaп aпtlюrity is cтeated,
ceпtralisш disappeaгs апd tће пaked despotisш of tће oligarcћy
takes over.
\Ve may coпclude fтош tbls tћat tћеге is а coпstant tendency
to tтansfmm ап oligaгchic dictatorsћip iпto а репопаl dictatm·sЬip.
Ideological пnity, tће inevitaЬle struggle at. tће top of
tЬе party, and the needs of the systeш as а 1vllole tend tmvard
persoпal dictatoгship. Тће leader 1vlю sш'Ceeds in gettiпg to
tЬе top, aloпg >vitћ ћis assistants, is tће one 1vllo succeeds in
most logically expгessing and protecting tће iпterests of the
ne>v class at any given time.
Тћете is а stтoпg treпd tmvaтd personal dictatorsћip iп otЬer
blstoгical situations: for instance, all forces rnпst Ье sнbordinated
to one idea and one 1vill >vћen indпstгialization is being
pressed ог wheп а пation is at 1var. Впt tЬere is а specific and
рпrе Comшнпist reason for personal dictatoтsћip: autћority is
the basic аiш and meaпs of Coшrnuпism and of еУету tr-ue Coшmнnist.
Тће tllirst fог po>ver· is insatiaЬle апd iпesistiЬle aшong
Communists. \Тiсtиу in tће stтпggle for- pmver is eqнal to being
raised to а diYinity; failшe meaпs tће deepest шortificatioп
апd disgтace.
Тће Comшнnist leasoшetЬinu >vћiсћ tћеу carшot тesist Ьесапsе of ћпmаn о о
fr-ailty апd because of tl1e iпћегепt пееd of tћose in power t.o
Ье recognizable pгototypes of bтilliaпce апd rnigћt.
Car-eeгisш, extravagance, апd love of po1ver are inevitaЬle,
and so is согшрtiоп. It is not а matter of tће coгruptioп of
рпЬliс seпaпts, fог tl1is rnay occur less frequeпtly than in tће
state 1vЬicl1 pгeceded it. It is а special type of corruption сашеd

Ьу the fact tЪat the govemment 1s ш the ћands of а singie
political group and is the source of all privileges. "Care of
its men" and their placement in lucrative positions, ?r the
distriЬution of all kinds of privileges, becomes unav01daЬle.
The fact that the govemment and the party are ideпtical witll
the state, апd practically 1vitћ the holdiпg of all pro~erty,
causes the Communist state to Ье one 1vhicћ corrupts Itself,
in tћat it inevitaЬly creates privileges and paтasitic func~ions.
А member of tће Yugoslav Comпшnist Party very picturesquely
descriЬed tће atmospћere in 1vhicl1 а regular Coшmuнist
Iives: "I am really tom into three parts: I see tћose
wћо ћаvе а better aut.omoblle than I have, yet it seems to те
tћat tћеу are not more devoted to tће party and to socialism
tћan I am; I Iook down from tће ћeigћts on those 1vћо ћаvе
no automoblle, for tћеу haven't really eamed any. So I'm lucky
that I have tће one I ћаvе."
Obviously, he 1vas not а true Commuнist, but was one of
those 1vlю became а Communist because he 1vas an idealist,
апd then being disillusioned, tried to Ье satisfied 1vith 1vћat
mio-ћt come to him iн а normal bureauпatic career. Тће true
Communist is а mixture of а fanatic and ан uнresti·ained
po1ver-ћolder. Only tЪis type makes а true Communist. Тће
others are idealists or cю·eerists.
Since it is based on administratioн, the Commuнist system
is unavoidaЬly bureaucratic 1vith а strict hieтarchical orgaнization.
In tће Commuнist system, exclusive groups are established
around political leaders анd forums. All policy-makiпg
is reduced to 1vrangling in tћese exclusive groups, in which
familiarity анd cliquishнess flo1ver. Тће hig·l1est gтoup is generally
tће most intimate. At intimate suppers, он hunts, in
conver·sations bet1veen two or tlнee men, matters of state of
tће rпost vital irпportance are decided. Meetiпgs of party foruшs,
confereнces of tће government and assemЬlies, serve no
ршроsе but to make declarations and put in an арреаrансе.
Тћеу are only coпvened to confinп what has previously been
cooked up iп intimate kitcћens.
The Comrпunists ћаvе а fetisblst relatioн toward tће stat.e
or tће gover·nmeпt, exactly as if it 1vere tћeir o1vn pr·operty.
The sarпe men, tће same groups, 1vblch are intirпate and familiaг
inside the party become stiff, formal, and pompous individuals
1vhen they act as гepreseнtatives of the state.
Tbls monar·cћy is anytblпg but enlightened. Тће monarch
blmself, tће dictatoг, does not feel himself to Ье eitћer а
rпonarcЪ or а dictator. \Л!Ъеn ће 1vas called dictator, Stalin
ridiculed the idea. Не felt tћat ће was tће representative of
the collective paity 1vill. Не 1vas right to а degree-since ртоЬаЬlу
но оне else in blstory ever had as mнсћ personal po1ver.
Не, like every otћer Communist dictator, 1vas а1vаге that а
retreat. fт-om the ideological bases of the party, fт-om tЪе monopolism
of the ne1v class, fгom o1vnership of the nation's goods,
or ћоm the totalitariaн po1ver of the oligarcћy, 1vould result
in his inevitaЬle downfall. Indeed, no sucћ r·etreat was еvен
considered Ьу Stalin, as he 1vas tће foremost representative
апd creator· of tће system. Ho1vever, even he was dependent
on the system created under bls administr·ation, or on tће
opinions of tће ратtу oligaтchy. Не could do notblng against
them nor could he pass over them.
The fact erпerges that in tl1e Communist system по one is
iпdependeпt, neitћer those at the top nor the leader himself.
They are all dependent on one another and must avoid being
separ·ated from their surrouнdings, prevailing ideas, coпtrols,
and interests.
Is there, theп, ану sense iн talking about tће dictatoтship
of tЪе pr·oletar·iat under Communism?
Тће Commuнist tћeory of tће state, а tћeory worked out
in detail Ьу Leпin and supplemented Ьу Staliп анd others,

favors tlle totalitarian dictatorsllip of tће par·ty bureaucracy.
Two elements аге fuпdamental in tће tlleory: tће theory of the
state alone and tће theory of tl1e witћering юvау of tће state.
Воtћ of tћese elements are mutually related апd togetl1er represent
tће entire theory. Leniп's theory of the state is most
completely presented in his document The State and Revol~tion,
which vvas written vvhile ће was hiding from tl1e Provisional
Government on tlle eve of the October Revolution. Like
everytћincт else of Lenin's, tће tlleory leans toward tlle r·evolutionary
a:pects of Marxist teaching. Iп his discussio.п о~ tbe
st.ate Leniп developed this aspect further and carпed 1t to
extremes, utilizing particularly tће expeiience of the Russiaп
revolution of 1905. Considered histOI"ically, Leпin's document
was of much greater significance as an ideological 1veapon of
tће revolution tllan it 1vas as а base for deYelopment of а ne1v
autllority built according to its ideas.
Lenin reduced the state to force, or more pгecisely, to the
organ of tyranny 1vhicll one class employs fог tl1e sake of oppressiпg
tће other classes. Tryiпg to foтmulate tl1e паtше of
tbe state in the most forceful vvay, Lenin пoted, "Тће state is
а club."
Leniп perceived otћer functions of tlle state too. But in tћese
fuпctions ће also нncovered vvћat 1vas fог llim tће most indispensaЬle
role of tће state-tlle use of brute fогсе Ьу one class
against tће others.
Lenin's tћeory calling for tће destructioп of tl1e old state apparatus
1vas, in fact, far from being а scientific one. Tllis document
of Lenin's-extremely significant from tће ћistиic poiпt
of YieiV-1\'0uld make valid all tћat is typical of all Communist
tћeories. In proceeding from immediate needs, tће parties
create geneтalities, ostensiЬly scieпtific conclusioпs апd tlleories,
апd proclaim ћalf-truths as trutћs. Tl1e fact tћat fогсе апd
violeпce are basic chaтacteristics of every state autlюr·ity, or
tbe fact tlшt iпdividual social апd political foп:es employ tlle
maclliпery of state, particularly iп armed claslles, саппоt Ье
deпied. However, experieпce shows that state macblпery is
пecessary to society, or the паtiоп, for still апоtћеr reasoпfOI'
tl1e developmeпt апd uпitiпg of its vaтious functioпs. Communist
tlleory, as 1vell as that of Lепiп, ignores tЬis aspect.
Tllere 1vете, loпg ago, commuпities witlюut апd autllorities.
Тћеу vvere поt. social commuпities, but sometlliпg
iп tтaпsitioп betvveeп tће semi-aпimal and ћumап forms of
social life. ЕУеп tћese most p1·imitive commuпities had some
forms of aнtlюrity. \Vith iппeasiпgly complex forms of social
life, it Ћ'ould Ье па'iуе to tr-y to pioYe tћat tће пееd for the
state vvould disappear iп tће futнгe. Leпin, iп support of Магх
1vho agтeed 1vitll tће aпarcllists аЬонt tllis, coпtemplated апd
tried to estaЬlisll precisely such а stateless society. VVithout
eпteriпg iпto а disшssioп оп the exteпt to 1-vћicll his premises
1vеге jнstified, 1ve mнst remembeг tllat he contemplated
this society as ћis classless society. Accordiпg to tћis tћeory
tllere 1vill Ье no classes апd по class struggles; there will
Ье по опе to oppгess апd to exploit otћers; and tbere will
Ье no пееd for tlle state. Uпtil tћat time, tћen, tће "most
democratic" state is tlle "dictatorsllip of tће proletariat," for
tlle геаsоп tћat it "abolisl1es" classes, апd Ьу so doiпg, osteпsiЬly
makes itself gтadнally unпecessю·y. Tlleгefoгe, eyerytblng tћat
stl"eпgtћeпs tћat dictatoпћip, or leads to tће "abolishiпg" of
classes, is justified, pi·ogтessiYe, апd liЬeгal. Iп tћose places
1Vl1eтe they are поt iп contтol tl1e Commнпists are pleaders iп
bellalf of the most democi'atic шеаsш·еs because this facilitates
their stшggles; iп tllose places 1vћere tlley maпage to get coпtrol,
tћеу become орропепts of eYery democratic fo1·m as
allegedly а ''Ьourgeois" form. Тћеу шrreпtly proclaim the
preposte1·ous classificatioп of demoпacy iпto ''Ьourgeois" and
"socialist," althougll tlle опlу рторет and fair distiпctioп must
Ье dr-a'ivп solely оп tlle basis of tће qнaпtity of freedom, or· tће
нпiYeгsality of freedom.
Iп the епtiте Leпiпist от Commнпist tlleory of tbe state,
tћere are gaps iп tlle scieпtific as well as tЪе practical poiпts

of view. Experience has demonstrated that the results are completely
coпtrary to those envisaged Ьу Lenin. The classes did
not disappear under the "dictatorship of the proJ.etariat," and
the "dictatorship of the proletariat" did not begin to wither
a1vay. Actually, the creation of the total authority of the Commuпists,
and the liquidation of the classes of the old society,
1vas meant to look like the liquidation of classses in geneтal.
But the growth of state power or, more precisely, of tlle bureaucracy
through 1vhich it enforced its tyranny did not stop with
tће dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead it increased. Тће
theory had to Ье patcl1ed up someћo1v; Stalin had coпceived
а still higћer "educational" role of tће Soviet state before it
"witћered." If Commuпist tlleory of tће state, апd especially
its practice, is reduced to its very essence, i.e., to force and coercion
as tlle priпcipal or only function of tће state, Staliп's
tћeory migћt Ье said to Ье that tће police system has this ћigћ
or "educat.ioпal" role to play. UnderstandaЬly, опlу а malicious
iпterpretation could lead to sucћ а conclusioп. And in tllis
tћeory of Stalin's tћere is опе of tће Communist half-trutћs:
Staliп did not kпo1v ћо1v to explaiп the obvious fact tћat tће
po1ver апd migћt of tће state machiпeгy coпtiпually grew iп
tће already "estaЬlisћed socialist society." So ће took опе of
tће fuпctioпs of tће state-tћe educatioпal function-as the
main function. Не 1vas поt аЬlе to use tyranny since tћere no
longer 1vere any opposition classes.
The situation is tће same 1vitћ tће Yugoslav leaders' tћeories
concerning "апtопоmу." In tће clasћ 1vitћ Stalin, tћеу had to
"тectify" his "deviatioпs" and do something so tћat the state
1vould soon begin to "1vither a1vay." It did поt matter t.o St.alin
or t.o tћem tћat tlley 1vere fшtћer promoting апd strengtllening
tllat function of tће state-foтce-whicћ for tћem 1vas the most
important function and one оп which they based their tћеоту
of the state.
St.alin's ideas on llo1v the state 1vithers a;vay while growing
stroпger, i.e., the \\'ау that the state's fuпctions contiпually ех-
рапd and dra1v an ever increasing nшпЬеr of cltlzeпs into
tћemselves, is extremely interestiпg. Perceiviпg tће ever greater
апd expaпdiпg role of the state macblпe, despite tће already
"started" traпsition iпto а "completely classless" Commuпist.
society, Staliп thoпght that the state woпld disappear Ьу having
all the cit.iz~пry т·ise t.o tће state's level апd take charge of its
affairs. Lепiп, moieover, talked about. the time 1vћеп "еvеп
ћouse1vives 1vill admiпiпster the governmeпt." Theories r·esemЬliпg
that of Staliп circпlate in Yugoslavia, as 1ve have sееп.
Neitl1er these поr Staliп's are аЬlе to bridge the ever increasiпg
chasm betv.reeп tће Communist theories of the state, 1vith tће
"disappearaпce" of classes апd the "1vitheriпg a1vay" of tће
state iп their "socialism" оп tl1e опе haпd, апd the realities
of tће totalitaт·iaп autћority of tће party bureaucтacy оп the
Тће most. important proЬlem for Communism, in theory
and practice, is tlle question of tће state; the questioп is а coпstaпt
source of difficпlties siпce it is sucll ап obvious coпtradictioп
inside Communism.
Commuпist regimes ате а foim of latent civil war bet1veeп
tће govemment and tће people. Tlle state is поt merely ап
instrument of tyraпny; society as 1vell as tће execпtive bodies
of the state machiпe is in а continuous апd lively opposit.ioп
to the oligaтcћy, v.rhicћ aspires to redпce tћis oppositioп Ьу
пaked force. In practice, tће Communists are uпаЬlе t.o attaiп
tlle goal of а state existiпg solely on naked force, nor are they
аЬlе to subordiпate society completely. But tћеу are аЬlе to
control the organs of force, tћat is, tће police and party, wћicl1
in turn control the entiт·e state machine апd its functions. The
oppositioп of tlle organs апd fпnctions of tће stat.e against the
"iпatioпalities" of tће party апd police, or of individual polit

ical fuпctioпaries, is really the oppositioп of society carried over
into the state machiпe. It is ап expressioп of dissatisfaction
because of the oppression апd crippliпg of society's objective
aspir·atioпs апd needs.
Iп Communist systems, the state and state fuпctioпs are not
reduced to oro-ans of oppressioп, поr are they ideпtical witll
them. As ап o~o-aпizatioп of пatioпal апd social life, the state
ь . .
is subordinated to these orgaпs of oppressioп. Соmпшшsm IS
uпаЬlе to solve this iпcoпgruity, for the reasoп that Ьу its o1vn
totalitariaн despotism it iнevitaЬly com~s iн coнflict. 1vitћ ~issimilaт
анd opposite teнdeнcies of soCiety, teнdeнCies whiCћ
are expressed еvен through the social fuнctioщ of the state.
Because of tbls coпtradictioн, анd the uнavoidaЬle анd coнstaнt
пееd of the Commuнists to treat. the state predomiнaнtJy
as ап iнstтшneнt of force, the Commuпist state canпot become
а la1vful sta te, or а state iп 1vhicl1 the jнdiciary 1vould Ье iпdepeпdeпt
of the govemmeпt апd iн whicћ la1vs could actually
Ье eнforced. The 1vhole Commнпist systern is opposed to sпch
а state. Еvен if the Cornmuнist leaders 1vished to пеаtе а lalvful
state, tћеу coнld поt do so 1vithoпt irnperiliпg their totalitariaп
Ап iпdepeпdeпt jнdiciary апd tће тule of la1v 1vould iпevita·
Ьlу make it possiЬle for ап oppositioп to appear. For iпstaпce,
по Ia1v iп tће Cornrnuпist systern opposes tће fтее expressioп of
орiпiоп or tће rigћt of orgaпizatioп. La>vs iп the Cornrnuпist
system gпaraпtee all sorts of rigllts to citizeпs, апd are based
оп tће priпciple of ап iпdepeпdeпt judiciar·y. Iп practice, tl1ere
is по sucћ tћiпg.
FI·eedoms are formally recogпized iп Cornrnппist regimes,
but опе decisive coпditioп is а pтeгequisite for exercisiпg them:
fтeedoms rnust Ье utilized опlу iп tЬе iпterest of the systeш
of "socialism," IVblcЬ tће Comrnнпist leaders represeпt, or to
bп tЬeir· rпle. Tbls practice, coпtrary as it is to legal
regнlatioпs, iпevitaЬly Ьаd to result iп tЬе нsе of exceptioпally
severe апd uпscшpulous шethods Ьу police апd party bodies.
Legal forrns шнst Ье protected on the оне Ьапd 1vblle tlle!
moпopoly of aнtЬority mнst Ье iщпred at tЬе same time.
For the rnost par·t, iп tlle Commппist system, legislative
authority саппоt Ье separated fr-om executive authority. Leпin
coпsidered this а perfect solнtioп. Yugoslav leaders also шaiпtain
tbls. In а one-par·ty system, this is оне of the sources of
despotisш апd omпipoteпce iп governmeпt.
Iп the same 1vay, it has Ьееп impossiЬle iп pr-actice to separ-ate
police autЬor·ity from judicial autlютity. Those 1vho aпest also
jпdge апd eпforce puпishment.s, The circle is closed: tће executive,
the legislative, the investigatiпg, tће coпrt, and the
puпisblпg bodies are one and tће same.
Why does tће Communist dictatorsblp have to use la1vs to
the great exteпt that. it does? vVhy does it have to hide behind
Foreign poJitical pr-opagaпda is оне of tће r·easoпs. Anotћer
· importaнt оне is the fact tћat the Comrnнпist r·egime
шнst iпsure анd fix the rigћts of those uрон 1vћom it depeпdstЪe
пе;v class-to maiпtaiп itself. La;vs are al1vays >vritteп from
the staпdpoiпt of the пе1v class's or· party's пeeds or iпterests.
Officially the la1vs must Ье 1vritteп for all citizeпs, but citizeпs
епјоу tће rigћts of these la;vs coпditioпally, опlу if tћеу are
поt "eпemies of socialism." Coпseqнeпtly the Comrnuпists аге
coнstaнtly сопсеrпеd tћat tћеу rnigћt Ье forced to сапу oat
tће la1vs tћat they ћаvе ac:lopted. Тћеrеfоте, tћеу al;vays leave
а loophole or exceptioп 1vћich 1vill enaЬle tћem to eYade their·
For iпstaнce, the Yugoslav legislative author·ities stand оп the
pr·iпciple that по опе сап Ье coнvicted except for ап act. 1vhich
has Ьеен exactly forrnпlated Ьу the la1v. Ho>veYel', most of the
political ti'iaJs are ћeld оп the gi"ouнds of so-called "hostile
pr·opagaнda," altћough tћis сопсерt is pшposely ноt defiпed
Ьпt, iпstead, left пр to the jпdges or· secret po1ice.
For these reasoпs po1itical trials iп Comrnuпist. regimes are
шostly prearranged. ТЪе courts haYe the task of demoпstrating

what the po>ver->vielders need to have dernonstrated; or have
the task of giving а legal cloak to the political judgrnent on
the ''hostile activity" of the accused.
Iп trials conducted Ьу this method the coпfession of tће
accused is most irnportaпt. Не ћimself шust ackпowledge tћat
ће is an enemy. Tћus, tће tћesis is confirmed. Evideпce, little
as tћere may Ье of it, must Ье r·eplaced Ьу coпfessioп of guilt.
Тће political t.rials iп Yugoslavia are only pocket editioпs
of the Mosco>v t.rials. The so-called Mosco>v trials are tће most
grotesque and Ьloody examples of jнdicial and legal cornedies
in tlle Commuпist. system. The majority of other t.rials
similar insofa.r as acts апd pппishmeпts are concerned.
How political trials ћaпdled?
First, проп the sпggestioп of party functioпaries, the party
police estaЬlish that someoпe is an "enemy" of existing coпdit.
ioпs; tћat, if notblпg else, bls vie;vs апd discпssions ;vitћ close
frieпds .represeпt trouЬle, at least for the local authOI'ities. Тће
next step is tће preparation of the legal removal of the enemy.
Tћis is done еitћег tћroнgll а provocateur) >vho pr·ovokes the
'ictim to rnake "embaпassing statements," to take part iп illegal
organizing, or to commit similar acts; or it is dопе tћrопgћ а
"stool pigeon" ;vho simply bears \Vitness agaiпst tће victim
accordiпg to tће \vislles of tће police. Most of the illegal orgaпizatioпs
in Commпnist regimes are CI"eated Ьу tlle secret police
iп order to lпre opponents into them апd to pat these opponents
in а positioп \Vћere tће police can settle ассоппts \Vith
tћem. Тће Commпnist governmeпt does поt discoпrage "objectionaЬle"
citizeпs from committiпg la>v violatioпs апd
crimes; in fact it pтods tћem into sпсћ violations апd пimes.
Stalin generally operated >vitћoпt. tће coпrts, пsing tortпre
exteпsively. Ho\vev·er, even if tOI'tш·e is поt пsed and tће coпrts
are пsed instead, tће esseпce is tће same: Cornmunists settle
accounts 1vitl1 tћеiг opponeпts not because they ћаvе committed
cr·imes, but. Ьесанsе tl1ey аге oppoнents. It can Ье said tћat
most politica1 пiminals >vlю а!'е pпnisћed are iпnocent froш
а legal point of view, еvеп though they oppoпents of the
regime. From tће Comrnuпist. poiпt of vie>v, these opponents
are pнnished Ьу "due process of la>v," altћoпgh there may Ье
no legal basis for their being convicted.
When citizens spontaneoпsly tпrn against tће regime's measures,
the Commпnist aпthorities handle tћem >vitlюut I'eQ"ard
to coпstitutional and legal regпlations. Modern history ћаs"' no
record of actioпs against tће opposition of the masses wblcl1
are as brпtal, inћпman, and пnla;vful as those of Communist
regimes. Тће actioп taken in Poznan is tће best. kno>vп, but rюt
the most brutal. Occupying and colonial po;vers seldom take
sпch severe measпres, even though tћеу аге conquerors апd
accomplisћ their actioпs Ьу tће use of extraordinary laws анd
шеаsш·еs. Тће Comшunist. po>ver-wielders accomplish tl1eш in
tћeir very "щvп" country Ьу traшpling on tћeir O\VIl la>vs.
Even in non-political matters, tће judiciaгy and tће legislative
aпtћorities аге rюt. safe fгom the despots. The totalitaгian
class and its members cannot. help but mix into tће affaiл;
of the judiciary and the legislative author·ities. Tћis is an
ever-yday occнrrence.
An article in tће Маl'сћ 23, 1955, issнe of tће Belgтade ne\vspaper
Politika (Politics) offeiS tbls suitaЬle illustrat.ion of tће
real гоlе and position of tће courts in Yugoslavia (a1tlюugћ
there ћаs al\vays been а blgћer deg.ree of legality in Yugoslavia
tћan in otћer Coшшunist. countries):
In а discussion of pгoЬlems connected ;vith cгiminals operating
in tће economy, at а 2-day annнal coпfe!'ence, piesided
over· Ьу puЬiic prosecutor Вгаnа Jevгemovic, the public pгosecutors
of tlle republics, of tће Vojvodina, and of Belgгade
announced tћat coopeгation bet>veen tће judiciary organs and
the autonomous organs in tlle economy and all political or·ganizations
is necessю-y for complete success in tlle battle
against criminals operating in tlle economy and all political
orgaпizations ....
The public prosecutors tћink tћat. soc:iety has поt yet reacted

witћ sufficient vigor witћ regard to ridding itself of sucћ criminals
Тће prosecutors agreed tћat society's reaction must Ье more
effective. According t.o tће tћinking of tће prosecutors, more
severe penalties and more severe metћods of executing penalties
are only some of the measures that sћould Ье taken ....
Тће examples cited in tће discussions coпfirm tlle opinioпs
that some ћostile elemeпts wllicћ have lost tће batt.le оп tће
political field ћаvе по1v entered tће ecoпomic field. Coпsequently,
tће proЬiem of tће crimiпal iп the есопоmу is поt
only а Iegal proЬiem, but also а political оне, wllich requires
tће cooperatioп of all government ageпcies апd social orgaпizatioпs
Summing up tће discussion, federal puЬiic prosecutor Brana
Jevremovic emphasized the significance of Iegality in coпditions
resulting from the decentralization tћat ћаs takeп place
iп Yugoslavia, апd pointed out tће justificatioп fог tће severity
1vitћ 1vhich our highest leadeгs ћаvе senteпced iпdividuals
guilty of cгimiпal actioп agaiпst tће economy.
It is obvious that prosecutors decide that the courts shall
judge and that. penalties shall Ье iшposed according to the
intent of tl1e "highest leaders." What then is left of t.he coшts
and of legality?
In the Coшшunist systeш legal theories change according
to circuшstances and the needs of the oligarchy. Vishinsky's
principle 1vhich calls for а sentence to Ье based on "шахiшuш
reliaЬility," that is, on political analysis and need, has been
abandoned. Еvеп if ш01·е huшane or шоrе scientific piinciples
are adopted, the substance 1vill not change uпtil the
relatioпship bet1veen tће goverшnent and the judiciaiJ' and the
la1v itself is changed. Periodic caшpaigns for "legality," апd
Khrushchev's bragging that the ратtу has "now" succeeded in
putting the police and the judiciary under coпtrol, only reveal
cћanges in t.he forш of increased needs of the ruling class for
legal secuгity. Тћеу do not show changes in the ruliпg class's
position tmvard society, the st.ate, t.he courts, or t.he lюvs.
The Comшuпist legal systeш cannot free itself of forшalisш,
поr abolish t.he decisive infl.ueпce of party uпits апd the police
iп trials, electioпs, and siшilar eveпts. The higher up опе goes,
the шоrе legality Ьесошеs а шеrе ornaшeпt, and the gтeater
tће role of governшeпt iп tlle judiciaiJ', in electioпs, апd the
like Ьесошеs.
Тће eшptiпess and poшposity of Coшшunist elections is
generally 1vell kno1vп; if I rешешЬеr coпectly, Attlee wittily
called theш "а race 1vitll опе horse." It seems to ше tl1at something
should Ье said: vVlly is it tћat Coшmuпists caпnot do
without elections, even tllough tlley llave по effect оп political
relatioпs; and cannot do 1vitllout sucll а costly апd empty uпdertakiпg
as а paгliameпtary estaЬlisllmeпt?
Again, propagaпda апd foreigп policy are anюng tlle reasoпs.
Тhеге is also tbls: no gover11шeпt, not even а Coшшuпist one,
сап exist 1vitllout everythiпg beiпg legally coпstituted. Under
coпteшporary coпditions this is dопе Ьу шeans of elected represeпtatives.
ТЪе people шust formally coпfirm everythiпg tlle
Comшuпists do.
Besides this there is а deeper· and more iшpoтtant reasoп
for tће parliameпtai}' systeш iп Comшuпist states. It is necessary
t.hat the top party bшeaucracy, or tlle political core of the
пе1v class, approve tће шeasures taken Ьу tће goveгnmeпt, its
sпрrеше body. А Commuпist govemшent сап ignore geпeral
puЬlic opinioп, but every Comшunist govemment is bouпd Ьу
tће puЬlic орiпiоп of tће party, and Ьу Coшшuпist puЬlic
opinioп. Coпsequeпtly, еvеп tћougћ elections ћаvе scarcely апу
шеапiпg for Coшшuпists, tl1e selectioп of tћose 1vћо 1vill Ье iп
tће parliaшeпt is done vегу caгefпlly Ьу the top party group. Iп
the selection, accouпt. is takeп of all cir·cuшstances, sucћ as services,
role апd fuпction iп tће шоvешепt апd iп society, tће professions
represented, etc. Fтош tlle intra-par·ty poiпt of vk\v,
electioпs for leadersblp are very iшportant: tће leaders dis

triЬute tћose par·ty po'lvers in tlle parliament wћiсћ tћеу tћink
ar·e most important. Tћus tће leadeisblp ћаs the legality it
needs t.o operate in tће паше of tће party, class, and people.
Attempts t.o allo'lv t'lvo or more Communists to contend for
tће same seat iп parliament have had по constructive results.
Тћеr·е \vere several instances \vhere tћis 'lvas attempted iп Yugoslavia,
but the leadership decided tћat sucћ attempts \Vere "disтuptincr"'.
" Ne'lvs has recently Ьееп received of а large .n .u mbe. r
of Commuпist candidates competing for the same роsнюпs ш
the eastern Europeaп countries. The iпtentioп may Ье to have
t\vo or more caпdidates for every office, but tЪе!'е is little possiЬility
that tllis \Vill Ье dопе systematically. It \VOuld Ье а step
foпvard, апd migh t еvеп Ье tће begiппiпg of а turning tmvard
democracy Ьу the Commuпist system. Ho'lvever, it seems to me
that there is still а loпg 'lvay to go before such measures \Vill
Ье realized апd tћat developmeпt in eastern Europe 'lvill first
t.urп in the direction of tl1e Yugoslav system of '\v01·kers' maпagement,"
instead of becomiпg а political democracy 'lvith its
atteпdant changes. The despotic core still holds everytћiпg iп
its hands, conscious of the fact tћat reliпquisћment of its traditional
party unity \vould prove very daпgerous. Every fr-eedom
'IVithin the party imperils поt only the autћority of tЪе
leaders, but totalitarianism itself.
Communist parliameпts ar·e поt in а position to make decisions
оп aпything impor-taпt. Selected in advaпce as they are,
flattered tlщt tћеу have been tlшs selected, represeпtatives do
поt have tће po'lver or the courage to debate еvеп if tћеу "\Vaпted
to do so. Besides, since tћeir maпdate does поt depeпd оп the
voters, represeпtatives do поt feel that tћеу are ans'lveraЬle to
them. Communist parliaments are justifiaЬly called "mausoleums"
for t.ће representatives 'lvho compose them. Their r·igћt
and role consist of uпaпimously approviпg from time to time
tћat 1vhicћ has already been decided for them from the wir1gs.
Another type of parliameпt is поt requir'=d for this system of
governmeпt; iпdeed, the reproacll could Ье made tЪat any otl1er
type would Ье superfluous and too costly.
Fouпded Ьу f01·ce and violence, iп constaпt conflict with
its people, the Communist state, еvеп if theтe ате по external
reasons, must Ье militaristic. The cult of force, especially military
force, is no'lvhere so pгevaleпt as in Commuпist couпtries.
Militarism is the iпteшal basic пееd of tће пе"\v class; it is one
of the forces which make possiЬle the пе"\v class's existence,
strengtћ, and privileges.
Uпder const.ant pressure to Ье primarily and, 'lvћеп пecessary,
exclusively ап о!'gап of violence, the Commuпist state ћаs Ьееп
а bureauc!'atic state siпce tће begiппiпg. Maiпtaiпed Ьу the
despotism of а haпdful of po'lver-'lvielders, the Communist state
'lvields more po,ver than апу otћer state orgaпization does 'lvitћ
tће aid of diveiSe la'lvs апd regulations. Sооп after its estaЬlishmeпt,
tће Commнnist state Ьесошеs r·eplete 'lvitll so шапу regulations
that even jнdges апd la'lvyers llave difficнlty iп findiпg
tћeir 1vay tћтонgћ tћem. Everytћing llas to Ье accurately
regнlated and coпfirmed, even tћoнgh little profit is derived
tћer·eby. For ideological reasoпs Commнпist legislators ofter1
issнe vaтioнs la"\VS 'lvitћoнt taking tlle real situatioп апd practical
possiЬilities into consider-ation. Immersed in legal and abstract
"socialist" formнlas, поt sнbject to criticism or opposition, tћеу
compress Ше into paтagraphs, 'lvћich the assemЬlies mechaпically
Тће Commнпist goveтnmeпt is non-bнreaнcratic, however,
'1\'here а qнestion of the needs of the oligarcћy апd tће 'IVOI"kiпg
metћods of its leadeтs is iпvolved. Еvеп iп exceptioпal cases
state and рагtу ћeads do поt like to fetter tllemselves with regu·
lations. Policy-makiпg апd tlle right of political determiпatioп

are in their harids, and these cannot bear procrastinatioн or too
strict formalization. In decisions concerning the economy as а
1vhole and in all otl1er mat.ters except unimportaпt, represeпtational,
and formal questions, the heads functioп without
excessive restrictions. Tl1e creators of the most rigid type of
bureaucratism апd political ceпtralism are поt as iпdividuals
bureaucrats поr are tЪеу bouпd Ьу legal regulatioпs. For example,
Stalin \v-as поt а bш·eaucrat iп апу respect. Disorder and
delay prevail in the offices and estaЬlishments of many Communist
This does not prevent them from temporarily taking а stand
"against bureaucratism," that is, against. both unsci"u~ulousт;-ess
and slo\vness in adrninistration. They are today battlшg agaшst
the Stalinist form of bureaucratic administration. Ho1vever,
tlley have no intention of elirninating the теаl, fuпdarn~т;-tal
buтeaucr·atism rampant iп the management of the polшcal
apparatus iпside the есопоmу апd state.
In this "bat.tle against buтeaucгatism," Communist leaders
usually refer to Lenin. However, а very careful study of Leт;-in
reveals that he did not foresee that the new system 1vas rnovшg
to1vard political bureaucracy. In tlle conflict with the bureaucracy
inherited partly from tl1e Cza~·'s administr·atioп, Lenin
attriЬuted rnost of the difficulties to the fact that "there are
по apparatuses composed from а list of Communists or from
а list of rnernbel'S of Soviet party schools." The old officials disappeared
uпder Stalin, and Communists from the "list" stepped
into their places, апd iп spite of this, bшeaucтatism grew.
Even iп places like Yugoslavia 1vheгe tћere 1vas а coпsider-aЬle
1veakeпiпg of bш·eaucratic admiпistratioп, its essence, the
rnoпopoly of political bureaucгacy апd the relatioпs resultiпg
from it, \vas поt abolisl1ed. Even 1vhen it is abolished as an
adrninstrative rnethod of maпagement, Ъureaucratism coпtiпues
to exist as а political-social relatioп.
The Cornmuпist state, or governmerlt, is >vorkiпg to1vard the
.complete irnpersoпalizatioп of the iпdividual, tlle natioп, апd
еvеп of its o1vn represeпtatives. It aspires to turn the entire
state into а state of functionaries. It. aspires to regulate and
cont.rol, eitћer dir·ectly or indirectly, \vages, housiпg coпditions,
and even intellectual activities. The Cornmuпists do not distinguish
people as to \Vhether or not they are functionaries-all
persons are consideгed to Ье functionaries-but Ьу the amount
of рау they receive and the number of privileges they enjoy.
Ву meaпs of collectiyization, even the peasant gradually becomes
а member of the geпeral bш·eaucratic society.
However, this is the exteшal vie\V. In the Communist system
social groups are sharply divided. In spite of such differeпces
and conflicts, thougl1, tће Communist society is as а \vћole
тоге unified tћan any otћer. The weakness of the \vћole lies
in its compulsory attitudes and relatioпsblps апd tће conflicting
elements of its composition. Ho\vever, every part is dependent
on eyery otћer par·t, just as in а single, ћuge mecћanism.
In а Commuпist goveп1ment, or state, just as in ап absolute
moпarchy, tће deYelopment of Ъuman personality is an abstr·act
ideal. In the period of tће absolute monarcћy, \vhen meгcantilists
imposed the state upon the economy, tће cro;vn itselffor
example, Catћeгine tће Gr·eat-tћougћt that tће g·oveшшent
1vas oЬliged to re-educate tl1e people. Tl1e Comшunist leaders
орегаtе and tЫnk in tће same >vay. Ho\vever, during the time
of tlle absolute monar-chy, tће goverпment did this in an attempt
to suboтdinate existing ideas to its mvn. Today, iп
the Commuпist system, tће goveгnment is siшultaпeously tlle
owner and tће ideologist. This does not mean that the ћuшаn
personality has disappeared or that it ћаs been changed into
а dull, imper·soпal cog \vЫсћ r·otates iп а large, meтciless state
mechaпism, in accordance \vith tlle \vill of an omпipotent
sщ·cer·er. Personalit.y, Ьу its O\Vn nature both collective and
iпdividual, is iпdestшctiЬle, even under tће Commuпist system.
Of course it is stifled under this systeш more tћап under otller
systeшs, апd its individuality llas to Ье шanifested in а different

Its world is а 1vorld of petty daily cares. vVhen these cares апd
wishes collide with the fortress of the system, which holds а
monopoly over the material and intellectuallife of tће people,
even tћis petty 1vorld is not free or secure. In the Conшшnist
system, insecurity is the 1vay of Ше for the individual. The
stat.e gives him the opportunity to make а living, but on con~
dition tћat he submit. The personality is t.orn bet1veen 1vhat it
desires and 1vћat it сан actually have. It is free to recognize the
iпterests of the collective and to submit to them, just as in
every other system; but also it may rebel against the usurpiпg
representatives of the collective. Most of tће individuals in
the Comпшnist system are not opposed to socialism, but opposed
to tће way in 1vћich it is being achieved-tћis confiтms
the fact tћat the Commuпists are not developiпg any sort of
true socialism. Тће individual 1·ebels against those limitations
1vћich are in tће interest of tће oligarchy, not against those
1vћich are in tће interest of society.
Anyone 1vћо does not live under these systems has а hard
time grasping ho1v human beings, particularly such pтoud and
brave peoples, could ћаvе given up their freedom of thought
and work to such an extent. Tl1e most accurat.e, thougћ not the
most complete, explanation for this situation is tће severity
and totality of tyranny. But at tће root of tћis situation, there
are deeper reasons.
One reason is historical; tће people 1vете forced to undergo
tће loss of freedom in the irresistiЬle drive toward economic
cћange. Anotћer reason is of an intellectual and moral nature.
Since indust.rialization had become а mat.ter of life or death,
socialism, or Commuпism, as its ideal expressioп, became the
ideal апd hope, almost to tће poiпt of religious obsession
amoпg some of the populatioп at large as 1vell as the Commuпists.
In the miпds of those 1vћо did поt belong to tће old
social classes, а deliЬerate апd organize.d revolt against the party,
or agaiпst tће government, would have been tantamouпt to
treason against tће homeland and tће ћighest ideals.
Тће most important reasoп why there was no organized
resistaпce to Commuпism lies deep in tlle all-inclusiveпess and
t.otalitariaпism of tlle Commuпist state. It ltad peпetrated into
all tlle pores of society and of the persoпality--into the vision
of tће scieпtists, tl1e iпspiration of poets, and the dreams of
lovers. То rise agaiпst it meaпt поt. опlу to die tће deatћ of
а desperate individual, but to Ье braпded апd excommuпicated
from society. Tlle1·e is по air or ligllt uпder tlle Commuпist
goverпmeпt's iroп fist.
Neitller of tlle t1vo maiп types of opposition groups-tћat
stemming from the olde1· classes and tћat stemming from origiпal
Commuпism itself-found 1vays and шeans of combatiпa
ћ . t:>
t 1s encroachment оп tlleir liЬerty. Тће first. group 1vas tuggiпg
back1vard, 1\'ћile the secoпd group carried оп а poiпtless апd
tћougћtless revolutioпary activity, and eпgaged in quiЬbliпg
about dogma 1vith tlle regime. Conditioпs 1vere поt yet ripe
for tће finding of пе1v roads.
Meamvhile, the people 1vere instinctively suspicious of tће
пе1v тоаd and гesisted every step and small detail. Today, this;
resistance is tће gтeatest, tl1e most real threat to Commuпist
1·egimes. Tlle Communist oligarcћs по loпger krю1v \Vllat
tће masses thiпk о1· feel. Тће regimes feel iпsecure in а sea of
deep апd dark discoпtent.
Тћонgl1 ћistoгy ћаs по recoгd of ану otћer system so sucessfнl
in checking its opposition as tће Commuпist dictatoi"Sћip,
nопе еvег ћаs provoked sucll pгofouпd апd fa1·-reacћiпg discontent.
It seems tћat tће more tће conscieпce is crusћed and
tће less tће opportunities for estaЬlishiщr ап oraaпization exist ~ о '
tће gтeater tће disconteпt ..
Commuпist totalitariaпism leads to total discoпteпt, iп wћicll
all differeпces of орiпiоп are gradually lost, except despaii
апd hatred. Sропtапеош resistance-tћe dissatisfactioп of millions
1vith tће everyday details of life-is tће form of resistaпce
that the Communists ћаvе поt Ьееп аЬlе t.o smotћer. Tћis was
confiiщed duтiпg tће Soviet.-Gerшaп war. vVћеп tће Germans

first attacked tће U.S.S.R., there seemed to Ье lit.tle desire for
resistance among the Russians. Ho1vever, Hitler soon revealed
that his intentions 1ve1·e the destruction of the Russian state
and the cћaпging of tће Slavs and otћer Soviet peoples into
impersonal slaves of tl1e Herrenvolk. From tће depths of tће
people tћere emerged tће traditional, uпquenchaЬle love for
the homeland. During tlle entire war Stalin did not mention
either the Soviet goveшment or its socialism t.o the people;
ће mentioned only one tћing--the homelaпd. And it \vas \vortћ
dyiпg for, in spite of Stalin's socialism.
Тће Communist regiшes have succeeded in solviпg many
proЬlems tћat ћаd baffied tће systems they replaced. Тћеу are
also succeediпg iп solving the nationality рт·оЬlеm as it existed
нр to the time tћеу came to pmver. They ћаvе поt been аЬlе
t.o resolve tће conflict of пational bourgeoisie completely, ћowever.
Тће proЬlem ћаs reappeared iп tће Communist regimes
in а пе'v and more serious form.
National rule is being estaЬlished in the U.S.S.R. tЪrough
а higbly developed bшeaucracy. In Yugoslavia, ћo1vever, disputes
are arising because of friction betweeп natioпal bureaucracies.
Neitћer tће first nor tЪе secoпd case conceшs
national dispнtes in the old sense. Tl1e Commнпists are not
nationalists; for tllem, the insisteпce on nationalism is only
а form, just like any otЪer form, through which they sti·engtћen
tћeir po,vers. For tћis pнrpose tћеу may еvеп act like vehemeпt
chauvinists from time to time. Stalin \vas а Georgian, but iп
practice апd iп propaganda, 'vћenever пecessary, ће \vas а raЬid
Great Russiaп. Among Stalin's errors, еvеп Khrushcl1ev admitted,
was tЪе terriЬle trнtћ of the extermiпatioп of entire
peoples. Stalin and Company used tЪе national prejпdices of
tће largest nation-the Russian nation-just as if it had been
composed of Hott.entots. The Communist leaders will al\vays
take recoпrse to anytћiпg they find useful, sнch as tЪе preaching
of eqнality of rights among the national bнreaпcracies, which
is practically the same to them as the demaпd for equality of
rights among пatioпalities.
N ational feelings апd пatioпal interest, ho,vever, do поt lie ·
at the basis of the coпflict bet,veen tће Communist пational
bureaнcracies. The rnotive is quite different: it is sup1·emacy in
опе's mvn zone, in the spheтe 'vћich is uпder one's administration.
The struggle over tЪе repнtatioп and po,vers of опе's o\rn
t·epuЬlic does поt go mнсћ fшthe1· than а desire to strengtl1eп
one's mrn power. The пatioпal Comrnuпist state units have
no sigпificance other thaп tlыt tЪеу ате administтative divisioпs,
on the basis of laпgнage. The Commuпist bшeaucrats
are vehernent local pati·iots on behalf of tћei1· OWil administrative
units, even tћонgћ they have поt Ьееп traiпed for
tће part on either а lingнistic or а natioпal basis. In sorne
ршеlу adrniпistrative нnits in Yнgoslavia (tће regional coшlcils),
chaнvinism has been greater than in tће nationalгepuЬlic
Among the Cornmнnists one сан encoнnter Ьоtћ short.sighted
Ьнтеансrаtiс cћaнYinism and а decline of пational coпscioнsness,
еvеп in the very sarne people, depending нроn opportнnities
and r-eqнirernents.
Тће langнages '\'ћich the Commнnists speak are ћardly tће
same as tlюse of tћeir o'vn people. The ''югds а1·е the sarne, but.
tће expгessions, the rneaning, tће inпer sense-all of tћese ате
tћeii" very o,vn.
\Vћile tl:ley аге aнtarcћical 'vitћ regard to otћer systems and
localistic >vitћin their o'\'ll system, tће Communists can Ье
feтvent inteшationalists 'vћen it. is t.o tћeir interest to Ье so.
Тће vaтioнs nations, еасћ of \vћiсћ once ћаd its o>vn forrn and
color, its o'vn ћistory and ћореs, stand virtнally still no1v,
gгау and langнid, beneath the all~po,veгfнl, all-kno>ving, апd
essentially non-пatioпal oligarchies. The Comrnнnists did not
succeed in exciting or a-.;vakening the nations; in this sense they
also failed to solve nationality questions. vVho knows anything
nowadays about Ukl-ainian -.;vriters апd political figures? vVhat
has happened to that nation, >vhich is the same size as Fтance,
and -.;vas once the most advanced nation in Russia? You >vould
think that only ап anюrphous and foi"Шless mass of people
could remaiп under this impersonal machiпe of oppression.
However, this is not the case.
Just as personality, various social classes, апd ideas still live,
so do the nations still live; they function; they stтuggle agaiпst
despotism; and they preserve their distiпctive features uпdestroyed.
If their coпscieпces and souls are smothered, they
are поt broken. Though tlley are under subjugatioп, they
have поt yielded. The force activatiпg them today is more than
the old or bourgeois natioпalism; it is ап impe1·ishaЬle desire
to Ье their OWil masters, апd, Ьу their mvп free developmeпt,
to attaiп ап iпcreasiпgly fuller fello>vship -.;vith the rest of
the human race in its eternal existence.
Dogmatism in the Economy
The deYelopment of the economy in Communism is rюt the
basis for, but а reflection of, the developmeпt of the тegime
itself fi·om а revolutionaтy dictatorship to а reactionaгy despotism.
This development, tЪrough struggles and disputes,
demonstrates hmv the interference of government in tl1e econorny,
necessary at fiгst, has gradually turned iнto а vital, personal
interest on tће part of tће ruling buтeaucтats. Iпitially, tће
state seizes all meaпs of productioп in order to contтol all
iпvestments for rapid industrialization. Ultimately, fшtћer econornic
development has come to Ье guided rnaiпly in the
interests of tЪе ruling class.
Other types of mvпers do not act in an essentially different
mанне1·; they are aћvays motiYated Ьу sorne sort of personal
interest. Ho>vever, the tћiпg tltat distinguishes t.he Пе\V class
frorn otћer types of o>vпers is that it has in its hands, m01·e or
less, all the пational resources, and tћat it is deYeloping its econornic
po>ver in а deliЬerat.e and organized manner. А deliЬerate
system of unification is also used Ьу otl1er classes, sucћ as political
and economic orgaпizations. Because tћere are а number of
O\VIlers and many forms of property, all in mutual conflict,
spoпtaneity and cornpetition have been preserved in all есоп-

No comments: