ТНЕ NEW CLASS
Бу
Milovan Djilas
An Analysis of the
Coшшunist System
An Atlantic Press book puЬ!islzed Ьу
THAMES AND HUDSON
London
Born in Podbišće village
in the Kingdom of Montenegro, he joined the Communist Party of
Yugoslavia as a student in 1932. He was a political prisoner from 1933
to 1936. In 1938 he was elected to the Central Committee of the
Communist Party and became a member of its Politburo in 1940. In April
1941, as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and their allies dismembered the
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Đilas helped Josip Broz Tito found the Partisan
resistance, and was a guerilla commander during the war.
In March 1944 he went as part of the military and party mission to the Soviet Union. During this time he met among others with Georgi Dimitrov, Vyacheslav Molotov and Joseph Stalin. With the establishment of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, Đilas became Vice-president in Tito's government. Đilas was sent to Moscow to meet Stalin again in 1948 to try and bridge the gap between Moscow and Belgrade. He became one of the leading critics of attempts by Stalin to bring Yugoslavia under greater control from Moscow.
Having responsibility for propaganda, he had a platform for new ideas and he launched a new journal, Nova Misao ("New Thought"), in which he published a series of articles that were increasingly freethinking.
Đilas was widely regarded as Tito's possible successor and in 1953 was about to be chosen President of Yugoslavia. He became President of the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but he only held office from December 25, 1953 to January 16, 1954. Between October 1953 and January 1954 he wrote 19 articles (only 18 were published) for "Borba", where he stated that a new ruling class was formed in Yugoslavia, after many high military and state officials received benefits and expensive houses in the best parts of Belgrade. Tito and the other leading Yugoslav communists saw his arguments as a threat to their leadership, and in January 1954 Đilas was expelled from the Central Committee of the party, of which he had been a member since 1937, and dismissed from all political functions for his criticism. He resigned from the League of Communists soon afterwards, in March 1954. On December 25, 1954 he gave an interview to the New York Times. For his "hostile propaganda" he was brought to trial and conditionally sentenced to 1.5 years in prison.
On November 19, 1956, Đilas was arrested following his statement to "Agence France Presse" opposing the Yugoslav abstention in the United Nations vote condemning Soviet intervention in Hungary and his article to The New Leader magazine supporting the Hungarian Revolution. He was sentenced to three years inprisonment. In 1957 Đilas published (abroad) The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System. The book had a great success and was translated into more than 40 languages. For this, Đilas was sentenced in 1957 to another seven years inprisonment, (ten in all).
In prison he completed a massive and scholarly biography of the great Montenegrin prince-poet-priest Njegoš and he also wrote novels and short stories. In 1958 he published (abroad) the first volume of his memoirs, about his youth in Montenegro, entitled Land Without Justice, (finished in 1954).
Đilas was conditionally released on January 20, 1961, after completing four years and two months in prison. He would be imprisoned again in April 1962 for publishing (abroad) Conversations with Stalin, which became another international success and Đilas personally considered it to be his greatest work. For these, he was sentenced (in August 1962) to another five years – or fifteen, added to the earlier punishments – allegedly for having "revealed state secrets", which he denied.
On December 31, 1966 Đilas was amnestied and freed unconditionally, after nine years in jail, never to be imprisoned again. He continued to be a dissident, living in Belgrade as a controversial figure, and dying there in 1995.(less)
More about Milovan Djilas...
In March 1944 he went as part of the military and party mission to the Soviet Union. During this time he met among others with Georgi Dimitrov, Vyacheslav Molotov and Joseph Stalin. With the establishment of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, Đilas became Vice-president in Tito's government. Đilas was sent to Moscow to meet Stalin again in 1948 to try and bridge the gap between Moscow and Belgrade. He became one of the leading critics of attempts by Stalin to bring Yugoslavia under greater control from Moscow.
Having responsibility for propaganda, he had a platform for new ideas and he launched a new journal, Nova Misao ("New Thought"), in which he published a series of articles that were increasingly freethinking.
Đilas was widely regarded as Tito's possible successor and in 1953 was about to be chosen President of Yugoslavia. He became President of the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but he only held office from December 25, 1953 to January 16, 1954. Between October 1953 and January 1954 he wrote 19 articles (only 18 were published) for "Borba", where he stated that a new ruling class was formed in Yugoslavia, after many high military and state officials received benefits and expensive houses in the best parts of Belgrade. Tito and the other leading Yugoslav communists saw his arguments as a threat to their leadership, and in January 1954 Đilas was expelled from the Central Committee of the party, of which he had been a member since 1937, and dismissed from all political functions for his criticism. He resigned from the League of Communists soon afterwards, in March 1954. On December 25, 1954 he gave an interview to the New York Times. For his "hostile propaganda" he was brought to trial and conditionally sentenced to 1.5 years in prison.
On November 19, 1956, Đilas was arrested following his statement to "Agence France Presse" opposing the Yugoslav abstention in the United Nations vote condemning Soviet intervention in Hungary and his article to The New Leader magazine supporting the Hungarian Revolution. He was sentenced to three years inprisonment. In 1957 Đilas published (abroad) The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System. The book had a great success and was translated into more than 40 languages. For this, Đilas was sentenced in 1957 to another seven years inprisonment, (ten in all).
In prison he completed a massive and scholarly biography of the great Montenegrin prince-poet-priest Njegoš and he also wrote novels and short stories. In 1958 he published (abroad) the first volume of his memoirs, about his youth in Montenegro, entitled Land Without Justice, (finished in 1954).
Đilas was conditionally released on January 20, 1961, after completing four years and two months in prison. He would be imprisoned again in April 1962 for publishing (abroad) Conversations with Stalin, which became another international success and Đilas personally considered it to be his greatest work. For these, he was sentenced (in August 1962) to another five years – or fifteen, added to the earlier punishments – allegedly for having "revealed state secrets", which he denied.
On December 31, 1966 Đilas was amnestied and freed unconditionally, after nine years in jail, never to be imprisoned again. He continued to be a dissident, living in Belgrade as a controversial figure, and dying there in 1995.(less)
The PuЬlisheтs wish to expтess their
gratitude fот editorial assistance to
Mr. Moтton Puner and Mr. Konrad Kellen.
First puЬlished in Great Britain, 1957
All rights reserved _,
Printed in tlle United States of America
Preface
gratitude fот editorial assistance to
Mr. Moтton Puner and Mr. Konrad Kellen.
First puЬlished in Great Britain, 1957
All rights reserved _,
Printed in tlle United States of America
Preface
All this could Ье told in а different way: as the history of а
contemporary revolution, as the expr·ession of а set. of opinions,
or finally, as the confession of а revolutionary. А little of each
of these may Ье found in this document. Внt, even if this is an
inadequate syntћesis of history, opiпions and memoirs, it reflects
my effort to give as complete апd as brief а picture as
possiЬle of coпtemporaтy Commuпism. Some special or techпical
aspects may Ье lost, but. the laтger picture, I trust, will Ье
that much simpler апd more complete.
I have tried to detach myself fгom my persoпal proЬlems Ьу
not submittiпg to tћem. Му circumstaпces are, at. best, uncer
·taiп апd I am tl1erefore compelled to express my peтsonal
obseтvatioпs апd expe1·ieпces ћastily; а more detailed examinatioп
of my persoпal situatioп migћt some day supplemeпt апd
peтhaps even chaпge some of my coпclusioпs.
I canпot descriЬe all the dimeпsions of the coпflict in the
paiпful соuпе of our coпtemporary world. Nor do I preteпd
to kпo'\v any world outside. the Commuпist '\Vorld, in '\Vhich I
had either the fortuпe or шisfortuпe to live. When I speak of
а world outside my o'\vn, I do so orlly to put my О'\VП world in
perspective, to make its reality clearer.
v
Alтost everytblng in this book has been expressed soтevvhere
else, and in а different way. Perhaps а new fiavor, color,
and nюod, and sоте пе\v thougћts, тау Ье found here. That
is soтething--iп fact, quite enough. Each тап's experiences
are unique, 1vorthy of coттuпication to bls fello1v теn.
The reader slюuld not seek in this book some kind of social
or other pbllosophy, not even 1vhere I make generalized stateтents.
Му аiт has been to present а pictuтe of the Coттunist
1vorld but not to philosophize about it. Ьу means of generalizations-
even though I ћаvе sometimes found geпeralization
нпavoidaЬle.
Тће metћod of detacћed observatioп seeтed to те tће most
suitaЬle опе for pтesenting ту тateтial. Му preтises could
ћаvе been streпgthened and ту conclusioпs could ћаvе Ьееп
proved Ьу quotatioпs, statistics, and тecitals of eveпts. Iп order
to Ье as simple and concise as possiЬle, I ћаvе iпstead expressed
ту observatioпs thr·ougl1 reasoпiпg and logical deduction, keepiпg
quotatioпs and statistics to а шiniтuт.
I tblпk шу шethod is appтopriate for ту personal story апd
for шу method of 'NOrking апd thinking.
Dшing ту adult life I ћаvе tтaveled the entire road ореп to
а Coшшunist: ћош the Iovvest to the blgћest rung of the blerю
·cћicalladdeт, fгош local апd national to inteшational forums,
апd ћош the forщatioп of tће tтue Coттunist Party and
organizatioп of the revolution to the estaЬlishтent of the socalled
socialist society. No one coтpelled те to етЬrасе or to
тејесt Coтшunisш. I таdе шу o1vn decisioп according to ту
convictions, ћееlу, in so far· as а таn can Ье ћее. Even tћougћ
I 1vas disillusioned, I do not belong to tћose whose disillusionrпent
1vas sћarp and ехtгете. I cut тyself off gradually and
coпsciously, building up the picture and conclнsions I present
in this book. As I became iпcгeasiпgly estr·anged froт the reality
of coпteтpor-ar·y Coтrпнnism, I came closer to the idea
of derпocгatic socialisт. This personal evolution is also refiected
PREFACE vii
in this book, although the book's primary purpose is not to
trace this evolution.
I consider it superfluous to criticize Commuпism as an idea.
The ideas of equality and brotherћood among men, whicћ
ћаvе exjsred in varying forтs siпce ћнmаn society began-and
>vhich contemporary Coтmнnism accepts in woгd-are pгinciples
to -vvhich fighters for progress and ћeedom 1vill al1vays
aspire. It 1voнld Ье 1vrong t.o criticize tћese basic ideas, as \\rell
as vaiн and foolisћ. The struggle to achieve tћет is part of
ћнmаn society.
Nor ћаvе I eнgaged iн detailed criticism of Coшmнnist
theory, although such criticism is needed апd useful. I have
conceпtrated оп а descriptioп of coпtemporary Commннism,
touching upon theor-y онlу 1vhere necessaгy.
It is impossiЬle to express all my observatioпs апd experieпces
iн а 1vork as bгief as this опе. I ћаvе stated only the most
essential of tћem, usiпg generalizatioпs 1vћеге tћеу \Vere unavoidaЬle.
This account may appear strange t.o tћose 1vћо live in tће
пoп-Comrпunist 1voгld; it. \vould поt seem uпusual to tћose 1vћо
live iн tће Corпmuпist опе: I claim no exclusive credit or distiпction
for pгeseпting tће picture of tllat 1vorld, nor fог tће
ideas concerning it. They аге simply the pictшe апd ideas of
tће \VOrld iн \vblcћ I live. I am а pгoduct of tћat 1vor1d. I ћаvе
contriЬuted to it. No1v I am one of its cr-itics.
Опlу on tће surface is tbls incoпsisteпt. I ћаvе struggled iп
tће past, and am strнggliпg IlO\V, for· а better world. Тћаt stтнggle
may поt produce the desired resнlts. Nevertl1eless, tће logic
of my action is contaiпed in tће leнgtћ апd contiпнity of that
struggle.
else, and in а different way. Perhaps а new fiavor, color,
and nюod, and sоте пе\v thougћts, тау Ье found here. That
is soтething--iп fact, quite enough. Each тап's experiences
are unique, 1vorthy of coттuпication to bls fello1v теn.
The reader slюuld not seek in this book some kind of social
or other pbllosophy, not even 1vhere I make generalized stateтents.
Му аiт has been to present а pictuтe of the Coттunist
1vorld but not to philosophize about it. Ьу means of generalizations-
even though I ћаvе sometimes found geпeralization
нпavoidaЬle.
Тће metћod of detacћed observatioп seeтed to те tће most
suitaЬle опе for pтesenting ту тateтial. Му preтises could
ћаvе been streпgthened and ту conclusioпs could ћаvе Ьееп
proved Ьу quotatioпs, statistics, and тecitals of eveпts. Iп order
to Ье as simple and concise as possiЬle, I ћаvе iпstead expressed
ту observatioпs thr·ougl1 reasoпiпg and logical deduction, keepiпg
quotatioпs and statistics to а шiniтuт.
I tblпk шу шethod is appтopriate for ту personal story апd
for шу method of 'NOrking апd thinking.
Dшing ту adult life I ћаvе tтaveled the entire road ореп to
а Coшшunist: ћош the Iovvest to the blgћest rung of the blerю
·cћicalladdeт, fгош local апd national to inteшational forums,
апd ћош the forщatioп of tће tтue Coттunist Party and
organizatioп of the revolution to the estaЬlishтent of the socalled
socialist society. No one coтpelled те to етЬrасе or to
тејесt Coтшunisш. I таdе шу o1vn decisioп according to ту
convictions, ћееlу, in so far· as а таn can Ье ћее. Even tћougћ
I 1vas disillusioned, I do not belong to tћose whose disillusionrпent
1vas sћarp and ехtгете. I cut тyself off gradually and
coпsciously, building up the picture and conclнsions I present
in this book. As I became iпcгeasiпgly estr·anged froт the reality
of coпteтpor-ar·y Coтrпнnism, I came closer to the idea
of derпocгatic socialisт. This personal evolution is also refiected
PREFACE vii
in this book, although the book's primary purpose is not to
trace this evolution.
I consider it superfluous to criticize Commuпism as an idea.
The ideas of equality and brotherћood among men, whicћ
ћаvе exjsred in varying forтs siпce ћнmаn society began-and
>vhich contemporary Coтmнnism accepts in woгd-are pгinciples
to -vvhich fighters for progress and ћeedom 1vill al1vays
aspire. It 1voнld Ье 1vrong t.o criticize tћese basic ideas, as \\rell
as vaiн and foolisћ. The struggle to achieve tћет is part of
ћнmаn society.
Nor ћаvе I eнgaged iн detailed criticism of Coшmнnist
theory, although such criticism is needed апd useful. I have
conceпtrated оп а descriptioп of coпtemporary Commннism,
touching upon theor-y онlу 1vhere necessaгy.
It is impossiЬle to express all my observatioпs апd experieпces
iн а 1vork as bгief as this опе. I ћаvе stated only the most
essential of tћem, usiпg generalizatioпs 1vћеге tћеу \Vere unavoidaЬle.
This account may appear strange t.o tћose 1vћо live in tће
пoп-Comrпunist 1voгld; it. \vould поt seem uпusual to tћose 1vћо
live iн tће Corпmuпist опе: I claim no exclusive credit or distiпction
for pгeseпting tће picture of tllat 1vorld, nor fог tће
ideas concerning it. They аге simply the pictшe апd ideas of
tће \VOrld iн \vblcћ I live. I am а pгoduct of tћat 1vor1d. I ћаvе
contriЬuted to it. No1v I am one of its cr-itics.
Опlу on tће surface is tbls incoпsisteпt. I ћаvе struggled iп
tће past, and am strнggliпg IlO\V, for· а better world. Тћаt stтнggle
may поt produce the desired resнlts. Nevertl1eless, tће logic
of my action is contaiпed in tће leнgtћ апd contiпнity of that
struggle.
CONTENTS
Origins 1
Character of the Revolution 15
The New Class 37
The Party State 70
Dogmatism in the Economy 103
Tyranny over the Mind 124
The Aim and The Means 147
The Essence 164
National Communism 173
The Present-Day World 191
Origins 1
Character of the Revolution 15
The New Class 37
The Party State 70
Dogmatism in the Economy 103
Tyranny over the Mind 124
The Aim and The Means 147
The Essence 164
National Communism 173
The Present-Day World 191
Origins
1.
The roots of modern Соmпшпisп1 reach back very far, although
they >vere dormant before tl1e development of modeп1
industry iп -.;vesterп Europe. Communism's basic ideas ar·e the
Primacy of Matter апd tће Reality of Change, ideas borrmved
from tblnkers of tће period just befoie the inception of Comrnunism.
As Communism endures and gains strength, these
basic ideas play а less апd less impoгtaпt role. This is uпderstandaЬle:
once iп pmvei, Commuпism teпds to Iemodel tће
rest of the -.;vorld accoгding to its o-.;vn ideas and teпds less and
less to change itseif.
Dialectics and materialism-tћe cћaпging of tће -.;vorbl independently
of hurnan -.;vill-formed the basis of the old, classical,
Marxist Commuпism. Тћеsе basic ideas -.;vere not originated
Ьу Communist theorists, sucћ as Marx or Engels. Тћеу borIo-.;
ved them and -.;vove tћem into а -.;vhole, thus forming,
unintentionally, the basis for а r1e1v conception of tће -.;vorld.
Тће idea of the Prirnacy of Matter was borrmved from the
French materialists of tће eighteenth century. Eю·Iier thiпkers,
iпcluding Deпюcritus in апсiенt Greece, had expressed it in а
differ·ent way. The idea of tће reality of chaнge, caused Ьу the
struggle of opposites, called Dialectics, was takeн over from
1
1.
The roots of modern Соmпшпisп1 reach back very far, although
they >vere dormant before tl1e development of modeп1
industry iп -.;vesterп Europe. Communism's basic ideas ar·e the
Primacy of Matter апd tће Reality of Change, ideas borrmved
from tblnkers of tће period just befoie the inception of Comrnunism.
As Communism endures and gains strength, these
basic ideas play а less апd less impoгtaпt role. This is uпderstandaЬle:
once iп pmvei, Commuпism teпds to Iemodel tће
rest of the -.;vorld accoгding to its o-.;vn ideas and teпds less and
less to change itseif.
Dialectics and materialism-tћe cћaпging of tће -.;vorbl independently
of hurnan -.;vill-formed the basis of the old, classical,
Marxist Commuпism. Тћеsе basic ideas -.;vere not originated
Ьу Communist theorists, sucћ as Marx or Engels. Тћеу borIo-.;
ved them and -.;vove tћem into а -.;vhole, thus forming,
unintentionally, the basis for а r1e1v conception of tће -.;vorld.
Тће idea of the Prirnacy of Matter was borrmved from the
French materialists of tће eighteenth century. Eю·Iier thiпkers,
iпcluding Deпюcritus in апсiенt Greece, had expressed it in а
differ·ent way. The idea of tће reality of chaнge, caused Ьу the
struggle of opposites, called Dialectics, was takeн over from
1
2 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
Hegel; the same idea had Ъееn expressed in а different \vay Ьу
He1-aclitus in ancient Greece.
Without going into tће details of tће diffeтences bet.,veen
Maтxist ideas анd precediнg similar tћeories, it is necessary to
poiпt out tћat Hegel, in pтeseпtiнg the idea of tће Reality of
Сћапgе, тetaiнed the сонсерt of ан uнсћанgiнg supreme la\v,
or tће Idea of tће Absolute. As he expressed it, iп tће last aнalysis
tћеге are uнсћанgеаЬlе la'\vs '\vhicћ, indepeнdeнtly of lшmап
will, goverп nature, society, анd ћumап beiнgs.
Althougћ stressiпg tће idea of tће Reality of Сћанgе, :Матх,
анd especially Engels, stated tћat tће la\vs of tће objective or
material world were uнсћапgеаЬlе анd iнdepeнdeнt of ћumап
beiнgs. Матх '\vas ce1·taiн tћat he '\vould discover tће basic Ia,vs
goverпiпg life анd society, just as Danviн ћаd discovered tће
la'\\'S goverпiпg liviнg creatures. At ану rate, Матх did clarify
some social la,vs, particular-Iy tће way iп '\Vћiсћ tћese Iaws
opeтated iн tће peтiod of early iпdustrial capitalism.
Tћis fact аlоне, еvен if accepted as accurate, canнot in itself
justify tће сонtенtiон of moderп Communists tћat Матх discoveгed
all tће la1vs of society. Still less сан it justify their att~
mpt to :nodel society after tћose ideas iн tће same '\vay tћat
l1vestock 1s Ьгеd оп tће basis of tће discoveries of Lamarck апd
Darwiп. Humaн society санноt Ье compared to species of aнimals
or to iнaпimate objects; it is composed of individuals анd
grou~s \vћiсћ are coпtiнuously анd coпsciously active iп it,
groшнg апd сћанgiпg.
. Iп tће pret~nsioнs of contempOI'ary Commuнism of beiпg,
1f. not tће uшque and absolut.e, but in any case tће ћigћest
sc1ence, based оп dialectical materialism, are ћiddeн tће seeds
of its despotism. Тће OI'igin of tћese preteпsioнs can Ье fouпd
iп tће ideas of Матх, tћougl1 Матх blmself did поt anticipate
tћem.
?f course, contempora1y Communism does rюt deny tће
eXIstence of an objective or unchaнging body of laws. However,
wheн iн power, it acts in an entirely different maпner to'\vard
ORIGINS
human society and tће individual, and uses methods to establish
its power different from those its theories would suggest.
Beginning '\vitћ the preщise tћat tћеу alone know the Iaws
which govern society, Coшшunists aпive at the oversiшplified
and unscientific conclusioп that this alleged knowledge gives
tћеш tће po,ver and the exclusive rigћt to cћange society and
to control its activities. This is the шајоr error of tћeir system.
Hegel claiшed tћat tће absolute шопаrсћу in Prussia was
tће incarпation of bls idea of tће Absolute. Тће Coшшunists,
on tће otћer ћапd, claiш tћat tћеу represent tће incarпation
of tће objective aspirations of society. Here is ШОI'е tћan just
one difference between tће Coшшunists and Hegel; tћere is
also а difference bet1veen tl1e Coшmunists and absolute шоnаrсћу.
Тће шоnаrсћу did not tblnk quite as blgћly of itself as
tће Coшmunists do of tћeшselves, поr \Vas it as absolute as
tћеу are.
2.
Hegel ћiшself '\Vas probaЬly trouЬled Ьу tће possiЬle con-·
clusions to Ье drawn froш ћis own discoveries. For inst.ance,
if everytblng '\Vas constantly being traпsforшed, wћat '\Vould
ћарреn to ћis own ideas and to tће society '\Vћiсћ ће '\Vanted
to preserve? As а professor Ьу royal appointшeпt ће could
not ћаvе dared, in any case, to шаkе puЬlic recoшшendations
for tће iшproveшent of society on tће basis of bls pћilosopћy.
Tћis '\vas not tће case witћ Матх. As а young шаn ће took
ан active part in tће 1848 revolution. Не "\vent to extreшes in
dra,ving conclusioпs froш Hegel's ideas. Was not tће Ьloody
class stтuggle гaging all over Europe straining to"\vard soшething
ne1v and blgћer? It. appeared not only tћat Hegel '\Vas rigћttћat
is, Hegel as intet·preted Ьу Marx-but also tћat pbllosopћical
systeшs по longer ћаd шeaning and justificatioн, since
science '\Vas discovering objective la1vs so rapidly, including
tћose applicaЬle to society.
Hegel; the same idea had Ъееn expressed in а different \vay Ьу
He1-aclitus in ancient Greece.
Without going into tће details of tће diffeтences bet.,veen
Maтxist ideas анd precediнg similar tћeories, it is necessary to
poiпt out tћat Hegel, in pтeseпtiнg the idea of tће Reality of
Сћапgе, тetaiнed the сонсерt of ан uнсћанgiнg supreme la\v,
or tће Idea of tће Absolute. As he expressed it, iп tће last aнalysis
tћеге are uнсћанgеаЬlе la'\vs '\vhicћ, indepeнdeнtly of lшmап
will, goverп nature, society, анd ћumап beiнgs.
Althougћ stressiпg tће idea of tће Reality of Сћанgе, :Матх,
анd especially Engels, stated tћat tће la\vs of tће objective or
material world were uнсћапgеаЬlе анd iнdepeнdeнt of ћumап
beiнgs. Матх '\vas ce1·taiн tћat he '\vould discover tће basic Ia,vs
goverпiпg life анd society, just as Danviн ћаd discovered tће
la'\\'S goverпiпg liviнg creatures. At ану rate, Матх did clarify
some social la,vs, particular-Iy tће way iп '\Vћiсћ tћese Iaws
opeтated iн tће peтiod of early iпdustrial capitalism.
Tћis fact аlоне, еvен if accepted as accurate, canнot in itself
justify tће сонtенtiон of moderп Communists tћat Матх discoveгed
all tће la1vs of society. Still less сан it justify their att~
mpt to :nodel society after tћose ideas iн tће same '\vay tћat
l1vestock 1s Ьгеd оп tће basis of tће discoveries of Lamarck апd
Darwiп. Humaн society санноt Ье compared to species of aнimals
or to iнaпimate objects; it is composed of individuals анd
grou~s \vћiсћ are coпtiнuously анd coпsciously active iп it,
groшнg апd сћанgiпg.
. Iп tће pret~nsioнs of contempOI'ary Commuнism of beiпg,
1f. not tће uшque and absolut.e, but in any case tће ћigћest
sc1ence, based оп dialectical materialism, are ћiddeн tће seeds
of its despotism. Тће OI'igin of tћese preteпsioнs can Ье fouпd
iп tће ideas of Матх, tћougl1 Матх blmself did поt anticipate
tћem.
?f course, contempora1y Communism does rюt deny tће
eXIstence of an objective or unchaнging body of laws. However,
wheн iн power, it acts in an entirely different maпner to'\vard
ORIGINS
human society and tће individual, and uses methods to establish
its power different from those its theories would suggest.
Beginning '\vitћ the preщise tћat tћеу alone know the Iaws
which govern society, Coшшunists aпive at the oversiшplified
and unscientific conclusioп that this alleged knowledge gives
tћеш tће po,ver and the exclusive rigћt to cћange society and
to control its activities. This is the шајоr error of tћeir system.
Hegel claiшed tћat tће absolute шопаrсћу in Prussia was
tће incarпation of bls idea of tће Absolute. Тће Coшшunists,
on tће otћer ћапd, claiш tћat tћеу represent tће incarпation
of tће objective aspirations of society. Here is ШОI'е tћan just
one difference between tће Coшшunists and Hegel; tћere is
also а difference bet1veen tl1e Coшmunists and absolute шоnаrсћу.
Тће шоnаrсћу did not tblnk quite as blgћly of itself as
tће Coшmunists do of tћeшselves, поr \Vas it as absolute as
tћеу are.
2.
Hegel ћiшself '\Vas probaЬly trouЬled Ьу tће possiЬle con-·
clusions to Ье drawn froш ћis own discoveries. For inst.ance,
if everytblng '\Vas constantly being traпsforшed, wћat '\Vould
ћарреn to ћis own ideas and to tће society '\Vћiсћ ће '\Vanted
to preserve? As а professor Ьу royal appointшeпt ће could
not ћаvе dared, in any case, to шаkе puЬlic recoшшendations
for tће iшproveшent of society on tће basis of bls pћilosopћy.
Tћis '\vas not tће case witћ Матх. As а young шаn ће took
ан active part in tће 1848 revolution. Не "\vent to extreшes in
dra,ving conclusioпs froш Hegel's ideas. Was not tће Ьloody
class stтuggle гaging all over Europe straining to"\vard soшething
ne1v and blgћer? It. appeared not only tћat Hegel '\Vas rigћttћat
is, Hegel as intet·preted Ьу Marx-but also tћat pbllosopћical
systeшs по longer ћаd шeaning and justificatioн, since
science '\Vas discovering objective la1vs so rapidly, including
tћose applicaЬle to society.
4 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
In science, Comte's pos1t1v1sm llad already triumphed as а
method of inquiry; tlle Englisll scllool of political economy
(Smitll, Ricardo, and otllers) 1vas at its lleight; еросћаl laws
1vere being discover·ed from day to day in tће пatural sciences;
mоdегп iпdustry 1vas carviпg out its раtћ on tће basis of scieпtific
techпology; and tће wouпds of youпg capitalism revealed
tћemselves iп tће sufferiпg апd the begiппiпg struggle of the
proletariat. Appю·ently this 1vas tће onset of tће doшiпatioп
of scieпce, еvеп over society, and tће eliшinatioп of t.he capitalistic
сопсерt of o;vпership as tће final obstacle to ћuшап happiпess
апd freedom.
Тће time 1yas ripe for one great coпclusioп. Marx had Ьоtћ
tће dariпg апd tће deptћ to express it, but tћere 1vere по social
forces availaЬle оп 1vblch he could rely.
Marx >vas а scieпtist and ап ideologist. As а scieпtist, ће made
important discoveгies, paнicularly iп sociology. As ап ideologist,
ће furnisћed tће ideological basis for the gтeatest and
шost impoгtant political moveшents of шоdетп blstory, 1vhich
took place first in Ешоре and are пmv taking place in Asia.
But, just because he >vas а scieпtist, ecoпoшist, апd sociologist,
Marx never thougћt of constшctiпg ап all-inclusive
philosopblcal or ideological systeш. Не опсе said: "One tћiпg
is certaiп; I аш поt а Marxist." His great scieпtific talent gave
Ыш tће gгeatest advantage over· all bls socialist. pгedecessors,
sucћ as О>vеп апd Fourier. Тће fact t.hat ће did rюt iпsist on
ideological all-inclusiveness ог bls о>vп pbllosopћical systeш
gave him an even gтeater advantage over bls disciples. Most of
the latter >vere ideologists and only to а very liшited degreeas
tће exaшples of Plekћanov, Labr·iola, Lenin, Kautsky, and
Stalin >vill slю>v-scientists. Тћеiг main desire 1vas to construct
а systeш out of Marx's ideas; tbls 1vas especially t.rue of tћose
who kne1v little pbllosophy and ћаd even less talent for it. As tће
tiшe passed, Marx's successoгs гevealed а tendency to present
his teachings as а finite and all-inclusive concept of the >vorld,
and to regaгd tћemselves as тesponsiЬle for tће contiпuation
ORIGINS
of all of Marx's work, >vhich they considered as beiпg virtuaHy·
coшplete. Science gradually yielded to propagaпda, and as а
result, propagaпda teпded шоrе апd шоrе to represent itself
as science.
Beiпg а product of bls tiшe, Marx deпied the need for ану
kiпd of pћilosopћy. His closest friend, Engels, declar·ed tћat
pbllosopћy had died 1vitћ tће developmeпt of scieпce. Marx's
tћesis >vas ноt at all origiпal. Тће so-called scieпtific philosopћy,
especially after Coшte's positivisш апd Feuerbacћ's шaterialism,
ћаd Ьесоше tће geнeral fasbloп.
It is easy to uпder·staнd 1vћу Marx deпied Ьоtћ the пееd for
and tће possiЬility of estaЬlisblнg any kiпd of pћilosophy. It
is ћarder to uпderstaпd >vћу bls successшs tried to arraпge his
ideas iпto an all-iнclusive systeш, iнto а пе1v, exclusive pћilosopћy.
Еvеп tћougћ they deпied tће нееd for any kiпd of
pћilosopћy, iп practice tћеу created а dogma of tћeir оwн 1vћiсћ
tl1ey coпsidered to Ье tће "шost scieпtific" or tlle "опlу scieпtific"
systeш. Iп а peгiod of geнer·al scieпtific eпtћusiasш and
of gr·eat cћanges brougl1t about iп eveгyday life and industry
Ьу science, tћеу could поt ћеlр but Ье шaterialists and to
consider tћeшselves tl1e "опlу" repr·eseпtatives of tће "опlу"
scieпtific vie>v and шethod, particular·ly since tћеу гepresented
а social str·atuш 1vblcћ 1vas iп confiict 1vitћ all tlle accepted
ideas of tlle tiшe.
Marx's ideas >vere infiueпced Ьу tће scieпtific atшospћere of
bls time, Ьу bls o>vn leaпings to>vard scieпce, and Ьу his гevolu·
tionary aspir-atioп to give to tће 1vorking-class шoveшent а
шоrе or less scientific basis. His disciples 1vere iпfiueпced
Ьу а diffeгent enviгonшent апd Ьу differeпt шotives 1vћen tћеу
conveнed bls Yie>vs into dogrna.
If tће political needs of tће 1vor·king-class шoveшent in
Europe had not deшanded а ne1v ideology coшplete in itself,
tће pbllosopћy t.hat calls itself Marxist, tће dialectical шaterialisш,
\\rould have been forgotten-disшissed as soшetћing поt
particularly profound or even origiпal, tћougћ Marx's есо-
In science, Comte's pos1t1v1sm llad already triumphed as а
method of inquiry; tlle Englisll scllool of political economy
(Smitll, Ricardo, and otllers) 1vas at its lleight; еросћаl laws
1vere being discover·ed from day to day in tће пatural sciences;
mоdегп iпdustry 1vas carviпg out its раtћ on tће basis of scieпtific
techпology; and tће wouпds of youпg capitalism revealed
tћemselves iп tће sufferiпg апd the begiппiпg struggle of the
proletariat. Appю·ently this 1vas tће onset of tће doшiпatioп
of scieпce, еvеп over society, and tће eliшinatioп of t.he capitalistic
сопсерt of o;vпership as tће final obstacle to ћuшап happiпess
апd freedom.
Тће time 1yas ripe for one great coпclusioп. Marx had Ьоtћ
tће dariпg апd tће deptћ to express it, but tћere 1vere по social
forces availaЬle оп 1vblch he could rely.
Marx >vas а scieпtist and ап ideologist. As а scieпtist, ће made
important discoveгies, paнicularly iп sociology. As ап ideologist,
ће furnisћed tће ideological basis for the gтeatest and
шost impoгtant political moveшents of шоdетп blstory, 1vhich
took place first in Ешоре and are пmv taking place in Asia.
But, just because he >vas а scieпtist, ecoпoшist, апd sociologist,
Marx never thougћt of constшctiпg ап all-inclusive
philosopblcal or ideological systeш. Не опсе said: "One tћiпg
is certaiп; I аш поt а Marxist." His great scieпtific talent gave
Ыш tће gгeatest advantage over· all bls socialist. pгedecessors,
sucћ as О>vеп апd Fourier. Тће fact t.hat ће did rюt iпsist on
ideological all-inclusiveness ог bls о>vп pbllosopћical systeш
gave him an even gтeater advantage over bls disciples. Most of
the latter >vere ideologists and only to а very liшited degreeas
tће exaшples of Plekћanov, Labr·iola, Lenin, Kautsky, and
Stalin >vill slю>v-scientists. Тћеiг main desire 1vas to construct
а systeш out of Marx's ideas; tbls 1vas especially t.rue of tћose
who kne1v little pbllosophy and ћаd even less talent for it. As tће
tiшe passed, Marx's successoгs гevealed а tendency to present
his teachings as а finite and all-inclusive concept of the >vorld,
and to regaгd tћemselves as тesponsiЬle for tће contiпuation
ORIGINS
of all of Marx's work, >vhich they considered as beiпg virtuaHy·
coшplete. Science gradually yielded to propagaпda, and as а
result, propagaпda teпded шоrе апd шоrе to represent itself
as science.
Beiпg а product of bls tiшe, Marx deпied the need for ану
kiпd of pћilosopћy. His closest friend, Engels, declar·ed tћat
pbllosopћy had died 1vitћ tће developmeпt of scieпce. Marx's
tћesis >vas ноt at all origiпal. Тће so-called scieпtific philosopћy,
especially after Coшte's positivisш апd Feuerbacћ's шaterialism,
ћаd Ьесоше tће geнeral fasbloп.
It is easy to uпder·staнd 1vћу Marx deпied Ьоtћ the пееd for
and tће possiЬility of estaЬlisblнg any kiпd of pћilosophy. It
is ћarder to uпderstaпd >vћу bls successшs tried to arraпge his
ideas iпto an all-iнclusive systeш, iнto а пе1v, exclusive pћilosopћy.
Еvеп tћougћ they deпied tће нееd for any kiпd of
pћilosopћy, iп practice tћеу created а dogma of tћeir оwн 1vћiсћ
tl1ey coпsidered to Ье tће "шost scieпtific" or tlle "опlу scieпtific"
systeш. Iп а peгiod of geнer·al scieпtific eпtћusiasш and
of gr·eat cћanges brougl1t about iп eveгyday life and industry
Ьу science, tћеу could поt ћеlр but Ье шaterialists and to
consider tћeшselves tl1e "опlу" repr·eseпtatives of tће "опlу"
scieпtific vie>v and шethod, particular·ly since tћеу гepresented
а social str·atuш 1vblcћ 1vas iп confiict 1vitћ all tlle accepted
ideas of tlle tiшe.
Marx's ideas >vere infiueпced Ьу tће scieпtific atшospћere of
bls time, Ьу bls o>vn leaпings to>vard scieпce, and Ьу his гevolu·
tionary aspir-atioп to give to tће 1vorking-class шoveшent а
шоrе or less scientific basis. His disciples 1vere iпfiueпced
Ьу а diffeгent enviгonшent апd Ьу differeпt шotives 1vћen tћеу
conveнed bls Yie>vs into dogrna.
If tће political needs of tће 1vor·king-class шoveшent in
Europe had not deшanded а ne1v ideology coшplete in itself,
tће pbllosopћy t.hat calls itself Marxist, tће dialectical шaterialisш,
\\rould have been forgotten-disшissed as soшetћing поt
particularly profound or even origiпal, tћougћ Marx's есо-
6 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
noшic and social studies are of the ћighest scientific and literary
rank.
Тће strengtћ of Marxist pbllosophy did not Iie in its scieпtific
eleшeпts, but iп its соппесtiоп -.;vith а шass шoveшent, апd
шost of all in its eшphasis оп tl1e objective of chaпgiпg society.
It stated agaiп and agaiп that. the existiпg -.;vorld -.;vould chaпge
siшply because it ћаd to cћange, tћat it bore the seeds of its
о-.;vп oppositioп апd destruction; tЪat the -.;voгkiпg class -.;vaпted
this chaпge and -.;vould Ье аЬlе to effect it. InevitaЬly, the influence
of this philosophy increased апd created iп the Eur·opeaп
-.;vorkir1g-class шovement the illusioп tl1at it -.;vas omnipotent,
at least. as а method. Iп countries -.;vћere siшilar conditioпs did
поt exist, sucl1 as Great Britaiп and the United States, tће
iпflueпce апd iшportaпce of this pћilosophy -.;vas insigпificaпt,
despite the stгeпgtll of the -.;voгking class and the -.;vorkiпg~class
шоvешепt.
As а scieпce, Maixist philosophy -.;vas rюt iшpor·taпt, siпce it
-.;vas based mainly оп Hegeliaп апd materialistic ideas. As tlle
ideology of the пе-.;v, oppr·essed classes апd especially of political
шovements, it marked an epocl1, first in Eur·ope, and later in
Russia апd Asia, pгovidiпg the basis for а пе-.;v political moveшeпt
апd а пе-.;v social system.
з.
Marx thought tћat the replacemeпt of capitalist society
1vould Ье brougћt аЬопt Ьу а revolпtioпaгy stгпggle bet-.;veeп
its t-.;vo basic classes, the boпгgeoisie and tће pгoletariat. The
clasћ seemed all tће mor-e likely to him Ьесапsе in the capitalistic
system of tћat time Ьоtћ poverty апd -.;vealth kept increasing
ппсћесkеd, оп tће opposite poles of а society tћat -.;vas
sћаkеп Ьу periodic ecoпomic crises.
Iп tће last analysis, Marxist teachiпg 1vas tће prodпct of tће
ORIGINS 7
indпstrial revolution or of the struggle of the indпstrial proletariat
for а better life. It -.;vas no accident that tlle friglltful
poverty апd brutalizatioп of tће masses 1vћich accompanied iпdпstrial
cllange had а po-.;verfпl inflпence оп Marx.. His most
importaпt -.;vork, Das Kapital1 contains а number of important
and stin·ing pages оп this topic. Тће recurring crises, -.;vhich
\vere cћaracteristic of tlle capitalism of tће nineteentћ сепtпrу,
togetћer -.;vitћ tће pover-ty and the гapid incгease of tће populatiorl,
logically led Marx to tће belief tllat revolпtioп -.;vas the
only solпtion . .Маrх did not coпsider revolпtioп to Ье iпevitaЬle
in all coпntries, paгticпlarly not iп tlюse -.;vћere democratic
iпstitпtioпs -.;vеге alr·eady а tradition of social life. Не cited as
examples of sпсЬ coпntries, iп one of ћis talks, tlle NetЬerlands,
Great Britaiп апd tlle United States. Ho-.;vever, оне can conclпde
from his ideas, takeп as а -.;vћole, tЬat the iпevitaЬility
of revolпtion -.;vas one of bls basic beliefs. Не believed iп revolпtioп
апd pr·eacЬed it.; ће -.;vas а revolпtioпary.
l\Iarx's r·evolпtioпaтy ideas, -.;vЪiсЬ 1vere coпditional and поt
univeгsally applicaЬle, were cllaпged Ьу Lепiп iпto absolпte апd
lllliversal pгiпciples. Iп The lnfantile Disorder of "Left-Wing"
Communism1 perЬaps bls most dogmatic 1vork, Lепiп developed
tЬese pгiпciples still more, differiпg -.;vitЬ Marx's position
that revolпtion -.;vas avoidaЬle in cer-taiп соппtтiеs. Не said tћat
Great Вr·itaiп coпld no loпger Ье regaтded as а coпntry iп
1vћiсћ r·evolпtioп 1vas avoidaЬle, Ьесапsе dпriпg tЬе First
\Vorbl \Var sЬе Ьаd become а militar-istic po-.;ver, and ther·efore
tlle Br-itisћ \Vorkiпg class Ьаd по оtЬег сЬоiсе Ьпt. тevolпtion.
Lепiп епеd, поt опlу in ћis failпre to пnderstaпd that "Bтitish
rnilitaтism" \vas опlу а temporary, \vartime рћаsе of developшeпt,
Ьпt Ьесапsе ће failed to foгesee tЬе fпrtћer development
of democтacy апd ecoпomic pтogress iп Gr-eat В!·itaiп or other
\Vesteш coппtr-ies. Не also did поt uпderstand tЬе natпre of
tlle EnglisЬ trade-uпioп rпovemeпt. Не placed too much empllasis
or1 Ьis О\VП, or Marxian, detenniпistic, scieпtific ideas
апd paid too little attention to the objective social role апd
noшic and social studies are of the ћighest scientific and literary
rank.
Тће strengtћ of Marxist pbllosophy did not Iie in its scieпtific
eleшeпts, but iп its соппесtiоп -.;vith а шass шoveшent, апd
шost of all in its eшphasis оп tl1e objective of chaпgiпg society.
It stated agaiп and agaiп that. the existiпg -.;vorld -.;vould chaпge
siшply because it ћаd to cћange, tћat it bore the seeds of its
о-.;vп oppositioп апd destruction; tЪat the -.;voгkiпg class -.;vaпted
this chaпge and -.;vould Ье аЬlе to effect it. InevitaЬly, the influence
of this philosophy increased апd created iп the Eur·opeaп
-.;vorkir1g-class шovement the illusioп tl1at it -.;vas omnipotent,
at least. as а method. Iп countries -.;vћere siшilar conditioпs did
поt exist, sucl1 as Great Britaiп and the United States, tће
iпflueпce апd iшportaпce of this pћilosophy -.;vas insigпificaпt,
despite the stгeпgtll of the -.;voгking class and the -.;vorkiпg~class
шоvешепt.
As а scieпce, Maixist philosophy -.;vas rюt iшpor·taпt, siпce it
-.;vas based mainly оп Hegeliaп апd materialistic ideas. As tlle
ideology of the пе-.;v, oppr·essed classes апd especially of political
шovements, it marked an epocl1, first in Eur·ope, and later in
Russia апd Asia, pгovidiпg the basis for а пе-.;v political moveшeпt
апd а пе-.;v social system.
з.
Marx thought tћat the replacemeпt of capitalist society
1vould Ье brougћt аЬопt Ьу а revolпtioпaгy stгпggle bet-.;veeп
its t-.;vo basic classes, the boпгgeoisie and tће pгoletariat. The
clasћ seemed all tће mor-e likely to him Ьесапsе in the capitalistic
system of tћat time Ьоtћ poverty апd -.;vealth kept increasing
ппсћесkеd, оп tће opposite poles of а society tћat -.;vas
sћаkеп Ьу periodic ecoпomic crises.
Iп tће last analysis, Marxist teachiпg 1vas tће prodпct of tће
ORIGINS 7
indпstrial revolution or of the struggle of the indпstrial proletariat
for а better life. It -.;vas no accident that tlle friglltful
poverty апd brutalizatioп of tће masses 1vћich accompanied iпdпstrial
cllange had а po-.;verfпl inflпence оп Marx.. His most
importaпt -.;vork, Das Kapital1 contains а number of important
and stin·ing pages оп this topic. Тће recurring crises, -.;vhich
\vere cћaracteristic of tlle capitalism of tће nineteentћ сепtпrу,
togetћer -.;vitћ tће pover-ty and the гapid incгease of tће populatiorl,
logically led Marx to tће belief tllat revolпtioп -.;vas the
only solпtion . .Маrх did not coпsider revolпtioп to Ье iпevitaЬle
in all coпntries, paгticпlarly not iп tlюse -.;vћere democratic
iпstitпtioпs -.;vеге alr·eady а tradition of social life. Не cited as
examples of sпсЬ coпntries, iп one of ћis talks, tlle NetЬerlands,
Great Britaiп апd tlle United States. Ho-.;vever, оне can conclпde
from his ideas, takeп as а -.;vћole, tЬat the iпevitaЬility
of revolпtion -.;vas one of bls basic beliefs. Не believed iп revolпtioп
апd pr·eacЬed it.; ће -.;vas а revolпtioпary.
l\Iarx's r·evolпtioпaтy ideas, -.;vЪiсЬ 1vere coпditional and поt
univeгsally applicaЬle, were cllaпged Ьу Lепiп iпto absolпte апd
lllliversal pгiпciples. Iп The lnfantile Disorder of "Left-Wing"
Communism1 perЬaps bls most dogmatic 1vork, Lепiп developed
tЬese pгiпciples still more, differiпg -.;vitЬ Marx's position
that revolпtion -.;vas avoidaЬle in cer-taiп соппtтiеs. Не said tћat
Great Вr·itaiп coпld no loпger Ье regaтded as а coпntry iп
1vћiсћ r·evolпtioп 1vas avoidaЬle, Ьесапsе dпriпg tЬе First
\Vorbl \Var sЬе Ьаd become а militar-istic po-.;ver, and ther·efore
tlle Br-itisћ \Vorkiпg class Ьаd по оtЬег сЬоiсе Ьпt. тevolпtion.
Lепiп епеd, поt опlу in ћis failпre to пnderstaпd that "Bтitish
rnilitaтism" \vas опlу а temporary, \vartime рћаsе of developшeпt,
Ьпt Ьесапsе ће failed to foгesee tЬе fпrtћer development
of democтacy апd ecoпomic pтogress iп Gr-eat В!·itaiп or other
\Vesteш coппtr-ies. Не also did поt uпderstand tЬе natпre of
tlle EnglisЬ trade-uпioп rпovemeпt. Не placed too much empllasis
or1 Ьis О\VП, or Marxian, detenniпistic, scieпtific ideas
апd paid too little attention to the objective social role апd
8 ТНЕ NEТV CLASS
potentialities of the 1vorking class in more highly developed
countries. Although he disclaimed it, he did in fact proclaim
his theories and the Russiaп тevolutionary experience to Ье
universally applicaЬle.
According to Marx's ћypothesis and his coпclusions оп the
subject, the r·evolution >vould осснr first of all in the higbly
developed capitalist countтies. Marx believed that the results
of the revolutioп-that is, the ne1v socialist society->vould lead
to а ne1v and higher level of freedom thaп tћat prevalent in
tће existing society, in so-called liЬer·al capitalism. This is
undeгstandaЬle. In the very act of rejectiпg various types of
capitalism, Marx 1vas at the same time а pi"Oduct of his epoch,
tће liЬeral capitalist epoch.
Iп developiпg the Marxist staпd that. capitalism must Ье replaced
not only Ьу а ћigher economic and social foтm-that is,
socialism-but Ьу а higl1er form of human fr·eedom, the Social
Democrats justifiaЬly considered themselves to Ье Marx's successoгs.
They ћаd по less тight to tћis claim than the Communists,
1vho cited Marx as the source of their idea that the
replacement of capitalism can take place only Ьу revolutionary
means. Hmvever, both groups of Marx's follo>vers-the Social
Demoпats апd tће Commнnists->veгe only partly rigЬt iп cit.ing
him as tЬе basis for tl1eiг ideas. In citing Marx's ideas tћеу
1vere defending tћeir· o>vn practices, >vhich ћаd oгiginated in а
diffeгeпt, and already cЬanged society. Апd, althoнgЬ both
cited and depended on Maтxist ideas, the Social Deшocтatic апd
Coшmunist nюveшents developed in diffeгent diтections.
In cotшtries >vhere political and econoшic pгogгess 1vas difficult,
and 1vћеге tће >vиkiпg class played а 1veak role in society,
the пееd агоsе slo1vly to шаkе а systeш and а dogma out of
Marxist teaching. Moтeover, iп countr'ies >vћете econoшic forces
and social relations 1vere поt yet ripe for iпdustrial cћange, as iп
Russia and later in Cћina, tl1e adoption and dogmatization of
the revolutioпaгy aspects of Marxist teacћings was тоге rapid
and coшplete. Тћеrе >vas empћasis on revolution Ьу the work-
ORIGINS 9
ing-class шovement. In such countries, Marxism grew stronger
and stroпger апd, 1vith the victory of tће revolutionary party, it
became the dошiпапt ideology.
In couпtries sucћ as Gеrшапу, 1vћere tће degree of political
and ecoпornic progress made revolutioп unnecessary, tће dernocratic
and reforrnist aspects of Marxist teacћing, ratћer tћап
tће revolutionary ones, domiпated. Тће aпti-dogrnatic ideological
апd political tendencies geпerated ап empћasis оп reform
Ьу the 1vorkiпg-class movernent.
Iп the first case, tће ties 1vitћ Marx 1vеге st!'engtћened, at
Ieast in out1vard арреаrапсе. In the second case, tћеу 1vere
1veakened.
Social developrneпt and the developrnent of ideas led to а
severe scћism iп the European socialist rnovemeпt. Roнghly
speaking, tће cћanges iп political and econornic conditions coincided
1vith chaпges iп tће ideas of tl1e socialist tћeorists,
because they interpreted reality in а тelative manner, that is,
iп ап incornplete апd one-sided 1vay, ћоm tl1eir 0\VП partisan
poiпt of vie1v.
Leпin in Rшsia and Bernstein iп Geгrnaпy ате the t>vo extremes
through 1vhich tЬе diffeгent cћanges, social and ecoпornic,
апd tће diffeгeпt "тealities" of tће 1voтking-class movements
fouпd expтessioп.
Alrnost пothing тernained of oгigiпal :мarxism. In the West
it had died out or 1vas in tће process of dying out; in the East,
as а тesult of tће estaЬlisћrnent of Cornrnuпist rule, only а residue
of forшalisrn and dogmatisrn тernained of Marx's dialectics
and mateгialisrn; tћis 1vas used for tће pur-pose of cernenting
po1ver, justifying tyтanny, апd violating ћurnan coпscience.
Altћougl1 it ћаd in fact also been аЬапdопеd in tће East, Marxism
operated tћere as а r·igid dogrna 1vitћ incr·easing po1ver. It
1vas rnore than an idea tћere; it 1vas а ne1v government, а nevv
econorny, а пе1v social systern.
AltћougЬ Marx ћаd furnisћed bls disciples 1vitћ tће impetнs
for sнсћ developrnent, ће Ьаd Yery little desire fот· sucћ develop
potentialities of the 1vorking class in more highly developed
countries. Although he disclaimed it, he did in fact proclaim
his theories and the Russiaп тevolutionary experience to Ье
universally applicaЬle.
According to Marx's ћypothesis and his coпclusions оп the
subject, the r·evolution >vould осснr first of all in the higbly
developed capitalist countтies. Marx believed that the results
of the revolutioп-that is, the ne1v socialist society->vould lead
to а ne1v and higher level of freedom thaп tћat prevalent in
tће existing society, in so-called liЬer·al capitalism. This is
undeгstandaЬle. In the very act of rejectiпg various types of
capitalism, Marx 1vas at the same time а pi"Oduct of his epoch,
tће liЬeral capitalist epoch.
Iп developiпg the Marxist staпd that. capitalism must Ье replaced
not only Ьу а ћigher economic and social foтm-that is,
socialism-but Ьу а higl1er form of human fr·eedom, the Social
Democrats justifiaЬly considered themselves to Ье Marx's successoгs.
They ћаd по less тight to tћis claim than the Communists,
1vho cited Marx as the source of their idea that the
replacement of capitalism can take place only Ьу revolutionary
means. Hmvever, both groups of Marx's follo>vers-the Social
Demoпats апd tће Commнnists->veгe only partly rigЬt iп cit.ing
him as tЬе basis for tl1eiг ideas. In citing Marx's ideas tћеу
1vere defending tћeir· o>vn practices, >vhich ћаd oгiginated in а
diffeгeпt, and already cЬanged society. Апd, althoнgЬ both
cited and depended on Maтxist ideas, the Social Deшocтatic апd
Coшmunist nюveшents developed in diffeгent diтections.
In cotшtries >vhere political and econoшic pгogгess 1vas difficult,
and 1vћеге tће >vиkiпg class played а 1veak role in society,
the пееd агоsе slo1vly to шаkе а systeш and а dogma out of
Marxist teaching. Moтeover, iп countr'ies >vћете econoшic forces
and social relations 1vere поt yet ripe for iпdustrial cћange, as iп
Russia and later in Cћina, tl1e adoption and dogmatization of
the revolutioпaгy aspects of Marxist teacћings was тоге rapid
and coшplete. Тћеrе >vas empћasis on revolution Ьу the work-
ORIGINS 9
ing-class шovement. In such countries, Marxism grew stronger
and stroпger апd, 1vith the victory of tће revolutionary party, it
became the dошiпапt ideology.
In couпtries sucћ as Gеrшапу, 1vћere tће degree of political
and ecoпornic progress made revolutioп unnecessary, tће dernocratic
and reforrnist aspects of Marxist teacћing, ratћer tћап
tће revolutionary ones, domiпated. Тће aпti-dogrnatic ideological
апd political tendencies geпerated ап empћasis оп reform
Ьу the 1vorkiпg-class movernent.
Iп the first case, tће ties 1vitћ Marx 1vеге st!'engtћened, at
Ieast in out1vard арреаrапсе. In the second case, tћеу 1vere
1veakened.
Social developrneпt and the developrnent of ideas led to а
severe scћism iп the European socialist rnovemeпt. Roнghly
speaking, tће cћanges iп political and econornic conditions coincided
1vith chaпges iп tће ideas of tl1e socialist tћeorists,
because they interpreted reality in а тelative manner, that is,
iп ап incornplete апd one-sided 1vay, ћоm tl1eir 0\VП partisan
poiпt of vie1v.
Leпin in Rшsia and Bernstein iп Geгrnaпy ате the t>vo extremes
through 1vhich tЬе diffeгent cћanges, social and ecoпornic,
апd tће diffeгeпt "тealities" of tће 1voтking-class movements
fouпd expтessioп.
Alrnost пothing тernained of oгigiпal :мarxism. In the West
it had died out or 1vas in tће process of dying out; in the East,
as а тesult of tће estaЬlisћrnent of Cornrnuпist rule, only а residue
of forшalisrn and dogmatisrn тernained of Marx's dialectics
and mateгialisrn; tћis 1vas used for tће pur-pose of cernenting
po1ver, justifying tyтanny, апd violating ћurnan coпscience.
Altћougl1 it ћаd in fact also been аЬапdопеd in tће East, Marxism
operated tћere as а r·igid dogrna 1vitћ incr·easing po1ver. It
1vas rnore than an idea tћere; it 1vas а ne1v government, а nevv
econorny, а пе1v social systern.
AltћougЬ Marx ћаd furnisћed bls disciples 1vitћ tће impetнs
for sнсћ developrnent, ће Ьаd Yery little desire fот· sucћ develop
10 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
ment nor did he expect it. History betrayed this great master
as it has others 1vho have attempted to interpret its laws.
What ћаs been the nature of tће development since Marx?
In the 1870's, the formation of corporatioпs апd monopolies
had beguп in courнries 1vћere the iпdustrial revolution ћаd
already takeп place, sucћ as Germany, Eпglaпd, and tће Uпited
States. This developmeпt 1vas in full swing Ьу the beginning
of the Hveпtietћ century. Scientific analyses were made of it
Ьу Hobson, Hilferding, and others. Leniп, in Imperialism, the
Final Stage of Capitalism, made а political analysis, based
шаiпlу on tllese authors, containing predictions whicћ ћаvе
proved mostl у inaccurate.
Marx's tћeories about tlle increasing impoverisћment of tће
1vorking class 1;vere not. Ьоше out Ьу developшents iп those
couпtries from 1vblch bls theories ћаd been derived. However,
as Hugh Seton-'\>Vatson states in From Lenin to Malenkov,*
they appeared to Ье r·easonaЬly accurate for the most part in
tће case of the agr·ar'ian East European countries. Tћus, while
in the vVest his stature 1vas redпced to that of а blstorian and
scholar, Marx became the pгophet of а ne1v era in easteш
Europe. His teachings ћаd ап iпtoxic.atiпg effect, similar to а
пеw religion.
Тће sitпatioп iп 1vestern Europe tllat contribпted to the
theories of Eпgels and Marx is descгiЬed Ьу Andre Maurois in
the Yпgoslav edition of The History -Df England:
Wћen Engels visited :Маnсћеstег in 1844, ће found 350,000
>voгker·s сгпsћеd and crmvded into darnp, dirty, broken-down
houses >vћere tlley breathed an atrnospllere resernЬiing а mixture
of 1vater and coal. In tће rnines, he saw half-naked
wornen, who 1vere tтeated Iike tlle lowest of draft animals.
Cllildr·en speпt the day in dark tunnels, wllere tћеу were
employed in opeпing and closing tће primitive openings for
ventilation, and iп otћer difficпlt tasks. Iп tће Јасе industгy,
exploitatioп reached sucћ а point tћat four-year-old cllildren
worked for virtually по рау.
• New York, Frederick А. Praeger, 1953.
ORIGINS 11
Encтels lived to see an entirely different picture of Great
~ .
Britaiп, but he sa>v а still шоrе lюпiЬlе and-wћat 1s шоrе
important-ћopeless poverty in Russia, the Balka~s, Asia апd
Africa.
Technological iшproveшents brougl1t about vast and concrete
сhапиеs iп the vVest, iшшепsе froш every poiпt of vie-~v.
Тћеу led ~ tlle for-matioп of шoпopolies, апd to the partiti?п
of the 1vorld iпto splleгes of iпterest for tlle developed couпtпes
апd for tће шoпopolies. Tlley also led to the Fiтst World War
апd tЪе October Revolutioп.
Iп the developed couпtтies the rapid rise in productioп and
tlle acquisitioп of coloпial sources of materials апd шarkets
mateгially chaпged tће positioп of the 1vorkiпg class. The struggle
fог теfоrш, for better шaterial coпditioпs, together 1vith
tће adoptioп of parliaшentary forшs of goveгпment, Ьесаше
mor-e теаl апd valпaЬle tl1a11 revolutioпary ideals. Iп sпсћ places
revolutioп became пonsensical and uпrealistic.
The countl'ies 1vhicћ were поt yet iпdustrialized, paгticularly
Russia, 1vere in an eпtirely diffeгeпt situatioп. They found
tћemselves iп а dileшrna; they llad either· to becorne iпdustrialized,
or to discoпtiпue active participatioп оп the stage of
Ыstor-y, tпшiпg iпto captives of tће developed couпtries and
tћeir шoпopolies, tћнs doomed to degeneracy. Local capital
and tће class and paгties repr-esentiпg it 1vеге too 1veak to solve
the proЬiems of r·apid iпdнstrializatioп. In tћese couпtries гevolпtioп
became ан inescapaЬie пecessity, а Yital need for tће паtiоп,
and only one class could bгing it about-tЪe pгoletaгiat,
or the revolпtioпaгy рагtу r-epr-esenting it.
The гeason fог tbls is tћat tl1eгe is ап immutaЬle la.v-that
еасћ hurnan society and all iпdividuals paгticipating iп it str-ive
to increase and peгfect ргоdпсtiоп. Iп doiпg tbls tћеу come in
coпflict \vitћ otћer societies апd individuals, so tћat tћеу cornpete
1vitћ еасћ otћer iп oгder to SUI"\'iYe. This iппеаsе and
expansioп of pгodпction coпstaпtly faces natпral and sociai
baпiers, sucl1 as individual, political, legal, апd international
ment nor did he expect it. History betrayed this great master
as it has others 1vho have attempted to interpret its laws.
What ћаs been the nature of tће development since Marx?
In the 1870's, the formation of corporatioпs апd monopolies
had beguп in courнries 1vћere the iпdustrial revolution ћаd
already takeп place, sucћ as Germany, Eпglaпd, and tће Uпited
States. This developmeпt 1vas in full swing Ьу the beginning
of the Hveпtietћ century. Scientific analyses were made of it
Ьу Hobson, Hilferding, and others. Leniп, in Imperialism, the
Final Stage of Capitalism, made а political analysis, based
шаiпlу on tllese authors, containing predictions whicћ ћаvе
proved mostl у inaccurate.
Marx's tћeories about tlle increasing impoverisћment of tће
1vorking class 1;vere not. Ьоше out Ьу developшents iп those
couпtries from 1vblch bls theories ћаd been derived. However,
as Hugh Seton-'\>Vatson states in From Lenin to Malenkov,*
they appeared to Ье r·easonaЬly accurate for the most part in
tће case of the agr·ar'ian East European countries. Tћus, while
in the vVest his stature 1vas redпced to that of а blstorian and
scholar, Marx became the pгophet of а ne1v era in easteш
Europe. His teachings ћаd ап iпtoxic.atiпg effect, similar to а
пеw religion.
Тће sitпatioп iп 1vestern Europe tllat contribпted to the
theories of Eпgels and Marx is descгiЬed Ьу Andre Maurois in
the Yпgoslav edition of The History -Df England:
Wћen Engels visited :Маnсћеstег in 1844, ће found 350,000
>voгker·s сгпsћеd and crmvded into darnp, dirty, broken-down
houses >vћere tlley breathed an atrnospllere resernЬiing а mixture
of 1vater and coal. In tће rnines, he saw half-naked
wornen, who 1vere tтeated Iike tlle lowest of draft animals.
Cllildr·en speпt the day in dark tunnels, wllere tћеу were
employed in opeпing and closing tће primitive openings for
ventilation, and iп otћer difficпlt tasks. Iп tће Јасе industгy,
exploitatioп reached sucћ а point tћat four-year-old cllildren
worked for virtually по рау.
• New York, Frederick А. Praeger, 1953.
ORIGINS 11
Encтels lived to see an entirely different picture of Great
~ .
Britaiп, but he sa>v а still шоrе lюпiЬlе and-wћat 1s шоrе
important-ћopeless poverty in Russia, the Balka~s, Asia апd
Africa.
Technological iшproveшents brougl1t about vast and concrete
сhапиеs iп the vVest, iшшепsе froш every poiпt of vie-~v.
Тћеу led ~ tlle for-matioп of шoпopolies, апd to the partiti?п
of the 1vorld iпto splleгes of iпterest for tlle developed couпtпes
апd for tће шoпopolies. Tlley also led to the Fiтst World War
апd tЪе October Revolutioп.
Iп the developed couпtтies the rapid rise in productioп and
tlle acquisitioп of coloпial sources of materials апd шarkets
mateгially chaпged tће positioп of the 1vorkiпg class. The struggle
fог теfоrш, for better шaterial coпditioпs, together 1vith
tће adoptioп of parliaшentary forшs of goveгпment, Ьесаше
mor-e теаl апd valпaЬle tl1a11 revolutioпary ideals. Iп sпсћ places
revolutioп became пonsensical and uпrealistic.
The countl'ies 1vhicћ were поt yet iпdustrialized, paгticularly
Russia, 1vere in an eпtirely diffeгeпt situatioп. They found
tћemselves iп а dileшrna; they llad either· to becorne iпdustrialized,
or to discoпtiпue active participatioп оп the stage of
Ыstor-y, tпшiпg iпto captives of tће developed couпtries and
tћeir шoпopolies, tћнs doomed to degeneracy. Local capital
and tће class and paгties repr-esentiпg it 1vеге too 1veak to solve
the proЬiems of r·apid iпdнstrializatioп. In tћese couпtries гevolпtioп
became ан inescapaЬie пecessity, а Yital need for tће паtiоп,
and only one class could bгing it about-tЪe pгoletaгiat,
or the revolпtioпaгy рагtу r-epr-esenting it.
The гeason fог tbls is tћat tl1eгe is ап immutaЬle la.v-that
еасћ hurnan society and all iпdividuals paгticipating iп it str-ive
to increase and peгfect ргоdпсtiоп. Iп doiпg tbls tћеу come in
coпflict \vitћ otћer societies апd individuals, so tћat tћеу cornpete
1vitћ еасћ otћer iп oгder to SUI"\'iYe. This iппеаsе and
expansioп of pгodпction coпstaпtly faces natпral and sociai
baпiers, sucl1 as individual, political, legal, апd international
12 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
customs and relationships. Since it rnust overcorne obstacles,
society, that is, those who at а giveп nюrnent represeпt its
productiYe forces, rnust eliminate, change, or destroy the obstacles
\Vhich arise either inside or outside its boundaries.
Classes, parties, political systerns, political ideas, are ап expressioп
of t.his ceaseless patterп of rnovernent and stagnation.
N о society or nation alla...vs production to lag to such an
extent tlшt its existence is threatened. То lag rneans to die.
People never die \villingly; they are ready to undergo апу sacrifice
to overcorne the difficнlties \Vhich stand in the >vay of their
econornic prodнctioп апd theiг existeпce.
The envir·oпmeпt апd the material апd intellectual level deterrniпe
the metlюd, forces, апd meaпs tћat will Ье used to
briпg about. tће developmeпt апd ехрапsiоп of productioп,
апd tће social I'esults >vhich follo>v. Ho>vever, tЪе пecessity for
tl1e developmeпt апd expansioп of pi'oductioп-uпder апу ideological
Ьаппеr or social fOl'ce-does поt depeпd оп iпdividuals;
because tћеу >visћ to survive, societies апd пations fiпd the
leaders апd ideas >vћiсћ, at а giYeп momeпt, are best suited to
that 'i\'ћiсћ tћеу must and \vish to attain.
Revolutioпary Marxism >vas ti'ansplaпted dнriпg tће period
of monopolistic capitalism fmm tће iпdusti'ially developed
\Vest t.o couпtries of the iпdustrially uпdeveloped East, sнсћ as
Russia апd Сћiпа. Tћis is about the time >vћеп socialist movemeпts
\vere developiпg iп tће East апd \Vest. Tћis stage
of tће socialist movement began >vitћ its uпificatioп and ceпtralizatioп
iп tЪе Secoпd Iпteшatioпal, апd eпded \vitћ а division
iпto tће Social Democгatic (I'eform) >ving and tће Communist
(revolutionary) >viпg, leadiпg to tће I'evolutioп iп Russia апd
tће foгmatioп of tће Tћir·d Iпteшational.
Iп couпtries >vћere tћei'e \Vas no otћei' 1vay of briпgiпg about
iпdustrializat.ioп, there >ve!'e special пatioпal reasoпs for tће
Commuпist revolutioп. Revolutioпary movemeпts existed in
semi-feudal Rнssia over half а сепtнrу before the арреаrапсе
of tће Marxists iп the late niпeteeпth ceпtury. Moreover, there
ORIGINS 13
\vere urgeпt апd specific concrete reasons-international, ecoпomic,
political-for revolнtion. The basic reasoп-tћe vi~al
пееd for iпdustrial cћaпge->vas commoп to all tће couпtпes
sнсћ as Russia, СЬlпа, and Yugoslavia, \Vl1ere revolutioп took
place.
It >vas ћistшically iпevitaЬle that. most of tће European
socialist шоvешепts after Mar·x \Vere not опlу шateтialistic and
Marxist, but to а coпsideraЬle degтee ideologically exclн~ive.
Aиaiпst tћem \vere uпited all tће forces of tће old soCiety:
о d .
сlштсћ, scћool, private owпersblp, goverпmeпt an , mm·e Importaпt,
tће vast. pO\ver macћin~ry '~ћiсћ tће Ешореап couпtries
ћаd developed since early times ш tће face of tће constant
coпtineпtal >varв.
Апуопе wћо >vants to cћange tће >voтld fuпdamentally must
first of all interpi'et it fuпdameпtally апd "witlюut епоr."
/Jf::;·· >v movement must Ье i~eologically exclusive, esp:ciall.y
i! if iоп is the опlу 1vay victory сап Ье 'iVOil. Апd If tћ1s
\;\ t is sнccessful, its vету success must streпgtћen its Ье-
, I'e s·':lhd ideas. Тћоugћ successes tћr·онgћ "adveпturous" parliameпtaтy
metlюds апd sti'ikes str·eпgtћeпed tће .тeformist tr~пd
iп the Ge!'maп апd otћer· Social Demoпatic part1es, tће Russшn
\vorkers, \vћо could поt improve their positioп Ьу опе kopeck
\\'itћoнt Ьloody liquidatioпs, ћаd no сћоiсе but to use \veapoпs
to escape despair· апd deatћ Ьу starvatioп.
Тће otheг couпtries of easteп1 Ешоре-Роlапd, Czecћoslovakia,
Ннпgаrу, Rumaпia, апd Bulgaria-do not fall нпdеr
tћis rule at Ieast поt tће fir·st tћтее couпtries. Тћеу did поt
experien~e а revolнtioп, siпce tће Commuпist system w~s imposed
оп them Ьу tће pO\ver of tlle Soviet Arrny. Тћеу d1d n?t
even pтess for indнstr·ial chaпge, at least поt Ьу tће Comшuшst
metћod, for some of tћеш had already attaiпed it. Iп tћese
couпtr·ies, revolutioп >vas imposed from the outside апd frorn
above, Ьу foreign bayoпets апd tЪе macblnery of force. The
Commuпist movements >vere weak, except iп the шost developed
of tће couпtries, Czechoslovakia, 1vhere the Coшmuпist
customs and relationships. Since it rnust overcorne obstacles,
society, that is, those who at а giveп nюrnent represeпt its
productiYe forces, rnust eliminate, change, or destroy the obstacles
\Vhich arise either inside or outside its boundaries.
Classes, parties, political systerns, political ideas, are ап expressioп
of t.his ceaseless patterп of rnovernent and stagnation.
N о society or nation alla...vs production to lag to such an
extent tlшt its existence is threatened. То lag rneans to die.
People never die \villingly; they are ready to undergo апу sacrifice
to overcorne the difficнlties \Vhich stand in the >vay of their
econornic prodнctioп апd theiг existeпce.
The envir·oпmeпt апd the material апd intellectual level deterrniпe
the metlюd, forces, апd meaпs tћat will Ье used to
briпg about. tће developmeпt апd ехрапsiоп of productioп,
апd tће social I'esults >vhich follo>v. Ho>vever, tЪе пecessity for
tl1e developmeпt апd expansioп of pi'oductioп-uпder апу ideological
Ьаппеr or social fOl'ce-does поt depeпd оп iпdividuals;
because tћеу >visћ to survive, societies апd пations fiпd the
leaders апd ideas >vћiсћ, at а giYeп momeпt, are best suited to
that 'i\'ћiсћ tћеу must and \vish to attain.
Revolutioпary Marxism >vas ti'ansplaпted dнriпg tће period
of monopolistic capitalism fmm tће iпdusti'ially developed
\Vest t.o couпtries of the iпdustrially uпdeveloped East, sнсћ as
Russia апd Сћiпа. Tћis is about the time >vћеп socialist movemeпts
\vere developiпg iп tће East апd \Vest. Tћis stage
of tће socialist movement began >vitћ its uпificatioп and ceпtralizatioп
iп tЪе Secoпd Iпteшatioпal, апd eпded \vitћ а division
iпto tће Social Democгatic (I'eform) >ving and tће Communist
(revolutionary) >viпg, leadiпg to tће I'evolutioп iп Russia апd
tће foгmatioп of tће Tћir·d Iпteшational.
Iп couпtries >vћere tћei'e \Vas no otћei' 1vay of briпgiпg about
iпdustrializat.ioп, there >ve!'e special пatioпal reasoпs for tће
Commuпist revolutioп. Revolutioпary movemeпts existed in
semi-feudal Rнssia over half а сепtнrу before the арреаrапсе
of tће Marxists iп the late niпeteeпth ceпtury. Moreover, there
ORIGINS 13
\vere urgeпt апd specific concrete reasons-international, ecoпomic,
political-for revolнtion. The basic reasoп-tћe vi~al
пееd for iпdustrial cћaпge->vas commoп to all tће couпtпes
sнсћ as Russia, СЬlпа, and Yugoslavia, \Vl1ere revolutioп took
place.
It >vas ћistшically iпevitaЬle that. most of tће European
socialist шоvешепts after Mar·x \Vere not опlу шateтialistic and
Marxist, but to а coпsideraЬle degтee ideologically exclн~ive.
Aиaiпst tћem \vere uпited all tће forces of tће old soCiety:
о d .
сlштсћ, scћool, private owпersblp, goverпmeпt an , mm·e Importaпt,
tће vast. pO\ver macћin~ry '~ћiсћ tће Ешореап couпtries
ћаd developed since early times ш tће face of tће constant
coпtineпtal >varв.
Апуопе wћо >vants to cћange tће >voтld fuпdamentally must
first of all interpi'et it fuпdameпtally апd "witlюut епоr."
/Jf::;·· >v movement must Ье i~eologically exclusive, esp:ciall.y
i! if iоп is the опlу 1vay victory сап Ье 'iVOil. Апd If tћ1s
\;\ t is sнccessful, its vету success must streпgtћen its Ье-
, I'e s·':lhd ideas. Тћоugћ successes tћr·онgћ "adveпturous" parliameпtaтy
metlюds апd sti'ikes str·eпgtћeпed tће .тeformist tr~пd
iп the Ge!'maп апd otћer· Social Demoпatic part1es, tће Russшn
\vorkers, \vћо could поt improve their positioп Ьу опе kopeck
\\'itћoнt Ьloody liquidatioпs, ћаd no сћоiсе but to use \veapoпs
to escape despair· апd deatћ Ьу starvatioп.
Тће otheг couпtries of easteп1 Ешоре-Роlапd, Czecћoslovakia,
Ннпgаrу, Rumaпia, апd Bulgaria-do not fall нпdеr
tћis rule at Ieast поt tће fir·st tћтее couпtries. Тћеу did поt
experien~e а revolнtioп, siпce tће Commuпist system w~s imposed
оп them Ьу tће pO\ver of tlle Soviet Arrny. Тћеу d1d n?t
even pтess for indнstr·ial chaпge, at least поt Ьу tће Comшuшst
metћod, for some of tћеш had already attaiпed it. Iп tћese
couпtr·ies, revolutioп >vas imposed from the outside апd frorn
above, Ьу foreign bayoпets апd tЪе macblnery of force. The
Commuпist movements >vere weak, except iп the шost developed
of tће couпtries, Czechoslovakia, 1vhere the Coшmuпist
l4 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
то:е~епt had closely resemЬled leftist апd paгliameпtary
~ooalist movemeпts up to the time of diгect Soviet iпterveпtion
ш th~ 1v~r and the coup d'etat of February 1948. Siпce the Commuшst~
ш these couпtries 1vere 1veak, the substaпce апd forпl
of the1r Commuпism had to Ье ideпtical 1vith that of the
U.S.S.~. The U.S.S.R. imposed its system оп them, апd the
dom:stic Communists adopted it gladly. The 1veaker Corпmuшsп~.
1vas, t~e ~ore it h.ad to imitate еvеп in form its "Ьig
brother -totalitariaп Russiail Commuпism.
Couпtries such as France and Italy, 1vћich had relatively
st:ong Commuпist movements, had а llard time keepina up
;vнh the industrially better-developed couнtries, апd thu; rап
шtо soci~l diffic~lties. ~ince tlley. llad already passed througll
democratrc and шdustпal revolutioпs, their Commuнist move~
me?ts differed gre~tly ћоm those in Russia, Yugoslavia, and
Сhша. Tћerefore, ш France and Italy revolution did not ћаvе
а real chance. Since they 1vere livina and operatina in an eнvi~
ronment of political democracy, eve~ tће Ieaders of tћeir Com~
unist part~es 1~ere поt аЬlе to free tћeшselves entirely of parllameпtary
Illusюпs. As far as revolutioп 1vas сопсеrпеd, they
teпded to rely mot·e оп the iпterпatioпal Commuпist move·
meпt апd tћ~ aid of the U .S.S.~ tl:aн оп tћeir o>vn revolutioпary
po1~er. Tћerr follo1ver~, coпSideгшg tћeir leaders to Ье fighters
agat~st poverty апd misery, пa'ively believed tћat tће party 1vas
fightшg for а br·oader апd truer deшocracy.
Moder~п Commuпism Ьеgап as ап idea 1vitћ the iпceptioп of
moder~ шdustry. It is dyiпg out or beiпg elimiпated iп tћose
c~uпtrres 1vhe:re iпdustrial developшent has acbleved its basic
a1ms. It flouriSћes iп those couпtries 1vhere tbls ћаs поt yet
happeпed.
.Тће historical role of Commuпism iп tће uпdeveloped count:
Ies has. det,:rmiпed the course and the character of the revolutюп
whкh It has ћаd to briпg about.
Character of the Revolution
1.
History sh01vs that in countries where Commuпist revolutions
have taken place other parties too have been dissatisfied
1vith existiпg coпditioпs. The best example is Russia, where the
party which accomplished the Cornmunist revolution 1vas поt
фе опlу revolutionary рат-tу.
However, опlу the Communist paгties were both revolutioпary
iп their opposition to the status quo апd stauпch and
coпsistent iп their support of t.he iпdustrial transforrnatioп. Iп
practice, tbls meant а radical destruction of estaЬlished O>mership
relatioпs. No other party 1veпt so far in t.his respect. None
1vas "industrial" to that degree.
It is less clear 1vhy these parties had to Ье socialist iп their
program. Under the back1vard coпditions existiпg iп Czarist
Russia, capitalist private 01mership not опlу sho1ved itself incapaЬle
of rapid iпdustrial tr·aпsformation, but actually obstructed
it. The private property class had developed iп а
couпtry iп 1vhich extrernely po1verful feudal t·elatioпships still
existed, 1vhile monopolies of rnore developed countries retained
their grip оп this enormous area abouпding in ra1v rnaterials
a!ld markets.
Czarist Russia, accordiпg to its history, had to Ье а latecomer
15
то:е~епt had closely resemЬled leftist апd paгliameпtary
~ooalist movemeпts up to the time of diгect Soviet iпterveпtion
ш th~ 1v~r and the coup d'etat of February 1948. Siпce the Commuшst~
ш these couпtries 1vere 1veak, the substaпce апd forпl
of the1r Commuпism had to Ье ideпtical 1vith that of the
U.S.S.~. The U.S.S.R. imposed its system оп them, апd the
dom:stic Communists adopted it gladly. The 1veaker Corпmuшsп~.
1vas, t~e ~ore it h.ad to imitate еvеп in form its "Ьig
brother -totalitariaп Russiail Commuпism.
Couпtries such as France and Italy, 1vћich had relatively
st:ong Commuпist movements, had а llard time keepina up
;vнh the industrially better-developed couнtries, апd thu; rап
шtо soci~l diffic~lties. ~ince tlley. llad already passed througll
democratrc and шdustпal revolutioпs, their Commuнist move~
me?ts differed gre~tly ћоm those in Russia, Yugoslavia, and
Сhша. Tћerefore, ш France and Italy revolution did not ћаvе
а real chance. Since they 1vere livina and operatina in an eнvi~
ronment of political democracy, eve~ tће Ieaders of tћeir Com~
unist part~es 1~ere поt аЬlе to free tћeшselves entirely of parllameпtary
Illusюпs. As far as revolutioп 1vas сопсеrпеd, they
teпded to rely mot·e оп the iпterпatioпal Commuпist move·
meпt апd tћ~ aid of the U .S.S.~ tl:aн оп tћeir o>vn revolutioпary
po1~er. Tћerr follo1ver~, coпSideгшg tћeir leaders to Ье fighters
agat~st poverty апd misery, пa'ively believed tћat tће party 1vas
fightшg for а br·oader апd truer deшocracy.
Moder~п Commuпism Ьеgап as ап idea 1vitћ the iпceptioп of
moder~ шdustry. It is dyiпg out or beiпg elimiпated iп tћose
c~uпtrres 1vhe:re iпdustrial developшent has acbleved its basic
a1ms. It flouriSћes iп those couпtries 1vhere tbls ћаs поt yet
happeпed.
.Тће historical role of Commuпism iп tће uпdeveloped count:
Ies has. det,:rmiпed the course and the character of the revolutюп
whкh It has ћаd to briпg about.
Character of the Revolution
1.
History sh01vs that in countries where Commuпist revolutions
have taken place other parties too have been dissatisfied
1vith existiпg coпditioпs. The best example is Russia, where the
party which accomplished the Cornmunist revolution 1vas поt
фе опlу revolutionary рат-tу.
However, опlу the Communist paгties were both revolutioпary
iп their opposition to the status quo апd stauпch and
coпsistent iп their support of t.he iпdustrial transforrnatioп. Iп
practice, tbls meant а radical destruction of estaЬlished O>mership
relatioпs. No other party 1veпt so far in t.his respect. None
1vas "industrial" to that degree.
It is less clear 1vhy these parties had to Ье socialist iп their
program. Under the back1vard coпditions existiпg iп Czarist
Russia, capitalist private 01mership not опlу sho1ved itself incapaЬle
of rapid iпdustrial tr·aпsformation, but actually obstructed
it. The private property class had developed iп а
couпtry iп 1vhich extrernely po1verful feudal t·elatioпships still
existed, 1vhile monopolies of rnore developed countries retained
their grip оп this enormous area abouпding in ra1v rnaterials
a!ld markets.
Czarist Russia, accordiпg to its history, had to Ье а latecomer
15
16 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
with тespect to the industrial revolution. It is the only Ешореап
couпtry 1vhich did поt pass tћrough t.he Reformatioп and
the Reпaissaпce. It did not have anythiпg like t.he medieval
Europeaп city-states. Back1vard, semi-feudal, witћ absolutist
moпarchy апd а bureaucratic centralism, 1vith а rapid iш.теаsе
of t.he proletariat iп several centers, Russia found ћerself in
the wћirlpool of modem world capitalism, and in tће sпares
of the financial interests of t.he gigantic banking centers.
Lenin states iп his work Imperialism, the Final Stage of
Capi:alism tћat t.hree-foшtћs of the capital of tће large baпks in
Rusыa was in the haпds of foreigп capitalists. Trotsky iп his
history of the Russiaп revolution emphasizes that foreigners
coпtrolled forty per cent of the sћares of iпdustrial capital ir1
Russia, and that this percentage >vas еvеп gгeater in some leadiпg
iпdustries. As for Yugoslavia, foreigпers had а decisive
influence in the most impoгtant br·ar1ches of Yugoslav economy.
These facts alone do not ртоvе anytћing. But they sћmv that
foreigtl capitalists used tћeir pmver to сћесk progress in these
countries, to develop tћem exclusively as tћeir О\\'11 sources of
raw materials and cheap labor, 1vith tlle result that tћese nations
became unprogt·essive and even began to decline.
Тће party >vhicћ ћаd tће historic task of carrying out tће
revolution in tћese countries ћаd to Ье anti-capitalistic in its
internal policy апd aпti-impeгialistic in its foreigп policy.
Internally, domestic capital 1vas 1veak, and 1vas lar·gely ап
~nst_rument or affiliate of foreigп capital. It 1vas rюt tће capItalist.
class but aпotller class, tће proletariat 1vћich 1vas arisinofrom
the iпcreasing роvену of tће peasantry, tћat 1vas vitall;
interested iп tће industrial revolutioп. Just as tће elimination
of outrageous exploitation \\'as а шatter of Iife апd deatll for
t.hose wћо already were proletaгians, so 1vas industrialization а
шatter of survival for tћose 1\'ћо in their tнгп wеге about to
become proletarians. Тће movement 1vћiсћ represented bot.h
of tћese ћаd to Ье aпti-capitalistic, tћat is, socialistic in its
ideas, slogans and pledges.
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 17
Тће revolнtioпary party coнld not serioнsly contemplate execнtion
of ап iпdustrial revolнtioп нnless it concentrated all domestic
resoнтces in its o1vn ћапds, particнlarly tlюse of native
capitalists against 1\'hom the шasses 1vere also emЬittered because
of severe exploitatioп апd tће use of inћнmane шethods. Тће
revolutioпary party had to take а siшilar staпd against foreigп
capital.
Other par·ties 1vere uпаЬlе to follo1v а similar program. АП
of tћem eitl1er aspired to а return to tће old system, to preservatioп
of vested, static relatioпships; or at. best, to gradнal and
peaceful development. Even tће paнies 1vhich 1vere anti-capitalistic,
as fог example tће SRs (Socialist-Revolutionaтy Party) in
Russia, aspired to1var·d гeturniпg society to idyllic pтimitive
peasant Ше. Even tће socialist parties sнсћ as tће Mensheviks
in Russia did not go fartћer· tћan to push for tl1e violeпt overtћro>
v of the barriers to fгее capitalist development. Тћеу took
tће poiпt of vie1v t.hat it. >vas пecessary to ћаvе fully developed
capitalism iп иder to arrive at socialism later. Ho1vever, the
pr·oЬlem ћеге 1vas differ·ent; Ьоtћ а гetнrn to tће old system апd
uпћampered development of capitalism 1vеге impossiЬie for
tћese coнntгies. N eitћer solutioп 1vas сараЬlе, нпdеr· tће given
intematioпal and internal coпditions, of resolving tће urgerlt
ргоЬiеm of fнтtћеr· development of these coнntries, i.e., tћeir
industrial r·evolutioпs.
Опlу tће рану 1vhicћ 1vas iп favor of the aпti-capitalist
revolution апd Iapid iпdustгialization ћаd pr-ospects for success.
Obvioнsly tћat party Ьаd to Ье, iп additioп, socialist iп
its coпvictions. But siпce it 1vas oЬliged to operate under prevailiпg
conditioпs iп general, апd iп tће labor or socialist
moveшents, sнсћ а party Ьаd to depeпd ideologically оп tће
сопсерt of tће inevitaЬility апd нsefulпess of modeтn industry
as 1vell as оп tће tenet tћat revolнtion v\'as нпavoidaЬle. This
concept alтeady existed, it \vas песеssагу only to modify it. ТЬе
concept was Marxisш-its 1·evolutioпary aspect. Associatioп 1vitћ
revolutioпю-y Marxisш, ог >9itЬ tће Енгореаn socialist move
with тespect to the industrial revolution. It is the only Ешореап
couпtry 1vhich did поt pass tћrough t.he Reformatioп and
the Reпaissaпce. It did not have anythiпg like t.he medieval
Europeaп city-states. Back1vard, semi-feudal, witћ absolutist
moпarchy апd а bureaucratic centralism, 1vith а rapid iш.теаsе
of t.he proletariat iп several centers, Russia found ћerself in
the wћirlpool of modem world capitalism, and in tће sпares
of the financial interests of t.he gigantic banking centers.
Lenin states iп his work Imperialism, the Final Stage of
Capi:alism tћat t.hree-foшtћs of the capital of tће large baпks in
Rusыa was in the haпds of foreigп capitalists. Trotsky iп his
history of the Russiaп revolution emphasizes that foreigners
coпtrolled forty per cent of the sћares of iпdustrial capital ir1
Russia, and that this percentage >vas еvеп gгeater in some leadiпg
iпdustries. As for Yugoslavia, foreigпers had а decisive
influence in the most impoгtant br·ar1ches of Yugoslav economy.
These facts alone do not ртоvе anytћing. But they sћmv that
foreigtl capitalists used tћeir pmver to сћесk progress in these
countries, to develop tћem exclusively as tћeir О\\'11 sources of
raw materials and cheap labor, 1vith tlle result that tћese nations
became unprogt·essive and even began to decline.
Тће party >vhicћ ћаd tће historic task of carrying out tће
revolution in tћese countries ћаd to Ье anti-capitalistic in its
internal policy апd aпti-impeгialistic in its foreigп policy.
Internally, domestic capital 1vas 1veak, and 1vas lar·gely ап
~nst_rument or affiliate of foreigп capital. It 1vas rюt tће capItalist.
class but aпotller class, tће proletariat 1vћich 1vas arisinofrom
the iпcreasing роvену of tће peasantry, tћat 1vas vitall;
interested iп tће industrial revolutioп. Just as tће elimination
of outrageous exploitation \\'as а шatter of Iife апd deatll for
t.hose wћо already were proletaгians, so 1vas industrialization а
шatter of survival for tћose 1\'ћо in their tнгп wеге about to
become proletarians. Тће movement 1vћiсћ represented bot.h
of tћese ћаd to Ье aпti-capitalistic, tћat is, socialistic in its
ideas, slogans and pledges.
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 17
Тће revolнtioпary party coнld not serioнsly contemplate execнtion
of ап iпdustrial revolнtioп нnless it concentrated all domestic
resoнтces in its o1vn ћапds, particнlarly tlюse of native
capitalists against 1\'hom the шasses 1vere also emЬittered because
of severe exploitatioп апd tће use of inћнmane шethods. Тће
revolutioпary party had to take а siшilar staпd against foreigп
capital.
Other par·ties 1vere uпаЬlе to follo1v а similar program. АП
of tћem eitl1er aspired to а return to tће old system, to preservatioп
of vested, static relatioпships; or at. best, to gradнal and
peaceful development. Even tће paнies 1vhich 1vere anti-capitalistic,
as fог example tће SRs (Socialist-Revolutionaтy Party) in
Russia, aspired to1var·d гeturniпg society to idyllic pтimitive
peasant Ше. Even tће socialist parties sнсћ as tће Mensheviks
in Russia did not go fartћer· tћan to push for tl1e violeпt overtћro>
v of the barriers to fгее capitalist development. Тћеу took
tће poiпt of vie1v t.hat it. >vas пecessary to ћаvе fully developed
capitalism iп иder to arrive at socialism later. Ho1vever, the
pr·oЬlem ћеге 1vas differ·ent; Ьоtћ а гetнrn to tће old system апd
uпћampered development of capitalism 1vеге impossiЬie for
tћese coнntгies. N eitћer solutioп 1vas сараЬlе, нпdеr· tће given
intematioпal and internal coпditions, of resolving tће urgerlt
ргоЬiеm of fнтtћеr· development of these coнntries, i.e., tћeir
industrial r·evolutioпs.
Опlу tће рану 1vhicћ 1vas iп favor of the aпti-capitalist
revolution апd Iapid iпdustгialization ћаd pr-ospects for success.
Obvioнsly tћat party Ьаd to Ье, iп additioп, socialist iп
its coпvictions. But siпce it 1vas oЬliged to operate under prevailiпg
conditioпs iп general, апd iп tће labor or socialist
moveшents, sнсћ а party Ьаd to depeпd ideologically оп tће
сопсерt of tће inevitaЬility апd нsefulпess of modeтn industry
as 1vell as оп tће tenet tћat revolнtion v\'as нпavoidaЬle. This
concept alтeady existed, it \vas песеssагу only to modify it. ТЬе
concept was Marxisш-its 1·evolutioпary aspect. Associatioп 1vitћ
revolutioпю-y Marxisш, ог >9itЬ tће Енгореаn socialist move
18 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
ment, \Vas natural for tће party theп. Lat.er, witћ tће develop·
meпt of tће revolнtioп and with the orgaпizational changes in
tће deyeJoped couпtries, it became just as essential for it to
separ·ate itself from tће reformism of European socialism.
The inevitability of revolution and of rapid industrializatioп,
wћiсћ exacted enormous sacrifices and involved rutbless violence,
required поt only promises but faith in tће possibllity of
tће kingdom of ћeaven on eartћ. Advanciпg, as otћers also do,
aloпg the liпe of least resistaпce, the supporters of revolution
and industrialization often departed from estaЬlisћed Marxist
апd socialist doctriпe. However, it. was impossiЬle for them to
shed the doctrine eпtirely.
Capitalism апd capitalist relatioпsblps were tће proper апd
at the giveп moment the iпevitaЬle forms апd tecћniques Ьу
wћich society expressed its needs and aspirations for improving
апd expandiпg pгoduction. In Great Britain, in the first ћalf
of tће пineteenth сепtuту, capitalism improved and expaпded
production. And just as tће industrialists in Britain had to destroy
the peasantry in order to attain а higћer degree of productioп,
the industrialists, or tће boшgeoisie, in Russia ћаd to
become а Yictim of the industrial revolution. Тће participaпts
and the forms wei"e different, but tће la\v \Vas tће same in both
cases.
In Ьоtћ instances socialism \vas inevitaЬle-as а slogaп апd
pledge, as а faitћ апd а lofty ideal, and, in fact, as а particular
forш of goverпment апd O\vnersblp \vblcћ \vould facilitate the
industrial reYolution and make possiЬle improvement апd ех·
pansioп of productioп.
2.
All the revolutioпs of tће past origiпated after пе\v economic
or social relationsblps ћаd begun to prevail, and the old politi·
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 19
.:;al system had bec~me the sole obstacle to further development.
None of these revolutions soнght апуtћiпg other t.han the
destruction of the old political forms and an ope~ing o.f ~he
1vay for alгeady matшe social forces апd relationsh1ps e~Ist:ng
in tће old society. Even in those cases \vћeie tће reYolнt~oшsts
desired something else, sucћ as tће bнilding of econom1:: a~d
social relationsћips Ьу means of for·ce, as did the ЈасоЬш~ ш
the French revolнtion, tћеу ћаd to accept failшe and Ье S\Vlftly
eliminated.
In all preYious revolutions, force and violence appeared
predomiпantly as а consequence, as an iпstrнmeпt of _ne'v ~нt
already prevailing economic and social fшces апd r.el~tюnshi_PS·
Even 1vћеп fотсе and violeпce surpassed proper l1m1ts ~tmng
tће course of а revolutioп, in the fiпal analysis tће revolutюnary
forces ћаd to Ье directed toward а positive and attain~Ьle. goal.
Јп these cases teпor and despotism tnigћt ћаvе been шеvнаЬlе
but solely tempoтary maпifestatioпs. . .
All so-called bourgeois revolutioпs, \vћetћer acћ1eved Пот
belmv, i.e., \Vitћ participatioп of tће masses as iп Fr~nce, or
from above, i.e., Ьу coup d'etat as in Germaпy нndег B1smar·ck,
ћаd to епd up iп political democracy. Тћаt is uпde.rstaпd~~le.
Tћeir task \Vas cћiefiy to destioy tће old despotlc pollt.Ical
system, and to peтmit tће estaЬlishment of political тelatю~sћips
\Vћiсћ would Ье adequate for ali·eady existing есоrюnнс
and other needs, particularly those concerning tће fтее productioп
of goods. .
Тће case is eпtirely diffeieilt \vith coпtemporary Commuшst
revolutioпs. These тeyolutioпs did not occur Ьесанsе ne\V, let
us say socialist, relationsћips \vere already existiпg in tће econ·
omy, or because capн· all· sm \Vas " overd eve 1о ре d ." Оп the contrary.
Тћеу did occur because capitalism was not fully ~eveloped
and because it \Vas поt аЬlе to carry out the industпal
transfoimation of tће country.
In Ft-aпce capitalism had already prevailed in the economy,
ment, \Vas natural for tће party theп. Lat.er, witћ tће develop·
meпt of tће revolнtioп and with the orgaпizational changes in
tће deyeJoped couпtries, it became just as essential for it to
separ·ate itself from tће reformism of European socialism.
The inevitability of revolution and of rapid industrializatioп,
wћiсћ exacted enormous sacrifices and involved rutbless violence,
required поt only promises but faith in tће possibllity of
tће kingdom of ћeaven on eartћ. Advanciпg, as otћers also do,
aloпg the liпe of least resistaпce, the supporters of revolution
and industrialization often departed from estaЬlisћed Marxist
апd socialist doctriпe. However, it. was impossiЬle for them to
shed the doctrine eпtirely.
Capitalism апd capitalist relatioпsblps were tће proper апd
at the giveп moment the iпevitaЬle forms апd tecћniques Ьу
wћich society expressed its needs and aspirations for improving
апd expandiпg pгoduction. In Great Britain, in the first ћalf
of tће пineteenth сепtuту, capitalism improved and expaпded
production. And just as tће industrialists in Britain had to destroy
the peasantry in order to attain а higћer degree of productioп,
the industrialists, or tће boшgeoisie, in Russia ћаd to
become а Yictim of the industrial revolution. Тће participaпts
and the forms wei"e different, but tће la\v \Vas tће same in both
cases.
In Ьоtћ instances socialism \vas inevitaЬle-as а slogaп апd
pledge, as а faitћ апd а lofty ideal, and, in fact, as а particular
forш of goverпment апd O\vnersblp \vblcћ \vould facilitate the
industrial reYolution and make possiЬle improvement апd ех·
pansioп of productioп.
2.
All the revolutioпs of tће past origiпated after пе\v economic
or social relationsblps ћаd begun to prevail, and the old politi·
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 19
.:;al system had bec~me the sole obstacle to further development.
None of these revolutions soнght апуtћiпg other t.han the
destruction of the old political forms and an ope~ing o.f ~he
1vay for alгeady matшe social forces апd relationsh1ps e~Ist:ng
in tће old society. Even in those cases \vћeie tће reYolнt~oшsts
desired something else, sucћ as tће bнilding of econom1:: a~d
social relationsћips Ьу means of for·ce, as did the ЈасоЬш~ ш
the French revolнtion, tћеу ћаd to accept failшe and Ье S\Vlftly
eliminated.
In all preYious revolutions, force and violence appeared
predomiпantly as а consequence, as an iпstrнmeпt of _ne'v ~нt
already prevailing economic and social fшces апd r.el~tюnshi_PS·
Even 1vћеп fотсе and violeпce surpassed proper l1m1ts ~tmng
tће course of а revolutioп, in the fiпal analysis tће revolutюnary
forces ћаd to Ье directed toward а positive and attain~Ьle. goal.
Јп these cases teпor and despotism tnigћt ћаvе been шеvнаЬlе
but solely tempoтary maпifestatioпs. . .
All so-called bourgeois revolutioпs, \vћetћer acћ1eved Пот
belmv, i.e., \Vitћ participatioп of tће masses as iп Fr~nce, or
from above, i.e., Ьу coup d'etat as in Germaпy нndег B1smar·ck,
ћаd to епd up iп political democracy. Тћаt is uпde.rstaпd~~le.
Tћeir task \Vas cћiefiy to destioy tће old despotlc pollt.Ical
system, and to peтmit tће estaЬlishment of political тelatю~sћips
\Vћiсћ would Ье adequate for ali·eady existing есоrюnнс
and other needs, particularly those concerning tће fтее productioп
of goods. .
Тће case is eпtirely diffeieilt \vith coпtemporary Commuшst
revolutioпs. These тeyolutioпs did not occur Ьесанsе ne\V, let
us say socialist, relationsћips \vere already existiпg in tће econ·
omy, or because capн· all· sm \Vas " overd eve 1о ре d ." Оп the contrary.
Тћеу did occur because capitalism was not fully ~eveloped
and because it \Vas поt аЬlе to carry out the industпal
transfoimation of tће country.
In Ft-aпce capitalism had already prevailed in the economy,
18 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
ment, \Vas natural for tће party theп. Lat.er, witћ tће develop·
meпt of tће revolнtioп and with the orgaпizational changes in
tће deyeJoped couпtries, it became just as essential for it to
separ·ate itself from tће reformism of European socialism.
The inevitability of revolution and of rapid industrializatioп,
wћiсћ exacted enormous sacrifices and involved rutbless violence,
required поt only promises but faith in tће possibllity of
tће kingdom of ћeaven on eartћ. Advanciпg, as otћers also do,
aloпg the liпe of least resistaпce, the supporters of revolution
and industrialization often departed from estaЬlisћed Marxist
апd socialist doctriпe. However, it. was impossiЬle for them to
shed the doctrine eпtirely.
Capitalism апd capitalist relatioпsblps were tће proper апd
at the giveп moment the iпevitaЬle forms апd tecћniques Ьу
wћich society expressed its needs and aspirations for improving
апd expandiпg pгoduction. In Great Britain, in the first ћalf
of tће пineteenth сепtuту, capitalism improved and expaпded
production. And just as tће industrialists in Britain had to destroy
the peasantry in order to attain а higћer degree of productioп,
the industrialists, or tће boшgeoisie, in Russia ћаd to
become а Yictim of the industrial revolution. Тће participaпts
and the forms wei"e different, but tће la\v \Vas tће same in both
cases.
In Ьоtћ instances socialism \vas inevitaЬle-as а slogaп апd
pledge, as а faitћ апd а lofty ideal, and, in fact, as а particular
forш of goverпment апd O\vnersblp \vblcћ \vould facilitate the
industrial reYolution and make possiЬle improvement апd ех·
pansioп of productioп.
2.
All the revolutioпs of tће past origiпated after пе\v economic
or social relationsblps ћаd begun to prevail, and the old politi·
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 19
.:;al system had bec~me the sole obstacle to further development.
None of these revolutions soнght апуtћiпg other t.han the
destruction of the old political forms and an ope~ing o.f ~he
1vay for alгeady matшe social forces апd relationsh1ps e~Ist:ng
in tће old society. Even in those cases \vћeie tће reYolнt~oшsts
desired something else, sucћ as tће bнilding of econom1:: a~d
social relationsћips Ьу means of for·ce, as did the ЈасоЬш~ ш
the French revolнtion, tћеу ћаd to accept failшe and Ье S\Vlftly
eliminated.
In all preYious revolutions, force and violence appeared
predomiпantly as а consequence, as an iпstrнmeпt of _ne'v ~нt
already prevailing economic and social fшces апd r.el~tюnshi_PS·
Even 1vћеп fотсе and violeпce surpassed proper l1m1ts ~tmng
tће course of а revolutioп, in the fiпal analysis tће revolutюnary
forces ћаd to Ье directed toward а positive and attain~Ьle. goal.
Јп these cases teпor and despotism tnigћt ћаvе been шеvнаЬlе
but solely tempoтary maпifestatioпs. . .
All so-called bourgeois revolutioпs, \vћetћer acћ1eved Пот
belmv, i.e., \Vitћ participatioп of tће masses as iп Fr~nce, or
from above, i.e., Ьу coup d'etat as in Germaпy нndег B1smar·ck,
ћаd to епd up iп political democracy. Тћаt is uпde.rstaпd~~le.
Tћeir task \Vas cћiefiy to destioy tће old despotlc pollt.Ical
system, and to peтmit tће estaЬlishment of political тelatю~sћips
\Vћiсћ would Ье adequate for ali·eady existing есоrюnнс
and other needs, particularly those concerning tће fтее productioп
of goods. .
Тће case is eпtirely diffeieilt \vith coпtemporary Commuшst
revolutioпs. These тeyolutioпs did not occur Ьесанsе ne\V, let
us say socialist, relationsћips \vere already existiпg in tће econ·
omy, or because capн· all· sm \Vas " overd eve 1о ре d ." Оп the contrary.
Тћеу did occur because capitalism was not fully ~eveloped
and because it \Vas поt аЬlе to carry out the industпal
transfoimation of tће country.
In Ft-aпce capitalism had already prevailed in the economy,
20
ТНЕ NEW CLASS
in social relationships, and even iп the puЬlic conscience pтior
t . . .
о. шсер~ю? of the revolutюn. The case is hardly comparaЬ!e
With soctallsm in Russia, China, or Yugoslavia.
The leaders of the Russian revolutioп themselves were юvare
of this fa~t. Speaking at the Seventh Congress of the Russiaп
Commuшst Party оп March 7, 1918, while the revolutioп 1vas
still in progress, Lenin said:
· · . One of the fundamental differences bet\veeп bourgeois
ап~ socia!ist revolutions is that in а bourgeois revolution,
wh~ch aпses from feudalisш, new econoшic organizations
wlнc!1 graduaiiy с~апgе all aspects of feudai society are progresSively
created ш the midst of the old order. In accoшplishiпg.
this t~sk, ev~ry _boшgeois revolution accoшplishes
aii that .Is .r·eqшred o_f It:. It. hasteпs the grmvth of capitalisш.
А socialist r·evolutюп IS ш ап eпtir·ely differ-eпt sitпatioп.
То the. exteпt that а couпtr-y \vhich had to begiп а socialist
revolutюi_I,_ because of the vagaries of history, is back1vard,
the traпsltloп fr-oш old capitalist relatioпs to socialist relatioпs
is iпcreasiпgly difficult ....
The .diffeг~пce Ье~1vееп socialist revolutioпs апd bourgeois
I"evolutюпs l1es speCifically iп tће fact tћat. iп the Iatter case
estaЬlished forms of capitalist Ielatioпs exi~t, 1vhile the sovie~
power-the proletaiiat-does поt attaiп such relatioпs, if ;ve
exclude tће шost de;reloped forms of capitalisш, 1vhich actually
eпco~passed а smaii nuшber of top iпdustries апd опlу very
scaпtily touclled agriculture,
I quote Lenin, but I could quote any leader of the Communist
тevolution and пumerous other authors, as confirmatioп
of the fact that. settled тelationships did not exist for the
Pe;v society, but t~at someoпe, in this case the "soviet po1ver,"
must tћerefore bUild them. If the ne1v "socialist" relatioпships
had ~een devel?ped to the fullest in the country in i\'hich Commuшst
тevolutюп 1vas аЬiе to emerge victor-ious, ther·e 1vould
have been по need for so many assurances, disseitatioпs, and
efforts embracing the 'Ъuildiпg of socialism."
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 21
This leads to an appareпt contradictioп. If tlle conditions
for а пеw society 1vere not sufficiently prevalent, tllen wllo
needed the revolution? Moreover, hoiv ;vas the тe;rolutioп possiЬle?
Ho1v could it survive in ;rie1v of the fact that the пеw
social relatioпships 1vere not yet in the formative process in
the old society?
No revolutioп or party had ever before set itself to the task
of building social relatioпships or а ne;v society. But this 1vas
the primary objective of the Commuпist Ievolution.
Communist leaders, thougll no better acquaiпted than others
with the la1vs 1vhich goveш society, discover·ed that in the countтy
in 1vhich theiт revolution 1vas possiЬle, industrialization 'Nas
also possiЬle, particularly when it involved а tтansformation of
society iп keeping 1vith their ideological hypothesis. Experieпce
-the success of revolution uпder "unfavoтaЬle" conditionsconfirmed
this for them; the "building of socialism" did like-
1\'ise. This str·eпgthened their· illusion that they kne>v the laws
of social development. In fact, they 1vere in tЪе position of
making а Ьlueprint for а ne;v society, and theп of stю·ting to
build it, making coпections here and leaving out sometblng
tl1ere, all the while adhering closely to their plaпs.
Industтialization, as ап inevitaЬle, legitimate necessity of
society, and the Communist 1vay of accomplishing it, joiпed
forces in tЪе couпtгies of Corшnunist revolutions.
However, neither of tllese, though tl1ey progressed togetller
and on paгallel tracks, could achieve success oveшight. After
the completion of the revolution, someone had to shoulder the
responsiЬility for industrialization. Iп the West, tbls тоlе 1vas
taken over Ьу tће economic forces of capitalism liЬerated from
the despotic political chains, while in the countries of Communist
revolutions no similar forces existed and, thus, tlleir
function had to Ье taken over Ьу the revolutionary organs
themselves, the new authority, that is, the revolutionary party.
In earlier revolutions, revolutionary force and violence became
а hindrance to the есопоmу as soor1 as the old order 1vas
22
overthrmvn In С . ТЛЕ NEW CLASS
· ommuшst revolutio 1 f
а condition for further d
1
1 s, orce and vio1ence are
Words of earlier revo1ut1. eve ~рmещ and even progress. In the
onaпes for·ce and . I а necessary evil and ' vю ence were on1y
. а means to an end I h
muшsts force and . 1 . · Il t е 1vords of Cornf
' vю ence are elev t d Ь о а cu1t and an ult" а е to t е lofty position
1vh1. ch made up 1Шаtе стоаi In the t h I а ? · pas ' t е с asses and forces
. ne\v society already xi t d Ь f
tюn erupted Th С . е s е е ore the revoluhave
had to ~reat е ommuш.st revo1utions are the fi.r-st 1Vhich
Even as tl ela ~e\v ~Oc1ety and ne\v social fOI·ces.
le revo utюns ш th vV h d .
democracy after aii the "аЬ е . es:. а 1~~v~taЬly to end in
the East, the revolutions had ;:::~:7s апd . wнhdrawa1s," iп
of terror апd vio1eпce in the W п despot1sm. The methods
lous, апd еvеп а hiпdraпce iп est be~~m~ пeedless апd ridicuthe
revolutioпaries апd rетт 1 a~comp 1Slнng the revo1ution for
' о п tюnагу part" 1 case was the opposite. Not on1 d"d d ~es. n the East, tће
East Ьесапsе the tгaпsfo . у 1 . espot1sm coпtiпue in the
· пnatюn of шdustг ·
t1me, Ьпt, as 1ve shaii see 1ater· "t 1 . d у reqшred so mucll
t"I on h ad taken р1асе. · ' 1 aste lonc~:т:> aft er ш· d ustrializa-
з.
TI!ere are other basic d1"ff
1 . erences betw С .
vo utюns апd ear1ier ones Е 1" een ommuшst rehad
reached the point of re ·d. аг I~r revolutions, though tћеу
а IПess 1n an
Were unaЬle to br·eak out with economy and а society,
We now knmv the geneгal cond" .оиt advaпtageous conditions.
and success of а гevolutioп Н Itюns necessary for the erпption
addition to these geпerai .. o;e;er, e~ery revolution has, in
make its planning and ехе c~n Itюп~, Its pecuiiarites whicћ w cutюn possiЬle
. ar, or more precisely, natioпai соЈ .
zаtюп, was unnecessaгy for ast Iap~e of tће state orgaпiIarger
ones. Until no,v ћоw р ;.evolutюns, at Ieast for the
for the victory of Со~ ~ver, t Is ћ~s been а basic conditioл
muшst revolutюns ть· . . Is Is еvеп valid
1
t .~.
1
1
CHARACTER OF Tl:fE REVOLUTION 23
for Chiпa; true, there the revolution began prior to the Јарапеsе
iпvasion, but it coпtinued for an entire decade to spread
апd finally to emeгge victшioпs with tће епd of tће war. The
Spaпisћ revolution of 1936, 1vblcћ could ћаvе been an exception,
did поt have time to transfor·m itself iпto а purely Comrnunist
revolution, апd, theiefore, пever emerged victorious.
Тће reason 1var 1vas necessary for tlle Commuпist. revolutioп,
or tће do1vnfall of tће stat.e machinery, nшst Ье sougћt in the
immaturity of tће есопоmу and society. Iп а serioпs collapse
of а system, апd particulaтly iп а war 1vhicЪ ћаs Ьееп uпsuccessful
for tlle exist.ing тuling circles and state system, а small but
well-organized апd disciplined group is iпevitaЬly аЬlе to take
autlюrity in its haпds.
Tћus at the time of tће Oct.ober Revolution the Communist
Par·ty ћаd about 80,000 members. Тће Yugoslav Commппist
Рану began the 1941 revolution with about 10,000 members.
То grasp po1ver, the support апd active paтticipation of at 1east
а part of tће people is necessary, but in every case the party
which leads tће revolution апd assпmes power is а minority
gгoup тelyiпg exclusively on exceptionally favoraЬle conditions.
Furtћeпnor·e, such а party caпnot Ье а majority group
пntil it becomes the permanently estaЬlished authority.
The accomplishment of sucћ а grandiose task-tћe destruction
of а social order and tће building of а пеw society when
conditions for sucћ ап undertaking are rюt propitioпs in the
есоnошу or society-is а task аЬlе to attтact опlу а minority,
and at that, only those 1vћо believe fanat.ically in its possiЬilities.
Special conditions апd а particular party are basic characteristics
of Coшmuпist revolutioпs.
The achievemeпt of еvегу тevolпtioп, as well as of every
victor·y in 1var, deшaпds ceпtralization of all forces. Accordiпg
to the Maltlшsiaп theory, the Fr·eпch revolutioп 1vas the fir·st
iп whicЪ "all tће resources of а people at. 1var 1vere placed iп
the hands of the authorities: people, food, clotћiпg." Tћis шust
Ье tће case to an еvеп greater degree in а Commuпist "im
ТНЕ NEТV CLASS
24
mature" revolution: not only all material means but all in~
tellectual means must fall into the hands of the party, and the
party itself IШISt become politically, and as an organization,
ceпtralized to the fullest exteпt. Опlу Commuпist parties,
politically uпited, firmly grouped arouпd the ceпter, апd possessiпcr
ideпtical ideolocrical vie>vpoiпts, are аЫе to carry out
~ ~
such а тevolutioп. Ceпtralizatioп of all forces апd means as well as some kind
of political uпity of the revolutionary parties are essential co~ditioпs
for every successful тevolutioп. Fот the Cornmнmst
гevolнtion these coпditioпs ате еvеп mоте irnpoтtaпt, since
fгom tlтe very becriппiпcr tlle Communists exclude every otlleт
independent poli'"t ical g~r oнp or party fгom beiпg an ally of
their рагtу. At the same time they demand нпifoтmity of all
vie>vpoiпts, iпclнdiпg pr·actical political vieiVS as >vell as theoretical,
pllilosopllical, and еvеп moral vie>vs. 'ТЪе fact tlтat the
left-of-ceпteт SR's (Socialist-Revolutionaries) paтticipated in
tlтe October Revolution, апd tlтat. iпdividнals апd groups from
оtlтет parties paгticipated iп tlтe тevolutioпs iп Clliпa and Yнgoslavia,
does поt disprove Ьнt таtlтет сопfiгшs this propositioп:
these groнps \vете опlу collaboratoтs of tЪе Comrnнпist Party,
апd only to а fixed degтee in the stтuggle. After the revolution
tl-tese collaboт-atiпg par·ties \vere disper·sed, or tlley dissolved of
tlleiт mm ассогd апd шer·ged ivit1:t the Communist Ратtу. The
Bolsheviks roнted the left-of-ceпter SR's as sооп as tЪе latteт
ivislтed to become iпdependent, wllile tlle noп-Comnшnist
groнps iп Yнgoslavia and China that had suppoтted the revolutioп
had, in the meantirne, тenounced every one of theiт political
acti\тities.
The earlier тevolutions ivere поt caпied out Ьу а siпgle political
gт·онр. То Ье sнre, in the course of а тevolution iпdividual
groнps pтessured апd destтoyed оне aпother; but, taken as а
whole, the 1·evolпtioп \vas not the >vork of only опе gт·oup. lп
the Freпcll revolнtioп tlтe ЈасоЬiпs succeeded iп maiпtaiпiпg
theiт dictatorship fот а brief period опlу. Napoleoп's dictatoт-
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 25
ship, which eшe;:-ged fгоП: the revolution, sigтtified both the
end of the ]асоЬ111 тevolпtюn and tlтe becrinniпcr of the 1 f
h ь . . ~ ~ rнео
t е ouтge01s1e. In еvету case, although one party played d _
. . l . 1 . а е ciSIVe то е 111 ~ 1~ earl1eт revolutions, the other paтties did not.
surr~пdeт ~hе1т 111dependence. Although supp1·essioп and dispersюn
e~пsted, they could Ье enforced only fот а brief time.
The parties could n_ot Ье destroyed and would always emerge
anew. Even the Рапs Commuпe, ivhich the Comrnunists take
as th.e foreтuппer .o f their тevolution and theiт state, w as а
mult1-party тevolutюп.
. А ратtу may have played the chief, and еvеп an exclusive, role
~n а pa~tlcu1aт phase of а тevolution. But no pтevious party was
Ideo1oglcally, от as. an organization, centтalized to tlтe degree
that _tlтe Comm_umst Party was. Neitheт the Puritaпs iп tЪе
Engllsh revolutюп пот the JacoЬins in the French revolution
\vere bound Ьу tlтe same phi1osophical and ideo1ogical vieщ,
althoнgh tlte first belonged to а т·eligious sect. From the orcran·- . 1 . . ~ 1
zatюna po111t of v1ew the JacoЬins were а fedeтation of clubs;
tће ~uпtans i~ere not even that. Only contempoтary Comnш:
нst r·evol~tюns ~ushed compнlsory pю·ties to the foгefгont,
iVhlch ivere ldeo1ogтcally and organizationally monolithic.
In every case one thiпg is ceгtain: iп all earlieт revolutions
th_e песеssну for ~e:olutionar·y methods and parties disappea1·ed
wlth the епd of c1~Il war· and of foreign intervention, and these
meth.ods and p_artles ћаd to Ье done аv.тау ivith. After Commuшst
тevolutюns, the Coшmunists coпtinue >vitlт both the
met~ods and the forms of tће тevolution, апd theiг рагtу soon
atta~ns the fullest degree of ceпtгalism апd ideolocrical excluslveness.
~
. Lenin exp:essly emphasized tbls during the тevolutioп itself
111 enumeтatшg his conditions fог acceptance in the Comin.
tern:*
_In the present epoch o_f acute civil '\Var, а Communist Party
will Ье аЫе to perfoпn нs duty only if it is oгgaпized in the
• Selected Works, Vol. Х; New York, International PuЬlishers, 1936.
26 ТНЕ NEW CL.ASS
most centralized manner, only if iron discipline bordering on
military discipline prevails in it, and if its party center is а
powerful and authoritative organ, wieldiпg "\Vide powers апd
епјоуiпg the uпiveгsal coпfidence of the members of the party.
And to this, Stalin appended, in Foundations of Leninism:*
This is the positioп iп regard to discipliпe iп the party in
the period of struggle precediпg the acћievemeilt of the
dictatorship.
The same, but to ан еvеп greater degree, must Ье said
about discipliпe iп the party after the dictatorsћip has been
achieved.
The revolutionary atmosphere and vigilaпce, insistence on
ideological unity, political and ideological exclusiveness, political
апd other centralism do not cease after assuming control.
On t.he contt-ary, they become even m01·e intensified.
Ruthlessness in met.hods, exclusiveness in ideas, and monopoly
in authority in the earlier revolнtions lasted more or less as
lono- as the revolutions themselves. Since revolution in the
с
Commuпist revolution 'vas only t.he fiiSt act of the despotic
and totalitariaп authority of а gгoup, it is difficult to for·ecast
the duratioп of that authority.
In earlier revolutions, iпcludiпg the Reigн of Тепоr iн
France, superficial attentioп 'vas paid to the elimination of real
oppositionists. No atteпtioп 'vas paid to the eliminatioн of those
who might become oppositionists. The eтadication апd persecutioп
of some social or ideological gтoups in the religious wars
of the Middle Ages was the only exceptioп to this. From theory
and practice, Communists kпo'v that they are in conflict wit.h
all other classes апd ideologies, and behave accOI'dingly. Тћеу
are fightiпg against not only actual but also poteпtial oppositioп.
In the Baltic count1·ies, thousands of people 'vere liquidated
overnight on the basis of documents indicatiпg previously
held ideological апd political views. Тће massacre of several
• New York, International PuЬlishers. 1939.
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 27
thousaпd Polisћ officers iн tlle Katyn Forest was of similar
cћaracter. Iп the case of Communism, long after the тevolution
is over, teп01·ist and oppгessive metlюds continue to Ье нsed.
Sometimes these аге perfected and become more extensive than
in the revolutioп, as in the case of the liquidation of the Kulaks.
Ideological· exclusiveness and intolerance are intensified after
the revolution. Even wheп it is аЬlе to reduce physical oppression,
the tendency of the ruling ратtу is to strengtheн the
prescriЬed ideology-Maixism-Leнinisш.
Earlier revolutioпs, par·ticularly the so-called bourgeois опеs,
attached coнsideraЬle sigнificaпce to the estaЬlishment of individual
freedoms immediately follo,viнg cessation of the revolutionary
t.eпor. Even the revolutionaries coпsidered it importaпt
to assure the legal statнs of the citizeшy. Iпdepeпdent
admiпisti·ation of justice '\Vas an iпevitaЬle fiпal result of all
these revolutioпs. The Commuпist regime in the U.S.S.R. is
still remote from iпdepeпdent admiпistration of justice after·
forty years of teпure. The fiнal тesults of ea1·lier 1·evolutioпs
we1·e often gr·eater legal security апd greater civil тights. This
cannot Ье said of the Communist тevolutioп.
There is aпother· vast differeнce bet"\veen the earlier revolutions
and contemporary Commuпist ones. Ea1·lier revolutions,
especially the greater онеs, '\ver·e а pl'Oduct of the stтuggles of
the 'vorking c1asses, but tћеiг ultimate results fell to anotћer
class uнder wћose intellectual and often organizational leadersblp
tће revolutioпs 'vете accomplished. Тће bourgeoisie, in
wћose name the revolution '\Vas caпied out, to а coпsideraЬle
extent ћaтvested the fruits of the struggles of tће peasaпts анd
sans-culottes. Тће masses of а нation also pai'ticipated in а
Communist revolutioп; ho,vever, tће ћuits of revolution do
поt fall to tЪem, but to the Ьuтеаuстасу. For the bureaucracy
is nothing else but the party '\Vhich caпied out the r·evolution.
In Commuпist revolutioнs, the revolutioпary шovemeнts 'vblch
carried out the revolutioпs а1·е поt liquidated. Commuпist revolutions
may "eat tћeir own childrer1," but поt all of theш.
28 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
In fact, on coшpletion of а Coшmunist revolution, rut~less
and нnderhanded deals ineYitaЬly are made between varюus
groups and factions which disagree about the path of the future.
Mutual accusations a1~vays reYolve around dogmatic proof as
to who is "objectively" or "subjectively" а. gre~;er :о~пtе~:
revolнtionary or agent of internal and fore1gn cap1tallsm.
Reo"'- ardless of the manner in 1vhich these disagreemerlts ar.e resolved, the group that emerges victorious is the one tb~t :s
the most consistent and determined supporter of industnallzation
alono- Communist priпciples, i.e., оп the basis of total
party moпo~oly, particularly of state organs iп control of productioп.
The Commuпist revolution does поt. devour those
of its children 1vho are пeeded for its future course-for iпdustrializatioп.
Revolutioпaries who accepted the ideas апd slogans
of the revolutioп literally, пalvely believiпg iп their materializatioп,
are usually Iiquidated. The group wbich understood
that revolutioп 1vould secure authority, on а social-politicalCommunist
basis, as ап instrument of future industrial transformation,
emerges victorious.
The Coпнnunist revolutioп is the first in which the revolutionaries
and their allies, particularly the authority-1vielding
group, survived tће revolution. Similar groups iпevitaЬly failed
in earlier ones. The Communist revolution is tће first to Ье
carried out to tће advantage of tће revolutionaries. They, and
the bureaucracy which forms around tћem, ћarYest its fruits.
This creates in tbem, and in tће broader ecћelons of the party,
the illusioп tћat theirs is the first revolution that remained tr·ue
to the slogans оп its banпers.
4.
The illusioпs wћiсћ tће Communist revolution creates about
its real aims are more pennanent and extensive than those of
earlier reYolнtions because the Communist revolutioп resolves
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 29
relationsllips in а ne>v 1vay and brings about а ne1v fonn of
mmeгship. Earlier revolutions, too, inevitaЬly resulted in шајоr
or minor changes in property relatioпships. But iп those revolutioпs
опе form of pтivate Oivneгship superseded tће others. In
the Communist reyolution this is not the case; tће change is
radical and deep-гooted, and а collective o>mership suppresses
priYate Oimeгsћip.
The Communist reYolution, >vhile still in process of development,
destroys capitalist, Iand-lюlding, priYate O'i\'11ership, i.e.,
that o>mership \\'hich makes use of foreign labor forces. This
immediately пeates the belief tћat tће reYolutionaтy promise
of а new realm of equality and justice is being fulfilled. The
party, or the state autћOiity uпder its coпtrol, simultaneously
undertakes extensiYe measшes for industrialization. This also
inteпsifies the belief that the time of freedom from >Vaпt ћаs
finally arrived. Despotism and oppression are there, but. they
ar·e accepted as tempoгary manifestatioпs, to last опlу uпtll tће
opposition of the expгopгiated authorities апd couпter-revolutioпaт
·ies is stifled, апd the iпdustгial traпsfoгmatioп is cornpleted.
SeYeral esseпtial chano-es occur iп the very process of
"' iпdustгialization. Iпdustгializatioп in а back>vard couпtry, especially
if it has по assistance апd is hiпdeгed from. аЬго_аd,
demaпds coпcentгatioп of all mateгial гesouгces. N atюnalizatioп
of iпdustгial pr-oper·ty апd the land is tће first coпceпtr-ation
of pr·operty in the haпds of the ne>v regime. However, it does
not, and can not, stop at this. . .
Тће ne>vly or·io-inated o>mer-ship inevitaЬly comes ш conflict
with other form~ of o;vnership. Тће ne1v o>mel'Ship irnposes
itself Ьу force on smaller owners who do поt employ someone
else's rnaпpo>ver, or to >vћom such manpo>ver is unessential, i.e.,
on craftsmen, >vorkers, small comrnercial mer·chants, and peasants.
This expгopriation of small property o'vneгs is effected
even >vhen it is not done for economic mot.ives, i.e., iп OI"der
to attaiп а ћigher degree of productivity.
30 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
In the course of industrialization, the property of those elernents
who were not opposed to, or even assisted, the revolution
is taken over. As а rnatter of forrn, the state also becornes the
o~vпer of this property. The state adrninisters and rnanages the
property. Private ownership ceases, or decreases to ~ rol~ of
secondary irnportance, but its cornplete disappearance IS subзect
to the 1vhirn of the ne1v rnen in authority.
This is experienced Ьу the Cornrnunists and Ьу sorne rnernbers
of the rnasses as а cornplete liquidation of classes and the
realization of а classless society. In fact, the old pre-revolutionary
classes do disappear ~vith tlle cornpletion of iпdust.rialization
and collectivization. There rernains the spontaneous and unorgaпized
displeasure of tlle rnass of the people-a displeasure
1vhich neither ceases nor abates. Cornrnunist delusions and selfdeceit
about the "remnants" and "influence" of the "class
enemy" still persist. But the illusion that the long-drearned classless
society arises Ьу tllese rneans is cornplete, at least for the
Cornrnunists themselves.
Еvету revolutioп, and even every 1var, пeates illusions апd
is coпducted in the nаше of unrealizaЬle ideals. During the
struo-o-le the ideals seern real enoug-ћ for tl1e combatants; Ьу the 1:>1:> ~
end they often cease to exist. Not so in the case of а Comrnuпist
revolution. Those who саrту out the Cornmunist revolution as
well as those anюng the lo1ver echelons persist iп their illusions
long after the aгrned struggle. Despite oppression, despotism,
unconcealed confiscatioпs, and pтivileges of the ruliпg echeloпs,
sorne of tl1e people-aпd especially the Comrnunists-retain the
illusions contained in their slogaпs.
Although the Comrnunist r·evolution may start with the rnost
idealistic concepts, calling fш 1vondeгful heroisrn апd gigantic
effort, it s01vs the greatest and the rnost per·manent illusions.
Revolutions are iпevitaЬle in the lifetime of natioпs. They
rnay result in despotisrn, but. they also launch nations оп paths
previously Ьlocked to them.
The Communist r·evolutioп caпnot attain а single one of the
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 31
ideals пarned as its rnotivating force. However, Communist revolution
has brought about а measure of industrial civilization
t.o vast areas of Енторе and Asia. Iп this way, rnaterial bases
have actнally been created for а future freer society. Thus 1vhile
bringing about. the rnost complete despotisrn, the Commuпist
revolution has also created the basis for the abolition of despotism.
As the nineteeпth ceпtury intтoduced rnodern industry
to the vVest, the hventieth century will iпt.roduce rnodern industry
to the East. The shado~v of Leпin extends over the vast
expanse of Eurasia iп one way or another. Iп despotic form iп
Chiпa, in dernocratic forrn in Iпdia апd Burma, all of the
remaiпing Asiatic апd other natioпs are iпevitaЬly eпteriпg an
industrial revolutioп. Тће Russiaп revolutioп initiated tћis
pr·ocess. Тће process rernaiпs the iпcalculaЬle and historically
significaпt fact of tће revolutioп.
5.
It rnigћt. appear tћat Cornrnunist revolutions are rnostly historical
deceptioпs апd сћапсе occurтeпces. In а sense this is
true: по otћer revolutions ћаvе required so many exceptional
coпditioпs; по otћer revolutioпs pтornised so mucћ апd accomplisћed
so little. Dernagogueiy апd rnisrepreseпtatioп are iпevitaЬle
arnoпg tl1e Comrnuпist leaders since tћеу are forced to
promise tће rnost ideal society and "abolitioп of every exploitation."
Ho1vever, it саппоt Ье said tћat the Commuпists deceived
tће people, tћat is, tћat tl1ey purposely and consciously did
somethiпg differ·eпt. frorn -vvћat tћеу had pгornised. Тће fact
is simply tћis: tћеу 1ver·e uпаЬlе to accomplisћ that in -vvhich
tћеу so fanatically believed. Тћеу canпot ackпowledge this
еvеп wћen forced to execute а policy contrar·y to everytћing
promised before and during tће revolutioп. Fтom their poiпt
of view, sucћ ackпowledgment would Ье ан adrnissioп that the
32 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
revolution was unпecessary. It 1vould also Ье ап admissioп that
they had themselves become superfl.uous. Aпythiпg of the sort
is impossiЬle for them.
The ultiшate results of а social struggle can пever Ье of the
kiпd eпvisacred Ьу those 1vho carry it out. Sоше such struggles
depeпd оп ~п iпfinite and complex series of circumstaпces beyond
the coпtrollaЫe raпge of huшan intellect апd action. This
is most true of revolutions that demand superhuman efforts
and that effect hasty and radical changes iп society. They iпevitaЬly
generate absolute coпfidence that the ultiшate iп huшan
prosperity апd IiЬerty 1vill appear after their victories. The
French revolution 1vas carried out in tће nаше of common
seпse, in the belief that liЬerty, equality, and ћ·aternity 1vouid
eveпtually appear. The Russian revolut.ion 1vas carried out in
the паше of "а purely scientific vie1v of the world," for the purpose
of creating а classless society. N either revolution could
possiЬly have been created if tlle revolutioпaries, aloпg with а
part of the people, ћаd not believed in their ovm idealistic aims.
Coшшunist illusioпs as to post-revolutioпary possiЬilities
\Vere шоrе prepoпderaпt ашопg the Commuпists than among
those who followed them. The Coшшuпists should have kпown
апd, in fact, did kno\V about the inevitaЬility of industrializatioп,
but they could опlу guess about its social results and
relationships.
Official Coшшunist historians in the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia
describe the revolution as if it 1vere tће fruit of tће previously
planпed actioпs of its leaders. But only tће course of tће r·evolutioп
and tће arшed struggle 1vas coпsciously planned, 1vhile the
forшs 1vblch tl1e revolutioп took steшшed froш the iшшediate
course of eveпts and from the direct actioп taken. It is revealiпg
tћat Leniп, uпdoubtedly оне of tће greatest revolutionaiies in
history, did not foresee 1vћen or in wћat fшm tће revolution
1vould eгupt until it was alшost uроп ћiш. Iп January 1917,
one mопtћ before tће February Revolutioп, апd опlу ten
moпtћs before tће October Revolution wћiсћ brougћt ћim
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 33
to po1ver, ће addressed а meeting of Swiss Socialist youths:
"We, tће older generation, perћaps will not live to see the
decisive battles of the approaching revolution. But, I сан, it
seeшs to ше, express 1vitћ extreme confideпce the ћоре that the
youth, 1vho work iп the 1voпderful socialist moveшeпt of
Switzerland апd of the wlюle wщИ, will ћаvе the good fortune
not опlу t.o fight but also to emerge victorious iп tl1e appioachiпg
тevolutioп of the proletariat."
Ho1v сан it tћen Ье said that Lenin, or апуопе else, 1vas аЬlе
to foresee the social results arisiпg after the loпg апd complex
struggle of the revolution?
But еvеп if Coшnшnist. aims per se 1vere unreal, the Cornmunists,
as distinct from earlier revolutioпaгies, were fully
гealistic iп creating those tћings tћat were possiЬle. Тћеу carried
it out in the only 1vay possiЬle-by imposiпg tlleir absolute
totalitarian autlюгity. Tћeir·s was tће fi.I-st revolution in history
iп 1vhicћ tће revolutionaries not only r·emain on tће political
scene after victщy but, in the most practical sense, build social
relationsblps completely contrary to tћose iп which tћеу beIieYed
and which they proшised. Тће Coшmunist reYolution,
in tће course of its later iпdustrial duтation and tтansformation,
coпverts the revolutionaries themselves into creators and
masters of а пе1v social state.
Marx's соппеtе forecasts proYed iпaccurate. То ап even
gr·eater degr·ee, tће sarne can Ье said for Lenin's expectatioпs
that а free or classless society 1vould Ье created 1vith the aid of
tће dictatoгship. But tће need tћat made tће revolution inevitaЬie-
industгial tt·ansformation 011 tће basis of rnodern technology-
is fulfilled.
6.
Abstract logic 1vould iпdicate tћat tће Communist reyolution,
when it achieYes, under different conditions and Ьу state
compulsioп, the same things acћieYed Ьу industrial reYolutions
34 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
and capitalism in the West, is nothing but а form of state-capitalist
revolution. The relationships \vhich are created Ьу its
victory are state-capitalist. This appears to Ье even шоrе true
because the ne\v regime also regulates all political, labor, and
other relationships and, what is more important, distriЬutes the
national income and benefits and distriЬutes material goods
which actually have been transformed iпto state property.
Discussion on \vhether or not the relationships in tће U.S.S.R.
апd in other Communist countries are state-capitalist, socialist,
or perhaps sometblng else, is dogmatic to а coпsideraЬle degree.
However, such discussion is of fundamental importar1ce.
Even if it is presumed that state capitalism is notlling other
than the "antechamber of socialism," as Lenin emphasized, or
that it is the first phase of socialism, it is still поt опе iota easier
for the people \Vho live uпder Communist despotism to endure.
lf the character of property апd social relationships brought
about Ьу tће Communist revolution is streпgthened and defined,
tће prospects for liЬeration of the people from sucћ relationsћips
become more realistic. If the people are поt conscious of
the nature of the social relationships iп which they live, or if
tћеу do not see а way in which they сан alter tћem, their
struggle cannot ћаvе any prospect of success.
If the Communist revolution, despite its promises апd illusions,
is state-capitalist iп its undertakings witћ state-capitalist
relationships, tће only la,vful and positive actioпs its fuпctionaries
сап take are the опеs tћat improve their \vork апd reduce
the pressure апd irrespoпsiЬility of state admiпistr·atioп. Тће
Coшmunists do not admit iп tћeor-y tћat they are workiпg in
а system о~ state capitalisш, but their leaders behave tћis way.
Тћеу coпtшually boast about improviпg tће \Vork of tће admiпistration
апd about leadiпg tће stтuggle "agaiпst bureaucratism."
. Moreover, ac~ual ~elationsћips are not tћose of state capitalIsm;
tћese relatюnsh1ps do поt provide а method of improving
the system of state admiпistration basically.
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION
Iп order to est.aЬlisћ the пature of relatioпsblps wblcћ arise
iп tће course of tће Communist revolution and ultimately become
estaЬlished iп the pr·ocess of industrialization and collectivizatioп,
it is пecessary to peer fur·ther iпto the role and manner
of оретаtiоп of tће state under Comшunism. At present, it \Vill
Ье sufficient to point out that in Coшmunisш the state macћineтy
is not tће instrument wћiсћ really determines social
and pтoperty relatioпsћips; it is only tће instrument Ьу \Vblcћ
tћese relatioпsћips ar·e protected. In truth, everytћiпg is accomplished
iн tће nаше of tће state and througћ its regulations.
Тће Communist Par·ty, iпcluding tће professional party bureaucracy,
stands above the regulations and behind every siпgle one
of tће st.ate's acts.
It is the bшeaucracy \Vћiсћ formally uses, adшinisters, and
contюls Ьоtћ пationalized анd socialized pтoperty as \vell as
the entiтe Ше of society. Тће role of tће bureaucracy iн society,
i.e., rnonopolistic administration and control of national income
and пational goods, consigпs it to а special privileged
positioп. Social relatioпs resernЬle state capitalism. Тће шо!'е
so, because tће carryiпg out of industrialization is effected not
\Vith tће ћеlр of capitalists but \Vith the ћеlр of tће state macblne.
In fact, tbls pгivileged class peтfoтms tћat functioп, using
tће state machiпe as а cover апd as ап iпstrurneпt.
0\vneпћip is пotћing otћer tћan tће right of profit and control.
If оне defines class benefits Ьу tћis r-ight, tће Comшunist
states have seen, in the final analysis, tће origin of а пеw form
of O\VIleisblp or of а ne'v тuling and exploiting class.
In reality, tlle Comrnunists \vете uпаЬlе to act differently
fr·oш ану ruling class that pтeceded them. Believiпg that
they \vere building а ne'v and ideal society, tћеу built it for
themselves in tће only \vay they could. Theii revolution and
t.heir society do not appear eitћer accideнtal or unпatural, but
appear· as а matter of course for а particular couнtry and for
pгescriЬed peгiods of its developmeпt. Because of tbls, no matter
ћо\v extensive and inћuman Coшmunist tyr·arшy ћаs been,
36 ТНЕ NEW CL.tl.SS
society, in the course of а certain period-as long as industrialization
Iasts-has to and is аЬlе to endure this tуrаппу. Furthermore,
this tyranny no longer appears as something inevitaЬie,
but exclusively as ан assurance of the depredations and privileges
of а ne"' class.
In contrast to earlier revolutions, the Commuпist revolution,
conducted in the nаше of doiпg a.vay 1vith classes, has resulted
in the most complete authority of any siпgle пеw class. Everything
else is sham and an illusion. The New Class
1.
Everything happeпed differently in the U.S.S.R. апd other
Communist countr·ies from 1vhat tће leaders-even sucћ promineпt
опеs as Lепiп, Staliп, Trotsky, апd Bukћariп-aпticipated.
They expected tћat the state 1vould тapidly 1vitl1er a1vay, that
democracy 1vould Ье streпgtheпed. 'ТЪе тeverse ћаррепеd. They
expected а rapid improvemeпt iп the staпdard of Iiviпg-tћere
has Ьееп scarcely апу chaпge iп this respect and, iп tће subjugated
East Ешореап countтies, tће standar-d ћаs even decliпed.
In еvегу instance, tће staпdard of living ћаs failed to
rise iп рторонiоп to tће rate of iпdustrialization, wћiсћ 1vas
пшсћ mоте тapid. It 1vas believed tћat tће differeпces bet1veen
cities апd villages, betweeп iпtellectual and pћysical labor,
1voпld slo1vly disappear; instead tћese differeпces have iнcreased.
Commuпist anticipatioпs iп otћer areas-iпcludiпg
tћeir expectatioпs for developmeпts in tће пon-Commuпist
world-ћave also failed to materialize.
The greatest illusioп 1vas tћat industrialization апd collectivizatioп
iп the U.S.S.R., апd destructioп of capitalist owneiSblp,
would r·esult in а classless society. Iп 1936, 1vheп tће ne1v
Coпstitutioп was promulgated, Stalir1 aпnouпced tћat the "exploiting
class" ћаd ceased to exist. The capitalist and other
37
38 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
classes of ancient origiп had iп fact been destroyed, but а new
class, previously unkпo•vn t.o history, had been formed.
It is understandaЬle that this class, like those before it, should
believe that the estaЬlishment of its po\ver \vould result in
happiness and freedom for all men. The опlу differeпce bet\
veen this and other classes was that it treated the delay in the
realization of its illusions more crudely. It thus affirmed tћat
its power was more complete than the po,ver of any other class
before iп history, and its class illusions and prejudices •vere
proportionally greater. .
This new class, the bureaucracy, or more accuтately the polltical
bureaucracy, has all the characteristics of earlier ones as
well as some пеw characteristics of its оwп. Its origiп had its
special characteristics also, even tlюugh in essence it was similar
to the begiпnings of other classes.
Other classes, too, obtained their strength and po•ver Ьу tће
revolutionary path, destroying the political, social, апd other
orders they met in their •vay. Ho•vever, almost. \vithout exception,
these classes attained power after ne\v ecoпomic patterns
had taken shape in the old society. The case was the reverse
with new classes in the Communist systems. It did not come
to po•ver to complete а ne\v economic отdет but to estaЫish
its оwп and, in so doiпg, to estaЬlish its power over society.
In earlier epochs the coming to power of some class, some
part of а class, or of some party, \vas the final everlt тesulting
from its formation and its development. The reverse was true
in tlle U.S.S.R. There the ne•v class \Vas definitely formed after
it attained pmver. Its consciousness had to develop before its
economic and physical po•vers, because tће class had not taken
root in the Ше of tће nation. This class vie\ved its role iп
relation to the \vorld fr·om an idealistic point of vie;v. Its
practical possiЬilities \vere not diminished Ьу tllis. In spite of
its illusions, it represented an objective tendency to;vard iпdustr
·ialization. Its practical bent emanated from this tendency.
The promise of an ideal vюrld increased the faitћ in the raпks
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 39
of the new class and so;ved illusions arnong the rnasses. At the
same tirne it. inspired gigantic physical undertakiпgs.
Because this ne\v class had not been forrned as а part of the
econornic and social life before it carne to po•ver, it could only
Ье created in ап organization of а special type, distinguished Ьу
а special discipline based on identical philosophic апd ideological
views of its rnernbers. А unity of belief апd iron discipline
1vas necessar-y to overcorne its ;veaknesses.
Тће roots of the пеw class 1vere irnplaпted in а special party,
of the Bolshevik type. Lenin 1vas right in his vie1v that his party
•vas an exception in tlle history of hurnan society, altllough ће
did rюt suspect that it. >vould Ье tlle begiпning of а ne•v class.
То Ье rnore pr·ecise, the initiat.ors of tће ne\v class are not
found in the party of tlle Bolsl1evik type as а \vlюle but in that
straturn of professional тevolutioпaries 1vho rnade up its сате
even Ьеfие it attaiпed po;ver. It 1vas not Ьу accideпt tЬat Leпin
asserted after t.he failure of tl1e 1905 revolutioп tЬat only professioпal
гevolutionaries-rneп ;vhose sole professioп >vas revolutionary
work-could build а ne>v party of tl1e Bolshevik type.
lt 1vas stillless accideпtal that еvеп Staliп, tће futur·e creator of
а new class, \vas the rnost outstandiпg exarnple of such а
professional гevolutioпaгy. The пе>v тuliпg class Ьаs Ьееп gr·adually
developiпg frorn tllis ver-y папо•v straturn of revolutionaтies.
Тћеsе revolutioпю-ies composed its core for а loпg period.
Tтotsky пoted tћat in pre-revolutioпary professional тevolutionaries
>vas the origiп of tЬе future Staliпist bureaucrat.
\Vhat Ье did rюt detect. was tће begiпniпg of а пе\v class of
O\VПei's and exploiters.
This is not to say that tће пе•v ратtу апd tће ne>v class ате
identical. ТЬе party, ћo;vever·, is tlle сате of tllat class, and its
base. It is very difficult, perЪaps irnpossiЬle, to defiпe tће lirnits
of tће пе;v class and to identify its rnernbers. Тће ne>v class rnay
Ье said to Ье made up of those \vћо ћаvе special privileges апd
econornic pr·efereпce because of tlle adrniпistrative monopoly
they Ьold.
40 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
Si?c~ ad~inistгation is unavoidaЬie in society, necessary
a.dmi~Istrative functioпs may Ье coexistent 1vith parasitic functJons
111 the same person. N ot. every member of tlle party is а
member of the ne1v class, апу тоге tћan еvегу aгtisan or merп·
Ьег of the city рагtу 1vas а bourgeois.
In loose terrпs, as the ne1v class becorпes stronger and attains
а .m?re perceptiЫe pl1ysiognomy, the role of the party dirшшshes.
The core апd tће basis of the ne>v class is created in
the party and at its top, as 1vell as in tће state political шgans.
The once live, corпpact party, full of initiative, is disappeaтina
to Ьесоrпе transforrпed into the tr·aditional oliaarcћy of the ne1~
l . о
~ ~ss, IrresistiЬiy dra1viпg into its ranks those 1vho aspire to
ЈОШ tће не1v class and repressiнg those >vћо ћаvе any ideals.
Тће party rпakes the class, but t.ће class gтo1vs as а result. and
uses the party as а basis. Тће class gr·o1vs stroнger, wћile the
part~ grщvs ~~eaker; this is the iнescapaЬie fate of every Corпmншst
рагtу 111 po1ver.
If it 1vere ноt. rпaterially interested in production or if it did
ноt ћаvе 1vithiн itself the potentialities for the cгeation of а
не1v class, no pa:·ty coнld act iн so nюrally анd ideologically
foolhardy а fаsћюп, Iet аlоне stay in po1ver fог Ioнg. Stalin
declared, afteг tће end of tће Fiпt Five-Year Рlап: "If we ћаd
rюt created the аррагаtнs, 1ve 1vould ћаvе failed!" Не should
have su.bstitнted "пе1v class" for the 1vord "apparatus," and
everythшg 1voнld ћаvе been cleaгer.
It seerпs unusual :Iыt а political party could Ье tће beginning
of а не1v class. Part1es are geпerally tће prodнct of classes and
strata 1vhich ћаvе Ьесоrпе iпtellectually апd econorпically
str~пg .. However, i~ one ~asps the actual conditions iп prere\
olнtюnary Russra and ш other countr·ies in whicћ Communisrп
pievailed over пational forces, it 1vill Ье сlеаг that а
party of th~s type .is the product of specific oppor·tппities апd
that theгe 1s nothшg unusual or accidental in this being so.
A.lthoнgh the гoot.s of Bolshevism геасћ far back iпto Russiaп
history, the party is partly tће product of the unique pattern
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 41
of iпternational reJationships iп 1vhicll Rпssia fонпd itself at
tће end of the пiпеtеепtћ апd the begiпiппg of the t>veпtietћ
ceпtury. Rшsia 1vas no longer аЫе to live iп the rпoderп 1voi1d
as an absolпte rпonarchy, апd Russia's capitalism 1vas too 1veak
апd too depeнdent он the iнterests of foreign po1vers to rпake
it possiЬle to ћаvе an iпdнstiial reYolutioп. This revolпtion
could онlу Ье implerпeнted Ьу а ne1v class, or Ьу а chaпge in
the social order. As yet, tћere 1vas по sucћ class.
In blstory, it is not irпportant wћо implerпeнts а process, it
is оrйу important tћat. the piocess Ье irпplerпented. Sucћ was
tће case in Russia and otћer courш'ies iн 1vћich Corпmппist.
revolпtions took place. The revolution created forces, leaders,
organizatioнs, апd ideas which 1ver·e пecessary to it. Tlle ne1v
class came iпto existeнce for objective reasoнs, and Ьу the 1visћ,
wits, анd actioн of its leaders.
2.
The social origin of the пеw class lies iп the pr·oletar·iat just
as the aristoпacy атоsе iн а peasaпt society, and the bourgeoisie
iн а corпmercial апd aтtisaнs' society. Тhете ате exceptions,
dependiнg он пational coнditioпs, Ьнt tl1e proletariat iн econorпically
underdeveloped coпntr·ies, being back1vard, constitutes
tће ra>v mateтial fтom 1vhicћ tће пе>v class arises.
There are otћer reasons 1vl1y the ne1v class all\'ays acts as tће
сћаrпрiоп of the >vorking class. Тће ne1v class is anti-capitalistic
and, consequently, logically depeпdeнt нроn tће 1vorking strata.
Тће пеw class is supported Ьу the pioletarian stшggle and ·tће
traditioпal faitll of tће proletariat. iп а socialist, Coшmнnist
society wћer·e tllere is no brutal exploitation. It is Yitally irпportant
for· tlle ne1v class to assнre а пormal flo1v of prodнction,
ћеnсе it canпot ever lose its corшection 1vitl1 tће proletaгiat.
Most irпportant of all, tl1e ne1v class cannot acbleve indпstrialization
апd consolidate its pmver 1vitћout tЪе ћеlр of tће 1vork
42 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
iпg class. Оп the other ћапd, the 1vorkiпg class sees in expaпded
industry the salvation from its poverty апd despair. Over а Ioпg
period of time, the iпterests, ideas, faith, апd hope of the пеw
class, апd of parts of the 1vorkiпg class апd of tће poor peasants,
coiнcide апd uпite. Such mergers have occurred iн the past
amoпg other 1videly differeпt classes. Did поt. the bourgeoisie
represent the peasantry iп the stтuggle agaiпst the feudal lords?
The movemeпt of the пеw class toward po1ver· comes as а
result of the efforts of tће proletariat апd the poor. These are
tће шasses upon 1vhich tЪе party or tће ne1v class шust lean
and 1vith 1vhicћ its irlterests are шost closely allied. This is true
uпtil the пеw class finally establisћes its po1ver апd authority.
Over and above tћis, tће ne1v class is interested in the proletariat
апd the poor only to the extent necessary for developiпg
production апd for шaiпtaining in subjugatioп tће шost aggressive
анd rebellious social forces.
Tlle morюpoly 1vћicll tlle пе1v class estaЬlislles in the name
of the 1vorkiпg class over the 1vhole of society is, pгimarily, а
monopoly over tће 1vorking class itself. Tћis monopoly is first
intellectual, over tће so-called avant-garde pioletai"iat, and theп
over the 1vћole pr·olctaгiat. This is tl1e Ьiggest deceptioп the
class must accomplish, but it sho1vs that the ро1vег and interests
of the new class lie pr'imarily in iпdustry. Without industry
the пеw class cannot consolidate its positioп or autћority.
Foгmer sons of tће >vorking class are the most. steadfast membeгs
of the пе1v class. lt ћаs al1vays Ьееп the fate of slaves to
provide for their шasters tће most cleveг and gifted repгeseпtatives.
In this case а пе1v exploitiнg анd govei"ning class is
Ьош fr·om the exploited class.
з.
Wћen Comшuпist systems are being critically aпalyzed, it is
considered tћat tћeir fundamental distinctioн lies in tће fact
ТНЕ NEvV CLASS 43
that а bureaucracy, organized in а special stratuш, rules over
the people. This is generally true. Ho1vever, а more detailed
analysis 1vill show that опlу а special stratum of bureaucrats,
those "\VhO are I10t administr·ative officials, Шаkе up the core of
the goverЋing bureaucracy, or, in my termiнology, of the не1v
class. This is actually а party or political bureaucracy. Other
officials ai'e only tlle apparatus uпder tlle conrol of the пеw
class; the apparatпs шау Ье clumsy and slow but, по шatter
>vhat, it шust exist iн every socialist society. It is sociologically
possiЬle to dra1v tће bordeгliнe bet1veen the different types of
officials, but in practice they are practically iнdistinguishaЬle.
This is true поt only because tће Communist system Ьу its very
natuгe is bureaucratic, but because Comшuнists ћandle tће
various important administrative functions. In addition, tће
stratuш of political Ьшеансгаts cannot епјоу tћeir privileges
if tћеу do not give CI'umbs fr'oш tћeir taЬles to other bureaucratic
categoгies.
It is iшportant to note tће fuпdaшental differences bet1veeп
the political bureaucracies шentioned ћеrе and those which
arise 1vith every ceнtralization in шоdеш economy-especially
ceпtгalizations tћat lead to collective for-ms of ownersћip such
as monopolies, compaнies, and state ownersћip. Тће nuшber
of 'vћite-collar· 1vorker·s is constaнtly iш:гeasing in capitalistic
monopolies, and also in пationalized industries in tће West.
lil Human Relations in Administration/" R. DuЬin says tllat
state functiona!'ies in tће economy are being traпsforшed into
а special stratum of society.
. .. Functionar'ies have the sense of а common destiny for
all those who >voгk together. They share the same interests,
especially since there is r·elatively little competition iпsofar
as pгomotion is in terms of seniority. In-group aggression is
thus шinimized and this aпangement is t.herefore conceived
• New York, Prentice·Hall, 1951.
44 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
to Ье positive1y functional for the bureaucracy. Ho1vever, th~
esprit de corps and informal social organization which typically
develops in such situations often leads the pers~nnel t.o
defend their entrenched interests rather than to asSist the1r
clientele and elected higher officials.
While such fuпctioпaries have mucll in commoп 1vith Commuпist
bureaucrats, especially as regards "esprit de corp~," tlley
are поt identical. Although state and otћer bureauпats ш п~nCommunist
systems form а special stratum, tl1ey do not exerCise
authority as the Communists do. Bureaucrats iп а noп-Com~
muпist state haYe political masters, usually elected, or o1vners
over tllem, 1vhile Communists have пeitћer masters nor 0\VIlers
over them. The bнreaucrats in а пon-Commuпist state are officials
in modem capitalist есопоmу, 1vћile tlle Communists
are somethiпo- different апd пе1v: а ne~v class. 1:1
As iп other o1vning classes, the proof tћat it is а special class
lies in its oЋтnership апd its special relations to otller classes.
Iп the same 1vay, tlle class to 1vћicll а member beloпgs is iпdicated
Ьу tће material апd otћer privileges 1vhicl1 ownership
briпgs to him.
As defined Ьу Roman lюv, property coпstitutes the use, enjoyment,
and disposition of mater·ial goods. Тће Communist
poiitical bureaucracy нses, enjoys, and disposes of natioпalized
property.
If we assume that membership iп this bureaucracy or пеw
o1vning class is predicated on tlle use of privileges inl:lerent. in
ownersћip-in tћis inst.ance natioпalized material goods-tl:len
membersћip iп tl:le пе1v party class, or political bureaucracy, is
reflected in а larger income in material goods and priYileges
tllan society sl:loнld пormally grant for sucl:l functioпs. In practice,
the o1vnership privilege of tlle пе;v class maпifests itself
as an exclusiYe rigllt, as а party moпopoly, for tl:le political
bureaucracy t.o distriЬute the пational income, to set wages,
direct economic deYelopment, and dispose of nationalized and
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 45
otћer pr-operty. This is tће way it appears to tће ordiпary man
;vho considers tће Communist functioпary as being very rich
апd as а mап 1vl10 does not have to work.
Тће o;vnersћip of private ргорегtу ћаs, for mапу reasoпs,
proved to Ье unfavшaЬle for tће estaЬlisl1meпt of tће пе1v
class's autlюrity. Besides, tће destructioп of pт·ivate o;vпership
1vas песеssату for tће economic tr-aпsformatioп of пatioпs. Тће
ne1v class obtaiпs its po1ver, privileges, ideoJogy, апd its cпstoms
from опе specific form of o1vпeгsћip-collective 0\vnersћip;
vblcћ tће class admiпisters апd distriЬutes iп tће name of tlle
паtiоп апd society.
Tlle пе1v class maiпtaiпs tћat Ol\'lleпblp derives from а designated
social relationsћip. Tbls is tlle relationsћip betlveen tће
monopolists of administration, 1vllo constitute а пarro1v and
closed stratum, and tlle mass of pr·oducers (farmers, 1vorkers,
and intelligentsia) 1vlю llave no rigћts. Ho;veYer, tbls тelationsblp
is not valid since tlle Communist bureaucтacy enjoys а
moпopoly оvет tће distтiЬution of mateтial goods.
ЕУету fundameпtal cllange in tће social relatioпsћip bet1veen
tllose 1vћо moпopolize admiпistration апd tllose 1vlю IVOтk is
ineYitaЬly reflected iп tlle ownersllip тelatioпsllip. Social апd
political relatioпs апd 01vnersllip-tlle totalitaгiaпism of tlle
govemmeпt and tlle moпopoly of autllшity-are being mще
fully bтougllt iпto accor-d iп Commuпism tћan in ану otller
siпgle system.
То divest Commuпists of tlleir o1vnersћip rigћts 1vould Ье to
abolish tllem as а class. То compel tllem t.o reliпquisћ tl:1eir
other social po1ver·s, so that 1vorkers may paгticipate in sllariпg
tlle pтofits of their 1vork-1vhich capitalists haYe had to permit
as а r·esult of stтikes апd parliameпtary action-would mean
that Commuпists were being depiived of their moпopoly oYer
property, ideology, and govemment. This would Ье the begiппiпg
of democracy апd freedom in Communism, the епd of
Commuпist moпopolism апd totalitaтiaпism. Uпtil tћis happeпs,
there can Ье по iпdication that important, fuпdamental
46 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
changes are taking place in Communist systems, at least not
iп the eyes of mеп 1vho think seriously about social progress.
The o;vпership privileges of the ne1v class and member·ship
in that class are the privileges of administration. This privilege
extends from state administration and the administr-ation of
economic eпterprises to that of sports and humanitariaп orgaпizatioпs.
Political, party, or so-called "geпeral leadership" is
executed Ьу the core. This positioп of leadersblp caпies privileges
1vith it. Iп his Stalin au pouvoir, puЬlished iп Paris in
1951, Orlov states that tће average рау of а worker iп tЪе
U .S.S.R iп 1935 1vas 1,800 ruЬles aппually, wblle tlle рау and
allowances of tће secretaтy of а rауоп committee аmошнеd
to 45,000 ruЬles anпually. Тће situatioп ћаs сЪапgеd siпce
theп for Ьоtћ ;vorkers апd party fuпctioпaries, but tће esseпce
remains tће same. Otћer· autћors ћаvе aпived at tће same
coпclusioпs. Discrepaпcies bet,veeп the рау of 'vorkers апd
party functioпaries are extreme; tЪis could поt Ье blddeп from
peтsons visiting tће U.S.S.R. or otћer Communist couпtтies iп
tће past fe;v years.
Other systems, too, ћа'\'е tћeir professiona1 politicians. One
сап tblnk 1vell or ill of them, but they must exist. Society
canrюt live ;vithout а state or а goveгпmeпt, апd therefOI'e
it саппоt liYe ;vithout those 'vho figћt for it.
Ho1veyer, tl1ere ar·e fuпdameпtal differeпces bet;veeп pтofessional
politiciaпs in other systems апd iп the Commuпist
system. Iп extreme cases, politiciaпs iп other systems use the
gover'Ilmeпt to secure privileges for themselves and their cohorts,
or t.o favш the ecoпomic iпterests of one social stтatum ог
aпother. The situatioп is differeпt with the Commuпist systeш
;vlrere tЪе po;ver апd the goverпшeпt are ideпtical 1vith tће
use, eпjoyment, апd dispositioп of almost all tЪе nation's goods.
Не '\Vho gr·abs po;ver grabs privileges апd iпdiгectly grabs
pr·oper·ty. Consequeпtly, in Commuпism, po;ver or politics as
а professioп is the ideal of those 'vho have the desire or the
pгospect of liviпg as paтasites at the expense of otЪers.
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 47
Membership in the Communist Party before the ReYolution
meaпt sacrifice. Beiпg а pr·ofessioпal revolutionary '\vas опе of
the highest hoпors. N O'\V that the party has coпsolidated its
pmver, party membership meaпs that оне beloпgs to а privileged
class. Апd at the core of tЪе party are the all-powerful
exploiters апd masters.
For а loпg time tће Commuпist revolutioп ahd tЪе Commuпist
system ћаvе been coпcealiпg tћeir real nature. The
emergence of the пе'v class has Ьееп concealed uпder socialist
phraseology апd, more importaпt, under tће пе'v collective
~orms. of ?тoperty o;vnership. The so-called socialist o'vпership
1s а d1sgшse for the real ownership Ьу tЪе political bureaucracy.
Апd iп the begiппing this bureaucracy 'vas iп а huпy to complete
industтializatioп, and hid its class composition under
that guise.
4.
The development of modern Communism, апd tЪе emergence
of the пе;v class, is evident iп the char-acter апd roles
of tћose wlю inspired it.
Тће leaders апd their methods, from Marx to Khrushchev
have Ьееп Yaried and changing. It never occurred to Marx t~
prevent otЪers from voicing their ideas. Leпin tolerated free
discussioп in his party and did not think tћat рану forums,
let alone the party head, should regulate the expression of
"proper" or "improper" ideas. Stalin abolished every type of
intтa-party discussion, and made the expression of ideology
solely the right of the central forum-or of himself. Oth~r
Communist movements ;vere different.. For instance, Marx's
Interпational Workers' Union (the so-called First International)
was not Marxist in ideology, but а union of varied
gтoups whicћ adopted only tће resolutioпs on whicћ its шешЬеrs
agreed. Leniп's party was an avant-garde group comblning
48 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
an internal т·evolutionary morality and ideological monolithic
stтuctuгe 1vith democracy of а kind. Under Stalin tl1e party
became а mass of ideologically disinteт·ested men, wlю got
their ideas from above, but 1vere 1vholeћearted and unanimous
iп the defense of а system that assured theш uпquestionaЬle
privileges. Marx actually never created а party; Leпin destroyed
all parties except ћis o1vn, including the Socialist Party.
Staliп relegated even the Bolshevik Party to second тank,
tтansformiпo- its core into the саге of the ne1v class, and t>
transfoгming the party into а privileged iшpersonal and color·
less group.
Marx created а system of the roles of classes, and of class 1var
iп society, even tlюugh he did not discoveт· them, апd he saw
that mankind is mostly made нр of members of disceгпiЬle
classes, althoнgh l1e 1vas only restatiпg Teт·ence's Stoic pllilosophy:
инитапi nilzil а те alienum puto." Lenin vie1ved men as
sharing ideas гather than as beiпg membeгs of discerпi~le
classes. Staliп sa1v in men only obedient subjects or епе1шеs.
Матх died а poor emigraпt in Lопdоп, Ьнt 1v~s valued Ьу
learned шеn апd valued iп the movemeпt; Lепiп died as the
leader of one of the QТeatest. тevolнtioпs, but died as а dictator t>
about. whom а cult had already begun to foгm; 1vhen Stalin
died, ће had already transformed himself iпto а god.
Тћеsе chaпges in personalities are опlу t.he гeflection of
chaпges 1vhicl1 had alтeady takeп place апd were tће very soul
of the Commuпist movement.
Althouoo- h ће did поt realize it, Lепiп started the organization
of tће пе1v class. Не estaЬlisћed tће ратtу aloпg Bolsћevik
lines апd developed tl1e tћeories of its uпique апd leadiпg role
in the buildiпg of а пе1v society. Tћis is but опе aspect of ћis
maпy-sided апd gigaпtic 1\'0rk; it is tће aspect 1vћicl1 саше
about from ћis actioпs ratћer tћan his 1visl1es. It is also tће
aspect. 1vћiсћ led tће ne1v class t.o revere ћim.
Тће real апd direct 01·iginator of tl1e ne1v class, ћo1vever,
was Stalin. Не 1vas а man of quick гeflexes апd а tendeпcy to
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 49
coarse ћurnor, rюt very educated nor а good speaker. But ће
1vas а relentless dogmatician and а great administrator, а
Georgian 1vћо knew better than аnуопе else wћitћer tће new
po1veтs of Greater Rнssia 1vere takiпg ћеr. Не created tће ne1v
class Ьу the ше of the most barbaт·ic means, поt even sparing
the class it.Self. It 1vas inevitaЬle tћat tће ne1v class >vћich
placed him at tће top would later submit to ћis unbridled
апd bшtal nature. Не was the true leader of tћat class as long
as the class 1vas buildiпg itself up, апd attaining po1ver.
Тће ne1v class 1vas bon1 in the revolutionaгy struggle in tће
Commuпist Party, but 1vas developed in tће iпdнstrial revolution.
Witћoнt tће revolution, 1vitћout indнstJy, the class's
position -.;vould not ћаvе Ьееп secure and its po1ver 1vould
lыve been limited.
vVћile t.he couпtry \Vas being industrialized, Stalin began
to iпtroduce consideraЬle variations in 1vages, at tће same
time allo1ving tће developmeпt to1vard various privileges to
proceed. Не tћонgћt tћat indнstrialization would come to
notћino- if tће ne1v class >veie not made materially inteт·est.ed
о . . .
in tће process, Ьу acquisition of some property for Itself. Witћ-
out indнstrialization tће ne1v class would find it difficult to
ћold its position, for it would ћаvе пeitћer historical justificatioп
поr the material resources for its contiпued existeпce.
Тће iпcrease in tће membersћip of tће paity, or of the
bнreaucracy, 1vas closely coпnected with tћis. Iп 1927, on tће
eve of iпdustтializatioп, tће Soviet Communist Pat·ty ћаd
887,233 members. In 1934, at tl1e епd of tће First Five-Year
Plan, the membersћip ћаd incтeased to 1,874,488. Tћis 1vas
а phenomenon obviously connected 1vith indнstrializatioп: the
prospects for tће ne1v class and pгivileges for its members wет·е
improving. "\Vћat is more, tће pгivileges апd tће class 1vere
expandiпg more rapidly than indнstrialization itself. It is difficult
to cite any statistics on tћis point, but the conclнsioп is
self-evident fот anyone 1vho Ьеатs in mind tћat the standard
of living has not kept расе 1vitћ industrial productioп, 1vhile
50 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
the new class actually seized the lioп's share of tlle economic
and other progress earned Ьу the sacrifices and efforts of tће
masses.
Тће estaЬlishment of the ne1v class did not proceed smoothly.
It encountered Ьitter opposition from existing classes апd from
those revolutionaries 1vho could not reconcile reality 1vith the
ideals of their struggle. In t.he U.S.S.R. the opposition of
revolutionaries was most evideпt in the Trotsky-Stalin conflict.
The conflict bet1veen Trotsky and Stalin, or bet1veen oppositionists
in tће party апd Stalin, as 1vell as tће conflict between
the regime апd the peasantry, became шоrе intense as iпdustrialization
advanced апd the po1ver and authority of the new
class iпcreased.
Trotsky, an excellent speaker, brilliaпt. stylist, and skilled
polemicist, а шаn cultured and of excellent intelligeпce, 1vas
deficient in only one quality: а seпse of тeality. Не 1vaпted to
Ье а revolutionary in а period 1vheп life imposed tће coшmonplace.
Не 1vished to revive а revolutioпary party 1vhich 1vas
being transformed into something coшpletely different, into
а пе1v class uпconcerned 1vith great ideals апd interested опlу
in the everyday pleasures of life. Не expected action from а
mass alieady tired Ьу 1var, hunger, and death, at а time 1vhen
tће ne1v class alгeady str'ongly held the reiпs апd had begun
to experience the s1veetness of privilege. Trotsky's fiгe~rorks
lit up the distant heavens; but ће could not тekindle fires iп
weary men. Не sharply пoted the sопу aspect of the ne1v
phenomena but ће did not gгasp their meaning. In addition,
he ћаd never been а Bolsћevik. This 1vas his vice and bls
virtue. Attacking tће party bur·eaucracy iп the name of the
гevolution, he attacked the cult of the pai·ty апd, althougћ he
1vas поt conscious of it, tl1e пеw class.
Stalin looked пeither far ahead nor far behind. Не had
seated himself at the head of the ne1v p01ver 1vhich 1vas being
bom-the пеw class, the political bureaucracy, and bureaucratism-
and Ьесаше its leader and oгganizer. Не did not px·each
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 51
-he made decisions. Не too promised а sblпing future, but
опе which bureaucracy could visualize as being real because
its life 1vas impi'O\'ing fi·om day to day and its position 1vas
being strengthened. Не spoke witlюut ardor and color, but
the пе1v class 1vas better аЫе to undeгstaпd this kind of тealistic
language. Trotsky 1vished to extend the revolutioп to Ешоре;
Stalin 1vas not opposed to the idea but this ћazai'dous undertakiпg
did not prevent him from 1vorrying about Mother
Russia or, specifically, about 1vays of strengtheпing the ne1v
system and increasiпg the po1ver and reputatioп of the Russian
state. Trotsky 1vas а man of the revolution of the past; Stalin
was а mап of today and, thus, of the future.
In Stalin's victoiy Trotsky saw the Theгшidoric reaction
agaiпst the revolution, actually the bureaucгatic corruption
of the Soviet governmeпt апd the revolutionary cause. Conse.
queпtly, he understood апd 1vas deeply hшt Ьу the amorality
of Staliп's methods. TI·otsky was the first, although he was not
a1vare of it, who in the attempt to save the Comrnuпist movement
discovered the essence of coпternporary Coшmuпism. But
he was поt сараЫе of seeiпg it tћгough to the end. Не supposed
that this was опlу а momeпtaгy croppiпg up of bureaucracy,
corruptiпg the party апd the revolution, and concluded that
tће solution 1vas in а change at the top, in а "palace revolпtion."
vVhen а palace revolution actually took place after
Stalin's death, it could Ье seen that the essence had поt
chaпged; something deepe!' and more lastiпg was iпvolved. The
Soviet Thel'midor of Staliп had поt only led to the installatioп
of а governmeпt more despotic thaп the previous оне, but also
to the installation of а class. This 1vas the contiпuatioп of that
other violeпt foreigп revolution wћich had inevitaЬly borne
апd strengthened the new class.
Staliп could, with equal if поt greater right, refer to Leпin
and all tће revolution, just. as Trotsky did. For Staliп 1vas the
lawful although 1vicked offspriпg of Lenin апd the revolutioн.
History has по previoпs record of а personality like Lenin
ment, \Vas natural for tће party theп. Lat.er, witћ tће develop·
meпt of tће revolнtioп and with the orgaпizational changes in
tће deyeJoped couпtries, it became just as essential for it to
separ·ate itself from tће reformism of European socialism.
The inevitability of revolution and of rapid industrializatioп,
wћiсћ exacted enormous sacrifices and involved rutbless violence,
required поt only promises but faith in tће possibllity of
tће kingdom of ћeaven on eartћ. Advanciпg, as otћers also do,
aloпg the liпe of least resistaпce, the supporters of revolution
and industrialization often departed from estaЬlisћed Marxist
апd socialist doctriпe. However, it. was impossiЬle for them to
shed the doctrine eпtirely.
Capitalism апd capitalist relatioпsblps were tће proper апd
at the giveп moment the iпevitaЬle forms апd tecћniques Ьу
wћich society expressed its needs and aspirations for improving
апd expandiпg pгoduction. In Great Britain, in the first ћalf
of tће пineteenth сепtuту, capitalism improved and expaпded
production. And just as tће industrialists in Britain had to destroy
the peasantry in order to attain а higћer degree of productioп,
the industrialists, or tће boшgeoisie, in Russia ћаd to
become а Yictim of the industrial revolution. Тће participaпts
and the forms wei"e different, but tће la\v \Vas tће same in both
cases.
In Ьоtћ instances socialism \vas inevitaЬle-as а slogaп апd
pledge, as а faitћ апd а lofty ideal, and, in fact, as а particular
forш of goverпment апd O\vnersblp \vblcћ \vould facilitate the
industrial reYolution and make possiЬle improvement апd ех·
pansioп of productioп.
2.
All the revolutioпs of tће past origiпated after пе\v economic
or social relationsblps ћаd begun to prevail, and the old politi·
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 19
.:;al system had bec~me the sole obstacle to further development.
None of these revolutions soнght апуtћiпg other t.han the
destruction of the old political forms and an ope~ing o.f ~he
1vay for alгeady matшe social forces апd relationsh1ps e~Ist:ng
in tће old society. Even in those cases \vћeie tће reYolнt~oшsts
desired something else, sucћ as tће bнilding of econom1:: a~d
social relationsћips Ьу means of for·ce, as did the ЈасоЬш~ ш
the French revolнtion, tћеу ћаd to accept failшe and Ье S\Vlftly
eliminated.
In all preYious revolutions, force and violence appeared
predomiпantly as а consequence, as an iпstrнmeпt of _ne'v ~нt
already prevailing economic and social fшces апd r.el~tюnshi_PS·
Even 1vћеп fотсе and violeпce surpassed proper l1m1ts ~tmng
tће course of а revolutioп, in the fiпal analysis tће revolutюnary
forces ћаd to Ье directed toward а positive and attain~Ьle. goal.
Јп these cases teпor and despotism tnigћt ћаvе been шеvнаЬlе
but solely tempoтary maпifestatioпs. . .
All so-called bourgeois revolutioпs, \vћetћer acћ1eved Пот
belmv, i.e., \Vitћ participatioп of tће masses as iп Fr~nce, or
from above, i.e., Ьу coup d'etat as in Germaпy нndег B1smar·ck,
ћаd to епd up iп political democracy. Тћаt is uпde.rstaпd~~le.
Tћeir task \Vas cћiefiy to destioy tће old despotlc pollt.Ical
system, and to peтmit tће estaЬlishment of political тelatю~sћips
\Vћiсћ would Ье adequate for ali·eady existing есоrюnнс
and other needs, particularly those concerning tће fтее productioп
of goods. .
Тће case is eпtirely diffeieilt \vith coпtemporary Commuшst
revolutioпs. These тeyolutioпs did not occur Ьесанsе ne\V, let
us say socialist, relationsћips \vere already existiпg in tће econ·
omy, or because capн· all· sm \Vas " overd eve 1о ре d ." Оп the contrary.
Тћеу did occur because capitalism was not fully ~eveloped
and because it \Vas поt аЬlе to carry out the industпal
transfoimation of tће country.
In Ft-aпce capitalism had already prevailed in the economy,
20
ТНЕ NEW CLASS
in social relationships, and even iп the puЬlic conscience pтior
t . . .
о. шсер~ю? of the revolutюn. The case is hardly comparaЬ!e
With soctallsm in Russia, China, or Yugoslavia.
The leaders of the Russian revolutioп themselves were юvare
of this fa~t. Speaking at the Seventh Congress of the Russiaп
Commuшst Party оп March 7, 1918, while the revolutioп 1vas
still in progress, Lenin said:
· · . One of the fundamental differences bet\veeп bourgeois
ап~ socia!ist revolutions is that in а bourgeois revolution,
wh~ch aпses from feudalisш, new econoшic organizations
wlнc!1 graduaiiy с~апgе all aspects of feudai society are progresSively
created ш the midst of the old order. In accoшplishiпg.
this t~sk, ev~ry _boшgeois revolution accoшplishes
aii that .Is .r·eqшred o_f It:. It. hasteпs the grmvth of capitalisш.
А socialist r·evolutюп IS ш ап eпtir·ely differ-eпt sitпatioп.
То the. exteпt that а couпtr-y \vhich had to begiп а socialist
revolutюi_I,_ because of the vagaries of history, is back1vard,
the traпsltloп fr-oш old capitalist relatioпs to socialist relatioпs
is iпcreasiпgly difficult ....
The .diffeг~пce Ье~1vееп socialist revolutioпs апd bourgeois
I"evolutюпs l1es speCifically iп tће fact tћat. iп the Iatter case
estaЬlished forms of capitalist Ielatioпs exi~t, 1vhile the sovie~
power-the proletaiiat-does поt attaiп such relatioпs, if ;ve
exclude tће шost de;reloped forms of capitalisш, 1vhich actually
eпco~passed а smaii nuшber of top iпdustries апd опlу very
scaпtily touclled agriculture,
I quote Lenin, but I could quote any leader of the Communist
тevolution and пumerous other authors, as confirmatioп
of the fact that. settled тelationships did not exist for the
Pe;v society, but t~at someoпe, in this case the "soviet po1ver,"
must tћerefore bUild them. If the ne1v "socialist" relatioпships
had ~een devel?ped to the fullest in the country in i\'hich Commuшst
тevolutюп 1vas аЬiе to emerge victor-ious, ther·e 1vould
have been по need for so many assurances, disseitatioпs, and
efforts embracing the 'Ъuildiпg of socialism."
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 21
This leads to an appareпt contradictioп. If tlle conditions
for а пеw society 1vere not sufficiently prevalent, tllen wllo
needed the revolution? Moreover, hoiv ;vas the тe;rolutioп possiЬle?
Ho1v could it survive in ;rie1v of the fact that the пеw
social relatioпships 1vere not yet in the formative process in
the old society?
No revolutioп or party had ever before set itself to the task
of building social relatioпships or а ne;v society. But this 1vas
the primary objective of the Commuпist Ievolution.
Communist leaders, thougll no better acquaiпted than others
with the la1vs 1vhich goveш society, discover·ed that in the countтy
in 1vhich theiт revolution 1vas possiЬle, industrialization 'Nas
also possiЬle, particularly when it involved а tтansformation of
society iп keeping 1vith their ideological hypothesis. Experieпce
-the success of revolution uпder "unfavoтaЬle" conditionsconfirmed
this for them; the "building of socialism" did like-
1\'ise. This str·eпgthened their· illusion that they kne>v the laws
of social development. In fact, they 1vere in tЪе position of
making а Ьlueprint for а ne;v society, and theп of stю·ting to
build it, making coпections here and leaving out sometblng
tl1ere, all the while adhering closely to their plaпs.
Industтialization, as ап inevitaЬle, legitimate necessity of
society, and the Communist 1vay of accomplishing it, joiпed
forces in tЪе couпtгies of Corшnunist revolutions.
However, neither of tllese, though tl1ey progressed togetller
and on paгallel tracks, could achieve success oveшight. After
the completion of the revolution, someone had to shoulder the
responsiЬility for industrialization. Iп the West, tbls тоlе 1vas
taken over Ьу tће economic forces of capitalism liЬerated from
the despotic political chains, while in the countries of Communist
revolutions no similar forces existed and, thus, tlleir
function had to Ье taken over Ьу the revolutionary organs
themselves, the new authority, that is, the revolutionary party.
In earlier revolutions, revolutionary force and violence became
а hindrance to the есопоmу as soor1 as the old order 1vas
22
overthrmvn In С . ТЛЕ NEW CLASS
· ommuшst revolutio 1 f
а condition for further d
1
1 s, orce and vio1ence are
Words of earlier revo1ut1. eve ~рmещ and even progress. In the
onaпes for·ce and . I а necessary evil and ' vю ence were on1y
. а means to an end I h
muшsts force and . 1 . · Il t е 1vords of Cornf
' vю ence are elev t d Ь о а cu1t and an ult" а е to t е lofty position
1vh1. ch made up 1Шаtе стоаi In the t h I а ? · pas ' t е с asses and forces
. ne\v society already xi t d Ь f
tюn erupted Th С . е s е е ore the revoluhave
had to ~reat е ommuш.st revo1utions are the fi.r-st 1Vhich
Even as tl ela ~e\v ~Oc1ety and ne\v social fOI·ces.
le revo utюns ш th vV h d .
democracy after aii the "аЬ е . es:. а 1~~v~taЬly to end in
the East, the revolutions had ;:::~:7s апd . wнhdrawa1s," iп
of terror апd vio1eпce in the W п despot1sm. The methods
lous, апd еvеп а hiпdraпce iп est be~~m~ пeedless апd ridicuthe
revolutioпaries апd rетт 1 a~comp 1Slнng the revo1ution for
' о п tюnагу part" 1 case was the opposite. Not on1 d"d d ~es. n the East, tће
East Ьесапsе the tгaпsfo . у 1 . espot1sm coпtiпue in the
· пnatюn of шdustг ·
t1me, Ьпt, as 1ve shaii see 1ater· "t 1 . d у reqшred so mucll
t"I on h ad taken р1асе. · ' 1 aste lonc~:т:> aft er ш· d ustrializa-
з.
TI!ere are other basic d1"ff
1 . erences betw С .
vo utюns апd ear1ier ones Е 1" een ommuшst rehad
reached the point of re ·d. аг I~r revolutions, though tћеу
а IПess 1n an
Were unaЬle to br·eak out with economy and а society,
We now knmv the geneгal cond" .оиt advaпtageous conditions.
and success of а гevolutioп Н Itюns necessary for the erпption
addition to these geпerai .. o;e;er, e~ery revolution has, in
make its planning and ехе c~n Itюп~, Its pecuiiarites whicћ w cutюn possiЬle
. ar, or more precisely, natioпai соЈ .
zаtюп, was unnecessaгy for ast Iap~e of tће state orgaпiIarger
ones. Until no,v ћоw р ;.evolutюns, at Ieast for the
for the victory of Со~ ~ver, t Is ћ~s been а basic conditioл
muшst revolutюns ть· . . Is Is еvеп valid
1
t .~.
1
1
CHARACTER OF Tl:fE REVOLUTION 23
for Chiпa; true, there the revolution began prior to the Јарапеsе
iпvasion, but it coпtinued for an entire decade to spread
апd finally to emeгge victшioпs with tће епd of tће war. The
Spaпisћ revolution of 1936, 1vblcћ could ћаvе been an exception,
did поt have time to transfor·m itself iпto а purely Comrnunist
revolution, апd, theiefore, пever emerged victorious.
Тће reason 1var 1vas necessary for tlle Commuпist. revolutioп,
or tће do1vnfall of tће stat.e machinery, nшst Ье sougћt in the
immaturity of tће есопоmу and society. Iп а serioпs collapse
of а system, апd particulaтly iп а war 1vhicЪ ћаs Ьееп uпsuccessful
for tlle exist.ing тuling circles and state system, а small but
well-organized апd disciplined group is iпevitaЬly аЬlе to take
autlюrity in its haпds.
Tћus at the time of tће Oct.ober Revolution the Communist
Par·ty ћаd about 80,000 members. Тће Yugoslav Commппist
Рану began the 1941 revolution with about 10,000 members.
То grasp po1ver, the support апd active paтticipation of at 1east
а part of tће people is necessary, but in every case the party
which leads tће revolution апd assпmes power is а minority
gгoup тelyiпg exclusively on exceptionally favoraЬle conditions.
Furtћeпnor·e, such а party caпnot Ье а majority group
пntil it becomes the permanently estaЬlished authority.
The accomplishment of sucћ а grandiose task-tћe destruction
of а social order and tће building of а пеw society when
conditions for sucћ ап undertaking are rюt propitioпs in the
есоnошу or society-is а task аЬlе to attтact опlу а minority,
and at that, only those 1vћо believe fanat.ically in its possiЬilities.
Special conditions апd а particular party are basic characteristics
of Coшmuпist revolutioпs.
The achievemeпt of еvегу тevolпtioп, as well as of every
victor·y in 1var, deшaпds ceпtralization of all forces. Accordiпg
to the Maltlшsiaп theory, the Fr·eпch revolutioп 1vas the fir·st
iп whicЪ "all tће resources of а people at. 1var 1vere placed iп
the hands of the authorities: people, food, clotћiпg." Tћis шust
Ье tће case to an еvеп greater degree in а Commuпist "im
ТНЕ NEТV CLASS
24
mature" revolution: not only all material means but all in~
tellectual means must fall into the hands of the party, and the
party itself IШISt become politically, and as an organization,
ceпtralized to the fullest exteпt. Опlу Commuпist parties,
politically uпited, firmly grouped arouпd the ceпter, апd possessiпcr
ideпtical ideolocrical vie>vpoiпts, are аЫе to carry out
~ ~
such а тevolutioп. Ceпtralizatioп of all forces апd means as well as some kind
of political uпity of the revolutionary parties are essential co~ditioпs
for every successful тevolutioп. Fот the Cornmнmst
гevolнtion these coпditioпs ате еvеп mоте irnpoтtaпt, since
fгom tlтe very becriппiпcr tlle Communists exclude every otlleт
independent poli'"t ical g~r oнp or party fгom beiпg an ally of
their рагtу. At the same time they demand нпifoтmity of all
vie>vpoiпts, iпclнdiпg pr·actical political vieiVS as >vell as theoretical,
pllilosopllical, and еvеп moral vie>vs. 'ТЪе fact tlтat the
left-of-ceпteт SR's (Socialist-Revolutionaries) paтticipated in
tlтe October Revolution, апd tlтat. iпdividнals апd groups from
оtlтет parties paгticipated iп tlтe тevolutioпs iп Clliпa and Yнgoslavia,
does поt disprove Ьнt таtlтет сопfiгшs this propositioп:
these groнps \vете опlу collaboratoтs of tЪе Comrnнпist Party,
апd only to а fixed degтee in the stтuggle. After the revolution
tl-tese collaboт-atiпg par·ties \vere disper·sed, or tlley dissolved of
tlleiт mm ассогd апd шer·ged ivit1:t the Communist Ратtу. The
Bolsheviks roнted the left-of-ceпter SR's as sооп as tЪе latteт
ivislтed to become iпdependent, wllile tlle noп-Comnшnist
groнps iп Yнgoslavia and China that had suppoтted the revolutioп
had, in the meantirne, тenounced every one of theiт political
acti\тities.
The earlier тevolutions ivere поt caпied out Ьу а siпgle political
gт·онр. То Ье sнre, in the course of а тevolution iпdividual
groнps pтessured апd destтoyed оне aпother; but, taken as а
whole, the 1·evolпtioп \vas not the >vork of only опе gт·oup. lп
the Freпcll revolнtioп tlтe ЈасоЬiпs succeeded iп maiпtaiпiпg
theiт dictatorship fот а brief period опlу. Napoleoп's dictatoт-
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 25
ship, which eшe;:-ged fгоП: the revolution, sigтtified both the
end of the ]асоЬ111 тevolпtюn and tlтe becrinniпcr of the 1 f
h ь . . ~ ~ rнео
t е ouтge01s1e. In еvету case, although one party played d _
. . l . 1 . а е ciSIVe то е 111 ~ 1~ earl1eт revolutions, the other paтties did not.
surr~пdeт ~hе1т 111dependence. Although supp1·essioп and dispersюn
e~пsted, they could Ье enforced only fот а brief time.
The parties could n_ot Ье destroyed and would always emerge
anew. Even the Рапs Commuпe, ivhich the Comrnunists take
as th.e foreтuппer .o f their тevolution and theiт state, w as а
mult1-party тevolutюп.
. А ратtу may have played the chief, and еvеп an exclusive, role
~n а pa~tlcu1aт phase of а тevolution. But no pтevious party was
Ideo1oglcally, от as. an organization, centтalized to tlтe degree
that _tlтe Comm_umst Party was. Neitheт the Puritaпs iп tЪе
Engllsh revolutюп пот the JacoЬins in the French revolution
\vere bound Ьу tlтe same phi1osophical and ideo1ogical vieщ,
althoнgh tlte first belonged to а т·eligious sect. From the orcran·- . 1 . . ~ 1
zatюna po111t of v1ew the JacoЬins were а fedeтation of clubs;
tће ~uпtans i~ere not even that. Only contempoтary Comnш:
нst r·evol~tюns ~ushed compнlsory pю·ties to the foгefгont,
iVhlch ivere ldeo1ogтcally and organizationally monolithic.
In every case one thiпg is ceгtain: iп all earlieт revolutions
th_e песеssну for ~e:olutionar·y methods and parties disappea1·ed
wlth the епd of c1~Il war· and of foreign intervention, and these
meth.ods and p_artles ћаd to Ье done аv.тау ivith. After Commuшst
тevolutюns, the Coшmunists coпtinue >vitlт both the
met~ods and the forms of tће тevolution, апd theiг рагtу soon
atta~ns the fullest degree of ceпtгalism апd ideolocrical excluslveness.
~
. Lenin exp:essly emphasized tbls during the тevolutioп itself
111 enumeтatшg his conditions fог acceptance in the Comin.
tern:*
_In the present epoch o_f acute civil '\Var, а Communist Party
will Ье аЫе to perfoпn нs duty only if it is oгgaпized in the
• Selected Works, Vol. Х; New York, International PuЬlishers, 1936.
26 ТНЕ NEW CL.ASS
most centralized manner, only if iron discipline bordering on
military discipline prevails in it, and if its party center is а
powerful and authoritative organ, wieldiпg "\Vide powers апd
епјоуiпg the uпiveгsal coпfidence of the members of the party.
And to this, Stalin appended, in Foundations of Leninism:*
This is the positioп iп regard to discipliпe iп the party in
the period of struggle precediпg the acћievemeilt of the
dictatorship.
The same, but to ан еvеп greater degree, must Ье said
about discipliпe iп the party after the dictatorsћip has been
achieved.
The revolutionary atmosphere and vigilaпce, insistence on
ideological unity, political and ideological exclusiveness, political
апd other centralism do not cease after assuming control.
On t.he contt-ary, they become even m01·e intensified.
Ruthlessness in met.hods, exclusiveness in ideas, and monopoly
in authority in the earlier revolнtions lasted more or less as
lono- as the revolutions themselves. Since revolution in the
с
Commuпist revolution 'vas only t.he fiiSt act of the despotic
and totalitariaп authority of а gгoup, it is difficult to for·ecast
the duratioп of that authority.
In earlier revolutions, iпcludiпg the Reigн of Тепоr iн
France, superficial attentioп 'vas paid to the elimination of real
oppositionists. No atteпtioп 'vas paid to the eliminatioн of those
who might become oppositionists. The eтadication апd persecutioп
of some social or ideological gтoups in the religious wars
of the Middle Ages was the only exceptioп to this. From theory
and practice, Communists kпo'v that they are in conflict wit.h
all other classes апd ideologies, and behave accOI'dingly. Тћеу
are fightiпg against not only actual but also poteпtial oppositioп.
In the Baltic count1·ies, thousands of people 'vere liquidated
overnight on the basis of documents indicatiпg previously
held ideological апd political views. Тће massacre of several
• New York, International PuЬlishers. 1939.
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 27
thousaпd Polisћ officers iн tlle Katyn Forest was of similar
cћaracter. Iп the case of Communism, long after the тevolution
is over, teп01·ist and oppгessive metlюds continue to Ье нsed.
Sometimes these аге perfected and become more extensive than
in the revolutioп, as in the case of the liquidation of the Kulaks.
Ideological· exclusiveness and intolerance are intensified after
the revolution. Even wheп it is аЬlе to reduce physical oppression,
the tendency of the ruling ратtу is to strengtheн the
prescriЬed ideology-Maixism-Leнinisш.
Earlier revolutioпs, par·ticularly the so-called bourgeois опеs,
attached coнsideraЬle sigнificaпce to the estaЬlishment of individual
freedoms immediately follo,viнg cessation of the revolutionary
t.eпor. Even the revolutionaries coпsidered it importaпt
to assure the legal statнs of the citizeшy. Iпdepeпdent
admiпisti·ation of justice '\Vas an iпevitaЬle fiпal result of all
these revolutioпs. The Commuпist regime in the U.S.S.R. is
still remote from iпdepeпdent admiпistration of justice after·
forty years of teпure. The fiнal тesults of ea1·lier 1·evolutioпs
we1·e often gr·eater legal security апd greater civil тights. This
cannot Ье said of the Communist тevolutioп.
There is aпother· vast differeнce bet"\veen the earlier revolutions
and contemporary Commuпist ones. Ea1·lier revolutions,
especially the greater онеs, '\ver·e а pl'Oduct of the stтuggles of
the 'vorking c1asses, but tћеiг ultimate results fell to anotћer
class uнder wћose intellectual and often organizational leadersblp
tће revolutioпs 'vете accomplished. Тће bourgeoisie, in
wћose name the revolution '\Vas caпied out, to а coпsideraЬle
extent ћaтvested the fruits of the struggles of tће peasaпts анd
sans-culottes. Тће masses of а нation also pai'ticipated in а
Communist revolutioп; ho,vever, tће ћuits of revolution do
поt fall to tЪem, but to the Ьuтеаuстасу. For the bureaucracy
is nothing else but the party '\Vhich caпied out the r·evolution.
In Commuпist revolutioнs, the revolutioпary шovemeнts 'vblch
carried out the revolutioпs а1·е поt liquidated. Commuпist revolutions
may "eat tћeir own childrer1," but поt all of theш.
28 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
In fact, on coшpletion of а Coшmunist revolution, rut~less
and нnderhanded deals ineYitaЬly are made between varюus
groups and factions which disagree about the path of the future.
Mutual accusations a1~vays reYolve around dogmatic proof as
to who is "objectively" or "subjectively" а. gre~;er :о~пtе~:
revolнtionary or agent of internal and fore1gn cap1tallsm.
Reo"'- ardless of the manner in 1vhich these disagreemerlts ar.e resolved, the group that emerges victorious is the one tb~t :s
the most consistent and determined supporter of industnallzation
alono- Communist priпciples, i.e., оп the basis of total
party moпo~oly, particularly of state organs iп control of productioп.
The Commuпist revolution does поt. devour those
of its children 1vho are пeeded for its future course-for iпdustrializatioп.
Revolutioпaries who accepted the ideas апd slogans
of the revolutioп literally, пalvely believiпg iп their materializatioп,
are usually Iiquidated. The group wbich understood
that revolutioп 1vould secure authority, on а social-politicalCommunist
basis, as ап instrument of future industrial transformation,
emerges victorious.
The Coпнnunist revolutioп is the first in which the revolutionaries
and their allies, particularly the authority-1vielding
group, survived tће revolution. Similar groups iпevitaЬly failed
in earlier ones. The Communist revolution is tће first to Ье
carried out to tће advantage of tће revolutionaries. They, and
the bureaucracy which forms around tћem, ћarYest its fruits.
This creates in tbem, and in tће broader ecћelons of the party,
the illusioп tћat theirs is the first revolution that remained tr·ue
to the slogans оп its banпers.
4.
The illusioпs wћiсћ tће Communist revolution creates about
its real aims are more pennanent and extensive than those of
earlier reYolнtions because the Communist revolutioп resolves
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 29
relationsllips in а ne>v 1vay and brings about а ne1v fonn of
mmeгship. Earlier revolutions, too, inevitaЬly resulted in шајоr
or minor changes in property relatioпships. But iп those revolutioпs
опе form of pтivate Oivneгship superseded tће others. In
the Communist reyolution this is not the case; tће change is
radical and deep-гooted, and а collective o>mership suppresses
priYate Oimeгsћip.
The Communist reYolution, >vhile still in process of development,
destroys capitalist, Iand-lюlding, priYate O'i\'11ership, i.e.,
that o>mership \\'hich makes use of foreign labor forces. This
immediately пeates the belief tћat tће reYolutionaтy promise
of а new realm of equality and justice is being fulfilled. The
party, or the state autћOiity uпder its coпtrol, simultaneously
undertakes extensiYe measшes for industrialization. This also
inteпsifies the belief that the time of freedom from >Vaпt ћаs
finally arrived. Despotism and oppression are there, but. they
ar·e accepted as tempoгary manifestatioпs, to last опlу uпtll tће
opposition of the expгopгiated authorities апd couпter-revolutioпaт
·ies is stifled, апd the iпdustгial traпsfoгmatioп is cornpleted.
SeYeral esseпtial chano-es occur iп the very process of
"' iпdustгialization. Iпdustгializatioп in а back>vard couпtry, especially
if it has по assistance апd is hiпdeгed from. аЬго_аd,
demaпds coпcentгatioп of all mateгial гesouгces. N atюnalizatioп
of iпdustгial pr-oper·ty апd the land is tће first coпceпtr-ation
of pr·operty in the haпds of the ne>v regime. However, it does
not, and can not, stop at this. . .
Тће ne>vly or·io-inated o>mer-ship inevitaЬly comes ш conflict
with other form~ of o;vnership. Тће ne1v o>mel'Ship irnposes
itself Ьу force on smaller owners who do поt employ someone
else's rnaпpo>ver, or to >vћom such manpo>ver is unessential, i.e.,
on craftsmen, >vorkers, small comrnercial mer·chants, and peasants.
This expгopriation of small property o'vneгs is effected
even >vhen it is not done for economic mot.ives, i.e., iп OI"der
to attaiп а ћigher degree of productivity.
30 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
In the course of industrialization, the property of those elernents
who were not opposed to, or even assisted, the revolution
is taken over. As а rnatter of forrn, the state also becornes the
o~vпer of this property. The state adrninisters and rnanages the
property. Private ownership ceases, or decreases to ~ rol~ of
secondary irnportance, but its cornplete disappearance IS subзect
to the 1vhirn of the ne1v rnen in authority.
This is experienced Ьу the Cornrnunists and Ьу sorne rnernbers
of the rnasses as а cornplete liquidation of classes and the
realization of а classless society. In fact, the old pre-revolutionary
classes do disappear ~vith tlle cornpletion of iпdust.rialization
and collectivization. There rernains the spontaneous and unorgaпized
displeasure of tlle rnass of the people-a displeasure
1vhich neither ceases nor abates. Cornrnunist delusions and selfdeceit
about the "remnants" and "influence" of the "class
enemy" still persist. But the illusion that the long-drearned classless
society arises Ьу tllese rneans is cornplete, at least for the
Cornrnunists themselves.
Еvету revolutioп, and even every 1var, пeates illusions апd
is coпducted in the nаше of unrealizaЬle ideals. During the
struo-o-le the ideals seern real enoug-ћ for tl1e combatants; Ьу the 1:>1:> ~
end they often cease to exist. Not so in the case of а Comrnuпist
revolution. Those who саrту out the Cornmunist revolution as
well as those anюng the lo1ver echelons persist iп their illusions
long after the aгrned struggle. Despite oppression, despotism,
unconcealed confiscatioпs, and pтivileges of the ruliпg echeloпs,
sorne of tl1e people-aпd especially the Comrnunists-retain the
illusions contained in their slogaпs.
Although the Comrnunist r·evolution may start with the rnost
idealistic concepts, calling fш 1vondeгful heroisrn апd gigantic
effort, it s01vs the greatest and the rnost per·manent illusions.
Revolutions are iпevitaЬle in the lifetime of natioпs. They
rnay result in despotisrn, but. they also launch nations оп paths
previously Ьlocked to them.
The Communist r·evolutioп caпnot attain а single one of the
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 31
ideals пarned as its rnotivating force. However, Communist revolution
has brought about а measure of industrial civilization
t.o vast areas of Енторе and Asia. Iп this way, rnaterial bases
have actнally been created for а future freer society. Thus 1vhile
bringing about. the rnost complete despotisrn, the Commuпist
revolution has also created the basis for the abolition of despotism.
As the nineteeпth ceпtury intтoduced rnodern industry
to the vVest, the hventieth century will iпt.roduce rnodern industry
to the East. The shado~v of Leпin extends over the vast
expanse of Eurasia iп one way or another. Iп despotic form iп
Chiпa, in dernocratic forrn in Iпdia апd Burma, all of the
remaiпing Asiatic апd other natioпs are iпevitaЬly eпteriпg an
industrial revolutioп. Тће Russiaп revolutioп initiated tћis
pr·ocess. Тће process rernaiпs the iпcalculaЬle and historically
significaпt fact of tће revolutioп.
5.
It rnigћt. appear tћat Cornrnunist revolutions are rnostly historical
deceptioпs апd сћапсе occurтeпces. In а sense this is
true: по otћer revolutions ћаvе required so many exceptional
coпditioпs; по otћer revolutioпs pтornised so mucћ апd accomplisћed
so little. Dernagogueiy апd rnisrepreseпtatioп are iпevitaЬle
arnoпg tl1e Comrnuпist leaders since tћеу are forced to
promise tће rnost ideal society and "abolitioп of every exploitation."
Ho1vever, it саппоt Ье said tћat the Commuпists deceived
tће people, tћat is, tћat tl1ey purposely and consciously did
somethiпg differ·eпt. frorn -vvћat tћеу had pгornised. Тће fact
is simply tћis: tћеу 1ver·e uпаЬlе to accomplisћ that in -vvhich
tћеу so fanatically believed. Тћеу canпot ackпowledge this
еvеп wћen forced to execute а policy contrar·y to everytћing
promised before and during tће revolutioп. Fтom their poiпt
of view, sucћ ackпowledgment would Ье ан adrnissioп that the
32 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
revolution was unпecessary. It 1vould also Ье ап admissioп that
they had themselves become superfl.uous. Aпythiпg of the sort
is impossiЬle for them.
The ultiшate results of а social struggle can пever Ье of the
kiпd eпvisacred Ьу those 1vho carry it out. Sоше such struggles
depeпd оп ~п iпfinite and complex series of circumstaпces beyond
the coпtrollaЫe raпge of huшan intellect апd action. This
is most true of revolutions that demand superhuman efforts
and that effect hasty and radical changes iп society. They iпevitaЬly
generate absolute coпfidence that the ultiшate iп huшan
prosperity апd IiЬerty 1vill appear after their victories. The
French revolution 1vas carried out in tће nаше of common
seпse, in the belief that liЬerty, equality, and ћ·aternity 1vouid
eveпtually appear. The Russian revolut.ion 1vas carried out in
the паше of "а purely scientific vie1v of the world," for the purpose
of creating а classless society. N either revolution could
possiЬly have been created if tlle revolutioпaries, aloпg with а
part of the people, ћаd not believed in their ovm idealistic aims.
Coшшunist illusioпs as to post-revolutioпary possiЬilities
\Vere шоrе prepoпderaпt ашопg the Commuпists than among
those who followed them. The Coшшuпists should have kпown
апd, in fact, did kno\V about the inevitaЬility of industrializatioп,
but they could опlу guess about its social results and
relationships.
Official Coшшunist historians in the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia
describe the revolution as if it 1vere tће fruit of tће previously
planпed actioпs of its leaders. But only tће course of tће r·evolutioп
and tће arшed struggle 1vas coпsciously planned, 1vhile the
forшs 1vblch tl1e revolutioп took steшшed froш the iшшediate
course of eveпts and from the direct actioп taken. It is revealiпg
tћat Leniп, uпdoubtedly оне of tће greatest revolutionaiies in
history, did not foresee 1vћen or in wћat fшm tће revolution
1vould eгupt until it was alшost uроп ћiш. Iп January 1917,
one mопtћ before tће February Revolutioп, апd опlу ten
moпtћs before tће October Revolution wћiсћ brougћt ћim
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION 33
to po1ver, ће addressed а meeting of Swiss Socialist youths:
"We, tће older generation, perћaps will not live to see the
decisive battles of the approaching revolution. But, I сан, it
seeшs to ше, express 1vitћ extreme confideпce the ћоре that the
youth, 1vho work iп the 1voпderful socialist moveшeпt of
Switzerland апd of the wlюle wщИ, will ћаvе the good fortune
not опlу t.o fight but also to emerge victorious iп tl1e appioachiпg
тevolutioп of the proletariat."
Ho1v сан it tћen Ье said that Lenin, or апуопе else, 1vas аЬlе
to foresee the social results arisiпg after the loпg апd complex
struggle of the revolution?
But еvеп if Coшnшnist. aims per se 1vere unreal, the Cornmunists,
as distinct from earlier revolutioпaгies, were fully
гealistic iп creating those tћings tћat were possiЬle. Тћеу carried
it out in the only 1vay possiЬle-by imposiпg tlleir absolute
totalitarian autlюгity. Tћeir·s was tће fi.I-st revolution in history
iп 1vhicћ tће revolutionaries not only r·emain on tће political
scene after victщy but, in the most practical sense, build social
relationsblps completely contrary to tћose iп which tћеу beIieYed
and which they proшised. Тће Coшmunist reYolution,
in tће course of its later iпdustrial duтation and tтansformation,
coпverts the revolutionaries themselves into creators and
masters of а пе1v social state.
Marx's соппеtе forecasts proYed iпaccurate. То ап even
gr·eater degr·ee, tће sarne can Ье said for Lenin's expectatioпs
that а free or classless society 1vould Ье created 1vith the aid of
tће dictatoгship. But tће need tћat made tће revolution inevitaЬie-
industгial tt·ansformation 011 tће basis of rnodern technology-
is fulfilled.
6.
Abstract logic 1vould iпdicate tћat tће Communist reyolution,
when it achieYes, under different conditions and Ьу state
compulsioп, the same things acћieYed Ьу industrial reYolutions
34 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
and capitalism in the West, is nothing but а form of state-capitalist
revolution. The relationships \vhich are created Ьу its
victory are state-capitalist. This appears to Ье even шоrе true
because the ne\v regime also regulates all political, labor, and
other relationships and, what is more important, distriЬutes the
national income and benefits and distriЬutes material goods
which actually have been transformed iпto state property.
Discussion on \vhether or not the relationships in tће U.S.S.R.
апd in other Communist countries are state-capitalist, socialist,
or perhaps sometblng else, is dogmatic to а coпsideraЬle degree.
However, such discussion is of fundamental importar1ce.
Even if it is presumed that state capitalism is notlling other
than the "antechamber of socialism," as Lenin emphasized, or
that it is the first phase of socialism, it is still поt опе iota easier
for the people \Vho live uпder Communist despotism to endure.
lf the character of property апd social relationships brought
about Ьу tће Communist revolution is streпgthened and defined,
tће prospects for liЬeration of the people from sucћ relationsћips
become more realistic. If the people are поt conscious of
the nature of the social relationships iп which they live, or if
tћеу do not see а way in which they сан alter tћem, their
struggle cannot ћаvе any prospect of success.
If the Communist revolution, despite its promises апd illusions,
is state-capitalist iп its undertakings witћ state-capitalist
relationships, tће only la,vful and positive actioпs its fuпctionaries
сап take are the опеs tћat improve their \vork апd reduce
the pressure апd irrespoпsiЬility of state admiпistr·atioп. Тће
Coшmunists do not admit iп tћeor-y tћat they are workiпg in
а system о~ state capitalisш, but their leaders behave tћis way.
Тћеу coпtшually boast about improviпg tће \Vork of tће admiпistration
апd about leadiпg tће stтuggle "agaiпst bureaucratism."
. Moreover, ac~ual ~elationsћips are not tћose of state capitalIsm;
tћese relatюnsh1ps do поt provide а method of improving
the system of state admiпistration basically.
CHARACTER OF ТНЕ REVOLUTION
Iп order to est.aЬlisћ the пature of relatioпsblps wblcћ arise
iп tће course of tће Communist revolution and ultimately become
estaЬlished iп the pr·ocess of industrialization and collectivizatioп,
it is пecessary to peer fur·ther iпto the role and manner
of оретаtiоп of tће state under Comшunism. At present, it \Vill
Ье sufficient to point out that in Coшmunisш the state macћineтy
is not tће instrument wћiсћ really determines social
and pтoperty relatioпsћips; it is only tће instrument Ьу \Vblcћ
tћese relatioпsћips ar·e protected. In truth, everytћiпg is accomplished
iн tће nаше of tће state and througћ its regulations.
Тће Communist Par·ty, iпcluding tће professional party bureaucracy,
stands above the regulations and behind every siпgle one
of tће st.ate's acts.
It is the bшeaucracy \Vћiсћ formally uses, adшinisters, and
contюls Ьоtћ пationalized анd socialized pтoperty as \vell as
the entiтe Ше of society. Тће role of tће bureaucracy iн society,
i.e., rnonopolistic administration and control of national income
and пational goods, consigпs it to а special privileged
positioп. Social relatioпs resernЬle state capitalism. Тће шо!'е
so, because tће carryiпg out of industrialization is effected not
\Vith tће ћеlр of capitalists but \Vith the ћеlр of tће state macblne.
In fact, tbls pгivileged class peтfoтms tћat functioп, using
tће state machiпe as а cover апd as ап iпstrurneпt.
0\vneпћip is пotћing otћer tћan tће right of profit and control.
If оне defines class benefits Ьу tћis r-ight, tће Comшunist
states have seen, in the final analysis, tће origin of а пеw form
of O\VIleisblp or of а ne'v тuling and exploiting class.
In reality, tlle Comrnunists \vете uпаЬlе to act differently
fr·oш ану ruling class that pтeceded them. Believiпg that
they \vere building а ne'v and ideal society, tћеу built it for
themselves in tће only \vay they could. Theii revolution and
t.heir society do not appear eitћer accideнtal or unпatural, but
appear· as а matter of course for а particular couнtry and for
pгescriЬed peгiods of its developmeпt. Because of tbls, no matter
ћо\v extensive and inћuman Coшmunist tyr·arшy ћаs been,
36 ТНЕ NEW CL.tl.SS
society, in the course of а certain period-as long as industrialization
Iasts-has to and is аЬlе to endure this tуrаппу. Furthermore,
this tyranny no longer appears as something inevitaЬie,
but exclusively as ан assurance of the depredations and privileges
of а ne"' class.
In contrast to earlier revolutions, the Commuпist revolution,
conducted in the nаше of doiпg a.vay 1vith classes, has resulted
in the most complete authority of any siпgle пеw class. Everything
else is sham and an illusion. The New Class
1.
Everything happeпed differently in the U.S.S.R. апd other
Communist countr·ies from 1vhat tће leaders-even sucћ promineпt
опеs as Lепiп, Staliп, Trotsky, апd Bukћariп-aпticipated.
They expected tћat the state 1vould тapidly 1vitl1er a1vay, that
democracy 1vould Ье streпgtheпed. 'ТЪе тeverse ћаррепеd. They
expected а rapid improvemeпt iп the staпdard of Iiviпg-tћere
has Ьееп scarcely апу chaпge iп this respect and, iп tће subjugated
East Ешореап countтies, tће standar-d ћаs even decliпed.
In еvегу instance, tће staпdard of living ћаs failed to
rise iп рторонiоп to tће rate of iпdustrialization, wћiсћ 1vas
пшсћ mоте тapid. It 1vas believed tћat tће differeпces bet1veen
cities апd villages, betweeп iпtellectual and pћysical labor,
1voпld slo1vly disappear; instead tћese differeпces have iнcreased.
Commuпist anticipatioпs iп otћer areas-iпcludiпg
tћeir expectatioпs for developmeпts in tће пon-Commuпist
world-ћave also failed to materialize.
The greatest illusioп 1vas tћat industrialization апd collectivizatioп
iп the U.S.S.R., апd destructioп of capitalist owneiSblp,
would r·esult in а classless society. Iп 1936, 1vheп tће ne1v
Coпstitutioп was promulgated, Stalir1 aпnouпced tћat the "exploiting
class" ћаd ceased to exist. The capitalist and other
37
38 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
classes of ancient origiп had iп fact been destroyed, but а new
class, previously unkпo•vn t.o history, had been formed.
It is understandaЬle that this class, like those before it, should
believe that the estaЬlishment of its po\ver \vould result in
happiness and freedom for all men. The опlу differeпce bet\
veen this and other classes was that it treated the delay in the
realization of its illusions more crudely. It thus affirmed tћat
its power was more complete than the po,ver of any other class
before iп history, and its class illusions and prejudices •vere
proportionally greater. .
This new class, the bureaucracy, or more accuтately the polltical
bureaucracy, has all the characteristics of earlier ones as
well as some пеw characteristics of its оwп. Its origiп had its
special characteristics also, even tlюugh in essence it was similar
to the begiпnings of other classes.
Other classes, too, obtained their strength and po•ver Ьу tће
revolutionary path, destroying the political, social, апd other
orders they met in their •vay. Ho•vever, almost. \vithout exception,
these classes attained power after ne\v ecoпomic patterns
had taken shape in the old society. The case was the reverse
with new classes in the Communist systems. It did not come
to po•ver to complete а ne\v economic отdет but to estaЫish
its оwп and, in so doiпg, to estaЬlish its power over society.
In earlier epochs the coming to power of some class, some
part of а class, or of some party, \vas the final everlt тesulting
from its formation and its development. The reverse was true
in tlle U.S.S.R. There the ne•v class \Vas definitely formed after
it attained pmver. Its consciousness had to develop before its
economic and physical po•vers, because tће class had not taken
root in the Ше of tће nation. This class vie\ved its role iп
relation to the \vorld fr·om an idealistic point of vie;v. Its
practical possiЬilities \vere not diminished Ьу tllis. In spite of
its illusions, it represented an objective tendency to;vard iпdustr
·ialization. Its practical bent emanated from this tendency.
The promise of an ideal vюrld increased the faitћ in the raпks
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 39
of the new class and so;ved illusions arnong the rnasses. At the
same tirne it. inspired gigantic physical undertakiпgs.
Because this ne\v class had not been forrned as а part of the
econornic and social life before it carne to po•ver, it could only
Ье created in ап organization of а special type, distinguished Ьу
а special discipline based on identical philosophic апd ideological
views of its rnernbers. А unity of belief апd iron discipline
1vas necessar-y to overcorne its ;veaknesses.
Тће roots of the пеw class 1vere irnplaпted in а special party,
of the Bolshevik type. Lenin 1vas right in his vie1v that his party
•vas an exception in tlle history of hurnan society, altllough ће
did rюt suspect that it. >vould Ье tlle begiпning of а ne•v class.
То Ье rnore pr·ecise, the initiat.ors of tће ne\v class are not
found in the party of tlle Bolsl1evik type as а \vlюle but in that
straturn of professional тevolutioпaries 1vho rnade up its сате
even Ьеfие it attaiпed po;ver. It 1vas not Ьу accideпt tЬat Leпin
asserted after t.he failure of tl1e 1905 revolutioп tЬat only professioпal
гevolutionaries-rneп ;vhose sole professioп >vas revolutionary
work-could build а ne>v party of tl1e Bolshevik type.
lt 1vas stillless accideпtal that еvеп Staliп, tће futur·e creator of
а new class, \vas the rnost outstandiпg exarnple of such а
professional гevolutioпaгy. The пе>v тuliпg class Ьаs Ьееп gr·adually
developiпg frorn tllis ver-y папо•v straturn of revolutionaтies.
Тћеsе revolutioпю-ies composed its core for а loпg period.
Tтotsky пoted tћat in pre-revolutioпary professional тevolutionaries
>vas the origiп of tЬе future Staliпist bureaucrat.
\Vhat Ье did rюt detect. was tће begiпniпg of а пе\v class of
O\VПei's and exploiters.
This is not to say that tће пе•v ратtу апd tће ne>v class ате
identical. ТЬе party, ћo;vever·, is tlle сате of tllat class, and its
base. It is very difficult, perЪaps irnpossiЬle, to defiпe tће lirnits
of tће пе;v class and to identify its rnernbers. Тће ne>v class rnay
Ье said to Ье made up of those \vћо ћаvе special privileges апd
econornic pr·efereпce because of tlle adrniпistrative monopoly
they Ьold.
40 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
Si?c~ ad~inistгation is unavoidaЬie in society, necessary
a.dmi~Istrative functioпs may Ье coexistent 1vith parasitic functJons
111 the same person. N ot. every member of tlle party is а
member of the ne1v class, апу тоге tћan еvегу aгtisan or merп·
Ьег of the city рагtу 1vas а bourgeois.
In loose terrпs, as the ne1v class becorпes stronger and attains
а .m?re perceptiЫe pl1ysiognomy, the role of the party dirшшshes.
The core апd tће basis of the ne>v class is created in
the party and at its top, as 1vell as in tће state political шgans.
The once live, corпpact party, full of initiative, is disappeaтina
to Ьесоrпе transforrпed into the tr·aditional oliaarcћy of the ne1~
l . о
~ ~ss, IrresistiЬiy dra1viпg into its ranks those 1vho aspire to
ЈОШ tће не1v class and repressiнg those >vћо ћаvе any ideals.
Тће party rпakes the class, but t.ће class gтo1vs as а result. and
uses the party as а basis. Тће class gr·o1vs stroнger, wћile the
part~ grщvs ~~eaker; this is the iнescapaЬie fate of every Corпmншst
рагtу 111 po1ver.
If it 1vere ноt. rпaterially interested in production or if it did
ноt ћаvе 1vithiн itself the potentialities for the cгeation of а
не1v class, no pa:·ty coнld act iн so nюrally анd ideologically
foolhardy а fаsћюп, Iet аlоне stay in po1ver fог Ioнg. Stalin
declared, afteг tће end of tће Fiпt Five-Year Рlап: "If we ћаd
rюt created the аррагаtнs, 1ve 1vould ћаvе failed!" Не should
have su.bstitнted "пе1v class" for the 1vord "apparatus," and
everythшg 1voнld ћаvе been cleaгer.
It seerпs unusual :Iыt а political party could Ье tће beginning
of а не1v class. Part1es are geпerally tће prodнct of classes and
strata 1vhich ћаvе Ьесоrпе iпtellectually апd econorпically
str~пg .. However, i~ one ~asps the actual conditions iп prere\
olнtюnary Russra and ш other countr·ies in whicћ Communisrп
pievailed over пational forces, it 1vill Ье сlеаг that а
party of th~s type .is the product of specific oppor·tппities апd
that theгe 1s nothшg unusual or accidental in this being so.
A.lthoнgh the гoot.s of Bolshevism геасћ far back iпto Russiaп
history, the party is partly tће product of the unique pattern
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 41
of iпternational reJationships iп 1vhicll Rпssia fонпd itself at
tће end of the пiпеtеепtћ апd the begiпiппg of the t>veпtietћ
ceпtury. Rшsia 1vas no longer аЫе to live iп the rпoderп 1voi1d
as an absolпte rпonarchy, апd Russia's capitalism 1vas too 1veak
апd too depeнdent он the iнterests of foreign po1vers to rпake
it possiЬle to ћаvе an iпdнstiial reYolutioп. This revolпtion
could онlу Ье implerпeнted Ьу а ne1v class, or Ьу а chaпge in
the social order. As yet, tћere 1vas по sucћ class.
In blstory, it is not irпportant wћо implerпeнts а process, it
is оrйу important tћat. the piocess Ье irпplerпented. Sucћ was
tће case in Russia and otћer courш'ies iн 1vћich Corпmппist.
revolпtions took place. The revolution created forces, leaders,
organizatioнs, апd ideas which 1ver·e пecessary to it. Tlle ne1v
class came iпto existeнce for objective reasoнs, and Ьу the 1visћ,
wits, анd actioн of its leaders.
2.
The social origin of the пеw class lies iп the pr·oletar·iat just
as the aristoпacy атоsе iн а peasaпt society, and the bourgeoisie
iн а corпmercial апd aтtisaнs' society. Тhете ате exceptions,
dependiнg он пational coнditioпs, Ьнt tl1e proletariat iн econorпically
underdeveloped coпntr·ies, being back1vard, constitutes
tће ra>v mateтial fтom 1vhicћ tће пе>v class arises.
There are otћer reasons 1vl1y the ne1v class all\'ays acts as tће
сћаrпрiоп of the >vorking class. Тће ne1v class is anti-capitalistic
and, consequently, logically depeпdeнt нроn tће 1vorking strata.
Тће пеw class is supported Ьу the pioletarian stшggle and ·tће
traditioпal faitll of tће proletariat. iп а socialist, Coшmнnist
society wћer·e tllere is no brutal exploitation. It is Yitally irпportant
for· tlle ne1v class to assнre а пormal flo1v of prodнction,
ћеnсе it canпot ever lose its corшection 1vitl1 tће proletaгiat.
Most irпportant of all, tl1e ne1v class cannot acbleve indпstrialization
апd consolidate its pmver 1vitћout tЪе ћеlр of tће 1vork
42 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
iпg class. Оп the other ћапd, the 1vorkiпg class sees in expaпded
industry the salvation from its poverty апd despair. Over а Ioпg
period of time, the iпterests, ideas, faith, апd hope of the пеw
class, апd of parts of the 1vorkiпg class апd of tће poor peasants,
coiнcide апd uпite. Such mergers have occurred iн the past
amoпg other 1videly differeпt classes. Did поt. the bourgeoisie
represent the peasantry iп the stтuggle agaiпst the feudal lords?
The movemeпt of the пеw class toward po1ver· comes as а
result of the efforts of tће proletariat апd the poor. These are
tће шasses upon 1vhich tЪе party or tће ne1v class шust lean
and 1vith 1vhicћ its irlterests are шost closely allied. This is true
uпtil the пеw class finally establisћes its po1ver апd authority.
Over and above tћis, tће ne1v class is interested in the proletariat
апd the poor only to the extent necessary for developiпg
production апd for шaiпtaining in subjugatioп tће шost aggressive
анd rebellious social forces.
Tlle morюpoly 1vћicll tlle пе1v class estaЬlislles in the name
of the 1vorkiпg class over the 1vhole of society is, pгimarily, а
monopoly over tће 1vorking class itself. Tћis monopoly is first
intellectual, over tће so-called avant-garde pioletai"iat, and theп
over the 1vћole pr·olctaгiat. This is tl1e Ьiggest deceptioп the
class must accomplish, but it sho1vs that the ро1vег and interests
of the new class lie pr'imarily in iпdustry. Without industry
the пеw class cannot consolidate its positioп or autћority.
Foгmer sons of tће >vorking class are the most. steadfast membeгs
of the пе1v class. lt ћаs al1vays Ьееп the fate of slaves to
provide for their шasters tће most cleveг and gifted repгeseпtatives.
In this case а пе1v exploitiнg анd govei"ning class is
Ьош fr·om the exploited class.
з.
Wћen Comшuпist systems are being critically aпalyzed, it is
considered tћat tћeir fundamental distinctioн lies in tће fact
ТНЕ NEvV CLASS 43
that а bureaucracy, organized in а special stratuш, rules over
the people. This is generally true. Ho1vever, а more detailed
analysis 1vill show that опlу а special stratum of bureaucrats,
those "\VhO are I10t administr·ative officials, Шаkе up the core of
the goverЋing bureaucracy, or, in my termiнology, of the не1v
class. This is actually а party or political bureaucracy. Other
officials ai'e only tlle apparatus uпder tlle conrol of the пеw
class; the apparatпs шау Ье clumsy and slow but, по шatter
>vhat, it шust exist iн every socialist society. It is sociologically
possiЬle to dra1v tће bordeгliнe bet1veen the different types of
officials, but in practice they are practically iнdistinguishaЬle.
This is true поt only because tће Communist system Ьу its very
natuгe is bureaucratic, but because Comшuнists ћandle tће
various important administrative functions. In addition, tће
stratuш of political Ьшеансгаts cannot епјоу tћeir privileges
if tћеу do not give CI'umbs fr'oш tћeir taЬles to other bureaucratic
categoгies.
It is iшportant to note tће fuпdaшental differences bet1veeп
the political bureaucracies шentioned ћеrе and those which
arise 1vith every ceнtralization in шоdеш economy-especially
ceпtгalizations tћat lead to collective for-ms of ownersћip such
as monopolies, compaнies, and state ownersћip. Тће nuшber
of 'vћite-collar· 1vorker·s is constaнtly iш:гeasing in capitalistic
monopolies, and also in пationalized industries in tће West.
lil Human Relations in Administration/" R. DuЬin says tllat
state functiona!'ies in tће economy are being traпsforшed into
а special stratum of society.
. .. Functionar'ies have the sense of а common destiny for
all those who >voгk together. They share the same interests,
especially since there is r·elatively little competition iпsofar
as pгomotion is in terms of seniority. In-group aggression is
thus шinimized and this aпangement is t.herefore conceived
• New York, Prentice·Hall, 1951.
44 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
to Ье positive1y functional for the bureaucracy. Ho1vever, th~
esprit de corps and informal social organization which typically
develops in such situations often leads the pers~nnel t.o
defend their entrenched interests rather than to asSist the1r
clientele and elected higher officials.
While such fuпctioпaries have mucll in commoп 1vith Commuпist
bureaucrats, especially as regards "esprit de corp~," tlley
are поt identical. Although state and otћer bureauпats ш п~nCommunist
systems form а special stratum, tl1ey do not exerCise
authority as the Communists do. Bureaucrats iп а noп-Com~
muпist state haYe political masters, usually elected, or o1vners
over tllem, 1vhile Communists have пeitћer masters nor 0\VIlers
over them. The bнreaucrats in а пon-Commuпist state are officials
in modem capitalist есопоmу, 1vћile tlle Communists
are somethiпo- different апd пе1v: а ne~v class. 1:1
As iп other o1vning classes, the proof tћat it is а special class
lies in its oЋтnership апd its special relations to otller classes.
Iп the same 1vay, tlle class to 1vћicll а member beloпgs is iпdicated
Ьу tће material апd otћer privileges 1vhicl1 ownership
briпgs to him.
As defined Ьу Roman lюv, property coпstitutes the use, enjoyment,
and disposition of mater·ial goods. Тће Communist
poiitical bureaucracy нses, enjoys, and disposes of natioпalized
property.
If we assume that membership iп this bureaucracy or пеw
o1vning class is predicated on tlle use of privileges inl:lerent. in
ownersћip-in tћis inst.ance natioпalized material goods-tl:len
membersћip iп tl:le пе1v party class, or political bureaucracy, is
reflected in а larger income in material goods and priYileges
tllan society sl:loнld пormally grant for sucl:l functioпs. In practice,
the o1vnership privilege of tlle пе;v class maпifests itself
as an exclusiYe rigllt, as а party moпopoly, for tl:le political
bureaucracy t.o distriЬute the пational income, to set wages,
direct economic deYelopment, and dispose of nationalized and
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 45
otћer pr-operty. This is tће way it appears to tће ordiпary man
;vho considers tће Communist functioпary as being very rich
апd as а mап 1vl10 does not have to work.
Тће o;vnersћip of private ргорегtу ћаs, for mапу reasoпs,
proved to Ье unfavшaЬle for tће estaЬlisl1meпt of tће пе1v
class's autlюrity. Besides, tће destructioп of pт·ivate o;vпership
1vas песеssату for tће economic tr-aпsformatioп of пatioпs. Тће
ne1v class obtaiпs its po1ver, privileges, ideoJogy, апd its cпstoms
from опе specific form of o1vпeгsћip-collective 0\vnersћip;
vblcћ tће class admiпisters апd distriЬutes iп tће name of tlle
паtiоп апd society.
Tlle пе1v class maiпtaiпs tћat Ol\'lleпblp derives from а designated
social relationsћip. Tbls is tlle relationsћip betlveen tће
monopolists of administration, 1vllo constitute а пarro1v and
closed stratum, and tlle mass of pr·oducers (farmers, 1vorkers,
and intelligentsia) 1vlю llave no rigћts. Ho;veYer, tbls тelationsblp
is not valid since tlle Communist bureaucтacy enjoys а
moпopoly оvет tће distтiЬution of mateтial goods.
ЕУету fundameпtal cllange in tће social relatioпsћip bet1veen
tllose 1vћо moпopolize admiпistration апd tllose 1vlю IVOтk is
ineYitaЬly reflected iп tlle ownersllip тelatioпsllip. Social апd
political relatioпs апd 01vnersllip-tlle totalitaгiaпism of tlle
govemmeпt and tlle moпopoly of autllшity-are being mще
fully bтougllt iпto accor-d iп Commuпism tћan in ану otller
siпgle system.
То divest Commuпists of tlleir o1vnersћip rigћts 1vould Ье to
abolish tllem as а class. То compel tllem t.o reliпquisћ tl:1eir
other social po1ver·s, so that 1vorkers may paгticipate in sllariпg
tlle pтofits of their 1vork-1vhich capitalists haYe had to permit
as а r·esult of stтikes апd parliameпtary action-would mean
that Commuпists were being depiived of their moпopoly oYer
property, ideology, and govemment. This would Ье the begiппiпg
of democracy апd freedom in Communism, the епd of
Commuпist moпopolism апd totalitaтiaпism. Uпtil tћis happeпs,
there can Ье по iпdication that important, fuпdamental
46 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
changes are taking place in Communist systems, at least not
iп the eyes of mеп 1vho think seriously about social progress.
The o;vпership privileges of the ne1v class and member·ship
in that class are the privileges of administration. This privilege
extends from state administration and the administr-ation of
economic eпterprises to that of sports and humanitariaп orgaпizatioпs.
Political, party, or so-called "geпeral leadership" is
executed Ьу the core. This positioп of leadersblp caпies privileges
1vith it. Iп his Stalin au pouvoir, puЬlished iп Paris in
1951, Orlov states that tће average рау of а worker iп tЪе
U .S.S.R iп 1935 1vas 1,800 ruЬles aппually, wblle tlle рау and
allowances of tће secretaтy of а rауоп committee аmошнеd
to 45,000 ruЬles anпually. Тће situatioп ћаs сЪапgеd siпce
theп for Ьоtћ ;vorkers апd party fuпctioпaries, but tће esseпce
remains tће same. Otћer· autћors ћаvе aпived at tће same
coпclusioпs. Discrepaпcies bet,veeп the рау of 'vorkers апd
party functioпaries are extreme; tЪis could поt Ье blddeп from
peтsons visiting tће U.S.S.R. or otћer Communist couпtтies iп
tће past fe;v years.
Other systems, too, ћа'\'е tћeir professiona1 politicians. One
сап tblnk 1vell or ill of them, but they must exist. Society
canrюt live ;vithout а state or а goveгпmeпt, апd therefOI'e
it саппоt liYe ;vithout those 'vho figћt for it.
Ho1veyer, tl1ere ar·e fuпdameпtal differeпces bet;veeп pтofessional
politiciaпs in other systems апd iп the Commuпist
system. Iп extreme cases, politiciaпs iп other systems use the
gover'Ilmeпt to secure privileges for themselves and their cohorts,
or t.o favш the ecoпomic iпterests of one social stтatum ог
aпother. The situatioп is differeпt with the Commuпist systeш
;vlrere tЪе po;ver апd the goverпшeпt are ideпtical 1vith tће
use, eпjoyment, апd dispositioп of almost all tЪе nation's goods.
Не '\Vho gr·abs po;ver grabs privileges апd iпdiгectly grabs
pr·oper·ty. Consequeпtly, in Commuпism, po;ver or politics as
а professioп is the ideal of those 'vho have the desire or the
pгospect of liviпg as paтasites at the expense of otЪers.
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 47
Membership in the Communist Party before the ReYolution
meaпt sacrifice. Beiпg а pr·ofessioпal revolutionary '\vas опе of
the highest hoпors. N O'\V that the party has coпsolidated its
pmver, party membership meaпs that оне beloпgs to а privileged
class. Апd at the core of tЪе party are the all-powerful
exploiters апd masters.
For а loпg time tће Commuпist revolutioп ahd tЪе Commuпist
system ћаvе been coпcealiпg tћeir real nature. The
emergence of the пе'v class has Ьееп concealed uпder socialist
phraseology апd, more importaпt, under tће пе'v collective
~orms. of ?тoperty o;vnership. The so-called socialist o'vпership
1s а d1sgшse for the real ownership Ьу tЪе political bureaucracy.
Апd iп the begiппing this bureaucracy 'vas iп а huпy to complete
industтializatioп, and hid its class composition under
that guise.
4.
The development of modern Communism, апd tЪе emergence
of the пе;v class, is evident iп the char-acter апd roles
of tћose wlю inspired it.
Тће leaders апd their methods, from Marx to Khrushchev
have Ьееп Yaried and changing. It never occurred to Marx t~
prevent otЪers from voicing their ideas. Leпin tolerated free
discussioп in his party and did not think tћat рану forums,
let alone the party head, should regulate the expression of
"proper" or "improper" ideas. Stalin abolished every type of
intтa-party discussion, and made the expression of ideology
solely the right of the central forum-or of himself. Oth~r
Communist movements ;vere different.. For instance, Marx's
Interпational Workers' Union (the so-called First International)
was not Marxist in ideology, but а union of varied
gтoups whicћ adopted only tће resolutioпs on whicћ its шешЬеrs
agreed. Leniп's party was an avant-garde group comblning
48 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
an internal т·evolutionary morality and ideological monolithic
stтuctuгe 1vith democracy of а kind. Under Stalin tl1e party
became а mass of ideologically disinteт·ested men, wlю got
their ideas from above, but 1vere 1vholeћearted and unanimous
iп the defense of а system that assured theш uпquestionaЬle
privileges. Marx actually never created а party; Leпin destroyed
all parties except ћis o1vn, including the Socialist Party.
Staliп relegated even the Bolshevik Party to second тank,
tтansformiпo- its core into the саге of the ne1v class, and t>
transfoгming the party into а privileged iшpersonal and color·
less group.
Marx created а system of the roles of classes, and of class 1var
iп society, even tlюugh he did not discoveт· them, апd he saw
that mankind is mostly made нр of members of disceгпiЬle
classes, althoнgh l1e 1vas only restatiпg Teт·ence's Stoic pllilosophy:
инитапi nilzil а те alienum puto." Lenin vie1ved men as
sharing ideas гather than as beiпg membeгs of discerпi~le
classes. Staliп sa1v in men only obedient subjects or епе1шеs.
Матх died а poor emigraпt in Lопdоп, Ьнt 1v~s valued Ьу
learned шеn апd valued iп the movemeпt; Lепiп died as the
leader of one of the QТeatest. тevolнtioпs, but died as а dictator t>
about. whom а cult had already begun to foгm; 1vhen Stalin
died, ће had already transformed himself iпto а god.
Тћеsе chaпges in personalities are опlу t.he гeflection of
chaпges 1vhicl1 had alтeady takeп place апd were tће very soul
of the Commuпist movement.
Althouoo- h ће did поt realize it, Lепiп started the organization
of tће пе1v class. Не estaЬlisћed tће ратtу aloпg Bolsћevik
lines апd developed tl1e tћeories of its uпique апd leadiпg role
in the buildiпg of а пе1v society. Tћis is but опе aspect of ћis
maпy-sided апd gigaпtic 1\'0rk; it is tће aspect 1vћicl1 саше
about from ћis actioпs ratћer tћan his 1visl1es. It is also tће
aspect. 1vћiсћ led tће ne1v class t.o revere ћim.
Тће real апd direct 01·iginator of tl1e ne1v class, ћo1vever,
was Stalin. Не 1vas а man of quick гeflexes апd а tendeпcy to
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 49
coarse ћurnor, rюt very educated nor а good speaker. But ће
1vas а relentless dogmatician and а great administrator, а
Georgian 1vћо knew better than аnуопе else wћitћer tће new
po1veтs of Greater Rнssia 1vere takiпg ћеr. Не created tће ne1v
class Ьу the ше of the most barbaт·ic means, поt even sparing
the class it.Self. It 1vas inevitaЬle tћat tће ne1v class >vћich
placed him at tће top would later submit to ћis unbridled
апd bшtal nature. Не was the true leader of tћat class as long
as the class 1vas buildiпg itself up, апd attaining po1ver.
Тће ne1v class 1vas bon1 in the revolutionaгy struggle in tће
Commuпist Party, but 1vas developed in tће iпdнstrial revolution.
Witћoнt tће revolution, 1vitћout indнstJy, the class's
position -.;vould not ћаvе Ьееп secure and its po1ver 1vould
lыve been limited.
vVћile t.he couпtry \Vas being industrialized, Stalin began
to iпtroduce consideraЬle variations in 1vages, at tће same
time allo1ving tће developmeпt to1vard various privileges to
proceed. Не tћонgћt tћat indнstrialization would come to
notћino- if tће ne1v class >veie not made materially inteт·est.ed
о . . .
in tће process, Ьу acquisition of some property for Itself. Witћ-
out indнstrialization tће ne1v class would find it difficult to
ћold its position, for it would ћаvе пeitћer historical justificatioп
поr the material resources for its contiпued existeпce.
Тће iпcrease in tће membersћip of tће paity, or of the
bнreaucracy, 1vas closely coпnected with tћis. Iп 1927, on tће
eve of iпdustтializatioп, tће Soviet Communist Pat·ty ћаd
887,233 members. In 1934, at tl1e епd of tће First Five-Year
Plan, the membersћip ћаd incтeased to 1,874,488. Tћis 1vas
а phenomenon obviously connected 1vith indнstrializatioп: the
prospects for tће ne1v class and pгivileges for its members wет·е
improving. "\Vћat is more, tће pгivileges апd tће class 1vere
expandiпg more rapidly than indнstrialization itself. It is difficult
to cite any statistics on tћis point, but the conclнsioп is
self-evident fот anyone 1vho Ьеатs in mind tћat the standard
of living has not kept расе 1vitћ industrial productioп, 1vhile
50 ТНЕ NEW CLASS
the new class actually seized the lioп's share of tlle economic
and other progress earned Ьу the sacrifices and efforts of tће
masses.
Тће estaЬlishment of the ne1v class did not proceed smoothly.
It encountered Ьitter opposition from existing classes апd from
those revolutionaries 1vho could not reconcile reality 1vith the
ideals of their struggle. In t.he U.S.S.R. the opposition of
revolutionaries was most evideпt in the Trotsky-Stalin conflict.
The conflict bet1veen Trotsky and Stalin, or bet1veen oppositionists
in tће party апd Stalin, as 1vell as tће conflict between
the regime апd the peasantry, became шоrе intense as iпdustrialization
advanced апd the po1ver and authority of the new
class iпcreased.
Trotsky, an excellent speaker, brilliaпt. stylist, and skilled
polemicist, а шаn cultured and of excellent intelligeпce, 1vas
deficient in only one quality: а seпse of тeality. Не 1vaпted to
Ье а revolutionary in а period 1vheп life imposed tће coшmonplace.
Не 1vished to revive а revolutioпary party 1vhich 1vas
being transformed into something coшpletely different, into
а пе1v class uпconcerned 1vith great ideals апd interested опlу
in the everyday pleasures of life. Не expected action from а
mass alieady tired Ьу 1var, hunger, and death, at а time 1vhen
tће ne1v class alгeady str'ongly held the reiпs апd had begun
to experience the s1veetness of privilege. Trotsky's fiгe~rorks
lit up the distant heavens; but ће could not тekindle fires iп
weary men. Не sharply пoted the sопу aspect of the ne1v
phenomena but ће did not gгasp their meaning. In addition,
he ћаd never been а Bolsћevik. This 1vas his vice and bls
virtue. Attacking tће party bur·eaucracy iп the name of the
гevolution, he attacked the cult of the pai·ty апd, althougћ he
1vas поt conscious of it, tl1e пеw class.
Stalin looked пeither far ahead nor far behind. Не had
seated himself at the head of the ne1v p01ver 1vhich 1vas being
bom-the пеw class, the political bureaucracy, and bureaucratism-
and Ьесаше its leader and oгganizer. Не did not px·each
ТНЕ NEW CLASS 51
-he made decisions. Не too promised а sblпing future, but
опе which bureaucracy could visualize as being real because
its life 1vas impi'O\'ing fi·om day to day and its position 1vas
being strengthened. Не spoke witlюut ardor and color, but
the пе1v class 1vas better аЫе to undeгstaпd this kind of тealistic
language. Trotsky 1vished to extend the revolutioп to Ешоре;
Stalin 1vas not opposed to the idea but this ћazai'dous undertakiпg
did not prevent him from 1vorrying about Mother
Russia or, specifically, about 1vays of strengtheпing the ne1v
system and increasiпg the po1ver and reputatioп of the Russian
state. Trotsky 1vas а man of the revolution of the past; Stalin
was а mап of today and, thus, of the future.
In Stalin's victoiy Trotsky saw the Theгшidoric reaction
agaiпst the revolution, actually the bureaucгatic corruption
of the Soviet governmeпt апd the revolutionary cause. Conse.
queпtly, he understood апd 1vas deeply hшt Ьу the amorality
of Staliп's methods. TI·otsky was the first, although he was not
a1vare of it, who in the attempt to save the Comrnuпist movement
discovered the essence of coпternporary Coшmuпism. But
he was поt сараЫе of seeiпg it tћгough to the end. Не supposed
that this was опlу а momeпtaгy croppiпg up of bureaucracy,
corruptiпg the party апd the revolution, and concluded that
tће solution 1vas in а change at the top, in а "palace revolпtion."
vVhen а palace revolution actually took place after
Stalin's death, it could Ье seen that the essence had поt
chaпged; something deepe!' and more lastiпg was iпvolved. The
Soviet Thel'midor of Staliп had поt only led to the installatioп
of а governmeпt more despotic thaп the previous оне, but also
to the installation of а class. This 1vas the contiпuatioп of that
other violeпt foreigп revolution wћich had inevitaЬly borne
апd strengthened the new class.
Staliп could, with equal if поt greater right, refer to Leпin
and all tће revolution, just. as Trotsky did. For Staliп 1vas the
lawful although 1vicked offspriпg of Lenin апd the revolutioн.
History has по previoпs record of а personality like Lenin
No comments:
Post a Comment