Voline (1934)
Red Fascism
I’ve just been reading an extract from a letter from our valiant comrade A[lfonso] Petrini [1] who is in the USSR, under banishment. There I came upon the following lines: “(…) They’re locking us all up, one by one. Real revolutionaries may not enjoy freedom in Russia. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech have been wiped out, so there is no difference between Stalin and Mussolini.”
I have deliberately emboldened the last phrase, for it is spot on. However, for the accuracy of this short phrase and all its ghastly realism to be appreciated, it is essential that we have a deep and clear-cut grasp of fascism: deeper and more clear cut than is generally the case in leftist circles.
On the basis of such a grasp, the reader will understand Petrini’s statement not as some sort of a catch-phrase but as the precise expression of a very sad fact.
Twelve years ago, when Mussolini’s movement — Italian fascism — achieved its victory, the general belief was that it was merely a localised, passing phenomenon without future prospects.
Since then, not only has “fascism” been consolidated in Italy, but kindred movements have emerged and carried the day in a number of other countries. Elsewhere, under some semblance or another, “fascism” represents a menacing school of thought. The very expression, once entirely localised, has now become widespread and international.
This state of affairs forces us to the following conclusion: the so-called “fascist” movement must have sound, deep-rooted, far-reaching historical foundations.
Now what could those foundations be? What might the main factors be underpinning the birth and above all the success of fascism?
Speaking for myself, I can come up with three which I regard, taken altogether, as the factors underpinning its success.
1. The economic factor. This is quite clear cut and widely understood. Here it is, in a few words: private capitalism (the economic foundation of which is demand freely competing for maximum profit and the political expression of which is bourgeois democracy) is falling apart and bankrupt. Violently assailed by all its enemies, whose numbers are on the rise, it is immersed in filth, crime and impotence. Wars, crisis, whole armies of the unemployed, impoverished masses, contrasted with material wealth galore and the boundless possibility of adding still further wealth, have exposed private capitalism’s powerlessness to resolve the economic problems of the age. These days there is a growing awareness of its death throes and imminent demise. So, instinctively or knowingly, thoughts have turned to replacing it with some new brand of capitalism, in the hope that the latter will be able to “save the world”. Yet again in human history, thoughts are turning to the lofty mission of a strong, all-powerful State based upon dictatorship. Thoughts are turning to a state capitalism directed by a dictatorships that “is above private interests”. Such is the new brand of capitalism underpinning fascism economically.
2. The social factor. This too is very clear cut and widely understood. The failure of private capitalism with all its horrific implications has conjured up an unmistakably revolutionary situation. The increasingly unhappy masses are stirring. Revolutionary currents are gaining ground. Organised workers are making increasingly active preparations to do battle with a system which grinds them down to the advantage of a gang of bandits. The working class, freely and pugnaciously organised (along political, trade union and ideological lines) is becoming more and more of an irritation, more and more of a threat to the propertied classes.
The latter have woken up to how precarious their situation is. And are running scared. So, instinctively or consciously, they are looking for a way out. They strive at all costs to cling to their privileged position which is based on exploitation of the toiling masses. What matters above all else is that the latter should remain an exploited, wage-dependent flock fleeced by its masters.
If the current model of exploitation cannot be sustained, a change of model will be called for (no great deal) to ensure that the underlying situation is unchanged. The masters of today can remain such as long as they agree to become members of a vast economic, political, social and essentially statist panel of leaders. Now, if this new social structure is to be made a reality, there has to be, above all else, an almighty state led by a strong man, a mailed fist, a dictator, a Mussolini, a Hitler! Such is the new brand of capitalism by which fascism is being fed, socially.
Were fascism based only upon these two things — its economic and its social underpinnings — it would never have gained the power we know it possesses. No doubt about it: the organised labouring masses would swiftly have stopped it in its tracks once and for all. Indeed, the means whereby the working class generally does battle with capitalism would, with a few minor adjustments, be of service still in effectively fighting against the reaction and fascism. Which would be simply the latest chapter of the workers’ great historic struggle against their exploiters. How many times during the course of history to date has the enemy adopted a new tack, donned a new mask or switched weapons! None of which ever stopped the workers from carrying on with their fight, without loss of equilibrium or confidence, without letting themselves be undone by the enemy’s maneuvering and U-turns!
Now, here we come to the important point. Whilst it may be regarded as a new (defensive and offensive) ploy by capitalism, fascism, wheresoever it set seriously about its task, scored such a stunning, extraordinary, fantastic success that the working class’s struggle proved, all of a sudden and universally — and this goes for Italy as well as for Germany, for Germany as well as for Austria, for Austria as well as elsewhere — not just testing but utterly ineffective and powerless. Not only has liberal bourgeois democracy failed to defend itself, but so have socialism, (Bolshevist) communism, the trade union movement, etc. They have all failed utterly to stand up to a capitalism with its back to the wall as it has maneuvered to save its skin. Not only have all these forces failed to wage a successful resistance against a capitalism overhauling its shaken ranks, but it has been the latter which has been quick to regroup and crush all its foes.
Socialism, so mighty in Germany, Austria and Italy, has proved powerless. “Communism”, itself very strong, especially in Germany, has proved powerless. The trade unions have proved powerless. How are we to account for this?
An already highly complicated problem is becoming even more so, if we think about the current situation in the USSR. As we know, there it was an authoritarian state communism (Bolshevism) that scored a stunning and rather easy victory in the events of 1917. Now, these days, nearly seventeen years on from that victory, not only is communism proving powerless to resist fascism abroad, but, where the regime within the USSR itself is concerned, the latter is more and more often being described more and more deliberately as “red fascism“. Comparisons are drawn between Stalin and Mussolini. Note is taken of the ferocious repression of the toiling masses by the ruling apparatus there which makes up a million persons of privilege dependent, as they are everywhere else, by the way, upon military and police powers. The absence of all freedom is noted. So too is the arbitrary and relentless persecution. And what counts is that such discoveries or opinions are coming, not from bourgeois quarters, but above all from the ranks of revolutionaries … socialists, syndicalists, anarchists, and even from the ranks of the communist (Trotskyist) opposition which, on this basis, is “resuming the fight for emancipation” and launching the Fourth International.
All of these things are extremely worrying. They lead us inescapably to this conclusion, which may appear paradoxical: that even in the USSR, albeit under a different guise, it is fascism that has carried the day: that it is a new capitalism (state capitalism under the leadership of a mailed fist, a dictator, Stalin) that is in the saddle.
How are we to account for all this?
And might there yet be some other element, some other basis, some other raison d’etre that could be affording fascism some exceptional edge?
To which my answer is Yes. Here we have the third factor: the one I have yet to explore. I regard it as the most important one of all, as well as the most complicated and the least understood. Yet it is the one that explains everything for us.
3. The psychological (or ideological!) factor. The underlying factor in the successes of the fascists and the powerlessness of the forces of emancipation is, as I see it, the poisonous notion of dictatorship per se. I would even go further. There is a notion so widespread that it has all but turned into an axiomatic truth. Millions upon millions, even today, would be astounded to find it called into question. Better still: a goodly number of anarchists and syndicalists too see nothing suspect in it. Speaking for myself, I regard it as entirely wrong-headed. Now, every false notion embraced as a fact poses a great danger to the cause it affects. The notion in question is as follows: in order to win in the struggle and achieve their emancipation, the toiling masses have to be guided and led by some “elite”, some “enlightened minority”, by “far-seeing” men on a level higher than the masses.
That such a theory — which I see as merely a sweetened expression of the notion of dictatorship, for, in fact, it strips the masses of all freedom of action and enterprise — that a theory such as this can be peddled by exploiters, is perfectly understandable. But that such a notion should be anchored in the minds of those who purport to be liberators and revolutionaries, is one of the queerest phenomena history has to show. For — and this strikes me as obvious — if they are to shrug off exploitation, the masses should be led no longer. Quite the contrary: the toiling masses will rid themselves of all exploitation only once they have found a way of ridding themselves of all tutelage, of shifting for themselves, using their own initiative, in pursuit of their own interests, with the assistance and from within the ranks of their own authentic class agencies — trade unions, cooperatives, etc., — federated one with another.
The notion of dictatorship — be it mailed fist or velvet glove — being universal and universally embraced, the way is open for fascist psychology, ideology and action. That psychology penetrates, poisons and disintegrates the entire workers’ movement and points it along a dangerous path.
If the reckoning is that dictatorship is needed to direct the working class’s struggle for emancipation, then in actuality the class struggle turns into a competition between dictators. At bottom, the point of that struggle is to find out who will retain or win a decisive hold over the masses. So the outcome of the contest depends on all sorts of rather incidental circumstances. Dictator X carries the day here, dictator Y or Z yonder. Either of them may profess very different, indeed contradictory ideals. But the fact remains that in place of unfettered, far-ranging activity by the masses themselves, it is the winner who will lead the masses dragooned into following him on pain of ghastly repression. It must be obvious that such a prospect can have nothing to do with actual emancipation of the labouring masses.
The notion of dictatorship, of elite leadership inevitably leads to the formation of political parties: agencies which nurture and support the future dictator. In the end, such and such a party will triumph over the rest. At which point its dictatorship climbs into the saddle. No matter which it may be, it quickly conjures up its appointments and, ultimately, its privileged strata. Subjecting the masses to its will. Oppressing them and exploiting them and, deep down, inevitably becoming fascist.
So my vision of fascism is quite elastic. As I see it, any school of thought that countenances dictatorship — be it of all-out or kid-glove, “right wing” or “left wing” variety — is, deep down, objectively and essentially fascist. In my eyes, fascism is primarily the notion of the masses being led by some “minority”, some political party, some dictator. In terms of psychology and ideology, fascism is the idea of dictatorship. That idea articulated, spread or implemented by the propertied classes is readily understood. But when that same idea is taken up and implemented by ideologues from the working class as the road to emancipation, that should be deemed a poisonous aberration, a short-sighted, silly nonsense, a dangerous deviation. For, being essentially fascist, that idea, if put into effect, leads inevitably to a profoundly fascist social organisation.
This truth has been comprehensibly — and incontrovertibly — borne out by the “Russian experience”. The notion of dictatorship as a means of emancipating the working class has been put into practice there. Well, its implementation has inevitably brought forth an effect which these days is becoming plainer and plainer and which soon even the most ignorant, short-sighted and pig-headed will be forced to acknowledge: instead of leading to the emancipation of the working class, the victorious revolution actually and despite all the theorising of the dictator-liberators, brought forth the most comprehensive, ghastliest enslavement and exploitation of that working class at the hands of a privileged ruling class.
So much for the third and chief factor in fascism’s special power. It is fed primarily by the deeply fascist — and unwittingly fascist — ideology of a multitude who would be the first to be astonished and outraged to be accused of being fascists. That ideology, which has seeped in everywhere, even into the ranks of the “emancipators” and workers themselves, is poisoning the workers’ movement, making it flabby and breaking it down. It kills off genuine activity by the masses and whittles their struggles and indeed their successes to nothing — or rather, to a fascist outcome.
This — alas! — is why Petrini has it right. “No difference between Stalin and Mussolini.” Which is why the “red fascism” is no catchprase but an accurate expression for a very sad fact.
Yet there is consolation to be had. The masses learn through all too palpable first hand experience. And the experience is there. Across one sixth of the globe it is an everyday fact. Its real outcomes are starting to become more and more widely known in greater and greater detail. We must wait for the labouring masses of every land to derive from it, at the opportune moment, the lesson vital to the success of their future struggles.
Whether this hope comes true depends largely on the conduct of those who have understood already. They have a duty to make the most energetic efforts to get the vast toiling masses to recognise the negative lessons of the Russian experience.
We anarchists, who have come to understand, must step up and intensify our propaganda, whilst keeping that experience in the forefront of our minds. If we do our duty, if we help the masses understand in time, then the USSR’s “red fascism” will, historically speaking, have rendered a useful service: and, by acting it out, done the idea of dictatorship to death.
Voline
[1] Alfonso Petrini: Ancona-born Italian anarchist sentenced in absentia by the Italian courts to 17 years behind bars for his alleged part in the killing of the carabinierie Antei during the revolutionary disturbances in Ancona in 1920.
First published in the July 1934 edition of Ce qu’il faut dire (Brussels). Reprinted (Itinéraire No 13, 1995, Paris). Translated by: Paul Sharkey.
===============================================
Pogrom
Voline 1934
Pogrom, noun, masculine.
Word directly adopted with a precise and even a special meaning by other languages, and in particular French.
Philologically the word pogrom is composed of the root “grom” and the prefix “po.” (Note in this respect that the word “progrom,” frequently employed by the French press in the place and with the meaning of pogrom is an error, a mutilation of the real term. The word “progrom” has no meaning, the prefix “pro” in Russian having a meaning that cannot be adapted to the root “grom.” The word “progrom” is thus non-existent.) Using the root “grom” the Russian language forms the verb “gromit” which means to devastate, sack, massacre. Taking that same root “grom” and adding the prefix “po” we get the noun “pogrom,” which means the act of devastating, sacking, massacring. (Adding to the same root “grom” another Russian prefix “raz” we obtain another noun, “razgrom,” which also means devastation, ruin. But while the word “razgrom,” aside from its special meaning of military debacle, means a purely material devastation or disorder, provoked by natural or unavoidable forces, the term “pogrom” clearly means an act of sacking or massacre that is conscious, voluntary, and premeditated rather than spontaneous, carried out by several people with the goal of devastating, sacking, destroying, pillaging, harming, assassinating, or massacring.)
We thus mean by pogrom, in the general meaning of the term, every voluntary act of more or less serious devastation or destruction of material values as well as human life; an insane savage act carried out by several people, or rather an unleashed mob pushed to this crime by blind hatred and anger, by a nearly pathological thirst for vengeance, violence, blood.
But if we used this term only in its general meaning there would be no reason for it to be borrowed from Russian by foreign languages. The word massacre, for example, would largely suffice in the French language. And in fact, all the “pogroms” that have taken place throughout history, in France and in other countries, religious, political, and other pogroms, are qualified as massacres in French.
In borrowing the word pogrom from the Russian language the aim was to designate something completely special, something specifically Russian. In fact, in Russian the word pogrom signifies, aside from its general meaning, especially and above all a mass massacre of Jews. Massacres of this kind: pogroms, periodically took place in Russia from the end of the nineteenth century until the fall of Tsarism, and even beyond. And it was in this specific sense that the word pogrom was adopted by foreign languages. Struck by the monstrosity of such proceedings in the heart of the twentieth century, carried away by a feeling of repulsion against such abominations, the peoples of other countries took the habit of calling these horrors by their original name.
The reader will find more detail on pogroms in the entry [in the “Encyclopédie anarchiste”] for “Anti-Semitism.” We will complete it here.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century tsarist absolutism began to be increasingly seriously threatened by all kinds of revolutionary and popular movements, the natural consequences of a revolting political oppression and the horrible material and moral situation of the working masses.
In order to face down these movements the government found nothing better than to resort to the tried and true recipe, notably, increasingly severe repression along with the canalization of popular discontent towards manifestations less dangerous for the regime. In order to do this the government did not hesitate to exploit the credulity, the ignorance, and the religious prejudices of the masses, as well as appealing to the lowest instincts of the “human animal” so as to place responsibility for all misfortunes on the Jews and to orient the people’s anger in their direction. The governmental and right thinking newspapers carried out systematic propaganda against the Jews. They were accused of treason, of anti-national plots, of all possible crimes and vices. And from time to time they sent out against them groups recruited from the lower deaths of the police and the unemployed elements of the cities. We must hasten to say that the real working population remained more or less foreign to these acts of savagery and that the proletariat of the cities often organized the defense of the Jewish population against those who carried out the massacres. As for the police, even when they didn’t directly lead the massacres they prepared them behind the scenes. Closing their eyes to what was happening they only intervened when the events threatened to go beyond the pre-established framework and take on “exaggerated” dimensions.
What happened during “non-exaggerated” pogroms surpasses in horror anything that could be imagined. Apartments, sometimes even entire houses sacked; property stolen and carried away with the savage cries of triumphant beasts; men killed en masse with unheard of cruelty; women attacked and disemboweled amidst the ruins; children seized and skewered on sabers or crushed against walls. And little distinction was made between wealthy Jews and the poor Jewish working population. The detailed descriptions of certain large-scale Jewish pogroms, descriptions made by eyewitnesses, produce a terrifying impression, to such a point that it is impossible to read them through in one sitting. And as for those who had the misfortune to be the victims of a pogrom, or to have witnessed one, they more often than not lost their reason. We must add that precise, certified documentation concerning pogroms is abundant, both in Russia and in other countries.
It was especially in the first years of the twentieth century, along with the growth of popular discontent against the absolutist system, that pogroms took on a certain periodicity and appeared in a virtual series. These are the principal ones: Odessa in October 1905; Kiev, October 1905; Tomsk, October 1905; Gomel, January 1906; Bialystok, June 1906; Kishinev, several pogroms in 1905 and 1906;. The victims of these large-scale pogroms can be counted in the hundreds, sometimes in the thousands. And aside from these large-scale pogroms there were dozens of lesser importance. After 1906 the wave of pogroms fell as if by magic, the government feeling itself to be more secure after having smashed the revolution of 1905.
The revolution of 1917 and the fall of tsarism did not bring the practice of pogroms to a complete end. Wherever counter-revolutionary elements momentarily got the upper hand (the Petliura, Denikin, Wrangel, and Gregoriev movements, among others) Jewish pogroms started up again, on the orders of or at the very least under the benevolent eyes of the leaders, who sought to in this way obtain popularity and to flatter the unhealthy instincts of the masses they depended on.
Can we at least say that currently pogroms in Russia are nothing but nightmares of the dark past and that they can never be revived? Alas, no. This cannot be affirmed. At the risk of surprising certain readers we must admit in all honesty that anti-Semitism still exists in Russia and that pogroms are still very much to be feared in the future.
Modern Russian anti-Semitism, it is true, no longer has the same basis or meaning as in the past. Its basis and meaning have become more vast, more profound, and clearer. Its effects will be all the more disastrous. It is no longer suggestions from above that nourish them, but rather appreciations born and spread in the popular strata themselves. At the current moment it is smoldering under the ashes. But it could break out one day in a terrible explosion.
What is the appearance of the new anti-Semitism in the USSR?
Despite the contrary opinion of many people overseas who, momentarily duped by the intense propaganda and the skillful mise en scène of the Bolsheviks, are totally unaware of current Russian reality, the Bolshevik regime is not stable. We affirm this categorically. A famous phrase is attributed to Trotsky that he perhaps never said, but which, independently of its author, depicts the true situation of the USSR. Trotsky is supposed to have said, at the beginning of the Bolshevik regime, responding to someone who doubted the solidity of the new statist system: “300,000 nobles were able to govern this people for three centuries. Why can’t 300,000 Bolsheviks do the same?” The analogy between the two possibilities, the old and the new, perhaps surpasses human thought: it is total. Current Russian reality is perfectly expressed in it: a people oppressed by a privileged stratum which maintains itself in power by any means necessary. People were right to call tsarist Russia a “giant with feet of clay,” for the entire edifice of the time had as its basis the oppression and enslavement of the masses. History proved the truth of the expression: the giant collapsed. But the new giant, the USSR, also has feet of clay, for like the other one, it maintains itself by means of the oppression and enslavement of the masses. It will thus also inevitably end up collapsing. And in the current conditions it cannot possibly maintain itself, even as long a quarter century.
And so the day when events in the USSR take an unfavorable turn for the masters of the moment the people’s anger will inevitably fall on the heads of the masters it will consider responsible for all the miseries and failures of the revolution, and there are many Jews in the ranks of the Russian Communist Party, particularly among its leaders. “We are oppressed by foreigners and Jews:” this appreciation is current in the USSR. It is thus possible that in the hurricane of the fight and in an access of hatred the entire Jewish population will become the object of the hatred of the unleashed mob. We can only hope that the working masses will again find within themselves enough good sense, will, and strength to not allow a salutary movement against the true oppressors degenerate into a new Massacre of the Innocents.
====================================================
Voline (1930)
Letter From Russia
The Russian Revolution has just entered its thirteenth year, a lapse of time sufficient for a social upheaval, even one of this scale, to prove itself.
What, then, is the current status of the country of “the most formidable” revolution? This question constantly occurs to a multitude of people, of all tendencies and social conditions who, drowning in the most varied and contradictory information end up by losing any hope of arriving at an exact notion of things there. Even our comrades are not always immune to fantastic rumors that they all too often don’t know how to reply to with rigorous and documented facts.
In a series of more or less regular articles we will attempt to provide readers of “La Revue Anarchiste” with as precise information as possible on the true situation in the USSR, among others the political, economic, and social situation. We will gather this information exclusively from primary and unarguable sources: Soviet newspapers (“Izvestia,” “Pravda,” and others), letters from our correspondents…
Before beginning these articles we would like to recall for our readers a few essential facts of the Russian Revolution on the occasion of its twelfth anniversary. This review will doubtless be useful to all those interested in the subject. In addition, it will serve as a basis for all we will later have to say.
The revolution’s beginnings completely confirmed the theses and predictions of the anarchists. In fact, it was neither a party nor a political nor any other type of group that began or led the revolution. It broke put spontaneously with a general and decisive uprising of the working masses that ended up dragging the parties along in their train (February-March 1917).
Two parallel processes became immediately clear, as has been the case in all revolutions of vast scope. On one hand there was the groping around, the questioning, and the efforts of the popular masses who wanted to continue the revolution, to take it down the wide road of free popular activity with grand social realizations in sight. On the other hand there was the hasty rallying of all kinds of political elements seeking to take the revolution down the political road, thus establishing a new government and liquidating the free popular movement.
The political current initially arrived at the formation of three consecutive governments, none of which was able to resolve the gigantic problems of the revolution or satisfy the aspirations of the working masses. In order, they were the governments of the bourgeoisie and the agrarians (Miliukov, Prince Lvov), that of the “coalition” (with Kerensky), and finally Kerensky’s socialist government (March- October 1917).
In the meanwhile the country continued to suffer. The problems of the revolution remained open. All the governments promised the prompt calling of the Constituent Assembly along with many other things. But all found it impossible to keep their promises. In these conditions another political group came from the shadows and, strengthened by the march of events, undertook the fight for power. This was the Communist Party (Bolshevist).
At the same time the free activity of the masses became more pronounced. The soviets, the factory committees, the newly formed unions worked without cease. The insurrection of July 3, 1917 was one of the manifestations of that nascent force.
From the beginning the anarchists sought to support this popular current, to give it their disinterested assistance.
When the Kerenesky government was definitively discredited the great question arose: what was to be done? Bring down this government and put in its place a Bolshevist government, as the Communist Party preached? Or push the revolution towards new economic and social horizons so that the masses, strengthening their action, definitively make themselves masters of the situation and make the Kerensky government disappear without replacing it by another? (This was the thesis of the anarchists.)
It was the first current that carried the day. The masses gave their confidence and their assistance to the Bolshevist Party. They assisted it in conquering power in the hope that this new “proletarian” government would finally know how to solve the problems of the revolution. Two key reasons explain the lack of success of the anarchist idea: 1 — The weakness of the anarchist movement (in number and coordination); 2- The absence in the country of a worker’s movement organized before the revolution. The insurrection of October-November 1917 won out over the Kerensky government. The Bolshevists were installed in power. They organized their so-called “proletarian” state.
The only problem they were then able to resolve — and this under the pressure of the masses — was the abandonment of the imperialist war. As for the rest, they demonstrated an impotence equal to that of the preceding governments (the agrarian problem, labor problem, financial problems, etc., etc.) But — and this is the essential — in order for the masses to become aware of this they needed more time than they previously had. And when they finally understood their error and undertook a desperate struggle against the impotent new power it was too late: the government, having organized in advance its forces of resistance and defense, the popular movement was definitively crushed (the Makhnovist movement, the Kronstadt uprising o f 1921, etc.) During this same period the anarchist movement was obliterated.
Nevertheless, the sterility of Bolshevist activities and their results forced Lenin to retreat. In the face of a threat of a wide-scale movement he proclaimed the New Economic Policy (NEP) and granted a certain freedom to the economic activity of the population.
Alas, the very meaning of that “freedom” was completely falsified. Instead of a free creative activity on the part of the masses it meant freedom for certain individuals to engage in commerce and enrich themselves. The NEP sparked new growth for the bourgeoisie and at the same time a formidable state bureaucracy and bourgeoisie were formed. In the midst of all this, Lenin died (1921).
And so in 1921, at the time of Lenin’s death, four years after the October Revolution, two facts of a primordial importance became clear:
The most left wing, the most advanced, the most revolutionary government showed itself to be powerless to resolve, in its “proletarian state,” the problems of the social revolution. This powerlessness led to an economic and social situation so deplorable that the only means of escaping it was that of that of giving breath to a half-suffocated private capitalism;
The true revolutionary movement — that of the masses in full social action — having been completely stifled a new murderous bureaucracy, as well as a new state bourgeoisie, avid and cruel, were formed and established on the backs of the workers, now crushed and exploited more pitilessly than ever by this new caste of owners. It should be noted that these results also perfectly confirm the theses and predictions of the anarchists.
We are reaching the end of our rapid review.
We know that Lenin’s dictatorship was little by little replaced by that of Stalin, who is now the grand master of the USSR.
What is more, the general situation that we have just described logically gave place to two principal phenomena: to the formation within the Communist Party of a so called “left” Opposition which, disgusted by the current state of affairs, seeks a solution in the total suppression of the NEP as well as other un-realizable measures as well as to the birth of a so-called “Right” current, whose partisans — also Bolsheviks — horrified by the complete ruin of the country want to strengthen capitalist restoration (especially in agriculture) as the sole means of salvation.
As for Stalin himself and his immediate entourage, these men are attempting to fight against the two “extremes” while all the while striving to maintain the status quo and to tack between the principles of communism on the one hand and the pressing need to make concessions to the needs of the hour on the other.
In the meanwhile, the country — whose vital forces remain tied up and whose working population is deprived of all freedom, of all initiative, of all means of action — falls deeper and deeper into an abyss of unparalleled misery…
Source: La Revue Anarchiste, No. 2, January 1930;
Translated: for marxists.org