Issuing body: Revolutionary Communist Party (British Section of the Fourth International)
Rejected texts
Amendments submitted by the RCP of Great Britain
The Revolutionary Communist Party, British section of the Fourth International, submits the following amendments to the draft theses "The Fourth International and Stalinism":
1. Insert a paragraph on the double character of Russian society which, being a transitional regime between capitalism and socialism, contains, by that very fact, both capitalist and socialist elements coming into conflict with one another. Insofar as the state is based on the economic conquests of the revolution, on nationalised property, on the monopoly of foreign trade, and above all on the planned economy, it is a workers' state. These factors still today represent the fundamental achievements of the October 1917 revolution and constitute, from a class standpoint, the economic basis from which we characterise the USSR as a workers' state and from which our policy of defence of the Soviet Union derives. Nevertheless, the remuneration of labour by means of wages, the production of surplus value and of commodities, and monetary circulation continue to exist, as do numerous other characteristics of capitalism, and it is on the basis of these social relations of a capitalist nature that the growing differentiation between the bureaucracy on the one hand and the workers on the other takes place. Insofar as the state protects and enforces these rights of capitalism, insofar as it is totalitarian and becomes ever more oppressive and bureaucratic instead of becoming ever more democratic, it assumes and exercises a capitalist function and takes on an ever-growing number of capitalist characteristics, but always on the basis of state ownership of the means of production.
2. Insert the following: "The growing differentiation between the bureaucratic caste and the masses, on the basis of the development of the productive forces, will lead to a sharpening of the contradictions within Russian society. The development of the productive forces, far from opening the way to harmonious development, sharpens the antagonism between the proletariat and the bureaucracy. The liberal defenders of Stalinism, recalling that in the past capitalist development led to bourgeois democracy, argue that the same process could be repeated in Russia. This analogy is fundamentally false. The introduction of democracy under the capitalist regime was the product of the class struggle as well as of the fragmentation of private property and of free competition, which served to mask the relations of exploitation between workers and capitalists. But, with the development of the monopolies, democracy and capitalism become incompatible. With state ownership of the means of production, the relations become clearer and take on the naked and evident form of parasitism on the part of the bureaucracy. Democracy in Russia must mean control by the working class; consequently any attempt to establish genuine democracy would lead to the overthrow of the bureaucracy and the abolition of its privileges. On the basis of the development of the productive forces under the capitalist regime, the capitalist class was able, for a whole historical period, to coexist with a democratic regime. But, whatever concessions the Stalinists may be forced to grant under the pressure of the Russian masses, they will never be able to permit the establishment of democracy, for their very existence depends on the totalitarian vice. It is for this reason that the Stalinist regime is a regime of crises, and that the growth and development of the economy, entailing the growth and development of the proletariat, is accompanied by ever more flagrant contradictions. Only the proletariat, by overthrowing the bureaucracy by force, by abolishing inequalities, the dictatorship, the terror, the purges, the secret police and the slave camps, will be able to restore a harmonious development of the productive forces. The evolution towards communism and towards the withering away of the state can be accomplished only with the participation and under the democratic control of the proletariat. The Stalinist regime, far from progressing in this direction, needs above all, as Stalin himself said, an ever stronger state. The political essence of the regime contains the most barbarous characteristics of the most reactionary of capitalist regimes, namely fascism. All aspects of life are poisoned by lies, hypocrisy, terror and fear. And thus the economic development of Russia comes ever more into conflict with the political superstructure. This conflict can be resolved only by the overthrow of the bureaucracy and the establishment of workers' control at a higher economic level."
3. Delete all assertions to the effect that the tendency is towards a decline in the productivity of labour. Rewrite so as to bring out that, despite the temporary decline in productivity, due to the war and its immediate repercussions, the general tendency is towards an increase in the productivity of labour in the Soviet Union.
4. Delete all statements and arguments implying that the bureaucracy constitutes an absolute brake on the development of the productive forces and of the productivity of labour. Rewrite to show that the productive forces continue to develop despite the excesses and the mismanagement of the bureaucracy. With the free participation of the masses in management and control, the productive forces could be developed at a much more rapid rate. This is why the bureaucracy constitutes a relative, but not an absolute, brake on the forces of production.
5. Delete all statements to the effect that there is an immediate danger of small-scale artisanal production, primitive accumulation in its present form, or the thefts perpetrated by individual bureaucrats, constituting a serious threat in the direction of an overthrow of state property and of a capitalist restoration on the basis of private property.
6. After "The introduction of the system of state bonds is to be regarded as a means of increasing and stabilising the privileges of the bureaucracy," delete the part which states that this system "in no way indicates a tendency towards the 'sharing' of a profit derived from real capital, corresponding to the fictitious capital constituted by these bonds." Rewrite to show that the introduction of the system of state bonds not only increases the wealth of the bureaucracy, but that this process is accomplished according to entirely capitalist formulas, and that the income derived from bonds constitutes surplus value in the form of interest. At the same time, it should nevertheless be noted that the extent of these securities is insignificant in relation to the economy as a whole.
7. Delete the assertion that "the more the bureaucracy strives to encompass the country's productive forces within its overall plan, the more they escape it." Rewrite to show that the bureaucracy is increasing its grip and its control over the productive forces, by gradually incorporating all the sectors of the economy which, owing to the backward state of the countryside or of industry, had remained outside the plan, but that it does so in a bureaucratic manner.
8. Delete the lines which state that the position of the bureaucracy in Russia is more unstable than that of the bourgeoisie, namely that it "has occupied, during the last twenty years, a far less stable position in Russian society than even the most decadent bourgeoisie occupies in its own society." This is evidently false, as its survival during the war has proved. Rewrite to show that, from the standpoint of internal contradictions, there is no apparent or immediate danger of the overthrow of the bureaucracy and the destruction of the regime by a counter-revolution which would place political power in the hands of private capitalists, nor of a restoration of private property as the dominant form of production. History has shown, through the test of the war, that no section of the bureaucracy became the protagonist of the restoration of capitalism. Whereas a vast revolutionary movement outside Russia, succeeding in overthrowing capitalism in the advanced states, would intensify the fighting spirit of the Russian workers and give them a revolutionary impulse, in the absence of such a movement, and given the totalitarian regime of oppression, it is unlikely that we shall witness, in the course of the next few years, a vast movement of the Russian workers aimed at overthrowing the Stalinist regime. It follows that, while the personal position of individual bureaucrats is hardly secure, on the whole the stability of the bureaucracy and the consolidation of its privileges constitute the most probable development for the immediate future.
9. Delete the word "forced" in "the introduction of a system of forced labour on a vast scale." Compulsory labour has always been one of the characteristics of Soviet society and will be so, at the outset, in any healthy workers' state. Slave labour on a gigantic scale is the product of Stalinism.
10. Delete the passages which state that: a) the "buffer-zone" countries — Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria — are capitalist countries and that the fundamental structure of the economy there is capitalist; b) as well as the thesis that the bureaucracy "will in the long run prove incapable of carrying through a genuine structural assimilation, which requires the destruction of capitalism"; c) the defeatist policy and the tasks proposed for the workers of these countries in the event of a new world war...
Rewrite and show that the economy of these countries is gradually being aligned with that of the Soviet Union: a) fundamentally, capitalist property relations have already been overturned or this overturning is in the process of being accomplished; b) capitalist control of the government and of the state apparatus has already been destroyed or is in the process of being destroyed; c) this process of assimilation is the necessary and inevitable product, on the one hand, of the class character of the Russian economy and of the preponderance of the Russian state as the dominant military and political force in the present relations among world powers, and, on the other hand, of the balance of forces between the Stalinist and working-class organisations and the remnants of the ruling class.
The economic transformations carried out by the Stalinists secure them mass support from the workers and peasants against the capitalist class, and they are able to use this support as an instrument of pressure. In the present state of the relationship of forces, the intervention of the masses, or of the most advanced layer among the workers, has taken place and will take place on the basis of a movement set in motion and controlled from above, and it will develop to the extent that the Stalinists need the pressure of the workers to complete the process begun by the state's repressive apparatus.
The economic transformation in the "buffer-zone" countries (which appears most clearly in the case of Czechoslovakia, where it has been carried out most completely: complete nationalisation of the means of production, elimination of wholesale merchants, monopoly of foreign trade, division of the land) places the tasks of the Fourth International in these countries on the same footing as our tasks in the Ukraine and in the other republics of the Soviet Union. In Romania, and even in Hungary, the process is at a different stage, but there too the fundamental overturn has been accomplished, and the conditions necessary for the completion of the process are present. In Finland, where the ruling class is far stronger within the state and the economy, and where the Stalinists have far less influence among the masses and within the state apparatus, it also appears likely that the Stalinists will be forced to carry out the fundamental overturn and to proceed with the assimilation of the economy, if not today, then at a later stage and before the outbreak of a new world war. Our demands in these countries are analogous to the demands of the Trotskyists in the USSR (see the document), and the defence of these countries against an imperialist attack constitutes an obligatory duty for the same reason that we advocate the defence of the Soviet Union.
The destruction of capitalism in these countries must not be taken as a model for the general overthrow of capitalism, and it in no way proves that in Western Europe capitalism can be destroyed in cold blood, through terror exercised from above. The development as it has taken place, based on a limited intervention on the part of the masses, was the result of the weakness of the bourgeoisie and of its state apparatus after the war, as well as of the preponderance of Russia as the principal military and political force in Eastern Europe.
To say that the general tendency is towards an alignment of the economy of the "buffer-zone" countries with the economy of the Soviet Union does not in any way mean that we accept the Stalinist theory of the "progress of socialism in the new democracies." There are no more possibilities for a free development of socialism in these countries than in the Soviet Union itself, even though the foundations for it have been laid by the nationalisation of property and the elimination of the former ruling classes. Developments in these countries will remain subordinated to the economic and strategic interests of the Russian bureaucracy, which will not hesitate to impose upon the economy of these countries ever heavier burdens in the hope of lightening the burdens and tensions borne by the Russian economy. These countries will be able to advance along the road to socialism only through the revolutionary overthrow of imperialism and of the Stalinist bureaucracy. The fate of the USSR will not be decided by the victories of Stalinism in Bulgaria or Albania, but in the struggle with the United States and world imperialism. Whether the world working class succeeds or fails, in this struggle, in overthrowing capitalism — that is the decisive factor.