What is Trotskyism? - Tony Clark,

What is Trotskyism? - Tony Clark,

5. TROTSKY AND THE SOVIET BUREAUCRACY.

On the question of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, Trotsky began his teaching by putting forward a false line of argumentation. In the view of Trotsky, the Soviet Union went through a process of bureaucratic degeneration under Stalin. Here it is necessary to look at the concept of ‘degeneration’. The term suggests a decline. Such a decline would be from a higher to a lower level of existence. To degenerate means

‘having deteriorated to a lower mental, or moral, or physical level..’ (Collins Gem English Dictionary; New Edition; p. 141)

Alternatively, degeneration implies

‘…to decline, etc., to grow worse in quality or standard…’ ( The Chambers Dictionary; New Edition; p.426)

While another meaning of the term signifies to

‘…decrease, deteriorate, relapse…’ ( The Original Roget’s Thesaurus of English words and phrases; New Edition; p.778)

So that to degenerate refers to a process of decline from a previous condition of excellence. This would certainly suggest that the Soviet State enjoyed a period of former excellence, or near excellence before a period of degeneration set in. But this account stands at odds with the known facts. For instance

‘The bureaucratic attitude, the subordination of the individual to the requirements of officials’ convenience, routine, and obsessions, has been a constant theme in Russian history and a constant trial to the ordinary people of Russia. In the Soviet period this ‘bureaucratism’ persisted, despite sincere efforts to eliminate it’. ( J. N. Westwood: Endurance and Endeavour-Russian History, 1812-1986, Third Edition; pp. 48-9)

And concerning the economic aspect of the evils of bureaucracy Lenin remarked that

‘ We see nothing of them on May 5, 1918. Six months after the October Revolution, with the old bureaucratic apparatus smashed from top to bottom, we feel none of its evils’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.351, April 21, 1921)

But, of course the evil was still there because the Eighth Congress of the RCP (b) on March 18-19, 1919, adopted a new programme which frankly spoke of

‘…a partial revival of bureaucracy within the Soviet Union’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

Lenin praised this 1919 party programme arguing that where the problem of bureaucracy is concerned the important thing was

‘…not fearing to admit the evil, but desiring to reveal, expose and pillory it and to stimulate thought, will, energy and action to combat it’ (V. I. Lenin: ibid.)

Also the Eight Congress of Soviets, in 1920 addressed the question of the

‘…evils of bureaucracy…’ ( V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

And following the Eighth Congress of Soviets, the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b), in March, 1921

‘Summed up the controversies closely connected with the analysis of these evils, we find them ever more distinct and sinister’. ( V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

It is clear that the argument that the Soviet Union started a process of degeneration under Stalin is factually inaccurate. What Lenin speaks of is the revival [degeneration] of bureaucracy soon after the revolution. Lenin grappled with the question of bureaucracy and tried to understand its economic roots. At one point Lenin remarked that

‘The evils of bureaucracy are not in the army, but in the institutions serving it’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

Other writers even refer to the appearance of Soviet bureaucracy even before the Bolsheviks won over these organisations. The reality was that the bureaucratic culture of old Russia was carried over into the new period, confirming Marx’ view that the new society carries the birth marks of the old, in every respect

‘What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges’. (Karl Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme; Foreign Languages Press, Beijing; 1972)

That the new society would carry the birth marks of the old, overthrown society was therefore accepted by Marx himself, the founder of modern, scientific socialism. This means that we cannot impose, in simplistic fashion, an uncomplicated category of ‘degeneration’ to explain a complicated process relating to the interaction between the old and the new, the struggle between which continues right up until class society begins to fade away. On every level the struggle between the old and the new takes place, in all its fundamental features at the socialist stage of the transition to communist society. In fact, in every respect, revolution can be described as a struggle between the old and the new. The process of this struggle is dialectical. Thus Trotsky’s one-sided notion of a bureaucratic degeneration excludes the struggle against it, which, due to the bureaucratic tradition of the old Tsarist Russia, promised to be a protracted and difficult process, particularly in view of the backwardness which the revolution had inherited.

For Lenin, the problems associated with Soviet bureaucracy were a result of the economic and cultural backwardness of Tsarist Russia. The ‘return’ of bureaucracy was therefore not surprising. Lenin noted even in 1919 how after the revolution

‘The Tsarist bureaucrats began to join the Soviet institutions and practice their bureaucratic methods, they began to assume the colouring of Communists and, to succeed better in their careers, to procure membership cards of the Russian Communist party….’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 29; p.183)

As the former servants of the old regime were re-employed by the Soviet State they provided a fertile ground for the growth of bureaucracy, and Lenin remarked that

‘We can fight bureaucracy to the bitter end…only when the whole population participates in the work of government’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

In Lenin’s view

‘The results of this low cultural level is that the Soviets, which by virtue of their programme are organs of government by the working people, are in fact organs of government for the working people by the advanced section of the proletariat, but not the working people as a whole…’ (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

Within the Soviet context, in the short term, this was unavoidable, or certainly difficult to avoid. On the other hand, the struggle to overcome the negative sides of bureaucracy was viewed by Lenin as a long-term affair. As a result of his view regarding the lengthy process of overcoming features of bureaucracy, Lenin came out against promoting anti-bureaucratic platforms. By rejecting anti-bureaucratic platforms Lenin was not undermining the fight against the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, but rather signalling that a solution to the problem could not be found on a political level alone. Consequently Lenin was not afraid to admit that

It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy’. (V.I. Lenin: Report On the Role and Tasks of the Trades Unions; CW. Vol.32; pp.56-7; January23, 1921)

For Lenin this was going to be a

‘…very difficult struggle…’ (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

And, furthermore, Lenin argued, in keeping with a long-term perspective when considering the fight against bureaucracy, that

‘…anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.)

Nevertheless, he argued that

‘Bureaucratic excesses must be rectified right away’. (V. I. Lenin: ibid.)

The whole problem of bureaucracy, which was gradually building up from the time of the revolution burst open in the famous Trade Union dispute, when Lenin came out against Trotsky whose supporters were in control of the Joint Trade Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers, headed by Tsektran. Lenin remarked that

‘ There are excellent workers in Tsektran, and we shall appoint them, and correct their bureaucratic excesses’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.32; p.57)

Nevertheless

‘The first All-Russia Congress of Transport Workers in March 1921 called by the Central Committee of the Party expelled the Trotskyites from the Tsektran leadership and outlined new method of work’ (See note 9, Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 32; p. 530)

The famous Trade Union dispute began in 1920-21, when Trotsky accused the trade unionists of cultivating a spirit of hostility to Trotsky’s supporters, whom he was using to take over the union. Having examined the issue more closely Lenin came to the conclusion that such accusations were false, indeed, monstrous, and he retorted

‘Only someone in the lunatic fringe can say a thing like that’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit. p.57

What the trade unionists were opposing was the bureaucratic methods Trotsky and his supporters was introducing in their midst. For Lenin, Trotsky’s position would

‘…lead to the downfall of Soviet Power’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.57)

Theoretically and politically, the struggle against bureaucracy by the Leninist leadership of the party began as a struggle against Trotsky, who, after the civil war, had called for the militarisation of labour.

Trotskyites like to turn history on its head and pretend that the Leninist struggle against bureaucracy began as a struggle against Stalin, but it actually began in opposition to the bureaucratic methods and excesses which had been introduced into Tsekran by Trotsky’s appointees. With the departure of Lenin, Trotsky soon began to pose as an anti-bureaucrat. In his struggle to gain the leadership, Trotsky began to disregard Lenin’s view concerning anti-bureaucratic platforms, which tended to reduce the question of combating bureaucracy to a simple, one-sided, political matter.

The Bolsheviks had not expected to find any short-term solution to the question of overcoming the negative aspects of bureaucracy, nor, as we have seen, did Lenin entertain any short-term remedy. He recounted that

‘Our Programme formulates the task of combating the evils of bureaucracy as one of an extremely long duration’. (V.I. Lenin: Tenth Congress of the RCP (b), March 8-16th, 1921: CW. Vol. 32; p. 205)

Textually it is absolutely clear that Lenin regard the struggle against Soviet bureaucracy as one of an ‘extremely long duration’. And it is precisely here that begins the contradiction between the Marxist-Leninist approach to the question of fighting bureaucracy on the one hand, and on the other, the pseudo-left Trotskyite approach. In other words, when it comes to the question of opposing bureaucracy Trotsky was implicitly asking Communists to choose between his approach, and Lenin’s approach.

In the Trades Union dispute Lenin had opposed Trotsky’s reference to Tomsky and Lozovsky for being trade union bureaucrats, and he commented

‘I shall later on say which side in this controversy tends to be bureaucratic’. (V.I. Lenin: CW, Vol. 32; p. 25)

On the trade union dispute, Trotsky wanted the party to choose between two platforms, a position which Lenin thought would be damaging to the party. Replying to Bukharin, he said

‘…it is strange to hear you say, like Trotsky, that the party will have to choose between two trends’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.26)

And for Lenin, Trotsky’s platform pamphlet entitled, ‘The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions’, contained

‘…mistakes bearing on the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.36; p.22)

In fact Lenin accused Trotsky of

‘bureaucratic projecteering’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.30)

Suggesting also that Trotsky’s position

‘…looks more like a "reactionary movement" than "trades unionism" (V.I. Lenin: op. Cit. p.31)

The word fascism was not in vogue at the time, but the content of Lenin’s rejoinder to Trotsky’s pamphlet clearly indicate that Lenin’s use of the phrase ‘reactionary movement’ suggest that this is what he was getting at, and he said of Trotsky’s thesis

‘…yours is not a Marxist approach to the question. This quite apart from the fact that there are a number of theoretical mistakes in the thesis. It is not a Marxist approach to the evaluation of the "role and tasks of the trade unions", because such a broad subject cannot be tackled without giving thought to the peculiar, political aspects of the present situations’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.p.32)

The RCP(b) had set up a commission to look into the trade union issue with a view to resolving the differences between the disputants. Trotsky refused to serve on the commission and brought on himself accusations of disruption from Lenin, who remarked

‘Trotsky walks out, refuses to serve on the commission, and disrupts its work’. (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p.35)

Lenin was not amused, and he saw in Trotsky’s disruptive behaviour a dangerous precedent, remarking that

‘…this business of disrupting the work of a commission is bureaucratic, un-soviet, un-socialist, incorrect and harmful’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.36)

And Lenin made clear that whatever differences Trotsky had with other members of the commission was

‘…no reason to disrupt the work of a commission’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.36)

In the trade unions dispute, Lenin also chided Bukharin because

‘…he should have demanded and insisted that Comrade Trotsky remained on the commission’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.36-7)

As we have already indicated, Trotsky’s appointees were in control of Tsektran, which was the central committee, that is the leadership of the Joint Trade Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers. They brought into the union the military approach of Trotsky. To some limited extent, this approach was necessary to get the transport system on its feet again after the break down contributed to by the civil war. And Lenin observed that

‘Heroism, zeal, etc., are the positive side of military experience; red tape and arrogance are the negative side of the experience of the worst military type’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol.32; p. 37)

But, as for Trotsky’s thesis, in Lenin’s view

‘…whatever his intentions, do not play up the best, but the worst in military experience’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.37)

For Lenin it was the negative side of Trotsky’s military experience, which was on display. His own supporters in the unions were putting this negative side into practice. Consequently Lenin remarked that

‘ It must be borne in mind that a political leader is responsible not only for his own policy but also for the acts of those he leads’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.37)

In other words, the military style of the Trotskyite Tsekran leadership had outlived itself and was leading to bureaucratic excesses. In the Trade Union debate Lenin had spoken approvingly of Rudzutak’s thesis: ‘The Tasks of The Trade Unions In Production’, which Lenin had read to the Eight Congress of Soviets. Lenin praised Rudzutak’s thesis when he remarked

‘There you have a platform, and it is very much better than the one Comrade Trotsky wrote after a great deal of thinking, and the one Comrade Bukharin wrote…without any thinking at all’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol.32; p.49)

For Lenin all would benefit from the study of Rudzutak’s thesis,

‘…and this also goes for Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Bukharin’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.40)

Trotsky had called for a reorganisation of the unions, including the selection, or appointment of functionaries, and in Lenin’s view this represented

‘…an example of the real bureaucratic approach: Trotsky and Krestinsky selecting trade union "functionaries"’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.41)

As far as the trade union issue was concerned, Lenin remarked that

‘A study of our own practical experience would be a great deal more useful than anything Comrade Trotsky or Bukharin had written’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.41)

In concluding the first phase of the trade union debate and the analysis of Trotsky’s thesis on, ‘The Role and Tasks of the Trades Unions’, Lenin repeated his argument that

‘Trotsky’s theses are politically harmful’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.42)

And as far as Lenin was concerned regarding Trotsky’s ‘Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions’,

‘The sum and substance of his policy is bureaucratic harassment of the trade unions. Our Party Congress will, I am sure, condemn and reject it’. (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p.42)

For Lenin the biggest mistake which the Central Committee made, and above all Lenin himself, was that Rudzutak’s thesis was overlooked, when in fact

‘That is the most important document in the whole of the controversy’ (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.44).

Trotsky had called for the "shake up" of the trade unions, but Lenin, who supported Tomsky strongly, agreed that

‘…in view of Tsektran’s irregularities and bureaucratic excesses it is the "shake up" that is the crux of the whole controversy’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 44).

In the course of the trade union debate, the Trotskyite leadership of the Joint Trade Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers, Tsekran was condemned for

‘ "…the degeneration of centralism and militarised forms of work into bureaucratic practices, petty tyranny, red-tape"…’ (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p.45)

And Lenin exposed the fact that Trotsky’s refusal to serve on the commission to sort out the trade union dispute led

‘…to factionalism’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p. 45).

It was this step, refusing to serve on the Commission, which, in Lenin’s view, turned Trotsky’s minor mistakes in submitting incorrect thesis on the role of the trades unions, into a major one. For Lenin, Trotsky’s incorrect policy of bureaucratic harassment of trades unions was now compounded and made worst by his arrogant refusal to serve on the trade union commission.

During the trade union dispute Lenin accused both Trotsky and Bukharin for inventing the "legend" that the best part of Rudzutak’s thesis on ‘The Tasks of The Trade Unions In Production’ was drawn up by members of Tsekran, i.e. Holtzman, Andreyev and Lyubinov. But Rudzutak soon exploded this "legend". Lyubinov did not exist on the trade union leadership, and in any case Holtzman had voted against the thesis.

At the Eighth Congress of Soviets, December 30, 1920, there was a dispute as to the origins of the thesis attributed to Y. E. Rudzutak. It was confirmed that he was, indeed, the author.

Lenin argued that it wasn’t the trade unions that needed to be ‘shaken up’ but rather the CC of the RCP for having overlooked Rudzutak’s thesis in the first place and thereby allowing

‘…an altogether empty discussion to flare up’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.47)

In Lenin’s view nothing could cover up the mistake of the Trotskyite controlled Tsektran, although the mistake was not excessive, it was common

‘…consisting in some exaggeration of bureaucracy’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.47)

And in the trade union dispute Lenin arrived at the conclusion that the Soviet State was

‘…a workers’ state with bureaucratic distortions’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.48)

For Lenin the bureaucratic distortion of the workers’ state, combined with Trotsky’s attempts to undermine the independence of the trade unions by carrying over his civil war method to the period of peaceful construction endangered the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The trade union commission, on which Trotsky had refused to serve, finally issued its own platform. This was titled: Draft Decisions of the Tenth Congress of the RCP on the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions. Nine members of the Central Committee signed this: Zinoviev, Stalin, Tomsky, Rudzutak, Kalinin, Kamenev, Petrovsky, Artyom and Lenin. Lozovsky also signed. When the platform appeared in Pravda it included additional signatures: Schmidt, Tsiperovich and Milyutin.

Lenin called for all the rival platforms to be signed by their respective authors or those responsible for it. Lenin reminded the party that

‘This demand is met by the Ignatovites and the Sapronovites but not by the "Trotskyites", the "Bukharinites" and the "Shlyapnikovites", who refer to anonymous Comrades allegedly responsible for their platforms’. (See footnote: op. cit.; p.49)

As for Lenin’s platform, its basis, opposed to the Trotskyites, was

‘Do not defend but rectify the bureaucratic excesses’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.52)

Lenin also repeated his argument that

‘The fight against bureaucracy is a long and arduous one’. (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 52)

The trade unions dispute of 1920-1921 was a three-corned struggle between Lenin’s grouping, the Trotsky, Bukharin group and the syndicalist grouping. Lenin sought a middle course. For Lenin it was not a question of repudiating all militarist and appointments method, but rather fighting the bureaucratic excesses.

Lenin was disturbed that the danger of the split in the party leadership caused by this issue was that the imperialist powers would try to take advantage of these differences to mount another invasion attempt. He warned that the split in the leadership would encourage internal counterrevolutionary adventures.

Lenin, addressing the Second All-Russia Congress of Miners, on January 25th, 1921, blamed Trotsky for turning the trade union dispute into a factional struggle

‘…I put the chief blame on Comrade Trotsky for all this fumbling haste and precipitation’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p. 54)

And although Trotsky had accused Lozovsky and Tomsky of bureaucratic practices, Lenin replied that

‘I would say the reverse was true’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.55)

In Lenin’s view, Trotsky’s approach to the trade unions, summed up in his Shake up policy, if pursued

‘…will cause a split and bring down the dictatorship of the proletariat’. (V. I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.56)

Lenin’s criticism of the Trotskyite controlled Tsektran was for its failure to rectify its bureaucratic excesses. This rectification was possible, although, for Lenin, as already pointed out, it would take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy.

And Lenin argued that only someone in ‘the lunatic fringe’ could attack the trade unions in the way Trotsky had done. The danger was that Trotsky, in damaging the relationship between the party and the trades unions, if persisted in

‘…will lead to the downfall of the Soviet power’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.57)

There was no doubt in Lenin’s mind about the consequences of Trotsky’s view, for

‘If the party falls out with the trades unions, the faults lies with the party, and this spells certain doom for the Soviet Power’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.58)

Trotsky had began by accusing trade unionists of creating a spirit of hostility to Tsektran, but Lenin retorted that

‘There is a spirit of hostility for us among the trade union rank and file because of our mistakes, and the bureaucratic practices up on top, including myself, because it was I who appointed Glavpolitput’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.58)

Glavpolitput was the chief political department formed in 1919 to rehabilitate rail transport. It applied military methods to get the railways moving again, but later leading to bureaucratic excesses.

Trotsky, in the trade union dispute, accused Lenin of exaggerating the dangers of bureaucracy, but Lenin retorted that

‘…it was not Lenin who invented some new path, as Trotsky says, but the Party, which said: "watch out: there’s a new malaise"’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.67)

So that it is absolutely clear that the struggle against bureaucratic excesses, or the negative aspects of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, actually started, contrary to Trotskyite legend, as a struggle in opposition to Trotsky. The Ninth Congress of the RCP in July 1920 again raised the issue of bureaucracy. And at the Central Committee in August of the same year there was support for Zinoviev’s letter: ‘Combat the Evils of Bureaucracy’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.67). The RCP Conference in September 1920 took the issue up, and there was a long report on bureaucratic practice at the Eighth Congress of Soviets in December 1920.

The 1919 Party Congress had previously recognised the existence of the bureaucratic ‘malaise’, but at the same time opposed the demagogic approach to fighting bureaucracy. In other words, the view seems to have been that one could not simply put a stop to bureaucracy by waving a magic wand. The struggle against it would take many years, such was Lenin’s constant refrain, and whoever thought otherwise

‘…is playing demagogue and cheating, because overcoming the evils of bureaucracy requires hundreds of measures, wholesale literacy, culture and participation in the activity of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.68)

One of Lenin’s criticisms of Trotsky was for

‘…the truly bureaucratic concentration of attention on the "top"’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.72)

For Lenin, Trotsky’s attacks on the trade union leaders was shot-through with factionalism, accusing many of them of opposing coalescence between the unions and the State, balking at new tasks and method, and also of cultivating in their midst a spirit of corporate exclusiveness, thereby fostering the survival of craft unions.

Lenin rejected these attacks and defended the trades unions, musing on what Trotsky would have said, and how he would have said it, if Tomsky had published a platform accusing Trotsky and "many" military workers of cultivating the spirit of bureaucracy, fostering the survival of savagery, etc. In other words, Lenin suggests that Tomsky could rightly accuse Trotsky of all these things, and ask how would Trotsky have reacted.

Lenin criticised Trotsky for his

‘…out-and-out bureaucratic approach’. (V. I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32 p.73)

This was because, rather than starting from the actual level of development and living conditions of the masses, Trotsky castigates Tomsky for creating or fostering a certain spirit in their midst. In fact, Lenin argued that the real essence of the trade union controversy which Trotsky and Bukharin

‘…have been evading and camouflaging with such care’ ( V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.73)

was not that the trade unions were balking at new tasks and methods, and cultivating a spirit of hostility to the new officials? The essence of the situation was that the organised workers protests were legitimate, and they showed they were prepared

‘…to throw out the new officials who refuse to rectify the useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.73)

For Lenin it wasn’t so much that someone had refused to understand the new tasks and methods, rather it was a case of someone

‘…making a clumsy attempt to cover his defence of certain useless and harmful excess of bureaucracy with a lot of talk about new tasks and methods’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; pp.73-4)

In short, the essence of the dispute was that Trotsky and co. was defending bureaucracy against the organised workers, and for Lenin it was

‘…the essence of the dispute that the reader should bear in mind’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.74)

Trotsky had spoken about "shaking up" the trade unions at the November 26th, 1920, meeting of the Fifth All-Russia Conference Of Trade Unions. This, in turn, had brought Trotsky and his supporters into conflict with the trade union leadership. Because Trotsky was a member of the Central Committee of the RCP(b), a high profile member at that, this dispute between the Trotskyites and the trade union leadership had the potential to develop into a serious conflict between the party and the working class.

Lenin suggested that this conflict, or contained within this conflict, was the downfall of Soviet, i.e., workers’ power. And Trotsky, by demanding that a choice be made between his platform and the platform of the other side, Rudzutak’s, had turned the dispute into a factional one with dangerous consequences.

In fact Lenin argued that even if Trotsky’s thesis was correct, could it be denied that

‘…his very approach would be damaging to himself, the party, the trades union movement, the training of millions of trade union members and the Republic’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.74)

Bukharin had tried to reconcile the differences in the party leadership over the trade union issue by forming a "buffer" group, but to no avail because as Lenin indicated, Trotsky’s approach to the trade unions was fundamentally wrong. In fact, instead of playing the role of a "buffer" Bukharin found himself siding with the Trotskyites in this dispute. Bukharin had formed his buffer group to prevent, or at least, contain the split in the communist leadership; however, such was the development of the struggle that he sided with one side against the other.

When the split in the Communist leadership over the trade union issue began to grow, a split which threatened a rupture between the Russian Communist Party and the organised working class, Trotsky began to deny that the "shake up" policy could be attributed to himself.

Lenin insisted that Trotsky’s pamphlet, i.e., ‘The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions’ was

‘…shot through with the spirit of the "shake-up-from-above policy’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.76)

For Lenin, the mass's indignation with bureaucratic excesses was legitimate. And it could not be denied that it was Trotsky and his followers in Tsektran, the Central Committee of the ‘Joint Trade Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers’, which epitomised bureaucratic excesses. Therefore, for Lenin, a more meaningful question to ask was whether

‘…the "hostility" of the masses is legitimate in view of certain useless and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, for example, in Tsektran’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 76)

And Lenin confirmed a statement made by Zinoviev that

‘…it was Comrade Trotsky’s immoderate adherents who had brought about a split’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.76)

For Lenin

‘…the danger of a split in the trade union movement was not imaginary but real’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.80)

On one side of the dispute, Lenin argued was

‘…a demand that certain unwanted and harmful excesses of bureaucracy, and the appointments system should not be justified or defended, but corrected’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p.80)

On the other side was Trotsky’s policy of

‘…bureaucratic harassment of the trades unions’. (V. I. Lenin: op. cit.; p. 42)

In the dispute in the Soviet Communist movement about the role of the trade unions under socialism, there was, fundamentally, two side: a group led by Trotsky which defended bureaucracy, and a grouping around Lenin, which supported Rudzutak’s thesis, and who sought to limit the excesses of bureaucracy and the militarist methods carried over from the civil war period. In addition, allying itself with the latter, the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, November 2-6, 1920, adopted Rudzutak’s thesis.

‘That is all there is to it’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.80)

Lenin, however, did not think it would be possible to dispense with bureaucrats in the short term, pointing out that

‘We shall not be able to make do without good bureaucrats for many years to come’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.82)

So that for Lenin the immediate problem was not ‘bureaucrats’ as such, but rather ‘bureaucratic excesses’, and worst, the striving to defend such excesses in relation to the trade union movement. Because their service could not be dispensed with in the short term, it was necessary, in Lenin’s view to make a distinction between good bureaucrats and bad ones. But the politically wrong approach to the unions, Lenin argued, would lead to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin was not totally opposed to the ‘shake up’ policy as such, but opposed to it being undertaken in a bureaucratic manner. Trotsky had failed to take into account that the trade unions were not redundant now that a socialist state had been achieved; rather one of their essential roles was now to be

‘…combating bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet apparatus, safeguarding the working people’s material and spiritual interests in ways and means inaccessible to this apparatus, etc. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.100)

Lenin continually placed emphasis on the duration of these tasks, indicating that

‘This is a struggle they will unfortunately have to face for many more years to come’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.100)

For Lenin it was necessary to wind up the trade union dispute as soon as possible. He regarded it as an unfortunate distraction from the real work of production, and another point he made was that the counterrevolution sought shelter behind the Trotsky-Bukharin opposition, that is, hiding behind the opposition they would seek to attack the party.

But there was also a positive side to the dispute because for Lenin the whole experience of the trade union debate had ‘tempered’ the party in the struggle against factionalism. This was important because relapses into factionalism were

‘bound to occur over the next few years, but with an easier cure now well in sight’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit., p. 105)

They did occur with Trotsky as one of the Chief Ringleaders. Not only this, but in the meantime during the debate regarding the role of trade unions

‘…the Party responded to the discussions and has rejected Comrade Trotsky’s wrong line by an overwhelming majority’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit. p.107)

Although Lenin points out that there may have been some vacillations at ‘the top’ and ‘in the

provinces’, in certain committees and offices, nevertheless

‘…the masses of the party workers…. came out solidly against the wrong line’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid. p. 107)

And, the party, he argued with some satisfaction,

‘has corrected Comrade Trotsky’s mistake promptly and with determination’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; 107)

The debate in the Russian Communist Party over the issue of the role of the trades unions raised the important issue of whether the trade unions were simply to be auxiliaries of the Soviet state, supporting, as an appendage, the promotion of production. This was, in fact, what Trotsky’s view amounted to. The alternative view held by Lenin was that unions should be schools of communism, and also a transmission mechanism between the party and the masses of working people.

The result of the trade union dispute was that it placed the question of bureaucracy firmly on the party’s agenda, consequently Lenin remarked that

‘…the whole Party and the whole workers’ and peasants’ Republic had recognised that the question of the bureaucracy and the ways of combating its evils was high on the agenda’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit. ; p. 103)

And Lenin called for redoubling the attention of the party to the problem of struggling against bureaucratic practices, remarking that

‘…we shall take special care to rectify any unwarranted and harmful excess of bureaucracy, no matter who points them out’. (V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p.103)

The origins of the struggle against bureaucracy in the Soviet Union can be traced, in part, back to the dispute over the role of the trade unions under the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was a struggle, which found Lenin and Trotsky on opposite sides of the fence. Lenin began his struggle against bureaucracy directed against the Trotskyite controlled Tsektran, the Central Committee of the Joint Union of Rail and Water Transport Workers, which pursued a policy of ‘bureaucratic harassment’ of the trades union, under the guidance of Trotsky.

As we have indicated several times, Lenin did not expect that the problems raised by bureaucracy would go away in the short term. He emphasised the ‘long term’ nature of the struggle against the evils of bureaucracy, making clear that

‘Our Programme formulates the task of combating the evils of bureaucracy as one of extremely long duration’. (V.I. Lenin: Tenth Party Congress, March 8-16th, 1921; op. cit.; p. 205)

So that it is clear that ‘bureaucracy’, was the Achilles heels of the Russian, Soviet revolution; it was, however, not a small problem, but potentially fatal. Indeed, as J. N. Westwood observed

‘The survival into Soviet times of an all-powerful and coercive bureaucracy repeatedly undermined the achievements of 1917’. (J. N. West wood: The Short Oxford History Of The Modern World: Endurance and Endeavour-Russian History, 1812-1986; Third Edition; p. 452)

The tradition of the Russian, imperial, Tsarist State before the revolution was one of endemic bureaucracy, in the negative sense of this term, a fact that made it a constant theme satirised in Russian literature. This tradition persisted into the Soviet period, and, as we have seen, was soon placed high on Bolshevism’s agenda. Although the initial struggle against bureaucracy was mainly directed against Trotsky and his supporters in Tsektran, when Trotsky found himself again in opposition after the death of Lenin in 1924, he decided on a U-turn. But when Trotsky had enjoyed the reins of power he had nothing to say about bureaucracy, in fact he was regarded as one of its main promoters, a fact that had served to isolate him from other party leaders and much of the rank-and-file, who remembered his argument for the ‘militarisation’ of labour.

From defending bureaucracy, Trotsky now cast himself in the role of its most acerbic critic. This, no doubt, can be partly attributed to his desire to draw to his side all those who saw in bureaucracy a danger to the revolution. Trotsky’s aim was to use these elements in the struggle against Stalin. However, what subsequently emerged was a polarisation into two conflicting approaches to the question of combating bureaucracy. As was the case in previous matters of contention the choice came to be either: Leninism or Trotskyism.

It is important to remember that the Marxist-Leninist approach to the question of combating bureaucracy should not be reduced simply to Lenin’s personal approach or views on the matter. The approach, which Lenin defended, was enshrined in the party programme. This essence of this view was that it would take many years to overcome the evils of bureaucracy, and given Russia’s previous bureaucratic tradition and the cultural retardation castigated by Lenin, such assumption were understandable.

Trotsky, however, from being part of the problem, as the trade union dispute revealed, now offered himself as part of the solution; from the defence of bureaucracy, he now became, or posed, as a staunch anti-bureaucrat, in the course of which he rejected Leninism on the question of combating bureaucracy.

The result was the adoption of a pseudo-left, anti-Leninist platform, calling for ‘political’ revolution to overthrow what he dubbed the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’.

In his critique of bureaucracy Trotsky proceeded to confuse two separate, although related issues. These were, firstly, the existence of privilege in the Soviet Union and the question of bureaucracy. In other words the question of the existence of a privileged stratum is related to, but not identical with the question of bureaucracy. One of the aspects of bureaucracy may be the conferment of privilege on certain individuals, although bureaucracy is possible without privilege. Furthermore what constitute privilege may change overtime. For instance, working in an office can be considered privileged, compared to performing manual work in a factory or mine.

And that there was relative privilege in the Soviet Union for leading bureaucrats, or office-holders was openly referred to by Lenin, who in an article of February 7th, 1921, referred to

‘…the Soviet bureaucrats, the pampered "grandees" of the Soviet Republic…’ (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 32; p.132)

This was long before Trotsky had anything to say about privileged Soviet bureaucrats. Here the word "pampered" is synonymous with privilege, so that no one can doubt that some bureaucrats, in leading positions had access to privileges even when Lenin was alive. In his article on the Integrated Economic Plan Lenin took time off to refer to

‘…the highbrow bureaucratic disdain for the vital work that has been done and that needs to be continued’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p.137)

Needless to say the term, ‘highbrow’ although not synonymous with privilege, certainly implies it. And in the same article Lenin referred to

‘The ignorance of the grandees, and the intellectual conceit of the communist literati’. (V.I. Lenin: op. cit.; p. 138)

Lenin chides the literati and the Grandees who boast of their communism. So, unlike Lenin, Trotsky seemed only to have recognised the evils of bureaucracy when he began to lose power. Having now recognised the evil of bureaucracy, he sought remedial action in political revolution, an approach expressing more his factional ambition to regain power than a serious struggle to combat the evils of bureaucracy. His approach was pseudo-leftist in nature and constituted a clear rejection of Leninism on the issue. In other words, due to ambition and factional considerations, Trotsky rejected the view that the struggle against the evils of bureaucracy was to be based on a long-term perspective.

In the circumstances, there can be little doubt that Trotsky’s proposal for political revolution would have led to counterrevolution. Long before Trotsky’s campaign for political revolution, such a slogan was pre-empted at the Thirteenth Conference of the RCP(b) held in January 1924. Part of a resolution adopted at this Conference stated that

‘With Comrade Trotsky at its head, the opposition has put forward a slogan calling for the break-up of the Party apparatus and sought to shift the centre of struggle against bureaucracy in the state apparatus to the "bureaucracy" in the party apparatus’. (Institute of Marxism-Leninism: The struggle of Lenin and the CPSU Against Trotskyism: p.239)

Trotsky arrived at his ‘political revolution’ slogan for two basic reasons, one of which we have already mentioned, which was the factional element, i.e., only through political revolution would he able to regain the power he had lost. The second reason provided the theoretical grounding for the first. In essence this was the presupposition that the contradiction between the working class and the bureaucracy was antagonistic in nature, and therefore the bureaucracy could only be defeated by revolution. In view of the contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism on previous important issues, it is not surprising that there would develop a contradiction between Leninism and Trotskyism on the issue of combating bureaucracy. Thus Trotsky developed a notion, which precluded a peaceful resolution of a contradiction which, in essence was of a non-antagonistic character.

Expressed in the slogan of ‘political revolution’, or rather behind this slogan was Trotsky’s burning desire to recapture his previous political power, and therefore, it can be argued, his conceptual understanding and framework was subordinated to this goal. This in turn gave sharp expression to the difference between Marxism-Leninism on the question of combating bureaucracy. This difference expresses itself in the development of two opposing anti-bureaucratic perspectives. The essence of the difference is that while Marxism-Leninism has a long term approach to combating bureaucracy, Trotskyism, on the other hand, harbours a pseudo-left, short term perspective: i.e., political revolution.

And, as we have already indicated, this one-sided approach reduces the struggle against bureaucracy to a political struggle, without taking into consideration all the other interrelated factors. In other words, in order to uphold his political revolution perspective, it was necessary for Trotsky and his followers to present the contradiction between the bureaucrats and the working class as purely antagonistic. But in reality, the contradiction between the working class and the bureaucracy under socialism can be resolved peacefully given social ownership of the means of production, etc. and a correct Marxist-Leninist leadership.

The direction of the struggle against bureaucracy in the Soviet Union was determined by several factors. The most important of these was the relation between the Marxist-Leninists and the revisionists in the party and state apparatus. There were no doubt, opponents of Marxism-Leninism and socialism in the state and party offices. These elements were naturally interested in putting a break on the anti-bureaucratic struggle insofar as it was directed against them. Therefore, complicating the struggle against bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, which, we must remind the reader, Lenin, and also the party programme of 1919, which first addressed the issue, regarded as a long term process, was the resistance of the enemies of socialism in the state and party apparatus. Lenin had previously referred to the class struggle taking place in the party and state offices. This was a struggle between the old administrative civil servants of Tsarism and the new representatives of the working class.

At the lower levels of the party and state apparatus, or bureaucracies, support could be found for the communist, Marxist-Leninist, aspirations. In other words, the struggle against bureaucracy must be understood in terms of the open and concealed class struggle going on in the state and party apparatus.

But the question must be asked, what do we mean by the ‘struggle against bureaucracy?’ We have already shown that there were two different approaches to combating bureaucracy: the Leninist approach which recognised that combating bureaucracy was a long term process, and the Trotskyite short term approached which sought remedial action through ‘political revolution’.

Trotsky confused the struggle against ‘bureaucracy’ with the struggle against ‘privilege’ in the Soviet Union. These two aspects are related, but they are not identical, as we have already said. If we start with privilege we must look at the question of social differentiation in the Soviet Union in relation to the proclaimed aim of communism. This aim is a classless society with no exploitation, no privileges. But Marxism-Leninism is not utopian. The first stage of the transition to communism begins with socialism. This first stage carries the imprint of the old, capitalist society. The role of socialism is to raise the productive powers of society to the level that makes class and privilege redundant. The struggle against bureaucracy, or more correctly the evils of bureaucracy in the transition period must be viewed in relation to this basic task of socialism. Socialist society is a contradictory phase where the old and new struggle for survival. In the Soviet Union this struggle was very pronounced due to the feudal-capitalist traditions which had to be overcome.

From 1929 onward, the Soviet Union was involved in a process of rapid modernisation, not only to meet the requirements of socialism, but also to meet the requirements of the threat of war, instigated by the political servants of capitalism against the socialist state. Preparing for war and building a socialist society at the same time are two contradictory processes that the Soviet communist leadership had to face. The pseudo-left wiseacres who base themselves exclusively on an anti-Stalin perspective universally ignore this contradiction. In the Soviet Union a choice had to be made, and priority assigned to either the elimination of privilege in the shortest possible time, or developing the defence potential of the Soviet Union. With the imperialist threat the decision to give priority to defence was the correct choice. This choice carried with it certain negative connotations. To develop the Soviet Union, in the shortest possible time, certain privileges had to be allocated to bourgeois specialists whose services were needed to implement the programme of industrialisation. We would argue that in the period of Lenin and Stalin this was certainly no defence of privilege in principle, but rather a pragmatic recognition that it was unavoidable, to some extent, if the Soviet Union had to develop rapidly. For the Communist leadership, the contradiction in the whole process, within the context of the Soviet Union, was that the utilisation of privilege, while being opposed to socialism in the long term, in the short term could served the interests of socialism, if it helped to undermine the conditions which led to privileges in the first place. Needless to say, such a controversial policy, a product of the objective situation in which the Soviet Union found itself was not without grave dangers. The crystallisation of a privileged stratum could derail the struggle for socialism if such a force became strong enough to assert its interests opposed to that of the working class. This was certainly not the case in the Stalin period. The 16th Party Congress in April 1929 supported Stalin’s policy of purging the governmental bureaucracy. By 1930 the Rightist, Rykov, was removed as Prime Minister to be replaced by Molotov.

This was the beginning of the end of the Right-opposition.

In short, therefore, the Central authorities, beginning with Lenin, allocated certain privilege to bourgeois specialists and key workers to facilitate the rapid development of industry, making it possible to defend the socialist state from the imperialist threat, while at the same time laying the material foundations for socialism, which in the longer term would serve to eradicate social inequalities in the sphere of consumption. In the eyes of the leadership this policy was necessitated by the backwardness bequeathed to socialism by the previous regime. But the policy of using privilege to undermine the foundations of privilege carries with it dangers. It leads to social differentiation, fertilise the ground for the growth of revisionism on the one hand, and on the other, spawn pseudo-left opposition which unconsciously opens the door to counterrevolution.

The role of Marxist-Leninists in the concrete situation of the Soviet Union would be to struggle against the abuse of privilege on the one hand, holding in view the need for their complete elimination as soon as possible and, on the other, promoting the struggle against the negative features of bureaucracy. That is to say if privilege were unavoidable, in the Soviet context, at the first stage of socialism, the role of Communists would be to struggle against their abuse, keeping them within certain limits, while promoting the development of the material and ideological conditions which serve to undermine privilege and bureaucratic abuses, leading to their complete elimination.

Lenin had explained that

‘…the first phase of communism cannot yet provide justice and equality: differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will remain, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible, because it will have become impossible to seize the means of production, the factories, machines, land etc., and make them private property’. (V.I. Lenin: The State and Revolution; CW. Vol. 33; p.93)

It is clear that the first stage of communism, i.e., socialism, is the most dangerous for Working class political power. Differences, and unjust differences at that, remain. In the Soviet context this was particularly dangerous, due to the original economic and cultural underdevelopment of the proletariat and the peasantry, which the mass campaign for literacy in the Stalin period sought to remedy. Of course, the whole question of certain privileges remaining at the first stage of communism cannot be posed in a purely abstract sense. The question has to be posed concretely. That is, the more ripe capitalism is to enter the first stage of communism, the less may we talk of privileges, in the true sense of the term, remaining at this stage. We are necessarily here speaking of privilege in the social sense.

The term ‘privilege’ relating to

‘…advantage or favour that only some people have’. ( Collins Gem English Dictionary, New Edition; p. 430)

If inequality and unjust differences of wealth remain, to a certain extent, at the first stage of communist society, which we refer to as socialism, this is the result of the new society having just emerged from the old capitalist society. Thus it must be constantly borne in mind that such inequality is a product of capitalism, not communism. The advanced development of the productive forces, the progress of socialism makes it possible to achieve social equality. The same must be said about bureaucracy, the struggle against which is a sine qua non for communism.

The first thing to make clear is that in Marxism-Leninism there is a distinction between revolutionary opposition to bureaucracy and opportunist opposition; between a principled struggle against it and a factional struggle. As Lenin remarked in 1903, following the split with the Mensheviks

‘It is clear, I think, that the cries about this celebrated bureaucracy are just a screen for dissatisfaction with the personal composition of the central bodies, a fig leaf…You are a bureaucrat because you were appointed by the congress not by my will, but against it; you are a formalist because you rely on the formal decisions of the congress, and not on my consent…’etc. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 6; pp. 287, 310)

Any discussion about ‘bureaucracy’ must begin by using some kind of definition of this term. For instance we could say that bureaucracy is a form of administration, or

‘…a system of government or administration by officials, responsible only to their departmental chiefs; any system of administration in which matters are hindered by excessive adherence to minor rules and procedures; officials as a group…’ (The Chambers Dictionary; New Edition; p.214)

Alternatively, briefly, bureaucracy is

‘…officialdom, red-tape…’ (Collin Roberts French Concise Dictionary; Third Edition; p.55)

The term ‘bureaucracy’ relates specifically to the structure of administration and its modus operandi.

There is no need to go into a theoretical discourse about the nature and structure of different types of bureaucracies; suffice it to say that modern bureaucracies develop as an administrative response to the need to manage the increasing social obligations of the state following the process of industrialisation.

Bureaucracy is therefore concerned with forms of administration based on following rules and regulations, that is, established procedures.

There is not much in Trotsky’s writings concerned with the struggle against bureaucracy as such. In other words we find little, if anything at all, directed against the negative aspect, or bureaucratic evils which Lenin castigated. Trotsky referred not to the struggle against bureaucracy, but rather the struggle to overthrow the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’. In a narrow sense this could mean the political appointees of Stalin, or in a wider sense, the whole top administrative layer of Soviet society. For Trotsky the bureaucracy was a privileged, leading, administrative layer, which, he argued, had usurped political power from the working class. Trotsky saw the contradiction between the bureaucracy and the working class as absolute, and irresolvable outside of a political revolution that would remove Stalin and his supporters from power. In Trotsky’s ideology Stalin was merely the servant of the bureaucracy, doing its bidding. This falsified image was, of course, exploded in the 1930s, when the purges of the state bureaucracies began. The legend of Trotskyism is that these purges were directed against genuine revolutionaries. In fact their target was the fifth columnists in the Soviet apparatus.

According to the ideology of Trotskyism, the bureaucracy had taken political power from the working class. This new development, Trotsky argued, was given expression in a new political programme based on the doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’. We have already dealt with this issue, and shown that for Lenin socialism in one country was not opposed to world revolution. This is to say that pursuing the former did not mean opposing the latter as is claimed in Trotskyite ideology, which demands ‘either’ support for socialism in one country, ‘or’ support for world revolution. Trotsky’s case against Stalin was based on this non-dialectical either/or dichotomy which did not do justice to reflecting the real revolutionary process.

Classes can only hold political power and maintain their rule through their most conscious political representatives. This general rule applies no less to the working class. Indeed, it applies, with even more force, to the working class because of the nature of its oppression under capitalism. This means that the working class can only holds power and maintain its rule through its most politically advanced section, its vanguard, a communist party. Marxism-Leninism knows of no other way for the working class to hold on to political power. Developments in the communist party are crucial to the question of determining if the working class still possess political power in the state. For the working class to possess political power in the state it must possess political power in the party. This question is not determined once and for all. Thus there is a constant struggle against any manifestation of revisionism in the party. In the period of Stalin, the revisionists had not managed to gain control of important decision making organs such as the central committee, or the politburo, although, no doubt, concealed revisionists existed on these bodies. Consequently, there had been no usurpation of political power from the working class by Soviet bureaucrats when Stalin and his supporters were leading the Soviet Communist party. On the other hand, the Marxist-Leninists were in a numerical minority the higher one went in the State and Party apparatus. Without understanding this, very little can be understood about the struggles in the Soviet Union.

In one sense the conflict between Stalin and Trotsky was historically inevitable. Trotsky had fought Lenin right up until 1917, and had major factional differences with Lenin thereafter. Trotsky’s call for ‘political revolution’ against ‘the Soviet bureaucracy’ must be seen for what it really was. It was a factional call to remove Stalin and his supporters from power, after Trotsky’s essential anti-Leninism had been exposed and defeated in the ideological struggle. To ascribe this defeat, as some bourgeois writers do, to Stalin’s position as General Secretary in the party apparatus and his use of patronage through is power of appointment, is a superficial view which suggest that Stalin did not have to win his political arguments against Trotsky at the highest ideological level in the party.

And as we have shown, even on the question of bureaucracy Trotskyism is opposed to Marxism-Leninism in that it replaces Leninism’s long term perspective to combat the evils of bureaucracy with the short-term perspective of political revolution. Political slogans are a very serious matter. They must not be viewed abstractly in isolation from all the surrounding factors. Only in this way can their objective meaning and purpose be understood, that is, whose class interest they actually serve, for as Lenin remarked

‘Whoever weakens in the least the iron discipline of the Party of the proletariat (especially during the time of its dictatorship), actually aids the bourgeoisie against the proletariat’. (V.I. Lenin: CW. Vol. 25; p.190).