Bruno Rizzi the Bureaucratisation of the World 1939

8/13/2019 Bruno Rizzi the Bureaucratisation of the World 1939

1/36

Bruno Rizzi

The

Bureaucratisationof the World

First Published : in April 1939;Translated : from the French for Marxists.org by Adam Buic ;Proofread : by !hris !layton "##$.

Preface%n this first part &e ma e a Marxist analysis of 'o(iet society) &ith some mention of theFascist and *a+i regimes &hich are in the process of rapid bureaucratisation and &hichha(e already ac,uired an anti-capitalist character. e(en though !apital there has not

been radically suppressed as in the ''/./ecent political e(ents &ill a&a en e(en the dullest of minds: the blac ) bro&n and reddictators are recognising) perhaps e(en officially) that the social character of theircountries is the same.0he &orld is on the e(e of a tremendous historical turning point.e belie(e that 'talin &ill remember ha(ing been a re(olutionary before ha(ing

become a dictator and &ill understand the terrible responsibility &hich lin s him to theinternational proletariat. e &ill 2udge solely on the facts and &e ad(ise &or ers to dothe same.urope and the &orld must either become fascist or socialist. 0here is no longer any

possibility of life for capitalism. 0he ''/ has become the pi(ot of &orld politics and&ill either be the bastion of the proletarian re(olution or a trap for the &orld proletariat.%f it &ants /e(olution it &ill carry the re(olutionary centre into the midst of the nglish-French-American &or ing masses; if it does not do so then it &ill help the fascisation ofurope and the orld.0he bourgeoisie is a dead social force and) politically) can no longer ta e the offensi(e:it resists) but surrenders day after day4 Manchuria) !hina) Abyssinia) Austria)'udetenland) Bohemia) 'pain) Albania and so on already amount to a politicalsynthesis. %n reality the forces in play in present-day 'ociety) &hich is a single whole )are not called France) ngland) 5ermany) %taly) ''/) 6apan) etc.) but are called!apitalism) Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism and 'ocialism. 0hese are not empty &ords) norsocial abstractions) nor politico-administrati(e fictions: they ha(e their social bases .!apitalism is based on the class of those to &hom belong the means of production of the&hole &orld. 0hese are lin ed together by connections of business and interest and by a

1
http://www.marxists.org/francais/general/rizzi/index.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/francais/general/rizzi/index.htm


2/36

political solidarity &hich re(ealed itself immediately after the First orld ar &ith thecollecti(e strangling of the /e(olution) and &hich has been continued by the e(ents ofMunich. 0his %nternational has al&ays functioned; it is no& creating a capitalist bloc tooppose the in(asion of Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism. %n this bloc they see to suppress

proletarian forces as much as possible in order to maintain the old pri(ileges.

Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism too has its social base in dominant classes &hich ha(eestablished their head,uarters in the 'tates in /ussia) %taly. 5ermany) 6apan and thesmaller 'tates &ea from the capitalist point of (ie& &hich come &ithin the radius ofaction of the big totalitarian 'tates.0his ne& social form is degenerate) but ne(ertheless acti(e) and is more and moreimposing itself on a capitalism &hich is dead as a dynamic system and in a state of

physical disintegration. 0his bloc has also formed its %nternational in the Anti-!omintern) in &hich the ''/ &ill soon appear) in order to s&allo& up by threats ordeeds the areas dominated by the old capitalist orld.'ocialism has its social base in the &or ing masses of the &hole &orld. 0hey are thereal li(ing force of the ne& 'ociety &hich must replace !apitalism) but they continue to

be tric ed by their ignorant or treacherous leaders &ho do not gi(e them a political lineof their o&n and &ho ha(e lined them up behind the patriotic bac s of the bourgeoisand the fascists.'ocialism sings the 7%nternationale8 but does not apply it in practice) as do its t&ori(als; in reality it is the butcher s meat in the struggle bet&een them. %t is the ob2ect oftheir exploitation: the good and peaceful ox &hich drags the cart and e(en goes to theslaughterhouse. 0he lesson of 191 -1 &as not enough. At that time the (ariousimperialisms thought they &ould sol(e the capitalist crisis by a (ictory &hich &ouldgi(e hegemony to some of them) but) t&enty years later at Munich) they ha(e signedtheir defeat by confirming the senselessness of the past carnage carried on under the

banner of


3/36

I. The nature of the Soviet State%t &as in 191@ to&ards the end of ctober =/ussian calendar> that there occurred a

political e(ent of great importance &hose date is engra(ed in indelible characters in the boo of history. 0he proletariat of 't.


4/36

0he /ussian /e(olution is o(er t&enty years old and it is strange that nobody has gotdo&n to studying the social outcome of this great e(ent. 0he ''/ pro(ides sub2ectsfor discussions) commentaries) reports; its supporters and opponents spea of it onlyfrom the political aspect and al&ays neglect the social aspect. Eo&e(er) &e do not thinthat after t&enty years the /ussian /e(olution can still be considered as being in a

period of transition or transformation. By no& it must surely ha(e had some positi(eoutcome) ac,uired for the future and fixed in a social crystallisation.'ome ha(e seen in the /ussian re(olution 70he mpire of Forced abour8 or 70he/e(olution Betrayed)8 others ha(e described it as 70he 0riumph of Fascism)8 others as70he and of the 5reat ie.8 'ome sigh &hen lamenting 70he Gestiny of the/e(olution8; there are others also &ho ha(e made 7An Assessment of the /e(olution.8riters of all political shades) from communists to fascists passing by the centre parties)ha(e &ritten &or s of great merit) either as regards arguments or as regards information./esearchers ha(e interested themsel(es in the sub2ect and ha(e gone to ma e theirobser(ations directly on the spot. French) 5erman and American &or ers rushedenthusiastically to the country &here their social hopes &ere to be realised. 0heyreturned from it their hearts o(erflo&ing &ith sadness) their souls poisoned) and ha(eleft us ob2ecti(e) practical and (ery interesting information on life) &or and liberty inthe land of the 'o(iets.0his enormous mass of publications does not deal at all &ith the social crystallisation ofthe ''/ and e(en less offers us any conclusion. !ertainly here and there a fe& passingreferences stand out; these are more of a natural fruit) occasioned by polemic) than thesystematic result of a sociological study. 0rots y himself) &ho &e consider to ha(e thedeepest no&ledge of the present conditions and e(olution of the 'o(iet 'tate) admits toha(ing ta en nine paragraphs in an attempt to gi(e a definition of this 'tate. hat has

been lac ing up till no&) is a panoramic (ie& of the &hole) a synthesis) a crystallisedrepresentation of &hat the ''/ is from a social point of (ie&.e oursel(es did not succeed in gi(ing an ans&er t&o years ago in our modest &orWhere is the USSR going? 0he ,uestion mar &as there precisely to as &hat &e &ereas ing; but &hile &e did not succeed in gi(ing an ans&er at least &e posed the ,uestion.%n 193 our mind ceased to be tormented) for &e had no further doubts. hat &ashappening in the social field in other countries confirmed &hat &e had ended up byconsidering as established in the social sphere of the 'o(iet 'tate.'ince the &orld is from no& on reduced to a single form of ci(ilisation) the capitalist) itfollo&s that the social transformation of any 'tate has a great interest for the rest of the

planet) since it is in a premature and localised transformation that the &orld can seereflected the image of its o&n future social form.

All sorts of things ha(e artificially obscured the problem instead of ma ing it clearer.0he paid press and hired spea ers ha(e artificially obscured the problem instead ofma ing it clear. 0he greatest stupidities ha(e been uttered and) also) the greatestco&ardice has been sho&n.0he social phenomenon is in fact (ery difficult to understand) especially for all those

2ournalists &ho (isit /ussia no&ing (ery little or nothing about Marx) enin and theirtheories. %n addition the social phenomenon in formation started off in the beginning ina communist direction; then the cessation of the proletarian re(olution in the &orld

produced a degeneration &hose social forms ha(e in recent years become fixed. 0odaythe social edifice of the 'o(iet 'tate has clear) almost completed lines. e at leastrecognise these lines as such e(en if the specialists on the problem insist on a different

theory. 0hese specialists) reduced to a small number) must be sought in the groups ofre(olutionaries &ho ha(e abandoned the 0hird %nternational) holding that it has long


5/36

since become completely and definiti(ely opportunist. Also) these specialists ha(e cometo the ,uestion of the nature of the 'o(iet 'tate solely as a result of internal diatribes intheir political factions about the tactics and strategy of the proletarian re(olution. 0heydo not e(en suspect that there could be the possibility of a social crystallisation situated

bet&een capitalism and socialism; but in the fire of their polemics the problem of this

crystallisation is categorically posed and maintains those doctrinal differences &hich arethe basis of the political impotence of these specialists.hat is the ''/ today 0o begin &ith &e &ill be expressly imprecise in our diagnosisof this society; &e &ill mo(e on later to the details. First of all &e &ant to establish only&hat is unanimously accepted. %t is certainly not a democratic) but clearly anauthoritarian 'tate. %ts economy is not capitalist; it is not based on pri(ate property buton the collecti(e o&nership of the means of production. From !itrine to 0rots y andfrom /oose(elt to Mussolini) it is admitted that) generically) the 'o(iet economy is notsocialist. nly 'talin s opinion is different for ob(ious reasons; conse,uently &e &illnot pay much attention to it. Go+ens of &riters ha(e made him eat his socialism and his7most democratic !onstitution in the &orld.8 'talin does not flinch and naturally bansthese publications in the land of the 7happy life8 and the most 7democratic in the&orld.8 0here is no doubt about another feature documented by 0rots y) !itrine) Cictor'erge) !iliga and by a host of &riters of the most different nationalities and politicaltheories: in no capitalist or fascist country is the proletariat in such bad conditions as in'o(iet /ussia. 0here is no freedom of speech) of meeting or of the press. %nforming is&idespread and the 'tate (ery much a police 'tate. All these &riters are agreed on this:the exploitation of man still exists in the country of the 7happy life)8 being embodied inthe famous surplus (alue &hich Messieurs the !apitalists extract from the &or ers. =0hedi(ergences appear only &hen it comes to identifying &ho monopolises it.> Anothercharacteristic &hich must not be ignored is that the 'tate demonstrations are only agrandiose theatrical ad(ertisement) as in the totalitarian 'tates of the est; li e&ise) the(eneration) real or pretended) for the almost deified eader is e,ual and perhaps e(engreater. Eierarchy en2oys great prestige there and ser(ility is pushed to the extremelimit. 0he population li(es in an atmosphere of fear as if the &alls could hear and spea ;they ha(e a face for the public different from that as a pri(ate indi(idual.0he political and social physiognomy of the 'o(iet 'tate comes out &ell defined fromthese generally admitted facts supplemented by our distinctions and it is this

physiognomy that &e no& propose to explain to the reader.0he principal aim of the ctober re(olution &as to ser(e as a le(er for the re(olution inthe est. But measures for a socialist economic policy &ere ta en at the same time.Basically pri(ate o&nership of the land and large industrial enterprises &as abolished.

0he economic control of this property passed from the hands of the defeated bourgeoisclass into that of the triumphant proletariat.0he economic conditions for a social transformation in the ''/ &ere certainly not(ery good; the country &as composed essentially of agricultural labourers andilliterates) its industry &as (ery inferior to the needs of an ad(anced economy.0he Bolshe(i s) as soon as they had sei+ed po&er) straight&ay used the radio to incitethe (arious proletariats to follo& their example because they understood the necessity ofgrafting on to the /ussian re(olution the estern nations &ith their de(elopedtechnology and their immense and cultured proletarian class. %f this did not occur) thenthis /e(olution &as fatally destined to failure in the economic-social field e(en if itsarms succeeded in heroically resisting the assaults of the old &orld.

0he 5erman proletariat &as the natural ally of the Bolshe(i re(olution. %ts bourgeoisie)emerging from the &ar defeated and bro en) offered them po&er almost &ithout

?


6/36

stri ing a blo&. But) except for the 'partacist riots and the sacrifice of Darl ieb nechtand /osa uxemburg) the 5erman proletariat &ent &ithout honour from defeat todefeat. %n 19"3 po&er &as once again offered them) but this proletariat deserted thecamp and abandoned it &ithout a struggle e(en to the Eitlerite bands. as this the faultof the leaders f the 0hird %nternational *o) it &as the fault of e(erybody together)

including the 5erman proletariat &ho &ere too cold) too attached to order and of a not(ery re(olutionary nature. Fifty years pre(iously) after the collapse of the French

bourgeoisie in 1 @#) the &or ers of


7/36

%n enin s entourage 0rots y rose lie a giant) so they undertoo to neutralise him inorder to remo(e a great obstacle &hich &ould ha(e hindered their national andinternational brain&ashing campaign. 0he reality is still this: the real dictatorship &asthat of the Bolshe(i party) a dictatorship centred on the


8/36

money the bureaucrat al&ays replies that the &or ers did not ob2ect) as they could ha(edone since the &or ers of the ''/ are allo&ed to gi(e their opinion and e(en tooppose the &ishes of their masters. 0here is a solidarity among the bureaucrats=officials) technical specialists) policemen) officers) 2ournalists) &riters) trade union

big&igs and finally the &hole communist party> so that mista es are blamed on the

&or ers) &ho are tied li e sla(es to the economic machine of the 'tate) &hich the bureaucrats describe &ith cro&ning derision as an organ of the proletarian class.0he officials go(ern and the technical specialists are also their industrial representati(es.0he police ha(e the tas of protecting the ne& property and of eeping the citi+ensconduct on the political line decided by the top hierarchs. 6ournalists and &riters ha(ethe tas of 7scientifically8 tric ing the general public. 0he trade union bosses ha(e

become (eritable officials) placed right in the midst of the &or ers in order to sound outtheir mood and to tric them) as has been and still is done in all &or ers organisations)yello& or red) in all capitalist countries. 0here is not much difference bet&een the'o(iet and American trade union bureaucracies as far as aims are concerned. But thereis an essential difference since) &hereas the trade union bureaucracy in the capitalistcountries ser(es the bourgeoisie) in the 'o(iet 'tate they ser(e the 'tate bureaucracyand thereby themsel(es.0he /ussian communist party has become a (ictim to the bureaucrats and the &or ersare (irtually no longer present in its midst. 0his party is nothing else but the dog &hicheeps the sheep in order; 'talin) follo&ing behind &ith his croo on his shoulder and his

bag slung across his bac ) is the 7great shepherd.8 %f some sheep lea(es the ran s) thedog bar s and 'talin hits it. 0he floc ta es heed) stands afraid of the dog and addressesits plainti(e bleatings to the 7great shepherd.80he proletariat has the right only to &or in the enterprises &hose o&nership is stillmoc ingly attributed to them e(en though they do not ha(e the least controllingfunction. 0heirs is only to s&eat blood and &ater since they are spurred on by systems&hich not only are not socialist) but &hich are also &orse than those in fashion in thene(er-so-re(iled capitalist countries.0his s etch is not our in(ention) but is only the conclusion dra&n from the treatment ofthis ,uestion by the 7specialists8 &hose (ie&s &e &ill later be discussing. %t can be seenclearly from this s etch that this society has nothing to do &ith socialism. (erybody isagreed on this point) except of course 'talin and the 'o(iet bureaucracy.0he o&nership of the means of production has been socialised and the economy is

planned H this is the big argument of 0rots y and company and all shades of anti-0hird%nternational re(olutionary sects.According to 0rots y) despite e(erything else the 'o(iet 'tate remains &or ing class

and the dictatorship of the proletariat is still in force4 e &ill deal &ith this ,uestionlater) no& &e merely &ish to &or out &ith the aid of common sense the nature of the'o(iet 'tate; &e &ill then go on to examine the arguments &hich are said to be7scientific.8%n our opinion) another ruling class) the bureaucracy) has emerged from the ctoberre(olution and its receding) &hile the bourgeoisie has been dispensed &ith and)conse,uently) has no possibility of returning.0he possession of the 'tate gi(es the bureaucracy possession of all mo(able andimmo(able goods &hich) although socialised) do not less belong in toto to this ne&ruling class. %t goes &ithout saying that the ne& class ta es good care not to officiallydeclare that it en2oys this possession) but it in fact controls all the economic le(ers and

has its property guarded by the 5< and the bayonets of the 7purged8 army. achenterprise has its 5< corps &hich mounts guard) but in the large enterprises there is


9/36

e(en a soldier of the regular army &ho mounts guard) bayonet on his gun. Ee chec sthose &ho go in) examines documents and follo&s the (isitor step by step) e(en if he isan important person &ith &hom care should be ta en li e the trade unionist alter!itrine.0he 'o(iet 'tate is becoming bureaucratic rather than socialist; indeed) instead of

gradually disappearing into a classless society) it is inflated beyond measure. Fifteenmillion indi(iduals are already stuc to the trun of the 'tate and are suc ing its sap.0he proletarian class is exploited en bloc in accord &ith the transformation of property.0he bureaucratic class exploit s the proletariat and) through fixing &ages and the selling

prices of commodities in the 'tate shops) determines the standard at &hich this classshall li(e. 0he ne& dominant class has bought the proletariat en bloc . 0he &or ers nolonger e(en ha(e the freedom to offer their 7labour po&er8 to different enterprises: it isthe monopolising bureaucracy &hich has perfected this system of exploitation. 0he/ussian proletarians ha(e fallen out of the frying pan into the fire.'ocially this ne& form of society resol(es the untenable contradiction &hich has madecapitalist society incapable of any progress. %n capitalist society the form of productionhas long since been collecti(e) for e(erybody participates directly or indirectly in the

production of no matter &hat commodity. But the o&nership of commodities isindi(idual precisely as a conse,uence of the maintenance of pri(ate property. 0hroughthe socialisation of property and in its being effecti(ely placed under the control of aclass &hich acts as a harmonious &hole) the contradiction existing in the capitalistsystem of production is made to disappear and is replaced by a ne& system. %n the

beginning this system exploits the &or ers ferociously 2ust as capitalism did at onetime. 0o the extent that the system strengthens and perfects itself production increasesand the ruling class &ill then be in a position to distribute a bigger ration to those itexploits. %n a normal international en(ironment production on a collecti(e basis should&ith certainty gro& e(en though directed by the bureaucracy) since today s enormousexpenditure on armaments &ould be eliminated or at least much reduced. Armamentsal&ays do &ell and 'tates are changed into thoroughly militarist organisms. 0hisenormous &aste of labour can neutralise) and e(en negate) the impulse &hich

production incontestably recei(es follo&ing the collecti(isation of property andorganisation of the economy according to a pre-established plan.0his ne& social system arises in the e(olution of human history as a parasitic

phenomenon.


10/36

and American) realise that it is useless and impossible to maintain their hegemony o(era &orld &hich) if it &ants to sur(i(e) can remain imperialist no longer and &hich is(isibly changing in a bureaucratic direction.0he old democracies play out the role of an anti-fascist policy so as not to a&a esleeping dogs. 0he proletarians ha(e to be ept ,uiet &hile the transformation of society

in the meantime surreptitiously ta es place in their countries. At the same time) and ate(ery moment) the old democracies feed their &or ers on anti-fascism. %t is the doing ofthese democracies) in order to appease the re(olutionary ardour of the &or ers and tosell the products of their hea(y industry) that 'pain has mean&hile become a (eritableslaughterhouse for proletarians of all nations. %n !hina the &or ers are urged on to ananti-6apanese policy precisely under the leadership of the notorious !hiang Dai-!he )he &ho still has hands sullied &ith the blood of the flo&er of the !hinese proletariat. %tgoes &ithout saying that this time too the &or ers s&allo& all this and go single file)&ithout no&ing anything) almost resigned. 0he &or ers of France) ngland andAmerica &ill gradually lose their status of citi+ens and &ill become simply the7sub2ects8 of a bureaucratic regime &hich &ill nationalise property and ta e many othermeasures &ith a 7socialist8 imprint. 0he regime &ill not call itself fascism or national-socialism) it &ill certainly ha(e another name) but its basis &ill still be the same) i.e.:

property collecti(ised in the hands of the 'tate) &ith a bureaucracy as the ruling class;collecti(e and planned organisation of production; finally) the exploitation of the &or er&ill pass from the sphere of the indi(idual to that of the class.At this point the Marxist 0rots y &ill cry at the top of his (oice that) contrary to &hat hetells us about /ussia) not only are the conditions of distribution not socialist but neitherare the conditions of production; then he &ill go further and carry on re(olutionary

propaganda against the bureaucracy of the &hole &orld40he consolidation of this bureaucracy is) according to him) 7a historic possibility andnot an already accomplished fact.8 [1] 0hus &e must &ait until the fact is accomplishedto gi(e 0rots y the material for his analysis4 0hen the proletariat) already under thetutelage of bureaucratic go(ernments) &ill ha(e to be called upon to act; imagine theresult40rots y s study may &ell be scientific and 1## per cent Marxist) but this &ill come toolate &hen there is no longer any possibility of doing anything4 Ee may e(en be able tocon(ince the bureaucratic leaders &ho) in reply) &ill call him a fascist; % don t care.0he accomplished fact exists in /ussia and it must be examined more deeply. 0his factis (isibly in the course of being accomplished in %taly and 5ermany. And the first signsof this fact are sprouting up e(ery&here) e(en in the big democracies.0here remains one card for precisely 0rots y to play) but &e are con(inced that he has

no desire at all to use it. Eis great figure is slo&ly declining in a grey s y) &hile at thesame time the memory of a sunny day is fading) blotted out by the rising t&ilight.Before committing suicide) 6offre &rote 0rots y a letter in &hich he recommended himnot to be afraid of isolation as long as he maintained the eninist line intact. %t seems tous that 0rots y has follo&ed this ad(ice to the letter) but that he certainly has notfollo&ed enin s &ay. hen the /ussian 'ocial Gemocratic party split) &hen


11/36

too sure of himself. 0his is alright up to a certain point) but it is a real calamity &hen thereasoning is based on doubtful polemical methods. 0his means that one does not ha(eenough confidence in the strength of one s case. %f this is so) it should prompt the ta inginto consideration of the other person s reasons and the recognition of one s o&n faults&ithout fear since any other solution &ill lead to much &orse results.

%n our opinion) the ''/ is a ne& type of society) ruled by a ne& social class: that isour conclusion.


12/36

merit &as to ha(e taught the study of social facts and to ha(e pro(ided the researcher&ith a &onderful means for interpreting history. %t seems to us that the Marxists shouldstudy the facts &hich exist in the light of the Marxist method and that they should notconfine themsel(es to chec ing to see if these facts correspond to one of the catalogueheadings of the forecasts of the greater thin er or his greatest disciples. 'uch a method

is hopeless and the Marxists) in adopting it) change themsel(es into 6esuits) &ho &henthey run short of arguments inundate you &ith ,uotes from some saint or other in orderto oppose your (ie&. %f you dare to reply that e(en these blessed ones could be &rong)the 6esuit loses his temper and simply tells you that you doubt the di(inations of thesaints so that it is ,uite pointless to prolong the discussion. Iou are not a !atholic) youare among the damned) 2ust as your spirit is damned since it is depri(ed of grace4Marx has in a sense been sanctified) and if by your reasoning you happen to come toconclusions different from the forecasts of the 6e& of 0rier) your place is among thedamned) e(en if in your study of today s social facts you made use of the Marxistmethod of research.!omrades B and ! state that the ''/ has ceased to be a or ers 'tate 7in thetraditional sense gi(en to this expression by Marxism.8 0hey deny that it is either a

bourgeois 'tate or a proletarian 'tate H &e &onder) in passing) &hat ind of 'tate it infact is. 0hen these comrades admit that the rule of the proletariat 7 can . . . be expressedin a considerable number of go(ernment forms8 and go on to proclaim later that 7theconception of the dictatorship of the proletariat is in the first place not economic) butabo(e all a political category . . . All forms) organs) institutions of the class rule of the

proletariat are today destroyed; but this means that the class rule of the proletariat isdestroyed8 [4].0here is also much confusion in the ideas of B and !) reflecting a state of mind &hereideas are in the process of formation.0rots y concedes fully that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a completely politicalcategory and declares that politics is only concentrated economics and so the 7regimethat defends expropriated and nationalised property against imperialism is) independentof the political forms) a dictatorship of the proletariat.8 0hat s it except) &e &ould add)the bureaucracy &ould not ha(e to be a class &hich found expropriated and nationalised

property to be in its interest.!an the nature of a 'tate be 2udged &ithout ta ing into account its political forms Arethe forms of property and relations of production already completely changed &hen a'tate consolidates itself by o(erthro&ing another %s not this) on the contrary) the tasof the ne& ruling class Gid the go(ernment of the 0hird state in France not supportitself for a fe& years on a feudal economy Guring such periods concentrated

economics clearly cannot be politics; politics is rather concentrated potentially in thesocial class &hich has its hands on the le(ers of control and in the programme &hich itis putting into practice.0rots y e(en admits that 7during the first fe& months of the 'o(iet regime the

proletariat administered a bourgeois economy.8 0his admission &as certainly not madeto support our theory) but &ith the aim of illustrating a case of class contradiction

bet&een the political form and the economic reality in order to conclude that:7the concentration of po&er in the hands of the bureaucracy and e(en the encroachmentupon the de(elopment of the producti(e forces does not of itself alter the class nature ofthe society and of its 'tate.8But) in our (ie&) the main point is to see &ith &hat end in (ie& the expropriated and

nationalised property in 'o(iet /ussia is defended from imperialism) supposing this

1"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n4%23n4http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n4%23n4


13/36

imperialism still to be an effecti(e force. ho can assure us that an in(ader) &hoe(er it be) imperialist or not) &ould change the form of property in the ''/%f it is true that in the first months of the 'o(iet regime the proletariat administered a

bourgeois economy and that no& there exists an opposite case of class contradiction bet&een the economy and the 'tate) &ell) is this a good reason for (alidating the theory

that the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a reality in the land of the 'o(iets And)finally) for attaching no (alue to the re(erse contradiction Gecidedly) this is a strange&ay of reasoning4 %n other &ords) if a proletarian 'tate has existed &ith a bourgeoiseconomy) &hy could not a non-proletarian 'tate exist &ith a nationalised economy%n the first months follo&ing the ctober re(olution) the proletarian dictatorship &as atrue) real fact; if e(erybody is agreed on this point) e(en though there &as nonationalised property) this means that the dictatorship of the proletariat is in the first

place a ,uestion of political and not economic forms) at least during the phase oftransition bet&een the bourgeois economy and the socialist economy.From &hat &e no& it follo&s that the proletarian dictatorship is the political form ofthe &or ing class during this phase) that of social construction. But &hen its specific

products cease it is logical to consider that the phase itself has ceased to exist. ntil theday &hen) on socialism being achie(ed) the proletarian dictatorship disappears) politicalfactors &ill ha(e their &ord to say in the classification of the type of po&er. As it istrue) as e(eryone admits) that not e(en as a result of the nationalisation of property issocialism an accomplished fact in the ''/) it seems e(ident to us that thenationalisation of property and the planned economy are not sufficient reasons to pro(ethe existence of the proletarian dictatorship. For this the proletariat must also hold

po&er H that s a self-e(ident truth. 0his condition is so important that) &hereas &eha(e seen a genuine proletarian dictatorship &hile the economy &as still bourgeois) or a0hird state ruling o(er a feudal economy) &e ha(e not yet seen the opposite caseappearing in history. 0he ''/ of today is far from con(incing us. %t has to be a formof society &hich is neither capitalist nor socialist) and a form of 'tate &hich is neither

proletarian nor bourgeois. e still consider that the dictatorship of the proletariat) afterrealising the nationalisation of property) should continue its &ay) follo&ing the socialist

programme. Eo&e(er e(erybody) and 0rots y first of all) accepts that this &ay &as notsubse,uently follo&ed in the land of the 'o(iets. 0hus of &hat dictatorship of the proletariat are &e spea ing f the dictatorship of the proletariat &hich has &iped outthe re(olutionaries and &hich organises) &ith the help of murders and sell-outs) thesabotage of the proletarian re(olution in the &orld r is it perhaps that one &hichma es the difference bet&een the classes e(er &ider70he ''/ does not correspond to the criterion of a or ers 'tate that is ad(anced inour programme ... Eistory ... ga(e us the process of the degeneration of the or ers'tate)8 0rots y tells us. But &hat is left for us) then) after this degeneration of the&or ers 'tate and of the dictatorship of the proletariat 7*ationalised property and the

planned economy)8 replies 0rots y. 0hat s (ery &ell) but &hat is their aim %s it the

realisation of socialism b(iously not) and e(en 0rots y denies that it is. 'o 'o) ifnationalised property and the planned economy remain) this happens because they both

13


14/36

suit the interests of the regime in po&er. %n fact) the 'o(iet bureaucracy has no reason toeliminate these inno(ations of the ctober re(olution but) on the contrary) has politicaland social reasons for maintaining them. From the political point of (ie&) the 'o(iet

bureaucracy tric s the &or ers by telling them that the nationalised property is theirsand) from the social point of (ie&) it cannot go against the current) i.e. against the

de(elopment of production. (en the bourgeois 'tates themsel(es are proceeding moreand more to the nationalisation of property and the planning of the economy. %n doingthis) they are undermining the sacred right of pri(ate property) but &here this &or hasalready been accomplished does this right need to be destroyed %f only for this) a ne&re(erse transformation of property in /ussia is not to be feared.All the facts pro(e to us that this domination of the bureaucracy in the late land of the'o(iets is real. 0his has lasted for so long that a clear differentiation of classes has beenestablished. All the political and social acts are those of a dominant class concerned&ith maintaining and strengthening its po&er. ell) according to 0rots y) it is notscientific to consider that the 'o(iet bureaucracy) &hich monopolises the go(ernment)can be a ne& class47%t is not a ,uestion of a ne& bourgeoisie)8 &e are told; or 7it is not yet8 and so it is nota class but a 7cler J4 Although tradition) e(en at home) teaches us that many 7cler s8ha(e ended up by becoming masters) in the camp of Agramant they are unable toen(isage a ne& class apart from the proletariat and the bourgeoisie) e(en if the latter is&ell dead and the former is &hipped by a ne& master. %t has to be a case of a simplecler ) almost an ordinary bureaucrat) &ho in the case of the ''/ becomes the (alet of&orld imperialism) including) at least one &ould say) %talo-6apano-5erman imperialism4e do not thin that Marxism can lead to such nonsense. 'implification has al&ays

been a (ice of Marxists) e(en though the essence of the doctrine of their master isuni(ersal. Marx could not foresee the coming of the totalitarian 'tate) dominated first bya cli,ue and then by a social stratum &hich later consolidated itself definiti(ely as aclass. But the facts are there to examine and ideas do not fall from the s y. (en in thecamp of Agramant these ideas fall in rare and large fla es) real signs of a comingsno&storm.0he Marxists) &ho claim to be orthodox) are not content to examine the facts in aMarxist &ay) they en,uire about &hat s beneath them4 0hey ha(e disco(ered that&hoe(er reasons li e us is a (ictim of a mirage) &hereas in reality it is they &ho put the&orld on its head li e the idealist philosophers of the past. 0hey ser(e us theirno&ledge on plates garnished &ith Marxist dialectic) a dialectic &hich &e hold to be

based on the class struggle) but they) the Marxists) do not see that all o(er the &orld ane& class is crystallising. 0rots y) &ishing to disregard or ignore the bureaucratic class

in po&er) tells us in order to explain &hat is no& happening in the land of the 'o(iets:7 ith full 2ustification one can say: the ruling proletariat in a bac &ard and isolatedcountry remains still an oppressed class. 0he source of this oppression is &orldimperialism) the transmission machinery is the bureaucracy.80rots y) than s to his mind and s ill) no&s ho& to ma e the most extra(agant theoriesseem realistic and a superficial obser(er is easily ta en in by the beauty of theexplanations of this &ell-established thin er. 0hat may be) but &e are not affected. %t isa fact that if the international proletariat had beaten imperialism as it emerged laden&ith crimes from the bloodbath of 191 -1 &e &ould no& ha(e a &orld so(iet republicde(eloping in a socialist direction. p to a certain point) therefore) &e can oursel(esalso hold that the origin of the oppression comes from imperialism; but the most

important ,uestion is to establish &hether the 'o(iet bureaucracy is something otherthan a transmission machinery.

1


15/36

0he ''/) besieged by capitalism) has degenerated more and more) &hile themachinery of this process is embodied in the 'o(iet bureaucracy. But &hat is the socialoutcome of this regression


16/36

the economy planned. %n reality) the &hole system of production remains collecti(e) asin the organisation of large capitalist enterprises) &hile property passes from the pri(ateto the collecti(e form. %t follo&s) therefore) that if economic characteristics are the onlydetermining factors of the nature of a 'tate) &e are reduced as far as the ''/ isconcerned to nationalisation and 'tate planning.

%t remains for us to see &hat the nationalisation of property in the ''/ in fact means.%t is here that &e also) &ithout claiming to be orthodox Marxists) &ill allo& oursel(es toloo beneath the facts. 0he nationalisation of property &as certainly the firstre(olutionary measure that the proletarian class in po&er decreed &ith a (ie& toconstructing socialism. But) &ith the 'talinist degeneration) this construction stopped;since this nationalisation should ha(e been follo&ed by the socialisation of property) itis logical to as &hat it has become from the sociological point of (ie&. (erybody inthe camp of Agramant is agreed on this point. 0rots y adds that the distribution of

products is done in such a &ay that the bureaucracy allocates itself the lion s share. e&onder &hat sort of 7nationalised8 property this is &here the property is exclusi(elydirected by a class &hich then lays hold of the products &ith as much effrontery as theold bourgeoisie. 0here exists in /ussia in fact an exploiting class &hich controls themeans of production and &hich beha(es as their o&ner. 0he members of this class donot share this property out but are themsel(es) in a bloc constituting a class) the realo&ners of the &hole nationalised property.


17/36

changes are ta ing place in classes in this epoch &here capitalism is ending and then toidentify the ne& property forms and ne& social relationships. e thus see that not e(enthe famous surplus (alue has disappeared in this enigmatic 'tate &hich is the 'o(ietnion. (eryone is agreed on this) but dissension arises &hen it comes to determining&here this surplus (alue finally goes. Goes it go to the non-existent bourgeoisie *o.


18/36

%n the camp of Agramant terrific efforts are made to a(oid these logical deductions: itcould be said that there is a chorus of cats in the mating season there) spending thenights of March tearing apart our soul &ith their mournful ba&ling.ieutenant *a(ille) &ho had been as ed 7&hat &as the difference bet&een pri(ate

property and collecti(e property if a bureaucracy only &as able to benefit from the

latter)8 replies 7that there &ould only be a difference of degree bet&een capitalist pri(ate property and the gigantic Lpri(ate property of the Lbureaucracy .8 [5] hat adisco(ery4 0he property of many millions of citi+ens) considered as a social group)&ould still remain pri(ate property. But &ill this scientific Marxist then tell us &hat heunderstands by collecti(e property ) the bureaucracy cannot freelycontrol the use of =distribute> either the accumulated capital or the surplus (alue

produced. 0heirs is not a case of capitalist pri(ate property) e(en in its 'tate monopolystage.8%t seems to us that the opposite is true. 0he 'o(iet bureaucracy in particular controls the

use of the amassed capital and distributes the surplus (alue. 0rots y goes so far as tosay:7 hat &as only a Lbureaucratic distortion is preparing to s&allo& up the or ers'tate) s in) hair and all) and on the ruins of nationalised economy to build up a ne&

possessing class8 [6].e add: &ho directs the economy ho dra&s up the fi(e-year plans ho fixes theselling prices And &ages ho decides the public &or s) industrial installations) etc.)if not the 'o(iet bureaucracy And if they do not control the use of this property &hothen does ho has responsibility for distributing the surplus (alue


19/36

bureaucracy %n this case) the bureaucracy &ould ha(e to be seen as benefiting from thesystem like a capitalist class because it &ould expropriate surplus (alue li e a capitalistenterprise .8Eea(ens) yes) that s precisely it4 Eo&e(er) the bureaucracy must be seen as benefitingfrom the class-di(ided system of society not as a capitalist class) but as a bureaucratic

class. %t grabs the surplus (alue not as a capitalist enterprise) but as a class exploiting enbloc .

*a(ille) on the other hand) replies thus to the ,uestion he timidly posed:7Eistory sho&s that the phenomenon of the production and appropriation of surplus(alue is not peculiar and limited to liberal capitalism or pri(ate monopoly. 5round rentand surplus (alue) &hich existed at the time of feudalism) became fully significant &iththe commodity economy and then industrial de(elopment. 0hey continue to exist in the''/) despite the denials of 'talin) Bu harin and their school. nly the arenationalised and therein lies the essential difference . %f one &ants to clarify the natureof present 'o(iet society) it is on this point also that one must a(oid ma ing errors.8Gri(en into a corner) finding himself under the ineluctable necessity to admit thatsurplus (alue is 7fully significant8 in bureaucratic collecti(ism too) 0rots y s disciplea(oids the obstacle in a hardly scientific manner. Ee supports the ambiguous) anti-Marxist and reactionary position according to &hich ground rent and surplus (alue arenationalised in 'o(iet society. Ee sees some essential difference in this4e are going to reply &ith the &ords of his master &ho) in !he Revolution "etra ed )expressed himself thus:7%t is perfectly true that Marxists) beginning &ith Marx himself) ha(e employed inrelation to the &or ers state the terms state# national and socialist property as simplesynonyms. n a large historic scale) such a mode of speech in(ol(es no specialincon(eniences. But it becomes the source of crude mista es) and of do&nright deceit)&hen applied to the first and still unassured stages of the de(elopment of a ne& society)and one moreo(er isolated and economically lagging behind the capitalist countries.7%n order to become social) pri(ate property must as ine(itably pass through the statestage as the caterpillar in order to become a butterfly must pass through the pupal stage.But the pupa is not a butterfly. Myriads of pupae perish &ithout e(er becoming

butterflies. 'tate property becomes the property of Lthe &hole people only to the degreethat social pri(ilege and differentiation disappear) and there&ith the necessity of thestate. %n other &ords: state property is con(erted into socialist property in proportion asit ceases to be state property. And the contrary is true: the higher the 'o(iet state risesabo(e the people) and the more fiercely it opposes itself as the guardian of property tothe people as its s,uanderer) the more ob(iously does it testify against the socialist

character of this state property.8[7]

0hus it does not seem that so-called nationalisation of property leads to ground rent andsurplus (alue being effecti(ely nationalised) i.e. belonging to the &hole people. 0here isno essential difference) except that the bourgeoisie is no longer the exploiting class thatrecei(es the surplus (alue) but it is the bureaucracy &hich is granted this honour.

*a(ille identifies nationalised property &ith socialist property) &hich seems to usneither too scientific) nor too Marxist.'uch a mista e &as excusable in Marx s time) but the same mista e amongst hisdisciples is unpardonable since no& the forecasts of the Master are becoming real) e(enif unclearly.%f one &ants to assess 7the nature of present 'o(iet society8 errors on this point

precisely must be a(oided and &hat nationalised property is) sociologically spea ing)must be gone into more deeply. f course this &or must be done in a scientific Marxist

19


20/36

&ay if that pleases the nights of Agramant better. e do not claim that our ans&er iscomplete) &e ha(e only gi(en the outlines.%f they pursue this line of reasoning) the coming of the totalitarian 'tate in the &orld&ill also become clearer to those &ho up till no& ha(e sho&n us a completeincomprehension &ith regard to fascism) holding it to be the preser(er and continuer of

capitalism.%n these regimes a ne& ruling class in formation declares that capital ser(es the 'tate)and then ma es the facts conform. 0his class already largely fixes the prices ofcommodities and the &ages of the &or ers and organises the national economyaccording to a pre-established plan.b(iously) o&nership of the means of production cannot be identified as easily as thatof the means of consumption. 0he latter are for personal use) &hile the former are asimmo(able as mountains. 0here is no o&ner) nor any class) nor any 'tate &hich can putthem on its bac and drag them &here it &ants. %t is thus not surprising that there aretimes &hen it is difficult to determine &ho is their o&ner.%n our opinion) in the ''/ the o&ners are the bureaucrats since it is they &ho ha(e

po&er in their hands. %t is they &ho direct the economy) 2ust as &as normal amongst the bourgeois. %t is they &ho reap the benefits) 2ust as is normal for any exploiting class;those &ho fix &ages and the selling prices of commodities are) once again) the

bureaucrats.0he &or ers count for nothing in the control of society; further) they ha(e no share inthe receipts of surplus (alue and) &hat is still &orse) ha(e no interest in defending thisalien nationalised property. 0he /ussian &or ers are still exploited and the bureaucratsare their exploiters.0he nationalised property of the ctober re(olution no& belongs as a 7&hole8 to theclass &hich directs) exploits and ... defends it: it is class property.%n the course of the de(elopment of capitalism the system of production becamecollecti(ised; as a result pri(ate property could not escape collecti(isation. 0hiscollecti(e property is not ho&e(er under the protection of the proletarian class; butunder the protection of a ne& class &hich in the ''/ is an accomplished fact and&hich in the totalitarian countries is in the course of formation.

IV. Bureaucratic E ploitation7%f it is true that the ''/ has become settled in a ne& stable social form other thancapitalism or socialism and that instead of the bourgeoisie another dominant class hasarisen) &ill you also explain to us &hat is the ne& form of exploitation and by &hatmeans the surplus (alue is pumped out of the &or ers 8'cientific Marxists ha(e the right to spea li e this) or something li e it) and &e &ill doour best to meet their &ishes. hile 0rots y agrees &ith *a(ille on the ,uestion ofnationalised property as the characteristic of a or ers 'tate) it does not seem that theMaster is of the same opinion as the discipline &hen it comes to considering ground rentand surplus (alue as nationalised in 'talin s land. Eere s &hat he tells us in !he

Revolution "etra ed :7%f &e translate socialist relations) for illustration) into the language of the mar et) &emay represent the citi+en as a stoc holder in a company &hich o&ns the &ealth of thecountry. %f the property belonged to all the people) that &ould presume an e,ualdistribution of Lshares ) and conse,uently a right to the same di(idend for allLshareholders . 0he citi+ens participate in the national enterprise) ho&e(er) not only as

7shareholders)8 but also as producers. n the lo&er stage of communism) &hich &eha(e agreed to call socialism) payments for labour are still made according to bourgeois

"#


21/36

norms H that is) in dependence upon s ill) intensity) etc. 0he theoretical income of eachciti+en is thus composed of t&o parts) a b H that is) di(idend &ages. 0he higher thetechni,ue and the more complete the organi+ation of industry) the greater is the placeoccupied by a as against b) and the less is the influence of indi(idual differences oflabour upon standard of li(ing. From the fact that &age differences in the 'o(iet nion

are not less) but greater than in capitalist countries) it must be inferred that the shares ofthe 'o(iet citi+en are not e,ually distributed) and that in his income the di(idend as &ellas the &age payment is une,ual. hereas the uns illed labourer recei(es only b) theminimum payment &hich under similar conditions he &ould recei(e in a capitalistenterprise) the 'ta hano(ist or bureaucrat recei(es "a b) or 3a b) etc.) &hile b also inits turn may become "b) 3b) etc. 0he differences in income are determined) in other&ords) not only by differences of indi(idual producti(eness) but also by a mas edappropriation of the products of the labour of others. 0he pri(ileged minority ofshareholders is li(ing at the expense of the depri(ed ma2ority.7%f you assume that the 'o(iet uns illed &or er recei(es more than he &ould under asimilar le(el of techni,ue and culture in a capitalist enterprise H that is to say) that he isstill a small shareholder H it is necessary to consider his &ages as e,ual to a b. 0he&ages of the higher categories &ould be expressed &ith the formula: 3a "b) 1#a 1?b) etc. 0his means that the uns illed &or er has one share) the 'ta hano(ist three) thespecialist ten. Moreo(er) their &ages in the proper sense are related as 1:":1?. Eymns tothe sacred socialist property sound under these conditions a good deal more con(incingto the manager or the 'ta hano(ist) than to the ran -and-file &or er or collecti(e

peasant. 0he ran -and-file &or ers) ho&e(er) are the o(er&helming ma2ority of society.%t &as they) and not the ne& aristocracy) that socialism had in mind.8e endorse this entirely) and if 0rots y says that a pri(ileged minority li(es at theexpense of a depri(ed ma2ority) &e thin *a(ille too should be con(inced of it4e do not e(en dare hope that &e &ill be listened to) but it seems to us in passing that)if the nationalisation of surplus (alue and ground rent benefits only the bureaucrats) it is

permissible to consider that the 7nationalised8 property is also the pro(ince of these bureaucrats and that it does not belong to the &hole of society) for then it &ould begenuinely socialist. 0he French lieutenant) as a good disciple) has dra&n from theconcept of the Master conclusions regarding 'o(iet property. 0he deduction is exact butit is the premise that is not) so the result could only be &rong. et him be annoyed &ith0rots y if he &ants or let him understand that in this &orld geniuses are only men andtherefore fallible) and that e(en mediocrities can sometimes notice the mista es of greatmen. *a(ille submits to us in this connection an interesting extract from $apital :70he specific economic form) in &hich unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of direct

producers) determines the relationship of rulers and ruled) as it gro&s directly out of production itself and) in turn) reacts upon it as a determining element. pon this)ho&e(er) is founded the entire formation of the economic community &hich gro&s upout of the production relations themsel(es) thereby simultaneously its specific politicalform. %t is al&ays the direct relationship of the o&ners of the conditions of production tothe direct producers H a relation al&ays naturally corresponding to a definite stage inthe de(elopment of the methods of labour and thereby its social producti(ity H &hichre(eals the innermost secret) the hidden basis of the entire social structure and &ith itthe political form of the relation of so(ereignty and dependence) in short) thecorresponding specific form of the state. 0his does not pre(ent the same economic basis

H the same from the standpoint of its main conditions H due to innumerable different

empirical circumstances) natural en(ironment) racial relations) external historical

"1


22/36

influences) etc. from sho&ing infinite (ariations and gradations in appearance) &hichcan be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically gi(en circumstances.8 [8]

ne &ould say that Marx had 2ust &ritten all this. e also fully consider that theinnermost secret of a social edifice is re(ealed by the specific economic form in &hichsurplus (alue is pumped out of the direct producers. But if this surplus (alue goes to a

pri(ileged class and if the ground rent of the collecti(e farmers ta es the same road =as0rots y sho&s> and does not go to the 'tate as *a(ille &ants to pro(e &ith a naN(eexample about a collecti(e farm) that pro(es that the 'o(iet bureaucratic class is not anillusion but that it has the ,ualifications of a ruling and exploiting class.Eere is *a(ille s example of the collecti(e farm &ith &hich he sho&s us ho& only 3@

per cent of production goes to the &or ers and the remainder to the 'tate) only part of&hich goes directly to the bureaucracy:7An example. Eere is ho& ground rent goes bac to the 'tate. 0he distribution of

products and money in a collecti(e farm is carried on in accordance &ith regulationslaid do&n by the go(ernment. First of all) a deduction is made for the benefit of the'tate &hose amount (aries according to the fertility of the region and &ith a maximumof 1 per cent of the crop. 0hen " to 3 per cent is deducted for administrati(e expensesand 13 to "? per cent for the depreciation of the tractors and agricultural machinery and)finally) 1#.? per cent for the reser(e fund. 0he rest is di(ided amongst the &or ers in

proportion to the ,uantity and ,uality of &or carried out by each of them.80he essential point is to see if) through the percentages paid directly for the costs ofadministration) the bureaucrats are paid in line &ith the a(erage &age of a &or er; but itis still more interesting to see &hat the 'o(iet 'tate does &ith the $# per cent of

production it corners. Goes it totally put bac this surplus (alue into circulation) in theinterests of the mass of the people not in the go(ernment) or does it channel it in &ays

particularly dear to its specific ,ualities as a class 'tate 0he reply is almost pointless:6esus !hrist also first &ashed his feet so as to then lea(e the Apostles their turn. All theliterature of the nights of Agramant) all of it &e repeat) is there to ma e the accusation:7the extreme differentiation of income bet&een 'o(iet citi+ens)8 7the gro&ing classdifferences)8 7the ne& bureaucracy)8 7the 'o(iet aristocracy)8 7the lion s share)8 7the# per cent of production s&allo&ed up by the bureaucracy)8 7the gro&th of socialantagonisms) of ine,uality)8 and so on. %t needs only the candid nai(ety of the philistine

*a(ille to suppose that the surplus (alue extracted from the 'o(iet &or ers largelycomes bac to them (ia a so-called 7 or ers 'tate.8%n reality) the bureaucratic 'tate pays the surplus (alue in different &ays to its officials&ho form a pri(ileged class) directly installed in the 'tate. e too ha(e ne(er seen adominant class &ithout a bureaucracy to directly control the 'tate) nor a bureaucracy

&hich &as also a ruling class. But &e see this today and &e are also con(inced that &eare not ta ing illusions for reality. e are sorry for the nights of Agramant &ho todaytilt at &indmills or) better still) &e are sorry for the Gon Ouixotes in(ading the campcursed &ith the discord &hich a (indicti(e archangel has thro&n there; but &e belie(ethis precisely is the social reality. 0hese are the 2o es of history) little re(olutionaryincon(eniences for great scientific Marxists and philistines. 0o be fair) &e must agreethat *a(ille himself realises that the 'o(iet bureaucrats do not remain indifferent beforethe mountains of surplus (alue amassed by the or ers 'tate; this is &hat he says:70he 'talinists repeat that surplus (alue no longer exists in the ''/ since Lthefactories belong to the &or ers . But there is no point in opposing this absurdity &ith anabsurdity 2ust as great) (i+.) that the surplus (alue is produced and distributed as in the

capitalist system and that conse,uently the relations of domination and ser(itude) asMarx put it) are the same as in capitalism. %n reality) the specific form in &hich a part of

""


23/36

the unpaid surplus labour is appropriated gi(es it the role and function of a semi- parasitic caste and) in certain of these strata) the direct tendency to push through aso&ners.70he extreme differentiation of &ages) a stri ing phenomenon full of significance) doesnot ho&e(er exhaust the Linnermost secret) the hidden foundation of the entire social

edifice4P; the secret of the transitional 'tate &hich is the ''/ and the ne&contradictions &hich it conceals is re(ealed if the real meaning of the nationalisationmeasures is not lost sight of and if their real character is not mas ed by superficialanalogies &ith the fascist 'tatism of Mussolini or Eitler.8'ee ho& modest *a(ille finds these 'o(iet bureaucrats) precisely he &ho is al&aysheaping insults on them.0hese bureaucrats appropriate only a 7part8 of the unpaid surplus labour. ho no&s&ith &hat instrument he can measure this 0hen he sees in the bureaucracy a 7semi-

parasitic8 caste. 0his is amusing) this 7semiJ4 'imilarly this caste should also be semi-ruling) semi-exploiting and semi-o&ning4 %t is true that the 7innermost8 secret is not atall exhausted by the 7extreme differentiation of &ages)8 this is only an indicator. 0heinnermost secret resides in the relation bet&een the masters of the conditions of

production and the direct producers: in algebraic form: mastersQproducers R innermostsecret.0he denominator of this ratio is no&n since the direct producers are a no&n constantin social e(olution =labour>. 0he numerator) on the other hand) (aries since the form of

property (aries in the course of economic de(elopment. %t is precisely this term &hichmust be identified and &e ha(e found it to be the bureaucracy) the o&ner) as a class) ofthe means of production en bloc . 'o &e go on to &rite the relationship li e this:

bureaucratsQproducers R innermost secret.ithout the ne& identification of property the innermost secret &ill remain a mystery4%f one &ants to no& the relations of domination and ser(itude) the &ay in &hich thesurplus (alue is pumped out of direct producers must be sought.%n 'o(iet society the exploiters do not appropriate the surplus (alue directly) as thecapitalist does in cashing the di(idends of his enterprise) but they do so indirectly)through the 'tate &hich appropriates the &hole national surplus (alue and then shares itout amongst the officials themsel(es. A good part of the bureaucracy) (i+.) technicalspecialists) managers) 'ta hano(ites) etc.) etc.) are to a certain extent authorised todeduct directly their (ery high salaries at the enterprise they control. %n addition) theyalso en2oy) as do all the bureaucrats) the 'tate 7ser(ices8 paid from surplus (alue &hich)in honour of the forms of 7socialist8 life) are (ery important and (ery numerous in the''/.

0he bureaucracy as a &hole pumps out the surplus (alue from the direct producersthrough a colossal inflation of the general expenses in the 7nationalised8 enterprises. %tis a ,uestion) not of the " to 3 per cent for administrati(e expenses obser(ed in *a(ille sfamous collecti(e farm) but of enormous percentages &hich ma e the hairs of the most

bra+en capitalism stand on end and &hich are mentioned in the &or s of 0rots yhimself.e see then that exploitation passes from its indi(idual form to a collecti(e form) inaccordance &ith the transformation of property. 0here is a class &hich en bloc exploitsanother in accordance &ith class property) and &hich then goes on to distribute throughthe 'tate the proceeds internally amongst its members. =0he inheritance of bureaucratic

posts is to be expected.> 0he ne& pri(ileged s&allo& up the surplus (alue through the

'tate machine) &hich is not 2ust a machine for political oppression but is also a machinefor administering the nation s economy. 0he machine for exploitation and for the

"3


24/36

maintenance of social pri(ileges has been united in a single organ; a perfect apparatus) itcould be said4abour po&er is no longer bought by the capitalists) but is monopolised by a singlemaster: the 'tate. 0he &or ers no longer go to offer their labour to different employersand chose the one &ho suits them the best. 0he la& of supply and demand no longer

functions: the &or ers are at the mercy of the 'tate.0he general expenses of enterprises increase (ery considerably in the totalitarian 'tatesand e(en the big democracies are not spared this; these increasing expenses sho& us thatBureaucratic !ollecti(ism is forming and class property crystallising e(ery&here in the&orld.%n the ''/ &ages are fixed by the 7


25/36

is &ritten8 that the proletariat &ill be the last exploited class to ha(e the dishonour ofappearing on the scene of Eistory; then classes &ill disappear into a humanity of e,uals.Eo&e(er obser(ations are not lac ing: 70he &or er in our country is not a &age sla(eand is not the seller of a commodity called labour po&er8 says Pravda . 0rots y s reply:7For the present period this unctuous formula is impermissible bragging. 0he transfer of

the factories to the state changed the situation of the &or er only 2uridically. %n reality)he is compelled to li(e in &ant and &or a definite number of hours for a definite &age.0hose hopes &hich the &or er formerly had placed in the party and the trade unions) hetransferred after the re(olution to the state created by him. But the useful functioning ofthis implement turned out to be limited by the le(el of techni,ue and culture. %n order toraise this le(el) the ne& state resorted to the old methods of pressure upon the musclesand ner(es of the &or er. 0here gre& up a corps of sla(e dri(ers. 0he management ofindustry became superbureaucratic. 0he &or ers lost all influence &hate(er upon themanagement of the factory. ith piece&or payment) hard conditions of materialexistence) lac of free mo(ement) &ith terrible police repression penetrating the life ofe(ery factory) it is hard indeed for the &or er to feel himself a Lfree &or man . %n the

bureaucracy he sees the manager) in the state) the employer. Free labour is incompatible&ith the existence of a bureaucratic state.7 ith the necessary changes) &hat has been said abo(e relates also to the country.8 [9]

But if the 'tate is the employer and the bureaucracy a manager) gi(en that the 'tate is anapparatus and that) from a Marxist point of (ie&) behind the 'tate there is al&ays aclass) is it not true that the bureaucrat-manager is also the employer and that the 'tate isonly his organ of oppressionFurther on 0rots y adds:7 hen the ne& constitution announces that in the 'o(iet nion Labolition of theexploitation of man by man has been attained) it is not telling the truth. 0he ne& socialdifferentiation has created conditions for the re(i(al of the exploitation of man in itsmost barbarous form H that of buying man into sla(ery for personal ser(ice ofanother.8 [10]

%s this agreed Ies) 7the buying of man for the personal ser(ice of another)8 but thensay it in a single &ord: sla(ery4hat in fact is meant by proletarian on the capitalist free mar et if not the free seller ofhis labour po&er 0he proletarian is in the end someone &ho gets his food solely fromthe use of his muscles in a pri(ate enterprise. Eis &age is go(erned by the relation

bet&een supply and demand in a free mar et.0his la& is not (alid in the ''/. ith the mar et closed and competition abolished itis the 'tate &hich determines &ages by using means &hich completely &ipe out the la&

of supply and demand. 0o cast aside this la& definiti(ely the 'tate has monopolisedlabour po&er. 0here is only one employer: it4%n the past the proletarian used to offer his ser(ices to &hoe(er he preferred; hedischarged himself at any moment and left &hen he pleased) he en2oyed trade unionfreedom and freedom of thought) the press) meeting and religion. 0he proletarian had tosuffer the uncertainties of the mar et; he &as li e a free bird soaring high and able tonest any&here on arth.0he 'o(iet &or er has only one master) he can no longer offer his commodity-labour)he is a prisoner &ith no choice. Ee has been put on 7short rations)8 he has beenuprooted from his (illage and transplanted &here it suits the 'tate better and) finally) heneeds a passport to tra(el internally. Ee is regarded by the 'tate as a function of the

national economy) his indi(iduality disappears. 0he proletarian has become merely a

"?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n9%23n9http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n10%23n10http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n9%23n9http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n10%23n10


26/36

small cog in an immense machine and only has social significance &hen placed in thismachine.0he social relation bet&een proletarians and capitalists &as reduced to the simpleexpression of an act of buying and selling and the outcome consisted in the paymentonce a &ee of the &age. Beyond this simple and rapid gesture there &as no other social

lin ; each &ent his o&n &ay according to his tastes.%n contrast) the /ussian &or er is no& continually and directly in contact &ith hismaster at the factory) at home) in school) in the trade union) at the theatre) in thecountry. Ee has to participate in political 7meetings8 and al&ays says yes; &hether he&ants to or not he must pay his subscription) buy the paper and listen to the claptrap&hich his master lo(ingly prepares as daily food for his mind. %f he &ants to ta e part in

politics) there is only one party to choose from; he enters it not as a free thin er but as asoldier. 0he 'o(iet bureaucracy is e(ery&here) li e a di(inity.0he 'tate) the sole employer of labour) cannot permit itself the capitalist luxury of

paying for labour po&er and from then on ta ing no interest at all in the human being&ho produces it. As a monopoly it can no longer restrict itself to the purchase of acertain amount of labour for a gi(en period. %n monopolising labour po&er &ithout anytime limit it in fact also becomes the o&ner of those &ho produce it. %n the finalanalysis) today s 'o(iet 'tate has purchased en bloc the &hole proletariat and therelation bet&een employers and lenders of labour has completely changed. the &or erof /ussia today has ceased to be a proletarian and has ta en on the characteristic of asla(e.xploitation ta es place 2ust li e in sla(e society) the 'tate sub2ect &or s only for themaster &ho has bought him) he becomes his capital) he is the li(estoc &hich must beloo ed after and housed) in &hose reproduction the master is greatly interested. (enthe part-payment of the so-called &age in goods and 'tate ser(ices must not decei(e usand lead us to assume a socialist form of distribution: this represents in fact only theup eep of a sla(e4 0he only fundamental difference is that in the past sla(es &ere notgi(en the honour of bearing arms) &hereas the modern sla(es are (ery ably taught theart of &ar.0hey must be ready to let themsel(es be shot through by a machine-gun or shot to

pieces by a cannon in the interests of our bureaucracy. From the cradle to the gra(e the'o(iet &or er belongs to the 'tate.%t is the bureaucratic class that is the master of the &or ing class) they decide the use ofits labour po&er and of its blood; they gi(e it the possibility of li(ing at a 7standard8superior to that of the sla(es of Anti,uity since e(erything is relati(e. But the /ussian&or ing class is no longer proletarian) it is only a sla(e. %t is a sla(e both in its

economic sense and in its social manifestation; it goes do&n on its nees &hen the7little father8 passes and it deifies him) it ta es on all the characteristics of ser(ility andlets itself be dri(en from one end of the immense mpire to the other. %t digs na(igablecanals) builds roads and rail&ays 2ust as in the past this same class put up the


27/36

Ee has no longer anything in common &ith the free &or er except the s&eat of his bro&. 0he Marxists may as &ell arm themsel(es &ith Giogenes lantern if they intend toloo for some proletarian in the 'o(iet to&ns.0he /ussian &or er) together &ith his trade union) has been incorporated bag and

baggage into the 'tate. %n the past he heard the pamphlets &hich enin &rote read in the

Guma by his representati(e; no&) in contrast) he is obliged to ta e part in politicalmeetings to &hich he goes as a sheep; he is only an unconscious element in amanipulable mass &hich the bureaucracy alone controls.A single great sla(e master has arisen on the plains of /ussia: the 'tate. 0hedescendants of Marius can &ell sharpen their &eapons4 Marx had not foreseen such anend for the proletarians) but that is not a sufficient reason for denying it. e don t&orship the saints46ust as each year the 6e&s go out beyond the ramparts to a&ait the Messiah so the

philistine Marxists a&ait the rescue of the proletariat in /ussia; they &ill ha(e to &ait aslong as for the Messiah. hen the 'o(iet bureaucracy falls stone dead at the foot of theenin Mausoleum it &ill be the s&ord of Marius that &ill ha(e pierced its heart. 0heFourth %nternational ',uadron of the !amp of Agramant states) still scientifically) thatfrom no& on there is no need for a social re(olution in the ''/ and that any change&ill reduce itself to a purely political proclamation. ell) let them in(o e in order to,uestion them the souls of Sino(ie() Damene() 0oms y) etc.) the &hole infinite numberof obscure martyrs4 0hese &ill reply in chorus: 7 e died in the class &ar needed by the

bureaucracy to consolidate its social domination; &e &anted something ,uote different.'addle the horses and brandish the lances48 hat cro&ning irony: the lances do notcome grasped in hand) but bro en for the 7defence of the ''/J4

VI. !ationalisation0he nationalisation of the means of production in /ussia is the highest 7trump8 thenights of Agramant ha(e played in support of their theory of the or ers 'tate.According to 0rots y) state capitalism means the partial substitution of 'tate propertyfor pri(ate property. 'tatism) on the other hand) means 'tate inter(ention on the basis of

pri(ate property. hile the former is 7one of the signs that the producti(e forces ha(eoutgro&n capitalism and are bringing it to a partial self-negation in practice8 [11]) thelatter is only the economic result of the inter(ention of the bourgeois 'tate forced tosa(e pri(ate property. 0rots y does not deny that state capitalism and statism ha(e

points of contact but) ta en as systems) he considers them as opposites. e are notcon(inced that there is such an opposition. %n our opinion) it is only a case of t&odifferent manifestations of the same phenomenon and in a sense of an internal reaction;an almost natural reaction of the sic social organism that clearly sho&s both thecollecti(e form &hich property must ta e and the necessity of introducing a plannedeconomy. 'tatism comes into play to sa(e it as an unconscious reaction of the capitalistorganism. But from the sociological point of (ie&) it cannot be seen as ha(ing as its aimthe 7preser(ation of pri(ate property at the expense of the producti(e forces8 [12]. As longas the bureaucratic or socialist doctor does not inter(ene) the sic person treats himself.%n our opinion) state capitalism and statism correspond in miniature) and respecti(elytogether) to nationalisation and the planned economy. As long as they remainedrestricted to ha(ing a sporadic nature) they eep the same social characteristics as theeconomy in &hich they appear) but &hen the phenomenon becomes general it is thetype of economy itself &hich changes completely. 0hen the dialectical la& of the

transformation of ,uantity into ,uality enters on to the scene) ignorance of &hich hasled some ultra-lefts to tax 0rots y &ith the epithet 72uggler.8

"@
http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n11%23n11http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n12%23n12http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n11%23n11http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n12%23n12


28/36

%n our opinion) 0rots y s mista e lies precisely in the fact that he does not apply thisla& to the phenomenon of fascism. %f the bourgeois 'tate belongs to the bureaucracyonly 7in some respect8 [13] there must conse,uently come a gi(en moment &hen theeconomy) as a result of the progressi(e de(elopment of 'tate inter(ention and statecapitalism) is no longer capitalist and &hen the bourgeois 'tate no longer belongs 7in

some respect8 to the fascist bureaucracy. 0he 'tate becomes specifically fascist and the bureaucracy the class on &hich it is socially based. %n the ''/ the 7nationalisation8 of property came in one s&oop follo&ing the ctober re(olution) but) since the concept ofnationalisation has no scientific (alidity in /ussia) in effect this &as the generalisationin one s&oop of state capitalism and its foster brother statism.hat has happened to the economy Eas it become socialist *o) says 0rots y. %s itstill capitalist *o) &e say) precisely because of the la& of the transformation of,uantity into ,uality; it is Bureaucratic !ollecti(ism.0rots y considers that 7the foundations of society can TnotU be changed &ithoutre(olution and counter-re(olution8 [14] and &e are in full agreement. Eo&e(er) &e &ouldas : &hat &as the struggle &hich he himself &aged and endured as it not the classstruggle bet&een the proletariat and the nascent bureaucracy And is not) perhaps) thestorm of crimes &hich has strained /ussia &ith blood for some years the last phase ofthis struggle A real class &ar in &hich the ne& ruling class is consolidating its po&erGoes not 0rots y no& about the struggle bet&een the %talian bourgeoisie and fascismAt the time of the birth of their mo(ement) the Blac shirts freed themsel(es from the

proletariat &ith a fe& club blo&s. hat has follo&ed since has been a fierce struggle)e(en underco(er) an implacable struggle bet&een the old ruling class and the ne& rulingclass in formation. nce they are beaten) it &ill be difficult for the bourgeoisie to againgather the strength necessary for 7(iolent opposition)8 especially not so as to 7open upgreat re(olutionary possibilities for the &or ers8 [15].7Better the &orse than the &orst8 say the %talian bourgeoisie and instincti(ely the mostcrafty in(ade the 'tate and change themsel(es into bureaucrats. 0he friction bet&een theoriginal fascists and the recent arri(als has its origin in 2ust this phenomenon.%t is ,uite true that the fascist 'tate is only subordinate to the bureaucracy 7in somerespect8; it does not yet belong to it entirely) but &ill happen &ith the complete comingof the totalitarian 'tate.'ince 0rots y admits that the fascist bureaucracy could transform itself into a ne&ruling class) &hy does he not admit this has already happened in /ussia &here thetotalitarian 'tate has already been established Ee continues to delude himself if hethin s that Eitler and Mussolini &ould bump up against the (iolent opposition of thecapitalists if they tried to completely nationalise property. %t &ould be too late and for

information on this it suffices to as Con 'chleicher) Amendola) *itti or 'enatorAlbertini.nfortunately abroad) and particularly in the Marxist camp) the fascist phenomenon has

been little understood. %t &as defined first as a petty bourgeois phenomenon) &hereas it&as clearly a capitalist force &hich only later) &hen it &as organising its consolidationas a class) turned to the petty bourgeois. 0he Marxists ha(e seen fascism fling itself onthe &or ers organisations; and ha(e seen in this only a phenomenon of social reaction.Blinded by the bourgeoisie-proletariat binomy they ha(e been unable to admit that) dueto the disintegration of the capitalist economy and the failure of the attempt by the

proletariat to sei+e po&er) another class has risen to sol(e) at least in the sphere of production) the great contradiction of capitalist society. ithout much noise) as

moreo(er in ngland during the bourgeois re(olution &hich preceded the French by acentury and a half) a handful of determined men ha(e imposed themsel(es on the ruling

"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n13%23n13http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n13%23n13http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n14%23n14http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n15%23n15http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n15%23n15http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n13%23n13http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n14%23n14http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm#n15%23n15


29/36

class &hich had in(ested them &ith temporary po&er. 0hese men &ere soon made tounderstand that) to stay in po&er) they &ould ha(e to follo& a direction opposed to theimmortal principles of the liberal economy. A direction they did not hesitate to follo&.%t cannot be denied that fascism came to po&er by (iolence e(en if &ith the consent ofthe !ro&n. %t suffices to re-read $orriere della Sera of those days to be con(inced of

this. 0he great 2ournal of the liberal bourgeoisie &as not only anti-fascist; one &ouldha(e said that it &as edited by re(olutionaries. 0he Matteotti affair itself) on &hose

body one of the most disguising spectacles of Eistory &as made) is only one of themanifestations of this struggle bet&een the bourgeois and the fascists. %t is of nosignificance that the so-called socialist parties are to be found on the side of the

bourgeoisie) for these parties are only in the to& of the old ruling class. 0he proletariathad no other road to ta e but to go into the streets and fight) but they follo&ed a falsedirection. 0he (arious 0uratis) 0re(es) Modiglianis) *ennis) etc. ad(ised them to remaincalm) not to pro(o e anyone and to ha(e the courage of co&ardice. 0oday fascism is sostrong that the bourgeoisie is at its mercy. %t is possible that some upset could stillo(erthro& it) but the struggle has been o(er for some years no&. 0he 7putsches8 madein their time against Eitler had the same bourgeois basis) but they &ere stifled in blood)

2ust as any resistance to the domination of the 'o(iet bureaucracy is stifled in blood in/ussia today.0he ,uestion of nationalisation &as already dealt &ith in passing by ngels. %n 1 @ he

put it precisely:70he transformation . . . into 'tate-o&nership) does not do a&ay &ith the capitalisticnature of the producti(e forces . . . And the modern 'tate) again) is only the organi+ationthat bourgeois society ta es on in order to support the external conditions of thecapitalist mode of production against the encroachments as &ell of the &or ers as ofindi(idual capitalists. 0he modern state) no matter &hat its form) is essentially acapitalist machine H the state of the capitalists) the ideal personification of the totalnational capital. 0he more it proceeds to the ta ing o(er of producti(e forces) the moredoes it actually become the national capitalist) the more citi+ens does it exploit. 0he&or ers remain &age-&or ers H proletarians. 0he capitalist relation is not done a&ay&ith. %t is) rather) brought to a head. But) brought to a head) it topples o(er. 'tateo&nership of the producti(e forces is not the solution of the conflict) but concealed&ithin it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.8 [16] 0he nationalisation of the /ail&ays)


30/36

%t seems to us that ngels clearly sa& the social uphea(al &hich is brought about &henthe 'tate pushes nationalisation to its furthest limit. 7Brought to a head) it topples o(er.'tate o&nership of the producti(e forces is not the solution of the conflict.8 %t toppleso(er) &e too say; but &hat ngels only &rote about is today a social reality &hosenature must be identified. %t has al&ays been thought that the sei+ure of po&er by the

proletariat &as the ey to the solution) but in reality the proletariat has been depri(ed of po&er in the ''/) and in the rest of the &orld has been defeated politically.Mean&hile) the phenomenon occurs and) in the absence of the proletariat) &ho hasta en po&er 0he bureaucracy) &e reply.0he officials and technical specialists) &ho carry out this tas ) 2oin together and form ane& ruling class. %n the ''/ the collecti(isation of the means of production occurredsuddenly and &as a collecti(isation tending in a socialist direction) but the cessation ofthe re(olution in the &orld stopped this process. nly the collecti(e form of propertyremains but has passed from the aegis of the proletariat to that of a ne& social class&hich &as born follo&ing the social disintegration.Moreo(er) there is no ne& historical phenomenon here; Eistory does not insist that ane& ruling class should coincide &ith a former exploited class. %t is sufficient that theeconomic programme is) in no matter &hat &ay) progressi(e. After the French/e(olution too) it &as not the people &ith their sansculottes &ho too po&er but the

bourgeoisie &hich *apoleon Bonaparte embodied.

VII. Bourgeois "estorationBourgeois restoration is the b%te noire of the orthodox scientific Marxists. %t roams li ea ghost in the camp of Agramant) upsetting the sleep of these Marxists and filling theirdreams &ith anguish. 0hey are all obsessed by the fear of seeing the bourgeois reappearas a result of a metamorphosis of the bureaucracy. %t is an excellent argument suitable asa bogey against those &ho do not &ant to defend the ''/; but it seems to ussome&hat difficult to sustain as this argument assumes that economic de(elopment cango bac on its tra

Bruno Rizzi the Bureaucratisation of the World 1939

Documents

Transcript of Bruno Rizzi the Bureaucratisation of the World 1939