Дело социальной республики

Дело социальной республики

=========

All rights reserved. No part of this text may be used or reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, translating, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publisher, Engger Books, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews.

ISBN 0-9658580-3-0

Дело социальной республики

The cause of the social republic

=========

тезисы к вопросу глобального анти-марксизма

Theses on the question of global anti-Marxism

«Борьбу реакционных классов против империализма мы НЕ поддержим. Восстания реакционных классов против империализма и капитализма мы НЕ поддержим.» (Ленин, т. 23, ст. 51).

“We will NOT support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will NOT support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.”(Lenin, v.23, p. 63).

1. Новомодная форма анти-марксизма есть анти-глобализм. Как течение, анти-глобализм есть, прежде всего, анти-марксизм.

2. Анти-марксизм имеет привычку являться трояким образом: как антиреволюционный анти-марксизм, как контрреволюционный анти-марксизм, и как смесь и того и другого. Другими словами, как буржуазный анти-марксизм, как мелкобуржуазный анти-марксизм, и как анти-марксизм деклассэ, т. е. тех деклассированных отбросов загнивающего общества, которые не способны иметь свою собственную классовою точку зрения.

3. Но анти-марксизм имеет также мерзкую привычку являться как поддельный марксизм, а поддельный марксизм, в свою очередь, имеет привычку являться как самозванный марксизм и как Лжемарксизм. Самозванный марксизм не способен иметь свою собственную классовою точку зрения. Лжемарксизм выражает точку зрения мелко имущего класса, лживо представляя её как точку зрения неимущего класса.

4. Борьба против марксизма, по сути, тождественна с борьбой против исторического материализма, и эта борьба вращается вокруг марксистского понятия государственной власти.

5. Анти-марксизм (буржуазный и мелкобуржуазный) проповедует, что государственная власть есть власть народа. Анти-марксизм деклассэ проповедует, что государственная власть есть власть бюрократии.

6. Марксизм утверждает, что государственная власть всегда есть власть экономического класса. Бюрократически оборудованная государственная власть всегда есть власть имущего экономического класса.

7. Анти-марксизм проповедует: государственная собственность на средства производства означает, что бюрократия стала собственником средств производства потому, что государство является собственником средств производства.

8. Марксизм утверждает: бюрократия не может быть собственником средств производства именно потому, что государство является собственником средств производства. Государственная собственность есть собственность всей совокупности господствующего класса.

9. Сталинизм, вреднейший род анти-марксизма, обокрал марксизм, изуродовал теорию до неузнаваемости, превратил имя марксизма в ритуальную маску анти-марксизма. Искоренение сталинизма и всех пережитков его необходимо. Этого непреклонно требуют интересы политического движения рабочего класса. Вообще известно из истории — исторических примеров не мало — что послереволюционная реставрация на базе крестьянской контрреволюции создаёт благоприятные условия для возвышения к власти всякого рода гадов, как Сталин или Берия, и другие.

10. Социал-шовинисты пост-сталинской России изобрели очередной безмозглый термин—культ личности—чтобы запрятать тень императора-цезаря второй (т.е. послереволюционной) Российской империи. Между тем, партия тыловых врагов великой пролетарской революции всё ещё существует, всё ещё дышит бесконечной фальшью, всё ещё имеет наглость называть себя «коммунистической». Сталинский лжемарксизм—иначе, «творческий марксизм»—имел скотскую наглость объявить себя «творческим марксизмом»; имел наглость «заменить» теорию экономической революции рабочего класса мужицким тупоумием «построения социализма» БЕЗ экономической революции рабочего класса; имел звериную наглость «заменить» теорию перманентной диктатуры пролетариата животным тупоумием устранения капитализма путём свержения незначительного класса (никогда не господствующего в мировом рынке), незначительной русской буржуазии. Животно-шовинистический мир сталинской бюрократии не имел, и не имеет, представления значимости этого преступления перед международным рабочим классом.

11. Всемирно-исторический факт гласит, что так называемый Советский Союз был спасён капиталистическими государствами, капиталистической Америкой и капиталистической Англией. Иначе говоря, необходимо признать как неоспоримый факт историческое явление, что так называемый Советский Союз был спасён международным капиталом. Никакая историческая наука не может быть научной, если она старается скрыть этот факт. Кроме того, война нацисткой Германии была войной германской нации против международного капитала, и в этой мировой войне так называемый Советский Союз был на стороне международного капитала, был союзником капиталистической Америки и капиталистической Англии.

12. Исторический период со времени распада сталинского монолита следует определить как естественноисторический процесс перехода от полунатурального хозяйства (Naturwirtschaft) к денежному хозяйству (Geldwirtschaft); иначе говоря, это—период естественноисторического процесса замены крестьянской бюрократии, в качестве авангарда совокупного крестьянского класса, пред-буржуазной клептократией и, в свою очередь, замены пред-буржуазной клептократии, буржуазной бюрократией в качестве авангарда совокупного буржуа.

13. Политическое движение рабочего класса давно исчезло, оно отсутствует. Более того, агенты мелко-имущих классов и деклассированных элементов общества, это движение обокрали и продолжают обкрадывать. Перед лицом этого всемирно исторического факта бледнеет всё остальное в своей значительности. Этот факт знаменует, что капиталистический класс, экономически доминирующий класс современного общества—не уязвим. Этот факт знаменует, что глобализация классового господства капиталистического класса исторически необходима, прогрессивна и, следовательно, неминуема. Он знаменует, что разгром всех политических движении и политических формации всех остальных имущих классов—необходим и неизбежен. Ускорение гибели промежуточных слоёв имущих классов отвечает интересам рабочего класса. Словом, глобализация вообще должна необходимым образом создать все условия для возрождения политического движения рабочего класса. Сверхзадача авангарда рабочего класса состояло бы в том, чтобы держать под непрерывным огнём всех непролетарских врагов социального врага рабочего класса, т. е. его классового антагониста.

14. Анти-глобализм проявляется как глобальный анти-американизм, и это есть ничто иное, как проявление глобального шовинизма. Меж тем, Ленин утверждает: «...ни один Марксист не забудет, что... империализм прогрессивен по отношению к домонополистическому капитализму. Значит, не всякую борьбу против империализма мы вправе поддержать. Борьбу реакционных классов против империализма мы не поддержим. Восстания реакционных классов против империализма и капитализма мы не поддержим». (Ленин, т. 23, ст. 51). Короче, анти-глобализм следует понимать как усилие дэ-централизавать уже централизованный капитал, что и составляет экономическое содержание борьбы реакционных классов против империализма, и точнее, против американского империализма.

15. Анти-глобализм как контрреволюционное движение глобальных шовинистов есть дело агентов погибающих имущих классов, и значит, есть антипролетарское дело; в то время как глобализация является завершительным этапом капиталистического прогресса. Сопротивление этому прогрессу (другого прогресса на этой планете нет) не дело рабочего класса. Дело рабочего класса, дело социальной республики—это дело превращения капиталистического прогресса в революционный процесс перманентного разрушения экономических классов. Именно распад политических формации и гибель погибающих промежуточных классов должны повести к глобальной революционной ситуации.

16. Безмозглое вмешательство зоологического трайбализма и звериного сепаратизма на пути завершения становления миропорядка само-определенных нации может только тормозить ход исторического процесса, задерживать движение вперёд к уничтожению всего классово разделённого общества. Это и есть дело врагов рабочего класса и его политического движения.

17. Нацбольшевизм—что это за животное ещё? Нацбольшевизм—это звучит как крылатая собака или, скорее, как крылатая сука. Это—большевистский национализм, точнее, большевистский шовинизм; это и есть крылатая сука, или просто, летучая мышь. Нацбольшевизм—очередная гримаса глобального анти-марксизма. Точнее и яснее, нацбольшевизм есть антибольшевизм, есть антиинтернационализм, есть анти-марксизм.

18. Короче, анти-глобализм, нацболшевизм, исламизм, сепаратизм—всё это животные одного зоопарка, одного лагеря, лагеря врагов рабочего класса и его политического движения.

19. Что касается Грузинской нации, границы территории этой «bete noire» нации были установлены «договором дружбы» (Ленин) между революционной Россией и революционной Грузией. «Ревизия» этих границ есть акт антиреволюционный, есть акт совершённый, или сотворённый, врагами рабочего класса, русского и международного.

20. Грузинской нации суждено «исчезнуть», но исчезнуть не так, конечно, как это воображается в мозгах таких гнуснейших врагов Ленина и Ленинской России, как Жирноголовские, Жирномозговские, и Жиримитрофанушки.

21. Не надобно гадать кого Ленин имел бы в виду, когда б писал сегодня следующие слова: «истинно Русский человек, великорос-шовинист, подлец и насильник, великорусский держиморда, типичный русский бюрократ».

22. Сегодня эта «шовинистская шваль» старается провести линию луи-наполеоновского «принципа национальностей» (точнее, «народностей») в борьбе против Ленинского принципа права нации на самоопределение.

23. Нация—это возникшая в процессе исторического развития совокупность людей, для которых характерны единство, прежде всего, письменного языка.

24. На Кавказе всего три нации: Азербайджанская, Армянская, Грузинская. Других наций на Кавказе—нет. Национальное самоопределение этих наций есть историческая необходимость; но в 21-вом столетии самоопределение нации надо понимать как начало исчезновения национальных различии вообще. Исчезновение этих наций следует понимать как их исчезновение совместно с другими нациями, совместно — т.е., в процессе исчезновения национальных различии вообще.

25. Между тем, что бы отметить начало политического движения рабочего класса, Ленинская Россия ещё должна будет взорвать так называемый Ленинский мавзолей и на развалинах этого темницы-мавзолея написать слова: Ленин раскрепощён.

на исходе столетия контрреволюционных движении

ВВЕДЕНИЕ

Русский перевод введения к книге, изданной в 1999 г. на английском языке под заглавием

"Towards the Close of the Century of Counterrevolutions".

Sh. M. Main

Engger Books

P. O. Box 86

New Port Richey, FL 34656

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, translating, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publisher, Engger Books, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews.

ISBN 0-9658580-2-2

ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ:

Введение Социализм и капитализм. "Командная экономика" и "лессэ-фэр" капитализм. "Смешанная экономика" и экономическая наука. Этатизм и этатизированный капитализм. Примечания

Глава I: Лагери Антиреволюции Пророк Столетия. Пророк объясняющий. Дело истории Англии. Дело Г. Бюхнера. Дело А. Богданова. Дело "голыми руками". Пророк как политолог. Пророк, видящий Сталина "насквозь и глубже". Зло, известное миру как Ленин. Мрак и свет. Разрушение и реставрация. Пророк и другие. Примечания.

Глава II: Силы в Революции Объект разрушения. Переход государственной власти. Держатель и владелец. Ряд двойных понятий. Ряд стадий. Идеология и политические формации. Авторитаризм и утопия. Культурное и экономическое. Путём фальшивого перевода. Примечания.

Глава III: Лагери Контрреволюции Марксизм и современная Левая. Марксизм и "творческий марксизм". Марксизм и Лжемарксизм. Марксизм и самозванный марксизм. Преобразованный анархизм и преобразованное народничество. Марксизм и троцкизм. Троцкий и ленинская теория реставрации. Современный троцкизм как антиленинизм. Троцкизм и бонапартизм. Примечания.s

Глава IV: Былое и Настоящее. Потерянное между И. С. Л. и С. Р. П. Некоторые тела в морге. Примечания.

Введение

Основная часть предлагаемой ниже работы состоит, главным образом, из более или менее связного собрания текстов, написанных ещё несколько десятков лет тому назад. Вполне возможно, что крутые повороты мира сего и темпы недавних в нём происшествий послужили бы тому, что первоначальные рукописи утратили свою актуальность. Однако вся рукопись оказалась в сохранности, и пересмотрев её более чем несколько раз, мы не нашли достаточного основания, чтобы оставить всё это неопубликованным. Во-первых, двадцатое столетие, которое, видимо, далеко опередило предыдущие века в своём размахе надувательства и фальши, пришло к концу. Критическое его обозрение, пока все господствующие в нём понятия окончательно не превращены в непоколебимые догмы, вреда никому не должно причинить. Кроме того, всё то, что случилось с послереволюционной Российской Империей, то есть с тем, что на протяжении более полувека предлагалось и воспринималось как так называемый Советский Союз, вряд ли можно понять, не оглядываясь назад, и пренебрегая доводами, которые выдвигались за всё это время. Далее, те, кто не прочь потрудиться и понять что-нибудь в историческом движении найдут, что события последнего двадцатилетия истекающего века ничего поразительного или неожиданного в себе не содержали; что, напротив, всё, что произошло за эти годы, надлежало бы зреть как нечто естественное и неизбежное.

Часть ранних текстов была посвящена тому, что в то время было ещё известно как левое движение (или, что в тексте именуется как Современная Левая). Движение это всегда казалось торчащим на грани незначительности, но, принимая во внимание его исключительно лживый дух, невозможно было ожидать прекращения его нелепого существования. В нескольких главах делается попытка показать это движение тем, чем оно было, а именно, вечно живучим родом левацкой фальши.

Мы не стали бы настаивать на том, что будто наши убеждения остались за всё это время неизменными. Всё же, вместо того, чтобы заново писать неопределённое количество страниц, мы решили оставить эти страницы так, как они были, отослав некоторые из них в отдел примечаний. В самом деле, то, что издаётся (и, отчасти, переиздаётся) здесь не было задумано как критика, направленная только против других; оно также может считаться переосмыслением убеждении, которых раньше придерживался сам автор.

В некотором смысле работу эту можно было бы озаглавить как "Страницы Прошедших Десятилетий", и если она адресована кому-либо, то только тем, о ком Линкольн думал, когда он произносил слова "Свободные Республиканцы", подразумевая под этим, конечно, не членов партии, а граждан того, что ему было известно как Великая Республика. Те, которые довольны, быть нечто меньшим, чем тем, что эти слова Линкольна означают, не были приняты во внимание как предполагаемые читатели этой работы.

На исходе девятнадцатого века русский рабочий класс стал передовой частью интернационального рабочего класса, и таким образом поставил Россию во главе всего человечества. Возможно ли, что русский рабочий, "судеб повинуясь закону, всё, что мог, уже совершил, - и духовно навеки почил"? Мачеха История должна ещё сказать своё слово по этому поводу.

Однако здесь в первую очередь надобно разъяснить следующее: когда в этой работе говорится о двадцатом столетии, то под этим не подразумеваются календарные годы, которые начались в 1901-ом году. В 1900-ом году ничего не произошло такого, что можно было бы воспринять как завершение движения или процессов, которые имели своё начало в предыдущих годах. Завершение пришло позднее. Такие всемирно-исторические перемены как, на Западе, перемещение метрополии капитала из Англии в Соединённые Штаты, и на Востоке, исчезновение кайзеризма в Германии и в Австрии и уничтожение царизма в России, в качестве свершённых преобразований всё ещё следует отнести к девятнадцатому столетию. По содержанию своих явлений двадцатое столетие, в сущности, началось спустя целых двадцать лет, то есть в 1921-ом году. И вот этот год и считается здесь началом двадцатого столетия, столетия контрреволюций.

Выглядит так, словно ничего не было сделано в годы этого столетия без усилия обогнать прошедшие столетия в деле обмана, фальсификации, безмозглого переименования, лживого самозванства, псевдо-изма и (если такая морфология терминов допустима), крипто-изма. Это обстоятельство нельзя упускать из виду, если целью исследования служит не что иное, как адекватная оценка происшествий прошедшего столетия. Во всяком случае, нелепое расстройство в человеческой семантике есть факт, сопровождающий двадцатое столетие, и с этим фактом необходимо считаться. Поэтому, обсуждение определённых терминологических проблем в виде введения кажется обязательным, прежде чем сам текст будет прочтён. Кроме того, если свести всё к основному аргументу, можно сказать, что текст в целом является попыткой именовать вещи своими собственными именами.

Одним из главных камней преткновения, при попытке правильно именовать вещи, является, конечно, термин "социализм". Ясно, что это слово, по крайней мере, как термин двадцатого века, было скручено так, чтобы оно значило то, чего оно не обозначает. Налицо имя прилагательное "социал" и, в соединении с суффиксом "изм", оно должно образовать слово, которое значило бы состояние того, что есть нечто социальное, то есть общественное. Так, под словом "социализм" следует понимать положение или состояние общества, которое существует, когда средства производства являются собственностью общества, или когда собственность на средства производства является социальной, то есть общественной. И это, очевидно, и было то, что подразумевали люди под словом "социализм" в девятнадцатом столетии. Что же такое теперь "социализм" по понятиям двадцатого века? Это то, что "социализм есть система или состояние, при котором средства производства принадлежат государству", то есть не обществу, а почему-то вдруг государству. Ну, если эта словарная дефиниция корректна, причём тогда прилагательное "социал" или "социальный"? И что же тогда будет надлежащее имя для системы или состояния, когда средства производства принадлежат государству? Надлежащее имя не будет "социализм"; надлежащее имя будет скорее "государственный-изм", "этатизм", или даже "этаткратизм". Пожалуй, все эти термины были бы надлежащими все, кроме термина "социализм".¹

Но что могло бы, вообще, оправдать забавную идею заменить термин "общество" термином "государство" при определении понятия социализма? Вероятно, так сказать, аргумент, что социализм, как понятие, от самого рождения является плодом утопической фальши; что оно не значит то, что оно означает; что, когда социалисты изрекают слово "социальное", то под этим они всегда подразумевают государство или правительство, а не общество. Кроме того, любое общественное владение всё равно оказывается статьёй утопии. Ну, если это фактически так, то пусть так и будет. Но почему тогда оставлять то, что фальшиво, нетронутым? То есть, почему признавать и сохранять морфологическую единицу, которая явно противоречит своему значению. Социальным может называться владение только тогда, когда владелец есть общество, и поэтому такого рода владение, утопическое или неутопическое, должно называться социализмом. Владение государством есть государственное владение, и поэтому такого рода владение должно называться государственный-измом, то есть этатизмом. Короче говоря, термин "социализм" выглядит, как случай мошеннического злоупотребления человеческих понятий, или одним из таковых случаев двадцатого века.

Однако за подобным злоупотреблением слова "социализм", с целью заставить это бедоносное слово означать то, чего оно не обозначает, кроется ещё что-то, а именно то, что замена термина "общество" термином "государство" обнаруживает кривые пути неотёсанного горе-умствования, при котором перемешаны понятия общества и государства, и даже правительства. Очевидно, те, кто знают, как заменить общество государством суть так же что и те, которые способны смешивать государство с обществом. Не столь существенно знать, кто, среди про-социалистов или анти-социалистов, более ответственен за догматизацию идеи, что-то, что является социальным, то есть общественным, не есть то, что оно есть, а есть в действительности нечто государственное или правительственное. Так или иначе, факт неоспорим, что эта самая идея образует основу господствующих идеологий двадцатого столетия.

Между тем, вот что было ясно сказано более чем сто лет тому назад:

"Современное общество" есть капиталистическое общество, которое существует во всех цивилизованных странах, более или менее свободное от примеси средневековья…"Современное государство", напротив, меняется с каждой государственной границей. В Прусско-Германской империи оно не таково, как в Швейцарии, в Англии не таково, как в Соединённых Штатах.

А что касается общества и правительства, то следующее было сказано более чем двести лет тому назад:

Некоторые писатели смешивают общество с правительством до такой степени, что допускают мало или вовсе никакого различия между ними; а между тем, они не только различны, но и суть разного происхождения.

Всё это в действительности так ясно, что не нуждается в дальнейших разъяснениях.

Почему же тогда то, что есть социальное, то есть общественное, должно быть смешано или спутано с тем, что есть не что иное, как государственное или правительственное? И почему оба, "анти-социалисты", как и "социалисты", упорно продолжают нелепо употреблять неверный термин вместо того, чтобы заменить его? Замена термина "социализм" образует проблему с вопросами, требующих ответов. Главное дело в том, что путаница в понятиях общества, государства, и правительства, равносильна смешиванию того, что есть политическое с тем, что есть неполитическое. Так, по правилам такого рода неразборчивого мышления, что является социальным, то есть общественным, и что является политическим? Или, скорее, что является политическим, и что тогда является экономическим? "Социализм", по определению тех, кому так любо скрутить шею человеческой семантике, обязан означать всё то, что является государственной или правительственной собственностью, но, в то же время и всё-таки, этот самый социализм определяется, как некая экономическая система, и вдобавок, как особая экономическая система. Очевидно, здесь, перед нами, исключительный случай необычной экономической системы, которую приходится обозначать политическим термином, то есть, термином, который, будучи политическим, обозначает экономическую систему, и для которой он служит названием. Таким же образом термин "тоталитарное правительство" есть не что иное, как политический термин, и определённо означает политическую систему; но правительственный тоталитаризм образует основной элемент этого мнимого социализма, и ничего не может остаться от такого рода социализма, если правительственный элемент упущен.

Но, вот перед нами обыденное, избитое определение социализма: "социализм—это экономическая система, которая основана на правительственной собственности средств производства". Итак, социализм -это экономическая система, и в то же время, она основана на правительственной собственности. Не значит ли это, что социализм есть экономика, основанная на политической системе? Очевидно, значит, ибо правительственная собственность есть акт правительства, есть правительственный акт, а правительственный акт есть политический акт. Иначе нам пришлось бы поверить, что правительственная монополизация средств производства, то есть "насильственная экспроприация средств производства", не есть политический акт. Но это было бы слишком. Кажется, почти невозможным отрицать, что то, что термин "социализм" принуждается означать, представляет собой экономику, которая основана на политическом акте, или, что, в сущности, значит то же самое, на политической системе или политическом строе.

Так что же представляет собой термин "социализм"? Считать его термином экономическим или термином политическим? Означает ли он систему экономическую, или систему политическую? Вероятнее всего, что термин этот есть политический термин, но если это так, то признание этого факта вновь создало бы проблему. Кризис идентификации термина "социализм" оказывается продолжительным.

Не забывается, конечно, и то, что термин "социализм" употребляется также для обозначения определённого политического движения или даже идеологии, но здесь нас пока что идеология и движения не интересуют. В центре внимания здесь находится историческое явление, не как движение или течение, а как установленная система, и при этом система, которая должна быть или экономической или же политической.

В тоже время не мешало бы добавить, что пролиферация такой ложной терминологии, как "национал-социализм" и "госсоциализм" вполне могло бы оправдать создание нового термина как, например, "социальный социализм", несмотря на то, что термин этот явно многословный. В самом деле, если термин "народная демократия", когда-нибудь был правомерным, то почему же не "социальный социализм"? В противовес усилиям криво наименований, привычных для двадцатого столетия, термин "социальный социализм" не был бы излишним.

Итак, снова термин "социализм" - быть ему экономическим или политическим? Означать ему экономическую систему, или, скорее, политический строй? Или даже и то и другое, по возможности? Конечно, этим термином можно пользоваться в обоих случаях, означая то одно, то другое, но как бы то ни было, одну и ту же систему вряд ли возможно определить и как нечто экономическое, и как нечто политическое в одно и то же время.

При употреблении термина "социализм" для обозначения экономической системы, возникает очередная проблема, проблема определения различия между двумя системами, социалистически экономической и социалистически политической системами; иначе говоря, между социализмом как экономической системой и социализмом как политической системой.

Можно было бы уверенно сказать, что нам доступно знать, какова политическая система "социализма"; или, другими словами, что собой представляет политический режим, которого термин "социализм" призван означать. "Социализм" как политическая система, то есть социалистический политический режим, есть и означает, прежде всего, политический деспотизм, правительственный деспотизм, государственный деспотизм. Это, безусловно, так, но знать это всё ещё недостаточно: ибо государственный или правительственный деспотизм способен также быть несоциалистическим. И вот, будь оно тем, что оно может быть, для обозначения такого рода деспотизма, в нашем распоряжении имеется ещё один специальный термин, иной звукоряд, означающий несоциалистический деспотизм, который оказывается мягче родом, чем социалистический. Термин, положенный означать этот мягкого рода деспотизм, есть "авторитаризм". "Авторитаризм"

это пока ещё не есть "тоталитаризм". Авторитаризм, то есть авторитарный деспотизм, становится тоталитарным деспотизмом только на определённой высоте, так сказать, при точке кипения. Вполне возможно, здесь перед нами случай того довольно знатного "диалектического прыжка", то есть перехода количества в качество. Должно быть так, ибо тоталитаризм, то есть тоталитарное государство или правительство не просто более деспотично, чем авторитарное: несносный диалектический прыжок возникает тогда, когда деспотизм государства или правительства заходит так далеко, что грабит собственников средств производства; иначе говоря, доходит до захвата этих средств. И вот, как раз это обстоятельство и превращает государство или правительство в "социалистическое" государство или правительство, и систему в "социалистическую" политическую систему. Таким образом, мы должны быть в состоянии знать, какой драгоценный факт отличает "социалистическую" политическую систему от всех остальных политических систем: это не просто политический деспотизм, а скорее факт, что правительство является собственником средств производства.

Итак, как политическая система, или правительственный строй, мнимый социализм на деле равнозначен тотальному правительственному деспотизму. Как экономическая система тот же социализм равнозначен тотальному правительственному владению. Собственно говоря, тотальный правительственный деспотизм должен, по сути, означать тотальное правительственное владение. В чём же будет тогда заключаться разница между социалистически политической системой и социалистически экономической системой? Разницу будет трудно уловить. В обоих случаях, правительство есть деятель, исполнитель, или, точнее, преступник. Социализм есть преступление, а правительство преступник, совершающий это преступление. Что же тогда социализм, если не политическое преступление?

Вернёмся к вышеприведённому определению "социализма". "Социализм—это экономическая система, которая основана на правительственной собственности средств производства". Если считать термин "социализм" синонимом такого термина как "Этатизм", то это определение "социализма" можно считать правильным. Но почему считать, тогда, неправильным другое определение того же "социализма", а именно, вот это: "социализм—это политическая (не экономическая, а политическая) система, которая основана на правительственной собственности средств производства"? Ну вот, какое из этих двух определений "социализма" считать правильным, и какое считать неправильным? Выглядит так, словно перед нами случай того, что один есть два, или одно определяющее для двух определяемых. Другими словами то, что мы имеем здесь, это один единственный определяющий факт—правительственная собственность—двоякого действия: во-первых, определяя "социализм" как экономическую систему и, во-вторых, определяя тот же "социализм" как политическую систему.

Выходит так, что обе системы "социализма", как экономическая, так и политическая, неопределяемым иначе, как тождественные сущности.

Но всё- таки, разве правильно утверждать, что "социализм"— это политическая система, основанная на правительственной собственности на средства производства? Доводов против этого утверждения не легко найти. Во-первых, трудновато найти ответ на следующий вопрос: почему-то, что основано на правительственной собственности, то есть на нечто правительственном, должно быть чем-нибудь, а не тем, что есть нечто политическое? Трудно также найти какое-нибудь "социалистическое" государство, которое продолжало бы быть "социалистическим", не захватывая при этом средства производства. Политическая система представляет собой то, что есть её государство и правительство. "Социалистическое" государство или правительство равнозначно "социалистической" политической системе. В самом деле, дабы усилить аргумент, в нашем распоряжении имеется нечто подходящее, а именно, драгоценное слово от самого Генералиссимуса Сталина, "социалистического-коммунистического" Генералиссимуса, как он это писанул в функции приложения в 1952-м году, даже незадолго пред тем, как покинуть свой двадцатого столетия мир. Так, начало цитаты: "собственник средств производства, социалистическое государство", конец цитаты. Что ж, пожалуй, можно уверенно сказать: "социалистическое" государство или правительство, это то, которое является собственником средств производства, и иначе государство не есть "социалистическое". Повторяем: политическая система является тем, чем является её правительство; "социалистическое" правительство является тем, чем является экономическая политика этого правительства; и эта экономическая политика не есть "социалистическая", если она не заключается в захвате средств производства. Итак, ещё раз: в чём заключается разница между государством или правительством "социалистическим", и государством или правительством несоциалистическим? Разница заключается в разной экономической политике "социалистического" правительства, или государства, и эта политика, в свою очередь, заключается в том, что собственником средств производства является правительство, или государство. Что ж, выходит так, что нет достаточного основания считать неправильным утверждение, что "социалистическая" политическая система—эта та, которая основана на правительственной или государственной собственности средств производства.

Итак, выходит, что, в одном случае, то, что основано на правительственной собственности является экономической системой, и эту экономическую систему надо считать "социалистической" потому, что она основана на правительственной собственности. В другом случае, то, что основано на правительственной собственности является политической системой, и эту политическую систему надо считать "социалистической" потому, что она основана на правительственной собственности. Вполне вероятно, что современные анти- и про - "социалистические" теоретики, в своём порыве этатизировать социализм, утратили способность различать различные вещи. В сущности, когда, наконец, всё высказано, квинтэссенциальную идею того, что есть "социализм", можно заполучить путём сокращения всего, что было рассказано про "социализм" до кратчайшего определения термина, а именно, вот так: "социализм"—это экономическая-но-политическая система, или наоборот, "социализм"—это политическая-но-экономическая система.

Меж тем, как это можно видеть, если человек нормального мышления пожелал бы внести некий свет в двадцатого века теоретические умствования по поводу социализма или коммунизма, ему пришлось бы бороться сперва с проблемой различения между двумя терминами экономическим и политическим. После этого, перед ним встала бы проблема отличить друг от друга две системы "социализма" экономическую и политическую. Наконец, если он вздумал бы допустить существование такого существа как "социалистическая экономика", он очутился бы перед проблемой отличить друг от друга две экономические системы экономику "социализма" и экономику капитализма.

Но здесь, сперва, возникает вопрос: какой, вообще, может быть смысл сравнивать то, что термин "социализм" принуждён означать, с тем, что означается термином "капитализм". Термин "капитализм" определённо есть экономический термин, и не стоило бы беспокоить тех, кому хотелось бы терять время на возражения, что это не так. Термин этот явно неполитический, неправительственный термин. Он образован для обозначения экономической системы, которая способна существовать, несмотря на правительственное или государственное вмешательство, и даже вопреки такого рода вмешательству. Зато существует ли такая вещь, как неправительственный "социализм", или скорее, неправительственный способ существования того, что термин "социализм" призван обозначать? Если серьёзно признать экономической системой то, что термин "социализм" вроде обозначает, то она, эта система, будет единственной экономической системой, способной существовать лишь и только благодаря усилиям одного единственного политического существа, а именно, "социалистического" правительства. С другой стороны, то, что обозначается термином "капитализм" есть капитализм, несмотря на правительственный образ существования. Поэтому, термин "капитализм" можно вполне приемлемо определить без упоминания чего-нибудь правительственного или политического. C другой стороны, возможно ли дать определение "социализма" не прибегая к тому, что есть нечто политическое? Иначе говоря, возможно ли вообще определить этот "социализм" в смысле неполитическом? Например, определим этот "социализм" в экономическом смысле как "плановую экономику". Что такое, вообще говоря, эта "плановая экономика"? То есть, что кроме безмозгло-фальшивого сочетания слов? "Плановая экономика"² , или "плановое хозяйство", есть экономика "запланированная" кем и чем? Правительством, и не просто правительством, а национальным государством. Кроме того, "социализм" это экономика контролируемых и установленных цен. Кем и чем контролируются и устанавливаются цены? Опять-таки правительством. Почему всякий экономический акт правительства неизбежным образом надо считать "социализмом" этот вопрос всё ещё упорно стоит в очереди среди других вопросов оставленных без ответа.

Между тем, становится ясным, что невозможно обособить термин "социализм" от остальных политических терминов как "Этатизм", "правительственный-изм", "этаткратизм", "тоталитаризм", и тому подобное- невозможно, пока основным содержанием значения термина "социализм" утверждается государственная собственность, правительственное вмешательство, или проще, дурное управление экономики правительством. "Дурное управление", между прочим, здесь довольно подходящие слова, ибо это есть как раз то, что происходит, когда бюрократическое правительство суёт свой нос в экономику страны. В самом деле, всё содержание всех выше приведённых терминов, включая "социализм", целиком можно было бы сжать в одно единственное предложение, а именно в следующее: "социализм — это дурное управление экономики правительством". Термин "социализм" оказывается способным заменить адекватным образом все остальные термины, и это так, потому что сам "социализм" понимается как "навязчивое правительство" , то есть "правительственный-изм", как "государственное вмешательство", то есть Этатизм, и тому подобное. Перед нами здесь, в сущности, тождественные лексические значения; различия лишь фонематические. "Навязчивое правительство" равнозначно "правительственный-зму" и это равнозначно "государственному вмешательству" и это равнозначно "этатизму" и это равнозначно "социализму". Дело только в том, что все эти термины суть политические термины. Правительство есть политическое учреждение; также и государство—само политическое существо, и термины, означающие деяния этих учреждений должны быть политическими терминами. Экономическая система – напротив, есть прежде всего нечто экономическое, и, поэтому, она должна определяться и отождествляться посредством экономических, а не политических терминов. И если обязательно требуется сравнивать социализм с капитализмом, или капитализм с социализмом, то оба социализм, как и капитализм, должны быть определены, то есть их существенные различия должны быть выявлены, посредством однородных терминов. В противном случае, сравнивать социализм с капитализмом вряд ли было бы умнее, чем сравнивать публичную библиотеку с домом терпимости. Поэтому, вместо того, чтобы пространно болтать о хаосе сфабрикованного "социализма", лучше позаботиться о хаосе в терминологии двадцатого столетия.

Но, вернёмся к проблеме различия между капитализмом и тем, что ныне считается социализмом, как двух различных экономических систем. Придётся опять взглянуть на выше представленную дефиницию термина "социализм", дабы найти ответ на вопрос: может ли она служить определением того, что есть экономическая система? Так: "социализм—это экономическая система, которая основана на правительственной собственности средств производства". Мы имеем здесь ходячее определение "социализма"; то, что очевидно считается классическим среди тех, которые известны как "антисоциалисты", и которых вроде-социалисты именуют как "антисоциалистический лагерь", или более красочно, как "лагерь заклятых врагов социализма". Не суть важно каков этот лагерь есть, но логика у него своего рода: главное предложение этой глубоко-мудрой дефиниции обещает определить социализм как экономическую систему, но то, что следует не сдерживает обещания. Взамен, "социализм" определяется как правительственная система. Как ни своеобразна эта логика, перед судом человеческой логики её лагерю пришлось бы показать: каким образом то, что основано на нечто правительственном, есть "экономическая система", а не то, что есть правительственное, то есть политическое. Кажется явственным из всего сказаного выше, что современные теоретики умствующие по поводу "социализма" никак не знают разумным образом дать ответ на вопрос: что есть экономическое и что есть политическое в том, что ими определяется как социализм?

И это то, что наблюдается в обоих лагерях, как в антисоциалистическом, так и в просоциалистическом.

"Социализм—это экономическая система основанная на правительственной собственности"… Иначе говоря, "социализм"—это "экономическая система", основанная на то, что есть правительство; в самом деле, это значит, что "социализм" есть правительственная экономическая система. Что такое "правительственная экономическая" система? Будь она что есть, она есть экономическая политическая система. Что такое "экономическая политическая система"? Говоря яснее, это политическая система, но, в тоже время и экономическая. Говоря ещё яснее, она есть экономическая-но-политическая система. Можно сказать, что перед нами система сфабрикованная из деревянного металла, или наоборот, но вдобавок, как было указано выше, она, эта система, есть квазиэкономическая квазисистема, основанная на том, что есть не что иное, как правительство, и что в самом деле есть политический строй или режим. "Социализм", как якобы экономическая система, есть то, что существует в зависимости от политического режима. Социализм, таким дураческим образом определённый, такой глупой дефиницией, на самом деле есть лже-экономическая система, существующая только благодаря политическому режиму. Этот социализм оказывается лишь правительственной силой, лишь политической силой.

Однако, существует ещё другой образец, якобы, антисоциалистической дефиниции "социализма", который молчаливо признаёт, что "социализм"—это фактически неэкономическая несистема. Этот образец говорит, что "социализм означает правительственное вмешательство в экономику". При внимательном рассмотрении этого положения ясно, что этот "социализм" не является экономической системой; точнее говоря, он не есть то, что есть система, и не есть то, что есть экономическое. Это так просто потому, что то, что есть "вмешательство" не есть система, и то, что есть "правительственное" не есть экономическое. Несмотря на всё это, принято утверждать, что правительственное вмешательство в экономику есть не что иное, как экономическая система, и знать её надо как "социализм". Точнее говоря, положено знать, что"социализм—это экономическая система тоталитарного вмешательства правительства в экономику".

Но, спрашивается, что значит слово "вмешательство"? Что оно означает? Оно означает действие по значению вмешиваться в чужие дела (см. Словари); словом, мешать делать то, что надо, и так далее. А если это так, каким же образом всё это может быть экономической системой? Но, что там слово "вмешательство" ни значило бы, оно необходимым образом должно предполагать объект, подлежащий действию вмешательства, объект в оппозиции, противоречаший объект. Объект этот должен быть, как прямо сказано, экономической системой. Но, если само вмешательство следует считать экономической системой, то перед нами здесь не одна, а две экономические системы, одна навязанная другой: первая, как само правительственное вмешательство, и вторая, экономическая система в оппозиции, как объект вмешательства. Опять, как бы ни понимать термин "вмешательство", он означает то, что имеет место между двумя противостоящими силами. В таком же смысле вмешательство понимается и в других общественных явлениях. То, что является вмешательством, должно находиться в столкновении с тем, что является объектом вмешательства. Словом, если вмешивающееся правительство является про-социалистическим, то существующая экономическая система, подлежащая вмешательству, должна быть несоциалистической. В таком случае, требуется найти название той экономической системы, которая подлежит акту правительственного вмешательства.

Cмысл того, что сказано выше в том, что якобы экономическая система предлагаемая как "социализм", иначе, "социализм" как экономическая система, остаётся вне определения, вне всякой дефиниции, и как таковая она неопознаваема. Её невозможно опознать, ибо мнимый социализм сам есть не что иное, как "правительственное вмешательство", не что иное, как "дурное управление экономики правительством". И это не есть сама экономическая система; это только вмешательство в неё. Кривые мозги употребляют термин "социализм" с целью заставить его означать "вмешательство", которое состоит в разрушении экономики, или в каком-то "экономическом разрушительстве". Кроме этого содержания в этом термине нет ничего—кроме этого мифического "разрушительства".³

В то же самое время, термин "правительственный-изм"(то есть говерментализм) методически избегается, хотя именно он являтся тем термином, который адекватно означал бы то, что лукаво-дурацким образом именуется "социализмом". Ибо, об этом якобы социализме вовсе нечего сказать, кроме того, что он значит "правительственное вмешательство", правительственное дурное управление, правительственный тоталитаризм, правительственное "разрушительство". Все эти, якобы, определения никоим образом не достаточны для опознания, определения, и устанавления того, что в сущности есть экономика и экономическая структура, то есть того, о чем идёт речь. Вся бредовая болтовня по поводу "правительства против экономики", экономики как таковой, экономики вообще, упускает то, что порядком должно выявить, не политическое, а экономическое различие. При всём этом, остаётся вне внимания ответ на вопрос: которая или какова экономическая система, что склонна стать объектом правительственного вмешательства, правительственного дурного управления, правительственного монополизирования, правительственного "разрушительства"?

Ну, вот, как теперь постигнуть разницу между двумя экономическими системами, капиталистической экономической и "социалистической" экономической? Где нужно искать и как возможно найти местоположение этой разницы? Нигде, кроме как в разделе между экономической системой, с одной стороны, и политической системой, с другой; говоря иначе, в противостоянии перефразированной как "правительство против экономики".

Однако, правительство вообще, правительство как таковое, не существует нигде. Существуют лишь определённые, особые, частные формы существования правительств; и в этом случае противоположения "правительства против экономики" то, что подразумевается под правительством, есть якобы социалистическое правительство. Экономика тоже—как таковая, в изоляции от частных, определённых случаев экономики, она нигде не существует. Экономику вообще, как таковую, нигде невозможно найти. Найти возможно только специфические, определённые формы экономики. Следовательно, никакое вмешательство в неопределённую, как таковую, экономику немыслимо. Мыслимо только "вмешательство" в исторически конкретные формы того, что есть экономика, то есть определённая экономическая система. И в нашем случае противоположения "правительства против экономики", то что фактически подразумевается под "экономикой", есть капиталистическая экономика. Ибо в условиях настоящего столетия, что реально существует не есть Бушменская экономика, а всем знакомая капиталистическая экономическая система. Так, значит, "тезис" противополагающий "правительство против экономики" следует расшифровывать и читать как противоположение якобы-социалистического правительства против капиталистической экономической системы. Противоположение "правительства против экономики" следует понимать, на деле, как то же самое, что и противоположение "социализма против капитализма". А противоположение "социализма против капитализма" здесь значит не что иное, как "правительственный-изм (или говернментализм) против существующей капиталистической экономики".

Как было сказано выше, ныне принятый термин "социализм" вполне обоснованно можно заменить термином "правительственный-изм" (как ни необычна морфология этого термина). Однако, если допустить замену, то тогда выше данную дефиницию "социализма" придётся читать следующим образом: "правительственный-изм есть экономическая система, основанная на правительственной собственности средств производства". "Правительственный-изм есть экономическая система"! Иначе говоря, правительственная система, вместо того, чтобы быть политической системой, оказывается экономической системой. Как ни бессмысленно здесь изложенное положение, оно является тем, что необходимым образом вытекает из такого же абсурдного утверждения, что "социализм", будучи якобы "экономической системой", значит не что иное, как то, что есть государство или правительство.

Замысел, который кроется за этим тупоумием, заключается в попытке увековечить безмозглую догму двух якобы различных экономических систем, то сосуществующих, то сходящихся, то смешанных (отсюда, между прочим, и три смехотворных теории: теория сосуществования, теория так называемой конвергенции и теория смешанной экономики). Но, догма двух различных, равно сосуществующих, равно экономических систем лжива и не выдерживает критики. Нет возможности выявить существенного различия между этим "социализмом" и капитализмом; единственное, что возможно в смысле различения—это признать как наглядный исторический факт, что этот нагло вымышленный "социализм", оказывается, есть не что иное, как правительственный режим, то есть, точнее говоря, экономическая политика лжесоциалистического правительства давно устарелой формы правительства, которое не в ладу с реально существующей экономической системой, то есть господствующей экономической системой капитализма.

В то же время тем, кому угодно принять бредовое понятие "экономического разрушительства" за нечто серьёзное, пожалуй, пришлось бы поверить в возможность фантастического существования политического режима или строя без и при отсутствии всякой экономической системы. Вобщем, если всё, что термин "социализм" способен означать, есть всего лишь нечто политическое, то есть, если этого "социализма", как экономическую систему, нет возможности опознать, то тогда то, что существует как экономическая система, должно быть признано системой капиталистической.

Как оно ни есть, дать определение мнимого социализма невозможно без помощи политических терминов, и если факт правительственного режима признан тем, что он на деле есть, тогда то, что с натяжкой вывернуто, чтобы значить нечто вроде социалистического, оказывает себя в остальном тождественным капитализму. Например, система цен равнозначна капитализму. Исключите правительственный элемент из так называемой системы контролируемых цен—останется система цен, и система цен равнозначна капитализму. Таким же образом, исключите правительственный элемент из того, что есть не что иное, как вымышленная плановая экономика—останется просто экономика, а современная экономика, конечно, есть капиталистическая экономика.

Другими словами, различие между капитализмом и так называемым социализмом заключается в правительственном различии—точнее, не в экономическом, а политическом различии. Право же, что остаётся, если правительственный, то есть политический элемент исключён из всего того, что рассказано про якобы социалистическую экономику? Вполне ясно, что ничего, кроме того, что идентично капитализму, не остаётся. Опять, экономика равнозначна капитализму; правительственно плановая экономика—это дурно плановый капитализм, политически плановый капитализм. Далее, система цен равнозначна капитализму; правительственно контролируемые цены есть дурно контролируемый капитализм, политически контролируемый капитализм. Яснее ясного, пожалуй, что дурно контролируемые цены, дурно плановая экономика, то есть дурно контролируемый, дурно плановый капитализм, мыслимы не иначе, как при наличии того, что есть капитализм.

Таким образом, точно так, как оказывается невозможным установить существенного различия между мнимо социалистической политической системой и "социалистической" мнимо экономической системой, так и невозможным оказывается установить существенного различия между мнимо социалистической экономической системой и капиталистической экономической системой. Так, если осознано, что "экономическая система социализма" двадцатого века никогда не представляла собой что-нибудь кроме правительственной трескотни, тогда, то, что остаётся—это лже-социалистическая политическая система, с одной стороны, и подлинная экономическая система капитализма, с другой. Говоря просто русским языком, политически, двадцатого века "социализм", всегда был тем, что есть лже-социализм; экономически, двадцатого века "социализм", всегда был тем, что есть капитализм. Иначе и не может быть, так как в условиях двадцатого столетия—экономика как таковая, экономика вообще, будучи существом нигде несуществующим—единственная, действительно существующая экономика может быть только капиталистической, а всё остальное оказывается всего лишь запоздалой копией капитализма.

Однако, мозги двадцатого века шевилились иначе. Архипраславленная антитеза между капитализмом и социализмом, то есть вымышленным социализмом, как якобы двух полярных экономических систем, заполняет всё содержание этого века. На весь мир нашумевшие сражения между капитализмом и "социализмом", или точнее, между капитализмом и "ликвидированным капитализмом", произвели звуковые волны, которые до сих пор не дают покоя земной атмосфере. Должно быть, было какое-то основание в обоих лагерях—как просоциалистических, так и антисоциалистических—для того, чтобы настаивать (и продолжать настаивать) на изображение несоответствия между политическим строем и господствующей экономической системой как конфликт между двумя равновеликими экономическими системами. Похоже, что каждый лагерь, из этих двух враждебных, имел свои собственные основания. Всё равно каковы мотивы, попытка скрыть действительную экономическую систему, путём ее переименования в нечто противоположное тому, что она есть, вряд ли может остаться делом во веки веков незамеченным.

А между тем, вопрос о том, как нормальному человеку понять определение экономической системы при помощи политических терминов; или наоборот, определение политического режима как образца экономической системы—этот вопрос вовсе не представляется малозначительным. Скорее похоже, что здесь перед нами случай невежества, или заблуждения, или мистификации, или же простого надувательства, и, быть может, наконец, всего вместе. Как бы то ни было, вопрос о том, что это всё значит, вполне обоснованно мог бы явиться предметом обсуждения в области социологии, массовой психологии, массовой идеологии, или же других сходных дисциплин. Так или иначе, то ли идеологически обусловленная слепота, или неспособность видеть критические различия, провозглашение политического явления, как нечто вроде экономической системы, определилось в двадцатом веке как исторически сложившаяся лживость, что достигла "стойкости народно-массового предрассудка". При этом, вовсе не требавалось бы исключительной умственной мощи узреть, что было скрыто за государственно "социализированной" квази-экономической системой с необъятной претензией быть признанным всемирно-исторической общественно-экономической формацией, то есть чем-то наряду, и в противовес, с эпохальной общественно-экономической формацией, известной как капитализм.

Так вот, в то время, как в якобы социалистическом лагере, запоздалый капитализм был нелепым образом переименован так, чтобы быть провозглашённым как "прогресс социализма", в антисоциалистическом лагере недоразвитый капитализм ещё более нелепым образом переименован, чтобы быть забракованным как "хаос социализма". Как ясно зримо, каждый лагерь, из этих двух противоположных, внёс свой особый вклад во всемирно-историческую лживость своим собственным путём. Но, безразлично, провозглашён ли мнимый социализм "экономическим прогрессом", или заклеймён ли он как "экономическое разрушительство", он, этот "социализм", не есть то, что есть социальное, то есть общественное, и поэтому, не есть то, что есть социализм.

Несмотря на это, свирепо антисоциалистический лагерь упрямо настаивает на утверждении, что социализм значит то, что есть государственное или правительственное. Но, человеческая логика упорно настаивает на положении, что нелепое отождествление неизбежным путём ведёт к нелепым выводам. Это безусловно так, ибо всё равно, что собой представляет какая-нибудь система, если она есть социальная, то есть общественная, она есть больше того, что есть нечто правительственное или государственное; если она есть нечто правительственное, то она есть то, что есть политическое; если она есть нечто политическое, то она не есть то, что есть экономическое. Не видно спасения в искривлении этих положений. Безразлично, что собой представляет экономическая система, она не есть то, что основано на правительственном или государственном строе. Как уже было сказано, экономическая система не есть то, что состоит во вмешательстве; экономическая система есть то, что подлежит вмешательству, то есть является объектом вмешательства. Принято утверждать, что "социализм"—это правительственное вмешательство в экономику, безразлично тотально или частично. В самом деле, безразлично как—частично, тотально, или тоталитарно. Правительственное вмешательство в экономику есть не более как экономическое деяние правительства; оно никак не может создать иную, особую экономическую систему своего рода, а именно, нечто вроде "правительственно-экономической системы". Тоталитарно или полутоталитарно, правительственное вмешательство само, как правительственный курс, необходимым образом предполагает наличную экономическую систему, уже существующую на месте, готовую стать объектом вмешательства. Из этого обстоятельства уже должно быть явственно, что экономическое деяние правительства не создаёт свою собственную экономическую систему. Оно является лишь усилием правительства, направленным на разрешение проблем уже наличествующей экономической системы. Например, Новый Курс Президента Рузвельта не был сам по себе созданием новой экономической системы. Он был лишь случаем экономической политики правительства при попытке разрешить проблемы давно наличествующей экономической системы. Также и Новая Экономическая Политика Ленина явилась лишь усилием правительства разрешить проблемы существующей экономики.

Вдобавок, можно найти достаточное количество исторических фактов, которые прямо противоречат утверждению, что всякий экономический акт правительства значит и "порождает социализм". Приобретение Луизианы, например, безусловно надо считать экономическим актом правительства, и притом таким по размеру, что был почти равным всем тринадцати штатам взятым вместе; и что, на деле, удвоило Соединённые Штаты восемнадцатого века. Приобретение Аляски явилось ещё другим экономическим актом того же правительства, и актом по размеру самого крупного штата нации. Ни один из этих актов не был совершён во имя так называемых индивидуальных прав. Оба акта, приобретение Луизианы как и приобретение Аляски, были совершены правительством США, и имели дело с такой массой средств производства, которую никакая современная экономическая школа не посмела бы игнориравать. Пожалуй, трудновато было бы отделаться от мысли, что почти наполовину США были рождены в первородном грехе социализма.

Во всяком случае, становится ясно, что так называемый социализм не способен существовать в одиночку; ему необходимо "сосуществовать", быть в сожительстве с тем, что оказывается его противоположностью—несоциалистической экономической системой, которая призвана служить объектом социалистического вмешательства. Несоциалистическая система, конечно, это та, что всем известна как капиталистическая система. Таким образом, если нет капитализма—нет правительственного вмешательства; если нет правительственного вмешательства—нет "социализма". "Социализм" и капитализм обязаны существовать синхронно, совпадать во времени, точно так, как синхронно существуют правительство и экономика. Так обстоит дело между этим "социализмом" и капитализмом.

Социализм, социальный социализм—это утопия, но "социализм" теоретиков антисоциалистического лагеря значит ни то, ни другое, ни утопия, ни реалия. Прежде всего, он представлят собой кучу халтурных нелепостей. В общем, это то, что представляет собой "социализм" двадцатого столетия, по крайней мере поверхностно; но это не всё—за лицевой стороной, что некоторые философы определяют как вуаль явления, кроется нечто более важное.⁴

Как ни полярны и антитетичны они друг другу, "социализм", т. е., то, что обязано считаться экономической системой социализма, и капитализм должны совпадать во времени, должны существовать вдвоём; более того, они должны смешиваться, образуя таким путём понятие, которое признано и преподаётся как понятие "наша смешанная экономика", всё это будучи образцом смеси взаимно исключающих экономических систем. Противостояние между экономикой и правительством, о чём говорилось выше, теперь оказывается превращенным в противостояние между двумя экономическими системами. Механическое смешивание двух якобы различных экономических систем предназначено образовать смесь, которая простирается между крайностями двух равноэкономических систем. И вот перед нами две полярно-различные системы: так называемая лессе-фэр экономика, или капитализм, с одной стороны, и так называемая командная экономика, или "социализм/коммунизм", с другой. Но, спрашивается, что такое то, что должно отличать в этой якобы экономической смеси одну крайность от другой? Точнее говоря, одну антиподную экономическую систему от другой антиподной? Только один единственный элемент, а именно, правительственный элемент. Иными словами, то что должно отличить так называемую командную экономику от так называемой лессэ-фэр, т. е., капиталистической экономики не есть нечто экономическое, а есть, напротив, нечто неэкономическое. А это значит, что вместо элемента экономического, элемент неэкономический должен служить элементом отличающим одну экономическую систему от другой. По сути дела, то что происходит здесь—это создание иной экономической системы путём смешивания одной экономической системы с элементом неэкономическим; или, чтобы выразить всё это более элементарно, сумма одного экономического элемента и одного неэкономического элемента оказывается суммой двух экономических элементов. Таким образом, создаются две различные экономические системы.

Но, экономика есть то, что не есть правительство; правительство есть то, что не есть экономика. Смесь их элементов—элемента экономики и элемента правительства—может создать пару экономических систем с таким же успехом, как смесь нефти и воды может создать нефть двух сортов. Короче, вряд ли возможно получить пару различных экономических систем, если то, что имеется, с одной стороны, есть экономика, а с другой, есть правительство. Хотя, это, наверно, возможно в том случае, если эту определённую смесь понять опять как диалектическую смесь, как искусно приготовленное блюдо "единства противоположностей". Во всяком случае, так, видимо, умеют считать господа экономисты современной экономической науки, когда они занимаются теоретизацией. Обычный метод, господствующий в двадцатом столетии, заключается в восприятии одной вещи как две, в нашем случае, считая одну экономическую систему дважды, и в итоге получая целую радугу экономических систем между полюсами мнимой полярности.⁵ Так, например, выражаясь в единицах валюты, по логике "смешанной экономики", человек, хорошо её знающий, в состоянии заполучить два доллара в обмен за один доллар и один недоллар, даже если недоллар не является монетной единицей.

Однако, смесь, которая установлена как "смешанная экономика" оказывается лишь внутричерепной: в действительности, то есть вовне, смешана не двойная экономика; смешан только ум, синкретизирующий ум, современного карманного экономиста, который неспособен справиться с проблемой, им самим же созданной, но надеется отделаться от этой проблемы посредством дешёвого понятия смеси на скорую руку.

Должно быть, имеется какое-то основание, которое побуждает этот ум умствовать именно таким образом. Термин "социализм" едва ли не был изнасилован, чтобы заставить его означать то, что никак невозможно определить иначе, как посредством политических терминов. Вполне естественно, поэтому, что такого рода скручивание правильного значения в дурацкую сторону, должно создать проблему, с которой нельзя справиться путём безголового смешивания несмешиваемых. Именно объективизм, или точнее, объективная реальность указывает на понимание, что нет такой вещи на свете как "социалистическая экономика", или "социализм как экономическая система". Теоретически социализм—то есть социальный или бесклассовый социализм—понимался как не политическая, а общественная формация, основанная на некоммерческой организации производства. Но, как его ни понимать, социализм—это то, чего нет ни в обществе, ни в природе. И, всё равно, если социализм—это плод утопического воображения, то он не есть и никогда не был историческим фактом. Кроме того, если это так, то все ревностные души антисоциалистического лагеря, за всё это время, хлестали не то что мёртвую клячу, а просто несуществующую клячу.

Однако, по существу, дело здесь не столько в "социализме". Скорее, дело в том, что капитализм, запоздалый или отсталый, фальшиво переименован, чтобы уверить мир, что то, что существует не есть капитализм, а есть именно некапитализм. "Теоретический" тезис запрятанный за этим кривлянием гласит, что только "беспроблемный капитализм" есть капитализм (то есть то, что воспевается как "чистый" капитализм); ибо, как только капитализм мира сего попадает в критическое положение и оказывается неспособным нормальным путём выбраться из него, он перестаёт быть тем, что он есть, перестаёт быть капитализмом.⁶ Всё это можно сделать более понятным, если добавить, что цветение, например, есть одно из проявлений факта, что такое-то дерево есть яблочное дерево, но капиталистическое яблочное дерево существует только тогда, когда оно цветёт. Так, капитализм оказывается таким хрупким, ломким, и деликатным механизмом, что достаточно всего одного указа нескольких мужицко-мозгастых бюрократов, и капитализм перестаёт быть тем, что он есть, перестаёт быть капитализмом, даже если он не заменяется никакой экономической системой.

Ещё, всю эту болтавню по поводу "чистого" капитализма можно свести к следующей ребяческой банальности: "Ребята! Только хороший капитализм есть капитализм; плохой капитализм не есть капитализм; плохой капитализм есть социализм". Неудивительно, поэтому, что среди теоретизирующих умов антисоциалистического склада, капитализм,—то есть та экономическая формация, которая существует, по крайней мере, уже триста лет—всё ещё мыслится как идеал, и не только как идеал, а как неизвестный идеал, и идеал и неизвестный; в то время, как разница между неизвестным и непознаваемым образует ещё что-то неизвестное.

Мнение, что противостояние между правительством и экономикой есть то же самое, что и противостояние между одной экономической системой и другой экономической системой, а именно, между капитализмом и некапитализмом (термин "некапитализм", в этом отношении, не глупее, чем термин "социализм"), слишком нелепо, и на самом деле, не заслуживало бы серьёзного внимания, но это то, что вытекает, во-первых, из плоского определения капитализма как чисто частнособственнической экономической системы, и во-вторых, из лукавоумной дефиниции "социализма" как правительственной экономической системы. Как ни глубокомысленны эти определения, они всё-таки создают проблему, ибо правительственная экономическая система есть то же самое, что и политическая-но-экономическая система и читается точно как оксюморон. Но, если это так, то вся теория "смешанной экономики" оказывается остроумно-глупой, и поэтому, должна быть провозглашена как "остроумно глупая теория".

Противостояние между правительством и экономикой есть, конечно, то же самое, что и противостояние между политическим режимом и сущей экономической системой, не созданной, несотворённой никаким политическим режимом. Конфликт между ними есть конфликт между устарелой формой правительства (авторитарной, тоталитарной, или даже, цезаристской формой) и современной, двадцатого века экономической системой, которая есть не что иное, как то, что каждому известно как капитализм—каждому, то есть тем, кто хочет знать мир как он есть, смотря на одну вещь как на одну, а не как на две. Ибо, объективно существует, так сказать, только одно экономическое тело, одна и та же экономическая личность. Различны только политические рубашки. Некоторые рубашки оказываются "смирительными"; но, как они ни есть, одна личность и одна рубашка не есть две личности.

Рано или поздно, "смирительная рубашка" должна распасться. Правительственные формы, которые не способны быть в ладу с господствующей экономической системой, т.е., капиталистической, должны уступить место тем формам, которые способны наладить отношения с господствующей экономической системой. Не правительство предписывает экономические законы экономике, а экономика диктует свои законы правительствам, и не важно какова степень тотальности тоталитарного правительства. По сути дела, довод здесь сводится к тому, что никакое правительство не в силах сотворить свою собственную "правительственную экономику", ибо, правительство такой творческой мощи оказалось бы вроде детища, что порождает своих родителей.

Но, возвратимся к понятию "наша смешанная экономика", т. е., экономика, которая предназначена быть продуктом смешения экономики "лессэ-фэр" (это, вроде, то же самое, что и капитализм) и так называемой командной экономики (это, вроде, то же самое, что и "социализм и коммунизм"). Ну вот, означает ли оппозиция между ними (между экономикой "лессэ-фэр" и экономикой "командной") оппозицию между двумя полярно-антиподными экономическими системами, а именно, между капитализмом и социализмом, точнее, между капитализмом и "некапитализмом", или ещё точнее, между капитализмом и "упразднённым капитализмом"? Вовсе нет. Во-первых, термин "экономика лессэ-фэр" выглядит как образец неправильной, точнее, дурной атрибуции: он говорит одно, а означает другое. Это так, ибо не экономика, а правительство предполагалось "не мешать", не вмешиваться, то есть, оставить экономику в покое, чтобы она—экономика, а не правительство, могла б показать на что она способна. (Француское Laissez-faire, на деле, значит невмешательство; и, c'est ne pas l'economie qui laisse faire; c'est le gouvernevent qui doit laisser faire). Фраза "laissez-nous faire" была сказана по адресу не экономики, а представителя правительства. Ведь никто не думал говорить экономике: "оставьте нас", или "дайте нам делать", и так далее. Вообщем, очень похоже, что термин "экономика лессэ-фэр" был впоследствии состряпан неграмотными. Не экономике, а правительству был дан совет "не вмешиваться", то есть, придерживаться политики невмешательства. Пожалуй ясно, что за термином "лессэ-фер" кроется не экономика, а правительство—"лессэ-фэр" правительство; ибо, так называемое лессэ-фэр есть не что иное, как экономическая политика правительства, политика воздержания от вмешательства. Также, и сам по себе нелепый термин "командная экономика" (Англиское "command economy") есть ещё другой образец дурной атрибуции. Здесь опять-таки за якобы экономическим термином скрывается правительство как якобы командующее начало. Опять здесь мы имеем дело не с экономикой, а с экономической политикой не комадуюшего, но навязчивого правительства, которое старается разрешить проблемы уже существующей экономической системы. Итак, за спиной оппозиции между мнимой "экономики лессэ-фэр" и мнимой "экономики командной" обнаруживается оппозиция между экономической политикой правительства одной формы и экономической политикой правительства другой формы, между политикой правительственного невмешательства, с одной стороны, и политикой правительственного вмешательства, с другой. Но как же тогда с экономической системой? Никак. Экономическая система всё одна и та же.

И всё-таки, что там ни думается за термином "лессэ-фэр", оно приписывается экономике, словно экономика, а не правительство призвано воздерживаться от вмешательства. Вслед за этим, то что так дурно приписывается и далее превращается в систему, то есть, в "лессэ-фэр систему", оказывается тем, что тождественно капитализму. Но капитализм есть экономическая система (и если это не так, то вообще ничего экономического не бывало в рамках солнечной системы). Его невозможно сделать тождественным с тем, что является лишь экономической политикой cамовоздерживающегося правительства. Для более или менее грамотных, термин "лессэ-фэр экономика" мог бы иметь некий смысл только в том случае, если его писать и читать как "покинутую экономику", как экономику "оставленную в покое", якобы без внимания со стороны cамовоздерживающегося правительства. Однако, слабоумное отождествление "лессэ-фэр экономики" с капитализмом никому не может разъяснить вопрос, почему "лессэ-фэр экономика" должна быть капиталистической, не говоря вовсе о том, почему капитализм есть то, что он есть. Как нормальному человеку знать какова экономика, если всё что о ней известно есть единственный факт, что её оставили в покое, или просто нетронутой? Как, например, опознать какого плода дерево—вишня, фиговое, или запретная яблоня—если знать лишь одно, что оно оставлено в покое? Даже то древо в Эдеме известно как Древо Познания, и не только как "оставленное в покое". И если ничего невозможно знать об экономике, лишь знанием того, что она "оставлена в покое", каким же образом можно знать, что эта экономика является капиталистической? Экономика, "оставленная в покое", "нетронутая экономика", топорным образом именованная как "лессэ-фэр экономика", по сути дела, есть неизвестная экономика.

Вот эту неизвестную "экономику", "оставленную в покое", вместо того, чтобы видеть в ней тождество с "вольным капитализмом", можно вполне спокойно считать тождественной и с экономикой рабства; ибо, история должна знать образцы экономики рабства, вкушающие полное "лессэ-фэр", и процветая без примеси правительственных экономических систем. "Лессэ-фэр" не похоже на то, чтобы служить атрибутом отличающим капитализм от других экономических систем. Фактически, это скорее во времена капитализма, когда пресловутое "лессэ-фэр" проявляет постоянную тенденцию перерастания в проблему. Какое этатистское правительство думало вмешиваться в экономику рабства на Юге, например? И если нет, то экономику, что процветала на Юге до 1865 года, надо считать образцом экономики "лессэ-фэр". Не мешало бы вспомнить, вдобавок, что потребовалось "социалистического вмешательства" со стороны федерального правительства США, чтобы добиться, путём Гражданской Войны, экспроприации средств производства рабовладельцев, осуществляя таким коренным образом вмешательство в "лессэ-фэр экономику" рабства, окончательно превратив её в совершенную капиталистическую экономику без примеси докапиталистических структур. (Здесь опять перед нами, пожалуй, акт "социализма", ничего не свершая кроме дела капитализма, выполняя задачу капиталистической экспроприации средств производства; ибо, в действительности, таковым являлся человек в рабстве: несмотря на его бытность человеком, им владели как средством производства, покупая и продавая, продавая и покупая его в качестве товара свободного рынка).

Но, вернёмся к проблеме терминологии, или точнее, злоупотребления терминов. Термин "лессэ-фэр экономика" постоянно появляется как "лессэ-фэр система", что должно, на деле, означать "нетронутую" или "оставленную в покое" систему. Это, в свою очередь, оказывается тождественным "лессэ-фэр капитализму". Одним словом, как это бесконечно проповедуется, капитализм—это "система лессэ-фэр", что на простом языке значит: капитализм—это "оставленная в покое система". Термин "лессэ-фэр капитализм" чреват проблемами, но сперва, не мешало бы прозреть, что никакого определения капитализма невозможно дополучить, не зная ничего кроме факта, что капитализм—это нечто "оставленное в покое". А между тем, определение капитализма как экономической системы необходимо, так-как иначе не будет возможности установить противоположность—полярную и так далее—между капитализмом и тем, что считается экономической системой "социализма", и, в таком случае, "наша смешанная экономика" окажется суммой неизвестных количеств. До сих пор, про "нашу смешанную экономику" известно только то, что один из элементов этой "экономической" смеси не является элементом экономическим, а только правительственным. Другой же элемент пока ещё есть то, что "оставлено в покое".

Пожалуй ясно, что, почему-то или как-то, термин "смешанная экономика" не был создан с целью выразить что-нибудь значимое. Думается скорее, он просто глупым образом "возник" из необходимости сделать что-то по поводу проблемы, что создалась вследствие безголового и лживого умствования. Как это было указано раннее, сам термин "смеси" представляет собой, в целом, смесь фальшивых положений. Во-первых, легко можно убедиться, что так называемая смешанная экономика не есть смесь экономических структур. То что смешано, или положено друг с другом, есть, на деле, две формы экономической политики разных правительств: так называемая "лессэ-фэр" и так называемая "командная". Тем самым, правительственная экономическая политика отождествляется как экономическая система, якобы социалистическая, и продукт такой операции состоит в дубликации уже существующей экономической системы. Вместо одной экономической системы и двух форм экономической политики правительств, получаются две экономические системы и одна форма правительственной политики. В чём заключается выгода от такой дубликации когда одна и таже экономическая система считается дважды,—это вопрос другого разряда. На первый взгляд, не легко сказать в чём здесь дело, то есть, то ли это факт безмозглости, или же акт надувательства. Так или иначе, после такого спешного счёта, воображается, что получена антитеза между капитализмом и тем, что должно зваться социализмом. Термин "смешанная экономика" выглядит нейтрально, но это вовсе не так. Он не значит единства дружных экономических структур, состоящих в гармонии ценообразавания. Термин этот не выражает, но должен иметь в виду соединение двух экономических систем, полярно противостоящих, предназначенных отрицать друг друга. "Модели", которых современные экономисты, благодаря их смеси "лессэ-фэр" и "командной экономики", воображают иметь в своём распоряжении—это экономика капитализма-плюс- а, или а-плюс-капитализма, и вдобавок, всего, что торчит между ними.⁷

Как уже было сказано, один из составных элементов "нашей смешанной экономики" есть то, что довольно озадачивающе названо "командной экономикой". Так как этот термин отождествляется с рядом других терминов, не мешало бы на нём остановиться, дабы постигнуть, что он, собственно, предназначен из себя представлять. По тому как он сплетён, не совсем ясно, что или кто командует и что находится под командой. Словно нет в людских языках такой части речи как причастие, ходячий термин гласит "командная экономика", а не "командуемая экономика", или точнее, "экономика под командой". На первый взгляд, похоже, словно термин был заимствован от знакомого положения, что капитал значит командовать продуктивным трудом тех, у кого нет капитала. Скажем, кому-либо пришло бы в голову понять словосочетание " командная экономика" как командование над чужим трудом, то термину выпал бы жребий означать, вместо социализма, как раз то, что есть капитализм.

Но, конечно, термин не означает команду над трудом. Он был создан означать "командуемую экономику", то есть всю экономику под командой правительства; ибо, это не может быть секретом, что именно правительство мыслится как то, что должно командовать. Однако, ни кривой термин "командная экономика", ни правильный термин "командуемая экономика", не представляют собой нечто умнее, или менее фальшивое, чем термин "плановая экономика". Вдобавок, если эти термины предназначены наводить на мысль, будто "командующие" правительства, известные как тоталитарные, определяют движение своих национальных хозяйств, как командующие генералы определяют движение своих войск, то к фальшивому прибавляется смешное. Не найти Нобелевского экономиста даже среди сверхумных экономистов века, кто мог бы доказать, что так называемые тоталитарные способны командовать своими национальными хозяйствами как угодно, определяя шаг экономического роста, невзирая на то, что по сути определяется наличествующими силами производства.

Опять, термин "командная экономика" значит, что командуемая экономика находится под командой правительства (иначе термин совсем глуп: на людском языке, "командная экономика" тоже самое что командующая экономика). И даже в правильном значении, термин является лишь метафорой, и очень сомнительной: то, что он будто выражает, далеко от действительного. Всякий людской словарь говорит, что командовать, по сути, значит иметь власть, господствовать над тем, что находится под командой. Если кому-нибудь пришло бы в голову понять термин буквально, ему пришлось бы вообразить, например, тоталитарное Китайское правительство как командующее экономикой своей меганации, то есть экономикой народа свыше миллиарда людей. А между тем, нет нигде такой "командной экономики", которая не являлась бы частью мирового рынка и, понятно, нет такой "команды", что могла бы командовать стихийными силами мирового рынка, в каком угодно смысле, меняя направление его движения в какой-нибудь части этого света. Так, слово "командная"—это лишь оборот речи; действительность действует иначе; она требует усилия добиться того, что возможно, и что, на деле, определяется экономической необходимостью положения, в котором находится определённая нация.⁸

Итак, экономика, именуемая "командной экономикой", определяется как противоположность тому, что зовётся "лессэ-фэр экономикой", то есть "лессэ-фэр" капитализмом. Однако, то, что должно считаться "командной экономикой", перестаёт быть капитализмом. Те, кто более опрометчивы среди теоретиков антисоциалистического лагеря, прямолинейно именуют её этатизмом. Этатизм и есть антикапитализм; говоря точнее, он есть "социализм"; говоря более точнее, он есть "ликвидированный капитализм", или даже более трагично, он есть "уничтоженный капитализм".

Термином "этатизм" можно заняться позднее. Между тем, следующее положение можно найти почти во всех учебниках по "экономиксу": "Полярной противоположностью чистому капитализму, то есть лессэ-фэр капитализму, является командная экономика, то есть коммунизм". Другими словами, то, что противостоит чистому капитализму не есть нечистый, грязный, или смешанный капитализм, а непосредственно антикапитализм, непосредственно как непосредственная зараза, то есть коммунизм-социализм. Также и то, что противостоит лессэ-фэр капитализму не есть нелессэ-фэр капитализм, а опять, не что иное, как коммунизм, то есть антикапитализм. Спрашивается, что является противоположностью тому, что думается как умный мужчина? Будет ли это тупая женщина, или то, что есть тупой мужчина? Нормально, противоположность того, что называется "умный мужчина", должно быть то, что называется "тупой мужчина", а не женщина, и не женский род, вовсе. Не так по логике вышеприведённого положения из научного учебника. По логике самого учебника, всё, что противоположено чистому капитализму, не есть ни нечистый, ни грязный, ни смешанный капитализм, а прямо антикапитализм, что и означает "командную экономику", то есть коммунизм. Но это примерно тоже самое как утверждение, что противоположность тому, что есть умный мужчина, не есть то, что есть тупой мужчина, а женщина, или даже все женщины коллективно, тупые и умные вместе. Своеобразную логику такого рода следует проследить до конца; она может оказаться даром ненапрасным гуманитарного образования. Итак, то, что надо считать противоположностью чистому капитализму, надо немедленно считать коммунизмом, то есть, всё, что не есть чистый капитализм немедленно перестаёт существовать как капитализм, и будучи нечистым превращается в некапитализм; нет ничего, никакого расстояния, ни момента даже, между чистым капитализмом и антикапитализмом. Во всём современном экономическом пространстве только чистый капитализм является капиталистической антитезой коммунизму.

Но, всё-таки, насколько умно утверждать, что только чистый капитализм возможен, и он будучи таковым, нечистый капитализм немыслим? Что ж, ученику, которому придётся изучать свой научный учебник, придётся также поверить, что есть такая вещь как чистый капитализм, но нет такой вещи как нечистый капитализм. По сути дело, похоже на то, что понятие чистого капитализма так же научно как понятие чёрной вороны, и понятие нечистого капитализма так же научно как понятие белой вороны. Таким же образом обстоит дело и с понятием "лессэ-фэр" капитализма. Трудно сказать, как много людей, которые считают экономическую науку наукой. Быть может, лучше всего было бы создать особый отдел экономикса, посвящённый задаче найти диаграмму и кривую, которые смогли бы заставить кривобокие уравнения (вроде того, что "командная экономика" значит "коммунизм") действовать убедительнее.

Если допустить, что такое существо как нечистый капитализм возможно, тогда надо будет установить факты, которые делают капитализм чистым или нечистым. Где бы ни появлялся термин "лессэ-фэр экономика", он означает то жэ самое, что и "лессэ-фэр капитализм". Чистый капитализм чист, потому, что он есть то же самое, что и "лессэ-фэр капитализм". Отсюда, нечистый капитализм был бы нечистым вследствие отсутствия "лессэ-фэр". На самом деле, термин "нечистый капитализм" не мог бы повредить экономической науке современности. Даже в словарях, антоним слова "чистый" не есть "командный", а есть слово "нечистый", в то время, как слово "чистый" считается антонимом слова "нечистый".

Никто не знает, видимо, почему понятие экономической науки должно во всех языках оставаться представленным в форме французского слова. В том виде, в каком она обычно употребляется, словоформа "laissez" есть глагол в повелительном наклонении, и как было уже показано, это слово в таком наклонении здесь вовсе не относится к экономике; оно было сказано по адрессу правительства—не экономики, а правительства.

Во всяком случае не видно, почему драгоценные термины, как "чистый" и "лессэ-фэр", нельзя заменить простыми словами как "вне или без управления", "управляемый", или даже "неуправляемый". Ибо, эти слова, "чистый" и "лессэ-фэр", ничего другого не означают, ничего кроме капитализма вне или без управления, то есть капитализма под защитой правительства, но вне правительственного управления, или как было уже сказанно, "оставленного в покое" капитализма. Конечно, это не значит, что термин "капитализм вне управления" надо понимать недобрым образом, а именно так, словно капитализм не нуждается в том, что есть правительство, госудаство и законы. Только анархисты, под их чёрным флагом, могут так лихо понимать неуправляемость капитализма. Капитализм несовместим с анархией и анархизмом. Люди должны иметь правительство, и правительство должно знать свои истинные функции. Нужна легальность, не контроль. Понятый должным образом, термин "капитализм вне управления" есть правильный термин и должен быть, так сказать, легализирован. Но, тогда и термин "нечистый капитализм" имеет право появиться, чтобы показать, что является действительной противоположностью "чистому капитализму".

"Чистый капитализм" есть "лессэ-фэр капитализм", и оба тождественны тому, что есть капитализм вне управления, неуправляемый капитализм. В таком случае, "нечистый капитализм" есть тоже самое, что есть управляемый капитализм, капитализм управляемый правительством. Однако, управляемый капитализм тоже оказывается утопическим понятием, так-как капитализм не поддаётся управлению; а правительство должно управлять людьми, человеческими существами, а не капитализмом. Капитализм оказывается наделённым природой таким же даром как и вещи, с которыми Мидасу, королю фригийскому, пришлось иметь дело, с той разницей только, что если он тронут правительством, капитализм не превращается в золото. Как только он затронут навязчивым правительством, капитализм—"чистый" и "лессэ-фэр"—немедленно превращается в свою противоположность, то есть в антикапитализм, или в то, что мы уже знаем как "социалистическую-коммунистическую командную экономику".

Всё это, быть может, правда, но если так, если управляемый капитализм вещь невозможная, то дурно есть вещь вполне возможная, и есть на деле тоже самое что и нечистый капитализм. Чистый капитализм есть чистый потому, что он есть капитализм, нетронутый и неуправляемый правительством; зато, нечистый капитализм есть нечистый потому, что он есть капитализм, дурно правительством. Так, вместо образных терминов как "чистый" капитализм и "нечистый" капитализм, в нашем распоряжении имеются два простых термина из людских языков: капитализм вне управления и дурно Пожалуй, ясно, что термины "чистый" и "лессэ-фэр" капитализм ничего не проясняют, а просто затушёвывают то, что надо означать. С другой стороны, простые термины как "капитализм вне управления", "" и "дурно ясно заявляют, что всё то, что делается, делается правительством, то есть, или не управляется правительством, или управляется правительством, или же дурно управляется правительством.

Подобная попытка сделать ясным то, что нарочно сделано неясным усилиями современных экономистов, должна быть предпринята, если есть намерение достигнуть того состояния, при котором можно будет установить различие между тем, что есть капитализм и тем, что прозвано "командной экономикой" социализма или коммунизма. Сам капитализм, собственно, как это постоянно твердят его сторонники, знает только один образ существования, и этот образ, плутоумно или бездумно, прозван "лессэ-фэр" капитализмом, что, на людском языке, значит не что иное, как капитализм вне управления или, или более пространно, образ существования капитализма. Вот этот образ потом и провозглашён единственным образом существования капитализма. Однако, если это так, то тогда капитализм, вместо его существования на протяжении нескольких веков, должно быть, просуществовал лишь несколько десятков лет, и передовая часть человечества, то есть то, что мы знаем как цивилизованное человечество, должно быть, прожило, за всё это время, или без всякой экономической системы, или же при какой-то экономической системе, но не капиталистической.

Но вернёмся к тому, что считается и диаметральной и полярной оппозицией между "чистым, лессэ-фэр капитализмом" и "командной экономикой". Без всяких фигурных слов, обыкновенный язык может яснее показать, что представляет собой эта оппозиция. "Чистый, лессэ-фэр капитализм" значит капитализм вне управления, не; в оппозиции этому, "командная экономика"—это дурно И это всё, что эта оппозиция может из себя представлять: она есть оппозиция между тем, что не управлятся и тем, что дурно управляется; или другими словами, между тем, что "оставлено в покое", и тем, что не "оставлено в покое".

Cовременная экономическая наука, очевидно, не очень-то заботится о том, как её полярно-диаметральные противоположности сформулированы. Перед нами своеобразный случай полярно-диаметральной противоположности, то есть оппозиции между "чистым, лессэ-фэр капитализмом" и "командной экономикой". Если эту оппозицию выразить человеческим языком, то вовсе не будет ясно, почему она должна быть констатирована как оппозиция между не управляемым капитализмом и дурно управляемой экономикой (а не между капитализмом и капитализмом, то есть, между неуправляемым капитализмом и дурно управляемым капитализмом), или, также будет далеко не ясно, почему она должна быть констатирована как оппозиция между дурно управляемой экономикой и неуправляемым капитализмом (а не экономикой и экономикой, то есть, между дурно управляемой экономикой и неуправляемой экономикой). Видимо, по едва ли не обезьяньей логике, то, что не управляется есть капитализм, а то, что дурно управляется есть экономика. Не видно где ответ на следующее возражение против криворотых оппозиций: то, что не управляется ес то, что дурно управляется есть дурно экономика); или же, то, что дурно управляется есть дурно управляемая экономика и то, что не управляется есть неуправляемая экономика (а не "капитализм").

Ясно, что современная экономическая наука запуталась в трудностях, что касается артикуляции её противоположностей между "лессэ-фэр" капитализмом и тем, что уже законом предписано считать коммунизмом. Дело пощло бы легче, если признан был бы факт, что оппозиция, воспетая как диаметральная, полярная и антиподная, действительно, есть оппозиция между неуправляемым капитализмом и дурно управляемым капитализмом. Признать этот факт, видимо, есть дело многотрудное, но если это так, то по крайней мере, оппозицию можно констатировать не криворотым, а правильным образом, то есть, как оппозицию между неуправляемой экономикой и дурно управляемой экономикой. Вслед за этим, если признать, что неуправляемая экономика есть не что иное, как капитализм, то всю философию "лессэ-фэр капитализма" можно свести к следующему заявлению: капитализм—это неуправляемая экономика; напротив, дурно управляемая экономика—это социализм или коммунизм. Так, без французского "лессэ-фэр" и без метафорической "командной", полярность, антитезу и антагонизм между капитализмом и коммунизмом можно определить как противоположность между неуправляемой экономикой и дурно управляемой экономикой.

Но, как бизнесмены обычно говорят: "О чём мы говорим?" То есть, сказать яснее, идёт речь об экономике, или о правительстве опять? Перед нами фактически оппозиция между тем, что воздерживается от управления и тем, что предпочитает дурно управлять. Не надо забывать следующее: то, что называется не командуемым, то есть неуправляемым, не управляемо правительством; то, что называется командуемым, то есть дурно управляемым, управляемо правительством. Оппозиция полярная, диаметральная и т. д., есть оппозиция между тем, что правительство не делает и тем, что оно делает. Она не есть оппозиция между экономикой одной структуры и экономикой другой структуры. Одно и тоже существо, одна и та же экономика, или неуправлятся, или же дурно управляется. И всё это делается не экономикой, а правительством. Кроме того, надо хорошо помнить, что то, что подразумевается под правительством есть не что иное, как политическое существо. Поэтому, неуправляемую экономику надо понимать как политически неуправляемую экономику, и дурно управляемую экономику как политически управляемую экономику.

Далее, дело в том, что политически неуправляемая экономика есть не что иное, как экономика; она есть нечто экономическое и только. Она есть экономика, "оставленная в покое" политическим правительством. С другой стороны, в противоположность экономике "оставленной в покое", то, что мы видим не есть только экономика, а политически дурное управление экономикой, что само не может быть экономической системой, ибо экономическая система есть то, что есть экономика, а не то, что делается правительством. В этой противоположности между якобы двумя экономическими системами, капиталистической и мнимо коммунистической, наблюдается следующее: при капитализме, мы видим ясный дуализм между тем, что есть экономическое и тем, что есть политическое. При мнимом коммунизме, напротив, наблюдается нелепая тождественность того, что есть политическое и того, что есть экономическое. Ясно видно, что главная проблема того, что метафорически прозвано "командной, т. е., командуемой экономикой" есть та же самая; то есть, она есть проблема лже-экономической системы—системы, как было сказано, экономической-но-политической. Здесь опять мы находим правительственную политику, экономическую политику правительства, которая "командуема" быть воспринятой как "экономическая система".

Надлежало бы рассмотреть опять следующие вопросы: если так называемая командная, т. е., командуемая экономика есть особая экономическая система, где-же, тогда, экономическая политика политического правительства, что "командует", или скорее, дурно управляет экономикой? Если же "командная, т. е., командуемая экономика" является лишь экономической политикой политического правительства, где же тогда экономическая система, "командуемая", или скорее, дурно управляемая, политическим правительством? В частности, если коммунизм был лишь экономической политикой коммунистического правительства, что же тогда служило экономической системой страны этого правительства? Если коммунизм представлял собой особую экономическую систему коммунистической страны, что же тогда служило экономической политикой её коммунистического правительства? Но, это те вопросы, которых можно оставить без ответов. Ответ на следующий вопрос, однако, может быть получен сразу: что случилось бы с коммунистической экономической системой, если экономическая политика коммунистического правительства прекратится? Ответ на этот вопрос один и другого не может быть: если экономическая политика коммунистического правительства прекратится, то коммунистическая экономическая система испарится, и она испарится потому, что, во-первых, коммунистическая экономическая система—это лишь вымысел лживых и бездарных мозгов, и во-вторых, потому, что эта "система" является лишь экономической политикой правительства, которое фальшиво и безмозгло именуется коммунистической или социалистической.

После всего сказаного, полярная оппозиция между тем, что есть капитализм и тем, что обязано именоваться коммунизмом или социализмом, не может быть воспринята как оппозиция между одной экономической системой и другой также экономической системой; ибо, опять, она есть не что иное, как оппозиция между тем, что есть экономическое и тем, что есть политическое. В самом деле, оппозиция, полярная-диаметральная, вместо того, чтобы быть и полярной и диаметральной, выглядит скорее асимметричной, напоминая параллельные линии, которых заставили встретиться.

Так, вполне ясно, что диаметральная "полярность" между так называемой лессэ-фэр экономикой и так называемой командной экономикой не есть экономическая полярность; скорее, она есть правительственная, политическая полярность. Она есть полярность между тем, что политически не управляет и тем, что политически дурно управляет, и при этом, не управляется и дурно управляется одно и то же существо, одна и та же экономическая система. Здесь, опять мы находим не оппозицию между экономическими системами, а оппозицию, или полярность, между экономической политикой правительства одной формы и экономической политикой правительства другой формы, между экономической политикой "лессэ-фэр" и экономической политикой того, что обзывают "интервенционнизмом" и, что есть не что иное, как правительственное вмешательство в существующую экономическую систему. Сам термин "лессэ-фэр капитализм", по сути, представляет собой дурацкую попытку опознать (или даже определить) капитализм в смысле того, что делается правительством, едва ли не превращая, таким путём, капитализм в политический термин.⁹ А что касается отождествления коммунизма с тем, что зовётся "командной экономикой", не видно, возможно ли что-нибудь поделать по поводу такого дурачества, хотя отождествление этого рода и значит установить скотское тупоумие законом человеческого мышления.

Действительное тождество, однако, существует между тем, что воображается как "командная экономика" и тем, что должно значить "этатизм". Не стоит беспокоить тех, кому хотелось бы отстаивать гримасу, что термины "командная экономика" и "этатизм" не тождественны. На деле, единственная разница между ними заключается в том, что "командная экономика" констатирована как "экономика", в то время, как "этатизм" громко звучит как неэкономический термин. Действительное тождество поэтому, оказывается установленным между тем, что есть экономическое и тем, что есть неэкономическое.

Конечно, нет такой магии в людской семантике, которая могла бы сделать из "этатизма" то, что есть экономическая система, или принудить этот термин означать нечто неполитическое. Всё-таки, это и есть именно то, что происходит, т. е., то, что экономическая наука, или "экономикс", старается совершить, а именно, заставить то, что есть политическое, означать то, что есть экономическое. Обиходный термин "командная экономика" является лишь криводушным перепевом "этатизма", чтобы вынудить этот термин звучать как "экономическая система". Таким путём, молчаливо ли или безмолвно, "этатизм" принят в делах современного "экономикса" как экономический термин, как термин означающий экономическую систему.

По сути дела, термин "этатизм" может заменить целый ряд терминов. Только морфология слова "этатизм" образует проблему. Основа слова есть "ЭТАТ-", и она значит то, что есть политическое. Суффикс слова есть "-ИЗМ", и это значит то, что есть система. Следовательно, не может быть большой разницы, если слово "этатизм" будет прочтён как "политический-изм". Смысл один и тот же, и морфология настаивает на том, что ни одна из этих словоформ не может означать ничего кроме того, что есть политический изм, то есть политическая система или строй. Вслед за этим возникают следующие вопросы: что считается полярной противоположностью "чистого капитализма"? "Командная экономика". Что такое "этатизм"? Не что иное, как полярная противоположность "чистого капитализма". Похоже, что "чистый капитализм" имеет две разные полярные противоположности, иначе "этатизм" есть то, что есть "командная экономика". И это так и есть. "Командная экономика" констатирована как экономика, и таким образом, есть то, что есть экономическое; "этатизм" значит то же самое что есть политический изм, и таким образом, есть то, что есть политическое. Каково, в таком случае, должно быть заключение? Только одно: то, что есть экономическое, есть политическое, и то, что есть политическое, есть экономическое.

Тем хуже, если современная экономическая наука не желает видеть в чём заключается проблема. Перед нами "экономическая наука", которая не имеет ясного представления, что такое экономическая система или формация. Она, эта наука, не способна определить разницу между тем, что есть экономическая система и тем, что есть политический строй или порядок. Не так, между прочим, обстояло дело у Французских физиократов. Довод физиократов сводился к тому, что экономика была той реальностью, которая управлялась своими закономерностями, то есть присущей ей, экономическими, естественными законами. Экономика и формы производства рассматривались как "физиологические формы общества: как формы, вытекающие из естественной необходимости самого производства и не зависящие от воли, политики и т. д." Государство, правительство, рассматривалось как чуждый элемент, т. е., как неэкономический элемент. Что же тогда, представляет собой экономика, "командная экономика", что управляется лишь правительственными законами, то есть политическими законами? Безразлично что и как, она не есть экономическая "система"; или, скорее, она есть химеричная "экономическая система". В современной экономической науке, или скорее экономиксе, то, что считалось неэкономическим, или чуждым тому, что есть экономическое, становится экономическим существом, способным порождать по крайней мере две экономические системы, "смешанную" и "несмешанную". Таким путём, политический строй или порядок претворён в "экономическую систему"—в добавочный экономический ИЗМ—т. е., в систему равновеликую с экономической системой как капитализм.

Всё-таки, не мешало бы внимательнее заглянуть в термин "этатизм", чтобы понять что есть собственно то, что он предназначен означать (или, сказать прямо, какую бессмыслицу он собой представляет). В том виде, в каком он обычно является, термин этот не может означать что-нибудь реальное; в лучшем случае, он может означать лишь то, что не может существовать. Как ни тоталитарно его содержание, он сам по себе смысла не содержит. Ему предписано означать вымышленное внеэкономическое нечто, тотально политическое, тотально неэкономическое. Потому он и пишется именно таким образом. "Этат-изм" равнозначен чистому политическому Изму, и точно равнозначен политической системе, существующей вне и без всякой экономической системы.

Итак, такова логика "этатизма", или точнее, "этатистской теории" "социализма" и "коммунизма". Как понятия, "этат-изм" и политический Изм тождественны, то есть, "этатизм" значит то, что есть политическая система, политическое учреждение. Что же является общественно-экономической основой "этатизма"? Общественно-экономическая основа "этатизма" есть не что иное, как "социализм", "коммунизм". Что такое "социализм"? Что такое "коммунизм"? Они не что иное, как то, что оказывается тождественным "этатизму". Так, общественно-экономическая основа "этатизма" есть нечто иное, как сам "этатизм". "Этатизм" значит, что всё общественное существование есть политическое существование, и ничего нет в обществе в качестве системы, кроме того, что есть политическая система; и если, как твердят, "этатизм и коммунизм экономически тождественны", утверждение, что коммунизм есть экономическая система, утверждает нелепость. Теоретически коммунизм всегда был мыслим только как неэкономическая, неполитическая формация. О "коммунизме" другого рода и речи не было. Да и никакой коммунизм никогда не был историческим фактом по крайней мере после появления того, что мы называем цивилизацией.

Это случилось, пожалуй, только в двадцатом веке, когда коммунизм и социализм оказались как-то тождественными этатизму. Однако, не видно никакой возможности сделать из "этатизма" термин, означающий экономическую систему; или запретить этому этатизму означать внеэкономический, политический порядок; поэтому, невозможно помешать тому, что тождественно этатизму, быть таким же политическим порядком. Следовательно, то, что узаконено означать коммунизм, есть не что иное, как политическое существо.

Не стоит забывать следующий вопрос: что образует основу этатистского политического порядка или учреждения? Или же, что есть то, что сосуществует с этим внеэкономическим порядком или учреждением? Перед нами политическое существо, режим, правительство, государство, которое основано на том, что оказывается не чем иным, как самим собой и сосуществует только с самим собой. Оно есть, по сути, правительство, что существует от себя и для себя, и которому, господин Людвиг фон Мизес дал звание "Всемогущего Правительства". Но, короче говоря, оно есть правительство или государство, которое висит в воздухе. Так, если вспомнить утверждение, что коммунизм, или социализм, есть "экономическая система, что основана на правительственной собственности средств производства", не трудно представить себе "экономическую систему", основанную на правительстве, что само висит в воздухе.

По сути дела, экономисты требуют от нормальных людей принятия за нечто возможное сказки, что некий политический порядок или строй способен существовать, и продолжать существование даже и там, где нет никакой экономической системы. Те, которые охотно верят в возможность такого рода объективной реальности, есть также те, которые верят в чудо "ликвидированного капитализма", и те, которые верят в такое чудо, верят также в чудо "возрождённого капитализма". Рассказ о том, как "всемогущие правительства", свершали чудодеяние "упразднённого капитализма" путём замены этой экономической системы политическим порядком, является, на самом деле, одним из основных пунктов догматики двадцатого столетия, и это то столетие, которое видело человека стоящим ногами на почве, что поэтам до тех пор сияла как луна. На таком уровне сознания своих исторических актов, человечество готово вступить в следующее, т. е., двадцать первое столетие.

Вступление в следующее столетие не требует чудес; просто сила календарная может это свершить. Здесь нас, скорее, интересует следующее: есть ли в сегодняшем мире такая вещь, как экономическая наука? Если есть, то что является объектом её научного исследования, или же её предметом изучения? Есть ли это нечто экономическое, или нечто политическое? Современный экономикс оказывается формой экономической науки, которая занята игрой с чудесами—не только с такими, как Японское экономическое чудо, но и с политическими, совершёнными теми, что ныне знатно как "политическая элита".

Так, имеется ряд земномирских чудес двадцатого столетия, с которыми сегодняшняя эконаука может забавляться: во-первых, чудо "упразднённого капитализма", то есть, чудо замены экономической системы политическим строем без всякой экономической системы; во-вторых, чудо незаметного крушения того, что всегда отсутствовало и никогда не существовало; наконец, чудо воскресения из небытия того, что всегда было и никогда не прекращало своего существования. Однако, пусть это будет пока так, как оно есть.

А между тем, вот что, например, сказано в некоторых словарях насчёт термина "синкретизм". Синкретизм значит неорганическое смешение разнородных, противоположных элементов и т. п. Короче говоря, синкретизм есть, так сказать, нечто смешанное, смешанное как в "смешанной экономике". В то же время, история термина говорит о его значении как объединения двух противоположных сил против третьей силы, то есть, единый фронт двух противоположных лагерей против общего врага. Современная эконаука, наука "смешанной экономики", оказывается этим синкретизмом, то есть, единным фронтом против общего врага. Так что же является общим врагом? Общим врагом оказывается историческая истина, историческая наука.

В начале этого предисловия было обещано именовать вещи своими именами. Это то, что надо сейчас сделать. Надлежащие имена для того, что дурно или безмозгло именуется как "социализм", "коммунизм", командная экономика, и так далее, есть государственно-монополистический капитализм, этатизированный капитализм, капиталистический этатизм, или короче, госкапитализм. Госкапитализм, капиталистический этатизм не может существовать, если не существует капитализм, и если экономическая система, которая существует, не есть капитализм.

Теоретики этатизма настаивают на проповедовании что, социализм и этатизм тождественны. В то же самое время, они проповедуют, что социализм есть экономическая система. Но надо быть безмозглым, чтобы не видеть, что если социализм и этатизм тождественны, то социализм есть не что иное, как политическая система. Кроме того, надо ещё быть таким-же мозгастым, чтобы верить в существование внеполитического этатизма; или, верить в существование политической системы, существующей при отсутствии и без всякой экономической системы. Каковы не были бы отношения между двумя системами, политическими и экономическими, они, эти системы, должны, необходимым образом, сосуществовать. Какая же экономическая система та, которая сосуществует с тем, что должно считаться этатизмом? Эта система есть "социализм". Но, "социализм" есть то, что есть этатизм. Следовательно, сосуществование социализма с этатизмом есть тоже самое что и сосуществование этатизма с этатизмом. К несчатью, не видно такой экономической школы, которая могла бы заставить какую-нибудь систему сосуществовать единственно сама с собой.

Современная эконаука, "наука смешанной экономики", никак не желает признать, что нелепые уравнения—"социализм" есть этатизм; командная экономика есть "коммунизм"—действительно нелепы. Всё равно, нет такой "трезвой экономической науки" в обществе или в природе, которая могла бы показать, что положения, основанные на этих "уравнениях", как-то могут быть научными. Простая истина гласит, что политически дурно управляемый капитализм есть капитализм, и не что иное, как капитализм. При этом, современная эконаука стоит перед несносной проблемой, а именно, установить факт существенного различия между политически дурно управляемым капитализмом—то есть то, что есть госкапитализм—и тем, что плутоумно требуется означать социализм или коммунизм. Между тем, по правилам нормального мышления, когда государство доходит до, скажем, наглого захвата капиталистических средств производства, то не капитализм становится социализмом; напротив, государство становится капиталистом—то есть, совокупным, коллективным капиталистом.

Этатизм должен сосуществовать; он не может существовать одиноко,—в себе, от себя и для себя. Этатизм необходимо должен быть или социалистическим этатизмом, или же капиталистическим этатизмом. Мнимо социалистический этатизм есть то же самое, что и этатистский этатизм, и так, является формой нелепости. Действительный социализм, напротив, предполагает отсутствие государства, то есть всякого "этатизма". Короче, социализм,—ни мнимый, ни истинный,—не может быть экономической системой, сосуществующей с этатизмом. Единственная экономическая система, которая могла бы сосуществовать с политической системой этатизма, есть как раз капитализм. В отличие от сосуществования социализма с этатизмом, сосуществование капитализма с этатизмом не может оказаться нелепостью сосуществования этатизма с этатизмом. Капитализм есть то, что есть экономическая система; этатизм есть то, что есть политический порядок. Сосуществование между ними значит сосуществование между тем, что есть экономическое и тем, что есть политическое; то есть, оно не оказывается нелепостью существа, сосуществующего с самим собой. Так, термин "этатизм" может иметь некий смысл только в том случае, если он значит этатизм на основе капитализма, то есть как капиталистический этатизм. Это и есть, в самом деле, то, что было сказано уже: правильные термины суть государственно-монополистический капитализм, капиталистический этатизм, этатизированный капитализм, или просто, госкапитализм.

Далее, госкапитализм, капиталистический этатизм, не может существовать, если не существует капитализм. Госкапитализм есть капиталистический этатизм. Он не является экономической системой сам по себе. Единственная экономическая система есть капитализм. Госкапитализм, капиталистический этатизм, есть не что иное, как экономическая политика государства или правительства. Капитализм не мыслим вне классового общества; классовое общество не мыслимо без классового господства. Так, госкапитализм есть форма классового господства; он не есть общественно-экономическая формация.

Общественно-экономическая формация, или экономическая формация общества, есть категория исторического материализма, то есть марксизма. Марксизм учит, что общественно-экономическая формация есть форма классового существования человеческой рабочей силы, то есть, существования этой силы как класса, точнее, в форме экономического класса. Соответственно, когда человеческая рабочая сила существует как класс рабов, или как рабский класс, то общественно-экономическая формация, которая при этом существует, есть рабство. Когда человеческая рабочая сила существует как крепостной крестьянский класс, то общественно-экономическая формация, которая при этом существует, есть крепостничество. Когда же человеческая рабочая сила существует как экономический класс рабочего люда, как рабочий класс, то общественно-экономическая формация, которая при этом существует, есть капитализм. Капитализм есть историческая форма существования рабочего люда как экономического класса, как рабочего класса, и капитализм есть единственная форма существования рабочего люда как экономического класса, как рабочего класса. Существование рабочего класса в общественном масштабе означает капитализм, и никакой другой экономической формации оно означать не может. Ещё раз: ни какой рабочий класс как класс существовать не может, если капитализм отсутствует, то есть, если существует посткапитализм. Более того, пока рабочий класс существует, капитализм, неуправлямый, управлямый, или дурно управлямый, есть капитализм, и разные учреждения, разные графики, диаграммы и кривые, его отменить не могут. Это так с точки зрения марксизма; и нет сомнения, что с этой точки зрения, некапиталистическая форма существования рабочего класса есть не что иное, как лже-понятие наглой фальши. В самом деле, не взирая на то, что право или, что не право, всю противоположность между тем, что есть марксизм и тем, что есть анти-марксизм, можно свести к противоположности между двумя точками зрения, точкой зрения тех, которые владеют средствами производства и точкой зрения тех, которые не владеют, но приводят в действие средства производства, которыми владеют не они, а другие. Так, с точки зрения людей, которые владеют средствами производства, если владельцы средствами производства различны, то существующие экономические системы тоже различны, несмотря на то, что люди, которые приводят в действие средства производства и сами средства производства не различны. С точки зрения людей, которые приводят в действие средства производства не владея ими, если средства производства и люди, которые приводят их в действие, те же, то существующие экономические системы, не различны, несмотря на различность владельцев средств производства. Первая точка зрения оказывается точкой зрения не-людского, материального состава производительных сил; вторая точка зрения оказывается точкой зрения людского состава производительных сил.

В дальнейщих частях текста этой работы, уделяется внимание различению между двумя, синонимично кажущимися, терминами, означающими две формы анти-марксизма, которым всё ещё удаётся злоупотреблять именем марксизма. Подразумеваются самозванный марксизм и лжемарксизм. Для примитивного, отъявленного анти-марксизма такое различение находится вне зрения, но серьёзно изучающему политическую историю века оно должно иметь значение.

Самозванный марксизм есть форма анти-марксизма, которая заключается в подмене категорий марксизма понятиями анти-марксизма при удержании голого имени марксизма. Лжемарксизм, с другой стороны, есть форма анти-марксизма, которая заключается в присвоении категорий марксизма с целью их злоупотребления в интересах анти-марксизма. Самозванный марксизм заключается в замене содержания марксизма и в злоупотреблении именем марксизма; лжемарксизм заключается в злоупотреблении самого содержания марксизма. При самозванном марксизме, марксистская категория классового господства экономического класса заменяется антимарксистским лжепонятием "классового" господства бюрократии. При лжемарксизме, происходит подмена классового господства одного экономического класса классовым господством другого экономического класса. В частности, при лжемарксизме, классовое господство крестьянского класса фальшиво именуется и преподносится как классовое господство рабочего класса.¹⁰

Термином "анти-марксизм" здесь также обозначается образ мышления, который заключается, прежде всего, в отрицании марксистского взгляда на историю, в особенности на новейщую историю, а именно, взгляда, что история не есть то, что делается бюрократами или "политической элитой"; а, что она есть то, что является как деяния наций, в то время, как деяния наций есть то, что делается господствующими экономическими классами. В общем, анти-марксизм заключается в отрицании марксисткого положения, что господствующим классом может быть только экономический класс; что экономическим классом может считаться лишь та часть общества, которая состоит из агентов производства, то есть из тех членов общества, которые или владеют средствами производства, или приводят в действие средства производства не владея ими, или же, в одно и тоже время, и владеют средствами производства и сами приводят в действие свои средства производства.

Между прочим, американцам, то есть свободным республиканцам, нечего бы заходить далеко, если им надобно иметь понятие экономического класса; им нечего советоваться с грудой писанины царистской нечисти. Шестнадцатый Президент этой Республики оставил очень хорошее описание экономических классов Американского общества времён до начала Гражданской Войны. Не мешало бы напомнить читателям о том, что Линкольн говорил по этому поводу не раз, а два раза, ранее, в 1859 году, повторив тоже самое позднее, в 1861 году:

Некоторое число людей владеет капиталом, и они, эти люди, избегают труд и вместо того, чтобы самим трудиться, своим капиталом нанимают или покупают некоторое число других людей, чтобы эти люди трудились бы для них, то есть, для тех, кто их нанимает или покупает. Огромное большинство не принадлежит ни одному из этих классов, то есть, они не трудятся для других, и в тоже время, не нанимают и не покупают других людей, которые должны трудиться для них. В большей части Южных Штатов, большинство людей всяких рас не состоит ни из рабов, ни из господ. В то время, как на Севере, большинство людей не состоит ни из тех, которые нанимают, ни из тех, которых нанимают. Семьи людей—мужья, жёны, сыновья, дочери—работают для и за себя на своих фермах, в своих домах, в своих хозяйствах, присваивая себе весь продукт своего труда, не требуя услуг ни от капитала, с одной стороны, ни от наёмных рабочих, ни от рабов, с другой стороны. Не надо забывать, что определённое число людей, смешивает свой собственный труд с капиталом, то есть, они трудятся собственными руками и также покупают или нанимают других, которые должны трудиться для них; но, это только смешанный, а не отличный от других класс. Существование этого смешанного класса не влияет на принцип, который был констатирован выше. (Перевод сделан нами).

Так, по Линкольну, свободное, то есть нерабское общество состояло бы из следующих четырёх экономических классов:

Во-первых, класс тех трудящихся, которые не работают для других, и в то же время, не принуждают других работать для них; во-вторых, класс тех трудящихся, которые работают своими собственными руками и, в то же время, пользуются наёмным трудом других; в-третьих, класс тех, которые вообще избегают труд и нанимают других, принуждая их работать для них; в-четвёртых, класс тех трудящихся, которые нанимаются, чтобы работать для других.

Что касается продукта труда, первый класс есть класс тех, которые присваивают весь продукт как продукт своего собственного труда. Второй класс, смешанный класс, есть класс тех, которые присваивают продукт своего собственного труда и также присваивают часть продукта труда тех рабочих, которые работают для них. Третий класс, класс избегающих труд, есть класс тех, которые делят продукт труда других между собой и теми рабочими, которые работают для них. Четёртый класс есть класс наёмных рабочих, то есть тех, которые, вместо того, чтобы присваивать весь продукт своего собственного труда, присваивают только часть продукта своего собственного труда. Вслед за этим, не мешало бы понять, кого, по Линкольну, надлежало бы считать производителем всего продукта.

Трудновато догадаться, что именно собой представляет то, что так умно именуется как "современная социальная теория", но исторической науке,—если такая вещь существует ныне,—не стоило бы пренебрегать мыслями такого человека, как Линкольн. Дело в том, что республиканский Президент Гражданской Войны теперь является только величественной тенью славных лет прошлого века; зато, вместо Линкольнского республиканизма, невежественное лицо современности двадцатого столетия образуется Царе-республиканизмом под духовным водительством дурацкого пророка монархов России, анти-Американца до мозга костей своих царистских.

Пред тем, как закончить это предисловие, надо ещё сказать несколько слов о различии, которое здесь считается важным. Речь идёт о различии между двумя терминами, между термином "антиреволюция" и термином "контрреволюция".¹¹ Вопрос о различии между ними не кажется сложным и его можно изложить сперва кратко. Антиреволюция есть предреволюционное явление; зато, контрреволюция есть явление послереволюционное. Контрреволюция есть то, что возникает после свершения революции; антиреволюция заключается в усилии не допустить свершения революции. Антиреволюция есть фронтальный враг революции; контрреволюция есть враг в тылу, тыловой враг революции. Как это различие образовано морфологически менее важно; однако, оно является определённой семантемой и должно быть принятым во внимание, должно получить некую форму высказывания. Не очень-то было бы умно огулом обозначать, например, А. Гитлера, Фюрера, и Вильгельма, Кайзера Германии, одним и тем же термином "контрреволюционер". Различие между ними оказывается слишком важным, чтобы оставить его лексически незначимым. Поэтому, в этой работе, то, что отрицается свершённой революцией, определяется как антиреволюция; а то, что отрицает свершённую революцию, определяется как контрреволюция.

Ещё важнее, однако, видеть, что термины как "антиреволюция", "революция", и "контрреволюция", имеют значение только в том случае, если их понимать как политические усилия экономических классов в их борьбе класса против класса; и что это и есть то, что есть сама политическая борьба и, поэтому, есть борьба за государственную власть. Логика революций есть логика исторической борьбы классов, и её понимание невозможно без учёта конкретных исторических ситуаций, в которых оказываются борющиеся классы.

Примечания

1. Термин "стейтизм" (государственный-изм) многократно употребляется теми, кто довольно чванно именуют себя как "объективисты". Господин Л. фон Мизес, один из главных экономистов Австрииской Школы, предпочитает употреблять термин с французской основой—"этатизм". Оба, собственно, твердят одно и тоже, а именно, что социализм и этатизм есть одно и тоже. Вообще, антисоциалистическим теоретикам никак не хватает ума спросить себя следующее: почему система должна называтся этатизмом, если она не является политической системой? Или, почему система должна называтся социализмом, если она является политической системой? Кроме того, почему система должна называтся капитализмом, если она не является экономической системой? И, почему система должна называтся социализмом если она является экономической системой?

2. Термин "плановая экономика" или "плановая национальная экономика" есть, на деле, один из безмозглых терминов двадцатого столетия, даже если он не употреблялся бы по-мошенически. Никто не говорил о "плановой экономике", пока лжесоциалисты сего столетия, то есть такие как Сталинисты или Гитлеристы, не начали бы бахвальски именовать свою гоночную экономику плановой. Такого рода "плановая" экономика существует не иначе, как часть мирового рынка. То, о чём говорили или писали, была не плановая "экономика", а плановое производство, и это считалось возможным только после исчезновения мирового рынка. Существование такого экономического сектора как военная индустрия уже указывает на факт, что производство, вместо того, чтобы быть "плановым", подчиняется законам хаоса мирового рынка. Так, Господин Л. фон Мизес, в этом отношении, пожалуй, был прав, когда писал: "эти две социалистические системы"—то есть одна в России и другая в Германии—"работали и работают в мире, большая часть которого всё ещё придерживается рыночной экономики. Правители этих социалистических государств основывают свои рассчёты, соответственно которым они принимают свои решения, на цены, что устанавливаются во внешнем мире. Без посредства этих цен, дела этих государств оказались бы бесцельными и бесплановыми. Только по мере соответствия с внешней системой цен, они в состоянии рассчитывать и приготавливать свои планы".

3. Между прочим, одно преступление, в котором нацистов, то есть национал социалистов Германии, ни как не обвинить, это в разрушении экономики Германии, посредством какого то искусства "экономического разрушительства", или другого тайнственного искусства. Напротив, исторический факт гласит, что экономика Германии разваливалась как раз пред тем, как нацисты пришли к власти, и они могли прийти к власти потому, что экономика Германии разваливалась. Более того, нацисты оказались единственной партией, которая была в состоянии установить некий порядок в экономике Германии. Во всяком случае, исторически случилось так, что экономика Германии не разрушалась какой-то сказкой "экономического разрушительства"; она была разрушена потому, что Германия сама была разрушена, не путём какого-то "разрушительства", а обыкновенным путём обыкновенной мировой войны; прежде всего, военным усилием правительства США, то есть бомбами этого правительства; и никто не знает, не был ли этот обыкновенный путь единственным к избавлению мира от нацистской дьявольщины.

4. Несколько лет тому назад, в одной телевизионной программе, один из её участников, выразил, в Бодлэревском настроении, свою мысль следующим образом: "проблема двадцатого века не есть капитализм или социализм; проблема состоит в скуке". Участник, видимо, не знал, как завершить свою мысль. Проблема состояла в скуке быть одураченным дураками.

5. Сколько экономических систем обхватывает то, что славится как "смешанная экономика", не кажется пустым вопросом. "Смешанная экономика" является, собственно, спектром целого ряда экономических систем, например, таких, как: "чистый" капитализм или "лессэ фэр" экономика; "уелфэр социализм" или социалистическая экосистема капитализма; "рыночный социализм" или капиталистическая экосистема социализма; и, социализм "чистый" или "командная экономика". Вот, если кому-нибудь захотелось бы сделать графически видимой актуальность "нашей смешанной экономики", то можно было бы подсказать мысль представить себе Манхаттан как сеть социалистических улиц и капиталистических проспектов.

6. Кроме того, война прекращает капитализм. Во время войны капитализм становится "упразднённым капитализмом"; вслед за этим, после окончания войны, он восстанавливается как "возрождённый капитализм". В самом деле, военная индустрия не является более капиталистической индустрией; капитализм пресекается и отсутствует во время войны, ибо, существует существенное тождество между военной индустрией и контролем цен. Отсутствие капитализма значит присутствие другой экономической системы; эта экономическая система должна быть и есть социализм.

7. Вдобавок, подумав повторно, становится яснее, что иметь "социализм" как "альтернативную экономическую систему", как "интервенционизм", или как "экономическое разрушительство", даже выгодно; ибо, если этому мнимому социализму позволить быть тем, что он есть, а именно, политическая система или порядок, то тогда единственной экономической системой существующей в этом мире был бы капитализм. Капитализм остался бы одиноким там, в суровом мире, без оппозиции, без всякого соперничества; и, все проблемы этого мира, и все последствия этого столетия, стали бы проблемами и последствиями капитализма и только капитализма. Конечно, всегда можно винить во всём "всемогущее правительство", но, во-первых всемогущее правительство—это тоже самое, что "социализм", и во-вторых, не исчезает проблема объяснить всемогущество "всемогущего правительства". Господин Л. фон Мизес, автор книги "Всемогущее Правительство" наговорил вдоволь по поводу всемогущества и возвышения тотального государства, но объяснить ничего не смог. Между тем, как давным-давно было сказано, "главная организующая сила анархически построенного капиталистического общества есть национальный и интернациональный рынок". Тоталитаризм этой силы, тоталитаризм тотального рынка, выглядит более значительным, чем тоталитарной болтологией монополизированный тоталитаризм "тотального государства". Даже в следующей беседе с "гулящей" можно найти нечто поучительное для обсуждения вопроса рыночного тоталитаризма.

"Всё на свете имеет свою цену—всё. Она? Она—шлюха. Я—не шлюха. Я—проститутка; я имею свою цену; я продаю что-то; я получаю плату. Никто не может получить то, что у меня есть—бесплатно.

А что у вас есть?

Ну, Вы знаете, что у меня есть. Моё тело. И оно имеет цену.

И что вы делаете, чтобы получить эту цену?

Ну, вам известно что я делаю…

Вы даёте мужщине делать то, что он хочет; вы даёте ему пользоваться вашим телом…

Как?

Иметь с вами половое сношение…

Так…Чаще всего.

В этом и состоит ваша работа.

Да. Скажем, это и есть моя работа.

А вы когда-нибудь имеете сношение когда вы спите?

Может быть…Не помню. Возможно.

Ну вот, женщина может иметь половое сношение с мужчиной даже когда она спит, во время сна, дурмана, отравленная наркотиками. Вы знаете, что мужчина может усыпить женщину какими-то средствами и иметь сношение с ней, когда она спит.

Ну?

Ну, значит, работа, каторую вы выполняете, не требует никакого сознания, никакого усилия. С другой стороны, мужщина не может быть спящим и свершать половой акт; без сознания и без усилия, он не может делать то, чего он хочет.

Ну, и что-же?

Мужщина должен исполнять; его сексуальная работа требует сознания и усилия. Если вам положено получать плату и цену за вашу сексуальную работу, которую вы можете выполнять даже во время сна, почему же он не должен получать свою плату и цену за свою сексуальную работу?

А потому что он ничего не продаёт. Не он продаёт—я продаю. Я должна получать свою плату, свою цену. На самом деле, мне всё равно—работа, не работа. Всё, что продаётся имеет свою цену. Всё на свете имеет свою цену. Я продаю, я должна получать свою цену.

Ясно. На самом деле, работа здесь ни при чём. У вас есть собственность, ваше драгоценное тело; это—ваш талант. Для чего вам работать, когда вы имеете готовый товар, который вы можете продавать, то есть сдавать в прокат и получать за это плату?

Итак, всё на свете имеет свою цену; а это значит, что всякая собственность есть товар. Проститутка продаёт товар, свою собственность, своё тело. Рабочий продаёт товар, свою рабочую силу. Ведь есть, кажется, и такое древнепочётное мнение, что не только рабочие продают свою рабочую силу капиталисту, но и капиталист продаёт, или сдаёт в прокат, рабочим свою собственность, то есть то, что он имеет, а именно, свои средства производства, и за это получает плату. Всё это по законам логики тоталитаризма тотального рынка, который может оказаться более тотальным, чем тоталитаризм тотального государства. Закон всеобщей продажности, всеобщей коррупции, есть закон рыночного тоталитаризма. Рыночный тоталитаризм—это "время, когда всё, всякая вещь, духовная или физическая" (всё душевное или телесное), "сделавшись меновой стоимостью, выносится на рынок". Рыночный тоталитаризм—это "последняя фаза обмена, меновая стоимость в её третьей степени".

8. Вот, например, что появилось в прессе как бы откровение одного из "командующего экономикой" чиновника: "Мы испытываем трудности в определении нашей экономической системы. Мы пробуем ряд экспериментов. Удачные эксперименты мы назовём социализмом; неудачные—капитализмом". Это звучит как глупая шутка. Глупая она есть, но не только шутка. Как ни как, она показывает какой "командой" над своей экономикой владеет мозгастый бюрократ. "Командовать" он может только своим языком, злоупотребляя средствами человеческой семантики. Ряд удачных экспериментов может значить только—капитализм; поэтому капитализм должен быть переименован как "социализм", или даже как "коммунизм". С другой стороны, господа современной эконауки ничего другого не знают делать, как принимать слова всякого лжесоциалистического бюрократа за "модель представления действительности".

9. Невозможно не заметить, что в антисоциалистическом лагере прибегают к сверхсерьёзным потугам определить капитализм в смысле неэкономическом, т.е., как нечто неэкономическое; иначе говоря, не как то, что есть экономика, а скорее то, что должно делаться, например, правительством. Вдобавок, кто-то (по всей вероятности Мисс Еин Ранд, которая вообразила, что, она, Голивудская сценаристка, создала совершенно "новую философскую систему объективизма") постарался, сперва, определить капитализм просто путём произношения притяжательного местоимения "моё". Это оказалось недостаточным. Так, видимо, пришлось признаться, что "к несчастью нет вполне ясной и всеми признанной дефиниции капитализма". Естественно, ибо не легко ведь дать определение, например, трактора, или грузовика, как средство производства, сказав просто: "мой трактор, мой грузовик". С другой стороны, недурное понятие трактора, или грузовика, как средств производства, можно получить сравнив их с верблюдом, или с мулом, различая их от последних, как средств производства. И, сравнение должно выявить факт, что, будучи продуктом индустриального труда, трактор, или грузовик, как средство производства, несмотря на его принадлежность "мне", или государству, своим присутствием указывает на то, что существующее общество есть капиталистическое общество, и никак не другое; в то время, как верблюд, или мул, как средство производства, будучи продуктом сельскохозяйственного, доиндустриального труда, несмотря на его принадлежность "мне", или государству, своим присутствием указывает только на то, что капитализм должен ещё появиться и неизбежно появится. Ещё можно добавить, что замена—в национальном масштабе—тракторов и грузовиков верблюдами и мулами не мыслима, в то время, как замена последних тракторами и грузовиками не только мыслима, но и неизбежна. Это так, ибо производственные силы находятся, и должны находиться в постоянном действии; это и есть то, что делает приход капитализма неизбежным. Так, капитализм есть способ производства, который состоит в применении средств производства особого рода, а именно, такого, которого глаз человека не видел до появления капитализма в истории людского рода. Не ошибочно, поэтому, считать эти средства производства капиталистическими средствами производства. Между тем, приходится удивляться, почему что-нибудь должно называться капитализмом, если оно не есть то, что есть экономическое; или, почему кто-нибудь должен быть до такой степени безмозглым, чтобы до потения стараться сделать из капитализма нечто вроде неэкономического капитализма. Ведь всем известно, что капитал есть сумма денег, которых вложили, чтобы получить прибыль. Всякий бизнесмэн должен, пожалуй, знать, что такое капитал.

10. Мелкое крестьянство экономически задавленный класс. Классовое господство капиталистического класса составляет целую эпоху; классовое господство мелкого крестьянства возможно только как переходный период, переходный от капиталистической трансформации к капиталистической эволюции. Классовое господство не есть господство одной личности или нескольких личностей; классовое господство значит, что господствует вся политически централизованная совокупность класса. Совокупность классовых интересов экономического класса находит своё олицетворение и овеществление в соответствующем образе политической формации.

11. Следующие слова, например, хорошо известны, и писались они самим Л. Д. Троцким: "В то время как антиреволюционные стороны меньшевизма сказываются во всей силе уже теперь, антиреволюционные черты большевизма грозят огромной опасностью только в случае революционной победы". Победа революции означала бы, что то, что было антиреволюционным потерпело поражение. Почему, в этом случае, "огромная опасность", возникшая после победоносной революции, должна всё ещё быть антиреволюционной, вместо того, чтобы быть контрреволюционной?

=========================

Дело социальной республики

E-mail: enggerbooks2000@yahoo.com

Je5117@yahoo.com

====================================================================

The cause of the social republic

Theses on the question of global anti-Marxism

1. The latest form of anti-Marxism is anti-Globalism. As a trend anti-Globalism is first of all anti-Marxism.

2. Anti-Marxism has the habit of appearing in three ways: as antirevolutionary anti-Marxism, as counterrevolutionary anti-Marxism, and as a blend of both. In other words, anti-Marxism appears as bourgeois, as petty-bourgeois, and as anti-Marxism of the declassee, i.e., of those marginal parts of the decaying society that are not capable of having their own class stand point.

3. But anti-Marxism has also a villainous habit of appearing as fake-Marxism, and fake-Marxism, in turn, has the habit of appearing as self-styled Marxism and as pseudo-Marxism. Self-styled Marxism is incapable of having its own class stand point. Pseudo-Marxism is the formulation of the standpoint of a petty-possessing class mendaciously presented as the formulation of the standpoint of the non-possessing class.

4. The struggle against Marxism is in essence identical with the struggle against historical materialism and that struggle rotates around the Marxist concept of the state power.

5. Anti-Marxism (bourgeois and petty-bourgeois) preaches that the state power is the power of the people. Anti-Marxism of the declassee preaches that the state power is the power of the bureaucracy.

6. Marxism claims that the state power is always the power of an economic class. The bureaucratically equipped state power is always the power of a possessing class.

7. Anti-Marxism preaches: The state ownership of the means of production means that the bureaucracy is the owner of the means of production because the state is the owner of the means of production.

8. Marxism claims: The bureaucracy cannot be the owner of the means of production precisely because the state is the owner of the means of production. The state ownership means that whatever is owned is owned by the totality of the ruling economic class.

9. Stalinism, the most harmful kind of anti-Marxism, burglarized Marxism, disfigured the theory so as to make it unrecognizable, turned the name of Marxism into a ritualistic mask of anti-Marxism. Obliteration of Stalinism and of all its remnants is a historical necessity. The interests of the political movement of the working class inexorably require this. Generally, it is well known in historical science—historical examples are not lacking—that the post-revolutionary restoration on the basis of the peasant counterrevolution creates circumstances for the rising to the office of state power of all kinds of reptiles like Stalin or Beria, and the others.

10. The Social-Chauvinists of post-Stalin Russia have had created another brainless term—“cult of personality”—to conceal the shadow of the Emperor-Caesar of the second (i.e., post-revolutionary) Russian Empire. Meanwhile, the party of the rear enemies of the great proletarian revolution still exists, still breaths into the air the endless falsehood, and still has the brass to call itself “communist”. Stalinist pseudo-Marxism had the beastly nerve to call itself “creative Marxism”; had the asinine impudence to “replace” the theory of the economic revolution of the proletariat with the peasant-brained asininity of “BUILDING SOCIALISM” without any economic revolution of the proletariat; it had the asinine impudence to “revise” the theory of the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat by the animalist idiocy of “elimination” of capitalism by way of merely overthrowing an insignificant class (the class that never held any monopoly in any market), the insignificant Russian bourgeoisie. The beastly chauvinistic fauna of the Stalinist bureaucracy never had, and does not have, any idea of the significance of its crimes against the international working class.

11.The world-historical fact is that the so-called Soviet Union was saved by the capitalist states, the capitalist America and the capitalist England. In other words, the incontrovertible fact is that the so-called Soviet Union was saved by the international capital. No historical science can ever be scientific if it tries to conceal that fact. Besides, the war of the nazi Germany was the war of the German nation against the reigning part of the international capital, and in this worldwide war, the so-called Soviet Union was on the side of the international capital, that is, it was an ally of capitalist America and capitalist England.

12.The historical period since the disintegration of the Stalinistic monolith should be identified as the natural-historical process of the transition from the natural economy (Naturwirtschaft) to money economy (Geldwirtschaft). In other word, it should be viewed as a natural-historical process of the replacement of a peasantized bureaucracy as the vanguard of the collectivity of the peasant class by the pre-bourgeois kleptocracy and, in turn, of the replacement of that kleptocracy by the bourgeois bureaucracy as the vanguard of the collective bourgeois.

13.The political movement of the working class is extinct; it has been long non-existent. Moreover, the agents of the petty-possessing classes and the declassee elements of society have robbed this moment of its theoretical arsenal. This historical fact of worldwide dimensions makes everything else irrelevant. It means that the capitalist class, the economically dominant class of modern class-divided society, is at present unassailable; it means that the globalization of the class rule of the capitalist class historically necessary, progressive, and hence, inevitable; it means that the destruction of all the political formations of all classes that stand between the working class and its social class antagonist is necessary and unavoidable. Acceleration of the ruin of all the intermediate strata of the possessing classes is in direct interest of the working class. All in all, the globalization must necessarily create all circumstances for the reemergence of the political movement of the working class. The supreme task of the vanguard of the working class would be to keep under relentless fire all the non-proletarian enemies of the social enemy of the working class, its class antagonist.

14.Anti-globalism does appear as global anti-Americanism and that is nothing but the manifestation of global chauvinism. Meanwhile, Lenin states that “no Marxist is supposed to forget that imperialism is progressive as compared to pre-monopoly capitalism; and that means that it is not every kind of struggle against imperialism that we are supposed to support. We will NOT support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will NOT support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism”. In short, anti-globalism is supposed to be understood as an effort to de-centralize already centralized capital, and that is what makes up the economic content of the struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism, and more exactly, against American imperialism.

15.Anti-globalism as the counterrevolutionary movement of global chauvinists is the cause of the perishing possessing classes, and hence, is an anti-proletarian cause. Meanwhile, the globalization appears to be the final stage of capitalistic progress. The resistance to that progress (there is no other progress on this planet) is not the business of the working class. The cause of the working class, the cause of social republic, is the cause of transforming capitalistic progress into the revolutionary process of the permanent destruction of economic classes. Precisely the destruction of all political formations of the perishing intermediate possessing classes and their ruination is bound to lead to the global revolutionary situation.

16.The brainless interference of zoological tribalism and bestial separatism on the road of the movement toward the completion of formation of the world order of self-determined nations can only temporarily delay this movement toward the obliteration of the entire class-divided society. This delay makes up the deed of all the enemies of the working class and its political movement.

17.National Bolshevism—what sort of animal is that again? It sounds like a winged dog, or rather, like a winged bitch. It appears to be a “bolshevist” nationalism, even “bolshevistic” chauvinism; and that is a winged bitch, or simply some sort of bat. To make it plain, National Bolshevism is another grimace of global anti-Marxism. Exactly and more clearly, national Bolshevism is anti-Bolshevism, is anti-internationalism, and is anti-Marxism.

18.In short, anti-Globalism (or anti-Globalisationism), National Bolshevism, Islamism, Separatism—these are all the animals of the same zoo, the same camp, the camp of the enemies of the working class and its political movement.

19. As to the Georgian nation, the frontiers of the territory of that “bete noire” nation had been established by what was termed as the treaty of friendship between the revolutionary Russia and the revolutionary Georgia. A ”revision” of these frontiers has been an act of anti-revolution perpetrated by the enemies of the working class, Russian as well as global.

20.The Georgian nation is supposed to “disappear” but disappear it shall not, of course, the way as it is imagined in the brains of the vilest enemies of Lenin and Leninist Russia; not the way that is wished by Zhirnogolovskys, Zhirnomozgovskys, and Zhirimitrofanushkis.

21.No guess work is needed to know whom Lenin would mean if he were to write today his following words: “a true Russian Man, great-Russian chauvinist, a villain and a man of violence, great-Russian derzhimorda, typical Russian bureaucrat.”

22.Today this chauvinistic scoundrels are trying to enforce the line of Louis-Napoleonistic “principle of nationalities” in opposition to the Leninist principle of the right of nations to self-determination.

23.A nation is historically developed collectivity of people whose native language has been for centuries a written language and thus is a national language.

24. There are only three nations in the Caucasus: Azerbaijan, Armenian, and Georgian. There are no other nations in the Caucasus. The national self-determination of these nations is a historical necessity. But in the twenty-first century, the self-determination of nations is supposed to be understood as the beginning of the disappearance of national differences in general. The disappearance of the above nations is to be understood as their disappearance together with other nations—together, that is, in the process of disappearance of national differences in general.

25. In the meantime, to announce the beginning of the political movement of the Russian working class, Leninist Russia shall have yet to destroy the so-called Lenin’s mausoleum and on the ruins of that dungeon-mausoleum inscribe the following words: Lenin unbound.

TOWARDS THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY

OF COUNTERREVOLUTIONS

Shalt M. Main

ENGGER BOOKS

P. O. Box 86,

New Port Richey,

FL 34656

To the memory of A.S.A.

On the Anniversary

Of his Martyrdom

ISBN 0-9658580-1-4

The Prophet of the Century. The Explainer. The Case of British History. The case of G.Buchner. The Case of Bogdanov. The Case of "Bare Hands". The Prophet as a Politologue. Having "seen through" Stalin. The Evil that was Lenin. Darkness versus Light. Restoration versus Destruction. The Prophet and the others. Notes to Chapter I.

Chapter II: The Forces in Revolution

The Object of Destruction. The Transfer of the State Power. The Holder and the Owner. A Row of double Concepts. The "Stages". Ideology and political Formations. Authoritarianism versus Utopias. Cultural versus Economic. By way of false Translation. Notes to Chapter II.

Chapter III: The Camps of Counterrevolution

Marxism and the Modern Left. Marxism versus "Creative Marxism". Marxism versus pseudo-Marxism. Marxism versus self-styled Marxism. Transformed Anarchism and transformed Narodism. Marxism versus Trotskyism. Trotsky and Lenin's Theory of Restoration. Modern Trotskyism as anti-Leninism. Trotskyism and Bonapartism. Notes to Chapter III.

Chapter IV: Past and Present

Lost between the I.S.L. and the S.W.P. Bodies in the Morgue. Notes to Chapter IV.

IN PLACE OF INTRODUCTION

The core of the present work consists mainly of an arrangement—more or less coherent—of the texts written over a number of years. The sharp turns of our world and the pace of its late developments should have rendered the original texts out-of-date. However, the texts were there, and having reviewed them more than once, we found no reason for keeping them unpublished. First, the twentieth century, exceeding the past ones in its scope of fraudulence and falsehood, is coming to its end: an endeavor of critically reviewing it, before its notions become forever dogmatized, should not come amiss. Moreover, whatever has happened to the post-revolutionary Russian empire, which for decades had been sold and bought as the so-called Soviet Union, can hardly be understood without looking back and studying the arguments put forward during all this time. Also, the texts would show that for those who would take pains to have some insight into historical movements, the recent events should have been neither anything surprising nor anything unexpected; on the contrary, they were supposed to be seen as natural and inevitable.

Some of the earlier texts deal with what, at that time, was said to be the Leftist movement (or what in the text is called the Modern Left), which always appeared to be on the verge of becoming altogether irrelevant, but considering its mendacious nature, could never be expected to definitively yield up its absurd existence. In a number of chapters, an attempt was made to show this movement as what it was, namely, the ultimate species of the perennial Radical Sham.

We would not insist on saying that our outlook had all this time remained unchanged. Still, instead of re-writing an indefinite number of pages, we chose to leave these pages mainly as they were, relegating a few of them to what is set apart as notes. Indeed, what is published-or, in part, re-published-here is not thought as a critique of others only; it is also a re-examination of the views held earlier by the author himself.

In a sense, the work could be subtitled "Pages of Bygone Decades", and if it is addressed to anyone, then to those whom Lincoln meant when he spoke of "Free Republicans", meaning, to be sure, not the party members, but the citizens of what he knew as the Great Republic. Those who would be satisfied with being less than what these words of his signify, have not been assumed to be among the prospective readers of this work

At the close of the nineteenth century, the Russian working class rose to become the advanced part of the international working class, and thus placed Russia at the head of all mankind. Is it possible that the Russian worker "did already accoplish whatever he could, and succombing to Fate's will, did spiritually pass to his rest forever"? History, our stepmother, has yet to say her word apropos of this matter.

The following is to be clarified beforehand: in this work, whenever we speak of the twentieth century, we do not mean the calendar years that began after the year of 1900. Nothing happened in that year that could be conceived of as the completion of some movement or processes that had its beginning in the preceding years. The completion came afterwards. The world-historical changes, such as, in the West, the translocation of the metropolis of capital from England to the United States, and in the East, the vanishment of Kaiserism in Germany and in Austria, and the destruction of Czarism in Russia, still belong, as accomplished transformations, to the nineteenth century. Considering the content of its events, the twentieth century actually began some twenty years later with the year of 1921. And, that is what is seen here as the beginning of the twentieth century, the century of counterrevolutions.

It looks as if nothing was ever done in the decades of that century without outdoing the past centuries in the way of misnaming, counterfeiting, self-styling, pseudo-ism, and (if the morphology of the terms is not too odd) crypto-ism. This circumstance can not be ignored unless an adequate assessment of the events of the century is not what is being sought. In any case, the derangement in human semantics is a fact that accompanies the century, and that must be taken into account. Therefore, clearing up some terminological problems would be necessary in the way of introduction ere the text itself is to be read. Besides, reduced to its basic argument, the entire text may be said to be but a move towards calling or naming things by their proper names.

One of the main items first to confront, when one attempts to do that proper naming, is the term "socialism", of course. It is apparent that this word, as a twentieth century term, at least, has been twisted to mean what it does not denote. The adjective is social, and as combined with the suffix ism, it is meant to form a word that would mean the condition or state of being social. Thus, socialism should be understood to mean the condition of society which exists when the means of production are owned by the society, or when the ownership of the means of production is social. And, this was apparently what the word "socialism" was to mean in the nineteenth century sense. What, then, is "socialism" in its twentieth century sense, or as a twentieth century term? It is that "socialism is a system or condition in which the means of production are owned by the state", that is, not by the society, but by the state. Now, if this dictionary definition of "socialism" were correct, why, then, the adjective "social"? And what, then, would be the proper name for the condition in which the means of production are owned by the state? The proper name for it would not be "socialism"; the proper name for it would be state-ism, nation-statism, etatism, governmentalism, or even, "Etat-cratism". Probably, any of these terms would be proper—any of them except "socialism". ¹

But, what was it that was supposed to warrant or justify the idea of replacing the term "society" with the term "state" in defining what socialism is understood to mean? Most likely the argument that socialism, as a concept, was a piece of Utopian falsehood to begin with; that it did not signify what it said; that, when socialists utter the word social, what they mean is state or government, not society. Besides, ownership by the society is, at best, an article of Utopia anyway. If that is the fact, so be it. But, then, why should the falsity be left unchecked? Why accept or retain a term, or signifier, which is clearly out of joint with its meaning? Social is the ownership by the society, and therefore, that kind of ownership, Utopian or not, should be called socialism. The ownership by the state is state-ist, or etatist, and therefore, it should mean state-ism; or, the ownership by the government is governmental, and hence, the proper name for it should be governmentalism. In short, the term "socialism" proves to be nothing but a misnomer, or one of the misnomers of the twentieth century.

Yet, there is more behind thus misemploying the term "socialism" so as to mean what it does not denote. Substituting the term "state" for the term "society" betrays some devious ways of crude thinking that confounds society with the state or government. Apparently, those who know how to substitute the term "state" for the term "society" are also those who would know how to confound society with the state. It is not very important who of the two-pro-socialists or anti-socialists-are more responsible for dogmatizing the idea that what is social is actually state or governmental. The fact appears to be that the idea forms a postulate underlying the ruling ideologies of the century.

Meanwhile, here is what was explained more than a hundred years ago:

The 'contemporary society' is a capitalistic society, which exists in all civilized countries, more or less free of the survivals of Medievalism. Contrariwise, the 'contemporary state' changes with every State Borderline. It is different in the Prussian-German Empire, different in Switzerland, different in England, or in the United States.

As to society and government, here is what was said more than two hundred years ago:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.

This is, indeed, so clear as to require no further comment.

Why should, then, what is social still be confused or confounded with what is only state or governmental? Or, why do both-"anti-socialists" as well as "socialists"-insist on using a misnomer instead of replacing it? Replacing the term "socialism" would present a problem with some questions to require answers. Mainly, the matter is that confounding or confusing the state or government with society is equivalent to confusing what is political with what is not political. Thus, in this confounding way of thinking, which is social, and then, which is political? Or, rather, which is political, and then, which is economic? "Socialism", as defined by those who like to wring the neck of human semantics, is supposed to mean state or governmental ownership, but is still said to be an economic system, and a special economic system at that. Apparently, what we have here is a special case of an economic system denoted by a political term-a term which, while being political, denotes economy, and of which it is the name. At the same time, the term totalitarian government is definitely a political term and certainly denotes a political system. Yet, governmental totalitarianism happens to form the essential element of this alleged socialism, and nothing would remain of that "socialism" if the governmental element were omitted.

However, here is a commonplace definition of socialism: "Socialism means an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production." Thus, socialism is an economic system; and at the same time, it is based on government ownership. Is not this the same as to say that socialism means an economy based on a political system? It is the same, because government ownership is an act of government; it is a governmental act, and a governmental act is a political act. Most likely, we are meant to believe that the monopolization of the means of production by the government, i.e., "the forcible expropriation of the means of production" is a non-political act. But, this would mean going too far. There seems to be no way of denying that whatever is made to mean socialism is an economy based on, and maintained by, a political act; or, what indeed amounts to the same, a political system or establishment.

So, then, what is the term "socialism"? Is it an economic term, or is it a political term? Does it denote an economic system, or a political one? It appears to be a political term, but if that were so, admitting this would cause more problems. The identity crisis of the term "socialism" seems to be persistent.

It is, of course, not forgotten that the term "socialism" is also used to denote a political movement, or an ideology; but at this point, we are not concerned with movements or ideologies. The focal point at the moment is a historical phenomenon, not as a movement or trend, but as an established system, a system that is supposed to be either political or economic.

It must be added in the meantime, too, that the proliferation of such spurious terms as "National Socialism" and "state socialism" would have quite justified the coinage of a term like "social socialism", regardless of its being visibly pleonastic. Indeed, if the term "people's democracy" was ever justified to be uttered, then why not "social socialism"? In contradistinction to the twentieth century misnomer like the alleged socialism-which is, in fact, governmentalism-the term "social socialism" would make some sense.

So then again, the term "socialism," economic or political? Denoting, or rather, misnaming, an economic system or a political one-or, perhaps, both? The term itself, to be sure, may be used both ways, denoting the one and, then, the other: political and, then, economic. But whatever system is denoted cannot be both in one; it cannot be defined as being political and economic at the same time.

Should the term "socialism" be used to denote an economic system, the next problem would be that of differentiating between two systems-the "socialist" economic system and the "socialist" political system, i.e., "socialism" as an economic system and "socialism" as a political system or regime.

We can be fairly sure that we are in position to know what the "socialist" political system is; that is to say, what the political regime is that the term "socialism" is supposed to denote. "Socialism" as a political system, i.e., the "socialist" political regime, is and signifies, first of all, political despotism, governmental despotism, and state despotism. But, that is not enough to know; for, state or governmental despotism may also be non-socialist. And, for whatever that is, we have a special term, another set of sounds, that denotes a non-socialist despotism, which appears to be a softer kind of despotism. The term to denote this softer kind of despotism is "authoritarianism". Authoritarianism is not yet totalitarianism; authoritarian despotism becomes totalitarian despotism only at the certain point, at the boiling point, so to say. Here, we may have the case of that "dialectical jump" of quantity into quality, the jump of the difference in degree into the difference of character; for, totalitarianism, i.e., totalitarian state or government, is not merely more despotic than authoritarian. The confounded "dialectical jump" occurs when the despotism of the state or government goes as far as grabbing the means of production; and, it is precisely that circumstance that makes the state or government into a "socialist" state or government, and the system into a "socialist" political system. This way we cannot fail to know what makes the "socialist" political system different from all other political systems: it is not merely political despotism; it is the fact that the government is the owner of the means of production.

Thus, as a political system, or a system of government, the alleged socialism amounts, in fact, to total governmental despotism. As an economic system, the alleged socialism tends to amount to total governmental ownership. Properly speaking, total governmental despotism would, actually, amount to total governmental ownership. What, then, would be the difference between the "socialist" political system and the "socialist" economic system? The difference would be hard to perceive. In both cases, the government is the doer, the performer, or to be exact, the perpetrator. "Socialism" is the perpetration-government is the perpetrator. How could "socialism" ever fail to be a political perpetration?

To come back to the definition of "socialism" as cited above. "Socialism means an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production." If the term "socialism" is taken as synonymous with the terms like state-ism or governmentalism, then this definition of "socialism" may be correct. However, how incorrect would be another definition of the same "socialism", namely, this one: "socialism' means a political"-not economic but political-"system based on government ownership of the means of production"? Now, which of these two definitions of "socialism" is correct, and which is incorrect? It appears as though we have here a case of one being two, one definition for two different definienda. In other words, what we have here is one single definitional fact-government ownership-in double action: first, serving to define a "socialist" economic system; and second, serving to define a "socialist" political system. It appears that both, the "socialist" economic system and the "socialist" political system, would be undefinable, unless they are defined in the same terms, and virtually, as the same entity.

But, is it correct to say that "socialism" means a political system based on government ownership of the means of production? The reason against saying so is hard to find. First, it is hard to answer the following question: Why should anything that is based on government ownership be other than what is political? It is also hard to find a single "socialist" state, or government, that goes on being "socialist" without grabbing the means of production. A political system is whatever its state or government is. A "socialist" state, or a "socialist" government, means a "socialist" political system. In fact, to make the argument even stronger, we have something to this effect, namely, a precious word from the Generalissimo Stalin himself, the "socialist-communist" Generalissimo, as he penned it apposionally in 1952, shortly before he departed from his twentieth century world. Thus, quote-"the owner of the means of production, the socialist state", unquote. This, then, seems rather certain: the "socialist" state, or government, is the one, which is the owner of the means of production, and unless this is so, the state is not "socialist". Again, a political system is what its government is; a "socialist" government is what the economic policy of that government is; and that economic policy is nothing, unless it consists in grabbing the means of production. So, then, once more: What is the difference between a "socialist" government, or a "socialist" state, and a non-socialist government, or a non-socialist state? Wherein consists the difference? The difference consists in the economic policy of a "socialist" government or state, and that policy, in turn, consists in the fact that the owner of the means of production is the government or the state. So, there seems to be nothing wrong with the statement that a "socialist" political system, order, or establishment, is the one, which is based on government ownership of the means of production.

Then, this is the way it is: in one instance, what is based on government ownership is an economic system, and the economic system is "socialist" because it is based on government ownership of the means of production. In the next instance, what is based on government ownership is a political system, and the political system is "socialist" because it is based on government ownership of the means of production. Very likely, the modern pro-and anti-socialist theorists, in their zeal to governmentalize socialism, have grown forgetful of which is which. Actually, when all is said the quintessential idea of what is socialism could be obtained by compressing everything that is said about "socialism" in the shortest definition of the term, thus: socialism means an economic-but-political system.

In the meantime, as it could be seen, if one tried to bring some light into the twentieth century way of theorizing about socialism, or communism, one must struggle, first, with the problem of differentiating between two terms: economic and political. Hereafter, one must face the problem of differentiating between two systems: the "socialist" political and the "socialist" economic systems. Now, if we want to believe that a system like "socialist economy" is, or has ever been, an entity, we shall have to face the problem of differentiating between two economic systems, not only capable of "co-existing" but of "mixing" too: the "socialist" economic system and the capitalist economic system.

Here, however, first, the question would be whether a meaningful comparison is indeed possible between what the term "socialism" is made to denote, and what is denoted by the term "capitalism". The term "capitalism" is manifestly an economic term, and whoever likes to lose time in arguing that it is not, should not be disturbed while doing so. The term is a non-political, non-governmental term; it denotes an economic system capable of existing regardless of what the government or state forms happen to be. Meanwhile, is there such a thing as a non-governmental "socialism", or rather, a non-governmental mode of existence of what the term "socialism" is made to denote? If what is made to be denoted by the term "socialism" should be recognized as an economic system, then it would be the only economic system capable of existing solely by force and by virtue of one single political entity, namely, a "socialist" government. On the other hand, whatever is denoted by the term "capitalism" is capitalism regardless of any governmental mode of existence. Hence, the term "capitalism" can be quite aptly defined without mentioning anything governmental or political. But, can "socialism" ever be defined in other terms than what is governmental? That is, can it ever be defined in non-political terms? For instance, let this alleged socialism be defined in economic terms as "planned economy". What is "planned economy"? That is to say, what is it besides being a rather brainlessly fraudulent coupling of words? "Planned economy"² is economy planned by whom or by what? By the government, and not simply by the government, but by the national government. Economy, too, being not simply economy, but the national economy, the national economy "planned" by the national government, or even the nation-state. And, whether the national economy is planned, plotted or, actually, misplanned, it is what is done by the government, the national government. The alleged socialism does not mean just planning; it means "government planning", planning accomplished, or perpetrated, by the national government, the nation-state. Also, this alleged socialism means "controlled prices", or "universal price controls"; and, it means again the prices controlled by the government, by the national government, by the nation-state. Why every economic act of the government must inescapably mean "socialism"-that question is still, among others, on the waiting list to be answered.

Meanwhile, there seems to be no way of isolating the term "socialism" from the rest of the political terms like "state-ism", "governmentalism", "nation-state-ism", "Etat-cratism", "totalitarianism", and so on-no way as long as the essential statement of the meaning of the term "socialism" is state ownership, state or governmental interference, or plainly, the governmental mismanagement of the economy. "Mismanagement", by the way, would not be a wrong word, since that is precisely what the bureaucratic government does when it meddles with the economy. In fact, the entire content of all these terms, including "socialism", can be compressed in one single sentence such as this: "Socialism" means the governmental mismanagement of the economy. The term "socialism" appears capable of replacing the rest of the terms suitably, and this is so, since "socialism" is understood to mean "meddling government", or governmentalism, "state interference", or state-ism, and the like. We have here essentially the same lexical meaning; the differences are phonemic. "Governmental meddling" equals governmentalism equals state interference equals state-ism, and equals "socialism." Only, these terms are all political: government is a political institution, and so is the state, the very political thing; and, the terms denoting the doings of these institutions must be political terms. An economic system is, however, first of all, economic, and being so, should be normally defined, identified, or described, in economic terms, not political terms. And, if "socialism" is to be compared with capitalism, or capitalism with "socialism", both "socialism" as well as capitalism are expected to be defined, i.e., their different essential qualities to be determined, in the same terms. In the contrary case, comparing capitalism with "socialism", or "socialism" with capitalism, may prove to be almost like comparing a pound of apples with a House of Orange. Therefore, instead of expatiating upon the chaos of a fabricated socialism, what should be done first is to take care of the chaos in the twentieth century terminology.

But, to return to the problem of differentiating between capitalism and this alleged socialism as two distinct economic systems. One would have to take another look at the above-cited definition of the term "socialism" to see if it could possibly serve as a definition of an economic system. Thus, "socialism means an economic system which is based on government ownership of the means of production." This is the definition which appears to be current, and apparently thought to be classical, among those who are known as anti-socialists; whom the would-be socialists like to call "the anti-socialist camp", or more colorfully, the "camp of the sworn enemies of socialism". No matter what this camp really is, it has a logic of its own. For one thing, the main clause of the above definition promises to define socialism as economic system, but what follows does not seem to keep the promise; instead, it appears to define socialism as a governmental system. As peculiar as this logic is, before the court of the human logic, this reputedly anti-socialist camp would still have to show how it is that whatever is "based on government ownership" is all "economic system" and neither what is governmental nor what is political. It could be seen above that the modern theorizers about "socialism" do not know any reasonable way of how to answer the question: "What is economic and what is political in whatever they define as socialism"? And, this is the way it is in both camps-pro-socialist as well as anti-socialist. "Socialism means an economic system based on government ownership”... In other words, "socialism" means an economic system based on whatever is governmental; it means, indeed, a governmental economic system. What is a governmental economic system? Whatever it could be, it is an economic political system. What is an economic-political system? To make it clear, it is a political system yet economic at the same time. To make it even clearer, it is an economic-but-political system. It may be said to be a system made of wooden metal, or the other way; but, in addition to that, it is, as it was pointed out above, a quasi-economic system, or economy, based on what is governmental, and what actually is a political order or regime. "Socialism", as an economic system, is what is based on a political or governmental regime. "Socialism" thus misdefined and miscategorized, is, in fact, a sham economic system kept alive only by a political regime. It is a governmental force; it is a political force.

Yet there is another specimen of the anti-socialistic definition of "socialism" which tacitly admits that "socialism" is a non-economic non-system. That specimen reads that "socialism means the governmental interference with the economy." A closer look at the terms of this proposition would make it clear that the alleged socialism is not an economic system; that is to say, it is neither a system nor economic. This is so, simply because whatever is "interference" is not a system, and whatever is "governmental" is not economic. Nevertheless, it is maintained that the governmental interference with the economy is an economic system, and its name is "socialism". In fact, it is contended that "socialism" means totalitarian governmental interference with the economy.

But, what is meant by "interference"? What does the term denote? It denotes an act of coming into collision, or opposition: it means to be obstructive, "to clash, to conflict, to meddle." (See Webster Dictionaries.) As such, it presupposes an object of interference, an object in opposition, an adverse object. The object must be an economic system; for, that is what the above-cited proposition is meant to convey: "socialism means interference with the economy." And if the interference itself is an economic system, then what is obtained here is not one but two economic systems, one imposed upon the other: First, the economic system as the "governmental interference" and, second, the adverse economic system, as the object of interference. Again, no matter what the term "interference" is understood to mean, it must be whatever goes on between two opposing forces. This is what the interference is understood to mean even in Sports, as well as in Radio and TV. What interferes is in conflict with whatever is interfered with. In other words, if the interfering government is pro-socialist, then the existing economy to be interfered with must be non-socialist. Then, what is to be sought is the name of the economic system that becomes the object of the "governmental interference".

The meaning of this line of arguing is that the economic system supposed to be socialist, or "socialism" as an economic system, remains to be undefined, unidentified, and cannot be identified. It cannot be, because the alleged socialism is nothing more than that "governmental interference" with the economy, no more than that mismanagement of the economy. It is not the economic system itself; it is only the act of interfering with it. The term "socialism" is made to mean an interference that amounts to the destruction of the economy, or "economic destructionism"; it is to mean nothing more than that-that mythical destructionism.³

At the same time, the term "governmentalism", e.g., appears to be methodically avoided, although it is the term that adequately denotes whatever is misnamed as "socialism". For, there is nothing else to say about "socialism" except that it means the "governmental interference", governmental mismanagement, governmental totalitarianism, governmental "destructionism". All these would-be determinations fall short of identifying or defining what the actual economy, or the economic structure, is. The entire delirious twaddle about the government versus the economy, the economy as such, the economy in general, omits what properly should make, not merely a political, but the economic difference; and, moreover, fails to answer the question: what or which is the economy that tends to become the object of governmental interference, governmental mismanagement, governmental monopolizing, governmental "destructionism"?

So, then, how is the difference between the two economic systems, the capitalist economic system and the "socialist" economic system to be ideated? Where is that difference to be sought or located? Nowhere but in the locus between an economic system and a political system: or, in the contraposition paraphrased as "the government against the economy".

However, government as such, does not exist anywhere. What could exist are the particular forms of government; and, in this case of contraposing "the government against the economy", what is meant by the government is a would-be socialist government. Nor does the economy exist as such in isolation from what is particular. The economy in general as an unspecified entitative economy is nowhere to be found except in the particular existential forms of what is economy. Hence, nothing can ever interfere with the economy as such, unless what is interfered with is a historically concrete form of the economy, a particular and specifiable economic system. And, in this case of contraposing "the government against the economy", what is meant by the economy is the actual capitalistic economy. For, in terms of the twentieth century, what really exists is not a bushmen economic system or economy, but a capitalistic economy. Thus, the proposition contraposing "the government against the economy" must be spelled out as the proposition contraposing the would-be socialist government against the capitalistic economy, the capitalistic economic system. The contraposition "the government against the economy" is actually the same as the contraposition "socialism against capitalism"; and, the contraposition "socialism" against capitalism is, in fact, the same as the contraposition "governmentalism against the existing capitalist economy".

As it was argued before, the term "socialism" could be easily replaced by the term "governmentalism". However, if the replacement were allowed to happen, then the already cited definition of "socialism" would read as follows: "Governmentalism means an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production." "Governmentalism means an economic system"; that is to say, a governmental system, instead of being a political system, may happen to be an economic system. Whether that makes any sense or not, it is what is there behind the sham equation that socialism means state or government.

The design is to perpetuate the otherwise ludicrous dogma of two different economic systems, now co-existing, now converging, now mixing with each other. (Hence, by the way, also the three theories: the theory of co-existence, the theory of convergence, the theory of mix.) But, the dogma of two different, equally co-existing, equally economic systems is untenable. There appears to be no way of differentiating the alleged socialism from capitalism except by recognizing this alleged socialism as a governmental regime, or to be more specific, as a policy of a would-be socialistic government-an obsolete form of government-which does not comport with the existing and prevailing capitalist economic system.

However, accepting "economic destructionism" as a notion would be tantamount to supposing a fantastic state of things that a political regime could ever exist without or outside any economic system. If all that the term "socialism" can denote is but a political entity; that is, if "socialism" as an economic system is impossible to be identified, then whatever exists as an economic system must be identified as capitalistic.

As it is, the alleged socialism cannot be defined in other than political terms, and unless it is identified as a governmental regime, what is made to mean socialism would prove, for the rest, to be nothing but what is identical with capitalism. For example, prices mean capitalism. Omit the government from what is "controlled prices", and what would remain is prices; and, prices do mean capitalism. Also, remove the government from what is supposed to be a "planned economy", and what would remain is the economy; and, the economy, the modern economy, means nothing but capitalism. To rephrase it: the difference between capitalism and the alleged socialism is governmental, not economic; to be exact, it is political. For, what remains when the governmental element is removed or deducted from whatever is supposed to be the socialist economy? It is rather clear that what remains is nothing but what is identical with capitalism. Again, economy means capitalism; governmentally planned economy means misplanned capitalism, politically misplanned capitalism. Further, prices mean capitalism; governmentally controlled prices mean miscontrolled capitalism, politically miscontrolled capitalism. Self-evidently, no miscontrolled prices, no misplanned economy, i.e., no miscontrolled, no misplanned capitalism is conceivable unless capitalism exists, and unless whatever economy exists is capitalistic.

Thus, as there appears to be no way of telling the difference between the "socialist" political system and the "socialist" sham-economic system, so there appears to be no way of telling the difference between the sham-socialist economic system and the capitalist economic system. Then, if one realizes that the "socialist" economic system may have never been anything but a mere governmental clatter, what remain are a sham-socialist political system, on one side, and the actual capitalist economic system, on the other. For, during the years of the twentieth century, the economy as such, the economy in general, being no entity to be found anywhere, the only relevant economic system can be nothing but capitalism; it is the only economic system that matters. And, socialism, the alleged socialism, proves to be nothing but a belated replica of capitalism, an inferior copy of nothing but capitalism.

However, this is not the way the twentieth century has been cerebrating. The overcelebrated antithesis between capitalism and socialism-the alleged socialism, that is-as two antipodal economic systems, makes up the entire content of the century. The clamorous battles between capitalism and "socialism", or to be exact, between capitalism and "abolished capitalism", produced the sound waves that even now keep the earth's atmosphere still vibrating. There must have been some reason that both camps, anti-socialist as well as pro-socialist, insisted, and still do, on presenting the conflict between a political entity and an economic entity as the conflict between two equally co-existing economic systems. It appears that each camp had its own special reason for doing so. All the same, regardless of what motives are behind it, the effort to conceal the actually existing economic system by way of misnaming and miscategorizing it as being the opposite of what it really is, appears to be a matter of fact that cannot go forever unnoticed.

Meanwhile, the question whether defining an economic system in political terms, or the other way, qualifying a political regime as an economic system, presents a case of ignorance, delusion, mystification, or deception is a question that is not irrelevant. It may as well make a topic for discussion probably in sociology, mass psychology, admass ideology, or some other related discipline. In any case, whether it be ideologically conditioned blindness, or incapacity of discerning critical distinctions, the act of misrepresenting a political or governmental phenomenon as an economic system is productive of nothing but a fact of delusion; and practically, it proves to be a piece of plain fraud. The end sequence to the way of naming, terming, and defining things that is typical to this century, or (to use a German term) to its Zeitgeist, is historical falsehood-evidently, an act of mendacity by some, a fact of mystification for others; in both cases, a historically developed falsity that has gained the "fixedness of popular prejudice". Else, it should take no exceptional intelligence to see that what was behind the make-believe was a political system or order, i.e., a governmental regime, misnamed and miscategorized as an economic system, as a system apart, as a whole economic system in-and-for-itself, a "different socio-economic system", as much an economic system as an epochal socio-economic system or formation that is known as capitalism. In actuality, what was in place was only a "state-socialized" sham economic system-that is, an economic-but-political system, governmentally fictionalized and advertised as socialism.

Now, while in the would-be socialist camp, retarded capitalism was misnamed so that it could be acclaimed as the "advance of socialism", in the anti-socialist camp, underdeveloped capitalism was misnamed so that it could be condemned as "the chaos of socialism". As it can be seen, each camp made its contribution to the historical falsehood in its own special way. But, whether acclaimed as "economic progress", or condemned as "economic destructionism", the alleged socialism continues to be what is not social, and therefore, what is not socialism.

Yet, the vehemently anti-socialist camp obstinately insists on equating socialism with the state or government. But the human logic obdurately insists on maintaining that an absurd equation must have absurdities as a consequence. For, whatever a system is, if it is social, it is more than what is governmental; if it is governmental, it is political; if it is political, then it is different from what is economic. There seems to be no salvation in messing up these equations: whatever an economic system may or may not be, it is not what is based on whatever is governmental, or state-created. As it was said before, an economic system is not what interferes; an economic system is what is interfered with. "Socialism" is said to mean the governmental interference with the economy, total or partial. Indeed, it hardly makes any difference whether it is partial, total, or totalitarian. The governmental interference with the economy is only an economic act of the government; it cannot make a different economic system of its own, namely, a governmental economic system. Totalitarian or other, the governmental interference itself, as an economic act of the government, necessarily presupposes an existing economic system already in place to be acted upon, or to deal with. This circumstance should make it clear that an economic act of government does not create an economic system of its own. An economic act of government is only an economic policy of the government to deal with the problems of the already existing economic system or economy. For instance, the New Deal of F.D.R. was not in itself an economic system; it was only an economic policy of the government to deal with the problems of the existing economic system, or in other words, with the economic necessities of the national situation. Likewise, Lenin's NEP (The New Economic Policy) was an effort of the government to deal with the problems of the then existing economy.

Also, there are quite a number of historical facts that would not square with the assumption that every economic act of the government equals socialism. Louisiana Purchase, for example, was an economic act of the government, and it was as great an economic act as almost the size of the original thirteen states taken together; an act that all but doubled the eighteenth century United States. The purchase of Alaska was another economic act of the same US Government, and an act as big as the largest state of the nation. None of these acts of the US Government was an act merely to protect individual rights. Both these acts, Louisiana Purchase as well as the purchase of Alaska, happened to be the economic acts perpetrated by the US Government, and involved the means of production of the magnitude impossible to be slighted by any modern school of economics. One would have a hard time to get away from the thought that nearly a half of the United States may have been born in the original sin of "socialism", or at least, of proto-socialism.

In any case, it becomes fairly clear that the so-called socialism cannot stand, cannot exist alone; it has to "co-exist" or cohabit with what is supposed to be its opposite, the non-socialistic economic system which has to serve as the object of the socialistic interference. The non-socialistic economic system is, of course, what the capitalistic economic system happens to be. So, then, if there is no capitalism, there is no governmental interference; if there is no governmental interference, there is no "socialism". "Socialism" and capitalism must co-exist and synchronize, just as the government and the economy must synchronize. This is how things stand between the alleged socialism and capitalism.

Socialism, social socialism, is a thing of Utopia, but "socialism" of the anti-socialistic camp appears to be neither Utopia nor an entity; it seems to be a lot of messy nonsense. All in all, that is what the "socialism" of the twentieth century is on the surface at least, although there is more to it behind what, among some philosophers, is said to be the veil of appearance.⁴

As antipodal and antithetical as they are supposed to be, "socialism"-i.e., whatever economic system is alleged to be socialism-and capitalism must synchronize; moreover, they have to mix, thus creating a notion generally acknowledged and taught as "our mixed economy”, the mix being a blend of two conflicting economic systems. The contraposition between the economy and the government that we had before, now proves to be the contraposition between two different economic systems. The mechanical mix of two different economic systems is supposed to make a blend stretching between the extremes of two co-equally economic systems: "the laissez-faire economy" or capitalism, and the "command economy", or socialism/communism. What makes these two antipodal economic systems differ from each other? Only one single element, the governmental element. In other words, whatever makes the "command economy" differ from the capitalist economy is not what is economic, but what is non-economic; that is to say, it is not an economic element, but a non-economic element that is supposed to make the difference between two economic systems. Actually, what is occurring here is an economic system becoming a different economic system by way of mixing with a non-economic element; or, to express this in more elementary terms, the sum of one economic element plus one non-economic element happens to equal two economic elements, thus generating two different economic systems. Yet, economy is what government is not; government is what economy is not. Their mix could yield two different economies as readily as oil plus water could yield two different oils. One cannot have two different economic systems, if what exists, on the one hand, is the economy, and on the other hand, is the government. Unless this particular mix is again meant to be understood as a dialectical mix, an artfully prepared dish of the "unity of opposites". In any case, this is how Mr. Economics, Mr. Modern Economic Science, seems to know how to count when theorizing. The familiar method that enjoys wide currency in the twentieth century consists in seeing one thing as two, and in this case, in seeing one economic system as two different economic systems with, actually, an entire rainbow of economic systems in between.⁵ This way, if expressed in terms of currency, for instance, the logic of this mixing kind of economics should enable anyone who well understands it to get two dollars in exchange for a dollar and a non-dollar, even if the non-dollar is not a monetary unit.

However, the mix of what is said to be "our mixed economies" is only an intrapsychic mix. What is mixed in reality is not the economy but the mind of the modern pocket economist, a syncretizing mind, which appears to be unable to cope with the problem of its own making, but hopes to take care of that problem with the help of a cheap notion of easy mixing.

There must be, of course, some reason that impels this mind to cogitate the way it does. The term "socialism" has been all but raped to mean what can never be defined in other than political terms. It is thus quite natural that this sort of wrenching the true meaning the wrong way should create a problem that cannot be solved by unmindfully mixing the unmixables. It is precisely objectivism, or rather the objective reality, which bears out the view that there is no such economic thing there as a "socialist" economy, or "socialism as an economic system". Theoretically, socialism-social or classless socialism, that is-was understood to mean not a political but a social formation based on a noncommercial organization of production. But, whichever way it is understood, socialism is what is non-existent. And, if socialism is a figment of Utopia, then it is not, and has never been, a historical datum. Moreover, if that is so, then all the ardent spirits of the anti-socialist camp have been, for all this time, flogging not a dead horse but a non-existent horse.

However, socialism is not so much an issue here. Here, rather, the matter is that capitalism, belated or backward capitalism, is misnamed or misdescribed to make one believe that what existed, or exists, was not, and is not, capitalism but non-capitalism. The theory is that only problem-free capitalism is capitalism, which is what "pure" capitalism is supposed to be; for, as soon as capitalism of this world gets in trouble, and appears to be unable to take care of itself, it stops being what it is; it stops being capitalistic.⁶ This could be made more understandable by adding that blossoming, e.g., is one of the manifestations of being an apple tree, but the capitalistic apple tree exists only when it is blossoming. Thus, capitalism proves to be such a fragile, delicate and brittle mechanism that a mere ukase of a peasant-brained bureaucrat is sufficient and capitalism stops being capitalism, even without being replaced by any economic system.

Yet, the entire twaddle about "pure" capitalism can be, indeed, reduced to this childish banality: "Children, only good capitalism is capitalism; bad capitalism is not capitalism; bad capitalism is socialism." It is, therefore, no wonder that among the theorizers of the anti-socialist camp, capitalism, an economic system or formation that has been in existence for at least three hundred years, is still an ideal, and not only an ideal, but an unknown ideal, ideal and unknown too; whilst the difference between the unknown and the unknowable is yet another unknown.

The notion that the contraposition between the government and the economy is equivalent to the contraposition between two economic systems, namely, between capitalism and non-capitalism (non-capitalism because this term makes more sense than the term "socialism") is too absurd to be taken seriously, but that is what follows from the vapid definition of capitalism as mere private economic system, on the one hand, and the archly clever definition of "socialism" as a governmental economic system, on the other hand. As epistemic as these definitions may be, they would still present some problem, because a governmental economic system is, in fact, the same as an economic-but-political system, and comes too close to sounding like an oxymoron. Yet, if this is so, then the entire theory of "mixed economies" may prove to be oxymoronic, and therefore, should be spelled out as the oxy-moronic theory of mixed economies.

The contraposition between the economy and the government is, of course, the same as the contraposition between a political regime, or order, and the existing economic system uncreated by any political regime or order. The conflict between them is the conflict between an obsolete governmental form, an authoritarian, totalitarian, or better still, even Caesarist form of government, and the modern, the twentieth century economic system which cannot be other than the one that is known to everybody as capitalism—everybody, that is, whoever wants to know things as they are, seeing one thing as one, not as two. For, there is only one and the same economic body out there, the same economic person, so to speak. Different are only the political jackets. Some of the jackets happen to be straitjackets; but, as strait as a jacket may be, one person plus one jacket cannot make two persons.

Sooner or later the straitjacket must come apart, and the governments that do not conform with the existing economic system, the capitalist economic system, must give way to those forms of government that do conform with the existing economic system. It is not the government that gives the economic laws to the economy; it is the economy that dictates its laws to the government, and it matters little how totalitarian, tyrannical, or absolute the government is. Likewise, it is not the economy that is in conflict with another "co-existing" economy; it is the political order that is in conflict with the existing economic system. In essence, the argument is that no government can newly create an economic system of its own, i.e., a state-economic system; for, a government as creative as that would not be unlike an offspring that begets its own parent.

To come back to "our mixed economy", which is supposed to be a mix of the "laissez-faire" economy (said to be the same as capitalism) and the "command economy" (said to be the same as "socialism or communism"). Does the opposition between them-between the "laissez-faire economy" and the "command economy"-signify the contraposition between two antithetical economic systems, namely, between capitalism and socialism, or rather between capitalism and non-capitalism, or, better still, between capitalism and "abolished capitalism"? It does not. First, the so-called laissez-faire economy looks like an instance of misplaced attribute: it is not what it says it is. For, it was not the economy that was meant to let do; it was the government that was supposed to let do. (Laissez-faire means noninterference; and, c'est ne pas l'economie qui laisse faire; c'est le gouvernement qui doit laisser faire.) It is the government, not the economy, that is supposed to let the economy alone so that it, the economy, can do what it is able to do. Hence, the term "laissez-faire economy" looks as if it had been put together by the analphabetic. No one ever told the economy to let do; it was the government that was told to let do; that is to say, it was the government that was advised not to interfere, or to be noninterfering. What is concealed behind the term "laissez-faire" is not the economy, but the government, the "laissez-faire" government. For, the so-called laissez-faire (noninterference) is nothing but an economic policy of a noninterfering government. Likewise, the so-called command economy is another instance of misplaced attribute; for, it is not the economy that is commanding; it is the government that is supposed to be commanding. What is again concealed behind the "command economy" is the government with its economic policy of interfering with the existing economic system. Thus, behind the contraposition between the alleged laissez-faire economy and the alleged command economy, what is concealed is the contraposition between two different economic policies of two different forms of government, the noninterfering government, on one side, and the interfering or meddlesome government, on the other side.

Still, whatever is meant by the term "laissez-faire" is attributed to the economy as if it were the economy, not the government, that was supposed to "let do". Hereupon, what is thus wrongly attributed, and further made into a system, a "laissez-faire system", turns out to be what is identical with capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system (in fact, if it is not, then there has never been an economic system anywhere within the solar system); it is not identical and cannot be equated with what is only an economic policy of a noninterfering government. For the more or less literate, the term "laissez-faire economy" could make some sense only if it is spelled, written, and read as the let or left alone economy, i.e., an economy that is undisturbed by the meddlesome government. However, the thoughtless equating of the "laissez-faire" or let alone economy with capitalism could never edify anyone as to why the economy is capitalistic, and much less, as to what capitalism is. How could anybody know anything about the economy by merely knowing that it is let or left alone? To be sure, no tree can be identified as to what it is, whether cherry, peach, or forbidden apple, by knowing merely that it is let or left alone. Even that tree in the Garden of Eden was known as the Tree of Knowledge, not merely as being let alone. And, if nothing is to be known about the economy by having it let or left alone, how should anybody know that the economy is capitalistic? How is anyone supposed to know which or what is the economy that is let alone by the government, and always the government? An economy that is let alone, a left alone economy, clumsily called "laissez-faire economy", is indeed an unknown economy.

This unknown economy, the economy that is supposed to be let or left alone, instead of being arbitrarily equated with free capitalism, could also be equated with a slave economy; for, history must have known some slave economies enjoying full "laissez-faire" without being mixed with any governmental economic system. The "laissez-faire" does not seem to be the attribute that could differentiate capitalism from other economic structures. In fact, it is rather in the age of capitalism that the celebrated "laissez-faire" appears to have a tendency of becoming a problem. What statist government ever interfered with the slave economy in the South, for instance? If not, then whatever economy there was in the South before 1865 must be viewed as a model of "laissez-faire economy." It would help to remember, besides, that it took another act of "socialism" by the US Government to enforce, by way of the Civil War, the expropriation of the means of production of the slave owners, thus drastically interfering with the "laissez-faire" slave economy to eventually make it into an accomplished capitalistic economy, unmixed with any pre-capitalistic economic structure. (Here again, we may have the act of "socialism" accomplishing nothing but capitalism, carrying out the capitalistic expropriation of the means of production; for, that was indeed what the slave human beings were; in spite of their being human, they were reduced to being the means of production, sold and bought, or bought and sold, as goods of the free market.)

To come back to the problem of terms, or rather, the abuse of the terms. The term "laissez-faire economy" reappears as the "laissez-faire system" which, in fact, should mean a "let or left alone" system; this, in turn, proves to be a "laissez-faire capitalism", or in plain English, a let or left alone capitalism. The term "laissez-faire capitalism" has its own problems, but first, it matters to see that no definition of the term "capitalism" can ever be obtained by merely knowing that whatever economy exists is let or left alone. Meanwhile, unless the term "capitalism" is somehow defined or deciphered as the term denoting an economic system, the difference, as well as the antithesis, between capitalism and what is said to be socialism, cannot be established, and the "mixed economy" would prove to be a sum of unknown quantities. Hitherto, what is known about our "mixed economy" is that one of the elements in the economic "mix" is not economic but governmental. The other element is so far only what is but "let or left alone".

It appears to be quite clear that, for whatever reason or motive, the term "mixed economy" was not coined to convey anything meaningful, but was rather resorted to as to a would-be remedy for the problem created by an inordinate and not entirely honest thinking. As it was argued already, the mixing term itself is, on the whole, a mix of falsities. First, it could be easily seen that the "mixed economy" is not a mix of economies; that is to say, the mix that the term is supposed to denote is not economic: what is, in fact, in the mix are but two forms of government and their governmental economic policies, the so-called "laissez-faire" and the so-called "command". It is, then, a governmental economic policy that is equated with an economic system, supposedly socialistic, and the product of this operation is nothing less than a duplication of the existing economic system. Instead of having one economic system and two governmental economic policies, what one gets are two economic systems and one governmental policy. What is to be gained by thus duplicating an economic system, that is to say, by counting one and the same economic system twice, is a question for another topic. At first thought, it is hard to tell which is the case here, namely, whether it is the fact of being absurd; or it is an act of cheating. In any case, in this way of fast counting, what is imagined to have been obtained is the antithesis between capitalism and what is alleged to be socialism. The neutrally sounding term "mixed economy" is not that neutral: it does not mean an economy of friendly economic structures placed side by side in harmony of price formation. What the term "mixed economy" does not express but is supposed to mean, actually, is the confrontation, and further permeation, between two economic systems, not only different, but antipodal economic systems, two economic systems that supposedly cannot do but negate one another. In exact words, what the modern economists pretend to mean by "our mixed economy" of "laissez-faire" and "command" is a capitalist-plus-socialist, or socialist-plus-capitalist economy, and, moreover, whatever hangs in between.⁷

As it was mentioned already, one of the elements in that "mixed economy" is what is quite mystifyingly termed "command economy". As this term is equated with the set of other terms, it would pay to dwell on it to see what it actually pretends to denote. As it is, it does not really make clear what is commanded and what is commanding. As though there were no past participles in normal English, the "command economy" instead of "commanded economy" is the current term. At first sight, the term "command" seems to be a borrowing from the proposition that "capital means command of the productive labor of those who possess no capital." Should the term "command economy" be understood this way, instead of meaning "socialism" or "communism", it would come too close to mean what may be, in fact, capitalism.

But the term does not mean "command of labor". It is supposed to mean a "commanded economy", the entire economy "commanded" by the government; for, it cannot be a secret that the government is said and meant to be whatever does the commanding. However, neither the term "command economy", nor the correct form, "commanded economy", is less fanciful than the term "planned economy"; and, even more so, if these terms were meant to suggest that the commanding governments, said to be totalitarian, do determine the movement of their national economies the way the generals command the movements of their armies. No Nobel prized economist, as brainy as he may be, is likely to be found among the modern economists, who could ever prove that the so-called totalitarian governments are able to command their national economies in any direction they would deem to be desirable, commanding the pace of economic growth, in disregard of what is indeed generally determined by the development of the available forces of production.

Again, the term "command economy" means a governmentally commanded economy, an economy commanded by the government. And, this way, the term is only an overstretched metaphor: whatever it means, is not actual. "Command" according to the dictionary, means "to exercise supreme power over; be master of," etc., and among other things, giving or changing the direction of the movement of what is commanded. Should someone get the idea of taking the word "command" literally, he would have to imagine the totalitarian Chinese government, for example, actually commanding the economy of its megalonation, the whole economy of a billion-plus people. Meanwhile, there is no such "command economy" which is not a part of the world economy and the world market; and, there is obviously no such "command" that is able to command the elemental forces of the world market, meaningfully changing the direction of its movement in any part of this planet. So, the word "command" herein is some figure of speech; what is actual is rather the effort to do what is possible, and what is mainly necessitated by the economic situation wherein a nation finds itself.⁸

The economy that is called "command" is said to be the opposite of what the "laissez-faire economy", or to be precise, "laissez-faire" capitalism is. However, what is meant by the term "command economy" is no longer capitalism. Those who are more reckless among the theorists of the anti-socialist camp call it bluntly "state-ism"; state-ism is supposed to mean anti-capitalism; to be exact, it means "socialism"; and, to be more exact, it means "abolished capitalism", or even more tragically, an "obliterated capitalism".

The term "state-ism" could be looked at later. Meanwhile, the following proposition could be found in most of the text books on economics: "the very opposite to pure capitalism, i.e., laissez-faire capitalism, is the command economy, i.e., communism." In other words, what is the opposite of pure capitalism is not an impure, unpure, or mixed capitalism, but immediate anti-capitalism, immediate as in immediate contagion, which means communism-socialism. Also, what is said to be the opposite of laissez-faire capitalism is not NON-laissez-faire capitalism, but again, none other entity but communism, i.e., anti-capitalism. What is the opposite of what is called an intelligent man, for example? Is it a dull woman, or is it what is said to be a dull man? Normally, the opposite of what is called an intelligent man would be what is said to be a dull man, not woman, and not womankind either. Not so, according to the logic of the above-cited propositions. According to that logic, whatever is the opposite of pure capitalism is neither impure nor anything mixed, but straightly anti-capitalism which means command economy, i.e., communism. Yet, that is about the same as to say that the opposite of what is called an intelligent man is not what is said to be a dull man, but woman, or even women collectively, dull as well as bright. Peculiar logic of this sort should be followed to its end; for, it may prove to be a piece of free liberal education. If what is said to be the opposite of pure capitalism is forthrightly communism; that is, if whatever is not pure capitalism, immediately ceases to exist as capitalism, and while being not pure, is no longer capitalism, then, there is nothing, no space, no distance, between pure capitalism and anti-capitalism. In the entire modern economic universe, only pure capitalism is the capitalistic antithesis of communism; and, there is no such thing as capitalistic non-communism unless it is pure capitalism.

But, how intelligent is it to maintain that only pure capitalism is possible, and, while this is so conceived, an impure capitalism is inconceivable? It seems as if whoever would happen to be the reader of the textbooks must be led to believe that there is such a thing as pure capitalism, but there is no such thing as an impure capitalism. In fact, if this should be so, if the idea of an impure capitalism is similar to that of a white raven, then the term "pure capitalism" is as scientific as the term "black raven". And so is the term "laissez-faire capitalism". There are, probably, not many people around who believe that economic science is science. Perhaps, what is required is a special branch of economics dedicated to the task of finding the ways, and curves, that could make the crooked equations (like "command economy" equals "communism") work more convincingly.

If such an entity as impure capitalism is assumed to be possible, then what is to be known is what makes capitalism pure or impure. Whenever the term "laissez-faire economy" comes into sight, what is meant by it, adequately or not, is "laissez-faire capitalism". Pure capitalism is pure because it is the same as laissez-faire capitalism; hence, impure capitalism would be impure because of its being a capitalism which fails to be "laissez-faire." Indeed, the term "impure capitalism" can do no harm to modern economics. Even in the dictionaries, the antonym of the word "pure" is not "command" but the word "impure," while the word "pure" is the antonym of the word "impure".

Nobody knows, apparently, why the English terms of economic science should remain thus Frenchified. Spelled the way it usually is, the word "laissez" is a verb in the imperative mood, and, as it was already observed, the matter is that it is not commanding any economy; it is addressing itself to nobody but the government, not the economy, but the government.

In any case, it is hard to see why the precious terms "pure" and "laissez-faire" should not be replaced by the plain English word "ungoverned"; for, both these terms, "pure" as well as "laissez-faire", have nothing else to say; all they mean is ungoverned capitalism, capitalism protected but ungoverned by the government, or left well alone by it. Of course, this is not to say that the term "ungoverned capitalism" should be understood the wrong way, namely, so as if capitalism requires no government, no state, no law. Only the anarchists under their black flag can misunderstand the ungovernedness of capitalism that way. Capitalism is incompatible with anarchy and anarchism. Men do need a government, and the government should know its proper function. What is required is legality, not controls. Understood the proper way, the term "ungoverned capitalism" is a proper term and should be legalized, so to speak. Then, the term "impure capitalism", too, may appear to show what the real opposite of "pure capitalism" is.

"Pure capitalism" is "laissez-faire capitalism", and both are as good as what ungoverned capitalism is. "Impure capitalism", then, would mean the same as governed capitalism, capitalism governed by the government. However, a governed capitalism, too, appears to be a Utopian notion, since capitalism does not let itself be governed; and, the government is supposed to govern the people, human beings, not capitalism. Capitalism seems to be of the same nature as the things that Midas, a king of Phrygia, had to face, with the difference that, if touched by the government, capitalism does not turn into gold. The very moment it is disturbed by the meddlesome government, capitalism, "pure" and "laissez-faire" turns into its very opposite, i.e., anticapitalism, or socialistic-communistic command economy.

All of this may be true, but if it is so, if a governed capitalism is all but impossible to imagine, then a misgoverned capitalism may be quite thinkable, and would mean actually the same as what impure capitalism should be. Pure capitalism is pure because of its being capitalism that is undisturbed, ungoverned by the government; then, impure capitalism is impure, because of its being a capitalism which is misgoverned by the government. Thus, instead of the figurative terms such as "pure," "laissez-faire" capitalism, and "impure" capitalism, what could be available are two plain English terms: ungoverned capitalism and misgoverned capitalism. It is rather clear that the terms "pure capitalism" and "laissez-faire capitalism" do not make anything clear; they do not reveal but rather gloss over what they are supposed to denote. On the other hand, the plain English terms like "ungoverned capitalism", "governed capitalism", or "misgoverned capitalism", explicitly state that whatever is done is done by the government: ungoverned by the government, governed by the government, or misgoverned by the government.

Such attempt at some demystification regarding the terms of modern economics has to be made if one wants to get to the point where the difference between what is capitalism and what is alleged to be the "command economy" of communism, or socialism, could be established. Capitalism itself is said to know, properly speaking, only one mode of existence, and that mode, as it is known already, is called, whether craftily or unthoughtfully, "laissez-faire capitalism", meaning in straight English, nothing but ungoverned capitalism, or more wordily, an ungoverned mode of the existence of capitalism. It is, then, this ungoverned mode that is declared to be the only mode for capitalism to exist. However, if this should be true, then capitalism, instead of having been in existence for a number of centuries, must have been in existence, perhaps, only for decades; and, the advanced part of mankind, that is, what we know as civilized mankind, must have lived, for all this time, either without any economic system, or with an economic system other than what is known as capitalist.

But, to return to the opposition, said to be diametrical or also polar, between "pure, laissez-faire capitalism" and the "command economy". Without any figurative terms the ordinary English could show it more clearly what this opposition amounts to. "Pure, laissez-faire capitalism" means ungoverned capitalism; "the command economy" means the misgoverned economy. And, that is what the above opposition, or rather contraposition, amounts to: it is the opposition between what is ungoverned and what is misgoverned; or in other words, between what is being left alone and what is being not left alone.

Modern economics does not seem to care too much about how its diametrical oppositions are framed. In this particular case of the opposition between "pure, laissez-faire capitalism" and "the command economy", it is not at all clear why the opposition, when expressed in terms of ordinary English, should be stated as ungoverned capitalism versus the misgoverned economy (instead of misgoverned capitalism); and, it is no less unclear why the same opposition should be stated as the misgoverned economy versus ungoverned capitalism (instead of the ungoverned economy). Most likely, the idea is that what is ungoverned is supposed to be capitalism, and what is misgoverned must be the economy.

It is apparent that modern economics has some difficulties in articulating its oppositions between "laissez-faire capitalism" and what is required to mean "communism". Matters could be made easier, if it were simply admitted that the actual opposition, said to be diametrical, polar, and antipodal, is the opposition between an ungoverned capitalism and a misgoverned capitalism. This may be hard to admit, but if that is indeed hard, then the opposition could be at least stated correctly as the opposition between an ungoverned economy and a misgoverned economy. Hereupon, if the ungoverned economy is equated with capitalism, then the entire philosophy of "laissez-faire capitalism" can be summed up by saying that capitalism means an ungoverned economy, while a misgoverned economy means, on the other hand, either socialism or communism. So, then, without the Frenchified term "laissez-faire capitalism" and without the metaphoric term "command economy", this is how the antithesis, the contraposition, and antagonism between capitalism and communism should look like: it is the ungoverned economy versus the misgoverned economy.

But, as the businessmen are wont to say: "What are we talking about"? Or, to make it clearer, are we talking the economy, or the government again? What is before us here is actually the opposition between what is ungoverning and what is misgoverning. Lest it be forgotten: whatever is said to be uncommanded, i.e., ungoverned, is ungoverned by the government, and whatever is said to be commanded, i.e., misgoverned, is misgoverned by the government. The opposition, supposed to be polar and diametrical, is the opposition between what the government is to do or not to do; it is not, what the economy is or is not. The same entity, the same economy, is either governed or misgoverned, uncommanded or commanded, by no other entity, person, or institution, but the government.

It should be well remembered, moreover, that whatever is meant by the government is not simply any kind of government; what is meant exactly by the government is no other governing but a political government. Therefore, the ungoverned economy should be stated as a politically ungoverned economy, and the misgoverned economy as a politically misgoverned economy.

The matter is now that a politically ungoverned economy, i.e., a politically uncommanded economy, is nothing but economy; it is nothing but what is economic. It is a "left alone economy" (said to be the "laissez-faire economy"), the economy left well alone by the political government. On the other side, the diametrical opposite is not merely the economy but a political misgoverning of the economy, a political commanding of the economy, which cannot be an economic system itself, because an economic system is what the economy is, not what the political government does. What can be observed here, in this diametrical opposition between two supposedly economic systems, capitalist and allegedly communist systems, is this: in the case of capitalism, there is a clear dichotomy between what is economic and what is political; in the case of the alleged communism, on the opposite hand, there is that absurd sameness of what is political and what is economic (actually, the sameness of what is misgoverned and what is misgoverning, the sameness of what is commanded and what is commanding). Obviously, the main problem of what is so metaphorized as "command or commanded economy" is the same: it is the problem of being a sham-economic system, an economic-but-political system. Here, once more, is a governmental policy, an economic policy of the political government, which is "commanded" to be taken as an economic "system".

What should be considered again are the following questions: If the so-called command or commanded economy is an economic system apart, what is, then, the economic policy of the political government that commands, or rather misgoverns, the economy? If the "command or commanded economy" is an economic policy of the political government, what is, then, the economic system that is commanded, or misgoverned, by the political government? In particular, if communism was the economic system of the communist country, what was the economic policy of its communist government? If communism was the economic policy of the communist government, what was the economic system of its communist country? But, these are the questions that can be left unanswered. The answer to the following question, however, can be given right away: What happens to the communist economic system if the economic policy of the communist government is discontinued? The answer could be no other but what follows: if the economic policy of the communist government is discontinued, the communist economic system would disappear; and, it would do so, first, because a "communist economic system" is a piece of fraudulent nonsense; second, because that system is only an economic policy of the political government that is fraudulently or brainlessly misnamed as "communist" or "socialist".

After what has been said, the diametrical opposition between what is said to be capitalism and what is commanded to be known as communism (or socialism) cannot be viewed as the opposition between two economic systems; for, again, it amounts to nothing more than to the opposition between what is economic and what is political. In fact, the opposition, repeatedly said here to be polar-diametrical, instead of being diametrical, looks rather asymmetrical, resembling the parallel lines which are made to meet.

It is, then, quite visible that the diametrical "polarity" between the so-called laissez-faire economy and the alleged command economy is not an economic polarity; it is rather a governmental polarity, a political polarity. It is the polarity between what is politically ungoverning and what is politically misgoverning the same entity, the same economic system. It is, again, the same opposition, not between two economic systems, but between two governmental economic policies, the "national policies": the so-called laissez-faire policy and the policy of what is termed "interventionism", i.e., the governmental interference with the existing economic system. The very term "laissez-faire capitalism" is, at bottom, itself a foolish attempt to identify (or even define) capitalism in terms of what the government is to do, that is to say, in governmental terms, and in essence, in political terms.⁹ As to equating the so-called command economy, (the state-commanded economy) with communism, there seems to be little that could be done about it, although it exceeds the other notorious equations of the century in its stupidity.

The actual equation, in the meantime, is between what is meant by the term "command economy" and what is supposed to be "state-ism". There is no use in pretending that the term "command economy" and the term "state-ism" are anything else but essentially identical terms. The difference is only that the "command economy" is stated as a form of economy, while "state-ism" manifestly means what is non-economic. The actual equation or identity, therefore, proves to be between what is economic and what is non-economic.

There is, of course, no magic in human semantics that could make the term "state-ism"-or "etatism"-denote an economic system; or, compel the term to mean what is not political. Nevertheless, that is what occurs; it is what modern economics is trying, and has been trying, to do: to make what is political mean what is economic. The popular term "command economy" is only another misnomer for "state-ism" to make what is not economic sound like an economic system. This way, whether tacitly, impliedly, or otherwise, "state-ism" is accepted in modern economics as an economic term, that is, as a term denoting an "economic system".

Actually, the term "state-ism" is there to cover a string of terms. Only, the morphology of the word "state-ism" presents a problem. The stem of the word is STATE-, and it means what is political. The suffix of the word is -ISM, and it means what is a system. Hence, it would make no difference if the term "state-ism" be spelled as "political-ism". The meaning is the same, and the morphology insists on saying that neither of these words can denote anything but what is a political ISM, i.e., a political system. This would again bring up the following questions: what is the diametrical opposite of pure capitalism? The command economy. What is state-ism? It is the diametrical opposite of pure capitalism. Unless pure capitalism has two different diametrical opposites, state-ism means the same as what the command economy is. The command economy is said to be economy, and is thus what is economic; state-ism is the same as political-ism, and is thus what is political. What should be the conclusion, then? Only this: whatever is economic is political; and, whatever is political is economic.

It is too bad if modern economics does not want to see the problem. What we have here is "an economic science" which has no clear idea of what an economic system is. It does not know how to tell the difference between what is an economic system and what is a political order or establishment. Not so with the French Physiocrats, by the way. The physiocratic argument was that the economy was what was governed by its own laws, the economic, the natural laws. The economy and the forms of production were conceived "as physiological forms of society: as forms arising from the natural necessity of production itself, forms that are independent of anyone's will or of politics." The state, the government, was considered as an alien element, i.e., a non-economic element. What is, then, an economy, a "command economy", that is governed by nothing but the governmental laws, the political laws? Whatever it is, it is not an economic "system"; or, it is a chimeric economic system. In modern economics, whatever was non-economic, or alien to what was economic, becomes an economic entity capable of generating at least two economic systems, "mixed" and "unmixed". This way, a political order or establishment becomes an economic "system", an additional economic ISM coequal with an economic system like capitalism.

Still, one should take a closer look at the term "state-ism" to see what it is really that the term is supposed to denote (or, to say it straight out, to see how nonsensical the term is). As it is, the term cannot denote what actually exists: if anything, it could denote only what is a non-fact. As totalitarian as the term is, it cannot stand alone. It is meant to denote a figmentary extraeconomic entity that is totally political and totally non-economic. That is why the term spells the way it does and is identical to what "political-ism" is. "State-ism" equals "political-ism" and equals exactly a political system MINUS an economic system.

This is then the logic of the theory of "state-ism," or rather the statist theory of "socialism" and "communism". State-ism means political-ism; it means a political system, a political establishment. What is the socio-economic system that is the base of state-ism? It is "socialism" or "communism". What is "socialism"? Or, what is "communism"? It proves to be nothing but what is identical to state-ism. The economic as well as social base of state-ism is thus nothing but state-ism. The term "state-ism" means that nothing exists as a system except what is a political system; and, if there is an "essential economic identity" between state-ism and communism, the assumption that communism is an economic system is evidently untenable. Theoretically, communism was never to mean anything but a non-economic and non-political social formation. No other sort of communism was ever thought to be conceivable. As such, "communism has never been a historical datum" ever since the dawn of what we call the civilization.

It is in the twentieth century that communism as well as socialism happened to be identical to state-ism. But, nothing can ever make state-ism mean an economic system, or prevent it from being an extraeconomic political establishment, and whatever is identical to state-ism can never be prevented from being the same political establishment. Then, whatever is made to mean communism is only a political entity.

Another side of the question is this: What is it that is based upon that political establishment? Or, what is it that is co-existent with that extraeconomic political establishment? This is a political entity, a regime, a government, a state, that is the base of nothing but of itself, and is based upon nothing but upon itself. It is, in fact, a government that exists of itself, by itself, and for itself. It is what is called "omnipotent government", an organization that, as Herr von Mises put it, stands "on its own legs". Whoever has seen the Empire State Building with its ground floor missing should have less difficulty to visualize what this "omnipotent government" is. In short, it must be said to be a government, or a state, that is suspended in midair, and therefore, must be in dire need of what among the structural designers was known as "skyhook". Now, if one remembers the proposition that "communism, or socialism, means an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production", one should be able to form some idea of an economic system which is based on the government that is itself suspended in midair.

One is actually required, then, to believe that a political order or establishment is capable of existing, while and where no economic system exists. Those who like to believe in that sort of "objectivist" reality, do also believe in the miracle of "abolished capitalism": and, those who believe in the miracle of "abolished capitalism", or capitalism "abolished", must also believe in the miracle of "capitalism resurrected". The tale of "omnipotent governments" having performed the miracle of abolished capitalism by way of displacing or replacing an economic system with nothing but a political regime is, indeed, one of the main dogmata of the century, and that is the century that has seen a man put his foot on the moon. It is at that level of consciousness of their own historical deeds that mankind is about to enter the next, the twenty-first century.

Entering the next century requires no miracle; the mere force of calendar will do it. What should be of interest here is rather the following: Is there such a thing as economic science? If there is, what is the object of its scientific inquiry? Or, the subject of its study? Is it what is economic, or is it what is political? Modern economics is indeed a form of economic science that happens to deal with the miracles and the miraculous; not only what came to be known as the economic miracle of Japan, but moreover, with the politically performed miracles called forth by what is supposed to be "a Political elite".

So, then, this is the list of some of the "real-world" miracles of the twentieth century that Modern Economics can play with: first, the miracle of "abolished capitalism"; that is to say, the abolition of an economic system that was displaced by a political system without ever being replaced with anything but the same political system; then, the miracle of the miraculous collapse of an economic system that was not there and had never been in existence; lastly, the miracle of the politically performed resurrection of an economic system that was very much there and never happened to be out of existence. However, be that as it is for now.

Meanwhile, the following is, e.g., what the dictionaries have to say about the term "syncretism": Syncretism means "the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, beliefs, practices," etc. In other words, syncretism may be said to be what is mixed; mixed as in "mixed economy"; it is a mix of principal propositions of different or opposing views or beliefs. But, at the same time, the historical background of the term reveals its meaning as, to quote the dictionaries, "union of two parties against a third", that is, "a united front of two opposing parties against a common foe." Modern economics, the science of "mixed economy", proves to be that syncretism-a united front against a common foe. What, then, proves to be the common foe? The common foe proves to be the historical truth, the historical science.

In the opening paragraphs of this introduction, a promise was made to call things by their proper names. That is what should be done now. The proper names for whatever is misnamed as "socialism", "communism", command economy, and the like, are state monopoly capitalism, capitalist state-ism, or state capitalism. State-capitalism, capitalist state-ism, cannot exist unless capitalism exists, and unless whatever economic system exists is capitalism.

The theoreticians of state-ism, or etatism, insist on equating socialism with state-ism. At the same time, they insist on having socialism as an economic system. But one must be incapable of thinking to fail to see that if socialism equals state and state-ism, then socialism is nothing but a political system. Also, one must be equally as capable to think that state-ism is more than what a political system is; or, that a political system can exist and go on existing while and where no economic system exists. Whatever the relations between the two may be, a political system and an economic system must inevitably co-exist. What, then, is the economic system which is supposed to co-exist with whatever system is termed state-ism? It is supposed to be socialism. But, socialism equals state-ism. Socialism co-existing with state-ism is the same as state-ism co-existing with state-ism. Unluckily, no economic school can ever make a system co-exist with what is only itself.

Modern economics fails to admit that the absurd equations-(socialism equals state-ism, “command economy” equals communism)-are, indeed, absurd. All the same, there is no "sober economic science" in nature, or in this society, to show that anything predicated upon these equations could be ever scientific. The simple truth is that a politically misgoverned capitalism is capitalism and, again, capitalism. Thereupon, modern economics is confronted with a damning problem, namely, the problem of demonstrating the essential economic difference between politically misgoverned capitalism-which is what state capitalism is-and what is cheatingly made to mean socialism or communism. Meantime, in terms of normal thinking, whenever the state goes as far as grabbing the capitalistic means of production, it is not capitalism that turns socialistic; it is, on the contrary, the state that becomes the capitalist-an aggregate, collective capitalist.

State-ism must co-exist; it cannot exist alone, all of itself, for itself, and by itself. State-ism must necessarily be either a socialist state-ism, or a capitalist state-ism. Socialist state-ism is the same as statist state-ism and is, thus, a piece of nonsense; actual socialism, in turn, is stateless. Thus, the economic system with which state-ism could co-exist cannot be socialism, alleged or other. Hence, the only economic system co-existent with state-ism is precisely capitalism. Unlike state-ism co-existing with socialism, state-ism co-existing with capitalism is not the same as state-ism co-existing with state-ism. State-ism is what is political-capitalism is what is economic. State-ism co-existing with capitalism means the co-existence between two different systems-a political system and an economic system; that is, it does not mean a system co-existing with nothing but itself. Thus, the term state-ism makes no sense, unless it means state-ism based on capitalism, or capitalist state-ism. This is, in fact, what was said before: the proper terms are state-monopoly capitalism, capitalist state-ism, or state capitalism.

Again, state capitalism, capitalist state-ism, does not exist unless capitalism exists. State capitalism is capitalist state-ism; it is not an economic system by itself. The only economic system is capitalism. State capitalism, capitalist state-ism, is only an economic policy of the state, or of a government. Capitalism cannot exist unless class-divided society exists. The class-divided society is inconceivable without a class rule. State capitalism, then, is a form of class rule; it is not a socio-economic formation.

The socio-economic formation, or the economic formation of society, is the category of historical materialism, i.e., Marxism. In terms of Marxism, a socio-economic formation is a mode of the existence of the human labor power as a class, as an economic class. Accordingly, whenever the human labor power exists as a class of slaves, as a slave class, the socio-economic formation that exists is slavery. Whenever the human labor power exists as a serf-peasant class, the socio-economic formation that exists is serfdom. Whenever the human labor power exists as a class of working people, as the working class, the socio-economic formation that exists is capitalism. Capitalism is the mode of the existence of the working people, as a class, as the working class; and, it is the only mode of the existence of the working class as a class. The existence of the working class on a social scale means capitalism and cannot mean anything but capitalism. Again, no working class can ever exist as a class unless capitalism exists. Moreover, whether ungoverned, governed, or misgoverned, as long as the working class exists, capitalism is capitalism; and, the different institutions, different graphs, and different curves do not make any difference. This is the way it is from the standpoint of Marxism; it is certain that from that standpoint, a non-capitalistic mode of the existence of the working class can be nothing but a piece of fraudulent nonsense. In fact, disregarding what is wrong or what is right, the entire opposition between what is Marxism and what is anti-Marxism can be seen as the opposition between two standpoints, the standpoint of the owners of the means of production and the standpoint of the operators of the means of production. According to the standpoint of the owners of the means of production, if the owners of the means of production are different, then the economic system that exists must be different, in spite of the fact that the operators of the means of production, as well as the means of production, are the same. According to the standpoint of the operators of the means of production, if the operators of the means of production, as well as the means of production, are the same, then the economic system that exists must be the same, regardless whether the owners of the means of production are the same or not. The first proves to be the standpoint of the non-human, material component of the forces of production; the second is that of the human component of the forces of production.

In the text that is to follow, a distinction is highlighted between two seemingly synonymous terms denoting the two forms of anti-Marxism which claim to be Marxist; namely, self-styled Marxism and pseudo-Marxism. Arrant, commonplace anti-Marxism is too blind to see the difference, but a serious student of the political history of the century should not fail to notice it.

Self-styled Marxism is a form of anti-Marxism that consists in replacing the categories of Marxism with the notions of anti-Marxism, while retaining the mere name of Marxism. Pseudo-Marxism, on the other hand, is a form of anti-Marxism that consists in misemploying the categories of Marxism to present anti-Marxism as Marxism. Self-styled Marxism consists in replacing the content of Marxism and misemploying the name Marxism. Pseudo-Marxism consists in misemploying the very content of Marxism. With self-styled Marxism, the Marxist concept of the class rule of an economic class is replaced by the anti-Marxist notion of the "class rule" of the bureaucracy. With pseudo-Marxism, the notion of the class rule of one economic class is substituted for the notion of the class rule of another economic class; to be precise, with pseudo-Marxism, the class rule of the petty-peasant class is renamed and presented as the class rule of the working class.¹⁰

The term anti-Marxism is here understood to mean the way of thinking which consists, first of all, in rejecting the Marxist view that history, modern history particularly, instead of being what the bureaucracies do, is what nations do, while the nations do what the ruling economic classes do. In terms of the same Marxist view, the economic classes are understood to mean only those parts of society, which possess the means of material production, or which operate the means of material production but do not possess such means, or which do both, possess and operate, the means of material production and exchange.

Now, the Americans, free republicans, that is, do not have to go too far if they want to know what the economic classes are; they do not have to consult "huge best sellers" full of Czarist vulgarity. The sixteenth President of this Republic has left an excellent description of the economic classes which could be found in the American society prior to the Civil War. It would not be out of place to remind the reader of what Lincoln had to say on the subject, not once, but twice, as far back as 1859, restating the same in 1861:

A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and, with their capital, hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class-neither work for others, nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States, a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters; while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men with their families-wives, sons, and daughters-work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital-that is, they labor with their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed, and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Thus, according to Lincoln, a free, or non-slave, society would consist of four economic classes:

First, the class of those laborers who neither labor for others, nor have others laboring for them; second, the class of those who labor with their own hands and also hire others to labor for them; third, the class of those who avoid labor and hire others to labor for them; forth, the class of those laborers who are hired to labor for others.

As to the product of labor, the first class is the class of those who take the whole product to themselves as the product of their own labor. The second class, the mixed class, is the class of those who take the product of their own labor, and also take a part of the product of the labor of those who labor for them. The third class, the labor-avoiding class, is the class of those who divide the product of the labor of others between themselves and those who labor for them. The forth class, the hired class, is the class of those laborers who, instead of taking the whole product of their own labor to themselves, take only a part of the product of their own labor. Hereupon, it were good to understand who, according to Lincoln, should be deemed the producer of the whole product.

It is hard to guess what the "modern social theory" is supposed to be or to mean, but the present-day historical science, if there is one, can ill afford to ignore the thoughts of a thinker like Lincoln. The matter is that the President of Civil-War republicans is now only a towering shadow of the glorious years of past century; instead of Lincoln's republicanism, however, what makes up the face of the ignorant present of this century is czaro-republicanism under the spiritual headship of a Russian proto-pope, the prophet from Russia, anti-American to the very marrow of his Czaristic bones.

Before having done with this introduction, we have to add that what is also seen here as important is recognizing the distinction between the term "antirevolution" and the term "counterrevolution".¹¹ The difference between the antirevolution and the counterrevolution is, indeed, quite clear, and could be stated, at first, briefly.

The antirevolution would be a pre-revolutionary phenomenon, whereas the counterrevolution is a post-revolutionary phenomenon. The counterrevolution is what follows an accomplished revolution; the antirevolution, on the other hand, is what consists in an effort to prevent a revolution from being accomplished. The antirevolution is the frontal enemy of the revolution, while the counterrevolution is the enemy in the rear, the rear enemy of the revolution. How this difference is denoted morphologically is not important, but the difference makes a valid semanteme, and must be taken into account, must be given some form of utterance. It would not be very thoughtful, for example, to class A. Hitler, the Fuehrer, as well as Wilhelm, the German Kaiser, under the same term, counterrevolutionary. The difference between the two is too important to be left lexically unexpressed. And, therefore, in this work, what is negated by the revolution is termed anti-revolution, whereas the negation of an accomplished revolution is termed counterrevolution.

Even more important is, however, to understand that the terms "anti-revolution", "revolution", "counterrevolution", mean nothing unless they are understood to mean the political efforts of economic classes in their class-against-class struggle, which is what the political struggle is, and is thus the struggle for the state power. The logic of revolutions is, then, the logic of the historical struggles of classes and its understanding is not possible without taking into account the concrete historical situations wherein the struggling economic classes find themselves.

Notes to the Introduction

1. The term "statism" is repeatedly used by whatever calls itself "The Objectivist". Herr L. Von Misses of the Austrian school of economics prefers the term "etatism". Both insist on equating "socialism" with "state-ism" or "etatism".

2. The term "planned economy" or "planned national economy" is indeed brainless even if it were to be used non-fraudulently. Nobody ever spoke of "planned economies" before modern "socialists", Stalinists as well as Hitlerites, came to call their racing economies "planned". That "planned economy" is a part of the world market. What was said before to be possible was not "planned economy", but planned production; and, that was thought to be possible only if the world market were to disappear. The existence of such economic sectors as military industry is already evidential of the fact that the production, instead of being planned, is ruled by the laws of the anarchy of the world market. Also, Herr L. von Mises appears to be quite right when he writes: "These two socialist systems"-that in Russia and that in Germany-"have been working within a world the greater part of which still clings to a market economy. The rulers of these socialist states base the calculations on which they make their decisions on the prices established abroad. Without the help of these prices their actions would be aimless and planless. Only in so far as they refer to this price system are they able to calculate, keep books, and prepare their plans". (Omnipotent Government, p. 58).

3. Incidentally, one thing the Nazis, the German National Socialists, did not do was to destroy Germany's economy by any art of "economic destructionism", or any other mysterious art. On the contrary, the historical fact is that Germany’s economy was disintegrating exactly before the Nazis came to power, and the Nazis were able to come to power because Germany’s economy was disintegrating. Also, the Nazis appeared to be the only party that put Germany’s economy in some sort of order. In any case, historically it happened so that Germany’s economy was not destroyed by any fabled destructionism; it was destroyed because Germany itself was destroyed, not by destructionism, but by the ordinary way of global war: above all, by the war effort of the U S Government, by the bombs of its armed forces; and, nobody knows if that was not the only way to get rid of the Nazi devil.

4. Some years ago, on one of the TV discussion programs, one of the participants in it put it this way in a somewhat Baudelairesque mood: "The problem of the twentieth century is neither capitalism nor socialism. The problem is—boredom". The participant apparently failed to have the thought completed: The problem was the boredom of being fooled by fools.

5. How many economic systems are involved in what is said to be the mixed economy, is not an idle question to consider. The "mixed economy" is actually a spectrum of a number of economic systems: "pure" capitalism, or "laissez-faire" economy; "welfare socialism", or socialist economic system of capitalism; "market socialism”,or capitalist economic sys- tem of socialism; and, socialism "pure", or "command economy". Now, if anyone wished to graphically visualize the actuality of "our mixed economy", what could be suggested, for instance, is imagining Manhattan as a grid of socialistic streets and capitalistic avenues.

6. Besides, major wars discontinue capitalism. During the world wars, capitalism becomes an abolished capitalism; it is then re-established as restored capitalism after the end of the war. Indeed, war industry is no longer a capitalistic industry: capitalism is interrupted and is absent during the war. For, there is an essential economic identity between the war economy and price controls. The absence of capitalism signifies the presence of some other economic system; that system must be and is socialism.

7. Moreover, on second thoughts, it may become apparent that having "socialism" as an "alternative economic system", as "interventionism" and "economic destructionism" may have been quite needful; for, if this alleged socialism were allowed to be what it is, namely, a political regime or order, then the only economic system left to exist in this world would be the capitalist economic system. Capitalism would be left all alone out there in this harsh world, unopposed, unrivaled; and, all the problems of this world, and all the consequences of this century, would be the problems and the consequences of capitalism and nobody but capitalism. There is always the "omnipotent government" there to be blamed, but then the problem is how to explain the omnipotence of the "omnipotent government". Herr L. von Mises, the author of the book Omnipotent Government, had a good deal to say about the omnipotence and the rise of the Total State, but could explain little. Meanwhile, as it was said very long time ago, "the chief organizing force of anarchically built capitalist society is the spontaneously growing and expanding national and international market". The totalitarianism of that force, the totalitarianism of the market-place, seems to be more significant than by the totalitarian prattle monopolized totalitarianism of the total state. Even in the following conversation with a streetwalker one could find something instructive if the question of market totalitarianism is to be discussed.

Everything has its price—everything. She? She is a whore. I am not a whore. I am a prostitute. I have a price. I get paid. Nobody can get what I have without paying for it.

What do you have?

You know what I have…My body. And, it has a price.

What do you do to get that price?

You know what I do…

You get penetrated, I suppose…

What?

Having sex with men…

Well, yes. I do. Most of the time.

And, that is the way you work…

Well, yes. That is my work, I suppose.

Do you ever get penetrated; do you ever have sex, while being asleep?

May be. I do not know, I could…

Well, a woman could get penetrated, that is, could have sex even if she is asleep, even if she is unconscious, totally doped, or drugged to sleep. You know that a man could drug a woman to sleep and then have an intercourse with her while she is asleep…

So?

So, the work you do requires no consciousness, hence, no effort. On the other hand, the man cannot do what he does, unless he is awake, more or less conscious…

So what?

He has to perform; he has to work. Why does he not get paid?

Because he is not selling. I am selling; I am supposed to get paid. For everything you sell, has its price. Everything has its price. I am supposed to get that price.

That is clear. Indeed, work has nothing to do with it. You have your property, your precious body; that is your talent. Why should you work, when you have a ready-made commodity that you can sell, that is, hire out and get your price for it

So then, everything in the world has its price; and, that means that every property is a commodity. A prostitute sells her commodity, her property, her body. A worker sells his property, his laboring power. There is, as it could be recalled, such a time-honored opinion that, not only the worker, but also the capitalist does sell, or hire out, his property, namely, his means of production to the worker and gets his price for doing so. All of this happens in accordance to the laws of the logic of totalitarianism of the total market, which seems to prove to be more total than the totalitarianism of the total state. The law of universal venality, of general corruption, is the law of market totalitarianism. Market totalitarianism—that is "the time when everything moral or physical having become a saleable commodity, is conveyed to the market." Market totalitarianism is "the last phase of exchange—saleable value at its third power".

8. Here is, for example, what one of the "economy-commanding" officials was quoted as saying: "we are having trouble defining what our system is. We are trying a number of experiments. Those that work we will call socialism; those that do not, we will call capitalism". This sounds like a silly joke, of course. It is silly, but it is more than a joke. It shows how much "command" does the brainy bureaucrat have over his economy. The only "command" he has, however, is that of his tongue in misusing and abusing the tools of human semantics. The only "number of experiments" that works is capitalism, to be sure; therefore, capitalism must be known as "socialism" and "communism", too. On the other hand, modern economics, too, has nothing else to do but to take the words of every fake-socialist bureaucrat as a "model in representing reality".

9. It can hardly go unnoticed that an earnest effort is made to define capitalism in non-economic terms, or simply, in any terms except economic; that is to say, not in terms of what economy is, but in terms of what, e. g., governments are to do. Somebody—most likely someone who likes to be known as “The Objectivist”—must have tried to define capitalism, at first, even by merely pronouncing the possessive pronoun "mine". That would not be all sufficient. So, it had to be admitted that "unfortunately there is no clear-cut and generally accepted definition of capitalism". Naturally so; for, one cannot really define, e. g., a tractor or a truck, as a means of production, just by saying: "my tractor, my truck". On the other hand, a good idea of a tractor, or a truck, as a means of production, can be obtained by way of comparing it to, and differentiating it from, a mule, or a camel, as a means of production. And, the comparison is bound to reveal the fact that, being the product of industrial labor, a tractor, or a truck, as a means of production, regardless of its being "mine", or governmental, is evidential of the fact that the existing society is capitalist and nothing but capitalist; while a mule, or a camel, as a means of production, being the product of agricultural, pre-industrial labor, regardless of its being private, or governmental, is no such thing, and is evidential only of the fact that capitalism is still to come, or is bound to come. It could be added here, too, that—on a national scale—a replacement of tractors and trucks, as means of production, by mules and camels is all but inconceivable; whereas the replacement of mules and camels by tractors and trucks is not only conceivable but unavoidable. And, this is so because the forces of production are and must be in perpetual action, and that is what makes capitalism inevitable. Thus, capitalism is the system of production that consists in operating a particular type of the means of production, namely, the means of production which have never been seen by the human eye before capitalism made its appearance in human history. It would not be wrong, therefore, to call these means of production the capitalistic means of production. One wonders, in the meantime, why anything should be called capitalism if it is not an economic system; or why anyone should be so brainless as to try making capitalism look like a noneconomic capitalism. Is it not a well-known fact that capital is a sum of money invested to make profit? Any businessman should know what capital is.

10. The petty-peasantry is an economically depressed class. The class rule of the capitalist class makes up the whole epoch; the class rule of the petty-peasantry, on the other hand, is possible only as a transition period, transitional from the capitalistic transformation to the capitalistic evolution. The class rule is not a rule of a person or of several persons. The class rule means that what is ruling is the entire politically centralized totality of an economic class. The totality of class interests of an economic class finds its reification and realization in the corresponding pattern of a political formation.

11. The following sentence, for instance, was well-known and was written by L. D. Trotsky himself: "While the anti-revolutionary sides of Menshevism are already expressed in full force today, the anti-revolutionary features of Bolshevism threaten to become a great danger only in the event of the victory of the revolution." The victory of the revolution should mean that whatever was anti-revolutionary was defeated. Why would "a great danger", arisen after the victorious revolution, be still "anti-revolutionary" instead of being counterrevolutionary?

UP▲

CHAPTER I: THE CAMPS OF ANTIEVOLUTION

The only sure thing about the world is that its ways are mutable. It was not long ago when this same world seemed to be almost unable to go on doing its daily business without knowing what the Nobel-prized storyteller named Alexandr Solzhenitsyn had on his mind. It was, then, not easy to foresee that a man so overloaded with huge superlatives, possessed of the huge multiplicity of attributes, would—within a stretch of a decade—shrink to the human dimensions of a TV chat moderator, or plainly, "a talk show host." Now with all his prophecies fulfilled, there was talk—in his own Mother Russia—of his being "irrelevant," "passé," even "totally passé." His "huge best seller is now gone and forgotten," R. Grenier of The Washington Times had to complain in 1994 already, the huge best seller evidently being The Gulag Archipelago.

The Prophet of the Century

Now, the relevance—or irrelevance—of Mr. Solzhenitsyn as a story-telling author is a subject-matter of art criticism, although the Gulag, by the way, is not exactly a work of art. To us what is relevant here is the twentieth-century phenomenon symbolized by the name of Solzhenitsyn, the Solzhenitsyn phenomenon; not so much as a literary phenomenon, not as a cultural phenomenon, but rather as a political phenomenon. As such, the phenomenon "Solzhenitsyn" is not irrelevant and must not and cannot be "gone and forgotten."

In view of this, more important is, for instance, to understand the grotesque incident of the twentieth century, namely, the fact that, in the hall of American citizenry, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the martyred President of the Great Republic had to coexist with the clamorous apostle of Russian Czarism, the fierce defender of Czarist autocracy, which autocracy, in his own words, "was not defended ten times as fiercely as it should have been." This, then, is the question that requires some answer: How could a Czarist zealot, hence, a Russian ultra-chauvinist manage to become an honorary citizen of the North American republic, the constitutional republic, the republic ab ovo?

Congress is still on record of having done what it did in 1974, as though precisely at the time of what appeared to be the presidential crisis, Congress did not have anything else to do but to spend time on appreciating storytelling in Russian vernacular. Now, the Congressional infatuation with the author from Russia was not really a l'art pour l'art affair; for, Congress was never meant to be a school of art appreciation with the majority of its Congressmen being graduated art critics. It is rather obvious that the author, said to be "the man revered and feared as the prophet of the twentieth century," was appreciated as a "freedom fighter." But the matter was that the "freedom fighter" was not an ordinary, normal freedom fighter; he was rather an extraordinary freedom fighter; to be specific, a Czarist freedom fighter. Moreover, that Czarist freedom fighter had also been a protégé of a patron; and the patron was actually the executioner of the actual freedom fighters—the Hungarian freedom fighters.¹ The name of the patron was Nikita, Nikita Falstaffov; the same Nikita who armed his hand with his shoe to make his presence felt in the UN Assembly; the same Nikita who rolled his Russian tanks into Hungary, crushing the insurrection; the same Nikita who tried to place his Russian atomic bombs right here almost within a swimming distance from Florida.

In his major interview of 1989,² the "revered and feared prophet of the twentieth century" was angry; but not only angry, he was also ashamed; not of himself, he was ashamed of journalists ("it is remarkable, and it makes me ashamed of journalists"), American journalists. He was probably not the first and the only great among the Greats of the twentieth century who happened to end up as being ashamed of journalists and what is called media after having been built up by the same journalists and that same media. He never appeared to mind when he was compared with Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and Hugo and Dante, and—and, not to forget, the unforgettable Mr. Buckley, he who, on his "Firing Line"—also in his capacity of an art critic—made a resounding splash by mentioning someone named Shakespeare in the same sentence with the prophetic bard of Russian Czars. Nobody could say that Buckley had not read his Shakespeare—to make comparisons.

But granted that Mr. A.I. Solzhenitsyn, the author of the Gulag, was a highly-talented writer. It was, however, impossible to seriously take everything that was written or said about him. This author was hardly ever mentioned in a normal way as someone of this world. He was usually spoken of as "the man belonging to the entire mankind"; was repeatedly hailed as "the prophet of our time"; as "the totally committed giant," a wrathful giant. His wrath was said to be "Olympian"—"Olympian wrath" (pronounced the Russian way as Olympian rats). His irony was said to be "savage"—"savage irony" (savage, but never more savage than the syntax of his Russian text³, somewhat humanized in English translation).

The Explainer

Yet, more important and no longer amusing was the effort to establish this prophet as an authority, namely, as an authority on what is known as the Russian Revolution. His ponderous The Red Wheel ("I worked 53 years on The Red Wheel"), by way of foolish coupling of words, was described as "a historical epic explaining the major events leading up to the October Revolution of 1917."⁴ It is this "explaining" that required an explanation. None of the definitions of the term "epic" (in dictionaries or elsewhere) tells anything about the explaining. Obviously, two things had been here newly created: a new genre in narrative art and a new branch in historical science. But, this thoughtless confounding of what is meant to be artistic and what is supposed to be scientific was not entirely groundless. The prophet from Russia is indeed an explainer, and a very eager one at that. Only his zeal to explain is not quite in harmony with his medium for delivering the explanation. Before anything else, it is to be explained how an epic is supposed to do the explaining, or how the explaining is supposed to be done in the form of an epic.

Still, the epically-explaining prophet seemed to have an answer: it was that

A work of art is always multidimensional, is never made up of empty abstractions.⁵

That sounded like a salvo against the one-dimensionals. It was apparent that the prophet was steadily on his warpath against whatever would claim to be the historical science, against its "empty abstractions."

But what is really at issue here?...My duty was to describe things as they happened...You have to think, What actually happened.⁶

"Actually" you had to make a wild assumption that a Czarist Russian is possessed of sufficient intelligence to actually know what is actual and what is not actual in "what actually happened." You also had to believe that a czaro-chauvinistic Russian actually knows the method how to hate individual Jews without being hostile to the Hebrew as a national entity. And, when you actually "think what actually happened," you could not fail to come to the conclusion that Judophobism was actually patriotically justified. What was to blame was the actuality. This way no one could blame a czaro-chauvinist for his being a crypto-judophobe.

It was "astonishing" what the sense of actuality could do to an author, and specifically to the fantasy of a fiction writer. Here is what:

...We do not know where it comes from, but we have it. For instance, I started describing General Alexander Krymov, knowing almost nothing about him...And, later I learned that I had described him as though I had seen him. It was astonishing how well I guessed him…⁷

That was precisely what happened when he, thinking of nothing but of "what actually happened," started describing that "behemothan" Jew (Helphand/Parvus), breathing his "marshy breath, right in Lenin's face"; and, Lenin himself (was not Lenin's mother half Jewish?) sitting "like a gopher" (a rodent related to mice), with "Asiatic grin," a "Kalmück extolling a melon in an Astrakhan bazaar"; and, "Nadia" (that is N. Krupskaia, affectionately) looking like "a frozen witch..." It was "astonishing how well" he guessed them, these "knife-kissing bandits." It is also to wonder whether an author who loves to create lines as vulgar as these should not himself look like Apollo—Apollo Rasputinesque, at least.

But now we would have to add here a text of an article written a number of years ago, written even before the world was told that the prophet of the century was about to publish his historical epic—The Red Wheel. The text of the article does not have to be cited in the form of quotations, even though it appears here as it was originally written; it deals with what is actually the most important fragment of The Red Wheel, said to be the work of fifty-three years. How important the fragment was could be seen from the preface by the author to what appeared to have been published with a sense of urgency under the title, Lenin in Zurich. Lenin in Zurich was then published at least five times, by different publishers, and—what was put in boldface—"not one word has been omitted."

Thus, the author Solzhenitsyn came to this part of the world, not only as the author of The Gulag Archipelago, but also as the author of Lenin in Zurich. Both The Gulag and Lenin in Zurich are works of the same author, but they are not of the same kind: The Gulag is an account, and its author is a reporter; Lenin in Zurich is a fiction, and its author is a fictioneer. The text of the article on Lenin in Zurich would fit here because it shows how well the prophet, as a fictioneer, could guess what he did not know, and how well he understood what he had read and copied as well. Thus, what follows can be said to be a note on cultural literacy, the subject being British history.

The Case of British History

Whatever the future historians may say about us, they could not fail to see the greatness of our great communicators, the excellence of our education and, above all, the boundless creativity of our admen. However, when the advertising mentality gets carried away to the point of scattering its wits, a closer examination of our "giants, sages and prophets" is then overdue, and in this time of "educational presidencies" and undernourished drive for excellence in education, the "literacy test" would be exactly where to start. Besides, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, the creator of the "myth-shattering" novel Lenin in Zurich, is himself also the angry author of an article with a thunderous title—the smatterers.

Well, then, here is a "smattering" question:

Does the "myth-shattering" author of Lenin in Zurich know what the terms such as "The Great Rebellion" and "The Glorious Revolution" signify, regardless whether in English or in Russian? Hence, does he, the "brilliant historian," know when—in which year of which century—absolute monarchy had been ended in England? The answer to these questions is brief: he does not know it; he is ignorant of such things as "The Great Rebellion" and the "Glorious Revolution" although these events of British history are the chapters of high school text books.⁸

In other words, if a high school student with as much informed brains as those of Mr. Solzhenitsyn were to face a test-paper containing the above-mentioned items, he would earn an 'F' at least twice: once in the knowledge of history, and once in reading comprehension.

But, where is the evidence that the man who is said to "belong to the entire mankind" proves to be so ignorant of things, which the high school boys should not fail to know? The evidence is in what follows.

Consider, at first, the following passage from Lenin's letter to A. Kollontai, written March 16, 1917, which passage is then reproduced by Mr. Solzhenitsyn in his artistic way while painting the "psychological portrait" of Lenin. Lenin in a long letter writes at the end

Our demand should be the conquest of power by the Soviets of workers (and not by the Kadet swindlers)…

And in conclusion disdainfully exclaims

After the 'Great Rebellion' of 1905—the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1917!⁹

Now, examine the same lines of the same passage as rendered by the "novelist's craft" of Mr. Solzhenitsyn in his "psycho-analytical" novel Lenin in Zurich.

We must wrest all power from the swindling Kadets. Only then will we have the 'great and glorious revolution!...¹⁰

No one should object to the artistic rendering and the novelist's craft of the literary giant, but in this particular case, the giant proves to be a flea and Mr. Solzhenitsyn must get a flat 'F' in reading comprehension because he fails to understand Lenin's sentence. He fails so because he is short of informed brains to know what the terms "The Great Rebellion" and the "Glorious Revolution" denote and imagines them to be mere English words. Indeed, what does the prophetic story-teller mean by "masterly fusing" "The Great Rebellion" and the "Glorious Revolution" into one single "great and glorious revolution"? Is he guilty of falsification? Now, the piece of falsity about "wresting power from Kadets" can be ignored. (Lenin speaks of "the conquest" of power by the Soviets of workers," not merely wresting power from somebody). If so, what, then, is the matter? The matter is that in this documented case Mr. Solzhenitsyn, the "brilliant historian", quite innocently blurts away his "erudition," mindlessly puts his foot into his mouth, i.e., drops a brick, or—as they say in his native tongue—sets himself into a puddle. Too bad, there is nobody in the vicinity of that "literary giant" to make him understand that "great" was the rebellion and "glorious" was the "revolution," and that historically these events happened to occur circa forty years apart.

Actually, the giant-like prophet would have done better by crudely falsifying Lenin's text instead of exposing himself this way as a semi-educated peasant grossly ignorant of the elementary facts of British history.

Indeed, what is the meaning of Lenin's contemptuous juxtaposition of "The Great Rebellion" versus the "Glorious Revolution"? Nothing but this: Mr. Lenin, in this letter to A. Kollontai, expresses his disappointment and disgust concerning the movement of the Russian Revolution from the Revolution of 1905 to the February Revolution of 1917; but Lenin expresses his thought metaphorically by comparing the Revolution of 1905 to "the Great Rebellion" of 1642-49 in England, and the February Revolution of 1917 to the so-called glorious (or bloodless) Revolution of 1688 in the same England. Now, to translate this in kindergarten terms so that even giants could understand it, here is what Lenin meant to say in his letter to A. Kollontai: "in 1905 we, in Russia, in spite of the defeat, had a real revolution comparable to that which in British history is known as "The Great Rebellion." However, now, in February 1917, instead of having a real revolution, we have arrived at an event comparable to that which in the same British history is known as the "Glorious Revolution," and which was not a real revolution but rather a deal made between the ruling classes. This is a retrogressive movement of the revolutionary course in a descending line...It is a shame; we have to do everything to reverse that course..."

Instead of spending nearly a hundred words, Lenin expressed the same message in less than ten words: "After the 'Great Rebellion' of 1905—the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1917!" No person familiar with British history would have any problem to understand Lenin's message, and A. Kollontai did not fail to do so.

Not so Mr. Solzhenitsyn, "the brilliant historian," the "prophet of our time," the "greatest Russian writer still alive," the all-penetrating psychologist or shrink, and occasionally also a craniologist. The meaning of Lenin's message is lost upon the visionary head named Alexander Issayevich, also for no earthly reason advertised as Lenin's psychological portraitist. Lenin's indignation, expressed in setting off two historical events against one another—"The Great Rebellion" versus "The Glorious Revolution"—is "transformed" by the "crafty novelist" and the "compelling" psychologist, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, into a prediction of a single "revolution," "great" and "glorious" at once. Now, this "transformation" is not done because of some artistic imagination of a "literary giant," but simply because of the incapacity of the giant to understand Lenin's text, despite the fact that the editors of Lenin's Russian text have all English words translated in Russian.

And, this is a fact as plain as a Russian pancake: when the "great Russian writer," and the "brilliant historian" was creating his "myth-shattering" Lenin in Zurich, he had lived more than fifty years, but he was still ignorant of the basic facts of British history; that is to say, first, he had no idea what "The Great Rebellion" was; second he had no idea what "The Glorious Revolution" meant; and third, he did not know when absolute monarchy had been ended in England. This fact of the plain ignorance of a man hailed as "the prophet of our time" and the "brilliant historian" exists now as a document in the shape of a book called Lenin in Zurich. There are no prayers in all the Holy Cross Colleges that could get this document undone.¹¹

But, how successful is the "compelling psychological portraitist" in x-raying Lenin's hell-bound soul? Again, one could almost hear the actual Lenin exclaim: "What a shame! After having a real rebellion, to arrive at the farce like that 'Glorious Revolution' of England." But Mr. Solzhenitsyn, with his "remarkable vision" shows no ears of profiting. While the actual Lenin is unhappy and indignant, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, the compelling psychoanalyst, imagines him to be almost ecstatic. While the actual Lenin is disgusted and complaining, Mr. "literary giant" imagines him to be predicting. That is how "compellingly" perspicacious the psychological portraitist is; or, in other words, that is how high the level of his reading comprehension proves to be.

He all but copied the entire letter of Lenin, but at the end, confronted with expressions strange to him, helplessly begins to wonder why Lenin suddenly starts talking English. A "Compelling Psychoanalyst," he finally decides to imagine that the expression like "The Great Rebellion" and "The Glorious Revolution" had been used by Lenin only to flaunt his mastery of English. The "icon-dissolving brilliant historian" shows no suspicion that, not merely English words, but the facts of British history had been used by Lenin as a comparison to express, not some prediction, but his disappointment, and therein the devilish sire of Russian Bolshevism appears to be more convincingly artistic than the Nobel-prized storyteller himself.

The Case of G. Buechner

But the Nobel-prized storyteller is undisturbed. He goes on raving and while raving accuses the others of not knowing what actually proves to be of his own droll making. Here is what he writes of Georg Büchner and of Lenin not knowing that "poet."

Georg Büchner. Died in Zurich with his poem Danton’s Death unfinished…Lenin even could not understand right away: wherefrom this name, Georg Büchner, known to him?.. Yet, all who were known to him were Social Democrats, politicians. But a poet? It pricked: Yes—neighbor… An émigré. Lived in the neighborhood. And died. With Danton’s Death unfinished…¹²

How much of this ravings is a reader supposed to take as some sort of "poetic license" by a "brilliant historian" who is mindless of what he puts into his typewriter? Probably, the art critics should decide that question. Here, ignorance equals ignorance. And, the matter is this: it was impossible for Lenin to know a "poet" named Georg Büchner because a poet by that name had never been in existence. The actual Georg Büchner never wrote a poem, and was always known and is known as a playwright, a dramatist. Nor was it possible for Lenin to know a figmental "poem" like "Danton's Death," simply because there was no such poem by Büchner anywhere except in the head named Alexander Issayevich. The actual "Danton's Death" that exists is not a poem but a drama. Again, it was impossible for Lenin to know an "unfinished" poem "Danton's Death," because an "unfinished" "Danton's Death" is another figment of a confused storyteller who is still raving. Büchner’s "Danton's Death," on the contrary, was not "left" in Zurich "unfinished," but was all written and completed in Darmstadt¹³.

But, the "literary giant," who is so fond of his own "documentations," insists on calling Georg Buchner a "poet" (see his Russian text); he keeps calling "Danton's Death" a "poem"; and, he goes on saying that "Danton's Death" was left "unfinished" in Zurich. In other words, he insists on being preposterous and does not care a rouble what a reader has to read.

Indeed, instead of writing angry articles about the "smatterers," Mr. "literary giant" was supposed to read Büchner's works before writing anything about him. For, anyone who has read Büchner's "Danton's Death" would not fail to know that, first, the drama is a play written in level prose (Büchner, who by some is considered as a forerunner of Naturalists, had even copied some lines from the history books); and that, second, the drama is quite "finished." (Lucile, wife of Desmoulins, is arrested "in the name of the republic," and that is the end of it.) Now, if the "greatest living Russian writer" thinks that a play written in perfect prose is a poem, and its author is thus a poet, why should he not call F. Dostoyevsky a poet, and his quite completed novel, The Idiot—an "unfinished poem"? And, speaking of Dostoyevsky's novel, The Idiot, most likely, the prophetic author of Lenin in Zurich and his translator confused the completely finished drama of Georg Büchner with the unfinished symphony of Franz Schubert. All the same, G. Büchner was as much a poet as Mr. Solzhenitsyn himself is a bard.

Moreover, instead of spending time on Lenin's "love affair," the "brilliant historian" should have done more reading and thinking to find out that Lenin was supposed to have known Georg Büchner, not because of his "neighborhood," but because Georg Büchner was also the one who had published, Der Hessische Landbote that contained the well-known words: "Peace to the cottages! War to the palaces!" Besides, Georg Büchner was the elder brother of Ludvig Büchner, German physiologist and philosopher, whom Lenin mentions a number of times in his works whenever he discusses what was termed mechanical materialism in contradistinction to dialectical materialism.

The Case of Bogdanov

But the multi-dimensional prophet is not interested in anybody's works. He has been in the same room with that "philosophical work" of Lenin, and has decided that that would be sufficient. After all, the prophet knows that the psychological gossip sells. Thus:

Lenin had felt particularly humiliated, insignificant, lost... he had written a philosophical work three hundred pages long, which no one had ever read, but... but he had disgraced Bogdanov!

Disgraced! That is what the prophet writes in Russian: опозорил, which means disgraced or defamed, not discredited. (The English translation of this sentence is incorrect. The savage Russian of the prophet gets, as a rule, somewhat normalized by the translator). And this is exactly what the prophet wants to convey: Lenin wrote a philosophical work, three hundred pages long, not to establish any truth, but only to disgrace that one man named Bogdanov. That is how absurd this Lenin of the prophet looks, or rather, that is how absurd the prophet himself is. It is obvious that the prophet does not always realize what he is saying; it would not occur to him to ask himself: why would anyone write a philosophical work, if all he wants to do is to disgrace somebody? Or, How is anyone disgraced by being criticized as a philosopher? Finally, how can anyone ever become disgraced, if whatever has been written to disgrace him has never been read by anybody?

The table of contents of that philosophical work by Lenin shows some forty questions discussed at length, including the questions of the being versus the consciousness and that of the brain as the seat of thought. What is narrated by the prophet is that Lenin wrote all of this "simply in order" to make Bogdanov's life bitter. Yet, it is also simply true that the psychoanalytical prophet simply does not care about what is true. His is the struggle against the truth in general, against the historical truth in particular—all for the sake of Czarist Mother Russia. Even so, the Macmillan Encyclopedia, which can be hardly suspected in being bolshevistic, makes it clear that Lenin's work was "directed against a group of Russian writers", not against that one man Bogdanov. No one of this group was criticized or ever attacked as a person; what were criticized were only the viewpoints. In other words, Lenin's endeavor was neither psychological, nor personal, but rather educational. As to A.Bogdanov himself, he was indeed singled out as an object of criticism even before Lenin's work appeared; only the author who directed his three "philosophical letters" personally and "in reply to Mr. Bogdanov" was not Lenin. It was G.Plekhanov. Unlike the reviling and hating Lenin, Plekhanov repeatedly came close to insulting Bogdanov, addressing him, not as "comrade", but as "Dear Sir", bluntly telling him: "you are no comrade of mine".

Now, as to what is blurted out to mean the philosophical work, "which no one ever read", the asininity of that brazen falsehood is again evident in the light of historical facts. The documentations show that at least three critical reviews were written against that philosophical work of Lenin as early as 1909: one by a "nobody" named Bulgakov, another one by a "nobody" named I.A.Ilin, and still another one by a "nobody" named Axelrod—no one of them a Bolshevik, not even an almost Bolshevik. When the revered prophet says "no one", what he means is no one of the dregs of Czarist Russia, the Black Hundred Guardists; they never read any philosophical work and suchlike devilish things.

And, if this is how The Wall Street Journal imagines the Lenin "icon" to have been dissolved into a candid photograph, then this is also how the "brilliant historian" who created Lenin in Zurich dissolves himself into a quasi-educated rural primitive, and the "totally committed giant" (See the New Republic), into a totally confused smatterer. The business of America is business, but the business of the admen appears to be the business of insulting the collective intellect of the citizenry of the old, as well as new, Republic.

The Case of "Bare Hands"

Yet, among other things, the keen-sighted prophet is also that "larger-than-life" farceur who accuses Lenin of having been "short-sighted" because the revolutionary fiend failed to predict the exact day of the start of WWI. However, how long-sighted has been the moral prophet himself in these latter days? The following was the question put to him in his 1989 interview:

The Question: today there are events of enormous significance taking place in the Soviet Union and throughout the whole Communist world. Why do you choose to be silent about these changes? His Answer: was I going to interrupt my work?…

(No, not even for a moment of uttering a couple of sentences).

And start acting as a political commentator?

As ignorant as the world is, it knows that the prophet Issayevich has been a political commentator at every occasion, "warning the West" that "they can take you simply like that, with bare hands, without nuclear war". Only the head named Issayevich knows who was to be meant by "they"—those who disappeared without taking the West "with bare hands", or those who are still taking Chechnia "simply like that".

Now, after all the prophesies of the clown-like prophet had been spent, even the Wall Street Journal had to admit that something "ridiculously overblown" had "fallen flat", or, in other words, there has been a clear case of hallucinations in international, in national, and in personal matters as well. Meanwhile, who knows if someone among the future historians would not be tempted to see a parallel between the mesmerizing of the feeble-minded Czar by a muzhik named Rasputin, and the besotting of the West by a semieducated Czar-worshiper named Solzhenitsyn. In any case, the parallel would not look as silly as the one drawn between Lenin and Mussolini. A wiser thing to do, however, would be to identify the hen which laid that egg thenceforth to be known as the prophet Issayevich.

The Prophet as a Politologue

So much for what was said to be "astonishing how well I guessed" it.

Still, "astonishingly well guessing" aside, while creating his Lenin in Zurich, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, the myth-shattering brilliant historian, was ignorant of the basic facts of British history. This ignorance of his was a fact. Now, whether the fact of such ignorance means a great deal among the Greats of the twentieth century—is another question. Perhaps, the ignorance of such elementary facts of British history could be overlooked by the admirers of the prophet; for, after all, the prophet is the author of The Gulag, and is supposed to be a storyteller of multidimensional art. But, he is not just that, not only the author of The Gulag; he is himself multidimensional. He is a brilliant historian; and not only a brilliant historian, but a political theorizer, too, or even a politologue; that is, he is also the author of Lenin in Zurich.

In any case, those who would not see the difference between what is in Lenin's text ("After the Great Rebellion"—"The Glorious Revolution!") and what the brilliant historian synthesized as "The Great and Glorious Revolution," apparently, like to be non-sighted and cannot be helped. What, then, was "the great and glorious revolution" as fictionalized by the prophet? Nothing but the creation of a compelling psychologist who, being ignorant of the most momentous facts of British history, did not know what he was reading.

"The Great Rebellion" is a fact of British history; "The Glorious Revolution" is another fact of British history. In Lenin's text, what is comparable to the first is believed to have been great; what is comparable to the second is regarded as having been a lesser event. The movement from the first to the second is deplored as being regressive. Was this understood by the brilliant historian, while being a man in his fifties? It was not. Meanwhile, there appeared to be no sufficient reason for treating the high school boys in this republic—or elsewhere—so harshly as to be required or demanded to know what the brilliant historians do not know.

There would have been no use in appealing here from the facts of ignorance to the creativity of multidimensional art. The absurdity of fusing "The Great Rebellion" and "The Glorious Revolution" into one single "great and glorious revolution" was a case of nothing but plain ignorance of a culturally semi-literate prophet. The man, advertised as the brilliant historian, simply had never done his homework in British history; and, if anyone had already brought this petite case to the reader's attention, we would not mind to know that we were not the first. What matters now is to know that the brilliant historian being ignorant of the elementary facts of British history could not be trusted with any explaining, whether epical or other.

The common knowledge is that Lenin called the 1905 Revolution a dress rehearsal; he even attacked G. Plekhanov for failing to understand the significance of the 1905 struggle. In the letter to A. Kollontai, Lenin compared the 1905 Revolution to what in England is known as "The Great Rebellion" (see OED). This is precisely the term that got the erudite prophet so cross-eyed that he had to dream up something "great and glorious." In what is supposed to be a dialogue between Lenin and Parvus, the prophet makes Lenin actually say that the 1905 Revolution was a "mistake" and, hence, a "failure." However, the farcical dialogue between his "Lenin" and "Parvus" is again a case of "astonishing how well I guessed it." The "documentation" for the dialogue is lacking. Hence, it is a dialogue that takes place between Solzhenitsyn and Solzhenitsyn; it is Solzhenitsyn talking to Solzhenitsyn. The problem is that the prophet Solzhenitsyn is not only "a compelling psychoanalyst"; he is also a compulsive grimaceologist. He puts his neck almost out of joint in an effort to "prove" that the 1905 Revolution was all a work of Parvus—"the father of the first Russian Revolution." Well, "actually" both revolutions were the works of Parvus, the Jewish agent of German Kaiser. Lenin? He was not there. He did, however, do his uncommonly evil reviling and hating. He actually accused both Parvus and Trotsky, half-Mensheviks and all Mensheviks, of ignoring the peasantry; that is, he accused them of brainlessly ignoring the peasant revolution, and then, ignoring the counterrevolutionary potency of the peasant class to become the bulwark of the anti-republican restoration. Lenin pre-formulated his theory of the inevitability of the anti-republican restoration in Russia (i.e., the proposition that if the West remained capitalist, the anti-republican restoration in Russia would be inevitable) at the Unity Congress of 1906. Documentation is not lacking. No need to search archives. It is all printed facts, printed several times. It was not given to Solzhenitsyns to understand Lenin. Lenin is not there in Lenin in Zurich. It is all Solzhenitsyn talking to himself.

However, "it is remarkable" that the prophet lacks no assurance when it comes to explaining what revolutions are. Moreover, it is no less remarkable that the Czarist anti-revolutionaries should know better what revolutions are then the revolutionaries who dedicate their lifetime to studying the revolutions. By now the sapient prophet had more than a dozen of years to do his homework in British history; to learn what the terms "The Great Rebellion" and "The Glorious Revolution" signify, and understand why these terms were used by Lenin in his letter to A. Kollontai. He did not do any homework; he did not have to. Being in a free country, he could pontificate every grimace of his rustic wisdom and judge as to which revolution was true and which was not.

The true revolution was the February Revolution. The October Revolution does not even deserve the name "revolution."¹⁴

And, why so? Why was the February true, and the October "does not even deserve" the name? Because "the February system" (what is a February "system"?)…

Never even got established before it already started to collapse. It was collapsing...The October coup only picked up the power...¹⁵

And, it was precisely this collapsing revolution that "was much more of a break" with Russian history. In other words, what made the February Revolution "true" was its being a "collapsing revolution"; that is to say, its being incapable of destroying whatever was to be destroyed, namely, Russian Czarism. On the other hand, what made the October Revolution undeserving of the name "revolution" was that those who staged the October coup gave Czarism no chance to survive. It is further not only "remarkable" but quite significant that the missionaries of Russian czaro-chauvinism, without having to explain what their mission really is, have their chance to do the pro-Czaristic double-talking to the population of what was historically supposed to be the greatest republic in human history.

Having “Seen Through” Stalin

One can see: the prophet Issayevich is not only a prophet, not only the greatest writer living, not only a brilliant historian, not merely a compelling psychologist, not just a school teacher; he is also a political theorist, a politologue. The name of his school of thought is chauvinism of Russian Czarism. His theory is that the first Czarist empire of Russia was Russian but, then, it was not exactly an empire but rather a non-empire; the second, post-revolutionary empire of Russia was an empire but, then, it was non-Russian. As it could be seen, there appears to be no way of connecting the adjective "Russian" with the noun "empire." The Russian text of his Lenin in Zurich does not even contain a word group which could be equivalent to what in English would be the Russian empire. Another of his theories is that of non-existent Stalinism, meaning that “there was never any such thing as Stalinism”; for, Stalin was not brainy enough to have his own Ism. The prophet claims to "have seen through Stalin ever since his youth." God knows how many wiseacres have judged Stalin as a "mediocrity"; this one prefers to be outstanding in being absurd. For, whatever Stalin was, it takes more than a Czarist carrot-head to “have seen though Stalin.” Non-existent Stalinism would mean non-existent Russian imperialism, as disguised as it had to appear in the post-revolutionary decades of the century. To "have seen through" Stalin is a brag reckless in its foolishness. Seeing so much would mean to explain—not epically but actually—the dimensions of the power concentrated in Stalin's hands. That would require more thinking than the prophet usually does, as talented as he is. Most probably the truth is this: the only thing the head named Alexandr Issayevich could ever understand in Stalin and Stalinism was the fact that the terrible Georgian spoke his Russian with the Georgian accent.

Hereupon, one should also listen to some other Russians, among them, for instance, to Mr. Alexander Bushkov, now a statesman and a member of the Writer's Union, the author of an article titled The Shadow of the Emperor. The article appeared in the Krasnoarskaia gazeta, Dec. 21, 1994. What follows is a passage translated from that article:

The idiotic theory as though all the achievements and the accomplishments in Russia were materialized in spite of Stalin is precisely that—idiotic... Stalinism was the rationalistic practice in service of the actual requirements of the empire expressed, not in the form of a theory, but in engineering instructions. To Russia Stalinism gave back its history, its history of the great Czars, the great generals, the great poets. Decidedly an end was put to the twenty-years-old torrent of mud and filth poured on the great past. The infamous periodicals of the type such as the Atheist were closed all over. The church was restored fully in all its rights. The special Ukase of the Emperor, not only permitted, but even encouraged the attendance of public prayers by the military. Some few surviving "internationalists" vegetated near the kitchens of concentration camps. In the entourage of the Emperor were men like Shaposhnikov, the Chief of staff, former captain of the Czar's army; General Prosecutor Vishinsky, the man who, in the days of the Provisional Government, signed the order to arrest Lenin... Men of the old empire came to serve the cause of the renaissance of the empire... I know only one thing; Stalin, the emperor, was a great man; for, there is nothing harder and worthier in the ways of man's work than to serve the empire.

And, in conclusion, the words of someone known to the world as Alexander Kerensky:

Stalin helped Russia to rise from the ashes. He made Russia into a great power. He annihilated Hitler. He saved Russia...

All three Alexanders—Mr. Kerensky, Mr. Bushkov, and the prophet—are Russians. The difference is that Mr. Kerensky and Mr. Bushkov are not brainsick; rather they are rational while appraising Stalin's role in service of the Russian Empire. The prophet, however, has no more brains than to "criticize" and condemn Stalin from no other standpoint but that of Russia, i. e., from the standpoint of its emperor, Stalin himself. Ivan the Terrible was not a Georgian (neither was he a Russian, to be exact), but he was a Russian Czar. Stalin the Terrible was a Georgian; he had no right to be the Terrible. Essentially, that is about the extent of the prophet's "having seen through" Stalin.

And, speaking of the Georgian, yet another theory that the prophet likes to teach is the theory of minor empires. The prophet preaches "repentance" as against the "minor-imperial way of thinking," which has become the habit of the minority nations. Specifically, the theory is that there was a minor empire of Georgia within the non-Russian empire of Russia. Thus, when it comes to that "bete noire" Gruzia (as Transcaucasian Georgia is known in Russia) the precious notion of "repentance" is forgotten. The compulsive grimaceologist gets, as advertised, "savagely ironical" resembling rather that famous ape which was trying to smile like Mona Lisa of Da Vinci.

Gruzia wants to secede, but to secede from it—Oh, that is separatism!

It is not at all certain that the hoggish theory of minor empires was exactly the product of what could be called human brains. When the Great-Russian Derzhimorda—brainlessly ignorant of the elementary fact that the nonliterate people cannot exist as a nation—chooses to make his appearance as a Tartuffe, he takes the side of the "oppressed" who happen to be separatists.

Nearly seven scores ago, the sixteenth President of the United States thought that even a mere hint at monarchy would justify his "raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism." Now, almost at the end of the twentieth century, a Czarist Ayatollah was given a chance to teach dutiful anatomy in the land where Lincoln was once President.

Nowhere have I written that monarchy is an ideal system...No one gives ever any quotes...I am a patriot...But we have two lungs. You cannot breathe with just one lung and not with the other. We must avail ourselves of rights and duties in equal measure...The only thing we have been developing is rights, rights, rights, at the expense of duty.¹⁶

Apparently, it is the prophet who knows what "equal measure" should be. "We have two lungs." We do, but we have one tongue only, not two; and speaking with one tongue, the first duty of every citizen of a republic is to be anti-Czarist, and unless this is so, all duty is unfreedom; for, Czardom means anti-republic, and republic means anti-Czardom. Freedom of being a Czarist means freedom of being anti-republican; and, historically as well as logically, freedom of being anti-republican means freedom of being anti-American. Then, when the cadaveric rigidity of Russian chauvinism makes its appearance as being so very pro-American (or, as Sheridan's Mrs. Malaprop would say, the very pineapple of pro-Americanism), it means that a Czarist "patriot" is speaking with two tongues, is double-talking. History knows patriotism of the revolutionary Americans in their struggle against monarchy; or that of the revolutionary French in their struggle "contre les Rois Coalisés"; that is to say, history knows no other patriotism but republican patriotism; hence, it does not know what Czarist patriotism is. A Czarist patriot would be a great-Russian griffin. Only, you cannot be an eagle if you are a bear.

But now the theorizings of the fictioneering prophet, having epically explained the revolution in terms of "Czar-baiting," have been replaced with a historico-biographical work of Mr. D. Volkogonov, a former general of the Russian "Soviet" army. The work is Lenin: A New Biography, packed full with revelations coming in the world's light almost four scores after the event. Lenin: A New Biography is, ideologically at least, predicated on what we know already as Lenin in Zurich. Still, it could be quite welcome if there is indeed something factually new about what is known as Lenin. For, factuality could never harm anybody. Unless, there is something hidden behind the new factuality, something that would look like an effort, or even a campaign, to enlist the American support for Russian national-chauvinism. In that case, the new factuality itself is to be critically examined.

The Evil that was Lenin

So, Lenin: A New Biography is also the text that contains the following new words:

We asked ourselves where Stalin had acquired the cruelty...

There is no need to continue with quoting the miserable twaddle like this. It was written by a grown-up person for the grown-up persons to read; and it was not only translated in English but published and quoted, too. They—the Russians with their history of their Czars—had to ask themselves "where Stalin had acquired" Stalinism, the theory and practice of Russian national-chauvinism at its level best, that is, at the level of the second superpower of the world. The real Americans, meaning free republicans, would, nevertheless, have a different question to ask, namely: how is it that the pro-Czarist garbage keeps coming to be dumped in the land of the Great Republic, as a rule, without being identified as what it is?

So, then, it is Lenin, not Stalin but Lenin, the center and the source of the evil. Lenin the corpse, Lenin the letter. The archives show that the prophet Solzhenitsyn was right all the way: Lenin "was uncommonly evil"; and, Stalinism was what had never existed. Still, what was it that made Lenin uncommonly evil? Again, here is what:

...Like the Mensheviks, for example, he turned on them, he reviled them, he used every term of imprecation...He hated them...¹⁷

Now, that is not the real reason for Lenin's being uncommonly evil. "Reviling them"? "Hating them"? The Mensheviks (and, that sympathy for them coming from a Czarist)? Is that all that was supposed to make Lenin uncommonly evil? In any case, that could not be a "sufficient reason," as the philosopher would say. As a compelling psychologist, the prophet should know that he would not always happen to be talking to a Russian kindergarten, although oracles do not always have to be convincing. The real reason was different. The following passages from Lenin himself could make it much clearer why Lenin should be known as evil, uncommonly evil. Here is what he wrote—even while being, probably, half-alive—not to Inessa, but to the party, the government. It has been out of archives ever since 1956 at least.

...that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and lover of violence, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietized workers will drown in that sea of chauvinistic Great-Russian riff-raff like a fly in milk......Were we careful enough to give the people of other nationalities a real defence against the genuine Russian Derzhimordas? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so....I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialists," played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles......The Georgian who is neglectful in this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist," and even a vulgar Great-Russian Derzhimorda), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity......I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the "crime" of those "nationalist-socialists," distinguished himself there by his "genuine" Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified overdo this Russian frame of mind)...¹⁸

"It is remarkable" that Lenin does not play a hypocrite: he calls a cat a cat. He does not like to be oxymoronic either: he does not say "Soviet" bureaucrat. What he says exactly is that the Russian-speaking bureaucrat is "the typical Russian bureaucrat," "the Great-Russian chauvinist," "a vulgar Great-Russian Derzhimorda," even if he is a Georgian or a Pole. That is the reason why Lenin must have been evil, but that is not all.

The evil Lenin did was to give away one million square kilometers of the holy land of Mother Russia; he "actually" gave all these kilometers to the Nemets (the Germans) for as long as almost one year, that is, as long as eight long months and twelve more days. What is more, Lenin made Mother Russia lose her own Poland, her own Ukraine, and all her own border areas inhabited by non-Russians. "It is remarkable" and "the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk turned Russia into a second-rate power."¹⁹ Should not all of this, this humiliation of Mother Russia, this turning of Russia into a second-rate power, make the hard hearts of Americans bleed at least until the end of this century? What was even more satanic about it was that this very Treaty, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was precisely the beginning of the uncommon evil of the dictatorship of the Russian working class by way of turning the war into the civil war against the Czarist autocracy, which autocracy "should have been defended ten times as fiercely" as it was. Now, as the mastermind of the destruction of Czarism, Lenin lived and worked for more than thirty years; as the "builder of socialism," he never lived but merely existed for hardly more than three years. What, then, is the uncommon evil that is called Lenin? Obviously, the evil of being the destroyer of Czarism.

Darkness versus Light

But to quote the prophet again, "what was really at issue here"? At issue here could be a number of things; among them, at issue is the collective mind of the population that was historically meant to constitute a nation of free republicans. It is an issue when a Czarist freedom fighter does not seem to have what it takes to face that nation and bluntly state that Lenin and the rest of anti-Czarist revolutionaries are to be demonized for no other reason but for having brought about the destruction of Czarist autocracy, and not for this or any other way of destroying that autocracy, but for the very act of destroying it. For, Lenin's was the historical way of destroying the Czarist autocracy, and the historical way is the only way of doing what history intends to do. And, it makes an issue when a loudspeaker of Czarism comes to the land where the state was never supposed to be anything but a republic to preach the gospel of the Czar Nicholas II crucified.

But I describe him as a real person, as a human being.²⁰

One does not well understand that. No objections can ever be raised against describing real persons and human beings. The matter is only that if every biped is a human being, then why should anybody be a king, and not only a king, but a Czar, and not only a feeble-minded Czar, but a brainless autocrat? Besides, what is the precious point of insisting that the emperor of a vast empire was a human being? Apparently, the empire ruled by a human being is not an evil empire. Evil were the men who masterminded the destruction of the empire ruled by that human being. Evil were the forces in the pagan West that used to brand the empire of that human being as the prison house of nations.

But the crude hypocrisy of "the moral prophet" becomes even clearer, when it is spelled out what the prophet means by insisting on describing the Russian czars as "human beings". Here is what:

Incidentally, Russia also enjoyed great freedom; the West has a completely false view of what Russia was before the revolution.

"Incidentally," too, the following words were written or spoken, e. g., in Europe about Czarist Russia and the North-American Republic as early as 1837, that is, at the time when Lenin and Parvus were still unborn, and Marx and Engels were only teenagers:

If Russia had ten times the physical power of the United States, her progress would still be uncertain; for, she has not the means of adapting her government to the spirit of the age. Russia is the evil genius of history. The power of Russia is opposed to the interests of humanity; that of the United States is based on wisdom and justice. The power of Russia rests on her bayonets: that of America on the superiority of mind over brute force; they are to each other as darkness to light.

At the same time, it were good to know what sort of cerebration is behind the phrases like the following, for instance:

And the excitement of Czar baiting will spread...

This is the way the czar-worshiping prophet knows how to "explain epically" the struggle against the Czarist autocracy, namely, in terms of Czar baiting. Baiting is, of course, what is done by a pack hounds. The question is, then: How many worthy Americans—including A.Lincoln—would not be found among these hounds, the pack of Czar-baiting hounds?

Restoration versus Destruction

However, let us not forget the following most precious question: how did the Czarist prison house of nations compare with what came afterwards, after and as a result of the destruction of Czarism? It can be safely stated that nothing compares with what came after and, allegedly, as a result of the destruction of Czarism—nothing, perhaps, in all human history. Hence this conclusion: the destruction of Russian Czarism was an act of uncommon, incomparable evil; men who perpetrated that act were uncommonly evil and responsible for whatever incomparably evil prison house came after and because of the destruction of Czarism. Still, this is not a conclusion but a claptrap, a tale told by the ignorant, the swindler, or the unthinking. Every modern economist can tell what post hoc fallacy is. The tale omits the whole historical period, the period of the counterrevolution and the restoration. In clearer terms, what came thereafter was not a result of destruction; on the contrary, it was the result of restoration.

If the Czarist prison house compared poorly with what came after its demolition, that circumstance did not prevent what was before from having been the prototype of whatever prison house was afterwards fraudulently styled as the Soviet Union; neither did it prevent the so-called Soviet Union from being the restored and renovated ex-Czarist prison house raised on a higher level and reinforced with the means available in the twentieth century. Hereafter, the same prison house was, not only fraudulently, but also quite hypocritically, labeled as the Soviet Empire. The oxymoronic term "the Soviet Empire" was supposed to denote an egg that never supposed a hen. Normally, an empire is the perpetration, and the nation is the perpetrator. To suppose a Soviet empire means to suppose a Soviet nation. What is a "Soviet nation"? To suppose a Soviet nation means to suppose a Soviet language. What is a "Soviet language"? To suppose a Soviet language means to suppose the non-existence of the Russian language; it means to suppose Moscow speaking a non-Russian tongue. At the same time, in all the vernaculars of the world and especially in the United States, the so-called Soviet Union, as well as the academic "Soviet empire," was always uttered as Russia. Besides, the entire conception of modern history as that of the formation of nation-states is to be discarded only because the Russian chauvinists do not want to admit the fact that the Russian-speaking empire of Russia was nothing but Russian.

Now, the argument that the Russian-speaking empire of Russia was not Russian; was actually anti-Russian, anti-national, because the nation responsible for the empire suffered too much, is too stupid to be called an argument. Suffering does not prevent a nation from being chauvinistic and thus imperialistic. The dictum that a nation oppressing other nations forges its own chains is actually a truism, and more so in case of a backward peasant nation, establishing a vast empire over a number of more advanced nations, lacking all economic potency for doing so, bringing to the advanced nations nothing but the outmoded forms of its national government, compensating its economic impotence with sheer political and military force. Having an empire—actually a superpower number two—in this manner during the decades of the twentieth century must of necessity cost too much, be too expensive to the very nation that formed the bulwark of the empire. Neither can it be forgotten that the Great-Russian nation was the one which let Czarism live as long as until 1920, and that was nearly one-hundred fifty years after the Declaration of Independence. The problems of that nation did not spring from its anti-Czarist revolution, but on the contrary, from its being late with the same revolution. History, modern history, is what nations do; it is not merely what the "gangs," the "elite," the "evil men" do. (Unless a sort of marriage-broker conception of history is to be accepted as scientific.) Being late with the anti-Czarist revolution was a historical fault of the nation; it was a historical guilt of backwardness for which a price must be paid.

The frantic effort to prevent Stalinism from being recognized as what it was, namely, twentieth-century Russian imperialism in corresponding disguise, is what is behind the freakish concept of non-existent Stalinism. Mr. Solzhenitsyn as a political theorizer, as a politologue, arrived at that concept by performing several acts of divorcing: divorcing Stalinism from Stalin, divorcing Stalin from the Russian national government, divorcing the Russian national government from the Russian nation, divorcing the Russian nation from the Russian empire. Those who like to accept the imbecilic operations as a way of thinking, as a way of explaining, will have to imagine, e.g., Bonapartism as divorced from Bonaparte; likewise, they will have to imagine the French empire, first and second, as divorced from Napoleons. Or, if determining the accent of the emperors should be the best method of identifying the empire, the historical entity known as the French Empire should be imagined as abolished and as replaced by a new entity to be known as the Corsican Empire.

What is more important, however, is to identify the camp that has promulgated the pronouncements of the oracular tongue of Czarist antirevolution. That camp itself must be a camp of antirevolution; in essence, an antirepublican camp, and quite logically anti-American, too. For—if put as one, two, three—what could ever be republican without being anti-Czarist? Or, what could ever be pro-Czaristic without being antirepublican? And, what could ever be antirepublican without being anti-American? At any rate, the "truths" of Solzhenitsynism, essentially, are also the truths of this camp, the camp of antirevolution; and, they are so regardless of their way of framing.

The Prophet and the others

That is what makes Mr. Solzhenitsyn, the brilliant historian and the myth-shattering author of Lenin in Zurich, still relevant, even if "his huge best seller is now gone and forgotten". The prophet is still relevant, because the question of what we know as the Russian revolution, the question of the evil that was Lenin, the question of non-existent Stalinism, is still relevant, and there appears to be essentially little difference between what is preached by the prophet of Czardom and what is theorized by those of the antirevolutionary camps. For one thing, Lenin quite naturally cannot miss the number one spot of evil, if the destruction of Russian Czardom is to be epically conceptualized as the perdition of all mankind. At the same time, if Lenin is to be forever canonized as the evil number one, then the destruction of Czardom, too, must be conceptualized accordingly; that is, in terms of Solzhenitsynism. Accepting the idea of the destruction of Russian Czardom as the end of all mankind would be too much for any normal person, even for those who believe in prophets. So, then, how does one keep Lenin demonized as the evil number one even in the world which contained Hitler and Stalin, or the Like? Apparently, by making him responsible for all the atrocity of non-existent Stalinism (including that of Nazism, Fascism, Francoism, or Falangism).

Now, what professor Rabinowitch characterizes in his review²¹ of Richard Pipes's works as "uniquely Pipesian way of historical lynching" seems to be one of the cases of the blame re-distribution in locating the causa prima responsible for the evil of totalitarianism. The case in point may as well be that of the camel and the gazelle. Meanwhile, what the professor depicts as irrespective antipathy for whatever is Russian may be even broader in scope. There exists, in this society, a remarkable kind of Russophobes, namely, of those who abhor everything that is Russian—everything, that is, except Czarism.

Even more remarkable is thus the concept of "false Thermidor" in Russia. In substance, the concept is the same as the Solzhenitsynian concept of non-existent Stalinism—only scholarly developed, so to speak (instead of prophetically narrated). Thus, when the prophet says: "there was never any such thing as Stalinism", what he means to say is that Stalinism is identical to Leninism. The notion of "false Thermidor" means the same: no break in the continuity of Leninism; hence, Stalinism equals Leninism.

Among the major revolutions in modern history, the American Revolution is unique in that it did not come to a Thermidor; there was no Thermidor in revolutionary America. A "false Thermidor" in Russia should mean that there was no Thermidor in revolutionary Russia either. It appears so that both revolutions, American as well as Russian, ended the same way, that is, without a Thermidor. But, the American Revolution, produced a republican political formation and the balance of the levels of power; whereas the Russian event arrived at the same autocratic political establishment. What occurred must be the case of identical causes bringing about antipodal results. How is this course of history to be explained, if no Thermidorian turn ever occurred? Apparently, by forming another unique concept, the concept of the Russian "false" revolution. There was no Thermidor in Russia, because there was no revolution. As the prophet put it, the October "did not deserve the name of revolution". What occurred during the civil war of 1918-1920 (a "horrendously destructive conflagration" as Rabinowitch has it) was not a revolution. What was it, then? It was another War of Roses, red and white; a war between two Houses, the House of Romanovs and the House of Ulyanovs, with Lenin acting very much like Shelly's West Wind (Destroyer and Preserver), destroying the empire by preserving it, and preserving the empire by destroying it; in fact, doing all that even while being mummified.

But, the theory of "no-true" revolution in Russia, as well as the ultra-critical grimace of "false Thermidor", having anything but the interests of historical science on the brain, leaves a good number of questions unanswered, and no answers would be obtainable by consulting the "larger-than-life" Czarist hypocrite and his Russian icons. What comes first to mind is the historical fact that, on October 28, 1917, the part of the Russian society that dominated it for centuries, a serf-holding manorial class of only yesterday, ceased to exist as a collective legal entity. At the beginning of the year 1921, its military forces demolished, that part of the Russian nation had been driven out of existence politically, economically, physically. How could this class of society, the Pomeshchiki, the Russian nobility, a dominant force hitherto, ever manage to disappear, if there "never was any such thing" as a "true" revolution in Russia?

Yet, this question can be left unanswered. First, the hypocrite never knows what exactly it is that he is saying; and, secondly, he means one thing, but comes to say another. Thus, the actual meaning behind the pretentious phrase of "true revolution," as uttered by the lips of a Czarist, is that the elimination of what historically was sentenced to being eliminated during the revolution in Russia was an act of satanically evil men; it was an act of uncommon evil, and it was so, not because of its being an act of some "untrue revolution," but precisely because of its being the act of the anti-Czarist evil of every revolution. When some one like Mr. Solzhenitsyn pretends to sing of "true revolution," what he means to say is that no revolution is the only true revolution.

As to the pretense, there is no lack of it in the false logic of "false Thermidor". It appears as though someone happened to live in this world who would be a better Catholic than anybody in the Vatican; he who knew a better way of destroying Russian Czardom, better than those who actually destroyed it; a better way than the actual historical way. Actually, the logic of "false Thermidor" is not only that of the antipodal results brought about by the identical causes; it is also the logic of the identical results brought about by the antipodal causes. In addition, it is the logic that allows no difference between what was the destruction of a republic and what was the destruction of a Czardom. To make it clearer, the Pipesian logic says that the victory over the republic and the victory over the antirepublic would make no difference: the results must be the same—the totalitarian autocracy of a Generalissimo, a Generalissimo in Spain and a Generalossimo in Russia. Likewise—says the same logic—the struggle against the infant Second Republic and the struggle against the age-old Czardom should be viewed as having been the same struggles, or even the same evil.

Whoever was the first to discover the parallel between an excavator and a shoehorn had to grab his right ear with his left hand to air the view that Franco's Spain, e. g., "would have been inconceivable without the precedent set by Lenin" in Russia. The parallel, by the way, could have been even more exact, if the shoehorn had been named Jose Primo de Rivera, rather than Mussolini or Hitler. Only, the matter is that the aim of aimless criticastry is not to show, but to rape the historical truth. So, the entire set of precedents appears to be—as they say in German—ous den Fingern gesogen, i. e., sucked out of the fingers, or in this case, out of a typewriter exhibiting the intellect of a foxtail with about as much scientific conscience as it could be found in that part of the noble beast.

As clever as the foxy theory of "precedents" is, whoever takes it as serious is faced with a number of backbreaking onuses. For instance, onus number one would be to prove that Lenin's anti-Czarism was not authentic.²² Onus number two would be to prove that Stalin's Leninism was authentic. There is indeed no way of upholding the absurdity of the contention that Stalinism is the same as Leninism, if it is impossible to prove that Lenin's anti-Czarism was not authentic. Comparing the following two definitions, that of Leninism and that of Stalinism, may shed more light on the subject. Thus: which of the following definitions is correct and which is absurd? First definition: Leninism was the theory and practice of anti-Czarist revolution. Second definition: Stalinism was the theory and practice of anti-Czarist revolution. It could be clear to anyone who wants to see that the second definition is as absurd as the first is correct. "There never was any such thing as Stalinism" before 1920, just as there was no Czardom after 1920. The historical phenomenon known as Stalinism did not appear before 1929, that is, nine years after the end of Czardom. The historical fact is that Stalinism was not, and could not be, the force that destroyed Czardom. Stalinism destroyed the force that destroyed Czardom. Stalinism proved to be the enemy of the enemy of Czardom. Another historical fact is that the end of Czardom was also the end of Leninism. And, this is so because no revolution endures once the antirevolutionary enemy is out of existence; or, in plain English, no revolution can eat the cake and have it.

Now, it was well-known to every politically informed mortal, of course, that the Gerenalissimo Stalin was supposed to be a Leninist; that Lenin was supposed to have been the founder of the Soviet state, and so on. However, no scholar was ever in deadly duty bound to take the words of cheats at their face value; no historian was ever fatally obligated to be in collusion with those whose profession is to cheat and lie in politics. And, neither scholars nor historians can be taken seriously, if they are incapable of telling what is authentic from what is fraudulent. Nobody was ever forced to insist on preaching that what was authentic was fraudulent instead of admitting that what was fraudulent was not authentic. The choice was either-or: either Lenin's anti-Czarism was not authentic, or Stalin's Leninism was counterfeit; that is to say, if Leninism was the same as anti-Czarism, then Stalinism was the same as anti-Leninism; if the head of Commissars should be deemed to have been red, the Gerenalissimo must be deemed to have been brown.

Still, there must be some way of rationally understanding the Lenin phenomenon, the evil of "the Red Wheel", the creative precedent of nation-wide movements, the absentee creator of an entire political formation. If there is, then both, the pathological irrationality of demonizing, as well as the pathological irrationality of deifying, must be understood as forms of the ongoing struggle against the ideology of revolution as such, and in particular, against "the deadening, killing" ideology of the revolution in Russia, meaning exactly the conflict of 1918-1920 wherein the first Russian empire was razed. In a word, the ongoing struggle consists in ideological warfare of all chauvinists against the internationalists—past and future.

The cheap twaddle about Lenin's having been the precedent, the creator, the founder of a state, and so on, will have to be identified as what it is, if there is such a thing as historical science. Actually, Lenin cannot be imagined as having been the founder of anything but a revolutionary organization which was bound to disintegrate as soon as the revolution expired; for, no revolutionary organization can ever outlive its revolution and still be revolutionary. The historical fact is, besides, that Lenin was never given a chance to give any bodily form to whatever lunatic designs he may have had. Thus, Lenin can be deemed to have been no more than what the historical circumstances permitted him to be—no more then the evil of masterminding the destruction of Czardom. Perhaps, a man could be rated evil number one for his historical deed, but hardly for mere printed facts of his writings. The printed facts signed Lenin form what is said to be "this deadening, killing ideology". Another fact is that Lenin's deadening ideology is not even his: it is the Jewish-German ideology known to everybody as Marxism. This seems to be the only way of forming a rational idea of what is known as Lenin. The rest would be the case of foolish speculation as to what Lenin would do if he were not a dead body.

However, who is the standard-bearer in the ideological warfare against the deadening ideology of Marxism? And, what is the ideology that is offered instead? What is offered instead is the ideology of pro-Czarism, or even Czaro-republicanism (for, Czaro-republicanism exists when politically minded citizens of a republic fail to be anti-Czarist). The standard-bearer is the prophet established as such by the advertizing ideology of the market place; a story-teller who is himself nothing but a walking ideology. For, as one is taught in the school of what is meant by “Objectivism,“ everybody must and does have an ideology; even a dog has an ideology, the ideology of the dog and its bone. Unless it is possible that the Czar-worshiping rank obscurantist is the only human who is free of all ideology, and the non-ideology of his multidimensional narrating is precisely what historical science is. On the other hand, President Lincoln again may have been all three in one: Lincoln the ideologue, Lincoln the pedagogue, and Lincoln the demagogue. Lincoln, the ideologue—because he does not only see, but describes the existing society as divided in economic classes. Lincoln, the pedagogue—because he wants to find the most satisfactory way of combining Labor with Education. And, finally, Lincoln, the demagogue... Why a demagogue? Because an ideologue plus a pedagogue equals a demagogue. Remember the sage preaching in French: "Dans chaque pedagogue, il y a un demagogue qui sommeille".²³ (In every teacher, there is a demagogue sleeping). Alors, qui sommeille dans chaque pretre? Un Tartuffe, evidemment. (If so, who is sleeping in every priest? A Tartuffe, evidently). But, is it not possible that when Lincoln spoke of Education what he meant was a pro-Czaristic brainwashing of the population of his Republic historically supposed to be the greatest?

In summing up, what is to be done is to highlight the main propositions of the ideology of pro-Czarism, or in other words, the ideology of universal chauvinism in its war against internationalism. Thus, Stalinism, or Stalinist totalitarianism, was the direct consequence and the immediate result of the anti-Czarist revolution which destroyed Czardom. Stalinism equals Leninism; hence, Stalinism equals Marxism, that is to say, Stalinism is anything but what could originate in Russia. Stalinism was the brainchild of a demonic Jew, a demonic German, and a demonic agent of the German Kaiser. As such Stalinism was the evil that was superimposed upon an anti-Stalinist nation from the infernal clouds of the German-Jewish ideology; that is to say, Stalinism was anything but a historical product of the Czarist history of Russia. The Czarist empire was actually destroyed by what was identical to Stalinism; Stalinism, in turn, was identical to what destroyed the Czarist empire. The outcome of all this was the Russian-speaking non-Russian empire of Russia.

The true revolution was the February revolution; and, it was so, because it never did any damage to the Russian Empire and never showed any sign of deviating from Russian chauvinism. The October coup, on the other hand, was not a true revolution, and it was so, precisely because it brought about the destruction of the Russian empire. That was the original evil, the very first stage in the continuum of totalitarianism. Now, pro-Czarism appears in the notorious theory of totalitarianism, as it could be seen, with the unique twist. Thus, e. g., the civil war in the United States preserved the Union by destroying slavery. Not so in Russia. There, the civil war destroyed the empire by preserving the empire. That is what the sham notion of Russian "false Thermidor" actually signifies, and it is as witless as it sounds. This could be clear to anyone who would not mind to think longer than a pair of sentences. But, dwelling any further upon what seems to be the Pipesian contribution to historical science would make this chapter too long.

The merely quantifying term "totalitarianism" is, incidentally, itself another phrenological bump of knowledge on the forehead of empty-headed antitotalitarianism. In terms of this knowledgeable bulge, the Russian Revolution was supposed to establish antitotalitarian freedom prior to, before, and without eliminating Russian Czardom. Failing so, the revolution that razed Czardom must be known as the evil of totalitarianism, or better still, as totalitarian evil with no break in the continuity of totalitarianism. It remains to be explained, however, how anti-Czarist totalitarianism of the civil-war time could ever fail to mean exactly what is known as revolutionary republicanism.

Unluckily, history did not entrust the black-hundred-guardist ²⁴ "moral authorities" like Solzhenitsyn, or his bedfellows, with the task of eliminating Russian Czarism. History does its work its own hard way. It took France at least three more revolutions, in addition to the great one, to make the republic irrevocable. The American Revolution itself cannot be adequately understood unless it is counted as the third English revolution.

It is, by the way, quite misleading to assume that Mother Russia is the land of those who always know what they are talking about. Just as anti-Czarism of the revolutionary Russians was overstated as anticapitalism, so is anti-Americanism of the reactionary Russians misstated as anticommunism. The case of the prophet Solzhenitsyn is not exactly the case of the calf and the oak tree; it is rather resembling the case of a myopic pup barking at the wrong tree.²⁵ The prophet of Czarist Russia was given a nationwide forum to preach a clumsily disguised anti-Americanism to the Americans, having in the background the belief that the age of reason was the beginning of all evil on this planet, going as far back as three-hundred years to reverse the process of that evil. How far was that from insulting the Founding Fathers of this Republic—is a question to consider. For, how many of them were not the men of the Enlightenment? Indeed, hailing that Czarist Russian with all the vulgarity of his up-dated obscurantism as the prophet of the century was actually tantamount to hailing anti-Americanism as the prophecy of the century.

And yet the prophet and those of the antirevolutionary camps share the same truths and viewpoints. Both—in agreement with the Russian imperialists, Stalinist or post-Stalinist—have been and are eager to uphold whatever falsehood or fraudulence was ossified as the system of dogmata of the twentieth century. Meanwhile, what was actual was the opposite to what was dogmatized: First, whatever was given out as an "economic system" was not so, because whatever is political is not an economic system; second, whatever was made to mean "communism" was nothing of the sort, because state capitalism is only a superstructure of capitalism and can mean nothing but capitalism; third, whatever was called "the Soviet Union" was neither this nor that, because the Russian empire, second edition, was nothing but Russian, and hence, neither "Soviet" nor "Union"; fourth, what is still said to be "capitalism restored" is a sheer nonsense, because no system can ever be restored, if it has never been out of existence.

NOTES TO CHAPTER I

1. See, for instance, the last page (297) of A.Solzhenitsyn, Lenin in Zurich (Bantam Edition, March 1977). "In 1962, with Nikita Khrushchev as his patron".

2. See Russia's Prophet in Exile, Time, July 24, 1989.

3. See, for example, Now on Moscow TV, Heeeere`s Alexandr! by Alessandra Stanley (The NY Times, April 14, 1995): "It is better to have him speak than write", said Victor Yerofeyev, a novelist and literary critic, "he writes such ugly Russian". A good example of the Prophet's literary Russian is the following sentence of the Russian text of Lenin in Zurich, i. e., Ленин в Цюрихе: "И подробно защищал, почему русские большевики могли спорит против индивидуального террора. This sentence is normalized in English translation this way: "He defended at length the opposition of the Russian Bolsheviks to individual terror". If translated word by word, however, the sentence would read this way: "He defended at length why the Russian Bolsheviks could argue against the individual terror". He defended what? The "WHY", apparently. And, this is not Lenin who is supposed to be talking, but the author himself, the "greatest Russian writer living", talking in his own Mother tongue. It appears that Mr. V. Yerofeyev was not trying to knock any towers, but was only telling a simple truth. For another example, the gossipy Lenin in Zurich, as punctuated by the “Greatest Living“ himself, contains probably more dashes than sentences.

4. See Letter from Moscow, the Exile's Return, by Elisabeth Rich (Book World, May 1, 1994), p. 15.

5. See Note 2.

6. See Note 2.

7. See Note 2.

8. See, for instance, Belasco, Basic Review of World History, p. 149, W. H. Taft High School.

9. Lenin's Letters, Collected Works.

10. A. Solzhenitsyn, Lenin in Zurich (Bantam Edition, March 1977), p. 211.

11. Some years ago—when exactly is not so important—the prophet made the front page of the NY Times by "breaking isolation" to receive a graduation gown along with the "honorary degree at the Holy Cross College", and right there was "hailed as the prophet of our time".

12. See the Russian text of Lenin in Zurich (Ленин В Цюрихе, УМСА-Press, 1975), p. 179. Translation supplied.

13. See, for example, Meyer's Lexicon: "Schon in Darmstadt hatte er sein kraftvolles Bühnenstück Danton’s Tod vollendet". In English, this means that already in Darmstadt, he, Büchner, had his powerful stage play—not poem—completed.

14. See Note 2.

15. See Note 2.

16. See Note 2. Congress, by the way, may be still bound to eventually find out what it means when the Czar-worshiping patriot says: “I am a patriot.” The sagacious prophet of the century is of the opinion that a caricature of a Russian patriot is not an impossible entity, and that Mr. Zhirinovsky is an instance of this. Still, the minds of both, the caricature as well as the authentic, can be read as one—the Zhirinovsky way as well as the Solzhenitzyn way, namely, that controlling Iraq “is direct interference in our affairs.”

17. See Note 2.

18. Lenin's last Letters and Articles (Progress Publishers, Moscow), pp. 17-19. Derzhimorda—literally, hold-the-muzzle—is the name of a policeman in Gogol's Inspector General; a boorish, insolent oppressor, a man of violence.

19. See D. Volkogonov, Lenin. A new Biography.

20. See Note 2.

21. See Lenin’s Legacy to the Evil Empire, by Alexander Rabinowitch (Book World, May 1, 1994).

22. See, in connection with this, Professor R. Tucker’s article Ленин, Сталин, Царизм in the Независимая Газета, 24.04.91. It is a fact that Stalin regarded the Marxian theory of the state as a “ruinous theory” (Гиблая Теория), meaning a theory that promises nothing but failure. Perhaps, the Generalissimo was right, yet the historical fact is that he, the Generalissimo, was not a Marxist, but rather an anti-Marxist and thus an anti-Leninist.

23. Raymond Ruyer, Les Nuisances idéologiques.

24. The Black-hundred “pogrom gangs in imperial Russia… Could kill and plunder only thanks to the connivance of the government.” Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, P. 48.

25. See one of the later creations of the prophet Бодался Теленок с дубом (Литеранутрная газета, No. 33, 15. 06. 1990). In English, something like a calf butting an oak tree.

UP5

CHAPTER III: THE CAMPS OF COUNTERREVOLUTION

The text¹ that follows was written nearly three decades ago. The entire discourse, however, is left in the present tense, since what is discussed is the same century and it would have made no good sense to spend time and effort on reworking the entire text just to make it sound up-to-date. Besides, whatever is unclear is more or less clarified in the notes.

Marxism and the Modern Left

The capitalist class of today—meaning the economically-dominant class of modern society, "the despot of the world market," the mega-possessing class—appears to have achieved an unchallenged security of its rule. Anyone, who wants to have a clear idea of the international political situation, wherein the modern world finds itself, would have to view this circumstance as the basic political fact. In other words, at this particular turn of history, when the major "anti-capitalist" powers, growling at each other,² have exposed sufficiently their chauvinistic nature, there is no political force which could be suspected of being able to undermine the rule of the capitalistic class. This is what we mean by "the unchallenged security."

Only, what appears to have been achieved was neither an achievement nor a matter of sudden luck. The stories of how the capitalistic class always manages to "get away" because of some "leaderships" are not worthwhile listening to. Something to that effect is always there to be peddled about by all sorts of leadership builders. The security of the rule of the capitalistic class has been unchallenged for quite a long time. What history does now is to make this rudely clear.

Of course, if one wants to judge by the clatter and rattle of the present-day "revolutionary movements," the capitalist class must have gone to its rest in the cemetery of history more than once already. For, according to the bookkeepers of "Marxist" economics, the capitalist enemy was supposed to wake up one fine morning and drop dead of an economic heart attack. Besides, if one takes into consideration all the variety of the "oppressed groups," the increase in the number of pages of the "revolutionary" periodicals, the "army in revolt," the cities flooded with "revolutionary masses," the streets where a red-guardist leafleteer is easier to be met than a policeman to be found—one should only wonder why the capitalist villain remains still unburied. Yet, the answer to that "why" lies in taking off the glasses, the spectacles, made in the "socialist" and other camps of what here is termed the Modern Left, to see things as they are. The fact is that the capitalist class is securely safe—safe to exist and to rule. What is more, the rule of the capitalist class is historically justified, and one of the good reasons for that justification is precisely the survival of the social elements of which the Modern Left is the multi-tongued articulator.

As to the working class, the so-called proletariat, the class that was supposed to be the grave-digger and revolutionary, the twentieth-century generations of that class do not appear to form anything like a class. Rather they form a mindless economic plurality, a multi-million crowd of mere consumers that never displays a sign of being able, or willing, to do any revolutionary grave-digging. With the political movement of the working class extinct as it is, what should be ever able to "bury" the capitalist class? What seems to be buried is not the capitalist class but the revolutionary Marxism.

However, here we do not want to concern ourselves with the question of "burial" of the capitalist class. Of a greater interest is the following question: what are the forces that do, or did, contribute to the security of the rule of the capitalist class, making its position unassailable in spite of the manifest rotting and derangement of the present class society?

To look for an answer to this question one should, among other things, take another look at the Modern Left to see what it is, or above all, what it is not. This is what we want to do in the present discourse, not so much as an attempt to prove something on a piece of paper, but as a move towards calling things by their proper names.³

Marxism versus Creative Marxism

In the political supermarket of what is supposed to be the Left of today⁴ there is conceivably no item which is not being sold under the label of "Marxist" and "revolutionary." We can take for the moment the word of the bourgeois press that the Modern Left is "revolutionary" indeed. But, the answer on the question whether the Left is indeed Marxist cannot be obtained in as cheap a way as that. Although it is impossible that all the variety of "Marxisms" preached by the Left could be Marxism, it is quite possible that nothing of it is Marxist. At any rate, the view that the Modern Left is nothing but anti-Marxism—as anti-Marxism must appear during the post-revolutionary decades of the century—is not easy to be proven wrong. The cacophony coming from all sides of that Left has a single theme in common; it sounds like so many incantations, so many conjurations, against the unseen but unavoidable presence of Marxism—the theory of the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat as being the only political formation to enforce the elimination of all class-divided society.

To be sure, the omnifarious Marxism of the modern "Left" is supposed to be the living Marxism; not the dogma of the book but Marxism of "facts" and "achievements"; or, in a word, a "creative Marxism."

Who can ever argue with "facts," especially with the facts of "achievements"? The only point of the argument is, however, the name of Marxism. The juxtaposition of the old "dogmatic" Marxism with the up-to-date "creative Marxism" of the modern Left is therefore always useful until Marxism settles matters with contemporary

The description of all the differences between the "dogmatic Marxism" and the many-faced "creative Marxism" of today would make a writ too long for the limits of this discourse. There seems, however, to be an easier way of getting to the bottom of these differences. Thus, if the entire Left of today were to face the question: "Was the Stalin-governed Russian state the result, or consequence, of the dictatorship of the proletariat?” then, according to how this question is answered, one would obtain two principal propositions forming diametrically opposed points between which the various "Marxist theories" of the modern Left are creatively positioned.

The first proposition would be that the Stalin-governed Russian state was the result of the dictatorship of the proletariat; the second proposition would be that the Stalin-governed Russian state was the result of the bureaucratic transformation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marxism versus Pseudo-Marxism

The "theory" predicated upon the first proposition shows itself best in the form of the official history of the Stalin-governed Russian state; it is well-known and runs about as follows: the Russian proletariat was able to maintain itself in state power in spite of the absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the West. The Russian state—no longer a bureaucratic state—was now the answer of the Russian proletariat to the "capitalistic encirclement." The Russian society—no longer a class-divided society but consisting of "two equal classes," namely, workers and peasants—stood at the gate of socialism, "showing the West the way," when the capitalist encirclement split into two warring camps: that of the merely bad capitalist classes and that of the worst capitalist class; the latter represented by Nazis who waged a war against the encircled socialist Russia. However, the merely bad capitalist classes, instead of joining the war against their mortal enemy, the Russian socialist workers' state, decided to pursue an all-out war against the Nazi state of the worst capitalist class, which was but the kin and likeness of the same capitalist classes. Thus, the "encirclement" brought forth the brotherly alliance of the classic states of the capitalist classes with the socialist workers' state in crusading against the common enemy during the most fateful years in the history of Mankind—the Second World War. The socialist workers' state then emerged as a part of the capitalist-socialist encirclement, not around the socialist Russia, but around the national-socialist Germany.

This is, so far, "creative Marxism" in its classic form (also known as Stalinism). What is creative in it? Creative here is the repudiation of Marxism, i.e., of all the "dogmata" of Marxism: namely, that (one) the Russian Revolution could be socialist only as a subordinate part—a political part—of the social revolution in the West (cf. Marx, Engels, Lenin); that (two) the Russian proletariat could never maintain itself permanently in state power without the dictatorship of the proletariat in the West (cf. Lenin, Trotsky); that (three) the State, the bureaucratic State, is not a shield against any encirclement, but is the class organization of a possessing economic class for oppressing the non-possessing class (cf. Engels, Lenin); that (four) Russia by itself could not achieve "a socialist transformation arising out of the village community or out of capitalism" (cf. Engels); that (five) the proletarian revolution is not a victory over the absence of the capitalist class but is the victory over the capitalist class that is present (cf. Engels); that (six) "in far greater territory" beyond the Continent, i.e., in the peasant East and South, nothing whatever is in the ascendant except "the movement of bourgeois society" (cf. Marx).

What is the proper name for the sort of "creativity" that is as brazen as to call itself Marxism of our time while being in opposition to all that is given above, and while replacing Marxism with peasant national-socialism? The proper name for it is crypto-Narodist pseudo-Marxism. Crypto-Narodist—because none but the old antagonist of Marxism, the Russian Narodism, has preached that Mother Russia should be first to perform the socialist transformation arising out of its peasant core. Pseudo-Marxism—because crypto-Narodism,⁵ which is post-revolutionary or counterrevolutionary Narodism, is here presented in the garb of the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, pseudo-Marxism proper, which is classic Stalinism, is not only an arrogation of the name and the conceptual forms of Marxism; it is the falsification of the essence of Marxism (the doctrine of the proletarian dictatorship) by way of misnaming and misrepresenting the facts of the dictatorship of one economic class as the facts of the dictatorship of another economic class. In brief, what classic Stalinism meant was the dictatorship of the petty, non-commercial, peasantry; what it proclaimed was the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The historical roots of Stalinist pseudo-Marxism make a bigger subject than there is space here. Yet, here it should be pointed out that, in disregard of all anti-Marxist drivel formed around the name of Stalin, a Marxist is supposed to realize that Stalin did actually represent a petty-possessing class which constitutes an overwhelming majority of the laboring population of the world. Overt anti-Marxism cannot be expected to put forth anything but rubbish, but those who claim to be Marxists are supposed to have more understanding of the "simple facts" of Marxism; namely, that Stalin might have been the fiercest master to the individual peasant, yet he was the most tenacious servant of the peasantry as a class.

As a historical conception, Stalinism rested upon the single proposition, or contention, that, in spite of the absence of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the West, the continuance of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia proved to be possible; and, whatever is not, or fails to be, the refutation of this proposition is in fact some form of Stalinist thinking.

Now, if one listens to the theorizers of today's Stalinism—which may be called late or neo-Stalinism—in the closing chapter of the history of all the drifting ways of classic Stalinism, the triumphant Russian workers' state, having entered the gates of socialism, suddenly decided to take a trip back to capitalism, decided "to restore capitalism," simply because the friend of Mr. Churchill died in the Kremlin. This latest fabrication of undying Stalinism comes under several names such as the "theory" of ex-socialism, or of the restoration of capitalism in socialist countries, or the "theory" of the new "red bourgeoisie," or the "theory" of the "class rule" of the "revisionist" clique. And so, the tale in which the Russian state was pictured as representing the socialist proletariat while being allied with the classic states of capitalism during the most fateful events of world history; the tale in which the Nazis were painted as being capitalists and capitalists as being Nazis had to be complemented by the silliest tale of Russia's round trip to socialism and back.

This package of tales, complete with the story of Russia's somersault back to capitalism, could no longer be based on the first proposition only; to fabricate the above-named "theories," the first, typically Stalinist, proposition had to be coupled with the theoretical proposition which had been advanced by the enemies of Stalinism long before the neo-Stalinists began to lament about "revisionist" betrayals, or "bureaucratic" transformations. As the reader already knows, this second proposition reads that the Stalin-governed Russian state was the result of the bureaucratic transformations of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Thus, we come to the "theories" predicated upon the second of the two principal propositions stated above.

Marxism versus Self-styled Marxism

It would not be unjust or incorrect to "lump" here the following "theories" together: the "theory" of the ruling "new bureaucratic class," the "theory of state capitalist analysis," the "theory" of the ruling "revisionist clique," as well as that of the "dogmatist clique." This list could include all the overtly anti-Marxist "theories" in the market but at this point we are concerned only with those that claim to be Marxist. Stripped of their specific jargon and articulations, all these "theories" can be reduced to one: the "theory" of the newly-formed bureaucratic ruling class, or shorter, the "theory" of the new bureau-class.

What is the common feature that makes these "theories" into a single one? The allegation that the state power was conquered or "monopolized" by something that was not an economic class before; that the class, now holding the state power, was formed at the moment of the conquest of the state power; that, in fact, the state power was conquered by a class which was not there. As far as Marxism is concerned, the common, basic meaning of all this inanity elevated into the rank of a theory is that the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat was never discontinued; for, the discontinuance of the dictatorship of an economic class is impossible unless the dictatorship of that economic class is replaced by the dictatorship of another, hitherto existing economic class. As it was stated before, the principal proposition of classic Stalinism was that the Stalin-governed Russian state was the result of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say, that the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat was never discontinued. This means that the common and essential meaning of all the "theories" listed above is crypto-Stalinism, or which is the same thing, anti-Marxism, anti-Leninism is their actual meaning.

If so, what is the proper name of this sort of "creativity" that is farcical enough to call itself Marxist while replacing Marxism with Libertarianism of the declassé, preaching that the discontinuance of the dictatorship of the proletariat was a "bureaucratic transformation," and not the replacement of the said dictatorship by the dictatorship of another, hitherto existing, economic class? The proper name for it is crypto-anarchist self-styled Marxism. Crypto-anarchist—because it is precisely Anarchism, the old antagonist of Marxism, that is incapable of seeing the forest behind the trees, incapable of identifying the actual possessing economic class that is hidden behind the bureaucratic manifestations of the class rule. Self-styled Marxism—because this sort of "creativity," which we call Libertarianism, by way of simply renaming the theory, attaches the name of Marxism to something that is but the bourgeois-consumerist "criticism" of Marxian theory of class rule.

Let it be said in passing that in this text libertarianism as a mode of cerebration, as a methodology, is understood to mean the proposition that what is not, and has never been, an economic class can be the holder of the state power and thus be the “ruling class”; or, in other words, what is only a servant of the state, only a part of the state machinery, can be the ruler of the state itself.

Modern libertarianism is supposed to be intensely critical of Stalinism; however, the present theoretical discomposure and bankruptcy of what was once classic pseudo-Marxism of Stalin has nothing to do with the theoretical cogency of libertarianist criticism. Stalinism was always a cult of mendacity but that did not help the wretchedness of its libertarianist or semi-libertarianist critics. The fact is that ultracritical anti-Stalinism of modern libertarianism has a double meaning; it has its implicit content, and the content is anti-Leninism. The libertarianist theories of the Stalinist states are but transformational derivatives of the same proposition: Stalinism, and its state, is an outgrowth of the Leninist party organization. Accordingly, above-mentioned prototypic "theory" of the bureau-class can be restated as the "theory" of the transformation of the party bureaucracy into the ruling class. In its full meaning, this is in fact the "theory" that the "substitutionist" Leninist Central Committee has begotten a new, as yet unforeseen, economic formation of society.

As up-to-date as this theorizing may be, the oversized ears of anarcho-liberalism compromise the garb of "enriched Marxism" as soon as modern libertarianism faces the basic question concerning a state or a revolution; namely, the question of state power which, as formulated by Lenin in a number of ways, is the question of the economic class that holds the state power.

What is, then, the libertarianist answer to this question? Which was the economic class that did hold the state power in Stalin's Russia? Or, which is the economic class that holds the state power in present-day China?⁶ The libertarianist answer to this question is that the state power is held by the ruling bureaucracy. And, what sort of an answer is this supposed to be? It is no answer at all, for the question remains unanswered: which economic class (not which bureaucracy, but which class)? Any honest answer to this basic question of Marxism, however, would be equivalent to revealing that modern crypto-libertarianism, instead of being enriched Marxism, is only crypto-anarchism and its enriched theory is a rehash of the decrepit "force theory" of Herr Dühring.

Moreover, in terms of crypto-libertarianism, state capitalism signifies the formation of a new, as yet unknown, species of ruling class, namely, the capitalist bureau-class, or some other string of words. Likewise, state capitalism is here brainlessly assumed to be a special formation of society replacing the capitalistic economic formation of society; and, the nationalization of the means of production is indeed understood to mean the bureaucratization of the means of production. In "dogmatic" or invariant Marxism, however, state capitalism, far from being a special economic formation of society, is only an economic policy of the ruling class, and signifies no more than the integration of the means of production into the collective class property of an already available economic class. In brief, the libertarianist "theory" or "analysis" of state capitalism is not what it claims to be; for, instead of being the theory of state capitalism, it is a "theory" of capitalist or post-capitalist bureaucratism which, besides being a meaningless combination of words, is another circumlocution of the story of the bureaucratic transformation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That story, as it could be seen, is anything but the refutation of the principal falsehood of Stalinism, namely, the myth that the Stalin-governed Russian state was the result of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Transformed Anarchism and Transformed Narodism

Modern libertarianism fails utterly to show that the state power in Russia (and in the related states) is in the hands of the owners of the means of material production, that is to say, in the hands of a possessing class. Failing so is indeed equivalent to buttressing up the contention of all pseudo-Marxists that the societies now claiming to be socialist are really on their way to becoming classless; for, a class society in which the state power is not the power of the owners of the means of production is actually ruled by the nonpossessing class, and, therefore, is a class society under destruction, is a society transitional to socialism. Hence, despite its ultracriticism, modern crypto-libertarianism, or self-styled Marxism, contains no answer as to what Stalinism was, or why it ever happened. On the other hand, both, surviving Stalinists and crypto-libertarians, share the same sham-conception in terms of which the dictatorship of the proletariat, instead of being the process of the destruction of classes, appears to be its very opposite, namely, the process of the formation of some new classes. It becomes obvious that, regardless of different "value judgments," both, Stalinist as well as libertarianist, propositions, announced in the beginning of this discourse, are of the same cognitive value as the forms of denying and concealing the historical fact of the discontinuance of the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat and its replacement by the dictatorship of another economic class. So, then, the paradox of convergence of the Stalinist and the libertarianist minds is not entirely transcendental.

To sum up, this is a sham-Marxist struggle of those Leftists or Radicals who would have their own self-interest and problems to be taken as the interests of the proletariat. Hence, their need of exploiting the name and the scientific instrument of Marxism while replacing its content with everything that is alien to Marxism. Stalinism and libertarianism, regardless of the opposition between them, are but two "methods" of doing the same sham-Marxist exploit, and the "exploit" consists in implicit "criticism" of Marxism while appropriating from it whatever is "useful." The "method" of classic, or Stalin's Stalinism, consisted in professional pseudoism, i.e., in arrogating not only the name of Marxism but also the concepts of theoretical Marxism while replacing the strategy and tactics of historical Marxism with Russian post-revolutionary Narodism, i.e., Russian National-Socialism. The "method" of libertarianism consists in simple self-stylism, i.e., in arrogating the mere name of Marxism while replacing the concepts of theoretical Marxism with the figments of bourgeois-consumerist individualism.

One can see: the modern "Left," or Radical sham, does not merely revise the "dogmata" of Marxism; it replaces the "dogmata" of Marxism with some other dogmata; moreover, the modern "Left" does not replace the "dogmata" of Marxism with just any other dogmata; it replaces the "dogmata" of Marxism with the dogmata made of the elements of ancient enemies of Marxism: Anarchism and Narodism.

In other words, after having been theoretically demolished by Marxism in the past, Anarchism and Narodism reappear in the form of the modern "Marxist Left" as transformed Anarchism and as transformed Narodism. The "thinking process" of the modern "Left" is, in fact, structured between these two sets of principles: between libertarianism and Stalinism, between crypto-anarchist self-styled Marxism and crypto-Narodist pseudo-Marxism, between bourgeois liberationism of the declassé and the bureaucratic despotism of the petty peasant.

In general, the ideological war against Marxism in our days takes various forms of disguised and undisguised "criticism" of the theory of the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat. At the bottom of all anti-Marxist "criticism" lies the principle which consists in concealing the historical fact of the discontinuance of the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat and its replacement by the dictatorship of a petty possessing class. The crypto-Narodist "criticism" of the theory of the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., of Marxism, disguises itself in the Stalinist allegation that the discontinuance of the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat was not a discontinuance, but its normal, that is, bureaucratically unimpaired, continuation. The crypto-anarchist "criticism" of Marxism disguises itself in the libertarianist allegation that the discontinuance of the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat was not a discontinuance, but a bureaucratic transformation. Thus, the thesis of the "bureaucratically unimpaired continuation" (the Stalinist thesis) is opposed here by the antithesis of the "bureaucratic transformation" (the libertarianist antithesis). Any "revolutionary" student could guess at this point that a "dialectical" synthesis of both these allegations is possible: in the thesis, the predicate "bureaucratically unimpaired" can be rejected, but the subject "continuance" can be retained; in the antithesis, the predicate "bureaucratic" can be retained while the subject "transformation" can be rejected. The synthesis would be neither "continuance" nor "transformation," but "deformation," or a "bureaucratically deformed continuation." In short, the result will be the so-called theory of the bureaucratic deformation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the notorious theory of the "degenerated workers' state." This is what is known today as Trotskyism—a methodology of "half-and-half," a practice of saving the good in the bad and divorcing the bad from the good, a mock-dialectical artifice of obtaining Marxism out of the combination of the elements of anti-Marxism.

Marxism versus Trotskyism

If Trotskyism is an attempt to overcome Stalinism, it is so only by making concession to libertarianism. Trotskyism makes concession to libertarianism precisely because it does not overcome Stalinism. Trotskyism is simply too smart in using libertarianist propositions to oppose Stalinism while siding with the cause of Stalinism to oppose libertarianism. At bottom, Trotskyism is only a copulation of the propositions of Stalinism and libertarianism: the first contending that Russia has abolished capitalism, the second charging that the Russian state bureaucracy is the ruling class. Blunting the edge of both propositions, Trotskyism combines them in a compound sentence: Russia is no longer capitalist but the state bureaucracy is the "ruling caste." As the product of this combination, Trotskyism, in its own right, is an additional, particular form of sham-Marxism, exceeding all the rest in its unbridled duplicity. Any concession to Trotskyism is a concession to both Stalinism as well as libertarianism.

There is no point in analyzing all the theoretical atrocities of Trotskyism to show that Trotskyism is a paradigm of mere eclecticism. This was done many years ago by nobody but Lenin himself in a succinct and most convincing way, and Lenin's critique of pre-revolutionary Trotskyism has even greater validity today, as a critique of modern Trotskyism, i.e., Trotskyism sine Trotsky, than ever before.

Indeed, one cannot avoid the question: how does Trotskyism, being what it is, survive and persist as a political trend, as a "school of thought"? The case of Trotskyism shows only that the "theoretical integrity," or "conceptual cogency," has nothing to do with the viability of a political trend as long as it expresses the cri de coeur of some section of bourgeois democracy. Much more to the point would be, therefore, to consider first the class roots of modern Trotskyism that make Trotskyism what it is.

If Stalinism is the standpoint of a definite economic class (the most numerous class of class society, the class of petty-possessing toilers in agriculture); if crypto-libertarianism is the standpoint of the accomplished declasse, that is, of those who do not form any class whatever; the standpoint of Trotskyism is that of the halfway declassé fragments of the disintegrating petty-possessing class, detached from their class base but, without completing the detachment, occupying the "social passageway" between an economic class and the non-class parts of society, that is, the mass of the declassé. This explains the centrist position of Trotskyism between Stalinism and crypto-libertarianism; it explains Trotskyism's "critical support" for Stalinism and its striving for its own libertarianist independence; its being attracted by the state protectionism of the bureaucratic state-form and its being repulsed by the bureaucratic despotism of the same state-form; its being infatuated with the "advantages of planned economy" and its being the "vanguard fighter for everybody's democratic rights." It also explains the double-tonguedness and ventriloquism of Trotskyism, its "methodology" of syncretism, its "logic" of yes-and-no, its "dialectics" of being pregnant while being not pregnant, its passion for self-contradiction, its "ontology" of essence (the "property forms") that does not appear and of appearance (the "bureaucratic" caste rule) that shows no essence.

The split-personality of Trotskyism becomes indeed so involved in its syncretic operations that it is hopelessly mindless of what results therefrom. For instance, if Stalinism may be expressed in the statement that the Russian state is socialist and therefore anti-bureaucratic; if crypto-libertarianism may be expressed in the statement that the Russian state is super-bureaucratic and therefore anti-socialist; neither Stalinism nor crypto-libertarianism would appear to be in disagreement with the axiom of theoretical Marxism that the proletarian state is the opposite to what the bureaucratic state is. Of all three forms of sham-Marxism, only Trotskyism is so uniquely clever as to be in "theoretical" agreement with commonplace anti-Marxism and teach the ultra-ingenious "theory" that a proletarian or socialist state may be ultra-bureaucratic, and a super-bureaucratic state (in fact, a Byzantine type of state) may be socialist or proletarian.

How does Trotskyism arrive at such super-clever syntheses? By way of wild "analogies" or "parallels". It is known as printed facts that Trotskyism keeps drawing its "parallels" between the non-possessing proletariat and the possessing classes such as the profit-hunting bourgeoisie, the serf-holding nobility, and the slave-holding aristocracy. Also, to make it wilder, Trotskyists are those who preach a political "revolution" that is supposed to be the collective act of all proletarians of the "workers' states" to overthrow—their own bureaucrats, that is to say, not a class but the proletariat's own agent, the Stalinist "ruling caste."

As far as Trotskyism is concerned, Marx and Engels never bothered to write the Manifesto; Lenin never thought of writing "the State and Revolution"; neither or them ever happened to teach that the political power is merely the organized collective power of an economic class for oppressing another class. As far as Marxism is concerned, however, the Janus-head of Trotskyism can neither read, nor hear. Indeed, is there such nonsense in Marxism as a transfer of political power from an economic class to its own agent? Or, is there such a joke in Marxism as the conquest of political power by the non-possessing class from nobody but its own agent? Finally, is there such a drivel in Marxism as a revolution—meaning precisely the political revolution—that does not involve at least two economic classes directly opposed to each other? Answering these questions is needless.

But perhaps what makes Trotskyism move its brains the way it does is the creed that the capitalist class of the West is the main enemy, and the opposition to it should be the principle of all "revolutionary side-taking"? Not so. It is not the opposition to the capitalist class, that is to say, it is not the interest of the political organization of the proletariat, but the defense of the "property forms and all that flows from them" that animates the double-headed body of Trotskyism and sets its paradoxes in motion. Indeed, when all is said, there is nothing left for the Janus head of Trotskyism but to hang onto the rope of the "property forms."

Trotsky and Lenin’s Theory of Restoration

On the occasions when Lenin accused me of 'underestimating' the peasantry, he did not have in mind my failure to recognize the socialist tendencies of the peasantry but rather my failure to realize sufficiently, from Lenin's point of view, the bourgeois democratic independence of the peasantry, its capacity to create its OWN power and through it impede the establishment of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.

Thus wrote Trotsky in 1939, outlining "three concepts of the Russian revolution" in an effort to reassert his additional, "third" line in the Russian revolution.

Rendering "Lenin's point of view" in a half-pointed way is typical of Trotsky; nevertheless, the above-cited passage is one of the most important statements of Trotsky as far as Leninism is concerned. Lenin did much more than accuse Trotsky of "underestimating," and he did it in struggle against the rest of Mensheviks. Lenin formulated his theory—the only Marxist theory—of the inevitability of restoration in Russia in such pointed and detailed form that only traitors and the enemies of Lenin could manage to "overlook" it. Here is his "point of view" impossible to be permanently buried despite all efforts of Stalinist and Trotskyist schools of falsification (let it be said in passing that crude forgery is not the only form of falsification):

The Russian revolution can achieve victory by its own efforts, but it cannot possibly hold and consolidate its gains by its own strength. It cannot do this unless there is a socialist revolution in the West. Without this condition restoration is inevitable, whether we have municipalization, or nationalization, or division of the land: for under each and every form of possession and property the small proprietor will always be a bulwark of restoration. After the complete victory of the democratic revolution the small proprietor will inevitably turn against the proletariat; and the sooner the common enemies of the proletariat and of the small proprietors, such as the capitalists, the landlords, the financial bourgeoisie, and so forth are overthrown, the sooner will this happen. Our democratic republic has no other reserve than the socialist proletariat in the West.

Thus spoke Lenin at the Unity Congress; moreover, he devoted a dozen paragraphs to the same "point of view" of his in his Report (nor did he forget to write about it later in the "Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy,") explaining how and why the restoration would be inevitable, if the West remained capitalist. He wrote further:

What is the economic foundation of restoration on the basis of the capitalist mode of production...? The condition of the small commodity producer in any capitalist society...Restoration on the basis of small commodity production, of small peasant property in capitalist society, is not only possible in Russia, but INEVITABLE...the small commodity producers, as a class, are the bulwark of capitalist restoration (this is what we shall for short call restoration on the basis, not of the Asiatic, but of the capitalist mode of production)...Municipalization is a form of LANDOWNERSHIP; but is it not clear that the forms of landownership do not alter the main and fundamental features of a CLASS?

There is not a sentence in the above-cited passages that would not spell demolition of every proposition of modern Trotskyism, yet the father of Trotskyism had the imagination to write the following:

Without the aid of the proletarian revolution in the West, he (Lenin) reiterated time and again, restoration is unavoidable in Russia. He was not mistaken: the Stalinist bureaucracy is nothing else than the first stage of bourgeois restoration.

Here is one more instance of Trotsky's beloved "method" of "divorcing" what is good from what is not good, that is, what is useful to Trotskyism from what is not useful to Trotskyism. With the help of usual muddy syncretism, Trotsky believed the Stalinist school of falsification to be overcome by the Trotskyist school of falsification. "Restoration is unavoidable"... Lenin "was not mistaken"...Precisely, but this statement should be divorced from Trotskyism, for it does not belong in it, or to it. How was Lenin "not mistaken," if Trotskyism was actually a "theory" that restoration was impossible in Russia? Lenin was as mistaken as he was dead in 1939, if those who preached the revolution of the proletariat against its own "agent" were not downright farcical. Either Lenin's theory of the inevitability of restoration was hopelessly mistaken, or Trotsky's theory of the "first stage" of bourgeois restoration staged by the "agent" of the proletariat itself on the basis of "socialist property forms" was hopelessly absurd. Besides, Lenin did not utter a word about the bureaucracy when he spoke, and also wrote, of the restoration being "positively inevitable," if the West remained capitalist. Yet, what makes Trotsky's above-quoted account of "Lenin's point of view" valuable is that, despite his selective method, Trotsky expresses Lenin's thought when he speaks of the peasantry's "capacity to create its own power" and of his own failure to recognize it. By doing so Trotsky also betrays the secret of his own tragedy (meaning his individual tragedy, the tragedy of self-defeat of the former war commissar, not the "tragedy" of the farcical "movements" he left behind in Western democracies). The force of Lenin's thought was subsequently measured by the historical import of that failure; for, failing to recognize the counterrevolutionary potency of the peasant class is indeed the foundation of all anti-Leninism.

Point one: If the West remained capitalist, restoration would be inevitable. Why? Because someone named Stalin, representing the working class bureaucracy, would not know how to defend Russia and its "property forms"? Should one imagine Lenin setting forth a miserable hogwash such as this? Restoration would be inevitable, because "after the victory of the democratic revolution, the small proprietors (the small commodity producers, the petty-possessing class) will inevitably turn against the proletariat."

Point two: "The small proprietors (Lenin says nothing of bureaucrats) will always be a bulwark of restoration"; they will turn against the proletariat "the sooner the common enemies," such as the capitalists, and so forth are overthrown. In other words, the capitalist class will not be the bulwark of this restoration, since the restoration will come with or without the capitalist class of Russia, and even sooner if the capitalist class is overthrown. Exactly so, because as soon as the Russian society would consist of only two classes—the non-possessing and the petty-possessing—the class interests of these classes would sunder. The petty-possessing class will have to struggle for its survival as a class and in this struggle will have to centralize itself politically to confront the other classes as a class-totality, as a collective petty-proprietor, as an aggregate petty-capitalist. The political centralization of the petty-possessing class would not fail to be oppressive to the proletariat, since the political movement of the proletariat is the struggle for the abolition of all classes, not for the survival of classes. But the oppression of the non-possessing class by a possessing class is impossible without the instrument of class oppression, which is precisely what the bureaucratic state machinery is. Hence, the necessity of restoring the military-police-bureaucratic state. Besides, the oppression of the proletariat by the petty-possessing class is exactly the counterrevolutionary dictatorship of the petty-possessing class, no matter how the agents of the possessing classes may disguise it. In contrast to the dictatorship of the capitalist class which is legalistic because of its being the rule of the economically dominant class of modern society, the dictatorship of a petty-possessing class must be and is non-legalistic, or despotic, because of its being the dictatorship of a class that can never be the economically dominant class of modern society. Hence, the necessity of the military-police-bureaucratic state with a despotic form of government, which looks very much like the Russian state, and which is the opposite to what the proletarian class-state is, since the latter is not a machinery of class oppression, but is, on the contrary, the organization for the politically centralized destruction of classes by "the proletariat risen to political monocracy." There are no brains in Trotskyism to understand this, and this is only a restatement of the rudiments of Leninism, of Marxism.

As to Trotsky himself, his failure to understand Lenin is indeed pathetic. Instead of following Lenin's thought, Trotsky was always ready to conclude that Lenin was revising himself at every turn of "changing reality." In 1917, Lenin declares it to be "possible that the peasantry may seize all the land and the entire power." In 1919, Lenin declares as axiomatic that the ruling forces in capitalist society "can only be Capital or the proletariat which overthrows it." Does that mean that Lenin, within two years, saw the light of the divine law against the conquest of state power by the peasantry and decided to "revise" himself? This is how Lenin would appear in the blockhead of an expert on communism. In reality, Lenin only restated in 1919 what he always regarded as axiomatic. He did not revise a syllable of his previous statements, and there is no sentence in Leninism that could be used as a veto against the peasantry to make it incapable of creating "its own power" and its political formation, as temporary as it may be. And if the peasantry is capable of forming its state power, does that mean that the peasantry does not have to follow the capitalist class? First, it definitely means that the peasantry would never follow the proletariat unless it is divorced from all state power; which is equivalent to saying that the peasantry may follow the proletariat only as a mass of a disintegrated class, but not as a class. On the other hand, the peasantry as a politically centralized class, as the holder of state power, does more than follow the capitalist class; the peasantry actually does the work for the capitalist class, and it does that work even if it is locked in struggle with the capitalist class. The peasantry does so because it cannot do otherwise (as we know from historical materialism, the result of the struggle among the possessing classes is, as a rule, something else than what was "intended"). Again, the peasant class, being centralized as a military-police-bureaucratic state, finally succeeds in nothing but undermining its own rule to make room for the capitalist class to establish its legalistic rule, i.e., the rule which is in conformity with the capitalistic circumstances. The peasant class does all that while being in war against all classes, including the capitalist class; for, nothing takes place in antagonistic societies without a class war of all economic classes against all economic classes. In truth, history knows no other way of producing the resultant of historical movement.

Trotskyism, on the other hand, instead of making some sense out of the chaos of the historical struggles of distinct economic classes, makes chaos out of the concepts of historical materialism. Instead of regarding everything from the standpoint of the destruction of classes, Trotskyism measures everything with the yardstick of "property forms."

Point three: Restoration would be inevitable, "for under each and every form of possession and property the small proprietor will always be a bulwark of restoration." Yet, these words of Lenin do not really require any eclaircissement, for they were spoken and written in advance to defend Marxism against all sorts of fakes. What is actually required is an oversized hearing aid for the Janus head of Trotskyism. Lenin appears to have known in advance that the stultifying capitalistic circumstances would beget such fleas of fake-Marxism whose entire Marxist education could be compressed into a set of morphemes, such as "property forms," the synonyms of which—like the "holy native land," "Fatherland," "Mother Russia," etc.—can be found in every dictionary of chauvinism.

But perhaps what Lenin had in mind was a restoration on the basis of socialist "property forms," a bureaucratically self-generated restoration proceeding on the basis of residual socialism. Perhaps, Lenin really was a crypto-Trotskyist syncretist who could manage to be Leninist while being an anti-Leninist. Most probably, however, Lenin was a Leninist until that evening, when on his way to Smolny, he decided to "borrow theories" from Parvus and Trotsky to make his Bolshevik organization clairvoyant. In this case, Lenin could not do that "borrowing" without revising himself throughout; for, what he is rumored to have borrowed proved to be antithetic to the theory of restoration pre-formulated by him at the Unity Congress, in his Report on that Congress, and again reasserted by him in his "Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy." And yet, Lenin was never so honest as to admit this self-negating "revision" that would render what he spoke then and there actually worthless.

But, what did Lenin have in mind when he spoke of restoration? What sort of restoration did he mean?

Point four: "the small commodity producers, as a class, are the bulwark of capitalist restoration," i.e., the "restoration on the basis, not of the Asiatic, but of the capitalist mode of production," the "restoration of the type that occurred in France at the beginning of the nineteenth century, not the comical restoration of Moscovy." Why not of the Asiatic, but of the capitalist? Quite obviously because the class composition of the Russian society showed that the workpeople operating the socially concentrated means of production had formed an economic class. Yet, as soon as the workpeople form an economic class and so long as the workpeople remain to be an economic class, nothing can be prevalent except the capitalist socio-economic formation, or capitalism; for, whenever a definite mass of the socially concentrated means of production is available, the only way the workpeople, as a class, can operate such means of production is the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism is the only mode of existence of workpeople as a class, the working class, the proletariat.

Then, a restoration on the basis of the Asiatic mode of production, while the workpeople form a class, the working class, would be a "sheer absurdity" ("a sheer absurdity in the epoch of capitalism," as Lenin has it. It was indeed a chimera of pre-revolutionary Menshevism, fabricated at the Unity Congress to support the lame idea of municipalization). It would mean a restoration of the pre-capitalist economic formation with its specific class composition of the human component of the forces of production. But, an economic formation of society is a totality of productional relations based upon a specific mode of connecting the labor-power, the human component of the forces of production, with the means of production, the material component of the forces of production, and presupposes corresponding species of the means of production. A restoration of the pre-capitalist mode of production would actually mean the operation of the socially concentrated means of production by a class other than the working class, and that is, of course, nothing but "sheer absurdity." Moreover, an economic formation of society is neither created nor maintained by the property forms. An economic formation is the result of the productional activity of the human component of the forces of production and is maintained by that activity which, in turn, is determined by the means of production acquired by the society.

However, if it was not the restoration of an economic formation, then what was inevitable in Russia, if the West remained capitalist? What restoration did Lenin have in mind? Nothing but a political restoration, that is, "the restoration of the antirepublican form of government on the basis of capitalist production relations." In other words, what Lenin had in mind was a restoration in terms of political formation on the basis of the developing or even prevalent economic formation of society, the capitalist production relations, or capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic formation of society under which the human component of the forces of production, operating the socially concentrated means of production, forms an economic class. It is a truism that the capitalistic civilization makes the existence of human society impossible without operating the socially concentrated means of production. Thus, the existence of different parts of society would be determined by their relation to the socially concentrated means of production. Accordingly, the first thing to know about capitalism is that, in a capitalist society, the socially concentrated means of production are operated, not by the whole of society, but only by a part of it. Then, again, if the means of production are only in part socially concentrated, only a part of society is operating the socially concentrated means of production, and therefore no "socialist" clatter can ever prevent the society from being capitalist. Therefore, also, any talk of "socialism" as an economic formation, especially in a society where the material component of the forces of production is only in part socially concentrated, is a mere clatter and has always been so.

On the other hand, the capitalist economic formation lives as a plurality of political formations and can survive all political formations except one. The question is what is a political formation, and what makes political formations different? But before coming to the concept of political formation, yet another point in "Lenin's point of view" is worthwhile considering.

"Indeed, if the small commodity producers, as a class, are the bulwark of capitalist restoration, where does the municipalization come in? Municipalization is a form of landownership; but is it not clear that the forms of landownership do not alter the main and fundamental features of a CLASS? The petty bourgeois will certainly and inevitably serve as the bulwark of restoration against the proletariat, no matter whether the land is nationalized, municipalized or divided."

The forms of ownership do not alter the fundamental features of a class...Why is this so clear? Because in Marxism of Marx, it is the productional activity and the production relations that "create property forms," not the other way. The economic classes, like the proletariat and the peasantry, which form the human component of the forces of production, are not what they are by virtue of "property forms"; they are what they are by virtue of whatever types or species of the means of production they operate. Thus, the typical proletariat is an economic class of those direct producers who operate the socially concentrated means of production, and consequently, the proletariat is the non-possessing class; for, no class of society can operate all socially concentrated means of production and be anything but the nonpossessing class, just as no class of class society can be a possessing class and operate all socially concentrated means of production. On the other hand, the means of production in agriculture, operated by the peasantry, are anything but the socially concentrated means of production, and consequently, the peasant class—collectivized or uncollectivized—remains to be a petty-possessing class. Thus, the peasant mass of the human component of the forces of production is the opposite to what the proletarian mass of the same component is. The human component of the forces of production, absorbed in mere productional activity, is the force that creates and re-creates the circumstances which make the capitalist economic formation inevitable. The socially concentrated means of production are not the only means of production that are operated in the present-day society; that is to say, the whole human component must consist of those who operate the socially concentrated means of production and of those who operate different means of production; in other words, it must consist of the proletarian mass and the non-proletarian, or petty-possessing mass. By their mere productional activity, both masses can create and re-create nothing but the capitalist circumstances. Yet, all the difference between them can be reduced to the fact that the political formation of the non-proletarian mass of the human component of the forces of production cannot possibly abolish the capitalist economic formation; on the other hand, the political formation of the proletarian mass of the same component is the only political formation to terminate the economic formation of society known as capitalism. What are, then, the political formations?

The capitalist society is a class-divided society, that is, it consists not merely of individuals, but also of the classes of individuals. And, in a society so divided, beside a set of relations among the individuals belonging to different classes, another set of relations is available, namely, the relations among the very classes, that is, the relations of class to class, or interclass relations. In this way, the social relations of different parts of society appear, first, as relations among the individuals, or as interindividual relations, and then as relations among the parts of society, which form the classes of individuals.

The essential content of social relations are productional relations to the means of production, without which no society could exist. The relations to the means of production are the relations of production and, as such, are the relations among the forces of production. By relating to the means of production in different ways, groups of individuals form different productional classes and relate to one another as forces of production. The productional relations among the individuals of different classes form then economic relations. In Marxism, briefly, classes are economic, and economic classes are the forces of production when these forces appear in the form of economically antagonistic parts of society.

Where does the bureaucracy come in here? Nowhere. The bureaucracy bears no productional relation to the means of production and is not a force of production. Indeed, as Marx wrote in the middle of the past century, the bureaucracy is "an artificial caste alongside the actual classes of society." It is only a part of the state machinery alongside other parts, such as the police and the military. Its concept cannot be formed before or without forming the concept of the state power and the state. A "bureaucracy as the ruling class" or a "caste, monopolizing the state power" is, therefore, only a hallucination of the libertarianist windbags.

Moreover, no special intelligence is required to see that, in addition to economic classes, a class-divided society does indeed contain other parts which form no classes at all, because they bear no productional relation to the means of material production. A productional relation to the means of production may be either operative or possessory. Accordingly, an economic class is that part of society which either operates, or possesses, or does both possess and operate some means of production. The bureaucracy, or the bureaucratic caste, is one of those parts of society, which neither operate nor possess any means of material production. This is even more so under so-called state capitalism because, in this case, the means of production, specifically, the socially concentrated means, are the monopoly of the state and, consequently, cannot be possessed by anyone but an actual economic class as a whole. Marxism is not responsible for the habitual myopia of crypto-anarchists who cannot think of an economic class without losing the sight of its collectivity. In simpler language, an economic class is not only "trees," but above all, a "forest"; it is a collectivity of all those who stand in similar relation to the means of production, specifically, to the socially concentrated means of production.

Under capitalism, the operating of the socially concentrated means of production becomes the only form of productive labor. Developed capitalism signifies that, in the long run, no economic class can survive without having productional relations to the socially concentrated means of production. The nature of the socially concentrated means of production is such that the operative relation to them must be non-possessory, and the possessory relation to them must be non-operative. In other words, the classes of society that do not operate the socially concentrated means of production can survive only by possessing them, or which is the same, by exploiting the human component of the modern forces of production, the proletariat.

There is no clause in Marxism or historical materialism saying that the exploitation of the proletariat is a special talent of capitalists imitable under no circumstances. Axiomatic in Marxism is the proposition that an economic class can be exploited only by another economic class and, therefore, can also be oppressed only by another economic class. The modern nonpossessing class can be exploited by any possessing class, if that class gets hold of the state power; but, to be capable of holding the state power the class must be an actual economic class, not a fictitious one. In the vacuous mind of libertarianism, all class differences become evaporated, and every bureaucrat is a "capitalistic bureaucratic class," if he possesses or "controls" a limousine and a star-like wife. Still, the worldwide class struggle is not a struggle among the "bureaucracies," but among the qualitatively distinct possessing classes, and the possessing classes of our time have to struggle for the right of exploiting the class that sets in motion the socially concentrated means of production. It is the anarchical, marketplace mode of existence of the human component of the forces of production that leaves the socially concentrated means of production out of control of those who operate them. The politically unorganized mass of the human component, confronting the means of production merely as a crowd of laboring consumers, absorbed in mere productional activity, cannot fail to produce and reproduce the class-possessory relations to the socially concentrated means of production, which remain a class property so long as the state power remains in the hands of any possessing class. The politically unorganized human component of the modern forces of production is precisely what the politically oppressed and economically exploited proletariat is. In view of this, it is only the double tongue of Trotskyism that can prate of non-capitalism while the proletariat fails to be the monocratic ruler of the state.

The economic classes are then the essential segments of society, and their "struggle is the mainspring of events," i.e., of all historical process. Marxism, as Lenin wrote in his article Karl Marx, requires "of social science...an objective analysis of the position of each class in modern society in connection with the conditions of development of each class." That by "each class" Lenin did not mean each of the two, but each of several economic classes, could be evident to anyone who can read.

One has to dwell upon what actually is the ABC of historical materialism to show that only anti-Marxists could be so ignorant as to confound political formations with the economic formation of society. The libertarianist and Trotskyist "contributions" to the question of Russian "socialism" proceed from such confounding. For, if this were not so, it should be clear to anyone that the only relevant question must be the question of state power, that is, the question of the economic class that holds the state power.

Again, the totality of economic relations among the individuals of different classes forms the class composition of society, or the society of economic classes. Economic relations as relations of class antagonism cannot fail to involve whole classes and necessitate the confrontation between the collectivity of one economic class and the collectivity of another economic class, or other economic classes. The economic relations thus become the relations of class to class, or interclass relations, and so concentrated, form political relations. In this manner, the class composition of society reveals itself as a totality of the politically related forces of production. A political relation reveals the truth of economic relations; namely, that economic relations are not merely interindividual relations but are also the relations of class-to-class warfare. In the long run, the forces of production cannot co-exist as economic classes without destroying one another in political conflicts. A political relation is, therefore, a relation of power used either to destroy or to oppress; it is the power to destroy if directed against the classes that can be destroyed; it is the power to oppress if directed against the class that cannot be destroyed.

Power as political relation is political power. The ordinary, i.e., conservative, or anti-revolutionary, political power is the power to oppress, and it is so because of its being the economic potency of the collectivity of those who possess the means of production as opposed to those who do not possess any means of production but only operate the socially concentrated means of production. The essence of the ordinary political power consists, therefore, in oppressing the non-possessing class; for, it is above all the modern nonpossessing class, the proletarian human component of the forces of production, that cannot be destroyed but only oppressed. However, the confrontation between a class of several millions, taken collectively, and another class of several millions, as a whole, is impossible without special organization that embodies the collectivity of a class, and that is what gives rise to political organizations. A political organization is a tool of class warfare that enables the warring class to confront another as a body, as a totality. Political power becomes actual only in possessing a political organization of class oppression and, as such, is a state power, a power of employing the "ready-made state machinery," a special body of coercion, including the military, the police and the bureaucracy, or the bureaucratic caste. And, it is only here that the bureaucracy comes in, as a part of the state machinery. There is no need to continue with this, for it would be only a repetition of what is available in black on white, in much better form and in greater detail, set on hundreds of pages. One would have to quote the whole of Lenin's "State and Revolution" which itself is full of quotations. It is also true that nothing really would avail, until the resurgence of political movement of the proletariat bereaves the disguised enemies of Marxism of their roguish desire to play with the name of Marxism. Still, to sum up in brief, the following is axiomatic for Marx, Engels and Lenin: "The state power is not suspended in midair" (Marx); the state power—the ordinary, antirevolutionary, state power that employs the special, ready-made, i.e., bureaucratic machinery is the collective power of a possessing economic class; the bureaucracy is the agent of an economic class and, therefore, cannot be the ruling class itself; moreover, the bureaucracy is the agent of a possessing class and, therefore, cannot be the agent of the proletariat.

The political organization that employs the state machinery is a ruling political organization, or a state organization; it is an organization of the class that holds the state power. The totality of political relations, i.e., the relations of class to class, or interclass relations, concentrated around the political organization of the class that holds the state power makes a political formation. No concept of political or state power can be obtained without the definition of economic formation of society; on the other hand, no definition of political formation can be obtained without the concept of political or state power. A political formation is a creation of one of the warring classes, imposed upon the society. The identity of the political formation can be determined only by identifying the economic class that holds the state power. It is only natural, therefore, that the political formations differ from one another according to the class position of the state power, according to whichever economic class holds the state power.

Hereupon, Lenin's theory of restoration in Russia can be brought to the following conclusion: the economic foundation of restoration is "the condition of the small commodity producer in any capitalist society." "Unless there is a socialist revolution in the West," the petty-possessing class of Russia will inevitably establish its political formation on the basis of the capitalist economic formation of society. Lenin's theory of restoration in Russia may be restated today as that of the discontinuation of the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat and its replacement by the dictatorship of the petty-possessing class of Russia, namely, the Russian peasant class.

Meanwhile, the theory in which the struggle of economic classes is said to be the mainspring of events has no use whatever of any part of the trichotomy of either the continuation, or the transformation, or the degeneration of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia. An economic formation of society exists only as a concrete class composition of society. The productional activity of the human component of the forces of production, being the essence of historical process, integrates itself as history only by way of war of all economic classes replacing one another in state power. The reality of historical process unfolds itself as a succession of political formations, as the replacement of one political formation by another political formation; or, which is the same thing, as the replacement of one class rule by another class rule. The political rule of the economically dominant class of modern society, establishing its political formation, is a result of the struggle of all available possessing classes, and nobody ever maintained in Marxism that the capitalist class was born with the scepter of state power in its baby hands. At no significant turn of history has the capitalist class ever obtained the state power from the nobility without losing it to other classes. A political formation may appear and disappear without replacing the existing economic formation of society. Moreover, the political formations that accomplish the transformation of the socio-economic formation, as a rule, disappear after accomplishing their tasks. No political formation, i.e., no form of dictatorship, of any possessing class can ever replace the capitalist socio-economic formation with a new one, but any economic class is capable of forming its state power and establishing its temporary political formation. What is not capable of doing this is precisely the bureaucracy for the simple reason that history is the struggle of classes, and the bureaucracy is not a class. Indeed, the libertarianist proposition that the political or state bureaucracy is a "ruling class," a "ruling caste," or somebody who monopolizes the state power, is not only witless; it is also one of the basic propositions of all modern bourgeois "schools of thought," of all commonplace anti-Marxism.

The task of abolishing the capitalist socio-economic formation cannot be accomplished without a particular political formation, the political formation of the proletariat, of which another name is the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat. What makes, then, the political formation of the proletariat particular, that is, fundamentally different from the political formations of the non-proletarian or possessing classes? Is it the "principle" that power "corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Or, that the rights of individual, or bourgeois consumer, are sacred? Or, is it the function of defending and preserving the "new property forms"? The libertarianist and Trotskyite fakes really think that the declassé and petty-bourgeois notions would always pass for "Marxist" and "revolutionary." Whatever they think, in Marxism, the term"revolutionary" itself has no meaning unless it signifies what is capable of destroying all economic classes. The political formation of the proletariat is the product and the formation of the war of classes, and in this it is not different from the rest of political formations. The fundamental difference consists in the fact that the proletariat has no use of state power unless the state power is used to accomplish the task of destroying all economic classes. It should be clear from this that the establishment of the political formation of the proletariat necessitates the removal of the "ready-made state machinery" with the special body of coercion, usable only by the possessing classes; that the re-establishment of the same state machinery of class oppression is tantamount to re-establishing the political formation of the possessing classes; that the proletariat must make its political formation and its state power permanent until all economic classes are out of existence.

Modern Trotskyism as anti-Leninism

Modern Trotskyism is anti-Leninism, and it is so even if Leninism as such does not exist. Before the Revolution, Trotskyism, as a trend, was always an attempt to be a sort of rival "Marxism" in opposition to Lenin's Marxism. Yet as a rival "Marxism", Trotskyism was and is a double-headed "Marxism". Marxism itself is nothing but the theory of abolition of all classes and class societies; and, that is the same as to say that Marxism is the theory of the permanent revolution, i. e., the theory of the revolution as the permanence of the destruction of classes until all class society is out of existence. What, then, would be an additional theory of another permanent revolution? Obviously an additional "Marxism", a rival "Marxism", a rival theory of another permanent revolution. Since Trotskyism refuses to admit that it is what Marxism is not, Trotskyism proves to be a creature with two heads—a double-headed person.

Yet, whatever Trotskyism was, Modern Trotskyism is not quite Trotsky's Trotskyism.⁷ The array of the scientific concepts such as, for example, the degenerated worker’s state, the disfigured worker’s state, the deformed worker’s state, the healthy worker’s state, the unhealthy worker’s state, and so on, is not all a product of Trotsky. Modern Trotskyism, in turn, is a double-tongued agent of anti-Marxism. The bureaucracy—"the working class bureaucracy"—is a bureaucratic caste that monopolizes the state power". And, that is positively the same as to say that the bureaucracy is a class. This is the story articulated by the bourgeois-declassé tongue of Trotskyism. At the same time, only the peasant nations "abolish capitalism"; they abolish capitalism—a socio-economic formation—merely by replacing it with nothing but political formations; and, that is the same as to say that state capitalism means "abolished capitalism", and "abolished capitalism" in Stalino-Trotskyism is nothing but what proves to be state monopoly capitalism. This, then, is the story articulated by the peasant tongue of Trotskyism. As the syncretized whole, Trotskyism is the theory that the bureaucracy is the ruling class and the elimination of an insignificant class, the "insignificant bourgeoisie", is tantamount to abolishing capitalism. What we say here is hardly an exaggeration. The double-tongued wisdom of Trotskyism can be expressed in its own words, for instance, as follows: the Russian working class abolished capitalism by overthrowing an insignificant class. As brainless as this wisdom is, it is a printed fact.

In the nineteen thirties, Trotsky set out to write what was to be known as the Revolution Betrayed; Instead, he ended up writing what should have been known as the Revolution Unbetrayed. This work of Trotsky is an outrage of eclectical cerebration; however, it contains a phrase the correctness of which can be doubted only by the most ignorant. The phrase reads: "the insignificance of the Russian bourgeoisie". That was precisely what the Russian bourgeoisie was: as the master capitalist class it was insignificant. Meanwhile, the social revolution of the working class is a mere farce, if all it does is to eliminate an insignificant class. It is to bad if the Modern left, Trotskyist or other, does not have what it takes to see what the problem is.

In the French literature, there is a hero known as Tartarin de Tarascon, a creation of A. Daudet. An ardent hunter—a lion hunter—as he is, Tartarin goes hunting for lions, but in the darkness of night what he finds shot is only a bourricot. Whatever Tartarin was, he had to admit that the killing of a bourricot was not the same as the killing of the lion. Not so the abolishers of capitalism, Trotskyist and the rest, who make up the chorus of the modern Left. The only socialist killing that occurred was that of an undernourished kitten of belated capitalism, but the noise that was produced was more than enough for the world to think that slain was the very dragon of the world market. The logic of the assumption that the killing of a kitten is the same as the killing of the dragon is the logic of Stalino-Trotskyism. In Trotskyism, it is verbalized as the "theory of the permanent revolution."

the revolution sought by modern socialism is, briefly, the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and the reorganization of society by the abolition of class distinctions. To accomplish this, we need not only the proletariat, which carries out the revolution, but also a bourgeoisie in whose hands the productive forces of society have developed to such a stage that they permit the final elimination of all class distinctions.

That was how insignificant the co-founder of Marxism believed that the bourgeoisie had to be. He also thought that the bourgeoisie was equally as necessary a precondition for the abolition of all class distinctions as the proletariat itself; and that a person who would fail to understand this had to learn the ABC of socialism.

But Engels erred—somewhat. The Stalino-Trotskyist "workers" in backward Russia knew better. They knew it even better than Marx himself. The following brazen-faced imbecility explains how and why.

Marx had assumed that the workers would first abolish capitalism in the most advanced countries of Western Europe. Yet they did it first in backward Russia.

Thus, Marx "had assumed" that the earth was flat; yet, the "workers" in Russia discovered that the planet was a globe; and, they abolished capitalism. However, they did their abolishing not in spite of Marx, but on the contrary, in the name of Marx and under the Banner of his Marxism.

Between 1883 and 1917 it was only thirty-four years; between 1895—the year Engels died—and 1917, no more than twenty-two years. Marx, with all his genius, his erudition, his farsightedness, with Engels on his side, was not able to see the coming of an event like the abolition of capitalism even at the distance of less than four decades; what was even more scandalous, Marx stood with his back turned against the actual direction of history, looking exactly the opposite way, mistaking West for East, left for right. Why, what learned fools Herr Marx and Herr Engels must have been to err that way; and what else did they, the founders of the scientific conception of history, deserve but an outright mockery?

Yet, never mind the mockery. Marx "assumed" but Trotsky, he, "the leader of the October Revolution" (Nota Bene: The leader, he, Trotsky not Lenin) explained the unexpected turn of events by means of the law of uneven and combined development", and that was "a remarkable generalization". Against the Leninist thesis of the uneven economic and political development as the absolute law of capitalism, Trotsky produced devastating argument of an ordinary sophist that "the unevenness itself is quite uneven".

But, what was it actually that Marx "had assumed"? Nothing. Marx did not do any assuming. What he did was to work out the conception of the only historical way towards the abolition of class societies. What he did was to specify the uneven development of capitalism as the formation of the metropolis of capital and its rise over the rest of the world; as "the inevitable ruination of the middle bourgeois classes and the so-called peasant estate"; as "the commercial subjugation of the bourgeois classes of European nations by the despot of the world market—England". At the same time, Marx and Engels revised—or rather further specified—their conception as to which country was to become the final abode of the metropolis of capital, as they wrote in 1882:

In addition it enabled the United States to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an energy and on a scale that must shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and especially of England, existing up to now.

Thus they foresaw the translocation of the metropolis of capital from England to North America as to the continental England. They did fail to foresee the "abolition of capitalism" in no place but in the peasant countries; and, yet in 1881, the year of the assassination of a czar, they did actually predict, "the establishment of a Russian Commune in distant Petersburg". The prediction was predicated, not upon the assumption of abolition of capitalism away from the metropolis of capital, but upon their conception of the process of the destruction of political formations of the capitalist society bound to occur outside the metropolis of capital.

But if pre-revolutionary Menshevism was absurd in its attempt to sell the idea of "the comical restoration of Moscovy" in the epoch of capitalism, i. e., in the epoch of the existence of workpeople as a proletarian class, then how egregiously asinine must be, in terms of Lenin's Marxism, the theories of modern crypto-Mensheviks reinforced by crypto-Stalinism? After all, what is the position of modern Trotskyism regarding Lenin's theory of restoration, if it is true that Lenin "was not mistaken"? Did the restoration ever take place? If it did, then Trotskyism is the "theory" that the bulwark of restoration was not the class of the small commodity producers, but the working class. If this sounds like a malicious mock, it is also an adequate rendering of the Trotskyist "point of view". No Marxist is obliged to take the disjointed "semantics" of Trotskyism seriously. The Stalinist bureaucracy is assumed to be the bureaucratic agent of the proletariat; the bureaucracy is the agent of its principal—the economic class; whatever is executed by the bureaucratic agent is the collective deed of its economic class. Hence, the proletariat as "the bulwark of restoration against the proletariat"—a typically Trotskyist gem of a paradox. On the other hand, a phenomenon of world-historical dimensions, like the restoration against the proletarian revolution, having no economic class as its bulwark, generated by no one but a pack of bureaucrats, is really a mockery; only, it is the libertarianist head of Trotskyism that mocks itself.

A religion of duplicity, modern Trotskyism has to wring the neck of every term of Marxism before articulating it. In reality, modern Trotskyism is the middle link of the united front against Leninism, mediating between pseudo-Soviet chauvinism of Russia and people's chauvinism of China. Trotskyism has no use of Lenin's theory of restoration in Russia to expose the mendacity of neo-Stalinist asininity about Russia's "ex-socialism", because Trotskyism itself is the anti-Leninist theory of the impossibility of restoration in Russia. It was youthful Trotsky, actually arguing against Leninism, who formulated this "impossibility" in the following way:

"But is it not possible that the peasantry may push the proletariat aside and take its place? This is impossible...All historical experience shows that the peasantry are absolutely incapable of playing an INDEPENDENT political role".

To clarify what the "playing of an independent political role" means is the problem of no one but the followers of Trotsky. Here, in the way of digression, the following should be made clear. By the absolute political incapacity, as we have heard already, Trotsky meant what Lenin understood him to mean: namely, the peasantry's incapacity to form its OWN power. In view of this, to offset whatever has been bequeathed by Stalinist fraudulence, "ignoring" or "underestimating" the peasant class is here understood to mean exactly this: the supposition or assumption that the peasant class is incapable of forming its own counterrevolutionary state power. This supposition is one of the basic propositions of anti-Leninism and anti-Marxism. It also happens to be the corner stone upon which the permanently degenerative "theories" of Trotskyism are built. As a matter of fact, modern Trotskyism is the mock-theory that the peasantry, incapable of establishing its own state power, is capable of establishing a workers' state. In other words, while Leninism, or Marxism, holds that the peasant class is capable of establishing its own political formation, but is absolutely incapable of replacing the capitalistic socio-economic formation with the following one, Trotskyism, in reverse, teaches that the peasantry, absolutely incapable of its own political dictatorship, is capable of abolishing capitalism.

We would have to lose some time on the following quotations to show that what is said above is not a slander.

In the idiom of one of he trends of modern Trotskyism, the bisexual "Spartacus", the Chinese revolution was

"accomplished by a predominantly" (95%?) "peasant party and army under the leadership of a petty-bourgeois bureaucracy", but "the property relations that resulted were those of a workers’ state".

This appears to express the common view point of modern Trotskyists, although no one knows how many "view points" Trotskyism is able to combine. The syncretized elements of modern Trotskyism range from the vulgarity of psycho-sexualism to the vulgarity of politico-economism, but the metaphysics of "property relations" or "forms" is basic to all Trotskyist cerebration. The latest grimace of double-faced Trotskyism is psycho-Trotskyism or Freudo-Trotskyism, Trotskyist wind-baggism and prophetomania at its silliest, and therefore, probably the most popular form of late Trotskyism. The chairman of the party of this rapidly swelled-out trend has completed his fingers, and now is ready to use his toes, in counting his "contributions" to Marxism, "locating flaws" in Marx and "blunders" in Engels.

It is on the pages of his clattery newspaper, the Solidarity, that one of its contributors, "psycho-analyzes" the Soviet (Soviet, not Russian) bureaucracy. Borrowing the "culturalistic views" about the peasantry from the university professors, like N.Vakar, adding her discovery of Stalinism in Oblomovism, or vice versa, this socialist organizer finds the rustic body of Russian bureaucrats to be peasant in composition, in "foreign policy", in "world view", in "outlook", in "thinking", in "speaking", and finally "exposes" it as the agent of nobody but the Russian working class, the proletariat. How is it, then, that the "cancerous" bureaucracy is still "soviet", and the complete peasants are the leaders of a "socialist workers` state", instead of being the leaders of the peasantry? The matter is that the lady "socialist organizer" has a marriage-counselor conception of the peasantry, that is to say, she does not "conceptualize" the peasantry as a class, but rather as a cultural-psychological condition. So, the peasanthood of Russian bureaucrats has no political meaning. The Russian state is thus allowed to be a couple of opposites in one breath;

"the Russian revolution accomplished the transformation to socialist production relations in the Soviet Union itself. Russia and the Eastern countries have not returned to capitalism; they have no capitalists holding interest-bearing property titles to the means of production."

The "dialectical economics" permits synchronizing the "socialist production relations" with the Russian working class that—according to the very text of the newspaper—has never stopped being what it is—an economic class. Whatever this is, it is Trotskyism blurted out in its full meaning. When was this "socialist transformation" of Russia accomplished? According to Lenin, as late as 1922, "even the foundations of socialist economy" were lacking in Russia. The "accomplishment" obviously came after Lenin, that is, under the rule of no one but Stalin and his peasant bureaucracy. And, that is the warped meaning lodged in the afterbrain of modern Trotskyism: the actual "socialist revolutions" (The Trotskyist "creation of new property forms") coincide with the Stalinist counterrevolution, that is, with whatever was pre-formulated by Lenin as the inevitable "anti-republican restoration in Russia on the basis of small peasant property in capitalist society." In the meantime, Russia without "bearing titles" is still a "Soviet" union, although

Believe or not, Russia had never been peasant before. But, whatever this twaddle means, this is the theoretical path traced by Trotskyism: from the theory of the political incapacity of the peasantry to the theory of socialist workers' states accomplished by the peasants, governed by the peasants, and perpetuated by the peasants.

However, the Solidarity psychoanalyst makes too much of a Russian salad out of her own Trotskyism. Not all Trotskyists are so headlessly explicit in setting the contradictory elements of Trotskyism in uproar against each other. They know how to put things in terms of "transition". A vile equilibrist like E.Mandel, for instance, is satisfied with the means of production being non-commodities. That makes the Russian society—"transitional", but not "classically transitional" because of its being

"bureaucratically degenerated after having been bureaucratically deformed from the time of the civil war as Lenin specified in 1921."

Thus, according to this economist of socialist planning, the difference between the Commune-state of armed workers of War-Communism and the police state of Stalinist restoration is the difference between "deformation" and "degeneration". Perhaps this is the case, indeed: yet, in the dual soul of Trotskyism, this difference of a pair of syllables is supposed to be a plentiful reason for the Russian proletariat to carry out a political revolution, the supreme political act of the whole proletariat centralized as a class for-itself.

Meanwhile, the difference between Trotskyism and Leninism can be expressed, in our time, not as the difference between the "degeneration" and the "deformation", but as the difference between a pathological theory of degeneration and the historico-materialist theory of restoration. There must be in fact something degenerated among Trotskyists if they imagine that the divorcement of the state power from the proletariat can be adequately described by witlessly borrowing a term from the vocabulary of pathology. Has this term ever been a category in historical materialism? Perhaps it may be applicable to a group of men, or to a political party, but how is it supposed to apply to a political formation, and moreover to that which endures for half a century? However, the matter is that Trotskyism has no place within the realm of historical materialism. First of all, Trotskyism is the lack of understanding that the abolition of capitalism can be only the ultimate result of the political movement of the proletariat, and that movement is not concerned with "placing collectivism or socialist tasks on the order", but firstly with accomplishing the historical tasks of the proletarian movement, which tasks consist in destroying the political formations of all possessing classes for ever greater organization of the proletariat and the concentration of its collective power. The shallow conception of political revolution in Trotskyism is bourgeois-libertarianist, or anarchist, not Marxist, for in Marxism the political revolution of the proletariat may involve the destruction of the whole economic classes such as the Russian bourgeoisie and still be nothing but political, unless the revolutionary destruction hits the main economic target—"the economically dominant class" of modern class society. Nor is there any understanding in Trotskyism that the economic revolution of the proletariat, which is the abolition of capital, is inconceivable without overpowering the economically dominant class of modern society, i. e., the principal possessing class of capitalist economic formation. This particular class is essentially different from the rest of the possessing classes, and it can be identified by the eminence of its position in the world market. This economic class is in possession of the greatest quantity of the socially concentrated means of production, and its eminent position in the world market is the result of that possession. In the twentieth century, this particular capitalist class is a class of multimillionaires, and its home is the bourgeois West, the home of capitalism. The economic revolution of the proletariat can be nothing short of the elimination of the economically dominant class of modern society. As it was explained more than a century ago, "the task of the worker" is never accomplished unless this class is eliminated. The only power that could eliminate this particular class is the centralized collective power of the whole proletariat, and this is the reason that the social revolution of the twentieth century can be nothing but proletarian and international. The formation and consolidation of that power of the proletariat is possible only by way of the demolition of the political formations of all possessing classes, and this necessitates the political revolutions of the proletariat. It was also explained that the task of the demolition of the political formations of capitalist society is not identical with the task of the elimination of the capitalist economic formation; that the accomplishment of the task of eliminating the economic formation of capitalism finds "its organizational beginning" only at the moment when the proletariat takes all state power from the economically dominant class of modern society; that only at this moment the political revolutions of the proletariat become the economic revolution of the proletariat, the proletarian revolutions become the permanent revolution of the proletariat, and the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat.

It is also clear from the above that nothing can remain from "socialism" if the proletariat does not succeed in being the permanent ruler of the state; for, "Russia's socialism" has never been anything but a political formation on the soil and basis of the capitalist economic formation of society. There are no brains in all fake-and anti-Leninist camp to understand that the Russian proletariat was supposed to take the state power in a country where the abolition of capitalism was impossible; that the Leninist vanguard was driving the Russian proletariat towards the proletarian revolution while being fully aware of the inevitability of restoration in Russia, if the West remained capitalist. Trotskyism is a part of that camp, because the Trotskyite theory of the "degenerated workers` state" is based upon the proposition that a "workers` state", "socialism", mal-socialism, non-capitalism, no-longer capitalism, or anything of that sort, is possible without the permanent dictatorship of the working class, the proletariat. Trotskyism is pseudo-Marxism, because the Trotskyite "logic" of the "victories of socialism" is the twin sister of the logic of all Stalinist and neo-Stalinist fakes, according to which a heavyweight may become the absolute champion of the world by stopping a lightweight.

Failing to reject the whole "idea" of the continuation of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia (with the West remaining capitalist) as a Stalinist fabrication, Trotskyism must conceive the objective fact of the bureaucratization as some sort of "deformation" or "degeneration". Instead of comprehending the fact of bureaucratization as a manifestation of the arrival of the political dictatorship of a possessing class, Trotskyism therefore has to borrow something from the destitute idea of the bureaucratic transformation of the proletarian dictatorship. What Trotskyism herein obtains is a mix of the Stalinist fabrication with the figment of libertarianist myopia.

Meantime, there is no such thing in theoretical Marxism as a "transformation" of the proletarian dictatorship, whether bureaucratic or degenerative. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule of the nonpossessing human component of the modern forces of production, and as such, is the process of the politically centralized destruction of classes by the proletariat risen to political monocracy. A phenomenon like this can be neither "bureaucratically transformed", nor "degenerated"; it can be either discontinued, or it can come to an end gradually. The discontinuation of the dictatorship of the proletariat is conceivable only as the replacement of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the dictatorship of another economic class which must have been an economic class before, and must have survived the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this case, the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a permanent political formation; in this case, it is replaced by a counterrevolutionary political formation, and therefore, the social transformation accomplished in this way cannot fail to be a capitalistic transformation. But if the dictatorship of the proletariat is not discontinued, then it can come to an end only gradually and only for one reason: namely, for want of classes. In this case, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a permanent political formation ending the entire capitalist economic formation of society. It is termed permanent, because the political formation that ends all class society is never replaced by any political formation. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the process of the destruction of classes, may occur historically as either the discontinued or the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat. The first—the discontinued or impermanent dictatorship of the proletariat—turns out to be what may be called the political gladiatorship of the proletariat and is a political formation in the capitalistic transformation only. The second—the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat—is the only political formation for the socialist transformation of class society and is impossible without the conquest of all state power by the proletariat from the economically dominant class of modern society; and that is the class that prevails in the world market, the class that has triumphed over the rest of the possessing classes.

While in all sham-Marxism, the revolutionary transformation does not fail to be "socialistic" regardless of the object of revolutionary destruction, in Leninism a revolutionary transformation may remain to be capitalistic despite the maker of the revolution, because revolution is destruction, and it is the object of revolutionary destruction that makes a revolution what it is. Since the name of Leninism is used in our time by every scoundrel, it is necessary to clarify that here it is used in the sense of dogmatic Leninism and is understood to mean Lenin's Leninism, i. e., Leninism that spans thirty years of work, set black on white in thousands of pages, being the exact opposite to what "creative Leninism" is, that is, "Leninism" of a couple of years of half-paralyzed life and of a pair of sentences torn out of context, which is "Leninism" of Stalin, Khrushchovs, and Brezhnevs. This "Leninism" may be termed a governmental or official Leninism. In contrast to this, dogmatic Leninism is Leninism of the year 1915 when Leninism was brought to completion as the theory of the socialist revolution in the West commencing by way of the political revolution of the proletariat in Russia; when Leninism, as consummate historic form of Marxism, advanced the "slogan of transforming the imperialist war into a civil war as being identical with the slogan of the socialist revolution in the West". The present-day "dogma" of this Leninism is that the Russian revolution remained bourgeois despite the proletarian maker of the revolution. For, there is no way of assessing the efforts of a revolution except by identifying its class victims; and, among the classes destroyed by the Russian revolution, the economically dominant class of modern class society is missing. In view of this, dogmatic Leninism has no need of "proving" that the Russian society is capitalist; the "proof" is that the West is still capitalist, and consequently, the Russian society has never been anything but capitalist. Leninism does not have to "prove" that the Russian society is not socialist; the evidence is that the Russian working class is still a class, and that the Russian society contains another class, which is not the working class, because it is a peasant class. Therefore, the only question that is relevant in Leninism is, as ever before, the question of state power (i. e., the question of the economic class that took the state power from the ruling Russian proletariat). That is the question that no sham-Marxist can ever face without grimacing, without being exposed as an agent of some possessing class. Meantime, answering this question is the only way of determining whether a society is transitional to socialism or not; for, no contemporary society can ever be transitional to anything except from capitalism to capitalism if the state power is not monopolized by the proletariat and is, therefore, monopolized by a possessing class.

Yet, another question is hanging over the entire pseudo-Leninist Russian empire, and that is the question whether Lenin ever "revised" his theory of the inevitability of restoration in Russia (if the West remained capitalist). If he did, what became of his rather categorical statements, such as, among the others, the following:

"the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Czarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it... without the help of other countries... There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk".

There is no doubt that Lenin considered that chauvinistic tide to be a counterrevolutionary tide of a class, for Lenin never had anything but disdain for libertarianism. As late as 1921, that is, after the "creation of new property forms", Lenin called the counterrevolution by its proper name—peasant, as he wrote:

"peasant (petty-bourgeois) counterrevolution. Such counterrevolution is already facing us".

He had "stressed in a good many written works, in all public utterances, and all statements in the press", that in a country like Russia, where

"industrial workers are a minority and petty farmers are the majority... the socialist revolution can definitively succeed only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries".

He also identified the class, the "soil of petty proprietorship", that begets Napoleons, restating in 1921 what he had said in 1918. In short, nothing is there to be "revised" in Lenin's theory of the inevitability of restoration in Russia, for it is based directly on the materialist conception of history, on historical materialism, and on the principal works of the founders of historical materialism. The questions rather are: what are these works, what really is historical materialism, and where is it to be found?

Historical materialism is nothing but Marxism in its entirety, and Marxism is identical with historical materialism: it is, briefly, the conception of historical process as the revolutionizing practice of the human component of the forces of production, which practice results in the formation, the struggle, and the destruction of classes, and as such, is the progressive movement towards the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat as the only political formation to attain classless society.

But, where is historical materialism to be found among the works of its founders? Wherever Marxism is to be found in its entirety. Das Kapital, e. g., does not contain Marxism in its entirety, and Marxism was already Marxism years before das Kapital was completed. Das Kapital is a critique of political economy, and this appears on the very front page of it. Marxism, however, is destructive criticism of class society and destructive criticism of class society cannot be formulated in terms of political economy; it must be formulated in terms of historical materialism, because the economic laws that govern societies do so only as historical laws, that is, as the laws of the struggle of classes. Historical materialism is to be found in the principal works of Marx and Engels as proletarian revolutionaries; particularly, in such works of Marx as Class Struggle in France and the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. And these are exactly the works, the whole content of which has been carefully ignored by those who want to use the name of Marxism as their trademark. Yet, as far Marxism is concerned, ignoring these works is like ignoring the facts of gravitation while trying to build a house.

Marx's das Kapital will not make socialists. What it does make perfectly clear is the impossibility of humanity's wellbeing under capitalism, and why. It is pure economics. Marx's work that makes socialists is the eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte—that shows the way out.

There is much more Marxism in this single comment by Daniel De Leon than in all the trash put forth by the modern Left. Divorced from historical materialism, from Marxism, from the theory of the struggles of classes, das Kapital, nowadays, not only fails to make socialists; it actually makes sham-Marxists, i. e., anti-Marxists in sham-Marxist disguise. As rich as the content of das Kapital is, it can be burglarized by all sorts of "revolutionary leaderships", the discontented and the "oppressed", to be misused in their counterrevolutionary struggle, not against the class-divided society, not even against capitalism, but only against the rule of the capitalist class. All of this is possible because the historical circumstances of the mutations of class society make it not only possible but even inevitable.

Quite remarkable is in this regard also the following passage from Lafargue's Reminiscences of Marx. Here is what he wrote at the close of the last century:

The Eighteenth Brumaire, which proves that Marx was the only historian and politician of 1848 who understood and disclosed the real nature of the causes and results of the coup d'etat of December 2, 1851, was completely ignored.

Brainless as this ignoring is, it is not all fortuitous, and seems to be a case of a historically recurrent, repetitive syndrome.

Let this be as it is. But, how important were these works to Engels, to Lenin? On the other hand, how important are they in Trotskyism and the entire modern Left?

Whenever Engels discusses historical materialism, he does not do so without citing these works as "the most excellent examples" of the application of the materialist conception of history. The Eighteenth Brumaire was to him

an epigrammatic exposition that laid bare the whole course of French history since the February days in its inner interconnection, reduced the miracle of December 2 to a natural, necessary result of this interconnection and in so doing did not even need to treat the hero of the coup d'etat otherwise than with contempt.

The circumstance that it was precisely Marx who had first discovered the law of motion of history, the law according to which all historical struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expressions of the struggles of social classes... This law gave him the key to an understanding of the history of the Second French Republic.

But why did Marx pay so mush attention to the Second French Republic, and how important was the task of understanding its history?

In the Class Struggles in France Marx endeavored to explain a section of contemporary history with the aid of his materialist conception, on the basis of the given economic situation... The question was to demonstrate the inner causal connection in the course of a development which extended over some years, a development as critical, for the whole of Europe, as it was typical (italics by Engels). Thus wrote Engels as late as 1895. Less than a quarter of a century later, Lenin had to say the following:... now one has to engage in excavations in order to bring undistorted Marxism to the knowledge of the masses.

In fact, he had to write the whole book as an actual commentary to these works of Marx, adding those of Engels as well, in order to reassert the decisive significance of their content. The next quotation from his the State and Revolution makes it clear what he had to say:

In the three years 1848-51 France displayed, in a swift, sharp, concentrated form, the very same processes of development which are regular to the whole capitalist world... On the one hand, the development of "parliamentary power" both in the republican countries, and in the monarchies; on the other hand, a struggle for power among the various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties which distributed and redistributed the "spoils" of office, while the foundations of bourgeois society remained unchanged; and, finally, the perfection and consolidation of the "executive power", its bureaucratic and military apparatus.

There is not a slightest doubt that these features are common to the whole of the modern evolution of all capitalist states in general... World history is now undoubtedly leading on an incomparably larger scale than in 1852 to the "concentration of all the forces" of the proletarian revolution on the destruction of the state machine.

Since then, world history has demonstrated that neither "excavations", nor re-quotation, nor even triple quotations are of any avail. The forces of anti-and counterrevolution appear to be always able to find some way of making everything unrecognizable even with the help of the uttermost revolutionary instrument; and, this shall, most probably, be so until the class for which the instrument was designed is ready, or rather forced, to use it. Thus it came that the world has been flooded with Marxist literature, and everything written by Marx, Engels, or Lenin is now available almost everywhere on this planet overpopulated by "Marxists". Nevertheless, from the standpoint of Marxism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the problem now is to demonstrate that what is going on is the struggle of the agents of the possessing classes against the class force of the international working class, against Historical Materialism.

Trotskyism and Bonapartism

But to come back to Trotskyism. First, how Marxist is the notion of the peasantry as "absolutely incapable of an independent political role?" Then, how Marxist is the theory of "proletarian Bonopartism?" Finally, how proletarian is Bonapartism in Marxism?

So, then, how Marxist is that notion of the peasantry as being "absolutely incapable, etc.?"

I have discussed elsewhere the significance of the election of December 10... it was a reaction of the peasants... against the remaining classes of the nation, a reaction of the country against the town (italics by Marx).

The following is what Marx discussed elsewhere i. e., in his the Class struggles in France, 1848 to 1850:

December 10, 1848, was the day of the peasant insurrection... Napoleon was the only man who had exhaustively represented the interests and the imagination of the peasant class... By writing his name on the frontis piece of the republic, it declared war abroad and the enforcing of its class interests at home... No more taxes, down with the rich, down with the republic, long live the emperor! Behind the emperor was hidden the peasant war. The republic that they voted down was the republic of the rich.December 10 was the coup d'etat of the peasants, which overthrew the existing government. And from that day on, when they had taken a government from France and given a government to her, their eyes were fixed steadily on Paris.

Did Trotsky know what he was saying when he created that absolute sentence of his on peasantry's being "absolutely incapable", and also called it all Marxist? He did not. All the same, he actually established a dogma that, as "all historical experience" showed, the peasantry was "absolutely incapable of playing an independent political role"—a dogma that even today proves to be no less solid than that of Immaculate Conception. However, how does that compare with what Marx wrote touching the incapacity of the peasant class? The following is a complete quotation of the Marxian sentence:

The history of the last three years has, however, provided sufficient proof that this class of the population is absolutely incapable of any revolutionary initiative.

Where does Marx say anything to the effect that, as all history proves, the peasantry is incapable of playing a "political role?" What Marx is talking about is not a political role but only a revolutionary initiative. Under the creative hand of Trotsky, a revolutionary initiative became a "political role". Instead of studying the most important works of Marx, as well as of Engels, that is, instead of mastering historical materialism, Trotsky created his own "Marxism" predicated upon the ontological argument against any historical possibility of a peasant class dictatorship. The whole of Trotskyism, with all its calamity, is only a projection of that "Argument".

Nothing compares, however, with the consummate outrage that is the syncretic concept of what should have been called the sub-Bonapartist dictatorship of the proletariat. It is, indeed, either-or. Either Trotskyism is an atrocious form of anti-Marxism, or Marxism is not what it was meant to be. Observe the roguish way of how a crypto-Bonapartist cheat presents the case:

As against the social democrats, Trotsky asserted that a workers' state could exist under Bonapartist bureaucratic rule...

That is to say, it was not "as against" Engels, not "as against" Marx, not "as against" Lenin either; it was "as against" the poor social democrats only that, in a rather morbid state of mind, the not-exactly-sane theory of a sub-Bonapartist workers' state was "asserted".

Again, it was not "as against" Engels who had written the following assertion precisely against the social democrats:

Of late the social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Again, it was not "as against" Marx who asserted that "the direct antithesis to the Empire was the Commune"; that is to say, that the direct antithesis to a Bonapartist empire is the Commune-like state, the workers' state. Again , it was not "as against" Marx who asserted that "the state of a political transition period" corresponding to the "period of the revolutionary transformation" could be nothing—not anything—but the revolutionary, i. e., not "deformed", not "disfigured", not "degenerated", not sub-Bonapatrist, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (underscored by Marx). In other words, Marxism is not Marxism unless it is the theory of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, Marxism is anti-Marxism, if it is not the theory of the permanent dictatorship of the proletariat as the only political formation corresponding to the period of the revolutionary transformation of class-divided society.

Again, it was "as against the social democrats", not "as against" Lenin, Lenin who asserted that the Paris Commune was a state replacing the standing army and the police by the direct arming of the workers; that being the state of the armed workers, not "property forms", was the essence; that

"this and this alone constituted the essence of the Paris Commune as a special type of state"; that "this essence had been forgotten and perverted by the downright chauvinists who had betrayed Marxism".

But, all of this makes it more than clear: the opposition, the antithesis between Leninism and Trotskyism must be read as the antithesis between the social-republican Commune and the socialist-Bonapartist empire, between Communard Internationalism and crypto-Bonapartist chauvinism of "property forms".

To sum up: in Lenin's Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat means what the workers' state is; the workers' state is what the Paris Commune was; the Paris Commune was the direct antithesis to the Bonapartist Empire. How is it, in Trotskyist "Marxism"? In Trotskyist mock-Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat exists in the Bonapartist Soviet Union; the workers' state, the Paris Commune, can exist under the Bonapartist bureaucratic rule; that is to say, the Paris Commune can exist under the direct antithesis of it—the Bonapartist Empire. This is, in fact, how far the Trotskyist "combined" art of smelling out budding lilac "under" the odor of a corpse is apt to go. The product of this way of smelling is nothing less than the theory of "proletarian Bonapartism".

Now, then, how proletarian is Bonapartism in Marxism of Marx, of Engels? Listen to Engels first what he had to say of Napoleons and their empires, even as late as 1891, i. e., at the end of his life:

The hazy socialistic aspirations of the Revolution of February 1848 were rapidly disposed of by the reactionary ballots of the French peasantry; the peasant dug up from his treasured memories the legend of Napoleon, the emperor of the peasants, and created the Second Empire.

The millions of the imperialist peasantry stepped in with their vote, and with the help of official falsifications, established the government of Louis Napoleon as that of the representative of almost unanimous France.

That is how "proletarian", did Engels think, Bonapartism was—the original, French Bonapartism, not an imitation Bonapartism. But, Trotskyism, the theory of "Proletarian Bonapartism," is the many-sided view that Bonapartism appears historically in two forms: either as proletarian Bonapartism, or as bourgeois Bonapartism. To make it clear, only Stalinist Bonapartism is proletarian; any other Bonapartism is non-proletarian, that is, bourgeois. To make it clearer, only what is Stalinist is proletarian; whatever is not Stalinist is bourgeois. This is so because whatever exists is either bourgeois or proletarian; that is, whatever is non-bourgeois is proletarian. That is, in fact, how Mr. J.Burnham penned it as far back as 1941. Burnham, an illiterate as a Marxist, did not beget that two-tailed wisdom all by himself; it came to him from Trotskyism, namely, from the Trotskyist assumption that "capitalism always and everywhere equals bourgeois rule—no bourgeois rule, no capitalism". The vulgar primitivity of that assumption could be made clearly visible in light of historical facts; the following passage from Engels makes it even clearer:

It seems to be a law of historical development that the bourgeoisie in no European country gets hold of political power... Even in France where feudalism was completely extinguished, the bourgeoisie, as a whole, has held full possession of government for very short periods only. Under the second Republic, 1848-51, the whole bourgeoisie ruled but for three years only; their incapacity brought on the Second Empire.

But, which way do the modern Trotskyists, modern Leftists, read the writings of Marx, Engels, or Lenin? They do so by ignoring them as "obsolete" and "dogmatic". In obsolete dogmatic Marxism of Engels, the peasantry "lays the executive power in the hands of Louis Napoleon," a Bonaparte; Louis, in turn, "reduces the bourgeoisie to a political nullity." In dogmatic Marxism of Marx himself, L.N. Bonaparte "is somebody solely due to the fact that he has broken the power of the bourgeoisie and daily breaks it anew". Downfall of the bourgeoisie is equated with the victory of Bonaparte; restoration of empire is equated with the end of what is exactly termed "bourgeois rule". In undogmatic Trotskyism, when Bonaparte does all that, he actually creates the bourgeoisie a ruler of the state; and, by the ironclad logic of Trotskyism, Bonapartism is thus "bourgeois".

At the same time, Modern Trotskyism has no answer to the question: "what is the class base of Bonapatism?" Its Bonapartism is floating on the air. In Marxian Marxism, however, it was stated in unequivocal terms:

And yet the state power is not suspended in midair. Bonoparte represents a class, and the most numerous class of French society at that, the small-holding (Parzellen) peasants. Just as the Bourbons were the dynasty of big landed property and just as the Orleans were the dynasty of money, so the Bonapartes are the dynasty of the peasants, that is, the mass of the French people (underscored by Marx).

However, in the undogmatic school of Trotskyism, there is another type of Bonapartism, namely, a Soviet Bonapartism, a variation of Bonapartism—a Bonapartism of a "new type never before seen in history."

And, that is quite true; for, nobody ever before thought of Soviet Bonapartism—not in Marxism, at least. Nobody ever thought of Soviet as Bonapartist, or of Bonapartism as Soviet. The term "Soviet Bonapartism" is an oxymoron, "never before seen in history"; another oxymoron in the school of other oxymora such as "Soviet Bureaucracy", "Soviet chauvinism", or even "the Soviet empire"—the term which the ordinary anti-Marxists are so fond of.

Furthermore, Bonapartism means chauvinism. The very term "chauvinism" historically comes from what was Bonapartist. Chauvinism, in turn, means national-chauvinism; and, that always has been the meaning of the term. No other chauvinism makes sense in Marxism or internationalism, regardless of the efforts to make the terminology of internationalism incomprehensible and thus unusable. Soviet Bonapartism means, therefore, the same as Soviet chauvinism. What is Soviet chauvinism? Whatever it is, it is not a national chauvinism; for, there is no such thing as a Soviet nation, just as there is no such thing as a Soviet language. Soviet chauvinism means non-national chauvinism; and, that would, in turn, mean non-chauvinist chauvinism.

Actual Bonapartism, meanwhile, is national chauvinism, because actual Bonapartism is national Bonapartism—not a "Soviet" Bonapartism, not a non-national, anti-historical Bonapartism, but a nationally defined, historically known Bonapartism. The French Bonapartism was not a "Commune" Bonapartism; it was a French Bonapartism, a national Bonapartism, national chauvinism. The "never-before-seen-in-history" Soviet variation of Bonapartism, the "Soviet" Bonapartism, is indeed a Russian mermaid, semiflesh—semifish.

Stalinism, too, is a national, historical Bonapartism; it is not a non-national, anti-historical entity. The historical entities are Russian: the Russian bureaucracy, Russian Bonapartism, Russian national chauvinism, Russian Napoleonism of the Russian empire. On the other hand, a "Soviet" bureaucracy and a "Soviet" Bonapartism, together with a "Soviet" empire, are nothing but Chimeras of anti-Marxist cerebration.

In any case, the historical reality is not mere forms, property or other. The historical reality is, first of all, human masses, divided in economic classes and nations, the nations being the modes of existence of the possessing classes in statehood; and, no property forms can ever exist independently of classes and nations.

Now, Bonapartism is not a mere impress from outside due to nothing but the "encirclements". Historical, national Bonapartism is a political formation generated by its class base, and the rise of Bonapartism depends on the class composition of the nation. In terms of the Trotskyist methodology of divorcing essence from appearance and appearance from essence, the basis of "Soviet" Bonapartism is supposed to be red, yet the superstructure, the political formation, comes out to be brown. Why red? Because the property forms must be red. Why brown? Because whatever is an impress from outside is brown. Herewith, the basis and the superstructure do not know each other.

What, indeed, are the property forms to the working class, the nonpossessing, the propertyless class? These forms are, actually, self-existent, self-caused entities. They are independent, first of all, of the working class. Now, is the working class supposed to be a propertied class? The working class is a nonpossessing, propertyless class. No other working class exists. The working class is supposed to be propertyless; it can cease to be propertyless only by ceasing to exist as a class.

It is rather obvious that Trotskyism, a religion of property forms, is the ideology and the standpoint of a propertied class, to be exact, of a petty-propertied class on its half-way to becoming declassed, and this way, stranded in the middle of nowhere and everywhere. As a trend of Me-too-ism, Trotskyism succeeds in being but a deformed shadow of Stalinist Bonapartism—not "Soviet", but Russian Bonapartism. What matters first, however, is that, as such, Trotskyism proves to be an effort to prevent the Marxist concept of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat from being conceivable.

As far back as 1928, the old-time Stalinist B.D. Wolfe considered the left-opposionist view that Stalin represented the peasants to be an "old tale". The following statement, for example, can be found in his pamphlet, The Trotsky opposition:

The rest of the story is the old tale of Trotsky representing the workers and Stalin representing the peasants.

Even in his "revolutionary" days, this many-coated ex-"Marxist" was not exact. His "old tale" contained only half of the truth: Stalin did represent the peasants but Trotsky, as it became known, did not conceive of Stalin as representing the peasant class. Then, if it was true that Stalin represented the peasants, Trotsky failed to grasp the objective class content of Stalinism, and failing so, Trotsky failed to represent the working class. Thus, the "old tale" of Mr. B. D. Wolfe is true only in this form: Stalin succeeded in representing the peasant class, but Trotsky thereafter failed to represent the working class.

Meanwhile, failing to grasp the objective class content of Stalinism is anything but inconsequential. To put it bluntly but briefly, the ignorance of Lenin's theory of restoration is a sure sign of anti-Marxist asininity. It is so because it is tantamount to having no idea of what Stalinism—a colossal historical phenomenon, the longest counterrevolution in history—is. Having no idea of what Stalinism is, is the same as having no idea of what pseudo-Marxism is; that in turn, is tantamount to having no idea of what Marxism is. Finally, it all comes down to having no idea of what the main conflicts of the twentieth century have been or still are.

And, the historical fact is that the struggles which go on in today's world are not "the conflicts between two systems". Systems do not struggle; struggling is done by classes. Marxism consists in

recognizing the social antagonism of classes at the bottom of all political struggles.

By classes Engels means more than two classes. (Whoever would need the many volumes of Marxist wisdom, if all that were required to know were how to spell the words "bourgeois" and "proletarian". That sort of revolutionary consciousness requires as much Marxism as flailing a bat requires a PHD). Basically, what Engels means by classes are five economic classes: the land lord class, the bourgeois class, the petty-bourgeois class, the peasant class, and the working class. Four of these economic classes are possessing classes; only one, the working class, is a nonpossessing class. Thus, nothing can ever be the ruling class unless it is one of these five economic classes. (The number of economic classes is actually seven, but it is assumed here that slaves and slave holders are no longer existent). By "all political struggles" Engels means struggle; that is, he means more than what is a cat fight, a dog fight, or sex politics. What he means is revolutions and counterrevolutions, wars and civil wars.

The historical facts attest, and Marxism makes it clear that Bonapartes do overthrow the bourgeoisie, "reduce it to political nullity". That was precisely what Adolf Hitler did: reduce the bourgeoisie to a political nullity—not an insignificant bourgeoisie, but the German bourgeoisie. That is also what Franco has done with his bourgeoisie. There is no Stock Market in Franco's Spain—there was virtually none in Hitler's Germany either. Which should be the ruling bourgeoisie, the "ruling capitalist class", that would keep "the Stock Market, the most prominent representative of capitalist production" itself, outlawed or suppressed? On the other hand, if capitalism happens to be abolished every time a peasant-brained demagogue overthrows some bourgeoisie, then how many times did it happen to this planet that capitalism became "abolished"? The "bourgeois" Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, had actually done more "socialistic" things, and should, therefore, be counted as an abolisher of capitalism, more so, than any of the "proletarian" Bonapartes. The proposition that the overthrow of any bourgeoisie equals "abolished capitalism" is an anti-Marxist equation and is as asinine as anti-Marxism can be. Meanwhile, no worker can ever deserve anything but what he has got already if he cannot see what is hiding behind the fraudulent nonsense that Nazi-Fascism is the movement of finance capitalist class. The criminally stupid stories that the capitalist classes are of two categories such as "bad" capitalist classes and "bad-bad" or "worst" capitalist classes are taught in the Stalinist kindergartens, but are also the articles of Trotskyist profundity, and are supplemented by the proposition that Bonapartism is either "bourgeois" or "proletarian".

Now, Bonapartism is neither "proletarian", nor "bourgeois", nor is it what is suspended in midair as a "totalitarian state". Bonapartism is a political formation of a class; and, it is not a formation of a bourgeois class, not of an economically dominant class. Original Bonapartism was the political formation of a peasant class. Whatever the subsequent variations of Bonapartism may be, they are not the formations of the bourgeois classes, but of the economically depressed, petty-possessing classes. Bismarck variation of Bonapartism was that of the "drowning Junkerdom" (cf. Engels). If Nazi-Fascism was a variation of Bonapartism, then it was not "bourgeois" but rather anti-bourgeois.

Again, the bourgeoisie may happen to be Bonapartist, but the Bonaparte is not a bourgeois, and Bonapartism is not bourgeois either. The bourgeoisie would rather have the rule of a Bonaparte, than have the working class ruling; that is to say, the bourgeoisie would rather have the peasantry rule wherever the bourgeoisie is absent, than have the working class rule where the bourgeoisie is present. And, it is in this sense only that the bourgeoisie may happen to be Bonapartist.

Now, in Germany the mass of the working class were employed, not by those modern manufacturing lords of which Great Britain furnishes such splendid specimens, but by small tradesmen, whose entire manufacturing system is a mere relic of the Middle Ages.

petty-master craftsmen who wanted to perpetuate their existence as such... would quietly see ruin staring them in the face…

And would have disappeared peacefully instead of waging a class war—an anti-Semitic war—against the rest of class society, against the bourgeoisie, under whose class rule this class, squeezed between the bourgeoisie and the working class, between the urban society and the rural world, cannot and is not supposed to survive.

It is the habit of anti-Marxist thinkers to think in mere quantitative terms. Hence, the talk of totalitarianism, instead of Bonapartism, or modern variation of it, i. e., Bonapartism reinforced with whatever means are available in modern society. The matter is that totalitarianism is that chimera that is floating on the air above and independently of classes and society; it is what is based upon itself. Bonapartism is not. Bonapartism signifies that the bourgeoisie is overthrown by a Bonaparte, but the main thing to know is that nobody can ever overthrow an economic class, unless whoever does the overthrowing acts as a tool of another economic class. This proposition is axiomatic in Marxism; it is so because whatever Marxism may be, it is not brainless. A socio-economic class, as the bourgeoisie is, cannot possibly be overthrown by a single biped (even if assisted by thousands of bipeds) merely for the sake of his own belly. Even if the overthrower subjectively acts only that way, only for his own belly's sake, he must have the support of some other economic class, and having that, he would nevertheless be compelled to enforce the class line of that supporting class, and thus historically become the tool of a class in the struggle of economic classes.

In France, the rise of the Napoleonic state power, and thus of the unlimited executive power, signified the overthrow of the rule of the bourgeoisie; it signified the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, not by an individual, but by another economic class, namely, the peasant class. Exactly so, because a Napoleon, "the emperor of the peasants", represents the peasant class, and the deeds of a Napoleon are the deeds of the peasant class as a class. Otherwise, the deeds of Napoleon would fail to be historical.

In terms of dogmatic Marxism, what is known as great men, leaders, and statesmen are but tools of economic classes in a class-against-class struggle that, in Marxism, is said to be a political struggle. Only in that capacity of being a tool or a representative of an economic class can a human individual grow so oversize as to fill the office of the executive power. Holding the office of the executive power means to be a class power, a walking political relation, a power relation of a possessing class to rule over the nonpossessing class and to confront the other possessing classes as a political totality. In view of this, a confrontation, or rather, a handshake between a Stalin and a Churchill means a handshake of an economic class with another economic class. If this were not so, Mr. Stalin would be a mere "Joe", and Mr. Churchill only a "Winnie".

What was, then, the meaning of the alliance of J. Stalin with F.D.Roosevelt and W.Churchill in terms of the relations of classes? What was the historical significance of their alliance during the most decisive years in history? Which class was in alliance with which class? And, moreover, against which class? Besides, what was the outcome, the result of that alliance in the greatest global war? Was it the defeat of the capitalist class at the hands of its enemies? Or, was it the victory of the capitalist class over its enemies? There is no way the modern Left could answer these questions without producing absurd mendacities, thus displaying its fake-Marxist rotterhood.

As it was stated before, Stalinism, i. e., Stalinist anti-Marxism was—and is—the fraudulent contention that, after the end of the civil war, the Russian working class was able to remain the ruler of the state in spite of the fact that the advanced countries of the West remained capitalistic. It is a simple fact that whatever fails to refute this contention cannot fail to be a form of anti-Marxism.

It could be safely argued, by the way, that there is no such thing as Leninism, but that there is such a thing as anti-Leninism. If so, the proper term for it is—Stalino-Trotskyism. What one has to do is to examine the printed facts and compare them with the facts of the movement of history, disregarding, of course, the prattle about the creative approach to "changing reality" and "all the circumstances". Trotskyism, the theory that the dictatorship of the proletariat exists under what Lenin termed "the yoke of the Napoleonic regime", is also the theory that what Lenin called" the most vile form of Caesarism" exists as a less vile form of it, because of its being a new type of Caesarism as based upon the phantom-socialist property forms created by way of eliminating an "insignificant bourgeoisie". In quasicontrast to this—as Trotskyism lacks the consistency of Stalinist brazenhood—Stalinism was, and is, the contention that the vile form of Ceasarism was not what it was, but actually was the continuance of the rule of the working class, namely, of a "different" working class, together with a "different" peasant class.

Following the mock-logic of Stalino-Trotskyism, the above mentioned alliance of J. Stalin with his allies was the alliance of the ruling proletariat with the "bad" capitalist classes, all united against the "worst" capitalist class, and the outcome of that alliance was the victory of the ruling proletariat over its enemies. But, this Stalino-Trotskyist trash deserves no serious attention. The primitivity of its moronism can be made evident by merely stating it. The examination of the class composition of world's population would tell a different story. The contemporary society consists of five economic classes: the landlord possessing class, the capitalist possessing class, the urban petty-possessing class, the rural petty-possessing class, and the nonpossessing class, the working class. It is either mendacious or witless to preach that the only "struggle" which takes place in this world is the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class with other classes standing there as spectators, their arms crossed. The fact is that it is exactly the working class, the nonpossessing class, the proletariat that is absent nowadays as a struggling independent class, its political movement being extinct as it is.

The world wars have not been the wars of the nonpossessing class; they were the wars among the possessing classes. The alliance of J. Stalin with F.D. Roosevelt and W. Churchill could not possibly be an alliance between the nonpossessing class, the proletariat, and the mega-possessing class, the capitalist class. On the contrary, it was an alliance of a possessing class with another possessing class; specifically, an alliance of the capitalist classes of the West with the rural petty-possessing classes, the peasant classes of the East, all united against the urban petty-possessing classes, the petty-master classes of central Europe; and, the outcome of that alliance was the triumph of the capitalist class over its enemies, on the one hand, and on the other hand, a pyrrhic victory of the peasant class over the same enemies, the enemies of the capitalist class. This seems to be the way history likes to demonstrate her truths: the peasantry has to follow either the bourgeoisie or the working class.

However, this text is not concerned with truths; it is concerned with the question of what is Marxism and what is anti-Marxism; particularly, what is anti-Leninism. The following, e. g., is a correct translation of one of Lenin's sentences:

Our democratic republic has no reserve whatever except the socialist proletariat in the West.

Now, what did Lenin mean by "reserve"? Did he mean whatever could be represented by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill? Did he mean the bombs of the capitalist class saving the socialist workers' state from actual vanishment? Here is what he actually did mean:

The only guarantee against restoration is a socialist revolution in the West. There is and can be no other guarantee. Without this condition, in whichever way the problem is solved

(That is to say, no matter which way: whether by way of municipalization, division of the land, nationalization, collectivization,⁸etc.)

Again, what did Lenin mean by restoration, and when did he think restoration would occur, if the socialist revolution in the West should fail to occur? Did he, perhaps, mean a restoration coming after the death of a Generalissimo in the Kremlin? By restoration Lenin meant the restoration of the anti-republic, and the name of the historical date beginning the restoration is the NEP. The NEP was called a retreat and a partial restoration. Lenin never lived to see what it became to be. He said

That was the same as to say that NEP Russia was not socialist, and that the result of the Russian revolution was not socialism.

For the first time in history we have social system from which the exploiting class has been eliminated but in which there are two different classes—the working class and the peasantry...Our party relies on two classes... its down fall is inevitable if there were no agreement possible between those two classes.

The party did not fall; it was all but exterminated. Lenin never saw "socialism" in Russia. "Socialism" came to Russia long after Lenin was dead. "Socialism" to Russia was brought by the "chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff", the Stalinist riffraff, guided by the Goebbelsian truism that the more mendacious the lie is, the more convincing it is. No matter what Lenin was, he had nothing to do with that "socialism". There is no power on this planet which could ever prove that Lenin would have ever called the Stalinist counterrevolution and restoration "socialism", while there was

no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that sea of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk... and it was clear that without the support of the international world revolution the victory of the proletarian revolution was impossible.

But these quotations from Lenin suffice. There are no conjurations available in all the churches of the modern Left—Trotskyist, libertarian, and other—to interpret the above statements by Lenin adequately in any other way but as it is done here. In true alliance with all the ordinary anti-Marxists of this society, the modern Left has been there to assist in building up and eternizing the myth about Lenin's being the founder of a military-police-bureaucratic state, the so-called Soviet Union, which came to be neither Soviet, nor union, but only the Russian empire, second edition. For a scurvy business like this, the modern Left, for its being what it is, should not survive. "The laboratory of history" was said to be "merciless". Hopefully, it is.

In summing up, the following statement should clarify whatever is unclear: the belated peasant-bourgeois revolution in the Russian empire could be accomplished only by way of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. In connection with the world-revolutionary situation generated by the global war, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry was bound to be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Without the socialist revolution in the West, the restoration in Russia was inevitable. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat was bound to be replaced by the dictatorship of the peasantry. The dictatorship of the peasantry is the rule of a toiling but a possessing class; therefore, it is bound to be replaced by the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The only "miracle" that could ever make the restoration in post-revolutionary Russia impossible, the only one that could ever prevent the rise of Russian Bonapartism, Russian Ceasarism. i. e., Stalinism, from becoming a historical fact, was the "miracle" of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the advanced countries of the West. Nothing else could ever prevent the sun of Stalinism from rising. The dictatorship of the proletariat in the West (and the rest of the world) failed to occur. Hence, the historical fact is that Lenin's Leninism did fail. Hence, Leninism, if it exists, is failed Leninism, Leninism which had failed after Czarism was razed, failed as in failure. Only failed Leninism is Marxism; and, there is nothing to be done about it except to take it, or leave it.

Hereupon, the historical role of Lenin can be highlighted this way: the presence of the leaders like Trotsky, Bukharin, and Stalin in the Russian Revolution was evidential of the fact that the Russian Revolution was to be nothing but a peasant-bourgeois revolution. The presence of Lenin, on the other hand, was evidential of the fact that the revolution, the peasant-bourgeois revolution, was to be accomplished by way of a transient, impermanent dictatorship of the Russian working class.

And yet, Trotsky is right, nevertheless. It is correct to say that Stalinism is "a Bonapartism of a new type not seen before in history". Of course, not because of its being a "Soviet" Bonapartism, not because of the notorious property forms. What makes Stalinism, or Russian Bonapartism, different from its French prototype, French Bonapartism, is whatever was determined by the historical circumstance that, while French Bonapartism preceded the Paris Commune, the dictatorship of the French proletariat, Russian Bonapartism came upon the heels of the discontinuance of the Russian Commune, the dictatorship of the Russian proletariat. French Bonapartism was a restoration as against the bourgeois republic. Russian Bonapartism, on the other hand, consisted in restoring the military-police-bureaucratic state after the nation had gone through the internationalist dictatorship of the proletariat, through the Commune-like state, the social republic. Hence, the universal pseudo-ism of Stalinism—its pseudo-Marxism, pseudo-Leninism, pseudo-revolutionism, pseudo-internationalism, pseudo-republicanism.

At the time when the former Bolshevik named J. Jugashvili-Stalin became the holder of the office of unlimited executive power in Russia, the Russian post-revolutionary society consisted of two economic classes: the proletariat, the nonpossessing class, and the peasantry, the petty-possessing class, this latter forming an overwhelming majority of the population. Now, the contention that the rise of Stalinism signified the rise of the then nonexistent bourgeoisie cannot square with historical facts and is thus at variance with the ABC of Marxism. In reality, Stalin could not rise to his demi-godlike position without taking the class standpoint of the class that formed the overwhelming majority of the population he was chosen to govern. However, Stalin did not arrive at that standpoint directly. He arrived at it as a national-chauvinist by way of national-chauvinism. Lenin, by the way, did more than reproach Stalin for rudeness or disloyalty. What Lenin did was to accuse Stalin of violating "the interests of proletarian class solidarity"; he bluntly accused Stalin of being "a real and true national-socialist, and even a vulgar Great-Russian Derzhimorda"; in a word, he accused Stalin of having crossed the class line. It was after having (Dec. 31, 1922) accused Stalin of all this that Lenin dictated (Jan. 4, 1923) his Addition to the Letter of December 24, 1922. It is clear enough that Lenin was not far from prefiguring the way of the formation of Stalinism, the national-chauvinistic way.

Bonapartism means national-chauvinism. Russian Bonapartism means Russian national-chauvinism. Stalinism has been Russian national-chauvinism; it has been Russian national-chauvinism at its highest potency. But, Russian national-chauvinism is chauvinism of a nation that is overwhelmingly peasant. It is thus national-chauvinism of a peasant class. Stalinism, i. e., Russian national-chauvinism, has been the class force of the Russian peasant class. Stalin himself could not have managed to stay in the Kremlin as long as he did without following the political line—his general party line—that did coincide with the class line of the Russian peasantry as a totality. The common denominator of that totality was the Russian petty-peasant. By collectivizing the entire peasantry, Stalin reduced it to its common denominator. This way the Russian peasantry was made into a single body, a politically centralized class for-itself with the Stalinist vanguard at the head.

It is this vanguard that has been the generator of what here is termed pseudo-Marxism. What is to do is to form the concept of pseudo-Marxism. Of course, the anti-Marxist view would be that the very term "pseudo-Marxism" could not make much sense. Pseudo-Marxism should be assumed as being what is rather inconceivable. That view can be dismissed as brainless by design. The Marxist view cannot be but what is the opposite: pseudo-Marxism is a fact, and if so, Marxism cannot become recognizable unless pseudo-Marxism is recognized as what it is. Pseudo-Marxism cannot be cognized unless it is understood as a class force; it is a class force, and as such, it is "Marxism" of a wrong class. It is "Marxism" of a part of society which is an economic class, but which is not the working class, because it is a petty-possessing class. Marxism is the class force of the nonpossessing class; pseudo-Marxism is "Marxism" of a possessing class. It is a nominal "Marxism" made to serve the interests of a possessing class. Pseudo-Marxism is a misemployed "Marxism" and is thus anti-Marxism. As a body of ideas, pseudo-Marxism consists of two elements: itself and the stolen property; that is, it consists of national-chauvinism plus the name and the concepts purloined from Marxism.

Pseudo-Marxism is the creation, the product of the bureaucracy, the Stalinist bureaucracy, but that does not mean that pseudo-Marxism is the weaponry of the bureaucracy. It is not; for, whatever is created by the bureaucracy is not the historical force of the bureaucracy; it is, on the contrary, the class force of a possessing class which itself is what creates the bureaucracy. Pseudo-Marxism is the banner of the massive movement of a massive economic class; yet, the matter is that the movement is not that of the nonpossessing laboring class; it is the movement of the laboring petty-possessing class. As such, it is a defensist movement of resistance to what was termed the historical tendency of capitalistic accumulation; it is thus the movement of a class that is bound to be on the defensive in its struggle for survival as a class. In a word, pseudo-Marxism is not the class force of the class that is meant to be permanently on the offensive against all economic classes and all class-divided society.

The Marxist view is that, under capitalism, no peasant class existence in conceivable without the differentiation of the peasant class. The capitalistic progress—which so far is the only form of progress on this planet—is possible only by way of the differentiation and polarization of classes. Capitalism can grow, develop, and overdevelop, only by way of victimizing several possessing classes, including the bourgeoisie. After the elimination of the manorial classes, i. e., after the victorious agrarian revolution, the peasant class, by far the most numerous class of population, is exposed to all the market forces, and the capitalistic progress takes, first of all, the form of the differentiation of the peasant class. The effort to arrest the differentiation of the peasantry cannot be deemed to be a bourgeois or pro-bourgeois effort. The collectivization of the peasantry, on the one hand, and the elimination of the kulak class, on the other, is equivalent to arresting the differentiation of the peasantry, and that was the principal effort of Stalinism. At the same time, it is manifestly absurd to think that this effort was a deed of one single maniac, or of his entourage. The fact that the wholesale collectivization was brutally enforced from "above" by the unlimited executive power and its bureaucratic machine does not prevent it from having been the deed of an economic class, namely, the same class of the Kollkhozniki. (Said Napoleon: Tous pour le peuple, rien par le peuple. Everything for the people, nothing by the people). The Stalinist collectivization had to be enforced by way of the war of classes, and the multimillioned peasantry consists of a number of classes or sub-classes in war against one another.

Again, Marxism teaches that the disintegration of the peasantry as a class, and the transfer of the peasant masses into the proletariat is a revolutionizing process and as such a historical necessity. The elimination of kulaks and the wholesale collectivization cannot be regarded as a bourgeois way of accomplishing the transfer of the peasantry into the proletariat. (This should be quite evident since the bourgeois way of accomplishing this transfer would hardly begin with the elimination of kulaks.)

This agonizing transfer, in words of Engels, this "passage from primitive agrarian communism to capitalistic industrialism cannot take place without terrible dislocation of society, without the disappearance of whole classes and their transformation into other classes." (See Engels' letter to Danielson.) But, with the West remaining capitalistic, this passage must take place no matter how, i. e., no matter which class would hold the state power. And, the historical fact is that this passage does not always take place under the political rule of the bourgeoisie, for in this "terrible dislocation of society" the bourgeoisie is itself swept away in fragments, or even if it somehow survives, it is not strong enough to hold the state power and rule over the entire sea of the peasant class. This agonizing passage does indeed take place under the political rule, the dictatorship, of the peasant class itself; it does take place the peasant way, and the name of this way is Stalinism. In this sense, it would be correct to say that the dictatorship of the petty-peasant class, i. e., Stalinism, is the agony of the peasantry itself.

The tragedy of the peasantry lies in the fact that, by establishing its own political formation, the peasantry is bound to oppress the proletariat, the only class that could ever lead the laboring peasantry out of the Dark Age of class societies. The contention that the problems of the Russian and Chinese peasantry are the problems of "communism" is, of course, a piece of anti-Marxist nonsense; but, the Trotskyist contention that the problems of Russia and China lie in nothing but "Stalinist bureaucracies" is simply ridiculous.

The problems of Russia and China lie in the peasantry and are the problems of the peasantry. However, the peasant problem is not that of communism; the peasant problem is precisely that of world capitalism and the world capitalist class. The peasantry has no answer to capitalism, and it cannot defeat the capitalist class, the economically dominant class of modern class society. But the capitalist class has no solution to the peasant problem; and, the peasant problem is that of an ocean of toiling humanity. Indeed, the only possible solution to the peasant problem, in the capitalist sense, consists in the postponement of the solution.

It takes a most peculiar sort of Marxism to write a multi-paged pamphlet on Russia and China while mentioning such microscopic entities as the Russian and the Chinese peasantry but once. Yet, this feat appears to have been accomplished by the "Marxist" author of the pamphlet titled: Moscow vs. Peking—the meaning of the great debate."The Great Debate!" For, as it also appears in the dictionary of Huberman & Sweezy, cutting down all aid to a virtual zero, or supplying a virtual enemy with arms, is a metaphysical debate, not an earthly quarrel. But let this be as it is. Meanwhile, whatever may be the "essential meaning of the Sino-Soviet dispute", the view here is that the above mentioned pamphlet hardly contains a notion of the real conditions prevailing at present in Russia as well as in China. For, in terms of ancient Marxism, the differentiation of the peasantry was always deemed to be a historical necessity as long as the world market existed and was dominated by the capitalist class. According to this kind of Marxism-Leninism, while the principal effort of Stalinism consisted in arresting precisely this differentiation, in the decomposition of the Stalinist "monolith", the hitherto concealed process of the differentiation of the peasantry breaks at last to the surface, causing the center of gravity of the state power to shift from the main petty-peasant bulk of the peasantry towards the middle and well-to-do peasant fractions of the entire class.Moreover, what happens to be also suspected by the Chinese is that the real "essential meaning" of the so-called de-Stalinization may prove to be an ideological and political introduction to de-collectivization. Yet, without the rigid framework of the Stalinist collectivization, the entire peasant class can never maintain itself as a class, because the peasantry, even as collectivized, is constantly pregnant with an irrepressible tendency towards its own disintegration and begets capitalism "day in, day out".Further, it is more than a suspicion on the part of the Chinese, the leaders of the greatest petty-peasant nation of the world, that in contrast to Stalin, the late autocrat of the so-called socialist camp, his former office-boys, like Khrushchov and Tito, no longer represent the total interest of the peasant class as a whole but pursue the particular interests of the peasantry's middle and well-to-do sections and thus act as traitors to the cause of the peasantry in general.

Instructive is also what Engels had to say shortly before the end of his life and almost at the end of his century:

China alone is still to be conquered for capitalist production, and in so doing at long last the latter makes its own existence at home impossible...The consequence will be a wholesale emigration such as the world has not yet seen, a flooding of America, Asia and Europe by the hated Chinaman, a competition for work on the basis of the Chinese standard of life, the lowest of all...The conquest of China by capitalism will at the same time furnish the impulse for the overthrow of capitalism in Europe and America.

Since then, the peasantry has generated its political formations in defense of its class positions. Still, no political formations can save the peasantry from disintegration as a class. However, the peasantry is not only an economic class; it is also an immense mass of toiling human beings. By having been sacrificed as an economic class, the peasantry, as a human mass, may make the existence of the capitalist class impossible. This is, in essence, what Engels means to say in the above-quoted sentences.⁹

1. The essential propositions upon which this text was based appeared in an independent Bimonthly Socialist Forum # 7, 1971.

2. Written apparently at the time of what was said to be the Sino-Soviet Rift; or, what was styled in China as the struggle against revisionism, and in Russia, as that against dogmatism.

3. If this paragraph creates an impression as though the Modern Left were held here responsible for the perpetuation of the rule of the capitalist class, then the paragraph must have been wrongly phrased. The Left is too miserable a force to be responsible for anything of such consequence. Here, the Left is held responsible, first of all, for the only business it knows how to do, namely, for the business of making Marxism unrecognizable.

4. "Today", that is to say, roughly the sixth and seventh decades of the century.

5. The Russian word "Narod" means people. Narodism, then, would mean Populism in Russia.

6. The population in Mao's China was probably 800,000,000. If the Maoist bureaucracy were assumed to have been what is witlessly termed the bourgeois-bureaucratic ruling class, then it must have been a part of the nation exploiting at least 600,000,000 Labor force. There must have been some degree of exploitation and the rate of surplus value. Imagine the surplus value obtained by exploiting that human mass. And, what did Mao, the superexploiter, do with all that surplus value extracted from the laboring masses numbering 600,000,000? With the astronomical growth of the peasant population, and that without any substantial growth in the means of production, the peasant class becomes a nonproductive class; that is, it hardly produces more than what it absorbs. Its population is growing totally out of proportion as to the mass of the implements and the means of production while these virtually consist only of the earth and the human hands. In any case, the farcicality of the effort to present Mao as an exploiter of the Chinese peasantry can be described only as imbecile.

7. Incidentally, the following are the printed facts of 1932: "The peasant movement has created its own armies, has seized great territories and has installed its own institutions." Again, 1932: "were such a tragic conflict to arise, it would signify that the Left Opposition and the Stalinists ceased to be Communist fractions and had become hostile political parties, each having a different class base" ( L. D. Trotsky ). No comment is necessary, except that Trotsky is talking here almost like a Marxist.

8. The collectivization—that is, a mere pulling together of the means of production in agriculture—is far from being what was said to be the social concentration of the means of production. The collectivization (actually, a re-collectivization) is a defensive move of the petty peasantry in its struggle for survival in a capitalist society. The social concentration of the means of production, on the other hand, is the business of the capitalist class.

How preposterous anti-Marxism can get, when the bourgeois-consumerist sham take into their heads the idea of coming to the "defense" of the peasantry, can be seen from the following:

Communism has created a new bourgeoisie, statist rather than individualist…Stalin's dragooning of the peasants into the new totalitarian system did not prevent Communists in Asia from utilizing the peasant revolution…Mao substituted the Communist Party rule for that of the rural gentry…

What is "substituted" here is the hallucinations of the silly bureaucratophobia for the human cerebration. How can anything be called a "revolution" if it is what can be "utilized" by somebody? And, what is Mao himself? He is both in one: a "statist bourgeois" and a "rural gentry." The following is even sillier:

Stalin… conquered the peasantry…His decision to turn the peasants into state-controlled proletarians touched off a war of aggression against the population larger than Germany's

Stalin and what army did all that: "conquer" the whole peasantry, "turn" in a couple of years everybody into proletarians, and win a "war of aggression" against the whole nation of peasants, hundred millions of them?

Yet, it would have been, of course, quite unnatural, if a huge historical phenomenon like Stalinism, or Mao-Stalinism, could ever get through the pinhead of an expert on "Communism."

A bon droit, Stalin, or Mao, could have shown to the scribblers of what is called Sovietology a paraphrase from Goethe: "Ihr koennet nur den Geist begreifen dem ihr gleicht, nicht mich" (you can understand only the spirit which you are equal to, not me). Meanwhile, it is impossible not to see that Lenin's Marxism—his theory of restoration—is the only ISM which contains the key to the understanding of Stalinism and thus pseudo-Marxism.

9. God knows how many paths and ways the anti-Marxists have at their disposal to do the dismembering of Marxism. Some of the more foolish ones are the attempts to effect the divorcement between Marxism of Marx and what should be Engelsism. Engels was a pedantic materialist. Not so Marx. He was a sort of non-materialist. What is non-materialism? Exactly, it is neither a prose nor a verse. Thus, a sapient Marxologist hits the bottom of profundity and comes up with the ruling: only what was hand-written by Marx is Marxian Marxism; whatever was written by Engels—No. "Marx was a force of nature"! Imagine how grateful Herr Marx should be for the metaphor—to be a force of nature, a wind, for instance, or even a nebula. In truth, Marx did not always care enough about being easily understood. It is also true that he lost too much time on all the volumes of Das Kapital; that is to say, he lost time on what could make Marxologists, but not yet Marxists. Anyway, Marx choked himself in dire poverty. Not so the Marxologists. Meanwhile, one of the fundamental works of historical materialism, Revolution and Counterrevolution in Germany, some 50,000 words of it, was not written by Marx. The only thing Marx did was to put his name to it, thus divorcing himself from Engels, and divorcing Engels from Marxism, so that even his daughter, Eleanor, who edited the work in 1896, did not know who the real author was. His name, incidentally, was Friedrich Engels, the pedantic. And, what was pedantic about Engels? His contention that only matter can be conceived as being what the absolute is; that nothing exists but what is matter; and, that matter cannot exist unless it keeps becoming. That is why Engelsian materialism is termed dialectical. In terms of it, the objective reality is monistic, and is conceivable only as what the material Absolute is. The material Absolute is what cannot coexist. What is said to be God cannot exist unless it coexists. Hence, God cannot be conceived as objective reality. The concept of God is, therefore, the concept of what cannot exist. At the same time, even Atheism, by the way, is not always a salvation from that circle of the hell which God calls fatuity, especially if Atheism is embraced for personal "ideals." Still, what does Marxian epistemology say? Here is what: "The ideal is nothing but the material world reflected in the mind of man, and translated into forms of thought." Now, how does that make Marx into an anti-Engelsian demi-Idealist?

But, it has been known for centuries that "a reasoned speech sleeps in a foolish ear"; that the truth is debased if told to those who never deserve to hear it.

CHAPTER IV: PAST AND PRESENTLost between the I. S. L. and the S. W. P.¹(May, 1958)

The theoretical problems of the working class movement seem to have been solved in the "Marxist" kindergarten of the ISL; they do not appear to raise any political interest. On the other hand, the SWP too seems to be in possession of the "last word of wisdom"; all that is left is the "practical activity". That the practical opportunism cannot be overcome without theoretical integrity does not embarrass either party of American "Marxism".

Meanwhile, Marxism itself, more than ever, is confronted with the old, burdensome problem—the problem of the contrast between the name and the political content of the supposedly Marxist movements. It seems to be the law of the political market of the capitalist world: on the one hand, there must appear a nonproletarian Marxism; on the other hand, a non-Marxist proletariat.

Be that as it may, the founders of historical materialism have taught that there are certain modes of connecting the labor-power with the means of production: slavery, serfdom, capitalism; these make the economic formations of society, and are indeed the very "systems of exploitation". The "Marxist" ISL had discovered a "new" economic formation, in addition to capitalism, that is named after a biped, very bloody as he was, the Generalissimo Stalin.² Meanwhile, this "formation-creating" Stalin was no more than a servant of his servants, both being the slaves of the prevailing capitalistic circumstances.

While history puts in question the survival of a petty-possessing class, the "pure-in-doctrine" Program of the ISL conceives of the contemporary international class struggle as being a "rivalry" among the "rulers", instead of being the struggle among the qualitatively distinct classes. Unfortunately, the world-wide class struggle in the twentieth century does not appear in its "pure" form so that the ISL could recognize it; yet, it does appear in the form of the struggle among the nations; to be exact, in the form of the struggle of the counterrevolutionary nations against the metropolis of capital; besides, this struggle takes place nowhere but within one single economic formation of society—world capitalism.

Mistaking the appearance for the essence—in accord with Burnham's sociology—the ISL makes the bureaucracy of the Russian state into a new class, thus ignoring the real, age-old economic class of Russia which determines the class composition of that peasant country. Yet, it is common place in Marxism that the bureaucracy is only an instrument of the possessing class; that, accordingly, while defending the interests of a peasant nation, the interests of the peasant East as opposed to the bourgeois West, the Stalinists automatically defend the class positions of the peasant class, regardless of their being aware of this or not.

The entire logic of Marxism forces one to comprehend that after the discontinuation of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia, i. e., after the so-called War Communist dictatorship, the historical interests of the Russian state and that of the proletariat run counter to each other, and they shall do so, unless the Russian peasant empire is demolished in a war, as the petty-bourgeois Third Reich has been demolished.

As it is known, Marxism has no use of horoscopal prognostications. As far as Marxism is concerned, the main issue of our time is that of the class-consciousness (or self-consciousness) of the class of wage-laborers. The duty of the "enlightened minority" (as the ISL likes to call itself), that claims to be Marxist, is to maintain the continuity of the revolutionary consciousness which, as methodical knowledge, is nothing but the scientific insight into historical process, and is known as Marxism, its politics being the historical science in action.

Yet, precisely the historical science, the materialist conception of history, mocks the myth of Mother Russia having been chosen by history to tread a new, hitherto unknown, specifically Russian, path of development other than that of capitalism. In fact, history seems to know no other path of marching forwards except the way of repeating itself. This is probably so because the toiling masses—the actual makers of history—find it hard to "learn" only by books and periodicals. They would have to "learn" also by way of the great historical catastrophes. By demolishing the contemporary Russian empire, history shall destroy Stalinism not as that which it pretends and is believed to be (i. e., some "new economic formation"), but as what it really is, namely, a bureaucratically centralized resistance of the counterrevolutionary peasantry to its differentiation and proletarianization. This process of the differentiation of the peasantry and the resistance to it, however, is as age-old as capitalism itself.

All of this also shows how Marxistically "orthodox" the SWP is. Normally Marxists are supposed to be familiar with the Marxist literature. Now those who use the name of Marxism are supposed to pose the question: which is the economic class that is represented by the Stalinist bureaucracy? The answer could be found, e. g., in the following words of Lenin:

"Our party rests upon two classes...and if no agreement is possible between these two classes, its fall in inevitable".

In these words the key to the comprehension of the outcome of the October Revolution was given.

Furthermore, Marxism has provided the clue which enables us to discover the laws governing the seeming labyrinth and chaos, namely, the theory of class struggle...Only an objective consideration of the sum-total of reciprocal relations of all the classes of a given society without exception makes it possible to determine the resultant of historical development.

Accordingly, in terms of Marxism, the so-called civilized world of today rests on one single "basis" (or infrastructure), i. e., one single economic formation—world capitalism. Within the framework of that single economic formation, what actually is in progress is the struggle among the qualitatively distinct economic classes. The content of a world war is the struggle among the possessing classes (e. g., the capitalist class, the landlord class, the middle or petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry).

Now, National Socialism (meaning also one-country Socialism) is nothing but a transient dictatorship of the non-industrial classes over the industry and the proletariat; it is an effort to prevent "the inevitable ruination of the middle bourgeois classes" (as in case of Hitlerism) and the peasantry (as in case of Stalinism). Hence, neither Hitlerism nor Stalinism can be considered as representing any new economic formation of society. In fact, both are merely the political movements resisting the proletarianization of the petty possessing classes and can never transgress the limits of the capitalistic economic formation of society.

Whatever the non-proletarian "Marxism" is, it is, first of all, a vulgarized "Marxism"; and, vulgar "Marxism" is vulgar not because of its being a form of Marxism; it is vulgar because of its being a disguised form of anti-Marxism. For instance, the uneven development is an absolute law of the movement of capitalistic class society. In terms of political economy, this law can be restated as that of the production, the concentration, and the centralization of capital. Yet, the vulgarizers make it look so as if history was ever said to be an automatic operation of mere economic categories. In terms of historical materialism, however, the reality of historical process consists in its being the process of the struggle of classes. In its historically concrete form, the law of uneven development manifests itself eventually in the formation of the metropolis of capital and its rise over the rest of the world which, on the other pole, finds its opposition in the anti-proletarianization movements of the perishing petty-possessing classes.

In Marxism, the proletarian revolution is a historical event wherein the proletariat consciously overthrows the circumstances which hitherto have been brought about by the proletariat itself.³ At a definite stage of their development, the circumstances force and enable the proletariat to become conscious of its historical tasks. As a methodical knowledge, this consciousness is what historical science (historical materialism) is; it is carried into the proletariat by the professional revolutionists. The union of historical science with the proletarian masses finds its materialization in the international party—the instrument of the revolution and the dictatorship of the international proletariat as a whole. It is the productive activity of the proletariat that brings about the capitalistic circumstances; it is the historical deed of the same proletariat that overthrows the same circumstances.⁴ These dogmata of historical materialism have been known to the world for more than a century, yet there appears to be no one in the "Marxist" fourth International capable of memorizing them.

BODIES in the MORGUE

The above-stated dogmata were written nearly four decades ago. They should not be left as they are without some clarification. "It is the historical deed of the proletariat that overthrows the capitalistic circumstances." If, in this statement, what was meant by the proletariat was the twentieth-century working class, then the statement is a clear case of raving. The twentieth-century working class could not care less about anything historical; it can be safely stated that the working class of this century has been itself an unhistorical class. The Russian proletariat that accomplished the task of obliterating Russian Czarism was still a nineteenth-century proletariat. The twentieth-century working class, deserving nothing but what it has got already, has proven a traitor to what was ever meant to be its own class cause. It is quite useless to talk of its "consciousness"; for, if it is at all conscious of anything, it should probably be judged as good as pro-Czarist.

Yet, what was usually meant by the proletariat was the historical working class. As it is, instead of accusing the class adversary of being adverse, there would be more sense in answering first of all the question of what made the twentieth-century working class be what it came to be. The working class is the human component of the forces of production; as such, it is what the capitalistic circumstances make of it. It must be the modern, capitalistic circumstances that make the twentieth-century working class behave the way it does. This appears to be the actual state of things. However, how do the capitalistic circumstances come about? Who or what is accountable for their advent and their perpetuation? Is it the capitalist class, or is it the working class itself? That is to say, is it capital, or is it labor? These are the questions that require answers.

It is believed or contended that "capitalism was the creation of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class of capitalist society." Nothing can ever be said of capitalism and the bourgeoisie that could not be vulgarized. This way, capitalism might have been begotten by a capitalistic brain-cell in somebody's head. If capitalism was created by the bourgeoisie, then it should also be known what or who was it that created the bourgeoisie. What was said to have been created by the bourgeoisie was not capitalism, but the social order. The bourgeoisie itself was said to be the product of upheavals in the modes of production and exchange. Unlike the other possessing classes, the bourgeoisie created its bourgeois social order in accordance and conformity with the mode of production termed capitalistic, but the mode of production itself was not created by the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, was said to be the human personification of capital; and capital, as Lincoln has it,

is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.

Thus, the bourgeoisie appears to be the personification of what is the fruit of labor, or the creation of it. At the same time, the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, as Lincoln has it again, is a labor-avoiding class. Capitalism, in turn, is what the mutations of capital are; or, more literally, it is the process of the production and re-production of capital. The production and the re-production of capital by whom? Not by a labor-avoiding class, but rather by the laboring, the operative class. However, what does the production and re-production of capital mean? It means the production and re-production of the capitalistic circumstances. The mode of production termed capitalistic developed spontaneously out of the chaos and anarchy in commodity production, stemming from the fact that the direct producers become incapable of controlling their own product and the means of production they have to operate. The product of the labor of the direct producers becomes independent of those who produce it. Yet, along with the product produced, the direct producers also produce and re-produce the circumstances, the capitalistic circumstances, which hereby take their own course of development and become governed by their own laws, independent of the will of human beings. It appears that the Marxian dogma may still make sense, if what is meant by the proletariat is the historical working class: it is the productive activity of the working class that brings about the capitalistic circumstances; it is the historical deed of the same working class that overthrows the same circumstances.

Another question that requires an answer is this: what was it that caused the political movement of the working class to disappear, if the political movement of the working class was ever a historical datum? The nineteenth century was the century of the political movements of the working class. Contrary to that, the twentieth century has been the century of the extinction of the political movement of the working class. At the same time, the twentieth century appears to have made it clear that the political movement of the nineteenth-century working class was that OF the working class, but not that FOR the working class; that is to say, what the nineteenth-century working class was bound to accomplish was the revolutionary tasks of other economic classes, but not the revolutionary tasks of the working class itself. The struggles of the nineteenth-century working class turned out to have been the struggles of the revolutionary gladiator for other economic classes, for the possessing classes, that is. Once the revolutionary tasks of other classes were accomplished, the political movement of the working class was wiped out by the counterrevolutionary movements of other anti-bourgeois classes. Apparently, there were no revolutionary tasks as yet on the agenda of history, and the political movement of the working class "had no business to appear." Evidently, in these circumstances no vanguard of the working class could ever survive. Thus it came to be that on the political market of the twentieth century what we find, on one side, is a non-Marxist working class, and on the other side, a non-proletarian "Marxism." It is rather the phenomenon of a non-proletarian "Marxism," or nominal Marxism, that is the "enigma" of the century.

It is thus quite natural that Marxism should be in the morgue, if not altogether buried. It is in the morgue, but the problem is that it cannot be cremated unless it is identified. Moreover, it has to be identified as what it is, not what it is not; otherwise it may turn out that what is cremated is not Marxism, but what is non-Marxism. Perhaps, the best thing to do, first, would be to give up the foolish business of shadow boxing with Marxism by way of sham-fighting with the false shadows of Marxism.

A number of years ago, for instance, one of the many autopsists of Marxism, who fancy themselves as authorities in matters of that corpse, came up with the whole book under the title—Why Marxism? This was the book that stated with all profound insight:

A continuing success of what has failed! Whoever said that there were no dialecticians among the cremators of Marxism? And, why not a continuing intelligence of what is being preposterous? However, instead of getting entangled in paradoxes, the normal brains would ask a normal question—"Why the name of Marxism"? Not "why Marxism"? For, how does any theory manage to be successful while it has failed? Obviously, what is successful is only the name of it. As to Marxism, it had "failed" long time ago; it went out of business as soon as the antirevolutionary class enemy was driven out of existence. The matter is that admitting this obvious historical fact would be the same as admitting the bankruptsy and wretched fraudulence of anti-Marxist ideologies. Not "why Marxism," but "why the name of Marxism"? was one of the key questions of our time. In other words, the question was actually this: Why did the anti-Marxists insist on using the name of Marxism in an effort to make Marxism unrecognizable? The answer to this Why can be obtained only by studying the political movements of the last and this century. This is the business of historical science, more serious than a blurt-out like "Why Marxism."

However, no less serious is the question of whether there is such a thing as historical science. If there is, then which one is it? Historical science is most probably but a Marxist invention; this is apparently the reason that it is now in the morgue together with Marxism. The fact is that the twentieth century is the one with the bagful of fraudulent absurdities, or plain idiocies, such as the following: the absurdity number one—the creationistic nonsense of abolished and then resurrected capitalism, or the myth of an epochal economic system having been replaced or displaced by nothing but a mere governmental policy; the absurdity number two—the myth of non-capitalism being possible while the working class is only a part of society and is thus an economic class;⁵ the absurdity number three—the mendacious mock-concept of a "Soviet" empire, a Moscow-centered "evil empire", speaking Russian but nevertheless non-Russian, to be exact, an egg supposing no hen; the absurdity number four—a demented theory of "socialism" as an economic-but-political system, supposed to coexist with a system that proves to be what is but its own self.⁶ Now, during the decades of a century of triumphant absurdities, where should historical science possibly find itself but in a morgue?⁷

Yet another question is of importance, too: how important is historical science itself, and what is the use of it? Nobody has as yet contented that it is what is necessary in product promotion. The only use of historical science must evidently consist in establishing the historical truth. The historical truth is that this modern society is the product of the historical struggles of economic classes, which—with the exception of the episodes of the nineteenth century—have been the struggles among the possessing classes.

But, why should anybody care how this society came about? And, whose concern is it what the historical truth is, if there is such a thing as historical truth? The concern is apparently that of the worker, the working class, and nobody else. But, it is precisely the twentieth century working class that seems to care less than little about it. Meanwhile, there must be such a thing as historical truth. How else could, e.g., the evil empire be evil without being a historical truth? However, unless the "evil empire" was to mean an evil Evil, the evil empire should mean that some empires were non-evil. What is a non-evil empire? It is a righteous empire. Yet, if an empire may be righteous, imperialism may be righteous, too. It is clear that whatever was called an evil empire was not called so because of its being an empire. The Russian empire was called "evil" not because of its being an empire; it was called evil because of its being a "Soviet" empire. But, what is the meaning of that set of words—"the Soviet empire"? Whatever it is, its meaning is anti-historical. It may be said to be an instance of the conspiracy against the historical truth. This is so, because the design is to conceal what the objective reality is. Thus, the war cry "evil empire" actually meant that whatever was there was not evil, and whatever was evil was not there.

Historical science says that the empires must be identified by their national names; that their national names are identical with the names of their national languages. The historical examples abound: thus, the British Empire, the German Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire (first), the French Empire (second), the Russian Empire itself, and so on. In short, all modern empires have had their national names. What was it then that made a Moscow-centered, Russian-speaking, Kremlin-ruled empire non-Russian? The fact that the Great-Russian nation was an oppressed nation. An oppressed nation—oppressed by what or by whom? Evidently, by another nation; for, a nation can be oppressed only by another nation, not by birds, and what is said to be the national oppression is otherwise inconceivable. What the term "Soviet empire" tries to mean is that the Russian-speaking nation was oppressed or dominated by a freshly baked nation to be known as the "Soviet nation". What is a "Soviet nation" or even a "Soviet-speaking nation"? If there was ever an entity like a "Soviet nation", where is it now? It ceased to exist. When did that happen—that is, when did that nation disappear together with its "Soviet" language? It did so one fine hardly noticeable day, namely, when the replacement of one world-historical economic system with another world-historical economic system—resurrecting capitalism and signing off socialism—was accomplished by mere force of the signature of a fellow named Mikhaeel. However, that was not the end of the whole farce. The clever term "the Soviet empire" had yet another piece of wisdom hidden within itself. The Russian-speaking Great-Russian nation was oppressed, but not by one nation only; it was oppressed by a number of nations; to be exact, by all the non-Russian nations of the Empire of Russia. Hence, the Independence Day of Russia—a Russian Fourth of July—that is, a miserable mock of it. And, this is not just the Great-Russian way of being preposterous; it is rather the general, modern way of seeing things. There is no sense in going on with this. It is more than clear that this society, the modern society, is at war with historical science, and the main enemy is the historical truth.

But, what does the modern society now said⁸ to be "slouching towards Gomorrah"—achieve in its war with historical

science? What does it gain by having it in the morgue together with Marxism? With the advertizing "industry" running at almost $ 350 billion annually, with the number of illiterate adults ever greater, with narcotism as a national problem, with the unknown number of millions unable to tell what is not genital from what is genital, the urgent task is to find some convincing way of making Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and their Marxism, responsible for the "Gomorrah towards" which the Republic—once the Republic of Washington and Jefferson, the Republic of martyred Lincoln—is now mindlessly "slouching." The question is: can the revolutionary criticism of modern class-divided society really be made responsible for what are nothing but the most natural fruits of totalitarianism of the market place? Why not? Precisely the totalitarianism of the market place would make that possible. The market place contains the laboring de-humanity. There is nothing that could not be foisted upon the heads of that de-humanized mass. Only that could not prevent this society from joining the population of Dante's Inferno, as the poet has it,

Still, what does the totalitarianism of the market place actually mean? In Franklin's time, trade was said to be nothing but the exchange of labor for labor. In modern times trade is much more than that. It is also the exchange of non-labor for labor. It was also said that "commerce is cheating." In modern times, it would be a totalitarian cheating. In any case, what is the idea of exchanging non-material values for material values? That is, why does everybody exchange non-material values for material values? Why not exchange non-material values for non-material values and obtain material values in exchange for material values? Apparently, material values are more material and more valuable than non-material values. Then if this be so, the labor producing material values must be more valuable than whatever produces the non-material values. The totalitarian market place says that everything has its price, and work is whatever is done for a price. What do the babies do when they appear on TV commercials? Whatever they do, they do it for a price. Thus, in terms of market-place totalitarianism, work is actually what even babies can do.

But this society has to square accounts with yet another antagonist, namely, with the sixteenth president of the United States, the preserver of the Union and thus the destroyer of slavery. It would not be amiss to listen to him too. Here is how Lincoln raved:

The old general rule was that educated people did not perform manual labor. They managed to eat their bread, leaving the toil of producing it to the uneducated. This was not an insupportable evil to the working bees, so long as the class of drones remained very small…henceforth educated people must labor. Otherwise, education itself would become a positive and intolerable evil. No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive.

One should take a closer look at what Lincoln says here. First, by labor, he means manual labor. Hence, labor at something productive means that what is productive is manual labor, and unproductive is "the class of drones". Thus, to be productive, the great majority must be engaged in manual labor. Moreover, productive labor, with Lincoln, means the toil of producing "bread", i. e., material means of subsistence. In essence, what Lincoln is talking about is the direct operating of the means of production to produce socially necessary material values. In the meantime, as ancient as Lincoln is, and as modern as this society is, the following questions require answers: how great is now the majority laboring at something productive? How small is now the percentage sustained in active idleness? How productive is, e.g., the "labor" that produces commercials?

Now, what did Mr. A. Greenspan mean by his enigmatic apothegm—"'competition' is an active, not a passive, noun." Whatever he meant, the cost of that meaning may be about $350 billion. $350 billion annually to accomplish what? The connection between the product and the consumer. What is a product? It is what is to be consumed by the consumer. What is a consumer? It is what is to consume the product. Why, then, $350 billion annually to accomplish the most natural, self-evident connection between the two? And, what is the vaunted rationality of the system? How does that rationality substantiate the eternalization of laissez-faire capitalism? It does not. The substantiation for the perpetuation of capitalism lies somewhere else. It consists in one fact only, namely, in the impossibility of what was said to be the intellectual development of the working class. The survival of capitalism is predicated upon the fact of that impossibility. How eternal that impossibility should be is up to history to show.

It is hard to accept as true the view that history, or historical process, is simply what men do; it may be as well said that it is rather what the deed of men does. As it is, history is a drift and a waste of astronomical dimensions; it is a drifting river of facts as it was said decades ago. No matter what, it must have a direction. Those who think otherwise are apparently those who can imagine a river the waters of which are non-directional, and are flowing nowhere.

It happened on one of the days of the twentieth century that a former movie actor delivered a death sentence to historical science by announcing that "there is nothing inevitable in history"; that is to say, nothing is certain to occur—not even the growth of population; nor the acts of selling and buying, nor the fluctuations of the stock market prices. But, that proposition was probably meant as a crack on the heads of those who are supposed to believe in "economic determinism." At the same time, it is no secret that the whole of society is glued to Dow Jones Average, and there is nothing as economic and deterministic as that index. Indeed, there must be something inevitable in history: the revolutionary war was won, the civil war was fought in order to arrive at the happy end so that "someone can always become a millionaire," inevitably making money by way of money-making.

Still, whether making sense or not, history is a process. The struggle of classes, by the way, does not have to make sense; what matters is that it makes the basic historical fact. The only struggle that could make sense would be the struggle of the nonpossessing class against the possessing classes and their class society. The modern nonpossessing class, however, exists only as a class in-itself, as a mere plurality of economic atoms; whereas the possessing classes are organized in political formations. They exist as nation-states. On the other hand, the political movement of the working class is extinct; no specter of it is haunting the world.⁹ Hence, the only progressive and revolutionizing force on this planet can be nothing but the Big Capital itself.

The advent of the twenty-first century appears to be some years away. Meanwhile, the twentieth century (meaning whatever came after 1920) has been, regardless of all its H-bombs and microchips, mainly a parasite upon the preceding century. It has proven to be the century of the barren and the deranged, the century of the "wretched people who have lost the good of the intellect." As such, it will probably stretch itself out for some time to come beyond the even number of 2000 until a drastic event of world history makes it known to its wasted ears: "enough old wretch, make room"! And, this too shall pass away.

1. The ISL (the Independent Socialist League) was a Shachtmanite organization in the USA and went out of business in 1958. The SWP (Socialist Workers Party) is the main Trotskyist organization in the USA. What follows is a text stylistically somewhat improved on the original one, but identical with it in content and meaning.

2. In this same text, published in 1971, Stalin was called here a "clown". The word was apparently inadequate in reference to Stalin. It would have sufficed to compare with him persons like Khrushchov, or Brezhnev, and the rest. Especially, after the so-called de-Stalinization or anti-Stalin campaign, launched by the former office boys of Stalin himself, this author at least was rather compelled to revise his view of Stalin's person and his place in history's "hall of fame". Stalin was not exactly a clown. If one likes to believe in the greatness of all the political representatives of the possessing classes, then it is hard to regard Stalin as being less than any of the so-called greats. In any case, the military-police-bureaucratic state of Russia has never been ruled by an abler statesman. What is most certain, however, is that Stalin was the greatest counterrevolutionary, the most pernicious turncoat and mendacious traitor to whatever was meant to be the cause of internationalism, the political movement of the working class, and thus of Marxism.

3. The preceding sentence should have been written this way: In Marxism, the proletarian revolution is a historical event wherein the politically organized proletariat consciously overthrows the circumstances which hitherto have been brought about by the politically unorganized proletariat itself.

4. This is, in our view, what Marx meant by the revolutionizing practice when he wrote his third thesis on Feurerbach. The revolutionizing practice is the historical practice of the human component of the forces of production and is of dual nature, as the productional activity (the making of things) and as the historical deed (the doing of things). Accordingly, the historical process, which has been but an unconscious integration of the efforts of the human component of the forces of production, appears as divided in two parts: the evolutionary periods and the revolutionary moments.

5. Stalino-Trotskyism consisted—or consists—in purloining the concepts of Marxism to make them unrecognizable. It could be clear to anyone who can think that, in Marxism, socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat do not coexist, do not synchronize. The only economic system that could ever coexist with the dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing but capitalism. This is so for the simple reason that the dictatorship of the proletariat without or outside of capitalism would be exactly like a blaze without the matter that is ablaze. Socialism means classless and stateless society. No other socialism was ever conceivable. The ABC was that the struggle against the capitalist class was counterrevolutionary and reactionary, unless what was meant was the struggle for obliterating all class-divided society. Socialism is conceivable only as the result of the economic revolution of the international working class; anything else is "socialism" made unrecognizable.

6. The elementary truth is that whatever is a political system must inevitably coexist with whatever is an economic system; hence, whatever is political is inevitably different from what is economic. In what is now said to be "socialism" whatever is political coexists with what proves to be nothing but political; that is to say, it coexists with what proves to be but its own self. Cf. the writings of all anti-socialist theorizers, beginning with L. von Mises (socialism is a national policy, socialism is a system based on what is governmental, socialism is governmental economy, socialism is etatism, is statism, is totalitarianism). It is fortunate that the supposedly anti-socialist theorizer can coexist with his wife even without knowing that he can never coexist with himself.

7. "The times of that superstition which attributed revolutions to the ill-will of a few agitators, have long passed away. Everyone knows nowadays that, wherever there is a revolutionary convulsion, there must be some social want in the background, which is prevented by outworn institutions from satisfying itself." Herr Engels was probably an intellectual superpower of his time, but in this passage, he sounds as if he were delirious. "The times of that superstition… have long passed away"? Away, when? In the middle of the nineteenth century, perhaps, but not at the close of the twentieth century. "Everyone knows nowadays…" Everyone knows what nowadays? Everyone knows nothing of the sort. Everyone rather seems to know that the two or three delirious men were more or less raving, when they staked everything on a mythopoetic assumption that what was said to be the "intellectual development of the working class" was not only possible, but even inevitable. Nowadays nobody knows what the next phase of the totalitarianism of the market place would be. Perhaps, the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation consists precisely in replacing the entire de-humanized working class with a robot population. The problem, then, will be what to do with all the masses of do-nothings numbering countless millions. No matter what, that would mean the end of capitalism and the advent of post-capitalism. In any case, the twentieth-century working class has to go; it has to make room for what is human, or if not so, then what is post-human.

Franklin, by the way, defines man as "a tool-making animal." Goethe's Mefisto maintains that man is "beastlier than any beast." The combination of both thoughts, that of Franklin and that of Goethe, may prove to be helpful in defining the twentieth-century man as a tool-making animal to be beastlier than any beast.

8. Said so by one of the most important legal minds of the country. See R.H. Bork, Slouching towards Gomorrah.

9. These words were written before the events in Roumania. Be as it may, we have no right, and no intention, to change what had been stated.

Дело социальной республики

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

IN PLACE OF INTRODUCTION

The Prophet of the Century

The Explainer

The Case of British History

The Case of G. Buechner

The Case of Bogdanov

The Prophet as a Politologue

Having “Seen Through” Stalin

The Evil that was Lenin

Darkness versus Light

Restoration versus Destruction

The Prophet and the others

CHAPTER II: THE FORCES IN REVOLUTION

The Object of Destruction

The Transfer of the State Power

The Holder and the Owner

A Row of double Concepts

The "Stages"

Ideology and political Formations

Authoritarianism versus Utopias

Cultural versus Economic

CHAPTER III: THE CAMPS OF COUNTERREVOLUTION

Marxism and the Modern Left

Marxism versus Creative Marxism

Marxism versus Pseudo-Marxism

Marxism versus Self-styled Marxism

Transformed Anarchism and Transformed Narodism

Marxism versus Trotskyism

Trotsky and Lenin’s Theory of Restoration

Modern Trotskyism as anti-Leninism

Trotskyism and Bonapartism

CHAPTER IV: PAST AND PRESENTLost between the I. S. L. and the S. W. P.¹(May, 1958)

BODIES in the MORGUE

The cause of the social republic

Дело социальной республики

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

IN PLACE OF INTRODUCTION

The Prophet of the Century

The Explainer

The Case of British History

The Case of G. Buechner

The Case of Bogdanov

The Prophet as a Politologue

Having “Seen Through” Stalin

The Evil that was Lenin

Darkness versus Light

Restoration versus Destruction

The Prophet and the others

CHAPTER II: THE FORCES IN REVOLUTION

The Object of Destruction

The Transfer of the State Power

The Holder and the Owner

A Row of double Concepts

The "Stages"

Ideology and political Formations

Authoritarianism versus Utopias

Cultural versus Economic

CHAPTER III: THE CAMPS OF COUNTERREVOLUTION

Marxism and the Modern Left

Marxism versus Creative Marxism

Marxism versus Pseudo-Marxism

Marxism versus Self-styled Marxism

Transformed Anarchism and Transformed Narodism

Marxism versus Trotskyism

Trotsky and Lenin’s Theory of Restoration

Modern Trotskyism as anti-Leninism

Trotskyism and Bonapartism

CHAPTER IV: PAST AND PRESENTLost between the I. S. L. and the S. W. P.1(May, 1958)

BODIES in the MORGUE

The cause of the social republic

CHAPTER IV: PAST AND PRESENTLost between the I. S. L. and the S. W. P.¹(May, 1958)