De Leonism and Communism

By KARL REEVE 

Let us begin by briefly outlining, in the light of what Marx L and Engels wrote, and in the light of Marxism-Leninism, De Leon's doctrine on the state, still expounded by the Socialist Labor Party and others in spite of the great lessons of the present epoch of imperialism and the proletarian dictatorship in Russia. De Leon's theory, many times repeated from the year 1904- until his death in 1914-, did not include the conception of a transition period from capitalism to socialism. De Leon believed that the present capitalist state, the "Political State," will be destroyed by the political party of the working class-to him, the S. L. P .-and that with this "destructive act" the function of the revolutionary party came to an end. He believed that the revolutionary Industrial Union-in 1895 the Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance and later the I. W. W. -would at once become what he termed the "Industrial State." This change meant the end -0£ the state "immediately" as an instrument of class rule and its transformation into the Industrial Union as a director and coordinator of the industries, the technical administrator of production. The "Industrial State" therefore, would be no state at all but a purely administrative organ. The change marked at the same time the change from parliaments elected by geographical areas, to a directing body, the Industrial Union, elected on the basis of occupations through the sections of the industrial unions. De Leon believed that the revolution would come first in the United States because the United States was the most advanced capitalist country, industrially. He was also opposed to the advocacy of the armed insurrection of the working class, or the use of force other than the force "inherent" in the Industrial Union. He believed that civil war is not a necessary outcome of the class-struggle. In this article De Leon's conception of the State will form the main theme, as far as these points can be separated, and the question of force, etc., will be dealt with in another article.

It is not necessary in this post-war imperialist era to dwell long on the necessity of the capitalist countries to pass through the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat. One need only read such books as Lenin's "State and Revolution." Marx many times spoke of the necessity for the workers to seize political power and wield it during the transition period to complete socialism. De Leon, however, did not fully grasp this aspect of Marx's teachings, believing that the transition period would not take place, and that it was not necessary for the workers to wield political power after the revolution. Before taking up more fully De Leon's idea of the state, let us refresh our memories with several brief quotations from Marx and Engels on the necessity of the proletariat to wield political power in the transition period. 

MARX ON THE STATE 

In the Communist Manifesto (1848) we read: "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties; formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat .••. We have seen above, that the :first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." (My emphasis-K. R.) 

The supremacy of the proletariat as a class, the seizing and holding of political power by that class, the wielding of the weapon of the state in the transition period was designated by Marx as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This transition state will gradually disappear as the heritages from old capitalist conditions of production are abolished by the workers' state, as the remnants of the bourgeois class are crushed. Until this process is completed and the classless society, complete communism emerges, there will be this transition, the workers' state. 

Marx's view is made more clear in the Civil War in France ( 1871). In speaking of the Paris Commune Marx said, "Its true secret was this. It was essentially a Working Class Government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of labor." Lenin, in "State and Revolution" points out "the only 'correction' which Marx thought it necessary to make in the Communist Manifesto, was made by him on the basis of the revolutionary experience of the Paris Communards." Lenin then points out that this "correction" was that the workers cannot merely lay hold of the ready-made state machinery but must break it, shatter it, and replace it by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (See State and Revolution--ch. 3 sect. 2). Marx in his letter to Kugelmann of April 12, 1871, also speaks of the shattering of the bourgeois state as follows, "If you look at the last chapter of my 'Eighteenth Brumaire' you will find that I declare the next attempt of the French revolution to be: not merely 1;o hand over, from one to another, the bureaucratic and military machine, as has occurred hitherto--but to SHATTER it; and this is the preliminary condition of any real people's revolution on the continent." (See The Communist, March, 1927-Marx's emphasis-K. R.) 

Engels, in his introduction to the 3rd German edition of the "Civil War in France," said in I 89 I, "The German petty bourgeoisie has again been soundly terrified by the words: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well, gentlemen, if you wish to know what the dictatorship looks like, look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." 

Again, in his letter to Wiedemeyer ( quoted by Lenin in State and Revolution, ch. 2, sect. 3) Marx wrote, ... "What I did prove, was the following: 

(1) That the existence of classes is connected only with certain historical struggles which are characteristic of the development of production; 

( 2) That the class war inevitably leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 

( 3) That this dictatorship is only a transition to the destruction of all classes and to a society with-out classes." And in speaking of this statement, Lenin adds that a Marxist cannot only recognize the class war, that "a Marxist is one who EXTENDS the recognition of class war to the recognition of the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. In this is the main difference between a Marxist and an ordinary bourgeois." (Lenin's emphasis--K. R.) 

Lastly, there is Marx's statement in the "Criticism of the Gotha Program" (1875), where he says, "Between capitalist and communist society there lies a period of revolutionary transformation from the former to the latter. A stage of political transition corresponds to this period, and the State during this period can be n.one other than the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat." (Marx's emphasis--K. R.) 

DE LEON ON THE STATE 

In the light of Marx's and Engels' clear recognition of the necessity for the transition period, of the fact that the state, after the revolution, must be used in this transition period as an instrument of class suppression-of suppression of the bourgeoisie by the working class-in the light of their recognition that the workers  must wield political power under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat let us examine what De Leon says on the subject.

In 1901, in his address delivered in Boston, and later printed under the title, "Socialism vs. Anarchism," De Leon devotes a few words to the subject of the seizure of the power by the workers. His remarks are somewhat unclear. However, they might be interpreted as a statement of the necessity of the transition period from capitalism to communism. Unfortunately, however, they fall out-side of De Lean's oft-repeated doctrine, stated above, which he continued to announce until his death. 

De Leon says, "True enough, you must seek to capture the government ... but not as either a finality or a starter. The overthrow of the government you must aim at must be the end of using the governmental power to perfect the revolution that must have preceded your conquest of the public powers. The initial revolution must take place in your own minds". . . . "You must, in consequence, have first learned what use to make of the government when gotten, to wit, to· use it as a social lever with which to establish the Socialist Republic and install the government that our needs require and that civilization needs ... when elected, the Socialist Labor Party, the government you shall have chosen, must, in order to be effective, be something not outside of, not separate and apart· from you." 

It will be noted that here De Leon expressed the thought that the S. L. P , the future socialist government, would be elected to power, which we know, is taken from the program of the reformists. This conception of the state and revolution is not Marxian. The necessity pointed out by Marx, in the above quoted letter to Kugelmann, a lesson Marx expounded, after the Paris· Commune, to shatter the bourgeois state and set up their own dictatorship, was not recognized by De Leon. Rather, the old social-democratic reformist policy of peacefully taking over the government by voting into power a majority is voiced. And we know it is impossible to vote the bourgeoisie out of power. De Leon did 'not realize that the State machinery must be smashed and replaced by the Dictator-ship of the Proletariat. De Leon, although he changed his conception of the role of the political party, as will be presently shown, · throughout his career failed to understand that the state is an organ of suppression by a class; an organ which can be used as an instrument in the hands of the workers to suppress the capitalist class. The latter form of state, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is used by the working class, by the masses, by the producers, by the majority, to suppress the capitalist class, the minority, the exploiters. 

In this new form of state democracy exists for the majority, as Lenin points out, proletarian democracy, and dictatorship is used against the remnants of the bourgeoisie. De Leon on the other hand, and the S. L. P. of today, regarded the state as an instrument of suppression to be used only by the capitalist class and did not conceive of this new form of state spoken of by Marx and Engels, the state of a transition to a classless socialist society when suppression becomes unnecessary. He did not understand that the state is not peacefully handed from one class to another but must be smashed by the workers and a new proletarian state formed. 

De Leon, in the above quotation, regarded the political party of the working class, and not the economic organization, as the organ to take over "the government" and guide the socialist republic. This in spite of the fact that as early as I 89 5 he had been the moving spirit in the forming of the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance, which it was announced had the supreme mission of becoming the future state. De Leon later, instead of more closely approaching the Marxian viewpoint, more widely deviated from it by adopting his false concepti..on of the role of the political party of the working class. 

De Leon stated his ideas on the subject most clearly in his address in 1905 on "The Preamble 0$ the I. W.W." delivered in Minneapolis and later published by the S. L. P. under the title "The Social-ist Reconstruction of Society," his best known work. De Leon later frequently quoted his remarks made in this speech, and reiterated the doctrine here expressed, which is not the same as that quoted above, many times. He first pays his respects to the "Political State," the organ of oppression of the capitalist class, which is organized by geographical areas. While the industries are to be "taken and held" for the purpose of further developing them for the benefit of all, "it is exactly the reverse with the 'political power.' That is to be taken for the purpose of abolishing it. It follows therefrom that the goal of the political movement of labor is purely destructive." De Leon then supposes that at some election we won, so decisively that we could npt be counted out. "Suppose that, what would there be for them ( our candidates) to do? Simply to adjourn themselves on the spot, sine die. Their work would be done by disbanding." (De Leon's emphasis-K. R.) 

Here we see that De Leon gives the political party of the working class an entirely different role than that given it in his Boston speech quoted above. There he said the S. L. P. would be elected, would take over the government, and would use it as a lever with which to establish the Socialist Republic. Here we see clearly what this means. The political party must merely destroy capitalism, (by the peaceful means of the ballot, however). Its function immediately and the industrial Union at once steps in and begins to function as the "Industrial State" which is not a state at all, not an -organ of suppression of the capitalist class, but an organ for administration of industry only. In the next article De Leon's errors on the role of the party will be more fully dealt with. Here, in passing, it must be noticed that De Leon as shown in his 1905 speech believed it necessary for the political party of the workers to remain in its form of geographical areas because of the necessity of using methods to conform to this capitalist era. Lenin, on the other hand, as early as I 902 pointed out the necessity of the political party to have its basis not in geographical areas, but in the factories. "Every factory must be our fortress" he wrote, and throughout the existence of the Bolshevik party up until I 9 I 7, and of course, after, he insisted on the organization of the party, as widely as possible, on the basis ,of factory nuclei ( see Lenin on Organization, pages 14 and III). De Leon, who failed to understand that the party of the working class must lead the struggle to attain and hold political power, must lead in the work within the industrial and other unions, through forming party fractions, attributed to the political party no role, no existence, after the capture of the state power. 

Then as to De Leon's "destructive act." This idea of the passing over of the state into the hands of the Industrial Union, when as an instrument of a class the state ceases to exist, shows a fundamental misconception of' the role of the state, a conception which is essentially reformist. This destructive act either leaves the state untouched, according to his I 90 I speech or entirely abolishes it, according to later statements. De Leon did not fully understand the significance of Marx's statements,, quoted above where he says that the smashing of the bureaucratic, bourgeois state machine, is the essential preliminary to revolution. And this arises out of his failing to under-stand the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

De Leon makes himself even plainer as he continues: "The political movement of Labor that, in the event of triumph, would prolong its existence a second after the triumph, would be a usurpation. It would be either a usurpation or the signal for a social catastrophe. It would be the signal for a social catastrophe if the political triumph did not find the working class of the land industrially organized, that is, in full possession of the plants of production and distribution, capable, accordingly, to assume the integral conduct of the productive powers of the land. The catastrophe would be instantaneous. The plants of production and distribution having remained in capitalist hands, production would be instantly blocked." 

A "PREMATURE" REVOLUTION

This last paragraph explains why the S. L. P. designates the Russian revolution as "premature," and refuses to learn anything from the three Russian revolutions. None of them immediately turned the power over to the Industrial Union. Which, in fact, did not exist, and hence the Bolsheviks violated De Leon's program, an unforgivable sin. The workers of Russia after gaining political power, led by their vanguard, the Communist Party of Russia, only then, with the aid of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, were able to build up large industrial unions. Surprisingly, the working class of Russia was able to prevent the "catastrophe" of which De Leon spoke so positively. The C. P .. of Russia did not disband, the non-existent Industrial Unions did not take over the State, and hence, the S. L. P. believes that the Russian revolution was not really a social revolution. Even in I 92 I when millions had been organized in the industrial unions, the attempt of the.Workers Opposition to set up these unions as the head of economic life was successfully com batted by Lenin. In reality, the workers must have political power. They need the dictatorship, not only to gain the support of the majority of the poor and middle peasantry, and of what Lenin termed the "non-proletarian working masses," which support of all the toilers can be gained only after the proletariat has seized political power, has created the new state, but they need the political power in order to do this while crushing the resistance of the remnants of the capitalist class. As long as there are classes or remnants of classes, a certain form of the state is necessary. De Leon did not recognize that the workers' state, the proletarian dictatorship, "withers away" after the workers have gained political power, and after they have wielded it to crush the exploiters and to introduce socialist society. De Leon thus speaks of the possibility of "amputating" the state, meaning of destroying the state and simultaneously ushering in a classless society. 

De Leon continues, "On the other hand, if the political triumph does find the working class industrially organized, then for the political movement to prolong its existence would be to attempt to usurp the powers which its very triumph announces have devolved upon the central administration of the industrial organization. The 'reason' for a political movement obviously unfits it to 'take and hold' the machinery of production. What the political movement moves into is not the shops, but the Robber Burg of capitalism-for the purpose of dismantling it" . . "in the act however, of 'taking and holding' the nation's plants of production, the political organization of the working class can give no help. Its mission will have come to an end just before the consummation of that consummating act of Labor's emancipation .... Where the General Executive Board of the I. W. W. will sit, there will be the nation's capital. As the slough shed by the serpent that immediately reappears in its new skin, the Political State will have been shed and society will simultaneously appear in its administrative garb." 

Here we see, in spite of De Leon's statement of 1901, that four years later, De Leon had no conception of the transition state-of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and failed to absorb Marx's and Engels' lessons quoted above. "Immediately" the state as a political power disappears and "simultaneously'' the state is transformed into a classless administrator. This statement also is disproved by the Russian revolution of 19 I 7. Disproved, that is for all except the present S. L. P. The S. L. P. faced by the facts of history, must either charge history, charge Marx and Engels, with being wrong, and shut their eyes to the necessity for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or admit that De Leon made a mistake. What! De Leon mistaken. No! History, Marx, Engels, Lenin, must be wrong! There is one other statement of De Leon's, a few words, which gives the correct approach to the question of the State, and which is in contradiction to his main doctrine. In the Daily People of March 17, 1907, two years after the above quoted speech was made, De Leon recognized the necessity for the transit on period. He said, "Marx clearly shows that the proletariat must organize politically so that it can control the transition state and introduce socialism." (This quotation is taken from the Nov., 1926, issue of the Workers' Monthly in an article by Ellis Peterson. It was re-translated from the Swedish S. L. P. paper Arbetaren). 

This statement, although it falls outside of De Leon's principal doctrine, raises him head and shoulders above the present-day S. L. P. The present S. L. P. which has fourteen years of experience after De Leon's death, experience of the war and post-war period of imperialism, which has had a chance to study ten years of the dictatorship before its very eyes, in the Soviet Union, not to mention the experience of a number of European revolutions-the present S. L. P. brushes all these experiences aside and brushes aside this statement of De Leon. It is left to the Communists to show the advance made by De Leon over his party-the wisdom of the father as compared to the idiot child. Instead of expanding on this conception and making it ,clearer, the S. L. P. prefers to forget it, so as to he better able to join the reformists of the Second International in its attack on the world Communist movement.

We must remember, however, that De Leon did not base his program on these rare glimmerings of the truth. On the contrary,we find that after writing the above recognition of the necessity of the transition period, De Leon continued to repeat his formula, -Political State-Industrial State-with nothing in between. For example, all of the programs of the S. L. P. fail to mention the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The I 9 Ii program of the S. L. P. repeats De Leon's old idea of the political state immediately giving way to the industrial state. It says, "The Political State, another name for the Class State, is worn out in this, the leading capitalist nation of the world, most prominently. The Industrial or Socialist State is throbbing for birth. The program of the Socialist Labor Party is revolution-the Industrial or Socialist Republic, the Social Order where the Political State is overthrown."

No mention  of the transition period, either in this, or any other program of the S. L. P. De Leon concisely repeats his main formula, in his article "Industrial Unionism," printed in pamphlet form under that title by the S. L. P. This article originally appeared in the Daily People on January 20, 1913, a little more than a year before De Leon's death and six years after his reference to the transition period, quoted above. He repeats, just as clearly as he did in 1905, his mistakes with regard to the state. We read, "The overthrow of Class Rule means the overthrow of the Political State, and its substitution with the industrial social order, under which the necessaries for production are collectively owned and operated by and for the people. . . . Industrial Union-. ism, free from optical illusions, is clear upon the goal-the substitution of the Political State with the Industrial Government ...

Industrial Unionism is the Socialist Republic in the making; and the goal once reached, the Industrial Union is the Socialist Republic in operation. Accordingly, Industrial Unionism is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of capitalism, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself." This statement also, of course, is pi;oven false by the Russian revolution. In Russia, although there was no large industrial union, the revolution was achieved, led by the Bolshevik party. The Bolshevik party was the "battering ram," was the vanguard of the working class which led the workers through the revolution and afterwards guided also the Soviet State and the industrial unions. 

De Leon repeats his views, which are adulterated with syndicalism, in an editorial "With Marx For Text" which appeared in the Daily People in I 907. He said, "The revolutionary act of achieving the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism is the function reserved to the economic organization the physical force called for by the Revolutionary Act lies inherent in the economic organization" (He also repeats this view of the state in the following:-Editorial, Industrial Unionism, 1904-Father Gassoniana, 1911-Daily People, Editorial, Sept. 2, 1911, "The Political State on the Rocks-Editorial, May 14, 1911 "Jeffersonianism"-Berger's Hits and Misses-Fifteen Ques-tions Answered, 1913-=-See· also Reform and Revolution, 1896). 

We have now established that although De Leon once or twice came near to hitting upon the Marxian attitude towards the transition period ( something of which the present day S. L. P. is not guilty) in his principle teachings De Leon restricted the roIe of the political party of the working class to that of destroying the capitalist state. He did not recognize that in the United States especially, with its big bureaucracy, and large army and navy with its large strata of masses corrupted by imperialism, in spite of the highly developed industry the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is necessary to crush out the bourgeoisie and all counter-revolutionary elements, to build up complete socialism by wielding political power during the introduction of socialist economy. He had a false con-ception of the role of the trade unions. De Leon made the mistake of attributing to the mass organization, the industrial union, which does not even exist as a mass organization before the dictatorship, a role which it is impossible for it to fill even after the dictatorship. Lenin has shown that only the political party of the working class, which is a part, the most energetic, conscious and advanced section of that class, can carry through the revolution at the head of the class, establish the proletarian dictatorship and introduce socialism. De Leon did not grasp the importance of the factory work for the political party as Lenin did, and instead set up a duality of industrial union-political party. De Leon's S. L. P. supporters take pride in pointing out that he added to Marx his conception of the role of Industrial Unionism. True this is an addition, this is not a part of Marxism. The denial of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a part of Marxism, the denial of the role of the party as the leader of the working class is not a part of Marxism, the denial of the necessity for civil war ( which will be taken up later) is not a part ·.of Marxism and last the conception of the immediate destruction .of the capitalist state and the simultaneous emergence ·of a classless society is not a part of Marxism. All are opposed to Marxism.

MARX AND LENIN ANSWER DE LEON

MARX's Answer to the Anarchists (1873), quoted by Lenin in "State and Revolution" immediately comes to mind as an answer to De Leon's misconception of the State. Marx said, sarcastically, "If the political struggle of the working class assumes a revolutionary form; if the workers, in place of the dictatorship of . the bourgeoisie, set up their own revolutionary dictatorship, then they commit a terrible crime and offer an insult to principle; because, forsooth, the workers, in order to meet the miserable, gross requirements of the moment, in order to crush the resistance of the capitalist class, cause the State to assume a revolutionary and transitional form, instead of laying down their arms and abolishing the State." 

No comment is necessary to show that the above paragraph a perfect answer to De Leon and especially to the S. L. P. in their objections to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Disregarding the historical necessity for the working class to carry through the revolution and seize political power, the S. L. P., basing themselves on De Leon, would use their party to "lay down their arms and abolish the State," immediately, because De Leon's doctrine called for the immediate establishment of a classless society, misnamed "Industrial State.," as soon as the "destructive act"-that is the abolition of the State, is effected by the political party. It is no accident that Marx's Answer to the Anarchists also answers De Leon. Marx goes on to show that the State as a , weapon, an organized force, must be made use of by the workers upon seizing power, until the bourgeoisie is entirely crushed. The State does not disappear until classes disappear, for the State is nothing else but the instrument of a class in power to oppress another class. The proletarian dictatorship is only a temporary, transitional use of the political power, of the force of the State, to crush the exploiting classes and usher in the new society. Temporary, that is, in a historical sense, for the epoch of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as Lenin pointed out, will cover a number of years. Marx says, "Why do not the Anti-Authoritarians limit themselves to shouting against the Political authority, against the State? All Socialists agree that the State, and together with it, also political authority, will vanish as the result of the future Socialist Revolution, i.e., that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into simple administrative functions,· concerned with social interests. But the Anti-Authoritarians demand that · the political State should be  abolished at one blow, even before those social relations which gave birth to the State are themselves abolished. They demand that the first act of the Social Revolution shall be the abolition of all authority."

Marx proved the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship by giving the example of the Paris Commune. Marx took lessons from history, something which the S. L. P. with its Utopian approach, fails to do. J us as the anarchists answered by Marx, the S. L. P. would "abolish the political State at one blow" and set up immediately a classless society. Basing themselves on De Leon's old program, they fail to see that this is impossible until after "those social relations which gave birth to the state are themselves abolished." And this is impossible overnight, "at one blow." It can be accomplished only after a transition period, only with the help of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. We might ask with Marx, "These gentlemen,. have they ever seen a Revolution"? The S. L.P. has seen the Russian Revolution, lmt is blind to its lessons.

Lenin sums up Marx's teachings on the State as follows, "Marx deduced from the whole history of Socialism and of political struggle that the State was bound to disappear, and that the transitional form of its disappearance ( the transition from the political State to the non-State) would be the 'proletariat organized as the ruling class' " (State and Revolution). The S. L. P., however, is incapable, be-cause of its dogmatic insistence on De Leon's formula and its failure to understand historical materialism, of deducing anything from "the whole history of Socialism and of political struggle." 

De Leon could not understand that the workers must make use of the political State in the transition period as the weapon of their class with which to complete the revolution, to abolish the remnants of the bourgeoisie, to introduce Socialism, and thus gradually evolve a classless· society, during which process, after the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is established, the State begins to wither away. 

THE DEGENERATED S. L. P. OF TODAY 

And where has this error of De Leon, rigidly adhered to and expanded, led the S. L. P. in the· present· period? What use has this organization made of be Leon's doctrine? The. insistence upon De Leon's preconceived plan for carrying out the revolution-(no

revolution genuine without the De Leon "Industrial Union" trade mark)-in spite of the lessons of the present period, has turned the S. L. P. into a sect of revisionists, mouthing attacks against the Communist International and its American Section, the Work-ers (Communist) Party and against the Russian Revolution, using the same arguments in many cases as a.re used by the reformists. The November revolution does not bear the "Industrial Union" trade mark,· the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was established, and hence it was "premature." The S. L. P. thus becomes. violently nationalistic, refusing to learn from the experiences of the world revolutionary movement, and becomes a social-pacifist organization, against the US€:. of armed force by the workers to establish their dic-tatorship, in favor only of th "civilfaed" method of the ballot and· the peddler of revisionist forgeries of Engels' articles. 

In its preface to Marx's "Criticism of the Gotha Program," (pre-face written 1922) the S. L. P. attempts to show that Marx's clear reference to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in this. work is "only offhand and incidental." They claim it "is not an issue in this discussion," and is "merely 'pulled in' to illumine a point." The S. L. :P. continues its slander on Marx: "Contrary to.the dictatorship advocates of today ••• he wastes neither time nor energy upon it."

The S. L. P. pursues one of its many attacks on the fundamentals of Marxism on the basis of a suspicious ignorance when it says, "so far as we know it ( the Gotha Program) contains Marx's only direct reference to and authority for the phrase, 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.'" The quotations given at the beginning of this article will show that the S. L.,P. does not know very far, and that as far as this organization is concerned ignorance is bliss, for not only Marx, but Engels mentioned this phrase directly a number of times, and what is more important, analyzed its meaning. The S. L. P. attempts to talk away these statements of Marx by heaping abuse upon the American Communist movement, by ranting against "dictatorship" and by attempting to show the phrase was "accidental," a mere aberration of Marx's. The S. L. P. often quotes Lenin as an authority. Sometimes, it is true, the S. L. P. merely quotes a garbled version of what Lenin said, as printed by a bourgeois p per. The 'S. L. P. places great faith in the authority of the quotations in bourgeois papers. But the S. L. P ., in its attacks on the C. I. generally quotes an isolated ·paragraph or two of Lenin's, ignoring, of course, e- fundamental teachings of Lenin. What then did Lenin say about this "accidental" phrase of Marx's? At the be-ginning of chapter 5, "State and Revolution" we read, "A most detailed elucidation of this question ( the economic foundation of the withering away of the State-K. R.) is given by Marx in his "Criticism of the Gotha Program." The polemical part of this remarkable work • . . has, so to speak, overshadowed its positive part, namely the analysis of the. connection between the develop-ment of Communism and the withering away of the State." Lenin then shows how Marx not only in this one passage mentioned the Dictatorship, but also pointed out the difference between the .first stages of communist society and the highest phase of communist society, what we call the difference between socialism and communism, and Marx showed how the .first stages of communism fall within the transition period. Suppression, Lenin points out, basing himself on Marx's "Criticism," is still necessary in this transition period. But the suppression of the minority by the majority. Therefore the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not the State in the ordinary sense, but a transition State which when the bourgeois remnants are destroyed abolishes itself. In this period -of transition the economic stage is the stage of beginnings of socialism, the stage of steps taken toward complete socialism or communism. "Finally," Lenin says, "only under communism will the State become quite unnecessary, for there will be no one to suppress--'no one' that is in the sense of, a Class" (Lenin's emphasis-K.R.). Lenin then quotes Marx's "Criticism of the Gotha Program," which outlines the transition period (See State and Revolution, section "The First Phase of Communist Society) the very period in which Marx said, "the State can be none other . • • than the revo-lutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat." 

"ALL RIGHT FOR RUSSIA-BUT NOT AMERICA" 

The S. L. P. in this preface makes the argument that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat may be all right for Russia but in Amer-ica it would be a "hindrance." We have learned these words by heart. from the bourgeois and social-democratic press. In America, we are asked to believe, there is no bourgeoisie which it will be necessary to crush by armed force, there is no large army, no bureaucracy, no well organized capitalist class to be wiped out. In America, we are told, there are no masses corrupted by imperialism, which must be won over after the seizure of power. In America . there is no 31 million farming population. In America there is no labor aristocracy, no skilled or office workers who even on the eve of the revolution will, in some part, waver. Hence here, the political power in the hands of the  working class will be unnecessary. Thus does the S. L. P. flout the facts. 

Substantially the same arguments are repeated in the S. L. P. Arm and Hammer pamphlet No. 8, "Workers Party vs. S. L. P. The valiant champion of civilization and of the " peaceful method" who is the author of this pamphlet, a nonentity who attempts to achieve notoriety by slandering Marx, proceeds thus: He cannot find substantiation for the S. L. P. theories in Marx so he distorts him by quoting an isolated sentence and drawing grotesque conclusions. He says: "Marx says in his preface to Capital: 'The country that is more developed industrially only shows to the less developed the image of its own future.' he did not and could not say that the lesser developed country showed a picture to the more highly developed country. It is not to be denied" that America is much more highly developed industrially than Russia. It is obvious then that if an image of the future is to be shown, Russia cannot do the showing. What we must show here is why a Soviet form of government is not necessary in America, but we will go further-we will show it is impossible to establish such a government in this country." He states further that Russia, in 1917 was a "demoralized decentralized community," backward industrially, "with medieval feudalism maintaining a strong grasp in its communities."

First to expose the distortion of Marx by this clownish caricature of his model, Kautsky, Marx in his preface to Capital, said he was illustrating the laws of capitalist production by giving examples from England, "their classic ground." But these laws, he said, hold good in Germany and the other capitalist countries. Perhaps "the German reader shrugs his shoulders at the condition of the English industrial and agricultural laborers," believing that in Germany things are not so bad. But "intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future."

Obviously, Marx was speaking of two capitalist countries and of the laws of capitalist development. And the author of this cheap and dishonest pamphlet tries to distort· the comparison to that of a country in the first stages of socialism, where already the law of value does not operate in. State-owned industries, with the most despotic imperialist country of the world. The S. L. P. distorts Marx continually, and I have exposed this putrid attack on Soviet Russia and on Marx as an example, taken from dozens of such distortions which I have read in the literature of this revisionist outfit. The author takes a reference to the fact that capitalist countries are governed by the same basic laws whether more or less industrially developed, those more industrially developed showing . to what the others are growing, and concludes that Soviet Russia, where the workers rule, where they are building up socialism, is more back-ward socially than the imperialist United States. Is it necessary to point out that in the Soviet Union the workers have been freed from their exploiters? There industry and agriculture have been built up beyond the prewar level, but not at the expense of the workers, on the contrary to their advantage. There the conditions of labor, hours, and social advantages are incomparably better than in capitalist countries. There the State and the unions pay unemployment, old age, etc., insurance. There wages are steadily rising as production is increased. There they have the seven-hour day. There .the State owns the basic industries, there co-operative production and distribution are promoted by the State. And we are told in the name of Marxism that America must show them the way!

The author of this monstrosity concludes, "The Workers Party advocacy of a transition period is nonsense, as is its damoring for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Then Marx and Engels speak nonsense, to say nothing of Lenin. It is very interesting to note that Karl Kautsky, after the Russian revolution, and the Russian Mensheviks, made the same argument exactly that is made by the S. L. P. that the Russian revolution is not a real social revolution because Russia is backward industrially and that therefore the revolution was "premature." Lenin replied to the revisionists that revolutions do not necessarily take place in the countries most fully developed industrially, but where the link in the chain of word imperialism is weakest. And following the world war it was weakest in Russia, due to a number of reasons. Russia was an imperialist and not a "feudal" country before the world war, with an industry that was highly concentrated; that is, a large proportion of the total industry was big industry, much of it built up with foreign capital. The Russian proletariat, although young, had been steeled in the 1905 revolution and in the illegal existence against Czarism. Russia must be considered as having been an imperialist country. And the fundamental laws of the transition period, laid down by Marx, apply to all imperialist countries. True, because of the large number of peasants in Russia, the dictatorship may last longer in Russia than in other countries, but as stated above by Marx, Engels and Lenin, in all imperialist countries the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the wielding of political power to crush · the bourgeoisie, who Lenin explained are strong even after the revolution, is essential.

PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP AND THE SOVIET 

THE S. L. P. does not understand the nature of the Soviet. This confusion is clearly brought out in the Silver-Amter debate, published in 1927, by the S. L. P. Silver in speaking of the slogan of the Bolsheviks, "All Power to the Soviets," says: "Supreme authority was not to be demanded by the proletarian dictatorship, but by the Soviets. Silver could not understand that this slogan was a demand for political power, was ultimately, a demand for the dictator-ship. He says: "The Russian workers didn't ask for a proletarian dictatorship but for 'All Power to the Soviets,' to what was nearest to an economic organization of the Russian workers." He calls the Soviets the "quasi-economic" organizations, corresponding to the Industrial Union in the United States. He makes a great point that the Soviet won the proletarian dictatorship for Russia. He says, "The Soviet is the 'Industrial Union' of Russia and the Industrial Union is the 'Soviet' of the United States." 

The Soviet, my dear Mr. Silver, cannot be so separated from the dictatorship of the proletariat. Between the February and October revolutions there was a transition period .in Russia where two powers were in existence side by side struggling for control. There was a government, endeavoring to carry out the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and to thwart the rising proletarian revolution. There was the Soviet, in which the Bolsheviks were at .first a minority and therefore, whose function was prostituted by the Mensheviks and other lackeys of the bourgeoisie. The demand for "All Power to the Soviet" was the demand for the smashing of the bourgeois government, the demand that the Soviets should take their proper functions, the demand for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets are the apparatus, revealed by hi.story, through which the dictatorship of the proletariat functions. The Soviets are an 'international form-this is shown by history. They are not an economic organization but the form through which the dictatorship is ex-pressed. 

The revolutions of Hungary, Bavaria, Germany and the recent revolution in Canton show that the Soviets are an international form.

Lenin, in "Ueber Gewerkschaften" (Berlin, 1917), says, "'The Soviet movement has ceased to be a movement of the Russian proletariat. It has been taken up by the international proletariat in its struggle for power. It has become a second stage in the universal development of the socialist revolution. The first stage in this development was the Paris Commune, which showed that the working class will achieve socialism only through dictatorship, only through the violent suppression of the exploiters. . . . The second stage of the world development of the socialist revolution is proletarian government. At first it ( the Soviet) was regarded as a purely Russian phase, and facts seemed to confirm this. But events have shown that it is not merely a Russian phase, hut an international form of the proletarian struggle; that the war which reshuffled the proletarian and semi-proletarian masses, created a new form of organization, which rose up to confront predatory imperialism a d the capitalist class ·with its hitherto unparalleled profits.,' (my emphasis-KR)

This might have been written especially in answer to the S. L. P. conception of the Soviet as a purely Russian form. Please notice one other point. The dictatorship of the proletariat is an instrument of force. And the workers of Russia, as Lenin points out, were enabled to achieve "All power to the Soviets" because they were armed, and because the bourgeoisie was helpless in the face of the armed workers. The question of force will be touched on in an-other article. It need only here be observed that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the exercise of the force of the working class against the exploiters. Lenin points out three reasons why the exploiters must be crushed:
(1) the workers must overcome the power of international capitalism;
(2) the exploiters have advantages after the revolution; they retain property, they have skill at business, they retain money, etc. ;
( 3) the power of small production can be destroyed only gradually. 

Thus he gives as tasks of the dictatorship, functioning through the Soviet government:
( 1) to break down the resistance of the landlords and capitalists, to liquidate counter-revolution;
(2) to organize the new government through the solidification of all the toilers around the proletariat and to direct the efforts of this government toward the abolition of all classes;
(3) TO ARM THE REVOLUTION, TO ORGANIZE THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMY for the struggle against foreign enemies and counter-revolutionists (See Stalin's article-"Problems of Leninism"). Thus we have Lenin's definition in State and Revolutions; "The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie limited by no law, based upon force and enjoying the sympathy and support of the toiling and exploited masses." So much for the S. L. P. claim that the advocacy of the use of force, of the arming of the workers, is "nonsense." 

Why is the Soviet the best form for the dictatorship of the proletariat? Lenin brilliantly answers this question, defining and describing the function of the Soviet, in his brochure, Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power, written on the eve of the November revolution. He says: "The Soviets are the new state machinery. In the first place they give expression to the armed force of the workers and peasants; in such a way, however, that this force is not divorced from the people, as was the force of the c,}d standing army, but is bound up with them as closely as possible. In a military sense this force is incomparably greater than the former; in relation to the revolution it is second to none. Secondly, the link of this machinery with the masses, with the majority of the people, is so intimate, so indissoluble, so readily verified and renewable that nothing like it is even approached in the former state. Thirdly, this machinery, because it is elective and its constitution is revocable in accordance with the will of the people without any formalities, is far more democratic than that of the old governments. Fourthly, it yields a firm connection with the most varied industries and professions thus facilitating all sorts of most radical reforms without any bureaucracy. Fifthly, it gives form to the organization of the vanguard, that is the most conscious, most energetic, most progressive section of the oppressed classes of the workers and peasants, and is thus an apparatus whereby the vanguard of the oppressed classes can uplift, educate and lead in its train the whole gigantic mass of these classes which have until now stood quite outside all political life, outside history. Sixthly, it makes it possible to unite the advantages of parliamentarism with the advantages of immediate and direct democracy-that is, to unite in the persons of elected representatives of the people both legislative and executive functions. In comparison with bourgeois parliamentarism it is a step forward in the development of democracy which has a historical world significance." ( Lenin's emphasis-K. R.) 

This shows clearly the S. L. P. misconception with regard to the function of the Soviet. The Soviet is not an invention of Lenin's but grew out of history, just as the Paris Commune was not an invention. Lenin in the above citation, characterized the function and role of the Soviet in masterly fashion. 

Lenin, in Soviets at Work summarizes the Soviet's role in the following words: 

"The Soviet rule is nothing else than the organized form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of an advanced class awakening to a new democracy, to independent participation in the administration of the state." 

PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP AND INDUSTRIAL UNION 

The S. L. P. says that the proletarian dictatorship is "nonsense" so far as the United States is concerned. That here, because the workers are in a majority, the industrial union will replace the dictatorship. "The industrial union fills the need here," says the pamphlet, Workers Party vs. S. L. P. 

Silver in that debate above, says: "Lenin says that the industrial union is the same as the Soviet." Not at all. Lenin says nothing of the kind, as will be shown below. Silver further says, "How can you organize the workers into industrial unions in Russia when only a small minority are industrial workers? You cannot shave your beard when you are too young to have a beard." 

This is typical of the S. L. P. standard of argument. The industrial unions of Russia have around ten million members, more than any other country in the world, but Silver says "it can't be done.» So we must take Silver's word against the accomplished fact. 

It is also worthy of note that the S. L. P .. killed their industrial union, the Workers International Industrial Union, because they admitted it was so small that it was a mere shadow of the emaci-ated S. L. P. According to their theory that the imperialist United States leads the way for the Soviet Union the industrial unions should have more members here than in the Soviet Union. But here practically none exist at all. 

In Russia the role of the trade unions in relation to the party and the state has been fully discussed. In 1921 there was a "workers' opposition," which had some of the same syndicalist tendencies as are manifested by the S. L. P. This opposition faded into thin air because the objective conditions proved them wrong and Lenin right. · The opposition of 1921 had attributed to the trade unions functions that could be carried out only by the proletarian state. One paragraph of their thesis said:

"The organization and management of national economy is the function of the All-Russian Congress of Producers, organized in the trade unions, which elect the central organ of the management of the whole of the economy of the country."

Lenin answered-and his answer also refutes the S. L. P .-in a speech delivered March 16, 1921, that Engels had spoken of the "union of producers" in a society where classes did not exist, in complete socialism. But in the Soviet Union, in the transition stage "we have whole groups of remnants of and survivals of capitalism ... classes have remained in our country and will remain for a long time." Lenin continues, "when these class relations have remained, when remnants of the bourgeoisie are still to be found in the cracks and crevices of the internal life of our Soviet institutions, the advancement of a platform and thesis of this kind, under these conditions, is an obvious deviation in the direction of syndicalism and anarchism." 

De Leon, and the S. L. P. were and are mistaken in believing that the industrial union can abolish capitalism and all its remnants at one blow and then proceed to run a classless society. No, the dictatorship is necessary. The resolution of the C. P. of Russia, 1921 Congress, on the party, said:

"Only the political party of the working class, that is, the Communist Party, can unite, train and organize the vanguard of the proletariat and the masses of the toilers to be able to resist the inevitable petty-bourgeois waverings of this mass, to resist the traditions and the inevitable lapses of the proletariat to craft narrowness and craft prejudices, and to lead all sides of the proletarian movement, which means the whole mass of the toilers."

And in the United States especially, this wavering will have to be overcome. In the Soviet Union, even after ten years of proletarian dictatorship, when the industrial unions have become mass organizations, they cannot become the state. Lenin again touched this subject in a speech of December 30, 1920 (Vol. 18, Russian edition), delivered to the communist fraction of the 8th All-Russian Congress of Soviets. He said: 

"The trade unions, which include practically all the industrial workers, represent, on the one hand, an organization of the ruling, dominating, and governing class, of that class which effects the state compulsion. But it is not a state organization, it is not an organization of compulsion, it is an educational organization, an organization which draws in and trains the workers. It is a school, a school of management, a school of communism. This is a very unusual type of school, for in it we do not find teachers and pupils, but a very peculiar combination of what has been left and could not help being left from capitalism, together with what the revolutionary advanced detachments, the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat is bringing forth."

Lenin then explains why, during the transition period, the trade unions cannot act as the state;

"The trade unions stand, if we may say so, between the Party and the state. During the transition to socialism, a dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, but this dictatorship is not operated by the 100 per cent organizations of the industrial workers. Why? . . . The Party absorbs the vanguard of the proletariat; and thus it is impossible for the trade unions to effect the dictatorship, to carry out the functions of government. These functions have to be performed through a number of special institutions of an entirely new type, namely, through the Soviet apparatus. . .  The trade unions create the connection between the vanguard and the masses. The trade unions educate the masses by their everyday work. . . . That is one aspect of the question. The other is that the trade unions are the 'reservoir' of the government. . . . But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be effected through the 100 per cent organization, for not only in Russia, but even in all the other capitalist countries, the proletariat is so divided, so humiliated, so corrupted in places ( namely by imperialism in some countries) that it is impossible to operate the dictatorship of the proletariat through the 100 per cent organization. The dictatorship of the proletariat can be effected only by the vanguard which has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. This results in a sort of a system of cogwheels. Such is the mechanism of the very basis of the proletarian dictatorship, of the very essence of the transition from capitalism to communism. The dictatorship cannot be effected without several 'transmission lines,' from the vanguard to the mass of the advanced class, and from the latter ( the trade unions) to the mass of the toilers. In Russia this is a peasant mass, but even in the most advanced countries there is a non-proletarian or an 'impurely' proletarian mass." (My emphasis-K. R.)

Lenin also shows, in About the Trade Unions, that the trade unions in Russia have a double function. Being a part of the proletarian state, they must increase the production, take part in the organs of government and build up the industrial economy. On the other hand, they must guard against bureaucracy which inevitably creeps into the Soviet apparatus. The trade unions must protect the interests of the masses of the toilers against bureaucracy and in addition participate in the work of the Soviet state. 

The errors of the S. L. P ., basing itself on the blueprint of De Leonism, now become clear to us. They would have the organizations embracing all the workers, lead where only the revolutionary vanguard of the working class, the Communist Party, can lead in crushing out the old society and building the new. Fundamentally these attacks on the C. I. and the Soviet Union are based on the fact that the S. L. P. is not a Marxian organization, but a revision- ist organization which takes its place side by side with the social democracy in denying the dictatorship of the proletariat which is a fundamental part of Marxism. 

The S. L. P. and De Leonism denies entirely the necessity for the transition period, and with the anarchists, would merely destroy the state entirely at one blow. The S. L. P. and De Leonism dis-tort the role of the party and the trade unions, and follow a Utopian blueprint which excludes the learning of any lessons from the Russian revolution and from the dictatorship of the proletariat there. The S. L. P. and De Leonism denies also the necessity for civil war to overthrow the capitalist dictatorship, and denies the element of compulsion and force necessary to the seizing of political power by the workers. 

I close this article with a quotation from Lenin which it seems to me characterizes, although too mildly, the stupidity and opportunism of the S. L. P.: 

"It would be the greatest stupidity and the most absurd opportunism to suppose that the transition from capitalism to socialism is possible without compulsion and dictatorship. Russia of 1917-1918 confirms in this respect the Marxian theory so clearly, palpably and convincingly that only those who are hopelessly stupid or who have firmly determined to ignore the truth can still err in this respect." (From Soviets at Work.)

Karl Reeve

Source: Articles from " The Communist " 2018- 2019