Victor Serge on Stalinism

Victor Serge, Mexico, 1944.

Victor Serge, Mexico, 1944.

“It’s permissible to use the word treason when a man does, against his brothers, his party, and his people, the opposite of what he promises. The Bolshevism of 1917-1927 wanted a socialist regime founded on the democracy of labor and international solidarity. Lenin and Trotsky’s companions believed in this, they never stopped believing it even while committing their most dreadful mistakes. The republic of the Soviets defined itself as a “Commune-State,” “dictatorship against the expropriated possessing classes and the broadest workers’ democracy,” etc. The documents are so numerous that I’ll be forgiven if I quote none of them. It is perhaps justified to nevertheless recall Lenin’s final speeches and articles, in which is manifested his real fear for the bureaucratization of the regime. Neither the doctrine nor the intentions of the Bolshevik party aimed at the establishing of a totalitarian police state with the most vast concentration camps in the world. The Bolshevik party saw in the perils it confronted the excuse for its Jacobin methods. I think it’s undeniable that its Jacobinism contained in germ Stalinist totalitarianism, but Bolshevism also contained other seeds, other possibilities of evolution. The proof is in the struggles, the initiatives, and the final sacrifice of its various oppositions. I dare to assert that whoever would have predicted before 1927 what Stalinism made of the revolution would have been considered a contemptible and dangerous madman. (In order to be fair I add that the Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the anarchists, and some opposition communists, like Sapronov and Vladimir Smirnov demonstrated a clairvoyance in this regard that must be recognized today as admirable and that served only to render them unpopular, since they went against the general sentiment and the sincerity of the party.) It’s too little-known a fact that in 1925-1926 (I don’t have the exact date at hand) the Left Opposition, of which Trotsky was only one of the leaders, examined the possibility of seizing power by a coup de force whose success seemed probable. It had great support in the army and the political police, but it preferred to appeal to party opinion in order to avoid having to resort in governing to military and police methods it condemned in principle (Trotsky later published his reasons in the Russian edition of the Opposition Bulletin).

It is appropriate to remind James Burnham that in order to establish the totalitarian regime Stalin had to proceed to the systematic massacre of the old party and the revolutionary generation molded during the civil war. In this regard one should flip through Joseph E. Davies’ ambiguous book Mission to Moscow. From one page to another, like a leitmotiv, notes like this one reappear: “The terror is here a horrifying fact” [7](April 1, 1938). The solution of continuity between Bolshevism and Stalinism is bloody, attested to by figures that are, in fact, horrifying. More than 1500 members of the Soviet government disappeared in two years; all the superior officers of the Red Army were executed or sent to forced labor; the purges extended to more than 30,000 officers out of a total of 90,000 (and this on the eve of a world war!). The official statistics of the party show that in 1936-1939 463,000 Communists were expelled, that is most of them sent to concentration camps and the most energetic minority before the firing squad. To such an extent that the fascist reviews of Rome praised Stalin as the exterminator of the Bolsheviks. Lenin’s “heir,” according to Burnham, had to inflict this treatment on Lenin’s party in order to collect his inheritance! It is from thus evident that the great majority of the revolutionary generation refused him this inheritance and that rising Stalinism was in absolute contradiction with the aspirations and ideas of this generation. I wonder how a commentator as qualified as James Burnham can be ignorant of a historic fact of such importance.

From the Russian point of view the “grandeur” of Marshal Stalin is certainly not such as it might appear in the wartime American press. No genius is required to brutally and unscrupulously profit by circumstances as favorable as the collapse of the Nazi Empire, the powerlessness of a Poland bled white, and the weakness of the Balkan countries. In Russia Stalin remains, for those who know history, the fratricidal Old Bolshevik who Lenin recommended be removed from power and with whom he broke before dying. For those who survived the purges he remains the exterminator of their generations; for the adult population he remains the principle person responsible for the agricultural collectivization and famine of 1930-1934; the man who allowed himself to be fooled by Hitler and who was unable to prevent an invasion comparable in its scope and ravages only to the Mongol invasions of the twelfth century. He also remains the symbol of a system of terrorist repression aimed at all citizens without exception. The great military victory he carried off with Anglo-American assistance at an unimaginable price in blood, misery, and terror leaves the USSR as ruined, if not more so, than Germany. All the information we have shows that the living standard of the Soviet population (except in the furthest regions, where the lack of communication protects them from the state) is presently lower than the part of Germany occupied by the Anglo-Americans. The victory obtained under these conditions doesn’t dazzle the citizens who must pay its cost. And the Stalin experiment isn’t over; it is even being continued in such worrisome conditions for the USSR and the world that intellectuals concerned with understanding the march of history cannot be too prudent in their predictions.

“Stalin is communism,” [8] James Burnham concludes. Words change their meaning and this is perhaps nothing but a quibble over language. The Communist movement is in fact identified today with Stalin and his totalitarian system. It would be completely futile to continue to seek to make prevail in people’s minds a discrimination that demands erudition, however correct it might essentially be. It is nonetheless true that the humanist doctrine of Karl Marx, that returned the word communism to a place of honor, has only a distant – and often contradictory – relationship to Stalinism.” – Victor Serge, Lenin’s Heir? 1944

Advertisements

About bolshevikpunk

Mainline Marxism or Die. Activist, Student, and Degenerate.
This entry was posted in Marxism, marxist.org, quotes, stalinism, victor serge and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s