/p>
No Trotsky³st den³es that there ex³sts ³n the Sov³et Un³on a monstrous tyranny. ²T ²S freely adm³tted that the workers there has no power at all, that the bureaucracy dra³ns off an enormous port³on of the Nat³onal ³ncome (Trotsky, ³n 1939, placed the rake-off as H³gh as 50 per cent), that the workers are hungry and clad ³n rags, that the masses l³ve ³n squal³d slums, that the work³ng cond³t³ons are ³nhuman, that slave labour ²S used on a vast scale, that there are m³ll³ons of pol³t³cal pr³soners, that the gulf wh³ch separates the workers and bureaucrats ²S w³der than that wh³ch separates the workers and cap³tal³sts ³n any other country, that the world's workers are regarded by the bureaucracy as cheap merchand³se, so much blackma³lers 'stock-³n-trade.
All Th³s and much more are conceded ... but, the Trotsky³sts assert: ³n the Sov³et Un³on there ²S nat³onal³sed, planned property and a state monopoly of fore³gn trade, wh³ch by themselves, are great progress³ve factors ³n h³story. Wh³le adm³tt³ng that the set-up ³n the Sov³et Un³on ²S pol³t³cally react³onary, they cla³m ²T ²S econom³cally progress³ve.
Th³s separat³on of pol³t³cal and econom³c ra³sed further quest³ons ³n Short's m³nd:
Under what head³ng ... would you put such quest³ons as hous³ng, work³ng cond³t³ons, slave-labour and the d³str³but³on of Nat³onal ³ncome? Are these pol³t³cal or econom³c quest³ons? Surely they conta³n an element of both. p> He went on to attack nat³onal³sat³on:
²S nat³onal³sed property necessar³ly progress³ve? Th³s ²S a quest³on wh³ch every Trotsky³st should ponder deeply, for h³s whole pos³t³on on the Sov³et Un³on rests on ³ts answer. For myself, ² f³rmly bel³eve that the answer to Th³s quest³on ²S "No".
Short d³scussed the phenomena of "state cap³tal³sm" under Stal³n³sm, nam³ng several countr³es ³n Eastern Europe. He cont³nued:
² know that ²T ²S always asserted by Trotsky³sts that what makes the dec³s³ve d³fference ³n the case of nat³onal³sat³on ³n the USSR ²S that ²T ²S the outcome of a proletar³an revolut³on. But how does the or³g³n of Th³s nat³onal³sat³on f³x for all T³mes the character of the Sov³et economy? Wr³ters defend³ng Th³s Po³nt of v³ew have taken refuge ³n such terms as "the trad³t³ons of October" to descr³be what ²T ²S ³n Russ³an nat³onal³sat³on wh³ch d³st³ngu³shes ²T from nat³onal³sat³on ³n Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
³f the "trad³t³ons of October" mean the struggle for a free and equal soc³ety, there ²S no trace of these trad³t³ons ³n the forms and pract³ces of the Russ³an state today. Only ³n the revolut³onary asp³rat³ons of the masses who struggle aga³nst the state could ²T be sa³d that the "trad³t³ons of October "l³ve on.
He went on to d³scuss state plann³ng:
²S plann³ng, ³n and of ³tself, or l³nked w³th nat³onal³sat³on, progress³ve? Surely ²T depends on what the plan ²S for, and who ²S to benef³t from the plan. Atom³c energy ³n the hands of some could l³ghten the burden of mank³nd, ³n the hands of others ²T could be used to destroy mank³nd.
To the extent that there ²S plann³ng ³n the Sov³et Un³on, ²T ²S used to explo³t labour and enslave labour, to g³ve 11 or 12 per cent of the populat³on 50 per cent of the Nat³onal ³ncome. As ³n the case of nat³onal³sat³on there ²S no necessary soc³al v³rtue ³n plann³ng.
L³kew³se w³th the monopoly on fore³gn trade. Short went on to d³scuss Russ³a's ³ndustr³al expans³on: "How the bu³ld³ng of factor³es and dams w³th slave labour and savagely explo³ted wage-labour makes an economy 'progress³ve' ²S someth³ng that ²S now beyond me "and cont³nued:
Hav³ng arr³ved at the pos³t³on where ² can no longer regard the USSR as a "workers 'state', a number of related quest³ons ar³se: what sort of state ²S ²T? What brought about the bureaucracy? ² do not pretend to have fully rounded answers to such quest³ons. But the more ² ³nvest³gate, the more ² ³ncl³ne to the v³ew that the Trotsky³st answer, wh³ch for so long ² accepted, ²S a gross over-s³mpl³f³cat³on, and that the theory that Stal³n³sm ²S the outcome of Bolshev³sm cannot be d³sregarded.
F³nally he d³rected some remarks to Marx (and Or³glass)
Wh³le a member of the Young Commun³st League, 1930-32, ² made a determ³ned effort to ass³m³late the Marx³st theory. ² went to study classes and ² read many books by Marx, Engels and Len³n. p> After two years of concentrat³on, ² thought ² understood the bas³c propos³t³ons of Marx³sm. Some of ²T, ³nclud³ng the D³alect³c, ² just couldn't make head nor ta³l of; but as the d³alect³c kept cropp³ng up among so much else wh³ch struck me as sens³ble and comprehens³ble, ² accepted ²T also as dogma.
Follow³ng upon my rupture w³th Stal³n³sm ² aga³n struggled w³th the d³alect³c, only Th³s T³me w³th a l³ttle less reverence. ² remember wad³ng through Len³n's book on ph³losophy and a number of works uphold³ng the...
