Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolshevism, said that the Soviet Union not Socialist but in truth ANTI-COMMUNIST see why
"Red Symphony", by Dr. J. Landowsky; translated by George Knupffer
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/red-symphony.html
G. - Is the Soviet Union not Socialist?
R. - For me only in name. It is just here that we find the true reason for the opposition. Agree with me, and by the force of pure logic you must agree, that theoretically, rationally, we have the same right to say - no, as Stalin can say - yes. And if for the triumph of Communism defeatism can be justified, then he who considers that Communism has been destroyed by the bonapartism of Stalin and that he betrayed it, has the same right as Lenin to become a defeatist.
G. - I think, Rakovsky, that you are theorizing thanks to your manner of making wide use of dialectics. It is clear that if many people were present here, I would prove this; all right, I accept your argument as the only one possible in your position, but nevertheless I think that I could prove to you that this is nothing other than a sophism. But let us postpone this for another occasion; some day it will come. And I hope that you will give me the chance to reply. But at the present moment I shall only say this: if your defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has as its object the restoration of Socialism in the USSR, real Socialism, according to you - Trotzkyism, then, insofar as we have destroyed their leaders and cadres, defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has neither an objective nor any sense. As a result of defeat now there would come the enthronement of some Führer or fascist Tsar. Is that not so?
R. - It is true. Without flattery on my part - your deduction is splendid.
G. - Well, if, as I assume, you assert this sincerely, then we have achieved a great deal: I am a Stalinist and you a Trotzkyist; we have achieved the impossible. We have reached the point at which our views coincide. The coincidence lies in that at the present moment the USSR must not be destroyed.
R. - I must confess that I had not expected to face such a clever person. In fact at the present stage and for some years we cannot think of the defeat of the USSR and to provoke it, as it is known that we are at present in such a position, that we can not seize power. We, the Communists, would derive no profit from it. This is exact and coincides
{p. 12} with your view. We can not be interested now in the collapse of the Stalinist State; I say this and at the same time I assert that this State, apart from all that has been said, is anti-Communistic. You see that I am sincere.
G. - I see that. This is the only way in which we can come to terms. I would ask you, before you continue, to explain to me that which seems to me a contradiction: if the Soviet State is anti-Communistic to you, then why should you not wish its destruction at the given moment? Someone else might be less anti-Communistic and then there would be fewer obstacles to the restoration of your pure Communism.
R. - No, no, this deduction is too simple. Although the Stalinist bonapartism also opposes Communism as the napoleonic one opposed the revolution, but the circumstance is clear that, nevertheless, the USSR continues to preserve its Communistic form and dogma; this is formal and not real Communism. And thus, like the disappearance of Trotzky gave Stalin the possibility automatically to transform real Communism into the formal one, so also the disappearance of Stalin will allow us to transform his formal Communism into a real one. One hour would suffice for us. Have you understood me?
G. - Yes, of course; you have told us the classical truth that nobody destroys that which he wants to inherit. Well, all right; all else is sophistical agility. You rely on the assumption which can be easily disproved: the assumption of Stalin's anti-Communism. Is there private property in the USSR? Is there personal profit? Classes? I shall not continue to base myself on facts - for what?
R. - I have already agreed that there exists formal Communism. All that you enumerate are merely forms.
G. - Yes? For what purpose? From mere obstinacy?
R. - Of course not. This is a necessity. It is impossible to eliminate the materialistic evolution of history. The most that can be done is to hold it up. And at what a price? At the cost of its theoretical acceptance, in order to destroy it in practice. The force which draws humanity towards Communism is so unconquerable that that same force, but distorted, opposed to itself, can only achieve a slowing down of development; more accurately - to slow down the progress of the permanent revolution.
G. - An example?
R. - The most obvious - with Hitler. He needed Socialism for victory over Socialism: it is this his very anti-Socialist Socialism which is National-Socialism. Stalin needs Communism in order to defeat Communism. The parallel is obvious. But, notwithstanding Hitler's anti-Socialism and Stalin's anti-Communism, both, to their regret and against their will, transcendentally create Socialism and Communism ...; they and many others. Whether they want it or not, whether they know it or not, but they create formal Socialism and Communism, which we, the Communist-Marxists, must inevitably inherit.
