In his mistaken expectation of a peaceful period after the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, Lenin turned to the task of developing an economic strategy leading on from where his The Threatening Catastrophe, written six months earlier, left off. During the months of March-June 1918 he devoted himself to seeking ways of managing industry and achieving some measure of economic reconstruction.
The whole of Russia was in a state of turmoil. A vivid description of the economic breakdown is given by an English observer, a reporter for the Manchester Guardian, travelling in Russia during 1917 and 1918:
It is no exaggeration to say that during November, December, and the greater part of January something approaching anarchy reigned in the industries of Northern Russia ... There was no common industrial plan. Factory Committees had no higher authority to which to look for direction. They acted entirely on their own and tried to solve those problems of production and distribution which seemed most pressing for the immediate future and for the locality. Machinery was sometimes sold in order to buy raw materials. The factories became like anarchistic Communes ... anarcho-syndicalist tendencies began to run riot. [1]
War-damaged industry continued to run down. ‘The bony hand of hunger’, with which the capitalist Riabushinsky had threatened the revolution, gripped the whole population in the spring of 1918. Powerful evidence of the gravity of the situation was provided by a telegram which Lenin and the food Commissar, Tsiurupa, dispatched to all provincial Soviets and food committees on 11 May 1918:
Petrograd is in an unprecedentedly catastrophic condition. There is no bread. The population is given the remaining potato flour and crusts. The Red capital is on the verge of perishing from famine. Counter-revolution is raising its head, directing the dissatisfaction of the hungry masses against the Soviet Government. In the name of the Soviet Socialist Republic, I demand immediate help for Petrograd. Telegraph to the Food Commissariat about the measures you have taken. [2]
Bread riots were widespread throughout the country.
The famine was so acute [wrote Victor Serge] that at Tsarkoe Selo, not far from Petrograd, the people’s bread ration was only 100 grams per day. Rioting results. Cries of ‘Long live the Constituent Assembly!’ and even ‘Long live Nicholas II!’ were heard (this on 6–7 April). On 19 April there were ‘hunger riots’ ... at Smolensk ... In this period [writes one worker-militant] hardly any horses were to be seen in Petrograd; they were either dead, or eaten or requisitioned, or sent off into the countryside. Dogs and cats were no more visible either ... People lived on tea and potato-cakes made with linseed oil. As a member of the EC of the Vyborg Soviet [in Petrograd] I know that there were whole weeks in which no issues of bread or potatoes were made to the workers; all they got was sunflower seeds and some nuts ... Soviet power seemed to be in a desperate situation. [3]
Speaking in Moscow before a popular meeting, Trotsky displayed a sheaf of telegrams: ‘Viksi, Nizhni-Novgorod province: the shops are empty, work is going badly, shortage of 30 per cent of the workers through starvation. Men collapsing with hunger at their benches.’ From Serglev-Posada the telegram says: ‘Bread, or we are finished!’ From Bryansk, 30 May: ‘Terrible mortality, especially of children, around the factories of Maltsov and Bryansk; typhus is raging.’ From Klin, near Moscow: The town has had no bread for two weeks.’ ‘From Paslov-Posada: The population is hungry, no possibility of finding corn.’ From Dorogobuzh: ‘Famine, epidemics ...’ [4]
One of the causes of the famine was the breakdown of transport. The number of disabled locomotives increased from 5,100 on January 1917 to 10,000 on 1 January 1918; so that by the latter date 48 per cent of the total were out of commission. [5]
Industry was in a state of complete collapse. Not only was there no food to feed the factory workers; there was no raw material or fuel for industry. The oilfields of the Baku, Grozny and Emba regions came to a standstill. The situation was the same in the coalfields. The production of raw materials was in no better a state. The cultivation of cotton in Turkestan fell to 10–15 per cent of the 1917 level.
The collapse of industry meant unemployment for the workers. In Petrograd 18,000 workers from the ‘Treugolnik’ plant were thrown out of work, when the establishment was closed because of lack of fuel. The Petrograd tube works were transferred to Penza: 20,000 Petrograd workers lost their jobs. At the works of Siemens and Halske, the numbers of men fell from 1,200 to 700, and later to 300. The Nevsky shipbuilding works also closed, 10,000 men being dismissed. The Obukhov works were shut down, due to lack of coal. Altogether, 14,000 men were dismissed. The same thing happened at the Putilov works, where more than 30,000 men were laid off. [6]
A similar collapse of industry and mass sackings of workers took place in other towns. Drastic measures had to be taken. And Lenin was not one to shirk responsibility, however unpleasant the task.
Lenin had earlier, in The Threatening Catastrophe, developed and elaborated the transitional programme of reforms which had been put forward by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto to follow the proletarian conquest of power. Now, in March/April 1918, he produced an entirely new formulation: between capitalism and socialism one must have ‘state capitalism’, which for him was synonymous with the state regulation of private industry. The defence of state capitalism constituted the essence of his economic policy for this period. By it he meant an extended period of joint management with privately owned industry. He thought that future economic development would proceed chiefly by way of mixed companies, state and private, the attraction of foreign capital, the granting of concessions, etc., i.e. capitalist and semi-capitalist forms of production controlled and directed by the proletarian state. Under these conditions the cooperative organizations would take part in the distribution of goods produced by state capitalist industry, and consequently would become a constituent part of the state capitalist economic apparatus linking industry with the peasantry. [A]
State capitalism, of course, is not what we are aiming to achieve: ‘We ... must tell the workers: Yes, it is a step back, but we have to help ourselves to find a remedy.’ [8]
Lenin did not stop at a declaration of intent. He took active steps towards achieving a partnership between private capital and the state. Accordingly negotiations were opened with Meshchersky, a prominent iron and steel magnate whose group owned the principal locomotive and wagon-building works in the country. In March 1918 Meshchersky put forward an ingenious proposal by which his group would hold half the shares in a new metallurgical trust, and the state the other half, the group undertaking the management of the trust on behalf of the partnership. By a narrow majority VSNKh, the Supreme Council of National Economy, decided to negotiate on this basis. About the same time Stakhaev, another industrialist, proposed a trust for the iron and steel industry of the Urals, 200 million rubles of the share capital to be subscribed by his group, 200 million by the state, and too million by unnamed American capitalists. An alternative proposal was for the state to put up all the capital, and for the Stakhaev group to manage the trust on behalf of the state.
Another group of financiers advanced a scheme for the formation of international trading companies – Russo-French, Russo-American, Russo-Japanese – to develop foreign trade on the basis of an exchange of goods. About this time a memorandum was prepared on Russian – American commercial relations, in which American capital was to be invited to participate in the exploitation of the fishing, mining, construction and agricultural resources of Siberia and northern Russia. [9]
In industry generally, Lenin tried to achieve a working compromise between the ruling proletariat and the still property-owning capitalists. Thus the decree on workers’ control of 14 (27) November gave the factory committees ‘the right to supervise the management’ and ‘to determine a minimum of production’ and the right of access to all correspondence and accounts; at the same time the general instructions appended to the decree expressly reserved to the proprietor the exclusive right of giving orders about the conduct of the enterprise, and forbade the factory committees to interfere in this or to countermand such orders. Article 9 forbade committees ‘to take possession of the enterprise or direct it’, except with the sanction of the higher authorities. Lenin was adamant on the need to make the compromise between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the capitalists.
the present task could not be defined by the simple formula: continue the offensive against capital. Although we have certainly not finished off capital and although it is certainly necessary to continue the offensive against this enemy of the working people, such a formula would be inexact, would not be concrete, would not take into account the peculiarity of the present situation in which, in order to go on advancing successfully in the future, we must ‘suspend’ our offensive now.
This can be explained by comparing our position in the war against capital with the position of a victorious army that has captured, say, a half or two-thirds of the enemy’s territory and is compelled to halt in order to muster its forces, to replenish its supplies of munitions, repair and reinforce the lines of communication, build new storehouses, bring up new reserves, etc. To suspend the offensive of a victorious army under such conditions is necessary precisely in order to gain the rest of the enemy’s territory, i.e. in order to achieve complete victory. Those who have failed to understand that the objective state of affairs at the present moment dictates to us precisely such a ‘suspension’ of the offensive against capital have failed to understand anything at all about the present political situation. [10]
Lenin stated unambiguously that economic collapse could not be stopped without the correct use of the bourgeois technicians, the specialists. ‘It is now an immediate, ripe and essential task to draw the bourgeois intelligentsia into our work.’ [11]
Without the guidance of experts in the various fields of knowledge, technology and experience, the transition to socialism will be impossible, because socialism calls for a conscious mass advance to greater productivity of labour compared with capitalism, and on the basis achieved by capitalism.
Lenin goes on to discuss the question in the most practical way.
Let us assume that the Russian Soviet Republic requires one thousand first-class scientists and experts ... Let us assume also that we shall have to pay these ‘stars of the first magnitude’ ... 25,000 rubles per annum each. Let us assume that this sum (25,000,000 rubles) will have to be doubled (assuming that we have to pay bonuses for particularly successful and rapid fulfilment of the most important organization and technical tasks), or even quadrupled (assuming that we have to enlist several hundred foreign specialists, who are more demanding). The question is, would the annual expenditure of fifty or a hundred million rubles by the Soviet Republic for the purpose of reorganizing the labour of the people on modern scientific and technological lines be excessive or too heavy? Of course not. The overwhelming majority of the class-conscious workers and peasants will approve of this expenditure because they know from practical experience that our backwardness causes us to lose thousands of millions ... The corrupting influence of high salaries – both upon the Soviet authorities ... and upon the mass of the workers – is indisputable. Every thinking and honest worker and poor peasant, however, will agree with us, will admit, that we cannot immediately rid ourselves of the evil legacy of capitalism. [12]
The proletariat has no alternative. Having achieved power, it must turn to the experience gained under capitalism.
Only those are worthy of the name of communists who understand that it is impossible to create or introduce socialism without learning from the organizers of the trusts. For socialism is not a figment of the imagination, but the assimilation and application by the proletarian vanguard, which has seized power, of what has been created by the trusts. We, the party of the proletariat, have no other way of acquiring the ability to organize large-scale production on trust lines, as trusts are organized, except by acquiring it from first-class capitalist experts.
But Lenin does not hide the harsh truth: giving privileges to specialists is a violation of communist principles.
Now we have to resort to the old bourgeois method and to agree to pay a very high price for the ‘services’ of the top bourgeois experts ... Clearly, this measure is a compromise, a departure from the principles of the Paris Commune and of every proletarian power, which calls for the reduction of all salaries to the level of the wages of the average worker, which urge that careerism be fought not merely in words, but in deeds.
Moreover, it is clear that this measure not only implies the cessation – in a certain field and to a certain degree – of the offensive against capital (for capital is not a sum of money, but a definite social relation); it is also a step backward on the part of our socialist Soviet state power, which from the very outset proclaimed and pursued the policy of reducing high salaries to the level of the wages of the average worker.
Marxists never hide the truth from the working class. To conceal from the people the fact that the enlistment of bourgeois experts by means of extremely high salaries is a retreat from the principles of the Paris Commune would be sinking to the level of bourgeois politicians and deceiving the people. [13]
There were more difficult decisions to be accepted. To save industry from complete collapse, Lenin argued for the need to impose one-man management.
Given ideal class-consciousness and discipline on the part of those participating in the common work, this subordination would be something like the mild leadership of a conductor of an orchestra. It may assume the sharp forms of a dictatorship if ideal discipline and class-consciousness are lacking. But be that as it may, unquestioning subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of processes organized on the pattern of large-scale machine industry. [14]
The specialist-manager must, at the same time, be subjected to pressure both from below, i.e. from the workers, and from above, i.e. from the workers’ government and workers’ organizations – the Soviet and trade unions.
The masses must have the right to choose responsible leaders for themselves. They must have the right to replace them, the right to know and check each smallest step of their activity. [15]
when putting ‘management’ in the hands of capitalists Soviet power appoints workers’ Commissars or workers’ committees who watch the manager’s every step, who learn from his management experience and who not only have the right to appeal against his orders, but can secure his removal through the organs of Soviet power ... ‘management’ is entrusted to capitalists only for executive functions while at work, the conditions of which are determined by the Soviet power, by which they may be abolished or revised. [16]
One must learn to combine workers’ democracy with one-man management.
We must learn to combine the ‘public meeting’ democracy of the working people – turbulent, surging, overflowing its banks like a spring flood – with irondiscipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the Soviet leader, while at work.
We have not yet learned to do this.
We shall learn it. [17]
Undoubtedly, the opinion is very widely held ... that one-man dictatorial authority is incompatible with democracy, the Soviet type of state and collective management. Nothing could be more mistaken than this opinion. [18]
Lenin also grasped another nettle: the need to impose strict discipline in the factories. Breaking management discipline was a central motive of proletarian action during the weeks and months prior to the October revolution. Now the proletariat in power has to impose a new discipline, a proletarian kind of discipline. To start with, in a speech on 13 (26) January 1918, Lenin defined the necessary work discipline based on the collective will of the proletariat, as radically different from the discipline imposed under capitalism: ‘The socialist revolution is on, and everything now depends on the establishment of a discipline of equals, the discipline of the working masses themselves, which must take the place of capitalist barrack-room discipline.’ [19]
On 23 April 1918, Lenin repeated this point:
the most difficult, the gravest phase in the life of our revolution has now begun ... only iron endurance and labour discipline will enable the revolutionary Russian proletariat, as yet so solitary in its gigantic revolutionary work, to hold out till the time of deliverance when the international proletariat will come to our aid. [20]
Again, on 5 July 1918, he said:
We say that every new social order demands new relations between man and man, a new discipline. There was a time when economic life was impossible without feudal discipline, when there was only one kind of discipline – the discipline of the lash; and there was a time of the rule of the capitalists, when the disciplinary force was starvation. But now, with the Soviet revolution, with the beginning of the socialist revolution, discipline must be built on entirely new principles; it must be a discipline of faith in the organizing power of the workers and poor peasants, a discipline of comradeship, a discipline of the utmost mutual respect, a discipline of independence and initiative in the struggle. [21]
To impose discipline, Lenin calls for the application of the methods of capitalism itself. With implacable logic he demands the utilization of methods developed in order to intensify the exploitation of the workers, in order to raise productivity.
We must raise the question of piece-work and apply and test it in practice; we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system; [B]] we must make wages correspond to the total amount of goods turned out, or to the amount of work done by the railways, the water transport system, etc., etc ... The task that the Soviet government must set the people in all its scope is – learn to work. The Taylor system, the last word of capitalism in this respect, like all capitalist progress, is a combination of the refined brutality of bourgeois exploitation and a number of the greatest scientific achievements in the field of analysing mechanical motions during work, the elimination of superfluous and awkward motions, the elaboration of correct methods of work, the introduction of the best system of accounting and control, etc. The Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and technology in this field. The possibility of building socialism depends exactly upon our success in combining the Soviet power and the Soviet organization of administration with the up-to-date achievements of capitalism. We must organize in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system and systematically try it out and adapt it to our own ends. [22]
Lenin does not in any way disguise the nature of Taylorism as a method of increasing the intensity of labour. He had, after all, in 1914 described Taylorism as ‘man’s enslavement by the machine’. [23]
All the capitalist measures Lenin argued for – state capitalism, the employment of bourgeois specialists, one-man management, Taylorism, etc. – were necessary, in his view, because of the enormous threat facing the proletarian dictatorship in the form of the mass petty bourgeois peasantry. The island of industry in the hands of the proletariat might be engulfed by the vast seas of the backward peasantry.
He enumerated the socio-economic elements co-existing in the country as follows:
Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation. [24]
The greatest threat to workers’ power are the first two elements: in the transition from capitalism to socialism our chief enemy is the petty bourgeoisie, its habits and customs, its economic position. The petty proprietor ... has only one desire – to grab, to get as much as possible for himself. [25]
Either we subordinate the petty bourgeoisie to our control and accounting ... or they will overthrow our workers’ power as surely and as inevitably as the revolution was overthrown by the Napoleons and Cavaignacs who sprang from this very soil of petty proprietorship. [26]
Compared with petty bourgeois production and exchange, state capitalism, Lenin argues, has great positive advantages.
State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward ... because victory over disorder, economic ruin and laxity is the most important thing; because the continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most serious danger, and it will certainly be our ruin (unless we overcome it) ... state capitalism will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organize large-scale production on a national scale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.
In the first place, economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.
In the second place, there is nothing terrible in it for Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured. [27]
State capitalism is the bridge over which the peasantry will go forward to socialism. ‘If the petty bourgeois were subordinated to state capitalism, the class-conscious workers would be bound to greet that with open arms, for state capitalism under the Soviet government would be three-quarters of socialism.’ [28]
‘At present, petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called “national accounting and control of production and distribution”.’ [29]
The situation after the revolution demanded a totally new method of organizing the masses, according to Lenin:
We organized thousands under the tsar and hundreds of thousands under Kerensky. That is nothing, it does not count in politics. It was preparatory work, it was a preparatory course. Until the leading workers have learnt to organize tens of millions, they will not be socialists or creators of a socialist society, they will not acquire the necessary knowledge of organization. The road of organization is a long road and the tasks of socialist construction demand stubborn, long-continued work and appropriate knowledge, of which we do not have enough. [30]
The organizing work must also be radically new in qualitative terms. It must be practical and businesslike.
The chief and urgent requirement now is precisely the slogan of practical ability and businesslike methods ... One can say that no slogan has been less popular among [revolutionaries]. It is quite understandable that as long as the revolutionaries’ task consisted in destroying the old capitalist order they were bound to reject and ridicule such a slogan. For at that time this slogan in practice concealed the endeavour in one form or another to come to terms with capitalism, or to weaken the proletariat’s attack on the foundations of capitalism, to weaken the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. Quite clearly, things were bound to undergo a radical change after the proletariat had conquered and consolidated its power and work had begun on a wide scale for laying the foundations of a new, i.e. socialist, society. [31]
Of course the policy of concessions to capitalism – in the form of state partnership with private industry, the employment and granting of economic privileges to technicians and specialists, who were bourgeois elements inherited from the old regime, one-man management, Taylorism, etc. – put the proletarian regime at risk. Only fools would not see this. And Lenin as always calls a spade a spade: ‘the strength of the working class has always been that it looks danger boldly, squarely and openly in the face, that it does not fear to admit danger and soberly weighs the forces in “our” camp and in “the other” camp, the camp of the exploiters’. [32]
To face up to the threats to the proletarian power inherent in state capitalism does not mean to run away. Only cowards, argued Lenin, are paralysed by threats. What was necessary was to compromise with capitalist elements in the economic field, while strengthening the political dictatorship of the proletariat over them.
Of course we should not trust the bourgeois specialists:
the Soviet government has no loyal intelligentsia at its service. The intelligentsia are using their experience and knowledge – the highest human achievement – in the service of the exploiters, and are doing all they can to prevent our gaining victory over the exploiters ... We have no one to depend upon but the class with which we achieved the revolution and with which we shall overcome the greatest difficulties, cross the very difficult zone that lies ahead of us – and that is the factory workers, the urban and rural proletariat. [33]
Above all, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be strengthened. We must ‘ensure that we have a revolutionary authority, which we all recognize in words when speaking of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but instead of which we often see around us something as amorphous as jelly’. [34]
After coming to power Lenin had to face a very difficult theoretical and practical task: to give flesh and blood to the concept of the transition period between capitalism and socialism. Without attempting to evade the reality, Lenin made it clear that this period would be one in which contradictory elements from the past and the future would co-exist while struggling with each other.
Communist and capitalist economic organization have many common characteristics. The workers’ state – a transition stage between capitalism and communism – must inevitably include features of the society from whose ruins it rises, and some of the nuclei of the society of the future. These antagonistic elements will, however, be bound together in the transition period, the former being subordinated to the latter, the past to the future.
Workers’ power and workers’ control over production will immediately become a bridge between mental and manual labour, and the point of departure for their future synthesis, the total abolition of classes.
Technicians constitute a necessary element in the process of production, an important part of the productive forces of society, whether capitalist or communist. Under capitalism they form a level in the hierarchy of production. They come into being as part and parcel of this hierarchy, which socialism will abolish. In the transition period it will continue to exist in one sense, but in another it will be done away with. Insofar as mental labour remains the privilege of the few, hierarchical relations will continue to exist in the factories, railways, etc., even after the proletarian revolution. But as the place of the capitalist in the hierarchy will be taken by the workers’ state, i.e. by the workers as a collective, the technicians will be subordinated to the workers, and the mental hierarchy in this sense will be abolished. Workers’ control over technicians means the subordination of capitalist elements to socialist ones. The more effective workers’ power, and the higher the material and cultural level of the masses, the more will the monopolist position of mental workers be undermined; eventually it will be completely abolished and a full synthesis of mental and manual labour will be achieved.
The founders of marxism pointed out that, because of the dual role of technicians in their relation to workers in the process of production, their subordination to the interests of society as a whole would be one of the most difficult tasks faced by the new society. Thus Engels wrote:
If ... a war brings us to power prematurely, the technicians will be our chief enemies; they will deceive and betray us wherever they can and we shall have to use terror against them but shall get cheated all the same. [35]
The imposition of labour discipline would be very difficult. Every form of social production needs the co-ordination of the different people participating in it; in other words, every form of social production needs discipline. Under capitalism this discipline confronts the worker as an external coercive power, as the power which capital has over him. Under socialism discipline will be the result of consciousness, it will become the habit of a free people. In the transition period it has to be the outcome of a combination of the two elements – consciousness and coercion. The proletarian state institutions will constitute the organization of the masses as a conscious factor. Collective ownership of the means of production by the workers, i.e. the ownership by the workers’ state of the means of production, will be the basis for the conscious element in labour discipline. At the same time the working class as a collective, through its institutions – soviets, trade unions, etc. – will act as a coercive power in disciplining the individual workers in production.
The technicians, supervisors, etc., have a special place in labour discipline. Under capitalism, the supervisor is the means by which capitalist coercion of the worker is transmitted and exercised. Under communism a supervisor will not fulfil any coercive function. His relations with the workers will be analogous to those between a conductor and his orchestra, as labour discipline will be based on consciousness and habit. In the transition periods whereas the workers will be both a disciplining and a disciplined factor, a subject and an object, the technicians will serve only as a transmission mechanism, this time for the workers’ state, even though they formally retain the role of disciplining the workers. [36]
A. It should be noted that Lenin uses the term ‘state capitalism’ in a completely different context from that of many later Marxists, including the present write [7], when they describe Stalin’s Russia as state capitalist. For Lenin state capitalism meant private capitalism under state control (whether the state were a capitalist or a proletarian state). When Stalin’s Russia is called state capitalist, this means a regime under which the state is the repository of the means of production, and in which the proletariat is deprived of all political and economic power, while the bureaucracy carries out the functions of capitalism – the extortion of surplus value from the workers and the accumulation of capital.
B. F.W. Taylor, the American industrial expert (author of Principles of Scientific Management, 1911), pioneered the use of the stop-watch in industry as a means of extracting intensified labour from workers.
1. M. Philips Price, My Reminiscences of the Russian Revolution, London 1921, p. 212.
2. Chamberlin, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 416.
3. Serge, op. cit., p. 212.
4. ibid., p. 236.
5. Chamberlin, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 418.
6. Bunyan and Fisher, op. cit., pp. 649–50.
7. See T. Cliff, State Capitalism in Russia, London 1974.
8. Lenin, Works, Vol. 27, p. 301.
9. Carr, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 88–9; Bunyan and Fisher, op. cit.,. pp. 621–2.
10. Lenin, Works, Vol. 27, pp. 245–6.
11. ibid., p. 248.
12. ibid., pp. 248–50.
13. ibid., pp. 249, 350.
14. ibid., pp. 268–9.
15. ibid., p. 212.
16. ibid., p. 349.
17. ibid., p. 271.
18. ibid., p. 212.
19. ibid., Vol. 26, p. 500.
20. ibid., Vol. 27 , p. 231.
21. ibid., p. 515.
22. ibid., pp. 258–9.
23. ibid., Vol. 20, pp. 152–4.
24. ibid., Vol. 27, pp. 335–6.
25. ibid., p. 294.
26. ibid., p. 337.
27. ibid., pp. 338–9.
28. ibid., pp. 295–6.
29. ibid., p. 340.
30. ibid., p. 301.
31. ibid., pp. 213–4.
32. ibid., p. 396.
33. ibid., p. 475.
34. ibid., p. 218.
35. Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, op. cit., p. 493.
36. Cliff, State Capitalism in Russia, op. cit., pp. 124–41.
Last updated on 18.9.2012