THIRD DAY (Afternoon)

In the first two days and in the morning of the third, we have extracted from Stalin’s well-known writing all the elements useful for establishing by which laws the economy of Russia is governed.

In terms of doctrine, we have thoroughly contested that an economy characterized by those laws can nevertheless be defined as socialism, even of the lower stage, and equally contested that, for this purpose, one can invoke the fundamental texts of Marx and Engels, where one clearly reads – though not with the banal ease of a comic novel – the economic characteristics proper to capitalism and those proper to socialism are clearly delineated, along with the phenomena that allow us to verify the economic transition from the former to the latter.

As a matter of fact, a series of stable conclusions have been reached. In the Russian domestic market, the law of value prevails; therefore: a) Products have the character of commodities; b) The market exists; c) Exchange occurs between equivalents, as the law of value dictates, and these equivalents are expressed in money.

The great mass of rural enterprises work solely with a view to commodity production, and partly with a form of allocation of products to the individual parcel worker (who, at other times, functions as a collective producer associated in the kolkhoz), a form that is even further from socialism and, in a certain sense, pre-capitalist and pre-mercantile.

Small and medium-sized enterpises that produce manufactured goods also work for mercantile placement.

Finally, the large factories are State-owned but are required to keep monetary accounts and to demonstrate that, respecting the law of value in the prices of outputs or expenses (raw materials, wages paid) and inputs (products sold), profitability is achieved, that is, a positive profit, a premium.

The demonstration regarding the meaning of the Marxist law of the rate of profit and its decrease has served to expose as hollow Stalin’s antithesis: since power is held by the proletariat, the great machine of nationalized industry does not pursue, as in capitalist countries the maximum volume of profit but is guided toward the maximum well-being of the workers and the people.

Apart from the broader reservations about the absence of radical conflicts between even the immediate interests of the workers of State industry and those of the Soviet people, a mishmash of isolated or associated peasants, shopkeepers, managers of small and medium-sized industrial enterprises, etc. etc., our demonstration that the capitalist law of the falling rate of profit prevails has been drawn from the asserted “law of the increase of national planned production in geometric progression.” If a five-year plan has imposed elevating production by twenty percent, that is, from one hundred to one hundred twenty, the subsequent plan will impose another twenty percent, meaning that production should go not from 120 to 140 but from 120 to 144 (a twenty percent increase on the 120 at the beginning of the new five-year period). Those familiar with numbers know that the difference seems negligible at first but then becomes gigantic: remember the story of the inventor of the game of chess whom the Emperor of China offered a reward? He asked that a grain of wheat be placed on the first square of the chessboard, two on the second, four on the third… Not all the granaries of the Celestial Empire sufficed before the sixty-four squares were exhausted.

Now, this law of fact, is nothing but the categorical imperative: produce more! An imperative specific to capitalism, derived from successive causes: increase in labor productivity – increase of material capital relative to labor capital in the organic composition of capital – decline of the rate of profit – compensation for this decline with the frenzied increase in capital invested and commodity production.

If we had begun to construct even a few molecules of socialist economy, we would realize it from the fact that the economic imperative has changed, and it is ours; the power of human labor is increased by technical resources: produce the same, and work less. And under true conditions of revolutionary proletarian power, in countries already overly equipped mechanically: produce less and work even less!

The last factual verification, after this (crucial) one that the directive is the increase of the mass of products, is that a large part of the products of the great State industry tends to be offloaded onto foreign markets. In such cases, it is openly declared that the relationship is mercantile not only in the accounting record but in the substance of things.

At bottom, here lies the admission that, even if only for reasons of world competition (always ready to fight not just with low prices but with cannon and atomic bombs), “the construction of socialism in one country” is not possible. Only in the absurd hypothesis that this country could close itself behind a real iron curtain would it be possible to begin converting the technical achievements of labor productivity, associated with planning “made by society in the interest of society”, into a reduction of internal labor effort and worker exploitation. Only in such a hypothesis could the plan, abandoning the mad geometric curve of capitalist dementia, declare: having reached a certain consumption standard for all inhabitants, fixed by the plans, no more will be produced, and the criminal temptation to continue forcing production to look beyond the circle where it can be flung and imposed, will be avoided.

All the attention of the Kremlin, both doctrinal and practical, is instead directed towards the world market.

Competition and Monopolies

An inadequate consideration of Marxist theories on modern colonialism and imperialism is that one must juxtapose them as different things, or at least as complementary developments, to the Marxist description of free competition capitalism as it would have developed roughly up to 1880.

With various contributions, we have insisted on the fact that the supposed objective description of the never-existent “liberal” and “peaceful” capitalism is, in Marx, nothing but a gigantic “polemical demonstration of party and class,” with which, accepting for a moment that capitalism functions according to the unlimited dynamic of free exchange among bearers of equal values (which expresses nothing but the famous law of value), one arrives at unearthing the essence of capitalism, which is a social monopoly of class, incessantly aimed, from the first episodes of primitive accumulation up to today’s wars of brigandage, at preying upon the differences engendered under the guise of contracted, free, and equal exchange.

If, having assumed the platform of exchange between commodities of equal value, the formation of surplus value and its investment and accumulation into new, increasingly concentrated capital is demonstrated, if it is demonstrated that the only way (compatible with the survival of the capitalist mode of production) to escape the contradictions between accumulation at the two poles of wealth and misery, and to defend itself against the subsequently deduced law of the falling rate of profit, is to produce more and more, always beyond the needs of consumption, it is clear that from the very first steps, the clash between the various capitalist States is delineated, each of which is led to attempt to have its commodities consumed in the other’s area, to ward off its crisis by provoking it in its rival.

Since official economics vainly attempts to prove that it is possible, with the formulas and canons of commodity production, to arrive at a stable equilibrium on the international market, and even maintains that crises will cease precisely insofar as civilized capitalist organization has extended everywhere, Marx must descend to discuss in abstract the laws of a fictitious single country of fully developed capitalism, which has no foreign trade, and demonstrate that it “must collapse.” It is all too clear that where the aforementioned relations between two closed economies arise, they are an element not of pacification but of upheaval, and the thesis opposing us is, a fortiori, lost. Our theoretical embarrassments would have been serious only if, in the first 50 years of the current century, we had continued to swim in economic and political milk and honey, with treaties of trade liberalization and neutrality and disarmament: instead, the world being a hundred times more capitalist has become a hundred times more shaken in every sense.

As usual, to show who is not changing the facts: note to paragraph 1 of Chapter 22 of Capital, Volume I. “Here, we abstract from foreign trade, by means of which a nation can convert luxury articles into means of production or subsistence necessities and vice versa. To conceive the object of the research in its purity, one must consider the commercial world as a single nation and assume that capitalist production has been established everywhere and has taken over all branches of industry.”

From the very beginning, the entire cycle of Marx’s work, in which (as we always assert) theory and program are at every stroke inseparable, tends to conclude at the stages where the contradictions of the first capitalist centers spill over onto the international plane. The demonstration that a pact of economic peace between social classes in a country is impossible as a definitive solution, and regressive as a contingent solution, fully parallels the similar demonstration regarding the illusory pact of peace between States.

It was repeatedly mentioned that Marx, in the preface to “A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy” of 1859, sketches this order of topics: capital, landed property, wage labor, State, international trade, world market. Marx says that under the first headings, he examines the conditions of existence of the three great classes into which present bourgeois society is divided, and adds that the unifying feature among the subsequent three headings “is obvious to all.”

When Marx begins the drafting of Capital, the first part of which absorbs the material of the Critique, the plan deepens on one hand and seems to narrow on the other. In the preface to the first volume, on the Process of Production of Capital, Marx announces that the second will deal with the Process of Circulation of Capital (simple and expanded reproduction of capital invested in production), and the third with the “Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole.” Aside from the fourth, on the history of the theory of value, of which there are materials already from the Critique, the third volume indeed tackles the description of the process as a whole, studies the division of surplus value among the profits of industrial capitalists, landed proprietors, and bank capital, and closes with the “fragmented” chapter on “Classes.” The drafting evidently had to develop along the problem of the State and the international market, for which other decisive texts of Marxism, both prior and later, provide.

Markets and Empires

In both the Manifesto and the first volume of Capital, as is well known, of primary importance are references to the formation in the 15th century, after the geographical discoveries, of the transoceanic market, as a fundamental datum of capitalist accumulation, along with the commercial wars among Portugal, Spain, Holland, France, and England.

At the time of the polemical and “combative” description of typical capitalism, it is the British Empire that dominates the world scene. Engels and Marx dedicate to this and its domestic economy the utmost attention. But this economy is liberalism in theory, imperialism and world monopoly in reality; and as early as 1885, at least, Lenin, in Imperialism, refers in this regard to the preface that Engels appended in 1892 to a new edition of his study “The Condition of the Working Class in England” from 1844. Engels refuses to erase from that youthful work the prophecy of the proletarian revolution in England. He finds it more important to have foreseen that England would lose its industrial monopoly in the world; and he was a thousand times right. If monopolism, according to the passages that Lenin cites, served to lull the English proletariat, the first one formed in the world with sharp class contours, the end of the British monopoly has sown the seeds of class struggle and revolution throughout the entire world; clear that it will take more time than in the fictitious “entirely capitalist single country,” but for us, the revolutionary solution is already anticipated in doctrine, and the ways and reasons for its “postponement” confirm it. It will come.

We quote a passage different from the one Lenin cites, from that text: “The theory of free trade had at bottom an assumption: that England was to become the sole great industrial center of an agricultural world, and the facts have completely disproved this assumption. The conditions of modern industry can be reproduced wherever there is fuel, especially coal, and other countries possess it: France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, America… (the new physical forms of energy today only reinforce this deduction). They began to manufacture not only for themselves but for the rest of the world, and the consequence is that the industrial monopoly that England possessed for almost a century is today irremediably broken.”

A paradox perhaps? We have been able to refute the comedy of free capitalism through the analysis of a contingent case, only because it was the most scandalous case in history, of a world monopoly. Laissez-faire, laissez-passer, but keep the navy armed, greater than the sum of all the others, ready to prevent any Napoleons from escaping their Saint Helenas…

In the previous installment, we cited a passage from Marx’s third volume, which, in a new synthesis of the characteristics of capitalism, closes with the clause: Formation of the world market. It would not be amiss to give another powerful glimpse.

“The true limit of capitalist production is capital itself. The fact that capital, with its own valorization, appears as the beginning and end, as the cause and aim of production, that production is nothing but production for capital, and that, on the contrary (attention! now the program! the program of socialist society!), the means of production are not merely means for an ever more extended development of the life process for the society of producers. The limits within which alone the preservation and valorization of capital-value, based on the expropriation and impoverishment of the great mass of producers, are thus in perpetual conflict with the methods of production that capital must employ to achieve its aim and which pursue the unlimited increase of production (Moscow, are you listening?); they assign to production as its aim production itself (Kremlin, are you on the line?) and have in view the absolute development of the social productivity of labor. This means – the unreserved development of the social productive forces – enters into permanent conflict with the reduced aim, the valorization of existing capital. If the capitalist mode of production is thus a historical means of developing the material productive forces and of creating the corresponding world market, it is at the same time a permanent contradiction between this historical mission and the corresponding conditions of social production.”

Once again, it remains reaffirmed that Russian “economic policy” does indeed develop material productive forces, does indeed extend the world market, but it does so in the capitalist forms of production, constituting indeed a useful historical means, as was the invasion of industrial economy to the detriment of the starving Scots and Irish or among the Indians of the Far West, but remaining fully within the inexorable jaws of the contradictions that bind capitalism, which enhances social labor yes, but by starving and tyrannizing the society of workers.

From every side, then, the world market, which Stalin has discussed, is the point of arrival. It has never been “unique” except in the abstract and could only be so in that hypothetical country of total and chemically pure capitalism, against which we have erected the mathematical demonstration of unfeasibility, such that if it were to come into being, it would soon shatter like certain atoms and crystals that can live only a fraction of a second. Thus, with the dream of a single sterling market fallen, Lenin provides the masterful description of the colonial and semi-colonial partitioning of the world among five or six imperialist State monsters on the eve of the First World War. This did not lead to a system of equilibrium but to a new distorted partitioning, and even Stalin admits this, recognizing that in the second war, Germany, having escaped “slavery” and “taking the path of autonomous development,” rightly directed its forces against the Anglo-Franco-American bloc. How then this reconciles with all the blatant propaganda about the non-imperialist but “democratic” war of such a bloc for so many years, up to the current uproars in the latest municipal councils for the pardon of the criminal Kesselring, is something that woe betide if comrade Jonov Doevsky dared to ask!

A new partition then, and a new source of war. But before moving on to Stalin’s judgment on the partition that followed the Second World War, we can’t resist presenting another of Lenin’s statements from Imperialism, particularly dedicated to our recent dialogue on the economic aspect. Lenin mocks a German economist, Liefmann, who, to sing the praises of imperialism, wrote: Trade is the industrial activity directed towards collecting, storing, and making goods available. Lenin delivers a blow that strikes far beyond Liefmann himself: “It follows that trade already existed among primitive men, who did not yet even know exchange, and that it will continue to exist even in socialist society!”. The exclamation mark, of course, is Lenin’s. Moscow, what do you have to say for yourself?

Parallel or Meridian

According to Stalin’s writing, the economic effect of the Second World War, more than putting out of action two major industrial and producing countries in search of markets, like Germany and Japan, neglecting Italy, was to split the world market in two. Initially, the expression “disintegration of the world market” is used, then it is specified that the single world market has split into two “parallel world markets, opposed to each other.” Which are the two camps are clear: on one side, the United States, England, France, with all the countries that have entered into orbit first of the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction, then of the Atlantic Plan for European and Western defense, or rather, for rearmament; on the other side, Russia, which, “subjected to a bloc together with the people’s democracies and China,” has formed with them a new and separate market area. The fact is geographically defined, but the formula is not very felicitous (save for the usual faults of the translators). Granted for a moment that on the eve of the Second World War there was a true single world market, accessible in every marketplace to products from any country, this does not break into “two world markets”, rather, the world market ceases to exist, and in its place are two international markets, separated by a strict curtain through which (in theory, and according to official customs, which nowadays know little) no passage of goods and currencies occurs. These two markets are opposed but “parallel.” This amounts to admitting that the domestic economies of the two great areas into which the earth’s surface has split are “parallel,” that is, of the same historical type, and this coincides with our doctrinal presentation and contradicts what Stalin’s writing intends to establish. In both camps, there are markets, therefore, a mercantile economy, hence a capitalist economy. Thus, the expression “parallel markets” may be acceptable, but we must firmly reject the definition that states the West has a capitalist market and the East a socialist market, a contradiction in terms.

This point of arrival of the two “semi-world” markets, divided roughly, at least regarding the more advanced part of the inhabited human territory, but not according to a parallel but according to the meridian of defeated Berlin, leads to a remarkable consequence in Stalin’s writing, especially if compared to the failed hypothesis of a single world market entirely controlled by a federation of States that emerged victorious from the war or controlled by the Western bloc alone with its center of gravity in the United States. The consequence is that “the sphere of application of the forces of the main capitalist countries (United States, England, France) to world resources will not expand but shrink; that the conditions of the world (we would say: foreign) market for these countries will worsen, and the contraction of production for their enterprises will be accentuated. This constitutes precisely the deepening of the general crisis of the world capitalist system.”

This has stuck a chord: while various puppets like Ehremburg or Nenni are sent around to promote “peaceful coexistence” and “emulation” between two parallel economic spheres, from Moscow it is stated that they still expect the Western sphere to collapse due to a crisis of drowning in too many useless products that cannot be sold (nor even given away, chaining recipients with century-long debts), and against which frenzied rearmament or wars in Korea and other imperialist brigandage fields are insufficient reactions.

If this has shaken the bourgeois, it is not enough to excite us Marxists. We must ask what such a process will determine in the “parallel” camp mentioned above; and with the official text, we have demonstrated the identical necessity to produce more and to offload products abroad. And we must then, as usual, draw the decisive conclusions from the rise of the historical current and the contradiction between this posthumous attempt to put the revolutionary vision of Marx-Lenin back on its feet: accumulation, overproduction, crisis, war, revolution! And the indelible historical and political positions assumed over a long course, which are persistently assumed in that mined West, in ruthless contradiction to every development of class pressure and revolutionary preparation of the masses.

Classes and States

Before the First World War, the clash is between two perspectives. The inevitable struggle for markets, which will provoke the war and the resumption of imperialist tension after the war, whoever wins it, up until the class revolution or the new universal conflict, constitutes Lenin’s perspective. The opposing one, of the traitors to the working class and the International, says instead that if the aggressor State (Germany) is crushed, the world will return to being civilized and peaceful, open to “social conquests.” To different perspectives, different consequences: the traitors invoke national union of the classes; Lenin invokes class defeatism within each nation.

The conflict had been postponed until 1914 insofar as the world market was still in “formation” in the Marxist sense. The basic concept of the formation of the world market, as we showed regarding capitalist mercantilism, is based on the “dissolution” – into the unique economic magma of the production, transport, and sale of products – of the restricted “spheres of life” and “circles of influence” proper to pre-capitalism, within which production and consumption occur within a local, autarkic economy, like that of aristocratic jurisdictions and Asiatic lordships. As long as these “fusions” of oil spots in the general solvent occur, both internally and externally, capitalism maintains the rhythm of its “geometric” swelling without bursting. That is not to say that islands enter into a single universal market without barriers: protectionism is very ancient for national areas, and the foreign markets, discovered by navigators, each nation tends to monopolize, with concessions from sovereigns and local sultans, with trading companies like the Dutch, Portuguese, and English ones, with the protection of State fleets, and initially even of pirate ships, of “partisan” raiders of the sea.

However, in Lenin’s description, not only are we near the saturation of the world, but the last arrivals are cramped in their areas of outlet; hence the war.

Second World War. The resurgence of Germany as a large industrial country is attributed by Stalin to the desire of Western powers to arm an aggressor against Russia. In truth, the primary causes were the non-devastation militarily of German territory and its non-occupation after the armistice. Stalin’s own development ends up admitting that imperialist and economic causes prevailed over “political” or “ideological” ones in determining the second conflict, from the moment Germany threw itself against the Westerners and not Russia. Thus, it remains established that the 1939 war and subsequent years were imperialist. Hence, the two perspectives were renewed: either toward new wars, whoever won, or toward revolution if the war was met not with solidarity between classes but with class confrontation – and opposed to this was the bourgeois perspective identical to that of the first war: everything depends on defeating criminal Germany; once achieved, we will sail toward pacifism, general disarmament, and liberty and well-being for all peoples.

Today, Stalin shows that he is for the first perspective, the Leninist one, by bringing forward again the imperialist explanation of the war and the struggle for markets; but it is too late for those who yesterday threw all the potential of the international movement onto the other perspective: the struggle for freedom against fascism and Nazism. That the two perspectives are incompatible is today admitted, but then why continue to steer the (now ruined) movement onto the track of the liberal, progressive, and petty-bourgeois version, onto that of the “war for ideals”?

Perhaps in order to prepare for a good political play in the new war, to be presented as a struggle between the capitalist ideal of the West and the socialist one of the East, and in the blatant contest of the politicking gangs on both sides, each hoping to drown the other in the fierce accusation of “fascism”?

Well, the interesting thing in Joseph Stalin’s writing is that he says: no.

Unshaken by the historic responsibility of having, in the Second World War, broken Lenin’s theory on the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries and with the only way out of it being class revolution, and worse still, of having broken the sole political directive consequent to that theory, by ordering communists, first in Germany then in France, England, and America, to make social peace with their bourgeois State and government, the head of today’s Russia halts the comrades who believe in the necessity of an armed clash between the “socialist” world, or semi-world, and the “capitalist” one. But instead of deflecting such a prophecy with the overused doctrine of pacifism, emulation, and coexistence between the two worlds, he says that it is only “in theory” that the contrast between Russia and the West is deeper than what can or may arise between one capitalist State and another in the West.

One can well, on the part of true Marxists, admit all the predictions about conflicts within the Atlantic group and the resurgence of autonomous and strong capitalisms in defeated countries like Germany and Japan. But Stalin’s point of arrival must be well analyzed, in the formulation in which we see invoked by analogy the aforementioned situation of the outbreak of the Second World War: “the struggle of capitalist countries for markets and the desire to drown their competitors proved, in practice, stronger than the contrasts between the capitalist camp and the socialist camp.”

What socialist camp? If, as demonstrated in your own words, your camp (which you label socialist) produces commodities for export at a pace you aim to maximize, is this not the same “struggle for markets” and the same “struggle to drown (or not be drowned by, which is the same) your competitor”? And in war, won’t you also be able or be compelled to enter as producers of commodities, which in Marxist language, means as capitalists?

The only difference between you Russians and the others is that those fully developed industrial countries are already beyond the alternative of “internal colonization” of surviving pre-mercantile islands, while you are still deeply engaged in that field. But only one consequence follows: given that war inevitably comes, those in the West will have more weapons, and after pressing you more and more on the terrain of market competition (having accepted exchanges of products and currencies, as long as you remain on the terrain of emulation you will have no other way than that of low costs, low wages, and the insane labor efforts of the Russian proletariat), they will defeat you on the military front.

How to avoid this, to prevent an American victory (which is also for us the worst of all evils)? Stalin’s formula is clever but is the best suited to continue the revolutionary sedation of the proletariat and to render to Atlantic imperialism the highest service. One avoids declaring to it the famous “holy war”, which would mean putting oneself in an unfavorable light in the idiotic world discussion about the aggressor, and falls back on an adulterated “determinism.” But even so, one does not return – and it would be historically impossible! – to the plane of class struggle and class war.

Stalinist language is equivocal. War, Lenin said, will come between capitalist States. What will we do? Will we shout, as he did, to the workers of all countries in both camps: class war, reversal of the rifle? Never again! We will make the same elegant maneuver of the Second World War. We will side with one of the camps, say with France and England against the United States. Thus, we will break the front; the day will come when, throwing ourselves against the last one remaining, even if a former ally, we will take him out too.

In the dark corridors, so much is peddled to the last naive proletarians not yet brought into line, by even worse means.

War or Peace

But then, many have asked the supreme leader, if we believe once again in the inevitable war, what to do with the vast machine we assembled for the pacifist campaign?

The answer reduces the possibilities of pacifist agitation to quite meagre proportions. It may postpone or defer some particular war, it may change a warmongering government into a pacifist one (and then, will the appetite for markets change or not, ten times put forth as the primary fact?). But war will remain inevitable. If in a certain area the struggle for peace develops, from a democratic and not a class movement, into a struggle for socialism, then it will no longer be a matter of ensuring peace (an impossible thing) but of overthrowing capitalism. And what will Fatty Nitti say? What will the hundred thousand fools who believe in international peace and domestic social peace say?

To eliminate wars and their inevitability, such is the conclusion, it is necessary to destroy imperialism.

Good! And so, how do we destroy imperialism?

“The present movement to maintain peace differs from the movement we carried out during the First World War to transform the imperialist war into civil war, as the latter movement went further and pursued socialist ends.” Very clear: Lenin’s directive was for social civil war, that is, of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

But in the Second World War, you already discarded social war and developed either national “collaboration” or “partisan” war, that is, not social war but rather the war of the advocates of one bourgeois and capitalist camp against the other.

So, will we take imperialism by the horn of peace or war? If one day imperialism and capitalism fall, will it be in peace or in war? In peace, you say: do not mock the U.S.S.R., and we act in the full legalitarian way; thus, no fall of capitalism. In war, you say: it is no longer the case of civil war everywhere as in the First World War, but the proletarians will follow the directive of looking at which capitalist camp we will side with, using our State and military apparatus from Moscow. This is how, country by country, the class struggle is smothered in mud.

There is no doubt that high capitalism, whatever the parliamentary and journalistic claptrap, well understands that Stalin’s “card” is not a declaration of war but a life insurance policy.

Jus Primae Noctis

After describing the great work accomplished by the Russian government in the technical and economic field, Stalin said, at least in the first reports: we found ourselves facing a “virgin terrain” and had to create new forms of economy from the ground up. This task, unprecedented in history, has been honorably completed.

Well, it’s true: you found yourselves before a virgin terrain. It was your fortune and the misfortune of the proletarian revolution outside Russia. The force of a revolution, whatever it may be historically, proceeds with all its vigor when it has to deal only with obstacles of a wild and fierce but virgin terrain.

But in the years when, after the conquest of power in the immense empire of the Tsars, the delegates of the red proletariat from around the world came to the Throne Halls resplendent with baroque gold, and it was a matter of marking out the lines of the revolution that was to overthrow the bourgeois imperial fortresses of the West, something fundamental was said in vain; and not even Vladimir understood. To this is due the fact that, even if the balance sheet of the great dams, the great power plants, and the colonization of immense steppes closes with honor, that of the revolution in the capitalist world of the West has closed not only dishonorably, which would be little, but with a disaster irreparable for long decades.

What was said to you in vain is that in the bourgeois world, in the world of Christian parliamentary and mercantile civilization, the Revolution found itself facing a whorish terrain.

You have allowed it to defile and perish.

Even from this sinister experience, She will be reborn.