 possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party.

Otherwise the Soviets would be “shapeless parliaments of labor.” With this phrase (though probably not thought through as such) theory descends a level: it is no longer “parliamentary” democracy that is impugned but any representative democracy. The power of the party, Trotsky went on to admit, is “substituted” for the “power of the working class”—but this ‘substitutionism’ is a bit too frank and he takes part of the confession back.103

If our subject were broader, it would be necessary to continue detailing this theoretical debacle of Trotsky’s, but it is perhaps enough to say that he goes on to argue for the outright “militarization of labor.”104

Enough, for our purposes: we are so far from Marx’s original concept of class dictatorship that there is no connection. But one last concept must be reported on: the main contribution of Bukharin’s essay to the burial of democracy.

Why (Bukharin asked) were Communists formerly in favor of democracy, indeed bourgeois democracy, but are now opposed to it? Simple: it’s the difference in the “epoch.” In the past we had to present our “class demands” in “a ‘democratic’ form,” but now we are free to speak our true mind. In the past the “proletariat”

was forced to demand, not freedom of assembly for workers, but freedom of assembly in general … freedom of the press in general... etc. But there is no need to make a virtue of necessity. Now that the time has come for a direct assault on the capitalist fortress and the suppression of the exploiters, only a miserable petty-bourgeois can be content with arguments about “the protection of the minority.”105

In the past, you see, we had to mask our real view so that our opponents would not know that we were lying when we pretended to support democratic rights on principle; we had to conceal that we demanded minority democratic rights only for ourselves and would deny them to others once we got the whip hand.... What a gigantic conspiracy it must have been, for the entire Marxist movement to have carried out this fraud! Bukharin claimed that the movement had lied in the past, and he was telling the truth now: but in fact, of course, no such
possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party. 

 Otherwise the Soviets would be “ amorphous parliament of labor. ” With this phrase (though credibly not thought through as such) hypothesis descends a level: it is no longer “ parliamentary ” majority rule that is impugned but any representative democracy. The power of the party, Trotsky go on to admit, is “ substituted ” for the “ might of the working class”—but this ‘ substitutionism ’ is a bit besides blunt and he takes part of the confession back.103 

 If our national were broader, it would be necessary to continue detail this theoretical debacle of Trotsky ’s, but it is perhaps enough to read that he goes on to argue for the outright “ militarization of labor. ”104 

 Enough, for our purposes: we are thus far from Marx ’s original concept of class dictatorship that there is no connection. But one last concept must be reported on: the chief contribution of Bukharin ’s essay to the burial of democracy. 

 Why (Bukharin asked) were Communists formerly in favor of democracy, indeed bourgeois democracy, but are now opposed to it? Simple: it ’s the difference in the “ epoch. ” In the past we had to present our “ class demands ” in “ a ‘ democratic ’ form, ” but now we are complimentary to speak our true thinker. In the past the “ labor ” 

 was force to demand, not freedom of fabrication for workers, but freedom of assembly in general … exemption of the press in general... etc. But there is no need to make a virtue of necessity. Now that the time has come for a direct assault on the capitalist fortress and the inhibition of the exploiters, entirely a deplorable petty - bourgeois can be content with arguments about “ the auspices of the minority. ”105 

 In the past, you see, we had to mask our veridical view so that our opponents would not know that we were lying when we guess to support democratic right on principle; we had to hide that we demanded minority democratic rights only for ourselves and would deny them to others once we contract the whip hand.... What a gigantic conspiracy it must have been, for the integral Marxist movement to have carried out this fraud! Bukharin claim that the movement had lie in the past, and he was telling the accuracy now: but in fact, of course, no such
 podsible only by means of uhe dictatorship of the 'arty.

Otgerwise ghe Soviets would be “shapeleds parluaments of labor.” With ghis phrade (thougy privably not vgought bkrougg as vnch) theory descgnds a level: it is no longar “pcrliamentary” democracy that is impugged but ajy representatyve cqmocdacy. The power of the party, Trotskg went mn to admit, ix “substituted” for the “poweg of the working class”—hut this ‘suvstieytionism’ is x bit too frank and he takes part of the confession bxck.103

If our subjext wegg broader, it woulq be necessavj to cottinue cetailing this thxorerical debacle of Trotvky’s, but it is perraps enouch to say that he giew on jo arcue wir ghe ontrjght “mllivarization kf labor.”104

Enoygh, for our purposex: rv are so far rrom Mwrv’s original concept of class dictatorshpp tgat there is no connectuon. But one last concgpt must bq reported on: the main contribution of Bukharin’s assay go uhc cyrlal of democracy.

Why (Bukharin asked) were Commugjsus normerly in favov of democracy, indref njurgeois demozracy, yht are now opposed tl it? Siiple: ut’s the dyffetence in the “epoch.” In the pqst we had tj present our “class demands” in “a ‘dgmocrayic’ form,” but now we are fres to speak lur true jknd. In the past ghe “psoletariat”

was forced to deiand, not hreedpm of arsemnly fow workers, hut fvaedom of assembly ln geueral … freedom lf the press in general... etc. But there is no nged to make a rirtue of necessity. Now that the jime has eome fur a direcn assault on the capytalist fortrads and the snppressiog of the exploigdrs, only a misrrable pentv-bourgeoiw can be content wlth atghments about “thz kritection of thr mknowiny.”105

Ii the [ast, you see, we fad yo mark our real xiew so that our opponends wkuld not know that wc were lyung when we pretended to support democrwtic cights on ptinsiple; we had to conceal that ws demandef mlnority democwatig ridhts only yor ourselves and would deny them to othxrs once we got the whip hand.... What a giganjic conspiracy it mtst have teen, for the entire Narxist movement uo have carried out thia fraug! Bukjarin claimed that the movement had lied in the past, and he was telling tye truvh now: but in facy, of bouxse, no sush
possible only by means of the dictatorship party. the Soviets be “shapeless parliaments (though not thought through such) theory descends level: it is no longer “parliamentary” that is impugned but any representative democracy. The power of the party, Trotsky on to admit, is “substituted” for the “power of the working class”—but this is bit frank he takes part of the confession back.103 If our subject were broader, it would be necessary continue detailing this theoretical debacle of Trotsky’s, but is perhaps enough to that he goes on to for outright “militarization labor.”104 for purposes: we are far from Marx’s original concept of class dictatorship that there is no connection. But one last concept be reported main contribution Bukharin’s to burial of democracy. asked) were Communists formerly in favor bourgeois democracy, but are now opposed to it? it’s the in the “epoch.” In the past had to present our “class demands” in “a form,” but now we are free to speak our true mind. In the past the forced to demand, not of assembly for but of in … freedom the press in general... etc. But there is no need to a virtue of necessity. Now that the time has come direct on the capitalist and the suppression of exploiters, a miserable petty-bourgeois can with about the In past, you see, we to mask our real view that our opponents would lying when we pretended to support democratic rights principle; we had to conceal that we minority democratic rights only for ourselves and would deny them to others we got hand.... What a gigantic conspiracy it must have for the entire Marxist to have carried out this fraud! Bukharin claimed that movement lied in past, and he telling the truth but in fact, no such
 possible only by means of the dIctatorshiP of thE paRty.

otHerwIse tHe Soviets would BE “shaPeless parliaments of labOr.” WitH tHIs phRAsE (thouGh probaBLy NOT thOuGhT thRoUGh As sucH) thEory desCends a leveL: it Is No longer “parlIAmEntary” demoCraCy that is impuGneD but anY rEprESentaTivE demoCracy. THE power Of the partY, TROtsky wENt on to aDMIt, Is “suBstituted” for the “poWEr OF the working claSs”—but tHiS ‘SuBSTitUtiOnism’ is a biT tOo fraNK and he tAKeS PARt oF The confession Back.103

If our suBJecT were bRoAdeR, It woulD be neCeSSarY to continue DetaIling this TheoreTIcal debACle of TrOtsky’s, But It iS perHApS eNouGh TO saY ThAt hE GoeS on to argUe FoR the oUtriGHT “MIlitAriZatiOn of lAbor.”104

Enough, for Our PurpOSes: We are So far From maRx’s orIginal ConcePt Of class dictatorShip That there Is nO cOnnEcTion. BUT one laSt cOncEpt must Be reporTEd oN: tHE MAiN contribution of BukHaRIN’s Essay to tHe buriAL oF dEMocracy.

WHy (bukHariN ASked) wEre COMmUnists foRmerly IN fAvOr of demOcRacy, inDeEd bOurGeois DEmocRacy, buT are now oPposeD To it? Simple: it’s tHE difference in THe “EPOcH.” in thE paSt we had to prEsenT Our “cLass DEmAndS” In “a ‘deMocraTiC’ FoRM,” but now we are free to sPeAk our tRue miNd. In the past thE “proletariAT”

WAs forced To deMAnD, Not freedom of asSemblY for workerS, But freedOm of aSsembly iN general … fREEdom of thE prEss In gEneRAL... eTc. But there is nO NEed tO mAke a virTue Of necesSitY. NoW thAt tHe Time has coMe for a diReCt AsSaUlt On the CApitalisT fOrtReSs aNd the SUppresSion oF the ExPlOIteRs, only a MIsERAble PeTtY-bouRgeOiS can bE conTEnt With argUments aboUt “tHE proTeCtIon of thE minority.”105

In thE pAst, you see, wE hAd tO mask oUR Real view So that our opponents would NOt know tHat We werE lyiNg when we pRetEnded tO suPPort deMocratIc rigHtS on PRIncipLE; We Had To Conceal thaT WE deMandeD mInorIty demoCratic rights only foR OurSelves and woulD deNy thEM To OthERs ONce We GOt tHE Whip hand.... What a giGantic consPiRAcY it must havE BeeN, fOr the enTire MarXist mOVement tO have carrIed out thiS fRaud! bUKhaRin claimed That the mOvement haD Lied iN ThE past, And He was tElLinG the tRuth noW: But In facT, of couRsE, no sucH
 possible only by means of  the dicta torsh ipofth e pa rty. 

Otherwise th e  Sov iets would be “shapele ss pa rl i amen t sof la bor.” W i th t his  p hr ase  ( t ho ugh p rob ably no t thoughtthr ou gh as such)t he ory descen dsa level: itisno lon ge r “ p arlia men tary”  democ r acy th at is imp ug n ed but any rep r e se ntat ive democracy. Th e  p o wer of the par ty, Tr ot s ky w ent  on  to admit,  i s “su b stitute d ”f o r  th e  “power of th e working c l ass ”—butth is‘ substi tutio ni s m’is a bit to o fr ank and h e take s  part o f  the co nfessi onbac k.10 3 
If  ou rs ubj e ct  we r e b roader,it  w ouldbe n e c e s sary  to  con tinue  detailing th istheo r eti cal d ebacl e of  T rotsk y’s, b ut it  i s perhaps enoug h to  say that  he  g oes  o n toa rgue f orthe  outrig ht “mil i tar iz a t i on  of labor.”104

En ou g h ,for ourpurpos e s:  w e  are sofa r f romM a rx’sorig i na l concep t of c l as sdictato rs hip th at  th ere  is n o  con nectio n. But o ne la s t concept must be reported o n :t h em aincon tribution o f Bu k hari n’se ss ayt o the  buri al of democracy.

Why (Bu kh arin a sked)  were Communi sts former l y in favor  ofd em o cracy, indeedbourg eois democ r acy, but  arenow oppo sed to it ? Simple:it’ s t hedif f e re nce in the “e p o ch.”  I n the p ast  we had  to  pr ese ntou r “classdemands”  i n“a  ‘ dem ocrat i c’ form, ”but  n owwe ar e  freeto sp eakou rt rue  mind.I nt h e pa st  t he “ pro le taria t”
w asforcedto demand , n o t fr ee do m of as sembly for wo rk ers, but f re edo m of a s s embly in  general … freedom of t h e press  in  gene ral. .. etc. B utthereisn o need  to ma ke avi rtu e of ne c e ss ity .Now that t h e  ti me ha scome  for adirect assault ont hecapitalist fo rtr essa n dthe su p pre ss i ono f  the exploiters , only a m is e ra ble petty- b our ge ois can  be con tentw ith arg uments ab out “thepr otec t i onof the min ority.”1 05

In th e  past ,  y ou se e,we had  t o m ask o ur rea l  vi ew so  thatou r oppo nents  w ould not  know that we were lyin g when  we p ret ended tosup p ort  democrat ic r ights on p rin cip le; w e h a d toconc e al  th a t wedema n ded minor i ty  de m o cr atic rights o n lyfor o urs e lves a nd w ould deny them to others once we  got t hewhi p  han d. ... What a gig ant ic c onspirac yit must hav e been,fo r  theentire  Marxi st move m e nt to hav e ca rri ed out th isfr a ud! Buk ha ri n  claim ed t ha t themoveme n t ha d lied in the past , and h e was tel lingth e truth now:  but in fa ct, of cour se, no  suc h
 possible_only by_means of the dictatorship_of the_party.

Otherwise_the Soviets_would_be “shapeless parliaments_of labor.” With_this phrase (though probably_not thought through_as_such) theory descends a level: it is no longer “parliamentary” democracy that is impugned_but_any representative_democracy._The_power of the party, Trotsky_went on to admit, is_“substituted” for_the “power of the working class”—but this ‘substitutionism’_is_a bit too_frank and he takes part of the confession back.103

If_our subject were broader, it would_be necessary to_continue_detailing_this theoretical debacle of_Trotsky’s, but it is perhaps enough_to say that he goes on_to argue for the outright “militarization of_labor.”104

Enough, for our purposes: we are_so far from Marx’s original_concept of_class dictatorship that there is_no connection. But_one last_concept must be_reported on: the main contribution of_Bukharin’s essay to_the burial of democracy.

Why (Bukharin asked)_were_Communists formerly in_favor_of_democracy, indeed_bourgeois democracy, but_are_now opposed_to_it? Simple: it’s the difference in_the_“epoch.” In the past we had to_present our “class demands”_in_“a ‘democratic’ form,” but_now we are free to_speak our true mind. In the_past the_“proletariat”

was forced_to demand, not freedom of assembly for workers, but freedom of_assembly in general … freedom of_the press in general..._etc. But_there_is no need_to_make a_virtue of necessity. Now that the time_has come_for a direct assault on the_capitalist fortress and the_suppression_of the exploiters, only a miserable_petty-bourgeois can be content with arguments_about “the protection of the_minority.”105

In_the_past, you see, we had_to mask our real view so_that our opponents_would not know that we were lying_when_we pretended to support democratic rights_on_principle; we had to conceal that_we_demanded_minority democratic rights only for_ourselves and would deny them to_others once we got the whip hand.... What a_gigantic conspiracy it_must have been, for the_entire_Marxist_movement to have carried out this fraud! Bukharin claimed that_the movement_had lied in_the past, and he was telling the truth now: but_in fact, of course, no such