The publication of Bruno Rizzi`s book The Bureaucratization of the World is a notable event for those who have an interest in both arcane texts and living politics. The historical interest resides in the fact that ever since 1939, when the book was first published, it has been the source of speculation and rather fanciful notions, The speculation arose because of the great rarity of the first edition of the book, since it was seized by the police in Paris almost immediately it was published and few copies survived the censor's burning. For most English speaking Trotskyists the most information they would have about Rizzi and his book was to be found in Trotsky's In Defence of Marxism, that is until now. Trotsky, in his faction fight with Burnham and Shachtman of the US Socialist Workers Party in 1939, had had cause to comment upon Rizzi's book, but up to now that is about all that most people would have known about it. This meant that, given that the book was published as being written by 'Bruno R, both the text and the writer had acquired something of an aura of mystery over the years. Now, thanks to the translation and admirable introduction by Adam Westoby, all is revealed.

And what is revealed is a mixed bag. Firstly, contrary to what many may have assumed, Rizzi was very much alive well after the Second World War, and only died in January 1977. So although the text under review here can be considered to be an historical one, Rizzi himself was writing and publishing many years after he became notorious' as the mysterious 'Bruno R' Secondly, it comes as a shock to find that Rizzi was an admirer of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin as well as Trotsky! And on top of this he was an open anti-Semite. None of this came across in what little was said about him in Trotsky's comments and it is a little disconcerting, to say the least, to have this aspect revealed. Adam Westoby has done an excellent job in tracing the rather elusive career of Rizzi both pre-war and post-war. Moreover, he provides an interesting and very informative account of. the evolution of Rizzi's ideas during the decade leading up to 1939 and the' publication of this book.

However, what we have presented to us here is only the first third of the original text, since we are told that the rest of the book is taken up with material that could be considered to be only illustrative of the theory propounded in the first part of the text. Specifically what has been left out is that part of the book dealing with Fascism and the New Deal of Roosevelt. One can well understand that the chapter on 'The Jewish Question' would have presented problems, since it would have probably run foul of the Race Relations Act in this country. Indeed, that was the chapter that caused the book's seizure in Paris in 1939. But it is a pity that we have only been presented with one part of the text.

Be that as it may, we have before us sufficient to appraise both the merits and weaknesses of Rizzi’s central theme. The theme itself is fairly simply presented. It consisted in the argument that the proletariat had proved too immature to initiate the transition to Socialism, and that capitalism was in terminal decay, Thus there was coming into being on a world scale a new form of society, ie, bureaucratic collectivism. I simplify, of course. but not greatly. One does have to set such ideas in the context of their times; totalitarian regimes were proliferating throughout the world; moreover, they were regimes that lauded the state and had a veneer of anti-capitalist phraseology coupled with state intervention on quite a massive scale into the economy. For Rizzi these were but the first steps on the road to the complete bureaucratic society of which Soviet Russia was the most advanced model at that time. Such an idea was not wholly new, since many writers had alluded to the similarities between the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, with their one party rule, cult of the leader, concentration camps etc. Even Trotsky had pointed to the similarities, even if only to highlight the basic dissimilarities as far as the social systems they represented were concerned. Indeed a member of the Left Oppostion, Christian Rakovsky, had initiated some thoughts along the lines of Rizzi's theses in his essay 'The Professional Dangers of Power' which was printed in the Bulletin of the Opposition in 1929.

So, Rizzi was not wholly original in the idea that Soviet Russia was either some form of new exploitative system or a form of, state capitalism, and was certainly not a workers' state as Trotsky suggested. In fact the Socialist Party of Great Britain had declared Russia to be state capitalist as far back as 1918. What was new, however, in what Rizzi wrote is that he suggested that the bureaucratic collectivist society was an inevitable outcome of the two elements, one the political immaturity of the working class and the other the absolute decay of capitalist society. In this respect Rizzi saw the new society as being historically progressive, since it developed the means and forces of production in those countries, eg, Russia, where capitalism had failed to live up to its historical tasks.

It is quite easy, now, to see the faults of his case, but it had a certain logic and ring of truth in 1939. It is not surprising therefore that Trotsky should have reacted quite strongly to Rizzi and what he saw as the US version of these ideas being put forward by Burnham and Shachtman. And one has to say that upon a reading of Rizzi's text he had some very valid questions and doubts about Trotsky's own position. But more on that later.

What strikes one now on re-reading these texts, ie, Rizzi's and Trotsky's, is the one overwhelming common bond between them, one that meant they were both trapped within the same historical paradigm. The common bond was that of the idea that capitalism was finished, was in terminal decay. This was an idea that was dominant on the left at that time; and for many years after the Second World War it crippled numerous Marxists in their attempts to grapple with the reality of a new age of capitalist prosperity. Given this basic assumption Rizzi then pointed to the defeats that the working class had endured world-wide up to 1939 and suggested that only the new bureaucratic class was able to carry society forwards. If the capitalist and working classes had exhausted themselves, Rizzi suggested, it was now the time of the petty-bourgeoisie to step into centre stage and assume control of society.

Starting from a shared assumption, Trotsky and Rizzi drew very different conclusions. Trotsky assumed that out of the Second World War there would come a new wave of proletarian revolutions, and these would settle the hash of the Soviet bureaucracy along with that of the bourgeoisie. Rizzi too saw the end of capitalism in sight, but suggested that the working class had already been so cowed or bemused by defeat that it would be unable to inaugurate the transition to Socialism. As we now know both were wrong. Capitalism, far from having exhausted its historical role, went on to have a new golden age, admittedly upon the bones of the millions who were slaughtered in the war just finished and the colonial wars yet to come. Nevertheless, both Rizzi and Trotsky had backed themselves up a blind alley by their common basic assumption of the imminent demise of capitalism. Trotsky's followers in particular were left disarmed by the actual turn of events because of this basic flaw in analysis.

Rizzi, like many before him, had taken as good coin the anti-capitalist braggadocio of the Fascists. And he was fooled into believing that the state had become so all-pervading and powerful as to take over the running of the whole economy. Bukharin had made much the same mistake during the First World War., and he was not alone in that either. Trotsky, on the other hand, was too acute in his perception of the realities of social class to be fooled into seeing Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as representing the same basic social system. In the event Trotsky was duly vindicated, Fascism disappeared under a pall of gun smoke leaving capitalism very much alive and kicking. New state forms took the place of those created by Hitler and Mussolini, but. they were solidly based on bourgeois foundations. Here I am dealing in historical facts, not the historical might-have-beens, ie, if the working class had not been betrayed by all their parties in 1945, if Stalinism had not been... etc, etc. In other words I am not denying certain possibilities, all I am doing is stating what actually happened.

Let us admit that Rizzi, like Bukharin, did espy a real trend of his time, ie, that the state took over larger and larger parts of the economy and intervened in an unparalleled manner. But what are we to make of the present trend, started in Britain and now spreading throughout the capitalist world, of denationalising industries? Can it be that we are now poised on the edge of a new wave of capitalist development in which the commodity form and market are to enjoy a rejuvenation undreamt of a few years ago? Can it be that we have left that phase of capitalist development, that Rizzi quite rightly saw but misunderstood, and a new 'golden age' of private capital is about to unfold?

What we can be sure of is that capitalism had much more mileage in it than Trotsky or Rizzi (or Marx!) ever dreamed of. And it suggests that we need to be cautious in announcing its departure from the stage of history. No doubt we shall have many more surprises in store for us.

But what about the Soviet Union? Is it the type of society that Rizzi suggested or is it still the degenerated workers' state that Trotsky said it was? For many, of course, the answer will be one of certitude depending upon which of the formulae they cling to. 'Workers' state', 'state capitalist, 'bureaucratic collectivist, each have their attractions since they provide some sort of sheet anchor in a changing world. One thing we may be sure is that Rizzi's prediction of bureaucratic collectivism taking over the world has certainly not come to pass, but does that invalidate his thesis as far as the Soviet Union (and China) is concerned? Not necessarily. How does the Soviet Union square with Trotsky's forecasts? Not very much.

On reading and re-reading the passionate debates about the character of the Soviet Union one is continually struck by the fact that hardly anything that anyone predicted has come to pass. Just as the nature of the post war period in the capitalist countries eluded most Marxists for many years, so has the trajectory and nature of the Soviet type societies continually slipped through their fingers. Each one of the characterisations has very strong points, but then opponents can point to the great weaknesses also. None of the suggested classifications in reality add up to a satisfactory and coherent theory. It is this aspect that makes it worthwhile to read and ponder Rizzi’s book, amid the failed predictions there are still pertinent questions that Trotsky's theory does not adequately deal with.

For instance, Trotsky, to put it crudely, equated nationalised property and 'planning' with a 'workers' state'. Yet manifestly, the Soviet Union has been nothing of the sort for at least fifty years. The fact that this society emanated from a proletarian revolution, can no longer have any meaning after so long. The society that we now see once more evolving under Gorbachev was formed in the heat of a dreadful civil war fought, first against the peasants and then against the remnants of Lenin's Bolsheviks, with the working class being further ground down in the process. Yet, on the other hand, this society has so many features that do not correspond to what could he called capitalism that it is tempting to accept Rizzi's conclusions. But not tempting enough. The central aspect of a class formation still eludes any examination of the Soviet bureaucracy. But then we are left with a conundrum from a Marxist perspective. If the state is, in the final analysis, the organ of the hegemonic class, which class does the Soviet state represent? Certainly not the working class, and if the bureaucracy is not a class who then does this state represent? The more one tries to make this formation fit into preconceived formulae the more it slips through one's fingers. Rizzi was acutely aware of this and tried to develop a set of new concepts to deal with the unknown. But for all the brilliant jabs at Trotsky's deficiencies it does not quite come together as a whole.

Rizzi was not only a prisoner of the 'capitalism in terminal decline' syndrome, he was also still trying to use the categories of political economy more properly applicable to the analysis of capitalism. For example he continually talks about the Soviet state extracting surplus-value, the workers selling their labour-power, etc. He was afraid that if he denied that these categories existed he would be opening the door to the idea that Socialism had been introduced. Thus., while he twitted Trotsky for clinging to the proposition either capitalism or Socialism and denying the possibility of a third alternative, Rizzi used those categories, thus making him appear to be suggesting some form of state capitalism, but merely under another name. Yet he was at pains to deride those who argued for the capitalist nature of the Soviet Union.

Given the moves now underway within the Soviet Union and in other Eastern European countries, it could well be that a rejuvenated form of the New Economic Policy will be introduced. If this is to be the case then perhaps we shall see sections of the bureaucratic élites transforming themselves into a true class by once more adopting both the forms and substance of ownership and control of the means of production. If that is indeed the case then history will have vindicated Trotsky, but in a very backhanded manner, since it will be the restoration of capitalism and not the triumph of the working class. But then Rizzi might be having the last word, since it will have confirmed his opinion that the Soviet Union was not a workers' state.

Whatever the outcome of the present phase of Soviet development, Rizzi is still worth reading. You may not agree with his conclusions but it is hard not to admit the validity of his doubts.

Ken Tarbuck