SEMANTICS: USES AND ABUSES
23
does the Russian state coerce? Those who apply traditional Marxian
categories cannot say, because according to them there are no
eco–
nomic
classes in Russia in the sense in which classes are found in
rocieties where production has not been socialized. The result is the
most blatant kind of self-contradiction as in the famous resolution of
the Stalintern (August 20, 1935) which proclaimed: "The final and
irrevocable triumph of socialism and the all-sided reinforcement (sic!)
of the state of the proletarian dictatorship, is achieved in the Soviet
Union." The reinforcement of the dictatorship (whether it
is
prole–
tarian is another matter) and its increasing coercion is thus an ad–
mitted fact. But against whom is the coercion exercised? Evidently
against a group of people who constitute a class
on some other defini–
tion.
What the defining characteristic of the class will be, in addition
to their being subject to coercion and oppression, is not here in ques–
tion. It may be living conditions, level of income, or even political
opposition to totalitarian rule. So long as the facts of coercion are
admitted, and the firing squad is only one form of coercion, those
Marxists who want to understand what is happening in Russia must
fashion a new set of categories.
/
Let us now examine further .the position of those who say that
by
a workers' state they
mean
a society in which the workers
own
the instruments of production. Very well, what does it mean to say
that the Russian workers own the instruments of production? The
meaning, on our approach,
is
determined by the methods used to·
verify it and the evidence introduced to substantiate
it.
Now so far
as I can see, the usual evidence presented as proof of the statement
that the workers own the instruments of production are other state–
ments to be found in the constitution and other juridical decrees.
If
this is
all
that is meant anyone can verify it by reading the docu–
ments in question. But now suppose it is asked: do these documents
contain true assertions? Normally, we do not accept as evidence for
the assertions that "there is equality of opportunity in the United
States," "all men are equal before the law," etc., statements that are
found on the statute books. We observe the social behavior of men in
their relations to each other in order to discover both what is meant
and whether what
is
meant is actually so. Is there any other evidence
that the workers own the instruments of production in Russia aside
from decrees? What can we observe in practice which will be suffi–
cient evidence one way or the other?
The only clue to what to look for is to be found in other situa–
tions where we meaningfully use the term ownership. When we say
that a man
owns
land, buildings, or machines, we mean that he has
the right
(i.e.,
a claim enforced or enforcible by the power of law)
