Return to Moscow

Moscow, Saturday, Dec 3rd 1927 - The steady unchanging cold & snow of Russia is always fascinating to me. It is so much the one thing—in regions outside the cities vast level spaces covered with snow—and occasional patches of woods—and occasional snow banked villages with their one church & their flock of jackdaws—the cities with their creamy white houses and bright church towers. . . . . Once you know Russia as it is today, at least and if you are of a sanitary turn of mind, you will always resent the dirt—the underlying, nagging thought that never leaves you (once you are in the country) that there may be bed-bugs or a cockroach in the soup— or something unclean about the bedding or the water—or what you will. And it is always amazing to me that a nation— 150,000,000 strong, could have come along with modern Europe next door & not have developed a disgust for uncleanness. Yet here—on this best line—between Leningrad & Moscow, I am troubled by this thought. Also by the thought that in Moscow—or any where in Russia, I will be unable to obtain really pleasing & palatable food. It all has—alas—a heavy gluey sameness—an almost unendurable thought for me. Already—& after so short a stay, I find myself turning to Vodka—vodka plain, vodka in tea, vodka over a desert in order that I make a go of things. And worse—& so far from home—the only two people I take any comfort in are Ruth Kennell and Scott Nearing— Ruth because of her fine understanding & broad philosophic acceptance of life—Nearing for his undiluted if mistaken devotion to salvation of the underdog. Whenever I think of him here—and more especially because I know I shall see much of him, I have a feeling of companionship in so great & and for me alien a world. He is supposed to come round today with some news. And Ruth is supposed to hear finally whether she, along with Trevas, is to be permitted to accompany me on my tour through Russia. I distinctly hope so—for by now her intellectual as well as diplomatic competence have been clearly proved to me.

At the station we all go into the restaurant for tea. Trevas, representing the foreign office as well as Voks & probably, (I hear) the G.P.U. retains the gay spirits which should characterize a diplomat who is also a spy or watch dog of sorts. His humor & attentiveness is never failing. On the other hand Mrs. Kennell is somewhat more temperamental but in the main optomistic & cheerful. We order vodka, tea & for myself—an omelette confiture—the only type of omelet I can endure here. While we are breakfasting as many as five different and most amazing beggars arrive— creatures so diverse or compound & still fluttery in their rags that they hold me as a picture—and as something new & strange. I get a kick from just looking at them. In one case I give twenty kopecks (about 20 cents of our money). In another I offer the beggar his choice of fifteen kopecks—all the change I have, or a glass of vodka—out of the bottle on the table. He takes the vodka—as I felt he would. . . .

After breakfast Trevas left us to go to VOKS, promising to try to arrange for my departure for the south, if possible the same day. Instead of the pretentious suite I had before at 20 roubles a day I took a modest room without bath, which was more comfortable. I heard nothing more of him until late in the day when we were asked to go to VOKS to make final arrangements. As Ruth had predicted—and solely because she would not accept him as her lover during the trip, a fight on her had developed. Previously in America and here in Russia—and by Trevas himself—I had been assured that the question of a private secretary for myself as well as one for the goverment would be—and already had been, arranged for by the foreign office. Now however—and because of his anger at Mrs. Kennell, the question of expenses came up. And now Korenetz, the Secretary of Voks, that the Society for Cultural Relations had not sufficient to pay for two secretaries and that one would have to represent the government. And since Mrs. Kennell was not a Russian Communist it could not be she. Whereupon I told them that unless they could make satisfactory arrangements I would leave the country at once. They promised to take the matter up and give me an answer on Monday.

That night Mrs. Kennell & I took a walk & dined at the Bolshoi Moskofsky, after which we went to a Russian movie. Later I posted these notes and about 1 am turned in.

Moscow, Sunday, Dec. 4- 1927 - Russia

Another Sunday. And as my time is short & to me valuable I had hoped to arrange for several interviews with principal officials for today. But, as usual here, there is no getting anything done. “Oh, yes, yes. Immediately. You will most certainly see two & maybe three officials on Sunday.” Yet here it is Sunday & no officials. I some times think that Russians like the negroes are in that less developed state called by the psychiatrists , since instead of having to accumulate & organize and execute in a constructive way they prefer to dream & play & talk like children. It is very likely so—and explains their present social backwardness. At any rate—here I am—marooned in a strange capital & no important work in hand. At Ruths suggestion therefore and at about noon I agree to take a sleigh ride with Ruth & her friend O’Callaghan.¹ This is her odd & highly intellectualized Irish friend who can do nothing but inform you of what other people have done—and make bright & usually caustic remarks in regard to the same. If she had real personal charm this might prove unirritating. As it is her constant biting at everything gets on my nerves.

We rode out Tverskaya to the race tracks near Petrovka Park. It was very cold, but I enjoyed the air. Crowds of people were on their way to the races which began at 2 O’clock, but as I did not care to see the races, we walked back for some distance along the avenue where children were skating and skeeing, and took the auto bus at Triumphalnaya Square for home.

In the evening, I went to the Mierhold Theater with Serge Dinamov and saw ‘Revizor’. Meierhold has produced Gogol’s old play in a radically different way from the classic presentation of the Art Theater and caused a great controversy in theatrical circles last season. He has much extended and altered the play, putting in whole new scenes, enlarging the text and adding a mysticism and symbolism, all of which he claims are according to the original manuscript and spirit of Gogol. The sets are miniature and are rolled onto the great bare stage on wheels, all ready for the action. Although the acting is very good, I was not impressed by the staging. At eleven o’clock, there were still two more acts ahead, and so we left without seeing the end.

Moscow, Monday, Dec 5- 1927 - Russia

I was told in the morning that Bucharin might give me an interview after the session of the Party Conference at 5 o’clock, so I waited in the hotel for a telephone call. At 5 p.m. Trevas came to take me to Bucharin. At last, I entered the Kremlin, but was given no opportunity to see anything. As we went through the inevitable disrobing process in the corridor—overcoat, overshoes, etc.—my secretary discovered that I had again forgotten my tie. I was quite upset about it but Trevas assured me that probably Bucharin would be in the same condition. We were ushered into a large comfortable room and soon a quiet, little man entered. He had fair hair getting thin on top and brushed back from a very high forehead. His face was boyish, his blue eyes large and childlike and he had a charming, affectionate manner. I began my attack without delay.

-------- Does the Soviet Government follow Marx closely or how have you diverged?

We have not diverged at all. But I think we have modified Marx according to our problems

-------- If you have not diverged, why then does the individual own land, horses, houses, automobiles?

The doctrine of Marx is not a set doctrine which lays out a plan for the future of society. I have written a book which covers that. Marx never denied a transition period. In the works of Marx and Engels, ‘The Peasant War with Germany’, the Communist Manifesto, can be found straight declarations in accordance with our problems and programs.

“You then insist that you are following Marx completely—that his transition period accounts for all lacks or unsocial phases of your present communistic state here.

Marx’s plan is by no means a definite, detailed plan, Rather, he recognised the transition period. In the Communist Manifesto are 11 or 12 points which deal with the question of the transitory period, during which the socialisation of industry would take place.

------- We are moving toward that in America.

Yes, but under the dictatorship of the capitalists.

------- Here you have also a dictatorship.

Yes, but of another class.

------- Is there any difference?

Yes, but we must consider it from the standpoint of the development of all society. Capitalism also had its various forms: primitive, industrial, etc.

-------- Religious?

Yes, but I speak of the economic structure.

-------- Well, isn’t religion economic?

Yes, from the standpoint of the church. But socialism is not a fixed order, and as capitalism had in its history various forms, so will socialism develop.

-------- Like a tree?

Yes, and the present form is the dictatorship of the proletariat. I read various forms of economic literature much of it confusing & wrong. For instance, Thomas Nixon Carver.² Carver, An American, says that the economic revolution is taking place in America, not in Russia; that this economic revolution takes the form of labor banks, employee stock ownership, etc. which are transforming capitalism entirely.

Nikolai Bukharin. (Courtesy of Stephan F. Cohen)

-------- Well I think This is true.

No it is an illusion. You have several layers of society in America —you have skilled workers, you have unskilled workers, you have poor farmers, rich farmers, negroes, and the standard of living of some of these classes is very low. You have in America only 3 million organised workers, out of 25 million workers. And these labor banks are only for the labor aristocracy, these privileges only for a few. Such an exception situation is due to world economic conditions, such as affected England earlier. Now England no longer has such exceptional conditions for the workers, which was the economic basis for the evolutionizing process of the English laborer. The exceptional situation in the United States now is the basis for the machine process the benefits of which chiefly accrue to the capitalists and the labor aristocracy. But the present situation in America is only a moment in the constellation.

------- Do you maintain that the situation here is final?

No such thing. It can change.

------- But in what direction? You don’t think it could change into an intellectual despotism?

No.

------- But are there not millions who don’t agree with this goverment as it is now?

No, not so many.

------- Let me ask you a question. If 51% of the population here & now were Communist and 49% not, what would the government do? The Government has an intellectual theory of life. What would it do with the 49% who do not agree?

Yours is an absolutely abstract point. We must look at problems concretely and not abstractly, because we have no abstract situation. It is not a situation which can be stated as for and against communism, because the leading force is communist. The great number are with us, the rich peasant is against us, a third section is neutral.

----- You are sticking to the mechanics of the present situation. But please answer my theoretical question. 49 against 51?

But that is not possible in such a simplified form. In the present instance 51 have all the great industries, 49 are only unskilled labor.

-------I ask you to answer the question theoretically.

But it is not a right point of view as you put it because you cannot argue on mental grounds alone but only on actual social conditions. “I do not agree that my question does not represent a possible social condition—not even here in Russia”

--- “But our relationship to the peasents is not to be stated in your way.

“Then you do not admit to an intellectual tyranny?”

“Decidedly not. Our peasents are led by us—not driven”.

------- But your peasants do not always agree, and if they don’t you lead them anyhow?

Your mistake is that you think only in a static and not in a dynamic way. In great questions the peasants are with us, and from this important basis of agreement we lead the peasantry to other questions. For example, I received today a photograph of myself when I was in prison twenty years ago. I can recall that at that time if you spoke against the czar, a peasant would knock you down, because all the traditions were for the czar. But we made such propaganda that we were able to show the peasant that only fools would support the czar. We came to the peasants and said: ‘What do you suffer for?’ ‘We need more land’. Then we showed the peasants that the czar had most of the land, and so little by little from this we led the peasants nearer and nearer to us.

“Very good. That was work or instruction in line with the peasents interests. But let me state the problem in another way. Communism was not heard of let alone understood by most of the peasents—say 90 per cent, up to fifteen or twenty years ago—and certainly it was not accepted. There was unrest among the skilled workers—say 10 or 15 percent of all the citizens of the country. And it is possible—I do not know—that because of radical propaganda in Russia all of these had heard of and even accepted the main tenets of Marx. But today Communism, as preached by Lenin & especially Trotsky & yourself, calls for a complete re-education & if possible alteration of the human mind so that in the future self interest shall disappear & state—or communistic interest take its place. You want that. You want only communistically minded people. But do all Russians want that? Do they even understand, — even a fraction of them—that there is such a dream as that extant.”

“I think most of them understand it.”

“I do not agree with you. It is not possible that they should have. Too many are still too ignorant—illiterate. More—you yourself say that many are against you & your theories”

“By no means a majority—only those capitalistically minded.”

“Well let me state my proposition anyway. Isnt it true that you will do this with the child—take him & teach him—perforce—certainly principles about which he knows nothing—concerning which he cannot even reason, & so dogmatically & tyrannically even force a certain viewpoint or mental condition on him whether he wills it or not.”

“But I insist that the majority are not against us but sympathize with our ideals & our program because these are for their betterment”.

“If the majority were really with you I could not object—but I doubt it. Besides—your program—unless all desire it, is exactly that of the Catholic church or the Greek Church—or the old Czaristic Goverment or any form of tyranny or propaganda of which you can think. You take the ignorant and make them believe your way because you are sure your way is best. But is it? Do you know yet”

“Yes—as to that—we know it is the best—fairest form of human goverment yet devised. It is for all against the few. Our dream is to help all— not just a few—make all happy—as against a few who are happy while millions suffer.

“I am for the millions as much as you are if they can be made happy & life still go on. Or if these cannot be made happy—I am willing that all life should end. But intellectually I think your proposition needs a clear & clean defense & must have one. Personally I think good often needs as much tyranny to establish & maintain it as evil—a benevolent tyranny— at least until all men have brains sufficient to appreciate good. Why not adopt that as a defense.”

“Because I do not believe it. Left alone humanity moves in the general direction of its best interests.”

“Well—maybe. Still as yet the Russians—& particularly the Russian children, know nothing of your theories & still you are driving them by a military dictatorship into an acceptance of your theories.”

“We are warding off enemies to our theories or truths—the while we explain them to the masses.

“The child is not forcibly educated in one way?”

“On the radio you can receive on one line or another, and the apperceptions of one class are one thing and of another class another. And when we transform the child we have to break through the force of resistance and we have the problem of various tendencies in the child

------- Isn’t it true that if you take the child and say this is true, it is, and doesn’t the success of communism depend on changing the psychology of the child? Didn’t the Catholic Church do this?

The most important question is the mental position of the teacher. Ours is for the welfare of the many.”

“The welfare as you see welfare”

“Well, put it that way. But history & science I think will show that we are correct. Yes, we inherited that.

------ Aristotle is as great today as he was then.

No, not as great. Do you know that in the Chinese we can find almost all the processes of Greek civilization? In fact, it is a big question whether the writings of Plato were before Christ or in the Renaissance.

------ Now that is a theoretical question.

Modern capitalism puts this problem before us. If we have two or three more world wars, we will disappear, but there is only one force which will save—the dictatorship of the proletariat.

------ I must explain that I am not against the Soviet system, but I came to see if it can work. Question: Should the big mind rule the little one?

Ah, this is the question of intellectual aristocracy. In answer, I will explain the real communist society of the future and then return to your question.

----- But what about the big mind and the little mind right now.

If we need the advice of a statistician, we go to a good statistician. If you go to a doctor you go to a good doctor and follow his advice. It is not possible that all people have the same nose, eyes, or the same quantity of brains.

------- Yes, you are right, there are a few gigantic minds and many little ones.

But if we take the present capitalist society, there is a standard of intellect, a monopoly of education, and it is necessary to finish higher schools, university —

------ No, that’s not true.

But it is a fact that in capitalist society, the proletariat is oppressed culturally, and if you will compare the quantity of brains of the oppressed class with those of the capitalist you will find that there is no difference.

------- From where do you get these statistics?

From scientific sources.

------- Can you mention a great mind from the proletariat?

Statistical law is of big figures, not the exceptions but the average. Part of our great minds are from the intelligentsia and part from the proletariat to whom the dictatorship of the proletariat gives more opportunities.

------- Do you think that the intellectual class in capitalist society is a separate class?

No, but all great forces in bourgeois society are against the proletariat. They do not have advantages of education. The dictatorship of the proletariat makes for the first time in history the field of selection larger than before. This is the principle of selection. In capitalist society the intellectual forces are separated from the laborers. As class they are against the proletariat. But with us it is the opposite, we give more advantages to the working class and we have here an intellectual laboratory. We are always getting new forces from the woking classes, and that is not possible in capitalist society. In the latter if you have strong people (in Germany Steinetz, Hindenburg, etc.) they are against the working class.³ Here we have big minds which do not work against the working class. Take me for instance, I am the expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

--------- Is Marx ruling your mind?

Yes but this relationship is not analogous. If your question is that the more clever should rule the less clever, it is no question, but a more important question is class relationships, it is not the same thing that the proletariat has more intelligent people or the bourgeoisie more intelligent.

------- Yes, but if in Soviet Russia the clever mind rules the less clever, you have an intellectual aristocracy.

But the idea is entirely different. There was an intellectual aristocracy of Judea based on privileged classes. In Egypt the rich were the intellectuals.

------ But in Soviet Russia there are two classes the intelligent and the less intelligent. But they are not classes.

------- Yes they are. Now in the street there is a street cleaner of very low intelligence. Do you mean to say that his position in society is the same as yours. (I’LL die but I’ll get this out of him).

Yes, in our social system he has the same opportunities as I have and the same rights.

----- Then what are you doing here? You agree that you would rather be here?

Yes, but we can class all men like brunettes and blondes, rich or poor, fools or intelligent, etc. I am not the same as the man in the street, we agree, but in politics we make it a policy that all manual workers must be educated from the same standpoint as the intelligentsia. We must look into the future. For instance, ten years ago we had in the Central Committee of the Party 5 or 6 intellectuals to 2 or 3 workers, and the intellectual differences were very great. Now we have 60 members of the Central Committee, all are workers and there is no intellectual difference between them and us.

------- These came up through a special path.

Yes, but there are masses of them.

------- You can’t tell me that these 60 men are a general example.

No, but I’ll give you another example of great masses of our workers. I worked among them a great deal and our masses of workers are very intelligent.

------- I think big minds will always sit in high places and have comfortable rooms and lead the little minds in the street.

If you talk of material compensation, then it is an economic question.

------- If we get rich and everybody has money, who will sit here and who will work in the mines?

There is a general line of development. We will die, and the new generation will be a generation of workers.

------- Yes, but who will do the dirty work? All can’t sit here.

Read p. 309 of my book ‘Historical Materialism’.⁴ (Bucharin brought his book—I read the pages indicated).

------- Incompetence always will be.

Oh, my God, I can’t stand this. Well, in that case no one forces me to trust my doctor. I think Anatole France was a great writer, but between me and France there is no common economic basis.

There is a more important question, of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We always will have differences in intellectual qualifications, but when there is such a situation that a big scientist says to me, you must produce more in your branch, there is no oppression in this.

We think that through big development of economic forces we will succeed in machine production without capitalist competition. There will be the same competition between two workers as between two writers.

------ You think there will be no unhappiness, no disappointment, no tragedies?

There will always be unhappy love, individual tragedies, idiots and defectives for whom we will build hospitals. But individual ambitions will disappear because they will have no basis. There will be another type of personal ambition; to best serve society, and not for material means, only spiritual.

We Communists today are a product of the old society. We must often fight against old traditions in ourselves. When a child learns to read he must make an effort, but later he reads unconsciously without any effort. And this relationship between man and man will finally be as easy as reading.

------- You’re going to have a perfect world, against human nature, and you think God will accept it?

(Here Adam Smith was brought up by Bucharin as an example. Notes not complete).

6/XII Tuesday.

In the afternoon, Serge went to VOKS to straighten out my affairs. He telephoned that everything was being arranged for my departure and that we should come at once for an interview with Kameneva. We took an izvozchik over, and although only three o’clock it was already twilight when we reached the fantastic stone house which is the headquarters of VOKS. As we went in the door, we met Kameneva just leaving. She seemed confused at seeing us, said she had not expected me but of course was glad to have me come. She returned to her office and sat down at her desk. She then, after a few polite questions about my visit in Leningrad, asked what I wanted of her. I said she had sent for me and that she knew better what we wanted to discuss. She then explained that she was helpless to do any more in the matter of paying expenses as she had only 2000 roubles left out of the fund entrusted to her. I said that I would like to take that money and return to New York. She replied that as there had been nothing said about VOKS paying my fare to New York, she would have to ask the committee about it. I said that the secretary Korenetz had promised me in the presence of Biedenkapp that the return fare would be paid, and I asked if Korenetz was not empowered to make such promises. She said he could not be held responsible. We parted coldly with the understanding that she would find out from the committee about the financial arrangements.

This, it seems, was to be my day of defeats. We walked along the boulevard toward Strasnaya Ploschad. The moon was shining and the air was crisp and very cold. We looked in at the monastery on the Square, whose beautiful church has five star-studded domes. From there we continued down the boulevard to Tsvetnoy Square. The children were out on their sleds and skates. Taking an A car back, we were almost crushed in the tremendous mob and barely escaped from the car with our lives. We went to the little dining room in the Dom Gertzena (House of Herzen) where all the writers’ organisations are located.⁵ The dining room was deserted and we had a quiet and, because of very slow service, prolonged dinner.

I had an appointment with Stanislavsky at 6 p.m. Seated in his comfortable office, his secretary called Stanislavsky who came in looking very serious and dignified. He said that my manuscript of the play ‘American Tragedy’ had been carefully read by the committee, and he had been given a synopsis in Russian. He said that he liked it very much and personally would be very happy to produce it, but that his censorship specialists had decided that it could not pass the censor, first because of the religious sections, and second because of the relationship between employer and worker in the play. He said it was exceedingly painful to him to have to reject it, as he would have liked very much to produce it.

So that was that. The secretary in parting assured me that all who had read the play thought it wonderful and added that perhaps in five years they might be permitted to produce it!

As the new Soviet ballet was on at the Bolshoi, we tried to get tickets, but all seats were sold. Again defeated, I had the brilliant idea of leaving for Nizhniy Novgorod that night, in order not to waste any more time. We sent a man to the station, but he telephoned that there were only ‘hard’ cars available, without place cards (Maxim Gorki), so that scheme had to be abandoned.

7/XII Wednesday.

I had an appointment with Meierhold at 10:30 in the morning. His living quarters are in a court; on the outside door there is a sign ‘Living Quarters of the Meierhold Theater’. Like all other organisations, the workers of this theater not only work but live together. Up a flight of dirty stairs, a narrow corridor, and in a large room with many iron cots (Is this where the actors sleep?) we met a red-haired young man who profusely apologised for Mr. Meierhold, who had been unexpectedly called to the Party Conference early in the morning to give a report on some scandal in the theater and so could not keep his appointment with me. He would of course be very glad to have the meeting some other time, etc. We walked out and down a very handsome street, Vorovskogo, Ambassadors’ Row’, where the foreign embassies are located. As the Headquarters of the Quakers are nearby, we dropped in there. A young woman by the name of Miss Davis received us and talked about the work of the Society in the villages, about sanitation, cockroaches, bedbugs and other important Russian subjects. We walked down to the Arbat Square and at last found the French Gallery which I have been wanting to see all along. Here is a small but very valuable collection of French and a few English pictures: Henri Matisse, Van Gogh, Gaugin.

Later in the day, I was summoned to VOKS where the final battle took place. Korenetz was on his dignity, he assured me that he was a responsible man and wanted to keep his word, that he had telegraphed to Biedenkapp about the fare to New York and had received the following reply: ‘Dreiser paid Five Hundred Fifty Dollars for fare to and from Russia. All other expenses in connection with his visit in Russia VOKS must pay.’ I said all right, I’d go back and get it out of Biedenkapp. Korenetz said then we could not talk about the trip within Russia. I said I didn’t want to talk with them any more. That VOKS could go to hell, he could go to hell, and when he begged me to see Kameneva, who was waiting for me, I said she could could to hell also. Korenetz said they would all go to hell in good time, but first we would talk about the trip. I rose to go. Then another man, Yaroshevski, head of the Foreign Affairs Dept, of VOKS, gently persuaded me to come and talk with Kameneva. I went in and we had a stormy scene. They insisted that I must not leave Russia, but must have my tour, and promised to telephone me the decision at 8 o’clock. To cool down, we walked home through the clear, frosty air by way of the Boulevard and Petrovka. Of course, we could do nothing in the evening but wait for the telephone call from VOKS. Serge came over and was there when Yaroshevsky telephoned. They had a long conversation in which it was agreed that I would pay the expenses of my secretary and VOKS would pay for me and one other person. It was decided that we would leave next evening for Nijni.

Thurs. Dec 8 - Waiting about for Vox. A great strain. Rainbows on mall in open. At 3 PM. I am invited to go to Vox. My temper gets the best of me. A great row. I tell all severally & collectively to go to hell. Great effort to calm me. All is to be straightened out. Do I not want a lovely trip to Nizjni Novgorod. Beautiful scenery. I say I want nothing save permission to pay my own way & leave the country. But they insist they must carry out the original understanding as near as possible. I give them until 8 PM. to prepare their plan & submit it. It is 11 before they call. Meantime R.K. & I walk. The beauty of Moscow on a starry night. We stop at a telegraph office. I cable Bye to cable $1000. Then dinner in hotel. Dynamov comes. Gossizdat has accepted my terms for my books—$1000 down, 10%.

8/XII Thursday

We made all arrangements for departure this evening. VOKS has finally found someone to accompany us—a woman doctor, nurse in the Hotel Lux, Devedovsky, — eminently suited for the job, having seldom traveled in her life before, and of a disposition and intellect admirably adapted to my needs. Thus competently chaperoned by the nurse and librarian of the Comintern, I set out for Niji at 8 p.M.

1. May O’Callaghan was a technical worker who lived at the Lux.

2. Thomas Nixon Carver (b. 1865), American economist, whose books include The Distribution of Wealth (1904) and The Present Economic Revolution in the United States (1926), the book to which Bukharin refers here.

3. Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934), German field marshall during World War I and second president of the Weimar Republic from 1925 until his death. He used brutal tactics to suppress leftist uprisings in Germany after the war. Carl Friedrich von Steinmetz (1796— 1877), Prussian general who led German troops at Gravelotte in 1870; he authorized such a murderous assault on the French there that he was dismissed from command.

4. Nikolai Bukharin, Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology (New York: International Publishers, 1925).

5. So named for Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (see p. 109n), the journalist and political thinker who helped to lay the foundations of agrarian socialism.