hn-classics/_stories/1934/7616566.md

---
created_at: '2014-04-20T12:13:54.000Z'
title: H. G. Wells’ interview with Stalin (1934)
url: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/h-g-wells-it-seems-me-i-am-more-left-you-mr-stalin
author: giorgiofontana
points: 171
story_text: ''
comment_text: 
num_comments: 140
story_id: 
story_title: 
story_url: 
parent_id: 
created_at_i: 1397996034
_tags:
- story
- author_giorgiofontana
- story_7616566
objectID: '7616566'
year: 1934

---
In 1934, H G Wells arrived in Moscow to meet Soviet writers interested
in joining the international PEN Club, of which he was then president.
While there, Stalin granted him an interview. His deferential
conversation was criticised by J M Keynes and George Bernard Shaw, among
others, in the New Statesman. First published as a special NS supplement
on 27 October 1934.

 

**Wells** I am very much obliged to you, Mr Stalin, for agreeing to see
me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation with
President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were.
Now I have come to ask you what you are doing to change the world . . .

**Stalin** Not so very much.

**Wells** I wander around the world as a common man and, as a common
man, observe what is going on around me.

**Stalin** Important public men like yourself are not “common men”. Of
course, history alone can show how important this or that public man has
been; at all events, you do not look at the world as a “common man”.

**Wells** I am not pretending humility. What I mean is that I try to see
the world through the eyes of the common man, and not as a party
politician or a responsible administrator. My visit to the United States
excited my mind. The old financial world is collapsing; the economic
life of the country is being reorganised on new lines.

Lenin said: “We must learn to do business,” learn this from the
capitalists. Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the
spirit of Socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in the
United States is a profound reorganisation, the creation of planned,
that is, Socialist, economy. You and Roosevelt begin from two different
starting points. But is there not a relation in ideas, a kinship of
ideas, between Moscow and Washington?

In Washington I was struck by the same thing I see going on here; they
are building offices, they are creating a number of state regulation
bodies, they are organising a long-needed civil service. Their need,
like yours, is directive ability.

 

## America and Russia

**Stalin** The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which
we are pursuing in the USSR. The aim which the Americans are pursuing
arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The
Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private
capitalist activity, without changing the economic basis. They are
trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the
existing economic system.

Here, however, as you know, in place of the old, destroyed economic
basis, an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created.
Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, ie, reduce
these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the
anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are
preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot
but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter,
not of the reorganisation of society, not of abolishing the old social
system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting
certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think
they are reorganising society; objectively, however, they are preserving
the present basis of society. That is why, objectively, there will be no
reorganisation of society.

Nor will there be planned economy. What is planned economy? What are
some of its attributes? Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment.
Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system,
to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum. But surely, no capitalist
would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the
abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to
bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour.
You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to
a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the
people.

Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle
of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to
create planned economy.

**Wells** I agree with much of what you have said. But I would like to
stress the point that if a country as a whole adopts the principle of
planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins
consistently to apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at
last be abolished and Socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word,
will be brought about.

The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” is most powerful, and
in my opinion they are Socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of
stressing the antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the
present circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the
constructive forces.

**Stalin** In speaking of the impossibility of realising the principles
of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism, I
do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal
qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage and determination.
Undoubtedly Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among
all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world. That is why I
would like once again to emphasise the point that my conviction that
planned economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism does
not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities, talent and
courage of President Roosevelt.

But if the circumstances are unfavourable, the most talented captain
cannot reach the goal you refer to. Theoretically, of course, the
possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of
capitalism, towards the goal which you call Socialism in the Anglo-Saxon
meaning of the word, is not precluded. But what will this “Socialism”
be? At best, bridling to some extent the most unbridled of individual
representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application
of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very
well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary
bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the
foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The
banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in
Roosevelt’s hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the
mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the
army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are
not at Roosevelt’s command, they are at the command of the private
owners; they all work for the private owners.

We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.
The State is an institution that organises the defence of the country,
organises the maintenance of “order”; it is an apparatus for collecting
taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the
strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State.
On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That
is why I fear that in spite of all his energies and abilities, Roosevelt
will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal.
Perhaps in the course of several generations it will be possible to
approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is
not very probable.

 

## Socialism and Individualism

**Wells** Perhaps I believe more strongly in the economic interpretation
of politics than you do. Huge forces striving for better organisation,
for the better functioning of the community, that is, for Socialism,
have been brought into action by invention  
and modern science. Organisation, and the regulation of individual
action, have become mechanical necessities, irrespective of social
theories. If we begin with the State control of the banks and then
follow with the control of the heavy industries, of industry in general,
of commerce, etc, such an all-embracing control will be equivalent to
the State ownership of all branches of national economy.

Socialism and Individualism are not opposites like black and white.
There are many intermediate stages between them. There is Individualism
that borders on brigandage, and there is discipline and organisation
that are the equivalent of Socialism. The introduction of planned
economy depends, to a large degree, upon the organisers of economy, upon
the skilled technical intelligentsia who, step by step, can be converted
to the Socialist principles of organisation. And this is the most
important thing, because organisation comes before Socialism. It is the
more important fact. Without organisation the Socialist idea is a mere
idea.

**Stalin** There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast
between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the
individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be
no such contrast, because collectivism, Socialism, does not deny, but
combines individual interests with the interests of the collective.
Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests.

Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests.
More than that, Socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the
interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable
contrast between Individualism and Socialism. But can we deny the
contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist
class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class? On the one hand we
have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the
mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing
but their own interests, their striving after profits. They do not
submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every
collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the
poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor
banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the
capitalists and which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most
elementary requirements.

How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I
know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation
between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown.
Incidentally, you know the situation in the US better than I do, as I
have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from
literature. But I have some experience in fighting for Socialism, and
this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to
satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the
capitalist class, the latter will put another President in his place.
The capitalists will say: Presidents come and Presidents go, but we go
on for ever; if this or that President does not protect our interests,
we shall find another. What can the President oppose to the will of the
capitalist class?

**Wells** I object to this simplified classification of mankind into
poor and rich. Of course there is a category of people which strive only
for profit. But are not these people regarded as nuisances in the West
just as much as here? Are there not plenty of people in the West for
whom profit is not an end, who own a certain amount of wealth, who want
to invest and obtain a profit from this investment, but who do not
regard this as the main object? In my opinion there is a numerous class
of people who admit that the present system is unsatisfactory and who
are destined to play a great role in future capitalist society.

During the past few years I have been much engaged in and have thought
of the need for conducting propaganda in favour of Socialism and
cosmopolitanism among wide circles of engineers, airmen, military
technical people, etc. It is useless to approach these circles with
two-track class-war propaganda. These people understand the condition of
the world. They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard
your simple class-war antagonism as nonsense.

 

## The class war

**Stalin** You object to the simplified classification into rich and
poor. Of course there is a middle stratum, there is the technical
intelligentsia that you have mentioned and among which there are very
good and very honest people. Among them there are also dishonest and
wicked people; there are all sorts of people among them. But first of
all mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and
exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and
from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from
the fundamental fact.

I do not deny the existence of intermediate middle strata, which either
take the side of one or the other of these two conflicting classes, or
else take up a neutral or semi-neutral position in the struggle. But, I
repeat, to abstract oneself from this fundamental division in society
and from the fundamental struggle between the two main classes means
ignoring facts. The struggle is going on and will continue. The outcome
will be determined by the proletarian class – the working class.

**Wells** But are there not many people who are not poor, but who work
and work productively?

**Stalin** Of course, there are small landowners, artisans, small
traders, but it is not these people who decide the fate of a country,
but the toiling masses, who produce all the things society requires.

**Wells** But there are very different kinds of capitalists. There are
capitalists who only think about profit, about getting rich; but there
are also those who are prepared to make sacrifices. Take old \[J P\]
Morgan, for example. He only thought about profit; he was a parasite on
society, simply, he merely accumulated wealth. But take \[John D\]
Rockefeller. He is a brilliant organiser; he has set an example of how
to organise the delivery of oil that is worthy of emulation.

Or take \[Henry\] Ford. Of course Ford is selfish. But is he not a
passionate organiser of rationalised production from whom you take
lessons? I would like to emphasise the fact that recently an important
change in opinion towards the USSR has taken place in English-speaking
countries. The reason for this, first of all, is the position of Japan,
and the events in Germany. But there are other reasons besides those
arising from international politics. There is a more profound reason,
namely, the recognition by many people of the fact that the system based
on private profit is breaking down. Under these circumstances, it seems
to me, we must not bring to the forefront the antagonism between the two
worlds, but should strive to combine all the constructive movements, all
the constructive forces in one line as much as possible. It seems to me
that I am more to the Left than you, Mr Stalin; I think the old system
is nearer to its end than you think.

 

## The technician class

**Stalin** In speaking of the capitalists who strive only for profit,
only to get rich, I do not want to say that these are the most worthless
people, capable of nothing else. Many of them undoubtedly possess great
organising talent, which I do not dream of denying. We Soviet people
learn a great deal from the capitalists. And Morgan, whom you
characterise so unfavourably, was undoubtedly a good, capable organiser.
But if you mean people who are prepared to reconstruct the world, of
course, you will not be able to find them in the ranks of those who
faithfully serve the cause of profit. We and they stand at opposite
poles.

You mentioned Ford. Of course, he is a capable organiser of production.
But don’t you know his attitude towards the working class? Don’t you
know how many workers he throws on the street? The capitalist is riveted
to profit; and no power on earth can tear him away from it. Capitalism
will be abolished, not by “organisers” of production, not by the
technical intelligentsia, but by the working class, because the
aforementioned strata do not play an independent role. The engineer, the
organiser of production, does not work as he would like to, but as he is
ordered, in such a way as to serve the interests of his employers. There
are exceptions of course; there are people in this stratum who have
awakened from the intoxication of capitalism. The technical
intelligentsia can, under certain conditions, perform miracles and
greatly benefit mankind. But it can also cause great harm.

We Soviet people have not a little experience of the technical
intelligentsia. After the October Revolution, a certain section of the
technical intelligentsia refused to take part in the work of
constructing the new society; they opposed this work of construction and
sabotaged it. We did all we possibly could to bring the technical
intelligentsia into this work of construction; we tried this way and
that. Not a little time passed before our technical intelligentsia
agreed actively to assist the new system. Today the best section of this
technical intelligentsia is in the front rank of the builders of
Socialist society. Having this experience, we are far from
underestimating the good and the bad sides of the technical
intelligentsia, and we know that on the one hand it can do harm, and on
the other hand it can perform “miracles”.

Of course, things would be different if it were possible, at one stroke,
spiritually to tear the technical intelligentsia away from the
capitalist world. But that is Utopia. Are there many of the technical
in­telligentsia who would dare break away from the bourgeois world and
set to work reconstructing society? Do you think there are many people
of this kind, say, in England or in France? No; there are few who would
be willing to break away from their employers and begin reconstructing
the world.

 

## Achievement of political power

**Stalin** Besides, can we lose sight of the fact that in order to
transform the world it is necessary to have political power? It seems to
me, Mr Wells, that you greatly underestimate the question of political
power, that it entirely drops out of your conception.

What can those, even with the best intentions in the world, do if they
are unable to raise the question of seizing power, and do not possess
power? At best they can help the class which takes power, but they
cannot change the world themselves. This can only be done by a great
class which will take the place of the capitalist class and become the
sovereign master as the latter was before. This class is the working
class. Of course, the assistance of the technical intelligentsia must be
accepted; and the latter, in turn, must be assisted. But it must not be
thought that the technical intelligentsia can play an independent
historical role.

The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful
process. For this task a great class is required. Big ships go on long
voyages.

**Wells** Yes, but for long voyages a captain and navigator are
required.

**Stalin** That is true; but what is first required for a long voyage is
a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An idle man.

**Wells** The big ship is humanity, not a class.

**Stalin** You, Mr Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that
all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked
men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.

**Wells** I remember the situation with regard to the technical
intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical
intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every
engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why
the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now,
however, there is a super­abundance of technical intellectuals, and
their mentality has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would
formerly never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested
in it.

Recently I was dining with the Royal Society, our great English
scientific society. The President’s speech was a speech for social
planning and scientific control. Thirty years ago, they would not have
listened to what I say to them now. Today, the man at the head of the
Royal Society holds revolutionary views, and insists on the scientific
reorganisation of human society. Your class-war propaganda has not kept
pace with these facts. Mentality changes.

**Stalin** Yes, I know this, and this is to be explained by the fact
that capitalist society is now in a cul de sac. The capitalists are
seeking, but cannot find, a way out of this cul de sac that would be
compatible with the dignity of this class, compatible with the interests
of this class. They could, to some extent, crawl out of the crisis on
their hands and knees, but they cannot find an exit that would enable
them to walk out of it with head raised high, a way out that would not
fundamentally disturb the interests of capitalism.

This, of course, is realised by wide circles of the technical
intelligentsia. A large section of it is beginning to realise the
community of its interests with those of the class which is capable of
pointing the way out of the cul de sac.

**Wells** You of all people know something about revolutions, Mr Stalin,
from the practical side. Do the masses ever rise? Is it not an
established truth that all revolutions are made by a minority?

**Stalin** To bring about a revolution a leading revolutionary minority
is required; but the most talented, devoted and energetic minority would
be helpless if it did not rely upon the at least passive support of
millions.

**Wells** At least passive? Perhaps subconscious?

**Stalin** Partly also the semi-instinctive and semi-conscious, but
without the support of millions, the best minority is impotent.

 

## The place of violence

**Wells** I watch Communist propaganda in the West, and it seems to me
that in modern conditions this propaganda sounds very old-fashioned,
because it is insurrectionary propaganda.

Propaganda in favour of the violent overthrow of the social system was
all very well when it was directed against tyranny. But under modern
conditions, when the system is collapsing anyhow, stress should be laid
on efficiency, on competence, on productiveness, and not on
insurrection.

It seems to me that the insurrectionary note is obsolete. The Communist
propaganda in the West is a nuisance to constructive-minded people.

**Stalin** Of course the old system is breaking down, decaying. That is
true. But it is also true that new efforts are being made by other
methods, by every means, to protect, to save this dying system. You draw
a wrong conclusion from a correct postulate. You rightly state that the
old world is breaking down. But you are wrong in thinking that it is
breaking down of its own accord. No; the substitution of one social
system for another is a complicated and long revolutionary process. It
is not simply a spontaneous process, but a struggle; it is a process
connected with the clash of classes.

Capitalism is decaying, but it must not be compared simply with a tree
which has decayed to such an extent that it must fall to the ground of
its own accord. No, revolution, the substitution of one social system
for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and a cruel struggle,
a life-and-death struggle. And every time the people of the new world
came into power they had to defend themselves against the attempts of
the old world to restore the old power by force; these people of the new
world always had to be on the alert, always had to be ready to repel the
attacks of the old world upon the new system.

Yes, you are right when you say that the old social system is breaking
down; but it is not breaking down of its own accord. Take Fascism for
example. Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the
old system by means of violence. What will you do with the Fascists?
Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will have no effect upon
them at all. Communists do not in the least idealise methods of
violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise;
they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage;
they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is
why the Communists say to the working class: Answer violence with
violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing
you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with
which you will overthrow the old system.

As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system
for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a
complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts.

**Wells** But look at what is now going on in the capitalist world. The
collapse is not a simple one; it is the outbreak of reactionary violence
which is degenerating to gangsterism. And it seems to me that when it
comes to a conflict with reactionary and unintelligent violence,
Socialists can appeal to the law, and instead of regarding the police as
the enemy they should support them in the fight against the
reactionaries. I think that it is useless operating with the methods of
the old insurrectionary Socialism.

 

## The lessons of history

**Stalin** The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience
which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage
of history.

Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many
say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not,
nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?

**Wells** Cromwell acted on the basis of the constitution and in the
name of constitutional order.

**Stalin** In the name of the constitution he resorted to violence,
beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some and beheaded
others\!

Or take an example from our history. Was it not clear for a long time
that the Tsarist system was decaying, was breaking down? But how much
blood had to be shed in order to overthrow it?

And what about the October Revolution? Were there not plenty of people
who knew that we alone, the Bolsheviks, were indicating the only correct
way out? Was it not clear that Russian capitalism had decayed? But you
know how great was the resistance, how much blood had to be shed in
order to defend the October Revolution from all its enemies.

Or take France at the end of the eighteenth century. Long before 1789 it
was clear to many how rotten the royal power, the feudal system, was.
But a popular insurrection, a clash of classes was not, could not be
avoided. Why? Because the classes which must abandon the stage of
history are the last to become convinced that their role is ended. It is
impossible to convince them of this. They think that the fissures in the
decaying edifice of the old order can be repaired and saved.

That is why dying classes take to arms and resort to every means to save
their existence as a ruling class.

**Wells** But were there not a few lawyers at the head of the great
French Revolution?

**Stalin** I do not deny the role of the intelligentsia in revolutionary
movements. Was the great French Revolution a lawyers’ revolution and not
a popular revolution, which achieved victory by rousing vast masses of
the people against feudalism and championed the interests of the Third
Estate? And did the lawyers among the leaders of the great French
Revolution act in accordance with the laws of the old order? Did they
not introduce new, bourgeois-revolutionary law?

The rich experience of history teaches that up to now not a single class
has voluntarily made way for another class. There is no such precedent
in history. The Communists have learned this lesson of history.
Communists would welcome the voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie. But
such a turn of affairs is improbable, that is what experience teaches.
That is why the Communists want to be prepared for the worst and call
upon the working class to be vigilant, to be prepared for battle.

Who wants a captain who lulls the vigilance of his army, a captain who
does not understand that the enemy will not surrender, that he must be
crushed? To be such a captain means deceiving, betraying the working
class. That is why I think that what seems to you to be old-fashioned is
in fact a measure of revolutionary expediency for the working class.

 

## How to make a revolution

**Wells** I do not deny that force has to be used, but I think the forms
of the struggle should fit as closely as possible to the opportunities
presented by the existing laws, which must be defended against
reactionary attacks. There is no need to disorganise the old system
because it is disorganising itself enough as it is. That is why it seems
to me insurrection against the old order, against the law, is obsolete,
old-fashioned. Incidentally, I exaggerate in order to bring the truth
out more clearly. I can formulate my point of view in the following way:
first, I am for order; second, I attack the present system in so far as
it cannot assure order; third, I think that class war propaganda may
detach from Socialism just those educated people whom Socialism needs.

**Stalin** In order to achieve a great object, an important social
object, there must be a main force, a bulwark, a revolutionary class.
Next it is necessary to organise the assistance of an auxiliary force
for this main force; in this case this auxiliary force is the party, to
which the best forces of the intelligentsia belong. Just now you spoke
about “educated people”. But what educated people did you have in mind?
Were there not plenty of educated people on the side of the old order in
England in the seventeenth century, in France at the end of the
eighteenth century, and in Russia in the epoch of the October
Revolution? The old order had in its service many highly educated people
who defended the old order, who opposed the new order.

Education is a weapon the effect of which is determined by the hands
which wield it, by who is to be struck down. Of course, the proletariat,
Socialism, needs highly educated people. Clearly, simpletons cannot help
the proletariat to fight for Socialism, to build a new society.

I do not under-estimate the role of the intelligentsia; on the contrary,
I emphasise it. The question is, however, which intelligentsia are we
discussing? Because there are different kinds of intelligentsia.

**Wells** There can be no revolution without a radical change in the
educational system. It is sufficient to quote two examples – the example
of the German Republic, which did not touch the old educational system,
and therefore never became a republic; and the example of the British
Labour Party, which lacks the determination to insist on a radical
change in the educational system.

**Stalin** That is a correct observation. Permit me now to reply to your
three points. First, the main thing for the revolution is the existence
of a social bulwark. This bulwark of the revolution is the working
class.

Second, an auxiliary force is required, that which the Communists call a
Party. To the Party belong the intelligent workers and those elements of
the technical intelligentsia which are closely connected with the
working class. The intelligentsia can be strong only if it combines with
the working class. If it opposes the working class it becomes a cipher.

Third, political power is required as a lever for change. The new
political power creates the new laws, the new order, which is
revolutionary order.

I do not stand for any kind of order. I stand for order that corresponds
to the interests of the working class. If, however, any of the laws of
the old order can be utilised in the interests of the struggle for the
new order, the old laws should be utilised.

And, finally, you are wrong if you think that the Communists are
enamoured of violence. They would be very pleased to drop violent
methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the working class. But
the experience of history speaks against such an assumption.

**Wells** There was a case in the history of England, however, of a
class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the period
between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence was still very
considerable at the end of the eighteenth century, voluntarily, without
a severe struggle, surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as
a sentimental support of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference
of power led to the establishment of the rule of the financial
oligarchy.

**Stalin** But you have imperceptibly passed from questions of
revolution to questions of reform. This is not the same thing. Don’t you
think that the Chartist movement played a great role in the reforms in
England in the nineteenth century?

**Wells** The Chartists did little and disappeared without leaving a
trace.

**Stalin** I do not agree with you. The Chartists, and the strike
movement which they organised, played a great role; they compelled the
ruling class to make a number of concessions in regard to the franchise,
in regard to abolishing the so-called “rotten boroughs”, and in regard
to some of the points of the “Charter”. Chartism played a not
unimportant historical role and compelled a section of the ruling
classes to make certain concessions, reforms, in order to avert great
shocks. Generally speaking, it must be said that of all the ruling
classes, the ruling classes of England, both the aristocracy and the
bourgeoisie, proved to be the cleverest, most flexible from the point of
view of their class interests, from the point of view of maintaining
their power.

Take as an example, say, from modern history, the General Strike in
England in 1926. The first thing any other bourgeoisie would have done
in the face of such an event, when the General Council of Trade Unions
called for a strike, would have been to arrest the Trade Union leaders.
The Brit­ish bourgeoisie did not do that, and it acted cleverly from the
point of view of its own interests. I cannot conceive of such a flexible
strategy being employed by the bourgeoisie in the United States, Germany
or France. In order to maintain their rule, the ruling classes of Great
Britain have never forsworn small concessions, reforms. But it would be
a mistake to think that these reforms were revolutionary.

**Wells** You have a higher opinion of the ruling classes of my country
than I have. But is there a great difference between a small revolution
and a great reform? Is not a reform a small revolution?

**Stalin** Owing to pressure from below, the pressure of the masses, the
bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial reforms while
remaining on the basis of the existing social-economic system. Acting in
this way, it calculates that these concessions are necessary in order to
preserve its class rule. This is the essence of reform. Revolution,
however, means the transference of power from one class to another. That
is why it is impossible to describe any reform as revolution.

 

## What Russia is doing wrong

**Wells** I am very grateful to you for this talk, which has meant a
great deal to me. In explaining things to me you probably called to mind
how you had to explain the fundamentals of Socialism in the illegal
circles before the revolution. At the present time there are only two
persons to whose opinion, to whose every word, millions are listening –
you and Roosevelt. Others may preach as much as they like; what they say
will never be printed or heeded.

I cannot yet appreciate what has been done in your country; I only
arrived yesterday. But I have already seen the happy faces of healthy
men and women and I know that something very considerable is being done
here. The contrast with 1920 is astounding.

**Stalin** Much more could have been done had we Bolsheviks been
cleverer.

**Wells** No, if human beings were cleverer. It would be a good thing to
invent a Five-Year Plan for the reconstruction of the human brain, which
obviously lacks many things needed for a perfect social order.
\[Laughter\]

**Stalin** Don’t you intend to stay for the Congress of the Soviet
Writers’ Union?

**Wells** Unfortunately, I have various engagements to fulfil and I can
stay in the USSR only for a week. I came to see you and I am very
satisfied by our talk. But I intend to discuss with such Soviet writers
as I can meet the possibility of their affiliating to the PEN Club. The
organisation is still weak, but it has branches in many countries, and
what is more important, the speeches of its members are widely reported
in the press. It insists upon this, free expression of opinion – even of
opposition opinion. I hope to discuss this point with Gorki. I do not
know if you are prepared yet for that much freedom . . .

**Stalin** We Bolsheviks call it “self-criticism”. It is widely used in
the USSR. If there is anything I can do to help you I shall be glad to
do so.