1. Work “according to ability” and personal property
On the 11th of June, 1936, the Central Executive Committee approved the draft of a new Soviet Constitution which, according to Stalin’s declaration, repeated daily by the whole press, will be “the most democratic in the world.” To be sure, the manner in which the constitution was drawn2 up is enough to cause doubts as to this. Neither in the press nor at any meetings was a word ever spoken about this great reform. Moreover, as early as March 1, 1936, Stalin declared to the American interviewer, Roy Howard: “We will doubtless adopt our new constitution at the end of this year.” Thus Stalin knew with complete accuracy just when this new constitution, about which the people at that moment knew nothing at all, would be adopted. It is impossible not to conclude that “the most democratic constitution in the world” was worked out and introduced in a not quite perfectly3 democratic manner. To be sure, in June the draft was submitted to the “consideration” of the people of the Soviet union. It would be vain, however, to seek in this whole sixth part of the globe one Communist who would dare to criticize a creation of the Central Committee, or one non-party citizen who would reject a proposal from the ruling party. The discussion reduced itself to sending resolutions of gratitude4 to Stalin for the “happy life.” The content and style of these greetings had been thoroughly5 worked out under the old constitution.
The first section, entitled Social Structure, concludes with these words: “In the Soviet union, the principle of socialism is realized: From each according to his abilities to each according to his work.” This inwardly contradictory6, not to say nonsensical, formula has entered, believe it or not, from speeches and journalistic articles into the carefully deliberated text of the fundamental state law. It bears witness not only to a complete lowering of theoretical level in the lawgivers, but also to the lie with which, as a mirror of the ruling stratum8, the new constitution is imbued9. It is not difficult to guess the origin of the new “principle.” To characterize the Communist society, Marx employed the famous formula: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” The two parts of this formula are inseparable. “From each according to his abilities,” in the Communist, not the capitalist, sense, means: Work has now ceased to be an obligation, and has become an individual need; society has no further use for any compulsion. Only sick and abnormal persons will refuse to work. Working “according to their ability” – that is, in accord with their physical and psychic10 powers, without any violence to themselves – the members of the commune will, thanks to a high technique, sufficiently11 fill up the stores of society so that society can generously endow each and all “according to their needs,” without humiliating control. This two-sided but indivisible formula of communism thus assumes abundance, equality, an all-sided development of personality, and a high cultural discipline.
The Soviet state in all its relations is far closer to a backward capitalism12 than to communism. It cannot yet even think of endowing each “according to his needs.” But for this very reason it cannot permit its citizens to work “according to their abilities.” It finds itself obliged to keep in force the system of piecework payment, the principle of which may be expressed thus: “Get out of everybody as much as you can, and give him in exchange as little as possible.” To be sure, nobody in the Soviet union works above his “abilities” in the absolute sense of the word – that is, above his physical and psychic potential. But this is true also of capitalism. The most brutal13 as well as the most refined methods of exploitation run into limits set by nature. Even a mule14 under the whip works “according to his ability,” but from that it does not follow that the whip is a social principle for mules15. Wage labor16 does not cease even under the Soviet regime to wear the humiliating label of slavery. Payment “according to work” – in reality, payment to the advantage of “intellectual” at the expense of physical, and especially unskilled, work – is a source of injustice17, oppression and compulsions for the majority, privileges and a “happy life” for the few.
Instead of frankly18 acknowledging that bourgeois19 norms of labor and distribution still prevail in the Soviet union, the authors of the constitution have cut this integral Communist principle in two halves, postponed20 the second half to an indefinite future, declared the first half already realized, mechanically hitched21 on to it the capitalist norm of piecework payment, named the whole thing “principle of Socialism,” and upon this falsification erected22 the structure of their constitution!
Of greatest practical significance in the economic sphere is undoubtedly23 Article X, which in contrast to most of the articles has quite clearly the task of guaranteeing, against invasion from the bureaucracy itself, the personal property of the citizens in their articles of domestic economy, consumption, comfort and daily life. With the exception of “domestic economy”, property of this kind, purged25 of the psychology26 of greed and envy which clings to it, will not only be preserved under communism but will receive an unheard of development. It is subject to doubt, to be sure, whether a man of high culture would want to burden himself with a rubbish of luxuries. But he would not renounce27 any one of the conquests of comfort. The first task of communism is to guarantee the comforts of life to all. In the Soviet union, however, the question of personal property still wears a petty bourgeois and not a communist aspect. The personal property of the peasants and the not well-off city people is the target of outrageous28 arbitrary acts on the part of the bureaucracy, which on its lower steps frequently assures by such means its own relative comfort. A growth of the prosperity of the country now makes it possible to renounce these seizures29 of personal property, and even impels30 the government to protect personal accumulations as a stimulus31 to increase the productivity of labor. At the same time – and this is of no small importance a protection by law of the hut, cow and home-furnishings of the peasant, worker or clerical worker, also legalizes the town house of the bureaucrat32, his summer home, his automobile33 and all the other “objects of personal consumption and comfort,” appropriated by him on the basis of the “socialist34” principle: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work.” The bureaucrat’s automobile will certainly be protected by the new fundamental law more effectively than the peasant’s wagon35.
2. The Soviets36 and Democracy
In the political sphere, the distinction of the new constitution from the old is its return from the Soviet system of election according to class and industrial groups, to the system of bourgeois democracy based upon the so-called “universal, equal and direct” vote of an atomized population. This is a matter, to put it briefly37, of juridically liquidating38 the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where there are no capitalists, there is also no proletariat – say the creators of the new constitution – and consequently the state itself from being proletarian becomes national. This argument, with all its superficial lure39, is either nineteen years late or many years in advance of its time. In expropriating the capitalists, the proletariat did actually enter upon its own liquidation40 as a class. But from liquidation in principle to actual dissolution in society is a road more prolonged, the longer the new state is compelled to carry out the rudimentary work of capitalism. The Soviet proletariat still exists as n class deeply distinct from the peasantry, the technical intelligentsia and the bureaucracy – and moreover as the sole class interested right up to the end in the victory of socialism. The new constitution wants to dissolve this class in “the nation” politically, long before it is economically dissolved in society.
To be sure, the reformers decided41 after some waverings to call the state, as formerly42, Soviet. But that is only a crude political ruse43 dictated44 by the same considerations out of regard for which Napoleon’s empire continued to be called a republic. Soviets in their essence arc organs of class rule, and cannot be anything else. The democratically elected institutions of local self-administration are municipalities, dumas, zemstvos, anything you will, but not soviets. A general state Legislative45 Assembly on the basis of democratic formulas is a belated parliament (or rather its caricature), but by no means the highest organ of the Soviets. In trying to cover themselves with the historic authority of the Soviet system, the reformers merely show that the fundamentally new administration which they are giving to the state life dare not as yet come out under its own name.
Of itself, an equalization of the political rights of workers and peasants might not destroy the social nature of the state, if the influence of the proletariat upon the country were sufficiently guaranteed by the general state of economy and culture. The development of socialism certainly ought to proceed in that direction. But if the proletariat, while remaining a minority of the population, is really ceasing to need political ascendancy47 in order to guarantee a socialist course of social life, that means that the very need of state compulsion is reducing itself to nothing, giving place to cultural discipline.
The abolition48 of elective inequalities ought in that case to be preceded by a distinct and evident weakening of the compulsive functions of the state. Of this, however, there is not a word said either in the new constitution or, what is more important, in life.
To be sure, the new charter “guarantees” to the citizens the so-called “freedoms” of speech, press, assemblage and street processions. But each of these guarantees has the form either of a heavy muzzle49 or of shackles50 upon the hands and feet. Freedom of the press means a continuation of the fierce advance-censorship whose chains are held by the Secretariat of a Central Committee whom nobody has elected. Freedom of Byzantine flattery is thus, of course, fully7 “guaranteed.” Meanwhile, the innumerable articles, speeches, and letters of Lenin, ending in his “testament”, will continue under the new constitution to be locked up merely because they rub the new leaders the wrong way. That being the case with Lenin, it is unnecessary to speak about other authors. The crude and ignorant command of science, literature and art will be wholly preserved. “Freedom of assemblage” will mean, as formerly, the obligation of certain groups of the population to appear at meetings summoned by the authorities for the adoption51 of resolutions prepared in advance. Under the new constitution as under the old, hundreds of foreign communists, trusting in the Soviet “right of asylum,” will remain in prisons and concentration camps for crimes against the dogma of infallibility. In the matter of “freedom”, everything will remain as of old. Even the Soviet press does not try to sow any illusions about that. On the contrary, the chief goal of the new constitutional reform is declared to be a “further reinforcement of the dictatorship.” Whose dictatorship, and over whom?
As we have already heard, the ground for political equality was prepared by the abolition of class contradictions. It is no longer to be a class but a “people’s” dictatorship. But when the bearer of dictatorship becomes the people, freed from class contradictions, that can only mean the dissolution of the dictatorship in a socialist society – and, above all, the liquidation of the bureaucracy. Thus teaches the Marxian doctrine52. Perhaps it has been mistaken? But the very authors of the constitution refer, although very cautiously, to the program of the party written by Lenin. Here is what the program really says: “ . . . Deprivation53 of political rights, and all other limitations of freedom whatsoever54, are necessary exclusively in the form of temporary measures . . . In proportion as the objective possibility of the exploitation of man by man disappears, the necessity of these temporary measures will also disappear.” Abandonment of the “deprivation of political rights” is thus inseparably bound up with the abolition of “all limitations of freedom whatsoever.” The arrival at a socialist society is characterized not only by the fact that the peasants are put on an equality with the workers, and that political rights are restored to the small percentage of citizens of bourgeois origin, but above all by the fact that real freedom is established for the whole 100 per cent of the population. With the liquidation of classes, not only the bureaucracy dies away, and not only the dictatorship, but the state itself. Let some imprudent person, however, try to utter even a hint in this direction: the GPU will find adequate grounds in the new constitution to send him to one of the innumerable concentration camps. Classes are abolished. Of Soviets there remains56 only the name. But the bureaucracy is still there. The equality of the rights of workers and peasants means, in reality, an equal lack of rights before the bureaucracy.
No less significant is the introduction of the secret ballot57. If you take it on faith that the new political equality corresponds to an achieved social equality, then there remains a puzzling question: In that case why must voting henceforth be protected by secrecy58? Whom exactly does the population of a socialist country fear, and from whose attempts must it be defended? The old Soviet constitution saw in open voting, as in the limitation of elective rights, a weapon of the revolutionary class against bourgeois and petty bourgeois enemies. We cannot assume that now the secret ballot is being introduced for the convenience of a counterrevolutionary minority. It is a question, evidently, of defending the rights of the people. But who is feared by a socialist people which has recently thrown off a tzar, a nobility and a bourgeoisie? The sycophants59 do not even give a thought to this question. Yet there is more in it than in all the writings of the Barbusses, the Louis Fischers, the Durantys, the Webbs, and the like of them.
In a capitalist society, the secret ballot is meant to defend the exploited from the terror of the exploiters. If the bourgeoisie finally adopted such a reform, obviously under pressure from the masses, it was only because it became interested in protecting its state at least partially60 from the demoralization introduced by itself. But in a socialist society there can be, it would seem, no terror of the exploiters. From whom is it necessary to defend the Soviet citizens? The answer is clear: from the bureaucracy. Stalin was frank enough to recognize this. To the question: Why are secret elections necessary? he answered verbatim: “Because we intend to give the Soviet people full freedom to vote for those whom they want to elect.” Thus humanity learns from an authoritative61 source that today the “Soviet people” cannot yet vote for those whom they want to elect. It would be hasty to conclude from this that the new constitution will really tender them this opportunity in the future. Just now, however, we are occupied with another side of this problem. Who, exactly, is this “we” who can give or not give the people a free ballot? It is that same bureaucracy in whose name Stalin speaks and acts. This exposure of his applies to the ruling party exactly as it does to the state, for Stalin himself occupies the post of General Secretary of the Party with the help of a system which does not permit the members to elect those whom they want. The words “we intend to give the Soviet people” freedom of voting are incomparably more important than the old and new constitution taken together, for in this incautious phrase lies the actual constitution of the Soviet union as it has been drawn up, not upon paper, but in the struggle of living forces.
3. Democracy and the Party
The promise to give the Soviet people freedom to vote “for those whom they want to elect” is rather a poetic62 figure than a political formula. The Soviet people will have the right to choose their “representatives” only from among candidates whom the central and local leaders present to them under the flag of the party. To be sure, during the first period of the Soviet era the Bolshevik party also exercised a monopoly. But to identify these two phenomena64 would be to take appearance for reality. The prohibition65 of opposition66 parties was a temporary measure dictated by conditions of civil war, blockade, intervention67 and famine. The ruling party, representing in that period a genuine organization of the proletarian vanguard, was living a full-blooded inner life. A struggle of groups and factions68 to a certain degree replaced the struggle of parties. At present, when socialism has conquered “finally and irrevocably,” the formation of factions is punished with concentration camp or firing squad69. The prohibition of other parties, from being a temporary evil, has been erected into a principle. The right to occupy themselves with political questions has even been withdrawn70 from the Communist Youth, and that at the very moment of publication of the new constitution. Moreover, the citizens and citizenesses enjoy the franchise71 from the age of 18, but the age limit for Communist Youth existing until 1986 (23 years) is now wholly abolished. Politics is thus once for all declared the monopoly of an uncontrolled bureaucracy.
To a question from an American interviewer as to the role of the party in the new constitution, Stalin answered: “Once there are no classes, once the barriers between classes are disappearing [‘there are no classes, the barriers between classes – which are not! – are disappearing’ – L.T.], there remains only something in the nature of a not at all fundamental difference between various little strata72 of the socialist society. There can be no nourishing soil for the creation of parties struggling among themselves. Where there are not several classes, there cannot be several parties, for a party is part of a class.” Every word is a mistake and some of them two! It appears from this that classes are homogeneous; that the boundaries of classes are outlined sharply and once for all; that the consciousness of a class strictly73 corresponds to its place in society. The Marxist teaching of the class nature of the party is thus turned into a caricature. The dynamic of political consciousness is excluded from the historical process in the interests of administrative74 order. In reality classes are heterogeneous75; they are torn by inner antagonisms76, and arrive at the solution of common problems no otherwise than through an inner struggle of tendencies, groups and parties. It is possible, with certain qualifications, to concede that “a party is part of a class.” But since a class has many “parts” – some look forward and some back – one and the same class may create several parties. For the same reason one party may rest upon parts of different classes. An example of only one party corresponding to one class is not to be found in the whole course of political history – provided, of course, you do not take the police appearance for the reality.
In its social structure, the proletariat is the least heterogeneous class of capitalist society. Nevertheless, the presence of such “little strata” as the workers’ aristocracy and the workers’ bureaucracy is sufficient to give rise to opportunistic parties, which are converted by the course of things into one of the weapons of bourgeois domination. Whether from the standpoint of Stalinist sociology, the difference between the workers’ aristocracy and the proletarian mass is “fundamental” or only “something in the nature of” matters not at all. It is from this difference that the necessity arose in its time for breaking with the Social Democracy and creating the Third International.
Even if in the Soviet society “there are no classes,” nevertheless this society is at least incomparably more heterogeneous and complicated than the proletariat of capitalist countries, and consequently can furnish adequate nourishing soil for several parties. In making this imprudent excursion into the field of theory, Stalin proved a good deal more than he wanted to. From his reasonings it follows not only that there can be no different parties in the Soviet union, but that there cannot even be one party. For where there are no classes, there is in general no place for politics. Nevertheless, from this law Stalin draws a “sociological” conclusion in favor of the party of which he is the General Secretary.
Bukharin tries to approach the problem from another side. In the Soviet union, he says, the question where to go – whether back to capitalism or forward to socialism – is no longer subject to discussion. Therefore, “partisans77 of the hostile liquidated78 classes organized in parties cannot be permitted.” To say nothing of the fact that in a country of triumphant79 socialism partisans of capitalism would be merely ludicrous Don Quixotes incapable80 of creating a party, the existing political differences are far from comprised in the alternative: to socialism or to capitalism. There are other questions: How go toward socialism, with what tempo55, etc. The choice of the road is no less important than the choice of the goal. Who is going to choose the road? If the nourishing soil for political parties has really disappeared, then there is no reason to forbid them. On the contrary, it is time, in accordance with the party program, to abolish “all limitations of freedom whatsoever.”
In trying to dispel81 the natural doubts of his American interviewer, Stalin advanced a new consideration: “Lists of nominees82 will be presented not only by the Communist Party, but also by all kinds of non-party social organizations. And we have hundreds of them . . . Each one of the little strata [of Soviet society] can have its special interests and reflect [express?] them through the existing innumerable social organizations.” This sophism83 is no better than the others. The Soviet “social” organizations – trade union, co-operative, cultural, etc. do not in the least represent the interests of different “little strata”, for they all have one and the same hierarchical structure. Even in those cases where they apparently84 represent mass organizations, as in the trade unions and co-operatives, the active role in them is played exclusively by representatives of the upper privileged groups, and the last word remains with the “party” – that is, the bureaucracy. The constitution merely refers the elector from Pontius to Pilate.
The mechanics of this are expressed with complete precision in the very text of the fundamental law. Article 126, which is the axis85 of the constitution as a political system, “guarantees the right” to all male and female citizens to group themselves in trade unions, co-operatives, youth, sport, defensive86, cultural, technical and scientific organizations. As to the party – that is, the concentration of power – there it is not a question of the right of all, but of the privilege of the minority. “ . . . The most active and conscious [so considered, that is, from above – L.T.] citizens from the ranks of the working class and other strata of the toiling87 masses, are united in the Communist Party . . . which constitutes the guiding nucleus88 of all organizations, both social and governmental.” This astoundingly candid63 formula, introduced into the text of the constitution itself, reveals the whole fictitiousness89 of the political role of those “social organizations” – subordinate branches of the bureaucratic90 firm.
But if there is not to be a struggle of parties, perhaps the different factions within the one party can reveal themselves at these democratic elections? To the question of a French journalist as to the groupings of the ruling party, Molotov answered: “In the party . . . attempts have been made to create special factions . . . but it is already several years since the situation in this matter has fundamentally changed, and the Communist Party is actually a unit.” This is proven best of all by the continuous purgations and the concentration camps. After the commentary of Molotov, the mechanics of democracy are completely clear. “What remains of the October Revolution,” asks Victor Serge, “if every worker who permits himself to make a demand, or express a critical judgment91, is subject to imprisonment92? Oh, after that you can establish as many secret ballots93 as you please!” It is true: even Hitler did not infringe94 upon the secret ballot.
The reformers have dragged in theoretical arguments about the mutual95 relations of classes and parties by the hair. It is not a question of sociology, but of material interests. The ruling party which enjoys a monopoly in the Soviet union is the political machine of the bureaucracy, which in reality has something to lose and nothing more to gain. It wishes to preserve the “nourishing soil” for itself alone.
In a country where the lava96 of revolution has not yet cooled, privileges burn those who possess them as a stolen gold watch burns an amateur thief. The ruling Soviet stratum has learned to fear the masses with a perfectly bourgeois fear. Stalin gives the growing special privileges of the upper circles a “theoretical” justification97 with the help of the Communist International, and defends the Soviet aristocracy from popular discontent with the help of concentration camps. In order that this mechanism98 should keep on working, Stalin is compelled from time to time to take the side of “the people” against the bureaucracy – of course, with its tacit consent. He finds it useful to resort to the secret ballot in order at least partially to purge24 the state apparatus99 of the corruptions100 which are devouring101 it.
As early as 1928, Rakovsky wrote, discussing a number of cases of bureaucratic gangsterism102 which were coming to the surface: “The most characteristic and most dangerous thing in this spreading wave of scandals is the passiveness of the masses, the Communist masses even more than the nonparty . . . Owing to fear of those in power, or simply owing to political indifference103, they have passed these things by without protest, or have limited themselves to mere46 grumbling104.” During the eight years which have passed since that time, the situation has become incomparably worse. The decay of the political machine, exposing itself at every step, has begun to threaten the very existence of the state no longer now as an instrument for the socialist transformation105 of society, but as a source of power, income and privileges to the ruling stratum. Stalin was compelled to give a glimpse of this motive106 to the reform. “We have not a few institutions,” he told Roy Howard, “which work badly . . . The secret ballot in the Soviet union will be a whip in the hands of the population against badly working organs of power.” A remarkable107 confession108! After the bureaucracy has created a socialist society with its own hands, it feels the need . . . of a whip! That is one of the motives109 of the constitutional reform. There is another no less important.
In abolishing the soviets, the new constitution dissolves the workers in the general mass of the population. Politically the soviets, to be sure, long ago lost their significance. But with the growth of new social antagonisms and the awakening110 of a new generation, they might again come to life. Most of all, of course, are to be feared the city soviets with the increasing participation111 of fresh and demanding communist youth. In the cities the contrast between luxury and want is too clear to the eyes. The first concern of the Soviet aristocracy is to get rid of worker and Red Army soviets. With the discontent of the scattered112 rural population it is much easier to deal. The collectivized peasants can even with some success be used against the city workers. This is not the first time that a bureaucratic reaction has relied upon the country in its struggle against the city.
Whatever in the new constitution is principled and significant, and really elevates it high above the most democratic constitutions of bourgeois countries, is merely a watered-down paraphrase113 of the fundamental documents of the October revolution. Whatever has to do with estimating the economic conquests, distorts reality with false perspective and braggadocio114. And finally whatever concerns freedom and democracy is saturated115 through and through with the spirit of usurpation116 and cynicism.
Representing, as it does, an immense step back from socialist to bourgeois principles, the new constitution, cut and sewed to the measure of the ruling group, follows the same historic course as the abandonment of world revolution in favor of the League of Nations, the restoration of the bourgeois family, the substitution of the standing117 army for the militia118, the resurrection of ranks and decorations, and the growth of inequality. By juridically reinforcing the absolutism of an “extra-class” bureaucracy, the new constitution creates the political premises119 for the birth of a. new possessing class.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
Soviet
|
|
| adj.苏联的，苏维埃的；n.苏维埃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
gratitude
|
|
| adj.感激，感谢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
contradictory
|
|
| adj.反驳的，反对的，抗辩的；n.正反对，矛盾对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
stratum
|
|
| n.地层，社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
imbued
|
|
| v.使（某人/某事）充满或激起（感情等）( imbue的过去式和过去分词 )；使充满；灌输；激发（强烈感情或品质等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
psychic
|
|
| n.对超自然力敏感的人；adj.有超自然力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
capitalism
|
|
| n.资本主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
mule
|
|
| n.骡子，杂种，执拗的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
mules
|
|
| 骡( mule的名词复数 )； 拖鞋； 顽固的人； 越境运毒者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
bourgeois
|
|
| adj./n.追求物质享受的(人)；中产阶级分子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
postponed
|
|
| vt.& vi.延期，缓办，（使）延迟vt.把…放在次要地位；[语]把…放在后面（或句尾）vi.（疟疾等）延缓发作（或复发） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
hitched
|
|
| （免费）搭乘他人之车( hitch的过去式和过去分词 )； 搭便车； 攀上； 跃上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
ERECTED
|
|
| adj. 直立的，竖立的，笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立，建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
purge
|
|
| n.整肃，清除，泻药，净化；vt.净化，清除，摆脱；vi.清除，通便，腹泻，变得清洁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
purged
|
|
| 清除（政敌等）( purge的过去式和过去分词 )； 涤除（罪恶等）； 净化（心灵、风气等）； 消除（错事等）的不良影响 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
renounce
|
|
| v.放弃；拒绝承认，宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
seizures
|
|
| n.起获( seizure的名词复数 )；没收；充公；起获的赃物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
impels
|
|
| v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
stimulus
|
|
| n.刺激，刺激物，促进因素，引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
bureaucrat
|
|
| n. 官僚作风的人，官僚，官僚政治论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
automobile
|
|
| n.汽车，机动车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
socialist
|
|
| n.社会主义者；adj.社会主义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
wagon
|
|
| n.四轮马车，手推车，面包车；无盖运货列车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
soviets
|
|
| 苏维埃（Soviet的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
liquidating
|
|
| v.清算( liquidate的现在分词 )；清除（某人）；清偿；变卖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
lure
|
|
| n.吸引人的东西，诱惑物；vt.引诱，吸引 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
liquidation
|
|
| n.清算，停止营业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
ruse
|
|
| n.诡计，计策；诡计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
dictated
|
|
| v.大声讲或读( dictate的过去式和过去分词 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
ascendancy
|
|
| n.统治权，支配力量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
muzzle
|
|
| n.鼻口部；口套；枪(炮)口；vt.使缄默 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
shackles
|
|
| 手铐( shackle的名词复数 )； 脚镣； 束缚； 羁绊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
deprivation
|
|
| n.匮乏；丧失；夺去，贫困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
tempo
|
|
| n.(音乐的)速度；节奏，行进速度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
ballot
|
|
| n.（不记名）投票，投票总数，投票权；vi.投票 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
secrecy
|
|
| n.秘密，保密，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
sycophants
|
|
| n.谄媚者，拍马屁者( sycophant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
partially
|
|
| adv.部分地，从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
authoritative
|
|
| adj.有权威的，可相信的；命令式的；官方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
poetic
|
|
| adj.富有诗意的，有诗人气质的，善于抒情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
candid
|
|
| adj.公正的，正直的；坦率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
factions
|
|
| 组织中的小派别，派系( faction的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
squad
|
|
| n.班，小队，小团体；vt.把…编成班或小组 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
withdrawn
|
|
| vt.收回；使退出；vi.撤退，退出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
franchise
|
|
| n.特许，特权，专营权，特许权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
strata
|
|
| n.地层（复数）；社会阶层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
administrative
|
|
| adj.行政的，管理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
heterogeneous
|
|
| adj.庞杂的；异类的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
antagonisms
|
|
| 对抗，敌对( antagonism的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
partisans
|
|
| 游击队员( partisan的名词复数 )； 党人； 党羽； 帮伙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
liquidated
|
|
| v.清算( liquidate的过去式和过去分词 )；清除（某人）；清偿；变卖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
dispel
|
|
| vt.驱走，驱散，消除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
nominees
|
|
| n.被提名者，被任命者( nominee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
sophism
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
axis
|
|
| n.轴，轴线，中心线；坐标轴，基准线 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
defensive
|
|
| adj.防御的；防卫的；防守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
toiling
|
|
| 长时间或辛苦地工作( toil的现在分词 )； 艰难缓慢地移动，跋涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
nucleus
|
|
| n.核，核心，原子核 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
fictitiousness
|
|
| n.flirtatious（爱调情的，卖俏的，轻佻的，轻浮的）的变形 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
90
bureaucratic
|
|
| adj.官僚的，繁文缛节的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
ballots
|
|
| n.投票表决( ballot的名词复数 )；选举；选票；投票总数v.（使）投票表决( ballot的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
infringe
|
|
| v.违反，触犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
lava
|
|
| n.熔岩，火山岩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
mechanism
|
|
| n.机械装置；机构，结构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
apparatus
|
|
| n.装置，器械；器具，设备 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
corruptions
|
|
| n.堕落( corruption的名词复数 )；腐化；腐败；贿赂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
devouring
|
|
| 吞没( devour的现在分词 )； 耗尽； 津津有味地看； 狼吞虎咽地吃光 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
gangsterism
|
|
| 犯罪，歹徒及其犯罪行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
indifference
|
|
| n.不感兴趣，不关心，冷淡，不在乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
grumbling
|
|
| adj. 喃喃鸣不平的, 出怨言的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
transformation
|
|
| n.变化；改造；转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
awakening
|
|
| n.觉醒，醒悟 adj.觉醒中的；唤醒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
participation
|
|
| n.参与，参加，分享 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
paraphrase
|
|
| vt.将…释义，改写；n.释义，意义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
braggadocio
|
|
| n.吹牛大王 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
saturated
|
|
| a.饱和的，充满的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
usurpation
|
|
| n.篡位；霸占 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
militia
|
|
| n.民兵，民兵组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
premises
|
|
| n.建筑物，房屋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |