KONSTANTIN ZARODOV
__TITLE__ LeninismProgress Publishers
•Moscow
[1]Translated from the Russian by David Skvirsky Designed by Elga Dorokhova
K. SAPOflOB
J1EHHHH3M H COBPEMEHHblE OPOBJlEMbl HEPEXOflA OT KAnHTAJTM3MA K COUHAJIH3MV Ha anaAuficKOM »3biKe
__COPYRIGHT__ First printing 1972Nothing is more momentous in the life of mankind than the birth of a new social system. Under the impact of the revolutionary hammer the practices that had taken shape over the centuries are crumbling, hated institutions and traditions are disappearing and the face of society is being transformed and renewed. The road is opening for an upsurge of the productive forces, and human genius is engaging nature in a new battle with the promise of greater successes than at any other time in history.
How is a new system born? What roads lead to it in the labyrinth of social processes?
These problems have stirred and still are stirring the finest minds.
Our generation is both the witness and the prime mover of an exciting, eventful period of history. The grandiose revolutionary transformations that have taken place in social life and in science and technology have affected social development in all the continents. The last of the exploiter systems---capitalism---is moving towards inescapable collapse. Translated from a beautiful dream into tangible reality, socialism has become a powerful accelerator of the historical process, a force exercising an increasingly decisive influence on the course of world development.
After the first Russian revolution (1905--1907), Vladimir Lenin wrote that the coming epoch would see Marxism blaze 5 into greater triumph than ever before. His prophetic words have come true.
The Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia marked the commencement of a new epoch in world history---the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism and communism. Supported by the proletariat of the whole world, the working people of Russia built the first socialist state in history. As a result of fascism's defeat in the Second World War and the growth of the working-class and national liberation movements the working people have scored monumental achievements. Thanks to aid from the Soviet Union, new socialist states have sprung up. A world socialist system has come into being. It is steadily growing stronger and crowding capitalism in all spheres of present-day .society. At the same time, capitalism is being eroded by other powerful torrents of the global revolution: increasing momentum is being acquired by the working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries and by the national liberation movement in countries of the Third World.
The teaching of scientific socialism is penetrating all parts of the globe. Millions upon millions of people in all the continents see the practical achievements of socialism in economic, scientific and cultural development, in the rising standard of living and in the promotion of all the capabilities and talents of the individual. These advantages of the new society---of socialism and communism---are today visible to more and more millions of ordinary people on our planet. The economic, socio-political and spiritual relations in contemporary society are such that mankind cannot advance without sweeping away imperialism and establishing socialism and communism. This is the demand of history.
These conditions accentuate the question of how the various countries are to achieve the transition from capitalism to socialism and of the means ensuring the consolidation of socialist relations. It is, therefore, not accidental that the world communist movement attaches such immense importance to precisely these problems of the struggle for socialism.
Problems related to the transition from capitalism to socialism acquired prominence at the initial period of the emergence of Marxist theory, from the very first steps of the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Naturally, 6 they received increasing attention with the development of the revolutionary theory itself and its practical realisation in socialist and communist construction.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were the first to adopt a scientific approach to the ways and forms of achieving the transition from capitalism to socialism.
An outstanding role in developing the teaching on the transition to socialism and in its practical application was played by Lenin.
It was Lenin who analysed the new epoch---the epoch of imperialism---and evolved a new theory of the socialist revolution. Under his leadership this teaching was given practical embodiment in the Russia of 1917 with her multistructural economy and intricate intermingling of class and political problems. It was under Lenin's leadership that the building of the world's first socialist state of workers and peasants was started. Drawing upon the experience of the revolution and the initial years of socialist construction, Lenin showed other countries the way to effect the transition from capitalism to socialism. Leninism is the supreme achievement of scientific thinking and socialist practice. A great international teaching, it is the Marxism of the contemporary epoch.
Using the ideas propounded by Lenin, the Communist and Workers' parties, the whole world communist movement, are creatively enlarging on his teaching, using it as the guide-line of their theoretical and practical-- revolutionary work.
Many books dealing with the transition from capitalism to socialism were published in the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s. Most of them are devoted to the philosophical, economic or political aspects of the subject. This book reviews the subject chiefly from the historical and party aspects on the basis of works by Marx, Engels and Lenin, documents of the CPSU, particularly of its 20th-24th congresses, documents of the Comintern and of the 1957, 1960 and 1969 International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties, and other documents of the communist and working-class movement. Furthermore, it examines the works of prominent figures in the communist movement.
The author critically scrutinises the views propounded by bourgeois and social-democratic researchers, and also 7 Right and ``Left'' opportunist and revisionist notions on the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism. He has striven not only to lay bare the scientific untenability of anti-Marxist concepts but to show that the entire history of the international communist movement, the whole history of the struggle for the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the building of socialist society strikingly demonstrates that in revolutionary activity success attends those who faithfully, abide by the theory of Marxism-Leninism and uncompromisingly oppose distortions of that theory, and, conversely, that failure and error are the inevitable lot of those who depart from Marxism-Leninism or pervert it.
One of the author's aims was to trace the practice of the class struggle and the course of society's socialist transformation, and examine current problems of the revolutionary, transformative activity of the Marxist-Leninist parties. For that reason this book is chiefly an exposition and a study of general theoretical and general methodological problems. Hence the relatively limited use of concrete historical material, which only bears out the general theoretical and methodological propositions put forward by the author. This approach is consistent with the Marxist-Leninist requirement that phenomena must be studied in all their wealth, diversity, multiform links and manifestations. Another reason making this approach important is that fairly extensive experience has been accumulated which requires a systematic generalisation and analysis.
[8] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 1 __ALPHA_LVL1__ FORMULATIONThe task of overthrowing the capitalist system by revolution and replacing it with the socialist system came to the fore when as a social and economic formation capitalism began to lose its progressive significance and became a hindrance to social advancement. However, it took decades of revolutionary struggle by the working people and dedicated creative labour by mankind's finest minds before the historical need for socialism was clearly and scientifically substantiated and converted into the invincible theory of the socialist revolution. The foundation of this theory was laid by the great creators of scientific socialism---Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Vladimir Lenin brilliantly enlarged on this theory in the conditions of imperialism and evolved an integral teaching of the socialist revolution, of the struggle for socialism and of its triumph on a world-wide scale. Today, while rejecting the efforts of the opportunists to distort the actual trends of world development and conceal the revolutionary nature of our epoch, the world communist movement is creatively enriching Lenin's concept. In their turn, the successes of the revolutionary movement, which are changing the face of the modern world, are introducing corrections into revolutionary theory and helping to perfect and develop it.
Thus, the evolution of the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism has gone through several phases 9 inseparably linked with the elaboration and historical development of the entire theory, strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. MARX AND ENGELSMore than a hundred and twenty years have elapsed since Marx and Engels laid the foundation of their teaching. These years have borne out the correctness and strength of this teaching. Enriched and enlarged by the great Lenin, Marxism is today exercising a growing influence on the entire course of human history.
Marx and Engels gave the working people an unconquerable weapon in the battle against exploiters, for socialism. It is not fortuitous that though it has been repeatedly ``buried'' by its enemies, Marxism continues to remain in the centre of the ideological struggle, stirring revolutionary enthusiasm in the working people and evoking the rage and hate of their class enemies.
The basic problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism are propounded in many works of the founders of Marxism, including Manifesto of the Communist Party, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, The Class Struggles in France, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The Civil War in France, and in the documents of the First and Second Internationals, most of which were written personally by Marx and Engels, with their direct participation or on their initiative.
The founders of Marxism regarded the socialist revolution as a process entailing the forcible overthrow of capitalist power and the transfer of power to the proletariat, the dismantling of the bourgeois state machine and the settingup of institutions through which the proletariat could exercise its political power. In the broad sense, the words socialist revolution imply the establishment of socialist relations of production, the gradual abolition of class society and its contradictions, the removal of the existing division of labour and the eradication of the contradictions between town and countryside.
Marx and Engels worked out the theory of two stages 10 of communist society. They indicated that the transition from capitalism to the first stage of communism, i.e., socialism, would embrace a certain period of history. This period of fundamental social changes could only be one of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a period in which society's economic, political and cultural life would be characterised by a number of specific features.^^*^^
Brilliant practicians and skilful organisers of the working-class movement, Marx and Engels headed the first international associations of the proletariat. They devoted much of their energy and time to the publication of newspapers, thereby helping to prepare the working class for the revolutionary battles. They took a direct part in class battles, helping the revolutionary workers to organise. They wrote a vast number of works on the tactics of the workingclass movement at different stages of the revolutionary struggle and in the specific conditions of different countries, profoundly analysing the practical revolutionary activity of the masses and their organisations. This analysis of practice enabled them to enrich revolutionary theory. Yet the adversaries of Marxism assert that Marx and Engels were only theoreticians far removed from the real problems of revolutionary practice.^^**^^
The revolutionary theory evolved by Marx and Engels mirrored the experience of the struggle of the working class in different countries and this made it invincible.
Let us examine the attitude of Marx and Engels to the _-_-_
^^*^^ Revising the scientific concept of socialism, some Czechoslovak philosophers asserted that Marx did not give a thorough-going definition of socialism but made it dependent on the specific conditions of social development. For instance, Vitezslav Gardavsky wrote that ``for him socialism meant the realities and the. historical process of the contemporary world" (Nova mysl, 1969, No. 2, p. 157). This is a glaring falsification of Marxism.
^^**^^ A stinging rebuff was given to these adversaries of Marxism by Lenin, when in 1907, having in mind Marx's attitude to the revolution of 1848, he wrote: ``No, gentlemen, this is the combination of revolutionary theory and revolutionary policy.'' And further: ``Ah, how our present `realist' wiseacres among the Marxists, who in 1906--07 are deriding revolutionary romanticism in Russia, would have sneered at Marx at the time! How people would have scoffed at a materialist, an economist, an enemy of Utopias, who pays homage to an `attempt' to storm hcavenl" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 12, p. 107).
11 revolutionary potentialities of Russia. This is important because in foreign countries efforts are being made to pass over or distort their views on this question.Marx and Engels searchingly analysed the prospects for the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia, examining the situation in Russia in the light of the general laws of the revolutionary struggle as discovered by them and taking into account the specifics of Russian reality. They stressed the revolutionary significance of the struggle for the abolition of serfdom and for the national rights of the peoples enslaved by tsarism. As early as 1858 Marx wrote that in Russia ``inflammable material has accumulated under her own feet which a strong blast from the West may suddenly set on fire''.^^*^^ In connection with the Polish national liberation uprising in 1863 he drew the conclusion that ``in Europe the era of revolution has broadly re-opened''.^^**^^
Later, in the mid-1880s, Engels repeatedly noted that Russia was the key to the successful accomplishment of the revolution in Europe and that, possibly, the first European revolution would take place in Russia. In a letter to August Bebel on December 11--12, 1884, he wrote that ``as things are at present, an impulse from outside can scarcely come from anywhere but Russia''.^^***^^
``What I know or believe I know about the situation in Russia makes me think that the Russians are approaching the 1789. The revolution must break out there in a limited period of time; it may break out any day. In these circumstances the country is like a charged mine which only needs a match to be applied to it"^^****^^ (from a letter from Engels to Vera Zasulich on April 23, 1885). To Paul Lafargue Engels wrote on October 25--26, 1886: ``If a revolution were to break out in Russia it would create a whole complex of the most favourable conditions.''^^*****^^ Some months later he said he believed that ``it really looks like the beginning of the end in Russia, and this will be the beginning of the end in Europe.''^^*)^^ ``A revolution in Russia today would save Europe _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 12, p. 520.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 266.
^^***^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 381
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 384.
^^*****^^ Ibid., p. 477.
^^*)^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 36, p. 536.
12 from the calamity of a world war and lay the beginning of a world-wide social revolution,''^^*^^ he wrote to Nadejde on January 4, 1888.Engels' conclusion that in Russia revolution was approaching was testimony of his splendid understanding of the conditions obtaining in Russia: ``To me the important thing is that the impulse in Russia should be given, that the revolution should break out whether this or that faction gives the signal, whether it happens under this flag or that matters little to me. If it were a palace conspiracy it would be swept away tomorrow. There where the situation is strained, where the revolutionary elements have accumulated to such a degree, where the economic conditions of the enormous mass of the people become daily more impossible, where every stage of social development is represented, from the primitive commune to modern large-scale industry and high finance, and where all these contradictions are violently held in check by an unexampled despotism, a despotism which is becoming more and more unbearable to a youth in whom the dignity and intelligence of the nation are united ---there, when 1789 has once been launched, 1793 will not be long in following.''^^**^^
The theoretical and practical work accomplished by Marx and Engels was important not only because it was founded on the practical experience of the proletarian struggle in different countries. The potency of the Marxist teaching of revolution also lies in the fact that it was the supreme expression of all preceding and contemporary concepts of social development and was, moreover, indivisible from the other aspects of Marxism, which had creatively absorbed all the achievements of human thought and raised it to a qualitatively new level. ``... The genius of Marx,'' Lenin wrote in an article headed ``The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'', ``consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism.''^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 37, pp. 5-6.
^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 385.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 23.
13Socialist ideas had been propounded long before Marx and Engels and they had become most widespread in the form of various schools and orientations of Utopian socialism, which produced entire socialist and communist concepts containing not only blissful dreams but daring forecasts of the society and man of the future. The exponents of these Utopian concepts may be divided into three main groups: Utopian Communists, Utopian Socialists and pettybourgeois Socialists.
The Utopian Communists demanded social equality through the abolition of private ownership. Proponents of revolutionary action like Francois Emile Babeuf, Theodore Dezamy and Louis-Auguste Blanqui accentuated the importance of propaganda and organisational work among the proletariat and of conspiracies against the existing regime. Failing to understand the entire spectrum of social relations, the Utopian Communists, for instance, Etienne Cabet (whom Marx described as a popular though very superficial exponent of communism), regarded ``human nature" itself as the foundation for communist society. They began to see the need for eradicating class distinctions and for a class struggle only after the revolutions of the end of the 18th and the middle of the 19th century. By the time Marxism came on the scene, the Utopian Communists had come to the realisation that the road to social equality lay through revolution and a dictatorship of the people, which had to be established to repulse possible counter-revolutionary intrigues.
Claude Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, the classical exponents of Utopian socialism, likewise believed that the ideals of freedom and equality were unrealisable under capitalism. In their comprehensive and argumented criticism of the capitalist system they showed that it had to be replaced by socialism. Some of their ideas were later adopted by scientific socialism: planned economy, work by all members of society, abolition of hired labour, the conversion of the state into an instrument regulating economic life, and so on. However, not having a scientific method of analysing social processes, the Utopian Socialists could not understand the laws governing historical development, did not see the ways and means of remaking capitalist society into a socialist society and failed to appreciate the revolutionary role of 14 the proletariat. ``One thing is common to all three,'' Engels wrote of Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Owen. ``Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once.''^^*^^ The Utopian Socialists hoped to achieve their socialist ideal gradually, by persuasion. Their message was addressed not to the workers but to the ruling classes. Saint-Simon, for instance, believed that the improvement of scientific knowledge, morals and religion was the basis for social advancement.
The petty-bourgeois Socialists formulated their views later, when capitalist relations had reached a higher development level. They mirrored the sentiments of the small producers who were hit by the growth of large-scale capitalist production. They rejected revolutionary methods in favour of reforms. They urged the abolition of large-scale production through the enlargement of co-operatives, with state assistance. One of their most outstanding spokesmen, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, created a school that for many years opposed Marxism.
When the question of Utopian or petty-bourgeois socialism comes up, some researchers are inclined to regard them as a past stage of the development of socio-political thought, a stage now belonging to history. But it is not as simple as that. The unscientific theories of Utopian socialism and of the petty-bourgeois Socialists continue to be revived by some spokesmen of the petty-bourgeois strata that have been drawn into the vortex of the class struggle. That is why, far from having lost its significance today, Marx's and Engels' profound and all-sided criticism of the Utopian and petty-bourgeois concepts of social development serves Marxists-Leninists as a dependable guide in the struggle for the revolutionary remaking of modern social life.
The theory of revolution, of the transition from capitalism to socialism, evolved by Marx and Engels, showed the road for the then incipient working-class movement and illumined the prospects for a revolutionary struggle with the bright light of a scientific analysis.
_-_-_^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 117.
15The teaching of Marx and Engels and their concrete revolutionary practice facilitated the development of a massive working-class movement and the establishment and consolidation of its first communist organisations. The struggle of the working class in the lifetime of Marx and Engels was a crucial stage of the world revolutionary movement, witnessing the bourgeois revolutions in Europe in 1848, the national movements in Germany and Italy and the revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859--1861. The class struggle was crowned by the world's first proletarian revolution in France in 1871.
Marx and Engels sought to give the working-class movement correct guidelines and an understanding of its objectives, and direct the spontaneous enthusiasm of the masses into the channel of revolution. As a result of their theoretical and practical work the nascent working-class movement received an invincible weapon. The Marxist theory of revolutionary struggle gradually spread to the workers' organisations and won thousands upon thousands of adherents.
The fundamental laws of revolutionary development, of transition from capitalism to socialism, revealed by Marx and Engels, have been strikingly confirmed in our day. The successes achieved by socialism have demonstrated that these laws are truly universal. That is why Marxism is called an eternally living, ageless teaching. That is why the references of its enemies to the ``new features" of our times, to the changed character of the epoch are nothing but pitiful and untenable attempts to refute the laws of revolution.
The enemies of socialism and communism aspire to prove that Marxism is a product of the 19th century, when capitalism was quite different. Today, they declare, capitalism has changed, and many of its past vices have vanished: the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, they claim, has disappeared, and capitalism has become democratic with many ``socialist'' elements; it is, they say, becoming a ``welfare state''. This, the champions of capitalism maintain, makes it unnecessary to turn the capitalist into the socialist system by means of revolution. Therefore, it is claimed, Marxist theory is obsolete.
In a conversation with the author of this book, West German Social-Democrats, notably Helmut Schmidt, tried to prove that of the teaching of Marx only his economic 16 theory has retained some importance. They asserted that the Marxists ignored the changes taking place in the capitalist world. Here is what Willy Brandt said in Trier on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Marx: ``Marx could not foresee that the unity between theoretical knowledge and political practice would change the destiny of the workers in the highly developed industrial countries so radically as has indeed happened. What he gave were not patented recipes valid for all time.''^^*^^
However, it was not Brandt, leader of the Social-- Democrats and Chancellor in that part of the country of the great Marx, where some of the world's most powerful monopolies function today, who was right, but the Communist Walter Ulbricht, leader of the first socialist state created in Marx's homeland, who said that the analysis made by the author of Capital ``gives not only an analysis of a specific stage of capitalist development but an analysis of basic processes and laws that are valid in relation to the whole of capitalism, to its substance. For that reason, in many respects Marx's analysis conforms even more to present-day capitalism than to the capitalism of a hundred years ago."^^**^^
As a science Marxism does not and cannot grow old. It can be enriched, developed and augmented with a new content. But in the same way that the latest discoveries of modern physics cannot cancel the laws of motion formulated by Isaac Newton, no new experience of the class struggle can cancel the basic laws governing the development of human society, the revolutionary replacement of capitalism by communism, discovered by Marxism.
Formulated by Marx and Engels, the general laws of social development, of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, retain their full significance to this day. Whatever aspect of the theory of revolution we may study, we always proceed from the propositions of Marxism: for example, the historic mission of the working class, consistent champion of revolution and the principal and decisive force in the struggle to remake capitalist society into socialist and communist society; the need for the proletariat's alliance with other exploited classes, particularly _-_-_
^^*^^ Vorw\"arts, May 9, 1968.
^^**^^ Neues Deutschland, September 13, 1967.
__PRINTERS_P_18_COMMENT__ 2---1157 17 with such a numerous class as the peasantry, and also with the intelligentsia and other strata; the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.These and other pivotal tenets of Marxism help the Communist parties to frame a correct strategy for the struggle even when considerable changes have taken place in society's social structure as a result of the development of statemonopoly capitalism.
The conclusions of the founders of Marxism underlie the strategic thesis of the communist movement that as any other social revolution the socialist revolution is a long process affecting all facets of the life of society. The teaching of Marx and Engels underlies the concept that the victory of socialism in individual countries influences the development of the world revolution and that the entire world revolutionary process is inter-dependent. The proposition on the leading role of the Communist Party in the period of preparation for and accomplishment of the socialist revolution and during the building of socialism also rests on the ideas propounded by the founders of Marxism.
And does not the slogan of the unity of the working class, a unity demanded by Marx and Engels, remain the overriding slogan of the communist movement? Implementation of this slogan makes it possible to achieve success in the revolutionary struggle in capitalist countries and in the building of socialism, and it opens up prospects for the triumph of the working people throughout the world.
Even when it just appeared and took shape, Marxism displayed its superiority over other theories of social development, winning the ideological battle forced on it. Marx and Engels proved that the Right and ``Left'' varieties of opportunism were untenable. From the Right, it will be recalled, the revolutionary theory was attacked by Lassalleanism. This form of opportunism is linked with the name of Ferdinand Lassalle, a leader of the German working-class movement, whom to this day the Social-Democratic Party of Germany regards-as its teacher. Lassalle called for the creation of an independent organisation of the working class that would fight for universal suffrage by equal, direct and secret ballot. Contending that there was no sense in the workers' struggle for higher wages, Lassalle saw the 18 solution in workers' producers' associations, in which the proletariat would be an entrepreneur. Created on the basis of universal suffrage, the ``people's state" would, according to Lassalle, lead to progress and freedom. On this basis the Lassalleans co-operated with the reactionary Chancellor Leopold von Bismarck against the liberal bourgeoisie in the hope of winning suffrage in exchange. Everybody knows what came of this.
While subscribing to the idea of an independent organisation of the working class, Marx and Engels fought Lassalle's theories, which were unscientific and hostile to the interests of the proletariat. Lassalleanism is most fully exposed in Critique of the Gotha Programme, which subjects to a scathing scientific criticism Lassalle's specious interpretation of the laws of the movement of wages, his idealistic assessment of the role of the class state, and so on.^^*^^
Marx and Engels waged a resolute struggle also against anarchism, one of whose spiritual fathers was Pierre-- Joseph Proudhon. A major result of this struggle was the more profound elaboration of the political teaching of Marxism and of the tactics of the proletarian class struggle. The focal issue was linked with the attainment of socialist objectives: the ways of abolishing the bourgeois state, the revolutionary transformation of society, the forms of collective ownership as the foundation for absolute liberty and equality, and the ways of organising society after the victory over the bourgeoisie. In the First International the anarchists, led by the Russian petty-bourgeois revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin who was their leading ideologist, were opposed to the authoritarian principle in the organisation of society and, above all, to the teaching on the political party of the working class.
The struggle which Marx and Engels waged against opportunism in the working-class movement was subsequently continued in two directions---against Right and against _-_-_
^^*^^ The Czechoslovak revisionists made an attempt to give a new interpretation also of such an important period of the history of Marxism as that which witnessed Marx's struggle against Lassalleanism. In the journal Dejiny a soucasnost, 1969, No. 7, it was described as a ``struggle between socialism and democracy''. This ``interpretation'', whose aim is to associate the crassly unscientific contrapositioning of democracy to socialism with the name of Marx, fully coincides with the researches into this question produced by Right Social-Democrats.
__PRINTERS_P_20_COMMENT__ 2* 19``Left" opportunism. To this day the communist movement has to fight the reformists among the Social-Democrats and the revisionists in their own ranks, against petty-bourgeois pseudo-revolutionism that leads to anarchism and adventurism. In this struggle the communist movement draws on the experience of Marx and Engels. Their uncompromising attitude towards any deviation from proletarian theory and their passion and argumentation in proving the truth teach the Communists to be flexible and, at the same time, principled in firmly and consistently upholding the general line of our movement.
For more than a century historical development has been following the path foretold by Marxist theory. The Marxism of the modern epoch is Leninism, the legitimate successor and continuer of the entire revolutionary-theoretical and revolutionary-practical cause left to mankind by Marx and Engels.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. LENIN ON THE WAYS OFCapitalism entered the last stage of its development--- imperialism---at the close of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. That marked the end of the relatively peaceful phase of capitalist development, and the clouds of the first revolutionary storms began to gather. The socialist revolution appeared on the agenda.
The new epoch confronted Marxists with a series of acute problems. On the solution of these problems depended their understanding of the substance of the revolutionary process and their choice of the way to liberate the proletariat and all other working masses from capitalist tyranny.
But it was precisely in this period that a sharp debate flared up in the working-class movement over the future of the movement and over the question of strategy and tactics. The theoreticians of the Second International failed to understand the new processes in the development of capitalism and to chart the ways and means for the struggle of the working class. They regarded the new elements of social development as confirmation of their dogmatic tenets and used these elements for conclusions that were prejudicial to 20 the proletariat and benefited the exploiting classes. In effect, the leaders of the Second International betrayed the working class, and Marxism became the main object of their attacks, which were intensified after the death of Frederick Engels.
This assault was conducted in two directions. First and foremost, the opportunists tried to ignore the Marxist teaching or to give prominence to those of its aspects that had no direct significance for concrete revolutionary practice. They adopted purely revisionist attitudes and distorted the creative nature of Marxism.
One of the favourite methods of the enemies of Marxism was, as it is today, to pit the views of the young Marx against the teachings of the mature Marx. They argued that Marx's early works were more valuable and correct than works like Capital. This theory was combated back in those years by leading exponents of Marxism, in particular, by Franz Mehring in Germany and Georgi Plekhanov in Russia. A scientific study of Marx's creative and spiritual evolution was made by Lenin, chiefly in the article ``Karl Marx''.
The revisionists, on the other hand, began to falsify Marxism and revise it in all its aspects. In Germany Eduard Bernstein and, after him, Karl Kautsky, Karl Legien, Philipp Scheidemann, Max Schippel and Werner Sombart, and also Emile Vandervelde (in Belgium), Karl Hjalmar Branting (in Sweden), the Mensheviks (in Russia) and other revisionists in the different parties tried to revise Marx's teaching of the inevitable downfall of capitalism, asserting that capitalism was daily showing greater ``adaptability'' and that production was becoming increasingly more ``differentiated''.
Bernstein and others suggested a programme for the ``gradual introduction of socialism''. According to the theory behind this programme, a professional and political struggle for social reforms would give society greater control of the conditions of production, while through legislation the role of the owner of capital would be steadily reduced to that of an administrator until finally the direction and management of production was wrested away from the capitalist. The revisionists argued that it was possible to `` introduce socialism" through the trade unions, which were called upon to ``take over industrial profits'', through associations 21 of workers ensuring the abolition of trade profit, and also through the ``democratisation of the state''. Bernstein made an attempt to give ``theoretical'' grounds for the policy of adapting the working-class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie. He gave the gist of his views in the phrase: ``The end, whatever it may be is, so far as I am concerned, nothing, movement is everything.''
Revisionist distortions were a serious threat to Marxism and the working-class movement for they obscured the prospects for the class struggle.
At the time the danger of revisionism was appreciated by many leading exponents and theoreticians of Marxism, among whom were Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin,'Dimitr Blagoyev and Georgi Plekhanov.
Here reference may be made to two historical examples, which are perhaps the most vivid: they are Rosa Luxemburg and Georgi Plekhanov.
Recently, in connection with the 50th anniversary of the foul murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, bourgeois propaganda came out with a spate of works misrepresenting the role played by Rosa Luxemburg in the revolutionary movement. In an effort to contrapose Rosa Luxemburg to Lenin, bourgeois theoreticians maintain that there was uncompromising hostility between them, that Rosa Luxemburg did not criticise Bernstein and the -other revisionists while Lenin was unfoundedly and excessively harsh towards them.
Assertions of this kind distort the facts. Rosa Luxemburg was extremely active in the struggle against Bernstein and his associates. Summing up her review of Bernstein's economic and political views, she wrote: ``...he who favours the legal way of reforms instead of and in opposition to the conquest of political power and a social revolution, in fact chooses not a calmer, more reliable and slower road to the same aim but an utterly different aim, namely, inconsequential modifications of the old social system instead of attaining a new one.''^^*^^
Lenin's principled attitude to Rosa Luxemburg is shown, _-_-_
^^*^^ Rosa Luxemburg, Sozialreform oder Revolution?, Leipzig, 1899. p. 50.
22 for example, by the following lines from Notes of a Publicist: ``Paul Levi now wants to get into the good graces of the bourgeoisie---and, consequently, of its agents, the Second and the Two-and-a-Half Internationals---by republishing precisely those writings of Rosa Luxemburg in which she was wrong. We shall reply to this by quoting two lines from a good old Russian fable: `Eagles may at all times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles....' But in spite of her mistakes she (Rosa Luxemburg---Ed.} was---and remains for us---an eagle. And not only will Communists all over the world cherish her memory, but her biography and her complete works... will serve as useful manuals for training many generations of Communists all over the world.''^^*^^The other example is the eminent Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov. He did much to spread and explain the new revolutionary teaching. He left brilliant models of criticism of revisionism. Revolutionary Marxists cherish in Plekhanov his ability to make revolutionary theory understandable, and precisely for that reason a knowledge of his works, of all that he wrote on Marxism helps in the struggle against present-day ``Marxologists''.
Not only at the close of the 19th century but even during the first assault launched by the proletariat of Russia against tsarism early in the 20th century, it seemed to many revolutionaries that Plekhanov was destined to become the Marxist who would answer the new problems.
However, although Plekhanov was a militant materialist Marxist and fought bourgeois idealist philosophy, he took the road of opportunism and opposed Lenin's line towards a socialist revolution in Russia. His Menshevik views adversely affected his philosophical concepts as well.
Lenin proved to be the only Marxist who was able, by virtue of his theoretical and practical work, to answer the questions that confronted the revolutionary movement. He alone proved to be equal to the new tasks and played a distinguished part in the creative development of Marxism. His services are so immense that with full grounds we now call our teaching Marxism-Leninism. In its Address Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir llyich Lenin, the 1969 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 210.
23 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties recorded: ``Lenin was an eminent man of thought who developed in every -aspect the science which Marx and Engels established: dialectical materialism, political economy, the theory of the socialist revolution and the building of communist society.''^^*^^In this work it is not our purpose to show Lenin's entire contribution to revolutionary, creative Marxism. We shall only deal with the forms of the transition from capitalism to socialism as charted by him and show the new elements introduced by him into these problems.
The dialectical method typical of all of Lenin's theoretical and practical work was brilliantly applied in the elaboration of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism. Lenin never tired of pointing out that in his work a revolutionary was obliged to apply general principles depending on the concrete conditions of the struggle. In 1907 Lenin wrote: ``The duty to safeguard revolutionary traditions demands, at the same time, an analysis of the conditions in which they are applied and not simply a repetition of revolutionary slogans that have a meaning under definite conditions.''^^**^^ The essence, ``the living soul of Marxism,'' he stressed, was ``a concrete analysis of a concrete situation''.^^***^^ He wrote: ''. ..a Marxist must take cognisance of real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday.''^^****^^ A Marxist, he held, had to be able to adapt patterns to life. But a Marxist had never to depart from ``the ground of careful analysis of class relations''.^^*****^^
Lenin was uncompromising in his stand against the dogmatism of some Communists, who indulged in ``slavish'' imitation of the past. ``They call themselves Marxists,'' he wrote, ``but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics.''^^*)^^
He criticised those who bowed and scraped before Marx, _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 40.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 16, p. 474.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 166.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 45.
^^*****^^ Ibid., p. 46.
^^*)^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 476.
24 extolled him and, at the same time, completely lost sight of the cardinal content of the doctrine. He quoted Gotthold Lessing, who said: ``We would like to be exalted less, but read more diligently.''^^*^^Profoundly and all-sidedly analysing the practice of social development and the class struggle in different countries, Lenin based his conclusions on facts drawn from real life. He took into account the latest achievements of world science, including the contribution of progressive thinkers towards the elaboration of social problems. His teaching is international and his propositions reflect the regularities of world development as a whole. ``Lenin's teaching,'' L. I. Brezhnev said in a report dedicated to the centenary of Lenin's birth, ``incorporated everything that had been produced by mankind's best minds, generalising and fusing into a single whole the world-wide experience of the working people's class struggle.''^^**^^
The international character of Leninism is seen~
---in the fact that having arisen on the solid foundation of Marxism it expressed and generalised the experience not only of the Russian but of the entire communist movement, of all its contingents;~
---in the fact that under new historical conditions of world development it opened the road to fusion in a single revolutionary process: the building of socialism and communism and the growth of the communist and working-class movement and the national liberation struggle;~
---in the fact that it raised on high the banner of internationalism in opposition to chauvinism and nationalpatriotism and saved Marxism from degeneration, which was desired (and sought in practice) by the leaders of the Social-Democratic parties in the Second International;~
---in the fact that it is the ideological basis of the education of the proletariat and all other working people in the spirit of fidelity to the lofty principles of internationalist solidarity and the cause of communism.
Leninists have never been slaves to the letter of Leninism, but they have always checked their thoughts, _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 134.
^^**^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Lenin's Cause Lives On and Triumphs, Moscow 1970, p. 16.
25 conclusions and practical work with the attitudes and views left to them by Lenin. They have always taken counsel, and continue to do so, with Lenin in the same way as Lenin had always taken counsel with Marx. The Communists regard the teaching of Lenin not only as a method (regrettably, this definition of Leninism's significance is still to be encountered) but as a theory, as a guide to action in the present-day revolutionary struggle.In this connection we cannot overlook views that have become widespread even among some Communists abroad, according to which the international character of Leninism is confined to chronological or geographical boundaries. In particular, the international significance of the outstanding works written by Lenin when the Bolshevik Party was only emerging is being rejected, and voices are heard urging a return to ``original'', ``pure'' Leninism, to which is attributed the character of an insipid abstraction and which is divorced from the creative experience of revolution intrinsic to it.
Lenin evolved the theory of socialist revolution, a teaching of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism. His conclusions form the treasure-store of the communist movement. Many students of this subject are right when they say that Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution cannot be considered as static, that it can be fully understood and mastered only when it is examined in development, enriched by the latest revolutionary experience of the masses and of the revolutionary parties.
Lenin was the creator and organiser of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the practician of the early years of socialist construction in Soviet Russia. He formulated the guidelines of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, the first country to embark on socialist development. On the basis of new revolutionary experience he comprehensively charted the general laws of the socialist revolution, worked out the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in many countries and defined the prospects of the world revolutionary process.
Lenin's key concepts are given in works like What Is To Be Done?, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International, The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present 26 Revolution, The State and Revolution, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, the Revolutionary Phrase, `` Left-Wing" Communism---an Infantile Disorder, and in many speeches at Comintern congresses. Vital propositions are to be found in Lenin's articles, written during the last years of his life. These include ``Our Revolution'', ``How We Should Reorganise the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection'', ``Pages from a Diary'', ``Better Fewer, but Better" and ``On Cooperation''.
Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution is the theory of the world socialist revolution. In historical and philosophical literature it is sometimes regarded only as the theory of the direct accomplishment of the socialist revolution. In fact, Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution embraces not only the direct struggle for power but the prerequisites for the socialist revolution and the building of socialism and communism, the very process of socialist and communist construction and the interaction of the revolutionary forces in different countries.
Without one or some of these components Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution would be incomplete and, consequently, distorted. It is precisely on the basis of these general theoretical premises that the author strives to consider the entire spectrum of problems linked with the study of the ways and forms of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Lenin's teaching of the transition from capitalism to socialism is an integral concept, all of whose elements are inter-related and inter-dependent. It begins with a thoroughgoing analysis of imperialism as the highest and last stage of capitalism, as the eve of the socialist revolution, and ends with the unravelling of the laws of transition from capitalism to socialism, the ways of achieving the socialist revolution on a global scale and the ways of building communism. In Lenin's theory of revolution the Communists find the scientific grounds for the conclusion that socialism can triumph in one country, and the propositions on the growth of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, on the allies of the proletariat at the various stages of the revolution, the significance of the national liberation movement to the development of the proletarian 27 revolution, the revolutionary situation, the role of the party in the revolution, and other issues. The range of problems covered by the theory of revolution is wide and all-- embracing. It is not limited geographically or chronologically and does not make theory dependent on various issues.
The history and specific content of Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution give the lie to assertions that this teaching was created only in the period of the First World War. This approach, which misrepresents the history of the theory of revolution, can create the impression that Lenin linked the possibility of revolution only with war. Moreover, it reduces to naught Lenin's preceding and subsequent theoretical work.
Also untenable are the attempts of some researchers to show that Lenin's development of the theory of socialist revolution, of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism was limited to the solution of practical tasks, including the tasks of the revolutionary process in 1917. In some works very little attention is given to an analysis of works which profoundly substantiate the development of the socialist revolution in Russia after the conquest of power by the proletariat and in the light of the world revolutionary process that was unfolding at the time. To close this gap means to give a full and truthful picture of the history and content of Lenin's concept of socialist revolution.
Further we shall deal in greater detail with individual aspects of the teaching of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism. At this point we should like to draw attention to one question: the link between Lenin's theory of the victory of socialism initially in one country and the prospects for the development of the world revolution. This is a basic issue, and in many ways the mastering of all the other propositions of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution depends on how correctly it is understood. Another reason for underscoring the importance of this problem is that in stating it some researchers have simplified Lenin's views.
The conclusion that socialism can triumph initially in one country and cannot be victorious simultaneously in all countries was finally drawn by Lenin in the works On the Slogan for a United States, of Europe and The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution. ``Uneven economic and political development,'' Lenin wrote in 1915, ``is an 28 absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone.''^^*^^ In 1916 he enlarged on this conclusion: ``The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.''^^**^^
The conclusion that socialism could triumph initially in one country was reached by Lenin gradually, and later he repeatedly substantiated it, accentuating that the experience of Russia and the course of the struggle between the first socialist state and the capitalist countries bore out this conclusion and showed that the Mensheviks were wrong when they maintained that socialism could not triumph in Russia. In an article headed ``Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" he wrote: ``... in spite of the lies and slanders of the bourgeoisie of all countries and of their open or masked henchmen (the `socialists' of the Second International), one thing remains beyond dispute---as far as the basic economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat is concerned, the victory of communism over capitalism in our country is assured.''^^***^^ At the Seventh All-Russia Congress of Soviets in December 1919, in a speech devoted to the struggle against imperialism, he pointed out that in Russia the people had ``won a tremendous victory, so great a victory that I think we may say without exaggeration that our main difficulties are already behind us.''^^****^^
Uneven economic and political development under capitalism was understood by Lenin in the broadest sense: as the uneven and disproportionate development of the capitalist countries, as the uneven development of individual factors within each of them with consequences for the maturing of the objective and subjective factors of revolution. He pointed out that the unending contradictions and clashes between antagonistic forces were shattering and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 342.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 79.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. SO, p. 110.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 208.
29 undermining the front of imperialism. The chain of world imperialism had to be smashed in its weakest links---in countries where the objective and subjective conditions had matured for a socialist revolution. A combination of all these conditions is needed.Lenin never considered that only a developed country could be a weak link or, on the contrary, that a weak link necessarily meant a low level of capitalist development. Bukharin's assertions that the imperialist system was likely to break where the economic development level was low clashed with Lenin's views.
While distorting the meaning of Lenin's theory of the victory of socialism initially in one country, bourgeois theoreticians declare that this theory had been propounded not by Lenin but by Stalin. Indeed, Stalin had given much attention to this theory, upholding it against the attacks of the Trotskyites and other opportunists, but it was evolved by Lenin. This was stated by Stalin himself time and again.^^*^^
Another distortion of this theory is that it is attributed to Marx and Engels, thus belittling Lenin's contribution to the theory of socialism's victory in one country and the creative nature of the theory itself.^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ For instance, in the article ``On Problems of Leninism" Stalin used the propositions advanced by Lenin before and after the October Revolution to prove the viability of the thesis that socialism could triumph in one country. In particular, quoting from Lenin's article ``On the Slogan for a United States of Europe'', Stalin wrote that it spoke of the possibility of the proletariat of the victorious country organising socialist production. ``What does it mean 'to organise socialist production'? It means to build socialist society. It is hardly necessary to prove that this lucid and quite definite proposition of Lenin's requires no further comment" (J. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1952, p. 147).
^^**^^ This is exactly the approach of the authors of the book During and After the Revolution that was published in Czechoslovakia in 1967 (V revoluci a po revoluci, Praha, 1967). They argue that in Lenin's article ``The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution" a reference is made to Engels' letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882 which mentions the possibility of a ``defensive war" by victorious socialism against the bourgeoisie (``Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage 'defensive wars'. What he had in mind was defence of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries"---V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 79). This reference, it is alleged, meant that Lenin himself acknowledged the existence, before him, of a thesis on the victory of socialism initially __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 31. 30
Lenin had at one time expressed the opinion that the revolution would be accomplished first in one of the most developed countries, pinning his hopes notably on Germany. However, his was a strictly concrete-historical approach and he saw that the real course of history was indicating that that country would inevitably be Russia and he directed the efforts of the Bolshevik Party and Russia's revolutionary masses towards the preparation of the socialist revolution.
He believed that Russia would be followed by other countries and had full grounds for saying that ``our banking on the world revolution, if you can call it that, has on the whole been justified''.^^*^^
He did not associate himself with any deadline for the revolution, emphasising that ``no decree has yet been issued stating that all countries must live according to the Bolshevik revolutionary calendar; and even if it were issued, it would not be observed''.^^**^^ He noted that ``West-European revolutions will perhaps proceed more smoothly; nevertheless, very many years will be required for the reorganisation of the whole world, for the reorganisation of the majority of the countries''.^^***^^ In an article headed ``Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution" he wrote: ``We have made the start. When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nation will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 30. in one country. However, as the entire concept of the founders of scientific communism shows, Engels' mention of a struggle by the victorious proletariat could only refer to the proletariat of several countries. This is obvious from the text of the letter. Here is the extract to which Lenin probably referred: ``As soon as Europe and North America (my italics.---K, Z.) are reorganised, the colossal impact and example will be such that the semi-civilised countries will themselves follow us; this will be taken care of by economic requirements alone. As regards the social and political phases which these countries will then have to surmount until they likewise achieve socialist organisation we can only offer fairly vague hypotheses. Only one thing is indisputable: the victorious proletariat cannot force any happiness on a foreign people without undermining its own victory. It goes without saying that this by no means rules out defensive wars of various kind" (Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 35, p. 298).
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30 p. 208.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, pp. 174--75.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 169.
31 broken; the road is open, the way has been shown.''^^*^^ Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the revolution in the West was developing at a slower rate than had been expected. At the Third Congress of the Comintern he said: ``...events did not proceed along as straight a line as we had expected. In the other big, capitalistically more developed countries the revolution has not broken out to this day.... We must now thoroughly prepare for revolution and make a deep study of its concrete development in the advanced capitalist countries.''^^**^^He saw the specifics of the West in the maturity of the economic prerequisites for socialism, in the high development level of democratic institutions which influenced the outlook and forms of struggle of the working class, and in the wide dissemination of reformist illusions among the working people. In this connection he stressed that precisely in industrially developed capitalist countries it was more difficult to start a socialist revolution. One of the reasons for this, he said, was that in these countries the working class was confronted by an enemy who not only had powerful economic, political and ideological means of pressuring the masses but had, from vast experience, learned to make skilful use of various methods to split the working class. Lenin noted that for its ability to deceive, corrupt and bribe the workers the monopoly bourgeoisie of the USA and Britain had no equals in the world. He called on Communists to look for ways of approaching the socialist revolution.
While noting the specific nature of the revolutionary changes in different groups of countries, Lenin regarded these countries as co-participants in the single world revolutionary process. He declared that prior to the epoch of world revolution the national liberation movement was part of the world democratic movement, but that after the Great October Socialist Revolution it had become part of the world socialist revolution.
He wrote: ``We would be very poor revolutionaries if, in the proletariat's great war of liberation for socialism, we did not know how to utilise every popular movement against every single disaster imperialism brings in order to intensify _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 57.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, pp. 480--81.
32 and extend the crisis.''^^*^^ The growth of the national liberation movement weakened capitalism in the metropolises and, on the other hand, strengthened and augmented the revolutionary forces in the undeveloped countries. In its turn, the socialist revolution rendered economic and political assistance to the countries fighting for liberation. Lastly, Lenin regarded assistance from socialist countries to facilitate the direct transition of the young states to socialism as the third aspect of the relationship between socialism and the national liberation movement. He noted that in countries where the proletariat was numerically weak and could not be the dominant force of the revolution, its role would be carried out by the proletariat of the countries where socialism had already triumphed.On the basis of revolutionary practice Lenin elaborated on the problems of internationalism in the epoch of world revolution, and defined the principles underlying the relations between the socialist state and the revolutionary working-class movement, and between the Communist parties of socialist and capitalist countries. These principles were the guidelines of the Communist International created by Lenin. They remain immutable in our day, too, despite the changed forms of relations between the parties and the absence of a single international organisation of the world communist movement.
A major element of Lenin's theory of the possibility of socialism being triumphant in one country was the thesis on the armed defence of the socialist state, on just wars against the bourgeoisie seeking to crush triumphant socialism. On the other hand, Lenin was categorically opposed' to the Trotskyite concept of export of revolution, against ``making happy" countries that were not ready for revolutionary changes.
Socialism's ideological adversaries aim their main attack on the international aspect of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution, against the question of the laws governing the world revolutionary process. This is not accidental: it is the international character of the socialist revolution that threatens the capitalist system.
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 357.
__PRINTERS_P_34_COMMENT__ 3---1157 33Lenin's theory of socialist revolution is attacked from several angles.
First, it is asserted that this theory holds true solely for Russia and cannot be applied to other countries, that Leninism is a purely Russian phenomenon.^^*^^
Second, it is alleged that Lenin was a pragmatist, that he did not take the prospects of revolutionary development into account, and so on. These are the very assertions that were used by Trotsky and his followers.^^**^^
_-_-_ ^^*^^ For instance, in 1968 the Czech ``theoretician'' Cestmir Cisar
bluntly declared that ``one cannot deny certain negative aspects of the
fact that a generalisation of the experience of the Soviet Communists
was always portrayed as the only possible orientation of Marxist
thinking and Marxist policy, that Leninism was sometimes turned into a
monopoly interpretation of Marxism" (Rude prdvo, May 6, 1968). This,
in effect, is the argument of the Spanish bourgeois author Jose Diaz de
Villegas, who, quoting MacLaurin, says that ``Lenin adapted Marxism
to the specific Slav soil, utilising all the negative aspects of Marxist
thinking" (Jose Diaz de Villegas, La guena politico, Madrid, 1966,
p. 29).
^^**^^ Trotsky disputed Lenin's conclusion that it was possible to build socialism in the USSR before the victory of the world revolution and waged a struggle against the Soviet power. As is noted by R. Palme Dutt, the eminent British historian and a leading figure of the international communist movement, Trotsky made an attempt, as early as November 7, 1927, after failing to win support in the Party, to incite the working masses to demonstrate in the streets against the party leadership and the Soviet Government in Moscow. Already then he had passed over to counter-revolution (see R. Palme Dutt, The Internationale, London, 1967, p. 246). Later, characterising the building of socialism in the Soviet Union as ``Thermidorianism'' or ``Bonapartism'', Trotsky came to the conclusion that the Soviet Government had to be deposed by force. After fascism came to power in Germany he maintained that the coming war would inevitably see the defeat of the USSR and the downfall of the Soviet system (inasmuch as a proletarian revolution had not taken place in the Western countries). He regarded this as a possibility for forcibly overthrowing the Soviet Government, declaring: ``Can we expect that the Soviet Union will come out of the coming great war without defeat? To this frankly posed question we will answer as frankly. If the war should remain only a war, the defeat of the Soviet Union would be inevitable. In a technical, economic and military sense imperialism is incomparably more strong. If it is not paralysed by revolution in the West, imperialism will sweep away the regime which issued from the October Revolution" (ibid., p. 247). Trotsky considered that even in the event of victory in the war the Soviet Union would inevitably perish if imperialism remained in power in the rest of the world. For that reason the question of the Soviet Union's victory or defeat in the war had no significance in his line of thinking, which was based on the ``permanent revolution" theory, according to __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 35. 34
Third, specific propositions of Lenin's theory of revolution are distorted and falsified and it is asserted that they were at variance with the developments in Russia and other countries.
Fourth, one of the basic lines of the criticism of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution is in setting it off against the views of Marx and Engels. Though made under the guise of fidelity to Marxism and with the object of ``purifying'' it of subsequent distortions, this criticism is, in fact, an attack on Marxism-Leninism as an integral international teaching.
All these ``critics'' of Leninism are at one in passing over in silence or misrepresenting the fundamental propositions of Lenin's teaching of the transition from capitalism to socialism. However, the assertions of the bourgeois `` theoreticians" are refuted by the entire practice of the revolutionary movement. They are refuted by the Great October Socialist Revolution, by the socialist revolutions in 13 other countries and the achievements of the peoples of these countries in the building of socialism, and by the successes of the world communist movement, the international working class and the forces of national liberation.
``All the experience of world socialism and of the working-class and national liberation movements,'' states the Address Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir llyich Lenin adopted by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``has confirmed the world significance of Marxist-Leninist teaching----Today we have every justification for saying about Lenin's teaching what he himself said about Marxism: it is omnipotent, because it is true. Marxist-Leninist theory and its creative application in specific conditions permit scientific answers to be found to the questions facing all contingents of the world revolutionary movement, wherever they are active.''^^*^^
_-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 34. which every revolution was only the combustible matter of the world revolution, while until the accomplishment of the world revolution the attempts at building socialism in any country were regarded as a betrayal of that revolution.Singing Trotsky's tune, the notorious Trotskyite theoretician Isaac Deutscher wrote in The Unfinished Revolution. Russia 1917--1967 ( published in London in 1968) that the concept of socialism in one country was the product ``of the national narrowness of its authors" and signified ``a betrayal of proletarian internationalism''.
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 41.
__PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. THE COMMUNIST PARTIES ON THE FORMS. Lenin's teaching of the forms of transition to socialism is a powerful weapon of the contemporary communist movement. Guided by this teaching many Communist parties have been conspicuously successful in the struggle against capitalism, for the socialist remaking of society. Communists aspire to apply Lenin's theory creatively to the specific conditions of their countries, and they enlarge on it on the basis of their own experience, which takes cognisance of the new factors of social development. It was Lenin's rule that revolutionary theory ``cannot be thought up. It grows out of the sum total of the revolutionary experience and the revolutionary thinking of all countries in the world.... One cannot be a socialist, a revolutionary Social-Democrat, without participating, in the measure of one's powers, in developing and applying that theory.''^^*^^
Lenin's theory of revolution, above all, the teaching of the forms of transition, was the guideline of the Communist International. ``For a quarter of a century the Communist International, guided by Lenin's ideas, provided clear answers to the basic questions posed before the working class and all humanity---the question of war and peace, of the fight for democracy, against fascism; the question of the development of the national liberation movement, of the role of socialism and the ways leading the masses to the socialist revolution,'' it is stated in the Theses of the CC CPSU under the heading On the Centenary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin. ``Many of the ideas put forward by the Comintern found a lasting place in the arsenal of Marxism-Leninism.''^^**^^ The Comintern helped to establish many parties, armed them with revolutionary theory, placed the experience of the class struggle at their disposal and taught them to understand the lessons of the October Revolution creatively.
On the basis of Lenin's theory of revolution the Comintern framed the strategy of the world communist movement _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 354.
^^**^^ On the Centenary of the Birth of V. 1. Lenin, Moscow, p. 51.
36 and defined the place of the various contingents of the socialist revolution. This was a major prerequisite of the subsequent triumph of the revolution in the People's Democracies, the growth of the revolutionary movement in the industrialised capitalist countries and the development of the national liberation movement.The enemies of the communist movement continue, as they have always done, to decry the Comintern's contribution to the revolutionary movement and defame its work. The Comintern was again attacked in connection with its 50th anniversary. The fundamental principles of the communist movement and the teaching of the socialist revolution and of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism were distorted under the guise of criticising the Comintern's errors.
Nobody denies that the work of the Comintern was free of shortcomings, but nothing can compare with its.immense positive contribution to the theory and practice of the communist and revolutionary movement, to the development of the strategy and tactics of the struggle for socialism.
The Communist International consistently upheld the teaching of Marx and Engels of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism against the attacks of the opportunists, and developed this teaching in line with the conditions that took shape in the world in the 1920--40s.^^*^^ It took into consideration new factors affecting the revolutionary struggle such as the far-reaching economic upheavals in the capitalist countries, the more uneven nature of capitalist development, the extension of state-monopoly tendencies and the rise of fascism. In working out the details of the question of transition from capitalism to socialism close attention was _-_-_
^^*^^ In De Vanatheme au dialogue and Marxisme du XX-eme siecle, the French renegade Roger Garaudy sees only three stages of the development of Marxism: the stage of Marx, the stage of Lenin and the stage after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. He thus strikes out all the achievements of Marxist thought in the period prior to the 20th Congress and entirely ignores the colossal contribution that was made to revolutionary theory by the Comintern and the entire communist movement of that period.
37 paid to new features such as the successful building of socialism in the Soviet Union, the creation of a common working-class front against fascism in a number of countries, and so on.^^*^^The Comintern summarised the experience of individual parties in the struggle for democracy and socialism and the experience of the ``proletariat's class battles throughout the world. It amplified Lenin's teaching of the struggle for socialism. At its 5th Enlarged Plenary Meeting, held in 1925 after Lenin's death, the Comintern Executive probingly analysed Lenin's contribution to the theory of socialist revolution and the teaching of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism. Questions of importance to the teaching of the forms of transition were studied at subsequent sittings of the Comintern Executive and at Comintern congresses. These questions included the international character of the socialist revolution, the role of the Soviet Union in the development of the world revolution, the fundamental features of the Bolshevik Party, the united front tactics in the struggle against fascism and in the defence of democracy, the relationship between the struggle for democracy and for socialism, the character and specifics of the national liberation movement, the essence of the anti-colonial revolution and the significance of the struggle for peace to the development of the revolutionary movement.
A major contribution to defining the ways of the world revolutionary process was made by the 7th Enlarged Plenary Meeting of the Communist International. It denounced _-_-_
^^*^^ The theoretical and practical work of the Comintern is analysed at length in the book The Communist International. A Concise History (Russ. ed., Moscow, 1969), compiled by the Institute of Marxism-- Leninism at the Central Committee of the CPSU jointly with presently living personalities who were prominent in the Comintern. Also see the following works by former leaders of the Comintern: Klement Gottwald, Selected Works, Vols. 1-2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1957; Georgi Dimitrov, The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle for Working-Class Unity, Against Fascism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1935; Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works, Vols. 1-2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1957; Palmiro Togliatti, Selected Articles and Speeches, Vols. 1-2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1965; Maurice Thorez, The United and Popular Front in France, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1935; William Z. Foster, The Twilight of World Capitalism, New York, 1949; William Z. Foster, History of the Three Internationals, New York, 1955.
38 the Trotskyite argument that it was not possible to build socialism in one country and that the socialist construction in the USSR was evidence of ``national narrowness" and a ``betrayal of the world revolution''. The plenary meeting's resolution stated that objectively the Soviet Union was the principal organising centre of the international revolution. It placed on record that ``in its past and in its present work the CPSU has proved its internationalism not in words, but in deeds, and has set brilliant examples of internationalism. The Enlarged Plenary Meeting considers the charges of narrow nationalism brought against the CPSU as slander.''^^*^^The USSR's significance to the world revolution was stressed in other Comintern documents. In the resolution of the 12th Plenary Meeting of the Comintern Executive, for instance, it is stated: ``Victorious socialist construction in the Soviet Union is more and more becoming a mighty force, assisting the revolutionary upsurge, and accelerating the maturing of a revolutionary crisis in capitalist and colonial countries.~"^^**^^
Incidentally, let us make the point that at no time had the Comintern recommended that the experience of the Soviet Union should be copied blindly. The 6th Comintern Congress, for example, made it plain that in determining the forms of building socialism it was imperative to take into account the specifics of the development of individual capitalist countries. In the Comintern Programme drawn up at this congress it was stated that the different socio-- economic conditions of the development of individual countries ``make it historically inevitable that the proletariat will come to power in different ways and at a different rate; that a number of countries must pass through certain transition stages leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and that socialist construction will take different forms in the different countries''.^^***^^
Farther down in this book we shall show the Comintern's _-_-_
^^*^^ Ways of the World Revolution, 7th Enlarged Plenary Meeting of the ECCI. Verbatim Report, Vol. 2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1927, p. 447.
^^**^^ The Communist International in Documents, 1919--1932, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1933, p. 995.
^^***^^ Programme of the Communist International, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1928, pp. 76--77.
39 contribution towards the elaboration of concrete problems of the theory of transition from capitalism to socialism.New factors appeared in the development of the world revolution after World War II. The socialist camp had been formed and strengthened and socialism had begun to act on the international scene as a system of friendly states. The strengthening of socialism meant that the world balance of forces had changed radically: the capitalist world had entered a new phase of its general crisis, and, on the whole, the positions of the capitalist countries had grown relatively weaker. The colonial system had disintegrated. Moreover, socialism's victory in the war against fascism had greatly enhanced the prestige of the new social system and acted as a powerful stimulus for the entire world revolutionary proletariat, leading to the activation and rapid growth of democratic and revolutionary forces.
Guided by Marxism-Leninism and utilising the favourable conditions, the communist movement fought for society's progressive development, entered into broad alliances with other advanced forces and actively participated in the work of democratic state institutions. In 18 countries, including France, Italy, Finland, Denmark and Norway, the Communists accepted portfolios in the post-war governments.
The new, post-war situation confronted the revolutionary movement with the problem of its further strategy, of the advance of the socialist revolution.
In the very first post-war years the Communist parties devoted much of their attention to charting the ways and means of their further struggle for socialism. The Communist parties of a number of European countries came to the conclusion that in the new situation stemming from the increased might of socialism and the upsurge of the democratic and socialist movement it was possible to adopt an orientation towards the peaceful development of the revolution, i.e., the gradual conquest of power in the course of a prolonged struggle jointly with other democratic forces. This was precisely the programme that was mapped out by the Communists of France, Britain, Norway and other countries. In line with the new strategy and tactics, the Communists helped to promote a broad democratic movement aimed at the foundations of capitalist society.
40Feeling the real menace to its rule, imperialism launched a broad counter-offensive against the revolutionary movement, giving rise to the cold war, a period of savage anticommunism and economic and political pressure on the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies. In some countries, notably in Greece, Indonesia and Vietnam, imperialism had recourse to war in order to crush the revolutionary movement. In 1949 the USA and its allies set up the aggressive North Atlantic bloc, with the result that reaction managed somewhat to stave off the revolutionary and democratic forces.
But imperialism could not achieve more. By the mid1950s there were obvious signs of the failure of the imperialist policy of suppressing the revolutionary movement, of its policy of ``liberating'' the People's Democracies from communism and restoring capitalism in these countries. The forces of socialism imposed their own conditions of struggle on imperialism. The Communist parties learned much during this period of struggle, which revealed the main directions of imperialist strategy and the capabilities and potentialities of the Communists' allies in the struggle for socialism.
At their congresses in the mid-1950s some Communist parties introduced new propositions into their programmes, in which account was taken of the vast experience of the struggle against imperialism. These congresses were milestones in the elaboration of the strategy and tactics of the world communist movement. They made a further contribution to the theory of socialist revolution, indicated more effective ways of fighting for peace, democracy and socialism, and stimulated creative thought in the Communist parties. The fraternal parties noted that the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, which stressed the need for the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory, had given enormous impetus to their work.
The international meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969 were of tremendous theoretical and practical importance in furthering the elaboration of the problems of the revolutionary movement. The following, for instance, is how the 1969 Meeting was assessed by the CC CPSU at its plenary meeting in June 1969: ``The 41 documents of the Meeting and the speeches of the participants summed up the extensive experience of the communist movement, profoundly analysed present-day world development and made an important contribution to MarxistLeninist theory.''^^*^^
All the three international meetings supplemented and enlarged on the basic propositions of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution. Their documents show a clear-cut succession and consistency in working out the problems of the revolutionary struggle. One cannot, therefore, agree to the contrapositioning of one meeting to another, with the view that the propositions advanced at the different meetings do not dovetail.
The meetings specified and enlarged on many of the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
The historic conclusions drawn at the international meetings mirror not only the practical experience of the struggle of the working class but also the results of extensive theoretical work in the Communist parties. In the theoretical debates argumented criticism was levelled at the attempts to inject opportunism into the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution. It was demonstrated that the periodic outbursts of opportunism in some parts of the communist movement have their source in new phenomena in the development of modern capitalism, in the changes of the tactics employed by imperialism. Parallel with its brutal use of the repressive apparatus against the revolutionary forces, imperialism is more and more frequently having recourse to more subtle forms of exploitation and oppression, to concessions and to retreat in certain sectors with the aim of preserving and strengthening its influence. Among a section of the working-class movement, the refined stick and carrot tactics are, on the one hand, sowing uncertainty and fear of repressions and, on the other, the hope for better conditions of life under capitalism. A new stimulus has been given to the Social-Democratic illusions that socialism can be achieved through evolution, with the minimum effort, without sharp collisions with capitalism. This only reaffirms the urgency of Lenin's injunction, made at the Second Comintern Congress, that the cardinal task of the Communist parties was _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, June 27, 1969.
42 the struggle against Right opportunism, that ``compared with this task, the rectification of the errors of the `Left' trend in communism will be an easy one''.^^*^^The conclusions of the communist movement issued from the sharp theoretical struggle against the exponents of opportunism in some Communist parties and also against Social-Democratic and bourgeois vilifiers of Marxism. Here, too, we find two extremes---Right and ``Left''---in the interpretation of theoretical problems.
The Right opportunists give their own interpretation of the changes taking place in the world.^^**^^ Employing the battered methods of the former revisionists, they contend that the main distinctions between capitalism and socialism have disappeared, that class criteria have grown obsolete, and so on. They offer the thesis that the working class has lost its revolutionary significance in social life. They identify the possibility of a peaceful road to socialism with parliamentarism and seek to justify the unscientific contrapositioning of the ``democratic'' road to the road of revolution. They deny that imperialism has grown more aggressive and belittle its anti-democratic and anti-popular tendencies. They set the national tasks of the revolutionary movement off against its internationalist tasks. They mechanically identify developing socialist democracy with bourgeois democracy.
The offensive of Right opportunism was of the most violent nature in Czechoslovakia, where it threatened the socialist system. The Czechoslovak events were a further reminder of the importance of consistently fighting Right opportunism, which under the guise of ``improving'' socialism seeks to divest Marxism-Leninism of its revolutionary _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 231.
^^**^^ For example, the Czechoslovak philosopher M. Soukup, one of the authors of 50 Years of Socialism. Impressions and Reality (50 let socialismu. Pfedstavy a skutecnost, Praha, 1968), asserts that the changes that have taken place in the world since Lenin's death were no less profound than the changes that took place in the course of 40 years after the death of Marx, and suggests, under the guise of ``not limiting oneself to the mechanical application of Leninist concepts'', reappraising these concepts in the same way as Lenin had reappraised the ideas of Marx, and modifying the notions about socialism. At the same time, he urges the restoration of concepts of socialist development, which, he alleges, had been distorted after Lenin's death (ibid., p. 187).
43 substance and clear the way for the penetration of bourgeois ideology. Right opportunism exercises quite a lot of influence in the Communist parties of some capitalist countries.Communists, it goes without saying, do not deny that since Lenin's death there have been momentous economic, social and political changes in the modern world. During the past few decades the deepening general crisis of capitalism, the class struggle and the scientific and technological revolution have given rise to new elements in capitalism's economic and social structure and in its political methods. New factors also appeared in the struggle of capitalism and socialism on a global scale. However, these changes have not modified the substance of capitalism, they have not eradicated the contradictions and laws of development intrinsic to it, and neither have they put an end to its exploiting nature nor made it more ``humane'' and ``progressive''. The contradictions of capitalism have only grown in number and partially assumed a different form. Imperialism remains the enemy of progress, democracy and socialism, and its objective is still to strangle the struggle of the peoples for social and national liberation.
Today, as during the first decades of imperialism's existence, there is only one force that can destroy capitalist rule. It is the revolution of the proletariat led by its vanguard--- the Marxist-Leninist Party. This cannot be refuted by any attempts of the revisionists to revise the laws of socialist revolution in the epoch of imperialism revealed by Lenin.
Left-opportunist views are preached by extremist forces, by the Trotskyites. In their efforts to provide theoretical arguments for their policy they belittle the significance of new phenomena in society's development, run down the role of the socialist camp and the achievements of socialist construction, and maintain that in the capitalist countries the working class is degenerating and acquiring bourgeois features. The Left revisionists repudiate the specifics of the development of the revolutionary struggle in individual countries and fail to appreciate the importance of the peace movement. They accuse others of departing from MarxismLeninism and pose as the only continuers of the cause of Marx and Lenin.
44The fraternal parties reject all distortions of MarxistLeninist theory.
At recent congresses and Central Committee plenary meetings a number of Communist parties have reiterated the need for a determined struggle against opportunist tendencies, against the revisionist attempts to distort the party strategy and tactics and the Leninist teaching of the forms of struggle for socialism.^^*^^ In the documents adopted by them the party organs have reaffirmed their fidelity to the principles of the internationalist solidarity of all contingents of the communist movement.
Theoreticians of the fraternal parties creatively develop individual propositions in the concept of revolution, applying them to the conditions obtaining in their countries. In recent years many interesting studies have been published, which theoretically interpret a wide range of problems of the socialist revolution and the transition from capitalism to socialism.^^**^^ These problems are studied at the scientific institutions of the Communist parties. Much of the research is conducted collectively, with the participation of representatives of different parties.
The 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties set all Communists the task of creatively enlarging on the problems of the world revolutionary movement and looking for new forms of transition from capitalism to socialism.
_-_-_^^*^^ Cases in point are the denunciation of Roger Garaudy's opportunist activities by the 19th Congress of the French Communist Party and his subsequent expulsion from the party; the decision of a plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party to expel an opportunist group that published the journal Manifesto; the expulsion from the Communist Party of Austria of the Right `` theoretician" Ernst Fischer; the expulsion of Petkov from the Communist Party of Venezuela.
^^**^^ See, for example: Rodney Arismendi, Problemas de una revolution continental, Montevideo, 1962; La marche de la France au socialisme, Paris, 1966; Friedl Furnberg, 50 Jahre. Die Sozialistische Oktobert-evolution und 'Osterreich, Vienna, 1967; Ren£ Andrieu, Les communistes et la revolution, Paris, 1968; Georges Cogniot, Karl Marx, notre contemporain, Paris, 1968; Janos Kadar, Hazafisdg es internacionalizmus, Budapest, 1968; Ib Norlund, Det kommunistiske synspunkt, Copenhagen, 1968; Georges Cogniot, L'Internationale Communiste, Paris, 1969; Waldeck Rochet, L'avenir du Parti communiste franfaise, Paris, 1969.
45Since that Meeting the fraternal Communist parties have been actively continuing their work of analysing the problems confronting the revolutionary movement and developing the Marxist-Leninist ideas of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism. The most pressing problems of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism are thoroughly examined at congresses, Central Committee plenary meetings and theoretical conferences. The 24th Congress of the CPSU added substantially to the further creative elaboration of the theory, strategy and tactics of the world revolutionary movement.
[46] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 2 __ALPHA_LVL1__ SUBSTANCE AND CONTENTThe sharp turn and momentous revolutionary changes in all spheres of social life, the defeats suffered by capitalism---the last exploiting system---the mounting victorious advance of socialism; the marked changes of the world's political map showing the formation of countries of the socialist community and the rise of developing countries, and the downfall of imperialism's colonial system; the growing scope and intensity of the class battles in the capitalist countries, the active involvement of tens of millions of people in social and political activity, and the scientific and technological revolution are some of the features characterising the development of the modern world.
Naturally, to achieve greater success, the Communists, who have been fighting for more than a hundred years to remake society by revolution, must constantly take the trends of the epoch and its motive forces into account. They must correctly understand the basic economic, social and political factors underlying the far-reaching reorganisation that is being accomplished in the life of mankind.
It is not easy to give a scientific answer to the question of the substance and character of the present epoch. This requires an exhaustive study of the cardinal laws determining present-day socio-political, economic, spiritual and other processes. In other words, the nature of the present epoch is a complex problem with numerous facets. It is a dialectical 47 combination of the economic, social, political, military and ideological trends of an extraordinarily turbulent period of modern history.
A correct definition of the epoch makes it possible, on the one hand, to understand the complexity and diversity of the processes in all spheres of social life and serves, as Lenin put it, as ``the foundation for an understanding of the specific features of one country or another'',^^*^^ and, on the other, to map out effective strategy and tactics for the struggle of the working masses and attain the programme objectives of the Communist and Workers' parties with the greatest speed and the least sacrifice.
Now that the Communist and Workers' parties are charting the direction and ways for social advancement in the socialist countries, that they are working towards the revolutionary transformation of the socio-political system in the imperialist states and influencing the policies of the progressive forces in the young developing countries, a correct definition of the substance of the epoch and the conclusions deriving from this definition affect the destinies of mankind, serve as the point of departure for an analysis of the key problem of modern times---the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism---and give the masses a prospect.
Another reason why it is necessary to define the present epoch is that a bitter theoretical struggle is raging round this problem and the ideological adversaries of socialism are resorting to various subterfuges in order to conceal or distort the real meaning of the pivotal problems of modern times. Instead of making a scientific, class analysis, they engage in scholastic exercises with arbitrarily selected, frequently secondary, criteria and in this way seek to pervert the meaning of the main trends of today, whitewash capitalism and foretell a sunny future for it.
The CPSU and other Marxist parties hold that unremitting attention has to be focussed on the laws governing the development of the contemporary epoch. All the programme documents of the Communist parties begin with an analysis of our epoch. A scientific definition of the epoch that pinpoints the main trends of social development and the alignment of class forces in the world is the starting point _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 145.
48 for framing the strategy of the communist movement. The elaboration of the entire range of problems related to the substance and character of the contemporary epoch merits the close attention of Marxist researchers. This concerns historians and also philosophers, economists, jurists, experts on international affairs and so on. Yet there are not so many studies on this subject in Marxist literature. Besides, this literature contains a number of muddled definitions of the essence and main contradictions of the epoch: the approach to the very concept ``epoch'' is not uniform and it is given a wide variety of meanings. We feel, therefore, that it is necessary to make a closer analysis of this important problem of theory and practice and to state our opinion on some disputed questions. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATIONSSocial development is a process governed by laws. As mankind forges ahead this process grows steadily faster.
When the founders of Marxism analysed diverse facts from the life of mankind they established that in any society the various aspects of its activity combine not accidentally but in accordance with definite laws. Every society is, at one stage or another, an integral organism with its own peculiar combination of economic, political and ideological relations. Lenin noted that ``the analysis of material social relations at once made it possible to observe recurrence and regularity and to generalise the systems of the various countries in the single fundamental concept: social formation. It was this generalisation alone that made it possible to proceed from the description of social phenomena (and their evaluation from the standpoint of an ideal) to their strictly scientific analysis, which isolates, let us say by way of example, that which distinguishes one capitalist country from another and investigates that which is common to all of them.''^^*^^
The concept of socio-economic formation reflects one or _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 140. 4-1157
49 another phase of mankind's development from pre-class to communist society. It allows us to understand a definite society as a concrete community, as a totality of economic, social, political and ideological relations and institutions, as a totality with its own laws of development. A new system appears on the basis of the changes in the preceding formation. One system replaces another as a result of a social revolution.Every socio-economic system represents the unity between a certain level of development of the productive forces and the corresponding relations of production.
Historically, the birth of a socio-economic system on a world-wide scale has always taken place more or less simultaneously. But this holds true exclusively on the historical plane, because the transition from one system to another is a long process and is not accomplished everywhere at one and the same time. It would be impossible to name periods in history which belonged solely to some one social formation. Moreover, every system has definite stages---birth, consolidation, maturity and so forth.
The Marxist-Leninist understanding of the character of the laws governing the development of a socio-economic system helps to give a scientific definition of the essence of a historical epoch. How does Marxism-Leninism determine the content and boundaries of historical epochs? Let us examine Lenin's method of determining the substance of a historical epoch, its boundaries, duration and so on.
Characterising the concept of epoch, Lenin wrote: ``...in each of them there are and will always be individual and partial movements, now forward now backward; there are and always will be various deviations from the average type and mean tempo of the movement. We cannot know how rapidly and how successfully the various historical movements in a given epoch will develop, but we can and do know which class stands at the hub of one epoch or another, determining its main content, the main direction of its development, the main characteristics of the historical situation in that epoch, etc.''^^*^^
He not only defined the substance of the epoch but concretely characterised the features of different historical _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 145.
50 epochs. For instance he divided the period of new and latest history into three epochs.The first epoch covered the period from the Great French Revolution of 1789 to the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune. Lenin described it as the epoch of the rise and complete victory of the bourgeoisie, ``of the bourgeoisie on the upgrade, an epoch of bourgeois-democratic movements in general and of bourgeois-national movements in particular, an epoch of the rapid breakdown of the obsolete feudal-- absolutist institutions.''^^*^^ The leading class of that epoch was the bourgeoisie, and its main contradiction was between dying feudalism and consolidating capitalism.
The second epoch---from 1871 to the outbreak of the First World War and the Great October Socialist Revolution--- witnessed the transition to imperialism. It was characterised by mounting inner contradictions of capitalist society, when ``the day-by-day life of the working masses was undergoing an internationalisation---the cities were attracting ever more inhabitants, and living conditions in the large cities of the whole world were being levelled out; capital was becoming internationalised, and at the big factories townsmen and country-folk, both native and alien, were intermingling. The class contradictions were growing ever more acute; the employers' associations were exercising ever greater pressure on the workers' unions; sharper and more bitter forms of struggle were arising, as, for instance, mass strikes; the cost of living was rising; the pressure of finance capital was becoming intolerable, etc., etc.''^^**^^ It was an epoch that saw the conversion of the bourgeoisie from a revolutionary into a reactionary force and the upsurge of a new class, the proletariat.
Lenin dated the third epoch, the epoch of our day, as beginning from the First World War and the socialist revolution in Russia. After the victory in October 1917 Lenin characterised the new epoch as follows: ``The abolition of capitalism and its vestiges, and the establishment of the fundamentals of the communist order comprise the content of the new era of world history that has set in. It is inevitable that the slogans of our era are and must be: abolition of classes; _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 146.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 151.
__PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 51 the dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of achieving that aim; the ruthless exposure of petty-bourgeois democratic prejudices concerning freedom and equality and ruthless war on these prejudices.''^^*^^ He described this new epoch of world history as one of the ``rule of a new class, a class which is oppressed in every capitalist country, but which everywhere is marching forward towards a new life, towards victory over the bourgeoisie, towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, towards the emancipation of mankind from the yoke of capital and from imperialist wars''.^^**^^The definition given by Lenin thus embraces all the principal features characterising the various epochs. It shows the leading trend of social development, the predominant class and its main content, orientation and tasks.
Lenin's definition of the third, i.e., the contemporary epoch is of particular importance for our analysis. It discloses the substance of the qualitatively new epoch, whose commencement conformed to the objective conditions of social development and the interests of the overwhelming majority of people in all countries of the globe. Lenin's definition of the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism underlies all subsequent definitions of the present epoch in the documents of the CPSU, of the 1957, 1960 and 1969 International Meetings, and of the fraternal parties.
The following are excerpts from some of these definitions.
In the Programme of the CPSU, adopted at the 22nd CPSU Congress, it is stated: ``Our epoch, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism, is an epoch of struggle between the two opposing social systems, an epoch of socialist and national liberation revolutions, of the breakdown of imperialism and the abolition of the colonial system, an epoch of the transition of more and more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world-wide scale. The central factor of the present epoch is the international working class and its main creation, the world socialist system.''^^***^^ In the resolution adopted by the 23rd Congress of the CPSU on the report of the CC CPSU, it is underscored that ``world development has _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 392.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 55.
^^***^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 449.
52 confirmed the conclusion of our Party and of the communist movement as a whole that the main trend of the historical process in our time is determined by the world socialist system, the forces fighting against imperialism, for the socialist reorganisation of society''.^^*^^In the documents of the international conferences of Communist and Workers' parties it is recorded:~
1957: ``The main content of our epoch is the transition from capitalism to socialism, which was begun by the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. Today more than a third of the population of the world---over 950 million people---have taken the road of socialism and are building a new life. The tremendous growth of the forces of socialism has stimulated the rapid extension of the anti-imperialist national movement in the post-war period.... The progress of socialism and of the national liberation movement has greatly accelerated the disintegration of imperialism. With regard to the greater part of mankind, imperialism has lost its onetime domination. In the imperialist countries society is rent by deep-going class contradictions and by antagonisms between those countries, while the working class is putting up increasing resistance to the policy of imperialism and the monopolies, fighting for better conditions, democratic rights, for peace and socialism.''^^**^^
1960: ``Our time, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism initiated by the Great October Socialist Revolution, is a time of struggle between the two opposing social systems, a time of socialist revolutions and national liberation revolutions, a time of the breakdown of imperialism, of the abolition of the colonial system, a time of transition of more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world-wide scale.
``It is the principal characteristic of our times that the world socialist system is becoming the decisive factor in the development of society."^^***^^
1969: ``The events of the past decade bear out that the Marxist-Leninist assessment of the character, content and _-_-_
^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, p. 281.
^^**^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, pp. G-7.
^^***^^ Ibid, p. 38.
53 chief trends of the present epoch is correct. Ours is an epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.''^^*^^Let us now see how the present epoch was defined at the June 1969 International Meeting by the leaders of some of the fraternal parties.
Leonid Brezhnev: ``...a realistic assessment of the present state of affairs in the world, a comparison between the development of imperialism, on the one hand, and all the forces opposing it, on the other, warrants only one conclusion: the main lines of world development continue to be determined by the activity of the forces of revolution and socialism, of the peace forces and the national liberation movement.~"^^**^^
Walter Ulbricht (Socialist Unity Party of Germany): ``...the 20th century is an epoch of the general crisis of capitalism and the downfall of the capitalist system, an epoch of struggle between the two world systems, an epoch of democratic and national revolutions, an epoch of social revolution of the working class and the victory of the socialist social system.''^^***^^
Waldeck Rochet (French Communist Party): `` Imperialism as a world system has definitely weakened in the past ten years as compared with the socialist system, as compared with the forces of peace, independence and progress.''^^****^^
Gus Hall (Communist Party of the USA): ``The transition from capitalism to socialism is history's greatest happening. . .. This turning point has given rise to, and is propelled by a world-wide, three-pronged revolutionary development that is now converging into a single process. There are periods when the process does not produce a shift of state power in any country. There are setbacks, frustrations, and periods when the process levels off to a new plateau. There are moments of explosions and periods of revolutionary development. There are violent transfers of class power and some transitions that are not so violent.
``Through all this, the revolutionary process goes on, _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 12.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 154.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 217.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 108.
54 the maturing and gathering of the forces of the revolution.''^^*^^Shripad Amrit Dange (Communist Party of India): ``The decisive force in world development was no longer imperialism but the forces of socialism, of the working class and national liberation. Rightly was the present epoch characterised as an epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.''^^**^^
There is a number of general propositions in the definitions of the modern epoch as given by the Marxist-Leninist parties and in the documents of the international communist movement. Briefly, they may be reduced to the following:
First, a complete identity of views on the character, assessment and motive trends of the epoch with the views expressed by Lenin. This is further testimony of the viability and unfading significance of Lenin's analysis of the epoch and of the greatness of his genius.
Second, the Communist parties and the communist movement as a whole creatively approach the new phenomena of the past few decades and analyse them scientifically, in other words, they enlarge on Lenin's definition of the epoch.
Third, the entire period from the Great October Socialist Revolution to our day is characterised by the parties as an unbroken epoch. True, like every other epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism has its own stages and periods. Three such periods may be named conditionally.
The first is the period of the establishment and development of a national dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., of a proletarian dictatorship in one country---the Soviet Union. In that period socialism influenced the course of world development and the growth of the revolutionary struggle in the countries of the capitalist world mainly by force of its own example, through the consolidation of socialist ideals and relations. Already then the class struggle was raging in individual capitalist countries, where it was headed by Marxist-Leninist parties, and, at the same time, a struggle was waged between the two opposing social and state systems. The Soviet Union's influence over the revolutionary process spread in depth and breadth, being expressed in direct _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 425--26.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 468.
55 military assistance to fighters against imperialism and fascism, in the defence of the national interests of the oppressed peoples, in material assistance and the provision of political asylum to political fighters, revolutionaries, anti-fascists, democrats, and so on. But, on the whole, the course and character of international relations were determined by imperialism. The second is the period of the formation of the world socialist system. It is characterised by a frontal breach of the chain of imperialism and the conversion of the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national into an international force. However, there have been not only qualitative changes. Capitalism and its laws ceased to be the dominant factor in the world and imperialism irrevocably lost its positions in many countries of Europe and Asia.One cannot accept as tenable the assertion that the formation of the world socialist system signified that mankind had entered the fourth historical epoch. This assertion is wrong because the creation of the socialist community does not change the substance of the present epoch in world history. Its main contradiction has been and remains the contradiction between socialism and capitalism, and the working class and its creation, world socialism, continue to remain in the centre of the epoch.
The third period witnesses the strengthening of socialism's position on a global scale: the successful building of communism in the USSR, the triumph of socialism in a group of European and Asian countries, the victory of the Cuban revolution, the collapse of the colonial system, the choice of the non-capitalist road of development by a number of African and Asian countries, and the further serious erosion of imperialism's positions in its own citadels.
In our day the revolutionary process has become worldwide. The revolutionary changes have acquired greater depth and maturity. Various revolutionary torrents have converged and economic, social and political revolutionary changes have become more rapid. In the world today it would be hard to find an area unaffected by the struggle for social and national liberation.
The principal and decisive feature of the present epoch is that the course of world history is determined no longer by world capitalism but by world socialism. This concerns all its spheres and trends.
56 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. FEATURES OF OUR EPOCHThe definition of the present historical epoch, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism, gives its principal features. At various periods these features unquestionably manifest themselves in different ways, but their substance has been and remains unchanged. They may be conditionally reduced to the following.
Our epoch is one of struggle between two opposing social systems. This struggle is being waged in the economic, political, ideological and military fields and it is being convincingly won by the new, socialist system.
Take economics. In 1917 socialism only accounted for 3 per cent of the world industrial output. In 1937 its share rose to approximately 10 per cent, in 1950 to nearly 20 per cent and in 1968 to almost 40 per cent. But there is more to this than the socialist countries' growing share of world industrial production. Importance attaches to trends characterising the growth of the total social product, the rate of development and the efficiency of production.
Let us begin with the national income. In 1968 as compared with 1950 it grew 360 per cent in the Soviet Union, more than 350 per cent in Bulgaria, 170 per cent in Hungary, 260 per cent in the German Democratic Republic, over 240 per cent in Poland and nearly 190 per cent in Czechoslovakia.^^*^^ In this period the national income in the Common Market countries increased roughly 170 per cent and in the US less than 100 per cent.
Or take the rate of growth of industrial output. It averaged 7.2 per cent throughout the world in the period 1951-- 1965. In countries outside the world socialist system, the growth rate averaged 5.6 per cent, coming to 5.3 per cent in the developed capitalist states (4.4 per cent in the USA). The annual rate of growth in the socialist countries averaged 11.5 per cent, the CMEA countries showing 10.6 per cent (the USSR 10.7 per cent). This was achieved despite the certain slowing of the growth rate in the socialist countries during the five-year period from 1961 to 1965 (7.4 per cent _-_-_
^^*^^ These and other figures given here have been computed according to official CMEA statistics, documents of recent congresses of Communist parties, and articles and materials published in the journal World Marxist Review.
57 for the socialist community as a whole, 8.5 per cent in the CMEA countries, 8.6 per cent in the Soviet Union). The drop was due to a number of reasons, one of which lay in the grave difficulties in the development of agriculture. Nonetheless, during that five-year period the rate of growth of industrial production in the socialist countries exceeded the world level (6.5 per cent) and the level achieved in the developed capitalist states (5.7 per cent, with the USA showing 5.6 per cent).Industrial production grew rapidly in the CMEA countries in 1965--1970, the increase adding up to 49 per cent.
The socialist countries have achieved high rates of economic development and built a highly efficient national economy based on the most advanced science and technology. Labour productivity is growing through the use of new machinery and the pattern of industry is changing as a result of the accelerated expansion of branches such as chemistry, radio electronics, instrument-making, precision machinery and heavy engineering, which determine technological progress. True, in the socialist countries much still remains to be done in this field, but the prerequisites are already on hand, making it possible to achieve considerably more progress during the next few years and to strengthen the economic positions of socialism as the most advanced social system.
In the economic competition an important factor is that socialism is an incomparably more perfect system as regards the mode of production and the distribution and consumption of goods. It is well known that in capitalist society there is glaring inequality in the social position of its members and in the distribution of various blessings. In The Future of the French Communist Party, the General Secretary of the FCP Waldeck Rochet writes that the income of 10 per cent of the richest section of the French population is 74 times greater than the share of 10 per cent of the poorest section.^^*^^
The Soviet Union gets more out of production for the people than does the United States of America. Although the USSR is still behind the USA in the volume of output it uses it more effectively for the promotion of science, culture, _-_-_
^^*^^ Waldeck Rochet, L'avcnir dv Parti communiste frangais, Paris, 1969, p. 36.
58 education, health and key branches of the economy. Lastly, and this is the most important point, even with a smaller volume of per capita production cultural and spiritual requirements are more fully satisfied in the USSR. When the Soviet Union reaches the US level of production it will be considerably ahead in all spheres of social life.In its efforts to avoid defeat in the economic sphere capitalism is compelled to adapt itself to the new conditions of the struggle between the two systems and look for ways of improving production and management. It is integrating the monopolies with the state apparatus, forming mammoth monopoly associations (conglomerates), making ever broader use of programming and forecasting in production, utilising the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution by financing technological progress and research out of the state budget, and making attempts to limit the market element and utilise elements of planning; on the international level it uses various forms of economic integration to set up international associations of monopolies. However, imperialism by no means abandons some traditional forms of sustaining economic conjuncture (carefully camouflaged intensification of exploitation, militarisation of the economy, the pillaging of undeveloped countries, and so on). In some ca