__PUBL__
Progress Publishers
__PUBL_CITY__
Moscow
__YEAR__
1970
[1]
Translated from the Russian
/IEHHH — BEJ1HKHM TEOPETHK.
Ha OHIAUUCKOM
First printing 1970
Primed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[2] CONTENTS Page Lenin, the Great Theoretician of Communism. By P. N. Fedoscycv 5 How Lenin Developed the Philosophy of Marxism. By A. F. Okulov..................30 Lenin on the Objective Laws of the Building of Communism. liy Ts. A. Slepanyiin..............60 Lenin's Contribution to the Political Kconomy of Capitalism. l',y S. L. Vygodiky..............Si Lenin's Development of the Political Kconomy of Socialism. By G. A. Kozlov...............104 Lenin's Contribution to the Marxist Theory of Socialist Revolution. liy Y. A. Krasin................136 The Strategy and Tactics of Leninism. By N. V. Tropkin . . . 163 Lenin's Theory of the New Type of Proletarian Party. By G. D. Obicbkin..................197 Lenin's Theory of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Socialist State. By V. V. Platkovsky.........220 Lenin on the Historic Role of the Working Class. By M. V. Iskrov 249 Lenin's Contribution to Marxist Agrarian Theory. By A. I. Malysb 275 Lenin on the National and Colonial Questions. By V. Y. Zcvin 30; Lenin and Some Problems of the World Communist Movement. By L. M. Minayev..............348 Lenin and Proletarian Internationalism. By V. S. Semyonov . . 375 [3] ~ [4] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN,By P. N. FEDOSEYEV
Lenin, the continuator of Marx, was a truly great thinker, revolutionary, and theoretician of communism.
The teachings of Marx, Engcls and Lenin are as indispensable to the revolutionary transformation of society and to the guidance of social processes as the natural sciences are to the transformation of nature and to the development of industry and agriculture.
Like any science, Marxism-Leninism is based on our knowledge of the laws of development of the surrounding world. Lenin amplified materialist dialectics, the science of the most general laws of the development of nature, human society and thought. In applying the dialectical method to the cognition of social processes he enriched Marxism with an understanding of new phenomena of historical reality. The laws and the social motive forces of the new epoch that he revealed still determine the development of society in the present day.
Subjecting all historical facts to detailed study, drawing bold theoretical generalisations and perceiving the continuity between past, present and future, the Marxist-Leninist dialectical method transcends the narrow bounds of both empiricism and abstract rationalism.
Since the time when Marx and Engcls lived the world has seen many major social changes, and the theoretical ideas of Marxism have been enriched accordingly.
It is just the same with the physical sciences, or with chemistry and biology. Scientific concepts have changed enormously over the past hundred years. Recall how firmly igth-century physics and chemistry were based on the idea that atoms were the ultimate, indivisible units of matter. Again, the idea of the cell 5 as the basic unit of the organism was regarded as the major achievement of biology in the last century. The development of natural science has shown how limited these concepts are: science is penetrating ever more deeply into the structure of organic and inorganic matter, disclosing the extremely intricate composition of the atom and the organic cell.
It is indeed amazing that the principles formulated by Marx and Engels in the ipth century should have proved valid and viable in the 2oth century. The dialectical conception of development, the materialist approach to history, the theory of surplus value, and the doctrine of the revolutionary transformation of society---all these are as effective a part of the fighting equipment of Communists today as ever.
Lenin developed and enriched Marxism by basing himself on the main propositions of the teachings of Marx and Engels. That is why we say that there is a dialectical continuity between Marxism and Leninism and that Leninism is a new stage of Marxism, Marxism of the modern age. It is nonsense, therefore, to oppose Lenin to Marx and Leninism to Marxism, as some bourgeois and revisionist ideologists do.
An acute struggle centres around the ideas of Marx and Lenin, in which different class and party standpoints arc reflected.
Millions upon millions of people in different countries and continents are attracted to socialism; this in itself speaks of its great influence and growing appeal. Some people would combine Marxism with Christianity to produce so-called Christian socialism; others see a likeness between the views of Marx and Confucius; still others find there is such a thing as ``Muslim Marxism''. But however different such interpretations are--- connected as they may be with the most diverse, often anti-- proletarian, social forces---and however one-sided and distorted an account of the enormous spread of Marxism they represent--- nothing can detract from its universal appeal, nor deny the undeniable fact that the influence of Marxism keeps growing.
Marxism-Leninism is a single international doctrine---its distortions alone arc numerous. One can mention several varieties of revisionism presuming to ``renew'' Marxism, to adapt it to purely national circumstances.
Every Communist Party considers it its duty to apply Marxism-- Leninism creatively to its country's concrete conditions, to enrich revolutionary theory. But it is one thing to develop scientific communism with reference to the special features of this or that country, and quite another to replace the main principles 6 of Marxism-Leninism by opportunist conceptions, whether from the right or the left.
We know that numerous attempts arc made to present revisionist trends as different varieties of Marxism. But it is clear that Marxists-Leninists must resolutely reject all ideas of pluralism, of different varieties of Marxism. Marxism is not to be divided according to geography or national affinity. Marxism is an integral revolutionary doctrine, cast, as it were, from a single block of steel.
Those of our ideological opponents who seek to divide revolutionary theory into national compartments claim that Leninism is a purely Russian development, a generalisation of Russian experience alone, which makes it inapplicable to other countries. Such an understanding of Lenin's teachings is completely divorced from the facts. Just as Marxism, which originated in Germany, was not a theoretical generalisation exclusively of German reality, so Leninism, which originated in Russia, is not an exclusively Russian phenomenon, but a higher stage of Marxism.
Lenin synthesised the experience of three Russian revolutions and that of the initial years of building socialism in the Soviet Republic---itself of enormous international significance. The 1905 Revolution, the first in the epoch of imperialism, furnished a model of popular revolution---bourgeois-democratic in its socio-- economic content but proletarian inasmuch as it was motivated and led by the working class. The brief historical period between the February and October revolutions of 1917 was the first successful example of a bourgeois-democratic revolution developing into a socialist one. The October Revolution marked a great turning point in the history of mankind and ushered in the epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale.
This historic movement for the revolutionary transformation of society proceeded under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party with Lenin at its head. Lenin solved the basic theoretical problems that arose in the course of three Russian revolutions and during the transition to the building of socialism in the young Soviet Republic. At the same time he generalised the experience of the international workers' movement and the achievements of scientific thought after Marx and Engels. He amplified and developed further all the aspects and component parts of Marxism---philosophy, political economy and scientific communism---and these do not and cannot belong to any one nation but to the whole of progressive mankind. This is what gives Leninism its universal, international significance. Clearly there can be 7 no specifically Russian, Chinese or Yugoslav dialectics or theory of revolution. The general laws of historical development extend to all countries alike. To set some sort of local limits to Leninism, or to believe it to be merely one variant of Marxism, is to ignore the essential international content of Marxism-Leninism as the one comprehensive scientific world outlook of the working class.
Under present-day conditions Marxism-Leninism plays its great progressive part in the destinies of nations while being constantly renewed and enriched by current social practice, which it continually subjects to analysis. The triumph of socialism and the building of a communist society in the Soviet Union, the establishment and development of the world socialist system, the collapse of imperialism's colonial system, the aggravation of the general crisis of imperialism, and the scientific and technical revolutions of the loth century together form the basis for developing Marxism-Leninism by collective effort.
The greatest contribution to the development of Marxist-- Leninist theory has been made by the Party that Lenin founded, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. After being at the helm of a socialist society for fifty years, the CPSU has accumulated immense theoretical and practical experience and has enriched Leninism with new theoretical conclusions and propositions of historic significance not only to the Soviet Union but to all mankind.
The progress of the world communist movement shows that Leninism is being enriched and enhanced by the revolutionary experience and combined theoretical knowledge of all Communist and Workers' Parties. Today, when the centenary of Lenin's birth is being celebrated, the significance of Lenin's ideas, of Leninist theory and practice, for the future of mankind, stands out ever more clearly.
``All the experience of world socialism and of the workingclass and national liberation movements has confirmed the world significance of Marxist-Leninist teaching,'' as is stated in the Address "Centenary of Lenin's Birth'', adopted by the Moscow Meeting of the Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969.
Leninism is the determined opponent of revisionism, of everything conducive to the unwarranted revision of truths confirmed by practice. Yet Lenin did not believe Marxism to be immutable and inviolable. It would be foolish to regard Marxism as a hoard of ideas kept locked up in a strong-box, to gloat over and to dip into on occasion.
But it is equally ill-advised to regard Marxism as a kind of 8 wide-open box into which one can deposit no matter what odds and ends of various ideological trends, bourgeois-liberal and revisionist among them, for the purpose of ``enriching'' Marxism. Some ``wiseacres'', too, try to ``replenish'', or rather, to ``replace'' Marxist-Leninist theory by Trotskyist, anarchist, nationalist and other adventuristic notions.
Marxism-Leninism has no pretensions to omniscience. As an ever-living, organically developing teaching, it can be likened neither to a locked nor to an open depository but rather to a majestic tree which shoots new branches every year and rises taller and taller, so that ever more distant vistas can be surveyed from its top.
Dialectics, the principle of perpetual change and development, is the soul of Marxist-Leninist theory. The strictly scientific approach, the constant concern for bringing theory into line with social practice, the tireless effort both to reflect the present correctly and, on the strength of an accurate knowledge of reality, to be able to see into the future---all this forms the source of the invincible strength of Leninism and its immense impact on human progress.
__*_*_*__Lenin became the theoretician and leader of the liberation movement of a new era, the era of socialist revolutions, of society's transition from capitalism to socialism and communism. By examining in detail the vital needs of the practical movement he developed further Marx's theory of the class struggle and the socialist revolution. The problems of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat occupy a major place in his theoretical legacy. Basing himself on the changed historical conditions Lenin enriched and made concrete Marxist teachings on the motive forces of the socialist revolution, on the alliance of the working class with the peasantry and other non-proletarian sections of the working people, and on the necessary link between the socialist revolution and the national liberation movement. His ideas on the objective and subjective factors, on the relation of democratic to socialist goals, on the creation of the socio-political forces of the revolution, and on the role of the working class as the leader of both the democratic and the socialist revolutions have all greatly contributed to revolutionary theory.
Lenin observed and analysed the increasing role of the party of the working class in bringing about the triumph of the socialist revolution and in building the new society. To build up the 9 Communist Parties was one of Lenin's major behests to the world communist movement.
Lenin's most important achievements were his discovery of the possibility of socialism attaining victory in at first only one or a few countries, and his logical definition of the modern historical era as one of struggle between two antagonistic systems---socialism and capitalism. After analysing the special features of the age of imperialism, above all the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism, Lenin concluded that the contradictions of the capitalist system were intensifying, but that the preconditions for the socialist revolution would not mature at the same time in all countries; from which it followed that it would be possible to break the chain of imperialism at its weakest link. Again and again, when we turn to these now widely known propositions of Lenin's, we see his brilliant insight into the future of Russia and into the essence of the current era of world history.
At the beginning of the First World War Lenin clearly envisaged the coming division of the world into two opposing systems, and the struggle between them, following the triumph of socialism in one country. He wrote in August 1915: ``After expropriating the capitalists and organising its own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will rise against the rest of the world---the capitalist world---attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.''^^1^^
A year later Lenin again wrote: ''. . . 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. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state's victorious proletariat. In such cases a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the = bourgeoisie.''^^2^^
These words no longer merely represent a scientific forecast. The victory of the October Revolution confirmed the possibility of socialism achieving victory first in one country, as well as the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 542.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 79.
10 need to defend the gains of socialism by armed force. During the period of civil war and armed foreign intervention in Soviet Russia the struggle between the two social systems manifested itself with particular force. The young Soviet Republic not only had to engage in a life-and-death struggle with home counter-- revolution but it also had to beat off the onslaught of fourteen bourgeois states.While Lenin advocated the principle of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems, he repeatedly stressed that it was always necessary to be vigilant and ready to repulse imperialist aggression. He understood peaceful coexistence as something necessary and possible, but not as something already accomplished and guaranteed by the immutable laws of history. He explained over and again that the whole world situation was determined by the struggle between the Soviet republics and the imperialist states opposing them.
The assault of nazi Germany and its satellites on the USSR, and the heroic struggle of the Soviet peoples against fascist aggression, showed how far-sighted Lenin had been in warning of the coming class battles in the international arena. By engaging in a just war for its own freedom and independence and by routing the nazi invaders the Soviet Union helped the peoples of some other countries to throw off the foreign yoke and, furthermore, to rid themselves of their native exploiters so as to embark on the path of socialist development.
Thus Lenin's theory of socialist revolution docs much more than simply deal with the questions connected with the triumph of socialism in one country; it is a general and comprehensive theory of the whole world revolutionary process, of the world victory of socialism over capitalism.
By applying the dialectical method to the analysis of capitalism Marx was the first to expose the root contradictions of bourgeois society, which find their expression in the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the exploiting classes and the exploited mass of the people. Lenin carried forward this analysis with reference to the imperialist stage of capitalism and the new historical epoch that dated from the October Revolution. He disclosed the contradictions between socialism and capitalism on a world scale. The struggle between the two systems is a specific expression of the dialectical law of the struggle of opposites in the international arena.
The experience of the initial period of building socialism enabled Lenin to disclose the dialectics of the new society, whose 11 distinctive feature he saw in the fact that under socialism antagonisms disappear while contradictions persist. The law of the unity and struggle of opposites lies at the heart of dialectics, and Lenin uncovered the finest interconnections and interrelations of the main social forces of the modern age. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the world communist movement arc consistently following Lenin's precepts in this respect and developing them.
It is, however, different with the Chinese leaders, who have estranged themselves from Marxism-Leninism.
Peking propagandists do not divide the world into two socio-- political systems, two camps, but into East and West generally into ``world town" and ``world country'', ignoring the fundamental differences between the socialist and capitalist countries. Moreover, they are spreading monstrous slanders about `` American-Soviet collusion against the Chinese people and other revolutionary peoples'', despite the fact that history has shown, and all the peoples of the world recognise, that the Soviet Union is the main force in the fight against world imperialism and its bulwark, US imperialism.
Contrary to the Chinese splitters' giddy imaginings the world communist movement starts from the fact that world development is today determined by the struggle between two camps, two opposing systems. To recognise that this struggle is the pivot of the present era is in no way to underrate the world-wide historical significance of the class struggle of the proletariat and its allies in the capitalist countries or of the national liberation movements. We arc aware that the victory of socialism on a world scale is unthinkable in the absence of an alliance of the revolutionary forces of modern times. We merely wish to emphasise that the world socialist system opposing imperialism is the chief force and mainstay of the peoples' anti-imperialist front.
Revisionists describe the two camps as ordinary military blocs, claiming that the division into camps is an artificial ``political bloc" situation which can be disposed of by a policy of `` nonalignment" and ``convergence'', thus refusing to recognise the historical reality of the class struggle. But the two camps into which the present-day world is divided are not merely rival coalitions but two entirely different socio-economic formations: the outgoing, capitalist formation, and the rising, communist formation. When pointing out the world-historic significance of the Soviet system in 1920, Lenin said: ``Two camps arc now quite consciously facing each other all over the world; this may be said without the 12 slightest = exaggeration."^^1^^ A year later he reaffirmed: ''. . .the world has broken up into two camps: capitalism abroad and Communist = Russia."^^2^^
The existence of the world socialist system and the increasing economic and defence potential of the socialist countries, especially the Soviet Union, are making the socialist camp a decisive factor in world politics and world development.
In terms of world history, the question of which side will win is settled in favour of socialism. However, this is being decided in the course of a tense world-wide struggle between the two systems, between the forces of socialism and progress and those of imperialism and reaction. The imperialists still hope to defeat socialism and counterattack where they can. That is why it is impermissible and dangerous to treat any of their stratagems with complacency, and why it is necessary to wage a relentless struggle against the imperialist camp.
In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism a fierce battle between the working class and the remnants of the exploiting classes is inevitable in every country. Even after the foundations of socialism have been laid, anti-socialist forces continue to resist socialist developments in one way or another. This contradiction between the forces of socialism and reaction is bound up with the struggle between the two systems on an international scale.
In this connection the 1968--69 developments in Czechoslovakia amply confirm the Marxist theory of class struggle today. These developments should not be isolated from the international situation or viewed in separation from the struggle between the two social systems; they are but an instance of the general struggle between socialism and capitalism.
The struggle between the two systems is most stark today in Vietnam, where US imperialists are waging a criminal war, and in the Middle East where armed aggression has also been unleashed against progressive regimes. Things are different in Europe, where imperialists avoid overt and direct armed action, trying instead to undermine the socialist countries by sabotage in a ``democratic'' guise. Here they have to face the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Treaty countries, and they do not dare to interfere in their affairs by force of arms as they do in Vietnam--- which has no common frontier with the USSR but borders on _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 450.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 36, p. 538.
13 China, the position of whose leaders is being exploited by imperialism in order to disrupt the unit) of the revolutionary forces.In the class struggle both within individual countries and on the international scene there inevitably appear some elements that vacillate between the two camps. Lenin warned that in a world divided into two systems not only individuals and social groups but entire nations might vacillate between the socialist camp and = imperialism.^^1^^
Sharply criticising unprincipled leaders, Lenin recommended a restrained and flexible attitude towards wavering social and political groups with a view to either neutralising them or winning them over. He said: ``The main task we set ourselves is to defeat the exploiters and to win to our side the waverers---this is a task of historic = significance."^^2^^
Experience has shown that no small proportion of the petty-- bourgeoisie vacillates between socialism and capitalism. In Czechoslovakia, the anti-socialist forces would not have been so dangerous if they had not been able to rely on such wavcrers. That is why it is so important to oppose vacillation and to isolate the anti-socialist forces now.
It should be borne in mind that wavering petty-bourgeois sections of the population and the national bourgeoisie exert a great influence on the balance of class forces in the developing countries. The reactionary military coups recently engineered in some of these countries by the US imperialists and their accomplices were supported by domestic reaction and the wavering intermediate strata of society. This goes to prove that the developing countries can follow the socialist road only in close alliance with the socialist countries, and that in order to advance along that road they must put an end to the vacillations of these intermediate strata. This in turn requires that the exposure of reformism, social-democracy and revisionism, whether Right- or Left-wing, be intensified on a world scale.
Imperialism resorts to various methods of struggle against socialism and the national liberation movement. Nevertheless the confrontation of the two social systems in the world arena remains the basis of the class struggle. To support socialism and actively to defend it from aggression and imperialist encroachments is the internationalist duty of the Communists of all countries.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 323.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
14Lenin attached overriding importance to the economic achievements of socialism in the struggle between the two world systems. Depending on the situation, the imperialists stake their hopes now on military, now on political and ideological forms of struggle, but in the long run the economy remains the main field of battle.
Economic competition between the two social systems--- socialism and capitalism---is one of the forms of the class struggle in the international arena, a law of our age under the conditions of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. Each major victory of socialism on the economic front speeds up the process of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism and communism, affects the methods and means of the struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries and the prospects of the national liberation movement.
After it has triumphed over its exploiters politically, the proletariat must then demonstrate the advantages of socialist organisation in the economic sphere, too. Lenin said: ``This is a task of world-wide significance. To achieve the second half of the victory in the international sense, we must accomplish the second half of the task, that which bears upon economic = construction."^^1^^
The transformation of capitalist relationships into socialist ones takes a considerable historical period of time. Lenin worked out in detail Party policy for that pcriod---the New Economic Policy, or NEP, which signified the passing over from War Communism in the Soviet Republic to a peacetime economy, from the surplus-appropriation system to tax in kind. Lenin took into account the situation in Russia at that time, the peculiar circumstances that did not exist---nor need they necessarily arise--- in other countries. On the whole, however, NEP remains of international import, since it reflects the principal regularities of the transition from capitalism to socialism that have proved to be common to all countries and facilitates the evolution of forms of alliance between workers and peasants. Lenin proved scientifically that in the process of building and expanding the socialist economy the proletarian state must make use of commodity production, trade and money.
Lenin regarded the establishment of the material and technical basis of socialism as being of top priority, and added that any socialist country could succeed in this task thanks to the superiority of the socialist economic system. Lenin believed the socialist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 418--19.
15 system, expressing the interests of the broadest mass of the people, to be far superior to any state-monopoly economic organisation catering to the interests of a handful of capitalists.Lenin was the initiator of the plan for the electrification of the young Soviet Republic, of the radical industrial transformation of old Russia, of socialist industrialisation involving the most recent developments in technology.
Creating the material and technical basis of communism means above all else building a large-scale heavy industry. Without this, Lenin said, "we shall never be able to build socialism and communism".^^1^^ Setting up large-scale production on the basis of electrification is the first important step on the road to communist economic organisation. Establishing the material and technical basis of socialism and then of communism was to Lenin the prerequisite for achieving the highest labour productivity in the world and for solving the task of overtaking and outstripping the advanced capitalist countries economically.
Lenin also considered the establishment of heavy industry to be the first step and the basis for the socialist reorganisation of agriculture, the major condition for eliminating the economic roots of capitalism in the countryside and enabling small peasants to take up large-scale collective farming.
Lenin worked out an agrarian programme that applied not only to his own country but to other countries of the world as well. His programme takes account of the special features of countries where small-scale production predominates, and formulates the general laws to which the socialist reorganisations of the countryside are subject. The methods of socialising production that he suggested encourage the enlistment of nonproletarian sections of the working people in the cause of building socialism, strengthen the alliance of workers and peasants and create the socio-economic basis for re-educating all working people in the spirit of socialism.
Lenin recognised the leading role of national state enterprises in the economy. This is the corollary of the fact that the working class is the most advanced and organised class in socialist society, that it plays the leading role and is connected with the state, or public form of ownership. Having implemented Lenin's ideas on the socialisation of production and established the material and technical basis of socialism, the Soviet Union, in the course of its pre-war five-year plans of economic _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 507.
16 development, left behind all the European capitalist countries and took second place in the world---next only to the United Statcs---in industrial potential and the absolute volume of industrial production.Now that the Soviet Union has a strong and versatile socialist economy and is engaged in building the material and technical basis of communism, scientific and technological progress has become the main aspect of socialist construction. The most effective utilisation of scientific and technological achievements is the key to success in the economic competition between the two systems. For this reason, accelerating the rate of technological progress was given as one of the principal tasks of economic development by the 23rd Congress of the CPSU.
Leninism provides a comprehensive generalisation of the regularities of socialist development and the transition to communism. As Lenin pointed out time and again, socialism is a real movement of the people that must inevitably lead to communism. But communism can be built only on the basis of a fully fledged socialism, and only Leninism makes it possible to arrive at correct solutions to the cardinal problems of socialist construction, the tasks of achieving further economic development, scientific control of socialist processes, higher labour productivity and more efficient social production.
__*_*_*__Bourgeois democracy and socialist democracy are two qualitatively different political forms representing two different and opposite socio-economic systems. In fighting socialism, bourgeois ideologists habitually invoke the idea of democracy, exploiting in particular the notions of ``pure'' democracy and the freedom of the individual. They seek to prove that socialism is incompatible with democracy, while covering up the ever more reactionary character of the political regimes in the countries of the capitalist world. They arc supported in this by every kind of revisionists and nationalists. That is why it is so important to have a correct understanding of the essence of socialist democracy, of its principles and its fundamental difference from bourgeois democracy.
In our appraisal and criticism of bourgeois democracy we should begin with the following definition of Lenin's: "Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a __PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---1974 17 paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the = poor."^^1^^
Bourgeois theorists gloss over the class nature of democracy by speaking of "democracy in general'', or "total democracy''. They must needs be hypocritical and give the title of " government by the whole people" and "pure democracy" to what is in effect a bourgeois dictatorship, a dictatorship of exploiters. Marxists-Leninists expose this falsehood, explaining to the people that the only way to free labour from the capitalist yoke is to replace this bourgeois dictatorship by the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, true democracy for the working people. Bourgeois society and its democracy protect the interests of the exploiters. The dictatorship of the proletariat, in defending the gains of the revolution, suppresses the resistance of the bourgeoisie; the socialist state of the whole people will not tolerate any actions directed against the interests of the working people, against the socialist system.
Lenin severely criticised those who ventured so much as to hint at somehow adjusting the political organisation of the socialist state to bourgeois society or at making any concessions in that direction.
Once Georgi Chicherin, the then Soviet People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, proposed something of that kind to Lenin. He wrote to him on January 20, 1922: "Dear Vladimir Ilyich, in case the Americans do press their demand for representative institutions, would you think it at all = possible,^^2^^ for a proper compensation, to introduce into our Constitution a small amendment ---quite significant in terms of ideology and principle but nothing to speak of in practical terms---to the effect that parasitic elements, too, should be represented in the Soviets, through their separate meetings? Alongside the election meeting of the workers of a particular factory or the Red Army men of a particular unit the parasites will also hold their election meeting and have two or three representatives against the 200 members of the = Soviet."^^3^^
Chicherin's suggestion found no favour with Lenin. On January 23, 1922, he wrote to the members of the Politbureau:
"I have just received two letters from Chicherin (dated the 2oth and 22nd). He has raised the question of whether we should _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 245.
~^^2^^ Lenin underscored these words four times and wrote in the margin: "Madness II"
~^^3^^ Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Fund 2, Inventory i, Unit 22670.
18 agree, for a proper compensation, to some small changes in our Constitution, namely, representation for the parasitic elements on the Soviets. He says this should be done to please the Americans."This proposal of Chicherin shows, I believe, that he should ... be immediately sent to a sanatorium, as any connivance in this respect, any allowance of delay, etc., will, in my opinion, be the greatest threat to all = negotiations."^^1^^
This example is vivid enough proof of Lenin's principled and uncompromising stand on the inadmissibility of any surrender of the principles of socialist democracy.
As regards the political organisation of society, Lenin taught Communists to see the essential difference between bourgeois democracy and socialist democracy. It would be nai've to think that socialist democracy is the same democracy as exists under capitalism, only modified or ``improved''. It would be still more absurd to suppose that one can mechanically transfer the attributes of bourgeois democracy to socialist society. But this is precisely what the social-democratic and revisionist critics of socialism advise Communists to do. Bourgeois democracy fails to give the people the most important thing---the right to make the major economic and political decisions, to be the master of their own destiny. Under bourgeois democracy a country's home and foreign policies are in the hands of a few millionaires and multi-- millionaires who own all the principal means of producing material and cultural benefits. The trimmings change, the forms of government alter, the ruling parties come and go, but the omnipotent moneybags stay.
Socialism is a socio-economic system which, by abolishing private ownership of the means of production, generates a democracy of a new kind. In the Soviet Union, the fullest expression of socialist democracy is to be found in the Soviets as bodies of administration and economic management. Under socialism democracy develops in an essentially different direction to that under capitalism. It does not express itself in parliamentary debates, nor in pretty phrases about human rights, but in the practical implementation of freedom for the working people, in their real participation in the control of social processes for their own benefit.
According to Marxism-Leninism, the foremost freedom is the freedom of the working people from exploitation. The democratic _-_-_
~^^1^^ The negotiations that were scheduled to be conducted in Genoa. (See Collected Works, Vol. 45, p. 449.)
__PRINTERS_P_19_COMMENT__ 2* 19 character of socialism manifests itself primarily in the socialist relations of production, the main aim of which is to see that all the material goods produced by the people go to the people, and to the people alone. Therefore the basis of democracy, as Lenin repeatedly stressed, is not political phraseology but economic reality; Communists gauge the real worth of democracy by what it actually provides for the people in terms of economic and spiritual benefits.Socialist revolutions sweep away the class barriers that exploiters put up to prevent the introduction of democracy. The socialist countries turned over to the working people the means they needed to implement democratic rights from the very start. The socialisation of the instruments and means of production, their becoming the property of the whole people, and the handing over to the workers of the press, radio, TV, cultural institutions and educational establishments has produced a qualitative change in the nature of democracy---both production and public affairs arc now managed by the people, not by property owners.
The democratic principles of socialism have become part and parcel of daily life in the Soviet Union, and their implementation a universal habit. To the millions of unemployed in the capitalist countries the right to work is but an idle dream, while for Soviet people it is the normal thing. Socialism has given everybody equal rights of access to the benefits of culture. The cultural revolution has indeed brought education and the achievements of science, literature and art within the reach of working people, and it has given wide scope to amateur talent and initiative. Culture is no longer the privilege of an ``elite'', of a "chosen few'', but is accessible to the widest sections of people. This is one of the greatest achievements of socialist democracy.
Now that the exploitation of man by man has been done away with, it has become possible to solve such an historic question of democracy as the abolishing of national oppression, in this way ensuring the equality of all nations and nationalities. Another, no less important, question of democracy is being solved by socialism, that of bringing real equality to women in all spheres of economic, political and cultural life.
Genuine democracy expresses itself in home and foreign policies that are conducted in the interests of the mass of the people. Lenin said that the most significant expression of democracy is to be seen in the attitudes of countries to the basic question of war and peace. And indeed this is where the great difference between the aggressive policies of the supposedly 20 democratic but actually predatory imperialist powers on the one hand, and the truly democratic, peaceful policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, on the other, can be seen.
The extension and development of socialist democracy and the correction of shortcomings that appear in the course of development arc all carried out under the direction of Communist and Workers' Parties. Bourgeois propagandists and anti-- socialist elements do their utmost to turn this essentially progressive process to their own ends. By capitalising on certain difficulties and shortcomings they seek to cast a slur on the activities of the Communist and Workers' Parties, to remove the working class and its Marxist-Leninist vanguard from the leadership of society, and eventually to induce a degeneration of socialist democracy into bourgeois democracy so that the capitalist system can be restored.
The leading role of the Party and the principle of democratic centralism are cried down by bourgeois ideologists. They insinuate that with every heightening of the Party's leading role the activity and influence of other mass organisations diminish. In fact, however, as the leading role of the Party increases all working people's organisations, whether governmental or non-- governmental, begin to function more intensively.
Experience of the struggle for socialism enabled Lenin to draw the following highly significant conclusion: "Parties may represent the interests of their class in one degree or another; they may undergo changes or modifications, but we do not yet know of any better form. The entire course of the struggle waged by Soviet Russia, which for three years has withstood the onslaught of world imperialism, is bound up with the fact that the Party has consciously set out to help the proletariat perform its function of educator, organiser and leader, without which the collapse of capitalism is = impossible."^^1^^
These words of Lenin's should be held sacred by all Marxists-- Leninists. It is the duty of all Communists to rebuff any thrusts at the leading role of their parties, and to expose the treacherous nature of any slogan calling for the ``liberalisation'' of socialism.
Socialism has put an end to the privileges of landowners, capitalists and other parasites, and it grants no privileges to their toadies or to pseudo-democrats who make slogans of freedom serve as a cloak for their crude individualism and selfishness.
With the struggle of the two systems at its present high pitch, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 367.
21 socialist society has to advance its own criteria of democracy in order to prevent abuses of the freedoms of speech, of the press and of association. It cannot allow democratic rights to be used against the interests of the people, when it is the interests of the people that arc the very gauge of democracy under socialism.While it brings working people true freedom, socialist democracy obliges them to be well-disciplined and organised for the benefit of society as a whole. The connection between freedom and responsibility is dialectical. The one is impossible without the other: without responsibility, discipline and good organisation socialist democracy neither can nor will ever achieve its all-round development. Petty-bourgeois laxity can only do a great deal of damage.
Socialist democracy is improving all the time, as are its forms and methods. To defend socialist democracy and its gains from attacks by the advocates of imperialism and all those who seek to undermine socialism is the bounden duty of Communists, of the workers of the socialist countries, and of progressive humanity generally.
__*_*_*__Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution covers the inseparable unity of the national and international factors in the struggle for socialism, and takes account of the diversity that exists in the political, economic and cultural development of different countries and peoples. The possibility discovered by Lenin of the socialist revolution triumphing at first in only one or a small number of countries opened up new approaches to the question of the international mutual aid rendered one another by the national detachments of the working class in the struggle for socialism, democracy and peace. Lenin set great store by the fraternal assistance that the world proletariat gave to the working people of Russia in defending the gains of the October Revolution from foreign interventionists and whiteguards. He saw in it a striking example of workers' solidarity and loyalty to the principle of proletarian internationalism. At the same time he pointed out the enormous revolutionary influence of the Soviet state as the mighty bulwark of the world liberation movement.
The international character of Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution derives mainly from the view that the victories of socialist revolution in different countries arc all part of the world socialist revolution, and do not represent purely national developments. So the experience gained in the course of revolution in 22 only one or a few countries can be utilised, as far as its main, essential aspects go, by other countries and, indeed, by the entire world revolutionary movement. When properly understood, the national interests of the proletariat of one country or another do not run counter to the common international interests of the world proletariat, but coincide with them.
Internationalism is a common law of socialist development by virtue of the fact that socialist countries have a single-type economic base, a single-type state system, a single-type class pattern, and a single aim---communism. Nevertheless, the all-- round economic, political, military and diplomatic co-operation of the socialist countries does not mean that they neither have nor are able to have any specific indigenous features of their own resulting from the historical, geographical and politico-economic characteristics of each country.
Proletarian internationalism certainly docs not reject the diversity of the contemporary world nor does it demand stereotyped, identical methods of building socialism, but it does presuppose both the desire and the ability to find the means of solving common international problems.
Lenin taught Communists to take a single view of international and national interests in building and defending socialism. He never reconciled himself to those who strove to "lock up" socialism in their private national ``compartments'', least of all to nationalists who treacherously sacrificed the interests of the world socialist revolution to limited national interests.
The principle of internationalism makes it incumbent on the workers of all countries to unite their efforts not only within individual countries but on a world scale, too, in order to fight reaction and imperialism and to rally the masses in the struggle for peace.
The CPSU is working to achieve the all-round consolidation of the unity of the socialist countries, especially in the defence of the gains of socialism. That is what the Warsaw Treaty Organisation is for. We must not allow any infringement of the mutual obligation to defend the socialist countries. The steps taken by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in the critical days of August 1968 to render assistance to fraternal Czechoslovakia fully accord with the Leninist principles of the international defence of socialist states under the present conditions of tense struggle between the two social systems.
For some time now attention has been focussed on the attitude of Communists to the question of national sovereignty. 23 Marxists-Leninists have always recognised the principle of national sovereignty and acted in its defence. With reference to the events in Czechoslovakia, the position of the CPSU on sovereignty has been defined with absolute clarity in Party and Government documents. The Appeal of five socialist governments to the Czechoslovak people clearly stated that troops of the fraternal countries had entered Czechoslovakia because of the menace that loomed over her national sovereignty and socialist achievements.
This noble act of assistance to a socialist country was extensively exploited for the purposes of slandering the USSR. In the United States, West Germany and some other countries leading statesmen publicly alleged that the Soviet Union had altered its stand on sovereignty and national independence and now promulgated a doctrine of interference in other countries' internal affairs.
Yet it is well known that the Soviet Union consistently and resolutely upholds the principle of national sovereignty. By routing the German and Japanese invaders, the USSR helped many European and Asian peoples to regain their national independence and enhance their sovereignty. The Soviet Union took every step to defend the sovereignty of the Korean People's Democratic Republic, helping it to repulse imperialist aggression. The Soviet peoples arc giving every assistance and support to the people of Vietnam fighting for their independence and freedom. And everybody knows of the Soviet Union's efforts to defend socialist Cuba from the US imperialists and their henchmen. Again, all freedom-loving people know about the Soviet country's constant support for the just cause of the Arab peoples fighting for their independence against Israeli aggression inspired by foreign imperialists, mainly those of the United States.
The consistent line that the Soviet Union has pursued in upholding national sovereignty is also clear from the history of its relations with Czechoslovakia. In 1938, the Soviet Union resolutely came out in defence of that country's sovereignty and declared its readiness to defend it from nazi aggressors by every means, including the use of arms. The Western powers, with the consent of the bourgeois Benes Government, betrayed the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia. The Munich Agreement enabled Hitler's invaders to strangle the republic, and to deprive it of its national independence and its sovereignty. After routing the nazi invaders, the USSR restored sovereignty to Czechoslovakia and opened 24 the way to her democratic and socialist development. In 1968, when the socialist achievements of the working people of Czechoslovakia were threatened, the Soviet Union, together with fraternal countries, came to the assistance of the socialist forces and defended Czechoslovakia's sovereignty from the subversive activities of anti-socialist forces at home and the encroachments of world imperialism. This fraternal aid by five socialist countries has been approved wholeheartedly by the Czechoslovak Party and Government delegation in the Joint Soviet-Czechoslovak Statement signed in Moscow on October 27, 1969. This aid, the Statement pointed out, was "an act of international solidarity which helped to bar the way of anti-socialist counter-- revolutionary = forces".^^1^^
Nationalists oppose national sovereignty to working-class solidarity. But that docs not mean that one can, in turn, oppose class solidarity to national sovereignty. Given proper understanding, they do not clash but coincide. We cannot allow national-imperialists or ``national-Communists'' to exploit the banner of the struggle for national independence.
The Soviet Union's stand on national sovereignty was clearly expressed in Comrade Brezhnev's speech to the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party. He said:
"The socialist states hold that the sovereignty of every country must be respected. We resolutely come out against interference in the affairs of any states, against any infringement of their sovereignty.
"With that, we Communists show particular concern for the consolidation and defence of the sovereignty of states engaged in building socialism. The forces of imperialism and reaction are striving to deprive the people now of one, now of another socialist country of their hard-won sovereign right to secure the prosperity of their country and the well-being and happiness of the broad mass of the working people by building a society free from oppression and exploitation of any kind. And as soon as violations of that right meet with a concerted rebuff from the socialist camp, bourgeois propagandists raise a hue and cry about `defence of sovereignty' and `non-interference'. It is clear that this is pure humbug and demagogy on their part. In fact, these vociferous individuals are anxious not to preserve socialist sovereignty but to destroy it."
To treasure the inviolable unity of sovereign socialist states--- _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, October 29, 1969.
25 that is the correct dialectical attitude to take on the question of the relation between what is national and what is international in the world socialist system. __*_*_*__The division of the world into two camps, into two social systems, has led to the projection of the ideological struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie into the international arena. The question raised by Lenin---whether bourgeois or proletarian ideology shall prevail---has become a point of struggle not only in individual countries but on a world scale.
Lenin attached great importance to the progress of socialist culture but gave no quarter to those who belittled the cultural heritage of bourgeois society. He developed the theory of the cultural revolution, calling both for the absorption of all the achievements of human civilisation and for the creation of a new and higher culture founded on communist ideology. Simultaneously Lenin taught the Party to tolerate no attempts to use cultural progress in order to spread bourgeois ideas and bourgeois morality. Lenin's main propositions on the struggle against bourgeois ideology and on the tasks of educating the working people in the spirit of communism have retained their value to this day.
Lenin linked education directly both with the building of communist society and with the struggle against bourgeois ideology on a world scale.
It should be borne in mind that the development of state-- monopoly capitalism has resulted in major changes not only in the economy but in the state machine, too, and this has affected the content and the forms of ideological influence. Besides exerting an ever greater pressure on the economy, the bourgeois state machine has assumed direct control of the psychological war on communism and all those who support people's liberation movements.
Bourgeois ideologists attack with special venom the ideas of Marxism-Leninism on the inevitable downfall of capitalism and the equally inevitable triumph of socialism throughout the world. They spare no efforts in trying to disprove the fact that the transition from capitalism to socialism constitutes the sum and substance of the modern epoch. They try to assure people that history is not moving towards the collapse of capitalism and the triumph of socialism but rather towards their ``convergence''. 26 In order to give substance to this idea of the growing " convergence" of the two opposite socio-economic systems, of the ``erosion'', ``regeneration'' and ``liberalisation'' of socialism, the apologists of imperialism set out, for example, to misrepresent the essence of the economic reforms now under way in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. They claim that they will result in the emergence of a hybrid society presumably combining the features of both socialism and capitalism. They pin their hopes particularly on the revisionists, who would like nothing better than to ``amend'' socialism by introducing into it some bourgeois principles---so as to create what they arc pleased to call "humanitarian socialism'', "one's own model of socialism'', and so forth.
Rejecting these bourgeois prognostications of ``convergence'', Marxists-Leninists start from the fact that antagonistic contradictions cannot be overcome through any sort of fusion and that the struggle between the two opposite systems is a law of present world development. This understanding of the historical perspective follows from an analysis of the real processes and objective trends of contemporary history. Imperialism is not becoming stronger, and its reactionary and aggressive character is not getting any less but increasing, and that is, perhaps, the best possible refutation of the twaddle about ``convergence''.
The protagonists of the bourgeois world invent sham-optimistic theories in order to present capitalism's future in a rosy light. The most fashionable thing today is to allude to the progress of science and technology, which, it is supposed, will lead to universal affluence. This being so, they maintain, everybody enjoys equal standards, exploitation is being abolished, class differences are being erased, the class struggle is being eliminated, and so the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society is no longer necessary!
However, the Leninist approach to modern imperialism and to the social consequences of scientific and technological progress under private enterprise dispels these illusions which bourgeois ideologists spread. Even a cursory glance at the wealthiest society of the bourgeois world, the United States, is enough to demonstrate how fabulous super profits accumulate at one pole of society, while a hand-to-mouth existence obtains at the other. The class struggle is mounting, not ebbing away.
The historic struggle of the forces of socialism, peace, democracy and national liberation against those of imperialism, reaction, neo-colonialism and war helps to increase the impact of 27 the ideas of Marxism-Leninism on the course of world events. The socialist world, and above all the Soviet Union as the largest socialist country setting an example of the consistent practical implementation of Marxist-Leninist theory, is the most dynamic force of the present day. It is no exaggeration to say that the world has now generally begun to develop at a faster rate both in terms of the social and national emancipation of people and in terms of scientific and technological progress and advances in the spheres of culture, education and health---and that all this was started off and has been mainly carried forward by the forces awakened and organised by the October Revolution, by Lenin's Party, and by the Soviet socialist state.
The world revolutionary process is limiting the sphere of imperialist domination more and more, undermining its foundations. But only socialist revolution in the capitalist countries can finally defeat imperialism.
The cohesion of all anti-imperialist and anti-monopoly forces requires that Communists should adopt flexible and principled tactics, overcome sectarian prejudices against various mass movements affected by reformist or ultra-radical sentiments, and show an ability to draw the people into active struggle against imperialism and to isolate rightist and leftist leaders steeped in anti-communism. The CPSU and other fraternal parties have fought, and continue to fight, on two fronts---against Right-wing opportunists and Left-wing adventurers. The battle against revisionists of all kinds follows from the laws of development of the class struggle and from the very essence of revolutionary theory.
Today, at this complex and decisive stage in the progress of mankind, Leninism remains the compass and lode star that can guide the peoples of the world to the only correct solutions to the urgent problems of history.
Marxism-Leninism is the unfailing weapon which Communists use against bourgeois ideology. Lenin was uncompromising towards alien ideological influences and the exponents of bourgeois mentality and morality. While he highly valued the cultural forces of the bourgeoisie, that is, the experts in the spheres of technology, science, literature and art, he castigated bourgeois intellectual conformers without mercy. It was not seldom that he gave some famous master of culture a dressing down for lapsing into middle-class conventionality.
Lenin's works firmly rebuffed the slavish worshippers of capitalism and bourgeois democracy who took anti-socialist 28 elements under their wing. We should take our example from Lenin and fight all reactionaries, ideological exponents of capitalism and denouncers of socialism as uncompromisingly as he did.
Lenin has left us a great theoretical legacy---an inexhaustible treasure-house of advanced ideas applicable to modern times. Lenin's immortal teachings have become a rousing banner and guide to action for millions of Soviet workers and workers in other socialist countries. They give inspiration to the peoples fighting for their national and social emancipation; and they arm working people with confidence in the triumph of peace and progress, in the ultimate victory of socialism and communism all over the world.
[29] __ALPHA_LVL1__ HOW LENIN DEVELOPEDBy A. F. OKULOV
With the name of Lenin is associated not only a radical turning-point in human history---the transition from capitalism to socialism---but also a new epoch in the development of Marxist philosophy.
Lenin's genius was marked by the extraordinary scope of his purview of the times, the versatility of his knowledge, and the profundity of his scientific analysis of the laws of historical development. A glance at his work in the sphere of philosophy amazes one by the wide range of his writings. His clear-sighted mind penetrated with equal boldness and sagacity into the past, the present and the future of peoples and states.
Lenin's contribution to the treasure-house of Marxist philosophy marks a new, Leninist stage in its development. His masterly works have been and remain a militant theoretical weapon of the CPSU and the entire world communist movement.
The main feature of Lenin's approach to philosophy is his elaboration of its problems in an indissoluble and organic unity with proletarian struggle. Lenin engaged in the science of philosophy not for any "purely scientific" motives but in order to equip the working class with dialectical and historical materialism---that essential and dependable weapon in the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of society.
Replying to the opportunist leaders of the Second International, and revisionists of all hues, who paid little regard to the philosophical problems of the working class, Lenin wrote: "The controversy over the question as to what is philosophical materialism and why deviations from it are erroneous, dangerous and reactionary always has `a real and living connection' with `the 30 Marxist social and political trend'. . . . Only narrow-minded `realistic politicians' of reformism or anarchism can deny the `reality' of this = connection."^^1^^
This fundamental idea on the necessity of a connection between Marxist philosophy and the proletarian movement runs through all the activities of the Leninist party and is a powerful instrument of all Marxists in the ideological struggle of today.
Lenin's development of the philosophy of Marxism is a most extensive theme, with many facets. To show all the new features that he brought into the philosophy of Marxism calls for a great deal of collective work. In the present article, we have set ourselves a modest task---that of considering, in their general features, the philosophical problems that attracted the attention of Lenin as a philosopher.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ Lenin on the Materialist Conception of HistoryLike Marx, Lenin devoted a great deal of attention to questions of the materialist understanding of history. In his major works---The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, The State and Revolution, to name some of them---he raised the Marxist theory of social development to a higher stage.
Lenin lived and worked in a new epoch, which differed significantly from the historical conditions in which Marxism and its philosophy appeared. In extending materialism to the sphere of social phenomena, Lenin provided a profound analysis of that epoch, and revealed its inherent features and the objective pattern of its development.
Already in his very earliest works, Lenin made a profound study of Russian capitalism and the classes of Russian society, i.e., the objective conditions that comprise the foundation of the materialist understanding of history. In his celebrated book The Development of Capitalism in Prussia, Lenin revealed that many facts of Russia's economic and social life were a manifestation of the general historical process. In the Preface to the first edition of this work, he wrote: "It is interesting to note how far the main features of this general process in Western Europe and in Russia are identical, notwithstanding the tremendous peculiarities of the latter, in both the economic and non-economic _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 75.
31 spheres."^^1^^ This conclusion was of tremendous theoretical and practical significance.Lenin rejected the old Naroclnik concepts of the original development of Russian society. In his writings, he gave a profound analysis, from the positions of the Marxist understanding of history, of the socio-economic conditions of Russia, and showed the inevitability of that country's capitalist development. At the same time, in his consideration of the problem of the general and the particular in historical development, Lenin emphasised that "an independent elaboration of Marx's theory is especially essential for Russian socialists; for this theory provides only general guiding principles, which, in particular, are applied in England differently than in France, in France differently than in Germany, and in Germany differently than in = Russia".^^2^^ Together with the general laws of capitalism, he carefully studied certain specific features of Russian capitalism. He wrote that "in no single capitalist country has there been such an abundant survival of old institutions that are incompatible with capitalism, retard its development, and immeasurably worsen the condition of the producers, who `suffer not only from the development of capitalist production, but also from the incompleteness of that develop- ment'.''^^3^^
In his all-round analysis of the social and economic structure of Russia, the alignment of classes, and the objective content of the class struggle in the country, Lenin pointed to the decisive role of the Russian working class and all working people in the coming revolution. Lenin's main idea was that only a knowledge of the basic features of the new epoch as a whole could be the foundation for an assessment of the more detailed features of the historical process in one country or another.
His profound knowledge of the laws of capitalist development in the epoch of imperialism and of certain specific features of Russian capitalism, and his knowledge of the dialectics of their development enabled Lenin to uncover the pattern and the motive forces of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the epoch of imperialism, and the law-governed development of the bourgeois revolution into the socialist revolution, to show the guiding role of the proletariat and its Party in the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 27.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 212.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 599.
32 revolution, and to determine the Party's strategy and tactics. The conclusions he arrived at have all become part of the arsenal of Marxist theory and to this day have retained all their significance. Without them, present-day Marxism does not, and cannot, exist.Lenin investigated the development of world capitalism with the same thoroughness. His masterly work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism revealed the basic features inherent in the new, imperialist stage in the development of capitalism. Lenin's doctrine of imperialism as the final stage of capitalism has been fully borne out in practice and is the international ideological weapon of the Communist and Workers' Parties and of the world revolutionary movement.
On the basis of his Marxist analysis of imperialism, Lenin showed that the law of uneven development acquires a decisive significance and is the key to an understanding of the specific nature of the new epoch. The uneven economic and political development of capitalist countries under imperialism conditions the time---difference in the revolutions in various countries. Hence follows Lenin's bold conclusion of the impossibility of socialism being triumphant simultaneously in all capitalist countries, as well as his conclusion as to the possibility of socialism being triumphant first in a few countries, or even in a single one. Only a precise appraisal of history's distinctive features, the ability to apply theoretical propositions to a historical situation, and a knowledge of the way general laws reveal themselves in concrete conditions made possible so great a discovery, which posed in an entirely new way the question of the prospects of the world socialist revolution.
Lenin approached the analysis of the premises of the proletarian revolution as a great representative of creative Marxism. In the epoch of imperialism, he said, an analysis of the premises of the proletarian revolution in a country cannot be approached only from the angle of that country's economic development. On the basis of an all-round study of the world economy and of the objective development of contradictions of the world system of imperialism, Lenin evolved the doctrine of the weak link in the chain of imperialism. Prior to Lenin, the question of where a revolution can begin and where the front of capital can be first pierced, usually evoked from the leaders of the Second International the reply that this would take place where industrial development was most advanced, where the proletariat formed the majority of the population, where culture and democracy were most developed, and so on.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3---1974 33Despite the reformists' assertions, the Leninist theory of revolution showed---and this has been confirmed by life---that the front of eapital is broken where the chain of imperialism is weaker; consequently, it may happen that a country which has begun the revolution and broken the front of capital may be less developed economically than other and more developed countries, which, nevertheless, still remain within the framework of capitalism. This spelled the inevitability of an entire period of history, in which individual countries will break away from the system of imperialism and take the road of socialism. Lenin foresaw, in its general features, the course of the further historical development during the world-wide transition from capitalism to socialism. The materialist understanding of history was given fresh development in Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution. It deepened and gave practical implementation to Marxist ideas on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the guiding role of a Marxist party, and mapped out the fundamental problems of the construction of a socialist society.
Lenin resolutely rejected the outworn dogmas of the reformists of the Second International and of the Russian Mensheviks regarding the prospects of the Russian revolution. In a profoundly dialectical spirit he revealed the objective and subjective factors in the Russian revolution. On the one hand, he pointed out, Russia was then economically backward, but on the other, she stood far ahead in the degree of her political maturity, since she had the world's most revolutionary proletariat, which was guided by a Marxist party.
This contradiction was considered irresolvable by the Menshevik doctrinaires. Replying to them, Lenin wrote: ``.~.~. it would be a fatal mistake to declare that since there is a discrepancy between our economic 'forces' and our political strength, it 'follows' that we should not have seized power. Such an argument can be advanced only by a 'man in a muffler', who forgets that there will always be such a 'discrepancy', that it always exists in the development of nature as well as in the development of society, that only by a series of attempts---each of which, taken by itself, will be one-sided and will suffer from certain inconsistencies---will complete socialism be created by the revolutionary co-operation of the proletarians of all countries.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 345--46.
34Lenin stressed that contradictions arc the foundation of the appearance and development of revolutions. There was nothing surprising or improbable in the proletarian dictatorship revealing in the first place the ``contradiction'' between Russia's backwardness and her ``leap'' over bourgeois democracy. On the contrary, there can be no victory for the socialist revolution otherwise than through contradictions and by means of contradictions. "It would have been surprising had history granted us the establishment of a ?iew form of democracy without a number of = contradictions."^^1^^
These ideas were later given more concrete shape in many of Lenin's writings and speeches after the October Revolution. "History,'' he wrote, "is moving in xigzags and by roundabout ways."^^2^^ He carefully traced the zigzag course of history in the example both of the Russian and of the world revolutionary movement. He gave a negative reply to the question of the probability of the smooth or harmoniously proportional transition of various capitalist countries to the dictatorship of the proletariat, to socialism. There has never been and there cannot be smoothness, harmoniousness or proportionality in bourgeois society. World history is advancing unswervingly towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin wrote, but that advance is along roads that are far from direct, smooth or simple. There may be setbacks, errors and forced retreats but no growing pains or temporary victories of the old world can check the general advance of history, despite all zigzags.
Lenin flayed the opportunist pedants who are incapable of understanding this dialectic of development. "A revolutionary would not 'agree' to a proletarian revolution only 'on the condition' that it proceeds easily and smoothly, that there is, from the outset, combined action on the part of the proletarians of different countries, that there are guarantees against defeats, that the road of the revolution is broad, free and straight, that it will not be necessary during the march to victory to sustain the heaviest casualties, to 'bide one's time in a besieged fortress', or to make one's way along extremely narrow, impassable, winding and dangerous mountain tracks. Such a person is no revolutionary, he has not freed himself from the pedantry of the bourgeois intellectuals; such a person will be found _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 308
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 163.
__PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 constantly slipping into the camp of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. . . ."^^1^^In Lenin's works, a special place is held by an analysis of problems of the Marxist understanding of the subjective factor in the development of society, i.e., of the role of human consciousness and organisation, will power and energy. Here, too, the new epoch confronted Marxist theory with new problems which called for clear answers. It is common knowledge that the period that Marx and Engels lived in was, in the main, one of the maturing of the objective preconditions for the revolution. In the epoch of imperialism, the objective necessity of the revolution has become manifest, so that the degree of the maturity of the subjective factor has acquired particular significance for the destiny of the revolution.
In his works Lenin scathingly criticised both subjective-- idealist conceptions and vulgar ``economic'' materialism, and the theory of ``spontaneity'' in all its varieties. The policy of a revolutionary party, Lenin showed, can be successful only when it is based on a correct understanding of the relation between the objective conditions and the subjective factor and if that policy recognises the determining significance of the objective conditions while at the same time taking stock of the vast role of the subjective factor which, given the objective conditions, can play a decisive part in the realisation of historically mature transformations.
Lenin attached great importance to such elements of the subjective factor as the consciousness, purposefulncss, enthusiasm, and the creative initiative and organisation of the masses in the process of historical action. The proletariat becomes a powerful historical force, not only because of its class-- consciousness but also as a result of its organisation, because it is guided by a Marxist party, which is the leading element of the subjective factor, the most important instrument and form of the historical process.
Beginning with his book What the "Uriends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, and ending with one of his last articles "On Our Revolution'', Lenin made a thorough study of this problem. He emphasised those features and aspects of the subjective factor which had acquired primary significance in connection with the task of the proletariat in the new epoch---that of the struggle for the triumph of the socialist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 68.
36 revolution. I,cum gave a proloundlv scientific substantiation of the role of the masses, classes, parties and leaders in social development and the class struggle.In doing so, Lenin paid particular attention to an analysis of the influence exerted by the development of capitalism, in the epoch of imperialism, on the working-class movement and its organisations. 1 fe revealed the direct link between imperialism and opportunism. In his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism he wrote the following:
"The receipt of high monopoly profits by the capitalists . . . makes it economically possible for them to bribe certain sections of the workers, and for a time a fairly considerable minority of them, and win them to the side of the bourgeoisie of a given industry or given nation against all the = others."^^1^^
Lenin gave a profound analysis of the reasons for the lengthy domination of opportunists in a number of countries, revealed the essence of their treachery, and defined the tasks of the Marxist parties in the struggle against opportunism. As far back as the end of the last century, he scathingly criticised the first attempts of the revisionists---Bernstein and his Russian fellow-- thinkers---to emasculate the revolutionary content of the Marxist theory and distract the working class from the revolutionary road to that of reconciliation with the bourgeoisie. In his struggle against the subjective sociology of Narodism, against the neo-- Kantian philosophy that had become the theoretical foundation of "legal Marxism" and against the philosophical revisionism of the Second International, Lenin provided answers to the fundamental problems of the materialist understanding of history, which was of primary importance to the revolutionary working-- class movement.
To the doctrinaire schemes of the opportunist leaders of the Second International Lenin contraposcd the living and concrete reality of the world revolutionary process. He emphasised time and again that there is no abstract truth and that the essence of Marxism lies in a concrete scientific analysis of a definite situation. Lie severely strictured those whose conclusions were built only on abstract possibilities and were divorced from revolutionary practice. "Marxism,'' he wrote, "takes its stand on facts, and not on possibilities. . . .'' "One must distinguish the possible from the = actual."^^2^^ The viewpoint _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid, Vol. 22, p. 301.
~^^2^^ Ibid, Vol. 35, p. 242.
37 of life, of practice, should he the primary viewpoint if we wish to cognise actual processes and adopt correct decisions.Lenin gave a rich content to the concept of concreteness. Concretcness means an appraisal of the process of development, thoroughness of investigation, flexibility of concepts and so on. A study of all aspects, all links and mediations in an object is one of the most important demands presented by the method of Leninism. In his article, "Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism'', Lenin laid special stress on the links between the historical development of Marxism and the conditions of the time, the social set-up, and the definite tasks of the epoch.
"...The aims of immediate and direct action changed very sharply during this period,'' he wrote, "just as the actual social and political situation changed, and consequently, since Marxism is a living doctrine, various aspects of it were bound to become prominent".^^1^^
Lenin gained the upper hand in the struggle against reformism because he contraposccl genuine Marxism, i.e., creative Marxism, to the dogmatism and pedantry of the pseudo-Marxists. His works vividly illustrate a creative approach to theory and practice. They do not contain the least trace of the stereotype or the doctrinaire.
"To seek out, investigate, predict, and grasp that which is nationally specific and nationally distinctive, in the concrete, manner in which each country should tackle a single international task: victory over opportunism and Left doctrinairism within the working-class movement; the overthrow of the bourgeoisie; the establishment of a Soviet republic and a proletarian dictatorship ---such is the basic task in the historical period that all the advanced countries (and not they alone) arc going = through,"^^2^^ he wrote in 1920.
In emphasising the need for a flexible and dialectical approach to tactics, Lenin pointed out that the history of revolution is always richer in content, more varied, more living and more complex than is imagined by the finest parties and the most conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. That is why the task of Party organisations and Party leaders consists---this in the course of lengthy, industrious, and varied work---in developing the necessary knowledge and gaining the necessary _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 17, pp. 39--40.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 92.
38 experience and the political instinct for a solution of complex political questions.He taught Communists to learn to use all forms of struggle and be prepared for the most rapid and unexpected shifts in those forms. If this condition is ignored, he emphasised, the Communist Parties may suffer serious reverses, should the new historical conditions call for a rapid transition to new tactics.
Docs not contemporary history provide instances of some, even big and experienced working-class parties, which for many years have overestimated peaceful and parliamentarian forms of struggle against capitalism, proving unprepared for serious clashes with the ruling classes at times of deep crises of bourgeois society?
Lenin compared the activities of a workers' party with those of a well-organised army. That organisation is good, he said, because it is flexible, while at the same time instilling a single will in millions of people.
All of Lenin's works dealing with problems of the materialist understanding of history arc marked by their having been built on the firm foundation of Marxism. In these writings Lenin developed and gave concrete shape to all the components of Marxism---philosophy, political economy and scientific communism. Lenin's analysis of the new epoch, the conditions and the motive forces of the revolution, was grounded in a totality of knowledge and revolutionary practice, this making it possible for him to investigate the most complex and contradictory phenomena in the economic and social life of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution. The Marxists, Lenin pointed out, were the first socialists to raise the question of the need to analyse all aspects of the life of society, not only the economic. By pursuing a science---grounded policy based on a knowledge of the dialectics of the objective historical process, a Marxist party is able to exert a tremendous influence on the historical process.
In his writings after the October Revolution, Lenin made a vast contribution to the materialist conception of history. Despite the heavy pressure of state and Party affairs, Lenin continued his profound and all-round elaboration of the materialist understanding of history. He developed the theory of the socialist revolution and the Marxist doctrine of the construction of socialism and communism, the role of the masses, classes and the class struggle during the transition from capitalism to socialism, and further elaborated the Communist Party's policies 39 on the national question. For the first time in Marxist literature, he defined the essence of the cultural revolution and revealed the pattern of its development, the ways in which the scientific world outlook and the morals of the builders of socialism are shaped. He showed the growing role of consciousness of people in the creation and development of the new social system, the way in which the retardedncss of social consciousness from social being can be eliminated, and the methods of struggle for the victory of socialist ideology over bourgeois ideology.
On the basis of a profound dialectical materialist analysis of the general crisis of the capitalist system, Lenin revealed the essence and prospects of the world revolutionary process in the new era and developed the philosophical foundations of the strategy and tactics of the world communist movement. He showed that the world vsocialist revolution takes shape from processes differing in nature and time---from purely proletarian revolutions, revolutions of the bourgeois-democratic type which grow into socialist revolutions, and from those of the national liberation type. He foresaw that "the morrow of world history will be a day when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism arc finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation = begins".^^1^^
In his post-revolutionary appraisal of this great and many-- faceted revolutionary process and its prospects, Lenin provided a theoretical substantiation of the roads and the laws of the development of national liberation movements. He considered them, not as isolated phenomena, but as part of a single world revolutionary process, emphasising that the national liberation movement can achieve success only if it acts in a united front of all revolutionary forces fighting against imperialism.
From Lenin's works we see that every big step in historical development was accompanied by his elaboration of the major problems of the materialist conception of history. Lenin proceeded from society's economic and social structure being characterised by changes without an understanding of which not a single step can be made in any field of social activity. The dialectics of historical development can be understood only on the basis of Marxist dialectics, the theory and the doctrine of development.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 36, p. 611.
40 __ALPHA_LVL2__ Lenin on Problems of DialecticsMaterialist dialectics is the living soul of Marxism, its theoretical foundation, Lenin said. In his article on the Marx-- Engels correspondence, Lenin wrote that a most important, timely and masterly step forward in the history of revolutionary thought was taken when Marx and Engels applied materialist dialectics to all fields of knowledge---to a re-fashioning of political economy, to philosophy, the natural sciences, and the politics and tactics of the working class. Like Marx and Engels, Lenin was a great master of revolutionary dialectics. Such of his works as What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, What Is To Be, Done?, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Philosophical Notebooks and On the Significance of Militant Materialism are models of the application of the dialectical method to the most varied questions of theory and practice, models of its further development.
The irresistible attraction of Lenin's works on dialectics comes from many factors: first, their innovatory and exploratory spirit, as well as the anti-dogmatism of Lenin's thinking, his implacable hostility to conservatism in the field of thought, to routine, and quasi-revolutionary phrase-mongering. Second, in his analysis of the facts, Lenin always tried to grasp them in all their complexity, variety and plentitudc. Anybody familiar with the writings of Lenin is aware of the tremendous importance he attached to dialectics being "living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing), with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to = reality.~.~.''.^^1^^ As Academician V. Adoratsky once pointed out, "it stands to the tremendous credit of Lenin that he saved dialectics from the simplification, vulgarisation and conversion into sophistry, which characterise the renegades of the Second International---Kautsky, Vanderveldc, Otto Bauer and the like---and restored it to its condition under = Marx."^^2^^
Lenin saw the unbreakable link between dialectics and the proletariat's revolutionary struggle and considered Marxist dialectics a means of precise orientation in the actual historical process. From the outset of his revolutionary activities, he showed a tremendous interest in problems of dialectics, an _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 38, p. 362.
~^^2^^ V.~Adoratsky, = Selected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1961, p. 479.
41 interest stemming from the fact that the era of revolutionary storms and upheavals, the exacerbation of all the contradictions of capitalism, and the rapid advances in science and social life called, as never before, for flexible and dialectical thinking. Lenin devoted several years (1913--16) to a study of the writings of Aristotle, Hcraclitus, Leibnitz, Hegel and Feuerbach, so as to write a work on dialectics, based on a critical inquiry into the entire history of knowledge. To extract the main content from the history of human thought in the realms of philosophy, natural science and technology; to sum up both the course and the outcome of the development of that thought; to find the way to a creative elaboration of Marxist dialectics---such was the aim pursued by Lenin in his study of the history of dialectics, as well as his behest to all Marxists. He approached the science of thinking as a science of the historical development of human knowledge. "Continuation of the work of Hegel and Marx must consist in the dialectical elaboration of the history of human thought, science and technique."^^1^^Lenin's development of Marxist dialectics went hand in hand with a criticism of the opponents of dialectical materialism. He wrote Materialism and Empirio-criticism at a time when Marxism was going through a grave crisis in a number of countries. Following in the footsteps of Bernstein, Konrad Schmidt and others like them, the opportunist ``theorists'' of the working-class movement called for a return to Kant, to the subjective-idealist philosophy of Machism. "Through the medium of Machism,'' Lenin pointed out, "downright philosophical reactionaries and preachers of fideism are palmed off on the workers as = teachers!'',^^2^^ this by the lackeys of the bourgeoisie. Amazing in the range of problems dealt with, the vast amount of factual material used, and its profound criticism of the philosophical ideas harboured by the enemy, this work of Lenin's comprised an era in the development of Marxist thought.
In Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Lenin gave prominence to questions of the theory of knowledge, to cognition as a whole, and to the application of dialectics to the theory of knowledge. To empirio-criticism he contraposed dialectical materialism in the entire range of cpistemological questions, and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 38, pp. 146--47.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 14, p. 220.
42 provided solutions to the major problems of cognition posed by the development of science and the new historical conditions of the life of society.On the foundations of the advances in the natural sciences, Lenin gave concrete shape and further development to the basic propositions of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism---cognition as a reflection of the objective material world, the laws of reflection and the forms of the reflection of reality. In his analysis of the facts presented by science and his summing up of the experience gained in the struggle of the working class, he gave exhaustive substantiation to the dialectical-materialist doctrine of absolute and relative objective truth, the role of practice as a criterion of truth, and many other problems of importance to the development of dialectics.
The Machists, who gave an idealist interpretation to the new discoveries in natural science, tried to use those discoveries in their struggle against Marxist philosophical materialism, especially the doctrine of matter, which is of such fundamental significance to dialectical materialism's theory of knowledge. Lenin demonstrated the groundlessness of Machist talk about the ``obsoleteness'' of the concept of matter. He showed that, from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism, the discovery of new forms of the motion and the existence of matter testifies, not to the disappearance of matter, but to the limits of our knowledge of matter up to the present. Lenin's development of the concept of matter as a philosophical category signifying objective reality as given to man through his sensations, was a major contribution to dialectical materialism's theory of knowledge.
Lenin's theory of knowledge is grounded in three vital epistemological conclusions: the objective existence of reality, its cognizability, and the dialectical approach to a study of the very process of cognition.
In developing the philosophical problems of the theory of knowledge, Lenin systcmatisccl his theory of reflection as the kernel of the cpistemology of dialectical materialism. He substantiated the vital proposition that reflection is a universal property of matter, that it is not a mechanical process of mirror-- like reflection, but a complex and contradictory process, which begins at the level of sensation and ascends to abstract thinking, reflecting, in terms of concepts, objective reality in all its variety. He showed that the reflection of nature in human thought should be understood, not in a ``dead'' or ``abstract'' 43 manner, without motion of contradictions, but as an eternal process of motion, the appearance of contradictions and their resolution.
Lenin revealed the dialectico-materialist understanding of the interrelation between the object and subject of cognition. This is most noteworthy because, to this day, certain enemies of Marxism assert that the Leninist theory of reflection ascribes to the subject a passive role in cognition. Lenin showed not only man's dependence on the world about him, but also the essence of his active, creative and transforming attitude to nature and to social life. From this active and creative nature of the mind as a specifically human form of the reflection of objective reality, the conclusion necessarily follows that, in his actions and behaviour, man docs not only depend on external circumstances, but himself actively changes those circumstances. The process of cognition and of man's transformation of the world is at the same time also a process of his realising the objective necessity to implement his freedom in one measure or another, a freedom which consists, not in man's abstract possibility of standing above reality and dictating his laws to it, but in concrete activities in accordance with the cognised objective laws of nature and society.
In Materialism and Empirio-criticisrn, Lenin developed the theory of truth, which is a most important problem in the theory of knowledge. It is common knowledge that the question of whether truth is objective or subjective is a fundamental one, on whose solution there is no agreement among adherents of various trends in philosophy. The Machists asserted that objective truth docs not exist, that truth is subjective and conventional. To the Machists any recognition of the relativity of our knowledge precluded the least acknowledgement of absolute truth. In criticising the pseudo-scientific views held by the Machists on this question, Lenin showed the dialectical relation between absolute and relative objective truth.
From the viewpoint of present-day materialism, i.e., Marxism, Lenin wrote, the limits of our knowledge's approach to absolute objective truth are historically conditioned, but the existence of that truth and our approach towards it arc indubitable. The outlines of the picture are historically conditional but what is indubitable is that this picture depicts an objectively existing model.
"In a word, every ideology is historically conditional, but it is unconditionally true that to every scientific ideology (as distinct, 44 for instance, from religious ideology) there corresponds an objective truth, absolute = nature."^^1^^
By giving a profoundly Marxist interpretation to the dialectics of absolute and relative truth, Lenin dealt a crushing blow, on the one hand, at dogmatism, which regards our mind as something immutable and absolute, and, on the other hand, at scepticism, which has no faith in human knowledge. Human knowledge, according to Lenin, develops from non-knowledge to knowledge, from less complete towards more complete knowledge. Every stage in the development of science, in the individual's practical activities, and in the development of mankind's collective knowledge adds more and more new grains to the sum total of knowledge and concepts of the laws of the development of nature and society. Lenin saw the very essence of knowledge in the advance of scientific cognition, in its historicity. He pointed out that a denial of objective truth is the main vice of the epistemology of empirio-criticism, pragmatism and neo-Kantianism. As we know, this is also a characteristic feature of many present-day trends in bourgeois philosophical thinking, in which cognitive activity is regarded as something subjective and taking place outside and independently of objective factors.
The theory of truth formulated by dialectical materialism, a theory developed by Lenin in all its aspects, is of tremendous importance to present-day science, as it is the theoretical foundation of all its methodological problems. Every step in the development of science bears the correctness of Lenin's words that "by following the path of Marxian theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it); but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and = lies".^^2^^
In advancing the Marxist theory of knowledge, Lenin analysed numerous problems stemming from a deep understanding of the revolution in the natural sciences that began at the turn of the present century. The great discoveries in physics not only affected the empirical data amassed by natural science, but radically posed the problem of the very theoretical foundations of natural science. The crisis in physics created a sharp bifurcation in science between the two hostile currents---materialism and idealism. At the time, idealist philosophy attempted to reply in its own fashion to the philosophical questions raised by the new physics.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 136.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 143.
45In Malcr'ialhin and fciiipirio-criticism, Lenin summarised, in the spirit of materialism, all the major and basic advances made in science, primarily in natural science in the late igth and early 2oth centuries. He characterised as a new revolution in science the tremendous discoveries made in the sphere of natural science. The discovery of the electron, Roentgen rays, the radioactivity of disintegration, and the complex structure of the atom led to a collapse of the mechanistic viewpoint, which saw matter as consisting of absolutely immutable atoms possessing an invariable mass and moving according to the laws of mechanics.
Lenin showed that the new discoveries in physics in no way contradict Marxist philosophy. On the contrary, they confirm most convincingly the correctness of the Marxist doctrine of the unity of matter and motion, the infinite complexity of the structure of matter and the absence of any limit to its divisibility. The Machists' attempts to prove the "disappearance of matter'', Lenin said, stemmed from their ignorance of dialectical materialism. Captives of the dominant ideology and politics, bourgeois physicists proved unable to understand and explain, in terms of materialism, the new discoveries in physics.
The new discoveries in natural science, Lenin wrote, signified, not an "all-round rout of the principles" of physics, as the idealist physicists were proclaiming from the roof-tops, but a smashing of the metaphysical conceptions which many natural scientists had held eternal and immutable. In his analysis of "the latest revolution in natural science" Lenin arrived at the well-known conclusion that "modern physics is in travail; it is giving birth to dialectical = materialism".^^1^^
Lenin gave a profound analysis of the causes engendering the ``physical'' idealism that had led the natural sciences into a dead end. The overall social cause was the "reaction all along the line"---in the economy, politics and ideology---characteristic of the capitalist states in the epoch of imperialism. But ``physical'' idealism also had epistemological roots---causes which derive from certain specific features in the process of cognition, and in the development of science itself. The first cause lay in an erroneous interpretation by idealist philosophers of the mounting role of mathematics in the study of nature. The second cause was their failure to grasp the compatibility of the relativity of scientific knowledge ``(the principle of relativism'') witli _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin. Collected Wurks, Vol. 14, p. 313.
46 recognition of the objective truth that relative knowledge contains elements of absolute truth.In revealing the contradiction between the new discoveries in physics and the old theoretical conceptions, Lenin showed that the fundamental question can be formulated as follows: is the electron an objective reality? Docs it exist outside and independently of human consciousness?
"The scientists,'' Lenin wrote, "will also have to answer this question unhesitatingly; and they do invariably answer it in the alfir/nativc, just as they unhesitatingly recognise that nature existed prior to man and prior to organic matter. Thus, the question is decided in favour of = materialism.~.~.~."^^1^^
Lenin also replied to another fundamental question of natural science: does there exist "a finite and immutable essence of things" to which all phenomena in nature should be reduced? He showed that, far from the electron being the finite and immutable essence, that kind of essence does not exist in nature in general. "The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite.~.~.~."^^2^^
This proposition is of tremendous methodological importance in the resolution of fundamental problems in present-day science, and has been convincingly confirmed by the ever greater penetration of physics into the microworld.
In his consideration of the general development of natural science, Lenin arrived at a conclusion of tremendous theoretical and practical importance: not only docs natural science fortify materialism but it is unswervingly advancing to an immeasurably higher and more consistent form of materialism-dialectical materialism. Already in the conditions of bourgeois society, he pointed out, natural science had made the first steps from metaphysical materialism to dialectical materialism. At the same time Lenin said, science in bourgeois society "...is advancing towards the only true method and the only true philosophy of natural science not directly, but by zigzags, not consciously but instinctively, not clearly perceiving its 'final goal', but drawing closer to it gropingly, unsteadily, and sometimes even with its back turned to = it".^^3^^
Despite every kind of idealist speculation, the very experience of natural science has convincingly shown that science finds in _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 261.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 262.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 313.
47 dialectical materialism replies to the most complex questions of philosophy. Any nonchalance shown by natural scientists towards philosophical problems, any ignoring of overall problems ot world outlook, contradicts the interests of present-day science, since natural science is developing so impetuously and is witnessing such a revolutionary smashing of the old concepts in all spheres that it cannot do without philosophical conclusions. For the correct conclusions to be arrived at and to avoid any yielding to bourgeois ideology, it is not enough to stand on materialist positions, without attending to their philosophical foundations. As Lenin pointed out, "no natural science and no materialism can hold its own in the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook unless it stands on solid philosophical ground. In order to hold his own in this struggle and carry it to a victorious finish, the natural scientist must be a modern materialist, a conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx, i.e., he must be a dialectical = materialist."^^1^^Of tremendous importance to the development of Marxist dialectics were such works by Lenin as "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism" and "Karl Marx''. In them Lenin showed that Marxism was the lawful successor to everything that had been created by all previous philosophy, and that the Hegelian dialectics as the most universal, profound and rich doctrine of development were considered by Marx and Engels the greatest advance in classical German philosophy. "They thought that any other formulation of the principle of development, of evolution, was one-sided and poor in content, and could only distort and mutilate the actual course of development (which often proceeds by leaps, and via catastrophes and revolutions) in nature and in = society."^^2^^
In these works Lenin laid special emphasis on dialectics as a science of the general laws of motion both in the world about us and in human thinking, on the unity of dialectics, logic and the theory of knowledge. These works pay special attention to a system of categories in dialectics. In his article, "Karl Marx'', in which he gave a most clearcut formulation of some features of dialectics, Lenin wrote: "A development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis ('the negation of negation'), a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 233.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 53.
48 development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; 'breaks in continuity'; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; the interdependence and the closest and indissoluble connection between all aspects of any phenomenon (history constantly revealing ever new aspects), a connection that provides a uniform, and universal process of motion, one that follows definite = laws."^^1^^The variety of features, aspects, elements and categories of dialectics as the most profound doctrine of development forms the main content of Lenin's Philosophical = Notebooks,^^2^^ which were an organic sequel to his main work on phi[osophy-Alaterialis/» and K/npirio-criticism. Lenin convincingly showed that schematism and dogmatism are alien to dialectics. Expressing the most general laws of any development, it calls for a concrete analysis of the boundless wealth of forms in which concrete reality manifests itself.
He formulated and substantiated in every aspect the fundamental proposition that the doctrine of the unity of opposites is the essence, the kernel, of dialectics.
In determining the law of the unity and struggle of opposites as the fundamental law of the development of the objective world and its cognition, Lenin studied and characterised the new types of contradictions in the epoch of imperialism, and the new types of the transformation of opposites into each other, of transitions of some phenomena into others. The struggle of opposites, the appearance and resolution of contradictions, as Lenin pointed out, are the source of the continuous development of the material world and a condition of its progress.
Lenin came out resolutely against the attempts made by the Second International's opportunist leaders to ``purge'' life of contradictions and struggle. He showed that there exist two mutually opposed concepts of development---the metaphysical and the dialectical. In his Philosophical Notebooks he wrote: _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 54.
~^^2^^ The Philosophical Notebooks = contain precis of the works of Marx and I-ngcls, 1'cuerbach, Hegel and Aristotle; notes on books, articles and reviews; marginal notes in numerous works of philosophers and natural scientists; excerpts which set forth Lenin's ideas = (see Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38).
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4---1974 49"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external-God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of `self'-movement.
"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the `self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps', to the 'break in continuity', to the `transformation into the opposite', to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new."^^1^^
Of major significance to the development of the very essence of dialectics is that section in Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks which deals with sixteen elements of dialectics, and reveals in laconic but most profound terms all the wealth and the many-- sidedness of the relations between things and processes. The process of cognition, as Lenin shows, comprises a vast range of shades and a boundless wealth of content. The wealth and the complexity of the cognition of the world call for a creative development of a system of categories of dialectics that will make it possible in the greatest degree to reflect, in the dialectic of concepts, the dialectic of things.
Lenin's interest in the development of dialectical materialism was maintained after the October Revolution. The new period of history that set in after the triumph of the October Socialist Revolution confronted Marxist-Leninist philosophy with a number of practical and theoretical problems whose solution was of vast significance for the transition from capitalism to socialism. In the new conditions, special importance attached to a concrete analysis of social contradictions and to the problem of their specific nature, types and forms, of fundamental and non-- fundamental, internal and external, antagonistic and non-- antagonistic contradictions. Lenin devoted particular attention to the distinction between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions, emphasising the historically transient character of antagonism as a type of contradiction. Lenin was the author of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, C.iillffli-tl \Vnrk.<, Vol. jS, p. }ho.
50 the celebrated formula that "antagonism and contradiction arc not one and the same thing. The former will disappear, while the latter will remain under = socialism.''^^1^^A correct theoretical solution of this problem was of vital importance for an understanding of the alignment of class forces during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. As is common knowledge, both antagonistic and non-- antagonistic contradictions existed in the country at the time. The former contradictions were connected with the relations between the working class and other working people, on the one hand, and, on the other, the bourgeoisie, including the kulaks. It was a question of one side or the other gaining the victory. The non-antagonistic contradictions between the working class and the peasantry were of a quite different nature. Here there was no irreconcilable hostility, and joint interests were predominant. Such contradictions are resolved, not by taking them to extremes but, as Lenin pointed out, through a struggle of a specific kind, the gradual resolution of contradictions.
Lenin's works provided a profound analysis of the nature and forms of the transition from the old qualitative condition to a new one. He did not link this transition with any monovalence. On the contrary, Lenin showed that the transition from the old to the new could take place in various ways and in different forms, this depending on the concrete conditions of development. "It is the type of problem that general formulas, the general provisions of a programme, and general communist principles cannot cope with, but which requires that the specific features of the transition from capitalism to communism be taken into consideration.~.~.~."^^2^^
Lenin's propositions on the interrelation between reforms and revolution in various historical conditions are a vivid example of creative and flexible application and development of Marxist dialectics. Until the revolution is victorious, he pointed out, reforms are a by-product of the proletariat's class struggle. The proletariat's attitude towards reforms must change following its victory even in a single country. Lenin taught the Party to soberly verify in which conditions revolutionary action must be taken, and at what moment the method of "cautious evasion" should be used in fundamental questions of economic construction. In _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin Miscellany XI, Unss. c-cl., p. 3
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected W'urk.s, Vol. 30, p.
51 his article "The Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of Socialism" Lenin showed that the concept of ``reforms'' after the victory of the revolution acquires a different quality, distinct from its content under capitalism.A keen insight into the complex and contradictors process is characteristic of Lenin's analysis of the new economic policy, and of the existence of many economic sectors in the country at the time, the role of trade and the trade unions, and many other major problems, on whose correct solution the fate of the Soviets depended. Lenin came out strongly against those who by momentum continued to use many concepts and categories of dialectics without due account of the new situation. In his article "Once Again on the Trade LInions'', he contrasted to the dogmatically abstract and eclectic arguments of Trotsky and Bukharin concrete dialectical solutions of the problem of the place and role of the trade unions under capitalism and in the system of proletarian dictatorship.
The discussion on the trade unions which the Trotskyitcs imposed upon the Party and which took place between November 1920 and March 1921 turned into a discussion on many vital problems of dialectics and logic, and the operation of the laws of dialectics in the new conditions. In his annihilating criticism of the eclecticism and sophistry of Trotsky and Bukharin, Lenin elaborated, in a creative spirit, the most vital principles of Marxist dialectics, gave a classical definition of the latter, and showed the distinction between dialectical and formal logic.
"Formal logic, which is as far as schools go (and should go, with suitable abridgements for the lower forms), deals with formal definitions, draws on what is most common, or glaring, and stops there. When two or more different definitions are taken and combined at random . . . the result is an eclectic definition which is indicative of different facets of the object, and nothing more.
"Dialectical logic demands that we should go further. Firstly, if we are to have a true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and 'mediacies'. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity. Secondly, dialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in `self-movement'. . . . Thirdly, a full 'definition' of an object must include the whole of human experience, both as a criterion of truth and a practical indicator of its connection with human wants. Fourthly, dialectical 52 logic holds that 'truth is always concrete, never = abstract'.~.~.~.''^^1^^ These most important propositions became the foundation of the further elaboration of Marxist dialectical logic.
In his programmatic article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism'', Lenin developed dialectical materialism in a most thorough way, again giving consideration to the question he had previously raised in his Philosophical Notebooks regarding the necessity of a materialistic re-appraisal of Hegel's dialectics. Marxist philosophers, he wrote, should organise a systematic study of the Hegelian dialectics from the materialist viewpoint, i.e., the dialectics so successfully applied in practice by Marx in Capital and his historical and political writings. Pointing out that the dialectical method is a most important instrument in the cognition and changing of the world, Lenin called upon philosophers to elaborate dialectics from all angles, and to comment on it, using facts taken from economic and political relations and from the practice of the revolution, recent history and the like.
In their struggle against the present-day enemies of Marxism, against revisionist and Leftist trends, the Communist and Workers' Parties have based themselves on the great heritage of Lenin. The Declaration of the Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of 1957 pointed out that dialectical materialism is the theoretical foundation of Marxism-Leninism. This world.outlook reflects the universal law of the development of nature, society and human thought; it is applicable to the past, the present, and the future.
Why is it that only dialectical materialism can be the philosophical foundation of the Communist and Workers' Parties? It is because the working class can change the world only if it grounds itself on a knowledge and due account of the laws of social development. An idealist philosophy cannot express the essence of the world. Idealism disorientates people; it cannot show the working people the real roads of change in the existing position in the capitalist countries. Dialectical materialism is indeed the integral scientific world outlook of our times. All branches of knowledge and all scientific achievements in the study of nature and society are theoretically generalised in dialectical materialism, in Marxist-Leninist philosophy as the advanced philosophy of our times. Dialectical materialism helps the party of the proletariat to set the tasks and determine the strategy and tactics of the class struggle on the foundation of a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Cull,; l,;l \VurU. Vol. 52, pp. 95--94.
53 sober and all-round appraisal of the concrete historical conditions. "The fundamental task of proletarian tactics was defined by Marx in strict conformity with all the postulates of his materialist-dialectical = Weltanschauung."^^1^^ __ALPHA_LVL2__ Lenin on the History of PhilosophyLenin did a vast amount of work on the study and elaboration of the history of Marxist philosophy. In his writings he advanced fundamental principles of research into the major methodological problems of the history of philosophy, showed the dependence of philosophy on the economic life of society, the development of science and the needs of practice, and revealed the class and party character of philosophy and the role of the class struggle as a motive force in the development of philosophical thought in a class society. He placed constant emphasis on social motives in the activities of the thinkers and philosophers of various schools and trends.
He always examined the various philosophical trends from the angle of the struggle waged by materialism against idealism. Throughout the history of philosophy, he stressed, a struggle has been going on between materialism and idealism, the line of Dcmocritus and Plato, science and religion. That struggle is continuing. The forms and methods may change but the struggle itself cannot be smoothed over or eliminated while, side by side with the scientific world outlook of dialectical materialism there exists the anti-scientific world outlook of idealism.
Lenin elaborated the problem of continuity of philosophical thinking, and its reflection in historico-philosophical concepts and national and international traditions, and their interaction. We must judge thinkers, he said, not by what they were able to achieve in comparison with the present-day level of science but by their contribution to all previous thinking, to the heritage handed down to them by their predecessors.
From the outset of his revolutionary activities until the end of his life, Lenin paid tremendous attention to the history of philosophy and waged a constant struggle for the preservation of everything valuable created by advanced philosophical thinking in the past. He made a careful study of the history of ancient _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Cotlccli-il Works, Vol. 21, p. 75.
54 philosophy, the doctrines of Heraclitus, Dcmocritus, Epicurus, Aristotle, and Plato being given an all-round appraisal in his writings.In his precis of Aristotle's Metaphysics, Lenin came out strongly against falsification of the former's philosophical heritage, against those idealist researchers who concealed everything valuable in Aristotle's philosophy: his criticism of Plato's ideas and the closeness between Aristotle's philosophy and materialism on a whole range of problems.
We know what great attention Lenin paid to the French materialism of the i8th century, German classical philosophy and to progressive Russian philosophy. He gave a profound analysis of the doctrines of the French materialists, of such German thinkers as Hegel, Kant and Feuerbach, as well as of the Russian revolutionary democrats Belinsky, Herzen and Chernyshevsky.
He also made a close study of the history of Marxist philosophy. His numerous writings on this question contain most important methodological instructions: on the historical conditions and theoretical sources of the rise of the philosophy of Marxism; the links between Marxist philosophy and the working-class movement and the history of human thought; the evolution of the philosophical and political views of Marx and Engels; the fundamental stages in the development of Marxist theory; the qualitative distinction between Marxist philosophical materialism and other materialist theories; the antithesis between the Marxist dialectical method and Hegelian dialectics; the tremendous revolution in the views on society as effected by Marx and Engels; the irresistible and attractive force of Marxist theory.
It would be hard to overestimate the range and the wealth of Lenin's ideas, propositions and methodological instructions on the history of philosophy.
Lenin always emphasised that Marxism is the true reflection of all the knowledge accumulated by mankind. In his article "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'', he wrote: "The history of philosophy and the history of social science show with perfect clarity that there is nothing resembling 'sectarianism' in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away from the highroad of the development of world civilisation. On the contrary, the genius of Marx consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. 55 His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and = socialism."^^1^^
Throughout all the works of Lenin runs the idea that, when it became the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat, Marxism did not reject the achievements of the bourgeois era but critically accepted and reworked everything that was valuable in the more than twenty centuries of the development of human thought and culture.
All his statements on the subject were directed against a Leftist and nihilistic attitude towards the heritage of past philosophical thinking. In this connection it is interesting to take note of the flagrant contradiction between Lenin's ideas and the present-- day Chinese chauvinist view according to which the history of world philosophy, including the European, derives from Confucius and other ancient Chinese philosophers. Also of vast theoretical significance is Lenin's criticism of the vulgar ``economic'' materialists who deduced philosophy directly from society's economic life and ignored the role of the class struggle and the ideological superstructure in the development of philosophy. He demanded, in any study of the history of social thought, a deep analysis of all aspects of social life, not only the economic. In his criticism of Shulyatikov's justification oj Capitalism in West-European Philosophy. Vrum Descartes to Macb, Lenin pointed out that any attempt to establish a direct link between philosophy and industry and the former's dependence on the latter leads to an ignoring of a certain independence in the development of ideology, including philosophy, and can harm research into the history of philosophy.
In respect of the heritage of progressive thought of the past, Lenin always emphasised that to preserve that heritage meant enriching it, supplementing it with new experience, with due account of the new facts and the new conditions of the revolutionary struggle. Preserving the revolutionary traditions in the Leninist spirit means constantly and unswervingly enriching and multiplying the heritage of humanity's progressive revolutionary thought. It was Lenin who gave a masterly model of the creative application and enrichment of the revolutionary heritage and the revolutionary traditions of the past.
Lenin's writings and thoughts on the history of philosophy have always been the foundation for the development of all _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, P. 23.
56 research into the history of philosophy in the Soviet Union since the October Revolution. Lenin's scientific activities should always stand before us as a lofty example of consistency, conviction and singleness of purpose in developing and defending one's ideas. __*_*_*__Lenin's philosophical works are an unsurpassed model of a struggle against reactionary bourgeois philosophy. In his writings he subjected to criticism all the main bourgeois philosophical trends of the period of imperialism---neo-Kantianism, Machism, pragmatism, Nictzscheism, Spenglerism and the like. Lenin emphasised the irreconcilability of materialism and idealism: the choice lies between a fully consistent materialism, and the falseness and the muddled thinking of philosophical idealism. All attempts to emerge from these two fundamental trends in philosophy, Lenin pointed out, contain nothing but "conciliatory charlatanism".
The class approach, one in the Party spirit, was always A guiding principle with Lenin in his treatment of problems of theory and practice. Today, as in the past, certain Western philosophers, who sometimes claim to speak for Marxism, have lost sight of this principle and attempt to blend Marxism with existentialism, the philosophy of abstract bourgeois humanism. Counting on the ``erosion'' of Marxism, such philosophers would replace the Leninist Party spirit by an eclectic congeries, by tolerance of, and conciliation with bourgeois ideology, something that Lenin always flayed. As far back as the time of his struggle against "legal Marxism'', he exposed the absurdity of Struve's attempt to find a philosophical ``substantiation'' of Marxism outside of Marxism. The philosophy of Marxism, Lenin said, is not something extraneous to its other components, but is indissolubly linked with the latter and inseparable from them.
Lenin's struggle for the purity of the Party's world outlook was unbrcakably linked with the immediate tasks of the revolutionary working-class movement and the major problems of the working-class strategy and tactics. I fe constantly told the workers and their Party that capitalism cannot be defeated without the rout of opportunism and revisionism in the ranks of the working-class movement. In its struggle against capitalism, he said, a proletarian party has no right to tolerate the least manifestation of opportunism and should be irreconcilable towards the 57 conciliators and capitulators. Unless it evolves a clear materialist world outlook, the working class will never be able to triumph over capitalism and lead society to socialism.
The revisionists' attempts to stand above materialism and idealism were regarded by Lenin as a betrayal of Marxism, a surrendering of its positions to its ideological enemies. This fully holds true of the present-day revisionists, who call for coexistence between bourgeois and proletarian ideology, try to erode the border-line between Marxism-Leninism and bourgeois theories, and blunt the peoples' attention to the struggle between capitalism and socialism, alleging that they stand above these two camps.
Created by Marx and Engcls and further developed by Lenin, the Communist and Workers' Parties, Marxist philosophy has existed for over a hundred years, a period during which many philosophical schools and trends have outlived themselves, after laying claim to being the last word in ``free'' scientific thinking. Marxist-Leninist philosophy, far from being refuted by the development of science and social life, as was predicted by its numerous enemies, has grown ever stronger and become a great and all-conquering doctrine.
The greatness of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine is finding ever more vivid confirmation in every step of world history. The claims that Leninism is a purely "Russian phenomenon" have been fully refuted. Today all who have eyes to see realise that Marxism-- Leninism is a great internationalist theory, which is lighting up to all progressive mankind the road to freedom and socialism. Today there is not, neither can there be, Marxism without the great contribution made to it by Lenin.
Even bourgeois ideologists have been forced to acknowledge the tremendous attractive force of Marxism-Leninism, which, as former US President Herbert Hoover once said in alarm, is master of the thoughts of two-fifths of the world's inhabitants. This idea has been echoed by so reactionary a philosopher as Raymond Aron of France. "There arc in Europe today far more militant Marxists than Christian believers,'' he sighs in his book What 1 Believe In.
Despite the unbridled slander unleashed against the Marxist-- Leninist doctrine by the imperialist reactionaries, it is all the time revealing its great vitality and creative power. Lenin showed masterly prevision when he wrote: "Since the appearance of Marxism, each of the three great periods of world history has brought Marxism new confirmation and new triumphs. But a 58 still greater triumph awaits Marxism, as the doctrine of the proletariat, in the coming period of = history."^^1^^
Lenin's works are to this day a most keen weapon in the struggle against all manifestations of obscurantism and reaction in the struggle for the triumph of a genuinely scientific and materialist world outlook.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Cull,;-/,(/ \Vnrk.s, Vol. is, p.
[59] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINBy Ts. A. STEPANYAN
In developing Marxism Lenin paid particular attention to the basic problems of scientific communism that had been raised by the new epoch of direct struggle for the revolutionary transformation of the old, outgoing capitalist society into the new, communist one. He wrote: "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."^^1^^ In the new historical situation communism had become the central issue of the workers' movement.
Lenin solved questions of scientific communism by creatively applying and developing Marxist philosophy and political economy. In his The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, when explaining the importance of Marxist philosophy and political economy for the development of the theory of scientific communism, Lenin wrote: "Marx's philosophical materialism alone has shown the proletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery in which all oppressed classes have hitherto languished. Marx's economic theory alone has explained the true position of the proletariat in the general system of = capitalism."^^2^^ He showed that by consistently applying the materialist conception of history to the cognition of capitalist society it was possible "to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can---and, owing to their social position, must---constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Cti/lir/eri Works, Vol. 51, p. 592.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 28.
60 struggle".^^1^^ Thus scientific communism emerged as the logical result of the development of the philosophical and economic components of Marxism. It now rests firmly on the philosophical thcoiy ol tlie universal laws ut soc.ic.-l)'s cie\ elopnii'iH and on Uneconomic theory ol the laws ol the production and distribution of material goods. Such is the intrinsic connection between the three components of Marxism. __*_*_*__Lenin armed the Communist and Workers' Parties with important ideas on the laws governing the preparation, shaping and development of the communist formation. Long before the victory of the October Revolution in Russia Lenin indicated the general lines of mankind's advance to communism. And then in his books and articles written after the revolution, in his addresses to congresses of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and of the Communist International, and in other speeches in which he summed up the experience of the first victorious socialist revolution in history, Lenin painted a finished picture of the birth of the new world.
Lenin thoroughly developed the Marxist theory of the two phases of the communist formation---socialism and communism--- and brought out its general economic, socio-political and ideological laws.
Among general economic laws Lenin mentioned first the establishment and continuous development of the socialist mode of production as playing the decisive role in all the stages of the communist formation. The abolition of capitalist ownership, the establishment of public ownership, and its further growth through industrialisation and co-operation in farming were the major points of Lenin's plan for setting up the socialist mode of production.
Lenin pointed out time and again that once the workers' and peasants' government had been established, the economy became the main front of the struggle for socialism and communism.
Public ownership, as the foundation of the socialist economy, ensures the stable progress of social production on the basis of advanced technology, and the fuller satisfaction of the people's needs at every stage of the growth of the new formation. This general economic law requires the harmonious combination of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 28.
61 first and second departments of social production, i.e., a steady overall increase in the production of consumer goods on the basis of the priority development of the production of capital goods.While in the period of the building of socialism the Soviet Union had to push forward with the production of the means of production and restrict the production of consumer goods, during the building of communism the task is to develop every branch of social production in order to meet the people's increasing needs more and more adequately. This new and important principle is written into the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which states that a first-class heavy industry, the basis of the country's technological progress and economic might, has now been built in the Soviet Union, and that the CPSU will continue to devote unflagging attention to the growth of heavy industry and its technological advance. The main task of heavy industry is to meet all the needs of the country's defences and to ensure the development of industries producing consumer goods in order to satisfy better and more fully the needs of the people, and in general to further the growth of the country's overall productive forces.
The Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU resolved to increase industrial output by 47--50 per cent over five years: the output of basic industries (Department A) by 49--52 per cent, and of light industries (Department B) by 43--46 per cent. This Congress not only pointed out the need to accelerate the production of consumer goods but also the need to bring the growth rates of agriculture closer to those of industry (meaning the production of both capital goods and consumer goods).
Another general economic law of the building of the two phases of communism is the planned development of all branches of the economy so as to ensure the balanced advance of both industry and agriculture, and the attainment of the greatest possible synthesis of industry and agriculture on the basis of the fullest utilisation of the achievements of science and technology. Lenin said that it was necessary to transform "the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single = plan".^^1^^
Lenin also showed that it was necessary to combine centralised planning with the maximum development of popular initiative. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Cnllt'ili'd Wurki, Vol. 21, pp. 90--91.
62 Following these principles the CPSU is today successfully improving the methods of industrial management by combining centralised planning with the independent economic initiatives of industrial enterprises.Lenin further taught that in order to build the new society one must make discriminating use of the experience of the whole of mankind, including what modern capitalism has to offer. This principle applies both to the building of socialism and to the building of communism.
It would be sheer conceit to imagine that one can build the new, more perfect world---socialism and communism---while ignoring what is going on in the capitalist countries. Lenin charged us to study modern capitalism well, and to realise that it not only tends to stagnate but that its uneven development leads to the rapid advance of certain branches of production, technology and science. So that while relying on the historical advantages of socialism one should make judicious use of the scientific and technological achievements of modern capitalism in order to speed up the advance towards communism.
Stable and high rates of growth of social production are still another general economic feature of the building of socialism and communism. Lenin foresaw that the socialist system based on public ownership would "inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human = society".^^1^^ The average annual increase in Soviet industrial output is around 10 per cent, compared to the 3.4 per cent of the major capitalist country, the United States. And compared to prewar levels, the volume of industrial output has increased 700 per cent in the socialist world, but only 190 per cent in the capitalist world.
This general feature of the economic development of the two opposite socio-political systems has persisted despite both the temporary difficulties experienced by individual socialist countries and the periods of relatively rapid growth of production in some capitalist countries. The countries of the world socialist system increased their industrial output by 43 per cent between 1961 and 1965, and the capitalist countries by 34 per cent. This is a considerable difference; moreover, growth of production in the capitalist countries, unlike that in the socialist countries, docs not lead to higher living standards for the people but primarily to larger profits for the monopolies and increasing militarisation of the economy.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 469.
63By accelerating their economic growth rates and by putting to ever greater effect the advantages of the socialist mode of production, the socialist countries are fulfilling one of thoir most important revolutionary duties.
Despite the tremendous difficulties resulting from Russia's historical past as an economically and technically backward country, high growth rates in labour productivity---which Lenin regarded as the most vital thing for the final triumph of communism---have been characteristic of socialism in the USSR. "In the last analysis, productivity of labour is the most important, the principal thing for the victory of the new social system. . . . Capitalism can be utterly vanquished, and will be utterly vanquished by socialism creating a new and much higher productivity of = labour."^^1^^
Between 1929 and 1958, thanks to socialist industrialisation and the collectivisation of agriculture, labour productivity increased four times as rapidly in the Soviet Union as in the United States. This pattern of economic development will remain.
The universal character of labour, i.e., the implementation of the Leninist rule "he who does not work, neither shall he cat" (which applies both to socialism and communism) is a further general economic law of the two phases of communism. This law is reflected in the first part of the main principle underlying both phases of communism---"from each according to his ability".
It is of overriding importance for the efficient fulfilment of the common duty to work that the principle of material incentives is applied consistently and sensibly. Lenin stressed that unless people had an interest in their work nothing could be achieved. And the only way to enlist the support of the people in building the new society is to introduce personal material incentives, appropriately combined with moral stimuli.
Leninism teaches that economic regularities determine the socio-political and ideological regularities of the building of socialism and communism, which, in their turn, have an immense impact on the entire process of socialist and communist construction.
The first law that should be mentioned among socio-political laws is the leading role of the working class. Lenin said that "socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Ciillrclctl Works. Vol. 2>), p. .117.
64 the = state".^^1^^ The working class must play the leading role in the new society Irom the moment the dictatorship of the proletariat is established until the final triumph of communism.How does the working class fulfil its leading role in the building of communism:' Leninism answers this question as follows. The working class is bound up with the main and the leading form of production, i.e., socialist industry, which more than anything else determines the line of society's advance towards communism. Because of its social position, it is the most conscious, well-organised, disciplined and politically steeled class, and for this reason it plays the decisive role in the building of communism. All that is new and truly communist is conceived in its ranks. At the present stage of building communism in the Soviet Union this has been confirmed by the emergence at factories of the highest form of socialist emulation---the nation-- wide movement for a communist attitude to work.
The leading role of the working class is expressed in the leadership of the Communist Party, which, now that socialism has triumphed and the unity of Soviet society has been consolidated, has not ceased to be a working-class party.
This growth in the leading role of the Communist Party is a general socio-political law of the building of socialism and communism. It is of particular significance in present conditions both in the USSR and other socialist countries. The slightest weakening of the leading role of the Party has a detrimental effect on every facet of the life and work of socialist society.
Lenin held that the consistent implementation of the principles of proletarian internationalism, the establishment of complete equality between nations and of fraternal friendship among peoples, also constitutes a major socio-political law of the building of the new society. He urged that fraternal relations among peoples be based on implicit trust and free consent. Lenin instructed the Party to build up and develop constantly a union of free peoples, patiently and attentively to remove and overcome the mistrust that ages of oppression by exploiting classes had engendered and fight vestiges of nationalism and chauvinism of whatever kind. By fulfilling the behests of its leader and teacher, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has successfully solved the national question in the USSR. The twin processes of the flourishing and the drawing together of the various peoples of the Soviet Union arc taking place on the road to communism. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 340.
65 These two objective progressive tendencies are developing in the course of the struggle against either the ignoring or the exaggerating of national distinctive features.The equality and fraternity in the relations between the Soviet socialist nations extend to relations between the Soviet Union and other sovereign socialist countries, members of the world socialist system, and all countries fighting imperialism. Lenin attached particular importance to the adoption of a correct attitude to the peoples of the East, and wrote that it was "a matter of world-wide significance which would rebound in India and the entire East, and which, therefore, called for the greatest circumspection---for being a thousand times = cautious".^^1^^
The final solution of this highly complex problem of world importance largely depends on the consolidation of the unity of the socialist countries. Common economic foundations, uniform political principles and the same final goal of communism hold together the community of socialist countries. Nevertheless, this community docs not develop and grow in strength automatically but has to surmount difficulties and contradictions stemming equally from objective causes---such as different economic levels, lack of experience in building a historically new type of relations between socialist states, or sundry relics of the old system---and from subjective factors, one of which is the holding of different ideas about the ways and means of building socialism and communism in different countries.
Such difficulties and contradictions can be overcome and arc overcome providing the general laws of development of the new society that apply to all countries are taken into account and heed is paid to the specific features of the advance to communism in particular countries.
The socialist community is founded above all else on these general laws. The 1968 Bratislava Statement of Communist and Workers' Parties declared: "The fraternal parties are convinced from historical experience that to advance along the path of socialism and communism one must strictly and consistently be guided by the general objective laws of building socialist society and above all enhance the leading role of the working class and its vanguard---the Communist Parties, each fraternal party paying heed to national features and conditions as it creatively solves the problems of further socialist = development."^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works. Fifth Russ. ctl., Vol. 53 p. 190.
~^^2^^ Pravda, August 4, 1968.
66The social developments in Czechoslovakia since 1968 have borne out the international essence of the general laws governing the building of communism, which unlike all the previous socio-- economic formations ha.s demonstrated its abilit) to prevent any reversal of the historical development of whole nations.
The Joint Soviet-Czechoslovak Statement of October 27, 1969 said: "The peoples of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and other fraternal countries are building a new society guided by the general laws of socialist development which were brought to light and defined by the founders of scientific communism and expanded on in the policy documents of the world communist movement and of the Marxist-Leninist Parties. By implementing these laws in the specific conditions of their own countries and taking into account progressive national traditions and features and also depending on the level of these countries' social and economic development, the Communist Parties are enriching the international experience of building = socialism."^^1^^
These general laws reflect the international content of communism, which, unlike capitalism, is solid and united economically, socio-politically and ideologically. Unity of this kind is impossible for capitalism, divided as it is into antagonistic classes, resting on private ownership, anarchy of production, and enmity between different bourgeois states. The numerous wars unleashed by capitalist states, in particular the two world wars, show that solid unity is fundamentally impossible for the world capitalist system, the last antagonistic social formation in human history.
As we have said, in the building of communism it is necessary to take into account the particular features of the development of each socialist country. History has corroborated Lenin's prediction that "all nations will arrive at socialism---this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social = life."^^2^^
Lenin's teachings both on the precedence of general laws and on the inevitability of the transition from capitalism to socialism taking a variety of forms, are of great relevance in the current battle against bourgeois ideology and against dogmatic and revisionist distortions of Marxism.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Prnrda, October 29, 1969.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected \Vnrks, Vol. 23, pp. 69--70.
67Dogmatists characteristically ignore the diversity of the forms of struggle and creative activity required by different concrete circumstances. Revisionists, in the same way as dogmatists, turn their backs on the diversity of life. They deny the existence of general objective laws and regard local conditions and features as the main things, seeking to confine the process of building socialism to strictly national limits.
Revisionists willingly exploit the idea, such as it is, of "different national brands of socialism'', which they have borrowed from bourgeois sociology. This curious notion is founded on a primitive analogy. They ask, if there are or were different brands of capitalism---Russian, German, British, etc.---then why shouldn't there be different brands of socialism---Russian, German, British, etc.? It is easy to see that they identify metaphysically two fundamentally different socio-economic formations, which develop according to different principles and in different ways. Whereas capitalism develops spontaneously, socialism is based on the purposeful, and systematic activities of the people under the leadership of Communist and Workers' Parties. While capitalism develops in an atmosphere of cut-throat competition, including that between the bourgeoisie of different countries, socialism develops in an atmosphere of fraternal friendship and mutual co-operation between the socialist countries.
The idea of "different brands of socialism" scientifically does not stand up because it univcrsaliscs particular features and divorces them from general objective laws; its methodological basis is therefore unsound. It was brought forward, of course, to serve quite definite political ends, namely, to encourage the nationalist elements in countries following the socialist path in order to undermine the unity of the socialist states.
The events of 1968--69 in Czechoslovakia were a dramatic demonstration of the fact that any attempts to build socialism will collapse it the general objective laws are ignored. By flaunting the slogan of struggle against formal, stereotyped methods---for a ``liberalised, democratic socialism''---the Czechoslovak revisionists called for the construction of socialism not on the basis of general objective laws but by taking a road fundamentally different from the one which the Soviet Union and other socialist countries have followed.
Unlike the temporary and relative unity of the imperialist states, the unity and solidarity of the socialist states follow from the nature of their social s\stem. Leninism has laid down and practice has shown that the community of the socialist 68 countries is inseparable from the world communist movement as a whole. Moreover, the cohesion of the countries in the world socialist system is the major prerequisite for the unity of the communist movement. The problem of unity figured prominently at the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The Main Document of the Meeting stated: "Socialism is not afflicted with the contradictions inherent in capitalism. When divergences between socialist countries do arise owing to differences in the level of economic development, in social structure or international position or because of national distinctions, they can and must be successfully settled on the basis of proletarian internationalism, through comradely discussion and voluntary fraternal co-operation. They need not disrupt the united front of socialist countries against imperialism.
"Communists are aware of the difficulties in the development of the world socialist system. But this system is based on the identity of the socio-economic structure of its member-countries and on the identity of their fundamental interests and objectives. This identity is an earnest that the existing difficulties will be overcome and that the unity of the socialist system will be further strengthened on the basis of the principles of Marxism-- Leninism and proletarian internationalism."
One of the general socio-political laws of the building of the new society is the defence of the gains of socialism from imperialist aggression by building up the defence potential of the USSR and that of the whole of the socialist community. Lenin always considered it a matter of primary importance to strengthen the defensive capacity of a socialist state. For example, in October 1921 he wrote to Chicherin that it was necessary to reckon with the constant menace of an imperialist attack on Soviet Russia. "You can do nothing to prevent them except increase the defensive = capacity."^^1^^
So long as imperialist aggressors exist, and until complete disarmament has been achieved, strengthening the socialist countries' defences will remain the only way to ensure the peaceful conditions required for the building of socialism and communism. The relentless struggle against imperialism to secure the triumph of socialism and the success of the national liberation movements---alongside active efforts to achieve a lasting peace and the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems---is therefore a major socio-political law of building _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 53, p. 298.
69 communism. This law results from the I act that socialism and communism do not triumph at the same time everywhere. Even before the October Revolution Lenin referred to the inevitable historical period "of the coexistence side by side of socialist and capitalist = states".^^1^^ Later, in 1921, he again stressed that the coexistence of the two systems was inevitable.Lenin held that the prolonged coexistence of states with different social systems was "the only correct way out of the difficulties, chaos and danger of wars (as long as there remain two property systems, one of them as obsolete as capitalist prop- erty)".^^2^^ He also said: "All our politics and propaganda .. . are directed towards putting an end to war and in no way towards driving nations to = war."^^3^^ He was confident that "any peace . . . will open channels for our influence a hundred times = wider".^^4^^ Exposing the influence of imperialist countries exercised by strong-arm methods, Lenin spoke of the influence of socialist states on the destinies of peoples without in any way interfering in their home affairs. Asked by an American newspaperman whether the Soviet Government was prepared to guarantee absolute non-intervention in other states' home affairs, Lenin said simply: "We are willing to guarantee = it."^^5^^ His answer to a question about the Soviet Government's plans in Asia was: "They arc the same as in Europe: peaceful coexistence with all peoples; with the workers and peasants of all = nations.~.~.~."^^6^^
As a great strategist of the world revolution, Lenin showed that the tasks of securing a durable world peace should be viewed in the perspective of the complete victory of world communism. This means that the aim of peaceful coexistence is not to preserve and perpetuate the status quo but to facilitate the building of socialism and communism in the socialist countries, and to help intensify the class struggles in the capitalist countries and the national liberation struggles in the colonies. Lenin was the first to see that the resolution of the contradiction between rising communism and declining capitalism, the main contradiction of the present day, might take new forms. Because he foresaw the inevitable and inexorable change in the balance of forces in _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin. Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 39.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 357.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 470.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 453.
~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 50.
~^^6^^ Ibid., p. 365.
70 favour of communism, Lenin believed that it was possible to resolve the contradiction between capitalism and communism not by war but by struggle in the economic field. "The struggle in this field,'' he wrote, "has now become global. Once we solve this problem, we shall have certainly and finally won on an international = scale."^^1^^Finally, let us consider Lenin's ideas on the general ideological laws of the building of socialism and communism. First is the triumph of Marxist-Leninist ideology and its constant development on the basis of the generalised experience gained in the building of socialism and communism and the generalised experience of the world revolutionary movement. To consolidate and develop the new society, it is not enough simply to assimilate Marxist-Leninist ideology. Lenin insisted that the new processes and leading tendencies of the current epoch must be thoroughly studied and used as the basis for the continuous creative development of communist ideology.
The fight against revisionism and dogmatism cannot be successful unless all new practical developments, especially those in the field of building socialism and communism, are reflected in Marxist-Leninist theory.
The creative development of Marxist-Leninist ideology is exemplified by the collectively drafted documents of the world communist movement, the Programme of the CPSU, and the resolutions of the 23rd Congress of the CPSU, which supply new theoretical propositions characterising the advance of society towards socialism and communism in the current epoch.
The continuous exchange of opinions and the scientific discussion of new and unsolved problems arc vital for the constant development and enrichment of Marxism-Leninism.
The building of both socialism and communism presupposes a cultural revolution based on the critical application of all the achievements of world culture. Lenin worked out a comprehensive programme for the cultural revolution, a programme designed to eliminate illiteracy, introduce universal secondary education, create a truly popular intelligentsia, and bring up a new, harmoniously developed man, the builder of communism.
The struggle to overcome the vestiges of capitalism in the minds and behaviour of people is also a general objective law in the ideological field. So long as the two worlds exist and the struggle between them continues, bourgeois ideology will _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 437.
71 continue to exert its malignant influence on the less steadfast elements in socialist society. Therefore, the overcoming of the influence of bourgeois ideology on the minds of people is an important guarantee of the successful building of communism.The steady growth of the people's conscious activity in all spheres of life is an indispensable condition of success in the building of socialism and communism on a scientific basis. Unlike all pre-socialist formations, which arose and developed spontaneously, the communist formation is the first in history to be created by the entire people, consciously and in an organised way, on the basis of Marxist-Leninist science. As Lenin wrote, ''. . . living, creative socialism is the product of the masses them- selves".^^1^^
The upbringing of the new man, of the versatile and integrated communist personality, is a synthcsised expression of the operation of all the objective laws mentioned above. Lenin gave extremely valuable instructions on how to carry out this most intricate task of all, a task that will take longer to complete than the building of the material and technical basis of communism. He wrote that the communist personality would emerge fully only when communism had reached maturity, since the ground for the moulding of the new man was the development of truly communist relationships among people. "It is absolutely necessary to develop a sense of 'mutual assistance', etc., both 'within the class' and towards the working people of other = classes."^^2^^
Understanding and eliminating the real contradictions that arise in the process of the emergence and development of the communist formation is another universal objective law of the building of communism which extends to all the principal areas of public life. Lenin pointed out that under socialism antagonisms disappear but contradictions remain. It follows from this that it is necessary to wage a struggle on two fronts---against carrying over mechanically to socialist society the antagonistic contradictions of the pre-socialist class formations, and against elevating to the absolute the unity of socialist society and so denying that there arc any contradictions at all in its development. We should always remember Lenin's important methodological statement that "complete coincidences ... do not occur even in the simplest of natural = phenomena'',^^3^^ and that in the future, even _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Cullcfled \\'<irks. Vol. 26, p. 288.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 45, p. 296.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 155.
72 under communism, "there will always be such a 'discrepancy', that it always exists in the development of nature as well as in the development of = society".^^1^^Lenin's observation that "life proceeds by contradictions, and living contradictions are so much richer, more varied and deeper in content than they may seem at first sight to a man's = mind'',^^2^^ is of basic methodological significance for the clear understanding of the dialectical nature of the shaping of the communist formation. By way of example, let us consider the contradiction that exists between socialism's very advanced social system and its much less advanced material and technical basis. Lenin brought out this contradiction, which arose with the victory of the October Revolution, between the world's foremost type of political organisation of society and the existing level of productive forces. He said that the main strategic task in building the communist formation was to catch up with the capitalist countries and then to outstrip them technically and economically.
The triumph of the socialist revolution put the new Soviet society decades ahead of the old system as far as its social organisation went. But the economic level of the country remained, of course, the same. Lenin nevertheless said that it would be possible to reach and then exceed the economic and technological standards of the capitalist countries through the electrification of the whole country. Lenin's well-known formula runs: " Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country."^^3^^ This formula has determined the main technical and economic task of the country.
The completion of the building of socialism was the first big step towards the goal of overtaking and outstripping capitalism. The next big stride was the commencing of the building of communism. The Programme of the CPSU states that the main economic task and the building of the material and technical basis of communism coincide. The building of the material and technical basis of communism will remove the contradiction between the world's foremost type of political organisation of society and its level of productive forces and will enable the state to meet ever more fully the material requirements of the people.
So far we have only dealt with Lenin's ideas on the general objective laws that operate in all phases of the communist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. i~, p. i4(,.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 34, p. 403.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 419.
73 formation. However, (o achieve a comprehensive understanding ol the new system we must also study Lenin's ideas on the specific characteristics of the development of socialism into communism. For this purpose, we must grasp two basic facts. The first, mentioned by Marx, is that communism grows "out of itself''. This means that "socialism must inevitably evolve gradually into com- munism'',^^1^^ that it develops into communism within the one single communist formation. The second fact, noted by Lenin, is that there is a vast difference between communism and socialism. "Politically,'' he wrote, "the distinction between the first, or lower, and the higher phase of communism will in time, probably, be = tremendous."^^2^^This statement is of singular importance in that it stresses the tremendous scope and difficulty of the problems involved in the transition to communism---and the time it must take. Lenin pointed out that "the future society . . . will take a long time to = build''.^^3^^
Later developments in Marxist-Leninist theory on the two phases of communism, and international experience in the socialist reconstruction of society, have fully confirmed Lenin's belief that the consolidation and development of socialism was the necessary prerequisite for the gradual transition to communism. ''. . . Socialism is the society that grows out of capitalism directly, it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a higher form of society, and can only develop when socialism has become firmly = established."^^4^^
With his great knowledge of materialist dialectics, Lenin taught that the process of building the communist formation should be viewed in its development, in close connection with objective conditions and the unavoidable stages in the construction of the new society.
Lenin's ideas concerning the socialist phase of the communist formation are of primary importance for methodology. Socialism is a historically inevitable and relatively long phase in the development of the new formation. At the same time socialism is a historically transient phase in the process of the final establishment of communism. Disregard of these truths gives rise to both the conceptions of so-called "national forms of socialism'', which are essentially identical to "the national patterns _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 85.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 470.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 324.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 284.
74 of socialism'', and to the Leftist theories propagating the by-- passing of historically inevitable stages in the assertion of communism.Since the establishment of the Soviet government, the Communist Party, under Lenin's leadership, resolutely combated the Utopian illusions of Leftists about the transition to communism, patiently explaining why they were wrong. Lenin wrote in this connection: "If they imagine that we can go straight from large-- scale capitalism to communism they are not revolutionaries but reformists and = utopians."^^1^^
Criticising the Leftists in the world communist movement, Lenin explained that there was no basis for the expectation that one could go straight from capitalism to the higher phase of communism by skipping its lower and middle phases, i.e., by disregarding objectively unavoidable stages in the development of the new social system. By introducing the notion of the "middle phase" Lenin intended to give greater emphasis to the fact that one must view the new system in its development, stage by stage.
Lenin also fought any naive ``semantic'' approach to communism. He said that "if the name 'Communist Party' were interpreted to mean that the communist system is being introduced immediately, that would be a great distortion and would do practical harm since it would be nothing more than empty boasting".^^2^^ Only after the consolidation of socialism, "after the full victory of socialism, there should grow that communism that we see at = subbotniks,^^3^^ not with the aid of a book, but in living reality".^^4^^
Such are Lenin's principal propositions on the general laws and the specific features of the development of socialism into communism.
__*_*_*__Lenin did not only arm the Communist Party of the Soviet Union with a knowledge of the laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism and then to communism---he lit up the road to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 285.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
~^^3^^ The reference is to the communist siibbotniks, which originated during the civil war and foreign armed intervention in Russia. Soviet people who took part in them did voluntary unpaid work for the common good, displaying a new, communist attitude to labour. The first communist subbatnik was held on the initiative of the Communists of the Sortirovochnaya shunting station on the Moscow-Kaxan Railway on May 10, 19(9. The day was Saturday-``subbota'', hence the name.---Ed.
~^^4^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, pp. 286--87.
75 the full victory of communism throughout the world. He repeatedly pointed out that the October Revolution had ushered in a new era in human history---the era of the world-wide advance of the revolutionary process---which was leading, as inexorably as any natural process, to the triumph of communism everywhere in the world. This world revolutionary process embraces various forms of struggle against imperialism and colonialism for national freedom, peace, democracy, socialism and communism.Lenin emphasised the particular importance of the struggle against American imperialism. He wrote: "The idealised democratic republic"---the United States of America---"proved in practice to be a form of the most rabid imperialism, of the most shameless oppression and suppression of weak and small na- tions."^^1^^ Its democratic veneer, he said, served to conceal "the most reactionary . . . the most savage imperialism, which is throttling the small and weak nations and reinstating reaction all over the = world.~.~.~."^^2^^ At the present stage of the development of the world revolutionary process these words arc doubly significant.
The October Revolution was the first in history to break the formerly solid chain of imperialism and begin the dawn of the new world. It led to the triumph of socialism over a vast area of the globe and opened the way for the advance to communism. All this confirms the theoretical premise of Leninism that the objective laws of society's development make the triumph of communism historically inevitable.
The growing conflict between the rapidly expanding productive forces and the obsolescent capitalist relations of production makes the introduction of public ownership, the precondition for the unlimited progress of mankind in future, urgently necessary. This conflict is further intensified by the modern scientific and technological revolution, which can be given free scope only under a social system that develops harmoniously, that is, under full-- fledged socialism and communism.
The economic laws that arc responsible for the shaping of the new social formation match the political laws of present-day world development: the steady growth and consolidation of the world socialist system and the international communist and workers' movement alongside the advance of the national liberation struggles. The highest form of the contemporary _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Ciilli-ili'd Works. \'«\. 2,s, p. iSy.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 190.
76 revolutionary process is to be found in the building of communism and the development of socialist social relationships into communist ones in the USSR. But all these revolutionary currents must finally lead to the victory first of socialist, and then of communist, social relationships everywhere.The economic and political laws governing the world-wide revolutionary process are reflected in society's spiritual life, in the relentless struggle between communist and bourgeois ideology. This struggle assumes different forms at different stages and levels of the world revolutionary process. Its highest form is the struggle for the complete overcoming of bourgeois ideology or the survivals of it, i.e., for the moulding of the new spiritual character of all working people and of society as a whole in the process of building communism.
The new society, according to Lenin's teachings, should be built on the basis of the general and specific laws of the two phases of communism. Neglect or disregard of the general laws governing the birth of the communist formation may lead some people to come to the erroneous conclusion that the socialist revolution can fulfil all its external tasks. This, however, contradicts Lenin's fundamental proposition that while all non-socialist revolutions had and have limited historical tasks, every socialist revolution is by nature a component part of the world communist revolution that is called upon to transform the whole world according to communist principles.
The corner-stone of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution (in addition to the point that socialist revolutions take place at different times in different countries) is the argument that in every country where socialist revolution has triumphed socialist and then communist tasks are carried out in uninterrupted succession. Such is the dialectics of the world revolutionary process. This basic feature of the socialist revolution determines the consistently internationalist character of the policies of the Communist and Workers' Parties guided by Marxist-Leninist theory.
Practice shows that ignorance or disregard of certain of the laws of the transition from socialism to communism cannot but result in the dogmatic transposition of formulas and principles reflecting the laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism to an entirely different period of transition, i.e., to the period of transition from the first to the second phase of the communist formation. Such a metaphysical approach makes it difficult to overcome the non-antagonistic contradictions that objectively exist between the socialist countries by breeding artificial difficulties 77 in relations between states at different stages of development of the new societ\.
These contradictions and difficulties can and will be overcome thanks to the community of interests of the socialist countries and to the creative application of Marxist-Leninist theory.
Life has corroborated Marx's prediction that social evolution in a socialist society would no longer require political revolutions. Social progress under communism does not involve sweeping away the foundations of the new society. This is what is meant by the gradual transition from socialism to communism. It does not exclude leaps, however. Indeed, taken as a whole, the transition from socialism to communism represents a very profound qualitative change in socialist society.
As part of the world revolutionary process many formerly backward countries can go over to socialism by missing out the capitalist stage of development. The world has already seen evidence of this in some Soviet Republics, and now witnesses such transition beyond the borders of the Soviet Union. Non-- capitalist development and the direct transition to the building of socialism have become even more possible for formerly backward countries now that a world socialist system has come into existence. The economic and political might of the socialist states are major factors accelerating this process. As Lenin wrote, "with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist = stage".^^1^^
As the construction of socialism is completed and the socialist countries go over to the building of communism, new patterns of development of world communism make their appearance. In particular, there is the law of the more or less simultaneous transition of the socialist countries to full communism. Lenin's theory of socialist revolution provides the key to this: on the historical road to world socialism and communism the socialist countries must overcome in a short space of time the disparities between their economic and cultural levels through mutual assistance and co-operation.
The rapid economic development of the socialist countries, their growing might in every respect, has a great impact on the course of the world revolution. Life has fully confirmed Lenin's proposition that a country of victorious socialism should influence _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 244.
78 the course of the liberation struggle against imperialism mainly by its economic policies, by the practical building of socialism and communism. The growing all-round aid of the socialist nations to the countries fighting for their social and national emancipation testifies to their proletarian internationalism not merely in words but in deeds.The building of communism in the first socialist country, the Soviet Union, is the great revolutionary achievement of the present day. It is an integral part and the highest stage of the world revolutionary process. Lenin was confident that the cause of communism would be secure in = Russia.^^1^^
The spirit of the resolutions of the CPSU, especially those of the 23rd Congress and subsequent Central Committee plenums, is one of a strictly scientific approach to the basic problems of building communism in the Soviet Union. They demonstrate the Party's concern for the steady growth of the economy as the condition for the further improvement of the people's well-being. The systematic and steady growth of the people's material and cultural standards is a generalised expression of the advantages of the socialist system of society.
Many urgent problems of the present stage in the development of the communist formation were analysed by the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The documents adopted and the speeches by the representatives of the fraternal parties have made a substantial contribution to the treasure-house of Leninism and have provided valuable material for the further elaboration of the problems of scientific communism and the theory of building socialism and communism.
"One of the important conclusions to be drawn from the work of the Meeting is the need to develop in every way the theoretical generalisation of the laws and features of the world revolutionary movement; the elaboration of the major theoretical problems of building socialism and communism, of the struggle waged by the world communist and workers' movement against imperialism."^^2^^ All these problems are being currently developed on the basis of Lenin's ideological legacy.
Communism is being built and will be built in the interests of the people, tor the sake of their peaceful development and prosperity. As socialism triumphs more and more in individual _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin Miscellany XXXV, Russ. e<l, p. 248.
~^^2^^ Pravda, = June 27, 1969. Resolution of the June 1969 Plenum of the C.C. C.P.S.U.
79 countries, the tendency for the non-simultaneous transition to communism will diminish, while the tendency of the simultaneous transition to communism will increase. One should consider the initial victory of communism in the Soviet Union to he part ol the whole process of building a communist society by all the peoples of the world socialist system. And the building of communism in the USSR and then in the entire world socialist system will enormously speed up the advance of other peoples to the socialist and communist rebuilding of the whole of modern society. [80] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S CONTRIBUTIONBy S. L. VYGODSKY
Lenin's studies in the political economy of capitalism centre on questions connected with the Marxist theory of reproduction, the development of capitalism in Russia, the theory of imperialism, and the agrarian = question.^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ Lenin's Development of the Marxist TheoryLenin investigates the problem of capitalist reproduction in, for example: "On the So-Called Market Question'', "A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism'', "The Development of Capitalism in Russia'', "Once More on the Theory of Realisation'', and "Reply to Mr. P. Nezhdanov".
Lenin's first approach to the market question is already distinguished by its creative character and his deep understanding of the way the Marxist theory of realisation should be applied to the concrete historical conditions of the Russia of the 18905.
Lenin makes a clear distinction between market conditions under full capitalism and those obtaining when capitalism is only just developing. In the concrete conditions of Russia in the early nineties, the question was not only that of the relationship between the two departments of social production but, first and foremost, it was a question of whether or not fully developed capitalism was ``possible'' in Russia.
_-_-_~^^1^^ The present hook contains a special article devoted to Lenin's study of the agrarian question.
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---1974 81The economist G.~B. Krasin, though he made use of Chapter 2 i of Volume II of Capital and Marx's well-known scheme showing the conditions of simple and extended reproduction under developed capitalism, could get no nearer the solution of the main question occupying the minds of Russian Marxists and their adversaries, namely, the question of the destiny of development of capitalism in Russia. Lenin, in his polemics with G. B. Krasin in "On the So-Called Market Question'', wrote, "evidently, the explanation of how capitalism develops in general does not in the least help to clear up the question of the 'possibility' (and necessity) of the development of capitalism in = Russia".^^1^^
In order to solve this central question Lenin turns to the problem of the social division of labour that provides the basis for all commodity production. He first of all shows the dependence of the size of the market on the degree of specialisation of social labour. Lenin draws up his own scheme to illustrate not the relationship between the two departments of social production but that between the two stages in the development of capitalism: i) the transformation of the natural economy of direct producers into a commodity economy, and 2) the transformation of simple commodity production into capitalist production. Lenin's scheme^^2^^ shows that the disintegration of natural economy and the transformation of a certain section of simple producers into capitalists and of a much larger section into hired hands, led, even with the same volume of production, to a sixfold increase in the size of the market (from 6 units to 36 units), and the share of production covered by the market grew from 1/9 to = 2/3.^^3^^
These facts led Lenin to the following conclusion: "...the limits of the development of the market, in capitalist society, are set by the limits of the specialisation of social labour. But this specialisation, by its very nature, is as infinite as technical developments."^^4^^
Lenin based his analysis of the realisation, or market question, on the following four premises:
1) The social division of labour is the basis of the development of both simple commodity and capitalist production.
2) The development of commodity production means the separation of an ever larger part of the population from _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. i, p. 89.
~^^2^^ See ibid., pp. 96--97.
~^^3^^ See ibid., pp. 94--99.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 100.
82 agriculture, that is, the growth of the industrial population at the expense of the agricultural population.3) The ruin of small producers by the development of commodity production and capitalism results in the expansion of the home market, rather than in its shrinking. The ruined peasant who used to live by working on his farm, lives now by selling his hands, and has to buy necessary consumer goods (though of lower quality and in less quantity). As for the means of production which the peasant is forced to relinquish, they are concentrated in the hands of a minority, turned into capital and their products sent to the market. Thus the impoverishment of the people and the development of capitalism not only do not exclude one another but necessarily entail one another.
4) The growth of capitalist production and, consequently, of the home market does not so much involve the growth of consumer goods as the growth of means of production. In other words the growth of the production of means of production exceeds that of consumer goods.
Lenin constantly stressed that the Marxist theory of reproduction is based on the fact that the part of the social product which compensates for the constant capital used up in the production of means of production (the constant capital in Department~I, to use Marx's terminology) can only serve as capital, and can never take on the form of revenue. Moreover, technical progress under capitalism inevitably means that this part of the social product grows faster than the other parts going to meet the personal consumption needs of workers and capitalists.
Lenin writes:
"In a developing capitalist society this part of the social product must necessarily grow more rapidly than all the other parts of the product. Only this law will explain one of the most profound contradictions of capitalism: the growth of the national wealth proceeds with tremendous rapidity, while the growth of national consumption proceeds (if at all) very = slowly."^^1^^
In Capital, Marx pinpoints the dominating significance of means of production in the gross product. "Capitalist society employs more of its available annual labour in the production of means of production (ergo, of constant capital) which are not resolvable into revenue in the form of wages or surplus-value, but can function only as = capital."^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 79.
~^^2^^ Marx, Capital, Vol. If, Moscow, 1967, p. 442.
__PRINTERS_P_83_COMMENT__ 6* 83Lenin, referring to this statement of Marx's in "On the SoCalled Market Question'', says: "On this point specifically Marx expresses himself quite definitely only in one passage, and that passage fully confirms the correctness of the formula = given.~.~.~."^^1^^ Lenin gives this formula as: "in capitalist society, the production of means of production increases faster than the production of means of = consumption."^^2^^ Lenin not only gives a formulation of this thesis, but also substantiates it by connecting the necessarily faster growth of the production of means of production with Marx's law of the faster growth of constant capital (as against variable capital).
The Marxist theory of realisation is based on the indisputable fact that the entire product of a capitalist country (gross or national product), like any one individual product, consists of the following three parts: i) constant capital, 2) variable capital, 3) surplus value.
In accordance with the conditions of simple reproduction formulated by Marx, the variable capital and the surplus value of Department I, produced in the form of means of production, must be equal to the constant capital of Department II taking the form of articles of consumption. Marx's equation for this is: I (zrfvw) = II c. But according to the law of the more rapid growth of c compared to v, II c increases faster than II (»+;«), and I c faster than I (v+tri). Hence, as I c outstrips I (v+m), it also outstrips II c [equal to I (u+wz)], and II (v+m) increases more slowly than both II c and I (v~\~m).
Lenin gives the following explanation for this: "Indeed, we have seen that constant capital in articles of consumption ( Department~II) is exchanged for variable capital + surplus value in means of production (Department I). According, however, to the general law of capitalist production, constant capital grows faster than variable capital. Hence, constant capital in articles of consumption has to increase faster than variable capital and surplus value in articles of consumption, while constant capital in means of production has to increase fastest of all, outstripping both the increase of variable capital (+ surplus value) in means of production and the increase of constant capital in articles of consumption. The department of social production which produces means of production has, consequently, to grow faster than that producing articles of = consumption."^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. i, pp. 88--89.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 88.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 54.
84Lenin considered this tht only correct conclusion to be derived from Marx's investigations, while pointing out, however, that "that conclusion could have been arrived at, without Marx's investigation in Volume II of Capital, on the basis of the law that constant capital tends to grow faster than variable: the proposition that means of production grow faster is merely a paraphrase of this law as applied to social production as a = whole."^^1^^
When Lenin wrote these lines he was not acquainted with one remarkable statement of Marx's published many years later in his Theories of Surplus-Value: "While for the individual capital the fall in the variable part of the capital as compared with the constant part takes the direct form of a reduction in the part of the capital expended in wages, for the total capital---in its reproductiont\\K---necessarily takes the form that a relatively greater part of the total labour employed is engaged in the reproduction of means of production than is engaged in the production of products themsclves---that is, in the reproduction of machinery. . . , of auxiliary materials . . . and of plants which form the raw material for industrial = products."^^2^^ The thought expressed by Lenin in "On the So-Called Market Qucstion"---one of his earliest works---is identical to this statement of Marx's in Theories of Surplus-Value.
The dependence of the increasing ratio of the production of means of production to that of articles of consumption on the growth of the organic structure of capital finds expression in the schematic representation of the process of accumulation to be found in Capital, Vol. II. Marx gives two examples to illustrate this process. In the first example, the ratio of constant capital to variable capital is = 4:I^^3^^; and in the second, = 5:I.^^4^^ The increase in this ratio "presupposes a considerable development of capitalist production and accordingly of the productivity of social labour, a considerable previous increase in the scale of = production.~.~.~."^^5^^ However, Marx leaves the organic structure of capital unchanged in his representation of the process of simple and extended reproduction over a brief period of time. Hence both Departments of social production in Marx's model have parallel development.
Lenin introduced changes into the organic structure of capital with time, and devised his own graphic representation to show _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 87.
~^^2^^ Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part I, Moscow, p. 213.
~^^3^^ See Marx, Capital, Vol. II, Moscow, 1967, p. 514.
~^^4^^ See ibid., p. 518.
~^^5^^ Ibid.
85 the more rapid increase of the production of means of production over that of articles of consumption. He gives the rate of growth of the various component parts of the social product in a table summing up a four-year period of extended reproduction during which the ratio of constant to variable capital increases from 4:1 to 5:1. This shows means of production of means of production growing fastest of all (+36.7 per cent), followed by means of production of means of consumption (+9.5 per cent), and finally, means of consumption (+6 per = cent).^^1^^ In the four years, the share of means of production in the social product rose from 66.7 per cent to 70.7 per cent, while the share of articles of consumption fell from 33.3 per cent to 29.3 per cent.Lenin not only formulated and explained the law of the more rapid rate of growth of the means of production, but also defined its limits. Technical progress and accumulation in Department II restrict or restrain the increase of the share of the means of production in the social product. Also acting in the same direction is the tendency for technical progress to lower the amount of capital and materials consumed in the manufacture of a unit of production. Recent US statistics confirm both the dominance of Department I and the tendency for the rates of growth of the two Departments to draw closer to one another.
The development of capitalist production largely as a result of the growth of the production of means of production follows not only from the fact that capitalism is characterised by production for production's sake, i.e., by the extension of production without any corresponding extension of consumption, but also from the determining role played by the means of production in the life of society.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ Lenin's Analysis of the Development of CapitalismIn studying Russian life in the light of Marx's theory of reproduction, and in developing and creatively applying it to the concrete analysis of the development of capitalism in Russia, Lenin carefully checked every fact he handled. In his polemics he was never tired of repeating that the criterion of the correctness of the Marxist position on the way capitalism in Russia was __NOTE__ Page number in book is "98" ! _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 87.
86 developing lay in its correspondence to "the facts of contemporary Russian economic = reality".^^1^^Lenin criticises the well-known representative of Narodism, Nikolai = ---on.^^2^^ The latter declared that capitalism in Russia had "dug its own grave, it brought 'people's economy' to the frightful crisis of 1891 and . . . stopped, having no ground under its feet, unable to 'continue along the same path' ''. This theory is more than a strange variant of the theory of the automatic collapse of capitalism! Capitalism stopped ... as it were at the crossroads ... to think its hard and sad thoughts ... in search of new ways. . . . And this ridiculous theory was advanced by a man who was acquainted with Marx's economic theory and who had indeed written an admiring foreword to the first Russian edition of Volume II of Capital printed in St. Petersburg in 1885 in his own translation!
Lenin quoted Nikolai ---on's theory to illustrate the fact that in order to understand the development of capitalism in Russia, a knowledge of Marx's schemes of the process of reproduction was far from sufficient. Lenin wrote, a propos Nikolai ---on's theory:
"Wherein lies the absurdity of this 'ever new' (for the Russian Narodniks) theory?
"Is it that its author fails to understand the significance of the 'production of means of production as means of production'? Of course, not. Mr.~Nik. ---on knows that law very well and even mentions that it operates in our country, too. . . .
"The absurdity of his theory lies in his inability to explain capitalism in this country and in basing his arguments about it on pure = fictions."^^3^^
The application of Marx's economic theory is unthinkable without a profound and all-sided analysis of the concrete field to which the theory is applied. Lenin's development of Marxist economic theory is a remarkable creative effort based on the concrete analysis of economic reality. He condemns "the endeavour to look for answers to concrete questions in the simple logical development of the general = truth".^^4^^ How many theoreticians have gone bankrupt in mechanically applying one or another general truth without taking into account changed conditions, changed _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 108.
~^^2^^ Pseudonym of the Russian economist Nikolai Daniclson (1844--1918).---Ed.
~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. i, pp. 122, 123.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 32.
87 situations or changed relations of class forces! This is what dogmatism is, a thing alien to living Marxism.Lenin regarded the strict conformity of theory to reality as an cnsurance against dogmatism. "There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is its conformity to the actual process of social and economic = development."^^1^^
Lenin also held that it was inadmissible to use the method of confirming this or that general statement by individual, separate facts. In his preface to the first edition of The Development of Capitalism in Russia, he writes: "The author has set himself the aim of examining the question of how a home market is being formed for Russian capitalism ... in answering the question raised it seemed to us that it was not enough to adduce facts showing the formation and growth of a home market, for the objection might be raised that such facts had been selected arbitrarily and that facts showing the contrary had been omitted. It seemed to us that it was necessary to examine the whole process of the development of capitalism in Russia, to endeavour to depict it in its = entirety."^^2^^
The task set by Lenin in What the "Friends of the People" Arc and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, that of making a concrete study of all the forms of economic antagonism in Russia and presenting a complete picture of Russian economic reality as a definite system of social relations, was skilfully fulfilled by him in The Development of Capitalism in Russia. The solution of this task was an urgent necessity as the drafting of the Programme of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was then the most pressing task of the day.
Lenin wrote that consistent Marxists develop "the basic tenets of Marxism in accordance with the changing conditions and with the local characteristics of the different = countries".^^3^^ He ridiculed P. Skvortsov who "beats a retreat from an analysis of concrete and historically specific reality to simply copying = Marx".^^4^^
Lenin did not go in for merely explaining or interpreting Marx's theoretical tenets but made it his task to demonstrate the real process of the development of capitalism in Russia, to "ascertain exactly how and to what extent agriculture becomes capitalist, among peasants or among landlords, in one district _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. i, p. 298.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 25.
~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 630--31.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 613.
88 or in another . . . exactly which industry in Russia is becoming capitalist and to what extent it is doing = so".^^1^^Lenin attached great importance to the process of class differentiation in the countryside, to the process of division of small farmers into proprietors and workers. He saw in this the basis for the formation of a home market for big industry. It is natural that Lenin begins his analysis of the Russian national economy with a study of the rise of capitalism in agriculture, the disintegration of the peasantry, the transition from the corvee economy to a capitalist economy, and the growth of commercial farming.
The general theory of capitalism presupposes developed and fully-formed capitalist production. Agriculture is regarded mainly as a special sphere of capitalist production where a part of surplus value takes the form of rent (differential and absolute), and where, accordingly, the law of average profit and price of production is modified. It follows, therefore, that both the question of rent and that of the specific features of capitalist development in agriculture within the framework of the general theory, can only be stated in terms of the theory of surplus value, average profit and price of production. It is in this order that Marx presents them in Capital. But things were different when it came to proving whether the complete development of capitalism in Russia was possible.
In Russian conditions, the question of capitalist development in agriculture assumed the foremost importance. After studying all the data relating to the process of class differentiation in the countryside, Lenin arrived at the conclusion that economic relations in the ``communal'' village (described as "people's production'', and the like) were no more than straight-forward petty-- bourgeois relations and that class differentiation among the peasantry did not involve only the simple ``differentiation'' produced by the appearance of property inequalities, but involved the ousting of the old peasantry by entirely new classes of country dwellers, vix., the rural bourgeoisie (mostly petty) and the agricultural proletariat.
Lenin further conclulcd, on the basis of a precise analysis of the economic situations of the various peasant groupings, that it was necessary to distinguish three groups of peasants (who numbered 97 million in 1897): the lowest group, that is, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 612.
89 proletarian and semi-proletarian section of the agricultural population; the middle group, that is, the poor small farmers; and the highest, that is, the well-to-do small farmers.Lenin was thus the first to define the class structure of the agricultural population (then 77 per cent of the country's total population) by showing that about 48.5 million people were rural proletarians and semi-proletarians, about 29.1 million were poor small farmers and, finally, about 19.4 million were well-to-do small farmers.
Lenin further demonstrated that the so-called small craft industries represented rudimentary forms of capitalist co-operation and capitalist manufacture: that was why it was wrong to oppose the small craft industries---which to a large extent constituted the first stage of capitalist production---to capitalism, which some economists thought of only as factory industry.
Lenin proved that big capitalist industry in Russia not only continued to grow, but possessed an "enormous capacity to develop its productive forces'', and that a technical revolution was in progress at that time (the 18905) in Russia.
After investigating in detail all the forms of capitalist industry, Lenin also became the first to define the class composition of the commercial and industrial population of Russia. It consisted of four groups:
1. Big bourgeoisie..............about 1.5 million
2. Well-to-do small producers......... " 2.2 million
3. Needy small producers........... " 4.8 million
4. Proletarians and semi-proletarians..... " 13.2 million ~
Then by combining the agricultural, commercial and industrial, and unproductive sections of the population, Lenin arrived at the following approximate distribution of the entire population of Russia according to class status:
Big bourgeoisie, landlords, bigh officials, etc.
about 3.0 million
Well-to-do small proprietors......... " 23.1
Poor small proprietors............ " 35.8 "
Proletarians and semi-proletarians...... " 63.7
Total
125.6~million.^^1^^
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 505.
90In the course of his analysis of the statistics relating to the socio-economic relations existing in the country, Lenin showed that small production was being replaced more and more by big capitalist production and that the latter was growing rapidly, as were the number of workers in big factories. The concentration of both production and population by big capitalist enterprises, the steadily decreasing share of the population engaged in agriculture (in which the most backward forms of socio-economic relations arc always to be found), and the increasing number of large industrial centres convincingly spoke of the development of capitalism in Russia.
Lenin wrote that if one compared the pre-capitalist period in Russia with the capitalist period, one would have to admit that the progress of the national economy had been exceedingly rapid. But if one compared this rate of progress with what might have been possible with modern technological and cultural standards, the capitalist development of Russia would have to be regarded as slow. And Lenin indicated the causes of this relative backwardness: "in no single capitalist country has there been such an abundant survival of ancient institutions that are incompatible with capitalism, retard its development, and immeasurably worsen the condition of the = producers."^^1^^
The picture of the actual process of Russia's economic development in the post-Reform period, and the precise analysis of the class structure of Russia given by Lenin in The Development of Capitalism in Russia, laid the foundations for the tremendous amount of work which he did in preparing the Programme of the RSDLP.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ Lenin's Theory of ImperialismLenin had worked out many specific points of his theory of imperialism long before he wrote his classic book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Dozens of Lenin's documents now published in complete form in the Fifth Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works touch, in one way or another, upon the question of imperialism. This section is intended not only to explain the main points of Lenin's theory of imperialism, but also to show the great significance of this theory in describing the operation of the general laws of capitalism under conditions of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 599.
91 monopoly capitalist domination, and in analysing the main problems of modern capitalism.No matter how bourgeois economists, revisionists and dogmatists have tried and still try to set Lenin against Marx, i.e., to separate Leninism from Marxism, and to declare Marxism to be a 19th century doctrine which has lost its meaning in present-day conditions-despite this, Marxism-Leninism has never been anything other than a single integral doctrine, constantly changing along with changing historical conditions.
Lenin's book Imperialism, the Highest Stags of Capitalist! is a work of genius, developing further and directly continuing Marx's Capital.
Lenin's conclusion that imperialism is the highest and the final stage of capitalism is based on the Marxist tenet that free competition leads to the concentration of production, which in turn leads, at a certain stage, to monopoly.
"Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete = socialisation."^^1^^
Lenin proved that the deepest economic roots of imperialism are in monopoly. He also made clear the organic connection between competition and monopoly.
One of the main points of Lenin's theory of imperialism is his conclusion that the chief and most essential features of capitalism as a socio-economic system arc not radically changed by imperialism: "Imperialism complicates and sharpens the contradictions of capitalism, it 'tics up' monopoly with free competition, but it cannot do away with exchange, the market, competition, crises, = etc."^^2^^
While the imperialist pyramid has at its top a handful of giant monopolies playing an increasingly decisive part in economics and politics, at its foot is an enormous base of old capitalism.
It is in the light of the two opposing but combined ``elements'' of capitalism, competition and monopoly, that one should consider the operation of the law of value and average profit, together with the trend towards a falling rate of profit, cyclical changes, and the question of the scale and speed of extended reproduction under monopoly capitalist domination.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 205.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 464.
92The monopoly price is a very effective weapon in the exploitation of the workers and a means of enriching a handful of capitalist monopolies. It gives rise to a further sharpening of the struggle between labour and capital, between the monopoly bourgeoisie and the middle and petty bourgeoisie, and between the economically backward countries and the developed capitalist countries. The latter buy raw materials and foodstuffs from underdeveloped countries on the cheap and sell them manufactured goods at a premium.
"The extent to which monopolist capital has intensified all the contradictions of capitalism is generally known. It is sufficient to mention the high cost of living and the tyranny of the = cartels."^^1^^
This inflating of commodity prices by monopolies severely brakes the growth of production. In his article "The Oil Hunger" Lenin asks: "What lies at the bottom of the oil question?" In reply he writes: "First of all it is the shameless inflation of oil prices by the oil kings accompanied by the artificial curtailment of oil-well and refinery productivity by these 'knights' of capitalist profit."^^2^^
Bourgeois economists do not understand the essence of the transition from free competition to monopoly production. After weighing up all the positive and negative points of both free competition and monopoly production, they are inclined to favour monopoly production, since the latter, according to them, ensures organised large-scale production and technical progress. But their desire to present the capitalist monopoly as the last word in large-- scale production and high efficiency does not hold water.
Monopoly capitalism does not and cannot lead to the complete socialisation of production, as public means of production under capitalism remain the private property of a small number of people. Growing socialisation of production within the framework of private capitalist property relations and private capitalist appropriation can lead only to an increase in the power of a handful of capitalist monopolies over the whole of society.
Capitalist monopolies introduce new technology aimed at lowering costs of production. As a result of the lowering of costs, profits go up---but prices do not go down, as a rule. And this means that the development of the forces of production and technical advance are confronted by the tendency to stagnation characteristic of monopoly, which imperialism is not able fully to overcome.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 300.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 34.
93"Certainly, the possibility of reducing the cost of production and increasing profits by introducing technical improvements operates in the direction of change. But the tendency to stagnation and decay, which is characteristic of monopoly, continues to operate, and in some branches of industry, in some countries, for certain periods of time, it gains the upper = hand."^^1^^
Some bourgeois economists, recognising the negative aspects of monopoly, seek refuge in free competition. But the magnates of capital turn to their own advantage, and to the detriment of everybody else, both competition and monopoly. Reserves of productive capacity are used by Big Business as levers for winning new positions in sales markets. Simultaneously these reserves are also used to maintain monopoly price systems. Thus, the incomplete employment of productive capacities is the capitalist monopolies' means of crushing rivals without price lowering, and indeed keeping monopoly prices high.
Bourgeois ideologists close their eyes to the fact that under monopoly rule competition changes its nature by becoming a tool of monopoly capital. Whereas in conditions of free competition there is a struggle between small and large concerns and between technically backward and technically advanced ones, under monopoly capitalism the monopolies often simply sweep away from their path competitors who threaten to smash monopoly price systems by the extensive implementation of new technology, expanded production and lower prices. The monopolies employ many methods for this purpose, including the planned beating down of prices until a competitor is ruined.
The report of the US Congress Committee on Price Discrimination (1956) mentioned the monopolies' policy of selling "below cost to subjugate rivals too efficient to be dealt with competitively".^^2^^
Bourgeois economists continue to sing the praises of competition as the foundation of private enterprise, private initiative and other ``virtues'' of capitalism. They call modern competition `` imperfect'', but they don't see its true features.
Nearly half a century ago in his article "How to Organise Competition?" Lenin wrote, referring to monopoly capitalism: "Competition means the incredibly brutal suppression of the enterprise, energy and bold initiative of the mass of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 276.
~^^2^^ Price Discrimination. A Report of the Select Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, 1956, p. 167.
94 population, of its overwhelming majority, of ninety-nine out of every hundred toilers; it also means that competition is replaced by financial fraud, nepotism, servility on the upper rungs of the social = ladder."^^1^^The socialisation of production, technical progress, and the gigantic possibilities for expanding production are taken advantage of by a handful of capitalist monopolies. Each of the five main features of imperialism mirror this combination of competition and monopoly, giving rise to the sharpest contradictions and undermining the basis of imperialism.
The contradiction between competition and monopoly manifests itself on a world scale in the export of capital. Indeed the search for ever new fields for investing capital, dictated by competition, and the rise of a few nations possessing financial power over the rest of the world, resulting from monopoly, make of the world capitalist system a system of financial oppression of capitalist countries, particularly those with underdeveloped economy, by a handful of imperialist states. The export of capital combines competition and monopoly, spawning innumerable conflicts and all manner of forms of struggle for markets.
Lenin said in this connection that the higher the development of capitalism, the sharper its need for raw materials, and the keener the competition and the search for new sources of raw materials the world over, the more desperate is the drive to acquire colonies.
Each of the economic features of imperialism represents some form of monopoly, but none of the manifestations of monopoly rule exclude competition, struggle, conflict and economic breakdown. On the contrary, they presuppose them. "In fact it is this combination of antagonistic principles, viz., competition and monopoly, that is the essence of imperialism, it is this that is making for the final crash, i.e., the socialist = revolution."^^2^^
Lenin devoted a great deal of attention to state-monopoly capitalism. The development of Lenin's theory of state-monopoly capitalism went through three stages. In his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism he defined the place of state monopolies in the capitalist system.
"State monopoly in capitalist society is merely a means of increasing and guaranteeing the income of millionaires in some branch of industry who are on the verge of = bankruptcy."^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 404.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 465.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 218.
95Further, Lenin stressed the ``interweaving'' of private and state monopolies in the era of finance capital, saying "that both are but separate links in the imperialist struggle between the big monopolists for the division of the = world".^^1^^
In the rough copy of the draft theses for the Appeal to the International Socialist Commission and to All Socialist Parties (January 1917), Lenin introduced the concept of state capitalism, which he regarded in terms of regulating capitalist economies and of the imminent revolutionary transition to socialism. "In the course of the war world capitalism has taken a forward step not only towards concentration in general, but also towards transition from monopoly in general to state capitalism on a much broader scale than = before."^^2^^
State capitalism sharpens all the contradictions of capitalism, and makes capitalist monopoly oppression even more intolerable than before. Lenin described how both America and Germany regulate economic life in such a way as to enforce the worst kind of "penal servitude" on the workers (and partly on the peasants, too), while making a paradise for the bankers and capitalists. This regulation consists in "bringing up" the workers to the starvation level, and in securing for the capitalists (secretly, and by bureaucratic means) higher profits than before the war.
In his speech to the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the Bolshevik Party Lenin points to the organic connection between state-monopoly capitalism and the concentration of production and the formation of capitalist monopolies. Some time later in his lecture "War and Revolution" Lenin observed that German imperialism, even more rapacious than British imperialism, "introduced the beginnings of state-controlled capitalist production, combining the colossal power of capitalism with the colossal power of the state into a single mechanism and bringing tens of millions of people within the single organisation of state = capitalism".^^3^^
In The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Lenin deals with the development of monopoly capitalism in Russia into state-monopoly capitalism. "That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the = Prodamet,^^4^^ the Sugar Syndicate, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 251,
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 212.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 403.
~^^4^^ The Produgol (dealing in the mineral fuel of the Donets Basin) and the Prodamet (selling the products of Russian metal plants) were the __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 97. 96 etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly = capitalism."^^1^^
The difference between the Sugar Syndicate on the one hand, and the Produgol and the Prodamet on the other, lay in the fact that the parties to the latter syndicates regulated production and prices without the direct participation of the state, while in the case of the Sugar Syndicate the government controlled sugar production by introducing restrictions on home consumption through rationing and taxing sugar sold on the home market. In addition, the government introduced a system of rebates on sugar exports. As a result, Russian sugar was sold in London 61.3 per cent cheaper than at home. It goes without saying that it was only by means of state-controlled production and regulation in the interests of the landowners and the sugar factory owners, or to be more precise, through sugar starvation engineered by factory owners with the direct assistance of the government, that it was possible to squeeze the consumer so hard and guarantee fantastically high profits to the sugar industry.
Lenin exposed the true face of the reactionary bureaucratic regulation of production in the interests of the magnates of capital and developed an extensive programme of revolutionary democratic measures with the immediate aim of employing state control and regulation of production in the interests of the people. When he advanced the demand for the nationalisation of the banks, Lenin stressed that this measure, without presupposing even the smallest changes in property relations and without taking away a single kopek from the owners, would nevertheless secure, together with other measures, control over the country's economic life in the interests of the people, particularly of the peasant masses and small producers. Demanding the nationalisation of the syndicates, the Sugar Syndicate among them, Lenin explained that this measure only meant the replacement of reactionary-bureaucratic regulation by revolutionary-democratic control.
Lenin emphasised very strongly the democratic character of these measures and pointed out that their implementation would not entail the introduction of socialism overnight, but only the organisation of effective control over production and consumption; _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 96. biggest capitalist monopolies in tsarist Russia. The first of these syndicates, organised in 1904, ceased operations in 1916 as a result of sharp conflicts, and the second, formed in the Southern mining area of the country in 1902, was nationalised by the Soviet Government in = 1918.
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 357.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---1974 97 that it would save the country from famine and ever greater devastation, curtail the power of the landowners and capitalists, and cut back the high rates of profits which they made out of the high cost of living, the supply of war materials, financial swindling and direct treasury grabbing.Lenin uncovered the real cause of the wild resistance to the introduction of such democratic measures put up by imperialists and their apologists, who call themselves democrats. It is more profitable for finance capitalists to keep banks private as they can then preserve the secrecy of their financial operations, obtain super profits, and engage in financial swindling and speculation.
Not only ``backward'' Russian capitalists feared nationalisation in 1917, the whole of the modern imperialist bourgeoisie fears it too. And that when its ideologists boast that modern capitalism has become a "people's" capitalism, that the very concept of imperialism has become an anachronism, and that private property is no longer vital for modern large-scale enterprise. However, if one judges modern capitalism not by the claims of its apologists but by the actions of capitalists, one will be convinced that the magnates of capital guard the ``sacred'' principle of private property like the apple of their eye, treating state ownership only as a means of strengthening their own private capitalist property. They resist all nationalisation, even when it is of a blatantly capitalist character, that is, when it is realised in such a way as to meet the needs of the monopolies to the maximum while taking minimal account of the demands of the workers.
The trend towards state control is a result of the development of monopoly capitalism. From free competition to monopoly and from private monopoly to state-controlled monopoly---that is the objective historical path of development of monopoly capitalism. But this trend at the same time comes into the sharpest conflict with the existing general level of development of capitalism, i.e., with the domination of competition and private capitalist monopoly. There are, as it were, three layers of contradictions piled one on top of another, and these leave their mark on the process by which bourgeois state control is extended under monopoly capitalism.
Reformists and revisionists try to prove that state property under monopoly capitalism constitutes a socialist sector, an " embryo" of socialism. They thus sow reformist illusions, diverting the workers from the revolutionary struggle against monopoly and against capitalist exploitation.
98Lenin observed that the most common mistake in the labour movement is the bourgeois-reformist belief that monopoly capitalism, in particular state-monopoly capitalism, is no longer capitalism. To the bourgeois economist, and to the revisionist, the regulated economy is no longer a capitalist one. The dogmatist, on the other hand, runs for dear life from the very idea of a state-- regulated economy for fear of finding himself imprisoned by revisionism. He cannot comprehend the organic connection between socialised production, the regulation of economic life and the creation of the necessary prerequisites for the socialist revolution. Knowingly or unknowingly, he ignores the main content of state-monopoly capitalism. While Lenin struggled against revisionism, he also struggled against the oversimplification and ignoring of the deep changes that occur in the economy with the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism.
"The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards = socialism."^^1^^
Lenin always stressed that state-monopoly capitalism represents the most complete material preparation for socialism. He explained that although trusts are not able to create a fully planned economy under state-monopoly capitalism, big capitalists can and do regulate production on a national and even an international scale, objectively demonstrating the feasibility of socialism, which not only makes a fully planned economy possible but also radically changes the whole character of the planned economy in the interests of the people.
Lenin, who was the first to observe the process of development of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism and to give a scientific explanation of it, wrote over fifty years ago:
"Under private ownership of the means of production, all these steps towards greater monopolisation and control of production by the state are inevitably accompanied by intensified exploitation of the working people, by an increase in oppression; it becomes more difficult to resist the exploiters, and reaction and military despotism grow. At the same time these steps inevitably lead to a tremendous growth in the profits of the big capitalists at the expense of all other sections of the population. . . . But with private ownership of the means of production _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 359.
__PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1970/LGT390/20060322/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.22) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __MANUAL_EDITS__ 1. "-" to "---" :DONE, YES. abolished and state power passing completely to the proletariat, these very conditions are a pledge of success for society's transformation that will do away with the exploitation of man by man and ensure the well-being of = everyone."^^1^^The development of state-monopoly capital is inseparably linked with the militarisation of the economies of the imperialist nations. Lenin was the first to expose the economic basis of imperialist wars and to show that they are the inevitable outcome of the development of the world economic and political forces based on monopoly capitalism and unrestrained imperialist rule. At the same time Lenin never saw war only as an economic phenomenon and resolutely rejected any attempt to put wars and such purely economic phenomena as crises on the same footing. In his article "Revision of the Party Programme'', Lenin wrote: "the linking up of 'crises and wars' is particularly incorrect, for these are quite different phenomena of different historical origin and different class = significance."^^2^^
Lenin pointed out even before the First World War that alongside the need to use the crisis brought about by war to speed up the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, there was also the possibility of using the general crisis of world capitalism, which had been aggravated by the preparations for the war and the intensified arms race, in the struggle against bourgeois class domination.
``. . .Wars are rooted in the very essence of capitalism; they will end only when the capitalist system ceases to exist, or when the immensity of human and financial sacrifice caused by the development of military technique, and the indignation which armaments arouse in the people, lead to the elimination of the system."^^3^^
Bourgeois political economists often regard militarisation as a means of stimulating the economy. Need it be said that a social system which uses the production of weapons of mass extermination as a means of stimulating the economy pronounces its own death sentence? Lenin once observed that modern big capitalist industry is always engaged either in creating unemployment in the most flourishing and affluent countries, or else in doing nothing but fabricating weapons to destroy people.
In his works on imperialism Lenin dealt with the general _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 309--10.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 162.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 193.
100 crisis of capitalism which set in with the outbreak of the First World War. He came to the conclusion that the capitalist order is in no position to withstand such a trial as a world war, and that both the instability of the capitalist system and its tendency to stagnate arc aggravated by the wars unleashed by the forces of imperialism."The strength or weakness of the institutions and social system of every nation arc determined by the outcome of the war and its = consequences."^^1^^
We are now in a position to sum up the experience of the two world wars, each of which demonstrated the weakness of imperialism, its inability to retain its pre-war positions and to prevent more and more nations dropping away from the capitalist system. The outcome and the consequences of the two world wars showed that Lenin was absolutely right when at the very onset of the First World War, he wrote:
"The European war is a tremendous historical crisis, the beginning of a new = epoch."^^2^^
Lenin repeatedly said that no force could abolish capitalism before it had been undermined by history. The general crisis of capitalism derives from the very essence of the capitalist mode of production, it is the product of its innermost contradictions. The dialectics of history is such that socialised production leads capitalism, at the highest stage of its development, into a general and insurmountable crisis. Capitalist socialised production then represents, as Lenin put it, the most complete material preparation for socialism. There is therefore an inner organic connection between Marx's theory of the process of socialisation of capitalist production at the various stages of its development, and Lenin's theory of imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism.
It is a fact that the most advanced country of the capitalist world, the USA, which amassed extraordinary wealth in the course of two world wars, is steadily falling behind in rates of economic growth. US industrial production fell 16 per cent during the first post-war (1946) recession. Four more recessions followed (1949--61). Another sharp drop in the rate of growth of the economy in 1967 led to an over-all average rate of growth for the entire post-war period (1946--69) of 3.8 per cent---that is, almost three times lower than the average Soviet _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 17, p. 189.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 98.
101 rate (10.8 per cent), despite the USA's rapid progress over particular periods (especially 1962--66) as a result of the scientific and technological revolution and the development of state-= monopoly capitalism.The somewhat accelerated US rate of growth after World War II compared to that in the inter-war period is largely connected with the militarisation of the economy that has intensified even more the parasitism of American capitalism. Lenin observed in his time that the increased parasitism that went with economic progress was intrinsic to monopoly capitalism. He wrote in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: "In the United States, economic development in the last decades has been even more rapid than in Germany, and for this very reason, the parasitic features of modern American capitalism have stood out with particular = prominence."^^1^^
Lenin's characterisation of state-monopoly capitalism as the last stage in the historical development of capitalism indicates the futility of the frantic search by this moribund system for a way out of its general crisis by extending state interference in the economy. The experience of history tells us that state-monopoly capitalism greatly increases the exploitation of labour by capital, resulting in the fantastic enrichment of the financial oligarchy which appropriates the fruits of scientific and technical progress. And by encouraging the military application of advances in technology, state-monopoly capitalism confronts mankind with the threat of thermo-nuclear war.
Lenin also defined the historical role of the national liberation movement in the destruction of world capitalism. He showed that this movement in the course of its development would grow from a potential reserve of the world socialist revolution into a vital component part of the entire process of the revolutionary transition from capitalism and imperialism to socialism and communism on a world scale.
__*_*_*__The economic theory of Marxism and, in particular, the Marxist political economy of capitalism, was developed by Lenin in a number of his works over a period of three decades, from 1893 to 1923, above all in his books The Development of Capitalism in Russia and Imperialism, the Highest Stage oj Capitalism. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 301.
102 Both books are a continuation and enlargement of Marx's Capital.The first book is a classic example of the creative application of Marxist theory to Russia's economic and political conditions in the post-Reform period. Lenin's analysis of the position and interests of the various classes just before the first Russian revolution brought out the economic basis of the proletariat's leading role in this revolution.
In the second book Lenin analysed monopoly capitalism, the economic features of imperialism and the place of imperialism in history, and on this basis gave the theory of capitalist development in the period of the maturing of the conditions for and the carrying through of the socialist revolution.
The October Socialist Revolution shook the entire edifice of world capitalism to its foundations, the world was divided into two opposing systems, and the process of the disintegration of capitalism and the generation of a new, socialist society---a new era in the history of mankind---began.
[103] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S DEVELOPMENTBy G. A. KOZLOV
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were the first to establish scientifically the objective necessity for the replacement of capitalism by communism. They made clear the main features of the communist society, gave some of the principal laws of its development, and showed the need for the two phases of communism. Marx and Engels demonstrated the inevitability of the victory of communism on the basis of their study of the general laws of the pre-socialist social formations. Thus the essential principles of the political economy of socialism were brought out in the works of Marx and Engels. But there was no experience of building socialism at the time they were written, and they could therefore contain only the most general scientific concept of the future society.
When the proletarian revolution and the building of socialism became the immediate tasks of the day, the need arose to develop further the economic theory of socialism. Lenin was the first, after Marx and Engels, to work out the scientific foundations of the political economy of socialism, and thus to create a new section of political economy. The entire programme of building the socialist economy and the practical work of the Communist Party and the Soviet state have been based on these scientific foundations laid by Lenin.
Half a century's experience has fully confirmed the truth of Lenin's theory which will continue to light the way of the people in their struggle to build communism.
Marx and Engels showed that under capitalism the objective and subjective prerequisites are prepared for a new, socialist mode of production, which can however only come into existence 104 through socialist revolution and the setting up of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Lenin elucidated the question of the rise of the socialist mode of production, taking into account the whole history of capitalist development. He showed that imperialism is a stage when capitalism has become over-ripe, when history has led mankind to the verge of the creation of a new mode of production, i.e., that imperialism represents the eve of the socialist revolution. He discovered that under imperialism the entire world capitalist system is objectively prepared for the socialist revolution, but because of the extreme uncvcnness of the economic and political development of the capitalist countries, the simultaneous victory of socialism in all countries is impossible. In these conditions a socialist victory becomes possible and necessary at first in only one or a small number of countries, and then, later on, as a result of revolutions, in other countries breaking away from the capitalist system, up to the complete victory of the proletariat the world over.
Lenin's theory of socialist revolution defines the transition to socialism as an entire historical period of proletarian revolutions and national liberation movements. This theory has been proved correct in practice. Proletarian revolutions have already triumphed in a number of countries. A socialist world economic system has sprung up alongside the capitalist one. The coexistence of the countries belonging to these two systems is inevitable until those nations still under capitalism solve the question of their transition to socialism. The course of events over the last half century is graphic evidence of the force of Lenin's historical prediction.
The successful development of the world revolution has enriched the content of the present epoch, making it an epoch of the triumphant building of socialism and communism, of struggle between two diametrically opposed world economic systems, an epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Bourgeois economists often say that Marxists had no idea what society would be like after the revolution. This assertion is a mixture of slander, naivety and ignorance. The followers of Marx and Engels already knew what the main features of the new society that was to replace capitalism and which would be based on socialist property relations, would be like. However, the concrete forms of this new society, and the concrete ways of building it were not yet known. There were no books containing information about the concrete forms, rates and timing, etc., of socialist transformations. These things could only be learned by 105 summing up the practical experience of the people in the actual course of building socialism.
Lenin skilfully developed the methodology of Marxism and applied it to the analysis and the solution of the tasks of the new epoch. He dealt with the objective nature of economic laws, the priority of production over consumption, the application of the principle of historicity, the unity of all the fields of economics and their interaction, the question of the objective and the subjective in social life, of the economic role of the state and the relation of economics to politics, and of what the proper subjects of economic investigation should be. All these questions were analysed by Lenin in solving the problems of building socialism.
Through the consistent application and development of Marxist methodology, Lenin also elaborated the questions of the rise and advance of the socialist mode of production, and the paths of transition from capitalism to socialism. He advanced further and gave concrete content to the Marxist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, made a thorough study of production relations in the transition period, the class structure of the transitional economy, and the question of the alliance of the working class and the peasantry in the struggle for socialism and the complete elimination of exploitation. Lenin enlarged upon Marx's ideas concerning the laws of the socialist mode of production, and showed how they arose and what their content is.
Lenin also studied the questions of socialist property and its forms, the need for the planned development of the socialist economy, the introduction of a new socialist labour discipline, and universal people's control and accounting in production. He revealed the significance of combining moral and material incentives, defined the role of the principle of material incentive and the need for commodity-money relations during the construction of socialism and communism. On this basis, Lenin described the chief methods of conducting a socialist economy, pointed out the need to implement the principle of self-- sufficiency and economic accounting at enterprises, and indicated the various means of ensuring socialist accumulation.
In addition, Lenin made clear the importance of the policies of the socialist state for securing the victory of socialism. He became the first person to elaborate a concrete plan of socialist construction.
Half a century of experience has fully confirmed the accuracy of Lenin's theory. The recognition of this theory by the international communist movement is contained in the 106 Declaration of the Meeting of the Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries (November 1957). All the points of this Declaration are based entirely on the Marxist theory of building socialism as developed by Lenin and on the historic experience of the USSR and the other countries now building socialism.
The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow in 1969 declared in its Main Document: " Socialism has shown mankind the prospect of deliverance from imperialism. ... It has been proved that only socialism is capable of solving the fundamental problems facing mankind."
Lenin's theory indicates the ways, means, and forms of socialist construction, and also arms the people with the only correct scientific theory of building socialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ The Rise of Socialist Relations of ProductionLenin always proceeded from the fact that socialism docs not come into being simply because people want it, but inevitably, according to objective economic laws that are independent of the will and consciousness of man. Imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalist society which must inevitably be followed by socialism. Imperialism represents such a high level in the development of the social character of production that the immediate possibility of socialising the most vital means of production is created.
Lenin sharply criticised the Menshcviks and various bourgeois ``theoreticians'' who said that the Bolsheviks wished arbitrarily to set up new forms of social relations. He wrote that people who thought this "do not understand . . . what imperialism is, what capitalist monopoly is, what the state is, and what revolutionary democracy is. For anyone who understands this is bound to admit that there can be no advance except towards socialism."^^1^^
The objective laws of social development are such that it is not possible for the socialist economic system to come into being in the womb of capitalism---becausc of the difference in type between socialist and capitalist property. This was shown by Marx and Kngels.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. ^^, p. 357.
107Lenin demonstrated that the introduction of socialist relations in the economy is one of the first measures of the proletarian revolution, which, unlike the bourgeois revolution, inherits no ready-= made forms of new relations as a legacy from the old system. It has to create them itself. These new forms of relations do not arise in the natural course of events, but are built by the dictatorship of the proletariat in the course of class struggle. Establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat is a sine qua non in the creation of socialist relations.
The new socialist mode of production comes into existence only with the revolutionary elimination of capitalist monopoly of the means of production, and the passing of the implements and means of production into the hands of the working people. Socialist property cannot arise in any other way. And without socialist property it is obviously impossible to build a new socialist society---this can begin only with the appearance of the new property relations. No new economic laws can arise except on a new economic basis, and no new policies can lead to the construction of socialism except on the basis of new property relations.
Lenin brought out the fact that the property question is the main question in the transition from capitalism to socialism. He said at the Ninth Congress of the Russian Communist Party ( Bolsheviks) that property relations are the basis of class domination. Working-class domination is expressed in the abolition of landownership and capitalist property.
Lenin explained the socialist nationalisation of the most vital means of production as a measure objectively prepared for by the entire development of capitalism. Proceeding from the specific features of imperialism that he had discovered, he indicated the correct methods and order for the socialising of the means of production: in particular, the nationalising of the big monopolies, trusts and syndicates as the most important step in the direction of socialism.
Again, by taking into account the experience of the Paris Commune, which Marx had summarised, and the specific features of imperialism as the period of the domination of finance capital, Lenin advanced the need, as one of the first measures of the victorious proletariat, to nationalise the banks.
Lenin was also the first to point out the possibility of nationalising the most important means of production in the course of the development and deepening of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and the great significance of this for the development 108 of the socialist revolution. He advanced the idea even before the October Revolution that such a measure would lead to the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist one.
In order to undermine the economic power of the capitalists, to eliminate their monopoly position in the economic life of the country and to build socialism, it is absolutely indispensable for the "commanding heights" of the economy to become the property of the people.
Right-wing socialists try in vain to erase the radical difference between the capitalist and socialist systems. They claim that socialism is now being built in some of those countries where the bourgeoisie still retains power. But in fact, of course, the power of the bourgeoisie always rests on the domination of capitalist property relations.
With bourgeois nationalisation, the means of production pass into the collective possession of the capitalist class as a whole. That is why the ruling classes of imperialist states tolerate the nationalisation of some industries. But socialist nationalisation of the means of production differs radically from this.
Presenting the different forms of state-monopoly capitalism as socialism is an old trick of revisionists and all and sundry opportunists, who are the open apologists of capitalism. Revisionists do not stop at this, however. While ascribing to state-- monopoly property a socialist character, they at the same time deny the socialist character of state property in the socialist countries, and demand the transfer of state socialist factories into the hands of individual collectives. But they are not original in this; they rather repeat what all sorts of anarcho-syndicalists have advanced in their time and against whom Lenin called upon us to wage a resolute struggle: "Any direct or indirect legalisation of the rights of ownership of the workers of any given factory or any given trade on their particular production, or of their right to weaken or impede the orders of the state authority, is a flagrant distortion of the basic principles of Soviet power and a complete rejection of = socialism."^^1^^
The necessity for genuine public ownership is dictated by the objective state of development of the productive forces. The whole economic point of the socialist revolution is, before anything else, to replace private ownership by social ownership.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, pp. 100--01.
109Socialist property comes into being as a result of the operation of objective economic laws. The new form of property and the new relations of production in their turn also give rise to new economic laws which determine the entire path of progress of the new society.
Opportunist elements have always denied, and still deny, the operation of objective economic laws under socialism, saying that the progress of such a society liberates it from the power of objective laws since its economy is directed only by the will of man. For instance, Hilferding, Bukharin and others declared at one time or another that political economy concerns itself only with spontaneously developing economies, and that, consequently, there is no place for political economy under socialism. Denying the existence of objective economic laws under socialism and ignoring the political economy of socialism can completely mislead the proletariat in its economic policy, divorce it from objective reality and lead to all manner of false, subjective, adventurist steps, i.e., to the unleashing of spontaneity. Lenin unreservedly condemned this. He was guided by the idea that the progress of any mode of production---and this, therefore, includes socialism---is determined by objective laws specific to the given mode of production.
Even at the time of his struggle against the Narodniks, Lenin held that Marx's greatest achievement was his discovery of socio-economic formations. Marx combined in the concept "socio-= economic formation" phenomena specific to different countries but having in common certain vital features reflecting a definite mode of production, despite the different concrete economic conditions of this or that country. Every socio-economic formation develops with the objective force of necessity in the direction dictated by the essence of the given mode of production, and not by the force of chance circumstance.
Lenin proved that objective economic laws operate under socialism, too. He said many times that socialism could not be ``introduced'', that it developed only on the basis of definite objective conditions, and that Marxism meant the application of the theory of development in its most consistent form not only to capitalism but also "to the future development of future com- munism".^^1^^
Lenin thus shows that to define political economy as the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 458.
110 science of the development of spontaneous commodity production means deviating from the scientific definition that has been given by Engcls.Since the progress of socialism is determined by objective laws, it follows that there exists under socialism, as under any formation, a basic economic law defining the main direction of its movement and progress, and expressing the essence of the socialist mode of production. Lenin defined this essence in the following words:
"For the first time after centuries of working for others, of forced labour for the exploiter, it has become possible to work for oneself and moreover to employ all the achievements of modern technology and culture in one's = work."^^1^^
The purpose of socialist production is not arbitrary, but springs directly from the new character of social relations. The people, as the masters of socialist enterprises, cannot be guided in their activities by the pursuit of profit (this applies even more so to the activities of private individuals). The people rather subordinate production to an entirely new purpose, viz., that of meeting the needs of the whole of society. Profit is only one of the means of achieving this aim. The question of the objective tasks to which socialist production is geared, was discussed by Lenin from all sides along the lines of the teachings of Marx and Engels. Engels wrote that socialist production is designed to meet "the needs of the community and of each = individual".^^2^^
In Lenin's Draft Programme of the Party (prepared for the Second Congress of the Party), the purpose of the socialist organisation of production was given as that of guaranteeing the full well-being and free, all-round development of all the members of = society.^^3^^ This formula was introduced fully into the Party Programme adopted by the Eighth Congress of the Party. In a number of his speeches after the October Revolution, Lenin pointed out that the progress of science and technology under socialism was geared to the task of making the life of the working people easier and better.
This task is solved by developing the productive forces of society on the basis of collective labour, that is, of work for oneself, in this way securing the steady growth and improvement of production. In essence, Lenin put forward all the points of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 407.
~^^2^^ Engels, Anti-D\"uhring, Moscow, 1962, p. 383.
~^^3^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 28.
111 the basic economic law of socialism, that is, the law defining the principal line of progress of the socialist mode of production.Can one really say that work for oneself only represents a subjective wish, the aspiration of the individual, when it is quite clear that collective work for oneself is objectively conditioned by the entire process of social production, engendered by the objective conditions of society's progress and is, therefore, an objective law. It is also indisputable that such work for oneself, work aimed at improving the welfare of the people, can attain its aim only if it constantly strives to increase its effectiveness. Again, no matter what specific features individual socialist countries may have, and no matter what their different economic levels, the progress of all the socialist countries is directly subordinated to but one and the same task, the full satisfaction of the needs of the people. It is in this that the essence of the new socio-economic formation, unlike capitalism, finds its fullest expression.
__*_*_*__The aim of production under socialism is radically different from that of capitalist production and follows from the social ownership of the means of production. The realisation of this aim, and the extent to which it is fulfilled, depend on the radical changes taking place first of all in the production process itself, in the relations among people taking part in production, and in the development of the productive forces.
Public ownership of the means of production was introduced in Russia after the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, creating the necessary conditions for united work within the framework of the whole of society. Labour has assumed a new character since it has been freed from exploitation. Lenin was the first in economic science to deal with the question of the specific character of socialist labour. Marx and Engels gave the general definition of labour under socialism as social labour free from exploitation and organised in a planned way. This definition was enlarged upon by Lenin. He showed that the new relations that arise in the labour process are those of comradely co-= operation, subject only to the common interest.
New property relations, and the elimination of the exploitation of man by man, meant the appearance of a new, socialist labour discipline. Lenin made clear the main characteristics of socialist labour discipline, and its distinction in principle from that of any exploiting society. He defined it as "the discipline of 112 class-conscious and united working people, who know no yoke and no authority except the authority of their own unity, of their own, more class-conscious, bold, solid, revolutionary and steadfast = vanguard".^^1^^ Socialist labour discipline is thus a discipline of comradeship subordinated to the interests of a collective.
Lenin showed that socialist relations of production find their best expression in socialist emulation. Socialist labour discipline is based on a conscious attitude to work. Its strengthening therefore requires a persistent struggle against the view that work is only one's own private business. Lenin saw all the difficulties of introducing the new labour discipline. But he also saw the inevitability of its consolidation.
Only on the basis of public ownership and the elimination of exploitation does the possibility arise for workers to show genuine creative initiative. Socialism not only does not curtail competitiveness but, on the contrary, it is the first social system to involve the widest sections of the people in emulation.
Lenin recognised the early buds of the conscious attitude towards work in the first communist subbotniks and these buds have broken into rich blossom under socialism. Lenin's prediction concerning the growth of socialist emulation was wholly based on his belief that there were tremendous, truly inexhaustible forces latent in the people. He made an exhaustive analysis of the significance of socialist emulation and showed it to be a stimulus to the most effective application of available resources, and that it enabled the best possible implementation of the general principles of socialist construction under local conditions. Lenin advanced these ideas in the atmosphere prevailing at the beginning of the revolution. But they have an even greater meaning in present-day conditions. Today, in the period of the gradual transition to communism in the USSR, none of the most burning questions of economic development can be solved without the widest and most active participation of the people. Lenin saw the main task of the Party in clearing the way for the initiative of the workers.
Both moral and material incentives are necessary in the promotion of socialist emulation. The material incentive, by securing personal interest in increasing the efficiency of socialist labour, was regarded by Lenin as an essential element in the new relations of production.
But the establishment of socialist labour discipline also calls, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 423.
__PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---1974 113 as Lenin pointed out, for the use of compulsion in dealing with the die-hards who cling to the old customs of giving the state as little as possible while taking more for themselves. However, in the course of the transition to communism, the method of direct state compulsion gradually develops into that of moral persuasion. This process is one aspect of the evolution of the communist attitude to work.Lenin considered it necessary to direct all the activities of the Party to the promotion of a high level of social consciousness among the working people, so that they become more and more accustomed to doing their public duty without the need for any special apparatus of compulsion. "Communism is the highest stage in the development of socialism, when people work because they realise the necessity of working for the common good,"^^1^^ he wrote.
"Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good---labour as the requirement of a healthy = organism."^^2^^
Lenin always held the firm belief that the socialist system of incentives is much more effective than the capitalist system of free enterprise, that is, competition and exploitation, inevitably crushing and ruining the greater part of the working people. Under capitalism, the success of the few is, and can only be, based on the sufferings of the vast majority.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ The Need to Create the Material and TechnicalThe socialist organisation of labour must be subordinated to the main aims and the principal tasks of socialist production. The mere transfer of capitalist property to the people does not signify _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 202.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 517.
114 the attainment of these aims. Lenin pointed out that the socialisation of production in practice requires more than the resolve to confiscate capitalist property. In The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, where he elaborates the programme of socialist construction, Lenin gave as the principal task "the introduction of the strictest and universal accounting and control of the production and distribution of goods, raising the productivity of labour and socialising production in prac- tice".^^1^^Thus, socialising production in practice means subordinating production to the interests and needs of society and creating the conditions for their fullest satisfaction. The main task in this is raising the productivity of labour.
"In every socialist revolution,'' Lenin wrote, "after the proletariat has solved the problem of capturing power, and to the extent that the task of expropriating the expropriators and suppressing their resistance has been carried out in the main, there necessarily comes to the forefront the fundamental task of creating a social system superior to capitalism, namely, raising the productivity of labour, and in this connection (and for this purpose) securing better organisation of = labour."^^2^^
On the basis of the new relations of production, it is possible and necessary to create the productive forces corresponding to the new mode of production and guaranteeing a higher productivity of labour than in former societies.
These propositions of Lenin's, based on the entire experience of human history, were directed against anti-Marxists who presented matters as if the new mode of production could come into existence only when there were fully developed productive forces present corresponding to it, and who therefore regarded the October Revolution as an arbitrary act out of conformity with the laws of history. But the experience of history showed that capitalism too had come into existence at a time when there were enterprises employing only or mostly manual labour.
Raising the productivity of labour is the central economic question facing a socialist society, and Marxism-Leninism provides the theoretical basis for dealing with it. Lenin devotes a number of important works to this question. The steady growth of labour productivity is the basic law of the socialist mode of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 241.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 257.
115 production because it means the constant improvement of production that is indispensable to socialism. The objective need for the steady growth of labour productivity arises from the need of society to develop and satisfy more and more completely the requirements of the people. It was only by raising labour productivity that the young Soviet Republic was able to ensure the victory of the socialist forms of labour over private capitalist forms. And it is now the most important factor in the world competition between capitalism and socialism, and in the struggle for the victory of communism."Communism is the higher productivity of labour---compared with that existing under capitalism---of voluntary, class-conscious and united workers employing advanced techniques,'' said Lenin.^^1^^
Increasing the productivity of labour necessitated the construction of a material basis of heavy industry together with the raising of the educational and cultural standards of the population; it also called for strict labour discipline and the steady improvement of the organisation of labour.
The victory of socialism presupposes the creation of new productive forces, corresponding to the socialist relations of production throughout the whole of the economy. Without the building of heavy industry, without an industry based on advanced technology, there could have been no victory for socialism. "A large-= scale machine industry capable of reorganising agriculture is the only material basis that is possible for socialism,'' Lenin = wrote.^^2^^
Without the growth of heavy industry the role of the working class could not have grown as quickly. In the concrete Russian conditions that existed on the eve of the October Revolution, the general level of industrial development was sufficient for the creation of a socialist industry, but it was nothing like sufficient for the reorganisation of the whole of the economy on the basis of the most up-to-date technology and for the socialising of labour throughout the national economy, i.e., for the complete victory of socialism. Lenin's plan for socialist construction envisaged the socialist industrialisation of the country as the only possible basis for co-operation in agriculture and for carrying through the cultural revolution.
Since the USSR was the only country in the world building socialism, and since it was surrounded by capitalist states, it was _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 427.
~^^2^^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 459.
116 impossible not to take into consideration the economic laws operating in those states. The effect of the operation of these laws is such that any backward country that remains backward inevitably becomes a prey of imperialism.That was why, having in mind the backwardness of Russia, the Russia of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, Lenin wrote even before the revolution that the new Russia would perish if she did not go full steam ahead from the very start. The proletariat had to solve an historical task which none of the previous ruling classes had been able to solve or even to set correctly, that is, the task of eliminating the technical and economic backwardness of the country. That was the only thing that could save the young Soviet land from national catastrophe and create the conditions for the victory of socialism.
Lenin repeatedly stressed that unless a heavy industry were built in the Soviet Republic it would perish not only as a socialist country but also as an independent country. The overthrow of the exploiters and the transfer of large-scale industry to the people made it possible to abolish the old Russia's economic and technical backwardness. The plan for socialist industrialisation which Lenin worked out was based on his summing up of the entire experience of world development and on his knowledge of the economic laws of socialism, laws that made possible and indeed demanded the taking of the new, unblazcd path of industrialisation.
Lenin's theory of socialist industrialisation took account of and was based on the enormous advantages of the Soviet economy, which made it possible in the shortest historical period to overcome the country's backwardness and build the material basis of socialism.
Lenin regarded the following as the necessary political conditions for guaranteeing the success of socialist industrialisation: the strengthening of the alliance between the working class and the working peasants, maintaining the confidence of the peasants in the working class, and retaining the workers' leading role in relation to the peasantry. The greater the assistance rendered by the working class to the peasants with means of production, the greater the faith of the peasants in the working class. Peasants need the industrial produce of the cities and if the workers, as their comrades, supply them with the implements of work and the cultural facilities, etc., that they require, then they are placed in a position to express their appreciation of this assistance in practice.
117Only a decisive upsurge in the level of the productive forces could have consolidated the new relations of production and ensured the complete victory of socialist property.
The acknowledgement of the priority of production arises from the application of the principle of historicity, which indicates that the progress of the productive forces under the new production relations leads to the further development and improvement of these relations. The method of materialist dialectics requires the application of the principle of historicity when analysing the laws of development of socialist relations.
Socialist property could not emerge at once in its most developed form. The way Lenin put the question of socialising production in practice showed that he thought that ownership by the whole people only developed with the growth of the productive forces. Lenin said that property of the whole people could not emerge at once throughout the economy and that a number of transitional forms of property were inevitable, the forms being related to the level of the forces of production and to the whole complicated process of the transformation of society.
But although he pointed out that the transference of the commanding heights of the economy to the working class was one of the first necessary steps of the proletarian revolution, Lenin did not hold that all capitalist enterprises should become socialist ones overnight. His great merit lay in his treatment of the question of state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat which he regarded as a transitional step aimed at the transformation of capitalist concerns into socialist ones.
Lenin showed that there are important points of difference between state capitalism under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and under the dictatorship of the proletariat. State capitalism under bourgeois rule represents the collective property of the capitalist class as a whole. The division of society into two classes, the exploiting class and the exploited class, remains; while under the rule of the proletariat, state capitalism is capitalism restricted and used by the state power of the proletariat in the interests of the socialist transformation of the economy. The working class is the ruling class controlling and restricting the capitalist enterprises, directing their activities for the good of socialism, in the interests of the working people.
Lenin also attached great importance to state capitalism as a form of economy which, because of its high technical organisation, can be brought under control more easily than the small scattered 118 economy that is the basis of spontaneity in the transitional economy.
State-capitalist enterprises never became very widespread in the USSR, because of the particularly sharp class struggles which developed into the civil war. But in some other countries which have taken the socialist road, the forms of state capitalism have been and are still used more widely.
State capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the forms of the peaceful transition from the capitalist economy to the socialist economy.
The question of socialist property evolving as a result of small farms going through a number of intermediate economic forms was of great theoretical and practical importance. In this connection, Lenin always spoke first of all of the need to retain and strengthen the political and economic alliance of the working class and the peasantry led by the working class as the main condition for the successful construction of socialism.
Lenin solved the question of land nationalisation in the conditions that prevailed in Russia at the time, and showed that one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government---the Decree on Land---meant the nationalisation of the land. This made it possible to bring the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia to a successful conclusion, and to create the most favourable opportunities in farming for making the transition to socialism. Lenin noted that Communist Parties in other countries, when they worked out their agrarian programmes, should solve the question of landed property according to the concrete conditions of landownership and class relations in the country concerned. However, he put forward the confiscation of the land of big landowners as a general and unconditional demand applicable to all = countries.^^1^^
As for small farmers, Lenin repeatedly pointed out that even in a complete socialist revolution, socialists would not and could not expropriate them. To attempt such expropriation could only result in the collapse of proletarian rule because it was objectively impossible. Lenin taught that small commodity producers should not be crushed. Socialists must get along with them, and only change and reform them by means of long, slow and careful organisational work.
At the same time Lenin explained that in the process of socialist construction it is necessary to liquidate the exploiting _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 152--64.
119 classes and to reconstruct the whole of the national economy. Socialist construction in the towns alone is not, therefore, possible. If a small farm economy continues to exist after the socialist revolution, this means that there remains "an extremely broad and very sound, deep-rooted basis for capitalism, a basis on which capitalism persists or arises anew in a bitter struggle against = communism".^^1^^A small farm economy is of the most unprofitable and backward kind, making it impossible to reach the high levels of labour productivity necessary for the abundant supply of all the population with food and other articles of consumption, and industry with raw materials. A small farm economy is not only incapable of providing for the steady improvement of the welfare of the mass of farmers, but it is an extremely unstable form of economy leading finally to the ruin of very many farmers.
The specific paths of socialist development which small farming should take to ensure close economic links between socialist industry and agriculture, are one of the most important problems in the political economy of socialism.
Lenin rejected all the attempts of the enemies of the revolution to eliminate small farming by force. He showed both the theoretical inconsistency of such attempts and how dangerous they were politically. But Lenin also realised that the existence of small farming for a certain period of time after the revolution meant, inevitably, a struggle between the socialist and capitalist elements in the peasantry and between the socialist and the capitalist paths of development in agriculture.
In a number of his works, including Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, A Great Beginning and others, Lenin pointed out that the small farmer possesses two souls---the soul of the toiler and the soul of the tradesman. The proletariat's task is to reach the toiler in him, to attract him to its side and to struggle against those tendencies which arouse in him the spirit of trade and speculation. Objectively, the proletariat has all the necessary conditions for success, since it and the great bulk of the peasantry have basic interests in common.
In developing Marxist theory, Lenin worked out his well-= known plan for co-operation as a means of transforming small farming into large-scale socialist agriculture. Marx and Engcls, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, pp. 109--10.
120 too, dealt with the need, after the establishing of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to render assistance to the peasantry in its transition to collective methods of running the economy. They said that the working class ought to make great material sacrifices in this respect, to be generous to the peasantry. These ideas were buried in oblivion by the leaders of the Second International, while Lenin defended and developed them as vital points of Marxist doctrine. He showed the importance of co-= operative farming as the chief means of achieving the socialist transformation of agriculture.Some time after the October Revolution in Russia, some members of the Communist Party suggested nationalising the farmers' co-operatives because it turned out that there were a lot of kulak elements in them. Lenin criticised such suggestions as ridiculous, harmful and unrealistic. Even in the early years of Soviet power he had insisted on establishing a link between the consumers' co-operatives and the producers' co-operatives in order to foster the growth of the quantity of agricultural goods produced.
After the victorious conclusion of the Civil War, on the basis of all the experience of socialist construction that had then been accumulated, Lenin worked out a detailed plan for putting the farms on the road to socialism through co-operation. In his article "The Tax in Kind'', he still regarded co-operation as a form of state capitalism, but later, having taken into account the change in the strength and influence of the socialist sector in the economy, together with the possibility of ensuring the unity of agriculture and socialist industrial production, he came to the conclusion that co-operation had become a socialist economic form. It was his historical approach to the nature of co-operation that led Lenin to this extremely important result. Then in his article "On Co-operation'', he developed his ideas on the gradual transition of the peasants to socialism, suggesting concrete ways of making the transition.
Lenin studied the question of the social nature of co-operation in detail. Co-operative enterprises under capitalism inevitably merge with the capitalist system as a whole and become collective capitalist enterprises. But when the most decisive means of production belong to the whole of society, that is, to the socialist state, co-operative enterprises do not differ from socialist ones. Lenin had in mind that industry, as the leading and decisive branch of production making the implements and means of production, is property belonging to the whole nation, and that a 121 system of advanced co-operators, in the conditions when such property prevails, is socialist in character. The brilliant simplicity of Lenin's plan of co-operation lies in the fact that it begins with the peasants' material interests. His idea is not to force the peasant to follow the path of socialism, but to contrive to appeal to his material interests---in order to steer him gradually onto the road of large-scale collective farming, at the same time providing collective farms with industrial means of production by sending them tractors, machines, etc. Lenin's plan of co-operation is based on the need for close links between town and country, both in trade and production. The implementation of this plan called for strengthening the alliance of the workers with the poor and middle peasants and for fighting the kulaks.
Lenin's plan for transforming small peasant property into socialist property was closely linked to the plan for building the material and technical basis of socialism and providing agriculture with heavy machinery. According to Lenin, co-operation is not merely a transitional form on the road to socialism, but in a socialist economy, it is, like property belonging to the whole of society, a form of socialist property.
Lenin also thought that after the victory of the socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries where there were large farms they should be retained and run along the lines of Soviet farms. However, he warned against the automatic copying of the Soviet model. He considered that when introducing co-= operation in different countries a concrete approach should be adopted, and that in a number of cases part of the land belonging to big farms may be handed over to small and middle peasants.^^1^^
Before the revolution, Lenin wrote: "Capitalism breaks for all time the ties between agriculture and industry, but at the same time, through its highest development, it prepares new elements of those ties, a union between industry and agriculture based on the conscious application of science and the concentration of collective = labour."^^2^^
Lenin's deep understanding of the process of development of socialism thus enabled him to present in detail the characteristic features of the period of transition to socialism.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 158--62.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 71.
122 __ALPHA_LVL2__ The Economic Laws of Socialism and the MethodsLenin made a thorough study of the mechanism and mode of operation of the new economic laws generated by socialist relations of production.
By applying the historical approach to social development, Lenin was able to show that the meaning of socialism was not only the replacement of one set of objective economic laws by another set corresponding to the new mode of production, but that it also meant changing the way in which economic laws operate.
The process of socialist development cannot go on spontaneously, undirected. Lenin demonstrated the objective need to plan the economy under socialism. In The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, he wrote that the main organising force in the capitalist economy is the national and the international market, which expand and develop anarchically, spontaneously.
The socialist revolution, unlike the bourgeois revolution, does not set itself only the destructive tasks facing the working people but constructive tasks, too. It is very important to emphasise this. Socialist property calls for collective work organised on a country-wide scale. Socialist construction necessarily requires planned production and distribution. Socialism is unthinkable without state planning and organisation. Lenin was thus able to point out the objective necessity of planning progress through a single economic plan covering a number of years. Such a plan for the USSR, he said, should be a plan for building the material and technical basis of socialism, for the technical reconstruction of the country's national economy.
Lenin considered that a single economic plan should not only guarantee the balanced development of the economy, but also ensure its technical progress.
Lenin insisted on the drawing up of current working plans, on the need to single out the main links in the chain of the over-all plan of work. By taking firm hold of these links it has been possible to underpin the achievements of the Soviet economy at each stage and then to move on to the next, higher stages.
Planned progress requires a gigantic amount of organisational work. "The organisation of accounting, the control of large enterprises, the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions 123 of people to be guided by a single plan---such was the enormous organisational problem that rested on our = shoulders."^^1^^
Planned development necessitates the subordination of the entire economy to a single united will directing the combined efforts of millions. This need for centralised planning is explained by the modern high level of development of the productive forces. Machine industry is the productive source and foundation of socialism, Lenin wrote. Only that construction can be called socialist, he said, which is carried out according to one general large-scale plan.
While defending the need for the centralised planning of the whole national economy, Lenin attached exceptional importance to developing local initiative. He stressed that the Soviet state had no intention of lessening the importance of local organs of power by destroying their independence. Lenin called upon all organs of power, all collectives of working people to show initiative in everything that could lead to improvements in the new system, to a better life. At the same time he demanded struggle against localism and punishment for those guilty of it.
Lenin believed that planning should become a national cause in which not only the workers of planning organs take part. The part played by administrative means and directives in planning has always been overestimated and is even now still overestimated in all kinds of sectarian anti-Leninist attitudes. Planning relies on the workers' interest in the fulfilment of plans. This means that planning relies on economic incentives to stimulate labour as well as on the high social consciousness of the working people. To ensure the planned nature of economic development a network of institutions based on the principle of democratic centralism should be introduced. The economic apparatus was regarded by Lenin as part of the state apparatus that will remain and develop even after the state as a whole withers away. He insisted on the constant perfecting of this apparatus.
The organisation of people's accounting and control is an inseparable part of a planned economy. Lenin attached great importance to control and accounting, in which he also saw a means of drawing the widest sections of the people into economic construction. The task of public control involves the securing of the people's interests and struggle against all distortions of economic policy.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 90--91.
124Centralised planning on a genuinely democratic basis creates the most favourable conditions for the rapid development of the productive forces. Revisionists deny the principle of democratic centralism in economic management. They make a fetish of spontaneous development; they can see nothing that should or could stand in its way when social ownership is dominant in the economy. The spontaneous development which the revisionists preach leads only to abnormal profit differentials, to the uneven progress of some branches and areas of industry and of certain individual factories, and to economic crises---and, finally, it results in the revived operation of the economic laws of capitalism.
Today Lenin's great genius shines through in the economic construction of all the socialist countries. The principles of planning which he introduced, together with all his statements concerning the importance of planning the socialist economy and the aims to which it should be geared, have retained their full significance.
The historical approach enabled Lenin to bring out the special features of the laws of socialism and the nature of their operation, and to indicate the only correct road to the victory of socialism.
The mechanics of the operation of economic laws under socialism is very closely related to the activities of the socialist state. The state cannot invent objective laws, nor can it cancel or eliminate them, but it can learn and take their operation into account and organise their conscious application.
Socialist relations cannot emerge, develop and strengthen without the leading role of the state of the new type, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The latter, in its turn, cannot consolidate itself unless it creates a socialist economy and eliminates capitalist property and landownership.
According to Lenin, the main function of the socialist state is its economic function. This point was elaborated in the greatest detail in The State and Revolution and in ``Left-Wing'' Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality.
The setting up of the dictatorship of the proletariat itself expressed the urgent need for the solution of definite economic tasks with its help.
When working out his plan for the building of socialism, Lenin relied on his investigations into the objective economic laws of development of the socialist mode of production. Furthermore, he indicated the great organising and directing roles that the Soviet state and the Communist Party were called upon to play.
125A socialist economy cannot develop spontaneously. Objective economic laws have to be consciously applied. In keeping with Marxist principles, Lenin took into account the special features of the operation of economic laws when public ownership is dominant in the economy. These laws do not then act spontaneously but are consciously implemented by society and the state that represents it. That is why the field of economic policy is considerably wider under socialism than under pre-socialist formations; it embraces all the planning, organising and directing activities of the state.
But the part that politics plays is not confined to this. Lenin, in his criticism of Trotsky and Bukharin during the discussion on the trade = unions,^^1^^ spoke of the priority of politics over economics. But he did not mean that politics should, as it were, be turned into a base and economics into a superstructure. He meant that the task of building socialism could be solved only under the definite political conditions, under the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in order to preserve and strengthen this it was quite indispensable to establish a correct relationship between the working class and the peasantry, and to work for the satisfaction of their economic interests as much as possible.
Lenin said that politics is a concentrated expression of economics. This means that class interests are expressed in their most concentrated form in politics. So when he spoke of the priority of politics over economics he did not mean that the laws of historical materialism did not operate under socialism, but that a correct political approach, i.e., one pursuing the interests of society as a whole and the interests of the alliance of workers and peasants, was necessary for the successful achievement of economic aims. This point is explained in "Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and in the discussion on the trade unions that took place in 1921. Lenin showed how under the extremely hard conditions of the first years of Soviet power, in 1918 and 1919, with the economy devastated and with terrible want everywhere, the Soviet Government still managed to store a considerable quantity of grain and to win its first victories in the battle against petty-bourgeois spontaneity and chaos. The priority of politics over economics does not deny the subordination of politics to economics in the building of socialism, since in the final analysis all political _-_-_
~^^1^^ See p. 52 of this volume.
126 activity is aimed at one and the same goal, the creation of the economy of a communist society.Before it succeeds in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, the revolutionary party pursues a directly political aim, the struggle for the victory of the revolution. But once the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established, this purely political aim is replaced by others. The task then is to subordinate political power completely to the creation of a new mode of production. It is in this sense that politics is subordinated to economics.
It is obvious that so long as the state remains necessary, so long as society solves the tasks that face it through the agency of the state, the necessity for politics remains, too. The correct political solution of the questions that arise in the course of building communism remains the prerequisite for the proper implementation of economic laws in the interests of the whole of society and for the solution of the economic tasks facing society.
__*_*_*__While proceeding from the primacy of production, Lenin also carefully analysed the significance of the other spheres of the economy, their interconnection and their effect on production itself under socialism. He showed that the specific features of the different spheres of the economy are determined by the nature of production and are closely linked to it. His work on these questions led Lenin to key discoveries in the field of the political economy of socialism, confirming and deepening his theses that the direction of the socialist economy should not be reduced to administrative measures alone (to say nothing of coercion), and that socialist planning must rely on and make use of a definite economic mechanism in the interests of socialist construction.
In clarifying the character of socialist production, and developing Marx's theses, Lenin dealt in detail with the question of socialist incentives to work. We have already mentioned the breakthrough that Lenin made into the essence of the new relations of production by his discovery of socialist competition and emulation as a manifestation of the new class-conscious attitude to work. But under socialist conditions, moral stimuli are not the only incentives to work. The level of development of the productive forces is as yet insufficient to meet all the needs of every member of society. That is why, alongside socialist 127 equality in relation to the means of production, there still exists inequality in meeting the needs of the people. Since society cannot yet produce a sufficient quantity of goods, it is compelled to give more to working people who create more values for the whole collective than others.
Under socialism, Lenin stressed, raising productivity requires the use of material incentives. That is why he attached great importance to the worker's material interest in the results of his work. At the outset of the revolution he proposed the payment of wages related to the general output, and demanded the introduction of a well-grounded scientific system of rating and organising labour. He considered it extremely important to borrow from capitalism and use in the interests of socialism everything that was scientific and progressive in the capitalist methods of organising labour.
Lenin opposed egalitarianism. He believed that in the management of the economy material incentives should be applied both to each individual worker and to whole collectives and enterprises. Lenin insisted on the payment of bonuses for more efficient work, particularly organisational work. The socialist economy, he said, should be built not on the enthusiasm of the masses alone, but, aided by this enthusiasm, it should be based on the combination of moral and material incentives.
Closely connected with the question of the significance of the material incentive in the organisation and development of socialist production is the question of commodity relations. Lenin studied this question closely. He established the need for commodity production in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism and advanced the basic ideas required to understand the nature of commodity relations under socialism.
The question of commodity exchange arose above all in connection with the relations between the socialist urban economy and the small rural economy. This was a serious economic and social problem. In 1918 Lenin suggested the development of commodity exchange in the interests of establishing normal economic ties between town and country. However, the consistent realisation of this was made impossible by the shortage of industrial products at that time.
The sharpening of the class struggle and the dislocation of the national economy in the period of foreign military intervention and the Civil War made necessary a complete ban on free trade, the taking away of all surpluses from the farms, the introduction of extreme centralisation in the distribution of the 128 few resources which Soviet government bodies possessed, and direct suppression of capitalist elements. There emerged a system of War Communism with some of the features of a natural economy and direct exchanges of products between town and country.
All this created in the minds of some Communists the wrong idea that the objective need for commodity production had already withered away. But Lenin, even when War Communism was in full swing, while insisting on the ban on free trade, upheld the theoretical postulate that the preservation of small farm production meant, of necessity, the retention of commodity production, trade, and money. In his speech to the First All-= Russia Congress on Adult Education (1919), he spoke of private individual farmers as a class representing a patriarchal epoch, reared on slavery throughout the centuries, but having under capitalism formal freedom and formal equality. The small farmer existed as a property owner and a possessor of foodstuffs. The economic conditions of his life are such that he is wedded to commodity production, he is used to exchanging grain for money. One cannot change this habit at once; money cannot be eliminated instantly. In order "to abolish money you must organise the distribution of products for hundreds of millions of people".^^1^^
The need to make use of commodity relations, primarily for strengthening economic ties between town and country, became particularly urgent after the Civil War ended. The policy of War Communism could not be the normal policy for constructing socialism. It was a temporary measure due to emergency conditions, the Civil War and the devastation that went with it, and it could not be regarded as an economically logical stage of revolutionary development that would be unavoidable in other countries. With the transition to peaceful construction, continuing the policy of War Communism caused dissatisfaction among the peasants and undermined their interest in developing production. In the conditions of need and hunger that then prevailed, speculation grew, and petty-bourgeois elements rendered the necessary control and accounting impossible.
Lenin suggested a change in economic policy, replacing War Communism by the New Economic Policy (NEP). The starting-= point of NEP was the abolition of the surplus-requisitioning system and its replacement by a tax in kind levied on peasant _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 368.
__PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9---1974 129 households, while leaving them a free hand to sell their surplus produce on the market. NEP was substantiated by Lenin in a number of works ``(The Tax in Kind'', "The .Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory ot Socialism'', in his reports to the Tenth and Eleventh Party Congresses, in his speech at the Seventh Party Conference of the Moscow Gubcrnia, and others). This policy took into consideration the fact that during the change-over from capitalism to socialism there must inevitably coexist a number of socio-economic sectors. Alongside the socialist sector, leading the country's over-all economy, there existed four others---the patriarchal peasant economy, small commodity production, private capitalism and state capitalism.NEP was designed to make use of commodity production and the market to strengthen ties with individual peasants and so to draw them along the road to socialism in the interests of overcoming capitalism. This policy was based on recognition of the objective necessity for commodity production when, alongside state socialist industry, there existed an individual peasant economy and other economic sectors.
There was more of the old than the new in NEP, said Lenin, who as far back as 1918, before NEP was introduced, asserted that commodity production could not be eliminated overnight. But the questions arising from this had not been theoretically worked out before the Civil War came to an end. The transition from the Civil War to peaceful construction required, as a matter of urgency, that commodity relations be used to stimulate the peasant economy materially.
At the Seventh Party Conference of the Moscow Gubernia, Lenin explained that the relations between socialist industry and the peasant farm economy had to be based on commodity and money circulation, regulated by the socialist state, because experience had shown that direct exchanges of products were impossible.
Organising normal economic ties between town and country was a necessary precondition for the realisation of Lenin's plan of co-operation; indeed it was one of its major points. The bond between town and country achieved through trade was of vital importance at the time. Later on this bond in trade developed into a production bond, but without in any way lowering the importance of economic relations based on trade between industry and agriculture.
With the introduction of NEP, it became still more obvious that a struggle between socialist and capitalist elements was 130 inevitable in the transitional economy, a struggle to decide "who will beat whom".
With the prevailing private ownership in peasant farming, the growth of trade inevitably gave rise to further capitalist elements. Commodity exchange between town and country became a central arena of struggle between the socialist proletariat and the individual farmer. Commodity relations had a dual character. They were necessary for the advance of socialist industry, but, at the same time, it was possible, to a certain extent, for capitalist elements to exploit them. So in order to facilitate the victory of socialism over capitalism, it was necessary to restrict the free market, to keep the commanding heights of the economy in the hands of the proletariat, develop big socialist industry, protect its alliance with small farm production, and to wage a struggle against capitalist elements.
By following Lenin's advice, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union soon established close economic unity between town and country and secured the victory of socialist elements over capitalist.
Lenin indicated that NEP did not introduce a specifically Russian form of relationship between town and country, but was a policy that applied universally. The experience of socialist construction in other countries fully confirms this thesis of Lenin's, demonstrating the need for economic relations between socialist industry and private small-scale farming to be based on commodity exchange.
With the transition to NEP the principle of the personal material incentive found application throughout the whole economic organisation of socialist industry. In his report to the Second All-Russia Congress of Political Education Departments, Lenin said that "every important branch of the economy must be built up on the principle of personal = incentive".^^1^^ He thus gives the theoretical grounds for the use of commodity relations in socialist construction, not only between industry and small peasant farming, but also between state enterprises themselves.
The existence of commodity relations between town and country, the use of material incentives, and the need for the strictest socialist accounting and control required changing the whole system of planning and organising state enterprises. It became necessary for enterprises to function as independent economic units, covering their own expenses out of the revenue _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 70.
__PRINTERS_P_131_COMMENT__ 6* 131 earned by the sale of their products, and contributing part of their profit to the state besides. It became necessary to apply both commodity relations and the principle of self-support in mutual relations between state enterprises. Lenin explained that selfsupporting enterprises were bound to become the predominant, if not the sole type of = enterprise.^^1^^ He demanded the severe punishment of managerial staff who incurred losses through non-= economical ``business'' and expected the state to cover them.The principle of self-support does not expose industry to the clanger of un-planned, spontaneous development. Self-support is a principle of a planned economy and is subordinated to the over-all planning of economic progress, as is evinced by the example of heavy industry in the USSR, which could never have come into existence on a commercial basis since it was originally unprofitable. Lenin pointed out that heavy industry was in need of subsidies and that if the state did not find means for it, it would perish not only as a socialist state but as a civilised state in = general.^^2^^
Commodity production and trade created the objective necessity for money, and that is why Lenin urged from the first to strengthen money circulation in the interests of building socialism. With the transition to NEP, he spoke about the need to "establish a sound currency backed by = gold".^^3^^
Since gold has the traditional role of a universal equivalent, and money circulation is indispensable for the building of socialism, Lenin took the view that gold will remain in use as money up to the time of the victory of the proletariat throughout the world. He regarded the banking and credit systems as the backbone of the apparatus for the planned accounting of production and distribution of goods throughout society, covering all socialist enterprises. The credit and financial system must in every way promote control over the circulation of goods and help state enterprises to raise their profitability.
Lenin always stressed the substantial difference between commodity production under socialism and that under capitalism. Speaking of the character of commodities in conditions when socialist enterprises hold the leading positions in the economy, he wrote: "...the manufactured goods made by socialist factories and exchanged for the foodstuffs produced by the peasants are _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 185.
~^^2^^ See ibid., p. 426.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 179.
132 not commodities in the politico-economic sense of the word; at any rate, they are not only commodities; they are no longer commodities, they arc ceasing to be = commodities."^^1^^Indeed, under capitalism a product is transformed into a commodity because of the existence of individual private owners who arc linked only by spontaneous economic forces, whereas when the proletariat controls the economy and plans economic progress, the commodity no longer expresses either the complete separatcncss of individual proprietors or spontaneous development. A commodity then becomes a product designed by a plan for the satisfaction of the needs of society through exchange.
Lenin foresaw that in the course of strengthening socialist relations it would be necessary to overcome the dual character of the commodity and of money typical of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, and that this would lead to their still greater development as tools for the management of the socialist economy. The Party Programme adopted by the Eighth Congress of the Party also pointed out that money could not be abolished before communist production and distribution had been set up. Lenin's prediction has been fully confirmed in practice and is of great significance in the building of the communist society. Commodity production and money circulation will in fact remain necessary until the second stage of communism has been reached.
One of Lenin's papers, "Commercial Organisation'', contains a thought which attracts attention, namely, that attempts to do without "commercial methods" mean attemping to make the transition to communism without going through the intermediate stage of socialism.
Thus, Lenin, proceeding from the primacy of production, showed how the different spheres of the transitional economy are interconnected. He based his views on the unity of the entire economy, a unity determined by the leading role of the socialist sector.
Lenin gave invaluable advice on how to solve the problems of socialist reproduction. In connection with Bukharin's denial of the existence of objective economic laws of socialism, he showed that Marx's theses on the relations between the chief branches of social production, the ratio of Iv'rlm to lie, and the laws of accumulation, retain their significance even for full communism.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 384.
133One ought to regard in this light Lenin's directives concerning the overriding importance of the development of heavy industry. These directives are based on the specific conditions in which the law of the more rapid increase of the production of means of production operates under socialism. The advance of heavy industry was regarded by Lenin as the basis for the growth of production in all branches of the national economy and for the improvement of the workers' welfare.
Production docs not grow under socialism merely for production's sake, but for the better satisfaction of people's needs. That is why Lenin insisted on every possible growth of those branches of production which directly improve people's lives. He paid special attention to farming as the source of food and of raw materials for industry.
Lenin worked on the question of the sources of accumulation under socialism. The followers of Bukharin and the Trotskyists thought that the socialist revolution must go through a stage analogous to the first stage of capitalist development, through "primitive socialist accumulation" (meaning the expropriation of farms). A propos this idea Lenin made the note "Phew!!" in the margin of a page in his copy of Bukharin's book. He wrote that the term "primitive socialist accumulation" was "extremely unfortunate. It merely represents the childish apeing of the terms used by = grown-ups."^^1^^
Lenin observed at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern, when dealing with the question of the internal sources of extended socialist reproduction, that the rapid creation of a heavy industry in a capitalist country would require loans running into hundreds of millions of dollars or gold rubles. The USSR did not receive any loans but yet was able to save the necessary means to develop a heavy industry. It had to be done by economising severely on everything in every possible way, even on schools. There was no other way, since it was impossible to guarantee the country's independence without a heavy industry.
In his outline of the tasks of extended reproduction, Lenin linked very closely the development of the productive forces with the extension and strengthening of socialist relations of production, the consolidation of socialist property, its growth in industry, through the gradual transformation of the small peasant economy and the ousting of capitalist elements.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin Miscellany XI, Russ. ed., p. 375.
134The growth of socialist productive forces was never viewed by Lenin, unlike Bukharin, as involving only technical = progress.^^1^^ Lenin held that, together with technical progress, it was necessary to raise systematically the cultural level of the people by carrying through a cultural revolution.
In 1923, in one of his last articles "Better Fewer, but Better'', when examining the historical prospects for the struggle against capitalism, Lenin wrote: "If we see to it that the working class retains its leadership over the peasantry, we shall be able, by exercising the greatest possible thrift in the economic life of our state, to use every saving we make to develop our large-scale machine industry, to develop electrification, the hydraulic extraction of peat, to complete the Volkhov Power Project, etc.
"In this, and in this alone, lies our = hope."^^2^^
This hope of Lenin's has come true.
Lenin lived at the beginning of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism and led socialist construction. Following Lenin's precepts, the Soviet people have completed this period under the leadership of the Communist Party. Soviet experience is being utilised by other socialist countries. Its historic significance has thus been fully borne out. As the Programme of the CPSU observes, the science of building socialism, verified by experience, is now firmly established.
After Lenin's death, in summing up the experience of socialist construction, the CPSU and later also the other Communist and Workers' Parties developed Lenin's theory further, particularly the Marxist-Leninist teaching on the laws governing the rise and triumph of the communist mode of production.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See ibid., p. 371.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 501.
[135] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S CONTRIBUTIONBy Y. A. KRASIN
The theory of socialist revolution figures prominently in Lenin's works. This is not surprising, since he was the leader of the first victorious socialist revolution which ushered in the historical era of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Lenin never deviated from Marxist conceptions when developing the theory of socialist revolution, although he went beyond the point reached by the founders of Marxism. He went boldly ahead, elaborating and enriching the Marxist theory of socialist revolution. His theoretical work in this sphere proved convincingly that his devotion to Marxism was combined organically with scientific creativity, with the ability to generalise new historical experience.
Modern bourgeois critics of Leninism are incapable of understanding the dialectics of this continuity, and the qualitative peculiarities of the different stages in the development of Marxist theory. In their opinion, continuity and creativity mutually exclude each other. Some, alluding to the originality of Lenin's conclusions, claim that he created an entirely new theory of socialist revolution different from Marx's. This is the view, for instance, of Prof. Alfred G. Meyer, director of the Soviet Party research programme at Columbia University, who declares that "an entire new theory of revolution has = emerged"^^1^^ from Lenin's ideas. Other ``specialists'' in Leninism parrot Trotsky by saying that Lenin, because he was a pure politician, introduced nothing new into Marx's theory of socialist revolution. Witness Herbert _-_-_
~^^1^^ Alfred G. Meyer, = Leninism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1957, p. 270.
136 Marcuse: "While Lenin from the beginning of his activity reoriented the revolutionary strategy of his party in accordance with the new situation, his theoretical conception did not follow = suit."^^1^^It is absolutely impossible to understand the significance of Lenin's contribution to the theory of socialist revolution, or the historic role this contribution has played in the development of Marxist ideas, without taking into consideration and comparing the two eras in the development of the international revolutionary movement: the era of pre-monopoly capitalism, when the objective and subjective conditions for socialist revolution were still at an early stage of maturity, and the era of imperialism, when the world capitalist system has become ripe for proletarian revolution and mankind is taking the path of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Marx's main achievement was to prove that capitalism was fraught with antagonistic contradictions which made the proletarian revolution and the transition to a higher form of social relationships—to socialism and communism—historically inevitable. Having studied the position of the various classes and social groups in the capitalist system of social production, Marx showed that only one class---the proletariat---objectively plays a leading role in production, since it is the main producer of material wealth. At the same time the proletariat is deprived of all the means of production (these are entirely in the hands of the bourgeoisie), and it cannot, therefore, play the leading part in the system of social relations, which rightfully belongs to it by virtue of its role in production. This contradictory position impels the proletariat to struggle against the capitalist system, making it the main force in the destruction of this system and the creation of a new, communist society. To accomplish this historic task, the working class must organise itself, establish a revolutionary political party, take political power, and use its rule---the dictatorship of the proletariat---to overcome the resistance of all exploiters and pave the way to the first phase of communist society--- socialism.
These are the cardinal ideas underlying Marx's scientific theory of socialist revolution. It was necessary, of course, to apply these ideas to the investigation of the economic and political conditions of capitalist development both in individual countries and in the world as a whole. But this work could no longer, by Lenin's time, be based solely on the pure analysis of the laws _-_-_
~^^1^^ Herbert Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, New York, 1958, p. 30.
137 governing capitalist development; it required the precise investigation of existing economic relations, of the level of maturity of the material prerequisites for socialism, of the balance of political forces in particular countries and on a world scale (and the relations between these forces), and a study of the paths along which the socialist revolution was actually developing. The revolutionary experience of the working class alone could provide the basis for this theoretical work. The founders of Marxism advanced a number of important ideas concerning the theory of socialist revolution based on this experience. But the objective conditions for socialist revolution were not yet ripe in the igth century, nor were the existing socio-political forces ready to undertake it and carry it through to a victorious conclusion. Limited historical experience made it impossible to analyse concretely and thoroughly the many problems arising in connection with the theory of socialist revolution. And subsequent developments showed that capitalism became ripe for socialist revolution only at the beginning of this century, when Marx and Engels were no longer alive. By this time the world situation had changed under the impact of a large number of factors, of which we should specially mention the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism. The decline of capitalism and the development of the world socialist revolution turned out to be a far more complicated and contradictory process than it appeared in the igth century.The era of imperialism, of the eve of the first proletarian revolution, had greatly added to the experience of the international working-class movement. The material prerequisites for socialism had matured in the womb of capitalism---a revolutionary situation was developing in a number of countries, the proletariat had become more organised and class-conscious, its ties with democratic allies were taking shape and growing stronger, and the conquest of power by the working class had become a real possibility. The new age thus demanded the creative all-round development of the Marxist theory of socialist revolution, and this work was done by Lenin on the basis of a new historical experience.
Lenin did more than simply supplement the Marxist theory of socialist revolution with a few conclusions of his own; he enriched the content and the basic principles of this theory with new historical experience. There is in fact no aspect of the theory of socialist revolution that was not creatively enlarged upon in Lenin's works. The objective conditions necessary for socialist 138 revolution, the role of the subjective factor in the revolution, the national crisis, and associated with it the formation of the socio-political forces of the revolution, the struggle for democracy, the development of the national liberation movements, the various forms of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the laws governing the world revolutionary process ---all these and many other questions were painstakingly investigated by Lenin and to all of them he had something new to contribute.
The concrctisation and development of the most important concepts and principles of the theory of socialist revolution went hand in hand with the clarification of their innermost logical connections and the elaboration of a balanced theory. The chief result of this complex theoretical task of reflecting the new era of imperialism in consciousness was an integrated conception of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, that is Lenin's theory of socialist revolution. Just as Leninism as a whole is Marxism of the new era so does Lenin's theory of socialist revolution represent a qualitatively new stage in the development of the Marxist theory of revolution.
For this reason alternative ``interpretations'' or ``versions'' of Marxist theory to Leninism offered by the Right and ``Left'' revisionists arc totally untenable. The Marxist-Leninist theory of the socialist revolution is internationally valid and indivisible: it cannot be split into national or regional varieties. In Leninism this theory is elevated to the level of revolutionary practice and the achievements of the present era in the social sciences.
The creative laboratory of Leninist ideas was working successfully for more than a quarter of a century, absorbing and theoretically synthcsising the varied experiences of the international working-class movement. Lenin's theory of socialist revolution developed along with the revolutionary movement that nurtured it. The logic of this theory is the result of the historical development of Lenin's ideas which penetrated deeper and deeper into the laws governing the revolutionary process and reflected these laws in an increasingly adequate form.
Each stage in the development of the revolutionary movement enabled Lenin to supplement and improve revolutionary theory. The experience accumulated by the international working-= class movement immediately after the victory of the October Socialist Revolution was especially important in this respect. In that period Lenin advanced many ideas which reflected the deep-= going tendencies of the era of transition from capitalism to 139 socialism and which gave his theory of socialist revolution a mature and perfect form.
Leninism is opposed to the crude mechanical approach to theory which divorces ideas from their concrete historical settings, and treats them as static and ossified things. But this approach serves bourgeois critics and dogmatists well as a methodological basis for distorting Leninism. The creative assimilation of Lenin's ideas of socialist revolution requires taking an historical approach to his doctrines. It is likewise necessary to consider the theses he advanced after the October Revolution, when he could best appraise the Marxist theory of socialist revolution in the light of the historical experience of the revolutionary movement of his day, and when he could see the laws governing the world revolutionary process more clearly than at any other period.
Lenin's theory of socialist revolution was based entirely on an analysis of the relation between the objective and the subjective conditions required for the transition from capitalism to socialism. Bourgeois ``specialists'' in Leninism usually distort this aspect of Lenin's doctrine by interpreting his views as a deviation from materialism, as voluntarism. "Lenin gave Marx's teaching a voluntarist turn,'' affirms one prominent anti-= Communist, R.~N. Carew = Hunt.^^1^^ In a nutshell, this is the argument bourgeois theorists present: Marx naively believed that the collapse of capitalism would follow inevitably from the operation of the objective laws of history. This belief reflected the early stages in the development of capitalist society when it seemed to be burdened with insurmountable contradictions. In the 20th century, it is said, capitalism found a way out of these contradictions and Marxism entered "a phase of disappointment and despair''. In his "desperate effort to save" Marx's conclusion concerning the inevitability of the proletarian revolution, Lenin was allegedly compelled to renounce historical materialism and to give to consciousness and will the role which Marx assigned to objective laws.
The sophistry on which this entirely artificial line of argumentation is based lies in the fact that the ``critics'' mechanically separate the objective laws of history from the conscious activities of people and counterposc these two indivisible, interconnected aspects of a single historical process. Meanwhile _-_-_
~^^1^^ R. N. Carew Hunt, = A Guide to Communist Jargon, New York, p. 163.
140 it is Marxism-Leninism that has established their dialectical unity. "Marxism,'' Lenin stressed, "differs from all other socialist theories in the remarkable way it combines complete scientific sobriety in the analysis of the objective state of affairs and the objective course of evolution with the most emphatic recognition of the importance of the revolutionary energy, revolutionary creative genius, and revolutionary initiative of the masses---and also, of course, of individuals, groups, organisations, and parties that are able to discover and achieve contact with one or another class."^^1^^If Marx and Lenin did differ in anything on the question of the relation between the objective and the subjective conditions for the socialist revolution, it was only in emphasis. Marx established the fundamentals of the materialist conception of history. In elaborating the theory of socialist revolution, Marx naturally concentrated on proving the objective necessity of the transition from capitalism to socialism. But Lenin worked in a different historical situation: the objective conditions for the socialist revolution had come to maturity in the era of imperialism, yet among the parties of the Second International there prevailed an opportunist theory of spontaneity which in effect negated the role played by the subjective factor in the revolution. Historical materialism was being replaced by economic materialism, a caricature and a parody of Marxism. It is not surprising therefore that in this situation Lenin concentrated on elucidating the laws governing the preparation of the subjective conditions for the proletarian revolution and the creation of its political forces.
But this difference in emphasis merely makes clearer the fact that Marx and Lenin displayed the same principled approach to the question of the relation between the objective and the subjective conditions for the proletarian revolution. They both proceeded from the unity of the objective and the subjective in the revolutionary process, and from the decisive part that is played in the final analysis by objective conditions. There are absolutely no grounds for claiming that Lenin's idea of revolution was a ``voluntaristic'' one. In many of his works, and especially in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin made an exhaustive analysis of the objective maturity of the capitalist system in its imperialist stage for the socialist revolution.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 36.
141The large-scale socialisation of production by monopolies has made it possible to calculate approximately available markets and sources of raw materials, to plan to some extent the distribution of resources, and in general to regulate production. This shows that the material prerequisites for the public regulation of economic life have reached maturity under monopoly capitalism. Observing the growth of state-monopoly capitalism during the First World War, Lenin wrote with reference to Kaiser Germany: "The extent to which present-day society has matured for the transition to socialism has been demonstrated by this war, in which the exertion of national effort called for the direction of the economic life of over fifty million people from a single centre. If this is possible under the leadership of a handful of Junker aristocrats in the interests of a handful of financial magnates, it is certainly no less possible under the leadership of class-conscious workers in the interests of nine-tenths of the population."^^1^^ A few months later in his well-known The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Lenin proved that the material prerequisites for socialism were so ripe in the era of state-monopoly capitalism that there could be no further intermediate stages before socialism. The complex mechanism of public economic control was essentially the handiwork of state-monopoly capitalism. After it has assumed power, the working class can make use of this mechanism for reorganising the entire system of social relations along socialist lines.
The growing level of the socialisation of production literally rips the shell off capitalist relations of production. "Socialism,'' Lenin wrote, "is now gazing at us from all the windows of modern capitalism; socialism emerges directly, practically, from every important measure that constitutes a forward step on the basis of this modern = capitalism."^^2^^ As production is becoming increasingly socialised in character, the working class is becoming more and more the one class capable, by virtue of its objective position in the economy, of guiding the transformation of society along socialist lines. A situation arises under which the " proletariat economically dominates the centre and the nerve of the entire economic system of = capitalism".^^3^^ Economically and politically, the proletariat expresses the true interests of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 269.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 359.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 274.
142 the vast majority of the working people in the capitalist countries.The aggravation ol the contradictions between labour and capital, between the people and the monopolies, between the oppressed nations and imperialism, and all the other contradictions of the capitalist system, make the socialist revolution inevitable. In his bitter ideological struggle against the opportunist theories of "organised capitalism" and ``ultra-imperialism'', Lenin brought out the connection between the socialisation of production by monopolies and the aggravation of the contradictions of the capitalist system. Answering Kautsky, he wrote: "The extent to which monopoly capital has intensified all the contradictions of capitalism is generally known. It is sufficient to mention the high cost of living and the tyranny of the cartels. This intensification of contradictions constitutes the most powerful driving force of the transitional period of history, which began from the time of the final victory of world finance = capital."^^1^^ The socialisation of production and the sharpening of the contradictions of capitalism are two indissolubiy connected aspects of the ripening of the objective conditions required for socialist revolution.
The whole of the capitalist system became ripe for socialism with the onset of the imperialist era. There remained, of course, areas where feudal and even primitive communal relationships predominated. But even these areas were drawn into the orbit of imperialism, preventing the progress of backward countries and preserving the old social relations. There could be no extensive development of the productive forces in colonies and semi-colonies within the bounds of the all-embracing imperialist system. But to wait until the productive forces in all countries had reached a high level, and to regard this as a definite sign of the maturity of the objective conditions for the socialist revolution, was in effect to renounce socialism.
Though the world capitalist system was ripe for socialist revolution, the rate of growth of its contradictions was not everywhere the same. This conclusion followed from the law of the spasmodic and conflicting development of capitalism that Lenin had discovered. Because of this unevcnness the sharpness and intensity of contradictions varied from country to country. Contradictions concentrated in certain places and the conditions for breaking the imperialist chain developed in them more quickly _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 300.
143 than at other places. Consequently, the real possibility existed of the socialist revolution triumphing first in only a few or even in only one country and of capitalism being preserved for some time in other countries. "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism,'' Lenin wrote in 1915. "Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country = alone."^^1^^ A year later, after a more profound study of the economics and politics of imperialism, Lenin advanced an even more categorical proposition: "Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all = countries."^^2^^ In other words, Lenin now spoke not of the possibility but of the inevitability of socialism attaining victory first in only a small number of countries or even in one country alone. And he presented this conclusion as a law of the world socialist revolution.According to the Kautskyist-Menshevik dogma, the proletarian revolution could break out and triumph only in an advanced country, where the productive forces are at a high level. Lenin refuted this and proved that contradictions were likely to be most concentrated in the less developed countries. It is in these countries that the weak links in the imperialist chain were most likely to appear and where this chain was most likely to be broken. The best example of this was tsarist Russia, which by the beginning of this century had become one of the main centres of contradictions in the imperialist chain and its weakest link.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude from this that the economically most backward countries are potential centres of victorious socialist revolution. This point of view is expounded under the name of the "doctrine of backwardness" by contemporary bourgeois sociologists, by revisionists and theorists of petty-bourgeois revolutionarism. The "doctrine of backwardness" associates the fate of the socialist revolution with countries where the internal economic prerequisites for the transition to socialism do not even exist. Such countries can take the roa'd of socialist development only after they have gone through a number of intermediate stages and after socialism has triumphed in one or several other countries and is capable of influencing the undeveloped nations by the force of example and by giving them assistance and support. The country that is to be the first to break the imperialist chain has to possess a minimum level of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 342.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 79.
144 economic maturity for the working class to be able to assume control over the economy with its advent to power, to secure the country's economic independence, and to organise public regulation of production and distribution. This minimum level of economic maturity can be provided by a relatively high level of development of monopoly capitalism in the country. Criticising the "doctrine of backwardness'', Lenin said: "Without a certain level of capitalist development, we could not have achieved anything."^^1^^The victory of the socialist revolution at least in one country naturally entails changes in the criterion of the maturity of the material prerequisites for socialism in other countries. Lenin believed it quite possible that countries in which capitalism was not developed, and which had no or almost no proletariat, could go over to socialism with the help of one or more of the socialist countries without having to go through the capitalist stage of development. The correctness of this conclusion has been fully corroborated by the historical development of the Mongolian People's Republic, which has by-passed capitalism and made a direct transition from feudalism to socialism.
Besides the economic conditions of the socialist revolution, Lenin investigated its objective socio-political conditions. For, even when the necessary material conditions have matured, there can be no revolution, unless the balance of class forces is favourable to the working class and. the revolutionary forces capable of carrying through the revolution have come into action, and unless the political rule of the bourgeoisie is in a state of crisis. If all these socio-political contradictions arc available, then there exists a revolutionary situation.
One of the main symptoms of the revolutionary situation is the growing political activity of the people, destroying the forms of political life established by the ruling class, undermining its power, and creating the mass social basis for revolution. This activity of the people ultimately depends on their economic position. Lenin said that "a revolution can only be made by the masses, actuated by profound economic = needs"^^2^^
The revolutionary situation is rooted in the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. Its fundamental basis is the conflict between capitalism's growing productive forces and its obsolete relations of production. But the revolutionary situation _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin Miscellany XI, Russ. cd., p. 397.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. it, p. 423.
__PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10---1974 145 docs not arise automatically from the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. There are also political and class relations whose development finally precipitates the revolutionary situation. The precise moment when it arises and the forms and rate of its development depend on the development of the crisis in state power, on the strength and experience of the revolutionary class, on its links with other classes, and on the political situation as a whole. The revolutionary situation arises, therefore, directly from the contradictions within the superstructure, from the contradictions between the political superstructure and the revolutionary classes.In a revolutionary situation the socio-political conditions for revolution are ready; but the outbreak of revolution depends not only on objective conditions but on subjective conditions, too. Lenin particularly noted that "it is not every revolutionary situation that gives rise to a revolution; revolution arises only out of a situation in which the above-mentioned objective changes are accompanied by a subjective change, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, 'falls', if it is not toppled over".^^1^^
The role of the subjective factor becomes more evident as the revolutionary situation matures. Since it takes shape under the influence of the whole complex of socio-political relations, its rise and development also depend on how conscious and well-= organised the working class and its allies are. The subjective factor in the revolution has a definite effect on the balance of class forces and on political relations in general. The rise and development of the revolutionary situation reveal the dialectical unity of the objective and the subjective conditions required for the revolution. This unity was brought out by Lenin in his concept of the national crisis and characterised by him as the fundamental law of any great revolution. The growing political activity of the people at the moment when the revolutionary situation matures clearly pinpoints the presence of the elements of the subjective factor. At this stage the revolutionary classes often enter the political struggle not because they are conscious of their class tasks but because they are driven by class feelings, by indignation, class hatred and other social and psychological emotions.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 214.
146As the revolutionary situation develops, the role of the subjective factor becomes ever more important, and the pace of revolutionary processes, particularly the rate of transition to the highest stage of the revolutionary situation---the nation-wide crisis---becomes increasingly dependent on it. From then on the subjective factor plays the decisive part, leading to the outbreak and victory of the revolution.
Basing himself on materialist determinism, Lenin exposed the idealist and voluntarist views of the Narodniks and anarchists, who divorced the subjective factor of the revolution from its objective conditions and alleged that it alone could produce a revolution irrespective of the actual possibilities of the environment. According to Lenin, the preparation of the subjective conditions for the socialist revolution ultimately depends on the position of the classes in the economic system. It is capitalism itself which objectively creates the forces that spell its ruin. The possibilities and forms of the revolutionary activity of these forces are also determined at each given stage by the objective situation. But to fulfil their historic mission, these mass forces of the revolution must be both conscious of their aims and well organised.
While Lenin repudiated subjectivism and voluntarism, he also opposed the other extreme---vulgar cconomism---the belief that the subjective conditions for socialist revolution ripen spontaneously, as the mechanical outcome of economic development. This view finds expression both in the Right-opportunist theory of spontaneity and in Leftist-doctrinaire ideas about the automatic collapse of capitalism. The maturity of the requisite objective conditions makes the outbreak and victory of the socialist revolution a real possibility. But to carry it through there must be well-organised political forces united in their will and action, conscious of their aims, and ready to engage in struggle. If the necessary political forces do not exist, the intensity of social contradictions diminishes after reaching its apogee, the contradictions arc allayed, and the propitious moment is lost.
What is the class composition of the political forces of the socialist revolution? Their nucleus and leader is the working class. Although it may not constitute the majority of the population, its position in the system of social production makes it the most revolutionary class and the creator of a new social system free of private ownership and exploitation. Economically and politically, the working class defends the interests of all working __PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 people and because of this it can carry along with it to socialism all semi-proletarian and petty-bourgeois sections of both the urban and the rural populations---in particular, the peasantry. Lenin flatly rejected the sectarian ideas of the theorists of the Second International, and that of the Russian Mensheviks, that peasants were incapable of waging a revolutionary struggle against monopoly capital. In fact, he said, the peasantry was a mighty force capable of playing a very active part in the socialist revolution in alliance with the working class.
While repudiating the petty-bourgeois ideas regarding the motive forces of the socialist revolution, Lenin also pointed out that economically the peasantry was in an ambivalent position under capitalism, and that it was neither united nor organised. This accounted for its political vacillation and inconsistency. Nevertheless, proletarian leadership could help the petty-- bourgeois peasant masses to overcome their vacillation, to become educated in struggle and unite into militant contingents of the political army of the socialist revolution.
Indeed, the Marxist party of the working class plays an enormous role in the training of the whole political army of the socialist revolution, in leading it and in rallying all democratic forces round it. The existence of such a party, its political experience, its mastery of the strategy and tactics of class struggle, its ideological training, its links with the masses, and its own internal unity are all evidence of the maturing of the subjective conditions for the socialist revolution.
Bourgeois critics of Leninism and revisionists describe Lenin's theory of the Party as ``vanguarclism'', and claim that he assigned to the Party the role of the ``subject'' of the revolution, a role which, according to Marx, should belong to the working class. The ideologists of the bourgeoisie and the revisionists have thus invented a riddle: Who is the ``subject'' of the revolution, the Party or the working class? In reality, of course, there is no such question, since the working class cannot fulfil its historic mission without first creating its own political vanguard. The revolutionary party is not an alien body in the working class. It is an inseparable part of this class, the embodiment of its consciousness, will and organisation, and the force directing its revolutionary activity.
The question of the working-class party, its designation, functions and principles of activity remains the subject of serious contention within the communist and labour movements. The ``Left'' doctrinaires try to replace the Party with a militarised 148 organisation which is supposed to blindly obey instructions from above. The Party is likened to a religious sect of a messianic type, divorced from the actual requirements of the labour movement. The Right revisionists are bent on turning the Party into a sort of debating club and to deprive it of the ability to lead the revolutionary struggle of the masses. Both these brands of revisionism tend to belittle the role played by the working-class party in preparing and carrying through the revolution.
The revolutionary political partv is indispensable to the working class as the bearer of scientific theory, as a political educator with international working-class experience, and as the organiser of the practical struggle of the whole class for both its immediate and its final objectives. The Marxist revolutionary party is the main force rallying the political forces of the socialist revolution. It co-ordinates and directs the activities of the working class in different parts of the country, or at different places of work, as required by the overall programme of the movement. It can thus introduce unity into the actions of the entire class, and can organise broad political alliances with other classes and social groups in the struggle for common objectives. It accumulates, generalises and propagates the experience gained in the class struggle and trains dependable leaders and theoreticians. Only a revolutionary party can ensure the stability and continuity of the proletariat's class struggle. Only such a party, as the ideological, political and organisational centre of the socialist revolution, can correctly determine and consistently carry out a proletarian political line, without which the victory of the revolution is inconceivable. "In its struggle for power,'' Lenin taught, "the proletariat has no other weapon but organisation. . . . The proletariat can, and inevitably will, become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation, which welds millions of toilers into an army of the working = class."^^1^^
From the Leninist point of view, the problem of preparing the political force of the socialist revolution is closely bound up with the problem of establishing the true relation between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 415. = The principles of Lenin's theory of the Party are discussed in greater detail in another article in this collection.---Ed.
149Lenin showed that, in the age of imperialism, the capitalist system (both on a world scale and in every individual country) was a motley mosaic of modern state-monopoly socio-economic relations intertwined with the pre-capitalist relations which imperialism has preserved or revived. It follows that the socialist revolution cannot be a ``pure'' proletarian revolution. It inevitably merges with the anti-imperialist struggle of the proletariat's democratic allies from among the middle sections of the population. Though not understanding the aims of the socialist revolution, the democratic allies of the working class nevertheless objectively contribute to it by their own fight for democracy. The proletariat's policy of forming class alliances with middle strata of the population in the struggle for democracy is an important means of guiding the people towards socialist revolution.
The organic link between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism was explained by Lenin in his theory of the development of the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution.
In the era of imperalism, when the objective conditions for the transition to socialism are ripe, the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in those countries that have not yet freed themselves from the fetters of feudalism assume, objectively, an anti-- imperialist character. Monopoly capitalism, faced with proletarian revolution, tries to maintain or revive old feudal relationships on a new basis and even merges with them. The success of a bourgeois-democratic revolution under these conditions thus requires very thorough-going socio-economic changes: radical agrarian reforms, the nationalisation of big monopolies, and the democratisation of public life, etc. While such measures cannot of themselves eliminate the capitalist system, they can create favourable conditions for the socialist revolution.
The intertwining of the contradictions of the feudal system with those of imperialism is the economic basis of the development of the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution.
The political basis of this development is the hegemony of the proletariat in the democratic revolution. By bringing the democratic revolution to fruition, it creates the conditions for the continuity of the revolutionary process. The proletariat's hegemony in the democratic revolution politically educates the working class and rallies round it the political forces of the future socialist revolution. It prepares favourable conditions for winning 150 power by the working class and for establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. With the completion of the democratic revolution, the political forces regroup around the working class and a switch over to the socialist revolution takes place.
The theory of the development of the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution does not, however, cover the whole of the question of the close connection between democratic movements and the socialist revolution.
Imperialism engenders the tendency towards reaction and violence that is to be found in all capitalist countries; it oppresses all sections of the people and evokes their indignation and protests. This explains why there has been a mighty upsurge in the era of imperialism of general movements for democratic freedoms, for national liberation and the abolition of medieval forms of enslavement preserved by monopolies, against reaction and militarism.
The working class, which plays the leading role in the era of the maturity and development of the world socialist revolution, naturally unites around itself all the main streams of the democratic movements and enjoys their mass support in the struggle for socialism. In the era of imperialism, the struggle for democracy is linked to the proletariat's class struggle for the socialist reorganisation of society. Democracy cannot be fully and consistently translated into reality until monopoly rule has been destroyed. And this is a task that the working class alone, by advancing towards socialism, can fulfil.
"Not a single fundamental democratic demand,'' Lenin said, "can be achieved to any considerable extent, or with any degree of permanency, in the advanced imperialist states, except through revolutionary battles under the banner of = socialism."^^1^^
But general democratic movements in their turn create some of the objective and subjective conditions necessary for the socialist revolution; they help pave the way to it, draw petty-= bourgeois and semi-proletarian sections into the struggle for socialism, and themselves finally merge with the torrent of the proletariat's own social revolution. The inner connection between the general democratic anti-imperialist movement and the proletarian movement for socialism and the eventual development of the former into the latter are a law of the socialist revolution discovered by Lenin.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 167--68.
151The democratic movements and the socialist revolution are not distinguished so much by any radical differences in objectives as by the consistency and thoroughness with which these objectives are set and implemented. Every democratic movement raises partial demands without tying them to the abolition of the capitalist system. The socialist movement, on the other hand, sets itself a wide range of democratic tasks and tics them closely to the abolition of the system of exploitation. Consequently, when the proletariat unites the democratic movements and directcs them towards the socialist revolution, it puts them on the only path that can lead to the fullest and most consistent achievement of the aims of democracy. Refuting bourgeois and opportunist allegations that democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat are incompatible, Lenin stressed that on the contrary only proletarian dictatorship is compatible with full and complete = democracy.^^1^^ The dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy of the highest type, democracy for the overwhelming majority, democracy for the working people. The struggle of the proletariat for socialist aims and the struggle of the broad masses for democracy both lead in the end to the conquest of political power by the working class and to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The transfer of power from one class to another is, according to Lenin, the principal indicator of revolution in both the scientific and the practical political sense of the term.
The question of power in the socialist revolution is that of destroying the bourgeois state machine and replacing it by the rule of the proletariat. There has been no idea in the history of Marxism which has been the object of such sharp struggle as the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is this idea which separates the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution from the various bourgeois, reformist and revisionist ideas of ``evolutionary'' or ``humane'' socialism.
While ostensibly recognising the need for the socialist revolution, the proponents of opportunism---the Bernsteinians, the Kautskyites, the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries--- denied that there was any need to destroy the bourgeois state machine and instead propagated a philistine Utopia of "pure democracy'', seeing in this the political content of the transition from capitalism to socialism. Lenin vigorously opposed these opportunists, exposed their betrayal of Marxism, and uncovered _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 282.
152 the reactionary nature of their notion of "pure democracy''. His criticism fully retains its scientific value for the exposure of modern reformism and revisionism, which associate the transition to socialism with Utopian and reactionary ideas about transforming the bourgeois state into ``non-class'' instrument of "pure democracy" with its free play of political forces.Why must the bourgeois state machine be destroyed? Because it is the instrument of bourgeois rule and is specially adapted to serve and protect the interests of exploiters. It is tied by a thousand threads to the ruling class---it is a prisoner of its ideas, beliefs and prejudices, and is tightly bound to the bourgeoisie by a complicated system of privileges. To make the state the instrument of socialist changes, the content of its work, its structure and class composition have to be altered. These changes cannot be effected smoothly, without struggle within the state itself, because the ruling class would always bitterly resist any such changes. Only stubborn class struggle and the seizure of all power by the working class can break the rule of the bourgeoisie and alter the class nature of state power.
The destruction of the bourgeois state machine does not involve the destruction of all the bodies of the old state. Only those bodies that directly suppress the people need be destroyed. Institutions that are useful to the working class can be reorganised, transformed and included in the system of proletarian rule---for example, the apparatus of accounting and verification (which becomes quite extensive under state-monopoly capitalism when the state assumes the functions of ``regulating'' and " programming" the economy). But this apparatus must definitely be purged of everything that served the predatory interests of the monopolies, so that it can be made to serve the interests of the people.
The forms and methods employed in the destruction of the bourgeois state machine depend on prevailing historical conditions, and on the sharpness of the class struggle. In the Soviet republic, where the class struggle was extremely acute for many reasons, the old system of state institutions and organisations was soon virtuajly replaced by a new system---the Soviets. In the European People's Democracies, where the forces of reaction were undermined just before and during the revolution, some elements and forms of the old state, filled with a new class content, were included in the state system of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
153Petty-bourgeois theorists of Lenin's clay held that the bourgeois state would give way not to the dictatorship of the proletariat but to some sort of "dictatorship of the whole people''. V. Trutovsky, a Left Socialist-Revolutionary theoretician, wrote: "The only slogan that will bring victory to our agrarian-= socialist revolution is the dictatorship of the working people in both town and country, and not the dictatorship of the proletariat and the fictitious village = poor."^^1^^ The concept of the "dictatorship of the whole people" was unsound because it ignored the dual, vacillating nature of the petty-bourgeois sections of the population, which cannot be changed the moment the bourgeoisie is overthrown, and which continues to serve for a long time as a social source of various revisionist trends. The solution of the problems confronting the socialist revolution at this juncture calls for a clear vision and conviction and a firm political line--- and these can only be ensured by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end in itself. It is a means of achieving socialist aims and of paving the way to full democracy. By abolishing all the forms of the exploitation of man by man, the dictatorship of the proletariat---as experience has shown in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries--- creates the conditions for the further extension of socialist democracy.
Lenin also paid great attention to the study of the ways the working class could take power. Marx and Engels had visualised both the peaceful and the non-peaceful forms of revolutionary development. But the opportunist leaders of the Second International reduced everything to the peaceful form, to the winning of a parliamentary majority through elections. They postulated this at a time when, in the conditions of growing political reaction engendered by imperialism, the peaceful conquest of power by the proletariat was very unlikely. Lenin restored Marx's and Engels's views that in principle there could be both peaceful and non-peaceful forms of struggle, while emphasising, however, that in the first stage of the world socialist revolution the working class would most probably have to wage armed struggle for power. The chances of a socialist revolution developing peacefully were small then, which explains why Lenin devoted so much space in his works to the theory of armed insurrection.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Znamya Truda, April 15, 1918.
154Nevertheless, Lenin considered "highly valuable" the possibility of taking power peacefully, and although there was very little historical experience to fall back on, he thoroughly examined the conditions that would allow it. He showed that the peaceful transition of power into the hands of the working class is possible if the relation of class forces in the political arena makes the armed resistance of the ruling class hopeless and compels it to yield power under the pressure of the objective political situation. Analysing the situation in Russia after the Kornilov revolt (September 1917), when the peaceful development of the revolution looked possible for a while, Lenin wrote: "There could be no question of any resistance to the Soviets if the Soviets themselves did not waver. No class will dare start an uprising against the Soviets, and the landowners and capitalists, taught a lesson by the experience of the Kornilov revolt, will give up their power peacefully and yield to the ultimatum of the Soviets."^^1^^
As a result of the continuing shift in the balance of forces on a world scale and within individual capitalist countries in favour of the working class, the possibility of the proletariat assuming power peacefully is increasing. This trend was noted in the documents of the Seventh Congress of the Communist International. The world socialist system is becoming a decisive factor in the development of human society, and this is creating increasingly favourable conditions for the peaceful transition to socialism in some capitalist countries. A detailed analysis of the new possibilities opening up before the working class in its struggle for power is given in the policy documents of the CPSU and the international communist movement.
Despite the apparent contrast between their views, the Right opportunists who worship the peaceful form of transition to socialism and the Leftist doctrinaires who regard the forcible seizure of power as the universal law of socialist revolution, both dogmatically and mechanically oppose these two interconnected forms of the struggle for power to each other.
Lenin's theory of socialist revolution, however, provides for a flexible approach to the question of the forms of conquest of power, taking into account the interpenetration and mobility of these forms. This is what Lenin himself wrote: "Marx did not _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 67.
155 commit himself, or the future leaders of the socialist revolution, to matters of form, to ways and means of bringing about the revolution. He understood perfectly well that a vast number of new problems would arise, that the whole situation would change in the course of the revolution, and that the situation would change radically and often in the course of = revolution."^^1^^In Lenin's view, the peaceful and non-peaceful forms of transition to socialism are not separated from each other by an insurmountable wall. One form may be replaced by another, depending on changes in prevailing historical conditions. The practical experience of the revolutionary movement proves time and again that there can be no easy way to winning power. In those countries where there is a possibility for securing a peaceful approach and transition to socialism the working class is faced at every step with the bitter opposition of bourgeois monopoly reaction relying on the support of the military. The peaceful path to power is not straightforward, as the revisionists believe; it is beset with contradictions and political crises. There is always the danger that it will be cut short by reactionaries resorting to armed violence. This is why, as several documents of the international communist movement state, the working class and the Marxist-Leninist parties must be prepared for both the peaceful and non-peaceful forms of struggle for power.
Lenin devoted particular attention, especially after the October Revolution, to the elaboration of the concept of the world socialist revolution. The socialist revolution is a product of the extreme aggravation of the contradictions of world imperialism. That is why it is a world revolution in content and its ultimate aim is the complete abolition of capitalist exploitation and the establishment of socialism and communism on a global scale. The world socialist revolution extends throughout a whole era of world history, right up to the victory of socialism throughout the world.
Lenin severely criticised Trotsky's mechanical interpretation of the international character of the socialist revolution and his refusal to reckon with the specific conditions obtaining in different countries. The purpose of a revolution in one particular country, in Trotsky's view, was to instigate a world revolution by extending it mechanically to other countries. Lenin opposed Trotsky's vulgar conception with the dialectical conception of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 343.
156 the connection between the socialist revolution in any one country and the world revolutionary process as a whole. The revolution in any one country is a relatively independent link in the chain of the world revolution. The first of these links was Russia.The October Socialist Revolution revealed its international character through its vast influence on the revolutionary movement in all countries and the support it received from the international working class. It undermined the strength of capitalism, paved the path to a new stage in the advance of the world labour movement, tremendously stimulated the national liberation movement, and enriched the treasure-house of revolutionary experience with a practical example of the transition to socialism. Resolutely rejecting the adventurist idea of ``exporting'' revolution, Lenin stressed that the task of the victorious proletariat was to achieve everything possible within the bounds of its own country in order to rouse, support and stimulate the revolutionary movement in all other countries.
Lenin warned against the oversimplified interpretation of the laws governing the world revolutionary process. The world socialist revolution has to cope with an extraordinary variety of socio-economic conditions: from modern industry equipped with up-to-date machinery to primitive agriculture, from the highest forms of state-monopoly capitalism to primitive communal societies, from the developed class structure of classic capitalism to tribal relations that have been little affected (if at all) by class differentiation, from bourgeois democracy to feudal despotic regimes. This range of striking contrasts inherent in the world capitalist system refutes dogmatic ideas about the ``purity'' of the proletarian social revolution.
"The world revolution,'' said Lenin, "is not so smooth as to proceed in the same way everywhere, in all countries. If it were, we should have been victorious long ago. Every country has to go through definite political = stages."^^1^^
The world socialist revolution is a complex, many-faceted and contradictory process in which the building of socialism in the countries where the working class has won power and the proletariat's class struggle in the capitalist countries closely intertwine with the democratic and national liberation movements and revolutions, and merge with them to form a single stream _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 123.
157 of the world liberation movement, which takes different paths in different countries. But, as Lenin showed, this contradictory diversity conceals the profound internal unity of the forces of the world liberation movement. The basis of their unity was their common anti-imperialism, rallying all revolutionary contingents round the main force capable of opposing imperialism, the international proletariat. The working-class struggle for socialism does not merely deal blows to imperialism---by abolishing capitalist exploitation, it destroys the very foundation of imperialism. The revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is at the centre of the world liberation movement, cementing all its various parts into a single whole. The hegemony of the international proletariat in the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of the world is one of the most important laws governing the world revolutionary process.Since the world socialist revolution matures unevenly, the working class cannot attain victory simultaneously in all countries. The countries where the socialist revolution has triumphed naturally become the main base, the bulwark, and the chief motive force of the world revolutionary process. They assume the main burden of the struggle against imperialism and reaction, facilitating the work of the other sections of the international revolutionary movement, inspiring them to action, and supporting their struggle morally, politically and materially.
After the October Socialist Revolution Lenin wrote: "...on the one hand, the Soviet movements of the advanced workers in all countries, and, on the other, all the national liberation movements in the colonies and among the oppressed nationalities~.~.~."^^1^^ have inevitably and naturally grouped themselves around the Soviet Russian Republic.
The main task of the socialist revolution after the working class has taken power into its hands is to establish a new social system. The fate of the proletariat's social revolution depends wholly on the successful solution of this task. Lenin's ideas on the role played by the socialist countries in the world revolutionary process have been creatively developed in the policy documents of the international communist movement. The Main Document of the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, held in June 1969, declared: "The world socialist system is the decisive force in the anti-imperialist struggle."
The ideas of Lenin's make it possible to understand the vast _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 146.
158 international significance of the establishment of a new society in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. The building of communism in the USSR and the all-round improvement of Soviet socialist society are the basic contribution made by the CPSU and the Soviet people towards the world revolutionary process, towards the struggle of all peoples against imperialism, for peace, national independence, democracy and socialism.It is only in alliance with the world socialist system that the revolutionary potential of all the other forces of the international liberation movement fully reveals itself. Moreover, the balance of forces on a world scale and, following from this, the potentialities and prospects of each contingent of the liberation movement, depend decisively on the unity and cohesion of the world socialist system. Solidarity with the socialist community, therefore, becomes the main criterion of proletarian internationalism for all contingents of the working class. The Third Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties emphasised that "the defence of socialism is an internationalist duty of Communists."
The era of the socialist revolution is distinguished by rapid developments. The world revolutionary process changes in the torrent of history and goes through a number of different stages. At each stage the laws of socialist revolution manifest themselves in different ways, and themselves undergo certain changes.
The main trend of the world revolutionary process, the one that has determined the basic qualitative changes in it, is thai transforming socialism from a force victorious in only one country and incapable of determining world politics into an international system exerting a decisive influence on world developments.
Lenin foresaw, in this connection, the appearance of new possibilities and new forms of development for the socialist revolution, possibilities and forms determined by the regrouping and realignment of class forces in the process of the world revolution. He predicted that no future working-class revolution would find itself in so difficult a situation as the Russian revolution. "We had to exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat in its harshest form,'' he = wrote.^^1^^
Lenin also predicted that the functions of the national _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 207.
159 liberation movement would alter in the course of the world socialist revolution. Originally spearheaded against the colonial yoke, it would inevitably turn against capitalism, too. In the general torrent of the world revolutionary process "with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist = stage".^^1^^The new possibilities and forms of development of the socialist revolution foreseen by Lenin have arisen as a result of the profound changes after the Second World War. The international communist movement, loyal to Lenin's ideals, is creatively exploring the new possibilities opening up before the present-= day revolutionary movement. The emergence of socialism and the division of the world into two opposing social systems have produced deep qualitative changes in international affairs. The struggle between socialism and capitalism is now at the heart of historical developments, and the main focus of the international revolutionary movement.
Bourgeois ideologues, revisionists and dogmatists, all oppose the socialist revolution to the peaceful coexistence of states with differing social systems. But in Lenin's conception of the world revolutionary process these two concepts are interconnected. Peace is of the utmost importance for the development of socialism. Because of this, socialism is the chief source and bulwark of peaceful relations between nations. The birth of socialism represented a qualitative leap in the development of international relations: it created the real possibility of peaceful coexistence.
In Lenin's lifetime this new possibility could not be fully realised: imperialism then dominated international affairs and the seeds of new wars were ripening in its womb. The full realisation of the possibility of peaceful coexistence depended on the growth and consolidation of socialism and on further advances by the world socialist revolution. The radical change in the balance of forces which occurred after the Second World War as a result of the successful world revolutionary development created conditions for turning this possibility of peaceful coexistence into an objective requirement for historical progress.
This does not mean, however, the discontinuance of the class struggle on a world scale and the establishment of a status quo _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 244.
160 in class relations. Socialist states pursue internationalist policies in peacetime too, combat imperialism, support national liberation struggles and promote closer solidarity with the working class and other revolutionary forces in all countries. The policy of peace followed by socialism is not pacifism. It is a class policy. It means that the international working class and the world socialist system, backed by all the democratic forces standing for peace, force upon the imperialist powers forms of interstate class struggle which make it possible to avert world war, and which at the same time accord with the interests of the proletariat. "Any peace, therefore, will open channels for our influence a hundred times wider,'' wrote = Lenin.^^1^^ He severely criticised ``Left'' doctrinaires for claiming that the road to the world-wide victory of the socialist revolution lay through war.Leninism does not say that revolution is the inevitable outcome of war. What is more, it affirms a different kind of law-= governed development: the socialist revolution paves the way to peace among nations because it eliminates the antagonisms which engender war, dislodges from power the classes interested in war, and creates a social system whose desire for peace is inherent in it. The world revolutionary process has given birth to forces which can, by their struggle, prevent the outbreak of another world war.
Lenin's brain ceased to work and his heart to beat forty-six years ago. But his theory of socialist revolution continues to live and develop. It remains to this day a mighty ideological weapon in the hands of the working class and all the revolutionary forces of our time.
The link between Lenin's theory of socialist revolution and current developments is not mechanical but dialectical. It is maintained through the creative development and adaptation of the theory to the present stage of the transition from capitalism to socialism. The radical change in the world alignment and relation of class and political forces in the last few decades has introduced qualitatively new features into all revolutionary processes and many new elements into the treatment of the problems of the theory of socialist revolution. Not a few of Lenin's propositions reflect profound trends in historical development which had just begun to take shape in his own lifetime. Today, when these trends are more pronounced, we discover _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 455.
__PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11---1974 161 in Lenin's ideas new insights and shades of meaning of special value, calling for their more thorough study, understanding and adaptation to modern conditions. At the same time the advance of the world revolutionary process raises new questions which did not confront Lenin, and Marxism-Leninism finds answers to these questions by generalising recent historical experience. For this reason one cannot adhere to Leninism and at the same time ignore the present activity of the CPSU and other Marxist-= Leninist parties, the policy documents of the international communist movement, with which the new stage in the development of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution is associated. [162] __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE STRATEGYBy N. V. TROPKIN
The strategy and tactics of Leninism is a major branch of the great Marxist-Leninist teaching on the transformation of the world along communist lines. By generalising the experience of the world communist and labour movement, this science helps the Communist and Workers' Parties to form the political armies struggling for social liberation and to guide their revolutionary activities.
Marx and Engels lived when capitalism was on its rise and when socialist revolution was not inevitable in practice and preparation of the proletariat for the great revolutionary battles of the future was not an immediate task. During the lifetime of Marx and Engels, it was not clear that there was a variety of ways and means by which the working class could attain political power. The proletariat had not yet accumulated sufficient experience and factual material to make a science of political strategy and tactics. For this reason Marx and Engels could advance only a limited number of ideas on strategy and tactics: those concerning the dovetailing of the current tasks of the working-class movement with its ultimate goals, uninterrupted revolution, the combination of the proletariat's struggle for socialism with peasant war, the national and international unity of the proletariat, armed uprising, working-class support for progressive demands voiced by the petty bourgeoisie, temporary alliances between the revolutionary proletariat and petty-- bourgeois parties, the need to allow for the peculiarities of given countries, etc. But these major ideas of the founders of Marxism provided the starting points for working out the strategy and tactics of Leninism.
After the death of Marx and Engels the world labour movement came under the sway of the opportunist leaders of the __PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 11* 163 Second International, who tried to supplant Marxist ideas on strategy and tactics by various illusions of their own. The strategy and tactics taught by these leaders boiled down to parliamentarism, which they treated as the sole form of struggle, i.e., to unprincipled submission to the bourgeoisie and to the deception of the working class with revolutionary phrases.
At the turn of the century, when the early, pre-monopoly capitalism had been replaced by monopoly capitalism---that is, imperialism---the conditions of the working-class struggle changed radically. The socialist revolution then became an urgent matter. The working people led by the revolutionary proletariat developed a gigantic struggle for democracy and socialism. Under these conditions Marxists were confronted with the crucial task of reviving the strategic and tactical ideas of Marx and Engels and developing them further with reference to the new historical conditions. This was done by Lenin, the great continuer of the cause of Marx and Engels. Lenin brilliantly synthesised the experience of the world proletarian movement in general and that of the Russian Bolshevik Party in particular. He integrated basic strategic and tactical tenets into a single harmonious system and elaborated the science of the guidance of the proletarian class struggle. The Bolshevik Party led by Lenin provided brilliant examples of applying this science in practice that have become classic examples of skilful strategic and tactical guidance.
The importance of correct strategy and tactics has increased enormously in the era of the breakdown of capitalism, the era of the world socialist revolution, of great revolutionary upheavals and national liberation wars unparalleled in scope and mass following. And the sphere to which strategy and tactics apply in practice logically expands as more and more sections of the working people are drawn into active struggle.
Strategy and tactics cover the subjective aspect of the workers' movement, that is, the conscious and organised struggle of the working class for its own interests and the interests of all working people. This applies above all to the leadership given to the labour movement by a Marxist-Leninist party. But, of course, unless such a party exists, strategy and tactics as a science cannot be applied at all. Equally, the growth of a revolutionary party's influence among the working people and the consolidation of its leading role cannot but extend the sphere of application of Leninist strategy and tactics.
Strategy and tactics do not bear directly on the objective conditions of the working-class movement, i.e., on the processes 164 of social development which take place regardless of the will of the revolutionary proletariat and its party. However, they must be strictly based on the objective conditions-on the concrete historical situation and the alignment of class forces in particular countries and the world at large. Leninism firmly rejects all subjectivism; it is guided solely by the pressing needs of society's material life, the vital interests of the working masses.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ The Theoretical Principles of Strategy and TacticsThe proletariat can take advantage of the potentialities for revolutionary struggle created by the objective course of social development only when it is guided by Marxist-Leninist theory. This theory not only serves it as a compass on its revolutionary path but also serves to firmly connect with ideological bonds all the fighters for a socialist transformation of society. Without a knowledge of the objective laws of social progress it is impossible to determine either strategic aims or correct tactical forms of struggle. The most dedicated and energetic actions on the part of the revolutionary proletariat cannot bring about a revolution, unless there exists a mature revolutionary situation, i.e., objective conditions for a revolutionary assault. To ignore the objective laws of social development means doing damage to the revolutionary movement, implies adventurism, divorcement of the Party from the people, and entails attempts to provoke ``revolutions'' and ``uprisings'' prejudicial to the liberation struggle without waiting for revolutionary situations to mature. At the same time Marxism-Leninism resolutely denounces attempts to belittle the significance of the subjective factor in social development and to submit blindly to objective conditions, since this can lead only to dependence on chance and spontaneity. A mature revolutionary situation presupposes the existence of the objective conditions for the victory of revolution. But to what use these conditions are put, i.e., whether there is a revolution and what its outcome is, depends on subjective factors, on the energy, determination, consciousness and organisation of the contending social forces. To become the leader of the liberation struggle, the revolutionary proletariat must learn to understand correctly the interaction of objective conditions and the subjective factor in social development.
The Marxist proposition that the masses are the real makers of history is the main point of departure in the strategy and 165 tactics of Leninism. They are imbued with the most profound belief in the enormous revolutionary power of the working class, the vast potential of the peasantry and other sections of the working people and arc opposed to any manifestation of the cult of the individual, "for the only effective force that compels change is popular revolutionary = energy".^^1^^ The chief purpose of Leninist strategy and tactics is to stimulate the creative powers of the working people, to assist them to display their revolutionary energy to the full and in the most effective way, and to introduce organisation and purposcfulness into their struggle--- in short, to unite the people into triumphant revolutionary armies and to direct them along the shortest route to their great goal--- the abolition of all forms of exploitation and suppression of man by man and the realisation of the ideals of scientific communism.
All the parts of Marxist-Leninist theory---philosophy, economic doctrine and scientific communism---go to form the theoretical foundation of the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the working class. But of especially great importance in this respect is Lenin's theory of socialist revolution and proletarian internationalism. Many of the main ideas of the strategy and tactics of Leninism follow directly from the chief tenets of this theory —the need for working-class hegemony in the revolution, the theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, and the possibility of socialism triumphing in different countries at different times.
The idea of the hegemony of the proletariat is the key to the strategy and tactics of Leninism, which are in fact nothing else than a broad elaboration of this idea.
Leninism teaches the revolutionary proletariat that to succeed in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie it must first secure its hegemony in the struggle. And to do this, it has to develop its abilities as the political leader of the working people, learn how to defeat the bourgeoisie in order to gain influence among them, and understand the complexities of uniting into a single revolutionary front all those classes and social strata that can take part in all or at least some of the stages of the liberation struggle.
The idea of proletarian hegemony has always played a big part in Marxist-Leninist theory and in practical revolutionary struggles. In the era of imperialism and transition from capitalism to socialism its significance has grown immeasurably. And, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 215.
166 responding to the requirements of life, Lenin developed the Marxist idea of the leading role of the working class and its party in the socialist revolution.In the early period of pre-monopoly capitalism most Marxists took the view that the proletariat could become a leader only in the course of the direct struggle for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, for socialism. For this reason, while firmly supporting democratic movements, Marxists did not raise the question of the proletariat winning its hegemony in the bourgeois-democratic revolution.
In the era of the collapse of capitalism the sphere of the proletariat's leadership has grown considerably. As Lenin showed, it now extends to bourgeois-democratic revolutions, national liberation movements and general democratic movements. Moreover, the working class itself becomes more thoroughly prepared for fulfilling the noble mission of leading the liberation struggle.
Today, the great idea of proletarian hegemony is being realised not only within the framework of individual countries but on a global scale, with the international working class relying on the world socialist system and leading the world revolutionary process as a whole and the main currents of the liberation struggle in particular.
Proletarian hegemony is the decisive factor in the development of the socialist revolution both nationally and internationally, and it was the consistent implementation of Lenin's idea of proletarian hegemony in Russia first in the bourgeois-democratic revolution and then in the socialist revolution that determined the successful outcome of these revolutions.
Lenin noted repeatedly that the working class secures its leading role not spontaneously, but in the thick of the battles against the bourgeoisie, which through its numerous agents seeks to seize the leadership of the revolutionary movement in order to weaken and betray it.
The Communist Party's leadership of the militant, revolutionary actions of the working people is the highest expression of proletarian hegemony in the liberation struggle. Only when it has a Marxist political party can the proletariat turn the spontaneous labour movement into a conscious, purposeful movement and become the leader in the struggle for democracy and socialism. Leninism shows that the degree to which the working class leads the struggle depends directly on the fighting capacity, organisation, unity and theoretical maturity of the proletarian party, its influence among the working people and its resolve to 167 fight any attempts to belittle its leading role, and on the ability of the proletariat to acquire allies and lead them in the struggle against reaction.
Proletarian hegemony means above all the establishment of a revolutionary alliance with the working peasantry, releasing the latter from bourgeois influence and directing all its vast revolutionary energies into the struggle for socialism. The entire history of class struggle under capitalism has shown that the working peasantry is the most reliable ally of the working class and that the worker-peasant alliance releases huge revolutionary energy. It is only in alliance with them that the proletariat can secure its political leadership and place all working people on the road to socialism. Militant actions by the proletariat alone without its firm alliance with the peasantry cannot bring the revolution to fruition, as was evidenced by the revolutions of 1848 and 1871 in France, the first Russian revolution of 1905--07, the socialist revolution of 1919 in Hungary and many other revolutionary developments. The victorious outcome of the socialist revolution in Russia and the people's democratic revolutions in some of the European and Asian countries vividly testifies to the fact that the revolutionary alliance between the working class and the working peasantry under the leadership of the former is the principal earnest of, the indispensable condition for, the success in the struggle for democracy and socialism.
The alliance between the working class and the peasantry greatly increases the potential of the liberation struggle. Therefore, the struggle against the bourgeoisie and its agents to gain influence over the mass of the peasantry is one of the most important strategic and tactical tasks facing the revolutionary proletariat in all capitalist countries. The question of the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, as Lenin put it, is "the most important and radical question of our entire revolution and of all future socialist = revolutions.~.~.~."^^1^^ Despite the fact that the numerical strength of the peasantry in the developed capitalist countries has decreased, the working peasantry still remains the chief ally of the working class.
In the theory of working-class leadership great importance is attached to proletarian leadership of the democratic liberation struggle waged by oppressed nations, to the fusion of the struggle for socialism and the national liberation movement. Lenin considered this to be of paramount importance, for he regarded _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 155.
168 the national liberation movement as one of the chief revolutionary forces. Thus the successful development of the world revolutionary process hinges to a great extent on the ability of the working class to establish an alliance with the liberation struggle of the oppressed nations and to channel their energies towards achieving aims that are of a socialist as well as emancipatory nature. To underscore the tremendous significance of unity between the working-class struggle for socialism and the struggle of the oppressed nations for their freedom, Lenin supplemented the famous call of Marx and Engels and formulated the slogan: "Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!"Successful working-class leadership in the liberation struggle is inconceivable today, as the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties noted, without involving the intelligentsia and youth in the revolutionary struggle.
Together with the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat, the corner-stone of Leninist strategy and tactics is the theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution. Worked out by Lenin in the period of the first Russian revolution, this theory covers the strategy and tactics of the proletariat in both the democratic and socialist revolutions, stressing, in particular, the fact that the democratic and socialist revolutions merge.
Lenin proved that under imperialism a victorious democratic revolution is shortly followed by a socialist revolution.
In the West European countries bourgeois revolutions resulted in dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, which have been in existence for a very long time now because these revolutions were led by the bourgeoisie alone. But this was possible only when capitalism was first asserting itself and was in its ascendancy. In the period of imperialism, working-class leadership of the struggle for democratic changes brings the democratic and socialist revolutions closer together. Equally important is the fact that under monopoly capitalism, with the interlocking of imperialism and feudalism, it becomes impossible to eradicate survivals of feudalism without a revolutionary struggle against imperialism. In these circumstances the democratic and socialist revolutions become two links in a single chain, two stages in the same revolutionary movement for freedom, establishing first the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry and then the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, the short interval between the democratic and socialist 169 revolutions is not taken up by a period of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie but by the period of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the people, exercised by the working class in alliance with the peasantry and other democratic sections of the population.
At the time Lenin evolved this theory Kautsky's opportunist illusions were rampant in the world labour movement concerning the possibility of rapid capitalist development following the victory of a bourgeois revolution until the time when the working class represented the majority of a nation. These illusions condemned the proletariat to a passive, wait-and-see policy after the victory of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. Lenin showed, however, that under imperialism the fact that the working class does not constitute the majority of the population is no impediment to its achieving victory in a socialist revolution, first, because the forces of the proletariat are immeasurably stronger than its proportion of the population, and second, in its struggle for socialism the proletariat has trustworthy allies in the poor peasantry and the urban semi-proletarian sections of the people, who together do comprise the majority of the population. The proletariat can also make up for insufficient numerical strength by concentrating its forces at selected, decisive points at critical moments, and by its ability to win further new allies at every stage of the revolution, thus splitting the enemy camp and defeating it piecemeal.
Lenin's theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution was the theoretical foundation for the Bolshevik Party's strategy and tactics in all three Russian revolutions. Many Communist and Workers' Parties worked out their strategic and tactical plans in keeping with this theory during the people's democratic revolutions. And now it guides Communists in the capitalist world, teaching them how to lead the great movements of the people for radical social changes and to combine properly the struggle for democracy with the struggle for socialism.
Lenin's theory that socialism could triumph at different times in different countries, and that a whole historical era---the era of the revolutionary defeat of capitalism---stands between the initial victory of the proletariat in one country and the ultimate demise of capitalism in all countries---armed the working class with new perspectives in the sphere of strategy. Lenin brilliantly forecast that this era would be an era of historic wars of liberation, in which the working-class struggle, the democratic 170 movements and the national liberation movements would merge into one common revolutionary torrent, with more and more countries falling away from imperialism and joining the ranks of the socialist countries. The contention that Lenin's theory is no longer valid is obviously groundless, for this theory is borne out by workers' victories in country after country.
Lenin's theory unleashes the revolutionary initiative of workers and enables them to launch bold and resolute attacks on imperialism without waiting for the beginning of revolutions in other countries. Having demonstrated that socialism could be victorious in one country alone, Lenin instilled in Bolsheviks an unshakable belief that the socialist revolution would triumph in Russia. Lenin's theory was the basis of the Party's strategy and tactics during the October Socialist Revolution. The Communist and Workers' Parties of the socialist countries have all been guided by it, and it has made it possible for the international communist movement to shake world capitalism to its foundations.
One of the basic principles of Leninist strategy and tactics is proletarian internationalism. The strategy and tactics of Leninism are essentially internationalist. Solutions to strategic and tactical questions must be based on the principle of proletarian internationalism, since the world can be transformed in a revolutionary way only by the international efforts of the proletariat. As long ago as the mid-19th century, Marx and Engels pointed out that world capitalism could only be defeated through international working-class unity. The world front of imperialist reaction must, therefore, be opposed by an international front of the revolutionary movements of all nations. The liberation movements in individual countries arc all part and parcel of the whole world liberation movement, and national revolutions are all part of the world socialist revolution. It would be wrong to suppose therefore that a proletarian revolution or socialist construction in a country where the proletariat has already taken power can proceed in isolation from the world revolutionary movement. Lenin referred time and again to the invaluable importance for the October Revolution and for socialist construction in the USSR of the powerful labour movements in Europe, the maturing revolutionary crises in both East and West, and the support and assistance given to the victorious proletariat of Russia by the working class of the capitalist countries and the national liberation movements of the oppressed peoples of the world.
171In its turn, the Soviet Union has always given tremendous assistance to peoples struggling to break the chains of national and social oppression. The proletariat of any country where the uneven development of capitalism has created the conditions for a socialist revolution cannot now take power without the support of the workers of other countries. Isolated proletarian revolutions are out of the question in the modern world. The working class can attain victory today only if it adheres to proletarian internationalism, which demands "that the interests of the proletarian struggle in any one country should be subordinated to the interests of that struggle on a world-wide = scale".^^1^^ Close co-= operation and mutual support alone can secure the success of the liberation struggle waged by the working people of different countries. It follows that the strategy and tactics of any Communist or Workers' Party, worked out in accordance with the particular conditions in which it works, cannot but conform to the interests of the world revolutionary movement. The 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties declared: "...the effectiveness of each Communist Party's policy depends on its success in its own country, on the successes of other fraternal Parties and on the extent of their co-operation. Each Communist Party is responsible for its activity to its own working class and people and, at the same time, to the international working class. The national and international responsibilities of each Communist or Workers' Party are indivisible. Marxists-Leninists are both patriots and internationalists; they reject both national narrow-mindedness and the negation or underestimation of national interests, and the striving for hegemony."
At the present stage of social development---when the successes scored by the revolutionary struggle in individual countries are linked to the international situation and the world revolutionary process, when history has made the working class and the Communist Parties responsible for the destiny of humanity, when the vital interests of the peoples of the world require the close cohesion of all democratic and progressive forces in the struggle for peace, democracy, and national and social emancipation, and when imperialism seeks to tear away individual socialist countries from the world socialist community---the international solidarity of the working class and the unity of the communist movement have an exceptionally important role to play.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 148.
172Life demands that the world imperialist front should be actively balanced by the world anti-imperialist front. Under these conditions the support, consolidation and defence of socialist gains in each country cannot but be a common internationalist duty of all contingents of the world working class, of all socialist countries and all liberation forces. "The defence of socialism is an internationalist duty of Communists" is the motto of the Main Document adopted by the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.
Consistent adherence to the principle of proletarian internationalism is the main guarantee of the correctness of communist strategy and tactics, and the chief source of the Communist Parties' strength in their struggle against imperialism for the revolutionary reorganisation of society and for peace, democracy, socialism and communism. Strict adherence to this principle was fully endorsed by the Twenty-Third CPSU Congress, which recognised the need to continue the course of rallying the world communist movement and taking united action with all fraternal parties in the struggle against the common enemy---imperialism, for the triumph of the cause of peace, democracy, national liberation and socialism.
In the light of this principle, the policy of the Chinese leaders entailing a split in the world communist movement, their subversive activities and the use of Trotskyist methods in the struggle against the Communist Parties and the socialist countries, their claims to hegemony in the world liberation movement and their military provocations against the Soviet Union can be interpreted solely as the betrayal of proletarian internationalism and the adoption of Great Power chauvinism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ The Strategy of the Revolutionary ProletariatBy the strategy of Leninism we mean the difinition of the general line or the principal direction of the workers' revolutionary struggle and their relation to other social forces.
One of the biggest questions of strategy is that of drawing into the revolutionary struggle those people who are destined to accomplish the chief aim of the struggle at each given stage of its development. Under capitalism, this question is basically solved in the following way: first, the majority of the working class is won over to the side of the revolutionary party of the 173 working class and, second, the broad non-proletarian sections of the people are brought into alliance with the working class.
Leninism sets great store by winning the majority of the proletariat to the side of the Party. It teaches that every proletarian party, from its inception to its assumption of political power, is bound to pass through two stages. The first stage is that of the formation of the Party, of winning the vanguard of the proletariat for communism. The second stage is that of winning the majority of the working class and the working peasantry to the side of the Communist Party. Unless this majority is won to the side of the Party, unless it is ready to follow Communists in a selfless heroic struggle, it is impossible to form a mass political army of the revolution and to ensure a successful outcome to the struggle for socialism. Lenin wrote that it would be both foolish and criminal to engage in a showdown before the majority of the proletariat and the non-proletarian masses as a whole had given their direct support to the Party or at least adopted an attitude of neutrality towards it.
In 1917, the Bolshevik Party took the course of overthrowing the bourgeoisie through armed uprising only after it had solved the task of winning over the majority of the proletariat and when it realised that a peaceful path had become impossible. Later Lenin wrote in his article "The Constituent Assembly Elections and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat": "The Bolsheviks were victorious, first of all, because they had behind them the vast majority of the proletariat, which included the most class-= conscious, energetic and revolutionary section, the real vanguard, of that advanced = class."^^1^^
Communist Parties strive to win over the majority of the proletariat while uniting it. Unity is the most powerful and reliable weapon that the working class can use against imperialism. As Lenin put it, "such a unity is infinitely precious, and infinitely important to the working class. Disunited, the workers are nothing. United, they are = everything."^^2^^
Leninism teaches us that capitalism continues to exist only because the capitalists are still able to split the working-class movement by planting their agents in it. This splitting policy is the chief weapon in the tactical arsenal of the bourgeoisie in its struggle against the forces of democracy and socialism. Never before in the history of the world labour movement has the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 257.
~^^2^^ Ibid.. Vol. 19, p. 519.
174 unity of the working class been of such decisive importance as it is now. Without proletarian unity there can be no unity of other revolutionary forces and no decisive victories for them in their struggle for peace and socialism. The Communist and Workers' Parties thus regard the all-round consolidation and expansion of working-class unity as a task of overriding importance. Attaching cardinal importance to the unity of proletarian forces, the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties stated: "Communists will improve their political and ideological work with an eye to securing working-class unity."Of course, while struggling to win over the working class, the Marxist Party should not forget about the non-proletarian sections of the people. Lenin often pointed out that the proletariat could never defeat its exploiters with its own forces alone; to achieve victory it needs, first and foremost, a revolutionary alliance with the peasantry and the oppressed nations. For this reason the peasant and national questions involve major points of strategy concerning the main allies of the working class in the struggle for democracy and socialism.
Nowadays there are more favourable conditions than ever for increasing the influence of the working class among all working people, for rallying around it the broadest possible sections of the peasantry, the middle townsfolk, intellectuals and the youth. All this is linked to the broadened mass base of the struggle for socialist transformations and is engendered primarily by the deepening of the antagonism between the handful of monopolists, the financial oligarchy, and the rest of the people.
The changed world balance of class forces has accordingly affected the strategy of the Communist and Workers' Parties. Whereas in 1920 Lenin set the Communist Parties the task of winning over the majority of the = proletariat,^^1^^ today, because the mass base of the socialist revolution has been extended, the Communist and Workers' Parties are faced with the task of uniting not only the majority of the working class, but the majority of the whole working population on the platform of struggle for socialism.
Leninism considers the main task of a Marxist party's political strategy to be that of defining its general line, and setting the fundamental aim of the revolutionary working-class struggle at a given historical stage. Correct strategy enables it to _-_-_
~^^1^^ See = ``Left-Wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder, Collected Works, Vol. 31.
175 achieve its goals with the least pain and at the greatest speed. Errors made in the definition of strategic goals cost the working class a great deal, involving heavy losses and serious setbacks. The proletariat then either loses sight of the ultimate aim of the revolutionary struggle or else it begins to display Leftist tendencies, making adventuristic leaps over untrodden stages of development.Lenin showed that the uneven economic and political development of capitalism in the epoch of imperialism results in the maturing of the conditions for social revolution in different countries at different times, i.e., in the uneven development of the liberation struggle. This unevcnncss is expressed in the different strategic stages which the struggle has reached in individual countries.
Lenin worked out the strategy for the period of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution in Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution and The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution. He further developed the strategy of the proletariat after it had come to power in the Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, in his report on the Party's work in the countryside to the Eighth Party Congress, in ``Left-Wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder, and in other works.
Lenin demonstrated, and the experience of the CPSU and of the entire liberation movement of today has confirmed, the existence of three strategic stages in the working people's revolutionary struggle.
The first strategic stage is the struggle for the abolition of feudal and national oppression, for the victory of the people's democratic revolution. This stage of the struggle was passed through by Russia before the February revolution of 1917, and is now being passed through by many of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The basic points of the strategy of the proletariat at this stage are: securing the victory of the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist democratic revolution, unifying all anti-- imperialist forces into a broad national front, and taking the non-= capitalist path of development.
The victory of the democratic revolution is not an end in itself for the proletariat; it is merely a major step towards a socialist revolution, for even the realisation of a radical democratic programme in no way implies the transition to socialism. Subjecting Zinoviev to criticism for his claim that the implementation of a minimum programme signifies in toto the 176 transition to socialism, Lenin wrote: "That is quite wrong!!. . . To think so is to move over to the reformist position in principle and to abandon the standpoint of the socialist = revolution."^^1^^
Leninism sets the revolutionary proletariat the task of doing everything possible to ensure that the revolution should not get ``stuck'' at the democratic stage and that it should develop into a socialist revolution.
As the proletariat grows in numerical strength, as it becomes more conscious and organised, as its leadership is consolidated and expands, as it wins over the semi-proletarian masses of town and country, and as the political army of the socialist revolution is formed, the liberation struggle enters the second strategic stage.
The second strategic stage is the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution. This stage is now being passed through by the working class of the developed capitalist countries. The main strategy at this stage is the struggle against monopoly rule, the omnipotence of the financial oligarchy, and the main tactical method is that of forming broad anti-monopoly alliances and anti-imperialist fronts---winning over, on this basis, new sections of the population---using every opportunity to effect a peaceful transition to socialism. At the same time the proletariat cannot reduce its readiness to take up arms in the event of its being forced to do so by the bourgeoisie.
Russia passed through this strategic stage in the period between February and October 1917; and many socialist countries of Europe and Asia, along with Cuba, have passed through it since the Second World War.
By strictly differentiating between the democratic and the socialist stage of the liberation struggle, the proletariat safeguards itself from skipping over vital stages of the revolution in an adventuristic manner, and this helps it to combine militant revolutionary enthusiasm with patient, persevering educational work among the working people in order to raise their consciousness and organisation. It also enables it to keep in step with the people, and to advance in the course of the revolution only those tasks which are warranted by the people's experience as correct. This strategy makes it possible for the proletariat, acting as their leader, to use to the full the revolutionary energy and potentialities of various classes and social groups, primarily the peasantry, in the struggle for socialism.
The Leninist strategy suggests that the proletariat can employ _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 41, pp. 384--85.
__PRINTERS_P_177_COMMENT__ 12---1974 177 in its own interests even its class enemies under certain conditions; in particular, it can enlist rich peasants in the struggle against the survivals of feudalism or the national bourgeoisie in the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist revolution. At the same time the proletariat must work to defeat its enemies one after another, first in the course of the bourgeois-democratic and then the socialist revolution. In his article entitled "Draft for a Speech on the Agrarian Question in the Second Duma'', Lenin explained this idea as follows:"Imagine, gentlemen, that I have to remove two heaps of rubbish from my yard. I have only one cart. And no more than one heap can be removed on one cart. What should I do?" Anyone who really wants to clean out his yard completely, Lenin himself replied to this question, will remove first the one heap and then the other.
"To begin with, the Russian people have to carry away on their cart all that rubbish that is known as feudal, landed proprietorship, and then come back with the empty cart to a cleaner yard, and begin loading the second heap, begin clearing out the rubbish of capitalist = exploitation!"^^1^^
With the victory of the socialist revolution the liberation struggle enters a new strategic stage, the stage through which the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are passing at present. At this stage, the working class and the Communist and Workers' Parties set themselves the task of rapidly developing the productive forces, in this way doing the maximum possible in one country to further the cause of democracy, socialism and communism in all countries. The 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties declared: "Successful development of the national economy, improvement of social relations and the all-= round progress of each socialist country conform both to the interests of each people separately and the common cause of socialism.'' The countries that were the first to embark upon the path of socialist transformations bear the main brunt of the struggle against world imperialism.
As Lenin pointed out, the revolutionary impact of the countries where socialist revolutions have triumphed mainly derives from their achievements in economic construction, since socialist construction is a great internationalist cause. Therefore, the Communists of the socialist countries, true to Marxism-Leninism, regard the promotion of the socialist community of nations, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 12, pp. 282--83.
178 multiplication of its achievements on the economic front, and the defeat of capitalism in peaceful economic competition as their basic strategic task."Relying on its steadily growing economic and defence potential,'' the Main Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties noted, "the world socialist system fetters imperialism, reduces its possibilities of exporting counter-= revolution, and in fulfilment of its internationalist duty, furnishes increasing aid to the peoples fighting for freedom and independence and promotes peace and international security."
The socialist system is the leading force of the world revolutionary movement. The outcome of the struggle between socialism and imperialism depends largely on the success of its further development. "This means,'' said the resolution of the Plenary Meeting of the CC, CPSU, held in June 1969, "that the concern for strengthening the world socialist system is at the same time concern for the development of the world revolutionary process and for an effective struggle against = imperialism."^^1^^
The steady growth of the economic potential of the socialist countries is a major factor of the victory of the world socialist revolution. The Soviet example eloquently demonstrates how effective is the impact of economic construction in a country of the victorious working class on the world revolutionary movement. "It was largely thanks to the CPSU correct guidance of the building of socialism,'' said Gomulka at a Kremlin reception of the participants in the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, "that the Soviet Union could give a shattering rebuff to the nazi invasion, decide the outcome of the Second World War, and make the decisive contribution to the rout of nazism. This, as we are well aware . . . has determined the general trend of world development in the post-war period. It was largely thanks to this victory that the world socialist system was able to arise. The successes scored by socialism precipitated the collapse of colonialism. A new alignment of forces has taken shape in the world."
But though they strengthen the might of the revolutionary forces, and help to bring about their final victory and the complete demise of capitalism, the economic achievements of the socialist countries do not, of course, rule out the need for socialist revolutions in the capitalist countries.
The fight for peace and against imperialist aggression is of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, June 27, 1969.
179 first importance in the present-day strategy of the world communist movement. The Communist and Workers' Parties are in no doubt that if, against the will of progressive mankind, the imperialists dared to unleash a new world war, the inevitable result would be the world-wide downfall of capitalism and the eventual world-wide victory of socialism. Communists, however, are absolutely opposed to the idea that the final victory of socialism should be achieved at the excessive price of the destruction of millions of people and of the greatest material and spiritual products of the labour and mind of man in a thermo-= nuclear war.The victory of socialism on a world scale can be achieved without a new world war, in the conditions of the peaceful coexistence of states with a different social system. More and more countries are bound to drop away from imperialism and pass over to socialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ The Tactics of the Revolutionary ProletariatThe tactics of the proletariat develop on the basis of its strategy. Their principal purpose is to establish those means, forms and methods of struggle that most fully conform to the concrete historical situation and that can most surely contribute to the attaining of the strategic goal.
Tactics are subordinate to strategy. This does not, however, detract from the enormous importance of correct tactics in the proletarian struggle. As Lenin said, "the preparation of correct tactical decisions is of immense importance for a party which desires to lead the proletariat in the spirit of sound Marxist principles, and not merely to lag in the wake of = events."^^1^^
Since the political and economic situation of the class struggle is subject to rapid changes, the forms and methods of revolutionary activity are bound to undergo frequent changes. The liberation movement cannot develop in the form of an unceasingly mounting wave. The uneven economic and political development of capitalism causes flows and ebbs, offensives and retreats in the revolutionary movement, modifies revolutionary sentiments in different regions of the world and results in the uneven maturing of revolutionary prerequisites. Tactics cannot but take account of these changes.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 19.
180Lenin never regarded the tactics of the working-class struggle as immutable and final. He said that "the forms of the struggle may and do constantly change in accordance with varying, relatively specific and temporary = causes.~.~.~."^^1^^ In the course of the liberation struggle the revolutionary creativity of the people constantly enriches their tactical arsenal with new ideas, new methods of struggle and new forms of organisation. As Lenin put it, "history as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multi-= form, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This can readily be understood, because even the finest of vanguards express the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of thousands, whereas at moments of great upsurge and the exertion of all human capacities, revolutions are made by the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of = classes."^^2^^
Lenin indicated that in periods of revolutionary upsurge the activities and tactics of the party of the working class are enriched by offensive forms of struggle. This was shown by the Russian revolutions which awakened the inexhaustible forces, and released the powerful revolutionary energy and initiative of the Russian people. For the first time in the history of the liberation movement the working class of Russia employed the mass political strike---that powerful weapon of class struggle and effective means of mobilising the working people. This revolutionary activity of the proletariat of Russia brought into being the Soviets, which, in the course of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, were transformed from a revolutionary-democratic form of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry into a state form of proletarian dictatorship.
Offensive forms of struggle---political demonstrations, general political strikes, and armed uprisings---were advanced by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party in all three Russian revolutions. These forms were of great importance for rousing the people to struggle against tsarism and the bourgeoisie. At the same time the Bolshevik Party nipped in the bud any adventurist attempts to advance offensive tactical forms during periods of decline in the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 253.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 95--96.
181 revolutionary movement. During such periods, attempts to continue, for example, armed struggle, can lead only to the loss of communist influence among the people and to the destruction of cadres.Warning the Communist Parties against adventurism and underestimating the importance of making a thorough analysis of a situation, Lenin wrote: "On the one hand, excessive caution leads to mistakes. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that if we give way to mere 'sentiment' or indulge in the waving of little red flags instead of soberly weighing up the situation, we may commit irreparable mistakes; we may perish where there is absolutely no need to, although the difficulties are great."^^1^^
The decline in the liberation struggle, the weariness of the people, and the strengthening of the reactionary classes as a result of the defeat of the first Russian revolution made the Bolsheviks revise their tactics, replace offensive by defensive tactics, i.e., rally and prepare the people for a new upswing. The Bolshevik Party went underground in an organised way, without panic, combining illegal with legal work. The Party regarded the skilful combination of illegal work with legal work as the key to successful revolutionary activity during the Stolypin reaction (1907--11). In fighting the = liquidators^^2^^ and = otzovists^^3^^ the Bolsheviks retained and strengthened their illegal Party branches and took advantage of all legal opportunities to consolidate their relations with the masses. The Party resorted on a wide scale to economic strikes, became more active in the State Duma, and strengthened its links with the working class through the trade unions, mutual aid funds, workers' co-- operatives, clubs and other cultural and educational societies. The Bolsheviks regarded unwillingness to work in legal organisations as a refusal to take up the proletarian leadership of non-party people and as a rejection of revolutionary work among the working people.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 210.
~^^2^^ Adherents of an opportunist trend that spread among the Menshevik Social-Democrats after the defeat of the 1905--07 Revolution. They demanded that the illegal party of the working class dissolve itself and engage only in the legal activity permitted by the tsarist government.---Ed.
~^^3^^ A small section of the Bolsheviks who demanded the recall of the Party's deputies from the State Duma, and the repudiation of work in the trade unions and other mass legal and semi-legal organisations.---Ed.
182Leninist tactics require Communists to master all forms of struggle and prepare themselves for sudden shifts from one form to another. Unless this requirement is observed Communist and Workers' Parties may suffer grave setbacks. This can happen when a new situation suddenly requires changing over from legal forms of work to illegal, conspiratorial forms or from peaceful struggle to armed struggle. Just as an army should master all types of weapons and methods of warfare, so a Marxist revolutionary party should be able to use all forms of struggle and to combine them rationally and rapidly, replacing one by another as required by changing conditions.
Lenin wrote: "If we learn to use all the methods of struggle, victory will be certain, because we represent the interests of the really foremost and really revolutionary class, even if circumstances do not permit us to make use of weapons that arc most dangerous to the enemy, weapons that deal the swiftest mortal blows."^^1^^
The arsenal of the proletariat's tactics also includes the struggle for reforms provided they precipitate the victory of socialism and contribute to the growth of socialist forces, their cohesion and better organisation. "We are by no means opposed to the fight for reforms. . .'', wrote Lenin. "We favour a programme of reforms directed also against the opportunists. They would be only too glad if we left the struggle for reforms entirely to them.~.~.~."^^2^^ While not losing sight of the final working-class goal or seeing the struggle for reforms as an end in itself, Communists hold that this struggle is a form of the class struggle that serves to weaken the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, it educates the working class, prepares it for the onslaught against capitalism, for socialism. Lenin resolutely fought reformism as the ideology that dooms the working class to the struggle for changes which do not affect the foundations of capitalism. At the same time he taught the proletariat how to put the struggle for reforms to use for the benefit of socialism. Lenin demanded that Communists should not lose "the ability to reflect, weigh and ascertain in the coolest and most dispassionate manner at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere of action you must act in a revolutionary manner, and at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere you must turn to reformist action. True revolutionaries will perish (not that they will be _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 31, p.~96.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 84.
183 defeated from outside, but that their work will suffer internal collapse) only if they abandon their sober outlook and take it into their heads that the 'great, victorious, world' revolution can and must solve all problems in a revolutionary manner under all circumstances and in all spheres of action. If they do this, their doom is = certain."^^1^^Leninism teaches Communist and Workers' Parties that by bringing to the forefront those slogans and forms of struggle that most fully suit a given historical situation, they can ensure that the proletariat achieves the best possible results in the struggle to win over all other working people to revolutionary positions. "We cannot be content,'' wrote Lenin, "to have our tactical slogans limp behind events and to their being adapted to events after their occurrence. We must have slogans that lead us forward, light up the path before us, and raise us above the immediate tasks of the = movement."^^2^^ To give vent to the revolutionary initiative and energy of the working people, to help them prepare for active revolutionary action, the Party must advance those political slogans and ideas that are especially close to the people and which give expression to the most urgent tasks of the labour movement. For example, during the first Russian revolution, Lenin approved the following programme: the holding of mass political strikes; the immediate introduction of an 8--hour working day by revolutionary means; the formation of revolutionary peasant committees to carry through democratic reforms in the countryside up to the confiscation of landowners' estates; the arming of workers and the organisation of fighting squads. These measures played a great part in rallying the people and preparing them for the armed uprising.
The mass political army of the revolution can be created only in the course of the struggle itself, as the people become convinced through their own experience of the correctness of Party slogans and policy. Until the people become conscious of the need to effect revolutionary changes, and have the determination and willingness to join the revolutionary movement, the struggle for these changes can only alienate the Party from the people and condemn the revolution to failure. Persuading the people of the correctness of Party policy on the basis of their own experience is the major tactical principle of Leninism. By observing this principle it is possible to implement the fundamental requirement _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 111.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 153.
184 of political leadership: not to lag behind the people nor to run ahead of them, but to be always with them and at their head.The struggle for general democratic demands against monopoly rule is the chief means by which the revolutionary proletariat of the capitalist countries can now form its own political army, convince the people of the correctness of Party policy and isolate the most reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie. The masses of the working people become organised, politically educated and trained for the coming battles for socialism in the course of the struggle for peace and democracy, and for the restriction of the rule of the big monopolies. Naturally, the struggle for general democratic demands cannot abolish capitalism. But unless it is conducted, it is impossible to muster the people, strengthen communist influence among them and prepare for the advent of a working-class administration as the balance of class forces gradually changes. Moreover, the struggle for democratic demands often grows into a struggle for the overthrow of bourgeois power. This was what Lenin had in mind when he wrote: "It is most probable in practice that out of any serious struggle for the major minimum-programme demands there will flare up a struggle for socialism and that we, at any rate, are working in that = direction."^^1^^
Lenin demanded that Communists subordinate every step in their work to the interests of the struggle for socialism, and that they avail themselves of every opportunity to expedite the complete triumph of socialism. And the general democratic struggle can considerably facilitate and hasten the world-wide victory of socialism. In conformity with this the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties stated that its participants "regard joint action against imperialism and for general democratic demands as a component and a stage of the struggle for socialist revolution and the abolition of the system of exploitation of man by man".
Leninism teaches that tactics cannot be the same in all countries. They depend on the level of economic development of a particular country, the alignment of class forces, the political maturity of the working class and other working people, the character of the government, and the general world situation. The requirement that specifically national factors be taken into account in every individual country is also a major tactical principle of Leninism. If this principle is ignored, proper guidance _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 41, p. 385.
185 of the revolutionary struggle is out of the question. Lenin warned on many occasions against simply using cliches, mechanically levelling and equating the tactics of all Communist and Workers' Parties by disregarding the concrete conditions of the liberation struggle in different countries. He looked on the demand that national variety and national peculiarities be ignored in the revolutionary struggle as a pipe-dream. "The international revolutionary movement of the proletariat,'' he wrote, "does not and cannot develop evenly and in identical forms in different countries. . . . Every country contributes its own valuable and specific features to the common = stream.~.~.~."^^1^^ When drawing the attention of fraternal Parties to the need to take account of the special features of the relations between the classes and parties in their own countries, Lenin advised them to refrain from merely imitating Bolshevik tactics and to "analyse the reasons for their peculiar features, the conditions that give rise to them, and their results; go beyond the letter, and apply the spirit, the essence and the lessons of the = experience.~.~.~."^^2^^This, however, does not mean that the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism do not apply to all countries. Communists reject both total disregard for national features and overestimation of their significance. They strive to adhere to Lenin's dictum that "fundamental revolutionary principles must be adapted to the specific conditions in the various = countries".^^3^^ While disregarding national peculiarities dooms the Party to sectarian isolation from the people and to dogmatic alienation from life, exaggeration of the role played by national peculiarities is bound to lead to the revisionist rejection of the general principles of the proletarian revolution and the building of socialism, to the Party's slipping down into anti-Marxist positions of so-called "national communism" and the betrayal of proletarian internationalism.
Flexible consideration for specifically national factors in the tactics of the Communist and Workers' Parties promotes the steady growth of their influence among the working people and the latter's transition to the positions of revolutionary struggle for socialism.
Lenin considered Communist work in the trade unions to be extremely important. Without energetic work in the unions a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 187.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 52, p. 318.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 465.
186 revolutionary party can neither win to its side the majority of the working class, nor head the struggle for the establishment of proletarian dictatorship. Lenin pointed out that "the development of the proletariat did not, and could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through the trade unions, through reciprocal action between them and the party of the working class."^^1^^The influence of reformism in the working class cannot be overcome without the energetic work of Communists in the trade unions. For this reason Lenin identified the non-participation of sectarian Communists in the reactionary unions with their willingness to leave the workers under the influence of the reformist agents of the bourgeoisie. In their efforts to build up their influence among trade unionists Communists should be afraid of neither the difficulties nor the insults, and endless carping and persecution that goes with it. Lenin pointed out: "You must be capable of any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, perseveringly, persistently and patiently in those institutions, societies and associations---even the most reactionary---in which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses are to be = found."^^2^^
Guided by Lenin's precepts and their rich experience of trade union activity, the fraternal Parties conduct their work in all, even the most reactionary, trade unions. This enables them to score ever greater successes in winning workers away from the influence of reformist and Right-wing socialist leaders. This can be seen from the fact that today a large number of trade unions are led by revolutionary-minded leaders, although before the Second World War the leadership of most national unions in the capitalist countries was in the hands of social-- reformists.
Lenin also considered communist participation in bourgeois parliaments and electoral campaigns as an important form of revolutionary struggle. He castigated ``Left'' Communists who opposed participation in bourgeois legislatures. Parliament is an arena of class struggle which reflects all class interests and conflicts. Under capitalism, said Lenin, there is no institution in which all classes take part on so large a scale as in parliament. The parliamentary rostrum is of especially great importance in the eyes of the broad petty-bourgeois sections of the population. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 50.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 55.
187 Therefore Communists should spare neither effort nor time in taking part in parliamentary = struggle.^^1^^ The participation of Party leaders in parliamentary work is particularly necessary since this facilitates their subsequent leadership of the = revolution.^^2^^Lenin nevertheless cautioned against overestimating parliamentary forms of struggle. Parliamentary struggle can be of great assistance to the extra-parliamentary struggle of the working class, but under capitalism the fundamental questions of the labour movement are settled not in election booths but by means of force, i.e., by the mass struggle of the proletariat. "Action by the masses, a big strike, for instance, is more important than parliamentary activity at all times, and not only during a revolution or in a revolutionary = situation."^^3^^
Non-participation in bourgeois parliaments as a matter of principle only prejudices the cause of the proletariat and plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie, which would like to expel Communists from their legislatures. At the same time Leninism resolutely rejects reformist twaddle about the need to take part in bourgeois parliaments under all conditions. There may be cases when it is necessary to renounce participation in parliament in the interests of the revolution, and even to boycott elections. A case in point was the Bolshevik boycott of the Bulygin = Duma^^4^^ in 1905. This usually happens when revolution is mounting and recourse is made to boycott in order not to deflect the proletariat from the more important extra-parliamentary forms of revolutionary struggle.
Lenin taught Communists to make skilful use of the parliamentary platform to win the support of the people, to educate them politically, to organise them, and to expose the policies of the bourgeoisie. The correct revolutionary attitude of Communists to bourgeois parliaments does not, therefore, consist in a faint-= hearted refusal to participate in them, but in the formation of really militant parliamentary groups, whose members should not, however, "engage in bourgeois parliamentary inanities, but concern themselves with the very urgent work of propaganda, agitation and organisation among the = masses".^^5^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 255--56.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 28.
~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 60--61.
~^^4^^ Named after the tsarist Minister Bulygin who drew up the project for its convocation.---Ed.
~^^5^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 51, p. 116.
188Lenin's advice is now being followed by the Communists of the capitalist countries where Communist Parties have succeeded in forming strong groups in parliaments. While denouncing reactionary bourgeois rulers, Communist parliamentarians advocate from the rostrum their Party's policy, secure the adoption of progressive bills and oppose reactionary measures. Communist deputies in bourgeois parliaments are worthy successors of the best traditions of the Bolshevik deputies to the State Duma of tsarist Russia.
Today there arc far better conditions for parliamentary forms of struggle than during Lenin's lifetime; the opportunity now exists in some countries to make use of parliament in the peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. As the programmes adopted by some Communist and Workers' Parties in capitalist countries with developed parliamentary traditions show, the working class has the opportunity, in conjunction with extra-= parliamentary mass struggle, to replace the crumbling bourgeois state machine with the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat by parliamentary means during a peaceful socialist revolution. Of course, in this event parliament is transformed from an organ of bourgeois rule into an organ of popular rule, in which the working class has a stable majority.
But in advancing the proposition that parliament may be made use of during the transition to socialism, the Communist and Workers' Parties never forget to highlight the decisive importance of the extra-parliamentary revolutionary mass struggle.
The Main Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties says on this point: "While making use of all possibilities of parliamentary activity, Communists emphasise that the mass movement of the working class and of all working people is the decisive factor in the struggle for democracy and socialism."
Communists hold that a great extension of the mass class struggle, the unifying of the majority of the people around the proletariat, their determined rebuff to opportunist, conciliatory elements and the defeat of reactionary, anti-popular forces will precede the winning of a stable majority in parliament by the working class and the conversion of this legislature into an organ of popular rule.
Lenin taught the proletariat to be flexible in applying revolutionary tactics, to put to use in the interests of socialism the forces of its allies and temporary supporters and also to use all the 189 contradictions and vacillations in the enemy camp. To do this, the Communist and Workers' Parties must be able to manoeuvre, to make compromises and come to agreements advantageous to the revolution and the proletariat. Refusal to compromise can only do harm to the cause of the proletariat and reduce its strength and influence.
Lenin considered it inadmissible for a Communist to reject reasonable compromises as a matter of principle. The need for compromises is dictated by the difficulties and complexities of the struggle against capitalism. Compromise is taken to mean the repudiation of certain demands with a view to reaching some agreement. It is a means of manoeuvring, of making temporary retreats in the revolutionary struggle in order to preserve strength, etc. "To carry on a war,'' Lenin wrote, "for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one's enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)---is that not ridiculous in the = extreme?"^^1^^
Lenin pointed out that repudiation of compromises would be tantamount to the renunciation of the zigzags, retreats and changes of direction one has to resort to when climbing an unvanquished mountain. It is as if, say, 10 thousand troops without waiting to be reinforced by 100 thousand more, were to charge into battle against 50 thousand enemy troops, having in mind only one thing---not to swing off the road, not to conclude a single compromise.
Leninism shows the Communist and Workers' Parties how to avoid all and sundry pitfalls on the road to their great goal. It is impossible to defeat a strong enemy by applying the method of direct assault alone. Compromises should be concluded even with the enemy if they have the purpose of escaping defeat and conserving sufficient strength to attack the enemy again at a later stage, and if they neither strengthen the forces of reaction nor hinder Communists in their ideological and political struggle. "To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the enemy, but not to us, is criminal,'' wrote Lenin. "Political leaders of the revolutionary class are absolutely useless if they are _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 70.
190 incapable of `changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise' in order to take evasive action in a patently disadvantageous = battle."^^1^^Following the victory of the socialist revolution in one country the proletariat can consolidate its dictatorship and advance socialist construction, if it learns to take advantage of all contradictions between capitalist powers, between different groups of the bourgeoisie in particular countries, if it manages to utilise every opportunity in order to acquire a massive ally. Those who have not understood this truth and have not proved their ability to employ these tactics in practice, wrote Lenin, have not learned to help the revolutionary class in its fight to liberate the working people from their exploiters.
The country of the victorious working class will have to conclude military agreements "with one of the imperialist coalitions against the other in those cases in which such agreements could, without undermining the basis of Soviet power, strengthen its position and paralyse the attacks of any imperialist power".^^2^^
Lenin's writings contain many examples of the skilful utilisation by the Bolshevik Party of contentions between capitalist countries, examples of the flexibility of Leninist tactics.
In conformity with these precepts, the Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting declared: "The Communist and Workers' Parties, the working class and the anti-imperialist forces take into account all contentions in the enemy camp and strive to aggravate them and make use of them in the interest of peace and progress."
The necessity and admissibility of compromises is also determined by the heterogeneity of the working class, the peasantry and the other sections of the working people under capitalism. Marxist-Leninist parties must reach agreements and compromises with different groups of workers and the petty bourgeoisie and with different petty-bourgeois and even bourgeois parties, while remaining faithful to their revolutionary ideals and principles.
The Leninist Party of Bolsheviks set the classical example of how to unite the various groups of the working people when, during the October Revolution, it merged into one powerful revolutionary stream such different revolutionary movements as _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 77.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 361.
191 the general democratic movement for peace, the peasant movement for land, the movement of the oppressed peoples for national equality and the socialist movement of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of proletarian dictatorship. By combining the revolutionary energies of the people and directing them at the decisive moment against the enemies of the proletariat, the Bolshevik Party was able to overthrow bourgeois rule in Russia and secure the victory of the socialist revolution.The history of the Bolshevik Party contains many examples of temporary agreements and compromises concluded with various petty-bourgeois and bourgeois political groups and parties---``legal Marxists'', ``Left-wing'' Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and so on. Lenin noted that "the Bolsheviks' victory over the Mensheviks called for the application of tactics of changing tack, conciliation and compromises, not only before but also after the October Revolution of 1917, but the changes of tack and compromises were, of course, such as assisted, boosted and consolidated the Bolsheviks at the expense of the Mensheviks".^^1^^
Lenin showed that in definite conditions the proletariat must, for the time being, renounce certain gains in order to "buy off" a strong enemy and receive a breathing space in which it can consolidate its positions and muster its forces. One such example of a forced compromise was the Brest peace treaty concluded with the German imperialists in 1918. That compromise saved the Revolution from defeat by the imperialist armies and enabled it to gain time to consolidate the Soviet Republic, to take advantage of the conflicts within the imperialist camp and to prepare the forces for routing both internal counter-revolutionaries and foreign interventionists.
Lenin always guarded against dogmatism and petty quibbling in politics. He used to say that there are no ready-made recipes, no prescriptions or universal rules which could enable politicians to determine, without making mistakes, exactly when they should make compromises or when they should refuse to compromise. Matters must be decided in each particular case on the basis of a study of reality and not from abstract and purely theoretical arguments.
At the end of August and the beginning of September 1917, Lenin considered it possible for the Bolsheviks to come to a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 75--74.
192 compromise with the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries for the purpose of exploiting an extremely rare but exceedingly valuable opportunity to carry through the socialist revolution peacefully.^^1^^Communists support agreements and compromises which help them to win the support of the majority of the proletariat and which strengthen Party positions. As Lenin emphasised, it was entirely "a matter of knoiriii« bow u> apply these tactics in order to raise---not lower---the general level of proletarian class-= consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win".^^2^^
But while asserting that compromises are admissible in principle, Lenin taught that a distinction be made between compromises that betray the interests of the working class and compromises forced on the workers by the objective conditions of the class struggle but which do not lessen their revolutionary determination and readiness to carry on the struggle. He regarded as inadmissible compromises which involved retreats from the Party's ideological positions.
The growing crisis of the Social-Democratic parties in the West shows that their concessions and compromises in matters of principle have led to the domination of opportunism, to their ideological decline and to their conversion into subservient tools of bourgeois politics.
Lenin held that it was erroneous to conclude compromises that prevent Communists from carrying on the ideological and political struggle against opportunism, that do not leave the Party freedom of action, agitation, propaganda and criticism of temporary allies. While being prepared to reach agreements, the Bolshevik Party always stuck to these conditions and therefore grew in strength at the expense of other parties and groups with which, at different stages of the revolution, it had concluded temporary compromise agreements. And the CPSU today makes no ideological compromises. It states emphatically that the Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of socialist and capitalist countries cannot be extended to the sphere of ideology.
Lenin's precepts on the advisability of making tactical compromises which strengthen the positions of Communists and weaken those of the enemy help the Communist and Workers' _-_-_
~^^1^^ See ibid., Vol. 25, pp. 306--07.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 74.
193 Parties of today to increase their fighting capacity and to unite all the forces of democracy in a powerful popular front of struggle against imperialism and war. __*_*_*__Leninism teaches that Communists should concentrate all their efforts on bringing mankind to socialism via the shortest path. The strategy and tactics of Leninism serve as the true and indispensable instruments in the struggle for the socialist transformation of the world. L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CC, CPSU, stated at the 1969 International Meeting: "To apply a consistent class line, firmly adhere to principles, be flexible in tactics, consider the concrete conditions from every angle, to employ bold and at the same time well-conceived actions, to be able to utilise all the diverse means of fighting imperialism---this is what Lenin taught us, what we learn from Lenin."
Leninist strategy and tactics demonstrated their invincibility during the October Revolution of 1917 and the peoples' democratic revolutions in the 19405 and in present mounting battles of the liberation movement. It is patently obvious that this weapon is called upon to play a tremendous role in the forthcoming battles of the world socialist revolution.
Much time has passed since Lenin and the Bolsheviks worked out the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary working class. But the importance of Leninism is undoubtedly far greater now, in the stage of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism, than it was in the past. Never before have Communist and Workers' Parties been able to lead such huge masses of revolutionary-minded people. More and more social strata that have been passive in the past are now joining actively in the political movement, including broad sections of the proletariat, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals. There are now no oppressed peoples who would not carry on an active struggle for their liberation. All this cannot but enhance the role of communist strategic and tactical guidance in the liberation movement.
Current changes in imperialist tactics have caused the Communist Parties to pay increased attention to strategy and tactics. Today, the imperialists do not dare challenge the main forces of world socialism and look for vulnerable sectors on the periphery of the world socialist front, seeking to detach individual links from the chain of socialism and weaken the unity of the 194 socialist countries by means of subversive activities and ideological warfare. Substantial changes in the enemy's tactics could not but cause appropriate changes in the tactics of the Communist Parties.
As the balance of class forces changes both in the world arena and in individual countries it becomes ever more necessary to enrich strategy and tactics with new experience gained in revolutionary struggle. Accordingly, the Communist and Workers' Parties have enriched strategy and tactics with new ideas that were included in the arsenal of the world communist movement at the Moscow meetings of 1957, 1960, and 1969. Chief among them are the propositions that the world socialist system is beginning to play a decisive role in contemporary social development, that the national tasks of the socialist countries combine dialectically with their international tasks, that the social base of the contemporary revolutionary movement widens, that the democratic tasks of the revolutionary struggle draw nearer to its socialist tasks, that the role played by the Communist Parties in directing the mass revolutionary movement increases, that peaceful forms of the revolution go with non-peaceful forms, that today it is possible to avert a new world war, that countries with different social systems can coexist peacefully, that there are different forms of the transition of newly-free countries to socialism and that it is possible to establish broad anti-monopoly alliances and a world-wide anti-imperialist front.
The present-day strategy and tactics of the Communist and Workers' Parties pursue the primary aim of taking advantage of the existing favourable conditions to unite the three basic revolutionary forces of today---the world socialist system, the international working class and the national liberation movement--- within the framework of a world-wide anti-imperialist front.
Communists in the socialist countries have the basic strategic task of adding to the economic achievements of their countries and of securing new success in the building of socialism and communism, thereby doing the maximum possible for the victory of the revolutionary proletariat the world over.
Communists in the capitalist countries are bent on struggling against monopoly rule, forming broad anti-monopoly alliances and a world-wide anti-imperialist front, and thus winning to their side ever new sections of the population and taking advantage of all the possibilities of the struggle for socialism.
__PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195Communists in the newly independent and in the few remaining colonial countries are confronted with the task of precipitating the victory of anti-imperialist and anti-feudal democratic revolutions, of rallying all the anti-imperialist forces to form a broad national front and securing the non-capitalist path of development to socialism.
Communists regard the consolidation and cohesion of the international communist movement and of its national detachments on the immutable basis of Marxism-Leninism as an indispensable condition for the success of their strategy and tactics.
By applying Lenin's strategy and tactics, the Marxists-Leninists are constantly scoring successes in winning over the working masses, are ably directing the struggle of peoples for the revolutionary rejuvenation of the world and exercising the scientific guidance of the revolutionary movement to bring about the final victory of the working class.
[196] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S THEORYBy C. D. OBICHKIN
Lenin rendered a very great service to the Russian proletariat and the world working-class movement by creating a new type of proletarian party and working out, on scientific lines, a comprehensive theory of the Party. He substantiated the Party's world historic role as the leader of the proletariat and all working people in their struggle to attain victory over landowners and capitalists, and to build socialism and communism. All through his political life, Lenin fought against attempts both to belittle the importance of the Party and its leading role, and to undermine its influence on the people. He saw that these attempts, under cover of various slogans, could aid only its enemies, whether intentionally or not.
Lenin's theory of a new type of proletarian party is one of the main elements of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin said that recognition of the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat is the criterion of adherence to Marxism. This holds true today, and we would be justified in adding that Lenin's theory of the Party is now a touchstone for testing Communists. Any deviation from it leads to grave consequences. No wonder the avowed opponents of Marxism-Leninism and revisionists of all complexions fiercely attack Lenin's theory of the Party, and try to undermine its importance with a variety of falsifications and distortions.
Lenin's theory of the Party was not developed overnight. It was conceived, enriched and formulated as the Party itself grew, as it extended its work of leading the working-class struggle. It would be wrong, therefore, simply to associate particular aspects of this theory with some work or other written by Lenin. He thrashed out the different questions of his theory in the light of 197 the various tasks of the Party under specific historical conditions. This must be taken into account if one is to see the link between Lenin's theoretical work and the practical work of the Party. When the Party was in process of formation, the framing of its rules and programme was naturally the main task. The need to determine precisely the Party's strategy and tactics arose as its work of directing the working-class struggle increased. And the role and tasks of the Party as a ruling party could obviously be best determined only when it actually headed the working class and peasantry in socialist construction.
Lenin showed that that aspect of Marxism which is of most interest at any one time is determined by "the aggregate of historical conditions''. This also applies to some extent to the theory of the Party. Although it is an integrated theory, the elaboration of each aspect of it and the promotion of each aspect to the forefront depend on historical conditions, i.e., on the objective laws of development of the working-class movement, the Party and its tasks in relation to it.
__*_*_*__Lenin had a good knowledge of the features of the new historical era, the era of imperialism, that began in the latter part of the last century and the early part of this century. Most Marxists in Russia and the West did not really notice the beginning of this era, nor did they grasp the new tasks facing the proletariat and its political organisation. Plekhanov was no exception to this. Lenin alone recognised the dawn of the new era and made a deep study of it. Imperialism meant the intensified exploitation of the working class, colonial plunder, the struggle between the leading capitalist countries for the redivision of an already divided world, and imperialist wars. The relatively peaceful and even development of capitalism came to an end and was succeeded by uneven, spasmodic development, the worsening of economic and political crises, the intensification of the class struggle, and the increased political activity of the proletariat and other sections of the working people---in short, the acute aggravation of all the contradictions of capitalism. Furthermore, as Lenin pointed out, imperialism also meant that capitalism, as a system, had prepared all the material prerequisites for socialism, and that it therefore represented the eve of the socialist revolution.
198The old Social-Democratic parties, contaminated by opportunism, were unable to lead the working-class revolutionary struggle under these new conditions. A new type of proletarian party was called for, a party that was consistently revolutionary and capable both of heading the working class in its struggle for political power and in the radical transformation of society and the building of socialism and communism. That party was the Bolshevik Party, founded by Lenin and his comrades-in-arms. It was a new type of party compared to the Social-Democratic and Socialist parties of the Second International.
Lenin said at the Second Congress of the Communist International: "What we want is new and different parties. We want parties that will be in constant and real contact with the masses and will be able to lead those = masses."^^1^^ He also dealt in his "Notes of a Publicist" with the difficulties of transforming "the old type of European parliamentary party---which in fact is reformist and only slightly tinted with revolutionary colours---into a new type of party, into a genuinely revolutionary, genuinely Communist = Party".^^2^^
Lenin once held the West European Social-Democratic parties, and particularly the German Social-Democratic Party, in high esteem. But as early as the 18905 he saw how opportunistic trends were arising and developing in those parties, and how their leaders were gradually emasculating the revolutionary essence of Marxism and beginning to interpret it in a liberal-bourgeois spirit. Lenin exposed the social roots, and the danger, of the opportunism of the West European parties. "Opportunism,'' he wrote, "was engendered in the course of decades by the special features in the period of the development of capitalism, when the comparatively peaceful and cultural life of a stratum of privileged workingmen 'bourgeoisified* them, gave them crumbs from the table of their national capitalists, and isolated them from the suffering, misery and revolutionary temper of the impoverished and ruined = masses."^^3^^
Lenin further showed that the opportunism corroding the Social-Democratic parties was not an accidental phenomenon, and that it could not be reduced to a betrayal of the working-class cause by individual leaders of the Second International. He proved that it was the product of a whole historical epoch of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 37. p. 236.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 209.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, pp. 242--43.
199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1970/LGT390/20060322/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.22) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __MANUAL_EDITS__ 1. "-" to "---" :DONE, YES. relatively peaceful development of capitalism and the legal existence of the Socialist parties. When the First World War broke out and when new methods of party work, resolute revolutionary action and underground activities were called for, the leaders of the Socialist parties turned out to be complete political failures, unable and unwilling to rouse the working class to action against the imperialist governments and the imperialist war. The opportunists believed that the proletarian party should be a party of social reform, not the party of social revolution. This conception of the party's tasks put the international working-class movement in mortal danger. "Europe's greatest misfortune and danger is that it has no revolutionary party,'' Lenin wrote. "It has parties of traitors like the Scheidemanns, Renauclcls, Hendersons, Webbs and Co., and of servile souls like Kautsky. But it has no revolutionary = party."^^1^^ Lenin saw even then that such political leadership would be disastrous to the workers and working people of the whole world, and subsequent events bore this out.The West European Social-Democratic parties were not, therefore, models of truly revolutionary parties. And what had the revolutionary movement in Russia to offer? The Narodnik organisations during the period of revolutionary = Narodism,^^2^^ for example, bore an exclusive and conspiratorial character, and, although their conspiratorial methods were worth borrowing, they could not serve as a model. The working-class organisations in Russia were not connected with the mass workers' movement. They were but small and scattered independent groups and circles where Marxism was taught. Lenin therefore wrote: "The history of socialism and democracy in Western Europe, the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, the experience of our working-class movement---such is the material we must master to elaborate a purposeful organisation and purposeful tactics for our Party. 'The analysis' of this material must, however, be done independently, since there arc no ready-made models to be found = anywhere."^^3^^ This alone refutes the allegations made by various falsifiers of the history of the Soviet Communist Party that the Bolsheviks led by Lenin used Tkachov's conspiratorial organisation as a model.
Lenin set himself and carried out the great historical task of establishing a new type of proletarian party, a party that was _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 113.
~^^2^^ A petty-bourgeois trend in the Russian revolutionary movement in the 1860s and 1870s.---Ed.
~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 217.
200 militant and revolutionary, capable of rousing the working class to action against the rule of the landowners and capitalists. In fulfilling this task Lenin had to keep up a fierce struggle not only against the opportunist leaders of the Second International, but against the opportunists in the Russian working-class movement, that is, the = Economists,^^1^^ the Menshcviks and the Trotskyists. These enemies of Leninism, who took the West European opportunist parties as their ideal and model, tried to prevent the creation of a new type of proletarian party in Russia. "What appeals to the liquidators and Trotsky,'' Lenin wrote, "is only the European models of opportunism, but certainly not the models of European = partisanship."^^2^^Lenin based his theory of the proletarian Party on the precepts of Marx and Engcls, on the practical experience of the political working-class organisations headed by them, and on the generalisation of that experience contained in their works. Marx and Engels were the first to prove that the proletariat could not accomplish its historic mission of eradicating capitalism and building communism without a party, and the first to formulate the basic principles of such a party. The Party's role, importance and tasks arc expressed most clearly and saliently in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. In this work Marx and Engels wrote that Communists were the vanguard of the working class, and had no special interests of their own distinct from those of the proletariat. Communists safeguard the interests of the working-class movement as a whole in all the stages of its struggle against the bourgeoisie.
The Matiifesto of the Communist Party stresses that Communists oppose sectarian principles which the working-class movement is made artificially to accept. The theoretical propositions of Marx and Engcls arc not inventions, but reflect the real processes involved in class struggle and historical development generally. Communists know where the working-class movement is leading to, and arc the most determined, purposeful and progressive vanguard of the movement.
Marx and Engcls fought resolutely for the unity of the proletarian party and against deviations from revolutionary theory and the revolutionary principles of Party building. They worked out the principles of the Party's organisational structure on the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Advocates of an opportunist trend in the Russian Social-Democratic movement at the turn of this century.---Ed.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 341.
201 basis of the obligatory submission of the minority to the majority and on the combination of strict discipline and inner-Party democracy. They believed that the Communists' immediate aim was the "formation of the proletariat into a class, the overthrow of bourgeois supremacy, and the conquest of political power by the proletariat".^^1^^ They regarded the Communist Party as the leading force in the struggle to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.Marx and Engcls scorned stereotyped methods when defining the principles of the proletarian party's tactics, but taught that immediate tasks must be subjected to ultimate aims, and that the proletariat's national and international tasks must be interwoven. They advanced the great internationalist slogan "Workers of all countries, unite!'', the rallying cry of the world's working class to this day.
Marx and Engels founded the League of Communists---the first proletarian party in the world---and the First International, a great international political organisation of the working class. They helped progressive workers in many countries to set up their own parties; they did much, in particular, in the building of the German Social-Democratic Party and in putting its activity on a revolutionary footing, while strongly criticising both the Right-= wing and ``Left-wing'' deviations within it.
The theoretical ideas of Marx and Engels, and their experience in leading the League of Communists and the First International, were the basis on which Lenin created the Bolshevik Party and worked out the theory of it. He held the Manifesto of the Communist Party in particularly high regard, and thought that this small booklet was "worth volumes'', as it inspired the proletariat in its life and struggle. Lenin proposed calling the proletarian party the Communist Party. "We must call ourselves the Communist Party,'' he said, "just as did Marx and Engels.
"We must repeat that we are Marxists and that we take as our basis the Communist Manifesto, which has been distorted and betrayed by the = Social-Democrats.~.~.~."^^2^^ But under the new historical conditions the simple revival of the ideas of Marx and Engels on the proletarian party was not enough. Further elaboration of the theory of the new type of proletarian party was needed, in the light of the enormous and difficult tasks then facing the working-class movement.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, p. 46.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 84.
202The enemies of Leninism allege that Lenin deviated from the views of Marx and Engels on the Party, but this is only another fabrication, as the facts show. Lenin developed the views of Marx and Engels on the Party and introduced many new ideas into the theory of the Party, probably more so than on any other question. This was made necessary by the greatly increased role of the proletarian party in the new era. And history has shown that its role continues to increase in the course of socialist and communist construction.
Lenin based the role of the new type of proletarian party on the fact that it was, above all, the highest form of organisation of the working class, consisting of progressive workers, and the leader and organiser of the proletariat. "The Party,'' Lenin said, "is the politically conscious, advanced section of the class, it is its = vanguard."^^1^^
The Party became the vanguard of the proletariat by drawing the most politically conscious, steadfast and consistent workers into its ranks. That is why Lenin fought with resolve from the outset to prevent inconsistent, non-proletarian elements from flooding the Party. In his notes on the debates at the Second Congress of the RSDLP, Lenin wrote: "It is better not to call 10~working people members, than one loafer a = member"^^2^^ Lenin demanded that the Party members should be courageous, firm, selflessly devoted to the revolutionary cause, and capable of sacrificing themselves for the cause of socialism and communism.
Lenin pointed out that the whole working class could not be included in the Party, and that it could only admit truly steadfast and progressive workers. The history of the Communist Party, now over sixty years old, has shown that Lenin was right in insisting that the Party should be the militant political staff of the working class, and not a loose organisation of which anyone who wished could claim to be a member, as the Mensheviks wanted.
Lenin taught that the Party, the vanguard of the working class, is the guiding force of all other working-class organisations. It introduces cohesion, class consciousness, discipline and the revolutionary spirit into all organisations by giving them common aims. But the Party can lead all other working-class organisations and become the political staff of the working class and the highest form of its organisation only because it is equipped with _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. iy, p. 406.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 7, p. 430.
203 revolutionary theory, and knows the laws of social development and the class and political struggle. "The role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced = theory."^^1^^ The Party takes this theory to the people, and thus introduces it into the mass working-class movement.Lenin said that the Party's main tasks were to organise the working class and lead it to the conquest of political power, and to guide all working people along the road to socialism, to the radical transformation of social life along socialist lines, and to establish and direct the new system. He gave a clear account of the Party's historical role when fighting against anarcho-- syndicalism in the Party. He wrote: "Marxism tcaches---and this tenet has not only been formally endorsed by the whole of the Communist International in the decisions of the Second (1920) Congress of the Comintern on the role of the political party of the proletariat, but has also been confirmed in practice by our revolution---that only the political party of the working class, i.e., the Communist Party, is capable of uniting, training and organising a vanguard of the proletariat and of the whole mass of the working people that alone will be capable of withstanding the inevitable petty-bourgeois vacillations of this mass and the inevitable traditions and relapses of narrow craft unionism or craft prejudices among the proletariat, and of guiding all the united activities of the whole of the proletariat, i.e, of leading it politically, and through it, the whole mass of the working = people."^^2^^
Lenin further pointed out that if the proletariat is unable to topple the bourgeoisie without a revolutionary party, it would also be unable to retain political power and consolidate its dictatorship without such a party. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the continuation of the various forms of class struggle against the forces and traditions of the old society. Lenin wrote: "Without a party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle, a party enjoying the confidence of all honest people in the class in question, a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, such a struggle cannot be waged = successfully."^^3^^
Some revisionists maintain that Lenin's theory of the proletarian party is applicable only to the period of the proletariat's struggle for power, and even then only with certain reservations. In Czechoslovakia, for example, the anti-socialist forces chose the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 370.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 246.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 44--45.
204 Communist Party as the main target of their attack in their attempt to put the country on a capitalist path of development. On this score Ivan Svitak, an ideologist of the counter-- revolutionary forces, said: "Lenin's conception of the Communist Party and its functions in the revolution was at one time a necessity, but today, in developed nations, it is unacceptable.'' Like the authors of the "Two Thousand Words" he launched the frontal attack on Lenin's conception of the Communist Party. He and his like-minded colleagues tried to disarm the working class, to dislodge the Communist Party from state power, from its leading role in the building of the new society. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia resolutely opposed these most harmful anti-Party and anti-socialist statements and actions.Some other revisionists reduce the role of the Communist Party to that of a cultural, educational or other kind of mass organisation. All this is in contradiction to Leninism. Lenin constantly emphasised that the revolutionary party must also play the leading role in the period of the socialist transformation of society. "The Party,'' Lenin said, "is the leader, the vanguard of the proletariat, which rules = directly."^^1^^ Fighting against the attempts of opportunists to diminish the leading role of the Party in socialist construction, Lenin declared that an army of steeled revolutionaries was needed for administration, and that there was such an army--- the Communist Party. Lenin foresaw the difficulties that would be involved in socialist and communist construction, and stressed that it would be impossible to succeed in it if the Party did not retain its leading position.
Lenin thus rendered a great service to the international working-class movement by demonstrating the historic role of the new type of proletarian party as the leader and organiser of all working people, as their vanguard whose activity is based on scientific revolutionary theory.
Lenin also worked out the Party's organisational principles. The principle of democratic centralism is the mainstay of the organisational structure of the Party. It organically combines centralism with democracy, and ensures that the Party remains an active and creative body; and it gives strength to the Party by guaranteeing the freedom of initiative and work of all Party organisations and members, thus making their work more purposeful. Small wonder then that this principle has always been strongly attacked by revisionists and opportunists of all brands, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 98.
205 from the Economists and Mcnshcviks in the Russian working-= class movement to the present bourgeois falsifiers of the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. While turning a blind eye to the facts they lend a bureaucratic and even dictatorial character to the principle of democratic centralism, making it appear to be the very opposite of what it is. In their efforts to confuse the unenlightened, the enemies of Leninism assert that centralism and democracy are incompatible, that where there is centralism there can be no democracy. They use demagogy, sophistry and pseudo-scientific reasoning to cover up the glaring inconsistencies of their attacks on the Leninist organisational principles in Party building.Lenin formulated the basic principles of democratic centralism when the Party was being formed. He developed them in his book One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, which was written after the formation of the Bolshevik Party at the Second Congress of the RSDLP, and in the course of his struggle against the Mensheviks' disruptive activities. He continued to develop the idea of democratic centralism in several of his later works.
Democratic centralism means that Party organisations are directed from a single centre in accordance with the Party's programme and rules. All primary organisations are subordinated to higher ones, and the minority to the majority. He attached decisive importance to centralism and fought resolutely all attempts to undermine it.
Lenin coupled centralism with Party discipline. The refusal of a lower body to obey a higher body, or the breaking of Party Rules by a Party member, violates the very principles on which the Party is founded and is a manifestation of anarchistic tendencies. By violating the principles of Party building, such organisations and members virtually dissociate themselves from the Party. Lenin said that "refusal to accept the direction of the central bodies is tantamount to refusing to remain in the = Party'',^^1^^ and he always emphasised that absolute centralism and strict discipline were the main prerequisites for the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. History has shown that as soon as centralism is violated within the Party, it immediately loses its vitality and efficiency and its ranks are thrown into disarray; the Party, in essence, ceases to be a united, integrated organisation, and loses its leading role.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 363.
206Centralism, however, is only one side of the coin. Lenin also wanted the Party to be a democratic organisation, and always sought to make it so. According to Lenin, the essence of Party democracy is expressed in the equality of all members, and in their broad initiative and activity, in the fact that all Party organs are subject to election and recall, in their accountability to the members of the Party, and in the responsibility of the Party itself to the working class and the people as a whole.
Centralism and democracy do not work against each other within the Party, but combine harmoniously. At the same time democracy cannot be absolute. The degree of democracy in the Party is determined by the conditions under which it is operating. When the Party was being formed Lenin fought for centralism and insisted that Party branches should observe all the rules of secrecy. Lenin's draft Party Rules, proposed and adopted at the Second Congress of the RSDLP (with the exception of the first paragraph), combined centralism with democracy.
The Rules endorsed the supreme authority of the Party Congress, which determines Party policy and elects the central bodies of the Party. They also laid down that all Party organisations were accountable to the Central Committee and had an obligation to fulfil its decisions, and that the Central Committee had the right to approve local committees. The Rules also contained important stipulations that ensured the regular renewal of the central bodies, the settling of questions by a simple majority (with the exception of cooption), the autonomy of local committees in local affairs, and the right of a Party member to appeal to the Central Committee. Party democracy increased as the Party developed and became stronger.
Lenin described inner-Party democracy in the following words in 1907:
"The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party is organised on democratic lines. This means that all the affairs of the Party are conducted, either directly, or through representatives, by all the members of the Party, all of whom without exception have equal rights; moreover, all officials, all leading bodies, and all institutions of the Party are subject to election, are responsible to their constituents, and arc subject to = recall."^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 14, p. 434.
207Democracy increased within the Party not only as a result of the political situation, but because of the laws of development of the Party itself, which had by then become a mass party. "In the spring of 1905,'' Lenin wrote, "our Party was a league of underground circles; in the autumn it became the party of the millions of the = proletariat."^^1^^ Under these conditions it became possible to implement the principle of democratic centralism to a greater extent, and this was reflected in the resolution adopted at the Tammerfors Conference. This resolution, entitled "The Reorganisation of the Party'', stated: " Recognising the principle of democratic centralism as incontestable, the Conference believes it necessary to implement a general elective principle and give the elected centres full power in ideological and practical leadership; at the same time they must be subject to recall, and must strictly account for their activity and make it = public."^^2^^
The development of inner-Party democracy has depended both on the historical conditions in which the Party has operated and on the tasks it has had to fulfil. There was a great difference between the Party's work when it was illegal and when it was legal; and the difference became even greater after the Party took power. Take, for example, the period of the Civil War and the military intervention in the new Soviet Republic between 1918 and 1920. The country became what was virtually a military camp, with centralist principles inevitably reinforced; and a system of ``military'' orders, issued by the higher bodies to lower ones, was established in the Party, with the result that inner-Party democracy was somewhat curtailed. Things are quite different now, under the conditions of communist construction, when the Party's task is to give all-round encouragement to inner-Party democracy so that Party organisations work efficiently.
Lenin always maintained that every Party member has a big role to play. He pointed out that although the Party is responsible for its every member, every member must be responsible for the Party, live the life of the Party and think about its tasks and its future. The creative work of Party members, and the extensive development of inner-Party democracy, stem directly from the principles of democratic centralism and from the very _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 154.
~^^2^^ The Resolutions and Decisions of the Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the CPSU, Part I, 7th Russian edition, Moscow, 1954, p. 99.
208 nature of the Party as an active and independent organisation, a militant union of like-minded people who have voluntarily united together to carry out the revolutionary transformation of society on socialist lines.Lenin believed that Party members should work solely in the interests of the Party, and should fight resolutely for the implementation of Party decisions. "Only he is worthy of the lofty name of Party member,'' Lenin wrote, "who really carries on his entire work among the masses in the spirit of the Party decisions."^^1^^
The principle of democratic centralism is of great importance in the day-to-day work of the Party. It is the main principle guiding the life of each Party branch, as of the Party as a whole, and is organically connected with Lenin's principles and methods of Party leadership. Lenin promoted collective leadership and taught that Party organisations and the Party as a whole can function normally only when collective leadership is strictly adhered to; he regarded it as a guarantee against one-sided decisions, subjectivism and tyranny. Lenin insisted that the Congress, and the Party's Central Committee between Congresses, are the Party's supreme organs, its collective mind and mouthpiece. "The principles of the Party,'' Lenin said, "are watched over between Congresses and interpreted by the Central Com- mittee."^^2^^ Lenin called the Central Committee a leaders' collective.
Lenin always paid great attention to the proper implementation of the principle of collective leadership. During Lenin's lifetime plenary meetings of the Central Committee and Congresses were held regularly, at which the most important questions of Party activity were resolved jointly.
In his speech at the Ninth Party Congress, Lenin said: "It must be emphasised from the very outset, so as to remove all misunderstanding, that only collective decisions of the Central Committee adopted in the Organising Bureau or the Political Bureau, or by a plenary meeting of the Central Committee---only these decisions were carried out by the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party. The work of the Central Committee cannot otherwise proceed = properly."^^3^^ Lenin regarded the strict _-_-_ =
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 18, p. 453.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 13, p. 133.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 444.
209 fulfilment of the Party's will expressed in Congress decisions as a guarantee against anti-Party activities and the formation of factions.Lenin never imposed his views on his comrades, but tried to show them the correctness of his line by patiently expounding his views. He took pains to see that well-founded decisions were adopted collectively, and became angry at the idea of one person taking the place of a collective body. In reply to a letter of loffc's, in which he equated Lenin with the Central Committee, Lenin wrote with indignation:
"You are mistaken by repeating (often) that I am the Central Committee. That coulcl only have been written in a state of great nervous disorder and = over-exhaustion."^^1^^
Lenin never made any decisions alone on questions which had to be discussed and decided in a body. This is evident, for example, from a letter which he wrote to Maria Andreyeva. "I cannot,'' he wrote, "go against the will and decisions of my colleagues in the = Council."^^2^^ He always valued and respected the views of his work-mates. When he thought, however, that the majority had come to a wrong decision on some question, he submitted to the decision but took the question to a higher body.
At the same time Lenin emphasised that the joint solution of Party and state questions and the joint administration of the state do not free the individual from his personal responsibility for the work with which he is entrusted but, on the contrary, presupposes it. "Collective discussion and decision of all questions of administration in Soviet institutions,'' Lenin wrote, "must be accompanied by the precisely defined responsibility of every person holding any Soviet post for the performance of definite, and clearly and explicitly specified, functions and practical = jobs."^^3^^ He regarded it as a great evil to use collectivity as a cover for irresponsibility.
The Party has re-established Lenin's norms of Party life and principles of Party leadership, and overcome the consequences of the personality cult. The Twentieth and Twenty-Second Congresses of the CPSU were important in this respect. And the October and November 1964 plenary meetings of the Central Committee of the CPSU also stressed that the violation of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 45, p. 99.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 50, p. 49.
~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 349.
210 Lenin's principle of collective leadership could not be tolerated.Leiun's principle of collective leadership is also laid down in the revised Party Rules, which say: "Collective leadership is the highest principle of Party leadership and an indispensable condition for the normal functioning of Party organisations, the proper training of personnel, and for developing the work and initiative of Communists. The personality cult and its attendant violations of inner-Party democracy cannot be tolerated in the Party, and they are incompatible with the Leninist principles of Party life.
"Collective leadership does not remove the personal responsibility from Party workers for the tasks with which they arc entrusted."
The strength of the Party resides mainly in the unity of its ranks, in its cohesion, founded on basic principles. From the time the Party was set up, Lenin showed great concern for its unity and solidarity. He considered any attempt to emasculate or undermine Party discipline as a grave offence. Lenin wrote: "Whoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), is actually aiding the bourgeoisie against the proleta- riat."^^1^^
Lenin demonstrated the need to fight resolutely against all trends and anti-Party groups that oppose the collectively decided Party line, and demanded that the Party be purged of people holding anti-Party views. In his article "Party Organisation and Party Literature'', he wrote: "The Party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-= Party = views."^^2^^ The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always been guided by this basic principle.
Lenin and his comrades-in-arms fought tenaciously against opportunist groups that wanted to split the Party. Lenin first tried to convince these groups ideologically that their views and activities were erroneous and harmful to the cause of the working class. But when they offered resistance and stepped up their disruptive activities, he did not hesitate to have them expelled from the Party. With this long struggle against opportunism in mind, Lenin wrote in a letter: "There it is, my fate. One fighting campaign _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 45.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 10, p. 47.
211 after another---against political stupidities, philistinisni, opportunism and so forth."It lias been going on since 1893. And so lias the hatred o( the philistincs on account of it. But still, I would not exchange this fate for `peace' with the = philistines."^^1^^
The enemies of Leninism and of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have always tried to portray Lenin as a dissident, and today various bourgeois falsifiers of Leninism are eagerly following in their footsteps. Lenin's struggle against the opportunists in the Russian and international working-class movement was in fact a struggle for the unity of the working class on basic principles, and a struggle for the unity of the Party against the anti-= Party groups within it.
In his struggle for the unity of the working class and of the Communist Party, Lenin exposed false appeals for unity which were used as a cover for its disruption. A past-master at such appeals was Trotsky, a so-called ``conformist'' who was in fact an inveterate dissident and splitter. Lenin explained the meaning of unity when he exposed Trotsky, who represented only himself and a small group in the working-class movement while brazenly accusing the Bolsheviks of disruptive activities. Lenin wrote: "Where the majority of the class-conscious workers have rallied around precise and definite decisions, there we shall find unity of opinion and action, there we shall find the Party spirit and the Party."^^2^^
Lenin made a thorough analysis of the Bolshevik Party's struggle against Right-wing and ``Left-wing'' opportunists in his book ``Left-Wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder. He said that the Bolshevik Party arose out of the struggle against opportunism, the bitterest enemy of Bolshevism in the working-class movement, which still exists today on an international scale. But Bolshevism arose too, and was shaped and tempered, in the struggle against those petty-bourgeois revolutionaries who were akin to anarchists. As an example of this struggle, Lenin cited the Party s struggle against the = Vperyodists^^3^^, the = otzovists^^4^^ in 1908 and the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 259.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 334.
~^^3^^ = The Vperyod (Forward) group of Mensheviks which existed in 1909-- 17. Its press organ bore this name. In 1912, the Vperyodists united against the Bolsheviks in a general anti-Party bloc (the August bloc) organised by Trotsky.---Ed.
~^^4^^ See p. 182 of this book.---Ed.
212 ``Left-wing'' Communists during the conclusion of the Brest-= Litovsk Treaty in 1918. The experience gained by the Bolshevik Party in the struggle against Right-wing and ``Left-wing'' opportunists is of tremendous value to the world communist movement today.Lenin and the Party also waged a fierce struggle against Trotskyists, Bukharinists and anarcho-syndicalists over the role that trade unions should play during the period of transition to peace-= time economic construction after the rout of internal and foreign counter-revolutionaries. In the course of this struggle the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) adopted, on Lenin's suggestion, the resolution "On Party Unity'', which proved to be of great importance in Party life both during and after that struggle. In that resolution Lenin called for stringent measures, up to expulsion from the Party, against Central Committee and rank-and-file Party members who carried on disruptive activities. He expressed his irreconcilable opposition to all those who undermined the Party by their disruptive activities in his writings dealing with the preparation of the Tenth Congress of the RCP(B) and the struggle against the dissidents. He insisted that factionalism be eradicated at all costs.
Lenin's principles of Party unity are written into the Party Rules as follows:
"The ideological and organisational unity of the Party, the solidity of its ranks, and a high sense of duty of all Communists are an immutable law of Party life. Any manifestation of factionalism and clannishncss is incompatible with Marxist-Leninist partisanship and with Party membership."
The idea of the revolutionary party being tied to the people, relying on the people and receiving the support of the people, is a key idea in Lenin's theory of the Party. The Communist Party is the party of the people, and its historic mission is to lead and organise them, train them politically and ideologically and to develop their initiative by enlisting their support in the fulfilment of its great tasks.
The Party derives its strength mainly from its ties with the broad sections of the population. The stronger and wider these ties, the more successfully it performs its role of the political leader of the working people. But it becomes an exclusive grouping, fenced off from the people, losing both its strength and its position as leader, when its ties with them are weakened.
213Lenin always fought against sectarianism and all trends anil attempts to fence nrf the Party from the masses. Sectarian trends were covered up mainly by ``Left-wing'' catch-phrases and bombastic ``revolutionary'' slogans. He skilfully exposed the pseudo-= revolutionary spirit of such slogans, and showed that they in fact led to opportunism. Lenin repeatedly said that the Party must live in the midst of the people, know their mood, know everything about them. It must know how to approach the people, and win their absolute, respect. Leaders must not cut themselves off from the people they lead; the vanguard must not cut itself off from the army of = labour.^^1^^
The Party needs the support of the working class and all working people to carry out its policy and programme. But the people support the Party only when it pursues a sound policy and expresses their vital interests. "In the sea of people,'' Lenin said, "we are after all but a drop in the ocean, and we can administer only when we express correctly what the people are conscious = of."^^2^^
Lenin attributed the successes of the Communist Party to the working people, who gave their whole-hearted support to its policies and the measures taken in their interest. The Party came into closer contact with the people and received greater support from them when it faced increasing difficulties in the construction of the new society. This is why the Party is invincible. "The mass of the working people,'' Lenin said, "are with us. That is where our strength lies. That is the source of the indestructible power of world communism. More new workers from among the masses for the ranks of the Party to take an independent part in building the new life---that is our method of combating all difficulties, that is our path to = victory."^^3^^
Society can be transformed radically along socialist lines only with the active participation of the people, since they are the decisive force in history. Lenin showed that the Party must always base itself on the collective experience of the masses; that, in undertaking socialist innovations, the Party cannot foresee beforehand what forms they will take and what their pace of development will be. "Collective experience, the experience of millions can alone give us decisive guidance in that = respect."^^4^^ _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 44. p. 497.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 304.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 65.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 410.
214 Socialism cannot be implemented by a minority, by the Party alone. "It can be implemented,'' Lenin wrote, "only by tens of millions when they have learned to do it themselves."^^1^^Lenin pointed out that every Party decision and step is presented to the people for judgement, and that the Party relies solely on the initiative of the working people themselves. The success of socialism is guaranteed by the fact that the Party always turns to the people and is able to show them the need to concentrate their efforts now on this, now on that aspect of their work. The Party must be able to inspire the people with vigour, courage and enthusiasm, and to focus their energy on the main tasks in hand.
The principle of proletarian internationalism is one of Lenin's most important propositions. Lenin fought relentlessly against all attempts to introduce nationalist ideas into the Party and to divide Party organisations along national lines. Lenin took pride in the fact that the Party had always upheld the principles of proletarian internationalism. During the First World War, when nearly all Social-Democratic parties took a social-chauvinist stand, the Bolshevik Party fulfilled its international duty by marching in the van of all other parties and taking a consistent internationalist stand. The international structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, its consistent struggle against all manifestations of nationalism, and its implementation of the great principle of proletarian internationalism in the internal and external policies, ensured that the working people of all the nations of Russia were brought up in a spirit of unity and solidarity, strengthening the friendship between the peoples of the Soviet Union and contributing significantly to the unity of the world communist movement.
Lenin had to conduct a long struggle against nationalism in the working-class movement of Russia, particularly against Bundist nationalism. By demanding the establishment of a special political organisation for Jewish workers which would be isolated from the general Party organisation, the Bundists sowed discord and disunity among the Russian workers and openly trampled underfoot the great slogan, "Workers of all countries, unite!" In exposing the Bundists' harmful nationalistic views and activities, Lenin wrote: "One who has adopted the standpoint of nationalism naturally arrives at the desire to erect a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 135.
215 Chinese Wall around his nationality, his national working-class movement; he is unembarrassed even by the fact that it would mean building separate walls in each city, in each little town and village, unembarrassed even by the fact that by his tactics of division and dismemberment be is reducing to nil the great call for the rallying and unity of the proletarians of all nations, all races and all = languages."^^1^^Lenin proved the need to establish a united organisation which could be supported by all workers, regardless of differences in language and nationality. He said: "We must not set up organisations that would march separately, each along its own track; we must not weaken the force of our offensive by breaking up into numerous independent political parties; we must not introduce estrangement and isolation and then have to heal an artificially implanted disease with the aid of these notorious 'federation' = plasters."^^2^^
Communists must fight against national pettiness, exclusiveness and aloofness, against the national ego. "We are opposed to `adapting socialism to = nationalism',"^^3^^ said Lenin, stressing, however, that while the proletariat must not allow any consolidation of nationalism, it must respect national feelings and special national features.
Lenin's propositions on proletarian internationalism arc of cardinal importance for the contemporary world communist movement and its cohesion in struggle against imperialism and the underhand schemes of the imperialists in the socialist countries.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is a contingent of the world communist and workers' movement, which is the most influential political force of the present day. Loyal to Lenin's behests, it consistently adheres to the principle of proletarian internationalism, and never fails to fulfil its internationalist duty; it fights for the unity and cohesion of the world communist and workers' movement. This was conclusively demonstrated by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, held in Moscow in June 1969.
Lenin taught that the strategy, tactics, and policy of the Party must be based on objective facts and on full recognition of actual historical conditions. "Marxism requires of us,'' he said, "a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, pp. 520--21.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 335.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 18, p. 412.
216 strictly exact and objectively verifiable analysis of the relations of classes and of the concrete features peculiar to each historical situation. We Bolsheviks have always tried to meet this requirement, which is absolutely essential for giving a scientific foundation to = policy."^^1^^Lenin's work ``Left-Wing" Communism---an Infantile Disorder was a great contribution to the theory of the strategy and tactics of the world communist movement. Although written in 1920, it has retained all its significance, and some of the propositions in it have acquired greater importance today.
Lenin tried to show the need for a creative approach by every Communist Party to tactical matters, and to caution them against any dogmatic and stereotyped adaptation of truisms to particular tasks. The common international task of all Communist Parties is to overthrow capitalism and build a socialist society. But that task must be carried out with regard to the specific economic and political conditions in every country, and to the political maturity of the proletariat and its allies. The Communist Party must "seek out, investigate, predict, and grasp that which is nationally specific and nationally distinctive in the concrete, manner in which each country should tackle a single international task".^^2^^
Lenin attacked hasty action which did not take objective conditions into account when struggling against reformism, which denied the necessity for resolute revolutionary action by the proletariat, the need for socialist revolution. Lenin's letter of October 19, 1921, entitled "To the Polish Communists'', is important in this respect. In this letter Lenin told the Polish Communist Party leaders that "the Government and the bourgeoisie must be prevented from strangling the revolution by bloody suppression of a premature uprising. You must not be provoked,'' he said. "You must wait for the tide to rise to its highest: it will sweep everything away and give victory to the Communists. . . .
"The revolution must be allowed to grow to the lull ripening of the = fruit."^^3^^
These instructions arc of universal application, and history has shown that disregard of them leads to grave consequences. The recent events in Indonesia have shown that. Lenin himself _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 43.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 92.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 42, pp. 354--55.
217 did not pursue a policy of armed insurrection until October 1917, when all the objective and subjective conditions were ripe for it, and this determined its victorious outcome.The Communist Party of the Soviet Union adheres to Lenin's strategy and tactics, and fights consistently against Right-wing and ``Left-wing'' deviations. Such deviations are particularly dangerous when they are linked to nationalism, chauvinism and hcgemonism in the world communist movement.
Every Communist Party bases its work on the tasks lacing the working people in their own country. But Lenin's main propositions on the role of the Party, its leadership, Party building, the rules of Party life, and strategy and tactics are guidelines for all Parties. This was clearly expressed in the Statement of the 1960 Meeting, in the speeches of fraternal delegates at the new Meeting of 1969 and in its decisions.
__*_*_*__Lenin's theory of the proletarian party of a new type is permeated with a creative spirit, and rules out both dogmatism and a stereotype approach in its conception of the Party's organisation, methods and tactics.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is developing Lenin's theory of the Party and giving it concrete expression in conformity with the new historical conditions. The Party has generalised its experience in the building of socialism and communism in the Soviet Union, and has come to the important conclusion that its leading role is increasing in the present period. This is because of the larger scale and the complicated tasks of communist construction, which call for a higher level of political and organisational leadership in all aspects of public life and for more vigorous ideological work.
The Twenty-Third Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was extremely important in this respect. The decisions of the Congress arc aimed at strengthening the Party organisationally, ideologically and politically, at greater democracy within the Party, at increasing the leading role of Communists and their responsibility for the tasks with which they are entrusted, and at expanding and consolidating the ties between the Party organisations and the broad sections of the population. This enables the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to carry out the great and difficult tasks set by the Congress, to direct the construction of communism in the Soviet 218 Union, and to take a worthy place in the great fraternal family of the Communist and Workers' Parties. Lenin's theory of the Marxist proletarian party of a new type is a truly valuable contribution to the treasure-house of Marxism and to the theory and practice of the world communist and working-class movement. The CPSU is a party of Leninism. It is strong because Lenin laid down its foundations, developed and fostered it; it is strong because it has always been guided by his ideas and precepts in all its activities. Jt fully justifies Lenin's dictum that it represents "the intelligence, honour and conscience of our times".^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 260.
[219] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S THEORYBy V. V. PLATKOVSKY
Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist state occupies a central place in his ideological legacy.
Lenin considered the state to be the "focus of all present-day political questions and political = disputes".^^1^^ But he was not interested in state problems as such, i.e., in the abstract; they only interested him insofar as they were linked to the tasks of the class struggle of the proletariat, to the socialist revolution and to the building of socialism. And the more acute and tense became the class struggle---and, consequently, the closer the revolution---the more attention Lenin paid to the problems of the state.
Lenin appreciated the enormous significance of Marx's and Engels's idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat at the very outset of his revolutionary activities and consistently upheld and developed it to the end of his days. In his early works he clearly posed the question of the proletariat's attitude to the state and put forward the dictatorship of the proletariat as the chief plank of the revolutionary Marxist party's political platform. And in the course of the first revolution in Russia (1905--1907), he elaborated in detail his tenet on the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry and its subsequent transformation into the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. On the eve of the second Russian revolution, at the end of 1916 and the beginning of 1917, Lenin made a thorough study of the literature on the state and prepared his Marxism on the Slate for publication. In August and September _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 484.
220 1917, on the threshold of the October Socialist Revolution, when the question of the proletariat's attitude to the state was an urgent matter of immediate importance, he, working in difficult underground conditions, wrote his brilliant work The State and Revolution. After the October Revolution he devoted himself entirely to the building of the first socialist state in history. All his fundamental works of this period and almost all his articles, reports and speeches related to the theory and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the new socialist state.But Lenin did much more than restore Marx's and Engels's teachings on the origin and nature of the state and on the decisive importance of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition from capitalism to socialism---all of which had been distorted by opportunists. He closely followed the political developments of his day and amassed little by little all that was valuable in the experience of revolutionary struggle of the working class in different countries. In particular he studied the experience of the Paris Commune and that of the three Russian revolutions, lie generalised the knowledge gained of state-building in the early years of Soviet power and evolved on this basis a well-knit and clear-cut theory of the socialist state.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union cherishes this theory as its greatest ideological asset. It is resolved to keep it pure in the face of all the assaults of revisionism and dogmatism, and to develop it on the basis of the latest political experience. Modern revisionists claim that they have nothing against Lenin's theory of the socialist state "in general" but do everything to prove that it is outdated. They seek to turn this theory, as they do with all the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin, into a historical monument which one should revere but which is of no practical value. The dogmatists, for their part, want to turn Lenin's teachings into a collection of ready-made decisions and recipes to fit any situation and any conditions. They thus endeavour to stunt and kill Lenin's ideas. The Marxist-Leninist parties, by waging an uncompromising struggle against all forms of revisionism, are taking good care of and creatively developing Lenin's theory of the socialist state; thanks to this it has retained its effectiveness and serves the world communist movement well as a guide to the solution of urgent tasks.
In the new Programme adopted at its Twenty-Second Congress the CPSU gave a splendid example of the creative application and development of Lenin's theory of the socialist state. The theoretical propositions concerning the historical duration 221 of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the growth of the state ol the dictatorship of the proletariat into a socialist state of the entire people, the all round extension and perfection ol socialist democracy and the gradual development of socialist statehood into communist public self-administration, and other important formulations in this Programme, arc imbued with the creative spirit of Leninism and add to Lenin's theory of the socialist state.
__*_*_*__The Marxist-Leninist theory of the state is the direct continuation and logical conclusion of the Marxist theory of classes and class struggle and of the proletariat's revolutionary role in history. The crucial element in the class struggle is the proletariat's struggle for political power, since the question of power is at the heart of every revolution, especially a socialist revolution.
Every new class striving for power has hitherto regarded the seizure of the existing state machine as the main goal of struggle, whereas the proletariat's attitude to this question is entirely different.
The old state machine is adapted to the interests of the exploiting classes, so that it can only serve to perpetuate class domination and exploitation. The proletariat, on the other hand, has directly contrary aims: the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression and the abolition of exploiting classes and classes in general. The proletariat clearly cannot make use of the existing state machine and operate it in its own interests.
But at the same time the proletariat cannot adopt a policy of ``neutrality'' towards the bourgeois state, leaving it alone in the hope that it will abolish itself or die away peacefully. If the state were truly supra-class, as the apologists of capitalism affirm, this would be possible. But the proletariat has learned from its own experience that the state is by no means neutral in the struggle between itself and the bourgeoisie. "The state,'' Lenin emphasised, "can on no account be something inert, it always acts and acts very energetically, it is always active and never = passive."^^1^^ The regular army, the police, the courts and the whole of the vast bureaucratic apparatus of the state /ealously serve the bourgeoisie.
The state machine must be smashed and destroyed. This is the proletariat's first main task in the socialist revolution. Former _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 353.
222 revolutions all improved the state machine, but the proletariat must break and destroy it. As Lenin pointed out, this conclusion was the chief point of the Marxist theory of the state. The uncompromising class struggle and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and its state through revolution were the first and decisive steps towards the elimination of the state as such. He wrote: "The transitional stage between the state as an organ of the rule of the capitalist class and the state as an organ of the proletariat is revolution, which means overthrowing the bourgeoisie and breaking up, smashing their state = machine."^^1^^ This Marxist-= Leninist thesis concerning the need to smash the old bourgeois state machine holds good in the present day, too, despite the ``clever'' objections of revisionists, both Right and ``Left''.Enlarging upon Marx's and Engels's views on the state, Lenin put the matter very clearly: historical development inevitably leads to the collapse of capitalism and to communism; what, then, becomes of the state? And he gave a clear and definite answer, pointing out the main historical stages in the development of the state: first, there exists in capitalist society a state in the proper sense, a state indispensable to the bourgeoisie; secondly, the state is preserved during the transition from capitalism to communism---since it is also indispensable to the proletariat---but it is a state of a special, transitional type, "not a state in the proper sense''; finally, in communist society, the state is no longer necessary, so it withers away.
In a consistent and thorough way Lenin developed this basic idea, paying particular attention to the questions that had not been elucidated by Marx and Engels or had been distorted by revisionists and anarchists. It may be recalled that in his struggle with the anarchists, who demanded the immediate ``abolition'' of the state, Engels stressed that the state cannot be simply abolished, it must wither away. Reformists distorted this thesis, making it appear that it was the bourgeois state that withered away. But Lenin vigorously rebuffed this idea, emphasising that the bourgeois state did not wither away but was destroyed in the course of revolution. The only state that could wither away was a special kind of state---the proletarian state. The decisive step in the transition from state to a ``non-state'' was the replacement of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 323.
223 dictatorship of the proletariat, of the bourgeois state by the proletarian, socialist state. This, Lenin stressed, was "the sole way the state can eventually wither away = altogether".^^1^^The bourgeois state may be replaced by a proletarian state only through socialist revolution. It is this new state that comes into being after a revolution that is capable of withering away and is so built that it can wither away. "Dialectics are concrete and revolutionary and distinguish between the `transition' from the dictatorship of one class to the dictatorship of another and `transition' from the democratic proletarian state to the non-= state (`the withering away of the = state')."^^2^^
The Marxist thesis on the need to smash the bourgeois state was interpreted by anarchists as a demand for the immediate ``abolition'' and renunciation of any kind of state system, including the state of proletarian dictatorship. Exposing the anarchists, Lenin showed that the proletarian revolution did not set itself the task of immediately destroying the state altogether. Moreover, not everything in the bourgeois state has to be destroyed: only the military-bureaucratic, exploitivc machine created by the bourgeoisie requires destroying. He recalled Marx who had said that "the workers set up their revolutionary dictatorship in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. . ., give the state a revolutionary and transient form instead of laying down their arms and abolishing the = state".^^3^^
Class-conscious workers refute the views of anarchists. They know that the revolutionary proletariat, having overthrown the bourgeoisie and destroyed the bourgeois state, cannot immediately renounce statehood. And this is primarily because there is nothing it can immediately replace society's state system with: no socio-political organisation of the working class has a universal state organisation that can exercise the functions of the state, and without such an all-embracing authoritative organisation society would inevitably fall into a state of anarchy---which would in turn, and just as inevitably, lead to the restoration of the power of the overthrown exploiters.
The founders of scientific communism came to the conclusion that the objective conditions of the proletariat's class struggle against the bourgeoisie and the tasks confronting the socialist revolution made the dictatorship of the proletariat historically _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 371.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 332.
~^^3^^ Marx and Engels, Works, 2nd Russ. ed., Vol. 18, p. 297.
224 necessary. The conquest of state power by the proletariat is merely the beginning of the socialist revolution, not its consummation. To bring the revolution to an end---to score a complete victory over the bourgeoisie and build a socialist society---it is necessary to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, which can educate the proletariat and steel it as a force capable of politically administering society and also educate non-proletarian people, notably peasants, in a socialist spirit and draw them into socialist construction.Speaking of the substance of proletarian dictatorship and its historic tasks, Lenin said that the proletariat must "overthrow the bourgeoisie, take state power from it in order to use that instrument for its class aims.
"What are the class aims of the proletariat?
"Suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie;
`` `Neutralise' the peasantry and, if possible, win them over--- at any rate the majority of the labouring, non-exploiting section--- to the side of the proletariat;
"Organise large-scale machine production, using factories, and means of production in general, expropriated from the bourgeoisie;
"Organise socialism on the ruins of = capitalism."^^1^^
The first, historically inevitable task arising "on the very next day" after the victory of the proletariat is the suppression of the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes. The proletariat's social revolution overthrows the power of the exploiting classes but it cannot abolish these classes at one stroke. They remain for a relatively long time after the victory of the socialist revolution. And as long as they exist, they do not give up their efforts to restore their rule, desperately resisting the new power and the new social system by military, political, economic, ideological and moral means.
That is why the victorious proletariat finds itself compelled to take steps to defend the revolution and to break the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes. These steps cannot be reduced to single acts---it is necessary to have an organised, centralised force in the form of the state power of the new class for the systematic suppression of its class enemies and ultimately for their complete abolition. Such a centralised force or governmental power is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Lenin _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 263.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---1974 225 described as a "class struggle waged by a proletariat that is victorious and has taken political power into its hands against a bourgeoisie that has been defeated but not destroyed, a bourgeoisie that has not vanished, not ceased to oiler resistance, but lias intensified its = resistance".^^1^^The dictatorship of the proletariat, as Lenin stressed time and again, is the continuation of the proletariat's class struggle in new conditions and new forms. History shows that the tasks of the proletariat in relation to the bourgeoisie and other exploiting classes arc (with certain modifications necessitated by the particular conditions in individual countries), first, to deprive the bourgeoisie of political power and to smash its military-- bureaucratic state machine; secondly, to suppress the open resistance of the exploiters, smash their sabotage and ruthlessly to quash their armed actions; thirdly, to deprive them of their economic potential and to take the means of production from them, that is, to "depose the landowners and capitalists in actual fact, to replace their management of the factories and estates by a different management, workers' management, in actual = fact"^^2^^; and, fourthly, to abolish the exploiting classes themselves and to create conditions "in which it will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to exist, or for a new bourgeoisie to = arise".^^3^^
In the specific historical conditions of the Soviet Union it took almost two decades to complete these tasks. For the same reason the struggle against the resisting exploiters often assumed very sharp forms. In other countries the struggle may be briefer and less bitter, everything depending on prevailing conditions. In any case, the suppression of the resistance of exploiting classes is a necessary condition for the transition from capitalism to socialism in all countries. "The indispensable characteristic, the necessary condition of dictatorship is the forcible suppression of the exploiters as a = class."^^4^^
The main purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to build a socialist society. Lenin wrote that "the essence of proletarian dictatorship is not in force alone, nor chiefly in force. Its main feature is the organisation and discipline of the advanced contingent of the working people, of their vanguard; of their sole leader, the proletariat, whose object is to build socialism, abolish the division of society into classes, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, pp. 380--81.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, pp. 252--55.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 245.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 256.
226 make all members of society working people, and remove the basis for all exploitation of man by = man."^^1^^The working class carries out a political revolution and takes state power into its hands for the sole purpose of using this power to carry through radical economic and social changes and to build socialism. In the Soviet Union, the dictatorship of the proletariat has carried out the economic and organisational, cultural and educational functions from the very start. The more successfully the task of suppressing the class enemy was fulfilled, the more fully and thoroughly were these creative functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat developed, until they gradually extended to all the aspects of the work of the Soviet state and people.
The dictatorship of the proletariat employs force only against former and would-be exploiters, not against the whole of society. It therefore expresses the interests of all working people and enjoys their sympathy and support. Without this support it could not fulfil its basic tasks. That is why the working class does not assume power or attempt to administer the state by itself but does it in close alliance with all working people of town and country, particularly with the peasantry. Lenin stressed that the supreme principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat was the workers' alliance with the labouring peasants, an alliance in which the leading role belonged to the working class.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is thus brought into being by the class struggle, by the need to reorganise society's life along socialist lines. It is the instrument of the socialist revolution, the continuation of the proletariat's class struggle in new conditions and new forms, the instrument of socialist construction. The historical experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries has irrefutably and fully proved that the teachings of Marx, Engcls and Lenin on the dictatorship of the proletariat are applicable everywhere. It has now been proved both theoretically and practically, says the CPSU Programme, that the peoples arc able to achieve socialism only as a result of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He who does not recognise the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition from capitalism to socialism betrays Marxism-Leninism and sides with counter-= revolution, as the historical experience has shown.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 388.
227 __*_*_*__Lenin's works devote much attention to the state organisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., to its organising mechanism. This is a major question, a question of decisive significance for the functioning of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the fate of the socialist revolution. It is precisely on this issue that the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat is distorted and perverted. Revisionists, or Right opportunists sever the concepts of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state from each other and oppose the one to the other. Left doctrinaires, on the other hand, fuse these concepts, identifying the dictatorship of the proletariat with the socialist state, thus confusing the question of the development of the state under socialism and during the transition to full communism.
Present-day revisionists repeatedly raise the question of whether the proletariat needs a state. They accuse Leninists of ``idolatry'', of "superstitious faith in the state'', and so on, and seek to prove that the proletariat needs a dictatorship but not a state, i.e., that the dictatorship of the proletariat should not take a state form. They affirm that the "state does not make up the content of the dictatorship of the proletariat" and that, generally speaking, dictatorship is a ``political'' conception and has nothing in common with the conception of the state, and that it should find expression not in state power but in "the absolute leading role of the proletariat''. And all this gibberish is accompanied by references to Lenin!
These theorists cannot even see the corner they have got themselves into. Political organisation in this case means first and foremost state organisation. So what can "the absolute leading role of the proletariat" mean if leadership in a state form is precluded? The proletariat exercises its leadership (hegemony) over the peasantry and other sections of the working population in different forms at all stages of the revolution. The state leadership of the proletariat is the highest form in which the proletariat's leadership of society manifests itself.
What aims do revisionists pursue by demanding the renunciation of the state organisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Why, indeed, shouldn't the dictatorship of the proletariat take a state form? What does the dictatorship of the proletariat (the state power of the proletariat) that has not taken a state form, look like? Back in 1918, it may be recalled, the German opportunists launched the slogan of the "independence of the 228 working class from the state''. In the same year Karl Kautsky wrote in his pamphlet The Dictatorship of the Proletariat that a class can only "rule but not govern" and that, consequently, the Russian Soviets should not have been made into state organisations. Modern revisionists propagate essentially the same idea.
Lenin indignantly characterised the views that Kautsky preached as a complete break with Marxism and socialism, as desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie, "who are prepared to concede everything except the transformation of the organisations of the class which they oppress into state = organisations".^^1^^ Lenin showed that opposition to the organisation of the working class into a state means either renouncing state power in general or recognising the possibility of the working class using the old state machine and, consequently, denying the need to destroy this machine.
The founders of scientific communism at no time conceded that the dictatorship of the proletariat could be something that was amorphous or unorganised. They always insisted that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a state concept. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels interpreted the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat as that of a state in which the proletariat was organised as the ruling class.
This same idea of organising the proletariat into the ruling class, that is, into a state, was constantly propagated by Lenin. He tirelessly explained that a dictatorship is an organised state force, and that the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat should not be replaced by a weak state organisation. "Soviet power is nothing but an organisational form of the dictatorship of the = proletariat"^^2^^ and "the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian state, which is a machine for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, is not a 'form of government', but a state of a different = type".^^3^^ These and many other pronouncements by Lenin make it perfectly clear and beyond dispute, all the claims of revisionists notwithstanding, that the concepts of the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat are not opposed to each other. The proletarian state is not only a form but represents the very essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 260.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 265.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, pp. 107--08.
229The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be simply equated with the state or the state machine. While Lenin did not contrast the two, neither did he identify them. And because the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state arc not the same thing, Lenin dealt with the question of the mechanism of proletarian dictatorship. The dictatorship of the proletariat, he pointed out, could not be exercised through the ``wholesale'' organisation of industrial workers. It was necessary to have a whole system of different organisations to enable the proletariat to become the ruling class.
In this system of different organisations, in the mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leading role is played by the Communist Party, the vanguard of the working class, the nucleus of power, without which there can be no proletarian dictatorship. Next come the trade unions, which embrace the whole of the working class and link it to the Party. They arc followed by the Soviets, the massive, most representative political organisation in town and countryside. The Soviets represent a state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat which covers all the organs of state power and state administration---that is, everything that constitutes the state apparatus proper: legislative and executive organs of power and economic and cultural administrative bodies. Finally come the co-operatives, the Young Communist League and the other mass organisations that unite the people in their productive, cultural, scientific, sporting and other activities.
Such is the mechanism with the aid of which the proletariat is organised into the ruling class and exercises its dictatorship. This harmonious and smoothly functioning political system is a system of government and non-government institutions and organisations embracing all aspects of life in Soviet society.
Every link of this system has a definite role to play in the era of transition from capitalism to socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not boil down to any one of them in particular---to the Party, the trade unions, or the Soviets, etc. As part of the general mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, each of these organisations has its own tasks, its specific organisational form, its own working methods and its own paths of development. This conception of the mechanism enables the Party to foresee the direction of development of all these organisations in the period of transition to socialism and later to communism. Dogmatists do not understand and do not take this very important factor into account. By identifying the 230 government and non-government organisations with the dictatorship of the proletariat itself, they confine the existence of these organisations within the historical bounds of proletarian dictatorship. This is wrong from the theoretical point of view and also docs not accord with historical facts.
Opposing the state organisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, revisionists propose the immediate replacement of the state by various forms of non-state organisation. But it was precisely such proposals that Lenin vigorously opposed, describing them as anarcho-syndicalist. In April 1917, reporting to the Petrograd City Conference of Bolsheviks, he said: "The Soviet of Workers' Deputies is not an organisation of the trade union type, as the bourgeoisie would like it to be. The people see it differently and more correctly---they see it as a governmental power. ... This is the type of state under which it is possible to advance towards = socialism."^^1^^
Historical development will ultimately lead to the replacement of the state system of government by public self-- administration. But that can happen only when communism has been fully established. To demand the immediate replacement of the state by various kinds of mass organisations or by organs of public self-administration is to renounce the socialist state---in other words, to slip into the position of anarchists.
The leadership of the Communist Party is indispensable for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The enemies of socialism, the enemies of the working class, strike mainly at the leading role which the Communists play in the system of proletarian dictatorship and in the socialist state. The revisionists of every hue have aligned themselves with the open enemies of socialism--- with bourgeois ideologists and politicians. Some of them arc insisting on the separation of the Party from the state. But if the Party separates itself from state power, from the spheres of production and economy, science and culture, it abandons the key positions in society, and these are immediately seized by the enemies of the working class. Such is the logic of class struggle. People who make this demand pursue only one aim---to disarm the working class and abolish the dictatorship of the proletariat. The working class, however, can under no circumstances agree to that.
Particularly dear to the revisionists is the demand for a multi-party system in state power (political pluralism), for the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 146.
231 abolition of one-party rule. "One-party monopoly" is undemocratic, they say. In this process some resort to open deception by claiming that Marx and Lenin were for a multi-party system and that Soviet leaders have deliberately distorted them in order to reject the multi-party system. This is a lie designed to delude politically ignorant people. Marxists-Leninists have never denied the possibility of several parties existing under the dictatorship of the proletariat but they have always maintained that the leading role must be played by one party---the Communist Party.In the early days of Soviet power Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, far from opposing other political parties, tried to promote co-operation with them. Historically, however, things turned out differently: the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties joined the counter-revolutionary camp and thus removed themselves from the Soviet government system. There remained only one political party in the USSR---the Communist Party--- backed by all Soviet people. A one-party system is in operation in some other socialist countries. While in others---the German Democratic Republic and Poland, for example---there are several parties and they all co-operate closely with the communist vanguard in building socialist society.
But while allowing the possibility that several parties may exist, Marxists-Leninists maintain that only one party, the Communist Party, can be the guiding force and the core of working-= class power. Lenin drew attention to the behaviour of the class enemies of the proletariat who at first were prepared to reconcile themselves even to the Soviets and demanded ``only'' the withdrawal of the Communists from them. They were ready to back any Right or ``Left'' shift of power so long as it was a shift away from the Communists. That is why Lenin resolutely declared that "the dictatorship of the proletariat would not work except through the Communist = Party".^^1^^ It is this Leninist policy, proved correct by the experience of the USSR and other socialist countries, that all true Marxists-Leninists adhere to strictly.
Lenin's doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat deals at length with the possible diversity of the state forms of proletarian rule. Credit is due to him for discovering such a state form most suitable to Russian conditions as the Soviets. Lenin stressed that the Soviets were a state of the same type as the Paris Commune and at the same time a new state form created by the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 199.
232 revolutionary masses of Russia. The period of transition from capitalism to socialism, he pointed out, could not but yield a vast diversity of political forms, though their essence would be the same---the dictatorship of the proletariat. "All nations,'' he wrote, "will arrive at socialism---this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social = life."^^1^^This prediction of Lenin's has been fully borne out by history. The development of the socialist revolutions in some European and Asian countries after the Second World War engendered a new form of the dictatorship of the proletariat---people's democracy. The international liberation movement will undoubtedly produce other forms of the political organisation of society which will exercise the functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and ensure the transition to socialism in conformity with the historical and national peculiarities of the countries concerned.
Generalising the experience of the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies, the CPSU Programme further develops Lenin's idea about the diversity of the state forms of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Programme points out that while the principal law-governed processes of the socialist revolution arc common to all countries, the diversity of specific national features and traditions that have arisen in the course of history gives rise in turn to a variety of state forms and to different rates of advance to power by the working class. This means that it is possible and necessary, in a number of countries, for there to be transition stages in the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and for there to be a variety of forms of political organisation in societies building socialism.
__*_*_*__The dictatorship of the proletariat engendered by the socialist revolution creates an entirely new type of state, which Marx, Engels and Lenin no longer called a state in the old, proper meaning of the term. This new type of state means an immeasurably higher type of democracy than bourgeois democracy--- democracy for the working people, for the overwhelming majority of the nation. The period of transition from capitalism to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, pp. 69--70.
233 socialism, Lenin wrote, "inevitably is a period of an unprecedentedly violent class struggle in unprecedentedly acute forms, and, consequently, during this period the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the = bourgeoisie)".^^1^^Bourgeois ideologists claim that dictatorship and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. Lenin said that this point of view was a vulgar prejudice. And modern revisionists attack the dictatorship of the proletariat in this same vulgar bourgeois way. The state precludes democracy, they say, and insist that there can be no genuine democracy as long as the state exists and that the state should therefore be replaced by democracy. This is the basis of their demand for the immediate "withering away" of the state.
This point of view is absurd, of course. Lenin pointed out that "democracy is also a state and that, consequently, democracy will also disappear when the state = disappears".^^2^^ Recalling Engels's remark about ``overcoming'' the state and, as a result, democracy too, Lenin stressed that the opportunists had " forgotten that the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy: that the withering away of the state means the withering away of = democracy".^^3^^
Democracy is a historically transient phenomenon. Its forms have changed with the replacement of one ruling class by another through the millennia since the first beginnings of democracy in ancient times.
Bourgeois democracy is democracy for the rich alone and for a small section of the proletariat (that is, for the labour aristocracy), "democracy as something exclusive only, never com- plete".^^4^^ It makes inevitable the transition to a new, higher form of democracy---to socialist democracy.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the poor, i.e., for nine-tenths of the population, fulfilling the essential task of breaking the resistance of the rich, the classes of exploiters. It is a new, higher type of democracy, a "democracy that is almost complete, bound only by the suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie."^^5^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 412.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 397.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 455.
~^^4^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 33, p. 181.
~^^5^^ Ibid.
234Communism is truly complete democracy that will become a habit, and which, consequently, will wither away. "Complete democracy equals no democracy. This is not a paradox, it is the truth,'' Lenin points = out.^^1^^
Democracy is thus a form of the state which can neither abolish nor replace the state itself, as the revisionists claim. On the contrary, it will wither away with the state. It follows that the only question that remains is that of developing socialist democracy more and more fully until the political conditions are created for the withering away of the state.
The transition from bourgeois democracy to socialist democracy is not expressed in the simple extension of democratic freedoms and rights, although socialist democracy does offer the people immeasurably more than all preceding forms of democracy. The main thing is the fundamental, qualitative change that takes place in the historical development of democratic forms of power.
Power and state administration are taken over by the most progressive and revolutionary class in society---the working class--- in defence of the best interests of all working people; and exploiters are debarred from state administration. Democracy without exploiters, democracy for the working people---that is the essence of socialist democracy and its fundamental difference from bourgeois democracy. Socialist democracy creates real conditions for the working people to have the decisive say in state administration. This extension of democracy transcends the bounds of bourgeois democracy and is incompatible with the bourgeois system in general.
Socialist democracy thus means the genuine popular rule, the exercise of power by the people themselves. It represents an absolutely new, higher form of democracy---truly complete, universal democracy for the working people. Lenin therefore had every reason to declare that socialist democracy was a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy.
At first, the Soviet working class was compelled to resort to certain restrictive measures (for example, measures relating to class representation at congresses of the Soviets) in order to secure its decisive influence in the state, paralyse unstable and vacillating elements, and lead the majority of the working people. Lenin stressed in this connection that the deprivation of the bourgeoisie of the franchise was a "purely Russian" measure necessitated by _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid.
235 the violent resistance of the bourgeoisie and that this measure need not be applied in other countries.When we speak of socialist democracy we do not mean only the demoralisation of the state structure, the improvement of the electoral system, and the extension of citizens' democratic freedoms and rights. The main thing for us, as Lenin emphasised, is to induce all citizens without exception to exercise state junctions.
The CPSU seeks to solve this problem in a broad and comprehensive way by, first, constantly raising the living and cultural standards of the people and, second, by taking measures to improve all forms of the state structure and social administration in order to make them simple and easily understood by everybody so that they can themselves carry out state and social functions with greater ease.
The Soviet Communist Party directs the people's efforts and energies towards ensuring the steady growth of the economy and culture and improving their welfare. It regards this as a major prerequisite for the development of socialist democracy. On the other hand, the participation of the working people in economic and cultural construction and in the improvement of society's well-being is itself the fullest expression of democracy.
Communist construction means developing and improving socialist social relations, and eliminating the remaining distinctions between the working class and the peasantry, between mental and physical labour, and between town and country. This is the social basis for the development of socialist democracy. The relations of comradeship and friendship that develop on this basis among equal and unexploited people, their respect for human dignity and personal liberty, and the full use of the abilities, gifts and talents of each member of society---these are the real products of genuine and complete democracy.
Working people take an active part in the administration of the state and in the solution of problems that arise in the process of economic and cultural construction through the Soviets, the trade unions and other mass organisations. Socialist democracy covers the political freedoms---the freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and the right to elect and to be elected---and social rights---the right to work, rest and leisure, a free education and medical service, maintenance in old age and in case of sickness or disability; and the equality of citizens of different sex, race, or nationality in all spheres of government and economic and cultural activity. All the democratic freedoms, political and social 236 rights of Soviet citizens---unlike those of the citizens of capitalist countries---are both proclaimed and guaranteed by the Soviet political and socio-economic system.
All aspects of the life of Soviet society are thus based on broad democracy. Genuine and constantly developing and improving democracy is the law of life in socialist society.
By its social nature and its democratic principles, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union always represented a special kind of state power which could develop in one direction only---towards greater democratisation and the ever greater participation of working people in state administration and the management of social production and cultural development. This was the road along which, despite all internal and external difficulties, the dictatorship of the proletariat advanced in the Soviet Union, undergoing substantial changes in the process. The state of the dictatorship of the proletariat gradually grew into a nation-wide organisation of all the working people of socialist society; proletarian democracy was becoming more and more socialist democracy for the whole people.
__*_*_*__The founders of scientific communism stressed that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not always be required, that it was only a temporary, historically determined and transient form of society's political organisation. It is made temporary by the very nature of the working class and of the tasks it has to fulfil in the socialist transformation of society.
Hitherto, all ruling classes have seized power with one purpose in mind: to establish their own rule over society and to ensure for themselves a special position and privileges for all time to come. The proletariat is the only class in history that does not seek to perpetuate its rule. On the contrary, its purpose is to eliminate all classes and class privileges, including its own rule as a class. And when it resorts to dictatorship, it is only because the historical conditions of the struggle for socialism compel it to do so.
The temporary nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat also follows from the historically transient nature of the tasks it is called upon to fulfil. One of the basic tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat---to crush the resistance of the exploiting classes---is transient in nature and content: it can remain a task only as long as exploiters remain. The elimination of the 237 exploiting classes in the Soviet Union meant the fulfilment of the first historic task of the dictatorship of the proletariat and with it the withering away of one of its basic functions---the suppression of resisting exploiters. Another major task of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the building of socialism. This task takes a limited amount of time to fulfil, too. The Soviet people have built a socialist society with the aid of the dictatorship of the proletariat and thus carried out this task, too.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a historically transient form of society's political organisation. It extends, however, throughout a whole historical epoch and ceases to be a necessity only when the conditions engendering it disappear. As Lenin said, the dictatorship of the proletariat ends only when the tasks which society fulfils with its aid are completed.
When exactly will the dictatorship of the proletariat become unnecessary? What are its historical limits? This is a very complicated question and naturally gives rise to a number of different and even contradictory answers. Some theoreticians claim that Marx and Lenin considered the dictatorship of the proletariat to be indispensable right up to the victory of full communism. In this they usually quote the following statement of Marx's in his Critique of the Gotha Programme: "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the = proletariat."^^1^^
It should be known, however, that Marx did not speak of full communism in defining the bounds of the transition period. Anyone who has read the Critique of the Gotha Programme knows that it is in this work that the two stages of communism arc first mentioned: the first stage---socialism---and the higher stage--- full or developed communism.
Marx regarded communism as a single developing socio-- economic formation which is bound to succeed capitalism. Between capitalism and communism lies a whole transition period, the period of transformation of the former into the latter. Without going into great detail, Marx dwelt only on the main point---that from a political point of view the transition period represents the dictatorship of the proletariat. But how long does this transition period last? If we assume that it lasts until the higher stage of communism, then it must include the entire first stage of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marx and Engcls, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 32--33.
238 communism---but this is completely contrary to the spirit of scientific communism. For socialism, as the first stage of communism, is already an entirely new society, one that differs fundamentally from capitalism. That is precisely why Lenin, like Marx before him, deemed it possible to call socialism ``communism'', without meaning full communism. In The State and Revolution Lenin wrote: "What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the `first', or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word ` communism' is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete = communism."^^1^^The period of transition from capitalism thus goes on until the victory of socialism and not until the higher phase of communism. That is how Lenin interpreted the transition period. And in his "Greetings to Hungarian Workers'', he said that the fulfilment of the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat "requires a fairly long period of transition from capitalism to socialism because the reorganisation of production is a difficult matter, because radical changes in all spheres of life need time and because the enormous force of habit of running things in a petty-- bourgeois and bourgeois way can only be overcome by a long and stubborn struggle. That is why Marx spoke (in the Critique of the Gotha Programme---V.~P.) of an entire period of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the period of transition from capitalism to = socialism."^^2^^
This shows that Marx and Lenin did not and could not think that the dictatorship of the proletariat would continue to be necessary up to the higher phase of communism. The era of the dictatorship of the proletariat is precisely confined to the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.
It is also true that the dictatorship of the proletariat is indispensable beyond the time when society has entered socialism; it is indispensable until socialism has been firmly established as the first phase of communism. This means that the dictatorship of the proletariat is destined not only to eliminate the old relations of production and create new, socialist relations of production but also to strengthen these new relations; not only to abolish private ownership of the means of production and replace it by socialist public ownership but secure socialist ownership as the sole economic base of the new system; not only to abolish all _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 471.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 388.
239 exploiting classes and the exploitation of man by man but to create the conditions that will for ever make their reappearance impossible.Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary not only during the entire period of transition from capitalism to socialism, i.e., until the foundations of socialism have been laid, but until the full victory of socialism and the complete establishment of the socialist system. Only after that can the dictatorship of the proletariat consider its mission fulfilled. In line with this, the CPSU Programme says that, having brought about the complete and final victory of socialism---the first phase of communism---and the transition of society to the full-scale construction of communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its historic mission and has ceased to be necessary in the USSR, from the point of view of the tasks of internal development.
This conclusion is a matter of enormous significance. It is a new major contribution to the theory of scientific communism. The CPSU Programme has made another step forward in the creative elaboration of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat by being the first in Marxist literature to determine, on the basis of the wealth of practical experience accumulated in the struggle for socialism and communism, the historic moment when the dictatorship of the proletariat ceases to be necessary.
A crushing blow has thus been dealt to dogmatists and, at the same time, to bourgeois ideologists and Right-wing socialist and revisionist theoreticians who depict the dictatorship of the proletariat as outright violence and who invent stories about the ``egoism'' of the working class, its bent for ``totalitarianism'', etc. For the first time in history a ruling class, the proletariat, acting on its own initiative, and on fulfilment of its task of building communism has turned the state of its dictatorship into a state of the whole people. This is an historic act which no one can deny or gloss over.
__*_*_*__But what remains when the dictatorship of the proletariat ceases to be necessary and comes to an end? There remains the socialist state as an organisation of the whole people. The building of communism does not require the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the state remains indispensable as the main instrument of the building of communism. The socialist state will remain for a long time. "The Party,'' the CPSU Programme says, "holds that the dictatorship of the working class will cease to be necessary before 240 the state withers away. The state as an organisation of the entire people will survive until the complete victory of communism.''
This theory that the dictatorship of the proletariat comes to an end and the socialist state withers away at different times is declared ``non-Marxist'' by dogmatists. Identifying the dictatorship of the proletariat with the state, they affirm that they both wither away at the same time, that the "withering away of dictatorship means the withering away of the state''. In reality, this is not so, and the thesis of the CPSU Programme that these processes do not occur simultaneously accords with the ideas of Marx and Lenin. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx draws a line between the dictatorship of the proletariat, indispensable in the transition period, and the "future state of communist society''.
Lenin likewise considered it possible for the state to exist in a society where there was no longer any need for the political rule of one class. In The State and Revolution he points directly to the "withering away of the state" in the transition to the higher phase of communism, when "the state withers away insofar as there arc no longer any capitalists, and classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.
"But the state has not yet completely withered = away.~.~.~."^^1^^
Consequently, the historical bounds of the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the bounds of the existence of the socialist state do not coincide. This is fully confirmed by the actual historical process of development of society's political organisation. The dictatorship of the proletariat expresses the class nature of working-class power---it is the state power of one class, which it does not share with any other class. To exercise its power, the proletariat creates its own state organisation. It follows from this that although the dictatorship of the proletariat and the state of proletarian dictatorship are interconnected, they develop each in their own way. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not wither away but, to quote Lenin, "ceases to be" the power of one class. But the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not simply cease to be---and neither is it abolished: it is turned into a socialist state of the whole people---and it is this which gradually withers away, that is, grows into communist public self-administration.
The transformation of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a state of the entire people is a more or less lengthy process. This thesis of the CPSU Programme theoretically _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, pp. 467--68.
__PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16---1974 241 generalises the actual process of Soviet society's economic, social and political development. And this is how Lenin said that the question of the state should be approached: "The most important tiling if one is to approach this question scientifically is not: to forget the underlying historical connection, to examine every question from the standpoint of how the given phenomenon arose in history and what were the principal stages in its development, and, from the standpoint of its development, to examine what it has become = today."^^1^^This dialectical materialist approach makes it possible to ascertain correctly the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its law-governed development. Like all other social phenomena, the dictatorship of the proletariat is historically conditioned and, therefore, transient. This also means that it never remains an unchanging, stagnant structure: its tasks and functions, the forms of its organisation, its working methods, and its economic and social bases all change. And the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in developing into a state of the whole people at a certain stage, is governed by this same law of dialectical development. This transformation can take place only because the state of the whole people is not essentially different from the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat; they arc all states of the same type. It is not so much a transition from one state to another as the law-governed natural development and growth of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into the socialist state of the whole people.
This process is determined by the concrete socio-economic changes that occur in society after the victory of socialism; it cannot be determined by the subjective wishes of individual leaders. Although the transformation of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a socialist state of the whole people is accomplished by the working class and its Party, it is not an act of will but a natural consequence of profound objective changes in the economy, in social relations, and in society's political and spiritual life.
The victory of socialism in the Soviet Union brought about a radical change in the economic basis of society which inevitably affected its political superstructure, the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union arose to function when there existed five different economic sectors: the socialist, private capitalist, state-capitalist, small-commodity production, and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 473.
242 patriarchal or natural economy. What is more, the socialist sector was by no means the dominant one at the beginning of the transition period. But the state of proletarian dictatorship relied in its economic activity on this particular sector. The victory of socialism abolished this multi-sectoral structure, establishing the undivided sway of socialist ownership in its two forms and of a single socialist system of planned economy. The Soviet socialist state thus acquired a single, unprecedentedly strong and powerful economic basis. No other country had ever been so united, and homogeneous economically.The social structure of Soviet society also altered radically. The exploiting classes---the landowners, capitalists, merchants, kulaks and other parasites living by the labour of others---disappeared once and for all, as did the domination of some classes by others, the exploitation of man by man. After the victory of socialism there remained but two friendly classes---the working class and the peasantry, and the people's intelligentsia related to them. But the main thing was that these social groups underwent profound changes. While in the past the only socialist class was the working class, and the peasantry was a class of small owners, the peasantry now became socialist by nature, too. The Soviet intelligentsia also changed completely and is now socialist and closely connected with the working class and the collective-farm peasantry.
All sections of Soviet society are thus now of the same, socialist, nature. Class antagonisms have disappeared and workers, collective farmers and intellectuals are socially, politically and ideologically united. Communism, the supreme goal of the working class, has become the goal and the practical task of all Soviet people, and the socialist ideology of the working class has become that of everyone.
The alteration in the economic basis and the social structure of Soviet society has also resulted in radical changes in the character of the nations and nationalities of the Soviet Union. They became socially and economically homogeneous socialist nations. Their fraternal ties of internationalism, friendship and co-operation with one another became stronger and more extensive.
The changes in the economic basis and the social structure of society naturally could not but cause changes in the political superstructure, too. The social basis of the socialist state expanded and the political organisation transcended the framework of the rule of one class. Today, when there are no exploiting classes and no need to suppress them, when all the strata of working __PRINTERS_P_243_COMMENT__ 16* 243 people have united round the working class and its Party, the dictatorship of one class would mean infringement of the interests and will of other social strata. But such egoism is alien to the working class.
When the state of proletarian dictatorship became the socialist state of the whole people, this meant that proletarian democracy had grown into socialist democracy for the whole people. The Soviet Constitution of 1936 cancelled all measures restricting democracy and gave all citizens equal political rights and democratic freedoms. The reorganisation of the Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and Red Armymen's Deputies into Soviets of Working People's Deputies reflected this growth of proletarian democracy into socialist democracy for the whole people.
The development of the state of proletarian dictatorship into an organisation of all working people, and of proletarian democracy into socialist democracy for the entire people, ended with the complete and final victory of socialism and the entry of Soviet society into the period of full-scale communist construction.
Dogmatists peremptorily deny this; the very idea of the state of the entire people is unscientific and ``absurd'', they say, since the state has always been an instrument of class domination. Yes, the state has had a class nature for centuries, it has always been an instrument of class domination, an expression of the struggle between antagonistic classes. And it is still so in the capitalist countries. The idea of the class nature of the state in an exploitive society is one of the basic ideas of the Marxist-= Leninist theory of the state, and this is what makes this theory entirely different from the various theories of bourgeois ideologists, reformists and revisionists.
The proletarian state is also a class state in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, that is, when exploiting classes have not yet been eliminated and a bitter class struggle is still in progress. But how do things stand with the state of a mature socialist society, in which there are no exploiting classes and in which, as Lenin said, there is consequently "nobody to be suppressed---`nobody' in the sense of a class, of a systematic struggle against a definite section of the = population"?^^1^^
There can be no doubt that in its class nature this state also remains a socialist state governed by the working class. The _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 464.
244 state of the entire people is the result of the further development of socialist statehood. It continues the cause of the dictatorship of the proletariat at a new stage of the struggle for communism. In the sphere of home policy, this state works to accomplish the great aims of the working class and serves as an instrument for building the classless, communist society. In international affairs, it conducts a class struggle against imperialism along with other socialist states. But since the class structure of socialist society has changed, the socialist state is no longer an instrument of class domination. Now that the exploiting classes have disappeared and the peasantry and the intelligentsia have become socialist in nature, like the working class itself, the social base of the Soviet state has grown immeasurably wider. It is now a political organisation of all working people led by the working class. It is these social changes in Soviet socialist society that are reflected in the thesis of the CPSU Programme on the socialist state of the entire people.Dogmatists invariably indulge in formal logic in order to turn every theoretical proposition into an abstract idea divorced from reality. They argue as follows: the state is the instrument of class domination, and the state withers away only under communism; therefore (they conclude, mechanically combining these two propositions), it must remain the instrument of class domination until the very last day of its existence. And conversely: classes and bitter class struggle remain as long as the state (the instrument of class domination) exists, for otherwise the state loses its class character. But how are we to get out of this vicious circle, how are classes and the state to disappear?---this is something the dogmatist is not interested in, for the main thing for him is the formal argument.
But in life everything is always far more complicated than it appears. There is no such thing as abstract truth---truth is always concrete. Lenin liked to reiterate this tenet of dialectical materialism and always applied it himself in practice. He scathingly ridiculed those who clung to formulas, abstract schemes and so on, without being able to analyse concrete phenomena and processes.
Of course, the existence of the state is bound up with the existence of classes: the state comes into existence only where and when classes come into existence and disappears when classes disappear. But these processes, interlinked and interdependent, have their own peculiarities---they do not develop automatically and they do not begin and end at the same time. Let us 245 recall the classical analysis of these processes made by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. With the appearance of private ownership of the means of production, society split into classes having conflicting class interests. Then (after a long time) the state arose as the organisation of the economically ruling class with the aid of which it secured its political rule. The state was thus from its very beginning an instrument of class rule, class subordination, class suppression, oppression and exploitation. Although the class structure of society has altered constantly over the centuries, and the types of state and the forms of its organisation have undergone corresponding changes, the state has remained the instrument of class domination---whether the tool of slave-owners, feudal lords or capitalists.
Then came the socialist revolution, and although a new class--- the proletariat---assumed power, the state it created remained a class state, but openly so, without the camouflage and the falsity to which the exploiting classes have always resorted. Nevertheless, it was a state of an entirely different type: first, it resolutely and thoroughly discarded or "chopped off" the old function of oppression and exploitation, and, secondly, it retained the function of suppression and subordination, but exercised it temporarily and only against the exploiting minority in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the working people. It must, therefore, be clear to everyone how much the nature of the state, its role and functions, have changed.
Antagonistic classes and class struggle disappear with the victory of socialism and it becomes no longer necessary to moderate conflicts between certain classes or to hold them in check. The state ceases to suppress and subordinate hostile classes and so ceases to be the instrument of class domination. From a formalistic point of view, the state should also disappear, wither away, at this point. But this does not happen in life. There remain substantial differences between the working class and the peasantry; but these are akin and friendly classes and there is no need to ``moderate'' them or to keep them "in rein''. Nevertheless, classes have not yet been abolished and society has not yet reached that level of economic, social and ethical maturity which will enable it to get along without a state. Moreover, in order fully to overcome social distinctions and to establish a new, classless society it is, and will be, necessary to have a political organisation with the authority of state power. It is only natural that this state organisation should be different 246 in the new conditions, different from when antagonistic classes exist.
But will society ever reach a stage when class distinctions disappear? Should one think of the state as disappearing automatically, ``immediately''? He should not, because the withering away of the state will be a very long process, one depending on both internal and external conditions. When Engels spoke of the withering away of the state and the internal conditions necessary for it, he stressed that it would be a gradual and lengthy process during which the state would "fall asleep''. Only the generation grown up in the new conditions would be in a position to throw out all the rubbish represented by the state. And until then, he said, the state would be indispensable to society, although it would undergo a long series of major changes in its organisational forms, functions and methods of work. "The 'transitional stages' of the revolution,'' Lenin wrote, "will be followed by the 'transitional stages' of the gradual withering away of the proletarian = state."^^1^^
To build socialism and communism the CPSU considers it imperative to ensure the leadership of the working class over all sections of the working population, over the whole of society. But it would be a mistake to equate the leading role of the working class with the dictatorship of the proletariat, as dogmatists do. The leading role, the hegemony of the proletariat, is not the same thing as its dictatorship. The working class begins to play its leading role in the initial phases of the revolution, long before the establishment of its dictatorship. And it continues to play it after the dictatorship of the proletariat has come to an end and the socialist state has become a state of the whole people. In these conditions, the leading role of the working class ceases to represent class domination. The working class then exercises its leading role not through exclusive rights and privileges acquired at the expense of other classes and sections of society but through its high moral and political authority.
At the present stage of development of Soviet society the leading role of the working class is conditioned by the leading position of socialist industry in the country's economy, by the leading and determining role of public ownership of the means of production (as distinct from the collective-farm, co-operative form of socialist ownership), by the extremely high level of organisation and socialist consciousness of the working class, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 323.
247 the (evolutionary experience and high authority it has acquired in the decades of struggle for the victory of socialism, and by the leading position of the Communist Party founded by the working class, and the wide acceptance of Marxist-Leninist ideology---the ideology of the world proletariat. The working class will cease to play its leading role only after communism has been built and all class distinctions have completely disappeared. __*_*_*__The labour movement in the capitalist countries, the national liberation movements, and the process of building socialism and communism in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries constantly give rise to new and complex problems that cannot possibly be foreseen. And each time this happens the Communist and Workers' Parties find wise counsel in Lenin's works which help them to solve these problems. Enriched by the experience of state building in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, Lenin's theory of the socialist state is a powerful instrument in the hands of Marxist-Leninist parties and the international working class.
[248] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINBy M. V. ISKROV
Lenin's teachings on the historic role of the working class rank among the most important in the theoretical heritage that he left behind. The working class, the chief force in the production of material goods, is the most advanced and revolutionary class in society. The historic mission of this class is to abolish capitalism and build communism. Mankind's social progress, the establishment of a truly just society on earth, i.e., socialism, largely depend on the revolutionary energy of the working class and its ability to rally all democratic and progressive forces around itself. That is why in his revolutionary struggle Lenin relied primarily on the working class as the principal subjective factor in effecting revolutionary changes in society.
Marx and Engels were the first to discover and define the world-historic role of the working class as the grave-digger of capitalism and the creator of communist society. After studying the laws governing the development of the capitalist mode of production they established that the demise of capitalism and the victory of communism were inevitable. They revealed the contradictory position of the proletariat: while playing the principal part in material production, it is deprived of any right to the means of production and prevented from playing the leading role in the system of capitalist social relations, which it ought to have played as the determining factor of production. Because of this contradiction the proletariat must act as the main force in abolishing capitalist society. Marxism armed the working class with a revolutionary theory and gave a socialist orientation to the labour movement, which had hitherto developed spontaneously. Marx and Engels, in their writings, were the first to 249 demonstrate that socialism is not an invention of dreamers hut a science and the necessary final outcome of the development of the productive forces of modern society. They showed that the most vital interests of the proletariat require the abolition of private ownership and of anarchy in social production, and that only conscious class struggle by organised workers can result in this.
Throughout their life Marx and Engels bent all their effort on elaborating the revolutionary theory of the working class, on ascertaining and proving its great liberatory mission, on developing the class self-consciousness of the proletariat. As Lenin said, "The services rendered by Marx and Engels to the working class may be expressed in a few words thus: they taught the working class to know itself and be conscious of itself, and they substituted science for = dreams."^^1^^
"It is to the great historic merit of Marx and Engels that they indicated to the workers of the world their role, their task, their mission, namely, to be the first to rise in the revolutionary struggle against capital and to rally around themselves in this struggle all working and exploited = people."^^2^^
The Marxist doctrine is the scientific expression of the most essential interests of the proletariat. Marx created his teachings by summarising in the form of theory the practical experience of the labour movement, and by critically assimilating all that was most valuable in philosophy, political economy and Utopian socialism. The central idea of Marxism is that concerning the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"And now as to myself,'' Marx wrote to Weyclemcyer on March 5, 1852, "no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: i) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless = society."^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 20.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 165.
~^^3^^ Marx and Engels, = Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 69.
250Lenin's ideas on the historic role of the working class, which derive from those of Marx and Engels, comprise an integrated system of views of the hegemony of the proletariat in the socialist revolution and in any truly popular, democratic revolution. This theory stresses the proletariat's leading role among all working people of both town and countryside in the battle to overthrow capitalism, and in the subsequent socialist construction. It is a theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a special form of the class alliance between the proletariat and all exploited people of non-proletarian and semi-proletarian origin. Its highest principle concerns the need to form an alliance between the working class and the peasantry. A lasting alliance of workers and peasants and other non-proletarian working people was considered by Lenin to be an indispensable condition for the victory of revolution.
In one of his first works, What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, Lenin developed in detail the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary movement. He showed that the role of the working class was that of an advanced revolutionary force in society, that the proletariat was the only class capable of leading all exploited and oppressed people in the struggle to abolish the exploitation of man by man, and that it comes forward and must come forward as their leader in the class struggle.
"The proletariat alone can be the vanguard fighter for political liberty and for democratic institutions. Firstly, this is because political tyranny bears most heavily upon the proletariat whose position gives it no opportunity to secure a modification of that tyranny---it has no access to the higher authorities, not even to the officials, and it has no influence on public opinion. Secondly, the proletariat alone is capable of bringing about the complete democratisation of the political and social system, since this would place the system in the hands of the = workers."^^1^^
The Marxist-Leninist theory of the historic mission of the proletariat was fully borne out by the October Socialist Revolution in Russia. It demonstrated the inexhaustible strength of the working class. After the October Revolution Lenin repeatedly said that the working class was the most steeled class in the struggle against capitalism, and that it alone would lead mankind to the abolition of all classes and to the building of the most just society possible on earth.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 336.
251"Classes can be abolished,'' Lenin said, "only by the dictatorship of that oppressed class which has been schooled, united, trained and steeled by decades of the strike and political struggle against capital---of that class alone which has assimilated all the urban, industrial, big-capitalist culture and has the determination and ability to protect it and to preserve and further develop all its achievements, and make them available to all the people, to all the working people---of that class alone which will be able to bear all the hardships, trials, privations and great sacrifices which history inevitably imposes upon those who break with the past and boldly hew a road for themselves to a new future---of that class alone whose finest members are full of hatred and contempt for everything petty-bourgeois and philistine, for the qualities that flourish so profusely among the petty bourgeoisie, the minor employees and the `intellectuals'---of that class alone which 'has been through the hardening school of labour' and is able to inspire respect for its efficiency in every working person and every honest = man."^^1^^
Lenin's struggle against liberal Narodniks, Economists, Bernsteinians and other revisionists boiled down in the final analysis to his preserving and upholding the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the movement for the emancipation of labour. His book The Development of Capitalism in Russia played a big part in this respect. In his study of the economic ancl class structure of Russian society, Lenin not only ascertained the position of the different classes in the liberation movement, but furnished a scientific proof of the need for the proletariat to lead the revolution, and of the possibility of this. Moreover, he indicated that the proletariat had the ability to lead millions upon millions of working people in the task of overthrowing the rule of the landowners and capitalists. All this completely upset the threadbare dogmas of the opportunists of all kinds, according to whom working-class leadership of a revolution was possible only when the latter comprised the majority of a nation's population. But in fact, as Lenin observed, "the strength of the proletariat in the process of history is immeasurably greater than its share of the total = population".^^2^^
The strength of the working class lies in its discipline, organisation and unity, in its ability to rally all exploited people and to direct the movement for their liberation towards one _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 390.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 31.
252 single goal---the abolition of all exploitation. The historic role of the working class thus consists in its liberating not only itself, but all labouring people. The revolutionary struggle of the proletariat encompasses the struggle for freedom of the overwhelming majority of the exploited people. Lenin taught Communists that the working class, connected as it is with advanced forms of production, is in a position not only to rally its own ranks successfully, but also to become, as the one consistently revolutionary class, the true leader of the revolution."One of the chief conditions for the socialist revolution's victory is that the working class must realise it has to rule and that its rule should be carried through during the transition period from capitalism to socialism. The rule of the proletariat, the vanguard of all the working and exploited people, is essential in this transition period if classes are to be completely abolished, if the resistance of the exploiters is to be suppressed, and if the entire mass of the working and exploited people--- crushed, downtrodden and disunited by capitalism---are to be united around the urban workers and brought in close alliance with = them."^^1^^ Lenin directly connected the victory of the socialist system and its further strengthening with the leading role of the working class and the steady growth of its authority. Without this directing activity of the working class, he said, the victory of socialism was absolutely unthinkable.
The opportunist leaders of the Second International at no time considered seriously the question of the allies of the working class, especially its peasant allies. Russian Mensheviks and Trotskyists stubbornly attempted to prove the reactionary nature of the peasantry, and the impossibility of the proletariat leading it along the path of revolution. Lenin exposed these opportunist views and developed the Marxist thesis on the need to combine the proletarian revolution with the revolutionary peasant movement. In What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats he first put forward the idea of a revolutionary alliance of workers and peasants.
In his later works Lenin paid constant attention to the alliance of the working class and peasantry, and to the strengthening of this alliance under the hegemony of the proletariat. He stressed again and again that only the working class is sufficiently numerous, class-conscious and disciplined to attract the majority of working, exploited and poor people to the cause of completely _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 94.
253 suppressing all exploiters. Lenin also pointed out that it was not just any alliance with the peasantry that the proletariat needed but only one in which the working class could preserve its leading role and which strengthened the position of the working class in the struggle against the bourgeoisie for the abolition of class-= divided society, and in the struggle to build socialism. ''. . .Only the guidance given by the proletariat is capable of leading the mass of small farmers out of capitalist slavery to = socialism."^^1^^Lenin not only demonstrated the real possibility of establishing and consolidating the working-class alliance with the peasantry in the course of the revolutionary struggle against tsarism and capitalism; he also brought out the need to strengthen this alliance once the proletariat has won power. "The supreme principle of the dictatorship is the maintenance of the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry in order that the proletariat may retain its leading role and its political = power."^^2^^
The unscientific conceptions of Maoists obviously contradict Lenin's teachings on the leading role of the working class in its alliance with the peasantry. Rejecting the leading role of the working class of the developed capitalist countries in the revolutionary process, and speaking of the alleged loss by the working class of its revolutionary spirit, of the ``bourgeoisifkation'' of the working class, and its consequent inability to wage a struggle to overthrow capitalism, the Maoists claim that the proletariat has now left the arena of revolutionary struggle and is exclusively occupying itself with its own narrow class and economic questions. The working class has supposedly been replaced by the peasantry, "the world countryside''. The Maoists' plainly contemptuous attitude towards the working class and their rejection of its vanguard role show that their ideas are a direct revision and distortion of Marxist-Leninist theory of the historic tasks of the working class. Lenin emphasised that the great revolutionary potential of the peasantry can be fully revealed and successfully employed in the cause of the revolution only under the leadership of the proletariat. At the same time he warned that ".. .it would be senseless to make the peasantry the vehicle of the revolutionary movement, that a party would be insane to condition the revolutionary character of its movement upon the revolutionary mood of the = peasantry".^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 459.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 490.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 243--44.
254In this light, Maoism looks like an attempt to replace the proletarian revolution with a petty-bourgeois one.
If one takes into account the further fact that alongside their counterposing of "the world countryside" to the proletariat of the developed countries, the Maoists also preach chauvinism, and want to antagonise the nations of East and West, it becomes quite clear that it is their views, as remote from Marxism as the sky is from the earth, that nourish their striving to replace the world socialist revolution by the struggle between the nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, on the one hand, and the nations of Europe and North America, on the other. Maoism suggests that the main battle in the world should not be that between socialism and imperialism, the working class and the capitalist class, but one between ``poor'' and ``rich'' nations, between ``white'' and ``coloured'' peoples. Maoism replaces the class approach to revolution by a geographical, nationalistic and, in the final analysis, racialist one.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels stressed that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary not only in order to abolish the capitalist system but also to build a new, communist society. The working class must exercise its dictatorship not only in the period of the struggle for power but also in the course of the class struggle that follows its conquest of power, in order to transform radically the economy of society by instituting socialist relations of production and setting up an entirely new social system. During this struggle the working class makes use of all political, military, economic and administrative means of coercion in its relations with the bourgeoisie. At the same time, the working class needs its dictatorship in order to educate and steel itself as a force capable of ruling the country, and re-educating petty-= bourgeois elements so that socialist production can be organised.
"What is needed to enable the proletariat to lead the peasants and the petty-bourgeois groups in general is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the rule of one class, its strength of organisation and discipline, its centralised power based on all the achievements of the culture, science and technology of capitalism, its proletarian affinity to the mentality of every working man, its prestige with the disunited, less developed working people in the countryside or in petty industry, who are less firm in = politics."^^1^^
Lenin time and again emphasised that only one definite class, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 389.
255 the class of industrial workers, has the ability to lead all labouring people in the struggle to overthrow capitalism, to consolidate victory over it, and to create a new, socialist system.Lenin also showed that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a new, higher type of democracy. It is proletarian democracy for the working majority and has nothing in common with bourgeois democracy, which is false and hypocritical, though sold as "pure democracy" by its apologists. Exposing the anti-popular essence of bourgeois democracy, Lenin made clear that "pure democracy" was nothing but an empty liberal phrase devised to deceive the workers.
Lenin discovered a new state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets. With the establishment of Soviet power as a state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a new epoch of world history was ushered in, the epoch of mankind's transition to socialism. A new type of state emerged, hitherto unknown in the history of the world. But Soviet power is not the only, universally applicable state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The complexity of the revolutionary struggle of the international working class indicates that the state organisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat can and must assume different forms in different countries. These forms depend on the special characteristics of the class struggle, the alignment of class forces, the home and international situation, different historical conditions and national peculiarities of a country. "The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the = proletariat."^^1^^
The system of people's democracy established in a revolutionary way in the 19405 in a number of countries of Europe and Asia represents a new kind of state organisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The political systems of all these countries have one fundamental thing in common: they cannot fulfil their functions successfully unless the working class plays the leading role in social life, under the guidance of Communist and Workers' Parties.
The Marxist party is the main guiding and directing force in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Party grows up as the party of the working class; it has its roots in the labour movement and grows together with the working class throughout the course of its advance.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 413.
256Lenin worked out the organisational principles of the Communist Party by applying Marx's and Engels's ideas of the proletarian party to the new conditions of the working-class struggle in the period of imperialism. He showed that a party armed with an advanced theory of scientific communism acts as the vanguard, class-conscious detachment of the working class. Lenin spoke out against the idea of equating and merging the party of the working class with the whole of the working class, and warned comrades against forgetting "the vanguard's constant duty of raising ever wider sections to its own advanced = level".^^1^^ That is why a party should constantly draw in all the best representatives of the working class and the working people, those selflessly dedicated to the cause of the proletariat.
A Communist Party, as an organised detachment of the working class and all working people, must represent the highest form of proletarian class organisation. Only when this is so can it lead the practical struggle of the working class and direct it towards the realisation of its historic mission. In this struggle the Party is a weapon in the hands of the proletariat enabling it to establish its dictatorship, and to hold, strengthen and extend it in the interests of the victory of socialism and communism.
Lenin determined the Party's strategic line in relation to the working class and established its decisive place in the working-= class struggle.
"Victory over capitalism calls for proper relations between the leading (Communist) party, the revolutionary class (the proletariat) and the masses, i.e., the entire body of the toilers and the exploited. Only the Communist Party, if it is really the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if it really comprises all the finest representatives of that class, if it consists of fully conscious and staunch Communists who have been educated and steeled by the experience of a persistent revolutionary struggle, and if it has succeeded in linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its class and, through it, with the whole mass of the exploited, and in completely winning the confidence of this class and this mass--- only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in the final, most ruthless and decisive struggle against all the forces of capitalism. On the other hand, it is only under the leadership of such a party that the proletariat is capable of displaying the full might of its revolutionary onslaught, and of overcoming the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 7. p. 261.
__PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17---1974 257 inevitable apathy and occasional resistance of that small minority, the labour aristocracy, who have been corrupted by capitalism, the old trade union and co-operative leaders, etc.---only then will it be capable of displaying its full might, which, because of the very economic structure of capitalist society, is infinitely greater than its proportion of the = population."^^1^^The Party links the vanguard of the proletariat with the working class and all working people. Marxism-Leninism teaches that unless the Party has extensive links with the mass of the people and constantly strengthens these links, and unless it possesses the ability to listen to the voice of the people, to understand their needs, and to learn from them as well as to teach them, it will never be a real leader.
Lenin attached paramount importance to the trade unions, the widest of the mass organisations of the proletariat. "The development of the proletariat,'' he wrote, "did not, and could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through the trade unions, through reciprocal action between them and the party of the working class.'' The emergence of the trade unions was "a tremendous step forward for the working class in the early days of capitalist development, inasmuch as they marked a transition from the workers' disunity and helplessness to the rudiments of class = organisation".^^2^^
Marxism-Leninism takes the view that the trade unions, which arose under capitalism as organisations to defend workers' economic interests, should not confine their activities to economic struggles alone. They should combine struggle for the immediate demands of workers with political struggle for the complete emancipation of the working class from the capitalist yoke. The founders of scientific communism succeeded in defending this idea of the revolutionary role of the trade unions against Proudhonism, anarcho-syndicalism, Lassalleanism, narrow craft-= unionism, Economism and other manifestations of opportunism in the trade union movement.
Lenin enlarged upon the tenets of Marxism relating to the economic and political forms of the working-class struggle. He believed that the prime importance of economic interests by no means implies the primacy of shop-floor and other economic struggles over the political struggle, since the most essential, economic interests of the working class "can be satisfied only _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 187--88.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 50.
258 by radical political changes in general. In particular, the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by the dictatorship of the = proletariat."^^1^^ Lenin's great contribution was to define the role of the trade unions in the dictatorship of the proletariat. He said that under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the trade unions, which embrace the whole of the working class, function as educational bodies, schools of economic management---schools of communism.Lenin saw the necessity of developing the class consciousness of workers, explaining to them their historic mission as a class---that of putting an end to all exploitation and all class society in general, and of building a communist world. "There can be no more important duty for class-conscious workers than that of getting to know their class movement, its nature, its aims and objectives, its conditions and practical forms. That is because the strength of the working-class movement lies entirely in its political consciousness, and its mass = character."^^2^^
Lenin took infinite pains to develop the revolutionary theory of the working class, since the advance of this class to its goal is out of the question unless it is based on Marxist theory which is in turn based on the generalisation of the practical experience of mass struggle. "The world's greatest movement for the liberation of the oppressed class, the most revolutionary class in history, is impossible without a revolutionary = theory."^^3^^ Only by relying on the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, and by constantly seeking to develop it, can the working-class struggle be led to victory.
Lenin paid special attention to the ideological education of the working class. In his view, the least slackening by Marxists of the ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie leads to the penetration of bourgeois ideology into the labour movement, where it corrodes the movement from within. It is necessary to take into consideration the fact that bourgeois ideology is much older than socialist ideology and hence more experienced; it has far greater opportunities for dissemination in the capitalist world through the mass media financed by capital. Bourgeois ideology is particularly dangerous in countries where the socialist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 5, pp. 390--91.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 381.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 354.
259 movement has not yet struck deep roots. "And the younger the socialist movement in any given country, the more vigorously it must struggle against all attempts to entrench non-socialist ideology, and the more resolutely the workers must be warned against the bad counsellors who shout against 'overrating the conscious element', = etc."^^1^^Lenin attached overriding importance to the unity of the ranks of the working class. The unity of the actions of the international working class, both at the national level and on the international scale, is vital for the success of the working-class movement. Proletarian unity is the most reliable weapon of the working class. "Complete victory over capitalism cannot be won unless the proletariat and, following it, the mass of working people in all countries and nations throughout the world voluntarily strive for alliance and = unity."^^2^^
Capitalism preserves itself by applying that old maxim of all exploiting classes: "Divide and rule.'' In order to maintain its class supremacy the bourgeoisie never tires of trying to split the ranks of the proletariat by sending its agents into the labour movement. They make a wide use of all kinds of opportunist trends and especially reformism. The ideologists of international opportunism within the labour movement have always abandoned the struggle of the working class and its revolutionary parties against capitalism for the vital interests of working people, socialist revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism and the unity of the communist and labour movement and instead waged a campaign for petty reforms that do not affect the foundations of capitalism, and have sought to disrupt the unity of the revolutionary forces. The plans of ideological counter-attack on the working class and its Marxist-Leninist parties have always prominently figured in the strategic designs of international imperialism. In aligning themselves with imperialist reaction the contemporary reformists are increasingly attacking the working class and its parties, denying their leading role in the present-day revolutionary process and striving to isolate and thus weaken them. This is the political meaning of all Rightist and Leftist opportunist conceptions. Reformism is chiefly responsible for lack of unity within the working-class ranks. Because of this pernicious reformist activity the working class cannot put to full use all its revolutionary _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 386.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 151.
260 potentialities. Only the relentless battle to unite all the contingents of the working class on a principled Marxist basis can frustrate these age-old tactics of the bourgeoisie. "Unity can be effected only by a united organisation whose decisions are conscientiously carried out by all class-conscious workers. Discussing the problem, expressing and hearing different opinions, ascertaining the views of the majority of the organised Marxists, expressing these views in the form of decisions adopted by delegates and carrying them out conscientiously---this is what reasonable people all over the world call unity. Such a unity is infinitely precious, and infinitely important to the working class. Disunited, the workers are nothing. United, they are every- thing."^^1^^Unity of working-class action is the most imperative need of the present day. Such unity is forged in the day-to-day fierce struggles of the workers against the monopolies for the satisfaction of their economic and social demands, and in the movements for peace, democracy, national independence and social progress. The struggle for working-class unity is not merely of tactical significance; it constitutes the general line of all Communist and Workers' Parties.
Communists attach decisive importance to working-class unity and favour co-operation with Socialists and Social-Democrats in the struggle first for democracy and later for socialism.
The revolutionary labour movement has always been an international movement. Marx and Engels were the first to propagate the ideas of proletarian internationalism, in the 18405. The development of these ideas and the creation of the theory of scientific communism, i.e., the elaboration of the revolutionary theory of the proletariat, and the practical struggle of the proletariat to disseminate socialist ideas in the labour movement and to create a proletarian party, proceeded as one single process. Marx and Engels expressed in The German Ideology the very profound idea that the communist movement has international roots and that it is generated by the whole course of development of capitalism, which draws into its orbit all the nations of the world. That is why the struggle of the proletariat takes place not only on a national but on an international scale, and produces radical changes in the destinies both of individual nations and of the whole world.
The publication of Communist Manifesto crystallised the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 519.
261 principles of proletarian internationalism in the international working-class movement. Marx and Engels, realising that international unity was one of the essential conditions for the emancipation of the working class, put forward in the Communist Manifesto the great international slogan: "Working men of all countries, unite!"Lenin made a great contribution to the further development of the theoretical principles of proletarian internationalism and to the practical realisation of it. He taught that the vital interests of the working class demanded the fullest trust and the closest alliance between the working people of different countries, and that the only way to defeat the efforts of the bourgeoisie to disunite and weaken the workers by promoting feelings of national enmity among them was constantly to strengthen this international brotherhood.
After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution the theory and practice of proletarian internationalism have been enriched by the experience of defending the hard-won gains of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR from the attacks of international imperialism. Fraternal relations have been established between the Soviet workers and working people in other countries, between the working class in the Soviet Union and that of the developed capitalist countries, on the one hand, and the national liberation movement, on the other.
The new features of proletarian internationalism after the October Revolution found reflection in works by Lenin such as "The Draft Programme of the RCP (B)'', "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions'', "The Question of Nationalities or 'Autonomisation' " and many other writings, documents and materials. Pointing to the new features of proletarian internationalism, Lenin wrote: "One cannot at present confine oneself to a bare recognition or proclamation of the need for closer union between the working people of the various nations; a policy must be pursued that will achieve the closest alliance, with Soviet Russia, of all the national and colonial liberation = movements."^^1^^ Only the practical realisation of the principles of proletarian internationalism and the maintenance of firm unity in the views and actions of the working class on all cardinal issues of the class struggle can provide a sure guarantee of victory. And this means working-class unity not only on the national, but on the international scale. "The _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 146.
262 proletariat cannot pursue its struggle for socialism and defend its everyday economic interests without the closest and fullest alliance of the workers of all nations in all working-class organisations without = exception."^^1^^ __*_*_*__As Lenin pointed out, we "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.~.~.~."^^2^^ At the hub of the present epoch stands the working class, which for well over 50 years directs the world revolutionary movement, rallying around itself all progressive forces. It determines the progressive development of society. It leads all the revolutionary, democratic and progressive forces of the modern world fighting for peace, democracy and socialism. The truth of the chief tenet of Marxism-Leninism, the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, has been proved by reality. The dictatorship of the proletariat has attained victory in the countries of the socialist world, and the present-= day political struggle for socialism is unfolding under its banner.
The dictatorship of the proletariat has not only retained its decisive significance for the victory and consolidation of socialism within national boundaries, but it has, besides, assumed an international significance. Lenin's prediction that the national dictatorship of the proletariat would be transformed into an international one is coming to pass. It is now a dictatorship capable of influencing decisively the whole of world politics. The countries of the socialist commonwealth now implement in practice the dictatorship of the proletariat on an international scale, defending the historic gains of the working people and conducting a working-class policy.
The working class of the capitalist and developing countries can today rely on the broad support of the world socialist system in its active struggle against the monopoly bourgeoisie. The working class of today is steadily growing in numbers. While in the middle of the igth century there were only nine million industrial workers, there are now~540 million men and women workers and employees. The working class of the developing countries is also growing fast: it was two and a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 245.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 145.
263 half times as large in 1967 as before the war. The share of the working class in the production of material goods is enormous--- it produces over three-quarters of the gross world social product.The industrial proletariat has always formed the core of the working class. It is the most class-conscious and organised section of the working class. But there have been noticeable changes in its structure over the years. The great majority of workers have moved to industries producing means of production. The number of workers in heavy industry in Britain grew from 49 per cent in 1911 to 70 per cent in 1951. The number of workers employed in industries manufacturing means of production in the USA comprised, in 1939, 46 per cent of all those employed in the manufacturing industry. But by 1964 this figure had risen to 57 per = cent.^^1^^ The movement of the greater part of the working class into industries of such great importance is of big socio-economic and political significance.
The scientific and technological revolution taking place in all countries with varying degrees of intensity has already resulted in great changes in the structure of the working class. Modernisation and automation have led to the raising of the workers' qualifications and standards of skill. But at the same time, the scientific and technological revolution has led to the rapid growth of the number of white-collar and technical workers. In the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, white-collar workers, engineers and technologists made up 28.4 per cent of all workers in industry in 1950, but by 1962 they made up 37.5 per = cent.^^2^^ The number of such workers in the USA grew by 75.2 per cent between 1952 and = i96i.^^3^^ In the electronics industry in France, 30 per cent of all workers were engineers and technicians in 1964. The number of engineers and technicians in Norway grew five times between 1930 and 1960, doubling in the decade = 1950--1960.^^4^^
In our epoch when science is turning into a direct productive force, the ever growing numbers of engineers and technicians are no longer employed in a managerial capacity, but share directly in the production of material goods, and are thus exploited in just the same way as other workers. Most rank-and-file engineers, technicians, laboratory workers, and other technical employees _-_-_
~^^1^^ The International Revolutionary Working-Class Movement, Moscow, Russ. ed., 1966. pp. 119--20.
~^^2^^ World Marxist Review No.~3, 1966.
~^^3^^ The International Revolutionary Working-Class Movement, p. 134.
~^^4^^ World Marxist Review No.~7, 1966.
264 are therefore close to the rest of the working class both from the point of view of their pay and their place in the process of production. This state of affairs strengthens the position of the working class as a whole. Nevertheless one cannot ignore the cost of assimilating white-collar and technical workers into the wider working class. The class consciousness of these workers, whose social status does not differ much from that of industrial workers, cannot be compared to purely proletarian class consciousness. On being absorbed into the working class they inevitably have a somewhat detrimental effect on its class consciousness; the working class, in its turn, undoubtedly contributes to the formation of a revolutionary outlook in the technicians and other specialists who join its ranks.Lenin saw all the difficulties and complexities that arise as more and more new groups of working people join the ranks of the working class and the world revolutionary movement. "One of the most profound causes that periodically give rise to differences over tactics is the very growth of the labour movement. If this movement is not measured by the criterion of some fantastic ideal, but is regarded as the practical movement of ordinary people, it will be clear that the enlistment of larger and larger numbers of new 'recruits', the attraction of new sections of the working people must inevitably be accompanied by waverings in the sphere of theory and tactics, by repetitions of old mistakes, by a temporary reversion to antiquated views and antiquated methods, and so forth. The labour movement of every country periodically spends a varying amount of energy, attention and time on the 'training' of = recruits."^^1^^
Important changes have taken place in recent years in the outlook of engineering and technical personnel employed in capitalist industry. In February 1964, for instance, engineers were active in a strike of French miners for the first time in the history of the strike movement. In many cases when engineers and technicians do not take a direct part in strikes, they render the strikers material and moral support. This implies that ever-= sharpening capitalist contradictions induce rank-and-file engineers and technicians to get closer and closer to the working class and to accept its ideology more and more.
Indeed, the active role of intellectuals in the political struggle is becoming more and more noticeable. The scientific and technological revolution now in progress is polarising some sections _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. if., pp. 347--48.
265 of intellectuals and creating a large body of technical and professional personnel who find themselves close to the workers in their economic position. This leads them to realise the fact that the only certain way they have of securing their future is to ally themselves with the working class. This enhanced role of workers by brain has been seized on by the opponents of Marxism-= Leninism to ``prove'' that the modern scientific and technological revolution has upset the theories of Marx and Lenin on the leading role of the working class in the social progress of society, and that the working class has supposedly been replaced by intellectuals. But Lenin never failed to take into account the significance of the great scientific discoveries which he himself lived to see. Visualising at the turn of the century the tremendous impact such discoveries have on all aspects of social life, he foresaw the increasing importance of intellectuals and called for their alliance with the proletariat. Moreover, he predicted a great future for this alliance. He believed that no force would be able to withstand an alliance between the representatives of science and technology and the proletariat. But Lenin always stressed, too, that no increase in the role of intellectuals could diminish the world-historic role of the proletariat.Bourgeois theorists interpret the changes going on in the working class in their own way. Some speak of the emergence of "a new class of technocrats'', others of the appearance of "a new middle class''. According to yet others, the working class is being ``eroded'' out of existence and will be entirely replaced in the future by white-collar and technical workers. Some deny that there are classes at all in modern "industrial society''. The West German sociologist, Helmut Schelsy, says that West German industrial progress over the last decade has abolished the class structure of society altogether.
The groundlessness of such assertions is so obvious that they are refuted by many bourgeois sociologists themselves who have no doubts about the existence of classes in modern society. "If a member of the working class,'' writes Vance Packard, "rises to the position of being able to afford a motor car, that does not mean he then belongs to another social class. . . . Far from disappearing, class boundaries have become more marked in our society."^^1^^
The working class of the modern capitalist world is not disappearing, it is growing fast. Georges Marchais, a member of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Weg und Ziel, Vienna, No.~5, 1963, p. 328.
266 Politburo, put this point well at the Seventeenth Congress of the French Communist Party: "As for those who make use of certain changes which the working class has undergone to support their claim that the working class is tending to vanish should display more caution after the publication of the results of the recent census of the gainfully employed population of France.'' After the publication of the figures, one bourgeois newspaper was compelled to admit that the results of the census would make many sociologists and political commentators change their ideas, since they reveal not the disappearing of the working class, however slow, but its growth both absolutely and relative to other classes.The facts likewise refute the myth of "the erasing of class boundaries" in capitalist society. They show that it is not the working class that is being dissolved in the "new middle class'', but on the contrary, very many office workers, engineers and technicians arc being drawn closer to the working class. The proletariat makes its presence felt more and more as an independent political force by the unremitting class struggle which it wages with ever-increasing energy against imperialism.
Mass strikes continue to be the commonest form of the proletariat's class struggle against the rule of capital. Suffice it to say that from 1960 to 1968 a total of over 300 million persons took part in strikes, as compared with 150 million over the preceding 14 years. In the USA, the citadel of imperialism, there were nearly 5,000 strikes in 1968; in Japan the working people's spring offensive that same year involved 14 million persons; in France almost 10 million were on strike in May and June 1968; and in Italy 18 million took part in the general strike in February 1969. In all capitalist countries, the working class is the leading force in the strike movement.
The above-mentioned figures speak clearly enough of the steady growth of the mass labour movement. The working class of the capitalist countries has not lost its will to fight, nor is it being ``eroded'' out of existence as some bourgeois apologists claim; it is becoming stronger and struggling against the monopoly bourgeoisie all the more actively. The working-class movement is in fact now gaining in strength on a mass scale. There is frequently joint action by workers of different industries, by workers belonging to different trade unions, and by manual and non-manual workers. Mass workers' actions arc acquiring a more clearly political meaning and a more definite anti-imperialist orientation. Strikers in many cases do not confine themselves to 267 traditional economic demands for wage rises, more overtime pay, better working conditions, etc., hut often come out against, say, a so-called "incomes policy" of freezing wages and speeding up the rate of exploitation of hired labour. They may further demand shorter working hours, longer holidays, higher pensions, and the elimination of the negative consequences of automation.
Of even greater significance arc demands connected with security of employment, with the rules, speed and content of work, the raising of qualifications and professional standards, and the retraining of workers. The satisfaction of such demands involves the direct intervention on the part of workers' organisations in an area of production management that has hitherto been inaccessible to them. All this objectively limits the omnipotence of the monopolies. And in the final analysis the struggle for the satisfaction of their demands encourages the shaping in the minds of workers of a socialist outlook and helps them to understand the need to win political power. The recent stormy events in developed capitalist countries show that the monopoly bourgeoisie is powerless to prevent the working class, ever more aware of its role, from bringing pressure to bear on those in authority, and from influencing national policies.
Workers in the developed capitalist countries arc the principal force in the anti-imperialist democratic front. Peasants and middle strata of the urban population join hands with workers in the struggle to preserve peace and guarantee the democratic rights of the working people and in the fight against monopoly domination and reactionary policies in agriculture. The merging of different social movements has created a powerful anti-= imperialist front, whose central rallying point is the battle to avert a nuclear world war.
The broad mass of people, led by workers, are now calling determinedly for an end to US aggression against the people of Vietnam. The struggle for the preservation of peace unites hundreds of millions of men and women of various political convictions. Lenin wrote: "Take the question of peace, the crucial issue of today. . . . On this issue the proletariat truly represents the itohole = nation."^^1^^ It is in the course of the struggle for peace that the unity of working people and all progressive forces is forged. And this unity is not only important for the prevention of war but for the deep social transformations of the future.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 99.
268The struggle for general democratic aims against monopoly rule helps the proletariat of the capitalist countries to build up its political army, to persuade the masses of the correctness of Party policy, and to isolate the more reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie. In the course of this struggle for democracy and for curbing the omnipotence of the big monopolies, millions of working people become organised, receive a political schooling and steel themselves for the future battles for socialism.
Of course, the fight to satisfy general democratic demands cannot of itself abolish capitalism, as Lenin pointed out. But it is impossible to rally the mass of the people and to strengthen the influence of Communists without it and, with the gradual change in the balance of class forces, to prepare the working people for the conscious struggle to realise socialist ideals. Nowadays, when the world process of revolutionary transformation is clear to see, the connection between the struggle for democracy and that for basic working-class interests has become so close that the two are virtually inseparable.
Lenin taught revolutionary Marxists to devote all their practical activities to the struggle for socialism and to utilise every possibility for bringing nearer the complete triumph of the new social system. But to this great end the working class and its militant political vanguard must strengthen their links with the broadest sections of the people and should not erect a Chinese Wall to keep away those of different convictions. Lenin wrote: "The proletariat must not regard the other classes and parties as 'one reactionary mass'; on the contrary, it must take part in all political and social life, support the progressive classes and parties against the reactionary classes and parties, support every revolutionary movement against the existing system, champion the interests of every oppressed nationality or race, of every persecuted religion, of the disfranchised sex, = etc."^^1^^
Now, as before, the general democratic struggle of the people led by the working class and its Marxist-Leninist parties, can appreciably hasten the final victory of socialism.
Working peasants are the traditional allies of the working class in its anti-imperialist struggle. The rule of finance capital and the implementation of "agricultural programmes" by the monopoly state lead to the ruination of growing numbers of small and middle farmers. This circumstance impels them to rise in protest, as amply evidenced by their recent mass actions. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 4. p. 177.
269 This has been confirmed by mass peasant actions in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and, to a greater degree, in Italy, against the profit-grabbing agricultural policies of the monopolies. Their struggle has a pronounced revolutionary character and links up directly with the class struggle waged by the workers. The strengthening of the worker-peasant alliance is a major condition for a successful struggle against monopolies.While upholding the general democratic demands the working class enters into alliance with the middle urban sections, whose vital interests are being trampled upon by monopoly capital.
We mentioned before that a considerable percentage of these sections now differ little from workers in their social position--- which explains why they gravitate towards them. But others retain their characteristic social features and remain in the ranks of the so-called urban middle classes. However, their social interests and creative endeavour are increasingly clashing with the interests of monopolists, which fact alongside the crisis in bourgeois ideology and the attractive power of socialism cannot but impel them to take the path of anti-imperialist struggle.
In recent years, the youth, including students, whose political activity reflects the deep-going crisis of modern bourgeois society, are increasingly joining the struggle waged by the working class against imperialism and war. The sizable part of the youth have already realised that only their close alignment with the working-class movement can open up a truly revolutionary prospect before them. The working-class movement enjoys the growing support of international women's organisations. Its aspirations for peace are backed by large numbers of believers.
Proceeding from this, most Communist Parties of Western Europe favour the establishment of a close alliance with the middle urban sections.
The Italian Communist Party, for example, believes that in the modern clay and age it is absolutely indispensable for the working class to extend the network of alliances and to revise its methods of struggle. It is faced with the necessity and the possibility of forming a single bloc not only with the rural proletariat and poor farmers, but with the great majority of small land holders, broad sections of the urban and rural middle classes, and with all specialists and workers by brain. Given such unity, the struggles for partial and temporary gains become of great economic and political significance in isolating big capital and dividing the bourgeois camp, in winning stronger positions in the battle against monopoly groups, in securing democratic 270 reforms in the machinery of the state and in getting economic and social reforms which together can open up new ways for the working class to assume = power.^^1^^
Waldeck Rochet, General Secretary of the French Communist Party, in his speech at the Seventeenth Party Congress, formulated the political line of French Communists concerning other democratic strata of the population as follows: "Our Communist Party has drawn up concrete proposals which could serve as the basis for discussions with other democratic parties and groups and at the same time as a platform for a concrete alliance between the working class, the working peasants, the intellectuals and other urban middle = sections."^^2^^
An analysis of the tactics of fraternal Parties in many countries of Europe shows that for developed Western capitalist countries the alliance of the working class with middle sections of the urban population is of vast importance today.
So, from its vanguard position in the anti-monopolist struggle, the working class brings together the main streams of the broad democratic movement. It rallies the various sections of the people under the slogans of the struggle for peace, against monopoly rule, for radical reforms to limit the power of the monopolies (the nationalisation of monopolised sectors of industry, democratic control over capital investments and prices, extending the rights of workers and their organisations at factories), for the further democratisation of the state apparatus and the extension of the rights of public organisations and against the revival of fascism.
The Conference of the Communist and Workers' Parties of the European capitalist countries held in May 1966 came to the conclusion that the present progress of the social and political struggle in Europe presents favourable opportunities for extending the mass movement and uniting the working class with other anti-monopoly forces:
"The Conference considers that this alliance can be further broadened so as to effect reforms essential for restricting the political and economic power of the monopolies, introducing genuine democracy in social life, and paving the way to = socialism."^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Se World Marxist Review No.~9, 1965, p. 65.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
~^^3^^ Ibid., No. 6, 1966, p. 60.
271Advancing on this broad democratic basis, the anti-- imperialist struggle will inevitably draw semi-proletarian and petty-- bourgeois elements into the larger struggle to prepare the ground for the future victory of socialism. "Not a single fundamental democratic demand,'' Lenin observed, "can be achieved to any considerable extent, or with any degree of permanency, in the advanced imperialist states, except through revolutionary battles under the banner of = socialism."^^1^^ The existence of a democratic platform common to both the working class and other broad anti-imperialist sections of a nation brings together all the forces working for democracy and objectively helps the working class in its fight for socialism.
At the present time the international working class is allied to two other streams of the world revolutionary process---the world socialist system and the national liberation movement. According to Lenin, the alliance between the forces of the international working class and those of the national liberation movement is destined to crush world imperialism. "World imperialism shall fall when the revolutionary onslaught of the exploited and oppressed workers in each country . . . merges with the revolutionary onslaught of hundreds of millions of people who have hitherto stood beyond the pale of history, and have been regarded merely as the object of = history."^^2^^
The replacement of capitalism by socialism is an objective law-= governed process. The modern capitalist society cannot be automatically transformed into socialism. It is necessary to struggle for socialism. The consistent fighters for the victory of the socialist revolution can only be the working class and the rural proletariat. The most uncompromising adversary of imperialism is the constantly growing working class, deprived of all means of production, most closely connected with the vastly developed productive forces, well organised and possessing rich revolutionary traditions of class struggle. All this predetermines its leading role in the contemporary revolutionary process. It is largely thanks to its position in society that it is the natural leader and inspirer of all forces fighting for democracy and socialism.
"Today,'' said L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CC, CPSU, at the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, "the necessary conditions arc emerging for uniting all democratic _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 232.
272 trends in a political alliance capable of greatly limiting the role of the monopolies in the economy of many countries, putting an end to the rule of big capital and carrying out fundamental changes which would ensure favourable conditions for the struggle for socialism."The working class is the leading force of the alliance. It is the only class capable of leading this alliance to victory, and of raising the struggle to a new level, securing the complete abolition of the power of capital and the triumph of socialism. No other class, no other social stratum of society is as strong and organised. The numerical strength of the working class is enormous. Its revolutionary experience is exceptionally rich. Its ideological, cultural and spiritual level has been rising from year to year. Its political and moral prestige in society has grown immeasurably."
The modern revisionist claim that the working class has "lost its leading role" in the liberation movement, that it has "lost its revolutionariness'', etc., holds no water in the light of the above-mentioned facts and the fundamental Marxist-= Leninist ideas. The anti-socialist revisionist forces aim at disarming the working people ideologically. Under the guise of searching for "a new pattern of socialism" they try to discredit Marxist-Leninist theory and revise its basic principles. The most vigorous attacks are made on the leading role of the working class. What could be the result of the triumph of this anti-= socialist line is obvious for all to see.
The crucial significance of the working-class movement in present-day conditions for the global victory of socialism was recorded in the documents of the Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties held in 1957 and 1960. The same conclusion was made in 1968 at a conference of six socialist states in Bratislava: "The fraternal Parties are convinced on the strength of historical experience that progress towards socialism and communism can be possible only if they are guided strictly and consistently by the general laws of building socialist society and primarily by strengthening the leading role of the working class and its vanguard---the Communist = Parties."^^1^^
The illuminating point in the Main Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties is that "the working class is the principal driving force of the revolutionary struggle, of the entire anti-imperialist, democratic movement".
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pravda, August 4, 1968.
__PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18---1974 273Only the working class, aligned with all democratic, anti-= imperialist forces, can put an end to the criminal activities of imperialism, curb aggressors, rid mankind of imperialism and establish socialist society on a global scale.
Under conditions when the world system of imperialism is ripe for a socialist revolution and has already been destroyed in a number of sectors, decisive importance should be attached, as Lenin taught, to the development and consolidation of the forces destined to carry the revolution through to the end.
Lenin believed that after the victory of the October Revolution the working class and the working people of the countries building the new, socialist society would play the leading role among these forces.
Today Lenin's ideas about the great mission of the working class and its historic tasks in the revolutionary rejuvenation of the world are as actual and valid as they were fifty years ago. Their correctness has been confirmed by socialist revolutions in Europe, Asia and America. Their vitality is being borne out by the daily achievements of the socialist countries in the course of their socialist and communist construction, by the broad development of the world revolutionary process.
[274] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S CONTRIBUTIONBy A. I. MALYSH
The agrarian question is one of the most complicated in revolutionary theory. At the same time, it covers some of the most crucial political issues of revolutionary practice. All revolutions, both bourgeois and socialist, have affected in one way or another the destinies of many millions of toilers on the land. The industrial bourgeoisie has appealed to the peasantry in order to consolidate its political rule. Contrary to this the labouring peasantry is the natural ally of the proletariat in the socialist revolution. The position of the peasantry and the extent to which the various parties and groups have taken its interests into account have always determined, in all essential respects, the fate and depth of the social revolutions of the past. The peasantry in the agrarian countries has always represented and still represents a very great force.
Attempts to make deep revolutionary changes in social relations, while ignoring the peasantry, treating it as "one reactionary mass'', are necessarily doomed to failure. On the other hand, there is not a sign of a truly revolutionary approach in theoretical propositions and practical measures based on any artificial counterposing of the labouring peasantry to the working class or on exalting the peasantry as a principal and decisive force in the revolutionary process, which, allegedly, is in no need of the support of the proletariat and even capable of leading it.
The founders of scientific communism, Marx and Engels, allotted considerable space in their works to analysing the lessons and experience of the mass peasant movements of the past and to the agrarian problems of their own time, the peasant question among them. In the 18503, while working on a large treatise on economics, which he thought at first would __PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275 run to six volumes, Marx planned to devote one of its volumes to a study of landownership. Later, he revised his plan for writing six volumes. But it is noteworthy that in the four volumes of Capital, particularly in volumes III and IV (Theories of Surplus-Value), a prominent place is given to problems of landownership and agrarian relations, their historical evolution and the special features and trends of the growth of capitalism in agriculture. Engels's The Peasant Question in France and Germany is a basic document in Marxist agrarian literature. Lenin, incidentally, not only studied this work very carefully but began translating it into Russian in 1903. There are valuable thoughts of Marx and Engcls on the agrarian question in many other of their works and in their letters, too.
After the death of Marx and Engcls, the agrarian question remained a central point in all theoretical discussions and in practical and political work. In 1899, Kautsky published a book entitled The Agrarian Question, in which, however, he largely confined himself to a more or less popular account of Marx's agrarian theory. He avoided the question of the class differentiation taking place in the countryside and how this related to the prospects and tasks of the class struggle in which the proletariat was engaged.
Lenin always placed the agrarian question in the centre of his scientific research. He had a splendid knowledge of the relevant literature on the subject, and, of course, he read and reread Marx's and Engels's works, displaying an extraordinary " appetite" for their ideas. He consulted them in his capacity as a theoretician and as a practical worker, studying agrarian relations under capitalism and working out the strategy and tactics of both the Russian and the world labour movement. The following reminiscence of Pyotr Stucka is interesting in this respect: "It was 1906. Volume II of Marx's Theorien uber den Mehrwert (Theories of Surplus-Value) had just come out, edited by Kautsky. I was in Vitebsk at that time. I got a copy of the book and later, when I met Lenin in St. Petersburg, in one of my first conversations with him, the agrarian question came up and I happened to praise the way Marx explained the role of absolute rent in this work. Lenin had not yet obtained a copy and I had to promise to send it to him. But he let me know the next day that he had bought it in the German book shop on the Nevsky."^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pod znamenem marksizma No.~1--2, 1926. p. 18.
276Lenin's agrarian studies make up a large part of his literary legacy and are a veritable treasure-house of Marxist ideas. Generations of Russian and foreign Marxists-Leninists have studied and continue to study such classic works of Lenin's as The Development of Capitalism in Russia; = The Agrarian Question and the "Critics of Marx''; = The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy; = The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905--07; = New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture. Part I, Capitalism and Agriculture in the United States of America; = The Capitalist System of Modern Agriculture and many others.
Lenin's keen interest in the agrarian and peasant questions resulted, largely, from the economic and political peculiarities of Russia's development.
Tsarist Russia was primarily an agrarian country, its rural population comprising the overwhelming majority. But the bulk of peasants suffered from shortage or complete lack of land and were in slavish dependence on big landowners. Their position prepared them for the acceptance of the idea of a radical breakup of the existing system.
Lenin did not confine his interest to Russia, however. He was familiar with the situation in other countries, too. By relying on official statistics (especially regular agricultural returns) he was able to present a general picture of the new phenomena and laws of capitalist development in a wide range of countries. His general conclusions, as well as those based chiefly or exclusively on Russian materials, revealed the typical socio-economic processes of capitalist development in agriculture, and gave a clear orientation to Russian revolutionaries and to the great army of fighters for socialism throughout the world. Lenin's agrarian theory alone, in the age of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, makes Leninism a teaching that is international in spirit and content, applicable on a world scale. Leninism gained recognition in the eyes of all true proletarian fighters of all countries and continents while Lenin was still living. Lenin's name and teaching became the banner of the Communist Parties that were formed under the direct influence of the October Revolution and which united in the Third, Communist International.
Lenin's analysis of agrarian relations is a model of concrete economic research into a key section of social production. Lenin made a detailed study of pre-capitalist, mainly feudal, forms of landownership and ground rent. At the same time he explained 277 and amplified better than anyone before him Marx's essential point that the capitalist form of landownership cither originates from the feudal form, transformed under the influence of capital and the capitalist mode of production, or else is merely small-= scale peasant farming. Lenin completely rejected all the theories about agriculture evolving in a non-capitalist direction under capitalism that were advanced by bourgeois professors, bourgeois democrats and opportunists in the labour movement.
Lenin's contribution was to elaborate and define scientific criteria for determining the particular ways and forms in which capitalism manifests itself in agriculture. Capitalism is characterised by a relatively high degree of intensity, replacing extensive methods of production by intensive ones. It follows that the value of a farm should be estimated not so much by the cultivated area as by the number of hired hands working on it. A small farm in effect becomes quite ``large'' if the amount of capital invested in it, its profitability and acquired surplus value arc great enough.
Lenin came to the conclusion, and proved beyond all doubt, that although capitalism raises the technical standards of agriculture, including the mechanisation of animal breeding, and therefore undeniably represents progress, this progress is accompanied by the permanent ruination and unprecedented oppression of the mass of small peasants.
In addition to the general laws of the development of capitalism in agriculture, Lenin made a close study of the special peculiarities of this process in individual countries. In Russia, the survivals of feudal bondage were holding up the advance of the productive forces. In England, most farmers depended on landlords who appropriated the lion's share of profits through leasing land. In the USA, free land was being ``colonised'' by enterprising owners and hence capitalism was developing on a non-feudal basis. Lenin also revealed the characteristic features of farming in Denmark, Hungary, France, and other countries.
His scientific analysis of the social and economic relations, and the principal trends of development in modern capitalist agriculture, helped the revolutionary Social-Democrats to map up a correct scientific programme on the agrarian question and long before the October Revolution enabled Lenin to determine in a broad outline the most realistic methods for introducing socialist changes in farming to suit the interests of the working class and the working peasantry.
278 __ALPHA_LVL2__ Criticism of Marx's ``Critics'' on the AgrarianLenin, who saw the inevitability of revolution in Russia, attached primary importance to the defence of the agrarian theory of Marx and Engcls from the revisionists and all its other ``critics''. In a number of his polemical works he routed those "idle men of letters" and people representing official ``science'', who tried to distort and then refute Marxism by juggling with facts or even without bothering to employ facts, by sheer speculation and tendentious supposition.
In his polemics with the adversaries of Marxism---Bulgakov, David, Hertz, Chernov and others---Lenin demonstrated his extremely good theoretical training, his excellent knowledge of the works of Marx and Engels and other Marxist writers, and his skill in applying Marxist conclusions to an analysis of both old and new phenomena in economic life. Lenin did not display blind loyalty to the letter of Marxist doctrine, but showed deep comprehension of its inner dialectics and this is indispensable for independent and creative revolutionary work.
By defending the purity of Marxism on the agrarian question and holding high the ideological banner of the proletariat, Lenin steadily and convincingly proved the most important points---that the poor sections of the peasantry and the urban proletariat are not social and class oppositcs but natural allies in the struggle against feudal and capitalist ownership and exploitation and that neither the bourgeois-democratic nor the peasant, nor the socialist, proletarian revolution can count on success in the absence of a stable alliance between these two decisive classes of modern society.
Professor Bulgakov of Kiev took as the starting-point of his theory of agricultural development the ``universal'' law of diminishing returns from the soil, according to which every fresh investment of labour and capital in the land allegedly yields a constantly diminishing return in terms of produce. The scientific and practical inconsistency of this notorious law, which is one of the favourite dogmas of bourgeois political economy, had been demonstrated by Marx and Engels.
Engels, at the beginning of his political activities, noted in his "Critical Essays on Political Economy" that bourgeois economists, when calculating costs of production, invariably ignored what he called "the spirit of ingenuity'', the spiritual element of inventiveness. Though science raised production to unprecedented 279 heights, nevertheless it was not taken into account, since it cost capital itself nothing. Engels prophetically predicted that under a rational system of social life "the spiritual element" would be considered an element of = production.^^1^^ "Soil fertility can be increased by applying capital, labour and = science."^^2^^
Some critical remarks concerning "the law of diminishing returns from the soil" were made by Marx in = Capital.^^3^^ A theoretical basis for the criticism of this ``law'' is provided by Marx's theory of ground rent, in particular by his comprehensive critical analysis (to be found in Volume III of Capital and in Theories of Surplus-Value) of Ricardo's erroneous idea that differential rent is derived only when there is a successive transition from better land to worse. Marx recognised only the relative unproductivity of farming on a bourgeois basis as compared to industrial productivity. But neither Marx nor Engels went deeply and specifically into the details of "the law of diminishing returns'', and this makes Lenin's detailed criticism of it all the more valuable.
In accordance with Marx's and Engels's theory, Lenin insisted that such a ``universal'' law was impossible, i.e., a law which ostensibly operates under all and any socio-economic conditions. It is true that one can observe a relative law at work, but that in extreme cases when further investments of labour and capital do indeed fail to result in a corresponding increase in production. But this can happen only when there is an unchanging level of technology in agriculture. Technical progress excludes stagnation in the growth of the productive forces of agriculture. Technical standards are therefore the main thing to be considered in this question. ``Thus'', Lenin wrote, "the 'law of diminishing returns' does not at all apply to cases in which technology is progressing and methods of production are changing; it has only an extremely relative and restricted application to conditions in which technology remains = unchanged."^^4^^ Lenin also indicated that the entire history of the i9th century proved that the action of "the law of diminishing returns from the soil" had been paralysed by the constant progress of technology.
The adherents of the law spoke of a "golden age" of farming in times immemorial when the tiller of the soil had alleged freedom in his choice of a place to settle and hence of the land on _-_-_
~^^1^^
See Marx and Engels, = Works, 2nd Russ. ed. Vol. I, pp. 554--55.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 563.
~^^3^^ See Marx, Capital, Vol. I. pp. 503--06.
~^^4^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 110.
280 which he produced his daily bread. Bourgeois economists, and the revisionists dancing to their tune, needed such a legend of a "golden age" in order to deprive the peasants of all hope of a better lot and to shift the blame for social injustice onto mother nature---of whom one could expect no more than what she already gave to mankind. Lenin noted that under capitalism the difficulty of getting food existed only for hired hands. The increasing hardship of the workers obviously did not mean that nature had cut back on her gifts to humanity. To think so was to adopt the position of an apologist for the bourgeoisie.Bulgakov made an attempt to resurrect the doctrine of Malthus in order to whitewash the capitalist system of distribution. Camouflaging his servility to capital with the air of scientific impartiality and theoretical depth, he fished for imagined contradictions in Marx's teaching and tried to infer the "law of diminishing returns" directly from Marx's theory of ground rent. He claimed that Marx's objections to the ``law'' were purely formal, because the law rested on Ricardo's theory of ground rent, which, according to Bulgakov, Marx fully accepted.
Lenin defended Marx against Bulgakov's slanderous attacks in a masterly fashion, by bringing out the qualitative difference between Marx's theory of ground rent and Ricardo's, and the scientific superiority of the former. Ricardo did not take account of the advance of agricultural techniques and linked the possibility of deriving differential rent solely with the need to cultivate at the same time the worst as well as the better plots of land. Marx proved that differential rent is also derived from the investment of unequal amounts of labour and capital in equally good plots of land, and from the differences in the conditions of delivery of produce from particular plots to the market. Again, Ricardo denied the existence of absolute rent, while Marx proved both its existence and the fact that it is engendered by private ownership of land, and by the great difference between the scientific and technical levels of agriculture and industry.
Bulgakov saw in the limited productive capacities of the soil and in mankind's unlimited need for the products of agriculture the condition giving rise to ground rent. Lenin, opposing this idea, developed the analysis of Marx, whose vastly important finding was that the main condition and source of ground rent was a double monopoly---the monopoly of private ownership of the land and through this the monopoly of the land as an object of economic activity, which boils down to the fact that, because 281 the total area of land that can be cultivated is limited, the price of farm produce is determined by the cost of production on the worst land under cultivation at any time, and not by that on average land.
The monopoly of private landowncrship means that a farmer is obliged to make a payment to the owner of land for using it. This payment is absolute ground rent. A monopoly of private landownership is not, however, essential for the capitalist organisation of agriculture; indeed, it holds back the advance of the productive forces of agriculture along capitalist lines, because absolute ground rent diverts a certain part of the farmer's revenue---which, but for the monopoly, might be invested in the land to improve its fertility.
As far as differential rent is concerned it is conditioned by the monopoly of capitalist farming on the land and is wholly independent of the system of private landownership.
Lenin supplied the following note to the 1908 edition of The Development of Capitalism in Russia: "In the second part of Volume II of Theories of Surplus-Value~.~.~. published in 1905, Marx gives an explanation of absolute rent which confirms the correctness of my interpretation (particularly in regard to the two forms of monopoly). . . . Marx definitely draws a distinction here between the limitcdness of land and the fact that land is private = property."^^1^^ So Lenin, without at the time being acquainted with the work of Marx in which he made his most clear-cut statement on the two types of monopoly existing in agriculture, arrived at the same conclusions as Marx.
Bulgakov, Hertz and other ``theorists'' on the agrarian question dismissed as "pure fantasy" the idea of abolishing the antithesis between town and country. The countryside was presented by them as a realm of perpetual darkness and irremovable backwardness. Of course, Lenin replied to this, agriculture has its own specific features distinguishing it from industry which no social conditions and no level of science and technology can remove. Even with the conversion of farming into large-scale machine industry, it will still always retain its own peculiarities compared to factory industry. But this by no means rules out the possibility of mechanising agricultural processes on a broad scale and, hence, of bringing about a radical change in the character of the labour involved both in the cultivation of the land and in animal husbandry, so that it becomes a variety of industrial labour _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 126--27.
282 employing up-to-date scientific and technical means. Fields become grain and vegetable factories, and farm structures become factories for the production of dairy and meat products.Progress in the technology of agricultural production inevitably involves changes in the entire appearance of the countryside, and must eventually result in the equalising of urban and rural ways and standards of life. Only unfavourable social factors may sustain the existing antithesis between town and country. In this connection Lenin wrote: "...there arc absolutely no technical obstacles to the enjoyment of the treasures of science and art, which for centuries have been concentrated in a few centres, by the whole of the population spread more or less evenly over the entire = country."^^1^^ The ideal of the working-class party is to make the treasures of science and art the property of the whole of society, and the abolishing of the antithesis between town and country is indispensable to realising this ideal.
Striving to refute Marxism, revisionists manipulated facts in every possible way, and when the facts proved too intransigent, simply postulated whatever suited their fancy. One of the methods of bourgeois and revisionist political economy was to overlook the most significant phenomena of economic life, while making constant references to exclusively ``average'' figures for production, sales, etc., which could not reflect the position of the majority of small peasant farmers, for whom the relevant figures were well below the average.
In the new epoch of revolutionary explosions that came in the early 20th century, Russian revisionists (and their colleagues in other countries, especially in Germany) tried very hard to prove that modern economic progress made the creation of a mass social base for the revolution impossible, that socialists would never find a common language with the small peasants who comprised the mass of the rural population in their respective countries (and of the total population in Russia).
Lenin devoted a considerable part of his work The Agrarian Question and the "Critics of Marx'', the part written after the 1905 revolution, to a fundamental analysis of a book by the German Social-Democrat Eduard David entitled Socialism and Agriculture. This book of David's, who theorised after the manner of the Russian Narodniks, was regarded by Lenin as the chief revisionist work on the agrarian question.
By means of the false argumentation and speculation typical _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 154.
283 of all revisionist literature (Bulgakov, Chernov, Hertz and others), David tried to substantiate his beliefs concerning the tenacity of small peasant farming and its superiority over large-scale production. Hence, his biggest piece of political advice was to refrain from encouraging small peasants oppressed by landlords and capital to change their social position in a revolutionary way and to cease regarding the peasantry as the proletariat's natural ally. Instead, socialists should put forward a programme which emphasised the ``progressive'' economic trends in small-scale production and which promoted the healthy ``viability'' and other advantages of small farming. In other words, the proposal was to avoid interfering in the natural course of events, waiting patiently for the moment when small producers at last revealed all their true ``possibilities'' and thereby showed a most reasonable evolutionary approach to the solution of socio-economic problems. This meant allowing big capitalist sharks to eat up small farmers to the accompaniment of soft lullabys about social and economic spontaneity working in favour of small farming. In short, small peasant farmers were not to be considered a revolutionary force.The spreading of such illusions and estimates of the potential of the peasantry represented a direct threat to the revolutionary movement. A truly revolutionary party, fighting for the interests of the people, could not help reacting to such pleas on behalf of small-scale production, which were, in fact, pleas on behalf of, and direct support for, the bourgeois order.
By making a thorough study of the real trends of the development of farming, in particular those in Scandinavia, which was presented by the revisionists as a great paradise for small-holders, Lenin confirmed the truth of Marxist agrarian theory. He drew a graphic picture of the "eternal grind" and useless waste of labour to which the small farmer is daily and universally subjected by capitalism.
Bourgeois theorists who maintained that the small-holding system was the most profitable form of organisation for society, hushed up the fact that small farmers more often than not only made both ends meet by overworking, by making cruel and severe restrictions in their consumption, by undernourishment, not to say semi-starvation, and so on. Lenin cited much irrefutable evidence to show that the conditions of land cultivation and animal husbandry, and the conditions of life of the farmer himself on a small farm arc immeasurably worse than those on a large farm. With this evidence he exposed the false plea of 284 the bourgeois political economists and the Bcrnsteinians that the small farmer's diligence was creating the basis for a more rational and productive agriculture than large-scale farming. `` Actually,'' he wrote, "we see progress in the largest-scale agriculture, stability in the sizes of farms in all groups except the very smallest, and the splitting-up of the farms in this last group. This splitting-up must be ascribed to the decline and impoverishment of small-scale = farming.~.~.~."^^1^^
Unlike the bourgeois reformists, Lenin made clear-cut distinctions between the various socio-economic types of holdings, and on the basis of available, though limited statistics, gave the levels of production and the living standards not of the peasants as a whole, as a single social estate, but of the different types of farmer. He investigated the position of prospering capitalist farmers as well as that of needy, poor farmers on the verge of ruin. While reformist writers glossed over the social contradictions in the countryside, and conveyed an idyllic picture of rustic class peace and virtually universal prosperity, Lenin, by scientific analysis, arrived at a clear understanding of the sharpness of the real contradictions between the landlords and the kulaks, on the one hand, and the mass of small farmers on the other, crushed by unending poverty and want and having no wish to continue living under such conditions of exploitation.
The opponents of Marxism on the agrarian question (David, Pudor and others) turned to the experience of Denmark, which was said to be "an ideal country" where small farming had best adapted itself to the requirements of the market, guaranteeing its steady prosperity, and where one could observe a constant decentralisation of production. Lenin examined official Danish agricultural statistics, including the 1898 cattle census, grouping Danish farms according to their land area, and other official data over a number of decades, and came to the following conclusion: "The 'ideal country' from the standpoint of the opponents of Marxism on the agrarian question very clearly reveals (despite the socio-economic statistics being still at a low level and lacking analysis) the capitalist agrarian system, the sharply expressed capitalist contradictions in agriculture and livestock farming, the growing concentration of agricultural production, the ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production, and the proletarianisation and impoverishment of the overwhelming majority of the rural = population."^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 200.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 216.
285By proving the existence of sharp social contradictions in the countryside, and the state of ruin of most peasants, which objectively pushed the great majority of the rural population into alliance with the city proletariat, Lenin brilliantly defended Marxist agrarian theory.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ The Evolution of Agrarian RelationsThe Russian translator and man of letters A. M. Voden, recollecting his conversations with Engels in 1893, said:
"Engcls expressed his conviction that the thing most necessary for Russian Social-Democrats was to take up the agrarian question in Russia seriously; that this field of investigation promised, in fact, new results vital both for the history of the forms of landownership and land-usage and for applying and checking economic theory, especially the theory of differential rent, against a tremendous amount of material. Engcls mentioned that he felt it very desirable that Plekhanov should take up the study of this central question for Russia (my italics---A.M.) and that it should be serious research and not merely polemical articles.'' "Besides,'' Voden went on, "Engels would like Russians---and not only Russians---not to assemble quotations from Marx and himself (Engels), but to think in the way Marx would think in their place---he said it was only in this sense that the use of the word `Marxist' was = justified."^^1^^
It so happened, however, that Lenin was the only one to follow Engels's advice and to carry out the task which this great teacher of the proletariat and comrade-in-arms of Marx addressed to the Russian Social-Democrats.
Lenin continued the study of agrarian relations in Russia that Marx had begun, while working on the section of Volume III of Capital dealing with ground rent and making use of Russian materials. For a long time, particularly in the late sixties and in the seventies, Marx made a special study of the variety of the forms of landownership and of the exploitation of agricultural producers in Russia. However, he did not complete these studies. Lenin took up the study of the agrarian question in Russia after the 1861 Land Reform. He thus made his own independent and outstanding contribution to Marxist political economy.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Reminiscences About Marx and Engels, = Moscow, 1956, Russ. ed., pp. 342--343, 344.
286Lenin's earliest surviving work, "New Economic Developments in Peasant Life (On V. Y. Postnikov's Peasant Fanning in South Russia)'', written in 1893, deals with socio-economic relations in agriculture.
Lenin discovered in Postnikov's book "an extremely detailed and thorough description of peasant farming in the Taurida, Kherson and Yekatcrinoslav = gubernias".^^1^^ In his analysis of this book, Lenin showed himself to be a profound and expert interpreter of statistics. His exceptionally thorough and original approach to statistical material is one of his most remarkable features as a research worker in economics.
Lenin realised that social and economic statistics were a powerful means of obtaining social knowledge, and also that statistics could be made to serve a contrary purpose, namely, to cause confusion by irrelevant and even dangerous juggling with figures. That is why in taking censuses and in processing the obtained data particular attention should be paid to the manner of summarising and grouping these data. Lenin himself set an example of the art of summarising census returns in order to obtain a clear picture of the political, economic and social structure of agriculture. At the very outset of his scientific activity Lenin made the vitally important observation that it was desirable to group and treat together statistical data covering areas with similar economic conditions. Postnikov, however, bracketed together figures relating to, say, both the black earth areas of the South and the non-black earth areas of the North.
Lenin's attention was drawn to the material which Postnikov cited to show the differentiation of the rural population into groups with very different levels of income. Data relating to the position of the poor strata of peasants stood out with particular force: the less the size of small peasants' holdings, the higher, proportionately, the rents charged to tenants; the far larger areas of land were held by well-to-do peasants; and, in general, the land was distributed according to income.
Making use of Postnikov's data Lenin came to conclusions different from his. Postnikov was a conscientious statistician and economist, but he did not possess the necessary methodological background to sort out and interpret correctly large numbers of facts and observations. The weakest part of his work was his plan for solving the agrarian question. He tried to explain _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I. p. 13.
287 economic processes but failed in this. It was Lenin who discerned the real social and economic trends of development in agriculture and pointed to the existence of capitalism there, which entailed the differentiation of classes, the property inequalities and the exploitation of poor peasants by well-to-do peasants. "Recognising the profound economic strife among the peasantry of today, we can no longer restrict ourselves to just dividing the peasants into several strata according to the property they possess."^^1^^Lenin believed that it was necessary to take into consideration at once: a) the economic nature---commercial or natural---of given farms or households; b) the growth and improvement of the farms of better-off groups of peasants at the expense of the ruin of lower groups; and c) the use of hired labour by well-= to-do peasants, and the need for poor peasants to resort to selling their own labour. It was necessary, therefore, to make `` qualitative differences'', and "to classify the peasantry according to differences in the character of the farming itself (meaning by the character of farming peculiarities not of a technical but of an economic = order)".^^2^^
This work of Lenin's was his worthy debut both as an economist and an expert on the agrarian question. He demonstrated his outstanding ability to analyse theoretically complicated economic phenomena. Lenin appeared as a talented disciple of Marx and Engels. But the full extent of his gift as a research worker was unfolded in his fundamental economic work The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Some 600 sources of all kinds were used by Lenin in writing it. He critically analysed all this material. Lenin described in this book the path of social development of Russia following the 1861 Reform, and outlined the general laws of the development of capitalism in agriculture. The Development of Capitalism in Russia has a permanent value as a vital reference work on Marxist agrarian theory.
The 1861 Reform was bourgeois in content. The need for it was not predestined by God, as the high-flown royal decree of Alexander II stated, but by the necessities of economic life. Its real aim was not to change the peasants' lot for the better but to adjust agrarian relations to the needs of capitalist production and the capitalist market, which did not receive sufficient stimuli from the old forms of land-usage and methods of working the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 44.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
288 land. The ``great'' peasant Reform initiated by the landlords cleared the way for capitalism on the land.Both before and after the Reform, many people, the Narodniks in particular, used to stress Russia's exclusiveness and her special destiny, unlike that of any other country in the world. All analogy between Russia and the capitalist West was rejected. The Narodniks advanced the theory of the ``artificiality'' of capitalism in Russia. They employed such completely a priori arguments as the shrinking of the home market resulting from the ruin of the peasantry and the inaccessibility of foreign markets to Russia. Hence their conclusion that the realisation of surplus value so necessary for the appearance and survival of capitalism was impossible in Russia. Again, the Narodniks idealised labour-service and saw something positive in the allotting of land to peasants under the corvee system as a means of tying the producer to the means of production. They also persistently propagated the myth that the Russian peasantry was socially homogeneous. The local village commune (mir), a relic of feudalism, was glorified by them as the bearer and model of equitable socialist relations. Narodniks alleged that the communes blocked the way to the penetration of capital into agriculture. Meanwhile the commune with its system of `` collective responsibility" served as one of the pillars of tsarism, providing the government with a convenient means of oppressing and robbing the peasants.
Lenin's book The Development of Capitalism in Russia upset all these theories and myths. Lenin's criticism of Narodism cleared the ground for the victory of Marxism in the Russian workers' movement. It could be compared to Marx's and Engels's criticism of the Left Hegelians (the Bauer brothers and others), the ``true socialists'', and all the other German ideologists (Proudhonists and so on) who obscured the minds of the workers and advanced intellectuals in the 18405 by distorting the true character of the existing situation and indicating wrong means of struggle. Since the centre of the European revolutionary movement shifted to Russia in the late I9th century and the early 2Oth century, Lenin's criticism of the dogmas of the Narodniks was of key importance not only for Russia. It played a big part in strengthening revolutionary Marxism internationally.
Lenin brought out all the salient features of the social and economic evolution of Russia, omitting nothing of any great importance.
Capitalism was gaining ground in Russia, and because of this __PRINTERS_P_289_COMMENT__ 19---1974 289 her economic system was becoming more and more like that of any West European country where the victory of capitalism had long been an accomplished and irrefutable fact.
In Russia, as in other countries, the offensive of capital resulted in the disintegration and proletarianisation of the peasantry, and the gradual flight of large numbers of peasants from the land. Russia and the capitalist West differed only in the extent to which this process had gone. In Russia, it was still in its initial stages, but the position in which the poor peasants found themselves compelled them to seek alliance with the working class, for it was only in the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat that the small peasants saw any real hope of escape from eternal want, poverty and inevitable ruin.
The separation of the immediate producer from his means of production and the expropriation of the vast bulk of the peasantry marked the transition from simple commodity production to capitalist production in agriculture. This led to the creation of a home market, ensuring the turnover and realisation of the social product and also surplus product appropriated gratis by the capitalist owners of means of production. Capitalist progress meant a steady growth in the demand for articles of personal consumption, as well as for articles of productive consumption. In opposition to the Narodniks, who believed that the ruin of the peasantry caused a shrinking of the home market, Lenin proved that it was precisely the disintegration of the peasantry into a peasant bourgeoisie and a rural proletariat, i.e., its separation into rich peasants and hired labourers, that formed the basis for the expansion of the home market.
Lenin wrote: "...the transformation of the peasantry into a rural proletariat creates a market mainly for articles of consumption, whereas its transformation into a rural bourgeoisie creates a market mainly for means of production. In other words, among the bottom groups of the 'peasantry' we observe the transformation of labour-power into a commodity, and in the top ones the transformation of means of production into capital. Both these transformations result in precisely that process of the creation of a home market which theory has established for capitalist countries in = general."^^1^^
The entrenchment of capitalism in Russian agriculture completely broke up the system of binding the peasant to the land, together with the egalitarian system of landownership, which _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 166.
290 Lenin regarded as relics of the pre-Reform (corvee) system. The peasant bourgeoisie forced more and more middle and poor peasants off the land altogether, while the proportion of hired labourers rose. There was a growing tendency for peasants to move to outside employment, to places away from home where they could earn their living, and for many labourers to migrate to newly colonised or newly cultivated areas.The Russian ``communal'' peasantry, therefore, far from being capitalism's antagonist, constituted its most firm foundation. Because of the process of disintegration going on within the peasantry, i.e., ``de-peasanting'', including the expropriation of some peasants by others, new types of agriculturists appeared among the rural population, differing in their position in the process of social production and therefore socially remote from one another. Property inequalities led, in particular, to the emergence of two class opposites, a rural bourgeoisie and a rural proletariat. Capitalist commodity relations became predominant in the countryside, and farming as a whole assumed a commercial character.
The 1861 Reform undermined the corvee system of economy but it did not abolish it completely. The landowners retained a considerable part of the peasants' land (servitudes), "cut-off lands'', woods, meadows, watering places, pastures, and so on. There also remained the possibility of extra-economic compulsion vis-\`a-vis the peasants through their temporarily-bound status, through "collective responsibility'', corporal punishment, forced labour on public works, etc. Lenin convincingly demonstrated that most peasants were burdened, as before the Reform, by all kinds of labour-service, e.g., hire on a half-crop basis, work in payment of a debt, work "for trespass'', share cropping, etc. All these various types of labour represented one or another form of labour-service or rent in kind. He wrote: "It is noteworthy that the enormous variety of forms of labour-service in Russia, and of forms of land renting with all sorts of supplementary payments, etc., are covered in their entirety by the main forms of pre-capitalist relations in agriculture indicated by Marx in Chapter 47, Vol. III of = Capital.''^^1^^
Based on a weakly-developed commodity economy, labour-= service and payments in kind held back the advance of capitalism, but were not, in the final count, able to prevent its inevitable victory. Innermost economic requirements prevailed over the force of inherited institutions.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., p.
291Lenin proved that with the passage of time the remnant forms of feudal bondage were being replaced by capitalist relations, which presupposed the ``free'' hired labour of the former peasant, now deprived of all means of production, including land, working on the land of the rural bourgeois, who lent the labourer his own tools of labour and draught animals. In the mixed economic system, capitalist forms of production were increasingly becoming prevalent, and the corvee system was gradually withering away.
Lenin studied the many forms of exploitation of agricultural labourers, especially those cruel devices for extracting surplus labour from them that were widely used by both small and big landowners: employment "according to choice'', speed-up, low wages, and extremely poor housing conditions. Rural proletarians accounted, according to Lenin's estimates, for about 40 per cent of the total number of the = peasants.^^1^^ Their lot was poverty and hard, compulsory labour for profit-greedy masters.
Nevertheless, the victory of the capitalist system in Russian farming was historically a great and progressive development. Capitalism is undoubtedly an evil. But it is an evil which,'as Lenin wrote in his article "Marx on the American 'General Redistribution' '', is a "historical benefit, for it will accelerate social development tremendously and bring ever so much nearer new and higher forms of the communist = movement".^^2^^
By making a thorough study of the evolution of agrarian relations in Russia after 1861, Lenin was able to visualise the inexorable development of the capitalist system in farming, to substantiate the need to work out an agrarian programme for the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and to provide the theoretical basis for this programme.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ The Programme of the Proletariat in theLenin carried out his scientific research in the field of agrarian relations because he wanted to determine, on the basis of precise economic analysis, what path of social development was in the best interests of the developing productive forces and also in those of the proletariat in the class struggle. Capitalism was clearly a necessary precondition for the advancement of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 240.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 8, p. 328.
292 interests of both, and he indicated which of the two possible roads to the victory of capitalism in Russian agriculture was the more preferable from the point of view of the proletariat, and why.In his letter to I.~Skvortsov-Stepanov dated December~16, 1909, Lenin wrote that he was trying, to prove and did prove that "the development of agrarian relations in Russia is proceeding on capitalist lines both in landlord and in peasant economy, both outside and within the 'village commune'. In the second place, that this development has already irrevocably determined that there will be no other path than the capitalist path, no other grouping of classes than the capitalist = grouping."^^1^^ And further: "We cannot halt at a general solution of the problem of capitalism when new events (and events that are of world-historic importance such as those of 1905--07) have raised a more concrete problem, of a more detailed nature, the problem of the struggle between the two paths or methods of capitalist agrarian development."^^2^^
Both theory (thanks largely to Lenin's works) and life had settled this question beyond all doubt by showing that it was indeed capitalism that was developing in Russia, and not `` people's production" (as the Narodniks tried to maintain). "Another, higher question has taken its place: capitalism of type~α or capitalism of = type~β~".^^3^^ These two possible paths of development of capitalism in agriculture were called respectively the ``Prussian'' path and the ``American'' path.
The ``Prussian'' path consists of the slow transformation of old landlord economy, tied by thousands of threads to serfdom and retaining its relics, into a capitalist, ``Junker-type'' economy of large-scale farming. The old landlord economy adjusts itself to the requirements of the times by making modifications along capitalist lines and carrying through the internal reforms necessarily involved in the transition from labour-service to hired labour. This path, therefore, entails no more than the modernisation of old estates, without detriment to the vital interests of their owners. The old gentry only don new clothes and modify forms of production and forms of appropriating surplus value. Moreover, the inevitable mixing and coexistence of old and new forms of farming restrains the rate of growth of social labour _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 16. p. 118.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 119.
~^^3^^ Ibid.
293 productivity, and the peasants who arc hired to work the land remain without land themselves.The ``American'' path, on the contrary, consists of the revolutionary break-up and expropriation of the landlords' estates in favour of the peasants, thanks to which agriculture receives an enormous impulse to develop freely, and the opportunity to do so, on the basis of commodity and money relations. This path results in the decisive abolition of the survivals of serfdom, followed by the emergence of two opposite trends---that towards bourgeois enrichment of the land-owning minority of the peasants and that towards the complete proletarianisation of the overwhelming majority of peasants and their separation from all means of production. Thus, the ``American'' path leads to the growth of a rural bourgeoisie and a rural proletariat on what were formerly the feudal estates. Some fortunate individual peasants become prosperous, while the bulk of peasants live in poverty and are finally ruined. Since, however, the `` American" path involves the rapid and complete destruction of the feudal system and all the survivals of serfdom holding up the further development of society's productive forces, it undoubtedly represents the historically more progressive path. It is also relatively more progressive for the further reason that it puts an end to the political rule of big estate owners, who usually advocate the most savage forms of political reaction. Because of this, the ``American'' path extends the democratic basis of the organisation of society, undermining faith in the unshakable and sacred character of large-scale private property, and creating relatively better conditions for the working class to prepare for the socialist revolution, its main historical task.
In post-Reform Russia both the ``Prussian'' and the `` American" path of agrarian development were in evidence. The country was, as a whole, ripe for the complete bourgeois transformation of agriculture. The question of this transformation was the national question of bourgeois development in Russia at that time, just as, after the 1848--49 revolution in Germany, her national question was that of the unification of more than thirty states into one state in the interests of bourgeois development. Polemics between the major political parties of Russia centred, as a rule, not on whether radical changes in the existing system of agrarian relations were necessary but on how these changes should be brought about.
Lenin consistently argued in favour of the ``American'' path of development as the solution to the agrarian question. The 294 agrarian question, as a question of national significance for bourgeois development in Russia, could be reduced to fulfilling the centuries-old aspirations of the peasantry for land, so that it was, in fact, a peasant question. In 1905--07, 10 million peasant households owned 197.1 million acres of land, while 28,000 "noble and grimy landlords" owned 167.4 million. These enormous inequalities in landownership were the background to the growing peasant struggle for = land.^^1^^
In the given historical conditions, despite the doctrinaire views of the Russian opportunists, Lenin regarded the peasant movement, the movement for "general redistribution'', as a revolutionary force. The Mensheviks, under the pretence of defending Marxism from Narodism, treated the peasant movement as a reactionary movement. True Marxists, according to Lenin, should not simply reject Narodism outright, but should be able to extract its positive content "as a theory of the mass petty-- bourgeois struggle of democratic capitalism against liberal-landlord capitalism, of `American' capitalism against `Prussian' capital- ism".^^2^^
The agrarian question was repeatedly on the agenda of the Congresses and Conferences of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.
The first agrarian programme adopted by the Second Congress of the RSDLP in 1903 proved to be unsatisfactory. It lacked "a clear idea of the issue around which the agrarian struggle could and should develop in the process of the bourgeois revolution in Russia---a clear idea of the types of capitalist agrarian evolution that were objectively possible as the result of the victory of one or other of the social forces engaged in this = struggle".^^3^^ That first programme, advocating neither the ``American'' nor the " Prussian" path of bourgeois development in Russia, proposed a kind of middle way between the two. The programme's mistakes resulted from overestimating the existing degree of capitalist development in farming. When the programme was put to the vote, many Social-Democrats thought that the only survivals of serfdom that remained were the "cut-off lands'', and that history had done the rest of the job of abolishing feudalism, that the remnants of serfdom were not so very significant and represented only one "small detail" in the country's economic structure.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 225.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 16, p. 119.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 258.
295The Bolshevik Conference held in Tammcrfors in December 1905 adopted Lenin's resolution on the agrarian question. This stated that "the Party supports the revolutionary measures of the peasantry, including the confiscation of all state, church, monastery, crown and privately-owned land, making it its principal and constant task to ensure the independent organisation of the rural proletariat, explain to it the irreconcilable conflict between its interests and those of the rural bourgeoisie, and point out the ultimate goal of socialism which alone is capable of doing away with the division of society into classes and all exploitation of man by = man".^^1^^
__NOTE__ In footnote area, first and only footnote is numbered is "2"!A heated debate began inside the Party around the question of who should be entrusted with the management of confiscated land, and whether the Party should direct its efforts to securing the nationalisation of the land or to its municipalisation.
The Mensheviks (Maslov, Jordania and others) rejected nationalisation and defended the idea of municipalisation. They maintained, for example, that nationalisation was not acceptable because it encroached upon the rights of nations to self-- determination, that there was a danger of the bureaucracy inevitable in a class society gaining strength and that nationalisation would not be favoured by the peasants themselves. In general, the Mensheviks regarded nationalisation as Utopian. According to Maslov, in the event of the nationalisation of the land, "we should have not only one Vendee but a general peasants' uprising".
Plekhanov tried to uphold his negative attitude towards nationalisation by referring to Russia's past, to the fact that nationalised land had been the economic basis of Moscow Rus in the period before Peter the Great, so that nationalising the land would mean moving backwards. In answering Plekhanov, Lenin said that this argument either represented an exaggerated liberal-= Narodnik view of Moscow Rus or else was sheer sophistry. Even if one accepted that land was state property in old Moscow Rus, then the state itself was based on a mode of production radically different from capitalism, which only became prevalent in the Russian economy in the second half of the i9th century. Plekhanov also claimed that nationalisation would not abolish the economic basis of tsarism and hence was not a revolutionary measure. Moreover, he said, if under certain circumstances a deposed reactionary regime were to be restored in the political sphere, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 88.
296 nationalised land would automatically fall into the hands of such a regime; whereas if the land were to be municipalised, the position would be quite different in the event of a restoration, as the land could not become the property of the old order. Lenin remarked that such ``arguments'' against nationalisation in favour of municipalisation merely "blocked thought".In his speeches at the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in 1906, and in his book The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905--07, and in other works, Lenin put forward and developed an entirely realistic programme for the proletariat in the peasant bourgeois revolution, which received a warm response from the millions of Russian peasants and stood the test of time.
Petty-bourgeois opponents of a revolutionary solution of the agrarian question, afraid of unleashing the spontaneous forces in the peasant movement, constantly reiterated the need to observe the abstract principle of ``justice'' as the guide to political practice. Similarly, liberal-bourgeois democrats and bureaucrats, protecting the minority interests of the exploiters, put no small amount of effort into their reflections on the practicability and ``desirability'' of land reforms from the point of view of the state. Both always opposed taking a sober view of things; their prescriptions presented no threat to the existing order.
Lenin's tactics were in practice the complete reverse of those supported by these "revolutionaries of the phrase" and conservatives in action. Lenin repeatedly stressed that when determining the programme and proletarian practical steps it was necessary to proceed from a precise consideration of the country's economic and political reality. The highest principle and duty guiding a true Marxist should be that of making a concrete scientific analysis of the concrete situation at any time in the interests of the complete triumph of both the immediate aims and the final goals of the proletariat in the class struggle. A true Marxist ought then to determine, on the basis of such an analysis, what measures and line of action can and will attract all the exploited and the oppressed to the banner of the working class.
Guided thus by truly revolutionary and scientific criteria, by the interests of the proletariat and the majority of peasants, Lenin made a thorough comparative study of the demand for the municipalisation of the land and that for its nationalisation.
Municipalisation presupposed the transfer of the landlords' land to organs of local self-government, while small producers 297 were to retain their allotted plots as before. Small producers would, therefore, have been able to obtain land only from the local authorities, and they were to pay for it in money rent. It was quite clear that most of the peasants could not have afforded to obtain land in this way, and this alone provided the grounds for Lenin's view that the peasants would not favour municipalisation, since they did not want to be, yet again, the object of a ``swindle'', as they were in the 1861 = Reform.^^1^^ Outside of a fully consistent democratic state system, such "agrarian bimetallism'', as Lenin termed the municipalisation programme, would run counter to the interests of the peasants, who desired only land and freedom, and would in fact mean cheating them. Even if municipalisation were to undermine landlord ownership, it would not touch that other pillar of the Russian Asiatic way of life, with its economic and social backwardness---the medieval system of allotment land tenure. While appearing to satisfy the peasants' demands for land within the framework of local administrative units by dividing the land into holdings of individual ``Zemstvo'' organs (local governing bodies), municipalisation would have led to the breaking-up of the all-Russia democratic movement, and would have promoted ``localism'', and the isolation and alienation of one region from another.
"Municipalisation,'' Lenin pointed out, "is a reactionary slogan, which idealises the medieval isolation of the regions, and dulls the peasantry's consciousness of the need for a centralised agrarian = revolution".^^2^^
The slogan of the Party in the agrarian revolution in Russia must be the nationalisation of land, said Lenin, the transfer of all land exclusively to the state by making it state property, and the distribution of land without compensation among those who till it. The total abolition of private property in the land and the transfer of the land into the hands of the farmers would comprise a vital democratic reform of the socio-economic system permitting farming to develop on a commodity basis unburdened by the medieval allotment system of landownership and, above all, by the remnants of landlord economy. Only nationalisation could abolish at one stroke all the distinctions between the various types of land holding which existed in the country and which were retarding the progress of agriculture. Nationalisation was in the peasants' interest, creating for the small producer the _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 330.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 13, p. 336.
298 best conditions possible within the limits of capitalism for developing agriculture on ``free'' land.Private landownership hinders the free application of capital to the land. As Marx showed, the abolition of private property in the land and its transformation into state property is one of the capital's most cherished dreams. The private owner of land, who played an important role in both the ancient world and in the Middle Ages, becomes a useless canker under capitalism. The radical bourgeois completely understands in theory the need to abolish private landownership, and only does not do so in practice because "he lacks the courage, since an attack on one form of property---a form of the private ownership of a condition of labour---might cast considerable doubts on the other form. Besides, the bourgeois has himself become an owner of land."^^1^^
The economic interest of the bourgeoisie in "doing away with" private property in the land results from the fact that a nationalised agriculture can free capital from a host of restraints to its progress. And the less developed capitalism is, the more possible is such nationalisation. But in a mature capitalist society where an extremely sharp class struggle is already in progress between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and where bourgeois relations in production have been completely formed, the state is not likely to dare to "play with fire" by attacking landownership. The mass of the bourgeoisie in such a society is no longer radical and has become reactionary, having in mind the socialist upheaval that is always round the corner. The bourgeois nationalisation of the land therefore is possible only in a ``young'' bourgeois society.
In his analysis of the advantages of nationalisation over municipalisation from the point of view of the working class, Lenin devoted some attention to the theory of ground rent, though he considered that in Marx's Theories of Surplus-Value this theory is "made so plain that even the Maslovs should be able to grasp = it!"^^2^^
Nationalisation of the land puts an end to the existence of absolute ground rent as a kind of tribute the capitalist farmer has to pay to the landed proprietor who does not participate in production but who, only by virtue of his right of ownership, secures an income from his land as a money lender does from _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, = Theories of Surplus-Value, Part II, Moscow, 1968, pp. 44--45.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 301.
299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1970/LGT390/20060322/391.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.22) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __MANUAL_EDITS__ 1. "-" to "---" :NOT DONE. the money he lends. With the disappearance of private landownership, absolute ground rent also disappears in the natural course of events. The extra capital released goes to speed up the application of science and technology in agriculture so that the transition from extensive to intensive methods of farming can be made.Differential rent, the difference between the price of production on the worst soil and on better soil, which is part of the surplus value and exceeds the average profit on capital, does not disappear (as does absolute ground rent) as a result of nationalisation, but only changes its owner by going into the possession of the collective capitalist---the bourgeois state.
While welcoming the nationalisation of the land as the slogan of the capitalist renewal of Russia, Lenin always emphasised that a truly radical agrarian revolution was only possible as a consequence of a radical political revolution, when power was in the hands of the revolutionary people. Consistent nationalisation presupposes the establishment of a democratic republic, just as, vice versa, the strengthening and complete triumph of a democratic political system is unthinkable without deep democratic changes in property relations. This universal Marxist-= Leninist truth is, incidentally, confirmed a thousand times by the tremendous wealth of experience of the countries of Asia and Africa that have entered the path of independent development since the Second World War.
But Lenin never for a moment lost sight of the prospect of the socialist revolution. He taught socialists to "combine the purely proletarian struggle with the general peasant struggle, but not to confuse the = two".^^1^^ Russian Social-Democrats, he said, supported the peasants' demands for the confiscation and nationalisation of the landlords' land without regarding this measure as in the least a socialist one, without calling it ``socialisation''. The process of levelling in land tenure that would supposedly take place in a commodity capitalist economy, of which the Socialist-= Revolutionaries spoke so much, was in fact the purest reactionary utopianism.
Bourgeois nationalisation of the land only clears the way for the proletariat to socialist revolution. It brings freedom for the struggle for socialism: "The democratic struggle is waged,'' Lenin wrote, "by the workers together with a section of the bourgeoisie, especially the petty bourgeoisie. On the other _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 445.
300 hand, the socialist struggle is waged by the workers against the whole of the bourgeoisie. The struggle against the bureaucrat and the landlord can and must be waged together with all the peasants, even the well-to-do and the middle peasants. On the other hand, it is only together with the rural proletariat that the struggle against the bourgeoisie, and therefore against the well-to-do peasants too, can be properly = waged".^^1^^ __ALPHA_LVL2__ Lenin's Plan for the Socialist TransformationAfter the October Revolution the young Soviet Republic and its creator Lenin were confronted with the tremendous job of doing away with the economic and technical backwardness of the country's agriculture, raising the productivity of social labour in both crop and animal husbandry, and overcoming the ignorance in the countryside left behind by capitalism. In the final analysis, the solution of these problems required the socialist transformation of agriculture. And with political power in the hands of the workers, and all industry, transport, the banking and financial systems, the land and the mineral resources of the country nationalised, everything augured well for the development of Soviet Russia along socialist lines. But as long as agriculture was broken up into millions upon millions of tiny farmsteads, there remained an inevitable multi-sectoral economy and thus the firm consolidation of socialism was out of the question. The preponderance of individual households with their natural economy and extremely low rate of income meant that it was impossible to give agriculture an up-to-date scientific and technical foundation.
The only correct means was to take the path of socialism. This involved strengthening the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, with the working class preserving its leadership, in order to abolish the contradiction between socialist ownership in industry and private ownership in agriculture. This problem was solved by Lenin who worked out the now famous plan for agricultural co-operation. He developed the idea advanced by Marx and Engcls of gradually involving the peasants in co-operative societies for the purposes of both consumption and production. Lenin's plan envisaged the setting up of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Wurks, Vol. 9, p. 443.
301 large state farms alongside agricultural communes and agricultural artels, or collective farms---associations formed on a purely voluntary basis---and other organisations to promote the transformation of small-scale private farmholding into socialised agriculture.Lenin believed it to be the duty of the proletarian state to prove to small and middle peasants, who were used to farming their own plots of land, the advantages of collective methods of work and to do this "only gradually and cautiously and only by a successful practical = example".^^1^^
In his articles ``On Co-operation'', ``Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat'', in his speech to the First Congress of agricultural communes and agricultural artels (1919), in the preparatory materials for the Comintern congresses, in iiis speeches at these congresses (the Second and the Third), in his remarks on "Theses of the French Communist Party on the Agrarian Question''---and in many other post-= October documents---Lenin mentioned the exceptional importance of a programme of transitional measures which, while bringing peasant farmers to socialised agriculture, would at the same time, provide an immediate, improvement in the position of most of the rural population. He put particular stress on the necessity for the communist education of the peasantry.
The collective work of free farmers on free land, given every possible government support, including credits, and armed with the latest achievements of science and technology---such is the road leading to the socialist transformation of agriculture, and one of the essential preconditions for the triumph of the lofty ideals of the labour movement. "The importance of all enterprises of this kind is tremendous, because if the old, poverty-stricken peasant farming remains unchanged there can be no question of building up a stable socialist society. Only if we succeed in proving to the peasants in practice the advantages of common, collective, co-operative, artel cultivation of the soil, only if we succeed in helping the peasant by means of co-operative or artel farming, will the working class, which wields state power, be really able to convince the peasant that its policy is correct and thus secure the real and lasting following of the millions of peasants."^^2^^
Lenin attached cardinal importance to strengthening the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 196.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 195--96.
302 economic and material-technological basis of socialist agricultural enterprises in order to enable them to become models of production, to demonstrate the tremendous advantages of socialism in the solution of vital social issues, in advancing and improving the productive forces, and in extending the range of production to meet the steadily growing demands of the population.Lenin's plan for agricultural co-operation thus provided the basis for the solution by the Communist Party and the Soviet Government of the extremely complex and difficult revolutionary task of remoulding agriculture along socialist lines, gradually transforming scattered farmholds into large-scale production units. This achievement was undoubtedly of historic significance. Small commodity production was replaced by socialised production and a new, rational form of farming was found in the course of collectivisation---the collective farm---which correctly combined the social and private interests of the peasants.
With over-all collectivisation the kulaks were eliminated---the last and most numerous class of exploiters. In conjunction with the industrialisation of the country, the collectivisation of the countryside strengthened the gains of October and led Soviet farmers onto a new, socialist path of progress.
All further Party and Government measures taken in the USSR to raise the level of the country's socialist agriculture, especially those taken in the period following the CC CPSU October Plenum (1964)---measures intended to effect a certain redistribution of the national income in favour of agriculture, to adjust the wholesale prices of consumer goods and state purchase prices of foodstuffs and other agricultural products, to change the size and form of remuneration for work done, and steadily increase capital investments in agriculture, etc., ---all these steps are the visible and practical realisation of Lenin's plan for co-operation and reflect the development of its theoretical, practical and organisational aspects under new historical conditions, enriching the agrarian theory of Marxism-Leninism with important new ideas.
This theory has stood the test of time. Many socialist countries now study and apply creatively (taking into account their own peculiarities and concrete conditions) the experience of collectivisation in the USSR, Lenin's ideas on the working-class alliance with the peasantry, and the development of the productive forces and social relations in Soviet agriculture.
The Marxist-Leninist parties of the capitalist countries also make use of Lenin's invaluable theoretical legacy for the creative 303 analysis of the present-day processes of class differentiation in the countryside. The basic problems of agriculture in these countries, the impossibility of finding a way out of their chronic agrarian crises, and the miserable position of millions of peasants confirm once again the depth and vitality of Lenin's thoughts, in particular the central point of his agrarian theory that the only real solution to all difficulties and problems is to take the road of socialism and communism.
Lenin's greatness as a theoretician and practician of the socialist revolution consists in his developing the agrarian theory of Marxism in new conditions and in showing which aspects of the peasants' situation make them the natural allies of the working class, and, further, what slogans should be advanced at each stage of the preparation for and carrying through of the revolution so that the peasant movement merges in practice with the proletarian revolutionary movement. That is why Lenin's theoretical works on the agrarian question and his agrarian programme of Russian Social-Democracy were of tremendous practical importance for the Russian proletarian revolution. They are still valid for the international working-class and communist movement of today.
[304] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN
The national question is one of the most important and complicated questions of social development.
A great amount of literature is devoted to the national question. Bourgeois ideologists have always paid a great deal of attention to it. But even those who have made serious attempts to understand it have been unable to give it a correct interpretation, since their outlook was that of the exploiting classes and their approach was an idealist one. In fact the overwhelming majority of bourgeois scholars have distorted the national question by deliberately confusing the issues involved and preaching chauvinism to justify the colonial and neo-colonial policies of the imperialist powers. Marxism-Leninism alone has given the correct scientific interpretation of the national and colonial questions.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels laid the foundations of the theory of the national question as a component part of the theory of historical materialism and scientific communism. Their works contain important ideas on the essence of the concepts ``nation'' and "national movement''. Marx and Engels considered the emergence of nations to be a result of developing capitalist relations. They also showed that capitalism increasingly broke down national barriers, eliminating national isolation. Marx and Engels defined the main lines of the proletarian party's programme and policy on the national question: proletarian internationalism, the declaration of the right of nations to self-determination and the struggle to achieve this, the exposure of the colonial oppression of nations by the exploiting classes, support for the national liberation movements and the linking of these movements with the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Marx and Engels __PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20---1974 305 resolutely opposed ignoring the national question, while at the same time stressing the fact that the national question was of secondary importance compared with the general and basic question of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The thoughts of Marx and Engcls on the national question are thus of key importance. But under pre-monopoly capitalism, when Marx and Engcls were working, the national question was neither so topical nor so vast a question as it has become in the age of imperialism and socialist revolutions.
The transition of capitalism to imperialism, the growing export of capital from the metropolitan countries to the colonies and dependent countries, the extension of spheres of influence and colonial possessions and the division of all nations into two camps ---a handful of imperialist powers exploiting and oppressing colonies and semi-colonies and, on the other hand, the oppressed peoples of these colonies and dependent countries (constituting the majority of the world's population)---all this, together with the powerful upsurge of the national liberation movements, drawing hundreds of millions of fighters against imperialism in Asia, Africa and Latin America into the world revolutionary process, gave special significance to the national question and presented it in a new light.
The new age of imperialism, of socialist, national and colonial revolutions, the age of transition from capitalism to socialism, required Marxists to make a profound and all-round theoretical analysis of the national question. This is what Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did.
Of course, Lenin's interest in the national and colonial questions is explained first of all by the specific situation of Russia as a multi-national state where non-Russians, constituting over 50 per cent of her entire population, were oppressed by tsarism, and the Bolshevik Party was faced with the need to define its policy and tasks on the national question. At the same time Lenin in the course of his analysis of the question was guided by the interests and aims of the entire world liberation movement of the working people.
It was the Russian Marxists who had to take up the study of this question, and who had to elaborate revolutionary theory as a whole (adjusting it to the new historical conditions), because the centre of the world revolutionary movement had moved to Russia. This task facing the Russian Marxists was all the more vital because the leaders of the Second International, who were 306 rolling ever further downhill to opportunism and social-- chauvinism, not only failed to pay proper attention to the national and colonial questions but began revising Marxist theory in this field, too.
Lenin's great historic achievement was to create a complete and harmonious theory of the national and colonial questions, and to develop the programme and policy of the Communist Party on it. Lenin based his teachings on the foundations laid by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and on a profound analysis of the laws of social progress.
It should be stressed that the national question occupies an important place in Lenin's literary legacy. There are some people in the international communist movement who argue that Marx, Engels and Lenin analysed only the problems connected with the liberation movement of the working people of the developed capitalist countries, and that, being Europeans, they did not deal specifically with the problems of the national liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America. These problems are alleged to have been almost unknown to them. But such suggestions are erroneous and arc not supported by the facts.
Without dwelling in detail on the letters and works of Marx and Engels analysing the problems of the national liberation movements in Ireland, China and India, for example, let us only note that Lenin devoted a number of large works to the national-= colonial question: for instance, Critical Remarks on the National Question, = The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, = The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-- Determination (Theses), = The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up, = The Junius Pamphlet. Many pages are devoted to the national and colonial questions in such works of Lenin's as Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, A Caricature of Marxism and "Imperialist Economism". Lenin devoted a number of articles specifically to the national liberation and revolutionary movements in the East: "Events in the Balkans and in Persia'', "Democracy and Narodism in China'', "Regenerated China'', "The Struggle of the Parties in China" (this article was first published under Lenin's name in 1959), "Civilised Europeans and Savage Asians'', "The Awakening of Asia'', "Backward Europe and Advanced Asia" and other articles. Of great significance is his report to the Second All-Russia Congress of the Communist Organisations of the Peoples of the East, or his "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions" (for the Second Congress of the Comintern) and his report to this __PRINTERS_P_307_COMMENT__ 20* 307 congress on behalf of the commission on the national and colonial questions.
To these and many others of Lenin's works and speeches one ought to acid hundreds of pages of preparatory materials--- extracts from books, notes and plans published in "Notebooks on Imperialism'', in Lenin Miscellanies XXX and XVII. These materials illustrate particularly well that Lenin was a serious research worker in the field of the national and colonial questions. They show that Lenin studied dozens of books in many languages on the national question and made critical evaluations of them. He compared them and presented a deep analysis of the data given in them, drawing up statistical and other tables, etc. In fact, in his works on the national question, as in all his works, Lenin appears as a Marxist thinker of genius and a great proletarian revolutionary. He was guided in his analysis of this most complex and many-sided question by historical materialism and the dialectical method, by the principles of scientific communism and by the class approach.
"The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits, and, if it refers to a particular country (e.g., the national programme for a given country), that account be taken of the specific features distinguishing that country from others in the same historical = epoch."^^1^^
In addition Lenin pointed out that Marxism approaches the national question not only historically but also politically, associating it with the tasks of the class struggle.
What does this mean?
In the first place it means understanding correctly the dialectics of class and national relations, recognising the determining role of classes and class struggle in the development of nations. Lenin stressed that one cannot think of a nation as some sort of extra-class or supra-class phenomenon. One cannot base the concept ``nation'' on the artificial exclusion of the antagonisms between the classes which constitute this = ``nation''.^^2^^ The Marxist-Leninist idea of the class character of the nation is all the more important now that the ideologists of the bourgeoisie and all species of opportunists often launch their attacks on socialism under the banner of "the unity of the nation'', seeking to replace class struggle by national ``harmony'' and struggle between nations.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, pp. 400--01.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 227.
308Secondly, Marxism-Leninism settles the national question from the point of view of the working class and its revolutionary struggle for socialism. Lenin taught the proletariat to regard all aspects of the national question and to assess all national demands first and foremost "from the angle of the workers' class struggle".^^1^^
Proletarian, socialist internationalism was regarded by Lenin as the essential starting-point from which to approach the national question. It was proletarian internationalism that he characterised as the essence of the Marxist outlook and of Marxist policy on the national = question.^^2^^
The Communist Parties' ''. . . entire policy on the national and the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the = bourgeoisie".^^3^^
Lenin's theory on the national question was developed hand in hand with revolutionary practice, constantly being enriched by new experience and new ideas and formulations corresponding to new historical conditions. It represents a deep and comprehensive summing-up of the enormous experience of the Bolshevik Party, the proletarian party of a new type---which has become a model for revolutionary Marxists of all countries---and of that of the entire world revolutionary movement.
Lenin worked out the correct theory and Party policy on the national question in the course of an uncompromising struggle against bourgeois ideology, opportunism and revisionism both Right and ``Left'', and especially against nationalists of all kinds, and indeed against even the smallest deviation from proletarian internationalism. We should recall Lenin's battles with the Bundists, the Mensheviks, the social-chauvinists and the Kaurskyites, and his polemics with the Polish Social-Democrats and the so-= called "imperialist Economists''. We should also mention the discussion on the national question at the Seventh (April) Party Conference and the Eighth Congress of the RCP(B), and the conflict with Left opportunist elements in the debates on the theses on the national and colonial questions at the Second Congress of the Comintern, and in later discussions on the way to form the USSR.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See ibid., Vol. 20, p. 411.
~^^2^^ See ibid., p. 27.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 146. There is a special article in the present collection devoted to the Leninist principles of internationalism.
309A single article cannot of course give even a brief outline of Lenin's theory of the national and colonial questions in all its aspects. This article is an attempt to give a general description of Lenin's main ideas on the national and colonial questions and clarify certain topical problems in the light of the documents adopted by the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.
Let us consider the following points dealt with by Lenin's theory of the national question.
1. The rise of the colonial system and the sharpening of the contradictions between the metropolitan countries and the colonies.
2. The motive forces and the significance of the national liberation movement.
3. The national question after the victory of the socialist revolution.
Lenin demonstrated, especially in his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, that imperialism's colonial system is rooted in the very nature of monopoly capitalism. Colonialism, aggression and annexation, he wrote, existed before the modern stage of capitalism and even in pre-capitalist times. But colonies mean different things in different social and economic formations. ''. . . Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance = capital."^^1^^ What is this difference?
First, the colonial policy of imperialism is closely connected with monopoly domination in the countries possessing colonies and semi-colonies.
Second, the colonial policy of imperialism is closely connected with the division of the world's territory by the imperialist powers, completed early in the 2Oth century, and with their further struggle for its redivision.
Lenin showed that alongside basic economic factors there exist social and political factors which also point to the special meaning of colonialism under monopoly capitalism. This is the striving of the imperialists to alleviate the class contradictions within the metropolitan countries by bribing the upper sections of the proletariat with part of the superprofits obtained from colonial exploitation, by creating a so-called "labour aristocracy'', and by corrupting the class consciousness of the working class with imperialist, chauvinist and racialist ideas. Lenin's works _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 260.
310 thus bring out the organic connection between imperialism and the growth of opportunism in the working-class movement. He writes: "The non-economic superstructure which grows up on the basis of finance capital, its politics and its ideology stimulate the striving for colonial = conquest."^^1^^Of great significance, especially in the light of the modern imperialist policy of neo-colonialism, is Lenin's conclusion that under imperialism, when an acute struggle is going on between the Great Powers for the economic and political division and redivision of the world, there exist a number of transitional forms of state dependence. There arc not only two major groups of countries in the modern world---the metropolitan countries and the colonies---but also various types of dependent countries which have an independent status, but in fact are caught in a net of financial and diplomatic dependence. These are the true semi-= colonies and the formally independent countries enslaved economically by the imperialist powers.
On the basis of his analysis of an enormous quantity of factual material, Lenin convincingly proved that the transition of capitalism to imperialism was associated with a sharpening of the struggle for the division and redivision of the world, and with an intensification of the policy of national and colonial oppression.
"Capitalism,'' Lenin wrote, "has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of `advanced' = countries."^^2^^
In putting forward the thesis that imperialism signifies "the extension and sharpening of national oppression under new historical conditions" Lenin revealed the essence of this process. With the advent of monopoly capitalism, national oppression, from being a domestic matter within one state containing a few or many nationalities, assumed international proportions. It became the imperialist powers' policy to enslave weaker nations and peoples by all possible means, including those of armed force and war. The national question became the national and colonial questions. Their chief content now is the struggle to liberate the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries from imperialist oppression.
Lenin indefatigably exposed national and colonial oppression _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 262.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 191.
311 in all its forms, lie pointed out that imperialists camouflage their gangster policies with false phrases about spreading ``civilisation'', ``culture'', ``democracy'' and ``Christianity''. "Do we not constantly see the diplomacy of all the imperialist powers flaunting magnanimous 'general' phrases and "democratic' declarations in order to conceal their robbery, violation and strangulation of small = nations?"^^1^^Vast changes have taken place in the world in the post-war years. Socialist revolutions have triumphed in a number of countries. The colonial system of imperialism has collapsed under the blows of the powerful national liberation movement. But over 35~ million people are still languishing under the yoke of colonialism. Imperialism persistently defends the remnants of colonialism on the one hand, and implants neo-colonialism on the other, trying to continue its exploitation of the peoples of the former colonies, using refined methods of plunder, and hindering thereby the economic and social progress of the newly free nations.
This explains why Lenin's call to wage a determined struggle against national and colonial oppression retains its validity today. The Main Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties strongly emphasised the following task: "The demand of our epoch is to rid our planet completely of the curse of colonialism, destroy its last centres anil prevent its revival in new, camouflaged forms."
Lenin shows that national and colonial oppression inevitably results in irreconcilable antagonism between the enslaved peoples of colonies and dependent countries and monopoly capital in the colonial powers, and that this gives rise to the struggle of the oppressed nations against imperialism.
Regardless of the wishes of the colonialists and despite their imperialist policies, the colonies and dependent nations have been gradually developing capitalism themselves, with their own national bourgeoisie and national proletariat, this in turn resulting in a growing national awareness of their oppressed condition. All this forms the basis for the national liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies.
During the First World War and after Lenin noted further socio-economic changes in the colonies and dependent countries--- capitalism gained in strength, the proletariat grew, democratic forces became more united, broader sections of people rose in struggle against imperialism. This was stimulated partly by the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 182.
312 fact that during the war the imperialists had been compelled to arm the colonial peoples and use them for their military purposes. These peoples thus became acquainted with advanced military equipment and machinery, and Lenin forecast that they would turn this know-how against "Messrs. Capitalists''. Communist groups, organisations and parties began to appear in the countries of the East. Of tremendous, one may say decisive, importance for the outcome of the national liberation movement was the October Socialist Revolution and the setting up of the Soviet Republic, which became an inspiring example to working people all over the world and the bulwark of the world revolutionary movement.The national liberation movements in Asia, Latin America and Africa thus received a powerful impetus. It was after the victory of the October Revolution and the end of the First World War that the crisis of the colonial system set in as part of the general crisis of capitalism, and its disintegration began. Lenin wrote in 1919: "The period of the awakening of the East in the contemporary revolution is being succeeded by a period in which all the Eastern peoples will participate in deciding the destiny of the whole world, so as not to be simply objects of the enrichment of others. The peoples of the East arc becoming alive to the need for practical action, the need for every nation to take part in shaping the destiny of all = mankind."^^1^^
Lenin brought out the complete theoretical untenability and political fallacy of the ideas of the so-called "imperialist Economists''. The Bukharin-Pyatakov group, as well as a number of the ``Lefts'' in the international working-class movement---Karl Radck, Hermann Goiter and others---tried to deny or underestimate the significance of the national question in the era of monopoly capitalism and the possibility and inevitability of national liberation movements and wars. They were opposed to demanding the right of nations to self-determination, though, at the same time, they condemned annexations and every kind of violence in international relations. Zinoviev was inclined to take this view too, and was severely criticised by Lenin.
In defence of their views, the ``Lefts'' and the "imperialist Economists" argued that since capital in the age of imperialism had outgrown the framework of national states, it was not possible to turn the wheel of history back to the outdated ideal of national states, and that any war---though it would start as a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 160.
313 national one---would inevitably turn into an imperialist one involving the interests of at least one of the imperialist states or a coalition of them. They said that the struggle for the right to self-determination was illusory, and set it in opposition to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against capitalism. Lenin refuted these arguments.First, he said, it was "the Lefts" and the "imperialist Economists" who looked backward and not forward when, in opposing working-class acceptance of the "ideal of the national state'', they look "towards Britain, France, Italy, Germany, i.e., countries where the movement for national liberation is a thing of the past, and not towards the East, towards Asia, Africa, and the colonies, where this movement is a thing of the present and the future. Mention of India, China, Persia, and Egypt will be sufficient."^^1^^
Second, the fact that a national war may turn into an imperialist war, or vice versa, does not necessarily mean that national liberation movements and wars arc impossible in the period of monopoly capitalism. "National wars waged by colonies and semi-colonies~.~.~. are not only probable but inevitable. About 1,000 million people, or over half of the world's population, live in the colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia). The national liberation movements there are either already very strong, or are growing and maturing. Every war is the continuation of politics by other means. The continuation of national liberation politics in the colonies will inevitably take the form of national wars against imperialism. Such wars might lead to an imperialist war of the present 'great' imperialist powers, but on the other hand they might not. It will depend on many = factors."^^2^^
Finally, said Lenin, it is wrong to suppose that the right of nations to self-determination is not realisable in the age of imperialism. This was confirmed by the secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905. No doubt in the case of colonies it is a more difficult matter, but quite possible. "National wars against the imperialist powers are not only possible and probable; they are inevitable, progressive and revolutionary though, of course, to be successful, they require either the concerted effort of huge numbers of people in the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in our example of India and China), or a particularly favourable conjuncture of international conditions (e.g., the fact _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 407.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 310.
314 that the imperialist powers cannot interfere, being paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their antagonism, etc.), or the simultaneous uprising of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in one of the big powers (this latter eventuality holds first place as the most desirable and favourable for the victory of the = proletariat)."^^1^^Even before the October Revolution Lenin foresaw---and this is very important to note---that the victory of the socialist revolution in a few or even in one capitalist country will bring about new favourable conditions for the progress and victory of national liberation movements. And after the October Revolution he continued to speak about it with every certainty (the role of the Soviet Republic and of the socialist system in the disintegration of colonialism will be dealt with in detail later).
In his report to the Second All-Russia Congress of the Communist Organisations of the Peoples of the East in November 1919, Lenin, proceeding from the experience of the Soviet state in successfully repulsing the military invasion of powerful imperialist countries, expressed deep confidence in the success of the difficult struggle of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries for their liberation. No matter how weak these peoples may be, he said, and no matter how invincible seems the power of the imperialist aggressors---who make use of all the wonders of modern engineering and the art of war---the revolutionary war of the oppressed nations is able to awaken millions of exploited toilers and the liberation of the nations of the East becomes now a practical possibility.
In the light of these points of Lenin's, we must consider the way he presented the right of nations to self-determination, certainly one of the most important aspects of the national-colonial question. Lenin brought out the special importance of the demand for the right of nations to self-determination in the epoch of imperialism and socialist revolutions.
"Developing capitalism,'' Lenin wrote, "knows two historical tendencies in the national question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the breakdown of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, = etc."^^2^^ Both tendencies represent _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 312.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 27.
315 objective laws of capitalism. The first tendency is dominant in the early stages of capitalist development (both generally and in individual countries) while the second is typical of mature capitalism, i.e., imperialism, the highest and last stage of capitalism on the eve of the socialist revolution. The Marxists' national programme takes both tendencies into account, and advocates, first, the equality of nations, their right to self-- determination, and, second, the principle of internationalism and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even of the most refined = kind.^^1^^Lenin reiterated time and again that the right to national self-= determination should include the right of nations to independence, to free political secession from the respective oppressing nation. In explaining this theoretical proposition he pointed out that the answer to the question understood by this term should be sought not in legal definitions deduced from "general concepts" of law but in a historical-economic study of national movements.
According to Lenin, the right of nations to self-determination means the right of the people concerned freely to decide its destiny up to the formation of an independent national state, the right to national sovereignty.
It is important to note that while speaking about the right to national self-determination Lenin referred not only to nations but also to nationalities, or peoples standing at lower stages of socio-economic development. On the question of who expresses the will of the nation in the matter of secession, Lenin added, the Marxists, the Communists, should uphold "the historical class view" and take into consideration "the level of historical development of the nation concerned---all the way from the Middle Ages to bourgeois democracy, or from bourgeois to Soviet or proletarian democracy, = etc."^^2^^
What is the meaning of the demand for the right of nations to self-determination? Above all, it is a protest against national oppression and an expression of the struggle to remove it. Its fulfilment means the liberation of nations from shameful oppression and the realisation of one of the basic principles of democracy.
Besides, and this is the main point, the demand for the right to self-determination (and the consistent struggle to achieve it) is in the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat for the _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 27.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 128.
316 victory of socialism, since it facilitates the differentiation of the classes in a given country, raising the class consciousness of the proletariat and promoting the international solidarity and unity of all workers and working people of different nations in the fight against both "their own" and their foreign = exploiters.^^1^^Lenin also constantly stressed and explained the thesis of Marx and Engels that a nation that oppresses other nations cannot itself be free. Those whose minds are corrupted by imperialist, chauvinist and racialist propaganda are not able to carry on a consistent struggle for democracy and socialism. This is what makes the internationalist education of the working class and all working people so vital. And one of the most important ways of doing this is to struggle for national self-determination.
One must not (as was done by the "imperialist Economists'') contrast the struggle for the right to national self-determination and the revolutionary struggle of the working class for socialism. The very fact that imperialism spills over the boundaries of national states and extends and intensifies national oppression on a new historical basis leads us to the conclusion that we must link the revolutionary struggle for socialism with the revolutionary programme on the national question. This is what Lenin pointed out.
It would be a serious mistake to believe that the struggle for democracy can divert the working class from the struggle for socialism. On the contrary, just as the victory of socialism is impossible without the realisation of complete democracy, so the working class cannot prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie and the creation of a democratic socialist state without waging a consistent revolutionary struggle for democracy and for the right of all nations to self-determination.
In his resolute defence of the right of nations to self-- determination to the point of secession, Lenin severely criticised the demand for ``national-cultural autonomy''. He showed that the latter means preserving the domination of oppressor nations. Imperialism enslaves people, artificially divides the workers of different nationalities, and subjects them to bourgeois influences.
The ideas of ``national-cultural autonomy" and of "a single national culture" (alleged to be possible even in a class-divided society), and other bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas, were characterised by Lenin as refined nationalism. "~`National-- cultural autonomy' is a manifestation precisely of this type---it joins _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 290.
317 the proletarians and bourgeoisie of one nation and keeps the proletarians of different nations = apart."^^1^^ The theoretical basis of the demand for "national-cultural autonomy'', he wrote, was "an idealist theory of the nation" of O. Bauer that "a nation is formed by common cultural values".Lenin indicated the fallacy of this theory, and the political damage it did, by showing that it did the following four things:
(1) it gave an idealist basis to national character;
(2) it put forward the slogan of "national culture" while ignoring its bourgeois content;
(3) it injected nationalism into socialism;
(4) it abandoned = internationalism.^^2^^
The demand for national self-determination is based on the Marxist materialist theory of the nation. Lenin condemned not only overt opportunists and chauvinists who directly opposed the right of nations to self-determination and who openly defended annexations. lie also exposed the covert opportunists (the Kautskyitcs) who hypocritically defended the right to self-= determination in words while denouncing the demand for freedom of political secession as "too extravagant''. In Russia it was Martov and Trotsky who maintained this position.
"Take Trotsky's articles `The Nation and the Economy' in Nasbe Slovo, and you will find his usual eclecticism: on the one hand, the economy unites nations and, on the other, national oppression divides them. The conclusion? The conclusion is that the prevailing hypocrisy remains unexposcd, agitation is dull and does not touch upon what is most important, basic, significant and closely connected with practice---one's attitude to the nation that is oppressed by 'one's own' nation.'' Martov took the same viewpoint as Trotsky. "Their evasiveness objectively supports Russian social-imperialism,'' wrote = Lenin.^^3^^
Lenin emphasised that a Marxist cannot limit himself only to declarations and propaganda concerning the demand of nations for self-determination. An intense revolutionary struggle is necessary to realise this right, a struggle against "one's own" national exploiting classes, involving support in every possible way for the oppressed nations struggling against imperialism. Here is how Lenin defined the essence of the programme and policy of revolutionary Marxists on the national and colonial questions: `` Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 116.
~^^2^^ See Lenin Miscellany XXX, Russ. ed., p. 53.
~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 359, 360.
318 liberation of the colonies without compcnsation---and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing else than the recognition of the right to self-determination; they must also render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising---or revolutionary war, in the event of one---against the imperialist powers that oppress = them."^^1^^It is truly revolutionary and genuine national liberation movements that arc meant here. In his note "On the Declaration of the Polish Social-Democrats at the Zimmerwald Conference'', Lenin wrote that not every national movement is worth supporting, and continued: "This is undoubtedly true both because every democratic demand is governed by the general interests of the class struggle of the proletariat and is not absolute and because, in the age of imperialist competition for domination over nations, overt and covert alliances are possible between the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country and that of one of the oppressing countries."^^2^^
One point which Lenin makes is very important: that the recognition by Marxists of the right of all nations to self-- determination does not mean that Marxists need not make an assessment of the desirability of the secession of a nation in each individual case. On the contrary, Marxists, Communists, must settle this question guided by the interests of social progress as a whole and those of the class struggle of the proletariat.
"It is this that makes all the difference between our approach to the national question and the bourgeois-democratic approach. The bourgeois democrat (and the present-day socialist opportunist who follows in his footsteps) imagines that democracy eliminates the class struggle, and that is why he presents all his political demands in an abstract way, lumped together, 'without reservations', from the standpoint of the interests of the 'whole people', or even from that of an eternal and absolute moral principle.'' Always and everywhere the Marxist "ruthlessly exposes this bourgeois illusion, whether it finds expression in abstract idealist philosophy or in an absolute demand for national independence".
''. . .Our unreserved recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not in any way commit us to support every demand for national self-determination. . . . We must _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 151--52.
~^^2^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. cd., Vol. 30, p. 369.
319 always and unreservedly work to secure the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution of a looser federal unity, etc., for the complete political unity of a = state."^^1^^"The several demands of democracy, including self-- determination,'' Lenin wrote in 1916, "are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be = rejected."^^2^^
One more vital point of Lenin's is closely linked with those mentioned above---the necessity of distinguishing between the concrete tasks of Marxists in an oppressor nation and those of Marxists living in oppressed nations. The internationalist education of the working class and other working people in the big oppressing nations and that of working people in small oppressed nations, cannot, as Lenin pointed out, take the same forms in their different practical, concrete situations. The path to the complete equality of nations, to the drawing together and to the final merging of all nations is different in each case.
"In the internationalist education of the workers of the oppressor countries, emphasis must necessarily be laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this there can be no internationalism. It is our right and duty to treat every Social-Democrat of an oppressor nation who jails to conduct such propaganda as a scoundrel and an = imperialist."^^3^^ Thus the Marxists of a large country must carry on the most resolute struggle against Great-= Power chauvinism in their own nation, including Great-Power chauvinist trends in their own ranks. "On the other hand, a Social-Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second, word of our general formula: 'voluntary integration of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, be in favour of both the political independence of his nation and its integration with the neighbouring state of X, Y, Z, etc. But in all cases he must fight against small-= nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, pp. 454, 456.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 341.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 346.
320 whole and the general, subordinate the particular to the general interest."^^1^^ In short, the Marxists of a small nation arc obliged to light against local nationalism.Lenin analysed in detail the essence, content and the motive forces of the national liberation movement. "It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-- democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consist of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist = relationships."^^2^^ The liberation movements of the colonies and dependent countries that have arisen in this century are of this type---anti-feudal and bourgeois-democratic. At the same time they are anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist in character and each is aimed at "forming a nationally independent and nationally united = state".^^3^^
Imperialist oppression and colonialism run counter to the interests of all or almost all the strata of society of colonial and dependent countries. But the positions of these different strata are not the same---hence the differences in their aims and the methods they use in their struggle against foreign oppression.
The working class is the most consistent champion of the struggle for national liberation. Out of the 1,000 million population of the colonies and dependent countries, Lenin wrote in 1916, "more than 700 million (China, India, Persia, Egypt) live in countries where there are = workers".^^4^^ Lemn clearly saw, of course, that the proletariat in these countries was relatively small and poorly organised, and that in many colonies and semi-- colonies there were only the rudiments of a working class. Nevertheless, Lenin, on the basis of the first actions of the emerging Asian proletariat, wisely predicted that it would be the working class, the most revolutionary class of modern society, that would play the greatest role in the struggle for the complete abolition of colonialism and for the consistent revolutionary solution of the cardinal problems of national liberation and social progress.
The peasantry, which, as Lenin emphasised, comprises the overwhelming majority of the population of colonies and dependent countries, is also a powerful motive force in the national liberation, democratic movement. He called the attention of Communists to the fact that "the majority of the Eastern peoples are _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 347.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 241.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 406.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 64.
321 typical representatives of the working people---not workers who have passed through the school of capitalist factories, but typical representatives of the working and exploited peasant masses who are victims of medieval = oppression".^^1^^The bourgeoisie, which, as Lenin pointed out, "naturally assumes the leadership at the start of every national = movement'',^^2^^ takes a contradictory stand. Interested in creating the most favourable conditions for accumulating capital, for getting the control of the national market and protecting itself from robbery by foreign monopolies, a national bourgeoisie, in opposition to a regime of colonial oppression, strives to establish its own national state and free itself from foreign dependence. That is why it takes part in the anti-imperialist national-democratic movement. But at the same time the national big bourgeoisie (and middle bourgeoisie, too) is unstable and apt to compromise with imperialism and feudalism. The bourgeoisie of the colonies and dependent countries tries to lead all liberation movements under the banner of nationalism. Lenin explained that this nationalism combines a healthy protest against imperialism and adherence to democracy with the striving of the bourgeoisie to get special privileges and benefits for its own nation, often at other nations' expense, i.e., its wish to blur over the differences of class interests inside the nation, and to restrain or weaken the class struggle of the masses against the exploiters.
Stressing the difference between the nationalism of an oppressing nation and that of an oppressed one, Lenin wrote: "The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally = support."^^3^^ Lenin kept to this idea after the October Revolution, too. He said to the Communists of the Eastern countries: "You will have to base yourselves on the bourgeois nationalism which is awakening, and must awaken, among those peoples, and which has its historical justification."^^4^^ In their struggle against imperialism and feudalism, the Communists of the Eastern countries should support bourgeois democracy, enter into a temporary agreement or an alliance with it, upholding at the same time the independence of the proletarian movement.^^5^^ Lenin warned that while supporting the progressive _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 161.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 409.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 412.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 162.
~^^5^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 150.
322 content of the bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed country, one shouldn't forget about its social essence, its limitations. One should see clearly and expose the contradictory character and inconsistency of the position of the bourgeoisie of colonial and dependent countries, and its tendency to conclude agreements with the forces of imperialism and local reaction.Lenin, therefore, advanced, as an essential condition for winning national independence, the idea of building up in the colonial and dependent countries a broad front to include the working class, the peasantry and the national bourgeoisie to fight against colonial oppression. The main thing was to get the active participation in this front of the broad masses. There was "the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character''. In his objections to Chicherin who at first misunderstood Lenin's ideas on support for the national liberation movements and on the question of coming to agreement with the national bourgeoisie and failed to take account of the difference between the bourgeoisie and the peasantry, Lenin wrote: "I lay stronger emphasis on alliance with the peasantry (and the peasantry is not quite the same thing as the = bourgeoisie)."^^1^^
Lenin pointed out that the winning by the colonies of their political independence does not of itself mean their liberation from economic enslavement by foreign monopolies, that achieving political independence is only the first step in the fight for the complete elimination of colonial oppression. He wrote that it was necessary to keep on explaining to the masses of all countries, particularly backward countries, the deception which the imperialist powers systematically practise: "Under the guise of politically independent states, (they) set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and = militarily."^^2^^
The correctness of Lenin's conclusions is clearly confirmed today by the development of a number of young independent nations in Asia and Africa.
The materials of the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties expose the forms and methods practised by neo-= colonialism.
The resistance offered by the newly liberated countries to this _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 41, p. 513.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 150.
323 policy constitutes an important front of the anti-imperialist struggle. The Main Document of this Meeting and delegates' speeches provide a deep analysis of the relationship of classes in the newly independent countries and of the prospects opening up before them. The process of social divarication in these countries is ever deepening. Their vital task is to secure their newly won independence, to build an independent national economy, to overcome the backwardness inherited from the past and to improve the people's welfare. These problems can be solved only by carrying through radical democratic changes in their socio-economic structure.The surest way of solving the tasks of national and social progress is to activate the masses, to enhance the role played by the working class and the peasantry, to rally the working youth, students, intellectuals, the urban middle classes, democratic sections of the military, all patriots and progressives around the nucleus of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry.
It is an alliance of this sort that will make it possible to bring the national liberation revolutions to fruition, to completely abolish the legacy of colonialism, and make the movement towards socialism more confident and purposeful.
Lenin's "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions" underscored the necessity of communist support for the bourgeois-democratic movement of the backward countries. In the final text of the Theses submitted for the approval of the Comintern's Second Congress by the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions headed by Lenin, the term ``bourgeois-democratic'' was replaced by ``national-- revolutionary".
There is no contradiction in this. To begin with, Lenin pointed out that any national movement, or any national-revolutionary movement, since it must be largely a peasant movement, is bourgeois-democratic in its social content. And secondly, Lenin did not rule out---in the interests of the anti-colonial struggle--- temporary agreements with liberal bourgeois groups that opposed colonialism. He reminded the Commission of the experience of the Bolshevik Party which had supported the liberation movement of the liberal bourgeoisie against tsarism.
When he was developing the idea of creating the broadest possible united anti-imperialist front in the colonies and dependent countries, Lenin considered it correct to make the above-- mentioned change in the formulation of the Theses on the national and colonial questions. This stress on the need to give the main 324 support to the national-revolutionary movement was of great importance in principle. It outlined the strategy of Communists and took into account the prospects and tendencies of the national liberation movements---the development of the struggle against colonialism and imperialist oppression into a social revolution. Lenin devoted much attention to the question of building communist organisations and Parties in the colonial countries and in backward countries in general---the countries with pre-capitalist, or mainly pre-capitalist, social relations. He believed that Marxist, communist elements could and should take shape in all such countries. The essential condition for the support by Communists of the national liberation movements in the colonies and backward countries was that "the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special = tasks.~.~.".^^1^^
When considering the question of the birth and growth of the Communist Parties in the colonies and backward countries one had to take into account the special conditions in these countries. It was necessary, Lenin pointed out, to find ways of adjusting "the Communist Party (its membership, special tasks) to the level of the peasant countries of the colonial = East".^^2^^
Lenin set the Communists of the colonies and backward countries the task of ``translating'' communist theory into words that were clear to everybody, so as to rouse to revolutionary activity even the most backward countries, and to unite them with the proletarians of other countries in the common struggle.
Communists should be in the front ranks of the fighters against colonial oppression, uniting all anti-imperialist forces. But because they represent the interests of all working people, Communists cannot and must not limit themselves simply to solving national tasks. They must struggle for a radical settlement of the agrarian question, too, so that their country can make social progress and its working people are liberated from social oppression. Lenin pointed out that the struggle of the working people of colonial and dependent countries, initially directed towards national liberation, will, after winning national independence, turn against capitalism.
In this connection, Communists must expose petty-bourgeois illusions about the possibility of making the transition to socialism without class struggle. It is necessary to carry on "a determined _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 150.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol.~42, p.~202.
325 struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries" and to unite the people under the banner of scientific communism.The October Socialist Revolution, which blazed the trail to mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism, ushered in a new era in the development of the national liberation movement. New and important problems arose requiring solution, and Lenin's works proved to be of decisive importance in this.
Lenin showed that, after the October victory, one had to approach the solution of the national and colonial questions by proceeding from the fact that the world was split into two opposing systems, socialism and capitalism. Reciprocal relations between peoples and the entire world system of states arc determined by the struggle between these two systems. "Unless we bear that in mind, we shall not be able to pose a single national or colonial problem correctly, even if it concerns a most outlying part of the world. The Communist Parties, in civilised and backward countries alike, can pose and solve political problems correctly only if they make this postulate their starting point."^^1^^
The international working class, in particular the world socialist system, stands at the centre of the modern age. At the time when the socialist system was represented only by the Soviet Republic, Lenin wrote that Soviet Russia inevitably grouped around herself, on the one hand, the Soviet movements of the advanced workers in all countries, and, on the other, all the national liberation movements in the colonies and among the oppressed nationalities.
The establishment of the Soviet state---which has become the bulwark of the world revolutionary process, a powerful force revolutionising broad sections of the people in various countries--- created an important prerequisite for the success of the national liberation movement. Lenin foresaw, with the vision of genius, that the further progress of history would result in the emergence of a world socialist system, "capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a = whole".^^2^^
Lenin advanced the extremely important point that the emergence of the socialist system made it considerably easier for the colonial and semi-colonial peoples to win not only their political _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 241.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 148.
326 freedom, but their economic independence, too. That is why he emphasised in the "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions": "Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet = republics."^^1^^ Lenin went on to show that the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia and other countries and the help which they could give to backward countries which had embarked on the road of independent development made it possible for the latter to follow the non-capitalist = path.^^2^^Lenin called upon the oppressed peoples of the colonial and dependent countries and the young national states of the East to unite closer with the socialist country, with the Soviet Republic, and render it more active support. He expressed this wish in a talk he had with the Ambassador Extraordinary of Afghanistan on October 14, = 1919,^^3^^ and his theses on the national and colonial questions: ''. . .One cannot at present confine oneself to a bare recognition or proclamation of the need for closer union between the working people of the various nations; a policy must be pursued that will achieve the closest alliance, with Soviet Russia, of all the national and colonial liberation movements. The form of this alliance should be determined by the degree of development of the communist movement in the proletariat of each country, or of the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement of the workers and peasants in backward countries or among backward = nationalities."^^4^^
The correctness of these tenets of Lenin is being borne out by practical experience in the struggle. As the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties noted, the establishment of friendship and effective co-operation with the socialist countries is of great importance for the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa. Co-operation between the progressive young states and the socialist countries is a major condition for the non-= capitalist development of newly free nations. For this reason Communists regard assistance to and support for these young nations as one of the most important tasks of their international policy.
Lenin brought out the great part played by the national liberation movement in the world revolutionary process that is undermining and destroying capitalism. He showed that it would _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 150.
~^^2^^ See ibid., p. 244.
~^^3^^ See ibid., Vol. 42, p. 146.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 51, p. 146.
327 contribute greatly to the final victory of socialism throughout the world. He wrote in 1921: "The imperialist war of 1914--18 and the Soviet power in Russia arc completing the process of converting these masses into an active factor in world politics and in the revolutionary destruction of imperialism.'' "It is perfectly clear that in the impending decisive battles in the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the population of the globe, initially directed towards national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism and will, perhaps, play a much more revolutionary part than we = expect."^^1^^ Developing these points in his last article "Better Fewer, but Better'', Lenin wrote that the countries of the East "have been drawn into a process of development that must lead to a crisis in the whole of world = capitalism".^^2^^The national liberation movement weakens the economic and political positions of imperialism, destroying its rear and depleting its reserves. The political and economic independence gained by the colonies and semi-colonies sharply reduces or even nullifies the possibilities the imperialists have of squeezing superprofits out of the robbed and enslaved people, superprofits they use to corrupt the upper section of the proletariat of the capitalist countries. This inevitably leads to the sharpening of class contradictions and the intensifying of working-class struggle for socialism.
It must be said, however, that Lenin considered it incorrect to regard the national liberation, revolutionary movement in the East as the only, or as the decisive force in the struggle against world imperialism: ''. . . it would be ridiculous ... to exclude the proletariat of Europe and America from the revolutionary forces.'' Lenin regarded the socialist system as the decisive factor in the world revolutionary process, including the disintegration of the colonial system. In his final speech summarising the discussion of the report on concessions at the RCP(B) section meeting of the Eighth Congress of Soviets, Lenin, replying to delegates' questions, said that the existence of the Soviet Republic and its economic successes "arc a gigantic force and a factor of revolution''. "To strengthen Soviet Russia and make her invincible--- that is what matters most as far as the struggle of the oppressed and colonial countries is = concerned."^^3^^
The world socialist revolution, the replacement of capitalism by socialism on the world scale, is not a single battle, but the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 454--55, 482.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 499.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 42, pp. 241, 244.
328 epoch of many battles in which the revolutionary struggle of the international working class is combined with "a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movements, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed = nations".^^1^^That is why the unity of all the revolutionary forces of the modern age is so indispcnsable---the creation and strengthening of a united revolutionary front of the international working-class and the national liberation movement against the common enemy, imperialism.
"We Communists,'' said Lenin in 1920, "stand not only as representatives of the proletarians of all countries but as representatives of the oppressed peoples as = well."^^2^^ He emphasised the overriding importance of the slogan issued by the Communist International: "Workers of all countries and all oppressed peoples, unite!"
The world communist movement continues to be guided by these theses of Lenin's to this day. The Main Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties states that the consolidation of the alliance between the socialist system, and the working-class and national liberation movements is of paramount importance for the future of the anti-imperialist struggle. In the light of this the Meeting made the following fervent call: " Peoples of socialist countries, workers, democratic forces in the capitalist countries, newly liberated peoples and those who are oppressed, unite in a common struggle against imperialism, for peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialis nil"
Only if the socialist system, the world revolutionary working-= class movement and the movement of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America fighting for their independence (or who have already gained it)---only if all these great forces of the modern day and age are united can socialism triumph the world over. The Leninist Bolshevik Party, having advanced the correct Marxist revolutionary programme on the national question, went on to set a remarkable example of its proper implementation. It steadily educated the Russian working class and all the working people of Russia in the spirit of internationalism, defended the right of nations to self-determination, and supported all national liberation movements. In 1917, led by Lenin, the Bolshevik Party _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 60.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 453.
329 united into a single revolutionary stream the working-class struggle for socialism, the peasant struggle for land, the national liberation struggle of the peoples of Russia and the national movement for peace, and directed all these forces against capitalism in order to overthrow it.After the October Revolution, when the Communist Party came to power, it gave practical effect to the principles of the self-determination, equality and freedom of the peoples of Russia. In the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia published on November 3, 1917, the Council of People's Commissars proclaimed all the peoples of Russia to be equal and sovereign with freedom of self-determination to the point of secession and the formation of independent states. It also cancelled all kinds of national and national-religious privileges and discrimination, allowing for the free development of national minorities and ethnographic groups living in Russia. The Soviet Republic declared its intention to make "a complete break with the barbarous policy of bourgeois civilisation, which has built the prosperity of the exploiters belonging to a few chosen nations on the enslavement of hundreds of millions of working people in Asia, in the colonies in general, and in the small = countries".^^1^^ The Soviet Government gave independence to Finland, Poland and other national areas where the bourgeoisie had taken power and demanded secession from Russia, also annulled existing predatory agreements concerning a number of countries that had been concluded by tsarist Russia in league with other imperialist powers.
From its first coming into existence the Soviet state has been a reliable friend and ally of the oppressed peoples of the East. "Our Soviet Republic must now muster all the awakening peoples of the East and, together with them, wage a struggle against international = imperialism."^^2^^
Lenin devoted a great deal of attention to the national liberation struggle of the peoples of India. In his greetings addressed to the Indian Revolutionary Association Lenin urged the working people of the Eastern countries, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to unite in the common struggle against the oppressors. Equally he appraised the revolutionary movement in China and urged the Soviet Government to take steps to establish close contacts with the national-revolutionary Canton Government led by Sun _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 424.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 161.
330 Yat-sen. Lenin also considered the awakening of Africa to be of great significance. He noted in connection with riots in South Africa that the continent of Africa had "reminded the world of its claim to human and not slavish existence''. As one of Lenin's letters shows, he wanted to have as much information as possible on the revolutionary movement in = Africa.^^1^^The Soviet Government consistently defended the right of all oppressed peoples to self-determination in the international arena---for example at the Genoa Conference.
``True!"---that was Lenin's comment on the margin of a letter of Georgi Chicherin's beside the words: "The novelty of our international scheme must be that the Negro and other colonial peoples participate on an equal looting with the European peoples in conferences and commissions and have the right to prevent interference in their internal = affairs."^^2^^
The Soviet Government headed by Lenin also consistently followed a policy of friendship and co-operation with the peoples of the East who had already won their independence and established their own national states.
In his talk with the Ambassador Extraordinary of Afghanistan, Mohammad Wali-Khan, on October 14, 1919, Lenin said: "I am very glad to see in the red capital of the worker and peasant government the representative of the friendly Afghan people, who are suffering and fighting against imperialist oppression.'' Soviet power supports the striving of the East for liberation from imperialist oppression, Lenin used to say. For their part, the peoples of the East should help Soviet Russia in her great war of liberation.^^3^^
In January 1921, Lenin sent a telegram to the Chairman of the Great National Assembly of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal, in which he said that he was happy to learn that the nationalities policy of the Soviet Government met with the approval of Turkey. Lenin also sent his most sincere wishes to the Turkish people and Government in their struggle for "independence and prosperity of their = country".^^4^^
The Soviet state continued to render considerable support to Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey in their struggle against imperialism, and concluded treaties of peace and friendship with them in early 1921.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 54. pp. 242--43.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 45, p. 36,
~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 146.
~^^4^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 52, pp. 301--02.
331 Even before the October Revolution Lenin said that the new socialist state would do its best to get into close touch with the backward, formerly oppressed peoples of Asia and Africa when they took the road of independent development, in order to help them to "pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to democracy, to = socialism".^^1^^Since the victory of October 1917, the Soviet Government has always supported and still supports the independence of the young national states of the East, and has always considered and still considers it its duty to contribute to their progress and prosperity. Tn this connection Lenin's note to Stalin dated November~20, 1921 is worthy of notice. Lenin considered it essential that the Soviet state did not limit itself to political support of national liberation movements in the East, but that it should help young national states to develop their economy and train personnel.^^2^^
In present-day conditions, these instructions of Lenin have acquired particularly great significance. The Soviet Union, said L. I. Brezhnev in his speech at the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, renders firm political support and moral and material help to the peoples still fighting for liberation, gives all-round support to the peoples that have embarked on the path of independent development and closely co-operates with the young national states.
After the October Socialist Revolution, the national question acquired new aspects. The Communist Party was faced in this field, both in theory and practice, with problems which by and large had not been analysed by the founders of scientific communism, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. These were the questions of national policy in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction. On what principles should a multi-national proletarian state be based, and what form should it take? Here, as in other matters connected with the building of a new society, the party of Lenin had to break entirely new ground. By analysing these problems, Lenin enlarged and developed revolutionary theory and set an outstanding example of creative Marxism.
Lenin observed, first of all, that after the victory of socialist revolution in one country, in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, and under socialism too, there still remain _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Colleclcd Works, Vol. 23, p. 67.
~^^2^^ See Lenin, = Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 54, pp. 28 and 564.
332 national distinctions and, hence, the national question still retains its significance. He wrote that just as mankind can eliminate classes only by going through a transitional period of dictatorship by the oppressed class, so it can arrive at the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through a transitional period of the complete liberation of oppressed nations. In his work ``Left-Wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder Lenin stressed that national and state distinctions between peoples and countries "will continue to exist for a very long time to come, even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world-wide = scale".^^1^^He strongly protested against statements that it was necessary to give up the right to national self-determination in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. Very important propositions on this matter were advanced by him in "The Discussion of Self-Determination Summed Up''. Lenin refuted the view that because socialism would create all the economic requisites for the elimination of national oppression, nations would no longer assume the character of economic and political communities but only that of cultural and linguistic units, and territorial divisions would be dictated solely by the needs of production.
Imperialism leaves to socialism a legacy of undemocratic border divisions, including annexations. Hence, socialism cannot ignore the question of the democratic demarkation of frontiers. The latter are defined not so much by the requirements of production as by the wishes and ``sympathies'' of the populations.
The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the building of socialism make this merging of nations possible. But it is a possibility which can be realised only through the implementation of complete democracy in defining national frontiers according to the ``sympathies'' of the people---up to and including full freedom of secession. This in turn eliminates in practice all national frictions and any national mistrust. By organising production in the absence of class oppression and by guaranteeing welfare to every member of every nation, socialism gives full freedom to the ``sympathies'' of people, and this results in their more speedy drawing together and merging. That is why Lenin wrote: "It would be a betrayal of socialism to refuse to implement the self-determination of nations under = socialism."^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 92.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 321.
333It is freedom of secession, as Lenin said many times, that will attract smaller nations to form alliances with big socialist states, so long as all-round equality is ensured them in state building, too. Under socialism the working people themselves would not agree to national seclusion, since they have common socio-- economic and political interests. So, while in the pre-October period the Leninist Party advanced the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination primarily because of the economic tendency of bourgeois-democratic national liberation movements to set up independent states, after the October Revolution---when, with the abolition of capitalism, the basis for this tendency disappeared--- the Party retained the right to self-determination for mainly political reasons.
Lenin's theoretical points laid the foundation for the section on the national question in the Party Programme adopted by the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks which set the Party concrete tasks in the building of socialism. Lenin repulsed Bukharin, who had rejected the right of nations to self-= determination. Every nation, said Lenin, must have the right to self-determination. This was the only way to guarantee the self-determination of the working people themselves, and the unity of workers and peasants of all nations in the struggle for socialism and the complete liquidation of all capitalist survivals, including national friction and mistrust. It was the only way to strengthen friendship between nations. As was shown by the way the Soviet Socialist Republics rallied round the young Soviet Russia, this policy makes possible really lasting voluntary unity--- the union of all nations in one state.
Having given the peoples of Russia the right to self-- determination, the Bolsheviks explained that, in the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution, the unity of the working people of all nations was indispensable and that the principle of self-- determination must therefore itself be subordinated to socialist principles. Lenin stated directly that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-- determination---``if the concrete situation is such that the existence of the socialist republic is being imperilled at the present moment on account of the violation of the right to self-determination of one or several nations . . . naturally the preservation of the socialist republic has the higher = claim".^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 449.
334After the October Socialist Revolution Lenin firmly opposed bourgeois-nationalist elements in national areas who tried to make use of the principle of self-determination for their own class purposes, i.e., for disuniting the workers and peasants of different nationalities, as a means of struggling against the power of the working people and the alliance between the then nascent Soviet Republics and Soviet Russia.
Of exceptional theoretical and practical importance is Lenin's "Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine apropos of the Victories over Denikin" (December 1919). In this letter Lenin emphasised that the questions of nation and state building, and of the frontiers and forms of alliance between the socialist republics, had to be solved in the interests of the working people if their struggle for complete liberation from the yoke of capital and for socialism was to be successful. This presupposed, first, the unity of the Communists of the different nations and socialist republics on such basic matters as recognition of the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the leading role of the working class in relation to the peasantry and other non-proletarian strata of the working population and for their close alliance in the struggle against counterrevolution at home and against world imperialism. It also presupposed the consistent implementation of this policy in practice.
Second, "the interests of labour demand the fullest confidence and the closest alliance among the working people of different countries and = nations".^^1^^ Lenin wrote that no matter what the concrete solution of questions of state independence or state frontiers might be, the workers and peasants of all nations and nationalities taking the socialist road must enter into close military and economic alliance, otherwise the imperialists "will crush and strangle us = separately".^^2^^ Those who broke this unity and alliance helped the capitalists and world imperialism.
``What the bourgeoisie of all countries, and all manner of petty-bourgeois parties---i.e., `compromising' parties which permit alliance with the bourgeoisie against the workers---try most of all to accomplish is to disunite the workers of different nationalities, to evoke distrust, and to disrupt a close international alliance and international brotherhood of the = workers."^^3^^ It was thus necessary to fight irreconcilably against both the nationalism of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 292.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 296.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 297.
335 the bourgeoisie and its ideologists and against manifestations of nationalism in the ranks of Communists, and to give practical effect to the principles of internationalism.Third, "we want a voluntary union of nations---a union which precludes any coercion of one nation by another---a union founded on complete confidence, on a clear recognition of brotherly unity, on absolutely voluntary consent. Such a union cannot be effected at one stroke; we have to work towards it with the greatest patience and circumspection, so as not to spoil matters and not to arouse distrust, and so that the distrust inherited from centuries of landowner and capitalist oppression, centuries of private property and the enmity caused by its divisions and reclivisions may have a chance to wear = off."^^1^^
Soon after the victory of the October armed uprising Lenin said that the new government must give all peoples the right to build their lives as they wished and must stretch out a brotherly hand to the working people of all countries in the joint struggle against the bourgeoisie. The Russian working class and the Red Army gave the working people of the national areas strong political and military support in their struggle to establish and strengthen Soviet power. At the same time the economic union of the Soviet Republics was just beginning to form. On this point the Party, guided by Lenin, displayed great caution, flexibility and patience in solving the problems of national relations, and it consistently put into practice the principle of equality between peoples.
The Leninist national policy won the confidence of many millions of working people of the formerly oppressed nationalities, uniting the peoples of the Soviet land, and laying the foundations of a multi-national socialist state.
Lenin studied and elaborated the question of federation as one of the most reasonable forms of uniting nations in a multi-= national country in the period of transition from capitalism to communism.
The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was formed in January 1918. The Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People, written by Lenin and approved by the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets, laid the basis for the first Soviet Constitution. It read as follows:
"The Russian Soviet Republic is established on the principle _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 293.
336 of a free union of free nations, as a federation of Soviet national republics."^^1^^In the "Rough Outline of the Draft Programme'', also written by Lenin and handed around among delegates at the Extraordinary Seventh Party Congress, the task was set of consolidating and further developing "the Federative Republic of Soviets as an immeasurably higher and more progressive form of democracy than bourgeois parliamentarism, and as the sole type of state corresponding ... to the transitional period between capitalism and socialism, i.e., to the period of the dictatorship of the pro- letariat".^^2^^
And in the Programme adopted by the Eighth Party Congress a federation was characterised as a transitional form on the path to the complete unity of all proletarians and semi-proletarians of different nations, having the purpose of establishing closer links between them.
The Russian Federation was built on the principle of autonomy, combining both political autonomy (autonomous national Soviet Republics) and administrative autonomy (autonomous national regions). Federative links also began to establish themselves between the RSFSR and the independent Soviet Republics formed in the course of the socialist revolution and the Civil War. These took the form of bilateral federative links and of a federative union of a number of independent Soviet Republics (this union was created on the basis of a decision of the All-= Union Central Executive Committee, taken with the participation of representatives of the Soviet Republics on July i, 1919, and entitled "On the Uniting of the Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Byelorussia in the Struggle Against World Imperialism'').
After studying and summing up this process of federation, Lenin, in his "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions'', came to the important conclusion that federation was a transitional form leading to the complete unity of the working people of different nations. Federation proved its practicability both for the nationalities within the RSFSR, which in the past had neither state rights nor autonomy, and in the relations of the RSFSR with other Soviet Republics. The task of the Comintern was to develop further and to study and test by experience these new federations emerging on the basis of the Soviet system.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 423.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 153.
__PRINTERS_P_337_COMMENT__ 22---1974 337Lenin gave great thought to the need to unite the independent Soviet Republies into a single united state. He wrote: "It is necessary to strive for ever closer federal unity, bearing in mind, first, that the Soviet Republics, surrounded as they are by the imperialist powers of the whole world---which from the military standpoint are immeasurably stronger---cannot possibly continue to exist without the closest alliance; second, that a close economic alliance between the Soviet Republics is necessary, otherwise the productive forces which have been ruined by imperialism cannot be restored and the well-being of the working people cannot be ensured; third, that there is a tendency towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as an integral whole and according to a common plan. This tendency has already revealed itself quite clearly under capitalism and is bound to be further developed and consummated under socialism."^^1^^
After the Civil War ended the process of nation and state building got into its stride. Between 1919 and 1922 the following Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics were formed within the RSFSR: the Bashkir, Tatar, Karelian (the Karelian Labour Commune), Kirghiz (and later the Kazakh), Gorskaya (Mountain Area), Daghestan, Turkestan (in April 1918) and Yakutian Republics. In addition a number of autonomous regions were set up: the Chuvash, the Votyak (the Udmurt), the Mari, the Komi (the Zyryan), the Kabardinian, the Kalmyk, the Buryat-- Mongolian, the Oirotian, and the Cherkess (Adygei) Regions.
In 1920--21, alongside the formerly established independent Soviet Socialist Republics of the Ukraine and Byelorussia, there emerged the Azerbaijan SSR, the Armenian SSR, the Georgian SSR, and the Bukhara and Khoresm People's Soviet Republics. They all concluded Union treaties with the RSFSR guaranteeing national equality and preserving the independence of the signatories, while endorsing their military and economic alliance. All the Republics voluntarily agreed to the supreme state bodies of the RSFSR managing their armed forces, heavy industry, the financial systems and postal and telegraph communications. The Ukraine and Byelorussia also joined with the RSFSR in foreign trade.
In March 1922, on Lenin's initiative, a federation of Soviet Socialist Republics of Transcaucasia was formed, consisting of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. This federation was _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 147.
338 transformed in December 1922 into the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, a new type of Soviet socialist federation consisting of several independent republics with common federative state organs. Lenin undoubtedly took the experience of this federation into account when the USSR was being formed.Then, in the spring and summer of 1922---in accordance both with the objective demands of the historical progress made by the young Soviet lands and with the aspirations of their peoples---the central Party organs of the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Trans-= Caucasian Federation raised the question of regulating relations between their own Republics and the RSFSR in order to promote and strengthen federative links among all Soviet Republics.
A special Commission worked out the draft resolution "On the Relations of the RSFSR with Independent Republics" for the CC Party Plenary Meeting, envisaging the ``autonomisation'' of the independent non-Russian Republics---i.e., their inclusion into the Russian Federation as autonomous republics. However, this was a wrong view, as Lenin pointed out. Lenin considered that the ``autonomisation'' of sovereign non-Russian republics did not meet the aim of strengthening friendship between peoples and could only provoke nationalists to indulge in demagogic twaddle about ``inequality''.
Lenin proposed an essentially different way of uniting the Soviet Republics. On the basis of the principles of Soviet federalism and of his summing-up of the existing experience of state building in the Soviet lands, he advanced a plan to create a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a federation of equal and sovereign Soviet Republics. In a letter to the Politburo Members of the Central Committee dated September 26, 1922, Lenin proposed re-formulating the first point of the draft resolution to the effect that the independent Soviet Republics were not to be incorporated in the Russian Federation but were to be united together with the RSFSR in a new state structure. He explained: "We consider ourselves, the Ukrainian SSR and others, equal, and enter with them, on an equal basis, into a new union, a new federation, the Union of the Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia. . . .
``The important thing is not to provide material for the `pro-= independence' people, not to destroy their independence, but to create another new storey, a federation of equal = republics."^^1^^
Lenin also suggested changing the wording of other points of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, pp. 421--22.
__PRINTERS_P_339_COMMENT__ 22* 339 the resolution so as to provide for the formation of an All-Union Central Executive Committee of the Soviets, and a number of All-Union People's Commissariats, etc.Lenin thus substantially enriched the Marxist theory of the national question. He discovered a new type of federative proletarian state---a united multi-national socialist state, a voluntary union of equal and sovereign republics built on the principles of proletarian internationalism.
The draft resolution "On the Relations of the RSFSR with Independent Republics" was revised in accordance with Lenin's directions. The Plenum of the Party Central Committee held on October 5--6, 1922, fully approved Lenin's proposals and adopted the revised resolution as a CC directive. It also instructed the commission that had prepared the draft resolution to work out the draft law on the formation of the USSR for submission to the All-Union Congress of Soviets. The Communists, the working people and the congresses of Soviets of the Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Transcaucasian Federation and the RSFSR, all warmly applauded Lenin's idea of forming the USSR, and the First All-Union Congress of Soviets announced the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on December~30, 1922.
In his letter "The Question of Nationalities or ` Autonomisation' ''---which Lenin dictated on December 30--31, 1922, since he was prevented by illness from being present at the First All-Union Congress of Soviets---he emphasised the world historic significance of the formation of the USSR. It was essential to preserve and strengthen the union of socialist Republics. "Of this there can be no doubt.'' The union of Soviet republics was necessary primarily for building socialism and for the defence of the gains of the Revolution against the imperialist intrigues of the West; it was likewise necessary for the world liberation = movement.^^1^^
The idea of creating the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the concrete plan for doing so, were the final stages in Lenin's work on the problems of federation. Lenin's writings and speeches provide a detailed explanation of the principles of the federation of Soviet Socialist Republics and its radical difference from multi-national state structures under capitalism.
What are the main features of this Soviet socialist federation of different nations? They are:
First, the political set-up of the nations joining the federation: Soviet power as the power of the working class and all working _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 36, p. 609.
340 people, i.e., the Soviet Republic is characterised by the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry, and by socialist democracy.Second, the socialist economic structure of the federation--- public ownership of the basic means of production, socialist social relations, the abolition of exploiting classes and the exploitation of man by man.
Third, its socialist ideology---the ideas of internationalism which "are awakening the working people's class consciousness and are organising them into a solid = alliance".^^1^^
And last but not least---the leading role of the proletarian Communist Party in the system of working-class dictatorship, in the creation of a new socialist society, and, in this case, in nation and state building.
Lenin demonstrated that it was precisely these features, that made Soviet autonomy and federation quite compatible with the principle of democratic centralism. In the initial version of his work The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, he wrote: "The opponents of centralism continually put forward autonomy and federation as a means of struggle against the uncertainties of centralism. As a matter of fact, democratic centralism in no way excludes autonomy, on the contrary, it presupposes the necessity of it. As a matter of fact, even federation, ff carried out within limits that are rational from an economic point of view, if it is based on important national distinctions that give rise to a real need for a certain degree of state separateness---even federation is in no way in contradiction to democratic cen- tralism."^^2^^
Let us take special note of Lenin's point that the very nature of the socialist federation of Soviet Republics presupposes the leading role of a united Communist Party. The resolution of the Eighth Party Congress on organisation pointed out that the formation of independent Soviet Republics "does not mean that the RCP must, in its turn, be organised on the basis of a federation of independent Communist Parties''. "There has to be a single centralised Communist Party with a single CC in charge of all Party work in all areas of the RSFSR (here all Soviet Republics on Russian territory are meant---V.~Z.). All the decisions of the RCP and its leading bodies are compulsory and binding on all sections of the Party, regardless of its national composition. The Central Committees of the Communist Parties of the national _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 480.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 207.
341 Soviet Republics enjoy the rights of regional Party committees and are subordinate to the CC of the = RCP(B)."^^1^^"We must, however, know and remember,'' said Lenin, "that, in law and in practice, the Constitution of the Soviet Republic is based on the tenet that the Party rectifies, prescribes and builds according to a single = principle.~.~.~."^^2^^ Lenin said at the Eighth Party Congress, when stressing the need for the unity of Soviet Republics: "We must strive for it by means of propaganda, by Party influence, by forming united trade = unions."^^3^^ This thought concerning the leading role of the Party, of "Party authority" in the federation of Soviet Republics, was developed by Lenin in his letter "The Question of Nationalities or 'Autonomisation' ''. "It must be borne in mind that the decentralisation of the People's Commissariats and the lack of co-ordination in their work as far as Moscow and other centres arc concerned can be compensated sufficiently by Party authority, if it is exercised with sufficient prudence and = impartiality."^^4^^
Lenin also made the great contribution of defining the Party's nationalities policy in the period of socialist construction. He underlined that important as the tasks of nation and state building may be, the maintenance and development of Soviet power and the transition to socialism were the most important questions in the national = areas.^^5^^ He outlined the following tasks: to remove inequality among the formerly oppressed peoples, to draw them into socialist construction, to help the working masses of the non-= Russian peoples to create their own Soviet states and to ensure the progress of their economy and culture. A major condition for the fulfilment of these tasks was the fraternal co-operation and mutual aid between these peoples and the assistance given by the advanced republics and the Russian working class to backward peoples.
As Lenin continuously pointed out the Party was duty bound to take into account the specific features of socialist construction in the national regions. The significance of his letter "To Communist Comrades of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Daghestan, and the Gorskaya Republic" extended far beyond the Caucasian _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Resolution* and Decisions of the Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the CC, CPSU, Part~I, p. 443 (Russ. ed.).
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 367.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, pp. 195--96.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 36, p. 610.
~^^5^^ See ibid., Vol. 32, p. 316.
342 Republics themselves. In fact it contained advice and instructions to the Communists of all national republics and regions. In this letter, Lenin drew the attention of the Caucasian Communists to the fact that in endeavouring to solve the tasks of strengthening Soviet power and of making the transition to socialism they should make the effort to understand the specific situations in their own republics, which were different from conditions in the RSFSR. They should not try to copy the tactics of the Party organisations of Central Russia, but give thought to adapting them to the concrete local conditions of their regions. The republics of the Caucasus, Lenin wrote, were more strongly peasant in character than Russia. That was why a still more careful approach to socialism was essential there, i.e., more tact and flexibility had to be shown towards the petty bourgeoisie, the intellectuals and, in particular, to the peasants.As we know, Lenin, in the Report to the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions made at the Second Congress of the Comintern, came to the conclusion of really historic significance that backward countries where patriarchal, feudal and semi-feudal relations prevail, can, after their liberation from the imperialist yoke and the establishment of people's rule, gradually make the transition to socialism with' the help of the victorious proletariat of advanced countries, by-passing the capitalist stage of = development.^^1^^
Lenin told a delegation from the Mongolian People's Republic during talks held in November 1921 that he thought this applied in particular to the case of = Mongolia.^^2^^
Also of interest in this connection arc Lenin's "Remarks on the Report of Sultan-Zade Concerning the Prospects of a Social Revolution in the East" made for the Second Congress of the Comintern. Giving the characteristics of the situation in the backward countries of the East, Lenin wrote:
"I) Disintegration of the propertied exploiter classes
"2) a large part of the population are peasants under medieval exploitation
"3) small artisans---in industry
"4) deduction: adjust both Soviet institutions and the Communist Party (its membership, special tasks) to the level of the peasant countries of the colonial East.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See ibid., Vol. 31, p. 244.
~^^2^^ See ibid.. Vol. 42, pp. 360--61.
343"This is the crux of the matter. This needs thinking about and seeking concrete = answers."^^1^^
The Party had to apply communist policy skilfully and flexibly to pre-capitalist conditions. Its first job was to educate and strengthen local Party organisations by adjusting "to these conditions the basic principles of the Soviet socialist system---the central idea of which is clear and close to the hearts of all the labouring masses, namely, that of setting up 'Working People's Soviets' = ".^^2^^
When he spoke about the possibility of backward nations moving from patriarchal-feudal relations to socialism without passing through the capitalist stage of development, Lenin referred to the experience of Party work in Turkestan. In fact, Lenin's documents relating to Turkestan contain important points of principle. We should mention first his remarks on the Draft Decision of the CC on the Tasks of the Party in Turkestan. He said that it was necessary, first, to ensure greater participation of the Turkestan Communist Party in government, and second, to take steps to see that more Turkestan peasants also participate in government and in all affairs. The Party must systematically consider, prepare and carry out "the transfer of power---gradually but steadily---to the local Soviets of working people, under the control of reliable = Communists".^^3^^
And bearing in mind the top priority tasks in the period of non-= capitalist development of backward countries, Lenin emphasised: "The general task is not communism, but the overthrow of feudalism."^^4^^ Later, when the Party moved on to the New Economic Policy, Lenin indicated that it should be implemented in Turkestan and other backward national areas, too---but, again, their special characteristics should be taken into account.
Lenin regarded the internationalism of the proletariat and its Party as one of the main conditions for the successful solution of the national question---as, of course, of the main task of the working class, the winning of power and the transformation of society along socialist lines---and he called for determined opposition to all species of nationalism, and any deviations from proletarian internationalism either in the direction of Great-Power chauvinism or local nationalism. Both these deviations were condemned, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 201.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 243--41.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 42, p. 198.
~^^4^^ Ibid.
344 as "harmful and dangerous for the communist cause'', by the Tenth Congress of the RCP(B) in its resolution ``On the Immediate Tasks of the Party on the National Question" worked out under Lenin's direction.In his last work on the national question, his letter "The Question of Nationalities or 'Autonomisation' '', Lenin made a strong appeal for the steady realisation of the principles of proletarian internationalism. Full equality, mutual respect, friendship, fraternal co-operation and mutual help---these should be at the basis of relations between nations united in a multi-national socialist state and engaged in building a new society.
Lenin also laid great stress on the international significance of the experience of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government in solving the national question. He wrote in 1919: "The attitude of the Soviet Workers' and Peasants' Republic to the weak and hitherto oppressed nations is of very practical significance for the whole of Asia and for all the colonies of the world, for thousands and millions of = people."^^1^^
When working out the theses on the national and colonial questions for the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin proceeded primarily from the Soviet experience. What were the main things to be emphasised here?
First, the consistent struggle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the liberation of colonial and dependent countries from the imperialist yoke, for their right to national self-= determination, and its resolute support of all national liberation movements and revolutions.
Second, the Party's correct nationalities policy after the victory of the socialist revolution, and its principled and flexible solution of the problems that arose in the nation and state building---in particular, the use of various kinds of federative links; the uniting of the peoples in a single multi-national state, their friendship and mutual help, the abolition of the actual inequality of the formerly oppressed nations, and the transition to socialism of backward national areas where patriarchal, feudal and semi-= feudal relations had prevailed, by their by-passing the capitalist srage of development.
Third, the internationalist principle of Party building, the proper combination of the national and international tasks of the working class, the education of working people in a spirit of internationalism, and the skilful solution of the complex problems _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 138.
345 of building and strengthening Party organisations in the backward national areas with the help of Communists from the more advanced Soviet Republics.Finally, the experience of forming federative links between the Soviet Republics could be applied in relations between the countries of the world socialist system. Lenin referred in his theses on the national and colonial questions to the relations of friendship and mutual help which existed between Soviet Russia and the Hungarian Soviet Republic. We should also mention the fraternal relations between Soviet Russia and the Mongolian People's Republic that were inaugurated in 1921. In his talk with the representatives of the Mongolian People's Republic Lenin said that the only right way for its people was "to fight for state and economic independence in alliance with the workers and peasants of Soviet = Russia".^^1^^
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has shown a good example of consistent struggle against paying lip service to internationalism and against replacing it by nationalism in propaganda, agitation, and in all practical work.
Lenin regarded the closest political, military and economic union of socialist countries as highly essential. His ideas on this matter warrant the following indisputable conclusion: the equal rights enjoyed by the socialist republics, their cohesion and mutual assistance in building and consolidating the new system, in upholding the gains of socialism from encroachment by foreign imperialists and internal counter-revolutionaries arc an earnest of the genuine sovereignty, national security and socialist orientation of the peoples of these republics, of a stronger world socialist system.
Lenin's theory of the national question has been further developed in CPSU Congress and Conference decisions, at CC plenary meetings, in Comintern documents and other materials issued by the world communist movement. Prominent among them arc the CPSU Programme adopted by the Twenty-Second Party Congress, the Twenty-Third CPSU Congress decisions, and the documents approved by the three Moscow Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties. Of great importance arc the materials of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, which thoroughly explore the vital aspects of the national question and the present stage of the national liberation movement.
The whole course of history has confirmed and continues to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 360.
346 confirm the correctness, topicality and living force of Lenin's teachings on the national and colonial questions. This is proved convincingly by one of the great achievements of socialism---the solution of the national question in the Soviet Union. Soviet society guarantees not only political equality to its nations and their legal position as Soviet states, but has also abolished the relics of the past, i.e., their economic and cultural inequality. Relying on fraternal mutual assistance, all Soviet non-Russian Republics have built their own modern industries, trained their own personnel (both workers and intellectuals), reorganised their agriculture along socialist lines, and developed their own culture--- national in form and socialist in content. Many of the formerly backward peoples have now completed building socialism after by-passing capitalism. The drawing together of these nations with equal rights on a voluntary basis in one multi-national state---the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics---and their close co-operation in economic, state and cultural affairs, their fraternal friendship, and the blooming of their economy and culture---these are the most important results of Lenin's nationalities policy.The solution of the national question in other socialist countries, the self-assertion and development of the world socialist movement have borne out the profound truth of Lenin's ideas.
The great international significance of Leninism may be seen in the collapse of imperialism's colonial system, in the liberation of hundreds of millions of people from the colonial yoke, in the establishment and progress of the newly independent states, in the advent to power of working people, in the socialist construction in some former colonies and semi-colonies, and in the socialist orientation of a number of young states in Asia and Africa.
Leninism is the inexhaustible source of revolutionary thought, the lodestar for nations, for working people in their struggle for democracy, social progress, socialism and communism, for the complete solution of the national question, and for the triumph of socialist internationalism throughout the world.
[347] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN AND SOME PROBLEMSBy L. M. MINAYEV
Lenin substantiated the principles of proletarian party policy in a deep, scientific and comprehensive way. He worked out the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary party that were required to meet the new conditions of the age of imperialism.
Analysing the historical situation of the early 20th century Lenin came to a conclusion of great historic importance, namely, that the new age of imperialism represented the eve of the proletarian revolution. It called for direct struggle to prepare for the socialist revolution and carry it through. Hence Marxist workers' parties were faced with new tasks differing from those of the previous historical period (1871--1900), when a slow gathering of forces had taken place in the working class.
The leaders of the Second International failed to see, let alone understand, these great new tasks facing the working class. At this turning point in history most of the Second International's leaders began to renounce the workers' goal of socialism, and to lean towards opportunism and revisionism. Opportunists imposed on the working-class movement the ``tactics'' of passivity, replacing revolutionary policies by the policy of begging for petty concessions from the bourgeoisie. The significance of strikes was belittled and arguments were presented to prove "the harm" done by, and indeed the ``impossibility'' of, general political strikes. Discussion of armed uprising was dropped altogether.
The revisionists adopted the line of giving up revolutionary means of struggle. "There will be no more revolutions---only an endless era of peaceful development lies ahead. .. .'' "The naive romanticism of the barricades of the Kjth century is already a thing of the irrevocable past''---that is what Eduard Bernstein, the 348 apostle of revisionism, and his followers used to say. In 1899, Lenin assessed the activities of the representatives of the revisionist trend as follows: "Not by a single step have they advanced the science which Marx and Engels enjoined us to develop; they have not taught the proletariat any new methods of struggle; they have only retreated, borrowing fragments of backward theories and preaching to the proletariat, not the theory of struggle, but the theory of concession---concession to the most vicious enemies of the proletariat, the governments and bourgeois = parties.~.~.~."^^1^^
The principal sin of the Second International was, as Lenin pointed out, to give verbal recognition to the idea of revolution and to use this as a cover for opportunism, reformism and nationalism. The decisions of the congresses of the Second International and those of Social-Democratic congresses contained extremely general, abstract phraseology which in fact disguised reformist practice. The crucial issues of the strategy and tactics of the international movement were raised more and more seldom, and their discussion became more and more cursory.
The Social-Democratic congresses were usually full of reservations and double talk and gave no clear and direct answers to the most pressing questions of the movement. Recall only Kautsky's notorious "rubber resolution" on the French pseudo-- socialist Millerand's joining the bourgeois government. This resolution in fact legalised in advance similar acts of betrayal.
In his article "Marxism and Revisionism'', written in 1908, Lenin showed that opportunism meant breaking completely away from the scientific foundations of the proletarian movement, abandoning its revolutionary aims and betraying its militant spirit. "To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment---such is the policy of revision- ism."^^2^^
A cynical attitude towards theory took root among philistine and bourgeoisified leaders of the parties of the Second International, in particular in the German Social-Democratic Party---they had no need for revolutionary theory; all they needed, and even then only for the time being, was Marxist phraseology, so that _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 211.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, pp. 37--38.
349 they might with its help conceal from the masses their degeneration. Systematic hypocrisy and an ever widening gap between word and deed became their hallmarks.Lenin firmly opposed this hypocrisy and surrender of the opportunists. He hit hard at international revisionism, showing it up for what it is---a trend which tries to lead the working-class movement into the dead end of narrow trade-unionism and bourgeois-liberal reformism.
Lenin gave all his attention to elaborating the general principles of the tactics of the labour movement, i.e., the principles governing the application by the Party of the tactical devices to achieve its strategic goals. He stressed the duty of the revolutionary party to conduct a scientific policy. "The direct task of science, according to Marx, is to provide a true slogan of struggle, that is, to be able to present this struggle objectively as the product of a definite system of production relations, to be able to understand the necessity of this struggle, its content, course and conditions of = development."^^1^^
Correct tactics are based on an objective analysis of reality. This involves "an objective consideration of the sum total of the relations between absolutely all the classes in a given society, and consequently a consideration of the objective stage of development reached by that society and of the relations between it and other = societies".^^2^^ It is only by examining the specific features of the current epoch, and in this way getting a clear understanding of its main content and general line of advance, that one can analyse successfully the problems of the revolutionary movement. Another essential, though secondary, point is "that account be taken of the specific features distinguishing that country from others in the same historical = epoch".^^3^^
Lenin also saw that the common nature of the laws of historical development for all mankind determined the international character of the tactics of the proletarian movement. Lenin did a tremendous amount of work to expose and fulminate bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism, and to defend proletarian internationalism as an unshakable principle. A master of revolutionary dialectics, he showed the relation between the international and national aspects of the working-class tactics: "by going through the same preparatory schooling for the victory over the bourgeoisie _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 328.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 75.
~^^3^^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, pp. 400--01.
350 everywhere, the labour movement of each country develops and advances each in its own way. . . . The unity of the international tactics of the communist working-class movement in all countries demands, not the elimination of variety or the suppression of national distinctions .. . but the application of the fundamental principles of communism . . . which will correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and apply them to national and national-state = distinctions."^^1^^If the concrete analysis of concrete circumstances constitutes the essence and living soul of Marxism in general, this must be all the more true of Party policy and tactics. It must be based on facts---on the actual state of the political, economic, national, cultural, domestic and other conditions of life and struggle of the working class and of the whole of society. Lenin analysed the many and various requirements of the concrete historical approach to working out Party tactics. He called on the Communists of all nations to concentrate all their efforts and all their attention on finding the forms of transition or approach to the proletarian revolution in their own country.
Of particular importance is Lenin's further development of the Marxist tenet that correct tactics call for a variety of forms and means of struggle. "Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of = struggle."^^2^^ Historical progress is dialectical in character. Social life develops in contradictions, and includes both slow evolution and rapid leaps forward. This also applies, of course, to the conditions and the course of the proletarian class struggle. For this reason "the forms of the struggle may and do constantly change in accordance with varying, relatively specific and temporary = causes".^^3^^
In full accordance with the principles of dialectical materialism, Lenin pointed out that the past experience of the labour movement---in combination with that of the current struggle of the revolutionary classes---provided the basis on which correct tactics can be worked out. Marxism docs not invent new forms of struggle or concoct doctrinaire formulas. It teaches the Party to study closely the mass struggle going on, and to realise that life is forever generating new, hitherto unknown, methods of defence and attack in the class struggle, increasing the variety _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 92.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 11, p. 213.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 253.
351 and range of available tactics as the movement advances, as the class consciousness of the people grows, as the economic and political crises of capitalist society sharpen and as domestic and international conditions change. Hence, the elaboration of tactical theory merges with the practical application of this theory by the Party. Theoretical work that follows from the generalised experience of the mass movement meets the needs of the practical struggle, while practice verifies the correctness of such theory. The Communist and Workers' Parties, loyal to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, enrich their strategy and tactics with new ideas corresponding to new conditions of reality; they find original solutions to the new problems raised by changing conditions.Correct tactical methods are determined not by abstract dogmas ``(the principle of absolute revolutionarism" beloved by sectarians, or "the principle of the non-recognition of violence" espoused by the opportunists) but by what is required to ensure the success of the proletariat at a given stage of its struggle, bearing in mind its supreme interests and final aims. "This means only that decisions made with regard to tactics must be verified as often as possible in the light of new political events. Such verification is necessary from the standpoint of both theory and practice: from the standpoint of theory in order to ascertain in fact whether the decisions taken have been correct, and what amendments to these decisions subsequent political events make necessary; from the standpoint of practice, in order to learn how to use the decisions as a proper guide, to learn to consider them as directives for immediate practical = application."^^1^^
In working out the tactics of the proletarian party Lenin particularly stressed that Marxist tactics are mass tactics, intended to increase the class consciousness, resolution and revolutionariness of the masses and their ability to struggle through to the end and win. When defending this mass principle on which the tactics of the communist movement are based, Lenin had to fight on two fronts: against sectarian adventurism, and against Right opportunist ``tailism'', or the worship of the spontaneous element in the labour movement.
At the heart of sectarianism is lack of confidence in the people, resulting in the striving to decide everything for the people and without the people, finally developing into contempt for the people and their vital needs and demands.
(Opportunist ``tailism'', or dragging behind the movement, is _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 146.
352 also hostile to the Marxist tactics of the proletarian party centred around the conscious actions of the working masses. In his struggle against Russian and international opportunism, Lenin counterposed to tailism and the worship of spontaneity the revolutionary Marxist dictum "be with the masses''. The Party is with the masses if it can reveal, by means of scientific analysis, the direction of the struggle, if it "is the first to foresee the approach of a revolutionary period, and already begins to rouse the people and to sound the tocsin, while the philistines are still wrapt in the slavish slumber of loyal subjects'', if it is, therefore, the first to take the path of direct revolutionary struggle and to seek to exhaust all the possibilities and all chances of victory and the last "to leave the path of direct revolutionary struggle . . . when all possibilities have been exhausted, when there is not a shadow of hope for a shorter way, when the basis for an appeal to prepare for mass strikes, an uprising, etc., is obviously disap- pearing".^^1^^While attaching great importance to the theoretical substantiation of tactics, Lenin stressed at the same time that theory cannot and does not furnish ready-made prescriptions for every day-to-= day turn of events. He wrote in his "Letters on Tactics" (April 1917) that political theory, "like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes tiear to embracing life in all its = complexity".^^2^^ He stressed time and again that the application of Party policy was both a science and an art.
The art of tactics demands politicians capable of making quick and correct decisions in complex political situations---a gift which a political leader must possess over and above the knowledge and experience he must have anyway. Since "politics is a science and an art,'' wrote Lenin, "that does not fall from the skies or come gratis, and if it wants to overcome the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must train its own proletarian 'class politicians', of a kind in no way inferior to bourgeois = politicians."^^3^^ Thus training political leaders is one of the basic tasks of the proletarian party.
In order to master the art of revolutionary tactics the working-= class leaders should be able to consider, weigh up and decide in the coolest and most dispassionate manner at what stage, under what circumstances and in what sphere of action they should act in a revolutionary way and at what stage, under what _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 11, p. 351.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 45.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 80.
353 circumstances and in what sphere they should temporarily take up the struggle for reforms. The political struggle may require, and most often does require, making compromises with non-proletarian elements. Communists only reject compromises that are detrimental to the interests of the proletariat. But there are compromises that are not only useful but necessary and inevitable for the revolutionary struggle.By developing Marx's and Engels's teachings on the methods of the proletarian struggle and by employing the experience of the Russian and international labour movement, Lenin created a comprehensive theory of the strategy and tactics of the international communist movement. This theory has become an integral part of Marxist-Leninist science and an invincible weapon in the hands of the Communists of all countries.
__*_*_*__The work of the Communist International, led by Lenin, was a great example of the practical application of this theory of the strategy and tactics of the international communist movement.
Lenin, the great trail-blazer of revolution, outlined the principles of the first programme of the Communist International, and defined exactly the general line of the world communist movement, its organisation and tactics.
For the general line and strategic course of this international union of the Communist Parties, of primary importance was Lenin's conclusion concerning the nature of the new era of world history, the era ushered in by the Great October Socialist Revolution, "the era 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".^^1^^
Lenin destroyed the petty-bourgeois fairy-tale of Right opportunists that the period of transition from capitalism to socialism would be ``peaceful'' and ``legal'' in character. Kautsky, Vandervelde and other traitors to the labour movement ignored or evaded what is most important in the question of transition from capitalism to socialism, namely the fact that the transitional stage _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 55.
354 is one of "revolution, which means overthrowing the bourgeoisie and breaking up, smashing their state = machine".^^1^^Lenin emphasised that the essence of the differences between Communists and Social-Democrats lies in their different attitudes to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The cheap talk of Right opportunists about "pure democracy" and their fear of revolutionary violence applied by the oppressed class to its oppressors are tantamount to apostasy, to defection to the bourgeoisie, since the proletarian revolution is unthinkable without the violent break-up of the bourgeois state machine and its replacement by the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore the policy statement adopted by the First Congress of the Comintern centred around the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and Lenin's report to the Congress on bourgeois democracy and proletarian dictatorship became the most important document of the new international organisation of the proletarian parties.
During the First World War Lenin had to struggle relentlessly against the basic prejudice of Social-Democracy that a socialist revolution must be ``pure'', a revolution carried through with the forces of the proletariat alone. In 1916 Lenin wrote with irony about such ideas: "So one army lines up in one place and says: 'we are for socialism', and another, somewhere else, and says, 'we are for imperialism', and that will be a social = revolution!"^^2^^ Trotskyism was also of a piece with this poor, narrow understanding of revolution as something separated from real life, from the objective reality of the world revolutionary process. The proletariat struggling alone against the bourgeoisie, the latter being supported by all non-proletarian classes and strata of society--- that was what the world revolution looked like to the eyes of Trotskyists and "Left Communists" of the Bukharin type.
Quite a different picture of the future world revolution was presented to revolutionaries by Lenin. The proletariat attracts to its side the working peasantry and all the exploited and oppressed of town and country, anil also establishes alliances with the enslaved peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies, leaving the bourgeoisie in ever greater isolation, until the forces of revolution decisively outweigh the forces of the old world. The socialist revolution "cannot be anything other than an outburst of mass struggle on the part of all and sundry oppressed and discontented elements".^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 323.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, pp. 355--56.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 356.
__PRINTERS_P_355_COMMENT__ 23* 355By giving up the struggle for the socialist revolution the reformists of the Second International muddled and confused (apart from everything else) the question of the allies of the working class in the revolution. As a result, it was the Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin, which was destined to solve this question. Lenin showed the overriding importance of forming an alliance between the working class and the peasantry and all oppressed and exploited people in order to overthrow capital. He pointed out that "the proletariat cannot achieve victory if it does not win the majority of the population to its = side".^^1^^ He developed the theory and tactics for creating such an invincible social force---an alliance of proletariat and peasantry, and the First Congress of the Comintern, upon accepting Lenin's ideas, announced the fraternal alliance between the working class and all semi-proletarian elements and the rural poor. The "Platform of the Communist International" adopted by the Congress declared that the task of the proletariat was "to wrench the poor petty-bourgeois masses of the countryside from under the influence of the kulaks and rural bourgeoisie, and to organise and attract them as allies in communist construction''. This document emphasised that the victorious proletariat would not expropriate small property-- owners. Such owners would gradually be involved "in the sphere of socialist organisation by example and practice that will show the advantages of the new = system".^^2^^
The Second Congress of the Comintern considered and approved Lenin's theses on the agrarian question, providing a scientific foundation for communist tactics in relation to the various strata of the peasantry, giving a new form to these tactics to meet the conditions of the new era and taking into account the experience of the proletarian revolutions in Russia and in Hungary. Lenin's main idea was to turn the proletariat into the vanguard force of all exploited, working people and to draw the rural proletariat, semi-proletarians and small peasants into the struggle against capital. The working peasants can find salvation only by allying themselves with city workers for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of the landowners and the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the working class cannot fulfil its historic mission without extending the class struggle to the countryside and winning the working peasantry over to its side.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 265.
~^^2^^ The Communist International in Documents, 1919--1932, = Moscow, Russ. ed., 1933, pp. 64, 65.
356Lenin's propositions were developed in detail in the Draft Agrarian Programme, adopted by the Fourth Congress ( November--December 1922), and in the decisions of the enlarged plenum of the Executive Committee of the Comintern (June 1923) in connection with the slogan of "the workers' and peasants' government'', put forward at that time. Both documents gave effect to Lenin's idea of strengthening the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and of ensuring the leading role of the working class in this alliance by the most active and continuous support for the demands of the working peasants protesting against capitalist exploitation.
Lenin's strategy and tactics and the experience of preparing and carrying through the October Socialist Revolution became known to the international working class and the Communist Parties with the establishment of the Communist International. The slogan "Closer to the Masses" advanced by the Comintern implied the sum total of all working people, all those exploited by capital.
Lenin attached the utmost importance to enriching the practical experience of non-proletarian masses. These masses, he said, come to decisions on their political position and their place in the struggle between the working class and big capital in no other way than on the basis of their own experience, by comparing and contrasting what these main classes of capitalist society have to offer them, how they approach them, to what degree they are reliable, sincere and friendly allies and leaders, how successful the political headquarters of the different classes are accomplishing their tasks, and what balance of forces is between these classes.
The position of the working class as the most advanced and the only consistent fighter for popular freedom and genuine democracy imposes upon it great obligations. It is its duty first and foremost to respond to every political protest and render every support to that = protest.^^1^^ Lenin fought persistently against the sectarian line of breaking the working class away from its allies and even of opposing the workers to middle sections of society. He struggled with the ultra-Lefts of his time, who `` forgot" that the democratic slogans of the workers' party were not advanced solely for the workers. "No, these slogans arc issued for the whole of the labouring population, for the entire = people."^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 418
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 64.
357By developing the political consciousness and political responsibility of the workers, the Party draws their attention to all the forms and aspects of bourgeois oppression, calls upon them to protect all the oppressed and discriminated groups of the people, and exposes every arbitrary outrage committed by bourgeois dictatorship in the spheres of economy, politics, culture, science, education, and in the sphere of morality and family life.
"The working class draws into revolutionary action the masses of the working and exploited people. . ., teaches them revolutionary struggle, trains them, not merely by words, but by deeds, by the example of mass revolutionary action, combining political and economic = demands."^^1^^
One of Lenin's great services to science and revolution was his definition of the place and role of the oppressed nations' liberation movement in the world revolutionary process.
At Comintern meetings Lenin stressed with particular force the difference between the position of an oppressing nation and that of an oppressed one. The Communist International adopted Lenin's call to struggle for the right to self-determination to the point of secession, for the complete independence of the colonies, and recommended the Communist Parties that they should establish a close contact with workers' organisations in the colonies and render active and direct assistance to the liberation movements in the colonies and dependent countries.
Lenin was the first to present the world revolutionary process as the "revolt of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie of its own country + revolt of the nations in the colonies and dependent = countries'',^^2^^ i.e., as the civil war of the working people of the advanced countries against their capitalist exploiters in combination with national wars against international imperialism. The world socialist revolution "will not be solely, or chiefly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their bourgeoisie---no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialist-= oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international = imperialism".^^3^^ That is why Lenin approved the following wording of the international motto of Communists: "Workers of all countries and oppressed nations, unite!"
Lenin emphasised that the proletariat of the advanced _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 223.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 102.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 159.
358 countries---the vanguard of the world revolution and the guarantor of victory over the old world of exploitation, class and national inequality, and imperialist wars---would not be able to achieve this victory unless it was allied to the millions representing the majority of mankind, unless it received the help of the working people of all the oppressed colonial nations, above all the peoples of the Last. On the other hand, the anti-imperialist national liberation movements of the peoples of the East could not advance to a successful conclusion except through alliance with the international revolutionary proletariat and in direct connection with the revolutionary struggle of the Soviet Republic against international imperialism.^^1^^ Closely linked to this was Lenin's brilliant thesis, put forward at the Second Congress of the Comintern, concerning the possibility of backward countries taking a non-capitalist path of development within the framework of a fraternal alliance with the victorious proletariat of the advanced countries, who could assist and support them.The Second International was an association of European Social-Democratic parties. Its leaders did not trouble to concern themselves with the working class and democratic forces of Asia, Africa, Latin America, nor with the building of workers' organisations in those continents. By way of contrast, the Third, Communist International was from its very inception an international association of the working class of all continents and of all nations. It was to Lenin's great credit that even before the Comintern was formed he said that proletarian revolutionaries considered it their duty to establish close links with the Mongolians, Persians, Indians and Egyptians, and that they would do all their best to render those peoples selfless assistance in culture, in using machinery, to lighten their labour, and enable them to move to democracy and socialism.
Lenin's ``Left-Wing'' Communlsm---an Infantile Disorder and his reports and speeches at Comintern sessions elaborate and develop the principal points of Marxist-Leninist theory on the Communist Party and its leading role in the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat and in the building of socialism. Victory over capitalism, he wrote in his "Theses on the Main Tasks of the Second Congress of the Comintern'', requires a correct relationship between the leading Communist Party, the revolutionary class (the proletariat) and all other exploited people. Lenin pointed out that mastery of Marxism, keen class _-_-_
~^^1^^ See ibid., p. 160.
359 consciousness, dedication to the cause of the revolution, strict centralisation and iron discipline in the struggle for socialism were all indispensable to a Communist Party, a party of a new type. "Without a party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle, a party enjoying the confidence of all honest people in the class in question, a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, such a struggle cannot be waged = successfully."^^1^^ The first condition for the foundation of Communist Parties, wrote Lenin, was to ensure them freedom from the opportunism and treachery of the bankrupt leaders of the Second International.The Second Congress of the Comintern (July--August 1920) adopted "The Terms of Admission into the Communist International" (the ``21~Terms''), an important document, written by Lenin, that guaranteed the decisive severance of the communist movement from both opportunism and Centrism which disguised its opportunism by verbally accepting the need for revolution. The "21 Terms" protected the Communist Parties that were in the process of formation from being overcrowded with unstable, uncertain groups and people not entirely free of opportunistic ideas, for whom communism was only a temporary attraction, something then in fashion.
The "21 Terms" arc not only a declaration of the break with opportunism but also a condensed statement of the basic principles made extremely powerful by their brevity and clarity. They represent the essential foundations for the building of revolutionary parties: adherence to the principle of democratic centralism and iron discipline, together with respect for and confidence in the high authority of the Party centre on the part of all Party members. They interpret concretely and unambiguously the internationalist duty of every Party wishing to belong to the Comintern: the duty to render each other selfless support in the struggle against the forces of counter-revolution, to support not by word but by deed all liberation movements in the colonies, and to demand the withdrawal of the imperialists of their own country from these colonies, = etc.^^2^^ They are also a practical programme of action both for work among the people and inside the Party: the active spreading of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat among the workers, soldiers and peasants, and the development of all possible links with the people through _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 44--45.
~^^2^^ See ibid., pp. 207--11.
360 systematic and persistent communist work inside the trade unions, the co-operatives and other mass organisations---and, when necessary, the combining of legal and illegal work by setting up a parallel illegal apparatus everywhere, for the revolutionary situation, developing into civil war in some countries, often required this.Lenin's idea was to deepen and extend the Party's bonds with the people and to establish its role as leader. We read in one of his speeches at the Second Congress of the Comintern: "If the minority (in a Party---Ed.) is unable to lead the masses and establish close links with them, then it is not a party, and is worthless in = general.~.~.~."^^1^^ In working out and applying revolutionary tactics Lenin had to fight on two fronts: against Right opportunism and ``Left'' opportunism, both of which were introduced into the communist movement by people coming from the petty bourgeoisie and by groups of ultra revolutionary-minded workers and Party functionaries. The Leftism and sectarianism of the latter was a kind of reaction to the reformism of the old Social-Democracy and to the servility of its leaders to the bourgeoisie. Though Right opportunism was the chief danger, it was necessary to fight uncompromisingly against ``Left'' opportunism, too, because it threatened to lead the young Communist Parties into a sectarian blind-alley, raising a barrier to the consolidation of their links with the people and so deprive them of all possibility of fulfilling their mission as the leading and directing force of the working class and all other working people in the fight for socialism.
The ``Left'' failed to understand the need to provide a scientific Marxist basis to revolutionary policy, for strategy and tactics to be based on an objective understanding of the life of society. Their dangerous veering from the Marxist dialectics showed itself in the way they were carried away by "purely revolutionary" tactics that missed the point of favourably combining both the objective conditions and the subjective factor required for the victory of socialist revolution. They relied on the preparedness for battle of the vanguard alone. In this connection, in his book ``Left-Wing'' Commnnism---an Infantile Disorder and in a number of articles and speeches made at Comintern congresses, Lenin developed the theory of the revolutionary situation and conditions needed for the success of the revolution.
The ``Left'' trend became especially dangerous in 1920 when _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 238.
361 the rate of advance of the world proletarian revolution slowed down. The "theory of attack" advanced by some of the Leftists imposed on the communist movement in the capitalist countries "the tactics" of unprepared armed action, without regard for either the real situation or the mood of the people. This amounted to nothing less than an attempt to push the Communist Parties onto the disastrous path of adventurism and complete separation from the people. This meant giving up ordinary everyday work among the people in order to win them to the side of the Party. The Leftists opposed all compromises, all participation in parliamentary action and in the activities of the trade unions that were under the reformists' influence.Lenin's book ``Left-Wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder, published in June 1920, dealt a severe blow to these sectarian views and redirected many misguided comrades back onto the right road. But the struggle against the Leftists did not end there; it was, rather, only just beginning. From early 1921 the assault by the followers of "the theory of attack" on the Comintern intensified, increasing the harm their actions were doing to many Communist Parties.
In his talks with Communists before the Third Comintern Congress (held in June--July 1921) Lenin stressed that it was time to finish with ``Left'' illusions about the victory of the revolution depending entirely on the will of the Party and on the extent and intensity of its work. As Clara Zetkin recalled in her memoirs, Lenin said that the coming Congress should take a decision on tactics which must be linked to its appraisal of the world economic situation. "We must assess the world economic and political situation soberly, quite soberly, if we wish to take up the struggle against the bourgeoisie and to = triumph."^^1^^ And Lenin emphasised at the Third Congress itself that the slackening of the revolutionary wave that had begun required even greater attention to questions of tactics, a more thorough and careful approach to the problems of winning the majority of the working class over to the side of Communists. "In Europe, where almost all the proletarians are organised, we must win the majority of the working class,'' Lenin said in his speech on July :, 1921, "and anyone who fails to understand this is lost to the communist movement; he will never learn anything if he has failed to learn that much during the three years of the great = revolution".^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Clara Zetkin, = Reminiscences of Lenin, N.~Y., p. 23.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 52, p. 470.
362The Third Congress, in its theses on tactics, declared that the most pressing task of the moment was that of winning the majority of the working class, of "directly participating in the struggle of ific labouring masses, and oj conducting tins struggle on a communist hasis, and of erecting, during the struggle, great revolutionary Communist mass = parties...."^^1^^ Not the "incessant offensive'', not adventures, but the gathering of strength and the correct choosing of the right moment for action, including armed uprising---that is what had to become the basis of tactics. In a letter to German Communists Lenin wrote: "More careful, more thorough preparation for fresh and more decisive battles, both defensive and offensive---that is the fundamental and principal thing in the decisions of the Third = Congress."^^2^^
Lenin had to wage a hard struggle against the Leftist `` Maximalist" attitude of very many Communists---including some of the then leading personalities of the Third International---towards the everyday demands of the working class and its allies and towards the minimum programmes of fraternal parties. Their failure to realise the importance of fighting for immediate economic demands, and the connection between this fight and the final goal of the proletariat, was one of the most dangerous manifestations of the "infantile disorder" of Leftism in the communist movement against which Lenin spoke so vehemently.
In the conditions of the sharpest revolutionary crisis that hit Europe after the October Revolution and the end of the First World War, a number of countries were faced with the immediate prospect of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. Many leaders in the Communist Parties whose views formed under the influence of this most acute revolutionary situation came to the wrong conclusion that under any conditions, and in any country, the struggle for the partial improvement of the workers' position only led away from the basic issue of the seizure of power, and that it therefore represented reformist degeneration, or even betrayal.
What was Lenin's attitude on this question? In his article "Karl Marx" he wrote: "The Communist Manifesto advanced a fundamental Marxist principle on the tactics of the political struggle: 'The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Theses and Resolutions Adopted at the III~World Congress of the Communist International (June 22--July 12, 1921), Moscow, 1921, p.~19.
~^^2^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 521.
363 the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that = movement.'~''^^1^^ Lenin repeatedly pointed out that the connection between the struggle for democracy, for the immediate demands of the working people, and the struggle for socialism, could not be broken. In his comments on Zinovicv's article on Maximalism Lenin demonstrated once again the dialectical relationship between minimum and maximum programmes. A minimum programme does not go beyond the bounds of capitalism, and is compatible with it in principle---none of its individual demands, nor all its demands taken together, can result in the transition to socialism. But, on the other hand, "it is most probable in practice that out of any serious struggle for the ma]or minimum programme demands there will flare up a struggle for socialism and that we, at any rate, are working in that = direction".^^2^^While analysing the roots of sectarian Maximalism, Lenin revealed, among other things, the fact that not all leaders and activists of the young Communist Parties managed to draw the lessons of the previous stage of the international labour movement, the one connected with the Second International.
In his article "The Third International and Its Place in History" Lenin observed that the Communist International discarded the opportunist, social-chauvinist, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois dross of the Second International and at the same time gathered the fruits of the work of that organisation which had only marked the period of preparation of the soil for the broad, mass spread of the labour = movement.^^3^^ In a number of other works written in the years 1914--23 Lenin demonstrated that the bearers of the ``Left'' trend failed to grasp the dialectical nature of the class struggle, misinterpreting the great turn in the international working-class movement as a simple rejection of old forms of struggle, when in fact it was rather a matter of retaining and developing certain old forms which had now been filled with a new content. They became so absorbed in the struggle against the treachery of the opportunists that they did not notice that the historical results of the pre-1914 period were lasting achievements of the proletariat: mass workers' organisations---trade unions, co-= operatives and other organisations, with their varied knowledge _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 76--77.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 41, p. 385.
~^^3^^ See ibid., Vol. 29, p. 307.
364 and traditions, having millions of working people attached to them and possessing experience of working within the framework of bourgeois legality, bourgeois parliamentarism, etc. Not everyone realised that it was essential to put to use these achievements and make them serve the interests of the revolution. Handing over to the opportunists such vital means of organisation meant giving them a controlling influence.Lenin tirelessly insisted in the Comintern on putting the question of partial demands correctly. This was no easy job, since not a few comrades had caught the Leftist disease. One of the leaders of the Comintern at that time---Zinoviev---having begun by advancing the radically wrong, in fact reformist, proposition in his 1916 article (the one criticised by Lenin) that minimum programme demands "in toto lead to a transition to a new, in principle different, social set-up'', now rushed to the ``Left'' extreme of totally rejecting a minimum programme. Bukharin also systematically opposed partial demands, refusing to accept anything less than a ``planetary'' revolution.
But thanks, largely, to Lenin's efforts, the Leftist trend was checked. The Third Congress declared, in the spirit of Lenin, that the proletariat could not put oft the struggle for its immediate everyday needs until it was itself the ruling class. The Communist Parties, the Congress theses went on, did not advance a minimum programme of the kind that Social-Democratic parties put forward, designed only to strengthen the shaky edifice of capitalism. They proposed instead struggle for concrete proletarian demands as a means of better organising the working class and as stages on the road to the dictatorship of the proletariat. As the struggle for concrete demands becomes wider and deeper and gains momentum, the Communist Parties must also broaden their slogans. The Congress directly pointed out that "every objection to such partial demands, every accusation of reformism in connection with these partial struggles, is an outcome of the same incapacity to grasp the live issues of revolutionary action which manifested itself in the opposition of some communist groups to participation in trade union activities and parliamentary = action".^^1^^
While taking part in working out suggestions for the programme of the Communist International at its Fourth Congress, Lenin introduced the following clause: "...The Comintern denounces with equal vigour both the attempts to represent the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Theses and Resoli/lious Adopted at the 111 World. Congress of the Coiii/nunisl inleniaSiouiil (June 22-]nl\ 12, i()?.i}, pp. 25, 26.
365 partial demands in the programme as opportunism and any attempts to slur over the main revolutionary task with partial demands."^^1^^Lenin's experience of struggle for workers' unity and his tactics in this struggle are of the greatest importance for the world working-class movement. Lenin, an irreconcilable fighter against Right opportunism, reformism and revisionism, and against Leftist adventurism, sectarianism and dogmatism, taught Communists to value working-class unity highly and to go to all lengths to restore the lost unity for the benefit of the revolutionary cause. "Such a unity is infinitely precious and infinitely important to the working class. Disunited, the workers arc nothing. United, they are = everything".^^2^^
By participating in the current work of the Comintern, Lenin helped the young Communist Parties to find their way in the struggle to restore the working-class unity destroyed by the bourgeoisie and its agents in the ranks of the proletariat. He explained the absolute necessity of winning the majority of the working class to the side of the socialist revolution, and helped to find the means of making contact with working people who followed Social-Democracy, and the right forms for achieving united action and establishing a united workers' front.
Lenin saw that the struggle for working-class unity would be tremendously difficult. He in no way underestimated the existing state of affairs. More than anybody else he understood the intensely contradictory character of social development. He realised that the working class was not made of saints guaranteed from any mistakes or failings. The proletariat is a class of capitalist society, not separated by a blank wall from other classes and not immune from the influence of philistine or even imperialist ideology. Capitalist anarchy leads to competition among the workers, disuniting their ranks and fostering and sustaining in them shop and trade narrow-mindedness. Imperialism bribes the upper layers of the working class with the superprofits obtained from colonial exploitation and from trade on the world market.
Lenin showed that there existed two tendencies in the political and economic activities of the working class under capitalism: the tendency to settle down fairly comfortably, which was feasible only for a small upper stratum of the proletariat, and the _-_-_
~^^1^^ World Marxist Review, April 1965, No. 4, p. 45.
~^^2^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 519.
366 tendency to lead the whole mass of working and exploited people towards the revolutionary overthrow of capital in = general.^^1^^ The opportunism of Social-Democracy promoted the former, reformist tendency in working-class politics. Reformism in the labour movement, or Right-wing Social-Democracy, is inevitably produced by capitalism and supported by it. But it does not follow from this that Communists can confine themselves to cursing opportunists, directing their main blows against Social-- Democracy, or that they can make a sport of the struggle against Ccntrtsm. They must proceed from the fact that all workers, including those who follow Social-Democrats, and even those who support openly reactionary parties, have, objectively, the same set of common basic interests.Communists, Lenin stressed, must have a clear-cut idea of what a united workers' front is needed for. "The aim and point of united front tactics consists in drawing into the struggle against capital wider and wider sections of the = workers."^^2^^ United front tactics do not mean top-level collusions or backstage intrigues with Social-Democrats and bourgeois-democratic parties for the sole purpose of achieving some sort of momentary success. United front tactics mean the making of agreements and alliances which encourage the participation of the broadest masses in the movement and demonstrate to them the possibility of the joint practical action of Communists, Social-Democrats and unorganised workers in the struggle against capital. Let them be quite limited and partial actions at first but they will nonetheless be joint actions of the working people. At first the masses will strive to secure the satisfaction of their most immediate needs, and after that they will go on to fight together for deeper changes and for socialist revolution. The depth and range of such joint actions are bound to grow as the meaning and importance of the final goals of the communist struggle become clearer to the people.
While working for united fronts the Communist Parties must retain their organisational independence and their complete freedom to express their opinions and to criticise reformist leaders.
The theses on the united workers' front elaborated by the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Comintern in December 1921, with Lenin's active participation, referred to the _-_-_
~^^1^^ World Marxist Review, April 1965, No. 4, p. 45.
~^^2^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 519.
367 experience of the Bolsheviks prior to 1917, when they had repeatedly made agreements with the Mensheviks, "not only because of the ups and downs in the factional struggle but also under the direct pressure of the broad strata of the workers who were waking up to active political life and, in fact, demanded to be given a chance to check by their own experience whether the path of Menshevism radically departed from the path of revolution".^^1^^Lenin gave a great deal of thought to the need of a flexible tactical line in relation to the Social-Democrats. The tactical plan which Lenin suggested to the Comintern representatives going to attend the Berlin Conference of the II, the II~1/2 and the III~ Internationals (held early in April 1922) is still instructive. Every small detail of this plan retains its significance. Lenin suggested that the basic tactics of the Comintern delegation should be to put forward only such points that directly concerned practical joint mass action and came within the range of what was admitted to be indisputable in the press of all three Internationals, i.e., Communists were to go to the conference guided only by the need to achieve united action by the working people. He said: "This unity could be achieved at once, even though radical political disagreements are in = evidence."^^2^^
Lenin advised the Communists to suggest to their opposite numbers at the conference that highly controversial matters should be pushed into the background in order to achieve unity on the most pressing practical matters close to the workers' interests---such was the wish and the will of all class-conscious workers.
And after this conference Lenin recommended that criticism of the policies of the II and II~1/2 Internationals should assume "a character more explanatory and should be attended with great patience and attention to = detail".^^3^^
Lenin's instructions on the question of communist co-operation with Social-Democracy are of tremendous importance in present-= day conditions: to explain to the workers the irreconcilable contradictions between the slogans adopted at the Berlin Conference by the representatives of the II and II~1/2 Internationals (the struggle against capital, the 8--hour working day, the defence of _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Communist International in Documents, 1919--1932, p. 308.
~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Fifth Russ. ed., Vol. 44, p. 377.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 45, p. 150.
368 Soviet Russia, help to the hungry) and the actual reformist policies of Right Social-Democrats and Centrists.These instructions of Lenin's provide a basis for the present tactics of Communists in relation to Social-Democracy and reformist trade unions.
The Communist International founded by Lenin not only revived, strengthened and multiplied the ties between the workers of all countries that had been undermined by imperialism and the traitors of the II International, but provided the vanguard of the world working-class movement with scientific strategy and tactics for the era of the general crisis of capitalism and the division of the world into two social systems. Under the leadership of the Comintern, with Lenin playing an active part, Communist Parties took shape, grew up and reached ideological maturity on all continents.
The Seventh Congress of the Comintern (held in 1935) was an important landmark in the history of the world communist movement. It assessed and enlarged upon the ideas of Lenin expressed in Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, ``Left-Wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder and many other works---the ideas of proletarian hegemony within broad class alliances advocating social progress, and his thoughts on the variety of the means of overthrowing bourgeois rule, and on the possibility of there being various transitional forms and intermediary stages leading up to the socialist revolution. The anti-fascist popular fronts of the i93os were a creative application, in new historical conditions, of Lenin's teachings on the alliance of the working class with non-proletarian working people in the struggle against the main enemy---big capital. During the Second World War the Leninist idea of proletarian hegemony was realised on a national, scale (for in each country that fell victim to aggression the working class was the nucleus and leader of the Resistance movement) and on an international scale (for the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat was the main force that secured the defeat of naxism, the enemy of all humanity).
__*_*_*__The half-century's history of the international communist movement has confirmed the correctness of Lenin's ideas on strategy and tactics, and the universal applicability and readability of the aims and tasks which he advanced. The influence of Leninism on the progress of the working-class movement and on the __PRINTERS_P_369_COMMENT__ 24---1974 369 entire world revolutionary process lias been steadily widening and deepening.
The emergence and development of the world socialist system, "the inspiring influence of socialism on the entire world have created the prerequisites for accelerating historical progress and opened up new prospects for the advance and triumph of socialism throughout the world'', declared the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. By taking stock of these prospects, the communist movement, which had become an extremely powerful and influential political force, began to look for new ways of organising and uniting working people, new forms of the struggle for socialism and communism. Life also demanded from the communist movement a creative development of theory to accord with the changing conditions.
The increasing complexity of the class struggle and the tasks of building a new society has raised the importance of theoretical work and of summarising revolutionary experience. The scientific elaboration of strategic and tactical problems is required, as Lenin said, "in order not to lose our way in these idgzags, these sharp turns in history, in order to retain the general perspective, to be able to see the scarlet thread that joins up the entire development of capitalism and the entire road to socialism".^^1^^
Communists, by basing themselves on Marxist-Leninist theory and by studying the experience of the world revolutionary movement, have been able to answer the new questions raised by a changing reality.
CPSU congresses, the congresses of other fraternal Parties, and the international meetings of 1957, 1960 and 1969 worked out the concept of the modern world revolutionary process. The task of defending and developing Lenin's strategy of the unity, joint action and mutual help of the three torrents of the world revolution---the peoples of the socialist countries, the working-class revolutionary movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation movement---is of especial importance today. The attempts of Maoists and ``Left'' opportunists to oppose the national liberation movement to the socialist world and to the working class of industrially advanced countries lead to the weakening of the united front of all anti-imperialist forces and damage the interests of socialism, the international working class and the national liberation struggle by helping imperialism. The _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 130.
370 CPSU and all true Marxists-Leninists resolutely repulse the intrigues of the enemies of proletarian internationalism.The communist movement has defined the role of the world socialist system as the leading force and bulwark of the anti-= imperialist movement. As the struggle between the two world systems develops, ever greater importance attaches to the use of the potentialities of the socialist system, the consolidation of the might of the socialist countries and to the broad, all-round co-= ordination of their effort. The movement of the Communist Parties and people of the socialist countries for higher labour productivity, for economic progress and the introduction of better economic and political forms of social organisation makes up the main content of the struggle between socialism and capitalism on a global scale.
With the consolidation of the world socialist system and the parallel deepening of the general crisis of capitalism many of the problems of the strategy and tactics of the working-class and national liberation movements are assuming new forms. This is due to a certain shift of the centre of gravity of imperialism's strategy in the world arena. As L. I. Brezhnev said at the 1969 International Meeting: "The policies of imperialism are being increasingly determined by the class objectives of its general struggle against world socialism, the national liberation revolutions and the working-class movement."
In the capitalist countries the Marxist-Leninist Parties arc confronted with a situation in which imperialism looks for new opportunities to prolong its existence and adapt itself to the struggle between two systems. Relying on Lenin's theory of strategy and tactics, these Parties discover new, effective forms of struggle for socialism and new tactics which mostly contribute to the formation and strengthening of a political army of revolution. In appraising theoretically new forms of struggle, the communist movement creatively elaborates such problems as drawing closer together democratic and socialist tasks in the revolutionary struggle of our era and the appropriate combination of peaceful and non-peaceful forms of revolution.
Under present-day conditions, the work of the Communist and Workers' Parties in extending the alliances of the working class with the working peasantry, with technical personnel and other intellectuals, with white-collar workers and other urban strata of the population, is acquiring greater importance.
For the most part these classes and social groups arc concerned with peace, democracy and social progress, with curbing 371 monopoly rule and with social control over production. Their joint action creates favourable preconditions for uniting all the democratic currents into a political alliance capable of putting an end to the omnipotence of monopoly capital, barring the path to reaction, removing the threat of fascism and averting a new world war.
At the same time, Marxists-Leninists arc aware of the fact that the policy of broad alliances, the tactics of strengthening the unity of workers' and democratic forces, cannot be sacrificed to preserve blocs and coalitions "at any cost''. It docs not mean cither giving up principled struggle against reformism ancl petty-= bourgeois narrow-mindedness and defending Marxist-Leninist principles and the vanguard role of the Communist Party. The political alliance of democratic currents will be able to fulfil its tasks provided the working class becomes its leading and mobilising force, provided it relies on the mass movement and carries out a decisive struggle against monopoly capital, for democratic demands, which, according to the 1969 International Meeting, "once won, would weaken the positions of imperialism as a whole and shake the very foundations of its rule".
Communist strategy and tactics in the former colonial and semi-colonial world proceed from the prospect, revealed by Lenin, of a national liberation revolution growing into a revolution, which would reconstruct a country on socialist lines, since the consistent implementation of anti-imperialist and general democratic tasks transcends society beyond the framework of the exploiting system. In Asia and Africa today---in countries where agrarian reform is of prime importance, the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal tasks in the national liberation revolution are closely linked and the peasantry constitutes the vast majority of the population---the central issue of the revolutionary process is the stand taken by the peasantry. Leninism has armed the Communists in these areas of the world with a conclusion that a united national front can be founded only on the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, an alliance which is called upon to become the main force in the struggle for national independence, deep-going democratic changes and social progress.
The development of Asian and African colonial countries has confirmed Lenin's forecast that the anti-colonial movement is bound to acquire anti-capitalist content, that the socialist orientation will thread its way confidently among all difficulties and 372 trials. Lenin's statement to the effect that the problem of the worker-peasant alliance in the ex-colonies largely bears an international character has been borne out in practice. According to the Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting, "it is of paramount importance for the prospects of the anti-imperialist struggle to strengthen the alliance between the socialist system and the forces of the working-class and national liberation movements''.
As was the case in Lenin's time, life constantly demands that the international communist movement protects the purity of Marxism-Leninism from the intrigues of the bearers of bourgeois ideology and the Right and ``Left'' opportunists who join hands with them. As a matter of fact, the struggle on two fronts has never ceased: that against Social-Democratic and Right-- revisionist reformism and conciliation with the bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and, on the other, against those pseudo-revolutionary phrase-= mongers who are incapable of endurance, organisation, and discipline, and who show instability by wavering between adventurism and apathy and sometimes surrendering completely to the bourgeoisie.
In the field of strategy and tactics the Rights ignore the role of the revolutionary vanguard and the subjective factor in general. They venerate one particular form of social development, namely, the evolutionary form. They reject revolutionary violence directed against exploiters. All varieties of Right opportunists rely on ordinary reforms to accelerate the supposedly automatic and spontaneous development of capitalism into socialism or some other system without exploitation. Of course, the bourgeoisie highly values the efforts of these direct or indirect assistants of its rule.
``Left'' opportunists oppose peaceful paths of revolution to non-peaceful paths of revolution and reduce revolution ancl the social changes that follow it to armed uprising.
Leftism today does not present itself only in the old form of ``conventional'' sectarianism which advances simplified, stereo-= typed and obsolete formulas and methods for solving new conflicts. Modern sectarian groupings demand the complete abandonment of bourgeois-democratic institutions and legal possibilities of work. Unrestrained by modesty, the ideologists of the "new Left" in the West---Herbert Marcuse, Paul Sweeze & Co.---call their nihilistic theories "the philosophy of universal revolutionary renewal''. This obsolete anarchistic junk is advertised as the "last word in revolutionary science".
373Both Right and ``Left'' opportunism reflect non-proletarian, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois influences, and fear of the so-called omnipotence of the bourgeois system. The progress of the working-= class movement and the other torrents of the world liberation struggle inevitably leaves high and dry such defective theories that arc devoid of all scientific basis and arc contrary to the interests of revolution.
Relying on Lenin's science of strategy and tactics, the Communist and Workers' Parties in the capitalist countries find new and effective means of struggle for socialism. They strive to discover such tactical forms which contribute most to the creation and strengthening of the political army of the revolution.
[374] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINBy V. S. SEMYONOV
It was Lenin's great achievement to uphold Marx's and Engels's principles of proletarian internationalism in the international working-class movement at a time when social reformism and social betrayal were rampant in it. He preserved the purity of the ideas of proletarian solidarity and developed them creatively to suit the new historical conditions prevailing at the turn of the century.
Above all, Lenin raised aloft the banner of internationalism. He stressed that "there is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is---working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one's own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without = exception".^^1^^ According to Lenin, proletarian internationalism demands, first, the subordination of the interests of the proletarian struggle in one country to the interests of this struggle on a world-wide scale, and second, the ability and willingness of a nation achieving victory over its bourgeoisie to make the greatest national sacrifices in order to overthrow international = capital.^^2^^
Leninism is imbued with the spirit of internationalism. For Lenin internationalism was a point of departure or a method of approach to the social phenomena of his time. "We are opposed to national enmity and discord, to national exclusiveness. We are internationalists".^^3^^ Whatever question Lenin approached, whether _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 75.
~^^2^^ See ibid., Vol. 31, p. 148.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 293.
375 it related to economic development, political life, the ideological struggle or class relationships, he was always and everywhere a consistent internationalist who based himself on the class interests of the international proletariat.Internationalism is not only a natural manifestation of proletarian solidarity and brotherhood, but a real policy that serves the general cause of revolution. For this reason genuine internationalism also finds its expression today in the support of all the fraternal Parties for the existing socialist society and in the assistance rendered by the socialist countries to the world communist movement.
The principal and crucial factors in the activities of the working class, of the Communist Parties are the objective class interests of the proletariat, which are both national and, at the same time, international in nature. Discussing the national demands of the working class, Lenin wrote that "for the proletariat these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class = struggle".^^1^^
National factors, which are based on the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, do not contradict international factors. Neither the latter having the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat as their source, contradict the former. They go together. Engels explained that for the working-class movement genuinely national ideas, that is ideas which reflect dominant economic factors in industry and agriculture, arc at the same time genuinely international ideas. The international struggle of the working class is not, therefore, opposed to national patriotism, if we have in mind not chauvinism, the extreme form of bourgeois nationalism, but patriotism as understood in a revolutionary, proletarian sense, i.e., subject to the great historic tasks of the workers' struggle for socialism and communism.
For a century the enemies of communism have been accusing its supporters that, as internationalists, they arc opponents of patriotism. Lenin's article "On the National Pride of the Great Russians" illustrates the attitude of revolutionary Marxists to patriotism. Lenin wrote that the sense of national pride was by no means alien to the Great-Russian class-conscious proletariat. "We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness. To us it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the oppression and the humiliation our fair country suffers at the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 410.
376 hands of the tsar's butchers, the nobles and the capitalists. We take pride in the resistance to these outrages put up from our midst, trom the Great Russians; in that midst having produced Radishchev, the Decembrists and the revolutionary commoners ot the seventies; in the Great-Russian working class having created, in 1905, a mighty revolutionary party of the masses; and in the Great-Russian peasantry having begun to turn towards democracy and set about overthrowing the clergy and the landed proprietors."^^1^^ National pride docs not militate against internationalism, when understood in the revolutionary sense. The interests of the Great Russians' national pride (understood, not in the slavish sense), Lenin stressed, coincide with the class interests of the Great-Russian and all other proletarians.After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, new problems arose which could be solved only through a correct revolutionary conception of the relations between class and national factors. One of these problems had to do with the right of nations to self-determination up to the point of secession. In upholding the right of every nation to self-determination and state separation, Lenin at the same time stressed that the proletariat, in solving this problem, must place its class interests, and not national interests, above everything else. "... While recognising equality and equal rights to a national state, it (the proletariat---V.~S.) values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers' class struggle."^^2^^ When considering the advisability of the secession of this or that nation the Communist Party "must decide the question exclusively on its merits in each particular case in conformity with the interests of social development as a whole and with the interests of the proletarian class struggle for socialism''.^^3^^
In developing and enriching the principles of proletarian solidarity Lenin subjected to profound and relentless criticism the slogans of bourgeois nationalism, bringing out their anti-- proletarian, anti-Marxist nature. Bourgeois nationalism proceeds from the idea of the exclusiveness of its own nation, whereas proletarian internationalism proceeds from the principle of the equality of all nations. The proletariat does not recognise any _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 103.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 411.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 429.
377 strengthening of nationalism whatsoever. On the contrary, it supports everything that helps gradually to do away with national exclusiveness.``Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism---these are the two irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to the two great class camps throughout the capitalist world, and express the two policies (nay, the two world outlooks) in the national question".^^1^^
Lenin struggled relentlessly both against the infiltration of bourgeois nationalism into the ranks of the workers and the working people and against the shifting of what is narrowly national onto the international plane, thus diverting attention away from international efforts in the struggle to bring about socialism and to consolidate socialism and communism. When the international activities of the labour leaders and the leaders of the Communist Parties cease to be subordinated to the interests of class struggle, i.e., to the all-out struggle of the international proletariat for democracy and socialism, and when international actions are conducted from positions of national egoism and national narrow-mindedness, then the result is dangerous, adventurist, hegemonistic behaviour in international affairs.
Nationalism grows from the counterposing of local, parochial attitudes or the narrow interests of one Party to the common internationalist attitude expressing the interests of the entire movement, the interests of peace and socialism. Nationalism has nothing in common with respect for the independence and specific national features of individual socialist countries and Communist and Workers' Parties. The counterposing of the principle of independence to the principle of international solidarity is at variance with the interests of the movement as a whole and the interests of each Party in particular.
It is common knowledge that tremendous harm has been inflicted on the cause of socialism and the entire communist movement by the rupture of Maoists with Marxism-Leninism and their adoption of a policy of vile nationalism and anti-Sovietism. The departure of Maoists from the principles of proletarian internationalism and their slithering into nationalism have affected adversely the entire world revolutionary movement.
The divorcement of international activities from the objective interests of the proletariat leads to subjectivism in international life, to ``Left'' revolutionary phrase-mongering and adventurism. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 26.
378 ``.~.~.~Bolshevism,'' wrote Lenin in "Lefl-Wing" Communism---an Infiuit'ile Disorder, "took shape, developed and became steeled in the long \ears of struggle against jH'il\-bii>ir<.\coh revolutionis//!, which smacks of anarchism, or borrows something from the latter and, in all essential matters, does not measure up to the conditions and requirements of a consistently proletarian class struggle."^^1^^Ignoring the objective interests of the proletariat in the international field can be a serious danger to the cause of proletarian internationalism. In essence, it is the other side of the coin of bourgeois nationalism, since it involves carrying into the international arena one of "the deepest of petty-bourgeois prejudices, i.e., of national egoism and national = narrow-mindedness".^^2^^
The recognition of internationalism in words but the substitution of petty-bourgeois nationalism for it in deeds by over-= stressing national peculiarities and propagating national exclusiveness is a deviation from the Marxist-Leninist principles of proletarian internationalism.
Lenin defined the new fomrs of proletarian internationalism that arose after the working class came to power. With the victory of the October Revolution, the international proletariat realised its most cherished dream by creating a socialist workers' state of Soviets. For the first time in history a great contingent of the international working class seized power, set up a proletarian dictatorship, and began to implement the ideas of proletarian internationalism. Proletarian internationalism appeared for the first time as socialist internationalism, as the international solidarity of the socialist working class.
Lenin was the first to demonstrate, both in theory and in practice, that the internationalist task of the first socialist state was not to throw a fuse, regardless of the situation, into the powder keg of capitalism (the fuse might burn out, and the keg still not explode!), but to establish itself as in impregnable fortress in the ocean of capitalism, to exert its revolutionising influence through example, to facilitate the breaking away of one state after another from the chain of imperialism and gradually to gather around itself more and more supporters. Lenin thus brilliantly combined in himself the ardour of the revolutionary who works solely for the world revolution with the sober realism of the politician and the clear analytical mind of the scholar.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid, Vol. 31, p. 32.
~^^2^^ Ibid, p. 150.
379To preserve and consolidate the world's first socialist state is the basic internationalist task of the workers of Russia and the rest of the world.
In his struggle against the ``Lefts'' who were in favour of a "revolutionary war" against Germany, Lenin insisted on concluding the ``shameful'' Brest peace treaty and entering into other agreements with the imperialists. Though these agreements contained disadvantageous terms, they ensured what was most important---peace. In an afterword to his theses on the question of the immediate conclusion of a separate and annexationist peace Lenin wrote that the ''. . . significant change that has occurred is the foundation of the Russian Soviet Republic, and the preservation of the republic that has already begun the socialist revolution is most important to us and to the international socialist movement; that at the moment the slogan of revolutionary war proclaimed by Russia would either be an empty phrase and an unsupported demonstration, or would be tantamount, objectively, to falling into the trap set for us by the imperialists, who wish to inveigle us into continuing the imperialist war while we are still a weak unit, so that the young Soviet Republic might be crushed as cheaply as = possible".^^1^^ Therefore, he wrote: "He who is against an immediate, even though extremely onerous peace, is endangering Soviet = power."^^2^^
In this way, upholding the positions of the true and not the ``Left'' adventurist idea of proletarian internationalism, Lenin orientated the first land of socialism towards concluding peace in order to secure the gains of the October Revolution.
Lenin saw that the main international contribution that the Soviet people bad to tnakc to the world revolution lay in economic and cultural construction, in making the Soviet Republic a model for other peoples. To do a good job of building the new society, to develop its economy well and strengthen its defence potential, and in general to strive to make the ideas of socialism ever more attractive to all working people is the internationalist duty of the workers and Communists of a socialist state.
Lenin saw in this the key to realising both the home and the international aims of the revolution.
The solution of problems of socialist construction in which international and national factors are closely intertwined is not an easy matter. Such problems call for self-sacrifice; they can be _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 452.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 41.
380 solved only at the cost, if not of the people themselves, then of their conditions of life and work. This has applied with particular force to the Soviet Union, since it was the first to blaze the trail to socialism. At the Third Congress of the Communist International Lenin said that the proletariat, because it had been weakened and, to a certain extent, declassed by the destruction of its material basis---large-scale machine industry---had a very difficult historic task before it: to hold its ground despite all waverings, and to carry through to the end the cause of the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital. "A nation which is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and willing to make the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow of international = capital."^^1^^ The building of socialism and communism today fully meets this requirement.The example of the Soviet people influences all three currents of the world revolutionary process---the other countries which have achieved social liberation and are now building socialism, the struggle of the workers in the developed capitalist countries, and the national liberation movements. The best means of contributing to the world revolution is the force of example, not the ``export'' of revolution. ''. . . We have said, and still say, that socialism has the force of example,'' underlined Lenin. ".. . We must show the significance of communism in practice, by = example."^^2^^
We can see here the close interweaving of the international and national tasks of the working people of a socialist country--- by building socialism and doing the utmost possible in their own country they present themselves as an example and a model for other countries still struggling to achieve socialism or already beginning to build it. It follows that how fast, how well, and how successfully the working people build socialism is of enormous significance not only for themselves, but for the working people of other countries, too. Moreover, the shortcomings, omissions, setbacks, mistakes and extremes that arc possible in the building of socialism for both objective and subjective reasons directly influence not only the people of the socialist countries concerned, but the entire world revolutionary movement. It follows that while the successes of socialism have a positive and stimulating effect on the world revolutionary process, the mistakes and shortcomings not infrequently have a negative influence on it. Hence the enormous international responsibility of the working class and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid, Vol. 31, p. 148.
~^^2^^ Ibid, p. 457.
381 the Communist and Workers' Parties of the socialist countries to secure socialist construction on a sound basis with the minimum of mistakes. "Our possibilities of supporting the revolutionary and liberation movement throughout the world likewise depend on our achievements,'' said L. I. Brezhnev at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. "The force of the example of the new social system, which is becoming the best agitator for socialism both among the working people in the capitalist countries and the peoples who have shaken off the yoke of colonialism, also depends on them."The Soviet working class began building socialism without the benefit of previous experience in the conditions of a backward Russia ruined by war and suffering from the continuous assaults of white-guards and foreign imperialists. But in this way they amassed experience useful to the whole international working class. On May 26, 1918 Lenin said: "... This experience cannot be taken away. ... It has gone down in history as socialism's gain, and on it the future world revolution will erect its socialist edifice."^^1^^
Whatever the national peculiarities of the building of socialism in the Soviet Union, it was here that the general laws applicable to the building of socialism in all countries were tested and established. In the third year of the revolution in Russia (1920) Lenin wrote, ''. . . it might have seemed that owing to the enormous difference between backward Russia and the advanced countries of Western Europe proletarian revolutions in the latter countries would bear very little resemblance to ours. We now possess quite considerable international experience, which shows very definitely that certain fundamental features of our revolution have a significance that is not local, or peculiarly national or Russian alone, but international.
``. . . It is the Russian model that reveals to all countries something---and something highly significant---of their near and inevitable = future."^^2^^
The international communist movement of today values highly the example which the working class and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have set and continue to set for the world revolution.
Speaking at the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties W. Gomulka, First Secretary of the Central Committee _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 413.
~^^2^^ Ibid, Vol. 31, p. 21, 22.
382 of the Polish United Workers' Party, said: ``Nothing and nobody can cancel out the decisive role played by the Soviet Union in the world anti-imperalist front."The Soviet Union is now the main barrier to imperialist aggression, safeguards mankind from the atomic blackmail of imperialism and renders support and assistance to the national liberation movements, being the stronghold of all nations fighting for freedom and independence."
Today the world socialist system as a whole exerts an international impact on the world revolutionary process by the force of its example. The Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting declared: "Socialism has shown mankind the prospect of deliverance from imperialism. The new social system based on public ownership of the means of production and on the power of the working people is capable of ensuring the planned, crisis-= free development of the economy in the interests of the people, guaranteeing the social and political rights of the working people, creating conditions for genuine democracy, for real participation by the broad masses of people in the administration of society, for all-round development of the individual and for the equality and friendship of nations. It has been proved in fact that only socialism is capable of solving the fundamental problems facing mankind."
The Soviet experience of building socialism has become the international property of the entire world revolutionary movement. "No power on earth, no matter how much evil, hardship and suffering it may yet bring to millions and hundreds of millions of people, can destroy the major gains of our revolution, for these are no longer simply our own gains but the historic gains of the whole = world."^^1^^
According to Lenin, the international contribution of the Soviet people to the cause of world revolution is also made through their serving as the bastion of all international revolutionary forces, rendering them every necessary material, political, ideological, cultural and military aid.
To support and aid the revolutionary movement in all countries is the internationalist duty of the working class already building socialism. Lenin drew special attention to the need to support the nations struggling for their national liberation and independence. "Ft is unquestionable that the proletariat of the advanced countries can and should give help to the working masses of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 325.
383 backward countries, and that the backward countries can emerge from their present stage of development when the victorious proletariat of the Soviet Republics extends a helping hand to these masses and is in a position to give them = support."^^1^^The success of national liberation movements since the victory of the October Revolution has depended on their tics with the working people's struggle for socialism, for only the combined front of the countries of socialism and the countries struggling for their liberation can withstand the onslaught of the united forces of imperialism. Lenin pointed out that the "revolutionary movement of the peoples of the East can now develop effectively, can reach a successful issue, only in direct association with the revolutionary struggle of our Soviet Republic against international = imperialism".^^2^^
It is in the common international interests of the socialist countries and the national liberation movements to assist one another. "We shall exert every effort to foster association and merger with the Mongolians, Persians, Indians, Egyptians,'' Lenin wrote, "we believe it is our duty and in our interest to do this, for otherwise socialism in Europe will not be secure. We shall endeavour to render these nations, more backward and oppressed than we are, 'disinterested cultural assistance', to borrow the happy expression of the Polish Social-Democrats. In other words, we will help them pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to democracy, to = socialism."^^3^^
Lenin's ideas on the ways in which the young Soviet land could fulfil its internationalist duty included the important idea, which has been proved correct by the whole of subsequent historical practice, that, with the support and help of a socialist country, a lorinerly backward nation can go over to socialism zcithoiil having to pass tbrough the capitalist stage of development. ".. . Arc we to consider as correct the assertion that the capitalist stage of economic development is inevitable for backward nations now on the road to emancipation and among whom a certain advance toward progress is to be seen since the war? We replied in the negative. . . . With the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist = stage".^^4^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 243--44.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 50, p. 151.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 67.
~^^4^^ Ibid.. Vol. 31, p. 244.
384In the early years of Soviet power Lenin emphasised the need to strengthen the defences of the USSR both internally and internationally in order to counteract the aggressive designs of imperialism. This applies all the more to modern times, when enormous economic capacities are required to create weapons capable of defending the gains of socialism and smashing imperialist aggression.
Lenin stressed that the point was not merely "to 'proclaim' internationalism, but to be able to be an internationalist in deed, even when times are most = trying".^^1^^ And, looking far ahead, he pointed to the inseparability of national and international tasks with the mounting exigency of the task of converting the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship into an international = one.^^2^^
The following statement by the ^69 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties has borne out this prevision of Lenin's: "7 fie if or/(I socialist system is the decisive force in the anti-= imperialist struggle. Each liberation struggle receives indispensable aid from the world socialist system, above all from the Soviet Union."
Lenin played an outstanding role in restoring international proletarian solidarity. The storms of the Great October Revolution had barely abated and the world's first Republic of Soviets was still involved in a life-and-death struggle against whiteguards and foreign interventionists and against economic dislocation, when Lenin, without waiting for quieter times, took resolute measures to set up a new, genuinely Marxist international association of Communists based on the principles and traditions of the First International.
In March 1919, a congress of delegates from Communist Parties and Left Socialist organisations in 30 countries, held in Moscow, passed a decision to set up the Third International. Just as the First International was the creation of Marx and Engels, so the Third, Communist International was that of Lenin's. The principles of internationalism laid down by Marx and Engels in the First International were revived by Lenin to be developed in the Third International. The establishment of the Third International signified the victory of Marxism-Leninism over social reformism, the triumph of Marxist revolutionary principles in the international working-class movement and the further creative development of these principles in 20th-century conditions.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid.. Vol. 24, p. 82.
~^^2^^ See ibid., Vol 31, p. 148.
385The Third International founded and directed by Lenin embodied the ideas of proletarian internationalism on a new, higher level of the communist movement. Its base was the working-class movement which had already carried through the socialist revolution in one country and had set up the dictatorship of the proletariat in Soviet Russia. "The Third International,'' wrote Lenin, "has begun to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"The international alliance of the parties which are leading the most revolutionary movement in the world, the movement of the proletariat for the overthrow of the yoke of capital, now rests on an unprecedcntedly firm base, in the shape of several Soviet Republics, which arc implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat and are the embodiment of victory over capitalism on an international scale.
"The epoch-making significance of the Third, Communist International lies in that it began to give effect to Marx's cardinal slogan, the slogan which sums up the centuries-old development of socialism and the working-class movement, the slogan which is expressed in the concept of the dictatorship of the = proletariat."^^1^^
A great proletarian internationalist, Lenin regarded the victories and successes of every detachment of the working class as a contribution to the general international struggle of the proletariat. The Comintern was the embodiment of the joint organised struggle of the workers of different countries. As Lenin put it, the founding of the Third International "was a record of what has been gained not only by the Russian workers, but also by the German, Austrian, Hungarian, Finnish, Swiss---in a word, by the workers of the = world"^^2^^
Thanks to Lenin's efforts, the Communist International proved to be a model of the unification of the workers of different countries on the principles of proletarian internationalism.
Lenin developed the major requirement of proletarian internationalism that the liberation movements of the peoples struggling for national independence should be supported in every way.
The national liberation of every nation is the indispensable condition for the development by the working people of different nations of the joint struggle for their social emancipation. By calling on the workers of all countries to unite, Marx and Engcls pointed to the need for the working class of every country to carry on a resolute struggle against national oppression. The ideal _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 307.
~^^2^^ Ibid, Vol. 28, p. 487.
386 of socialism is inimical to all oppression---social or national. And the emancipation of the oppressed nations is in the objective interests of the proletariat itself. Marx and Engels wrote: "While die various countries lacked national unity and independence, and while each country worked in isolation, the international unification of the proletariat could never have been achieved, nor would the sober and deliberate collaboration of these countries in the furtherance of general aims have been = possible."^^1^^Analysing the various combinations of circumstances that can result in the victory of national liberation revolutions, Lenin was the first to raise the question of merging into one stream the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie with the national liberation movement. He came to the conclusion that what is required for the success of national liberation revolutions is "either the concerted effort of huge numbers of people in the oppressed countries ... or a particularly favourable combination of international conditions (e.g., the fact that the imperialist powers cannot interfere, being paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their antagonism, etc.), or the simultaneous uprising of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in one of the big = powers.~.~.~."^^2^^
Marx and Engels spoke of the need for proletarians to support the liberation struggles of oppressed people as a precondition for the social emancipation of the proletariat itself and that of all working people. Lenin showed further that, in the era of imperialism, the national liberation movement and the world socialist revolution are two interdependent revolutionary currents or processes in a single revolutionary stream of proletarian and anti-= colonial revolutions, preparing the way for the socialist reconstruction of human society.
This conception of the interdependence of the two historical processes enabled Lenin to extend the content of proletarian internationalism on the new era. This was due to the fact that the replacement of capitalism by socialism does not take the simple form of a scries of proletarian revolutions alone, but covers an entire historical era in which there is "a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed = nations".^^3^^ Hence "the socialist revolution will not be solely, or chielly, a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, New York, p. 272.
~^^2^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 312.
~^^3^^ Ibid, Vol. 23, p. 60.
387 each country against their bourgeoisie---no, it will be a struggle of all the imperialism-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international = imperialism".^^1^^ Therefore, just as the proletariat must strengthen its alliance with the peasantry and other groups of working people in order to gain victory over its ``own'' bourgeoisie, so a close union of the revolutionary proletariat with the national liberation movements is necessary in the struggle against international imperialism.Marx and Engels advanced the slogan "Workers of all countries, unite!'', which expressed the essence of proletarian internationalism in the times in which they lived. Lenin, in a new age, that of imperialism, extended this slogan to include the new national liberation movements of oppressed peoples in the world revolutionary stream. In 1920, on the cover of the journal of the Communist International Narody Vostoka (Peoples of the East), there appeared the slogan: "Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!" In a speech to a meeting of activists of the Moscow Party organisation Lenin drew attention to the correctness of this slogan. He said that "from the point of view of present-day politics, this change is = correct".^^2^^ The ideas and principles of proletarian internationalism arc not, therefore, immutable. They develop as social life becomes more strongly internationalised, and as the stream of the world revolution is joined by new revolutionary forces, and proletarian internationalism requires new content.
Now, when the countries of the world socialist system arc playing the leading role in the world revolutionary process, and when the significance of the various anti-imperialist, anti-= monopoly, anti-militarist and anti-war movements in the struggle against the domination of imperialism has grown enormously the nature of proletarian internationalism has again developed further. As a result, the concept of the slogan of proletarian internationalism in the present day is broadening, too.
The 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties launched the following appeal: "Peoples of the socialist countries, workers, democratic forces in the capitalist countries, neiely liberated peoples and those who tire oppressed, unite in a common struggle against imperialism lor peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialism!"
The Communist and Workers' Parties advocate the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 159
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 453.
388 international discipline of the proletarian movement in order to strengthen proletarian solidarity and unity. The Bolshevik Party led by Lenin always submitted to this principle. "We are proud that we settle the great problems of the workers' struggle for their emancipation by submitting to the international discipline of the revolutionary proletariat, with due account of the experience of the workers in different countries, reckoning with their knowledge and their will, and thus giving effect in deed (and not in word, as the Renners, Flit/, Adlers and Otto Bauers do) to the unity of the workers' class struggle for communism throughout the = world."^^1^^If international discipline is not observed, if Communist and Workers' Parties refuse to take joint action when this is possible, then the principles of proletarian internationalism are grossly violated and great damage is inflicted on the world communist and workers' movement.
In present-day conditions when the international proletariat is represented by powerful contingents on all continents, when the socialist countries of Europe, Asia and America are developing under the guidance of the working class, paramount importance attaches to the strong international alliance of workers, to the international brotherhood of workers and their Parties. The international force of capital organised into alliances, pacts, etc., is confronted by the multi-million force of workers, which is the more real, active and powerful, the greater the unity of workers and their Marxist-Leninist parties.
Today imperialism is powerless to deal with the growing forces of the international working class and is therefore historically doomed. Imperialists and their politicians and ideologists can only pin their hopes on splitting the workers' ranks, encouraging all kinds of vacillation in their midst and in the ranks of the Communist Parties, reviving Right and Leftist deviations in the international labour and communist movement, in a word---on subjectively undermining the objectively powerful strength of the contemporary working-class and communist movement.
A Marxist-Leninist working-class party is strong by virtue of its ability to tap all its internal possibilities in the struggle for the interests of its people and simultaneously in the struggle for the common international cause of revolution and socialism. Any attempts to ``strengthen'' Party positions at the expense of weakening and even severing international ties, at the cost of refusing _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid, p. 269.
389 to undertake joint action together with the other contingents ot the communist movement can only serve to jeopardise the ideological independence of this Party from the bourgeoisie and undermine its political authority.The basic interests of the international class struggle of the proletariat imperatively demand that all its national contingents display complete solidarity and unity of action. This does not. rule out differences of opinion among them or divergencies on different matters. They may, of course, approach problems in different ways. But such disagreements (some being of a temporary nature, others more lasting) should not be allowed to interfere with unity in the struggle against the common international enemy---imperialism.
To consolidate proletarian internationalism all Communist and Workers' Parties must pursue a correct, principled Marxist-- Leninist political line. They must abide by the following international principle of Leninism: "The proletariat cannot pursue its struggle for socialism and defend its everyday economic interests without the closest and fullest alliance of the workers of all nations in all working-class organisations without = exception."^^1^^
In order "to work till a durable and voluntary union of peoples is achieved'', as Lenin said, time and patience are needed, and the knack of taking into account in each definite case both the interests of each nation and the interests of the international working-class movement and of the socialist community as a whole. It is necessary to conduct constantly, day after day, the most varied joint international activities in order to consolidate proletarian solidarity. "Working-class organisation and solidarity is not confined to one country or one nationality: the workers' parties of different countries proclaim aloud the complete identity (solidarity) of interests and aims of the workers of the whole world. They come together at joint congresses, put forward common demands to the capitalist class of all countries, have established an international holiday of the entire organised proletariat striving for emancipation (May Day), thus welding the working class of all nationalities and of all countries into one great workers' = army."^^2^^
The Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow in 1969 proved to be such a world forum for Communists. Speaking at this Meeting L. I. Brezhnev expressed his belief that _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin, = Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 245.
~^^2^^ Ibid, Vol. 2, p. 108--09.
390 it would "play a major role in stimulating the actions of the fighters against imperialism'', and would "contribute towards uniting the entire world front of the forces championing peace, democracy, national independence and socialism".It is possible to foil the sinister designs of internal and external enemies and to maintain a steady offensive against imperialism only by keeping inflexibly to the path of proletarian internationalism. This offensive is the more successful the more close arc the ranks of Communists.
The Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU reaffirmed that loyalty to communism, proletarian internationalism and socialist solidarity have always been and will remain a law of the Party's work and struggle.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is unfailingly true to its internationalist revolutionary duty. It is conducting an irreconcilable struggle against revisionism and dogmatism, and against manifestations of nationalism, and furthering the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory. The CPSU advocates a policy of joint action by the Communist Parties of the world in the struggle against imperialism, for the great aims of peace, democracy, national independence, socialism and communism.
International solidarity has been and remains the cornerstone of the communist and working-class movement. In the present situation, proletarian internationalism becomes especially vital; it becomes a major prerequisite for social progress, for rallying all revolutionary forces for a further offensive against imperialism.
[391] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]REQUEST TO READERS
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and anv suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[392]