Workers of Ail Countries, Unite!
__TITLE__ LENINISMPEACE AND SOCIALISM PUBLISHERS PRAGUE 1970
V. I. LENIN
Pctrograd. January 1918.
[1]MARXISM TODAY SERIES
Editors:
K. I. Zarodov, J. Kowalczyk, J. Laborde, P. Hentges, C. Unni Raja ~
This book contains contributions to an international conference devoted to the centenary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin by functionaries and theorists of Communist and Workers' parties. The conference was held under the auspices of the journal Problems oj Peace and Socialism, in Prague, November 19---21, 1969.
The contributions are presented in full. The international Marxist discussion provided evidence of the desire to make a deep study of the relevance of Lenin's theoretical heritage in the fight for a revolutionary reconstruction of the world and to contribute to a common appraisal of new problems arising in the practice of the Communist and working-class movement. However, divergent opinions, too, were expressed on a number of theoretical and political issues.
The book is intended for Party workers and researchers, instructors at higher and secondary'educational establishments, lecturers, propagandists and students of Marxist-Leninist theory and the problems of the contemporary international Communist and working-class movement.
[2] CONTENTS Introduction Participants in the Conference 1. B. N. Ponomaryou Great Leader of the Revolutionary Epoch 2. T. Buck Towards a New Level of the Struggle for24. B. Matthews
Lenin on the Fight for Democracy in the Capitalist Countries with Particular Reference to Britain
290 Lenin's Cooperative Plan in Bulgaria
297 Leninism and Topical" Problems of the Revolutionary Struggle in Latin America
315 To Fight Opportunism---Lenin's Behest
319 Lenin's Theory of Revolution
331 Lenin and the Labour Movement in Sweden
337 Leninism and the Struggle Against Chauvinism and for Proletarian Internationalism
344 Lenin's Teaching on Imperialism and Our Time
358 Leninism and Some Problems of the National Liberation Movement
305 The Source's of Opportunism Today
376
38425. 7. Prymov
26. L. Becerra
27. J. Fojtik V28. ~M. Horquez
29. K. Beckstrom
30. W. E/irlicti
31. M. /!/on
32. A. Kan'm
33. IV. Gens
34. Conclusion
[4] __ALPHA_LVL1__ [introduction.]An international theoretical conference on the subject "Leninism and Our Time'', sponsored by Problems of Peace and Socialism in connection with the Lenin centenary, was held in Prague from November 19 to 21, 1969.
Delegations of the following Communist and Workers' parties particb pated in the conference: Socialist Vanguard Party of Algeria, Communist Party of Argentina, Socialist Unity Party of West Berlin, Communist Party of Bolivia, Brazilian Communist Party, Communist Party of Great Britain, Bulgarian Communist Party, Communist Party of Canada, Communist Party of Chile, Communist Party of Colombia, Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Communist Party of Denmark, Communist Party of Ecuador, Communist Party of Finland, French Communist Party, German Communist Party, Communist Party of Germany, Socialist Unity Party of Germany, Communist Party of Greece, Guatemalan Party of Labour, Communist Party of Honduras, Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, Communist Party of India, People's Party of Iran [TUDEH], Communist Party of Israel, Italian Communist Party, Communist Party of Japan, Lebanese Communist Party, Mexican Communist Party, Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party, People's Party of Panama, Communist Party of Paraguay, Polish United Workers' Party, Rumanian Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Communist Party of Spain, Left Party---Communists of Sweden, Tunisian Communist Party, Communist Party of Turkey, Communist Party of the USA.
In an opening address on haiialf of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council, Comrade K. I. Zarodov, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Problems of Peace and Socialism, thanked all representatives of fra= ternal parties for responding to the journal's invitation and coming to the international Marxist conference.
By organising this conference, Comrade Zarodov said, the Editors complied with the wishes of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, held in Moscow in June 1969, which pointed to the vital need for collective discussion and elaboration of topical [5] political and theoretical problems. Also, 'Comrade Zarodov added, we acted on the Meeting's unanimously adopted Address "Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin'', calling on all Communists, all fighters for the socialist transformation of society, all champions of progress and peace to mark in a worthy manner the approaching Lenin centenary, a historic date of world-wide significance.
Lastly, the Editor-in-Chief added, we acted in accordance with the 'decision of the Editorial Council of the journal, held at the end of October and in the beginning of November 1969, which instructed the journal to cover all aspects of the preparations for the Lenin centenary by Communist and Workers' parties, to promote the dissemination and creative elaboration of Marxism-Leninism, and to elucidate the international character of Leninism and its role as a powerful Instrument in the revolutionary reconstruction of the world.
Our theoretical forum, Comrade Zarodov said in conclusion, is attended by representatives of Marxist-Leninist thought from many countries and numerous contingents of the world Communist movement. This broad participation speaks of the common desire of the Central Committees of the fraternal parties to contribute to the dissemination and elaboration of Lenin's ideas and to produce a bold Leninist analysis of the b.u'imiy issues of our time.
[6] __FIX__ Turn into a table:PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFERENCE ~
Sociallii Vanguard Party of Algeria ~
Communist Party of Argentina Sociallit teii'y Party of West Berlin ~
Communrst 8»rty of Bolivia Brazilian liwmmist Party ~
Communist Party of Great Britain Bulgarian Communist Party ~
Communist Party of Canada ~
Communist Party of Chile Communist Party of Colombia ~
Communist Party of Czechoslovakia ~
Communist Party of Denmark ~
Communist Party of Ecuador ~
Communist Party of Finland ~
LARBI BOUHAL1 ~
Member of Provisional Leadership ~
AHMED KARIM ~
JULIO LABORDE ~
Member of Central Committee ~
DIETMAR AHRENS ~
Member of Secretariat ~
BRUNO KUSTER ~
Member of Secretariat ~
LUIS PADILLO ~
Secretary of Central Committee ~
MAURO MORA ~
Member of Executive Commission ~
ANTONIO ARAUJO ~
Member of Central Committee ~
BETTY MATTHEWS ~
Head of Central Committee Education ~
Department ~
IVAN PRYMOV ~
Secretary of Central Committee ~
ASEN KYTOV ~
NIKOLA FILCHEV ~
TIM BUCK Chairman of CPC
JOSE DICKMAN
ALVARO VASQUEZ
Secretary of Central Commit!
MANUEL CEPEDA VARGAS
Member of Central Committee
Executive ~
JAN FOJTIK ~
Member of Secretariat and Se.-. ~
of Central Committee
VILEM NOVY
Member of Central Committee
STANISLAV JAGERMANN
KVETOSLAV ROUBAL
JULIUS SEFRANEK
IB N0RLUND
Member of Executive and SeaetaiM
of Central Committee
MILTON JIJON
Member of Central Committee
Executive
ERKKI RAUTEE
[7]French Communist Party ~
German Communist Party ~
Communist Party of Germany ~
Socialist Unity Party of Germany ~
Communist Party of Greece ~
Guatemalan Party of Labour Communist Party of Honduras Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party ~
Communist Party of India ~
Rumanian Communist Party ~
Communist Party of the Soviet Union ~
People's Party of Iran (TUDEHJ ~
Communist Party of Israel ~
Italian Communist Party ~
Communist Party of Japan ~
OIVA BJORKBACKA ~
ERKKI PIIRONEN ~
JEAN BURLES ~
Member of Central Committee ~
FRANQIS COHEN ~
PIERRE HENTGES ~
WILLI GERNS ~
Member of Presidium ~
ROBERT STEIGERVVALD ~
ALBERT BUCHMANN ~
Member of Central Committee ~
HENRI MULLER ~
WERNER LAMBERZ ~
Secretary of Central Committee ~
OTTO REINHOLD ~
Member of Central Committee ~
HELENF: BERG ~
Member of Central Committee ~
GONTER HEYDEN ~
PAUL LIMANN ~
HANS SCHAUL ~
AH1M WOLF ~
VASILIS VENETSANOPOUT.OS ~
Member of Central Committee ~
JOSE MANUEL FORTUNY ~
LONGING BECERRA ~
DEZSO NEMES ~
Member of Political Bureau ~
C. UNNI RAJA ~
Member of National Council ~
CHINMOHAN SEHANAVIS ~
Member of CPl Council ~
in West Bengal ~
EHSAN TABARI ~
Member of Executive Bureau ~
ARTASHES AVANESYAN ~
Member of Executive Bureau ~
SALIBA KHAMIS ~
Member of Political Bureau ~
WOLFF EHRLICH ~
Member of Political Bureau ~
LUCIANO GRUPP1 ~
Member of Central Committee ~
MICHELE ROSSI ~
Member of Central Committee ~
H1DESATO NUMATA ~
Member of Central Auditing ~
Commission ~
TOSHIO SAKAKI ~
Lebanese Communist Party Mexican Communist Party ~
Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party ~
People's Party of Panama ~
Communist Party of Paraguay Polish United Workers' Party ~
GEORGES BATAL
Member of Central Committee
MARTHA BORQUEZ
Member of Presidium
TSEREVIIN DAVAGSUREN
Member of Central Committee
TSOGTYN NAMSARAI
Alternate member of Central
Committee ~
GULLERMO ROJAS ~
Member of Central Committee ~
GUSTAVO COLMAN ~
JAN SZYDLAK ~
Alternate member of Political Bureau, ~
Secretary of Central Committee ~
WLAUYSLAW ZASTAWNY ~
Member of Central Committee ~
JOZEF KOWALCZYK ~
EDWARD MACHOCKI ~
1LIE RADULESCU ~
Member of Central Committee ~
WALTER ROMAN ~
Member of Central Committee ~
TUDOR POSTOLACHE ~
BORIS PONOMARYOV ~
Secretarry of Central Committee ~
PYOTR FEDOSEYEV ~
Member of Central Committee ~
KONSTANTIN ZARODOV ~
Alternate member of Central ~
Committee ~
VADIM ZAGLAOIN ~
ANATOLY CHERNYAYEV ~
KAREN BRUTENTS ~
JUAN D1Z ~
Member of Executive Committee ~
FRANCISCO ANTON SANZ ~
KNUT BECKSTROM ~
GUNNAR OHMAN ~
MOHAMMED HARMEL ~
MEHMET SARACOGLU ~
HYMAN LUMER ~
Member ol Political Committee and ~ Secretariat ~
Communist Party of Spain ~
Left Party---Communists of Sweden ~
Tunisian Communist Party ~
Communist Party of Turkey ~
Communist Party of the USA ~
[9] ~ [10] __ALPHA_LVL1__ GREAT LEADER OF THE REVOLUTIONARYIn mankind's history there have been many revolutions and revolutionary leaders, who rose against oppression and tyranny, slavery and exploitation. Lenin's strength and greatness lie in the fact that like no one else he succeeded in understanding the vital demands of social development at a time when the conditions and premises were mature for socialist revolution; they lie in the fact that ha succeeded in embodying these demands in the activity of the prole* tariat and its Party, and in heading the great revolutionary upswing that led to the collapse of the old world.
The name and cause of Lenin are inseparable from the Great October Socialist Revolution, which ushered in a radical turn in the develop^ ment of society, the turn from capitalism, a system of exploitation and oppression, to socialism, a system of genuine freedom from social and national oppression.
Of exceptional importance is the fact that the force of Lenin's ideas, the might bf the Party and the socialist state founded by him and the impact of the revolution that triumphed under his leadership grow as time passes by. The course of historical development does not weaken, but enhances all that was started by the great genius of communism and provides ever new confirmation of the correctness of Lenin's thoughts and work. And this adds fresh strength to all the supporters of Marxism-Leninism.
The entire epoch linked with the October Revolution is one of brilliant victories of the theory and practice of Leninism, whose final triumph on a global scale will signify a thorough-going revolutionary renewal of the world, of all aspects of social life: the economy, the 11 political system, international relations, culture, ideology, and day-- today life. Leninism's impact on the course of history is measured by the scale of the* colossal social upheaval and unparalleled transformations that distinguish our century and in which hundreds of millions of people are taking an active and purposeful part.
The struggle of millions for democracy, the national independence of peoples and socialism is led by the international working class. After the epoch-making victories won on the path indicated by Lenin, the international working class is now firmly established as the force standing in the centre of the modern epoch. The Soviet Union, the socialist world system and the international working class are a reliable and invincible social bulwark of Leninism.
The transition from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom demands the constant enhancement of the role of the conscious, organising and guiding element in the life of society. This role can only be fulfilled by the revolutionary Party of the working class, by the new type of Party. After our country, on the basis of Leninism, parties of this type have emerged in most countries; they comprise the modern international Communist movement, the vanguard of the revolutionary struggle of our epoch.
The immortality of Leninism, the guarantee that the process of revolution following the path charted by Lenin will culminate in the complete victory of the proletarian cause lies in the activity of the Marxist-Leninist parties, and in the real historical victories of socialism.
If in the image of Lenin as a great historical figure we try to single out the cardinal, most characteristic feature, it may be said that he was first and foremost and'in everything a revolutionary. His was the revolutionary spirit of a great fighter lor the cause of the working class, of all working and oppressed people. "His heart pulsed with love of all working people, of all oppressed people,'' These inspired words, spoken by Nadezhda Krupskaya at Lenin's coffin, showed what force drove him and to what he dedicated his titanic work as a theoretician and fighter.
For Lenin the meaning of life was to secure the emancipation of the working class, of all working and oppressed people. In Marxism he found the answer as to how this task was to be carried out. And he became a devoted Marxist, in other words, a proletarian revolutionary in the loftiest sense of the word.
All of Lenin's work work was an absolute expression of the principle 12 that the end objective of the working-class movement had always to be kept in sight, in everything, big and small. He warned: "Nothing but disillusionment and unending vacillation await those who shun the allegedly one-sided class point of view" (Vol. 8, p. 24).
Defining the feature distinguishing the proletarian revolutionary spirit based on scientific socialism, he noted that it is characterised by a "most profound comprehension of the basic aims of the proletariat in bringing about change, and providing an unusually flexible definition of the tasks of the tactics of the moment from the standpoint of these revolutionary aims, without making the slightest concession to opportunism or revolutionary phrase-mongering" (Vol. 19, p. 554). As a revolutionary Lenin was irreconcilable to any kind of compromise and at the same time he did not tolerate revolutionary verbiage and anarchist sallies of those who. as he sarcastically said, make a point of writing the word ``revolution'' with a capital letter or with three R's. "Hysterical impulses are of no use to us. What we need is the steady advance of the iron battalions of the proletariat" (Vol. 27, p. 277).
By virtue of this firm orientation on the end objective, Lenin formulated one of the central criteria of the proletarian revolution, namely, the attitude of the Party to its programme. The Party of the revolutionary proletariat, he said, is greatly concerned for its programme, takes great pains to establish well in advance its ultimate aim, the complete emancipation of the working people, and jealously guards this aim against any attempts to whittle it down (see Vol. 8, p. 427).
The greatest master of {he strategy and tactics of revolution, Lenin demanded that at every turn of events, at moments of upsurge and during forced retreats, the masses should be educated in a revolutionary spirit, that they should be prepared for revolutionary action, An intrinsic quality of the proletarian revolutionary and of the proletarian Party is that a revolutionary policy expressing the interests of /the working class is pursued under any conditions. This work, Lenin said, is never in vain and will repay itself a hundred-fold. If this work is not conducted "all minor gains are hollow vanities" (Vol. 8, p. 427).
Lenin frequently compared the revolution with a whirlwind, which sweeps from its path everything that has outworn itself, everything reactionary, everything that hinders progress. But a revolution is not only an elemental force destroying the old system. It is a force that fmablf,s the mnsses, led by their proletarian vanguard, to create a new iocial system with their own hands and Intelligence. Marx's definition 13 of revolution as the locomotive of history appealed to him. He often returned to this idea, emphasising that the transition from-evolutionary to revolutionary development releases the mighty creative energy inherent in the movement of the masses. He wrote: "... it is just the revolutionary periods which are distinguished by wider, richer, more deliberate, more methodical, more systematic, more courageous and more vivid making of history than periods of philistine, Cadet, reformist progress" (Vol. 10, p. 253).
Lenin raised on high and ali-sidedly substantiated the significance of the creative tasks of the revolution. On the implementation of these complex tasks, lie said, depended the final victory over capitalism, the final triumph of communism on a world-wide scale.
Lenin based all his work on the solid foundation of the theory of scientific socialism evolved by Marx and Engels. His attitude to revo-- lutionary science may he summed up briefly as follows: steadfastly uphold, defend and develop Marxism and ensure the link between theory and the practice of the revolutionary movement.
While being irreconcilably opposed to dogmatism of all kinds, Lenin waged an uncompromising struggle for the purity of the principles of Marxism and had every consideration for every thought of his teachers---Marx and Engels. He castigated the "short-sighted people'', who on noting new phenomena in the economy of capitalism, could think of "refashioning the foundations of Marx's theory" (Vol. 15, p. 35).
Being the strictest and most consistent disciple of Marx and Engels and the truest and most passionate champion of the revolutionary science evolved by them, Lenin st,,v the vitality, invincibility and universality of this science in the fact that it had itself indicated "the path that must be followed in further developing and elaborating it in all its parts" (Vol. 4, p. 210). For his part, he made a colossal contribution to the Marxist teaching, creatively developing and enriching it, and raising scientific socialism to a new and higher stage. Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, of socialist and communist construction, of the emergence and growth of the socialist world system, of national liberation revolutions and the disintegration of the colonial system, of mankind's transition to communism.
In theoretical work, in science, as in everything else, Lenin was first and foremost a revolutionary. There was nothing of the armchair scholar about him. By all his work he proved that for him the scientific outlook meant not only an explanation of the world but a'so a struggle to remake the world.
14A great revolutionary, Lenin was a sober realist. But his realism was consistently revolutionary and was the direct antithesis of the conciliatory realism of the opportunists, who orient themselves on the views of the philistine. The opportunists appeal to realism, refer to new phenomena in justifying their rejection of revolutionary action, of the ultimate goal of the struggle for socialism, and their policy of adaptation to circumstances. Lenin, on the other hand, while invariably demanding that revolutionaries adopt a realistic approach to life and profoundly study new phenomena, was steadj fastly guided by a striving to bring to light all possibilities and find additional arguments in favour of the revolutionary remaking of. society.
As Lenin saw it, a consistently revolutionary spirit is inseparably linked with proletarian internationalism.
The international character of Leninism derives from the international tasks which the revolutionary working-class movement is called upon to tackle while the sources of this internationalism are rooted in its very origin. Leninism has absorbed the entire wealth of the preceding revolutionary experience of Russia and the whole world. "We are standing on the shoulders of a number of revolutionary generations of Europe,'' Lenin said (Vol. 8, p. 287). For Lenin, a theoretical interpretation of the lessons to be learned from the cliss struggle in Russia and the whole world was always an indispensable requisite for the charting of a political line. In this he saw the condition for the Party adopting a correct policy.
One cannot help being amazed at the profundity with which Lenin went into the essence of the problems of the international workingclass movement with all their diversity in different countries. While waging a struggle for the triumph of the revolution in Russia, he was abreast of the problems of the working class of France, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the United States of America, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Ireland and the Scandinavian, Balkan and other countries.
He knew the strong and weak points of the different contingents of the working class movement, and their place and potentialities in the common front of revolutionary forces. Taking into account the uneven development of the revolutionary struggle, he analysed its causes 'and probable consequences. He constantly kept in his field of vision the political and social changes in the life of the millions in the East---from China and India to Persia and Turkey.
Great revolutionary and internationalist that he was, I^enin thought on the scale of the entire planet, on the scale of the epoch. This 15 was what enabled him to generalise the practice of the international working-class movement and make the Russian and then the Soviel experience the international property of all revolutionaries. After securing the victory of the world's first socialist revolution, Leninism turned proletarian internationalism into a mighty factor of all subsequent historical development.
I have dwelt only on the main features of Lenin's image as a revolutionary. This is a subject that can never be exhausted.
Lenin's teaching on the world revolution is the concentrated expression of his revolutionary, internationalist approach to the remaking of society.- I should like to deal with this subject in greater detail.
Lenin saw every anniversary as an occasion for summing up what has been done and, what is most important, for drawing attention to outstanding tasks. In this context, if we look at the problems of world revolutionary development in the light of the approaching historical date, we can say: the international working class has made vast gains by following the Leninist path. But the forces of ' revolution still have to tackle gigantic tasks.
One-third of mankind has besn delivered from capitalist oppression. Two-thirds are in the non-socialist part of the world. The majority of the globe's population in more than 100 countries suffer from exploitation and oppression. Over 35 million people remain under the yoke of the colonialists. Imperialism has at its disposal considerable economic and military power. Its resistance to the forces of social progress is not weakening but growing.
That is precisely why the Leninist theory of the socialist revolution retains all its relevance today. Its strength lies in the fact that it has been tested in practice. Its victorious character has been confirmed by the revolutionary experience of the Soviet Union and other countries.
Lenin profoundly and all-sidedly evolved the theory of revolution, in which an analysis of the general laws of the modern epoch is linked with a concrete elaboration of the ways and means of remaking society along socialist lines.
He drew the enormously important conclusion that the increasing unevenness of the economic and political development of capitalism in the epoch of imperialism creates differences in time for the victory of the socialist revolution from country to country. Time and again 16 he stressed that it would be an opportunist Utopia to postpone the socialist revolution until the conditions for it wholly and completely mature in all or in most ceuntries, to a time when all or almost all the forces opposed to imperialism rise to the level of understanding the proletarian socialist platform.
That is why the world socialist revolution is not a single act but a long process filling an entire epoch and developing as a complex chain of various forms of socialist revolutions, anti-colonial liberation revolutions and diverse anti-imperialist democratic movements.
The strength of Lenin's revolutionary strategy is that it embraces the entire complex process of struggle against world imperialism and takes into account various objective conditions and the role of the subjective factor in the development of the liberation movement and the growing diversity of the forms of this movement. It has an historically specific character and determines the main directions and forces of the revolutionary struggle in keeping with the changing international and internal situation.
The principal feature distinguishing the world revolutionary process at present is that there is a socialist world system which is gaining , in strength and becoming the decisive factor of the development at human society. Lenin's conclusion that in the course of the entirt epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism the victorious working class plays the role of vanguard of the world revolution has become an incontestable truth.
N
The socialist world system is ~
---the main lever changing the relationship of class forces on an international scale in favour of the working class, and the basic motive force of the world revolution and of the struggle against imperialism;
---the vanguard of the international working class, which resolves the most complex creative tasks in the building of the new social system assigned to it by history, accumulates experience of worldhistoric significance, raises the prestige of socialism and draws to its side millions of working people from the camp of imperialism;
---the basis and source of the internationalist support for the revolutionary struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries and in the zone of the national liberation movement;
---the decisive force and mainstay of the struggle of the peoples against another world war.
But does all this imply a diminution of the importance of the struggle of the working class of the capitalist countries and of the forces of national liberation? On the contrary, the struggle of the 17 two systems is the main but not the only front of struggle against imperialism. The socialist countries extend the possibilities of the antiImperialist forces. But the realisation of these possibilities depends decisively on the struggle of the working class and its allies within the capitalist system. Precisely on account of the support from the socialist system the significance of the struggle of these contingents of the world liberation movement is growing and their revolutionary potentialities are increasing.
The proletariat of the imperialist countries has greater opportunities for fulfilling its historic mission, that of abolishing capitalism in its citadels, under conditions in which the main forces of imperialism are poised against the socialist system and in which the omnipotence and oppression of the monopolies are pushing more and more social strata into the camp of their adversaries. Today the working class is a tremendous social and political force. Whereas there were 10 million proletarians in the developed capitalist countries in the mid-19th century, today there are more than 200 million. The proletariat has gone through an extensive school of class battles and it is intensifying Its assault on capitalism. More than 300 million people took part in the strikes in the period from 1960 to 1983. There have been over 250 nationwide strikes in the capitalist countries during the past decade. The class battles are steadily gaining in scale and growing more and more organised. The Communist parties are the vanguard of the working class.
The: working class, which is fighting in the citadels of imperialism, ties down imperialism's freedom of action against the socialist countries and the national liberation movement. It thereby renders considerable assistance to all other sectors of the world-wide revolutionary struggle.
The national liberation movement has become a great revolutionary force of modern times. The colonial system of imperialism lias collapsed under its blows. The percentage of the world's population fettered by colonial and semi-colonial dependence has dropped from 69.4 in 1919 to only 1. The national liberation movement is rising to a new stage, setting as its aim the consolidation of the poliiicnl independence of the newly-liberated countries, the building up of an independent national economy and the achievement of a radical improvement of the living standards of the people.
The vast scale of the national liberation movement has had a most substantial impact on the entire course of the world-wide class struggle, chiefly on account of the awakening and active inclusion of a large proportion of mankind into the anti-imperialist struggle. 18 The national liberation revolutions undermine and erode the positions of imperialism in areas that it once regarded as its reliable hinterj land. Furthermore, a large group of young national states have in recent years taken the road of far-reaching social reforms, which create important requisites for consolidating political independence, strengthening the economy, raising the standard of living and cultural level of the working masses, abolishing survivals of medievalism and promoting the political activity of the working people. The emergence of revolutionary-democratic regimes, which have set the transition to socialism as their aim, is a fundamentally new phenomenon in world revolutionary practice and a major gain of the forces of social progress.
When we speak of the basic features of Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution it must be emphasised that this theory rests wholly on a scientific, dialectical analysis of the objective processes of world development. Underlying this theory, as we all know, is an analysis of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.
Many people, including the theoreticians of the Second International, Hilferding and Kautsky, wrote about imperialism early in the 20th century. There were correct observations in their works written in the initial period. But they lacked the most important feature, namely, an understanding of the new processes from the standpoint of the tasks of the revolutionary struggle of Ihe proletariat. On the contrary, in new facts these theoreticians looked for confirmation of their opportunist views. A diametrically different approach was adopted by Lenin. From the same facts, but assessing them from the position of the working class, lie drew entirely different con-* elusions.
What has the experience of history shown? Whose approach has proved to be really scientific and true?
The "organised nature" of capitalism, hailed by Hilferding, turned into economic catalysms. one of which was the crisis of 1929---1933 unprecedented in the history of capitalism. The "peaceful capitalism" of Kautsky plunged mankind into the abyss of two terrible world wars and gave birth to barbarous fascist dictatorships whose atrocities eclipsed the most heinous crimes of the tyrannies of the past.
On the other hand, Lenin's creative analysis of the new processes in capitalism from the slundpoini of the proletarian revolution made it possible not only to uphold the principles of Marxism but to develop them in keeping with Ihe changed conditions. Nobody emphasised so forcefully as Lenin that the development of monopoly and'then of slate-monopoly capitalism was already, in effect, a 19 negation of capitalism as a social system. At the same time, nobody pointed out so forcefully as Lenin that the growing socialisation of production, the evolution of capitalism "into its higher, regulated form" (Vol. 24, p. 306) most insistently poses the question precisely of the revolutionary overthrow of this system and the transfer of power into the hands of the proletariat. "The `proximity' of such capitalism to socialism,'' Lenin wrote, "should serve genuine representatives of the proletariat as an argument proving the proximity, facility, feasibility and urgency of the socialist revolution, and not at all as an argument for tolerating the repudiation of such a revolution and the efforts to make capitalism look more attractive, something which all reformists are trying to do" (Vol. 25, p. 443].
In the forty-six years since Lenin's death many changes have taken place in the system and structure of capitalism. But all of them confirm that Lenin's teaching on imperialism is correct and are evidence of the increasing maturity of the prerequisites of revolution.
Typical of modern capitalism are such tendencies as the further considerable intensification of the concentration and centralisation of production and capital, the setting up of mammoth ``super''-monopoly conglomerates and a sharp rise of the economic role played by the bourgeois state. These processes are taking place under conditions of struggle and competition between the two world systems. They are unfolding amidst a scientific and technological revolution that is far-reaching in both scale and consequences. In its endeavours to adapt itself to the new situation, imperialism is making use of the development of science and technology and having recourse to new levers of state-monopoly administration. But all this convincingly demonstrates the truth of Marx's words, when he said that the ex plotters made science serve capital by subordinating it.
These conditions are bringing into sharp focus the same dilemma, namely, whether to approach the assessment of these phenomena from revolutionary, Leninist or from reformist, opportunist positions? Whether to assess the buildup of the material prerequisites of socialism in capitalist society as an argument in favour of the " peaceful transformation" of capitalism into socialism or as an argument in favour of intensifying the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalist rule?
Speculating on new facts just as in Lenin's lifetime, the reformists and overt revisionists have once again taken, up the argument that the contradictions of capitalism are now finally "coining to naught'', and that the task of the revolutionary overthrow of the old system 20 is being removed from the agenda as no longer ``relevant'' to the features of the so-called "post-industrial society''.
For Communists, on the other hand, the Leninist approach to imperialism, which is a genuinely revolutionary, class approach, continues to serve as a guide for a correct understanding and accurate scientific assessment of the new phenomena and processes in the development of capitalism. It is this approach that permeates the documents of the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communists.
State-monopoly regulation, implemented---directly or in the final analysis---for the sake of securing the further exploitation of the working people and ensuring big business with higher profits, is no longer able to control the spontaneity of capitalist development. State-monopoly capitalism's inability to cope with market forces is manifesting itself most strikingly today in the upheavals shaking the entire currency and finance system of the bourgeois world, in a ruthless trade and currency war. The currency upheavals and the rising cost of living are, at the same time, the result of colossal military ex^ penditure. The war in Vietnam alone has already cost the USA at least 100,000 million dollars. In 1968 the military expenditures of the NATO countries amounted to 103,000 million dollars. In this situation the social contrasts, the concentration of incalculable wealth in the hands of a small financial oligarchy, on the one hand, and the growing insecurity of the masses, on the other, are becoming increasingly more striking.
The new phenomena in the development of capitalism are aggra= vating basic contradictions that derive from its nature and substance as an exploiting society.
The Communist movement seeks to bring precisely this, Leninist understanding of modern imperialism to the largest possible circles of workers and of working people from other social strata. A vital task of Communists is to expose imperialism, to show its vices vividly and convincingly, to expose illusions about ths capitalist system, for the exposure of the vices of imperialism educates the masses in the spirit of the need for overthrowing the system of exploitation and oppression. This is necessary as a means of shaping socialist consciousness among the masses. This is also necessary for the organisation of the day-to-day economic and political struggle.
This struggle is an intrinsic 'and extremely important component of the general struggle against imperialism. In this sphere tha Communist parties of the capitalist countries have accumulated vast experience and have considerable achievements. Their aclion programmes contain a whole system of demands of an economic and 21 political nature aimed at defending the vital needs of the working masses and satisfying the demands posed by the course of events. They touch upon wages, the struggle against unemployment, the shortening of the working day, longer paid leaves, the abolition or reduction of taxes paid by the working people and the simultaneous increase of taxes paid by big business, by the monopolies. A sharp struggle is waged over pensions and other forms of social insurance, over rents and the provision of housing. The problems of democratising education and guaranteeing the retraining of workers have lately become particularly acute. In the struggle for the interests of the working people the Communist parties are according considerable attention to the use of parliamentary and municipal possi-- bilities. An essential sector of the work of Communists is to strengthen the position of the democratic forces in parliaments and municipal councils, to safeguard municipal prerogatives from encroachments by the central authorities, and to secure greater rights for the municipal councils.
Communists set as their aim the winning from the ruling class of everything that can be won within the framework of capitalism and to secure the working people's deliverance from war and the consequences of preparations for war. It is vital that this should always and everywhere be an inalienable component of the struggle for the end goal of the working-class movement---for socialism. It is this approach, which gives the working people tangible results in the sense of improving their standard of living and securing greater social rights for them, that enhances their faith in the strength and efficacy of the class struggle and, at the same time, wins for the Party greater prestige and trust and consolidates its vanguard position. It is this approach that enlarges the springboards and increases the possibilities for unfolding a further offensive against monopoly rule.
The problems of the training of a mass political army of the revolution form a key element of Lenin's teaching on the revolution. Under present-day conditions, in which the objective material prerequisites for the abolition of capitalism have matured long ago, in which social contradictions have been aggravated to an unprecedented extent and in which the wave of working people's action is rising ever higher and embraces entire countries, the problem of bringing the masses to understanding the need for revolutionary action acquires truly decisive importance.
In working on these problems, Lenin based himself on laws 'discovered by Marx, which govern the relationship of social forces in capitalist society. He all-sidedly developed iind enriched, in 22 conformity with the new conditions, the Marxist teaching on ttie role of the working class as the leading motive force of the revolution and of social development as a whole. The propositions formulated by him provide the foundation for an analysis of the problems of the development of classes and of class relations.
The changes called forth in the working class by the current scientific and technological revolution confirm Lenin's propositions. No matter how the bourgeois and reformist theoreticians try to deny the fact that the proletariat is playing a growing role in society, reality upsets their arguments.
The huge expansion of the sphere of hired labour, which in the USA already embraces 36 per cent of the gainfully employed popu-- lation, in Western Europe as a whole nearly 70 per cent, and in Japan 60 per cent, is turning the proletariat into the most numerous class of capitalist society. By their place in production and their material standards a considerable section of intellectuals and office employees are drawing ever closer to the working class and are more and more actively joining in the struggle of the proletariat.
The growth of the educational level and the higher qualifications of workers, which are a source of the higher political awareness and greater militancy of the proletariat, and the fact that broad sections of the peasantry and also the working intelligentsia are drawing closer to them are leading to an unparalleled strengthening and eri* largement of the social basis of the struggle against monopoly capitalism. We are witnessing the day-to-day moulding, growth and strength-* pning of that alliance of anti-monopoly forces which, as ^Lenin said, "no forces of darkness can withstand" (Vol. 30, p. 402).
Of tremendous significance is Lenin's far-reaching disclosure of the revolutionary potentialities of the proletariat and of all the classes and strata of working people united by it. He showed the role of the peasantry and of the urban strata of the petty bourgeoisie in the modern revolution in all its diversity and complexity. Where these strata comprise a considerable part, let alone the overwhelming majority, of the population, the working class cannot count,on a victory in the socialist revolution or on the successful building of the new -ociety without an alliance with these strata. The peasantry, parti-- cula,'ly if we take i! on a global scale, is a tremendous antiimperialist force, whose potentialities have been far from exhausted. It is vital to establish a firm alliance between the working class and the peasantry directed towards the implementation of genuinely revolutionary tasks of the modern epoch.
Lenin's ideas are the only conect guide also in the approach to 23 the problem of involving the young people in the revolutionary struggle. Lenin regarded tiie spontaneous revolutionary activity cf the young people as a phenomenon deserving all-round support by the Party organisations. At the same time, he believed it to be highly important to equip the young people with the scientific, Marxist outlook and to protect them against the influence of "false friends'', who prevent their serious revolutionary education, and try to confuse them with anarchist catchwords. Guided by the interests of the class struggle, Lenin taught that a strict distinction should be made between mistakes and ``exaggerations'' of the inexperienced young people who yearn to fight, and the political intrigues of unprincipled leaders who speculate on their inexperience. Patient explanation and persuasion in respect of the former, ,and relentless struggle against the latter---such is the Leninist approach. Lenin said: "Adults who lay claim to lead and teach the proletariat, but actually mislead it, are on« thing; against such people a ruthless struggle must be waged. Organisations of youth, however, which openly declare that they are still learning, that their main task is to train party workers for the socialist parties, are quite another tiling. Such people must be given every assistance. We must be patient with their faults and strive to correct them gradually, mainly by persuasion, and not by fighting them" (Vol. 23, p. 164).
The mass movement is on the upsurge today in many countries, but it is not leading to qualitative changes everywhere. The ruling class seeks to divert it, to prevent it from going beyond the framework of the existing system. For the time being its efforts are successful. One of the reasons for this is that due inter-relation, mutual understanding and co-ordination of action have not been achieved between the working-class movement and other strata of the population.
More relevant than ever is Lenin's conclusion that under conditions in which the new historic epoch has already begun the formationof a mass army of the revolution in capitalist countries is facilitated by the exacerbation of contradictions between the monopoly bourgeoisie and the working class and the emergence of a new and broader social contradiction, the contradiction between the mono polies and the nation.
Lenin emphasised that the political army of the revolution cannot form automatically, that this process cannot be expected to reach its consummation spontaneously. It is actively opposed by the class enemy, the monopoly bourgeoisie, which does everything in its power to prevent the spread of revolutionary awareness among the masses. This 24 process is hindered by the split in the working-class movement and by the contradictions between the proletariat and the non-proletarian strata, contradictions springing from the every existence of private ownership and the ideology conforming to it. Hence the enormous responsibility which devolves on the proletarian vanguard, on the revolutionary Party. Lenin considered that it is their duty "to seek, find and correctly determine the specific path or the particular turn of events that will lead the masses to the real, decisive and final revolutionary struggle" (Vol. 31, p. 97).
Lenin regarded the formation of a political' army as a two-fold problem: on the one hand, the unity of the working class itself has to be secured on the positions of struggle against capitalist rule and, on the other, a militant alliance has to be formed and strengthened between the proletariat and the non-proletarian working masses in the struggle against the common enemy---the monopolies. Both these aspects are closely interrelated. Moreover, their solution is also interdependent. Emphasising this circumstance, Lenin pointed out: "The proletariat is a really revolutionary class and acts in a really socialist manner only when it comes out and acts as the vanguard of all the working and exploited people, as their leader in the struggle for the overthrow of the exploiters" (Vol. 31, p. 153).
The solution of each of these two parts of a common problem, naturally, has its own specifics and features. However, it is extremely important to underline that there are, as Lenin taught, common prim ciples governing the approach to this solution.
The masses can he roused for the struggle against capitalism and, all the more, for the overthrow of capitalist rule only provided these masses (-whether they are the working class or its allies) become convinced themselves, by their own experience, that the question has to be resolved in a revolutionary manner. This means that it is of paramount importance that Communists should put forward slogans that explain to the masses the meaning of their own experience, teach, them and stir them to action.
As has been shown by the experience of all the revolutions beginning with the October Revolution, the most politically conscious, organised section of the working class and its allies can come forward under the socialist banner when a revolution begins. As regards the re-- maining mass of the people, they can be brought to the revolution solely on the basis of concrete slogans concerning the vital problems of the day which they can understand. Lenin taught that far from 'tiling out the advance to the ultimate socialist goal, such slogans acilitate it.
25Extremely interesting from this standpoint is a view put forward by Lenin shortly before 1917 in a polemic with people calling for socialism in isolation from the concrete means of achieving it. Lenin wrote: "What is the aim of revolutionary mass struggle? . ,. `Socialism' in general, as an aim, in opposition to capitalism (or imperialism), is accepted now not only by the Kautsky crowd and socialchauvinists but by many bourgeois social politicians. However, it is now a matter ... of the concrete aim of the concrete 'revolutionary mass struggle' against a concrete evil, namely, the present high cost of living, the present war clanger or the present war" (Vol. 23, pp. 153---54).
In the developed capitalist countries the situation today is such that socialism is, figuratively speaking, knocking on the door, but many people do not as yet realise it. Moreover, the processes which are, in effect, leading to a growth of the objective material prerequisites of socialism ore being used by the bourgeoisie to spread a reformist consciousness among the masses or outright conciliation with capitalism. We must take account of the contradictory nature of this process.
However, even where the broad masses are not yet determined to accomplish the socialist revolution, they show a striving and willingness to fight the monopolies, to fight the various consequences of their policies. If the Party of the working class wants to head the masses and lead them, and help them in their action which may develop into a revolutionary struggle for socialism, those are the very feelings it must above all take into account, reflecting them in concrete political, revolutionary slogans.
Of lasting significance from this angle is Lenin's conclusion that the demands and slogans of the struggle of the proletarian and nonproletarian forking masses draw closer and intertwine under statemonopoly capitalist rule, on the basis of the contradictions between the monopolies and the people. Thus, today, in the epoch witnessing the spread of hired labour on an unprecedented scale, a considerable number of what were formerly purely proletarian slogans of an economic nature are becoming the slogans of the overwhelming majority of the population. Some of these slogans have now been adopted as vital demands by the peasants and the middle strata of the urban population.
As regards the slogans of democracy, the defence and extension of the democratic rights of the working masses, the platform of peace and of averting war, they have become the common demands of the strata opposed to monopoly rule.
26That is why the concrete system of the Communist parties' slogans designed to lead the masses up to the revolution, and primarily aimed at uniting the working class, are simultaneously addressed to all the anti-monopoly-minded sections of the people.
Lenin's conclusions about the inevitable drawing closer together, in the conditions of imperialism, of the struggle for the everyday socio-economic demands of the masses, and for democracy, and of the struggle for the socialist perspective thereby assume ever more pressing importance. The development of state-monopoly capitalism itself, which, Lenin said, directs even the ``ordinary'' purely economic demands of the masses against the whole system of domination by the modern bourgeoisie constitutes the socio-economic basis of this process.
Lenin did not confine himself to a general statement of the fact of this drawing closer together and went on to show that within the framework of the struggle against the monopolies special importance attaches to democratic nationalisation, workers' control in industry, democratic control over the development of the economy as a whole, and so on. Having established the maturity of the premises for socialist revolution created by state-monopoly capitalism, Lenin nevertheless allowed for and be-lieved to be realistic the possibility of transitional measures and deep-going democratic transformations on the way of struggle for the triumph of revolution. It was he who put forward the viable idea of struggle for a democratic state capable of fundamentally undermining the power of the monopolies, or, as he put it, of making state-capitalist monopoly "serve the interests of the people" (Vol. 25, p. 358). Analysing the social content of the programme of struggle for such a state, which constitutes a real basis for rallying the broadest masses of people, Lenin said that it was still not yet socialism, but was no longer capitalism either. It was a tremendous step towards socialism (Vol 25, p. 360) Lenin's ideas were further elaborated, especially after the Second World War, by the activity of the fraternal parties which have accumulated rich experience and scored considerable achievements in this respect.
The central point of this whole problem, according to Lenin, is a correct combination of current concrete socio-economic and political tasks and the ultimate aim---socialist revolution. He kepi emphasising that the struggle for partial measures in the socio-economic sphere and in the defence of democracy was a necessary component in preparing the conditions for (lift crucial revolutionary battles, and laid special stress on the fact that any, even the most far-reaching partial 27 measures, may be of real value only if they are consciously tied in with the preparation of the decisive battles, with the revolution.
He wrote: "The movement of the proletariat, by reason of the essential peculiarities of the position of this class under capitalism, has a marked tendency to develop into a desperate all-out struggle, a struggle for complete victory over all the dark forces of exploitation and oppression .... He who puts up a real fight will naturally go all out; he who prefers compromise to struggle will naturally point out beforehand what `morsels' he would be inclined, at best, to content himself with (at worst, he would be content even with no struggle at all, i.e., he w,ould make a lasting peace with the masters of the old world) ....
``He who goes all out, who fights for coraplete victory, must alert himself to the danger of having his hands tied by minor gains, of being led astray and made to forget that which is still comparatively remote...'' (Vol. 8, pp. 426---27.]
But how are these dangers to be avoided? How is the revolutionary potential to be maintained and developed in the masses even when there is no revolutionary situation, that is, in the conditions of everyday peaceful development of capitalist society?
The experience of the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties shows: there is only one way to remain loyal to the revolution and really to advance in any situation, and it is to "attach paramount importance to developing the class consciousness of the proletariat and its independent political organisation...'' (Vol. 8, p. 301), whatever the political situation or outlook, whatever the political changes or crises.
Relying on the gains of the international working class over the past 50 years, the Communist parties are guided in their fight against capitalism by the Leninist principle of combining the intermediate aims just ahead and orientation toward the ultimate goal---the victory of socialism. The Manifesto of the Central Committee of the French Communist Party stresses: "The Communists do not contrast the struggle for satisfaction of economic demands and for reform with the struggle for socialist revolution. For the opportunists the struggle for reform under capitalism is an end in itself, but for the Communists it is a part of the class struggle against big capital, to make it retreat and weaken it, and they never lose sight of their ultimate goal---socialism''. The American Communists, as Gus Hall told the 19th Convention of the CP USA, see the purpose of their Party's policy to create an antimonopoly alliance as the strategic goal in the revolutionary struggle tor socialism. The highest task of the Communist Party of Chile, says its 28 new programme, which was put before its Hth Congress, is to pave the way for the Chilean revolution which, as a result of the mass struggle, will overthrow the dominant classes now in power, abolish Hie existing state machine, destroy the production relations which hamper the development of the productive forces, and carry out radical changes in the country's economic, social and political structure, thus opening the way to socialism.
The revolutionary parties of the working class, as they win all possible positions from capitalism all down the line---in the economic struggle, in the fight for the municipalities and parliaments---always bear in mind that all this is also a preparation for solving the main task, the task of the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.
How is this main task to he solved, according to Lenin?
Lenin always stressed that transition to socialism could be carried out only through revolution, through an overthrow of the old capitalist order. The success of the struggle of the working class for the triumph of the revolution will depend on the extent to which the working class and its Party master all forms of struggle, peaceful and nonpeaceful, and are prepared for the most swift and unexpected shift from one form of struggle to another.
The armed way to power is necessary and inevitable where the reactionaries and the ruling class can effectively use force against the revolutionary movement. To be victorious, an armed uprising should take place in a revolutionary situation. The main condition is that the masses should favour a revolution. Without them it remains nothing but a putsch.
At the same time Lenin attached much importance to the use of every possibility for a peaceful takeover of power. He allowed for the possibility of one in the event of the bourgeoisie being incapable of preventing it by using the army and the police. But he warned against the crafty tricks of bourgeois reaction, its resort to force, that it would try to stay in power in every possible way.
It is clear that on the peaceful way leading to the socialist revolution and in the actual transition to it there would inevitably be an aggravation of the struggle, crisis situations, unexpected turns, plots by reactionary forces, attempts to use the army against the working class, and so on. The experience of the fraternal parties shows that in order to win these class battles, the working class and its Party must be prepared at any moment to rebuff the reactionaries with the use .of the mo ' .": olute measures and extra-parliamentary forms of struggle. Wiihout this all hope of a peaceful way becomes a dangerous illusion.
29Speaking of these two ways of revolution---the armed and the peaceful---it should be borne in mind that in practice neither of them appears in what may be called a pure form. The revolution may start out as a peaceful one and then grow into armed struggle. It may start with armed action and then be combined with peaceful forms. In this connection, it is necessary to foresee that the development of the revolutionary process may produce new and unknown forms.
In present-day conditions, account must also necessarily be taken of the fact that external factors, that is, the world balance of strength, the possibility of support from the socialist world system and, on the other hand, the danger of imperialist export of counter-revolution, have a considerable role to play in determining the concrete ways of revolution. Is it right to ignore, when speaking of the forms of future revolutions, such facts, for instance, as the existence of numerous US bases on the territories of other states, and the activity of NATO, the aggressive alliance which has blueprints for counterrevolutionary intervention in many countries? All this should be taken Into account when organising the revolutionary masses for action.
What does this mean? Here again we must turn to Lenin, who said that in politics one never knows for sure in advance "which methods of struggle will be applicable and to our advantage in certain future conditions. Unless we learn to apply all the methods of struggle, we may suffer grave and sometimes even decisive defeat, if changes beyond our control in the position of the other classes bring to the forefront a form of activity in which we are especially weak. If, however, 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" (Vol. 31, p. 96).
The Leninist approach to the problem of a revolutionary way has been developed in the documents of the international Communist movement adopted in 1957, I960 and 1969. "The working class and its vanguard---the Marxist-Leninist Party,'' says the Statement of the 1960 Meeting, "seek to achieve the socialist revolution by peaceful means. This would accord with the interests of the working class and the people as a whole, with the national interests of the country ... In the event of the exploiting classes resorting to violence against the people, the possibility of non-peaceful transition to socialism should be borne in mind. Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling classes never relinquish power voluntarily. In this case the degree of bitterness and the forms of the class s`r'iv.^le <Aill depend not so much on Mm proletariat as on ttif resistance put up by the reactionary circles to the will of the 30 overwhelming majority of the people, on these circles using force at one or other stage of the struggle for socialism.''
By working out propositions on moving from the old system to the new, and on the essence of the new power, Lenin gave a comprehensive picture of the vast revolutionary possibilities of the epoch opened up by the October Revolution, and showed the way to realise them. However, as he himself repeatedly stressed and as revolutionary practice has fully demonstrated, realisation of revolutionary possibilities cannot be an iiutomatic process. Lenin said again and again that the old system and the old power would not topple of themselves, unless they are toppled. Conversion of revolutionary possibilities into reality depends on the subjective factor, above all on whether there is a revolutionary Party, a new type of Party, a Marxist-Leninist Party.
No one can now gainsay the fact that after the October revolution the necessary objective conditions for socialist revolution existed in many European countries. However, the real possibility of the revolution's winning out in a number of countries was missed because of the weakness of the subjective factor, the absence of revolutionary proletarian parties. They began to emerge mainly in the course of and after the revolutions of 1918--1920.
In our day, when the material prerequisites for socialism in the capitalist countries are much more mature than in Lenin's lifetime, the role of the subjective factor---the revolutionary Party---becomes of truly crucial importance. In this context, unprecedented importance attaches to the most resolute struggle against the revisionist distortions of Lenin's theory of the Parly, both against the Right-wing opportunist views of the Party as being something in the nature of an educational club or a debating society, and against the Left-wing opportunist views of the Party as a kind of a sect divorced from the masses.
Purging the Party of opportunist elements is indispensable, if it is to play the guiding and organising role in the current class struggle and in (lie coming revolutionary battles. This process is under way. It wilF undoubtedly make for the strengthening of the positions of the Commuinst parlies in (be class struggle at home and of their international positions.
For all Communists, the fundamental propositions of Lenin's theory of the Party arc supreme law. The Party as the vehicle of revolutionary consciousness, as the highest form of political organisation of the working class, as the standard-bearer :ind vanguard in the class struggle against capital, as the leading force and organiser of the masses in the fight for the victory of the revolution and 31 socialist construction---all these propositions of Lenin's have been fully borne out in practice.
It is common knowledge that the performance by the Party of its leading role is a complex creative process, demanding of the Communists continuous effort and tireless activity among the masses The vanguard role of the Marxist-Leninist Party does not materialise of itself. It can be won only through selfless struggle for the interests of the working class, the masses, the cause of socialism, relying on the revolutionary principles of our doctrine.
Lenin rejected every attempt at setting the Party above the class and the masses.
Speaking of the role of the Party, Lenin put forward the remarkable proposition that the Party steadily and boldly leads the masses forward, sweeping aside the miserable tailism of some and the revo lutionary phrases of others and bringing class definiteness and consciousness into the dizzying whirlwind of events (Vol. 8, p. 292)
Consolidation of the Communist parties and all-round improvement of their work on the basis of the Leninist principles constitute a necessary and exceptionally important element of revolutionary activity in our epoch.
One of the central questions of Lenin's theory of the revolution is how to move from the old society to the new, how to consolidate the gains of the revolution, to prevent a restoration of the old order and ensure the construction of the new, socialist society.
Marx and Engels, on the strength of the experience gained in the revolutions of the 19th century, and especially the Paris Commune, arrived at the conclusion that the main instrument of transition from capitalism to socialism should be a new state power, whose essence they expressed in the historic formula of the dictatorship of the proletariat. There again Lenin relied on the discovery made by Marx and Engels. But he was faced with the question of the new power in the practical plane. What concrete form was this power to take? Lenin gave a practical solution to the problem for the first time in history.
Great credit goes to Lenin for working out and substantiating the fundamental principles and features of the new proletarian power, and for elaborating in detail the content of Marx's formula of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It was quite clear to Lenin that the new power must be strong enough to ensure reliable protection for the gains of the revolution, and suppression of any attempts at restoration.
32It was quite clear to Lenin that the new power must be such as !o effectively ensure the construction of the socialist system. He kept emphasising that a minority, one party or one class, cannot build the new society. This can be done provided the overwhelming majority of the working people are drawn into socialist construction. That is why Lenin saw the essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat in pooling the efforts of all the working people, under the leadership of the working class, in building socialism.
It is correct to say that Lenin's entire theoretical and practical activity in preparing and directing the revolution, in consolidating its victory ,and building the new society is in one way or another connected with his elaboration of the problem of power, the problem of the socialist state. It was quite alien to Lenin to underestimate, in any form, the role of the state in building and defending the new social system. He sharply criticised Bukharin for an article in which the latter advised cultivating "a fundamental hostility for the state''. Lenin believed that such ``advice'' would merely confuse people, especially the young revolutionaries, and push them into opportunist or anarchist attitudes towards the workers' and peasants' state. Lenin explained: "Socialists are in favour of utilising the present state and its institutions in the struggle for the emancipation of the working class, maintaining also that the state should be used for a specific form of transition from capitalism to socialism. This transitional form is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is also a state" (Vol. 23, p. 165).
In the conditions prevailing in Russia, Lenin relied on the experience of the working class of Russia to put forward the Soviet form of state as the form which best met the tasks of the revolutionary movement. Let us stress that despite the specific character of some features of the Soviet form of organisation, it embodied principles which are of universal significance.
Needless to say, revolutionary power is not an aim in itself. It is the means of transforming society on socialist principles. The experience of the USSR has shown that once socialism has been built, the dictatorship of the proletariat grows into a socialist state of the whole people in which the working class, led by the Communist Party, plays the leading role.
In the present epoch, with the fundamentally new balance of strength, with the possibilities of the revolutionary contingents of the proletariat multiplied, the dictatorship of the proletariat may be exercised in diverse forms. But whatever the circumstances, the experience accumulated by the Soviet power, and the people's 33 democratic states is of world significance and constitutes a contribution to revolutionary theory which is of universal value.
In connection with the Lenin centenary, it would be useful and even necessary to compare the "historical destiny" of Lenin's theory and practice of revolution with other concepts of world development, namely, the social-reformist views and practices of Right-wing opportunism, and also the Left-wing revisionist ideas and practices of petty-bourgeois revolutionism.
Life is the strictest and most impartial judge. All these trends have gone through the test of great class battles and revolutions which allow literally every conscious participant in the workingclass movement to see which of them has stood the test and which has not, and on whose side the truth of life happens to be.
Social-Democracy promised the working class that it would lead it to socialism along "an easier'', evolutionary way, without upheavals and hardships of the class struggle, without violence and the dictatorship of the proletariat, above all through electoral polls and parliamentary activity. Many workers in the West believed---and here and there even still believe---the Social-Democratic leaders and their theories.
Lenin and the Comintern exposed reformism and explained that this way in fact leads to a repudiation of socialism. That is just what happened: first during the period of revolutionary storms after the First World War, and once again after the Second World War. The defeat of fascism opened up vast possibilities for the working-class fight against the very foundations of the capitalist system. But the Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders took another path. They hastened to jettison their old socialist promises, increasingly advocating preserving private property in the means of production and so-called free enterprise. In line with the reformist, opportunist approach to tfee role of the working-class movement, the Right-wing SocialDemocratic leaders have also shaped their stand on the role and character of the working-class party. Long before the final collapse of the Second International Lenin foresaw that because of their opportunist, reformist ideology and practice, because of their amorphous structure, neglect for discipline, and concentration on parliamentary activity, the winning of votes, and supremacy of the parliamentary party over the party organisation, its parties would prove to be a poor instrument just when the crucial class battles are fought. This has been fully borne out. Having rejected democratic centralism and having cultivated federalism and boundless autonomism, the Right-wing Social-Democrats have thereby turned their 34 parties into conventional respectable parties of bourgeois society. The activity of most Social-Democratic parties in our day also shows that they can function only within the framework of the bourgeois society, and not as an instrument for the radical, revolutionary transformation of society.
Social-Democracy is trying to take credit for various socio-economic gains, which the working class in the West has won as a result of stubborn struggle over the decades. The Right-wing Social-Democrats, now and again obtaining access to government, put through some reforms improving the material condition of the working people within the capitalist framework. However, in no country, not even where the Social-Democratic leaders have been in office for decades, has the capitalist system been overthrown or socialism won.
The Right-wing Socialists have always laid claim to the role of "champions of democracy'', and on this plea attacked the socialist revolution in Russia and the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union. They told the working people that all problems can be solved through a ``pure'', supra-class democracy. But nowhere---in no country---has bourgeois democracy liberated society from the domination of the monopolies and reaction, or has freed it from exploitation. What iS more, life has shown that in the conditions of the general crisis of capitalism it can no longer safeguard itself from extremist imperialist reaction. Democracy in Europe was saved from the fascist dictatorship by the USSR, with its new, socialist democracy, which became one of the most important sources of its strength that ensured the rout of fascism. In this the Soviet Union marched shoulder to shoulder with the Communists of other countries, with all Resistance fighters.
Social-Democracy has always prided itself on being "an instrument of peace''. But the fault in its stand lies in the fact that it refuses to oppose the very system which breeds wars, and to stop collaborating with the propertied classes, which are mainly responsible for militarism and the unleashing of wars. At crucial moments of history, when unity of action alone could have blocked the warmongers and when achievement of this unity depended on the SocialDemocrats, they set their narrow party aims above the common interests of the working-class and democratic movement.
There is much history to show the complete failure of SocialDemocracy, and its inability to provide constructive answers to the main problems in present-day world development. In our day, the Right-wing Social-Democrats have moved very far out to the right on basic ideological questions, even in comparison with the 35 opportunist views of Bernstein or Kautsky. The theory of "democratic socialism" being propounded by the Social-Democratic ideologues consists of snatches of diverse bourgeois and petty-bourgeois theories, and its whole point is to provide some sort of ideological and political concept adapted to the tasks of defending capitalism and in contrast to communism.
The main fault of Social-Democracy, past and present, is that it has tried to do away with the problem of the inevitability of revolution and the overthrow of capitalism, to reconcile the masses with the existing system and to make them accept their condition.
Criticism and exposure of Social-Democracy, far from contradicting the tasks of the struggle for unity of action by the working class and all working people, in fact spring from the need to clear the way to unity and overcome the obstacles thrown up by the Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders.
The crisis which has gripped reformist concepts, as the Document of the Moscow Meeting of Communist Parties declares, results not only from the objective sharpening of the contradictions of capitalism, and the new experience accumulated by the working-class movement, but also from the resolute criticism of opportunism by the Communist and Workers' parties. The differentiation in the SocialDemocratic ranks is a sign of this crisis.
Many Social-Democrats and Socialists watch with alarm the growing threat of reaction, which is a reflection of the urge on the part of the monopolies to use the state and the reactionary bureaucracy in maintaining the existing system of exploitation. They are aierted by infringements of trade union rights and freedoms, which, among others, are being effected with the connivance of the Rightwing Social-Democratic leaders. Ultimately, those who are trying to preserve the bourgeois system inevitably take the road of suppressing the working-class and trade union movement. But this merely accentuates differentiation in the Social-Democratic ranks.
Ever greater influence in this direction is being exerted by the acute international problems and the growing realisation of the fatal role played by imperialism and militarism, and the meiiaro they present to mankind. The broad masses are becoming ever more keenly aware of the gravity of the problems connected with the poverty and malnutrition in the economically under-developed countries, and the fact that there is a yawning gulf between the developed and the less developed countries. Many Social-Democrats, nolal;!^^1^^, the young ones, are coming to realise that these problems can be 36 solved only through resolute struggle against the very foundations of capitalist domination.
As the 1969 Meeting said, the Communists attach primary importance lo working-class unity and are in favour of cooperation with the Socialists and Social-Democrats in tackling the tasks dictated by the vital interests of the working people. There are some vital problems on which there is especially urgent need for united action by the working-class parties, including those who are responsible for the policy of their states. These are above all questions connected with the prevention of another world war, establishment of a system dt European security, the fight against the threat of fascism, and support for Vietnam.
The implementation' of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution has exploded not only the reformist approach to the solution of the cardinal problems of the new epoch, but also the Leftist, including the Trotskyite, approach to these problems.
Petty-bourgeois revolutionism of any stripe insists on tackling these problems with an eye only on the subjective mood and fervour. It has shown itself to be absolutely incapable of sustained, systematic, purposeful revolutionary effort, and has proved itself to be extremely unstable and barren. Moreover, historical experience provides evidence that the revolutionary-sounding phrase and the revolutionary stance are easily converted to docility, apathy and betrayal of the revolution.
The present ideologists of great-power, nationalistic, and splitting concepts have advanced, in opposition to Lenin's theory of revolution, the thesis of the "World Village surrounding the World Town''. In accordance with this theory, it is the peasantry of the economically underdeveloped countries, and not the proletariat, that is the leading revolutionary force and the vehicle of socialism. As for the proletariat in the West, it turns out to be ``integrated'' into the capitalist system and to have lost its revolutionary possibilities.
Instead of the truly revolutionary task of bridging the gap between the economic levels of the industrialised and the less developed countries by creating conditions for accelerated economic progress in the lattur, the idea is advanced of a levelling redistribution of wealth between the states, regardless of their social and political system. The extremist spokesmen of these views add to this various racist propositions about the interests of the white and the coloured peoples being fundamentally at odds.
Their propounding of the destructive principle, of naked violence 37 alone goes hand in hand with the Bonapartist attitude towards the masses, and attempts to use military-bureaucratic methods and realise hegemonistic aspirations.
Such views, which are presented as ``genuinely'' Leninist, in fact have nothing in common with Leninism. The events of the last few years have shown that the spread of such views is doing much harm to the truly revolutionary movement.
Leftist elements, whatever their signboard, have one thing in common---they all place their stake on spontaneous rebellion, preaching disregard for the constructive tasks of the revolutionary struggle, and sowing mistrust, in the revolutionary capabilities of the working class.
That is just what we find in the lessons of the defeats suffered by 'a number of revolutionary contingents over the last few years, notably the Communist Party of Indonesia which was big and influential in its own country. Some of its leaders gave support to a plot by a group of officers against the reactionary generals. Analysing the causes of the defeat, the Indonesian Marxists attest that even members of the Party's Central Committee had not been informed of the decision taken by the governing bodies to support the officer coup. Neither the Party organisations nor Party members were informed of this act. When the establishment of the Revolutionary Council was announced---and it lasted for only a few hours---this was not accompanied by any proclamation of clear-cut aims for which the Council was to fight, and which the masses could understand.
The Leftist tendencies nave also been manifest in diverse neoTrotskyite movements, which also deny that the working class plays the leading role in the revolution, and orient themselves on those who stand outside production---students, unemployed, and so on. They have set themselves as the main task the striking of a blow at the Marxist-Leninist parties, and the frustration of the establishment of a broad anti-imperialist front.
On the question of attitude to the gains of real socialism, this mainstay and main force in the world-wide struggle against imperialism, all these tendencies have completely broken with Leninism and its line of developing the world revolution. By placing their stake on division and separation of the revolutionary forces, by preaching nationalism they aim their blow against the main bastion of the Communist movement---world socialism, thereby objectively be coming accomplices of reaction in its fight against the forces of rev olution and progress. Therein lies their main danger.
38The Leninist principled struggle against the Social-Democratic and Right and ``Left''-wing opportunist views and against the splitters and adventurers, against all those who try to push the revolutionary movement off the class, proletarian, path that has stood the test of life continues to be a vital task of our movement.
The entire course of social development has confirmed the great historical truth of the Leninist theory.
In his work, "The Historical Destiny of the Doctrine of Karl Marx'', Lenin brought out three main stages in the development of the revolutionary movement in the period after the emergence of Marxism and up to the October Revolution. He ended his work with these prophetic words:
``Since the appearance of Marxism, each of the three great periods of world history has brought Marxism new confirmation and new triumphs. But a still greater triumph awaits Marxism, as the doctrine of the proletariat, in the coming period of history" (Vol. 18, p. 585).
This is the epoch opened up by the Great October Socialist Revolution.
Applying the method used by Lenin to assess the periods of revolutionary development before the October Revolution, we can single out the following three main periods in the development of the new, post-October era:
First. The triumph of the socialist revolution and the construction of socialism in the USSR. The October Revolution served as a powerful stimulus for the working-class and national liberation movements all over the world. There arose an international vanguard of the world revolutionary movement---the Marxist-Leninist parties, which operate in most countries of the world.
Second. The victory of socialist revolutions in a number of countries in Europe and Asia, which led to the formation of the socialist world system. One of the most important premises for this was the defeat of the striking forces of imperialism---fascism and Japanese militarism. The Soviet Union played the decisive role in routing them.
Third. The successes of communist construction in the Soviet Union, the strengthening of the positions of socialism in a large group of countries in Europe and Asia, the victory of the Cuban revolution, the mighty growth of the forces fighting for socialism throughout the world, the great sweep of the national liberation movement, which led to the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, and the opting by a number of African and Asian countries for the socialist orientation. The anti-imperialist revolution continues, as will be seen from the events in Peru, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.
39All this marks a triumph for Leninism, and the 'steady unfolding of the world revolutionary process.
There is every reason to say that the struggle by all the main revolutionary contingents of the day will continue to mount and that the world revolution will develop in the way indicated by Lenin. It will follow the course of the further consolidation of the positions of the socialist world system; its contest with imperialism will continue to, be the main front in the great social revolution of our time.
It will follow the course of more active struggle by the working class in the imperialist countries, which will inevitably end in a victory for socialism in the very centres of the imperialist system. Moreover, the development of the world revolutionary process will also be expressed in a further upswing and deepening of the social content of the national liberation movement, and in a strengthening of the anti-capitalist and socialist tendencies in it. It will be invariably connected with the strengthening of alliance and vigorous interaction between the main revolutionary forces of our day.
In carrying on their revolutionary struggle in present conditions, the Communists reckon with the fact that the bourgeoisie has learned some lessons from its defeats. It is using new means to cover up the sores and evils of the capitalist system. Its tactics have become more refined. At the same time, it is prepared to use any, even the most brutal, means fo maintain its domination.
In this connection some facts of the recent past deserve special attention. The tumultuous upswing of the mass movement in many capitalist countries over the lasl few years has drawn counteraction by the reactionaries. The power apparatus is clearly concentrating the means of direct coercion, with contacts between government and administrative organs and the military clique becoming ever closer, and repressive measures being applied with increasing frequency. At the same time the fascist and other ultra-reactionary organisations, which operate with resort to their usual methods' of murder, pogrom and intimidation, are stepping up their activity. This is fresh confirmation of the experience gained in the history of the class struggle which teaches us that in periods when the movement is on the rise revolutionaries must be doubly vigilant and organised. Lenin taught us that "the stronger the pressure of the oppressed classes becomes, the nearer they come to overthrowing all oppression, all exploitation, the more resolutely the oppressed peasantry and the oppressed workers display tb.eir own initiative, the more furious does the resistance of the exploiters become" (Vol. 27, p. 465). That 40 is why the revolutionary forces and the Communist parties will be fully armed only when they firmly bear in mind this counsel of Lenin's and prepare for resolute counter-resistance to the forces of reaction.
The Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties justly noted: "The struggle against imperialism is a long, hard and strenuous fight. Tense class battles lie ahead and they cannot be avoided. Let us step up the offensive against imperialism and internal reaction. The revolutionary and progressive forces are certain to triumph.'' The way to victory is indicated by the Leninist theory of revolution, whose importance has invariably been growing and will continue to grow.
It is clear to Communists that those who accept the Leninist concept of the world revolutionary process and truly work to implement it must be internationalists.
In our day, various concepts of internationalism have been put forward. But there is only one genuine internationalism, and tod&y, too, it rests on objective criteria which close the door to subjectivism in interpreting this key principle of the theory and policy of the Marxist-Leninist parties.
The first thing 1 should like to say in this connection is that what has been gained by the working-class and the whole revolutionary movement over the past decades, and the gains that lie ahead, indeed, the new approaches to Hie solution of revolutionary problems have been made possible thanks to the epoch-making victories of socialism, the growth of its political influence and prestige, thanks to its economic strenglh and the power of its social example. Such is the objective state of tilings. That is why genuine internationalism now consists not only in making the maximum use of all Ihese possibilities---that, no donbi, is a uses! important task. There is a simultaneous need for understanding the source of these fresh possibilities, and practical action designed to consolidate the mainstay of the whole world revolutionary movement.
In our day, it is impossible to imagine a truly revolutionary strategy abstracted in theory and praciicH from the whole international situation, taking no account of such a Factor as the socialist world system und not oriented on giving a decisive---ideological and political--- rebuff to the attempts to uncic-irmiiie the positions '.von by socialism. : hat is w'iy Uio ( unsolida^ion oi socialism, i'> ciRi'enrH and support 41 is a key criterion of loyalty to proletarian internationalism in presentday conditions.
Some people take this approach: what does it mean to defend socialism when there is not just one but several socialist countries, with differences between them? One of the most important ways of defending actually existing socialism in fact consists in giving all possible support to the policy of bringing about the cohesion of the countries where the revolution has won out. The fundamental principles underlying such cohesion are well known---they were collectively worked out by the Communist and Workers' parties at their international meetings.
Socialism is free of indissoluble contradictions which are part of the nature of capitalism. The socialist system has everything necessary to "guarantee equal rights for, and maximum peaceful co-existence of, all nationalities'', said Lenin (Vol. 19, p. 533). At the same time it does not automatically eliminate the legacy of the past, especially national limitations, national egoism and an urge for national seclusion, nor do nationalistic feelings disappear soon.
The Leninist approach cannot consist simply in registering the existence of positive and negative phenomena in relations between the socialist countries and confining oneself to wishes for a settlement of differences. It consists in active support of the Marxist-Leninist, internationalist line, which meets the interests of the whole Communist movement and constitutes the principled basis for overcoming the differences that arise.
It goes without saying that each revolutionary contingent implements the internationalist line in the defence of so'cialism, depending on its conditions and possibilities. Equally, defence of socialism does not mean denying the difficulties and shortcomings of its development. But the distinctive feature of the Leninist approach is that ;t calls not for merely stating the difficulties, and still less for disparaging the successes and experience of the ruling Communist parties; it requires an understanding of the main element in the internal and international policies of the socialist countries, of the main internationalist line ensuring the consolidation of the positions of the whole world revolutionary movement, and the defence of peace and security of nations. The success of this policy helps the whole Communist and revolutionary movement. The Leninist approach demands unconditional active suport for this policy and struggle against all that prejudices it.
On the other hand, comradely evaluation by the fraternal parties of the Soviet people's contribution to the common revolutionary cause provides additional moral incentives in their selfless labour effort, on 42 which largely depends the overall balance of strength in the world arena in favour of the anti-imperialist movement.
Leninists-internationalists must not forget the obvious facts indicating that imperialism is trying to encourage and incite nationalistic feelings, using them to fight the Communist parties and to sow strife among the socialist countries, and mainly to range them against the Soviet Union. It is generally known that our class enemy is trying everywhere to direct nationalism into an anti-Soviet channel. Our Party highly values the rebuff the fraternal parties are giving to antiSovietism, and their intolerance of this phenomenon in the Communist ranks.
The internationalist approach also serves the cause of the working class where it is now faced with the tasks of winning power. For, after all, internationalism constitutes a powerful weapon for the ideological liberation of the working class and the working people from the influence of ideas which tend to penetrate into their ranks under the pressure of bourgeois policies and propaganda. Going along with the nationalist mood may produce a temporary effect, but is bound ultimately to do the Party immense harm if it takes an indulgent attitude to manifestations of nationalism. It is fraught, especially when events take sharp turns, with the possibility that, instead of leading the masses, the Party may find itself a captive of anti-socialist forces.
Our people understand and highly value the internationalist activity of the Communist and Workers' parties in the non-socialist part of the world, which is expressed in the consistent line oriented on the workers' winning power together with their allies, and in solidarity with the peoples engaged in socialist construction and with the State and the Party founded by the great leader of the revolution and the world Communist movement.
It is revolutionary policy and practice that embody the indissoluble bond between each Communist Party's national and internationalist responsibility. The strength of this internationalism was well expressed in the support for the Vietnamese people in the joint defence of its revolutionary gains against the barbarous aggression of US imperialism.
It is the internationalism of each Marxist-Leninist Party that expresses its independence in face of imperialism and reaction and its consistent, proletarian and Marxist-Leninist revolutionary spirit.
Lenin always attached prime importance to the effective and practical strength of proletarian internationalism.
But what does it mean to act in accordance with proletarian internationalism? Does it mean pursuing a revolutionary line only at home, so to say, on a national basis, on the assumption that this kin;] of 43 activity will automatically merge with the activity of the other revolutionary contingents? We believe it would be wrong to narrow down the criteria of proletarian internationalism in this way. Without in any way minimising the importance of each Party's activity within the national framework, the Communists cannot confine themselves to it. One of the chief requirements arising from the Leninist approach to the question of proletarian internationalism is voluntary coordination of action in the international arena.
The documents and the platform for united action against imperialism, worked out by the 1969 Meeting of Communist Parties, constitute the political basis which, uniting the fraternal parties, opens up vast possibilities for unity in the struggle of all the anti-imperialist forces. It is an expression of the common interests of the chief revolutionary forces of our day---the socialist world system, the workingclass movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation movement. The joint action platform, adopted by the Meeting, is quite free from any sectarian isolation or narrowness. It puts together in one package the general democratic demands and the class tasks of the working-class movement. The documents of the Meeting show the breadth of the internationalist, views of the Marxist-Leninist parties and simultaneously their loyalty to their revolutionary principles. They regard, in the spirit of the Leninist tradition, the struggle for peace between the nations as a most important line in the fight against imperialism.
Indeed, the Leninist concept of revolution, in theory and practice, organically includes the struggle against militarism and wars which are bred by the exploiting system. In our day, the Leninist policy of peace has acquired even greater urgency. According to the Leninist view, peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems is a necessary element of the strategy of the international proletariat during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.
The peaceful coexistence policy is a special form of class struggle in the international arena. Far from restraining the revolutionary struggle it in fact promotes its upswing. It is equally clear that the peaceful coexistence principle does not apply---and cannot apply---to the class struggle within the capitalist countries, just as it does not absolutely apply to the ideological struggle and the fight of oppressed peoples against their oppressors.
Summarising this, we can say that the Leninist policy of peace, which the CPSU and the other Marxist-Leninist parties are consistently pursuing,'is aimed at fulfilling these tasks:~
consolidation of peace and security of nations;~
44prevention of imperialist wars against socialist states, and provision of favourable external conditions for building the new social system and demonstrating its advantages, for enhancement of the international influence of the socialist countries and the consequent weakening of the positions of capitalism;
limitation of the possibilities for imperialist use of armed force against revolutionary and liberation movements, erection of effective barriers to the imperialist export of counter-revolution, so as to create favourable conditions for the struggle of the working class and ihe national liberation movement;
frustration of the imperialist attempts to resolve the difficulties and contradictions in their camp through armed conflicts with the socialist states and aggressive acts against the peoples;
resistance to the reactionary attempts in the capitalist countries to use mounting international tensions to strengthen their own positions, to encourage fascist tendencies, and mount a drive against the democratic freedoms;
demonstration to the broad masses of the humanistic nature of socialism, as a system designed to rid mankind of wars and their fatal consequences;
assistance to the revolutionary and progressive forces in drawing the broad masses into the anti-imperialist struggle under the slogans of defence of peace, and opposition to the danger of war.
Thus, the struggle for peace is both of universal human and class significance. The Communists are carrying it on as the standardbearers of their peoples' national interests and as consistent internationalists and champions of socialism.
The struggle for implementing the principles of internationalism demands that each revolutionary contingent make maximum use of its national possibilities to multiply its own contribution to the solution of the common tasks of the world revolutionary movement. Throughout, our Party has acted on this Leninist proposition.
After the victory of the October Revolution, the CPSU was faced with the problem of how and in what way, with the working class having taken over and consolidated itself in power, it was to secure the further development of the revolution in the Soviet Union, while promoting the world revolution. It was necessary to tie in, both in principle and in practice, these two-fold tasks.
Acting on Marx's well-known proposition, Lenin emphasised after the October Revolution that in contrast to the bourgeois revolution, the socialist revolution does not end wil'n the takeover of power, and that the socialist revolution is faced IKK only with destructive tasks 45 arising from the need to eliminate the old order, but alro with vast constructive tasks, which gain in importance as tlie new society develops. Lenin equipped our Party with the great doctrine designed to build socialism in the USSR in a capitalist encirclement.
The triumph of this orientation in acute struggle against the Trotskyites and Right opportunists was crucial in determining the future not only of our own country but of the whole world revolutionary process. This fundamental choice demanded of the Party bold creative quest and work at peak tension to overcome all manner of difficulties. These sprang mainly from the fact that the problems which the course of social development brought up before us were in themselves unprecedented in the history of mankind, and ha 1 not---and could not have---been worked out in detail by Marxists before the October Revolution. It was not only a matter of substituting socialist .socialisation of the means of production for private property, although the solution of this task alone was of epoch-making significance. It was also a matter of working a truly revolutionary change in every aspect of social life and abolishing all exploiting classes. Comprehensive planning of the national economy, the country's industrialisation on socialist principles within a short period, socialist transformation of agriculture, a cultural revolution, establishment of new relations of equality between the nations, development of the socialist state system---such were the cardinal problems which had to be solved in order to secure the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union.
Of course, the concrete methods used in their solution largely bear the mark of the specific history-rooted conditions of development of the first socialist country and of the international situation. But this all-round work of transformation first brought out the general regularities governing the development of the society during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, and helped to work out principles which are of international significance. Lenin comprehensively elaborated the problems of the strategy and tactics of the world Communist movement in his classical work, ``Left-Wing'' Communism---An Infantile Disorder.
The victory of socialism in the USSR produced a fundamentally new type of society. It was not only its social structure but the very nature of classes and class relations, of the nations and relations between them that had undergone a radical change. For the first time, the material and spiritual values the country commanded were placed at the disposal of the working people and converted into their own property.
The development of social'sm on its own basis, the establishment of a mature socialist society faced the Parly with fresh tasks and creative 46 problems of great magnitude. The CPSU programme and the decisions of its 23rd Congress determined our line of building communism. It provides for the harmonious development of every aspect of life in socialist society. It involves the creation of the material and technical basis of communism, development of new social relations and education of the new man. All these lines in communist construction are closely interwoven with each other.
It goes without saying that this development of social relations is possible only on the basis of socialist democracy and in turn implies its further development.
Our Party has always emphasised its class approach to problems of democracy. It is the idea at ensuring the interests of the working people that is paramount in the development of the Soviet state system. This is expressed in the character of the social formation of the organs of power and in the content and methods of their work.
Lately, in our country we have conducted extensive work to strengthen socialist legality, extend the rights of the local Soviets. promote democratic principles in the life of production collectives and invigorate the activity of public organisations. A constant struggle is being waged against bureaucratic tendencies.
We can justly say that all our achievements, everything thflt we can be proud of, are the result not simply of our economic policy but also of the development of socialist democracy. Today the whole world recognises that in a matter of half a century, despite incredible difficulties, the Soviet Union has accomplished a genuinely revolutionary leap from backwardness to the summits of social arid cultural progress.
We know and emphasise that with all its material and spiritual potential our socialist society is the fruit of the most dedicated work by the people, the result of the emancipated labour of millions Of Soviet people, of their tremendous initiative and selflessness inspired by the lofty ideals of Leninism, of their creative quest and aspiration to build the new, communist society. That is the reality of socialism as opposed, to put it mildly, to the rather superficial ideas of the moral and political life of our society that sometimes, regretably, exist among some of our friends.
1 say this because in the creative activity of our Party over the past half century we have seen one of the key directions for carrying out the international tasks of the working class movement in the specific conditions obtaining in our country.
Firstly, the building of socialism and communism in the Soviet 47 Union has shown that the fulfilment of the world-historic mission of the working class is neither a dream nor a remote ideal, but a practical, feasible cause, that the bourgeoisie can be not only deposed but eliminated entirely as a class from the social scene, that the working class can successfully lead society. This alone has provided an enormous incentive to the entire struggle against capitalist oppression, and drawn new millions of people into that struggle.
Secondly, a new moral and political factor such as the revolutionary force of example has been thrown into the balance of the international class and liberation struggle.
Thirdly, the mighty political and economic potential, built up by our country as a result of the creative work of the Soviet people, has contributed greatly to effecting a qualitative change in the world balance of forces, and this, in turn, has opened up new vistas for the revolutionary struggle in all parts of the world.
In keeping with Lenin's behests, the CPSU has always focussed and continues to focus its attention on strengthening the military might of the Soviet Union. Thanks to this and to the heroic: efforts of our people, the Soviet Army has become invincible. Its might not only reliably safeguards the frontiers of the Soviet Union and the socialist community. It is a key anti-imperialist factor of world significance, an effective lever curbing the aggressive designs of imperialism, and the mainstay of peaceful coexistence. Time and life have again and again convincingly confirmed the role of the Soviet Armed Korces as an internationalist class force of the struggle against imperialism.
The Soviet Union's economic and military might lias played an important role in the development of the entire postwar revolutionary movement, in the attainment of further successes by socialism.
The Soviet Union has helped in the establishment ot the new system in the People's Democracies and has safeguarded them against imperialist interference and intervention. With considerable economic assistance from the USSR these countries have reconstructed thenown economy on socialist lines and achieved a tremendous upsurge of the productive forces.
The Soviet Union has helped to unfold the national liberation revolutions. As is well known, it has, for example, acting on the principles of internationalism, helped progressive Arab stains to withstand the onslaught of imperialism and safeguard their freedom and the social system, which they have chosen. The strengthening of the alliance with the nation '* liberation movement acquires vital im portance to the course and prospects of the struggle between socialism and capitalism. The Soviet Union is helping to strengthen the political 48 independence and consolidate the economic basis of young national states.
The might of the Soviet Union serves as the decisive obstacle to the imperialist plans of unleashing another world war. As many Communist parties have put it on record, had it not been for the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, imperialism would have plunged the peoples into the abyss of another world war.
Lastly, the building of socialism and the work that is being done to build communism in the USSR have given additional levers to the Soviet foreign policy and helped to enhance its direct influence on the development of international relations as a whole.
To the CPSU has fallen the task of being the first to tackle in practice the problem of relations between a socialist state and the revolutionary movement of the working people in the camp of imperialism, the problem of combining the struggle for peaceful relations with the capitalist stales with the rendering of direct support and assistance to I his movement.
It is not necessary to prove that this is no simple matter, that it requires the skillful combination of principle and flexibility in politics. It is also well known that the CPSU has worked consistently on this task. No interests of the development of relations with the capitalist countries have ever compelled the USSR to retreat a single inch from the internationalist Leninist positions of solidarity with and assistance to the other contingents of (he revolutionary movement.
In the packed history of the liberation struggle over the past half century there is not a single page that does not provide testimony of this internationalist stand of the working class of the Soviet Union, cl' our Party. -Such was Hie case when we were still very weak and virtually fighting for our very existence, being, so to say, always "in the sights" of the imperialist world, whose mosl reactionary forces sought the least pretext for starting a war against the socialist state. Such was the case when we had grown strong, asserted our right to uxist and embarked on the full-scale building of the socialist social system. All the more so today when the Soviet Union has become a mighty power, when the capitalist encirclement has been broken, when a military conflict with Hie socialist world has become fraught with fatal danger to capitalism. And if today the imperialist tactics of local wars has proved ineffectual, as is shown, in particular, by the setbacks of US imperialism in Vietnam, this is due in no small measure to the contribution made by the state founded by Lenin on the basis of scientific socialism.
We have full grounds for saying that in the international arena too 49 the CPSU has always acted in a Leninist manner. Speaking at the Moscow Meeting of fraternal parties in June 1969, Comrade L. 1. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CC CPSU, said on behalf of our Party: "To apply a consistent class line, firmly adhere to principles, be flexible in tactics, consider the concrete conditions from every angle, to undertake bold and at the same time well-conceived actions, to be able to utilisse all the diverse means of fighting imperialism---this is what Lenin taught us, and what we learn from Lenin.''
Not only do we constantly remember Lenin's behests, as we have always done, but we perseveringly and steadfastly implement them--- even at the steepest turns in history. In this sphere as well, the CPSU strives constantly to keep pace with life and creatively develop Lenin's ideas In line with the concrete conditions obtaining in one sector ot the revolutionary struggle or another.
Thus, the history of our country over a period of more than half a century has been replete with events of immense significance and complexity, with steep turns from the decision of one body of problems to another. The principal stages of this history are, at the same time, milestones in our Party's theoretical work, major landmarks in the enrichment of the Marxist-Leninist science on society, stages of the creative mastering of the laws governing the building of socialism.
By developing revolutionary theory in close contact with the practice of socialist construction in their own countries, and with internationalist policy in the world arena, the CPSU together with fraternal parties is consolidating Leninism as a really world-wide international teaching suitable for any conditions of the new epoch.
__*_*_*__The address "Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin'', which was unanimously adopted by the International Meeting, says: "Loyalty to Marxism-Leninism, to this great international teaching, holds the promise of further successes of the Communist movement.''
Speaking more specifically, what does this mean? What does it mean to implement Lenin's teaching of the revolution in our day?
It means fidelity to the revolutionary and internationalist principles of Marxism-Leninism and devotion to the creative spirit of this great teaching. It means a steadfast struggle for their implementation and, consequently, a constant enrichment of Marxist-Leninist theory with the modern experience of the t ass struggle and of the building ot socialist society. Fidelity to tlu creative spirit of this teaching re quires the correct application of the basic conclusions of the theory of scientific communism to the new conditions.
50To assist In the development of the world revolutionary process and implement a genuine revolutionary policy today means, first and foremost, to strengthen the socialist world system, which is the main bulwark of the international working-class and liberation movements.
Solidarity in defence of the socialist world system, which is the greatest gain of the international working class, is the most important aspect of the revolutionary and internationalist duty of the Communists of all countries. Any retreat before imperialism on this issue, no matter what arguments are presented in justification, would, in real politics, mean substantially narrowing down the potential of all the revolutionary forces of modern times. Conversely, every new success of the socialist countries creates additional levers for the struggle against imperialism, fetters it and ousts it from its positions.
To fight imperialism on every front, to make maximum use of new possibilities in this fight is a necessary condition for the advance of the revolutionary movement, and this sets the duty of preparing the working class and the working people" in general for revolutionary battles and using all forms of struggle for the victory of revolution. Victory can be won only if the force capable of breaking the domination of monopoly capital is duly prepared. The Communists have always had the distinction of telling the people the truth, even when the masses were not prepared fully to accept it. They have never made a secret of the fact that class conflicts are bound to sharpen. The dulling of political vigilance on this matter may cause the Party to fall behind the mass movement. Moreover, the masses could be caught unawares by a counter-offensive of the reactionary forces, which may lead to the elimination even of those rights and freedoms which had been gained within the framework of bourgeois democracy.
Cohesion round the working class of broad masses of working people on a revolutionary platform is a necessary condition for destroying the domination of the monopolies, and a most important premise for the proletariat exercising state direction of the whole of society. The ways and forms in which this task is solved and the speed with which this is aone are bound to be different. But in any case, they imply, on the one hand, the need for constant struggle for the everyday interests of the working people---economic and socio-political---and on the other, skill in linking immediate demands with long-term goals.
Today, as in the past, to be a revolutionary and an internationalist means giving all-round support to the national liberation movement. At p'f!-r:n.t. h? international aspect of the question of the working class's allies is gaining in iiijj.o'riance l.t.am's behest about merging 51 the struggle of the international working-class and the national liberation movement in a common tide of struggle against imperialism is becoming reality. This merger is not a simple spontaneous process, it Is the result of much political and organisational effort by all the Communist and Workers' parties, and the pursuit of a correct policy by the revolutionary-democratic parties.
Together with the extension of the world revolutionary process and parallel to its growing diversity there is ever greater interdependence of the conditions in the struggle for peace, democracy, national independence and socialism, which is being waged on various sectors This calls for appropriate interaction between the various contingents of the world anti-imperialist front.
In practice, the struggle to consolidate the unity of all the revolutionary forces leads to a merger of the national and international revolutionary tasks of the Communist movement. But the Communists' efforts in this direction will succeed only if the Communist and Workers' parties themselves are united. The 1969 Meeting was an important step towards this unity.
The unity of the Communist ranks is in itself a continuous process of struggle for unity, struggle which includes coordination of action against the common enemy and the overcoming of diverse deviations and vacillations within the Communist movement. This struggle implies efforts in that direction by all the parties together and each Party individually.
If the goals of the working class both within the national framework and on the international scale are to be achieved, the Marxist-Leninist Party must be tempered as the political leader of the revolution. This tempering takes place in ceaseless struggle against every type of opportunism, both Right and ``Left'', in struggle for the purity of Marxism-Leninism, for the spread of its principles among the masses and for improvement of the Party's political and organisational work on the basis of these principles.
In marking the centenary of the birth of the great Lenin, we do not simply pay tribute to a man who stood at the origins of the presentday Communist movement. Leninism is not only our past. It is our present and future.
Leninism lives in the constructive activity aimed at building the socialist, communist society.
Leninism lives in the revolutionary struggle of the working-class and national-liberation movement.
Leninism lives in the ideological, political and organisational work of the Communist parties.
52 __ALPHA_LVL1__ TOWARDS A NEW LEVEL OF THE STRUGGLEOur international journal Problems of Peace and Socialism initiated in a very timely way this symposium on "Leninism and Our Time''. I emphasise the timeliness of this symposium for two main reasons. I think it is important that we should act in good time to help in making the centenary of Lenin's birth a year of extending and deepening study of the inexhaustible treasury of his works. And 1 agree fully with the emphasis that the historic conference of Communist and Workers'* parties in Moscow, in June, placed upon "... the mounting possibilities for a broader offensive against imperialism, against the forces of reaction and war.'' I am confident that our symposium will encourage broadening circles of revolutionary workers to turn, more and more systematically, to Lenin, for his creative guidance in solving the new problems of our time. Everybody Who does consult Lenin, is inspired by the striking manner in which the trend of developments today proves the scientic correctness of all his work.
Proof of the validity of Leninism in conditions of today is all around us. The character of our epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale, the fruit of Lenin's leadership, and its epochal struggle between the two social systems, puts its stamp upon the class struggle at all levels and in all its forms of expression. It makes the issue of "peaceful competition between the two systems versus world nuclear war" the fundamental issue of our time. In this connection we must emphasise the fact that the necessity to strengthen the fight to prevent nuclear war grows, as the spreading decay of imperialism 53 increases the influence of the reckless military-industrial complex in the imperialist states, particularly in the United States and Western Germany. It must be emphasised also that the character of our epoch imbues the struggle to prevent nuclear war with the dynamic quality that its success will open the way to the peaceful fulfilment of the loftiest aspirations of mankind. Truly did the International Conference emphasise that one of the cardinal tasks of the international Communist movement is to head the struggle of the peoples for a lasting peace and today, Jar from diminishing, the importance of this task constantly grows.
Because of the objective character of our epoch its subjective forces, that is to say the political awareness of the participants in its sharpening struggle, is becoming increasingly important. Consider the epic struggle against the criminal war of wholesale destruction being waged by United States imperialism and its allies and puppets against the people of Vietnam. The unflinching heroism of the people of Vietnam, the unstinted aid being given to them by the Soviet Union and other socialist states, the massive support that they are receiving from democratic peace-loving people all over the world, who are rising up in a tidal wave of democratic protest against United States imperialism, each of these features of the historic struggle emphasises the increasing importance of political awareness. It is particularly noteworthy that, in the capitalist states, the most powerful and rapidly growing opposition to United States imperialism is that of the democratic masses of men and women, black and white, representing many walks of life, in the United States itself. Millions of patriotic Americans are making the cause of the Vietnamese people their own. Quakers and other pacifists and religious groups, each in their own way are paying tribute to Lenin's profound grasp of reality as they fight militantly to compel US imperialism to "Get Out of Vietnam!''
US imperialism will be compelled to withdraw its troops, and to allow the people of Vietnam to settle their national affairs as they wish. Victory for the heroic people of Vietnam in their unwavering struggle to maintain their national independence will mark the end of the era during which great imperialist states were able to impose their will upon weaker peoples by brutal force of arms. By virtue of that fact and the character of our epoch, it will open the floodgates for a great and widespread democratic advance all over the world.
In Canada as in the United States and other capitalist countries the present period is characterised by the extending mass struggles and rising militancy of the working class. Workers are fighting to curb the killing speed-up, which increases the worker's productivity but 54 shortens his working life. To protect the modest gains won by: bitterly fought strikes in the past and maintain their living standards in face of the reckless inflation, by which the monopoly-capitalist government reduces the purchasing power of their wages at a constantly accelerating rate, workers are fighting back, on a scale and with militancy that are without precedent in the history of the trade union movement in Canada. Steel and automobile workers, construction workers, lumber workers in the woods and the sawmills of British Columbia, longshoremen and truck drivers, these and many other workers have waged and are waging militant strikes. During recent months thousands of steelworkers have been out on strike for seventy days. Sixteen thousand miners and two thousand smelter workers shut down the main production operations of the International Nickel Company for four months, evoking howls of pretended anguish from the warmongers about a possible shortage of nickel throughout the capitalist part of the world. The spreading militancy and the escalating cost of living, in the political climate which chracterises our epoch, are bringing school teachers and other white collar workers into active participation in the, struggles of the labour movement on a mass scale.
A spirit of renewed confidence and militancy is moving people of many walks of life into converging streams of action: against the crushing exploitation, the stifling reaction, and the obsession with plans for war, of state-monopoly capitalism. A striking feature of this period is the tremendous increase in the role being played by women. By their numbers, by their militancy, and by the unwavering consistency with which they work and fight, the democratic peace-loving women of Canada are changing the composition of the ranks of the tighters for democracy, peace and socialism. In an equal degree they are influencing, strongly, the quality of democratic action at all levels of the class struggle. In French Canada the broad popular struggle to win the right to self-determination is merging with the workers' struggle to close the gap between the level of wages and salaries in French and English Canada. Pressed by the widening gap between continuous increases in the monopoly prices that they have to pay for everything that they buy and the drastic decline of their incomes, farmers all over Canada organised a great convention in Winnipeg at the end of July 1969, and merged their numerous provincial organisations in one militant "National Fanners' Union/'
Young workers, indeed young people in general, are increasingly an important force in the political life of Canada. In industry and the trade unions young workers are "setting the pace" in militancy. They are fighting to win for (lie workers, through their unions, an 55 effective share in the control of the technological revolution in industry and over its effect upon the workers. They want democratic control of industry and progressive policies in their unions. They are activists in the rank-and-file movements. They are opposed to militarism and to war. They want radical progressive change and they are prepared to fight for it, and they are receptive to the idea of socialism. Militant students are a vital force in actions to aid the heiOic people of Vietnam, and in all spheres of the struggle against imperialism and the danger of war. There is growing realisation among the studentry that genuine democratisation of education, with elimination of racial and regional discrimination, and complete equality ol opportunity for higher education for all, will be achieved only when all the democratic people who recognise that such a democratic advance is a basic social necessity in modern society, unite with the organised working-class movement to achieve it.
Progressive young Canadians in general, workers, students, and rural youth, are united by their opposition to the evils of imperialism, its blind impulsion to reaction and war and, particularly, against the bestial crimes being committed by US imperialism in Vietnam. In sharp contrast to the policies of imperialism, the youth are inspired by lofty ideals. They are motivated not by fear but by their ardent desire to advance continuously, to new horizons of democratic progress, to richer lives of self-fulfilment. They are a vital force in the struggle to bring about an Alliance of All Who Work By Hand Or Brain.
The response of monopoly capital and its governments to the developments outlined above, has been to enact ami-union legislation and to set up a "Royal Commission''. Allegedly set up to inquire into matters affecting the security of the state, tiie Commission's report is, in fact, an attempt to revive McCarthyism in Canada. As the Communist Party pointed out, "It is mainly directed against the democratic rights of Canadians, using as a cover the myth of communist subversion.'' It is a sad commentary on Social-Democracy^^*^^ in Canada, t'nat the ex-leader of that party, referred to by its present leaders as "the grand old man" of their movement, shared responsibility for the report and endorsed it completely. It should be added, however, that most of the younger members of that party are, in effect, repudiating both the report and the tradition of their ex-leader. Reflecting the rapid changes taking place in this epoch, there has emerged at last a vocal organised Left wing in the Social-Democratic Party, which _-_-_
^^*^^ The official name of the Social Democratic Party is "New Democrath Party''.
56 proclaims its aim to be that of socnMst C ,>i:tda, independent fro ri the United States. The overall situation in Canada today resembles in some degree that which Lenin described as one of the stages in the history of Bolshevism when; "All classes were in a state of ferment and preparation" (Vol, 31, p. 26).The questions of the revolutionary struggle which confront the Communist and Workers' parties today were dealt with quite fully by the International Conference. The fundamental importance of unity in the world-wide struggle against imperialism and war, the significance of the struggle for peaceful coexistence, Leninism and democracy, the conditions in which the transition from capitalism to socialism may be achieved without civil war, the struggle to achieve unity of the Left, these and other questions that have been given new importance by the character of our epoch, were dealt with convincingly. The Conference emphasised also the importance of giving organised expression to the ideological power of the unity of our world movement in its unshakable proletarian internationalism which expressed itself in the Conference. That, indeed, was a convincing refutation of the^ chauvinistic anti-Leninism which is the ideological stock-in-trade of the main opponents of our world movement who masquerade as revolutionary internationalists.
I want to discuss some questions of the revolutionary movement that were dealt with in the Conference but which are of particular importance to the Communist Party of Canada and to our brother parties in some other countries of highly developed capitalism. For example, consider the question that is posed by the relatively slow growth of our Party in relation to the rapid growth of militancy in the ranks of the working class.
As I have indicated, in Canada as in all the countries of highly developed capitalism, workers are fighting militantly against the erosion of their living standards by inflation, for higher wages, for a measure of democracy in their places of work, and so on. Workers and masses of democratic white collar and middle class people are fighting, consistently and with determination, against war, against imperialism, against the policies of state-monopoly capitalism. It is incontrovertible that history lias shown that Leninism is the only unfailing guide in their struggles. In fact, in Canada, the issues which unite them and the circumstances in which they fight are themselves proof of the validity of Leninism. The correspondence between the Leninist perspective for many democralic mass activities and the path followed by their participants is well known. Yet, even among the workers who fight militantly, on the job and on ihe streets, in actions 57 which, within their limits, correspond with Leninism, only a few accept Leninism consciously as their ideology and guide, and join the Communist Party.
The fact that a worker does not join the Communist Party does not by itself necessarily indicate any disagreement with Leninism. This is shown, clearly by the manner in which workers applaud the spokesmen of the Communist Party, express their preference for Communist leadership on the job, in strikes, on picket lines, and in other class struggle activities. It must be said that, in the main, they have not yet freed themselves from the ideological domination of state-monopoly capitalism, its ideologists and the poisonous influence of its allpervasive media of mass communication. Nevertheless, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss their failure to join the Communist Party as simply an expression of the level of the class struggle. Our task is to work effectively to raise that level in the process of building the Party. It is imperative that we follow Lenin's advice and adapt ourselves to "... the theoretically helpless, but living and powerful mass working-class movement that is marching alongside...'' (Vol. 12, p. 363).
The above is very important in Canada today, because influential sectors of the trade union movement are moving towards a radical and potentially far-reaching advance in their role. Within the international unions and on issues other than those of parliamentary action the leadership in this change is coming to a large extent from International Executives in the United States. But, because of the different traditions of the two countries, Canadian members of several of the biggest international unions are organised for political action and will give direct political expression 10 the proposals, of which the most active proponent in the United States so far is the membership of the United Automobile Workers of America. In addition, Canadian workers sometimes feel the influence of the character of this epoch in forms that do not appear in the United States. For example: automobile manufacturers in Canada, on the instructions of their parent companies in the United States, refused to quote a price for a thousand trucks that the government of China wanted to buy. A Canadian flour milling company which is owned by a United States company refused to mill Canadian wheat that had been purchased by the Soviet Union, when it discovered that the flour would be shipped to Cuba. The United States government intervened brazenly in opposition to Canada maintaining trade relations with Cuba and to the current discussions looking to re-establish diplomatic relations with one China. In Canada there is a powerful public: demand that the government get out of 58 NATO and out of NORAD, and that in does not succumb to the pressure from the US government and join the Organisation of American States. Each of these is a significant expression, first of the contradiction between the influence of the character of our epoch in Canada and the path that was chosen by the capitalist class and its government following the Second World War; and secondly, that the influence of the character of our epoch is beginning to prevail.
The working class is moving towards the political action by which the influence of our epoch will be made to prevail completely. The sinister reactionary aims, if not the anti-Canadian effects, of the sell-out of Canada's sovereignty to the United States will be replaced by policies more in accord with the new realities created by the advance of socialism, and the imperative necessity for policies which express the aim of peaceful coexistence. The main currents of democratic action which are converging in this trend are the following. The broadening and strengthening popular action for peace, particularly its demand that the United States gets out of Vietnam. The demand that Canada withdraws from all military blocs. The demand that Canada take definite steps to free herself from United States domination. Converging support for these three demands is exerting a noticeable influence even within the governing Liberal Party. Along with the demand that socialism shall be its proclaimed objective, the converging support for these demands reversed the long-established policy of the Social-Democrats in the recent National Convention of their party.
Canada was the first modern imperialist state to suffer what Lenin described as economic annexation without political annexation. Integration with United States imperialism has reduced the Canadian government to a subordinate member of an integrated state-monopoly capitalist set-up, in which the senior and dominant partner is United States imperialism.
The Canadian bourgeoisie cooperated in the sale of their sovereignty over Canada, almost without protest. With only a few honourable exceptions, they saw it as an opportunity to make big personal profits quickly, in the process of joining the United States in preparation for a world war, to destroy the socialist states. The Communist Party alone warned Canadians against that criminal plan and urged them to reject it. We showed clearly that the immediate objective of US imperialism was to secure ownership of Canada's rich natural resources and control of her economy and, thereby, effective control of her political life also. At that time we stood alone. The SocialDemocrats and the Canadian leaders of the International Trade Unions 59 were united in support of the policy pursued by the capitalist class. But today there is a widespread and growing realisation that the macabre plot for the launching of an imperialist war to destroy socialism is discredited and must be repudiated. Even those who are not yet agreed upon what national objectives should be adopted in its place are repudiating the criminal plan that was adopted in 1948. To quote the smug euphemism used by the government-appointed Economic Council of Canada in its recent annual official report: "The earlier concensus on priorities has been eroding and a clear, new concensus about national priorities has not crystallised" ('Annual Report, Sept. 1969, p. 170).
In this situation the Communist Party of Canada proposes that the present irresponsible control of Canada by United States imperialism and its monopolies should be challenged and eventually replaced by a broad alliance of democratic, patriotic forces, rallied around the united labour movement. Winning effective support for this aim involves action to raise the level of working:class political action. This will be accomplished but not by propaganda alone. Closing the gap between the pace of the rise of militancy and that of ideological development will be, and can only be, a result of the enhancement of the role of Communists in the planning and development of the aims of their fellow-workers as well as the leadership of their immediate activities. That enhancement must be achieved "inch by inch'', by consistent day-to-day work. Propaganda must explain the continuity of the chain of actions which link together the militant workers at all levels; from actions on the job to the formulation of the policies and slogans which express the guidance of Leninism but, as Lenin pointed out: " . -.. the objective maximum ability of the proletariat to units as a class is realised through living people and only through definite forms of organisation" [Vol. 13, p. 104).
The forms of organisation will be shaped by the traditions of the country and the conditions of the time. But to free the working classfrom the ideological domination of state-monopoly capitalism, the "living people" who lead them to unity as a class must be guided by Leninism.
In the overall struggle 10 raise the political level of the mass activities of the working class, systematic action must be developed to strengthen and improve the quality of the struggle to enlarge the cadre of young Leninists and their influence, throughout the ranks of the youth, particularly the young workers in industry. This is important for young people themselves, immediately, because they need the guidance of Leninism in their actions to protect their own 60 interests. There is a marked slowdown in the growth of the total number of workers employed in Canada, combined with a higher than average growth of population. The result is that only a declining percentage of the young people who come on to the labour market are able to get jobs. The technological revolution is resulting in an unusually high rate of increase of productivity, 145 per cent of that in the United States in 1968. But effective demand is not increasing proportionally and there are growing lay-offs. The rule of "last hired first fired" hits the younger workers hard in such lay-offs. The result is that in 1968 the average rate of unemployment for the working class as a whole was 4.8 per cent, but for male workers under the age of 25 years it was 9.7 per cent. It is considerably worse today. It will grow even more considerably worse very soon, unless radical changes are made. The Economic Council of Canada estimates that merely to keep pace with the increase of population, employment would need to expand by 3 per cent per year through the next several years. But the prospects at present are for an increase of only 2 per cent or less. Unless radical changes are made the youth will be hardest hit by that also.
Equally as young Canadians need the guidance of Leninism in de- . fending their own immediate interests, so the working class needs a stronger and growing corps of young Leninists, particularly Leninist young workers.
The new problems of this period are making millions of rank-- andfile members of the trade unions aware of the fact that a new type of leadership is necessary. The trade unions in North America need leaders who spiritually, physically, and by their own experience, are equipped to lead their unions to victory in the revolutionary changes that must be achieved. A growing majority of the workers are beginning to realise the profound truth to which Lenin drew attention, even though they may not have read his penetrating words: "Capn talism creates its own grave-diggers, itself creates the elements of a new system; yet, at the same time, without a `leap' these individual elements change nothing in the general state of "affairs and do not affect the rule of capital" (Vol. 16, p. 348).
Today, in the main, it is the young workers who can most readily make the ``leap'' that Lenin referred to---from the ideological shackles imposed by state-monopoly capitalism to the revolutionary dialectical materialism of Marxism-Leninism. Such are the working-class leaders -ho will boldly foresee the future and prepare the workers in advance, i) he able to seize the initiative and hold it; from wage movements, 61 through the fight to change national policies, to the fight to make the working class the effective leader of the nation.
Such, in this period, is the path by which Leninism will become the principal content of the rising level of the militancy of the working class. Our supreme confidence in Leninism enables us to say with certainty of the frenzied, reckless capitalist class of North America and its decaying system today, as Lenin said in 1920: "However rich and strong that class may be, it is doomed, whereas we are a class that is advancing towards victory" [Vol. 31, p. 399).
62 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND COLOMBIA'SWe are on the eve of the centenary of the birth' of Lenin, genius of the world proletarian revolution. We are striving for further gains as we fight for the cause of the proletariat in our countries. To commemorate tiie Lenin centenary means to us carrying our knowledge of Leninist theory deeper, spurring on the revolutionary process according to Lenin's theses and contributing to proletarian internationalism as effectively as possible by carrying forward the revolution in our country as part of the world proletarian revolution.
On the threshold of the Lenin centenary we are taking part in a powerful contest between the forces of socialism, which are on the rise and are headed by the homeland of Lenin and communism, the glorious Soviet Union, and the reactionary forces of imperialism.
In Latin America, Lenin's forecasts are being borne out by a growing class struggle, in peculiar and vastly complicated conditions. Lenin's exposure of the predatory nature of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism and prelude to the social revolution of the proletariat, is clearly confirmed by the gulf separating US imperialism from the super-exploited and superoppressed peoples of Latin America. Lenin's idea of the possibility of piercing the imperialist chain at its weakest link, where the contradictions of the system are concentrated---an idea proved correct in Russia and later in Eastern Europe, in China, Korea and Vietnam---was also borne out in Latin America with the liberation of Cuba and with its setting out to build socialism. Lenin's concept of the struggle of the proletariat in the metropolitan countries linking up with the fight of the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent peoples 63 is being fully confirmed by the actions of the working people of the USA, the main imperialist power, against the US soldiery's criminal war in Vietnam.
Lenin's ideas of the worker-peasant alliance, of the possibility of the democratic and anti-feudal revolution developing into a socialist revolution and of socialism being built in one country', as well as of the imperative need of the people's dictatorship, have been confirmed on the American continent through Cuba's successful transition from a backward to a socialist society.
It goes without saying that these ideas could not be put into effect mechanically or in simplified fashion in various parts of the globe, in various countries that had taken the socialist path. Their realisation reflects the multiformity of life in each country whose people have overthrown capitalist rule. They are translated into reality with due regard to the distinctive character of the countries having taken the revolutionary road leading to socialism. Hence to celebrate this glorious centenary also means for Marxists-Leninists fulfilling a most important task, that of analysing reality as they learn from Lenin, who always drew on reality as the source of all theory.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IMPORTANCE OF CHARTING THE REVOLUTIONARY PATHLately, with the old, imperialist world being shaken more and more violently and the revolutionary forces strengthening their positions, there has been a growing interest in the theoretical and practical aspects of the problem of paths 0} the revolution. Discussions on this problem between Communists and other trends of the revolutionary movement, and even among Latin America's Communists themselves, have become very lively and profound.
We would like to take this opportunity to offer some remarks on these problems, primarily on the basis of the experience and practice of the Communist Party of Colombia. In stating our considerations on so important a subject, we do not lay any claims but are solely prompted by the desire to show how our Party is trying to apply Lenin's teachings so as to have clarity about the path the Colombian revolution is following or will follow, the methods we should use to muster the forces we will require if we are to alter the balance of power prevailing in our country today, the characteristics and specific forms of the worker-peasant alliance in Colombia, and the presumable outcome of a revolutionary situation.
Having made a thorough study of the Russian realities of his day, 64 Lenin not only analysed the material conditions of society, the motive forces of the revolution and the issue of the leading role of the proletariat, but charted the road that had to be travelled if the movement was to defeat the enemy and win power, failing which revolutionary change would be impossible. Besides, Leniu set out his ideas about the forms of power that would emerge from the struggle, about its class structure and the fundamental tasks it would be able to accomplish.
Lenin never regarded his plan, which was carried into practice throughout the period of preparations for the struggle culminating in victory for the first socialist revolution, as gospel. It was a guide to action for the Bolsheviks. It was tested and carried forward according to experience and to class relations in this or that period. It is common knowledge that at certain junctures after the revolution of February 1917. Lenin admitted of a certain peaceful development as the transition to socialism was effected. A very important concrete circumstance had developed at the time, namely, dual power due to the existence of the Soviets, organs of people's rule, and the Provisional Government of the bourgeoisie resulting from the February Revolution. This revolution overthrew tsarist rule and dealt a powerful blow to the traditional authority of reaction. Lenin advanced the profoundly Marxist idea that the proletariat pursues its own aims, always trying to achieve them by the least painful methods and resorting to force as little as possible. He described this path as the most desirable. In his article "On Slogans'', announcing the end of that period, he wrote with good reason as follows: "This is what might have happened had power passed to the Soviets at the proper time. That would have been the easiest and the most advantageous course for the people. This course would have been the least painful, and it was therefore necessary to fight for it most energetically" (Vol. 25, p. 185).
Developments took a different course due to the use of force by the bourgeoisie, to foreign intervention and military occupation by a number of powers, and to an exhausting civil war. All this took a toll in suffering and sacrifice from the heroic Soviet people, who won the admiration of the world.
We would like to deal with the following aspects of Lenin's rich heritage and the activity of the Bolshevik Party:~
---Within the framework of his general theory of the proletarian revolution, Lenin developed as one of its main aspects his fundamental ideas about what we now know as the paths uf the revolution.
--- Lenin always held that every revolution, whatever the stage 65 reached by it, can only be a result of action and struggle by organised masses fully aware of their objectives.
---In keeping with the basic postulates of Marxism, Lenin evolved his ideas of the proletarian revolution. He stressed the necessity for an armed uprising of the people in view of the resistance of the bourgeoisie, its resolve to stay in power and the use of force by the ruling classes as their ``natural'' method of exercising power.
---At the same time, proceeding from the essence of Marxism, Lenin in a number of cases emphasised that the use of revolutionary force as a means of defeating bourgeois power was determined by the need to counter the attacks, threats and terror on the part of the enemies of the people.
These and other principles set Leninism apart from Right-wing opportunism and various forms of political vagueness and from Blanquist propositions to the effect that in planning revolutionary struggle the masses could be dispensed with, as well as from the concepts of those who regard the use of force as the source and supreme manifestation of power and of revolutionary theory.
The world Communist movement today is inspired by Lenin's teachings, by his principles and fundamental theses. Carried forward in new historical conditions by the 20th Congress of the CPSU and by the international meetings of the Communist movement, they are a source of inspiration to the parties fighting for revolutionary change on various anti-imperialist fronts. Of course, they should be applied according to the actual conditions of activity in the country and at the stage of revolutionary struggle concerned. The Document of the Meeting of 75 Communist and Workers' parties says: "Each Party, guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and in keeping with concrete national conditions, fully independently elaborates its own policy, determines the directions, forms and methods of struggle, and, depending on the circumstances, chooses the peaceful or non-peaceful way of transition to socialism.''
__ALPHA_LVL2__ POSITION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLOMBIAThe problem of development paths lias admittedly become a topic for heated discussion in Latin America. This is due to the rapid advance of socialism and the disintegration of the colonial system on a world scale that we. a re witnessing, on the one hand, and, on the other, to the living example of the Cuban Revolution next door, which 66 has brought new hope to those fighting for freedom, against US imperialism, en our continent.
In studying its own experience and in comparing it with that of other revolutionary contingents, and in carrying on discussions and polemics, our Party has evolved some guidelines that are part of its programme principles and political tactics. In this it has taken guidance from Lenin's lucid teachings. Drawing on our own experience, we do all in our power to avoid every manifestation of dogmatism.
Speaking, to begin with, of the culmination of our experience and of our main conclusion from it. we must quote the Programme of the Communist Party of Colombia approved by the 10th Congress in 1966. "In the course of our revolution.'' n reads, "all the forms of struggle by the masses will be combined according to circumstances, to the given stage and the position of the reactionary forces. We reject no form of action hi/ the masses. The armed struggle is increasingly becoming an indispensable factor in the Colombian revolution.'' We think this formulation is in keeping with conditions in our country and takes into account the perspective of sharper class struggles and of increased violence on the part of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, as well as the need to bring the masses into the fight for revolutionary change.
This formulation has been prompted by the recent years' experience of struggle in Colombia.
After the widespread democratic and anti-fascist movement which rallied the masses in Latin America during World War II, a period set in which in our country is characterised by a real explosion of reactionary violence. The reactionaries suppressed democratic liberties, decimated major working-class organisations and abolished bourgeois democratic institutions. They launched a veritable war against 'the peasants' movement for an agrarian reform. In this period, known as the period of violence, the Colombian people incurred tremendous loss of life and went through unprecedented suffering. Our people countered enemy aggression with all means at their disposal, striving to preserve their organisations, maintain their gains and extend their liberties.
In reply to reactionary violence we Communists developed a policy ot self-defence for the masses which was enriched and carried forward throughout this period.
From the outset, self-defence has been conceived as both a political and a military organisation intended to counter enemy violence. It must defend the rights of the masses, resist reactionary aggression and at the same time organise and educate the masses with the aim of 67 launching struggle at a higher level given definite conditions. According to our Programme, "it is a process of raising the political activity and organisation level of the masses, which leads them to the conviction that the armed- struggle is necessary as a higher form of mass struggle holding out the prospect of revolutionary advance along non-peaceful lines.''
There is a heated discussion going on in Colombia over the nature and role of self-defence, first of all with groups posing as the "extreme Left" and alleging that the Communists have emasculated the content of the armed struggle and robbed it of perspective through organisations described as ``passive'' and ``non-revolutionary''.
Actually, however, most of our guerrilla groups came into being during the preparatory stage of self-defence. Time does not permit a detailed description of Communist work in these organisations. But I can say that they react to every outbreak of reactionary violence by re-forming themselves into guerrilla units.
The process of the armed struggle in our country can be divided into three stages: 1949---53, 1954---57, and 1964 to the present time. Some maintain that the armed struggle remains at one and the same level. That is not so, for it is constantly changing its content, advancing to higher levels of political understanding and combat ability. The guerrilla struggle in Colombia cannot be suppressed either by military or political means---that is now beyond doubt. Moreover, as 1 have already said in referring to our programme, the guerrilla struggle is increasingly becoming an indispensable factor of our revolution.
It has gone through a process of evolution since 1949: its leadership is passing into the hands of the proletarian party; the armed movement is acquiring a clearly expressed revolutionary character and is becoming a component of our future struggle for power. Besides, CKlier guerrilla detachments have emerged and have adopted a revolutionary orientation. There is closer contact between the fight in the rural areas and the action of the urban masses for their political and economic demands. The movement lias successfully adapted itself to imperialism's new military plans and the use of more modern weapons.
Our experience, intimately associated with Lenin's teaching, has found expression in the following:
---Our armed movement survived because it stems from the selfdefence actions of the masses, has always been a mass movement, deeply rooted in the masses and combining diverse forms of struggle at each given stage. The movement fought cm different fronts simultaneously. Furthermore, armed struggle has been complemented and 68 supported by political activity. In fact whenever we overlooked the need for such support, we suffered reverses.
---The movement modified its forms to suit the requirements of one or another stage, the accent shifting from armed to non-armed struggle and vice versa. This was accompanied by a complex process of qualitative growth, with political changes reflected in the thinking of the masses. This confirms Lenin's proposition that the forms of struggle are not invented by the proletarian party, but are the outcome of mass initiative, and that the Party must analyse them and direct mass actions accordingly.
---The armed movement is invincible when it is the result of mass initiative and is closely linked with the Amasses. However, we must ,;t each given stage carefully take into account technical changes introduced by the enemy and the nature of the enemy confronting the movement. In the recent period some groups that did not reckon with the changes resulting from capitalist development in agriculture and the more sophisticated methods of enemy struggle suffered serious setbacks.
-- The movement lias been able to survive .because it has always taken into account the general process of political evolution, the changes that this entails, and lias altered its tactics accordingly.
-- The armed movement lias become a permanent feature in Colombia's political life because it is the correct and necessary answer to the violence and aggression perpetrated by our enemies. At first, the aggression came from the latifundist circles and was spearheaded against tiie peasantry. At present the aggression is Inspired by Washington and is part of Yankee imperialism's plans.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ REVOLUTIONARY SITUATIONWhy, then, has not the armed struggle developed into a victorious rising, as Lenin foresaw? The question is central to the discussion on the potentialities of (he guerrilla movement now taking place throughout Latin America
The main iact that IMS lu Ih' pressed is thai throughout this entire l>i>riocl there lias not been a really revolutionary situation in Colombia. At times of political crisis the bourgeoisie was able to manoeuvre. The armed si niggle was not powerful enough to accelerate the development ol a i evolutionary situation. The forms of struggle had t<> lie adapted to political changes, and the proletariat was not yet in ,i position iu play a decisive pan in determining the outcome of the struggle.
69And so, Colombia's experience shows that the forms of struggle 'depend on its content and scope. It also shows that the theory current in certain Latin American circles that the guerrilla struggle possesses the magic power to create a situation enabling the people to take over power, lacks the universal value ascribed to it.
The Communists are being criticised also from other positions: even without a pre-rising situation making it possible to launch actions for the capture of power they nevertheless insist on continuing this higher form of struggle. But experience has taught us that the armed struggle stems from the needs of the masses, and that a revolutionary party, if it wants to be consistent and does not want to be condemned by history, cannot renounce one or another form of struggle.
On the other hand, in certain periods heightened armed action was a major factor of political change. In grim periods of repression it kept alive a spark of hope in the masses.
And so, if we accept that the revolutionary perspective for Colombia is armed'confrontation, what right have we to renounce armed struggle pending a revolutionary situation? This is generalised in the political resolution of our 10th Congress: "The armed struggle in Colombia is developing as a peasant guerrilla movement even before the emergence of a revolutionary situation, for the revolutionary peasant movement cannot remain passive while its organisations are being crushed .... On the other hand, guerrilla actions help to create some of the essential subjective factors for turning a revolutionary situation into victorious revolution.''
This conforms with Lenin's principles on the forms of struggle. We all know Lenin's words that "... Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of the forms of struggle .... To attempt to answer Yes or No to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given movement at the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position" (Vol. 11, p. 214].
__ALPHA_LVL2__ COMBINING FORMS OF STRUGGLEOur Party follows the tactics of combining different forms of struggle, iu contrast to a one-sided and absolute approach to the problem of these forms, which leads to sheer scholasticism that has nothing in common with the spirit of Leninism, which teaches us to reckon wiih Hie experience, specifics and conditions of the struggle and not to apply set formulas.
70Some affirm that this is an ``eclectic'' attitude. But as I have pointed out earlier, the tactics of combining various forms of struggle, the purpose of which is to build up our forces in the process of revolutionary development, win mass support for our policy and utilise every opportunity offered bv the given situation, is applied with an eye to the broader perspective of a decisive confrontation in Colombia, of which armed action against reactionary violence and imperialism \vill be a crucial factor.
Accordingly, we are working on the premise that, as our revo= lutionary struggle develops, "popular armed action will become the basic form of struggle and decisive factor in the people's capture of power" (from the 10th Congress' Political Resolution) and we believe that "a correct combination of the forms of struggle is the very substance of our tactics''. More, we regard this tactics as an essential component of Colombia's revolutionary path.
These views are based on what Lenin taught us. You will recall his words that "Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism Ly not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle" (Vol. 11, p. 213).
Obviously, this is fully 'justified by the position in Colombia. For with the development of capitalism, which is closely linked with North American imperialism, and the reformist plans elaborated in an attempt to counter the influence of the Cuban revolution, the situation in Colombia is characterised by a subtle combination of outright violence and bourgeois reformism, now the basis of the policy of the ruling classes. The enemy employs different forms to maintain control of the people, who are replying by using a combination of forms of struggle.
That being the situation, the Party has been waging an armed struggle in rural areas, combining it with various forms of legal activity -- such as work in the trade union movement, and, despite all the restrictions and discrimination, is active in election campaigns in order to win positions in bourgeois representative institutions.
Defining our revolutionary path involves a whole series of problems. First among these is how to determine the revolutionary aims in the present conjuncture of circumstances. The second problem is how to win over the masses to our policy. The third is how to prepare them for the final, decisive battles. It will thus be seen that the forms of struggle should be, and are, considered in relation to these complex problems.
That is not accepted by certain elements in Latin America. They, are inclined to confuse the overall revolutionary path with the forms 71 of the struggle, in the belief that if the revolutionary process leads to an armed rising, this precludes the use of any other form except armed struggle. This theory usually degenerates into a variety of militarism or the cult of revolutionary violence, to the exclusion of the political implications of the struggle. But our experience has shown that the very possibility of armed struggle depends on promoting other forms of mass activity and bringing them together in a single process aimed at winning over the people to revolutionary positions.
There is also this theory: once we accept the revolutionary path, we must immediately proceed to capture power, whether or not the masses are prepared for that. Proponents of that theory disregard the very important fact that the battle against the enemy presupposes mass action. And it is only natural that supporters of this theory very soon find themselves isolated because their policy and actions are neither understood nor supported by the masses.
And still another theory maintains that only armed struggle is worthy of revolutionaries, and that the fate of the revolutionary process depends exclusively on guerrilla action. Proponents of this theory have not taken the trouble to analyse the structural changes in Colombia in the past decades. Urbanisation, and its concomitant, the rise of an industrial working class, have brought to the forefront a whole gamut of mass actions in the cities. In fact, the bourgeoisie itself is concentrating on what it calls the problem of the suburbs, trying to win them over and set them against the working class which, it alleges, has become, a "privileged group of society'', and the peasants, who are denounced as bandits and a menace to "national harmony''.
To this we oppose heightened political understanding and unity of the working class as our central aim. We do this in order to win over the masses so that the very development of the armed struggle will assure their victory in the decisive battles of the future. In a country of developing capitalism and rapid growth of the working class, the Communist Party cannot unite the masses, lead them and advance on the path of revolutionary change if it does not play the leading role, whatever the obstacles that might arise on its revolutionary path.
The situation I have here described, and our Party's application of the theories of the great Lenin, should be seen as part of the general situation in Latin. America, a continent shaken by social upheaval, a continent on which, as the Meeting of the 75 Communist and v orkers' parties pointed out, "militant democratic, anti-imperialist 72 movements and revolutionary processes are developing which will' pave the way to socialism''.
With the upsurge of the class struggle in Latin America, imperialism and local reaction are making frenzied efforts to suppress the popular movement by isolating, dividing and undermining it. Colombia is an example of how imperialism is combining military repression with social demagogy, new tactics of anti-guerrilla warfare with military control of the cities, punitive operations with political measures in which the so-called republican institutions play no small part. The technological revolution has given the enemy more modern weapons--- from new guns to sociological research.
In these conditions, if we were to cling only to one form of struggle we would not be able either to encompass the whole gamut of mass action or to counter the repressive and reformist measures now being employed by US imperialism.
Lenin taught us to act dialectically. The Communist Party of Colombia is guided by that; its tactics and strategy are inspired b.y_
73 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINIST PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENTIFICWe are gathered here in connection with an approaching auspicious event: in hut a few months we shall mark Hie centenary of the birth of a man whose name has for ail time gone down in world history, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
History is rich in personalities who, acting in accord with the historical laws of their time, accelerated the course of world events. Yet only the names of Marx, Engels and Lenin are known in all the remote corners of the world. Their integral teaching is rejuvenating our planet and radically transforming the life of hundreds of millions of people. "Lenin's name,'' said the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow, "has come to symbolise the victory of the Great October Revolution and those immense revolutionary advances which have radically changed the face of society on earth and signify the turning of mankind to socialism and communism.''
Lenin, leader and teacher of the international labour movement, a brilliant scholar and fervent proletarian revolutionary, defended the ideological heritage of Marx and Engels from all attacks and distortions. He enriched Marxism with propositions vitally needed by the working class when, a mere five decades after the appearance of the Communist Manifesto, in Hie changed conditions of struggle under imperialism., the working class was preparing for great battles to win political power. Leninism is the Marxism of our time, when, led by Hie revolutionary working class, the peoples a.'r; ..isauning the 74 fastnesses of imperialist tyranny and going over to socialism on a world scale.
In our time, therefore, Lenin's teaching is more than a magnificent theory of the new society. In many countries it is already shaping all social practice. Hundreds of millions have won a free life, which they are building as masters. In countries where the workers hold power, achievements of planned economy, scientific and educational progress, and a genuine democracy fully mirroring the characteristic features of socialism---all are Leninism in action. Scientific truth has now been confirmed by the reality of the new world.
The attitqde to Leninism, to the October Revolution, the first that put Leninism into practice, to the Soviet Union, the world's first state and society based on Leninist principles, and to the CPSU, the vanguard of the revolutionary world proletariat, today more than ever determines the attitude and success of the international revolutionary forces.
As our conference shows. Communists do not celebrate the approaching jubilee as simply a memorable date. For us, Lenin's name is the symbol of past, present, and future struggles and victories. All revolutionary battles are fought under the Leninist banner, because Lenin's teaching is more than just a picture of man's future; it also shows us the way to reach our goal. The Marxism of our epoch, Leninism is the most forceful political and spiritual movement of our time. For the working class Lenin's ideas are a most important spiritual weapon in its struggle for power and when consolidating that power and building socialist society. No other doctrine provides answers to all the vitally important questions to the same extent, so exhaustively, as does Marxism-Leninism, the comprehensive, integral science of the working class.
To pay homage to Lenin, to be true to his ideas, is to maintain constantly the unity of principles and the creative ideological method. To safeguard the purity of Leninism and make full use of its ideological wealth in untangling the new problems arising in the struggle---that is the only unity that helps advance theoretical work for the benefit of our practical activity. That has been one of the most important conclusions drawn by our Party from its experience of directing socialist construction on German soil.
In this contribution 1 should like to examine the problem of the scientific guidance of socialist construction in the light of the teaching of Marx, Engels and Lenin and, also, from the standpoint of the experience of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. I fully agree with, and support, the splendid appraisal of all Lenin's activity by 75 Comrade Ponomaryov in liis contribution. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the question of the development of socialist societv
The working class in the German Democratic Republic and its Party, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, tackled the building of socialism in extremely complicated and historically novel conditions. They had to build the new society in a highly developed Central European Industrial country, the working class of which had for long heen closely associated with large-scale machine production. True. Ibis favourable factor of a highly developed industry was almost com pletely cancelled out at an early stage by the grave consequences of the war started by the German imperialists.
Besides, redoubtable difficulties were created by the heritage of the 'pas^^1^^.---the deep rooied capitalist regime with its pronounced nationalist and aggressive features. For years the working people were subjected to the corrosive influence of imperialist ideology, finally assuming the barbarian form of fascist racialism and war propaganda. Also rooted among a considerable section of the working class were social-democratic ideas and revisionist psendodoclrines. Alongside monopoly capital and the jbinkorriom there were large petty-bourgeois strata. The attitude of farmers and intellectuals, the worker's main allies, was considerably affected by their association for generations with the power and policy of imperialism.
Furthermore, the historically novel task of building socialism where a highly-developed industry and agriculture already existed was tackled in a country partitioned by imperialism, in the smaller part of its territory, an economically weaker and nore extensively warravaged part. The GDR economy was cat off from is former important sources of raw materials and suffered fro i o'liRr doep disproportions, exploited by the Western occnpnMon ;.»>wers and West German monopoly capital to blackmail the orking people. Those were the reasons for the additional economic, po'itical, ideological and moral problems that we had to cope with in the course of the reconstruction and the solution of which set high demands on the leadership and the enure working-class Party. The Party proved equal to the situation and, overcoming the difficulties, led the people of the GDR firmly to socialism, selling out by building a democratic anti-fascist system in the early years after the collapse of the Hitler Reich and arriving at the stage of building a developed socialist systen in our tir.ie.
The merger of the Cn-inuinisi and Social-Democratic parties into the Socialist Unity Parly in Last Germany in t'Mti, establishing working-- 76 class unity, was a decisive precondition for the successful radical social reconstruction in the GDR. In the course of the ideological struggle Marxism-Leninism became the foundation of the new party's activity and hence ihe guiding light in the administration of social development. Our close alliance with the fraternal parties, especially the CPSLJ, the experience and aid of the Soviet Union, were for us of invaluable help.
Acting on the Marxist Leninist teaching on the guiding role of the working class and its revolutionary party and on Lenin's theory of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the working class on GDR territory performed the first victorious revolutions in German history---the democratic anti-fascist and the socialist---taking guidance invariably in the universal laws operative in the building of the new society. We always regarded our national characteristics as forms in which the world process, whose essence is determined by the universal, fundamental laws of social progress, manifested itself. We always did our utmost to avoid opposing the universal and the particular, the specific. The SUPG rejected the theory of the "special German way to socialism'', adhering to the fundamental, Soviet model based on the teaching of Marx and Lenin and taking care not to follow blindly experience gained in different historical conditions.
Two phases of revolutionary reconstruction were successfully accomplished, because, whatever the charges against us of dogmatism, our Party has in all the important areas of social development creatively sought and found the specific form of operation of the universal laws of the transitional period.
The worker-peasant state was, and still is, essentially a dictatorship of the proletariat. But as the proletarian dictatorship was being established and in the process of enforcing working-class power, from the very beginning, a prominent role was played by the bloc of democratic anti-fascist parties and mass organisations. Acknowledging the guiding role of the working-class party, each of these contributed to the building and consolidation of the political system in our socialist society. This SUPG policy is, in fact, based creatively on Lenin's teaching of close alliance with all sections of the working people, whose sphere of action, far from shrinking, expanded considerably during the transition from the democratic anti-fascist to the socialist revolution. Without resort to expropriation, ways were found. to direct along the socialist way definite strata of retail traders, manufacturers and kulaks, that is, a part of the non-monopoly bour* geoisie.
During the transition period, important preconditions were gained 77 for the further development of socialism on its own socio-economic basis. The key factor, of course, was the victory of socialist relations of production. But that necessitated continuous adjustment to assure harmony in all the Important sections of the superstructure. And, clearly, such a sweeping revolution in social practice was practicable only in combination with a profound ideological revolution.
Recently, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of our Republic. Its accomplishments go to Hie credit of the German labour movement, bearing out the universal validity of the basic laws of socialist construction worked out by Lenin. When we German Communists hear anyone say that Leninism is a "purely Russian phenomenon'', we cannot help recalling that once some foes of communism proclaimed Marxism a "purely German thing''. No, Marxism-Leninism shows the way to the future not to some definite nation or country, but to all mankind, to the whole world. This is proved by the victory of socialism in formerly backward Russia, in the countries of Eastern and Southeastern Europe, in Asia, in Cuba, that is, in the immediate proximity of the United States, the main imperialist power, and also in the native land of Marx and Engels.
With worker-peasant power firmly established in the GDR, with socialist relations of production triumphing and the safety of the state frontier with the world imperialist system properly secured in the early sixties, we face the task of building up a developed socialist social system in the seventies, on which the guiding activity of the Socialist Unity Party is now centred.
The ability to guide socialist society scientifically is now of immense significance for the international class struggle.
The recent International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow noted that the contradiction between socialism and imperialism, the main contradiction of our time, has become deeper and more acute. 'The struggle between socialism and imperial ism is in every sense a global struggle of the two opposite social and political systems.
And in the course of this struggle both have to grapple with the problems of the scientific and technological revolution. Both are trying to master the new forces released by that revolution and press them into service. Imperialism is compelled to "all back on all its remaining resources, and in so doing keeps encountering obstacles of its own creation.
78Not so in the case of the socialist system. The advantages and motive forces inherent in the new society are in full harmony witli the new productive forces and the new trends of development. Conse= quently, for us it is a question of ability and skill in making the most of these advantages and, above, all, of ensuring .scientific guidance by the Marxist-Leninist Party and the socialist state. That is the approach of the Soviet Union, the GDR and other socialist countries in improving the system of governing society to suit the present requirements.
Guiding activity under socialism is scientific. That is not accidental. Continuously, the subjective actions of individuals have to be aligned with the operation of the objective laws of social development.- For this reason, Marxism-Leninism alone can be the general theoretic basis for the administration of a socialist system. Only Marxism-- Leninism can fulfill this function, because, as Lenin wrote, it "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" (Vol. 13, p. 36).
At present, scientific guidance---and this of a much higher order---is required to a far greater extent than before. Judging by our experience, this is so chiefly for three reasons.
Firstly, most of the countries of our community have, alongside the Soviet Union, which is on the road to communism, entered the phase of a developed socialist society. This implies a highly effective economic system, providing the material basis for the progress of all the areas of social life under socialism. But developed socialism also implies that in the other areas of social life, too, a high level is attained and that all the parts of society form a single, organic whole.
Describing the systemic wholeness of our system, Walter Ulbriclit said in his address on the '<!0th anniversary of the GDR: "This means that our joint existence and our joint actions must not break up into different spheres that have little in common with each other and are, in effect, separated. This means that science and production, education, culture and sports, all spheres of social life, are closely interconnected, and it also means that important achievements are possible only if enduring interaction between all these spheres is properly assured.''
79Developed socialism is distinguished by the fact, among other things, that progress in the various spheres of society can and must proceed, within the framework of general social development, much faster than heretofore. It stands to reason that the prerequisites for such development must be produced on socialism's own basis simultaneously in all areas of construction. For example, a culture subjected to considerable petty-bourgeois influences could not form a single, harmonious whole, an integral body, with a socialist socio-economic basis. Considerable disparities between the various sub-systems would tend to reduce the motive powers of socialist society and have an unfavourable effect on the economy. The socialist system of education, for example, must be aligned with the social and economic development. For this it must be planned for the long term. Children who enter school now will not begin working until at least 10 years later and even at the age of 50 they must be prepared for the requirements of life.
That is why our Central Committee meetings have repeatedly thorougly examined the educational system and why the Party leadership and the government have set guidelines for the long-term growth of education in our country until 1980. The socialist educational system provides people with an increasingly adequate appreciation of their civic responsibility and, according to some estimates, is the source of approximately one-third of the annual economic accretion In an industrially-developed socialist state. In the GDR, the building of the developed economic system is closely linked with the third socialist higher school reform now under way, which brings into play effectively the potentialities of the decisive domain of scientific research and education, giving added impulse to the scientific and technological revolution.
To be sure, the stability and dynamics of social growth are even more influenced by the level of socialist consciousness pervading all the spheres of society.
We owe our relatively rapid success in designing and developing the socialist social system in the GDR essentially to the fact that the SUPG leadership devoted due attention to ideological work, which was also necessitated by the continuous confrontation with West German imperialism, all the more so since the border between the GDR and West Germany was, in effect, open for all of 16 years.
The modern socialist state can benefit fully from the advantages and motive forces of socialism only if it operates as a single social system. This reaffirms Marxism-Leninism as the only possible theo retical basis for tile scientific guidance of society. The systemic 80 character of government, the content and object of which are the social relationships of people, can be secured only by a scientific theory, not by any cybernetically-oriented system of information. The latter is applicable to the structural aspects only, and cannot define scientifically the specific quality of the socio-economic formation as a dialectical unity of the material and spiritual processes in the life of society.
In many socialist countries the conditions are ripe for building developed socialism in the aggregate. Thus, proceeding from the forecasts of Marx and Engels, and from Lenin's ideas, we hold that the socialist state can now, in addition to the economy, exercise conscious and planned guidance of all society far more extensively than before. Of course, far higher demands devolve on the leaders in organising the administration of so complex a body. Yet this trend is spurred by the increasing cooperation of the socialist countries with the Soviet Union and with each other in the light of their economic integration now beginning in the framework of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. Interaction in the socialist community is exerting an increasing Influence on the internal processes in the CMEA countries.
Secondly, the higher requirements of leadership stem from the rising tempo of the scientific and technological*revolution. Practical experience shows convincingly that socialism is an extremely dynamic social system. High rates of development are observed not only in the domain of the productive forces, but also in all other spheres of life. And this dynamism is increasing steeply under the impact of the scientific and technological revolution. Its development and impact are determined completely by the character of socialism, on the one hand, and extend to all the vital functions of the new society, on the other.
Shortly before the October Revolution, in his work, The State and Revolution, Lenin predicted this dynamism of the socialist system:
``By what stages, by means of what practical measures humanity will proceed to this supreme aim we do not and cannot know. But it is important to realise how infinitely mendacious is the ordinary bourgeois conception of socialism as something lifeless, rigid, fixed once and for all, whereas in reality only socialism will be the be^ ginning of a rapid, genuine, truly mass forward movement, embracing first the majority and then the whole of the population, in all spheres of public and private life" (Vol. 25, p. 472).
As we see it, one of the most important tasks of our Marxist'Lenteist Party is to devise ways and means of mastering that dynamism of the economy and society, not to let it force our hand, but to guide and 81 accelerate it, to plan it, to prevent it from developing spontaneously, to avoid trailing in its wake. That is why we are determined to pinpoint In time all newly-arising problems find possible new contradictions, and to resolve them according to plan jointly witli the working class and the other working people, that is, to secure rapid progress while avoiding major social conflicts. The SUPG holds that with political dominance firmly held by the working class, socialism, the technico-scientific revolution and planned social administration comprise as a unity the essence of social progress.
We hold that like most of the other socialist countries, the GDR possesses the socio-economic preconditions for maintaining constantly, each time in a new way, consciously and according, to plan a stabile conformance between the productive forces and the relations of production, between the basis and the superstructure, despite the precipitous process of development. How this is done and how the advantages of socialism are used for this purpose depends first and foremost on the quality of the scientific guidance.
Thirdly, the enumeration of the reasons for this takes us back to our point of departure---the titanic and global struggle Of the two social systems.
Imperialism has accepted socialism's challenge. The giant monopolies are using their own and the state's resources to build up an extraordinary concentration of power. Imperialism is trying to adapt itself to the new conditions arising in the many parts of the world and in all the political domains in which it comes into collision with socialism. In the main imperialist countries it has built up a statemonopoly system, which it endeavours to ``reform'', at least to an extent that will not damage monopoly interests, in order to relieve the tensions implicit in the system, to extend the sphere of its activity and intensify its influence on the socialist system.
In the circumstances, a policy aimed merely at "catching up" with the developed imperialist countries is of little promise. Advancement of socialism requires much more.
Picture an equal level of scientific and technological development, an equal productivity of labour, the same standard and way of life, of education and culture---perhaps somewhat better, with a somewhat higher degree of social justice. These days that is insufficient if we want to increase to a derisive extent socialism's power of attraction. Evidently, the question centres not on the aboveinentioned `` somewhat'', and not on quantity, but above all on quality.
Fundamentally new social solutions securing superiorly over capitalism are the main factor in increasing socialism's influence on 82 working people in that part of the world where exploitation still exists. And it is up to the socialist countries to show convincingly that only the new system can resolve the social problems of our time in the interest of the whole people.
Lenin proved that, ultimately, it was a higher productivity of labour that played the decisive role in the victory over capitalism. We must not depart one iota from this proposition either in theory or in practice. Seen in tiie context of the historical confrontation of socialism and capitalism, in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, this proposition lias become doubly valid today. It is not enough, for example, 10 accelerate automation; we must develop specific forms of it for socialism, that is. develop comprehensive automation systems that go beyond the framework of individual economic units and practicable only in a centralised planned socialist economy. Further, the purpose is not merely to find an effective form of organising science; what we need is a form that accords with the specifically socialist property relations and political power, one that secures effective bonds between scientific research and experimental designing, between production and the educational system, and this on a countrywide scale. In the final analysis, the task is not merely to improve the general standard of living, but to prove in theory and practice the progressive character of the socialist way of life and consolidate its specific features.
What epitomises the Leninist spirit of (lie ruling Party is that it does not evade these complicated tasks, does not put I hem off until some distant time. It does not leave the solution of the problems to the spontaneous action of market factors or to the pluralistic struggle of interests. It works out the socialist solutions and puts them into effect jointly with the people. The Main Document of the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parlies notes rightly that the utilisation of the tremendous potentialities of the socialist social .system depends on the ability of the parties to resolve the problems of socialist development along Marxist-Leninist lines.
When Lenin developed the theory of the scientific guidance of socialist society by the working-class p;:rty. he proceeded from the objective laws of social growth. And that is the basic point of departure. It may seem unnecessary lo go back to ii now, but occasionally we still henr the question' how is ii possible to decide what is __PRINTERS_P_83_COMMENT__ 3* 83 and what is not socialism? This always contains the implication that any definition would inevitably he an arbitrary one.
In fact, however, Marx and Engels produced the answer without resorting to any abstract speculation. They discovered that the inception, building and existence of socialism is hased on objective laws, and went on to define the most important ones. That, precisely, was how they turned socialism from a Utopia into a science. The freedom of comprehended necessity exists also in the building of the new society, and scientific socialism holds that the necessary and the law-governed is cognisable. All of us remember how Lenin disapproved of leadership based simply on one's personal wishes. He always insisted that the facts must be analysed and that the social requirements must be taken into account. In the light of this, it is quite logical that Lenin drew the decisive conclusions related to guiding socialist construction on the basis of the fundamental reality---the power of the working class and the social ownership of the means of production. At the Ninth Party Congress, in an acute clash of opinions Lenin expressed the view that the nature of ownership under socialism determined the basic structure and essence of the organisation of the socialist system of leadership.
In socialist property relations is rooted the main economic law of socialism, with the growth of the economy and its productivity defined as a means to the end---the development of the socialist system, the satisfaction of the material and spiritual requirements of the people, the socialist development of their personality and way of life. This connection provides the key to the next cardinal problem of socialist economics, that of its specific, historically most effective, motive power. We see the source of this power precisely in the identity of the main personal interests of the people and the interests of society, an identity which, for the first time in history, materialised under socialism.
It stands to reason that my contribution cannot provide a detailed description of the socialist economic system in the GDR. However, we have here touched on the determinative task of that system: it is designed to give impetus to the motive powers of socialism, for which purpose the already essentially existing harmony between the interests of society, the collective and the individual worker, has to be con stantly adjusted, made materially tangible, understandable, and thereby fully effective. The dialectical interconnection between the centralised planning of the main processes and the operational independence of the socialist enterprises and local bodies of government, coupled with the mass initiative of the people, is, therefore, the centra! idea of 84 this system. It lies at the root of economic management and the admi= nistratinn of society and, as Lenin says, follows from the essence of socialist ownership.
In that sense, our Party occupies itsell with securing at an increasingly higher level that conformance of the relations of production with the modern productive forces thai is necessary and possible under socialism. Our theoretical views, like our practical experience, show that in its essential features the socialist economic system in the fSDR is in harmony with the main trends of the present development of the productive forces.
The rapid growth spurred by the scientifico-technological revolution in the GDR presupposes a growing socialisation of labour. This process operates continuously in different directions. The division of labour expands within the bounds of some spheres of economy, and, there-- lore, the horizontal connections in the economy grow stronger. However, the interaction and dependence between the different stages of reproduction become deeper at the same time, with the vertical connections growing stronger as well. The connections between science and production, between the establishments of higher learning, the enterprises and combines, and the socialist state, are thus made more significant. Lastly, modern socialist production is increasingly linked with the territorial and other social conditions created by the systems of education, transport, supply, and even the cultural institutions.
The social character of the productive forces, as we know, attains proportions in the capitalist environment' that come into irreconcilable conflict with the private capitalist character of appropriation. That, precisely, predicates the replacement of capitalism by socialism.
It was on the new basis of ownership that Lenin regarded the practical mastering of the process of socialisation as the most vital issue of the socialist system. In "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government'', he wrote that the main task was to set up "an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organisational relationships extruding to the planned production and distribution of the goods required for the existence of lens of millions (if people" (Vol. 27, p. 241]. He pointed out that the necessary thing was "socialising production in practice" (ibid.).
For this Lenin considered conscious labour by the people, acting on a single will and according to a single plan, to he decisive.
In fact, Kneels pointed out: "Only conscious organisation of social production, in wl'icli pro-h'clion ar/1 distribution ai-e carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of I he aninnl 85 world as regards the social aspect, in Hie same way that production in general lias done this for men in their aspect as species. Historical evolution makes such an organisation daily more indispensable, but also with every day more possible. From it will date a new epoch of history, In which mankind itself, and with mankind all branches of its activity, and especially natural science, will experience an advance that will put everything preceding it in the deepest shade" [Dialectics of Nature. Introduction).
The validity of this is obvious. With the scientific and technological revolution continuing to accentuate the social character of the modern productive forces, it objectively increases the significance for socialism of the central planning of the main economic and social processes. Centralised planning is increasingly becoming the main advantage of socialism in the confrontation oj the two world social systems. Or, to put it more clearly, the economic and political unfolding of the forces of socialist society is increasingly determined by the skill of the Marxist-Leninist Party and socialist state in concentrating the energy of the whole people on those strategic tasks the solution of which will assure the attainment of the world standard in science, technology and the productivity of labour. What this boils down to is skill in socialist planning.
Certainly, planning must continuously improve and develop. The dynamics of the socialist economy and society can and should be matched by administration which defines the tasks of today and tomorrow with an eye to the future. That is why planning in the GDR is based on scientific forecasts made for the next ten or twenty years. It is based chiefly on the forecast of the growth of the productive forces, science and technology, and, it must be added, would not be effective if it were not tied in with the economic and social outlook, that is, if it were not enlarged to the proportions of a forecast for all society. This makes the long-term plan the main instrument of guiding economy and society, the chief purpose being to build up and develop as effective as possible a structure for the national economy.
Those who fail to understand the importance of planning for socialism, especially in our time, should at least give thought to why the monopolist economy is trying so hard to exploit, at least partially, this tool of overall planning, which is by nature alien to the capitalist system. This is being done in all the developed state-monopoly countries, regardless whether as ``planification'' or "global administra tion''.
The role of the socialist state in general, and particularly that of 86 centralised state planning, is objectively greater in the present condi-- lions. And in the socialist economic system this latter fact is in no way an antipode to the operational independence of the socialist commodity producers and to the initiative of the socialist property^ holders. Quite the reverse. The very tendency towards greater socialisation of labour adds meaning and significance to centralised planning and, at once, to the operational independence of enterprises. The expanding economic,, interconnections gradually reduce the possibility of running all the separate cycles of social production from some central point. Within the framework" of the general plan, the process of reproduction at the enterprise level proper is a responsibility of the enterprise. And for the enterprise this process becomes increasingly diverse, exerting a greater influence on other enterprises and on the entire economic system. On the other hand, however, the dependence of the enterprise on factors deriving from the development of the economy as a whole, increases as well. Therefore, the optimum results at enterprise level in the framework of the economy as a whole are possible only if there is a general conception, duly observed, of optimum structural policy.
In sum, effective economic planning by the state, far from ruling out operational independence at enterprise level, creates the most favourable of prerequisites for such independence. The same holds true for the personal initiative of the worker, which we see manifested above all in people's-owned enterprises. Overall planning pushes up considerably the effectiveness for all society of each personal initiative.
In many socialist countries practical experience confirms the theoretical truth that a mechanical approach to democratic centralism distorts its essence. This approach is based on the notion that the more centralism there is, the less there is of democracy, and vice versa. Naturally, at the beginning of the transitional period from capitalism to socialism it was necessary to adopt a much larger number of separate decisions along centralised lines than at present. However, precisely in that early period there appeared the incipient forms of socialist emulation, which even at that time became the main outlet for the mass initiative of the working people in the socialist economy, retaining this quality right up to the present. Since then, centralised state planning, the operational independence of the commodity producers and the initiative of the working people in our country developed in unison, rising to higher and higher standards. These three elements interact and condition each other's quality also in the period of the developed socialist economic system.
87Many bourgeois ideologists express ``apprehensions'' concerning democracy in our economy. It is needless for us. exponents of the planned socialist economy, to argne on this score with the exponents of economy based on exploitation. There is an abyss between the system which humiliates the working people and reduces them to economic subjects, and the system undei which the working people become collective owners of the means of production, owners of their country's economy.
The bourgeois economy is motivated by the profit urge. Speaking of economic initiative, under capitalism it is in the full sense of the word completely controlled by the dominant class, because it expresses and promotes the material interests of that class. The workers produce the profit, but neither (lift tools of production nor the product of their work and the profit therefrom belong to them. There cannot be, and actually isn't, complete participation or co-participation of the workingman in decision -making, especially as concerns de cisions on the fundamental issues of economic policy under that system. The malicious hostility of West (Jcrman imperialism to the trade union demands of the wage-earners' co-participation in management strips it of the right to pose as the "champion of democratic economy'', as its apologists describe it.
The economic law of the development of socialism is also in the interest of the dominant classes, but in this case the dominant classes are the workers and their allies, all the working people. In the foreword to a book, Political Economy of Socialism and Its Application in the GDR, which appeared recently in our country, Comrade Walter Ulbricht pointed out that under socialism the economic initiative is in the hands of the working people. Yet mass initiative can be---and is being---made effective only in conditions of a highly-developed socialist democracy.
An economic system that stimulates initiative among working people, a system leaning for support on the force of that initiative, must naturally provide for and possess diverse means of influencing and institutions assuring the effectiveness of mass initiative. This is confirmed by the experience of the socialist countries, and not least of all by that of our Republic.
In sum, socialist dernocracy is by no means an appendage or adornment of a social structure that could be effective without it. It expresses and enhances this very effectiveness. There is a direct connection between the socialist economic system in the COR and that principle of the GDR Constitution which makes it the right and 88 duty of citizens to cooperate in the process o) work and to participate in planning and management.
Consequently, under socialism scientific guidance is not something (hat can be limited to a more or less considerable group of cadres, no matter in what high regard they are held by (he Party. For some time now, a Central Inslitule of Socialist Economy has been working in the ODK under the direct control of the CO SL'FCi. A few weeks ago an Academy of Marxist-Leninist Organisational Science was opened near Berlin, equipped with the most modern control techniques. However, in questions of guiding society we require a higher professional competence and more profound social thinking by the millions of working people. Their socialist lining confronts them over and over again with the necessity of participating i/t the administration of public affairs--- in socialist emulation and social work, in enterprises and cooperatives, in universities and cultural institutions, in the schools, in the residential neighbourhoods and, of course, in the elective popular bodies and their commissions. For this reason the trade unions play a greater role and hear a greater responsibility as schools of socialism.
The notion that cultivating a lot of contented consumers and experienced technocrats means preparing for the future, is a fallacy at odds with our reality and our outlook. The new socialist society makes it possible and necessary to train intelligent, harmoniously educated people acting in the collective with a sense of responsibility for all the processes involved. In this society the working dass develops as a creative class carrying forward the functions of government, a class which gains increasing mastery oner the complex organism of the socialist society, a class whose role, objectively, continues to groiu. Responsibility lor the development of society as a whole also determines the characteristic feat in PS of the allies of the working class. That is why improving scientific guidance is in socialist society also part of the process of the further development of the classes and strata representing the socialist system.
That is how the SLiPG always understood the matter. That is why in all stages of history it discussed and resolved the main social issues jointly with the people and always regarded the process of the further growth of socialism as simultaneously the further growth of socialist democracy.
On no account, therefore, must material levers be regarded as the sole driving force of the socialist economy. Lenin posited the unity of the spiritual and material interests, fused in a genuinely peoples's economy through planning and socialist accounting Its potentialities depend increasingly on the degree of the consciousness 89 of the citizens. That is the crucial issue in the guiding activity of the Party and state, an activity of dealing with, and guiding, people. In the following decade Lenin's teachings on the proper relation of economic interest to communist enthusiasm will be for us still more relevant.
Let us sum up. Lenin always stressed that socialism must achieve its advance "in its own way, by its own methods" (Vol. 27, p. 248). It is clear that this is more difficult than to follow trodden paths or to borrow---in one variant or another---the capitalist methods, as this is suggested by imperialist ideologists or some so-called modern Marxists. The different varieties of the theory of convergence, especially the theories of "socialist market economy'', have a common denominator: they want socialism to borrow its driving forces from the old system, even if in somewhat altered form. Need we say here that these prescriptions inspire no confidence at all, since in the citadels of the monopolies, too, not everything occurs according to the laws of the market economy. It should be said in no uncertain terms: the capitalist original will not be beaten by any copy oj itself. The problem of administering our society---and that is a Leninist science or, if you like, an art---is to fully generate the powerful potentialities inherent in socialism.
To achieve this aim, the SUPG is working to install in the GDR the socialist economic system, of which Walter Ulbrlcht said in his speech on the 20th anniversary of our Republic that "it is a social organisation of the entire process of labour on the basis of full harmony between the productive forces and the socialist relations of production, a harmony that makes it possible to impel the broadest unfolding of the initiative of the vast majority of the workers, cooperative farmers and members of the scientific and technical intelligentsia. Various stimuli and material incentives give the people a stake in the conscious and planned realisation of socialism's economic laws for the good of their enterprise, farming cooperative or institute, which, in turn, on the basis of the economic plan, carry forward the public interest and satisfy society's needs and requirements''.
Building this system, and on its basis, our Party is now working on a number of highly topical problems, namely:
a) to fashion a modern socialist organisation of science, purpose: fully coordinating and linking the work of scientists and researchers, achieving the best possible scientific:, technical and technological result in fields most relevant for the general structure of the economy;
.
90b) to build up a modern socialist econoi`i'r organisation---allied with the process of concentration which is also objectively necessary in our society---expressed chiefly through the establishment of powerful combines. That system must, jointly with the research institutions, assure automated mass production of commodities as good in quality as any m the world. In this context comprehensive automation implies radical alterations (in the entire system of preparing production, production itself and management. Comprehensive automation will enable the socialist producer to assert his dominance over nature in a now way;
c) to organise more efficiently the whole process of planning, management and production by modern methods and technical means. Particularly important is the use in centralised state planning of ecoriomico-inathematical models, which pinpoint swiftly optimal variants nf a country-wide structural policy. This is something in which the GDR cooperates closely with the Soviet Union.
To meet these needs, we arc improving the Marxist-Leninist organisational science and making the most of the methods of economic cybernetics, investigation of operations and electronic data processing. Naturally, good results can hardly be expected from merely borrowing the method of capitalist managers. What we want are solutions iu harmony with the socialist system and for this end are analysing available scientific achievements and methods.
In this, the work of Lenin, the first great socialist statesman, is a model for our Party. We know thai Lenin was deeply conscious of the importance of organisation in the broad sense of the word and how much time he devoted to building up the apparatus of Soviet power in line with the generally accepted principles, and how exemplary was his own style of leadership, how consistently he reared managers and leaders combining "loyalty to socialism with ability without fuss... to get a large number of people working together steadily and concertedly" (Vol. 27, pp. 262--63). As a basic principle of leadership lie accentuated one-man guidance coupled with collective discussion, and the method of tackling the main link in a chain. Lenin also taught us to combine the law of time-saving with the need for the most rational organisation.
Tackling the newly-arising problems of socialist leadership, we see that economy, unquestionably Ilie core of all social relationships, should not be viewed in isolation from the other spheres of social life.
In relation to scientific guidance Lenin attached importance also In the Marxist theory of a single economic social formation. He wrote: "just as Darwin put an end to the view of animal and plant species 91 being unconnected, fortuitous, 'created by God' and immutable, and was the first to put biology on an absolutely scientific basis,... so Marx put an end to the view of society being a mechanical aggregation of individuals which allows of all sorts of modification at the will of the authorities" (Vol. 1, p. 142).
In this sense, he regarded socialism as an organically integral ensemble in which the productive forces, the system of administration, ideology and culture were inseparably linked, but, of course, as an ensemble in which, according to Marx, the economic relationships were determinative.
This prompted the contention of bourgeois writers that socialism was sacrificing people in the name of the economy. They argued falsely that Communists faced the choice between the rationality of socialism and its humanistic nature.
All our fraternal countries have enough experience of grave material want. Naturally, in those times, too, our system was more humane than the richest exploitative system. But the economic basis was as yet insufficient to assure the complete flowering of socialist humanism. For that, the new system must produce an ample quantity of all the commodities man requires; not for him to become their slave, but for him to use them in shaping the new, socialist way af life and for the full development of his personality. More, what we needed was economic rationality of so high a degree as would enable us not only to satisfy more fully the requirements of the people, but to do so with the least possible expenditure of working time. Consequently, we needed a rationality that would afford people more leisure for education and creative activity in science and the arts. No other way exusts for the whole people to attain a high degree of education. To make headway in this it was necessary to use up a considerable slice of the budget, which means that we needed a corresponding increase of the national income.
Further, under socialism not only the aim of this economic rationality, but also the ways of effecting it, are humane. In his Capita! Marx wrote that associated producers will regulate rationally their metabolism with nature... in conditions worthy of their human essence. And socialist practice has borne this out.
Consequently, for us the actual alternative was: socialist rationality for the sake of socialist humanism; the one and the other. That was our choice in working for a developed socialist social system, of which a highly effective socialist economy is the core.
92The success of socialism is seen by Communists as historical proof that man is capable of consciously mastering, and altering, the social conditions of his existence. After a long succession of varying regimes and empires, under which man was powerless vis-a-vis the laws of history, he is now able for the first time to make conscious use of these laws, to plan and build the new system in accordance with the laws of social science.
The role of the Marxist-Leninist working-class Party is the most concentrated expression of the necessity, reality and effectiveness of this conscious building of the new society. For us, therefore, it is the point of departure in cognising the conditions of existence of a socialist society, a source for the theory and practice of administering this society, because the Party is the bearer of Marxism-Leninism, the bearer of the socialist world outlook, the science of society. The Party must perform this function because Marxism-Leninism expresses the interests of the working class, of which it is the vanguard. Directly and necessarily, the interests of the working class require that the objective historical laws of socialism and communism are carried into practice; this also accords with the basic interests of all the working people.
The new phase of socialist growth in our country requires of us a more profound appreciation of this process. The growing dynamism of socialist development in our country requires a higher degree of scientific anticipation and the ability to define unerringly the aims of our work. The increasingly integral socialist development requires that anticipation should develop into a comprehensive social forecast. The facts lead us to the conclusion that the guiding role of the working-class Party is no! only obligatory under socialism, but also increasingly relevant to its advancement.
The Party's art o*f leadership combines scientific anticipation of social development and unerring decision-making, discussion of all the main problems of social life with the people and invigoration of their socialist consciousness. Thus, the Party simultaneously creates an all-important precondition for continuously better immediate guidance of social processes by the bodies of the state.
The different aspects of SUPG guidance are indivisible. By means of the social forecast the Party creates important bridgeheads for the scientific administration of the socialist system and its further development, ilov. ::vi;r, il not only sets the aims, but also marshals the people's forces to achieve them. The most difficult is to assure the 93 continuous development of every individual. Because the conscious moulding of society not only derives from the scientific nature of the socialist system, hut, above all, presupposes that the mass of citizens participate in building this society with a full knowledge of its essence and interconnections. For this reason, socialist consciousness is not only adherence to the socialist system, now accepted by the majority of GDR citizens, but also an instrument facilitating adoption of further necessary solutions in the conditions of socialism. Every new practical step in building socialism, therefore, requires certain ideological preconditions and new ideological efforts by the Parly. Who hut the working-class Party could administer socialist society so comprehensively and scientifically? Who but that Party possesses the theoretical preconditions for, and the historical experience of, organising tho masses for the fulfilment of this task?
``Sweeping revision of the Party's place in the state and in society" is a theme on which imperialist and revisionist writers like to harp. In most cases, they argue that from the leader of society the Party shoitKI evolve into something akin to a benign adviser. Whatever thai siamls for, it would lead to the breakdown of socialism, to an anarchy and spontaneity in which a system requiring scientifc govern ment could not exist, let alone develop.
The ideas of the more cautious ``critics'', who are prepared to "go no farther" than elimination of the Party's guiding influence in but s'.ime of tho social spheres, are also, in effect, damaging to society because the rates of growth and the stability of the separate .social spheres increasingly depend these days on all spheres of society developing to the optimum- degree, their interaction creating the harmonious ensemble referred to by Marx, which connotes conscious planning and guidance of all social processes. The Party's guiding i ole in all social areas follows from the systemic character of social ism.
The Party's right to leadership should not be viewed in a formal way, (hat is, from merely the administrative angle. That right accords with the social condition of socialism. And the Party must prove that it is a dynamic organisation; it must justify its leading role bv resoiving the problems of social development. Precisely the new phase of the socialist upswing is a test of the Leninist spirit and of the creative ability of Marxist-Leninist parties. That they are standing this test is borne out by the living reality of the socialist community
``To gov.`M'n you ;ie!jtl an army of steeled revolutionary Communists V" have it, and it is called the Party'', wrote Lenin, the founder 94 of the first party of the new type (Vol. 32, p. 62). Our Party has always observed this rule; headed by this army, our people will be victorious also in all future battles.
A few decades ago, Bertolt Brecht, the German poet, wrote about Lenin celebrations in a remote Soviet village: "They paid tribute to him, doing good for themselves and, consequently, they have understood him''. In our time, too, these words express correctly the sense of the actions of working people throughout the world. The peoples are preparing to celebrate the centenary of Lenin's birth by performing great exploits, participating in battles for a better life on earth, in order to wrest the world, part by part, out of the clutches of the imperialist oppressors.
The citizens of the first German socialist state have joined in this world-wide movement. Hundreds of thousands of people search and find in Lenin's volumes new explanations for the roots and perspectives of their social being. The months and weeks before the Lenin centenary are highlighted by a new and powerful emulation movement. To Brecht's reference to the people's own benefit we can add words about our internationalist duty. The people of our country are working hard to consolidate the Republic, contributing thereby to the consolidation of socialism within its broader frontiers that now run across many continents, and contributing also to the struggle for the socialist ideas for which borders no longer exist. And acting on Lenin's precepts, our socialist Republic is continuously giving internationalist aid to the peoples of other countries, expressing its solidarity with them, because the GDR, too, grew up on the fertile soil of the international community of workingmen's interests.
95 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN ON THE GENERAL CRISISCentral among Lenin's many-sided theoretical contributions is his profound analysis of imperialism. History has amply borne out the validity of this analysis. The events of the past fifty-odd years have demonstrated beyond question the correctness of Lenin's characterisation of imperialism as moribund, decaying capitalism, as the final stage of capitalism in which its contradictions are sharpened to the breaking point, in which its replacement by socialism is on the order of the day. "The epoch of capitalist imperialism,'' he wrote, "is one of ripe and rotten-ripe capitalism, which is about to collapse, and which is mature enough to make way for socialism" (Vol. 22, p. 11)9].
Since these words were written, capitalism has in fact made way for socialism in much of the world. Capitalism has been plunged into an era of progressively deepening general crisis, an era which had its origin in World War I. In that period, Lenin's analysis formed the theoretical cornerstone of the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia. It is no less valuable as a guide to the struggles of the present day.
``The European war is a tremendous historical crisis, the beginning of a new epoch. Like any crisis, the war has aggravated deep-seated antagonisms and brought them to the surface, tearing aside all veils of hypocrisy, rejecting all conventions and deflating all corrupt or rotting authorities.'' So wrote Lenin in December of 1914, after the outbreak of World War 1 (Vol 21, p. 98]
But this crisis did not come suddenly into being with the war. On 96 the contrary, its elements were to be found in the enormous sharpening of the contradictions of capitalism in the period preceding the outbreak of that unprecedented bloodbath, particularly in the years after the turn of the century when monopoly capital had attained dominance in the capitalist world, when the world had been divided among the imperialist powers and when the battles for redivision had begun.
Lenin fought unremittingly against the Right opportunism of Karl Kautsky and others who saw in the rise of monopoly capital a lessening of contradictions and who envisioned imperialism as leading to ``ultra-imperialism''---a further stage in which the monopolies would be merged into one worldwide cartel and in which world peace would reign.
The increasing concentration of production, culminating in the emergence of monopolies, represents a gigantic step forward in the socialisation of production, one which greatly sharpens the basic contradiction of capitalism and with it all other contradictions. This is clearly expressed in the concluding pages of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, where Lenin, speaking of the systematic, large-scale, organised activities of the big enterprises, states:
``... then it becomes evident that we have socialisation of production, and not mere `interlocking'; that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a slate of decay for a long time (if, at the worst, the cure of the opportunist abscess is protracted), but which will inevitably be removed" (Vol. 22, pp. 302--303).
With reference to Kautsky's theory of ``ultra-imperialism'', Lenin wrote:
``Kautsky's meaningless talk about ultra-imfjerialism encourages, among other things, that profoundly mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the apologists of imperialism, viz.. that the rule of finance capital lessens the, unevenness and contradictions inherent in the world economy, whereas in reality it increases them" /Ibid., p. 272).
In his preface to N. Bukharin's pamphlet, Imperialism and the World Economy, Lenin disposes of this reformist concept in these words:
``Can it be denied, however, that a new phase of capitalism is imaginable' in the abstract after imperialism, namely ultra-- imperialism? No, it cannot. Such a phase can be imagined But in practice this means becoming an opportunist, turning away from the acute 97 problems of the day to dream of the unacute problems of the future. In theory this means refusing to be guided by actual developments, forsaking them arbitrarily for such dreams. There is no doubt that the trend of development is towards a single world trust absorbing all enterprises without exception and all states without exception. But this development proceeds in such circumstances, at sucli a pace, through such, contradictions, conflicts and upheavals---not only economic but political, national, etc.---that inevitably imperialism will burst and capitalism will be transformed into its opposite long before one world trust materialises, before the `ultra-imperialist', world-wide amalgamation of national finance capitals takes place" [Ibid., p. 107).
All these contradictions, conflicts and upheavals were brought to a head in World War I, a war whose unprecedented carnage and destruction, Lenin saw, was bound to create a revolutionary situation in the countries of Europe. "The imperialist war,'' he wrote in mid-1915, "is ushering in the era of the social revolution. All the objective conditions of recent times have put the proletariat's revolutionary mass struggle on the order of the day. It is the duty of socialists, while making use of every means of the working class's legal struggle, to subordinate each and every one of those means to this immediate and most important task, develop the workers' revolutionary consciousness, rally them in the international revolutionary struggle, promote and encourage any revolutionary action, and do everything possible to turn the imperialist war into a civil war of the oppressed classes against their oppressors, a war for the expropriation of the class of capitalists, for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, and the realisation of socialism" (Vol. 21, pp. 347---48).
__*_*_*__It was the October Revolution, which established working-class political power in Russia, that brought the general crisis of capitalism into full-blown existence. Now the universal domination of imperialism was broken. Now a land of 150 million people was removed from the orbit of its exploitation. Now a new power---working-class state power---arose to challenge it on a world scale.
The profound significance of this world-shaking turn in history was fully grasped by Lenin. In 1920, in his preface to the French and German editions of Imperialism, he said: "Thus, oul of the universal ruin caused by the war a world-wide revolutionary crisis is arising which, however prolonged and arduous its stages may be, . cannot end otherwise than in a proletarian revolution and its victory,'' 98 (Vol. 22, p. 191). The victory of tho Russian working class was but the first step in this process.
To be sure, Lenin envisaged the victory of the revolution at that time in other countries besides Russia. And with good reason, for the European continent was rocked by a wave of revolutions. But that was not to be:. The revolutions in Germany, Hungary, Finland and other countries were smashed; elsewhere the forces of revolution were contained; in Italy fascism made its appearance; world capitalism succeeded in effecting a partial stabilisation. Soviet Russia was to remain the sole land of socialism for another quarter of a century.
Yet the victory of socialism in this one country had fundamentally altered the world relationship of forces. "Bolshevism,'' said Lenin in the Report of the Central Committee to the 9th Congress of the RCP(B) in 1920, "has become a world-wide phenomenon, the workers' revolution has raised its head. The Soviet system, in creating which in October we followed the traditions of 1905, developing our own experience--this Soviet system iias become a phenomenon of worldhistoric importance. Two camps are now quite consciously facing each other all over the world; this may be said without the slightest exaggeration" (Vol 30, p. 450).
Lenin spoke these words at a time when the world socialist camp consisted of this solitary country, ruined by years of war and civil war, invaded by the troops of nearly a score of capitalist countries, wracked with hunger and destitution, besieged by powerful foes. It is a tribute to his deep insight that at such a time he could assert with tile utmost confidence that the future lay with this socialist sector, that ils strength would progressively increase while that of world imperialism would diminish---in short, that the world had now entered the opoch of the transition from capitalis'm to socialism. Thus, ho wrote:
``... the further we grit trorn the war the clearer it becomes, not only to the working people, but to an extremely larger extent also to the bourgeoisie of the victor countries, that capitalism is disintegrating, that the world economic crisis has created an intolerable situation from which there is no escape, despite all the victories. That is why, while being immeasurably weaker economically, politically and militarily than all the other powers, we are at the same time stronger, because we are aware of and correctly assess all that emerges and must emerge from this imperialist confusion, from this bloody tangle and from those contradictions ... in which 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1970/LRP389/20080711/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.07.11) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ they have become entangled still more deeply and from which they see no way out" (Vol. 33, p. 146).
Lenin could foresee the day when there would be not one socialist country but many and when the socialist sector would exercise a decisive influence on a world scale. In his "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Question'', he stated:
``... The urgency of the struggle against this evil, against the most deep-rooted petty-bourgeois national prejudices, looms even larger with the mounting exigency of the task of converting the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i. u., existing in a single country and incapable of determining world politics) into an international one (i. e., a dictatorship of the proletariat involving at least several advanced countries, and capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole)" (Vol.31, p. 148).
In his analysis of imperialism, Lenin ascribed a key role to the accentuation in this stage of the uneven development of capitalism in different countries. This it was which upset the existing relationship of forces and led to imperialist wars for the redivision of the world. And this it was that rendered possible---indeed necessary---tin; victory of socialism in one or a few countries, in contrast to Marx's earlier conclusion that it must occur simultaneously in most of the advanced industrial countries. And this it was which led to the concept of a new historical epoch of struggle between the two opposing systems.
Implicit in this is the concept of the general crisis of capitalism--- of a period of step-by-step transition from capitalism to socialism. It is a period of rising strength of the forces of socialism and national liberation, making growing inroads into the orbit of imperialist rule. For capitalism, it is ^period of growing problems of markets, of chronic unemployment, of international monetary woes, of growing economic instability and threat of crisis. It is a period of growing reliance of monopoly capital on the economic resources and power of the state to preserve and increase its profits and secure the domination of finance capital. This last, the rise of state-- monopoly capitalism, which has now become dominant in all the capitalist states, was also clearly envisaged by Lenin, who saw in it both the intensification of exploitation and oppression and the achievement of the very last rung on the ladder of capitalist development. Politically the general crisis is a period of growing reaction and the rise of the phenomenon of fascism.
__*_*_*__ 100The general crisis is now far advanced since Lenin's day. The new historical epoch which Lenin foresaw, in which the anti-imperialist forces exercise decisive influence on events, has arrived.
Today the forces arrayed against imperialism, with the socialist countries at their head, are in fact "capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole''. Irretrievably, imperialism has lost its position of dominance on the world scene. In the words .of the statement adopted by the Moscow Conference of Workers and Communist Parties last June: "Imperialism can neither regain its lost historical initiative nor reverse world development. The main direction of mankind's development is determined by the world socialist system, the international working class, and all the revolutionary forces.''
Lenin's theory of imperialism was instrumental in the victory of the October Revolution. To be sure, many profound changes have occurred since then, and much has been added or modified in Lenin's theory. But its basic elements retain their validity and are borne out by current developments, and particularly those in the United States.
Here, where the concentration of capital has long been the highest in the world, the process of concentration continues unabated. The giant corporations which dominate industry and finance are becoming ever more gigantic.
American Telephone and Telegraph, the largest corporation in the world, reported assets of more than $40 billion in 1968, up from $28 billion in 1964. General Motors, largest of the industrial giants, recorded sales of $23 billion and assets of $14 billion in 1968. These assets had grown $4.4 billion in 1950 and $10 billion in 1962. Similarly, the assets of Standard Oil of New Jersey, next largest, grew from $4.2 billion in 1950 to $11.5 billion in 1962 and $16.8 billion in 1968.
In 1948 the 200 biggest manufacturing corporations owned 48 per cent of all manufacturing assets. In 1967 this had risen to nearly 59 per cent. The 78 inrHi' :'.; >: <:Us with assets of $1 billion or more accounted for 43 per cent ot ail assets and 49 per cent of all profits in 1968.
A factor in stepping up concentration has been the scientific and technological revolution which developed afier World War II, and which is most advanced in the United States. The new techniques demand a growing scale of production.
The most striking maniiesUilion of Ibe accelerated pace of coui ontralion, however, its the colossal flood of corporate mergers and 101 takeovers which has developed during the last few years. From 219 in 1950, according to the Federal Trade Commission, the number of mergers rose to 955 in 1966 and 2,655 in 1968. This is by far the biggest merger boom in U.S. history. Especially noteworthy is the rise in mergers of larger corporations. The absorption of firms witli assets of $10 million or more rose from 4 in 1948 to 192 in 1968.
This wave of mergers has been the primary source of concentration of capital since 1948; in fact, without it the holdings of the top 200 corporations would actually have declined somewhat over the last ten years. (Statement of Dr. Willard F. Mueller, Director, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, before the Committee on Ways and Means, U. S. House of Representatives, March 12, 1969.)
A most significant feature of the current merger boom is the spectacular rise in conglomerate mergers, that is, mergers of firms producing unrelated products. From less than 40 per cent of the total in 1948--51 these jumped to 9i) per cent in 1968. To some extent the rise is due to an increase in such mergers on the part of older corporations. Such large companies as General Electric and Union Carbide and Carbon have through acquisitions evolved into conglomerate corporations. But in recent years such mergers have involved mainly a mushrooming group of new conglomerate corporations, consisting mainly or entirely of collections of enterprises in quite unrelated fields and constantly striving to expand by swallowing up additional enterprise.''.
The larger c>f these corporations is Ling-Temco-Vought. This firm ranks 25th ,ir volume of sales among industrial corporations and is the 16th-largest employer. Its holdings include airlines, computer technology, aerospace, electronics, car rental, cable manufacturing, meat packing, Pharmaceuticals and sporting goods. Its most recent major acquisition is the Jones and Laughlin Steel Company, one of the largest steel producers in the United States, with assets of more than $1 billion. Ling-Temco-Vought originated as a firm engaged in military production and much of its business continues to be in this field.
Other top corporations among these ``pure'' conglomerates are Litton Industries and Textron. Both are among the fifty largest industrial corporations and both, like Ling-Temco-Vought, have a substantial amount of military business.
Another form of conglomerate which has developed in recent years is the one-bank holding company. Since commercial banks are legally forbidden to engage in other forms of business, the procedure for evading this prohibition is to set up a holding company which holds the stock of the given bank and proceeds to acquire also the 102 stock of other corporations. The bank of America (the largest in the world), Crocker-Citi/ens National Bank (California] and the First National City Bank (New York] are among more than fifty major banks which have reorganised along these lines. These have taken over such diverse enterprises as brokerage firms, auto dealerships, insurance companies and travel agencies. This is aside from the customary holdings of corporate stock by commercial banks and the system of interlocking directorates which serves as an instrument of control by finance capital.
Initially, conglomerate mergers were motivated primarily by a desire to provide greater financial stability in the face of economic fluctuations. Subsequently they became a device for tax savings by acquiring firms which had sustained losses writing these off against the profits of the rest of the corporation. More recently they have been motivated in growing measure by the profits to be made from stock manipulations in addition to a variety of devices for tax savings. Least of all have they been motivated by a quest for greater efficiency.
The rise of the conglomerates thus represents a new dimension in the parasitism of monopoly capital. And this occurs on top of a strengthened role of the big banks and finance capilal.
Aside from stockdeals, the money used by the conglomerates for their endless expansion has come either from profits on other operations (particularly from military production, in which these corporations generally have a substantial base), or through long-term loans from banks or insurance companies. Corporation like Ling-- TemcoVought and Litton Industries have grown phenomenally. But the rise in their indebtedness has been even more spectacular. Control of these conglomerate giants rests in the hands of the big banks which have financed them and which hold substantial blocks of their stock.
The top banks and other financial institutions have greatly increased their role. A recent report of the House Committee on Banking and Currency /Commercial Banks and Their Trust Activities: Emerging Influence on the American Economy/^^*^^ discloses that these account for 85 per cent of all debt financing and a major part of equity financing. They also dominate the securities market. In 1967, the trust departments of banks held $253 billion in assets, consisting mainly of control blocks of corporation stocks, more than four times the quantity held fifteen years earlier. They held $163 billion in stocks, _-_-_
^^*^^ Cited by Victor Perlo, = ``The Monopoly Offensive'', World Marxist Review, January 1970.
103 one-fifth of all outstanding corporate stocks. Ten top banks held 36.8 per cent of the total and the top twenty hold 51.5 per cent. Heading the list are the giant banks which form the heart of the Wall Street financial empires. __*_*_*__Another significant feature of the postwar period, and particularly of the past decade, is the rise of international [or multinational) industrial corporations. From $11.8 billion in 1950, U.S. direct private foreign investments grew five and a half times to a volume of $64.8 billion by the end of 1968. (These are book values; the actual values are almost twice as high.) Especially striking is the increase in investments in Europe; since 195U these have increased njore than ten-fold. A report by Sidney E. Rolfe I The International Corporation, International Chamber of Commerce, 1969) notes that in 1968 the estimated value of the output of these foreign holdings was ap proximately $120 billion. This is more than three times the value of U. S. exports, and it exceeds the gross national product of any capitalist nation other than the United States.
The extent to which major U. S. corporations have become internationalised is illustrated by the following figures, taken from a study by Fortune (September 15, 1968]:
Company Countries with Production °/o Total Assets Abroad ``-o Sales Abroad °n Net Income Abroad Facilities Standard Oil (NJJ 45 56 68 52 Ford Motors 27 40 36 92* International Business Machines 14 34 30 32 Goodyear Tire & Rubber 35 22 30 30 Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing 24 29 30 29 * Tins figure is abnormally high because of the occurrence ot a strike in the year for which the statistics are compiled. This considerably reduced the domestic profits reported in that year. 104Added to the impressive growth of foreign industrial investment In the past two decades has been a rapid expansion of the foreign assets of U. S. banks. These rose from $6.9 billion in 1964 to $15.7 billion in 1967 and an estimated $22 billion in 1968. Seventy-five per cent of these assels are held by nine big New York banks. The total holdings are, however, much greater than $22 billion, for the main expansion lias taken place not through direct operations abroad but through buying up decisive blocks of stock in leading banks of other < ountries. U. S. banks have also gone much beyond their traditional role dt servicing foreign operations of U. S. industrial corporations, and are penetrating the financial empires of other capitalist countries. (Perlo, cited article.]
To be sure, other capitalist countries also have considerable foreign investments, a substantial part of them in the United States. But the total for all these countries combined is much less than the volume of U. S. investments. In 1966, according to an OECD estimate, their combined direct investments came to less than 64 per cent of the U. S. total. Thus it is U. S. monopoly capital which predominates. Moreover, U. S. investments in West Europe are concentrated in fields of manufacture marked by high technological development, such as computers, electronics and automobiles. In these, U. S. capital controls a major share of production and secures not inconsiderable superprofits by virtue of the lower wage scales in these countries.
Clearly, U.S. monopoly capital has become an exploiter of peoples without parallel. But at the same time its inroads into the economies of other capitalist countries meet with mounting resistance and lead to a sharpening of inter-imperialist antagonisms. These are sharpened still more as a result of the uneven development of capitalism, which has continued to go against the United States.
True, U. S. economic growth in the sixties has been considerably higher than in the fifties. From I960 to 1968, industrial output grew at an average annual rate of 5.5 per cent, compared to 4.4 per cent for France and West Germany and only 2.75 per cent for Britain. But at the same time it has lagged behind Italy whose growth rate averaged 7.4 per cent, and especially behind Japan, whose industrial production has risen at the phenomenal rate of 13 per cent a year. Thanks to this growth rate, japan has now attained a gross national product second only to that of the United States among capitalist countries and has become a force of rapidly increasing weight in the capitalist world economic picture.
During the sixties, the U. S. position in world trade has continued 10 decline. From 1960 to 1968 the U.S. share of world exports fell 105 from 21 per cent to 19 per cent. And from 1960 to 1966 the volume of U. S. exports fell from 68.4 per cent of that nf the European Economic Community to 56.8 per cent. I Statistical Abstract of Hie United Slates: 19G8 p. 843|. The long-standing U.S. trade surplus lias now almost vanished. The excess of merchandise exports over imports, which averaged S6.3 billion a year from 1961--65, dropped to less than a billion dollars in 1968. If we exclude government-financed military exports, there is a deficit.
The position of the dollar as a world currency has also weakened in recent years. The severe dollar crisis in late 1967 and early 1968 was weathered only by the institution of a two-tier gold price. Though the situation has markedly eased since then, the improvement rests on a shaky basis. The ability to ward off new crises depends in the end on elimination of the balance of payments deficit. In 1968 there was a surplus of $220 million, the first in many years; however, this was due to special circumstances of a temporary character. In the first half of this year the deficit re-emerged, hitting an annual average of $10 billion---the highest on record.
The position of the dollar is also threatened by the accelerating war-stimulated inflation, with prices currently rising at a rate of 5-6 per cent a year. The central banks of oilier leading capitalist countries have made it clear that the condition for their continued holding of dollars in place of gold is reduction of inflation and elimination of the payments deficit. Neither of these has yet happened.
Today it is largely the demand for Eurodollars, paying some 10 per cent in interest, that holds speculative gold buying in check. But any one of a number of factors could set off a new "gold rush" and with the two-tier price system could send the price of gold on private markets skyrocketing. This in turn would undermine the official price and create an imminent threat of devaluation of the dollar with all its severe consequences.
Monetary problems in the capitalist world are not confined to the plight of the dollar, as is witnessed by the recent devaluation of the franc and the revaluation of the West German mark. Bat this does not alter the fact that the relative position of the U.S. has deteriorated and continues to deteriorate.
__*_*_*__The continuing uneven development of capitalism has served to intensify inter-imperialist rivalries. The worsening position of U. S. imperialism has led to growing aggressiveness and stepped up 106 efforts to invade the economies of other capitalist countries. But its schemes run increasingly afoul of the changed relationship of world forces, of the fact that the ultimate decision rests not with it but with the anti-imperialist forces.
Most outstanding is the defeat inflicted on U.S. imperialism by the heroic people of Vietnam. Never before has this, the most powerful of imperialisms, suffered such a setback. U.S. imperialism has also suffered defeat in its schemes to overthrow the present regimes in the UAR and Syria. And not least, it has failed in its efforts to destroy the socialist state in Cuba.
Moreover, the rising anti-imperialist tide in the rest of Latin America increasingly threatens the domination of U.S. monopoly capital in that area, which it has long looked upon as its private preserve. There is a growing reluctance to make additional investments in Latin American countries, to which the recent expropriations of U.S. oil companies and other interests in Peru and Bolivia have added. The reception given to Nelson Rockefeller on his tour of Latin America earlier this year has been a further source of alarm in big business circles. In his report to President Nixon on that ill-fated tour, Rockefeller describes the current situation in the Latin America countries---from his viewpoint---in these words:
Rising frustrations throughout the Western Hemisphere over poverty and political instability have led increasing numbers of people to pick the United States as a scapegoat and to seek out Marxist solutions to their socio-economic problems. At the moment, there is only one Castro among the 26 nations of the Hemisphere; there can well be more in the future. And a Castro on the 'mainland, supported militarily and economically by the Communist world, would present the gravest kind of threat to the security of the Western Hemisphere. I New York Times, November 10, 1969.)
Rockefeller's report calls for a more ``enlightened'' attitude toward Latin America. This is sheer demagogy, designed to conceal the real aim, namely, to strengthen the forces of counter-revolution and to maintain the grip of the U.S. monopolies on the peoples of the Western Hemisphere. But it is also indicative of the worsening situation of U.S. imperialism in this, its own backyard
__*_*_*__U.S. imperialism is still a very powerful force, the bulwark of world reaction. But it is clearly becoming weaker, not stronger. Along with the rest of the capitalist world it is sinking ever deeper into the bog 107 of general crisis. And as it does so il turns increasingly to the economic resources of the stale hi bolster the pro, its of the monopolies, to intensify Hie oppression of ilio masses ,in;i ID safeguard (lie domination of finance capital.
Today state-monopoly capitalism is predominant, and in the present stage of the general crisis it lias not only become more extensive but has taken on now features. Concerning this the statement adopted by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties says: "Present-day imperialism, which is trying to adapt Uself to the conditions of the struggle between the two systems and to the demands of the scientific and technological revolution, lias some new features. Its state-monopoly character is becoming more pronounced. It resorts e\/er more extensively to such instruments as state-stimulated monopolistic concentration of production and capital, redistribution by the stale of an increasing proportion of the national income, allocation of war contracts to the monopolies, government financing of industri-il development and research programmes, the drawing up of economic development programmes on a countrywide scale, the policy of Imperialist integration, :md new forms of capiia! export.''
'j liese features are oa the whole particularly pronounced in the United States. Most prominent, however, is tiie marked increase in the militarisation of the economy, and with it of all aspecls of life. U.S. military spending lias been proportionately much higher Hum that of other leading capitalist countries throughout the post-World War II period. But since the escalation of the aggression in Vietnam it has shot up to levels exceeded only during World War II.
Today military outlays, direct and indirect, consume more than SlOO billion a year, some §30 biihon of it in di-not expenditures for the Vietnam war. This comes to more than '.> per cent of the entire federal budget for the fiscal year 1969 and to m^.e than 1(1 per cent of the gross national prod-act. 'It is greater man the entire federal Irjdeet as recently as 19BJ and it exceeds the total national product of most countries. With this growth of militarisation of the economy goes enhancement of the power of the industrial-military complex vx'!',',;;h controls the disposition of these vast sums.
These enormous military budgets are paid for through constantly rising taxes whose burden falls increasingly on the working people. Today taxes take 37 per cent of the national income, compared to 13 per cent in 1929. ,-\nd whereas in 1941 workers paid 45 per cent of the tax bill, they now pay 08 per cent. (Communist Party, USA, Tin' Kill Tax Swindle and Hum to Stop It. New Outlook Publishers, 108 NewYork, 19(59. pp. 0, 8.) The costs are also paid through mounting inflation, which likewise bears heaviest on the working people.
The present level of military spending was occasioned by the escalation of the war in Vietnam. But President Nixon has made it plain that even if the war in Vietnam should cease there will be no reduction in the arms budget. "Dreams of unlimited billions of dollars being released once the war in Vietnam ends,'' he told a National Governors' .Conference in September, "are just that---dreams.'' The money now being spent on the Vietnam war is already earmarked foi other purposes and military expenditures are to go up, not down. In short, the destruction of a considerable share of the national pioduct through militarization of the economy is intended to be a permanent feature of American economic life. In the much-vaunted ``regulation'' of the economy, it is clear that this has been and continues to be the chief ``regulator''.
But the efforts to regulate the economy, by whatever means, have not succeeded in overcoming the impact of market forces. Though the U.S. economy has suffered no recessions in the sixties, it has faltered more than once. Moreover, despite the escalation of the war a `` minirecession'' took place in 1967 and a full-blown recession threatens in 1970.
In reality, ``regulation'' has been designed to benefit the monopolies at the expense of the working people. This is reflected in the fact that from 1960 to 1968 corporate profits after taxes nearly doubled, while weekly wages after taxes rose only 27 per cent and real wages only 10 per cent. The share of the product going to the workers has decreased and the contradiction between production and consumption has been sharpened.
__*_*_*__The deepening general crisis and the sharpening contradictions of U.S. capitalism have generally placed increasing burdens on the working class and confronted it with new problems.
The growing concentration of capital and the rise of conglomerate corporations create new difficulties for the trade unions. The workers employed in the various enterprises within such a conglomerate are split up among many different unions. Hence the workers in a given enterprise find themselves facing not merely the management of that enterprise but that of the entire conglomerate. Thus the unions find themselves at a severe disadvantage and are compelled to seek new organisational forms which will make it possible to unite all the uorkers In Hie conglomerate structure.
109The growth of international corporations has created additional problems. Such companies can and often do shift production from plants in the United Slates to plants abroad, where production costs are lower, and then import the products into the United States. This results in an "export of jobs'', p;oducing much hardship for workers In the closed-down plants. The companies use- this ability to shift production to pit workers in one country against those in another.
Unions in such industries are therefore increasingly compelled to seek common action with corresponding unions abroad.
The rapid advance of the new technological revolution has led on the one hand to intensified exploitation and the increase of speed-up to the limits of human endurance. In th.p List dm:adp alone, real earnings per unit of output It,we dropped 10 per cent. On the other hand it has led to growing displacement of workers and mounting insecurity. Added to this are the increasing inroads of inflation and rising taxes on living standards, the, fruiLs of the: Vietnam war. For the first time in many years, real wages are now stagnating or declining.
Workers' living standards are further threatened by the policy of slowing down the economy and increasing unemployment adopted by Johnson and continued by Nixon in the name of "fighting inflation''. Production has indeed been slowed down and joblessness has risen, but the rise in prices continues unabated. For the coming year the American working people face the dismal prospect of both recession and continuing inflation.
Especially hard hit by the niononoUsts' offensive against \vages, jobs and living standards are the m:"w millions of black people, Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans who suffer severe super exploitation based on racial and national oppression. Among these, joblessness is two and three times as high as among white workers and poverty and hunger are the lot of the majority. More, their conditions have tended to worsen relative to those of white workers.
__*_*_*__The increasing oppression of the working people at the hands of finance capital in league with the state has sharpened the class struggle and has unleashed a wave of democratic struggles of rapidly growing scope and intensity.
The peace movement has reached proportions previously undreamed-of in U.S. history. Literally millions of Americans in all walks of life are today involved in organised expressions of opposition to the brutal aggression in Vietnam. Under the banners of the Alliance for 110 Labour Action, unions representing more than 5 million worsens tiave entered the battle.
The black people's revolt against their inhuman oppression an'd degradation continues to advance. The; ghetto rebellions of recent years gave expression to their anger and their determination to fight for their freedom and equality. Today they are engaged in active struggle for control of schools and other public institutions in their communities, for proper representation in public office, for jobs and against police brutality and violence.
In labour's ranks there is a rising tide of struggle. Strides 'have become more numerous, more prolonged and more bitterly fought. In a growing number of cases workers reject inadequate settlements negotiated by union leaders. Rank-and-file movements of workers have become widespread, as have caucuses of black workers. The withdrawal of the United Auto Workers from the AFL-CIO and its combi-* nation with the Intel-national Brotherhood of Teamsters to form the Alliance for Labour Action is a very significant reflection of these heightened struggles. It represents a major break with the hidebound, reactionary policies of the Meany officialdom.
The youth, too, are in active rebellion. A powerful draft resistance movement has emerged, with ever greater numbers of young men refusing to serve in the imperialist war against the Vietnamese people.. Opposition to the war has developed to considerable proportions within the armed forces. Student revolts have sprung up everywhere against the reactionary, racist character of U.S. educational institutions and against their ties to the war machine. And in the shops, young workers are taking the lead in challenging the status quo and in organising rank-and-file struggles.
In all these groups a process of radicalisation is taking place, with the emergence of a sector increasingly conscious of the imperialist character of the war and of the nature of imperialism, and with a new upsurge of the Left.
Our Party has been in the centre of all these struggles. More and more, though yet small in numbers, it is becoming a recognised force. And since our 19th Convention last April we have taken effective action to root the Party firmly within the masses of workers in basic industry, who in their struggles look increasingly toward the Left and oui' Party for guidance.
To this upsurge of mass democratic struggles the Nixon Administration has responded with a stepped-up resort to anti-Communism, with attempts at legal repression, with heightened police violence and the use of troops. In the name of "law and order" a campaign is being 111 waged for the violent suppression of the black" people's struggles. Accompanying this is a stepped-up fostering of racism and chauvinism with the aim of splitting the people's movements and intensifying the special oppression of the black people and other minorities. The fascist ultra-Right is increasingly vocal. In this respect a special role Is played by Vice-President Agnew, who conducts crude Rightist attacks on the peace movement and other progressive forces, while Nixon pursues the same end in more genteel terms. But these actions have not served to deter the forces of peace and progress. On the contrary, these have been spurred to greater effort. The crystallisation of opposing sides and the sharpness of the struggle increase.
__*_*_*__At the end of World War II, U.S. imperialism emerged as the most powerful of all imperialisms, greatly overshadowing all the others combined. It assumed the role of world policeman, of the ``saviour'' of the "free world''. And it launched on a drive to rule the world. But the "American Century" has proved to be a vain dream. The gap between the aims of U.S. imperialism and its ability to realize them has grown enormously. Despite its vastly greater resources it is now finding, as did British and French imperialism before it, that the cost of empire is becoming prohibitive. Hence the new phenomenon on Wall Street---that whenever the prospects of peace improve, prices of stocks rise substantially.
The economic position of U.S. imperialism is becoming increasingly shaky and its problems multiply. The decay and parasitism of U.S. monopoly capitalism are everywhere more evident. Its contradictions grow steadily deeper.
The developments since the war, and especially those in recent years, offer striking confirmation of the validity of Lenin's brilliant insight into the nature of imperialism and the then beginning struggle between the two systems. At the same time they refute the modern counterparts of the Kautskys, who speak of a new stage of capitalism---the stage of so-called ``neo-capitalism'' or of the "new industrial society"---in which exploitation is diminished, in which the working class is bought off and corrupted, in which the class struggle loses its role as the motor of basic social change. These new theories of diminishing contradictions of monopoly capitalism are no more valid than was Kautsky's.
Of course, the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism Is not a simple process proceeding in a straight line. There are counteracting factors.- Among them are the growing scale and speed of 112 technological advance, the great increase in state consumption, and the rise of international specialisation and growth of world trade. There is also the competition with socialism, which compels capitalism to muster its reserves in defense of its status. Thanks to the operation of such factors, rates of economic growth in the capitalist countries since World War H have been higher than before the war. Nevertheless, while the process has its ups and downs, the overall trend is inevitably toward the continuing disintegration of capitalism.
U.S. imperialism has suffered serious setbacks. But it has by no means given up its dreams of world domination. In the words of the Draft Programme of the CPUSA:
``All the positions of strength from which the cold war was launched have been either seriously weakened or destroyed, but U.S. monopoly, driven by its inner contradictions, persists in waging the cold war. And because its global aims collide with the greatest revolutionary tide in history, U.S. imperialism is embarked upon the most gigantic and many-sided effort at counter-revolution in human annals.''
The costs of this effort it seeks to saddle on the American working people.
U.S. imperialism will not collapse of its own weight. It will have to be overthrown. But the forces for that task are maturing and growing in the course of the surging democratic struggles of today. And this, too, confirms Lenin's analysis.
113 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN AND THE EASTIn 1970 progressives in the world will mark" a glorious date in the history of society, the centenary of the birth of V. I. Lenin. We associate Lenin's name with Marxism-Leninism, with the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution and its impact on the destiny of mankind. Lenin's theoretical and revolutionary activity exercised a tremendous influence on the fate of the Eastern peoples, including that of my country, India.
\
In his brilliant works and public speeches Lenin referred repeatedly to India, which was then under the colonial domination of the British Empire. Speaking at the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin said: "The vast majority of the world's population, over a thousand million, perhaps even 1,250 million people, if we take the total population of the world as 1,750 million, in other words, about 70 per cent of the world's population, belong to the oppressed nations, which are either in a state of direct colonial dependence or are semi-colonies, as, for example, Persia, Turkey and China, or else, conquered by some big imperialist power, have become greatly dependent on that power by virtue of peace treaties" (Vol. 31, pp. 240---41).
A year later, at the Third Comintern Congress, he observed in his theses that "the masses of the working people in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe, were roused to political life at the turn of the twentieth century, particularly by the revolutions in Russia, Turkey, Persia and China. The imperialist war of 1914 -1918 and the Soviet power in Russia are completing the process of 114 converting these masses into an active factor in world politics and in the revolutionary destruction of imperialism" (Vol. 32, pp. 454---55).
Marxism-Leninism spread in Asia and Africa above all as a teaching proving the inevitable deliverance ol the Eastern peoples from their colonial state. And the chief role in this belongs to Lenin. He examined the problems ol the East in do/ens of his works. In his article, "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations lo Self-- Determination'', Lenin not only demands the right of self-determination for the colonies, but also expresses his conviction that the national liberation movement in Africa and Asia will become a grand, powerful force.
In the article, "The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution'', Lenin proved that the oppressed peoples of Africa and Asia could, and inevitably would, wage national wars against the imperialists who oppressed them. The entire history of the national liberation movement confirmed Lenin's scientific conclusion.
In numerous newspaper articles, Lenin exposed the brutality of the colonialists in the Eastern countries and revealed the imperialist essence of the policy of the European states. In 1912 he published an article, "The End of the Italo-Turkish War'', in which he stigmatised the atrocities perpetrated by the Italian imperialists wtien conquering Libya. In an article entitled, "The Question of Peace'', Lenin came out against the (iennan Social-Democrats and Belgian Socialists for siding with their bourgeoisie and justifying the exploitation of Africa by imperialist capital.
Lenin showed unflagging concern for the lot of the Eastern peoples and his teaching on imperialism, on the national and colonial question, the right of nations to self-d'etermination, and on the non-capitalist way, took account of their interests and the specifics of their development. Now this teaching is used extensively by the new revolutionary forces in Asia and Africa working for the economic and social progress of their peoples. It would be a mistake to refer the MarxistLeninist teaching to separate continents. It is universal and has absorbed the experience of the historical development of all peoples.'
Asia and Africa, inhabited by more than half the world's population, were continuously in a position of political dependence, national oppression and economic exploitation. The peoples of these two con< tinents were reduced to the condition of righless slaves of the imperialist metropolitan countries. In those days, all the bourgeois and many Social-Democratic- parties for one reason or another vindicated colonial domination.
Marxism-Leninism exercised a tremendous influence on the 115 emergence of anti-imperialist ideology in the colonial world. In May 1917, Lenin wrote that "Britain . . . must relinquish, immediately and unconditionally, not only the territories she has seized from others (the German colonies in Africa, etc., the Turkish lands, Mesopotamia, etc.), but all her own colonies as well. Britain, like Russia and Germany, must immediately withdraw her troops from all territories she has seized, from her colonies, and also from Ireland, and let each nation decide by a free vote whether it wants to live as a separate State, or in union with whomsoever it wishes" (Vol. 24, p. 355).
Lenin regarded as just wars of liberation by colonial and dependent peoples against ``their'' imperialist oppressors. "National wars against the imperialist powers are not only possible and probable; they are Inevitable, progressive and revolutionary,'' he wrote (Vol. 22, p. 312). His titanic activity was concentrated on helping the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries throw off the colonial yoke, win freedom and become active makers of world history. Even before the Great October Socialist Revolution, Lenin pondered the fate of the colonial and dependent peoples. He wrote: "We shall exert every effort to foster association and merger with the Mongolians, Persians, Indians, Egyptians ... We will help them pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to democracy, to socialism" (Vol.23, p. 67).
Thus, even before the October Revolution, Lenin affirmed the right of all colonial peoples to independent existence.
The victory of the Great October fundamentally transformed the world situation. The Russian revolution exerted a decisive influence on the entire course of the national liberation movement in the colonial world, giving impulse to the destruction on a world scale of the disgraceful system of oppression and exploitation of peoples.
The Soviet state denounced all imperialist treaties-saddled on the Eastern peoples by the tsarist government, and established equal .relations with them. On Lenin's initiative, the Soviet Government declared shortly after its birth its "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" (Vol. 26, p. 424). Among Lenin's valuable services to the peoples of the East was his definition of the fundamental principles of the foreign policy of the socialist state In relation to them, which are to this day the cornerstone of the policy of the CPSU and the Soviet Government.
Lenin held that a' socialist country must render all-round support to the national liberation movement in the colonies. He wrote: "It is 116 unquestionable that the proletariat of the advanced countries can and should sive help to the working masses of Hie backward countries, and thai Hie backward countries can emerge from their present stage di 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" (Vol. 31, pp. 243--44).
The Communist International, founded on Lenin's initiative in 1919, was highly prominent in the political education of the colonial and dependent peoples, in elaborating the ways of the national liberation struggle against colonialism and imperialism, and in spreading the socialist ideology. The Comintern devoted much attention to the problems of the national liberation movement and its links with the Communist movement. The Communist International declared a merciless war on colonialism, and that is its immense service to the people of the colonies.
Lenin's report on the national and colonial question to the Second Congress of the Comintern in 1920 has an important bearing on the development of the problems of the national liberation movement. Therefore, we have every reason to speak of a Leninist epoch in the national liberation moaemcnt.
Lenin developed the ideas of Marx and Engels on the national and colonial question in rekHion to the time when capitalism enters its imperialist stage and the liberation struggle acquires the nature of a world-wide revolutionary process. By creating his revolutionary leaching on the national and colonial question, Lenin creatively elaborated and enriched Marxism in the period of the transition from capitalism to socialism. For the Asian and African freedom fighters Lenin's teaching has become a great material force, a living source ;if revolutionary thought and action.
Demonstrating the organic; link between the national liberation movement and socialism, Lenin laid the theoretical foundation for, and defined the fundamental principles of, the anti-imperialist alliance of socialism, the working class in the capitalist countries and the national liberation struggle. These principles are carried into effect unswervingly and consistently by the Communist and Workers' parties in the socialist countries. The 23rd Congress of the CPSU emphasised me importance of supporting the peoples fighting against colonialism and of helping strengthen the anti-imperialist front on all continents. This political, economic and military support by the socialist countries of the developing states in the hitler's efforts ol consolidating their political independence is a barrier to the aggressive policy of world 117 imperialism, adding to the strength of the alliance between the socialist forces and the naiional liberation movement. '
Making a deep study of the national and colonial question, Lenin was the first Marxist to perceive in the downtrodden colonial peoples an irrepressible revolutionary energy capable of clearing the path for socialism. He noted that the national liberation revolution cannot stop halfway, that political independence is only the beginning of the peoples' liberation from imperialist exploitation and 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 imperial ism" (Vol. 32, p. 482).
One of Lenin's historic services to mankind is that he developed In a new historical situation the ideas of the founders of scientific communism about the future of the colonially oppressed peoples, creating a scientific theory of the non-capitalist way of development and thereby opening for these peoples the shortest way to social progress. Lenin swept aside the opportunist contentions that in countries where pre-capitalist relations are dominant there must necessarily arrive a period of the formation of the capitalist system before conditions appear for socialist revolution.
Lenin's theory of the non-capitalist way is acquiring increasing International significance with every year. That it is truly scientific is confirmed by the experience of the transition to socialism of the Central Asian Soviet Republics, which in the lifetime of one generation by-passed capitalism to develop from backward regions with precapitalist institutions into socialist industrial areas. Lenin's theory is also confirmed by the experience of the Mongolian People's Republic and is now being enriched by the experience of a number of former Asian and African colonies which are following the non-capitalist way.
The elimination of the colonial system opened a period of class battles in the liberated countries in the course of their socio-economic reconstruction, and with it a period of acute ideological struggle, in which world reaction is suffering setback after setback. No longer can world reaction advance ideas that win over the masses. That many influential political parties in the former colonial countries turn to socialist ideas only reflects the crisis of bourgeois ideology. That is a momentous sign of the times in which socialist ideology is emerging victorious.
The revolutionary upheaval in the thinking of the Eastern peoples in a complicated and long process. Lenin stressed its complexity in countries where, firstly, colonial oppression created among the masses 118 distrust of "oppressor nations in general'', including the proletariat of these nations, where removing the prejudices of national narrowness will take a long time, and where, secondly, the overwhelming bulk of the population consists of illiterate peasants.
Lenin also creatively developed the methods of dialectically applying the general principles of scientific socialism to the specific conditions of the Eastern countries moving in diverse ways to one and the same goal, socialism. He pointed out that in view of national distinctions, in view of the disparities in economic and cultural levels from country to country, in view of the nature of the traditions and other peculiarities, these general principles should be so applied as to "correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and apply them to national and national-state distinctions" "(Vol. 31, p. 92).
Lenin attached crucial importance to revolutionary ideology and correct policy, the role of the' political party in the reconstruction of society. And each day confirms Lenin's view more and more convincingly. In the specific conditions of the newly-liberated countries, the Communists make extensive use of the general laws of scientific socialism. Lenin's brilliant ideas are taking an ever deeper hold of the foremost members of the Asian and African revolutionary democratic movement. The spread of Marxism-Leninism in Asia and Africa is a guarantee of genuine economic and social progress of the peoples of the East.
Marxism-Leninism is an everlastingly relevant teaching because, first and foremost, it is a theory and method---constantly improved and enriched---of cognising nature and society. Therein lies the essence of Marxism-Leninism, which rejects all dogma. Lenin's genius and his titanic revolutionary activity have exercised a tremendous influence on our entire epoch. In his teaching and practical activity, Lenin leflected the historical tasks of our time arising before mankind. In his teaching we find the answers to the most burning problems of today. The impact of Lenin's thinking and teaching comes from their profoundly scientific approach.
Helping us find the answers to the vital questions of the liberation movement in the modern East, study of Lenin's works proves again that the power of his genius derives less from the fact that he provided direct answers to many of the questions that arose after his death, and more from the fact that he creatively developed the methodology of the dialectical application of the general principles of scientific socialism to the specific conditions of the Asian and African countries moving to socialism along different paths.
119 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND THE QUESTION OF PARLIAMENTIn his eventful revolutionary struggle extended over a long period, V. I. Lenin constantly gave heed to "the search after forms of the transition or the approach to the proletarian revolution" (Vol. 31, p. 92) and actually resolved it. One of the tasks of Communists in the highly developed capitalist countries is, basing themselves on the revolutionary and creative spirit of Lenin, that of utilising Parliament in a revolution, and the question of peaceful or non-peaceful transition of revolution.
As is well-known, while pointing out in their analysis of the situation in Europe in the latter half of the 19th century that a violent revolution was inevitable in "most countries on the continent" Marx and Engels considered that there was the possibility for the working class in Britain, in the U.S.A. and in some other countries to come to power through universal suffrage and by legal means.
Developing this thesis, Marx and Engels in a number of articles pointed out that in Britain the proletariat constituted the bulk of the population, that class differentiation in the rural districts was under way, and that hence there was a political and social basis which could enable the working class to gain a parliamentary majority through universal suffrage. The second point was that there was a political system of bourgeois democracy in which Parliament had 120 considerable legal powers and that the majority party in the Parliament could form the government. In his "Critique of the Erfurt Programme" Engels discussed the importance of making a distinction between the case of Britain and the U.S.A. where, constitutionally, the representative organ of the people held the entire power and, by winning the support of a great majority of the people, the possibility of the old society peacefully to grow and develop into a new society could be envisaged, and the case of Germany where the representative organ of the people had no real power.
Thirdly, in Britain at that time compulsory military service was unknown, and the military and bureaucratic apparatus which was to become the major element of the reactionary forces for violent resistance to the will of the people's majority was not so advanced as in Germany, France and other countries on the continent. As Lenin also pointed out, in 1871 "Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy" (Vol. 25, p. 415).
Rut it should be noted that Marx and Engels did not identify the question of whether or not the working class can assume political power by legal means with the question of whether the revolution will take a peaceful form or non-peaceful form.
``In fact, only so far as those who hold the power in their hands in the society do not place violent obstacles on the way, historical development can be `peaceful'. For instance, if in Britain or in the U.S.A. the working class wins a majority in Parliament or in Congress, they can legally abolish laws and institutions which will prevent their development and can also abolish it in accordance with the extent that the social development makes it clear. The `peaceful' way could, however, change into violence arising from a rebellion of those who benefit from the old system. If they are crushed by violence [as in the case of the Civil War in the United States or the French Revolution), they are done so as rebels against the `legal' power" (K. Marx, "Outline of the Discussion on the 'Socialist Control Law'''. Handwritten Manuscript 1878).
The question of the democratic forces headed by the working class winning a majority in Parliament and that of the transitional form of the revolution---peaceful or non-peaceful---should be theoretically and politically distinguished from each other notwithstanding their deep inter-connection. This is because the possibility for the ruling class violently to defy the will of a majority of the people proved in election or parliament is by no means slight. In that case transitional form of the revolution is bound to be non-peaceful. Thus, 121 in the final analysis whether the transitional form of the revolution will be peaceful or non-peaceful depends on the "attitude of the enemy''.
Yet, according to Marx, given the possibility of the working cla.ss gaining political power by legal means, it would be a "foolish action" if it were to proceed towards the destruction of parliamentarism and armed struggle since there is always the possibility of the reactionary forces checking this by offering violent resistance. In this case, Engels makes the profound suggestion for the attitude to be taken by the working class.
``Is it not the bourgeois government that violates laws and regula tions to crush us by violence? We will wait and see it. 'Please, pull the trigger first, Gentlemen Bourgeois!'" (F. Engels, "Socialism in Germany'', Neue Zeit, 1891, Vol. 10, No. 1. Coll. Works, Vol. 17). And if the reactionary forces actually offer violent resistance, the working class and the people, following constitutional law, retaliate with a decisive blow. As Marx stated "as rebels against the legal power''.
As is well known, however, when capitalism entered the impe rialist stage and plunged the peoples into the first imperialist world war, Lenin regarded the reservation made by Marx concerning Britain and the U.S.A. as having lost validity. It had become extremely dif ficult, he said, for the working class to win power by legal means and the establishment of the workers' state could be achieved, "as ci general rule, only through a violent revolution" (Vol. 25. p. 400). Lenin stressed that together with "an unprecedented growth in its bureaucratic and military apparatus" (Vol. 25, p. 410) in monopoly capitalist countries including Britain and the U.S.A., it was difficult for the working class to win a majority of the unconsious non-- proletarian working masses to its side before the assumption of power by the working class (Vol. 30, p. 274). In this context while recognising the revolutionary crisis in Europe at that time Lenin took into consideration the betrayal by the Second International which had influence among the petty bourgeoisie, and the smaller weight of the working class in the European and other continents.
At the same time, it is important that even in such a historical situation Lenin recognised that a case in which the "working class'', after winning the "support of the majority of the poupulation'', proceeds to the conquest of power was possible as "rare exception in history'' (Vol. 30, p. 273).
But even in the conditions of those days Lenin by no means made light of parliamentary work, Whj,le repeatedly, Bpitjcjsujg the 122 bourgeois parliamentarism of the reformists who reduced the revolution solely to electioneering and parliamentary activity, that is, to socalled "parliamentary cretinism'', Lenin scathingly criticised the ``Left-wing'' ``anti-parliamentarism'' which attempts to sidestep the difficulty of utilising Parliament in the revolutionary way. and stated: "To attempt to `circumvent' this difficulty, ...is absolutely childish" (Vol. 31, p. t>4). According to Lenin, whether to take the position of revolutionary utilisation of Parliament or to deny it in principle was one of the important demarcation points which distinguish the revolutionary Marxist view from the anarchist view (Vol. 11, p. 275).
The tactic of revolutionary parliamentarism further developed by Lenin in the subsequent changes in (he situation and by the prospect of establishing a government of the working class based on Parliament, derived from his own programme. At the Fourth Congress of the Commumnst International [1922), the last one led by Lenin, the programme of the workers' government was taken up together with (he proposal of the united front tactic and this taclic was further elaborated al the Seventh Congress of the Communist International in 1935 as the tactic of the united front government based on the anti-fascist. Popular Front.
In 1936, a year after the Congress, the Popular Front in France and Spain won a majority in elections and succeeded in forming united front governments. This electoral victory in Spain developed into a civil war due to the rebellion of the reactionary forces. In this struggle the Popular Front Government advanced toward democratic revolutionary power. The historical experience of the international Communist movement teaches us that under certain conditions the struggle for a united front government which utilises Parliament takes the "form of the transition or the approach to the proletarian revolution'', that thereby conditions for the revolution can be made favourable, and that in this case too, whether the entire course of the revolution is peaceful or non-peaceful depends on the "attitude of the enemy''.
As pointed out by the 1957 Declaration and 1960 Statement, unlike Lenin's time, the possibility has emerged in a number of capitalist countries for the working class to win political power by gaining a majority in Parliament. Naturally, even in this case when the exploiting class resorts to violence the possibility of non-peaceful transition to socialism must be taken into consideration.
At present, however, regarding this question there has arisen in the international Communist movement a Right-wing opportunist trend, which sees only the "peaceful revolution'', and an ultra-Left 123 opportunist trend which sees only the "violent revolution" and for which a "people's war" is an absolute. The former unconditionally ties the winning of a stable majority in Parliament by the working class to peaceful transition and, in contrast, the latter totally denies the possibility of establishing a government by legal means through a majority in Parliament. Clearly this deviation of both wings is linked with unilateralisation of the question of how to use Parliament in our time.
__NUMERIC_LVL2__ II __ALPHA_LVL2__ PROSPECT OF REVOLUTION IN JAPAN AND ROLE OF THE DIETHaving learned from Marx, Lingels and Lenin and from (lie historical experience of the international Communist movement our Party attaches importance to the role of the Diet in the course of the revolution in Japan and, simultaneously, takes the position of clarifying the connection and distinction between winning a majority in parliament and the transitional form.
Based on a detailed analysis of the present situation in japan, our Party Programme clarifies the prospect of the coming revolution continuously developing from an anti-imperialist, anti-monopoly democratic revolution of the. people to the socialist revolution. It states that in the course of this revolution, should the national democratic united front forces "succeed in obtaining a stable majority in the Diet, then they would be able to convert the Diet from an instrument for reactionary rule into an instrument serving the people and thus make the conditions for the revolution still more favourable''. Our Party's view on the important role of the Diet is based on the result of a profound analysis of the overall political and economic conditions in our country, and guided by the abovementioned view of Marxism-Leninism.
Firstly, there is a possibility in our country of rallying the great majority of the people to the united front headed by the working class even before coming to power. In our country the proportion of the working class in the population is steadily increasing. ( According to the 1967 census the percentage of the employees in the workIng population exceeds 60°/o---data published by the Statistics Bureau of the Prime Minister's Office). Under the heavy pressure of the militarist and imperialist revival in subordination lo the United Stales, the condition has bean increasingly maturing for the working class to enter into an alliance wilii the overwhelming majority of peasants, fishermen, working citizens, small businessmen and intellectuals. In 124 these circumstances should the Party and the democratic forces fight for the people's political and economic demands, it would be possible for the united front forces to win a majority in the Diet by breaking down the influence of the reactionary forces and by drawing a great majority of the people to their side.
Secondly, as for the status and power of the Diet in Japan's machinery of state, the Constitution specifies that the Diet is the "sole legislature in Japan''. A party or group which has won a majority in the Diet can form a cabinet as an executive power organ. There is, therefore, the possibility for the National Democratic United Front legally to form a government through elections and with the development of the mass struggle outside the Diet and further to advance this government to revolutionary power.
Yet, notwithstanding the abovementioned conditions and possibilities,'our Party does not assume the attitude of tieing its hands by seeing realisation of the revolution by peaceful means as the sole way. The winning of a majority in the Diet and the formation of a united front government are but a "course towards power'', they do not signify that revolutionary power has been finally set up. The ruling circles who in substance hold power through their "power apparatus" (the Self-Defence Forces, police, the U.S. armed forces stationed in Japan, etc.) would not easily agree to retire from the stage of history simply by election results alone.
The correct attitude for a revolutionary party is to emphasise the effort to expand the possibility of this peaceful transition by the strength of unity and struggle and at the same time to be alert so as to be able to cope with the "attitude of the enemy''.
Moreover, even the very premise of the legal establishment of a united front government is in itself not seen as absolute. It can be anticipated that faced with their, political crisis the reactionary forces will essay to prevent the establishment of a united front government by such unlawful means as revision of the electoral laws, destruction of the electoral system, Right-wing terror, armed uprisings, etc. And the possibility of intervention by U.S. armed forces in Japan on the pretext of the Security Treaty should not be overlooked.
Our Party Programme firstly takes into consideration the possibility that the way to the peaceful development of the revolution may be blocked, thus making another way necessary. Secondly, it defines what is meanl by "converting the Diet from an instrument of reactionary r:;'e into an instrument serving the people" "to make ' the conditions for the revolution more favourable'', thus making it 125 clear that it does not mean seizure of power by the people. Thirdly, it clearly indicates that in order to establish people's power it should dismantle the old machinery of state, the military-bureaucratic apparatus and transform these into a new democratic state apparatus. It would be a Right-wing departure from Marxism-Leninism to regard, in the prospect of the Japanese revolution, a peaceful Iran sition without taking into consideration the possibility of a ferocious violent attack by the U.S.-Japanese reactionary forces. On the other hand, it would be an ultra-Left opportunist, sectarianist mistake to tie one's own hands with the "theory of inevitability of violent revolution" for the reason that the ruling circles retain the "power apparatus" in their hands, completely to deny the possibility of estab lishing united front government by winning the absolute majority in Parliament.
At present, from the standpoint of the "theory of inevitability of violent revolution'', the international ultra Left trend and those who follow it blindly deny Parliament, electoral struggle and parliamentary activity in principle, ridicule the entire electoral fight, in which tens of millions of people in our country and other capitalist countries take part, as a ``farce'', claiming that it "makes no difference who is elected'', pouring out slander and abuse, and talking about "election nonsense'', "bourgeois parliamentarism" and the " parliamentary ghost''. This is the ``anti-parliamentarism'' which Lenin in his time criticised. Not only has it not the slightest understanding of the significance of parliamentary struggles and electoral fight in the developed capitalist countries, it virtually helps spread political indifference among the masses by ridiculing participation in politics. Actually this is in line with the political ambitions of the reactionary forces to prevent the vanguard party of the working class from fighting against the Liberal Democratic Party---the political agent of the U.S.-Japanese ruling circles---and the other anti-communist parties, to prevent it from building a powerful group in the Diet. The line of ridiculing electoral and parliamentary struggles, and the `` antiparliamentarism'' pursued by this ultra-Left opportunist trend is akin to the ultra-Left, adventurist line of the Trotskyites and anarchists who aim at destroying the Communist movement on the pretext of "anti-imperialism and anti-Stalinism''. Actually in our country, the ultra-Left trend is politically and organisationally coalescing with the Trotskyite group and now directs the attack and activity against our Party and the democratic forces. The counter-revolutionary Trot skvites who revived in the latter half of the 1950's denounced the position of the Communist Party of Japan as 'bourgeois 126 parliamentarism'', urging "violent revolution" and a "frontal confrontation with arms" and repeating the provocative and blind actions in the streets. The latest line and action of the ultra-Left opportunist trend are not different from this at all.
The harmfulness of the ``anti-parliamentarist'' standpoint of the ultra-Left which totally denies the possibility of the united front brces forming a democratic government by winning a majority in Parliament are not only against the principled standpoint of MarxismLeninism and the historical experience of the international Communist movement, it is obvious also in the light of the recent political experience and its orientation in our country.
Although they have not as yet gained a nation-wide character in our country, the democratic forces have already won the governorship and Chief Executive through election struggles in Metropolitan Tokyo, a city with the world's largest population of ten million, in the Kyoto Prefecture, former capital before the Meiji Restoration, and in the Okinawa Prefecture presently under the direct rule of U.S. imperialism. These gains derive from the joint struggle---united front in accordance with a definite policy agreement. Besides, in a considerable number of cities, towns and villages democratic heads have been returned through joint struggles by the democratic forces. This experience proves that if the democratic forces headed by the working class carry out joint struggle on a nation-wide scale and fight through by forming a continuous united front the possibility arises for these forces to defeat the reactionaries led by the Liberal Democratic Party and to win a majority in parliament.
Our Party attaches importance to the question of establishing a united front government in the direction of defeating the rule of U.S. imperialism and Japanese monopoly capital and within a framework in which the democratic forces can for the present agree. Our Party and the advanced democratic forces are at present striving for the establishment of a democratic coalition government base.d on the united front which agrees on tasks against the Security Treaty, for the return of Okinawa, and other immediate tasks. In the event of such a government being established, then when the term of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty expires on June 22nd, 1970, this government would give "notice to quit" to the U.S. Government in accordance with Article 1U of the Treaty and put an end to the U.S.-- Japan military alliance. This, undoubtedly, would be a milestone for (he Japanese people's advance toward an anti-imperialist, antimonopoly democratic revolution of the people.
127 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S IDEAS HELP THE WORKING CLASSIn Chile, a country with a low level of economic development and Its main wealth, above all copper, saltpetre and coal, controlled by US and British monopolies, a powerful and militant proletariat, concentrated in the big mining enterprises, mounted a determined struggle against cruel exploitation at the beginning of the century. The laws of the country did not extend to these enterprises, which did not use the national currency and paid the workers in certificates accepted only in company shops, where the necessities were sold at exorbitant prices. Social insurance was never heard of. Ever since then, the organisation and struggle of the workers against exploitation had an aiili-imperialist complexion. Class consciousness took shape gradually and anti-imperialist sentiment ran high. With mining yielding more than 70 per cent of the national income, the frequent large-scale s'Tikes and protest campaigns exercised a profound influence on the country's socio-economic life, and the working class, tempered in the struggle, gradually began to play a prominent role in economic and po'iiical life.
The workers' struggle was a difficult one, because they had no proletarian ideology. Often, it was spontaneous or took the wrong course, and was usually sectarian in character, aiming at illusory goals, and ignoring the real conditions. The anarcho-syndicalist leaders were the cause of many a sanguinary defeat. The working class was not equipped then to combat the strong imperialist adversary. It lacked political leadership, a working-class party armed with a clear and scientific class ideology.
128At the beginning of the 20th century various bourgeois ideological trends contrary to the interests of the workers, became widespread in the South of the continent, particularly in Argentina, Uruguay ana Chile. Various people and activists arrived from abroad, chiefly from Spain and Italy, bringing diverse litHraiin-e. As a result, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism and other trends gained circulation in Latin America. Although the workers acquired useful experience in coping with the difficulties of the early period, when forming their organisations and mounting their struggle, the above-mentioned trends inflicted considerable harm.
Luis Eniilio Recabarren, a printing worker and miners' leader who founded our Party, came forward to expose these harmful trends, manifested in such concepts as "non-pariicipation in politics'', `` antiparliamentarism'' and ``econonijsm''. Tl'e exponents of these ideas used peremptory methods in organisational matters and acted from ultra-Leftist, dogmatic and sectarian positions, making the wish father io the thought. Instead of analysing events, they used flowery language, and substituted empty idealism for objective judgements. They opposed the idea of a political class party and rejected every possibility of agreement or alliance between the proletariat and other social strata.
Recabarren, propagandist, disseminator of Marxist idea's and founder of the Chilean workers' press, formed the Socialist Workers' Party in 1912, later reorganised as the Communist Party of Chile.
For the revolutionary working-class movement of our country Lenin's ideas and the Great October Socialist Revolution opened up new horizons, because they were, and are, of a profoundly internationalist proletarian character. Lenin, the leader of the international revolutionary movement of the working class, fought for international peace, for the liberation, of oppressed and dependent peoples, for imperialism's defeat on a world scale, for the world-wide victory of socialism and communism.
During the First World War, his correct creative orientation in lighting against social-chauvinist reformism and Right revisionism, which supported the bourgeois governments of their respective countries, and also combating all shades of anarchists, who campaigned for mass desertions regardless of the nature of the war, showed that Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with bourgeois nationalism as it is with anarchism and ``Left'' revisionism of all shades. The international working-class movement learned I hat in the fight lor the overthrow of capitalism and the buildiiui of socialist society at any stage of the historical process, from the s/aije of apposition 129 to that of seizing power, the working class and Us Party cannot, and must not, substitute for proletarian internationalism sentiment or action rooted in narrow bourgeois nationalism, always essentially treacherous with regard to the national feelings of peoples.
Recabarren was always guided by a deep sense of proletarian internationalism. Together with Comrades Codovilla and Rodolfo Ghioldi, he founded the International Socialist Party of Argentina, the first general secretary of which he became. Subsequently, that party was reorganised as the Conimunist Party of Argentina. Recabarren was a close friend, too, of Francisco R. Pintos, the founder of the Communist Party of Uruguay. They took part in the work of the Conimunist International, where tiiey became acquainted with Lenin. Since then, a bond of profound proletarian friendship, the kind of friendship that unites all Communist parties on the basis of Marxist-Leninist principles, has prevailed in our relations with these fraternal parties. The workers of Chile and our Party nourish a particularly warm sense of friendship and allegiance towards the Soviet Union and the CPSU.
Our Party came into being as a consequence of the influence of the October Revolution and Lenin's ideas. Lenin wrote: "Repudiation of the Party principle and of Party discipline ... is tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It all adds up to that petty-bourgeois diffuseness and instability, that incapacity for sustained effort, unity and organised action, which, if encouraged,' must inevitably destroy any proletarian revolutionary movement" | Vol. 81, pp. -18 4-!).
Our Party came out of the working-class environment and its first organisations were formed in the main proletarian centres of Chile. H developed in uncompromising struggle against bourgeois reformist and extremist ideology. And in this struggle, Lenin's ideology was for us the guiding star.
It was by no means simple and easy to form a Party in our country on the basis of the Leninist principles of the Party of the new type. Along our arduous path we committed mistakes, many of which were overcome thanks to acquired experience. But much effort is still needed to justify in full the name of a Marxist-Leninist Party that organisationally and in revolutionary activity conforms with genuinely scientific, creative methods and Lenin's ideas. What we have managed to learn from Leninism and to apply in practice was. tor our Parly, a tremendous advance, as it also was for the working class and our country. The Communisl Party of Chile has close links with the masses. Living u|>- to the Leninist policy of unity, carrying it 130 forward firmly and consistently, we have been able to organise the working class in a powerful united trade union centre and to establish an action alliance with the Socialist Party, persevering in the work of uniting all anti-imperialist forces on the basis of a common programme. That programme outlines the ways of taking power and forming a people's democratic anti-imperialist government, a government paving the way to socialism. This policy has helped us in extending our influence among the peasant masses and wresting them away from the influence of the Christian Democrats.
The Communist Party is the leading force among the workers and the student youth. In other words, our Party controls the majority among the Left forces. I enumerated these facts to stress again that we owe our successes to Marxism-Leninism. We have endeavoured, to the extent of our ability, to master the valuable Marxist-Leninist heritage and to use it in our practical work.
In the thirties, we applied considerable effort in changing the organisational structure of the Party to conform with Leninist principles. But a fairly long time passed before we understood that the idea of democratic centralism is one of the basic principles of Lenin's theory of the party. Democracy and centralism have made our Party the most democratic, the best organised party in Chile, acting on a sound programme, with firm discipline. It has passed all trials heaped on it by the bourgeoisie, from brutal repressions to political flirtations.
None of our leaders are irreplaceable. We have rooted out the cult of the individual once and for all. For years the general secretary is being elected not by the Party congress, but by the Central Committee. This rules out a situation in which anyone could supersede the Central Committee, the supreme authority between congresses. The collective spirit, criticism and self-criticism, respect for the opinion of all Party members and outspoken discussion, coupled with obligatory fulfilment of adopted decisions---all those are Lenin's principles which we have accepted and which we apply in our practice.
Many bourgeois theories rejected as much as half a century ago, have been revamped and put back into circulation in order to lead the masses astray and split the anti-imperialist movement. They are aimed against the existence and development of the Communist parties, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
The present, however, is highlighted by the spread of Marxist-- Leninist science. With the direct attacks of our enemies missing their mark, ;hey are now assaulting Marxism-Leninism from quasi Left positions under the signboard of ``genuine'' Marxism-Leninism. Shop worn 131 methods of struggle are renewed to attract the youth to their side. Again, individual and group terror is being employed and banks are robbed under the slogan of "expropriating the expropriators'', etc. The Communist parties are violently attacked and Communists are called conservatives. New idols, worshipped as in primordial times, sling mud at the working class, which they allege to have ceased being revolutionary. And it is no accident that modern mass information media controlled by reaction are made available to these groups to spread their propaganda in order 10 split and destroy the Communist parties.
They say that class struggle has given way to the struggle of gen erations, in which the son represents the revolution and the father the bourgeois order, that revolution must be performed at once, without delay, by genuine revolutionaries. Alliance and unity with other anti-imperialist forces is ruled out. Breadth, they maintain, reduces the depth of the revolutionary movement; hence, revolutionary parties must not be mass parties and should consist only of professional revolutionaries.
But these unrealistic schemes collapse when tested in practice. Objectively, the activity of these groups is anti-Communist and they merge in essence with the ultra-Right forces.
Naturally, with the tide of revolution funning low, there are many disappointed people who could lie won over by persuasion to the side of the revolutionary working-class movement. There have been, and still are, considerable difficulties in our relations with the allies. Difficulties of this kind were once with amazing foresight referred to by Lenin: "Revolutionary phrase-making, more often than not, is a disease from which revolutionary parties suffer at times when they constitute, directly or indirectly, a combination, alliance or intermingling of proletarian and petty-bourgeois elements, and when the course of revolutionary events is marked by big, rapid zigxagK. By revolutionary phrase-making we mean the repetition of revolutionary slogans irrespective of objective circumstances at a given lui'n in events, in the given state of affairs obtaining at the time. The slogans are superb, alluring, intoxicating, but there are no grounds for them; such is the nature of the revolutionary phrase" (Vol. 27, p. 19).
Our Party considers itself a member of the fraternal family of Communist parties. As we see it, we must display mutual respect and help eacli other. In that sense, we are in accord with the idea that Communist parties must lit: equal and thai nu Parly must interfere- in the affairs of another I'arly. Hut if we treat equality as a general concept, a concept divorced from reality, we may depart 132 from reality and end up in the bog of subjectivist, anarchist, bourgeois egalitarianism. We' hold that the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the concept of equality is based on revolutionary duty and responsibility borne by each Party in the specific conditions of its country, and that equality is not to be separated from proletarian internationalism.
There is one revolution -the Great October Socialist Revolution; one country---the Soviet Union, and one Party---the Party founded by Lenin, the CPSU, which stand out among all the others. The responsibility borne by them is immense. When we say that the Soviet Union is the beacon illumining the way for mankind, it is not an apologetic phrase, but a recognition of the fact that the historical centre of gravity of the international revolutionary movement lies in the Soviet Union.
As we know, until the Paris Commune in 1871 the centre of the revolutionary working-class movement was in France for a long time. After its shattering defeat and the brutal reprisals resulting in the destruction of the revolutionary vanguard, that centre shifted to Germany, where the working class and the Social-Democratic Party were developing rapidly. After Engels's death the reformist ideas of Bernstein and Kautsky gained considerable currency and the German Social-Democracy gradually turned against the revolutionary content of the Marxist teaching.
In the. meantime, a reverse process was taking place in Russia. Lenin and his associates conducted extensive revolutionary work, developing the Marxist theory and applying it consistently in practice. As a result of this work and the 1905---1907 revolution, the centre of the international revolutionary labour movement shifted to Russia. Lenin conducted titanic theoretical work in developing Marxism in the conditions of the new epoch, the epoch of imperialism and revolutions. He was sharply opposed to the first world imperialist war, working for the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, for the establishment of the world's first proletarian state and the building of socialist society.
The decisive role playi-d by tlu: Soviet Union in destroying fascism, its role in liberating many countries, which paved the way for the emergence of the socialist camp, the beginning of building communism, Soviet aid, cooperation and solidarity in the fight for peace, for the liberation of Hie colonial and dependent peoples---all this proves that (lie centre of gravity in the international revolutionary movement is located in the Soviet Union. The analysis of Ihe modern historical period gives us reason to maintain that each event in tiie peoples' 133 fight for liberation and progress since October 1917 was marked most decisively by the proletarian internationalism and international solidarity of the Soviet Union and the CPSU. This applies equally to the active resistance to armed Imperialist aggression in Vietnam, and in the Middle East, to the victorious struggle nf the peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, and, among other things, to the victory of the Cuban revolution.
For this reason, when speaking ot ``equality'' we should not forget that the Soviet Union is in a special position in view of the tremendous historical responsibility it bears. Equality may become fiction if each Communist Party does not associate it with Lenin's principle of proletarian internationalism, a principle totally incompatible with narrow nationalism.
As we see it, all attempts at interference by one Parly in the affairs of another, aimed at splitting and changing the class character of the Party, must be rejected. That is the context in which we may view the activity of the leaders of the Communist Party of China and their followers in respect to ours and many other parties. At the same time, it should be stressed that the Communist parties and the socialist states cannot be indifferent to the consequences of a political and ideological course pursued by the leadership of a Party or country, if these consequences may jeopardise the socialist camp and the existence of other Communist parties. The facts behind the recent Czechoslovak events confirm the need for the action taken by the socialist countries to safeguard socialism in Czechoslovakia, to secure her independence and progress, and to preserve European and world peace.
The policy of a Party must not be treated as an absolute to a point where no one, after analysing it, may express his opinion. On the contrary, the interests of the Marxist-Leninist science and the international working, class oblige us to show an interest in the facts, in the activities, the experience and orientation of the fraternal Communist parties.
The unity of the world Communist movement may be cemented through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, through international meetings such as the one that took place in Moscow in June 1969. The Meeting adopted important decisions, designed to cement the unity and step up the struggle against imperialism, for peace, for greater solidarity with the struggle of the peoples and the working class, for liberation. Such meetings should be used for reaching agreement by comparing political and ideological positions with the objective reality. Then the concept of non-interference will not imply that a Party cannot express its opinion to another Party, the orientation of which 134 is in need of correctives. Though favourable conditions for that sort of exchange have not yet appeared in some Communist parlies, we assume all the same that strengthening the fraternal lies and achieving closer friendship and contacts among Communist parties would greatly promote mutual understanding, produce truly comradely relationships based on Marxist-Leninist principles and proletarian internationalism. And all the Marxist-Leninist Communist and Workers' parties will follow this wav, because it is predicated by the course of historical development.
As we see ii, the need lo act in unity in order to \>. it list and and smash imperialism is one of the mo.tt important behests of Lenin, one of the greatest geniuses in the history ot mankind, a man who led his people to victory in the fight a.^.inst capitalism and to a new socialist and communist society, opening (hereby the wey for mankind towards a society without exploiters and exploited. It may be said that .the most distinctive feature of all of Lenin's activity was his loyalty to the ideas of proletarian internationalism. Giving all his knowledge and energy to the cause of tin; working class and the peoples now comprising the Union ot Soviet Socialist Republics, he also worked tirelessly for the international working class, for all mankind.
135 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN AND THE PARTY OF A NEW TYPEThis conference will undoubtedly he of great importance, for it will o'i;:e again bear out the vitality and correctness of Lenin's ideas This is particularly valuable now that numerous revisionists make every attempt to deny the universal validity of Lenin's ideas. Spokesmen for the petty bourgeoisie of some Latin American countries say they are Marxists and not Marxists-Leninists because they think the ideas of Leninism apply to Russia only. This approach is intended to divide Marxism-Leninism and oppose Marxism to Leninism. The absurdity of this attitude is obvious, but it can do harm unless combated.
Lenin carried forward the teachings of Marx and Engels in all their aspects. Proceeding from the solid basis of Marxist theory, he contributed his share to Marxism according to the new conditions in the world. He made a careful analysis of reality and came to the conclusion that the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions had set in. From this analysis flowed fundamental postulates regarding Communist strategy and tactics, the role of the working class, the importance of Die worker-peasant alliance, and the need to found a revolutionary party of a new type that could lead the working class and its tvllies to victory in the new conditions of the class struggle.
Lenin's contribution to the common treasury of our doctrine was not a subjective whim but a result of a scientific analysis of reality in the light of Marxism. Lenin set an example of how to fight aga>ns revisionism, which tries under the pretext of ``perfecting'' Marxism to 136 destroy its revolutionary substance, and against dogmatism, which (lings to dead formulas and the letter of theory, refusing to take account of changes, or, in other words, lives outside time and space, as it were. It is as relevant as ever to combat both trends---revisionism and dogmatism.
The Address of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties notes: "All the experience of world socialism and of the working-class and national liberation movements has confirmed the worid significance of Marxist-Leninist teaching. The victory of the socialist revolution in a group of countries, the emergence of the world socialist system, the gains of the working-class movement in capitalist countries, tfie appearance of peoples of former colonial and semicolonial countries in the arena of socio-political development as independent agents, and the unprecedented upsurge of the struggle against imperialism -all this is proof that Leninism is historically correct and expresses the fundamental needs of the modern age.''
I would like to dwell on Lenin's doctrine of the Communist Party.
We all know (hat Communist parties come into being as a historical necessity with the rise and growth of the working class. Marx and Kngels proved that in addition to a scientific theory the proletariat needs a political party independent of other classes, a party that will lead it to victory over capitalism and assure its success in building the new society. Lenin creatively elaborated the ideas of the founders of scientific communism as applicable to the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. The parties of the Second International, overwhelmed by opportunism, proved incapable of operating in the new situation, at a time when the class struggle had assumed extremely sharp forms. Opportunism in politics led these parlies to organisational bankruptcy. This gave rise to the objective need to found a party of a new type that could lead the working class in any conditions, however complicated, both when the revolutionary movement was on the rise and when it was at an ebb, both in armed and peaceful struggles.
Immense credit is due to Lenin for realising this historical necessity before anyone else and for founding such a party in the face of all difficulties. The party of a new type brought into being stood the severe test of history in all latitudes with flying colours and set an example to the revolutionaries of the world. Today, in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, this type of party fully meets the exigencies of the smiggle of the working class and its allies;
Lenin's ideas strongly influenced the formation of the Communist Party of Argentina on January 6, 1918, two months after the victory 137 of the Great October Socialist Revolution. The leadership of the Argentine Socialist Paris', which at the time was in tlirall to the anti-Marxist concepts oi the revisionist Bernstein, slipped into opportunism. It was carried away by the idea of improving an electoral system that held on^^1^^, no prospects, forgot about ilie interests of the working class and renounced proletarian internationalism. This anti-Marxist afiiinde accounted for the emergence in the Socialist Party in 1912 of a Left-wing Marxist group whose development culminated in the founding of the Communist Party a few years later. Comrade Codovilla one of the founders of the Communist Party of Argentina, reminisces: "Contradictions between the reformist and Marxist wings of the Socialist Party ranged over numerous problems, such as the character of the parliamentary activity of Socialist deputies, the Socialists' work in the trade union movement, the nature of the Socialist youth movement, and so on. The main contradictions, however, were over the altitude to the First World War. Whereas - Right-wing Socialists adhered---on (lie plea of protecting the foreign trade of Argentina--to a position of frank support for the so-called Entente fighting against Cei'man imperialism and its allies, the Left-wing ac'.'iernd to ilie anti-war, revolutionary position of the Marxists, who were lighting for pepeo and socialism ...
``The struggle of the Marxists against the revisionists of Marxism, the straggle of internationalists against chauvinists during the First World War, and the strugg'-c of the supporters of the October Revolution and Lenin's ideas against their slanderers formed the main foundation on which the Communist Party of Argentina was brought into being.''~^^*^^
Our Party at its inception was not homogeneous either socially or ideologically. That group of Parly members particularly well versed in Marxism, above all Comrades Viclorio Codovilla and Rodolfo Ghioldi, find therefore to fight against the exponents of reformist ideas and against the lovers of revolutionary verbiage in general and the Trotskyisis in particular These leading comrades did their hest to strengthen the Party by improving its social composition, so as !o ensure that itulusirici workers made up the bulk of the membership. At the same time the Communisis were confronted with the task of assimilating the basic tenets of Marxist-Leninist theory and learning the lessons ot the October Revolution. In fulfilling the important task of building up a party of a new type, its founders _-_-_
^^*^^ 50 a\~nos. Revolucion Socialista de Octubre. 1917--1967. Fundaci\'on del Partido Comunista de la Argentina. 1918--1968. Buenos Aires, 1968, pp. 72--74.
138 proceeded from Lenin's writings and from documents of the CPSU and the Communist International. __*_*_*__The law of correspondence between form and content is fully confirmed by the concept of the proletarian party: a revolutionary party should have an appropriate organisational form, because the most revolutionary of contents may be vague if the form is out of keeping with it. This is why, ever since the Party came into existence, Lenin gave constant attention to organisational matters. "The fact,'' he wrote in 1904, "that the organisation of our work lags behind its content is our weak point . . . The lame and undeveloped character of the form makes any serious step in the further development of the content impossible; it causes a shameful stagnation, leads to a waste of- energy, to a discrepancy between word and deed" (Vol. 7, p. 390).
The Communist Parly, being the general staff of the working class, needs a form of organisation enabling it to be in permanent touch with the working class both in periods of adversity and revolutionary upsurge, so as to organise the working class and lead it into action for immediate demands and then for winning power, with a view to building a socialist society. A series of organisations, ranging from the Party cell to the Central Committee to the Party congress, have been set up for the purpose. This is a single organisational system with higher and lower Party organisations, with the minority submitting to the majority, and with decisions binding on all Party members.
Party unity is implicit in Marxist-Leninist ideology and in the policies approved by Party congresses.
Democratic centralism is the backbone of the Leninist principle of organisation. It guarantees a harmonious combination of democracy and centralism in the Party. It makes possible the formation of a solidly united organisation than can lead the working class to power, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and build a socialist society.
It is the principle of democratic centralism that is attacked by revisionists. In Latin America, for example, some "ultra-- revolutionaries" declare themselves to be partisans of the method of unfailing execution and unquestioning submission, which implies the abolition of inner democracy and "repeal of the rules of democratic centralism''. To quote Comrade Husak, Right-wing opportunists in the CP of Czechoslovakia, arguing from a somewhat different standpoint but 139 agreeing with this in the main, "questioned and emasculated through their propaganda such principles of our Marxist-Leninist doctrine as the Leninist standards 01 organisation and life of tlu-' Cor.iniunisi Party, its exercise of the leading role in society and in the political system, the internaii'jnalist character of the Party...''^^*^^
In the People's Republic of China, Maoism with its anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist concept spearheaded the "cultural revolution" against the Party in an effort to liquidate it. On the international scene it is making earnest efforts to split the Communist parties with support from small groups of renegades.
Many revisionists maintain that different groups or factions should be allowed to exist within the Party and that the Party may have a majority and one or more minorities. They assert that such a Party would be more democratic (some even suggest emulating bourgeois parties). It is clear that to accept these nnproletarian views would lead, in fact, to the rise in the Party of various trends and groupings and to decay and division and to the working class losing its vanguard role.
In bourgeois parties, which lack the democracy I have mentioned and which abound in trends, the rise of various factions and trends is dae to their motley social composition. But a proletarian party having one social and ideological basis cannot permit the existence of factions in its ranks and must take drastic steps against factionalists if it is really to cope with its historic mission. "Everyone is free,'' Lenin wrote, "to write and say whatever he likes, without any restrictions. But every voluntary association (including a party) is also free to expel members who use the name of the party to advocate anti-party views.'' And specifying, Lenin went o>i to say: "The party is a voluntary association, which would i icviuibly break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not c'exi.-ie itself of people advocating anti-party views. And lo define I'TR border-line between Party and anti-Party there is the Party programme, the Party's resolutions on tactics and its rules and, lastly, the entire experience of international Social-Democracy, the voluntary international associations of the proletariat, which has constantly brought into its parties ' Individual elements and trends not fully consistent, not completely Marxist and not altogether correct and which, on the other hand, has constantly conducted periodical `clpfiiis'iigs' of its ranks. So it will he with us too, supporters of bourgeois 'freedom of criticisr.i', within the Party" (Vol. 10. p. -i7).
_-_-_^^*^^ Ktir.lv I'rdno, Sepleintw 2'i. HitiU
140Lenin investigated the origins of various trends and groups disagreeing with the principles of democratic centralism. By far most of their opponents are representatives of the bourgeoisie and of intellectuals lacking a deep knowledge of Marxism. He described the proletariat as the staunchest and most consistent champion of Party principles. "The discipline and organisation,'' Lenin wrote, "which come so hard to the bourgeois intellectual are very easily acquired by the proletariat just because of this factory `schooling'. Mortal fear of this school and utter failure to understand its importance as an organising factor are characteristic of the ways of thinking which reflect the petty-bourgeois mode of life and which give rise to the species of anarchism that the German Social-Democrats call Edelcinarchismus, that is, the anarchism of the `noble' gentleman, or aristocratic anarchist.!, as I would call it" (Vol. 7, pp. 301---92).
In other words, the basis of various trends opposed to the Party and its organisational principles, upheld by the workers and not recognised by those sections of the intelligentsia which have not assimilated the ideology of the proletariat, is determined by living and working conditions. To get on in bourgeois society, the intellectual must generally rely on his own performance only---we rule out those who work collectively or as wage workers---and compete with fellow-intellectuals. He develops individualistic features that determine his personality. As a result, he overestimates his importance because to distinguish himself he must have something "of his own'', something he has achieved by using I at least outwardly) bis own talents.
On the other hand, the worker is weak if he has to face his exploiters all alone. He owes his strength to being a member of a social class, to organisation and joint struggle with fellow-workers, which moulds him and makes him feel part of a great force ."In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organisation" (Vol. 7, p. 4151. The more a worker participates in struggle, the greater his appreciation of the importance of organisation and discipline and the higher his class consciousness. He seeks no personal glory in struggle- and lealises that his happiness hinges on the happiness of his class. Workers in large enterprises are particularly aware ot this. That is why in joining their Party, workers come more easily than other categories to realise the need for Parly organisation and discipline. "It is not the proletariat but certain intellectuals in our Party who ^ack self-traininy in the spirit of organisation and discipline, in the spirit of hostility and contempt for anarchistic talk" (Vol. 7, p. 'i89|. Lenin insisted on this in a subsequent work, in which 141 we read: "Workers have the class instinct, and, given some political experience, they pretty soon become staunch Social-Democrats. 1 should be strongly in favour of having eight workers to every two Intellectuals on our committees" (Vol. 8, p. 408).
Revolutionary experience has shown that the preponderance of the proletariat in the social composition of the Marxist-Leninist Party is the best guarantee of the Party implementing its policy and tactics, that it improves Party organisation and discipline and increases the Party's efficiency in any conditions of struggle. This is not to the detriment of the intellectuals or other social categories in our ranks. On 'the contrary, our Party thinks highly of the contribution to the common cause made or being made by those who join the vanguard of the proletariat. Odr Party is proud of its theoreticians, scholars, artists and journalists who give their best for the good of the Party, the working class and the people. An effort is being made to bring more intellectuals, students, peasants and other categories into the Party. The Party also sees to it that Marxist-Leninist theory and the Party's programme and organisational principles are assimilated as thoroughly as possible. We think the social composition of the Party will play a notable part in this.
Speaking at the 13th Party Congress, Comrade Orestes Ghioldi said that the scientific and technological revolution had heightened the role of the intelligentsia in modern society. But under capitalism the monopolies subordinated this process to their interests, which aroused discontent and a rebellious mood among the intellectuals. "These strata,'' he'' said, "do not renounce either their concepts or their mentality in joining in the struggle, nnr would that be easy. This is why our work among them requires patience, flexibility and, at the same time, firmness.'' Specifying, he added: "The task of drawing the intelligentsia into the revolutionary movement and into the Party is a very difficult but necessary one. Our duty is to make an even deeper study of the forms of bringing them nearer Marxism-Leninism and to regard constructive work by the intellectuals in the Party as a component of their Party activity and encourage it.''^^*^^
__*_*_*__Founding a Communist Party is not an end in itself. In those countries which have yet to win their freedom the task of the Party Is to lead the masses headed by the proletariat in the struggle for _-_-_
^^*^^ Algunas cuestiones de la lucha ideoldgica. = Buenos Aires, 1969, pp. 19--21.
142 power. To cope with this historic mission, it is necessary lo specify the character of the revolution in the given country so as lo organise and mobilise the masses interested in the revolutionary remaking of society and isolate the enemies of the working people. This should be achieved, not by quoting classics again and again, but by earnestly studying national realities in the light of Marxism-Leninism. A careful analysis should be made of the prevailing relations of production and the level attained by the productive forces in order to determine the structural changes needed for further progress. A subjectivist, voluntarist approach to reality may considerably prejudice revo= lutionary effort. We think this should not he forgotten, because in Latin America there are those today who believe that the revolution on our continent should be socialist from the first and deny the need to carry out a democratic, agrarian and anti-imperialist revo-: lution first.In Argentina petty-bourgeois intellectuals say that since the Cuban people are building socialism, it should be possible to accomplish the socialist revolution throughout Latin America without passing through any preliminary stage. None of them has been able to prove, of course, that the Cuban revolution was socialist only. They cannot prove it, because, as we know, the revolution was first democratic, being directed against the dictatorship, and that it united the broadest social strata, including the bourgeoisie, whose representatives held key positions in the early days of the new government, formed immediately after the revolution. Subsequently the foremost revolutionary forces began to carry the revolution forward to socialism, removing from power all who were in the way. This became possible at the present historical stage characterised by a new alignment of world forces due to the formation of the socialist world system, the struggle of the colonial countries for freedom and the struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries.
At present, the Document of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties points out, every liberation struggle enjoys the invaluable support of the socialist world system, primarily of the Soviet Union. This new world situation makes it possible to reduce the time limit of the democratic, agrarian and anti-imperialist revolution developing into a socialist revolution.
In drawing up our programme, we Argentine Communists bear in mind that the fundamental contradiction of our society is due to the existence of two poles at one of which is imperialism, specifically US imperialism, the big bourgeoisie and big landowners, whose interests intertwine, and at the other pole, the working class, the 143 peasants, middle siraia, petlv and middle bourgeoisie, and part of the national bourgeoisie whose posi ions have been undermined by the imperialist monopolies. The principal means of production are in the hands of those at the former pole. It is only natural that in these circumstances the development of the country is accompanied by a process of relative -mcl absolute impoverishment of the working class and other working people.
Dunns; the past 15 years the losses due to siphoning of the profits of foreign companies out of Argeniina have reached 6,000 million dollars. One per cent of the enterprises gets more than half the total amount of profit iu industry, and seven per cent of the capitalist and landowner families get 40 per cent, while the steadily declining total of wages barely makes up 38 per cent of the national income.
It follows that progress in Argentina is held up by reunions of production based on the dominaiion of big landed proprietors and the imperialists, who control the main levers of our economy. The existing contradiciions between the development level of the productive forces, which lend to grow, and the character of relations of production, which ha npers their growth, can only be eliminated by revolutionary means. This is pointed out by the programme of the democratic, agrarian and anii-imperialist revolution whose goal is socialism. The main provisions of I he programme reflect the demands of the overwhelming majority of the people, whose interests are injured by the privileged strata. Hence defining the character of the revolution is not a subjeciive accident but must take account, to our mind, of naiional rea'iiy and its specifics and be prompted by the fundamental contradiction of society.
With due regard to Lenin's ideas we consider that the hegemony of the proletariat is the main condition for the complete victory of the revolution and for its subsequent advance to socialism. The leading role of the working class and its alliance with the peasantry are the main force of the revolution and are inseparable, Lenin stressed. The necessity for the leading role of the working class in our country derives not only from the laws of development of capitalist society, but from the place the working class holds among the gainfully employed population of the country.
Some petty-bourgeois theoreticians deny the leading role of the working class, claiming that the proletariat lias become ``bourgeois''. The same allegation is objectively made by ttiose who would like to set the working class apart from other strata and accomplish the revolution with the aid of a "working-class front'', without any allies.
The 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Argentina pointed out 144 that the historical experience of our country disproves both the ability oi the national bourgeoisie to lead the revolutionary, anti-imperialist process and the possibility of following a progressive policy of reform with the petty or middle bourgeoisie in the lead. However, this statement does not rule out the possibility of expanding cooperation with those sections of the national bourgeoisie not linked with imperialism.
In his report to the 13th Congress of our Party. Comrade Arnedo Alvarez. General Secretary of the Communist Party of Argentina, said: "The situation at home shows that the range of social strata interested in fighting the imperialist monopolies comprises not only the working class, the peasantry and the peity and middle bourgeoisie, but the national bourgeoisie as well, whose economic interests are seriously affected and which has an objective interest in resisting the penetration of imperialism into the country. And so ... while the bourgeoisie as a class has actually proved that it cannot lead the vast national liberation movement gathering momentum among the masses, this is not to say that certain segments of the national bourgeoisie havealready spent their reserves of energy in action against the imperialist policy of national oppression.''^^*^^
Our Party is fighting against both Right-wing opportunism and Leftist sectarianism, which may lead the liberation movement into isolation. In working out our tactics, we take guidance from Lenin, who wrote: "The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skillful and obligatory use of... any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries . . . and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in c/eneral" (Vol. 31, pp. 70---71).
Latin America is shaken by a powerful mass movement and major struggles against imperialism and its partners. The working people of Latin America demand deep-going changes in the anachronistic structures of their countries. The victorious advance of the Cuban revolution is a source of inspiration and confidence in victory. The problems of winning power, of the strategy and tactics of the _-_-_
^^*^^ Arnedo Alvarez, AryentiJia freiite a la dicladura de los monopolios, Buenos Aires, 1969, pp. 35---36.
145 Communist Party, of the choice of paths for the revolution and ;ill that goes with revolutionary struggle are becoming vitally important.The Communist parties of Latin America, carefully examining the situation in their countries, choose what they believe to be the most suitable ways of leading the working class and the peoples of their countries to victory.
However, we also get various "recipes for revolution" disputing the importance of Marxist-Leninist theory, the role of the proletariat and, above all, the leading role of the Communist Party. Their authors oppose town to country and the proletariat to the peasantry, claiming that the revolutionary potential of the urban population has been exhausted. These ideas are advocated by the so-called "national Left'', ``ultra-Left'' and other groups.
These ideas are at loggerheads with the principles of MarxismLeninism confirmed by the whole experience of the world Communist movement. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote: "Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class.'' Lenin, for his part, pointed out more than once that in capitalist society the big cities are a progressive element. "The town inevitably leads the country,'' he wrote. "The country inevitably follows the town. The only question is which class, of the `urban' classes, will succeed in leading the country, will cope with this task, and what forms leaders/lip bij ttw toi'jn will assume" (Vol. 30, p. 257).
The theses on the agrarian question edited by Lenin specified that "only the urban and industrial proletariat . . . can liberate the working masses of the countryside from the yoke of capital and landed proprietorship, from ruin and imperialist wars" (Vol. 31, p. 152).
The Communists of Russia, led by the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, focussed their attention on large industrial centres where the working class was concentrated, although five-sixths of the Russian population at the time were engaged in agriculture. I'arty work in the big enterprises resulted in converting them into real strongholds which enabled the working class to lead the revolution and subsequently to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Our agriculture accounts for roughly 25 per cent of the gainfully employed population. Almost 75 per cent of the population lives in towns, mostly in the big cities. Greater Buenos Aires alone accounts for 34 per cent of the population total. It follows that should the Communist Party neglect work in the big proletarian centres and other large communities where the bulk of the working class is concentrated, as some petty bourgeois Marxists who have fallen for the Maoist bait 146 suggest, then the proletariat, the main force of the revolution and the principal component of the population, would find itself under bourgeois influence.
The foregoing is not to say that we underestimate political work among the peasants. On the contrary, our Parly considers that it should devote still greater effort to organising and guiding the peasants in the fight for their demands and, consequently, ensure that the peasants accomplish their role of ally of the proletariat. This is why the Party reinforces its organisations in the countryside by drawing agricultural workers and poor peasants into its ranks.
Underrating the working class as a revolutionary force results in. minimising the role of the Communist Party. Some petty-bourgeois Left-wing leaders declare that "the people will accomplish the revo-' lution with or without the Party" because "those who are striving for the revolution form the vanguard irrespective of whether there is a Marxist-Leninist Party or not'', and so on.
We must say that there is nothing new about these ``theories'' as far as our continent is concerned. Comrade Codovilla recalls that one such ``theory'', advocated on the Latin American continent in- the twenties, mainly by Haya de la Torre, an agent of US imperialism, was smashed by Marxists-Leninists in every country of the continent. "It follows that we already have some experience. Now as in the past, those who minimise or deny the leading role of the proletariat and its vanguard, the Communist Party, are bringing grist to the mill of the enemies of the working class, the people and the nation, irrespective of the arguments.''~^^*^^
The Maoists and ultra-revolutionaries in our countries disregard the objective laws of historical development, which means that they adhere to idealist, voluntarist positions. They refuse to make a concrete analysis of the alignment of forces, and they therefore ignore the objective and subjective conditions for the revolution. As they see it, the revolution can begin at any moment and anywhere. One has only to have a group of people willing to take up arms and then this group can be used as a ``detonator'' and will spread like an "oil stain'', and the action of an "isolated minority" will develop into a "nation-wide storm''. It is a fact, if a deplorable one, that numerous contingents of revolutionaries have sustained heavy losses because they did not know the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.
_-_-_^^*^^ Victorio Codovilia. Luchemoa unic/o\ para ubatir la dictadura y par un gobierno oerdaderamente denwcraticu y popular. Buenos Aires, 1967, pp. 99---100.
147The experience of the Russian revolution and other revolutions bears out what Lenin said. 'To (he Marxist it is indisputable,'' lie wrote, "that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation.,. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient fqr.'the lower classes not to want' to live in the old way; it is also necessary that 'the upper classes should be unable' to live in the old way''. It is necessary, secondly, that "the suffering and want of the oppressed classes" should have grown "more acute than usual" and thirdly, that "as a consequence of the above causes'', there should be "a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in 'peace time' but in turbulent times are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the 'upper classes' themselves into independent historical action" (Vol. 21, pp. 213---14).
This objectively revolutionary situation is not created at will but is a result of a national crisis involving the whole of society, particularly its top, largely the state itself and the political parties of the bourgeoisie.
Lenin proved, however, that in addition to objective conditions the revolution needs subjective ones if it is to win, that is, the ability of the advanced revolutionary class to lead the revolutionary action of the masses. He noted that the existence in many countries of objective conditions had not led to revolution because the working class had lacked the element of class consciousness. It follows, Lenin wrote, that "for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers] should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics... weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it" (Vol. 31, p. 85).
Consequently, the tactics of the proletarian Party cannot be identical when the conditions for insurrection are ripe and when they are nonexistent. In tne latter case Communists are faced with the important task of carrying on intensive propaganda and organising work to lead the masses to revolution.
Attempts to rush into decisive action prematurely, mistaking one's desire for reality, may injure, and have already injured, the entire revolutionary movement.
In many cases the activity of petty-bourgeois ``ultra-revolutionary'' groups merges, whether they want it or not, \vitli subversion by the 148 enemies of the working class and the people trying to involve tile Communist parties in adventurist moves in the absence of the requisites of insurrection.
Many years ago Frederick" Engels condemned these attempts' as follows: "Why they accuse us today of cowardice, because we do not betake ourselves without more ado into the street, where we are certain of defeat in advance? Why they so earnestly implore us to play . . . the part of cannon fodder?''
``The gentlemen pour out their prayers and their challenges lor nothing, for absolutely nothing. We are not so stupid .... The time Of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities... is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for, body and soul" '(Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1962, Vol. 1, pp. 133---34).
Leading the revolutionary struggle is a science and a very difficult art requiring that the leading bodies of Marxist-Leninist parties constantly and carefully take account, not only of objective conditions, but of the temper of the working people, of the state of their revo-' lutionary consciousness. This is indispensable if the working-class Party is not to lag behind the masses or lose contact with them, which is fraught with the clanger of the Party becoming isolated. At the same time, to avoid serious mistakes, we must fight against two equally negative tendencies in the revolutionary process: attempts to hold up the revolution when the conditions for it are ripe---attempts due to the fact that this or that leader is politically shortsighted or lacks revolutionary courage---and on the other hand, the activity of `` ultrarevolutionaries'', who try to rush events and to launch the revolution when the situation is not yet propitious for it.
Lenin's views on the forms of revolutionary struggle are particularly important today. In an article on the guerrilla movement, Lenin wrote that what distinguished Marxism from all the primitive forms Of socialism is that Marxism does not link the movement with any definite form of struggle.
Lenin pointed out that "Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack . . .
``In the second place, Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of the forms of straggle. To treat this 149 question apart from the concrete historical situaiion betrays a failure to understand the iv.diaients of dialectical materialism. At different si.ages of economic evolution, depending on differences in political, national-cultural, living and other conditions, different forms of struggle come to the fore and become the principal forms of struggle; and in connection with this, the secondary, auxiliary forms of struggle undergo change in their turn. To attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given movement at the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position" (Vol. 11, pp. 213---14).
The new balance of forces resulting from the consolidation of the socialist world system, the national liberation movement and the labour movement in the capitalist countries has created new conditions and the possibility for the victory of the revolution through a peaceful struggle. Lenin considered this path a very rare exception.
In the opinion of many Communist parties, this form today is possible provided the working class led by its Marxist-Leninist party unites under its guidance the mass of the peasantry and other working people, workers by hand and by brain, breaks the resistance of the reactionary forces and imposes the people's will in parliament and government. However, in those countries where the ruling classes command a powerful machinery of suppression, the working class and the masses wanting to win their freedom when the conditions are ripe for it will have to resort to the armed struggle to defeat the forces of reaction. Only the Communist parties, the vanguard of the working class, can determine the forms of struggle which the situation calls for.
The position of the Communist Party of Argentina is defined in the decisions of its 12th Congress: "The Party has always considered it necessary to promote the movement of the masses and create in this way favourable conditions for taking power either by peaceful means, Including parliamentary activity, or through armed struggle if the ruling quarters of the country should deny us all democratic opportunities of winning power.''^^*^^
We consider, therefore, that our Party must master various forms of struggle---both in legal and illegal, peaceful and non-peaceful conditions'-and be prepared to go over from one form to another according to circumstances.
_-_-_^^*^^ XII Congreso del Partido Comuntsta de la Argentina. Buenos A:us, 196 H, p 59.
150As its internal and external contradictions become aggravated, imperialism resorts more and ino're frequently to ideological subversion (without renouncing military provocations or repressive measures) in an effort to create difficulties within the socialist community and to check the revolutionary struggle of the working people or divert them from the right path. With this aim in view it spearheads its slander campaign against the Soviet Union, the mainstay of the socialist system and the world revolutionary movement, and against the Marxist-Leninist parties, the vanguard of the fight against imperialism, for democracy, national liberation and socialism. Hence it is of fundamental importance to Communists to carry on an ideological struggle aimed at exposing anti-communism, the ideology of imperialism and the entire bourgeoisie while at the same time upholding Marxist-Leninist theory against all distortions by Right or ``Left''-wing opportunists. The 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' 1'arties made a most important contribution in this respect by adopting Marxist-Leninist documents which emphatically reject every attempt to minimise the role of the working class and the Communist parties, and lay special emphasis on proletarian internationalism. These documents are a most valuable weapon against revisionist trends and a guide to action In forging the unity and organising the struggle of the working class and the masses against imperialism and its allies in every country.
The delegates of the 75 Communist and Workers' parties who met in Moscow declared: "The approaching Lenin centenary is an historic date of world significance. The Communist and Worker's parties meet it in a situation of increasing revolutionary activity and will mark it by stepping up political and ideological work among the masses and by extending and strengthening their ranks. They are exerting every effort to rouse the working people's revolutionary energies to struggle against imperialism, for the splendid ideals of socialism.''
There can be no question that the achievement of these objectives will be the best tribute to Lenin, the great genius of the revolution, on the 100th anniversary of his birth.
151 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S THEORY OF IMPERIALISMAllow me, first of all, to convey warm greetings from the Central Committee of tha Communist Party of Germany to the fraternal parties represented at this conference. Allow me also to express our gratitude for the invitation to this conference, which undoubtedly will further the struggle against the corrupting influence of bourgeois ideology and help extend the offensive of Marxism-Leninism, particularly in 1970, the year of the Lenin centenary.
Lenin's theory of imperialism provides a scientific basis for understanding the development processes of modern stale-monopoly capitalism. All that Lenin wrote about the main characteristics and development trends of imperialism fully applies to the evolution of state-monopoly capitalism in the Federal Republic of Germany. Lenin's theory of imperialism also enables us to ascertain the new aspects of West German capitalism and assess them accurately in the light of the tasks of the working class by properly applying Lenin's ideas.
In Imperialism, the Highest Stage oj Capitalism Lenin showed that monopoly, which makes its appearance at a high level of con centration and centralisation of capital, is the main economic characteristic of imperialism. He stressed that monopoly capitalism, which develops into state-monopoly capitalism, speeds the process of conpentration and centralisation of capital and imparts new features and qualities to it.
In the FRG the state-monopoly process of concentration and centralisation has been very rapid in recent years. Today it expresses itself, first of all, in mergers and cooperation and in the setting up 152 of joint enterprises by the key corporations. Every year sees more mergers. However, the main trend and strategic object of the process have changed. What is new is the merger of big corporations. This is exemplified by the founding of Ruhrkohle AG, the merger of Badische Anilin- und Soclafabrik, a member of IG Farben, with Wintershall, the absorption of Hiittenwerke Oberhausen by the Thyssen combine, the integration of Gelsenkirchener Bergwerks AG into Rheiniscli-Westfalische Elektrizitatswerke ACi, a combine owned by the state, and, lastly, the treaty of cooperation between AEG-Telefunken and Siemens.
The ruin of small and medium capitalist enterprises and their absorption by big companies continue.
It is typical that the munition industries are the main factor in the concentration and centralisation process. Under new armament programmes of the government, launched in the recent period, numerous mergers have taken place and the key munition corporations have set up joint enterprises, first of all in the aircraft and rocket, atomic, electronic and chemical industries, as well as in the automobile and power industries. With direct support from the state and as a result of the merger of Bolkow AG and Hitler Germany's twin munition corporations, Messerschmitt and Dornier, a new giant monopoly of unprecedented dimensions, Messerschmitt-Bolkow, has come into being in the West German aircraft and rocket industry. With the direct cooperation of the state the well known munition corporations of Mick, Rochling, Siemens and AEG Telefunken have set up a rocket designing corporation. Other corporations, with which new war contracts have been placed, are in the process of setting up numerous cooperative companies.
These processes are leading to a closer intertwining of the interests of big monopoly enterprises and the Bundeswehr, which with its annual share of budget appropriations exceeding 22,000 million marks is regarded as the biggest and most reliable buyer and the most profitable market. There is a growing network of committees, organisations and institutions whose task is to ensure the rapid equipment of the Bundeswehr with the latest weapons and the militai isation of public life in the Federal Republic.
These are all facts characteristic of the present process of concentration and centralisation, a feature of state-monopoly imperialism. They indicate a trend towards creating a military-industrial complex vhich is gaining in importance as it becomes the core of the state-monopoly system.
The growth of the military industrial complex, linked with the 153 continued concentration of the economic potential in the hands of big capital, is aggravating the internal contradictions of West German capitalism and increasing its instability. On the other hand, this evolution is increasing the typically imperialist tendency of big capital to establish political reaction at home and engage in economic and political expansion abroad.
In his writings on imperialism Lenin showed, as we know, that big monopoly capital's urge for expansion and its aggressiveness are among the main characteristics of imperialism. He pointed out that this is particularly true of German imperialism due to the specific circumstances.
It expresses itself, first and foremost, in the objectives of West German big capital, which is constantly striving for a revision of the status quo in Europe, of the results of Worid War II and post-war development, for the annexation of the German Democratic Republic, the abolition of the Oder-Neisse frontier and the restoration of its domination within the 1937 boundaries.
In line with these objectives, West German imperialism is pressing ahead with the reactionary reshaping of state power led off by the so-called domestic reform of the state and the "emergency laws''. The present stage of the monopolisation process is distinguished by the effort of big capital to stabilise its domination and adjust its state apparatus to the interests of the growing military-industrial complex. Big capital is intent on strengthening this apparatus by both resorting more freely to police methods of suppression and taking further steps to ``integrate'' labour organisations into the system of statemonopoly capitalism.
At the same time West German imperialism is increasingly using its economic potential for political expansion. Specifically, there is an increase in capital export. True, this export is smaller than in the case of other countries. But it has gone up sharply during the past two years. From I960 to 1968, West German private investments abroad reached roughly 12,000 million marks, or grew fourfold. But in the first two months of 1969 capital exports climbed to the record high of 4,000 million marks. By mid-1969, West German corporate investments abroad approximated to 50,000 million marks.
Another fact making West German imperialism particularly dangerous is that it has allied itself with US imperialism, the most aggressive force of tod'ay, in a bid to change the status quo and has made this alliance the cornerstone of its policy. Characteristically, it now insists on greater leverage in the alliance and in NATO. It is supplying the Bundeswehr with the latest offensive weapons, 154 stepping up its campaign for a say in nuclear weapons control anJ openly laying claim to supremacy in Western Europe. Not long ago Strauss, Chairman of the CSU, said that nothing could be done in E'.urope without or against France. "However,'' he added "(West) Germany must lead France and the rest of Western Europe.''~^^*^^
These facts bear out the conclusion of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow, for which the documents circulated among the participants by the Communist Party of Germany present a detailed case, and which says that the main danger to peace and security in Europe emanates from West German imperialism. We therefore consider it our national and international duty to expose the danger of the latent aspirations for a militarist dictatorship at home and of expansionist and great-power plans abroad becoming graver, a danger stemming from the domination of West German big capital.
Everyone knows, of course, that West German imperialism's urge for expansion and domination is growing at a time when the balance of world forces is tipping in favour of socialism. The growing power of the socialist countries, including the GDR, raises an insurmountable barrier to these plans of West German imperialism and makes it easier for the working people of West Germany to fight for peace, democracy and European security. The political and moral prestige and increasing achievements of the GDR influence the thinking of the working people in the Federal Republic. The consistent policy of the GDR for peace is of invaluable help to all progressive forces in the FRG. The West German population is gradually coming to take a more realistic view of the progress of the GDR and to insist on altering the social structures of the FRG.
This development is very important to the fight for European security. Establishing relations of peaceful coexistence between the two German states is still one of the paramount problems of European security, as we know. We regard it as a noteworthy gain that over 16 million West- Germans voted against the CDU/CSU in the Bundestag elections last September. This made it possible to exclude the CDU/CSU from the government.
Facts relating to the evolution of West German big capital invite the explicit conclusion, however, that the situation in the Federal Republic is not ripe for normal relations with the GDR, that is, for relations of peaceful coexistence. Still, we do not discount the _-_-_
^^*^^ Frankfurter Rundschau, September 12, 1969.
155 possibiHty of a further improvement in the balance of West German fprces in favour of the movement for peace and democracy.Accordingly, we also take into account divergences, which have been particularly marked during the past two years due to the changed balance of world forces, the achievements of the GDR and the growing inner contradictions of West German monopoly capital. To be sure, these contradictions do not affect the immediate objectives of West German imperialism. It is rather a question of an influential section of West German big capital increasingly changing over from a frankly revanchist and neo-Nazi plan for great-power Expansion to a variant which pursues the same goals but expects their achievement to take longer and to require the use of more flexible forms and methods. This group believes that with a SocialDemocratic government it will be easier to create both the internal prerequisites of a well-functioning state-monopoly capitalism and the external ones, which might enable it to achieve its aggressive aims.
Due to the new alignment of forces, the growing contradictions in the ruling class and the exclusion of the CDU/CSU from the government, the working people and all peace forces in the Federal Republic have scored a valuable gain in time, which they should use to strengthen their positions and bring about a further change in the balance of forces in their favour as they fight against aggressive monopoly capital.
Lenin taught us, however, that we can benefit from these contradictions provided we estimate their background correctly and use them according to our own concept to curb the power of big capital and its influence on the government and to intensify our fight for a new policy.
It is from this standpoint that we assess the changes in the West German government coalition. As a result of the September elections, the leading government party, the CDU/CSU, found itself outside the .cabinet. By now a new government has been formed under the leadership of the Social-Democrats.
Lenin always attached great importance to the concrete analysis Of new processes and phenomena. He proved that only through concrete scientific analysis is it possible to draw concrete conclusions for practical policy. The Communist Party of Germany considers this advice of Lenin's very important precisely now that it is analysing the new processes in the Federal Republic.
We regard the change in the government coalition as a consider able gain for the democratic forces, since CDU CSU policy reflects 156 primarily the interests and aspirations of that section of West German big capital frankly advocating the revanchist arid neo-Nazi variety of expansionist and great-power ambitions.
The exclusion of the CDU/CSU from the government and the formation of a Federal government led by the Social-Democrats affords the West German working class and other democratic forces new opportunities to resist big capital and the persistent danger of a rightward drift and neo-Nazism, to step up the fight for their social and democratic demands and for a new policy in the interests of the working people. The SDP government programme offers many points of departure for this.
On the other hand, our Party has taken a resolute stand against tiie illusion systematically fostered-, above all by the big bourgeoisie and its propaganda media, that the change of government in the FRG means a change of power. And because the working people of West Germany hope the government under the SDP will be able to reverse the policy pursued by the former cabinet, it has even been alleged that with the formation of the new ministry power has passed "into the hands of the man in the street'', that is, the working people.
Lenin stressed, as we know, that changes of government should always be appraised from the point of view of what class holds'the power and who is the leader. Our Party notes on the strength of a concrete analysis that political power in the FRG is still-in the bands of big monopoly capital. A state-monopoly capitalist regime lias been set up encompassing every sphere of public life.
This is why we come out againsl the illusion, widespread among the West German population, that with the change of government the threat to peace and European security presented by West German imperialism is over. Much has changed with the change of government. It is significant that the democratic forces have gained greater freedom of action. But nothing has changed in the nature and peculiarities of West German imperialism.
Willy Brandt's government declaration speaks of ``continuity'' and a "renovation of policy'', of greater democracy and reforms. However, ``continuity'' in this case means simply that the policy of aggression begun in Adenauer's day and handed down to Kiesinger will be continued. The task of the new government will apparently be to make this policy of monopoly capital and its authoritarian methods of domination attractive to the masses by adorning it with some decorative elements, in particular by using the term ``renovation''.
In evaluating the reforms announced by the new government, we ask: Whose imtrest are they to serve? What is their purpose? Can 157 they produce a real change in the sense of curbing monopoly capitalist power? Or will they help maintain the regime or even bolster it?
The reforms announced by Willy Brandt are evidently a continuation of the "internal reform of the state" initiated by the CDU/CSU. This is a manifestation of a fundamental law of imperialism, which Lenin described as follows: "Imperialism---the era of bank capital, the era of gigantic capitalist monopolies, of the development of mono-, poly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism---has clearly shown an extraordinary strengthening of the 'state machine' (Vol. 25, p. 410].
By contrast, the progressive forces of the Federal Republic seek real democratic changes aimed at tipping the scales in their favour. We also see the fight for democratic reforms, which in the long run should curb monopoly power, from this point of view. How far the democratic forces will influence the implementation of reforms will depend on their strength and numbers. Their action can change the objectives of these reforms---originally designed to further the interests of state-monopoly capitalism---in such a way as to make them genuinely democratic.
This is no easy task because the pressure of reaction is plainly growing and the new government continuously gives in to' it, as its first steps reveal.
To be sure, the fact that the government declaration speaks of the existence of two German states is an advance. However, Foreign Minister Scheel's latest utterances implying non-recognition of the GDR in terms of international law and reaffirming the claim to sole representation of the whole of Germany suggest that the old " Hallstein doctrine" is being brushed up.
The 'developments taking place in the military sphere and the war industry are particularly indicative. The ``reforms'' offered in this sphere have nothing in common with a new orientation. Indeed, they amount to a still more consistent policy of deploying the Bundeswehr as an army of aggression.
Helmut Schmidt, the new Defence Minister, said in no uncertain terms that the effort to improve nuclear arms carriers would continue. He has already wrung out of the NATO Council the right to a greater share in deciding on the use of nuclear weapons, and has announced that the powers of Bundeswehr generals are to be considerably extended. This should be taken to imply that a new German General Staff is to be brought into being.
The appointment of Ernst-Wolf Mommsen, a spokesman of West German industry, to the office of secretary oi state in the Ministry 158 of Defence in charge of armaments and materiel is another indication of this policy. Mommsen is linked with the Thy.ssen combine and his name is a programme in itself. Industriekwier, the mouthpiece of West German heavy industry, commented: "The last war showed that iliis field (war production) is too complex to be simply run on military principles. But it is also too complex to be managed on a bureaucratic pattern, under the direction of lawyers. Albert Speer's sensational achievements from 1942 to 1944 are self-explanatory. Ernst-Wolf Mommsen, who has been offered this post, is probably the right man for this task... During (he war Mommsen was general department chief in Speer's Ministry of Munitions.'' 1 think there is nothing to add to this.
And now for anotner interesting example. Professor Leussink, a non-party man close to (lie Krupp combine, lias been appointed Minister for Science and Education in the new cabinet. Asked by Stern, the West German weekly, whether Leussink's appointment was an attempt to curry favour with industry, Brandt replied: "Since it is a question of industry, gentlemen, 1 don't think that is bad. After all, Leussink is a man who was to have been made a director by Krupp.'' One of the interviewers remarked that Leussink's predecessor in the office, Herr Stoltenberg, had likewise served with Krupp, to which Brandt said: "But not as a director. It follows that I've proved to be exacting .. .''
We must take account of these facts. This is why, in working among the masses, we adhere to Lenin, who insisted on making every effort to expose every day the secret of the imperialists' war preparations.
War must never be launched from German soil again. We continue to act on this concept. Two world wars were unleashed from German soil in fifty years. In fighting against German imperialism and its standing plans of expansion, we have gained bitter experience, in particular experience concerning the role of Right Social-Democratic leaders. This experience warrants the conclusion that the change of government has not removed the war danger in the Federal Republic. The German imperialists' revanchis't plans still stand.
Lenin always associated the rise of opportunism in the Social Democratic movement with imperialism. More than fifty years ago he showed the inseparable link between imperialism and opportunism. In assessing Social-Democratic policy, we proceed from Lenin's description of opportunism, always hearing in mind (he new manifestations of opportunism produced by the new alignment of forces.
I must say that Right Social-Democratic leaders have found their 159 place in the state-monopoly system of the Federal Republic. It is of no account whether they are in the cabinet or on the opposition benches. Depending on the situation, monopoly capital needs the Social-Democrats in or outside the government to maintain its domination. But two opposite class trends cross objectively in the Social-Democratic movement. In this respect the policy and position of the SDP are anything but final, and are subject to continuous fluctuation. Both class lines impinge on Social-Democratic policies.
The Social-Democrats wield a strong influence among the West German working class. We maintain that the SDP still has considerable democratic potentialities and can play a positive role. We are therefore striving for unity of action with the Social-Democrats at all levels. Accordingly, we will support the government's every democratic and progressive step serving peace and defend it against attack from the right. We will be just as firm in resisting every government concession to big capital and the reactionary military establishment.
The Communist Party of Germany is still outlawed in the Federal Republic. We think repeal of this unlawful ban would be a real touchstone of Willy Brandt's proposition about "greater democracy" in the FRG.
I take this opportunity to thank all the brother parties for the effective support they have been giving us in the campaign to restore the Communist Party of Germany to legality.
160 __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE UNDYING LENINIST IDEASLenin's teaching and revolutionary practice, a creative projection of Marxism to the epoch of imperialism and proletarian resolutions, are the key to the correct solution of the problems of the contemporary world and the international labour movement. The transition from capitalism to socialism in countries at different stages of economic and social development, the entire course of the world revolutionary process, the implications of the scientific and technological revolution and the heightening of the ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism---all these complex processes generate new problems, understandable only on the basis of the study and creative use of Lenin's heritage.
Lenin's theory of proletarian internationalism is an important part of Marxism-Leninism. It is a theory borne out by the entire practice of blending the international and national aspects of the workers' class struggle against the bourgeoisie. Lenin attached great importance to educating the masses in the internationalist spirit and the activity in this spirit of the Communist parties. Lenin fought untiringly for united action by the international working class and the Communist movement on the basis of the fundamental principles of Marxism. And the tactics of the united labour front worked out by Lenin was, and still is, a dependable weapon of the world Communist movement.
Throughout Lenin's life efforts to impart an international character 10 tbs Party; and the labour movement took precedence over 161 everything else. The Bolshevik Party, which he raised and led, was the only party that repulsed the wave of chauvinism that afflicted the parties of the Second International during the First World War; it was the only party to bring Its fight against the landlord-bourgeois government of its country to a historic victory in the October Revolution.
The problems of proletarian internationalism, patriotism and the fight against nationalism occupy a prominent place in Lenin's works and practical activity. And this could not have been otherwise at a time when the question of socialist revolution stood high up on the agenda and the fight against imperialism necessitated a common front of the revolutionary working-class movement in the capitalist countries and the liberation movement of the oppressed and colonial peoples.
In the present class struggle between socialism and capitalism the concepts of internationalism and internationalist policy are the focal issues, more so than ever before. They have gained a new content, expressed in the conclusions of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow, which pointed out that each Communist Party is responsible for its activity before its own working class and people and at the same time before the international working class. The national and international responsibilities of each Communist and Workers' Party are inseparable i'rom each other.
__*_*_*__In the post-war, the class struggle of the proletariat became international in character, assuming a far greater scale than before. The progressive anti-imperialist movements grew as well. This was due to the spread of the victorious socialist revolution across the borders of the Soviet Union to a number of other European countries, to countries in Asia and, more recently, to Cuba. A mere half century after the October Revolution the socialist countries occupy a quarter of the earth's surface and are inhabited by one-third of the world population, producing, as a result of accelerated economic development, nearly 40 per cent of the world industrial output. The consolidation of workers' power in a number of countries exercises a powerful influence on international politics, on the destiny of the world, on all key problems of our time. Important consequences arise from this fundamental fact.
Firstly, the struggle of the two social systems, socialism and capitalism, in its different manifestations has become thn main form of the international confrontation of the proletariat and the monopoly 162 bourgeoisie. Lenin pointed to the decisive significance of that struggle back in the period of the emergence of the Soviet state. He wrote: "In the present world situation following the imperialist war, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia. 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 ihe 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" (Vol. 31, p. 241).
Lenin's remarks possess a special meaning today, when socialism has become a world system of states.
Secondly, the international character of the class struggle adds to the interdependence (and thereby to the role of internationalism) of the revolutionary, national liberation and progressive movements and the community of socialist countries.
The growth and might of the socialist community, especially of the Soviet Union, the mightiest of the states in that community, is now a factor determining the strategy of the revolutionary movement. The solidarity and mutual aid of the peoples of the socialist countries now, when US imperialism performs the function of world gendarme, is of basic significance both for the success of the fight against imperialism and for the preservation of the working people's power in the socialist countries. Such cardinal problems of our time as that of war and peace, of the class and national liberation struggle against imperialism by the Asian, African and Latin American peoples, of the use of the gains of the scientific and technological revolution in the name of man's progress, and of closing the gap between the developed and the poor countries, cannot be resolved these days unless the effect of the mutual solidarity of the socialist countries and the international revolutionary movement is properly taken into account.
Proletarian internationalism implies the support and aid of the socialist countries to the Communist and workers' movement, to all the anti-imperialist forces; also, it implies solidarity of the Communist and progressive parties of the capitalist countries with the countries of the socialist community. This support implies struggle against bourgeois anti-Soviet propaganda, which endeavours to weaken the position and to undermine the prestige of the Soviet Union, the backbone of the socialist community.
__PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 6* 163Thirdly, the international character of the class struggle and the emergence of a world system of socialist countries produced new aspects of internationalism in the relations between parties and states of that system. The capture of state power by the proletariat and the workers' growth into the dominant class supported by the mass of the working people has extended internationalist links to embrace relations between the peoples of the socialist countries and has enriched their forms and content through the inter-state, economic and military relationships between the socialist countries. A number of formerly unknown problems have surfaced and the need has arisen for new theoretical and practical solutions. Special attention should be directed to the choice of ways for cementing the unity of the socialist countries. Their might is of crucial importance. It is the core, the main pillar of the world-wide international links, and (he guarantee of further victories by the revolutionary working-class and the anti-imperialist movement. All forces of progress and socialism have a stake in the unity of, and the timely removal of contradictions between, the socialist states and their ruling parties.
The unity and cohesion of the socialist states promotes mutually advantageous economic cooperation between them and assures protection of their frontiers against imperialist designs. In a word, the unity of the socialist countries is the fundamental guarantee of the maximum effectiveness of socialist construction in each country. That is a long-sighted policy. It also impels the evolution of a broadly conceived social integration of socialist states. Thus, we have every reason to speak of a socialist internationalism in relation to the historical process of the formation of relations of a new type between the states and peoples of the socialist countries, educated in a spirit of mutual equality, fraternal cooperation and friendship. Socialist internationalism is a universal law of socialism, the operation of which rests on the elimination of the exploiting classes, elimination of oppression by one people of another, elimination of hostility and enmity stemming from class contradictions.
The aiUHide towards the principles of proletarian internationalism, towards the objective necessity of strengthening the international front of the world Communist and working-class movement is now more than ever the criterion of each Party's policy. In this context, the results of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow are of immense history-making significance. They showed that the overwhelming majority of parties is striving for closer links and cohesion in the fight against imperialism. Despite the existence of different views, despite their different experience, the 164 Marxist-Leninist parties have worked out a common assessment and common general line for the Communist movement The documents and the course of the Meeting speak of unity of views on the basic issues and of closer ties between the vast majority of the Communist and Workers' parties. As borne out by recent events, the Meeting exercises a strong influence on the international situation as a whole, uniting all the anti-imperialist forces and promoting the principles of proletarian internationalism in the practical struggle. Tho illusions of the strategists of anti-Communist ideological subversion, hoping to split the international Communist movement and dismember the community of socialist states, have proved barren.
Of course, this does not mean that all problems have been solved and all dangers that may imperil the international unity of Communists have been overcome. Bourgeois nationalism, lighting which is one of the main Leninist principles, remains a menace. It may be recalled how intolerant Lenin was of nationalism and all forms of chauvinism, how sharply he attacked them in the Russian and international labour movements.
Lenin wrote: "The urgency of the struggle against this evil, against the most deep-rooted petty-bourgeois national prejudices looms ever larger with the mounting exigency of the task of converting the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i.e., existing in a single country and incapable of determining world politics) into an international one (i.e., a dictatorship of the proletariat involving at least several advanced countries, in id capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole]" (Vol. 31, p. 148).
Nationalism has always been the basis for separatist and schismatic tendencies within the internationalist and anti-imperialist forces as a whole, especially for the tendency towards disintegration within the socialist community. In the present-day conditions of the class struggle nationalism is used as an instrument of imperialist ideology and policy aimed at weakening the unity of the socialist world system. Bourgeois propaganda tries to revive the old nationalist :-aditions, to create mistrust and accentuate differences in the intsrational labour movement and between the socialist countries with iie object of subverting their unity. In view of the role played by the 3viet Union, the leading socialist power, among the internationalist irces of the world, the logic of imperialist subversion and national m inevitably leads to anti-Sovietism.
In function and in class essence, nationalism is contiguous with dvisionism in the sense that both are the effect of the influence of 165 bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology on the labour movement. Today, nationalism and revisionism are mutually linked. They have become tools of imperialist ideology and political subversion. Revisionism serves as the theoretical substantiation of nationalist trends towards disintegration. These, precisely, were the implications of some of the aspects of the so-called market socialism, an attempt to subvert the application of Lenin's principle of democratic centralism in the economy and replace socialist planning with the spontaneity of the market mechanisms. That could bring about a disintegration of the community of socialist countries, lead to separatism and national autarky, undermining the community of effort and action by the socialist countries, slowing down the rate of their economic growth. Combating nationalism helps cement the unity of the socialist commonwealth and the international Communist and workers' movement.
__*_*_*__Proletarian internationalism and the national tasks of the workingclass movement are actually two aspects of one and the same question. Marx and Engels stressed that in content the struggle of the proletariat is international and that in form it is "above all a national struggle''.
Elaborating on this idea, Lenin wrote: "As long as national and state distinctions exist among peoples and countries---and these will continue to exist for a very long time to come, even after the dictatorsh.p of the proletariat has boon established on a world-wide scale--- 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 (which is a pipe dream at present), but the application of the fundamental principles of communism (Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat), which will correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and apply them to national and national-state distinctions. 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] are going through" (Vol. 31, p. 92].
Lenin's proposition concerning the building of socialism in different 166 __NOTE__ This page is bloody mess in original. countries, universal in essence and different as to national forms and initScSls, predicates the need for Communist parties to combine nation»l and international aspects In their policy.
Socialism is being built in countries with different levels of socioeconomic development and with specific conditions and national friditiOns. Expressing the interests of their peoples, the Communist and Workers' parties must resolve the tasks of socialist construction and define the main aims with an eye on the historically-evolved conditions and national specifics. On this depends also the effective materialisation of the common international tasks of the working class. The wealth of experience and natural differences in attitude in relation to the tactics of struggle and the national ways of buildipg Socialism are on no account a sign of weakness; on the contrary, they are a sign of strength, of the viability and flexibility of the Marxist-Leninist parties. It may be said that combining the national interests of each socialist country with the interests of the socialist community as a whole has a decisive hearing on the international Unity of the entire Communist movement.
Underrating national distinctions in the work of Communist parties is no less harmful than the opposite onesided approach: scorning the requirements of internationalist policy. In working out their programme and tactics, it is important for the Communist parties to tie in the class and international tasks with patriotism, which constitutes a powerful force. Lenin wrote about patriotism that it is "one of the most deeply ingrained sentiments, inculcated by the existence of sejrtrate fatherlands for hundreds and thousands of years" (Vol. 28, p. 187).
The Polish United Workers' Party has much experience of fighting for L'enin's ideas. It is the heir and successor of the traditions of the Polish Workers' Party which, carrying Lenin's ideas into effect, during the Hitler occupation drew up a programme combining the jrtrugfrli for national liberation on the basis of the alliance with the USSR with the struggle for abolishing the rule of the landowners and th» bourgeoisie. The Polish United Workers' Party is implementing 'tilt universal principles of socialism and internationalism in fo«ft» consistent with Polish conditions. Our Party has built up a system of proletarian dictatorship in the form of a multi-party jitoUtieal system forming the basis of the People's Unity Front and ce>a»Jsl»nt with the country's conditions, in which the PUWP exercises guidance. We regard our programme for the further socialist uctliMi 6l the country as a natural process of gradual change, jt»tt . and fOPTOS of which are based on the economic maturity, 167 the interests and the political consciousness of the working class and its allies, the peasants and intellectuals, as well as the national traditions. These specific features of socialist construction in Po*nd, far from undermining its class and international content, tend to strengthen the ties with the rest of the socialist community and working-class movement. These ties, especially with the Soviet Union, we regard as a factor that predetermines Poland's future, that guarantees her security and her peaceful socialist growth.
Harmonising the national interests of the working class and the rest of the people with international interests has fostered the emergence of socialist patriotism in our country as well as in other socialist countries. Socialist patriotism is national patriotism complemented and deepened with the internationalist content. It expresses the proletarian conception of the motherland, the idea of rule by the people, the process of the formation of a socialist nation in which the working class and its party, guided by the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the principles of proletarian internationalism, predominate. The economic, political, cultural and international achievements of the socialist peoples, the process of integrating socialist societies through the elimination of antagonistic classes, the enlistment of the masses in running the economy, the policy of the ruling Communist parties and the formation of a socialist social consciousness, are all salient sources of socialist patriotism.
Proletarian internationalism as a manifestation of the international solidarity of working people and socialist patriotism, expressing a profound love of country and concern for the nation's future, are two sides of one and the same social attitude. The fusion of internationalism and patriotism expresses a close relationship characteristic of our time between the course of the struggle against imperialism, the results of socialism's historical test of strength on the world scene, and the freedom, progress and outlook of each people.
The experience of socialist revolutions and of building socialism over the past fifty odd years bears out the importance of the two main conditions for implementing the Leninist principle of combining the international and national tasks of the proletariat. The first condition, to use Lenin's words, is to dispel the "petty-bourgeois illusion that the people are an integral whole and that the popular will can be expressed other than in class struggle" (Vol. 28, p. 207). Hence the harm of the illusions of a supra-class national unity. The second condition is that of skill in turning the class interests of the proletariat into all-national interests, requiring eonsideration of the 168 national specifics and expression in the Communist Party programme of the interests of allied classes and the middle strata.
__*_*_*__Cementing the unity and joint action of the countries of the socialist system is the most important, the cardinal task of today. Joining our efforts in general, and our economic efforts in particular, is of the utmost significance. Economic integration will promote the expansion and deepening of international links both between the socialist countries and between the latter and the entire revolutionary and anti-imperialist movement.
The rates of development of the productive forces have risen steeply. Two main factors are behind this process---the emergence of the socialist system with its planned economy and its rapid economic growth, exercising a direct or indirect influence on the growth of industrial production throughout the world, and the scientific and technological revolution, which leads to a theoretically and practically unlimited growth of man's technological potential.
Lenin wrote half a century ago that with capitalism is connected "the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the break-down of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc.'' (Vol. 20, p. 27). This historical trend of eradicating national distinctions was regarded by Lenin as one of the most important factors transforming capitalism into socialism.
We see this trend noted by Lenin operating prominently in the modern world, due not only to the qualitatively and quantitatively new stage in the growth of the productive forces, but also to the struggle of the two systems in all areas.
Having deposed the power of capital, having done away with class and national oppression, socialism, which makes planned use of the socialised means of production, creates incomparably greater opportunities for integration than capitalism. The trend towards the economic integration of the socialist countries does not involve the exploitation of peoples and classes, its characteristic feature under capitalism. This is why, as CMEA experience shows, it can be carried forward with benefit for each of them, for the dynamics of the growth and the defence potential of the en I ire community. Intergration under socialism enables us to combine more effectively the national with the international tasks, and patriotism with socialist internationalism, the development of each people, its sovereignty and equality, with mutual closeness and fraternal cooperation. Thus, 169 socialism has extensive opportunities for being the model of »W-jo\UMl economic intergration. To achieve this aim we need nOt'ooIy tit* objective conditions of the socialist system as such, but must ai#b define the concrete directions of the entire mechanism of tn.tegratio.tt. And a tangible stop forward has been made in mutual economic cooperation, in stimulating the economic processes of integration in the coming years, thanks to the decisions adopted by the recent 28td session of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
The scientific and technological revolution under way in the world of today also exercises a distinct influence on the economic latergration of the socialist countries. The dynamism and modecgisatian of their economies depends largely on their ability to use the 'result* of scientific and technological progress speedily and to the, fullest. None of the countries can develop modern science and technology broadly if it tries to go it alone. In that respect, the economic integration of the socialist countries is, so to speak, an instrument of combining the advantages of the socialist system with-the revolution in the domain of the productive forces. This and this alone paves the way to higher standards of living and the all-round . development of the socialist nations.
The 5th Congress of the PUWP said: "Aligning the socialist' revolution with the scientific-technological revolution makes oar system invincible. Therein lies the substance of the historic connecti«ft between socialism and science and the unity of interests of the working class and the intelligentsia in the struggle for a n«w Uticl better world, in which the conquests of human genius will newtr be turned against man and will be a powerful lever of progress and of the flowering and welfare of all peoples."
The development and deepening of the integration processes* i« the CMEA countries will multiply the economic potential " of tSe community of socialist countries, broadening and consolidating *b*fc international bonds and the international solidarity of'the wppkfftf people.
The internationalist ideas of Marxism-Leninism are domifiwnt <i» our movement. And that they are being effectively applied <t« many a complex problem of our time was borne out oncfe" again by the success of the International Meeting Of Gomittun&t Mtett Workers' Parties in Moscow. Lenin's immortal ideas live ony and *re triumphant, in the fight for the unity of the socialist countries Mfcfl the world Communist and working class movement, in 'their growing interaction with the anti-imperialist forces, in the dynamic offensive mounted by the forces of socialism, progress and peace. :' _"
170 __ALPHA_LVL1__ SOME RESULTS OF LENINIST POLICYThis contribiion will be devoid maiu'y to some results of the implementation of Leninist policy m Hungary, to the dJsc,:ijJon of the experience which the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party gained in routing the counter-revolution in 1956, in consolidating workingclass power and in carrying forward the building of socialism.
There would be no point in touching here on the antecedents of the counter-revolution nor in going into the causes of those events. I would like to stress, however, that consolidating people's rule, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and carrying forward the building of socialism proceeded in an atmosphere of sharp ideological struggles.
It was a battle for Leninism which we had to carry on in Hungarian conditions on two fronts. We had to fight with determination against Rakosist dogmatism, which had deformed and denigrated communist ideas, against the revisionism of Imre Nagy, who had betrayed working-class power and paved the way for the counter-revolution, and against other counter-revolutionary trends.
During that struggle our Party reorganised and its new Central Committee under Comrade Janos Kadar developed a new policy and political tactics in keeping with the situation, having deeply analysed previous experience, rectified errors and made up as much as possible tor the damage caused. The results were better than we had expected. They revealed the validity of Leninist ideas once again and showed what these ideas can achieve ij combined with a Leninist policy, if Leninist theory is combined //'"', Leninist policy.
The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party did not renounce the positive 171 legacy of the previous period and was careful to preserve and carry forward all the positive results achieved in building socialism prior to 1956. But it dissociated itself from the dogmatic views which had gained ascendancy with the previous leadership and from bad sectarian mistakes.
One of the more important tasks in consolidating the workers' state was to set those misled by revisionists and nationalists apart from deliberate counter-revolutionaries. It was a general task but one closely linked with the task of reorganising the Party. Indeed, even those of the 900,000 former Party members who were more mature ideologically ware stunned by what had happened and found themselves In a state of ideological confusion. The reassuring effect of the defeat of the counter-revolutionary revolt was accompanied by the fear that Rakosist policies might be resuraad and that imperialist propaganda might prove correct. Imperialist radio stations, like the counterrevolutionary and revisionist time-servers of imperialism at home, were shouting from the house-tops that the Mew Provisional Central Committee and the Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government under Comrade Kadar were going to "restore Stalinism" and ``Rakosism''. It was the first variant of the imperialist slander propaganda of November 1956 which expressed the imperialists' resentment at the miscarriage of the counter-revolution and their desire to prevent the consolidation of people's rule.
It was necessary to explain to everyone that the suppression of the counter-revolution would not mean falling back on the policies of Rakosi. However, this could not be brought about through agitation alone and it was only the practical experience of the Party's new policy that could fully eliminate these apprehensions. The HWSP leadership took this into account and combined Its resolve with due patience.
It was necessary to draw yet another conclusion from the events, namely, that we must not admit into the reorganised Party people who did not meet the demands put to members of the Communist Party and that, on the other hand, we must restore and foster also their confidence in the Party. This task had to be realised also by the members of the reorganised Party, who had to overcome sectarian views of a new kind to the effect that dropping out of the Party should be regarded as desertion and that those who had 'dropped, out were further away from us than those who had never Joined the Party. The anger against the revisionist traitors was well grounded, of course, but a distinction had to be made between con scious traitors to Leninism and workers' power and well-intentioned 172 people who had, however, got, themselves into a tangle. We had to ensure ihat the majority of those of them who before 1956 had been Party members but were now outside it made up or would make up that non-Party group closest to the Party.
By May 1, 1957, as many as 283,000 former members of the Party had been re-registered as members of the HSWP at their own request. This concluded the most difficult period of the struggle to consolidate working class power. Toe unforgetable. extraordinarily enthusiastic May Day demonstration in 1957. which drew hundreds of thousands of people, was an emphatic expression of the process of political consolidation. Thereupon development went on at a faster pace. By May Day we had finished the re-registration of former Party members and after that ex-members could only join the Party as new applicants, their former membership being discounted. More and more people were applying for admission as new members and most applications were granted. In November 1959, during the Seventh Party Congress, the iirst since the counter-revolution, the HSWP membership exceeded 400,000. A substantial majority of them had been members of the Party before, but very many 01 th??m had juinficl it for the first time. These were young people or people who before 1956 had been outside ihe Party and had now become Communists under the influence of HSWP policy. '
It follows that by the end of 1959 the Party was not even half as strong numerically as prior to 1956, but then it was stronger by far with regard to its general ideological level. The unity, cohesion and efficiency of the Party were also increasing due to confidence in the Party's policies, the consolidation of workers' power, deep satisfaction at the successful continuation of socialist development, a better knowledge of Lenin's teachings and better theoretical and political training. All our people had gone through an important schooling and learned Hie lessons of the events. This applied above all to the Party itself. It is natural, therefore, that it could represent and disseminate Leninist ideas with greater vigour than ever.
The development of the Party was in step with the overall development of the country. The two are inseparable and influence each other.
An important requisite of consolidating the people's state and of continuing to build socialism was to promote planned economy according to a sounder economic policy. It was necessary to take more careful account of the conditions in the country and its potentialities. This was a challenging task because the very structure of industry, greatly expanded in the first half of the fifties, was one 173 of the conditions to be reckoned with. Before 1G5H it had been shaping unfavourably in many respects and had caused r.uich headache lo our economic agencies, ai it, indeed, does to this day. Changing the structure of industry is a costly and long process. However, more realistic economic planning and better economic management were a task brooking no delay irrespective of the established industrial structure.
We succeeded in achieving excellent results, so much so that in 1960 the national income exceeded the 1957 amount by more than 25 per cent and gross hid.tstrial output, by more than 40 per cent. This played a most important part in political consolidation and at the same time extended the economic base of subsequent growth. This progress in industry also played a decisive part in beating off attacks on socialist planned economy and in infusing people with greater confidence in it. Leninism defeated revisionism on the important issue of socialist planned economy.
The evolution of the agrarian policy of the HSWP is most instructive. First of all we had to regain the peasants' shaken confidence and revive their interest in production, which had been considerably discouraged by the former system of compulsory deliveries covering many products, at very low prices that were far from snaking up for costs, and by excessive taxation of the individual peasants, who at the time were in a majority. It is appropriate to recall at this point what Lenin said at the Tenth Pariy Conference, in the spring Of 1921, speaking of the introduction of the tax In kind. He asked what was "the principal economic determinant" of the new policy under which "we must not base our relations with the peasants on surplus-grain appropriation but on a tax''.
And he answered: "It is that under the surplus-grain appropriation system the small peasant farms have no proper economic basis and are doomed to remain dead for many years" (Vol. 32, pp. 410---11). They could not develop because the small peasant had no incentive to increase output, a development whose harmful effects Lenin stressed. We know that after the introduction of the tax in kind the peasants were free to dispose of surplus produce as they saw fit - they could sell it on the market and, of course, to the state.
In Hungary we had to grapple with this problem in a different situation, not after "war communism'', necessitated by years of civil war, but when doing away with the effects of a distorted agrarian policy coupled with an excessive rate of industrialisation. The agrarian policy based on compulsory deliveries bad strongly discouraged the peasants from increasing production and brought our agriculture to 174 a standstill. Continuing it was out of the question, and relations with" the peasants had to be built not on compulsory deliveries hut on a different basis stimulating greater output.
The new Party leadership and new government tackled this tasic and accomplished it on a new basis, by organising the purchase of farm produce. The former system was abolished and a contract system introduced under which produce was purchased at economically based prices. This system, the crop yields of the state farms, a moderate grain tax and grinding fee enabled the Party and the government to adopt a more effective purchase system than tfie former which had been attended by great difficulties and troubles.: The peasants became more confident of the HSWP and the Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government. They were grateful because, with the counter-revolution put down, they had been delivered from the danger of the landowners coming back and because the purchase system met their interests. The new system was an important political and economic success of the Party's- agrarian policy.
Development oj the production cooperatives was one of the principal problems of the agrarian policy at the time. The former leadership, having abandoned the policy of encouraging individual farming, had tried through economic and administrative pressure to hring the peasants into the cooperatives. Yet the peasants did not see the advantages of cooperatives. They were still too strongly attached to individual farming. We remember that during the counter-revolu^^1^^" lion even cooperatives set up in that way did not disintegrate because they guaranteed organised defence against the former landowners and various elements serving them who had rushed out of every nooic and cranny and through whom the one-time owners insisted without any ``democratic'' or ``socialist'' verbiage that their lands be given back to them. The cooperatives also guaranteed organised defence against action by the kulaks. But when the peasants saw that th'e defence of people's power was guaranteed, the cooperatives, which had been set up forcibly, began to fall apart. The HSWP enabled tiie members of cooperatives to revert unhampered to individual farming and to take back the land they had contributed to the cooperatives. The issue of organising agriculture along socialist lines was shelved. This was also one of the prerequisites of the disrupted worker-peasant alliance regaining strength and of creating the necessary political. climate in which the countryside could be switched to cooperative farming. It was a Leninist policy due to which the political conditions tor socialist reorganisation matured sooner than anyone could have expected late in 1956 or early in 1957.
175Prior to the counter-revolution the cooperative sector owned about 22 per cent of the country's arable area. By the spring of 1957 this area had shrunk to 9 per cent. The HSWP, which encouraged the production activity of the individual peasants while curbing profiteering, did much to consolidate the surviving cooperatives. We must say that the abolition of the delivery system was also very helpful to the cooperatives. A very instructive competition began between the cooperatives and the individual peasants in 1957 and 1958. In plant cultivation, the cooperatives had already proved their superiority. Some of the peasants who had withdrawn from the cooperatives rejoined them and by the end of 1958 the cooperatives accounted for 14 per cent of the country's arable.
In December 1958, a mere two years after the counter-revolution, the Central Committee adopted an important decision stating that the situation was ripe for reorganising the countryside on cooperative lines. The decision also said that this reorganisation should be carried out in such a way as to ensure that agricultural production did not decrease but increased if only to a small degree. This was necessary from the standpoint of both the overall interests of the country and the political success of the reorganisation. The socialist reorganisation of Hungarian agriculture was accomplished between early 1959 and early 1962 by carefully planned stages, the process being slowed down rather than rushed in some regions. In the reorganisation period---1959--1962---average gross output in agriculture per year was 8 to 10 per cent higher than the average in the previous three years. This, of course, necessitated state assistance, especially investment, on a considerable scale.
This success of the socialist reorganisation of agriculture, which exceeded the most optimistic expectations, was a big gain of the Party's Leninist policy. Leninism won another victory over revisionism on this very difficult problem of the socialist revolution. This victory was a new source of strength to socialist Hungary and to Leninism. Laying the foundations of socialism was over and a higher stage uj socialist development set in.
The possibilities of reorganising the countryside along socialist lines matured as a result of the Party's successful policy, of progress in consolidation. A change in the previous policy towards the small-scale, handicraft industry played a certain part in the process of consolidation. Of course, this circumstance is incomparable in importance to those listed earlier but this is not to say one can get away with ignoring it. There is nothing wrong with the Party and the govern ment taking into proper account the necessity tor the existence of 176 a private handicraft industry. What would be wrong would be for them to regard the existence of this industry as a socio-polillcal burden and not to expect a reduction of it as a result of progress in state industry and the producer cooperatives but try to achieve this primarily through administrative measures. The Rakosi leadership pursued such a policy most indiscriminately between 1951 and 1953. After 1953 that policy was enforced with some restraint but was not abandoned altogether.
The HSWP did not hesitate to admit that private handicraftsmen would be needed for a long lime to meet the requirements of the working people and hence the interests of the country. The Party declared for extending the activity oj private handicraftsmen provided, of course, iliat profiteering was cui-bed. As a result, the number of small handicraftsmen grew from 95,000 in 1956 to well over 120,000 in 1957. Out of this number, 24,000 employed wage workers and apprentices, which raised the total to 36,000. From 1958 onwards Hie number of small handicraftsmen diminished again. By 1960 It was below 85,000 and the number of auxiliary personnel had likewise dropped. This was partly due to the fact that some of the rural handicraftsmen had joined agricultural cooperatives and some of the urban handicraftsmen had associated themselves with producer cooperatives. Besides, the development of certain state and cooperative industries had restricted the opportunities of private handicraftsmen. In 1957 the producer cooperatives of handicraftsmen employed 139,000 people and in I960, some 160,000. The Party's policy towards small* scale industry had likewise proved successful.
The Party had also to revise Hie cultural policy of the period before 1956. This was one of the conditions for regaining confidence in the Party's policy. This revision played a particularly important part in shaping the policy towards the intelligentsia. However, the importance of this matter goss beyond that and is more general. The issue is a very important component of the ideological and political development of the Party. We had to learn the lessons of an ossified notion which had taken root in the early fifties, namely, that the ideology of Marxism-Leninism had established and consolidated its undivided rule with the emergence of a one-party system. The events of 1956, which tragically shook Hie country, put an end to this myth. Regrettably, the leading role of Marxism-Leninism in ideological life slackened at the time, Us prestige was shaken and needed to be restored. This applied especially to the cultural sphere, in which evisionisl and -intinniiiist views wm-e only too widespread. It goes vithout saying that heightening the prestige and leading role of 177 Marxism-Leninism necessitated persistent ideological and political effort and the implementation of a Leninist cultural policy.
In the autumn of 1921 Lenin, speaking of cultural problems at the Second All-Russia Congress of Political Education Departments, stressed that their solution would take stubborn effort over a long period. "In a period of acute crisis it is possible to achieve a political victory within a few weeks. It is possible to obtain victory in war in a few months. But it is impossible to achieve a cultural victory in such a short time. By its very nature it requires a longer period; and we must adapt ourselves to tins longer period . . .'' '(Vol. 33, p. 79).
After 1956 the HSWP was faced with more difficult tasks in this field owing to the dogmatism of the previous period and the confusion caused by the counter-revolution, it had to make a realistic assessment of progress in education and culture before 1956. An important task requiring long and strenuous effort was to rid the progress achieved of the distortions engendered by dogmatic and revisionist concepts and at the same time to draw on it in subsequent work.
We had to evolve a general cultural policy and specify its immediate tasks with due regard to the actual situation. We had to reckon with the fact, for example, that progress in the arts and letters had not yet achieved an ideological level ensuring that every work was inspired by socialist realism and that every creation was Marxist in spirit (literature and art were not at so high an ideological level before 1956, nor could they be). A writer or artist cannot be induced through political or moral pressure, or through administrative restrictions to create a Marxist work if he has a different outlook. We had to ensure that ideological discussion and social development resulted in socialist realism and Marxist-Leninist views gaining strength and becoming the paramount concepts in literature and art and that their leading role increased. We had to help ideologically and materially to create works inspired by socialist ideas and to raise their ideological and artistic standards. The Party declared for giving the green light to every valuable work contributing to the cultural treasury of the country and prompted by the desire to promote the building of socialism. At the same time it was essential to foster Marxist criticism, so that it mi it in principled discussion comment on the valuable aspects of non-Marxist works as well, and on their weak points and errors. This is one of the ways of promoting the principles and concepts of purlisan arts and letters serving the cause of socialism and helping the workers' power. As for anti-popular, anti-socialist, harmful works, the cultural agencies of the socialist slate should reject them and raise barriers to their distribution.
178The implementation of this policy is accompanied by mistakes, of course, and we must correct them in the process of our work. Literary and artisac criticism, in turn, is not always up to the mark. After all, there are exponents of differing concepts among the critics as well. The cultural policy of the HSWP demands that harmful phenomena be combated primarily through ideological persuasion, by intensifying ideological discussion, or by administrative measures if necessary, that is, by rejecting and banning the publication of incorrect works. However, the emphasis is on ideological and political measures even when administrative action is taken. Some writers whom revisionist and nationalist errors had pushed very far "fell silent" for a while. But the success of the Party's overall policy and new achievements in building socialism induce anyone who loves his country and respects his people, even if he has made bad mistakes, to make a self-analysis, admit Ins mistakes and wrong conduct and try to get rid of them. And this is what happened sooner or later to most of the writers who had "tallen silent''.
Public opinion and most of those active in the arts and letters accepted the cultural policy of the Party. This did not come at once but was a result of patient and heated ideological and political discussion, and of progress in building socialism. This success of Party policy, for its part, heightened the Party's prestige and increased interest in Lenin's teachings and the influence of Marxism-Leninism. But there is a need of further principled discussion and ideological struggle.
The Party's policy led to a new advance in public life. The so-called policy of alliance played an important part in this. Its fundamental components are the agrarian and cultural policy, as well as the policy towards private handicraftsmen. The changes I have mentioned had also to be reflected in political life, in a form most in keeping with the situation.
The Party had to see to it that the alliance of Communists and non-Communists was open to anyone who accepted the general policy of the Party and wanted to join in the building of socialist society, in political activity.
The Party solved the problem of promoting the political alliance of Communists and non-Communists through its Popular Front policy, by reorganising the Popular Front. This task required a reappraisal of the former policy of the Popular Front, which had to be rid of both ``Left''-wing and Right-wing distortions. For the Popular Front had been in exisience before I he coiinier-revolntion but had made no progress. The policy of the Rakosist leadership had reduced It to 179 a figurehead, a mere fagade. Rampant revisionism, on the other hand, tried to turn it into a counter-revolutionary force.
The Party reorganised the Popular From as a form of political alliance of the Party, trade unions, the Youth League and other mass organisations admitting into its ranks those who were loyal to our system: members of one-time coalition parties and people active in science and culture, irrespective of whether they were Party members or not, representatives of the Church loyal to the state, all who were willing to help develop the nation on socialist lines. The Popular Front is not a separate mass organisation but is based on the existing mass organisations. However, a nation-wide network i,f Popular Front committees was set up through local and territorial elections and there is an All-Hungary Council of the Popular Front elected at Its congress. This body and the territorial committees play an important role in the life of the nation and in local politics.
The Popular Front movement is developing in harmony with the progress of society. Early in 1958 the worker-peasant class alliance was in the main an alliance with the individual peasants but by 1961 It had developed into an alliance with the cooperative farmers. Naturally, the successful reorganisation of agriculture, actively promoted, in particular, by Popular Front committees, heightened the political consciousness of the working class and strengthened its faith in the revolutionising force of its socialist ideas. It also hastened the evolution of the views of the intelligentsia. The unity of the workers, peasants and intellectuals became an alliance which is faced with the tasks of a higher stage in building socialism and is working to accomplish these tasks. The Popular Front is an embodiment of this unity. The Party's policy of alliance is the policy of the socialist Popular Front, which now must serve the cause of fully building socialism.
__*_*_*__In the years following the reorganisation of the countryside on cooperative lines Hungary made much headway in building socialism. The economic and technical basis for continued progress was greatly extended. In 1968 the national income was 54 per cent and the total value of output 76 per cent higher than in 1960. The state industry (including the building industry) in 1968 employed 1,700,000 people and the cooperative industry, 270,000, with 50,000 engaged in the cooperative building industry. Large agricultural cooperatives have become stronger. Their average gross output from 1966 to 1968 was 13 per cent higher than between 1961 and 1965 and exceeded by 180 22 per cent the average for the period from 1956 to 1960. This growth was achieved while the number of people engaged in agriculture was considerably reduced. In I960 agriculture employed 1,400,000 people and in 1968, only one million.
Popular consumption increased 42 per cent over 1960. This is due, above all, lo notable progress in the state industries and to the consolidation of cooperatives. The supply of consumer goods is substantially increased by the oulput of the cooperative industry and by produce from the individual lots of cooperative members and of the private handicrafts industry 1 have mentioned. As this has a bearing on natters of principle, 1 will deal with it.
In carrying on its agrarian policy, our Party considered it important, as well as effectively assisting the cooperative farms, to achieve a substantial share of individual Jots in production, in supplying the population and raising the incomes of cooperative members. Of special importance from this point of view was the maintenance of livestock on the individual lots and the production of milk, meat and eggs, if only because ai the beginning the cooperatives were short of facilities for keeping livestock. Work was begun to build barnyards, pig pens and poultry houses. Rut this required both funds and time.
This policy of the Party meant a break with the concepts of the former Party leadership which had feared that farming on the individual lots would interfere with cooperative farming, and looked helplessly on actual needs arising from the actual situation. That leadership tolerated the individual lots but regarded [hem as a heavy burden and tried to restrict then beyond measure. The HSWP adopted the view that as well as tightening labour discipline and furthering democracy in cooperatives, il was necessary by greatly raising the efficiency of collective farming to ensure that cooperative members (barring their families] used on tlioir individual lots only that part of their time not needed by the collective farm. This could be brought about by making fuller use of the advantages of large-scale farming, by hastening mechanisation and through oilier measures raising the value of workdays in the cooperative. Practice proved this policy correct.
When the cooperatives had grown strong, collective farming forged ahead, particularly as regards grain growing and animal husbandry. Tne value of th:? workday <.'i>.-.e and tvorjAvhsre monthly advance payment was introduced as part remuneration for workdays; a bonus system d iveloped providing greater direct inducements to the cooperatives to increase production. The individual lots began to be 181 abolished-prematurely.^^*^^ It became an important task to stop or at least slacken the decline in cattle-breeding on the individual lots, in the production of milk, meat and eggs.
This process can now be stimulated also by setting up cooperative workshops. The cooperatives are beginning to process part of their produce,^^**^^ which provides their members with a greater amount of permanent work and brings an extra income to the cooperatives. Occasionally they reach agreement with an industrial enterprise on carrying out a joint project. In some cases the cooperatives exceed the limits of advisable activity in their subsidiary branches, a tendency which should be checked. However, our Party considers this subsidiary activity necessary because It provides cooperative members with work the year round, strengthens the cooperatives and may help in appreciable measure to improve supply. This activity of the cooperatives holds out big prospects.
The rising standard of living leads to higher demands to the service Industry. Requirements -in this field have been growing very fast in the recent period. Nor is this surprising, because the number of flats^^***^^ and cars, including private cars, of TV sets and other household appliances is growing, domestic and foreign tourism is on the rise and there are other factors making for greater demand for services.
This situation preserves, and in some branches even extends, the opportunities of the private handicrafts sector. The point is that the growth of the state and cooperative service industry cannot keep pace with requirements. This invites profiteering in which some _-_-_
^^*^^ The progress made in cooperative plant cultivation is seen in the following figures: whereas from 1958 to I960 the wheat crop was 15.6 centners per hectare, from 1967 to 1969 it was higher by 10 centners, that is, reached 26 centners. A similar growth was registered in the case of maize, whose per hectare yield averaged 30 centners. Between late 1960 and late 1968 the cow population of the cooperatives increased from 196,000 to 296,000 head ana on the state farms, from 8U.OOO to 90,000 head, but the overall number dropped from 849,000 to 751,000 head. The overall cattle population increased some what---from 1,965,000 to 2,01H,000 head. Within these limits the cow population of the cooperatives and state farms grew by 110,000 head but dropped by almost 200,000 on the individual lots. True, the milk yield increased, so that the total went up 10 per cent.
^^**^^ Their workshops can vegetables and fruit or make semi-manufactures for canneries, process milk, weave baskets, and so on.
^^***^^ Over 700,000 new flats have been provided since 1956. About one-tenth of them made up fur demolished old houses. But housing requirements are far from having been met and the rate of house-building should be increased.
182 handicraftsmen actively engage and which Is understandably resented like any unfair gain. We must curb profiteering and see that the law ts respected. However, the Party rejects the tendency in evidence here and there to curb the private handicrafts industry by administrative methods, and where necessary it approves steps to provide handicraftsmen with greater opportunities. The socialist character of our society will not be prejudiced by the number of private handicraftsmen growing from 65,000 to 75,000 (at which it now stands) but by the service industry failing to meet demand. This is why our society shows esteem for honest small handicraftsmen and enables them to operate. On the other hand, we should do more to expand the state and cooperative service industry, which \vill also mean curbing trends tovvards profiteering.The development of the cooperative industry is worthy of note. This industry has developed on the basis of handicraftsmen's cooperatives but has extended their framework. One of its activities is service and It should receive priority. The cooperative industry also puts up small houses, farm buildings, shops, and so on, produces consumer goods in small quantities, instruments, apparatuses and other items, as well as spare parts for some big enterprises. True, the latter activity often assumes an undesirable character and needs to be canalised because it goes beyond the reasonable bounds of the industry and may prejudice its effort in the service sphere. Experience has shown, however, that the cooperative industry has opportunities for something more than service and repair work, at least at the present stage of our development. It needs much less investment than the state industry, although it is true thai its labour productivity is much lower. But, of course, either is due to the peculiarities of its sphere of activity.
__*_*_*__Improving the management system has become the most important problem of our entire economic development. Under the former system of management the country made considerable headway but subsequent progress called for change. It is interesting to note that numerous economists and managers---both Communists and non-- Communists---took part in the preparation of the reform, in preliminary research and the drafting of proposals.
As we know, the problem of modifying economic management has come up for solution in other socialist countries as well. Its solution varies from country to country, but the common feature of all the rtforms is that they are designed to promote socialist planned 183 economy, to bring out and use economic resources more fully and raise the efficiency of production and trade.
Improving economic management is a very important problem facing Marxist economic policy. We think it is not only an economic. and administrative problem but a very important political problem of principle that will have its effect on the subsequent progress of society as a whole. The necessity for change is due to great economic achievements in the socialist countries, including the tremendous expansion of the socialist world market, and to the scientific and technological revolution now goiiig on.
I wish to mention some aspects of the changes introduced into our system of economic management. In terms of both principle and practice, it is an important aspect of these changes that the interplay of plan and market is being made more effective. In other words, proper account is being taken of changes in demand on the home and foreign market under a system of planning which helps us adjust the economy more flexibly to changing demand. This is a general task whose importance to Hungary is growing also because one-fourth of the social product is exported and this proportion will probably tend to grow. As the reform is carried on in the decisive economic sphere, it is essential to raise the efficiency of central leadership while the managements of industries and enterprises should be entrusted with decision-making on matters on which they can take the right decisions in time and with a full sense of responsibility. The enterprises should draw up their detailed annual plans, taking account of the orders placed with them and the expected trend of demand. Greater financial responsibility should be put on the enterprises as regards the distribution and utilisation of government investments. Unprofitable investments (with the exception of those necessitated by special state interests) should be put off and profitable ones allowed greater scope. We should increase the influence of trade agencies on production, primarily on consumer goods production. On the other hand, our reform relaxes trade monopoly, enabling industrial enterprises manufacturing consumer goods to open their own shops and directly to study the demand for new products.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Experience has shown that the commercial activity of agricultural cooperatives and state farms is necessary and useful because it restricts the monopoly of. trading organisations and thus makes them work more eit'iciently. It was necessary to enable industrial enterprises producing consumer goods to sell their output directly and open their own shops, independently or in partnership.
184To be sure, the principles of the new management system are not applied in all industries alike, their application, say, in the power industry or metallurgy differing from that in the garment or canning industry. Still, it is a single system.
The reform of economic management involves a number of problems into which we cannot go here. Its preparation was a result of research over a long period during which ample account was taken of the plans and experience of fraternal countries and, naturally, of the peculiarities and requirements of tiie Hungarian economy. January 1968 was the decisive period of introducing the reform.
Thus, both the central economic bodies and the enterprises have to work in new conditions. In these conditions they must guarantee that the interests of the state as a whole are in harmony with those of the enterprises. New questions are raised as work goes on, corrections may have to he made here and th»re, which is understandable when something is in the making, especially at the early stage.^^*^^ However, the drafting and introduction of the reform are an important achievement of the Partv and the government.
The directiues on the policy towards science should be considered a notable achievement in the ideological and political progress of our Party. In the course of preparatory work, which took over 18 months, numerous research workers. Communists and non-Communists, took part in large numbers in investigations and in drafting the directives. Thereupon, in June 1969, the draft was submitted to the Central Committee, which discussed and approved it. The Party "is trying to create a state management mechanism,'' it says in the directives, " guaranteeing the optimum development of science and the use of achievement in research on the scale of society as a whole.'' The Party regards it as an important task to guarantee free scientific discussion, whether in physics, biology or other sciences, and stresses the harmfulness of any one scientific concept holding a monopoly position because this may prevent creative discussion.
_-_-_^^*^^ To cite an example, the enterprises which received subsidies asked in the first year of the reform for additional amounts (especially with' a view to fulfilling their export assignment | and the financial agencies played safe by giving them twice as much as they needed. Excessive subsidising produces unfavourable results and should be stopped. Prior to the reform there were many who feared that the enterprises might cut their personnel without good reason. The trade unions were on the alert, ready to step in. But so far the reverse has happened: while some enterprises are wrestling with labour shortages, others maintain extra personnel as a reserve. Of course, there are and will be other problems.
185Naturally, the Central Committee decision devotes much attention to the social sciences. The directives say that in the years after the counter-revolution "the spread of the ideology of our Party was typical in shaping the world outlook of scientific workers. The Party has established the hegemony of Marxism-Leninism among scientificworkers, but making this world outlook universal is still an object which we must yet do much to achieve''. The directives reject the well-known concept of the "pluralism of Marxism'', favoured here and there. They describe it as a trend "leading to political pluralism and the negation of the leading role of the Communist Party and, in the final analysis, of the working class''. At the same time the directives declare for a state of affairs in which there will be no forbidden or delicate subjects for those who do research into the social sciences. They point to the need to help them elaborate "any problem for the Party and for society if it really constitutes a scientific problem''. In using the results of research, "it is necessary to decide with due responsibility which problems should be submitted to political bodies for consideration, which should be published in a special periodical or in book form and which are ripe enough to be given the widest publicity''.
AH important place among the tasks the Party has set before itself is assigned to the analysis and evaluation of democratic development and the life of the state, the promotion of democracy and raising the efficiency of government. It is becoming necessary considerably to amend the Constitution or perhaps to draft a new Constitution. Major changes have come about in society since 1949 when the State Assembly adopted the Constitution now in force. These changes could not be reflected in a Constitution now marking its 20th anniversary. Another problem to be dealt with is that of carrying forward the system of local self-government bodies, extending their powers and increasing their responsibility. We also have quite a few other tasks, for development always gives rise to new tasks and problems.
__*_*_*__It seems to me that the foregoing may give an idea of the national ideological and political legacy and the national experience which the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party lias been drawing on in carrying forward its Leninist policy. However, it was a requisite of developing our policy to use international experience, first of all by learning the lessons, past and present, which the international revolutionary movement and the whole of mankind can learn from Lenin's Party.
186Throughout the 50 years of its struggle our Party has drawn on the revolutionary experience and rich treasury of 70 years' activity by the CPSU, on its lessons in terms of principle and practice. We know well that for more than 50 years now the existence and progress of the first workers' state has been the basis of the international working class movement. I think we will not be going against historical objectiveness if we note, while fully emphasising this universal truth, that the working class of Hungary is one of those to which the October Revolution led by Lenin and the existence and progress of the Soviet Union over more than half a century have been an immense source of strength and energy. In 1919 the revolutionary working class of Hungary linked its destiny with socialism for ever by establishing the first proletarian state in the valley of the Danube and by rallying to Lenin's banner. This made unshakable its friendship with the people who were the first in history to translate Lenin's ideas into reality.
One of the main sources of strength for the revolutionary Party of the Hungarian working class throughout the five decades of its struggle has been its confidence in Lenin's Party. H confidence which now is stronger than ever. Our Party stands alongside the CPSU in the fight for closer cohesion of the socialist world, for the Leninist unity of the world Communist movement. Together we rejoiced in the great success of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow last June. And together with the CPSU we are working for the goals that were set.
The struggle to carry forward the socialist world system and to destroy imperialism, and every victory of our peoples are inseparable from Lenin's name. So is the struggle going on in Hungary for the full building of socialist society. Lenin's teachings are put into effect in our everyday activity and embodied in every big victory achieved or to be achieved by the Hungarian people in building socialism.
187 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AS THE METHODIndicatively, in the theoretical domain V. I. Lenin's revolutionary life began with a sUiti; iieo-ecoaomk: analysis of the decay of the peasant i.ommune in Russia. He showed how capitalism emerged in a specific: way against the setting of a specific agrarian economy. Its emergence was purely Russian.
The: definitive concepts (value, surplus value, profit, and the like) posited in Marxist analyses, the highest form of scientific abstraction in investigating a historically definite socio-economic formation ( capitalism) examined in general terms in isolation from the national features, are used by Lenin in close association with prolific statistical data characterising the specific quality of Russian history and the specific, peculiar nature of the development of capitalism in Russia. Lenin's thoughts travel a long course from certain abstract constructions to a historically definite concreteness, the latter being the basis from which Lenin proceeded in his enterprise: to build in Russia the subject of revolutionary initiative, that is, a party of the working class.
On the strength of this analysis of the concrete historical situation. Lenin defined the general line and tactics of the 1905 revolution, thai is, the role of the proletariat as the hegemon of the bourgeoia-demo cratic revolution, and the alliance of workers and peasants, a hloi with the historical mission of performing the democratic revolulio and establishing a democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants.
Study of the concrete historical situation, of its specific featur leads to the idi-a that the proletariat nnisl necessarily participate the revolutionary government. Hence the answer to the question which 188 as Lenin said, Marx was unable to deduce from the facts of the German 1848 revolution, because the problem could not arise in those days. Solutions for problems arising concretely in different historical circumstances cannot be found in books or in past revolutionary experience, no matter how instructive they may be. Lenin rejected the notion that Russia's Social-Democrats wanted to fall back on Marx's prestige and authority when looking for answers to purely Russian problems. He insisted on the need for an "independent development" of Marxism in Russia, declaring also that Marx's works were merely the cornerstone of the Marxist doctrine, a doctrine that had to be developed if one wished to keep abreast of the times. What Marx's work provided were not solutions for the constantly arising new problems, but a method of approaching and resolving those problems.
For Lenin Marxism was not a philosophy of history, a universal doctrine from which one could, in the Hegelian manner, deduce all kinds of historical situations (yet that is the upshot of dogmatic Marxism) or define strategy and political tactics. He said that the necessity of capitalist development in Russia followed not from the Marxist teaching, but that the Marxist method was necessary to determine whether capitalism was 'actually developing in Russia and whether the Narodniks were right or wrong.
Consequently, in defining revolutionary strategy and tactics one must begin by analysing the concrete historical situation.
Lenin's "Against Boycott" (1907) is a splendid example of how that method and teaching should be applied. Never confine yourself to the mere connection between revolutionary activity and (lie nature of the political establishment against which the battle is waged. Never think thus: since we advocated boycotting the Buiygin Duma, we must also boycott the still more reactionary Third State Duma. That kind of thinking is too abstract and does not reckon with the decisive element---the concrete situation and the degree of development of the movement, both of which are factors that determine the ways and mean's of the struggle, and both points of departure in Lenin's analysis of the revolutionary movement between 1905 and 1907 and his analysis of the constitutional illusions and the ways and means of overcoming them. After these constitutional illusions were dispelled, and with the tide of the popular movement receding, the boycott slogan could not be renewed and had to be replaced by the slogan of participation. The idea of Marx and Engels that the proletariat must participate in political elections and representative institutions cannot be applied always and everywhere without considering the concrete; situation in which the working class determines its attitude to those 189 representative institutions. It is not enough, Lenin pointed out, to just use the slogans of a period of revolutionary high tide to make the period come back. The appropriate slogans, he said, should be drawn from the analysis of each given situation.
Consequently, if to predetermine revolutionary strategy and tactics we must analyse the situation and its historically specific features, then we must study the national background, because in the era of capitalism political struggle is unified at the national level despite its close ties with the international situation. However, in the era of capitalism it is impossible to comprehend the specifics of the national background if it is examined in isolation from the international factors engendered by capitalism. What distinguishes Russian capitalism from the German, English, etc., must be cognised in the framework of the laws and specific features of the socio-economic formation common for the different countries, that is, the capitalist formation.
If this conclusion is valid tor the pre-monopoly capitalist era, it is c'oubly valid for the imperialist stage. Under imperialism, the histon< a! and concrete political situation is tied in most closely with the international situation, a situation qualitatively different from that which prevailed when competition predominated in the capitalist world. During the First World War, Lenin's definition of the main characteristic features of imperialism enabled him to define clearly his attitude to the war and the Second International, from then on, L'.-.iiin was no longer simply the most consistent revolutionary leader of the Russian Social-Democrats, but a leader of an international calibre, a man able to guide the revolutionary struggle on a world scale in that new stage precisely because he had seen and comprehended the main general features of the new stage of capitalist development. After the world war had broken out, a revolutionary strategy that oerlooXed the character of the world situation imparted to it by imperialism was no longer workable. And if a revolutionary strategy vvc'ke.d out on a national basis cannot overlook international relations even iu the capitalist era of free competition, this applies doubly, and in a qualitatively new way, to the imperialist stage.
Ihi; aiiitude of the Russian proletariat to the Provisional Government constituted after the 1917 February Revolution cannot be correctly defined if we look only at the relationship of that Provisional Government to the tsarist government (being essentially positive, on the face of it, it warranted support for the Provisional Government). On the contrary, the proletariat's attitude was only definable if the relation between the Provisional Governmeat and the imperialist world 190 was treated as the main criterion. Inasmuch as the Provisional Government followed an imperialist policy, it had to be combated, overthrown, just as the French, German, British and other governments had to be combated and overthrown.
And inasmuch as the historical bloc of a democratic worker-peasant dictatorship, which Lenin posited even before the imperialist war had started, became impossible due to the link-up of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries with international imperialism, it was essential to go over to the next stage of the revolutionary struggle, namely, the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat in a!i European countries, as well as Russia. There, in Russia, unlike the capitalistic-ally developed countries, the proletarian dictatorship could not envisage achievement of socialism as the immediate goal and was centred on achieving a developed democratic revolution (nationalisation of land, banks and trusts, coupled with workers' control over enterprises), paving the way to socialism.
Thus, the national specifics, the Russian specifics, are ever-present, though more closely connected than before witli international relationships.
And since that is the general line, the tactics is formulated differently, depending on changes in the situation, on the course of the revolutionary movement, on the appearance of possible alternatives to the Provisional Government. Therefore, the slogan, "Down with the Provisional Government!'', was wrong as the immediate aim in April 1917, when the alternative was still unripe, though the general line of deposing the Provisional Government remained. In the clash against the Kornilov insurrection, ilia Bolsheviks could support Kerensky's government to the extent to which it came to grips with a reactionary mutiny. The slogan of immediately deposing the Provisional Government did not become timely until the Bolsheviks gained a majority in the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets.
Lenin's "April Theses" take the revolutionary struggle a step forward, raising ii strategically to a new level. Tactically, however, Lenin restrains it both in April and July, when the mood of the masses, particularly that of the peasants, did nut yet match the militant aspirations of the vanguard. Not until the Bolsheviks won the majority in the Pelrograd and Moscow Soviets did Lenin carry it forward tactically to an armed uprising.
The decisive element in political initiative and in choosing the methods of revolutionary action, is the function of the revolutionary subject (the Party). Therein is the prime essential difference between Lenin's method and the approach of the Second International and 191 Kautsky. For the Second International, the concept of historical evolution leading from capitalism to socialism hinged objectively, at all times, on the economic level, the progress of the productive forces, from which the political line was mechanistically deduced. This approach to the relation between an objective situation and political initiative, in which the dialectical interconnection between the two aspects is neglected and the correct understanding of Marxist dialectics is conspicuously absent, obscured the significance of revolutionary initiative. Lenin's "April Theses'', and even the October Revolution itself, would be incomprehensible if that interpretation of historical development and Marxism prevailed.
If, on the contrary, we take as decisive the manner' in which the development of the productive forces and the relations of production in general is expressed in the political context, the manner in which that development affects the alignment of the politically dominant forces, if the influence of economic development intertwines with the influences of the political events (war, defeat, and the like), then revolutionary initiative must pierce the ganglion of contradictions prevailing at the political level and resolve them before the conditions for doing so are fully ripe at the economic level. The October Revolution is an example of how an analysis of a determinist but by no means mechanistic relation between the objective situation and revolutionary initiative makes the proletarian dictatorship politically possible before the conditions for transition to socialism are ripe in the economic domain. What is decisive is the political consciousness and political struggle of the proletariat.
Following a line consistent with the objective situation, a line, however, that also influences the situation, the working class can guide the further development of the productive forces towards socialism by methods that are not yet socialist but no longer traditionally capitalist due to the function given to state capitalism. The proletariat, the hegemon, could forge a close link between democratic reforms (nationalisation of land, banks and industrial monopolies, coupled with workers' control of enterprises) and the socialist perspective.
In that sense Lenin's way of disproving the strategic conception of the Second International differs substantially from that advocated by Rosa Luxemburg. Rosa Luxemburg gives the movement of the masses priority over the Party, because she conceives the ultimate collapse of capitalism as the result exclusively of the economic process as automatically reflected in the movement of the masses, overlooking that which in Lenin's view is the decisive factor of any socio-economic crisis, namely, the factor of political initiative.
192Thus, too, the notion of the way by which the proletariat, the hegemon, establishes the connection between democratic and socialist aims distinguishes Lenin's teaching from Trotsky's ideas. From the inability of the Russian bourgeoisie to be the hegemon of the democratic revolution and from the need for the proletariat to be the guiding force of that revolution, Trotsky deduced (establishing a mechanical relationship) the proletarian dictatorship as the aim of both the 1905 end the 1917 revolutions. Lenin, on the contrary, regarded proletarian dictatorship in 1917 as necessary on the strength of a method differing from that conceived by Trotsky. And this, because Lenin proceeded fiom an analysis of the concrete historical situation, seeing that peasant and petiy-bourgeois democracy in general (the SocialistHevolutionaries and the Mensheviks) was drifting to imperialist positions. Trotsky produces an abstract strategic scheme. Lenin analyses the historical situation as it concretely existed, the positions and actual connections between the different political forces of the time.
From that close analysis of the operating forces and their relationships stems Lenin's revolutionary audacity, necessary in forging compromises, be it in the case of the Brest peace, or, on a different plane and in a different situation, the New Economic Policy (NEP).
Those were also criteria for the policy of winning a working-class majority and a united front policy in the Third International.
Not by accident does this policy link up with struggle against extremism. Its methodological basis derives from the fact that, in contrast to schematic thinking, Lenin produced a model of dialectical thinking that never regards a political regime, the aggregate of class and political forces, as a compact bloc and therefore, when working out the strategy and tactics, never follows the method of inflexible cut-and-dried contrapositions. On the contrary, it pinpoints the contradictions of a given political reality that have to be influenced and points out the dialectical interconnection between the various aspects of the political struggle.
The united front policy envisages relations between Communists and Social-Democrats different from those which existed in the Russia of 1917. It takes into account the positions which the Social-Democrats retain in the working class of the capitalist countries.
Gramsci regarded this as an intuitive initial approach to understanding how necessary a revolutionary strategy different from that of 1917 in Russia is for the developed West European capitalist countries.
Lenin always knew that transition to socialism and socialist 193 construction differs from country to country, depending on its historical, economic, social and cultural specifics.
This explains the importance which he always attached to the national question, the principle of the self-determination of peoples, when, for example, he developed the question of the self-determination of nations in relation to the pre-imperiaJist situation, in, say, the polemics with Luxemburg, when the affirmation of self-determination was a part of the democratic revolutions, and in relation to the imperialist stage when Lenin rebuked Bukharin for the paucity of his economic conception that consigned to oblivion the political aspect of the anti-imperialist struggle at the very moment when imperialism aggravated the national question, and linked it with the socialist revolution. According to Lenip, working-class unity is practicable despite national distinctions; national and state particularism, he pointed out, can be overcome, provided the principle of self-- determination is not only proclaimed, but becomes possible in practice. Unity will be the result of a democratic process, not of compulsion.
For Lenin internationalism and the idea of the self-determination of nations are closely interconnected. It does not follow from Lenin's teaching that affirming self-determination and linking it with the fight for socialism, with socialist development, subordinates the working class to the bourgeoisie and places it on nationalist positions incompatible with proletarian internationalism.
In conclusion, it appears proper to say that the foundation for Lenin's revolutionary political action was the view of Marxism not as a seliconsummating doctrine containing all the answers, not as a philosophy of history allowing answers to be deduced for every possible question, but as a method of investigation, as a world outlook. Characteristic of Lenin is his ability to use and develop the Marxist method in relation to concrete situations---whether pinpointing the general character of a particular stage in the socio-economic formation as a whole ( imperialism] or the specifics of historically definite national situations or the relation between the social and political forces at different periods of the class struggle.
Our time is a time not only of imperialism and proletarian revolutions; it is also a lime of the confrontation of the system of socialisl states and imperialism, a time when socialism is becoming the ascendant and decisive force.
War is no longer inevitable. As Lenin foresaw, modern weapons change the relation between violence and progress, when violence reaches the proportions of a world conflict,
194Other examples may be given. Generally speaking, new problems are arising, problems that did not exist in Lenin's time.
And nothing could be more anti-Leninist than the idea that answers to all the problems of today are available in Lenin's works. However, the methods whereby Lenin guided revolutionary activity are an inexhaustible source of instruction. The basic categories which Lenin's method produced in analysing the socio-economic formations---- imperialism, the theory of proletarian dictatorship, the exercise of socialist democracy through Soviets, the worker-peasant alliance, the relation between consciousness and spontaneity, and the nature of the revolutionary Party---must lie at the root o! all present-day revolutions v aclioii.3.
195 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND SOME PROBLEMSIt is not unnatural that when the researcher analyses capitalism and the fundamental problems of the labour movement, his interest fixes first and foremost on the big capitalist countries. They play the decisive role in the general development. The class forces in them are clearly demarcated and the main features of their growth stand out more distinctly; their experience is therefore more tangible lo workers elsewhere and may be used for the elaboration of socialist theory.
Take the analysis by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels of the class struggle in France, a country they called the "classical counli'y of the revolution''; made in the past century, it became invaluable in revealing the relation between the bourgeois and socialist revolutions.
In his profound investigations, such as Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin, too, naturally iocussed his attention on the big capitalist states. But he did not ignore the experience of smaller states. On the contrary, he knew that analysing the conditions in them was not only part of the general analysis of capitalism and the working-class struggle, but that in their specific circumstances some fundamental problems stood out in greater relief and could arise earlier. It is too much to say, however, that Lenin's attitude on this score is followed by all those who, under the banner of Leninism, examine the problems of modern capitalism. On the contrary, almost invariably, use is made of a stereotype confining ihe research to but four oj- five of the biggest countries. As a result, Marxist-Leninist 196 theory overlooks extremely valuable and relevant experience and may lack arguments disproving those of our opponents, who idealise the conditions in the small capitalist countries.
In his studies of the agrarian question, Lenin made a thorough analysis of Danish farming. He did so to show that the specific conditions in that country did not contradict the Marxist conception of capitalist concentration in agriculture, to show that they substantiated that conception. Hence, it would be wrong to say that Lenin's quest for the truth, which, of course, is always concrete, is a specifically Russian thing or confined to the Russian pattern. That would go against the Marxist-Leninist method, which also contains postulates of universal relevance.
It will be recalled, too, that Lenin's study of the problems related to Norway's secession from Sweden occupied a prominent place among the arguments he used in the discussion of Marxism and the national question before and during the First XVorld War.
In many of his articles, Lenin examined the problems of Switzerland and the Swiss labour movement. They, too, are of considerable fundamental significance for the struggle against opportunism.
Other examples may be cited. It should be stressed, however, that Lenin's interest in the problems of small countries was aroused not by ills having lived in most of them for a more or less long time, but by the bearing which an examination of the conditions prevailing in them had on important fundamental questions.
Lenin was anything but schematic in his studies of various problems. He said: "To overlook the peculiarity of political and strategic relationships and to repeal indiscriminately a word learned, by rote, `imperialism', is anything but Marxism" [Vol. 23, p. 51). And he added: "Even the trusts and banks of modern imperialism though inevitable everywhere as part of developed capitalism, differ in their concrete aspects from country to country. There is a still greater difference, despite homogeneity in essentials, between political forms" (Vol. 23, p. 69). This, ideed. was the basis for Lenin's well-known views on the peculiarities and different i:>. ni; or democracy and proletarian dictatorship assuring the transition to socialism in various countries.
However, Lenin always stressed that all these distinctions were the form adopted locally by the main features of capitalism and that they stemmed from the laws of capitalist development. He denied the ``uniqueness'' of any national capitalism. On the contrary, his interest in the peculiar features of capitalism from country to country, in the ideological phenomena accompanying them, helped him to produce a more profound substantiation for the basic propositions of Marxism 197 and to develop them. That is why Lenin's analysis of specific conditions was not only of invaluable help to the struggle of the working class of the respective countries, but also to the struggle on the international scale, shedding new light on fundamental problems existing everywhere.
It may be worthwhile examining some of these problems, which help comprehend the experience of smaller countries.
__*_*_*__Combating opportunism in the labour movement, especially the type of opportunism that surfaced during the P'irst World War, Lenin studied the forms which it assumed in some of the smaller countries. Some of its features were more visible there precisely due to the peculiar conditions in those countries.
In his article, "Ten `Socialist' Ministers!'', which he wrote when the Danish Social-Democrats entered a bourgeois government in 1916, Lenin enumerated the main specific features of capitalist development in Denmark. He wrote: "A specific feature of Danish imperialism is the superprofits it obtains from its monopolistically advantageous position in the meat and dairy produce market: using cheap maritime transport, she supplies the world's biggest market, London. As a result, the Danish bourgeoisie and the rich Danish peasants (bourgeois of the purest type, in spite of the fables of the Russian Narodniksl have become `prosperous' satellites of the British imperialist bourgeoisie, sharing their particularly easy and particularly fat profits" (Vol 23 p. 135).
If we added that the Danish bourgeoisie applied the same methods in industry (by exploiting the skilled labour) and that, to suit the needs of foreign trade, it followed a policy of neutrality which kept down war expenditure, we shall have all the important reasons why the Danish bourgeoisie possessed especially favourable resources for manoeuvre in relation to the working class. It made the most of these opportunities to encourage reformism, working for a more tranquil setting for the process of exploitation.
Probing questions related to the working-class struggle in these conditions, Lenin sharply criticised Right opportunism and its subtle methods, formulating the objectives of revolutionary policy. And in his works on the labour movement in Switzerland, where conditions largely resembled those of Denmark, he did it still more thoroughly.
The main objectives of revolutionary policy in those countries were to develop the struggle for democracy of the working class and its 198 allies into struggle for socialism and to give the masses revolutionary orientation. By formulating these aims, Lenin contributed afresh to the siudy of the relationship between reform and revolution.
Here are some of his most important conclusions:
``It would be absolutely \vr>ng to I.elifive tUai immediate struggle for socialist revolution implies ih;>; we can, or should, abandon the fight for rnlorms. iSjot at all. '.Ve i.vnnot Know beforeLnnd bow scon \ve shall nchUive success, how soon lino objective conditions will make ine rise of t/i's revolution possible. VYe should support every improvement, overy real economic; ar.d ;oinu;al improvement in ihe position of tiio masses. The difference between us and the reformists (i.e., the nriitlians in Swil/erland I is not thai we oppose reforms, while they lavour them. Nothing of ihe kinci" (Vol. 23. pp. 15B --5!!).
However, Lenin stressed, one should never forget in the struggle for democracy that "historic situations arise when reform:;, and particularly promises of reforms, pursue only ons /aim: to allay ihe unrest of the people, force the revolutionary class to cease, or al least slacken, its struggle" (Vol. 23, p. 247).
Mass activity is that decisive force which can turn the fight for reforms into leverage for the reconstruction of society. The experience of world history, Lenin said, teaches us that there is ``either revolutionary class struggle, of which reforms are always a by-product (when the revolution is not completely successful), or no reforms at all.
``For the only effective force that compels change is popular revolutionary energy'' (Vol. 23, p. 213).
These conclusions are of fundamental relevance. There is every reason to refer to them today, when the niUi-niuiiopoly shuggle stands high up on the agenda throuKiiout the capitalist world. To promote growth of the struggle for democracy into struggle for .socialism is one of the problems of the anti-monopoly straggle. Monopoly capital lias secured for itself considerable room tor manoeuvre in some fields owing to the concentration of capital and "surplus capital'', and also by using the scientific and technological revolution, (hat is, the common features in the growth of modern monopoly capitalism. For this reason, while avoiding any inept scliomaticisni, we may legitimately .say that Lenin's conclusions, drawn from Ihe struggle against the development of Right opportunism in the small, ``comfortable'' capitalist count! ies, are of particular relevance today.
This is borne out by the course of history. The First World War was followed by a period in which Right opportunism was dominant in the Danish labour iimvrinr-m. On a few occasions this prompted a number of critics, even some from fraternal parties, . to suggest that 199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1970/LRP389/20080711/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.07.13) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ Social-Democracy had made a better job of fighting for reforms than the Danish Communists. As a rule, these notions stemmed from an exaggerated idea of the democratic reforms in our country, doubly so because none of them had yet been instituted elsewhere, in both cases, Lenin's warning that reforms may be used to end unrest in a country, is overlooked. And (hat is impermissible, considering the political situation in a country like ours.
Yet, even leading Social-Democrats are compelled to admit in face of the facts in Denmark that the Social-Democratic policy of reforms has altered nothing in the basic social relationships. In his book, Prosperity Without Welfare. A Critique of the Danish Class Society (1969], Bengt Hansen, editor of the SDP newspaper, wrote: "There is a higher class in Denmark, and it occupies the same stable position as before. At the other end of the social spectrum is the lower class, which, unfortunately, occupies an equally unshakable position. The groups between these two poles of society, too, distribute values among themselves in a way that does not essentially differ from the way they were distributed a hundred years ago''.
The above, backed with numerous facts, is actually an admission of the total failure of the reformist line, so jubilantly proclaimed fifty years ago as the ``new'' and ``Danish'' way to socialism.
The appreciation of this became widespread in Denmark after the two Social-Democratic parlies had commanded a majority in the D'olketing for a fairly long time, using government authority merely to disappoint their electors and, naturally, arrogantly ignoring the teaching on ihe conditions of the struggle for democracy flowing from Lenin's above-cited statements on reform and revolution. Certainly, the Social-Democrats did not invoke mass action; on the contrary, they were determined to suppress any such action and to bridle popular ferment. No improvements were made for the people. Quite the reverse. The Social-Democrats did not dare impinge on the monopoly power. As a result, their majority disintegrated in something like a year.
At present, it is necessary to oppose the government of bourgeois parties in a revolutionary drive for the urgently necessary democratic reforms aimed against monopoly power and the mounting abuses of the reactionary forces. In conducting the policy worked out by the 23rd Coni-res.s of ihe HPD in February 1969, Lenin's teaching has been a sQ'ircH -:)f iiiKpi:"ai<(;M.
__*_*_*__ 200When preparations were under way to found the new Third International, Lenin showed a deep interest in the struggle between nationalism and internationalism in the working-class parties of small countries. The forms of that struggle differed in some respects from those observed in the bigger countries.
As we know. Lenin was a much more ardent exponent than many other representatives of the socialist Left wing of the right of all nations to self-determination as a basic democratic demand and a part of socialist democracy. His attitude has been proved right. Socialism is today a force that provides greater opportunities than any other system for upholding the sovereignty of peoples and assuring the conditions for frustrating imperialist intrigues, which are quite concrete though clad in a flowery propaganda cloak. While defending the self-determination idea, Lenin also pointed to the perils of nationalist distortions and the inclination to national exclusiveness, both of which trends are liable to be particularly pronounced among the smaller nations -and that not only among those that suffer national oppression. He warned that one should not treat as a basis for the policy of the socialist parties in those countries "the petty striving of petty states to hold aloof, the petty-bourgeois desire to keep as far away as possible from the great baltles of world history, to take advantage of one's relatively monopolistic position in order to remain in hidebound passivity" (Vol. 23, p. 86).
In the small countries the main danger does not emanate from the boastful, chauvinist form of nationalism. Bourgeois ideologists try to combat workers' internationalism by spreading more inoclast but by no means less venomous, nationalism, cultivating narrow self-- complacency, fanning existing prejudices and most often exploiting sophistic arguments and Utopian illusions in order to belog the workers' understanding of the realities of the international struggle. During the First World War this purpose was served by the abstract and unrealistic slogans of ``disarmament'', ``pacifism'' and ``neutrality''. The arguments used were also prominent in the Kautskian ``centrist'' effort to retard the growth of the revolutionary trend. That is why Lenin made such a deep study of these problems.
Lenin's works of the World War I period contain many examples of how he used ihe class analysis to help dispel the thick fog that, under the effect of the above trends, inevitably obscured the complex problems of international politics. To what extent the various parties and trends are prepared to fight the restricted policy of "their own" ruling classes is one of the decisive criteria of genuine internationalism, even when that policy takes cover behind verbiage about ``democracy'', 201 ``freedom'', "national sovereignty'', etc., or when campaigns of this kind lead to a renunciation. of international obligations.
This Leninist method may be extremely valuable in assessing the International problems of to;.' ay. The world situation has changed beyond recognition since the First World Vv ?', especially due to the emergence of the ''oHahsi worid system. Vet ihe method of class analysis is as efi'sclive as ever.
It should be added that sroai-power chaiu mist methods are no longer .sufficient for imperialist propaganda. V'~Hh the appearance oi more refined forms of anil-communism, the big countries resort to methods formerly typical of the small ones. That is why studying and using Lenin's method is extremely pertinent today.
This does not mean thai our approach lo the present-day problems should be schematic. Take ihe slogans of su>ie neutrality -their content today is quite different. In the past, neutiality iinnliecl a balancing between the policies of diC'ai-ent imperialist groups or merely a screen for deals with the different sides; least of all was it a shield for national independence or a support for the struggle of the socialist forces in oilier countries. At present, wiih the socialist world system an important i'acior of world po'Jiies, state neutrality may be a means for the small capitalist countries 10 ward off imperahst domination, a means to consolidate iialional independem-e a. id freedom of aciion in order to support the democratic and freedom-loving forces in other countries.
Generally speakai exerted by the social arising "there. ;'ro:>i lo secure ihe pprogress, is part and pc;r:v:-:j notpractical policy. This forges a lgenuine hUernal'onahsm, the ncg iiding ;;nd sunijorli!^^1^^.,'.; !he influence vori(i politics, lising Uif. opportunities nauOiiai sovei'etgnlv iii'.il social v of class OnHiysi:;, hut also of l-,otvRf;r, genuine palrio'iism and o! which in our day can. no less i,rii in uriiion-ii and iiuemaiional
than before, cause irreparable naniap affairs.I should like lo add the following:
Our conference, lika other similai- coidKrenees. underscores the impoi tanl fact that M e have very muci: in common. That is true noi. oniy of common aims, but also of o :r proLlems. Spea'uv, nave referred K) existing national tlis;i:u-ioas. Tlmre is i:;ith;,i,^ sui pnsing about the fact that tliey are in evidence v.hen repn-.siMlhiivrs of p.ii'iies from a large ni'jiil.r-r of coiiiiiritss gnih'.:!^^1^^ at one I;, hie. lia: i^^1^^- aiore sur[ii' ising is lliat in preseniiiig liie pii'i.ivniis aiising lion !';(:-;: n/iiiO.idl diiuim;iinns, u'^ rind so many common eh-mieiits, even though viewed from different nneies.
202This reflects the uniform nature of objective laws governing our activities, and, at once, the universal, international character of Leninism.
It is true that we must not regard Leninism either in theory or practice as a scheme or stereotype usable in relation to events differing in time and space. However, the difference between subtlety and flexibility, on the one hand, and vagueness and amorphism, on the other, derives precisely from an integral and consistent treatment of individual phenomena.
This interconnection manifested in the flexibility of Leninism is determined by its fundamental quality of principle, which, in turn, reflects the general objective laws and determines its profoundly international character.
By virtue of the fact that our common work has enabled us to lay special stress precisely on this fact, which makes our Communist movement so important a political force, I should like to thank our hosts for organising this conference.
203 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LOYALTY TO LENINISM IS AN EARNESTThe struggle against imperialism on a world scale and the class and national battles in each country are iiistjp-it-ab'e from tl:a three great forces of the revolutionary process developing under the banner of Lenin's ideas.
Marx discovered the economic laws of development of bourgeois society. "An investigation into the relations of production in a given, historically defined society, in their inception, development, and decline---such is the content of Marx's economic doctrine,'' Lenin wrote (Vol. 21, p. 59).
Having made a scientific analysis of social phenomena, Marx came to the conclusion that capitalist socialy must be transformed into a socialist society.
Lenin carried forward Marx's doctrine in the period of monopoly domination. He furnished a scientific analysis of the economic and political nature of imperialism, ihe last stage of capitalism. He evolved the law of uneven economic and political development under imperialism and proved that thib made it possible for socialism to triumph first in several countries separately or even in one country.
Lenin defined imperialism, both econor.iic.ally and politically, as the highest sia.ye of capitalism and the eve of the socialist revolution.
This was a qualitatively new historical stage characterised by 204 intensified class struggle, increasing antagonisms between the great powers and the appearance of the colonial peoples on the political :'cene. Imperialism marked the historical necessity and urgency of revolution.
Lenin had to specify the role of the proletariat in the new conditions and to carry forward Marx's theory. He pointed out that even In backward Russia the strength of ihe proletariat in the historical process far exceeded its share in the population total. The proletariat had to exercise its loading role in a revolutionary alliance with the peasantry in order to overthrow ihe tsarist regime, the landowners and the bourgeoisie. This determined the decisive role of the revolutionary party ot the working class in ensuring its victory. Lenin held that active struggle by the working people against imperialist war, for a democratic peace, a profound remoulding of agrarian relations, and the right of nations locked up in the prison of tsarism to selfdetermination were requisites of the victory of the socialist revolution.
Practice proved these forecasts perfectly correct. During the October Revolution the struggle of the working class for socialism and the various democratic movements merged in one anti-imperialist, anticapitalist stream, and this became the basis for victory.
Credit is due to Lenin for the fact that in the "ten days that shook the world" the Bolshevik Party accomplished a great revolution which Jed to a historic remaking of social relations.
With the victory of the October Revolution all social problems presented themselves in a new light. The revolution ended the undivided world-wide rule of capitalism and opened the era of socialism. It enabled I lie working c'ass in the capitalist countries to realise that it needed a parly of a new type. And it spurred on the national liberation movement.
We owe it to the world Communist movement founded by Lenin that the call of the Document of the Iniernational Meeting of Communist iiiid Workers' Parties rings out so forcefully:
``Peoples of tne socialist countries, workers, democratic forces in the capitalist countries, n<jtvh/ liberated peoples and ihose who are oppressed, i/ui/e in a common struggle against imperialism, for peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialism!"
Forty-five years have passed since Lenin's death, and the development of imperialism shows new aspects. State-monopoly capitalism lias fully developed in many countries. This confronts us witli an new reality. Lenin taught us to pose new problems in concrete terms and !o test il)eo'":th:;-)l U'IPHS and conclusions in practice. By discerning during Wnrul vVnr I the beginning of the new stage of imperialism 205 at which monopoly capitalism developed into state-monopoly capitalism, he paved for us the way to quests and new battles.
Marx investigated the effects of the downward trend of the profit rate on capital, and the inner contradictions of this law. Under the surface of phenomena Lenin traced the inner lines of development of monopoly capitalism. But conditions in the first half of this century prevented him from continuing his analysis of this slage of imperialism and its implications for economic, social, political and ideological activity in the capitalist world.
The theoretical research of the world Communist movement was reflected most fully in the documents of the 1960 Meeting in Moscow. and afterwards it was the central theme of the international forum held in France in 1966. The scientific analysis of new phenomena was based entirely on the principles of Marxist-Leninist theory.
Undoubtedly, imperialism makes ample use of the possibilities of the single mechanism created by the monopolies and the government apparatus to check the trend of the profit rate to decline. But this law still governs the use and growth of the productive forces. In present conditions, too, there are increasing contradictions between the exigencies of large-scale modern production and the needs of social and national development, on the one hand, and social relations based on capitalist property, on the other. The contradiction between labour and capital and between the monopoly bourgeoisie and the working class is still the main contradiction of modern society.
This contradiction breeds new ones. The bid for a high profit rate does not allow the requirements of ths scientific and technological revolution to be fully met. Monopoly co.icentration increases economic instability and social antagonisms. The antagonism between the monopoly bourgeoisie and all working people is growing more acute.
The lessons of Lenin's struggle against Kautsky's revisionist theory of ``ultra-imperialism'' are still valid.
From what Kautsky contended, the development of imperialism should have enabled it to resolve capitalist contradictions through reforms. The formation of international cartels should have eased the contradiction between capitalist countries and resulted in organising their economies on an international basis.
Lenin showed, however, that all capitalist contradictions were becoming more acute as a result of the aggravation of the main contradiction.
The internationalisation of production and markets today follows the lines foreseen by Lenin. Various ``associations'' and ``councils'', 206 such as the European Common Market, sharpen competition between groups of capitalist countries. The sphere of the world capitalist market has shrunk considerably with the emergence of the socialist countries. The US monopolies, which are the most powerful, are penetrating deeper and deeper into Europe. This generally has a disastrous effect on national interests wherever the government renounces---as in France today---its programme for nuclear power production, which from now on is bpsed on power stations built by the US.
Thus the uneven development of the imperialist powers and their mutual contradictions are becoming more marked.
Socialism, once victorious in one country, Russia, has become a world system and the decisive factor for tiie progress of human society. This accounts for the imperialists' attempts to develop a common strategy that would enable them to preserve the system of exploitation and fight against the socialist world system. Imperialism, especially US imperialism, is trying to overcome its difficulties through increasingly agressive policies.
But while imperialism could retain much of its hold on the world even after the October Revolution, which shook capitalism to its foundations, the situation now is different.
Vietnam, where the mightiest imperialism, US imperialism, is suffering a historic defeat, furnishes a vivid example of ihe changed general character of world development.
Numerous events since the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties indicate that imperialism is weakening and its general crisis is going from bad to worse. Many African and Latin American countries have established new social systems based on an anti-imperialist policy. The fight against the US aggression in Vietnam is gathering fresh momentum, in particular in the United States itself. The Israeli aggressors are finding themselves in growing international isolation. There is an increasing public awareness of the need to establish an effective collective security system in Europe. Powerful social movements are developing, above all in France, Italy, Britain, West Germany and japan.
The great liberation struggles of today are invariably back~e'd by tile socialist world system, primarily the Soviet Union. Due to the very existence of the socialist countries, these struggles can rise and. develop in new conditions, holding out new prospects.
207Lenin noted that the progress of the fight against imperialism depends largely on economic competition between socialism and capitalism.
The figures cited at the international Meeting in Moscow give an idea of the achievements of the socialist community. The national income of the CMEA countries went up by 93 per cent in ten years as against 63 per cent in the developed capitalist countries. The CMEA countries account for one-tenth of the world's population but supply one-third of world industrial output.
Under Lenin's banner the Soviet people have built socialism. There is no exploitation of man by man in the socialist countries, nor is the overwhelming majority of nations oppressed by a handful of monopolists. In spite of enormous difficulties and the resistance of class enemies, socialism has made a reality of Lenin's forecasts of economic and technical might, of well-being and culture, genuine democracy and the flourishing of the creative abilities of man in the new society.
The workers in the developed capitalist countries know that the Soviet Union was the first country to introduce an equitable and democratic system of education ruling out all discrimination, the first country to make medical treatment free and to provide social maintenance without charging the workers any fees, the first country to grant the working people paid holidays and give women access to every sphere of public and cultural activity.
The socialist countries' economic and social progress and their activity for paace and disarmament afford an important basis on which the working people of the capitalist countries can confidently press forward their struggle for socialism.
This struggle is taking place at a time when state-monopoly capitalism is experiencing a world-wide crisis.
Unable to deny the achievements of the socialist countries, bourgeois ideologists now advocate various theories to the effect that socialism and capitalism are ``converging'' in the process of their development.
Let us recall that Lenin warned against confusing the statemonopoly, capitalist system with the socialist system. The various theories of ``convergence'' are an attempt mechanically to link highly developed capitalism and socialism together in the concept of "industrial society''. The authors of these theories, like Raymond Aron, official ideologist of the French bourgeoisie, declare that factory Chimneys in Kharkov smoke in the same way as those In Detroit. This subterfuge betrays a desire to substitute the external economic and 208 social phenomena for the inner character of social relations and take advantage of the connection between the technological revolution and the growth of the productive forces.
Ignoring the main issue---ilia nature of social relations---the present French government, which pas succeeded de Gaulle, talks about a ''new society" that is allegedly neither eapiia'ist nor socialist and is supposed to he above Mom.
These theories are intended to eiiminate the antiihesis between capitalism and socialism, paralyse "lie revo-tiiionary smuggle in the capitalist countries and create in Hie coumrie;-; fighting for national liberation illusions about Ihe nature of conlemporary imperialism, which has attained a high i1f`gi'':e ot deveiopnu-tii.
The Soviet Union, Hie decisive factor in the fight against imperialism, for peace and socialism, remains the main target of antiCommunist propaganda. This fact is expressive of tiie monopoly bourgeoisie's fear of the progress of socialism and its scientific Marxist-Leninist theory.
Bourgeois propaganda uses ``Left''- and Right-wing revisionists--- Trotskyists, Maoists and Right-wing reformists. Some of these offer the outdated anarcho-syndicalist formula of the workers owning the factories, a formula which is proving even more indefensible now that there is an alliance between the monopolies and the government apparatus of the bourgeoisie.
Right-wing revisionists regard the material prerequisites of socialism present in state-monopoly capitalism as a gradual penetration of socialist elements into reality. This interpretation supplants the theory of the socialist revolulion by evolutionism, which disarms and misleads ihe masses, diverting them from the fight against the capitalist system.
Hither trend sidesteps the basic issue -the class nature of state power and of the social system us a whole.
On the occasion of the Lenin centenary celebrations the French Communist Party and its Maurice Thore/ Institute have already analysed a number of important Leninisl posiulates as applicable to the present period. I mean, specifically, the problem of combating Right- and ``Left''-wing opportunism in connection with the anti-' monopoly front and the issue of the stale, which today is of tremendous importance.^^*^^
Lenin rid the Marxist concept of the state of various distortions _-_-_
^^*^^ In this connection, Geur^ns Cogniot read ai the Maurice Thorez Institute the paper "Lenia and Political Science''.
209 brought into it by theorists of the Second International. He stressed the nature of the bourgeois state as the embodiment of the rule of an exploiting minority. This kind of slate tries to dissociate itself from the overwhelming majority of the population-, oppose Itself to it and oppress it. Hence the need to replace it by a state of the working class and its allies.Lenin also criticised the negative atlUude oi Leftist rornan'idsm and anarchism trr.vnrds the state.
But Lenin tjii'.gljt us to distinguish between the machinery economic regulation under developed capitaiisiii, a machinery to put chiefly in the service oi the people and under their control, and the political, bureaucratic, repressive and military machinery of the bourgeoisie, which should be destroyed and replaced.
Lenin considered state-monopoly capitalism the threshold of socialIsm, and the fullest material preparation for socialism. However, following Lenin's example, the Communist parties, the class-conscious and organised vanguard of the working class, do not sit back waiting till the conditions for the socinlist revolution mature fully by themselves. They fight for the immediate interests of the masses, for democratic rights and freedoms and for their extension, and organise: the working people's struggle for peace. This day-by-clay fight trains the masses for the coming decisive battles against capitalist monopoly.
``Left"-wing opportunists claim that the working class is thereby avoiding the fight for socialism.
The Third Congress of the Communist International, at which Lenin took an active part in defeating those who taiked in Leftist terns about "going over from passivity to action'', adopted tiie following important resolution: "Every objection to the putting forward of these partial demands and every accusation of reformism over partial straggles is a result of failure to appreciate the vitally important needs of revolutionary activity.''
Today the fundamental antagonism of capitalist society, that between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is supplemented by the opposition of the masses to monopoly capital. Increasingly numerous elements of the middle strata are compelled to defend themselves against monopoly capital. Even when they do not directly accept the anticapitalist position of the working class, the objective contradiction between their interests and those of the giant monopolies, as well as the pressure exerted by state-monopoly capitalism induce them to join in struggle alongside the workers. The younger generation plays a special role in the common struggle. Furthermore, the women's 210 role is growing due to their increasing importance in economic, social and cultural activities.
This provides a real opportunity for establishing a broad antimonopoly front to win the pressing demands of the working people of town and country, reshape political and social life on democratic lines, nationalise the key sectors of the economy, democratise management of the nationalised sector and steadily carry on a policy for peace.
Taking these steps towards economic and political democracy does not abolish the capitalist system but it does undermine its mainstay, monopoly capital. Measures of this nature isolate the more reactionary forces and increase the leverage of the working class in political matters. We regard political, economic and social democracy as a continuous creative effort, Maurice Thorez said twenty-five years ago.
In carrying on our fight today, we often stress that the political and social changes our people want cannot be brought about by one party, not even by ours, any more than the policy of social progress and democratic reform can be implemented without the Communist 1'arty.
The unification of working-class and democratic forces should express itself in the unity of the Party and the democratic organisations, which, in turn, would be an important stimulus for the entire popular movement. This unification should be achieved with the aim of taking effective action against the monopolies and their power, for an advanced political and economic democracy.
This should he the object of the struggle and the government programme of all democratic forces.
Dining a Communist discussion which opened in 1920 after the defeat of a number of revolutionary movements in Central Europe, Lenin examined the tasks facing the Communist parties and the balance of forces in their countries. He showed the need for the Communist parties to establish contact with the masses through a united front policy, a policy of rallying together the working class and otfier working people.
Lenin's brilliant idea of alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry was described by a bourgeois historian as a "magic formula'', Hut Lenin also sei an example by showing that special attention should be devoted to the student movement and the alliance between the working class and I he intelligentsia.
Lenin showed that both Kig!;i-vvieg opportunism, which proposes unprincipled compromise as the motive power of all ``realistic'' policy, 211 and ``Left''-wing opportunism, which rejects all compromise, lack confidence in the masses.
Lenin considered that the enemy forces do not constitute one flawless bloc. He strove to take advantage of every contradiction and the slightest rifts between them.
Today the policy of state-monopoly capitalism is severely condemned by Increasing social strata, whereas formerly capitalism often succeeded in commuting them to its policy. In iiu;se circumstances we try to bring it home to the working people and al! non-monopoly strata that the monopolies and their power are to blame for ail the hardships oi life. The fight for democracy enables the masses to realise from their own experience that it is possible and necessary to end capitalist rule and accomplish the socialist revolution. In our country, advanced democracy is the form of transition to socialism.
Lenin saw the experience of the working-class movement in other countries after the October Revolution and the progress of the revolutionary struggle In tsarist Russia as providing valuable lessons, which he did not miss. One example may suffice. In 1921 Lenin, addressing the Georgian Communists, recommended them not to follow the Russian pattern but to use their own meihods in solving their specific problems.
No one insisted more than Lenin on objective historical distinctions and the need for the working class to take them into account.
We all know how clearly Lenin at the Third Congress of the Communist International rebutted Serrati, the Italian centrist, who had dished up the battered calumny about the Bolsheviks trying to impose their model or their prestige on fraternal parties.
Lenin stressed time and again that "the international revolutionary movement of the proletariat does not and cannot develop evenly and in identical forms in different countries" (Vol. 15, p. 187) and that "all nations will arrive at socialism---this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same wav, each will contribute something of its own 10 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" (Vol. 23, pp. 69---70).
On the other hand, Lenin insisted that the general principles of the revolutionary working-class movement were valid for all countries. He underlined that what was being decided in Russia was the fate of not only Russian hut international capitalism, and that "certain fundamental features have a significance that is not local, or peculiarly nationai, or l!u<v.;i-"i alone, but international" I Vol. 31, 11. 21 .
The existence o; the socialist world system over a quarter of 212 a century confirms the correctness of Lenin's theory of the decisive significance of the general laws of the socialist revolution.- The transition from capitalism to socialism by revolutionary means---- peaceful or non-peaceful---through the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the Communist Party, the abolition of capitalist property and ex^ ploitation and the establishment of socialist property, planned eco? mimic development bused on commodity-money relations, labour or;,anisation on socialist principles using material and moral incentives, and participation in international socialist division of labour are all inevitable in every country.
Revisionists readily call loyalty to principle ``doctrinairianism'"doctrinairianism' A truly creative approach by no means consists, as they would lik"e to make us believe, in ignoring the general laws of revolutionary struggle and of building socialism discovered by Marxist-Leninist theory and confirmed by experience. It consists in carrying forward theory by analysing the actual conditions for the application of general; laws and their specific manifestations at every stage of social develops inent and revolutionary struggle.
The struggle of the working class leads necessarily to the socialist revolution, which may assume a peaceful or non-peaceful form. Lenin declared for either form---depending on objective conditions. The activity of the Communist parties is aimed at uniting the masses in struggle behind the working class to weaken and isolate the big bourgeoisie, which in this case cannot resort to civil war to stave off the socialist revolution.
To be sure, in the event of the exploiter classes using force to prevent the people from effecting the transition to socialism, the working class will have to retaliate by pitting the whole strength of the masses against them.
The socialist revolution may culminate in various political forms: Soviet poweix people's democracy, a republic in which the composition of parliament will reflect the people's will. 15ut always and everywhere, the socialist revolution is carried out through mass struggle on a vast scale and is a qualitative leap in the evolution of political and social lite. Communists consider it possible and desirable for all parties and democratic organisations lo cooperate loyally in the struggle for a democratic reshaping of society and in building socialism.
The working class is the leading force of the alignment of all nonmonopoly social strata.
However, theories questioning the decisive role of the working class in anti-monopoly struggle and in the revolutionary movement are bniii revived todav. They subslhule a superficial deliniiion obscuring 213 the class character of society for the scientific concept of statemonopoly capitalism. The main content of our epoch, for example, is made out to be the scientific and technological revolution and not the transition from capitalism to socialism. Hence the notion that it Is no longer the working class but scientists and technologists that must lead the fight against monopoly. This is a reversion to the theory of the elite combated by Marx and Lenin.
According to other theoreticians, such as Marcuse, the working class, which has ``grown'' into the Establishment by virtue of its way of life, has ceased to be the "class of negation" of the capitalist system. It follows that one should turn to the marginal groups, to the young people and the still unintegrated intellectuals, to the strata "without hope" on which the anarchists also count. In the long run this negation of the role of tile working class leads to the denial of the fact that socialism, that great achievement of the international working class, Is the decisive factor in anti-imperialist struggle. This theory is harmful to all the forces of the revolutionary process and plays into the hands of imperialism.
Other theoreticians try to convince the students and intellectuals that their Joining in the mass movement would mean merging revolutionary theory with the labour movement, which has long since been effected by the existing Leninist parties. This flattery, intended, in particular, for youth and contradicting the spirit of Leninism, is designed to rob the younger generation of the experience of the proletariat and of its determination in struggle.
Some refer to the scientific and technological revolution and to the evolution of the productive forces to deny the leading role of the working class and attribute this role to other strata. Yet the production of material wealth has been, and is, the decisive factor, the foundation of social life. And the working class is the chief motive power of this creative process constituting the foundation of social life.
In reality opportunism has not given up the idea of making the working-class movement a force backing a contingent of the bourgeoisie, as transpired during the French presidential elections. Unity calls not only for ideological struggle against opportunism and for exchange of views on topical issues, but for actual joint struggles by various trends of the working-class movement for the demands of the working people. ``Leff'-vving opportunists extol spontaneity and lack of organisation, leadership and programme to strike a blow at the class-conscious and organising element of the labour and demo cratic movement.
These spurious theories are refuted both in theoretical terms, by 214 Lenin's teachings, and by putting Leninism into practice. Life gives the lie to those who talk about the working class ``growing'' into the "consumer society'', about its indifference to socialist ideas, and Its inertness. The working class is stepping up its struggle everywhere. More and more often, the intellectuals, whose ranks include a growing number of wage workers and who have nothing but their intellect and their talent and are exploited, ally themselves with the workers. To quote Comrade VValdeck Rochet, "there is a natural convergence" of Hie struggle of the working class and that of the intelligentsia in a broad sense.
However, the proletariat, which must lead the struggle transforming society, cannot realise this spontaneously, in the absence of a revolutionary theory, any more than it can perform its role without a revolutionary organisation.
According to Lenin's teachings, the theory of scientific socialism has always been of immense importance to the working-class movement.
Of course, this scientific world outlook" meets the interests of the working class. But in capitalist society the revolutionary ideology is not dominant among even the working class. True, the ideological influence of the two main classes of society on the masses today is not ihe same as fifty years ago. The influence of the socialist world system and the activity of the Communist parties, coupled with the experience of the masses themselves, have hurled back bourgeois i;UH)logy and helped proletarian ideology to gain ground among the working class a,Hi larger strata, as the struggle in France in May and June 19ott revealed.
But bourgeois ideology, which has a longer record and numerous and varied means of propagation and is backed by old habits and l/rejudicHs, is constantly in the proletariat's field of vision and attracts its atlriuion even though it is contrary to its class interests.
Thai is why the class struggle should be conducted on all three fronts---economic, political and ideological---as Engels recommended. This becomes more imperative under state-monopoly capitalism, with the slate interfering in all three spheres more actively than ever.
It follows that to assimilate the revolutionary theory of Marxismi,eniiiis.ii and be able steadily to carry it forward are requisites of iho fight against reactionary ideology and various Right- and ``Left''-- wing opportunist distortions and of the elucidation of the class struggle.
Thus the concept of a revolutionary party is a matter of principle. Some Iwliove that the organisational form of the party is determined 215 by the progress made in science, technology and the productive forces. In reality it is determined, as will be readily understood, by social relations as they shape under capitalism, and by the exigencies of the revolutionary struggle against imperialism, for socialism. Of course, progress in science and technology, the growing social division of labour and the increasing importance of scientific information afford new opportunities which cannot be used unless democratic centralism is perfected.
The main contradiction of state-monopoly capitalism can be resolved only in the revolutionary struggle carried on by a united and organised revolutionary party.
On the other hand, all underestimation of the basic contradiction of capitalism leads to a reformist negation of the revolutionary role of the working class. Searching for this kind of solution results 1n the acceptance of a party organisation of a reformist type setting itself reformist tasks.
That is why renouncing the organisational principles based on democratic centralism would throw us back fifty years, to when reformism was dominant in the working-class movement before the rise of Leninist parties. Existence of various trends and factions and a SocialDemocratic form of organisation would make genuine democracy in the Party and really collective elaboration of the right theory and policy impossible. Lacking unity of thought and action, such a party would be unable to defend itself against attacks from the bourgeoisie. Add to this the consequences that the loss of the vanguard would have for the working class.
It is not accidental that all opportunists today attack What Is To Be Done?, a work in which Lenin stressed that the Party's task is to bring socialist consciousness into the working class.
The national liberation movement is a decisive sector of the antiimperialist front. The downfall of the system of colonial slavery is the most significant development of our time since the formation of the socialist world system.
In all countries, the downfall of colonialism was a result of hard struggle by the masses. Even after the formation of independent national states the imperialist powers have been doing their utmost to preserve their colonial domination by giving it a new form. They weave the meshes of economic dependence around newly-established 216 states. They support reactionary forces and try to bring puppet governments and dictators to power. Nor do they shrink from military intervention.
The existence of the socialist countries Is of decisive importance to the victory of national liberation revolutions. There were no victorious liberation movements in the colonies and dependencies before the Great October Socialist Revolution. The October Revolution ushered in a new stage in the national liberation movement.
The Soviet Union's victory in World War II and the formation of the socialist world system made for the disintegration of the colonial system. History has shown that there is a direct connection between the victory of socialism in one part of the globe and the abolition of colonialism.
The national liberation movement, the international democratic movement, is necessarily an ally of the working class and of sociab ism by its very nature. It is only ``Left''-wing revisionists, particularly the Maoists, who today deny Lenin's ideas, putting the peasants of the Third World in the place of the working class as leader of the world revolution.
The non-capitalist road of development means consciously using new opportunities and connections resulting from the formation of the socialist world system. This road implies development of the productive forces and relations of production, of social life as a whole, in a way making it possible continuously to heighten the role of the working people in the economic, political and cultural affairs of the country and completely to democratise social life.
In this way the new states can avoid the long and painful road of capitalist development and pass directly from feudalism on to the socialist revolution.
The progress of the national liberation revolution benefits greatly from the fraternal assistance of the socialist countries, which, respecting the independence of the new states, support them most extensively in their economic progress and closely cooperate with them in the fight against imperialism and war.
The impact of the historical experience gained by the peoples of the socialist countries, the concrete aid they render, and cooperation in foreign policy to safeguard peace constitute an important form of promoting the alliance between socialism and the national liberation movement.
217Imperialism inevitably engenders the tendency towards war. Since 1917 the imperialist powers have made repeated attempts to strangle the proletarian revolution and abolish the socialist gains of the peoples.
Marx, Engels and Lenin always considered the historical mission of the working class to be not only to do away with oppression, exploitation and poverty but to deliver mankind from the horrors of war. Owing to their economic structure, the imperialist countries tend to ``resolve'' through war the antithesis between the two systems existing in the world.
The socialist countries, first of all the Soviet Union, try to carry OH the class struggle between the two systems by peaceful means, to defeat capitalism in economic competition. Convinced that peace pro vldes the most favourable conditions for socialist development, these countries have made the peaceful coexistence of countries with differing social systems an unshakable principle of their foreign policy.
This principle was formulated by Lenin when the first socialist state came into being. The Idea of peaceful coexistence flowed directly from the impossibility of the socialist revolution triumphing simultaneously in all, or almost all, advanced countries, of which Marx and Engels wrote under pre-monopoly capitalism.
Lenin drew comprehensive conclusions from this fact. In particular, he was the author of the disarmament plan which the Soviet delegation submitted to the international conference in Genoa in 1922.
Socialism means the triumph of new international relations over the Imperialist relations of the past based on plunder and subjugation.
The struggle for peaceful coexistence is not only the basis for the foreign policy of the socialist countries but the principled line of the world Communist movement. The fight for peace enhances the prestige of the working class and its Party in the eyes of the masses and gives them tremendous moral strength.
The Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence is not a product of subjective aspirations to peace and happiness on the part of the socialist countries, the Communist parties of the capitalist countries and the democratic forces. To fight for peaceful coexistence means mobilising the masses and launching militant action against imperialism, associating it in the minds of the masses with the abominable idea of war. To mak'e the bourgeoisie accept peace means depriving it of the weapon of nationalism and chauvinism with which it tries 218 to paralyse the struggle of the proletarian class in periods of international tension.
The struggle for peace is Inseparable from the struggle for a b9tter life, for democracy and socialism. Consequently, the policy of peaceful coexistence by no means leads to any kind of conciliation between the bourgeois and socialist ideology. It does not obscure and, indeed, emphasises the economic, political and ideological contradictions between socialism and capitalism.
The international Communist movement is on its guard against Right-opportunist trends underrating the aggressive nature of imperialism and the decisive importance of the struggle of ills peoples, which can force imperialism to accept peaceful coexistence.
The Communist movement is fighting against the dogmatic negation of the policy of peaceful coexistence and the possibility of averting a new world war, against the Leftist theory alleging that "the revolution grows out of the barrels of guns" and that war is necessary to "stimulate the revolution''. If political adventurism is combined with nationalist and militarist hysteria, it benefits in the final analysis imperialism, directly or indirectly. To achieve its goals, imperialism always banks on whatever weakens internationalism in one way or another. It tries to divide the Communist movement and oppose some of its contingents to others. That being so, Communists should, after the example of Lenin, who warned against the poison of what he called ``social-nationalism'', extend and strengthen international proletarian solidarity.
The fight for peace unites the peoples, who bear the whole burden of destruction and suffering caused by war, in campaigns against the arms race, for disarmament, for using released funds to meet pressing social needs and extend scientific research for peace. Tliis fight is a fight against the policy of provocations and reactionary coups, the policy of establishing bases on foreign soil and aggressive blocs, against the militarisation of public: life, against the omnipotent military caste closely linked with monopoly capital, against the imprint which militarism leaves on the entire life of the peoples.
The peace movement is the broadest democratic movement of today. It has organised the peoples' collective resistance to the US aggression against Vietnam. The heroic, victorious fight of the Vietnamese people against the aggressors forms a single whole with the active and varied assistance of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, with the broad solidarity movement involving almost all working men and women and all the peoples of the world, a movement in which the American people are taking an increasingly active part.
219Mass campaigns against the war in Vietnam, against Israel's antiArab aggression, against the bellicose intrigues of the West German revenge-seekers are an embodiment of Lenin's idea that it is not enough to want peace to establish it, that it takes sharp, stubborn and unrelenting struggle to win peace.
In every country whose independence is threatened or is being undermined by US imperialism, which is bent on retaining its role of world policeman, the peace movement is closely linked with the movement in defence of national sovereignty and dignity. It is linked just as closely with the democratic movement against the omnipotence of the monopolies, against their reactionary and authoritarian orientation, against the establishment of military dictatorships.
The working class, which is the main revolutionary class, is in the frontline of the fight for peace, against imperialism. It is striving to unite all the opponents of a thermonudeajr catastrophe regardless of distinctions in their political, religious or philosophical views. It ex^ poses as anti-Communists al! who split the forces of the working class and the people and try to weaken the peace movement.
Unity of ail anti-imperialist forces is a decisive factor in developing and carrying deeper the movement to deliver mankind from the shackles of monopoly capital. The temporary reverses of some of our contingents cannot change the alignment of forces, which is favour-' cible to the world revolutionary process. The socialist world system, the international working class and the national liberation movement have sufficient possibilities of stepping up the struggle against an aggressive and oppressing imperialism. Strengthening the links and unity of action between Communist and Workers' parties on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, which Lenin considered highly important, will assure us further gains in this struggle.
Loyalty to Leninism is an earnest of victory.
220 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND THE EXPERIENCEThe Rumanian Communist Party, our working class and all our people revere the memory of Vladimir llyich Lenin, faithful disciple of Marx and Engels and brilliant coniinuator of their revolutionary theory and practice, staunch fighter for the emancipation of the working people from exploitation and oppression, for social and national freedom, for the triumph of socialism and communism.
Lenin's life and work are a magnificent example of devoted service in the cause of the working class and other working people, a model of revolutionary fortitude, political perspicacity and daring thought. Lenin showed that Marxist theory is not a dogma but a revolutionary concept, a method of investigating nature and society, the theory of the proletariat's Party helping it to analyse concrete historical conditions as it strives to transform society on revolutionary lines. He contributed to Marxism and carried it forward in a new historical epoch. He founded a party of a new type and as its leader directed the preparations for the Great October Socialist Revolution and its progress. He founded the Soviet Union, the first socialist state in history.
Lenin's ideas are embodied in the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union, in the Soviet people's important achievements in building communism, and in the gains of the socialist countries, the Communist moveim.'.it and the anti-imperialist forces.
Rumania is commemorating the Lenin cunienary in an atmosphere 221 of inspired labour as it carries out the programme for building a fully developed socialist society adopted by the latest Party Congress. Much is being done to propagate the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, popularise the home and foreign policy of the Communist Party and encourage widespread discussion of the problems of the socialist development of our country, the progress of the socialist world system, the international working-class and Communist movement and the world revolutionary process.
In connection with the Tenth Party Congress and the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the country's liberation, our Party and the whole Rumanian people had an opportunity to make a careful analysis of the progress made in a quarter of a century and draw appropriate conclusions from the experience gained in carrying out the socialist revolution and in building socialism.
Led by the Communist Party, which has invariably been prompted by Marxist-Leninist principles and the dialectical-materialist concept of the world and of society, the working class and other working people of Rumania fought successfully against the bourgeois and landowner system. In August 1944 they rose up in arms, overthrew the exploiter classes in power and carried the socialist revolution through to victory.
We woud like to deal briefly with' some aspects of the experience of the Rumanian Communist Party in leading socialist society in accordance with Lenin's theory of building socialism.
The experience of building socialism, like the world revolutionary process as a whole, bears out again and again Lenin's statement that the strength of the Communist Party and the success of its general line depend in decisive measure on the application of the general laws of the socialist revolution and of building socialism in the specific conditions of the country concerned and the given historical stage. This thesis is of exceptional importance now that the Communist parties have to operate in increasingly diverse conditions due to historical progress and the growth of the revolutionary forces. To see clear in the complex situations they are confronted with, the parties have to know and apply the general truths of Marxism-- Leninism and the general laws of the socialist revolution and socialist development expressing vital requirements of social progress. Furthermore, the experience of recent decades and today's reality, which reflects the vast variety of ways and means of effecting revolutionary changes, lend especial relevance to Lenin's theory that the general manifests itself through the particular and that the two constitute an indivisible dialectical whole. Hence to ignore national 222 peculiarities and the concrete historical conditions in which the revolution and the building of socialism go on is bound to prejudice the Party's effort. Lenin wrote that "the international revolutionary movement of the proletariat 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" (Vol. 15, p. 187). This is most relevant today.
Rumania's progress in building the new social system demonstrates through facts the ability of our Party creatively to apply MarxistLeninist theory according to the situation in our country. In evolving the strategy and tactics required by each stage of the country's progress, the Party studies objective general laws and draws on its i'wn experience and on that of oilier Communist parties and fraternal socialist countries to work out solutions in keeping with our social conditions.
To conclude this brief introduction, we wish to cite one more fact. We mean the consistently Leninist approach of our Party and its leadership to the assessment of past progress, the spirit of criticism and self-criticism pervading their activity, and their bold disclosure of negative phenomena, of the subjective or objective shortcomings and defects that occur as the new society is built. This approach to our own experience is both a duty towards our own people and an internationalist obligation because it enables us to concentrate the people's efforts on unsolved problems and at the same time to strike at enemy propaganda, which tries to take advantage of every negative fact in the socialist countries to complicate the activity of the Cominuinst parties and injure the effort of the revolutionary forces.
Historical experience has shown that the new society is a result ol the given country's continuous mobilisation of its material and manpower resources to carry out the programme drawn up by the Tarty at each stage. At the same time growing all-round cooperation and coordination and fraternal relations between the socialist countries are an important factor for the progress of these countries.
As we know, intensive development of material production on a modern scientific and technological basis is, according to Lenin's concept, the only solid foundation on which the new society can be built and the standard of living raised. This principle has proved valid, for most of the socialist countries began their advance from a relatively low economic level.
The Rumanian Communist Party rallied the country's manpower and material resources lo eliminate the economic backwardness inherited 223 from capitalism and indusUIMisc the country on socialist lines. The results of this policy are exemplified by the fact that industrial output doubled on the average every five years and is now more than fourteen times the pre-war amount. Industry's share in the national income rose from 30.8 per cent in 1938 to 54.2 per cent in 1968, which means that the leading role of this branch of the economy has bean steadily growing. The 10th Party Congress worked out the programme of building a fully developed socialist society. The central task set b, [his programme is to intensify the growth of the proc'.un.i'.'e :ora;s and set up i, up to-date economy by making e.xtonshe use of tiie achievements of the scientific and technological revolution.
The pivot of Ihfi growth of the productive forces as conceived by our Parlv is tbs policy of induslriaUsaiion, which plays a notable part in extending the material and technical base ot socialism bringing ihe economic level of the country nearer that of the foremost countries and pacing tl;;: way for the gradual transition to cotnUu;n:sm. Our Pi-.rtv is effecting industrialisation according to a harffiCiv;ous concept prompied by fi;o actual conditions in our country and by national and international experience. In so doing it bears in mind ihe nerd to exploit natural resources more effectively and take a rrore active part in world trade.
In specifying the: optimal proportions of economic development, our Party and state proceed from current and long-range require menis and irom the importance of the dynamic growth and steady improvement of the structure of social production. Maintaining a continued high growth rate of industrial production, along with improving its pattern. . increasing the key role of industry in the economy and vigorously developing modern brandies closely linked with progress in science and technology, will be the main feature of industrial development in the next decade. Primary attention is paid, therefore, to the power, iron and steel, engineering and chemical iiickislr.es, which guarantee the country's economic progress,
Lenin, it will be recalled, saw the socialist transformation of the countr/iaidc.' as one of the most challenging problems of the transition from i.-api'.alisai to socialism. Our Party has accomplished this revolutionary task, 'liie resulis of the Party's Leninist agrarian policy are seen in the fact that pur agriculture lully meets the consumers' needs and the requirements of the economy.
Rumania's experience in building socialism shows that in our coiui`i'cns agricultural p: irJuclion cooperatives have been the quickes^^1^^ ciiHl suiesi means oi doing away with backwardness in agriculture 224 and with the poverty and insecurity of peasant life. The cooperatives will retain their significance throughout the period of socialist development and the transition to communism. The main lines of development of cooperative farming will be growing output of farm produce, increasing collective property, improving labour organisation and remuneration, promoting cooperative democracy, and encouraging the peasants to take an increasingly active part in agricultural management. The experience of our agriculture, too, confirms the need to consolidate state property and combine it closely with cooperative property.
The organising and political work of Party and state plays a prominent role in modernising agriculture through irrigation, chemicalisation and mechanisation and in perfecting the relations of production in the countryside. From 1950 to 1968 investments in agriculture amounted to 83,000 million lei, of which 63,000 million lei was allocated by the stale. In the next five years, 1971--75, about 90,000 million lei will be invested in agriculture, with tiie state providing 60,000 million lei. We regard the intensive development of agriculture as a complex process comprising better production facilities, the mechanisation and modernisation of technologies, as well as strengthening and diversifying the links between agriculture and industry.
Economic progress at this stage is characterised by the increasing utilisation of scientific and technological achievements. We plan to increase the contribution of science to social progress and harmoniously to combine theoretical and applied research with emphasis on a closer connection between research and economic needs.
Making the economy more effective is one of our principal tasks. Our Party gives and will give this task special attention because it considers that production efficiency, the living standard and our country's share in economic relations with the socialist and other countries will largely depend on the fulfilment of this task.
Our Party and state constantly devote attention to rational use of the national income. In the period between 1971 and 1975, from 28 to 30 per cent of the national income, expected to grow at the rate of 7.7 to 8.5 per cent a year, will be allocated for accumulation and 70 to 72 per cent, for consumption. This ratio, as well as improving the standard of living, which is the ultimate goal of Party policy, should also make for a high rate of accumulation, to achieve which is one of the main lines of our economic policy, for only a high rate of accumulation will enable us to build up a modern economy and attain high material and cultural standards for the people.
With regard to the distribution ot the consumption fund among the 225 members of society, the Rumanian Communist Party adheres to the principle of socialist equity. It does its best to maintain a proper ratio between the incomes of different categories of working people, taking account of the present stage of economic development, the material possibilities of our .society and (lie contribution of each working man or woman to the provision of material and spiritual benefits. This policy, which has nothing in common with levelling up or an egalitarian approach, is objectively due to changes taking place in the social structure and scientific, technological and cultural standards of our society. Modern technology involves increasing use of skilled labour, higher social responsibility of the members of every trade or profession holding this or thai job, better training for work, and so on These factors are steadily bringing the requirements of the members of society closer together, speeding the gradual effacement of essential distinctions between physical and mental labour.
In the future as wall, the standard of living will improve chiefly through growing direct incomes. Material incentives will depend directly on higher productivity of labour and will be coupled with the individual worker's material responsibility for shortcomings in his own performance.
Lenin gave much attention, as we know, to the problem of continuously impromny the forms and methods oj directing socialist society. An important aspect of the policy of our Party and state is that we apply UK; principles of democratic centralism, always taking account of changes in the structure of society, the new exigencies of alt-round progress and the growth of the productive forces. We consider that in economic management we must achieve a more correct combination of centralised management, which should under no circumstances result in excessive centralism stifling local initiative, with encouragement of the economic initiative of the working people and increasing autonomy of the enterprises, as well as ensure greater flexibility in decision-making at all levels. While preserving the level's enabling the centre to decide on cardinal economic problems, we extend the range of problems on which decisions are made by the production units concerned. We have institutionalised the managing committees---collective working bodies which comprise experts, managerial personnel and working people's delegates. Genera! meetings oj employee's have begun to function.
Lenin pointed out that planned dei`elop/in'iil is a constant, consciously maintained propori ionaliiy. A concentrated expression of Party policy, the plan has been, and is, the principal instrument o! specifying our tasks at each stage and of achieving unity of the goals 226 and actions of the whole people. In twenty-odd years of planned economic management, Rumania has gained ample experience, and shortcomings telling on economic efficiency were removed after the 9th Party Congress or are being removed at present.
In relation to planning, our Party holds the view that the market organically combines with central decisions, for it is a factor in the process of extended socialist reproduction. Judicious and flexible utilisation of commodity-money relations and their organic unity with all other economic laws and levers, such as finance and credit, and the growing interest of the enterprises in proper utilisation of funds and material resources make it possible to develop the economy at n high rate and raise its efficiency.
Economic planning and management are based on the principle of collective work and leadership, since one-man management no longer meets the exigencies of the growth of the productive forces due to the extreme complexity of economic problems.
In addition to intensive development of the productive forces, the setting up of an up-to-date economy, and rapid progress in science, education and culture, a fully developed socialist society calls for steps to perfect the relations of production and social relations generally, evolve an organisational pattern enabling every citizen to prove his worth in social life and making for increasingly active participation in the management of public affairs by the working people, to extend civil liberties and foster socialist democracy.
Our socialist system has become stronger in recent years. The working class has grown in numbers and is becoming more and more active as the leading social force. It shows a high degree of maturity, a keen sense of social responsibility and a splendid revolutionary morale, and has again demonstrated its ability not only to overthrow and eliminate the bourgeois and landowner system but to build a new, socialist society.
It must be stressed that the leading role of the working class in society due to the rapid growth of the productive forces and to the complexity of the tasks involved in building a fully developed socialist society, and to the building of communism, the ultimate goal of the proletariat's struggle, is increasing while the social structure of society becomes more homogeneous. This is logical, for, as we know, social composition is determined by the economic basis of the given society. As society advances along the socialist path and socialist relations of production assert themselves, the essential distinctions between social categories arc disappearing and the distinctions between town and country, between physical and mental labour, are __PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 8* 227 diminishing. This confirms Lenin's forecast that socialism brings about community of the economic, political and ideological interests of the workers, peasants, intellectuals, of all working people, and provides conditions for building communism.
The worker-peasant alliance---the bedrock of our socialist societyhas become stronger in the years of socialist development. The peasantry has proved that as it close ally end a friend of the working class it is a powerful factor in transforming society.
Lenin maintained that socialism is built on scientific foundations and, in tuin, allows vast scope for the fullest utilisation of science in every field of man's activity. Accordingly, our Party considers that the intellectuals are playing an increasingly important role in creating material and spiritual wealth and in assuring the general progress of the country. They concentrate the energy of many generations and are a reliable assistant of the Party in building a fully developed socialist society.
The growing socio-political unity of the working people---Rumanians and members of other---nalionaliiies---will continue to be a tremendous molive power speeding the progress of our socialist system.
The national question is a key problem in building socialism and Lenin paid it special attention. Economic, social and cultural progress and the steady promotion of socialist democracy, afford all the citizens of our country---Rumanians, Hungarians, Germans, Serbs and oihyrs---every opportunity to develop their abilities and prove their worth in any public sphere. By ensuring the growth of the productive forces througliout Ilia country and guaranteeing equal rights and freedoms to all irrespective of national origin, our society is steadily building up the friendship and unity linking the Rumanian people with the othfu^^1^^ nationalities living in the country. The constitution o) councils of nationalities living together is evidence of the Party's effort to encourage the working people of other nationalities to participate more and more in all public activities.
The increased unity of our society is reflected in a most important political i.H't, the formaiion of tho Socialist Unity Front. A broadly representative political organisation uniting under the Party's leadership all the classes and strata of society irrespective of national origin th:; From provides a genuine national forum at which the mass-is freely and openly express their views on socialist progress find take part in improving thn organisation of public activity ;md in managing public affairs.
It is common knowledge that Lenin devoted unflagging attention to Hie problem uj llw nation, to the relationship between the national 228 and the international In the socialist revolution and in socialist development.
Historical experience shows that the nation, far from ceasing to nerform its function and mission after the proletarian revolution, rises to a qualitatively higher plane during the transition from capitalism to socialism. We think the problem of the nation in the countries of the socialist world system has an internal and an external acpect. Its internal aspect is that the socialist nation, being based on the abolition of exploitation and oppression and on social justice and equality, brings the interests and aspirations of all social classes and strata into harmony for the first time, enables the whole people fully to assert themselves and stimulates their effort for progress and a higher standard of living.
The other aspect of the problem is that socialism for the first time in history creates the prerequisites of bringing the interests of one nation into harmony with those of other nations.
The two aspects are inseparable.
Protecting the national interests of every people, enabling the socialist nation fully to use its creative potentialities and showing active internationalist solidarity create a solid basis for the unity of the socialist countries and the consolidation of the socialist world system.
Researchers in the socialist countries concern themselves a great deal with problems of the development of the socialist world system and relations between socialist nations. We regard it as a positive i'act that one object of research is to prove in terms of principle the necessity for cooperation and coordination by the socialist countries. These are difficult problems, of course. They call for steadfast theoretical effort taking account of reality, of the stage reached by the socialist world system, and aimed at ascertaining future trends of development.
What are the principal elements, as we see it, to be taken into consideration in analysing these objective laws?
To begin with, there is the fact the socialist world system is composed of independent and sovereign national nad multinational states having their own territory, political organisation and a national economic complex established over a long period. In view of this it must be borne in mind, secondly, that each country is building the new society according to the objective laws of socialism and to its own conditions and historical peculiarities. In the third place, let it be stressed that the socialist countries are not developing in mutual isolation but are linked by strong internationalist bonds, a common social system, a common Ideology---Marxism-Leninism---the common 229 goals of socialism and communism, of the fight against imperialism, by a common interest in achieving all-round development of every country and at the same time in consolidating the socialist world system and heightening the world prestige of socialism.
Two objective trends condition each other and intertwine as the socialist world system develops: first, the comprehensive advancement of each socialist country and the flourishing of its national life due to socialist development, and, second growing fraternal friendship among the socialist countries and increasing cooperation and coordination in every social sphere. This makes it particularly important to perfect mutual economic relations, the international socialist division of labour, and specialisation and coordination in production, science and technology. It is a question of the policy of every socialist country judiciously combining the requirements of planned growth of the productive forces with the need to use the opportunities provided by cooperation between socialist countries, primarily between members of the CMEA.
Bilateral and multilateral cooperation and coordination must not impair either the national or the international interests of the peoples of the socialist countries. And this means that they should be based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and socialist internationalism, sovereignty, independence, equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and mutual benefit and assistance.
These principles are not willed subjectively by anyone but express an absolute necessity of international relations. They synthesise objective processes in the relations between socialist nations and reflect the experience gained in this field.
The dialectical connection between the internal development of each socialist nation and its contribution to the common international cause of the proletariat was stressed by Lenin. He said that each people should accomplish first of all what depends on it, so as to contribute to the triumph of the proletarian cause in the world. And he added that building socialism is a result of the struggle and labour of every people.
Today's reality bears out these ideas. The task of improving economic, social and political activity in every socialist country is of both national and international significance. It owes its national importance to the fact that this is the only way in which the socialist system's potential of progress can be brought out and utilised more fully. And what makes it internationally important is that this process of improvement affords greater opportunities of extending relations with other socialist countries because it connotes improvement of these 230 relations and is intended to achieve closer unity with fratarnal socialist countries.
The socialist state establishes its foreign relations on the principle of complete equality. Its foreign policy acts are prornpiecl both by the national interest and UK: common in'eresis oi' the socialist world system, of peace and inuu-naiional cooperation. It follows that socialist internationalism cannot be opposed io national sovereignty. National sovereignly is an organic, insapnraoio component and attribute of the state. It is inconceivable; th<i scyeruigriy can be divided, that the state can exerc'.su only a p-irt or i,s .sovereign rights while the rest is exeiciscd Ivy external, saprauulior.al forces.
Indeed, sovereignty is a most valuable asset c! every people building socialism and is synonymous with socitil and n-nionai freedom. Respect for it and for the other principles .u;<.uv:;ieeing the unchecked progress of the socialist system in each country is not a debatable mailer.
The forms of cooperation and the whole range of economic, political, cultural, military and other relations aie established by the Communist parties and the governmcnis of ll'c socialist countries according to national and international interosls, in such a way as to ensure that these relations serve socialist development and the unity of the socialist world system.
Our Party does much to footer socialist democracy, for the new system, having abolished ail oppression and all ejonomio and social inequality, creates a climate in which the individual can fully assert himself, leads to a higher standard of relations between the members of society and allows socialist humanism to become firmly established. In fact, socialism must become a society wlio.se every member is aware of being the master cf his own fortunes and can think and work unhampered for social progress.
A notable aspect of socialist democracy is liwt the people, having become the force wielding political power and the owners of the means of production, participate directly in the management of social and economic affairs and in the elaboration and implementation of (he programme of building socialism. Social practice proves that increasing democracy, which is a continuous process, cannot affect the class character of the Party's policies and activities and, far from reducing the leading role of the Party in society, extends it and helps to strengthen the socialist system as a whole. Our Party considers that to promote democracy it is indispensable to make Communists and all other citizens more keenly aware of their social responsibility. For growing socialist democracy and the encouragement of criticism 231 have nothing to do with anarchy, disregard of social laws or communal standards, or neglect of his obligations towards society by the individual citizen.
Lenin attached extraordinary importance to the issue of the rise and development oj the state, still a key subject of ideological and theoretical controversy. Experience shows thai the role and the forms of activity of the state change after the abolition of the exploiter classes and in step with the building up of a homogeneous socialist society. With progress in building a fully developed socialist society and in creating conditions for the transition to communism the functions of the state will change and shift more and more towards the spheres of production, science and culture.
To improve the organisation of society and the manifold activities of the state is an essential requisite of our country's progress towards a fully developed socialist society.
One of Lenin's most important teachings is his theory of the Communist Party and its role in the revolution and in the building of socialism. The experience of our country and social practice show that with socialist progress the objective basis for the leading role of the Party is strengthened and this role becomes even more important.
The Party's leadersthip of the entire life of society is a universally valid law of building socialism and communism.
Objectively, the growth of the Party's leading role is due to the need to lead society on scientific lines, which has become a major problem -in every field of activity. Socialism provides the objective social framework for what in principle is unlimited scope for the optimal growth of the role of conscious regulation of social processes, of man's consciously influencing society. This role in our country is performed by the Party, which carries on extensive political activity based on the Marxist-Leninist world outlook and on analysis of reality and its trends of development and designed to renovate society and investigate it in scientific and social terms.
It must also be remembered that the need to solve theoretical and practical problems of our society tends to increase the Party's responsibility. Socialist development is governed by the general law of the struggle of the new against the old and is based on the solution of specific contradictions of this system in the sphere of materialsocial relations, as well as in that of spiritual growth and social consciousness. The Party's effort consistently to introduce the new and perfect our society involves (very facet of social life.
The new stage of socialist development we have entered, the 232 increasing diversity of economic, scientific and cultural activities and the fact that social processes are becoming more complex extend the task of managing public affairs and make it more important to provide unified leadership for society in general and each of its spheres in particular.
A noteworthy aspect of the Party's leading role is to mould and foster the socialist consciousness of the masses. "A State.'' Lenin wrote, "is strong when the people fire politically conscious. It is strong when the people know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything consciously" (Vol. 26, p. 256).
Increasing people's social awareness is a logical development, a necessarv feature of socialist building. It stems from the very nature of the process of building the new society as a rational creative historical process implying conscious participation by the masses. The degree and effectiveness of the participation are directly proportional to the scientific and cultural standards of the members of society, as well as to the extension of socialist democracy.
According to the concept approved by the 10th Congress, socialist education of the masses should provide both a sound knowledge of e.11 that is valuable in contemporary culture, science and technology, of one's trade or profession, and of dialectical and historical mateiialism Furthermore, it should inspire Party members and the whole people with allegiance to communist ideals.
Recent years have been fruitful not only in the economic and sociopolitical sphere but in that of theoretical, ideological activity.
In the light of Lenin's teachings We must stress that the Party could not cope with either the bigger problems facing it nor its iicreased responsibility unless it were developing dynamically, becoming more mature and more skillful as an organiser. There is a dialectical relationship between Party and society. It was aptly described by Comrade Nicolae Ceausescu at the 10th Congress. The Party, he said, "is the central nucleus of the whole of society which radiates energy rind light setting the whole mechanism of the socialist system in motion and ensuring Us functioning. The Party, in its turn, consiantly gains new strength from the energy and light continuously radiated towards it by the mass of our socialist nation''.
The Party performs Its growing leading role neither nominally nor by administrative fiat. It does so by means of its ideology and through a creative Marxist Leninist policy, through the active effort fif Party committees and organisations, through close links with the '.vorking class, the peasantry, the inteliigriiitsla, ilii the whole people, 233 and through the Communists being in a forward position and setting en example in tlte implementation of the Party's programme.
One of the principles of our Party is to promote internationalist relations and solidarity with other fraternal parties and the antiImperialist forces. We proceed from the fact that the revolutionary achievements of the Communist movement and the appeal of its Marxist-Leninist ideas have made this movement the chief political force of our time. Our Party consistently champions Communist unity on the principles recorded in the Document of the 1969 Meeting, in which we read: "Relations between the fraternal parlies are based on the principles of proletarian internationalism, solidarity, and mutual support, respect for independence and equality, and non-- interference in each other's internal affairs. Strict adherence to these principles is an indispensahle condition for developing comradely cooperation between the fraternal parties and strengthening the unity of the Communist movement.''
In line with the foreign policy consistently pursued by our Parly, the Rumanian people identify themselves with the heroic people of Vietnam fighting against the US aggressors, with all peoples fighting against imperialism, for social and national freedom.
Our Marxist-Leninist thought is now confronted with new phenomena and problems requiring scientifically valid solutions that are impossible without a thorough study oi' reality and a creative approach to them. Hence the extraordinary relevance of the example set us by Lsnin. His activity was a vU'id illustraiion of the innovating character of the revolutionary theory of tue proletariat, a splendid model of critical assimilation of all that was progressive in his day.
Our theory is strong because it is not a closed system set once and for all but a dynamic science growing richer as it probes into a continuously changing reality. To hold deep-reaching constructive exchanges of views on major problems, generalise our own experience and exchange the conclusions flowing from it is an important way of increasing the capacity of our Communist movement for scientific analysis. More than ever before, we must be as receptive to the new as possible, assimilate the foremost achievements of science and culture In a creative spirit, firmly adhere to a militant ideological position in our scientific criticism of retrogressive, idealist, anti-Communist theories and in the broad dialogue and constant confrontation with diverse trends in progressive socio-political thought if we want creatively to develop Marxism-Leninism through all brother parties contributing their original share.
234The Lenin centenary sees the triumph of the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism, whose revolutionising force is vividly embodied in the victory of proletarian revolutions and in socialist building in fourteen countries of Europe, Asia and America, in the gains of the world Communist and working-class movement and the national liberation struggle, in the action of immense socio-political forces fighting against imperialism, for peace and social progress.
The best tribute to the memory of Lenin is to work in a creative spirit on building the new society in our countries, consolidate the socialist world system and the unity of the world Communist and working-class movement, of the anti-imperialist front of struggle for the triumph of socialism and communism throughout the world.
235 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND THE NATIONAL QUESTIONWorks on the national question hold a special place in Lenin's vast ideological legacy. They provide a scientific explanation of the Communist Party's theory and practice on the national question. Their key idea is that of the need to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressing nation and the nationalism of the oppressed nation. The essence of the policy on the national question formulated by Lenin is support for the national liberation movements of all oppressed peoples, uncompromising struggle against imperialism, granting every nation the right to self-determination and national independence, and struggle against every form of national inequality and national oppression. Life has borne out Lenin's theory on the national question and the national liberation movement, just as it has confirmed his other concepts.
Lenin's role is not restricted to what he wrote on this problem. Credit is also due to him for putting his theoretical principles into practice. As leader of the Russian Bolshevik Party, Lenin directed the Great October Socialist Revolution and led it to victory, to the establishment of a new, socialist social system, which paved the way for the abolition of exploitation and oppression in any form, for the emancipation of nations, for their prosperity and cultural progress.
We can say that the October Revolution had a particularly strong impact on the peoples of the East because the ideas and principles of equal rights for the peoples, the ideas and principles of social progress proclaimed by it fully met the requirements of the social, political and economic development of that area.
The October Revolution was the first revolution to indict 236 imperialism and colonial rule. It swept the Russian colonial empire out of existence and freed the numerous peoples oppressed by the tsarist regime. Today, when progressive mankind is preparing to celebrate the Lenin centen-'iry and when almost five decades have passed since Lenin wrote on Ihe national question, his teachings on this question are still valid and meet present-day conditions.
Lenin's slogan---"Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!"---put forward by the Communist International at its inception is still the slogan of the world revolutionary movement. The Document of the 19(59 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties says at the end of .Section Two: "/.' is oj paramount importance jor Hie prospects oj I lie anti-hnperlalist striiyyle to strengthen the alliance between the socialist system, the forces oj t/ie workingclass movement and national liberation''.
F'-om what Lenin wrote on the national question we know that, to develop a principled position on this question, we must make an objective, scientific, Marxist analysis of the given historical situation, proceeding from the interests of the working class, the revolutionary movement and the socialist revolution.
National demands must be suboi'dinatecl to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, a principle in keeping with both scientific practice and the course of development. We Communists operating in an area where the national liberation movement is in progress come up against national problems in all their urgency and complexity, and we find in Lenin's writings advice on the right policy to follow. It is clear to us that in this case the starting point is an internationalist nncl class approach to the whole rang;-; of problems of the national liberation movement. Internationalism means unity of the interests of all workers throughout the world in the struggle against the capitalist exploiters. The material basis for internationalism was provided by Hie development oi^^1^^ capitalism and by ils growth into a world-wide system.
Marx's and Engels's fighting slogan---"Workers of all countries, unite!"---reflects an objective truth and the basic requirement for overthrowing the exploiting, capitalist system. The concept of internationalism has been extending in step with the transformation of capitalism into imperialist monopoly capitalism, the growth of the revolutionary working-class movement and the beginning and expansion of the national liberation movement in the oppressed countries.
Imperialist oppression and exploitation affected both the proletariat of the developed countries and the peoples of the colonies and 237 dependencies of the East. This Is what made it necessary, in our view, to extend the slogan of Marx and Engels and to advance the Lenin slogan "Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!" Lenin spoke of this slogan at a meeting of the Moscow organisation of the Bolshevik Party in December 1920. Answering a question, he said that this slogan was wrong from the point of view of the Communist Manifesto, written in an entirely different situation. The new slogan was correct, however, in terms of the present policy. Lenin added that the Bolsheviks regarded themselves as spokesmen of both the proletariat of all countries and the oppressed peoples. This slogan of Lenin's was, and still is, a slogan of alliance of all the contigents of the world revolutionary movement.
However, the working class of each country and the oppressed peoples, who are linked by general interests in their fight against the exploiters, operate within national bounds. Hence there is a dialectical connection between the common international interests of the oppressed and their particular interests within specific national bounds, that is, a connection between the general and the particular. In other words, the struggle of the working class and the masses within specific national bounds is part of the general revolutionary movement, which is international. This struggle is relatively independent for various historical reasons or due to particular conditions or to the position it holds in the general anti-imperialist front. Each national problem should be examined in concrete and not abstract terms, from the standpoint of the interests of the working class and the socialist revolution. It should be considered, however, whether the problem furthers or hampers the advance to socialism on a re gional and international scale. In other words, a national programme should not, according to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, be seen as something absolute that we must support or reject in any circumstances. Analysis of the historical and political conditions in which a national problem presents itself, and the interests of the socialist revolution are the criteria for determining one's position in each particular case.
Speaking of Marx's negative attitude to the right of the Czech people to self-determination In 1848, Lenin in his work "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" wrote that "in 1848 there were historical and political grounds for drawing a distinction between `reactionary' and revolutionary-democratic nations. Marx was right to condemn the former and defend the latter. The right to self-determination is one of the demands of democracy which must naturally be subordinated to its general interests" [Vol. 238 22, p. 150). Nationalism as a social phenomenon did not develop overnight but was the product of a long process. As a social phenomenon it has two poles, one of which is positive and progressive and the other, negative and reactionary. One can take the right stand only if one takes account of both poles and their influence at each stage of the revolution.
During the rise and development of capitalism in Europe, for instance, the positive aspect of bourgeois nationalism predominated. Under its banner the productive forces of capitalism destroyed feudal relations of production and struck at feudal states. That period of history saw consolidation within national boundaries and the strengthening of centralised stales going on under the banner of bourgeois nationalism. As regards the negative aspects of nationalism, which inflected the class interests nf the bourgeoisie, they became particularly marked after the triumph of the capitalist mode of production over the feudal mode with the rise of contradictions and the class struggle. The negative aspects of nationalism gained in gravity as (apitalism became imperialist monopoly capitalism. They won preponderance in European bourgeois nationalism and served as a smoke screen for the imperialist policy of aggression and conquest.
As for the oppressed countries, the positive aspect of nationalism predominated in their development, for it was the banner under which all patriots fought against an imperialist power, for freedom and national independence. To state this fact does not mean minimising the danger threatening from the other side. The participation of various segments of the bourgeoisie in the national movement and the ideological influence of the international bourgeoisie stress the influence of the negative pole on the ideological and practical activity fif certain elements within the national movement.
The notable progressive political and social changes that have occurred in this century may be said to have benefited the national' movement in the developing countries. The victory of ttie October Revolution and the formation of the socialist world system provided a favourable international climate for the progress of the national movement of the oppressed peoples. The national struggle of these peoples was made easier, not only by the resistance of the Soviet Union and the socialist system to world imperialism in various spheres and by the varied assistance which the socialist countries extended to the national movement, but by <i new model of settling His national question in the course of building socialism, a model used on the principles of proletarian iiHernaiionalisni.
The collapse of the colonial svs'eni anil the rise of dozens of 239 independent national' states hastened the progress of the national movement.
All these factors had a share in the changed character of the national liberation movement of the Arab peoples. Combining the tasks of national liberation from imperialism and those of economic development and social progress added to the progressive content of the movement.
The national movement of the Arab countries has been following roughly the same course as thai of other oppressed peoples. However, It has its peculiarities due to historical conditions. Relations between the Arab peoples and imperialism have not always been direct. Imperialism succeeded in artificially establishing a racialist state, Israel, on Arab soil.
After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the secession of the Arab territories from it Imperialism split the Arab East. It brought into being numerous political formations controlled by the British and French imperialists. Due to tins colonialist partitioning and to other historical factors of a local nature, the national movement followed different patiis and produced different results in that some countries won political freedom earlier than others and that there developed distinctions in regimes. Some Arab countries set out on a progressive course, differing from one another by the degree of radicalism of the reforms they carried out.
Many Arab countries and other countries similar to them in social evolution show an intportant*peculiarily: clue to colonialist and neocolonialist domination, capitalism has not matured in these countries, nor could it have. Consequently, the preservation of some forms of the feudal or semi-feudal mode of production in economic development explains why society in its entirety has not yet become a single economic organism. The delay in economic progress and in the establishment of economic ties in society has retarded the solution of the problem of national unity.
Experience has shown that in the period of far-reaching social Change, of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the national bourgeoisie in the Arab countries proved objectively unable to create the requisites of national unity. It is neither the leader nor the main Component of the national movement because of its narrow class Interests, its economic and political weakness, its links with imperialism, and its fear of the popular movement and the prospect of socialist development, especially after the renuncntjon of Iho ::api talist path by numerous new national suites. 'ilus ijuu:^^1^^ ;rtoi often 240 opposes economic independence and resists its consolidation and promotion.
Our own experience warrants the conclusion that economic independence and economic, social and national progress in these countries are conditional on the socialist transionnation of society. Only socialism can provide the conditions for national unity in the Arab countries and countries similar to them. In our countries, only those classes and social sirata interested in socialism are in a position to solve the national question in a progressive spirit.
The fact that large sections of the petty bourgeoisie in the Arab countries turn to socialist ideas and that some of its progressive elements stiow an interest in Marxist-Leninist ideas is a positive political phenomenon. However, the indecision of these strata due to iheir class origin and the lack of perspective in the programmes of their political parties have shown that their ability to win social emancipation and radically solve the national problem is limited.
This brings us to the conclusion that the working class of the Arab countries and its political spokesmen, the Communists, who constitute the most revolutionary force and are interested in socialism, can provide the conditions for a radical solution of the national problem. Thev can accomplish their historic mission -the social emancipation of the working people---provided they play the leading role in the national movement. This Marxist-Leninist approach to the national question by the forces of the Arab national movement makes the latter an important factor in the international revolutionary movement against imperialism and capitalism. Proceeding from these considerations of principle, we should analyse every national problem, take account of its peculiarities and assess its character and its impact on the Arab revolutionary movement. It is from this standpoint thai we approach the problem cf Palestine and other problems. In line with these considerations of principle, the- Lebanese Communist Party regards the Palestine problem as an important component of the Arab national liberation movement.
Analysing the historical and political circumstances in which the problem arose in the first half of this century, we come to the conclusion thai Israel is a product of an imperialist conspiracy and imperialist plans.
We can say that Zionism is an obvious imperialist trend directed against the Communist movement developing in Europe. Its character as a tool of imperialism against the Arab liberation movement became evident when, at the turn of the cenlury, Theodore Herzl, the spiritual father of Zionism, frankly described the meaning of Zionist policy 241 in the Arab East. "If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine we could improve the state of his treasury in every respect. And as for Europe, we would become part of a shield against Asia. We shall be the advance bastion of civilisation against barbarians.''
When the national sentiments of the Arab world, which at the beginning of this century was under colonial rule, crystallised, Imperialism saw in this a great menace to its interests. In 1907 the British Prime Minister proposed a summit conference of the imperialist powers: Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy find Spain. The conference approved a document saying: "The Mediterranean is a lifeline of empires, a connecting link between East and West, a natural passage to the Asiatic and African continents, a crossroads of world communications... It is precisely this sea that is of the utmost strategic importance to the world. The Mediterranean is the cradle of religions and civilisations. Its southern and eastern coasts are inhabited by one people having a common history and religion. Its land is rich in natural resources, it has every opportunity for emancipation and rebirth, and this is fraught with danger for the empires having interests in the area. Therefore, the empires having common interests should constantly keep the peoples of the Mediterranean in a state of backwardness and maintain the status quo.'' The document stressed that to combat the clanger it was necessary to make an effort to isolate the African part of the area from its Asian part by establishing a kind of powerful human bulwark on the isthmus connecting Asia and Africa, that is, by forming in the area, not far from the Suez Canal, a force friendly to imperialism and hostile to the population.
It follows that as far back as the beginning of the twentieth century the imperialists devised the prerequisites of creating the Palestine problem in the years to come. For fifty years they worked on carrying their plan into practice. The State of Israel was set up. a state which has brought misfortune, war and suffering to the people of Palestine and the whole area. This is why the State of Israel objectively became, and still is, part of the world imperialist system.
In its present capacity of aggressor, the State of Israel is a foreign body in the area. It was estahl ;hed on territories sei/ed from the Arabs and is intended to divide uie Arab world and serve as a barrier to Arab unity.
This state is a sort of big stick in the hands of imperialism, which uses it against the Arab national liberation movement and the gains of progressive regimes. It plays the role of a policeman guarding imperialist interests and objectives. This state wants to strike at 242 progressive regimes and terrorise the liberation movement. It is a bridgehead of imperialism's neo-colonialist policy in Asian and African countries.
Israel is a capitalist, racialist, clerical state based on oppression of the working people and discrimination against both the Arab population left in the area and living under an oppressive military regime and the so-called Eastern Jews, who make up more than half the population. The aggression of June 5, 1967, and continual provocations by Israel have shown that this state is an instrument of the imperialist strategy of local wars.
In the light of the foregoing, we can put the Palestine problem in the right context, in that of the Arabs' common fight for national liberation, which is a component of the world revolutionary movement against imperialism and its tool, Zionism. To take the problem out of this context is wrong and subjective.
The present resistance movement, particularly the armed fight which the Arab people of Palestine are waging on Israeli soil, in the occupied areas, is a revolutionary movement of a people robbed of its land and denied all rights in its own country.
The final solution of the Palestine problem should be effected on the basis of principle, by recognising the right of the Arab people of Palestine to their land, to their home country, and hence their right to return to their native soil and their right to self-determination. There is no justifying imperialist violence and territorial conquest. The presence of a Jewish population in Palestine today can in no way mean denying the Arab people of Palestine their right to their own country.
It is an internationalist duty to support the just and legitimate movement of Palestine resistance.
243 __ALPHA_LVL1__ MARXISM-LENINISM ON NON-CAPITALISTThe 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, great leader of the working people of the world, brilliant thinker and Indomitable revolutionary, is not merely an important political event of today. It is also of vast importance to the ideological and theoretical activity of the Communist and working-class movement, the communist education of the working people and the ideological offensive against reactionary bourgeois ideology.
Marxism, the scientific world outlook of the proletariat, whose class struggle has proved it correct, was carried forward by Lenin in new historical conditions. Leninism is the Marxism of our time. Communists fully recognise Marxism-Leninism as their only scientific world outlook and rely on it for guidance in all their activities.
Marxism-Leninism as the science of the more general laws of development of nature and society, the science of the revolutionary transformation of social life and of building socialism and communism in all the countries of the world, is a great theory showing the working people the way to freedom and progress.
The theory of scientific communism, in arguing that the transition to a classless society is inevitable, was logically faced with the problem of the perspective of the peoples of colonies and dependent countries still at the pre-capitalist stage.
We wou'd like to deal with some aspects of this problem of Marxist-Leninist theory.
The classics of Marxisai-Leninism always approached this problem 244 from the standpoint of concrete historical development and linked it with the victory of the proletariat of the advanced countries. Lenin, creatively elaborating on the teachings of Marx and Engels in a new period, developer! a comprehensive theory of the socialist revolution in the imperialist epoch, including the programme of transition to socialism in backward countries.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, in training the proletariat and its vanguard for future struggles, took care to build up direct and indirect reserves of the revolution. They investigated the most probable lines of its development in proletarian centres and at the peasant periphery, including the colonies and dependencies.
In examining the problem of emancipation of the oppressed and backward peoples of various countries, Marx and Engels advanced tor the first time the idea of the possibility of economically backward countries going over to socialism without passing through the capitalist stage of development.
The conclusion that backward countries could effect this transition with the aid of the victorious proletariat of the advanced countries was drawn by Marx as far back as 1853. On the strength of an exhaustive analysis of the socio-economic and political situation in India he wrote: "When a great social revolution (meaning the proletarian, socialist revolution---Ts. N.) shall have mastered the results of the bourgeois epoch, the market of the world and the modern powers of production, and subjected them to the common control of the most advanced peoples, then only will human progress cease to resemble mat hideous pagan idol, who would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of ths .slain" (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, English ed., Moscow, 19B2, Vol. J, p. 358).
Marx and Engels returned frequently to this problem. They knew how the issue 01 Russia's non-capitalist development was approached by N. Chernyshev.sky and N. Dobrolyubov. Marx and Engels made their conclusion that a backward country---meaning Russia in this case--- (ould develop along non-capitalist lines on condition that the working class achieved victory in the developed countries of Western Eulope. "If the Russian revolution,'' they wrote in their preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto in 1382, in reply to Russian political leaders, "becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each trdiHr, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as (lie starting point for a communist development" (ibid., p. 24).
Fngeis o!alinn"ed M.>:<"; conclusion !ha' backward countries could by-pass the uiphaiisi siu^e. "r.'oi until the ivpHalNt economy,'' he 245 wrote, "has been overcome In Its homeland and in the countries where It has attained a flourishing state, and not until backward countries see from this example 'how it is done', how to put the productive forces of modern industry as public property in the service of society as a whole, will these backward countries be able to take this short cut to the development process, in return, they would in that case be certain to succeed. Nor does this apply to Russia alone but to ali countries in the pre-capitalist stage of development. In Russia, however, this would be easiest of all, comparatively speaking, because there a part of the indigenous population has already assimilated the intellectual results of capitalist development, which means that during the revolution it will be possible to effect social reorganisation there almost simultaneously with the West" (Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 22, p. 446).
Marx and Engels discovered the objective law of social development according to which the developed countries' advanced and progressive experience in social life spreads rapidly in the life of other peoples, whom it helps to rise from a lower to a higher level, by-passing Intermediate stages of development.
Marx upheld the theoretical possibility of this kind of evolution. "If Russian admirers of the capitalist system.'' he wrote in his draft letter to Vera Zasulich, "were to deny the theoretical possibility of this kind of evolution, I should ask them: to introduce machines, steamboats, railways, etc., at home, did Russia really have, like the West, to pass through the long Incubation period of machine production? Let them also tell me how they have managed to introduce in their country the whole mechanism of exchange (banks, credit societies, and so on) which it took the West centuries to evolve" JjVoL 19, p. 401).
Engels stated his idea of development trends after the victory of the proletariat in advanced countries in a letter to Kautsky dated September 12, 1882. "Once Europe and North America have been reorganised,'' he wrote, "this will provide such colossal strength and such an example that the semi-civilised countries will themselves follow suit; economic needs, if nothing else, will take care of that. What social and political phases these countries will then have to go through until they, too, achieve socialist organisation is something of which, I think, we could make only rather idle conjectures" (Vol. 35, p. 298).
Due to the historical situation in Europe at the time, no victorious proletarian revolution took place in Russia, where the development of capitalism resulted in the disintegration of the commune. In other 246 words, the theoretical forecasts of Marx and Engels did not materialise for the time being. This is not to say, however, that the possibility of the non-capitalist development of backward peoples was dismissed and thai capitalism is the only way, as opportunists of the Second International claimed. Van Kol, leader of the Dutch Social-Democrats at the Amsterdam Congress of the Second International, declared after a routine examination of theoretical issues that Marx's theory affirming that the economic evolution of some countries would be able to by-pass Hie capitalist period, tit least partly, had been disproved, and that primitive peoples would attain civilisation only after passing through this Calvary. According to Van Kol, Socialists must not hold up the development of capitalism since it was a necessary stage In man's history; they could, in fact, help its advent by easing the birth pains.^^*^^
There is no need to demonstrate that this allegation of the Dutch Social-Democrats' one-lime leader has nothing to do with Marxism and has Ions been refuted by practice.
Lenin developed Marx's theory of the non-capitalist road into an integral scientific theory in the imperialist period.
Having studied the experience of the revolutionary struggle and the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples, Lenin wrote: "Are 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 towards progress is to ba seen since,the war? We replied in the negative" (Vol. 31, p. 244). And Lenin drew the following wellknow conclusion: "The Communist International should advance the proposition, witii the appropriate theoretical grounding, that, 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, io communism, without having to pass through the capitalist stage" (ibid.).
In this case Lenin took into account, first of all, Ihe fact that the October Socialist Revolution had triumphed and that the Russian proletariat, led by its Communist Party, had set out to build socialist society. The national liberation movement that developed under the influence of the October Revolution made for extending Lenin's theory of the non-capitalist road of development.
Lenin's theory of the non-capitalist development of backward _-_-_
^^*^^ Van Kol, Koloniulnui/n iwlitiku i ^o'^inl-demokraiia (Colonial Policy and : ocial-lJeinacracy). SI. Pftersbui>',, T-)U(i. p. 13.
247 countries was carried into practice by the one-time colonial peoples of the Eastern regions of tsarist Russia, now members of a single socialist state, and by the people of what today is the Mongolian People's Republic, an independent state.Mongolian Communists are proud of the fact that the great Lenin himself helped our people and Party to choose the non-capitalist road. It was Lenin who offered valuable advice and recommendations to the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party regarding the perspective of Mongolia's non-capitalist development.
Admittedly, Mongolia was one of the most backward Asian countries, a country with a feudal system whose population was engaged mainly in primitive nomadic stock-breeding. It had no industry, mechanised transport, nor up-to-date communications and lacked a national finance and credit system. Its peasant stockbreeders, known as arats, were oppressed by feudal lords and foreign exploiters. Their minds were befogged by Lamaist religious dogma. The lamas controlled all education, and, in fact, the very life of the arats.
The lamaseries, those feudal estates of the top lamas, were centres of obscurantism and feudal exploitation. Over 100,000 lamas, or 40 per cent of the male population of the country, lived in them as parasites at the arats' expense.
The immense difficulty of remaking in those conditions the social life of the Mongolian people, who had opted for non-capitalist development, will be readily appreciated.
The revolution of 1921 turned a new leaf in the history of our people and cleared the ground for fundamental socio-economic changes, the full growth of the productive forces and higher material and cultural standards for the people, paving the way to socialism. The effort to reorganise and promote the country's lagging economy began at a favourable time, when the workers and peasants of Russia, having abolished the capitalist system and colonial exploitation on one-sixth of the globe and established the world's first dictatorship of the proletariat, held out a helping hand to all oppressed peoples of the world.
The Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party led the people in the struggle for national liberation and social change. In those conditions our people not merely envisaged hut actually accomplished the task of eliminating imperialist tyranny and feudal rule and then built socialist society, skipping the capitalist stage of development.
To go over from feudal relations to ^orialism. Backward rountries must effect a series of revolutionary democratic relorms and 248 accomplish taks that normally are a result of bourgeois revolution. In the MPR we abolished feudal serfdom, the duties and tributes arbitrarily imposed on the arats by their feudal lords. We confiscated the property of the feudal lords and high Lamaist dignitaries and distributed the confiscated livestock among the poor and needy arats. It took the Mongolian people almost two decades to carry out all these revolutionary democratic changes. The main result of the democratic stage of the Mongolian revolution was the abolition of feudal relations of production and the exclusion of foreign trade capital and usurer capital from the economy and, on the other hand, the rise of a socialist economic sector and the laying of a solid groundwork for non-capitalist development.
At the second, or socialist, stage of the revolution the Mongolian people, led by the Party, took important steps to develop industry and agriculture and accomplish a cultural revolution.
TWe establishment and steady growth of a socialist industry and the development of modern transport and communications turned Mongolia, once an agrarian stock-breeding country, into an agrarian and Industrial country.
Far-reaching social and economic changes occurred in agriculture during the same period. By 1959 all arm households had joined cooperatives, which meant that socialist relations of production had triumphed in the Mongolian People's Republic.
Socialist development was accompanied by a cultural revolution which expressed itself in such deep-going changes as the abolition of complete illiteracy among the adult population, the introduction of universal elementary education for children in the countryside and incomplete secondary education in the town, the development of a new national culture, literature and the arts and a modern science, and the formation of a new, people's intelligentsia.
The all-round fraternal assistance we were offered by the Soviet Union, the first socialist country on our planet, was a decisive factor for our country going over to socialism without having to pass through capitalism.
Mongolia has now entered the closing period of socialist development, whose main tasks are contained in the Party Programme adopted by the 15th Congress in 1966.
Thus the Mongolian people, led by their Marxist-Leninist Party, put into practice the great theory of Marx, Engels and Lenin about the possibility of the noncapital]':.! development of backward countries. We must note that in impi.eiiu;iuing this theory our Party had to overcome furious resistance by the overthrown feudal class, the 249 intrigues of foreign imperialism, the pressure of petty-bourgeois spontaneity, the resistance of Right- and ``Left'' whig opportunists inside the Party and recurrent manifestations of nationalism or its survivals.
The Central Committee of our Party, summing up the results of the non-capitalist development of Mongolia in its decision on the Lenin centenary, pointed out that "the oxoei-ience of the MPR, which has accomplished a historic transition from feudalism to socialism, is a brilliant practical proof that only the path indicated by Lenin -ths socialist path---guarantees the peoples genuine national freedom and social progress. The Mongolian people's historic gains are graphic evidence of the correctness of Lenin's theory maintaining that peoples having won their freedom can advance to socialism without passing through capitalism''.^^*^^
The historically verified experience of the Mongolian people, once at the stage of feudal relations, in building socialist society is an important contribution by our Party to the revolutionary theory and practice of the international Communist, working-class and national liberation movement.
The process of transition to socialism without passing through capitalism has been developing fast in numerous countries. More peoples are bound to take this path. Thus the issue of backward countries by-passing capitalism has become an international problem. This is why Mongolia's experience is of special international significance today.
For all the diversity of national peculiarities, the process of development of the liberated countries today has much in common with the non-capitalist development of the MPR.
The national liberation revolutions taking place in Asian and African countries are directed against imperialism and its internal social basis, as was the case in our country. We think the most acute problem facing newly free countries is to eliminate the effects of long-time colonial oppression. Backwardness, especially economic and cultural, cannot be eliminated without social changes reaching beyond the limits of ordinary democratic reforms.
Mongolian experience suggests that to carry out decisive, revolutionary measures aimed at ending their lag, newly free countries must establish and steadily strengthen close relations and all-round cooperation with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and rely on them for fraternal assistance. The logic of social development _-_-_
^^*^^ Namyn Amyctrul (periodical oi the CC MPRF) No. 5, 1913U.
250 may therefore be said to impel these countries towards a non-- capitalist course.In the new period of history, when socialism has become a world economic system and the decisive factor for social progress, and when the national liberation movement has achieved a historic victory and become a component of the world revolutionary process, the outlook for the countries that have won freedom but are behind times economically is of the utmost importance.
This explains why the problem of non-capitalist development of the countries fighting for national liberation was elaborated and specified at all the international meetings of Communist and Workers' parties, held in Moscow in 1957, 19'jU and 1969.
This problem is an object of widespread theoretical discussion and ideological controversy. The bourgeoisie and its apologists understandably deny the possibility of non-capitalist development, using various subterfuges and calumnies.
We do not speak of the Maoists, who flatly reject the non-capitalist road. When it is a question of this road and of the socialist progress of the MPR the Maoists merely turn on a spate oi abuse.
However, there are diverse concepts denying the non-capitalist perspective today. One of them contends that no anti-capitalist changes can be effected without direct leadership by the working class. This view is wrong because it discounts the actual existence of the non capita list road, the new conditions of social development and the alignment of the forces oi socialism and capitalism brought into being by the victory of tiie October Socialist Revolution and the establishment of the socialist world system.
Some theorists take a superficial view of Marxism Leninism or misrepresent it, claiming that Marxism-Leninism is only applicable in. developed capitalist countries, where the class contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie come out into the open They allege that it is inapplicable in backward, agrarian countries, where peasants make up the bulk of the population. This leads them to the conclusion that the Marxist-Leninist theory of non-capitalist development should be renounced. A reasonably close look at the matter proves them wrong.
The interests of the working class fighting for socialism are in keeping with the interests of all working people. Hence it is wrong to affirm that Marxism-Leninism does not meet the interests of the working people, specifically the peasants in backward countries. The Marxist Leninist henry of non capitalist development, borne out by reality, expresses an objective law of development in backward 251 coumrles and illuniinates the road to national freedom and social progress for the oppressed peoples.
Lenin predicted that the struggle of the peoples of one-time colonies and dependencies for their political and economic emancipation, initially directed against imperialism, would, on reaching a definite level, become increasingly anti-capitalist in content. The fact that a number of liberated countries have chosen the socialist orientation and actually taken steps to effect radical social changes shows that Lenin was right.
Imperialism today is particularly hostile to countries with progressive regimes that have chosen the socialist orientation. To divert them from this course, it tries to disrupt their political parties and bring their educational and cultural institutions and mass media under its control. It plants its counter-revolutionary agents in these countries and backs reactionary elements in the administration and the armed forces. It takes advantage of anti-Communist prejudice to sow discord among patriots. The imperialists spare neither effort nor means to check the progress of liberated countries because they are aware of the existence and significance of the non-capitalist road and fear that more countries will take the same road.
``Under the impact of the revolutinary conditions of our time,'' says the Document of the 1969 Meeting, "distinctive forms of progressive social development of the newly free countries have appeared, and the role of revolutionary and democratic forces has been enhanced. Some young stales have taken the non-capitalist path, a path which opens up the possibility of overcoming the backwardness inherited from the colonial past and creates conditions for transition to socialist development. In these countries the socialist orientation is making headway, overcoming great difficulties and trials. These slates are waging a determined struggle against imperialism and neocolonialism.''
The advantages of the non-capitalist road of development consist in a considerable acceleration of the historical development of backward peoples, who are, furthermore, enabled to pass through a whole historical epoch in a relatively short time. To paraphrase Marx, the non-capitalist road eases the birth pains of the new society. The non-capitalist transition to socialism takes place without the peasants having to become proletarianised first and without the bulk of the population being ruined, which is inevitable under capitalism.
The non-capitalist road of development provides the right solutions to the present day problems of the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
252 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND SOME ASPECTSLeninism has illuminated the future. It has aroused the masses, the working class, the youth, all working people, and shown them the way to struggle. To this day it retains its validity for the entire revolutionary movement, whose beginning is linked with Lenin's name. The present period has most convincingly borne out the universal validity of Leninism.
Now that the general crisis of capitalism is going deeper, we see practice confirming Lenin's ideas, which are full of revolutionary optimism, creative daring and militancy. Lenin's works help us and add to our knowledge.
Our tasks in the ideological struggle are to defend the ideas of Marxism-Leninism against enemy attacks, spread them far and wide and carry them forward, taking inspiration from Lenin's example in carrying forward the ideas of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
1. It is essential, first of all, to stress the importance of the ideological struggle in its broadest meaning, a struggle growing in intensity in our epoch. The interconnection of the objective processes of social development and the ideological trends engendered by them is becoming closer. The prime reason for this is probably the division of the world into two systems, capitalist and socialist. The contest between these poles makes the situation in which people have to live extremely precarious. It erodes and undermines all trends towards stagnation, routine and conformism.
This split of the world defies comparison with any phenomena of 253 earlier periods, such as the periods of feudalism and capitalism. Naturally, the transition from feudalism to capitalism resulted in a reappraisal of certain laws and values of feudal society. But the fundamental laws of feudalism, in particular the existence of exploiters and exploited, persisted. The leap from capitalism to socialism objectively necessitates the abolition of the very foundations of the capitalist system that have staken deep root in the course of social his tory, such as the division of society into classes, the oppression of th« majority of the people by the ruling minority, etc.
The abolition of the colonial system is another factor for the exacerbation of the ideological struggle. The emergence of cultural values that were unknown to us at one time or were not preserved in the past induced us to revise our approach in evaluating them. an approach that would seem to have been canonised by time and custom.
We must add to this that lately the scientific and technological revolution has assumed tremendous importance and we are still hardly in a position fully to assess its effects. The growing amount of knowledge and man's increasing ability to use it to transform nature make the ideological struggle more dynamic and call for ideas and concepts taking into account the colossal achievements of science and technology and, moreover, carrying them further.
At the same time we see the masses making cultural progress in many countries, which is stimulated, among other things, by the results of the technological revolution. The working people's eslima^ lions in the political, philosophical and other fields today are conditioned not so much by emotions, custom or conformist habits as by sound thinking and the clash of opinions.
The subjective factor is thus becoming very important in modern history.
2. The situation in the ideological sphere today is characterised by a crisis of bourgeois ideology and, secondly, by the advance of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, which, however, does not rule out some diuiculties..
The common denominator of this twofold evolution is that historical reality proves Marxism-Leninism right---through the revolutionary struggle of the masses, as a result of the conflict between the capitalist and socialist worlds, the liberation of the peoples oppressed by colonial rule, the achievements and prospects of the techno logical revolution, and so on. Historical reality is objectively destroying the very principles which ideoiogists traditionally invoked in an effort to defend or justify regimes based on oppression and exploitation. 254 Scientific progress is aggravating the main contradictions of capitalism and giving rise to new ones.
The requirements of the scientific and technological revolution make, in particular, for a growing number of students everywhere and for a considerable increase in the proportion of the urban middle strata---researchers, engineers and technicians, blue-collar workersmost of whom come into conflict with monopoly capiial while their social condition is drawing nearer that of industrial workers. Members of these strata may become a very important ally of the working class and a new motive force of the socialist revolution, a circumstance which raises the leading role of the working class in political and social life to a new plane.
The historic turn in events marked by the defeat of US imperialism, the strongest of all, in Vietnam, the ``storm'' raging in Latin America, the growing fighting efficiency of the Arab peoples, and the advance of the struggle of the masses to a higher level providing new revolutionary opportunities in the developed capitalist countries are destroying the ideological formulas which in the post-war period have clone so much harm and among which is the theory of the " selfrenovation of capitalism" and theoretical arguments to the effect that ii is impossible to combat it.
The speculative methods of all religious and ideological concepts which for centuries maintained a gulf between man's real life and spiritual visions are losing their significance. The level attained by the productive forces and the influence exerted by Marxism have virtually led to the bankruptcy of speculative philosophy. The tendency towards ``scientification'', or the uss of scientific methods in political and ideological struggles, is vjaining in importance. Bourgeois ideologists agree to the use of scientific methods in investigating, first of all, a concrete or particular sphere of reality. But when it comes lo the concept of the evolution of mankind and of history as a whole, their theoretical arguments and science become poles apart.
Attempts by bourgeois ideologists to impose some form of ``third'' ideology, to invent a ``third'' way or propose a ``third'' solution fail one after another.
Reality supplies incontrovertible proof that Lenin was right when he said there are two worlds, or two ideologies, opposing each other on our planet. In this confrontation the bourgeois ideology is debated while the ideas of scientific socialism inarch on, winning one 'MilIff alter another and gaining ground amonj; Hie masses.
3. In .speaking of this advance of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, we .an cite the experience of the Communist Party of Spain, which has 255 had to operate underground for 45 years out of 50 and, specifically, to fi.'ihi against the Franco dictatorship for more than 30 years. As we all know, the dictatorship used the most criminal and barbarous methods to eradicate Lenin's ideas and efface his very name in Spain and to impose clerical fascist ideas. The study of Catholic dogma in every category of sciioo! ha--- been compulsory in Spain for 30 years. The fascist doctrine, steeped in anti-communism, is taught just as compulsorily from school to university. It would be absurd, of course, to think Franco can achieve his ends in this way.
The Franco dictatorship is there but the masses, especially young people, reject tiie official ideology and try to make the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin their own.
Although Lenin's works are outlawed, young Spaniards in the countryside, in factories and universities read them with keen interest. Never have Lenin's works been read and studied so widely as now.
This shows that coercive measures and official pressure can never impose an ideology. Leninism breaks down all barriers in its way. for it elucidates real phenomena of the people's His and expresses the people's desire for revolutionary change. This is why Leninism is winning the minds of people although it is condemned and banned in Spain.
The impact of the Marxist-Leninist ideology is so strong that even Kazan y Fe, the Jesuits' official periodical, wrote in February 1969 as follows: "Marxism today has attained an unprecedented degree of dissemination and ideological influence. Whatever the actual results of this doctrine, Marx today is, more than ever, a living leader of many people interested in building life on earth and not in heaven.''
Similar admissions may be found in other publications.
Certain developments taking place in the Church are highly sympto^ matic. A very important trend of the movement, one that came into bsing after the Ecumenical Council and advocates a renovation of Catholicism, and particularly those of its currents directly linked with the struggle of the workers and other working people (in Spain and Latin America, for instance), have adopted some of the fundamental ideas of Marx and Lenin, saying that these ideas are compatible with their religious convictions.
Practice corroborates the thesis advanced by Comrade Santiago Carrillo in his book New Approach to the Problems of Today. COUP menling on the dialogue between Christians and Marxists, he writes: "In Marxist-Leninist ideology there are propositions permitting not a coexistence, but a coincidence of points of view, which makes actual cooperation more feasible.''
256In the world of today we already see believers who accept the economic, social and political tenets of Marxist ideology even though they disagree with Marxist philosophy. This is a widespread phes nomenon and testifies to the strength of our doctrine.
Mention should also be made of the role of Leninism in recent political events reflecting the new positions of some groups of army officers in a number of Arab and Latin American countries, where there is a combination of anti-imperialist nationalism with socialist tendencies. The brass hats of the Pentagon admit ruefully that the teaching of Marxism-Leninism, introduced in ``anti-guerrilla'' military schools on their initiative, has boomeranged in some cases, with Marxism-Leninism arousing interest and curiosity rather than hatred and repulsion, and even winning supporters.
The most important fact to he noted is the growing influence of the Leninist ideology on the working people, primarily on the younger generation.
More and more, Marxism-Leninism is becoming the axis of the great world-wide contest of ideas.
4. Precisely because Leninism is on the rise today, we must frankly ask ourselves: what are the real obstacles or difficulties whose elimination would enable us to step up our ideological offensive?
Lenin's titanic work made him the greatest personality in history^ Every worker and every exploited man or woman realises and appreciates Lenin's decisive role as leader of the Bolshevik Party and the first socialist revolution. Every form or manifestation of the ideological struggle today is pervaded by Lenin's revolutionary ideas and reflects the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union.
Once a backward country, the Soviet Union has become the second economic, power of the world and ranks first in some areas of scientific and technological progress.
The Soviet people have achieved these results at the cost of enormous sacrifice, for over a number of years they were alone amid a hostile world. In the formative period of the Soviet state they foiled the armed intervention of fourteen capitalist countries. Later on they defeated the Hitlerite aggressors. Over 20 million Soviet people gave their lives to free their country and save mankind from Hitler's inferno. The epic building of socialism in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's generous and disinterested assistance to other peoples in the fight for freedom (we Spanish Communists will say this again and again on the strength of our own experience) won the admiration, love and solidarity oi the exploited in Hie capitalist world. With the same admiration the world followed afterwards the heroic deeds of 257 the Chinese revolution, the Cuban revolution, the liberation war in Korea and now in Vietnam. The enthusiasm millions of people are fired with as they watch the new world whose inviolable law is to eliminate all exploitation and oppression is the main reason for the present advance of the Marxist-Leninist ideology in capitalist countries.
On the other hand, it is becoming evident that the ideological struggle cannot be based solely on laying bare the evils of imperialism and emphasising the advantages of socialism. To be stronger in the fight against imperialism, Marxism-Leninism must also analyse its own internal problems.
The progress of Marxism-Leninism cannot now ignore the inner dialectic born of the triumph of socialism in fourteen countries, on one-third of the globe, in the most diverse forms. The statement that there are different models of socialism in these fourteen countries neither minimises nor detracts from the exceptional role which the October Revolution played by opening a new era in man's history, the era of socialism and communism.
On the other hand, the existence of diverse models is in accordance, we think, with ideas contained in Lenin's works.
Lenin's forecasts of the future make it perfectly clear that he realised that the victory of socialism in various countries would produce diverse forms as regards both political structures and other aspects.
In The State and Revolution Lenin speaks of the extraordinary diversity of forms of the bourgeois state and adds that the dictatbrship of the bourgeoisie is, in the final analysis, the substance of all bourgeois' states. "The transition from capitalism to communism,'' he writes, "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" (Vol. 25, p. 413).
In "A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism'', Lenin likewise speaks of the extraordinary diversity of political forms under the bourgeois system, in the imperialist countries, and adds: "The same variety will manifest itself also in the path mankind will follow from the imperialism of today to the socialist revolution of tomorrow. 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. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory, or more ridiculous from that of practice, 258 than to paint 'in the name of historical materialism', this aspect of the future in a monotonous grey" (Vol. 23, pp. 69---70).
Analysis of these and similar ideas contained tn Lenin's works suggests that we must pay attention to how Lenin defined the distinctions in the political structures of socialist society which were to have assumed diverse forms depending on the degree of development of the productive forces, on cultural level and national traditions.
We believe, for example, that nothing in Lenin's theses contradicts the view that one of the variants of the dictatorship of the proletariat can be brought into being under a multi-party system and even (in some cases) in the presence of a legal opposition. In speaking of the possibility of the dictatorship of the proletariat existing alongside a multi-party system and a legal opposition and in examining at the same time the perspective of the advance of the socialist revolution in new conditions, we have in mind the theoretical substance of Lenin's theses and Lenin's practice of the first dictatorship of the proletariat. As we know, Russia immediately after the October Revolution had a coalition government including the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. The Mensheviks, in their turn, were a legal opposition in the Soviets till 1920. Here is a noteworthy statement by Lenin on this point: "We do not at all regard the question of disfranchising the bourgeoisie from an absolute point of view, because it is theoretically quite conceivable that the dictatorship of the proletariat may suppress the bourgeoisie at every step without disfranchising them. This is theoretically quite conceivable. Nor do we propose our Constitution as a model for other countries. All we say is that whoever conceives the transition to socialism without the suppression of the bourgeoisie is not a socialist. But while it is essential to suppress the bourgeoisie as a class, it is not essential to deprive them of suffrage and of equality" (Vol. 29, pp. 184---85). This experience of Lenin's is of great theoretical importance to us because it helps our Party---in entirely new conditions, of course---to work out its own perspective of struggle. The important thing in the* scientific concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that the working class in power exercises its leading role, which can be done in 'diverse forms. The leading role of the Communist Party is indispensable but this depends, first of all, on the working people's faith in the Party, on the Party's ability to pursue its policy, to persuade and lead the masses. Hence, the Communist Party can exist without any other parties having to accord it anything like formal recognition.
__PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 9* 259These problems are of tremendous importance to us in Spain because a correct understanding of them should help form an alliance Of forces that could under the leadership of the working class take power and accomplish the socialist revolution. In charting our own rqad to socialism, we proceed from Lenin's principle of the existence of variants of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Being loyal to Leninism, we stress that socialism should mean an extraordinary extension of democratic freedoms, which the bourgeoisie has always provided but nominally and which socialism must raise to a higher plane and give a real political, social and economic content.
``Socialism,'' Lenin wrote, "is impossible without democracy because: (1) the proletariat cannot perform the socialist revolution unless it prepares for it by the struggle for democracy; (2) victorious socialism cannot consolidate its victory and bring humanity to the withering away of the state without implementing full democracy" (Vol. 23, p. 74).
The manifestation of this strictly democratic character of socialism, which Lenin stressed so forcefully and which today is of particular significance, is essential in the ideological struggle today. We must expose the bourgeois state at a time when it resorts in increasing measure to coercive methods, fascist forms of violence and a monstrous military-bureaucratic machinery.
5. In terms of the ideological struggle, of particular importance to this activity of our parties is one of Lenin's counsels---to be uncompromising towards hostile ideas in our midst, and towards every shade of opportunism.
Lenin's skill in upholding and applying Marxist principles, without following them with dogmatic fidelity, spellbound by the letter and rigid formulations, but enriching these principles and developing them according to new conditions, is a most valuable precept to us, which we should apply in appropriate measure today and as effectively as possible, in keeping with Leninist principles.
Constantly inspired by this counsel of Lenin's, the 'Communists of Spain have resolutely combated, and continue to combat, whenever necessary, the penetration of bourgeois ideas and revisionist deviations, Right and ``Left'' alike.
However, we should ascertain in this ideological discussion whether we do not come up, in addition to the deviations we have mentioned, against problems of a different kind which could not possibly have arisen two or three decades ago.
Today th* socialist world system is in existence. Never in the course of history has any ideology been so widespread as Marxism-Leninism 260 is today. The diverse areas in which Marxism-Leninism is prevalent may, among other things, show deep objective distinctions. ' Overcoming these distinctions is logically bound up with 'the objective process of the effacement of differences and contrasts between countries, contrasts which imperialism tries to preserve and aggravate but which the world-wide victory of socialism will overcome and eliminate.
The relation between the objective basis of socialism, socialist societies, and the superstructure expressed by (he Marxist ideology is not passive but active. It is not surprising, therefore, that certain divergences or contradictions crop up in Marxism-Leninism today which at the ideological level reflect the diversity existing among socialist societies. These societies are a result of the defeat of capitalists and landowners. They are all part of the socialist world system and a component of the world-wide process of socialist revolution. These divergences or contradictions are therefore not of a class nature. They lie within the sphere of the working class. In a more general, sense, these ideas are current within Marxism-Leninism.
In discussing these differences, it would be wrong to use a method by which anyone expressing disagreement is seen as haying yielded to bourgeois influence or, in other words, become a Right- or ``Left''.-' wing opportunist.
We should distinguish between the struggle against hostile ideas and the effort to overcome communism's own ``disorders'', to paraphrase Lenin's famous expression. We must realise that some differences are an expression of objective realities or diverse experiments on which practice alone can pass final judgement.
In the cases we have mentioned earlier, the method of labelling anyone an ``opportunist'', the tendency to regard anyone who thinks differently as being under the Influence of bourgeois or petty-- bourgeois ideology, could have an adverse effect. It could complicate theoretical elaboration and concrete analysis of the objective origins of this or that idea. Such a method actually raises obstacles to the necessary discussion ol luoas ithln Leninism. It complicates the confrontation of diverse somiioiis, that is, the process of developing and enriching our doctrine. It exaggerates the real strength of our enemy, especially in the ideological field.
Imperialism, which today suffers from a lack' of ideas of its own, makes desperate efforts to profit by differences and contradictions in the socialist system and the revolutionary movement as a whole. This is not to say. however, that imperialism can at will create difficulties in the socialist world, such as there are at present. In many 261 cases these difficulties, though used subsequently by imperialism, are due to the historical development of socialist societies. And this means that to overcome them we must apply the dialectical method of discussion within Marxism-Leninism.
A measure of appreciation of this was undoubtedly.reflected in the results of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Worker's Parties, at which important steps were taken, in our Party's view, towards recognising diversity in the world Communist movement, towards achieving the new unity on the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism that is so necessary today.
In our ideological struggle it is important always to remember that Marxism-Leninism is a science. There can be no question that we must always uphold Marxist-Leninist positions. But Marxism-Leninism as a science does not and cannot have a Holy Inquisition deciding on ``purity''. Indeed, the 1969 Meeting stated with good reason that the international Communist movement has no leading centre.. The real criterion of Marxist-Leninist ideas as scientific and revolutionary ideas is revolutionary practice and the progress made by the revolution.
6. It will be seen from the foregoing that we reject every tendency to deny that publicising the achievements and victories of the Soviet Union and the socialist world as a whole should by rights hold the key position in our ideological struggle. The workers and the ex= plotted throughout the world regard these successes as their own.
We must use in this work that unique instrument, the MarxistLeninist doctrine, which is critical by its very nature, and not be afraid at all to see the reality surrounding us in its true light.
The most negative aspect of the attitude of apologists and of lovers of paeans and blind imitation is that by minimising or keeping silent about the real problems agitating the masses they create a vacuum in which the class enemy can propagate his pernicious ideas.
Experience has shown that an honest approach even to negative developments in the socialist countries gives us strength in our fight against imperialism. We must strive to interpret these developments correctly in front of the masses and according to our principles, even though in some cases this may bring a critical reaction. Such a position helps us to make our ideological struggle against imperialism and our defence of socialism truly effective.
We have the vivid example of Lenin who even at the most dangerous junctures in the existence of the newly established Soviet state engaged boldly and openlv in extensive ideological discussions in which certain aspects of socialist reality were severely criticised. 262 Lenin was convinced that these discussions helped to vindicate and strengthen socialism.
The important thing for us is the will to impart to the ideological struggle the offensive character it now needs. This is the spirit In which we also approach the problem of prolfiUinan internationalism.
It is no longer a question of dsfending one socialist country en« circled by a capitalist work!. We now have the socialist world system, and our proletarian solidarity is and must be with the Soviet Union and the socialist world system.
There is an important tlieais in the Document of the Moscow Meeting reading as follows: "The winning of power by the working class and its allies is the greatest contribution which a Communist Party fighting under capitalist conditions can make to the cause of socialism and proletarian internationalism''.
We consider that the main criterion of proletarian internationalism is the ability of each Party to evolve and implement a national and international policy promoting the revolution in the country concerned and, at the same time, the world revolutionary process.
It follows that the principle of independence of every Party, rightly reaffirmed at the Moscow Meeting, is an objective revolutionary necessity. We are far from underrating or scorning hiternationalism. On the contrary, we believe that the independence of the parties will help our proletarian internationalism not only lo be expressed in words but to be more effective in deeds.
Tlie Communist Party of Spain works to bring the ideas of MarxismLeninism home to the workers and the people. We are wall aware of the limited character of our experience and of the naed to improve our work in many fields. But we constantly strive to be loyal to Lenin's precept and example, to help Marxism-Leninism as best we can to achieve new revolutionary victories by showing the masses, who are still oppressed, how they can break the chains of imperialism and capitalism and win genuine freedom that can be achieved only under socialism.
263 __ALPHA_LVL1__ IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE FOR THE YOUTHOur Party is marking the centenary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the brilliant theorist, revolutionary and statesman, and leader of the international working class. In marking the centenary, we are selling our sights on creative application of Lenin's ideas to the new developments of our time. We do so with an eye on the wealth of Lenin's heritage, on such universal laws as the hegemony of the working class in alliance with other strata under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Party and the necessity of a revolutionary reconstruction of society. It is our purpose to spread Lenin's ideas among the workers and young people of West Berlin and thereby help carry forward Lenin's cause, the cause of the working class, of peace and social progress.
Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the time in which socialism and communism are triumphant. Leninism is proving its viability and its steadily growing influence in countries where the working class has already won, in the international revolutionary labour and national liberation movements. A desire to familiarise themselves with Marxism-Leninism is particularly evident among the working youth and the students. Primitive bellicose anti-communism is losing ground. However, the bourgeoisie and its apologists are trying to introduce new, subtler variants of anti-communism, aimed at discrediting the socialist reality in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic and other socialist states, to split the anti-imperalisl movement in the capitalist countries.
264Lenin's works have been of invaluable help to us in working out the revolutionary theory and the tactics of class struggle in the fight against opportunists of all shades.
There are two states in Germany with opposite modes of production and different structures of power-the socialist German Democratic Republic and the capitalist Federal Republic of Germany; besides, there is a special political unit within the GDR, West Berlin, in which capitalism is dominant. And from this basic fact we proceed in assessing all political developments in our country.
As you know, the CDU CSU, the main party of West German monopoly capital, was pushed out of office in the Bundestag election of September 28, 1969, and replaced by a coalition of the SDP and FDP. The ouster of the CDU CSU was a positive development, creating opportunities for renewed efforts by the working class in the fight for the workers' social and political rights against the outdated property relations and power structure. But that is just what the Social-Democratic politicians want to avert by identifying the change of government with change of the power structure. In his The State and Revolution, Lenin pointed out that a bourgeois "democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell... it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it" (Vol. 25, p. 393j.
Chancellor Willy Brandt said in his government statement that he would work for ``continuity'', which, indeed, goes to the very root of the matter. The bourgeoisie need have no apprehensions about the representative of a party leadership which ever since the SDP congress in Bad Godesberg never even mentioned the task of promoting social reconstruction. And we cannot but reckon with this fact, because it is related to the fundamental assessment of the new government's actions.
In our daily practical policy we tie in our fight for democratic demands, in particular the demands for workers' greater representation in running enterprises and the economy and for a democratic reform of the secondary and higher school, with criticism of principle in relation to the modern capitalist system. It is our intention to combat bourgeois ideology in the working class, to raise its class consciousness and its militancy in the anti-imperialist struggle.
Elucidating the essence and character of the German Democratic Republic is a vital task in the conditions of West Berlin. The more definite the attitude of West Berlin workers will be towards the GDR, 265 the sharper will be their class consciousness and their readiness to fight for radical social change. And, naturally, the bourgeoisie Is aware of this. Opportunist apologists, both of the Right and ``Left'', know it too. That is why they resort to every possible means to discredit the socialist system in the Soviet Union and to distort the socialist reality in the GDR.
In his article on the 52nd anniversary of the October Revolution, Comrade G. Danelius, Chairman of the Socialist Unity Party of West Berlin, pointed out that "the main influence in the ideological domain on the workers of our city is exerted by the big bourgeoisie through the Right-wing leaders of the Social-Democrats. These introduce in the trade unions the `idea' of subordinating the workers' interests to the power and profits of Big Business. By spreading specious theories of 'social harmony' they impede the development of the class struggle from below and make it easier for the bourgeoisie to wage their class struggle from above. They continue to isolate the workers of our city from the great help they could receive in their fight for social and political rights through alliance with the workers' organisations in the GDR''.^^*^^
However, it is becoming more difficult for the Right-wing SocialDemocratic leaders to do this. The German Democratic Republic's economic successes, its successes in education, welfare and city planning, and in home and foreign policy, are so convincing that the Right-wing SDP leaders are compelled to manoeuvre. It is no longer possible to hush up ihe achievements of the GDR. That is why the ``arguments'' of the Right-wing SDP leaders are centred on the contention that GDR successes were achieved "in spite of" the guiding role of the working class and its Party. However, the experience of practical struggle for social change and greater democracy at enterprise level, in education and society, a struggle bitterly resisted by the bourgeoisie, shows our workers that the successes of the GDR cannot be separated from its socio-economic basis and that the worker can participate in resolving the key problems only if the working class is at the helm of power. Recently, this very experience led to the following: in just one November week the workers dampened the jubilation of certain trade union leaders at three inter-district trade union meetings in our city over the inauguration of the new government in the f'RG. The workers reminded them that the SDP has been the ruling party in West Berlin for all _-_-_
^^*^^ The article appeared in Wahrhelt, = the central organ of the SUP of West Berlin, on November 8--9. 1969
266 of 20 years and that in all this time it has taken no steps to afford the workers the right of participating in the running of enterprises and the students in running the educational system. To exercise power, the workers said, is something more than to participate in government.Of late the Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders have been resorting to the following manoeuvre: in word they reject Bonn's old policy with regard to the GDR and no longer repeat Kiesinger's ``formula'' of a "certain entity" and "a so-called state''.^^*^^ Instead, they speak these days of the need "to see the GDR'', "to study it" and, in that sence, to ``recognise'' it and to act upon the fact of the existence of two German states. However, it is all too obvious that the new FRG government, too, does not intend to do what it should do if it "acted upon" the fact of the existence of two German states, namely, to recognise the GDR in accordance with international law. Yet, unless this is done, signifying a rejection of the claim, contrary to international law, to sole representation of all Germany, there can be no question of any genuinely "new Eastern policy" of the FRG government, for what we have now is but a new variant of the policy that failed in August 1968.
Appreciation of the fact that relations with the GDR must be normalised is gaining ground in West Berlin. As for the working class, we hold that it is in the workers' class interests that the relations between West Berlin and the GDR should be brought into harmony with international law. For the West Berlin workers, the German Democratic Republic is not just any other state. The GDR is their friend and ally in the fight against monopoly rule, an example of how to eliminate monopoly power, the model for radical social reconstruction in the rest of Germany. At present, our Party is applying every effort to propagate this idea, borne out more and more by the experience of the struggle of the West Berlin workers in combating the surviving Right-opportunist views which prevent people from distinguishing friend from foe in the class struggle.
At the same time, elucidation of the class character of state power in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic and other socialist countries is a precondition for successfully combating ``Left''-opportunist views, the essence of which boils down to counterposing the existing socialism, won in grim struggle by the working class and its allies under the leadership of Marxist-Leninist _-_-_
^^*^^ This formula, defining the GDR de jure, was elevated to the status of an official doctrine by Bonn---Ed.
267 parties, to the invented extreme individualistic models of socialism in the name of which genuine socialism is being attacked. These views have to be combated because they undermine the solidarity of the international revolutionary movement and impede cooperation 'among the opponents of the modern capitalist system.In his ``Left-Winy'' Communism---An Infantile Disorder, Lenin wrote: "We now possess quite considerable international experience, which shows very definitely that cfertain fundamental features of our revolution have a significance that is not local, or peculiarly national, or Russian alone, but international" (Vol. 31, p. 21).
As we see it, the existing models of socialism amount to overthrowing the old exploiting system, establishing the power of workers and peasants, jointly with all strata that are their allies exercising leadership in the state, economy and culture under the guidance of Marxist-Leninist parties, resolving problems posed by the scientific and technological revolution for the good and in the interests of the people, and continuously extending socialist democracy by drawing increasingly broad sections of the people into running the state in order to assure the welfare, peace and happiness of their peoples and the fulfilment of their international obligations. We know of no "new models" that could stand the test of time.
„Propagating the theoretical and practical activity of Lenin is of cardinal importance in rallying the working class, the guiding force in the anti-imperialist struggle for peace, democracy and socialism. However, Lenin never regarded the working class as a class withdrawn into itself. He always regarded the workers as a modern class which, while fighting for its own interests, also represents the interests of its allies and which guides all clfimo::raUc movement, all actions for reform, along the channel of struggle for the radical transformation of society.
The bourgeois mass information media are doing their utmost to consign this fact to oblivion. The West German journal Spiegel published an interview on November 17, 1969, with Ernst Fischer, expelled from the Communist Party of Austria. Fischer, as we know, does not conceal his hostility to Mnrxism-Loninism and to those states and parties which firmly follow the principles of MarxismLeninism and are consistently internationalist, allowing no one to distort Lenin's dialectical method by raising it to an absolute or divorcing it from the class tasks. In his interview to Spiec/sl Fischer Denies the guilding role of the working das:; and ascribes to school children and students the role of the ''revolutionary vanguard''.
268To say nothing of their being unscientific, Fischer's statements evince disdain for the working class.
In recent years, the Socialist Unity Party of Wast Berlin has built up cooperation with students and intellectuals in sciatica and tecnnical fields, because due to definite social changes caused by the scientific and technological revolution the importance ol thaw strata has increased. Admittedly, most students in West Berlin coma from petty-bourgeois strata. However, after finishing their education they usually join the ranks of labour. Hence, we regard it as a mistake to treat the student movement sweepingly as an offshoot of the struggle under way within the bourgeois class. And it is just as wrong to interpret the student movement as a new "main addressee" of the revolution.^^*^^ The working class has been and remains the main force of history. For this reason it is necessary rapidly to assimilate people from other strata who join its ranks as a result of objective processes. The subjective consciousness of these people must be developed to meet the new objective requirements corresponding to their class identity, and their potentialities must be used in the struggle. This process, coupled with the correct political orientation of our Party as a whole is, as we see it, supported by the strong and ideologically stable SUP---West Berlin groups (invulnerable to petty-bourgeois influence and organisationally strong] in the higher educational establishments, groups that carry forward Party policy in a militant spirit directly on the campus, as well as outside it. Recently, members of the Party group in Dahlem University began with Party support to publish a journal polemising at a commendable ideological and theoretical level against petty-bourgeois, anti-Leninist views. The journal provides the right orientation in matters of theory and practice of revolutionary struggle for the progressive nucleus of students.
In its introductory article, the journal said that it ii beginning publication at a time "when millions of working people on earth ate preparing to mark the centenary of the birth of V. I. Lenin, the immortal genius of our revolutionary epoch. The SUP of West Berlin has undertaken to apply Lenin's method in its creative work in line with the new conditions and to pay tribute to Lenin's memory to the best advantage in the spirit of his Ideas and, in particular, to _-_-_
^^*^^ The concept of a new "main addressee" of revolution is actively propagated in the works of bourgeois Ideologists, particularly in Herbert Marc use's book, One-Dimenaional Man---Ed.
269 fight for Lenin's cause, the cause of the workers, of peace and social progress''.Marxist-Leninist 'education of Party cadres is essential if we want to resolve the increasing number of tasks facing our Party. We know this perfectly well. The Party leadership and the leaderships of district organisations hold regular lectures and seminars, particularly for young Party members and the youth on the fringe of the Party. Of late, for example, the following subjects were examined at these lectures and seminars: the revolutionary theory and tactics of the labour movement and the collapse of the "third way''; lessons of the 1918 November revolution in Germany; the Leninist principles of democratic centralism and the "destroyers of authority''; proletarian internationalism; the founding of the GDR---a turning point in the history of Germany and Europe.
Besides, in the past year the Party leadership published pamphlets as aids in studying Lenin's works, The State and Revolution and Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution. The pamphlets examine the conclusions drawn from the abovementioned works by Lenin relevant for the struggle with the still widespread anti-Marxist views. This greatly helps our young Party members and, moreover, prompts many people outside the Party to familiarise themselves more deeply with Marxism-Leninism.
In our view, all this will help carry forward the necessary social changes in West Berlin as well. We hold that we are doing the right thing by not turning Lenin's cause into an object of discussion divorced from practice and the universal laws of Marxism-Leninism.
We consider it necessary that the workers, including the working youth, the office employees and students in West Berlin, should understand our policy, and that Marxist-Leninist ideas should gain currency among them. We hold that it is necessary for them to understand the essence of the Marxist-Leninist theory, which is transforming the world, and to accept Marxism-Leninism as a guide to action.
270 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S IMMORTAL IDEAS ARE OURSoon Communists the world over and all working people fighting for socialism, democracy and peace will mark the centenary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. This event will again bring into prominence throughout the world the grandeur of Lenin's victorious ideas, of Leninism as an immortal international teaching exercising a powerful influence on world development.
The revolutionary achievements of our epoch were all inspired by Lenin's ideas, materialising in the auspicious changes witnessed in the Soviet Union, where the successful experiment has altered the face of the earth, and in the achievements of the peoples of the socialist countries. Lenin's ideas are the guide in the great battles fought by the international labour, national liberation and Communist movements. They bring together and inspire the fighters for democracy, national independence, peace and socialism.
The October Revolution, the most important revolutionary achievement of the 20th century, is linked unbreakably with Lenin's ideas and works. In the course of that revolution, ushering in a new epoch' in the life of mankind -that of transition from capitalism to socialism and communism---Lenin's figure rose to its gigantic stature as that of a brilliant leader of the world proletariat who showed all the peoples of the world the way to a happy life, true: freedom and social justice.
The October Revolution is significant not only because it was the world's first victorious socialist revolution, and not only because 271 it became a powerful catalyst of history, 'its materialisation and development are evidence of its historical universality and its relevance for the world as a whole. It combined splendidly the objec tive and subjective factors of the revolutionary process, the requirements of social development and their reflection in the consciousness of the working class, the spontaneous movement of the masses and the creative guiding activity of the foremost Party.
More than half a century has passed since the October Revolution. In this time many events occured which are unprecedented in history by reason of their depth and breadth and the revolutionary Change they entailed. And still, it may be said safely that the correct orientation, the confidence, speed and effectiveness with which the revolutionary process unfolded to its successful culmination in the difficult conditions of the Russia of 1917, remain unsurpassed. Although today we have at our disposal the new ex perience of other revolutions and social reconstruction in countries and continents at different phases of historical development, the experience of the first socialist revolution and the persevering struggle waged by its brilliant architect, Lenin, arouses deep interest.
Forging the victory of the working class, Lenin scientifically elaborated the ways, conditions and means of the struggle for socialism.
In sharp clashes against the Right and ``Left'' opportunists, Lenin upheld and developed the revolutionary essence of Marxism.
He worked out in detail the teaching of a revolutionary party of a new type as the highest form of working class organisation, the main weapon of the workers, without which the proletariat cannot depose capitalist rule, win political power and build socialism. On the basis of that teaching Lenin created and built up the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He stressed that the Party could fulfil its role only if closely linked with the labour movement, consistently expressing and defending the vital interests of the workers. And the struggle of the workers, in turn, would not be successful, he said, "until their struggle is led by a strong organisation of revolutionaries" (Vol. 5, p. 475).
Lenin attached immense importance to Party unity, because he saw clearly that unity was the guarantee of successful action. He insisted on the strictest discipline, equally obligatory for all members of the Party, both those in the leadership and in the rank-and-file, calling for uncompromising struggle against panic-mongers, defeatists and opportunists, against all those who deviated from the Party's general line and tried to corrupt 'its ranks. Democratic centralism 272 in which democracy and centralism comprise inseparable elements of a whole, is the basic organisational principle of Lenin's party of the new type. The right application of democratic centralism enables the Party to make the activity of its members more effective, to concert the energy of all on the same objective and direct that energy on transforming society along revolutionary lines. It is no accident, therefore, that the enemies of the Communist Party, whether Left. Centrist or Right, are mounting ceaseless attacks on democratic centralism, the Party's fundamental organisational principle.
Lenin made an invaluable contribution to the international labour movement and all movements for national independence. He called emphatically for enduring international cohesion and unity of the revolutionary forces. He proved beyond a doubt that the need for cohesion and unity flowed from the changing historical situation, the development of capitalism to imperialism and the accentuation of proletarian revolution as the most urgent task.
Lenin worked out in theory the important role of the national liberation movement in the world revolutionary process. He said the 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" (Vol. 30, p. 159). From this he deduced the necessity of the international proletariat's supporting the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent countries and the necessity for united action by all revolutionary forces against imperialism. This postulate is of invaluable and lasting significance for the Marxist-Leninist parties and all revolutionary forces fighting against imperialism.
Consistently and unerringly Lenin always fought for the purity and creative development of Marxism as the revolutionary teaching of the working class, of which his life and activity are a brilliant confirmation. He exposed all distortions of revolutionary Marxism and repulsed all attacks on it by opportunists and nationalists of ail shades. He always urged caution against sectarian petty-bourgeois ``Leftist'' adventurism, ultra-revolutionary in word but not at all revolutionary in actual outlook.
At the beginning of the century, Lenin wrote: "The only choice is---either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There in no middle course.'' And he drew the inevitable conclusion: "Hence, to belittle the 273 socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside jrom it to the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology" (Vol. 5, p. 384).
The development of the revolutionary process led to considerable changes in the world Communist movement, which grew into the most influential political force of our time. With its numbers growing rapidly, the social structure of many Communist parties began to change, the result being that petty-bourgeois ideology penetrated into some of the contingents of the Communist movement, giving rise to harmful phenomena.
International reaction and imperialism combine direct attacks on socialism ant! the world Communist movement with attempts to distort Marx-sm. The bourgeoisie exploits the modern revisionists, who attack the basic principles of scientific communism, chiefly the idea of the historic mission of the working class, the proletarian dictatorship, the Parly and the partisan nature of the working-class ideology, on the pretext of fighting dogmatism, eliminating `` distortions'' of Marxism-Leninism, ``humanising'' socialism, etc.
The emergence on the political scene of large sections of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie has a strong bearing on the features of the present-day ideological struggle. The powerful national liberation movement lays an imprint on the nature of the alliance of the anti-imperialist forces. The revolutionary impatience of the petty bourgeoisie, which tries to seize ideological ascendancy in the world revolutionary process, is greatly in evidence in this alliance.
All this is connected with the revival of opportunism in diverse forms and with the pressure it exerts on the Communist and labour movement.
Maoism is the most conspicuous political and ideological expression of that kind of opportunism. The events in China in recent years show that the political line of the Maoist group has precipitated a profound socio-political crisis in the life of the Chinese people, jeopardising their socialist gains. The Chinese example shows that the danger of ``Left'' opportunism grows to alarming proportions when it afflicts a Party leadership standing at the helm of a state. Quite obviously, this does grave harm to the socialist ideas and, consequently, grinds the axe of anti-communism.
One of the characteristic features of modern revisionism is that the ``Lefts'' identify themselves almost completely with the Rights in substantiating and defining their propositions, and this to so great an extent that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between them. For example, anti-Sovietism and slander against the USSR and the 274 CPSU are a common platform of all opportunists, linking them moreover, with the professional anti-Communists.
Narrow nationalism is also an obvious danger for the world Communist movement and proletarian internationalism. In combination with revisionist trends of all kinds it is, as a rule, a component of all the opportunist conceptions that try to substitute ``national'' variants of Marxism-Leninism for Marxism-Leninism as an international teaching.
All the same, a considerable upswing of creative Marxist thought has come into evidence in various contingents of the Communist movement, seeking to understand and creatively elucidate the new phenomena of social life in order to work out a strategy and tactics of class struggle consistent with the historical conditions in different countries and regions of the world. It was in this spirit, under the banner of loyalty to Marxism-Leninism, that the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties was convened in Moscow in June 1969 and proved a grand success for the world Communist movement. The work and results of that Meeting refuted the pessimistic forecasts of the enemies of communism, who nourished hopes of the Meeting never taking place or, if it did convene, of its ending in failure. The Meeting produced a profound analysis of the new phenomena in the development of mankind since the 1957 and 1960 international Communist forums. The latest Meeting strongly emphasised the historic validity and international relevance of Leninism, adopting a special address in connection with the coming centenary of Lenin's birth.
The main political and theoretical propositions contained in the Document, "Tasks at the Present Stage of the Struggle Against Imperialism and United Action of Communist and Workers' Parties and All Anti-Imperialist Forces'', and in the other documents adopted by the Meeting, are imbued with the creative spirit of Leninism. it follows from the analysis of the new social phenomena of our time that the present stage is marked by increased opportunities for the further advancement of the revolutionary and progressive forces. The Meeting has been an important milestone in cementing the unity and cohesion of the Marxist-Leninist parties on the basis of proletarian internationalism.
Although, unquestionably, imperialism cannot turn back the clock of history, it is still able to cause immense suffering and great damage to the peoples. It interferes in the internal affairs of other countries and provokes armed conflicts. For more than five years the US imperialists have been waging a barbarous aggressive war against 275 the people of Vietnam, who only want to live In freedom and arrange their life in their own way. US imperialism continues to plunder the natural wealth of, and keep in a state of backwardness, poverty and oppression, the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, resorting more and more frequently to police repressions. It is trying to contain the democratic gains of the people, organising coups in order to establish terroristic forms of domination, as in Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Greece, etc. It has organised an economic blockade of revolutionary Cuba and threatens it constantly with provocations.
The imperialist policy of plunder and aggression is an attempt at preventing by all means every progressive development, weakening the positions of socialism, crushing the liberation movement of the peoples, impeding the workers' struggle in the capitalist countries for democratic rights, peace and socialism, and, above all, holding up the inescapable aggravation of the general crisis and collapse of capitalism.
Lenin's behest to cement in every way the alliance of international socialism, the national liberation movement and the international working class has stood the test of time. Its effectiveness in the fight against imperialism, in safeguarding peace and promoting the progress of the nations, has been proved by history over and over.
``World imperialism,'' Lenin wrote, "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" (Vol 31, p. 232).
The general onslaught has continued for more than half a century. The socialist world system headed by the Soviet Union, whose might In all areas of modern development is growing constantly, the national liberation movement and the international working-class movement have struck home powerful blows at imperialist domination and have radically changed the relation of forces on the world scene. They have made a wide breach, opening the way to a happy future, to socialism and communism, for all the oppressed and exploited peoples.
The Paraguayan Communist Party, which came into being 41 years ago under the direct influence of the great October Socialist Revolution, has always held high the banner of Leninist proletarian internaUnnalism and has defended it, as it will continue to defend it, 276 because it regards proletarian internationalism as the best guarantee of victory for the cause of the world proletariat.
Long live Leninism, its experience, which is of lasting revolutionary significance for the whole world! Long live its glorious offspring, the great Soviet Union!
277 __ALPHA_LVL1__ UPHOLDING LENIN'S THEORYThe question of the social revolution is a cardinal one of scientific communism. The essence and motive forces of the revolution and the ways and means of accomplishing it were theoretically elaborated by the classics of Marxism and have been tested in practice. Another problem is the totality of issues bearing on the building of the new, socialist society after a victorious social revolution. The revolutionary transformation of the old, outmoded society by carrying out radical changes in various political, economic, cultural and social spheres of life becomes a pressing practical task with the assumption of power by the advanced social class.
Lenin, brilliant theoretician of the revolution and great leader of vast revolutionary actions by the masses, having made a profound dialectical analysis of the most complex social processes of his time, set out in his works the problems of the social revolution with the utmost clarity and historical discernment. Thereby he contributed to the teachings of Marx and Engels and specified them, applying them to the new, imperialist epoch. This is a matter of vital importance and great urgency to the parties not yet in power but fighting for it. Hence to understand Lenin's theory of the revolution is imperative if the Party is to choose the right strategy and tactics and expose the various, occasionally subtle sophistic distortions to which our enemies and ideological adversaries resort on so fundamental an issue.
I think there is no need at this forum to repeat ttie well-kaown 278 statements of Marx, Engels and Lenin about the social revolution. On the other hand, I believe it is necessary at least to recapitulate their doctrine here.
According to Marxism-Leninism, human society in its long history has passed through certain qualitative stages which scientific sociology calls "socio-economic formations''. The transition from one formation to another, which brings about deep qualitative changes in basis and superstructure, occurs spontaneously or is directed by the conscious vanguard. History lias recorded, in particular, instances ol spontaneous ``decay'' or ``downfall'' and peaceful or non-peaceful "social revolutions''. These qualitative, revolutionary leaps are due to the fact that the society in question enters a period of historical crisis expressing itself in the disharmony between the productive forces and relations of production. It is this social crisis that culminates in the transfer of state power from the old classes of society to the new, progressive ones. This transfer of state power into (lie hands of another class, Lenin wrote, is the first and principal indication of the revolution, "both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of that term" (Vol. 24, p. 44).
However, a social^risis stemming from the discrepancy between the growing productive forces of society and the social relations that have become stagnant and obsolete is not enough in itself to cause a social revolution. In the absence of the objective and subjective conditions for revolution, the ruling classes can for a long time retain power either by lores or by fraud. Lenin described a revolutionary situation as the totality of objective conditions determining the possibility of a social revolution. He stressed that to carry out the revolution, it is not enough for the "lower strata not to want" to live in the old way but it is also necessary for the "upper strata not to he able" to live in that way. Such a situation is known as a general national crisis of society. Besides, Lenin spoke of the need of n considerable increase in the militancy of the masses, who are drawn both by the crisis situation and the "upper classes" themselves into launching independent historical action [see Vol. 21, ]?. 214 and Vol. 31, p. 35). But these objective conditions (which together create a revolutionary situation) are far from being sufficient for the victory of the revolution. There is nlso a need for subjective conditions, that is, the ability of the revolutionary class for courageous and selfless struggle, and the existence of an experienced revolutionary party providing correct strategic and tactical leadership.
Without a revoUiiiomirv situation thert; is no favourable basis for 279 the revolution. And in the absence of subjective factors such a situation may be temporarily missed because it was not used in time. Such is the complex dialectics of the social revolution, in which subjective and objective factors intertwine.
Marx, Engels and Lenin repeatedly stressed that the social revolution is a complex historical process governed by the general and particular laws of social development. Revolution* are made by the entire people, they are not a result of improvised moves by individual leaders, heroes or advanced groups. Revolution without the masses is adventurism. Engels wrote: "The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for, body and soul.'' And he added: "But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required...'' (Marx and'Engels, Selected Works, Moscow, 1962, Vol. I, p. 134).
It is impossible to accomplish the revolution by relying only on the revolutionary vanguard or revolutionary impulses and illusions and phraseology while at the same time renouncing sustained, concrete and real training of the masses for revolutionary action and refusing to combat revolutionary adventurism and phrase-mongering. This would mean going against the revolution and giving in to spontaneity. The complex dialectics of various concrete situations must be lully taken into account in developing the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary Party of the working class. To overrate the revolutionary potential of the masses would be as wrong as to underrate it.
The last point I would like to deal with is the diversity of forms of the revolution. In addition to their social nature, different revolutions invariably have characteristics that assume international significance. However, the form of every revolution depends primarily on its motive force, on national conditions and the international situation.
It would be wrong, on the other hand, to try mechanically to duplicate a revolution on the plea that it has triumphed, if in a different set of circumstances. To be sure, it is very difficult properly to combine the general and particular laws of the social revolution. It is highly important to know one's own people thoroughly and find the forms of revolutionary action that are understandable and close to them. Lenin said that the parties of the working class must 280 ``learn to apply the general and basic principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to discover, study, and predict" [Vol. 31, p. 89).
The People's Party of Iran in recent years has been fighting against various ``Left''- and Right-wing groups that falsify the meaning and content of the social revolution in the spirit of Leftist adventurism or reformist opportunism. The internal and international situation of our country makes for the rise of these ``Left'' and Right deviations among the petty-bourgeois elements of our society and among the revolutionary democrats.
The Leftist elements we come up against are, first of all, pettybourgeois opposition-minded intellectuals of a nationalist brand or one-time members of our Party who have yielded to Maoist influence. The petty-bourgeois nationalists have no clear world outlook and advocate as their own platform an eclectical hodgepodge of fashionable ``Left''-wing theories of neo-anarchism. Of course, they lavishly use Marxist-Leninist terminology and even pose as "real creative Marxists''. As for the Iranian Maoists, we believe there is no need to describe their thinking and action in detail because this audience is well familiar with their crude methods and practices stamped by sophistry and tending to disrupt unity.
The petty-bourgeois ``Left''-wing nationalists and Maoists of Iran, united in several groups and living almost exclusively in Europe, carry on a rabid anti-Soviet campaign and revile our Party, putting various labels on it for its staunchness and consistent internationalism. They publish periodicals and pamphlets setting out their ultra``Left'', adventurist ideas.
The common platform of these groups, which, incidentally, are engaged in bitter political strife among themselves, may be summed up as follows:
1. They consider a revolutionary situation and regard to the subjective factor of the revolutionary movement entirely unnecessary. They maintain that the revolutionary situation is ever-present on three continents---Asia, Africa and Latin America-which are the vortices of the world revolutionary storm. To wait for the rise of a revolutionary situation would be a waste of time, in their view, hence it is necessary to act immediately, or so they think. As for the sublective factor, they allege that the armed fight itself against the existing regime leads to the rise of class-conscious elements of the 281 revolution. True, some of them, especially orthodox Maoists,' admit the necessity for an advanced revolutionary organisation. However, they, too, believe that a minimum of organisation is enough to begin the armed struggle during which the ''evolutionary movement will grow in scale and strength.
2. The only form of revolution, as the Leftist elements in our movement see it, is the Don-peaceful one, that is, revolutionary guerrilla war. "Everything for the armed struggle!" is what they write and say. Iran's Maoists talk a lot about the towns being surrounded by the countryside, and about the key role of the peasants as the main motive force of the revolution. Making an absolute of a definite non-peaceful form of the revolution and the appeal for immediate action have already given rise to some thoroughly adventurist and futile moves that ended in unnecessary bloodshed and defeat.
3. The Leftist elements holding the views 1 have mentioned consider tactical methods of struggle immaterial. They minimise the importance of everyday struggle for democratic rights and reforms, legal trade union activity, all of which they dismiss as reformist and opportunist distortions. They do not see the national democratic character of our revolution nor its motive forces and deal with the issue of the hegemony of the proletariat in this revolution incorrectly and in abstract fashion. They fully reject the fight for the noncapitalist road of development. These false views, couched in highsounding, ultra-revolutionary terms, may occasionally mislead young and inexperienced radicals, particularly students. Gnoseologically they are due to subjectivism and voluntarism, a faulty notion of the relation of forces between the revolutionary vanguards and the mass of the people, and misconception of Lenin's idea of Ihe revolution and its motive power, the people.
However, those who stick to these wrong views are not alike. Some of them err in good faith and we must concentrate on winning them over through calm counter-propaganda based on logic and persuasion. As for the Right-wing elements, some of them once held radical views but now cooperate with the Establishment or are even members of the government party, Iran e Navin. Significantly, the newspaper of this party uses Marxist terms and propositions as much as it will but, of course, it does so with the aini of serving the ruling classes. What the Right opportunist elements of Iran say about the social revolution boils down to the following:
1. There are two kinds of revolution: (a) red, which is alleged to be necessarily accompanied by violence and bloodshed; (b| white, which 282 can be carried out without violence or bloodshed, without a rising from below, within the framework of the legal Institutions and possibilities.
Those Rightists who already cooperate openly with the regime describe certain bourgeois-reformist measures adopted by the government in recent years as a ``white'' revolution and even a "national democratic revolution''. Other Right-wing elements, those in the opposition, speak of the regime's reforms in flattering terms but still consider them half-hearted and inadequate. To their mind, the task is to urge the government on along its chosen path by peaceful, legal means.
2. The Right opportunist elements that are in the opposition make an absolute of tactical and legal methods of struggle. By adducing various arguments to the effect that the revolution should not be hastened or furthered artificially, they virtually deny the imperative task of training the masses for the revolution, both organisationally and ideologically. Their line of reasoning does not rule out the possibility of capitalism growing into socialism. Accordingly, they reject the revolution, above all in its classical form.
They talk a lot about neo-capitalism and the ``adjustment'' of capitalism. But in this way they obscure the class struggle---on the pretext of safeguarding peace or promoting supra-class humanism.
These two trends in the national democratic movement in Iran are no newer than anywhere else. Marxism-Leninism has made valuable contributions to our theory by fighting against such ``Left''-adventurist elements as Willich and Schapper, Bakunin, Esara, the Otzovists, Ultimatists and Trotskyists, and against Lassalle, Bernstein, Kautsky, the Liquidationists, Russian Machists and other Right-wing opportunists.
We Iranian Communists are faced with the same problems as other parties have had to grapple with at various periods.
Allow me to acquaint you with our Party's appraisal of the situation in the country and with its statements about the pressing revolutionary tasks of the working class in the difficult conditions of today.
The past decade has seen certain changes in the socio-economic situation whose historical substance is the development of capitalist relations of production in urban and rural Iran. The remnants of feudalism are fast disappearing. We may say that Iranian society has entered the period of an offensive of capitalist relations of production all along the line. All government reforms, including the agrarian reform, are intended to accelerate capitalist development, 283 which goes on in close cooperation with imperialist countries. These reforms are a belated by-product of the Iranian bourgeois revolution of the early twentieth century and of a revolutionary movement that assumed a vast scale after World War II but was defeated due to various objective and subjective causes. Like all bourgeois reforms, the Iranian government's measures, advertised as an unprecedented "white revolution" or a "revolution of the Shah and the people'', are half-hearted and inadequate. They can by no means resolve the profound contradictions of our society, in particular the contradiction between the whole Iranian people, who want political and economic independence for their country, and imperialism, or the contradiction between the people, who are striving for democracy and progress, and bourgeois and landowner reaction. However, these reforms may for a time stabilise the situation in favour of the ruling circles, hold back, check or slow down the people's liberation movement for a while, create illusions and make for the rise of conciliatory, opportunist views.
We know that all this is temporary, that the revolutionary movement will reach a new high and that the bourgeois and half-hearted character of the reforms will soon come out. Nevertheless, we cannot in our daily struggle act on prerequisites that are still lacking. The revolutionary movement is at an ebb, having suffered a severe defeat and great losses in sanguinary. battles. The task is to re-establish the organisation destroyed by the enemy and lead the masses into new political and economic struggles in the face of all repression by a police regime. We must, furthermore, educate new revolutionary cadres in the spirit of revolutionary staunchness, creative MarxismLeninism and proletarian internationalism. This requires calm, persistent, imaginative and painstaking effort. It is in this situation that Leftist elements call for immediate armed action while the Rightists claim that the era of classical revolutionary battles is over and that we are now in a period of legal evolutionary struggle within the framework of the regime. Both positions are absolutely wrong and prejudice the cause of the revolution.
Lenin's theory of the social revolution is our only guide in these complicated conditions of ideological struggle. The struggle of the classics of Marxism-Leninism against Right- and ``Left''-wing deviationists sets us an example of how to proceed in this difficult situation. Our fight is not easy, of course. Anyone who oversimplifies complex social processes and comes forward with an extremist catchword or a simplified remedy can only mislead the ingenuous. Time is working against th.ern. In rejecting adventurism and conciliation, we know 284 well that every revolutionary organisation must show itself in practice, by deeds, to be a real, fearless and consistent revolutionary organisation championing the political and economic rights of the people. Without revolutionary practice general theoretical arguments, however correct, can neither convince nor attract the people. Our great leader and teacher, Lenin, repeatedly stressed that the Party must prepare continuously for real revolutionary action if it does not want to become a mere debating club.
The ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin about the social revolution and the problems involved in it are as valid as ever. We think these ideas should receive greater attention in our theoretical and ideological work. On the eve of a memorable event, the centenary of the birth of Lenin, to whose genius and titanic exploit progressive mankind pays tribute, we all turn again and again to his immense ideological legacy for advice on how to carry on our difficult-- struggle. This is why Lenin was, is and will be the great leader and teacher of the whole of fighting humanity.
285 __ALPHA_LVL1__ INTERCONNECTION OF THE STRUGGLEShortly before the October Revolution Lenin sharply criticised fellow-Communists who did not realise the interconnection of the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism. Although capitalism in general and imperialism in particular make an illusion of democracy, capitalism arouses democratic aspirations among the masses and creates democratic institutions. This aggravates the contradictions between imperialism, which denies democracy, and the masses, which strive for democracy. "The Marxist solution of the problem of democracy," Lenin wrote, "is for the proletariat to utilise all democratic institutions and aspirations in its class struggle against the bourgeoisie in order to prepare for its overthrow and assure its own victory___Marxism teaches us that to 'fight opportunism' by renouncing utilisation of the democratic institutions created and distorted by the bourgeoisie of the given, capitalist, society is to completely surrender to opportunism!" (Vol. 23, p. 26).
The allegation that the struggle for demmocracy runs counter to the socialist revolution was seen by Lenin as a manifestation of dogmatism and sectarianism in the international socialist movement.
Lenin took a most ironical view of those who visualised the socialist revolution merely as a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. "So,'' he commented, "one army lines up in one place and says, 'We are for socialism', and another, somewhere else and says, 'We are for imperialism', and thai will be a social revolution!...''
286``Whoevar expects a `pure' social revolution will never live to see il. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is" (Vol. 22, pp. 355---56).
The advocates of ``pure'' revolution tended to isolaie the working class from the national liberation movement, anti-imperialist movements tor democratic change and from other powerful allies. Lenin pointed out that the common interests of the struggle for national liberation and democracy, like the struggle for socialism, call for a united revolutionary front. The socialist revolution, he stressed, is a many-sided process which develops differently in different conditions and consists of diverse liberation movements---socialist, democratic and national. "We would he very poor revolutionaries,'' he wrote, "if, in the proletariat's great war of liberation for socialism, we did not know how to utilise every popular movement against every single disaster imperialism brings...'' (Vol. 22, p. 357).
The task of uniting the revolutionary forces holds a key place in Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution., Lenin considered that to accomplish it, one must correctly combine the struggle for democracy with the struggle for socialism.
The Document of the 1969 Meeting notes that it is a common feature of both ``Left''-wing and Right-wing opportunism thai either trend underrates the real forces that can and should be brought into the struggle. The two trends are also united by the fact that they set the struggle for greater democracy apnrt from the struggle for socialism and oppose the one to the other. Right-wing opportunism maintains that it is enough to fight for democracy while ``Left''-wing opportunism rejects il altogether and insists on heading straight for the socialist revolution. The Communist position is stated in the Document of the Moscow Meeting as follows: "In contrast to the Right and `Left' opportunists, the Communist and Workers' Parties do not rounterpose the fight for deep-going economic and social demands and for advanced democracy to the struggle for socialism, but regard it as a part of the struggle for socialism. The radical democratic changes which will be achieved in the struggle against the monopolies and their economic domination and political power will promote among the broad masses awareness of the need for socialism.''
We Finnish Communists follow the Leninist method of uniting forces, striving to combine the struggle against the monopolies with the struggle for socialism. According to our programme, the range of social, economic and political demands will widen in step with the common struggle of (he democratic forces against the monopolies, reaching deeper and deeper into the social system and the political 287 relatlons of power and property prevailing under it. As the struggle goes on the majority of our working people is coming to realise the necessity for socialist change. It follows that every notable democratic reform is also a step towards socialism. The fight for democracy is, in effect, part of the fight for socialism.
We are also trying to reveal the forces that should be united in the anti-monopoly front. Favourable objective conditions for their unity are created by the fact that the contradiction between the overwhelming majority of the nation and the financial oligarchy is increasing, as the Document of the Moscow Meeting points out. The new programme of our Party, for its part, speaks of the intensification of this contradiction and the shrinking of the social base of the monopolies resulting from it. The monopoly oligarchy is not only causing resentment among growing segments of the population, but is bringing the forces opposed to monopoly closer together. This, our Party programme notes, means that the prerequisites of forming a broad anti-monopoly alliance of diverse groups of the population and the organisations representing them are already at hand.
Both the Document of the Moscow Meeting and our Party programme emphasise that the working class, the main force of this alliance, must play the decisive role in establishing the anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist alliance. Due to the- mounting influence of the working class, other social strata are drawing nearer to this alliance, which is growing stronger as a result. Closer unity of the working class implies cooperation between Communists and Social-Democrats. In our country the parties of the working class representing these two political trends of the labour movement are supported by the bulk of the working class and a substantial proportion of other groups of working people. This is why the success of the anti-monopoly struggle for democracy and socialism hinges in decisive measure on their cooperation. The programme of our Party addresses to the Social-Democrats striving sincerely tor socialism the following appeal: "Those Finnish Social Democrats who really want socialism can only achieve their goal through joint effort with the Communists. Anyone who wants to bring about socialism by peaceful methods and to prevent and repulse violence against socialist development should strive to ensure that the combined forces of the working people gain in strength and the partisans of socialism grow in numbers.''
We can now state that our appeal did not go unheeded. More and more Social-Democrats are demanding a socialist policy and lasting cooperation between the parties of tin: working class. Indeed, some leading Social-Democrats in important positions take what m to a 288 degree a favourable stand on this demand. The socialist-minded Left wing of the Social-Democratic Party, composed mainly of young intellectuals, enjoys widespread support among the party rank-- andfile. This came out during the recent nomination of Social-Democratic candidates for election to the Diet throughout the country. It seems that the Left has a particularly strong following among young worker Social-Democrats.
The Left wing of the Social-Democratic Party, which insists on a socialist policy and united action by the parties of the working class, is trying to establish contacts with like-minded people all over the country. A short time ago it published on its own initiative a statement reading in part as follows:
``The oligarchic power of big capital, backed by the Constitution, must be replaced by power of the working majority. In striving for this goal, the working-class parties should become the .shock brigade that will lead the struggle for socialism, raising the class consciousness of the working people and harnessing their energy to meaningful action.''
The statement emphatically demands preserving the basis of the present government also after the forthcoming general election. It insists that the future government programme should be "directed in content towards a real transformation of society"..
This revival of socialist thinking and the Social-Democratic Party's growing desire for unity of action bear out the correctness of the Document of the Moscow Meeting, which says that the experience gained by the working class in struggle and the criticism levelled at opportunism by the Communist parties are aggravating the crisis of reformism and hastening differentiation among the Social-- Democrats.
We Finnish Communists are doing our best to achieve unity of the working-class parties. We always stress, however, that the Social-- Democrats must put paid to their policy of class cooperation with the bourgeoisie. At the same time we try to end underestimation in our own ranks of united action by the working-class parties and the fight for democracy. Right-wing opportunism, which follows a policy of compromise with the bourgeoisie, forgetting the socialist objectives of the working-class movemfint, and ``Left''-wing opportunism, which blocks united action by the working class movement and minimises the struggle for democracy, are an equally grave menace to the movement for socialism.
289 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN ON THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACYAt a time when reaction in Europe was trying to drown the revolutionary upsurge following on the October Revolution and in the aftermath of the world war, Lenin wrote his penetrating analysis of the nature of capitalist democracy. His polemic with Kautsky cut through all the talk about democracy in general and ``pure'' democracy, which was used by Social-Democratic leaders to mask capitalist society and to pose parliamentarianism against revolution.
By treating the question of democracy in relation to classes in society and in relation to the state he brought out the class character of democracy. Historically, capitalist democracy was an advance on feudalism, but in essence it is the expression of the political power of the capitalist class, wielded in order to protect an economic system based on the exploitation of the majority of the people.
To illustrate:
``If we are not to mock at common sense and history, it is obvious that we cannot speak of 'pure democracy' so long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy" [Vol. 28, p. 242).
``'Pure democracy' is the mendacious phrase of a liberal who wants to fool the workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which takes the place of feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which takes the place of bourgeois democracy" (Vol. 28, p. 242).
290``Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with mediaevalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise tor the rich and a trap and a snare and a deception for the exploited, for the poor" (Vol. 28, p. 243).
``Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" (Vol. 25, p. 413).
Lenin's analysis is of special significance to Britain for two reasons. The deeply entrenched influence of reformism has served to dress up the state in neutral clothing, presenting it as impartial and above classes. And at the same time reformist leaders have assiduously cultivated false ideas to the effect that Britain is the pinnacle of democracy. These ideas have been spread under conditions in which the ruling class has cleverly presented victories won by workers and progressives through struggle---such as the right to vote, to organise in trade unions, to demonstrate---as if these rights are inherent in capitalist democracy. In fact, each of these rights has been wrested from the ruling class through sharp battles.
Lenin's study of reformism in Britain in the imperialist epoch, his knowledge of leaders and trends in the movement and his direct experience of living in London enabled him both to develop on Marx's and Engels' treatment of the roots of reformism and to make an outstanding contribution to combating the ideas of leaders like Ramsay MacDonald. Such leaders he described as using, "smooth, euphonious, hackneyed, apparently socialist phrases which have long served in all advanced capitalist countries to conceal bourgeois policy within the working-class movement" (Vol. 29, p. 497).
__ALPHA_LVL2__ II. THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY UNDER CAPITALISMWhile exposing the class character of democracy under capitalism and the role of Labour leaders who buttress up the system, Lenin did not take a negative attitude to the struggle for democracy under capitalism. He brought out the importance of this struggle, the necessity of it as part of the process of preparing for the socialist revolution and the fact that the working class must be in the forefront of the democratic struggle.
To illustrate:
``All `democracy' consists in the proclamation and realisation of `rights' which under capitalism are realisable only to a very small degree and only relatively. But without the proclamation of these __PRINTERS_P_291_COMMENT__ 10* 291 rights, without a struggle to introduce them now, immediately, without training the masses in the spirit of this struggle, socialism is impossible" (Vol. 23, p. 74).
``Democracy Is of enormous importance for the working class in Its struggle against the capitalists for its emancipation. But democracy is by no means a boundary that must not be overstepped; it is only one of the stages in the process of development from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to communism" (Vol. 25, pp. 471---72).
``In the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practise full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent, and revolutionary struggle for democracy" (Vol. 22, p. 144).
This approach was applied by Lenin to specific questions in the struggle against capitalism. In particular he combated tendencies on the part of class-conscious workers to cut themselves off from the masses. He argued against those who refused to make use of all forms of struggle under capitalism, including the parliamentary. While appreciating the revolutionary spirit of this Left trend, which rebelled against the corruption and class collaboration of reformist leaders and their identification with parliamentarianism, he showed how their attitude made the task of undermining reformism more protracted, more difficult. He argued for the revolutionary movement to produce its own "class politicians''.
``In Western Europe and In America, the Communists must learn to create a new, uncustomary, non-opportunist, non-careerist parliamentarianism .. .'' (Vol. 31, p. 98).
``In Great Britain the Communists should constantly, unremittingly and undeviatingly utilise parliemantary elections and all the vicissitudes of the Irish, colonial and world-imperialist policy of the British Government, and all other fields, spheres and aspects of public life, and should work in all of them in a new way, in a Communist way ...'' (Vol. 31, p. 98).
Lenin's dialectical treatment of capitalist democracy---its class and restricted character on the one hand the importance of the fight for democracy on the other---has profound implications for the struggle today.
His exposure of reformism and guidance in correcting left errors, not only helped earlier generations but is of great value under present conditions in orientating the working-class movement. For reformism, though undermined by the weakening of imperialism, exerts a deep influence and prevents the working class from fully using its power.
Lenin developed on Marx and Engels writings on the state and the 292 problem of political power. Basing itself on this Marxist-Leninist analysis, our Parly lias made a study of the British State. Our, theoretical work on this question has included the publication oi books on The British State and the British Political System.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ III. THE EFFECTS OF IMPERIALISM ON THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACYWriting in 1916 about the economic essence of imperialism and Its political expression Lenin said:
``Economically, imperialism [or the `era' of finance capital---it Is not a matter of words) is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, one in which production has assumed such big, immense, proportions that free competition gives way to monopoly. That is the economic essence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in trusts, syndicates, etc., in the omnipotence of the giant banks, in the buying up of raw material sources, etc., in the concentration of banking capital, etc. Everything hinges on economic monopoly. The political superstructure of this new economy, of monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the change from democracy to political reaction. Democracy corresponds to free competition. Political reaction corresponds to monopoly. 'Finance capital strives for domination, not freedom', Rudolph Hilferding rightly remarks in his Finance Capital.
``It is fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific, to single out 'foreign policy' from policy in general, let alone eountorposa foreign policy to home policy. Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives towards violation of democracy, towards reaction. In this sense imperialism is indisputably the `negation' of democracy in general, of all democracy and not just one of its demands, national self-determination" (Vol. 23, pp. 42---43).
The insight of these remarks and their implication for the class struggle can be fully appreciated today. In the intervening period that "negation of democracy" has been expressed in fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain. It is expressed at present in trends towards authoritarianism in the major capitalist countries and in the dictatorships of Greece and Portugal.
For the socialist, working-class and progressive forces, it has been a period of challenge to extreme reaction, in which major victories have been won and imperialism breached by the Great October Revolution and since then the development of socialism in Eastern Europe and in Asia, arising out of the anti-fascist war.
293In the course of the past 50 years and especially in the struggle against^ fascism the importance of the struggle for democratic rights and demands has been proved again and again. As Dimitrov expressed it at the 7th Comintern Congress:
``We are not anarchists and it is not at all a matter of indifference to us what kind of political regime exists in any given country; whether a bourgeois dictatorship in the form of bourgeois democracy, even with democratic rights and liberties greatly curtailed, or a bourgeois dictatorship in open fascist form.''
__*_*_*__``We shall defend every inch of the democratic gains which the working-class has wrested in the course of years of struggle, and shall resolutely fight to extend such gains" (Dimitrov speech in Reply to Discussion on the Working Class Against Fascism, 1935).
A feature of state-monopoly capitalism today is the rapid growth of monopoly in the capitalist countries, straddling frontiers and creating supranational monopolies. This has brought about a new stage in the crisis of capitalist democracy and a new threat to the people.
As John Gollan expressed it at the 31st Congress of our Party:
``This menacing growth of monopoly is one of the biggest issues of British politics. The super-trusts not only dominate the Government, they are in effect a government within the Government. They dominate all the economic departments. The democratic process is undermined. The trusts control the press and the mass media. They are becoming increasingly impatient with Parliament as such. They want to hamstring the unions.''
The erosion of democratic rights, and trends toward authoritarianism are being accompanied by ideological currents aimed at assisting extreme reaction, as demonstrated in Enoch Powell's racialist propaganda. At the same time the ultra-Lefts are attacking Parliament, and on this question they meet on common ground with the Right.
There are growing signs of the possibilities for defeating the challenge from monopoly. An outstanding feature of the political scene is the many-sid^d struggle for economic, political and democratic demands. This was shown by the industrial action of the Trade Union Movement, when it defeated the attempts of Wilson's Government to Impose penal legislation against the right to strike. It is demonstrated in the civil rights movement, in mass actions on many issues by the youth.
The way that wider sections of the people are coming into conflict 294 with aspects of monopoly rule bears out the point made by Lenin when he wrote:
``.. .for imperialism does not halt the development of capitalism and the growth of democratic tendencies among the mass of the population. On the contrary, it accentuates the antagonism between their democratic aspirations and the anti-democratic tendency of the trusts" (Vol. 23, p. 51).
Today the struggle to defend and extend democracy in Britain is of supreme importance if the working class and progressive forces are to defeat the attacks of monopoly and open up the path to social advance.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACYThe relationship between the struggle for democracy under capitalism and the fight for socialism was brought out very clearly when Lenin wrote:
``For socialism is impossible without democracy because: (1) the proletariat cannot perform the socialist revolution unless it prepares for it by the struggle for democracy; (2) victorious socialism cannot consolidate its victory and bring humanity to the withering cf the state without implementing full democracy" (Vol. 23, p. 74).
Our Programme The British Road to Socialism, sees the fight for democracy as an integral part of preparing for the socialist revolution, li shows how the struggle for democratic demands both strengthens the people in the movements of today and helps towards the winning of political power, through a broad popular alliance, led by the working class.
Such an alliance takes shape in the course of class struggles on wages, peace, housing and rents, education, democratic demands and many other questions. Its growth depends on uniting the working class and freeing it from the grip of Right-wing Social-Democracy and to effect this a mass Communist Party is indispensable.
The dynamic of this development is massive class struggles, expressed in strikes and in popular pressure through demonstrations and other forms of action locally and nationally. The battleground is in the factories, the streets, the mass organisations, Parliament and the Councils.
These struggles help bring about profound changes in the outlook of the people and are reflected in a new relationship of forces in the 295 organisations of the Labour Movement and in Parliament, resulting in a new kind of parliamentary majority, able to form a Socialist Government, pledged to fight for a socialist programme.
So the process of challenging the monopolists on the many issues of struggle and of making inroads into their rule, leads to a position where conditions are created for challenging their political power.
This challenge is made through a combination of strength of the working class and its allies in action outside Parliament and the expression of this power inside Parliament itself.
Speaking of the importance of democratic demands in the battle for social change, our Programme says:
``This aspect of the struggle assumes greater importance than ever as the power of the monopolists grows, and the threat to democracy becomes more open. The British people have a long, deeply rooted history of struggle for democratic rights; and this makes it possible to win wide sections of them in action to preserve what has been won, and to make new gains. Every step that extends the people's control over the affairs of the country weakens the power of big business.
``Freedom of speech, of meeting, the right to organise, demonstrate, lobby, picket and strike---all are vital in securing any economic and political change. They must be extended and defended by active use and pressure" (The British Road to Socialism, p. 39).
This struggle not only makes inroads into the rule of monopoly, but in the course of it the confidence of the working people in their power is built up.
Those in action on democratic demands are brought up against the limitations of a society based on economic exploitation and against the real character of the capitalist state. Such experiences help develop understanding of the need to break through the confines of the present system, to challenge the ruling class, to take political power and open the way for a new and higher form of democracy---socialist democracy. As Marx and Engels expressed it in the Communist Manifesto:
``... the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletaiiat to the position of the ruling class, to wiu the battle for democracy.''
296 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S COOPERATIVE PLAN IN BULGARIAThe Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party conveys heartfelt greetings to all participants in this forum dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir llyich Lenin and welcomes this initiative of the journal Problems of Peace and Socialism.
Lenin's ideas are gaining ground throughout the world. More and more progressive people turn to his inexhaustible legacy of revolutionary theory and practice. In socialist and capitalist countries alike, the forces inspired by Lenin's work are growing and so is their determination to achieve new victories for peace, democracy and socialism.
The whole modern history of mankind is linked with Lenin's name and work. Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, of the world-wide transition from capitalism to socialism and the building of communist society. The significance of Leninism is therefore not local nor national but world-wide, international. The theoretical and political ideas advanced by Lenin are put into effect not in one country nor a limited group of countries but throughout the world Communist movement, on every continent.
The reason for this is that Lenin carried forward all the aspects and components of Marxism, having generalised not only the experience of one country hut that of world development and the international working-class movement. And this is why he became the leader of not only ihe Russian but the world proletariat.
297The victory of the October Socialist Revolution made it possible for the first time to translate the ideas of scientific communism into reality. The Soviet people and country were the first to test and demonstrate the scientific validity and power of Marxism-Leninism. Numerous peoples took the road pioneered by Lenin and the October devolution. So did our people, led by the Communist Party. Leninism became the theoretical foundation of the struggle of our Party and people to abolish capitalism and achieve victory for socialism. It became our historic destiny and the banner under which twenty-five years ago we accomplished the socialist revolution in Bulgaria.
The experience of our struggle has confirmed the universal character of Leninism. This is why our Party rejects all attempts to underrate or minimise the validity of Leninism as the theoretical basis of the world Communist movement, modern social progress and the fight for peace, democracy, national liberation and socialism.
It is clear to the Communists and working people of Bulgaria that the tremendous economic, cultural and social progress of their country, which is building socialism, would have been impossible unless the working 'class had taken power in alliance with the working peasantry and other working people, unless they had accomplished a socialist revolution after the example of the October Revolution and unless Lenin's ideas had triumphed in our country.
Led by Blagoyev's and Dimitrov's Communist Party and striving to apply Marxism-Leninism in a creative spirit, the Bulgarian people did away with capitalism and brought about the triumph of socialism in town and country alike. Technical and economic backwardness, like the exploiting system, are a thing of the distant past now. Bulgaria has become a highly developed country with a socialist Indus, ry and a modern, mechanised agriculture, with a well-educated and cultured people fast becoming a technically equipped nation.
It now takes our socialist industry a mere ten days to produce as much as capitalist Bulgaria produced in a whole year, 1939. Between 1957 and 1968 our national income grew 8.1 per cent a year against 1.9 per cent in Britain, 2.6 in Belgium, 3.4 in the FRG, 2 in Canada and the United States, 3.5 in France and 2.9 per cent in Sweden. We have abolished the exploiter classes. The social character and mentality of the workers, peasants and intellectuals have changed radically. Social and class distinctions are disappearing. Society is becoming more and more homogeneous. The countryside is catching up with the town in terms of living conditions, culture and education. The labour of workers and peasants is bscomirlg a c-> nbi niion ol' physical and mental labour and its proficiency is risin;;. The character 298 of the new man building socialism and communism is becoming more marked.
Speakers here have stressed that Leninism can advance only by making a comprehensive and concrete analysis of the actual situation. This is beyond question. And it is just as unquestionable that revolutionary strategy and tactics are unthinkable without analysing the actual situation. It is also an irrefutable fact that the revolutionary policy of a Communist Party cannot be correct nor effective unless it takes into account the international situation, especially in the imperialist period and above all today, when all the forces and factors involved in the world revolutionary process are closely interlinked and inter-* dependent.
It would be wrong to infer that all these exigencies of Leninism make Leninism itself a mere method of investigating reality. Of course, we could hardly find a Communist now who in searching for solutions to present-day problems drew up an action programme consisting of quotations from Lenin. Nobody sees this kind of recourse to Lenin's ideas as the right method of solving revolutionary problems. In evolving their programmes, strategy and tactics, revolutionary parties take guidance---I stress guidance---from Leninism as an integral theory whose method is in harmony with the ideology of the working class and the scientific definition of the fundamental laws governing the development of modern society, under both capitalism and socialism. Leninism is an international revolutionary science which is developing continuously but whose main discoveries are not relativist categories but the scientific foundation of the world-wide revolutionary movement.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ II. THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF THE BCP UNDER CAPITALISMOne of the most important and difficult problems of the socialist revolution is admittedly to reorganise agriculture along socialist lines. The Bulgarian people's progress in this entailed numerous difficulties due to kulak resistance, ttie private-ownership mentality of the peasants and, last but not least, the economic backwardness of the country. For all these difficulties, however, we succeeded in establishing socialism in the countryside as well by taking guidance from Leninism and by striving to apply Lenin's cooperative plan in our conditions.
Long before the victory of the socialist revolution in Bulgaria our Party fully adopted the Marxist-Leninist agrarian theory. It was certain 299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1970/LRP389/20080711/389.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.07.13) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ that only this theory furnished a Consistently scientific elucidation of the agrarian question and showed the only correct method of settling it.
Our Party's main point of departure has always been Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the instrument of the proletarian revolution and the principal prerequisite of the socialist remaking of society, agriculture included.
Equipped with Lenin's theses on the agrarian question and analysing the concrete evidence of brutal exploitation and class differontation in the Bulgarian countryside, the Party revealed to the poor and middle peasants that the capitalist development of our country was resulting in the ruin and impoverishment of the working peasantry.
The Party proved that the working peasants, being small proprietors, had no chance under capitalism, which doomed the overwhelming majority of them to ruin and proletarianisation, and that the only way out for them was alliance with the revolutionary proletariat in the struggle to eliminate capitalism and bring about the triumph of socialism. In accordance with Lenin's theory, the Party forged a lastIng alliance of the working class and the poor and middle peasants. It was on this basis that the heroic fight against fascism and capitalIsm was carried through to victory.
The worker-peasant alliance was built up in economic, political and ideological struggles under the leadership of the Party against the offensive of finance capital and its policy on prices in the countryside, against the tax policy of the bourgeois government, against attacks on democratic institutions and the rights of the people, against the ruthless exploitation of the working peasants by the kulaks and big capitalists.
The alliance of the Party and the Left-wing forces of the Bulgarian Agricultural People's Union,^^*^^ which carried weight with the working peasantry, played an important part in winning over the working peasants to the side of the working class in the fight against capitalism and then in building socialism.
Equipped with Lenin's scientifically based ideas on the agrarian question, our Party and its theoretical cadres refuted the pseudoscientific bourgeois theories on the agrarian question that misled the poor peasants by alleging that the small-commodity economy under _-_-_
^^*^^ Political organisation which in 1948 adopted Hie class principle of organisation and recognised the Communist Party's programme lor building socialism---Ed.
300 capitalism made it possible to achieve an affluent and cultured Me in the countryside and to avert ruin and poverty.As technology progressed the shortcomings of small-commodity farming became worse and more obvious, proving the Party's Leninist policy correct. Small farms and most of the middle-peasant farms went through a painful process of ruin and impoverishment.
Economically our countryside was extremely backward at the time, being based on small-commodity farming. Its facilities were primitive and its productivity low. The number of private farms was close on 1,100,000 and most of them owned less than five hectares of land.
According to data for 1946, the land was distributed by groups of farms as follows:
Groups of farms according to size of holding [hectares] Share in total of farms (per cent) Percentage of total farmland area up to 2 29.8 6.3 2.1 to 5 38.8 30.7 5.1 to 10 24. 5 39.3 10.1 to 30 6.8 21.5 over 30.1 0.1 1.7It will be seen that most farms were small. Their land was broken up into parcels of 0.3 to 0.4 hectare in area. The implements were primitive. The cow was the principal draught animal and the wooden plough and the hoe, the main implements. In 1939 machines and chemicals were almost unknown in Bulgarian agriculture. Irrigation was primitive and covered a scant 36,000 hectares, or 0.75 per cent, of the cultivated land area of the country. Scientific achievements were out of reach of agriculture. Most of the farming experts, whose national total was 1,005, were employed by the state and had no direct links with the production sphere.
It 'goes without saying that an agriculture of this type could not yield much produce or profit. To illustrate, here are data on the per hectare yields of staples: wheat and maize, roughly 10 to 12 centners, sunflower seeds about 8 centners, grapes 40 to 45 centners, apples 40 to 50 centners. Animal husbandry was in much the same state. Its annual production averaged 450 litres of milk per cow, one kilogram of wool per sheep, some 73 eggs per hen, and so on.
The primitive stale of ;i»riculture accounted for the low material 301 and cultural standards of the peasants. Most peasants were .poor, their incomes fell far below the standards of a well-to-do existence, and unemployment and poverty were permanent features of their lives. All attempts by progressives to bring elements of social justice Into the countryside, raise agricultural production to a higher plane and improve the peasants' living standard were fruitless. They were frustrated by the predatory policy of the Bulgarian bourgeoisie. Foreign monopoly capital had a vested interest in Bulgaria continuing as its agrarian appendage supplying raw materials, and blocked the country's industrial progress.
Guided by Marxist-Leninist theory, the Communist Party did much to bring peasants into its ranks and draw them into the common fight against the exploiters. And when, in 1941, it called on the workers, peasants and other working people to rise against the fascist regime, many peasants' sons and daughters joined guerrilla units under the Party's banner while others helped the guerrillas and joined action groups. The fascists resorted to brutal terror against the population. They killed peasant anti-fascists and burnt down their houses. In a mere two years---1943 and 1944---they burnt 2,139 houses of guerrillas and those who helped them.
For all the difficulties involved, we succeeded in defeating the brutal bourgeois fascist dictatorship, whose hands were stained with the people's blood, and in eliminating it on September 9, 1944, with the decisive assistance of the Soviet Union.
The Party organised the poor and middle peasants as allies of the proletariat and roused them to a political struggle against exploitation and fascist obscurantism. Moreover, it responded in time to the peasants' aspiration for economic resistance to the exploiters by setting up cooperatives of various types and at various levels, production cooperatives included. The Party's attitude and aid to the cooperative -movement played an important part in the rapid expansion of the movement even before September 9, 1944.
At the turn of the century Dmitr Blagoyev, founder of the Bulgarian Communist Party, skilfully combined the dissemination of socialist ideas with popularisation of the idea of cooperatives. He stressed that agricultural associations where the conditions for their rise and existence were favourable were of great importance to the growth of the productive forces. True, they could not in themselves save smallcommodity farms from ruin nor prevent the proletarianisation of small producers.
In the trying period after World War I the Bulgarian cooperative movement made further progress under the impact of the Great October 302 Revolution and Lenin's cooperative plan. The Party stepped up its attention and aid to the movement. It set out to use the movement more effectively in political and revolutionary struggles.
After the Seventh Congress of the Comintern the Central Committee of our Party decided, according to the situation in the country, on a series of measures aimed at uniting all democratic forces and the masses to fight fascism. It recommended forming cooperatives witli departments in charge of work among women, youth, etc. There began a vast cooperative youth movement. The Workers' Youth League, which included the progressive part of the rural youth and which the bourgeois fascist regime had banned, made ample use of the movement as a channel for legal activity. However, the Party taught the peasants that only by destroying the capitalist system and by establishing socialist relations of production could the cooperative provide a well-to-do and cultured life for the poor and middle peasants.
The subsequent development of our people's struggle, in particular the peasants' struggle for a progressive and democratic cooperative mass movement fully confirmed the theoretical soundness and practical validity of the Party's idea of cooperatives.
Under the influence of the collective-farm movement in the Soviet Union and of propaganda by the Bulgarian Communist Party, the first agricultural production cooperatives were set up in 1939 and 1940 to cultivate land on a collective basis. It was not long before their number reached 65. The bourgeois fascist regime sensed that this form of cooperative was a mortal enemy of the capitalist system. It tried hard to do away with the cooperatives, with the result that only 29 cooperatives lived to see the socialist revolution.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ III. THE SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF THE BULGARIAN COUNTRYSIDEBulgaria's experience shows that only by establishing and consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat, with all-round aid from the socialist state and socialist industry, can the working peasants be transformed from private proprietors into active and conscious builders of socialism.
Lenin's principle of establishing cooperatives on a voluntary basis does not rule out and, indeed, imp'ies and requires decisive assistance from the socialist state to overcome the working peasants' private^ ownership meniaiiiy.
303The cooperative movement in agriculture was promoted to a tremendous extent by our Party's policy of buildi.it; socialism at once In town and country, a policy embodied in (lie historic decisions of the 5th Party Congress.
Late in 1948, addressing the 5th Congress of the BCP, Georgi Dimitrov said: "Nationalised industry, developing according to the laws of extended socialist reproduction, that is, increasing output year after year and setting up new enterprises, will require increasing quantities of foodstuffs and agricultural raw materials. Small-- commodity individual farming with its low productivity cannot meet, the growing needs of industry, the urban population and the army in adequate measure. This poses the problem of reshaping agriculture on socialist principles simultaneously with the socialist reshaping and development of industry. People's democratic power and socialist development cannot rest long on two different pillars: a large-scale, centralised socialist industry and a fragmented and backward agriculture with a low output. We must gradually but systematically and perseveringly put agriculture on a new technical basis-large-scale production---through the cooperation of individual peasant farms and the establishment of large mechanised agricultural cooperatives.''
In line with Dimitrov's advice and the Congress decision, the Party engaged in explanatory and organising work among the peasants to induce them to set up cooperatives. By 1958 and 1959 agriculture had been fully reorganised on a socialist basis.
The establishment of the cooperative system in ac/riciilture meant that Dimitrov's line approved by the 5th Congress had become reality. This line was, in fact, a creative application oj Li'nin's cooperative plan, fully adopted by the BCP as the theoretical basis on which to reorganise agriculture on socialist principles.
Our Party's modest contribution to the application and promotion of this plan lies in the fact that the production cooperative as a form was discovered and put to us in our conditions with a view to applying the principle of voluntary adherence and material incentive. This form preserved small private ownership of the land which the peasant brought into the cooperative, being paid a compensation specified by the general meeting of the cooperative. Another contribution made by the BCP to the application oi Lenin's cooperative plan was thai we began the socialist reorganisation of agriculture before we had a developed industry of our own, using the assistance of the Sovuv Union with its developed industry.
I would like to point out here that special credit is due to the CPSu 304 and the Soviet Union for the complete victory of the socialist system in the countryside.
The BCP drew on the vast experience gained by the CPSU and the Soviet Union in establishing and building up the collective farm system. Many Soviet scientists and experts rendered us invaluable assistance in setting up cooperatives and in organising and managing large socialist agricultural enterprises. A large body of agricultural personnel has been and continues to be trained in the Soviet Union.
We owe it to Soviet aid that our Party could immediately after the socialist revolution set out to build socialism at once in town and country.
We regard this as a splendid instance of genuine internationalism, which is so typical of our brother, the Soviet Union, and as an application of the Leninist policy of the CPSU.
The formation of cooperatives in Bulgaria was accompanied by a sharp class struggle against Uie big bourgeoisie in the town and the kulaks in the countryside, who put up fierce resistance.
At first the BCP pursued a policy of restricting the kulaks and forcing them out of their positions. The campaign followed several important directions and expressed itself in a number of anti-capitalist measures in the rural areas that were enthusiastically supported by the peasants.
The first task in this campaign was to wrest the means, of production from the capitalist elements in rural Bulgaria. The agrarian reform effected under the 1945 law on land tenure played an important role in this.
Under the law on the compulsory redemption of large items of agricultural equipment and the law nationalising capitalist industry, which were enforced in 1947, the kulaks were deprived of all tractors, threshers, mills, oil-presses, hackles, etc.
The system of obligatory state purchases of farm produce enabled us fully to exclude the kulaks and other capitalist elements from trade in agricultural products. Obligatory deliveries to the state were put on a class basis. The poorest households were practically exempted from grain deliveries while the kulaks were obliged to deliver high quotas of produce.
The class approach was also applied in the taxation system, based on the principle of progressive levy according to the size of income.
Share-cropping was outlawed and other measures were instituted against the kulak-capitalist class, against the economic interests of that class.
The policy of restricting and ousting the kulaks in the countryside, 305 coupled with a drive to draw working peasants into cooperatives with extensive help from the state in consolidating the cooperative system, brought about the elimination of kulaks as a class. By spring 1956, having analysed the new conditions, the Party and Government considered it possible to admit ex-kulaks to cooperatives, withholding from them the right of serving in executive posts. In the cooperatives, a section of the former exploiting elements successfully underwent a process of re-education.
The agricultural cooperatives proved a suitable form for the socialist reconstruction of agriculture. Essentially, they correspond to the collective farms formed on the basis of- Lenin's cooperative plan.
However, our cooperatives have their specific features and differ from collective farms by reason of the concrete conditions in which they exist.
E'or one thing, we had no need for nationalising land, because when the people's power was established tnere was an ocean of small holders and only an insignificant number of large estates. In our conditions, nationalisation of land would, in effect, amount to expropriating the small holder.
The peasant members of cooperatives received emoluments not only for labour done, but also for the land which they made available for cooperative use. This distribution, through which the members' private ownership of land based on their labour was realised, played a positive role in attracting the middle peasants to cooperatives. However, when the cooperatives became stronger organisationally, economically and financially, their members gradually and voluntarily accepted the socialist principle of distribution for labour only. Thus, what happened was a socialisation of land without nationalisation. The agricultural cooperatives turned into consistently socialist farms, without survivals of non-labour distribution and leaving no room for the exploitation of man by man.
The cooperative system radically changed the class structure in the countryside. The stratification of peasants with contradictory, even opposite, interests is a thing of the past. After entering the cooperatives, agricultural labourr ; and poor and middle peasants consolidated into one class, the c.-.ss of cooperative peasants.
This consolidation of different groups into one class took place gradually, and had some peculiar features. Although private landownership remained in principle, poor and middle peasants, when entering a cooperative, socialised their means of production and cultivated their land in common. Consequently, they began to assume 306 the same position in relation to cooperative property and the process of farming.
And since there were also landless peasants in the cooperatives, while the area of contributed land was unequal, with some contributing less and others more (middle and prosperous peasants, and later ex-kulaks], this gave rise to certain contradictions. However, these no longer assumed a class character. No class of landed peasants could appear in the cooperatives, on the one hand, and a class of working peasants, on the other. The right of private landownership was not an absolute monopoly, being connected with the work put in by the individual. In the cooperatives, work was a factor that radically changed the attitude of their members to the right of landownership.
As for purchase and sale of land for agricultural production, it is not prohibited to this day. However, what with the development of the socialist economy and of cooperation in agriculture, it has become meaningless. At present, the land belongs in fact to those who cultivate it, and has from the economic point of view turned from small private property earned by labour into public socialist property.
The deep-going socio-economic changes, including the victory of the cooperative system in the countryside, have radically changed the mentality, ideology and psychology of the peasants. The petty-- proprietory nature of the peasant, his individualist habits and prejudices acquired in the old society, are gradually being overcome. The spirit of collectivism is gaining ground increasingly. The old views of the peasants, too, a unique hodge-podge of religious and atheistic notions, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois prejudices and progressive ideas, are changing, with a socialist consciousness emerging gradually.
The peasants' personal interests blend in the cooperatives with the interests of the collective and of society. As he works in the cooperative, the farmer learns from experience that his higher standard of living and cultural level stem not from actions against the collective, but from the success of the collective and of all society.
At present, the Bulgarian countryside is represented, first and foremost, by agricultural cooperatives, which have p'ayed a historic role in building socialism in our country.^^*^^
The most complete descripiion of the essence and role of our agricultural cooperatives in the present stage was produced by Todor Xhivkov in his report to the Congress of Cooperative Farm _-_-_
^^*^^ At present Bulgaria has 854 r iop ;,L:v<:-; and lri> slai:^^1^^ farms, with the former producing nearly two-thirds ot the country's at;n<"ul["ral output.---Ed.
307 Representatives in 1967. "The agricultural cooperative,'' he said, "is now developing not only as an enterprise with a consistently socialist character, not only as a form of socialist farming, but also as a socialist organisation of cooperative members, which in its activity resolves rural economic, cultural and social problems, in which the personal, collective and social interests blend to the fullest."Thus, we owe it to the cooperatives that conditions are appearing In their present stage assuring a high degree of democracy and genuine self-administration. This is typical also of our entire society, of socialist democracy. With property socialised, with socialist state power, the working class, the cooperative peasants and the people's Intelligentsia have become the sole and complete masters of the fruit of their labour. In the circumstances, science and the scientificotechnological revolution are powerful factors steeply raising the material and spiritual level of life. Our socialist democracy is a genuine one, the democracy of the producers of material and spiritual values, of the makers of history. For that reason, to advance as a criterion of democracy in a socialist society---as the exponents of "democratic socialism" do---the presence or absence of opposition parties is to approach the matter in a purely formal way, abstracted from history.
To justify the need for an opposition under socialism by the slogan of extending democracy means, in effect, to impede and subvert the real democracy, the democracy of working people. Now that socialism has won and become the cause of the working people, only those who have not reconciled themselves with defeat, that is, elements from among the former exploiting classes, have a stake in opposition parties. To demand an opposition under socialism is the same as to demand opposition to socialism, to the people. Acceptance of this demand by a socialist power is tantamount to creating favourable conditions for the anti-socialist elements to resist and join forces with international imperialist reaction against socialism. It is tantamount, as a popular proverb in our country says, to placing a hedgehog into the bottom of one's own trousers or, to use the Leninist expression, to departing from class 'positions.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ IV. STRUGGLE OF THE BULGARIAN COMMUNIST PARTY TO CONSOLIDATEIn consolidating and advancing the cooperative system, the Party acted on the Marxist-Leninist teaching about the determinative role 308 of the material and technical basis in building socialism and com* immism.
To build a dependable material basis for the cooperative system, the government adopted a number of decisions as far back as 1945, according to which the newly-established agricultural cooperatives were relieved of state and local taxes in the first three years; state and public land was turned over to them free of charge; they were given loans, at first without interest and, later, at a minimum interest I 2 per cent) for investment in agriculture; also, they were afforded advantages in obtaining building materials.
By a special decision of the Party and the Council of Ministers, machine-and-tractor stations were formed after the Soviet model to help the cooperatives. These were to provide technical services to cooperative farming, their existence made necessary by the fact that the cooperatives were not yet at that time economically strong enough to fend for themselves.
Later, in 1962, in view of the organisational and financial consolidation of the cooperatives and in view of their achievements in production, the Party and the Council of Ministers decided to allow them to purchase their own farming machinery. It is only in the mountain and foothill areas, where conditions are difficult and where cooperatives came into existence later than elsewhere, that machineand-tractor stations were retained until 1965---1967, and in some places even until now, as a form of technical aid to the farmers.
The meeting of the Central Committee in April 1956 adopted important, historically significant decisions to promote the further development and consolidation of the cooperative system in the countryside. Intensification became the main trend in agricultural growth. The principle of material incentives as a key factor in extending production, violated to some extent during the personality cult period, was put back into force. Obligatory deliveries to the state were terminated and the cooperative was allowed to negotiate the sale of its products freely with procurement agencies. The prices of a number of farm products were raised. Farms with unfavourable natural conditions began to receive benefits in addition to the fixed procurement prices.
The distinctive feature of the present stage Is the steady and considerable growth of the role played by cooperatives in increasing production, increasing the national income and raising the productivity of labour.
Total agricultural output more than doubled between 19--19 and 1968, 309 while the productivity of labour in farming rose more than four-fold. The following table shows the rise of yields of the main crops and of the productivity of animal husbandry.
Types of output Annual average 1953---57 1965---68 Wheat Centners per hect. 14.3 27.5 Maize Centners per hect. 15.9 34.6 Barley Centners per -hect. 16.1 23.7 Sunflower seeds Centners per hect. 10.7 16.9 Cotton Centners per hect. j 5.1 I 10.9 Tobacco Centners per hect. ' 0.5 10.7 _ Sugar-beet Centners per hect. IBB. 7 340. 5 Grapes Centners per hect. ; 38.6 57.4 Apples Centners per hect. j 63. 8 83.0 Tomatoes Centneis per hect. j 255.1 298.6 Milk, per cow^^*^^ (litres] 1,148 2.562 Wool, per sheep (kg) i 2.214 3.137 Eggs, per hen' 76 171The growth of production was particularly marked in the main farming branches. For example, wheat production increased from 2 million tons in 1939, obtained on an area of about 1,527,000 hectares, to 3,250,000 tons in 1967, obtained on an area of 1,062,000 hectares. In the same period maize production increased from 1,070,000 tons to 1,907,000 tons, that of sunflower seed from 170,000 tons to 450,000 tons, sugar-beet from 234,000 to 2,500,000 tons, tobacco from 41,000 tons to 120,000 tons, tomatoes from 41,000 tons to 700,000 tons, grapes from 639,000 to 1,300,000 tons and fruit from about 100,000 tons to over 800,000 tons.
In the same period, milk production rose from 245,000 tons to 1,170,000 tons, meat from 320,000 tons to 490,000 tons, eggs from 470 million pieces to 1,680 million pieces, and wool from 12,700 to 27,200 tons.
This shows that the efforts of the Party and people, directed at reconstructing agriculture along socialist lines, were fully justified. What it also shows is the unquestionable advantage of the socialist system of farming over private small-scale farming.
Today, the agricultural cooperatives possess a powerful and steadily _-_-_
^^*^^ Only in cooparatlve and state farms,---Ed.
310 growing modern material and technical basis. Mechanisation, chemi-- calisation and melioration are now the pillars of agriculture.The total of tractors (in terms of 15-hp' units) in the People's Republic of Bulgaria was 84,011 in 1968 against 3,500 in 1944, that is, their number has increased 24-fold. Total harvester combines exceed 15 000 and lorries 18,000.
We now have 17.5 tractors per thousand hectares of arable, whereas Greece has 5.6 and Turkey 1.4.^^*^^
Twenty-five years ago mineral fertilizer was practically unavailable in Bulgaria None was produced. At present, socialist Bulgaria has several" plants making chemical fertilizers and plant protection compounds. In 1968, the farms were supplied 842,000 tons of mineral fertilizer (pure substance) or 175 kilograms per hectare against 4 kilograms before the war. In contrast, Greece used 30 kilograms per hectare, Turkey 5.3 kilograms and Italy 55 in 1987---68.
The modern image of the material and technical basis of agriculture includes irrigation, which in our climatic conditions is as important ior the steady growth of agriculture as mechanisation and chemicalisation.
At present, about 1 million hectares of our farmland, or nearly 30 times as much as in 1944. is irrigated. This comprises 21 per cent of the country's total arable land.
It may be noted that 70 per cent of the new irrigation schemes in our country ore either stationary or semi-stationary.
Speaking of the material and technical basis of modern socialist agriculture, we must also note the reconstruction and expansion on anew basis of fruit-growing and viniculture. In place of the old fruit and grape enterprises, the cooperatives and state farms have developed some 300,000 hectares of new industrialised complexes, cultivated with both ground machinery and from aircraft.
The rapidly growing fodder industry is another new element of our material and technical basis, its capacity climbing to 1,500,000 tons of fodder mixtures annually in the past four or five years. Other highlights are rice plantations, vegetable plantations, modern storage facilities, fruit storage facilities, refrigerators, and poultry and animal farms producing eggs, milk and meat.
The role of agricultural specialists is now invaluable. They are the immediate bearers of scientific knowledge and are continuously and successfully introducing science into practice with the object of raising the aqrirulnira! production of Bulgaria to the highest world level. _-_-_
^^*^^ Data for 1967--68.---Ed.
311 Out of the 857 chairmen of cooperatives 512 have a higher education and tiie others a secondary or specialised secondary education. The cooperatives employ 3,300 agronomists, 1,580 zootechnicians, 2,700 veterinary surgeons, nearly 1,000 mechanical engineers and 856 chief accountants. Some 88 per cent of all these specialists have a higher, and the others a secondary, education, Besides, out of the 11,800 foremen heading the production teams in cooperatives about 4,000 have a higher or secondary education, while the rest finished specialised foremen's schools.Considerable changes have also taken place in the farmers' way of life. The payment they receive for work in cooperatives has increased considerably, and their income has also risen. According to estimates by bourgeois economists the annual per capita income in the countryside before the Second World War was about one-third that of the town dweller. In our country this gaping rift lias been closed. The annual income of a cooperative member is nearly equal to that of an industrial employee. Back in 1957, cooperative members were eligible for pensions and social insurance in the event of accident or incapacitation. The cooperatives, too, aid the old, sick and needy out of their special social and cultural funds.
Medical and community services have been organised on a broad scale. Nearly all villages have kindergartens and nurseries.
The face of the Bulgarian village has changed beyond recognition, Ninety per cent of the village dwellings are new. All villages have electricity and most have water mains. Hundreds now have the appearance of small cozy towns.
A jar-jlung system oj shops and catering establishments has been organised to supply and service the rural population. By the end of 1968 there were 12,600 shops in villages, with each village running a public bakery. Domestic electrical appliances are now part of the rura' way of life. Nearly all cooperatives have public kitchens. This has considerably relieved the village families, especially the wife and mother, of daily domestic chores.
These revolutionary gains, secured by the socialist system, are steadily levelling out the way of life of the rural labourer and his brother, the industrial worker.
The profound social and economic changes in the Bulgarian countryside over the past 25 years have created favourable conditions for the solution of problems connected with I he development of education ar,d ca'lurc among the rural poptuaiion combating the backwardness in that domain inherited from the bourgeois-fascist system.
312Education Is now tuition-free and extends to all children and adolescents, including those in the smallest and most remote mountain villages. This is/facilitated by the building of schools in many villages and even new gymnasiums in the bigger ones, and also by the establishment of new specialised secondary and higher educational establishments.
Illiteracy, among the rural population included, has been virtually stamped out.
Without adopting any special law, as a result of the correct Party policy in the field of education, secondary schooling has been provided to more than 80 per cent of the children of cooperative members and state-farm workers, that is, to those who but yesterday languished in ignorance and illiteracy. There are many villages these days where all young people get a secondary or specialised education, and quite a few even a higher education. This notable fact will have a great bearing on Bulgaria's successful development in the coming period.
There is every reason to say that the cultural revolution is making momentous strides in the modern Bulgarian village, as well as in the towns. In that respect, too, the village is increasingly approaching the town.
At present, our cooperative system is on the threshold of a new stage, poised for further progress.
The Party has directed the attention and energy of the leading cadres in agriculture, as well as those of all people working in agriculture, on the main issues, the issues of intensification and of equipping all branches of agriculture with modern technology, and of substantially increasing the productivity of labour. The Party has issued directives centering attention on the maximum use of the intensive factors of economic growth: a high degree of concentration and specialisation in production, and extensive introduction of industrial methods and all the achievements of science and technical progress.
The most urgent task in agriculture today is technical reconstruction of production and management, establishing enterprises and producer organisations of a new type, based on comprehensive mechanisation and automation.
In the reconstruction of farming now under way, the accent is on concentration and specialisation, on horizontal and vertical integration, on modernising the material and technical basis and putting production on an industrial foundation. These processes, which epitomise the scientific and technical revolution in our countryside, are facilitated by the large size of the cooperatives ^average 3,800---4,000 313 hectares) and the all-round harmony reigning between the interests of producers and society.
Thus, in our countryside the cooperative system offers extensive opportunities for expanding the productive forces and for the growth of production at lower cost. Its viability increases with the growth of the socialist system. If we follow the growth of the productive forces in farming in the advanced capitalist countries, we may note that introduction of modern techniques began 80---100 years after machinery was first used in agriculture. Having inherited a backward material and technical basis, the agriculture of People's Bulgaria ascended in less than 25 years to a height which enables us to introduce extensively industrial methods of production. This is striking proof of the viability of the socialist system and its advantage over the capitalist. The swift rate at which the scientific and technological revolution is unfolding in the socialist agriculture of Bulgaria is a logical effect of its previous development along the way charted by the immortal Lenin. Materialising before our very eyes are the aspirations of Karl Marx, V. I. Lenin and those outstanding leaders of our Party, D. Blagoyev and G. Dimitrov, who spoke of a large-scale machine industry in agriculture, of the growth of farm labour into a variety of industrial labour, and of the village rising to the town level.
The modest experience of our country attests that Leninism, the Marxism of the modern epoch, is and always will be a profound scientific and theoretical foundation for the struggle to eliminate capitalism and assure the victory of socialism in all countries.
That is why we must be unshakably loyal to Leninism and must apply it creatively in accordance with the concrete conditions, never departing on the excuse of national or other specific features from the universal laws discovered by Lenin.
The Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party and all Communists of Bulgaria are deeply convinced that, taking guidance in the Marxist-Leninist teaching and following Lenin's way, united in the strong socialist world system, shoulder to shoulder with the great Soviet Union, our country and people will achieve new, still greatsi- successes in bi`i'ding socialism, and will advance firmly to communism, to a radiant future.
314 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND TOPICAL PROBLEMSLatin America is passing through a difficult and complicated period. The peoples in our countries are beginning to undjisiand tilt ;;aases of their hardships and are becoming determined to remove them. Broad sections view North American imperialism and the local oligarchies associated with it as their bitterest enemy. And this, despite frantic propaganda to the contrary. The realities of the existing system, fashioned to exploit and oppress the vast downtrodden majority, are an objective factor in the revolutionary awakening of the masses. The growth of the process is a natural tendency, evidenced, among other things, by the upswing of democratic sentiment among the youth, the intelligentsia, churchmen, military, peasants, etc. The mass manifestations during Nelson Rockefeller's recent Latin American visits, and the class battles in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and elsewhere, are, as we see it, a clear indication of the growth of anti-imperialist feeling and revolutionary action.
The Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in June 1969 pointed rightly to a most important factor in the revolutionary movement on our continent: "Wide sections of people, students, progressive intellectuals and the urban middle strata are forming an alliance with the proletariat. Joint action and anti-imperialist unity against reactionary regimes are gaining in strength.''
Naturally, this sharpening of the class struggle is creating serious problems for the most advanced revolutionary forces. The fact that objectively the struggle is expanding does not mean that activity by^ the foremost forces should be relegated to the background. On the 315 contrary, a clear theoretical programme is needed more than ever, coupled with vigorous revolutionary action. And this will be so as the class struggle expands in each country.
What is the main problem facing our revolutionaries in the present historical phase? Many problems could be named, but the main one is: What must be done to give added impulse to the class struggle, paving the way for decisive action in this or that Latin American country at the propitious time? Clearly, the question applies to tactics, not strategy. Hence, working out the tactics for the present historical moment is the main task. As for strategy, we hold that it has been sufficiently well defined for the entire present stage, serving as the guiding star for concrete mass action. The strategic aim is to accomplish a democratic revolution of liberation, the most vital necessity in Latin America today. The main object of the revolution is to eliiiiinate, imperialist domination and the associated power of the ruling Oiig.'.n'cliies, and carry through structural changes essential for the future iv.uidlng of socialism. The motive force of the revolution is a broad popular front based on the worker-peasant alliance, with the working class playing the guiding role. The main direction of the entire movement is to isolate the most reactionary sections, the neo Colonialist agems and the mercenary oligarchy in each country am! to organise joint struggle by all forces with a stake in radical reconstruction.
To accomplish this cardinal task" we must creatively apply Lenin's teaching to the concrete conditions in each of the countries. There is no other way. It would be a trial-and-error approach to search for solutions dissociated from Lenin's principles, principles borne out L.y world revolutionary experience. This approach distinguishes the Communists from other revolutionaries in Latin America. For the former Leninism possesses universal significance. It is tied in with the essence of materialist dialectics and therefore applicable to the specific conditions of the Latin American countries. In the case o£ the latter, though some distinctions exist between them, Leninism is reduced to merely a definite doctrine based on conditions that existed in pre-revolution Russia and therefore inapplicable to the social problems of a different time and place.
In contrast to this and other concepts, all of them symptoms of the "infantile disorder of Leftism" in Latin America, the continent's Communists proclaim and defend the principles of Leninist tactics. To be sure, these are no magic prescription, no set formula relieving revolutionaries of the difficult and complicated task of analysing concrete problems in accordance with the specific conditions and the 316 times. Lenin wrote: "It would be absurd to formulate a recipe or general rule ... to suit all cases" (Vol. 31, p. 68). And he added: "In this question too, as always, the task consists in learning to apply the general and basic principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to discover, study, and predict" (Ibid., p. 89). The relevance and scientific worth of Leninist tactics is confirmed by the facts of the class struggle throughout the world. It is not because it suits them or because of a dogmatic turn of mind that the Latin American Communists counterpose Lenin's tactical principles to the ideas of the ultra-Left forces.
The Communist parties in Latin America endeavour to bs consistent in applying Lenin's tactics to the concrete conditions of their particular countries. As a result, we have a diversity of forms of action, designed to assure an advance of the class struggle. Strikes, demonstrations, parliamentary activity, seizure of latifundia or enterprises, ideological struggle, agitation and, to some extent, armed action are all elements of the revolutionary struggle on the Latin American continent.
The Moscow Meeting pointed out the following on tins score: "The struggle of the broad masses for their economic and political demands, and for their revolutionary aims assumes diverse forms. The popular movement in Latin America is gaining momentum in a grim struggle against aggressive imperialism and internal reaction. In some countries it takes the road of armed struggle.''
Working out strategy and tactics, we must take note of and understand each new phenomenon, eacli new fact. An objedivn and profound analysis in the spirit of creative Marxism-Leninism is the key to questions arising in a given situation. Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide io action. What this means is that theory must take into account all changes in order to improve and enrich itself on their basis and that under no circumstances must facts be adjusted to fit theory. At present we in Latin America are witness to new phenomena and processes reaffirming the significance of the great MarxistLeninist principles. Take Peru and Bolivia: only yesterday their armies were an instrument of reprisal against workers, peasants and students; today they have declared themselves (lie standard-bearers of a national patriotic revolution. Not only did they declare it, but are acting accordingly. What is at the root of this phenomenon? What are (iie prospects? How are we to fit it inio the framework of the naioual liberation, democratic revolution which the working class in 317 the Latin American countries has accepted as the means of resolving our problems? As we see it, all the things surrounding us need to be studied and analysed. If we succeed in finding the right answers to this diversity of burning questions, and do so in good time, we shall not go wrong in assessing the situation.
However, the new emerges not only in big events. It is also evident in minor facts, daily and everywhere. And Marxism-Leninism requires of us to consider and assess all things, however insignificant they may appear against the general setting of the class struggle, for they are liable in certain places and certain circumstances to determine the general political situation. The scientific anticipation so extensively displayed by the classics of Marxism-Leninism stems from complete and conclusive knowledge of the concrete, though perhaps insignificant, facts of the daily struggle. This knowledge makes it possible to determine the necessity or transient historical nature of phenomena and thereby avoid surprises, avoid a situation in which the working class, the vanguard of the revolution, would fail to react to social processes correctly and in time.
Definite events are unfolding these days in all the Latin American countries. And it is up to us Marxists-Leninists of Latin America to analyse and study them as closely as the more momentous events elsewhere in the world.
318 __ALPHA_LVL1__ TO FIGHT OPPORTUNISM---LENIN'S BEHESTWe are entering the year of Lenin's cenlenary and nope knows better than we that our Communist movement o\ves its big successes to the fact that it draws upon Lenin's immortal heritage, upon Marxism-Leninism. Every departure from the teaching of Marx, Engels and Lenin was always inevitably accompanied by great difficulties, sometimes even critical situations.
For us the past decade has been a decade of struggle for the creative application of Marxism-Leninism to our social reality in order to crqate the optimum conditions for the successful growth of our socialist economy, science, technology and socialist culture. These have been years of effort to consolidate the guiding role of the Party, to enhance the Party's prestige. The 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (1966), which oriented us on the full-scale building of a developed socialist society was an outstanding event in that struggle.
Not only were those years a period of strenuous effort to rectify mistakes and deformations, but also a period of gradually emerging new dangers.
The Party's self-critical attitude was for those who had not reconciled themselves with the victory of socialism in our country a pretext to try and denigrate, and discredit our country's way to socialism, a way upon which we firmly embarked after February 1948.
The forces that preserved their hatred and hostility for the Party through all those years, though concealing their feelings, gradually built up an offensive against the whole socialist system.
319Everybody Knows about the 1968 events in Czechoslovakia.
January 1968, which gave rise to great hopes, was grossly perverted by the Right opportunist forces, who gave the anti-socialist elements a free hand for action. Our Party leadership is now making a detailed analysis to define the causes of the distortions of the post-January policy and the more profound reasons for the crisis that resulted from this policy. Although the analysis is not ready yet, we can now legitimately state as an obvious and fatal fact that one of the causes of our crisis lay in the unprincipled, even off-hand attitude towards the complex problems facing our society.
The heed to go over from extensive to intensive economy became evident at the end of the fifties and early sixties. We had to work out answers to various questions concerning socialist management, improving the entire system of leadership on the basis of democratic centralism. What was most urgent was to draw lessons from the criticism of our mistakes, due to which the Party's work became deficient or formal in character, with the Party fast losing prestige among the people. It was most important to find such ways of effecting the Party's guiding role as would rally the creative forces of our society and reverse the tendency towards stagnation that had appeared in some areas of our work.
It would be unfair to say that the Party leadership of that time was unaware of these challenges. But, evidently, it underestimated their importance, failing to find the appropriate ways of resolving the difficulties, which, as a result, began to snowball.
The fact that we placed too much credence in the political-moral unity of our society achieved by then, too much credence in the fact that social conflicts had become more or less secondary and transient with the development of socialist democracy, the basic guarantees for which we automatically associated with the existence of the new system, also played a distinct role in the development of the crisis. This over-confidence was one of the reasons behind the deterioration of our political work and its excessive replacement with administrative methods of guidance.
In a situation where it was necessary to take bold action, facing up to the newly-arising challenges and at the same time taking a stand of principle in relation to the various viewpoints, the exponents of which began to question the Party's ability to lead society, the Party proved incapable of mobilising its forces in the theoretical and ideological Marxist-Leninist sectors.
Soon enough, the fight against the surfacing tendency towards stagnation was taken up by the Right opportunists and liberally-minded 320 sections of the intelligentsia, who, more and more overtly, began to coalesce into an opposition. On the pretext of combating dogmatism and conservatism, the opposition elements took advantage of the Party's efforts to improve the system of leadership to launch an offensive against the Party's guiding role and undermine the ceniralised administration of society. Gradually, the campaign against dogmatism and conservatism developed into a crusade against Marxism-Leninism and led to attempts at replacing the ideology of the revolutionary, proletariat with a platform encouraging all views and orientations. In due course this tolerance became almost boundless, denied only to those who had retained their loyalty to Marxism-- Leninism and proletarian internationalism.
Awareness of the need for rational change became universal. A cri= tical attitude towards the existing situation became the normal condition, but was building up faster and faster, creating destructive sentiment. Naturally, this coloured the acute crisis at the end of 1967 and also the method of resolving that crisis by means of the so-called post-January policy.
What particularly confused people was that the struggle for the so=called democratisation was conducted on the surface as a struggle for a new, better kind of socialism. Yet, as we saw later, the objective was not democratisation at all, but liquidation of socialism.
The big question is: how could this tragic substitution of one aim for another occur and so many people in the Party and outside it fall victim to demagogy?
We have replied to this question in general terms. Ideological work, theoretical activity and education in the spirit of MarxismLeninism was neglected for a number of years. The Party tolerated in its ranks not only a large number of passive people, but also those whose beliefs were alien to the Party. Underestimation of ideological work, the formal way in which it was conducted, coupled with tolerance of double-dealing, created favourable conditions for the offensive of opportunism.
Those who have studied the history of our Party and movement closely enough, will attest that there is doubtless evidence of a tend' ency towards Right opportunism. Prudence is unquestionably a positive quality, but it becomes a serious mistake when taken to the ppint of exaggerated political caution, especially at a time when firm and drastic action is needed. Speaking at the Third Congress of the Com= intern in July 1921, Lenin denounced ultra-Left adventurism and called on a number of parties to display prudence, to concentrate on wortf among the masses, but at the same time criticised the leadership 321 of our Party of that time, and particularly Comrade Smeral, for excessively fearing ``Left'' mistakes. Referring specifically to the situation in Czechoslovakia, Lenin then stressed: "In the commission I said that in order to find the right line, Smeral must take three steps left and Kreibich a step right. Regrettably, Smeral said nothing about taking these steps. Neither has he said anything of what he thinks of the state of affairs. Concerning the difficulties, Smeral only repeated the old and said nothing new. Smeral said that I have dispelled his worries. In spring he feared that the Communist leadership would demand ill-timed action from him, but events have dispelled his fear. However, we are now worried about something entirely different, namely: will matters in Czechoslovakia really go as far as preparations for action or will they remain mere talk about difficulties? The Left mistake is simply a mistake; it is not a great one and is easily remedied. However, if the mistake concerns the determination to act, that is no small mistake, but betrayal. Such mistakes are incomparable. The theory that we shall perform the revolution, but only after others take action first, is basically wrong" [Complete Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 44, pp. 60---61).
That is what Lenin said of our Party soon after its founding. We should, of course, reckon with the fact that in recent years, while criticising Stalinism---and this allegedly in the interests of restoring the truth---many of our historians obscured the role of opportunism in the Czechoslovak Party and, what is more, cast doubt on the period when our Party endeavoured to root out opportunism.
In so doing, they went oat of their way to back up their contentions wilh quotations from Lenin. Yet we know that all of Lenin's main works, especially those written at the beginning of the century, thcTi is, during the formative period of the revolutionary Bolshevik trend, were alined against opportunism, against underrating principled struggle against the bourgeois ideology, against all who failed to realise that uncompromising struggle against the bourgeoisie, revolutionary struggle, was needed to deliver the working class from capitalist oppression. The success of that struggle depended completely on the well-organised and ideologically united political vanguard of the working clays and people. As soon as the ideological influence of the vanguard diminishes, as soon as it drifts from positions of principle, the way lies open for forces hostile to the workers.
Opportunism is dangerous, because, first and foremost, it disarms the Party, weakens its political and ideological influence, reducing it to impotence.
It was no accident that Lenin pointed out again and again that 322 opportunism, whose essence is rooted in spontaneity, in a naive optim* ism blind to the needs of purposeful intervention in the development of events, reacting solely to the momentary demands of the people, leads to betrayal of the workers' interests, betrayal of the socialist revolution.
Nothing is more alien to Leninism than a bureaucratically arrogant attitude to the people, the practice of saddling the people with the will of the official institutions. However, if bureaucracy is so combated that socialist statehood is discredited in the act, and all centralised guidance of society, based on the code of law, is thereby denigrated, impelling the gradual breakdown of the system of administration and subverting central administration, we become witness not to struggle against bureaucracy but to attempts at robbing the working class and the people of the main gains of the revolution. That is why we speak at once of the harm of idealising spontaneous movement, spontaneous activity at bottom level, which we so often witnessed last year during the Czechoslovak ``spring'' and ``summer'', the supporters of which never bothered to ask themselves what forces were stimulating the movement, and with what purpose.
This idealisation was the prologue to counter-revolutionary activity, centred above all on wresting the levers of power from the working people.
Nothing proved more harmful and dangerous than demagogical acquiescence with those who alleged that an irreconcilable contradiction existed between power as such and the citizen, between the state and the individual. Juggling with this notion in philosophical \vorks and various articles, the Svitaks and Vaculiks were more than irresponsible. What was worse, however, was that the Party gradually adapted itself to this invidious ideological offensive, actively supported from abroad and quite obviously a part of the general antiCommunist plans aimed at the ideological erosion of the socialist countries.
Opportunism, as the word implies, means excessive caution, timeserving adaptability and a tendency to give way under pressure. By giving precedence to spontaneity, it automatically justifies absence of principles. Outwardly, opportunism may come into collision with dogmatism, which, regardless of circumstances and realities, tries to impose on developing events an orientation deduced from abstract doctrine and, in that sense, at least displays an approach of principle*
Last year we saw from our own experience how ``unshakable'' fighters against so-called conservatism, who were actually fighters against Uib basic ideas of Marxism-Leninism, continuously contradicted __PRINTERS_P_323_COMMENT__ 11* 323 themselves. They would, lik'e doctrinaires, one day set out the most abstract of principles, drawing up ``manifestos'' and countless resolutions containing such lofty words as ``people'', ``freedom'', ``democracy'', ``sovereignty'' and "human being'', and then, almost at once, would adjust themselves to everything surfacing as a result of the pressure campaign organised against the Party and socialism. True, they camouflaged their activity with all kinds of pharisaic assurances. Paradoxically, people actively fanning anti-Soviet hysteria covered up their hate-inspired nationalism with loud professions of loyalty to internationalism, while accusing of betraying internationalism those who were alarmed by the enlivenment of counter-revolution.
Monopolising the mass information media, the Right opportunists succeeded in discrediting the principled Marxist-Leninist approach as "bureaucratic fossilisation''. Those who placed the interests of socialist society, the main aims of the working people, above momentary and transient group or individual interests, they portrayed as people who not only failed to understand the needs of the nation, but were all but its worst enemies.
It was this demagogy that disarmed many a Party functionary and responsible official in various fields, as well as many an honest citizen, causing the dislocation of the single system of leadership, the breakdown of the central authority.
The opportunists cloaked this process in high-flown verbiage about the "unprecedented activeness of the people'', about "the people possessing their own mind" and "managing splendidly without advisers'', etc. What our opportunists ignored, and what, indeed, was ignored by opportunists throughout history, was the cardinal question, the very approach to which shows who proceeds, from MarxismLeninism and to which point, who rejects it, who speaks in the name of the people, what force is the hegemon, and who has the right to represent it---he who flatters it, leading it to the abyss through his shortsightedness, or he who is the real leader of the people along the way to complete emancipation from the shackles inherited from capitalism.
To appeal to the people, to its initiative, while acting against it, is an old dodge. Back in February 1905, in his article, "Two Tactics'', Lenin pointed to "the absence of any independent point of view ... of the intellectualist wing of the Party, which was carried away both by the current catchwords" of various revisionists and "the forms ... of the pure-and-simple labour movement" and which "plunged from one extreme to another, and in all cases reduced the scope of activity of the revolutionary proletariat and its faith 324 in its own strength" (Vol.8, p. 148). "Strange, but trun,'' Lenin wrote in the same article. "No one talked so much about the independent activity of the workers, and no one did so much by his propaganda to narrow, curtail, and diminish that activity as did the Rabocheye /Jzye/o-ists''. And he continued: "It was in the name of the independent activity of the proletariat that Axel rod, Martynov, Martov, and Lieber (the Bundist) defended at the Congress the right of professors and students to become members of the Party without joining any Party organisation. It was in the name of the independent activity of the proletariat that the `organisation-as-process' theory was invented, a theory that justified disorganisation and glorified the anarchism of the intellectuals" (Vol. 8, pp. 148---49).
This discription could not be more accurate. That it hits the mark squarely WES confirmed by our last year's experience. The theory that counted on the omnipotence ol automatic market stimuli, on the market mechanism which it expected to rule out the losses blamed on voluntarism, stemmed in the final analysis from the `` organisationas-piocess'' concept. This was used as the basis for the thesis which, as some theorists, popular by reason of liberalistic pronouncements, saw it, was to be the pillar of a new system devoid of the bureaucratic subjectivism that they associated with central planning. Their contempt for planning and central guidance stemmed from their obvious desire to destroy the system of responsibility and authority, the administrative institutions which, when criticising that system, they identified with bureaucracy in order to win the support of strata saturated with petty-bourgeois morality and consciousness, that Is, strata always easy to manipulate once promised the prospect Of ``freer'' relations.
Saliently, Lenin pointed to the contradiction between contempt tor organisation typical of the so-called intellectual anarchism that shied away from responsibility for practical activity and the deliberately demonstrative position intended to prove ``interest'' in the working class and the masses. What is typical of this is the artificial link-up of the principle of ignoring the social status of people (due to orientation exclusively on the interests of the individual or the so-called autonomous independent groups) with the demand of " genuinely humane socialism''.
Thus, opportunism became an eclectical mixture of liberalism and elements of socialism as viewed from Utopian positions.
Lenin insistently pointed to the connection between opportunism in the socialist movement and philistine liberalism; he showed that opportunists succumbed to liberal illusions, obscuring liberalism's 325 reactionary role in relation to the labour movement; last but not least, he also defined the contradictory role of the intelligentsia.
This latter point merits a thorough and keen analysis. Here, we can only touch on just a few of its aspects.
To begin with, we must never allow the Leninist approach to this question to escape our field of vision. Lenin never used the term ``intelligentsia'' to denote anything homogeneous: he differentiated the roles of the intelligentsia, depending on which social class it associated with and whose interests it expressed. His criticism of "intellectual anarchism" referred to that intelligentsia which, while professing allegiance to socialism, introduced into the labour movement not scientific knowledge, but the notions and views of liberals and other elements alien and hostile to the working class. And he was irreconcilably opposed to this intelligentsia, to say nothing of the outright apologists of the bourgeois system or of reactionary regimes.
On the other hand, Lenin in every way emphasised the need to win over to the side of the workers the creative forces of that intelligentsia which by its knowledge and creativity could help elevate the consciousness of the working class, could organise and head Its revolutionary struggle, could enrich its outlook, extend its scope, and raise its educational and general cultural level. The MarxistLeninist proposition that "without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement" emphasises the role of the intelligentsia, while expressing intolerance of those who try to fool and misguide the working class, pushing it into the embrace of the bourgeoisie.
While he recognised the important role of the intelligentsia, Lenin levelled sharp criticism at all tendencies to deny the hegemony of the working class, which tended to weaken or reject the role of the political revolutionary Party of the proletariat as an organised and disciplined vanguard.
It was this organisation and discipline that had always been a thorn in the side of the Right opportunists. Their refusal to accept organisation and discipline is rooted in a mistrust of working-class hegemony, in illusions about the supra-class position of the intelligentsia as society's leading force.
No matter how hard the Right forces tried to conceal their true intents, referring to the working class and its ``self-activity'', they could never succeed. Indeed, some of them now say so quite candidly in publications appearing abroad, where they set out their true views.
For example, the not unknown ideologist of the Right opportunists 326 and revisionists of the Czechoslovak spring. Eugen Losbl, now publishing pamphlets in the West against the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, quite frankly describes the developments after January 1968 as an attempted "revolution of intellectuals''. Falling in with the views of revisionists of some other countries, he proceeds from the thesis that classical Marxism which posits the guiding role of the working class, has, allegedly, become outdated. In his opinion, the scientific and technological revolution and the development of the productive forces in the advanced capitalist countries have pushed the intelligentsia to the forefront. The intelligentsia, he avers, is interested not in power, but in that "power of the sword" should be replaced by "power of the spirit''; therefore all efforts to resolve any conflict by force should be denounced. This zealous exponent of ``democratisation'' also rejects democracy, because, as he sees it, democracy is a system that relies on power, albeit it Is the power of the majority over the minority. Instead, he demands, anthropocracy, that is, "power of man'', with complete, totally unrestricted freedom-for the individual.
This gentleman, who only recently was a member of our Party, before January labelled as ``dogmatists'' people who ventured to disagree with him; at one time he was active in philosophy, a field with which he was anything but conversant, writing articles denouncing Stalinism because, among other things, it recognised the existence of objective laws of social development. By so doing he wanted to persuade the gullible reader that if the latter should at any time hear that Marxism accepts philosophical determinism, he, the reader, should view this as a ``Stalinist'' distortion of Marxism.
Of course, fighting determinism was for Loebl much less a philosophical than an economic issue. He wanted to create a theoretical basis for liquidating the "myth Invented by dogmatists'', who invented objective laws In order to gain a free hand for planning and enslaving society with their plans. This "socialist economist" opposed to planning the free Initiative of the Intellectual creator, the member of the elite.
It was no accident that some years ago Loebl launched Into a con= troversy with Ota Sik, who, in Loebl's view, could be rebuked for but one thing, namely, that he believed in a determinated reality and attributed the main r.ole to the mechanism of automatically operating forces. However, this engaging dispute petered out quickly, because both understood that they were in total agreement in rejecting the role of the working class and the Party a;, the decisive factors of 327 social development and that they both overly emphasised the role of the intellectual elite.
No matter how contradictory the theory was that posited the elite role of the intelligentsia, it ultimately gained a practical expression in the striving for the complete autonomy of science and culture. That sphere soon broke out of control and stopped reckoning with the needs of the socialist state. This entailed far-reaching consequences for the content of the works of culture, which were gradually emasculated of their socialist orientation, and consequences, too, for the ability effectively to influence the necessary growth of science and technology in making them serve the needs of society. The damage was incalculably great, both materially and spiritually. And if we are now compelled considerably to step up the influence of the socialist state in those fields, to step up its organisational role, and to accentuate the need for integrating the creative forces that succumbed to the autonomist trend, we do so in the interest of developing socialist culture and science. Today, our Party is fully aware of its responsibility for this development and, consequently, responsibility for the successful completion of the class struggle in accordance with the mission and purposes determined by the socialist revolution.
We may say with satisfaction that this is also understood by a large section of our cultural workers, as evidenced, among other things, by the statement of the activists of our Ministry of Culture, supported by many eminent personalities in science, literature, the arts, etc.
The idea of the guiding role of the intelligentsia is paraded as the last word in progressiveness. The argument is that the scientific and technological revolution and the achievements of civilisation have put mankind in a position from which it can save itself only by submitling to the spiritual dominance of the intelligentsia operating at present, "irrespective of camps'', as a democratic and progressive force, whereas the ``masses'' fall prey so easily to manipulations and can serve as passive objects for the centres of power.
This complete departure from the class position, disguised by references to new phenomena of the "atomic age'', is beyond question the fruit of impotence and depression, of doubts generated by some of the phenomena of modern capitalism. At the same time, it is the result of pressures exerted by forces which pretend to be opposed to all the great powers, but which quite obviously try to undermine the international prestige and position of the Soviet Union, the mightiest of the socialist couniries, the only one able directly to withstand all agressive designs of imperialism.
328Lenin wrote that opportunism, with its illusion of the Intelligentsia's supra-class position, tries to conceal the class contradictions and, therefore, inevitably grows into nationalism, espousing the idea of cooperation with its own bourgeoisie. Besides, in definite circumstances, when the world arena is wide open and when socialism has become a world system exercising an influence on the character of the present epoch, this time-serving nationalism, easily growing into chauvinism, is tantamount to cosmopolitanism, to cooperation with the world bourgeoisie.
In the final analysis, the opportunists, liberals and anti-socialist counter-revolutionary elements in our country made good use ot everything directed against the interests of. the Party and the countries of the socialist community, especially the Soviet Union. To confuse the masses, they changed positions almost daily, but in so doing methodically and steadily campaigned against the Soviet Union and our other allies, true friends of our socialist state. Their first crime was arbitrarily to attempt to break up the socialist system of power, and their second, no less grave, was to try and destroy the guarantees of Czechoslovak sovereignty as a socialist state, a state ready to fulfil its international obligations. That is why all anti-Communists looked forward so impatiently to the final results of the Czechoslovak Spring and why they were so taken aback when the troops of the five friendly countries, the Warsaw Treaty states, entered Czechoslovakia.
We never believed that the applause the enemies of socialism lavished on Dubcek and their solidarity with him were anything but evidence of their concern for socialism in our country. Their slogan of sovereignty and concern for our special model of socialism was part of a programme that would ultimately dislocate our relations with the other socialist Warsaw Treaty countries and, first and foremost, bring on tensions between ourselves and the Soviet Union. We sincerely regret that misunderstandings have arisen over the issue, which, to some extent, are the result of unobjective information or a lack of understanding of Czechoslovakia's position and'traditional relationship with the Soviet Union. We are certain that these misunderstandings and differences can be, and will be, overcome. Subsequent developments will, beyond doubt, expose the slander about "tank-supported communism'', a slander stemming from a non-class approach, a minimisation of the perils of imperialist subversion and anti-socialist activity.
We take a positive view of the Moscow Meeting of the 75 fraternal parties and of the fact that the vast majority of Communists and 329 revolutionary workers' parties adopted a class -attitude and sought united action against imperialism. In that historical confrontation In which, as we are firmly convinced, the front of truly progressive forces, the socialist forces, the forces of -peace and democracy, will gain added strength, the Communist movement must jettison everything that could either disorganise or mislead Its ranks. Acting on Lenin's behests, It must resolutely combat all those who introduce either ``Left'' or Right ideological confusion in Its ranks and its various national contingents.
To take note of new phenomena and changes, to draw timely conclusions from them in the political guidance of socialist society, In working for the growth and consolidation of the socialist democratic system, Is one of the most obvious demands of Leninism, the strength of which derives from its creative character.
However, as Lenin stressed, new problems must always be resolved In accordance with the obligations that follow for Communists from their firm class convictions based on the scientific principles of Marxism-Leninism, the principle of the guiding role of the workers' Communist vanguard and the axiom of proletarian internationalism.
Those are the guidelines followed by our Party, as evidenced by the many public statements of Comrade Gustav Husak, the First Secretary of the CC CPC, and by the documents adopted by the Central Committee meetings since April 1969, carrying forward the Party programme. This programme, centred on consolidating the authority of the Party and the socialist power, will deliver our society from the crisis which it has been experiencing in recent years.
The centenary of the birth of Lenin, the greatest genius of our century, requires that in carrying out our programme we should always be consistent and take guidance in the methods and style of that great leader of the proletarian revolution, the founder of the first socialist state, the leader of the entire world revolutionary movement. Of course, we are aware of the importance for us not only of Lenin's method of solving problems, not only of the creative approach he so skillfully used, but also of the basic content of his ideological heritage, the development of the theory of the founders of scientific communism in the era opened by the Great October.
330 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S THEORY OF REVOLUTIONThe world situation of today, on the eve of the centenary of V. I. Lenin's birth, fully bears out the relevance and topicality of Lenin's teaching. The scope and depth of Lenin's thought and revolutionary action is brought home still more distinctly. I should like, on behalf of the Mexican Communist Party, to present a few ideas about Lenin's theory of revolution and the different forms it takes in 'the presentday world. I shall speak about the development of the revolution on our continent and in my own country.
In 1918 Lenin wrote: "Not only the general European, but the world proletarian revolution is maturing before the eyes of all, and it has been assisted, accelerated and supported by the victory of the proletariat in Russia" (Vol. 28, p. 293). Now, 50 years later, having performed the proletarian revolution and following different ways In accordance with their specific conditions, 14 countries on different continents or one-third of mankind make up a powerful socialist system. Day after day this system gains new victories in building socialism, thereby accelerating the ripening of proletarian revolutions in other countries.
In June 1967 our 15th Party Congress said that for some time Latin America has been one of the world's main seats of revolutionary struggle. I should like to examine some of the characteristic features of that struggle, extending from the frontiers of my country with the United States to the southernmost point of our Hemisphere. The struggle is becoming more acute as the conditions ripen for the victory of the proletarian revolution, a fact substantiated not only in 331 documents issued by Communist parties, but also in the materials of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America, where eloquent figures may be found on that score. Take the Rockefeller report on Latin America. As the bourgeois press reported, it was presented in "pessimistic shades'', for it referred to the aggravation of the situation In the Latin American countries, saying that our continent was "at the crossroads''. But that is not true. The peoples of Latin America know perfectly well that there is no way for them to end poverty, backwardness and cruel exploitation other than that of struggle by workers, peasants, students and the rest of the people in advancing the revolution. That precisely is the reason for the pessimism of the imperialists; that is what makes us feel optimistic, despite imperialist efforts to promote and conduct a regular war against what they call " Communist subversive activity"---in reality the movement of the peoples, headed by the Communist parties, against military dictatorships and oligarchies, the allies of imperialism, a movement against exploitation and hunger.
At present Latin America is determined to end a situation in which the continent is treated as the ``backyard'' and private preserve of the United States imperialists. That is why the revolutionary struggle in Latin America is daily growing sharper. Hence the dread shown by the Imperialists of a possible recurrence of the Cuban revolution.
What our struggle has in common with the movement of all the peoples of the world is that it is being fought against the most powerful imperialism in history, the common enemy of the peoples. The specific features of our struggle are due to the conditions in which it develops, distinguishing it from the movement of the peoples in the highly developed countries, and, also, from the struggle of the Asian and African peoples.
The Cuban revolution, for example, is the best possible proof that democratic revolution, paving the way for an early socialist revolution, is not only possible in the immediate proximity of the citadel of imperialism but also, as Lenin taught us, inevitable, being a process not far removed in time, contrary to the expectations of imperialists. That does not mean that the Cuban experience may be applied mechanically in the other Latin American countries. The conditions of struggle differ from country to country, being determined by such objective factors as the level of economic, political and social development, etc., and such subjective ones as the degree of organisation and the strength of the working class, the poiitina! parties ( particularly the Cotmtnvvst!, the de»,ro3 of poMica! consciousness, the prevailing sense of determination, etc. Thus, in some countries the 332 struggle will assume a different complexion, and in others may even follow a different way.
What is important, however, is that all countries, regardless of the different ways they may follow or their different stages of development, face the task of performing the revolution, with the working class winning power in alliance with the peasants and with all other democratic forces joining the revolutionary struggle.
There are as many different ways of approaching the revolution as there are different situations. As we see it, we may speak of two stages of revolution in our country---the anti-imperialist, people's democratic revolution, which opens the way for socialist revolution as a result of an uninterrupted process, and this without a transitional period. In view of the present general tendency displayed by the bourgeoisie in their methods of government and the sharpness of the class struggle due to the application of these methods, and in view of the external factors of the revolution, even of existing traditions, that is, the historical experience of the masses, we assume that the most likely way in Mexico will be that of armed struggle.
And so we consider the armed way the most probable. But we also realise that this depends not only on the bourgeoisie, but also on our own resources and ability, as well as the resources and ability of the revolutionary movement as a whole, to follow the other possible way of developing and performing the revolution.
That is why we think that the crucial task of today, to the fulfilment of which the working people and all democratic forces must apply all their energy, is to block the road to dictatorship and win genuine democratic freedoms.
The events of the past year in Mexico show clearly that the reactionary section of the bourgeoisie is prepared to go to all lengths, including resort to arms, in defending its privileges, retaining control over the masses, averting the elementary forms of protest and preventing the people from presenting their demands. We hold that consistent struggle for democracy with the participation of the working class and its political Party leads up to the struggle for socialism and that socialism secures the consolidation and development of geunine democracy.
In his Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Lenin pointed out: "The very position the proletariat holds as a class compels it to be consistently democratic. The bourgeoisie looks backward in fear of democratic progress which threatens to strengthen the proletariat. The proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains, but with the aid of democratism it has the whole world to win" (Vol. 9, 333 p. 51). Thus, struggle for democracy'is at present the crucial task, lying at the root of all the problems facing the Mexican people. This was evident during the popular and student movement that shook our country between July and December 1968. Elementary democratic demands were presented in the course of that movement. Each day larger sections of the people express their discontent and growing anger over the methods of reprisal adopted by a government representing the interests of the big capitalists and the monopoly bourgeoi-- sie, economically dominant in the country in close alliance with US imperialism.
In 1968 unrest gripped the mass of the people. The scale of the movement was far greater than at any other time in the past 30 years of the working-class, peasant and student struggle. In that way, the masses gave expression to the mounting strength of the Mexican spirit of independence, displaying a model of combat-readiness, fighting spirit and heroism. Those were qualities most strikingly in evidence among the younger generations. Although the popular and student movement was suppressed by methods of violence, it was an instructive lesson for future battles, because considerable experience was gained from it.
The attitude of the ruling bourgeoisie towards the 1968 democratic movement was no more than a logical culmination of the past attitude. The bourgeoisie had no other recourse but genocide, a cold-blooded collective killing, fulfilling its class mission of grave-digger of freedom and democracy. The cruel reprisals, still continuing today, were prompted less by the nature of the demands or the methods used by the masses, and much more by the main aim of preventing the emergence of an independent force in opposition to the bourgeois policy. However, by doing so the bourgeoisie only adds to the causes likely to lead to new explosions, explosions that will be increasingly powerful. And each time the bourgeoisie will have greater difficulties in coping with them. The policy of the bourgeoisie is short-sighted, though the bourgeoisie thinks that it is acting long-sightedly. In other words, it Is creating conditions in which the class struggle and the fight for the democratic demands acquires extremely acute forms. The bourgeoisie has seemingly forgotten that he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind.
Thus, the task of winning political democracy has forged to the forefront, for without it the masses, the entire Mexican people and. first of all, the working class, will not be able to safeguard their rights and resolve the problems facing the country. That is the task which can---and already does---bring together not only the most 334 conscious elements of the working class and the farmers, but also ttie intellectuals, students and increasingly large sections of the petty and even middle bourgeoisie.
However, despite its importance, the fight for civil rights and democratic freedoms does not lead to the solution of all the problems, a solution which may secure a new type of development for our country. For that it is necessary to change the present power structure and eliminate the basis for the dictatorial methods of the government, namely: the economic power of the financial oligarchy closely connected with US imperialism. In the present Mexican conditions, the fight for democracy is a necessary step helping to pave the way for proletarian revolution.
In his The State and Revolution, Lenin wrote: "To develop democracy; to the utmost, to find the forms for this development, to test them by practice, and so forth---all this is one of the component tasks of the struggle for the social revolution. Taken separately, no kind of democracy will bring socialism. But in actual life democracy will never be 'taken separately'; it will be 'taken together' with other things, it will exert its influence on economic life as well, will stimulate its transformation; and in its turn it will be influenced by economic development, and so on. This is the dialectics of living history" (Vol. 25, pp. 452---53).
That is exactly how we see the probable development of.the fight for revolution and socialism in our country. We hold that we still have a long way to go, that we must organise and gather strength to resolve the tasks facing our people and to fulfil the responsible role that devolves on our Party. Our 15th Congress said: "The entire development of the internal and international situation confronts the revolutionary movement in our country with new, more important tasks, calling for a greater sense of responsibility, for greater skill in guiding the increasing activity of the workers, peasants and other sections. The need to orientate the mass movement, leading it towards the main political aims of the present period, is now increasingly great. Only a party possessing extensive and close ties with the masses, guided by the scientific theory of social development, a party that, leaning on the main revolutionary class, will unite all the revolutionary forces and trends in the fight for common objectives, only such a party can fulfil this task.''
This means that we consider as an imperative precondition of revo-- iution, whose inevitability I.enin proved in practice, a party capable of taking the iced, of guiding die masses, on the basis of the scientific 335 theory worked out by Marx and Engels and brilliantly developed by Lenin.
The principles of that theory are extraordinarily rich in content, and its scientific character enables us to apply it in practice in any situation, at any moment, provided this is done creatively, avoiding a mechanistic or dogmatic use of formulas which rob it of effectiveness and force. It is futile to apply that theory out of the context of the diversity of our complicated, concrete and continuously changing reality. The scientific theory of Marx and Lenin requires a complete, not a one-sided, analysis of the situation. Marxism-Leninism is for us. an instrument whereby we apprehend reality such as it is, not such as we should like it to be, an instrument for working out the orientation of our activity. To turn Marxism-Leninism into a mould and try to fit reality into it, is to distort it entirely.
Lenin wrote in his Letters from Afar: "There are no miracles in nature or history, but every abrupt turn in history, and this applies to every revolution, presents such a wealth of content, unfolds such unexpected and specific combinations of forms of struggle and alignments, of forces of the contestants, that to the lay mind there is much that must appear miraculous" (Vol. 23, p. 297).
336 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN AND THE LABOUR MOVEMENTThe Socialist labour movement and other progressive, democratic forces in Sweden have always followed revolutionary developments in Russia, the great neighbour country to the east, with keen attention and great hope. Axel Danielsson, a leading spokesman for the Socialist labour movement in Sweden, said as far back as the 1890s that in Russia socialist ideas had acquired "much greater importance than in our country''.
K. N. Karlson, a Marxist Journalist writing for Socialdemokraten, described the news of the revolutionary events in Russia in January 1905 as the "dawn of a new day'', meaning that these events were also of tremendous significance. "A victorious revolution is a guarantee of peace and progress in the rest of the world,'' he added, echoing an idea expressed by Lenin.
It was primarily Lenin who drew the Swedish revolutionaries' growing attention and hopes. In April 1917 Lenin was definitely returning to Russia via Stockholm. "The man whose portrait appears in this paper,'' commented Politiken, the paper of the Swedish Left Socialists, "is one of the best known leaders of Russian Social-Democracy. He has grown with the mass movement of the Russian proletariat. His life and all his thoughts and deeds are inseparably linked with the destiny of the Russian proletariat. In good and bad times alike, during the revolution as in the long years of counter-revolutionary persecution, he remained loyal to the interests of the working class and the International. His only goal is socialism. He only recognises one method, the class struggle and, only one hero, the international revolutionary proletariat.''
337Politiken, noting Lenin's salient characteristics, pointed to his "unfailing energy and the extraordinary clarity of principle which in the years of reaction helped him remain loyal to revolutionary SocialDemocracy and unite his fellow-thinkers under the banner of the International''.
Lenin's phoiograph found itself in Stockholm a few years earlier, when Lenin began earnestly to weigh the possibility of moving to Sweden or Norway so as to keep in closer touch with Russia. After the beginning of World War I this link was to be established through Stockholm and not Warsaw as in the past. In particular, the idea of publishing printed matter in Sweden was contemplated.
Lenin visited Sweden six times. For all the brevity of his visits, he always used them to study Swedish conditions and strengthen his links with spokesmen of the Swedish labour movement. In 1917, as in 1905, Lenin wanted to return to his country at an early date to use the legal opportunities for work created by the revolutionary movement.' On these occasions he did not stay in Sweden long. The first words he uttered on arriving in Stockholm on April 13, 1917, were: "The important thing is to go to Russia as soon as possible. Every day counts.''
During his other trips to Sweden, such as the one in 1910, when he stayed there longer, Lenin used the time at his disposal to study, among other things, social relations in Sweden and talk with Swedish labour leaders, primarily Left Social-Democrats.
In 1910 Lenin arrived in Stockholm from the congress of the Second International in Copenhagen, where he had had talks with C. Hoglund, leader of the Swedish Left Social-Democrats. In 1908 Hoglund started Stormklockan, a revolutionary weekly, which afterwards became the periodical of the Social-Democratic Youth League and hence of the Left Social-Democrats, for whom the League, the largest and most active organisation of its kind in the Europe of the time, served as an organisational basis.
Lenin formed a clear idea of Hoglund at once. In October 1914 he wrote to A. Shlyapnikov. the Bolshevik representative in Stockholm, asking him to acquaint Hoglund with the manifesto of the CC RSDLP on the war and to call on him ) support- the initiative of convening an international conference against the imperialist war. "He,'' Lenin commented, meaning Hoglund, "is only a naive, sentimental anti-- militarist: these are the very people who should be told---either the watchword of civil war, or remain with the opportunists and the chauvinists" (Vol. 35, p. 169]. However, Lenin wanted Shlyapnikov to "sound out" whether Hoglund was "ideologically close to us" (ibid.).
338Regarding A. Kollontai's articles Lenin wrote to her in May 1915: "Can one praise and find correct the position of the Left Scandinavian Social-Democrats who reject the arming of the people? I argued about this with Hoglund in 1910 and tried to prove to him that this was not Leftism, nor revolutionism, but simply the philistinism of pettybourgeois provincials" (Vol. 35, p. 189].
Nevertheless, Lenin asked both Kollontai and Shlyapnikov to continue their effort to bring Scandinavian representatives to the Zimmerwald Conference. "The Swedish Left with Hoglund,'' he wrote to Wijnkoop of Holland on July 30, 1915, "is on our side. I have received a letter about it today" (Complete Works, Russian ed., Vol. 49, p. 114).
Hoglund was perfectly right in joining at Zimmerwald the Zimmerwald Left led by Lenin. The Zimmerwald Left found itself in a minority at the Conference, as we know. Bat it chose to adhere to the Confer-* ence resolution adopted by the Centrist majority despite its short-- comings on a number of important problems of the fight against the imperialist war. The Zimmerwald Conference condemned the war but advanced no revolutionary slogans to give the campaign against it a concrete form as Lenin and his group, including Hoglund, proposed.
Hoglund tended to confine his activity to what came to be called the Zimmerwald line. When Lenin heard that the Swedish Left was going to found its own party in accordance with "the Zimmerwald principles" he asked his Russian comrades in Scandinavia to dissuade the Swedish Left Socialists from the idea and "to help them work out a good programme and tactics for themselves, for the new party" (Vol. 35, p. 291). "The struggle with Branting and Co.,'' he wrote, speaking of the Swedish Left Socialists, "is a serious business: necessity must force them to take a more serious attitude to questions of the theory and tactics of revolutionary Marxism" (Ibid., p. 292).
Lenin carefully analysed the growing contradictions in the labour movement, specifically in 1910, in his article "Differences in the European Labour Movement''. Early in 1917 he analysed and exposed the political and ideological bankruptcy of the Right Social-Democrats and Zimmerwald Centrists in "Bourgeois Pacifism and Socialist Pacifism''.
This matter acquired unexpected relevance to the Swedish movement. The Rightist leaders, with Branting at their head, moved at the Party congress in February 1917 that the Left be presented with an ultimatum: either complete political submission to the Right-wing eadership, or expulsion from the parly. The Left, which earlier had often secured a majority at parly congresses, was this time defeated 339 in the delegates' elections, an outcome largely due to its desire to avoid a split in the party. This is why during th» election of delegates the Left could not, therefore, come out as actively as it had done before previous congresses. Besides, the policy of civil peace had resulted in a certain passivity among the masses, and this explains why the Right Social-Democrats' ultimatum was accepted by the congress.
The congress delegates of the Left immediately called a national conference. It met on February 20 and resolved to found a new party, setting its founding congress for May 12---14, 1917.
Hb'glund was in prison at the time. He had been convicted for organising the most important anti-war demonstration to be held in Sweden in war time. The action, known as the Labour Peace Congress, was launched in March 1916 by the Social-Democratic Youth League, and was attacked by the Right Social-Democratic leaders. But Hoglund greatly influenced the preparations for the congress. The day he was released from prison proved decisive for fixing the congress date.
Lenin realised better than anyone else the significance of the decision to found a Socialist Left party in the circumstances. The task of such a party would be to become a united, class-conscious Marxist vanguard at a time when the revolutionary movement was beginning to gather strength. But the preparatory committee of the new party did not prove equal to its task. It took its cue from Hoglund's idea of uniting the widest possible range of people, to which the most arbitrary yardsticks were applied. The only stipulation was, in fact, that prospective members of the party-to-be had to be against Branting.
At the height of these preparations Lenin, who was on his way back' to Russia, stopped over in Stockholm for one day, April 13, 1917. He was one of the thirty Russian revolutionaries whom the Entente had refused a transit visa. They were allowed to travel to Russia through Germany In a sealed car granted exterritorial rights for the promise to strive for the release of German and Austrian civilians interned In Russia. Part of the time spent by the group in Stockholm was devoted to exposing, by means of various communiques and statements, the falsehoods put about first of all by Branting and the leaders of the Right wing of the Social-Democratic Party, as well as by the press. Branting himself had just made a trip to Russia to pressure the Provisional Government into staying in the war. These advocates of the Entente tried to arouse suspicion over the purpose of the trip of Lenin and of'i^r Russian revolutionaries, who wanted to help win peace ior Russia. The Right Social-Democratic leaders went so far 340 that one of them, a Baron Palmstjarna, wrote in his diary, published later on, about his desire to organise an attempt on Lenin's life after his return to Russia.
Swedes who met the Russian revolutionaries described Lenin as an unassuming man who, however, was the dominant and uniting force. It was on Lsnin that attention focussed first and foremost.
Lenin had long personal talks with Fredrick Strom, the Left Socialist closest to Hoglund and for several years secretary of the SocialDemocratic Party. In Strom's memoirs we read that Lenin informed him, first of all, about plans for the further progress of the revolution in Russia. But the conversation had soon shifted to 'the Swedish Left Socialists, with Strom upholding his pacifist ideas. Strom revealed that he and other Left Socialists underrated the Swedish working people's readiness to fight.
Lenin took a resolute stand against these views. "The Swedes,'' he said, "are an organised and educated nation. But you are pacifists. Even you who are on the Left flank are bourgeois pacifists.'' Lenin told Strom that the Swedish big capitalists and Branting had a clearer insight into the situation than Strom and his comrades. "Branting,'' he said, "believes in the Entente rather than in the proletariat. Nevertheless, he is shrewder than many of you.'' Though Lenin severely criticised the Left Socialist leaders, he said he was sure history would teach them the right method.
In speaking of the Swedes as an organised nation, Lenin . undoubtedly meant, first of all, the organisations of the Swedish working class, which already were widespread and well-knit, the exception being the political party which was based on the principle of collective membership. Lenin had shown on various earlier occasions how greatly he appreciated the readiness of the Swedish working cla«s to fight. Special mention should be made of Lenin's estimation of the Swedish workers' campaign against the military mobilisation in reply to the Norwegian people's demand for dissolving the union, in 1905. "The Swedish workers have proved,'' he wrote, "that in spite of all the vicissitudes of bourgeois policy ... they will be able to preserve and defend the complete equality and class solidarity of the workers of both nations in fie struggle against both the Swedish and the Norwegian bourgeoisie" (Vol. 220, p. 429). Lenin regarded the long general strike in Sweden in 1909 as "one of the biggest general strikes of the recent period" (Vol. 16, p. 141). It is not surprising, therefore, that he found it necessary to correct Strom when it came to estimating the Swedish worknv* poopic.
As for the subsequent course of events, less than ihree days after 341 Lenin and his comrades had left Sweden there came a series of powerful strikes and hunger demonstrations. They caught the Left Socialist leaders unawares. How correct Lenin had been in saying that history would teach them!
In regard to the International and Zimmerwald, it was not long before Lenin's assessment of the situation was proved right. In the spring of 1917, prior to the founding convention in May, the Zimmerwald leadership---the International Socialist Committee---met in Stockholm. The delegates had spent six months in Stockholm, hoping that Branting would be able to arrange for a meeting with at least some spokesmen of the parties of the Second International. The Centrist leaders of Zimmerwald wanted the meeting to bring together several parties so that a compromise could be reached on reviving a reformist International. But Branting failed completely in spite of his vigorous efforts, and this was a severe blow to the Zimmerwald Centrists.
While in Stockholm Lenin told the Swedish Left Socialists that the Bolsheviks would shortly put forward "a proposal of an international character" (Vol. 31, p. 97) in the international movement. As soon as he was back in Russia he declared in explaining his "April Theses" that one of the Party's tasks was to "take the initiative in creating a revolutionary International, an International against the social-- chauvinists and against the `Centre' " (Vol. 24, p. 24). The new Swedish party became one of the founders of the new, Third, Communist International.
However, the Party leadership made serious mistakes from the outset, precisely because it ignored the advice offered by Lenin, in particular during his stay in Stockholm, On the other hand, the Party was composed mainly of workers, which naturally helped gain important experience in the years of revolutionary upsurge. It took increasing account of Lenin's advice which was becoming increasingly important, primarily in the effort to make the new party a Communist party. The 21 conditions for admissions to the Communist International, which Lenin upheld with reference, in particular, to the situation in the Swedish Party, were accepted by the overwhelming majority of worker members of the Party. This put the petty-- bourgeois elements grouped by Hb'glund in and around the leadership outside the Party.
Such was Lenin's direct influence on the Swedish labour movement. There was hardly any other foreign leader who showed himself to be as well posted on the Swedish labour movement as Lenin. No one could match Lenin's ability to estimate it. We in Sweden certainly 342 have no reason to maintain that Lenin's teachings are a purely Russian phenomenon.
Nor does the significance of Lenin's advice and theory, the significance of Marxism-Leninism, apply to the past only. Despite almost four decades of Social-Democratic government and all the talk about the "welfare society'', there i« a mounting demand in Sweden for genuinely and thoroughly renovating society by abolishing the power of monopoly capital and by transferring the management of all public affairs to the people.
Now that people are coming to realise the danger emanating from the reactionary forces of capitalism and the need to establish socialist social forms, Lenin's writings are still more pertinent. They are disseminated and read in Sweden more than ever before. Workers and students are particularly keen on them. To counter this, an effort is made to mobilise anarchist and Trotskyist elements, above all abroad, who are bent on distorting Leninism and historical reality.
The Communist Party has the important duty of helping young people and others who turn to Marxism-Leninism to find solutions to difficult problems to acquire a reliable guide to action.
343 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND THE STRUGGLEThe struggle against chauvinism and for proletarian internationalism is one of the basic tenets of the struggle of the working class throughout its history. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin has given it its theoretical foundation and has raised it to new heights in the Russian and international working-class movement. It has become even more important today. This is shown also in my country---Israel.
The ideological arsenal of imperialism has become more and more empty. Capitalism has become less and less attractive for the mass of the people. Therefore, the ideological specialists in its service are looking for making full use of the remaining weapons. Chauvinism has been and is still one of the main weapons in this arsenal.
The bourgeoisie, from its inception, needed nationalism as ideological counterpart to its nation building (necessary for^the creation of its market). While in the initial stage, nationalism has been, in the main, progressive, anti-feudal---in its later development of the bourgeoisie, especially imperialism and, most pronounced, today, nationalism has become more and more chauvinist.
Bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism go hand in hand with the Internationalism of capital. Capita! has no nationality, although it makes the specific state serve its end. It has a world-wide strategy.
344 The class interests of the big bourgeoisie contrarlict national interests.I do not speak here of the nationalism of oppressed peoples, of national liberation movements.
While nationalism is the congenital ideology of the bourgeoisie, internationalism is the congenital ideology of the working class, its congenital practice. For the working class does not own the basic means of production, and its well-being is not furthered by territorial aggrandisement and expansion.
Proletarian internationalism is one of the most essential elements of proletarian ideology, and its attainment is one of the most decisive battlefields of the ideological struggle.
There is not, nor can be, peaceful coexistence between the two basic class concepts, between bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism, only vehement struggle, reflecting the antagonistic contradiction between the two classes. Nationalism sees world history mainly as war between peoples. Internationalism sees world history mainly as struggle between classes. This basic ideological struggle is reflected in the position of working-class solidarity versus aboveclass national solidarity. Nationalism stresses mainly the unity of the nation with all its classes. Internationalism stresses mainly the unity of the workers of all countries.
The nationalist identifies himself with the nation as a whole. The internationalist identifies himself with the class as a whole. Lenin stresses the difference when saying:
``The P.S.P. takes the view that the nationl question is exhausted by the contrast---`we' (Poles) and `they' (Germans, Russians, etc.,). The 'Social-Democrat, however, gives first place to the contrast---`we', the proletarians, and `they', the bourgeoisie" (Vol. 6, pp. 461--62).
Lenin reverts to this theme in various forms and at various epochs. In 1918 he says that "we had to break the petty-bourgeois illusion that the people are an integral whole and that the popular will can be expressed other than in class struggle" (Vol. 28, p. 207).
In a class society, the popular will cannot be expressed other than in class struggle.
And the proletarian class struggle is objectively anti-nationalistic. Even when the workers still do not know it, by fighting their struggle in defence of their daily interests, they strike at the depth of the nationalistic ideology of the class enemy. This confirms that there is no fast dividing line between ideological struggle and political struggle.
The ideological awakening of the working class and of each worker 345 towards proletarian class consciousness, from bourgeois nationalist!! to proletarian internationalism, is a difficult road in capitalism.
``The ruling ideas of a time were always only the ideas of the ruling class" is said in the Manifesto of the Communist Party.
Right Social-Democrat leaders and renegades from our movement assist the bourgeoisie in its ideological struggle, try to prevent or at least to slow down the rising of proletarian class consciousness towards proletarian internationalism.
In its struggle, the bourgeoisie exploits the sound national pride of the working people, as it exploits the nationalism of another people to foster its own nationalism.
As part of its ideological struggle, it is the task of a Communist Party to educate the working people in the enmity towards bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism. Lenin warns us not to fall prey to refined forms of nationalism: "All chauvinism and nationalism will find an implacable enemy in tlie Social-Democratic group---whether the crude, brutal nationalism of the government which crushes and sU-anglss Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, the Jews and the other nonGroat-Russian nationalities, or the hypocritically disguised, refined nationalism of the liberals and Cadets, who are willing to talk about the tasks of Russia as a Great Power and about an agreement between her and other powers with the aim of plundering foreign lands" (Vol. 18, p. 421).
The struggle against chauvinism goes like a leitmotiv through all of Lenin's work.
Experience has shown both the correctness and the importance of th.s teaching of Lenin.
Chauvinism chains the working people to the bandwagon of the ruling bourgeoisie, it produces the feeling of the necessity of national unity against other-peoples. (``We are all in the same boat'', the bourgeois and Social-Democratic spokesmen usually say; "We are all in the same boat,'' said Mikunis, when he left Marxism-Leninism.) Chauvinism distracts the wrath of the people from their exploiters and oppressors, the warmongers and expansionists In the specific country, against other peoples and prepares them for war. "A favourable soil for wars are nationalist prejudices, which are systematically cultivated in the civilised countries in the interests of the ruling classes, with the object of diverting the proletarian masses from their own class objectives and making them forget the duty of international class solidarity" (Vol. 15, p. 193).
Last but not least: chauvinism underlines the ``national'' necessity of closing the ranks of the people with imperialism, of tolerating the 346 subservience of the rulers to imperialism and monopoly capital at the expense of national independence, the national interest and national dignity. In this respect, chauvinism very well meets with cosmopolitism in the fields of culture and morals.
In our time, there is, in general, no essential contradiction between the national and international tasks of the working class and its Communist Party. This has been summed up by our international movement at its June 1969 Meeting in Moscow:
``The national and international responsibilities of each Communist and 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 same time, the Communist parties---the parties of the working class and all working people- are the standard-bearers of genuine national interests unlike the reactionary classes, which betray these interests.''
The Commuinst parties educate the working people in laying bare the nationalist phraseology of the bourgeoisie and evoke in them patriotism which goes hand in hand with their class interest and with international class solidarity.
While fighting against the bourgeoisie of its own country, against imperialism, the working class fulfils its national duty, as it fulfils its internationalist duty. The highest national task of the working class of every country---to take state power in its own hands and to build socialism---is at the same time the highest internationalist task of the working class. Our Party unites Jewish and Arab Communists on a Marxist-Leninist, internationalist basis. In our struggle for the realisation of the national rights of the Arab people, we at the same time act in the best interests of the Jewish people.
The Communist Party of Israel, the party of the Israeli working class, Jews and Arabs, fulfilled both its national and its international tasks in the June 1967 aggressive war by declaring it an unjust war in the service of imperialism. It fulfils both these tasks now by demanding that Israel should implement its part of the November 22, 1967 Security Council resolution and thereby contribute its part to a political solution of the present Middle Eastern crisis and to a just and lasting peace settlement between Israel and the Arab countries. In the fraternity of Jewish and Arab Communists in our Party, we show the possibility of uniting on a Marxist-Leninist, internationalist line, and prove that there is no objective contradiction between the national interests of the two peoples.
In the struggle for genuine patriotism and proletarian 347 internationalism, against chauvinism, the working class and its Communist Party are faced by a second line of defence of nationalistic ideology, petty-bourgeois national prejudices and national egoism---petty-bourgeois nationalism appearing often under the flag of ``internationalism'' on the part of Right Social-- Democratic leaders and renegades from our movement. Karl Marx had already condemned petty-bourgeois ``internationalism'' that reduces itself to the striving for international peoples' fraternity without stressing the international functions of the working. class /Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875). Lenin gave the sharp definition:
``Petty-bourgeois nationalism proclaims as internationalism the mere recognition of the equality of nations, and nothing more. Quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely verbal, petty-bourgeois nationalism preserves national self-interests intact, whereas proletarian internationalism demands, first, 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, and, second, that 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" (Vol. 31, p. 148].
The fight against the ideology and practice of the Right SocialDemocratic leaders remains on the order of the day. In my opinion, it was a mistake to believe that the disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism would bring the end of the surplus profits of monopoly capital and thereby the end of the objective basis of Right Social-Democracy. Neo-colonialism has enabled monopoly capital to continue and even to increase surplus profits by the exploitation of underdeveloped peoples, continue and even increase the granting of certain privileges to parts of the working people of developed countries. Thereby, it has given labour aristocracy and labour bureaucracy a new lease for life.
Lenin stresses the connection between imperialism and socialchauvinism and between social-chauvinism and opportunism. This connection continues to exist today. It works even more than at the time of Lenin.
Nationalistic poison is still very strong in the ranks of the working people of many capitalist countries. The Right Social-Democratic leaders betray the national Interest of the people and they betray the class interest of the working class. According to Lenin's expression (The War and Russian Social-Democracy), they substitute nationalism for socialism.
348A case in point is the Right Social-Democratic leadership of Israel. Nowhere in Asian and African countries is there such a strong, well-organized and deep-rooted Social-Democracy as in Israel. This made the process of our working class attaining proletarian class consciousness slow and the struggle of our Party most difficult.
May I add that the Histadrut^^*^^ was founded as an organisation to serve Zionist aims; the fight to convert it into a genuine workers' class organisation still goes on.
Still in the organs of the Jewish community in Palestine under British rule and still more after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Right Social-Democratic leaders are the decisive political force in the country. All four Prime-Ministers of Israel (Ben-Gurion, Sharett, Eshkol, Meir) belong to this group. Today the Right SocialDemocratic leaders occupy the decisive ministries in government (Prime-Minister, Deputy Prime-Minister, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Finance).
There are various specific features in historical development that brought this about.
The trade union and party frameworks were established mainly from above by immigrant leaders, at a time when the working class was still in its infancy. They built up a fine network of indoctrination of all waves of new immigrants who did not know the history of the country, monopolised Party propaganda in many places and showed organisation and agitatorial skill. This was especially successful in relation to the developing working class that had no experience in proletarian class struggle. In addition, the same leaders established a vast apparatus of government, Jewish Agency, municipal councils, the Histadrut trade union federation and its enterprises---forming a mass base for labour aristocracy and bureaucracy.
Add to this the impact of an unproportionate percentage getting gifts or income from abroad, particularly West German reparations, and the material basis for reformism, opportunism and social-- chauvinism becomes apparent.
This trend has been fortified after the establishment of the State of Israel, when the whole government apparatus was brought into play to help to perpetuate this rule of Right Social-Democratic leaders. The state is in full charge of the mass media of communication, like radio and TV, makes full use of all educational facilities from kindergarten to university and of long army service for male and _-_-_
^^*^^ The leading trade union federation, uniting 60 per cent of the population.---Ed.
349 female youth. The economic power of the state is brought into play, too, to strengthen this process, and the possibilities are manifold and deep-going.A special role in Israel in strengthening chauvinism and Right Social-Democracy is played by Zionist ideology and practice.
Zionist ideology is spoon-fed to the young generation through school system, the synagogue, the mass media, the army.
Zionist doctrine is taught as self-evident. It teaches that there is a world-wide Jewish nation and a world-wide Jewish national liberation movement, that Palestine has been promised by God to the Jewish nation, that the Jewish State is the fulfilment of the nation's destiny, that the government of Israel is entitled to speak in the name of the world-wide Jewish nation, including and foremost in the name of the Jews living in the socialist countries. As the Chosen People, the Jews in Israel and their spokesmen in government and the army command are, according to the Zionist doctrine, the sole arbiter of all political and military acts to be decided upon, while the Arab peoples are obliged to make ``peace'' on the terms of the sole arbiter.
Zionist theory teaches that "all Jews are brethren'', that their presence in the hostile environment of the Middle East compels them to forget all that divides them, especially the class division of capitalist society in Israel and to subordinate all particular questions and demands to the overall demands of national unity.
While indoctrination has not been fully effective, it has given an unusual big weight and specific direction to the still strong Right Social-Democratic tendency within the Israeli labour movement.
Class peace found its strongest .prop in Zionist ideology. Chauvinism enhanced reformism and both combined into a special variety of social-chauvinism, closely connected with imperialism. The sharpening of the Israeli-Arab conflict did much to contribute to the preaching of nationalism within the Jewish working people. Nationalistic utterances of certain Arab leaders, like the threat to destroy the state of Israel and to throw the Jews into the sea, were a godsend to the chauvinist preaching of Israel's leaders.
All this fitted in with a kind of global foreign policy, adapted to the global strategy of imperialism. Zionism could not be a self-- sustaining ideology and practice, but had to be and is in fact dependent on imperialism. From its inception, Zionism based itself on im perialism and the ruling circles in Israel continue this line of goin with imperialism against the Arab peoples.
An economic policy of massive capital import and of transfer of 350 the r. of the country to forsij'n capital co'iip`smen'.s the picture,
Zionism is not only dependent on imperialism; it is also a weighty ally of imperialism in its world-wide struggle against the antiimperiaiist forces, especially against the three main streams of the revolutionary movement.
The Communist Party of Israel which Iris fought against Zionist ideology and practice for many decades, gave a thorough analysis of the Jewish question and Zionism in our days at its 16th Congress at the beginning of 1969.
Particularly, the Congress material proved that the Zionist movement is not a movement of national liberation and not a national movement at all, but a reactionary political movement of the Jewish bourgeoisie.
The Congress stated that the Leninist promise thai bourgeois ideology and proletarian ideology cannot coexist has been verified in the case of "socialist Zionists"^^*^^ too.
Congress underlined that Zionist policy is to the detriment of the Israeli people and nation.
The struggle of our Party against Zionist ideology and practice is part and parcel of its general struggle against chauvinism and for proletarian internationalism.
Imperialism and its agents direct the main edge of their reactionary attack against communism, the international Communist mo.ement, against the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. They have learnt that from a propagandist point of view, for their whole building of lies, it is effective to combine all their enemies under one name, and they have chosen for it: communism. Thus they label all parts of the anti-imperialist forces ``Communist'' whether they are Communists or not. They label every progressive man or woman in their countries a Communist. They call every militant trade union secretary, defending the rights of the workers, a Communist. They call the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam: Vietnamese Communists (``Vietkong'').
There is a grain of truth in all this propaganda. All the antiImperialist forces in the world find in the international Communist movement their unifying and helping hand. They find the strongest and most effective assistance in the CPSU.
_-_-_^^*^^ This refers to the so-called Socialist parties like the MAPAM, MAPAI, AHDUT HAAVODA, etc.---M.
351Every progressive movement in the world, every progressive man. and woman in the world knows from experience that success depends on the assistance of Communists or at least on cooperation with them, that any movement wanting to go along without Communists or even against them, is doomed to failure and to defeat.
Even if imperialist reaction is unable to start a frontal attack against the Soviet Union---militarily, and in an increasing degree, even politically---it can try and depict it as the enemy of the people, enemy of democracy, enemy of national independence, enemy of progress and enemy of peace.
Remember only how every anti-socialist and anti-Soviet man in Czechoslovakia in the crisis year was labelled by reaction as `` progressive'' and every Marxist-Leninist as ``conservative''. This example shows the importance of semantics in propaganda.
Imperialist reaction still uses the totalitarian trick, i. e., identifying communism with fascism and contrasting both to bourgeois democracy of the Free World.
Imperialist reaction and its organs even use the trick of identifying the Soviet Union with imperialism, borrowing a leaf from ultra-Left and Maoist propaganda.
Anti-Communist and especially anti-Soviet propaganda is being carried but in Israel systematically and continuously, with a high degree of consequence. The dominant factor in official Israeli propaganda is the pro-imperialist class point of view.
Even regarding the Arab peoples, propaganda is in the main subordinate to the dominant theme. While there is also anti-Arab incitement as such---in general mass media know how to differentiate between ``bad'' and ``good'' Arabs, according to whether they are anti-imperialist or pro-imperialist. While the propaganda is usually presented in the form of analysing whether a person, a group or a policy is good for Israel or bad for Israel (meaning, of course, official Israeli policy), in fact the underlying criterion is the position towards imperialism. Official Israeli propaganda, which sides with reactionary Arab forces against the national liberation movement of the Arab peoples, has a clear class attitude against the struggle of the people. This was again proved lately in the Lebanese crisis.
It is not, of course, only a question of propaganda, but also of policy and of warfare, with the highpoint in the June 1967 aggression, aiming at overthrowing anti-imperialist regimes in neighbouring countries, in the service of the global strategy of imperialism, in addition to the specific expansionist aims of Israel's reaction.
This holds true also regarding the German question. Although 352 there is also a fascist school of thought that sees in all Germans the enemy---the official and influential opinion differentiates between good and bad Germans, again according as to whether they are imperialist, i. e., Bonn versus the GDR.
This pro-imperialist, anti-Communist and anti-Soviet stand is nourished by Zionist ideology. In many parts of the world, and not the least in Israel, the Zionist organisation and the Israeli government have become major instruments of the imperialist political and ideological struggle against socialism and communism, against the socialist countries and especially against the Soviet Union.
The anti-Soviet campaign in Israel centers mainly around two subjects. The first subject is the alleged oppression of peoples in socialist countries This campaign is carried out both in the general aspect and the specific Jewish aspect. In the general aspect, Zionist and official Israeli propaganda was vehemently on the side of the Hungarian counter-revolution in 1956---the Histadrut organising a solidarity strike---and was m the two last years on the side of counter-revolutionary forces in Czechoslovakia, while many Zionist and Israeli forces were doing their utmost to assist the anti-socialist forces in the CSSR.
I am proud to stale that our Partv has, from the morning hours of the 21st of August 1968 onwards, considered the action of the Soviet Union and the four other socialist countries in those critical days as a necessary act of international solidarity with the Czech and Slovak peoples; our Party has, in face of wild incitement, carried out its internationalist duty and has done everything possible to explain the truth to the people of our country.
In the Jewish aspect, Zionist and official Israeli propaganda directs the fire against the Soviet Union, Poland and other socialist countries, alleging discrimination against and oppression of Jews in these countries. This propaganda uses the trick of identifying Zionism with Jews, of depicting condemnation of Israeli policy and of Zionism as anti-semittsm.
Our Party has fulfilled both its national and Us internationalist duty in opposing this poisonous campaign. Our 16th Congress gave a Marxist-Leninist analysis of the question.
The second subject used by official propaganda in Israel is the attempt at smearing the peace policy of the Soviet Union. While this has become a more and more difficult undertaking regarding Soviet peace policy on a world scale---although Israeli mass media still try to meddle even here---attention is concentrated on Soviet policy in the Middle East.
353In this question, cur duty is two-fold. One---to explain that Soviet policy is never directed against a people---it was not ``anti-Arab'' in 1948, as It is not ``anti-Israeli'' today---but a principled attitude, supporting any people fighting for its national liberation and opposing the machinations of imperialism. And two---to explain concretely that today's policy of the Soviet Union in the Middle East is directed towards a political solution of the crisis, throwing its weight on the side of those forces that enable the Israeli people to come to a lasting peace settlement, if. Israel does its part of the implementation of the Security Council resolution.
It is well understood that our Party has to stand up against the chauvinist current ihal is very strong, although not us strong as it used to be---even Dayan had to concede in a speech on November 12, 1969 that "the key to the situation is in the nation's moral and psychological understanding of the situation''.
Official Israeli propaganda is trying to outdo even the USA---to teach it to be more vigilant towards ''Soviet aggressive policy'', " Soviet infiltration'', "Soviet threats''. The Israeli press is much conscious of its part in the international claps struggle---for instance, they would never give an objective report on the GDR, but restrict themselves to attack and smearing.
An Israeli newspaper recently attacked other Western press organs for giving an objective appreciation of Soviet space achievements after the: Soyuz 6, 7, 8 deed (``A democratic journalist in the free world should know when to speak and when to be silent"].
All Marxist-Leninist textbooks, dealing with the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, speak of the requirement to define tro main enemy in a given strategic epoch, of the requirement to define what forces are the main allies.
But the textbooks do not speak of the requirement to define what is the main force of the historic progress. This was formerly not necessary, because it was self-understood.
Now, particularly under attacks from ``Left'' forces in various capitalist countries, and internationally by the positions of the Chinese leaders, tin's has been made a point in question. More, it has become the most important question of proletarian strategy and tactics.
The truth, confirmed by historic experience, has to bs restated. In capitalist countries, the mam revolutionary force remains the working class. Iutornalion.-i.ny, on the arena of the international class struggle, the mnn rn'i-imperialist force is the community of socialist countries and, first auti ioreiaooi, the Suvicl Union.
354This is of major importance for our topic. The main criterion for proletarian irtijC'ialionaiism is Hid attitude towards the Soviet Union.
At the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin admonished the Communist parties, in civilised and backward countries alike, 10 make the postulate that "reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a smal! group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia" their starting point (Vol. 31, p. 241].
If this was correct some 50 years ago, it is a thousand times correct today. No single struggle of the revolutionary forces of the world of today can ba detached from the major contradiction of our times.
This attitude towards the Soviet Union does not stem from subjective reasons. There is no other force on earth that could assume its historic responsibility, and particularly its responsibility for the preservation of world peace, the prevention of a thermonuclear war. The fact that the Soviet Union has succeeded and is succeeding in combining the defence of peace with the defence of the freedom of peoples, underlies iho hisioric role of the Soviet Union hi our time.
Our Party is accused from fiighi and ``Leu'' that we support Soviet Dolicy, and wo reply that we are proud of this. We do so, because thereby we serve the interests of the Jewish and Arab peoples of our country, as we serve the hueres:s of all mankind.
As expressed and explained by Lenin, foreign, non-proletarian elements continuously oiilcv the working class and infiltrate bourgeois and petty-bourgeois iaoolc^es into it. Neither is the Party of the working class, the Communist Party, immune from those influences.
This is true also today, and more dangerously so. The process of infiltrating the Communist i/o.rty is consciously promoted by the vast enemy apparatus of imponaiisra and its grand global strategy.
The recent example of our Party, the Communist Party of Israel, with the Mikimis-Sreh group may serve as a classical example of the infiltration of hostile ideology. Two features were characteristic: that hostile ideology entered under a Marxist-Leninist cloak and that not the full breadth and depth of the ideological and political deviation ',vas revealed at once, but gradually.
When Mikunis and Sneii started their ideological offensive inside tiie Party before <ho splH, UK; following fieMs cf devialiun became visible:
--- Aba;u';C'.'::n (ho proletarian class sanuipu.nt;
__PRINTERS_P_355_COMMENT__ 12* 355---Weakening anti-imperialist positions and propaganda;
---Sowing mistrust towards the Soviet Union and the international Communist movement;
---Starting to infiltrate Jewish nationalist ideology;
---Looking for and underlining mistakes made by forces within the national liberation movement of the Arab peoples and converting such mistakes into the dominant element of the movement;
---Equating Jewish and Arab nationalism, and depicting the differ* ence between them as ihe main contradiction of the region:
---Undermining the Leninist norms of Party life;
---Developing the theory of the higher specific weight of the Jewish Party members than that of the Arab Party members;
--- Attempting to diviuw the Party along national lines.
After the split, the Mikunis-Sneh group, becoming more and more the beloved and pampered child of Israeli reaction, developed these features and clarified them:
---They dropped the anti-imperialist position;
---They became in Israel the spearhead of the reactionary attack against the international Communist movement, against the Soviet Union and against our Party;
---They overstress any crack in our movement, whether genuine or made up. They stressed and wildly supported any unfriendly position or appearances toward the Soviet Onion and the CPSU, They tried to minimise the importance of the Moscow June 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties;
---They tried to rally Israeli public opinion against the Soviet Union in the question of C/eeh.oslovakifi:
---They urge an international campaign fur the revision of the Marxist-Leninist approach to Zionism and developing themselves a neo-Zionist line:
---They compete with all nationalistic forces in Israel in the " defence of the fatherland'', in defence and justification of the ]une 1967 war, in defence and justification of all military adventures beyond the cease-fire line In ail this they try to give a ``Communist'', ``Marxist-Leninist'' tJieorei i.'al uxplanation lo Ihe nationalistic policy of government;
~- They negate the national liberation movement of the Arab peoples and the anti-imperialist struggle of Arab states, depicting them as ``pan-Arabisin'';
---They try to depict ``neulralitv'' of certain Communist parties in the world towards Ihe Israeli Arab conflict as being due to their international Influence,
356---They work in certain Jewish and non-Jewish progressive circles in capitalist countries and try to do so even in socialist countries, in favour of the official Israeli policy.
This example confirms the postulate that every Communist and Workers' Party has to be vigilant against all deviations from MarxismLeninism and particularly against all appearances of nationalism within its ranks
__*_*_*__Summing up, it may be said.
The struggle against chauvinism and for proletarian internationalism remains as important as H was in Lenin's davs, and has even acquired greater importance.
It is not a marginal slruggle. It is not a one-time task, but a continuous one, demanding a principled proletarian class approach, permanent ideological awareness, permanent political-educational work among the Parly cadre and the working people.
Any achievement of one Party in this task advances the common cause of our iii'iernationai movement.
357 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S TEACHING ON IMPERIALISMMarx was the first in history to demonstrate scientifically the economic substance of capitalism. Lenin was as much of a genius and became Marx's great successor. Lenin lived and worked in the epoch of imperialism, the new phase of capitalism, investigating and defining it.
The old-iirae capitalism, the most specific feature of which was free competition, gave way to u new capitalism, in which the monopolies are dominant. This moiicvLi and lost stage oi' capitalism was skilfully defined by Lenin in Jus theory of imperialism as the phase of tiie ex'reme aggravation of capitalism's contradictions, the most powerful driving force during tne transitional period ushered in by the victory o>" world-wid" iinance capita'. (See Vol. 22, p.300.]
Lenin a'so regarded imperialism as a phase of capitalism in which the process of decay became visibly stronger; yet decay does not m*»Mi comnlo---s!ag;:;-t!on and does not -.;in out growth of capitalist economy daiing specific period; in speci'^^1^^!;: countries. However, as a vvho'o. ca;<L'a,ism tend; i::cr:;..i.,; >;.Sy 10 htMi in the growth of the modern prod.iciivo forces.
More than 50 years have passed since Lenin published his excellent work, Imperialism, the Uiyicsi .'-','t:.7y ;;/ (!o.:-il'~j-ii;ni, but the scientific basis of IIH t^ac'iing on Imp -;..'.-;!;:;.! !r, now is valid as evor.
A hundred years ago Marx showed that free competition generated concentration of pruduction and that concentration of prodiction led 358 to monopoly. When no monopolies were vet in existence, this i.oncept was regarded absurd by the ``official'' science.
In Lenin's time, the monopolies became a reality, but bourgeois scientists insisted that Marxism had Leon refuted.
Lenin proved that imperialism is the highest and last stage of capitalism, the eve of socialist revolution. And at a time when no victorious socialist revolution had yd occurred in the world, ``official'' science would not take the idea seriously. In 1917 the socialist revolution took place in Russia, and then became a reality in other countries, including Cuba. Beyond question, socialist revolutions will occur in more countries, though bourgeois scientists keep saying that Leninism is refuted.
The social character of production and the private node of appropriation produce a contradiction that will not be resolved until the whole capitalist system is destroyed. The other intrinsic contradiction, namely the contradiction between labour and capital, makes the crisis of capitalism more acute. Strikes, which gain in scale daily, and unemployment, which is more and more chronic;, add to this contra= diction. The number of strikers has grown from 20 million in 1958 to 57 million in 196S.
The big capitalist monopolies hold n.miivided sway not only in all sectors of the economy and finance. Their pcuvor extends to all aspects of social life and is so great that they press the slate into their service, subordinating the: eniire state apparatus to monopoly interests. "The 'personal link-up' between the hanks and industry is supplemented by the 'personal link-up' between both of them and the government" (Vol. 22, p. 221).
The new form of monopoly capitalism, !he so-called state-monopoly capitalism, generates a high degree of socialisation in capitalist production and, according to Lenin, is a full-scale material preparation for socialism. However, the new form does not change the nature of capitalism, deepening its main contradiction and bringing it closer to final collapse, for which reason Lenin described imperialism as capitalism in its death throes.
Capitalism does not grow into socialism. Its nature can be changed only through the working people seizing political power, establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, which overthrows the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is chiefly purposed to crush the resistance of the py.ploih'ng classes, already deprived of their power, and to build socl-iMsni. This idea (irsi form^'aiRd by Marx, was enriched by Lenin, who spoiled in the Soviets a new form of this 359 dictatorship. However, Lenin pointed out, proletarian dictatorship is not something congealed; it assumes different forms to suit the historical conditions and peculiarities of each country just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie also adopts a variety of political forms. In our examination of siato-monopoly economy, we see that the monopolies, merging with the state, run the economy to suit their own selfish Interests and also use public funds, (axes and credits for the same purpose, plundering the nation outrageously; this leads to a still more accelerated concentration of capital both in industry and agriculture.
The penetration of finance capital into American agriculture put huge areas of land in'o the hands of landowners and magnates, as a result of which the small and middle farmers are deprived of their plots.
``Those who control the banks,'' Lenin wrote "directly control onet`li'd oi America's farms, and indirectly dominate the lot" f.Vol. 22, p. lUOl.
The expropriation of small and medium farmers became more intensive after the Second World War. "The development of capitalism di-:-:ipaled the legend of the stability of small peasant farming once and for all . . .- Agrarian crises are bringing ever greater ruin to the countryside. Unspeakable want and poverty fall to the lot of the peasantry in the colonial and dependent countries; it suffers the dual oppression of the landlords and the monopoly bourgeoisie'', says the Cl'SLi Programme.
The main factors hampering the progress of the country within the framework of our socio-economic system and dooming the people to poverty, says the Programme oi the Communist Parly of Ecuador, ars the colonial oppression by imperialism, especially US Imperialism, and the existence of many feudal survivals. Big foreign companies control our land, our natural resources, the seas and other natural wea'lh. They control oi! production and the banana trade and own hundreds of thousands of hectares of fertile land. US pirates rapaciously rob the sea of fish. Imperialist banks exert an ever greater pressure on the market through their branches. Agriculture, the main branch of our economy, suffers the consequences of these semi-feudal and semi colonial forms of production and ownership. A handful of big landowners possesses vast areas of farmland, most of which remains uncultivated. They lease hut a minor part to the peasants, exacting exorbitant and constantly growing rents. The agricultural labourers' wages are so low that they are doomed to a life in poverty.
360Small owners are ruined by the low prices imposed on their producs by imperialism.
Export of capital and, in particular, loans and credits are above all a means to winning new markets and sources of raw material: Of late, Latin America has been getting loans and credits, chiefly from the US government, that is, the state. That is one of the ways whereby the financial oligarchy ensures its investments of capital. Export of capital is also practised through international finance organisations controlled by the US and the US monopolies, such as the Export-Import Bank, the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, etc.
In Latin America, state loans are designed to consolidate the semicolonial structure of our countries, promote export of US goods, facilitate plunder of raw materials, exercise pressure on economic policy and create the appearance of aid. If in 1961---1965 loans to Ecuador totalled $45 million, the amount of money repaid, as well as the interest, reached the figure of $72,400,000. In 1966, as much as $28,200,000 was shipped abroad as profit, and if we add to this the $14,200,000 paid to cover the state debt, the total will equal all loans received by Ecuador in five years.
But loans are not the only source of income for the monopolies. Huge profits are derived from export operations; these profits, received outside the country, are not reflected in Ecuador's balance of pay^ ments. The profit of the banana exporters is $40 million a year, and an equal sum is obtained by traders in the consumer markets.
Lastly, the continuous decline of prices on our export products is yet another blow to the national economy. Back in 1961 the manager of the Central Bank of Ecuador, who analysed the losses we sustained due to the drop in prices, drew the following conclusion: "Thus is revealed the ineffectiveness of foreign aid plans. Ecuador, and possibly the other Latin American countries too, would be able to develop more rapidly, needing no foreign credits, if they received fair prices for their exports.'' The situation has deteriorated still more between 1961 and 1967, and only at present a tendency towards improvement has appeared thanks to trade with the socialist countries.
The state-monopoly economy is growing vigorously due to production for military purposes. Wars have always benefited the monopolies. During the Second World War the US monopolies poclceted fabulous profits. After the war they gained new opportu= nities for enrichment. Most enterprises built on Treasury funds during the war were sold at ridiculously low prices to big monopolies. __PRINTERS_P_361_COMMENT__ 13 361 Billions of dollars paid by the taxpayers were thus presented by the government to the big industrialis.s and financiers.
The United States has become the most militarised country of the capitalist world, in which the entire economy serves militarist alms, the arms drive and aggressive policy. An economy of that type cannot be of any useful service to society.
The Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow pointed out: "The spearhead of the aggressive strategy of imperialism continues to be aimed first and foremost against the socialist countries. Imperialism does not forego open armed struggle against socialism. It ceaselessly intensifies the arms race and tries to activate the military blocs organised for aggression against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. It steps up its ideological fight against them and tries to hamper the economic development of the socialist countries.''
Imperialism is a decayed, parasitical capitalism in its death throes, which has become a bitter enemy of mankind. That is why it is still more imperative now to fight imperialism and to go over to the new, more advanced, socialist society.
All these circumstances add to the sharpness of the contradiction between the Latin America countries, on the one hand, and imperialism and neo-colonialism, on the other, a contradiction resolvable only by a national liberation revolution that will grow over into a socialist revolution.
The programme of the national liberation revolution is that of democratic revolution, of the economic independence of colonial and dependent countries, a programme that goes beyond the narrow framework of the present-day moribund capitalism and predicates the nationalisation of foreign monopolies, industrialisation in the context of an independent economy, one favouring the growth of the state sector and agrarian reform in order to end large-scale landownership and the old feudal forms of exploiting land and labour.
The aims of socialism in our country, the Programme of the Com= munist Party of Ecuador says, can be achieved only after the tasks of the preceding stages, which will pave the way for the alms of the national liberation struggle in its triple aspect (anti-imperialist, anti-- feudal and democratic), are accomplished in the process of revolutionary social reconstruction.
The working masses, the peasants of former and still" existing colonies and dependent countries, whose numbers in the world reach into millions <md hundreds of millions of people, have actively joined the national liberaton movement, which is advancing victoriously 362 towards the final elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, deepening thereby the general crisis of capitalism.
At the Third Congress of the Communist International in 1921, Lenin pointed to the revolutionary role of that movement in the impending decisive battles of the world revolution when that movement, initially directed towards national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism. These words, indicative of the richness of ideas and the long-sightedness of the greatest revolutionary thinker of our age, are fully valid in our time.
If in its time the industrial revolution laid the technical foundation of capitalism, and completely undermined the position of the feudal classes, these days the scientific and technological revolution is one of the decisive factors speeding the disintegration and collapse of the old, outworn capitalist system. Each day modern capitalism acts more and more as a brake on the growth of the productive forces.
Imperialism's decay is also reflected in its ideology. Imperialist ideology penetrates even into the midst of the working class, because it is not separated from the other classes by a Chinese wall.
The smokescreen of imperialist ideology is designed to befog the working people, to conceal the reactionary essence of imperialism, to windowdress capitalism and even to drape it in a socialist garb. That, precisely, is the purpose of the notions about the "American way of life'', "people's capitalism'', "the welfare state'', "the affluent society" and the other gimmicks in the ideological arsenal of imperialism.
At the same time, attempts are made to establish contacts with the socialist countries in order to export counter-revolution. Use is being made against them of a new ideological weapon, such as the theory of the ``convergence'' of the two systems and their fusion into a "single Industrial society''. The same purpose is pursued by the dissemination of "national socialism'', "democratic socialism'', "liberal socialism" and other theories.
Furthermore, nationalist and chauvinist attitudes, revisionism, Right and ``Left'' opportunism, reformism, anarchism, and the like, are being spread in the international revolutionary movement. Lenin---and that is one of the elements that make his teaching always up to date---has fought uncompromisingly against all these ideas, showing that they contradict the basic interests of the labour movement.
None who regards himself a revolutionary can fail to recognise the fact that it is impossible to fjght imperialism consistently without actively combating all these theories and trends.
__PRINTERS_P_363_COMMENT__ 13* 363Lenin wrote: "The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it engenders, or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism" (Vol. 22, p. 287).
The socialist countries and countries that have flung off the imperialist yoke, are compelled to fight off imperialism's armed aggressions. And in this confrontation imperialism has suffered repeated defeats. The heroic struggle of the people of Vietnam against the US aggression is a key component of the world-wide battle between socialism and imperialism, between the forces of progress and those of reaction. The above is pointed out in the Appeal of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, "Independence, Freedom and Peace for Vietnam!''
Imperialism concentrates all its strategy of war and destruction, concluding political and military treaties and alliances and jeopardising world peace, against the forces of socialism and progress.
The anti-imperialist forces oppose this aggressive imperialist policy with the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, a principle formulated by Lenin which does not contradict either the right of the oppressed peoples to fight for their libsration or the class struggle against imperialism on the national and world scale.
If the imperialists persist in their war policy, they will only bring closer their own destruction.
The socialist world system, with the Soviet Union in the van, is the decisive force in the anti-imperialist struggle. The socialist world system, the working class in the capitalist countries fighting vigorously against monopoly power, and the national liberation movement constitute the essence of the world revolutionary process of today. Lenin said in 1919: "The 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" '(Vol. 30, p. 159).
Such, in aggregate, are the forces which at present determine the main direction of mankind's historical development. That development follows the way predicted by Marx, Engels and Lenin, the way of socialism and communism.
364 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISM AND SOME PROBLEMSThe working-class movement has a Jradition readily appreciated by every Communist and every revolutionary. This tradition consists in jointly commemorating historic events and in using the occasion to draw in common conclusions from the wealth of experience gained in struggle, derive new knowledge from it and carry on the struggle with fresh energy, shoulder to shoulder. The 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin holds a place all its own among memorable dates.
This evaluation of the event today is prompted by the obvious fact that all that is great and decisive in modern history---the rise and development of Leninism, the Marxism of our epoch; the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, with which world history entered the era of transition from capitalism to socialism; the rise and development of the socialist world system, the decisive factor for human progress, and lastly, the winning of independence by most of the one-time colonies and their resolute steps towards economic and social emancipation---is closely linked with Lenin's name. Many comrades have spoken competently of the main, decisive problems of our present and future, problems linked with the name of Lenin the theoretician and revolutionary.
We wish to confine ourselves to a few comments on some current problems of the national liberation movement suggested by the experience, of our Party, the Socialist Vanguard Party of Algeria. We believe the best way to commemorate the Lenin centenary on the theoretical plane would be to trace the connection between Lenin's concept of the class struggle and revolutionary movement and the 365 present situation in Asian and African countries, particularly in those that have taken the road of non-capitalist development. We turn purposely to Lenin's general postulates on fundamental problems because some Marxist works betray a deliberate or spontaneous tendency to restrict the significance of Leninism for the countries of the Third World, which disturbs us. The tendency lies in the fact that Lenin's heritage, which is valuable to the developing countries, is reduced to those of his numerous, really important and unique articles concerned in the main with the "peoples of the East''. Yet one must not snatch various parts of Leninism out of their context. Leninism--- the Marxism of our epoch, an integral revolutionary doctrine carried forward in the documents of the 1957, 1960 and 1969 meetings of Communist and Workers' parties---is in its entirety a "guide to action''. This is why we turn to Lenin's entire heritage, searching for answers in it as we try to understand and solve the problems of the class struggle and the revolution arising in both our countries and the rest of the world.
In Lenin we find exhaustive answers based on the teachings of Marx and Engels to our every question, whether we are concerned with the role of the working class and its Party, the role of other classes and social strata, the relations that exist or should be established between them, especially between the organisations expressing their fundamental interests, with the nature, principal objectives, tasks and motive forces -of the revolution, the connection between the national democratic and the socialist revolution, the relations between the national liberation movement, particularly the states following the road of non-capitalist development, and the two other great revolutionary streams of the world of today, or with some other problem. As the address "Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" says, "today we have every justification for saying about Lenin's teaching what he himself said about Marxism: it is omnipotent, because it is true.''
We do not propose to analyse these problems in detail. We have said that we would like to deal with some theoretical matters that we think are of special importance to the ideological struggle in the new countries which have won independence and set out on the road Of non-capitalist development.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ WHAT IS THE ROAD OF NON-CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT?To begin with, we must establish the meaning of the "road of noncapitalist development'', which is still problematic. We must do so 366 while carrying on an earnest ideological fight against imperialist, petty-bourgeois and revisionist concepts.
Imperialist ideologists and ``experts'' in problems of the Third World have devised two methods identical in essence and object: they spread a more or less distorted notion of the present of these countries and, on the other hand, propose for their future development a model meeting the interests of their masters, the imperialist monopolies. The main feature of the former method is its frank hostility to socialism. It is used to convince the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America that they have no choice, that they can achieve a relative improvement in their life only under capitalism and through capitalism, under the benevolent patronage of US, West German, French or British imperialism.
As regards the latter method, it proceeds outwardly from a socialist standpoint and is camouflaged as disinterested friendship for our peoples, specifically for some of their leading cadres, who are flattered profusely. And this makes it still more dangerous than the former method.
This method is a favourite with Tiano, for one, who until 1968 was professor of political economy at the University of Algiers and French technical adviser in the Ministry of the Economy. His recent book, The Maghreb in Myth,^^*^^ tones down the distinctions in the political and economic orientation of the three North African countries and recommends these to persevere, after making a few corrections and improvements, in building socialism, whose path "is imposed upon us in so great measure by the facts and in so little measure by ideologies that it can be followed without great vacillation''.^^**^^ Let us note that Tiano expresses the views of spokesmen for some petty-bourgeois and even bourgeois strata of Algeria, and indeed, of other countries. Like them, he arrogantly rejects the entire ideology of socialism. In reality, this hodge-podge comes from a very definite but carefully disguised ideology of an anti-Communist kind. The main purpose of this ingenious argument is to renounce the Marxist-- Leninist ideology, the ideology of scientific socialism, in favour of a narrowly pragmatic, eclectic concept likely to lead to nothing but pseudosocialism. Tiano is not long in confirming this---he specifies immediately after the above sentence what variety of socialism should be established as he sees it. He makes it very clear that he is far from thinking of proletarian socialism. "In our view,'' he writes, "socialism _-_-_
^^*^^ A. Tiano, Le Magreb entre les mythes. PUF, Paris, 1967.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 584.
367 has a concrete and precise content: it is scientific (in the sense that it resorts to planning which uses economic and mathematical models) and realistic (this realism expresses itself, among other things, in private capital likewise having to participate in the development and even the building of socialism).''^^*^^ The participation of private, particularly foreign, capital is indispensable for lack of cadres, he goes on to say. Furthermore, Tiano regards the formula of a "society with a mixed economy" as perfectly ``realistic'' and the demand for "legislative guarantees to capitalism against early nationalisation (time limits, compensation)" just as realistic. Lastly, to be conclusive, Tiano adorns his socialism---entirely in the spirit of official policy--- with another two epithets requiring no commentary: democratic and national. __ALPHA_LVL2__ PETTY-BOURGEOIS CONCEPTSThe concept of socialism some of whose characteristics we have listed and which has been developed by bourgeois ideologists linked in varying measure with the imperialist system finds fertile ground among the petty bourgeoisie of newly free ex-colonies, including large petty-bourgeois groups in power in the countries following the noncapitalist road of development. The working class, still comparatively weak, is influenced by this concept to a varying degree.
This phenomenon has an objective basis and Lenin enables us fully to explain it when he says that "the rate at which capitalism develops varies in different countries and in different spheres of the national economy. Marxism is most easily, rapidly, completely and lastingly assimilated by the working class and its ideologists where large-scale industry is most developed. Economic relations which are backward, or which lag in their development, constantly lead to the appearance of supporters of the labour movement who assimilate only certain aspects of Marxism, only certain parts of the new world outlook, or individual slogans and demands, being unable to make a determined break with all the traditions of the bourgeois world outlook in general and the bourgeois-democratic world outlook in particular" (Vol. 16, p. 348).
It follows that the concept of the historical stage which the countries following the non-capitalist road have entered---a concept evolved by progressive nationalists, prospective democratic revolutionaries in the sense used by Lenin---is unjustified. Whereas this _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 584. 368
368stage is only the stage of the democratic national revolution, it has overhastily been christened the stage of building socialism. Every socio-economic measure adopted by these leaders is declared to be ``socialist''.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ MARXIST CONCEPTSIn reality this concept, laid down, for example, in the Algiers Charter approved by the First Congress of the National Liberation Front in 1964, is not based, contrary to Lenin's thesis, on an accurate scientific analysis of the "level of the objective development of society" nor on an accurate knowledge of the laws of social movement in Algeria. Some national and international realities still in embryo are seized upon to make hasty generalisations and jump to conclusions. The result is an incorrect strategy and tactics out of keeping with the actual balance of forces in the country concerned, with that country's real objective and subjective potentialitites.
We think it would be a fitting tribute to Lenin on the centenary of his birth to begin very earnestly---or to continue where begun--- comprehensive scientific analyses of social development in Asian and African countries. If it is true that our societies suffer from a low standard of development, it is just as true that they suffer from the fact that they are still known very insufficiently. Lenin left us a model of concrete analysis of the realities of his country, which he afterwards methodically and systematically prepared for struggle and-then skilfully led to victory. We find this model, which is most interesting theoretically as well as methodologically, in Lenin's work The Development of Capitalism in Russia.-
This work reveals the method which Lenin used and which should serve us as a model. "A concrete analysis of the status and -he interests of the different classes must serve as a means of dp-fining the precise significance of this truth when applied 'M this ar that problem" "(Vol. 3, p. 32].
Thus, the opposite method, which does not consist in "elucidating at each given stag;; of the process the form of class antagonism typical of it" but in abstract and dogmatic arguments about the ``inexorable'' logic of economic development, in academic reasoning about necessity inherent in the social process, was exposed and rejected. This method, which is as barren as it is harmful, was replaced by the Marxist method, whose main object is to ascertain real social contrmlictions, investigate their forms and their evolution, "prove iieir transient characier" and provide in this way conditions for the 369 working Class to abolish relations of exploitation. Regrettably, the metaphysical---in the sense used by Engels---or undialectical method predominates in analysing the situation in our countries, that is, the countries of Asia and Africa. According to Lenin, this method consists in "the endeavour to look for answers to concrete questions in the simple logical development of the general truth...'' (Vol. 3, p. 32). To use this method in explaining social phenomena and in elaborating pressing tasks would mean, Lenin pointed out, proceeding from an a priori definition of the character of the historical stage in which this or that society finds itself instead of proceeding from a concrete analysis ot the real economic and social situation and its real contradictions.
Lenin's method has proved its worth and can be effectively applied because it is based on a general scientific conception of history, on historical materialism. Lenin shows us, specifically in What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-- Democrats, that the central idea of historical materialism, an idea raising the social sciences to the level of genuine sciences, is the concept of economic and social formation.
By approaching a new social phenomenon, the countries that have taken the non-capitalist road, from the standpoint of historical materialism, we can:
1. Show that despite the diversity of the conditions of socio-- economic and political development typical of these countries, and despite the highly varied relations linking the various classes and political forces in each country, there is a number of general social laws of development or a system of general laws common to these countries. These objective laws^^*^^ tell us that these countries do not constitute an entirely new economic and social formation in the making that is neither capitalist nor socialist.
2. Prove beyond question, on the basis of the foregoing, that the petty-bourgeois and revisionist concepts alleging the possibility of a third road of development, which some African and Asian countries are said to have taken, are purely subjectivist and wrong.
3. Establish that the historical stage reached by these countries Is intermediate between capitalism and socialism.
4. Accurately ascertain the dialectical connections between the national democratic and the socialist revolution. However, account _-_-_
^^*^^ As far as we know, the most successful attempt to reveal these laws and present them in the most complete and systematic form was made hy Rostislav Ulyanovsky, a Soviet scholar.
370 should be taken of the important fact that some tasks typical of this and that revolution intertwine at a certain stage of development. We therefore think we should refrain from concentrating on those tasks of the socialist revolution that have not matured as yet, and should remember that the main tasks of the national democratic revolution have not yet been fulfilled or have not received adequate attention. Lenin's remarks in Philosophical Notebooks are very useful as a guide to developing proper flexibility of thinking in examining phenomena of this kind.The main reasons for the present course of development in Asia, Africa and Latin America are well known and do not have to be dealt with in detail here. We would like, however, to call your attention to some aspects of the role of the working class and its Marxist-Leninist Party in these countries with due regard to the general remarks we have offered.
In concerning ourselves with these problems, we are undoubtedly proceeding in a spirit of unshakable loyalty to Lenin and his teachings. For it was Lenin who said that "the chief thing in the doctrine of Marx is that it brings out the historic role of the proletariat as the builder of socialist society" (Vol. 18, p. 582].
Besides, to proceed in this way means working for the future and hence following Lenin, who wrote that "all classes and all countries are regarded, not statically, but dynamically, i.e., not in a state of immobility, but in motion (whose laws are determined by the economic conditions of existence of each class). Motion, in its turn, is regarded from the standpoint, not only of the past, but also of the future, and that not in the vulgar sense it is understood in by the `evolutionists', who see only slow changes, nut dialectically" (Vol. 21, P. 75).
We are convinced that the Document of the 1969 Meeting is prompted by these considerations and proceeds from this perspective in stressing the steadily growing role which the working class plays and must play today, when the revolutionary forces of the world have grown immensely and the class struggle has gained in intensity. This is true of its various contingents, botli those that have brought the socialist world system into being and continue to strengthen it and those that, being in the lead of a gigantic movement of the masses, are delivering ever stronger blows to state monopoly imperialism from within or those that are a component of the powerful revolutionary movement for national liberation.
It is natural that wherever this movement has resulted in winning political independence a new struggle begins, a class struggle over 371 the choice of the road of further development, over choosing between capitalism and socialism.
A new development of historic significance which in late years has been in evidence in a number of countries and was predicted by Lenin is the rapid process .of social differentiation leading to the formation of two poles: the pole of progress, which unites the working class, the petty bourgeoisie of town and country, progressive intellectuals, army officers and some groups of the national bourgeoisie, and the pole of reaction, which unites the big landowners, the comprador bourgeoisie and some segments of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie. This struggle is not going on in isolation but is part of a more complex and vast process exerting tremendous influence on its forms, development rate and degree of sharpness. We mean the world-wide struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism, for peace, democracy and socialism.
The working class holds a special place in the conflicts between various social classes and forces, in the struggle between the antagonistic camps we have just mentioned. We would be underestimating the substance of Leninism if we only saw the weaknesses and shortcomings of the working class. They do exist, of course, and no one who is affected by their negative results can deny or disregard them. However, they are and can be only temporary.
In Algeria as in other Asian and African countries that have taken the non-capitalist road, certain economic achievements, in particular the setting up of new industries, make for an increase in the numbers of the working class and a rise in its technical and cultural standards. From this point of view the four-year plan (1970---73) is expected to play a notable part in Algeria. There is no doubt that the working class will be the main factor in carrying out the plan.
To cope with the tasks prompted by its own interests and those of the whole nation, the working class must make a strenuous effort in every field, the political and economic spheres included, as well as in the field of technological and scientific education. Thus, we are aware of the tremendous responsibility falling on the working class even at this stage of its development.
It would be very wrong, however (as Lenin's entire work proves), to imagine that the workers will become class-conscious by themselves, spontaneously, and will make their class the decisive factor for a national policy.
All that Lenin wrote in What Is to Be Done? and what he repeated and steadfastly put into practice throughout his life, all that the history of the working-class movement has proved everywhere since 372 the days of Marx and Engels, namely, that the proletariat will become class-conscious only if this consciousness is brought from without, in the form of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, fully applies to Algeria and, we think, to any Asian or African country that has taken, or will take, the non-capitalist road of development.
If this is so, it means that we must fight for the existence of the Marxist-Leninist Party because only a party of this kind, whose structure, work and principles of action are based on the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism, should and can make the working class aware of its historic mission, organise its fight and the fight of all its internal and external allies for power and the building of socialism and communism.
There is no other way of solving problems if we want to approach them from the standpoint of the future, which, needless to say, will not come from heaven nor be presented to us as a gift but will be a result of persistent, peaceful or armed struggle over a long period. This struggle will go on quietly at the early stage, that is, will be carried on by small groups that are bound to grow and link up with the mass of the people by a thousand bonds.
In upholding this concept, which is resolutely projected into the future, we must not lose sight of present-day reality nor its exigencies. However, we must determine the tasks of today according to the objectives of tomorrow. In so doing we must proceed from a scientifically based perspective, and surely Marxism is the philosophy of the future since, having been evolved over a century ago, it is widely embodied today. The surest, and the only scientific, method is to approach the problem in Leninist fashion, which implies a correct and creative application of Marxist theory from explicit class positions.
To preclude every possibility of misinterpretation, we must stress the above demand, which a Marxist normally takes for granted, and on the other hand, the fact that the thesis of the special place and role of the working class by no means implies a scornful attitude to the other classes and social strata making up our society, nor even underestimation of the positive role they play now or can play in the future. Our actions in this case meet the requirements of reality which determine and give rise to our movement and accord with Lenin's following important postulate: "Only an objective consideration of the sum total of the relations between absolutely all classes in a given society, and consequently a consideration of the objective stage of development reached by that society and of the 373 relations between it and other societies, can-serve as a basis for the correct tactics of an advanced class" (Vol. 21, p. 75).
Such an analysis, even in sketchy form, is hardly possible within the framework of the above remarks. Nevertheless, we would like to specify the following:
1. The tasks of a national democratic revolution with remote socialist prospects facing the countries that have taken the road of non-capitalist development can and should be carried out in our day by a broad patriotic and anti-imperialist front uniting the working class, the petty urban and rural bourgeoisie, and that part of the national bourgeoisie not linked with foreign capital.
2. The working class and its Party, taking account of the situation and the alignment of forces in the country, must not make their participation in this front, their constructive support---from critical positions---for a correct policy of the front conditional on the winning and exercise of their hegemony.
3. The record of recent years shows that the petty bourgeoisie in power in the countries following the road of non-capitalist development not only strives in reality to fight against neo-colonialism and imperialism, against the feudal lords and the big bourgeoisie, as well as against the comprador bourgeoisie, resorting, in particular, to nationalisation, but has definite anti-capitalist potentialities. Such a policy, if pursued firmly and prudently, is accompanied by democratisation of the life of the country and by alliance and increasingly diversified and durable cooperation with the socialist countries, first of all with the Soviet Union, and inevitably gives rise to a process of class differentiation throughout society and among the ruling petty bourgeoisie itself. This process, which does not depend on the will of the ruling circles, may in the general conditions of our time bring the ruling circles and various groups of the petty bourgeoisie on to the positions of the working class and its ideology through the dialectical movement characterising historical events.
4. Obviously, it is Marxists-Leninists that must play the indispensable role in this process, and it is they who have the important duty of searching for forms of participation in-it and elaborating them in / a creative spirit. We believe this role will be played effectively if it is undertaken by a party which at first may even be in the formative stage. Such a party will have to equip itself with great patience to make it easier for the elements and strata of the petty bourgeoisie gradually to arrive at the positions of scientific socialism, which may involve temporary retreats and recourse to detours.
5. Experience shows that the question of the existence and 374 unfettered activity of such a party in Asian and African countries having progressive regimes is one of the most pressing. It is probably safe to say that some leaders of these countries, representing fairly large sections of the progressive petty bourgeoisie and proceeding from their present positions, have not decided this matter constructively. The most marked manifestation of a negative attitude is the ruling circles' fear of the masses expressed in the fact that the masses are denied the opportunity of participating effectively in government.
6. As the process of socio-political and economic development cannot be considered irreversible in any country, the working class must be vigilant and do all that may be necessary to provide conditions guaranteeing the normal development of this process, or at least the maintenance of the gains of the revolution, particularly in the socioeconomic field. The main earnest of this is, in our view, the existence of a Marxist-Leninist party.
__*_*_*__Our Party---the Socialist Vanguard Party of Algeria---which is still young like the independence of our country, is striving to carry on the struggle in the Leninist spirit and will continue to fight in the arena where the future of Algeria is being decided, so as to be able fully to play its role and enable the class to which it has devoted itself without qualification to fulfil its mission. The results it has achieved to date, even if modest, prove the correctness of Leninism, to which it will remain thoroughly loyal, and on the other hand, provide moral support for its continued struggle alongside all brother parties to win still greater victories according to the Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.
375 __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE SOURCES OF OPPORTUNISM TODAYLenin taught us Communists that to be able to evolve a correci policy, we must make a careful analysis of the changing political situation with all its concrete contradictions and draw proper conclusions. Allow me first to offer a few brief introductory remarks from this point of view on the present situation in the Federal Republic of Germany.
The outcome of the Bundestag elections of September 28, 1969, and the formation of a government led by the Social-Democratic Party undoubtedly changed the political situation in the Federal Republic. Militant action by a substantial cross-section of the working class, youth and other democratic forces barred the neo-Nazi NDP from the Bundestag. For the first time in twenty years the CDU'SCU, a coalition-of the principal parties of West German monopoly capital, found itself outside the government. Both these facts are highly significant politically.
The replacement of a government led by the CDU with a government at whose head is the SDP does not mean any change in the socio-economic or political structures of the FRG. The economy is still dominated by monopoly capital. Now as in the past, the forces associated with this capital call the tune in the government bureaucracy, the high command, justice and the mass media. Besides, the Right-wing leaders of the SDP are linked with the state-monopoly system of exploitation, so that the change of government means, in the final analysis, shifting the responsibility for public afi'airs from one political alignment serving the Establishment to another.
376Nevertheless, it is not immaterial to the working, class which of the political alignments in the service of state-monopoly capitalism is in the government. The years of fascist dictatorship in Germany brought this home to the working class only too well. Seen from this standpoint, the SDP/FDP government constitutes a certain advance in comparison with all the previous government coalitions led by the CDU.
The new West German government will have to reckon in far greater measure than its predecessors with the demands of the working people and the Social-Democrats linked with the working class and its unions, provided these demands are upheld with proper determination. In this respect, the change of government creates a more favourable climate for the struggle of the working class and other democratic forces for the peaceful, democratic and progressive development of our country. This is why the German Communist Party welcomed the replacement of the government led by the CDU with the SDP'FDP coalition.
However, we are by no means forgetting that the big capitalists pin definite hopes on the new cabinet, which they expect to maintain their home and foreign policy interests more effectively than the government led by the CDU did. This applies above all to the desire of these quarters to ``integrate'' the' working class into the state-monopoly system. It is beyond question that the working people's autonomy and independence today are in even greater danger than at the time of the "grand coalition''. And it will depend primarily on the militancy of the working class in upholding its interests how far the new government will justify the hopes of these circles of big capital. For the most reliable means of heading off the threat of the working class being ``incorporated'' in the state-monopoly system of the Federal Republic is active class struggle against monopoly capital.
At the' same time the change of government puts higher demands to the Communists' ideological work because the danger of Right and ``Left'' opportunist influence is undoubtedly growing. On the one hand, the Social-Democrats' assumption of the government leadership encourages opportunist illusions about the nature of the state-- monopoly system of capitalism and its domination in the Federal Republic. On the other, these illusions and certain moves of the government led by the SDP are bound to cause an ultra-``Left'' reaction.
Both Right- and ``Left''-wing opportunism hamper effective action by the working class and other democratic forces for their interests and prevent unity of action by the Communists and Social-Democrats, the formation of a broad alliance of all anti-monopoly forces for the 377 democratic renovation of state and society and the subsequent success of the struggle for socialism in the F^G. This makes principled Marxist criticism of opportunism and Its varieties a primary requirement of the anti-Imperialist struggle in our country. To this end, It Is exceedingly important and relevant to us West German Communists to Study Lenin's works and his fight against Right- and ``Left''-wing opportunism. However, it is not only to the situation created by the change of government that opportunism owes its influence on the working-class movement in West Germany. Its Influence has deeper origins which make themselves felt in both the FRG and other developed capitalist countries, if to varying degrees.
Marx, Engels and Lenin laid bare the main roots of opportunism, which stems, first of all, from the small proprietors' loss of their independent position and the proletarianisation of the petty-bourgeois strata, that is, from processes that are concomitants of capitalist development. These strata bring into the working class and the labour movement a petty-bourgeois ideology fostering the spread of Rightwing and ultra-``Left'' Ideas and currents.
There are also special sources of opportunism whose effectiveness Is limited to a particular stage in capitalist development. A classical example of revealing these sources is Lenin's investigation of the connection between imperialism and the labour aristocracy as a source of opportunism in the working-class movement.
Putting definite segments of the working class in a privileged position and throwing them crumbs from the monopolies' superprofits constitute another source of opportunism, which, needless to say, has changed somewhat under state-monopoly capitalism. Speaking of the efforts of the big bourgeoisie to subordinate the labour movement to monopoly capitalist interests, we believe the important thing in the Federal Republic today is that the big bourgeoisie has succeeded politically, economically and ideologically to ``integrate'' the Rightwing top of the SDP into the state-monopoly system. It is trying with the aid of this top to ``incorporate'' the entire SDP, the trade unions and the working class in the system.
I think there is a number of n~w economic, political and ideological factors that are coming to plry an important role in spreading opportunism. We will be acting in a Leninist spirit if we make a specific analysis of these new phenomena in accordance with Lenin's criticism of opportunism. I would like to touch briefly on some factors.
The sources on which opportunism in the various countries can draw today in definite conditions of development of the working class lie primarily in the objective process of further rapid growth 378 of the productive forces, in the scientific and technological revolution, the increasing socialisation of production that goes with it, and the expansion of state-monopoly capitalism. This process is propitious in many ways for the rise of opportunist views and illusions.
1. State-monopoly regulation and the scientific and technological revolution undoubtedly account in part for the fact that industrial production in the leading capitalist countries today is growing faster than before and that economic crises comparable to the upheaval of the period between 1929 and 1933 could be avoided. This process is Impelled, first of all, by the mounting competition between the socialist and capitalist systems. Economic development in the capi= talist countries, more favourable than in the past, fosters illusions about capitalism and breeds doubts as to the need or possibility of replacing capitalism by socialism.
2. The scientific and technological revolution and the further socialisation of the production process are causing deep changes in the structure of the working class. The numerical strength of factory workers is decreasing while the number of professional and office employees, first of all technicians, engineers and experts in the natural sciences, is growing in both absolute and relative terms. Many of these employees come from petty-bourgeois strata and bring a petty-- bourgeois mentality into the working class. Even with those who come from the working class, awareness of their social condition is generally below that of industrial workers.
3. In the post-war period the living standards of the working people in the industrial capitalist countries, specifically in the Federal Republic, their real wages and the social benefits they enjoy, have partly gone up to a certain extent. This is due to the rapid growth of the productive forces and a change in the pattern of skills, but above all to a strengthening of the positions of the working class in the social struggle as a result of the competition between the socialist and capitalist systems. The latter circumstance is of special importance to the Federal Republic, since on German soil it is directly confronted by the socialist German Democratic Republic. In definite conditions, especially in those countries where the revolutionary party of the working class still carries no weight with the masses, a rising standard of living of the workers by hand and by brain under capitalism and the development of a "consumer mentality" on this basis may likewise contribute to the emergence of opportunism.
4. The scientific and technological revolution and increasing concentration are aggravating the problem of capUal accumulation. Monopoly capital and its state are intent on using every [source?] of 379 accumulation. The so-called "policy of creating property" serves the same purpose. This phrase is applied, for example, to the issue of small shares and investment bonds for industrial arid office workers. In the FRG this takes, first of all, the form of so-called ''accumulations in the hands of wage-earners''. This is, in effect, nothing but a policy approved and promoted by the state to induce workers and office employees to save money and thus rob themselves of part of their pay so as to meet the investment needs of big capital. Monopoly capital uses these methods to achieve both material and ideological objectives.
Monopoly capital tries to make the working people believe that they are co-owners of the means of production. In this way it wants to refute the conclusion borne out by socialism that capitalist property is historically obsolete. At the same time it counters the demand of the workers and their unions for a share in economic management with the capitalist pseudo-alternative. Last but not least, this demagogy about "accumulations in the hands of wage-earners" is expected to make the working people, who may imagine they are co-owners of the means of production, spur on one another and thus bring about an extra increase in productivity. The state-monopoly policy of "creating property" may likewise become a source of Right-wing opportunism.
On the one hand, certain aspects of modern capitalism provide fertile soil for Right-opportunist theory and practice, and facilitate for the ruling class the ``integration'' of the workers and their organisations into the system of big capital, particularly during a boom. On the other hand, they make for tlie appearance of petty-bourgeois and anarchist theories alleging that the working class of the developed capitalist countries is no longer a revolutionary force and drawing anarchist conclusions from this allegation. But the contention that the working class has lost its revolutionary character is defeated Whenever the workers launch major actions. Today, after the strikes of September 19B9 and the actions of the workers and their unions against the neo-Nazis, those in the Federal Republic who echoed such ``ideas'' are plainly less vocal.
I think we may list as other sources of opportunism today primarily the following factors:
1. Under the impact of the contest between socialism and capitalism and the sharpening contradiclions of the capitalist system, monopoly capital and its parties are compelled to speak of reforms and to present? their policy as one oi reforms. This is also true of the Federal Republic. All official parties affirm that they want to reform society 380 and prepare it for the future. In reality all that the ruling classes want is to raise the efficiency of the system of big capital and. strengthen the system. However, the talk about reforms "showing the way to the future" breeds illusions regarding capitalism and gives rise to doubts as to the need to fight against monopoly and. for a radical socialist transformation of society.
2. As there simultaneously exist socialist and capitalist countries, the socialist countries' policy of peaceful coexistence is an objective necessity, for without it there is no staving off a devastating nuclear war. This policy is a specific form of the class struggle in present-day conditions. False notions of the problem of peaceful coexistence which deny or minimise the war danger emanating from imperialism are a political and ideological source of Right-wing opportunism. This applies, among other things, to points of view scorning the ideological fight against every variety of bourgeois ideology or dismissing it as unnecessary. It is also true of Leftist views denying that resolute action for a policy of peaceful coexistence, particularly in countries as aggressive as the United States and the FRG, is one of the more important tasks in the anti-imperialist struggle.
3. The less favourable---first of all economically---historical points of departure of the socialist countries in their competition with the developed capitalist countries are exploited by big capital and its parties, as well as by Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders, to call in question the need of socialism, insist on the ``superiority'' of capitalism and incite anti-communism.
4. Politically and ideologically, opportunism also originates in nominal bourgeois democracy, the parliamentary system as a disguise for the domination of big capital, and in the growing possibilities of manipulating public opinion. On the one hand, this creates illusions about the class nature of the bourgeois state and, on the other, produces ultra ``Left'' reactions which express themselves, for instance, in the refusal to participate in bourgeois parliaments in any form. In particular, both Right-wing illusions and ultra-``Left'' action have become more widespread in the Federal Republic since the latest Bundestag elections and the transfer of the government leadership to the Social-Democrats.
5. With the present balance of forces, which has developed in the specific conditions of the class struggle in some countries, the very possibilities of a relatively peaceful development of the socialist revolution may become a source of opportunism. This applies, first of all, to case:; in which the peaceful pi-ogress of th? revolution is reduced to pariiaiiionnr y acrivily, it being forgotten iiuii in this instance, 381 too, mobilisation of the working class and other wopking people for extra-pariiamentary struggle plays a decisive part. On the other hand, ``Left'' opportunism stems from the denial of these new possibilities.
6. The world revolutionary process gives rise to numerous forms of revolutionary class struggle in various countries. This is dangerous In so far as certain national peculiarities are overemphasised, made an absolute and counterposed to the general laws of the class struggle of the proletariat. It is admittedly a source of nationalism, which fosters the most dangerous forms of opportunism in the international working-class movement.
7. The scientific and technological revolution leads to identical technological achievements in both social systems. It calls for the adoption of certain analogous forms of labour organisation and production coordination, for the use of modern computers in economic management, and so on. Bourgeois ideologues take advantage of this circumstance to peddle the idea that capitalism and socialism are ``converging''. They deliberately ignore the fact thai the scientific and technological revolution under capitalism and socialism proceeds on the basis of opposite relations of property and production and is therefore entirely different in social content. When ideological work by Marxists is inadequate, bourgeois theories of this kind also affect the labour movement and breed opportunism. Among them are bourgeois concepts deduced from the scientific and technological revolution and describing the intelligentsia as a social elite. They are directed against the leading role of the working class in the struggle for democracy and socialism.
8. The use of natural and social sciences to maintain bourgeois interests and raise the efficiency of the capitalist system leads, in particular, to a positivist dissociation of scientific methods from social interconnections and from general historical and social laws, to dissociation of method from theory. Should such a methodology make its way into the labour movement, it may become a further source of opportunism, which manifests itself, for example, in dissociating Lenin from Marx and in counterposing one to the other, or in opposing Russian peculiarities to the universal validity of the main content of Lenin's teachings, and Lenin's theory to his method.- This is why the address of the Moscow Meeting "Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyicn Lenin" stresses Lenin's uncompromising stand on every form of opportunism. The address testified to the Communist and Workers' parties' loyalty to Leninism, the Marxism of our epoch.
A very interesting article by Comrade Longino Becerra, published 382 in World Marxist Review,^^*^^ contains important comments on the new sources of opportunism.
I have tried to point to some factors which today may engender opportunism. This is not to say, however, that they necessarily result in opportunism gaining ground. In dialectical terms, it means rather that many of these factors can also be used in heightening the class and socialist consciousness of the working class and in stepping up the fight against monopoly.
Thus, the development of state-monopoly capitalism leads to a certain rise in the efficiency of the capitalist system and, on the other hand, makes it less stable and, owing to the closer interlocking of economy and politics, affords new opportunities of fighting against monopoly.
Under capitalism, the scientific and technological revolution gives rise, not only to certain phenomena promoting opportunism, but to new contradictions and problems which can be used as a starting point to foster socialist consciousness and lead the working people to anti-- monopoly action.
The changing structure of the working class and the ruin of petty-- bourgeois strata, while helping petty-bourgeois ideas to take root among the working class, reinforce its ranks and objectively enable it in this way to strengthen its positions. These changes narrow the class base of monopoly capital and create more favourable conditions for a broad anti-monopoly alliance.
To be sure, the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence cfln be falsified and used as a meeting ground for Right- and ``Leff'-- opportunist pseudo-theories and concepts. But at the same time consistent effort to implement this policy provides conditions for successful development in the socialist countries and for enhancing their appeal, for intensifying the class struggle in the capitalist countries and for bringing new forces into the fight for peace, which today is a fight against imperialism.
Which of these two aspects of present-day phenomena will prove stronger will depend primarily on the revolutionary party of the working class, on its ideological staunchness and organised strength, on its links with the mass of workers, on how far we Communists will be able to use new points of departure to extend the anti-- imperialist front. For both Right and ``Left'' opportunism can best be overcome by combating the monopolies.
_-_-_^^*^^ L. Becerra, "Some Roots of Opportunism''. World Marxist Review, No. 8, 1969, pp. 34--37.
383 __*_*_*__On the closing day of the Conference, November 21, 1969, its participants visited the V. I. Lenin Museum in Prague and the hall where the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the RSDLP was held. The representatives of the fraternal parties made the following entry in the Visitors' Book:
``On the eve of the centenary of the birth of V. I. Lenin, the participants in the international theoretical conference 'Leninism and Our Time', held in Prague, which Lenin, the leader of the international working class, had visited on more than one occasion, turn their thoughts to the immortal genius of our revolutionary epoch.
``We return to our parties filled with the determination to do everything to meet in a worthy manner the Lenin centenary, an historic date of world significance, to step up political and theoretical work among the masses.
``Long live Leninism!''
__*_*_*__The closing session was addressed by K. I. Zarodov, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Problems of Peace and Socialism. He said:
Our theoretical conference has attracted public attention and was reported by the press of many Communist and Workers' parties.
Some comrades have suggested periodical theoretical conferences on individual special problems in view of the need for a joint theoretical elaboration of the new problems confronting the Communists. The Editorial Board will consider these proposals and together with the fraternal parties will draw up and carry out a plan for such conferences.
In concluding our deliberations, we express our deep gratitude to the Central Committees of all the Communist and Workers' parties for responding to our invitation and delegating leading Party workers and theoreticians.
We express our gratitude to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, whose cordial hospitality did much towards the success of our conference. We express our thanks to the staff of the journal for their devoted work in servicing the conference.
Properly speaking, ours was the first international theoretical conference after the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The task we undertook was not an easy one. Foe the greatness of Lenin is such that more than three days could have baen devoted tc 8 discussion oi his tr>a'-!iim>, am! we would surely have found ne problems, and new facets of Ins woik.
384Speakers here dealt with a wide range of theoretical, economic and political problems, and exchanged experience in popularising and developing Lenin's heritage. Many fruitful and interesting ideas were expressed. Each of us has acquired something new, has enriched his knowledge.
And it is important that in this exchange of views we attentively listened to the opinions expressed and advanced towards closer harmony of viewpoints.
Ours was a constructive conference. Different opinions were put forth on a number of questions. But it is gratifying to note that, on the whole, the discussion was imbued with a comradely spirit. The conference displayed unity in its approach to most of the problems and social phenomena it analysed. It was guided by a desire jointly to work out an assessment of the new problems raised by life and the practical activity of the Communist and workers' movement. And this, in the final analysis, assured its success.
As a rule, it is not customary to deliver summing up speeches at international conferences. And I do not propose to deliver one either. But I do wish to emphasise some of the more essential features which, in our view, characterised the contents, the spirit and style of our three-day session.
The central conclusion---and this, comrades, set the tone for the conference---was the conclusion that Leninism is the Marxism of the present era---the era of revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, an era rich in fundamental social transformations, the era of the scientific and technological revolution which, on the basis of socialism, holds out thrilling prospects for mankind.
One of the most brilliant chapters in the history of Marxist thought is intimately associated with the name of Lenin---a chapter which furnishes answers to the fundamental questions of socialist revolution and the revolutionary refashioning of the world. Associated with Lenin's name is the accumulated experience of socialist development which convincingly shows that to follow the path of socialism and communism means faithfully and consistently to be guided by Lenin's teaching.
Our conference has reaffirmed the continuous validity and topicality of the basic Leninist propositions, among which are the following:
---Lenin's proposition that the only road to socialism lies through socialist revolution, in whatever form, whether violent or peaceful revolution;
---Lenin's proposition on the leading and guiding role of the working class in modern society; Lenin's teaching on the Party of a new 385 type, the parly of ro'.ialist revolution, of the building of socialism and couimuniua, tie supreme form of socio-political organisation;
---Lenin's proposition on the building of the material foundation of socialism and communism, on the formation of a new type of social relations and on the education of the builders of communist society; Lenin's principles of scientific direction of socialist and communist construction, his theory of democratic centralism as the fundamental principle of the organisation and administration of socialist society;
---Lenin's theory of imperialism, which discloses the nature of modern state-monopoly capitalism and provides a guide to the revolutionary overthrow of the exploitive system;
---Lenin's proposition that international consolidation of all the working people, all the progressive forces in the struggle against imperialism and imperialist aggression must be based on the principle: peoples of the socialist countries, workers, democratic forces in the capitalist countries, newly liberated peoples and those who are oppressed, unite!
Lenin's outstanding contribution to the treasure-store of Marxism was fully assessed at the conference. This includes dialectical-- materialist philosophy, political economy and the theory of scientific communism. Speakers exposed the fallacy of contrasting Lenin to Marx and Leninism to Marxism. They emphasised that there is no, nor can there be, multiplicity and diversity of Marxisms.
The only correct, indeed the only scientific, interpretation of Marxism, its continuation and development is, and always has been, Leninism---the ideological and theoretical weapon of the working class and its Party in the battle for socialist revolution and for the socialist reconstruction of society.
The underlying thought emphasised by speakers is that Leninism is an international doctrine.
Lenin was a great son of Russia. But his ideas, which are the creative development of the great Marxist teaching, do not know national boundaries. And their extension across these national boundaries began with Lenin's early works written even before the Bolshevik Party was founded. Like Marx and Engels, Lenin belongs to the whole of mankind.
Speakers from different countries and continents cited impressive examples of the victories scored by the Communist movement under the banner of Leninism. With Lenin began the present era of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism. Lenin played an 386 outstanding role in the organisation of most of the Communist and Workers' parties, many of which are now celebrating their halfcentenary.
And it was under the banner of Leninism, that international doctrine, that the Communist movement became really world-wide, a movement that is shaping the destinies of this 20th century. Everyone who not merely in words but in deeds is fighting for national and social emancipation, for peace and progress, for socialism, turns to Leninism.
Our conference has shown that the international character of Leninism manifests itself in the following:
---Originating on the firm basis of Marxism, Leninism was able to express and generalise the experience not only of the Russian, but of the entire Communist movement, of all its contingents:
---In the new conditions of world develompent, Leninism revealed the organic interconnection between the three main streams of the world revolutionary process---the building of socialism and communism, the development of the Communist and workers' movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation struggle---and showed how they could be united;
---Leninism raised aloft the banner of internationalism in opposition to chauvinism and national-patriotism. It saved Marxism from the degeneration into which the leaders of the Second International Social-Democrat Parties were trying to plunge it;
---Leninism is the ideological basis for cultivating in the working class, in all the working people, in all the Communists, fidelity to the noble principles of international solidarity, and to the communist cause.
It is by no means accidental---and this was justly emphasised by speakers here---that where the Communist movement and its individual contingents remained true to Leninism, they scored victories. And conversely, where our movement or its individual detachments departed from Leninist positions, they suffered defeat, partial or complete. In such cases Right and ``Left'' opportunists were quick to rear their heads. In such cases centrism flourished, and the struggle against it, is today too a major problem for the Communist movement.
That is one of the lessons of the entire history of the international Communist movement and more particularly of the recent years.
Speakers at this Conference convincingly demonstrated that the basic and principal thing in Leninism is reuclulionary dialectics. Lenin was and remains for us the supreme master and theorist 387 of materialist dialectics. His ideas on the dialectics of social life have stood the stern test of time.
And it is no more than natural that Lenin's approach to dialectics as a science, the struggle against the danger of Right revisionism, dogmatism and relativism, the creative development of our revolutionary theory found expression in the proceedings of our conference.
In this dynamic age of ours, an age of rapidly changing events and of fundamental transformations in the social and scientific fields, we must as never before be equal to the achievements of Leninism, creatively develop it and fully master its dialectical method. For without this we cannot properly understand and interpret the prospects ahead and answer the question as to the path mankind should follow.
If we were to give a terse generalisation of the propositions enunciated here on the essence and implications of Lenin's dialectics in our day, we would have to single out the following major points:
1. The source of the all-conquering strength and viability of Leninism has always been its truth, its ability to provide answers to the questions raised by life, by social reality and practice and by modern science. Leninism has become the brain in the building of communism, the brain of the Communist and liberation movement.
Marxists have never slavishly clung to the letter of Marxism. They have always checked their thoughts, conclusions and practice against the authoritative positions and views given to us by Lenin. They have always sought and taken counsel---and will continue to do so--- with Lenin, just as Lenin always took counsel with Marx. For Communists Lenin's teaching is not merely a method and a theory, but also a guide to action in the revolutionary struggle of our time.
2. Leninism is. an integral revolutionary teaching. And in accordance with Lenin's behests we regard our theory as a monolith cast from one piece of steel from which not a single component can be removed.
Speakers have criticised attempts to undermine the unity and integrity of the scientific outlook of the working class and its Communist vanguard. They have criticised attempts to interpret Lenin by tearing out of his works only such sentences and paragraphs that suit certain concepts, while at the same time ignoring other of Lenin's pronouncements, indeed, the sum-total of his views on one or another question. Such an approach makes Lenin appear a onesided thinker and, in some cases, neither a dialectician nor a revolutionary. That is an old trick of using one's own interpretation of 388 a doctrine to fight that doctrine, its true spirit and meaning. Leninism rejects all such methods.
Leninism abhors schematism, routine and inertia in theoretical thought. One of its categorical demands is clarity in formulating basic principles, theoretical penetration, boldness in posing and solving new problems, defence of class interest. The spirit of Leninist partisanship and class approach was well to the fore at our conference.
3. Leninism is by its very nature a creative teaching. And the present stage of our development provides convincing proof that we have very favourable conditions for enriching Leninism with new conclusions, with theoretical generalisations of the new social practice and the new data of science.
Leninism lives and develops as a theory because it lives and develops in the practice of socialist construction, in the practice of the Communist movement and of the liberation struggle, because it rests on the solid foundation of modern science.
By demonstrating our fidelity to Leninism, by boldly and creatively discussing and solving new problems, we strengthen the Communist movement, enable it to resolve the tasks jointly formulated'by the International Meeting of Communist and Worker's Parties.
I have enumerated these conclusions as the central ones though, naturally, many more could be mentioned. But even these conclusions show that we have a true compass in our theoretical and practical work, that we have reliable criteria -showing the implications, in present conditions, of being guided by Leninism and creatively developing it, and of departing from Leninism and distorting it.
Our conference convincingly demonstrated that the choice today can only be: /or or against a Leninist approach to cardinal problems in every field. That is how the question is posed by history, by the very logic of the present-day class and ideological struggle.
Lenin said that he cannot tolerate "any attacks on Marx and Engels. Paraphrasing his words, the Marxists of today say that they cannot and will not tolerate any attacks on Lenin. The defence of Leninism against bourgeois and opportunist distortions is a tradition of the Communist movement. And at our Conference we have demonstrated that we remain faithful to this sacred tradition of the movement.
In its address on the Lenin centenary, the International Meeting urged all of us:
``Let us raise higher the banner of Leninism in the struggle for the revolutionary renewal of the world!''
389Let us remain true to that sacred appeal. May the voice of Lenin's truth be a clarion call to the working people of the planet for new advances for the men of labour, for the triumph of communism!
We extend best wishes for the New Year to all the comrades participating in our conference. 1970 will be a year in which the entire International Communist and workers' movement, all working people and progressives of the world will mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
And may this Lenin year---for everyone present here, for all Communists, for all fraternal parties---bring new victories in the fight for the triumph of Leninism, our great international teaching!
Till we meet again, dear comrades, at other theoretical conferences and forums.
Long live Leninism, the Marxism of our epoch!
[390] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]
[391]