p What lessons and conclusions are to be drawn from the career of this great and once revolutionary workers’ party?

p First, the amalgamation of the Lassalleans and Eisenacheans at the Gotha congress was precipitate and purely formal. The Lassallean trend from the very outset continued to hold fairly strong positions within the Party. They it was who prevented the united party from spreading its wings to full stretch. The honeyed high-sounding phrases of reformism turned the progressive elements of the working class away from the Party. Furthermore, the Party became more and more submerged in the welter of petty-bourgeois elements. Its ranks were swelled by liberal intellectuals, diluted by their petty-bourgeois ideology and anarchist catchwords. All this went against the tested laws of dialectics, for you cannot unite the ununitable, a truth which the Gotha congress had confirmed even then.

p The leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party did not draw from this the necessary conclusions, but Lenin was quick to sense this. And when, at the turn of the century the need arose for creating a Social-Democratic party in Russia, he paused, as it were, before the stress of definite forces and said firmly: "Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.”  [106•*  To unite with whom, to unite with whajt aims, to unite on what principles—these were the questions which Lenin put squarely before the Marxists of Russia before taking such a decisive step as creating a really centralised revolutionary proletarian party. The fact that for the first time in the world such a workers’ revolutionary party as the Bolshevik Party was created in Russia is in no little measure due to the instructive lesson learnt from the amalgamation of the German Social-Democratic Party, a lesson which Lenin and his associates took good note of.

p Second, the unification of the two sections of the German 107 Social-Democratic Party took place in the absence of a common doctrinal basis. As regards the Lassallean section, its doctrinal and political concepts remained practically unchanged. But the Eisenacheans had accepted unification in the belief that the party would take a Marxist direction. Here too, the lesson of history is instructive. The fact of the matter is that although the Eisenacheans considered themselves Marxists, many of them had but a rudimentary idea of Marxist doctrine. Marx himself, observing the way the German Social-Democratic Party was shaping, ruefully pointed out that his theory had gone no deeper than the surface of the Party’s consciousness. And it is not surprising that the leaders of German Social-Democracy made no appreciable contribution to the development of the theory of scientific communism. But then after the death of its founders there came to the fore theoreticians, so-called faithful disciples of Marx and Engels, who wrote stacks of books refuting Marxism.

p We see from the above that the German Social- Democratic Party from the very outset was poorly equipped theoretically, and this did not escape Lenin’s alert eye. He resolutely spiked the idea of any opportunist merger with the Mensheviks and strongly stressed the importance of the task which he set before the young Social-Democratic Labour Party of Russia, which was to master the full range not only of Marxist theory, but of the Marxist dialectical method, which made it possible to discover correct solutions in changed conditions.

p In this connection Lenin thought highly of the early works of G. V. Plekhanov aimed at defending Marxist theory against the attacks of the revisionists. Plekhanov’s works The Development of the Monist View of History, Socialism and Political Struggle and Our Differences played an important part in the spread of Marxist thought in Russia. And yet it was only the titanic theoretical activity of Lenin and his associates that created a truly scientific basis for the formation of the Bolshevik Party and its revolutionary cadres. Here we should recall the deplorable lessons of the German Social-Democratic Party, which obviously neglected theoretical activities and as a result wallowed in the mire of opportunism.

p Third, the amalgamation of the two sections of the German Social-Democratic Party was essentially a summit 108 compromise deal among their leaders without proper preparation for this act on the Party’s rank and file and in the absence of agreed principles of organisation and rules. Although the Eisenacheans had the obvious advantage of better organisation, fighting spirit and political influence, they were unable to make full use of their extremely strong positions. The reason is that their leaders, from the very beginning of the amalgamation, pursued an erroneous line in trying by gentleness, tractability and compromises to persuade, re-educate and win over the leaders of the Lassallean trend. As a result, the political edge was blunted, the initiative and activity of the Party cadres were damped, and Party life became increasingly more passive and moved sharply rightward.

p Thus was formed a dosed circle: the bourgeoisie clasped the Lassallcans in its embrace, the latter dragged the Eisenacheans along with them, and on this opportunist basis there was introduced into the Parly an atmosphere of compromise and lack of principles, of complacency and supineness. All this had a disastrous effect first and foremost on the formation and education of the leading cadres, of the Party’s hard core and of the Party as a whole. This stuffy atmosphere created favourable conditions for the revival and emergence of all kinds of platforms and currents within the Party.

p First of all there arose the fairly strong anarchist, Leftadventurist Most group, followed by the Right-reformist Bernstein group. But that is not the whole story. As if to counter-balance these trends there arose amidst the leaders of the Party themselves a well-knit group of conciliators, representatives of so-called bashful opportunism, who tried to combat revisionism by means of paper resolutions and exhortations, but in reality indulged and winked at it. Eventually, from the womb of bashful opportunism was born that most loathsome of all political currents—Centrism.

p This, too, of course, did not escape the alert eye of Lenin. He realised only too well that no Marxist party could be built in Russia on such a rotten, mouldering foundation. For a genuine revolutionary workers’ party there was needed a different, solid, really Marxist foundation. That • is why Lenin, from the very first steps towards building a party of a new type—the Bolshevik Party—gave himself up wholly to the task of scientifically working out the ideological, 109 theoretical, organisational and political principles of the Marxist party. Incidentally, Lenin had good reason to start buiding the framework of a party of a new type by formulating its ideological and doctrinal principles. These were genuinely revolutionary principles which not only perturbed the leaders of the Russian Mensheviks, but caused a commotion among the revisionist leaders of Right-wing SocialDemocracy in the West.

p The main idea underlying Lenin’s scientific principles was that the revolutionary party of a new type was to be a party of like-minded people, drawing into its ranks staunch, honest and courageous fighters who were prepared to dedicate themselves to the struggle for the cause of the working class and all the working people. The party as a whole and each of its members were to stand firmly on the ideological and doctrinal positions of Marxism. Only on this condition could the party become the true, organised vanguard of the working class and perform its historical role with credit, the role of conscious champion, organiser, inspirer, educator and genuine leader of the masses.

p Lenin thoroughly learned the lesson of the Social- Democratic Parties in the West and came to the conclusion that one of the main reasons for their decline and disintegration was the fallacious organisational principles of “autonomism”. It was these that prevented the Social-Democratic parties from becoming a cohesive political force of concerted action. Lenin rejected this rotten foundation and formed the firm conviction that the entire structure of the Marxist party was to be based on the principle of democratic centralism.

p This revolutionary principle, the only correct and scientifically proven one, contained within itself all the essential elements of a party of revolutionary action, namely: absolute deference of the minority to the will of the majority; a single discipline for all members of the party; all governing bodies from top to bottom to be elective and accountable, with the lower subordinated to the higher; strict observance by every member of the party of programme requirements and rules; complete freedom of opinion, discussion during the framing of decisions and implicit and active execution of adopted decisions by every member of the party. Lenin laid special emphasis on the need for cultivating in party members a taste for criticism and self-criticism, which were essential to the party’s healthy growth. All parties, he said, had run to 110 seed and petered out because they feared criticism and selfcriticism. Here again we have the facts to tell us that the deplorable lessons of the German Social-Democratic Party were taken full advantage of by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

p We thus see that the genuinely Marxist workers’ party of a new type was not built in Russia on empty ground. It had before it the colossal and diverse experience, both positive and negative, of the workers’ Social-Democratic Parties in the West, which Lenin used in working out all the major principles for the construction of the Bolshevik Party. And these really scientific principles are not confined to narrownational limits; they have an international meaning and significance. No wonder, therefore, that all the Communist and Workers’ Parties adopted these Leninist principles from the very beginning of their existence. In this respect I would like to mention three major doctrinal questions which Lenin always laid particular stress on and which are as relevant today as they were then.

p The first question concerns the role of the party in the continuous creative development of revolutionary theory, in the working-out of an advanced socialist ideology and conveying it to the minds of the working class and the popular masses. Already at the beginning of our century Lenin, in his famous work What Is to Be Done?, brilliantly expounded this question and drew practical conclusions for the Party’s revolutionary action over a long period of time. He said that a genuine socialist ideology is based on science and worked out by science through an analysis and generalisation of revolutionary practice. No revolutionary practice, however fruitful it may be, can offer any prospects for the movement, can cultivate a socialist consciousness in the working class and lead it out onto the straight road of liberation struggle if it is divorced from science. Similarly, no revolutionary, however experienced in practical work, can foresee the course of events unless he has mastered the scientific materialist theory; he will be obliged to confine his activities to the circle of current tasks lying on the surface. That is why Lenin spared neither effort nor time to educate the Party’s leading cadres theoretically.

p At first the scientific socialist ideology is worked out by progressive intellectuals, mostly from among the propertied classes, since they are more closely associated with science, culture and education. But these ideologists can fulfil their 111 noble role only if they adopt the revolutionary standpoint of the working class in all respects, both in the sphere of world outlook and in that of practical, revolutionary activities. Only by linking their fate with that of the working class can they successfully develop the revolutionary theory and become acknowledged leaders of the labour movement. This question was very much on Lenin’s mind. He not only dreamt of the working class advancing from its midst real theoreticians capable of best fulfilling the historical tasks confronting it, but took every possible step to bring this about.

p The thing was to create a party that could take upon itself the task of working out a socialist ideology and putting it over among the masses. This was a burning question to which Lenin attached special importance. During the period of communist construction as well, when the Soviet people have attained a high level of culture, this role of the C.P.S.U. is enhanced if anything. The Party does not lull itself into the belief that since the Soviet people are already building communism and have mastered its ideas they no longer stand in need of any further assimilation of advanced ideology. This is an absolutely erroneous attitude.

p Who, then, is called upon to develop and is actually developing the communist ideology under present conditions? Without a doubt the governing body of the Party—the Central Committee and its Politbureau. We are all constantly aware of this inspiring role of the Party’s governing body. This mechanism is the balanced and potent thing because our whole Party is working tirelessly along Leninist lines, consistently and painstakingly cultivating the communist ideology in the minds of the working class and the broad popular masses. In truth, this Leninist mechanism has no equal in power anywhere or in anything.

p The second question concerns the fighting fitness of the revolutionary party and those inner springs which feed its vitality and strength in the effort to achieve the goals it has mapped out. Our Party, as we know, started as a party of professional revolutionaries. And this is quite understandable, because our Party at the very outset openly and clearly set itself the primary aim of overthrowing the monarchy and the bourgeoisie, winning state power by the working class and building socialism and communism. It goes without saying that if the working class sets before itself this 112 noble aim, then obviously no power can be won without such a party of professional revolutionaries.

p What is the position with us today? Does this proposition still hold good? To be sure, we are living in a different epoch. Our Party, half a century ago a force of destruction of the old world, has become a force of creation, construction of a new world, it has become a ruling party. And that type of professional revolutionary who received his schooling in the struggle, who voluntarily endured hardships and sacrificed himself, still stands as an example of dedication to the revolutionary cause, as an indomitable soldier of the great Leninist guard. In forming the cohorts of professional revolutionaries Lenin saw in them not only fearless fighters who were storming the old world, but future versatile leaders of a new type, capable of running a socialist state, taking charge of various sectors of state, economic and cultural development, and competently managing the country’s life.

p That is why, at the very outset of the construction of a party of a new type, Lenin gave special attention to the need for a division of labour within the Party’s cadres. Long before the Party took over power it had prepared various categories of leading cadres. Splendid organisers, theoreticians, propagandists, journalists, diplomats and military and economic personnel were moulded. Cadres of all categories were trained for local and provincial work as well as future leaders of the central bodies of the Party and the state. They were trained the hard way of professional revolutionaries.

p Our opponents never believed that the Bolsheviks seriously intended to take power. They said that Lenin’s Party did not have the necessary cadres and experience to manage the complex machinery of state and that they were simply trouble-makers and rioters. Our opponents repeatedly declared that if the Bolsheviks did take power they would not be able to hold it, because they did not have the essential minimum of top cadres. But all these “prophets”, as we know, miscalculated. On the very next day after the Bolsheviks came to power the necessary minimum of top cadres was found. We had splendid diplomats and outstanding generals, there appeared first-class managers of ideological, economic, financial, banking and other bodies. As we know, the old machinery of state, which was at the service of the bourgeoisie and the monarchy, was smashed and dumped onto the rubbish heap of history. A new, Soviet state 113 apparatus was created in which there immediately appeared this minimum of skilled and highly educated cadres around which was formed the machinery of state administration from among the workers, soldiers and former office workers. The bourgeois ideologues were soon obliged to back pedal and acknowledge the fact that the first Soviet Government was the most effective, farsighted and best educated government in the world.

p In view of this can one speak about Lenin’s ideas being outworn, ideas that he had made the cornerstone of our Party from the very beginning of its foundation? On the contrary, Lenin’s ideas in regard to personnel policy are as valid today as they ever were. The Soviet socialist state cannot do without professional key workers, without a division of labour among these cadres. The effectiveness of this scientific principle is clearly demonstrated by the numerous examples of state, Party and business activities in all sections, large and small. All this places upon the Party a great responsibility in applying Lenin’s injunctions to the proper placing, advancement and training of personnel. Therefore, in keeping with the decisions of the 23rd Congress, the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. has carried out a number of major measures to step up the work with the personnel at all levels in accordance with Leninist principles.

p The third question, which also occupied a very important place in Lenin’s teachings about party building, was that of the party’s social make-up. Numerous documents testify to the fact that Lenin took constant care to have the Party preserve its proletarian character. He repeatedly emphasised that the truest guarantee of the Party’s strength, unity and fighting fitness was its worker hard core. If a Communist Party has a strong hard core of workers it is less susceptible to waverings or to the infiltration into it of revisionist elements and bourgeois ideology. What is the reason?

p It is not that the working class possesses some sort of magic power. No. The reason is simply its objective position in society. For one thing, the working class is steadily growing and will go on growing. It is a class that is noted for its moral and political stability and lends itself best to organisation and cohesion. Secondly, the working class, by reason of its objective position, possesses to a supreme degree a sense of self-consciousness and self-discipline. It is trained to this daily, among other things, by the machine, by the 114 engine, by the entire complex of industrial labour and by the working community itself. It is obvious to everyone how disciplined the worker must be who operates modern complicated machinery. The slightest error on his part may cause immense damage to a whole collective, and the mistake of a single collective may cause moral injury to a whole class.

p It was no accident that Lenin, when working out the principles for a party of a new type, demanded the establishment in it of the strictest discipline, and in answering the Mensheviks, who stood for the doors of the party being opened wide to all social strata and the discipline in regard to them being relaxed, said that in such an event the party was doomed to perish. Discipline and self-discipline were not a mere whim, but that objective quality which is inherent in the working class, and that is why "industrial workers are not afraid of discipline". Lenin said that the party’s first teacher and reliable support in the political struggle was the working class. Indeed, no single class, no single social stratum possesses such extraordinary self- discipline, organisation and steadfastness as the revolutionary working class. It was these qualities that often helped the revolution out of a difficult situation and ensured the Party’s successful progress.

When the Bolshevik Party emerged from the underground in February 1917 two-thirds of its membership were workers. When the working class won over to its side other sections of the working people its ranks were swelled by peasants and intellectuals. However, the Party took good care to have within its ranks a solid hard core of workers. And today, when class distinctions in the Soviet Union are gradually being obliterated, the 24th Congress of the C.P.S.U. stressed the importance of the working class continuing to hold a key position in the Party’s social make-up. This is in keeping with the thesis that the working class will play a leading role in society until the final victory of communism.

p The multifarious experience of the C.P.S.U. shows that the Party has always, at all stages of its development, focussed attention on theoretical activities. On the basis of the real historical and modern facts we can say with good 115 reason that Marxist-Leninist social thought has always been in action, has invariably developed and moved steadily forward. The Leninist principle of continuity of our Party’s finest progressive traditions is the life-giving force which nourishes, fosters and inspires our victorious struggle. In fact, if we take a close-up view of the entire historical career of our Party we shall clearly see these strongest, most characteristic and most attractive features of its activities.

p First, our Party, from the moment it came into being, achieved a profound understanding of the life-affirming force of Marxism. It brought a revolutionary, creative spirit into the development of that doctrine. This it was that enabled it to find the answers to the difficult questions of the new epoch—the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. It is a fact that prior to Lenin, prior to the emergence of the Bolshevik Party Marxism remained, as it were, a bookdoctrine, which people studied, propagated and attempted to put into practice. Our Party transplanted this doctrine from theoretical soil to the practical soil of revolutionary struggle and employed it as a powerful ideological weapon of the proletariat. Leninists correctly grasped the underlying principles of Marxism and their creative character, and brilliantly solved problems of world historical significance as applied to the Russian realities. This enabled them to develop Marxism and enrich it with the new experience of the Russian and international revolutionary struggle of the working classes.

p Second, our Party was the first to fully combine the revolutionary theory of Marxism with the life-giving practice of the masses, to combine socialism with the mass workers’ movement. It was on this ideological and materialist foundation that our Party’s many-sided theoretical, political, organisational and ideological activities were evolved and refined. Therefore, it is not surprising that the great historical task of applying the revolutionary teachings of Marxism fell to the lot of the Russian proletariat, that it was the first to carry out its historical mission.

p Third, our Party at all stages of the struggle always regarded revolutionary theory as a forward-looking guiding force. This it was that enabled it to scientifically substantiate its strategic slogans and tactical methods of struggle, to skilfully carry out three revolutions in a short space of time and crown them with the complete victory of the working 116 class. It was precisely revolutionary theory that served as the all-powerful ideological weapon, which, in interaction with the revolutionary practice of the masses, clinched the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union. Marxists-Leninists all over the world acknowledge that the experience of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. is a model of scientific strategy and tactics of worldwide significance. However much our ill-wishers may try to find fault they cannot get away from this incontrovertible fact in the history of the international communist movement which no wishful thinking can disprove.

All these admirable traits of Lenin’s remain to this day the strongest and most attractive feature of our Party’s activities. Therefore the C.P.S.U. still remains in the van of the international communist and workers’ movement, in the van of all the world’s fighters for the liberation of mankind from the yoke of capital. This in turn makes it more important than ever to enhance the role and significance of revolutionary theory in keeping with the demands which our complex and many-sided social life makes upon it.