p Right-wing reformism is the ideology and policy of tradeunionism, nourished and fostered by the golden calf of the bourgeoisie. People often ask: what is the chief menace to the international communist movement of today? Bluntly, the chief menace, as of old, is one against which no struggle is waged. This is organically bound up with the fact that the working class’s chief class enemy is the imperialist bourgeoisie, which has always leaned on the opportunist forces within the labour movement. What, then, is the sum and substance of Right-wing reformism?

p In the sphere of theory it is the undisguised revision of Marxism-Leninism and a complete break with the doctrine of scientific communism, the adoption of the ideological positions of the bourgeoisie, an attempt to convert Marxism into a brand of bourgeois ideology acceptable to the bourgeoisie and absolutely safe for it. In the sphere of politics it is advocacy of class collaboration and reconciliation of the social antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it is servile subordination of the interests of the labour masses to the interests of the bourgeoisie. In the sphere of strategy and tactics it is the repudiation of a militant, united revolutionary organisation of the proletariat, the spread of disunity and incohesion, waverings and a splitting of the labour movement.

p The motto of the old revisionists, as we know, was: "The movement is everything, the goal—nothing”.

p And if the labour movement does not set itself the ultimate aim of doing away with the exploiting classes and building socialism, then what needs has the working class for a political party to lead it in the struggle to attain that goal, what need for a socialist revolution and the liberation struggle of the peoples in general, that is, what need for -everything that makes Marxism what it is—a scientific theory for the revolutionary remodelling of the world?

p In our day, when socialism has gained such prestige among the world’s working masses that even those leaders who refuse to hear about it are nothing loth, in order to win popularity among the electorate, to declare themselves “champions” of socialism (with reservations, of course, that they are for a 120 good, “humane”, etc., kind of socialism)—even the revisionists, who consider themselves Marxists, are redeploying. They, too, are for socialism, for communism, as they repeat over and over again in the press, on the radio and television (mostly those which belong to the monopolists). They merely consider that the road to socialism indicated by Marx, Engels and Lenin is unsuitable. Marxism, they say, is out of date, while Leninism, at a pinch, was suited only to Russia or to backward countries in general. What road then suits them? The revisionists, it appears, have quite a few of them in stock. What they add up to is this: we can talk about the goal, but the means leading to socialism we reject.

p All this is what Rosa Luxemburg rightly described as "opportunist dropsy". At one time, when Right-wing reformism was just taking shape within the Social-Democratic Party, Marx gave a sharply-worded objective characterisation of its leaders. In a letter to Sorge he wrote: "These people, theoretically ciphers and practically useless, want to draw the teeth of socialism (which they have concocted from university prescriptions) and chiefly of the Social- Democratic Party, and to enlighten the workers, or as they put it, inculcate in them ’elements of education’ while themselves possessing only a contused half-knowledge. But above all they want to make the Party respectable in the eyes of the petty-bourgeoisie."  [120•*  What words! Reading them, one would think they were written today.

p The Leninist Bolsheviks had a hard job overcoming Menshevism—that variety of Right-wing Social-Democracy —and disposing once and for all of that pernicious trend in the labour movement of Russia. Let us follow the thoughts of Lenin, who clearly demonstrated the social essence of Right-wing reformism as the main channel by which the bourgeoisie spreads its political and ideological influence upon the working class. In substance, the ideology and policy of Right-wing reformism, from start to finish, is the ideology and policy of the bourgeoisie in pseudo-socialist and pseudo-democratic guise. But history has clearly shown that in every case of political crisis this outward garb was thrown off, and the united forces of the Right-wing reformists and bourgeois reactionaries were revealed to the revolutionary 121 working class and the whole nation in all their nakedness. Let us examine this in the context of the concrete historical facts right down to our day.

p Fact One. History has already said its weighty word about the First World War having been unleashed with the connivance of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy. At that time, on the eve of that appalling tragedy which shook the world, there existed the social and political forces which could be rallied to avert the war and foil the plans of the imperialists. But even failing this, and when the tragedy had already descended, the Socialists still had another real chance, that of turning the imperialist war into a civil war of liberation against the oppressors. This is what the Leninist Bolsheviks did. At the Basle and Copenhagen congresses of the Second International its leaders had uttered many fine phrases about fighting against war, and even went on record, in the event of it breaking out, for turning the rifles upon the bourgeoisie. But the leaders of Right-wing social- democracy, as we know, forgot the speeches they had solemnly uttered. They refused to lend an ear to the sane voice of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and from the very first day of the war they came to terms with the bourgeoisie and thereby killed the Second International and betrayed the working class.

p Fact Two. History has likewise confirmed with sufficient fullness that the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy in league with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, came out most aggressively against the young Soviet Socialist Republic born as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Crusades against the Land of Soviets by the joint forces of the Entente, support of the whiteguard troops against the Red Army, the setting-up of whiteguard Menshevik governments on Russia’s territories, terrorist reprisals against Bolsheviks, workers, peasants and revolutionary intellectuals—all these evil deeds lie like a gravestone of infamy and ignominy upon the conscience of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy.

p Fact Three. No paint can tone down the atrocities committed by the German imperialists, who, with the aid of the Right-wing Socialists, savagely crushed the November Revolution of 1918 in Germany, murdered the leaders of the German proletariat Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, and afterwards suppressed the March Revolution of 1920. 122 The list of these crimes against labour is a very long one and cannot be ascribed to German social-democracy alone. Did the Right-wing Socialists of Britain, France, Italy, Austria and Czechoslovakia behave any better? Not a whit.

p Who does not remember the spontaneous general uprising of the workers in Italy in 1920, when more than threefourths of the country’s big factories were seized by the workers. The collapse of the bourgeois regime was imminent. The government was utterly demoralised and prepared to throw in its hand. And who saved the situation? Who came to the rescue of the bourgeoisie? The Right-wing reformists, of course: the Italian Confederation of Labour, which was controlled by the Right-wing leaders of the Socialist Party. They it was who hastened to pacify the workers, promising them legislative rights of control over production.  [122•* 

p This reformist deal cost the Italian workers dear. Instead of workers’ control there erupted within the country a storm of violence, assassinations and fascist terror. Having forced 123 the working class to take the first step in retreat, the reformists then impelled it to take the second step by accepting the fascist dictatorship of Mussolini, who, by the way, up to 1916 was a member of the Italian Socialist Party. What happened next everyone knows. Lenin angrily denounced the leaders of Right-wing Social-Democracy, saying that had not the Second International "been in the hands of traitors who worked to save the bourgeoisie at the critical moment, there would have been many chances of a speedy revolution in many belligerent countries as soon as the war ended and also in some neutral countries, where the people were armed; then the outcome would have been different”.  [123•* 

p Fact Four. Hardly anyone would dare challenge the fact that the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy together with the imperialists spared no effort or means in repeated attempts to overthrow the Soviet government and wreck the plans of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. Fabrication of dirty lies and slander against the U.S.S.R., military, diplomatic and every other kind of provocation—all this was inspired and engineered with the help of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy in the West. The fact that the Soviet Union succeeded in defending its great gains was due to the Leninist class policy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which firmly performed its functions against the enemies within and without.

p Fact Five. There is a crime in the service record of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy, which will forever remain their badge of infamy. It is the shameful role they played by conniving at the advent to power of fascism first in Italy and Germany, and then in France and other countries of Europe. Our generation should know and never forget that the coming to power of Hitlerism was made easier by the splitting activities of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy. True, many of them afterwards became victims of their own policy, and on having had their eyes opened, fought fascism in the underground, but some of them received rewards. For example Karl Kautsky, the ideological leader of German Social-Democracy, received from Hitler a life pension.

p Fact Six. An enormous guilt lies upon the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy for the unleashing of the Second 124 World War. It was the Right Social-Democrats who rejected the idea of a united front with the Communists and virtually helped German and Italian fascism to crush the Spanish Republic and then start the world carnage. Everyone knows the treacherous role played by the French government of the Socialist Leon Blum, who, under cover of the notorious policy of non-intervention, deprived the Spanish republicans of aid in their struggle with the Francoists, German and Italian fascists. It was the Right-wing leaders of Social- Democracy who wrecked the united front of progressive and revolutionary forces and attempted by means of concessions and moderation to deflect Hitler and Mussolini from their predatory course. The appraisal which the Comintern gave to the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy who acted in complicity with fascism was fully warranted.

p We are bringing up these facts of history not in order to argue with those Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy who are committed to anti-communism. As far as the revolutionary workers’ movement is concerned these are lost leaders. In fact they do not try to conceal their hostility towards the communist parties, towards Marxism. The facts listed above are meant for those ideologues who show wavering tendencies towards revisionism and who are at the crossroads while still remaining within the Marxist-Leninist movement. These would do well to ponder the historical facts and take a sane view of the "road of events down which fate is driving them”.

p We accentuate this because the methods and actions of the present-day revisionists are in many ways reminiscent of those of their precursors. Under the guise of a creative approach, discussions and dialogues they are revising the cardinal issues of theory and policy and attempting to blow up the entire foundation of our scientific world outlook. The history of the infra-party struggle has clearly demonstrated that backsliding in matters of theory inevitably leads to treachery in policy. Theory and policy are two organically linked elements, the most active factors in the activities of all political parties.

p Lenin pointed out that the revisionists of all stripes always and everywhere started their splitting activities by sparking off differences in the field of theory and then applying them to the field of policy, strategy and tactics. We have seen above how the Bernsteinians and Kautskyites started their 125 fight against Marxism, how the Trotskyists and Bukharinites repeated their techniques in the fight against Leninism. No great effort is needed to perceive the continuity of the old forms and methods of struggle against Marxism-Leninism which the present-day Right revisionists are applying so subtly and methodically. In this connection we would touch on three basic aspects, which, in our view, are worthy of attention.

p First aspect. In the course of the last decade pseudotheorists have been making furious attacks on the major elements of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, namely, the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this field quite a galaxy of so-called theorists has sprung up who in no way yield the palm to the ideologues of anti-communism. On the world book market there has appeared quite a crop of books, booklets, treatises and essays from which such terms as "class struggle", “antagonisms”, "socialist revolution", "abolition of private ownership of the instruments and means of production", etc., have completely disappeared. Peaceful parliamentary illusions have taken such a hold upon the minds of this brand of theorists that they simply rave about abstract notions of pure democracy, humanity, supra-class ideas and classlessness. This kind of theorists, in their soaring flights heavenward, have lost touch with Mother-Earth, broken their blood ties with that earthly giant called the working class, who by his intelligence, his selfless labour and mighty hands feeds, warms, and clothes all the people, and for the imperialists, moreover, creates surplus value, capital.

p Need it be said that he who challenges Marxist-Leninist teaching—that potent ideological weapon serving the political, economic and spiritual emancipation of the working class—whether he means to or not, raises a naked sword over the head of that class, helps the dark forces of imperialism to keep it in servile submission, browbeaten, and downtrodden. But the logic of social development is such that the healthy revolutionary forces are bound to push the deserters of the revolutionary front out of the way and reinforce their ranks with new, fresh, honest fighters. That is what happened in the past, and that is what is bound to happen tomorrow.

p The working class is a special kind of class. Where all other classes and social strata undergo erosion and 126 disintegration, the working class steadily grows, develops and gains strength qualitatively. It alone can be and really is the supreme leading power of modern society. This class possesses a remarkable magnetic force and constantly advances from its midst the most courageous and staunch fighters while at the same time constantly drawing into the struggle for the emancipation of the working people the most talented fighters from other social strata, especially from among the peasants and the progressive intellectuals.

p There is hardly any need here to dilate on the great predestination of the working class. Suffice it to say that the Marxist doctrine about its historical role is not the product of abstract theoretical thought, but the result of a scientific analysis of the laws governing the real class struggle. Pseudotheorists are sometimes willing to admit the existence of the class struggle in capitalist society, but as soon as the question arises of the need for carrying it through to the dictatorship of the proletariat and recognising the latter as a necessity during the transition period from capitalism to socialism, they become dumb.

p Marx, however, would not have been the genius he was if he had not discovered the truth that the class struggle (which, incidentally, was first described by bourgeois scientists) was inevitable and necessarily bound to lead to a transition from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to the dictatorship of the proletariat. In his letter to I. Weydemeyer (1852) Marx declared quite definitely: "What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."  [126•*  In their criticism of the dictatorship of the proletariat the pseudo-theorists stretch only one aspect of it, the forcible one, and deliberately keep silent about its other, main, distinctive feature—its organising, constructive, transformative, life-giving aspect.

p Lenin therefore repeatedly stressed the fact that he who recognised only the class struggle and did not associate it with recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat was, willy-nilly, emasculating, narrowing, watering down and 127 debasing Marxism. Life, practice, have shown that overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie is merely the first step towards socialist reorganisation. Without the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat the working class cannot hold power, cannot secure its victory over the toppled but uneliminated bourgeoisie, cannot take from it the means of production, create new relations of production and build socialism. The alternative is inevitable defeat, restoration, a come-back of the old order of things. It follows from this that he who denies the dictatorship of the proletariat dismisses the question of the necessity and inevitability of the working class winning political power and abolishing private ownership of the instruments and means of production.

p Second aspect. In challenging the principal element of Marxist science—the teaching about the historical role of the proletariat, the revisionist ideologues have lately launched violent attacks on the very system of socialism. They dislike, if you please, that system in the countries where socialism has triumphed and where the working people have become the masters of their own lives. They are vying with each other in devising with ink on paper their own patterns of socialism, which they intend to erect with the co- operation of the capitalist monopolies and other “progressive” forces. We shall not go into the details of all these idealistic schemes of the Utopian socialists. We shall merely say this: their begetters are apparently worn out by the struggle, weary of the life rebellious and are seeking a resting place. They are no longer moved by the protests of striking workers, of hungry, poverty-stricken farm labourers and peasants. Bernstein’s blasphemous words to the effect that under present-day capitalism the working class was getting colour in its cheeks and growing strong muscles are repeated once more in the notions and writings of the modern pseudotheorists.

p What is it the pseudo-theorists do not like about the socialism that has actually been built by the efforts of the workers? It appears, according to them, that it lacks democracy, freedom and spiritual values. Such is the line of argument of these ideologically burnt-out and politically bankrupt modern pseudo-theorists. They refuse to accept the scientifically grounded and practically tested tenet of Marxism, which says that the working people can attain the highest type of 128 democracy, real freedom and a full spiritual life only if political power passes into the hands of the working class and private ownership of the implements and means of production gives place to social ownership. At any rate, without these two major gains and despite even the comparatively high level of living which they have won for themselves the working people will always remain deprived, enslaved, the peons of capitalism.

p Therefore the claims of the theorists, whose one thought is how to get into the bourgeois parliament and who have thrown in their lot with the labour aristocracy, should not be taken seriously. Although they do attempt to demonstrate some specimens of their “models” these will never be accepted by labour, since they have no real ground to stand on. Tryas the revisionists may to model all kinds of ideal patterns of socialism, the historical process of society’s development goes its own way and will continue to do so in spite of these false patterns. "It is natural that utopianism, which before the era of materialistically critical socialism concealed the latter within itself in embryo, can now, coming belatedly, only be silly, slate, and reactionary from the roots up.”  [128•* 

p Dealing with similar unscientific projects Lenin described them as doctrinairism of the first water, in which account was taken, not of the realities, but of an “ideal”, a fantasy. Something similar is said to have occurred with Hegel. When it was pointed out to him that his theory was at variance with the facts, he replied, "All the worse for the facts." Apparently the same sort of quasi-logic is used by today’s pseudo-theoreticians. All one can say about this is that it is no use their trying to muddle the minds of the working people with their models when true socialism has long been theoretically discovered by the founders of scientific communism and put into practice in the U.S.S.R. and many other countries.

p Socialism is the living creative work of the revolutionary masses led by the Communists, the true Marxists-Leninists. It is the embodiment of their great material and spiritual force, of their capability for creating, for remodelling the world. In boosting their various “models” of socialism the modern revisionists, bluntly speaking, are deserting from the 129 revolutionary labour front and taking refuge behind demagogy and phrasemongery.

p Third aspect. Here we shall have to touch on another surprising doctrine which has lately cropped up, not just anywhere, but in various communist publications. This is the question of the attitude to the U.S.S.R.—the first land of socialism—and to other socialist countries. We have already spoken about the important historical role which the Comintern played in rallying the world army of Communists and defending the first land of socialism. Throughout its activities it stressed the fact that it was the highest duty of Communists and of all the world’s proletarian fighters to protect the U.S.S.R., the birthplace of socialism, the fatherland of all the world’s working people and oppressed nations, as the apple of one’s eye. The Soviet people remember with gratitude this international aid and support rendered by the fraternal Communist Parties and the working class.

p In its turn the great party of Lenin—the C.P.S.U.—has always considered it its sacred duty to use every means within its power to help spread Marxist-Leninist ideas, consolidate the communist ranks and develop the revolutionary liberation movement among the peoples of the world. It has constantly educated the Communists and all the working people of the Soviet Union in the spirit of high principles, proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism. Our Party can be proud of the fact that it has always carried out with honour its sacred duty to the international communist, workers’ and national liberation movement.

p The teaching of Marxism-Leninism on proletarian internationalism has withstood the test of time in the gallant struggle of the international working classes headed by their vanguard—the Communist Parties. Thanks to their international unity the fraternal Communist Parties and the advanced forces of the working class were able to safeguard the first land of socialism, help it out of its hostile capitalist encirclement, win the cruel and bloody battle with fascism, save civilisation from destruction, break up the colonial system of slavery and establish a world system of socialism.

p Under these conditions the international unity of the communist and labour movement in defence of victorious socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other countries remains a vital 130 necessity a hundred times more urgent than ever before. The building of socialism is a long, complicated and extremely difficult process. Its success depends not only on the internal national forces of this or that socialist country, but on the active revolutionary support of the international forces of all the world’s communist parties and the working class.

p It is impossible to forget for one hour that the struggle for world socialism is anything but ended, that the question "Who will win?" is still an open one on the international arena. One would think that there is nothing debatable about this problem. But all of a sudden we find pseudo-theorists dragging this question out as a debatable one. They declared that the thesis concerning defence of the first land of socialism and of the other socialist countries was out of date and needed revising. These pseudo-theorists entertain the illusion that the whole world now has entered upon the process of socialist development, that the ideas of socialism have taken root among all nations and countries and therefore you could now rest upon your laurels. This slogan, whatever pseudorevolutionary holiday terms it may be couched in, means in effect that the positions which socialism has won are to be left exposed and undefended. Needless to say this is a false, anti-Marxist treatment of the question aimed at weakening the world socialist system, submerging it in a welter of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements, taking away from the working people everything they had won and secured through struggle and suffering, and paving the way for the restoration of capitalism in the socialist countries.

p It is worthy of note, by the way, that the pseudo-theorists started to step up their propaganda of these unfortunate concepts on the eve of the 24th Congress of the C.P.S.U. In numerous articles, interviews and statements they arrogantly stressed the fact that they were going to show up and criticise the activities of the C.P.S.U. and the whole system of socialism in the U.S.S.R. What is more, these pseudo- theorists hint at what bourgeois propaganda describes as a sort of psychological attack to be launched against the C.P.S.U. We can assure these mis-theorists that Lenin’s party will not pull its punches either. It will give as good as it gets. To every slanderous attack upon it it will respond with a devastating exposure of these mis-theorists and show them up before the working classes. For such was the behest of Lenin.

We have examined three pseudo-theoretical doctrines, enough to appreciate how far some ideologues have gone in their contradictory political platform. Under these conditions the problem of proletarian internationalism has become a crucial and urgent issue for the whole communist and workers’ movement of today. It is not surprising therefore that all healthy revolutionary forces have approved and welcomed the clearly worded declaration of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties to the effect that "the defence of socialism is an internationalist duty of Communists”.  [131•*