131

p In speaking of the principal danger of Right reformism we have taken the precaution of eschewing any absolute evaluation, since “Left” revolutionarism, while abusively rejecting the reformist ideology in words, actually bolsters up and defends that ideology in deeds. Being two stems of a single root they constantly divide, then come together, and even interlock, but always in all cases remain fixed to the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois root that nourishes them.

p “Left" revolutionarism traces its origins to the earliest, so-called sectarian period in the labour movement. The classics of Marxism-Leninism called this phenomenon an "infantile disorder" of communism. Rosa Luxemburg gave her own political diagnosis to this current when she aptly remarked that " ‘Leftism’ is anarchistic measles". “Leftism” has always had its social base in the petty-bourgeois elements, the social strata intermediate between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It should be borne in mind that in class society the petty bourgeoisie both in town and country is extremely numerous and its ideology extremely widespread. Occupying as it does an intermediate position, the petty bourgeoisie constantly oscillates between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, is always grumbling, teetering from one side to the other. Like the capitalist, every petty bourgeois is a 132 commodity producer and therefore always yearns for and when opportunity offers resorts to the exploitation of other men’s labour. At the same time the great bulk of the pettybourgeois strata are situated in conditions which are strongly reminiscent of the lives of the proletariat and the poor peasantry, and stand in constant fear of ruin, want and impoverishment.

p Such is the class position of the petty bourgeoisie, which is constantly swaying between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. No wonder that in the ideological sphere too they show irresolution, inconsistency and a disregard for progressive social thought, and content themselves with scraps of theory borrowed partly from the theoretical arsenal of the proletariat and partly from the reactionary bourgeoisie. Lenin often pointed out that the petty bourgeoisie was never able to work out for itself a balanced and consistent materialist world outlook; it always confined itself to a halfand-half form of materialism tinctured with elements of idealism, or openly took up a stand on the ground of idealism, or sought some third non-existent line, a golden mean between materialism and idealism in an attempt to rise above both.

p Hence the peculiar nature of petty-bourgeois ideology, its reactionary character. The political behaviour of the petty bourgeoisie, too, is conditioned by circumstances: it gives way to despondency and pessimism and leans towards liberalism, philistinism, and middle-class narrow-mindedness, polluting the whole atmosphere of social life with the effluvium of apolitical attitudes, dead-end futility and hopelessness; or else the petty bourgeois suddenly poses as a militant protester, who goes on the rampage, runs amuck, resorting to the extremes of revolutionarism, rebelliousness, anarchism and political chicanery. Eclecticism in theory, adventurism in politics, wavering and vacillation in practice—such are the traits characteristic of all petty-bourgeois ideologues.

p In all cases, however, the petty bourgeoisie does not give up its false hopes of being able at some time or other to rally behind it all other classes and build up a new, wider and stronger movement than the class movement. The petty bourgeoisie is trying with might and main to establish its claims to leadership of social life and build up a supra-class or nonclass movement within it, and make them flesh 133 and blood of its political parties, its leaders and ideologues.

p History shows that “Left” revolutionarism, like Right reformism, has caused great harm to the international communist and labour movement. Suffice it to mention the activities of the First International. Who played the leading disruptive and splitting role in this international association of the workers? First and foremost the “Leftists”—the Bakuninist adventurers, who merged with the Proudhonists and Lassalleans, with the whole mob of petty-bourgeois socialism. The “Left” adventurers played a similar treacherous and disruptive role in the Second International and the Comintern with the support of the Right reformists and Trotskyists.

p As regards the historical experience of the C.P.S.U., it is necessary to bear in mind here three of the most dangerous moments, when the “Left” mis-revolutionaries very nearly undid the great victories of the revolution, a disaster which was averted by Lenin’s Party. This refers, first of all, to the rebellious, anarchistic actions of the “Left” Communists during the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest in 1918; second, to the disruptive activities of the Trotskyists during the period when the country embarked on its plans of peaceful economic developments in 1921 to 1922; third, to the Leftadventurist tricks of the Trotskyists after the death of Lenin. One thing can be said: in all these cases the “Left” revolutionarists, or, as Lenin called them, heroes of the “Left” phrase, endangered the gains of the October revolution.

p At any rate “Left” revolutionarism in the person of Trotskyism, of anarcho-syndicalism, acted in the course of the first decade of Soviet power as the chief danger within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The decisions of the 14th (1925) Congress of the Party contain a clear-cut evaluation of the situation that had arisen within the Party. During the period of N.E.P., when petty-bourgeois sentiments ran high, both these deviations manifested themselves—the “Left” as well as the Right. Nevertheless, the Party congress saw the greatest danger in the “Left” deviation, which led to an artificial intensification of the contradictions within the country, to an artificial whipping-up of the class struggle, to a break in the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, and to a reversion to the policy of War Communism.

134

p It should be borne in mind that the ideology and policy of the “Left” Communists were anything but a local, national feature. They were international in character. During 1919 to 1920, for instance, serious Left-sectarian waverings appeared in the young communist parties of the West which threatened the existence of these newly arisen revolutionary parties. Lenin criticised them sharply in his booklet “ LeftWing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder. And in 1921, when Leftism within the communist parties had gained ground, Lenin qualified “Left” doctrinairism and its adventurism and sectarianism as a grave danger to the international communist movement. At the Third Congress of the Comintern in 1921 he said: "If the Congress is not going to wage a vigorous offensive against such errors, against such ‘Leftist’ stupidities, the whole movement is doomed. That is my deep conviction.”  [134•* 

p It is very important for the present generation of Communists to know these most instructive lessons of history. They are all the more relevant to our day when contemporary super-revolutionarists have taken over the splitting methods and theoretical concepts of the “Left” Communists, Trotskyists and anarchists, and are trying, by their disruptive activities, to steer the international communist movement along the ruinous path from which the Communists, headed by Lenin, had once saved it. In this context we shall attempt an examination of the three basic theoretical theses which the “Left” Communists acted upon and which the “Left” quasi-revolutionaries of the Maoist trend are acting upon today.

p The first thesis concerned the theoretical analysis of the prospects, trend and rate of development of the world revolution. At first glance there would seem to have been no essential differences between the “Left” Communists and the supporters of Lenin in their evaluation of the international situation that had arisen as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. However, this merely appeared so on the surface, for the crux of the matter lay not so much in a common characterisation of the international situation as in a different approach to the appraisal of the prospects and rate of development of the world 135 revolution. The fact of the matter was that the “Left” Communists, in shaping their policy, banked on a revolution being carried out in the West immediately, simultaneously and within a definite time through the organisation of a broad-based guerrilla struggle in all the European countries, which was then to develop into a general revolutionary war.

p It goes without saying that the concept of a time-tabled revolution, following as it does from cut-and-dried schematism and doctrinairism, was a direct deviation from Marxism. As Lenin pointed out, such a concept of the course of social development, as of something weighed, measured and planned in advance, testified either to the utter theoretical impotence or to the dangerous adventurism of those ideologues who had taken the criminal path of playing at revolution. Indeed, at that time a revolutionary situation was coming to a head in Europe, class battles were gaining momentum and a general revolutionary explosion was imminent. That much was clear to everybody. But exactly when this explosion, this upheaval and toppling of the rule of Capital would take place—this no one could know in advance, nor could it be determined beforehand by any sort of mechanism.

p Marxist analysis correctly indicated the general direction of unfolding events, the main tendency of the entire stream of social phenomena. Yes, the revolutionary situation was ripe, events were heading rapidly towards a radical debacle in many capitalist countries, and, as Lenin said, we would with great comfort "change over into the train of world revolution". And if it came late, was held up, broke the schedule the “Leftists” had drawn up, was it then all over with us? The greatest mistake the “Left” Communists made was that they entirely misjudged the trend and rate of development of the world revolution and mechanically, intuitively applied to all the countries of Western Europe and even to all the countries of the world the rapid rate at which the Russian revolution had taken place. One is entitled to ask, is not a similar adventurist attitude now being spread through the efforts of "heroes of the revolutionary phrase”?

p We know that the October Revolution in Russia took place comparatively easily, and in the course of several months following the revolution and up to the clash with international imperialism the Russian revolution made "a brilliant triumphal march". The relative ease with which the revolution took place in the centre and its victorious spread 136 throughout the country was due to the powerful pressure of the workers, the poor peasants and all the working people, to the weakness, cowardice and disunity of the Russian bourgeoisie, as well as the forced “non-intervention” of the WestEuropean imperialists, who, as Lenin said, "had their own troubles”.

p The “Left” adventurists, however, would not hear of any differential or distinctive features. They were blind to the fact that to start a revolution in the countries of highly developed capitalism, where monopoly capital was a great power and the bourgeoisie was well-organised and actively supported by the Right-wing Social-Democrats, was infinitely more difficult than in Russia. Therefore, in the countries of Western Europe the revolutionary process was bound to be more intricate and difficult, more protracted, than in Russian conditions. Lenin literally had to din it into the “Leftists” that the economic prerequisites for a socialist revolution in Europe were different than in Russia, and therefore "in Europe it will be immeasurably more difficult to start, whereas it was immeasurably more easy for us to start; but it will be more difficult for us to continue the revolution than it will be over there”.  [136•* 

p It should be said that the fight against the “Left” Communists had profound theoretical and political implications. It provided rich ideological material and made Lenin reanalyse all the components of the theory of socialist revolution. He constantly reverted in his subsequent writings to a theoretical and political analysis of the fallacious and dangerous concepts of the “Left”’ Communists, who saw the world revolution as a simple copying of the Russian revolution, and he warned the Party against the great danger lurking in the doctrine of anarchistic revolutionarism.

p Tracing “Left” adventurism to its political sources, Lenin showed them as attempts to make the "Russian example" a pattern, a universal model, attempts to identify the conditions for a revolution in Russia with those in the West and to apply it automatically to all other countries. By erecting this false preconception into an absolute, the “Left” revolutionarists, naturally, were unable to appreciate and form a sober view of the interwoven complexities of the class forces 137 or the actual essence of the revolutionary process. Hence their tendency to exaggerate one or another manifestation of the revolutionary movement in Europe and on other continents, to magnify and embroider these manifestations of revolutionary ferment, and to indulge in wishful thinking. The undoing of the “Left” revolutionarists was their failure to think concretely. They drew their appraisal of the situation and shaped their political guidelines for action from a formal logical analysis of abstract general concepts and judgements rather than from a Marxist analysis of the given concrete historical situation.

p It is not surprising therefore that the “Leftists” revealed, not concrete dialectical, but formal logical thought patterns. But "every abstract truth, if it is accepted without analysis, becomes a mere phrase”.  [137•*  This phrase, as far as the “ Leftists” were concerned, was a general revolutionary war and a world revolution. They were unable and unwilling to analyse, dissect, differentiate general postulates and general truths. It is generally correct to say that capitalist society in the twentieth century entered a phase of socialist revolution, but the truth contained in this postulate is realised, not all at once and wholly, but in parts, unevenly, intermittently, with advances and retreats: it is refracted in time and space and can only be understood from the viewpoint of longrange perspective. Therefore, what is correct “generally” may be incorrect "at the given moment". In this connection one cannot help thinking how far ahead Lenin saw, how deep his knowledge was of the objective laws of revolution, with what scientific insight he framed the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the Party and how far-seeing he was in warning against the danger of the emergence of “Left” revolutionarism in the future.

p The second thesis concerned the building of socialism and the relationships between the socialist state and the capitalist states. The “Left” doctrinaires proceeded from the absolutely fallacious assumption that once a socialist state had come into being it was bound immediately to fence itself off, to stand aloof from the surrounding world, to break off all ties with the old, capitalist society. They tore the socialist state out of the complexus of real economic and other international relationships and regarded it as something isolated, 138 self-contained, shut in like a fortress behind ferroconcrete walls, fenced off from everybody and everything. "A socialist republic surrounded by imperialist powers could not, from this point of view, conclude any economic treaties, and could not exist at all, without flying to the moon.”  [138•* 

p The “Left” revolutionarists deny the permissibility of compromises for a revolutionary party, no matter what these compromises are, what aims they pursue and in whose interest they are used. The negation of all compromise, as we know, is a hallmark of “Leftism” in communism. On this score Engels in his article "Programme of the Blanquist Commune Emigrants" written in 1874 had the following to say: "The thirty-three [Blanquists] are Communists because they imagine that as soon as they have only the good will to jump over intermediate stations and compromises everything is assured, and if, as they firmly believe, it ‘begins’ in a day or two, and they take the helm, ’communism will be introduced’ on the day after tomorrow. Neither are they Communists if this cannot be done immediately.”  [138•** 

p In the view of the “Leftists” the interests of the international revolution require an immediate war or an uprising. They simply refuse to hear of any flexible tactics involving a combination of revolutionary action by the proletariat with an unremitting struggle for peace, cultivating a knack of living on neighbourly terms with capitalist world. In their opinion this runs counter to the idea of internationalism. Here we see in all its nakedness the “ideal” schema—that to plunge people into the holocaust of war is nothing, but to fight for peace is a disgrace, an outrage to their pride and self-esteem. Lenin not without reason said of the “Leftists” that they regard the question of war and peace from the point of view of the Polish gentry, one member of which, dying with sword drawn in an heroic pose, said: "Peace is a disgrace, war an honour!”

p The “Left” adventurists visualised the relationships between the socialist state and the capitalist states only on two extreme exclusory planes: either in the form of ignoring them or in the form of a continuous revolutionary war against them ending in the complete eradication of 139 capitalism. It was either rejection or war, either yes or no—the “Left” doctrinaires thought only in these terms of the relationships between socialism and capitalism. Since we are a socialist state, they argued, we must refuse "in principle", no matter what the balance of forces may be, to make any deals with the capitalist states; we must boycott them, refuse to recognise them, disown them or rebel, take to guerrilla action, fight them. Lenin said in this connection that the “Lefts” failed completely to understand the real conditions for the building of socialism in one or several countries, failed to grasp the economic laws governing social development and therefore neglected organising, economic, constructive and transformative activities. Lenin’s appraisal of “Left” adventurism is nothing if not applicable to the advocates of modern super-revolutionarism.

p The third thesis concerned the tactic of pushing the revolution on from without. An analysis of the theoretical and tactical positions of both past and present “Left” revolutionarists reveals a total absence on their part of any concrete analysis of the facts of life, a total disregard of the real alignment of class forces. They deal, not with living classes operating in such-and-such an historical situation, possessing at the given moment such-and-such qualities and properties, capable or incapable of such-and-such actions. With them it is all the other way round. All elementary requirements of revolutionary dialectics are superseded by the use of abstract categories, concepts and terms. Hence the hare bones of schema and therefore sterile reasoning. But most dangerous of all is the fact that they carry all this over into politics.

p All the guidelines and appeals of the present "extreme Lefts" provide no political guidance for action, but a sort of abstruse, extremely abstract philosophy for all seasons and therefore bearing no relation to any definite time. The working class, as far as the doctrinaires are concerned, is the proletariat in general, no more than a pure category, which stands opposed to another category—that of the bourgeoisie. Since the proletariat had risen against the bourgeoisie and overthrown it in Russia or any other country, their abstract mode of thinking called for this to be urgently performed in other countries as well, on an international scale, thereby toppling the rule of world capital at one fell blow.

p And if this doesn’t work, then the “Left” ranters give 140 way to panic and despair, declaring that the socialist revolution is not worth anything, it is a mere cipher, seeing that it has proved inconsistent and is at odds with its own principles. They had painted for themselves an ideal schema of how the socialist revolution was to unfold, had invested in it a sum of bare concepts and categories, and everything that did not fit the pattern of this schema was rejected, reviled and discredited. Lenin further pointed out that in the minds of the “Left” revolutionaries the world revolution was envisaged as an abstract concept void of any concrete historical content, a colourless, tasteless, odorless, grey monotonic concept. The living struggling classes are governed by "immutable laws of development". The whole case is put not for the working class, but for those same " immutable laws", for distorted “ideals” which stand, not for things that are but for things that should be. As a result the “Left” revolutionarists watered down and depersonalised the historical process and substituted the operation of "immutable laws" and threadbare “ideals” for the real struggle of the classes. And it was upon this warped base that there arose the so-called theory of pushing on the international revolution.

p Lenin saw the international revolution as forming from revolutions in various countries and growing out of the international conditions of this or that country. "Revolutions," he emphasised, "are not made to order, they cannot be timed for any particular moment; they mature in a process of historical development and break out at a moment determined by a whole complex of internal and external causes.”  [140•*  This was not the view of the “Left” extremists. They kept talking about the automatic conversion of the Russian revolution into an international revolution, about it being carried immediately beyond the national bounds. But in what form was this to take place? It was to take place, it appears, in the form of a revolutionary war, and a continuous offensive war at that, knowing neither obstacles nor defeats. The “Left” envisaged the revolution only as a mechanical process with the accent on an impetus from outside, and not on the revolution growing out of its own internal conditions.

p Lenin warned the “Lefts” against the push theory when he wrote: "Such a ‘theory’ would be completely at variance 141 with Marxism, for Marxism has always been opposed to ‘pushing’ revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions.”  [141•*  Characteristically, the present-day “Lefts” are expounding the view that for the present historical period, that is, until the universal overthrow of the world bourgeoisie, the tactic of armed uprising, the tactic of a revolutionary war, is compulsory and exclusive. In other words, "let the world perish, and long live the pure imperishable schema!”

p The “Left” Communists rejected in principle the idea of the working class at certain moments retreating and entering into agreements by way of tactical manoeuvring. They were altogether ignorant of the meaning of tactics as such. Tactics, as we know, imply manoeuvring, changing one method of struggle for another, and alternating advance and retreat on the basis of an accurate calculation of the forces involved. But the “Left” revolutionarists either did not understand this or did not want to understand it. Instead of tactics they had an abstract schema of revolution, and an impetus from without was supposed to be enough to spark off a revolution everywhere, which would develop non-stop along a straight line, taking all positions by a frontal attack and sweeping everything before it. All this is for them merely a symbolic designation of proletarian revolution in general, an urge of petty-bourgeois revolutionism towards rebellion, blastings, hotting things up and spreading the rebellious germs of "anarchistic measles" throughout the world. Their one-track approach reveals the full extent of their simplicist, primitive, mechanical interpretation of the objective laws of development of the world socialist revolution.

p We know how low the “Left” adventurists fell when they declared: "In the interests of the world revolution, we consider it expedient to accept the possibility of losing Soviet power, which is now becoming purely formal.”  [141•**  It was these words of the “Lefts” that Lenin described as "strange and monstrous". Behind the mask of extreme “Leftism”, which supposedly stopped at nothing in the interests of the international revolution, there actually lay a deep despair, a disbelief in victory, the abysmal pessimism of petty-bourgeois politicasters and adventurists.

142

p At the risk of being accused of textualism and Talmudism I shall nevertheless attempt to reproduce Lenin’s characterisation of the “Left” revolutionarists, those foolhardy berserk adventurers who are still a plentiful breed in the world today. Outwardly they come in different shadings— Trotskyists, anarchists, Marcusists, or simply rioters and trouble-makers—but in substance they are all the same. And so let us turn to those farsighted appraisals which Lenin used in his speeches and articles directed against the Trotskyist adventurers who assume the mantle of so-called “Left” Communists. Reading these graphic, clear-cut formulations one is tempted to exclaim: "Why, these are the very heroes of the revolutionary phrase who are alive to this day!" Here they are!

p The “Lefts” lull themselves with high-sounding words, declamations and exclamations; their politics are grounded on wishes, indignation and resentment; they fight shy of the truth, and mouth slogans, words and war-cries, but shrink from an analysis of the objective realities and brush aside the facts whose iron logic they fear; revolutionaries of emotions and phrasemongering, they make themselves drunk with phrases; revolutionary miscasts, they allow feeling to take the place of objective analysis and make shift with stock phrases.

p The “Lefts” are prey to moods of deepest pessimism, to a sense of utter despair; bluster and spinelessness of the petty bourgeois; dodge the lesson and lessons of history; dodge their responsibility; blether about a revolutionary war; Communists of the pre-Marxian epoch; “Leftists” tone down the facts, sow illusions, retract their own statements; fanfaronade, monstrous self-delusions, intellectualist supermen.

p The adherents of adventurism seek escape from the harsh realities by taking refuge behind fluid attractive phrases; succumb to a momentary feeling of resentment and declamation, are affected with the revolutionary phrase; theatrical flourishing of the sword, psychology of the petty noblemandueller clamouring hysterically for war; waving a cardboard sword, realities obscured by book scraps; a group without influence, a declassed petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, coining slogans; the mental attitudes and psychology of these people fit in with the moods of the petty bourgeoisie; defend pettybourgeois laxity with “Left” catchwards.

p Declasse intellectualist party upper crust; afraid to openly 143 admit the simple truth, play for effect, unable to think; the “Lefts” have much too little of the proletarian and much too much of the petty-bourgeois mentality; impregnated with the psychology of the declassed petty-bourgeois intellectual; spineless advocates of shilly-shallying; extravagant phrases united to timid action; the “Lefts” have the psychology of the frenzied petty bourgeois, who throws his weight about, but is well aware that the proletariat is right; they wriggle and shuffle; ranters who memorise slogans of the revolution rather than ponder them; petty-bourgeois revolutionaries trapped in petty-bourgeois prejudices; incapable of disciplined, well-thought-out work taking into account its most difficult phases.  [143•* 

As we know, the most characteristic feature of the “Lefts” is their devotion to the revolutionary phrase. Lenin clearly revealed the roots of this habit, when he wrote: " 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 zigzags.”  [143•** 

p The most vital need of the present epoch is that of matching the well-planned comprehensive counter-revolutionary strategy of imperialism with as well-planned, clear-cut and single-acting a revolutionary strategy of the working class. But for this we must first have a clear understanding of the fact that imperialism can never be overthrown automatically or by a direct frontal attack simply because it is doomed by history. On the complex arena of political struggle we have, on the one hand, imperialism with all its forces and resources, and, on the other, the working class with its diverse strata differing in temper and level of development, and headed by its Communist Party, which is fighting other parties and organisations for influence over the labour masses.

144

In these intricate conditions Marxists-Leninists need not only a single revolutionary strategy, but a concerted revolutionary tactic. Following Lenin’s principles means constantly and persistently learning the art of accurate and flexible manoeuvring in the struggle, advancing, retreating, consolidating one’s influence, winning new positions in the struggle with imperialism. This is a very difficult part of tactical action. The task therefore is to learn the art of struggle, an art that does not by any means drop on the working class like a gift from the skies. True Marxists-Leninists are out, not only for heroic struggle, but above all for victory. On the one hand, life requires that the Marxist-Leninist ranks be cleared of elements which do not want to fight and are incapable of fighting. On the other hand, life requires that the revolutionary struggle be founded on Marxist- Leninist strategy and tactics, and those who do not possess that art are bound to lose the taste for victory.