144

p We now have to ascertain what lies at the roots of revisionism’s emergence in its two varieties—that of Right reformism and “Left” revolutionarism. Of course, these are anything but abstract notions. Revisionism is a profoundly historical and thoroughly social phenomenon. Its inner essence, therefore, can only be understood by analysing the whole set of factors of social development. To comprehend revisionism as a political phenomenon it is necessary to ascertain how it first appeared, what it was like originally and what it is like today.

p What, then, are the historical and social springs that beget both Right and “Left” revisionism?

p Before answering this question we must first of all bear in mind that opportunism in the labour movement, as well as its expression in theory—revisionism from the Right and “Left”—has objective social roots. Hence it is clear, as Lenin pointed out, that these revisionist deviations, which appear in different forms and shadings, cannot be explained away as mere accidents or errors on the part of individuals or groups. "There must be deep-rooted causes in the economic system and in the character of the development of all 145 capitalist countries which constantly give rise to these departures.”  [145•*  Thus, the roots of revisionist deviations, as Lenin predicates, lie in the economic system and in the nature of the development of capitalism both as a whole and in the various countries.

p The first source from which the different opportunist currents spring is bourgeois ideology and petty-bourgeois influence to whose pressure the less stable sections of the working class and its party often succumb. Obviously, the working class and its Marxist-Leninist vanguard in the person of the party do not exist and act in a vacuum. They are not isolated from other classes, social groups, parties and currents of social thought, which exist in bourgeois society and remnants of which will continue to exist for a long time after the victory of the socialist revolution and even after the foundations of socialism have been built in one or another country. Naturally, bourgeois ideology and other corrupting influences constantly "surround the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat, and constantly causes among the proletariat relapses into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, and alternating moods of exaltation and dejection”.  [145•** 

p The second source is the heterogeneous structure of the working class. Here we have a category of regular workers who have been through the school of class struggle and received their training in an industrial community. This category is the most steady and reliable support of the Marxist-Leninist party, its backbone. But side by side with this we have a category of workers which consists of people who recently belonged to the peasantry or to petty-bourgeois elements ruined by big capital. These elements for a long time remain vehicles of the psychology and world outlook of their petty-bourgeois milieu. It is this category that serves as the most favourable soil for all the anarchist and ultraLeft groups. Finally, we have here a category of workers who form a labour aristocracy, the working class elite. It is this section that is most strongly inclined towards compromise with the bourgeoisie from whom it receives handouts. This category is the most favourable soil for Right-wing reformism.

146

p Another thing to be borne in mind is that with the development of capitalism in the formerly economically and politically undeveloped countries fresh forces of the newly formed working class (“recruits” Lenin called them) are joining the labour movement, forces which have no experience of organised class struggle against the bourgeoisie behind them. All these circumstances come strongly into focus when any sharp changes occur in the conditions of the class struggle both in the different countries and in the international arena. Uncovering the objectively existing social roots of opportunism, Lenin wrote: "Every specific turn in history causes some change in the form of petty-bourgeois wavering, which always occurs alongside the proletariat, and which, in one degree or another, always penetrates its midst.”  [146•* 

p Apart from its social origins, however, Right and “Left” revisionism, as we know, have their gnosiological roots. These are grounded in the specific perception and appreciation of the phenomena of social life peculiar to different leaders and public figures. Among the causes producing these two revisionist trends Lenin mentions not only the contradictory and spasmodic nature of the development of the labour movement, but also the source of it—the uneven and spasmodic nature of development of capitalism and the dialectical nature of social development in general. "A constant source of differences is the dialectical nature of social development, which proceeds in contradictions and through contradictions. Capitalism is progressive because it destroys the old methods of production and develops productive forces, yet at the same time, at a certain stage of development, it retards the growth of productive forces.”  [146•**  Not everyone is able to grasp the essence of these contradictions, and therefore "certain individuals or groups constantly exaggerate, elevate to a one-sided theory, to a one-sided system of tactics, now one and now another feature of capitalist development, now one and now another ‘lesson’ of this development”.  [146•*** 

p Hence, the more complicated, confused and contradictory the concrete historical conditions in which one or another 147 party is fighting the more are petty-bourgeois vacillations to appear within or around it. The trouble is that neither the Right reformists nor the “Left” revolutionarists grasp the dialectical contradictions of reality. "But real life, real history," Lenin wrote, "includes these different tendencies, just as life and development in nature include both slow evolution and rapid leaps, breaks in continuity.”  [147•* 

p Failure to understand this Marxist-Leninist logic leads to the" Right reformists, as a rule, stressing only one of these aspects of reality, namely, that of gradual, slow evolution. Therefore they see in reforms and all kinds of partial changes and improvements the accomplishment of socialism. They do not understand that this development is bound to lead to leaps, that evolutionary development is followed by revolutionary development, which ushers in a new era elevating all that went before to a new, higher stage. The “Left” revolutionarists, on the contrary, negate evolution, gradual development, and are attracted only by leaps, explosions, upheavals. Hence this “Leftism”, adventurism and extravagance in politics.

p Thus, the Right reformists recognise no new content, no new quality and go no farther than the old forms. All the “Left” revolutionarists see is the surface of the new content and new quality, but they do not understand the ways and stages of development of this content and wholly reject the forms of struggle that still have to be used in the given situation. Describing these two trends within Marxism Lenin wrote: "Right doctrinairism persisted in recognising only the old forms, and became utterly bankrupt, for it did not notice the new content. Left doctrinairism persists in the unconditional repudiation of certain old forms, failing to see that the new content is forcing its way through all and sundry forms, that it is our duty as Communists to master all forms, to learn how, with the maximum rapidity, to supplement one form with another, to substitute one for another, and to adapt our tactics to any such change.”  [147•** 

p In dealing with the social and gnosiological roots we shall attempt to examine in detail certain objective and subjective causes that from time to time reanimate the activities of the revisionists of the Right and “Left”. Among them are reasons 148 which are all too often overlooked or considered of little importance.

p The first reason lies in the sphere of material production and the drastic economic changes that take place in society in connection with this. The scientific and technological revolutions that take place from time to time provide a powerful stimulus to society’s productive forces. Today, too, the world is experiencing the greatest revolution of this kind in all its history. We shall not dwell here on the vast scale of it and its effectiveness, but shall merely mention that at the end of the last century a tremendous industrial and economic leap took place as a result of the scientific and technological revolution which introduced electricity in place of steam as a major source of energy. The rapid growth of society’s productive forces created a boom in the capitalist economy, but also sharpened all the antagonisms of capitalism, which at that time had reached the highest and ultimate phase of its development—that of imperialism.

p Industrial development in the U.S.A. proceeded at an unbelievably rapid pace. Industry made particularly rapid strides in Germany, who became a great industrial power. Industry developed apace in Russia, and after 1894, following the war with China, a new capitalist country—Japan— was quickly working up economic strength. Capitalism everywhere was booming: factories were springing up, railways were being built to the sources of raw material, shipping routes were expanded and the world capitalist market was strengthened.

p With the advance of capitalism there grew rapidly the antagonist of the bourgeoisie—the working class, and together with it, the intermediate petty-bourgeois sections expanded too. The creation of vast monopolistic corporations and the construction of big industrial complexes created a massive demand for new types of professions and categories of personnel: managers, engineers, designers, technologists, technicians, accountants, planners, and so on. This involved important changes in the social structure of the community. For the first time, for instance, there emerged such a social group as the scientific and technological intelligentsia, which was practically nonexistent before.

p Thus, on the basis of the scientific and technological revolution following the wide use of electric power there was brought about a visible industrial and economic revolution. 149 While Marxists saw in this the accelerated rate of material preparation for the transition to socialism, the ideologues of the bourgeois, on the contrary, regarded it as proof of capitalism’s stability, of its capability of organising and consolidating itself. Reformist illusions bred by scientific and technological progress spread to wide circles of the middle classes and penetrated into the working class.

p All aspects of social life were stirred to activity. In addition to the economic and political forms of the class struggle in the world arena a strong impetus was given to the ideological struggle. At the same time there was a widening of the field of activities of various social and political institutions operating within the framework of the bourgeois system and employed more and more often by the bourgeoisie: parliaments, the trade unions, the co-operatives, various societies and numerous political parties. With the numerical growth of the proletariat, which was attended by the growth of its organisation and class consciousness, the old bourgeois ideology found itself face to face with the strengthened young proletarian ideology. Here we find two reformist concepts taking shape and becoming widespread within the Marxist movement.

p The first concept followed from an overestimation of the capitalist system and its prospects of development. The adherents of this view argued that since the capitalists had been able to master the new techniques and use them for developing the productive forces, then capitalism was not such an outdated system as Marx and Engels had thought it to be. Therefore, if you improved that system, patched up the holes in it, stripped it of its various anti-social- features, capitalism could still ensure the whole nation prosperity, freedom and progress. In keeping with this kind of view attempts were made to “improve” and “correct” Marxism by draining it of its revolutionary essence. "Let us recognise our lack of culture and take a lesson from capitalism!" exclaimed Pyotr Struve, the ideologist of "legal Marxism" in Russia.

p The second concept answered the question as to who was to be the primary motive force in improving this prosperous society. The originators and adherents of this concept answered emphatically—the intelligentsia. They were to be the primary factor in the development, enlightenment and improvement of capitalist society. As for the working class, 150 the best it could do, in view of its lack of education and development, was to assist them. In this way the most important thing in Marxism was rejected, namely, that of showing the historical mission of the proletariat as the gravedigger of capitalism and the creator of a new social system—socialism. This is what Bernstein wrote on this score: "Despite the progress made by the working class intellectually, politically and industrially since the appearance of the works of Marx and Engels, I still do not consider that class developed enough to take political power into its hands. .. ." And further: "We cannot demand from a class, the great majority of whose members live under crowded conditions, are badly educated and have an uncertain and insufficient income, the high intellectual and moral standard which the organisation and existence of a socialist community presupposes. "  [150•* 

p Such concepts had a very strong influence in Russia, especially among the ideologues of the liberal Narodniks (Populists) of the nineties, whose leader was Mikhailovsky, then known among his contemporaries as the "ruler of men’s minds". It was at that time that the famous theory of “heroes” and "the crowd" became widely current in Russia and the subjective-idealistic view on the role of the individual in history was particularly widespread. This concept found wide support among the liberal intelligentsia, which had grown considerably in numbers with the development of the scientific and technological revolution. Some of these intellectuals, either because it was the vogue, or a new fad, proclaimed themselves adherents of Marxism, while others quite seriously considered themselves its prophets and reformers. It was these forces who largely penetrated within the Marxist movement.

p One has but to take a closer look at the present epoch to see in it a repetition of the past or something closely resembling it. Is not the capitalist world today, too, living through a scientific and technological revolution involving a gigantic industrial and economic boom? Important changes are taking place in the societal structure. And although the world’s social development since the October Revolution has confirmed the objective laws that govern society, laws which were discovered by the founders of scientific communism, we find 151 these concepts of revisionism, which life has long ago exploded, revived again and "improved upon". The same mouldy ideas are again being put across claiming that the Marxist postulate concerning the revolutionising role of the working class is out of date and that only the intelligentsia is now the master spirit of the age.

p Marxists-Leninists, by the way, never minimised the historical role of the intelligentsia, never drew a line between them and the working class, the labour masses. On the contrary, all their efforts were always directed towards strengthening the united front of all the progressive, revolutionary forces, without which the working class would not be able to wage a successful struggle against the reactionary forces of imperialism. The revisionist theoreticians, however, ignore the lessons of history. Blinded by the game of shoddy politics, they try by every means in their power to disrupt the growing unity among the progressive forces, to set them at odds, and sow discord and mistrust among them.

p If we compare the writings of E. Bernstein, K. Kautsky (as well of the Russian "legal Marxists", Economists and Mensheviks), E. Fischer, R. Garaudy, M. Djilas and many other past and present “Marxists” of this breed, we shall find them all birds of a feather. The burden of the song is the same with all of them, a rehash of old arguments, a replenishment of the reformist armoury with pseudo- scientific ideas of the bourgeois ideologues concerning structural changes in modern society, the consequent transformation of capitalism, and so forth. Substitution of the concepts of a new scientific and technological revolution for the concept of the class struggle is the only new thing (in phraseology alone) that distinguishes today’s revisionists from those of yesterday. Thus, the revival of reformist illusions, of various anti-Marxist currents, especially in philosophy, in history, and in economic science, are in no small measure due to the scientific and technological revolution that is now taking place.

p These hard times, however, are coming to an end. It is quite obvious that we have entered a new period in which revisionism will have its back broken for good and all. Even now we can see another, healthy stream building up in the world social movement while the turbid waves of revisionism are falling back before the hardening resistance of the international communist movement. There can be no doubt 152 that revisionism will be shattered, as it was shattered before, since it has no sound scientific base to stand upon and steers social development on the wrong track. It is not surprising therefore that the world’s progressive forces, already now, are giving closer attention to the theoretical side of things and making a closer study of Marxism-Leninism, because it is impossible to grasp the complexities and vagaries of the modern social movement unless one masters this science. The International Meeting of 1969 and the celebration of Lenin’s centenary by the fraternal parties provide convincing proof of this growing process.

p The second reason for the revival of revisionism lies in the growth of the petty-bourgeois strata, especially in the countries with a high level of economic development. With the expansion of industry and of scientific and technological institutions there is naturally a vast growth in the servicing personnel, who occupy an intermediate position between the working class and the bourgeoisie. It should be borne in mind that the petty-bourgeois stratum in the capitalist world is a fairly numerous one. The scientific and technological revolution and especially the rapid growth of the service industries widens the circle of white-collar workers and semi- proletarians and self-employed petty proprietors who oscillate between the working class and the bourgeoisie. Owing to their intermediate position between the working class and the bourgeoisie these strata are most liable to rally to all kinds of revisionist concepts. Objectively speaking, pettybourgeois ideology has always been the banner of revisionism.

p The petty bourgeoisie, however, has its own claims to a leading position in society. It aims at leading a non-class or so-called supra-class movement, and therefore the watchwords Equality, Fraternity and Liberty have an especially strong appeal for it. The petty bourgeoisie is out to create a party of its own; it advances its own ideologues and theoreticians who try to lull the masses into believing the possibility of society’s idyllic development without the class struggle, without antagonisms, and with private property retained as the basis for this development. The petty bourgeoisie never put away the idea that by using the antagonisms between the working class and the bourgeoisie it could succeed at some time in rising above all the classes as the dominant force of society representing everybody and 153 everything. These hegemonist claims, frankly, are turning the heads of some of the leaders of the politicking intellectuals, who, like E. Fischer, R. Garaudy and M. Djilas regard themselves as mankind’s only "creative force" called upon to chart the course of its development and rule its destinies. It is not surprising, by the way, to find the petty- bourgeois ideology enjoying a certain currency in the socialist countries as well. This is a result, not only of the influence of the bourgeois world, but of the legacy of the past within the country, the result of the actions of the defeated remnants of the exploiting classes and part of those social groups who were associated with them both materially and morally. Petty-bourgeois attitudes are particularly widespread in the countries that have recently won free from the colonial yoke, even where the anti-colonial revolutions had evolved into socialist revolutions. Therefore, the fight against modern revisionism is above all a fight against the reactionary essence of petty-bourgeois ideology.

p The influence of this ideology cannot be underrated, for it is, strictly speaking, a definite expression of the bourgeois world outlook. History knows many instances where the tidal wave of petty-bourgeois elements engulfed the advanced revolutionary forces and overwhelmed their consciousness. One has but to remember the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia when the overthrow of the monarchy and the setting-up of organs of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants in the form of the Soviets created the conditions for the transition to the socialist revolution. It was then that the gigantic petty-bourgeois wave raised in the course of the democratic revolution engulfed the proletariat, overwhelmed and crushed the consciousness of the working class and swept out upon its crest the petty-bourgeois parties of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. The result was that the socialist revolution was put back nine months, until the working class and its vanguard—Lenin’s party—had overcome the influence of the conciliators and channelled the spontaneous movement of the masses towards the socialist revolution. Practice has shown that the working class alone is capable of leading the masses, overcoming their petty-bourgeois vacillations and rallying them behind it.

p The third reason why revisionism has become more active is associated with the activities of the bourgeois agents who 154 have infiltrated into the Marxist movement. Here, as a rule, the bourgeoisie uses every mean trick in the book: intrigues, blackmail and bribery. This does not imply, of course, that one or another “leader” is bribed in the form of a sum of money, although this, too, is often resorted to. We know from the experience of the past that the bourgeoisie is a good hand at this and performs the task with due decorum and subtlety. Take, for example, Bernstein, the “founder” of revisionism of sad memory, who still remains the noisome shadow of the ideologues of reformism. How did his fall come about? For a long time Bernstein was employed as secretary to a man named Hochberg, a banking tycoon in Germany. It was with the help and influence of this banker that Bernstein was first able to publish his early writings. They were boosted, printed in large editions and widely circulated, making a name for their author. After a quarter of a century in the banker’s service while simultaneously acting as a prominent leader of Social-Democracy, he ultimately threw in his lot with the revisionist, Right-reformist trend within Marxism.

p And did not “Marxist” Garaudy take the same path? He followed the same beaten track. He flew his first kite with a book entitled D’un realisme sans rivages, in which he explored the avenue of approach towards bourgeois ideology, after which it was all plain sailing, one might say. During the last four years his “prayer-books” have been coming off the belt one after another: Karl Marx, TwentiethCentury Marxism, Pour un modele franfais du socialisme, etc. Enheartened by the eulogies of the bourgeois press this Marxist has lost the last remnant of a Communist’s honour and dignity. He fancies himself the master spirit of the age, the idol and darling of the world. The finale of his adventure is well known.

p The same can be said of a number of other leaders who in one way or another swallowed the bait of the bourgeoisie. One form of bribery is support at parliamentary elections, advancement to government posts and the handing-out of portfolios. Everyone remembers the cases of the French Socialists Millerand, Briand and Blum, the German Socialists Noske and Scheidemann and the Russian Socialists Kerensky, Tsereteli and Chernov. Mussolini, too, was once a member of the Italian Socialist Party. We know that in many countries of Western Europe Right-wing Socialists were not only 155 ministers, but heads of government, premiers and presidents. But one is entitled to ask, where and in what country have reforms been carried out which in any way strike at the roots of capitalism or which have introduced those models of socialism of which so much has been written in the past and shouted about today from the housetops. No such facts are known to history. What we do have is any amount of facts showing how these leaders are degenerating, moving away from the ideology they had once professed and taking their stand among the enemies of the working class.

p Here I should like to underline again that the vanguard of the working class has to deal with a bourgeoisie that is an experienced, skilful and cunning class. Its artful designs and anti-socialist stratagems can be observed at every step today. I have already mentioned that even in the socialist countries there have long existed elements that are receptive to bourgeois ideology. The events of the last few years in Czechoslovakia are clear proof of this. We all remember that even in the Party leadership there were not only conciliators but people who directly aided and sponsored the anti-socialist forces within the country. All those Siks, Goldstuckers and their ilk, on suffering defeat, found sanctuary for themselves in the world of capitalism on whose behalf they had worked so hard. This brings us back to the above thought. The bourgeoisie has many channels through which it can befriend, break in or bribe sometimes very prominent leaders and infiltrate them into the international communist movement, this time in the capacity of advocates of an ideology alien to Marxism.

p The fourth reason why revisionism is so tenacious of life lies in the natural process of succession of the generations and the continuity of ideas. This is a very big question indeed, one that is as pressing today as it ever was. Arising as a reflection of definite social relationships, ideas do not quit the stage of their own accord. They acquire a certain independence and continue to exist after the conditions that begot them have been destroyed. Backward as well as progressive ideas find their followers in the social milieu where they are spread and where they become social thoughtpatterns. Life goes its way, generation succeeding generation and each of them passing on the baton of new social ideas together with scraps, if not entire systems of antiquated but tenacious ideas which it strives to realise.

156

p Continuity of ideas is the inevitable companion of historical development and the succession of the generations. Take, for example, such an outstanding social doctrine of the pre-Marxian period as Utopian socialism. At a time when a class capable of giving real life to the dream ideas of socialism was only beginning to form in society, this was indeed a progressive social idea, which captivated the best minds of the age. But when the proletariat took the field of class struggle as an independent force this idea had to yield to the more advanced idea based on a scientific knowledge of the social concept—that of Marxism. Does that mean that the idea of Utopian socialism disappeared altogether? Not by any means. I have already pointed out that at the turning points of history, when critical moments occur, these ideas have often come to life again and appeared upon the surface of political life. Obviously, going back to this, once progressive, idea in our day would be a step backward, not forward.

p Or let us take another example, that of the emergence within the labour movement of two pseudo-Marxist trends— Right reformism and “Left” revolutionarism. Historical experience has convincingly demonstrated that neither of these trends had ever represented progressive social thinking. Nevertheless, they existed and still exist side by side within the labour movement, acquiring successors and keeping their roots alive so long as those of capitalism still live. Then what is the matter? The fact of the matter is that the development of social ideas does not run parallel, thread to thread, with the processes of social development. Considering the mixed character of economic, social and political development in the different countries, the existence of different kinds of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois currents and trends alongside Marxism-Leninism is inevitable. And where there is a relaxation of the struggle against an ideology that is hostile to the working class, and where no importance is attached to the development and enrichment of advanced Marxist-Leninist social thought, there retrograde reactionary ideas are bound to revive and gain ground.

p Thus, the conflict of ideas is above all a reflection of class antagonisms, a form of the class struggle. No wonder the bourgeoisie acts as such a zealous guardian over every kind of backward anti-socialist idea which makes it easier for it to befuddle the masses. In this connection some people may say that we reject all social ideas and recognise only one 157 idea—that of Marxism-Leninism. On the contrary, the value of Marxism-Leninism lies in the fact that it helps mankind to imbibe, absorb and raise sbill higher all that is new, progressive and life-asserting, all that serves the cause of the workingman’s emancipation, his liberation from oppression and humiliation. Marxism-Leninism is the indestructible power it is because it stands for all that is best in the achievements of the human mind and not only did not deny the significance in the past of pre-Marxian progressive social ideas, but gave them a truly scientific appraisal and paid tribute to their creators and inspirers.

p We know what a high regard Marx and Engels had for their predecessors (from the Greek natural philosophers down to contemporary philosophers), who, as far as they were able under the prevailing conditions, either made their own useful contributions or by their own conscientious scientific search helped to enlarge the field of knowledge concerning the laws of development of society. Even the errors such people made were valued by them as an indication that the truth had to be sought elsewhere. One has but to recall the respect in which the founders of scientific communism held the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Hegel and Feuerbach, Kant, Spinoza and Descartes, the French materialists and historians of the Restoration. Who paid more glowing tribute to the great Utopian Socialists (Saint-Simon, Fourier and Robert Owen) than Engels did in his AntiDuhringl

p In the history of the evolution of progressive social thought among the peoples of Russia the two pre-Marxist generations of revolutionaries, who paved the way for the third generation which was to steer the country along the path of social progress and civilisation, will never lose their lustre. The seed scattered on grateful soil by the hand of that courageous fighter and educator A. N. Radishchev yielded splendid shoots—a galaxy of Decembrist revolutionaries from among the nobility and Herzen. Although they were a narrow circle very far removed from the people the work they had done left its mark behind. They awakened the progressive social forces of Russia and were the first to raise the two most important socio-political issues of the day: first, the abolition of serfdom, and together with it, the abolition of slavery and ignorance in Russia; second, liquidation of the absolute monarchy and the establishment of a republican order.

158

p The first generation of revolutionaries was quickly followed by a second, more numerous, better organised and more purposeful generation of revolutionaries formed from among the progressive raznochintsy intellectuals, from Belinsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev and Chernyshevsky to the members of the Zemlya i Volya and Narodnaya Volya organisations. The rise and growth of a revolutionary-democratic trend was a notable stage in the development of progressive revolutionary thought and of the entire liberation movement in Russia. The revolutionary democrats elevated progressive social ideas to a high level, were far in advance of their predecessors, and some of them came very close to a truly scientific understanding of the phenomena of social life.

p The banner of struggle for the cause of the popular masses, stained with the blood of the two preceding generations of revolutionaries, was raised aloft by the third generation of revolutionaries, whose ranks were made up of workers, peasants and progressive intellectuals. It was this generation of proletarian fighters, armed with Marxist-Leninist theory, that was called upon to see through to its victorious end the cause which their predecessors had started.

p In speaking of the succession of the three generations of revolutionaries in Russia it should be borne in mind that they were doing one and the same job—that of Russia’s progressive development, but understood it differently; they all worked for the good of the people, but all went about it in different ways and had their own understanding of the aims and forms of the liberation struggle. The reason for this is that, on the one hand, every political current operated in the historically concrete situation of the country’s inner life, in the conditions of the given epoch; on the other hand, each of them to some extent assimilated also foreign experience, came under the influence of external social ideas.

p The ideas and events of the French bourgeois revolution of the late eighteenth century exercised an irresistible influence on the first generation of revolutionaries in Russia. The second generation of revolutionaries were enormously influenced by the ideas of Utopian socialism and the theoretical views of the spokesmen of German classical philosophy. The third generation of revolutionaries, which adopted the democratic traditions of its predecessors, was formed wholly in the spirit of the Marxist-scientific socialist doctrine, which it carried through three revolutions and enriched with 159 the experience of the class struggle in the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.

p The founders of Marxism-Leninism revealed the inadequacy, and sometimes the erroncousncss of the views held by the most prominent figures in the history of the development of social thought. At the same time they drew a clear line between those who were conscientiously seeking, but unable, by reason of their lack of historical experience or their own errors, to find the right path, and those who, holding a social brief for the bourgeoisie, distorted the truth that had already been found and dragged from light to darkness.

p It should be borne in mind that there are other objective processes that sometimes create difficulties in carrying on a consistent struggle against revisionist trends. The thing is that side by side with the natural processes of succession of the generations we have a renewal of the leading cadres at all levels of one or another Marxist-Leninist party. The old Leninist guard of revolutionaries noticeably dwindled and new worthy shoots appeared. Obviously, the emergence of new cadres upon the political scene is no simple process, and it, too, takes place amidst complex contradictions and conflict. What is more, the class enemies never miss a single occasion during any such changes to bring their influence and even pressure to bear on the shaping of one or another Marxist-Leninist party’s political course.

p And so the formation of new leading cadres and their emergence upon the broad political scene is of great importance for the destinies of the revolutionary party of any country. It should be kept in mind that dedicated service to the working classes is an extremely difficult mission. Not all people, even among the progressive minds of the age, have been able to sustain this staunch and courageous service to the last without faltering and halting halfway. "The movement of the proletariat," Engels wrote, "necessarily passes through different stages of development; at every stage part of the people get stuck and do not join in the further advance.”  [159•* 

p History provides no few examples of this. Some, wearying of the struggle, became disillusioned and quitted it; some, addicted to flattery, were tempted by a parliamentary or 160 other career and went over into the camp of the bourgeoisie; others, closely bound with their social past, yearning for their customary milieu and fretting at the thought of their betrayal of their class interests, deserted from the proletarian front and went back to the service of their own class. We thus find no few revolutionaries who made a good start in their revolutionary careers but failed to go through with the historical mission which the revolutionary movement had imposed upon them.

p Take, for example, such a prominent theoretician and brilliant propagandist of Marxism in Russia as Plekhanov. He was the first of Russia’s revolutionary leaders to perceive the futility of the theory and tactics of the Populists and to take his stand with the proletariat. He did a great deal to promulgate the ideas of scientific communism. But what happened afterwards? Unable to stand up to the pressure of the opportunists in his former group, he lurched towards the Mensheviks already after the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., and after the defeat of the December armed uprising in 1905 he wilted, went soft, and, worn out by the exhausting political struggle, withdrew into the camp of the backsliders. Something similar to this happened for a time with such an unbending revolutionary as Herzen. At the sight of workers’ blood in the roadway during the barricade fighting in Paris in 1848, he broke down, drooped and wilted. Plunged into an abyss of disillusionment, he veered sharply towards liberalism. True, Herzen swiftly came to and rejoined the ranks of ardent fighters rejuvenated. But Plekhanov, extinguished forever, did not return to his revolutionary moorings, and kept reiterating endlessly: "We should not have taken up arms!”

p In Chernyshevsky, the distinguished thinker and revolutionary democrat, Lenin saw a model of unwavering steadfastness, indomitable courage, civic virtues, high principles and devotion to revolutionary duty. Lenin, in particular, appreciated his idea of creating a political party made up of such inflexible revolutionaries as Rakhmetov,  [160•*  men undaunted by the trials which the struggle for the people’s cause held in store for him. It was from among men of the Rakhmetov type, men who embraced the ideas of scientific 161 communism, that there grew those professional revolutionaries who formed the profoundly alert core of the party of a new type.

p Marxism-Leninism recognises the fact that in the history of the liberation movement leaders, outstanding personalities, play an important, and in some cases even decisive role. And it is the working class, the masses, who stand most in need of such strong, wise, outstanding personalities. Take, for example, such a moment in Russian history as the period between the February and October revolutions of 1917. Nine months is a short period, but in content it is equal to decades. Who, to a decisive degree, helped the Bolshevik Party to define its tactics and thus shape the destinies of Russia at that tense period in a constantly changing situation? Lenin. It was he who, at all turning points, was able with such foresight, subtlety and wisdom to appraise the alignment of class forces, to show the Party and the working class how to steer clear of all the hidden reefs and rocks and to lead the Party and the people to such a splendid victory. Numerous examples, both positive and negative, could be cited in support of this, but in both cases they will merely confirm the Marxist-Leninist thesis concerning the important role of leaders and the immense responsibility which every Marxist party is charged with in the matter of training and forming the party’s leading core, its political and theoretical headquarters.

p The fifth reason why revisionism has revived lies in the lag between the theoretical elaboration of the modern problems of social development and the needs of praxis. The social movement today has grown so wide and complicated and the conditions of the class struggle have become so mobile and multiform that theoretical thinking is sometimes late in generalising the lessons of the revolutionary struggle, determining the trend of further developments, and defining tactics on scientific grounds. As a result a certain gap formed between theory and practice, and this enabled revisionism to rush into that gap and fill it with Left-adventurist and Rightreformist theories and phoney ideas.

p This largely accounts for the fact that the revisionists have succeeded here and there in penetrating into the Marxist-Leninist movement and creating in some of its contingents even in the socialist countries an extremely dangerous situation. The lessons of the political struggle within the Marxist 162 movement have once again demonstrated that the revisionists have always started their splitting activities from subversive theoretical positions before applying them to politics. It is not surprising therefore that under the guise of new theoretical elaborations there have reappeared vamped-up and refurbished concepts and theories which were long ago exploded by true Marxists-Leninists both in the theory and practice of the revolutionary struggle and in the building of socialism.

p Rejoicing at the temporary difficulties that have arisen in the international communist and labour movement, the bourgeois apologists are inclined to regard them as evidence of the crisis and decline of the Marxist-Leninist ideology. To demonstrate this thesis they concentrate more and more often on the historical aspects, falsifying the historical facts and deliberately dragging into the open all the various errors, blunders and weaknesses that occurred in the history of the liberation movement. Indeed, the literature that is now being turned out in the world, clearly reveals on closer scrutiny a heightened interest in subjects dealing with the historical processes. To a certain extent, of course, this is a legitimate practice, since the complexities of the present situation make it necessary to burrow into history in order to grasp modern events more fully and deeply. The method of comparing historical experience with the course of modern developments has always been the best method for cognising the objective laws of social development.

p The heightened interest in history, however, did not always pursue the noble aims of scientific progress. All too often such a state of affairs can be observed in our day too. Some investigators turn to the historical facts in order to obtain a deeper and wider understanding of society’s modern development. Others, on the contrary, delve into history in order to falsify it, denigrate all that is best in the gains won in grim hard struggle. Lately the world’s book market has been flooded with publications concerned mainly with a re- examination of the historical aspects relating to the emergence and development of the communist movement, particularly the history of the Internationals and especially of the Comintern, the history of the Russian revolutions, the formation and development of the Soviet state, the building of socialism, and the role of the different trends in the communist and labour movement.

163

p Needless to say, all these major issues deserve scholarly attention and are of tremendous importance for the modern world revolutionary process. The trouble is that they are often dealt with tendentiously, subjectivistically. From the way these questions are treated one feels that definite political forces are out to make propaganda value of them: the Right-wing Social-Democratic theoreticians try to justify their actions, the Left-Trotskyist adventurists go all out to whitewash their treacheries and the apologists of the bourgeoisie to doll up capitalism and thus prolong its existence. Contradictory concepts on this score sometimes appear in books by theoreticians who advertise themselves as adherents of Marxism-Leninism. The overt troubadours of bourgeois ideology, for their part, seize upon these turbid waves and spread them further in order to denigrate and vilify Marxist-Leninist theory, shake the people’s faith in the ideas of socialism and nullify their appeal.

p To be sure, some modern revisionists still dress up as Marxists-Leninists and even take offence at anyone debarring them from that sacred banner. One wonders, for instance, what will remain of a man if all his vital organs, his brain, heart and lungs are eviscerated from his body? Yet this is what the revisionists have long been doing to MarxistLeninist theory, which they have stripped of its most important and vital elements, namely, the historical role of the proletariat, its winning of state power as an essential condition for the abolition of private ownership of the instruments and means of production, the building of socialism, the proletarian party and its revolutionary strategy and tactics.

p Can one speak seriously of such theoreticians adhering even to the smallest degree to the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism? As for their claims to exclusive rights as interpreters of Marxism-Leninism, one can answer in the words of the outstanding Polish Marxist Leon Tyszka ( Jogiches), who once angrily accused the so-called orthodox Marxists: “You’re not standing, you’re lying on the Marxist viewpoint!”

A great mission has fallen to the lot of today’s MarxistLeninist revolutionaries—that of elevating the role and importance of revolutionary theory to a higher level, setting it off in all its might against the threadbare concepts and dogmas. In this high-principled deed they are called upon accurately and lucidly to express their consistency, to 164 intensify their vigilance, improve their fighting efficiency and moral fibre. This is an essential requirement of the times, the urgent task of the militant movement and struggle of the true Marxists-Leninists.

p What, then, does the history of the ideological and political struggle within the Marxist-Leninist movement show us?

p Prior to the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia a dispute was in progress between the revolutionary Marxists, the Communists, and the reformist Social-Democrats as to which of them was capable of leading the working classes to victory over the exploiters and directing the construction of a new social order in which there would be no room for the oppression of man by man. The last halfcentury has seen this dispute shifted from the realm of theory into the realm of practical politics. The facts, if taken together on a worldwide scale, are really stubborn and demonstrable things. They are unbiassed witnesses.

p In October 1917 there were a little over 400,000 Communists in the whole world (approximately 90 per cent of them in Russia) and over three million Social-Democrats. Today the world numbers over fifty million Communists and approximately fifteen million Social-Democrats. Figures, of course, are not a decisive index. History knows of “plump” parties which carried with them nobody but themselves. And vice versa, even a party that was numerically small could be a party of the masses if it could convince them that its policy was the right one. At the beginning of 1917 the Bolshevik Party numbered about 24,000 members, a disproportionately small figure compared not only with Russia’s population but with the membership of the parties opposed to it—those of the Cadets, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. Yet it was the Bolsheviks’ lead that the bulk of the nation followed in October 1917. And their ranks increased 15-fold in the course of nine months.

p Bourgeois ideologues have used up thousands of tons of paper to “prove” that the Bolsheviks found themselves in power in Russia by mere chance. Marxists do not rule out chance. The lessons of history, however, “counterbalance” all accidents and demonstrate a regular pattern. Since 1917 both Social-Democrats and Communists have been in power 165 in a number of countries. But what has happened in that half a century? The Communist Parties are now at the head of 14 countries with a population of over a thousand million. The Social-Democrats are at the head of only three governments in Europe (Austria, Sweden and Denmark) and in several countries are members of coalition governments headed by the bourgeois parties. In the young national states of Africa and Asia the Social-Democrats are practically among the "also ran". The socialist countries, headed by the Communists, form a powerful world socialist system. Therefore, to speak of the primacy of a "social-democratic system" is odd, to say the least.

p What are the lessons of history then? These lessons tell us that in various countries the reformist parties succeeded and in a number of countries are still succeeding in carrying with them the bulk of the working class, have been in power for many years (Labour in Britain and Australia, Socialists in France, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, etc.) but in no single country has any of these parties done anything to liquidate the capitalist system and establish socialism. They have all renounced their former programmatic pledges, have virtually discarded the Marxist doctrine of class struggle and socialist revolution. Many of them have even thrown out of their programmes the very mention of socialism. The policies of the Right-wing socialist leadership of these parties have always served and continue to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and are aimed at perpetuating the latter’s influence over the labour movement. History has conclusively demonstrated the futility of the reformist road.

p Only in those countries where the Marxist-Leninist current in the workers’ movement rose to the top and where the Communist Parties succeeded in rallying behind them the bulk of the working people and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, have the very foundations of bourgeois rule been destroyed and the peoples of these countries, under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist parties, are really building socialism and displaying in the process unheard-of energy, initiative and labour heroism.

p What conclusions then have to be drawn from the more than century-old struggle that is being waged in its sharpest and most violent forms by the joint forces of bourgeois reaction and the revisionists against Marxism-Leninism, against the ideology and policy of the working class?

166

p First, the world bourgeoisie has no more formidable and deadly dangerous enemy than the working class and its creation—the world socialist system, which possess such a powerful ideological weapon as Marxism-Leninism. All the material and spiritual forces of the old capitalist world are now, as before, directed against the socialist system, against Marxism-Leninism. Now when scientific communism is a worldwide reality the fight against this all-conquering doctrine has become fiercer and more subtle than ever before. There can be no doubt about the fact that the bourgeoisie would long ago have had its back broken but for the support of the opportunists on both the Right and “Left”, who are splitting the workers’ movement and trying to disrupt the unity of the socialist countries. This is convincingly borne out by the historical facts and demonstrated in the best possible manner by the present-day sharp political and ideological struggle. The Communists, their theoretical cadres, therefore, are confronted with no easy task—that of making a deep all-round study of and revealing the genesis of Right reformism and “Left” revolutionarism, their social nature, their treacherous actions in regard to the proletariat, in order, fully armed, to wage an ideological, theoretical and political struggle against their out-and-out anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist concepts, which are so dangerous to the cause of socialism.

Second, our generation must be made fully aware of its responsibility for the destinies of Marxism-Leninism, for the destinies of socialism, which has already triumphed in many countries. One must not forget that there have been occasions in history when the progressive movement has been thrown back for years through the actions of the reactionary forces who held temporary sway. MarxismLeninism, as the most advanced social thought, has experienced in its evolution deadly and crafty attacks on the part of the forces hostile to it, attacks that threatened to break up this integral international doctrine into different kinds of currents and trends acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Today these attacks are being renewed. Therefore, there is no task nobler, no duty to the working people of the world higher than that of defending Marxism in bitter struggle with revisionism and anti-communism the way the heroic proletarian fighters once did under the leadership of Lenin.