p Marxism was first to establish the profound inner conditionality, inter-relation and interdependence in the process of historical succession of socio-economic formations. Probing the innermost depths of the objective laws governing the development of society, Marx established with great accuracy that no single social order quits the stage until it becomes an obstacle to further social progress. Similarly, no new social order will come into being until there arises within the old social order the minimum of economic, political and ideological premises essential to its birth. This basic theoretical concept has preserved its full validity for us to this day.

p It should be said at once, though, that this truth then, as now, is often understood too categorically and one- trackmindedly, and therefore erroneously. The Marxist postulate that the conditions for a profound social revolution (and not for superficial political coups), which replaces one socioeconomic order by another, appear only from the moment when the old social order provides no further scope for the development of the productive forces, requires deep understanding. This postulate does not at all mean that the old social order is bound to fall to the ground by itself the moment it ceases to provide scope for socio-economic development. This is by no means the case.

p If we accept that the productive forces are the basic motive force of historical development, then such development takes place not apart from people, but through them. When the old framework becomes too small for social progress, science, technology and culture, and when a change in the social forms becomes necessary for the further development of mankind, this change takes place not automatically, but through the struggle of people united in classes. The reactionary ruling class, which controls the whole machinery of government, must be superseded by a new, progressive class having a programme of a new social order and sufficiently intelligent, organised and strong to turn out the old masters of life and lay a thoroughfare towards new social relationships.

p Consequently, to replace one socio-economic system by another we need not only the objective material conditions, 210 but the subjective factors, that is, mature social forces prepared to revolutionise the whole socio-economic way of life of society. It should be noted, however, that there have often been situations in history when the old society was played out and held no prospects for further progress, yet coups were unsuccessful. Such was the case, for example, in the Greek and Roman slave-owning societies. What was the reason? The thing is that these societies, which had outlived themselves, lacked a new class strong enough to topple the slave-owners and establish a new order. The revolts of the slaves merely loosened the foundations of the old order and prepared its fall. In feudal society, too, there was not always a new class at hand at the required moment capable of overthrowing the feudalists and opening the way to historical development. Or take Russia in the middle of the last century. Similar situations can be observed today in quite a number of states.

p There have often been cases in history when one or another state or society living in similar historical conditions found further development on the existing economic basis impossible, yet were unable to carry out a revolution because there was no new class that could lead it out into the open. How it ended we know: the given state or society gradually lost its independence and became dependent on and even enslaved by other states or degenerated and disintegrated. Thus, humanity did not always move in an upward line. There were long periods of stagnation and decline. Humanity does not stand still, and its equilibrium as a result of class and national struggle is unsteady: if it cannot move upward, society slips downward and if there is no class that could raise it higher it falls apart, loses its independence and perishes.

p Objectively speaking, a situation has now arisen both in Europe and throughout the world when one can say with positive certainty that the capitalist system (in the broad social sense—apart from separate moments of development) is played out. The productive forces within the framework of bourgeois society develop in conditions of conflict, convulsively, by fits and starts. The signs of bourgeois society’s disintegration in all directions are becoming more and more obvious. Of course, the development of the productive forces has not ceased, it is proceeding with fluctuations, up and down, but on the whole the curve of capitalism’s 211 socioeconomic and moral-political development cuts across all fluctuations in a downward, not upward, line.

p The capitalist mode of production, in steadily revolutionising the production process and giving it a social character, has already created the material and technical preconditions for socialism. From the world-historical angle the productive forces of the most advanced capitalist countries and the scientific and technological revolution itself have overrun the limits of capitalism and bear evidence of the fact that society has fully ripened for socialism. The merging of monopoly capitalism with the state power is utterly discredited in the eyes of the nations both as an economic system of the bourgeois order and as its political superstructure. Putting it another way, capitalism as a socioeconomic system has outlived itself and is maintained by brute force, by militarist policies, by bribery, by hoodwinking the masses and by the absence of solid unity among the world’s revolutionary forces today.

p Has not imperialism shown itself a savage beast in Indonesia, running amok with fire and sword against the country’s progressive forces, first and foremost against the Communists? Has not imperialism unmasked itself as a brutal suppressor of liberty in Greece, where the rampant fascist dictatorship is hounding the best representatives, the flower of the Greek nation? Has imperialism shown a different face to the freedom-loving Arab peoples, against whom it provoked a bloody war of conquest by the Israeli militarists? Does not imperialism stand branded as an obscurantist fascist brute in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

p Imperialism begot the monster of fascism. How right Dimitrov was when, at ’the Leipzig trial in 1934, he put the question bluntly to Goering, the nazi leader: where, in what country, have the fascists, these offspring of imperialism, acted any better than wild beasts? Yes, imperialism is the disease of our age. It is imperialism that is responsible for planting in social life the poisonous seeds of nationalism and chauvinism. This poison is often spread by all kinds of opportunists of the Right and “Left” trends. This, as never before, demands of the world’s progressive forces, first and foremost of Communists, a high degree of organisation, unity, fighting efficiency and vigilance. "People, I loved you, be vigilant"—this call by the noble Czechoslovak Communist Fucik is the motto of our day, calling to the struggle.

p In the ideological sphere, too, the bourgeois foundations proved to be considerably undermined and destroyed. The ideological debasement, spiritual corruption and moral brutalisation which the bourgeoisie is sowing are militating against its own rule. Men no longer want to put up with this all-pervading nerve gas of desolation and immorality and are trying with all their might to defend world culture, civilisation and the best traditions of preceding generations. Consequently, the advanced, progressive, revolutionary forces are turning their anger more and more against both the dry rot of bourgeois amoralism and against those extreme, raving elements, sunk in despair, who are out to destroy all human culture and civilisation. Most assuredly, all roads, all ways and paths are leading humanity to social progress, to the victory of socialism. The future belongs to it.

p Does that mean that the fall of the bourgeoisie is preordained? It does not. The mere existence of the objective material preconditions for socialism does not solve the problem of capitalism’s conversion into socialism. Capitalism does not perish by way of automatic collapse. Socialism does not come of itself. Lenin, while noting the definite maturation of the material premises for socialism in the epoch of imperialism, at the same time stressed the fact that without the subjective factor, i.e., without the revolutionary struggle of the working class and the labour masses, capitalism would never perish by itself—the rotting might drag out. In presentday conditions, therefore, the subjective factor plays a decisive role in the conversion of capitalism into socialism. The working class alone, with the active support of the broad labour masses and under the leadership of a genuinely revolutionary party is capable of practically solving the question of the liquidation of capitalism and the triumph of socialism on a worldwide scale.

p To be sure, this is no easy task. The bourgeoisie is an operative class, which has grown up on definite production, economic, ideological and political fopndations. This class is not a passive product of socio-economic development, but a living, acting and active historical force. Yes, this class has outlived itself and become an obstacle to historical development. But this does not at all mean that this class is prepared to lay down its arms and say: "Since the scientific theory of historical materialism pronounces me a doomed class, then I voluntarily quit the stage." This, of course, is 213 an improbable illusion. It is just as wrong, from the viewpoint of the working class, to assume that once the communist ideology recognises the bourgeoisie to be a class doomed by history and subject to abolition, then the victory of the proletariat, by this very fact, is assured. No, this can never be. No government of the exploiters, however enfeebled, has ever fallen without being pushed. No single class yielded its rule unless there was someone to topple it.

p The bourgeoisie, although it has come into full contradiction with the demands of historical development, still remains a very powerful class. And what is more, it knows how to secure the greatest possible concentration of strength and means for political deception, violence and provocations at the very moment that it is in imminent danger of social * extinction. The victory of socialism in a number of countries in Europe and Asia and the mounting popular movement throughout the world has brought the bourgeoisie face to face with this grim spectre. This has sharpened to the highest degree its instinct of class self-preservation. The greater the danger, the more does a class, like the individual, sharpen its vital forces for the struggle for self-preservation.

p Yes, progressive social thought has tried the bourgeoisie at the bar of scientific knowledge of the historical process and recognised it as having outlived itself, but at the same time that bourgeoisie shows that it is very tenacious of life. What is the reason? The fact of the matter is that the productive forces are developing unevenly, in spurts, now racing ahead, now beating a retreat, and in their turn the different aspects of the social process are developing most unevenly. Therefore the bourgeoisie is anything but sickening and falling into decay while the working class is growing and gaining strength. It is mobilising all forces—the army, police, science, schools, the church,. parliament, the press, fascist gangs, deserters from the labour camp, and demoralised elements of the labour movement—preparing to resist with all the means at its disposal, to fight to the death against the working class.

p And should the bourgeoisie, historically doomed though it is, find in itself the strength, energy and might to beat the working class in mortal combat and rob the peoples of their socialist gains, this would mean that this earthly abode of ours would be doomed to economic and cultural debasement and decay, as happened in the past with many 214 countries, nations and civilisations. Modern society can no longer expose itself to this mortal danger. History itself, as it were, tells the working class and its vanguard—the Communist Party: "Yes, the destinies of mankind are in your hands; unless the actions of the imperialists are countered by the organised might of the popular masses, civilisation will be imperilled.”

p The question now is how to speed up the process in favour of socialism’s overwhelming victory, by what forces is this to be brought about. These forces exist. And MarxistsLeninists see them. That is why they are endeavouring in every way to strengthen the might and unity of the world socialist system—the bulwark of all the anti-imperialist forces—to paralyse as quickly as possible the Right- reformist and Left-adventurist policies in the labour movement, to resolve the ideological and political differences within the international communist movement and to organise, rally and stir to greater activity the working class, all the working people and progressive anti-imperialist forces the world over. The movement for social progress in every country would then force the pace of socialism’s triumph throughout the planet and establish everlasting peace upon Earth.

p There is a great deal of talk in our day about social progress. But what is meant by social progress? What meaning is attached to this concept?

p The ideologues of Right reformism are also for social progress, but progress of a kind that would not affect the underpinnings of capitalist society. They stand for a peaceful, evolutionary, spontaneous movement towards social change. Their motto remains the same: "The movement is everything, the goal—nothing." To adapt oneself to everything, to live on good terms with everybody, to go with the stream and from time to time shout demagogic slogans for the people—such is the motto of these “revolutionaries”.

p The concept of Marxists-Leninists reflects a different approach to the advance of social progress. Its chief elements are the following unalterable demands: the abolition of private ownership of the instruments and means of production and the transfer of state power to the working class and all the working people; fulfilment on this basis of the ultimate goal—the construction of socialism and communism. Mankind today has no road towards progress and everlasting peace upon Earth other than that of fighting for 215 international unity among the nations under the banner of peace, democracy and socialism.

p It is all a question of the means to an end. While the ideologues of Right reformism remove this question from the agenda altogether, the spokesmen of the Left-adventurist trend consider that it could be decided only by means of violence, by means of armed struggle, or, as they say, by means of a simultaneous act of world revolution or world war. Needless to say, this is an out-and-out adventurist doctrine fraught with disastrous consequences.

p True Marxists-Leninists, of course, have never dismissed the question of world revolution and of forcible methods of struggle, including armed struggle, but at the same time they never regarded this as an end in itself, never absolutised these ways and means of struggle. In other words, MarxistsLeninists never dispensed categorical prescriptions on this score. In this connection Marx wrote the following: " Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work.. . . The choice of that solution is the affair of the working classes of that country. The International does not presume to dictate in the matter and hardly to advise.”  [215•*  Speaking of the terrorist acts by the ruling classes he goes on to say: "We know that you are an armed force directed against the proletarians. We shall act against you peacefully wherever possible, and with arms whenever necessary.”  [215•** 

p Lenin pointed out that the general objective tendencies lead to the doom of capitalism and the triumph of socialism. It was all a question of the time and means of struggle to achieve the goal. But when this would happen and by what means of struggle it would be achieved, whether revolutionary, violent or peaceful, no one can say. Most likely it would be brought about by the most diverse means and ways, depending on the line-up of class forces in one or another country. Most probably this would take place suddenly during a political crisis prepared by preceding development or it could drag on for a longer period of time until the revolutionary situation is ripe for it.

p Nevertheless, the objective laws of history are inexorable. Marx said that the mole of history burrows well. No matter 216 how hard the bourgeoisie may resist it will have to forego its class privileges and interests. The peoples can no longer tolerate a position in which ownership of the instruments and means of production and the vast wealth of the nations are in the hands of a small privileged class of society. Most absurd of all is the fact that such a major source of society’s material life as the land and all its countless resources, without which human life is impossible, still remain in the hands of a small group of proprietors, who condemn the world’s most numerous section of the population—the peasants—to destitution, barbarism, starvation and extinction.

p The working classes, all the forward-looking progressive forces of society, are beginning more and more to realise that it is private ownership of the instruments and means of production that is fraught with the greatest danger for the destinies of humanity. Herein lies the genesis of society’s class cleavage, the nidus of class antagonisms and class struggle. It is private property in the instruments and means of production that is fraught with the greatest danger of war and with all kinds of sharp social and military conflicts. Consequently, the struggle for the levers of power passing into the hands of the working people, the struggle for the liquidation of private property in the instruments and means of production will never cease until these questions are resolved. Such is the objective aspect of the question.

p How is one to explain the absence of a revolutionary situation in many developed capitalist countries under present conditions? Here we have to go back again to the question of the modern scientific and technological revolution. The bourgeoisie understands the nature of this process perfectly well and is out to make the best use of this revolution. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the bourgeoisie is an experienced class that has lived through more than one technological revolution from each of which it has every time derived for itself tremendous economic, political and ideological benefit. In our day, too, on the basis of the scientific and technological revolution, we see a considerable economic boom, an upswing in production in some of the countries of capitalism. This boom often hampers the struggle of the working classes for their emancipation. And this boom is adroitly turned to account by 217 the various politicasters, bourgeois ideologists, reformists and opportunists. Significantly, at the moment of capitalist economy’s resurgence, these anti-revolutionary forces always advanced all kinds of arguments, concepts and theories belauding the capitalist order, extolling its political system. I have already spoken about this in detail.

One does not have to be a prophet, however, to foresee the inevitable wreck of all these renegade theories as well as a recession of the boom which bourgeois propaganda is now boosting. No one has ever succeeded in stealing a march on the objective laws of development of society, seeing that history is developing in accordance with the inescapable laws discovered by the founders of MarxismLeninism. With the subsidence in the boom will fade all the various pseudo-theories of the revisionist ideologues. We already have evidence of the maturation of grave and profound contradictions. To be sure, these contradictions so far are mostly to be observed in the political field in connection with the issues involved in the struggle for peace, against the war adventurism of the imperialists and the menace of another world war. But these contradictions will grow in intensity when this economic boom, caused mainly by the modern scientific and technological revolution and the militarisation of the capitalist economy, will have petered out. We are witnesses of how, step by step, a revolutionary situation is building up from which the ruling classes and their flunkeys will have difficulty in extricating themselves.

The scientific and technological revolution is exacerbating all social collisions in the modern world. On the one hand, it excites hopes among the bourgeoisie and its ideologues as to the possibility of arresting the downfall of capitalism and preventing a social revolution  [217•* ; it engenders illusions 218 as to the almighty power of the exploiter class, which has concentrated in its hands colossal productive forces and the might of the state machinery. On the other hand, it is precisely this almighty power of state-monopoly capitalism and the clearly forming pattern of the growing danger of militarism and of the destructive forces of bourgeois civilisation that are meeting with increasing resistance on the part of all the working people, of all honest men and women. There is a growing general realisation of the indisputable truth that socialism is the only way out of the impasse of contradictions of the bourgeois system, that only drastic social reforms can place the achievements of science and technology at the service of mankind, and not the demoniac forces of destruction and demoralisation. And then "no forces of darkness can withstand an alliance of the scientists, the proletariat and the technologists”.  [218•*  Socialism is the key to the deliverance of civilisation, to the gateway of a new, happier future for mankind.