S.Trapeznikov
__TITLE__ AT THE TURNINGPROGRESS PUBLISHERS MOSCOW
[1]Translated from the Russian by Bernard Isaacs
C. n. TPAnE3HHKOB
Ha KpyTbix noBopoiax HCTOPHH
(H3 ypOKOB 6opb6bl C peBH3HOHH3MOM
BHytpH MapKCHCTCKO-JieHHHCKOrO flBHJKeHHfl)
Ha OHSJIUUCKOM X3blKe
CONTENTS
Page Author's Foreword................ 8
I. Marxism-Leninism and the Modern Scientific and Technological Revolution............ 9
1. The Basic Features of the Present-Day Social Movement 10
2. The Gigantic Scope of the Scientific and Technological
Revolution
3. Scientific and Technological Progress Wholly at the Service
of Social Progress............... 25
4. Marxism-Leninism---the Most Advanced Social Thought
of the Age................. 33
II. How the Negators of Marxism Found Themselves Worsted by Marxism
1. Four Historical Periods of Marxism's Struggle with Revisionism.................45
A. Repulsing the Frontal Attack of the Bourgeoisie Was Marxism's First Victorious Step.................48
B. The Emergence of Revisionism Within the Marxist Movement . . 54
C. The Decisive Defeat of Right-Wing Reformism and ``Left'' Revolutionarism Is the Triumph of Marxism-Leninism ...... 62
D. Revisionism Comes to Active Life Again........ 73
2. Revisionism---a Training School for Leaders of a Special Social Type.................7?
3. How the Biggest and Once Revolutionary Workers' Party Was Ruined.................. 91
4. Lessons and Conclusions.............106
3III. Right-wing Reformism and ``Left'' Revolutionarism---two Stems of a Single Root
1. What Are "Opportunist Dropsy" and "Anarchist Measles" 117
A. Right Reformism---the Main Channel for Spreading Bourgeois
Ideology Among the Working Class.........*1"
B. ``Left'' Revolutionarism---the Wandering Shadow of Right Reformism 131
2. Revisionism Is a Profoundly Historical and Thoroughly Social Phenomenon..............144
IV. The Fight Against Revisionism Is the Most
Important Sector of the Anti-Imperialist Front
1. The Unfading Light of Revolutionary Theory .... 167
2. Convergence and Pluralism Are Two Revisionist Streams Eroding the Soil of the Peoples' Liberation Struggle . . 176
A. Convergence---a Way to the Erosion of Socialism and Its Absorption
by Capitalism.................178
B. Pluralism---a Strategic Line at Splitting the Forces of Socialism and Defeating It
.................190
3. Hopes for the Restoration of Capitalism in the Countries
of Socialism Have Proved Baseless.........199
4. The End of Capitalism and the Triumph of Socialism Are Inevitable..................209
V. The Revolutionary Experience of the C.P.S.U. should be Enriched and the Continuity of Leninism Preserved
1. The Revolutionary Locomotive of History Is on the Socialist Rails..................223
2. The Socialist Amity of Workers and Peasants Is Striking Proof of the Strength of Lenin's Ideas........234
3. The Socialist System Put to the Test of Life During the Grim Ordeal of War.............. 242
4. The Leninist Principles of Socialist Economic Management 252
4VI. Marxist-Leninist Theory will Continue As Before to Light Up the Path of Revolutionary Practice
1. Only a Party Guided by Advanced Theory Can Fulfil the Role of Advanced Fighter............261
2. All the Component Parts of Marxism-Leninism Must Be Consistently Developed.............271
3. Enhancement of the Role of the Party's Theoretical Activities and the Struggle for Ideological Purity of MarxismLeninism ..................279
4. The Social Sciences in the Service of Communist Construction ....................284
Conclusion ..................292
[5] ~ [6] __ALPHA_LVL1__ [Quote by Lenin on page before AUTHOR'S FOREWORD]No matter what the further complications of the struggle may be, no matter what occasional zigzags we may have to contend with (there will be very many of them---we have seen from experience what gigantic turns the history of the revolution has made, and so far it is only in our own country; matters will be much more complicated and proceed much more rapidly, the rate of development will be more furious and the turns will be more intricate when the revolution becomes a European revolution)---in order not to lose our way in these zigzags, these sharp turns in history, in order to retain the general perspective, to be able to see the scarlet thread that joins up the entire development of capitalism and the entire road to socialism, the road we naturally imagine as straight, and which we must imagine as straight in order to see the beginning, the continuation and the end---in real life it will never be straight, it will be incredibly involved---in order not to lose our way in these twists and turns, in order not to get lost at times when we are taking steps backward, times of retreat and temporary defeat or when history or the enemy throws us back---in order not to get lost, it is, in my opinion, important not to discard our old, basic Programme; the only theoretically correct line is to retain it.
Lenin
[7] __ALPHA_LVL1__ AUTHOR'S FOREWORDThis book is based on addresses and lectures which the author has delivered at different times since the 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. to various audiences, such as a general meeting of scientists at the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, conferences of department heads and social science instructors of higher educational institutions, seminars of ideological workers in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Tbilisi, Riga, Yaroslavl and other cities. Although the various sections stand more or less by themselves, the book as a whole is orientated towards a single aim---that of defending the basic ideas of Marxism-Leninism against the attacks of the ideologues of anti-communism and revisionism from both the Right and the ``Left''. Needless to say, in preparing the manuscript for the press a good deal of extra work had to be done and new documentary sources drawn upon.
[8] __ALPHA_LVL1__ I. MARXISM-LENINISMThe C.P.S.U.---the great party of Lenin---has held its 24th Congress, which turns a new page in the history of the victorious march of the first land of socialism towards the summit of civilisation---communism. Looking back at the road the Party has travelled since the 23rd Congress one can say without exaggeration that this phase will go down in the history of our Party as an outstanding landmark in the Soviet people's creative efforts under the allconquering banner of Marxism-Leninism.
In consistently carrying out the historic decisions of the 23rd Congress, the Communist Party launched truly stupendous undertakings in all spheres of socialist society's material and spiritual life. The effectiveness of Lenin's line aimed at building communism in the U.S.S.R. is abundantly demonstrated in the life-giving role of the Party in the political and economic fields, in science and education, in culture and public health, in the development of socialist democracy, and in the steady improvement in the material and spiritual welfare of the people.
The road which the Party has travelled between its congresses is crowned with such outstanding events of worldwide significance as the 150th anniversary of the birth of the founders of scientific communism---Karl Marx and Frederick Engels; the 50th anniversary of the October Socialist Revolution; the centenary of V. I. Lenin, founder of the Communist Party and of the world's first socialist state---the U.S.S.R.; and the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. All this was a striking manifestation of the life-affirming force of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and of the continued international consolidation of the world's revolutionary forces that are fighting under the banner of scientific communism.
9 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE BASIC FEATURESNever before, in any single preceding epoch, in the life of a single generation, have such stupendous events affecting the lives of tens and hundreds of millions of people taken place as in the present epoch. No previous epoch has known such profound revolutionising processes in all spheres of life, in all continents of the globe, as those we are witnessing today. It can truly be said that the modern world of men is intricate, complex, dynamic and extremely restive. It is now clear to everybody what a degree of intensity the class struggle has now assumed in the world arena. It has sharpened all down the line, economically, politically and ideologically.
All forms of the class struggle peculiar to the imperialist phase of capitalism have been laid starkly bare. The Main Document of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, held in Moscow in June 1969, states: "Mankind has entered the last third of our century in a situation marked by a sharpening of the historic struggle between the forces of progress and reaction, between socialism and imperialism. This clash is worldwide and embraces all the basic spheres of social life, economy, politics, ideology and culture.''^^*^^
Yes, mankind today has embarked on the second phase of the struggle between the two opposed socio-political systems---capitalism and socialism---and their respective ideologies. Never before, on the world's political stage, has the inexorable question, posed by life itself, been put so bluntly---the question, who will win the race? Who will beat whom in this swift march of history? This objective factor is so obvious that it is impossible to deny or minimise it.
Imperialism has always been the chief enemy, not only of the communist and labour movement, but of all champions of the people's freedom and independence, of the working people's emancipation from social and national oppression. Lenin's analysis of the social essence of imperialism and its place in history has lost none of its significance to this day. _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 11.
10 It gives us the key to an understanding of the new phenomena and special features which distinguish imperialism at its present stage of development. Objectively, the strength and influence of imperialism are no longer what they were half a century ago. Ever since the October Socialist Revolution imperialism has been sustaining defeat after defeat and has now come face to face with the mighty power of the world socialist system. World imperialism now is obliged to adjust itself to the new conditions, the conditions of struggle between the two systems. This, in turn, determines the very substance of the home and foreign policies of the imperialist circles.``The features of contemporary capitalism largely spring from the fact that it is trying to adapt itself to the new situation in the world. In the conditions of the confrontation with socialism, the ruling circles' of the capitalist countries are afraid more than have ever been of the class struggle developing into a massive revolutionary movement. Hence, the bourgeoisie's striving to use more camouflaged forms of exploitation and oppression of the working people, and its readiness now and again to agree to partial reforms in order to keep the masses under its ideological and political control as far as possible. The monopolies have been making extensive use of scientific and technical achievements to fortify their positions to enhance the efficiency and accelerate the pace of production, and to intensify the exploitation and oppression of the working people.
However, adaptation to the new conditions does not mean that capitalism has been stabilised as a system. The general crisis of capitalism has continued to deepen.''^^*^^
Without laying claim to any exhaustive assessment of the nature of the present-day social movement, we should like to point out four of its major features, which in our opinion are most deserving of note.
The first characteristic feature is the unusually striking manifestation of all the internal and external antagonisms peculiar to imperialism, the deeper and more intense operation of the unalterable law of capitalism---its uneven and spasmodic development. Hence the mounting international tension and the temperature of the ideological struggle, _-_-_
^^*^^ 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Documents, Moscow, 1971, p. 20.
11 strongly sustained by political, economic and even military means. The scientific and technological revolution has not only not weakened, but on the contrary, has accentuated and laid bare still more the antagonistic contradictions of imperialism. It will be no exaggeration to say that humanity, as never before, is living through an extremely complex and crucial epoch fraught with the grave menace of war.Too many combustibles have accumulated in the world today, which are likely at any moment to blaze up in a destructive military conflagration threatening the very existence of the peoples of the globe. The antagonistic contradictions of imperialism have grown so acute and the influence which the sinister league between the great monopolies and the military operating within the government apparatus exercises on the policy making of many imperialist states has become so great that it needs but little to fan the ceaseless local wars engineered by imperialist ruling circles into a general third world war.
All thinking people the world over should, above all, realise the full import of this grave danger and make the greatest effort to relax international tension and avert the impending but avertable catastrophe that threatens mankind. Indeed, if it were not for the existence of the Soviet Union--- that mighty land of socialism---and of the other socialist countries, the world would long ago have been ablaze in the flames of war, the imperialists would long ago have plunged it into a wholesale carnage for a carve-up of the terrestrial globe and for the enslavement of the peoples, undeterred by the fact that they would cut one another's throat in the melee. For such are the objective laws of imperialism, its bestial, man-hating nature---a thing which we Communists and all progressive forces in the world should never forget. Therefore, nothing is more dangerous and deceptive than playing down the acute antagonisms of imperialism and winking at its predatory actions. And vice versa, the closer and deeper the secrets of these antagonisms will be exposed to the scrutiny of society's progressive forces and the more active these forces will be in rousing the masses to the struggle against militarism, against imperialist reaction, the more chances there will be for averting another world war. Such is the logic of contemporary social development.
The second characteristic feature is the extremely high 12 dynamic force of social development and the swiftly changing situations in the world which testify to the maturity and intensity of the working people's intellectual development, their active perception of their environment and active influence upon it. More and more people in the capitalist world are beginning to realise that imperialism is a threat to their conditions of life and their very existence, and they are trying to take their bearings.
Perhaps the most striking and remarkable feature of this plumbing process is the fact that the headlong tide of the socio-political movement has swept up the broad masses of the people representing the most diverse social strata. All over the world we see spontaneous mass demonstrations and protests; on the one hand, a flowing stream of `` peacemaking'' slogans for unity, brotherhood, humanity, and freeacting personality; on the other, a thundering cannonade of barricade fighting, flying revolutionary banners of the liberation struggle. True Marxists-Leninists are confident that from this mighty human tide, from this, at times spontaneously developing revolutionary process, there is bound to emerge in the end a big and real organised movement of the masses which no reactionary force in the world will be able to resist.
It is good to realise that all this is the brilliant achievement of all social development, which prepared, inspired and evoked such a powerful movement of protest in the world directed in one way or another against the reactionary forces of imperialism. It is gratifying to know that against the backcloth of this sweeping movement of the world's peoples the beneficial influence of the revolutionary transformative ideas of Marxism-Leninism materially embodied in the brilliant victories of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries is more and more clearly felt with the progress of time.
The third characteristic feature is the complex interlocking of social forces involved in the revolutionary liberation movement. From different positions, with different aims, all kinds of people are joining the fight against imperialism--- workers and peasants, students and professional men, art and literature workers, some of the clergy, tradesmen, the petty and sometimes middle bourgeoisie, civil servants of the lower ranks, including policemen, all those who, often still instinctively, feel imperialism to be a threat to their 13 existence. At the same time this creates serious difficulties, for this social heterogeneity frequently stands in the way of the movement's purposeful orientation and organisation and sometimes places upon it the seal of spontaneity, anarchy or simply riotousness. We see here a confusion of democratic and socialist aims, of strategic and tactical tendencies, of political programmatic goals and current economic demands, of peaceful and violent methods of struggle. Imperialist propaganda makes skilful use of this by foisting on the movement shoddy ready-made ideas and platforms for every taste in order to seduce it from the revolutionary path.
It can be said that the present-day social movement against imperialism, despite its mass character and to a certain extent even because of it, is so far in a state of underdevelopment. The spontaneous nature of the heterogeneous social forces often inhibits consciousness, and petty-- bourgeois amorphousness gets the better of class, proletarian organisation. The mass social movement cannot abide for long in such a condition. Objectively speaking, it must either peter out or rise to a higher level of consciousness and organisation. But to win through it must be headed by the working class and embark upon the road of political, class struggle. Such is the objective logic of things.
But how can this be achieved? The answer to this question can only be given by the scientific theory of MarxismLeninism and the international experience of the class struggle. And the answer is a simple one: in contemporary conditions the task is to impart to the spontaneously growing anti-imperialist movement an organised, purposeful class character. In the handling of this stupendous task a great historical role belongs to the Communist Parties and to all the world's progressive revolutionary forces.
The fourth characteristic feature is the appearance upon the surface of the social movement of the most diverse political currents with a multitude of platforms and doctrinal conceptions. To our great chagrin, however, we must admit that throughout this multiform maze of ideas no small part is fathered by out-and-out apologists of imperialism. There are also what might appear at first sight as uncommitted currents, which, voluntarily or not, are orientated against scientific socialism, are aimed at taking the edge off the class struggle, at hoodwinking the public, at revising the 14 spiritual values which have given so much light and warmth to the working classes. The so-called concept of `` democratic'', "people`s'' and suchlike capitalism, of all kinds of attempts at ``modelling'', ``programming'', and ``forecasting'' aimed at proving the viability of capitalism in its competition with socialism, have literally addled the minds of many bourgeois and revisionist theoreticians, who have abandoned themselves completely to the idea of the capitalist system's perpetuity and stability.
Under the fashionable flag of objective scientism a shameless undisguised attack is often mounted against the scientific world outlook of Marxism-Leninism in all its component parts. Sophistry and abstract scholasticism devoid of lifeblood and assurance are set off against true science; the historical processes of society's development are subjected to revision, in which subjectivism and idealism are substituted for the materialist interpretation of history; the objective laws of social development are repudiated with an increasing accent on misinterpreted philosophical categories in the sphere of morals and ethics, stripped of their class content; Marxist economic science is debased and offset by all kinds of apologetic and vulgarising economic concepts.
This whole conglomeration of out-and-out apologetic ideas and theories, both the new-fledged and the old longrejected ones, did not appear all at once; these ideas and theories accumulated gradually in the course of decades. Today we can merely establish the fact that there has been sufficient time for these diverse streamlets of ideas and theories to merge into two mainstreams of political theories aimed at reconciling mankind with capitalism, known as ``convergence'' and ``pluralism''. At the present time it is these two major outgrowths of bourgeois ideology, serving not only as the ideological basis of anti-communism but as nutrient soil for revisionism, that represent a very considerable danger. These theories and their ramifications are particularly harmful in that they have here and there penetrated into the Marxist-Leninist movement and found a following there. Therefore, the primary and most urgent task is to safeguard Marxism-Leninism against contamination with pseudoscientific figments and to wage an all-out fight against its ideological opponents and distorters.
Thus, the ideas of scientific socialism are forming and 15 spreading in the world under conditions of a sharp class struggle. With the growth of the forces of socialism and the acceleration of the process of transition to socialism on a worldwide scale, which constitute the main content of the present epoch, the class struggle in the world arena will not die down, as the Right ideologues of reformism try to prove, but, on the contrary, will grow and sharpen more and more. You can't get away from this natural process. Therefore, the primary and urgent task facing genuine Marxists-- Leninists, a task set by life itself, is to rally all the world's revolutionary, progressive forces under the banner of Marxism-Leninism and scientific socialism and lead them in the fight against the obscurantist forces of imperialism.
All Right-reformist ideas about non-class and supra-class conceptions, about pure democracy and harmony, about liberalisation and humanisation, are illusions, which, under the conditions of capitalism, have no ground to stand on, have no justification. Just as strongly to be rejected are the Left-adventurist conceptions about present-day social contradictions being resolved only by means of a world war or by armed putsches. In the final analysis both these political trends play into the hands of imperialist reaction.
Frankly speaking, under present conditions imperialism would never be able to keep its senile feet were it not for the splitting activities of the Right reformists and the ``Left'' adventurists, who are propping up that rotting old tree from different sides. As far back as 1915, when the political bankruptcy of the Right leaders of Western SocialDemocracy had become an historical fact, Lenin wrote: "The whole struggle of our Party (and of the working-class movement in Europe generally) must be directed against opportunism. The latter is not a current of opinion, not a tendency; it (opportunism) has now become the organised tool of the bourgeoisie within the working-class movement.''^^*^^
He had just as hard and angry words for the adventurists in the garb of ``Left'' revolutionaries, of whom he wrote: "The whole history of revolutions has shown many such revolutionary phrase-mongers and nothing is left of them but stench and smoke.''^^**^^
He stated emphatically: "Hysterical impulses are of no _-_-_
^^*^^ V I Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 197.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 198.
16 use to us. What we need is the steady advance of the iron battalions of the proletariat.''^^*^^In our day, when the basic contradiction of the epoch is that between imperialism and socialism, it is important to remember Lenin's words about imperialism's link with opportunism within the labour movement. Summing up his famous work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin wrote: "The most dangerous of all in this respect are those who do not wish to understand that the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism.''^^**^^
Hence the logical conclusion---that our generation must keep a strong grip on the militant banner of Marxism-- Leninism and carry on an unremitting, uncompromising struggle both against Right reformism and against ``Left'' revolutionarism. By paralysing these main ideological opponents of Marxism-Leninism within the labour and communist movement we help to weaken and destroy the whole framework of imperialism. To the present-day generation of revolutionaries has fallen an extremely difficult and important mission---that of directing the world process of social development into such a majestic channel as would bring the multifarious rivulets and currents together into a single mainstream heading swiftly towards the complete liberation of mankind from imperialist oppression.
Naturally, this imposing objective can be achieved only on the firm basis of Marxism-Leninism, which requires international unity of the world communist and labour movement. It is towards this aim that the advance cohorts of Marxism-Leninism are courageously battling their way: "To wage a successful struggle against imperialism and to ensure the victory of their cause, Communists will propagate the ideas of scientific socialism in the working-class movement and among the broad masses, including young people; they will consistently uphold their principles and work for the triumph of Marxism-Leninism and, in accordance with the concrete situation, fight against Right- and Left-- opportunist distortions of theory and policy, against revisionism, dogmatism and Left-sectarian adventurism.''^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., p. 277.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 302.
^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 38.
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2-1214 17 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. THE GIGANTIC SCOPE OF THE SCIENTIFICA significant feature of the present epoch is the astonishingly rapid development of science, based on the powerful material foundation of the growing productive forces. This means that mankind has risen to the peak of its intellectual development, is opening ever wider horizons both in plumbing the secrets of nature and deepening its understanding of the objective laws governing social development. We are living in an age of gigantic scientific and technological progress, when the will and mind of all progressive social forces are directed towards subduing the elemental forces of nature. It is natural, therefore, that our Party, our Government and the whole Soviet people are sparing no effort to occupy an appropriate place in this great process. This has made a call for society's best forces. And society, first and foremost the Party, have made these forces available to science.
It is enough to glance at the geography of our socialist land to realise the tremendous scope and range of Soviet scientific development. The branches of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences set up in all the Union republics have long since become independent academies, recognised scientific centres possessing a large network of research institutes. The Academy has many branches in the autonomous regions and republics and in the country's large economic centres, which are rich in natural resources. If we add to this the wide network of research institutes within the sphere of production itself---in industry, transport and agriculture---the scale and scope of scientific development will present a picture of imposing grandeur.
The whole world knows of the outstanding achievements of Soviet scientists in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, biology and many other fields of the natural and technical sciences. Our scientists have achieved brilliant successes in space exploration and in the study of the Universe. Never before in all its history can our science be said to have disposed of such favourable facilities for its development as it has today. Under socialism the scientific and technological revolution is the concern of the whole people, an object of constant care by the Party and the Government, one of the key sectors of the struggle for 18 communism. The Soviet people spare neither effort nor means for the further development of science. Scientists are assured of the full support of the Party and the Government for their scientific creativity.
It is now an unalterable fact that the human race has reached a period marked by a great scientific and technological revolution which is attended by profound changes in the sphere of production and in social life. Each new advance in science has a growing impact on the life of society and speeds up the rate of technological and social progress. The world has known previous scientific and technological revolutions, but all were on an incomparably smaller scale than the present one. Obviously, the invention of the steam engine or the use of electricity can stand no comparison with the present discoveries that probe the mysteries of the atomic nucleus, with the creation of computer and controlling techniques, space rockets and research into the Universe. It is therefore the sacred duty of today's progressive social forces to guard as the apple of one's eye these great achievements of mankind against all reactionary forces from whatever quarter they may appear.
Under the conditions of the modern scientific and technological revolution the importance of science in the development of the country's economy and in the whole life of society is increasing year by year. In our day it is impossible to achieve the necessary economic growth rate without fullscale development of scientific research and the rapid application of its results in industry. The outcome of the competition between the two socio-economic systems--- socialism and capitalism---largely depends on which of them will more effectively develop science and use its achievements in society's material and spiritual life.
To be sure, the modern scientific and technological revolution is not endless in time and space; it has its beginning and its end. As accumulated scientific experimental knowledge and its use in the material sphere of production became exhausted the scientific and technological revolution will gradually subside and its results will become public property. Following this there must needs be a definite length of time for evolutionary development and the accumulation of new experimental experience and scientific discoveries to prepare the conditions for a new revolutionary breakthrough, for the unfolding of a new, __PRINTERS_P_19_COMMENT__ 2* 19 still more grandiose scientific and technological revolution. The probable basis for the future breakthrough may be provided by biological science.
In evaluating the modern process of the scientific and technological revolution it is safe to say that it has now reached the stage of its greatest range and effect. In this tremendous scientific and technological contest with capitalism the world socialist system must not only hold its vanguard positions, but come out on top in this gigantic battle, win it for the benefit of world progress and civilisation. What must contribute to this victorious outcome of the struggle in favour of peace, democracy and socialism?
First of all, the greatest possible development of fundamental experimental science and a more rapid application of its results in the spheres of material production and the spiritual life of society. Fundamental experimental science, or, as Marx called it, "pure science", is not always ostentatious. It hides its unconquerable and matchless strength in the secret hiding places of laboratory experiments. Nevertheless, when this mighty power emerges upon the surface of social development and casts aside the veil of its 'secrets humanity at once becomes aware of its conquering tread. But there is a second division---applied science, which is always in the public eye, always in action, in use, and its results are always visible and tangible. Applied science is the revolutionary element that makes for scientific and technological progress. And yet, effective and serviceable though it is, it yields primacy to fundamental science.
Naturally, both these trends in science are organically related. Nevertheless, they have their distinct delimitations. We must never forget the immutable truth that fundamental science is that potent force which sets the stage and scope for the development of the scientific and technological revolution. It plays today the same revolutionising role it has played in the past. Therefore, if we are bent on winning the field in the scientific and technological contest with the capitalist world, we must continue the general line at still further promoting fundamental science and keeping it closely related to applied science and the material sphere of production.
Soviet fundamental science has won the lead in a number of important fields. Leaning on the achievements of science, 20 many branches of the national economy have attained a high level of progress. Wide-scale exploration of natural resources has provided the country with all forms of mineral raw materials. In their time the founders of scientific communism foresaw that after the revolutionary forces would have broken the chains of capitalism, and together with them, destroyed also class antagonisms, mankind would direct all the efforts towards subduing the elemental forces of nature and using her inexaustible material sources for the good of man. A gigantic role in the solution of this problem belongs to science.
In our country it is generally accepted that science enters into the labour process as an important productive force. "When the production process becomes a sphere of application for science," Marx wrote, "then, vice versa, science becomes a factor, so to speak, a function of the production process.''^^*^^ This scientific forecast of Marx's operates with remarkable accuracy. Scientific research today is being directed more and more towards a definite purpose aimed at discovering new sources of technical progress, tapping new springs for a steep increase in output, for improving labour efficiency and steadily raising the standard of living. In this connection the question naturally arises as to what fundamental changes take place in the relations between science and production in the context of the modern scientific and technological revolution.
First, on the basis of the latest discoveries in science itself there have arisen improved technological processes, new industries and new kinds of material production. Thus, as a result of nuclear physics research a new industry has arisen---nuclear engineering; on the basis of solid-state physics and high-pressure physics there has been created an industry manufacturing new semiconductor instruments, artificial diamonds and other new materials. Owing to the wide use of these achievements industries such as radio engineering, radio-electronics and instrument-making have taken on an entirely new look. Polymer chemistry has made it possible to organise the production of synthetic materials with inbuilt pre-set properties. A number of other industries are being reconstituted, changing the character of labour and making for its greater efficiency.
_-_-_^^*^^ See Kommunist No. 7, Moscow, 1958, p. 22,
21The complex mechanism of modern science and its unprecedented growth in scope and range necessitate an immense development of the material and technical base for scientific research. As a result there has arisen a whole "science industry" comprising gigantic engineering structures and complex installations and devices. In turn, the development of production poses more and more new practical problems to science. This process of mutual enrichment between science and production becomes an unbreakable link in the complex of man's influence on nature and is a characteristic feature of the modern scientific and technological revolution.
Second, on the basis of the high level of experimental work, the process of utilising the achievements of science is being unprecedentedly speeded up, and the period between scientific discoveries and their practical application is rapidly narrowing. This tendency is confirmed by numerous examples. Thus, the principle on which photography was based was not realised for practical purposes until more than a century later (1727-1839); in telephone communication this took a little over 55 years (1820-1876); in radio--- 35 years (1867-1902); in radiolocation---15 years (1925-1940); in television---12 years (1922-1934); for the A-bomb---6 years (1939-1945); for the transistor---5 years (1948-1953); for the integrated circuit---3 years (1958-1961).
To this we would add the eloquent testimony of the British scientist S. Lilley to the effect that "when the world learned in 1945 about the atomic bomb, eminent scientists and eminent politicians were nearly unanimous in telling us that it would take at least fifty years to discover how to 'tame the atom' to the peaceful use of producing power. Yet a 5,000 kw nuclear power station started work near Moscow in June 1954.. .''.^^*^^ The tendency towards reducing the time between scientific research and the design and production stage is continuing to grow. The speed with which scientific achievements aYe applied in practice is an important condition of progress in production and throughout social life. Communist construction demands the continual strengthening of the ties between science and production in order to speed up society's progress.
Third, science is rapidly developing inside production _-_-_
^^*^^ S. Lilley, Automation and Social Progress, London, 1957, p. 92.
22 itself, as witnessed by the growing network of scientific laboratories and institutes in industry and agriculture, while at the same time the proportion of science workers and specialists in all branches of the Soviet national economy is steadily growing. Science is becoming the property of ever widening circles of workers, who are society's main productive force. The closer relation between science and production makes for a steady improvement in the efficiency of all means of production, for a higher intellectual potential among the workers of science and industry, for more favourable conditions for new and more progressive scientific discoveries. All these circumstances enable more effective use to be made of the forces of nature and her wealth, make it possible to change natural conditions, improve the soil, regulate the water regime and the development of flora and fauna, and eventually of the climate as well.Fourth, the process of interaction among the sciences is steadily increasing, especially among those which were never connected before or were poorly connected with each other. This interaction and interpenetration among the numerous trends in science in the process of research and its practical application derive from the unity of nature's phenomena themselves, which form the basis of the inorganic world and the world of living matter. This in generalised form is exemplified by the appearance of new scientific trends, such as biophysics, biochemistry and others. In cybernetics we have the concentrated expression of the ties among numerous sciences. This new field of science deals with the theory of control in different spheres of human activity in which use is made of the data of such sciences as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, economics, computor techniques, etc. In our day a continuous process of differentiation of knowledge is taking place, and therefore the development of science is grounded not only on the activities of individual scientists, but on the co-operation between numerous laboratories and institutes, especially when dealing with complex problems.
Fifth, science is penetrating more and more into all spheres of state administration and economic management. The Communist Party, in its leadership of the state and society, places the business of management of the socioeconomic processes on a firm scientific foundation. This is one of the most important objective laws governing social 23 development under socialism. The need for widely developing and applying scientific methods in business management enhances the role and responsibility of scientists. Elaboration of the theoretical principles of management of the productive, economic, social and spiritual processes in our society is becoming one of the most important tasks of Soviet science. The economics of the various industries and of the national economy as a whole have grown to such an extent that their management is only possible on a strictly scientific basis. At the same time the training of cadres of a special category designed to manage science itself has become an urgent problem.
Sixth, the scientific and technological revolution turns science into an active operative element of modern material and spiritual culture. It not only changes the character of production, but exercises a growing influence on the improvement of social relations among people. This in the first place occurs in the changing nature of social labour, which, on the basis of a great speeding up of large-scale mechanisation and automation, acquires the quality of an engineer's or technician's work both in industry and in agriculture. Important problems of social development now being tackled in the U.S.S.R. in a practical manner include the elimination of major distinctions between town and country and between mental and manual labour, the complete obliteration of distinctions between the working class and the peasantry, and the conversion of all citizens of the land of socialism into working members of a classless communist society. It is in this direction that Soviet socialist society is developing.
In an antagonistic, exploiters' society the results and effects of the scientific and technological revolution are extremely contradictory and tend to multiply the negative aspects of capitalist production.^^*^^ The socialist transformation of social relations, on the other hand, makes scientific and technological progress a consciously planned and controlled process whose ultimate objective is the good of the whole community and the many-sided development of the personality of each of its members. Lenin's words to the _-_-_
^^*^^ Rene Koenig, the well-known West-German sociologist, affirms that the development of technology not only introduces elements of compulsion into human labour, but tends still more to materialise sqfial relations.
24 effect that "socialism alone will liberate science from its bourgeois fetters, from its enslavement to capital, from its slavery to the interests of dirty capitalist greed"^^*^^ have come true. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESSThe steady progress of science and technology is only one aspect of the matter. The other, in all its diversity, consists in the fact that scientific and technological progress, now as before, does not occur isolatedly from social life, but is closely linked with social progress. In the socialist countries scientific and technological progress is not an end in itself; it aims at establishing and developing the most perfect social relations, at attaining profound social progress freeing man not only from all forms of class oppression, but from his dependence on the forces of nature. These two phenomena are inseparable.
History provides no few instances of civilised states and nations that were unable to make timely use of great scientific and technological discoveries and found themselves in extremely difficult straits. As a result there were no few tragic consequences, when, owing to backwardness or failure to keep in step with the times, or through opposition to such progress on the part of reactionary forces, entire states were wiped off the map and mighty empires disappeared. History in this respect is the severest and most ruthless of judges. Such a disaster all but overtook Russia. At a time when already in the 18th century countries like England and France had come forward upon the world scene as a result of scientific and technological progress, Russia was vegetating, lagging far behind. She was heading for national disaster. Russia was saved by the October Revolution, which turned her into a mighty socialist power.
With the emergence of science as a special sphere of social activity the history of man shows that social and scientific progress---through contradictions, destructive catastrophes and wars---went, on the whole, hand in hand. Great geographical discoveries served as the prologue to _-_-_
^^*^^ Y, I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 411,
25 the capitalist development of Europe. They gave a powerful impetus to the advancement of scientific knowledge in the field of astronomy, celestial and terrestrial mechanics, hydrostatics and hydrodynamics, which made it possible to summarise and make a real study of world practice in scientific and technological development. It was at this period that the foundations of the modern natural science were laid and their direct bearing on the productive sphere was made secure.The growth of that day's science contributed to the technical reorganisation of capitalist production and to the creation of the material facilities for the rapid development of the productive forces. This was abundantly borne out by the industrial revolution in England, which finally consolidated the capitalist mode of production. The progress of science since then has been more rapid, inasmuch as science itself proved to be a field for profitable investment of capital. This became more and more obvious. Engels remarked that "a single achievement of science like James Watt's steam-engine has brought in more for the world in the first fifty years of its existence than the world has spent on the promotion of science since the beginning of time".^^*^^ Subsequent events, however, showed that restrictions to the advancement of science were largely rooted in social conditions, in the system of capitalist relationships. In this connection it would be useful to dwell on certain features of the present scientific and technological revolution, particularly on the bearing which it has on the social processes that are taking place in the modern world.
The first feature of the unfolding scientific and technological revolution is that it is taking place in the epoch of revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism as distinct from the scientific and technological revolutions which developed during the transition from feudalism to capitalism or on the basis of capitalism and led to the establishment of capitalism. One aspect of the great revolutionary process is that the scientific and technological revolution of our day leads ultimately to the consolidation of socialism and is a condition of its victory on a worldwide scale.
The second feature of the modern scientific and _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Werke, Ed. 1, S. 509.
26 technological revolution is that, in a way, it forms the pivot of the struggle that has developed between the two worlds, between the two different types of system---the socialist and the capitalist. Under these conditions the scientific and technological revolution, its results and conclusions, become a double-edged weapon to be used alike by the forces of progress in the interest of civilisation and continued prosperity or by the forces of reaction for the nefarious purpose of violence and destruction. The two systems are engaged in a stupendous competition and struggle also in the sphere of science and technology. It is natural, therefore, that each system, each country, strives to beat the other in this contest, tries to increase its power. This accounts for the extremely acute nature of the struggle around the problems of the scientific and technological revolution and reveals the very close relation which exists between technical progress and social progress..The third feature of the scientific and technological revolution of our day is that it is universal in character. Where, formerly, such revolutions used to take place in separate fields of science or technology, today we find it penetrating into all scientific and technological fields embracing the whole productive and economic sphere of life. Therefore, every new discovery switches scientific and technical progress into still higher gear. At the same time the revolution in science merges organically with the revolution in production into a single revolutionary process, in the course of which science more and more actively influences all aspects of socio-economic development.
The societal impact of the scientific and technological revolution is making itself felt more and more, and in view of this Marxist-Leninist theory acquires greater significance for all other fields of knowledge and for people's practical activity. The need for a correct social theory has become still greater not only in the countries of socialism, but in the capitalist countries where a growing number of progressive intellectuals, public figures and rank-and-file workers gravitate towards social as well as scientific and technological progress.
The question arises, which of these aspects should enjoy priority---technological progress or social progress?
Marxists-Leninists treat this matter dialectically, from class positions, in the context of all its interrelations and 27 interdependence. This is what Wilhelm Liebknecht wrote about his conversation with Marx (in 1850) on the subject of the scientific and technological revolution: "The conversation turned on the natural sciences and Marx spoke ironically about the triumphant reaction that reigned in Europe and which imagined it had crushed the revolution, little suspecting that the advance in the natural sciences was preparing a new revolution. King Steam, which in the preceding century had turned the world upside down, is now quitting the stage and yielding its place to an infinitely stronger revolution---the electric spark. Marx, glowing with enthusiasm, told me that a model of an electrical machine which drives a train had been on show for several days in Regent Street. 'The problem is now solved; the results are unimaginable. The economic revolution is bound to be followed by a political revolution, of which it is merely a manifestation."''^^*^^ (Italics are mine.---S.T.)
What brilliant prevision! King Steam did turn upside down not only the material basis, but the entire way of social life. The revolutionary force of steam was well described by Engels. In his article "The Beginning of the End in `Austria'' he wrote: " 'Myself and Metternich she [Austria] can still stand,' said the late Kaiser Franz. Indeed, she stood the French Revolution, Napoleon and the July storms. But she cannot stand up to Steam. Steam has broken its way through the Alps and the Bohemian Forest, Steam has robbed the Danube of its role, Steam has shattered Austrian barbarism and cut the ground from under the feet of the House of Hapsburg.
``The European and American public can now have the satisfaction of seeing Metternich and the whole Hapsburg dynasty smashed by the wheels of the steam engine, seeing the Austrian monarchy cut to pieces by its own locomotives. A truly merry spectacle.''^^**^^
Marx and Engels were not in a position to analyse the significance of electric power in the material basis and social life in all its details the way they did in the case of steam with its machines and big industry. Electric power underwent its first trials towards the end of their lives. _-_-_
^^*^^ W. Liebknecht, Karl Marx zum Gedachtnis, Niirnberg, 1896, S. 30.
^^**^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Werke, Bd. 4, Berlin, 1959, S. 504, 508---Art, v. F. Engels, "Der Anfang des Endes in Dsterreich''.
28 Nevertheless, they closely followed the experiments of Faraday, who in 1831 discovered electromagnetic induction, which subsequently launched the electric motor on its victorious career. They closely followed the experiments of the French engineer and scientist Marcel Deprez, who discovered hightension currents and long-distance transmission of electric energy. And when, at the first world electrical congress in Paris in 1881, most of the scientists attacked Deprez for his frivolous contention that electricity could be transmitted through thin wires over any distance, Marx and Engels came out strongly in his defence and were the first to appreciate his brilliant discovery.``Science," Engels wrote, "was for Marx an historic revolutionary motive force. Whatever pure joy he derived from every new discovery in any theoretical science whose practical application very often could not even be predicted, this joy was of quite a different kind when it concerned discoveries that had an immediate revolutionary effect in industry, in historical development generally. He had followed closely the progress of discoveries in the field of electricity, and latterly the discoveries of Marcel Deprez.''^^*^^
Thus, Marx and Engels were the first to show that a new potent force---electric energy---was coming to take the place of steam, a force that bore upon its shoulders a gigantic revolution not only in the material basis, but in the whole socio-economic way of living. They clearly foresaw that the productive forces could no longer be kept within the limits of the bourgeois system and that the social explosion would find new and powerful support in the material basis.
What Marx and Engels left undone was completed with honour and merit by Lenin. And when, at the turn of our century, voices were raised everywhere about the crisis of physics, about the ``disappearance'' of matter, he showed most convincingly that on the basis of electric power mankind was already approaching the stage when it would use the inexhaustible and mighty forces of nature on the basis of intra-atomic energy, which was bound to involve a revolution in all spheres of life the like of which the world had never known. And when the Great October Socialist Revolution occurred Lenin inscribed upon its banner the words:
_-_-_^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Werke, Bd. 19, S. 336---F. Engels, "Das Begrabnis von K. Marx''.
29 "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country."^^*^^It is clear from the foregoing that in the history of the development of social thought the founders of scientific communism were the first to perceive and make out a scientific case for the existence of organic ties between scientific and technological progress and social progress. Another thing they clearly saw was that scientific and technological revolutions best contributed to the awakening and shaping of the socio-political forces, which were bound to pronounce the just verdict of history in the name of liberation of all mankind from slavery and violence. Therefore, those who draw a line between scientific and technological revolutions and social revolutions, those who try to construe the present scientific and technological revolution as a perpetual process without end, are deeply wrong. Such theoreticians, whether they want to or not, are helping to wean the advanced revolutionary forces away from the struggle to bring about radical social upheavals.
Yes, tremendous social changes are taking place in present-day society. Yet its development is moving in the direction predicted by the great founders of scientific communism. They demonstrated that there is only one class in the world---the working class, capable of making sure that technological progress serves social progress, serves the cause of the workers' emancipation from exploitation and slavery. In turn, "the more ruthlessly and disinterestedly science proceeds the more it finds itself in harmony with the interests and aspirations of the workers''.^^**^^ That class still remains the most organised, the most revolutionary, the most revolutionising and victorious class.
The bourgeoisie in this respect is exceedingly egoistic. It, too, stands for technological progress, but for a kind of progress that would not involve profound social changes. These conservative traits of the bourgeoisie were in evidence before, during the heyday of its rule. Now they have grown not only more conservative, but more reactionary. Take, for example, the actions of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. They will not yield here one iota of their interests or surrender their _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 516.
^^**^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Moscow, 1970, Vol. 3, p. 376.
30 controlling privileges. And not only on these continents. The imperialist bourgeoisie everywhere, overtly or covertly, acts now as always as dictator, as the suppressor of liberties, progress and the liberation movement of the peoples. Nevertheless the historical, objective processes are inexorable. History teaches that where technological progress was unaccompanied by social progress, it assumed ugly forms and ultimately came to a stand without gaining scope. And, vice versa, when technological progress went hand in hand with social progress, science and society advanced with rapid strides.Scientific and technological progress speeds up the growth of society's productive forces. Consequently, in antagonistic formations it sharpens the contradictions between the productive forces of society and the relations of production. This eventually leads to revolutionary changes in the latter, which in turn opens the way for the further growth of the productive forces. Just as scientific and technological progress combined with social progress led in its time to a serious reconstitution of society's socio-economic system, which established the dominance of capitalism, so did these developments subsequently lead to the break-up of the old, capitalist relations of production and the creation of new, socialist relations which now govern the lives of one-third of the world's population.
Thus, the history of man convincingly shows that real scientific and technological progress is conceivable only when combined with social progress. In turn, by merging into a single great process, these two tendencies set into motion not only wide circles of the intelligentsia, but the million-strong masses of the workers and peasants on all the world's continents. This happened before and is happening again in our day.
The present scientific and technological revolution is attended by a gigantic break-up of the whole colonial system, by a movement towards national and social liberation among the oppressed peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America. No power can halt this great revolutionary process, which will continue to gain breadth and strength until the oppressed peoples win complete political, economic and spiritual freedom and equality.
In the capitalist countries the scientific and technological revolution is accompanied by the consolidation of the 31 working class and of all progressive forces. Imperialism is exposed to very strong pressures, which are eroding its rotting socioeconomic foundations, and we are witnessing an accelerated process of maturation of such favourable objective conditions and such subjective factors as will make it easier for the revolutionary forces to win their fight. At the same time the scientific and technological revolution is attended in the capitalist world by processes which seriously affect the social structure and the line-up of class forces, and create, on the one hand, conditions for strengthening the anti-imperialist union of the working people, and, on the other, a certain basis for the spread of opportunism and the influence of bourgeois ideology on the working class.
Scientific and technological progress involves mass retraining. Modern techniques call for skilled and well-trained workers. In capitalist society this process involves displacement of some of the workers, especially those of more advanced age. There is created a whole class of the `` redundant'' who can find no use for their powers and skills. A large section of working-class youth are unable to receive a training to meet modern requirements and they start life as unemployed without any prospects for the future. They may find themselves drawn into conscious revolutionary activities or anarchistic revolt.
Scientific and technological progress in the Soviet Union is achieved in complete harmony with great social progress, which leads Soviet society to the heights of human civilisation. It serves the interests of construction of a new, hitherto unheard-of type of society known as communism. Socialism provides unlimited scope for the development of science and technology and for a more rapid rate of progress than any other pre-socialist system of society. This accounts for the striking fact that our country, in the recent past one of the most backward in Europe economically and culturally, has, during the years of Soviet government, made a great leap forward in its development and is today a land of advanced science and technology.
The scientific and technological revolution is a domain in which the advantages of the socialist system over the capitalist system of society are demonstrated most clearly and convincingly. It would be an unforgivable mistake, however, to simplify the problems in this field. Considerable though the achievements of Soviet science and technology 32 may be, and strong though its key positions in a number of important fields of modern world science, our country still has to tackle new and formidable problems in carrying out the scientific and technological revolution. It is important to realise the full complexity of the great revolution in science and technology that is taking place in the world today.
It will always be a mistake to approach these great, profound and life-transforming processes one-sidedly. It should be remembered that the scientific and technological revolution does not only serve the cause of social progress, the cause of communism; its achievements are widely used by the imperialist states to build up their economic and military potential,^^*^^ and to further their reactionary, anti-humanistic goals. Therefore, life, the interests of communist construction call for a further and more rapid advancement in all fields of science, their more rapid and effective use in the interest of development of the productive forces of socialist society.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. MARXISM-LENINISM---THE MOST ADVANCEDFor a deeper understanding of the role and significance of scientific and technological progress it is important to know what it rests upon, what that magic power is that has been propelling society forward for so many centuries. Undoubtedly, this motive force lies in the development of the productive forces and the relations of production among people. At the same time the role of chief judge in the great transformative processes belongs now as before to advanced social thought. Itself the product of social development, it has at the same time elevated, inspired and speeded up its movement, opening up for it new paths and new vistas.
Scientific and technological discoveries have an immediate impact upon the social processes through the gradual modification of the social consciousness of people as regards their views on nature and society, and upon the development _-_-_
^^*^^ It is known, for example, that from 80 to 90 per cent of government expenditure on research and development in the U.S.A. is, directly or indirectly, of a military nature.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3---1214 33 of the productive forces. History shows that in this historical progressive process social thought holds key positions. It acts, as it were, as a battering ram in the development of society, prepares the ground for and promotes scientific, technological and social progress. The transition from capitalism to socialism is organically bound up with the social, the ideological revolution as well as with the scientific and technological revolution. Out of the conflict between the growing productive forces and capitalist relations of production which have outlived their day, there are emerging new, advanced ideas mobilising people for the struggle against these moribund relations.Lenin, in his day, observed that "large-scale machine industry, by concentrating large masses of workers, transforming the methods of production, and destroying all the traditional, patriarchal cloaks and screens that have obscured the relations between classes, always leads to the directing of public attention towards these relations, to attempts at public control and regulation''.^^*^^ The scientific and technological revolution is breaking up all that is old and conservative in people's way of life throughout the capitalist world, and at the same time it is setting into motion their way of thinking, their psychology and culture, and preparing the ground for the social revolution.
New social ideas and theories precede social change and constitute one of its conditions. Consequently, the emergence of new social theories and their fertilisation of people's minds, the realisation of science in the material sphere of production and the remodelling of social relations---all these are merely different aspects of a single process expediting society's progress. An important role in all profound transformations, including scientific and technological, especially in processes of great social upheavals, has always been played by progressive social thought, by people's social consciousness. That is only natural. Progressive social ideas mobilise and organise people for revolutionary action, and it is people who make history, including that of science. The ideological revolution speeds up, facilitates and promotes scientific, technological and social progress.
Let us take, for example, 18th-century feudal France, _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, p. 246.
34 which had been in a state of stagnation for many years. What impelled it forward towards progress and civilisation? Undoubtedly, progressive social thought, chiefly the Encyclopaedists-materialists; they largely supplied the answers to the difficult questions posed by the country's historical development. Soaring social thought promoted the development of the natural sciences and stimulated the political activity of the masses. It prepared the soil for technical progress and the great social revolution. In the course of several decades France became one of the most powerful and influential countries in Europe.Germany at the beginning of the 19th century was a disunited feudal state. What gave her a forward impetus? Again, progressive social thought. German enlightenment of the late 18th century, German classical philosophy, which was progressive for its time, stimulated social activity in Germany, and this, too, helped to eliminate feudal disunity and effect an economic upsurge.
And what awakened the revolutionary forces of Russia? That same progressive social thought: the first revolutionary democrats, the whole brilliant group of 19th-century enlighteners followed by the great party of Leninist Bolsheviks---the vanguard of the class that was called upon to carry out the social reconstruction of the world. The spread of Marxism, the ideas of Lenin roused to the struggle that most powerful of Russia's socio-political forces slumbering in the fetters of tsarism---the working class. It was they who started Russia along the road of technical and social progress. Gave her such a send-off as made Russia the homeland of socialism, the embodiment of world progress in the modern epoch.
Supported by the incontrovertible facts of history we can say that at all times, in all ages, social thought, reflecting the social contradictions of the epoch, has been the motive force of society's progress. History likewise testifies that the development of the natural sciences and scientific and technological progress have always interacted in the closest manner with the development of the social sciences, have received the fruitful impact of progressive social thought, of progressive philosophy. Without a doubt, the great discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo had a direct bearing on the humanistic ideas of the Renaissance as well as on the theories of social development, the appearance of which was __PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 an important landmark in the development of progressive social thought.
At the end of the 18th and throughout the 19th century science won more and more tremendous new victories. Natural science and engineering made gigantic strides forward. Steam yielded to the dominion of a new revolutionary power---electricity. This, too, was connected with progressive social thought, philosophical materialism above all. Subsequently Lenin wrote of this period: "Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth.''^^*^^ Lenin thus revealed the great revolutionary significance of materialism for the development of the natural sciences, for society's scientific, technological and social progress.
The victorious bourgeoisie afterwards discarded the banner of philosophical materialism. To safeguard its rule it resorted to various forms of idealism. But the philosophical materialism which the bourgeoisie had renounced continued to develop and improve. Growing more and more consistent, it increased its revolutionary impact on the progress of science and social development.
The acme of advanced social thought and the natural result of all preceding and contemporary development of the science of nature and society is the Marxist-Leninist outlook, a theory which has summarised and critically reviewed the great progressive heritage of human culture, science and knowledge attained by past generations. Ever since the emergence of dialectical and historical materialism all the social and natural sciences have been developing under its increasingly fruitful impact.
Dialectical and historical materialism are that strong and brilliant searchlight which illumines the complex and still unexplored distances and depths of the material world. Obviously, modern natural science, as heretofore, cannot do without materialist, philosophical conclusions. If the natural sciences are to develop further, Marxist-Leninist philosophy _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 24.
36 must strengthen its leading methodological role in their development. ". . .It must be realised," Lenin wrote, "that no natural science and no materialism can hold its own in the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook unless it stands on solid philosophical ground. In order to hold his own in this struggle and carry it to a victorious finish, the natural scientist must be a modern materialist, a conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx, i.e., he must be a dialectical materialist.''^^*^^For over a century now Marxist science, based on dialectical and historical materialism, has been opening up to mankind more and more new horizons of the most perfect, the most humane social life upon Earth. Over a century's experience has confirmed that the history of societal development is steadily following the scientific laws discovered by the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Those ideologues who fly in the face of facts to prove that Marxism-Leninism no longer holds good for our day look ridiculous in the extreme. No wonder this kind of theoreticians find themselves in the state of blind men who do not see the light and those grandiose achievements which are taking place in our complex and exciting age so rich in promise.
One cannot but rejoice at the superb successes which mankind has achieved in the sphere of cognition of the world around us. Soviet scientists in many fields are in the van of world science, of world scientific, technological and social progress. One of the splendid traditions of Soviet science is that its members take an active part in the country's public and political life, in the education of the people, and the shaping of a correct materialist world outlook among them. In the words of Engels, true science has always been thoroughly revolutionary, thoroughly ennobling. It is these admirable qualities that are most strongly in evidence in Soviet science and its valiant scientists.
Of course, as long as imperialism exists, mankind is in danger of being plunged into a catastrophe of war. Imperialism is still exercising its malign influence on many of the world's distinguished scientists. Imperialism is out to keep the peoples in a state of terror and uses scientific and technological progress for its own class ends. None but the _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 233.
37 bourgeoisie sustains the spirit of amorality, decadence and want of faith in man's powers and capabilities. The bourgeoisie uses the scientific and technological revolution against man, condemning him to slavish homage and spiritual desolation.With the appearance of the atomic and hydrogen weapon bourgeois propaganda tried to scare people into believing the inevitability of a nuclear war in which all would perish. Hence the intimidation, bluster, blackmail and the debauching of people's minds. Mankind, however, has already weathered this cyclone and recovered faith in its own powers. Now the bourgeoisie has trotted out another bugbear. It is trying to put into people's heads, especially those of the young, the idea that science itself will destroy man, make him unwanted, with machines taking his place. Therefore, there is only one way for him---not to engage in science, not to engage in public activities, but sit still and wait for his natural doom.
Such pessimistic prognoses, shifting responsibility for the antagonisms and social ills of "Western civilisation" from the capitalist system onto technology and science, are to be found in abundance not only in the gloom-ridden Utopias of the sci-fic writers, but in the works of many bourgeois sociologists. Here are some examples. Professor Kurt Schilling of Munich University writes: "Technology at its third stage transcends technology in general.... It contains, at the least, the danger of technology transcending man instead of man mastering technology.''^^*^^
Of course, when such forecasts are made not by professional specialists in bourgeois propaganda, but by scientists, it simply goes to show how narrow their outlook is within the rigid framework of bourgeois social life. It testifies also to the need for large-scale ideological work, for a proper Marxist-Leninist reinterpretation of all important new phenomena engendered by the modern scientific and technological revolution. All these circumstances place an added burden of responsibility upon scientists. It is the job of progressive social elements to save man from corruption by bourgeois ideology, to elevate him spiritually, morally and ideologically. Naturally, bourgeois amorality can only be done away with on the basis of a materialist interpretation _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Schilling, Philosofihie der Technik, Herford und Bonn, 1968, S. 210.
38 of societal development, on the basis of a Marxist-Leninist outlook.In our day the call for social progress rings out on all continents with tocsin-like urgency. And it meets with a warm response in the hearts of millions and millions of workers, peasants and members of all sections of the oppressed people. The urge towards social progress on the part of broad social circles signifies, on the one hand, that the bourgeois order is unacceptable to the millions, that its economic and political systems are discredited in their eyes, that they are dissatisfied with the mendacious and hypocritical promises of bourgeois democratism, and, on the other, that ways are being sought towards a more equitable social system founded on the ideas of socialism.
In other words, a situation has been objectively created in the world when all its progressive forces, albeit by different ways and with different notions, consciously or spontaneously, are drawn towards socialism. This objective factor cannot be overestimated. The thing now is for advanced scientific social thought to assist in finding a correct answer to the clamorous question as to how, in what direction and by what means and methods the luminous goal--- that of building socialism on a worldwide scale---can be achieved.
__*_*_*__And so, history has clearly demonstrated that all major scientific and technological revolutions were active levers of social revolutions. Social revolutions, in their turn, were the greatest boosters of scientific and technological progress and of profound changes in society. The first scientific and technological revolution effected on the basis of steam power speeded up the development of bourgeois revolutions, which ended with the collapse of the feudal system and the establishment of the rule of the bourgeoisie. At the same time this upheaval of the economic basis tended towards the formation of a new and most powerful class---the proletariat, the grave-digger of the bourgeoisie. The second scientific and technological revolution effected on the basis of electric energy resulted in a social revolution of a socialist type, which toppled the rule of the bourgeoisie first in one country 39 and then in a number of others, where the proletariat fulfilled its liberative mission with credit. Today mankind is in its third, most powerful scientific and technological revolution, which is taking place on the basis of intra-atomic energy. This brings in its wake colossal social upheavals in all the world's continents and is bound to lead to the complete and assured victory of socialism on an international scale. The day is not far off when the working class of all continents, rising to full stature of organisation and consciousness, together with the freedom-loving peoples, together with all the progressive forces of society, will deal such a smashing blow to imperialist transmissions as will leave only an ugly memory of capitalism with its oppression and violence. Such is the inescapable law of historical development.
[40] __ALPHA_LVL1__ II. HOW THE NEGATORS OF MARXISMWith the emergence of Marxism as the scientific outlook of the working classes, progressive social thought rose to its highest ever level. All mankind grew by a head, as it were, compared with the thinking of past generations. Casting off the rags of distorted idealistic, metaphysical and mystic notions, mankind received in the theory of Marxism a powerful ideological weapon with the aid of which it could learn to apprehend the true scientific, materialist laws of development of the historical processes, obtain correct foreknowledge of the course of events, and accurately predetermine the concrete tasks of the movement and the ways of achieving its aims. The international working classes have no ideological weapon other than this precious one.
Marxism is a science of a special kind. It is unique and at the same time universal. Unique because it is of a thoroughly class nature, deeply committed, spearheaded towards the emancipation of all the working classes from the yoke of capitalism, towards the creation of a society in which there will be no social oppression, no economic enslavement and class violence. It is universal because it reveals to man the secrets of scientific cognition of objective reality, of the natural processes of development of nature and society. No real scientist can dispense with this science in any field of research. It is not surprising, therefore, that all progressive minds of the past generation considered it their duty to learn the science of Marxism. In this respect credit should be given to the many distinguished scientists of Russia who, as a rule, were well up in Marxism and to the best of their ability helped to spread it in Russia. The fact that Russia became the home of Leninism, the birthplace of the great proletarian revolution and triumphant socialism is due in no little measure to this circumstance.
41Marxism is a universal, creative and constructive science. It is incompatible with short-lived enthusiasms and utterly alien to dilettantism and dogmatism. It is a science that demands of the true revolutionary not part of his time, but his whole life, tremendous willpower and dedication of all his energies to the service of the working class, the people, to their material and spiritual emancipation. Without the help of the progressive intelligentsia the working class was not able at first to master this science. To give the progressive revolutionary intelligentsia their due, they played a tremendous role in this respect. Significantly, the first Marxists were mainly intellectuals from propertied families, who had broken with their past, sided with the working class and dedicated their all to its services. This was exemplified in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Their teachings, as we know, were formerly espoused by single individuals chiefly from among the educated intellectuals. Now millions of proletarian fighters throughout the world have rallied to the banner of Marxism.
Marxism is a science of revolutionary transformation and therefore wholly imbued with the passion of revolutionary action. It incorporates not only the doctrine of the laws of social development, but the teaching of the strategy and tactics of revolutionary struggle. In short, it is a synthesis of scientific theory and revolutionary practice, a synthesis of the materialist conception of history and the dialectical method of cognition. Marxism originated in that period when progressive social thought had accumulated immense cognitive material and posed in all their magnitude the urgent problems of society's material and spiritual life. Marx's great historic service was that he gave sufficiently full answers to all the questions which life posed to the world's progressive minds.
Marxism provides a completely reliable insight into the most complex, often raveled processes of social development. The three components of Marxism form its intricate system of cognition and transformation: political economy, the keystone of which is the theory of surplus value; materialist philosophy, the revolutionary soul of which is dialectics; and scientific communism, the core of which is the teaching of socialist revolution and the regular processes of transition from capitalism to socialism. The ultimate stage of this historical process is communism, the transition to which, 42 beginning with its first phase---socialism---is carried out by the most advanced class in the world today---the working class---and its allies under the leadership of the MarxistLeninist parties.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Marxist science, from its very birth, became an object of vicious and monstrous persecution by all reactionary forces from top to bottom of so-called civilised bourgeois society. The world has known no other doctrines capable of enduring such ordeals. Marxism stood up to them because its teachings were true and omnipotent, because they were in the interest of all the working people and the oppressed nations. The emergence of Marxism as a political current followed a hard and thorny path. Its development was a series of ups and downs, enthusiasm and disillusion, victories and failures. Nevertheless, the whole strength of .Marxism lies in victorious movement. So long as capitalism exists, Marxism will continue to be an object of persecution, smear campaigns and attacks. So long as the working class exists, Marxism will live on forever, because its ideas are of the flesh and blood of the working class, of its whole intellect. The ideas of Marxism are invincible, as invincible as the determination of the peoples to fight for their complete political, economic and spiritual liberation from the bondage of imperialism.
Marxism holds another attraction for all the working classes, in that its harmonious system of world outlook contributes to the shaping of the new man, who is attuned to the ideals of the communist society---an intelligent, strong, steadfast man, staunch in the face of any trials; a man endowed with the higher earthly gift---hardworking, humane, ever responsive to the appeal of advanced ideas and thinking; a man of superior intellect capable of seeing far ahead and grasping all the nuances of social life. Gorky expressed these noble human attributes in the pithy maxim "How proud the word rings---Man!"
But man as the product of nature is one thing and man as the master of his earthly abode quite another. In the first instance he lives, breathes and enjoys the gifts of nature, in the second, man is called upon to improve life, to create, build and remodel it. He is no longer simply Man, but "social Man" who is associated with his whole history. Marx would not have been the great and brilliant theoretician he was if he had confined himself merely to the first 43 nature-aspect of man's life. Incidentally, many progressive thinkers before him confined themselves to just this aspect. They contemplated and sang the praises of man and sympathised with him, but did not open to him the prospects of creation and the remodelling of social life. Marx's genius was revealed in the fact that he was the first to draw the attention of advanced social thought to this second aspect of man's activities---man the creator, fighter, transformer and revolutionary.
Of course, in the early stages of the social movement few people possessed these qualities of the true champion, but it was the duty of these few to awaken in men's minds a realisation of the need for acquiring these lofty qualities. Hence the great role that is allotted to the introduction of an advanced, scientific, social consciousness into the midst of the masses. Lenin, Marx's truest disciple, was deeply inspired by the great ideas of his teacher, which he creatively developed and put into practice.
That is why we lay special emphasis on Lenin's teaching about a proletarian party of a new type, about professional revolutionaries capable, in the true sense of that notion, of creating, refurbishing and remodelling the life of society and of man himself. It is pleasant to realise that Lenin's ideas have been taken into the armoury of the revolutionaries of all countries. Men of labour, the real creators of material and spiritual values, should realise that it is not parliamentary speechmakers and philistines, not anarchist rioters and rebels who can give real freedom to people of need, adversity and privation, but advanced champions, revolutionaries of the Marxist-Leninist type, and that they alone, at the head of the working people's struggle, can and will accomplish this noble and grateful task. This is strikingly borne out by the entire history of the revolutionary struggle.
In the course of its historic path Marxism-Leninism today has won recognition among the most advanced forces of society on all continents. On the basis of this doctrine there has been built up a developing world system of .socialism embracing a number of countries of Europe, Asia and even the American continent, where the almightiness of capital has been done away with for good and all and where power is in the hands of the working classes, who own all the basic instruments and means of production. The communist movement all over the world has become the most influential 44 political force of the age precisely because it is guided by the scientific, Marxist understanding of the laws of social development. From a spectre of communism this world outlook has grown into a stupendous force of the world liberation movement.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. FOUR HISTORICAL PERIODS OF MARXISM'SThe fruits of Marxism-Leninism are colossal and allconquering. Under its growing influence the goal of the working class throughout our planet---the creation of a society without exploitation---would today already be close to fulfilment but for certain factors which hamper it. Deplorable as it may be the fact must be recognised that numerous difficulties and obstacles of a subjective nature have arisen on this victorious path. And now, when the principal social forces stand clearly aligned in the world arena, one can definitely point to the danger spots which have become so prominent today in the social movement.
In speaking of the real menace to the present-day international communist and labour movement as the leading trend of all humanity's progressive development, we have sufficient grounds for saying that one such very grave danger is to be seen not only in anti-communism, but in revisionism. And not just revisionism in general, but the revisionism that has penetrated into the very heart of the Marxist movement, where, under the guise of defending the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, it insidiously, in an underhand manner, distorts, confuses and vulgarises its scientific and revolutionising essence. It would be futile, therefore, to attempt to combat modern revisionism nesting within the Marxist movement by invocation or exhortation of its ideologues. One has to use the knife-edge of Marxist theory and the creative practice of the masses, the instrument of scientific analysis, to lay bare this monster and render it harmless, the way Lenin and his associates did, the way true revolutionaries of the Marxist-Leninist type are now doing.
In revealing the historical and social roots of revisionism Lenin scientifically demonstrated its baneful effects and was the first of Marx's and Engels's followers to make an all-out 45 assault on this dangerous ideological poison. To this day Lenin's evaluation of revisionism remains an undying truth calling for the exposure and defeat of this most dangerous of ideological opponents. Revisionism did not come suddenly like a bolt from the blue. It grew historically on definite social soil. We shall never gain an understanding of its essential nature unless we trace it to its historical and social sources.
Revisionism grew out of the multiform streams of pettybourgeois socialism, which took shape almost simultaneously with the revolutionary theory of the founders of scientific communism---Marx and Engels. Petty-bourgeois socialism, acting as an outside force in regard to Marxism, tried by means of theoretical struggle to challenge the doctrine of scientific communism, by offering as an alternative antiscientific theories that were absolutely alien to the proletariat. Among these trends at the time were Lassalleanism, Proudhonism and Bakuninism. All these theoretical trends and political currents were connected in one way or another with the initial stage of working-class struggle and pretended to a dominant role in the leadership of this struggle. It was not until long afterwards that Marxism secured its leading position in the labour movement and among the progressive social forces. It took years of hard and strenuous struggle by the nations' best intellects to pave the way for this allpowerful doctrine. "No wonder," wrote Lenin, "that this doctrine has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life.''^^*^^
We should like to draw special attention to these lines. Indeed, Marxism, from the very outset, had to fight every step of its way into the minds of the workers and all of society's progressive forces. This has been put very neatly and timely. Lenin goes on to say things which make us ponder seriously over the substance and forms in which modern revisionism proclaims itself, over its historical and social roots, its methods and means of struggle. "In the first half-century of its existence (from the 1840s on) Marxism was engaged in combating theories fundamentally hostile to it," writes Lenin. "But after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines hostile to it, the tendencies _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 31.
46 expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels. The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued. And the second half-century of the existence of Marxism began (in the nineties) with the struggle of a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism itself.''^^*^^The spectre of scientific communism spread and deepened. The anti-scientific, petty-bourgeois theories of socialism proved a complete fiasco. Pre-Marxian socialism was exploded. This, of course, did not mean that the ideological opponent had given up the struggle. He continued it, this time not on his own ground, but on that of Marxism, as revisionism. "The dialectics of history," wrote Lenin, "were such that the theoretical victory of Marxism compelled its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists. Liberalism, rotten within, tried to revive itself in the form of socialist opportunism,''^^**^^ that is, in the form of outwardly Marxist phraseology. "The obsolete," Marx observed, "seeks to reestablish and maintain itself within the newly acquired forms.''^^***^^
We shall not here go into a detailed analysis of all the currents and shadings of revisionism, but shall attempt merely to examine, from Lenin's standpoint, its evolution and inner essence. We shall examine its genesis, development and operation in modern conditions from the standpoint of historical materialism. It should be emphasised here that modern revisionism is a synthesis of Right reformism and ``Left'' adventurism, a knot in which these two revisionist ramifications are interlocked more and more closely with the ideologues of anti-communism. These social twins, both Right and ``Left'', represent a great danger to the modern labour and communist movement throughout the world.
Therefore, today as never before it is important to know the social essence of revisionism beginning from its very origins. This is a task that has been brought into high focus by life itself. Casting a retrospective glance at the whole historical path of development of the international labour and communist movement from the moment of Marxism's emergence to our day, we are able historically and logically _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 31, 32.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 18, p. 584.
^^***^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 326.
47 to define four basic periods of Marxism's ideological struggle against revisionism---that vehicle of bourgeois ideology within the labour movement. __ALPHA_LVL3__ A. REPULSING THE FRONTAL ATTACKThe first half-century of Marxism's development beginning from the late forties of the last century may be described as an historic landmark in its establishment, dissemination and emergence upon the world scene. At the same time it is a phase of unheard-of persecution and vilification of Marxism and the most savage reaction against its inspiring ideas, against the looming spectre of scientific communism. Its founders themselves pointed out that "all the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies".^^*^^
It is not surprising, therefore, that Marxism took quite a time in establishing its primacy in the development of social thought and within the labour movement. It has already been mentioned that it had to fight every step of its way, and if we are to speak of its first steps we should record the fact that it successfully repulsed the fierce and most deadly frontal attack of bourgeois reaction. Despite the fact that the bourgeoisie threw all its resources and strength against Marxism and employed every trick in the book in which no holds were barred, it was unable to cope with this rising, life-evoking doctrine. The attacks of the bourgeoisie against scientific communism, like all the anti-scientific conceptions of the petty-bourgeois socialists, proved powerless. As Lenin pointed out, pre-Marxian socialism with its petty-bourgeois and bourgeois ramifications was worsted in open ideological struggle. This was the first big victory of the scientific theory and revolutionary practice of Marxism.
With the maturation of the social consciousness and development of the class struggle of the proletariat Marxism penetrated more and more deeply and widely into the midst _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Moscow, 1969, Vol. 1, p. 108.
48of the rising and developing working class and the progressive intellectuals. Marxism became the fashion, and Marxists the most noble and respected of men. The finest, burgeoning forces of various nationalities streamed everywhere into the Marxist movement, prepared to dedicate themselves to the cause of working-class liberation from the yoke of capitalism.
Marxism became an international phenomenon drawing its life-giving juices from the revolutionary struggle of the working classes under the motto of "Working Men of all countries, unite!" The revolutionaries of all the world united in the First International under the banner of Marxism. Under this fighting standard the Paris proletariat first gave battle to the bourgeoisie and set up the Paris Commune---the prototype of the proletarian-dictatorship state. Significantly, Marxism roused to the struggle, to creativeness, the lowliest, most enslaved and disinherited but rising class of contemporary capitalist society---the working class. "The chief thing in the doctrine of Marx," Lenin wrote, "is that it brings out the historic role of the proletariat as the builder of socialist society.''^^*^^ In Marxism the working class found spiritual strength, just as in the working class Marxism found material strength. It was no light task to unite these two streams into a single jointly operating force of the liberation struggle.
An important factor along the path of the proletariat's self-awareness and self-determination was the need for the creation of a political party. Marx and Engels maintained that the working class could develop its revolutionary potential, organising talent and revolutionary energy to the full only in the event of its being armed with the theory of scientific communism and having its own class revolutionary party. Therefore, ". . .against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes.. .''.^^**^^ It was clear to the founders of scientific communism from the already available experience of the class struggle that not every political party, even _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 18, p. 582.
^^**^^ The General Council of the First International. 1870-1871. Minutes, p. 445.
4---12H
49 if it called itself a labour or socialist parly, was capable of leading the working class to -victory over the rule of capital.That is why they spared no effort to create the first truly proletarian party, the Communist League, and the International Workingmen's Association---the First International, the aim of which was "to replace the socialist or semi-- socialist sects by a real organisation of the working class for struggle''.^^*^^ The historic significance of the First International is that it played a tremendous role in the spread of scientific communism and the preparation of cadres of revolutionary proletarian parties in different countries. In the words of Lenin it prepared the ground for "mass socialist working-class parties in individual national states.. .''.^^**^^
Therefore, the emergence during the second half of the nineteenth century and the development in nearly all capitalist countries of Social-Democratic parties, which adopted as their ideological guideline the revolutionary doctrine of Marxism, was a gigantic victory of the international proletariat, of all the working people and the oppressed. Although the Social-Democratic parties that had arisen were not all consistently Marxist and not infrequently made great mistakes in matters of programme and tactics, they nevertheless played an outstanding historical role in awakening the international labour movement, separating it from bourgeois democracy and consolidating the revolutionary forces, culminating in the founding of the Second (Socialist) International. Such are the main results of the first half-century of Marxism's progress.
Needless to say, these circumstances incensed the bourgeoisie more and more and filled it with dismay. It made frantic attempts to strangle the doctrine of Marxism at birth. The bourgeoisie invoked the aid of ideologues of all trends, of the enlighteners of past epochs, of Liberals and Radicals, it gathered all reactionary forces into a single fist in order to smash and disarm this scientific theory, this advanced idea, which was exercising such a strong appeal. Thus the bourgeoisie for the first time experienced a harrowing fear in face of the mighty spiritual and material power of Marxism and was forced to devise a more flexible long-term tactics of struggle against it.
_-_-_^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 326.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 49.
50Therefore, while not relinquishing violent, terroristic means of struggle against Marxism, the bourgeoisie redoubled its efforts in seeking ways of insinuating itself into the growing Marxist movement. This, of course, was no easy task, but it did not give up hope. It carefully took into account the role, favourable to its own class interests which the petty-bourgeois, anarchist-rebel leaders in the person of the Proudhonists, Bakuninists and Lassalleans played in the activities of the First International. The bourgeoisie was quite satisfied with the performance of the petty-bourgeois leaders in splitting and bringing about the defeat of the Paris Commune---the embryo of the world's first proletariantype state. The bourgeoisie, however, set still greater value on its own political experience in corrupting the co-operative and trade union movement of the working class and the masses of the people. These important facts deserve a brief mention.
We know, for example, that in the middle of the last century a broad co-operative movement developed in Europe and workingmen's associations were established embracing all links of the capitalist system. This was a great movement of the working class, who endeavoured through the co-operatives and associations to break free from the yoke of capitalism. Although these organisations, like the insurance societies, aimed at protecting the economic interests of the working people and wringing concessions from capitalism, this movement seriously alarmed the bourgeoisie.
It was alarmed because the workers had proclaimed the motto of "independence of the co-operatives and workers' associations from the bourgeois state". This was a great stride forward in the labour movement. The fact of the matter is that workers' organisations independent of the bourgeoisie undoubtedly united these workers, trained and educated them, while the shortcomings and insecurity of their economic gains gradually forced the workers to recognise the need for political struggle against the whole structure of bourgeois society. And when the whole of Europe became covered with a network of co-operative societies the bourgeoisie was faced with the urgent question: what to do? Repressions yielded no results. The bourgeoisie then brought into play its most trusty forces recruited from among the so-called Right Socialists and promised millions to support their movement.
The leaders in question were quick to answer the call. __PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 51
One of the first to do so was the Right-wing French Socialist Louis Blanc, who, with the aid of immense funds provided by the bourgeoisie, launched a press campaign in favour of the co-operatives and workers' associations being run by the state and taken charge of by the bourgeoisie. This idea was promptly legalised by the French National Assembly, which unanimously appropriated three million francs for putting the co-operative movement under the control of the bourgeoisie. During the debate on this question in the National Assembly that crafty dictator Thiers exclaimed: "We should have been asked to appropriate, not three, but twenty million francs. Yes, we would have given you twenty millions, and that would not have been too high a price to pay for a convincing experiment that would have cured us all of this suicidal madness.''^^*^^
In fact, it did not take the bourgeoisie at all long to turn that powerful class movement into an utterly sterile reformist movement, draining it of its living spirit and making it a breeding-ground of pernicious bourgeois ideology. Charles Gide, the ideological leader of the French co-operators, had good reason for admitting that the most revolutionary of Socialists inspire no fear in him after they have gone through the school of co-operation. It is not surprising that the cooperative movement---essentially a sound and profoundly social movement---soon became a reservoir of reformists, the mainstay of bourgeois influence on the working class and the peasant mass.
This was largely due to the fact that in most European countries the co-operative movement began to spread, not during the rising tide of revolution among the masses, but during a period of its ebb, in an age that followed the defeat of the revolutionary movement. That is what happened in England, for instance, where the co-operative movement began to develop rapidly after the defeat of the revolutionary movement of Chartism. That is what happened in Germany and France, where the co-operative movement began to build up after the defeat of the 1848 revolution, that is, during the subsequent reaction. That is what happened in Russia, where, after the revolution of 1905, the co-operative movement spread widely.
_-_-_^^*^^ See M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, Sotsialniye osnovy kooperatsii (The Social Foundations of Co-operation), Moscow, 1916, p. 222 (Russ. ed.).
52No less significant as an example of the insidious work of corruption of the labour movement is the activities of the agents of the bourgeoisie within the trade unions, where the tell-tale hand of revisionism is at its most legible. It should be borne in mind that the trade union movement among the working class is one of its earliest forms of socio-political organisations. The trade unions first came into being as the militant, best organised and revolutionary associations of the working classes. As one of the forms of the labour movement, called to life and struggle by the capitalist system itself, the trade unions were a means of defence against the onset of growing capitalism with its entire system of exploitation and oppression.
And what, ultimately, came of these once militant organisations? In a number of places they shared the fate of the co-operative movement. The bourgeoisie wormed its way into these organisations and with the aid of its agents seized control of them and turned them into an obedient instrument of its policy. At a time when the revolutionary leaders of the labour movement, steadfast, ardent champions of the working-class cause, devoted their will, energies and talent towards creating militant proletarian parties, the Right-wing reformist leaders went into the trade union and co-operative movements, corrupted them from within, weakened them ideologically and organisationally and isolated them from the political class struggle of the working class. This was the first betrayal by the renegades.
The trouble was that these politically corrupted cadres eventually settled in the Social-Democratic parties into which they brought the bourgeois ideology of reformism--- trade-unionism. The fact that many Social-Democratic parties in the West came from the midst of the reformist trade union movement, and some Communist Parties, in their turn, emerged from among Left-wing groups within the ranks of the Social-Democratic parties is still making itself felt to this day in a number of cases. This is particularly in evidence lately in the strong tendency among the trade unions in a number of capitalist countries to dissociate themselves from the Communist Parties. Trade-unionism has found its full voice again.
Another thing the bourgeoisie took note of was that the first Marxists were educated people, and at that time could only have come from bourgeois and other propertied classes. 53 It understood perfectly well that quite a few of these `` Marxists'' had joined the movement as fellow-travellers, and as such, were casual, temporary, transient passengers. In short, the bourgeoisie was perfectly sure that the blood of the master-race in the veins of such revolutionaries would sooner or later have its say. This especially applied to the category of leaders who were inclined towards such failings as vanity, ambition and careerism. The bourgeoisie was aware of these leaders' "human foibles" and spared no effort or expense in coaxing and coddling them.
We see from all this that in the course of the first halfcentury of Marxism's existence the bourgeoisie, in addition to employing harsh repressive measures against the Marxist movement, gradually, step by step, wormed its way into that movement and built up its agent-force within it in order, at the proper moment, to let it loose and develop subversive, corruptive work within it to full power.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ B. THE EMERGENCE OF REVISIONISMThe second period of Marxism's development begins at the close of the nineties. It is characterised by the rapid spread of Marxism on the European continent, the transition from the narrow parochialism of sects among individual revolutionaries and theoreticians to the formation of mass Social-Democratic parties, and first attempts to combine the theory of scientific communism with the workers' movement. In Russia, for example, the initial steps towards such a transition were made by the first Marxist group---the Emancipation of Labour Group headed by Plekhanov (1883). Fifteen years later the first congress of the Russian SocialDemocratic Labour Party was held, which proclaimed the constitution of that party. The League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class founded by Lenin in 1895 was the first nucleus of the Marxist party of a new type. Eight years later the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held at which the Bolshevik Party was founded. It was this party that developed tremendous theoretical and practical activities in working out a socialist ideology and planting it in' the minds of the working class and other sections of the working people.
54Together with this healthy revolutionary process a second counteractive trend became more and more manifest aimed at deflecting the labour movement from the proper revolutionary path. Flushed with the success of its efforts in corrupting the co-operative and trade union movements, the bourgeoisie hoped, by similar methods of struggle against the growing proletarian ideology, to achieve the same success in corrupting the political parties of the working class as well. Therefore the bourgeoisie shifted the centre of the fight against Marxism from the outer arena to the interior of the Marxist movement: it tried to blow it up from within through its infiltrated agents and to make use of inconsistent, wavering, careerist and suchlike elements within the Marxist parties to ``correct'' Marxism in the spirit of bourgeois liberalism.
Lenin often pointed out that the bourgeoisie was a clever and very experienced class and that assessment of its activities was not to be oversimplified. It had passed through different historical periods in its development, had skilfully managed to get on with the most diverse classes and strata and contrived to adapt to its own uses the most diverse social forces operating in one or another epoch. The bourgeoisie, as we know, succeeded in making use for its own ends of all known forms of the exploiting state: the absolute monarchy, the constitutional monarchy, the parliamentary republic, fascist dictatorship, parliamentary struggle, military coups, and so on.
The bourgeoisie, by its very class nature, is extremely unpatriotic. At any moment when danger threatens its rule or loss of its ill-gotten wealth it sinks to treachery of the national interest, betrays the working class and the people of its own country and makes common cause with the foreign conquerors and oppressors. A multitude of facts both from history and from contemporary life could be cited to bear this out. Marx was absolutely right when he said that under the rule of capitalism the workers have no fatherland. The working classes under the bourgeois system are constantly haunted by the threat of being hurled at any moment into the holocaust of a fratricidal war and finding themselves betrayed by the bourgeoisie for the sake of preserving its class privileges.
The whole vast and varied experience, which has become flesh and blood of the bourgeoisie, has now been mobilised 55 by it to the ultimate limit. And it acts with all the greater resourcefulness, subtlety and ruthlessness the more clearly it realises the danger that threatens it. Today the bourgeoisie is staking on undermining and weakening the world system of socialism, using every trick in the book to penetrate into the ruling parties of the socialist countries, split their unity and then deal with them piecemeal. And here again it makes skilful use of the renegades of every stripe and brand. But we shall speak of this further on.
Thus, in readjusting the strategy of its struggle against Marxism, the bourgeoisie fell back on the great political experience of its well-trained cadres of reformists and renegades, who had received an excellent schooling in the art of corrupting the revolutionary workers' movement. And when the bourgeoisie saw the spectre of communism unfolding into a sweeping Marxist workers' movement it rushed its forces into this movement. It had already been prepared for this to some extent and got down to work.
To begin with it chose as its object the German SocialDemocratic Party, as being the strongest and most influential among the parties of Western Europe. The bourgeoisie was quick to find this Party's vulnerable spots: first, the theoretical weakness and ideological instability of its leadership, which became particularly evident during the drafting and adoption of the Gotha and Erfurt programmes; second, the divergent views of the two political groups (the Eisenachists and Lassalleans) united within this party; third, the dominance in it of petty-bourgeois and intellectualist elements far removed from the interests of the working class and incapable of sustained class struggle in a proletarian spirit.
True, the bourgeoisie was compelled at the beginning to act with great caution, for it knew only too well that Marx and Engels, the founders of scientific communism, devoted especially great attention to this Party, the largest in Europe. Therefore, during their lifetime, the first open sallies of the bourgeois agents within the Party yielded no tangible results. Although the Party made great mistakes it still remained at that time a militant, revolutionary workers' party. As for its programmatic and tactical weaknesses, which appeared later, we shall deal with this elsewhere. Here we would stress that the party's most tragic mistake was overlooking the way the bourgeois agents in the person of venerable 56 renegades had penetrated within its ranks and built their hornets' nest in it. Therefore, after the death of Engels, this flock of carrion-crows immediately began to tear at the living revolutionary body of the once largest and most militant workers' party.
Characteristically, the first to raise the revisionist sword against Marxism were those politicos who considered themselves faithful disciples of Marx and Engels, namely, Eduard Bernstein, Georg Vollmar, Rudolf Stammler and others. These were subsequently joined by Karl Kautsky, Rudolf Hilferding, Viktor Adler and Otto Bauer, thus forming a galaxy of revisionist theoreticians. During Marx's and Engels's lifetime they jesuitically swore allegiance to Marxism and undeviating continuation of their teachings. Thus, after seeing ``his'' teacher laid to rest, Bernstein wrote: "Engels .. . honoured me with his personal friendship not only till his death, but he showed beyond the grave, in his testamentary arrangements, a proof of his confidence in me.''^^*^^ But shortly afterwards these faithful pupils took to revising and vulgarising Marxism. It was none other than Bernstein who, to everyone's surprise, called for a revision of the doctrinal principles of Marxism, arguing that Marxism was out-- ofdate and dogmatic and had become deformed. This mistheorist, proclaiming himself the sole successor of Marxism, called for this revolutionary doctrine to be disclaimed.
In the sphere of philosophy it was "back to Kant", with dialectical and historical materialism jettisoned. Bernstein found distasteful the Marxist method of materialist interpretation of the history of development of human society, its theoretical substantiation of capitalism's inevitable doom. It was these circumstances, he writes, that led me to believe that "social democracy required a Kant who should judge the received opinion and examine it critically with deep acuteness, who should show where its apparent materialism is the highest---and is therefore the most easily misleading---ideology, and warn it that the contempt of the ideal, the magnifying of material factors until they become omnipotent forces of evolution, is a self-deception, which has been and will be exposed as such at every opportunity by the action of those who _-_-_
^^*^^ E. Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism: A Criticism and Affirmation (Die Voraussetzungcn des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie), London, Independent Labour Party, 1909, p. XVI.
57 proclaim it''.^^*^^ In all his writings Bernstein does not miss a chance to take a kick at the main pivot of Marxist philosophy, at its "revolutionary soul"---dialectics. "With it," he writes, "Marxism stands or falls in principle." Dialectics is "the traitor within Marx's doctrine, a pitfall in the path towards a correct judgement of things''.^^**^^ This is the source from which the present-day revisionists of the Garaudy and Fischer type obtain their rotten copy, vying with the anticommunists in shouting "Back to Kant!", "We want Kant!''In the sphere of economic teachings it was back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo, with the jettisoning of Marxist political economy. The sole argument here was that Marx had not gone beyond these thinkers. "In the Marxist system," writes Bernstein, "it is not otherwise in principle." As for the theory of surplus value, the cornerstone of political economy, he proposes that it be ignored. "Whether the Marxist theory of value is correct or not is quite immaterial to the proof of surplus labour." And as though for the edification of revisionist posterity, he warns against too great an interest being taken in the concept of surplus value and makes it clear that "this key (surplus value] refuses service over and above a certain point, and therefore it has become disastrous to nearly every disciple of Marx''.^^***^^ It goes without saying that modern revisionists of the Sik type undeviatingly follow the instructions of their preceptor and studiously avoid all mention of surplus value in their writings. Indeed, why focus attention on it when their spiritual minister taught them that Marx's Capital was "a highly tendentious work''.
In the sphere of socialist teachings it was back to Utopian socialism and the jettisoning of the Marxist theory of scientific communism. Bernstein pays his full mead of sympathy and tribute to the ideologues of Utopian socialism, who, he says, had long ago solved the problem of society's future development. And ``poor'' "Marx had accepted the solution of the Utopians in essentials, but had recognised their means and proofs as inadequate''.^^****^^ The Utopian Socialists, it appears, had prognosticated and modelled the framework _-_-_
^^*^^ E. Bernstein, op. cit, p. 223. Bernstein ascribes to Marxism the vulgar materialism to which Marx and Engels were so strongly opposed.
^^**^^ E. Bernstein, Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgabcn der Sozialdemokratie, Stuttgart, 1909, S. 4, 26.
^^***^^ E. Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism. . . , pp. 28, 33, 35, 39.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 210.
58 of the future humane, peaceful society. "Owen, one of the great Utopian Socialists of the nineteenth century," wrote Bernstein, "worked out his plan of the future society to the minutest detail to prove its practicability, while another--- Fourier, analysed with great psychological insight the human motives and passions to give all of them a place in the phalanstery and lay them into the foundations of the future society.''^^*^^ Obviously, after this there was nothing left for Marx to do but merely accept in essentials the solution of the Utopian Socialists, and ipso facto, that "great scholarly mind in the long run was a prisoner of doctrine". Do not the modern revisionists write approximately the same thing? Have they retreated a single step from the precepts of their revisionist teacher?After having thus worked dilettante-fashion the flanks of all the component parts of Marxism, Bernstein began to introduce his professorial amendments into revolutionary phraseology to which he imparted a patently revisionist flavour. In lieu of the word ``revolution'' the revisionist corrector suggested using "socialist reform"; in lieu of revolutionary struggle---"revolutionary process"; in lieu of the dictatorship of the proletariat---"ideal democracy", a " humane, just society" and so on. All these ravings of the once ``orthodox'' Marxist were rightly qualified by Rosa Luxemburg as "a science for the digestion''.
Nor is that all. Bernstein and those of like mind went further. They concentrated their fire on the Marxist teaching concerning the international cohesion of the labour movement, the unity of the workers' parties. The SocialDemocratic press began to put over the bourgeois ideas of nationalism, chauvinism and pacifism, the idea that the social movement was integral and classless. Naturally, this had serious consequences. The voice of the renegades was widely re-echoed by the bourgeois press, the liberal intelligentsia, all kinds of professors, privat-dozents and other spokesmen of the so-called official social sciences. "Schools of the Social Ideal", "Schools of the Historical Ideal", etc., began to appear everywhere. You will notice that all this seems to have been copied by the present-day revisionist theoreticians.
_-_-_^^*^^ E. Bernstein, Zur Geschichtc und Theorie des Sozialismus. Gesammclte Abhandlungen, Berlin-Bern, 1901, S. 197-98.
59The main aim of each of these schools was to challenge and depose Marxism. Rosa Luxemburg wrote: "All those good people who professionally earn their salary by waging a theoretical war against Social-Democracy from the eminence of their cathedras suddenly found themselves, to their own astonishment, in the midst of the Social-- Democratic camp. Long gone sour and mouldy from futile mumbling, self-buried and forgotten, the cathedra-socialists suddenly came to life again in the theories of Bernstein and his followers; the `Subjectivists' came to life; the Stammler 'social ideal', elusive as a giddy butterfly, came to life ('the ultimate goal is nothing to me, the movement---the pursuit of an ideal---is every thing'). "^^*^^
Criticism of Marxism became the fashion. The challenging of Marxism became "a favourite pursuit of the German professoriate and a tested expedient for obtaining a privatdozentship in Germany''.^^**^^ And so the circle was completed. What took place was really odd and monstrous. The once faithful adherents and advocates of Marxism deserted to the camp of the bourgeoisie, followed by the unstable leaders of Social-Democracy who had long been vacillating. All this was not long in having its effect upon the whole Party, which year by year drew farther away from Marxism, and, in the person of many of its leaders, sank to the lowest depths of opportunism. Thus did a once big and once revolutionary workers' party find itself destroyed from within because it was unable to stand up to the opportunist current that had formed within its own ranks. For the same reasons the Social-Democratic parties disintegrated in other countries too.
The situation was extremely critical. Bernsteinianism passed the inner bounds of German Social-Democracy and spread throughout Europe, assuming a more and more perverted character. In the socialist movement of France there appeared Millerandism, in Russia legal Marxism, Economism and Menshevism. Lenin remarked that "the strife of the various trends within the socialist movement has from national become international''.^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Rosa Luxemburg, GcsammeUe Werke---"Gegen den Reformismus", Berlin, 1925, Bd. Ill, S. 215.
^^**^^ Ibid., S. 212.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 352.
60This was the first most difficult moment within the Marxist movement. At times it seemed as if the scientific theory of Marxism had been dealt a crushing defeat from which it would take long to recover. But this was not to be. The great labour host of Marx, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, was not to show the white feather, but rally in serried ranks and throw all this garbage into the dust-bin. "Neither, of course, would the walls of Marxism fall," she said, "because the Social-Democratic volunteers are blowing their bourgeois trumpets.''^^*^^
This historic mission of fighting revisionism, defending Marxism and developing it further on the basis of the new historical experience fell to the lot of the Marxists of Russia headed by Lenin. They were determined opponents of revisionism. The service rendered by the Leninists was that they inflicted a crushing defeat on Bernsteinianism, then on Kautskyism, first and foremost in the theoretical field. Such threadbare harmful theories as Bernstein's theory of "classless harmonious development" were demolished, as were also Kautsky's theory of ``ultraimperialism'', Hilferding's theory of "organised capitalism" and similar unscientific figments of the so-called theorists of democratic and `` humane'' socialism.
But that was only a doctrinal, ideological struggle. The revisionists had to be beaten by practical, revolutionary deeds. The great service rendered by Lenin was that he created a truly revolutionary Marxist party whose law of life was unshakeable ideological and organisational unity. The ruthless expulsion from the party of opportunists of whatever trend was an essential demand of Leninism. "The Party," Lenin wrote, "is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating antiParty views.''^^**^^ On the basis of the entire experience of the international and Russian labour movement, he maintained that the party could not organise the victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie nor keep the power it had won unless it expelled revisionists and opportunists of every kind from its ranks.
_-_-_^^*^^ Rosa Luxemburg, GesammeUe Werke---"Gegen den Reformismus", Berlin, 1925, Bd. Ill, S. 215.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 47.
61The Great October Socialist Revolution, prepared and carried out under the leadership of the Leninist party, was striking confirmation of Marxism's trueness and the practical realisation of its revolutionary ideas. It dealt a crushing body-blow to revisionism and held it up to infamy in the eyes of the world, and the renegades suffered a smashing defeat that silenced them. Thus, Marxism triumphed in practice, in life. And this triumph of Marxism was bound up directly with the gigantic theoretical, political and organisational activities of Lenin and other genuine continuators of the cause of Marx and Engels.
Thus ended a lengthy period of reformism's and opportunism's ascendancy in the labour movement. Reformism was defeated and debunked by the new generation of revolutionaries, who amplified and developed Marxism. Summing up the results of this period's struggle Lenin, prior to the October Revolution in Russia, predicted that "in recent years a third period has been making its appearance, a period in which the forces that have been prepared will achieve their goal in a series of crises".^^*^^ He said further: "In this first really international battle with socialist opportunism, international revolutionary Social-Democracy will perhaps become sufficiently strengthened to put an end to the political reaction that has long reigned in Europe?''^^**^^ This forecast of Lenin's came true. The period in which revisionism had its back broken had arrived.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ C. THE DECISIVE DEFEAT OF RIGHT-WINGThe third period of development of Marxism opens with the triumph of its all-conquering ideas materialised in the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia--- on one-sixth of the globe. The architect of this glorious deed was the party of Bolsheviks---the party of a new type created by the genius of Lenin, nurtured and fostered on the revolutionary ideas of Marxism. Lenin's name has gone down in history as one of the founders of scientific communism. _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 296. (My italics.---S.T.)
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 353. (My italics.---S.T.)
62 The world communist movement has inscribed MarxismLeninism on its victorious banner.In scanning the yellowed newspaper sheets of that period we could cite a multitude of appreciative comments on the great role of Lenin. Even the avowed enemies of socialism, livid with fear in face of the liberation movement of the peoples, were obliged to recognise the historic service rendered by Lenin in putting into practice the doctrine of Marx and Engels. The bourgeois press compared him to a rock hurtling down the mountainside and clearing a way for the new. It was indeed a mighty rock that had broken loose from the moutain-top and was rushing down to crush and scatter from the path leading to communism all the old junk which the leaders of the Second International had piled up, to clear the path for the new, truly revolutionary, in the Marxist sense of the word, international communist movement.
Lenin's life and activities are the embodiment of the heroic deed of our Party and of the whole international communist movement. In the harsh years of the underground, in the struggle for the victory of the Great October Revolution, in the civil war, in the struggle to build and strengthen the socialist state, in the sweeping development of the world communist movement are vividly embodied the iron will and revolutionary energy of Lenin.
Lenin was the brilliant leader and teacher of our Party, the great strategist of'the socialist revolution. Implacable towards the enemies of the Marxist doctrine, high-principled, endowed with a clear revolutionary perspective combined with extraordinary firmness of purpose, a wise and concrete leadership and unbreakable ties with the masses---such were the characteristic features of Lenin's style of work. No leader in the world had ever had to direct such vast worker and peasant masses as Lenin. Lenin's entire activities offer an example of immense theoretical power combined with a practical experience of the revolutionary struggle of incomparable scope and magnitude. Lenin, as no other man, was able to generalise the revolutionary experience of the masses, take up and develop their initiative, take lessons from and give lessons to the masses and lead them forward to victory.
Lenin's multifarious activities were truly amazing. They reveal at its most brilliant the impregnable shattering power of Marxist logic, crystal clearness, an iron will, devotion 63 to the Party, ardent faith in the people and love of the people. Lenin's well-known and most precious traits were modesty, simplicity, a tactful attitude towards people and a ruthless one towards enemies, towards phrasemongers, whimperers and panic-mongers. Wise, unhurried in making' decisions on complex political questions requiring thorough consideration of all aspects of a situation, Lenin at the same time was a past master in the art of making bold revolutionary decisions and sharp turns. All revolutionary fighters dream of being like Lenin, being political leaders of the Leninist type. Many a decade and century will pass in the development of society and people will always reverently study the heroic times in which Lenin, the great continuator of the cause of Marx and Engels, lived and worked.
The October Socialist Revolution, carried out under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, was not only a gigantic gain of the international proletariat, of all the working and oppressed peoples, but a decisive defeat of world revisionism within the Marxist movement. Eroded by the canker of opportunism, nationalism and pacifism, the Second (Socialist) International collapsed like a house of cards. The European Social-Democratic parties fell apart or broke up into hostile splinter groups, and their Right-wing leaders deflected to the camp of imperialism.
The very first days of the First World War revealed the vile betrayal of the working-class cause by the Right-wing Socialists. In almost every country they supported without a murmur their reactionary, bourgeois governments in the conduct of the imperialist war, and, what is more, they themselves kindled the flame of nationalist and chauvinist mania. In the course of that criminal war Scheidemann in Germany, Vandervelde in Belgium, Henderson in Britain, Guesde in France, and the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia joined the cabinets of their imperialist governments and actively helped the bourgeoisie to conduct the predatory war and befuddle the working class. The Second International died an ignominious death. Its acknowledged leaders openly betrayed the cause of the working class.
But, as the popular saying runs, "there is nothing so bad as not to be good for something". It was in reality a great process of rehabilitation and consolidation of the world revolutionary movement. Everywhere, in every part of the globe, under the impact of the October Revolution, 64 Communist Parties of the Leninist type began to arise, drawing into their ranks the most steadfast, honest and courageous revolutionaries prepared to dedicate themselves to the cause of struggle for the emancipation of all the working people from the yoke of capitalism. It was upon this revolutionary bedrock that the Third, Communist, International was built, purged of the dross of revisionism. Summing up the progress that had been made, Lenin said:
The First International had laid the foundations of the proletarian international struggle for socialism.
The Second International had prepared the ground for the sweeping spread of the movement in a number of countries.
The Third International took to itself the fruits of the Second International's work cleansed of its opportunist, social-chauvinist, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois dross, and started to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The Third, Communist, International rendered an undying service in that it solemnly proclaimed it to be the sacred duty of all the world's Communist Parties to guard the gains of the October Socialist Revolution as the apple of one's eye, to defend the Soviet Socialist Republic---the true fatherland of all the working people of the world. This was genuine Marxist-Leninist internationalism, which rallied all the world's Communists into a single fraternal family and demonstrated in practice the unconquerable strength of the revolutionary army of proletarian fighters for socialism.
With the formation of the first socialist state in history the class struggle in the world arena assumed a sharper and deeper character. History placed the Soviet Republic in the front line of the struggle against world imperialism. At first the imperialists hoped by joint efforts and an armed frontal attack to crush the Soviet Republic, but thanks to the unmatched heroism of the people following the lead of Lenin's party, thanks to the international support of the world proletariat, they were crushingly defeated and compelled to retreat. Next they tried to starve the country out by imposing an economic, political, diplomatic and military blockade, but this did not help them either.
So then the world bourgeoisie resorted to its tried and trusted method---that of employing its agents within the U.S.S.R., making use of the opposition forces within the Bolshevik Party to fight Leninism. It was well aware that __PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5---1214 65 all kinds of people had wormed their way into the ranks of the Bolsheviks during the revolution---fellow-travellers, petty-bourgeois Socialists, whose parties had utterly lost the confidence of the working people and in the course of the Revolution and the Civil War had gone over into the camp of the counter-revolution. Among these fellow-travellers were Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries of different shades---Right and Centrists, Internationalist Mensheviks, Trotskyists, ``Left'' S.R.s, Maximalist S.R.s, People's Communists, etc.
True, many of them served the revolution honestly, but quite a number of them had joined the Bolshevik Party in order to disrupt it from within. It is not surprising therefore that after the victory of the Revolution and especially after the end of the Civil War, as soon as the country embarked on the construction of socialism, there appeared within the Party numerous revisionist and opportunist currents--- Trotskyists, ``Left'' Communists, members of the Democratic Centralism group, Anarcho-Syndicalists (the ``workers' opposition"), all working from different sides to overthrow Lenin's plan for building socialism in a single country. Obviously, the Party could not afford such a ``luxury'', and at its Tenth Congress (1921) it wholeheartedly adopted Lenin's resolution declaring factional struggle to be incompatible with party discipline and membership of the Party.
At the same time, by decision of the Central Committee, a purge of the Party's ranks was carried out in 1921, which enabled it to a considerable extent to weed out anti-Party elements, especially redyed Mensheviks and their allies, and to strengthen its ranks. The Lenin Enrolment, which was carried out three years later, drew into the Party the best forces of the working class and raised its prestige still higher not only within the country, but in the international arena. Lenin often drew attention to the fact that the Party's ideological strength did not drop from the clouds. The Party gained strength in the struggle for the purity of Marxist ideas and united its ranks along two lines: on the one hand, through self-cleansing as an indispensable law of development for any revolutionary party, and on the other, through reinforcement of its ranks with the best elements of the working class, in order to preserve within it a central hard core of workers as a cementing force. Without this no 66 proletarian, revolutionary party can escape the risk of cluttering its ranks and courting the danger of degradation and slipping down to the path of Right reformism or foolhardy adventurism.
Thus, the schemes of the revisionists within our Party at the first stage of the Soviet government's existence were nipped in the bud. Both Right and ``Left'' revisionists were silenced and forced temporarily to capitulate. One would think that after such an epoch-making victory of Marxism as the October Socialist Revolution there would be no room left at all for revisionism. But the international revolutionary proletariat was destined to experience another disappointment similar to the one it had experienced after the death of Engels.
The same thing happened after the death of Lenin, when revisionism came to life again and went into action. Significantly, on this occasion too the spokesmen of revisionism were men who called themselves Marxists-Leninists of the "true faith"---Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky and others, who teamed up with the Trotskyists and took their turn in opposing Leninism. The situation within the C.P.S.U.(B.) was extremely grave. This time not only the world outlook of Marxism-Leninism, but the gains of the socialist revolution were at stake: the question at issue was whether the world's first state of the workers and peasants was to be or not to be. We know only too well that not the least of the factors that caused the downfall of the Paris Commune was inner-party strife!
Speaking of the gravity of the situation, we shall have to go back to the events of the late nineties of the last century and the early twentieth century, when revisionism succeeded in disrupting from within such a large revolutionary workers' party as the German Social-Democratic Labour Party. Is there, in this case, any logical connection between events two decades apart? There is! The general strategic line of the bourgeois agents remains unchanged--- to blow up Marxism-Leninism from within. But a new factor has emerged. Whereas previously revisionism had attacked Marxism mainly from the Right, we now find revisionism first attacking Leninism from the ``Left''.
The field against Leninism was taken by Trotskyism---one of the most typical of petty-bourgeois currents impregnated with the ideas of Bakunin, Proudhon, Most and Parvus, __PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 teetering from one extreme to another and combining within itself the Right-wing capitulatory tendencies of the Mensheviks with adventurism and anarchism. Trotskyism as a political trend was the most harmful at all stages of the Russian revolution. Estranged as it was from the proletarian midst, Trotskyism represented a mixed bag of politicking elements recruited from diverse categories of the urban petty bourgeoisie and part of the professional intelligentsia. Taking refuge behind revolutionary phraseology, Trotskyism at the same time represented the most abominable form of arrant opportunism. It is not surprising therefore that at the various stages of the revolution the Trotskyists always acted on its extreme flanks, either as extreme ``Leftists'' or extreme Rightists. This gave Lenin grounds for saying that with the Trotskyists ``Left'' phrases harmonised well with Right deeds.
The pain caused by the loss of their leader and teacher Lenin had not yet lost its poignancy in the hearts of the working people of the world when Trotsky came out with his booklet The Lessons of October, where everything was turned inside out. Leninism, "it appears", was a fiction, and was simply "Trotskyism re-armed". The book furiously argues the case for the Menshevik conception regarding the impossibility of building socialism in one country. The solution of this problem, it claimed, was possible only in the international field in the spirit of the TrotskyistParvusist "permanent revolution", and the idea of a union of workers and peasants in socialist construction was rejected. In short, this was an open attempt to abandon Leninism in favour of Trotskyism.
But this was nothing more than a signal for an attack on Lenin's party, on Lenin's theory of socialist revolution. It is noteworthy that this Trotskyist signal "from the Left" was responded to with alacrity by the decrepit renegades of the Right---Bernstein, Kautsky, Hilferding, Bauer and Springer (Renner). The splitters and disrupters within the young, recently organised communist parties of Germany, France, Italy and other countries immediately raised their head. The struggle between the revolutionary and revisionist trends within the Marxist-Leninist movement increased in intensity.
This was the second difficult moment within Marxism, when the revisionists attempted to have their revenge for 68 the defeat they had once suffered. An alarming aspect of this was that revisionism's fiercest attacks were launched at the citadel of the international communist movement--- the C.P.S.U.(B). The first to respond to Trotsky's call was Zinoviev. He propounded a thesis that was most popular with the ideologues of the bourgeoisie---that Leninism was a nationally limited phenomenon applicable only in a backward peasant country. As for Lenin's teaching concerning the costruction of socialism in a single country, he considered this a myth that was bound to be dispelled. Another who lost no time in answering the call was Kamenev, who unburdened himself of everything he had secretly been nourishing for years (at least since 1910). In outward form everything was smooth. He attacked Trotsky for his Leftadventurist one-track approach and amid a flood of honeyed reservations confirmed the correctness of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution. But when it came to the arguments concerning the possibility of building socialism in the U.S.S.R., Kamenev opined that Lenin's theory, under the conditions prevailing in ``backward'' Russia, was impracticable and that it could only be applied in the developed capitalist countries of Western Europe.
No wonder that at the 14th Congress of the Party this blatantly contradictory Zinoviev-Kamenev revisionist conclusion was qualified as the most fraudulent and most Pharasaical of all revisionist platforms that had ever existed. It should be noted that at first Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky came out strongly against Trotskyism and its ZinovievKamenev yes-men. They rejected the concept of Trotskyism and the new Zinoviev-Kamenev opposition. During the political debates at the 14th Party Congress Bukharin, speaking as co-reporter of the C.C. C.P.S.U.(B.), sharply criticised the Zinoviev-Kamenev platform. At the same time, however, it came to light that this criticism was made, not from Marxist-Leninist positions, but rather from the positions of Right-wing Social-Democratic reformism.
It did not take long for the Party to realise the true nature of this out-and-out Kautsky-Hilferding platform. Bukharin, the chief ideologue of the ``Left'' Communists, suddenly swung over into the camp of the Rights and began to evolve and elaborate the Hilferding theory of ``organised'' capitalism, the "attenuation of the class struggle" and the growing of capitalism into socialism". Proceeding from 69 a wrong evaluation of the New Economic Policy he advanced the obviously erroneous slogan of "Get rich", "Go ahead and accumulate" and then argued the concept of " equilibrium of the two systems", "spontaneity and a policy of drift" under the conditions of socialist construction. The same thing happened with Rykov. Uncertain of the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, he began to speak again about the impossibility of overcoming the age-old backwardness of the country, and gave way to panic and despondency in face of the tremendous difficulties of socialist construction. As head of the government Rykov displayed considerable irresolution in implementing the economic plans and often aligned himself now with the ``Left'', now with the Right opportunists.
Small wonder that subsequently the Trotskyists and Bukharinites quickly found common ground and joined forces against the Party's Leninist general line at building socialism in our country. It is not difficult to understand what fatal consequences this would have had if any one of these political trends had gained the upper hand. Now, analysing past events, we can say that the fruits of victory of the socialist revolution in our country would most certainly have been lost if either the Trotskyists or Bukharinites had taken over the leadership of the Party.
But this was not what the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, had worked for. There rose to the occasion true, genuine disciples of Marx, Engels and Lenin, who did not flinch in face of the revisionist menace, did not bend beneath the violent attacks of the pseudo-Marxists and pseudo-Leninists, but administered a crushing defeat upon them. The Leninist host of professional revolutionaries, rallied in steel ranks, stood its ground, did not appeal to the revisionists for moderation or compromise, but fearlessly and openly called upon the Party to put the matter to the issue.
In the trenuous and intense struggle for Marxism-- Leninism the Central Committee did not resort to the simple expedient of weeding out the otherwise-minded, but confided the whole political ``quarrel'' to the arbitrament of the Party. And what was the result? The discussions that followed one after the other after the death of Lenin condemned both the ``Left'' revolutionarians and the Right reformists. At the last Party discussion held in 1927 the united Trotskyist-Zinovievite-Kamenevite opposition 70 bloc collected altogether four thousand supporters in a 700,000-strong Party. The majority of these four thousand were people who had simply taken the word of the opposition leaders and who, after the opposition had been shown up in its true colours, withdrew from it. The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U. resolved that the conduct of the Trotskyists was incompatible with membership of the Party and expelled from the Party the ideologues of revisionism for organising anti-Party activities. That was how the Party unraveled that fatal knot.
I have already spoken about the gravity of the situation that arose within the C.P.S.U.(B.). Indeed, MarxismLeninism was in great danger. The trouble was that the leaders of ``Left'' revolutionarism and Right reformism held key posts in the Government and the Party. Trotsky up to 1925 stood at the head of the Soviet Union's armed forces; Zinoviev was at the head of the Leningrad Party organisation and of the C.P.S.U.(B.) delegation to the Comintern; Kamenev was Chairman of the Politbureau of the Party's Central Committee; Rykov was head of the Government as Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R.; Bukharin was Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper Pravda and then head of the C.P.S.U.(B.) delegation to the Comintern; Tomsky was at the head of the Soviet trade unions. In addition, the Trotskyists and Bukharinites had been planting their own men in key jobs in the organs of the press and other ideological institutions.
The imperialist bourgeoisie, in concert with the bankrupt Right Socialists of Europe, enthusiastically supported the Trotskyists and Bukharinites and were already looking forward to the approaching victory of their virtual allies in the person of the renegades and splitters. It will be recalled that the whole bourgeois and pseudo-socialist press lauded the Trotskyist-Bukharinite ringleaders to the skies. We shall not quote these paeans. All we shall say is that the revisionist politicians at that time committed black deeds against the Party, against the Land of Soviets.
In this difficult situation the Comintern, the fraternal Communist Parties, the brave professional revolutionaries, steeled stalwarts of the international Leninist guard, stood up staunchly for the Leninist core of the C.P.S.U.(B.). They correctly evaluated the lessons of history in the light of principle by recognising that the struggle against the 71 bourgeois agents within the Marxist-Leninist movement concerned not only the C.P.S.U.(B.) but the entire international communist movement. Therefore, in actively supporting the fight against the Trotskyist-Bukharinite splitters within the C.P.S.U(B.) the Marxists-Leninists nipped in the bud the splitting activities of their agents within their own parties.
From this difficult and intense struggle against both ``Left'' adventurism and Right reformism the fighting ranks of the fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties emerged still stronger. The international communist movement gave birth to real proletarian leaders. Communists, all fighters for the proletarian revolution, will always remember and honour the memory of their unforgettable leaders, the Leninist guard of brave professional revolutionaries, who did so much to strengthen the Communist Parties and defend the first land of socialism.
As a result of the united action of the revolutionary Marxists-Leninists a crushing defeat was inflicted on the revisionist agents within the international communist movement. The victorious banner of Marxism-Leninism was in reliable hands. The revisionists, factionalists, were forced once again to lay down their arms not only within the C.P.S.U.(B.) but in the world communist movement as well. In the final analysis this ideological and organisational unity of true Marxists-Leninists, which was won and strengthened in the struggle, was packed with elemental significance for the fight against fascism during the Second World War. The victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R., the gigantic strides in industrialisation, the socialist remodelling of agriculture and the cultural revolution changed the face of the Soviet land, turned it into the revolutionary bastion of the world's working and oppressed peoples in their fight for national and social liberation.
Thus, the Great October Socialist Revolution, the consolidation of the world's first state of the workers and peasants and the successful construction of socialism in the Soviet Union cut the ground from under the feet of the antiMarxist, anti-Leninist trends. Moreover, the fraternal communist parties, grown stronger, drew the teeth of these political trends everywhere by their resolute and highprincipled action. All this culminated in the utter ideological defeat of the Right-reformist and Left-adventurist elements and their expulsion from the Comintern.
72The victory of the Soviet people in the Patriotic War was not only the victory of our socialist system. It raised the teaching of Marxism-Leninism to its highest ever level and spread its ideas throughout the world. One would think that Right reformism and ``Left'' revolutionarism, vanquished by life itself, would never reappear upon the political scene. In fact after the Second World War these trends had no political weight. The renegades had once more been disgraced and confounded. But, as the capitalist world gradually came to itself, as the world socialist system emerged and developed and the struggle between the two worlds sharpened, both these political currents came to the surface again.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ D. REVISIONISM COMES TO ACTIVE LIFE AGAINThe fourth period of Marxism's struggle against revisionism takes its rise in the postwar period, viz., from the end of the forties to the beginning of the fifties. The whole world remembers what a favourable situation was created for the liberation movement of the peoples after the Second World War: the Soviet Union had emerged triumphant from its capitalist encirclement and become the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of the world's workers; a world system of socialism had been created; many countries in Asia and Africa had cast off the yoke of imperialism; the fraternal Communist Parties had gained immensely in prestige, and many of them held key positions in governments, in parliaments and among progressive social forces. All these tremendous gains forcefully demonstrated once more in practice the strength and vitality of MarxismLeninism.
Obviously, this was bound to worry the bourgeoisie. It again began to seek ways of infiltrating into the communist movement and erode, disrupt and weaken it from within. After all, had it not done this once in the Social-- Democratic parties? What was to prevent it from repeating the experiment with the communist parties? Shaken by the gigantic ideological and organisational strength of the European Communist Parties in the fight against fascism, the world bourgeoisie did everything it could to safeguard Europe from the dangerous communist ``pestilence'', which 73 had spread to all countries of that continent. A violent crusade was launched against the Resistance fighters, and the Communist Parties were hounded and exposed to provocations. A virulent organised campaign was started to deprive Communists of their seats in parliament and of ministerial posts in the government, especially in countries like France and Italy.
The moral and physical terror to which the Communist Parties of Europe were subjected gave the bourgeoisie a definite advantage. With the help of the Right SocialDemocratic forces it succeeded in inflicting a severe defeat on the liberation movement in Greece, where it brutally crushed the country's progressive, revolutionary forces. It became abundantly clear that a new world policeman had appeared upon the European scene in the person of American imperialism, which took the lead of Europe's reactionary forces.
Nor is that the whole story. The bourgeoisie now began most carefully to consider how, in what ways it could plant its agents within the newly emerged world socialist system. It persistently sought the weak links in this powerful mechanism, tried to trace lost trails by which it could penetrate into the heart of the socialist community of nations. The combined imperialist circles concentrated all their efforts and resources against the young socialist states. Well aware of the fighting power of the Communist Parties in these countries, demonstrated so heroically in the struggle against fascism, the imperialists were determined to use every means to penetrate into the very heart of these Parties in order to weaken and soften up their revolutionary muscles. Bearing in mind the influence which the Rightwing ideologues of Social-Democracy used to enjoy in these countries, as well as the vanity and conceit of some of the leaders who had wormed their way into the Communist Parties, world imperialism had no great difficulty in taking in hand some of the politically unstable ideologues. It did not take long for these forces to come into action and start on the job of disintegrating the community of socialist states.
Here again we find the revisionist onset starting with attacks on the doctrinal positions of Marxism-Leninism. At first this was done very subtly, correctly and decorously. Nevertheless, despite the verbal smoke screen, a number 74 of theoretical treatises reflected fairly clearly concepts which attempted to revise the basic postulates of Marxism-- Leninism, such as dialectical and historical materialism, the teachings about the socialist state, about the party of a new type, about the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, about internationalism, and the nationalities and agrarian policies. The old familiar tunes about `` obsoleteness'', ``deformation'', ``degeneration'' and •similar gems of critical opinion concerning scientific socialism were repeated in numerous articles, pamphlets, books, treatises and essays.
At first this criticism was of an abstract nature, but then it assumed a quite concrete and definite angle. It was spearheaded against the system of socialism built up in the U.S.S.R. This was all the more unexpected and surprising since, after the triumphant victory which the forces of socialism had won in the fight against fascism, there was, objectively speaking, no room whatever left for such meaningless criticism. But the fact remains and you cannot erase it from history.
These things of the past could well have been left to rest in the annals of history, but for certain vexatious circumstances which compel us to revert to them. The thing is that some revisionist theoreticians, who had played almost first fiddle at the time, began even to boast of the part they had played in disrupting the world socialist system. Some talked themselves into a confession that the fight against the C.P.S.U.---the Party of Lenin---the fight against the U.S.S.R.---the bulwark of the anti-imperialist struggle of the world's working people---had been the happiest moment in their lives. Springing to life on the well-manured soil of the American and European press, radio and television, Milovan Djilas, that fire-eater of modern revisionism, urged the reactionary forces to undertake a crusade against the U.S.S.R. Dedijer, too, has crawled out of his fusty hole and is digging up the hatchet against the Soviet state. Expelled from the ranks of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, they are at great pains to remind us that at first they were Social-Democrats, then orthodox Marxists, and now, like the Bernsteinians, having received a good tip, have turned away from communism, become disillusioned in Marxism. It goes without saying, the vicious circle is complete. But these turncoats are not novel or original in their behaviour. To every person who is more or less versed in the laws of 75 political struggle it is clear that at the back of these renegades stand the imperialists.
It should be added that the ideologues of revisionism on all occasions go out of their way to stress the services they had rendered during the bloody war with fascism. Djilas and Dedijer, for example, keep on reminding us that they were colonels of the Yugoslav liberation army. But, it is fair to ask, whafr else could they do? Everyone knows that Hitler gave no quarter to Social-Democrats either, whether ``Left'' or Right. They themselves were unfit to mobilise the masses, and the latter, in turn, could not take their stand under a renegade banner. Obviously, they had no alternative but to join the Communists, thanks to whom they became colonels. Therefore, these renegades' participation in the struggle against fascism was not a matter of duty or conscience, but of necessity and the hopelessness of their plight. How right Engels was, who said of such leaders: "When educated men and generally newcomers from among the bourgeoisie do not fully adopt the proletarian standpoint, they are only harmful.''^^*^^ Does not the present conduct of all these Djilases and Dedijers who have stopped to treachery and betrayal confirm this?
Having created a Right-revisionist bridgehead within the socialist camp, world imperialism concentrated its material and ideological resources on extending the splitting activities of the revisionists within the socialist countries and rallying behind them the reactionary anti-socialist forces. The tragic events in Hungary in 1956 showed clearly that the Right revisionist forces are in the employ of imperialist reaction and act according to a single strategic and tactical plan. It was a serious political lesson, which alerted the fraternal Communist Parties and enabled the proper deductions to be made from it.
The dialectics of the class struggle, however, has its own logic and its own laws. As was to be expected, in the course of the sharp principled struggle with Right revisionism within the Marxist-Leninist movement, a ``Left'' revolutionarism began to take shape, which, as Lenin pointed out, "was not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist sins of the working-class movement. The two monstrosities _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Werke, Bd. 35, S. 443.
76 complemented each other.''^^*^^ It was this kind of ``Left'' revolutionarism that appeared in the middle of the fifties in the concepts of certain theoreticians who claimed to be ``true'' defenders of Marxism-Leninism. Nevertheless, on the major issues of the theory, policies, strategy and tactics of Marxism-Leninism these theoreticians obviously deviated towards ``Left'' adventurism, revealing a dogmatic approach in the assessment of many aspects of modern social and political development. Yet, for that time, it was merely a deviation from the Marxist-Leninist line. Of course, not every deviation from the line signifies that that line has been lost completely. But history knows no few occasions when deviations grew into hostile political trends. Deplorable though it is to admit, on this occasion the ``Left'' deviation grew into a political trend which has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism.And so the facts show that the revisionism of today, like that at the beginning of the century, has grown to international magnitude and recreated great difficulties within the Marxist movement. 'To be sure, those who cannot bring themselves to fight it and who try to play it down are increasing the danger of it still more,
Lenin was profoundly right when he repeatedly warned of this danger. In his article dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Marx's death, Lenin wrote: "What now crops up in practice only over individual side issues of the labour movement, as tactical differences with the revisionists and splits on this basis---is bound to be experienced by the working class on an incomparably larger scale when the proletarian revolution will sharpen all disputed issues, will focus all differences on points which are of the most immediate importance in determining the conduct of the masses, and will make it necessary in the heat of the fight to distinguish enemies from friends, and to cast out bad allies in order to deal decisive blows at the enemy.''^^**^^ Lenin's words have come true.
It must be admitted that the imperialist bourgeoisie during the last decade has improved its methods of work, and, backed by the Right and ``Left'' revisionists, has embarked on a new offensive against socialism. The events in _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 32.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 39.
77 Czechoslovakia have revealed, on the one hand, the finely adjusted mechanism of the modern political and ideological struggle of the bourgeoisie against socialism; on the other hand, the unity and links of revisionism with anti-communism. This is no longer the purely doctrinal and ideological struggle it was before. It is an intricate, highly confused and very subtly devised struggle, a struggle involving the use of state policy and hidden actions, a struggle starting as an `` undercover'' form of creeping ``quiet'' counter-revolution. A struggle in which intelligence services, state institutions, imperialist monopolies, Right-wing Social-Democratic theoreticians and opportunist elements within the Communist Parties have joined. An active part in it was taken by all propaganda media: radio, television, the press, and secret networks. Foul means were used here, such as bribery, favours, blackmail and intriguing. Last but not least, weapons were stored in the event of the ``quiet'' counterrevolution preparing the ground for their use, first and foremost against the Communists.Special stress therefore should be laid on the fact that it is the present generation of Communists who will be charged with the great mission of taking the cause of antirevisionism into their own strong hands and defending Marxism-Leninism in this sharp ideological and political struggle. They have the strength for it. And real Communists direct the fire of their Marxist-Leninist weapon first and foremost against the revisionists on the Right and ``Left''. The task now is to defeat revisionism in open ideological struggle and thereby do one's paramount duty to the international working class.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. REVISIONISM---A TRAINING SCHOOL FORThe protracted period of revisionism's ascendancy in the international Marxist movement did not pass without a trace, of course. Marxists-Leninists still have to fight hard to cope with the relapses of those ideological and political diversions which had their roots in the past epoch. These diversions were already mentioned above. Here it should merely be stressed that the most damaging of them was the fact that revisionism had succeeded during its 78 domination to form cadres of a special kind. Indeed, revisionism is an infernal machine for corrupting cadres of proletarian revolutionaries, a forge for shaping a special type of leaders ---unprincipled politicasters, opportunists and doubledealers.
From the very first step towards creating a Marxist party in Russia, Lenin gave his attention to the formation of a leader of a new, proletarian type---an upright, straightforward, definite and truthful leader of the most lofty moral and ideological principles. In his early works, particularly in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Lenin exposes with biting sarcasm such ugly products of the ``school'' of revisionism as "anarchism of the `noble' gentleman", " opportunist nihilism", "bourgeois individualism" and " pettybourgeois looseness". Even when our Party became the ruling Party, Lenin fought with tenfold energy against the slightest manifestation of creeping opportunism. Everyone knows how intolerant Lenin was of what was then called "communist conceit", and of such manifestations as arrogance, pomposity, conceit, self-assurance, self-delusion and complacency. To the end of his life he never ceased his efforts to prevent such a type of leader from ever reappearing within the ranks of the Bolshevik Party or penetrating into it from without. And our Party cherishes this behest of Lenin's.
I don't think anyone has ever given a character study of an opportunist with such brilliant insight as Lenin. This is only natural, for no one knew the ways of the opportunists better than he did. In one of his articles he wrote:
"When we speak of fighting opportunism, we must never forget a characteristic feature of present-day opportunism in every sphere, namely, its vagueness, amorphousness, elusiveness. An opportunist, by his very nature, will always evade taking a clear and decisive stand, he will always seek a middle course, he will always wriggle like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view and try to `agree' with both and reduce his differences of opinion to petty amendments, doubts, innocent and pious suggestions, and so on and so forth.''^^*^^
What words of gold, what microscopic accuracy in grasping and generalising the type of opportunist. There it is, the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 404. (My italics.---S.7.)
79 physiognomy of that special kind of leader raised on the leaven of revisionism, fighting shy of clarity and definiteness, escaping from life's difficult moments, shrinking from centralism, discipline and organisation, attempting to cloak, slur over, tone down the real factors of social development. Indeed, the opportunist is an elusive, slippery, faceless figure, whose thinking and actions are governed by fear at the idea of any critical interpretation of life's contradictions and who tries to lull the masses with specious arguments and leave them ideologically defenceless in the struggle against their class enemies.A common feature of revisionists, as Lenin pointed out, is that they disguise themselves as Marxists, while actually fighting Marxism. Their tactic was "... not to oppose the principles of Marxism openly, but to pretend to accept Marxism, while emasculating it by sophistry and turning it into a holy `icon' that is harmless to the bourgeoisie''.^^*^^ "In deed---a complete renunciation of dialectical materialism, i.e., of Marxism; in word---endless subterfuges, attempts to evade the essence of the question, to cover their retreat. . . .''^^**^^ "An ever subtler falsification of Marxism, an ever subtler presentation of anti-materialist doctrines under the guise of Marxism---this is the characteristic feature of modern revisionism. . . .''^^***^^ One is entitled to ask, what forcing-beds do leaders of such a type come from? To put it bluntly, they come and will continue to come from those bourgeois and petty-bourgeois depths which nourish and breed revisionists of every stripe and colour. And so long as that soil exists the shoots of opportunism will continue to sprout. These types are alive and flourishing to this day. This type of leader traces its parentage to Eduard Bernstein, who said of himself that "synthetic thinking and deduction did not come easy to me''.^^****^^ And Parvus (Helphand) said of him: " Bernstein has a knack of uniting the most heterogeneous ( unconnected) things while at the same time disconnecting and separating the most simple.''^^*****^^ No wonder that the entire activities of this father of opportunism consist of _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 222.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 14, p. 20.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 330.
^^****^^ Rosa Luxemburg, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. Ill, S. 16, Einleitung von Paul Frolich.
^^*****^^ Ibid.
80 backslidings. Describing his own activities, Bernstein wrote that they were divided into three stages. The first stage, when he, Bernstein, was an orthodox Marxist and applied all his energies to the propaganda of this great doctrine. The second stage was devoted to renouncing orthodox Marxism, when he applied all his energies and resources to discrediting and disproving that great scientific doctrine. The third stage was devoted to explaining why and how he had made this kind of fly over from Marxism into the camp of the bourgeoisie. Towards the end of his life this theoretician admitted that the last two stages had been very difficult for him,^^*^^ which was only natural, since he had to explain such a comedown,A favourite trick of revisionists is to falsify, distort and juggle with the facts, a thing which they do on the specious pretext of ``improving'' and ``clarifying'' them. And when caught out in plain lying, calumny and insinuations they promptly assume the attitude of an injured, insulted and misunderstood party, fall into hysterics, beat their breasts and protest their ``honesty'' and ``impeccability''. To this day Marxists-Leninists often have to deal with such trickery on the part of revisionists. Obviously, these are not random incidents breaking through at crucial moments of political life. They are a definite system of behaviour, a way of thinking, on the part of this special type of leaders trained in the revisionist school for execution of the bourgeoisie's order. Let us turn to the historical facts.
The orthodox school of revisionist cadres within the Marxist movement had formed gradually during the lifetime of the founders of scientific communism. It fell to Engels's lot to set eyes on the first perfidious tricks of the revisionists. While seriously ill, he wrote his famous ``Introduction'' to Marx's The Class Struggles in France. It was his swan song. And what happened? In the treacherous hands of Bernstein this article was so corrected and revised that Engels could not recognise it. By expurgating from it all the revolutionary passages Bernstein the revisionist turned it into that document of pacific socialism which has since been quoted a countless number of times and had come to be regarded as the confession of a once revolutionary Marxist.
On reading this vile forgery, Engels, stricken with mortal _-_-_
^^*^^ See E. Bernstein, Zur Geschichte und Theorie des Sozialismus, S. 10.
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---1214 81 illness, at once wrote a letter to Kautsky (April 1, 1895) and a similar one to Lafargue (April 3, 1895). He wrote: "To my astonishment I see in the Vorwarts today an extract from my ``Introduction'', printed without my prior knowledge and trimmed in such a fashion that I appear as peaceful worshipper of legality at any price. So much the more would I like the whole thing to appear now in the Neue Zeit so that this disgraceful impression will be wiped out.''^^*^^ Engels's protest against this scurvy trick had no effect, however. He was to see the text of his ``Introduction'' published in Neue Zeit in the same garbled form. Protests were unavailing. On August 5, 1895, Engels was no more, and the revisionists went through the routine of mourning the departure of their most, implacable and unbending antagonist. The world did not learn the true meaning of Engels's ``Introduction'' until 1925, when the K. Marx and F. Engels Institute under the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. published the full text of it.It is significant, by the way, that when the Bolsheviks published the authentic documents of Engels, who sharply criticised revisionism, which had penetrated into the Marxist movement, Bernstein himself was forced to confess his fraudulent sins. "After the publication of these letters," Bernstein wrote in 1925, "it is no longer possible to withhold publication of them in the language in which Engels wrote them.''^^**^^ Here you have a classical example of hypocrisy, unscrupulousness, and double-dealing by a so-called orthodox Marxist. And are not the present-day revisionists resorting to similar methods?!
Having gained possession of the vast fund of Marx's and Engels's manuscripts, the revisionist leaders literally issued them by driblets. Lenin and his associates had to exert no little efforts in order to introduce to future generations this rich heritage of the great founders of scientific communism. For example, their letters to Sorge were not published until 1906, to Kugelmann and Weydemeyer, until 1907, to Becker until 1920, to Viktor Adler and to Bernstein until 1924. As our readers now know, these letters give very important advice on tactics of the struggle both against the Right and the ``Left'' revisionist trends. Today, thanks to the gigantic _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 568.
^^**^^ Die Briefs von Friedrich Engels und Eduard Bernstein mit Briefen von Karl Kautsky an ebendenselben, Berlin, 1925, S. 5.
82 efforts of the C.P.S.U., we have a complete edition of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.Another line of the revisionist school is smear techniques, methods of moral terror, blackmail and intrigue. Look at the facts. No sooner did revisionism start cutting its teeth within the Marxist movement than new aspects began to appear in the very character of the intra-party struggle. The first sounds of these new strings were caught by Wilhelm Liebknecht, who decided to call Bernstein's revisionist bluff and named him "the great lickspittle of capitalism". It looked an internal party affair. But quite unexpectedly, without warning, a storm of invective broke over the head of Liebknecht throughout the bourgeois press, which accused him of being a henchman of Marx and Engels and nothing less than a secret agent for engineering an armed putsch among the German working class. This version, emanating from confidential Social-Democratic sources, gave sufficient grounds for hounding the proletarian leader and hastening his death.
The revisionist leaders employed a still viler method towards the acknowledged leader of the German proletariat August Bebel. As you know, a whole epoch in the international labour movement is associated with this outstanding figure. Himself a proletarian, a son of toil, privation and hardships, he, by sheer talent and mastery of Marxism, rose to the pedestal of a professional revolutionary, a proletarian leader. And when the revisionists attempted to revise the principles of the party Bebel exclaimed: "Such a tactic would be for the party the same as if a living organism had had its backbone broken and was still expected to be as viable as before.''^^*^^
Naturally, the revisionists could not forgive him this impertinence. Over a period of many years they schemed to bring about his downfall, slandered him in the press, and helped to swing the vote against him at the Reichstag elections. They even played such a shabby trick as to spread a rumour about his death in the world press. This is what Bebel himself wrote on this score: "The report about my death was sent also to the United States and made our New York comrades arrange a funeral meeting in my honour, which was attended by several thousand people with _-_-_
^^*^^ Rosa Luxemburg, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. Ill, S. 173.
__PRINTERS_P_83_COMMENT__ 6* 83 Vahlteich delivering a speech. I found the thing highly amusing, but when Vahlteich learned that it was all a misunderstanding he got very angry and reproached me with not having reported that I was alive and well. I answered, how was I to know that they had received such information and believed it!"^^*^^Similar methods of baiting were employed against other staunch supporters of Marxism. Rosa Luxemburg, for example, was ostracised and for a long time was not admitted to any international party forums. Franz Mehring was harassed in the most disgraceful manner. The thing was so disgusting that Mehring was obliged to publicly denounce his slanderers. Speaking at the Dresden congress, he said that the slanderous attacks against him were one of those "attacks which had heretofore been the unenviable privilege of bourgeois literary circles, one of those attacks, for which weeks and months are spent in reliable ambush sharpening a dagger with which to kill an unarmed man''.^^**^^ If we compare these facts with the actions the revisionists are employing in present-day conditions it becomes clear that these leaders are but birds of one feather. Both past and present revisionists are anything but scrupulous in their behaviour. Although the revisionist theoreticians have a lot to say about humanism, democracy and liberty, they act in a most dictatorial, tyrannical and treacherous manner.
In this connection it would be well to remember the grim and arduous fight with revisionism of both shades, Right and ``Left'', which fell to the lot of the monolithic Leninist core of the Bolshevik Party. In this context we are interested only in one aspect of the question---the character of the revisionist-opportunist. Our historical literature has dealt in detail with Trotsky's Menshevism and shilly-shallyings, with _-_-_
^^*^^ August Bebel, Aus meinem Leben, Dritter Teil, Stuttgart, 1914, S. 206-07.
Bebel's remarks are so interesting that I have decided to quote him in full. "After the news of my death numerous obituaries appeared in the French press, from which I saw how history is sometimes `made'. Phare de Loire, for example, printed a lengthy obituary the writer of which described how he had met me at dinner in Leghorn and how we had afterwards travelled together to Florence and Rome, and from there had gone to Caprera---Goat's Island---made famous by Garibaldi's stay there---to pay the latter a visit. This whole story did not contain a single word of truth. At that time I had not yet been to Italy." (August Bebel, Aus meinem Leben, Dritter Teil, Stuttgart, 1914, S. 207).
^^**^^ Rosa Luxemburg, Gesammelte Werke, Bd. Ill, S. 27.
84 Zinoviev's and Kamenev's perfidy on the eve of the October armed uprising in 1917, when these blacklegs came out in the open press against the Party's line, thus disclosing the Central Committee's decision in favour of the uprising. The Party forgave them this base treachery, but what happened afterwards?Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev are known to have often had scraps among themselves, but at crucial moments for the Party they teamed up to attack Lenin and his Party. Coming together or moving apart, the Trotskyists invariably kept their feeling of fellowship. Let us take a closer look at their backstage performances. For example, in the early twenties, in connection with Lenin's grave illness, Zinoviev and Kamenev suddenly fell foul of Trotsky and reminded him more and more often of his Menshevik ``sins''. Trotsky, in turn, gave as good as he got. He, too, kept reminding them of their dirty blacklegging. He reminded them also of Kamenev's despicable telegram from his place of exile greeting the Provisional Government and Mikhail Romanov. What is more, Trotsky demanded of the Politbureau of the C.C. that Zinoviev be removed from all key posts for his cowardice and inaction during Yudenich's advance upon Petrograd. The C.C. rejected these proposals.
But three years after these "family jars" find Zinoviev and Kamenev tabling a proposal in the Politbureau of the C.C. C.P.S.U. to have Trotsky removed from all key posts and from membership of the Politbureau and expelled from the Party for his disruptive work and publication of his falsifying book Lessons of October, put out in 1924 immediately after Lenin's death. These proposals were examined at the Politbureau and rejected. One may ask, why? Because ``lovers' tiffs are harmless". In both cases a treacherous aim stands clearly revealed---that of disrupting the unity of the Party's leading core and starting a big fight to wreck the Party itself. This treacherous aim became evident within a year, when Zinoviev and Kamenev, speaking at the 14th Congress of the Party in the capacity of leaders of the New Opposition, ranged themselves wholly on the side of Trotskyism and banded together against Leninism, against the Central Committee of the Party.
To begin with the Trotskyists brought all their fire down upon Bukharin, whom they accused of the grievous sins of Right Social-Democracy. They demanded that he be 85 relieved of all key posts and expelled from membership of the Politbureau and the Party. We all know the reaction to this of the Party congress, which stood up for Bukharin and rejected the motion of the Trotskyists. It seemed as if the fight against Trotskyism, the fight against such hoary politicians as Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, had ended in the victory of the Leninist core. But suddenly a new and most surprising situation arose. The Party learned that Bukharin in 1929 had entered into secret negotiations with Kamenev with the object of setting up a new anti-Leninist bloc uniting all the formerly defeated factions and groups. And when the Politbureau put it to him seriously he admitted it and qualified his behaviour as ``thoughtlessness''.
Of course, this behaviour on Bukharin's part was no accident. It is not surprising therefore that in the course of his entire political career he constantly lurched from side to side, now an extreme ``Leftist'', as happened during the Brest peace talks, now a middle-of-the-road man during the trade union controversy, now an extreme Rightist during the period of full-scale socialist construction. His fall, to use the words of Lenin, was due to the fact that he did not understand Marxist dialectics. He was a doctrinaire, a scholastic theorist who knew the Marxist formulas but was never able to creatively apply them to the living concrete reality.
The load of his fallacious theoretical concepts made itself felt at all the turning-points in our Party's history. At the Sixth Congress Bukharin opposed Lenin's line at armed uprising, giving as his reasons the fact that the peasantry was not ready to support the proletariat in this business. The first year after the victorious October Revolution he came out against Lenin's principles of economic construction, declaring that the chief menace was state capitalism, and not the welter of petty-bourgeois anarchistic elements. During the subsequent stages of economic construction Bukharin continued to hold extremely precarious positions. As a result Bukharin showed himself in his views and actions to be a petty-bourgeois revolutionary rather than a Marxist-- Leninist, a man who had failed to grasp the full import of the objective processes of socio-economic development and the laws of the class struggle.
One must be more than naive to believe, in the face of all these ineluctable facts, in the political good faith of the 86 Trotskyists and Bukharinites---those experienced, boneheaded politicians---in the years to come. True, at the 17th Congress of the Party they all renounced their erroneous platforms and conceptions and swore to march in step with the Party. But this was a technique they had often used before. No wonder, therefore, that world reaction in the struggle against socialism had always counted on these • leaders. Many publications have appeared in the world today whose authors testify to the fact that in the mid-thirties there existed in the U.S.S.R. illegal organisations uniting politically and ideologically demoralised elements from Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries to Trotskyists, Zinovievites and Bukharinites.
We shall not go into the details of Trotsky's boastful and provocative statements, one of which, on the eve of the Second World War, was the assertion that "the Fourth International possesses already today its strongest, most numerous and most hardened branch in the U.S.S.R.''^^*^^
We have no intention of delving into the measure of guilt of this or that member of the opposition. We merely wish to remind people once again of the despicable methods which all these politicasters employ. To put it bluntly, both the Trotskyists and Bukharinites terrorised the staunch Leninist cadres and shook the Party to its foundations. Intrigues, blackmail, calumny, threats, scurillous jokes---these formed the armamentarium of the revisionist ideologues' mean methods. All this was unleashed first and foremost against the tried and trusted, courageous and illustrious leaders of the revolution beloved by the people.
We have been shown in the foregoing a character study of opportunists of past epochs. And how many of them are still debauching the minds of revolutionary workers and of all progressive members of society! One cannot pass over in silence the figure of Djilas of grievous memory. The writer of these lines had occasion in 1946 to hear him, when during his stay in Moscow, he expressed the desire to deliver a lecture at the Party Higher School under the C.C. of the C.P.S.U.(B.) on the subject of "The All-Conquering Power of Marxism-Leninism". At that time he spoke from correct communist positions about the liberation struggle in Yugoslavia and among other nations of Europe, about the _-_-_
^^*^^ See R. Palme Dutt, The Internationale, London, 1964, p. 248.
87 courageous struggle of the Communists who were leading the peoples' fight against fascism, and spoke a lot and with special warmth about the Soviet Union, the first land of socialism.At that time Djilas laid special stress on the fact that the Yugoslav Communists, guided by the experience of the C.P.S.U.(B.) and the revolutionary theory of MarxismLeninism, would deal quickly and ably with the problems of industrialisation, collectivisation, and the cultural revolution, would establish proper national relations and with the help of the U.S.S.R. would build socialism more successfully in a short space of time. Thus spoke the Communist Djilas at the time. Today the renegade Djilas viciously slanders the Soviet Union, the Communist Party and our great feat of arms, and talks himself into monstrous treachery and imperialist toadyism when he urges the capitalist world to join forces and crush the Soviet Union, force it to its knees before predatory imperialism.
Nor can one forget Roger Garaudy, now wielding a facile pen. He, too, never misses a chance to make the most of his veteranship in the communist movement. He really did write well once upon a time. Take the newspaper Pravda for April 5, 1958, containing his article headed "In the Fight Against Revisionism". This is what he wrote then: "The fight against revisionism is one of the most important tasks of the world communist movement. Revisionism is an attempt to deny or at least to play down the class struggle and the leading role of the working class and its party, which ultimately leads to the revisionists taking a closer stand with the liberal bourgeoisie, which is out to cultivate the illusion of the possible existence of `neocapitalism'.. . . The problem of working-class unity and cohesion of the democratic forces is treated by the revisionists in a manner that would lead the Communist Party to renounce Marxist-Leninist principles in their organisational forms.''
Garaudy goes on to heap devastating criticism on the revisionists of all stripes who aligned with the bourgeois ideologues. He writes: "The bourgeois ideologists never tire of talking about 'Marxism's obsolescence'." We must take into consideration the changes that have occurred since Marx, the Social-Democrats declare in the columns of the journal La Revue Socialiste. The Catholics write the same thing in the journal Esprit, and so do the idealist philosophers of the 88 so-called existentialist trend in the journal Les Temps Modernes. Marxism is scientific socialism of a past age, writes Lucien Laurat. He is echoed by Jean Marie Domenach, who declares that it is not a question of the destitution of the proletariat in 1850 but of the condition of the French workers in 1957.
Garaudy makes hay of all these pernicious arguments. He passionately upholds the Declaration of the Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of 1957. Today we find him repudiating the idea of communist commitment, writing for the bourgeois press on open anti-communist ground, villifying his own Party and the Soviet Union, and repudiating the fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism. There they are, the rotten fruits of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois thought-patterns, the fruits of that corrupt ideological milieu in which not only things, but a man's conscience, his heart and mind, can be bought and sold. To put it mildly, the ``Marxist'' Garaudy has become a victim of these mores.
In his two recent hastily-cooked books Le grand tournant du socialisme and Toute la verite Garaudy stands revealed in his true renegade's colours. On the one hand, he spews out a torrent of venomous calumny, filth and insinuations. On the other, he falls over backwards, to flatter and swear allegiance to Marxism. Garaudy uses the same technique which the Russian revisionist group, known as God-Seekers and God-Builders, who had wormed their way into the R.S.D.L.P. once employed. They covered up their renegadism by saying: "Maybe we are mistaken, but we are seeking." To this Lenin replied: "It is not you who are seeking, but you who are being soughtl You do not go with your, i.e., Marxist (for you want to be Marxists), standpoint to every change in the bourgeois philosophical fashion; the fashion comes to you, foists upon you its new falsifications adapted to the idealist taste. . . .''^^*^^ This appraisal of Lenin's fully applies to Garaudy and his ilk.
Today's revisionists can be said to have lost all honour and dignity in their puerile criticism. They are outdoing in servility their revisionist forebears. In their slander of Marxism-Leninism, these falsifiers have shifted their attacks against the doctrinal and political positions of the modern _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 343.
89 international communist movement. Their activities are aimed directly at splitting and eventually breaking up the parties. Their favourite demagogic method is to slap on labels with the object of compromising honest and staunch Communists. Here the palm goes to the revisionists, who were really the first to start dividing Communists into orthodox and unorthodox, hardliners and progressists, Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. They have now given currency to new terms---neo-Stalinists and super-Stalinists.All this is immediately pounced on and puffed up by imperialist propaganda, which in its turn tosses to the revisionists some ``new'' ideas to work on. The numerous facts of the ideological struggle clearly show how subtle and well-thought-out is the work of imperialist propaganda and its agents aimed at corrupting the masses, discrediting Marxism-Leninism, and "softening up" socialism and the Communist Parties. In these wrecking activities the bourgeoisie count first and foremost on the revisionist cadres which have penetrated into the Marxist-Leninist movement.
And so the orthodox school of revisionism has created a special type of leader. The opportunist is a product of the impact on the labour movement of the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Fearing the appeal of Marxist-Leninist ideas, the bourgeoisie, besides using undisguised violence, is resorting more and more widely and frequently to insidious methods of corrupting the democratic and socialist movement from within. The revisionists on the Right and revisionists on the ``Left'' are twin brothers, "blood relations". They would seem to be going different ways, but they arrive at a single goal from different sides, share the same platform of virtual defenders of bourgeois ideals. Finding themselves in the same ranks, however, they promptly steer clear of one another amidst abusive attacks, diverging only to prepare the ground again for converging. As a matter of fact, as Lenin said, "all belong to the same family, all extol each other, learn from each other, and together take up arms against 'dogmatic Marxism".^^*^^ For such is the opportunist nature of these anti-proletarian politicians. To get a better and deeper understanding of their social essence it is worthwhile turning again to the lessons of history.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 353. (My italics.---S.T.)
90 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. HOW THE BIGGEST AND ONCE REVOLUTIONARYSocial-Democracy as a political trend and a social ideology in the labour movement has existed for nearly a hundred years. Naturally, in its historical development there have been no few happy and impressive aspects that awakened, elevated and revolutionised the working class and helped to shape its class-consciousness. This role was most clearly manifest during the early period of existence of the mass Social-Democratic parties, when the Social-Democratic movement was directed by Marx and Engels. It should also be borne in mind that the most powerful contingent of this movement was headed by such outstanding Marxists as August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, who are rightly called the founders of revolutionary Social-Democracy.
The birthplace of Social-Democracy, broadly speaking, both as a political party and an ideology was Germany. The working class of that country was the first in the history of the international labour movement to rise to an understanding of the need for uniting into an independent political, class party, and it created such a party. This fact alone is noteworthy. It should be borne in mind that the build-up of the German Social-Democratic Party was attended by profound contradictions and a sharp struggle between the two trends---the liberal and the revolutionary. It was this circumstance that left its mark both on the process of formation of the party and on its subsequent development.
The fact of the matter is that after the revolutionary storms that swept through Europe in the middle of the last century, a lull set in, and together with it were revealed strong tendencies, on the one hand, towards terrorist suppression of the socialist movement, on the other, towards liberalisation of social life. A favourite method of the bourgeoisie was that of the stick and the carrot. Side by side with harsh court sentences and the promulgation of emergency laws against Socialists, the bourgeoisie encouraged the organisation of all kinds of charitable societies, workers' associations, co-operative and trade union federations. In the heart of these organisations and societies sponsored by the bourgeoisie a liberal reformist ideology acceptable in every way to the bourgeoisie was created and shaped.
The breeding-ground for this pernicious ideology was the 91 English trade unions, which initiated the reformist trend in the labour movement. The leaders of trade-unionism, expressing as they did the attitudes of the nascent labour aristocracy, were vehicles of a liberal policy which limited the aims of the working class to improvement of the conditions of employment, mainly by way of factory legislation. This completely shelved the issues of political struggle and left the labour movement confined to current economic problems.
Naturally, the more progressive and class-conscious elements of the working class strongly resisted the spread of this alien ideology and sought ways of ridding themselves of the tutelage of the bourgeois liberals. In Germany, for example, the separate labour unions were organised in 1863 into an independent political organisation of the German proletariat---Der Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein headed by Ferdinand Lassalle---which set itself the noble aim of tearing the German labour movement away from bourgeois democracy.
Lassalle's Workers' Union, however, proved to be unequal to the task. Instead of becoming a unifying revolutionary centre, it served as a nidus for the reformist trend in the German labour movement. It is not surprising therefore that within six years, in 1869, at Eisenach, the more radical section of the German labour unions formed into a SociaK Democratic Labour Party led by Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel. The Eisenachians proudly called themselves Marxists.
Thus, at a point between two epochs there emerged in the German working class two parties with two political and ideological trends. Where the Lassallean trend had made the first attempts to awaken the labour movement and tear it away from so-called bourgeois democracy, thus performing a "great deed", as Marx adjudged it, the Eisenachians were to complete this cleavage and advance the labour movement along the road towards genuine democracy for the working people.
The exigences of socio-economic development imperiously dictated- the need for setting up an integrated, centralised, class-consistent proletarian party, cemented by integral organisational, political and ideological principles. The seventies and eighties of the last century were for Germany a period of rapid development of industry and capitalism, 92 rapid growth of the industrial working class and the awakening of its class consciousness. A real industrial proletariat had now taken the field of political struggle. These important circumstances tended to speed up the unification of the two workers' parties, and the amalgamation took place at Gothain 1875.^^*^^
The formation of a united Social-Democratic Labour Party in Germany was an important event in the history of the whole international labour movement. In the course of nearly half a century the revolutionary parties of the working class in all countries modelled themselves after that party and considered it an honour to call themselves Social-- Democratic parties. In the final analysis Marxism as a political trend owed its spread on a world scale to the Social-- Democratic movement. Marxism in any event won the minds of the international proletariat and the world's progressive forces. And this was Social-Democracy's great historical service.
The united Social-Democratic Party adopted a programme which in many ways predetermined its further development. Of course, one cannot judge a party's actions by its programme alone, and Marx in this connection said that any one step of the labour movement is more important than a dozen programmes. In this case, however, it should be said that the Gotha programme of the German Social-Democratic Party with its entire burden of theoretical and political mistakes, which were subjected to a profound criticism by _-_-_
^^*^^ The history of the foundation and development of the German Social-Democratic Party is dealt with in detail by Franz Mehring in his six-volume work (see F. Mehring, Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, 2-e verb. Aufl., Bd. 1-4, Stuttgart, 1903-1904).
A History of the German Labour Movement was published in the German Democratic Republic in 1962. It was written by a team of authors under the guidance of Walter Ulbricht. This work was revised and elaborated in keeping with the basic theses of the Party's programme adopted at the Sixth Congress and endorsed by the Second Plenum of its Central Committee. Eventually in 1966 the Institute of MarxismLeninism under the C.C. S.U.P.G. issued an eight-volume edition of the history of the German labour movement (Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Berlin, 1966) in which the history of the proletarian movement in Germany is dealt with in detail from Marxist-Leninist viewpoints from its inception to the victory of socialism in the G.D.R. These works are invaluable sources for a study of the revolutionary history of the German labour movement.
93Marx,^^*^^ exercised also a harmful influence not only on the working class of Germany, but on the whole subsequent international labour movement.
Despite all these weak sides of the Party, however, it succeeded in quickly winning immense confidence among the working class and masses of Germany. Its prestige was so high that even the "iron chancellor" Bismarck quailed before this mighty political force. Despite the anti-socialist legislation of 1878 the reactionary circles in Germany were unable to destroy the Party or weaken its prestige and influence among the broad labour masses.
Outlawed for over twelve years, the German Social-- Democratic Labour Party not only did not break up, but succeeded in rising still higher in its political activities. By felicitously combining legal and illegal forms of struggle and reacting quickly to all political events within the country the Party staunchly upheld its class positions, and consistently, step by step, secured the repeal of the discriminative law in regard to the Socialists and the socialist movement as a whole. Significant in this respect were the tactics of the Party during the elections to the Reichstag and its notable successes.
What is more, banned though it was, the German SocialDemocratic Party made tremendous efforts towards organising the international unification of Socialists, taking upon itself the leading role in setting up the Second (Socialist) International, which held its first congress in 1889. We might mention here that in its early days this international socialist forum played an important role in uniting and cementing the international labour movement.
In speaking of the oustanding role played by the German Social-Democratic Party, we should always bear in mind that if at a definite stage it was able to rise to its full eminence, it owes this to the constant attention given it by the founders of scientific communism Marx and Engels. We know, for example, that after the promulgation of the antisocialist emergency law by the Bismarck government the Party was first thrown into disarray and inclined towards self-liquidation, that is, capitulation. And only thanks to the intervention of Marx and Engels the Party recovered from its shock and took its worthy place in the struggle.
_-_-_^^*^^ See K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970.
94Yes, the leaders of the proletariat always tried to steer the revolutionary ship of the German Workers' Party on a true course, making it easier for it to weather all gales and winds. In a letter to Bebel dated November 14, 1879, Engels wrote: ". .. It naturally goes without saying that every victory gained in Germany gladdens our hearts as much as one gained elsewhere, and even more so because from the very beginning the German Party has leaned upon our theoretical theses for support in its development. For that very reason we must be particularly careful to see that the practical demeanour of the German Party and especially the public utterances of the Party leadership should be in harmony with the general theory.''^^*^^
From the very moment the Party embarked upon its activities Marx and Engels tried their hardest to warn it against two dangerous deviations: on the one hand, from the Party shutting itself up into a sect, on the other, from becoming submerged in the welter of petty-bourgeois ideology. Both these dangers had objective grounds and were equally capable of causing irremediable damage to the Party. These scientific admonitions have lost none of their profound significance for the international communist movement of today.
History shows that any socialist movement in any country during the first phase of the working-class struggle against the bourgeoisie is bound to pass through the sectarian stage. Secret societies, groups of revolutionary theorists, at first poorly linked or not linked at all with the broad circles of the workers, were characteristic of the first steps of the proletarian class struggle in any country. In a word, they (the sects) represent "the infancy of the proletarian movement, just as astrology and alchemy represented the infancy of science''.^^**^^ Marx and Engels believed sectarianism to be a sign that "the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historical movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary.''^^***^^ And since the young workers' Party of Germany had just emerged from a state of the sectarian movement and embarked on a _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 398.
^^**^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Werke, Bd. 18, S. 358.
^^***^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 326.
95 mature class movement, Marx was fully justified in warning it against a possible reversion to antiquated old ancestry.Marx also had good reason for warning against the second danger, that of the Party being submerged in a welter of petty-bourgeois elements. In entering the arena of broad class struggle the working class was bound to rally behind it and unite the petty-bourgeois strata, without whose support it cannot achieve victory, cannot carry out its historical liberative mission. But the numerous petty-bourgeois strata, as we know, are extremely susceptible to bourgeois ideology "with its goddesses of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity''.^^*^^
That is why Marx and Engels, foreseeing the further growth of the Party and its transformation into a mass party, had good reason to warn against the danger of the Party being engulfed in the wave of bourgeois elements. Engels mentioned this in his letter to Bebel dated November 24, 1879: "The influx of petty bourgeois and peasant testifies, it is true, to the tremendous successes of the movement, but at the same time it becomes dangerous to it the moment it is forgotten that these people must come and they only come because they must. Their joining proves that the proletariat has really become a leading class. But as they come with petty-bourgeois and peasant ideas and aspirations, it should not be forgotten that the proletariat will not fulfil its historical leading role if it makes concessions to these ideas and aspirations.''^^**^^
In reflecting upon the meaning of these Marxist warnings we can but marvel how farsighted and shrewd they were for their day and how real they are for the movement of today. Subsequent events showed that from the sectarian roots there grew the prickly shoots of ``Left'' revolutionarism with its barbed offshoots of Bakuninist anarchism, Blanquist conspiracy and Trotskyist adventurism. Similarly, the rotten roots of petty-bourgeois ideology yielded just as rotten shoots in the shape of various modifications of Right reformism. Both then and in our time, however, it would be difficult to draw a clear line between these two opportunist kinks. They are so closely interwoven, so impregnated with chauvinism and nationalistic accretions that it has become _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 376.
^^**^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Werke, Ed. 34, S. 425-26.
96 almost impossible to say with any degree of accuracy whether it is Right or Left sectarian perversions we are dealing with.Placing great hopes on the German Social-Democratic Labour Party, Marx and Engels invariably drew the attention of its leaders to the danger of these two deviations, as witnessed by their voluminous correspondence with the Party's leaders. Their high-hearted hopes, however, were not justified. Soon after Marx's death there were revealed the first symptoms of grave deviations in the activities of the Party. Left-sectarian and Right-reformist trends appeared in it. The situation was complicated by the fact that Engels, engrossed in the titanic task of preparing the second and third volumes of Marx's Capital for the press, could not give such close attention to ideological guidance of the Party as he had done by way of duty distribution during Marx's lifetime.
Besides, Engels was quite sure that given such an experienced proletarian leader as Bebel the Party would not stray from the right path. In fact, at the beginning Bebel was intolerant of any manifestation of opportunism or backsliding. Being the educated Marxist he was, he could sway men's minds by sheer power of conviction and profound argumentation of political and doctrinal issues. Perceiving a tendency on the part of many leaders of the Party to "grow into" the existing society and turn the Party into an instrument of parliamentary struggle, Bebel clearly defined his disagreement with them. "The differences," he said, "consist in the general understanding of the movement as a movement of classes which pursues great aims, directed at remodelling the world, and which must pursue such aims, and therefore cannot agree to compromises with the dominant society. If it does this it will simply perish or even come to life again in a new shape, but without its present leaders.''^^*^^
Bebel, during Engels's lifetime, had discovered certain unhealthy symptoms of factionalism and had remarked with concern that unless they were eliminated a split "was bound to occur in the course of further development". In support of this correct conclusion he mentioned the fact that in the process of intense struggle not everyone was destined to _-_-_
^^*^^ August Bebel, Aus mcinem Leben, Berlin, 1961, S. 797.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---1214 97 stand up to its harsh trials, a circumstance which Engels had often complained of. "There is no doubt," Bebel wrote, "that some of our leaders have long tired of the struggle, that they had been led against their will further than they were inclined to go by their nature or by their views. Now they are connected with us only outwardly because they either do not grasp the divergence in views or do not count on the sympathy of the masses and are afraid to lose their present positions.''^^*^^ And as if cautioning against -the temptation of enemy ilattery he sternly and at the same time paternally warned the revolutionary leaders: // the enemy praises you, then you are doing wrong! This warning has lost none of its political significance today.August Bebel, the outstanding leader of the German working class, to the end of his life remained an irreconcilable enemy of bourgeois society and its political system. "August Bebel's struggle was rooted in the best traditions of the German working class. But August Bebel failed to grasp the great historical task which confronted the labour movement with the advent of the epoch of imperialism---the task of creating a party of a new type.''^^**^^ Objectively speaking, if Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht had kept to a firm Marxist line throughout and not yielded to a spirit of conciliation towards Right-reformist and Left-sectarian manifestations, the Party would definitely have averted the tragic crisis which was precipitated soon after Engels's death. This lesson of history is most instructive not only for our revolutionary generation, but for the coming struggle.
To the revisionists' savage attacks against the fundamental tenets of Marxist theory, of which we have already spoken, were added fierce attacks against the political, organisational and tactical principles of the Party. All this was strongly reminiscent of the procession of Echternach dancers.^^***^^ At first the Party took three steps forward, then two steps back. Then in the course of the movement it started in the direction of one step forward, two steps back, and ended up by _-_-_
^^*^^ August Bebel, Aus mcinem Leben, Berlin, 1961, S. 797.
^^**^^ Grundriss der Geschichte der deulschcn Arbeitcrbewegung, Berlin, 1963, S. 77-7cS.
^^***^^ Echternach, a small town in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. Processions of dancers are held there on Whit Tuesday, when church-goers march to church, taking three steps forward and two steps back.
98 moving only in a regressive direction. This was the ultimate point, beyond which lay an inescapable gulf. It was to this brink that the opportunists brought a once strong and fighting-fit workers' party.The first thing to appear were the soap bubbles of bourgeois nationalism. A wide discussion was started in the social-democratic press on the subject of nations and national relationships, patriotism and internationalism, colonial policy and relations between the colonies and metropolises, state sovereignty and national independence. Such discussions in themselves on such controversial issues are quite legitimate and should stimulate theoretical thought. But on his very first acquaintance with the published materials the reader became aware that they were spearheaded at a revision of Marxist doctrine on the whole range of questions touched upon.
In the sphere of the national question the concept of identity of interests was put over and the class substance of national relationships was cast aside. Already at that time bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism could be clearly traced in this concept. The nationalities policy of the theoreticians of German Social-Democracy, as Lenin pointed out, was based on the concept of cultural-national autonomy which was subsequently amplified by the Social-Democratic theoreticians of Austria---Otto Bauer and Karl Springer (Renner).
In the sphere of colonial policy the expansionist, predatory doctrine of German imperialism was fully justified. Claiming that the colonial peoples, owing to their backwardness, were incapable of independent economic and cultural development, the revisionists demanded more intensive penetration of German capital in the colonies. Already at that time the Germans were being conditioned to accept the maniacal idea of Lebensraum and the superiority of the German nation. "In this respect," wrote Bernstein, "the German social democracy would have nothing to fear from the colonial policy of the German Empire." "Otherwise, there is some justification during the acquisition of colonies to examine carefully their value and prospects, and to control the settlement and treatment of the natives as well as the other matters of administration; but that does not amount to a reason for considering such acquisition beforehand as something reprehensible." "Moreover, only a conditional right of savages to __PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/ATPH293/20090605/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2009.12.13) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ the land occupied by them can be recognised. The higher civilisation ultimately can claim a higher right.''^^*^^
In the sphere of patriotism and internationalism the revisionists came out openly in favour of nationalism and chauvinism. In attacking the Marxist thesis to the effect that under the conditions of bourgeois society the proletariat has no fatherland, Bernstein rejected this postulate out of hand. He painted an idyllic picture of capitalist progress and general prosperity, exclaiming that the very concept `` proletariat'' had already disappeared, and that now, under the conditions of capitalism, the working class is getting some colour in its cheeks and developing its muscles. In adopting a stand of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism, Bernstein, by the very run of things, was committed to the defence of German militarism. Already at that time he propounded with fullest definiteness the obscurantist thesis that in the event of war Social-Democrats were to call on the working class to take up arms in defence of their country. That is what happened when the First World War broke out and the Social-Democratic parties of Europe with the help of the Second International found themselves on the field of battle engaged in mortal combat with one another in defence of the fatherland of the imperialists.
Parallel with the elaboration of the revisionist political line the renegades gradually refined the new organisational principles of the Party, which they geared to the reformist policy. Whereas initially the Party had formed and developed on the basis of the Marxist principle of democratic centralism, it was now having implanted in it the principle of ``autonomism''. The governing functions of the Party began gradually to pass from the Party Executive to the parliamentary group, which, incidentally, was wholly dependent on the press. The provincial Party organisations, in their turn segregated into independent corporations isolated from the centre and from the parliamentary group. The Party was in complete disarray, its activities marked by confusion and vacillation.
To cap all this disruptive revisionist activity the question of the nature of the Party itself, its place and purpose was openly raised. The time had now come to announce for all to hear a long-cherished design which had found utterance _-_-_
^^*^^ E. Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism..., pp. 177, 178, 178-79.
100 on the lips of that choir-master of revisionism Eduard Bernstein. In order to evoke a wide response among the masses, he wrote, social-democracy must pluck up courage and renounce its revolutionary pretensions. In doing so it will "emancipate itself from a phraseology which is actually outworn", and will try "to appear what it is in reality today ---a democratic, socialistic party of reform''.^^*^^Everything now was put in its proper place. The revisionists had not only set forth their platform on a whole series of important issues but had seized the reins of Party leadership pretty firmly. The situation within the Party had reached a point when a split became inevitable. The Party entered a new phase of struggle, when it became necessary to arraign the reformist platform of the revisionists before the bar of the Party congress. And this last phase of the struggle unfolded all down the line.
The first straight talk concerning the revisionist concept of Bernstein and his supporters took place at the Party congress in Stuttgart in 1898. The debate was of an extremely keen nature. It revealed the flounderings, cowardice and hypocrisy of the revisionists, while at the same time demonstrating that the Marxists still had a shot in the locker. The vigorous speeches of August Bebel, Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg and others contained a devastating criticism of Bernstein's revisionist views. On the whole, however, the congress did not come up to scratch. In its appraisal of the revisionists it did not go beyond verbal, exhortative criticism and adopted no decision on this question.
This, of course, was an unpardonable concession to the revisionists, which was bound to encourage further attacks against Marxism on their part. As if in requital for the congress Bernstein came out with a series of anti-Marxist articles. This time, without beating about the bush, he urged a complete revision of Marxism and set forth his views on the Party, which he said, was to renounce its revolutionary principles and become a democratic, socialistic party of reform. Naturally, this drew a storm of protest from the Party and served as ground for the further struggle within the Party.
The second dialogue on revisionism took place at the Party congress in Hannover in 1899. One would think that _-_-_
^^*^^ E. Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism. . . , p. 197.
101 a more definite decision would be arrived at here, all the more as relevant proposals had been made in regard to the organisational conclusions to be drawn from the conduct of the revisionist leaders. But something of a reverse nature occurred, ^and the debate itself was not as keen as it had been at the previous congress. The Party's leaders confined themselves to moving a resolution reaffirming the unimpeachable basic class principles of the Party.``The Party," ran the resolution, "adheres as before to the standpoint of the class struggle, according to which the emancipation of the workers is the business of the workers themselves and therefore considers it the historical task of the working class to win political power in order, with the aid of it, and by way of socialisation of the means of production and the introduction of socialist forms of production and exchange, to achieve the greatest possible welfare for all people.... In view of this the Party has no grounds for changing either its principles and basic demands, or its tactics, or finally its designation, that is, from a social-- democratic party into a democratic-socialistic party of reform, and emphatically rejects any attempt whose aim is to change or disguise its attitude towards the existing state or social order and towards the bourgeois parties.''^^*^^
Outwardly, the resolution rejected revisionism but did not condemn, leave alone put a stop to its disruptive activities. In substance, the resolution covered up the stark nakedness of revisionism and tried to paper over the cracks. It is not surprising that even Bernstein's most ardent supporters voted wholeheartedly for such a resolution. Thus, peacefully and quietly, the Party forum dealt with the brazen-faced open attacks of the revisionists. In the impartial judgement of historians the congress, strictly speaking, founded "bashful opportunism", which eventually turned into opportunist Centrism. This line was demonstrated most clearly at the Party congress in Liibeck in 1901, where criticism of revisionism was generally damped down. Now the central leadership itself was entreating Bernstein to help the Party out of its "ambiguous plight" and assuring him that the Party did not entertain any distrust of him. That was how Marxists started to fight revisionism!
Thus there arose in the labour movement a new form of _-_-_
^^*^^ Rosa Luxemburg, Gesammelle Werke, Bd. Ill, S. 19-20.
102 opportunism---``Centrism'', representing its most infamous variety. This trend was fathered by Karl Kautsky, whom Lenin, with full justification, called a renegade and apostate of the first rank. ``Centrism'' is not a trend occupying an intermediate position between the Right and ``Left'' wings and reconciling them, as it were. Centrism's main efforts were directed at weakening and rendering harmless the ideological struggle of the Party's revolutionary forces against opportunism by appealing to the Marxists for compliance, tolerance and peaceful coexistence with the opportunists of all stripes. Centrism virtually became the strongpoint of the opportunists and was the most harmful political movement directed against the revolutionary Marxists.The Dresden Party congress, held in 1903, was to have become a decisive phase in the struggle for the triumph of Marxist principles in the life of German Social-Democracy. In fact, all the healthy and truly revolutionary forces of the Party pinned great hopes in the congress, and this was most clearly expressed among the Party's labour core. The criminal, disruptive activities of the Right-reformist leaders had terrorised the Party to such an extent that no true revolutionary could tolerate it any longer. Here was the most convenient opportunity to deal Right revisionism a crushing blow.
The Party was faced with the dilemma of either clearing its ranks of the despicable renegades who had deserted to the camp of the bourgeoisie and betrayed the working class, or deciding on a split and forming a separate Marxist revolutionary party. But the irremediable tragedy was that neither the one nor the other took place at the congress. Assured of the Centrists' position, the renegades at the very beginning of the congress threw aside all restraint. Their pre-arranged tactics was aimed at compromising by all kinds of insinuations and slandering the prominent leaders of the Marxist wing. They selected as their chief target the distinguished Marxist fighter Franz Mehring.
But here they suffered a setback. Mehring delivered a brilliant denunciatory speech against the slanderers which created a tremendous impression. The shaft struck home and prevented the renegades from villifying the proletarian revolutionaries with impunity. Nevertheless, despite the fact that there was a real chance of dealing a body-blow to Right revisionism, the Marxists failed to use that opportunity. The 103 leaders of Centrism promptly came to the rescue of the reformists with a hastily introduced and allegedly radical resolution which attempted by means of paper to eradicate the opportunist contagion. "The Party congress," said the resolution, "strongly condemns any revisionist attempts to change our tried and successful tactics based on the class struggle in the sense that the winning of political power by means of overcoming the opponent should give place to a policy of adaptation to the existing order of things.''^^*^^ It went on to mention the erroneousness of revisionist tactics and suchlike evils.
And what happened next? The finale, frankly, turned out a tragicomedy. The revisionists, amid taunting cheers, carried this resolution to a man. It was obvious to everyone that the Party v/as so impregnated with the poison of revisionism that it had utterly lost the power of taking up its former revolutionary positions. Marxist historians subsequently agreed that if the Dresden Party congress had succeeded in expelling the revisionists or setting up an independent Marxist party, which was done fifteen years later, in 1918, the German Communists, closing in single ranks with the Russian Bolsheviks, might possibly have simultaneously carried out a great socialist revolution in Germany.
However, the opportunity was lost. The Party was completely disorientated. There could *be no question now of a split, still less of founding a new party, since it no longer had the strength for this. Eventually reformism completely engulfed the leaders of Centrism, and the official policy and practice of the Party were brought in line with the demands of the revisionists. All the existing contradictions were smoothed over on the common platform of reformism. Peace and harmony reigned within the Party. If there were any critical rumblings the reformist leaders quickly muffled them with edifying sermons urging greater courtesy, correctness, delicacy and culture. In place of open criticism and self-criticism backstage deals and unprincipled compromises became a growing practice within the Party, and sterile dialogues and debates were held on all and every occasion, sometimes dragging on for weeks and months.
And so a once revolutionary party completely lost its former fighting powers, wilted and ran to seed. "Long before _-_-_
^^*^^ Rosa Luxemburg, Gcsammclte Werke, Bd. Ill, S. 27.
104 the First World War the revisionists and Centrists had occupied key positions in the Party. German Social-- Democracy had become a reformist labour party. In Germany there was no longer a revolutionary Marxist militant party that could lead the working class in the fight to defend its class interests and the interests of the nation and carry out its historical mission.''^^*^^This was brought home to Bebel towards the end of his life, but it was already too late. On the one hand, he had grown too old, worn out by the arduous struggle, on the other, he tearfully resigned himself to the prevailing situation and refused to believe that the big Party which he had created had become a small one. This was his profound and irreparable mistake. He missed by one year that fatal moment when his ``big'' Party became a stinking corpse. And the fatal consequences of compromise with opportunism, which Bebel was no longer able to see, were recognised with mental anguish by Franz Mehring, when, in 1918, in his "Open Letter", he said: "The former German Social-- Democracy with its 'old tested tactics' is broken up and buried beneath the wheels of imperialism's triumphal chariot.''^^**^^
In this connection the question naturally arises: was everything properly considered at the initial stage of amalgamation of the German Social-Democratic Party? Were all its diverse elements properly conditioned to accept the idea of unification? Of course, we see all this now more clearly, and can say definitely that here, at the initial stage, were sown the seeds that were likely to produce grave consequences. Marx and Engels, who closely followed development of the labour movement in Germany, had warned Bebel and Liebknecht against a too hasty amalgamation of the two diverse political trends. These two leaders, however, had been able to persuade their teachers that the conditions for amalgamation were ripe and that the united workers' party _-_-_
^^*^^ Grundriss der Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, S. 87.
^^**^^ Franz Mehring, Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. 15, Politische Publizistik, Berlin, 1966, S. 775. (My italics.---S.T.)
Even Pyotr Struve, the leader of "legal Marxism" in Russia and afterwards a commonplace Liberal, said pointedly in one of his speeches: "I know the German Social-Democrats and the German Social-- Democratic majority very well; they arc first of all good bourgeois. Being Germans, they will not become revolutionaries during war, and being good bourgeois they are generally incapable of making a revolution.''
105 would rest firmly upon the theoretical principles of scientific communism and take a determined stand against all forms of revisionism. What happened later, we have just seen. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONSWhat lessons and conclusions are to be drawn from the career of this great and once revolutionary workers' party?
First, the amalgamation of the Lassalleans and Eisenacheans at the Gotha congress was precipitate and purely formal. The Lassallean trend from the very outset continued to hold fairly strong positions within the Party. They it was who prevented the united party from spreading its wings to full stretch. The honeyed high-sounding phrases of reformism turned the progressive elements of the working class away from the Party. Furthermore, the Party became more and more submerged in the welter of petty-bourgeois elements. Its ranks were swelled by liberal intellectuals, diluted by their petty-bourgeois ideology and anarchist catchwords. All this went against the tested laws of dialectics, for you cannot unite the ununitable, a truth which the Gotha congress had confirmed even then.
The leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party did not draw from this the necessary conclusions, but Lenin was quick to sense this. And when, at the turn of the century the need arose for creating a Social-Democratic party in Russia, he paused, as it were, before the stress of definite forces and said firmly: "Before we can unite, and in order that we may unite, we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation.''^^*^^ To unite with whom, to unite with whajt aims, to unite on what principles---these were the questions which Lenin put squarely before the Marxists of Russia before taking such a decisive step as creating a really centralised revolutionary proletarian party. The fact that for the first time in the world such a workers' revolutionary party as the Bolshevik Party was created in Russia is in no little measure due to the instructive lesson learnt from the amalgamation of the German Social-Democratic Party, a lesson which Lenin and his associates took good note of.
Second, the unification of the two sections of the German _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 3.54.
106 Social-Democratic Party took place in the absence of a common doctrinal basis. As regards the Lassallean section, its doctrinal and political concepts remained practically unchanged. But the Eisenacheans had accepted unification in the belief that the party would take a Marxist direction. Here too, the lesson of history is instructive. The fact of the matter is that although the Eisenacheans considered themselves Marxists, many of them had but a rudimentary idea of Marxist doctrine. Marx himself, observing the way the German Social-Democratic Party was shaping, ruefully pointed out that his theory had gone no deeper than the surface of the Party's consciousness. And it is not surprising that the leaders of German Social-Democracy made no appreciable contribution to the development of the theory of scientific communism. But then after the death of its founders there came to the fore theoreticians, so-called faithful disciples of Marx and Engels, who wrote stacks of books refuting Marxism.We see from the above that the German Social-- Democratic Party from the very outset was poorly equipped theoretically, and this did not escape Lenin's alert eye. He resolutely spiked the idea of any opportunist merger with the Mensheviks and strongly stressed the importance of the task which he set before the young Social-Democratic Labour Party of Russia, which was to master the full range not only of Marxist theory, but of the Marxist dialectical method, which made it possible to discover correct solutions in changed conditions.
In this connection Lenin thought highly of the early works of G. V. Plekhanov aimed at defending Marxist theory against the attacks of the revisionists. Plekhanov's works The Development of the Monist View of History, Socialism and Political Struggle and Our Differences played an important part in the spread of Marxist thought in Russia. And yet it was only the titanic theoretical activity of Lenin and his associates that created a truly scientific basis for the formation of the Bolshevik Party and its revolutionary cadres. Here we should recall the deplorable lessons of the German Social-Democratic Party, which obviously neglected theoretical activities and as a result wallowed in the mire of opportunism.
Third, the amalgamation of the two sections of the German Social-Democratic Party was essentially a summit 107 compromise deal among their leaders without proper preparation for this act on the Party's rank and file and in the absence of agreed principles of organisation and rules. Although the Eisenacheans had the obvious advantage of better organisation, fighting spirit and political influence, they were unable to make full use of their extremely strong positions. The reason is that their leaders, from the very beginning of the amalgamation, pursued an erroneous line in trying by gentleness, tractability and compromises to persuade, re-educate and win over the leaders of the Lassallean trend. As a result, the political edge was blunted, the initiative and activity of the Party cadres were damped, and Party life became increasingly more passive and moved sharply rightward.
Thus was formed a dosed circle: the bourgeoisie clasped the Lassallcans in its embrace, the latter dragged the Eisenacheans along with them, and on this opportunist basis there was introduced into the Parly an atmosphere of compromise and lack of principles, of complacency and supineness. All this had a disastrous effect first and foremost on the formation and education of the leading cadres, of the Party's hard core and of the Party as a whole. This stuffy atmosphere created favourable conditions for the revival and emergence of all kinds of platforms and currents within the Party.
First of all there arose the fairly strong anarchist, Leftadventurist Most group, followed by the Right-reformist Bernstein group. But that is not the whole story. As if to counter-balance these trends there arose amidst the leaders of the Party themselves a well-knit group of conciliators, representatives of so-called bashful opportunism, who tried to combat revisionism by means of paper resolutions and exhortations, but in reality indulged and winked at it. Eventually, from the womb of bashful opportunism was born that most loathsome of all political currents---Centrism.
This, too, of course, did not escape the alert eye of Lenin. He realised only too well that no Marxist party could be built in Russia on such a rotten, mouldering foundation. For a genuine revolutionary workers' party there was needed a different, solid, really Marxist foundation. That • is why Lenin, from the very first steps towards building a party of a new type---the Bolshevik Party---gave himself up wholly to the task of scientifically working out the ideological, 108 theoretical, organisational and political principles of the Marxist party. Incidentally, Lenin had good reason to start buiding the framework of a party of a new type by formulating its ideological and doctrinal principles. These were genuinely revolutionary principles which not only perturbed the leaders of the Russian Mensheviks, but caused a commotion among the revisionist leaders of Right-wing SocialDemocracy in the West.
The main idea underlying Lenin's scientific principles was that the revolutionary party of a new type was to be a party of like-minded people, drawing into its ranks staunch, honest and courageous fighters who were prepared to dedicate themselves to the struggle for the cause of the working class and all the working people. The party as a whole and each of its members were to stand firmly on the ideological and doctrinal positions of Marxism. Only on this condition could the party become the true, organised vanguard of the working class and perform its historical role with credit, the role of conscious champion, organiser, inspirer, educator and genuine leader of the masses.
Lenin thoroughly learned the lesson of the Social-- Democratic Parties in the West and came to the conclusion that one of the main reasons for their decline and disintegration was the fallacious organisational principles of ``autonomism''. It was these that prevented the Social-Democratic parties from becoming a cohesive political force of concerted action. Lenin rejected this rotten foundation and formed the firm conviction that the entire structure of the Marxist party was to be based on the principle of democratic centralism.
This revolutionary principle, the only correct and scientifically proven one, contained within itself all the essential elements of a party of revolutionary action, namely: absolute deference of the minority to the will of the majority; a single discipline for all members of the party; all governing bodies from top to bottom to be elective and accountable, with the lower subordinated to the higher; strict observance by every member of the party of programme requirements and rules; complete freedom of opinion, discussion during the framing of decisions and implicit and active execution of adopted decisions by every member of the party. Lenin laid special emphasis on the need for cultivating in party members a taste for criticism and self-criticism, which were essential to the party's healthy growth. All parties, he said, had run to 109 seed and petered out because they feared criticism and selfcriticism. Here again we have the facts to tell us that the deplorable lessons of the German Social-Democratic Party were taken full advantage of by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
We thus see that the genuinely Marxist workers' party of a new type was not built in Russia on empty ground. It had before it the colossal and diverse experience, both positive and negative, of the workers' Social-Democratic Parties in the West, which Lenin used in working out all the major principles for the construction of the Bolshevik Party. And these really scientific principles are not confined to narrownational limits; they have an international meaning and significance. No wonder, therefore, that all the Communist and Workers' Parties adopted these Leninist principles from the very beginning of their existence. In this respect I would like to mention three major doctrinal questions which Lenin always laid particular stress on and which are as relevant today as they were then.
The first question concerns the role of the party in the continuous creative development of revolutionary theory, in the working-out of an advanced socialist ideology and conveying it to the minds of the working class and the popular masses. Already at the beginning of our century Lenin, in his famous work What Is to Be Done?, brilliantly expounded this question and drew practical conclusions for the Party's revolutionary action over a long period of time. He said that a genuine socialist ideology is based on science and worked out by science through an analysis and generalisation of revolutionary practice. No revolutionary practice, however fruitful it may be, can offer any prospects for the movement, can cultivate a socialist consciousness in the working class and lead it out onto the straight road of liberation struggle if it is divorced from science. Similarly, no revolutionary, however experienced in practical work, can foresee the course of events unless he has mastered the scientific materialist theory; he will be obliged to confine his activities to the circle of current tasks lying on the surface. That is why Lenin spared neither effort nor time to educate the Party's leading cadres theoretically.
At first the scientific socialist ideology is worked out by progressive intellectuals, mostly from among the propertied classes, since they are more closely associated with science, culture and education. But these ideologists can fulfil their 110 noble role only if they adopt the revolutionary standpoint of the working class in all respects, both in the sphere of world outlook and in that of practical, revolutionary activities. Only by linking their fate with that of the working class can they successfully develop the revolutionary theory and become acknowledged leaders of the labour movement. This question was very much on Lenin's mind. He not only dreamt of the working class advancing from its midst real theoreticians capable of best fulfilling the historical tasks confronting it, but took every possible step to bring this about.
The thing was to create a party that could take upon itself the task of working out a socialist ideology and putting it over among the masses. This was a burning question to which Lenin attached special importance. During the period of communist construction as well, when the Soviet people have attained a high level of culture, this role of the C.P.S.U. is enhanced if anything. The Party does not lull itself into the belief that since the Soviet people are already building communism and have mastered its ideas they no longer stand in need of any further assimilation of advanced ideology. This is an absolutely erroneous attitude.
Who, then, is called upon to develop and is actually developing the communist ideology under present conditions? Without a doubt the governing body of the Party---the Central Committee and its Politbureau. We are all constantly aware of this inspiring role of the Party's governing body. This mechanism is the balanced and potent thing because our whole Party is working tirelessly along Leninist lines, consistently and painstakingly cultivating the communist ideology in the minds of the working class and the broad popular masses. In truth, this Leninist mechanism has no equal in power anywhere or in anything.
The second question concerns the fighting fitness of the revolutionary party and those inner springs which feed its vitality and strength in the effort to achieve the goals it has mapped out. Our Party, as we know, started as a party of professional revolutionaries. And this is quite understandable, because our Party at the very outset openly and clearly set itself the primary aim of overthrowing the monarchy and the bourgeoisie, winning state power by the working class and building socialism and communism. It goes without saying that if the working class sets before itself this 111 noble aim, then obviously no power can be won without such a party of professional revolutionaries.
What is the position with us today? Does this proposition still hold good? To be sure, we are living in a different epoch. Our Party, half a century ago a force of destruction of the old world, has become a force of creation, construction of a new world, it has become a ruling party. And that type of professional revolutionary who received his schooling in the struggle, who voluntarily endured hardships and sacrificed himself, still stands as an example of dedication to the revolutionary cause, as an indomitable soldier of the great Leninist guard. In forming the cohorts of professional revolutionaries Lenin saw in them not only fearless fighters who were storming the old world, but future versatile leaders of a new type, capable of running a socialist state, taking charge of various sectors of state, economic and cultural development, and competently managing the country's life.
That is why, at the very outset of the construction of a party of a new type, Lenin gave special attention to the need for a division of labour within the Party's cadres. Long before the Party took over power it had prepared various categories of leading cadres. Splendid organisers, theoreticians, propagandists, journalists, diplomats and military and economic personnel were moulded. Cadres of all categories were trained for local and provincial work as well as future leaders of the central bodies of the Party and the state. They were trained the hard way of professional revolutionaries.
Our opponents never believed that the Bolsheviks seriously intended to take power. They said that Lenin's Party did not have the necessary cadres and experience to manage the complex machinery of state and that they were simply trouble-makers and rioters. Our opponents repeatedly declared that if the Bolsheviks did take power they would not be able to hold it, because they did not have the essential minimum of top cadres. But all these ``prophets'', as we know, miscalculated. On the very next day after the Bolsheviks came to power the necessary minimum of top cadres was found. We had splendid diplomats and outstanding generals, there appeared first-class managers of ideological, economic, financial, banking and other bodies. As we know, the old machinery of state, which was at the service of the bourgeoisie and the monarchy, was smashed and dumped onto the rubbish heap of history. A new, Soviet state 112 apparatus was created in which there immediately appeared this minimum of skilled and highly educated cadres around which was formed the machinery of state administration from among the workers, soldiers and former office workers. The bourgeois ideologues were soon obliged to back pedal and acknowledge the fact that the first Soviet Government was the most effective, farsighted and best educated government in the world.
In view of this can one speak about Lenin's ideas being outworn, ideas that he had made the cornerstone of our Party from the very beginning of its foundation? On the contrary, Lenin's ideas in regard to personnel policy are as valid today as they ever were. The Soviet socialist state cannot do without professional key workers, without a division of labour among these cadres. The effectiveness of this scientific principle is clearly demonstrated by the numerous examples of state, Party and business activities in all sections, large and small. All this places upon the Party a great responsibility in applying Lenin's injunctions to the proper placing, advancement and training of personnel. Therefore, in keeping with the decisions of the 23rd Congress, the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. has carried out a number of major measures to step up the work with the personnel at all levels in accordance with Leninist principles.
The third question, which also occupied a very important place in Lenin's teachings about party building, was that of the party's social make-up. Numerous documents testify to the fact that Lenin took constant care to have the Party preserve its proletarian character. He repeatedly emphasised that the truest guarantee of the Party's strength, unity and fighting fitness was its worker hard core. If a Communist Party has a strong hard core of workers it is less susceptible to waverings or to the infiltration into it of revisionist elements and bourgeois ideology. What is the reason?
It is not that the working class possesses some sort of magic power. No. The reason is simply its objective position in society. For one thing, the working class is steadily growing and will go on growing. It is a class that is noted for its moral and political stability and lends itself best to organisation and cohesion. Secondly, the working class, by reason of its objective position, possesses to a supreme degree a sense of self-consciousness and self-discipline. It is trained to this daily, among other things, by the machine, by the __PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---1214 113 engine, by the entire complex of industrial labour and by the working community itself. It is obvious to everyone how disciplined the worker must be who operates modern complicated machinery. The slightest error on his part may cause immense damage to a whole collective, and the mistake of a single collective may cause moral injury to a whole class.
It was no accident that Lenin, when working out the principles for a party of a new type, demanded the establishment in it of the strictest discipline, and in answering the Mensheviks, who stood for the doors of the party being opened wide to all social strata and the discipline in regard to them being relaxed, said that in such an event the party was doomed to perish. Discipline and self-discipline were not a mere whim, but that objective quality which is inherent in the working class, and that is why "industrial workers are not afraid of discipline". Lenin said that the party's first teacher and reliable support in the political struggle was the working class. Indeed, no single class, no single social stratum possesses such extraordinary self-- discipline, organisation and steadfastness as the revolutionary working class. It was these qualities that often helped the revolution out of a difficult situation and ensured the Party's successful progress.
When the Bolshevik Party emerged from the underground in February 1917 two-thirds of its membership were workers. When the working class won over to its side other sections of the working people its ranks were swelled by peasants and intellectuals. However, the Party took good care to have within its ranks a solid hard core of workers. And today, when class distinctions in the Soviet Union are gradually being obliterated, the 24th Congress of the C.P.S.U. stressed the importance of the working class continuing to hold a key position in the Party's social make-up. This is in keeping with the thesis that the working class will play a leading role in society until the final victory of communism.
__*_*_*__The multifarious experience of the C.P.S.U. shows that the Party has always, at all stages of its development, focussed attention on theoretical activities. On the basis of the real historical and modern facts we can say with good 114 reason that Marxist-Leninist social thought has always been in action, has invariably developed and moved steadily forward. The Leninist principle of continuity of our Party's finest progressive traditions is the life-giving force which nourishes, fosters and inspires our victorious struggle. In fact, if we take a close-up view of the entire historical career of our Party we shall clearly see these strongest, most characteristic and most attractive features of its activities.
First, our Party, from the moment it came into being, achieved a profound understanding of the life-affirming force of Marxism. It brought a revolutionary, creative spirit into the development of that doctrine. This it was that enabled it to find the answers to the difficult questions of the new epoch---the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. It is a fact that prior to Lenin, prior to the emergence of the Bolshevik Party Marxism remained, as it were, a bookdoctrine, which people studied, propagated and attempted to put into practice. Our Party transplanted this doctrine from theoretical soil to the practical soil of revolutionary struggle and employed it as a powerful ideological weapon of the proletariat. Leninists correctly grasped the underlying principles of Marxism and their creative character, and brilliantly solved problems of world historical significance as applied to the Russian realities. This enabled them to develop Marxism and enrich it with the new experience of the Russian and international revolutionary struggle of the working classes.
Second, our Party was the first to fully combine the revolutionary theory of Marxism with the life-giving practice of the masses, to combine socialism with the mass workers' movement. It was on this ideological and materialist foundation that our Party's many-sided theoretical, political, organisational and ideological activities were evolved and refined. Therefore, it is not surprising that the great historical task of applying the revolutionary teachings of Marxism fell to the lot of the Russian proletariat, that it was the first to carry out its historical mission.
Third, our Party at all stages of the struggle always regarded revolutionary theory as a forward-looking guiding force. This it was that enabled it to scientifically substantiate its strategic slogans and tactical methods of struggle, to skilfully carry out three revolutions in a short space of time and crown them with the complete victory of the working __PRINTERS_P_115_COMMENT__ 8* 115 class. It was precisely revolutionary theory that served as the all-powerful ideological weapon, which, in interaction with the revolutionary practice of the masses, clinched the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union. Marxists-Leninists all over the world acknowledge that the experience of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. is a model of scientific strategy and tactics of worldwide significance. However much our ill-wishers may try to find fault they cannot get away from this incontrovertible fact in the history of the international communist movement which no wishful thinking can disprove.
All these admirable traits of Lenin's remain to this day the strongest and most attractive feature of our Party's activities. Therefore the C.P.S.U. still remains in the van of the international communist and workers' movement, in the van of all the world's fighters for the liberation of mankind from the yoke of capital. This in turn makes it more important than ever to enhance the role and significance of revolutionary theory in keeping with the demands which our complex and many-sided social life makes upon it.
[116] __ALPHA_LVL1__ III. RIGHT-WING REFORMISMI have already mentioned that from the very beginning of the organised socialist workers' movement two extreme poles appeared---Right-wing reformism amd ``Left'' revolutionarism. Lenin wrote: "In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken form in present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing 'truce resolutions'.''^^*^^
During the period of the First International (the International Working Men's Association) these two trends were represented by Lassalleanism, Proudhonism and Bakuninism. During the activities of the Second (Socialist) International by Bernsteinianism, Kautskyism, Anarchism and Trotskyism. Right-reformist and Left-revolutionist currents occurred also at the next stage, during the activities of the Third, Communist, International, but owing to the unity of the Leninist guard they were considerably weakened and had no appreciable influence.
Rosa Luxemburg, the outstanding proletarian revolutionary, graphically described Right-wing reformism as " opportunist dropsy" and ``Left'' revolutionarism as "anarchist measles". Both these ugly social phenomena caused _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 352-53.
117 tremendous damage to the Marxist movement, and are causing still greater harm today, when so much has already been achieved in the liberation movement of the working classes, who are fighting beneath the banner of Marxism-Leninism. Of course, during their evolution both these political trends have undergone modification and contain new elements and new methods of struggle.Take, for example, Right-wing Social-Democracy. Formerly its ideology followed to some extent Marxist guidelines, albeit with reservations, but it did not reject them altogether. The modern Right-wing ideologues of Social-- Democracy, on the other hand, have completely broken with Marxism-Leninism and act in chorus with the out-and-out ideologues of anti-communism. As for the present-day Right and ``Left'' revisionists, these still use the banner of MarxistLeninist theory as a cover for their distortion and vulgarisation of its scientific and revolutionary substance. Take the theoretical and political concepts, the ideological principles and practical actions of the present-day Right and ``Left'' revisionists. We see here how revolutionary phrases intermingle with Right-opportunist deeds, how petty-bourgeois nationalism alternates with blatant bourgeois chauvinism. We have here revolutionary slogans and the most capitulatory or adventurist deeds.
All this proves that the present-day adherents of Rightreformist and Left-adventurist ideology remain true to their antecedents, who have caused great harm to the communist, labour ideology. Paradoxical as it may seem, the present-day Right and ``Left'' revisionists are harnessed to the same chariot as the splitters and disrupters. Now they are trying to make a name for themselves in the field of vicious antiSoviet slander of our great Leninist Party by pandering to the grossest instincts. What can one say in this connection? Only one thing---that all these despicable methods of blackmail and slander are neither novel nor original. Our Party has Lenin's lucid mind, strong revolutionary nerves, hard proletarian muscles and the tenacity of purpose, determination and steadfastness to repel any attacks of liars and slanderers. There can be no doubt that the present-day Right reformists and ``Left'' revolutionarists will be put to shame and confounded just as their predecessors were in their time.
118 __ALPHA_LVL3__ A. RIGHT REFORMISM---THE MAIN CHANNEL FORRight-wing reformism is the ideology and policy of tradeunionism, nourished and fostered by the golden calf of the bourgeoisie. People often ask: what is the chief menace to the international communist movement of today? Bluntly, the chief menace, as of old, is one against which no struggle is waged. This is organically bound up with the fact that the working class's chief class enemy is the imperialist bourgeoisie, which has always leaned on the opportunist forces within the labour movement. What, then, is the sum and substance of Right-wing reformism?
In the sphere of theory it is the undisguised revision of Marxism-Leninism and a complete break with the doctrine of scientific communism, the adoption of the ideological positions of the bourgeoisie, an attempt to convert Marxism into a brand of bourgeois ideology acceptable to the bourgeoisie and absolutely safe for it. In the sphere of politics it is advocacy of class collaboration and reconciliation of the social antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it is servile subordination of the interests of the labour masses to the interests of the bourgeoisie. In the sphere of strategy and tactics it is the repudiation of a militant, united revolutionary organisation of the proletariat, the spread of disunity and incohesion, waverings and a splitting of the labour movement.
The motto of the old revisionists, as we know, was: "The movement is everything, the goal---nothing''.
And if the labour movement does not set itself the ultimate aim of doing away with the exploiting classes and building socialism, then what needs has the working class for a political party to lead it in the struggle to attain that goal, what need for a socialist revolution and the liberation struggle of the peoples in general, that is, what need for -everything that makes Marxism what it is---a scientific theory for the revolutionary remodelling of the world?
In our day, when socialism has gained such prestige among the world's working masses that even those leaders who refuse to hear about it are nothing loth, in order to win popularity among the electorate, to declare themselves ``champions'' of socialism (with reservations, of course, that they are for a 119 good, ``humane'', etc., kind of socialism)---even the revisionists, who consider themselves Marxists, are redeploying. They, too, are for socialism, for communism, as they repeat over and over again in the press, on the radio and television (mostly those which belong to the monopolists). They merely consider that the road to socialism indicated by Marx, Engels and Lenin is unsuitable. Marxism, they say, is out of date, while Leninism, at a pinch, was suited only to Russia or to backward countries in general. What road then suits them? The revisionists, it appears, have quite a few of them in stock. What they add up to is this: we can talk about the goal, but the means leading to socialism we reject.
All this is what Rosa Luxemburg rightly described as "opportunist dropsy". At one time, when Right-wing reformism was just taking shape within the Social-Democratic Party, Marx gave a sharply-worded objective characterisation of its leaders. In a letter to Sorge he wrote: "These people, theoretically ciphers and practically useless, want to draw the teeth of socialism (which they have concocted from university prescriptions) and chiefly of the Social-- Democratic Party, and to enlighten the workers, or as they put it, inculcate in them 'elements of education' while themselves possessing only a contused half-knowledge. But above all they want to make the Party respectable in the eyes of the petty-bourgeoisie."^^*^^ What words! Reading them, one would think they were written today.
The Leninist Bolsheviks had a hard job overcoming Menshevism---that variety of Right-wing Social-Democracy ---and disposing once and for all of that pernicious trend in the labour movement of Russia. Let us follow the thoughts of Lenin, who clearly demonstrated the social essence of Right-wing reformism as the main channel by which the bourgeoisie spreads its political and ideological influence upon the working class. In substance, the ideology and policy of Right-wing reformism, from start to finish, is the ideology and policy of the bourgeoisie in pseudo-socialist and pseudo-democratic guise. But history has clearly shown that in every case of political crisis this outward garb was thrown off, and the united forces of the Right-wing reformists and bourgeois reactionaries were revealed to the revolutionary _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Werke, Bd. 34, S. 412. (My italics.---S.7.)
120 working class and the whole nation in all their nakedness. Let us examine this in the context of the concrete historical facts right down to our day.Fact One. History has already said its weighty word about the First World War having been unleashed with the connivance of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy. At that time, on the eve of that appalling tragedy which shook the world, there existed the social and political forces which could be rallied to avert the war and foil the plans of the imperialists. But even failing this, and when the tragedy had already descended, the Socialists still had another real chance, that of turning the imperialist war into a civil war of liberation against the oppressors. This is what the Leninist Bolsheviks did. At the Basle and Copenhagen congresses of the Second International its leaders had uttered many fine phrases about fighting against war, and even went on record, in the event of it breaking out, for turning the rifles upon the bourgeoisie. But the leaders of Right-wing social-- democracy, as we know, forgot the speeches they had solemnly uttered. They refused to lend an ear to the sane voice of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and from the very first day of the war they came to terms with the bourgeoisie and thereby killed the Second International and betrayed the working class.
Fact Two. History has likewise confirmed with sufficient fullness that the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy in league with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, came out most aggressively against the young Soviet Socialist Republic born as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Crusades against the Land of Soviets by the joint forces of the Entente, support of the whiteguard troops against the Red Army, the setting-up of whiteguard Menshevik governments on Russia's territories, terrorist reprisals against Bolsheviks, workers, peasants and revolutionary intellectuals---all these evil deeds lie like a gravestone of infamy and ignominy upon the conscience of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy.
Fact Three. No paint can tone down the atrocities committed by the German imperialists, who, with the aid of the Right-wing Socialists, savagely crushed the November Revolution of 1918 in Germany, murdered the leaders of the German proletariat Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, and afterwards suppressed the March Revolution of 1920. 121 The list of these crimes against labour is a very long one and cannot be ascribed to German social-democracy alone. Did the Right-wing Socialists of Britain, France, Italy, Austria and Czechoslovakia behave any better? Not a whit.
Who does not remember the spontaneous general uprising of the workers in Italy in 1920, when more than threefourths of the country's big factories were seized by the workers. The collapse of the bourgeois regime was imminent. The government was utterly demoralised and prepared to throw in its hand. And who saved the situation? Who came to the rescue of the bourgeoisie? The Right-wing reformists, of course: the Italian Confederation of Labour, which was controlled by the Right-wing leaders of the Socialist Party. They it was who hastened to pacify the workers, promising them legislative rights of control over production.^^*^^
This reformist deal cost the Italian workers dear. Instead of workers' control there erupted within the country a storm of violence, assassinations and fascist terror. Having forced _-_-_
^^*^^ The situation at the time is best described in the words of the Italian premier Giolitti uttered in the Senate on September 26, 1920. This document was cited at the Third Congress of the Comintern.
``Occupation of the factories started. In the opinion of critics of the government the only alternatives were either to prevent the movement, or, since I had not been able to do that in time, to use force in clearing the factories of the workers. Prevent, but how? It was a question of six hundred enterprises of the metallurgical industry. To prevent them being occupied I would, acting with lightning speed, have had to quarter numerous garrisons in the enterprises, 100-strong in the small and some thousand-strong in the big ones. To do that I would have had to employ.the entire military force at my disposal. And where was I to get the forces to look after the 500,000 workers who would be driven out of the factories? Who was to be charged with looking after the public peace? I was expected to show impossible foresight, which, if I had shown it, would have led to the state's armed forces being besieged from all sides and immobilised. And so I considered it necessary to rule out this alternative. Was I in that case to clear the factories by the direct use of armed force? Clearly, I would then have had to start open civil war. And this after the Confederation of Labour had solemnly declared that the movement was free of any political ideas and that it would keep strictly within the limits of an economic struggle. The Confederation of Labour, in which I then had confidence, proved that it fully deserved this confidence, since the great mass of the workers followed precisely this path. Can the critics imagine what I would have brought the country to if I had employed force by using troops, the royal guard and the carabinieri against the workers?''
122 the working class to take the first step in retreat, the reformists then impelled it to take the second step by accepting the fascist dictatorship of Mussolini, who, by the way, up to 1916 was a member of the Italian Socialist Party. What happened next everyone knows. Lenin angrily denounced the leaders of Right-wing Social-Democracy, saying that had not the Second International "been in the hands of traitors who worked to save the bourgeoisie at the critical moment, there would have been many chances of a speedy revolution in many belligerent countries as soon as the war ended and also in some neutral countries, where the people were armed; then the outcome would have been different''.^^*^^Fact Four. Hardly anyone would dare challenge the fact that the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy together with the imperialists spared no effort or means in repeated attempts to overthrow the Soviet government and wreck the plans of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. Fabrication of dirty lies and slander against the U.S.S.R., military, diplomatic and every other kind of provocation---all this was inspired and engineered with the help of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy in the West. The fact that the Soviet Union succeeded in defending its great gains was due to the Leninist class policy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which firmly performed its functions against the enemies within and without.
Fact Five. There is a crime in the service record of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy, which will forever remain their badge of infamy. It is the shameful role they played by conniving at the advent to power of fascism first in Italy and Germany, and then in France and other countries of Europe. Our generation should know and never forget that the coming to power of Hitlerism was made easier by the splitting activities of the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy. True, many of them afterwards became victims of their own policy, and on having had their eyes opened, fought fascism in the underground, but some of them received rewards. For example Karl Kautsky, the ideological leader of German Social-Democracy, received from Hitler a life pension.
Fact Six. An enormous guilt lies upon the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy for the unleashing of the Second _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 418.
123 World War. It was the Right Social-Democrats who rejected the idea of a united front with the Communists and virtually helped German and Italian fascism to crush the Spanish Republic and then start the world carnage. Everyone knows the treacherous role played by the French government of the Socialist Leon Blum, who, under cover of the notorious policy of non-intervention, deprived the Spanish republicans of aid in their struggle with the Francoists, German and Italian fascists. It was the Right-wing leaders of Social-- Democracy who wrecked the united front of progressive and revolutionary forces and attempted by means of concessions and moderation to deflect Hitler and Mussolini from their predatory course. The appraisal which the Comintern gave to the Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy who acted in complicity with fascism was fully warranted.We are bringing up these facts of history not in order to argue with those Right-wing leaders of Social-Democracy who are committed to anti-communism. As far as the revolutionary workers' movement is concerned these are lost leaders. In fact they do not try to conceal their hostility towards the communist parties, towards Marxism. The facts listed above are meant for those ideologues who show wavering tendencies towards revisionism and who are at the crossroads while still remaining within the Marxist-Leninist movement. These would do well to ponder the historical facts and take a sane view of the "road of events down which fate is driving them''.
We accentuate this because the methods and actions of the present-day revisionists are in many ways reminiscent of those of their precursors. Under the guise of a creative approach, discussions and dialogues they are revising the cardinal issues of theory and policy and attempting to blow up the entire foundation of our scientific world outlook. The history of the infra-party struggle has clearly demonstrated that backsliding in matters of theory inevitably leads to treachery in policy. Theory and policy are two organically linked elements, the most active factors in the activities of all political parties.
Lenin pointed out that the revisionists of all stripes always and everywhere started their splitting activities by sparking off differences in the field of theory and then applying them to the field of policy, strategy and tactics. We have seen above how the Bernsteinians and Kautskyites started their 124 fight against Marxism, how the Trotskyists and Bukharinites repeated their techniques in the fight against Leninism. No great effort is needed to perceive the continuity of the old forms and methods of struggle against Marxism-Leninism which the present-day Right revisionists are applying so subtly and methodically. In this connection we would touch on three basic aspects, which, in our view, are worthy of attention.
First aspect. In the course of the last decade pseudotheorists have been making furious attacks on the major elements of Marxist-Leninist doctrine, namely, the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this field quite a galaxy of so-called theorists has sprung up who in no way yield the palm to the ideologues of anti-communism. On the world book market there has appeared quite a crop of books, booklets, treatises and essays from which such terms as "class struggle", ``antagonisms'', "socialist revolution", "abolition of private ownership of the instruments and means of production", etc., have completely disappeared. Peaceful parliamentary illusions have taken such a hold upon the minds of this brand of theorists that they simply rave about abstract notions of pure democracy, humanity, supra-class ideas and classlessness. This kind of theorists, in their soaring flights heavenward, have lost touch with Mother-Earth, broken their blood ties with that earthly giant called the working class, who by his intelligence, his selfless labour and mighty hands feeds, warms, and clothes all the people, and for the imperialists, moreover, creates surplus value, capital.
Need it be said that he who challenges Marxist-Leninist teaching---that potent ideological weapon serving the political, economic and spiritual emancipation of the working class---whether he means to or not, raises a naked sword over the head of that class, helps the dark forces of imperialism to keep it in servile submission, browbeaten, and downtrodden. But the logic of social development is such that the healthy revolutionary forces are bound to push the deserters of the revolutionary front out of the way and reinforce their ranks with new, fresh, honest fighters. That is what happened in the past, and that is what is bound to happen tomorrow.
The working class is a special kind of class. Where all other classes and social strata undergo erosion and 125 disintegration, the working class steadily grows, develops and gains strength qualitatively. It alone can be and really is the supreme leading power of modern society. This class possesses a remarkable magnetic force and constantly advances from its midst the most courageous and staunch fighters while at the same time constantly drawing into the struggle for the emancipation of the working people the most talented fighters from other social strata, especially from among the peasants and the progressive intellectuals.
There is hardly any need here to dilate on the great predestination of the working class. Suffice it to say that the Marxist doctrine about its historical role is not the product of abstract theoretical thought, but the result of a scientific analysis of the laws governing the real class struggle. Pseudotheorists are sometimes willing to admit the existence of the class struggle in capitalist society, but as soon as the question arises of the need for carrying it through to the dictatorship of the proletariat and recognising the latter as a necessity during the transition period from capitalism to socialism, they become dumb.
Marx, however, would not have been the genius he was if he had not discovered the truth that the class struggle (which, incidentally, was first described by bourgeois scientists) was inevitable and necessarily bound to lead to a transition from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to the dictatorship of the proletariat. In his letter to I. Weydemeyer (1852) Marx declared quite definitely: "What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."^^*^^ In their criticism of the dictatorship of the proletariat the pseudo-theorists stretch only one aspect of it, the forcible one, and deliberately keep silent about its other, main, distinctive feature---its organising, constructive, transformative, life-giving aspect.
Lenin therefore repeatedly stressed the fact that he who recognised only the class struggle and did not associate it with recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat was, willy-nilly, emasculating, narrowing, watering down and _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 86.
126 debasing Marxism. Life, practice, have shown that overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie is merely the first step towards socialist reorganisation. Without the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat the working class cannot hold power, cannot secure its victory over the toppled but uneliminated bourgeoisie, cannot take from it the means of production, create new relations of production and build socialism. The alternative is inevitable defeat, restoration, a come-back of the old order of things. It follows from this that he who denies the dictatorship of the proletariat dismisses the question of the necessity and inevitability of the working class winning political power and abolishing private ownership of the instruments and means of production.Second aspect. In challenging the principal element of Marxist science---the teaching about the historical role of the proletariat, the revisionist ideologues have lately launched violent attacks on the very system of socialism. They dislike, if you please, that system in the countries where socialism has triumphed and where the working people have become the masters of their own lives. They are vying with each other in devising with ink on paper their own patterns of socialism, which they intend to erect with the co-- operation of the capitalist monopolies and other ``progressive'' forces. We shall not go into the details of all these idealistic schemes of the Utopian socialists. We shall merely say this: their begetters are apparently worn out by the struggle, weary of the life rebellious and are seeking a resting place. They are no longer moved by the protests of striking workers, of hungry, poverty-stricken farm labourers and peasants. Bernstein's blasphemous words to the effect that under present-day capitalism the working class was getting colour in its cheeks and growing strong muscles are repeated once more in the notions and writings of the modern pseudotheorists.
What is it the pseudo-theorists do not like about the socialism that has actually been built by the efforts of the workers? It appears, according to them, that it lacks democracy, freedom and spiritual values. Such is the line of argument of these ideologically burnt-out and politically bankrupt modern pseudo-theorists. They refuse to accept the scientifically grounded and practically tested tenet of Marxism, which says that the working people can attain the highest type of 127 democracy, real freedom and a full spiritual life only if political power passes into the hands of the working class and private ownership of the implements and means of production gives place to social ownership. At any rate, without these two major gains and despite even the comparatively high level of living which they have won for themselves the working people will always remain deprived, enslaved, the peons of capitalism.
Therefore the claims of the theorists, whose one thought is how to get into the bourgeois parliament and who have thrown in their lot with the labour aristocracy, should not be taken seriously. Although they do attempt to demonstrate some specimens of their ``models'' these will never be accepted by labour, since they have no real ground to stand on. Tryas the revisionists may to model all kinds of ideal patterns of socialism, the historical process of society's development goes its own way and will continue to do so in spite of these false patterns. "It is natural that utopianism, which before the era of materialistically critical socialism concealed the latter within itself in embryo, can now, coming belatedly, only be silly, slate, and reactionary from the roots up.''^^*^^
Dealing with similar unscientific projects Lenin described them as doctrinairism of the first water, in which account was taken, not of the realities, but of an ``ideal'', a fantasy. Something similar is said to have occurred with Hegel. When it was pointed out to him that his theory was at variance with the facts, he replied, "All the worse for the facts." Apparently the same sort of quasi-logic is used by today's pseudo-theoreticians. All one can say about this is that it is no use their trying to muddle the minds of the working people with their models when true socialism has long been theoretically discovered by the founders of scientific communism and put into practice in the U.S.S.R. and many other countries.
Socialism is the living creative work of the revolutionary masses led by the Communists, the true Marxists-Leninists. It is the embodiment of their great material and spiritual force, of their capability for creating, for remodelling the world. In boosting their various ``models'' of socialism the modern revisionists, bluntly speaking, are deserting from the _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 376.
128 revolutionary labour front and taking refuge behind demagogy and phrasemongery.Third aspect. Here we shall have to touch on another surprising doctrine which has lately cropped up, not just anywhere, but in various communist publications. This is the question of the attitude to the U.S.S.R.---the first land of socialism---and to other socialist countries. We have already spoken about the important historical role which the Comintern played in rallying the world army of Communists and defending the first land of socialism. Throughout its activities it stressed the fact that it was the highest duty of Communists and of all the world's proletarian fighters to protect the U.S.S.R., the birthplace of socialism, the fatherland of all the world's working people and oppressed nations, as the apple of one's eye. The Soviet people remember with gratitude this international aid and support rendered by the fraternal Communist Parties and the working class.
In its turn the great party of Lenin---the C.P.S.U.---has always considered it its sacred duty to use every means within its power to help spread Marxist-Leninist ideas, consolidate the communist ranks and develop the revolutionary liberation movement among the peoples of the world. It has constantly educated the Communists and all the working people of the Soviet Union in the spirit of high principles, proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism. Our Party can be proud of the fact that it has always carried out with honour its sacred duty to the international communist, workers' and national liberation movement.
The teaching of Marxism-Leninism on proletarian internationalism has withstood the test of time in the gallant struggle of the international working classes headed by their vanguard---the Communist Parties. Thanks to their international unity the fraternal Communist Parties and the advanced forces of the working class were able to safeguard the first land of socialism, help it out of its hostile capitalist encirclement, win the cruel and bloody battle with fascism, save civilisation from destruction, break up the colonial system of slavery and establish a world system of socialism.
Under these conditions the international unity of the communist and labour movement in defence of victorious socialism in the U.S.S.R. and other countries remains a vital __PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9---1214 129 necessity a hundred times more urgent than ever before. The building of socialism is a long, complicated and extremely difficult process. Its success depends not only on the internal national forces of this or that socialist country, but on the active revolutionary support of the international forces of all the world's communist parties and the working class.
It is impossible to forget for one hour that the struggle for world socialism is anything but ended, that the question "Who will win?" is still an open one on the international arena. One would think that there is nothing debatable about this problem. But all of a sudden we find pseudo-theorists dragging this question out as a debatable one. They declared that the thesis concerning defence of the first land of socialism and of the other socialist countries was out of date and needed revising. These pseudo-theorists entertain the illusion that the whole world now has entered upon the process of socialist development, that the ideas of socialism have taken root among all nations and countries and therefore you could now rest upon your laurels. This slogan, whatever pseudorevolutionary holiday terms it may be couched in, means in effect that the positions which socialism has won are to be left exposed and undefended. Needless to say this is a false, anti-Marxist treatment of the question aimed at weakening the world socialist system, submerging it in a welter of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements, taking away from the working people everything they had won and secured through struggle and suffering, and paving the way for the restoration of capitalism in the socialist countries.
It is worthy of note, by the way, that the pseudo-theorists started to step up their propaganda of these unfortunate concepts on the eve of the 24th Congress of the C.P.S.U. In numerous articles, interviews and statements they arrogantly stressed the fact that they were going to show up and criticise the activities of the C.P.S.U. and the whole system of socialism in the U.S.S.R. What is more, these pseudo-- theorists hint at what bourgeois propaganda describes as a sort of psychological attack to be launched against the C.P.S.U. We can assure these mis-theorists that Lenin's party will not pull its punches either. It will give as good as it gets. To every slanderous attack upon it it will respond with a devastating exposure of these mis-theorists and show them up before the working classes. For such was the behest of Lenin.
130We have examined three pseudo-theoretical doctrines, enough to appreciate how far some ideologues have gone in their contradictory political platform. Under these conditions the problem of proletarian internationalism has become a crucial and urgent issue for the whole communist and workers' movement of today. It is not surprising therefore that all healthy revolutionary forces have approved and welcomed the clearly worded declaration of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties to the effect that "the defence of socialism is an internationalist duty of Communists''.^^*^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ B. ``LEFT'' REVOLUTIONARISM---THEIn 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.
``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 _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow. 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 23.
__PRINTERS_P_131_COMMENT__ 9* 131 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.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.
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.
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 132 and blood of its political parties, its leaders and ideologues.
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.
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.
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.
133It 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.''^^*^^
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 46S.
134 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.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.
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''?
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 135 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''.
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''.^^*^^
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 93.
136 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.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''.^^*^^ 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.
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, _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 95.
137 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.''^^*^^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.''^^**^^
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!''
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 71.
^^**^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Moscow, 1969, Vol. 2, p. 385.
138 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.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.
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.
And if this doesn't work, then the ``Left'' ranters give 139 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.
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.''^^*^^ 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.
Lenin warned the ``Lefts'' against the push theory when he wrote: "Such a `theory' would be completely at variance _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 547.
140 with Marxism, for Marxism has always been opposed to `pushing' revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions.''^^*^^ 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!''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.
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.''^^**^^ 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.
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 71-72.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 69. (Quoted by Lenin.)
141At 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!
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.
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.
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.
Declasse intellectualist party upper crust; afraid to openly 142 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.^^*^^
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.''^^**^^
__*_*_*__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.
_-_-_^^*^^ All these comments of Lenin's date to the period of our Party's struggle with the ``Left'' Communists.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 19.
143In 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.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. REVISIONISM IS A PROFOUNDLY HISTORICALWe 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.
What, then, are the historical and social springs that beget both Right and ``Left'' revisionism?
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 144 capitalist countries which constantly give rise to these departures.''^^*^^ 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.
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''.^^**^^
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.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 347.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 44.
__PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10-1214 145Another 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.''^^*^^
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.''^^**^^ 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''.^^***^^
Hence, the more complicated, confused and contradictory the concrete historical conditions in which one or another _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 21.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 16, p. 348.
^^***^^ Ibid., pp. 348-49.
146 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.''^^*^^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.
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.''^^**^^
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 349.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 103-04.
147 which are all too often overlooked or considered of little importance.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.
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.
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.
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. 148 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.
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.
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.
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, 149 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. "^^*^^
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ E. Bernstein, Vorausselzungen ties Sozialismus. . . , S. 183-84, 186.
150 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.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.
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.
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 151 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.
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.
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 152 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.
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.
The third reason why revisionism has become more active is associated with the activities of the bourgeois agents who 153 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.
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.
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 154 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.
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.
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.
155Continuity 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.
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.
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 156 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.
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
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.
157The 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.
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.
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.
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 158 the experience of the class struggle in the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.
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.
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.
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.''^^*^^
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 347.
159 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.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!''
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,^^*^^ 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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Rakhmetov---the principal character in Chernyshevsky's novel What Is To Be Done?---Jr.
160 communism, that there grew those professional revolutionaries who formed the profoundly alert core of the party of a new type.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.
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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11---1214 161 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.
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.
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.
162Needless 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.
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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 11* 163 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.
__*_*_*__What, then, does the history of the ideological and political struggle within the Marxist-Leninist movement show us?
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.
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.
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 164 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.
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.
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.
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?
165First, 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.
[166] __ALPHA_LVL1__ IV. THE FIGHT AGAINST REVISIONISMMarxism-Leninism is an ever-living, developing and selfenriching doctrine. As the most advanced of revolutionary theories, it represents a balanced and consistent system of opinions of the working class and all the working people. This doctrine, distinguished as it is for its remarkable depth and integrity, embraces the sum total of knowledge from the problems of philosophic world outlook down to the problems of the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. Lenin wrote: "There is nothing resembling `sectarianism' in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away from the high road of the development of world civilisation.''^^*^^
The creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory has its inexhaustible source in the material and spiritual life of society itself with all its zigzags and contradictions. It is from the depths of society's life, its historical and modern processes, that communist theory draws the life-giving juices for its development. Marxism initiated a new trend in theoretical thinking, and only "by following the path of Marxian theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it); but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and lies''.^^**^^
But Marxism-Leninism must not be regarded as a catechism, a manual of dogmas, by studying which one can find the answers to all life's questions. Therefore the Party has always opposed talmudism, scholasticism and doctrinairism. This notable aspect of its activities stems from the admirable traditions of the Leninist guard of professional _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 23.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 14, p. 143.
167 revolutionaries, who were not only brave, fearless and staunch fighters for the cause of the working class, but the most educated Marxists-Leninists, the most progressive and cultured people of their age. They should always serve as a model for the education and self-education of political maturity, militancy, high principles and a readiness to dedicate one's life to the great revolutionary cause of the working masses.It was by following their noble example that the finest revolutionaries of the international communist movement were schooled and tempered in the struggle. Marxism-- Leninism inspired them to great deeds.
The present epoch demonstrates the great triumph of Marxism-Leninism, which has become the revolutionary banner of struggle of the world's working classes. The mounting successes of this great doctrine, which has become the lodestar of labour's millions, is the keynote of the whole twentieth century. It is in this teaching that the progressive forces of the world today find the answers to the most complex questions of social life.
For Russia Marxist teaching had a special significance in that it fell to the lot and honour of the Russian working class to be the first in the world to put into practice the revolutionary ideas of Marxism and carry out its great liberative mission. Looking back at this epoch-making deed of the Russian proletariat we should never forget the main thing, namely, that this victory was an extremely hard and difficult one without equal in significance in the history of the liberation struggle. We shall never forget Lenin's stirring words breathing the flame of the class struggle, full of hatred for the oppressors and boundless love for the fighters of the working-class cause. "Russia," he wrote, "achieved Marxism---the only correct revolutionary theory---through the agony she experienced in the course of half a century of unparalleled torment and sacrifice, of unparalleled revolutionary heroism, incredible energy, devoted searching, study, practical trial, disappointment, verification, and comparison with European experience.''^^*^^
The prolonged and valiant struggle took its death toll of thousands and thousands of staunch, talented and dedicated sons and daughters of the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia. But in place of the fallen new cohorts _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 31, pp. 25-26.
168 rallied beneath the banner of Marxism-Leninism, gaining still more strength in the hurricane of revolutionary battles, and renewing their onset against the rotten bourgeoislandowner system with redoubled vigor. "Navigators of coming storms", to use a figure of speech of Herzen's, were forged and hardened in fierce class battles.Russia's revolutionary forces multiplied and grew immeasurably stronger after Lenin had created a genuinely Marxist party, a party of a new type---the Bolshevik Party. "As a current of political thought and as a political party," Lenin said, "Bolshevism has existed since 1903.''^^*^^ The Communist Party is a true Marxist party, which traces its origin to the International Workingmen's Association founded by Marx and Engels over a century ago. Bolshevism stemmed from the firm base of Marxist theory. The strength of the C.P.S.U. lies in the fact that it has imbibed the immense theoretical and practical experience of the international communist and labour movement and has become the embodiment of true internationalism in the highest sense of that word. No wonder that Lenin, from the Party's very inception, drew the attention of its members to the need for constantly mastering and developing the revolutionary theory of Marxism in its application to the Russian realities.
Answering the question as to what special need there was for a revolutionary theory for the Communists of Russia, Lenin said: first, an historical role had fallen to the lot of the Marxist party in Russia---that of upholding the purity of Marxist revolutionary theory against the attacks of the West-European and Russian revisionists and opportunists, who tried to eviscerate Marxism of its life-giving revolutionary essence and adapt it to the service of bourgeois ideology; secondly, a particularly difficult role had fallen to the lot of the Marxist party in Russia---that of securing the victory of the proletariat not only over the autocracy--- the bulwark of Black-Hundred reaction---but also over the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, which had teamed up with tsarism and all the reactionary forces within the country; thirdly, there had fallen to the lot of the Marxist party in Russia the great historical mission of leading the Russian proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions, securing the triumph of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 24.
169 paving the way for the development of the revolutionary movement of the working class of Europe and of the oppressed peoples of the colonial and dependent countries.Proceeding from the objective need for solving these gigantic problems, Lenin laid specially strong emphasis on the fact that "without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement", that the "role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory"^^*^^ There guidelines of Lenin's formed the cornerstone of our Party's activities at all stages of the struggle. The Party's cherished aim was to carry out a revolutionary transformation of society and establish a new, socialist order. But the Party knew perfectly well that the new society could not come to take the place of the old, bourgeois-landowner society by way of evolution, of a spontaneous, random development.
Formation of a socialist society is the product of revolutionary action, of the conscious, purposeful activities of the masses themselves guided by the Party. It is founded on a knowledge and correct application of the objective laws governing social development. Therefore, to attain the cherished goal there must always be the greatest degree of organisation, of the ideological and theoretical training of the communist vanguard, the leader of the masses in their revolutionary creative activities. The important thing to remember in our day too is that without Marxist-Leninist theory there can be no communist construction. Without this guiding theory the movement towards communism is condemned to the direct maladies and liable to be easily diverted from the true path with all ensuing consequences.
At the same time Lenin never regarded theory apart from the great liberative struggle of the proletariat and of all the working people. In this he differed sharply from those theoreticians who had written stacks of books devoted to a study of socio-economic relationships, but had engaged in this science "for science's sake", without advancing it an inch forward in the interests of the workers' emancipation. Lenin, on the contrary, in his researches constantly sought answers to life's pressing problems and immediately applied them in revolutionary practice.
Science was for Lenin a motive force of the revolutionary _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 369, 370.
170 liberation movement. Translating the meaning of this, he invariably stressed that the true role of science consisted in a creative approach towards the explanation of all the phenomena of nature, social life and science itself; in substantiating transformative actions; in revolutionary daring and breadth of scientific generalisations; in a genuinely dialectical answer to the question of the relationships between science and life, between theory and practice. The strength of Lenin's world outlook lies in his amazing scientific prevision, in the clarity of his scientific logic, in his consistent party-mindedness and uncompromising attitude towards every kind of dogmatism and sophistry, in his unremitting fight against all kinds of pseudo-science.In framing the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the Russian Marxists Lenin invariably leaned not only on a scientific analysis of the historical and socio-economic conditions in Russia, but on the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the international working class and all the oppressed peoples. He bequeathed to the international proletariat a priceless theoretical legacy; his ideas, impregnated with the spirit of internationalism, will be enshrined forever in the hearts of labouring humanity. The advance detachments of revolutionary fighters are guided by these ideas, and under their banner they are fighting and winning.
Lenin creatively developed all the component parts of revolutionary theory---dialectical and historical materialism, economic science, scientific socialism. By a profound theoretical analysis he revealed Marxism as an integral world outlook, as a balanced philosophical system from which scientific communism derives logically and practically. In the conditions of the new epoch, the epoch of imperialism and socialist revolutions, he applied the Marxist dialectical method with brilliant scientific skill to an analysis of the objective laws governing social development, and to leadership of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, which found its most striking expression in the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia.
Lenin created a balanced and consistent science of the revolutionary party of the proletariat and elaborated its ideological, theoretical, organisational and political principles. In a prolonged, tense and principled struggle with reformism of all stripes---Economism, Menshevism, liquidationism; with ``Left'' adventurism of all shades---Trotskyism, 171 anarcho-syndicalism and sectarianism, he upheld and developed the teaching concerning the party of the working class, its scientific strategy and tactics both in the bourgeois-- democratic and the socialist revolution. All these scientific theses concerning the party of the working class hold good in the present stage of the communist movement despite the furious attacks against it on the part of the enemy.
Lenin's inestimable service to the movement was that he demonstrated the ways and means of strengthening the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and showed the decisive force in this alliance to be the Marxist workers' party, without which the revolutionary movement was doomed to grope in the darkness. The idea of the party's historical role and consolidation of the worker-peasant alliance form the keynote of all Lenin's works. The strength of the proletariat in the historical movement is incomparably greater than its share in the general mass of the country's population. This was the socio-economic basis which served Lenin as his point of departure in demonstrating the vanguard role of the Russian proletariat. This new rising class was the advanced, best organised and disciplined detachment of all the working and exploited population of Russia. It was this class that could and should take the lead in the country's liberation movement. This new thesis of Lenin's is especially important for the leadership of the national liberation movement in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry is founded on their fundamental class interests, on their common aims and tasks in the liberation struggle. The alliance between these two friendly classes is a vital necessity, not only for the destruction of the old world and the abolition of bourgeois-landowner rule, but for the creation of a new social system, the most humane and most progressive system in the world. Both classes---the proletariat and the peasantry---are equally concerned in the vitality of this alliance. Therefore, in dealing with this question one must avoid a one-sided approach.
The history of the liberation movement has shown that in the absence of an alliance with the peasantry the proletariat is unable to carry out its liberative mission, just as the peasantry on its own is unable to free itself from landowner and capitalist bondage. The point at issue is which 172 class in this alliance is to have the leading, guiding role. And here again Lenin drew upon the facts of history, his knowledge of life and the rich experience of the liberation struggle. And the facts of this struggle showed that only the working class, which had been through the school of industrial training, the school of proletarian solidarity, the school of class struggle, could be this guiding force. The role of advanced, best organised and steadfast champion of the interests of all the working and exploited people belonged to it by right.
In the fight against Narodism, against the Socialist-- Revolutionaries and Mensheviks the Russian Marxists made no little efforts to prove that despite its numerical superiority the Russian peasantry was unable, by reason of its socioeconomic disunity and political backwardness, to take the lead in the liberation movement. The peasantry from time immemorial had been fighting for its liberation from ageold slavery, but nowhere had it ever won a victory over its class enemies---the landowners, the landed gentry. The victories won in the early anti-feudal revolutions in the West were stolen by the bourgeoisie. The peasantry, though an active revolutionary force, did not act on its own here, but under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. In these alliances with the bourgeoisie after victory over the gentry and landowners, the peasantry always found itself cheated by its ally and dragged into still harsher servitude. • Life itself suggested that the peasantry could find its really faithful ally and true leader only in the working class, which could not free itself unless it destroyed the very foundations of exploitation---private property, including landowner and capitalist ownership of the land, which was at the root of the peasantry's grievous plight. Obviously, the fruits of victory secured by this alliance of the working people over their common enemy---the landowners and capitalists---would be garnered not by one of the victors, but by the proletariat and the peasantry together. In this connection mention should be made of three characteristic features in the history of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and the peasantry in Russia, which predetermined their success in the struggle for power, for the victory of socialism.
The first of these was that the political moulding of the Russian proletariat, the growth of its class consciousness and 173 its revolutionary toughening took place under the direct leadership of the Marxist party. Armed with the revolutionary theory of Marxism-Leninism, this party headed the workers' movement in Russia from the moment it came into being. It was able to identify the workers' movement with socialism, to paralyse the anti-Marxist trend in the labour movement, to rally the Russian proletariat behind it, and train and temper it in the flame of the class struggle. This in turn had decisive importance for the trade union movement in Russia, which, unlike that in many countries of Europe, developed under the direct leadership of the revolutionary party.
The second characteristic feature was that from the very beginning of the mass revolutionary struggle, the working class of Russia was able to arouse and win over to its side the broad masses of the peasantry, thereby securing the active support of the revolutionary movement of the peasantry for its struggle for power, for socialism. In the history of the international labour movement Russia was the first country in which the working class acted as the hegemonic force of the revolution, as leader of the peasantry, and in which the Marxist-Leninist idea of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry was first put into practice. This circumstance, in turn, was an important prerequisite for the peasantry taking the path of co-operation, the path of socialism.
The third feature was that from the very beginning of its activities the Party was able to enlist the best, progressive forces of the intelligentsia to the service of the working class and the peasantry. Taking into account that socialism as a social system and the socialist ideology as a revolutionary outlook derive from science, and not from a spontaneous labour movement, our Party wisely solved the very difficult problem of rallying the progressive-minded intellectuals to the liberative banner of Marxism-Leninism. Events have shown that the labour movement cannot do without an intellectual force, without a progressive, revolutionary intelligentsia. It is pleasing to note that our Soviet intelligentsia are cherishing these revolutionary traditions and are now going with the Party hand in hand.
Lenin dealt in detail with the question of a new type of state---the state of the Soviets of workers' and peasants' deputies, leaning on the political and moral might of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This teaching was the 174 greatest achievement of creative Marxism. Lenin made hay of the reformist concepts of the Social-Democrats, who saw the possibility of the proletariat's basic interests being realised within the framework of a bourgeois parliamentary republic. Our Party rendered a great service in that it was the first in the history of the international labour movement to put into practice the Marxist-Leninist teaching concerning the dictatorship of the proletariat and to set up a really popular, socialist state.
The crown of Lenin's teaching and an outstanding achievement of social thought was the theory of socialist revolution which demonstrated the possibility of socialism winning initially in one or several countries. This theory was brilliantly exemplified in the October Socialist Revolution, which paved for humanity the high road towards a new era---the era of socialism. Lenin's teaching concerning the gradual fallingaway of the weak links in the imperialist chain is confirmed by the entire course of historical development. Today there is no longer a single, unbroken chain of imperialism. Many links have dropped away from it, forming the world socialist system, which is now the decisive factor in human history.
Lenin elaborated the most important problems of social development, created a coherent theory on the agrarian and national questions, which he knitted into a single knot with the proletariat's revolutionary struggle for power, for socialism. He was the architect of the world's first multinational socialist state---the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and laid the theoretical and practical foundations for its development. And all that we are accomplishing is the result of the activities of the Party of a new type. Yes, this is where we must place special emphasis on its unfading grandeur, its merited glory and unrivalled worth.
The genius of Lenin was exemplified also in the scientifically grounded plan for the construction of socialism in our country which he bequeathed to the Party. The political foundation of this plan was the teaching concerning the consolidation of the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and of friendship among the peoples as a mighty force of the new social order, a teaching about the leading and organising role of the Party within the system of the Soviet socialist state. His teaching concerning the industrialisation of the country, the socialist remodelling of agriculture, and the carrying-out of a cultural revolution, 175 which guaranteed the complete victory of socialism in a single country formed the economic foundation of the plan for the construction of socialism. The C.P.S.U. is proud of the fact that it not only carried out Lenin's designs, but contributed to the elaboration of the scientific theory concerning the construction of socialism. Lenin's steadfast disciples not only kept his flag flying, but raised it still higher. They braved the attacks of the numerous enemies of Leninism, and carried the banner forward, hoisting it on the pedestal of triumphant socialism in the U.S.S.R.
Lenin's plan for building socialism and its realisation in the U.S.S.R. are of tremendous international significance. Lenin discovered the general laws governing the transition from capitalism to socialism, defined the essential nature of this historical process and foresaw the inevitability of new social relationships prevailing on an international scale. The historical experience of the Soviet Union and all the countries who are building socialism, for all its concrete specific features in each country, has brilliantly demonstrated the profound validity of Lenin's ideas.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. CONVERGENCE AND PLURALISM ARE TWOIn the multi-faced propaganda of the ideologues of anticommunism and the revisionist theoreticians the tune of two outworn concepts have been reiterated incessantly for several years---that of convergence and pluralism. These concepts today are so popular that there is a need for them to be examined, if only in brief outline. Whereas the ideologues of convergence derive their concept from the objective tendency towards centralisation and internationalisation of economic contacts on a world scale, the ideologues of pluralism, while deriving their concept from the objective tendency towards national self-dependency and independence, strive to split the whole into parts and attach a separate significance to each of them, to squeeze the international into the purely national and erect this into the absolute.
A distinctive feature of the ideologues of both concepts is their inability to view and analyse the problem as a whole, 176 in the aggregate of all its separate parts, with its hidden and open tendencies, the general pattern of development. Hence a proneness to reduce the gist of the matter to a detached, isolated phenomenon relating, as a rule, not to the basis itself, but chiefly to the superstructures. Such theoreticians, proceeding as they do from an arbitrary interpretation of the problem, are wittingly or unwittingly playing into the hands of capitalism.
All this, of course, is no accident. Characteristically, the various theories lauding the capitalist system and its political structure were advanced as a rule during periods of capitalism's economic boom. Thus, the economic boom of the nineties of the last century saw the emergence of Marxism's first ``refuters'', who prognosticated its obsolescence and inapplicability to any cognition of the laws of development of society. These prophets were the first to pave the way to the glorification of capitalism and to a negation of the revolutionary processes of the class struggle and emancipation of the working people. The appearance of Bolshevism and its struggle against the renegades to a considerable extent neutralised this current.
Within a decade and a half, however, when capitalism had recovered from the profound crisis that had beset it at the beginning of our century, the revisionist theories of ``ultra-imperialism'', "organised capitalism", and the " automatic breakdown of capitalism" made a comeback; there appeared the first ideas about social harmony and the development of society without conflicts. All these concepts, as we know, were exploded by the October Socialist Revolution, and the renegades sang small.
However, after the capitalist world had recovered from the first imperialist war and the shocks caused by the October Revolution and had entered a period of upswing and temporary stabilisation, the revisionist theories appeared again. Take the second half of the twenties when the antiMarxist theories of "class peace", "the growing of socialism into capitalism" and, vice versa, "the growing of capitalism into socialism", the theories of ``spontaneity'', "equilibrium of the two systems", etc., were trotted out by the Right reformists. The victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R., as we know, blasted these theories and the renegades were silenced again.
One has only to take a closer look at the present-day __PRINTERS_P_178_COMMENT__ 12-1214 177 scene to see once more an omnium-gatherum of revisionist theories, too numerous even to enumerate: the theories of "democratic socialism", "humane socialism", "a productive society", "a non-conflicting society", "an industrial society", and so on. All these tiresome and shoddy ideas are nothing but the echo, a rehash, of the familiar reformist theories of the old apostles of revisionism.
Today the imperialist bourgeoisie itself is embarrassed as it were by its much-lauded banner and studiously avoids calling itself capitalism. It dexterously borrows the socialist phraseology and together with its agents sings the praises of the bourgeois system and bourgeois democracy while at the same time fighting desperately against the spread of the scientific ideas of socialism. One does not have to be a prophet to foresee the inevitable bankruptcy of all these revisionist theories as well as a recession of the boom which bourgeois propaganda is now extolling.
History develops unevenly. Here is no smooth race track. There are ups and downs, evolutions and revolutions, smooth and uneven processes, ebb and flow, different conditions for the struggle in different countries. At the same time, recurring general tendencies, as a rule, are clearly revealed in historical processes over a comparatively short space of time. It must therefore be stressed again that in the hard and multiform fight against ideological enemies we cannot do without a study of the historical experience of the class struggle. In this connection we should like to deal here in greater detail with the two most dangerous political trends by aid of which the ideologues of imperialism are trying to divert the communist and labour movement from the path of Marxism-Leninism.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ A. CONVERGENCE---A WAY TO THE EROSIONConvergence as a theoretical concept is nothing basically new, although the ideologues of anti-communism together with the present-day theoreticians of revisionism try to put it over as something in the nature of a great discovery. Actually this theoretical concept is merely a continuation of the revisionist system of opinions of the .Bernsteins, Kautskys and Hilferdings larded with the pseudo-scientific 178 formulas of modern bourgeois philosophers, sociologists and economists.
The strategic aim of the theory of convergence is to impugn the economic system of socialism, discredit the idea of public socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production and show the superiority of the capitalist system of production and its solid economic foundations as the ultimate and supreme achievement of mankind. To be sure, the apologists say, the system of capitalism has many serious flaws and stands in need of further improvement, but it will achieve this by merging with and eventually absorbing the socialist system in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries. This theory is based on the fact that both capitalism and socialism are simply different forms of the modern "industrial society". Therefore, scientific and technological progress, we are told, is bound to lead to socialism gradually losing its class character and merging with the ``Aryan'' blood of capitalism, growing into it. Such is the basic concept of the ideologues of the theory of convergence.
The bourgeois and revisionist ideologues misinterpret the economic reforms in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, our search for new, more efficient methods of management based invariably on the principles of Marxism-- Leninism. Their line of argument is something like this: seeing that commodity-money relations are being established and profits and material incentives stimulated, the U.S.S.R. is adopting capitalist methods of management and a similarity is now to be observed in the ways of development of the capitalist and socialist systems, which will lead to the eventual and complete convergence of capitalism and socialism.
The theory of convergence has various ramifications, the most widespread of which is the concept of an "integrated industrial society" of the French sociologist R. Aron^^*^^ and the concept of "stages of economic growth" of the American economist and sociologist W. Rostow.^^**^^ The difference between these concepts, however, is only a seeming one. Broadly speaking, they are identical. They have one aim---to prove that owing to the modern scientific and technological revolution, economic programming and forecasting, the bourgeois _-_-_
^^*^^ NOTE:2**HERE-IN-ORIGINAL R. Aron, Le developpement de la societe industrielle et de la stratification sociale, Paris, 1957; R. Aron, Dix huit lemons sur la societe industrielle, Paris, 1962.
^^**^^ W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-- Communist Manifesto, Cambridge, 1960, pp. 4-6, 12, 13, 133, 145.
__PRINTERS_P_179_COMMENT__ 12* 179 and socialist systems are converging "all down the line", economically, politically, socially, theoretically and ideologically, and on this basis there is emerging an integrated "modern industrial system''.Propaganda of this theory has been taken up by a vast army of bourgeois ideologues, who are clarifying and spelling out down to the minutest detail all the ``charms'' of this doctrine and the ways towards its realisation. -Their one aim is to prove that both these systems are moving towards a single system, which is better than the "new capitalism" and better than "pure socialism". Noteworthy in this respect is an article in Business Week for October 9, 1965, which claims: "While Russia is making tentative steps in the direction of capitalism . .. many Western nations are at the same time borrowing bits and pieces from socialist state planning. It makes a very pretty picture---of Communists becoming less communistic, capitalists becoming less capitalistic as the two systems move closer toward a middle ground.''
Originally the founders of the convergence theory concentrated their efforts on proving the idea of a growing similarity between capitalism and socialism in the field of economic development, having in view the ways and nature of development of industry, cities, technologies, and the dynamics of the structure of specialists and managing personnel. Then they turned their attention to the sphere of cultural and welfare amenities with the aim of demonstrating the growing similarity between the capitalist and socialist countries in the field of science, education and culture. Variants of the convergence concept were next used to build up evidence in support of a ``real'' process of convergence that was supposed to be taking place between these two different types of systems in a socio-political context and which would end in the levelling of social life, general welfare ("a mass consumption society") and uniformity in people's thinking and behaviour. Quite an ideal schema for an "integrated industrial society''.
It is envisaged still more ideally, however, in the concept of "stages of economic growth". In the light of this concept five stages of growth are itemised: the traditional society, the preconditions, take-off, maturity and, finally, high mass consumption. And so, at the fifth stage, we get the so-called post-industrial society. As described by its founders it will be a paradise on earth.
180So far so good. But what about the private ownership of the instruments and means of production? What about the monopolist, millionaire and multi-millionaire clans, who preside over the destinies of many nations? Unfortunately, the ideologues of the bourgeoisie pass over these burning questions in silence, or, to be more exact, they fear them as the devil fears incense. The trouble with these scholars, to put it mildly, is that they did not arrange their schemata with the bosses of capital. No wonder that among the vast army of convergologists we find scholars who more and more express undisguised concern at the reactionary tendencies of the imperialists, who are using the great discoveries of science to the detriment of the peoples' vital interests.
In this connection I would cite Jean-Jacques ServanSchreiber, a prominent French ideologist, proponent of the convergence theory. In his well-known book Le Defi Americain he writes of things one should take very careful note of. I shall quote a few passages from his book. "Within a decade and a half a third industrial power could appear in the world (after the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.), not Europe, but American industry in Europe. Already today, in the ninth year of the Common Market's existence, the organisation of this European market bears largely an American character"; "If we allow the free import of American capital under present conditions we shall condemn European industry ... to a subordinate role, and Europe itself to the status of a satellite.''
Then what has to be done? "Today," says the author, "we need for that an awakening, a rude awakening. Unless this happens, Europe, like many an illustrious civilisation before it, will decline without knowing the reason why." So this, then, is the "integrated industrial society". But this is nothing compared with what is to come, when society evolves into the so-called post-industrial society!
Objectively the convergence theory sets out to prove the thesis concerning the possibility of such a convergence of the countries of socialism with those of capitalism as would ultimately lead to a restoratioii of bourgeois conditions in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries and demonstrate the ``needlessness'' of a socialist revolution in the capitalist countries and the need for peaceful coexistence between the bourgeois and socialist ideologies. Such well-known writers as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel P. Huntington state 181 point-blank: "In the West ... the widespread theory of convergence assumes that the fundamentally important aspects of the democratic system will be retained after America and Russia `converge' at some future, indeterminate historical junction . .. the Communist Party and its monopoly of power as the real victims of the historical process: both will fade away.''^^*^^
In the article "Moscow Changes Its European Strategy" published in the Bonn bulletin Parlamentarisch-Politischer Pressedienst the substance and social orientation of the convergence theory are characterised still more outspokenly. It states that the theory of convergence "by the will of its spiritual fathers implies the weakening of the socialist system and elimination of the fundamental tenets of socialist society, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading role of the proletariat, and state socialist property. ..". Here we see all the "i`s'' dotted.
Now the convergence theorists are bent on having the bridges built that would bring about this fusion, first in the sphere of the economic basis, that is, through obliteration of the distinctions between the capitalist and socialist forms of ownership, and then in the ideological and political spheres. These pseudo-logical constructions of the bourgeois theoreticians---the outspoken ideologists of anti-- communism---are now being taken up by some so-called Marxist theoreticians.
Numerous examples could be cited of how this absurd convergence theory, which is objectively out of keeping with the nature and substance of the modern evolution of socialism is being peddled ad nauseam in the press in different variants. Some of these theoreticians started dallying with schemes for setting up, together with the capitalists, joint concerns and corporations in the socialist countries; it was even suggested that a single world concern be set up to be controlled by a single world state and a single world government, and it was hinted that such a body could be the United Nations.
The bourgeois and revisionist theoreticians went to no little trouble to produce evidence showing that such an utterly Utopian idea was workable. In programming and forecasting, to which the ruling circles of the imperialist _-_-_
^^*^^ Z. Brzezinski, S. P. Huntington, Political Power. USA-USSR Similarities and Contrasts. Convergence or Evolution. New York, 1964.
182 countries resort ever more and more often in their competition with the socialist countries, they see the possibility of capitalism's balanced and crisis-free development and social improvement. All this is aimed at proving that socialism no longer enjoys the advantages of planned, balanced and purposeful development. The programming and prediction projects have so turned the heads of the revisionists that they no longer think of the inevitable collapse of the rotten system of capitalism, no longer think even of criticising its negative aspects.All these theoreticians think of is how to laud and boost the capitalist system for all time. Whereas only a few years ago the bourgeois theoreticians programmed and predicted the capitalist economy for the eighties, today we already have projects covering not only the twentieth century, but the whole of the twenty-first century. There are no few theoreticians today who call themselves innovators and who are completely engrossed in long-term programming and prediction schemes for capitalism. Forgetting the vital interests of the working class and the oppressed people, they have lightly and shamelessly surrendered to bourgeois ideology. There is hardly any sense in going into the details of the modern theoretical projects of the convergence devotees. On all essential points their sponsors can easily be caught out in plain plagiarism. Here, as nowhere else, do we find duplicated the theories of ``ultra-imperialism'' and " organised capitalism". I shall attempt to show this concretely, after which the pseudo-scholarship of the sponsors of the convergence theory will stand fully revealed to the reader.
The theory of capitalism evolving into socialism, which was the forerunner of the present convergence concept, took shape in the heads of the revisionists at the end of the nineteenth century, that is, at the initial stage of the imperialist phase of capitalism. Then new phenomena in capitalism's development, which appeared at the end of the nineteenth century, were first perceived by the penetrating mind of Engels. Seriously ill at the time, he drew the attention of the theoreticians of Social-Democracy to the need for concentrating their efforts on a thorough study of the new processes that were taking place in capitalism and to draw from this the necessary theoretical and practical conclusions in the interest of the proletariat and its fight for socialism.
It should be said for the then prominent theoreticians 183 of Social-Democracy---Kautsky, Hilferding, Bauer and others---that Engels's appeal found in them a definite response. They did not live up to expectations however. On the contrary, they went out of their way to prove that Marxism was outmoded and inapplicable to the new conditions, for which they fabricated their famous theory about "capitalism growing into socialism". The emergence of monopoly organisations and the formation of all kinds of international economic and political associations, coalitions and agreements among the capitalist states were regarded by the revisionists as a sign of capitalism's better organisation and balanced development.
This is most salient in the Kautskian theory of `` ultraimperialism'', which took a long time evolving and which was brought to full maturity during the First World War and after it. The gist of this concept is that capitalism, on entering the imperialist stage, becomes an international instead of national phenomenon and is bound, through economic cartelisation, to build up into a united world concern, to become a planned, organised, all-embracing international economy. In his Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung, published in 1926, after eight years' existence of the world's first socialist state, Kautsky leaves this out of account; on the contrary, he does not now confine himself to a general statement concerning the possibility of ``ultra-imperialism'', but defines the concrete ways in which it will become established.
What is more, Kautsky even found the organ which was to carry out the planned transition from ``ultra-imperialism'' to socialism. Whereas the economic substance of "ultra-- imperialism" lies in the cartelisation of world economy, its political organisation was to be the League of Nations as an instrument for the international regulation of economic life, for the international unification of nations, for doing away with wars and building socialism. The League of Nations, he wrote, "is absolutely essential not only for averting the dangers of war, but also for building the new society which is to take the place of capitalist society. The League of Nations, which already carries weight today, will reach its full strength when the elements of the new society become a power and when socialist-democratic governments will stand at the head of the world's leading states''.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ K. Kautsky, Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung, Bd. 2, Berlin, 1929, S. 611.
184The material used for brushing up and polishing the Kautskian theory was Hilferding's theory of "organised capitalism", which also took a long time shaping. Whereas in his Finance Capital, which appeared in 1910, he merely made approaches towards substantiating the theory of "organised capitalism", in his later writings this theory was completely rounded out. Leaving out of account such a fact of worldwide historic importance as the October Socialist Revolution, which broke the chain of imperialism, Hilferding remained true to type, as if nothing important had happened in life. In his opinion, capitalism was conforming to pattern: on the one hand, there was a growth of the monopolies which bound industrial, trade and banking capital together into a mighty complexus of finance capital; on the other, there was the mounting process of broad intervention by the state in economic activities, which leads to state control of the capitalist economy and its automatic conversion into socialism.
As a result of this, we are told, no room is left for free competition, capitalism does away with the anarchy of production and becomes a planned economy, "organised capitalism". At the Parteitag in Kiel in 1927 Hilferding said: "We are just now in the period of capitalism which has largely coped with the era of free competition and the ascendancy of blind market laws; we are now coming to the capitalist organisation of the economy, in other words, from the free play of economic forces towards an organised economy.''^^*^^ And further: "Organised capitalism really stands for the principled substitution ... of the socialist principle of planned production for that of free competition.''^^**^^
Thus, the doctrine of "organised capitalism" consists in the fact that under the impact of the laws of development inherent in capitalism monopolies are formed which gradually draw into their orbit the whole of capitalist economy, and together with the state regulation of the capitalist economy gradually convert it into a planned socialist economy. In modelling the skeleton of "organised capitalism", Hilferding let his imagination run away with him at the thrilling prospect of capitalism's conversion into socialism. The main instrument of this conversion, we are told, was to be " political and economic democracy''.
_-_-_^^*^^ Hilferding, Die Aufgaben dci Sozialdemokratie in dcr Republik, Spandau, 1927, S. 3.
^^**^^ Ibid., S. 5.
185The theory of political democracy, in a nutshell, was this: capitalism becomes automatically transformed into its opposite---into socialism. This takes place not by methods of revolutionary action, but by peaceful means, by democratic methods---by methods of winning the majority in parliament, through which the machinery of state will be geared to social democracy and will then carry out a number of reforms. In other words, wait -and go on waiting till doomsday. Theoretically the gist of economic democracy amounts to self-government by means of taking over control of the economic apparatus through the trade unions. "Democracy at the factory is a chance for everyone, to the best of his ability, to become a manager of production.''
But lest the workers entertain too sanguine hopes of becoming managers of enterprises belonging to the capitalists he tells them in advance: "The establishment of economic democracy is a tremendously difficult problem, which can be tackled only in the course of a prolonged historical process: in proportion as the economy is organised by concentrated capital it becomes more and more subject to democratic control.''^^*^^ Consequently, the conversion of "organised capitalism" into socialism is a long process, which will take place peacefully, quietly, smoothly and, above all, subject to the observance of political and economic democracy. Simultaneously with the process of development of "organised capitalism" and under the salutary influence of SocialDemocracy on the bourgeois state disarmament of different capitalist countries will be effected and costly militarism and wars will be done away with. Misunderstandings and conflicts, if any, were to be settled by the League of Nations, and thus socialism would hold sway throughout the world. Needless to say, history made cruel fun of these idealistic and extravagantly illusory projects.
Demonstration of the theory of imperialism fell to the lot of Lenin, who fulfilled the precept of Engels with credit and honour. It was one of those difficult problems to the solution of which Lenin had devoted practically his whole life, finally advancing a consistent theory of imperialism, on the basis of which he authenticated his famous doctrine of socialist revolution. In substance Lenin's theory of imperialism, which is an elaboration of Marxist political economy, _-_-_
^^*^^ Hilferding, Die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie in der Republik, Spandau, 1927, S. 3.
186 gave a correct scientific assessment of imperialism as the highest' and ultimate stage of development of decaying and moribund capitalism which is characterised by the ripening of both the material preconditions and the subjective factors of socialism on the eve of the socialist revolution.Capitalism, ever since it had created for itself the appropriate material and technical base, has been developing in cycles. The cycle is a necessary and unavoidable form of the motion of antagonisms inherent in capitalism. The various phases of the cycle, such as crises, depression, revival and booms, are merely a condition reflecting the various degrees of tensity of the prevailing antagonistic contradictions between the social nature of production and the private nature of appropriation. The sharpening of capitalism's antagonisms at the stage of imperialism is reflected in the extremely acute nature of the uneven and conflictive tendencies of imperialist development.
The law of uneven development is an irrefragable law of capitalism. It affects all aspects of capitalist society--- economics, technology, politics and ideology. In capitalist society everything develops spasmodically and unevenly: not only separate enterprises and industries, but all and entire countries are subject to this law. A special feature of imperialism's uneven development is the extremely spasmodic, jerky and conflictive nature of that process. These are inherent in the very nature of monopoly capitalism, with its methods of violent pressure and suppression, its inextricable interlinking of economics with politics, its practice of seizures, partitionings and recarvings.
And so the epoch of imperialism clearly reveals that the material prerequisites of socialism---concentration and centralisation of the means of production, the high level of technology and the socialisation of labour---have reached full ripeness. Imperialism shows that society's productive forces have outgrown capitalist relations of production all down the line, and that the latter have become a hindrance to the progressive social movement. Monopoly capitalism by its whole development demonstrates that the course of events objectively drags the capitalists, "against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation''.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 205.
187Lenin then spelled out this process of ``dragging'' by showing that it manifested itself in the evolution of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism. He wrote: ".. .state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.''^^*^^
But whereas the ideologues of imperialism regarded this ``rung'' as ``ultra-imperialism'' or "organised capitalism", Lenin did not deny the objective tendency towards regulation and organisation, but clarified that "capitalism is now evolving directly into its higher, regulated, form'',^^**^^ and this posed the question of its revolutionary overthrow and was "an argument proving the proximity, facility, feasibility and urgency of the socialist revolution, and not at all as an argument for tolerating the repudiation of such a revolution and the efforts to make capitalism look more attractive, something which all reformists are trying to do''.^^***^^
The monopolists can tolerate and even encourage state regulation and attempts at national planning of production in so far as this is in their interest and does not strike at the roots of capitalism---private property. Every real step towards socialism, however, is bound to meet with furious resistance on the part of the imperialists, who will not stop at unleashing war. History provides clear proofs of this. That is why I devote such attention to the bourgeois concept of convergence, which is the theoretical basis of modern revisionism.
The convergence theory is the outcome of the profound crisis of bourgeois political economy, extra proof of the theoretical aridity of bourgeois and revisionist thinking. And this is quite explainable. Let us hear what Marx has to say on this point---it might have been said today instead of a hundred years ago. "In so far as Political Economy remains within that horizon, in so far, i.e., as the capitalist regime is looked upon as the absolutely final form of social production, instead of as a passing historical phase of its evolution, Political Economy can remain a science only so long as the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p 359
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 306.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 443.
188 class-struggle is latent or manifests itself only in isolated and sporadic phenomena.''^^*^^Let us look at the shrewd sagacity of this judgement with a sober eye. If bourgeois political economy, already in the days of Marx, had begun to lose its scientific objectivity and sunk to an abject apologetics of capitalism, then with its transition into the final, imperialist stage, when the class struggle reached its highest pitch, this bourgeois economic theory became a mean servant that dolls up the muddied image of imperialism and patches up the holes in it. Sterile in its defence of the economic foundations of imperialism, bourgeois political science is constrained to have recourse to such concepts, which, like the theory of convergence, affect only the superstructural elements, the problems of organisation and administration, without going into a deep social analysis of the antagonisms of the economic basis---the relations of production of modern imperialism.
A feature of all modern revisionist theories is the attempt to reduce the substance of the new processes in the development of capitalism to some single, more advantageous phenomenon. In clinging to one or another positive fact in the development of capitalism the revisionists elevate it into an absolute, thereby obscuring the most essential, deep-going and natural processes of the whole system of imperialism, its most vulnerable and incurable ills. The fact of the matter is that the bourgeois economists and their revisionist followers are unable either to work out a scientific theory of modern imperialism or adopt one that has already been worked out, because to do so would mean pronouncing the death sentence upon capitalism and imperialism.
One might say that ever since the great scientific discoveries by Marxism-Leninism of the laws of social development little has changed in the theoretical views of the revisionists. Today as then the revisionist concepts in the assessment of capitalism fit nicely into the pattern of the two main trends that existed before. One of these identifies imperialism with capitalism, contending that imperialism differs in no essentials from capitalism of the epoch of free competition. The other, on the contrary, draws a line between imperialism and capitalism, passes over in silence the close coexistence of the monopolies with free competition, _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Moscow, 1965, p. 14.
189 denies that imperialism is capitalism and follows its general pattern, ahd makes imperialism out to be a new type of production relations differing fundamentally from those of capitalism. What these two trends hold in common, though, is a deliberate hushing-up of the fact that imperialism is the last stage in the development of decaying and moribund capitalism, that imperialism reproduces on an extended and deeper scale all the contradictions of capitalism and leads it to its inevitable downfall. Such is the inexorable objective law of history.One question remains to be answered. How could this convergence theory arise, how could the utterly absurd concept seep into the minds of theoreticians who call themselves Marxists? There can be no evasive answers to this question. This concept went down with the revisionists because they had lost the memory of the Marxist-Leninist class approach to the phenomena of social development. Such theories result from ignoring the existing inner antagonistic contradictions of imperialism, from ignoring the basic contradiction of our epoch---the contradiction between socialism and capitalism onjL world scale.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ B. PLURALISM---A STRATEGIC LINEPluralism as a theoretical concept is nothing essentially new either. Ideologically, it is the outspoken philosophy of revisionism which traces its origins to the annals of the theoreticians of Social-Democracy. From the political point of view this concept most strongly reflects the essential nature of opportunism, which fights shy of revolutionary proletarian discipline, groans under the burden of centralism and stands in fear of the organisational and ideological unity of the international party ranks. Pluralism is a justification for the splitting of the revolutionary forces, for national insularity, for self-isolation from the general international movement of the working people who are fighting for the complete liberation and equality of the nations.
Marxism-Leninism maintains that practice, the facts of history, are the sole criterion by which the truth can be gauged. Life itself is the best teacher, the best arbiter of 190 our actions, right or wrong. No one can ever escape the just verdict of history. But what does history show, what do the facts speak? Two terrible world wars have occurred in the lifetime of a single generation. Both of them ended in a way the imperialists had not calculated. The First World War and the socialist revolution in Russia broke the chain of imperialism as a single absolutely predominant world system and led to the establishment of the world's first socialist state of the workers and peasants. The second sanguinary war again led to the defeat of world imperialism as a result of which many countries of Europe, Asia and even America have embarked on the socialist path.
Everyone admits this, but not everyone draws from this the relevant political conclusions. It is an historically accepted fact that during 1917 to 1920 many countries in Western Europe had the most favourable conditions for effecting the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie. But the working class of Europe was unable to do what the proletariat in Russia had done because of the deep cleavage in its ranks and because it had no revolutionary parties. The Right social-democratic leaders were, in the words of Lenin, "better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeois themselves''.^^*^^ As a matter of fact, already at that time they had espoused ideas which eventually shaped themselves into the concept of pluralism-
On the specious pretext of popularising different brands of socialism said to be germane to the real conditions prevailing in one or another country, the renegades succeeded in fragmenting not only the scientific theory of socialism, but the revolutionary forces of the working class, the peasantry and the progressive intellectuals, who had been fighting under the banner of socialism. As a result of the ideologically poisonous nationalist propaganda, which continued for over two decades within the Second International, the renegades succeeded in splitting the workers' parties, the trade unions and other organisations of the working class, which they dragged apart to their "national billets". Forgetting their own vows, the renegades not only did not come out against the fratricidal war, but fanned it up with their appeals to defend the ``fatherland''.
If we take a closer look at the performance of today's _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 231.
191 advocates of pluralism we shall have no difficulty in seeing that they have already embarked on that shameful path of nationalism and chauvinism, which has cost the nations so defar. Facing the truth, we cannot blink at the danger of the theory of pluralism, which is not only being propagandised, poisoning the nations with the venom of bourgeois nationalism, but is elevated by some theoreticians to the rank of a key policy, a thing which cannot but gladden the ideologues of imperialism. The attitude of Marxists-Leninists is clear beyond question. They stand firmly for taking into account the national specific features and for international unity. The danger of pluralism is that it is incompatible with internationalism and tends to destroy unity.And so pluralism stands for numerous varieties of socialism. Too numerous, in fact, to be listed. We have African, Asian, and European socialisms, and separate national socialisms within each continent. Garaudy in 1969 wrote a voluminous book Pour un modele fran^ais du socialisme in which he virtually arms the Right and ``Left'' opportunists in their refusal to apply the basic international principles of socialism. In other words, any kind of socialism, so long as it isn't scientific socialism. Lenin at one time spoke about the diverse paths by which different nations would arrive at socialism and gave a profound Marxist assessment of this thesis.
Let it be noted that he spoke about the diverse paths towards socialism, about the differences in the forms and speed of socialist transformations depending on the specific conditions in one or another country. But the revisionists put their own interpretation on this thesis of Lenin's. They deliberately confuse the question of the relationship between the general tendencies (already verified in more than one country) and the special, particular, specific conditions of the socialist revolution and socialist construction applicable only in the context of the given country. According to them only different ``models'' of socialism were being created in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, which could either be accepted or rejected. Hence the case that is made out for different ``models'' of socialism which ignore the general tendencies, or, to be more exact, count on repudiation of the socialist revolution, of socialism, and a slippingdown into ``democratic'' socialism within the framework of the bourgeois system.
192In making a breach in the wall of scientific socialism the revisionist tunnelers make believe that they are doing this in the name of true socialism, stripped of etatic-- bureaucratic perversions, and swear allegiance to Marxism-Leninism. This is an artful manoeuvre, however. Actually the revisionists have long been seeking a key that would give them access to the heart of the Marxist-Leninist movement by strictly following the example of their revisionist forebears. They are throwing more and more emphasis on the `` creative'' development of Marxism, by which they mean nothing more nor less than restriction of the sphere of its application.
The definition of Marxism as a guide to action, which Lenin always strongly stressed, began to lose its purpose. Under the guise of a ``creative'' approach, revisionism was implanted. The catchwords of ``creative'' and ``dogmatic'' Marxism cropped up everywhere in the writings of these theoreticians. All those who are for regarding Marxism as a guide to action are proclaimed dogmatists, conservatives, etc., by the revisionists. Going further in their tunneling, the revisionist ideologues have started to pull apart the main elements of Marxist theory, to fragment Marxism.
Marxism-Leninism, as we know, is a balanced, integral doctrine developed and enriched by the Marxist-Leninist Communist and Workers' Parties. All the components of Marxism-Leninism---philosophy, political economy and scientific communism---are organically interconnected. Marxism-Leninism is integral both in its component parts and in its historical development. It is not surprising therefore to find the bourgeois ideologues concentrating their main efforts on this particular aspect. By falsifying the historical development of Marxism-Leninism they try to break and sunder it apart, artificially detaching one historical phase in the development of Marxism from another and drawing a line between them.
Typical in this respect is the attempt to depict Marx as an abstract thinker, a sociologist, in contrast to Engels, who is painted as a practical dogmatist. Attempts are made to fish out contradictions in the ideological legacy of Marx himself: the early Marx is contraposed to the later Marx, Marx the humanist to Marx the revolutionary. The falsifiers, if you please, do not like Marx as revolutionary, fighter, politician, and prefer him as man, dreamer, scholar. A multitudinous literature has appeared in which, with more __PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13-1214 193 zeal than sense, two Marxes are described: the young Marx and the old Marx. Under the guise of a scientific analysis attempts are made to contrapose Marx to Engels, and both of them in turn to Lenin. It could be said that, as in the nineteenth century, the revisionist stalwarts have reappeared upon the scene, among whom criticism of Marx has become the fashion.
We would have no difficulty whatever in catching out in plagiarism the fathers of these concepts. It was none other than Bernstein and Kautsky who were the first to experiment with the differentiation of Marxism, with this difference, however, that in their evaluation Marx was divided into three Marxes: (1) Marx the democrat, humanist and contemplator, stuffed with the ideas of the French enlighteners; (2) Marx the revolutionary, rebel, conspirator, admirer of Babeuf and Blanqui, under whose influence the Communist Manifesto had been written; (3) Marx the liberal democrat, advocate of a parliamentary republic, urging the conflict between workers and capitalists to be settled in a peaceful way by buying out from the latter their factories and mills.
Lenin wrote: "What is now happening to Marx's theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories "of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonise them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the `consolation' of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarising it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labour movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie.''^^*^^
In their slanderous fabrications the renegades talked themselves into the allegation that Marx had had nothing to _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, pp. 385-86.
194 do with the authentication of the theory of the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, that he had mentioned the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" only once, and that by mere accident. Lenin shared the same fate as Marx and Engels. The Trotskyists, as we know, saw Leninism as a narrowly national phenomenon, applicable only to the conditions of peasant Russia or to poorly developed countries. Other revisionists regarded Leninism as the mechanical application of Marxism and denied the existence of the Leninist phase in the development of Marxist theory.But there were also hotheads who attempted to place Leninism above Marxism, to represent it as an independent teaching transcending the theory of the founders of scientific communism. Lenin vigorously deprecated such an interpretation and left no doubt as to the idea of any new trend existing in Marxism, in the theory of scientific socialism. Lenin invariably approached all questions from the standpoint of Marx's and Engels's teaching. This was not just a tactic on his part to make it easier for him to put over new ideas, but came from a sense of pride at being the true disciple and follower of Marx and Engels, their continuator, who was to apply the teachings of Marxism in the new historical epoch.
4
Marxism as a science is founded wholly upon struggle, upon the remodelling of the old world. Its task is not only and not so much to clarify phenomena as to remake the world, to help speed up its remodelling. It is essentially a creative doctrine and as such does not stand in need of having this creative aspect constantly underlined. The real Marxist is one who uses this positive teaching as a guide to action, to struggle, to the transformation of society. Lenin was quick to grasp this essence of Marxism, and throughout his activities, at the most difficult moments, he was fond of saying "we must talk things over with Marx". Some people are inclined to regard this as dogmatism. Dogmatism indeed! Lenin showed by this his boundless faith in Marxism and the need for ideological purity. Either the Communists held this teaching in firm reliable hands and constantly developed it, or a Right reformism and ``Left'' revolutionarism would prevail in the Marxist movement as was the case in a number of countries in Western Europe at the turn of the century.
A prominent place in revisionist literature is given to a __PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195 revaluation of revolutions. An especially vast amount of material on the history of revolution was dug up by bourgeois propaganda and the various revisionists on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. One can trace here the same attempts to break down and divide the integral Marxist-Leninist teaching concerning revolution. There you have real, glorious revolutions, and here unreal, inglorious ones. All bourgeois revolutions, including of course the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, were classified as real glorious revolutions. The Revolution of 1905 in our country is declared an inglorious revolution undeserving of high marks.
And what about the October Revolution, which marked a turning point in the history of mankind? Here we have two appraisals. One says that, being a ``peaceful'' revolution, it was a real one, and the other that, being a people's, a socialist, revolution, it was not a real one, but a conspiratorial revolution. Is this proposition correct? Lenin did say that the October armed uprising of 1917 was an exceptionally bloodless one, exceptionally easy and successful. But nowhere did Lenin say that the October Revolution was a bloodless and easy one. How can one identify an uprising with a revolution?
In speaking of the bloodless uprising Lenin thereby emphasised the extent to which the objective conditions for it had ripened and how well-organised the forces of the uprising had been, or, to use his own words, "the fruit had ripened". At the same time, however, Lenin repeatedly stressed that the seizure of power was only half the job, that the important thing under Russian conditions was to hold that power and embark on the building of socialism, and for this it was necessary not only to make the revolution, but to develop it in depth and breadth. But the development of the revolution, as we all know, met with furious resistance on the part of the internal counter-revolution and international imperialism, and took heavy toll in lives and blood. Why then, on what grounds, did some writers try to identify the lessons of the uprising with the process of development of the October Socialist Revolution?
In this connection I should like to dwell on one historical fact. Lenin was very fond of drawing historical comparisons and he always carefully collated events, processes, alignment of class forces and tendencies of the movement. This it 196 was that enabled him to scientifically demonstrate the laws of the class struggle and frame the Party's scientific strategy and tactics. Using this approach of Lenin's I would cite the following comparison. The French bourgeois revolution of the late eighteenth century, as we know, was a classical revolution both as regards the methods of struggle and the results achieved. The prominent French historians Augustin Thierry, Francois Mignet and Francois Guizot, being spokesmen of the republican bourgeoisie, on the whole correctly described the alignment and struggle of the class forces. In his letter to Weydemeyer in 1852 Marx wrote that, strictly speaking, it was not he who had discovered the existence of classes and the class struggle, but that the first to write about it were bourgeois historians,^^*^^ who proceeded from a scientific analysis of the alignment of the class forces operating in the great French revolution.
But apart from these historians, who understood the objective processes of development of the revolution, there appeared ideologues, who gradually began to reassess the whole course of the French revolution. There appeared a whole school of sociologist pseudo-theoreticians who began to describe the course of the revolution adjusted to the interests of the bourgeoisie. For example, a French sociologist by the name of Paul Janet, who was sharply criticised by Plekhanov, wrote: "The aim of the revolution . . . the winning of civic equality and political liberty . . . was the greatest and most legitimate to which any nation had ever aspired." The means, however, were bad. "All too often they were violent and terrible", and for this the people, the ``rabble'' were to blame, not the bourgeoisie. Hence the motto was proclaimed: "hold on firmly to the results of the revolution, but reject the spirit of the revolution.''^^**^^
It should be said that very soon this trend prevailed. Over a long period of time not a word was said about the revolutionary role of the people, about its truly plebeian methods of struggle, but everywhere the results of the revolution--- equality, fraternity and liberty---were proclaimed. It was exactly the same with names. There came to the surface the most reactionary figures, who were elevated to the rank of _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1956, p. 86.
^^**^^ Paul Janet, Histoire de la Revolution Friaifaise, Paris, 1889, pp. 277-78.
197 revolutionaries. For many years the names of such outstanding revolutionaries as Marat, Danton and Robespierre were dragged through the mud. A genuine appraisal of the great bourgeois revolution was given first by Marx and Engels and then by Lenin and other Marxists. It was they who restored the good name and significance of the Great French Revolution and did justice to the people and its real leaders.Characteristically, the bourgeoisie does not forget about its revolution even today. Take the facts. The Great French Bourgeois Revolution took place nearly two hundred years ago. Yet the bourgeoisie still jealously guards its heritage. Today, too, it is moulding the youth in the most careful and meticulous manner in the spirit of its class partisanship, in the spirit of its class's glorification. The bourgeoisie is affirming and trying to din it into people that the means, the methods of struggle used in that revolution were meritless and antipopular, whereas its results were the pinnacle of bourgeois achievement. What is more, there is an attempt to generalise: history, we are told, has shown that the proletariat espoused the mottoes of the bourgeoisie and not that the bourgeoisie espoused the slogans of.the proletariat. And so Marxism is said to be outdated, to have fallen short of expectations, whereas the concepts of the bourgeois ideologues, the ideals of the Great French Bourgeois Revolution fulfilled expectations.
Does not all this look like what the modern revisionists are trying to do in regard to the Great October Socialist Revolution? Have not the numerous publications of the bourgeois press concerning the fiftieth anniversary of the October Revolution been a direct attempt to cross out, to blanket all that was revolutionary and heroic in the great Soviet revolution and represent it as a dull, dreary affair that has petered out?
One is entitled to ask, where, what sources does the concept of pluralism spring from? The main source is the sharpening of the class struggle in an epoch when the transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale is materialising and the socialist system is becoming a decisive factor of world development. This trebles the efforts of the ideologues of the bourgeoisie to discredit socialism and "soften up" the socialist system. The main cause of the revival and pernicious effects of pluralism lies in disregard of the scientific theory of Marxism-Leninism and its dialectical method. Whether this is because it is studiously ignored or simply forgotten is 198 immaterial. What matters is that in the reasoning of these theoreticians revisionism prevails.
__*_*_*__What conclusion is to be drawn? In order to blast the theory of convergence and pluralism it is necessary first of all to advance the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the objective laws of development of society and the dialectical method of analysing the phenomena and facts of social development; secondly, to wage a more active and principled ideological struggle from positions of Marxism-Leninism against all and every revisionist concepts. However much our enemies may rave and storm, Marxists-Leninists will never bend before the onslaught of militant revisionism, will never give ground. On the contrary, they are fully prepared to carry out their historical mission, which is to defeat their ideological adversaries and defend the great banner of Marxism-Leninism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. HOPES FOR THE RESTORATION OF CAPITALISMLet us now examine a most acute and pressing problem which has a direct bearing on the problems I have dealt with above. Really, is it possible for capitalism to be restored in the socialist countries? Were all those sacrifices made in the name of the socialist revolution and all that blood of its proletarian fighters shed for the sake of going back to the old outworn order and replacing its yoke upon the straightened shoulders of the world's working people? To reverse the history of social development is unthinkable, impossible. The development of society is moving in an upward line and no temporary obstacles can change the course of history's natural process. Nevertheless, this statement requires definite argumentation if truth is not to remain a mere phrase. It will be appropriate, therefore, if we turn to the historical facts, which are best able to confirm the validity of this postulate. In this context we shall have to consider the experience of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, where, for the first time in man's history, the stately edifice of socialism has been raised.
199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/ATPH293/20090605/293.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2009.12.13) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+The main thesis of the Leninist theory of the socialist revolution argues the quesiton as to whether it is possible for socialism to prevail initially in one or several countries which had won free from the rule of capital. History so shaped itself that our country, which was the first to pave humanity's way towards a new world, was obliged in the course of a quarter of a century to build socialism on its own. Bound as it was on all sides by a hostile capitalist encirclement, it had to create for the first time a new social order that would be superior in all respects to all the social systems that had existed before it. Without this main condition the existence of a socialist country and its defence against outside enemies was unthinkable. There were no few prophets who harped on one and the same string---that the Soviet Union would not last, would not build socialism. And every time one and the same argument was put forward--- that there were absolutely no guarantees against the restoration of capitalism.
The argument about the inevitability of restoration was first put forward by Plekhanov at the Fourth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1906 when he took issue with Lenin's theory of nationalisation of the land and of the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution evolving into a socialist revolution. Events however showed that Russia's historical development followed the path which Lenin had scientifically charted and not that which Plekhanov had prophesied. Eleven years passed after this and the socialist revolution in Russia won a brilliant victory. Equipped now with Lenin's theory concerning the possibility of building socialism in a single country, the Party was able to start on the practical implementation of that great theory. And just at this decisive stage Plekhanov's successors came out with the old argument about the inevitable restoration of capitalism, against which, they claimed, no barriers existed.
This argument, in fact, was no simple one. It called for a profound analysis and correct scientific deductions. Obviously, no Marxist could give any guarantee against the restoration of capitalism, against this grave and very real danger. Nor could any capitalist state, for that matter, give a guarantee that it would withstand the onset of the revolutionary forces of the working class and all the working people. Consequently, the chances of capitalism's restoration were more than outweighed by the possibility of resolute 200 action on the part of the revolutionary masses. Your true revolutionary is distinguished from the reformist precisely in that he has boundless faith in the inexhaustible revolutionary energy of the working class, who are the real creators and makers of socialism.
Let us examine this question on its merits, in accordance with the concrete situation that prevailed in our country after the victorious October Socialist Revolution. Lenin pointed out that the deposed exploiter classes remain at first stronger than the working classes that had come to power; similarly, the old surviving economic relations, notably the then prevalent form of small peasant economy, favoured the restoration of capitalism rather than the development of communism. Furthermore, imperialism could not put up with the existence of the world's one and only workers' and peasants' state and missed no opportunity to try and crush it by military force.
Therefore, the restoration of capitalism in the one and only country that was building socialism was a very real and immediate danger. Potentially it could happen in two ways: one, by way of internal evolutionary processes, by the gradual consolidation of private economy and its preponderance over the inchoate socialist structure; the other, by way of direct armed intervention from outside by the united forces of the imperialist states backed by the remnants of the overthrown classes and elements hostile to the Soviets. In the intra-Party struggle that developed after the death of Lenin the question of the possibility of building socialism in a single country was a central issue, but the approach to its solution differed. Consequently, the issue centred on whether it was possible to prevent the restoration of capitalism.
The Trotskyists maintained that these two groups of contradictions, namely, the internal and external, could be resolved only on the international stage, given a world proletarian revolution, failing which the restoration of capitalism was inevitable and the defeat of socialism inescapable. Such a concept disarmed the Party and the working class and condemned them to inaction and passivity. Indeed, how could you build socialism when you knew beforehand that it couldn't be built? Could you be sure of building socialism if the restoration of capitalism was a certainty?
The Leninist Bolsheviks argued from an opposite position. 201 On the basis of a dialectical analysis of the internal and external contradictions they upheld Lenin's concept to the effect that the existing internal and external contradictions were quite resolvable, that these contradictions were far from being uniform and that they would be resolved by different methods and means. Hence the victory of socialism had to be viewed in accordance with these two diverse contradictions: a complete victory and a final victory.
The first group of contradictions related to the sphere of internal socio-economic relations. It was resolved by means of profound transformative processes, by a complex of political and economic measures: the industrialisation of the country, the collectivisation of agriculture and the cultural development of the people. The alliance between the working class and the peasantry was the chief motive force in dealing with these problems. Consequently, the Leninists argued, there were sufficient forces and means within the country to prevent the restoration of capitalism. And that is what happened. It took the Soviet people twenty years of creative effort to secure the complete victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. In the Marxist sense this meant fulfilment of the first phase of communism.
The second group of contradictions concerned the relationships of the socialist country with the hostile capitalist world. This was a far more difficult and complicated sphere than the first. Nevertheless, here too there were sufficient levers for ensuring the safety of the land of socialism and making its victory final and conclusive. The most secure guarantee, which appealed to all honest people in the world, was the proclamation of a policy of peace and co-operation among the nations which the Soviet government consistently pursued from the very first days of its existence. The Soviet people was able to rely on the mighty international strength of the world's working class which staunchly defended the Soviet socialist state---the true homeland of all the world's working people.
No wonder, therefore, that every time the imperialists lifted a hand against the Soviet Republic the working class of the capitalist countries raised a bastion against the aggressors and oppressors. "Hands Off the U.S.S.R.!", " Safeguard the Cradle of the Revolution!", "Defend the U.S.S.R. ---the home of all the world's working people!"---were the memorable international slogans of the world's proletariat.
202If we add to this the profound antagonisms among the capitalist countries themselves, which were skilfully made use of by the Soviet Union, we find the second contradiction, too, resolved in favour of the construction of socialism in a single country. In fact, thanks to the heroic steadfastness of the Soviet people and the international unity of the proletariat socialism in the U.S.S.R. was built in the course of two decades.
The Second World War was a serious test of the vitality of the socialist country's forces. It revealed both the inner strength of the socialist system and the strength of the unity of the international working class, which rose to its full stature in defence of the U.S.S.R. Having won a victory over the world forces of reaction and broken the chain of capitalist encirclement the Party could say with full justice that socialism in the U.S.S.R. had gained not only a complete, but a final victory. Events now confirmed how farsighted and accurate had been Lenin's theory demonstrating the possibility of building socialism initially in one country and the inevitability of other countries gradually taking the socialist road. This process is unavoidable and it has now spread along a wide front on all continents.
And so the progress made by the Soviet Union since the October Revolution can be summed up as the complete and final victory of socialism in a single country. The crowning point of this epoch-making victory was that socialism was no longer confined to a single country and became a world system. Thus the objective conditions point to the fact that the danger of capitalism being restored in our country has sunk into oblivion.
Given such a real factor as the complete and final victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and the choice of a socialist path by a number of new countries, our Party drew from this the theoretically correct conclusion that the transition from capitalism to socialism which was taking place on a world scale formed the sum and substance of our epoch. This conclusion proceeded from a profound theoretical analysis of the international situation and will always stand as an example of a creative approach to the solution of urgent issues of high policy.
On what real motives were these far-reaching conclusions based?
First, the triumphant successes of socialist construction in 203 the U.S.S.R., which gave substance to the scientific ideas of socialism, made them a permanent causative factor of the world revolutionary process. Socialism's emergence from a single country as a worldwide factor radically changed the balance of social and material forces in favour of socialism and secured strong positions for the socialist system on a world scale. It could now be a question, not of the restoration of capitalism in this or that socialist country, but of these countries, by their joint efforts and in close unity with all revolutionary, progressive forces, contributing to the speedy downfall of capitalism all over the world.
Secondly, under the impact of the victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and the brilliant successes achieved by a number of countries of Europe and Asia who had taken the socialist road, the national liberation movement in the colonial and dependent countries built up with tremendous force on an unprecedented scale. This led to the disintegration and collapse of the shameful colonial system of imperialism and to the creation of new national independent states, which now number over seventy. As a result of the establishment of a world socialist system and the collapse of colonial empires there has occurred not only a sharp cut-back in the sphere of capitalist relations and imperialist exploitation, but a general weakening of imperialism. Great masses of people and vast territories with their boundless wealth are ceasing to be the reserves of imperialism.
Thirdly, the growth of communist forces throughout the world. Arising as an organised movement on the crest of the Great October Socialist Revolution, spreading steadily in depth and breadth all over the world, international communism in a brief historical period has become the greatest progressive force in the world today exercising a powerful impact on the development of society and the destinies of nations. The communist movement developed most rapidly during the years of the war and after it. Where, before the war, communist parties existed in 43 countries, chiefly in Europe, and numbered approximately 4,200,000 members, today organised contingents of Communists are functioning in 89 countries and their ranks have increased more than 12-fold during the same period.
I have cited only three factors, but these suffice to show what a change has come over the face of man's world and how favourably for world socialism conditions have shaped 204 themselves. How, given such an objective line-up of economic and material and technological factors in the world today, can one speak seriously about the restoration of capitalism in the socialist countries? How, for that matter, can one speak seriously about the restoration of capitalism under such a favourable line-up of socio-political forces in the world, -when even the subjective factors have clearly shaped in favour of world socialism? It can safely be said that never have such favourable conditions existed for the deployment of both the democratic and the socialist movements as those that obtain today.
Of course, the imperialists, as before, will do everything they can to prevent and check the spread of the ideas of socialism, and weaken the liberative influence of the socialist countries on the nations of the world. This is the direction in which the imperialist mechanism of the so-called Eastern policy is now working. The strategy of this policy is one of long range, calculated, on the one hand, on splitting and sundering the socialist countries in order to deal with them piecemeal, on the other hand, on the gradual disintegration of the socialist system through changes in its constituent elements in each given country. In the realisation of their strategic plans the imperialists count first of all on the revisionist, nationalist and hostile class elements.
``In conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat," L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the C.G. C.P.S.U., pointed out, "the revisionists and opportunists are the vehicle of the pressure exerted by the non-proletarian, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois strata of the population, the pressure of habit, the pressure of views and survivals, nationalist sentiments inclusive, inherited from the past. Encouraged by the imperialists from abroad and playing up certain difficulties and contradictions of social development, the revisionists are active to influence the policy of the Communist Parties in power and to emasculate its class proletarian content. The 1956 events in Hungary and the 1968 events in Czechoslovakia have shown that the revisionists and opportunists are in fact preparing the ground and clearing the way for counter-revolution. That is why the struggle against revisionism and opportunism has been and continues to be an important task of the Communists.''^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ L. . I. Brezhnev, Leninskim kursom. Rechi i statyi (Following Lenin's Course), Vol. 2, Moscow, 1970, p. 477. (Russ. ed.)
205Speaking on the same subject, G. Husak, First Secretary of the C.G. of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, said: "We believe that our development will serve also as a lesson for the international communist and workers' movement, first of all as regards the harm caused by all kinds of opportunist and petty-bourgeois illusions, anarchistic and nationalistic tendencies, and how dangerous it is to underestimate the efforts of imperialism to disintegrate the socialist states from within and break the friendly ties between them. Not to fight against the anti-communist forces means giving them full scope.''^^*^^
Although the imperialists do not give up hope of restoring capitalism in the socialist countries their efforts are doomed to failure. Events have shown that if they did not succeed in doing this before, when the Soviet Union was the only land of socialism, still less chances do they have of achieving their end now. In this context I shall examine the two channels of a possible restoration of capitalism which the imperialists have tried to use against the U.S.S.R. and by which they are now trying to infiltrate into the socialist countries with the aim of overthrowing the political and socio-economic system existing there.
In speaking of the first channel, that of methods of military force to restore capitalism, this, in our view, is definitely ruled out. The imperialists themselves realise it only too well. In the early fifties, it will be remembered, they proclaimed the Dulles concept of ``containment'' and `` brinkmanship''. They tried out this concept in a number of proving grounds: in Korea, in the Hungarian putsch in 1956, then in Vietnam. Now the imperialists realise only too well that military provocations attempted with socialism are much too hazardous to their own existence. The U.S.S.R., as the bulwark of socialism, is not only well able to look after itself, but to act as a reliable shield for any other socialist country. Besides, every socialist country possesses sufficient means to enable it to stand up for socialism. Therefore, any kind of military interference by the imperialists in any socialist country is bound to meet with an organised rebuff to the enemy on the part of the whole socialist community of nations.
_-_-_^^*^^ From a speech by G. Husak at a meeting in the Congress Hall of the Kremlin. 1'ravda, October 28, 1969.
206As regards the second channel, that of safeguarding socialism against evolutionary degeneration, the solution of this problem depends wholly on the correctness of the political line taken by one or another ruling party. It should always be borne in mind that socialism is a young socioeconomic system in which the hallmarks of the old, bourgeois society still linger on. It would be naive to think that socialism will establish itself on its own, spontaneously, without the organising, guiding and directing role of the revolutionary vanguard---the Communist Party.
It is clear that the socialist countries are at different stages of development and in each of them quite different historical, economic, social and political conditions prevail. Needless to say, all these factors have to be reckoned with and taken into good account in running the country. Moreover, it is very important, as events themselves have shown, that the party's leadership of the masses should not run ahead or skip uncompleted stages, which would lead to loss of communication between the vanguard and the masses. No less dangerous for the cause are such phenomena as passivity, stagnation and immobility, which inevitably involve a loss of direction, loss of the party's vanguard role and its ties with the masses.
Consequently, given strict adherence to a Marxist-Leninist line, the evolutionary road of capitalist restoration in the countries of victorious socialism stands no real chance of succeeding. The question arises, what if the conductor's baton in one or another ruling party finds itself in the hands of opportunist, revisionist leaders? It goes without saying that the gains of socialism would be seriously jeopardised. Even so, this would not mean that the restoration of capitalism was a foregone conclusion. We are convinced that no socialist country can be switched offhand to capitalist rails, as this would immediately call into action counter forces. Faced with the prospect of losing their socialist gains the healthy forces of the party and the community are bound to come out in defence of socialism. And as a last alternative the political struggle could develop into a victorious civil war against the enemies of socialism.
Socialism is a complexus of diverse gains. It is characterised by basic features common to all socialist countries. These are a workers' and peasants' rule, social ownership of the means of production, socialist principles of distribution 207 of material benefits, socialist democracy, the prevalence of a socialist ideology and so on. Let us assume that by reason of some mistakes or inaccuracies damage is done to one of the constitutive elements of socialism. Does that mean that the whole structure is doomed? Of course not. It is affected, its development is retarded, but socialism's "safety factor", its reserves of strength among the masses, are ample enough to withstand temporary trials and set the cause of socialism back again on secure rails.
At the same time it is important for every socialist country that no single element in the complexus of socialism should be disturbed or allowed to fall out. We must know the strategy of the imperialists, who are compelled to reckon with the new conditions of alignment of class forces and refrain from attempts to directly overthrow socialism. Therefore, in their extremist actions they aim at gradually eroding one of its supports after another by underhand means, by way of "creeping counter-revolution". This is distinctly traceable in the case of the events in Czechoslovakia. If the former leadership of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia had discovered in time and properly rebuffed the adroit strategy of imperialism the events which caused such grievous consequences might never have taken place. "The attempts of external and internal reaction to weaken the positions of socialism and to shatter the socialist community can only be given one answer: greater cohesion of the fraternal countries on the basis of socialist internationalism, mutual assistance in the struggle against imperialism's intrigues, for strengthening the socialist system.''^^*^^
And so the events of the last few years have clearly shown that imperialism is by no means a "paper tiger", but a powerful, extremely well-organised, experienced and cruel adversary. In fighting it the most subtle and flexible means and methods must be used. Most important of all, we must always be on the alert, always keep our powder dry, be vigilant and not weaken our fundamental positions an inch. To fight for the consolidation of socialism is to fight determinedly, fearlessly and consistently against both anti-- communism and revisionism.
_-_-_^^*^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Leninskim kursom. Rechi i statyi (Following Lenin's Course), Vol. 2, Moscow, 1970, p. 477.
208 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. THE END OF CAPITALISM AND THEMarxism 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.
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.
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.
Consequently, to replace one socio-economic system by another we need not only the objective material conditions, __PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14-1214 209 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.
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.
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 210 socioeconomic and moral-political development cuts across all fluctuations in a downward, not upward, line.
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.
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?
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.
__PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211In 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.
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.
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 212 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.
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.
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.
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 213 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.''
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.
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?
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''.
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 214 international unity among the nations under the banner of peace, democracy and socialism.
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.
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.''^^*^^ 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.''^^**^^
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.
Nevertheless, the objective laws of history are inexorable. Marx said that the mole of history burrows well. No matter _-_-_
^^*^^ Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, August 12, 1871.
^^**^^ La Premiere Internationale. "Recueil de documents public sous la direction de Jacques Freymond, t. II, Geneve, 1962, p. 202.
215 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.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.
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 216 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^^*^^; it engenders illusions _-_-_
^^*^^ For example, Kurt Mauel, the West-German technicist, believes that "the menace of social revolution can be averted only through social development, which is now taking place and towards which we must strive. In this evolutionary movement technology will play an important part". (K. Mauel, Technik steht nicht isoliert.---"VDI-- Nachrichtcn", 1969. No. 22, S. IS.)
217 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''.^^*^^ Socialism is the key to the deliverance of civilisation, to the gateway of a new, happier future for mankind. _-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 402.
[218] __ALPHA_LVL1__ V. THE REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCERevolution, to use a figure of speech of Marx's, is the locomotive of history. For the bourgeoisie this historical locomotive was the Great French Revolution of the late eighteenth century. In its wake came bourgeois revolutions in many countries of Western Europe. The whole nineteenth century could be said to have brought great successes for capitalism. The bourgeois revolutions, which swept feudalism from their path, established the domination of capitalism and at the same time prepared its downfall.
A feature of all bourgeois revolutions is that they were superstructural revolutions of a pronounced, political tendency. The fact of the matter is that capitalist relationships had come to full maturation within the womb of feudalism and the capitalist mode of production had taken shape. The only thing needed here was to bring the political superstructure into line with the economic basis. No wonder therefore that these revolutions were consummated by the seizure of political power by the bourgeoisie. This circumstance is the basic reason why these revolutions do not lead to drastic breakups, radical reforms. They terminated merely in the domination of one class being superseded by that of another class---the feudalists by the bourgeoisie, the substitution of one political superstructure for another. Together with this is revealed the secret of why the bourgeoisie after the seizure of power turns its back on the people, seeks contact with the old ruling classes---the princes, landowners and nobles---and forms with them a united bloc against the forces which were the real mainsprings of the revolution, namely, the popular masses.
The key issue in bourgeois revolutions is to make good the private capitalist ownership of the instruments and means of production and bring into line with this all the 219 socio-political institutions of the bourgeois state. On this question the bourgeoisie makes no compromises or concessions. Here it is prepared to use fire and sword against those who attempt to encroach upon that holy of holies--- private property. On coming to power the bourgeoisie immediately sets up an extensive state, military and police apparatus, raises an army and a whole system of political forces designed to safeguard its property. Its motto is "private property is sacred and inviolable". The bourgeoisie immediately introduces new levers to safeguard its rule, the essence of which is the dictatorship of a single class. It refuses to share power with anybody and turns the political superstructure against the people, i.e., against the forces that brought it to power.
But in addition to the state and military-police apparatus the bourgeoisie evolves its class ideology---a spiritual instrument for enslaving and duping the working people. This ideology was first formulated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man proclaimed by the Great French Bourgeois Revolution of the late eighteenth century. The watchwords of this Declaration were Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. By using these noble watchwords for mercenary motives, bourgeois ideologues are to this day sowing grave and damaging dissension in the labour movement. The proletariat trod a long path of struggle before it got to the core of these mottoes and realised that in the context of bourgeois domination they were its shackles.
The bourgeoisie cleverly veils its dictatorship, its rule of violence in a mist of words, such as democracy, popularism. It is not above playing at democracy, at parliament, where workers and peasants, as a rule, are not represented, but where honeyed speeches can be heard about liberty, equality and fraternity, etc. What is more, the bourgeoisie is nothing loth to proclaim such a motto as popular government, a popular set-up, etc. But all this is backed up by a powerful administrative and military machine for suppression of the slightest attempts at action on the part of the working people, first and foremost of the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie does not content itself with domination only within the country where it had come to power. It immediately enters into contact with other states and together with the bourgeoisie of these countries forms a united bloc to recarve the world and establish its sway over 220 all continents, over all nations. In the words of Marx, the bourgeoisie everywhere is remaking the world in its own image. But in spite of itself the bourgeoisie in every country is preparing the beneficent soil for its own destruction. A new class is taking the political stage, a class to which the bourgeoisie itself gave birth---the proletariat. It is a class which, on the one hand, is being thoroughly schooled by the bourgeoisie itself in ways of dealing with its class enemy, and, on the other, is being trained by the new social conditions of its life, passing through a serious school of factory training and class struggle and is gradually becoming aware of its own gigantic political and social strength.
At first this ``infant'' acts timidly, uncoordinatedly, unorganisedly, uncertainly. But in the course of social development it reaches manhood and finds its own feet. First of all it shapes itself as a class, forming its own organisations. At first the proletariat unites in trade unions, co-operatives, insurance societies and so on, and then acquires such a powerful force as a class revolutionary party. With the creation of its political party the proletariat completes its class formation. From being a class "in itself" it becomes a class for itself and takes the field as a formidable force, ready to challenge the bourgeoisie to single combat. The first serious blow at capitalism was struck by the heroic French working class when it set up the Paris Commune--- the prototype of the future proletarian state.
For the world proletariat and working classes the locomotive of history was the Great October Socialist Revolution, which started the real, truly universal history of the working classes and the oppressed peoples. A characteristic feature of the socialist revolution is that it is headed by the proletariat, with the peasantry and the broad mass of the working population acting as its allies. The key issue of that revolution, as of the bourgeois revolution, is the seizure of power. But these cannot be equated. The fundamental difference between them is that 'the proletarian revolution does not end with the seizure of power, but merely marks the beginning of its further development in breadth and depth.
The proletarian revolution is a profound process calculated for a long period of time and designed to radically change the old world and carry out profound 221 socioeconomic reforms. The proletariat takes over power not in order to perpetuate its political rule, but in order to transform private ownership of the instruments and means of production into social, public ownership and inculcate its humane, truly humanistic ideology---the communist ideology---upon all sections of the population, to make it the dominant ideology, and the working people the masters of their destinies. Therefore there is a distinction not only in the character and tendency of the revolutions themselves, but an important distinction in the nature of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The main thing in the dictatorship of the proletariat is not violence, not suppression, the way the enemies of Marxism try to make out, but the establishment of genuine Democracy---government by the people---the. organisation of a political and social system in which the true message of the proletarian mottoes, formerly stolen by the bourgeoisie---Liberty, Equality and Fraternity---would be restored. These mottoes are the real expression of the ideology and hopes of the proletariat. But it does not give effect to these mottoes all at once. It is obliged first to deal with the counter-revolutionary forces of all stripes and to devise new forms of state, political, economic, ideological and other forms of administration. The dictatorship of the proletariat is faced with the task of securing, by means of profound economic reforms, the liquidation not only of the exploiter classes, but of the causes that give rise to these classes. Herein lies the essential difference between the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution, between the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In citing Marx about revolution being the locomotive of history Lenin applied this definition wholly to the socialist revolution. His call was brief: to accelerate the revolutionary locomotive and keep it on socialist rails. Naturally, every locomotive requires not only reliable rails but a good engine-driver. Such an engine-driver is to be found in the person of the Leninist Party. It had theoretically to chart the route and practically to lay the rails for the locomotive's movement, since neither the route nor the rails had ever been laid before. Our Party not only speeded up the locomotive of history but kept it securely on its 222 socialist rails. It successfully steered the locomotive over steep and difficult gradients, through sharp bends, slopes and descents and has now placed it firmly upon the rails of communism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE REVOLUTIONARY LOCOMOTIVE OF HISTORYFor nearly a quarter of a century after the victory of the October Revolution our country was in the position of a besieged fortress, constantly subject to a political, economic and military blockade. The imperialists more than once raised their hand against the land of socialism. It was attacked not only from without, but by the class enemies from within. The difficulty was that the class enemies, both internal and external, were inspired by the splitting activities of the Trotskyists, the Right opportunists and the various brands of bourgeois nationalists. Our people and the Party, true to Leninism, succeeded in repelling these furious attacks of the enemy.
The Soviet Republic's international position from the very beginning of its inception was an extremely difficult one. The capitalist states could not reconcile themselves to the existence of this one and only socialist country and did their utmost to strangle it at birth. Seeing the country in the throes of appalling economic chaos, they entertained great hopes that the Soviet Republic would be unable to recover its feet and would die a natural death beneath the weight of those tremendous internal difficulties it had had to cope with after two disastrous wars. These hopes were expressed outspokenly by that ``famous'' ideologue of the Russian bourgeoisie Ustryalov, who said that "the great Russian revolution will take its place in the national pantheon which history has prepared for it''.
The Party never for a moment forgot Lenin's warning as to the deadly danger of capitalist encirclement and the need for speeding up economic development. Fate willed that it use the respite to its utmost limits in order to raise the country's economic potential. Now that Russia had built for itself the world's most advanced political system, the problem of its economic resurgence bulked large. Already on the eve of the October Revolution Lenin had 223 written: ". . .either perish or overtake and outstrip the advanced countries economically as well. . . . Perish or forge full steam ahead. That is the alternative put by history.''^^*^^ One can just imagine stupendous efforts the Party had to make to surmount the obstacles and difficulties in the path of its socialist economic policy.
For one thing, the extreme backwardness inherited from the old bourgeois-landowner regime had to be overcome without delay. The Communists remembered Lenin's precept only too well. They knew that unless we rapidly overcame our economic and technical backwardness we would be crushed by the imperialist forces. The intense desire to break free of this backwardness dictated the need for making sacrifices and enduring hardships in order to ensure a high rate of construction of socialism---that most advanced of social systems. Consequently, the first difficulty was to overcome Russia's age-old backwardness in a brief space of time. Upon this depended the fate of our revolution.
Secondly, another thing to be overcome was the deadly menace of a hostile capitalist encirclement if the country was not to fall into economic and political dependence on the capitalist world and lose its national and state independence. Consequently, the second difficulty consisted in effecting an economic resurgence through the country's own efforts and resources, and building up the necessary types of armament to defend the Soviet state. For this it was necessary to consolidate the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, strengthen the unity of the Party and concentrate all efforts on raising the industrial might of the Soviet Union and using the peaceful breathing-space for building socialism.
Thirdly, a correct line had to be determined for the building-up of a new socialist economy. History knew of no such precedent. We were the first to have to blaze the path to socialism, to move towards this goal by unexplored and unbeaten tracks. Consequently, the third difficulty consisted in the working-out of new forms and methods of socialist management, the accelerated training of engineering personnel from among the workers and peasants, the proper use of the sources of internal socialist _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 364.
224 accumulation for the construction of heavy industry, the organisation of large-scale socialist farming and the carrying-out of wide-scale cultural reforms.Our contemporaries could well peer into this not-- sodistant past in order to realise the full measure of the heroic deeds that fell to the lot of our admirable predecessors headed by Lenin. In undertaking the socialist revolution the Communist Party foresaw that the capitalists and landowners would not give up the power peacefully and that a long grim struggle was inevitable. In fact the struggle was a long and extremely bitter one. Before the working classes could taste the fruits of their victory a civil war broke out, which turned the young Soviet Republic into a beleaguered fortress. This war was forced upon it by the internal counter-revolution and its inspirers---the reactionary forces of the imperialist states.
The civil war disastrously affected all aspects of the people's life. To hold out and win in the war against the internal and external counter-revolution demanded a tremendous exertion of all forces and a whole system of emergency measures of an economic and political nature. The Party believed that the only possible way out under the existing circumstances was to introduce the policy of War Communism. Lenin said that the Soviet Republic was blockaded and besieged on all sides, and therefore "we could not afford to hesitate in introducing War Communism, or daring to go to the most desperate extremes: to save the workers' and peasants' rule we had to suffer an existence of semi-starvation and worse than semi-- starvation, but to hold on at all costs, in spite of unprecedented ruin and the absence of economic intercourse''.^^*^^ War Communism, as a policy, was forced upon us by the war and ruin. "It was not, and could not be, a policy that corresponded to the economic tasks of the proletariat. It was a makeshift.''^^**^^
At the beginning of the revolution Lenin had occasion to refute the allegations of the bourgeoisie concerning the destructiveness of the socialist revolution and its creative incapacity. Lenin said: "In every socialist revolution, however---and consequently in the socialist revolution in _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 351.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 343.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---1214 225 Russia which we began on October 25, 1917---the principal task of the proletariat, and of the poor peasants which it leads, is the positive or constructive work of setting up an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organisational relationships extending to the planned production and distribution of the goods required for the existence of tens of millions of people.''^^*^^The first results of the profound socio-economic reforms carried out by the socialist revolution were summed up by Lenin in his historic work The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government written between March and April 1918. Already at that time he had made out a case for the basic principles of the New Economic Policy (N.E.P.) in keeping with the transition from capitalism to socialism. The entire system of measures devised by him signified the gradual socialisation of production with the use of state capitalism under the control of the organs of Soviet authority.
This programme, however, did not even get off the ground. The breathing-space was so short that instead of state capitalism the Party was compelled to introduce War Communism and carry out the political and economic measures it called for. The whole of industry, large and small, was put under the centralised control of the Soviet government and geared to the needs of the country's defence; the Party introduced a monopoly on the trade in breadstuffs and banned private trade; it registered all food resources in agriculture; it introduced the surplus-appropriation system and labour conscription; it centralised the management of all links of the national economy. Only the adoption of extreme revolutionary measures saved the young Soviet Republic from destruction.
Our Party possesses the admirable skill of Leninist revolutionary leadership of the masses, a knowledge of the laws of social development and a knack of scientific prevision. These inestimable qualities always enabled it to find the right bearings, to accurately determine the alignment of class forces, to ensure mobilisation of the masses and make sharp turns at historical stages of the revolutionary struggle. To go forward one must know the goal of the movement, but to achieve this goal in practice requires inflexible assurance and dedicated struggle. An example of _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 241.
226 outstanding revolutionary performance is the Party's transition from the policy of War Communism to the New Economic Policy, which was proclaimed by the Tenth Congress of the Party in 1921. This Congress marked a turning point in all spheres of life of the young Soviet state.The classics of Marxism-Leninism theoretically demonstrated the inevitability of a transition period from capitalism to socialism for the countries which had made a socialist revolution, a period during which the proletariat, under the leadership of the Communist Party, would have to effect the necessary socio-economic reforms and build the socialist society. The Leninist principles of the N.E.P. were fully in keeping with the spirit and character of this transition period.
In the present instance these principles accorded with the vital facts which confronted the young socialist republic. Life demanded of the Party that it drastically change its economic policy in order to remove without delay the obstacles that hindered the development of the country's productive forces and the consolidation of the political and economic alliance between the working class and the mass of the peasantry. This alliance had to be given a purpose that fulfilled the conditions of peaceful construction. Consequently, the cardinal question of economic construction consisted in the establishment of such relationships between town and country as would enable the working class to properly discharge its historical mission---that of building socialism. Naturally, the peasantry could follow the lead of the proletariat only given a correct economic policy that fully met their economic demands. Under the prevailing conditions of appalling economic ruin, however, it was difficult to supply the peasant with all the products of industry he needed.
What was the alternative? The alternative, as the Party saw it, was, first, to restore freedom of trade, freedom for the small producer to carry on his business; secondly, to restore small-scale industry as a means of quickly rendering assistance to the peasant farmer and making his labour more productive. Particular emphasis was laid on the view that it was not the petty bourgeoisie or petty capital that had to be feared, but the danger of this state of need and dearth of products lasting too long, and this was likely to __PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 227 drain the strength of the proletariat, make it impossible for it to withstand the pressure of petty-bourgeois vacillations.
An extremely contradictory situation was created, which Lenin likened to a vicious circle. To make safe the alliance between the working class and the peasantry and build up large-scale state-owned industry, which alone would help the country on its way to socialism, it was necessary first of all to improve the condition of peasant farming and small-scale industry. But this involved opening the doors to some extent to capitalism. What way out was there? Reviving capitalism, Lenin pointed out, had to be directed into the channel of state capitalism.
The only possible and reasonable policy, he said, was not to attempt to ban or cork up the growth of capitalism, but to try to direct it into the channel of state capitalism. "The whole problem---in theoretical and practical terms--- is to find the correct methods of directing the development of capitalism (which is to some extent and for some time inevitable) into the channels of state capitalism, and to determine how we are to hedge it about with conditions to ensure its transformation into socialism in the near future.''^^*^^
The adoption of the New Economic Policy was first of all an economic concession to the petty peasant producer for whom it was to provide an incentive. Only by means of such a policy was it possible "to build solid gangways to socialism by way of state capitalism''.^^**^^ Thus, the basic aims of the Communist Party's New Economic Policy were to build a new, socialist economy together with the peasantry, to strengthen the ties of trade and industry between town and country and develop a system of commodity circulation.
__FIX__ Remove underlining from last line above ... footnote line.In allowing freedom of trade and market relations and encouraging private business initiative the Communist Party knew very well that these measures were bound to lead to a revival of capitalist elements and the rise of the Nepman---the new ``Soviet'' bourgeoisie. The N.E.P. was meant to serve and actually did serve as a basis for unprecedented competition between two forces and tendencies---the capitalistic and the socialistic. The question "who will win?" became a life-and-death issue that faced the Party in all its magnitude.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 345.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 59.
228On the one hand, the capitalist elements, taking advantage of all the privileges arising from the New Economic Policy, plunged into trade, made a scramble for the market in order to penetrate through it into industry, seize commanding heights in the national economy and overpower the socialist structure. On the other hand, the socialist state, holding the commanding heights in the national economy, confronted the capitalist elements with all the power of its revolutionary forces and barred the way to the restoration of their economic domination.
Controlling the major economic levers of state regulation and the economic and co-operative organisations, the socialist state was to weaken the capitalist elements by taking possession of the entire system of commodity circulation and directing it into a channel that would enable it to strengthen the trade and industrial ties between town and country and revive big industry, thereby creating a powerful economic base for socialism. Nevertheless, although the calculations as to the inevitable victory of the socialist elements over the capitalist were scientifically well-founded, the danger of the capitalist elements expanding and taking root was a real one.
Essentially it was a question as to who would be quickest to take advantage of this new situation, whose lead the peasantry would follow---that of the proletariat, who was out to build a socialist society, or that of the capitalist. The question at issue, Lenin said, was "who will take the lead. We must face this issue squarely---who will come out on top? Either the capitalists succeed in organising first---in which case they will drive out the Communists and that will be the end of it''.^^*^^ What forces was the Soviet government to lean on in this economic struggle? Lenin's answer to this question was: on the one hand, on the working class, who, with the development of industry, would steadily grow in numbers and strength, and, on the other, on the economic advance of the peasantry, on a sharp improvement of its material condition. These forces, given the existence of Soviet rule, were fully capable of curbing the power of capital.
Panicking in the face of difficulties, the Trotskyists, in chorus with the ``Left'' Communists, raised an hysterical cry _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 66.
229 about the erroneousness of the Party's New Economic Policy. They considered it a full class retreat and offered as an alternative solution the policy of War Communism, which had clearly outlived itself. These politicians, under a screen of ``Left'' phrases, advocated with one voice and lauded methods of state coercion, emphatically rejected the idea of an economic bond between town and country and denied the possibility of any alliance between the working class and the peasantry. This attitude of the Trotskyists and the ``Left'' Communists fully reflected their anti-Leninist views on the question of building socialism in one country. They did not believe in the inner forces of the Soviet state and denied the leading role of the working class and its capability of carrying the vast masses of the peasantry with it. The Communist Party rejected this anti-Marxist concept of the oppositionists and wholly adopted Lenin's policy of economic construction.At the new difficult stage of economic construction the Party's chief task was to use the revolutionary power of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist key positions in the national economy to gain control of the entire mechanism of economic, trade, banking and co-operative activities within a short space of time. To contrapose these powerful levers of state regulation to private capital, to learn business management and trade, and learn it better and more efficiently than the capitalist tradesman---such was the Party's main demand.
The strength of the Party leadership was to show itself in a knowledge of economics and business management. How prophetic Lenin's words sound to this day when he said that the necessary retreat in the sphere of economic policy which the Party then made pursued the clear aim of retreating in order to "link up with the peasant masses, with the rank-and-file working peasants, and begin to move forward immeasurably, infinitely more slowly than we expected, but in such a way that the entire mass will actually move forward with us. If we do that we shall in time progress much more quickly than we even dream of today''.^^*^^
The retreat, as we know, continued for a year and yielded palpable results. While pointing out that the object had been achieved, Lenin warned the Party against making too _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 271-72.
230 many concessions to capitalism, since excessive concessions to capitalist elements was a grave danger to the cause of socialist construction. On the basis of an economic and class analysis Lenin, at the llth Congress of the Party in 1922, proclaimed the watchword "stop the retreat". "For a year we have been retreating. On behalf of the Party we must now call a halt. The purpose pursued by the retreat has been achieved. This period is drawing, or has drawn, to a close. We now have a different objective, that of regrouping our forces.''^^*^^At the time Lenin formulated two extremely important tasks: first, to effect such a regrouping of class forces as would lead to the complete victory of the socialist structure over all other economic forms; second, to correctly time the moment for launching a decisive offensive of socialism against the capitalist elements, first and foremost against the last and most numerous of the exploiter classes---the kulaks. During the redeployment of class forces the Communist Party was to create the conditions and accumulate the necessary material and technical resources and organisational and political experience for mounting an offensive all along the line against the capitalist elements of town and country and crowning this offensive with the complete victory of the socialist structure throughout the national economy. The Party and the Soviet government, as we know, spent over seven years on redeployment of the class forces. Already during the second half of 1929 the victorious offensive of socialism against the capitalist elements was pressed home along the whole front.
In his last articles, which were a political testament for the Party, Lenin once again subjected the economic and class changes within the country to a profound analysis. But this time, two years after the introduction of N.E.P., these questions were examined by him from a different angle: not in the context of state capitalism, but in the context of the expansion and consolidation of socialist relations in the system of national economy. Lenin made out a case for the socialist method of industrialisation, showed the sources of accumulation, which differed essentially from those of capitalist states, revealed new objective tendencies in Soviet industrialisation and authenticated his _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 280.
231 famous co-operative plan---the plan for the socialist transformation of agriculture and for drawing the peasantry into the work of socialist construction.As a result of the tremendous efforts and stupendous creative work done by the Party and the people the Soviet Union made rapid strides along the road of economic and cultural revival. Step by step the Communist Party led the country towards the completion of the rehabilitative stage and created the conditions for developing socialist reconstruction in all branches of the national economy. The year 1925 was the decisive year of the restoration period, which saw a tremendous growth of the economy and its approach to the prewar level. As the Party's 14th Congress pointed out: "We thus have an economic offensive of the proletariat and the advance of the Soviet Union's economy towards socialism.''^^*^^
The 14th Congress of the Communist Party, which embarked on a policy of industrialisation, unanimously approved the plan of the Politbureau for developing fullscale construction of enterprises of the heavy industry. With the adoption of a policy of industrialisation our country completed the first phase of the New Economic Policy and started on the second. At the first stage the Party concentrated its attention on rehabilitating agriculture. Without this there could be no progress in the economy as a whole. At the second stage the Party was to give chief attention to building up big socialist industry, upon whose development now depended the construction of the socialist foundation for the national economy and the further development of all its branches, particularly the socialist reconstruction of agriculture.
The economic law of development of the socialist economy requires a balanced, integrated growth on planned lines for both industry and agriculture on a country-wide scale, otherwise it is impossible to establish a correct balance between the different branches of the economy, distribute and use the national income with greatest effect and ensure the burgeoning of the whole socialist economy. The need for creating an integrated economic base for _-_-_
^^*^^ KPSS v rezolyutsiyakh i reshenlyakh syezdov, konferentsii i plenumov TsK (C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and C.C. Plenary Meetings), Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 246. (Russ. ed.).
232 large-scale socialist production both in industry and agriculture arose objectively from the socio-economic conditions themselves.Thus, the process of regrouping of the class forces, which started after the Party's llth Congress, ended in the complete victory of the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. Backed by the might of this alliance and by the increased weight of the socialist elements in the system of the national economy, the Communist Party was able to organise the powerful forces of socialism and launch its offensive all along the line. This policy was proclaimed by the 16th Congress of the Party in 1930.
This most difficult period of struggle for the country's industrialisation, for the socialist reconstruction of peasant farming and the cultural revolution could truly be said to be one of the most vivid pages in the history of our Party and the Soviet state. This period was replete with the rich experience of the Party's theoretical and practical activities, with its unremitting efforts to preserve the ideological purity of its ranks and educate all Communists in the spirit of consecrated devotion to Marxism-Leninism. In stressing the special place which this period occupies in the history of the Soviet state, it is safe to say that our Party, guided by the precepts of Lenin, has acquitted itself of its tasks with honour. It has skilfully guided the Soviet people through all obstacles, difficulties and hardships and ensured the epoch-making victory of socialism. At the cost of unheardof privations the Party, step by step, solved the most difficult problem---that of internal accumulation for the construction of heavy industry, for building up large-scale socialist agriculture and carrying through a cultural revolution.
It was a hard time, a very hard time indeed for our country, the only socialist country in the world, surrounded as it was on all sides and constantly bombarded by the class enemies. This heroic deed of the Soviet people will be inscribed in letters of gold in the annals of the human race. No single socialist state has had to endure such trials, no single nation has had to perform such an exploit, verging on self-sacrifice, as our people. Yet the Soviet people unflinchingly made these sacrifices, knowing that unless it withstood this ordeal the great cause of the revolution might come to naught.
233How good it is to realise that the great honour of performing the "Bolshevik miracle" fell to the lot of our Party and the whole Soviet people. In terms of living reality this means that as a result of their dedicated struggle and work our Party and the Soviet people have created a first-class heavy industry and large-scale socialist agriculture and accomplished a cultural revolution of unprecedented scope and depth. The country's age-old economic, industrial and cultural backwardness was liquidated and the economic foundation of socialism was laid, followed by the edifice of socialism itself. With the victory of socialism in the U.S.S.R. the New Economic Policy was played out. It can truly be said that the Bolsheviks are the Prometheans of our epoch, who have lighted the torch of socialism in Russia and illumined the path into the future for all the nations of the Earth.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. THE SOCIALIST AMITY OF WORKERSA decisive condition for the winning and consolidation of revolutionary power by the proletariat and for the construction of socialism and communism is the alliance between the working class and the peasant masses in which the former, headed by its vanguard---the Communist Party--- plays the leading role. Only by leaning on this alliance, by organising and rallying behind it the bulk of the peasantry can the working class carry out its worldwide mission as liberator from the yoke of capital, not only of itself---the working class---but of the peasantry and the whole of humanity. Today this scientific Marxist postulate is not just an abstract theoretical doctrine; it has been tested by time, confirmed by the entire course of historical development of the international labour movement, by the vast experience of revolutionary practice in our country and by the new experience of great social reforms in other socialist countries.
Lenin often pointed out that there were no major differences between the interests of the working class and those of the peasantry, that "socialism is fully able to meet the interests of both. Only socialism can meet their interests''.^^*^^ _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 333.
234 This thesis of Lenin's has been confirmed by events. It can be said with good reason that the strength of Lenin's ideas is exemplified in the fact that the Soviet peasantry has firmly taken its stand for all time beneath the socialist banner of the working class. Under this all-conquering banner it is now marching in the serried ranks of our country's builders of communism.The socialist system in the U.S.S.R. not only gave rise to new objective laws governing the country's economy, but for the first time created a solid basis for the complete elimination of the major distinctions between the working class and the peasant class. To grasp this historical process more fully, let us refer to Lenin's article "The Great Beginning" which contains a wealth of rich ideas having a direct bearing on the socialist stage of social development. He wrote: "And what does the 'abolition of classes' mean? All those who call themselves Socialists recognise this as the ultimate goal of socialism, but by no means all give thought to its significance. Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it.''^^*^^
If we assess the position of the working class and the kolkhoz peasantry from the point of view of Lenin's definition of classes, we shall have no difficulty in seeing that with the victory of socialism in our country the major distinctions between these classes have disappeared. They have become quite different. The alliance between the working class and the peasantry has become essentially different too. The most important result is that the kolkhoz peasantry, in social status, has drawn nearer to the working class, and the two have become homogeneous socialist classes.
First, with the development and consolidation of the socialist system of economy the major distinctions between the working class and the peasantry which existed in the past have been eliminated as regards their place in an historically determined system of social production. The _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 421.
235 working class, as we know, was involved before the revolution as well in large-scale social production, which had already attained a high degree of concentration and centralisation. In this production the working class of Russia formed and took shape as an advanced revolutionary class, which took the lead of the emancipation movement of all the country's working people. After the October Revolution the Soviet working class became not only a free working member of this large-scale social production, but its sole master.The peasants, unlike the workers, abided for a long time within the framework of the old system of small commodity production even under the Soviets. They were petty proprietors carrying on small private enterprise. Not until after the victory of the collective-farm system did the Soviet peasant begin to hold basically the same place in the system of social production as the worker, when, like the worker, he became employed in socialist enterprises within the framework of the socialist organisation of social production. Naturally, distinctions still exist between these classes, but they are not fundamental, they are of secondary importance.
Second, as a result of socialist reforms within the country a second major distinction between the working class and the peasantry---their relation to the means of production--- was eliminated. Marxism-Leninism proved that private property in the instruments and means of production is the paramount cause of society's division into classes, the basis of exploitation of man by man and of the class struggle. With the abolition of private ownership of the means of production not only is the material foundation for the exploitation of the classes destroyed, but the position of the working classes themselves---the workers and peasants---• changes fundamentally. Engels wrote: "The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property,
``But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat...."^^*^^
In the Soviet Union the working class has long ceased to be a proletariat in the old sense of the word. It has become the leading class. Under its leadership fundamental changes have taken place in the position of the peasantry. As a result of industrialisation and collectivisation this class _-_-_
^^*^^ F. Engels, Anti-Duhring, Moscow, 1969, p. 332.
236 of once petty proprietors became a new, socialist class based on social means of production. Common to both classes is the absence of private ownership of the instruments and means of production, which, before the collectivisation of agriculture, formed the main distinction between the working class and the peasantry. Both worker and peasant began to work with the aid of instruments and means of production which were social socialist property. Obviously, here too certain distinctions remain between these classes, but they are no longer fundamental.Third, in the process of socialist construction a third fundamental distinction that formerly existed between the working class and the peasantry, namely, their roles in the social organisation of labour, was obliterated. A remarkable achievement was that, on the basis of the socialist system of economy, radical changes took place in the views and attitudes towards social labour on the part of both the working class and especially of the peasantry, who are well aware that they are working, not for the capitalists and landowners, but for themselves, for their socialist state, which watches over the interests of its people. It can be said without exaggeration that such new, genuinely socialist forms of social organisation of labour as socialist emulation and shock-brigade work, and invention and rationalisation activities became a country-wide mass movement.
Herein lies the secret of the phenomenal progress the Soviet state has achieved on all the fronts of economic and cultural construction. But even here these two classes cannot be fully equated. In so far as the working class is involved in a more advanced mode of production engendering the most progressive forms of organisation of social labour, its role in developing new production relations is necessarily a leading one occupying forward positions in society. Therefore, the same thing happened here: only the major distinctions fell away, leaving nevertheless minor distinctions.
Fourth, there fell away the last fundamental distinction which had existed between the working class and the peasantry, namely, the method of deriving social wealth and its share in it. From the very beginning of Soviet rule the workers, as we know, received payment for their work out of the social socialist fund, out of the social socialist revenue derived from nationalised state industry and trade. This work payment is received by the working class in 237 accordance with the socialist principle, depending on the amount and quality of the work done.
The peasant, prior to collectivisation, was in quite a different position. At that time he stood outside the social system of economy. The peasant,, being a self-employed petty proprietor, had to draw his share of income from his own private farm. Now, when industry and agriculture form an integral socialist economy, the peasant, like the worker, started to receive his share of income out of the social socialist fund, out of the social socialist income. The main thing here is that the peasant, in principle, stands on an equal footing with the worker and has an equal right to his share of income from the social socialist economy. Although some minor distinctions between them still exist, the fundamental distinction disappeared.
In analysing these four aspects, which Lenin lists in his definition of classes, we can say that the U.S.S.R. had taken decisive steps towards abolishing classes and turning the Soviet people into working members of communist society. This means that socialism---the first phase of communism- • has been built in the Soviet Union. The Party's task now is to continue to improve the socialist mode of production, develop new relations of production and gradually, step by step, by slow degrees, switch them over to the rails of communism. The Party proceeds from the assumption that this profound and complicated process of transition to communist social relationships will form an entire historical epoch in the course of which such intricate problems will have to be dealt with as obliteration of the distinctions in the two forms of social property (kolkhoz-cooperative and state property) and their fusion into a single form of communist property belonging to all the people, and the complete elimination of the distinctions between the working class and the peasantry. Naturally, this will be a lengthy period of historical development and arbitrary acceleration of this process is inadmissible.
Beyond question, socialism has done away with the radical distinctions between the working class and the peasantry. But this does not mean that all distinctions between them have disappeared, that there is no longer any need for continuing to strengthen the alliance between the working class and the peasantry. The surviving distinctions, though not fundamental, still continue to exist. It would 238 be a great mistake, therefore, to ignore them or play them down, for in the final analysis the complete obliteration of these distinctions and contradictions largely depends on the creative activities of the working class and the peasantry, on the correct leadership of this alliance on the part of the Communist Party, on the correct assessment of the role of the socialist state.
Speaking of the surviving class distinctions between the working class and the peasantry it should be borne in mind that the source of these distinctions lies in the economic foundation of our society. It should be taken into consideration that our social system is based on two forms of socialist property---that of the state, of all the people, and the cooperative-kolkhoz form. From this basic feature there follow other features which still distinguish the working class from the peasantry. This circumstance is a very important one and should not be overlooked in any analysis of the socioeconomic development of our society. Obviously, the important thing is not what still distinguishes these two friendly classes, but what unites and welds them together in the common effort to build a communist society. Such a unifying force is not only our advanced socio-economic system, but the scientific world-view of Marxism-Leninism with which our Party and people are equipped.
The existence of two forms of socialist property is not something artificial, a contrived situation. These forms arose historically as a result of the development of our revolution and as an outcome of the joint struggle of the working class and the peasantry for socialism. Therefore, in directing the socialist construction and in consolidating the alliance between the working class and the peasantry the Communist Party takes into account the existence of these two forms of social property both as regards what they have and what they do not have in common.
State property, with all its commanding heights in the national economy, ever since the inception of the Soviet state has been the leading element of its development. It was on this material foundation that the land of socialism arose, grew and burgeoned. The factories, mills, mines, transport, the land and everything the working class expropriated from the bourgeoisie in the early period of powerseizure---all this belongs to the people, is the real property 239 of the people. This property, won by the working class headed by its vanguard---the Communist Party---is the motive force of the Soviet state. It is the property of the whole people, sacrosanct and inviolable.
Here the sole master is the state itself, which acts on behalf and in the interest of all the people, in the interest of the construction of communism. The Soviet state, acting on behalf of the working classes, is the sole owner of all material values, state enterprises, owner of their working capital and all other assets. The state, through its official bodies, maps out the plans and work programmes for each enterprise and these have to be strictly carried out as tasks set by the people. Clearly, this property, embracing as it does all the major links in the chain of the national economy, is the motive force, the decisive lever in the development of the whole national economy. It is obvious that the working class, who is directly associated with this property, will always be the leading social force in the country so long as the two forms of social property exist.
As regards cooperative-kolkhoz property, this too is socialist social property, but of a kind that differs substantially from state property. The two kinds of property are different, but they have a single quality in common, namely, their social socialist character. Cooperative-kolkhoz property is not identical with state property and represents a less developed form. This is due to historical as well as economic conditions of development. Cooperative-kolkhoz property took shape much later and did not become preponderant in agriculture until the period of the second five-year plan (1933-1937). Owing to this the production relations of our collective farms have not yet reached the level that exists in the state socialist enterprises.
Another circumstance to be borne in mind is that the development of production relations in industry had a prepared economic base in large-scale production, whereas in agriculture there preponderated a petty production base, and therefore a large production base had to be created here anew by uniting the small producers and expropriating the big capitalist producers. And it was only on the basis of the newly created large-scale socialist production that new, socialist production relations began to develop in agriculture. Naturally, survivals of the private-ownership, petty-bourgeois mentality still exist here and one of the 240 most important tasks fa-cing the Communist Party is to overcome these survivals.
The next distinguishing feature is that both the industrial enterprises and their output belong to the state, to the whole people. Not so the collective farms. Developing on the basis of state property belonging to all the people, the collective farms at the same time are sole owners of a number of means of production and all they produce. From this stems the difference both in the forms of organisation of labour and in the distribution of the products of social production.
The workers, as we know, receive wages from the state, whereas the collective farmers get paid for their labour according to the strength and resources of this or that collective farm. Furthermore, under the Collective Farm Rules each member of the farm has his personal plot and a stipulated number of farm animals which add to his income. Another important circumstance to be borne in mind is that both the collective farm and its members are sellers of their surpluses of produce, which they market and from which they derive a certain income. All this, of course, is in keeping with the nature and spirit of co-operative organisation among the peasants and acts as a stimulus towards strengthening cooperative-kolkhoz property.
Finally, mention should be made of another distinguishing feature consisting in the different forms of management. In the state enterprises one-man management is the rule, whereas on the farm there is collective management by a periodically elected board which is accountable to the general meeting of the collective farmers for the entire business activities of the farm.
Experience has shown that new production relations in the collective farms can develop successfully only with the help of socialist industry, only with the increasing guiding role of the working class and on a material and technical basis expanding year by year. This is of decisive importance for the growth of the productive forces and for improving production relations in the collective farms. It heightens the socialist character of collective-farm production and brings it nearer to the enterprises of an industrial type. The new Model Rules of the Collective Farm adopted at the Third Congress of Collective Farmers reflected the spectacular progress the peasantry had made and the great changes that had taken place in the life of the collective farms. The __PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16---1214 241 growth of agriculture's material and technical resources, the introduction of guaranteed cash pay and pensions for collective farmers, the development of the culture and welfare services and housing construction in the countryside---all this tends to speed up the process of obliteration of the distinctions between town and country and the class distinctions between workers and peasants.
These factors will become more effective and pervasive from year to year, making it possible to deal with such important problems of social development as the liquidation of the more important distinctions between town and country, between mental and manual labour, and complete elimination of all distinctions between the working class and the peasantry. Ultimately, this will make for such new qualitative changes in our society as will lead it to communism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. THE SOCIALIST SYSTEM PUT TO THE TESTDuring the years of the prewar five-year plans the socialist system became firmly established, grew into a powerful economic and moral-political force embodied in the Soviet state. However, nazi Germany's treacherous and predatory attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 interrupted the Soviet people's peaceful creative labours and arrested the onward motion of the socialist economy's productive forces. There started the Great Patriotic War against the reactionary forces of world imperialism headed by German fascism, from which our country emerged the victor.
It was a victory of the socialist system, of the indestructible alliance between the workers and peasants, of the moral and political unity of the Soviet people; it was the victory of the Communist Party's Leninist policy, which had ensured the success of the country's industrialisation and the collectivisation of agriculture. The successful application of this policy turned the Soviet Union into a mighty industrial and agricultural power capable of standing up to and defeating any aggressor who dared to assail the honour, liberty and independence of our socialist homeland.
This great life-affirming force of our socialist system, however, was not recognised and was even slighted not only by the nazi clique, but by all the reactionary forces of the 242 bourgeois world. Even before the war the reactionary bourgeois press described life in the Soviet Union in the most gloomy colours, denigrated the Soviet social system in every way and tried to prove the instability and weakness of its political and economic underpinnings. A special target of this vicious propaganda was the collective-farm system and the collective farmers. These were regarded as the weakest and most vulnerable links in the system of the Soviet socialist state. No wonder that from the very first days of the war many bourgeois troubadours maliciously prophesied the inevitable collapse of the Soviet state in the first two or three months or within half a year at the latest.
And so we see that before the war started world public opinion was incessantly being moulded by anti-Soviet propaganda. In attacking the Soviet Union Hitler was guided by the same motives that had been ground out day by day for many years by the machine of reactionary propaganda, by intelligence and diplomatic services and by all kinds of informants and informers. We now have quite a spate of literature on this score in the form of memoirs, diaries and documents. In this connection let us examine in brief outline some of the calculations which the leaders of fascist Germany banked on.
First, in attacking the Soviet Union Hitler was convinced of the weakness of the socialist system and its whole political and economic structure. He counted on the Soviet socialist state, in the first place the collective-farm system, collapsing like a house of cards at the very first strong military strike. Proceeding from this false assumption, the nazi clique were convinced that Soviet socialist society was a myth of communist idealism having no foundation in real life.
Second, in attacking the U.S.S.R. Hitler was convinced that the country's workers and peasants had long been looking forward to their liberation from the "Bolshevik shackles" and that a single military blow from without would make the workers and peasants rise up in arms against the Bolsheviks. While there may have been some doubts in these calculations as regards the working class, whose revolutionary traditions were sufficiently well known, there were no such doubts in regard to the peasantry of whose support and bread-and-salt welcome for the fascist ``liberators'' the nazis were quite assured.
Third, in planning his blitz victory over the U.S.S.R. __PRINTERS_P_243_COMMENT__ 16* 243 Hitler counted also on the weakness of the union of our multinational peoples. He viewed national relationships in our country with the eyes of an imperialist of the deepest dye. He believed it sufficient to intimidate, bribe and incite one nation against another to have the unity of Soviet nations collapse in an instant and the gates opened to him into the Ukraine, the Caucasus, Byelorussia, the Baltic republics, the Urals and Central Asia.
All these calculations proved to be fatal miscalculations which led to the ruin of the sinister plans built by Hitler and his clique. The Soviet state proved in fact to be not a myth, but a fortress of steel; instead of falling to pieces the Soviet socialist system stood firm in face of superior enemy forces. If the Soviet Union had only fascist Germany to deal with it would have defeated the nazis in a short space of time. But the U.S.S.R., as we know, had to face the joint forces of practically the whole of Europe, whose military and economic potential had been used to the full. Nevertheless, as was to be expected, the upper hand in this mortal combat was gained by the socialist system, by its superior economic might, by the insuperable moral and political unity of its people, by the impregnable fortress of the socialist state.
The nazi aggressors badly misreckoned in regard to the kolkhoz peasantry too. They were to experience on their own hide the full force of the peasants' wrath and burning hatred of the foreign enslavers. The kolkhoz peasantry, educated by the Communist Party, evinced the greatest patriotic devotion to their socialist country and fought the fascist hordes tooth and nail. If, during the Civil War, the working class had to persuade and urge the peasants on to fight the internal and external enemies, in the Patriotic War one would have had difficulty in distinguishing the heroic deeds of the workers from those of the peasants. A great role in the creation of this monolithic force belonged to the Communist Party, to our socialist social system, which sealed the indestructible alliance of the working class and the kolkhoz peasantry.
This was an outstanding feature of all the peoples of the Soviet Union. History knows of no such example of patriotism, international friendship and monolithic unity of all nationalities as that which the Soviet peoples demonstrated during the years of painful ordeal. And here too 244 the decisive role belongs to the strength and solidity of the socialist system, to the correct Leninist line of the Party's national policy. All this meant that our multinational state had been built on a sound socio-economic, political and ideological foundation and had been growing and developing: in the right direction.
Now let us examine the alignment of the embattled forces in the light of concrete facts. The Communist Party, of course, entertained no illusions of an easy struggle with a powerful and treacherous enemy. At the very outset of the war it told the people straight out the bitter truth about the deadly danger that hung over the country. It should not be forgotten that at the beginning of the war against the U.S.S.R. the whole of Europe with its economic and technical resources and manpower lay under the heel of fascist Germany. In addition to her own economy, which was fully geared to war, she exploited the productive forces of enslaved Western Europe. For example, fascist Germany had seized in France, Holland and Belgium about 8,800,000 tons of oil products and fully disposed of Rumania's oil fields which yielded 5,500,000 tons of oil products a year. In addition, Germany had seized in France all the latter's strategic stocks---42,000 tons of copper, 27,000 tons of zinc and 19,000 tons of lead.^^*^^
The occupied countries of Europe sharply increased the capacity of Germany's war industry. The munitions turned out by the Czechoslovak Skoda factories alone could keep from forty to forty-five German divisions supplied with all kinds of armaments. Germany had at her disposal the motorcar industry of Italy and other European countries capable of producing 600,000 vehicles a year. She had a vast amount of transport equipment and railway rolling stock. During the first two years of the war the fascists took out from France alone 5,000 railway engines and 250,000 cars. Rich stores of industrial raw materials and food supplies in occupied Europe fell into the hands of Germany and were used in the war against the Soviet Union. The value of the material resources seized by the nazis in the occupied European countries in 1941 amounted to 9,000 _-_-_
^^*^^ See N. Voznesensky, Voyennaya ekonomika SSSR v period Otechestvennoi voiny (The War Economy of the U.S.S.R. during the Patriotic War), Moscow, 1947, p. 171.
245 million pounds sterling, which was double the annual national income of Germany before the war. To this should be added the wide use which the fascists made of foreign manpower. They mobilised for their munitions works twelve million foreign workers, thereby releasing a vast army of their own workers for military service, for the formation of new divisions.Such was the military and economic might which the Soviet state was faced with. In addition to this, the wareconomy potential of the country was considerably weakened by the occupation of Soviet territories. Suffice it to say that the German-occupied Soviet territories contained about 40 per cent of the country's whole population, produced 63 per cent of the total prewar output of coal, 68 per cent of pig iron, 58 per cent of steel and 60 per cent of aluminium output. The temporarily occupied territories were important economic bases of agriculture, yielding as much as 38 per cent of the prewar output of grain and 84 per cent of all prewar output of sugar and having a livestock population amounting to 38 per cent of its cattle and 60 per cent of its pigs.^^*^^
Flushed with their temporary but nonetheless tangible success, Hitler and his imperialist clique were confident of the victorious outcome of the war in favour of Germany. But this too was a serious miscalculation revealing a complete forgetfulness of the specific features of the socialist system, a failure to understand that the Soviet state was not a walkover, not a field for fascists to ramble in, the way they did in capitalist Europe. Of course, our country's position was a very dangerous one, but by no means a hopeless one. The people had boundless faith in the mighty will and wisdom of the Party and were utterly devoted to the Leninist headquarters---the Central Committee of the Party.
In these extremely difficult conditions the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. made titanic efforts, which will ever serve as an example of unbending will, courage, Leninist wisdom and revolutionary strategic action. On August 16, 1941 the C.C. of the C.P.S.U.(B-) and the Soviet Government made an historic decision by endorsing a war-economy plan. This plan provided for the translocation of industry into the eastern districts of the U.S.S.R. and the organisation _-_-_
^^*^^ N. Voznesensky, op. cit, p. 42.
246 in these districts of munitions production for the needs of defence. This courageous, incredibly daring step testified to the wisdom and foresight of the Party and its confidence in the ultimate victory of the Soviet people over the enemy. There is no need here to go into the details of this plan, but that it was farsighted, thoroughgoing, bold and sagacious in the best Leninist tradition there is not the slightest doubt.In keeping with this war-economy plan over 1,360 big enterprises, most of them munitions works, were rebased in the eastern districts in the course of three months. Of this number 455 were redislocated in the Urals, 210 in Western Siberia and 250 in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Thus, in the course of three months ending 1941 a huge mass of industrial units were on wheels. Bv the end of the second half-year, however, the evacuated industry was put in operation and increased production from 3,100 million rubles in the first half-year to 5,100 million rubles in the second half-year of 1941. During the war years that followed socialist industry produced a volume of goods which was more than sufficient to cover the needs of defence and finally ensured victory over the enemy. Despite enormous losses, socialist industry quickly regained its feet. Already by 1944 the total industrial output in the Soviet Union's eastern districts rose 180 per cent compared with 1940, while that of the war enterprises increased 6.6 times.^^*^^ All this was achieved thanks to the viability of the Soviet Union's war economy based on the socialist mode of production.
The picture in socialist agriculture at the time was as follows. The evacuation of social property, first and foremost livestock, machines and grain stocks, into the interior passed off in a fairly organised manner and with a minimum of loss. Our collective farms and state farms were able in a short space of time to reorganise production in accordance with wartime demands and keep the front and the country at large regularly supplied with raw materials and foodstuffs. Despite the serious depletion of agriculture's material and technical resources and manpower, the land under cultivation in the unoccupied areas---the central region, the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia, Transcaucasia, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Soviet Far East and North---increased considerably.
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 41, 174.
247The highest rate of increase in grain crop cultivation took place in the Far East (30 per cent), and Central Asia (20 per cent). The acreage under cereals increased considerably in Siberia and Kazakhstan. Groats, especially millet, and industrial crops accounted for a sharply increased share of the sown area. For example, in 1942 compared with 1940 the area under industrial crops (oil-bearing crops and sugar beet) increased in the Far East by 37 per cent and in Siberia by 27 per cent. Vegetable crops went up sharply, showing an increase in 1942 over the prewar level of 44 per cent in Siberia, 37 per cent in the Urals, 30 per cent in the Far East and 32 per cent in Central Asia and Kazakhstan.^^*^^
The following figures illustrate the development of social livestock farming. The collective farms and state farms of the Soviet Union's eastern districts under the difficult conditions of wartime considerably increased the commercial livestock population: cattle rose from 11,400,000 at the beginning of 1941 to 12,500,000 at the beginning of 1943; sheep and goats, during the same period, from 28,100,000 to 34,200,000. The turning point in agriculture could be said to have been reached in 1944. With the liberation of enemy-occupied territory there was a perceptible increase in the resources of agriculture. By 1944 the country had received 1,100 million more poods of grain than in 1943. By the beginning of 1945 the animal population had grown considerably: cattle by 15,800,000, sheep and goats by 8,400,000 and pigs by 2,800,000. Although the prewar level in livestock had not been attained agricultural production on the whole increased as the liberation struggle of the Soviet Army gained momentum.
Having built up immense powers politically, morally and economically prior to the war the collective farms acquitted themselves of their tasks during the Great Patriotic War with flying colours. The world bourgeoisie and its servants weaved a web of lies around the collective farms and the Soviet peasantry, and the German fascists, as mentioned above, regarded the collective farms as the weak link in the Soviet state, and in attacking the Soviet Union they hoped to receive the support of this peasantry. All the hopes of the enemy were dashed.
The collective farms during the war acted as a powerful _-_-_
^^*^^ N. Voznesensky, op. cit., pp. 95-96.
248 political and economic force of the Soviet state, and the kolkhoz peasantry, educated by the Communist Party, demonstrated the greatest patriotic devotion to their country and were a formidable force which the fascist invaders had not reckoned with. During the war the kolkhoz peasantry took the lead in numerous patriotic undertakings. On the initiative of the Tambov collective farmers a fund collection movement was launched throughout the country for building tank columns and air squadrons. Farmers, men and women, purchased tanks, aircraft and weapons to equip whole military units out of their own money. Suffice it to say that during the four years of war the villagers, together with all other Soviet patriots, donated 94,500 million rubles towards the country's defence.Similar facts pointing to the peasantry's unfaltering devotion to their country and to the Soviet government, their selfless labour for the sake of securing a speedy victory over the hated enemy could be cited without end. History knows of no other such sweeping patriotic movement among the peasants as the one that embraced all the country's collective farms and the millions of its members, men and women, during the Great Patriotic War. They supplied the army and the country with food without any serious interruptions. Clearly, but for the selfless labour of the collective farmers we would not have been able to cope with this formidable task. The fact that all through the war our army experienced no shortage of food and the population was supplied with food and industry with raw materials is proof of the strength and viability of the kolkhoz system and of the patriotism of the peasantry.
The part played by the collective farms in helping to win the war emphasises the wisdom, sagacity and foresight of our Party, which pressed forward with its policy of industrialisation and collectivisation as the bedrock of our country's defensive power and its independence of the capitalist world. The kolkhoz system came out of the long and painful ordeal of the war with flying colours and proved itself an unconquerable force. The collective farms emerged from the war stronger than ever before morally and politically, although economically they were reduced to a very low state.
There now remains to be answered the question as to wherein lay the strength and indestructible might of the 249 Soviet socialist stale. It is clear to everyone that its economic foundation _ proved to be incomparably more secure than that of nazi Germany, whose economy had been considerably augmented at the expense of pillaged Europe. The explanation is to be sought in the nature of the socialist system, which was put to a crucial test during the grim years of the war. Here are some of the main factors to which we owe the brilliant victory of our socialist system.
First, the Soviet socialist system, brought into being by the October Socialist Revolution, is built on such a solid foundation as social ownership of the instruments and means of production. Upon this foundation there has arisen a socialist society, a socialist system of economy based on the laws of economic development. It was this that made it possible in the first place to mobilise all the resources of the national economy for inflicting a military defeat upon nazi Germany.
Second, the Soviet socialist system is grounded on a fruitful foundation _in which there is no room for the exploiter classes, and this made it possible to consolidate and unite the fraternal peoples, all the men and women of creative labour. On the basis of the liquidation of private property in the means of production and the elimination of the exploiter classes there arose the monolithic moral and political unity of all the Soviet peoples the likes of which the history of human society has never known.
Third, the socialist system cultivated a highly conscientious attitude towards work on the part of the workers, peasants and intellectuals, who performed feats of labour valour and self-sacrifice in defending the great gains won by the labour and heroism of past generations. It was this circumstance that united the soldiers at the front and the workers on the homefront in a single close union. It can truly be said that the land of socialism was converted into a great military camp, a united combat commune, capable of routing any enemy.
Fourth, a noteworthy feature of the socialist system was its technical and economic independence of the capitalist countries. Already before the war the Communist Party had seen to it that the world's only land of socialism was not only economically independent, but capable at a critical moment of gearing its entire economic might to the defence 250 of socialism and mustering all its moral and political strength to secure victory.
Fifth, the Party of Lenin performed a deathless deed in that it educated in the spirit of Lenin's ideas the millions of fighters who heroically bore aloft the invincible banner of their indomitable predecessors---the brave fighters for the cause of communism.
Severe trials fell to the lot of our people, who can rightfully be called a hero-people, a people of bogatyrs. At the same time it was propitiously fated to have in the person of the Leninist Communist Party a mighty insuperable power that led it courageously from victory to victory. The Party led our people through the flaming barrage of war, through the heroic flaming years of creative, constructive labour. That is why the Soviet people experienced not only the bitter of want, privations and adversity, but the sweet and joy of brilliant victories, the joy of creating a new beautiful world. It can rightfully be proud of its revolutionary, creative and fighting exploit.
In the difficult years following the war our people, under the leadership of the Party, performed miracles of heroism in labour. Vast expanses of the country lay in smouldering ruins. It seemed as if the gutted, vitrified earth would remain for years a lifeless desert. It can be said without exaggeration that no other social system could have survived such a test, and its economic and cultural recovery would have dragged on for decades. The Soviet people was able to restore its war-devastated economy in so short a time because it was deeply convinced of the righteousness of its cause. And as in its previous difficult hour, it made titanic efforts to lead the country out into the forefront of the world scene, to make it more beautiful and powerful than ever before.
Our socialist system made it possible to develop construction on such a scale as secured for the U.S.S.R. a rate of progress that amazed the world. Owing to the rapid advance of science and technology our country was first to use atomic power for peaceful purposes, first to probe the secrets of space, to place the country's economy on advanced scientific and technical foundations, to develop on a sweeping scale public education and culture, to train on an unheardof scale scientific, teaching, medical, engineering and other personnel for all branches of the national economy.
Leaning on the great gains which the Soviet people had 251 won, our Party was the first in the history of the international communist movement to tackle the task of building communism. The work of creating the material and technical basis of communism and the solution of ever new problems of communist construction reveal the great transformative role of Marxist-Leninist science by which our Party is invariably guided. The majestic meaning of Marxist-Leninist theory is that it provides a key to the remodelling, reorganisation of the world and steers the revolutionary locomotive of history in the right direction.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. THE LENINIST PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISTTo steadily improve and consistently develop the Leninist principles of socialist economic management is to strengthen and augment the power of socialism. In the practice of socialist construction our people have devised new methods of running the economy hitherto unknown to history and differing completely from the methods of capitalist management. Socialist methods of management did not arise by accident, by people's arbitrary choice. Their appearance and development were conditioned by society's social structure, by the operation of its economic laws. Lenin once said that "under the bourgeois system, business matters were managed by private owners and not by state agencies; but now, business matters are our common concern. These are the politics that interest us most''.^^*^^
What then is it that the revisionist theoreticians do not like in our methods of running the economy and against which they direct the main weight of their guns? It appears that what doesn't suit their taste is the Leninist principle of democratic centralism in the management of the economy. Pointing to the fact that the management of socialist production is concentrated in the hands of the Soviet state and that it plays the leading role in economic development, these pseudo-theoreticians talk themselves into the absurd conclusion that our system is "state capitalism''.
Talk about new times and old tunes! Leninists heard these tunes from the so-called Workers' Opposition, from
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 430.
252 the Trotskyists, and from other unfriends of Marxism-- Leninism. These tunes are so old that they came in for devastating criticism by the founders of scientific communism. During the most acute period of struggle against the petty-bourgeois anarchistic trends Engels stressed that after the social revolution would have overthrown the capitalists and the means of production would have become the collective property of the working class the role of large-scale production, the role of the state and the authority of its leaders would be enhanced. "Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry," Engels wrote, "is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself... .''^^*^^The principle of democratic centralism, which is the basic principle of socialist economic management, follows from the very nature of the Soviet system, of socialist economics. It stands for a combination of centralised, planned leadership of the economy on the part of the Soviet state and the initiative of the labour millions in town and country. In emphasising, during the early days of Soviet rule, the need for ensuring a balanced and integrated development of the economy, Lenin at the same time pointed out that "centralism, understood in a truly democratic sense, presupposes the possibility, created for the first time in history, of a full and unhampered development not only of specific local features, but also of local inventiveness, local initiative, of diverse ways, methods and means of progress to the common goal".''^^**^^
Life itself, practice and experience have confirmed with absolute accuracy the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist postulate to the effect that socialist social property requires integrated, balanced planning and the highest organisation of the entire economic machinery on a country-wide scale. Therefore, to deny the principle of democratic centralism under conditions of socialist management is to assist in implanting capitalist methods of business management, to turn one's back on the pressing needs of the working class.
In recent years the Party and the Government have taken a number of measures to perfect the methods of management of the economy and improve the business of planning _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 377.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 208.
253 and of providing material and moral incentives for social labour. These measures are reflected in the decisions of the 23rd and 24th Congresses of the Party and plenary meetings of the C.P.S.U.'s Central Committee and in the economic reform which is now being implemented. The Party's line in the sphere of economic management is aimed, not at destroying, undoing and discarding the experience that has been accumulated, but to use it to steadily and consistently develop, improve and refine the existing and time-tested principles, methods and forms of business management, bearing in mind that the building of communism's economic basis is a most difficult and most complicated job that will take a long time.In improving and perfecting the practice of state planning the Party strictly adheres to the Leninist line of democratic centralism. With the main economic levers kept in the hands of the state, it endeavours at the same time to give wider powers to the Union republics, to the ministries in charge of the various industries, and to the managers of enterprises, and to promote the greatest possible local initiative and creative activity of the masses. This it is that propels the economic machinery of socialism in the right direction and makes for a balanced, well-coordinated and highly effectual system of social production.
Obviously, control of such a complex economic machinery under conditions of gigantic development of the productive forces is possible only on a scientific basis and given available skilled and highly educated cadres. One of the complex problems of centralised planning of the socialist economy is that of maintaining a proper balance between the branches and spheres of the national economy and preventing any imbalance. Today, as in the past, this major task is kept constantly in the field of vision of the planning agencies and other state and Party bodies.
As a result of the consistent implementation of the Party's Leninist general line a powerful industry has been set up in our country and together with it there has grown up an army of skilled personnel---organisers, specialists and workers. At the present stage of development and given the existing powerful material and technical base, we are able, without any special increase of capital investments in new construction, to ensure a steady and considerable growth in production by making better use of productive capacities, 254 by a more rational organisation and the widest application of scientific achievements to the sphere of material production.
One important source of such economy is the wide, organised and systematic introduction of progressive experience, the better organisation of social labour and improved methods of management. In this respect a tremendous role is assigned to such vital links as scientific and technological production propaganda and information, which, in the system of scientific and technological progress, are the strongest and most effective levers. The Party's basic economic policy implies a correct understanding and practical implementation of the Leninist principle of material and moral incentives for every individual worker and for every industrial community at socialist enterprises in raising the productivity of labour and the yield of production.
To be sure, Marxist-Leninist science has advanced considerably both as regards knowledge of the objective economic laws of socialism and the evolvement of new principles, forms and methods of socialist management. Nevertheless, science still faces that most acute and cardinal problem of our day---the study, assimilation and theoretical generalisation of the vast experience of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. and all the socialist countries, the profound study of the objective laws of development both in each separate country that is building socialism and in the world socialist system as a whole. It should always be borne in mind that throughout the development of MarxismLeninism the bourgeoisie never gave up hope of being able, directly or through its agents in the labour movement, to emasculate Marxism of its creative, revolutionising essence, to replace or dilute it with all kinds of quasi-scientific, anarcho-syndicalistic and other petty-bourgeois views.
Bourgeois ideologues in our day are redoubling their efforts to insinuate capitalist methods of management into the socialist system by means of the famous concepts of convergence and pluralism. Under the mask of "different ways of building socialism" bourgeois apologists are trying to push socialist development from its Leninist path. Under these circumstances, the theoretical formulation of the question concerning the ways of building socialism and the transition from socialism to communism and the exposure of the various distortions of the Marxist-Leninist teaching in 255 the sphere of socialist management assume paramount importance. In this connection the need arises for examining, if only in brief outline, the so-called road of national communism, which is now being boosted as a challenge to the experience of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries.
What, then, does the concept of "national communism" consist in? The concept itself is no new discovery, but under the new conditions, that is, the conditions created by the world socialist system, it first appeared upon the scene in the early fifties. At first it was more advertised than argued. Then the phraseology gradually shaped itself into a doctrine of "national communism". Even this nebulous amalgam, however, failed to throw light on the matter, and it took years for this fanciful doctrine to be clarified. Today the idea of "national communism" has been deciphered as " selfgoverning socialism" based on "associations of producers". The ``new'' proved to be merely a rehash of the Lassallean anarcho-syndicalist idea of "labour self-government" or "industrial democracy''.
What emerged from this with full clarity was that in the so-called producers' associations a very old question had been touched upon to which an answer had long been given by the practice of socialist construction. The idea of moving towards the new social order by means of ``producers' associations" dates back to the Utopian socialists. They failed to see that the development of industry led to the creation of large-scale production and its replacement by a still bigger production, to concentration and centralisation.
Marxists-Leninists consider that in present-day conditions socialist social production can only be run on the scientific principles of democratic centralism and that only a socialist state, acting on behalf of the working classes, can cope with such a task. Therefore a vital function of the socialist state is that of business organiser. Lenin wrote that "the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan---such was the enormous organisational problem that rested on our shoulders''.^^*^^
It is quite obvious that an attempt to manage modern _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 90-91.
256 social production in a socialist country by means of " associations of producers" at separate factories and mills is out of the question. Such management would inevitably lead to loss of state scope and national perspective. Socialism without large-scale centralised industry representing the last word in science and technology, without centralised management on the part of the socialist state, is simply impracticable.The role of the socialist state in the management of social production cannot be disputed without renouncing socialism. Of course, if any state goes against the objective laws of development of the economy and uses its strength to fragmentise modern industry into "associations of producers", obviously nothing good can come of this for socialism. It is quite another thing if a socialist state is guided by science and experience; in such a case the building of a complete socialist system will really be achieved. Lenin has this to say on this score: "The building of communism undoubtedly requires the greatest possible and most strict centralisation of labour on a nation-wide scale, and this presumes overcoming the scattering and disunity of workers, by trades and locally, which was one of the sources of capital's strength and labour's weakness.''^^*^^
These words of Lenin contain another, very important, thought which needs to be specially underlined. The fragmentation and scattered condition of a single productive and economic mechanism inevitably disunites, weakens and disorganises the working class, while balanced centralisation combined with democratisation gives it unheard-of strength of organisation and cohesion and furthers the growth of its self-consciousness. Our Party strives to have every worker, every person in the socialist land, think in terms of the state at large, and act like a statesman who understands the interests of the working class and all the working people of the country as a whole. It can be said without exaggeration that in this respect we have achieved colossal successes and we are proud of them.
The experience of socialist construction has shown that if the state planning principle of the country's economy is weakened uncontrolled market conditions inevitably set in. And if the working class is broken up into "associations of _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 114. 17---1214
257 producers" and these associations inevitably become participants in the competitive struggle of an uncontrolled market, this will lead to the weakening of the working class and cultivate in the industrial community traits of narrowmindedness and exclusiveness. The working class thus fragmented into producers' associations begins to have other interests. Such is the inescapable consequence of renunciation of the leading role of the socialist state in the economic sphere. Experiments of this kind do not strengthen the leading role of the working class in the country's economic development, but weaken it.When we speak of the development of socialist democracy we do not by any means wish to offer it as an alternative to centralisation. In the conditions of socialist society drawing a line between centralism and democratism is meaningless. Democratic centralism is a tested Marxist-Leninist principle of economic management. Our Party during Lenin's lifetime irrevocably condemned the attacks of the Workers' Opposition against the principle of democratic centralism. The things those factionalists then said! Their platform stated: "Organisation of the management of the national economy belongs to the All-Russia congress of producers." They reviled the young Soviet state, declaring that bureaucratism (in modern parlance Etatism) will "corrode the Soviet bodies". In calling for ``producers' congresses", " industrial democracy" and ``workers' associations" the opposition talked themselves into accusing Lenin, who was opposed to Lassallean experiments, of "distrusting the working class". Really, looking today through the materials concerning the Workers' Opposition, one seems to be reading the articles of today's advocates of "labour self-government" and " producers' associations". I wonder, are these writers inspired in their fight against the Leninist principles of socialist management by the concepts of the ideologues of the Workers' Opposition?
Of course, these ideologues are free to be guided in their activities by any theories they like. It is their affair. But when these theories are handed up as the last word in socialism, as a model to be imitated, when these theories are used as a means to discredit the Soviet social and political system, then it is for us Soviet Communists to have our say about these theories from our Party standpoint. Yes, at one time our Party did have similar ideologues who 258 wanted the economy managed by means of so-called workers' associations and producers' congresses. Lenin strongly denounced this as being anarcho-syndicalism. We remain true to this severe assessment of Lenin's.
One discerns in the arguments of these ideologues a definite nationalist shading as well. The advocacy of national insularity and apartness, the contention that relationships between the socialist countries and their relations with capitalist states should be founded on absolutely similar ground is an anti-socialist attitude. All this explains why the bourgeois ideologues, who stake on "national communism", go all out to propagandise in the socialist community of nations and in the world communist movement the idea of a special road towards socialism.
True Communists, however, have their own road towards socialism, a road mapped out by Lenin's genius. He pointed out that every country liberated from capitalism has specific features of its own in the building of socialism which are determined by national and national-state distinctions. These made for distinctive traits in every country's development along the road to socialism as reflected in the pace, forms and methods of socialist construction. Undoubtedly, this enriches the theory and practice of the world communist movement and teaches Communists to make a profound assessment of the concrete conditions and possibilities existing in the given country. Our Party has a profound respect for all the fraternal Communist Parties, who, embodying as they do the wisdom of the working class, strive consistently to apply the common principles of communism based on both a deep understanding of those principles and on the concrete situation prevailing' in this or that country.
But the propagandists of the so-called special pluralist road to socialism are least of all concerned with the national and national-state distinctions of their country. They have something else in mind. They declare that they have discovered the latest variety of socialism, which is the opposite of Leninism, that they have pointed out a path allegedly suited to all countries and nations in the present epoch. Such claims cannot go unchallenged by true Marxists-Leninists. These claims are a result of erroneous theoretical constructions, which, undoubtedly, will be dispelled as time goes on by life itself, by the practice of socialist construction.
__PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* [259] __ALPHA_LVL1__ VI. MARXIST-LENINIST THEORYMarxism-Leninism combines high science with the revolutionary activity of the masses. And that is because it is, above all, the common world outlook of the most advanced and ascending class---the working class, which is called upon by history to eliminate the separation of theory from practice and practice from theory in the process of the revolutionary remodelling of the world. Expressing this striving, Marxism from the very start has come out not only as a scientific theory explaining the world, but as a life-evoking revolutionary practice by people aimed at its radical reform and reorganisation. "We see," wrote Marx, "that theoretical extremes can be resolved only in a practical way, only by man's practical energy, and that therefore their solution is by no means a question only of cognition, but a really vital problem, which philosophy has been unable to solve precisely because it sees it merely as a theoretical problem.''^^*^^
Theory, to become a force, must win the masses, while the masses, to become a force capable of revolutionary action, must master scientific theory. "Marxism differs from all other socialist theories," wrote Lenin, "in the remarkable way it combines complete scientific sobriety in the analysis of the objective state of affairs and the objective course of evolution with the most emphatic recognition of the importance of the revolutionary energy, revolutionary creative genius, and revolutionary initiative of the masses---and also, of course, of individuals, groups, organisations, and parties that are able to discover and achieve contact with one or another class.''^^**^^
Our Party's ideological arsenal is its most precious spiritual asset. The selfless struggle of the working class against _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Works, Vol. Ill, p. 628 (in Russian).
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 36.
260 the putrefactive forces and traditions of the old world and the unexplored paths of construction of a new, just society have been illumined by the unfading light of MarxistLeninist ideas. In the treasure-house of revolutionary theory the Party finds the answers to the intricate questions posed by history and life's modern processes, and derives assurance that it has chosen the right path in its comprehensive reconstructive activities. The strength of revolutionary theory lies in the fact that it enables the Party not only to take its bearings in a given situation and grasp the inner connection of surrounding events, but to foresee the course of events and reveal the general trend of their development in the present and the pattern of their development in the future. All this is inherent in our Party, of which it can confidently be said that it is not only scientifically aware of what it is doing, but is doing what it is scientifically aware of. It is this unity between theory and practice, between word and deed, that forms the most remarkable feature of our Party's life and struggle. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. ONLY A PARTY GUIDED BY ADVANCEDOur road to socialism was a hard and thorny one, but victory was assured because our Party strictly kept to Lenin's course and ably combined creative development of revolutionary theory with the militant practical activity of the masses. The Leninist torch of revolutionary theory lighted the Party's path in overcoming all kinds of obstacles of both an internal and external nature. And today it is burning as brightly as ever.
The history of the fight for the victory of socialism is rich with the experience of the Party's theoretical as well as practical activities, of its unremitting efforts to keep its ranks ideologically clean and to educate Communists and all the working people in the spirit of selfless devotion to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Of great importance was the ideological defeat of two of the most dangerous antiLeninist trends---Trotskyism and Right-wing opportunism. It should be brought home to the present generation that in this long and intense political struggle, during which the 261 fate of the world's first socialist state hung in the balance, our Party not only came off in the defence of Leninism with flying colours and carried out Lenin's behests, but advanced the elaboration of scientific theory still further.
Therefore, those who are attempting to strike off the record the tremendous theoretical activities of the Party and its scientific cadres during the post-Lenin period, and to present this period as one of dead-end dogmatism, are absolutely wide of the mark. To allege this is to fly in the face of the ineluctable facts of historical reality, to be so blind as not to see the wood for the trees. We can say with full justice that Marxist-Leninist social thought has never been in a state of stagnancy, and in everything that has been won and gained in the great construction of socialism a place of honour belongs to social science, to our theoretical cadres.
Attention first of all should be drawn to the solution of such a complex problem of state significance as the longterm planning of the national economy. As you know, the first long-term plan of economic development was the GOELRO plan of electrification drafted under the guidance of Lenin. The planning of all branches of the national economy and culture for several years ahead, however, required a long period of preparation. The Party was not able to tackle this problem until the tenth year of Soviet rule, when it started with the first five-year plan. The drafting of this plan involved great difficulties not only because it was a new untrodden ground, but because there were elements within the Party who obstructed the drafting and adoption of this plan. As a matter of fact, attitudes towards the drafting of the five-year plan were extremely mixed, ranging from fumbling indecision to open opposition on the part of Left-adventurist and Right-opportunist elements.
The Party's theoretical cadres helped it solve on a scientific basis such major problems as the sources and methods of socialist accumulation, priorities and pace of construction, proper proportions and the leading role of heavy industry. The tremendous historical significance of the first five-year plan consists not only in that it brought about profound socio-economic changes in our country, but in that it paved the way to a scientific framing of the principles of socialist planning. It can therefore safely be said that both the first 262 and subsequent five-year plans contributed to the tremendous creative development of Marxist-Leninist science.
The Soviet method of planning economic development has now been widely recognised in the international arena. It has been adopted in all the socialist countries. What is more, the ideas of the five-year plan have found their way into many countries in Asia and Africa which have thrown off the colonial yoke. Thus, five-year plans have become a motto calling for industrialisation, for the economic and cultural advance and national independence of formerly oppressed nations. Even the imperialist states, whose ideologues and politicians once sneered at the Soviet five-year plans which they described as Bolshevik fantasy and bluff, are now adapting themselves to the conditions of struggle between the two systems and are more and more widely adopting the methods of industrial programming and forecasting and even attempting to draw up their own five-year plans.
The social sciences have made a valuable contribution to the profound and comprehensive elaboration by the Party of Lenin's teaching concerning the industrialisation of the country. After coping with the grave aftermath of two wars ---the imperialist and civil wars---our country entered a new period, which called for a New Economic Policy in keeping with the grandiose plan for the country's socialist industrialisation. With Marxist science as its theoretical foundation our Party discovered new objective laws governing the industrial development of a socialist country and worked out and for the first time applied a new approach to their realisation. Those were ways and methods of Soviet industrialisation unknown in the history of any other state. What is the sum and substance of these objective processes?
First, it is the application of new methods of industrialisation. The great capitalist powers, as we know, started their industrialisation with light industry and then gradually began to set up a heavy industry. In these countries industrialisation took a long time; they were in no hurry, no one threatened them, no one stood in their way. Our country, on the contrary, had to start its industrialisation with the creation of a heavy industry at the quickest possible pace and within the shortest possible time. The Party was well aware that time was short, that the capitalist states at any moment could attack the Soviet country, and, taking 263 advantage of its backwardness, crush the great gains of the revolution. And so it was essential to begin with heavy industry and establish it as quickly as possible in order to strengthen our country's economic and defensive power. Obviously, this required an immeasurably greater outlay than light industry.
Second, it is the search for new, hitherto unheard-of sources of accumulation. All the big capitalist powers, as we know, carried out their industrialisation by dishonest methods and means, either by robbing the colonies and dependent countries or by wars, by laying the vanquished nations under contribution. Clearly, these sources were unacceptable in principle for a socialist country. The U.S.S.R. opened a new way to industrialisation, the correctness of which was tested by time and confirmed by events---and that way was internal socialist accumulation.
Third, it is the discovery of new objective laws governing socialist industrialisation. Capitalist industrialisation was attended by the ruin of a great mass of small commodity producers (peasants, artisans). Not without reason was it said in England in the period of the textile industry's rapid development that the "sheep now may be said to devour men". In fact, in order to clear pastures for sheep hundreds of thousands of peasants were driven off the land, reduced to pauperism and forced into the factories where they were subjected to uncontrolled exploitation. Beginning from the very first steps of "primary accumulation of capital" through the sweatshop Taylor system down to the modern refined techniques of intensification of labour which turn the human being into an appendage of the machine and cripple him physically and morally, the path of capitalist industrialisation is literally strewn with the bones and drenched with the blood as well as the sweat of the workers. Crises, unemployment and wars have always been an invariable concomitant of capitalist industrialisation, and today, too, the capitalist system is pregnant with them.
Socialist industrialisation from its very start developed on the basis of free and conscious labour, on the basis of the broad creative initiative of the working class, who had become master of its own life. Socialist industrialisation was directed wholly towards speeding up the development of the productive forces, raising to the utmost the country's economic potential and the material and cultural level of the masses and creating the material and technical basis for 264 socialism. An important feature of socialist industrialisation is its planned and balanced character.
Capitalist industrialisation is founded on the uncurbed exploitation of the rural working people by the towns. It creates an unbridgeable gulf between industry and agriculture, shuts itself off from agriculture, leads to the pauperisation and proletarianisation of the peasant masses and swells the reserve army of labour. Socialist industrialisation, on the contrary, does away with every kind of exploitation of the working people; it is founded on the basis of unity and close co-operation with agriculture, it brings industry and agriculture closer together and obliterates the age-old distinctions between town and country. Socialist industrialisation is a massive foundation for the radical transformation of agriculture.
The social sciences have made a valuable contribution to the elaboration of Lenin's co-operative plan and to the development of the theory of collectivisation of agriculture. In this respect the Party had no ready-made recipes and it broke new unexplored trails. It is not surprising that in the turning-up of this virgin soil there were no few flaws and crooked furrows. But, having gained control of the movement of the masses and generalised their experience, the Party not only substantiated the correct paths of agriculture's socialist transformation, but found the best economic forms for its organisation, worked out socialist principles for calculating and remunerating social labour. All this constituted valuable experience for other socialist countries in their efforts to organise large-scale collective farming. The various birds of ill omen may croak as much as they like but they cannot dismiss the vital facts of history. The state farms, the machine and tractor stations and the collective farms---these socialist forms of management in agriculture---have become facts of world significance.
Another difficult and complex problem of socialist construction solved on a scientific Marxist-Leninist basis was the agrarian and peasant question. Hay was made of the opportunist arguments to the effect that the socialist road of development was alien to the peasantry and that it would inevitably come into conflict with the working class on the main and crucial issue---that of building socialism. Events threw these reactionary dogmas of the anti-Leninist theoreticians onto the rubbish heap. The Soviet peasantry proved 265 by deed that in alliance with the working class and with the assistance of the socialist state it was able successfully to take the socialist path of development and to become a mighty force in the struggle against capitalism. The main result is that the Soviet peasantry has taken its stand for good and all beneath the socialist banner of the working class.
As a result of the collectivisation of agriculture the former technical, economic and cultural backwardness of the countryside has become a thing of the long-forgotten past. Agricultural production, once carried on in small scattered farms, has become a large-scale, highly organised socialist economy. Social stratification among the peasantry has been done away with for good, and such concepts as "farm labourer", "poor peasant", "middle peasant" and ``kulak'' have long since disappeared from the life of the countryside. The Soviet peasantry, on the basis of the collectivefarm system, has become a homogeneous socialist class, which, like the workers, is engaged in social economy and is remunerated for its work in accordance with the principles of socialism. The Marxist-Leninist idea of obliterating the distinction between town and country is successfully being put into practice.
The social sciences have an important part to play in developing and implementing the Leninist theory of cultural revolution. The struggle on this front was most acute. Immediately after the October Socialist Revolution there appeared in the arena of the ideological struggle two opposite trends, both equally disastrous to the building of socialist culture. On the one hand, the echoes of the old ideology of "Russian exceptionalism" and "Slavophil inviolability" rose to a wolf's howl, on the other, came the bad smell of ``Left'' revolutionism---"down with everything", "smash it all up", and on the empty ruins set up a ``new'' puny, ideologically disarmed culture shorn of the best traditions of succession of the generations.
These dangerous deviations were strongly opposed by Lenin. He showed that proletarian culture could arise only on the basis of all that was best in the accumulated experience of mankind. To preserve the precious heritage of past generations, stripped of everything that was reactionary in it and that served only the exploiters, to make this heritage the property of the masses of present and future 266 generations---such was the goal which Lenin set before the Party. Our Party did not retreat an inch from Lenin's behests. It did everything within its power to make the Soviet working man a worthy heir, careful guardian and disseminator of the great legacy of human culture. A great role in this was played not only by the Communists, but by the live creative effect of Marxist-Leninist dialectics and its revolutionary achievement.
On the basis of society's vital needs our Party made every effort to abolish illiteracy and semi-literacy in the shortest possible time, to introduce universal primary education and then start on the introduction of universal secondary education and enable every Soviet citizen to realise his right to a higher education. The greatest achievement of the cultural revolution, however, was the training and education of ideologically steeled cadres from among the working class and the peasantry capable of dealing with the major problems of Party and state activities and whom the Party equipped with a knowledge of the laws of social development and with a profound understanding of the sum and substance of the new socialist order. One of the most important results of the cultural revolution was the creation of a large army of Soviet socialist intellectuals.
On the basis of Marxist-Leninist science the Party discovered the general laws of development of socialist economy and culture and administered a severe ideological defeat to our opponents, both to the advocates of ascetic "barrack socialism" who maintain that socialism should be built on material austerity, on the petty-bourgeois principles of egalitarianism, and to the adherents of a consumers', vulgarised socialism who demand wide scope for personal accumulation, luxury and unlimited consumption.
Neither can we pass over in silence such a complex problem of social development as the national problem, to the scientific elaboration of which the Party's theoretical cadres made an important contribution which helped to solve the national question in the U.S.S.R. The Party undeviatingly pursued a Leninist nationalities policy, thus ensuring the burgeoning of the economy and culture of the national republics, as a result of which the factual as well as legal inequality of the nations of former tsarist Russia was liquidated in the shortest space of time. The economic, political and cultural efflorescence of the formerly backward and 267 oppressed peoples took place on the basis of intensive socialist industrialisation and the victory of the collective-farm system and the cultural revolution. The correctness of the Marxist-Leninist postulate concerning the transition to socialism by a path that avoided the capitalist phase of development is exemplified by the numerous nationalities that inhabit the Soviet Union. The time when discord and national enmity reigned among these peoples has sunk into oblivion; the very character of all the Soviet nations has undergone a radical change: the feeling of mutual distrust and enmity has given place to a feeling of internationalism, to mutual support and friendship, to a real brotherly cooperation among all the peoples within the system of a united multinational Soviet socialist state.
Developing the theoretical principles of Marxism-- Leninism and leaning on the great gains of socialism, our Party, its theoretical cadres, framed and formulated that great charter of the epoch---the Constitution of the land of socialism. The gains of the revolutionary people, who had built socialism, were solemnly proclaimed for the first time in this historic document, namely: the right to work, the right to education, the right to rest and a secure old age. The rights of the working people are guaranteed by the whole essence of the socialist system and its rapidly growing productive forces, by all the gains of Soviet power.
The creative development of the ideas of MarxismLeninism is exemplified in the forms and methods of state and Party activities worked out in detail by our theoretical cadres. This was an entirely new field for us. At the dawn of Soviet rule Lenin pointed out that the building of a new type of state, the recruitment of the broad masses into the business of running the state and the creation of a smoothworking machinery of state was an extremely difficult and complex job which would take a long time. It will be no exaggeration to say that in the solution of this tremendous problem a great role was played by the Party's theoretical activities. In the words of Lenin, this was a truly creative approach, one in which we had made the fullest use of Marxism as a guide to action.
Bourgeois ideologues like to burrow into our history, and deliberately picture it as a pattern of mistakes and blunders, which they magnify in every way. But history knows 9nly too well that the bourgeoisie has made and is still 268 making far more mistakes and committing far more stupidities than the proletariat can afford to do. "If we get down to brass tacks, however," said Lenin, "has it ever happened in history that a new mode of production has taken root immediately,, without a long succession of setbacks, blunders and relapses?''^^*^^
Historical experience testifies that the strategy of the Marxist-Leninist parties worked out on the basis of a theoretical analysis of the main tendencies of social development conforms most fully and accurately to the basic trends of world development. This course is calculated for a long period of time and is less exposed to possible errors. As regards tactics, the forms and methods of the Party's activities at various stages of the revolutionary struggle, these are extremely mobile and less insured against mistakes and shortcomings; it is precisely here, on this knotty point, that miscalculations and failures are possible. Objectively speaking, mistakes by a revolutionary party are possible not only in major transformative processes, but in the daily round of practical activities.
No revolutionary party is guaranteed against mistakes and faults. This is quite understandable, since, in its activities aimed at remodelling the old world, the party has to take into account a multitude of the most diverse factors, such as the balance of political forces, the level of consciousness and temper of the masses, the adjustment of foreign policy to swiftly changing conditions, and so on. Mistakes and shortcomings are a consequence of the complex contradictions and obstacles which have had to be overcome along the path of the social forces. It is entirely a question of the nature and extent of this or that error, the gravity of its consequences, its timely uncovering and rectification and efforts to avoid a repetition. Not to be afraid of admitting mistakes, of boldly laying them bare and rectifying them ---these are signs of a party's maturity, strength and fighting fitness.
The activities of our Party suffered at a definite stage from similar shortcomings and mistakes. We shall not go into the details here, since this question has been fully and adequately dealt with in the Party's published documents concerning the personality cult, voluntarism and subjectivism. These _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 425.
269 phenomena, which are alien to Marxism-Leninism, can in no sense be regarded as deriving from the nature of the socialist system. They did not and could not alter the character of the Soviet socialist system. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as correct, either factually or theoretically, when the over-emphasis laid on shortcomings in some historical publications and works of fiction overshadow the heroic struggle and selfless labour of the Soviet millions who have built socialism, their creative enthusiasm and activity.In this connection it is appropriate to mention the impassioned utterance of that outstanding proletarian revolutionary Clara Zetkin, who, defending the party of Lenin against the vile attacks of the bourgeois ideologues and renegades, flung out the challenging words, which have such a proud, fresh ring to this day: "Their mistakes and the shortcomings of their policy will be reduced by historical perspective to microscopic dimensions. They will become like the trees of an avenue that lose themselves in the distant horizon. But the whole straight line of their actions will stand forth as if hewn out of rock. The Bolsheviks as a whole are historically deathless already at the present time. This significance of theirs is ineradicable."
The entire path of progress of the Soviet state is one of impressive grandeur. As a result of the Party's gigantic efforts there was forged that insuperable moral and political unity of the Soviet people which weathered the severest trials during the years of the Great Patriotic War. A brilliant example of Leninist skill in scientifically substantiated strategic action was the creation of the anti-Hitler coalition, which was an important factor in the victory over fascism. We won not only by the material might of our country, by the power and art of the military operations of the Soviet Army and its generals, but by the power of our ideological weapon, by the people's steadfastness and utter dedication to Marxism-Leninism.
Marxist-Leninist theory and all the social sciences helped our Party to frame and adopt its Programme of Communist Construction. Without going into a detailed analysis of this document we can say with full confidence that its main objectives are formulated with true Leninist accuracy of scientific prevision aimed at creating the material and technical basis of communism, at forming communist relations of production, at educating the new generation of builders of 270 communism. Can anything more lofty be thought of for our and for future generations!
The building of communism in the U.S.S.R. is a new historic step towards the revolutionary transformation of the world, a landmark in the development of human society. That most humane of words---Communism---has taken its place firmly in the lives of all nations and states; it has become a concrete programme of action for the Soviet millions, and has shifted from the realm of theory to the solid ground of practical deeds. The building of communism means not only a radical reorganisation of the world, but a further great development of the theory of scientific communism, a practical test of the correctness of MarxistLeninist teaching.
The Communist Party works out its strategy and tactics and frames its policy on strictly scientific ground. The Party's practical activities are based, not on the subjectivist wishes of outstanding personalities and their intuitive impulses, but on the objective laws of social development, on a profound study of the real needs of society's developing material and spiritual life. The Party will continue along Lenin's tried and tested line, developing, enriching and systematically putting into practice the theory of scientific communism. This is guaranteed by the 24th Congress of the C.P.S.U., which has raised the role of Marxist-Leninist theory to such a commanding eminence. Never before have representatives of the social sciences faced such grandiose and complex problems as they do now. And on how they fulfil their civic duty largely depends the progress of society and the pace of our forward movement towards communism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. ALL THE COMPONENT PARTSA creative approach to Marxism-Leninism implies positive consistent development and enrichment of all its component parts. Without this stipulation no serious results in the social sciences can be achieved. Indeed, can economic science advance in the right direction without philosophical thought? Can one gain a knowledge of the laws of modern 271 development without knowing the history of society's development? Similarly, the development of philosophical thought and historical science is possible only given a profound knowledge of the objective economic laws of development of modern society and a knowledge of preceding socio-economic formations. Consequently, one of the principal tasks of social scientists is to profoundly, consistently and simultaneously study, generalise and develop all the component parts of Marxist-Leninist social science.
In the early stages of their formation and development the social sciences were more or less isolated, detached from one another. Each social science lived through its infancy, as it were, developed in its own special way. And this is quite legitimate, since mankind had not yet accumulated the knowledge needed to bring them together into a single orderly system. It should also be borne in mind that the emergence of separate social sciences was conditioned by the improvement and maturation of the social relationships in one or another country. Naturally, the historical shaping of the various social sciences tended at first to bear a geographical character, as it were.
Classical political economy, for instance, crystallised as an independent science in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Its emergence there, of course, was no accident. England was the first country where bourgeois relationships developed, where the capitalist mode of production took shape and where the industrial revolution first occurred. All this gave rise to such a field of the social sciences as the bourgeois political economy of capitalism.
The science of socialism (Utopian socialism) was largely developed in France during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. And that was no accident either. By that time capitalism had revealed not only its progressive aspects compared with feudalism, but had pretty fully displayed its exploiting, oppressive and despotic essence. Already at that time, therefore, capitalism had drawn down upon itself curses and scathing criticism. Society's progressive forces began to seek ways towards a better and fairer system. The then undeveloped state of social relationships, however, did not make it possible to discover within bourgeois society itself a real force capable of changing it. And so there came into being Utopian socialism, the concept of 272 a socialist society in which there were to be neither exploiters nor exploited, neither rich nor poor.
Similarly, we have the history of the emergence and shaping of German classical philosophy at the turn of the nineteenth century. Germany at that time, as we know, was a disunited feudal state which lagged far behind England and France. The central problem for Germany was the elimination of feudal disjunction while at the same time overcoming the economic, political and cultural backwardness which hampered the development of the country's productive forces. German classical philosophy attempted in the realm of knowledge to discover the social force that would help solve this problem and to a certain extent it fulfilled its mission.
The appearance of these three ramifications of the science of societal development were a great achievement of progressive social thought. Nevertheless, despite all the positive aspects of these sciences, they were not yet able to give a correct answer to the complex questions concerning the development of society. This was largely due, on the one hand, to the fact that they were based on idealistic metaphysical concepts steeped in a subjectivist intuitive approach to the analysis of societal development, and, on the other, to the narrow and divergent views on the various aspects of social life. In short, these sciences lacked at the time a central pivot ---that of dialectical materialism, without which they could not develop in the right direction and were therefore bound to become debased and to peter out.
Social development, however, went ahead, giving more and more scope to the development of progressive social thinking, enriching it with life's new material, and with new facts of living practice. The working class came out into the arena of social life. Its debut as an independent political force greatly sharpened class antagonisms and whipped up the pace of social development. Stemming from this rapid progress in the historical arena there arose and developed such a progressive world-view as Marxism, which imbibed all that was rational in preceding advanced social ideas. In dialectical and historical materialism mankind received a truly scientific theory, and in the person of Marxism a truly scientific world outlook.
In his famous article "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism" Lenin stressed the omnipotence __PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18-1214 273 and correctness of Marxism, of whose teaching he said: "It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook.''^^*^^ He regarded Marx's philosophical materialism, his economic theory and teaching of the class struggle in monolithic unity. These'three important components of the Marxist world-view are fused for him into an organic whole. "The application of materialist dialectics to the reshaping of all political economy from its foundation up, its application to history, natural science, philosophy and to the policy and tactics of the working class---that was what interested Marx and Engels most of all, that was where they contributed what was most essential and new, and that was what constituted the masterly advance they made in the history of revolutionary thought.''^^**^^
It would therefore be wrong in principle to single out any one component of Marxism and attach to it exclusive preferential significance. True, in his article "Certain Features of the Historical Development of Marxism" Lenin pointed out that Marxism, being a living guide to action, cannot but reflect the changing conditions of social life. In keeping with the changes in the concrete socio-political situation, Marxism, too, as a living doctrine, could not but have various aspects of it brought to the fore, but this in no way affects the organic correlation, unity and integrity of Marxism's component parts.
Clarifying this thought, Lenin said that the 1905-07 epoch highlighted for the Russian Marxists the questions of tactics in Marxism, while the 1908-10 period brought to the fore the questions of struggle for the theoretical principles of Marxism. What Lenin intended here was to stress the significance of Marxism as a guide to action, to stress the need for a Marxist solution of definite practical problems of the epoch, which were liable to change with every new turn in history, and not that priority should be given to any one component part of Marxism.^^***^^ Lenin enriched Marxism with new deductions and postulates, always taking care to develop revolutionary theory as a whole in all its component parts.
Take, for example, Lenin's theory of socialist revolution. Why was Lenin able successfully to elaborate this theory _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 23.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 554.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 17, pp. 39-44.
274 during the First World War? Because those years found him deeply engaged in developing the materialist theory of cognition, clarifying and elaborating the major laws of dialectics. This work found expression in his famous Philosophical Notebooks. During that period Lenin successfully developed the Marxist economic teaching. Suffice it to mention in this respect his fundamental work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. But Lenin, as we know, worked almost simultaneously on a third important problem dealt with in his famous work The State and Revolution. Only on the basis of profound and systematic development of all the component parts of Marxism could Lenin have arrived at his brilliant conclusion concerning the possibility of the socialist revolution winning initially in one or several countries.Or take another example. It is to Lenin that we owe the scientific substantiation of the plan for building socialism and communism, a plan which serves as a guiding star for our Party, for the working class and the whole Soviet people. But this plan, too, came into being, crystallised and assumed clear outlines only because Lenin, during the last years of his life, was intensively engaged in further developing the theoretical heritage of Marxism. He did a great deal to enrich philosophical materialism and the dialectics of social development, notably in the matter of clarifying the specific conditions for resolving contradictions under a socialist society. Lenin laid the solid foundations of the political economy of socialism. He accomplished the gigantic task of summing up the practical experience of the first years of proletarian dictatorship and developing the teaching concerning classes and the class struggle during the transition period from capitalism to socialism.
The example of Lenin and the experience of our Party convincingly prove the need, at any historical moment, for creatively developing all the component parts of MarxismLeninism and ensuring the organic union of theory with the revolutionary practice of the masses. This equally applies to our own time, when the Party and the Soviet people are tackling complex problems in the field of politics, economics and society's spiritual life. The unity and combined development of all the component parts of Marxist-Leninist theory and the social sciences as a whole have always been an earnest of success in developing theory. Today, with the __PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275 steadily growing differentiation of scientific knowledge, the need for unity, interaction and broad synthesis of knowledge becomes still more urgent and compulsive.
It is natural, therefore, that the C.C. of the C.P.S.U. orientates social scientists on stepping up work along the whole front of scientific research so that economic, philosophic and historical thought develop together without artificial barriers. Just as natural are the Party's insistent recommendations that the best and leading forces be concentrated on the complex and pressing problems of communist construction and the scientific and technological revolution, on preparing scientifically grounded proposals necessary for working out the policies of the Communist Party and the Soviet state and for continually improving scientific management of the processes of social life.
The first objective covers a large complexus of problems. Life's demand that we concentrate first of all on the study and generalisation of our rich experience in socialist and communist construction still remains as pressing as ever. We have here a wide field of activity for research work by all social scientists: historians, philosophers, economists and other representatives of the social sciences. Joint work by scientists is the truest guarantee against all possible errors in dealing with the major questions of the history of the Party and the Soviet state. Positive work of this kind will serve as a reliable base from which to actively expose the bourgeois falsifiers in philosophy, history and sociology.
The second objective is the study of the ways and nature of the processes by which communist social relations are formed. Theoretical treatment of the process of improvement of socialist social relations and their development into communist relations is essential for working out practical measures in this direction. All the more as this process is an extremely complex one that does not always lend itself to exact calculation. Things here do not lie on the surface. Marxist dialectics alone supplies the only scientific method of research into social problems and phenomena. That is why the views expounded in the recent past to the effect that the previous laws of dialectics are inapplicable to the conditions of socialism are so unacceptable.
Some philosophers, for example, maintained that under socialism unity was everything, and that contradictions lost their significance. By this means the manifestation of 276 dialectics' basic law---the law of unity and conflict of opposites ---is obscured. Obviously, it is wrong in principle to identify the contradictions under socialism with the antagonistic class contradictions in bourgeois society. The very nature of socialism excludes the existence of any class antagonisms. This does not mean, however, that the development of socialist society loses its dialectical contradictory character, that contradiction ceases to be a source of its progressive development.
Lenin pointed out that "antagonism and contradiction are not one and the same thing. The former will disappear while the latter will remain under socialism". Hence the need for a profound, concrete study of the contradictions in real life---the economic, socio-political and ideological life of socialist society. The forming of communist relationships, too, must be approached with a dialectical gauge, bearing in mind that this process presumes the timely pinpointing and overcoming of the contradictions which arise. It is this way, and not by the wave of any magic wand, that development takes place, it is in this way and no other that the new will make its way.
The third objective is questions relating to the further improvement of the socialist state system and the development of socialist democracy. Of tremendous theoretical and practical importance, for instance, is the question of enhancement of the Communist Party's leading role in the life of Soviet society. The Communist Party, which came into being as an independent political party of the working class and which remains today its organised advance detachment, has at the same time become the vanguard of the whole Soviet people. Its guiding and organising influence embraces all spheres of activity of our society. It must be admitted, however, that we still have few fundamental researches giving a comprehensive analysis of the objective and subjective factors of this process and revealing the dialectical class essence and popular character of our Party. The further elaboration of Lenin's teachings concerning the Party is a vital necessity, the honourable duty of Soviet scholars.
A no less important question calling for profound research and scientific generalisation is the question of the socialist state. In the course of socialist and communist construction the creative, transformative role of the state is heightened, 277 some of its functions die off and others appear. Soviet scholars have devoted no few works to the problem of the Soviet state's development. Yet the question of the creative, transformative role of the proletarian-dictatorship state as the highest type of socialist democracy still stands in need of proper treatment. The socialist democratism of the Soviet state system, as we know, is securely embodied in the Soviets of working people's deputies. Consequently, it is important to study the activities of these bodies, to investigate the experience and ways of recruiting the broad masses into the work of administering the state. The same applies to such questions as the rule of socialist law, measures for strengthening state organisation and maintaining discipline and law and order. In this context important work has to be done in studying the social structure of socialist society in order to obtain a full picture of the nature and tendencies of the qualitative changes which our working class, our kolkhoz peasantry and Soviet intelligentsia have been undergoing.
The fourth objective, covering a range of the most pressing problems which demand thorough investigation, is the forms and methods of socialist economic management, the scientific organisation of labour, and the content and methods of communist education of Soviet people. These problems are most closely linked with the practical activities of our Party, of the state agencies and public organisations. The treatment of these problems presents a particularly wide field to local scientists, to the scientific staff of the higher educational institutions in particular. They stand closer to practical experience and are quicker able to respond to the needs of practice in the shape of scientific recommendations concerning economic and educational measures to be applied on a district, regional or republican scale.
The progressive development of society is a regular historical process, and its cognition is only possible given a genuinely scientific theory which deals with this process in a proper and comprehensive manner. With the emergence of Marxism-Leninism mankind acquired precisely such a theory, which provides authentic knowledge having the weight of objective truth. It was from this that the party of the working class derived an exact knowledge of the historical pattern of societal development and to devise its policy, strategy and tactics on the basis of this authentic 278 scientific knowledge. All this means that with the emergence of such a genuine science of society as that of MarxismLeninism, it should be treated as a science in which there is no room for subjectivism or a dilettante approach.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. ENHANCEMENT OF THE ROLEThe modern world is going through a crucial stage, a turning point, in its history, when the destinies of mankind depend to a decisive degree on the vigorous, co-ordinated actions of its progressive forces. Under these complex historical conditions our Party, following its invariable Marxist-Leninist course, is stepping up its activities designed to safeguard mankind from the danger that threatens it by curbing the reactionary forces of imperialism. Its general line is aimed at developing the creative energy and initiative of the Soviet people still more widely and more fully for dealing successfully with the tasks of constructing a communist society; at strengthening in every possible way the political and economic alliance of the socialist states, consolidating and expanding the world socialist system and rallying all the world's progressive forces fighting under the banner of socialism; at giving unrelaxing moral-- political and material aid to the national liberation movement of the peoples in their struggle for liberation from colonial and neo-colonialist imperialist oppression, and in building their free and independent states; at helping to consolidate the world's progressive forces in their struggle for peace, democracy and socialism.
In our day, when the significance of Marxist-Leninist theory is at its highest ever eminence, it is called upon to timely generalise all that is new, engendered by the living realities, and to help the Party answer all the complex questions which the exigencies of contemporary social development pose before it. In a highly organised planned socialist society theory is not a thing that stands apart, as a "private concern". It is linked inseparably with the practical activities of the Party, the people and the state. Correct theoretical propositions, lighting up as they do our path of 279 progress, help to speed up our creative and transformative work and to reduce the overheads of our construction to a minimum. Conversely, erroneous theoretical propositions forming a basis for practical action may involve immense unproductive outlays and costs. These circumstances likewise demand that theory should occupy a befitting place in the life of society.
This is worth remembering in view of the hasty simplicist assessments of the role of theory which were sometimes made in the recent past.
Attempts to substantiate the methodological principles of development of the social sciences under the conditions of communist construction obviously suffered from a subjectivist approach. This was shown in the arbitrary interpretation of the important Marxist-Leninist principle of unity between theory and practice. A contradictory situation was created when, in one case, theory was identified with practice, and, in another, they were contraposed to each other. Proceeding from the correct fact that at the present time the broad masses of the people were being increasingly drawn into the building of communism, often wrong deductions were made that the gap in time between theoretical and practical solutions of problems of communist construction was narrowing or disappearing.
No wonder that the identification of theory with practice tended to present the numerous reorganisations and other not always well-considered practical measures as a creative solution of pressing theoretical problems. In turn, social scientists were orientated merely on producing theoretical justification for or commenting on de facto practical measures, while the main emphasis was laid on the propaganda designation of the social sciences. Naturally, this was not conducive to the development of theoretical work. The guideline that practice itself is allegedly a development of theory and that practical experience, so to say, automatically enriches theory, actually led to justification of subjectivism, to attempts to solve practical problems "by eye", without deducing theoretical arguments in support of the decisions made.
Events, however, showed that the objective laws hit back at those who ignore them. This was very well expressed by D. I. Pisarev, the outstanding Russian revolutionary and enlightener. Speaking about the purpose of true science, he 280 wrote that science was exact and severe, just as Nature was, and that "if you have erred, it will run you over or crush you completely, like the wheel of a huge machine to which you had come too close when it was going at full speed."^^*^^
The October 1964 Plenum of the C.C. C.P.S.U. and the 23rd Party Congress put an end to this vulgarisation of theory and enhanced its role and designation. The most favourable conditions were created for the development of science and for the application of its achievements to the practice of communist construction. It is obvious now to everyone how wise and farsighted the Party's decisions were. The Marxist-Leninist social sciences are now in their heyday, projected towards the solution of the new important and complex problems which life and the practice of communist construction bring to the fore. As the Party proclaimed in its Programme, the social sciences are the theoretical basis of its policies, of its guidance of communist construction and of all social progress. "No society has ever stood in such great need of scientific theory as the socialist society," states the Report of the C.C. C.P.S.U. to the Party's 23rd Congress. "The Party considers the further creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory as a cardinal task and a necessary condition for success in the building of communism.''^^**^^
Summing up the basic factors of contemporary development we could say that energising theoretical work is a vital need, a clamorous demand of the times.
For one thing, the widening of the field of theoretical activities and extension of analytical research and scientific generalisations are necessitated by the growing complexity and acceleration of the socio-historical process in the revolutionary epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism and communism. Our generation is a contemporary of and participant in this gradual change-over of socioeconomic formations. Deep-going socio-economic changes are taking place throughout the world. Capitalism's horizons are steadily narrowing, while the world socialist system is building up strength, the labour movement in the capitalist countries is mustering its forces, the disintegration of _-_-_
^^*^^ D. I. Pisarev, Sochineniya (Works), Vol. V, Moscow, 1894, pp. 310- 11. (My italics.---S.7.)
^^**^^ 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Moscow, pp. 144-45.
__PRINTERS_P_281_COMMENT__ 19---1214 281 the colonial system of imperialism is nearing completion and the national liberation movement is mounting and widening. All these important changes in the alignment of forces between socialism and capitalism call for theoretical analysis, for a new presentation and solution of a number of major theoretical problems in order to gain a still deeper understanding of the general tendencies of the modern epoch and correctly determine the strategic and tactical tasks.Second, enhancement of the role of theory is conditioned by the demands of the present phase of communist construction. The land of socialism now disposes of such a powerful material and productive base as has allowed the Party to switch the Leninist locomotive of history into high gear. The Soviet Union is at a stage when the whole Soviet people, with deep understanding, have started to tackle tasks of such amazing grandeur and scope as the creation of the material and technical basis of communism, the shaping of communist social attitudes, and the education of a new generation of people, fully developed and active builders of communism. The vastly increased magnitude and complexity of the tasks of economic and socio-political leadership make science an essential link in the whole practical life of society. This in turn enormously enhances the role and significance of the social sciences and consolidates their vanguard positions along the whole great length of the ideological front.
Third, radical improvement of all our theoretical work is necessitated by the changes that are taking place in connection with the scientific and technological revolution. The impact of scientific and technological progress on all aspects of social life is at once tremendous and contradictory. This process can correctly be assessed, the prospects determined and people's efforts directed towards making the greatest possible use of the scientific and technological revolution in the interest of social progress, only from the vantageground of Marxism-Leninism. In the solution of these problems wide scope is opened to our social sciences for their creative activity in co-operation with the natural and technical sciences.
Fourth, the need for more active theoretical work is dictated by the specially acute nature of the struggle between the two ideologies---the socialist and the bourgeois---which under present-day conditions has reached a high pitch of 282 intensity. It will be no exaggeration to say that at no time in the long history of capitalism has such great importance been attached to the indoctrination of the masses and such a widely ramified propaganda machine been set up for this purpose as in our day. The powerful ideological machinery of anti-communism has been thrown into high gear. Anticommunism has now become the state ideology of the imperialists. The ideologues of modern capitalism and their yes-men now speak openly about the need for seeking or thinking up some new "symbol of faith", some new ideological weapon that could challenge the victorious ideology of Marxism-Leninism.
The thing is that the monopolist bourgeoisie now is unable to give the peoples convincing answers to life's most urgent problems, cannot advance ideals that would appeal to the masses. It is this ideological degeneration of international capitalism that makes the henchmen of imperialism resort to lies and slander. Lenin, in his day, issued the warning that "when the bourgeoisie's ideological influence on the workers declines, is undermined or weakened, the bourgeoisie everywhere and always resorts to the most outrageous lies and slander''.^^*^^
Anti-communism is imperialism's chief and most concentrated ideological weapon directly serving the class interests of monopoly capital. The bourgeois ideologues fall over backwards trying to prove that modern capitalism has undergone a drastic reform and has even acquired new stimuli opening up to it prospects of a lasting boom and prosperity. These aims are served by the spate of talk, so fashionable now in the capitalist countries, about ``planned'', ``harmonious'', ``constructive'', ``democratic'' capitalism, and so forth.
Our ideological opponents are compelled to reckon with the vast dissemination and triumphal victories of MarxismLeninism, and its decisive impact on the development of the world revolutionary process. Hence their furious attacks on Marxism-Leninism, their attempts to explode and discredit this doctrine in the eyes of the masses and the progressive public. In these circumstances it would be wrong to underestimate our opponent. The growing activity of the bourgeois ideological forces sets new important tasks before _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 485.
__PRINTERS_P_283_COMMENT__ 19* 283 our scientists, namely, those of mounting a powerful offensive along the whole front against modern bourgeois ideology, subjecting bourgeois concepts and views to searching and well-argued criticism and disclosing the reactionary class meaning of bourgeois ideology in all its forms and manifestations. We shall never renounce our commitment to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, to the revolutionary spirit of this great doctrine.Fifth, stepping up theoretical work is necessitated by the complex circumstances that have arisen in the international communist and labour movement. The fight against Right and ``Left'' revisionism is not just a short-lived campaign objective that can be achieved by mere propaganda means. It is a mistake to think that the prevailing revisionist theories will disappear of themselves. They will not quit the stage without a struggle. The job of the Marxist-Leninist social sciences is to demolish them by the force of party conviction and scientific demonstration, by the power of dialectical thinking and the irresistible logic of argumentation. We have to conduct an uncompromising and consistent ideological struggle, backed by the whole militant experience of Marxist-Leninist teaching, in order to clear the road to communism of all and every ideological junk. Consequently, theory must continue to pave the way for practice, serve as a true compass in the advance towards communism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. THE SOCIAL SCIENCESHistorical experience has shown that relaxed attention to the social sciences inevitably leads, not only to lack of principles or ideals and attitudes of indifference to politics, but to stagnation of all social development. Lenin repeatedly pointed out that if Communists wanted to move with the times they had to keep advancing Marxist social science in all directions in accordance with the new conditions and the new tasks. Guided by its Programme of Communist Construction our Party is doing a big job in educating the people, especially the youth, and cultivating in them communist patterns of thought and attitudes. Education of the rising generation is a primary task of the Party. An 284 important role in this belongs to the social sciences. We are living in a world in which a struggle of classes is going on; we are living at a time when the reactionary forces of imperialism are trying their hardest to turn back the wheel of history. Under these conditions education of the youth should be orientated on a better understanding of the objective laws of social development, on a better knowledge of our class interests and the interests of our class opponents.
Marxists-Leninists have always stated frankly that the social sciences are of a profoundly partisan nature. Bourgeois ideologues, as we know, try to conceal the fact that their science is class-committed. They would have us believe that it stands above parties and classes. But that is pure humbug. Our Party proceeds from the assumption that the more consistently the principle of science's partisanship is applied the more exact, comprehensive and profound will the acquired knowledge be. At the same time, the more perfect and copious the acquired knowledge, the more will it be in keeping with the interests of the Party, with the interests of the working classes. The principle of partisanship is of deep scientific significance. We must fight our ideological opponents with the full force and power of Marxism-Leninism. "To participate actively in the struggle for the triumph of the ideals of communism, for the minds and hearts of people is the honourable duty of all our country's scholars.
As already stated above, the Communist Party has always attached supreme importance to the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory and given constant care to the development of the social sciences. At different periods the Central Committee of the Party repeatedly passed decisions affecting various fields of social science (philosophy, political economy, history of the Party, science of law, etc.). The ruling of the C.C. C.P.S.U. of August 14, 1967 "On Measures for Developing the Social Sciences and Enhancing Their Role in Communist Construction" holds a special place among them. It was the first decision in the Party's history to cover the development of all the social sciences as a whole. In fact, it is a programmatic document which charts the path of development for the social sciences for a long time ahead.
The decision of the C.C. C.P.S.U. establishes a clear interdependence between the development of society and the 285 development of the social sciences. The tasks confronting the social sciences and assessment of their achievements and shortcomings are thus determined by life itself. This is conditioned by the need for a profound and comprehensive study of reality and follows from the Marxist-Leninist assessment of the role of advanced theory in the revolutionary transformation of society. Theoretical work follows the line of continuity of advanced revolutionary experience. Special emphasis is made on the need for fundamental research on problems of the day, the need for linking theoretical analysis with a careful and concrete study of the facts, for linking theory with social practice and with the practice of scientific knowledge itself.
The decision of the C.C. C.P.S.U. gives special attention to the union between the social and natural sciences, based primarily on unity of world outlook and methodology, on the unity of aims pursued by Soviet science. The Central Committee calls upon scholars to develop all the component parts of Marxist-Leninist teaching: philosophy, political economy, the history, theory and practice of scientific communism. For each of these fields of knowledge the Party's decision formulates concrete tasks and indicates the ways they are to be applied in the practice of building communism.
Such a landmark in the life of the Party and the people, as the 24th Congress of the Party calls for an attempt, at least in brief outline, to trace certain results and prospects in the development of the social sciences and to examine to what extent their scientific practice is in keeping with the demands of the new stage in our society's development.
In recent years the overall picture of Soviet social science has become more multiform and complex. Present-day socio-historical practice and the growth of scientific knowledge have posed new problems to social scientists. The ideological and theoretical standard of research on the whole has undoubtedly advanced. Entire trends of social science have taken shape anew and there has been a considerable increase in the number of scientific institutions. The ranks of social scientists have been reinforced with new skilled specialists. Quite a few major researches have been published.
There are other indicators, however, besides these direct ones, which enable us to form a judgement of the achievements and possibilities of the social sciences. The 286 development of theoretical thought, as history bears witness, is always closely allied with the general tone of social life, with the spiritual atmosphere of society, with the dynamics of the social movement, with the temper and aspirations of the masses.
Our society is surmounting sheer and difficult ascents and scaling ever new heights of socio-economic progress. Characteristic features of its spiritual life in general and of social theory in particular are clarity and grandeur of aim, a realistic thoughtful approach to reality, confidence in the future, and daring creative quest. It can be said without exaggeration that social thought has never known more favourable conditions for its development than those it enjoys in our day in socialist society.
The party spirit and class principles of Marxist-Leninist science concerning society enable researchers to keep a finger constantly on the pulse of social life, to collate their researches with the general problems of social development, to detect new phenomena and processes, evaluate them correctly in the context of the general pattern of world history and its most progressive tendencies, and to discover new ways and means of achieving the great goal---the victory of communism.
The profoundly scientific foundation on which MarxistLeninist theory is built ensures to it a vanguard role in the general movement of human knowledge, enables it to absorb and master ever new discoveries of science, to improve the cognitive apparatus of materialist dialectics and on this basis to widen the horizons of human thought projected towards the revolutionary transformation of the world.
The organic unity of Marxist-Leninist social science and socialist ideology, which has become the property of the whole Soviet people, provides an extra powerful impulse to the creative development of theory. The growth of culture, education, political alertness and social activity of the masses who are solving problems of worldwide historic significance under the leadership of the Communist Party, the purposive atmosphere of creative effort, efficiency and realism inspired by lofty aims and ideals---all this has a highly stimulating effect on the social sciences and encourages constant creative quest on the part of scholars.
Fruitfulness of research in the field of the social sciences and the practical significance of their results depend on the 287 correctness of the Marxist-Leninist methodology, on concrete and purposeful scientific analysis, and on how deep these social problems probe. Success is guaranteed by the further strengthening of the Leninist standards of Party life in the activities of the scientific bodies and by the guidance given to the development of the social sciences by the Communist Party and its Central Committee.
Conditions for the development of the social sciences are quite favourable. The tasks confronting them, however, have become more intricate and important. In the first place, this is due to the profoundly contradictory nature of the modern epoch with its great diversity of class forces involved in the socio-economic and political struggle in the world arena, with its swiftly changing situations which pose new problems. The ideological struggle between socialism and capitalism is becoming more acute and intense and the methods of bourgeois and revisionist ideological subversion against socialism are growing more subtle and crafty.
Furthermore, two counter processes are to be observed in the social sciences, as in all contemporary knowledge. On the one hand, there is the differentiation of scientific knowledge, the appearance of new lines of research; on the other, the integration of knowledge, the need for solving complex problems by the efforts of members of several sciences, and hence the interaction and interpenetration of methods and techniques. Both these tendencies are of an objective nature, but their effect is anything but synonymous.
In a number of cases, for instance, the tendency towards differentiation engenders a one-sided, narrowly empirical approach to the analysis of living social reality leading to a loss of general perspective on the part of researchers, to attempts to substitute limited schemata for a whole living picture of life's processes. Similarly, the tendency towards integration of knowledge is liable to lead to extremes expressed in a mechanical application of the methods of one science to other sciences, in unwarranted simplification of complex social phenomena and processes for the sake of following the ``scientific'' fashion. In either case, neglect of the demands of dialectical-materialist methodology may cause great damage and impair the value of research results, and sometimes even create a danger of alien views and concepts invading the sphere of Marxist-Leninist social theory.
Thus, the existing favourable situation does not in itself 288 eliminate the difficulties that face social science. If anything, it makes them more evident and stresses the urgent need for overcoming them in order that the scope and standard of theoretical work in the sphere of the social sciences conform more fully to the demands of life.
Obviously, these tendencies towards differentiation and integration of scientific knowledge in our scientifically controlled society should not be allowed to drift and take their own course. The development of new lines of research, at the back of which stand large communities of scientific workers, should always have a definite pattern and purpose. In one case scientific work may be necessitated by pressing needs of the day, having primarily propagandist, popularising, or, as they say, practical aims. In another case scientific work may require profound, long-range fundamental research. This balance is what social science work often lacks.
The social sciences, like the natural sciences, have ( relatively) two aspects of research---the fundamental and the applied. Of course, no line can be drawn between them, but neither can they be identified with each other. In speaking of a balance between these two sides of a single whole we wanted to emphasise that in their enthusiasm for popularising, propagandist literature our social scientists sometimes lose sight of or minimise the need for solving fundamental problems of social theory.
To describe the unfailing importance of fundamental research we could do no better than refer to the outstanding works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Indeed, the history of progressive social thought knows of no scientific works which had such an appeal to and powerful impact upon the minds of millions as Marx's Capital, Engels's AntiDuhring and Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, to mention only a few.
Siffice it to mention the tremendous significance which the founders of our world outlook attached to the development of fundamental research and their warnings against narrow-minded empiricism and one-sided practicalism, against mindless yielding to the spontaneous current of events, and against irresponsible subjectivism and voluntarism. "Anybody who tackles partial problems without having previously settled general problems, will inevitably and at 289 every step 'come up against' those general problems without himself realising it. To come up against them blindly in every individual case means to doom one's politics to the worst vacillation and lack of principle.''^^*^^ This warning of Lenin's specially applies to those advocates of pluralism who attempt to substitute for general theory such a particular concept as the "national model of socialism", the disastrous role and wretched fate of which are obvious.
The importance of fundamental researches in the natural and technical sciences is well known. Without them it is impossible in the age of the scientific and technological revolution to achieve front-rank positions in the sphere of material production. In the social sciences the need for giving priority to the solution of fundamental problems is dictated by the need for ensuring a fruitful link between science and practice, for providing the applied sciences with a reliable methodological basis. It is in the course of fundamental social science research that new ideas of larger import can be discovered and conclusions of long-range significance arrived at. All this will undoubtedly augment and widen the arsenal of advanced social ideas put over by propaganda and the system of education, thereby giving a new impulse towards people's conscious attitude to labour and social alertness.
In our day, when speaking of the close link between science and practice, people more often than not cite examples from the realm of the natural and technical sciences and adduce figures confirming the effectiveness of knowledge applied in technical systems. But by what figures, by what criteria can we measure the influence which the social sciences exercise on political and social life, on the course of the struggle of ideologies, on the education of the masses?
Is there such a criterion? Yes, there is. The most valid
criterion defining the role of the social sciences in our
socialist society is their high ideological content, the purity
of the Marxist-Leninist world-view, intolerance to the
slightest signs of shilly-shallying, vacillation and an
attitude of compromise towards bourgeois and Right--
reformist ideology. This brings into high focus the question of
social science workers' responsibility and exactingness,
_-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 12, p. 489.
Without doubt the social sciences hold a place of honour among all the gains that have been won and achieved on the front of communist construction. Every branch of social theory, even when dealing with the most abstract problems, is compelled essentially to give answers to questions which have a larger social appeal. In the final analysis, true fundamentality of one or another theoretical problem exercises a salutary influence on the formation of a socialist consciousness and conviction of both the individual and of society as a whole.
[291] __ALPHA_LVL1__ CONCLUSIONOur century is the century of triumphal dissemination of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism throughout the world. Millions of the exploited and oppressed masses today are marching under its victorious banner. It can be said that our epoch is one in which the world's progressive forces are gathering en masse around the banner of the working class. The nations fighting for their freedom and independence against imperialism are turning away from capitalism. The bourgeoisie itself is making less and less use of the discredited banner of capitalism and prefers to screen it behind pseudo-democratic phraseology.
It would be well here to remember that when capitalism ousted feudalism the latter's ideologues, appealing for aid to the working class, were not averse to talk about democracy and socialism. Marx and Engels in their time ridiculed these so-called democrats and socialists. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party they wrote: "The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.''^^*^^
Now too, when imperialism, under the guise of defending democracy (of the brand of the Saigon regime in South Vietnam or the despotism of the Black Colonels in Greece), succeeds in intervening in the internal affairs of one or another country in order to enslave its people, the masses are quick to detect on the hindquarters of these champions of democracy the telltale traces of their bloody crimes, and _-_-_
^^*^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, in three volumes, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969, p. 128.
292 not only flee with loud and irreverent laughter but take up arms in order to overthrow their oppressors and enslavers. Imperialism is in the grip of an intense political and ideological crisis. To keep the people in fear and submission the ruling classes are resorting more and more often to fascist methods of rule, terror and violence. There was a time when the bourgeoisie launched its struggle under the banner of liberty, equality and fraternity; that banner soon turned into the yellow flag of betrayal of the ideals of the past; and now the bourgeoisie is approaching the end of its road under the banner of brown and black reaction.Imperialism stands compromised on the major and vital issues of our age----those of peace and war, of the freedom and independence of nations. The imperialists are running amuck upon the lands of other peoples with flaming firebrands, kindling the fires of war now in one place now in another. They resemble those incendiaries who are incessantly engaged in pouring oil on the flames. But like history which keeps its record of time, the peoples are keeping their own record of the bloody crimes of imperialism.
Monopoly capitalism has adopted the ideology of militarism, which expresses its true nature and inner essence. Imperialist ideologues and propagandists preach the aggressive doctrine of "preventive war", ``escalation'' of military operations, "balance of terror", ``megadeath'', etc. All this, mind you, in the name of peace, which cannot be secured, they say, unless communism is destroyed. Such is the logic of imperialism, which is unleashing bloody aggression and preparing a nuclear world war. In this context Lenin's warning as to the need for exposing the secrets in which war is bred sounds as forceful as ever.
The irreconcilable struggle between the communist and bourgeois ideologies which started over a century ago shows that world social development is steering a course towards the inevitable downfall of capitalism and triumph of socialism and communism. Only fear of this inevitable denouncement can explain the now recurrent appeals by prominent statesmen and politicians in the capitalist countries to organise a global assault upon communism and erect a worldwide dam to prevent communist ideas from percolating among the masses.
Having failed in their attempts to overthrow socialism by force of arms and having lost faith in the possibility of 293 strangling the socialist countries economically, the bosses of the capitalist world are now staking on ideological subversion against communism. Bourgeois ideologues had never been fastidious about the choice of weapons to fight the ideas of communism, but the methods which they now use point to an extreme degree of moral degradation. An increasing number of radio stations, organs of the press and institutes are specialising on anti-socialist fabrications. Persistent efforts are being made to co-ordinate anti-communist propaganda not only within the respective capitalist countries, but on an international scale.
In these circumstances there is no task more important for Communists, for the great army of social science workers and for all scholars than that of waging a systematic struggle for the purity of the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism, creatively developing theory on the basis »of historical and modern practice and concentrating on research into the most urgent problems of Marxism-Leninism. The whole spirit of revolutionary theory demands this of us. The great ideas of Lenin urge us forward to ceaseless creative effort and struggle.
The Lenin centenary symbolised the triumph of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Never before has the history of man known such a triumph of any single scientific teaching, of any single theory. The unprecedented participation of different countries, parties and organisations in the centenary celebrations was a striking demonstration of the infinite love which the world's working classes bear for Lenin and the socialist land of his birth, and the great drawing power of his teachings as materialised in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was a striking manifestation of the principles of true proletarian internationalism. The centenary of Lenin's birth was an outstanding event in the world revolutionary movement contributing to the unity of the Communist and Workers' Parties. Indeed, it was a great political battle against bourgeois ideology and its votaries in defence of the undying principles of Marxism-Leninism.
[294] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]REQUEST TO READERS
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design.
Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[295]