14

p Leninism is Marxism of the modern epoch. Creatively developing Marxism in the new historical situation, Lenin gave the answers to the fundamental problems posed by the course of social development, enriched Marxism with new ideas, and raised to a higher level all the component parts of Marxism—philosophy, political economy and scientific communism.

15

p Lenin developed Marxism in unceasing and acute struggle against its ideological adversaries—bourgeois ideologists and opportunists.

p Just as Marx and Engels had formulated their revolutionary theory in the course of class battles, so Lenin, taking a stand for the ideological purity of Marxism, based on a scientific cognition of social development and its regularities, carried on a relentless and tireless struggle not only against the avowed ideologists of the bourgeoisie, but also against the enemies of revolutionary Marxism who pretended (through ignorance or hypocrisy) to be friends of the people and of progress—the Narodniks, the “legal Marxists”, the “Economists”, the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Trotskyites, the reformists, the petty-bourgeois nationalists, and revisionists of every stripe. Lenin’s ideological struggle was an organic part of his development of Marxist theory, and his formulation of the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary working-class movement. Evidence of this comes from every component part of Marxism, to each of which Lenin made an invaluable contribution of experience in the ideological-theoretical struggle.

p While developing and enriching dialectical materialism, the outlook which is at the basis of Marxism, Lenin carried on a relentless struggle against old and new idealistic trends. He dealt a crushing blow at the ideologists of the liberal bourgeoisie in Russia in the early 20th century, proving that the Vekhi collection (put out in 1909 by bourgeois ideologists, P. B. Struve, N. A. Berdayev, S. N. Bulgakov and others) was a full-scale offensive against the scientific materialist world outlook and the best democratic traditions, and provided fresh and incontrovertible evidence that the liberal bourgeoisie was crawling to the reactionaries, and that it was unpatriotic and cosmopolitan.

p Lenin’s capital philosophical work, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, turned its sharpest critical edge against Machism and those of its followers in Russia who claimed to be reconciling the “extremes” of materialism and idealism but were in fact substituting the latter for the former.

p Lenin’s sharp philosophical struggle against empiriocriticism (most vividly embodied in the collection entitled Essays on the Philosophy of Marxism, 1908) was a struggle for the purity of Marxist theory and for the fundamental principles of Marxist philosophy. Lenin brushed aside the 16 claims that distortions and departures from Marxist philosophy were a personal matter, and that they led to immaterial polemics which had no bearing on the working-class movement. He emphasised that Machism, a brand of idealism, was objectively a weapon of reaction, and that Machist views essentially led to an elimination of Marxism and were an attempt to divert the working-class movement from its path of consistent class struggle. Lenin did not take Machism out of the political context, but saw it as an ideological source of liquidationism, otzovism and the other ideological and political trends alien and hostile to the proletariat.

p Defence and development of materialism and dialectics were always central to Lenin’s polemics against views and theories hostile to Marxism.

p Lenin put into concrete terms the materialist answer to the question of the relationship between mind and matter, by showing the specifics of their interaction in the process of man’s cognition and transformation of the world, and developed the theory of reflection, in which he brought out the role of socio-historical practice.

p In tackling practical matters, Lenin always proceeded from objective reality, as a consistent materialist dialectician. Nadezhda Krupskaya subsequently recalled: “It was characteristic of Ilyich that he never deceived himself, no matter how sad the realities were; he was never drunk with success, and always had a sober outlook. He did not always find it easy, though___He felt things very intensely, but he had a strong will, he had lived through a good deal and thought things out for himself, and was able to face the truth without flinching.”  [16•1  Objective reality, as the sole basis for correct conclusions and deductions, the inadmissibility of subjectivism in any assessment and of ignoring the historical circumstances—such was the simple but extremely important conclusion to be drawn from Lenin’s defence of materialism.

p Carrying forward the development of dialectics, Lenin produced the fullest philosophical definition of the elements of dialectics. He laid special emphasis on the dialectics of objective reality, its objective laws, and above all the core of dialectics—contradiction as the source of development.

p Lenin sought a solution to all practical matters on a scientific dialectical-materialist basis. Nadezhda Krupskaya 17 wrote: “Questions of a dialectical approach to all events also occupied Ilyich’s thoughts—-”  [17•1  He believed that “Marxist dialectics call for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation”.  [17•2  In effect, Lenin made a dialectical analysis of each question, “... dealt with the question in all its aspects and bearing on a number of other fundamental issues”.  [17•3  As an example Nadezhda Krupskaya cited Lenin’s analysis of the question of labour productivity: “The raising of the productivity of labour first of all requires that the material basis of large-scale industry shall be assured, viz., the development of the production of fuel, iron, the engineering and chemical industries.. . . Another condition for raising the productivity of labour is, firstly, the raising of the educational and cultural level of the masses of the population. ... Secondly, a condition for economic revival is the raising of the discipline of the toilers, their skill, their dexterity, increasing the intensity of labour and improving its organisation.’

p “Lenin dealt with the question of raising the productivity of labour from the angle of socialist emulation problems. He pointed out in this pamphlet (The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government—Ed.) that the task of raising labour efficiency was a long-range problem. . . .”  [17•4 

p Lenin used dialectics as a powerful weapon in the struggle [ against bourgeois ideologists and the reformist theories of the I opportunists, and in rebutting the unscientific conclusions [some drew from the latest achievements in the natural f sciences.

p Lenin’s Materialism and Empino-criticism gives a philosophical summing-up of the latest discoveries in the natural sciences and their bearing on the contemporary period. ’Modern physics, for instance,” Lenin wrote, “had posed a number of new questions which dialectical materialism had to cope with.”  [17•5 

p Lenin enriched historical materialism and scientific communism with a profound elaboration of the questions relating to the importance of objective conditions and the subjective factor in history, and substantiated the role of the people, the 18 working class and the Marxist parties in the historical process. While elaborating historical materialism as a general theory, as a method of cognition and transformation of social reality, Lenin also developed the methodology of all the social sciences.

p A most important element of Lenin’s philosophical legacy is his elaboration of the methodology of analysing and criticising bourgeois philosophy, whose main principles he set out in his Materialism and Empirio-criticism. He brought out four of its main aspects.

p First and foremost, philosophers and philosophic schools should not be judged by their words or by the labels they attach to themselves, but by the way they tackle the main philosophical problems. “The theoretical foundations of this philosophy,” he said, ”must be compared with those of dialectical materialism.”  [18•1  This means that what needs to be brought out is how a given philosophical trend solves the main question of philosophy: whether it regards as primary matter or consciousness, the physical or the mental, whether it regards the objective, material world as the source of our knowledge, and whether it allows the possibility of its cognition. This idea of Lenin’s has always been important, and it is especially so today, when bourgeois philosophers, with their terminological confusion, have been straining to represent their philosophy as being outside of class, above class, unconnected with any party, and standing above both materialism and idealism. However, Lenin said, “behind the epistemological scholasticism of empirio-criticism one must not fail to see the struggle of parties in philosophy, a struggle which in the last analysis reflects the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society. Recent philosophy is as partisan as was philosophy two thousand years ago.”  [18•2 

p Both the empirio-critics and the Machists claimed to have novel and original ideas. Lenin observed that all their works were shot through with the stupid claim to have risen “above” materialism and idealism, overcoming this “obsolete” antithesis; in fact, they were carrying on a wholesale and determined struggle against materialism. But is not our own period characterised by similar tendencies, with a great many big and small schools in bourgeois philosophy, neo-positivism, 19 neo-Thomism, existentialism and other philosophical trends straining to declare the main question of philosophy to be metaphysical and pointless? Present-day revisionists have not greatly out-distanced the turn-of-the-century revisionists, and like the latter continue to follow in the wake of bourgeois science, denying the fundamental antithesis between materialism and idealism.

p The second aspect of Lenin’s analysis requires a clarification of the place held by a given philosophical school in the light of the party approach. Lenin did not in any sense ignore the specifics of any given philosophical system and urged the need to determine how each school ranked among the other contemporary trends, so as to bring out its ideological origins and to establish its predecessors. In this context, much importance also attaches to the concrete analysis of the set of arguments used by each school, and Lenin gave a brilliant example of this in his thorough analysis of Machist arguments, combining it with scientifically grounded criticism.

p The third aspect of the analysis which Lenin believed to be highly essential is to bring out the attitude taken by a given philosophical school to the natural sciences. This aspect is just as important today, when scientific progress, the latest achievements in physics, cybernetics, physiology and psychology are bound to impel and do indeed impel some scientists to move through relativism to idealism. Difficulties arising in the process of cognition may result in various aspects of it being turned into absolutes, and philosophical idealism is quick to speculate on this and to produce new idealistic schools. Lenin had a profound understanding of this, as he exposed the reactionary attempts to interpret scientific successes for the benefit of idealism. However, he always made a point of drawing a distinction between these attempts and the actual successes in the natural sciences. Marxists have continued this tradition in the present conditions. It would, for instance, be highly erroneous to fail to appreciate the great scientific importance of the discoveries made by Niels Bohr, W. Heisenberg or Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics. But at the same time, it is necessary to expose the philosophical concessions that may be made to idealism in any interpretation of their views.

p The fourth aspect of Lenin’s analysis entailed the task of establishing the social role of the given philosophical trend in the class struggle. Like the other three aspects, this one is

2*

20 of lasting importance. The party approach by modern bourgeois philosophy boils down to the fact that in using idealistic conceptions that distort objective reality, this philosophy in fact carries on a fight against socialism and against social progress. Many bourgeois philosophers have taken a hand in anti-communist propaganda.

p Dialectical materialism does not only give a scientific explanation of the world, but also shows the working people the ways and means of changing it, of transforming it on revolutionary lines. The party approach of Marxist-Leninist philosophy coincides with the objective truth in the sense that, as we advance along the Marxist-Leninist path, we approach nearer and nearer to the objective truth (without ever exhausting it because the process of cognition is boundless). Every other way leads to nothing but confusion and falsehood.

p This idea of Lenin’s, like his other philosophical ideas, is of exceptional importance for a critique not only of contemporary bourgeois philosophy but of the whole of bourgeois ideology, and also for a critique of contemporary revisionism.

p Lenin also gave creative development to the second important component part of Marxism—political economy—as he solved its problems in acute clashes with spokesmen of bourgeois and revisionist trends.

p In persistent struggle against the views of the “legal Marxists” (P. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, S. N. Bulgakov and others), and the liberal Narodniks (S. N. Yuzhakov, V. P. Vorontsov and N. F. Danielson), Lenin produced a profound formulation of the question of capitalist development in Russia, and substantiated the hegemony of the working class in the revolutionary movement. This elaboration was based on a dialectico-materialist analysis of the character and tendencies in Russia’s economic development.

p Lenin’s contribution to Marx’s theory of reproduction, to the agrarian question, and to the study of the conditions of the working people under capitalism resulted from a profound analysis and devastating criticism of Edward Bernstein’s opportunistic views, and the attitudes taken in Russian conditions by the “legal Marxists”, and also by Menshevik theorists. The methodology of Lenin’s criticism of bourgeois economic science and Lenin’s conclusions remain, in our own day, the basis for criticism of the diverse socio-economic 21 theories, in particular those of Keynes, Malthus and RightSocialist reformism.

p Lenin’s theory of imperialism, set out in his work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and in many other writings, is undoubtedly of special importance in Lenin’s development of political economy. This theory was truly Lenin’s great contribution to Marxism and served as a sound economic basis for the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution. Just as Marx had discovered the economic law governing the movement of the capitalist mode of production in general, so Lenin discovered the peculiar features of the economic system of monopoly capitalism and its regularities and contradictions.

p In contrast to the conditions prevailing in the mid-19th century, which served as a basis for Marx’s theory of a simultaneous victory of the revolution in all the developed capitalist countries, under imperialism a simultaneous victory of the revolution throughout the world became inconceivable, and its victory in individual countries quite possible. Considering this change of circumstances, it would be a betrayal of the interests of the working class to await conditions for revolution to mature in all the countries of the world.

p Lenin’s brilliant analysis of imperialism—the final stage of capitalism—his analysis of its substance and features showed capitalism at this stage to be monopoly capitalism, the threshold of the socialist revolution. Lenin also revealed the process of monopoly capitalism growing into state-monopoly capitalism, which further promoted the ripening of the material prerequisites of socialism, and aggravated the contradictions which were bound to be sooner or later resolved through socialist revolution.

p In formulating his theory of imperialism, Lenin grouped bourgeois conceptions of imperialism under two heads: apologetic and bourgeois-critical. Among the outright apologists of imperialism, Lenin sharply criticised Schulze-Gavernitz, Liefmann and others, but he gave the following generalised characteristic of scientists like John A. Hobson, Alfred Lansburgh and others who took a critical attitude to various aspects of imperialism: ”. . .The monstrous facts concerning the monstrous rule of the financial oligarchy are so glaring that in all capitalist countries, in America, France and Germany, a whole literature has sprung up, written from the bourgeois point of view, but which, nevertheless, gives a fairly 22 truthful picture and criticism—petty-bourgeois, naturally—of this oligarchy.”  [22•1 

p This differentiated approach to bourgeois theorists is of exceptional importance in present-day conditions, when the contradictions in the midst of the bourgeois intelligentsia are ever more pronounced and deep-going.

p Lenin’s methodological approach in exposing bourgeois theories on various aspects of imperialism has also an essential part to play in contemporary criticism of such theories. Criticising the untenable conceptions based either on a separation of the politics of imperialism from its economics, on an unhistorical view of it, or on a tendency to ignore the internal contradictions of capitalism, while treating as absolutes the tendencies for its integration on a world-wide scale—something, for instance, that was characteristic of Kautsky’s theory of ultra-imperialism—Lenin wrote: “The best reply that one can make to the lifeless abstractions of ’ultra-imperialism’ (which serve exclusively a most reactionary aim: that of diverting attention from the depth of existing antagonisms) is to contrast them with the concrete economic realities of the present-day world economy.”  [22•2 

p Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, which starts from a keen insight into the substance of objective reality, remains to this day the only truly scientific basis for criticism of bourgeois economic theories and for creative elaboration of Marxist-Leninist economic science.

p By safeguarding and further developing the doctrine of the economic prerequisites for socialist revolution, Lenin made a great contribution to Marx’s theory, formulating the Communist Party’s economic platform in the revolution, and subsequently also the fundamentals of the political economy of socialism.

p Lenin elaborated these most important theoretical and practical questions in acute struggle against anti-Marxist views being spread by those who denied the possibility of socialism winning out in one country, and also against those who wanted to send socialist construction along the wrong way, which was fatal for the revolution.

p Reformists, like Kautsky, denied the Soviet people’s capacity for building socialism. Kautsky was echoed by the 23 Mensheviks, whose spokesman, Sukhanov, alleged that Russia had not yet reached the necessary level of development of her productive forces which made socialism possible.

p In his implacable struggle against bourgeois and reformist ideologists, the Mensheviks, the SRs, the anarchists, the Trotskyites, “Left Communists”, the “workers’ opposition” group and other ideological-political trends hostile to Marxism, Lenin boldly put forward and substantiated the fundamental principles, methods and guidelines for socialist economic development.

p Subsequently, a great feat was performed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which safeguarded the gains of the revolution and the line of building socialism, armed the Soviet people with a detailed and scientific plan for building the new social system and implemented this line in fierce class struggle against the remnants of the overthrown exploiting classes, against the capitalist elements in town and country, and against the “Left” and Right opportunists who sought to divert the country from the Leninist path.

p In present-day conditions, ever more extensive and truly international importance attaches to such key economic problems as the economic theory of socialism, the importance of the proletarian dictatorship for carrying through economic policy, Lenin’s critique of the anarcho-syndicalist deviation on the question of socialist property and the socialist management of production, Lenin’s critique of the “Left Communists” on various aspects of labour discipline, Lenin’s requirement that commodity-money relations should be combined with consistent state planning on the basis of the democratic-centralism principle, and Lenin’s critique of petty-bourgeois levelling tendencies.

p Lenin not only enriched Marxist philosophy and political economy, but also developed the theory of scientific communism. In tireless struggle against the ideological-political trends hostile to Marxism inside and outside the workingclass movement, he continued to give a keener edge to the proletariat’s weapon.

p The struggle was necessary. The ideological-theoretical and political attitudes of these trends distorted the substance and laws of the social process, thereby hampering the formulation of a scientific programme and tactical line for the communist movement.

24

p While standing up for the principles of Marxism, Lenin creatively developed the Marxist theory of socialist revolution, one of whose organic parts was a profound analysis of the objective prerequisites for revolution and a scientific elaboration of the role of the subjective factor in the historical process, created the doctrine of the new type of party, which in fact became the vanguard in the revolutionary struggle, formulated the strategy and tactics of the international communist movement, carried forward the Marxist doctrine of the national question, and set out the theory of socialist construction.

p In the course of this great theoretical activity, which was closely interwoven with his practical activity as leader and organiser of the revolutionary struggle, Lenin made a comprehensive critical analysis of the theoretical views, programmes and tactics of the liberal leaders of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois, peasant socialism; exposed international social-reformism as being untenable in theoretical and practical terms; carried on a systematic and steadfast struggle against every brand of revisionism (Right and “Left”) both within the revolutionary movement in Russia and in the international arena; showed bourgeois nationalism and national nihilism to be scientifically untenable and harmful and carried on a broad principled struggle for a triumph of the ideals of proletarian internationalism. He wrote: “From the standpoint of ideas, the entire history of Marxism in Russia is the history of the struggle against petty-bourgeois theories... .”  [24•1 

p The establishment of the revolutionary party of the working class was preceded by Lenin’s criticism of petty-bourgeois Narodnik socialism, and his implacable struggle against reformist and other opportunist trends.

p It is safe to say that the Great October Socialist Revolution could not have won out without the theoretical defeat of all these trends hostile to Marxism-Leninism, and without the tireless and undeviating struggle against them. Without that intense struggle, Lenin’s great contribution to the elaboration of the ideas of scientific communism would also have been inconceivable.

p Let us bring out some of the elements in the great many key questions of the theory of scientific communism and the 25 practice of the revolutionary movement on which it was absolutely necessary to inflict an ideological defeat on the adversaries of Marxism-Leninism so as to bring about the triumph of the scientific theory and the revolutionary cause.

p In unbending struggle against opportunism, Lenin formulated the basic principles underlying the activity of the new type, Marxist party. The Marxist-Leninist party of our epoch, as CPSU programme documents have repeatedly declared, is:

p a revolutionary party working to prepare the proletariat for a take-over of state power, in no other form but a dictatorship of the proletariat. This party is an embodiment of steadfast loyalty to the revolution, boundless courage and determination;

p a conscious vanguard of the class, having strong bonds with the masses, marching at their head and raising them to revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary struggle;

p an internationalist party whose primary and most important task is struggle against opportunist and philistine-pacifist distortions of the concept and policy of internationalism;

p a united efficient fighting organisation based on the principles of democratic centralism, capable of rallying the working class and the other working people in revolutionary struggle, and taking an implacable stand against any brand of opportunism or splitting activity;

p a party tirelessly mastering the intricacies of the art of applying the general principles of Marxism to concrete conditions, and capable of standing up for the ultimate goals of the working-class movement in any situation.

p Lenin overthrew the subjective-idealist metaphysical view of history taken by the liberal Narodniks, and showed that it was unscientific and reactionary to deny the decisive role of objective economic relations and contradictions in the life of society, and to see society as a casual, mechanical agglomeration of various phenomena, and the state as being something over and above class. At the same time, Lenin provided a scientific basis for the question of the subjective factor, and showed that it was futile to bring out “heroes” in contrast to the faceless throng, having brought out the importance of the masses of people in history, the vanguard role of the working class and the need for its alliance with the peasantry and the middle sections.

p In his struggle against the Narodniks, Lenin proved that 26 the working class was the only consistent democrat and that only in alliance with and under the leadership of the proletariat was the peasantry able to achieve its democratic aspirations.

p Lenin also proved that the toiling peasantry, by virtue of its social status, had an objective interest in overthrowing the power of capital, because socialism alone could provide a radical solution for the agrarian question.

p Criticism of present-day petty-bourgeois trends, denying the leading role of the working class in revolutionary struggle and turning the role of the peasantry or of the intelligentsia into an absolute, insistently demands a deep-going study of Lenin’s ideas on the question of the working class’s allies, and his views concerning the relation between the democratic and the socialist tasks of the revolution, which are of tremendous international importance.

p Lenin gave a comprehensive critique of reformism and revisionism. In his work, “Left-Wing” Communism—an Infantile Disorder, he considered the question about the enemies within the working-class movement Bolshevism had to fight in order to gain in stature, to establish itself and to be hardened, and gave this answer: “First and foremost, the struggle against opportunism, which in 1914 definitely developed into social-chauvinism and definitely sided with the bourgeoisie, against the proletariat. Naturally, this was Bolshevism’s principal enemy within the working-class movement. It still remains the principal enemy on an international scale. The Bolsheviks have been devoting the greatest attention to this enemy.”  [26•1 

p Lenin carried on an implacable struggle against Menshevism, a dangerous opportunist trend within the working-class movement in Russia. It will be recalled that the Mensheviks opposed the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution and the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, and demanded an arrangement with the liberal bourgeoisie, insisting on its hegemony in the revolution, and on a fold-up of the revolutionary struggle. In the period of reaction, the Mensheviks preached liquidationism in an effort to destroy the underground revolutionary proletarian party, and like all the other opportunist parties of the Second International during the First World War took a social-chauvinist attitude.

27

p Lenin resolutely exposed the social-chauvinism and opportunism of the Second International leaders and theorists, who sought to confine the activity of the labour parties to social reforms and legal, mainly parliamentary, methods.

p Together with his unflagging and consistent struggle against opportunism on the Right—the social-reformists and Rightist revisionists—Lenin indicated another enemy of Bolshevism within the working-class movement. “Bolshevism took shape, developed and became steeled in the long years of struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionism,”  [27•1  he wrote.

p He remarked on “the instability of such revolutionism, its barrenness, and its tendency to turn rapidly into submission, apathy, phantasms, and even a frenzied infatuation with one bourgeois fad or another. .. .”  [27•2  He emphasised the historical stages when, “the struggle that Bolshevism waged against ’Left’ deviations within its own Party assumed particularly large proportions on two occasions: in 1908, on the question of whether or not to participate in a most reactionary ’ parliament’ and in the legal workers’ societies, which were being restricted by most reactionary laws; and again in 1918 (the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), on the question of whether one ’compromise’ or another was permissible”.  [27•3  Lenin’s analysis of petty-bourgeois revolutionism is of exceptional importance for the tactics of the revolutionary movement, because it deals with the imperative need to combine legal and illegal forms of struggle, and makes a dialectical examination of the possibility of compromises in the interests of the proletariat, and their inadmissibility whenever they smack of opportunism and betrayal of the class interests of the workers.

p Lenin’s struggle against opportunism, petty-bourgeois revolutionism and diverse revisionist trends was of great importance for the future of the socialist revolution in Russia and for the revolutionary process in the world.

p Trotskyism, with its ultra-revolutionary catchwords, its lack of faith in the strength of the working class, its political adventurism, and neglect for the concrete historical reality, was undoubtedly the most dangerous enemy against which the CPSU had had to fight long and hard. Its neglect of the 28 internal tasks of the revolution, its urge to give the revolution a “push” from outside, its twists and turns, its fear of difficulties, its neglect of the tasks of economic construction of the socialist revolution, and lack of faith in the strength of the working people, its slander of the Communist Party, and its attacks on Party discipline—all added up to an outwardly Leftist stand which in fact made it akin to Right-wing social democratism, and ultimately carried Trotskyism along the counter-revolutionary path.

p The CPSU, relying on Lenin’s view of the tasks of socialist construction, exposed Trotskyism ideologically and inflicted a crushing organisational defeat on it. The same thing happened to the Right opportunists, who sought to revise the Party’s general line in the spirit of bourgeois ideology, and who opposed the fast pace of industrialisation, collectivisation and the elimination of the kulaks as a class.

p The Party’s loyalty to Lenin’s plan for socialist construction in the USSR ensured the great socialist accomplishments in Russia, which have become a sound basis for the further advance of the revolutionary transformation of the world.

There is no doubt that the successes of socialist construction were scored only because the Party was consistently mindful of Lenin’s precepts, including his implacable attitude to the class enemies of the revolution and socialism, and to opportunist trends. Even today, petty-bourgeois revolutionism and political and theoretical adventurism, which is allied with it, and reformist revisionism on the Right, present a great danger to the cause of the revolution and socialism.