p Leninism is the Marxism of our epoch. Lenin creatively developed Marxism in conditions when new regularities of social development were manifested, and when revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism became the practical task of the day. As a result of his profound scientific analysis of the new historical conditions, he drew the conclusion that “the epoch of capitalist imperialism is one of ripe and 124 rotten-ripe capitalism, which is about to collapse, and which is mature enough to make way for socialism”.  [124•1  On the strength of this conclusion, Lenin carried forward the formulation above all of problems that were of pressing importance for revolutionary practice, like the theory of the socialist revolution, the doctrine of the proletarian dictatorship and the leading role of the working-class party, the building of socialism in one country, and the principles of the communist social formation. Leninism was a reflection of continuity in the theory and practice of proletarian revolutionary struggle. Lenin not only developed Marxism, but also enriched it with new ideas, raising revolutionary theory to a new level and so opening up a new stage in the development of Marxism.

p Leninism became the banner of the international communist movement and of all social progress. It is a doctrine which the imperialist bourgeoisie now regards as the most dangerous ideological force. That is why bourgeois ideologists have concentrated their fire on Leninism.

p The specific aspect about their attacks is that they are being carried on against the background of the undeniable successes of socialism and the growing influence of MarxistLeninist ideas throughout the world. It is no longer possible to try to ignore or reject these ideas out of hand, or simply to declare them untenable. It is no longer possible to conceal the gains of socialism, however hard its enemies may hope to do so. The only way that is left open to them is one of falsification and distortion.

p One of the main lines in this effort—if not the main one—is the stubborn attempt to contrast Lenin and Marx, by declaring the former to be a deserter. The argument runs on these lines: Marx is said to have been a determinist theorist, and Lenin a voluntarist practitioner; Marx is said to have attached no importance to political struggle, allegedly pinning his hopes on the mechanical effect of the laws of social development, whereas Lenin is said to have concentrated on setting up a militant political organisation, the party of the working class; Marx is said to have been a supporter of democracy, and Lenin of dictatorship; Marx’s theory is alleged to have been applicable to the advanced capitalist countries, and Lenin’s only to the backward countries; Marxism is said to have been a science, and Leninism an ideology, 125 and so on, and so forth. All these boil down to an attempt to “recognise” Marx to some extent, but flatly to denounce Lenin. The whole effort is no more than an attempt to create the illusion of “objectivity” and the scientific approach. Naturally enough the anti-communists cannot be reconciled with Marx. In fact, what is now and again perforce accepted as Marx’s “contribution to science” is subsequently rejected as “obsolete”, as conclusions drawn by sociological and economic thinking applicable only to the 19th century. But the falsifiers of Marxism make no bones about their hostility to Lenin: their line of argument is spearheaded against him.

p A typical method of distorting Leninism is to contrast the views held by Marx and by Lenin concerning the relationship between objective conditions and the subjective factor in the historical process.

p Marx’s doctrine is presented as a sum-total of abstract theoretical constructions bearing on the economic laws of social development, and in no way connected with revolutionary action by classes or parties. Leninism, by contrast, is declared to be a realm of pure practice, dealing only with matters connected with will, force, organisation of practical action for overthrowing the existing system, action which allegedly ignores the objective prerequisites and conditions of struggle, the objective laws of social development and ultimately Marxism itself. In short, Lenin is presented as a man who had jettisoned Marxism.

p Lenin’s “departure” from “orthodox” Marxism is discovered by bourgeois critics in the most diverse spheres, primarily, in the theory and practice of socialist revolution. Grossly distorting Lenin’s role as the leader of the revolution, they present him as a voluntarist, a conspirator, a professional “destroyer”. The well-known falsifier of Marxism, R.N. Carew Hunt, wrote that “Lenin gave Marx’s teaching a voluntarist turn”.  [125•1  Professor Andre Piettre of Paris University, the US philosopher Sidney Hook, the well-known specialist in falsifying Leninism, Stefan T. Possony, among others, have said roughly the same thing about Leninism  [125•2 .

p !

p Walt Rostow contrasts the “economic determinism” of Marxism with the “determinism of force” of Leninism. Similar inventions are contained in the writings of A. Meyer, Max Lange, Gustav Wetter, and Innocent Bochenski, the French Jesuit Henri Chambre and other anti-communists. Many bourgeois philosophers and sociologists present Lenin as an ideological heir to the anarchists and syndicalists, and as a follower of Blanqui, Tkachev and Nechayev, but not of Marx. This urge to contrast Lenin and Marx is most pronounced in a recent collection published in the United States, which contrasts the “strictly ‘voluntarist’ Marxism of Lenin and the ‘determinist’ social physics of the mature Marx and Engels”.  [126•1 

p Shlomo Avinery of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem insists that Lenin’s attitude is far more akin to the “voluntaristic Jacobin political tradition so much criticised by Marx himself”, so that Leninism allegedly includes the Jacobin tradition of “subjectivist political revolution”.  [126•2 

p The US philosopher Z.A. Jordan insists that Lenin had carried out a “voluntaristic modification of Marxian theories”, that he was a “Jacobin and a Blanquist, both by temperament and frame of mind”, and that he had replaced “the Marxian historical determinism” by “a revolutionary activism based on the principle of voluntarism”. He concludes: “Lenin’s doctrine ... is incompatible with Marx’s teaching.”  [126•3 

p This effort to contrast Leninism and Marxism is falsification on at least three counts.

p First, to depict Marx as an armchair scientist, out of touch with practical revolutionary struggle, is to twist Marx’s personality and historical role. Second, to present Lenin as a “revolutionary fanatic out to destroy the existing social order” and a voluntarist “driven by a compulsive need to dominate”  [126•4  is grossly to distort his personality and activity. Third, to separate and to isolate the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism is to ignore and deny the most important and characteristic feature 127 of the teaching, namely, its blend of theory and practice, which is the source of its effectiveness and everlasting importance.

p Marx was never a one-sided “economic determinist” or fatalist who failed to recognise the role and importance of the subjective factor in historical development. In fact, it was he who showed that theory becomes a material force when it takes hold of the masses. Marxism is in essence the supreme recognition of man’s active role as he comes to understand the laws of social development, which makes him capable of consciously setting himself realistic goals and achieving them by putting into practice the necessity he has understood. There is not a whit of fatalism in the Marxist-Leninist teaching, for fatalism is antithetical to its very nature.

p Marxism emerged and took shape as a theory, revolutionary in its very spirit, which has become a mighty instrument not only of cognition but also of the transformation of the world, designed to serve as a militant guide to action for the proletariat, the most revolutionary class in history. In contrast to earlier social theories, which were mainly contemplative, Marxism was forged in the fire of revolutionary struggle. Its first statement of policy—Manifesto of the Communist Party—was the outcome of a summing-up of the experience gained in the early class battles, which paved the way for the revolutions of 1848 and 1849, and as a theoretical aid to the proletariat in determining its role in these revolutions.

p Marx and Engels were not only the authors of a revolutionary theory but also the leaders of a living proletarian movement, the organisers and leaders of the first Communist Party—the Communist League—and the founders of the First International, the International Working Men’s Association.

p Present-day “connoisseurs” of Marxism allege that “Marx had seen his laws as working themselves out with inexorable necessity; in Lenin’s hands they became quasi-voluntary”.  [127•1  This distorts the substance of the matter. Marx said: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances 128 chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered.”  [128•1 

p By contrasting the objective and the subjective in the historical process, bourgeois critics create the impression that historical necessity is something that operates apart from men. In fact, this is the basis of the following argument: “If the world proletarian revolution is the inevitable outcome of irresistible economic laws, there is no logical need for the revolutionaries in one country to strive and bleed for it—they might as well wait.”  [128•2 

p All this is designed to lead up to the suggestion that there is no need to set up political parties: after all, no one sets up political parties to promote the lunar eclipse. But this merely goes to show that those who reason on these lines ignore or misunderstand the elementary propositions of science, namely, the qualitative distinctions between social development and the development of nature. Society consists of men who are endowed with consciousness, which is why objective laws cannot be realised in society without or apart from the actions of men. In fact, Marxism-Leninism is strong and effective precisely because it is a scientific combination of objective analysis of development in human history and of its laws, and the scientific interpretation of the role of the subjective factor in social development.

p The ideological opponents of socialism seek to have objective historical necessity and men’s activity appear to be incompatible with each other, thereby distorting the real historical movement in the process of which the objective conditions, which determine the subjective aspect of development, are themselves changed under the influence of subjective factor. As the social revolution matures, the objective prerequisites for it may be present, but if they are to result in victory there is also need for the subjective factor to develop, namely, the readiness, organisation and resolution of the masses, the consciousness and cohesion of the working class, led by the Communist Party. The Marxist-Leninist party, which gives a scientific analysis to the existing situation and draws from the objective and subjective phenomena 129 conclusions for practical activity, shows the masses the right way and the concrete methods of struggle.

p In fact, Marx had never been an “economic determinist” with a fatalistic cast of mind who had failed to recognise the role and importance of the subjective factor in historical development; nor had Lenin been a voluntarist. Anyone who has read the works of Lenin and has some knowledge of the history of the Bolshevik Party is sure to know that Lenin was most resolutety opposed to any ideas of voluntarism, subjectivism and political adventurism.

p Lenin based all his political conclusions on a strict scientific analysis. He kept emphasising: “Only an objective consideration of the sum total of the relations between absolutely all the classes in a given society, and consequently a consideration of the objective stage of development reached by that society and of the relations between it and other societies, can serve as a basis for the correct tactics of an advanced class.”  [129•1 

p Lenin said that the “concrete analysis of a concrete situation ... was the living soul of Marxism”,  [129•2  and required that there should be a concrete approach to the connection between phenomena and their objective interdependence, together with a consideration of their qualitative specifics.

p The formulation of the strategy and tactics of the workingclass movement, so prominent in Lenin’s writings, was always based on a comprehensive consideration of concrete objective conditions.

p Lenin studied thoroughly and formulated in detail the question of the development of capitalism in Russia. It was in fact his scientific, materialist, Marxist view and interpretation of social life that helped Lenin to expose the subjectivist views of the Narodniks, and to show that the course of social development in Russia, as in other countries, depended on objective economic regularities. But Lenin’s approach to these laws had nothing in common with the objectivist, passive, contemplative attitude, either.

p Marxism-Leninism in theory and practice has always aimed against any underestimation of the subjective factor (that is, against fatalism, and the laissez faire theory) and also against the underestimation of the objective 130 prerequisites and conditions for struggle (in other words, against voluntarism and adventurism).

p It was this most important feature of the Marxist-Leninist theory, of this remarkable blend of theory and practice, which explains both why Marxism is effective and why it remains vigorous, which explains its constant creative development, that Lenin dealt with in his expressive writings at the turn of the century, when he said that Marxism was distinguished by a combination of “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”.  [130•1 

p It is not fit for scientists, to say nothing of those who claim to be students of Marxism, to fail to know, to understand, or to conceal this most important feature of MarxismLeninism, and to use it as ground for ascribing to Marx and Lenin a one-sidedness that has never in fact been theirs.

p But, of course, this is no mere mistake or failure to carry out a profound analysis of revolutionary theory and its principles. There is much political class meaning in this effort to contrast Lenin and Marx, for it is designed to cast doubt on Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution, his doctrine of the proletarian dictatorship and the working-class party.

p In the epoch of imperialism, capitalism is rotten ripe, but it will not collapse of itself because the bourgeoisie will never make way for the progressive forces of its own accord. In these conditions, the subjective factor behind social development acquires an especial importance. The monopoly bourgeoisie regards as the main danger at the Leninist stage in the development of Marxism the fact that it was Lenin, who, considering the ever greater consciousness and active role of the masses, and their proletarian vanguard, the Communist Party, in the conditions of imperialism, devoted so much attention to introducing revolutionary theory into the midst of the masses, to establishing and strengthening the revolutionary Party, and training the working class for revolutionary mass action, in short, to 131 the development of the subjective factor in the historical process.

p However, Lenin based all his political conclusions on a strict scientific analysis of reality. It was not subjectivism or voluntarism but the strict scientific consideration of the objective regularities and the conscious elements of social development that lay behind Lenin’s skill in organising and directing the creative forces of the masses to revolutionary accomplishment and the construction of socialism.

p Suffice it to recall the profound analysis Lenin made of the aggregation of historical conditions which had taken shape in Russia and on the international scene on the eve of the October Socialist Revolution. In his works, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? and The Crisis Has Matured among others, he showed that the international situation, and Russia’s economic and political conditions, together with the crisis of the bourgeois power and the switch of the majority of the people to the Bolshevik side, had all brought the country to the verge of a socialist revolution, and had created a real possibility for the forcible overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship. On the strength of his analysis of the objective and the subjective conditions and the arrangement of class forces, Lenin formulated the Bolshevik Party’s line for an armed uprising and gave a lead in implementing this line. The victory of the October Revolution provides a remarkable example of successful implementation of the scientifically grounded revolutionary strategy and tactics of the working class.

p Lenin’s doctrine of the revolutionary situation was a remarkable development of the general methodological approach to the basic propositions enunciated by Marx and Engels concerning the objective and the subjective elements in the historical process. Lenin formulated and developed these propositions in the conditions of the new epoch, revealed the concrete dialectics of the interconnection between objective conditions and the subjective factor at different stages of history, and applied them to the stage of the maturing socialist revolution in Russia. Lenin’s profound scientific approach to the analysis of socio-political regularities of the revolution has nothing in common with the ignorant assertion that in Lenin’s writings “determinism 132 gives way to voluntarism”.  [132•1  Indeed, considering the dialectics of the revolutionary process, Lenin gave scientific confirmation, at the new historical stage, of the definitive importance of objective conditions. But as soon as the objective possibility for revolution has matured, the crucial role goes to the subjective factor, because only if there is mature and conscious direction of the revolution is it possible to translate the potentiality into reality.

p Lenin made a truly invaluable contribution both to the theory and practice of socialist revolution. The law of the uneven development of capitalism in the imperialist epoch, which he discovered, his formulation of the questions of the hegemony of the proletariat in the liberation movement, the growing of the bourgeois democratic revolution into a socialist revolution, the prerequisites (objective and subjective) of the socialist revolution, the possibility of a victory of socialism in individual countries, the diversity of forms of transition by different countries to socialism, the strategy and tactics of the working class in the preparation and carrying out of the revolution, the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship and its functions, the Marxist-Leninist party as the leader, organiser and ideological source of the socialist revolution and socialist construction. All these have had, and still have, a fundamental meaning for the cause of the working people’s emancipation.

p A typical attempt to narrow down and confine the Leninist theory of socialist revolution to regional and geographic areas is the assertion that Lenin was an advocate of revolution only in the backward countries, in contrast to Marx, who had looked to revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. James E. Connor of the Russian Institute at Columbia University declares that Lenin had “transformed Marxism from an ideology designed for the most highly industrialised nations into one that provided both a rationale and a strategy for revolution and development in backward areas”.  [132•2  Connor insists that “Lenin took the first step in transforming Marxism into an ideology for underdeveloped areas” and a “revolutionary doctrine for developing nations”, and adds: “In order to accomplish his ends Lenin 133 had to alter Marxism drastically. He had to transform it from a doctrine which charted the course of inevitable developments in the most advanced nations into one that set forth a strategy and a rationale for revolutionary activity in the least advanced countries.”  [133•1 

p What is the conclusion this suggests? It will be easily seen that the myth of this “transformation” of Marxism and Lenin’s imaginary desertion is designed to cater for those who stand to gain not only from a denial of the epochmaking importance of the Great October Socialist Revolution, a denial, or at any rate a minimisation, of the international importance of its experience, but also, in particular, to exclude the advanced capitalist countries from the sphere of influence of Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution.

p Lenin creatively enriched and developed the Marxist theory and preserved all the principal propositions of the theory of socialist revolution which the founders of Marxism had substantiated (analysis of the contradictions of capitalism, which objectively determine the revolution, the leading role of the working class in the revolution, the importance of its allies, the necessity of the proletarian dictatorship, and the establishment of an independent political party of the working class). He called attention to the growing social basis of the world revolutionary process, and on the strength of this drew the conclusion that the socialist revolution would not be a struggle of the revolutionary working class of individual countries alone, but would become a struggle of all the peoples oppressed by imperialism. This conclusion has been borne out by historical practice.

p That it is untenable to contrast Lenin and Marx, that it is biased to insist that Lenin had allegedly transformed Marxist theory of the revolution into a revolutionary doctrine suitable only for the backward countries will also be evident in the light of the following considerations.

p First, it is not right metaphysically to dismember the world capitalist system into spheres isolated from each other (developed and backward countries), which are allegedly ruled by fundamentally distinct regularities of social development and correspondingly different “models” of revolution. Lenin regarded imperialism as a coherent system within which 134 the prerequisites for socialist revolution were mature in historical terms, despite the unevenness and diversity of concrete conditions in which these were manifested in the individual countries. Indeed, it is the coherent development of the whole system that revealed within it the ganglions of contradictions which turned some countries into weak links of the imperialist chain.

p Second, there is no ground to present the October Socialist Revolution, carried out under the banner of Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution, as being a model of revolution acceptable only for the most backward countries. Let us bear in mind that, all things considered, Russia was not such a backward country. It was a country with an average level of capitalist development. Alongside backward areas it had highly developed industrial areas, a great concentration of capital, and leading contingents of the working class which had extensive ties with the revolutionary peasantry. At the head of the Russian proletarian movement stood an experienced and well-organised Communist Party, equipped with flexible and scientifically substantiated revolutionary tactics.

p The Bolshevik Party, relying on the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, rallied and directed to a common goal various revolutionary streams: the socialist workingclass movement for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the peasants’ revolutionary struggle against the landowners, the national liberation movement of the peoples oppressed by tsarism, and the striving for peace throughout the country. The struggle for socialism was united with the struggle for democracy. The doctrine of the Party’s leading role, on the need for the proletarian dictatorship in the transition from capitalism to socialism was implemented and confirmed in practice.

p Historical development since then has shown that Lenin’s theory of the socialist revolution and the experience of the October Revolution have proved equally necessary both for the working people of the advanced capitalist countries and for the peoples of the developing countries. Pre-revolutionary Russia was in no sense an island isolated from the world, where favourable conditions for a take-over had accidentally developed, as bourgeois ideologists sometimes pretend, but one of those ganglions of contradictions so characteristic of imperialism, in which the people’s patience was overtaxed 135 by the combined domination of big capital and national oppression, and where this led to a break in the chain of imperialism at its weakest link.

p Third, Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution, which included (but which did not boil down to) the theory of national liberation revolution seen as an integral part of the world socialist revolution, made it possible theoretically to formulate and then practically to tackle the question of the possibility of the peoples’ taking the non-capitalist way. However, even this problem, which is highly meaningful for our own epoch, was considered by Lenin within the context of the world-wide historical, international prospect. In fact, he established a close connection between the real possibility of non-capitalist development and the practical tasks of spreading socialist ideas among the nations which lagged in their development through the fault of imperialism, and also with the diverse assistance to these countries on the part of the working people of those countries where the socialist revolution had already won out.

p Fourth, to say that Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution is a theory applicable only to the underdeveloped countries suggests that there are no revolutionary prospects in the advanced capitalist countries, a conclusion which is being daily refuted by the facts we find in the international press.

p Thus, the numerical strength of the Communist Parties from 1939 to our own day has increased fivefold (from 500,000 to 2.5 million) in the capitalist part of Europe, and has almost doubled in America. In the industrialised countries, roughly 75 million persons were involved in strikes in the 20 years before the Second World War, and 263 million in the 20 years since the war. Characteristically, the workingclass struggle in the citadels of capitalism is now being intensified not only for better economic conditions but also for political demands.

p In recent years, there has been evidence of a fresh upswing in the mass political struggle of the working class and other sections of the working people in France, Italy, the USA, Britain, West Germany and Japan, among other countries. For instance, almost 10 million working people took part in strikes in France in May and June 1968, 18 million in Italy, 14 million in Japan, adding up to a total of 57 million strikers in the capitalist world in 1968, as compared with 37 million in 1965. Diverse social sections of the working 136 people are being involved in the struggle. What is especially evident is the growing weight and role of the intelligentsia in the social struggle, which is due both to the changes caused by the scientific and technical revolution and to the fact that the bulk of the intellectuals have been moving ever closer to the working class in social terms. The young people have become a force to be reckoned with in the fight against the dictatorship of monopoly capital. Thus, the mass basis of the revolutionary movement in the developed capitalist countries has markedly increased. Ahead lie more battles against monopoly capital and the policy of the bourgeois state. The sharpness of the class battles in the West European countries and the USA refutes the inventions of the advocates of the bourgeois system who say that the class struggle throughout the world has been fading out, that Marxist-Leninist theory is irrelevant to the advanced capitalist countries, and that Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution is no more than of “regional” importance.

p The falsifiers of Marxism-Leninism have to reckon with the epoch-making importance of Lenin’s science of the revolutionary transformation of the world, and this explains their desperate efforts to undermine the influence of Lenin’s ideas, above all of such key component parts of Lenin’s theory of socialist revolution as the Marxist theory of the proletarian dictatorship, which Lenin developed and enriched, and the theory of the working-class party, which Lenin developed. The whole experience of history has given irrefutable evidence that without the Leninist-type party, without the proletarian dictatorship, it is impossible to carry out such a deep-going social change as a socialist revolution and the construction of socialist society.

p The transition from capitalism to socialism, inaugurated by the Great October Socialist Revolution over half a century ago, constitutes the main content of our epoch. Of course, the historical process in which the working class wins power cannot be the same in the various countries, but the working-class struggle is the more successful the better the workers and the revolutionary parties directing their struggle have mastered creative Marxism, and the better they apply the general laws of the socialist revolution to the concrete historical situation in their countries. This makes it absolutely necessary to study the historical experience of the working class not only at home, but in all countries, and 137 especially the historical part of the Great October Socialist Revolution. There is good reason why the enemies of socialism have been trying so hard to denigrate its part and to present it as a false and erroneous one. Their charges that Lenin had deviated from “orthodox” Marxism merely add up to one of the methods used in this wholesale falsification of Marxism-Leninism, and of the historical experience of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

p Take Sidney Hook, who says that the struggle carried on by Lenin and the Communists, whom he led in the socialist revolution in Russia, was a “giant stride away from the basic Marxist position”  [137•1  and that the proletarian dictatorship “marks an absolute break with all the democratic traditions of Marxism”.  [137•2 

p The distorted presentation of the proletarian dictatorship and democracy by bourgeois falsifiers is based on an abstract metaphysical interpretation which ignores their social content, and on a distortion of Marx’s role as the founder of the theory of the proletarian dictatorship.

p Let us recall that Marx attached exceptional importance to his formulation of the theory of the proletarian dictatorship. In a letter to Joseph Weidemeyer, dated March 5, 1852, he wrote: “What I did that was new was to prove:

p 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production,

p 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.”  [137•3 

p Lenin summed up the vast practical experience gained by the working-class movement since Marx’s lifetime, and formulated the theory of the proletarian dictatorship in the new historical conditions. The system of the proletarian dictatorship and the Communist Party’s leading and guiding role within this system; the dictatorship of the proletariat as a continuation of the class struggle in new forms; the Soviet power as the state form of the proletarian dictatorship; the proletarian dictatorship as a special form of class alliance between the working class and the working 138 peasantry; and the tasks and functions of the proletarian dictatorship—those are some of the basic questions which Lenin undeniably formulated and elaborated, and which must be credited to him.

p Lenin exposed the lies about the proletarian dictatorship being incompatible with democracy and showed that democracy did not exist “in general”. There is bourgeois democracy, which is always narrow, abridged, false, and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich, and a trap and a fraud for the exploited and the poor, and there is proletarian socialist democracy, which actually involves the masses in government and which is a “million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy”.  [138•1 

p Lenin stressed that the use of force against the oppressors of the people—the use of force against an insignificant minority—was in no sense the essential function of the proletarian dictatorship. Its main function was constructive, involving a creative effort by the people in establishing new, socialist relations, which have been translated into practical reality in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.

p Lenin advanced the theory of the proletarian dictatorship in acute struggle against his ideological opponents. The opportunists—Russian and non-Russian Mensheviks, like the followers of Kautsky—proved to be reformists on this issue, paying lip-service to the proletarian revolution, while denying its most essential and fundamental concept. Lenin wrote: “By ’recognising’ the revolution, and at the same time refusing to recognise the dictatorship of a definite class (or of definite classes), the Russian liberals and the Mensheviks of that time, and the present-day German and Italian liberals, Turatists and Kautskyites, have revealed their reformism, their absolute unfitness to be revolutionaries.”  [138•2  Lenin exposed the stand taken by the Mensheviks as “toadies to the liberal bourgeoisie and conductors of its influence in the ranks of the proletariat”,  [138•3  and showed that on this issue of the dictatorship the Mensheviks took an essentially vulgar, bourgeois stand. “The bourgeois understands by dictatorship the annulment of all liberties and guarantees 139 of democracy, arbitrariness of every kind, and every sort of abuse of power, in a dictator’s personal interests.”  [139•1 

p Lenin also drew attention to the connection between the Mensheviks’ opportunist attitude and that of the bourgeois liberals who extolled the Mensheviks’ efforts “to direct the Russian Social-Democratic movement along the path that is being followed by the whole of the international SocialDemocratic movement.... This is the usual method of the international trend of social-liberals, pacifists, etc., who in all countries extol the reformists and opportunists, the Kautskyites and the Longuetists, as ’reasonable’ socialists in contrast with the ’madness’ of the Bolsheviks.”  [139•2 

p Lenin brought to the fore the class meaning of the dictatorship question, and wrote: “There is the dictatorship of a minority over the majority, the dictatorship of a handful of police officials over the people; and there is the dictatorship of the overwhelming majority of the people over a handful of tyrants, robbers and usurpers of the people’s power.”  [139•3 

p In his polemics with the bourgeois liberals and the opportunists, Lenin exploded their attempts to present the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dictatorship over the people. He wrote: “The old authority persistently distrusted the masses, feared the light, maintained itself by deception. As the dictatorship of the overwhelming majority, the new authority maintained itself and could maintain itself solely because it enjoyed the confidence of the vast masses, solely because it, in the freest, widest, and most resolute manner, enlisted all the masses in the task of government. It was an authority open to all, it carried out all its functions before the eyes of the masses, was accessible to the masses, sprang directly from the masses; and was a direct and immediate instrument of the popular masses, of their will.”  [139•4  Lenin went on to explain why it was not yet a matter of the “dictatorship of the whole people” but of a “dictatorship of a revolutionary people”. He said, truthfully and frankly, that within the whole people there were men who had been intimidated and downtrodden by preconceptions, customs and routine, 140 men who were indifferent and philistine-minded, which is why “the dictatorship is exercised, not by the whole people, but by the revolutionary people who, however, do not shun the whole people, who explain to all the people the motives of their actions in all their details, and who willingly enlist the whole people not only in ’administering’ the state, but in governing it too, and indeed in organising the state”.  [140•1 

p The basic criterion of democracy (which means popular power) is real participation by broad sections of the working people in the administration of the state and the actual possibility for the people to enjoy the fruits of social labour. This, for its part, depends on which classes have the political power and own the means of production, which social classes stand to gain from the domestic and foreign policy. That is why the objective conditions for true popular power arise only when the working class takes over political power and hands over to the people the property in the principal means of production. In other words, the proletarian dictatorship alone creates, for the first time in history, democracy for the .majority, for all the working people. Lenin wrote: “Bolshevism has popularised throughout the world the idea of the ’dictatorship of the proletariat’... has shown by the example of Soviet government that the workers and poor peasants, even of a backward country... have been able... to create a democracy that is immeasurably higher and broader than all previous democracies in the world, and to start the creative work of tens of millions of workers and peasants for the practical construction of socialism.”  [140•2  He added that the “proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such a change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those ... the toiling classes”, ensuring for “the vast majority of the population, greater practical opportunities for enjoying democratic rights and liberties than ever existed before, even approximately, in the best and the most democratic bourgeois republics”.  [140•3  Lenin closed all the loopholes for any unscientific, formalistic and metaphysical contrast between democracy and dictatorship outside the 141 social context, and showed in theoretical terms what life was daily proving in practical terms, namely, that the essence of imperialism in the political sphere was a denial of democracy, whereas in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the essence of the working people’s political power, once they have overthrown the political power of imperialism, can take the form only of a proletarian dictatorship, which is simultaneously democracy for the majority.

p Present-day falsifiers of Marxism have good reason for concentrating their attacks on this fundamental aspect of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. Lenin had good reason to say that “A Marxist is only he who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat”.  [141•1 

p The socialist revolution is unfeasible without the proletarian dictatorship, which is necessary to suppress the resistance of the overthrown exploiters, to retain power (and power, let us bear in mind, is the main issue in the revolution), to ensure defence of the revolution and carry it forward to the full triumph of socialism.

p The bourgeois falsifiers’ insistent efforts to contrast Lenin and Marx are also aimed against Lenin’s fundamental contribution to Marxist theory, consisting in his further development of the Marxist doctrine of the world historical mission of the working class, the role of the revolutionary party in the socialist revolution and socialist construction, and the new type of party.

p Professor Daniels of the University of Vermont writes: “Lenin’s concept of the party’s role as the motive force of revolution implied a radical break with historical materialism as it previously had been understood.”  [141•2  Sidney Hook puts the finishing touches to this slanderous assertion, when he writes: “The Communists are not the midwives of a social revolution waiting to be born. They are the engineers or professional technicians of revolution at any time and at any place.”  [141•3 

p To this is added slander on the principles of Party construction, and the nature and organisation of the Communist 142 Party of the Soviet Union, which bourgeois ideologists present as an elite out of touch with the masses, and falsify its principle of democratic centralism presenting it as a denial of inner-party democracy and, need we say, another “deviation” from Marx. Professors Karel and Irene Hulicka declare that in 1902 Lenin formulated “the elitist principle which is still operative”, so that the CPSU is a “highly undemocratic organisation”.  [142•1  This view is shared by Professor Tompkins of the University of Oklahoma, who insists that Lenin had rejected democratic principles in the conduct of inner-party affairs, and that this “was not in accordance with the teaching of Marx and Engels”.  [142•2 

p These inventions are exploded by the facts and the writings of the founders of Marxism-Leninism.

p Everything Marx and Engels did was designed to help the working class become aware of its role in world history as a fighter for the overthrow of capitalism and a builder of socialism and communism, and to teach the working class to carry on organised struggle to achieve these aims. This required an independent political party of the working class. Engels wrote: “For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must—and this Marx and I have been arguing ever since 1847—form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party.”  [142•3  He also pointed out: “The proletariat becomes a force as soon as it establishes an independent workers’ party.”  [142•4 

p The theoretical views held by the founders of Marxism and the practical experience they had in directing the first communist organisation of the proletariat—the Communist League—and then of the International Working Men’s Association, were taken by Lenin as the basis for his great activity in establishing the Marxist revolutionary party.

p The new historical situation called for further elaboration and enrichment of the Marxist theory of the Party. 143 Relying on the fundamental propositions of Marxism, Lenin produced a full-scale theory of a new type of party. Such a party, the leading and conscious contingent of the working class, is equipped with the leading theory and a knowledge of the laws of social development and the class struggle; it is an organised contingent of the working class and derives its strength not only from its ideological coherence but also from its democratic centralism and iron discipline. As the highest form of the proletariat’s class organisation, the Party has an ideological influence on and directs all the other organisations of the working people. It is a party closely connected with the masses and providing the political guidance and carrying on education of the working people, to whom it gives a lead. Lenin said: “A vanguard performs its task as vanguard only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the mass of the people it leads and is able really to lead the whole mass forward.”  [143•1  It is a party of international unity of working people of all nationalities, actively helping to consolidate the international unity and cohesion of the Communists of all countries. It is a party based on ideological and organisational unity which rules out factionalism and carries on consistent and uncompromising struggle against opportunism and revisionism of every stripe. Lenin always sharply criticised the Menshevik idea of unity as an unprincipled reconciliation of the revolutionary and the opportunist lines, and said that there was need to “distinguish the mentality of the soldier of the proletarian army from the mentality of the bourgeois intellectual who parades anarchistic phrases”.  [143•2  The Party has the same discipline and the same rules for all its members.

p Lenin’s theory of the new type of party has stood the test of history in the flames of fierce class battles. The CPSU’s experience is of tremendous importance for the whole international communist movement. That is why Lenin’s theory of the working-class party and its leading role in the revolutionary movement and in building the new society, above all, the principles underlying the organisation and activity of the CPSU, have become the most important targets for the ideological subversions of present-day anti-Marxism.

p Communist Parties derive their strength from the fact that they embody the best qualities of the working class as a revolutionary, transforming force, and as the leader of the world-wide liberation movement. Marxist-Leninist parties are equipped with the science of the revolutionary transformation of the world, and give consistent and firm expression to the fundamental interests of the working class and all the other working people, and act in ideological and organisational unity with the mass of people. This makes them capable of leading the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the exploiters and directing socialist and communist construction. This has been borne out by the rich experience of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which ensured the victory of the socialist revolution and the construction of socialism, and now successfully leads the building of communist society.

p The secret of the successes of the CPSU lies in the fact that it is always in the van of the working class, and together with it gives a lead to broad masses of working people. The Party builds communism for the people and together with the people. The indissoluble ties between the CPSU and the masses have always been a source of strength and invincibility of the Party, and a necessary condition for the exercise of its leading role in the struggle for communism.

p The unbreakable unity of the Party and of the people is Soviet society’s strongest weapon. That is why the imperialists have been trying so hard to weaken it.

p Some data on the social make-up of the CPSU will help to blast the inventions about the Leninist Party being elitist. A remarkable feature of the CPSU has always been the fact that it has not only expressed the interests of the working class, but has always taken care to enlarge the proletarian section of its ranks. In February 1917, as the Party emerged from the underground, 60.2 per cent of its members were factory workers, 7.6 per cent peasants, and 25.8 per cent office workers, most of them professional revolutionaries who had borne the brunt of the struggle for the cause of the proletariat. As the alliance of the working class and the peasantry strengthened, the number of toiling peasants among the Communists increased. After the October Revolution and the triumph of socialism, other changes took place in the social make-up of the CPSU, but the leading representatives of the working people, connected with 145 material production, have always constituted the bulk of Party membership. On January 1, 1953, 32.1 per cent of the CPSU members were factory workers, 17.8 per cent were peasants (collective farmers), 50.1 per cent office workers and others; on January 1, 1969, the figures were respectively, 39.3, 15.6 and 45.1 per cent. Many Soviet citizens have risen from the ranks of ordinary working people to leading Party and government positions. Thus, over 80 per cent of the secretaries of regional committees, district committees, central committees of the Communist Parties of the Union Republics, chairmen of the councils of ministers and regional executive committees come from the ranks of the workers and peasants. Over 70 per cent of the ministers and chairmen of the state committees of the USSR started out as workers and peasants. Similar evidence comes from the lifestories of most directors of research institutes and design offices.  [145•1 

p In the light of these data, which bear out the democratic nature of the CPSU and its close links with the people, the attempts by the bourgeois ideologists to present the CPSU as an elitist party will be easily seen to be quite groundless. These inventions are based on a deliberate distortion of the truth.

p The anti-communists engage in similar dishonesty in depicting the internal life of the CPSU, especially the principle of democratic centralism. They assert that Marx had allegedly been an advocate of boundless democracy within the working-class party, while Lenin, by contrast, had advocated a centralised party which was to be run by a handful of professional revolutionaries. This assertion comes, for instance, from Professor Remy S. Kwant of Utrecht University, and the Jesuit J. Fetscher, who works in the FRG.  [145•2 

p These inventions are exploded by the concrete facts of inner-Party life. But before I give them, let us clarify the point about democratic centralism in Party construction. Lenin’s principle of democratic centralism implies a blend of democratic and centralist principles in Party life: collective leadership and personal responsibility, electivity and accountability of Party organs with strict Party discipline and 146 unity, without which the Party loses its capacity for effective political action,

p That is how democratic centralism was seen by Marx and Engels. That is also how Lenin viewed it at every stage of his revolutionary activity, including the period when the conditions under the autocracy forced the Party to intensify its centralism principles within the whole of democratic centralism. Throughout its long history, the CPSU has applied every aspect of this principle in various combinations, but has always followed Lenin’s precept that all the Communists must be given a real opportunity of taking an active part in the affairs of their Party branch and the Party as a whole. Lenin stressed: “All the affairs of the Party are conducted, either directly, or through representatives, by all the members of the Party, all of whom without exception have equal rights.”  [146•1 

p This principle has been consistently implemented by the CPSU. A great role in the Party leadership is played by a numerous body known as the aktiv, which includes above all members of Party organs whom the other Communists have elected to their posts by secret ballot in a free expression of will. Three million Party members are elected to the governing Party organs. Who are these men and women? Of the members and alternate members of district committees, city committees and city district committees of the Party about 52 per cent are factory workers, collective farmers, engineers, technicians, agricultural specialists, workers in science, education, culture and public health; 39 per cent are economic executives in industry, and workers on Party and Soviet government agencies, and the rest are workers of other categories. In addition, millions of Communists take part in Party work as members of diverse commissions, as propagandists, agitators, and so on. Thus, only an insignificant section of the aktiv, which runs the Party, consists of Communists for whom Party work is a professional occupation. In the light of these figures is it possible to take a serious view of statements by bourgeois falsifiers that all the leadership of the CPSU consists of professional Party functionaries?

p The anti-communist attacks on the principles and rules of Party life are interwoven with the slanderous campaign 147 against the whole Soviet social and political system. The most popular method in this sphere is to describe the Soviet power as undemocratic, and the Communist Party as exercising minority-managed dictatorial functions.

p The most general information about the system of all the organisations which in the USSR take part in running the country and in managing economic and cultural construction shows how far such descriptions are from reality. The CPSU, which is the governing nucleus of this system, has over 13 million Communists. It relies on a ramified network of diverse mass organisations, which are an embodiment of the people’s full power and initiative. The deputies of the Soviets and the aktiv, which help the former in their dayto-day work, number over 25 million persons, that is, almost one-quarter of the country’s working population. The Soviet trade unions have over 86 million members. The Young Communist League has 27 million young men and women in its ranks, and tens of millions of working people are members of various societies and voluntary alliances.

Such is the truly all-embracing nature of the administration of the Soviet Union, which is all-embracing in the sense that this administration is being exercised by the whole Soviet people together with the Party and under its leadership. The mechanism of the administration of socialist society combines the scientific principle of a single political line, which is worked out by the Communist Party, and which expresses the objective requirements of social development and the working people’s fundamental interests, and the broadest democracy and creative initiative for millions of people who control the political power and the whole wealth of the country.