PROGRESS PUBLISHERS
MOSCOW
[1]Translated from the Russian by Yuri Sdobnikov Designed by Sofya Gannushkina
Ejiena J1EHHHH3M H COBPEMEHHAH BOPbBA Ha
First printing 1972 Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
__NOTE__ No copyright. [2] CONTENTS Preface. Aggravation of the Ideological Struggle at the PresentIn the modern world, two ideologies---the communist and the bourgeois---are engaged in a struggle of unprecedented acerbity. This contest is a reflection in mankind's spiritual life of the historical transition from capitalism to socialism.
The struggle between world socialism and world capitalism is the principal contradiction of the present-day development of the world. It is the same class struggle, waged in all its forms, but now unfolding in the international arena. Growing acerbity is the basic and determining law of its development.
Lenin said it was a law that the greater the strength of the revolution, the force of its attack, its energy and determination, the more complete its triumph, the more intense the resistance of the reactionaries. He said: ``The more victorious we are the more the capitalist exploiters learn to unite and the more determined their = onslaught.''^^1^^ He anticipated the inevitable sharpening of the class struggle between socialism and capitalism, when he wrote that capitalism ``does not die at once but puts up increasingly furious resistance the closer death = approaches''.^^2^^ Today, capitalism naturally has even less to go before its demise than it had half a century ago, when Lenin formulated this important task: ``To overcome the capitalists' resistance in every form, not only military and political, but also ideological, which is the strongest and the most = deep-seated.''^^3^^
The task has never been more pressing than it is today. The character of our epoch and the lines along which world history has been running have transformed the ideological struggle into the bitterest and most advanced front of the class struggle.
The law-governed aggravation of the ideological struggle, as a form of class struggle (apart from the general tendencies characteristic of the class struggle as a whole) is determined _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 450.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 412.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 370.
5 by the changing relationship between the principal forms of the class struggle at different stages of history and in different conditions.At the present stage, while the struggle in the economic competition retains its full importance, the class adversaries of the USSR essentially no longer have any hopes for a collapse of socialism because of economic failure, but are, on the contrary, forced to admit that its economy has been growing ever more efficient. Hopes of vanquishing socialism in a frontal military attack have also been blasted. The Soviet people crushed the monstrous Hitler invasion. That is why imperialism has now turned its attention to making the utmost use of weapons on the ideological front.
Meanwhile, socialism has been advancing. In 1917, it accounted for less than three per cent of world industrial production, in 1950, for 20 per cent, and in 1968, for roughly 39 per cent.
This has fully borne out Lenin's prediction that once the socialist revolution has won out, there would be a vast acceleration in the development of society's productive forces. In the years of its peaceful labour, the USSR increased its industrial output at an average of 14 per cent a year; for the whole Soviet period the figure is 9.9 per cent, as compared with two to four per cent for the USA, Britain, France and West Germany.
The community of countries within the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) is the most dynamic industrial area of the world. With 18 per cent of the globe's territory and 10 per cent of its population, it accounts for almost 32 per cent of its industrial output. The aggregate industrial potential is roughly double that of the Common Market (EEC) and is edging up on that of the USA.
It is not surprising that the ruling circles of the imperialist powers have devoted vast efforts and resources to subversive political and ideological struggle against the socialist countries, and against the communist and all other democratic movements.
The ideological struggle in the modern world has also grown more acute in view of the obvious successes scored by the national liberation movement. More than 70 sovereign national states have arisen on the ruins of the colonial empires, and their peoples are now faced with a highly important historical task, namely, to emancipate themselves 6 from economic dependence, to escape from the world capitalist system, and to take the way of non-capitalist development. Lenin was quite right when he said that ``the movement of the majority of the population of the globe, initially directed towards national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism''.^^1^^
One of the key international problems today which has largely gone to exacerbate the ideological struggle is the choice of way for the liberated countries. Bourgeois ideologists have been trying hard to denigrate socialism, communism and Marxism, and to cover up the new forms of exploitation of the economically lagging countries---the neo-colonialist methods of imperialist enslavement---so as to get these countries to take the capitalist way.
The growing role of the subjective factor in present-day conditions is another objective law governing the advance of history which is of great importance in sharpening the ideological struggle in the world.
On the whole, the capitalist system is ripe for socialist revolution, that is, it already has the material prerequisites for revolutionary change. But historical laws do not work automatically, and it takes vigorous and conscious action by masses of people to realise the objective laws of social development. However, the working people's consciousness in the capitalist countries largely remains under the influence of the alien, hostile ideology of the ruling, exploiting classes, who have been doing their utmost to prevent the working people from sloughing off their spiritual fetters. It will take very intense effort by the progressive social forces and their conscious vanguard---the Communist and Workers' Parties--- to overcome the pressure of reactionary ideas on the consciousness of the masses. This tends to complexify and sharpen the ideological struggle in the capitalist countries.
In the socialist countries, where development proceeds under a qualitatively new socio-economic formation, the subjective factor has an extremely great part to play in society, with special importance attaching to the tireless struggle against ideas which are alien and hostile to socialism.
A change of tactics by the class adversaries of socialism has had a direct influence on sharpening the world-wide _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 482.
7 ideological struggle. The imperialists have ever more frequently resorted to the treacherous tactics of undermining socialism from inside. ``They are probing for any weak links in the socialist front, setting their sights on subversive ideological activity within the socialist countries. . ., seeking to sow dissent, to drive wedges between them, to encourage and to fan nationalistic feelings and = tendencies.''^^1^^Imperialism seeks to weaken the ideological and political unity of the working people in the socialist countries, relying mainly on the nationalistic and revisionist elements. This active urge to use nationalism and revisionism in the fight against socialism goes hand in hand with ever more overt attempts to shift the centre of gravity of the ideological struggle onto the territory of the socialist countries.
The sharpening of the ideological struggle is also objectively connected with the complexification of this struggle which ultimately stems from the successes scored by the working-class and international communist movement.
Another important factor objectively tending to exacerbate the ideological struggle in the world is the well-geared mass media which technical progress has put at the disposal of those who spread ideas. Radio, television and the mass printing of books, newspapers and magazines have enlarged the scale and potentialities of the ideological struggle, and have intensified it to an unprecedented degree.
Consequently, the sharpening of the ideological struggle in present-day conditions has been quite natural and has been determined by the whole course of the class struggle throughout the world. The growing acerbity of the ideological battles is evidenced by the increasing importance of the subjective factor, the ever fiercer resistance on the part of imperialism, the constant improvement of the forms and methods of this resistance, which includes subtle and extensive use of lies, slander, demagogy, pseudo-scientific conceptions and all sorts of falsifications, the mounting ideological subversion of imperialism against the socialist nations, the revival of revisionism on the Right and on the ``Left'' and the increasingly active attempts by the imperialists to use it in undermining the ideological-political unity of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Speech at the 5th Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party, November 12, 1968, Moscow, 1968, pp. 4-5 (in Russian).
8 socialist community, and the growing scale of the struggle of ideas due to the introduction of ever more powerful technical means.In these conditions, it is of especial importance to assimilate Lenin's ideological legacy, in particular, Lenin's approach to the problems of ideological struggle. At the turn of the century, Lenin declared that socialist and bourgeois ideology were incompatible, and that this was due to the very nature of ideology as a social phenomenon, and also to the qualitative features of the one and the other.
In all his activity in criticising views hostile and alien to socialism, Lenin started from the following basic principles: the bringing out of the class content and epistemological principles of various theories, propositions and concepts; the concrete, dialectical approach to the questions of ideological struggle; the attacking attitude; and the close connection between the struggle against the ideology of imperialism and the struggle against opportunism in all its forms and manifestations. These propositions are just as meaningful in our own day.
The Marxist approach to the questions of the ideological struggle calls for skill in bringing out at every stage the main ideological and political trends which are hostile to the communist cause. Lenin always ranked, alongside the Party's programme and tactics, its assessment of ``... ideological and political trends of the given period, or the most widespread of them, or those which are most harmful for democracy and socialism''.^^1^^
Which then are the trends that are most harmful for democracy and socialism today? Relying on the socio-- historical practice of our day, the policy-making documents of the CPSU and the international communist movement, and the decisions of the 24th Congress of the CPSU, it is safe to say that such trends are above all anti-communism, including anti-Sovietism; nationalism; the ideology of Right-socialist reformism, and revisionism, both Right and ``Left''.
These are the trends that are aimed against the three decisive forces of the world revolutionary process: the socialist community; the international working-class movement and its communist vanguard; and the national _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 280.
9 liberation struggle of the peoples. Anti-communism, the chief ideological and political weapon of modern imperialism, is aimed against all these streams of social progress; reformism splits the working-class movement, thereby weakening the anti-monopoly, anti-imperialist front; revisionism (Right and ``Left'' opportunism) undermines the international communist movement from inside and weakens it. The ideology of reformism and revisionism increasingly coalesces and interacts with anti-communism and nationalism.The decisions of the 24th Congress of the CPSU say that the fight against anti-communism and against Right and ``Left'' revisionism and nationalism continues to be an important and pressing task. The Congress urged an implacable struggle against any trend seeking to subordinate the workingclass movement to the interests of monopoly capital, and to undermine the cause of the working people's struggle for peace, democracy and socialism. The Congress instructed the CPSU Central Committee to continue pursuing its policy of resolutely resisting the imperialist policy of war and aggression, and exposing and frustrating any schemes hostile to the cause of peace and freedom.
The 24th Congress of the CPSU demonstrated the abiding importance of the great ideas of internationalism, cohesion and unity of the communist movement, of the socialist community and of all the progressive forces of the world.
The Central Committee's Report to the 24th Congress said, in particular, that the Czechoslovakian events were a fresh reminder that under certain conditions the internal antisocialist forces variously remaining in the countries taking the path of socialist construction may become active and may even mount direct counter-revolutionary action in expectation of support from outside, from imperialism, which is always prepared to form blocks with such forces.
In this context, the danger of Right revisionism was fully brought out. Under the pretext of ``improving'' socialism it seeks to kill the revolutionary heart of Marxism-Leninism and paves the way for the penetration of bourgeois ideology.
``It was clear to us,'' L. I. Brezhnev said, ``that this was not only an attempt on the part of imperialism and its accomplices to overthrow the socialist system in Czechoslovakia. It was an attempt to strike in this way at the positions of socialism in Europe as a whole, and to create favourable 10 conditions for a subsequent onslaught against the socialist world by the most aggressive forces of = imperialism.''^^1^^
The Central Committee's Report quoted the following assessment of the importance of the collective assistance of the fraternal states made by a Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in its document, ``The Lessons of the Crisis Development'', which said:
``The entry of the allied troops of the five socialist countries into Czechoslovakia was an act of international solidarity, meeting both the common interests of Czechoslovakia's working people and the interests of the international working class, the socialist community and the class interests of the international communist movement. This internationalist act saved the lives of thousands of men, ensured internal and external conditions for peaceful and tranquil labour, strengthened the Western borders of the socialist camp, and blasted the hopes of the imperialist circles for a revision of the results of the Second World War.'' Having quoted this, L. I. Brezhnev added: ``We fully agree with the conclusion drawn by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Life has once again provided convincing evidence that the fraternal unity of the socialist countries is the most reliable barrier against the forces trying to attack and weaken, the socialist camp, to undermine and invalidate the working people's socialist gains. The peoples of the socialist countries have clearly demonstrated to the whole world that they will not give up their revolutionary gains, and that the borders of the socialist community are immutable and = inviolable.''^^2^^
The reference to the lessons of the crisis development in Czechoslovakia is due not only to the gravity of those events, but also to the importance of the conclusions drawn by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia which followed from that analysis. Conclusions like the undeviating observance of the Leninist principles of leadership; measures in overcoming the revisionist and opportunist legacy; measures designed to protect Czechoslovakia's socialist gains, to consolidate the world's socialist community, the international ties, and the unity of the communist movement _-_-_
~^^1^^ Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 24th Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1971, p. 17.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 18.
11 and Czechoslovakia-Soviet brotherhood---all this assures the working people of Czechoslovakia of a radiant path of socialist progress.In fact, the main content of the 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia consisted in an examination of the concrete tasks in advancing along this path. At the Congress there was a profound analysis of the halfcentury of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and it was emphasised that in acute political struggle against revisionist, opportunist and counter-revolutionary forces the Communists of Czechoslovakia learned to distinguish friend from foe, receiving in this struggle internationalist assistance from the fraternal socialist countries.
In his speech of greetings at the 14th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, L. I. Brezhnev stressed that Czechoslovakia's experience is a fresh reminder that in all their activity in building the new society the Communists of a socialist country have the sacred duty undeviatingly to follow the precepts of Lenin, the revolutionary essence of his doctrine, giving resolute rebuffs to any attempts to distort or falsify Leninism, and to any manifestations of opportunism. It goes without saying that the lessons drawn by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia from the acute clash with the class enemy are important not only for the further development of Czechoslovakia, but also of the other socialist countries.
Of great importance for an analysis of the problems of the present-day ideological struggle was the conclusion drawn in the Central Committee's report at the 24th Congress of the CPSU that questions of democracy are now central to the ideological and political struggle between the socialist world and the capitalist world. At the Congress, L. I. Brezhnev said:
``Bourgeois ideologists and revisionists raise a hypocritical hue and cry, alleging that we have no democracy. They offer us all sorts of 'advice' on how to 'improve' and 'democratise' socialism. But their concern is not for socialism, of course. They would like to return us to bourgeois practices and, therefore, try to force bourgeois democracy on us, a democracy for exploiters, alien to the interests of the = people.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 24th Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1971, p. 96.
12The consideration by the 24th Congress of the CPSU of questions arising from the further development of the socialist democracy provided fresh refutation of the inventions of the enemies of socialism. The Congress showed that the political system of Soviet society and the steadily growing initiative of the working people in the Soviet Union are at the service of communist construction. The meaning and content of socialist democracy in the USSR are embodied in the real and ever more active and effective participation by broad masses of people in running the country and social affairs.
The whole system of capitalism is in contradiction with the basic trends of social progress. The very course of social development brings home to ever broader masses of people that socialism has history on its side.
[13] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter One __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENIN'S LEGACY OF IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE __ALPHA_LVL2__ [introduction.]In the acute ideological battles raging in the modern world Marxist-Leninist ideas, mobilising and rallying the masses to struggle for communism, have an ever greater role to play. It is also ever more important to study Lenin's rich ideological legacy, and the experience of his ideological fight against various forms and lines of ideology alien and hostile to socialism. This legacy of Lenin's is inexhaustible, and it is an extremely pressing task to master it.
Effective comprehension of Lenin's experience in the ideological struggle is important, first, because criticism and exposure of views alien and hostile to Marxism constitute an integral, organic part of the further development of Marxism (something Lenin brilliantly demonstrated as he enriched and developed Marxism precisely in the course of a relentless fight against its ideological adversaries); second, because Lenin's struggle against bourgeois ideology and opportunism makes it possible to understand and bring out the scientific principles on which he had relied and, consequently, to adopt them for the struggle today, and finally, because the experience of Lenin's ideological struggle helps to define the concrete tasks and guidelines of the present-day ideological struggle. Lenin brilliantly anticipated the essential regularities and tendencies in the development of the struggle of ideas, and present-day bourgeois and opportunist views are frequently no more than modernised versions of the old ideas Lenin had debunked.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. DEVELOPMENT OF MARXISTLeninism 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.
14Lenin developed Marxism in unceasing and acute struggle against its ideological adversaries---bourgeois ideologists and opportunists.
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.
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.
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.
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 15 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.
Defence and development of materialism and dialectics were always central to Lenin's polemics against views and theories hostile to Marxism.
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.
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.''^^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.
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.
Lenin sought a solution to all practical matters on a scientific dialectical-materialist basis. Nadezhda Krupskaya _-_-_
^^1^^ MISSING
16 wrote: ``Questions of a dialectical approach to all events also occupied Ilyich's thoughts-----''^^1^^ He believed that ``Marxist dialectics call for a concrete analysis of each specific historical situation''.^^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''.^^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.'``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. . . = .''^^4^^
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.
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.''^^5^^
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 332.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 316.
~^^3^^ N. K. Krupskaya, Op. cit., p. 459.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 460.
~^^5^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 76.
1---1245
17 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.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.
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.''^^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.''^^2^^
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, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 357.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 358.
18 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.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.
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.
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*
19 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 20 theories, in particular those of Keynes, Malthus and RightSocialist reformism.
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.
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.
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.
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 21 truthful picture and criticism---petty-bourgeois, naturally--- of this = oligarchy.''^^1^^
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.
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.''^^2^^
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.
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.
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.
Reformists, like Kautsky, denied the Soviet people's capacity for building socialism. Kautsky was echoed by the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 227.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 272.
22 Mensheviks, whose spokesman, Sukhanov, alleged that Russia had not yet reached the necessary level of development of her productive forces which made socialism possible.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
23While 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.
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... .''^^1^^
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.
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.
Let us bring out some of the elements in the great many key questions of the theory of scientific communism and the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 486.
24 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.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:
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;
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;
an internationalist party whose primary and most important task is struggle against opportunist and philistine-pacifist distortions of the concept and policy of internationalism;
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;
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.
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.
In his struggle against the Narodniks, Lenin proved that 25 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.
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.
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.
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.''^^1^^
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.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 91, p. 31.
26Lenin 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.
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,''^^1^^ he wrote.
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. .. = .''^^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''.^^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.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., p. 32.
^^2^^ Ibid.
^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 34--35. For details see V. I. Lenin's Struggle Against Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionism and Adventurism, Moscow, 1966 (in Russian).
27 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.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.
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.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. LENINThe idea that the socialist and the bourgeois ideologies were incompatible was expressed by Lenin in 1902, when he said that ``the only choice is---either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There --> --is no middle = course.''^^1^^
Today, with the enemies of socialism trying hard to rebut _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 384.
28 this thesis, with bourgeois scientists actively advocating `` deideologisation'' and the reformists and revisionists suggesting an ``integration of ideologies'', ``emancipation of science from ideology'', etc., it is especially important to consider the objective principles underlying the incompatibility of the socialist and the bourgeois ideologies. They are incompatible because of: 1) the nature of ideology as a social phenomenon; 2) the qualitative features of each of the two ideologies; 3) their distinct attitude to social practice and, accordingly, the different laws of their development; 4) the basically distinct attitude of each ideology to revolutionary struggle; and 5) their essentially opposite content.``Let us consider these five points in greater detail.
1. The socialist and the bourgeois ideologies are incompatible because of the very nature of ideology as a social phenomenon, which is permeated with the party spirit. What is ideology in general? It is a definite level of social consciousness, or to be more precise, a theoretically systematised and generalised reflection of social relations and social practice through the prism of class interests in the form of political, legal, ethical, aesthetic and philosophic conceptions and views.
The scientific Marxist conclusion that consciousness reflects being---and social consciousness, social being---inexorably leads to the conclusion that in a world divided into antagonistic systems and antagonistic classes, there can be no common ideology for all. Consequently, it is not a whim but an objective fact that both the bourgeois and the socialist ideologies are permeated with the party spirit, and that is what Lenin had in mind when he wrote that ``in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or an above-class ideology. . = .''-^^1^^ Consequently, the bourgeois and the socialist ideologies are incompatible and irreconcilable above all because of class divisions, of the objective impossibility of reconciling class interests which are irreconcilable and hostile to each other. In objective reality, the interests of the exploiters and of the exploited never blend; the society based on private capitalist enterprise, and the society based on social property can never be united and brought into a single whole; ideas which are opposed to each other in class substance, content and purpose can never peacefully _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., p. 384.
29 coexist or be ``integrated''. All ideological tricks, like the much-vaunted theory of convergence, which claims that that is possible, always turn out to be---and this will be demonstrated in detail later---nothing but a more or less subtle advocacy of the interests of capitalism, whose postulate is not at all a synthesis but a submergence of the opposite system.But that is not the whole point.
2. While both contending systems of ideas existing in the modern world have a class basis they are far from being equivalent, just as their class roots are inequivalent.
The ideology of the working class, while undoubtedly being a party ideology, is simultaneously a profoundly scientific one, giving an objectively true picture of the world, and providing a reliable beacon in practical activity. Lenin wrote that while being the ideology of the proletariat's class struggle, socialist ideology is simultaneously ``founded on the sum-total of human knowledge, presupposes a high level of scientific development, demands scientific = work''.^^1^^
The conjunction of the scientific view of the world with the scientific programme for its transformation, setting out the scientific ways and means of doing so, led to the discovery of the role of the working class in world history as the grave-digger of capitalism and the builder of socialism. The scientific cognition of social development and of its objective laws coincided with the class purpose of the proletariat in realising the objectively-based historical law, which does not of course operate spontaneously or automatically, but only with the conscious and active participation of the working class. That is precisely why the working class has a vital interest in an adequate, true and scientific reflection of the world and of its objective laws. Truth and science must necessarily be the ideological weapons of the class giving a lead in the struggle for mankind's radiant future. The world can be transformed only on the basis of a knowledge of its objective laws, and that is why the party interests of the working class imply and require an objective, scientific penetration into the substance of social reality.
The diametrically opposite class interests impel the bourgeois consciousness to give a distorted reflection of reality. The objective laws of history undermine the bourgeois _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 163.
30 system and confirm its inevitable destruction, which is why the party spirit of bourgeois ideology goes hand in hand with unscientific social thought.Socialist ideology is scientific to the same extent that the Marxist-Leninist social science is ideological, is an organic connection between socialist ideology and science which Lenin emphasised in his call to ``carry on propaganda for the proletarian ideology---the theory of scientific socialism, viz., = Marxism''.^^1^^ He added: ``Marxism is the theory of the proletarian movement for = emancipation.''^^2^^
At the same time, the Marxist-Leninist doctrine is the highest level in the development of social science, bringing together such of its fundamentals as philosophy, political economy and scientific communism. The party spirit of socialist ideology and the objective nature of scientific knowledge coincide.
3. Socialist and bourgeois ideologies develop according to different laws. Socialist ideology, indissolubly connected with the socio-historical practice, quite naturally serves the cause of social progress and is itself constantly and creatively developed, summing up historical experience in the changing objective conditions. The blend of theory and practice in Marxism-Leninism provides an objective basis for the lawgoverned creative development of socialist theory, which is constantly enriched, giving a scientific reflection of the development of reality itself.
Bourgeois ideology, which by its class essence is hostile to the main line of mankind's socio-historical practice, is incapable of being enriched or developed or of providing an adequate reflection of this practice. The law underlying the development of bourgeois ideology is adaptation to the changing situation in the world, adaptation in the light of the class interests of the bourgeoisie.
4. Socialist and bourgeois ideologies are incompatible also because of their fundamentally distinct attitudes to revolutionary struggle. Lenin stressed that Marxist theory was revolutionary ``completely and = unconditionally'',^^3^^ for it ``combines the quality of being strictly and supremely scientific (being the last word in social science) with that of being _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 342.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 222.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 327.
31 revolutionary . . .[and] does so intrinsically and inseparatably''.^^1^^ This is not surprising because socialist scientific ideology ``directly sets itself the task of disclosing all the forms of antagonism and exploitation in modern society, tracing their evolution, demonstrating their transitory character. . . and thus serving the proletariat as a means of ending all exploitation as quickly and easily as = possible''.^^2^^A basic feature of socialist ideology is the connection between revolutionary theory and revolutionary policy. Lenin wrote: ``The Marxian doctrine has fused the theory and practice of the class struggle into one inseparable = whole.''^^3^^ Lenin warned that unless Marxism was a combination of revolutionary theory and revolutionary policy, it ceased to be Marxism and ``becomes Brentanoism, Struvism and Sombartism''.^^4^^
The connection between bourgeois ideology and bourgeois policies means above all that its main edge is directed against the socialist revolution, against socialism. Bourgeois social science has been turning out a succession of new concepts aimed against communism and in defence of capitalism, in an effort if not to frustrate altogether (something it cannot do) then, at any rate, to slow down the revolutionary transformation of the world.
5. The fundamental distinction of class essence and the resultant features of bourgeois and socialist ideologies inevitably make these systems of ideas antithetical, and consequently incompatible in virtue of their whole content. Considerations of any acute and important question of the present day (for instance, the role of the working class in the modern world, the relation between the national and the international, the assessment of the practice of social construction and the prospects for socialist development and other important questions) ultimately always reveal diametrically opposite class attitudes and assessments, which are just as irreconcilable as are science and pseudo-science, truth and falsehood, progress and reaction. It is, of course, not right to say that bourgeois ideology always appears as blatant defence of imperialist reaction. Its class interests are _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 327.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 12, pp. 107--08.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 107.
~^^4^^ Ibid.
32 usually very thoroughly covered up with references to scientific ``impartiality'', fine talk about humanism, freedom, the interests of the individual, the loftier spiritual values, etc. That is why the struggle against bourgeois ideology necessarily implies an ability to expose it ``regardless of the fashionable and striking garb in which it may drape itself''.^^1^^ __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. LENIN ON THE PRINCIPLES OF IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLEIn the present conditions of the ideological battles which have gained in acerbity and complexity especial importance attaches to Lenin's principles of struggle against the ideology which is hostile to Marxism-Leninism.
It is not enough to understand that socialist and bourgeois ideologies are incompatible. There is also need to be able to fight against the ideological adversaries. The working class and all the other working people are confronted by imperialism, with its mammoth machinery of government and propaganda, and the struggle against it requires not only an awareness of the class antithesis, but also sound organisation, knowledge and skill.
In our efforts to master this science, we repeatedly turn to Lenin's legacy. Without making any claim to give full treatment to this most important subject, I shall here deal with some of the principles of ideological struggle which are suggested by Lenin's works.
1. The first and most important one of these principles is undoubtedly the class approach to the struggle of ideas. Lenin urged the need to learn to go beyond the fashionable and gaudy mask of bourgeois ideology to its essence, to learn to expose the social, class content of its ideas, and to break through the smokescreen of demagogic talk, trickery, falsehood, loud catchwords and subtle hypocrisy. He wrote: `` People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and = promises.''^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 342.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 28.
3---1245
33This principle is also important because bourgeois ideology, standing up as it does for the interests of the class which has historically outlived itself, always seeks to cover up its class substance and to present itself as objective, `` impartial'' knowledge.
In contrast to the bourgeois claim of rising above party, the working class declares that its ideology is permeated with the party spirit, and expresses not only its own class interests, but also the basic interests of all working people, the interests of social progress. Lenin stressed: ``The nonparty idea is a bourgeois idea. The party idea is a socialist idea.''^^1^^
The bourgeois claim to rise above party, a claim being made behind the screen of ``objectivism'', has nothing in common with scientific objectivity. Lenin exposed the meaning of this camouflage in his work ``The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve's Book'', where he showed that bourgeois objectivism, confining itself to a statement of ``facts'', skims along the surface of social life and does not go to the substance of this or that process or phenomenon, thereby covering up their class roots and objective laws and so distorting reality.
But to bring out the class content of ideas does not mean to engage in vulgar sociologising, by trying to establish a class or party affiliation for the ideologist himself. It is not so important who it is precisely that takes a stand for a set of definite views, but who stands to gain from these views. Great importance now attaches to the meaning of the Latin saying, ``Cui prodest?'' (who stands to gain?), which Lenin strongly emphasised. In effect, just recently we witnessed how, behind a screen of loud talk about ``democratisation'', those who claim to be champions of social progress sought to minimise and weaken the leading role of the Communist Party in society, to create favourable conditions for the political activity of class forces alien and hostile to socialism, and to reject the general laws of the revolution and socialist construction which have been tested and confirmed by the experience of millions. Behind the cover of talk about `` democratisation'' they slandered those who were loyal to the cause of the Party and the working class, and tried to compromise and intimidate them. The Leninist approach to _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 79.
34 ideological struggle inexorably strips from the men who spread such ideas their democratic mantle and shows up their real class substance.2. While the class approach to the battle of ideas is unquestionably the main starting principle, it should not be regarded as the only one. In order to carry on a successful ideological struggle one needs to be able to expose the class roots of the various views, theories and conceptions, and to bring out their epistemological origins. One thing to remember is that for all their hostility to the cause of social progress, for all their reactionary nature, bourgeois theories do reflect reality, even if they do so in a distorted manner. In order to prove that this reflection is wrong, it is necessary to show what precisely, which processes and phenomena in reality are being wrongly interpreted in bourgeois conceptions, and to give these phenomena and processes the correct scientific interpretation. At the turn of the century Lenin wrote: ``It would be a departure from the materialist method were I, when criticising the views of the 'friends of the people', to confine myself to contrasting their ideas with the Marxist ideas. One must in addition explain the 'Narodniks' ideas, demonstrate their MATERIAL basis in our present socialeconomic = relations.''^^1^^
No criticism of present-day bourgeois theories can be considered adequate unless it includes a scientific analysis of the real phenomena on which bourgeois thought speculates and whose reflection it distorts. Let us look, in this context, at the theory of convergence. Is it possible, after all, to give a sufficiently convincing expose of this theory without combining an analysis of the material prerequisites of socialism within the capitalist system, and an analysis of the nature of modern capitalism, together with the social consequences of the scientific and technical revolution both under capitalism and under socialism? Only a deep-going scientific study of reality allows a well-grounded and serious criticism of bourgeois ideology, which is why such criticism is closely bound up with positive, creative efforts to analyse and sum up the socio-historical practice of all mankind, and further to develop Marxism-Leninism. A great stride along this creative path was made by the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.
_-_-_^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 233--34.
35Lenin's writings offer an excellent example of how constantly to combine the development of Marxist theory with vigorous criticism of ideological adversaries.
3. Lenin's principle of continuity of ideological struggle is equally important. He wrote: ``To belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois = ideology.''^^1^^ The practice of the last few years has provided many serious lessons which are highly important and instructive and which give a reminder about the vital importance of Lenin's conclusion. It is well-known, for instance, that in some socialist countries the Communists have succeeded in uniting all the socialist forces, overcoming the division of the working class and in banding Communists and socialists together in united parties. This is a great victory for the communist movement, but it makes imperative ceaseless and intensified attention to fostering and re-educating new party cadres, and carrying on serious ideological work and making uninterrupted effort towards the practical achievement of the parties' organisational and ideological unity. In fact, that these MarxistLeninist traditions in party construction were underestimated for some time is evident, for instance, from the unquestionable fact that the efforts by the leading forces in fraternal Czechoslovakia aimed at cutting short the anti-socialist moves of the reactionaries were largely hampered by the existence within the party of men who advocated opportunist views.
There must be no complacency or hope of spontaneous development in ideological work, because this always creates conditions for a revival of opportunist trends. Any relaxation of ideological work is used by our class enemies to translate their hopes of winning back the positions they have lost into practical action so as to regain these positions and use them once again to undermine socialism.
In this context, the keen concern of the ideological adversaries of socialism in the ideological differences and splits within the working-class and communist movement is strikingly evident.
4. It is not surprising that in the general strategy of ideological struggle, Lenin attached the greatest importance to exposing those who brought the bourgeois ideology into the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 384.
36 working-class movement---the ideologists of Right socialist reformism, and those who brought bourgeois ideology into the ranks of the communist movement---the Right and the ``Left'' revisionists. Lenin warned: ``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.''^^1^^The concept of opportunism is known to be a broad one, including such concrete manifestations as social-reformism and revisionism. Consequently, alongside the principles of the class approach and continuity in the fight against bourgeois ideology, Lenin substantiated the fundamental need of fighting against anyone who helps this ideology to exert an influence on the working class.
The principle that the struggle against bourgeois ideology and against reformism and revisionism of every stripe is indivisible is just as objectively rooted in life as are all the other Leninist principles of ideological struggle. The objective necessity of this connection is determined above all by the class roots of reformism and revisionism. For all their specifics, the roots of any manifestations of opportunism lie in the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois influence on the working class, on the Communist Parties, which are not shielded by any impenetrable wall from alien class influences. The extension of the front of revolutionary struggle throughout the world, the involvement of petty-bourgeois elements in it, the growth of the communist movement and its successes may in some conditions (loss of political vigilance, underestimation of the Leninist principles of party construction) have a negative outcome and result in a weakening of the party, of its Marxist-Leninist militant stand and firmness.
Furthermore, for all their claims to originality and innovation, the reformist and revisionist views always ultimately turn out to be a rehash of the main motifs of the bourgeois theorists and to be centred on the key problems of the day, inevitably---objectively---coalescing with the main class aspirations of the ideologists and politicians of imperialism.
Finally, the struggle against such a formidable adversary as imperialism requires growing cohesion and unity of the working class and consolidation of the communist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 302.
37 movement, and this cannot be achieved without a struggle against reformism and revisionism.5. Lenin's theoretical and practical activity was an embodiment of the creative principle, and in matters of ideological struggle he himself was a great materialist dialectician, who displayed tactical flexibility and took all-round consideration of the contradictions in the enemy camp, and was relentlessly consistent in standing up for the interests of the working class and the cause of socialism.
Lenin always took into consideration the complexities of the dialectics of living reality, and consistently applied the principle of the dialectico-materialist approach to the struggle of ideas. In its most profound essentials, the methodology of this approach consists in always bearing in mind the contradictions in the enemy camp, and in one's own ranks, without however forgetting about the movement and dynamics of ideological phenomena, and never regarding them as being static, all the while invariably pursuing the class line, adhering to the fundamental principles of the scientific doctrine, and looking to the decisive strategic, political and class tasks in the revolutionary transformation of the world. Consideration of the contradictions in the enemy camp, and the ability to bring out the dialectics of living reality are inalienable features of Lenin's dialectical analysis.
Even today, bourgeois ideology, whose class essence is alien and hostile to socialism, assumes a diversity of nuances ---from fascist to liberal and bourgeois-democratic---and this is in no sense immaterial. The sharpening ideological struggle intensifies the internal contradictions in the camp of the bourgeois intelligentsia, in whose midst progressive tendencies arise. You will now often find bourgeois scientists who simultaneously condemn (often resolutely and sincerely) such extremely reactionary manifestations of bourgeois policy as racism, aggressive wars, militarism and colonialism, and the corresponding reactionary ideological conceptions, while maintaining an idealist, unscientific view of the world. This should be taken into account.
Lenin required a consideration of the concrete historical situation in every = instance.^^1^^ This Leninist principle of concrete analysis is of exceptional practical importance in the struggle of ideas. It is also of some importance, in the light _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 272.
38 of the concrete dialectical approach to various aspects of the ideological struggle, to consider the direction in which this or that ideological proposition or ideological stand develops, or to be more precise, to establish two points between which these develop. We find a brilliant example of this approach in Lenin's article, ``The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion'' in which he wrote that for some ``the statement 'socialism is a religion' (containing an obvious departure from Marxism---Author) is a form of transition from religion to socialism; for others, it is a form of transition from socialism to = religion''.^^1^^ It is highly important to bear this in mind now that we are frequently faced with the juggling of slogans and propositions which, in definite concrete conditions, at a given historically concrete phase of development, represent great gains along the way of social progress, and the same slogans and propositions in other concrete historical situations, being filled with totally different, frequently even reactionary, class content. These phenomena can be explained only if we take a dialectico-- materialist view of ideological struggle, which never loses sight of the class nature of phenomena, and of the concrete historical approach to them, and never allows itself to be led away into formal scholastics.Is it possible, for instance, to assess the slogan of `` nonalignment'', the policy of ``neutralism'', if they are taken as a static abstraction, without any concrete historical, dialectical analysis? No, it is not. For the emergent country, just escaped from the fetters of overt colonialism and still labouring in the toils of economic dependence on imperialism, a policy of ``non-alignment'' may be and frequently is a great advance along the way of progress, and an important step towards complete political independence and genuine popular sovereignty. But if this slogan of ``non-alignment'' and ``neutralism'' is issued by a leader of a socialist country, which has already established the working people's sovereignty in the course of a socialist revolution and which has already secured its independence from imperialism through the united might of the socialist community, what other meaning can this slogan have except a departure from the cause of socialism, a weakening of the socialist camp, a neglect of the class line of the international front, which _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 409.
39 now runs as the principal divide between the forces of progress and reaction?To promote the success of the present-day political and ideological struggle of the working class and the whole international communist movement it is highly important to learn to take the concrete Leninist approach in bringing out the ideological-political trends which are hostile to the cause of communism, and which it is most important to fight at the given historical stage. We have some highly important considerations of a fundamental character in Lenin's works on this question. He established a direct connection between the need to assess the ideological-political trends hostile to socialism and the Party's programme and tactics.
Lenin gave a specimen of concrete historical analysis in application to the Party's electoral platform, which was an inevitable result of ``the way the work is organised, and of its whole trend in the given historical = period''.^^1^^ Lenin saw the platform as resulting from the Party's principles and tactics, and wrote: ``The three main items that make up this total are: (1) the programme of the Party; (2) its tactics; (3) its appraisal of the dominant ideological and political trends of the given period, or the most widespread of them, or those which are most harmful for democracy and socialism. Without a programme a party cannot be an integral political organism capable of pursuing its line whatever turn events may take. Without a tactical line based on an appraisal of the current political situation and providing explicit answers to the 'vexed problems' of our times, we might have a circle of theoreticians, but not a functioning political entity. Without an appraisal of the 'active', current or ' fashionable' ideological and political trends, the programme and tactics may degenerate into dead 'clauses' which can by no stretch of the imagination be put into effect or applied to the thousands of detailed, particular, and highly specific questions of practical activity with the necessary understanding of essentials, with an understanding of `wha is what'.''^^2^^
Lenin then went on to analyse the concrete situation and asked which ideological-political trends were of especial importance for an understanding of Social-Democracy's _-_-_
^^1^^ MISSING. why? ocr glitch?
^^2^^ MISSING. why? ocr glitch?
40 tasks in the period being dealt = with.^^1^^ He drew the conclusion that these were ``the Vekhi trend, which is the ideology of the counter-revolutionary liberal bourgeoisie... and liquidationism, which is the expression of the same decadent and bourgeois influences in a group which has contact with the working-class movement. Away from democracy, as far away as possible from the movement of the masses, as far away as possible from the revolution, that is the theme of the trends of political thought that hold sway in = `society'.''^^2^^The logic of the revolutionary leader, his thought dialectically encompassing the objective political situation and bringing together into a single whole the programme and tactical tasks with the tasks of the ideological struggle offer an excellent example of the dialectical analysis of the historical situation in the light of the revolution's interests.
The present epoch has enlarged the scale of revolutionary action. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow said in its Main Document of June 17, 1969: ``Powerful revolutionary processes are gathering momentum throughout the world. Three mighty forces of our time---the world socialist system, the international working-class and the national liberation movement ---are coming together in the struggle against = imperialism.''^^3^^ These are the three powerful forces of social progress that are the targets of the attacks by the ideologists of imperialism, and the reactionary ideological-political theories which do the greatest harm are shaped in this very fight against the three main streams of the world revolutionary process.
What then are the ideological-political trends that are most harmful for democracy and socialism today? On the strength of the programme documents of the CPSU and the international communist movement and in the light of the present-day objective reality, there is good ground to designate these trends as anti-communism, reformism and revisionism, nationalism and the ideology of neo-colonialism.
Anti-communism is the principal ideological-political _-_-_
^^1^^ MISSING. why? ocr glitch?
^^2^^ MISSING. why? ocr glitch?
^^3^^ MISSING. why? ocr glitch?
41 weapon of imperialism. Reformism and revisionism, which seek to split and undermine the working-class and international communist movement from inside, are the ideological accomplices of anti-communism and the vehicles through which reactionary bourgeois ideology exerts an influence on the working people.Before analysing the specific features of these trends, let us consider the state of present-day bourgeois ideology as a whole.
[42] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter Two __ALPHA_LVL1__ CRISIS OF BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY __ALPHA_LVL2__ [introduction.]The concrete historical approach, a necessary condition in the Leninist analysis of social phenomena, requires a consideration of the most general features of bourgeois ideology and its main specifics at this stage.
What is the most characteristic aspect of the overall state of bourgeois social thought in this epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism? It is undoubtedly the state of crisis, which is an expression of the spiritual degeneration of a social system that has historically outlived itself. This state of crisis is manifested in a number of general special features of present-day bourgeois ideology as a whole, and is specifically reflected in the basic forms of bourgeois consciousness.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICIs there any ground for drawing the conclusion about there being a crisis in imperialist ideology at this stage of sharply aggravated ideological struggle, at a time when ideological penetration has become one of the main, if not the main weapon of reaction in its fight against the new, socialist world? Imperialist ideology is undoubtedly a dangerous, active and treacherous enemy. Still, there is no doubt about imperialist ideology being in crisis. It is a reflection in the sphere of society's spiritual life of the general crisis of capitalism as a system. The unprecedentedly feverish activity of the bourgeois propaganda machine, turning out, with a kind of desperate obsession, a never-ending stream of anti-- communist myths, is itself evidence that imperialism no longer has any ideas capable of inspiring and giving a lead to the people.
Bourgeois ideology, reflecting the lack of historical prospects before imperialism, seeks by every possible means to vindicate and embellish it in every way, so as to delay the inevitable collapse of the obsolescent system.
The general crisis of capitalism flared up with full force following the victory of the Great October Socialist 43 Revolution, which dealt a decisive blow at bourgeois ideology as well. It blasted the myth that private capitalist relations were there for all time, and opened a new epoch in world history, the epoch of the downfall of capitalism and the establishment of communism. The working people of all countries watched with great sympathy and hope every step taken by the world's first workers' and peasants' state. However, the imperialists likewise kept a close watch on what it did. As the ideas of the October Revolution increasingly became the banner of revolutionary struggle across the worlol, bourgeois ideology became increasingly reactionary. This was due to the fact that capitalism was gradually ceasing to be a global world system, and degenerated spiritually as it lost one position after another.
With the emergence of the Soviet state the anti-communist tenor of bourgeois thought became more pronounced. Bourgeois ideology turned its keenest edge not only against the theory, but also against the practice of socialist construction, this being an expression of the deep-seated fear the bourgeoisie has always had as a class of the law-governed changes taking place in the world, and an expression of its hatred for such changes.
However, despite the hostility of the bourgeois ideologists for the October Revolution, and the savage attempts to prevent the new system from consolidating itself, it developed confidently, refuting the malicious predictions and prognostications by its ideological adversaries about its imminent collapse, and exploding the ideological myths of anti-- communist propaganda one after another.
After the victory of the October Revolution, bourgeois ideologists stubbornly insisted that the Communists were only able to destroy but not to build. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, the masses of people, whom the October Revolution had put on the highroad of historical creativity, astounded the world by the great scope of their five-year plans. The Soviet economy displayed unprecedented growth rates, and the way of life in a vast country was fundamentally transformed. Socialism put an end to man's exploitation of man for good, eliminated national oppression and strife, and ensured a new and higher type of democracy.
Bourgeois ideologists, thrown into confusion by the confident advance of the new world, began hypocritically to 44 talk about ``excessive industrialisation rates'' and about ``the excessive price for overcoming backwardness''. History itself has provided convincing evidence that the policy of industrialising and collectivising the country had been a wise and far-sighted one. The fruits of this policy were manifested with especial force during the Great Patriotic War.
Bourgeois ideologists had no doubt that the striking force of imperialism would be able to crush the socialist state, and they circulated the anti-communist myth that the multinational socialist country was ``unsoundly based''. The victory over fascism turned out to be not only a military defeat for Hitlerism, but a powerful blow at all these illusions of the ideologists of racism and militarism, nationalistic chauvinism and aggression.
Just as futile were the hopes that the socialist country would be weakened as a result of the unprecedented devastation and losses during the war. It rose from the ashes and ruins, once again demonstrating to the world the mighty and inexhaustible forces of the socialist system. Its historical successes in developing the economy, science and technology dispelled the old myth of anti-communist propaganda that the economic system of socialism was inefficient.
A new stage in the general crisis of capitalism began when socialism spread beyond the boundaries of one country and formed the world socialist system. This dispelled the myth of bourgeois ideology about the Great October Socialist Revolution having been a ``purely Russian'' national event. Socialist practice provided irrefutable proof that a number of basic features of this revolution are of international and not only of local importance.
The international importance of the ideas of the October Revolution was also confirmed by the world-wide national liberation struggle of the peoples which brought down an old bastion of imperialism, its colonial system. The development of Soviet national republics has shown the countries escaping from colonial oppression what peoples taking the socialist way of development are capable of doing.
The present stage of the crisis of bourgeois ideology is marked by intensified attempts to undermine the authority of socialism and Marxism-Leninism. But whereas some seek the slightest opportunity for using armed force against the socialist system, others prefer a more cautious line, namely, to try to slow down in every possible way the further 45 successes of socialism and to undermine it politically and ideologically from inside, making use of the most subtle methods of falsification and distortion of the truth of life. In practice, both these lines blend together in one line, merely reflecting the contradictions within the various groups of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
The subtlety of bourgeois methods in fighting socialism is also evident in the adventurist attempts to borrow weapons from the ideological armoury of the progressive forces. Needless to say, the crying contradiction between the progressive ideas and the reactionary content of the imperialist system and its policies have made it possible to use these ideas only superficially, in terms of outward form.
This produces a striking contrast between word and deed. Thus, imperialist policy and its aggressive interventions, carried out under the pretext of safeguarding democracy, working for peace and freedom, and defending humanism and civilisation, expose themselves by their deeds. The crisis of present-day bourgeois ideology undoubtedly marks the decline of capitalism, and the final transformation of the bourgeoisie, once a historically progressive class, into a reactionary one.
In the most general terms, this crisis is expressed, first, in that the class content of bourgeois ideology has run into an acute and irreconcilable contradiction with the course of world social development, and has become a drag on social progress.
In content, the function of bourgeois ideology increasingly comes down to a reactionary class defence of the capitalist system. The methods used in this defence are diverse, but concern for this defence permeates every sphere of bourgeois social thinking, being specifically mirrored in its various forms: political and legal ideology, philosophy, and ethical and aesthetic theories.
Second, the development of the new world and its successes have required (in view of the class-rooted negative assessment of this world by the bourgeoisie) the restructuring of the whole of bourgeois ideology. The negative attitude, which has grown into wild anti-communism, anti-Marxism and attacks against any expression of free thought, has led to an abandonment of the bourgeoisie's once progressive heritage. Present-day bourgeois ideologists have been throwing overboard the best achievements of bourgeois thought 46 relating to the period of rising capitalism, or have been distorting them out of all recognition. In the past they used to extol atheism, but today religion is the best mark of `` respectability''; reason and science used to be at the service of education, but today irrationalism and mysticism have been declared the instruments of cognising the world; social progress once used to be their credo, but today this is increasingly confined to technological development. With deep insight Lenin observed: ``A point in history has been reached when the commanding bourgeoisie, fearing the growth and increasing strength of the proletariat, comes out in support of everything backward, moribund and = medieval.''^^1^^
Bourgeois ideology has been increasingly hypocritical. Marx and Engels wrote in The German Ideology: ``The more... the conditions of the ruling class ... develop their contradiction to the advanced productive forces, and the greater the consequent split within the ruling class itself as well as the split between it and the class ruled by it, the more untrue, of course, becomes the consciousness ... and the more do the earlier traditional ideas ... descend to the level of mere idealising phrases, conscious illusion, deliberate hypocrisy.''^^2^^
The development of the new world and its achievements have exerted an influence on the mood and behaviour of the bourgeois ideologists themselves, leading to ferment in their midst, to tactical disagreements, and to serious internal contradictions, frictions and conflicts. The ideologists of imperialism are unable openly to speak of the interests and goals of the ruling classes in capitalist society because these are in crying contradiction with the interests of the people. The hypocrisy to which they must resort is not merely the product of the subjective, personal qualities of the various bourgeois ideologists. It is a historically-rooted social phenomenon.
A characteristic concern of the bourgeois ideologists is not so much the content or the authenticity of their ideology, but the propaganda results from the spread of it. The development and improvement of psychological methods of exerting an influence on the masses, and the use for that end of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 99.
~^^2^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1968, pp. 323--24.
47 ramified organisational and technical propaganda machine reflect the bourgeois ideologists' urge to keep the minds of the people fettered by bourgeois ideology. One very popular term is ``psychological warfare'', with the emphasis on the conditioning of men's minds to have them support a given policy. What the bourgeois propagandists are concerned with is not truth but plausibility, not a knowledge and understanding of men, but the control of their emotions and their responses in favour of the ideas they are spreading. For that purpose, many bourgeois ideologists engage in applied research to meet the requirements of the ruling clique, the militarists, the military establishments and the employers in methods of brainwashing the masses.The crisis of bourgeois ideology (its increasingly glaring reactionary character, resistance to the principal line of social development, scientific untenability, hypocrisy, and deep-going internal contradictions) does not at all mean that it has lost its capacity or power to influence the masses. Its potentialities are still very great. First, the spread of bourgeois ideas is concentrated in the hands of the state machine of imperialism, the monopolies and the corporations, who spend vast amounts of money and use modern techniques and devices for the most extensive spread of bourgeois ideas. Second, there has also been a change in the methods used by bourgeois propaganda, which has been steadily improving and sharpening its ideological weapons. New theories, new systems of views, new lines of bourgeois thinking are thoroughly analysed to see how they can be used for antisocialist propaganda.
No, indeed, imperialist ideology is far from being dead, and it will not automatically collapse without efforts and struggles against it. On the contrary, the crisis processes going forward within it have merely intensified the propaganda activity of its ideologists.
Of course, the ideologists of imperialism are incapable of putting forward noble, lofty ideas, but they have not lost the ability to falsify ideas and to distort social phenomena. Besides, they have been actively speculating on the real difficulties, shortcomings and mistakes in the new world.
Just as the objective historical laws governing the transition from capitalism to socialism do not operate apart from active participation in the social process by men themselves, so the truth of life, the scientific character of Marxist-- 48 Leninist ideas does not overcome bourgeois ideology automatically. For the truth to win out, it has to be driven home to men; there is need to be able to strip the cover of hypocrisy, and to probe deep down to the class interests behind bourgeois ideology which are always there but which are concealed, to show and to prove to the broad masses of people that the theories defending these class interests are unscientific, anti-humanistic and undemocratic.
A tireless, stubborn struggle against bourgeois ideology is just as important and objective a necessity as the economic competition between the two systems, as the political struggle against imperialism and reaction. This struggle can be carried on successfully only on the basis of a knowledge of the concrete crisis processes going forward in the various spheres of bourgeois social thought.
I
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. PRINCIPAL MANIFESTATIONS OF THE BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGICAL CRISIS TODAYAnti-communism is the most vivid reflection of the degradation of bourgeois ideology. The socialist system, born of the Great October Revolution, has been exerting a tremendous influence on the whole course of history, and on the revolutionary liberation struggle throughout the world. More and more people are coming to realise that the new social order is just, and that Marxism-Leninism rests on a deep scientific basis. In 1928, there were only 1,680,000 Communists throughout the world; today there are almost 50 million. Working people on every continent watch with hope and warm sympathy the advance of socialist construction, whose attractive power has been steadily increasing. The bourgeoisie's growing ideological resistance and its struggle against communist ideas is a natural defensive reaction to the successes scored bv socialism, which have exerted a decisive influence on the very content of this struggle. In the present conditions, the bourgeoisie, always inclined to resort to slander and falsification, has been using them ever more actively in the ideological fight against socialism and Marxism. Lenin wrote: ``When the bourgeoisie's ideological influence on the workers declines, is undermined or
4---1245
49 weakened, the bourgeoisie everywhere and always resorts to the most outrageous lies and = slander.''^^1^^It would, of course, be wrong to identify all the bourgeois ideology with anti-communism, which is a reflection of the extreme state of its degradation. However, let us note the fact that the very edge of modern bourgeois ideology is turned against communism, against Marxism, although this does not always appear on the surface as openly as in the instances when anti-communism, anti-Marxism, is immediately involved.
The crisis of bourgeois ideology is expressed not only in the unseemly methods used in the fight against communism and Marxism, but in a peculiar ideological mimicry. The advocates of capitalism, which has outlived itself, no longer dare to call their client by its proper name, and have to invent various new names, asserting that it has already undergone a fundamental change or is bound to undergo one in the very near future. Capitalism is being advertised under a great variety of signboards, including ``people's capitalism'', ``neocapitalism'', ``the welfare state'', ``statism'', ``economic humanism'', and ``the economic republic''. Most noise is being made over the idea of a ``capitalist revolution''. Nor are all these merely a set of arbitrary inventions by the bourgeois ideologists; they are an expression of the deep-going crisis processes in ideology which spring from the objective tendencies of a social system on the way out.
Even before the October Revolution, Lenin remarked on the tendency for the advocates of capitalism to defend it by referring to its reformation, a tendency which he connected with the progress of capitalism and the growth of the working-class movement. He wrote: ``Instead of waging an open, principled and direct struggle against all the fundamental tenets of socialism in defence of the absolute inviolability of private property and freedom of competition, the bourgeoisie of Europe and America, as represented by their ideologists and political leaders, are coming out increasingly in defence of so-called social reforms as opposed to the idea of social revolution. Not liberalism versus socialism, but reformism versus socialist revolution---is the formula of the modern, 'advanced', educated = bourgeoisie.''^^2^^
_-_-_^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 485.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 17, p. 229.
50Today this tendency has been further intensified. Not only have the reformist theorists become captives of bourgeois ideas, but the bourgeois ideologists themselves have become captives of reformism. However, the ``reformation'' itself is now presented as a ``revolution'', and this with good reason. Over vast expanses of the globe, the free peoples are working heroically to erect the magnificent edifice of a new world, which is the result of revolutionary struggle. Accordingly, bourgeois propaganda cannot afford to ignore the attractiveness of the term ``revolution'', and to refrain from using it in its own interests through mimicry. And so we find bourgeois reformism wearing a new mask, that of peaceful ``capitalist revolution''.
The current scientific and technical revolution is also too extensive to fit into the framework of capitalist relations, and impels capitalism to evolve in such a way that private capital is alone no longer equal to the task, and there is need for ever wider participation by society as a whole in economic life. Lenin 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.''^^1^^ At this point, ``people's capitalism'', the ``welfare state'', and similar other speculative theories are brought up.
The Great October Socialist Revolution inaugurated the revolutionary transformation of the world on the basis of socialism, and has led to an unprecedented acceleration of social progress. The pace of history in the 50 odd years since the October Revolution has never been equalled in any other period of the past. Henceforth, ``social progress'' and `` socialism'' are inseparable concepts.
What effect has this acceleration had on bourgeois social science? The fact that the working class has taken over the banner of social progress has markedly deepened the crisis phenomena in bourgeois sociology. These are, perhaps, their most vivid expressions.
First, modern bourgeois sociology has characteristically abandoned the broad historical approach to social phenomena, and denies the law-governed nature of social development. This has led to a highly peculiar modification in the bourgeois ideologists' attitude to the idea of social progress,
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 359.
4*
51 which is either altogether denied, or the prospects of social development are geared to vindicate the capitalist system, or are reduced to mere quantitative changes.Second, bourgeois sociological science is being increasingly converted into a branch catering for the state-monopoly bureaucratic machine. Catering for the needs of the bourgeois state machine and of private corporations amounts to the rendering of protective assistance to the ruling class in its efforts to produce the illusion of democracy and class peace, the illusion that the social structure of capitalism is being transformed on the basis of ``truly scientific means''.
Let us look in somewhat greater detail at these processes which are highly characteristic of modern bourgeois sociology.
The denial of progress by many bourgeois sociologists was a natural continuation of diverse distortions of the concept of progress in the past. One need merely recall Comte's view of progress as the impact of moral ideas on the world towards the realisation of a moral ideal depicted as a state of harmony between the capitalists and the workers with a simultaneous condemnation of revolutionary transformations, or Spencer's concept of social revolutions as harmful attempts to upset the existing equilibrium.
It was Spencer who substituted the notion of ``evolution'' for ``progress'' without, however, emphasising that development naturally tends to move upwards. A close look at the history of bourgeois sociology from Spencer's day to our own reveals a steadily growing tendency to obscure the substance of the concept of ``progress''. This is something bourgeois sociologists themselves admit.
Concerned for the future of capitalism, the reactionary ideologists of the bourgeoisie now frequently seek to erase from their sociological views not only the word ``progress'', but the very notion of evolution. Some declare, for instance, that the terms ``progress'', ``evolution'' and ``development'' should altogether be expunged because they imply admission of the inevitable succession of social formations.
This admission, more than anything else, testifies to the actual metamorphosis that has taken place. In the epoch of their fight against feudalism, and in the periods before and during bourgeois revolutions, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie put forward ideas which, however limited, were bold and abounded in optimism and faith in mankind's advance. To this day progressive mankind has profound respect for the 52 great French enlighteners, Voltaire and Montesquieu, and the French 18th-century materialists, among them Helvetius, Holbach and Diderot, who worked for the establishment of a more progressive social system. Today, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie deny the objective character of social progress in their efforts to defend the social system which history has doomed to destruction. The concept of ``progress'' has been supplanted by the idea that progress in itself is neither good nor evil but is merely a fact which may have different and even contradictory results, depending on its economic and social contexts.
However, it would be wrong to assume that there is nothing but naked denial of social progress in bourgeois social science. In the last ten years, there has been a wide spread of sociological concepts which distort rather than deny the idea of ``progress''.
As has been said, the fight waged by present-day bourgeois sociologists against social progress is not so much theoretical as purely practical. Bourgeois ideologists have been producing theories designed to ``arrange relations'' between the workers and the employers, engaging in a peculiar ``visitation with the people'', and frequently acting as advisers and consultants for employers in industry.
No wonder the capitalists have been providing generous funds for concrete sociological research. At the Fourth International Sociological Congress, the French sociologist, Stoetzel, observed that three-quarters of the sociological research in the USA is financed and directed by industrial and commercial outfits.
Another fundamental expression of the crisis of bourgeois ideology is its increasing betrayal of the truth, a fact that can be seen from a study of bourgeois philosophy.
Bourgeois philosophy has always given a distorted reflection of reality, but never with such distortions and as such a far cry from true scientific knowledge as today. The main tendencies in the development of bourgeois philosophy testifying to its entry into a phase of irreversible crisis, and distinguishing it from the bourgeois philosophy of the period of rising capitalism, are these: 1) the sway of idealism, and abandonment of the materialistic and dialectical propositions it once advocated, even if in a limited way; 2) development of irrationalism in every form, including mysticism and fideism; and 3) development of philosophical research of a 53 narrowly formalistic type, seeking to evade or eliminate altogether the most important philosophical problems of outlook.
These processes (on the one hand, the theologisation of philosophy, and on the other, the positivist negation of its importance for outlook) result in bourgeois philosophy losing its own subject, and departing from its immediate function of gaining a scientific knowledge of the world as a whole.
Religious ideas, claiming integration with science, command a growing influence in irrationalist philosophy. Thus, the Catholic neo-Thomist philosophy propounds a rationalism which claims that the laws governing the universe are a manifestation of Divine Reason, and the idea of God is put forward as the supreme principle of being. ``Back to the Middle Ages'' is the motto of religious irrationalism.
Existentialism, another trend in philosophical irrationalism, claims to comprehend individual human existence without recourse to science. It isolates man from the crucial social contradictions of reality, severs him from society and the cognition of the objective process of social development, thereby reflecting the confusion and casting about in face of the advancing new world, which is inherent to the capitalist system, and depicts the contradictions of its own surrounding reality as a consequence of the insuperable tragic nature of man's existence itself, which does not present any encouraging prospects.
All these tendencies deprive bourgeois philosophy of its principal role of outlook, because they either dissolve philosophy in logic and semantics, or sink it in the bowels of the abstract human individual isolated from society, or again, integrate it with religion. But the divorcement of bourgeois philosophy and its proper subject does not do away with the question of its class essence, of its party attitude, and merely hampers their identification so long as there is no consideration of its attitude to Marxism. The party stand and the class substance of bourgeois philosophy usually appear quite clearly whenever Marxism is considered.
Modern positivism says, for instance, that materialist philosophy has no scientific meaning; religious deism frequently protests against ``atheistic materialism'', and both join hands under the flag of anti-communism. Existentialism, as an expression of extreme subjectivism and individualism, which sever the human individual from society, is also 54 objectively an adversary of Marxism, and benefits no one but the bourgeoisie. Some philosophical schools (like pragmatism) openly serve directly to vindicate the anti-communist reactionary policies of adventurism and voluntarism. The class substance of present-day bourgeois philosophy corresponds to the condition and world outlook of the historically doomed bourgeoisie. Therein lies the main reason for the belittlement of thinking, the departure from the truth and from reason, and the hostility to the historical approach which are the hallmark of present-day philosophical systems.
More evidence of the crisis of present-day bourgeois philosophy comes from the growing discontent with it among scientists, and its inability to explain the surrounding world and to meet the requirements of the natural sciences, which are in headlong = development.^^1^^
Crisis processes are also eroding bourgeois ethical and aesthetic thinking, assuming forms specific to these fields. Capitalist society itself is in a state of profound moral crisis, breeding evils and crimes and implanting racial discrimination. In a peculiar form, present-day ethical theories reflect the same break with the best traditions of classical bourgeois ethics, a fact that is also characteristic of present-day bourgeois philosophical thinking as a whole, resting as it does on the tendencies of irrationalism and formalism.
The main credo of bourgeois ethics, individualism, which is based on the principle of private property, once used to be historically justified, but today, like the other principles of the bourgeois outlook, it has outlived itself and has become _-_-_
~^^1^^ However, that is not to say that bourgeois philosophers have not put forward or elaborated any important concrete questions. Professor G. A. Kursanov is quite right when he says: ``In the condition of present-day bourgeois society this highly characteristic contradiction arises. On the one hand, numerous epistemological theories cover a very large range of problems in a complex and contradictory cognitive process. The philosophers and natural scientists have posed many questions bearing on an analysis of this process: its empirical and logical components, the role of logico-mathematical methods in cognition, the meaning and significance of the forms of language and terms in scientific cognition, methods of structuring scientific systems, the significance and limits of application of philosophical principles in scientific research, etc. But, on the other hand, the attempts to resolve all these problems are based on a false, idealistic outlook and an unscientific, metaphysical method, and this inevitably leads to a contradiction with the objective content in the development of science and of the whole process of cognition'' (Kommunist, 1966, No. 18, p. 81).
55 a drag on social progress. Bourgeois ideologists themselves admit that there is a crisis of moral awareness in capitalist society, and that this is a basis for the spread of mental disease, hard drinking, and immorality in public and in private life. Of course, the moral crisis of capitalism is not allembracing: today, new moral rules and ideals are being moulded by the progressive circles of bourgeois society in their struggle against reaction.Present-day bourgeois aesthetics is marked by decadence, that is, an aggregate of anti-realistic and anti-humanistic tendencies, which assume diverse and occasionally contradictory forms. The so-called mass culture has been spreading inartistic concoctions designed for immature and degraded tastes, and extolling violence and brutality. Modernism, another form of decadence, is, by contrast, designed for the elite. Bourgeois aesthetics as a rule refuses to make broad philosophical generalisations. Here, as in other spheres of bourgeois thinking, there is evidence of growing mysticism and irrationalism, and the sway of abstractionism. The latter is essentially a refusal to depict the material world and to express any definite attitudes and emotions about it. The abstract form---immaterial art---has absolutely definite class purposes: it is to distract men from real and vital problems and to stop them from thinking and seeking after the truth.
The aesthetic thought of the class ruling bourgeois society cannot allow the artist to make an objective reflection of reality, that is, to depict the true direction of its development, which is why bourgeois aesthetics extols formalism. The disintegration of content, the absolutisation of form, and the subjective idealist exaggeration of the role of symbols are the marks of the crisis in bourgeois aesthetics.
The crisis in bourgeois social thinking and its close connection with the anti-democratic domestic and foreign policy of imperialism are most vividly reflected in bourgeois political theories. The main trends in bourgeois political ideology, showing that it has outlived itself in historical terms, that it has no future before it, and that it is fighting the future tooth and nail, are expressed in: 1) the attempts to justify the use of force as an instrument of domestic and foreign policy; 2) the legal doctrines trampling on bourgeois democratic legality; and 3) the system of politico-sociological conceptions whose edge is turned straight at the main motive forces of social development---the world socialist system, the 56 international communist and working-class movement, and the national liberation struggle.
The doctrine of ``political realism'' is the bourgeois ideologists' main conception used to justify violence and the ``positions-of-strength'' policy. This conception is centred on categories like force, interest, and political reality. Its reactionary essence is revealed most clearly in an analysis of the adventurist character of imperialist policy, which relies on the cult of force. At the same time, the striving to pursue a policy of strength, covered up with slogans about freedom and democracy, and the catchwords of the old bourgeois liberalism, merely goes to emphasise the historical impasse in which both the policy and the ideology of imperialism now find themselves.
The imperialist ideologists' patently negative attitude to socialism and communism, an attitude which is predetermined by the class interests of the imperialists, constantly leads them to make serious miscalculations in their political prognoses. That such miscalculations do occur has been admitted, among others, by US political experts. Fred Warner Neal, one-time consultant at the US State Department, said in a pamphlet, US Foreign Policy and the Soviet Union, published by the US Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, that the USA had failed to anticipate any of the major events in the USSR, including the October Revolution and its success. It had also expected socialism to be repudiated, had treated it on a par with fascism, had given the Soviet Armed Forces only six weeks before they collapsed in face of the nazi drive, had not expected the USSR so rapidly to rehabilitate its economy, to catch up in missile construction, etc.
Are not these systematic errors of judgement and constantly mistaken prognoses visual evidence of the state of crisis in bourgeois political thinking?
The Great October Socialist Revolution and the whole halfcentury of experience in socialist construction have shown that socialism and peace are indivisible, and that the whole of socialist policy is based on true democratism. The October Revolution set the world a practical example of complete national liberation of peoples, and opened up real prospects for national liberation revolutions. The break-up of the colonial system of imperialism and the new stage in the national liberation movement now going forward in a sizable part of the countries provide epoch-making evidence of the 57 viable force of the ideas generated by the October Revolution.
What can the ideology of imperialism present to counter all this? Is it the profound conflict between the ``elite'' and the ``lower classes'', the futile attempts to stop or slow down the liberation process, or the global or local strategy of aggression? All these manifestations of the essence of imperialism show that in the political sphere imperialism is a denial of democracy in general, as Lenin put it.
The first foreign-policy act of the Soviet State was Lenin's historic Decree on Peace, adopted on October 26 ( November 8), 1917. This Decree closely connects the struggle for peace with the struggle for the working people's basic interests. This Leninist line---the struggle for peace and social progress---has been pursued, and is being pursued, by the Soviet Union firmly and undeviatingly.
The principle of peaceful coexistence between states with differing social systems, designed to create the most favourable conditions for communist construction, has gone hand in hand with all-round support for the peoples' struggle for national liberation and social emancipation.
The ideologists of reaction realise that socialism is inseparable from the struggle for peace. A rabid anti-Communist, Walter Schlamm, admits that ``communism flourishes in peace, it wants peace, and triumphs in = peace''.^^1^^ Hence, the special hatred for the propaganda of peace, hence the defence of militarism and even attempts to prove that thermonuclear war is lawful on the part of the spokesmen for the most aggressive imperialist circles. The ideological arms-bearers of militarism, like Herman Kahn, have worked out the doctrine of ``escalation'', which is essentially based on recognition that a world thermonuclear war is fatally inevitable; some ideologists of the ``hawks'' who have lost their nerve have been issuing open calls on the USA to deliver the first strike in a world war, in view of the growing advantages of socialism, while one-time Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, has tried to pacify public opinion by declaring that the main thing is total victory over communism, even if this means having a nuclear-missile = war.^^2^^
However, the open man-hating advocacy of a world _-_-_
~^^1^^ W. Schlamm, Die Grenzen des Wunders, Zurich, 1959, S. 185.
~^^2^^ Barry M. Goldwater, Why Not Victory? A Fresh Look on American Foreign Policy, New York, 1962.
58 thermonuclear war has done nothing .to make its advocates more popular. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the capitalist West some ideologists of imperialism have been spreading other theories calling for recognition of the need of peaceful coexistence, provided, of course, that social progress is outlawed.Some ideologists of imperialism, while claiming to be ``peaceable'' and ostensibly condemning the plans for a world nuclear-missile war, have been asserting the need to prevent the ``spread of communist influence''. They have tried to present the imperialist interventions in countries where the national liberation movement is on the upgrade, as being designed to contain ``communist imperialism'' and mount ``defence'' against ``communist aggression''. In fact, such policies and the ideological doctrines backing them up constitute the policy and ideology of exporting counter-- revolution, and a clear refusal to recognise the democratic principle of national sovereignty.
Imperialism found itself powerless in face of the mighty upswing in the national liberation movement, which overthrew colonialism. The disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism, which went forward on the basis of the worldwide transition from capitalism to the new social formation, created a new situation and a new balance of forces, and exerted an influence both on the content and form of the political ideology of present-day imperialism. In this sphere, there has been an important restructuring which showed the deep-going crisis of bourgeois ideology, an ideology which had once proclaimed the ideas of national sovereignty and the equality of nations, and is now a sworn enemy of these ideas. The principle of national sovereignty has been declared an ``outdated intellectual construction'' and all the bourgeois sciences today have made a point of mustering ``arguments'' against this principle. The fundamental reason for this metamorphosis is that the right of nations freely to choose the forms and methods of their economic, political and cultural development now presents a threat to the interests of imperialist exploitation.
The reactionary class urge of the imperialists to keep the developing countries within the capitalist world economy, and their urge to prevent them from taking the non-capitalist way are at the root of all the political, economic and other conceptions produced by bourgeois ideologists specialising in the 59 problems facing these countries. These conceptions essentially amount to social reaction, preservation of the old in the new conditions, and a striving to prolong the life of colonialism, by converting it into neocolonialism. Of course, these reactionary efforts by imperialism, which has suffered a historical defeat, are still capable of inflicting much suffering and grief on the peoples of the whole world, but they are ultimately doomed to fail, together with the political ideology supporting them.
Among the weapons in the ideological armoury of imperialism today are chauvinism and racism, although the forms in which the idea of the inequality of races is expressed differ considerably both from ``classic'' racism, as propounded by the apologists of colonialism, and from the Hitler, fascisttype of racism, which was dealt a crushing blow as a result of the victory scored by the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. The views of the ideologists of present-day imperialism on the national question are marked by a combination of chauvinism, the gross aggressive form of nationalism, and cosmopolitan-type national nihilism, which signifies the repudiation of the bourgeoisie's democratic legacy of the period of rising capitalism.
The hopeless idea of perpetuating the exploiting system and stopping the social transformation of human society add up to the main line of bourgeois social thinking as a whole, with its internal trends differing mainly on the ways of achieving this goal: some want to have a finger on the Abomb trigger, and claim this suicidal idea to be a matter of ``self-defence'', others recommend, on the one hand, the utmost step-up in capitalism's political integration, and on the other, the utmost efforts to ``erode'' socialism, that is, for all practical purposes to step up subversive activity in the world socialist community, and in each of the socialist countries individually. The defective practices undertaken in accordance with this or that line breed fresh alarm.
But where, one may well ask, are the great ideas of the ideologists of the capitalist world? Take a book entitled The Great Ideas Today, published in de luxe edition in the USA in 1969. What do these amount to? The extracts from the works of famous scientists of the 19th century (W. Humboldt, John Stuart Mill, and others) apart, the bulk of the books is devoted to a discussion of the problems facing the universities and technology. What is the authors' approach to these 60 problems? It is one of alarm. US philosopher Mortimer J. Adler, writing in an article entitled ``A Catechism for Our Time'', addresses the rebellious students in these words: ``Twentieth-century America has no monopoly on folly and vice.. . . First, one should ask whether or not the object of attack are simply human folly and vice. Second, to put these attacks or criticisms into historical perspective... . Third, one should ask whether those who criticise their country, and their fellow countrymen have the moral = wisdom.''^^1^^
Professor John G. Burke, a well-known specialist on the history of technology, is likewise concerned. He urges the need to intensify Federal Government control over private enterprise, the Department of Defence, and so = on.^^2^^ All these amount to mere rejoinders in response to the difficulties facing the social system rather than an ideological standard for mankind's development. There remains the article by the well-known religious philosopher, Etienne Gilson, entitled ``The Idea of God and the Difficulties of Atheism''. The article in fact reveals the author's own difficulties, for he admits quite frankly: ``I am certain that there is a God, but that certainty does not rest on any demonstration of his existence.''^^3^^ The ``great ideas'' announced on the cover of the book remain a promise unfulfilled.
The general crisis of capitalism, which makes present-day bourgeois ideology reactionary, unscientific, false and hopeless, also causes deep cracks in its very edifice. The crisis of bourgeois ideology is most pronounced in the behaviour and in the frame of mind of the bourgeois ideologists themselves, and is evident above all in the ever greater division of their ranks.
One of the most vivid expressions of the crisis of the bourgeois outlook is the fact that outstanding modern intellectuals have gone over to the side of communism. This is epitomised by the large group of leaders of French culture and science who joined the ranks of the Communist Party, among them Anatole France, Paul Eluard, Louis Aragon, Jean Richard Bloch, Pablo Picasso, Fernand Leger, Paul Langevin and Frederic Joliot-Curie. Here is what the outstanding _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Great Ideas Today, Chicago-London-Toronto-Geneva-- SydneyTokyo-Manila, 1969, p. 97.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 234.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 239.
61 French physicist and materialist philosopher, Paul Langevin, said: ``The more I learn, the more I feel myself to be a Communist. This great doctrine formulated by Marx, Engels and Lenin has clarified for me some of the things which I had never understood in my own = field.''^^1^^The best men in the capitalist world are abandoning capitalism, while the extreme reactionaries are already taking an open stand as neoconservatives and neofascists, playing an active part as the heralds and arms-bearers of imperialist reaction. Some bourgeois figures who style themselves as scientists, like the US philosopher Sidney Hook, the specialists in political and military strategy Stefan Possony, Herman Kahn and others like them, are among the ringleaders of international anti-communism. However, they have managed to win over to their side only reactionary-minded men or those who have been duped by anti-communist slanders and lies.
A large section of the bourgeois intelligentsia has no sympathies for anti-communism, and many are gripped by doubt, vacillation and alarm. There is wide-spread social pessimism and a sense of hopelessness and despair. Now and again bourgeois scientists and publicists say that human culture is in decline, and that they have a growing presentiment of inevitable collapse. They see the decline of capitalism as sounding the death knell for the whole civilisation.
The sharp aggravation of the contradictions of capitalism and the increasingly obvious inability of the imperialists to slow down the advance of human society are a cause not only of fear and confusion in the ranks of the bourgeois ideologists. The ugly realities of monopoly capitalism impel bourgeois intellectuals to draw the most diverse conclusions. Some of them plunge into irrationalism and mysticism, others seek salvation in extreme individualism. Some accept at face value the various demagogic or Utopian plans for reforming capitalism, and now and again sincerely hope that social life can be renewed if psychological relations between men are changed or if various schemes for a new social or political order on a regional or world scale are implemented.
But ever greater sections of the West European and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Le parti communiste frangais, la culture et les intellectuels, Paris, 1962, pp. 138--39.
62 American intelligentsia display critical tendencies. They condemn anti-democratic political practices, sometimes showing great courage. They seek to sort out the various problems in the present-day ideological and political struggle in the international arena, and refuse to put their trust in primitive anti-communist propaganda. It is true that they also show mistrust of communism, but this is due either to their ignorance of its theory and practice, to the influence exerted by the powerful and ramified anti-communist propaganda machine, or fear of possible reprisals.However, the striking contrast between democratic talk and anti-democratic practice impels many of them to give thought to the true character of domestic and foreign policy in the Western countries. After all, one needs only draw a comparison between the elementary democratic principles and the realities of domestic and foreign policy to cast doubt on the myth about the ``free world''. The arms drive, racial discrimination, the dictatorship and the oppression of the monopolies, growing taxes, lack of certainty in the future, millions of men ``free'' from work at home, and the simultaneously ever more extensive use of force in the practice of international relations will make even the most sincere supporters of bourgeois democracy refuse to act as apologists for present-day imperialist policy.
More than a century ago, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels pronounced these words, which may by rights be termed a scientific prediction: ``In times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a = whole.''^^1^^
In our epoch we are witnesses to processes of this kind. These do not develop simply or straightforwardly, but are _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Moscow, 1969, Vol. 1, p. 117.
63 highly complex and appear to make headway in the form of a series of diverse but interconnected and fully visible tendencies. It is true that so far only on very rare occasions do individual members of the bourgeois intelligentsia rise to ``the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole''. In this context, there is the highly eloquent example of William Du Bois, American scientist, impassioned fighter against war, racism and colonialism, who joined the Communist Party of the USA at the age of 93. There are still few men with such strength and courage, capable of making such a radical break and joining the ranks of the leading fighters for social progress. But the new deep-going trends in the ideological life of the capitalist West create ever more favourable conditions for a search after the truth, for the triumph of truth and reason, and for the further growth of progressive tendencies among the bourgeois intelligentsia, student youth and scientists.What are these tendencies?
The first and most wide-spread progressive tendency among thinking intellectuals in the capitalist world is criticism of the reactionary foreign and domestic policy of imperialism, criticism in the light of bourgeois democracy. It is a profoundly natural development. Monopoly capitalism has run into acute conflict with democracy, even with the bourgeois democracy under whose banner the bourgeoisie had at one time fought against feudalism. The anti-democratic nature of imperialism has been most pronounced in the aggressive foreign policy pursued by the USA, the main citadel of present-day monopoly capitalism, and it is against this policy that the sharp edge of critical thinking by a number of prominent bourgeois ideologists is now directed.
The well-known British historian, Arnold Toynbee, cabled a message of greetings to The Emergency Committee for Peace and Self-Determination in Vietnam, which held a demonstration and a meeting of protest against the US aggression in Montreal, Canada, on February 18, 1966. His cable was read out at the meeting. It said: ``The Viet Cong and the North have covered themselves in glory by baffling the strongest military power in the world. . .. After this experience neither the United States nor any other Western power is likely to burn its fingers in Asia = again.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Canadian Tribune, February 28, 1966.
64An article by Bertrand Russell, a prominent philosopher of the bourgeois West, contains these words: ``The United States government... is engaged in an endeavor to obtain the government of the world, if possible, by financial means. If these means fail, then by force of arms.... What can be done to prevent the disasters which threaten the world if the United States' policy continues? I think it is necessary that American majority opinion should change, and I think that propaganda should be mainly addressed to this end. But, at the same time, it is important to remember that the United States at most times is more or less influenced by opinion in the rest of the civilised world, and that, for this reason, it is important that the world outside the United States should understand the reasons for disapproving of the policy at present adopted by the United States. I think it should be made known as widely as possible, that in all countries subjugated by the United States the puppet governments they established consist of cruel and corrupt despots-----I think that resistance to the United States, if it is to be fruitful, will have to be, if possible, unarmed. But where, as in Vietnam, this has become impossible, then it is our duty to support the armed resistance taking = place.''^^1^^
Bourgeois scientists are not always consistent in their criticism of imperialist domestic and foreign policy, and frequently stop short of going to its social roots. Nor have they put forward any clearly formulated, positive programme for fighting the reactionary forces. Their criticism amounts to no more than a search for ways of struggle. But in the course of this search they frequently express views that are right and bold, and that amount to a judgement against the capitalist system itself.
However, the reactionaries do not as a rule forgive those who dare to carry their criticism to a point at which they ask whether the capitalist social structure itself has any legitimate right to exist. One of those who was hounded by the reactionaries was the progressive American sociologist, C. Wright Mills. He had issued a wrathful expose of the anti-democratic character of imperialist policy, and refused to accept the illusions about ``people's capitalism'' and ``social harmony'' in capitalist society. A book issued in the USA in his honour says that ``he was not a critic of this or that _-_-_
~^^1^^ Canadian Tribune, April 18, 1966.
5---1245
65 particular aspect of American society, of this or that evil in American life---he was against the American condition as a whole, against the way America went about making a living, against the way it treated people, against the way it conducted its political affairs, against the values, rhetoric apart (indeed, rhetoric included), by which it was guided; he was against what America was doing to itself, and what it was doing to the = world.''^^1^^Of especial interest is C. Wright Mills's book, The Power Mite (1957), which was translated into Russian in 1959. This book, like the whole of his scientific and publicistic endeavour, simultaneously reflected the powerful protest by a sage, courageous and honest man against the anti-humanism of the capitalist system, and the weakness of the bourgeois scientist, who had failed to shed all the influences of idealistic theories and of anti-communist = propaganda.^^2^^
Many other critically-minded scientists in the bourgeois West are variously afflicted with the same weaknesses, but one must note that this critical line, the criticism of the policy of imperialism, of bourgeois social science and the muchvaunted ``way of life'' in the capitalist West, is becoming ever more pronounced.
The second equally important and characteristic tendency among bourgeois intellectuals is the growth of civic consciousness, an awareness of their responsibility to society, and ever more active participation in political struggle aimed against the extreme Right-wing aspirations and manifestations of the reactionary policy of present-day imperialism. In fact, some of the scientists opposing this policy have been putting forward practical proposals and tried to formulate a definite positive programme.
Alongside the social and political differentiation of the intelligentsia in the capitalist West, there is a growing tendency towards its ideological differentiation. Thus, for instance, in the recent period there have been signs that progressive intellectuals are seeking a way out of the impasse of reactionary imperialist policy through pacifism, construction of new social Utopias, and so on. However, their _-_-_
~^^1^^ The New Sociology, Essays in Social Science and Social Theory in Honor of C. W. Mills, New York, 1964, pp. 77--78.
~^^2^^ For details about G. Wright Mills, see Voprosy filosofii, 1963, No. 4; 1966, No. 6.
66 best intentions are defeated by the fact that such projects have a flimsy ideological basis.The ideologists of the middle and the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeois intellectuals frequently direct their criticism against the monopolies as well, putting forward all manner of Utopian projects and plans for reducing the scale and segmenting the monopoly corporations or establishing a system of public control over them.
Of course, the anti-monopoly attitudes among bourgeois scientists are not always consistent, and now and again contain Utopian elements. Some who criticise the antihumanistic laws of capitalist distribution propose that it should be modified, without cutting at the roots of the capitalist mode of production, and leaving private property intact. However, the need for fundamental change is an idea that is being ever more frequently expressed.
Many bourgeois scientists and thinkers are deeply discontented over the state of the social sciences in the capitalist countries, and remark on the inability of the existing philosophical and sociological schools to explain the changes taking place in the world. Some of them have sharply criticised bourgeois philosophy, sociology and political science.
The great interest in Marxism among intellectuals and students is a highly indicative fact. In the USA, for instance, an institute for the study of Marxism has been set up, and it is in touch with dozens of universities across the country and involves hundreds of scientists.
One mark of present-day capitalism is the growing contradiction between the monopoly bourgeoisie and the urban middle sections, who have been giving ever more active support to the revolutionary working class. The progressive intelligentsia is coming to play an ever more important role among the proletariat's allies. The scientific and technical revolution has accelerated to an unprecedented extent the stratification within the intelligentsia, turning a sizable part of it into wage-workers, who are subjected to refined exploitation and find their interests and status increasingly drawing closer to those of the working class.
The fold-up of bourgeois democracy and the tendency to adopt autocratic methods of administration, which are evident in the countries of the capitalist West, are bound to continue increasingly to alienate honest workers in culture and science
5*
67 from imperialism. The dialogue with critically-minded intellectuals in the capitalist countries must become one of the elements in the formation of a broad anti-monopoly front. That is also a sign of the times, a mark of the epoch, and a manifestation of the deep crisis of bourgeois ideology.Reaction all along the line continues to be the prevailing tendency of imperialism. Its ideological expression is anticommunism in its most diverse lines and forms, ranging from blatant and gross neo-fascist type manifestations, to the most subtle and veiled ones. This is what I intend to deal with in the following chapters.
[68] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter Three __ALPHA_LVL1__ ANTI-COMMUNISM,The unprecedented activity of anti-communism is the most pronounced expression of the reactionary nature of presentday bourgeois ideology.
Anti-communism appeared as a reactionary response to the emergence of the communist doctrine. The forces hostile to the working-class movement and the Marxist revolutionary theory first began to act when the spectre of communism was haunting Europe. In the opening words of their Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels said that all the dark forces of the exploitative world had banded together to fight against communist ideas. Since then, for over 100 years, the international working-class movement has been ceaselessly fighting anti-communism. The true essence of the policy and ideology of anti-communism can be exposed only with an understanding of the general laws of the class struggle including ideological struggle, set up by Lenin.
Long before our day, he had anticipated that with the growth of the forces of revolution and its successes there was bound to be 1) a sharpening of the class struggle; 2) a growth of the slanderous, fraudulent nature of bourgeois propaganda; and 3) ever greater use by the bourgeoisie of increasingly refined and flexible methods in its ideological fight against socialism.
All these general laws underlying the development of ideological struggle are reflected in present-day anti-- communism, which has turned its sharpest edge against the social progress of all mankind.
Imperialist reaction has been intensifying its anti-- communist attacks, as imperialism loses its footing, as the crisis of world capitalism deepens, and as the economic and political might of the socialist countries and the revolutionising influence of their example grow.
The slanderous, fraudulent nature of anti-communism is a visual illustration of the successes of socialism throughout the world. It is these successes that drive the bourgeois ideologists to extremes in distorting reality. In distorting the 69 s^jt* fit '-. i,J truth, the ideologists of anti-communism go so far as to deny the most important facts of present-day reality, like the existence of capitalism and socialism. A book written by three well-known anti-communist ideologists at Pennsylvania University says: ``We should emphasise the obvious fact that the Western world is not 'capitalist' nor is the communist bloc = `socialist'.''^^1^^ This line of global distortion of the whole content of modern history goes hand in hand with a total denial of the objective laws of social development and this, for its part, is an extreme manifestation of the unscientific nature of anti-communism, and its hostility to the truth of life.
Among the other important tendencies observed by Lenin in the changing ideological tactics of the opponents of socialism were the increasing flexibility and subtlety of forms and methods used in the propaganda of bourgeois anti-communist ideas. Indeed, it is hard to suppress the growing sympathies among men for the new system, and to reduce the attractive power which the Marxist-Leninist doctrine has for ever broader sections of the population in the capitalist countries. Accordingly, bourgeois ideologists have been more active than ever before in resorting to the most hypocritical and refined methods of fighting socialism and Marxism. Lenin wrote about the international efforts by bourgeois theorists ``to kill Marxism with `kindness', to crush it in their = embraces''.^^2^^ Today, the opponents of socialism claiming to be ``experts'' on communism, ``objective'' students of Marxism and socialism, ``Marxologists'', ``Sovietologists'', and ``Kremlinologists'', refrain from using words of abuse against the Soviet system and Marxist-Leninist theory, and seek to undermine the authority of the socialist world and its ideology by means of subtle falsification. What is this but an embodiment and development of the tendency observed by Lenin? But the ideological opponents of Marxism seek not only to crush it in their embraces, but resort to even more refined camouflage. Lenin wrote: ``The dialectics of history were such that the theoretical victory of Marxism compelled its enemies to disguise themselves as = Marxists.''^^3^^ Today, not only the _-_-_
^^1^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. R. Kintner, S. T. Possony, A. Forward Strategy for America, New York, 1961, p. 267.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 222.
^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 13, p. 584.
70 revisionists and renegades from the communist movement, but now and again bourgeois ideologists also ``disguise themselves'' as Marxists and fight it by pretending to help in its ``creative development''. Now and again, a peculiar union occurs in this field between bourgeois professors and revisionists (a visual example of this is provided by the editorial board of the Yugoslav journal Praxis).Consequently, there is good reason why anti-communism has acquired its present forms and manifestations. Its specific features and lines are determined by the content and nature of the social changes characteristic of this epoch of ours.
Successful struggle against anti-communism requires a close look at its present-day aspects.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. CONCEPTIONThe CPSU Programme, giving a generalised analysis of the contemporary historical situation, defines anti-communism as the chief ideological-political weapon of imperialism, which is being used by imperialist reaction in the sphere of both domestic and foreign policy, and of ideology.
Anti-communism does not amount to a mere denial of socialist ideology and policy, to their non-recognition, to disagreement with them, as the prefix ``anti'' may suggest. It is an aggregation of quite concrete aggressive political and ideological acts and instruments used by imperialist reaction in the fight against communist ideology and the practice of socialism. Anti-communist ideas are inspired and fostered by the most reactionary forces, which are hostile not only towards socialism and communism, but to the whole of the democratic movement. The financial oligarchy and the militarists, the fascists and the reactionary clericals, the colonialists and the landlords, the ideological and political henchmen of imperialist reaction---all of these are banded together under the same dark standard of anti-communism.
What is the characteristic feature of their ideology? What is the main content of their slanders of the socialist system, of their falsification of the Communist Parties' policies and purposes, and of the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism?
Anti-communist ideology directly feeds and orients the policy of imperialism, above all its foreign policy with respect 71 to the socialist countries, reflecting and expressing the class interests of imperialist reaction. Another specific feature of anti-communism is that it is most closely connected with the propaganda and the day-to-day political information being disseminated by the state machine and by special propaganda centres of the imperialist powers. Lenin attached much importance to the potential influence of reactionary propaganda, about whose methods he wrote: ``To lie, scream, raise a hullabaloo, and keep on reiterating lies on the offchance that `something may = stick'.''^^1^^
Among the characteristic features of anti-communism are its lying, slanderous and fraudulent character, and its double edge directed simultaneously against the practice of the revolutionary movement and against revolutionary theory. Falsification of Marxism-Leninism is not an extraneous element but an organic component part of the ideology of anti-- communism.
What then are the main lines of contemporary anti-- communism? It is spearheaded against the three powerful motive forces behind social progress: the world socialist community, the international working-class movement, and the peoples' national liberation struggle.
It was noted at the International Theoretical Conference held in Moscow in January 1970 that anti-communism sets itself three inter-related tasks: to undermine socialism or at any rate to weaken the positions of the countries where it has already won out; to prevent revolutions in the capitalist countries from taking place; and to prevent the peoples which have already escaped from the colonial rule of imperialism from taking the way of socialist transformations. In its efforts to adapt itself to the changes taking place in the world under the impact of the victories scored by socialism and other revolutionary and progressive forces, anti-communist strategists increasingly rely on political-ideological means of struggle. However, there should also be continued vigilance with respect to the military threat presented by imperialism. Anti-communism has a primary role to play in shaping and justifying its aggressive policy, of which the Soviet Union has been and continues to be the main = objective.^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 118.
~^^2^^ See Against Present-Day Anti-Communism, Prague, 1970, pp. 40--42 (in Russian).
72The strategy of anti-communism amounts to a policy designed to restore capitalism in the countries constituting the world socialist system. Stooping to all sorts of means and modifying their tactics depending on the situation, the imperialists seek to deprive the peoples of the socialist countries of their historical gains. With that end in view, they resort to direct armed intervention from outside, and to subversive activity within these countries, acting through the anti-socialist forces in these socialist countries, and also smuggling into these countries specially trained men to carry on intelligence operations, subversion and sabotage.
The present-day tactics of anti-communism aimed directly against the socialist countries consists of two main prongs: the efforts to fragment world socialism as a system, on the one hand, and to erode the socialist states in the bourgeois spirit, on the other.
The main content of the first prong is to range the socialist countries against the Soviet Union. At the back of this are far-reaching political schemes constituting the core of imperialist strategy and designed to change the world balance of forces. The sum and substance of the second prong is emphasis on the ``internal evolution'' in the socialist countries, and their political and ideological ``softening-up''. In socio-political terms, these schemes are oriented not only on the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes and their fellow-travellers, but also on the revisionist, opportunist elements (and this is essentially a new feature). These specific features of the new tactics of anti-communism stood out in bold relief during the well-known events in Czechoslovakia.
The main strategic task of anti-communism in its fight against the international working class is to strengthen the power of the monopolists by eroding the class consciousness of the workers, of their internationalist feelings by fighting against the establishment of a working people's united front, by mounting persecutions and reprisals against the most steadfast and courageous fighters for the interests of the working class.
Anti-communism seeks to sever the ties between the Communists and progressive social forces, to corrupt the communist movement from inside, to deprive the Communist Parties of their combat capacity, to fan the differences in the
73 communist movement, and to erode it as an international force.Imperialism pins special hopes on the splitting line pursued by the present Chinese leadership, above all its anti-Soviet policy.
Anti-Sovietism, anti-socialist propaganda are the main lines along which the anti-communists are trying to brainwash the working people in the capitalist countries.
Among the important ``channels'' along which anti-- communism is being injected into the mass consciousness are political organisations operating within the working-class and democratic movement. Examples are provided by the activities of Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders, the leaders of reactionary trade unions, especially in the USA, and also of various Leftist ultra-revolutionary or pseudo-- revolutionary---Trotskyite, Maoist, etc.---groups.
Anti-communism also serves imperialism as its main ideological-political weapon in the area of national liberation where its most important aim is to sever the national liberation movement from the other revolutionary forces of our day, the socialist countries above all.
Past experience provides irrefutable proof that anti-- communism is the most important obstacle to strengthening the independence of the developing countries, and a drag on their economic emancipation and progressive social development. The anti-communist policy clashes with the national interests of the countries escaping from colonial dependence.
Anti-communism as a means of fighting against the national liberation movement is aimed at keeping the developing countries within the world capitalist system. In order to keep them within the sphere of their influence, the imperialists mount offensives on the freedom and independence of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, seeking to separate them from the USSR and the other countries of the socialist community and so to prevent their peoples from deciding their own future.
The evolution of present-day anti-communism shows up its specific features. Marxism-Leninism, which in our day has become not only a theory but an element of life itself, has also forced anti-communism to undergo a series of modifications.
[74] __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. SPECIFIC FEATURES OF PRESENT-DAY ANTI-COMMUNISMThe main ones can be seen: 1) from its content; 2) in the sphere of organisation of anti-communist action; 3) from its forms; 4) from its methods; and 5) in the sphere of its theoretical substantiation.
1. Turning to the present-day content of anti-communism, we find that it is characterised by actual non-recognition that the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries have a legitimate existence; non-recognition (contrary to the obvious facts) of their communist prospects and, in full conformity with this, denial of the objective laws of history. This provides justification for staging, by any means, political acts aimed to abolish socialism.
Because the socialist community and the Soviet Union are the mainstay of communist progress, anti-Sovietism--- political and ideological measures aimed at undermining the Soviet Union's strength and influence---has become the main feature of the content of present-day anti-- communism.
The ideological content of anti-communism is aimed at buttressing this adventurous policy, for which purpose increasing use is being made of the fight against Leninism, which relies on the means provided by the armoury of the bourgeois social sciences.
In its fight against the forces of progress and socialism, anti-communism makes increasing use of nationalism. Gustav Husak, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, was quite right when he observed: ``Bourgeois nationalist propaganda is now marked by a pronounced anti-Soviet line, which is why the struggle against it, against every form of anti-Sovietism is a component part of the class struggle in the modern classdivided world, a component part of the consistent internationalist policy of the Communist = Parties.''^^1^^
2. In the sphere of organisation, anti-communism, both in politics and in ideology, has this distinctive feature that it is directed and financed by the governments of the imperialist states and the giant monopolies, that is, that in the countries _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, April 22, 1970.
75 of the capitalist West it has been enshrined as government policy. The whole imperialist mechanism of foreign and domestic policy, the intelligence agencies, the armed forces, the ramified network of bourgeois propaganda and the whole system of education and scientific research, the numerous institutes, funds and centres, specially set up with the funds of the imperialist monopolies are engaged in subversive activity against socialism and the communist movement, and in falsifying the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. A caste of professional ``specialists'' in fighting communism, socialism and Marxist-Leninist ideas has crystallised from among the representatives of the military-bureaucratic machine of the imperialist states, and the most reactionary scientists.US imperialism has become the headquarters of anticommunism, the centre of international reaction and militarism.
The State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon, the Peace Corps, the United States Information Agency and many other outfits are engaged in organising anti-communist political and ideological acts. The cost of ideological struggle and anti-communist propaganda comes to over $ 500 million a year. Thus, USIA, for instance, has a staff of 12,000, of whom 7,000 are foreigners. In 105 countries, it has 111 so-called peripheral missions and 230 information centres, employing over 8,000 Americans. It also runs the Voice of America radio system, which has 43 radio stations on the territory of the USA and 59 abroad. Free Europe and Liberation, two radio stations engaged (in varying style) in praising the bourgeois ``paradise'', and slandering the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, are branches of the Voice of America in Europe.
There are now over 150 organisations and almost 200 university departments in the so-called research centres and institutes in the USA which are engaged in formulating problems of strategy and tactics in the fight against the socialist countries and the international communist movement, in falsifying Marxism-Leninism and in producing diverse anti-communist doctrines and training the necessary personnel.
The Hoover Institute of War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University in California, is one of the scientific centres of anti-communism. One of its chiefs, Professor 76 Possony, concentrates on working out ``bridge-building'' tactics. The Institute's ``advisory committee'' includes executives from giant corporations like the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Republic Steel Corporation, T. Mellon and Sons, and others, whose contributions make up almost 70 per cent of the Institute's budget. The well-known anti-communist expert, Admiral A. Burke, works at the Centre for Strategic Studies (now the Hodge Institute) in Georgetown. Other centres engaged in vigorous anti-communist activity are the Research Institute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University, Columbia's Russian Institute, and the Institute for Central and Eastern Europe at Columbia University, New York. The Russian Institute at Columbia University, which is financed by the Rockefeller Fund, has trained two-thirds of the ``Sovietologists'' working in the USA.
In the FRG, a special branch of research called Ostforschung (studies of the East), involves dozens of institutes and societies, including, for instance, the East European Institute under the ``Free University'' in West Berlin, the German Society for the Study of Eastern Europe at Stuttgart, the Institute and Society of South-Eastern Europe in Munich, the Institute for the Study of the History and Culture of the USSR in Munich, the Federal Institute for the Study of Marxism-Leninism in Cologne (institute of `` Sovietology''), and many others.
3. A characteristic feature of anti-communism is the growing refinement and diversity of forms in the fight against the practice of socialism and the theory of Marxism-Leninism.
Imperialist reaction, having spread to global scale its attempts to intrude into the minds of the working people at home and in the socialist countries, has tried to have its anti-communist policy and propaganda exert an all-- pervading influence on every section of the population. Hence, the diversity of its forms.
One of these is the extremely bellicose, openly aggressive, and frequently neofascist form connected with the calls for starting a world thermonuclear war whose slogan is `` better dead than red''. In conditions of peace-time, the advocates of this policy extensively resort to terrorism. This form of anti-communism in ideology frequently goes hand in hand with a gross and primitive system of lies and slanders designed for mass consumption and speculating mainly on the ignorance of men. Back in 1920, Lenin wrote about ``the 77 bourgeoisie incessantly slandering us through its entire apparatus of propaganda and = agitation''.^^1^^
In 1969, J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, the American counter-intelligence service, published a book in the United States, called /. Edgar Hoover on Communism, which abounds in the grossest and most primitive lies about the communist movement and Marxist-Leninist theory. Thus materialism is presented as a denial of man's spiritual life, etc
Of course, this type of slander, which capitalises on ignorance, inevitably proves to be a fiasco, which is why ever more refined means are now being more broadly used.
The second form of present-day anti-communism may be designated as bourgeois-liberal, whose political advocates prefer to use the methods of so-called quiet anti-- communism, ``bridge-building'' and ``the driving in of wedges''. They frequently present themselves as ``Marxologists'', `` Sovietologists'', ``Kremlinologists'', etc., whose fight against socialism and Marxism-Leninism is covered up with ``objective'' research into the development of communism and its theory. They distort the essence of socialism and the Marxist-- Leninist doctrine in order to divert the attention of broad circles of bourgeois intellectuals.
Another form of anti-communism that has been actively spread in the capitalist countries over the last few years, is hypocritical, demagogic anti-communism, which is presented as a ``creative development of Marxism'' and a ``critique of capitalism''. Some of its exponents, who pretend to be Marxists or men close to them, engage in ideological subversion among the bourgeois intellectuals who take a critical attitude towards capitalism or some of its manifestations, and in corrupting young people in colleges and universities so as to isolate them from the working class and the communist movement. Herbert Marcuse, an American philosopher of German origin, provides a typical example of this brand of bourgeois anti-communist ideologist.
The extension of the social base of the anti-imperialist movement under the influence of the scientific and technical revolution, the involvement in the struggle against the monopolies of the intelligentsia and the young people create real prerequisites for uniting the democratic forces. What _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 364.
78 ideologists like Herbert Marcuse are doing is fulfilling the monopolies' ``social order'' to prevent the formation of a broad democratic anti-monopoly front under the leadership of the working class. They have tried to do this above all by distorting the role of the Communist Parties and the working class in capitalist society. Marcuse, for instance, says that it is meaningless to look for any specific historical agents of revolutionary change in the advanced capitalist = countries.^^1^^ He has been spreading lies about the Soviet Union's `` repressive bureaucracy'' and ``collaborationist policy'', and slandering = socialism.^^2^^ As for his ``critique'' of capitalism, it is in fact an apology of capitalism, emphasising the system's great strength and ``integration potentialities''. He declares: `` capitalist society shows an internal union and cohesion unknown at previous stages of industrial = civilisation''.^^3^^4. The methods of anti-communist policy and propaganda are characterised by ever closer ties with reformism, revisionism and nationalism. This is quite natural, because the anticommunists expect these ties to open up the way for penetration into the socialist countries, and into the working-class and communist movement, that is, to help to undermine the decisive forces opposing imperialism.
In the context of this coalescence, there are the highly typical attacks by bourgeois reformism and revisionism of the Right opportunist and Leftist stripes against the general laws of the socialist revolution and socialist construction, above all the great role of the working class in world history and the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the proletarian dictatorship, the Leninist doctrine of the working-class party; the attempts to obscure the fundamental antithesis between the capitalist and the socialist systems; slander of the Soviet Union and the CPSU; political and ideological subversion against internationalism from the standpoint of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism, and so on.
The methods used in anti-communist policy and propaganda today reveal a clear intention on the part of the imperialists to carry the centre of gravity of their political and ideological struggle directly onto the territory of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ H. Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation, Boston, 1969 p 79
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. VII, 85, 89.
~^^3^^ H. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, Boston, 1966, p. 21.
79 socialist countries, and this calls for much greater political and ideological vigilance on the part of all working people in socialist society.We find that the present stage of anti-communism is marked by particularly subtle methods of ideological struggle against socialism and Marxism-Leninism. The efforts to cover up the reactionary character of anti-communist policy and ideology have assumed unprecedented proportions, and extensive use is being made of hypocritical demagogic phraseology. This mimicry of imperialism's reactionary policy makes anti-communism an especially dangerous and treacherous weapon of imperialist reaction.
In this context, one cannot help recalling Lenin's warning that the open preaching of their ideology by the exploiters themselves, and their open defence of their class interests are less dangerous for the working people than the spread of the same ideology by men who claim to be progressive, who take a stand ``over and above parties'', and who clothe these reactionary ideas in demagogic form and cover them up with the ``latest'' unscientific theories.
In his article, ``In Memory of Count Heyden'', Lenin exposed this stripe of bourgeois liberal and pseudodemocrat. He stressed that they were much more dangerous than the members of the Black Hundreds, whose every action antagonised the people and produced hatred and contempt. A much greater danger was presented by the reactionaries who flew the flag of democracy, freedom and general humane principles. ``The influence of the intelligentsia, who take no direct part in exploitation, who have been trained to use general phrases and concepts, who seize on every 'good' idea and who sometimes from sincere stupidity elevate their inter-class position to a principle of non-class parties and non-class politics---the influence of this bourgeois intelligentsia on the people is dangerous. Here, and here alone, do we find a contamination of the masses that is capable of doing real harm and that calls for the utmost exertion of all the forces of socialism to counteract this = poison.''^^1^^ This warning of Lenin's is just as meaningful today.
5. Highly active and characteristic efforts are being made to present the theoretical ``substantiation'' of anti-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, pp. 52--53.
80 communism as being scientific. In the recent period, a new set of anticommunist sociological theories have been produced, aimed directly against socialism and Marxism-Leninism. These theories (which have actually nothing in common with science) pretend to make an ``objective'' recognition of some of the successes scored by socialism, but make a point of twisting the past, the present and especially the future of the communist formation.Simultaneously with the stepped up production of pseudoscientific theories, which speculate very skilfully on a distorted interpretation of various objective facts and phenomena, the ideologists of anti-communism have started an intensive effort to falsify Marxism-Leninism.
This falsification, aimed both against the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism and against its component parts, undoubtedly deserves a special analysis which is given in the following chapters.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. SPECIFIC FEATURESThe struggle against the USSR and the other socialist countries is undoubtedly the most important line in the fight which present-day anti-communism is carrying on against the forces of social progress.
While pursuing a single strategic line in its policy and ideology, anti-communism operates against world socialism along two main tactical lines, which constantly supplement and combine with each other.
The first of these is an expression of aspirations of those circles of the monopoly bourgeoisie which support the extreme reactionary and openly militaristic line aimed at destroying socialism in an armed attack. It is based on outright voluntarism, and an anti-scientific and adventurist reliance on the ``positions-of-strength'' policy.
The second tactical line expresses a much more cautious approach by the imperialists to their fight against socialism. This line includes the ``bridge-building'' doctrine which was proclaimed by former US President Lyndon B. Johnson, a doctrine to which the USA and a number of capitalist __PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---1245 81 countries still adhere. This line is also being followed by politicians and ideologists of imperialism who assume that it is now a risky thing for the capitalist world to contemplate a world-wide thermonuclear war, and that it is better to operate through local wars and subversive operations inside the socialist countries. Not daring to mount a frontal attack against the socialist world, imperialism seeks to undermine the unity of the world socialist community, to weaken the unity of the working people in the socialist countries, and to erode socialism from inside.
This new tactics is marked by intensified attempts to cover up the reactionary purposes, and the reactionary policy and ideology with a pseudo-democratic, ``liberal'' and pseudoscientific phraseology. But ``quiet'' anti-communism is as dangerous as the loud and open calls for a crusade against the socialist countries.
Under the cover of liberal demagogic talk, the class enemies of socialism seek to change the character of the political power in the socialist countries, to explode the Communist Parties from inside, and to eliminate their leading role in socialist society, without which it is impossible to build or to continue to develop socialism.
With that end in view, the imperialists have been making intensive efforts to involve the class enemies (former exploiters) of socialism in organised and purposeful anti-- socialist activity within the socialist countries, to revive and galvanise the political activity of those who had been members of disbanded counter-revolutionary parties, to make extensive use of Social-Democrats and revisionists, and also to involve in anti-socialist activity men who are politically immature, backward, with inadequate ideological training, or simply ignorant. The purpose of this is to try to corrupt the intelligentsia and the young people, making a desperate effort to speculate on past mistakes and shortcomings, so as to denigrate the heroic path of the Soviet and other peoples of the socialist countries and to spread mistrust of socialism and the Communist Parties.
It is these class purposes, which are hostile to socialism, that constitute the main content of the present-day policy pursued by the leading imperialist powers with respect to the socialist countries. A well-known anti-communist expert, Professor Gordon Skilling, insists that the policy ^of the Western powers with respect to the socialist countries ``should 82 be subtle and restrained, avoiding loud propaganda and threats of intervention, and encouraging the peaceful evolution of national communism within the communist = bloc''.^^1^^ Other anti-communist experts make no bones about the need to induce structural changes within the socialist countries. One view expressed at a ``scientific'' conference of anticommunist ideologists was that ``the proper Western policy toward East Central Europe at the present juncture is that of peaceful engagement, i.e., the coordinated use of cultural exchange, financial credit, and diplomatic maneuver to promote the erosive forces already at work in the = area.''^^2^^
The ``bridge-building'' doctrine, which appears to be an amicable one and which has been proclaimed with respect to the socialist countries by leading US political figures, in actual fact pursues far from friendly aims. Together with the export of goods, the imperialists seek to export to the socialist countries their bourgeois ideology, and together with the advertisements of the products, advertisements of the capitalist way of life and the prospects for a restoration of capitalism.
It is not surprising that the Communist Parties are the main objective of the bourgeois ideologists' attacks.
The Communist Party, a party of the working class, and the vanguard of the whole people, is in possession of a scientific theory of social development, it organises and educates the masses, sets an example of the communist attitude to work, carries on a struggle against any manifestation of bourgeois ideology or survivals of the past, moulds the working people's communist outlook, helps those who lag to overcome their vacillations and preconceptions, and creatively formulates the pressing problems of the day. The imperialist machinations can, of course, have some effect and inflict some damage on the socialist construction only if the party leadership is relaxed, if vigilance is dulled in the country, and if the class approach to social phenomena is not practised in the various sectors.
It is a law underlying the existence of the Marxist-- Leninist parties that they must be ideologically and organisationally united, and carry on a tireless struggle for it. The _-_-_
~^^1^^ H. Gordon Skilling, Communism: National and International, Toronto, 1966, p. 161.
~^^2^^ Eastern Europe in Transition, Baltimore, 1966, p. XIV.
__PRINTERS_P_83_COMMENT__ 6* 83 Communists of the USSR have scored all their victories in the most difficult historical conditions only because they acted as a conscious, united, and ideologically coherent organisation. They were able to overcome the great difficulties which arose on the way of socialist construction in the USSR only because they took the implacable Leninist attitude to Right and ``Left'' revisionists, and resolutely condemned and outlawed factions, working to unite the Communists in thought and act.It is not surprising therefore that the ideologists of anticommunism and the revisionists have concentrated their most intensive attacks against Lenin's doctrine of the Party. The anti-communist experts have openly stressed that in the long term activity by revisionists within the Parties may lead to the elimination of the Communist Party's leading role in the socialist countries, to a growth of opposition trends within them, to be followed by political and economic changes within the socialist community, along the lines designed by imperialism, which means nothing but the restoration of capitalism in the socialist countries.
The anti-communist experts believe that ideological changes must be followed by changes in the political superstructure of socialism, and they have recommended that this should be ``improved'' after the ``model'' of bourgeois democracy.
The ideologists of anti-communism and their revisionist henchmen have been carrying on fierce attacks on socialist democracy with a pretended concern for ``democratisation'' and ``liberalisation''. Actually, these are attempts to introduce in the socialist countries Western-type multi-party systems, including opposition parties, parties which fight each other, which bourgeois ideologists present as models of democracy.
However, it is well known that so-called political pluralism, that is, a system of rival political parties fighting each other in the capitalist countries, is a reflection of the class structure of capitalism, with its inherent inter-class and intra-class contradictions, and that it is in no conceivable sense a ``model'' for socialism.
The existence and activity of many parties ``fighting for power'' in the capitalist countries does nothing to modify the nature of the bourgeois state. This system merely provides the opportunities for rivalry between groups of 84 bourgeoisie within one and the same class, and ultimately reflects the competition which is proper to the capitalist mode of production.
As for the truly opposition political parties and organisations (Communist and Workers' Parties, Left-wing trade union associations and other organisations and alliances which are outside the system of bourgeois dictatorship) these are subjected to persecution, reprisals and terrorism, while the powerful propaganda machine in the hands of the bourgeoisie steadily heaps the most refined slander, distorting their purposes, their theoretical principles and methods---in short, everything is being done to compromise them in the eyes of the broad masses of the population.
The true test of a state's democratic structure is not at all the number of parties, but the socio-economic system, which determines who owns the means of production, and what part the working people have to play in running the state. In the socialist countries, the forms which the ``multi-party'' or ``one-party'' system assumes depend on the concrete historical conditions, but whatever the form of government in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism dictatorship of the proletariat is the only acceptable substance of the state system.
The ideologists of anti-communism and the revisionists keep attacking the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the proletarian dictatorship, which they present as being the very opposite to democracy, and equate dictatorship and violence. The fact is, however, that the main functions of the proletarian dictatorship are known to be constructive, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a democracy for the majority of the population, and is a form of class alliance between the proletariat and the non-proletarian sections of the working people. The proletarian dictatorship's functions of economic organisation and education and cultural development for the purpose of establishing a socialist society is combined with the use of force when it comes to overthrowing the exploiters or putting down their resistance.
Indeed, in the socialist countries, the capitalists have been deprived of the freedom to own factories and landed estates, to oppress the working people, to use the mass media to deceive the people, to fight for a restoration of the power of the exploiters, and to maintain ties with the foreign bourgeoisie for those ends. This ``lack of freedom'' depends on the fact 85 that in the transition period the exploiters inevitably have hopes of restoration hopes which develop into attempts at restoration. (
That is why lany form of a multi-party system in the transition period is possible and appropriate only where the non-proletarian parties accept the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party, which is equipped with a scientific theory, and where all the non-proletarian parties accept socialism and express the interest of the working people.
It is this kind of multi-party system of political organisation of socialist society that the anti-communists quite naturally seek to undermine, all the while hypocritically claiming to be acting in the interests of democracy.
The assertion that in contrast to the ``free and democratic'' societies in the capitalist West the communist system is totalitarian is the most common anti-communist argument aimed against the socialist system and its domestic policy, with the vilifying equation of socialism and fascism as the main thesis. This is a fraudulent attempt to play on the people's hatred for fascism and a simultaneous effort to obscure the true substance of the latter, its class character as a terroristic dictatorship of the most aggressive circles of monopoly capital.
The roots of the ``totalitarian'' idea go down to Kautsky's ``democracy or dictatorship'' scheme, which was shown to be scientifically untenable by Lenin, in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky. Let us recall that Kautsky had the wrong definition of imperialism and denied the class character of the state.
On the eve of the Second World War, Right-wing SocialDemocratic politicians and ideologists, among them Otto Wels, Curt Geyer, Rudolf Hilferding and Friedrich Stampfer, modified Kautsky's scheme and converted his interpretation of dictatorship into a myth of ``totalitarianism''. They are the ones who launched the malicious invention that fascism and communism were ``quite = identical''.^^1^^
The ``totalitarianism'' doctrine was subsequently used by the most reactionary and aggressive leaders of US _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Against the Ideology of Present-Day Anti-Communism. Proceedings of a Scientific Conference of the Institute of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany on the subject, ``The Struggle against the Ideology of Anti-Communism Is a Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism'' (Berlin, March 30-- 31, 1967), Moscow, 1968, pp. 151--52 (in Russian).
86 imperialism. President Harry Truman, for instance, referred to this idea in laying down his political line and based his aggressive ``Truman Doctrine'', which he proclaimed in March 1947, on the need of standing up to communism and its ``totalitarian regimes''.The ``totalitarianism'' idea was borrowed by the politicians and ideologists of resurgent German imperialism. Dr. Gerhard Lozek, of the Institute of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, told a conference in Berlin: ``Beginning from the mid-- 1950s, the content of every major work along the main lines of bourgeois West German sociology, philosophy, historiography, constitutional law and economics, social psychology and, not least important, so-called political science, has been largely determined by the doctrine of = totalitarianism.''^^1^^ The anti-communist doctrine of ``totalitarianism'' was also used by the Bonn authorities to justify the unlawful banning of the Communist Party of Germany, to justify its extraordinary legislation, its striving to obtain nuclear weapons, and to carry on a campaign of terrorism against progressive leaders.
The ideologists of anti-communism have written a great many books about ``totalitarianism''. Among them are Professor Carl Friedrich of Harvard University and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom contributed to a collection entitled Totalitarianism (1967); the French sociologist Raymond Aron, who wrote the book Democracy and Totalitarianism (1965); the US political science specialist, Professor John Gibson, author of the book Ideology and World Affairs (1967), and so on.
These, like other propagandists of the ``totalitarianism'' myth, seek to conceal the connection between fascism and capitalism, and to draw a line of distinction between the capitalist state and fascism. Actually, fascism is a product of the private capitalist system in the epoch of imperialism, and bourgeois-democratic and fascist states have common forms of property (domination of capitalist property), existence of antagonistic classes, and the political power of capital (even if it does assume different forms).
The slanderous assertions that fascism and socialism are merely two different forms of ``totalitarianism'' is designed _-_-_
^^1^^ Against the Ideology of Present-Day Anti-Communism, p. 154.
87 to divert the attention of the masses of people in the capitalist countries from the actual and quite real tendency towards a spread of fascism in these states today. This was emphasised by Lenin when he stressed that ``imperialism seeks to replace democracy generally by = oligarchy''.^^1^^ Today, this is a rapid process in the capitalist countries of the West, where monopoly capital has been developing and improving the bourgeois state's strong and ramified police and army machine. Bureaucratic officials are coming to play an ever greater role, while the role of parliamentary activity within the system of the monopoly dictatorship is being steadily reduced and parliament's legislative powers are bein,? whittled down.The idle talk about ``totalitarianism'' in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries is designed to divert public attention from these processes.
John Gibson says, for instance, that the mark of `` totalitarianism'' is the rule of a minority over the majority and a denial of individual rights.
One needs merely to consider the real facts of life in the USA and in the USSR to discover where a minority rules the majority. Of the 1,517 deputies elected in 1970 to the Eighth USSR Supreme Soviet, 31.7 per cent are workers, 18.6 per cent are collective farmers, and the rest are workers in culture, science, education, office workers and government officials. This social composition of the supreme organ of power largely reflects the structure of the country's population. Meanwhile, there are no workers or farmers in the US Congress, although 85 per cent of the US population are wage workers. Where then is the majority ruled by a minority? Let us add, too, that all the other Soviets together have over 2 million deputies, with almost 25 million persons working with them as activists. There is also the fact that for the first time in history the right to work, rest and leisure, education and material security in old age have been ensured in the USSR. The much-vaunted US democracy allows unemployment in the country and a state of things under which over 30 million Americans live in poverty, and over 20 million Negroes are in fact deprived of civil rights.
The anti-communist doctrine of totalitarianism is bound to collapse in face of the blatant anti-democratism of _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I< Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 28, p. 44.
88 present-day capitalism and with the steady spread of the truth about life in the socialist countries. Accordingly, this slanderous doctrine has been somewhat modified in the last few years. As the tactics of imperialist struggle against the socialist countries is changed, the accent has recently been not so much on the alleged identity of fascism and communism as on the specific features of the various socialist countries with the far reaching aims of their possible subsequent `` softening up''. At the same time, some historians in the FRG have tried to present the fascist regime of 1933--1945 as a nontotalitarian system of power, thereby leaving the concept to be applied entirely to socialism. In this instance (as, let us add, in all the others) we find that anti-communism ultimately serves the most reactionary forces and paves the way for fascism.It is extremely important in the interests of peace and social progress effectively to expose the doctrine of totalitarianism.
In the latter half of the 1960s, bourgeois ideologists produced a new concept, the ``administered = society'',^^1^^ which they believe to be a good definition of modern totalitarianism.
That this new concept is likewise a fraudulent one will be seen above all from 1) the attempt to present the guidance of social development by the Communist Parties as the saddling of society with a powerful ``political elite''---an attempt to distort the fundamental feature of this guidance, namely, the organic bonds between the Party and broad masses of the working people, and with all the classes and social groups in socialist society; 2) the attempt to contrast the Party's guidance of social life, and Marxism, rather, the Marxist thesis of the withering away of the state---an attempt based on a neglect of the drawn-out dialectical process of the withering away of the state (which occurs only through the utmost development of democracy, and the presence of the appropriate concrete historical conditions); and 3) the attempts to contrast the interests of Party and state leaders, and various ``group'' interests: the interests of technical experts, the artists arid the scientists, the critics and the journalists, all of which allegedly have potentialities for a ``pluralistic political framework'', implying their ``independent influence in the = society''.^^2^^ _-_-_
~^^1^^ Allen Kassof, The Administered Society, ``Communist Political Systems'', New Jersey, 1966.
^^2^^ Ibid., p. 382.
89 This clearly ignores the ideological and political unity of all the social and occupational groups in socialist society. The implication is that within the ``administered society'' there is bound to be ``a very slow erosion of the Bolshevik = heritage''.^^1^^ These contrasts are untenable because they ignore the scientific nature of the Party's guidance, and unjustifiably separate the scientific ideology from the scientific administration of society.In 1969, an American anti-communist journal Problems of Communism, tried to establish a direct connection between a new ``political model'' for the socialist countries and their economic reforms. The political consequences of these reforms were presented as an inevitable weakening of the Party's leading role, and a strengthening of the role of the technocrats. Referring to a number of revisionist features, which boil down to allegations that the ``communist party was incapable of leading a modern industrial society'', the journal advertised the establishment in the socialist countries of multi-party systems reflecting the clash of interests of conflicting groups. These interests of groups, the journal insists, are embodied in the trade unions, in the technocrats and in the various opposition groups within the party = itself.^^2^^
In reality, the socio-economic system of socialism ensures a gradual elimination of classes and the establishment of social equality.
Under socialism, all social classes and groups have undergone substantial change, and their further development is marked by a consolidation of their socio-political and ideological unity in the steady advance towards complete social homogeneity. In the past, historical development in antagonistic formations naturally resulted in increasing class differentiation, whereas the formation of socialism results in a gradual overcoming of it.
In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, with an acute struggle under way between the vanquished but not yet destroyed, not completely worked out capitalism, and the steadily growing forces of socialism, there still exists a social base for the fight against socialism, and attempts to make use of it are being made primarily by imperialist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 384, 386.
~^^2^^ ``Political Patterns and Economic Reforms'', Problems of Communism, March-April, 1969, p. 23.
90 reaction and its agents, and then also by those who have fallen under the influence of anti-communist propaganda.Under full-scale socialism, class antagonisms have already been eliminated but class distinctions still remain, although these are also being gradually obliterated. However, there are no social groups with conflicting interests, and the fundamental interests of all the social sections are organically identical. This explains why it is a reactionary utopia for the ideologists of anti-communism to hope that the peoples of the socialist countries will return to a ``pluralistic model'' of democracy, in which there will be a ``scramble for power''.
It is quite another matter that the reactionary classes have been doing their utmost to revive and invigorate the antisocialist elements in the socialist countries, to galvanise the survivals of capitalism in the minds of men, and to influence their thinking by means of bourgeois propaganda.
One well-worn anti-communist myth which slanders and grossly distorts the foreign policy of socialism is that communism is ``aggressive'', and seeks to ``export revolution''. It is being strenuously spread by the US and West German ideologists of anti-communism, among them Meissner, Lowenthal and Wagenlehner. It is designed not only for propaganda, but also for purely practical political purposes, and is being used in an effort to vindicate NATO's aggressive policy, the arms drive and the imperialist interference in the affairs of other nations.
The slander about the ``export of revolution'' and the ``communist menace'' is being maintained by speculation on the ignorance of some people who do not know the principles underlying the foreign policy of the socialist states, and the theory of scientific communism.
Lenin kept giving reminders that revolutions are not made to order, and that they mature within capitalist society as a result of the objective contradictions of capitalism. He wrote: ``The rule of capitalism is being undermined not because somebody is out to seize power. 'Seizure' of power would be senseless. It would be impossible to put an end to the rule of capitalism if the whole course of economic development in the capitalist countries did not lead up to it.... No power could destroy capitalism if it were not sapped and undermined by history-----We do not want a `seizure' of power, because the entire experience of past revolutions teaches us that the only stable power is the one 91 that has the backing of the majority of the population. ' Seizure' of power, therefore, would be adventurism, and our Party will not have = it.''^^1^^ Revolutions, said Lenin, ``break out when tens of millions of people come to the conclusion that it is impossible to live in the old way any = longer''.^^2^^
That is the Leninist stand taken by the present-day international communist movement.
It is the inalienable right of each people to choose its own social system. Socialist revolution is not imported and cannot be imposed from outside. It is the result of internal development, and of extreme aggravation of ,sbcial contradictions within the given country.
Why then is it that despite the fact that the anti-- communist ``export of revolution'' slander has been totally refuted both by the practice and by the theory of MarxismLeninism this clich\'e of reactionary propaganda now and again occurs in the speeches and writings of the ideologists of imperialism?
The answer is that the ``export of revolution'' idea has a very definite ancillary role to play in the anti-communist policy of imperialism, a policy of exporting counter-- revolution and armed suppression of popular movements for social emancipation and national liberation. The only purpose behind the bourgeois ideologists' fraudulent assertions that any liberation movement is caused by ``outside interference'', ``Moscow's machinations'', and so on, is to cover up the reactionary policy which is designed to stop social progress. However, it is evident that even this slanderous propaganda has recently been losing ground because it is entirely unsubstantiated. The US bourgeois publicist, Walter Lippmann, wrote that the erroneous assumption is sometimes made that revolutionary uprisings against established authority are manufactured in Moscow, and that they would not happen if they were not instigated, supported and directed from one of the capitals of communism. Lippmann has to admit that `` revolution is a homegrown = product''.^^3^^
The US publicist, Robert Taber, rejects the anti-- communist claims that revolutionary change in Cuba was engineered by the ``hand of Moscow''. He says that a million _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 417--18.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 480.
~^^3^^ New York Herald Tribune, March SO, 1965, p. 26.
92 Cuban women and children had never worn shoes, while half a million peasants had never tasted milk since babyhood nor meat in their = lives.^^1^^ Another US journalist, Herbert Matthews, says that the Cuban revolution did not result from ``subversive'' communist activity, but from the fact that in Latin America communism proved to have material and practical = attractions.^^2^^In seeking any kind of arguments to justify their aggressive policy aimed against social progress, the ideologists of anti-communism deliberately confuse the ``export of revolution'' and a qualitatively new phenomenon, namely, the Soviet Union's assistance to the progressive and legitimate struggle of the people for their liberation. Lenin wrote: ``I am not at all opposed to wars waged in defence of democracy or against national oppression, nor do I fear such words as 'defence of the fatherland' in reference to these wars or to insurrections. Socialists always side with the oppressed and, consequently, cannot be opposed to wars whose purpose is democratic or socialist struggle against oppression.''^^3^^
Another natural expression of the working people's international solidarity in their fight for social progress is their stand in defence of their socialist gains, against the antisocialist moves of domestic and external counter-- revolution.
The principal task of the foreign policy of the socialist countries is to ensure favourable conditions for socialist and communist construction. The CPSU has been doing its utmost to strengthen the unity and cohesion of the socialist countries, to support the peoples' struggle for social emancipation and national liberation, to develop co-operation with the young independent states, consistently to abide by the principles of peaceful coexistence between states with differing social systems, and to rid mankind of the threat of a world thermonuclear war.
The revolutionary and democratic transformation of the world fully meets the interests of all the nations.
The noble goals of domestic and foreign policy pursued _-_-_
~^^1^^ Robert Taber, M-26, Biography of a Revolution, New York, 1961, pp. 304, 318.
~^^2^^ H. L. Matthews, The Cuban Story, New York, 1961, p. 218.
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 196.
93 by the socialist countries meets with growing sympathy among the working people in all the countries of the world.In its subversive activity against the socialist countries, imperialist reaction relies heavily on nationalism and rei.
siomsm.
Anti-communist policy-makers and ideologists have announced a crusade against the unity of the world socialist system and have been attacking the friendship, co-operation and cohesion of the peoples of the socialist countries and their social system. The bourgeois ideologists have produced a wide range of variations on the tantalising prospects of ``polycentrism'' within the socialist community, openly relying on bourgeois nationalism in their efforts to undermine the unity of the socialist system. The greatest efforts are being made to unhinge the friendship between the fraternal socialist countries and the Soviet Union. The idea is that whenever a socialist country ``increases the scope of its external independence'' from the Soviet Union, ``it should be rewarded''.^^1^^ This tactic of imperialism has been designated by the anti-communist experts as the ``differentiated approach'' to the socialist countries, depending on the behaviour of the various communist states.
This new ``differentiated approach'' to the socialist countries of Europe has a very definite reactionary content, namely, the line towards a restoration of the prewar borders, in particular, the dismantling of the GDR, the first German working people's state in history.
Anti-communist reaction and its henchmen have been trying hard to undermine and weaken socialist internationalism. Behind a false front of ``concern'' for the sovereignty and national interests of the socialist countries they make use of methods which are quite untenable scientifically. Thus, they claim the interests of bourgeois nationalism to be those of the people, and present proletarian internationalism as an anti-national ideology which allegedly implies a national nihilism. In actual fact, national nihilism is alien to proletarian internationalism, which has organic bonds with popular patriotism.
The international unity of the socialist countries far from excluding in fact implies consideration of the national _-_-_
~^^1^^ Z. Brzezinski, Alternative to Partition. For a Broader Conception of Americas Role in Europe, New York, 1965, p. 154.
94 interest of each socialist country. Moreover, it is socialist internationalism, which cements and unites the world socialist system, that holds out a genuine guarantee of sovereignty for any socialist country. It is an internationalist duty of the Communists of all countries to make a collective stand in defence of the gains of socialism, and to strengthen and develop it.The imperialists alone stand to gain from division, and weakened unity and cohesion among the fraternal socialist countries.
The heightened interest displayed by bourgeois ideologists in the various expressions of revisionism in the fraternal socialist countries of Eastern Europe is also due to the class interests of the imperialists. There is good reason why they have heaped high praise on any deviation from MarxistLeninist principles by revisionist elements, why they have given a positive assessment to any attempt to contrast Marxist-Leninist ideology and scientific knowledge, why they have endorsed the attempts to separate Leninism from Marxism, to contrast national interests and internationalism, to deny the general laws of socialist construction which are applicable regardless of national specifics, and why they deny the international importance of the October Revolution.
The imperialists have allocated vast amounts of money for anti-communist propaganda. An effort is also being made to ``modernise'' anti-communism, to improve its methods and tactics, and to refurbish its ideological fabric. All of this requires constant attention to the new concepts being produced by the ideological opponents of socialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. UNSCIENTIFIC NATURE OF ANTI-COMMUNIST CONCEPTSIn ideology, as in politics, anti-communism has many faces. The ideology, like the politics of anti-communism, does not stand still, but is being improved and adapted to the changing conditions. The general theoretical law that social consciousness is a reflection of social being also applies to reactionary theories, with the characteristic difference that this reflection carries the stamp of the bourgeoisie's objective class interests, and the increasing subjective strivings of its ideologists to cover up these interests with the aid of `` 95 striking = garb''.^^1^^ Among the latest anti-communist concepts in vogue in the West, which are designed to give ``theoretical'' backing to the imperialist anti-communist policy of eroding socialism from inside, are the following:
1) the ``stages-of-growth'' theory produced by the US politician and sociologist, Walt Rostow;
2) the ``one industrial society'' theory, produced by the well-known French sociologist Raymond Aron and others;
3) the ``convergence'' theory;
4) the ``evolutionary'' concept or theory of ``evolution'', set out by Zbigniew Brzezinski and others; and
5) the ``de-ideologisation'' theory.
All these may be classified as bourgeois-liberal forms of the ideology of anti-communism. Their exponents make a point of avoiding sharp, primitive, gross attacks on socialism and Marxism-Leninism, but these theories are still anticommunist in content because they distort the substance and laws underlying the development of capitalism and that of socialism and objectively serve the reactionary plans for restoring capitalism in the countries of the socialist community.
These theories sprang from the following processes: the search for new and more effective ideological means of class struggle against socialism in view of its growing successes, and the ever more obvious collapse of the old anti-communist propaganda myths; imperialist fears in face of the growing economic, technical and military might of the socialist community; fear of the inexorable historical destruction of capitalism and the consequent urge, in defiance of historical logic, to achieve imperialist goals by any means if a straightforward frontal attack will not work.
One book that was widely circulated in the West in the 1960s was Walt Rostow's The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-Communist Manifesto.^^2^^
It presents a distorted picture of mankind's social progress and for that purpose the author uses artificially constructed ``general stages'' of development as a yardstick for social progress (for many years Rostow was chairman of the Policy Planning Council at the US State Department, and his _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 342.
~^^2^^ W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-- Communist Manifesto, Cambridge, 1960.
96 works are usually closely connected with the needs of US policy).But what is the link between Rostow's theory and anticommunism? The first is that the author of the ``stages-- of-growth'' theory pretentiously claims to have produced an alternative to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of social progress. He says that ``this system is to challenge and supplant Marxism as a way of looking at modern = history''.^^1^^ Consequently, the ``stages-of-growth'' theory is aimed directly against Marxism-Leninism, notably, the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of social development as the history of formation, development and succession of socio-economic formations. Rostow writes: ``As against our stages---the traditional society; the preconditions; take-off; maturity; and high massconsumption---we are setting, then, Marx's feudalism; bourgeois capitalism; Socialism and = Communism.''^^2^^
By rejecting the concept of socio-economic formations, and discarding the scientific theory of social development, which presents the history of society as a continuity of qualitatively distinct stages and which regards every formation as a coherent organism, Rostow tries to inject into the theory of social development the chaos and arbitrariness of which it has been purged by Marxism.
The Marxist theory of social development, Lenin said, had eliminated subjectivism from the study of history, and first saw it as a coherent process governed by definite laws despite its immense variety and = contradictoriness.^^3^^
Marxism regards the development of the productive forces as the ``highest criterion of social = progress''.^^4^^ But what should be borne in mind is, first, that ``according to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life.... Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.''^^5^^ Second (and this is very important), the working people are the main productive force. Lenin wrote: ``The primary productive force of human society as a whole, is the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 106.
~^^2^^ W. W. Rostow, Op at., p. 145.
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 57.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 13, p. 243.
~^^5^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 417.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---1245 97 workers, the working = people.''^^1^^ He went on to give a scientific definition of ``productive forces'', and included the mass of working people in it, connecting the development of the productive forces with progress in the development of social relations and the condition of the mass of working = people.^^2^^Consequently, when considering the objective criterion of social progress account needs to be taken of the state of the development of all the productive forces, that is, without reducing them to machinery, and so also taking account of the nature of social relations, above all the relations of production, prevailing in society. Concerning the relative progressiveness of socio-economic formations as stages of history, apart from analysing the principal criterion of progress--- the development of the productive forces---'there is need for a broad comparative systematic analysis of every aspect of the social organism, beginning from the basis, that is, the relations of production, and including an analysis of the political and ideological superstructure, and the state of every form of social consciousness. This kind of scientific and comprehensive approach will alone show which socio-- economic formation is more progressive. It is this analysis that provides irrefutable proof that socialism is fundamentally superior to capitalism.
Rostow's approach to social progress is uncommonly. narrow and one-sided. Quite arbitrarily he reduces the criterion of social progress to an aggregation of some technico-- economic data, ignoring the fact that men---working people---are society's main productive force, ignoring their relations of production, that is, the basis which determines the qualitative character of every stage of social development. Rostow's stages-of-growth scheme distorts the real line of social development. He speculates on the USSR's temporary lag in technical development behind the USA in the 1950s, a lag that was determined by highly important concrete historical factors (the low starting level of the development in the first socialist country after the October Revolution; the devastation caused by the fascist invasion), and with the aid of unscientific manipulations seeks to present US capitalism as a higher ``stage of growth'' as compared with socialism, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 364.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
98 putting the USA on the highest, fifth stage of his scheme, thereby apologetically converting US capitalism into a kind of ideal ``model'' for the further development of all the countries, including the socialist ones. He calls this model the stage of ``high mass-consumption''. Quite apart from the fact that Rostow completely ignores the deep social antagonisms rending capitalist, primarily US, society, and the basic flaws of state-monopoly capitalism, his scheme is a gross distortion of the very nature and prospects of socialism.What then is socialism, according to the ``stages-- of-growth'' theory? Rostow says it is nothing more than an aberration of history, a kind of ``disease'' of society when it fails to modernise effectively and in good = time.^^1^^ Concerning the prospects before socialism, Rostow believes that these run towards reversion to capitalism. He writes: ``In its essence, communism is likely to wither in the age of high mass-con- sumption.''^^2^^
This altogether arbitrary conclusion, which is not backed up by any scientific reasoning, fits in very nicely with Rostow's practical recommendations, which he gives as the foreign-policy expert of US imperialism. He recommends that an effort should be made to ``work with the forces of nationalism and liberalism which may emerge within the communist = bloc''.^^3^^
Rostow's theory provides fresh evidence that the imperialist theorists' attempts ``scientifically'' to refute MarxismLeninism are part and parcel of imperialist policy.
In methodological basis, which ignores the specifics of the relations of production under capitalism and under socialism, the ``stages-of-growth'' theory is akin to another sociological theory which distorts the nature and prospects of the socialist system, namely, the theory of ``one industrial society'', which has been much written about in the capitalist countries.
Among its advocates is the French sociologist, Raymond
Aron, the author of a number of works on the development
of the industrial society, notably a book entitled New
_-_-_
~^^1^^ W. W. Rostow, Op. cit., p. 164. ~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 133. ~^^3^^ Department of State Bulletin, 5.XI.1962, p. 681.
Aron says that this question of the industrial society is ``a manner of avoiding from the outset the socialism-- capitalism conflict and to consider socialism and capitalism to be two modalities of the same genre.... I am not concerned with the question of the social consequences of the capitalist system, but with the question of the social consequences of the industrial society as a = whole.''^^2^^
This popular Western theory is an indication of the thorough recasting of the methods being used in the ideological fight against socialism, and this is due to the successes in socialist construction, which have made the bourgeois ideologists' fight against socialism extremely difficult. It is no longer possible to deny the successes of socialism. Is it, for instance, possible to conceal from the world that the USSR was the great power that pioneered the exploration of space? It has become a risky business to blacken a country capable of fabricating the most complex automatic stations, which return to the Earth with Moon soil, and that is why the ideologists of anti-communism are forced to substitute subtle falsification for their primitive lies.
What then is false about the ``one industrial society'' concept?
First of all, it is methodologically untenable because it takes the technological approach to economic phenomena. ``Industrial'' is a concept which designates a definite stage in _-_-_
^^1^^R. Aron, Le developpement de la societe industrielle et la stratification sociale, Paris, 1957--1958; Dix-huit lefons sur la societe industrielle, Paris, 1962; La lutte des classes. Nouvelles lefons sur les societes industrielles, Paris, 1967.
~^^2^^ R. Aron, Le developpement de la societe industrielle et la stratification sociale, Vol. I, Paris, 1957, pp. 25, 27.
100 the development of the productive forces, but it does not contain any qualitative characteristic of the socio-economic formation and does not indicate the basis, the relations of production which prevail in a given country.But this is extremely important because a great deal depends, including the social consequences of the scientific and technical revolution, on whether socialist or private property in the means of production prevails in a country. Lenin wrote: ``On all sides, at every step one comes across problems which man is quite capable of solving immediately, but capitalism is in the way. It has amassed enormous wealth---and has made men the slaves of this = wealth.''^^1^^ Lenin's view has been fully borne out. In their drive for profits, the capitalists manage increasingly to intensify the labour of workers and intellectuals. Since the 19th century, the rate of exploitation of the working people has gone up by 300 per cent. A great many industrial and office workers are made redundant. Thus, in 1963, the USA had over 3 million ``technological unemployed'', that is, men and women made redundant through automation and mechanisation. The efforts of great numbers of scientists and the results of scientific and technical progress largely go to serve the purposes of imperialist aggression.
There is no comparison between the social order in such an industrial country and the social order in a socialist industrialised country, where the industrial facilities are used for the benefit of the whole of society, where the whole economy is developed according to plan, where planning is geared to the interests of the working people and the satisfaction of their social requirements, where the threat of unemployment has been eliminated, where the nature of man's labour has been fundamentally changed because men work for themselves and for their socialist society, where individual welfare and educational and cultural levels keep pace with the growth of the social wealth, and where not only the material but also the spiritual requirements of man are being increasingly satisfied.
But it is not only a matter of the ``one industrial society'' theory being methodologically untenable or ignoring the aggregate of relations of production prevailing in a country. The thesis that the two systems are similar, which denies their _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 389.
101 fundamental distinctions, suggests reactionary political conclusions. From this thesis it follows that even today, at its final stage, capitalism is just as progressive as socialism, that it has a future and that it is marching in step with history. The basic propositions of the ``one industrial society'' theory suggest that socialism is not the only progressive system, which is superseding capitalism; the ``similarity'' of systems also suggests the false conclusion that class struggle and revolutions are useless and futile, a conclusion that tends to unnerve the working people in the capitalist countries. We find, therefore, that the ``one industrial society'' theory is likewise spearheaded against socialism and Marxism-- Leninism.Like the ``stages-of-growth'' theory it is unhistorical because it is also aimed against the scientific conception of social progress. Ignoring the basis of society^the aggregate of relations of production---this theory rejects the concept of socio-economic formation, a key scientific category of historical materialism. This implies rejection of the essence of the materialist view of history, which Marx so brilliantly set out in his preface to A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy. Lenin stressed that Marx ``was the first to put sociology on a scientific basis by establishing the concept of the economic formation of society as the sum-total of given production relations, by establishing the fact that the development of such formations is a process of natural history''.^^1^^
The ``one industrial society'' concept is also inapplicable because it distorts the overall picture of the modern world, obscuring the main social distinctions between the countries of the globe. By bringing out the criterion of industrialism, it tends to divide the countries of the modern world into industrial countries which are developed ``in general'', and countries which are backward and underdeveloped ``in general''. This attempt to obscure the fundamental distinction between the industrialised capitalist countries and the industrialised socialist countries is damaging to the future of the newly-liberated national states. In this case, the ``one industrial society'' theory echoes the Maoist theory of ``the poor'' and ``the rich'' countries, which also obliterates the qualitative and fundamental distinction between the industrialised _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 142.
102 capitalist and the industrialised socialist countries and is designed to alienate the developing countries and the national liberation movement from the Soviet Union and the whole socialist community.Finally, and this is highly important, the ``one industrial society'' theory helps to distort the prospects for the further development of both capitalism and of socialism and in particular to suggest that they could converge.
Much has been written by Soviet scientists about the theory of convergence. It is a theory which, in objective content, regardless of the subjective views and motivations of its various advocates, is just as anti-communist because in all its variants it denies that mankind has a communist future, and insists on the prospect of a growing ``convergence'' between socialism and capitalism. The very concept of convergence has been borrowed from biology, and literally means a growing similarity because of similar conditions.
In contrast to the old and primitive methods of uncouth and straightforward anti-communism, which used no other colours but black and white and depicted the capitalist world as a paradise on earth and the socialist world as a realm of poverty and human bondage, the men who propound the theory of convergence have radically changed the style and form of their reasoning. Starting from the ``one industrial society'' theory and its main conclusion that there is allegedly already much similarity between socialism and capitalism, the advocates of the convergence theory suggest the conclusion that this similarity is bound to grow until both systems merge in a synthesis which is to be an embodiment of the best features of both systems.
The need to combine a forced recognition of the successes of socialism while trying to discredit it (otherwise this would not be a bourgeois theory) impells the advocates of the convergence theory to engage in a very subtle falsification, which it is not always very easy to discern. Thus, while acknowledging the successes of socialism they at once ascribe them to the growing ``similarity'' between socialism and capitalism, to an imaginary process of ``convergence'' between these two diametrically opposite social systems.
The theory of convergence, including as it does some ``recognition'' of socialism, makes use of the growing sympathies for socialism among the working people in the capitalist countries, suggesting that capitalism is likewise a
103 progressive system which is being ``socialised'', as a system which is ``near socialism''. This is designed to erode the foundations of the class struggle involving masses of men against capitalism, and to facilitate the advocacy of the capitalist way of development for the newly liberated countries.However, the whole carefully camouflaged business is exposed by the concrete characteristic of the ``synthesis'' of the hybrid society which allegedly arises as a result of this famous convergence. It turns out that it is to lead all the countries to no more than a slightly ``improved'' capitalism, and is therefore to help to restore capitalism in the socialist countries. Thus, the theory of convergence is aimed against the growing superiority of socialism over capitalism, something the ideologists of the bourgeoisie cannot, of course, admit.
This theory is advocated by men of varying political orientation, like the liberal-minded bourgeois professors, who sincerely censure the bellicose anti-communist calls for a crusade against the socialist countries and the prospect of a world thermonuclear war, and who want peaceful cooperation between states with differing social systems.
But it is also advocated by rabid anti-communists, whose main hope in the fight against socialism is to undermine it from inside by means of the so-called bridge-building policy, that is, the utmost use of economic, cultural and scientific ties for political and ideological infiltration of the socialist countries for hostile purposes.
Among those who advocate this theory are philosophers, sociologists, economists, publicists, career ``Sovietologists'' and ``Marxologists''.
The American economist, Buckingham, for instance, insists that the ``practical, working economic systems are becoming more alike than different'' so that their convergence could ``help to pave the way for a single, world-wide economic system in the future''. J. K. Galbraith, the wellknown US economist, declared in his Reith Lectures on the BBC in November and December 1966 that there was evidence of a strong tendency to mutual convergence between the different industrialised societies. The Dutch economist, Jan Tinbergen, also stressed the tendency of the two systems to converge, adding that both were moving 104 towards a system which was better than either pure capitalism or pure socialism in the old = sense.^^1^^
The American sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, has put forward the theory of an ``integral type of society''. He wrote: ``I am inclined to think that... the dominant type of the emerging society and culture is likely to be neither Capitalistic, nor Communistic, but a type of sui generis which we can designate as the Integral type. This type will be intermediary between the Capitalist and the Communist orders and the ways of life. It is going to incorporate most of the positive values and to be free from serious defects of each = type.''^^2^^ In another work, Sorokin wrote about the ``possible emergence of a new integral order in West and East'' and the ``mutual convergence of the United States and Soviet Russia'', so that the ``mixture of East-West cultural values, ideas, institutions, patterns and mores will continue to = increase.''^^3^^
The publicist, Jean Marabini, in his book The USSR in the Year 2000, savs the same thing: ``These two antagonistic countries (the USSR and the USA---Y. M.} are in fact moving towards a type of society which if not the same is at any rate similar because socialism is evolving towards capitalism and capitalism towards = socialism.''^^4^^
What, in that case, will this ``synthesis'' have, according to the advocates of convergence, as it results from the urge of capitalism and socialism to embrace each other? It turns out that the ``socialisation of capitalism'' and the `` liberalisation of socialism'' are to form a hybrid economic system which will have adopted from socialism the economic equality of individuals, workers' control over production and economic planning, and from capitalism its private property in the means of production, profit as the incentive to production, and the play of market forces as a regulator of exchange and distribution. Consequently, this will in no sense be a ``synthesis'' of fundamentally opposite systems (the very idea that such a synthesis is possible is Utopian), but an `` improved'' variant of capitalism. Consequently, the synthesis of _-_-_
~^^1^^ E. Y. Bregel, Political Economy of Capitalism, p. 548 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Pitirim A. Sorokin, Mutual Convergence of the United States and the USSR to the Mixed Sociological Type, Mexico, 1961, p. 3.
~^^3^^ Pitirim A. Sorokin, The Basic Trends of Our Times, New Haven, 1964, pp. 67, 83, 86.
~^^4^^ Jean Marabini, L'URSS et Fan 2000, Paris, 1965, p. 85.
105 capitalism and socialism is to take place on a capitalist basis, on the basis of private property in the means of production. To be more precise, ``convergence'' is to result in the restoration of capitalism in the socialist countries, and this is made amply clear, for instance, by Buckingham who writes: ``... Three of the four foundations of capitalism ... seem likely to be carried over from pure capitalism and incorporated into the newly emerging economic system. First, private property in capital plant and equipment.... Second, economic incentives and profit motivation.... Third, the market system is everywhere reasserting itself as the principal mechanism for controlling the allocation of goods and = services.''^^1^^The advocates of the convergence theory insist that evolution towards this goal is proceeding mainly in industry and economy. Thus, Galbraith and the reformist theorist, Jan Tinbergen, say that industrial techniques tend to modify the organisation of production, something that is allegedly bound to reduce the distinctions between the two economic systems.
The main factors behind this evolution are held to be the following: 1) planning, 2) professionalisation of management, and 3) growing material welfare. These factors are erroneously seen as stimulating convergence because they are taken in the abstract, undifferentiated, formalised, out of the context of the fundamentally distinct socio-economic systems, on the basis of which they acquire a different character.
Is it possible on the basis of the capitalist system to engage in planning on the scale and with the content that planning has under socialism? Of course, not. In capitalist conditions, planning inevitably narrows down to the scale of the individual enterprises or of monopoly associations, but never of society as a whole. Concerning government planning programmes in the capitalist countries, these are essentially no more than recommendations and forecasts which are never binding on the private corporations. Of course, there is an objective requirement for planning both under capitalism and under socialism, considering the present level of development of the productive forces and the social _-_-_
~^^1^^ W. S. Buckingham, Theoretical Economic Systems. A Comparative Analysis, New York, 1958, p. 485.
-
,
106 character of production, but the potentialities for putting this requirement into practice depend directly on the nature of socio-economic relations.Some bourgeois ideologists believe that one factor going in favour of convergence is the ``professionalisation of management'', under which the running of social affairs both in the capitalist and in the socialist countries allegedly passes into the hands of the specialists, technocrats and bureaucrats, and all of this tends to even out the distinctions between the two systems. The English economist, Peter Wiles, says that this is promoted by ``empirical professional temper, the daily contact with = fact''.^^1^^ Actually, the attempt to present the administration of society as some purely technical business is untenable, because it tends to change fundamentally with the change in social relations. Under capitalism, the activity of ``managers'' is determined by the class interests of the ruling classes, and this can never be otherwise.
Concerning the next factor---rising material welfare among the masses---it is well known that capitalism and socialism have not only diametrically opposite systems of production but also systems of distribution. Whereas the capitalist system, based on exploitation, constantly reproduces massive deprivation, on the one hand, and waste and luxury, on the other, socialism is developing towards real abolition of social inequality, towards distribution organised on rational lines, and towards the satisfaction not only of men's material but also of their spiritual requirements.
The advocates of the convergence theory refer to the economic reforms in the socialist countries, alleging that the increased attention being given in these countries to the problems of efficiency, profit, profitability and the development of commodity-money relations is evidence that they are switching to the capitalist way. These arguments, like all the others put forward by the advocates of this theory, ignore this basic objective fact: the basically antithetical foundations of capitalism and socialism, which make the very proposition of convergence unrealistic and Utopian. How is it possible for a socio-economic system based on social property in the means of production to unite with a system based on private property and exploitation? The _-_-_
^^1^^ Encounter, 1963, No. 6.
107 fact that economic categories like profit, profitability, and commodity-money relations are similar in formal terms does nothing to change this fundamental antithesis between capitalism and socialism, because, for instance, under capitalism commodity-money relations result in a reproduction of capitalist relations of production and operate spontaneously, whereas under socialism they are used consciously and only for the purpose of strengthening socialist relations of production.Among the objective phenomena of which the theory of convergence gives a distorted picture are undoubtedly, on the one hand, the material prerequisites of socialism, which mature within the entrails of capitalism, and on the other, the high level of development of the productive forces in the socialist countries.
The growing socialisation of the economy in the capitalist countries leads to no more than quantitative change, a change in the degree of socialisation. This process provides visual evidence of the fact that the productive forces naturally require to be socialised, and that they are hemmed in by the fetters of capitalist society.
However, the growing economic role of the state under capitalism does not proceed in the interests of the people but of the monopolies, and while the separation between capital as a function and capital as property---especially characteristic of present-day capitalism---does prove that society has no need of the capitalists, it does essentially nothing to change the system of the relations of production under capitalism. These relations can be changed only by a socialist revolution which puts political power into the hands of the working class and establishes a fundamentally new socio-political system. That is why the new phenomena characteristic of capitalism on which the theorists of convergence speculate do not at all prove that any kind of ``transformation'' has been taking place within the entrails of capitalism as a result of which capitalism ceases to be capitalism.
Nor is there any more ground to say that socialism is also being transformed. Of course, the socialist states are not isolated from the capitalist states. They are linked with the capitalist world in a diversity of economic, political, cultural and scientific ties, which they willingly develop but only in the interests of socialism. These interests, let us note, make 108 imperative---and do not rule out objectively---the struggle between the two socio-economic systems, the two political systems, the two opposite ideologies. At the same time, this struggle is closely connected with co-operation in the most diverse spheres, but this is co-operation only on the basis and in the interests of social progress. Is it, for instance, possible to co-operate for the purpose of strengthening peace, without at the same time fighting against revanchism, militarism, and the preparation and starting of aggressive anti-popular wars? This vital and real dialectics of struggle and co-operation is frequently misunderstood by the liberal elements in the capitalist countries, who often metaphysically contrast struggle and co-operation as being mutually exclusive, as abstract opposites. However, neither abstract struggle nor abstract co-operation is to be found in life. The socialist nations co-operate with all the progressive elements in the countries of the capitalist West. They make a point of learning even from capitalism everything that can be used on the basis of socialism and in the interests of socialism, but not, of course, the principles of the capitalist economy, politics and ideology.
An acute struggle between the two opposite systems is going forward in the modern world. In the course of this struggle the reactionary forces seek to use every channel of existing ties and contacts between the socialist and the capitalist countries for their subversive anti-socialist activity, primarily for the purpose of undermining the main instrument of socialist and communist construction, the socialist state and its leading force, the Communist Party.
The thesis about the growing similarity of economic processes in the capitalist and in the socialist countries is also designed to back up the conclusion that the political system in the socialist countries does not ``correspond'' to their economic system, a conclusion clearly formulated by the well-known anti-communist expert, Robert Conquest, in an article in the US anti-communist journal, Problems of Communism. Advocating convergence, he stresses that the ``USSR is a country where the political system is radically and dangerously inappropriate to its social and economic dynamics^^1^^.''
_-_-_^^1^^ Robert Conquest, ``Immobilism and Decay'', Problems of Communism, January-February 1966, p. 37.
109Consequently, the advocates of convergence have hopes of radical change in the socialist countries. The theory of convergence is essentially designed to fortify the reactionary utopia about the possibility, and even the inevitability, of a ``peaceful'' spread of the capitalist system to the socialist countries. This is frankly admitted by anti-communist ideologists Brzezinski and Huntington, who write: ``The widespread theory of convergence assumes that the fundamentally important aspects of the democratic system (meaning capitalism---Y. M.) will be retained after America and Russia 'converge' at some future, indeterminate historical juncture___ The theory sees the Communist Party and its monopoly of power as the real victims of the historical process: both will fade away---most theories of the so-called convergence in reality posit not convergence but submergence of the opposite = system.''^^1^^
All that needs to be added here is that this process of ``submergence'' of socialism by capitalism is expected primarily to ``erode'' the economic system of socialism.
A different sequence of anti-socialist processes is envisaged by those who advocate the ``evolutionary'' theory. This is essentially an attempt to substantiate the prospect of the destruction of the world socialist system and the foundations of socialism through the operation of factors within the socialist countries working in an anti-socialist direction, with the active role of the imperialist states directing the activity of the anti-socialist forces. This political theory, whose main accent is ``evolution'' of the ideology and political organisation of society in the socialist countries, includes a detailed elaboration of the purposes and means of such ``transformation'' both in the international and in the internal political plane. In the international political plane the idea is to strive for the utmost promotion of ``polycentrism'' of the socialist system, encouraging all the centrifugal tendencies. In the internal political plane, the primary role goes to the establishment of political ``pluralism'' which is being advocated under the hypocritical pretext of ``liberalisation'' and ``democratisation'' of the political organisation of society in the socialist countries.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Z. K. Brzezinski and S. P. Huntington, Political Power: USA/USSR. Convergence or Evolution?, New York, 1964, p. 419.
110The main contours of the ``evolution'' theory have been best sketched out by Brzezinski in his books, The Soviet Bloc. Unity and = Conflict^^1^^ Political Power: USA/USSR. Convergence or = Evolution?,^^2^^ Alternative to Partition. For a Broader Conception of America's Role in = Europe^^3^^ and Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics,^^4^^ and in many articles in various = journals.^^5^^
A highly important aspect of the ``evolution'' theory is the line of ``transformation'' laid down by the ideologists of imperialism, rather, the sequence of desirable changes, ranging from changes in ideology and politics to changes in the whole socio-economic system, instead of from economic changes to a subsequent ``transformation'' of ideology and the political system, as the theory of convergence, for instance, suggests. Brzezinski has designated the convergence theory as ``anti-Soviet Marxism'' and says that if the muchvaunted ``democratisation'' is to be achieved there is need above all for ``positive political reforms'', primarily the abolition of the ``ideological and political monopoly of the Communist = Party''.^^6^^
The introduction of so-called political pluralism (that is, a system of contending and competing, including `` opposition'', political parties) which is being advocated in and camouflaged by demagogic talk about ``new models'' of socialism is nothing more than a plan for a fundamental change in the political organisation of society in the socialist countries, liquidation of true socialist democracy and its substitution by the famous ``democratic socialism''.
The first and main target in this comprehensive (political and ideological) subversive activity is to eliminate the leading role of the Communist Party in the country's political, social, cultural and socio-economic life. The exponents of the ``evolution'' theory present the anti-social elements as ``democratic'' forces and the vehicles of national _-_-_
~^^1^^ Z. K. Brzezinski, The Soviet Bloc. Unity and Conflict, Cambridge (Mass.), = 1967.
~^^2^^ Z. K. Brzezinski and S. P. Huntington, Political Power: USA/USSR.
~^^3^^ Z. K. Brzezinski, Alternative to Partition.
~^^4^^ Z. K. Brzezinski, Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics, New York, 1967.
^^5^^ 'j? * -Z" V™tZi™^' JThne Framework <>f East-West Reconciliation'', Foreign Affairs, 1968, No. 2.
^^6^^ '',?' £ B/2if insk' and S' P" HuntlnSton. Op., cit., pp. 10, 424, 430. pp. 10, 424, 430.
111 tradition, while the Communist Party is declared to be a reactionary force. Brzezinski asserts that the Party has become a drag on social = progress.^^1^^ Because Brzezinski sees ``social progress'' as restoration of capitalism it is quite natural for him to direct his attacks against the Communist Party. The Communist Party's leading role in society and its organisational unity, and---what is most important---its unflinching loyalty to the principles of Marxism-Leninism and the interests of the people are well-known to frustrate every effort on the part of imperialist reaction to turn the tide of history.In his Alternative to Partition, Brzezinski stressed that ``the most desirable sequence of change would begin with the internal liberalisation'', that is, activisation of anti-Party, anti-Marxist, anti-socialist and anti-popular forces in the socialist countries. When lecturing in Prague in June 1968, Brzezinski set out a programme of ``liberalisation'', urging the destruction of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and abolition of the militia and the state security organs. At a closed sitting at the Institute for International Politics in Prague on June 14, 1968, he declared that in moden developed society Leninism had outlived itself. Commenting on the activity of Western theorists in Czechoslovakia, Berliner Zeitung said: ``They are now putting into practice what they have been presenting only in theoretical terms: Johnson's policy of 'bridge-building', the 'new-Ostpolitik' of Kiesinger and Brandt, whose purpose is to wrest, if possible, one socialist country after another from their common = front.''^^2^^
Brzezinski writes that 20 years after the war old political cultures are coming to the surface in Czechoslovakia and that this is a highly creative adaptation of socialism to the traditional values and the democratic way of action which has had its traditions in = Czechoslovakia.^^3^^ Consequently, the aim of the internal political recipes advocated by Brzezinski and other theorists of ``evolution'' is to re-establish `` political cultures'' like the counter-revolutionary pities which the popular power had disbanded, and which expressed the class interests of the exploiting social groups that had lost _-_-_
^^1^^ Problems of Communism, May-June 1968, p. 44.
~^^2^^ See On the Events in Czechoslovakia. Facts, Documents, Evidence of the Press and Eye-Witnesses, Part I, Moscow, 1968, pp. 103--04 (in Russian).
~^^3^^ Quoted from Komsomolskaya Pravda, October 6, 1968.
112 their economic and political power, and to legalise them under the pretext of establishing ``democratic socialism''. In the process these men make loud and ringing statements and claim to be champions of democracy, which is a ``democracy'' that suits imperialism very well. Back in 1966, in an article entitled ``Tomorrow's Agenda'', Brzezinski wrote: ``Today, the predominant Western attitude is that Communism will gradually moderate itself, eventually approximating social democracy. . .. The West... relies primarily on the erosive effects of time and the pressures for change within the Communist states = themselves.''^^1^^The numerous statements by the advocates of the `` evolution'' theory and the practice of the reactionary forces warrant the conclusion that imperialist reaction has pinned its hopes and aspirations for political ``evolution'' on active subversive activity by members of the former counter-- revolutionary parties and the socio-reformist elements operating outside the Communist Parties, and even on the activisation of the revisionists operating in the same direction inside the Communist Parties in the countries of the socialist community.
The emergence of the ``evolution'' theory and the attempts to apply it in practice are an excellent illustration of Lenin's forecast of the prospects of the class struggle in the transition period. Lenin wrote that ``the transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope turns into attempts at restoration. ... The overthrown exploiters . . . throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold, into the battle for the recovery of the 'paradise'. ... In the train of the capitalist exploiters follow the wide sections of the petty bourgeoisie, with regard to whom decades of historical experience of all countries testify that they vacillate and hesitate, one day marching behind the proletariat and the next day taking fright at the difficulties of the revolution; that they become panic-stricken at the first defeat or semi-defeat of the workers, grow nervous, run about aimlessly, snivel, and rush from one camp into the = other.''^^2^^ These are the social forces and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Foreign Affairs, 1966, No. 4, p. 663.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 254.
8---1245
113 elements which provide the basis on which the imperialist reactionaries rely in their hopes for ``evolution'' in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe.In addition, account should also be taken of the existence in these countries of persons ``who defend capitalism ideologically and not from selfish class motives, and continue to believe in the non-class nature of the 'democracy', 'equality' and 'liberty' in general that they = preach''^^1^^ and also of those who retreat ``in quest of fashionable reactionary philosophical doctrines, captivated by the tinsel of the socalled last word in European science, and unable to discern beneath this tinsel some variety of servility to the bour- geoisie''.^^2^^
What then is the line of reasoning adopted by Brzezinski, one of the leading exponents of the ``evolution'' theory?
He starts with the slanderous assertion that the political organisation of Soviet society is ``totalitarian'', and that this helps it to ``follow a trail blazed by centuries of earlier Russian political = tradition''.^^3^^ This allegedly conservative organisation of society, marked by ideological conformity, is contrasted with the prospect of democratic ``pluralism'', which Brzezinski believes must arise in consequence of ``ideological = erosion''.^^4^^ The main instrument of this erosion is the emergence of ``the increasing diversity in ideological emphases'' which threatens ``the universal validity of even the Soviet = ideology''^^5^^ As a result, the authority of communism as the sole scientific theory is allegedly discredited. We find that the stake on revisionism is a component element of the theory of ``evolution''. The publishers of Ghita Jonescu's The Politics of the European Communist = States^^6^^ emphasise the importance of the political differences in the East European communist countries and the alleged tendencies there for these countries to become more European than communist. ``Pluralisation'' is suggested as the most reliable way of achieving this goal.
The forms of political structure in the socialist countries _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 42, p. 385.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 228.
~^^3^^ Z. K. Brzezinski, Ideology and Power in Soviet Politics, pp. 44, 26.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. = 147.
^^5^^ Ibid., p. 220.
~^^6^^ G. Jonescu, The Politics of the European Communist States, London, 1967.
114 are diverse and are the result of a blend of universal objective regularities governing the development of socialism and the specific concrete historical conditions.These forms of political structure, their character and functions depend on the class content of political power in the socialist countries and on the specific national conditions in which they arise, on concrete political (objective and subjective) factors. While these forms vary, the general regularities governing socialist construction, which spring from the similarity of socio-economic structure in the countries at the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, remain unchanged. Among the general regularities are above all these: leadership of the mass of working people by the working class, with the Marxist-Leninist Party as its nucleus; solidarity of the working class of a given country with the working class of other countries---proletarian internationalism; defence of socialist gains against encroachments by external and internal enemies.
In class content, political power in the countries building socialism in the transition period is a ``specific form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of the working people (petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.), or the majority of these strata, an alliance against capital, an alliance whose aim is the complete overthrow of capital, complete suppression of the resistance offered by the bourgeoisie as well as of attempts at restoration on its part, an alliance for the final establishment and consolidation of = socialism''.^^1^^
This means that any multi-party system in the socialist countries is based on co-operation between the working class, the peasantry and the working intelligentsia in their struggle for common goals, which are socialist goals. That is why there is no place in such a system for ``opposition'' parties, or for any of the recipes proposed by the advocates of political ``pluralism''. It is the imperialist reactionaries and their henchmen, who have a solid stake in legalising the activity of anti-socialist elements, and letting loose in the political arena forces seeking to undermine the socialist system and switching it to other lines that are eager to _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 381.
__PRINTERS_P_115_COMMENT__ 8* 115 introduce this kind of political ``democracy'' and `` liberalisation''. For understandable reasons, such aims are covered up with claims of concern for the development of criticism, initiative, grass-roots action, expression of creative potentialities, etc. But is socialist democracy against developing the creative initiatives of broad masses of people, against the use of such a mighty weapon as criticism in the interests of socialism, in the interests of social progress? Of course, it is not. But it is in the interests of the people, in the interests of genuine democracy to develop only the kind of criticism that helps to consolidate socialism instead of unhinging its fundamental pillars: the leading role of the Communist Party, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, social property, and socialist principles of management.Lenin wrote: ``Now that the proletariat has won political power and a higher type of democracy is being put into effect in the Soviet Republic, any step backward to bourgeois parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy would undoubtedly be reactionary service to the interests of the exploiters, the landowners and = capitalists.''^^1^^
In his speech at the meeting to mark the Centenary of the birth of V. I. Lenin, L. I. Brezhnev declared: ``We shall never agree to the 'development of democracy' which is being strongly urged upon us by bourgeois ideologists and their Right-wing opportunist assistants, who show such zeal in trying to recast socialism in their own, bourgeois mould. We have our own, truly democratic traditions, which have stood the test of time. We shall safeguard, preserve, develop and improve these traditions.
``No matter how our adversaries may wring their hands over the 'imperfection' of socialism, no matter what touchingconcern they may display for its 'improvement' and ' humanisation', we repeat with pride Lenin's words about proletarian, socialist democracy being a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy. Our state was, is and will continue to be a state of the working people, a state for the working people, a state which is governed by the working = people.''^^2^^
The main obstacle in the way of ``ideological erosion'' is _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 106.
~^^2^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Lenin's Cause Lives On and Triumphs, Moscow, 1970, p. 36.
116 the communist consciousness of the builders of socialism, their loyalty to communist ideals, their scientific outlook, and their profound conviction that Marxist-Leninist ideas are correct.It is a key task of the ideologists and the practitioners of anti-communism to try to undermine this conviction, and their purpose is directly served by the next anti-communist doctrine, that of ``de-ideologisation''. The concept of `` deideologisation'' first appeared on the pages of the Western press and in speeches by bourgeois ideologists somewhere in the mid-1950s, and in the 1960s became one of the fashionable bourgeois theories.
The concept of ``de-ideologisation'' has been worked out in detail in a number of special works and articles (notably the books: Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology. On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties; Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intelligentsia; and Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man. The Social Bases of Politics) and this gives ground for some conclusions about its content and class essence.
The theory of ``de-ideologisation'' starts from the conclusion that in the present-day conditions, in this age of the scientific and technical revolution, ideology becomes superfluous and tends to wither away. This is an attempt to speculate on the development of science and technology in the modern world and to distort the social effects of this development.
The bourgeois theorists declare technology to be the new ideology. Social consciousness, which is allegedly directly affected by technological development, is deprived of social content. Actually, however, technology does not have an automatic or mechanical effect on the content of social ideas, but acts on them through the medium of economic relations.
Bourgeois ideologists assert that as a result of technological development consumption becomes man's primary concern in industrial society. Actually, however, the development of men's requirements and interests depends not only on technological progress, but mainly on the relations of production which prevail in society. Under socialism, the steadily rising material standards of all citizens do not in any sense turn them into bondmen of things or make the acquisition of things the sole purpose of life. The consumer
117 mentality cannot be and is not characteristic of the builders of socialism.In application to capitalism ``de-ideologisation'' is another form of advocacy of modern capitalism because those who propound it (in the spirit of the theorists of the ``one industrial society'', ``stages-of-growth'' and convergence) seek to cover up the class nature of capitalism behind a front of an allegedly democratic industrial society organised on rational lines in which ``purely scientific'' methods of management and organisation of society come to the fore, so that ideology dies a natural death. It will be easily seen that this idea is patently ideological, despite the negative ``de'', because its authors present state-monopoly capitalism as a ``model'' to be imitated, and the methods used by bourgeois social science as purely scientific methods.
State-monopoly capitalism is presented as the crowning achievement of social development. The US sociologist S. Lipset, for instance, declares that ``the fundamental political problems of the industrial revolution have been solved. ... Democracy is not only or even primarily a means through which different groups can attain their ends or seek the good society; it is the good society itself in = operation''^^1^^. Intensive ideologisation and acute conflict, he says, are characteristic of such societies wherein the emerging classes and groups fight for their rights inasmuch as they are deprived of political, social and economic privileges; but this conflict ends when they receive full rights of ``citizens''. Consequently, as applied to capitalism, the ``end of ideology'' is derived from an imaginary absence of ideological conflicts between various social classes in capitalist society. Daniel Bell, another theorist, writes that the ``workers, whose grievances were once the driving energy for social change, are more satisfied with the society than the intel- lectuals''.^^2^^
Another line of reasoning is also used to back up the conclusion about the end of ideology in the capitalist countries.
The industrial society is characterised by the technical approach to nature and activity, says Bell. Lipset, Bell, _-_-_
~^^1^^ S. M. Lipset, Political Man. The Social Bases of Politics, New York, 1963, pp. 442, 439.
~^^2^^ Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology, Glencoe, Illinois, 1960, p. 374.
118 Shiels and other US sociologists hold that social science should be regarded as a politically and ideologically neutral discipline, that it should deal with the facts and not with their assessment. The starting point there is the apology of the empiricism practised by bourgeois sociology and the attempts to present it as the standard of ``the scientific approach''. But, first, is this such a scientific approach to the ``facts'' as the bourgeois scientists claim? Let us bear in mind that what they study and assess is not so much objective processes as opinions, feelings and the mentality of men. Furthermore, they are usually retained by government agencies or private corporations to collect the facts on matters which are of interest to their ``clients'', and this means that these facts are collected for a specific class purpose. Even a purely empirical description of existing phenomena essentially impels bourgeois sociologists to acknowledge them as ``correct'' and ``necessary'', that is, ultimately to engage in apologetics in favour of the actual state of affairs. As for the call to refrain from assessments in social analysis, this allegedly being ``unscientific'' and ideological, the fact is that assessments tend to diifer. An assessment of social phenomena in the light of Marxist-Leninist science is simultaneously scientific, strictly objective and is carried out in the party spirit.In application to socialism, the ``de-ideologisation'' idea is the product of the number of quite definite ideological and political tendencies characterising the present stage of the ideological struggle. Above all it is aimed against MarxismLeninism. First, its propagandists seek to undermine the authority and influence of Leninist ideology in socialist society on the strength of ``purely scientific'' conclusion to the effect that in our age ideology is simply superfluous. Second, it is unequivocally aimed at creating favourable conditions for bourgeois ideology to fill the ``vacuum''. In their hopes of stripping science, above all the social sciences, in the socialist countries of Marxist-Leninist ideas, bourgeois ideologists expect this to open the way for an ``infiltration'' of ideas, and for bringing socialist ideology closer to Western concepts. At this point, the ``de-ideologisation'' theory merges with another bourgeois concept, namely, that Marxism is ``obsolete''. Professor Henry Aiken of Harvard University declares: ``Now the primary target of our contemporary Western anti-ideologists is, of course, Marxism. 119 And in prophesying the end of ideology, it is the end of Marxism of which they mainly = dream.''^^1^^
Bell seeks to prove that any ideology is incompatible with the industrial society and that ``de-ideologisation'' is also under way in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. He asserts that Soviet society seeks to be rid of communist ideology. Both the economic measures and discussions in philosophy, literature and the natural sciences, he claims, all signify a repudiation of Marxist-Leninist teaching, and a return to various traditions of Western thinking, like naturalism, positivism and the philosophy of science. This reveals two tendencies in the bourgeois ideologists' efforts to interpret the development of Soviet science: on the one hand, it is wishful thinking, and on the other, an attempt to exaggerate or present as typical various phenomena which are not in any sense characteristic of Soviet social science as a whole.
The ``de-ideologisation'' theory as a whole is designed to obscure the fundamental qualitative distinction between bourgeois ideology and socialist, scientific, Marxist-Leninist ideology. Its advocates seek to equate any ideology, ideology ``in general'', and the unscientific and false approach, and in this sense echo the idea that Marxism-Leninism is ``unscientific'', and various other Right-opportunist revisionist concepts.
Consequently, ``de-ideologisation'' is organically woven into the tactics of ``creeping'' anti-communism, with its doctrine of ``bridge-building'' and hopes for ideological penetration of the socialist countries, and into the concepts of social development which distort the objective regularities for the purposes of social forces which have outlived their historical term.
__*_*_*__Despite some differences in the line of reasoning, all the theories examined above are ultimately apologetic and extol capitalism. They are all reflections of the futile efforts of the imperialists to lay a kind of ideological foundation for _-_-_
~^^1^^ Henry David Aiken, ``The Revolt Against Ideology'', Commentary, 1964, No. 4, p. 32.
120 their efforts to refute the law-governed historical process in which capitalism gives way to socialism.The change in the balance of forces in favour of socialism impels the imperialist reactionaries to seek ever more refined means of political and ideological struggle. The politicians and ideologists of imperialism are obsessed with the idea of restoring capitalism in the socialist world, and that is the basis of their policy.
[121] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter Four __ALPHA_LVL1__ IDEOLOGICAL POVERTY OF THE FALSIFIERSBourgeois anti-Marxism, that is, that integral part of anticommunism which is directly aimed against the MarxistLeninist doctrine and is an aggregation of fraudulent methods of ``refuting'', distorting and criticising Marxism-- Leninism for the purpose of undermining its authority and influence in the world, is also developing in the mainstream of anticommunism.
More than half a century ago, Lenin wrote about the triumph Marxism was bound to score in the coming historical epoch. The brilliant forecast by the great continuator of the cause of Marx and Engels has come true. The victories achieved by the working class, equipped with Marxist ideas, are now incontestable. In the 19th century, socialism was converted from a utopia into a science, and in the 20th century socialism is being transformed into historical reality. Having stood every test, socialism is triumphant over a vast part of the globe. It has been embodied in the invincible might of the Soviet Union and the other socialist states, and has become a great factor exerting tremendous influence on the whole course of world development. In the titanic contest between the two world systems---socialism and capitalism---the balance of forces is increasingly tilting in favour of socialism.
These objective historical processes, which can no longer be denied, have worked deep-going changes in the character and forms of the ideological struggle between capitalism and socialism. The ideological opponents of socialism have markedly modified their assessment of the role and influence of Marxism on world development.
Over 60 years ago, Lenin remarked that bourgeois science ``will not even hear of Marxism, declaring that it has been refuted and = annihilated''.^^1^^ Today, the imperialist ideologists have to make quite different admissions. Thus, Raymond Aron, one of the most prominent bourgeois sociologists, declared at the Fourth World Sociological Congress: ``It _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 31.
122 cannot be denied that millions of men claim to be the followers of Marx.'' The clerical philosopher, Jean Lacroix, wrote: ``Marxism lives in the hearts and minds of millions of men and is the most important social movement of our epoch.''^^1^^However, recognition of the strength of Marxism has in no way reduced the attempts by bourgeois ideologists to refute it or to undermine its influence in the world. On the contrary, their attempts have become subtler and more strident. The enemies of socialism seek to distort and undermine all the existing propositions and principles, all the component parts of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. All the philosophical, sociological and socio-political theories of imperialism are shot through with this attempt at falsification. This comprehensively conceived falsification drive has its main frontal lines of attack.
Among these are above all the efforts to deny that Leninism is the Marxism of our historical epoch. These efforts are being concentrated on falsifying Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution, primarily his doctrine of the proletarian dictatorship and the working-class party. Present-day antiMarxism insists that Marxism-Leninism is ``unscientific'', that it is ``disintegrating'', that it is ``obsolete'', and that it is ``anti-humanistic''.
All these assertions are based on a distortion of revolutionary theory and practice and are fraudulent.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE MAIN LINELeninism 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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Jean Lacroix. Marxisme, existentialisme, personnalisme, Paris, 1950, p. 5.
123 rotten-ripe capitalism, which is about to collapse, and which is mature enough to make way for = socialism''.^^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.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.
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.
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, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 109.
124 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.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.
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.
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''.^^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^^2^^.
_-_-_~^^1^^ R. N. Carew Hunt, A Guide to Communist Jargon, New York, 1957, p. 164.
~^^2^^ Andre Piettre, Marx et marxisme, Paris, 1962, p. 102; Political Thought Since World War II. Critical and Interpretive Essays, New York, 1964, p. 166; Stefan T. Possony, Lenin: the Compulsive Revolutionary, Chicago, 1964, p. 11.
125!
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''.^^1^^
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''.^^2^^
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.''^^3^^
This effort to contrast Leninism and Marxism is falsification on at least three counts.
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''^^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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marxism in the Modern World, Stanford (California), 1965, p. XI.
~^^2^^ Shlomo Avinery, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge, 1968, p. 258.
~^^3^^ Z. A. Jordan, The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism: a Philosophical and Sociological Analysis, London, 1967, pp. 354--56.
~^^4^^ Stanley W. Page, Lenin and World Revolution, Gloucester (Mass.), 1968, p. XVI.
126 of the teaching, namely, its blend of theory and practice, which is the source of its effectiveness and everlasting importance.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.
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.
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.
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''.^^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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ R. T. De George, The New Marxism. Soviet and East European Marxism since 1956, New York, 1968, p. 28.
127 chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered.''^^1^^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.''^^2^^
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.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (in 3 volumes), Vol. 1, p. 398.
~^^2^^ R. V. Daniels, The Nature of Communism, New York, 1962, p. 172.
128 conclusions for practical activity, shows the masses the right way and the concrete methods of struggle.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.
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.''^^1^^
Lenin said that the ``concrete analysis of a concrete situation ... was the living soul of = Marxism'',^^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.
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.
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.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 75.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 166.
9---1245
129 prerequisites and conditions for struggle (in other words, against voluntarism and adventurism).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''.^^1^^
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.
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.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 36.
130 the development of the subjective factor in the historical process.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.
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.
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 __PRINTERS_P_131_COMMENT__ 9* 131 gives way to = voluntarism''.^^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.
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.
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''.^^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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Andre Piettre, Marx et marxisme, Paris, 1959, p. 102.
~^^2^^ Lenin on Politics and Revolution. Selected Writings, edited and introduced by James E. Connor, New York, 1968, p. XII.
132 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.''^^1^^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.
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.
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.
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. XXVII.
133 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.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.
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.
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 134 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 135 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.
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.
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 136 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.
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''^^1^^ and that the proletarian dictatorship ``marks an absolute break with all the democratic traditions of = Marxism''.^^2^^
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.
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:
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.''^^3^^
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Sidney Hook, Marx and the Marxists, New York, 1955, p. 81.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 85.
~^^3^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 69.
137 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.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''.^^1^^
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.
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.''^^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'',^^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 _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 248.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 3.1, p. 343.
~^^3^^ Ibid
138 of democracy, arbitrariness of every kind, and every sort of abuse of power, in a dictator's personal = interests.''^^1^^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.''^^2^^
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.''^^3^^
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.''^^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, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 344.
^^2^^ Ibid., p. 348.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 347.
~^^4^^ Ibid., pp. 351, 352.
139 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''.^^1^^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.''^^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''.^^3^^ Lenin closed all the loopholes for any unscientific, formalistic and metaphysical contrast between democracy and dictatorship outside the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 354.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 293.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 465.
140 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.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''.^^1^^
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.
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.
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.''^^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.''^^3^^
To this is added slander on the principles of Party construction, and the nature and organisation of the Communist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 412.
~^^2^^ R. V. Daniels, The Nature of Communism, p. 86.
~^^3^^ Political Thought since World War II, p. 166.
141 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''.^^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''.^^2^^These inventions are exploded by the facts and the writings of the founders of Marxism-Leninism.
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.''^^3^^ He also pointed out: ``The proletariat becomes a force as soon as it establishes an independent workers' party.''^^4^^
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.
The new historical situation called for further elaboration and enrichment of the Marxist theory of the Party. _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Hulicka and I. Hulicka, Soviet Institutions, the Individual and Society, Boston (Mass.), 1967, pp. 43, 44.
~^^2^^ S. R. Tompkins, The Triumph of Bolshevism: Revolution or Reaction?, Norman (Oklahoma), 1967, p. 286.
~^^3^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 409.
~^^4^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 69 (Russ. ed.).
142 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.''^^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''.^^2^^ The Party has the same discipline and the same rules for all its members.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.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 227.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 7, p. 395.
143Communist 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.
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.
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.
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 144 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.^^1^^
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.
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.^^2^^
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 _-_-_
~^^1^^ Problems of Peace and Socialism, No. 3, 1971, p. 9 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ J. Fetscher, Von Marx zur Sowjetideologie, Bonn, 1959, S. 131.
10---1245
145 unity, without which the Party loses its capacity for effective political action,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.''^^1^^
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?
The anti-communist attacks on the principles and rules of Party life are interwoven with the slanderous campaign _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 434.
146 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.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.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. THE CLAIM THATLenin used to say that Marx's doctrine was all-powerful because it was true. It is invincible because it is based on a knowledge of the objective laws of social development, and because it studies the social movement as a natural-historical process, because it studies and draws the lessons of the experience of mass revolutionary struggle of the working class and __PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 the leading social forces. When men master the Marxist theory they cease to be slaves of destiny, because it gives them a scientific guide to action, the science of emancipation from social oppression, the science of building a new life.
That is why the enemies of the working class have set themselves, as their most important task, the aim to undermine the prestige of Marxism, and to refute its scientific character. Perhaps this intention has been best expressed by Bertram D. Wolfe, the well-known US ``Marxologist'', who says that Marxism's ``real staying power lies in the fact that it is also ... a faith. It is a deeply emotional faith.... The party born of that ism makes its dogmas the test of truth. Truth, and all pronouncements concerning it, must be approached in the party spirit which the Russian Communists call = partiinost.''^^1^^ There it is: Marxism is not a science but a faith based on dogma. Wolfe, in an article in a voluminous collective work, repeated this idea when he said that Marxism was a ``creed. .. charged with = emotion''.^^2^^
Professor Alfred G. Meyer also insists that MarxismLeninism is ``religious because it is not fully scientific. In contrast to other religions, it is a secular religion; and the social scientist should criticise it not for being secular but for being a = religion.''^^3^^ A great many ``specialists'' in MarxistLeninist ideology have been actively spreading such views, among them the Austrian theologist Gustav Wetter, the English philosopher A. G. Maclntire, the French Jesuit H. Chambre, the West German neo-Thomist J. Fetscher, and the political scientist M. Lange. All these and many others seek to prove that Marxism is not a scientific outlook but the doctrine of a religious sect adhering to various dogmas.
But what are the facts? The Marxist outlook emerged as a theoretical generalisation of mankind's historical experience. Marxism's scientific propositions reflect the steadily developing reality, in its principal forward, progressive direction. Lenin wrote: ``There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is its conformity to the actual process of social and economic = development.''^^4^^ Naturally, such a doctrine cannot mark time, but must _-_-_
~^^1^^ B. D. Wolfe, Marxism, pp. 357, 358.
~^^2^^ Political Thought since World War II, p. 137.
~^^3^^ A. G. Meyer, Leninism, Cambridge (Mass.), 1957, p. 291.
~^^4^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 298.
148 develop, being constantly enriched, in its creative innovative quest. Lenin observed: ``We do not regard Marx's theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with = life.''^^1^^Lenin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the international communist movement have steadily given creative development to Marxism on the strength of a scientific analysis of changing reality. Thus, under pre-monopoly capitalism Marx and Engels were quite right in saying that socialism could not win out in one, separate country, and that it had to win simultaneously in most of the developed countries of the world. But a new historical situation took shape under imperialism. In 1915, Lenin wrote: ``Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country = alone.''^^2^^ Lenin's scientific analysis proved, and practice has borne out that in the new historical conditions the world revolutionary process advances as individual countries fall away from capitalism, as the revolutionary situation and the subjective prerequisites for revolution mature within them.
Relying on the Marxist-Leninist doctrine and on scientific analysis, the CPSU and the international communist movement have given the answers to numerous new questions posed by life itself. For instance, on the strength of an objective assessment of the balance between the forces of peace and war in the international arena, the world communist movement has reached the conclusion that it is possible to avert another world war, despite the fact that the threat of one continues to be present so long as imperialism exists. Consequently, it is not faith but profound scientific generalisation of every new historical situation, and on that basis further creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory, that is an integral principle of the international communist movement, which is fundamentally hostile to dogmatism.
To ``prove'' that Marxism-Leninism is unscientific, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 211--12.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 342.
149 bourgeois ideologists have fallen back on various speculations over the concepts of ``science'' and ``ideology''.Because ideology has a class character, they argue, it is a biased and ``unobjective'' system of views, which makes Marxism-Leninism unscientific, because science must be strictly objective.
This is an attempt to obscure the fundamental distinction between bourgeois ideology and socialist ideology.
Every ideology, including bourgeois ideology, is a generalised system of ideas, an aggregation of views and concepts of the world, of relations between man and society and between each other, and every ideology reflects social being through the prism of class interests. In a class society there can be no coherent ideology common for all classes. That is why every ideology has a party character, but not every ideology is scientific. The party character and scientific character are incompatible when the interests of a given class do not coincide with the objective laws of social development, when they clash in antagonistic contradiction with the objective requirements of social progress. The interests of the working class, the architect of the future society, fully agree with the objective course of social development. Marxist social science reflects this advance of history, which is why the party spirit, and the class character of proletarian ideology, far from clashing with science, in fact imply its scientific character. Consequently, Marxist ideology is scientific, and Marxist science has an ideological character. This is quite natural because the essence of Marxism-Leninism is a blend of the scientific view, of the world with a scientific programme for its transformation, a programme which gives a scientific clarification of the ways and means of carrying out this transformation.
To get a clearer picture of the arguments used by the enemies of socialism, let us consider the views of the wellknown anti-Marxist neo-Thomist philosopher, I. M. Bochenski, who says that the party character of philosophy and science implies a denial of any objectivity. He contends that Marxist philosophy is a ``weapon in the party's struggle, which is why it can be neither neutral nor = objective''.^^1^^ A similar line of argument is to be found in a book by the _-_-_
~^^1^^ I. M. Bochenski, Der sowjetrussische dialektische Materialismus, Bern, 1956. ,
150 Jesuit Gustav Wetter, Director of the Vatican's Russicum Collegium, which has been repeatedly published abroad. It is entitled Dialectical Materialism. Its History and System in the Soviet = Union.^^1^^ Like many other bourgeois `` Marxologists'', Wetter seeks to prove that the scientific objectivity of Marxism is allegedly upset by the party principle, whereas ``impartiality'' is the fundamental condition of science.This is a new version of the old argument about the alleged incompatibility of the party and the scientific spirit, to which is added this argument: scientific character implies objectivity, and objectivity---neutrality and impartiality, so that because Marxism is not neutral, it is unobjective and consequently unscientific.
To see the falsehood of this argument let us turn to Lenin and his brilliant expose of objectivism in his work ``The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve's Book'', where Lenin draws a clear line of distinction between objectivity and objectivism.
The bourgeois party approach does not normally operate in the open, but is camouflaged with ``neutrality'' and the ``supra-class'', ``human'' approach, while essentially taking a class stand. This is objectivism, which has nothing in common with scientific objectivity. Lenin showed the fundamental distinction between the objectivity of the materialist and the objectivism of the pseudo-scientist. He wrote: ``The objectivist speaks of the necessity of a given historical process; the materialist gives an exact picture of the given socialeconomic formation and of the antagonistic relations to which it gives rise. When demonstrating the necessity for a given series of facts, the objectivist always runs the risk of becoming an apologist for these facts: the materialist discloses the class contradictions and in so doing defines his standpoint. The objectivist speaks of 'insurmountable historical tendencies'; the materialist speaks of the class which 'directs' the given economic system.... Materialism includes partisanship, so to speak, and enjoys the direct and open adoption of the standpoint of a definite social group in any assessment of events.''^^2^^ Thus, the materialist is more consistent than the _-_-_
~^^1^^ G. A. Wetter, Der dialektische Materialismus. Seine Geschichte und sein System in der Sowjetunion, Turin-Wien-Freiburg, 1960.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, pp. 400--01.
151 objactivist in carrying through a full, profound and objective scientific analysis, while maintaining his party stand.The critics of Marxism, seeking to prove that MarxistLeninist theory is ``unscientific'', now and again try to create the impression that their arguments are based on the authority of Marx himself. Their logic runs roughly along these lines: Marxism is an ideology, and any ideology, they have Marx saying, is illusory. He did say that it is a false and distorted consciousness; ergo, Marxism is a ``false consciousness'', and is therefore unscientific. That is precisely the line taken by Henri Chambre, who insists that ``ideology appears as an aggregate of illusions, mystifications, false notions, which men have of themselves: a more or less conscious, a more or less illusory disguise of the true nature of a = situation''.^^1^^ He assures us that from Marx's standpoint ideology ``has a class character, and is consequently = false''^^2^^ and that Marxism ``attaches to the concept of ideology the coefficient of a pejorative = value''.^^3^^ However, the references to Marx do not at all back up Chambre's conclusions. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the corresponding passages in Marx's works will realise that wherever Marx attaches to ideology the coefficient of a pejorative value, he is dealing with bourgeois ideology, or philosophical idealism, and not with ideology in general. And this helps to clarify matters and to show up the flimsy attempts to present a truly Jesuit-type ``argument'' to prove that Marxism is ``unscientific'' by quoting its founders.
The West German neo-Thomist Fetscher contributing to a collective work, entitled Christians or Bolsheviks, also tries to prove that Marxism is ``unscientific''.
Fetscher seeks to deny that Marxism is scientific by insisting that there can be no scientific outlook in application to politics in general, because it is allegedly impossible to obtain a knowledge of the meaning and value of social phenomena to which ideology lays claim. The theoretical roots of such views go back to the unscientific concepts spread by the German neo-Kantians Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert, who said that there was an impassable gulf between the natural and the social sciences, and who asserted that only the natural sciences were true sciences. Of course, _-_-_
~^^1^^ H. Chambre, Le marxisme en Union Sovietique, Paris, 1955, p. 24.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 29.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 44.
152 considering the historical process as an aggregation of individual and unique facts, that is, as the neo-Kantians see it, science is indeed deprived of the possibility of establishing the objective regularities of social development. But there is no ground for taking such a view of history. Life itself has confirmed the correctness of the Marxist view that the life and history of society is not a mere accumulation of accidental happenings, but a law-governed process.The Marxist outlook is the theoretical generalisation of the whole of historical development. It is constantly enriched, and is creative and innovative. Lenin wrote: ``The whole spirit of Marxism, its whole system, demands that each proposition should be considered (a) only historically, (P) only in connection with others, (7) only in connection with the concrete experience of = history.''^^1^^
All the contingents of the international communist movement in the socialist community and in the capitalist countries take part in creatively developing Marxist-Leninist theory, formulating the forms and methods of the working-class struggle which are most appropriate in the given concrete conditions. The Marxist outlook always remains a scientific outlook, that is, an outlook which starts from objective laws and tendencies in social development and, simultaneously, a party outlook, that is, one which starts from the fundamental interests and requirements of the working class, a leading progressive force of modern society. The unity of the party character and scientific objectivity of the Marxist outlook is a pledge of its invincibility.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. THE CLAIM THATMarxism-Leninism is a great international theory, the ideological basis of the international communist movement. The international essence of Marxism-Leninism rests on the sound objective basis of the common condition of the workers in capitalist society as an object of exploitation, the community of class interests of all workers, regardless of nationality, their common scientific outlook, which reflects _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 250.
153 their fundamental interests, their common ultimate aim in the struggle, which is to build communism, and the general features and laws of the socialist revolution and socialist construction, deduced and generalised by the international communist movement on the basis of the experience of worldwide revolutionary struggle.The attempts to revise the ideas of proletarian internationalism reflect the basic contradiction of present-day world development, the struggle between the growing and strengthening world socialist system, on the one hand, and the capitalist system, which has outlived its historical day, on the other. The close cohesion and co-operation of the socialist countries are of the utmost importance not only for socialist and communist construction in these countries, but for social progress throughout the world.
However, this unprecedented process of formation of. the new, multinational, communist socio-economic formation runs on the basis of overcoming various difficulties. The Theses of the CPSU Central Committee for the 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution say: ``The formation of international relations of a new type is a complex and manifold process linked with overcoming the grim heritage left by the age-long rule of the exploiting classes---national exclusiveness, strife and mistrust. The differences in the levels of economic and social development, class structure, historical and cultural traditions inherited from the past give rise to objective difficulties in the fulfilment of such essential tasks as the establishment of comprehensive cooperation and the organisation of a system of socialist international division of = labour.''^^1^^
As the world socialist system and the international communist movement develops, with ever greater masses of men being drawn into this movement, and this in countries with a relatively small working class, there naturally increases the possibility of elements of the petty-bourgeois outlook being brought into the ranks of the Communist Parties, and this now and again leads to deviations from the theory of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of socialist construction. The ideological enemies of socialism are quick to speculate on these difficulties^md mistakes, seeking to falsify the _-_-_
~^^1^^ The 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Moscow, p. 53.
154 true nature of these phenomena, and spreading the new antiMarxist myth about Marxism-Leninism ``disintegrating'' or acquiring the character of ``pluralism''.Great play is made with this new anti-Marxist version in every ``solid'' anti-Marxist work published in the USA or Western Europe in recent years. Take the collective work, Marxism in the Modern World, which I have = already mentioned.^^1^^ It is a collection of speeches at a conference attended by 35 American and West European scientists, including such ``authorities'' of present-day anti-Marxism as R. Aron, B. Wolfe, R. Lowenthal, B. Souvarine, A. Ulam, and others. We find the same ideas in a book by Professor of Political Science, Bernard S. Morris of the University = of Indiana.^^2^^
In these, as in many other studies, loud conclusions are being drawn about the ``disintegration of the doctrine of world communism'', about an alleged end of the era of coherent communist ideology, and a united international Marxist-Leninist doctrine; it is asserted that on the basis of ``pluralistic communism'' there have arisen ``polycentrist forms'' of Marxism, in which ``nationalism has gained the upper hand over internationalism''. All these conclusions likewise rest on falsification, that is, on a view of presentday phenomena which basically twist their substance.
First of all, it is hardly justified to present any deviations from, or distortions of, Marxism, as new ``national forms'' of Marxism.
For instance, can Maoism be seen as a ``new form of Marxism''? Of course, not. The petty-bourgeois and nationalistic revision of Marxism-Leninism in China is a departure from Marxism-Leninism and clashes with the principles of the proletarian internationalism and the fundamental laws of socialist construction. The line adopted by Mao Tse-tung's followers is a blend of petty-bourgeois adventurism and great-power chauvinism, covered up with Leftist catchwords. By implementing this line, Mao's followers have taken the path of undermining the unity of the socialist community and the world communist movement. This line is doing a great service to imperialist reaction. Maoism, a variant of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Marxism in the Modern World, Stanford (California), 1965.
~^^2^^ B. Morris, International Communism and American Policy, New York, 1966.
155 petty-bourgeois ideology, is not a coherent theory, but an eclectic mixture of views hostile to Marxism-Leninism, which are adapted to nationalistic and chauvinistic plans.Alongside Marxist terminology, and elements of dogmatism and Leftist Ultra-revolutionary catchwords Maoism will be found to be influenced by the most diverse petty-bourgeois trends: Utopian socialism (clearly expressed egalitarian, equalising tendencies, including the extolling of universal equalisation), anarchism (the apology of violence and destruction, and the absence of the constructive creative principle), Trotskyite conceptions (the stake on artificially whipping up history, executing leaps and permanent revolution), Narodism (exaggeration of the role of the peasantry in transforming the old society), and age-old traditions of Confucian ideology with its cult of the supreme ruler and its claim on exclusiveness for all things Chinese.
This eclectic platform is based on a rejection of dialectical materialism and its substitution by voluntarism, subjectivism, pragmatism and metaphysics.
Mao Tse-tung's line, both in its practical and its theoretical forms, is a source of profound concern and alarm within the world communist movement. This line runs counter to Marxism-Leninism and to the interests of the great Chinese people itself. L. I. Brezhnev observed: ``The Soviet people will give a resolute rebuff to the great-power, antiSoviet policy being conducted by this group, a policy which has nothing in common with Marxism-Leninism. But at the same time we want to emphasise once again that our Party does not and will not carry on any struggle either against the Chinese people or against the Communist Party of China.''^^1^^
The departure from Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and from the basic laws of socialist construction cannot but create a serious threat to a country's socialist gains. A Party's erroneous line may markedly slo\V down the operation of the objective laws underlying the development of socialism. That is why all those who cherish the cause of socialism and proletarian internationalism are deeply agitated over the state of affairs in China. The injury being done to the cause of socialism by Mao Tse-tung's policy is undoubtedly considerable. However, the _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, March 11, 1967.
156 overwhelming majority of the Communist and Workers' Parties are taking effective measures for the purpose of strengthening the cohesion of the communist movement, and there is no doubt, that despite all difficulties the cause of proletarian internationalism will win out.Now and again, bourgeois ideologists try to back up their claim that Marxism-Leninism is ``disintegrating'', a claim directed against the internationalist essence of the MarxistLeninist doctrine, with the idea that Marx had allegedly belonged only to the West, while Lenin and Leninism allegedly represent the product of ``Russian backwardness'' or specific conditions. This line of fighting the internationalist substance of Leninism is closely connected with the attempt to deny the international experience of the October Revolution, and both echo the old assertions by the reformist theories about allegedly local, and narrowly national character of Leninism (Adler, Kautsky, Sukhanov, etc.), although presentday bourgeois ideologists have refurbished their arguments now and again.
Some bourgeois ``Marxologists'', like the Jesuit philosopher, Professor of Freiburg University, Bochenski, have suggested that Leninism (that is, the Marxism of the present epoch) is ``purely Russian'' because it is a product of Russian culture, constituting a ``cultural sphere which is alien to Western Europeans''.^^1^^
At the basis of this ``cultural sphere'' lies the ``Russian soul'', one of whose main features is that the Russian intelligentsia allegedly rejects ``all the spiritual values'' of the West.
However, every person who can read and write knows that these inventions are completely at variance with the wellknown historical facts, testifying to the extensive and systematic cultural ties between the USSR and other countries of the West and the East.
Of course, the idea is to try to deny the international importance of Leninism, to separate Lenin and Leninism from Marxism, and to present Leninism as being narrowly national, so as to split up the coherent international communist ideology into national segments, and to disrupt the continuity between the international Leninist stage in the _-_-_
~^^1^^ I. M. Bochenski, Der sowjetrussische dialektische Materialismus, S. 122.
157 creative development of Marx's theory and the international teaching of the founders of Marxism.The fact is that neither Leninism is exclusively ``Russian'', nor Marxism specifically ``European''.
``The international character of Leninism is determined by the following circumstances of its origination and development.
``First, for a number of historical reasons Russia at the turn of the century found herself to be the central point of all the principal contradictions of the world imperialist system, and the October Revolution became the starting line and pivot of the present-day revolutionary process....
``Second, the international character of Leninism is determined by the many-faceted experience of the October Revolution itself, and also of the experience of socialist construction in the USSR which followed upon its victory.
``Third, in virtue of Russia's situation in between the advanced capitalist countries of the West and the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries of the East, the working-class movement in Russia inevitably merged with the West European revolutionary working-class movement, on the one hand, and with the national liberation movement of the colonial peoples, on the other. Leninism summed up experience on a world-historical scale.
``Fourth, Leninism did not originate in a vacuum, but on the sound basis of = Marxism.''^^1^^
As a result of the further development and enrichment of Marxism, on the basis of its fundamental principles, Leninism has quite naturally become the great internationalist ideological and theoretical basis of the present-day communist movement.
Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the epoch of the collapse of colonialism and the victory of the national liberation movement, the epoch of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism and the construction of a communist society. The Appeal of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties ``Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin'' says: ``All the experience of world socialism and of the working-class and national liberation movements has _-_-_
~^^1^^ Mikhail Suslov, ``Leninism and the Modern Epoch'', World Marxist Review, 1969, No. 5.
158 confirmed the world significance of Marxist-Leninist teaching. The victory of the socialist revolution in a group of countries, the emergence of the world socialist system, the gains of the working-class movement in capitalist countries, the appearance of peoples of former colonial and semicolonial countries in the arena of socio-political development as independent agents, and the unprecedented upsurge of the struggle against imperialism---all this is proof that Leninism is historically correct and expresses the fundamental needs of the modern = age.''^^1^^ __ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. THE CLAIM THAT MARXISMThe claim that Marxism is ``outdated'' runs like a red thread through the whole of bourgeois criticism of MarxismLeninism today. It gives grudging acceptance of Marx as a scientist whose works more or less correctly reflect capitalist development in the 19th century, but it is always stressed that Marx's main predictions have not come true, because capitalism has been ``transformed'', because it has ceased to be capitalism and has become ``democratic'', people's capitalism, a welfare state, a mass consumption society, a system of ``economic humanism'', in short, it has ceased to be the system described by Marx. George Lichtheim, an ``expert'' on Marxism-Leninism at London University, declares: `` Marxism ... has become 'historical'... the gradual socialisation of the economic sphere in advanced industrial society has become parallel with the emergence of a new type of social stratification''.^^2^^
He is echoed by some US researchers, who declare: ``Marx, hbwever, was criticising nineteenth-century capitalist societies and failed to predict developments such as the tremendous strength of trade unions and government regulations which have served to eradicate, mitigate or even reverse some of what he considered to be the most reprehensible features of = capitalism.''^^3^^
The bitterest attacks have been directed at the conclusion drawn by the founders of Marxism concerning the great _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 41.
~^^2^^ Marx and the Western World, p. 5.
~^^3^^ K. Hulicka and I. Hulicka, Op. cit., p. 25.
159 mission of the proletariat in world history, and the Marxist theory of a class struggle, together with Marx's general law of capitalist accumulation.Lenin wrote that ``the chief thing in the doctrine of Marx is that it brings out the historic role of the proletariat as the builder of socialist society''.^^1^^ Today, the bourgeois, reformist and Right-opportunist revisionist ideologists are united in their fight against Marxism-Leninism by their common assertion that there is no social basis for the revolutionary struggle and the existence of the Communist Parties, that is, the spread of the myth that capitalist society is being ``deproletarised''.
Bourgeois and reformist thinkers of every stripe keep saying that the working class in the industrialised capitalist countries of the West has lost its revolutionary spirit, that it is gradually disappearing, being dissolved in a kind of ``middle class'', and that this automatically undermines the basis for the theory of class struggle and the need for the existence of the revolutionary Communist Parties.
The Marxist-Leninist theory of the working class, as the main revolutionary force of society is based on the fact that the working class has the most important position within the system of social production; being concentrated at large enterprises, it is capable of achieving a high level of organisation; not having any forms of private property, it is objectively a consistently revolutionary class.
Of course, the structure of the working class has changed under the impact of the scientific and technical revolution. Wage labour, including different social, occupational and other groups, with different educational levels, material condition, differing ideological and political outlook and degree of organisation, have an especially complex inner structure.
Bourgeois ideologists have tried to speculate on these real changes within the make-up of the working class, and the social structure of the capitalist society caused by the scientific and technical revolution. But the whole point is that these changes can in no sense upset the conclusion that the working class has a revolutionary mission; moreover, they provide evidence that social forces, which will help to ensure _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 18, p. 582.
160 the triumph of socialism, are being multiplied in the entrails of the capitalist society. Let us look at the facts.Over the past century, the industrial proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries has grown rapidly, from roughly 9 million in the mid-19th century to almost 30 million at the turn of the century, and 60 million in the mid-20tb century. This has been paralleled by a sharp growth in the wage-labour army, and its share of the working population in the leading capitalist countries of the West has also increased accordingly, to 85 per cent in the USA, 81.3 per cent in the FRG, 93 per cent in Britain, and 76.1 per cent in France. The latest estimates of the number of industrial and office workers in the capitalist world shows that the wage-labour army now numbers 540 million persons.
On the whole, over the past century, there has been a considerable increase in the numerical strength and share in the advanced capitalist countries of the urban, industrial proletariat, and a marked drop in the share of the rural proletariat.
The US economist, Victor Perlo, says that in 1900 the working class made up 64 per cent of the US population, and in 1966---82 per cent. Only in the last six years, the number of workers in the USA increased by 8.5 million persons, that is, by 15 per cent, while the total population went up by nine per cent.
There is no scientific ground for the arguments of bourgeois propaganda, which seeks to ``refute'' Marx's conclusions by pointing to the allegedly rapid growth of the middle classes, among whom class distinctions are obliterated and a ``class peace'' established, instead of the growing polarisation of society into two main classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Some bourgeois sociologists ignore the actual division of society into classes, and refer to the ``middle class'' those who claim to belong to it, regardless of their actual condition. As a result of this arbitrary, subjectivist view of the class structure of society, almost all the social groups, including some owners of enterprises, are classified with the ``middle class''. Meanwhile, the attitude the founders of Marxism took to the intermediate sections is distorted out of all recognition, and nothing is said of the fact that Marx and Engels had remarked of the uneven make-up of the middle sections __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11--1245 161 under capitalism and the different tendencies of their development.
Marxists have never insisted that no trace is to be left of the intermediate sections in capitalist society. Criticising Ricardo, Marx wrote that the former had forgotten to note the ``constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the = other''.^^1^^ But together with this thesis, life also confirmed Marx's proposition about the objective tendency of the proletarisation of the petty producers with the growing concentration of capitalist production.
Marx's conclusion about the growing proletarisation in capitalist society has been fully borne out. In 1870, 40.6 per cent of the gainfully employed population of the USA were independent entrepreneurs, and 59.4 per cent were wage-workers; in 1954, the figures were, respectively, 13.4 per cent and 86.6 per cent.
Marx forecast the growth of the intelligentsia and the office workers. Lenin also observed that ``in all spheres of people's labour, capitalism increases the number of office and professional workers with particular rapidity and makes a growing demand for = intellectuals''.^^2^^ These processes are developing even today. In 1929, 10,450,000 persons were employed in US agriculture, and in 1968, 3,500,000; from 1950 to 1967, the share of persons employed in agriculture dropped from 12.5 per cent to 5.2 per cent; in 1960, 5 million persons were engaged in FRG agriculture, and in 1968, 2,670,000; in 1954, French agriculture employed 5 million persons, and in 1965, 3,450,000. At the same time, there has been a sharp increase in the share of engineers, technicians and office workers in the capitalist countries.
Thus, the share of the intelligentsia and office workers in the USA, working on salaries, increased from 12.7 per cent of the gainfully employed population in 1900 to 43 per cent in 1960; in Britain, it went up from 10--14 per cent in 1851 to 37.8 per cent in 1951.
These data leave no ground for the conclusion that the role of the working class is declining. Even if the overall share of the proletariat in a number of capitalist countries _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Moscow, 1968, Part II, p. 573.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 202.
162 has somewhat declined (because of the dwindling share of the rural proletariat) the socio-political strength of the working class has increased. In 1950, the US working class, constituting 48.1 per cent of the working population ( including industrial proletariat 43.8 per cent, and rural proletariat 4.3 per cent) was a greater productive and social force than the US working class of 1870, which constituted 57 per cent of the working population (including industrial proletariat 28 per cent, and rural proletariat 29 per cent.)The important thing to bear in mind here is what Lenin said about the strength of the proletariat which ``in the process of history is immeasurably greater than its share of the total = population''.^^1^^ Lenin said that in general the strength of a class depended on: ``1) numerical strength; 2) role in the country's economy; 3) ties with the mass of working people; and 4) = organisation''.^^2^^
The main and most important aspect of the increasing number of workers by brain consists in the fact that statemonopoly capitalism and the scientific and technical revolution undermine the old privileges of the bulk of the office workers, who now approximate the workers both in status and working conditions. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that the proletariat is being dissolved in a mythical ``middle class''; on the contrary, possibilities are being opened up for stronger unity between the industrial workers and broacl sections of office workers and engineers and technicians in the fight against the monopolies, and the forces of reaction. Thus, the revolutionary mission of the proletariat in world history is now being confirmed not only by the fact that this most numerous class of capitalist society is the most exploited, the most revolutionary, the most organised, and the most conscious and profoundly internationalist class, but also by the fact that, as never before, it is the true spokesman for the interests of the vast majority of the people. Present-day reality confirms the conclusion drawn by the CPSU: ``Other social strata opposing monopoly oppression--- the bulk of the peasants and the intelligentsia---are rallying more closely round the working class. A broad anti-- monopoly front is being formed. This process promotes closer unity of the people and stimulates their struggle for the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 3, P. 31.
~^^2^^ Lenin Miscellany XI, p. 391.
163 ultimate goal---for the revolutionary transformation of society, for = socialism.''^^1^^In a speech at the Kremlin Palace of Congresses on April 21, 1970, L. I. Brezhnev said: ``During the past few years the struggle of the working masses in the capitalist countries has acquired such a scale and intensity that one can justifiably say that a new political situation is taking shape there. ... An extremely important element is that today this struggle is waged by no means solely under economic slogans. It is increasingly becoming a political struggle of the working class, a struggle for social rights and democratic freedoms, a struggle against the omnipotence of the monopolies.
``These militant actions of tens of millions of proletarians are the best reply to the specious fabrications of the enemies of Leninism, who assert that the working class of the capitalist countries has 'lost' its revolutionary spirit. No, the militant spirit of the international proletariat has not = faded.''^^2^^
The bourgeois ideologists have been most stubborn in their attacks on the general law of capitalist accumulation which reflects the polarisation of riches and poverty in the capitalist society. They assert that ``instead of the inevitable concentration of wealth and grinding poverty at the poles of society, the advanced countries have seen the spread of middle-class standards of life to ever wider segments of their = people''.^^3^^ Bourgeois ideologists usually have Marx take an extremely oversimplified view of immiseration and his alleged views are refuted by references to growing wages and improving living conditions of the workers in the advanced capitalist countries.
Let us look at this matter in detail, because this is one of the most wide-spread methods of ``refuting'' Marxism today.
The Marxist classics have never denied the possibility that wages could rise at some periods, in some capitalist countries, for some groups of workers. In fact, back in 1891, Engels rejected the formulation of the draft programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, which said that the _-_-_
~^^1^^ The 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 23.
~^^2^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Lenin's Cause Lives On and Triumphs, Moscow, 1970, pp. 69, 70.
~^^3^^ The Communist States at the Crossroads between Moscow and Peking, New York, 1965, p. 5.
164 ``number and the misery of the proletariat increases continuously''. Engels said: ``This is incorrect when put in such a categorical way. The organisation of the workers and their constantly growing resistance will possibly check the increase of misery to a certain = extent.''^^1^^Lenin's statements concerning the Marxist theory of immiseration contain the conclusion that the growth of poverty under capitalism should be seen as an objective tendency.
The working-class struggle helps to stem the steady worsening of its working and living conditions. Perlo is right in saying that even if working-class living standards in the USA have been going up, this is not due to any generosity on the part of US capitalism, but to the efforts of the workers themselves. Perlo says that despite the recent improvements, living standards among US workers are fantastically low as compared with what they could be in a society organised on socialist lines. He adds that there is a marked lack of many social and cultural benefits which socialism = provides.^^2^^
The achievements of the socialist system intensify the influence exerted by Marxist-Leninist ideas on working people throughout the world. Every stride forward made by the socialist countries in their economic, scientific, and technical development is a fresh blow at imperialism. Nor is it possible to deny the fact that the successes of socialism have forced the imperialist bourgeoisie to camouflage the methods of its class domination, and the forms of the exploitation and oppression of the working class. However, the existence of the world socialist system is helping the working people of the capitalist countries to fight for an increase in the price of labour-power, for an improvement of working conditions, and for various concessions from the bourgeoisie.
Thus, in the course of the last few decades, wages have increased in a number of advanced capitalist countries: roughly 36 per cent in the USA, 45 per cent in Britain, 55 per cent in Italy and 53 per cent in Japan. This shows that fear of revolution, the successes of the socialist countries, and pressure from the working-class movement have forced _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 5, Moscow, 1970, p. 431.
~^^2^^ Victor Perlo, ``Basic Features of the Economy of Postwar US Imperialism'', Voprosy filosofii, 1957, No. 5, pp. 122, 123; Victor Perlo, ``Labour Conditions in the United States'', World Marxist Review, March 1968, pp. 6--10.
165 the bourgeoisie to make partial concessions on wages, working conditions, and social security.However, higher wages are frequently invalidated by growing prices and taxes. Thus, in 1966, the US industrial worker, whose annual average wages had nominally gone up by $300, was deprived of $288 as a result of higher taxes and prices ($49 went as higher federal income tax, $103, as higher contribution to social security, $21, to increase local taxes and $115 was swallowed up by higher prices). In the light of these processes, US progressive economists have estimated that the real wages of the married worker in the US manufacturing industry in 1966 and 1967 in fact declined. As a result, they say, in those two years unearned income increased by 22 per cent while the national income went up by 12 per cent. This tendency continued in 1968, considering that the cost of living went up 4.4 per cent, while taxes continued to rise.
There was a similar process of growing exploitation from 1965 to 1967 and in early 1968 in France, where average wages of the working people were among the lowest in the Common Market countries. In 1967, a worker's per-hour earnings came to an average of 3.48 francs in France, and 6.22 francs in Luxemburg, 5.50 francs in the FRG, 4.75 francs in Holland, and 3.18 francs in Italy. Following the MayJune class battles in France, wages in various branches of industry increased by an average of 13--18 per cent. However, the bourgeoisie managed very soon to withdraw some of its forced concessions by raising prices for a number of goods and services.
In 1967, there was a drop in real incomes among the working people of the FRG, and a growth of unemployment, while labour productivity continued to rise. In 1968, the FRG government in effect gave a boost to this tendency by changing the tax rates, cutting outlays for social needs, etc.
The devaluation of the pound in Britain in 1967 resulted in a reduction of real wages. In addition to growing prices, there was a reduction of government outlays on social needs, an increase of taxes by 8 per cent, and a tough wages ``freeze'' policy.
The spread of the strike movement, as compared with the first stage of the general crisis of capitalism, provide irrefutable evidence that the strike struggle of the working class is increasing in scope. In the 20 years before the Second 166 World War strikes in the capitalist world involved 80.8 million persons, and in the 20 years since the war (1946--1966) the total number of strikers reached 297.9 million. From 1958 to 1968, the number of strikers totalled 520 million. Let us also note that a considerable number of these strikes were political.
Another fact that needs to be emphasised is the steady lag in the growth of real wages behind the growth of capitalist profits, and also the fact that this growth failed to cover the rapidly growing vital requirements of the modern worker, that is, it lagged behind the real value of labour power. From 1960 to 1967, for instance, the profits of the US monopolies increased from $26.7 thousand million to $47.2 thousand million, that is, 76.7 per cent.
Analysing the general law of capitalist accumulation, Marx reached the conclusion that ``in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow = worse''.^^1^^ Engels and Lenin also stressed the need to consider the question of the growing poverty from the standpoint of the worsening condition of the working class in social terms, that is, in terms of the growing gap between the living conditions and the status of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and also ``in the sense of the disparity between the increasing level of ... consumption by society as a whole, and the level of the living standards of the working people''.^^2^^
Is this kind of social polarisation still going on in bourgeois society today?
There is no doubt that it is. This is best confirmed by the facts. Victor Perlo has estimated that in the mid-20th century, five per cent of the US population appropriated onethird of the national income. A handful of monopolists (under one per cent of the US population) owned almost one-half of the national wealth. The wage-earning working class remains an exploited class, with the rate of exploitation in the capitalist countries now being much higher than it was a century ago. In the USA, for instance, the rate of surplus value in 1963 went up to 330 per cent, which was twice as high as it was in 1929. From 1938 to 1963, the rate of surplus value in Britain increased from 170 per cent to 238 _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, Capital, Moscow, 1965, Vol. 1, p. 645.
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 201.
167 per cent. Under capitalism, the automation of production intensifies labour to an unprecedented degree, and this confirms Marx's conclusion that capitalist production ``more than any other mode of production ... squanders human lives, or living labour, and not only blood and flesh, but also nerve and = brain.''^^1^^When considering the worsening condition of the working people under capitalism, one must bear in mind the whole complex of living conditions of the working people. Consequently, one must take account of such important indicators as unemployment, the ruin of the farmers, the intensity of labour, the tax burden on the working people, housing conditions and rents, medical services for workers and members of their families, access to education, lack of certainty about the future, the threat of war and wars actually fought, etc. Capitalism not only worsens the conditions of the working people but also fails to guarantee the security of their existence and their very lives.
Capitalism alone is responsible for the two devastating world wars fought in this century, which killed 65 million and crippled over 55 million, whereas about 25 million persons had been killed in wars over the three centuries before that.
Today, there is indignation and resentment over the criminal aggressive war US imperialism is waging in Vietnam. US ruling circles have been wasting vast resources on this monstrous, destructive war, while ignoring the social problems facing their own people.
The abiding antagonisms of the capitalist system are best illustrated in the USA, the richest capitalist country. President Kennedy once said that every night 17 million Americans went to bed hungry. President Johnson said in his messages to Congress that poverty was a ``national problem''. He added that 20 per cent of the US population lived in poverty. The humourists have been having a field day over the loud promises to set up a ``great society'' in the USA.
In the spring of 1969, The New York Times carried a series of articles on starvation in the USA. US News and World Report said that 21.9 million people lived in poverty in that great country. Time magazine said the figure was _-_-_
^^1^^ K.~Marx, Capital, MOSCOW, 1^66, VoL 3, p. §§,
168 26.9 million. Victor Perlo believes the number is closer to 51,324,000.It is true that nine million out of 26.9 million persons estimated by Time in December 1968 as living in poverty, receive various benefits, but these are small and now and again altogether symbolic.
In 1953, the number of unemployed stood at 1.9 million, and in 1967 at about four million.
At the same time, fortunes have been growing at the other pole of US society. In 1953, there were 4,000 millionaires, and in 1965 their number had gone up to more than 10,000.
However, can the condition of the working people in the advanced capitalist countries be considered out of the context of the living conditions of men in the underdeveloped areas of the world? Lenin's methodological remarks on the question of Marx's theory of impoverishment contain this highly important statement: ``The passage on increasing impoverishment remains perfectly true in respect of the 'border regions' of capitalism... (countries in which capitalism is only beginning to penetrate and frequently not only gives rise to physical poverty but to the outright starvation of the masses).''^^1^^
We find that the assertions of the bourgeois ideologists that Marx was ``wrong'' on this matter of impoverishment are also false because when considering the condition of the working people under capitalism they never take the world capitalist system as a whole, the capitalist socio-economic formation as an entity, but concentrate on the countries that have forged ahead in their economic development through the plunder and exploitation of millions of working people in the colonial, dependent and semi-dependent countries. However, in early 1967, almost 1.6 thousand million persons or about 46 per cent of the globe's population, and over 70 per cent of the population within the world capitalist system, lived in the developing countries, as compared with 639 million in the advanced capitalist countries (18.9 per cent of the population of the globe, and under 30 per cent of the population in the capitalist system).
A look at the distribution of the national income shows that in 1960 the developing countries received only 17 per cent of the overall national income in the capitalist world, _-_-_
^^1^^ V.~I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 201.
169 as compared with the 83 per cent which fell to the lot of the advanced capitalist countries. In the USA, national income per head came to $2,348, in India, to $75, in Brazil, to $161, in Nigeria, to $58, and in the Philippines, to $102. Of the 210 million inhabitants of Latin America, which is so rich in natural resources, 170 million, or two families of three, have to starve.Why is this so? At the end of the 18th century, Latin America had a much larger population than the USA, and a greater volume of output. By the early 1960s, national income per head in Latin America was 89.6 per cent lower than that of the USA. This has resulted from the fierce exploitation of the peoples of Latin America by US imperialism. In Latin America, there are over 2,000 branches and subsidiaries of US corporations. For decades, US capital has been receiving more than three dollars for every dollar invested in the Latin American economy. Since the war, the US imperialists received at least $50 thousand million in profits in Latin America.
Not only the peoples of Latin America, but of a number of other economically underdeveloped areas have been brought down to the poverty level by imperialist exploitation. According to UN data, almost a thousand million persons in these countries are starving, out of them 400 million are doomed to die, while the rest have to live in semistarvation. In the economically underdeveloped countries, the average life expectancy comes to no more than 35 years, while child mortality is ten times as high as it is in the advanced capitalist countries.
The fact that despite the great advances in science and technology, the capitalist system is incapable of providing elementary welfare for masses of the working people is the best evidence that the capitalist system is obsolete, unfit, and historically doomed.
The new phenomena in the development of modern capitalism, far from refuting, in fact provide brilliant confirmation for the scientific forecasts of Marx and Lenin.
The bourgeois advocates of imperialism, speculating on the development of the economic functions of the state or on the development of the share-holding form of property, insist that as a result of some ``capitalist revolution'' in the 20th century private property has allegedly ceased to exist. But in his Capital, Marx had pointed out that the nature 170 of the capitalist system is not changed either by the growth of state property under the capitalist system, or by the overspill of the property in the means of production outside the framework of joint-stock companies, when bourgeois governments ``perform the function of industrial = capitalists''.^^1^^
However, ignoring the truth of life, the ideological opponents of socialism keep saying that Marxism is ``outdated'', and that it is a 19th-century theory.
Let us ask this simple question: in the century since capitalism was analysed so brilliantly by Karl Marx in his Capital, has the system changed at all? Yes, it has. Premonopoly capitalism developed into monopoly capitalism and then into state-monopoly capitalism. But while observing the many new phenomena and specific features of modern capitalism, one must see that the substance of capitalism has not changed, and that many of the phenomena and tendencies which Marx and Lenin had anticipated in their day, are characteristic of the present stage of capitalism.
Marx did not fail to see the possibility of growing concentration and centralisation, or the separation of capital as property from capital as function, which is a tendency so characteristic of capitalist development in our day. In Capital, Marx said: ``Stock companies in general---developed with the credit system---have an increasing tendency to separate .. . work of management as a function from the ownership of = capital.''^^2^^ He also anticipated the extreme intensification of labour under the capitalist system, when ``the price of labour-power and the degree of its exploitation cease to be commensurable = quantities''.^^3^^
In the new historical conditions, Lenin gave a detailed analysis of imperialism, and monopoly and state-monopoly capitalism. His work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, laid the groundwork for fundamentally new conclusions which are of exceptional importance for the workingclass movement.
Lenin produced a coherent theory of imperialism, and substantiated his conclusion that at its imperialist stage capitalism enters a phase in which its economic and political contradictions are aggravated to the extreme, and that these _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, Capital, Moscow, 1967, Vol. 2, p. 100.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 387--88.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 527.
171 lead to the outbreak of imperialist wars, that capitalism has intensified the exploitation of the working people and national oppression, and has brought about a further aggravation of the contradictions between labour and capital. Lenin exposed Kautsky's theory of ``ultra-imperialism'', which held that imperialism allegedly led to organised world capitalism which eliminated all contradictions. Lenin showed that the growth of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism helped further to create the material prerequisites for the transition to socialism, and that imperialism marked the threshold of the socialist revolution.The victory of the Great October Revolution in Russia, and the subsequent formation of the world socialist community were a triumph for the ideas of Leninism.
The postwar period in the development of capitalism has been marked by a further deepening of all the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system. These growing objective contradictions, like the spread in depth and breadth of the revolutionary liberation movement, have served as fresh proof of the brilliant analysis of capitalism given by the founders of Marxism and later developed and enriched in a new historical epoch by Lenin.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 5. CLAIMS THATEvery attempt on the part of anti-communist theorists to refute Marxist-Leninist ideas betrays their fear and panic in face of the power of these ideas.
Bourgeois ideologists are terrified not only by the fact that Marxism-Leninism is insuperable as a scientific system of views, but also that it has great moral power. In 1951, Barbara Ward, one-time foreign editor of the London Economist, wrote that ``in communism moral weapons are as formidable as those of military = power''.^^1^^ In order to reduce the moral attractive power of communist ideas, bourgeois ideologists have produced another version, namely, that MarxismLeninism is ``inhuman'', that under socialism man is oppressed _-_-_
~^^1^^ B. Ward, ``The Moral Challenge of Communism'', The Atlantic, Vol. 188, 1951, No. 6, p. 37.
172 and deprived of freedom, and that Marxism-Leninism denies man's spiritual world. Because the Communists take the collectivist attitude, the anti-communists insist that Marxists are opponents of human individuality. There is much play with the problem of alienation, and a special effort is being made to prove that under socialism alienation of man continues, and then why have a socialist revolution? The ideologists of anti-communism also deny the fact that a new type of man emerges with the changing social conditions, and say that man's nature is immutable, so that communist intentions to produce a new man are sinful and Utopian. The West German reformist theorist W. Knoerringen says: ``The substance of man is the crucial contradiction that divides the two worlds. That is the field of battle on which a decision will be fought out concerning mankind's further = way.''^^1^^The polluted stream of demagogic prattle about ``the freedom of man'', the human personality, whose interests are allegedly jeopardised by communism and Marxism-- Leninism, have flooded the books and periodical markets in the capitalist West, while the radio and television resound with loud wails by the self-styled champions of human freedom.
Back in 1919, Lenin anticipated that capitalism would speculate on the slogan of freedom, that is precisely what has happened.
The stories about the socialist system suppressing the human individual and human liberty are being spread by bourgeois anti-communists in close collaboration with the reformists and the clericals. Haakon Lie, a leader of the Norwegian Right-wing socialists, told at a conference of the Socialist International that the only way to defeat the Communists was to explain that communism meant suppression of the rights of the free = individual.^^2^^ A philosophical dictionary issued in the FRG says: ``Dialectical and historical materialism are the theoretically untenable fundamentals of an inhuman system of = oppression.''^^3^^
What are the rights of the free individual the bourgeois _-_-_
~^^1^^ W. Knoerringen, ``Utopie und Wirklichkeit'', Die Neue Geselhchaft, 1961, No 3, S. 170.
~^^2^^ Haakon Lie, ``The Relations of the Socialist International and Its Member Parties with Other Political Forces'', Socialist International Information, Vol. VI, 1956, No. 11, p. 181.
^^3^^ Philosophisches Worterbuch, Freiburg, 1965, S. 56.
173 ideologists have in mind? A closer look shows that it is above all the claim that ``Soviet people have no freedom to dispose of a private sphere independent of = society''^^1^^, which means, no right in private property and consequently no right to exploit other men. But is it at all inhuman to have abolished this right? The way to deal with this matter is to ask this question: freedom for which class? Freedom in the interest of which class? The socialist system does not abolish this ``freedom'' and the ``right'' to private property in the means of production and man's exploitation of man in the interests of a small group of rich men, but it does it in the interests of millions of working people, that is, the overwhelming majority of society.Now and again, the Communists are accused that they do not allow the free spread of bourgeois propaganda in the socialist countries. Indeed, the Communists make no secret of the fact that they refuse to let bourgeois ideology spread in the USSR. But that does not mean that the socialist countries are opposed to any development of cultural ties with the Western world. On the contrary, the USSR has been most broadly developing its cultural and scientific ties with other countries. The USSR frequently holds various international scientific congresses and conferences and has an extensive programme of scientific and cultural exchange. National expositions by various countries are traditionally held in Moscow, the Soviet capital. Such expositions provide an opportunity for the broadest exchange of scientific and technical experience. All this is designed to strengthen mutual understanding among nations. That is why the attempts to use cultural ties to spread anti-communist propaganda or to ``soften up'' socialism are most resolutely rebuffed. The CPSU and the Soviet state have set themselves the noble task of fostering among Soviet people a high level of ideological awareness, a scientific outlook and moral principles. Why should they create favourable conditions for those who are opposed to these progressive aims? Why should they help those who spread ideas that drug and poison men's minds?
The lie about the ``oppressive'' essence of socialism and Marxism-Leninism is supplemented by the story that the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Das Parlament, 20.IX.1961, S. 552.
174 Communists deny the existence of man's spiritual = world.^^1^^ The theologists have turned into the official dogma the claim that ``Marxism has no idea of man's inner world, that man does not count, and that the individual is being sacrificed to pay the price for = materialism''.^^2^^Present-day bourgeois philosophers and sociologists have variously speculated on this claim that Marxism is limited. The personalists, for instance, insist that by bringing the human personality to the fore they overcome the `` limitations'' of Marxism. However, while paying lip service to the welfare of the human personality, they have in fact opposed the working people's fundamental interests, defended capitalism, condemned the class struggle, and put forward in contrast ``universal love'' and ``reconciliation'' between the exploited and the exploiters. The reactionary pseudohumanists' concern for the human personality is hypocritical because it fails to deal with the key conditions for true human happiness, and the real prerequisites for the flourishing of the human individual.
Talk of humanism in isolation of the struggle for the emancipation of the working people or---what is much worse---such talk coupled with denials of the struggle for emancipation adds up to the most inhuman fraud. Under capitalism the advocacy of abstract, sentimental love for all men inevitably (whether these preachers want to or not) turns into an apology of slavery and violence, and a call to humility and submission to the oppressors. That is why this advocacy is false and hypocritical. Maxim Gorky wrote: ``The humanism of the proletariat requires abiding hatred for philistinism, for the rule of the capitalists, their lackeys, parasites, fascists, executionists and traitors to the working class---hatred for everything that makes hundreds of millions of men suffer, for all those who live on their = suffering.''^^3^^ But this abiding hatred is deeply based on love, fiery love for the real architects of life, for the toiling sections of mankind, for the interests of social progress.
Marxists oppose those who want to substitute an emancipation of the working people's ``spirit'' for their real emancipation. The advocacy of the emancipation of the spirit and _-_-_
~^^1^^ E. Baas, L'humanisme marxiste, Paris, 1948, p. 67.
~^^2^^ A. Etcheverry, Le conflit actuel des humanismes, Paris, 1955, p. 177.
~^^3^^ Maxim Gorky, On Literature, Moscow, 1955, p. 839 (in Russian).
175 calls for the flourishing of the individual as amounting to no more than the flourishing of man's spiritual qualities amount to another fraud because the all-round development of the individual, including his spiritual qualities, requires real conditions creating practical possibility for satisfying his material and cultural requirements. The oppression of capital deprives the working man of such conditions. That is why the interests of the individual are closely bound up with the struggle for communism. Marxism condemns the view of the individual in terms of idealistic philosophy, which tends to separate the individual from the concrete historical conditions in which he lives, and insists on dealing with the individual ``in general'' as a ``free and autonomous will'', as ``self-consciousness'' and as ``spirit''. The Marxists see life for what it is and realise that the overwhelming majority of men under the capitalist system are deprived of the real possibility of satisfying the material and cultural requirements and of developing their endowments. They are subjected to various forms of economic, political, national and spiritual oppression.Viewed in terms of actual reality, the interests of the individual today necessarily suggest the conclusion that if he is to develop and flourish to the full there is need above all for freedom from exploitation and national oppression, and lasting peace. In fact, the Communists have been working to create such conditions for men.
The touchstone of humanism is one's attitude to capitalism, to social and national oppression, and to the struggle of the nations for peace.
Marxists have never denied the existence of man's inner world, but they have insisted that all the aspects of this world should be considered from the standpoint of reality: they have worked to create for working men human conditions in the material life; they have shown which concrete social changes in which concrete conditions help to bring about the individual's genuine emancipation and his full development.
Indeed, what is the concrete expression of the flourishing of the individual and of man's spiritual world? It is creative endeavour, the possession of knowledge, the all-round development of man's endowments in the opportunities to enjoy works of art, in high moral qualities, and in a sense of fraternal equality with other men. Does capitalism give man 176 all this? No, it does not. Based on private property in the means of production, making use of all the achievements of thought and culture, it is incapable of giving its citizens equal opportunities for development. Gradually, step by step, this is being done by socialist society, which creates, as it advances, ever more favourable conditions for the maximum satisfaction of man's requirements, for bringing out the rich potentialities latent in each individual. Communist society is built to ensure full welfare and free all-round development for every member of society.
Anti-communist ideologists like to scare the working people of the capitalist countries by circulating another invention to the effect that the Communists, advocates of collectivism, refuse to reckon with man and refuse to recognise his human individuality. Actually, however, concern for human individuality has nothing in common with individualism.
The advocates of individualistic views separate man from society, from his class, from the collective of working people, and confine him to isolation. Real conditions for the development of each man's personality are to be found not in separation from the others, but in joint, collective struggle by the working people against every kind of oppression of man.
The anti-communist slanderers who insist that socialist society---the ``collectivist system''---refuses to respect the personality of each individual were given a fitting rebuff at a conference on the critique of anti-communism in Berlin (GDR) by Hans Steussloff, of the Karl Marx University of Leipzig. He said: ``The groundlessness and falsehood of such statements have been fully shown up by the emulation and the broad popular discussion during the preparation for the 7th Congress of the SUPG. Thousands of men and women in our republic spoke quite freely and consciously, with a sense of personal dignity, to express new ideas, display initiative and the spirit of innovation-----When the theorists of anti-communism level charges against so-called collectivism, behind this lurks nothing more than a classlimited, bourgeois individualistic sense of bitterness over the fact that we have eliminated the inhuman rule of private property in the means of production. The all-round development of each personality---something the humanists have always demanded---is possible only with the abolition of private property, when it is no longer proprietary status
__PRINTERS_P_177_COMMENT__ 12--1245 177 but the personal human qualities of each individual, and his contribution to the cause of progress of all society that are the only means acceptable to all for man's 'assertion'....``In the GDR there have emerged free men, who are sure of themselves, who have a pronounced sense of dignity, who display their individuality in every way, and who work for the common welfare of all men with a sense of full responsibility. These men have the capacity constantly to improve the socialist system, which befits human dignity, and on the basis of their creative labour to build their own future. A genuine humaneness has become part and parcel of these men's lives....
``Humanistic ideas and feelings have been deeply and firmly established in our socialist life. They reflect the historic feat of emancipation carried out by our people under the leadership of the SUPG over the past 20 years....
``While being socialist humanists we remain realists and adhere to the facts. Without relentless struggle against imperialism, the especially aggressive West German imperialism in the first place, humaneness would remain an impotent ideal, and humanism would amount to no more than empty talk. That is why our love for man goes hand in hand with a sense of just hatred for the inhumanity of imperialism, with our readiness tirelessly to defend and in every way to strengthen the humanistic community of men, which is the highest good we have.
``Socialist humanism is militant humanism. So long as social classes and class contradictions remain in the world, humaneness can be translated into life and can triumph over inhumanity only as a result of class = struggle.''^^1^^
In their fight against socialism, bourgeois ideologists have insisted that ``man cannot be remoulded'', that human nature abounds in ineradicable ills and evils, and that the effort to set up a just, communist system is doomed to fail.
US bourgeois ideologists have been saying, for instance, that while the Soviet Union may catch up with the United States economically in a relatively short time, no new man will emerge, no harmony will be established between man and society, no communist attitude to labour will be developed, in short, that the transition to communism will remain _-_-_
~^^1^^ Against the Ideology of Modern Anti-Communism, pp. 368--70 (in Russian).
i>*-f4,:»;V -
178 a = utopia.^^1^^ This conclusion springs from the unhistorical and metaphysical character of the bourgeois science of man. It regards human nature as static and unchanging; to this view religious thinkers also add the medieval doctrine of ``the original sin'', which holds that man is organically evil. Thus, the anti-communist ``Sovietologist'' A. Kiinzli, in his book, The Alienated Paradise. Communism on the Way to Reality, spreads the idea of an abstract man with egoism and the acquisitive urge as part of his make-up. He says that these are ``innate, immanent and independent of the external environment''.^^2^^Marxism-Leninism counters this anti-humanistic and deeply pessimistic doctrine with its scientific view of man and his relations with society. Man changes together with the changing social relations. Marx said: ``All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human = nature.''^^3^^ Revolutionary practice, Marx says in his third thesis on Feuerbach, leads to a change of circumstances and of men themselves. Of course, this is a difficult, complex and drawn up process. Lenin also said that men could not be remoulded right away, and that of tremendous importance in this process were their own experience, the change in the material condition of their existence, and the main thing, extensive and purposeful educational work carried out by the Communist Party and under the leadership of the Communist Party. In this matter as well, Lenin said, there would arise a great many practical difficulties, but the Communists would win out in this endeavour as well by involving in the work of communist education hundreds of thousands of = able men.^^4^^
Bourgeois and socialist ideologies take a different approach to man's role in society and his ideals. In bourgeois society, man's attention is switched from production to consumption, and work is considered an inevitable necessity, but not for all members of society. The rich elite, who lead a parasitic existence, are set up as an ideal within the reach of anyone who manages to find his line of ``business''.
There is no place for creative labour, and no effort is made _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Hulicka and I. Hulicka, Op. tit., p. 600.
~^^2^^ A. Kiinzli, Das entfremdete Parodies. Der Kommunismus auf dem Weg zur Wirklichkeit, Wien, 1963, S. 10.
~^^3^^ K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, Moscow, 1959, p. 147.
~^^4^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 370.
__PRINTERS_P_179_COMMENT__ 12* 179 to show its social value not only as a means of producing material goods, but also for developing the individual's diverse capacities, including his spiritual qualities.The individual can truly develop only under a social system where the labour of each becomes not only a means of subsistence, but also a most important common endeavour, and where a man is transformed into a public figure. Man's work and the socio-political sphere of his activity are brought closer together and interwoven. Of course, under socialism material incentives have not been abolished, and remuneration for labour is duly regulated in accordance with its value for society, but more and more the urge to bring maximum benefits for all and not only for oneself, the urge to make the fullest use and development of one's capacities and endowments is being brought to the fore. This is paralleled by totally new criteria in evaluating man himself. It is not riches, not idleness, not station in life or rank that are the source of authority, but features of their moral makeup like honesty, industriousness, ideological awareness, similar standards to oneself and to others, and concern for the interests of the country and the whole socialist cause.
Bourgeois ideologists, speculating on the problem of man, have concentrated attention in their struggle against Marxism-Leninism over the theory of alienation, and have tried to falsify the problem along these main lines.
First, an effort is made to contrast the young Marx, who dealt with the problem of alienation, with the mature Marx, who had allegedly ceased to take an interest in various questions of humanism, and had abandoned his earlier ideas.
Second, in their efforts to prove that man's condition under socialism is not fundamentally different, bourgeois theorists seek in every way to ``substantiate'' the existence of alienation under socialism, and now and again accuse Marx of having taken a much too ``narrow'' view of alienation.
Let us consider this problem in detail.
The consideration of the problem of alienation by the young Marx was the start of his economic and philosophical substantiation of communism. When analysing alienation, the young Marx began his analysis of capitalist relations of production. He proceeded from the proposition that private property and alienation were inextricably connected 180 with each other, which is why a study of the problems of alienation by the young Marx, and of the theories of surplus value by the mature Marx are in no sense mutually exclusive or contradictory attitude, but a natural evolution of Marx's views. In his earlier writings, Marx already discerned the roots of alienation as lying in the class relations between men, and it is these that led him to the unravelling of the secrets of surplus value; he did not analyse alienation ``in general'', but the realities of capitalism.
In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, the young Marx considered, as he himself wrote, ``an actual politico-economic fact''. He remarked that the ``object which labour produces---labour's product---confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the = producer''.^^1^^ In analysing this phenomenon, which is inherent in capitalist society, there arises the concept of ``alienation'', which appears as a ``loss of the object and = object-bondage''.^^2^^
Consequently, Marx saw the alienation of the product of labour not only as the capitalist's appropriation of the results of the worker's labour, but also as a derivative form of social relations which arises on the basis of capitalist relations of production and the existence of the private capitalist form of property, so that the relations produced by alienated labour are private-property relations. Marx wrote about this very definitely, characterising private property as ``a product, a result, a necessary consequence of = alienated labour''.^^3^^ Marx gives a more clear-cut definition of this interconnection between alienation and private property when he says: ``Only at the very culmination of the development of private property does this, its secret, re-emerge, namely, that on the one hand it is the product of alienated labour, and that secondly it is the means by which labour alienates itself, the realisation of this alienation.''^^4^^ He goes on: ``This material, immediately sensuous private property is the material sensuous expression of estranged human = life.''^^5^^ From this follows Marx's clear-cut conclusion: ``The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Moscow, 1959, p. 63.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 69.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 80.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 81.
~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 102.
181 human life is, therefore, the positive transcendence of all estrangement.''^^1^^Bourgeois ideologists start by distorting the concept of alienation and then go on to produce a myth about the ``two Marxs'', The theoretical basis for this first anti-communist version which falsifies the problem of alienation is the anthropological view of the theory of alienation and the Hegelian interpretation of Marxist dialectics. This line is most clearly expressed in the writings of a Joint Commission for Marxism of the Evangelical Academies of the FRG, which stages various conferences and seminars on Marxism, and which has published various ``Essays on the Study of Marxism'' (Volume One appeared in 1954, Volume Two in 1957, and Volume Three in = 1960).^^2^^
On the pages of this publication Erich Thier converts Marx into an ordinary anthropologist, and says, falsifying the works of Karl Marx, that these should be seen in a theological light. Erwin Metzke, who has a contribution to Volume Two, says that the causes of alienation are not objective but subjective, so that it is not possible to take an objective scientific view of the real causes of alienation, or to find scientific ways of eliminating alienation.
Marx is presented as an anthropological subjectivist and a philosopher who saw alienation as a part of man's natural make-up. If that is so, alienation can never be done away with however radical the social changes. This view of alienation is objectively aimed against the socialist system.
But this idea has yet another aim, and it is to back up a false conclusion that the mature Marx had ceased to be a humanist.
Like the Evangelical ideologists, Catholic ideologists (Jean-Ives Calvez, Henri Chambre, Jacob Hommes) have also most actively speculated on the theory of alienation.
Jesuit philosophers have produced the following dilemma: either dialectics fails to change itself in the course of history, which means that ``alienation'' is organically inherent in human society, including the communist formation, or communism marks the ``end of alienation'' which means an end _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 103.
~^^2^^ Dieter Bergner und Jahn Wolfgang, Der Kreuzzug der evangelischen Akademien gegen den Marxismus, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1960, S. 12, 13, 20.
182 to dialectics, and also that Marx's dialectical conception is not at all universal. The Jesuit Professor H. Chambre writes: ``To the extent to which it is assumed that there are no longer any antagonistic contradictions or exploited workers in the USSR, the motive forces of historical development disappear, in accordance with the doctrine of Karl Marx.... The death of dialectics appears on the horizon of the Soviet Union's historical = development.''^^1^^ However, antagonism and contradiction are not the same thing. The former disappears whereas the latter remains even under socialism. A most important feature of non-antagonistic contradictions under socialism is that they are resolved by peaceful means, and that no political revolutions are required for their resolution. Marx anticipated this Law when he said: ``It is only in an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms that social evolutions will cease to be = political revolutions.''^^2^^But even when class antagonisms have been eliminated development continues to proceed through the unravelling and overcoming of contradictions. Even under socialism, the productive forces run ahead of the relations of production in their development. But these contradictions are resolved in a different way as compared with a resolution in antagonistic socio-economic formations. The contradictions of socialism are resolved within the framework of existing economic relations through the improvement of the latter. The modes of resolution of these contradictions depend on the character and specific features of the socialist system. Of the utmost importance in this matter are the growing role of the masses in social development and their Marxist-Leninist consciousness; the scientific guidance of society, which is evident in the leading role of the Party in socialist construction; criticism and self-criticism; and improvement of the economic and organisational functions of the socialist state.
Another unscientific view of the problem of alienation in Marxism is also used in an effort to back up the anticommunist assertions that under socialism man is enslaved.
Marx's great discovery of the mechanism of surplus value, and the causes, substance and forms of alienation under capitalism tore the veil of respectability off the private _-_-_
~^^1^^ H. Chambre, Le tnarxisme en Union Sovietique, pp. 444, 470.
~^^2^^ K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 174.
183 property, the very basis of the exploiting society. Under present-day capitalism it is becoming ever more obvious that man's alienation springs from no other source than the private-property relations. No wonder bourgeois ideologists have felt the need to argue that socialism makes no real difference to man's lot.In an effort to present a coherent theory of alienation, the well-known American anti-Marxist, Daniel Bell, has reproached Marx for allegedly tying in, without good reason, alienation and private property under capitalism, together with an oversimplified class analysis and a narrow conception of exploitation. Bell himself says that there is a better way of studying and elaborating this problem, namely, from Hegel's abstract idealism to the views of present-day German sociologists (among them G. Simmel who sees the source of alienation as lying in industrial society), from Kierkegaard, who relied on Hegel to universalise alienation, to Mannheim, and Weber, who merged the idea of alienation with that of bureaucratisation. Bell says that the two had gone beyond Marx.
Bell brings out Weber's following ``conclusion'' which anticommunists so cherish: ``The drift of all society was towards the creation of large-scale organisation, hierarchically organised and centrally directed, in which the individual counted for naught-----Capitalism and socialism were simply two different faces of the same, inexorable trend.'' Having laid this ``scientific'' foundation for the theory of alienation, Bell hastens to draw a practical conclusion which is important for the anti-communists. He says that ``the workers in the communist countries are even more exploited than those in Western = lands''.^^1^^
The idea that under socialism man is alienated is used to heap slander on socialism. S. Hook asserts that ``it is a conception of man which ... serves as a remarkable weapon in communist countries in the struggle of independent spirits---philosophers, writers, artists, scholars---to liberalise their regimes-----In the presence of the multiple coercions of a closed communist society, the phenomena of human alienation are = omnipresent''.^^2^^
Present-day bourgeois philosophers have also tried to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Political Thought since World War 11, pp. 153, 155.
~^^2^^ Problems of Communism, July-August 1966, p. 27.
184 justify the need for ``supplementing'' Marxism with a theory of the human personality.Such tendencies are highly contradictory. On the one hand, they now and again testify to growing interest in Marxism and disappointment with the capitalist system among bourgeois intellectuals, and on the other, whenever any variant of ``supplementing'' Marxism is brought up, it is invariably no more than an attempt to ``synthesise'' a falsified Marxism with various schools of idealistic philosophy. Thus, the US philosopher Erich Fromm criticises capitalism for its failure to solve the problem of man, but believes that it is necessary to ``supplement'' Marxism with a refurbished variant of Freudism.
To achieve this symbiosis, Fromm tries to put a psychological gloss on Marx's doctrine. He obliterates the distinction between the concept of the socially unconscious and objective social laws, and ascribes to Marx an abstract analysis of the problem of alienation. Fromm, like many other bourgeois philosophers, seeks to emphasise the ``one-sidedness'' of Marxism. This is being done in two ways: first, an attempt to prove that Marxism confines its dialectical-materialist conception of development to the socio-economic sphere, without extending it to the other spheres of being and consciousness; and second, by insisting that in the new conditions of the socialist system the Marxists-Leninists have allegedly failed, both in theory and in practice, to give any attention to the problem of man.
I said above that Marxism alone discovered the objective laws of social development, gave the scientific substantiation of the importance of the subjective factor in history, understood the position and role of the individual in the transformation of the world, and showed the way to his real---- and not imaginary---emancipation from every type of oppression (economic, political, national and ideological), the way to his real---and not imaginary---flourishing and moral perfection.
Consequently, the inexhaustible wealth of Marxist-Leninist philosophy includes the scientific theory of the human personality. However, Marxism-Leninism does not regard it as a biological species or a blind tool of mysterious divine forces, and does not take an irrational view of the individual outside the context of social being and absolutised consciousness, not as an abstract being ``in general'', but as a 185 historically concrete and practically active person. The Marxist theory of the human personality provides the scientific basis for social human practice, something no other philosophical theory does. That is why Marxism has nothing to do with fatalism. In his polemics with Bruno Bauer, Engels wrote: ``~`History' is not a person apart, using man as a means for its own particular aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his = aims.''^^1^^
While Marxism never ignores man's role in social development, its attitude to this problem cannot be reduced to a mechanistic conception of human society as a conglomerate of individuals. Any analysis of society as a specific social whole with its own laws of motion, historically concrete interrelationships and contradictions, implies the view of every human personality as a historically concrete individual determined by his social status, and acting in definite conditions and at a definite stage of social development.
The Marxist theory of a human personality is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie precisely because it is organically and indissolubly connected with the scientific theory of class struggle and clashes with the most vital social interests of the bourgeoisie and its individualistic psychology. The class struggle and revolution, and construction of socialism and communism alone provide the practical solution to the problem of real humanism, namely, the further development and all-round flourishing of the human personality.
The Marxist theory of the human personality, like the other spheres of Marxist-Leninist philosophical thinking, are in no sense cut-and-dried or immutable. It has been developing and will continue to develop, as Marxism has developed, on the basis of generalisation and scientific knowledge of human practice, on the basis of the historical experience of socialist society, in which relations between men acquire a new character, that of socialist humanism. The development and perfection of the human personality and of truly human relations under socialism is the best evidence that the Marxist theory of man is right.
Marxism-Leninism is the most humanistic doctrine in the world because under its great banner the working man is rising to his full stature, throwing off class and national oppression. Woman has become man's equal, and once _-_-_
^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, The Holy Family, Moscow, 1956, p. 125.
186 backward nationalities are overtaking and surpassing the leading countries.Maxim Gorky, the great humanist of our epoch, wrote: ``The humanism of the revolutionary proletariat is straightforward. It does not utter any loud or sweet words about love for men. Its purpose is to liberate the proletariat of the whole world from the ignominious, sanguinary, insane oppression of the capitalists, to teach men to stop considering themselves to be commodities which are bought and sold, raw materials for the fabrication of gold and the luxuries of the philistines.''^^1^^
Such is our humanism, the humanism of Marx and Lenin, the humanism of the peoples of the socialist countries and of all those who struggle for social emancipation and national liberation, for a truly human life. The bourgeois slanderers will never succeed in denigrating the great moral power of this true humanism.
__*_*_*__Bourgeois falsification of Marxism-Leninism is becoming ever more refined and hypocritical.
There is an especially marked effort to detach Leninism from Marxism, and having twisted Marx's theoretical legacy, to present this distorted ``Marxism'' as a basis for ``discarding ideological distinctions'' or for a subsequent drawing closer together with those who revise the Marxist-Leninist theory and claim to have connections with the communist movement.
This tendency is well illustrated by a symposium on the subject ``Marx and the Western World'' held at the Catholic University of Notre Dame in the USA, with the participation of American and West European anti-communists, and also of some present-day revisionists (Gaio Petrovic and Karel Kosik among others).
Speakers at the symposium stressed the ``deep gap between Engels's or Lenin's allegedly scientific ideology and Marx's early = `humanism'~''.^^2^^ On the strength of this gross falsification, the anti-communist organisers of the symposium urged a denial of the view that Marx is a foreign body in the history of Western culture, asserting that there are ``non-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ Maxim Gorky, On Literature, Moscow, 1955, p. 838 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Marx and the Western World, p. X.
187 communist Marx scholars working in the world''. Alfred G. Meyer, the notorious anti-communist, declared: ``We are all Marxists.... We all are critics of alienation, at least in a vague sense. We need not be critics of economic expoitation or political = domination....''^^1^^And so, there is Marxism, but without the mission of the working class in world history, without proletarian revolution; there is ``reconciliation'' of Marx's sociology with Western = sociology^^2^^; there is ``systematic exclusion of every connection between the notion held by Marx and modern socalled socialist regimes''; there is a ``development not of class consciousness, but consciousness as such''; there is a ``transition from capitalism to socialism, at first as a quantitative change''; and there is a ``point on which Marx is closer to = Nietzsche''.^^3^^ These and various other novelties of antiMarxism once again show the complete ideological poverty of present-day bourgeois thinking, its lying, falsifying and Jesuitical character, and the unprecedented depth to which bourgeois ideologists and their revisionist yes-men have fallen.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Marx and the Western World, p. 99.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 102.
~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 218, 413, 417, 421.
[188] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter Five __ALPHA_LVL1__ IDEOLOGICAL DEFENCE OF CAPITALISM __ALPHA_LVL2__ [introduction.]The reverse side of anti-communism is ideological defence of capitalism, an aggregation of ways and means used by bourgeois social science and propaganda designed to vindicate capitalism.
These are theories, views and conceptions which seek to embellish capitalism, to camouflage it, to deny its antipopular, reactionary essence, and consequently to tramp fetters on the class consciousness of the working people, and to slow down the struggle for social progress, for socialism.
Lenin repeatedly drew attention to the activity of the bourgeoisie in its efforts to corrupt the masses by means of reactionary slogans. He wrote that under bourgeois democracy ``the capitalists must seek support among the masses . .. they strive to get the masses to defend = capitalism''.^^1^^ He said that the bourgeoisie was unable to do without the masses, but that ``it is impossible to gain the following of the masses without a widely ramified, systematically managed, well-equipped system of flattery, lies, fraud, juggling with fashionable and popular catchwords, and promising all manner of reforms and blessings to the workers right and left---as long as they renounce the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the = bourgeoisie''.^^2^^
This activity in seeking to inject ideological poison into the minds of the working people has become of especial importance today, when deep-going internal contradictions, undermining capitalism itself, above all the contradiction between labour and capital, have assumed unprecedentedly sharp forms.
The present-day ideological defence of capitalism is closely bound up with the overall line in bourgeois domestic policy under the scientific and technical revolution. The bourgeoisie has been seeking to make use of the tendency towards balanced development, which is inherent in modern production, in an effort to keep in check the elemental forces of the market in the interests of the monopolies, has resorted to the use of new means in trying to maintain its _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 36, p. 244.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 117.
189 influence on the masses. The growing exploitation of the working people has gone hand in hand with the use of ever more refined and diverse means of camouflage.The Main Document of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties says: ``Everywhere the monopoly bourgeoisie tries to create the illusion that everything the working people aspire to can be achieved without a revolutionary transformation of the existing system. To conceal its exploiting and aggressive nature, capitalism resorts to theoretical whitewash (`people's capitalism', the `welfare state', the `affluent society', etc.). The revolutionary working-class movement exposes these concepts and wages a determined struggle against = them.''^^1^^
The ``ideological myths'', forms of ideological mimicry--- the adaptation of the ideologists of capitalism to the new conditions, and their efforts to cover up the actual apology of capitalism by means of an ostensible ``transformation''--- are highly diverse. There have been a great many in the past, and more are sure to appear in the future, as a reflection of actual processes going forward today within the capitalist mode of production, within the capitalist system itself, a reflection which is distorted by bourgeois class interests. That is why any critique of these ideological myths can be successful only if it rests on the basis of an actual knowledge of the specific features of present-day capitalism.
The facts, let us note, show that, despite the old and new methods of defending the capitalist system, the policy of imperialism has merely resulted in a growth of social antagonism, of economic difficulties facing the leading capitalist powers, in a chronic monetary and financial crisis, in unemployment and an aggravation of inter-imperialist contradictions.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. BOURGEOIS DEFENCEEvery new hypocritical form of bourgeois defence of capitalism reflects definite socio-economic shifts within the capitalist economy. By speculating on this or that real phenomenon of modern bourgeois society, bourgeois ideologists try to present some individual and partial changes in _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 20.
190 capitalism (which do nothing to change its nature and essence as a whole) as fundamental changes, working a radical transformation in the whole of the capitalist system in such a way that capitalism itself allegedly ceases, or is capable of ceasing, to be an exploiting system.Those who spread various stories about ``people's capitalism'', about the ``welfare state'' or the ``affluent society'' have put forward the idea that capitalist property is being ``democratised'' in view of the growing number of shareholders. This is one of the most popular methods in the ideological defence of capitalism.
Bourgeois economists who belong to this trend assert that in the capitalist countries of the West there has been a fundamental ``transformation'' in the nature of property, a ``diffusion'' of the ownership of capital through a spread of shareholding among the population.
Adolf Berle, an American economist, says, this process is the ``capitalist revolution of the 20th = century''.^^1^^ In his book, The American Economic Republic (1963), he draws the conclusion that capitalism in the USA has disappeared because it is a system only of individual private property. The Italian economist M. Salvadori says that the `` diffusion'' of property in the USA has expanded the capitalist class to a majority of the population. He draws the conclusion that in the USA the capitalist economy has been democratised and transformed into a partial people's capitalism, at any = rate.^^2^^
Indeed, the bourgeoisie has been trying hard to spread small-denomination shares among the working people. This facilitates its propaganda that the interests of the capitalists and wage workers are identical, and---the main thing--- helps to concentrate the main holdings in the hands of the monopolies.
Back in 1913, Lenin wrote: ``The professors who defend capitalism chatter about the increase in the number of property-owners when they see a growth in the number of small shareholders. What actually happens is that the power (and the income) of the millionaire magnates over _-_-_
~^^1^^ Adolf Berle, The Twentieth-Century Capitalist Revolution, London, 1955.
~^^2^^ M. Salvadori, The Economics of Freedom. American Capitalism Today, London, 1959, pp. 65, 66.
191 the capital of the `small fry' is increased.'' Following legislation for publication of company reports ``the swindling has merely taken new forms and become more subtle than before. Big capital, gathering around itself small sums of shareholders' capital from all over the world, has become more powerful = still.''^^1^^In present-day conditions, the development of jointstock companies provides even stronger evidence of the centralisation of capital, and of even greater domination of the whole economy by monopoly capital. Despite the growth in a number of individual shareholders in the USA, from 6.5 million in 1952 to 20.1 million in 1965, shareholders in that year, according to official data, made up only 10 per cent of the country's population, while one per cent of the population held 76 per cent of all the stock.
There are many facts to show that the diffusion of shareholding steadily results in ever greater concentration of capital and the growth of the power of financial oligarchy. The bourgeois economist, Robert Lampman, says that in the USA the bourgeois elite, making up one per cent of the country's adult population held 62 per cent of all stock in 1922 and 76 per cent in 1953. J. M. Budish says that at the end of the 1950s, only 0.2 per cent of the unskilled workers, 1.4 per cent of the semi-skilled workers, and 4.4 per cent of the skilled workers and foremen owned any stock at all.
In Britain, in 1954, the top one per cent of the population held 81 per cent of all stock, and 10 per cent of the population---98 per cent.
In Japan, 96 per cent of shareholders owned 35 per cent of the stock, and 0.2 per cent---48 per cent.
However wide the shares of a corporation are spread among small shareholders, the control remains entirely in the hands of the monopolies. Thus, in Britain, the large F. W. Woolworth company has 93,000 equity shareholders, but the 20 largest holders account for 66.3 per cent of the voting shares.
The bourgeois myth that ``the capital in corporations is being collectivised'' so that the ``waning factor is the capital- ist''^^2^^ while ``property, in its ultimate sense, has been _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 203.
~^^2^^ Adolf Berle, The Twentieth-Century Capitalist Revolution, London, 1955, pp. 13, 27.
192 diffused'',^^1^^ is blasted by reality, which confirms what Lenin said about the development of joint-stock companies leading to increasing domination of the economy by monopoly capital.The ideological advocates of capitalism have also tried hard to vindicate the corporations. Behind the theory of ``corporate revolution'', the bourgeois ideologists seek to conceal the existence of a financial oligarchy of monopoly capital, supplanting it with a mythical presentation of a faceless corporation, which is in the nature of ``a public institution''.
This version of ``transformation'' of capitalism has been advanced by the US economist Gardiner C. Means, who says that a ``collective capitalism'' has been established in the = USA.^^2^^ The basis for this conclusion, he believes, is to be a substitution of associated capitalists for the individual capitalist, that is, collective enterprises, merging the exploiters and the exploited in a single ``collective'' and supplanting the powerful corporations. Means is not an advocate of the theory of ``democratisation of capital'' because there property is much too obviously separated from control. Means gives a reflection of the incontestable fact that the economic life of the USA is dominated by the major corporations, and like a number of other bourgeois ideologists, takes another approach. He denies the class, monopoly character of corporations and says that a new social system, which he called ``corporate'' or ``collective'' capitalism, has supplanted the old capitalism. He writes: ``We now have single corporate enterprises employing hundreds of thousands of workers, having hundreds of thousands of stockholders, using billions of dollars' worth of the instruments of production, serving millions of customers, and controlled by a single management group. These are great collectives of enterprise, and a system composed of them, or dominated by them might well be called `collective = capitalism'.''^^3^^ Means confuses the question about the character of labour and the question of who owns and makes use of the means of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Adolf Berle, Power Without Property. A New Development in American Political Economy, New York, 1959, p. 54.
~^^2^^ See Gardiner C. Means, The Corporate Revolution in America. Economic Reality vs. Economic Theory, New York, 1962.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 51.
__PRINTERS_P_194_COMMENT__ 13---1245 193 production at these enterprises, where large collectives are indeed employed.As Means presents it, real control over the property of the financial and industrial oligarchy loses its class character and becomes no more than a ``management group''. His conception is very close to the ``managerial revolution'', another highly popular bourgeois theory in defence of capitalism.
Means also tries to combine the apology of the corporations and a proposal for Utopian reforms. Thus, he has proposed that the major industrial corporations with assets of $100 million and over should be legislatively set apart in a special category of ``collective enterprises'', with a statutory maximum rate of earnings of eight per cent. He says that such a reform would lead ``toward reorienting the corporate action of big business so as to bring it closer to the public interests... . The freedom of enterprise would be retained but canalised to serve the public = interest.''^^1^^
The Soviet economist E. Y. Bregel says Means's proposals are ``a typical example of bourgeois reformism, similar to the ideas of reform which Lenin had criticised in his lifetime. Means's project has not a leg to stand on. It is absurd to assume that a modern bourgeois state, which stands on guard of the interests of the monopoly bourgeoisie, would agree to issue such a law, under which the profits of the major corporations would be limited.... This is a typical bourgeois utopia, which, to put it in Lenin's words, seeks to distract attention from the most important and essential thing ... from the domination of the monopolies over the entire American economy, by means of 'reform' projects which are not to be taken seriously at = all.''^^2^^
Applying Lenin's methodology of the differentiated approach to bourgeois theories, specifically, making a distinction between the two approaches to imperialism---the bourgeois-apologetic and the bourgeois-critical, Bregel subdivides modern bourgeois theories of corporations into two groups: avowed apologists of the monopolies (David E. Lilienthal and others), and advocates of ``reasonable and ethical competition'' (T. K. Quinn and others).
_-_-_~^^1^^ Gardiner C. Means, Pricing Power and the Public Interest. A Study Based on Steel, New York, 1962, pp. 297, 321.
~^^2^^ E. Y. Bregel, V. I. Lenin's Struggle Against Anti-Marxist Economic Theories and Our Own Day, Moscow, 1969, p. 41 (in Russian).
194Lilienthal writes: ``My conviction about Big Business, as expressed throughout this book, is that it represents a proud and fruitful achievement of the American people as a whole; that in Big Business we have more than an efficient way to produce and distribute basic commodities, and to strengthen the nation's security; we have a social institution that promotes human freedom and = individualism.''^^1^^
Quinn, by contrast, comes out against the ``monster corporations'', and writes: ``Even if it were true---which it is not---that giant corporations must be so big to be efficient, they stand convicted of the crime of collectivism, against new ventures, against equality of opportunity-----They are cancer growths on the free = market.''^^2^^ He urges the return to the reasonable and ethical competition, and adds: ``We must have a degree of governmental participation and regulation without complete governmental control, competition without excessive, destructive competition, freedom without the license to use it regardless, big business units without monster business = units''.^^3^^
These statements inevitably put one in mind of what Lenin said about the bourgeois ideologists who would like to see ``an `honest', moderate and genteel capitalism'', those ``who want to go `back' to small capitalism (and not = towards socialism)''.^^4^^
The Utopian ``criticism'' of capitalism, which ignores the objective laws of its development, and sees it in the light of the past, instead of the future, which idealises capitalism of the free-competition era, and puts forward Utopian projects for a return to that day, this ``criticism'' of capitalism, however critical it may be, in fact covers up the real processes in the present-day development of imperialism and is a peculiar form of defence of capitalism.
Another myth that has gone the rounds is that of the ``managerial revolution'', first spread by the US reactionary sociologist James Burnham, who said that a managerial society was supplanting the capitalist system so that the Western capitalist countries were in a state of transition _-_-_
~^^1^^ David E. Lilienthal, Big Business: A New Era, New York, 1953, p. IX.
~^^2^^ T. K. Quinn, Giant Business: Threat to Democracy. The Autobiography of an Insider, New York, 1953, p. 289.
~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 291, 310.
~^^4^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 39, pp. 117, 93.
__PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195 from capitalist society to the ``managerial = society''.^^1^^ Fortune, mouthpiece of US monopolies, actively supported the theory and said that power in the capitalist countries had shifted from the capitalists to the managers. This idea of a `` managerial revolution'' had been put forward, before Burnham, by American followers of Keynes, notably Berle and later J. K. Galbraith. The idea of ``managerial revolution'' became a characteristic feature of the ``people's capitalism'' theory, which is that since the functions of management in the capitalist countries have now been transferred to the managers and the executives, these allegedly cut loose from the capitalists and become the social basis of a new system. Galbraith says: ``But most important, the professional manager or executive has taken away from the man of wealth the = power.''^^2^^ He believes this to be the main social achievement of society.Although Burnham and Galbraith speak of a ``managerial revolution'' they take a different view of its results. The ideologist of neo-conservatism, Burnham, says it has led to the establishment of a peculiar version of American technocratic fascism, whereas Galbraith and other liberals believe it is ``transforming capitalism'' along ``liberal'' lines.
This theory naturally reflects definite processes taking place in reality. Indeed, in the present-day capitalist world there is a growing tendency for the financial oligarchy to be separated from immediate management of enterprises.
Lenin wrote: ``It is characteristic of capitalism in general that the ownership of capital is separated from the application of capital to production. .. . Imperialism, or the domination of finance capital, is that highest stage of capitalism in which this separation reaches vast = proportions.''^^3^^ The objective process of the development of the productive forces stimulates the separation of capital as function from capital as property.
However, the senior executives and managers, who exercise the functions of management and supervision over the enterprises, do what they are told by their owners. _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. Burnham, Managerial Revolution, New York, 1941.
~^^2^^ John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society, Cambridge (Mass.)-Boston, 1958, p. _..
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 203.
196 Besides, in terms of earnings, these executives are very close to the financial oligarchy, which shares its profits with them, the profits it derives from exploitation, and these executives and managers do not in any sense constitute an independent class ranged against the monopolies and concerned with the welfare of society as a whole.The management of the capitalist economy is being tremendously complicated by the scientific and technical revolution, and more and more engineers and technicians join the ranks of the managerial personnel causing within the administrative section a process of differentiation. The social status and interests of the bulk of rank-and-file managers increasingly differ less and less from the status and interests of industrial workers, and they are exploited almost as intensively by capital. Meanwhile, a small managerial elite is taking shape, and its ties with monopoly capital are, by contrast, intensified. From this managerial section come those who have large personal fortunes, and who become monopolists themselves, and a component part of the financial oligarchy.
The ``income revolution'' is another ``revolution'' which has allegedly changed the nature of capitalism. It was announced by the US economist Simon Kuznets in = 1950,^^1^^ who said that the distinctions between the capitalists and the workers were disappearing because the poor were becoming richer, and the rich poorer. Victor Perlo has shown that this ``revolution'' is 'a gross distortion of reality, and that there is no ground to draw the conclusion that the shares of the upper income groups in the overall national income has been = declining.^^2^^ In fact, in the USA the share of the richest families in private property has been steadily growing. In 1922, it stood at 32 per cent, and in 1961 it went up to at least 40--41 per = cent.^^3^^ A Soviet researcher into US capitalism, S. Menshikov, says: ``The share of the plutocracy in the national wealth, far from dwindling, has in fact increased.''^^4^^ Only in the last 40 years, the wealth of men _-_-_
~^^1^^ Simon Kuznets, Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings, New York, 1950.
~^^2^^ Victor Perlo, The Income ``Revolution'', New York, 1954.
~^^3^^ S. M. Menshikov, Millionaires and Managers. The Present-Day Structure of the Financial Oligarchy of the USA, Moscow, 1965, p. 96 (in Russian).
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 29.
197 like the Rockefellers has increased roughly 8-fold, that of the Morgans, over 3-fold, of the Fords, almost 7-fold, of the Mellons, more than 11-fold, and the Du Fonts, over 23--fold.^^1^^In 1962, a group of bourgeois scientists in the USA headed by Leon N. Keyserling, issued a book, Poverty and Deprivation in the United States. The Plight of Two-Fifths of a Nation, which said that in 1960, almost 10.5 million families and almost four million unattached individuals---a total of 38 million Americans, or 21 per cent of population, lived in poverty. Of those more than 12.5 million Americans lived in dire poverty. More than 39 million Americans lived in deprivation, that is, more than 77 million Americans, or more than two-fifths of a nation, lived in poverty or deprivation. The authors of the book draw the conclusion that ``a large amount of the progress among the higher income people, especially the affluent and wealthy, has been achieved only by trends which relatively have held down those at the = bottom''.^^2^^
The English scientist, Allan Brown, says that in Britain the capitalists are becoming richer, while the workers live in acute = privation.^^3^^ Professor of the London School of Economics and Political Sciences, Richard M. Titmuss says that the welfare society spells ``welfare for the better-off''. In Britain, at the one pole there is ``an accumulation of the great tax-free fortunes ... the growth of monopoly and other factors ... threatening concentrations of power and privilege'', and at the other pole ``the powerless groups: the dependent poor, the disabled, the deprived and the rejected''.^^4^^
As to France, despite the growth of the workers' wages from 1938 to 1960, by an average of 27-fold, the cost of living in the country increased 41-fold, and taxes, over 72-fold.^^5^^ Against this background, any concessions the _-_-_
~^^1^^ S. M. Menshikov, Op. tit., p. 67.
~^^2^^ Poverty and Deprivation in the United States.... Conference on Economic Progress, Washington, April 1962, pp. 2-3, 33.
~^^3^^ Allan Brown, Profits, Wages and Wealth, London, 1961.
~^^4^^ Richard M. Titmuss, The Irresponsible Society, London, 1960, pp. 1, 2, 10.
~^^5^^ A. Barjonet, Qu'est-ce que la pauperisation?, Paris, 1961, pp. 20-- 21, 25, 27.
198 working class has managed to wrest from the bourgeoisie are highly relative.Another thing that needs to be considered is that the social and cultural benefits which socialism assures for the working people are not available in the capitalist countries. Thus, the US sociologist, Evelyn Duvall, says that the children of 25 per cent of US population attend only primary school and start to work ``as soon as the law allows'', the children of another 34 per cent of the population do not usually complete high school, and ``for a member of the lower class to graduate from high school ... is apparently a = rarity''.^^1^^ There is good ground to assume that even in the richest capitalist countries a sizable part of the population suffers from material and spiritual hardships.
One must accept the conclusions drawn by V. S. Semyonov, on the strength of a detailed study of the social contradictions of modern capitalism, namely that, first, the rise in workers' living standards in the capitalist countries lags well behind the growth of the national wealth, whereas the earnings of the bourgeoisie are going up much faster than the national income; second, improvement in the working people's living conditions lags far behind the rate of monopoly profits growth, and this also widens the social gap between the two poles of capitalist society. New forms of exploitation and oppression of the working people, unprecedented intensification of labour, spiralling prices, greater racial discrimination, the housing crisis, uncertainty of employment, and unemployment in consequence of automation merely help to widen this gap.
Even the bourgeois economists now and again have to admit the disparity between the dominant theories on equality and economic justice in the United = States.^^2^^
The theory of ``planned'' or ``regulated'' capitalism and of the ``mixed economy'' are no more than recent modifications of the same idea of a ``capitalist revolution''.
The American economist John Maurice Clark suggested back in the mid-1940s that there had been a ``revolution'' in the economic functions of the state, as a result of which _-_-_
~^^1^^ Evelyn Millis Duvall, Family Development, Chicago, 1957, pp. 78, 79.
~^^2^^ Gabriel Kolko, Wealth and Power in America, New York, 1962, p. 133.
199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/LBI363/20061215/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.0) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil the nature of capitalism had allegedly changed. He wrote: ``The upshot is that government is changing from a policeman to a positive economic = agency.''^^1^^The economic role of the bourgeois state has undoubtedly become much greater, but it does not hold the decisive means of production. The theory of ``planned capitalism'' is a reflection of some real processes but, like the other theories, it distorts their meaning.
With the emergence of monopoly capitalism, planning came to be practised on the level of monopoly associations, but it does not result in balanced economic development for the country as a whole, because balanced development of the national economy is an economic law which operates only in the socialist economic system. State regulation of the economy under capitalism cannot lead to planned direction of the national economy as a whole, although it does yield considerable benefits to the monopolies which receive government contracts, credits and subsidies.
Today, there is much meaning in Lenin's conclusion that state-monopoly capitalism merely intensifies capitalist exploitation and the rule of the financial oligarchy. This conclusion is also important for a critique of the so-called mixed economy theory. Bourgeois propagandists of this theory, like the US economist Alvin H. Hansen, insist that in the capitalist countries there has been a ``transition from an individualistic economy to a mixed public-private economy with emphasis on social = welfare''.^^2^^ Hansen says modern capitalism is a ``dual economy---the partnership of government and private = enterprise''.^^3^^ Another advocate of this view, the American economist Paul A. Samuelson, declares that ``ours is a 'mixed economy' in which both public and private institutions exercise economic = control''.^^4^^
In this instance, the apology of capitalism includes the apology of the- capitalist state, which is presented as a supraclass body displaying concern for ``public welfare''.
These assertions that the nature of capitalism has changed _-_-_
~^^1^^ John Maurice Clark, Demobilisation of Wartime Economic Controls, New York, 1944, p. 187.
~^^2^^ Alvin H. Hansen, The American Economy, New York, 1957, p. 10.
~^^3^^ Alvin H. Hansen, Economic Issues of the 1960s, New York, 1960, p. 45.
~^^4^^ Paul A. Samuelson, Economics. An Introductory Analysis, seventh edition, New York, 1967, p. 39.
; -:
200 and that it has reached the stage of ``general welfare'' are frequently based on data which merely show the relatively high economic outlook and living standards in some of the most industrialised capitalist countries. However, nothing is said about the crying contradictions inherent in the capitalist system as a whole, including these advanced countries, and also the staggering poverty in the Third World countries. Meanwhile, countries like the USA are dealt with in special theories (like the ``great society'' concept).It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who announced a programme in 1964 to build a ``great society'', providing for a number of bourgeois reforms to improve public health services, education and housing construction, to fight poverty, etc. This programme virtually remained on paper. Senator William Fulbright in fact admitted that the US Congress lost interest in the ``great society'' and so it was left to be a ``sick society''.
Victor Perlo has estimated that the rate of exploitation of workers in the USA is close to 150 per cent, and many workers are unable to secure the means of subsistence for themselves and their families. Even workers with ``average living standards'' have mediocre housing conditions and unsatisfactory opportunities for obtaining medical services and education. A large part of a worker's wages goes to cover his debts and interest on instalment credit, and there are more and more cases of repossession because of failure to pay debts. It is officially admitted that 30 million persons live below the poverty line.
``The country with the greatest accumulation of capital'', according to John Gibbons, is ``simultaneously the country with the greatest accumulation of human misery and pov- erty''.^^1^^
At about the time the ``great society'' idea was first being spread in the USA, the ``formed society'' theory came to light in the FRG.
The ``formed society'' doctrine is a neo-fascist approach to the defence of capitalism and is one of those concepts which most visually reflect the anti-democratic character of the modern capitalist system. It also makes extensive use of social demagogy. It is an especially visual _-_-_
~^^1^^ World Marxist Review, April 1968, Vol. 11, No. 4, p. 16.
201 presentation of the pronounced crisis of bourgeois thinking, as a blend of extremely reactionary content and demagogic form. Suffice it to say that the doctrine is based on the classless society idea, which it has grossly distorted and adapted to the interests of state-monopoly capitalism.The ``formed society'' doctrine was put forward in 1965 by a number of West German political leaders, notably, the then Chancellor Ludwig Erhard, in a speech at a CDU congress. This doctrine was spelled out in detail in the magazine Gesellschaftspolitische Kommentare. The numerous statements by West German sociologists warrant the conclusion that this doctrine is akin to the ``stages of economic growth'' and the industrial society theories, with the difference that it does not provide for the possibility of convergence or integration between capitalism and socialism but formulates, as an alternative to socialism, the prospect of capitalist society's developing along the way of consolidation. On its way, the ``industrial'' (that is, capitalist) society, according to the theorists of the ``formed society'' Goetz Briefs, Eric Voegelin and others, must pass through three phases:
1) the emergence of modern industrial society when it is still divided into classes (19th century);
2) the ``pluralistic society of associations'' (early 20th century) when classes allegedly gave way to associations with group interests (enterprises, establishments, communities) ; and
3) the formed society which is characterised by a repudiation of group egoism and priority for state, national interests.
The ``formed society'' is presented as a new stage in the development of the ``industrial society''. It is said to be a coherent organism with ``common public consciousness'' based on equilibrium and co-operation, and this new model of the refurbished capitalism is high-handedly recommended as a model for other countries of the world. The main role in the ``formed society'' belongs to the entrepreneurs, who must be given utmost support because they carry ``the main burden of responsibility for the concrete public = will''.^^1^^
But what is to be done if the working people refuse to _-_-_
~^^1^^ See K. H. Schwank, Formierte Gesellschaft.---Schlagwort oder drohende Gefahrf, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1966, S. 29--30.
202 join the monopolists in a ``common public consciousness''? Voegelin declares: ``More and more people are saying that ... adoption of legislative acts against the workers are inevitable where they may jeopardise the rationality of the overall process by their unreasonable behaviour.'' Elaborating on the idea, he draws the conclusion that if ``the common undertaking stagnates . .. there is no alternative . .. except a switch from political democracy to some form of authoritarian or totalitarian = regime''.^^1^^An article carried by Handelsblatt, a mouthpiece of West German big bourgeoisie, considered the ``formed society'' and said roughly the same thing: ``If the groups and associations do not unite ... voluntarily, there is need to reckon with the fact that the state will ultimately have to use the iron = fist.''^^2^^
We find, therefore, that the ideologists of West German capitalism present the ``forming'' as being ``voluntary'' association by all social groups inside the country on the platform of imperialist reaction. Should the workers refuse to submit, the demagogy is to be thrown out and the `` forming'' of West German society is then conceived as a switch to the dictatorship of monopoly capital.
It is a highly characteristic fact that spokesmen for political clericalism have taken an active part in formulating and studying this doctrine, for they seek to apply in practice their social doctrine and the principle of ``solidarity'' which is designed to prove the possibility of class harmony under capitalism.
The ``post-industrial'' or ``new industrial'' society doctrine is possibly the latest and most modern theory in the defence of capitalism. Bourgeois ideologists have been straining to peer into the future to discern an answer to the prospect of communist progress which is assuming ever more tangible and definite contours on mankind's historical path.
In the last few years, the West has been a scene of feverish activity in futurological studies. Many specialised institutes have been set up to prognosticate the future. Since the end of 1965, a ``commission of the year 2000'' has been operating in the USA.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 61.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 61--62.
203Roughly speaking the ``post-industrial society'' concept is an attempt to project the future of capitalism without allowing for any modification of its substance or nature. However, because of the rapid development of science and technology it is assumed that changes are to take place in society which must lead to a sharp reduction in the need for manpower, inevitably increasing the number of men who are unable to apply themselves to any job. Most workers and employees, it is assumed, will be concentrated in the non-productive branches of the economy. The gap between the highly-developed and the backward countries will remain. Scientists are to head the political organisation of society. This is a futile attempt to reconcile the rapid advance of the scientific and technical revolution with the narrow and absolutely unsuitable political and social framework of capitalist society.
Like the theorists of the ``one industrial society'', the theorists of the ``post-industrial society'' envisage the rapid development of the productive forces and ignore the need to develop the relations of production.
The main factor of the coming society is to be a development of science which is to create a mechanism of `` equalising forces'' and to take over the running of ``mature corporations''. Naturally enough, all the theorists of `` postindustrial society'' are unanimous in denying the inevitability of deepening social contradictions of capitalism and consequently of the necessity of social revolution. That is what makes their theories reactionary Utopias.
Whatever the name given to the coming society by its bourgeois inventors---``post-industrial society'' (Daniel Bell, Herman Kahn and others) the ``technotronic society'' (Zbigniew Brzezinski) and the ``new industrial society'' (J. K. Galbraith), they present it as embodying a `` deproletarisation'' of capitalist society, for as D. Bell says, the proletariat is to give way to a ``salariat'', that is, a category of wage workers receiving salaries.
These predictions do not stand up in the light of the scientific approach to the class structure of society. According to the theory of Marx and Lenin, it is not occupation but status within the social system of production that determines men's membership of classes, and this depends above all on their relation to the means of production, 204 and the other marks of class membership formulated by Lenin.^^1^^
The proletariat is to continue performing its mission in world history, that of working a revolutionary transformation of the world, of which the essential need is being further accentuated by the great potentialities opened up in the scientific and technical revolution.
We have taken a brief look at the most popular and fashionable concepts used in the ideological defence of capitalism.
What then are the most characteristic features of the modern bourgeois apology of capitalism?
First, there is the unparalleled degree of camouflage and embellishment of capitalism, which are expressed in the numerous theories of ``capitalist revolutions''. The main content of these theories boils down to the thesis that the nature of capitalism has either changed already or that capitalism can be radically improved and its nature eventually modified. This means that it does have a future.
Second, there is a search for and attempts to substantiate social harmony and the urge to establish a class peace in bourgeois society. This aspect of the apology of capitalism is expressed in the attempts by bourgeois sociologists to intrude into the sphere of class struggle at the enterprises and to side with the employers. These sociologists seek to combine their theoretical substantiations of a class peace and practical activity as advisers and consultants, specialists in human and public relations at capitalist enterprises, etc.
Third, there is the characteristic speculation on the scientific and technical revolution and the problem of spiritual values, a specific feature of the apology of capitalism which springs from the growing victories scored by socialism in the economic competition, and also the urge spiritually to unite the whole non-socialist world on the basis of a religious ideology.
The growing importance of clericalism in the political and ideological arsenal of imperialism makes it important to take a closer look at the defence of capitalism modified on religious lines.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 421.
205 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. DEFENCE OF CAPITALISMReligious ideology has a key role to play in the ideological defence of capitalism, and there is good reason why that is so.
Back in 1913, Lenin remarked on the emergence of this tendency. He said that the time would come when the bourgeoisie in command of the most advanced capitalist countries would, out of fear of the growing and strengthening proletariat, support everything that was backward, moribund and medieval. However, the bourgeoisie's attempts to make religion serve the cause of defending capitalism are now being made in a new situation. The authority of religion is being inevitably undermined by the unparalleled growth of the influence of the ideas of socialism and Marxism-Leninism, and the growing authority of science, something some bourgeois ideologists have had to admit. One of them, John Rees, says: ``It has often been said that many people are attracted to Marxism because it offers a comprehensive view of the world and the destiny of man in secular terms at a time when science has weakened the hold of religious = faith.''^^1^^
All of this has forced the clerical champions of capitalism to improve the instruments they are using to exert an ideological influence on men's mind, to develop the religious social doctrine, and to make use of ever subtler and more refined ``arguments'' to prove the existence of God.
In every period of history, God's name has been used to sanctify social inequality, the division of society into rich and poor, the exploiters and the exploited, that is, to justify the very foundation of antagonistic society. At the same time, religious ideology sought to provide a universal ground for consolation of the = oppressed,^^2^^ so as to take the steam out of the social protest, and to dampen the working people's social activity with promises of reward for their suffering on earth in a hereafter.
Let us bear in mind that religion has always served as a _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. C. Rees, ``Lenin and Marxism'', Lenin: the Man, the Theorist, the Leader. A Reappraisal, London, 1967, p. 93.
~^^2^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 414 (Russ. ed.).
206 lightning conductor which was used to ground the discontent of the masses. Making use of its traditional social demagogy, the clerical ideologists criticised the defects and shortcomings of exploiting society by claiming that man was by nature sinful, and seeking to create, by advocating ``moral self-improvement'', an illusion that these shortcomings could be corrected while the basis of the exploiting system remained. In this way, such ``criticism'' has long performed the functions of ideological defence of the exploiting society.This function became most handy for the imperialist exploiters in the present epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. In a collection issued in 1922, by the American Academy of Political and Social Science, P. H. Callahan, a businessman, declared, for instance, that the intervention of the church in the relations between the capitalists and the workers ``is all that can stay the swing of the pendulum to the other extreme where, as today in Russia, the once favoured classes will be trampled down and = destroyed''.^^1^^
At the turn of the century, Abbot A. Kannengieser wrote: ``Nothing can stop the formidable advance of socialism except = Catholicism.''^^2^^
That is still the prevailing view. The incumbent US President, Richard Nixon, has said that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most powerful barriers for communism in every part of the world.
Pope Leo XIII said that the Roman Catholic Church had much more power for fighting communism than all the human laws, the orders of the authorities and the weapons of = soldiers.^^3^^
In his Encyclical ``Divini Redemptoris'' Pope Pius XI said that the Popes had warned against the communist danger more frequently and with greater conviction than any other social force in this world, and that the most urgent task of the day was vigorously to resort to effective means to block the way of revolution.
_-_-_~^^1^^ ``Industrial Relations and the Churches'', The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. CHI, Philadelphia, 1922, p. 107.
^^2^^ A. Kannengieser, Cathologues Allemands, Paris, 1892, p. 52.
~^^3^^ Documentation Pontifica, t. I, Asuntos. Economico-sociales, M6xico, 1930, p. 24.
207That is precisely the purpose for which the imperialists have been using the clericals' extensive experience in stultifying the minds of the masses, the power of long religious habit, which still keeps a large section of the working people under the influence of religious dogmas, the flexibility and demagogic character of religious propaganda, and the theologists' skill in speculating on the noblest ideas of humanism and brotherhood.
In contrast to the great ideas of the class struggle, the clerical ideologists set out the so-called solidarism theory which is aimed directly against the working people's social emancipation, in contrast to the noble ideal of national liberation, the reactionary ideology of cosmopolitanism, in contrast to the scientific world outlook, religious unscientific views of the universe, which fetter the powers of the human mind.
Let us examine the most popular theoretical conceptions used by the clerical ideologists in their defence of capitalism.
The solidarism theory, which the clerical ideologists contrast with the Marxist theory of the class struggle, not only has deep socio-political roots in the class interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie, but also ideological roots which go deep down into the history of religious social doctrines.
The solidarity principle springs directly from the fundamental theoretical conceptions of the religious philosophy of history and religious sociology.
Among the fundamental propositions of the religious philosophy of history is the idea of order and stability, as embodied in the so-called organic conception of society, and which is profoundly hostile to any idea of social progress and the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.
The clerical philosophers and sociologists have always regarded private property as a key element ensuring ``our legal order which is based upon a higher moral order founded by = God''.^^1^^ ``The institution of private property has a definite place in society, and to the degree that individual and group rights are followed in relation to it, to that extent will it fit more harmoniously into the social organism.''^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ M. Williams, Catholic Social Thought, New York, 1950, p. 122.
~^^2^^ Eva Ross, Fundamental Sociology, New York, 1939, pp. 231--32; W. Schwer, Catholic Social Theory, New York, 1940, pp. 300--23.
208The fundamentals of this theory is justification and vindication of social inequality and class oppression, defence of private property, and the idea of class peace and co-- operation. These have been embodied not only in the writings of clerical philosophers and sociologists, but also in a number of official declarations issued by religious bodies, and in particular by leaders of the Catholic Church.
Thus, the papal Encyclical, ``Rerum novarum'' (1891), directly contrasts the solidarism doctrine with the Marxist theory of the class struggle.
The Pope sharply attacked those who allow themselves to be believed that one class is naturally hostile to another. The two classes, the capitalists and the working men, had been ordained by nature itself to dwell in harmony and agreement, for each needed the other: capital could not do without labour, nor labour without capital. The Encyclical recognises the ``right'' of workers to join in associations, but adds that the law should intervene to prevent certain associations, as when men joined together for evil purposes which are evidently bad, unlawful or dangerous to the state. The state and its agencies are set this basic task: to put an end to conflicts dividing the classes.
In his Encyclical ``Certum Laetitiae'' (1939) Pope Pius XI declares social inequality to be a sociological law based on mankind's long history, which has allegedly shown that there had been rich and poor in the past, and that this will always be so.
The theologist A. Retzbach, a commentator of papal social Encyclicals, wrote: ``The Catholic social doctrine in general ... does not want a classless society. The latter is a socialist aim, a socialist dream. Class and social distinctions are a natural phenomenon. Rich and poor, high and low will always be there, so long as men live on this earth. That is why the class struggle is an unnatural phenome- non.''^^1^^
What are the theoretical conceptions underlying the ``theory of solidarism'', which has been adopted as the clericals' official dogma? The main one is undoubtedly the concept of the ``natural order'' based on the ``natural law''.
_-_-_~^^1^^ A. Retzbach, Die Erneuerung der gesellschaftlichen Ordnung, Freiburg, 1932, S. 58--59.
__PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---1245 209The main aspect of this concept is that all men are allegedly united in a common urge to establish a natural, social order, whose main principles have been designated by God. Loyalty to these principles is assumed to be the basis of solidarism.
To make this more convincing, these inventions are claimed to be a manifestation of ``rationalism'', because the requirements of the ``natural order'' can be cognised only by human reason. Actually, men are invited to put their faith in divine predestination, whose basic principles are proclaimed by the church to be immutable rules of political philosophy. The main ones are said to be, first, the right to private property, the economic basis of the so-called natural order, and second, the state whose functions are to maintain this ``natural order''.
The clerical ideologists continue to maintain the propositions even today. Thus, Dante L. Germino declares: ``The starting point of the political philosophy of those who adhere to the Roman Communion is the concept of the natural order. The natural order is the organisation of the human community in a manner conducive to the fulfilment of the ends proper to man's distinctively human nature. Such an ordering of human relations is an embodiment of the natural = law.''^^1^^ The ``natural law'' concept is defined by the Anglican philosopher John Wild, as ``a universal pattern of action required of human nature itself for its per- fection''.^^2^^
The clerical ideologists believe that the ``requirements of human nature'' are based on divine will, through which human reason comes to understand the ``immutable principles of right order which serves as the foundation for a just social = system''.^^3^^ What is left unexplained is the role that is here left to reason, and the ways of this cognition, because men are essentially invited simply to put their faith in the divine origin of the stated social principles.
_-_-_~^^1^^ D. Germino, ``Two Types of Recent Christian Political Thought'', The Journal of Politics, 1959, No. 3, Vol. 21, pp. 457--58. This work contains a summary of the discussion of problems in modern Christian political thinking at a theoretical conference held at Duke University in June-July, 1958.
~^^2^^ 'The Journal of Politics, 1959, No. 3, Vol. 21, p. 457.
~^^3^^ Ibid.
210The clerical ideologists would like to extend these `` guiding norms'' to all men, whether believers or non-believers. The ``natural law'' is ``a common platform of generally accepted principles for the establishment of a workable social order, independently of religious = beliefs''.^^1^^ The natural law is ``not an ideology, but an objective criterion, and unseen measure in terms of which all current political systems ... may be = evaluated''.^^2^^
How is this ``objective criterion'' expressed in concrete terms? What are the guiding norms in this sphere? In the economic sphere, it is the natural right to possess = private property.^^3^^
It will be easily seen that the ``natural order'' concept is essentially one designed to defend capitalism.
The main content of the religious doctrine of solidarism, which is used as an ideological weapon by the exploiting classes in their fight against the working people's social emancipation, is to unite all men behind the idea of fending capitalism, to induce them to believe that the capitalist system is the natural social order, and that private property has been sanctified by the divine will. Back in 1848, Montalembert, a spokesman for the clericals in the French National Assembly, declared: ``To inspire respect for property among those who have no property---I know no other means to inspire such respect except by making them believe in God. ... There you have the only faith which is truly popular and which can provide efficacious protection for property.''^^4^^
The Pope's Encyclical ``Mater et Magistra'' of 1961 likewise declares the right in private property to be a sacred right: ``The right of private property in the means of production is of lasting importance, above all because it is a natural right based on the ontological and purposeful priority of individual human beings with respect to society.''
The papal Encyclical does not confine itself to an apology of private property in the advanced capitalist countries, but _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. Messner, ``Social Ethics, Natural Law in the Modern World'', The Journal of Politics, Vol. 21, 1959, No. 3, p. 458.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 484.
^^3^^ Ibid., p. 459.
~^^4^^ Roger Garaudy, L'eglise, le communisme et les Chretiens, Paris, 1949, p. 37.
__PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211 urges an active struggle to spread the principle in the economically underdeveloped countries. A special section of the Encyclical, entitled ``Effective Spread of the Idea of Private Property'', declares: ``It is not enough to assert the natural character of the right to private property in the means of production. An insistent effort should be made to promote its spread in all the social classes.... The spread of private property should be even more vigorously stimulated and spread at this time in which we live, when, as has been said, the economic systems of growing numbers of political communities have entered the path of rapid development.''The capitalist monopoly press has given an eloquent characteristic of this document certifying the church's loyalty to the capitalist system. The Washington Post said that ``Mater et Magistra'' is likely to occupy an outstanding place among religious teachings aiming to make capitalism acceptable to the human mind.
What are the ``guiding ethical norms'' of the clerical ideologists in the political sphere?
In the forefront is the thesis concerning the need to support the state as an instrument helping to consolidate the ``natural order''. This naturally implies the bourgeois state, which stands zealously on guard of private property. In the postwar period, the clerical ideologists have been trying hard to spread the idea of a ``democratic'' form of administration which many regard as a natural postulate established by reason itself, but which, incidentally, draws a sharp distinction between the people and the ``masses'', between ``legitimate social rankings and indiscriminate levelling, between effective participation by the people in the affairs of state through their elected representatives, and a plebiscitary, majoritarian = tyranny.''^^1^^ Consequently, the clerical ideologists clearly support bourgeois democracy, that is, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and condemn the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, socialist democracy, a democracy of the majority.
The ``natural law'' concept is an important element not only of Catholic but also of Anglican political thinking, whose orientation on the natural law was most clearly revealed in the speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury, _-_-_
~^^1^^ G. Yates, Papal Thought on the State, New York, 1957, pp. 115--16.
212 William Temple, who delivered his famous judgement to the effect that ``he could not see any other possible base for Christian social ethics than natural = law''.^^1^^ Let us add that the Anglican Church makes even greater play than the Roman Catholic Church with ``human nature''.Why is it that present-day clericals do not confine themselves to putting their faith in God, but are so zealous in appealing to ``natural law'' and ``human nature''? This may be due only to their urge to put a ``humanistic gloss'' on their reactionary sermons, and to create the impression that these are preached in defence of the interests of the individual.
The protestant ideologists are just as eager in providing an apology for the capitalist system.
Protestantism emerged as the bourgeois species of Christianity and has been most outspoken in vindicating and justifying capitalist enterprise, money-making and exploitation. The protestant doctrine of ``calling'', says Max Weber, an authoritative bourgeois sociologist of the turn of the century, invested secular activity with a religious meaning and impelled the believer who seeks wealth and success. Weber quoted Richard Baxter as saying: ``If God show you a way in which you may lawfully get more than in another way (without wrong to your soul or to any other), if you refuse this, and choose the less gainful way, you cross one of the ends of your calling, and you refuse to be God's steward, and to accept His = gifts.''^^2^^ In other words: make money, for this accords with the will of God.
Bourgeois sociologists also have to admit that there is a direct bond between the Protestant Church and capitalism and its interests. Thomas Hoult writes: ``Protestant leaders of the day were loud in their praise of the businessmen and strict in their condemnation of protesting = workers'',^^3^^ adding that in the last decade the Protestant Church in the USA has once again showed its close links with the economic interests of the ruling classes. For instance, the National Council of Churches of the USA is dominated by economically privileged groups which give the work of the Council a class character. The US Protestant Journal Christian Economics, widely distributed to ministers and _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Journal of Politics, 1959, No. 3, p. 463.
~^^2^^ Thomas Hoult, The Sociology of Religion, New York, 1958, p. 255.
^^3^^ Ibid:, p. 263.
213 religious teachers, is composed of pleas to the government to give tax relief to businessmen ... to put a moratorium on social = legislation.^^1^^ The practical support of capitalism by the Protestant Church is closely bound up with the fundamental ideological concepts of Protestantism, as will be seen above all in the spread of the idea of solidarism, which, in contrast to the natural order of the Catholics, is ideologically based on the concept of the abstract man, with the preaching of a general human love as its main propaganda trick.Marx emphasised that the cult of the abstract man, which had appeared in Christianity, was being given its ultimate development in its ``bourgeois varieties, like Protestantism, deism, = etc.''^^2^^
Modern Protestantism is the most eloquent example showing the use of the abstract man cult to justify the theory of solidarism and to obscure the class contradictions in the capitalist society.
It is impossible to advance towards the social emancipation of the working people without being aware of the real social relations existing in the exploitative world (the exploitation of man by man, social inequality and social and national oppression). All these defects of the private-property system can be eliminated only by the working people's struggle. However, this is being impeded by the Protestant religious preaching, in which living social reality is replaced by an illusion of a universal brotherhood and love.
Let us note that present-day theorists of Protestantism now and again seek to cover up the class nature of their views, thus, they have disavowed the openly apologetic Catholic doctrine of ``natural law'', which they say leads to a `` justification of private = property''.^^3^^ However, their own doctrines help to defend capitalism and private property no less than the conceptions propounded by the ideologists of Catholicism.
How do the Protestant ideologists substantiate the principle of solidarism, and how do they cover up the antagonistic character of the capitalist system? They distort the real social relations existing in the capitalist world and turn _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 266.
~^^2^^ K. Marx, Capital, Moscow, 1965, Vol. 1, p. 79.
~^^3^^ John A. Hutchison, Faith, Reason, and Existence. An Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, New York, 1956, p. 290.
214 relations between men belonging to different classes into relations of faithless, abstract ``individuals'', who are in a ``person-to-person'' relationship with each other.Let us see how this is done in practice by John A. Hutchison, a Doctor of Philosophy and Professor of Religion at Columbia University, and a theorist of modern American Protestantism.
He writes: ``Personality, so described, always occurs in community;... human self assumes personal character in the presence of, and in relation to, other human = selves.''^^1^^ This would not appear to be such a bad assertion at all. Indeed, once man has emerged from the animal world in the process of labour, he enters into definite relations with other men and begins to live in a community. But how is this correct proposition interpreted by the clerical ideologists, who turn a blind eye to mankind's historical experience and to the objective laws governing social development? They deduce the laws of social life not from life itself but from the.behests of God; a closer look shows that these behests fit in very nicely with the interests of the exploiters.
Hutchison writes: ``To live personally---is the law of man's life.... The fulfilment of this person-to-person relation is called = love.''^^2^^
Spelling out the meaning of this, Hutchison says that this moral rule demands that class and national interests should be foregone. He warns of the dangers of an excessive concern for the purposes of nations, classes and other groups, each of which is ``inclined to equate its interests with the final good and so become proud, intolerant, and = blind''.^^3^^ Consequently Hutchison seeks to block man's way to social emancipation and national liberation. ``To be a person---to live in freedom and love. . . . This is the real meaning of his existence. ... Thus the Bible bids men to love God with heart, soul, and mind, and to love neighbor as = self.''^^4^^
Another modern theorist of Protestantism, the Swiss theologist Henri Babel, is even more explicit: ``Love is positive, hatred---negative. Love brings men together, hatred divides them and ranges them against each = other.''^^5^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 76.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 77.
^^3^^ Ibid., p. 86.
~^^4^^ Ibid., pp. 87, 121.
~^^5^^ H. Babel, La base du monde qui vient, Geneve, 1958, p. 45.
215This is clearly a new version of the same class solidarism. Instead of a direct glorification of the private-property system, as it is with the Catholics, it exudes sweet words of love. But the essence remains the same.
The Protestant concept of ``universal love'' is just as false and reactionary as the Catholic doctrine of the ``natural law'', because both serve to defend capitalism and to justify and establish the unnatural order in which man exploits man.
The idea of solidarism, whatever its version, serves even today as the main ideological instrument of the clericals in their fight against the working-class movement.
There is good reason why they have been trying so hard to inject the principles of solidarism directly into the practices of the working-class movement, covering up their reactionary substance with a barrage of social demagogy, diverse forms of ``going into the midst of the people'', and the establishment of a ramified network of clerical trade unions and even the well-known scheme of setting up worker-priests.
The concrete task behind all these schemes is to act as middlemen in the class struggle so as to eliminate it by spreading illusions among the working people that it is possible to reconcile contradictory interests through a ``person-to-person'' relationship.
The clericals' effort to interfere in relations between the workers and their employers sprang from the church's response to the working-class movement: ``We must concern ourselves with the people, otherwise they will concern themselves with us.... We must go into the midst of the people to prevent them from fighting, and to try to pacify them.''^^1^^
It is a highly characteristic fact that from the very outset of the clerical movement of ``going into the midst of the people'' the task was not to do away with the working people's sufferings, but to assuage them, not to emancipate the oppressed but to console them. Let us also note that the ``consolers'' were doing this out of fear of the working-class movement. One of the originators of ``social Catholicism'', Viscount Armand de Melun, declared in his Annales de la charite (1848): ``Every soul which has not obtained _-_-_
^^1^^ Cahiers du communisme, 1959, No. 11.
216 consolation is a menace. ... It is a danger to the whole world.''^^1^^To do away with this danger (not to the whole world, of course, but to the capitalist system) the clericals set about building up clerical organisations among the workers in the first half of the 19th century.
In the spirit of the church's proclaimed need ``to bring individuals closer together and to reconcile their interests'', the clerical ideologists set about redecorating capitalist enterprises into paternalistic-type outfits in which capitalist exploitation was diffidently covered up with a ``christian'' front. Take the curious case of one owner of a textile mill, Leon Harmel, who called his factory a ``religious and economic association constituted by the families of the employers and the = workers''.^^2^^
The theory and practice of solidarism was enshrined by the Vatican as official church policy on the working-class issue. The Encyclical of December 28, 1878, ``Quod Apostolici Muneris'', said that such associations should habituate their members to be satisfied with their lot, bear up under the strains of their work with dignity, and always live in calm and serenity.
At the end of the 19th century, following the publication of the Encyclical ``Rerum Novarum'', clerical trade unions were set up in many capitalist countries, and these subsequently became a powerful weapon which the employers used in their fight against the working-class movement.
In his Encyclical, ``Quadragesimo Anno'' (1931) Pope Pius XI ordered the support of clerical trade unions which were implementing the theological ``social philosophy'' and spread the need to substitute collaboration for the struggle between master and worker, with special emphasis on getting people together not by social status, but by diverse lines of social activity.
The effort to substitute occupation for class as the basis of social life was the way in which the solidarism doctrine was being implanted in the day-to-day life of the workers.
However, the clerical offensive against the working-class movement did not break the will of the working class to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Jean-Claude Poulain, ``L'eglise et la classe ouvriere'', Cahiers du communisme, 1959, No. 11, p. 987.
~^^2^^ Cahiers du communisme, 1959, No. 11, p. 991.
217 struggle. An analysis of the strike movement shows that it has in fact grown and become sharper, as will be seen from these figures. In 1958, strikes involved 26 million persons; in 1959, 36 million; in 1960, 56 million; in 1961, 51 million; in 1962, 55 million; in 1963, 57 million; in 1964, 56 million; in 1965, 36 million; in 1966, 44 million; in 1967, 46 million; in 1968, 57 million; and in 1969, 60 million persons.Contrary to the predictions of the clerical ideologists, the mass struggle in the capitalist countries has not in fact faded away, but has been gaining in scope and acerbity. Suffice it to say that from 1960 to 1968 inclusive, over 300 million persons were involved in strikes in the advanced capitalist countries as compared with 150 million over the preceding 14 years.
In no capitalist country has the clericals' policy of class solidarism been capable of reconciling the interests of the working people and the capitalists.
The fiasco of the clerical scheme of implanting `` workerpriests'' is fresh evidence of the impotence of the class-peace propaganda. Let us recall that these ``worker-priests'' were advised to work on the shopfloor, live in working-class neighbourhoods, spend their time after working hours with the workers, and so on. In many instances these Catholic priests, after a period of association with the workers, `` married or joined in the class struggle'', while ``some of them even became = communists''.^^1^^ In 1954, the Vatican was forced to dissolve this clerical outfit.
A prominent clerical sociologist said that the church did not have much success in spreading its influence on the working class. A large majority of the workers adopted the Marxist ideology and accepted theoretical and practical materialism. Nowhere is the secularisation of life so strongly expressed as it is in the working class, with the exception of its elite. Even among the Catholic clergy there is a tendency to break with Catholicism.
If priests, wise in the experience of clerical hypocrisy and trickery, find themselves unable to withstand the influence of the environment, how can the clericals hope that rankand-file workers will abandon the class struggle and their vital interests for the sake of a contrived ``solidarity'' with their masters?
_-_-_~^^1^^ W. von Loewenich, Der moderns Katholuismus, Essen, 1956, S. 395.
218The working people are united by their common living conditions, their interests, and their joint struggle for a better future on the basis of radical social change, and there is nothing that can destroy the great solidarity of the working class, which springs from reality itself.
Social demagogy is another instrument used by clerical ideology against the working people's interests.
The clericals are much too clever to take an open stand in defence of the exploiting system in our day, and they have been defending it by pretending to criticise it. This kind of defence of capitalism can still hope to succeed, for it is aimed at the most gullible and least perspicacious and confuses those who suffer from the social injustices of the capitalist system.
Indeed, it is easy to accept what the clericals are saying when they admit the injustice, the suffering, the poverty and social inequality under capitalism, and boldly lay bear its sores, insisting that these must be eliminated. But all this ``criticism'' amounts to no more than a peculiar form of defending capitalism.
What they are actually suggesting is that the pillars of capitalism should be left intact.
The clerical ideologists have grossly deceived the workers by creating illusions that some of the negative aspects they deal with can be eliminated without changing the social system itself. In fact, their highly eloquent exposure of the defects of capitalism leads up to a false and hypocritical sermon of clerical reformism, which is essentially akin to the propaganda of the social reformists, the Right socialists and Labourites, who also deceive the workers by saying that it is possible to ``transform'' capitalism into socialism through reforms on the basis of the capitalist mode of production.
The clericals' social demagogy has now assumed especially large proportions in a peculiar response to the powerful attractive force exerted by communist ideas. The need to ``humanise'' capitalism, an idea being spread in the most diverse forms, is undoubtedly a new ideological method of influencing the masses.
This idea is a very handy one because, on the one hand, it does not deny the ``imperfections'' of capitalism, and even admits the grave effects of the social order in the capitalist countries, and on the other, it fortifies the illusion 219 that these defects can be eliminated on the basis of the existing system.
This ``humanisation of capitalism'' idea, in its various forms, is a curious synthesis of two traditional and inseparable tendencies in religious ideology, the apologetic and the ``critical''.
Today, these two tendencies have been markedly invigorated, with the one alternately prevailing over the other, and this has produced two extremes: ``excessive pessimism'' and ``excessive optimism''.
The ``excessively optimistic'' ideologists take an open stand in defence of capitalism, a typical example being the series on ethics and economic life started in 1949 by the Federal Council of the Churches in the USA. Even clerical theorists have expressed the view that the authors of this study seek to equate Christianity and ``free enterprise'' and have ``uncritically accepted'' the US economic = system.^^1^^
An example of the other ``extreme'' (a pessimistic view of modern capitalism) is a book by the English Protestant theologian, V. Demant, whose very title is = indicative.^^2^^ The author takes a very gloomy view of the state of things in the capitalist society, believing the reasons for the decline of capitalism to lie in the hostility it had brought on = itself.^^3^^ Demant believes capitalism is now in a critical state, but he does not feel that the situation could be improved by the measures which many bourgeois ideologists, including religious leaders, believe to be the answer to the problems of the capitalist system, primarily government intervention in economic affairs. Demant thinks that the treatment of capitalism by means of government regulations is no better than the ailment itself. Demant's book shows how the stagnation of the capitalist system is reflected in the religious ideology.
This book was widely commented upon by theologians, with D. L. Munby, Professor of Economics at Aberdeen University, giving the most detailed examination of his ideas. Professor Munby, a Protestant theologian, read a _-_-_
~^^1^^ D. Munby, Christianity and Economic Problems, London, 1956, pp. 236, 237, 240.
~^^2^^ V. Demant, Religion and the Decline of Capitalism, New York, 1952.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 31.
220 course of lectures entitled ``Christianity and Economic Problems'', at the New York Theological Seminary, in a typical theological defence of capitalism, claiming to overcome the ``extremes'' of its optimistic and pessimistic views, and setting out a demagogic programme for salvaging capitalism by ``humanising'' it.All of Munby's reasoning is marked by social demagogy, which closely interlaces an apology of capitalism and a ``critique'' of its shortcomings.
Thus, he declares that it is not right to understate the achievements of capitalism, but that one should not close one's eyes to some of its most blatant defects. But while condemning the sharp ``inequality'' he insists that inequality is here to stay because men are differently endowed by nature. He takes the bourgeois and reformist view by asserting that ``it is impossible to say . . . whether the working class begins and ends'', but there and then admits that some in society are ``deprived''. He asserts that the state is the ``guarantor of law and order'', but adds that he does not consider nationalisation of all the means of production to be necessary. He seeks to camouflage the existence of colonialism in our day, putting the blame for all the defects of the colonial system on what he calls old-fashioned colonialism, extolling the ``good works'' of the colonialists, etc.
It is Munby's admission and recommendations that are of the greatest interest.
What is most important is, first, that Munby tries hard to disavow capitalism and, second, that he proposes to change and not to preserve it. He does not risk setting himself up as an avowed champion of capitalism, but the measures he recommends are designed not so much to change the existing state of things as to perpetuate it.
In a chapter entitled ``The End of Capitalism?'', Munby has to admit that, ``men have lost faith in a purely laissezfaire society, and are not prepared to return to it. They have lost faith because it has failed to achieve full employment, to provide reasonable minimum standards ... to provide satisfaction in work, and above all to convince them that the elaborate mechanism of the price system is not an irrational set of forces beyond human = control.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ D. Munby, Op. cit., p. 233.
221But at this point, being the theologian that he is, Munby starts to twist and turn. He does not go on to draw the conclusion that the capitalist system has proved to be unworkable and so requires substitution by another socioeconomic system. He proclaims that ``capitalism in this sense is = dead'',^^1^^ and that a ``mixed = economy''^^2^^ has been established in the West. He says mankind's future is not linked with a ``collectivist society'', but one based on a ``mixed economy''. Seeking to create the impression that his proposal implies a fundamental improvement in social life, he recommends a ``flexible experimental approach'' which ignores the ``dogmas'' of the extreme Right and Left. He does not reject government interference in economic affairs, but stresses that not everything depends on the state, and that there is need for a more deep-going improvement of the social system by tackling the problems brought up by modern life ``in the human plane''.
He recommends that social life should be humanised, but at once condemns secular humanism. He deals at length with freedom, security, creativity, equality, associations, etc., and stresses that the ultimate decision on all the social issues should rest with the employers, while the workers should bear ``their share of responsibility''. When dealing with the need for security, he explains that ``human beings require .. . the friendship and respect of those among whom they work or live''; explaining the principle of ``creativity'' he says that ``we shall not limit ourselves to a simple choice between free enterprise and socialism because there are other ways''. On the question of equality, he declares hypocritically that men should be considered equal not because they are truly equal, but because man should not regard as an unequal one whom God had refused to regard as such. He urges the state to keep a close watch on the `` associations'' (meaning parties and trade unions) with the church making a fitting contribution to the ``development of the free world'', giving men a reminder of ``values'' which they should hold in respect. Thus, Munby's programme of humanising capitalism essentially boils down to a defence of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 234.
~^^2^^ By ``mixed economy'' he means that the state uses various instruments to plan and control private enterprises and itself engages in economic operations, while the entrepreneurs continue to play an important part.
222 capitalism, because he does not propose any real steps to change the existing state of affairs, and merely puts forward the old programme of class solidarism abundantly spiced with social demagogy.Munby's economic programme also has some interesting similarities with reformism.
Let us note that the reformists themselves have recently taken some marked steps towards the clerical ideologists. Thus, at a conference of the Socialist International in 1953 it was said that socialism was in itself neither religious nor anti-religious and could be derived from either source of social thinking.
For their part, the clerical ideologists have resorted ever more frequently to typically reformist methods of advocating capitalism in their social demagogy and in the practice of clerical trade unions.
The notorious theory of class solidarism provides the practical platform for the rapprochement between the reformists and the clericals. The reformists present this conception most frequently as different ways of `` democratising capital'' and the clericals, as so-called participation.
The idea of the workers' ``participating'' in the profits of the capitalists and in running capitalist enterprises was, in particular, the main plank of the clerical trade union platform. Thus, the llth Congress of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions in 1952 declared that participation in the management of enterprises would enable the working people, without upsetting the natural function of the entrepreneur to play an active part in the orientation, administration and management of the enterprises, thereby centring economic activity on concern for man and his family.^^1^^
The clerical theorists have given the ``participation'' theory every kind of boost, presenting it as a cure-all for the ills of the capitalist system, and spicing it heavily with social demagogy. The theologian Dante L. Germino writes: ``Profits and wages should be duly proportioned to one another. ... In any event, each person, in conformity with his contribution to the common good, as Leo XIII said, 'must receive his due share, and the distribution of created goods' must be consistent with the demands of social justice.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Sputnik ateista, Moscow, 1959, p. 179.
223`For every sincere observer is conscious that the vast differences between the few who hold excessive wealth and the many who live in destitution constitute a grave evil in modern = society.'~''^^1^^
The programme of the clerical ideologists amounts to an elimination of this ``evil'', that is, of the excessive social contrasts which are a menace for capitalism, but elimination through class solidarity and for the defence of capitalism.
In their efforts to substantiate the solidarity principle, the clerical ideologists frequently turned to the `` deproletarisation of the proletariat'' theory, that is, the possibility of the workers becoming men of property. That is not a new theory, for a hundred years ago Vogelsang wrote that society has to ``absorb'' the working class making it, socially speaking, an organic component part of society. He added: ``The only solution of the working-class question, the only fair approach to the working class is an end to the existence of the working class, its absorbtion by the propertied class.''^^2^^
This idea has been elaborated by the present-day social reformists who propose a ``scattering of property'' through the issue of so-called workers' shares, as the cure-all.
Everyone knows, however, that the purchase of a few shares by a worker makes no difference to his social standing, for he continues to create surplus value for the capitalists. Workers who own shares exert no influence at all on the affairs of capitalist corporations. One author says: ``For example, of the 27,000 employees of the Esso Standard Oil Co., more than 20,000 are stockholders'' and own ``less than one per cent of the total. Moreover, the employees' stock is held by a company-selected trustee, and cannot be voted by them.''^^3^^ We find a similar picture on the scale of the whole country. In 1951 ``approximately 65 per cent of the shares were held by the one per cent of families whose annual income exceeded $15,000. About one-third of the outstanding shares owned by the individuals were held by the onetenth of one per cent of families who had incomes above _-_-_
~^^1^^ ^he Journal of Politics, 1959, No. 3, pp. 459--60.
~^^2^^ Weg und Ziel, 1958, No. 5, S. 450.
~^^3^^ J. M. Budish, People's Capitalism. Stock Ownership and Production, New York, 1958, p. 22.
224 50,000.''^^1^^ Such is the state of affairs in the USA, which the reactionary ideologists normally set up as a model of `` democratic capital''.According to Fortune magazine, 27 men in the United States now have personal fortunes ranging from $200 million to $300 million; five with personal fortunes from $300 million to $500 million; six from $500 million to $1,000 million, and two from $1,000 million to $1,500 million. Meanwhile, according to official statistics, 32 million people live below the poverty line. In a message to Congress, President Nixon declared that the failure of the war on hunger and malnutrition in the USA was shocking and patent.
It is wrong and misleading, therefore, to say that any ``democratisation'' of capital has taken place in the USA.
So long as private property in the means of production and the power remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie, capitalism remains a social system with poles of poverty and wealth, and growing contradictions between a handful of monopolies and broad sections of society.
The church has been fighting communism under the banner of so-called third way and third force. The clerical ideologists declare that the church opposes both capitalism and communism. In its Pastoral Constitution ``The Church in the Modern World'', the Second Vatican Council stressed that the church did not identify itself with any social system. It added: ``In virtue of its.mission and its character, the church is not connected with any particular form of culture or political, economic or social system. In consequence of this universality it can serve as a close link between different human communities and different nations, provided they put their faith in it and in actual fact allowed it real freedom in accomplishing its = mission.''^^2^^ Once again the clerical myth of a ``third way'' echoes the bourgeois-- reformist theory of capital being ``democratised''.
The clerical and reformist social demagogy and the practice of imaginary class collaboration may give the unjust social system a longer lease of life, but they cannot save capitalism, an inhuman social system doomed by history to destruction.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Joseph A. Kahl, The American Class Structure, New York, 1957, p. 105.
~^^2^^ La Documentation catholique, February 6, 1966, col. 228.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15--1245 225IN'
The clerical ideology, which, by its very essence, is concerned with the defence of the capitalist system, has always exerted a great influence on secular social thinking, including bourgeois = sociology.^^1^^
In effect, the clerical ideology is akin to bourgeois sociology in its fundamental hostility to the idea of social progress and the objective laws of the historical process. Bourgeois sociologists like clerical ideologists are rabidly hostile to the Marxist scientific analysis of bourgeois society, which shows up its contradictions and proves its inevitable destruction. Many bourgeois sociologists have in fact borrowed from the clerical ideologists their conception of the state as an institution designed to maintain law and order in the social organism, the conception of the abstract human individual as the primary cell of this organism, the conception of solidarism as the guiding principle of social life, and the thesis of the need for active participation by sociologists in the effort to translate this principle into life.
The clerical sociologists see the ``human relations'' problem as being directly connected with the task of strengthening the ``solidarity'' and ``harmony'' in society. They believe the study of social relations is important in order to find ways of improving human relations and establishing a more ordered = society,^^2^^ that is, a society resting on class solidarism.
``Social order'', another principle of religious theoretical sociology, is also closely connected with the idea of solidarism. The clerical sociologists regard society as a harmonious whole, and see ``social order'' as expressing the organic conception of society. Two clerical sociologists in the USA, W. Willigan and J. O'Connor, declared that ``Social Order is a comprehensive term which implies the harmonious functioning of the entire complex of social organisations in their interrelationships and interfunctioning so that each is integrated into an organic social structure, each part functioning according to its nature and purpose, each part in correct relationship with all other = parts''.^^3^^ Hence, their _-_-_
~^^1^^ Some bourgeois ideologists (like Rene Hubert) even believe that the foundations of modern sociology were laid by Bossuet an ideologist of Catholic reaction in the 17th century.
~^^2^^ A. Muntsh and H. Spalding, Introductory Sociology, New York, 1928, pp. 77--78.
~^^3^^ W. Willigan and J. O'Connor, Social Order, New York, 1941, p. 49.
226 conclusion that ``every effort should be made to eliminate social and class conflict.... Furthermore the State is obligated to promote the welfare of its subjects, and the Church and all other agencies should uphold the highest principles of morality and develop positive programs of social action in terms of such = principles''.^^1^^The idea of solidarism is most clearly expressed in modern US religious sociology by the so-called ``applied sociology'' school, which is said to be a sociology for practical purposes, and by the so-called Sociational School. Its main exponents, Franz Mueller of St. Thomas's College of Minnesota and Clement Mihanovich of St. Louis University, regard sociology as a science which studies the ``phenomena of human life in the light of their associative or dissociative = effect''.^^2^^ They hold that sociology should analyse men's moral and religious behaviour in the light of the ``processes of integration and disintegration among human = beings''.^^3^^
Mueller declares that the principal slogan of solidarism is ``not socialisation of the means of production ... but . .. co-ordination of the individuals and of the establishments in a district sphere of responsibility, and ultimately the national community dedicated to the common = good''.^^4^^
The clerical sociologists regard society as a coherent organism and substitute a division of men by occupation instead of by class, thereby covering up and justifying class inequality. This, like all the other basic ideas of religious sociology, is deeply embedded in other bourgeois sociological schools which ostensibly have nothing in common either with religion or clericalism.
The penetration of religious ideological conceptions including the solidarism theory, into modern bourgeois sociology is also expressed in the widely spread ideas of functionalism, which today is undoubtedly the main line of the methodological development of bourgeois sociological theories.
This is evident from the so-called theory of social action, propounded by the US sociologist Talcott Parsons, perhaps _-_-_
~^^1^^ M. Williams, Catholic Social Thought, New York, 1950, p. 125.
~^^2^^ F. Mueller, ``The Formal Object in Sociology'', The American Catholic Sociological Review, Vol. I, 1940, p. 57.
~^^3^^ M. Williams, Op. cit., pp. 102--03.
~^^4^^ F. Mueller, Heinrich Pesch and His Theory of Christian Solidarism, New York, 1941, p. 34.
__PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 227 the most influential theoretical system within bourgeois sociology. Parsons regards the individual and the society as independent systems, and ``social action'' as behaviour which is oriented on the attainment of definite goals by means of regulated expenditure of energy. To keep an individual constantly oriented on the object with whom he interacts, Parsons introduces a system of values, and this is naturally presented as being inconceivable without the participation of religion.Bourgeois sociologists will have to admit that their concept of value boils down to the ``Christian tradition'', one of whose main elements is the right in private property. The advocates of functionalism emphasise the importance of these values---laws, moral rules---without which, they say, the functional mechanism cannot operate. A collective work, edited by US sociologist Joseph B. Gittler, says: ``No competent sociologist can deny or dismiss the pervasive role that religion plays in the life activities of many individuals. ... Religion ... is a basic social = institution.''^^1^^ This re-emphasises the unity of the diverse bourgeois theories in the defence of the moral and religious principles of capitalist society, which sanctify and consolidate the exploitative order, and seek to paralyse the class struggle by hypocritically preaching the idea of solidarism.
It is highly characteristic that the solidarism theory has been reflected not only in the theoretical conceptions of bourgeois sociology, but also in the practices of the capitalist enterprises. This is most clearly evident from the wide spread in the capitalist countries of Europe and the USA of the so-called human relations system, which is an aggregation of pseudo-humanistic economic, political, social and ideological instruments applied within the framework of the capitalist enterprises and designed to help moderate the sharpening contradictions and to establish a class peace.
All of this shows that this is an effort in the economic and ideological struggle specifically designed to weaken, if not to eliminate altogether, the working-class movement. In order to establish relations of ``solidarity'' at the capitalist enterprises, everything is being done to spread the idea of setting up workers' committees, under the sponsorship of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Review of Sociology, ``Analysis of a Decade'', New York, 1957, pp. 546--47.
228 management, for the purpose of integrating the workers with the capitalist = companies.^^1^^Both the theory and the practice of ``human relations'' are designed to obscure the relations of exploitation, to secure the speed-up the employers want, by convincing the workers that they stand to gain from the intensified exploitation because their interests are identical with those of monopoly capital.
A report given by A. F. Okulov and L. N. Velikovich at the international conference on ``The Growing Role of Leninism in the Modern Epoch and the Criticism of AntiCommunism'', held from January 19 to 23, 1970, showed the essential features of present-day clerical anti-- communism, which broadly speculates on the beliefs of religiousminded men and women and abuse their faith for definite political ends.
According to the report, clerical anti-communism has been fighting communism along these lines:
1. By seeking theoretically to ``refute'' Marxism, with the Catholic theorists of the Jesuit Order and some Dominicans being most zealous in this field. Their theoretical activity is closely connected with the anti-communist activity of religious centres in the ``free world''. There are many anticommunist publications in the USA and Western Europe produced by clerical ``Marxologists'' and ``Sovietologists''. The works of men like Gustav Wetter, Innocent Bochenski, Jean-Ives Calvez and Henri Chambre are standard works among anti-communists.
2. By playing down in every way the successes of the socialist countries, clerical anti-communism denigrates the policy of the CPSU, and the Communist and Workers' Parties on the religious question, presenting it as a policy aimed against freedom of religion.
The intensity of this flood of slander is characterised by this fact. There are 147 items in the list of books appended to the work, entitled The Russian Orthodox Church in the USSR, by the anti-Soviet arch-priest D. Konstantinov, and this only for the period from 1960 to 1966. All writings by the men who falsify the condition of religion and the church in the USSR are centred on the idea that the church is captive and persecuted.
_-_-_~^^1^^ G. Friedmann, Industrial Society, New York, 1935, pp. 353--54.
2293. Religious camouflage is one of the specific features of clerical anti-communism. The church itself is making a sizable contribution to anti-communism, which has been raised to the level of government policy in the capitalist countries. The ideology of anti-communism as a whole speculates on men's beliefs and increasingly claims to stand up in defence of Christianity and the other religions allegedly threatened by communism. The bourgeois and clerical falsifiers distort the substance of Marxism and try to prove that the main aim of communism is to destroy religion.
These slanderous inventions are blasted by the Marxist theory of religion and the policy pursued by the Communist Parties in the socialist countries on religion. Marxism has always repudiated any repression with respect to believers and the clergy. Administrative methods of fighting religion are alien to the Marxist-Leninist theory. It is well-known that Engels criticised Duhring for demanding the prohibition of religion in socialist society.
In the fight against religious anti-communism, the evaluation of the nature of the present epoch acquires great importance.
Bourgeois and clerical ideologists variously falsify the main content of world development, characterising it mainly as a contest between Christianity and communism. When Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States, he said that the fight in the world was ``by freedom against slavery and by Godliness against = atheism''.^^1^^ He was echoed by FBI chief Edgar Hoover, who insisted that ``the essential issue between the communists and ourselves is belief in God''.
Thus, the incompatibility of Christianity and communism is presented by the bourgeois ideologists as the principal contradiction of the present epoch, whose substance they reduce to the clash between Christians and atheists. On this religious foundation it is not very hard to present the aggressive foreign policy of the imperialist states as defence of Christianity. This helps to obscure the class contradictions within capitalism both on the national and on the international scale.
Anti-Sovietism is a prominent feature of clerical anticommunism.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Freethinker, London, Vol. 87, 1967, No. 50, p. 395.
230A great many books, pamphlets and articles are being published in the USA, the FRG and other capitalist countries which give their readers the most distorted ideas about the position of religious bodies in the USSR. Since the publication in 1918 of the Soviet Government's decree separating the church from the state, and the school from the church, there has been a steady stream of propaganda designed to blacken the Communist Party's policy on religion and the church. What has to be reckoned with is that a part of the population has succumbed to this propaganda and takes a hostile attitude to the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
We now find anti-communism evolving away from its grossest forms to more refined ones. The deep crisis into which clerical anti-communism has been plunged has induced the most realistic-minded leaders of religious bodies to renovate their ideological arsenal, and to substitute a `` positive anti-communism'' for their old ``negative anti-- communism''. The centre of gravity in the fight against communism is being shifted to the contrast between Marxism and the church's social doctrine as set out in the latest Encyclicals and the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. With this renovated social doctrine, which is being put forward as a constructive alternative to Marxism, the ideologists of clerical ``positive anti-communism'' seek to induce believers to accept the idea that key social problems can be tackled on the basis of ``Christian principles''.
Even in its modernised form the social doctrine of Catholicism remains hostile to Marxism, as Pope Paul VI has repeatedly and unequivocally stated. He characterised the negative attitude to materialist conceptions as one of the axioms of the social doctrine of Catholicism. He used to say that the church rejects Marxist-type movements whose materialistic conceptions doom man to supremely harmful experiments and temptations.
Clerical anti-communism springs from the general crisis of capitalism, the crisis of the Roman Catholic Church and other religions, which, says the Main Document of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, unhinges their age-old conceptions and rigid structures. The social conceptions being spread by the church about the divine predestination of private property are meeting with a dwindling response among the working people, who have 231 been taking an ever stronger stand against the church's apologetic attitude to capitalism. As socialist ideas penetrate into the midst of believers in the capitalist countries, they also generate sceptical attitude to the slanderous inventions about the socialist countries which are being spread by bourgeois secular and clerical propagandists.
In the struggle for the working people's vital needs, especially in the fight against the danger of war, the Communists call on all their brothers by class to take joint action, which should not be hampered by any religious differences.
The servants of the church slander the Communists by insisting that the latter regard all religious-minded men as reactionaries. Actually, however, ``Communists recognise that Catholic workers have the same economic and political interests as all other workers---they want peace; they want democracy; they want prosperity. So the Communists hold out the hand of solidarity to Catholics for the joint accomplishment of these democratic = objectives.''^^1^^
The successes of socialism, the growth of the liberation movement, the achievements of science and technology have been promoting this struggle, which is an irreversible process and cannot be turned back whatever the tricks used by the church as it switches from primitive forms of fighting communism, as it refurbishes and renovates religion, as it seeks to ``synthesise'' religion with science, and to modernise it as far as it can. This struggle has been gaining in breadth and depth, involving more and more countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The fact that religious ideology has no positive, not to say ``revolutionising'', part to play cannot be an obstacle for co-operation between the Communists and believers in the joint struggle for progressive goals. The Communists are guided by Lenin's precept that ``unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in = heaven''.^^2^^ That is why the Communist Parties urge all the working people, regardless of whether they are atheists or believers, to unite in a _-_-_
~^^1^^ William Z. Foster, American Trade Unionism. Principles and Organisation. Strategy and Tactics, New York, 1947, p. 356.
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 87. :
232 common struggle against imperialism, and for peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialism, and more and more progressive-minded clerical leaders are coming to be aware of this.Paulo de Tarso, leader of the massive Left Catholic movement in Brazil, urging the need for joint massive action in the liberation movement in his country, wrote that the Christian must be a revolutionary because the ``capitalist system is inhuman.... On many questions, specifically agrarian reform and the abolition of privileges in general, we are at one with the Communists and can act = together.''^^1^^
There has been considerable comment in the world press on the activity of Camilo Torres, a Catholic priest and sociologist in Columbia, who has taken a vigorous stand in favour of a united front of the country's democratic forces. Torres, an active participant in guerrilla action against the anti-popular oligarchy, declared that ``the Communists are revolutionaries. They are the ones with whom the unity movement should be realised in order to carry out revolution. I shall never become an = anti-communist.''^^2^^
The whole country was shocked and the world indignant when Torres was killed.
More and more believers in various countries are being involved in the general democratic and socialist movement.
Many believers favour a dialogue with the Communists, and have taken part in public meetings with them to formulate a common stand on concrete issues. Here is what an active Austrian Communist, Walter Hollitscher, said at a meeting in Czechoslovakia organised by the World Marxist Review. ``In the recent past we Austrian Communists managed to score some success in the struggle against the anticommunism of Catholic propaganda. This is due above all to the fact that there has been a sharp growth of interest in communism and the Marxist outlook among the broad masses. The same people, who had but recently sought to convince the public that Marxism was only a 'dead dog' which should be ignored, are now saying that Marxism is _-_-_
~^^1^^ Za rubezhom, 1964, No. 13, pp. 11--12.
~^^2^^ See ``Heroes of the Popular Struggle. As Told by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Columbia Hilberto Vieira'', Izvestia, April 8, 1966.
233 extremely viable, that it is surer of its victory than ever before and has a great attractive power.``Thus, for instance, we have had a visit to Austria by the well-known Jesuit Gustav Wetter, of the Collegium Russicum in Rome. He gave talks on dialectical materialism and said that the Communists were dedicated men who believed in the triumph of their cause, and that is why they were dangerous. He added: perhaps, the Communists will do away with the exploitation, as they promised to do, but then life will be 'drab and boring'. Wetter clearly hoped to immunise his audience, especially the young people, against ``infection'' by Marxism.
``He did not succeed in doing this. In response to his talks which distorted Marxism, we organised reports on similar subjects: Marxism and religion, the = ``meaning of life'' in the Marxist and the Catholic view. In these reports we spoke of the papal social Encyclicals (above all the Encyclical = ``Mater et Magistra'') and pointed out that these Encyclicals came out in favour of private property in the means of production and, consequently, in favour of man's exploitation of man.
``The Communists have given the reports to large audiences, and the number of those attending has been growing, especially through the influx of young people. Clergymen have also come to take part in the debate. Of course, it takes more than one report to get men to give up their religious beliefs, but these reports have given many young people food for thought, showing them that the Marxist doctrine in fact differs greatly from what the anti-- communists have been saying. They begin to realise that the Communists are sincerely concerned for the welfare of mankind and are fighting for its interests.
``Thus, the barriers set up by our opponents are being destroyed step by step. Let us bear in mind that the aim of anti-communism is to isolate us from the masses. But what I had described above helps to overcome such isolation and is one of the means of fighting against anti-- communism.^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Walter Hollitscher, ``New Arguments'' of Catholicism.---`` AntiCommunism---Enemy of Mankind'' (Exchange of opinion between Marxists of a number of the countries of Europe, America, Asia and Africa in Libnice, Czechoslovakia, May 28--30, 1962), Prague, 1962, pp. 345--46.
234Speakers at the international theoretical conference on the criticism of anti-communism held in January 1970 justly noted that the dialogue between the Marxists and the Christians does not at all mean that the ideologists of clerical anti-communism have in any way reduced their attacks on the socialist countries. What is more, clerical anti-communism has tried to use these meetings for ideological subversions, anti-communist propaganda, infiltration of religious ideas into the midst of Marxists, and softening and liberalising Marxism. These purposes, in particular, are being promoted by the West German society known as Paulus Gesellschaft (St. Paul's Society) which is headed by the Jesuit Erich Kellner, and which is sponsored by the Vatican and the Bonn government. In pursuance of the tasks set by the Vatican, the society arranged three international meetings of Marxists and Christians in Salzburg (1965), at Chimsa (FRG, 1966) and in Czechoslovakia (1962), which were attended by Catholic and Protestant theologians and also by Marxists from the capitalist countries. Let us note that characteristically the organisers of these meetings invited only reactionary-minded theologians and clerical leaders. Left-wing Catholics and representatives of Leftist trends in the Protestant church did not take part in these meetings. The leaders of St. Paul's Society made a special point of inviting Marxists who were inclined to abandon some of the key propositions of Marxist theory, specifically those on religious matters. The theologians directed their efforts to encouraging in every way revisionist-type statements which tended to deepen the differences between Marxists from various countries.
The concepts of a dialogue between Catholics and Marxists, worked out by the Vatican Secretariat for the Affairs of Nonbelievers, are clearly anti-communist in tenor and do not in any sense bring about any real co-operation between Christians and Marxists in the struggle for peace and democracy and against imperialism and neocolonialism.
The writings of Roger Garaudy on religion, notably, his books, From Anathema to Dialogue, and Marxism of the 20th Century, were given a highly positive welcome in clerical circles. In these writings Garaudy elaborates the idea that religion has been a means of giving expression to human needs (emotions, labour) and has synthesised human achievements in its day, presenting them in the imagery of 235 faith, under a religious integument. He said: ``It is our duty to be in communion with these achievements instead of rejecting them.''
However, while stressing the expression of despair and the striving for a better life, Garaudy tends to minimise the inhuman substance of religion. Any objective evaluation of religion must be based on a consideration of its contradictions. It was, in fact, the glossing over of this negative aspect of religion that induced Garaudy to revise Marx's wellknown formula: ``Religion is an opiate for the = people.''^^1^^
This view was expounded at the philosophical congress in Vienna in September 1968 by Gustav Wetter, who said in his report that if the Marxists wanted to carry on a dialogue with the theologians they had to abandon their view of religion as an opiate for the people, as an illusory reflection of reality. In short, he demanded that they abandon Marxism. The Italian Jesuit De Rosa wrote in the journal of the Italian Jesuits Civiltd Cattolica, that `` cooperation between the Catholics and the Communists will be possible only when communism is purged of Leninism''.
It is not right in assessing religion and the church to depart from the class Marxist-Leninist stand and to agree to any ideological compromises. The Marxists, the Communists have no reason to make a secret of their atheistic, scientific views. However, the different views of the world must not be an obstacle for joint action by Marxists and believers in the fight against imperialism, and for peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialism.
``Owing to the considerable aggravation of social contradictions, conditions have arisen in many capitalist countries for an anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist alliance of the revolutionary working-class movement and broad masses of religious people. The Catholic Church and some other religious organisations are experiencing an ideological crisis, which is shattering their age-long concepts and existing structures. Positive co-operation and joint action between Communists and broad democratic masses of Catholics and followers of other religions are developing in some countries. The dialogue between them on issues such as war and _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 415 (Russ. ed.).
236 peace, capitalism and socialism, and neocolonialism and the problem of the developing countries, has become highly topical; their united action against imperialism, for democracy and socialism, is extremely timely. Communists are convinced that in this way---through broad contacts and joint action---the mass of religious people can become an active force in the anti-imperialist struggle and in carrying out far-reaching social = changes.''^^1^^ _-_-_^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 26-- 27.
[237] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter Six __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE NATIONAL QUESTIONThe problem of the international and the national is an exceptionally important one both in ideological battles and in political practice. This is due above all to the fact that because of the objectively sharpening struggle between the two class camps in the present epoch there is an ever growing and vital need for the international unity and cohesion of the communist and working-class movement and of the socialist community. One of the main purposes of international imperialism is to undermine this unity. Never before has such pressing importance attached to Lenin's conclusion that ``what the bourgeoisie of all countries, and all manner of petty-bourgeois parties---i.e., 'compromising' parties which permit alliance with the bourgeoisie against the workers--- try most of all to accomplish is to disunite the workers of different nationalities, to evoke distrust, and to disrupt a close international alliance and international brotherhood of the workers. Whenever the bourgeoisie succeeds in this the cause of the workers is = lost.''^^1^^
It is also important to analyse the relation between the international and the national from the class, scientific angle because the present epoch is marked by a great world-wide upswing in the national liberation movement, which has confirmed Lenin's prediction concerning the ways of the world socialist revolution, which has in fact become not only ``a struggle of the revolutionary proletarians in each country against their bourgeoisie'' but ``a struggle of all the imperialist-oppressed colonies and countries, of all dependent countries, against international = imperialism'',^^2^^ a struggle which has become one of the mightiest streams of the great international world-wide revolutionary process.
The development of this process---involvement in it of more and more social groups and trends, the gradual making of a new, multinational communist socio-economic formation and international relations of a new type, which are _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 297.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 159.
238 characteristic of a socialist community, and finally the ever more subtle speculation by the ideological opponents of socialism on the difficulties which are quite natural and in fact inevitable for such a grand undertaking as the revolutionary transformation of the world---all this has set before the communist vanguard of mankind the task of defending and establishing the great principles of proletarian internationalism and also developing them by generalising the experience of the world-wide revolutionary struggle. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. PROLETARIANThe main idea of proletarian internationalism was first expressed a century ago in the militant slogan issued by Marx and Engels: ``Workers of the World, Unite!'' Engels observed: ``As the position of the workers of all countries is identical, as their interests are identical, and they have the same enemies, they should struggle together and counterpose the fraternal union of the workers of all nations to the fraternal union of the bourgeoisie of all = nations.''^^1^^ Consequently, the slogan of proletarian internationalism has always reflected the objective contradiction of capitalist society, the contradiction between the class interests of the proletariat and of the bourgeoisie, and the real interests and requirements arising from the struggle of the working class.
Lenin explained the class essence of proletarian internationalism, which is common for all the contingents of the revolutionary movement, when he wrote: ``There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is--- working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one's own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without = exception.''^^2^^
Lenin stood up for the class, Marxist approach to the concept of proletarian internationalism, which he developed _-_-_
~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 373 (Russ. ed.).
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 75.
239 and deepened by bringing out two of its aspects---the theoretical and the political---by emphasising their connection and class essence and pointing to the fundamental contrast between proletarian international and bourgeois nationalism.He wrote: ``Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism---these are the two irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to the two great class camps throughout the capitalist world, and express the two policies (nay, the two world outlooks) in the national = question.''^^1^^
Proletarian internationalism is therefore the great principle of revolutionary Marxist-Leninist theory reflecting the community of condition, interest and purposes of the national contingents of the international working class, and also a principle of revolutionary action expressing the objective need for international solidarity, co-operation and active mutual assistance between the national contingents of the working class and the international communist movement fighting against imperialism. These two organically related aspects of proletarian internationalism explain why we usually speak of the principles and not of the principle of proletarian internationalism.
The profoundly viable power of proletarian internationalism and its conformity with the fundamental interests of the working people have been expressed in the fact that every form of the workers' class struggle against the bourgeoisie--- economic, political and ideological---has always been permeated with expressions of effective proletarian solidarity and mutual international assistance between the various national contingents of the working class. This has been evident in every sphere of social life over the long history of the working-class movement.
Proletarian internationalism has been developing together with scientific socialism and the revolutionary workingclass movement. Before the Great October Socialist Revolution, the international solidarity and mutual support of the national contingents of the working class were naturally directed mainly at the overthrow of capitalism and the winning of political power by the working class, because it was yet to win power in any country.
The victory of the October Revolution marked the start of a new epoch in world history, whose principal _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 26.
240 contradiction has become the struggle between world socialism and world capitalism. The centre of gravity of the class struggle carried on by the working class of the world shifted into the world arena. The rapid development of social life and the world-wide revolutionary process has considerably enlarged the objective foundations of proletarian internationalism, and this has been reflected in the emergence of a number of new laws governing its development on the basis and within the framework of its fundamental principles and class essence.The first thing that helped to develop and enrich proletarian internationalism was the emergence of the world socialist system.
The spread of the principles of proletarian internationalism to the interstate relations of the socialist countries is a new and extremely important law. This is based on these fundamentally new developments in history: the coherent economic foundation of the world socialist community--- social property in the means of production; a coherent social and political system---the power of the people headed by the working class; the coherent scientific ideology of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Parties directing society's political organisation; the common interests of the socialist countries in defending their revolutionary gains and true national interests against imperialist encroachments; and their great common goal---construction of a communist society.
All these objective prerequisites have helped to establish these new lines of proletarian internationalism:~
the need to strengthen the unity of the socialist countries and consequently the need for effective solidarity, co-- operation and mutual assistance between these countries at every level and in every sphere of the class struggle (economic, political and ideological);~
the utmost effort in each socialist country for socialist and communist construction, which is a common internationalist duty of the socialist countries which they owe to the working people of the world;~
joint defence of the socialist gains in each socialist country against encroachments by internal and external reactionary forces;~
joint struggle against world imperialism, and for social progress, peace, security and socialism.~
__PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16---1245 241Lenin said: ``We who are faced by a huge front of imperialist powers, we, who are fighting imperialism, represent an alliance that requires close military unity, and any attempt to violate this unity we regard as absolutely impermissible, as a betrayal of the struggle against international imperialism.''^^1^^
Despite the deep-going objective basis for this necessary international struggle for unity and basic social interests of the world socialist system, it will not run of itself. Like all objective social laws, the need for international unity of the socialist countries is secured in struggle, with exceptional importance attaching to the role of subjective factor, specifically the Marxist-Leninist line followed by the ruling Communist Parties in the socialist countries and their resolute struggle against all the hostile class trends and influences which run against proletarian internationalism.
Furthermore, proletarian internationalism has been enriched by the confirmation provided by practical experience in the world communist movement, the experience of the USSR and the other socialist countries, for the view that the socialist revolution and socialist construction rest on a number of cardinal objective laws which apply to all countries taking the socialist way. These laws, The Declaration of the 1957 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries said, are manifested everywhere even where there is a great diversity of historically-rooted national specifics and traditions.
The success of our common revolutionary cause---the great revolutionary transformation of the world---crucially depends on the consideration by the Communist Parties in all the socialist countries in their day-to-day work of the general laws governing the socialist revolution and socialist construction. Of course, this does not at all imply any mechanical or monotonous application of these laws, without consideration for national specific features or concrete historical conditions of each nation's life. The living practice of creative socialist construction in varying national conditions has well shown, for instance, the diverse forms of political structure that arise in implementing such a general law of socialist construction as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This shows that the principles of proletarian _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 325.
242 internationalism do not in any sense imply a denial of national tradition and national peculiarities.Another important law governing the development of international solidarity and mutual assistance of the working class in the various countries is growing support of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries by the workingclass and the communist movement in the capitalist countries, and at the same time, support of the world workingclass and revolutionary movement by the Soviet Union and the whole socialist community.
Needless to say this highly profound law, which springs from the basic interests of the working class and all the working people of the world, will not be realised by itself. Here again, there is need for class-conscious action by political parties and statesmen, who must have a sense of common responsibility for the future of socialism, and for the radiant future, not only of their own nations, but of all the nations of the world.
Finally, proletarian internationalism is being ever more broadly manifested in the effective support and assistance being rendered to the national liberation movement of the emergent nations in strengthening their political and economic independence.
The present epoch, whose main content is transition from capitalism to socialism, is not only one of struggle between the two opposite systems, but also one of socialist and national liberation revolutions, an epoch of the collapse of imperialism, and the liquidation of the colonial system, an epoch in which more and more nations take the socialist path. Before the October Revolution in Russia, Lenin wrote: ``The social revolution can come only in the form of an epoch in which are combined civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed = nations.''^^1^^
A 1920 issue of Peoples of the East, the journal of the Communist International, carried on its cover this slogan: ``Proletarians of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!''
In a speech at a meeting of -the Moscow Party Organisation aktiv Lenin made a point of stressing the profound _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 60. 16*
243 meaning of that slogan. He said: ``We now stand, not only as representatives of the proletarians of all countries but as representatives of the oppressed peoples as = well.''^^1^^ The Programme of the Comintern approved in 1931, said: ``A fraternal militant alliance with the colonial working masses is ... one of the most important tasks before the world industrial proletariat as the predominant force and leader in the struggle against = imperialism.''^^2^^
Alliance between the international working class and its main product---the world socialist system---with the national liberation movement has become one of the key regularities governing the development of proletarian internationalism in the present epoch.
The mighty national liberation movement advancing under the impact of the successes scored by socialism has brought about the disintegration of the colonial system, and, as Lenin had brilliantly predicted, this movement, initially aimed at national liberation, is increasingly turning against capitalism and imperialism.
Especial importance in the development of proletarian internationalism at this stage attaches to the necessity for the unity of all the streams of the world revolutionary process. The historical law that the world working class and the world socialist system have the leading role to play in the fight against the common enemy---world imperialism---is being brought out with ever greater clarity and conviction.
As the theory and practice of proletarian internationalism develop, they include and raise to a new and higher level a number of democratic principles earlier developed on the national question, above all, the right of nations to selfdetermination, the equality of nations, and national sovereignty. Respect for, and strict observance of, these principles is a law by which Communists are guided, because they are internationalists.
``The national and international responsibilities of each Communist and Workers' Party are indivisible. MarxistsLeninists are both patriots and internationalists; they reject both national narrow-mindedness and the negation or _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 453.
~^^2^^ Programme and Rules of the Communist International, Moscow,'' 1932, p. Ill (in Russian).
'
244 underestimation of national interests, and the striving for hegemony. At the same time, the Communist Parties---the Parties of the working class and all working people---are the standard-bearers of genuine national interests unlike the reactionary classes, which betray these = interests.''^^1^^All the democratic principles of national relations on the basis of socialist practice are not simply declared or announced, but are in fact ensured in reality.
Thus, the Soviet Union, consistently standing up for the right of all nations and peoples to self-determination, has given and continues to give them real assistance in developing their economy and culture.
The Soviet Union, which has always worked for the complete equality of big and small nations, has in fact established the equality of all the Soviet socialist nations. It is a reliable ally of all the peoples fighting for national independence and equality, and for liberation from colonial dependence.
The principle of national sovereignty, a reflection of the emergence of nations on the historical scene, served the interests of social progress because it was directed against feudalism, which had outlived its day. However, under bourgeois domination, national sovereignty is nominal and curtailed. For a long time, it was recognised only for nations belonging to the white race. The bourgeois ideologists in fact substituted the idea of supremacy by the exploiters for the sovereignty of nations. Under imperialism, national sovereignty entailed a great many objective contradictions, which could not be resolved on the basis of capitalism. The imperialist states, essentially exploiting states, necessarily resist the urge of the oppressed peoples to rise to full political, social, national and economic emancipation. This explains the numerous attempts on the part of bourgeois ideologists to prove that national sovereignty is an outdated principle.
Only the successes of socialism have helped to create favourable conditions for the expression of national sovereignty not as a nationalistic principle but as a basis for uniting the working people in the fight against imperialism. Under socialist construction, directed by the working class, when the people become true masters of their future, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 37.
245 defence of national sovereignty is inconceivable apart from the defence and consolidation of socialist positions. National sovereignty, as the sovereignty of the people, is defended and developed only insofar as the socialist system is defended and developed.On the basis of socialism, nations develop in every way and draw ever closer to each other on the basis of the principles of proletarian internationalism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. BOURGEOIS NATIONALISMBourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism are antipodes. Bourgeois nationalism is the bourgeois class view of, and policy on, the national question, catering for capitalist exploitation and competition at home and abroad, and helping the bourgeoisie to establish a class peace within the nation for the purpose of safeguarding the narrow, selfseeking class interests of its economic, political and ideological domination.
In the imperialist countries, aggressive bourgeois nationalism is being increasingly seen as incompatible with true national interests. It takes the form of racism, chauvinism, and in the class clashes with the true national interests of the peoples fighting for the complete abolition of colonialism and neocolonialism, ever more frequently appears as ``supra-national'' cosmopolitanism, which denies and tramples on the national sovereignty of its own people and the national independence of other peoples. Bourgeois ideologists are now working hard to get the peoples of the world to accept such cosmopolitan ideas as the ``free world'', ``Atlanticism'', ``world government'', and ``world law'', or to establish chauvinist claims to the world-wide importance of the ``American way of life''.
All of this clashes at root with the true national interests of the peoples and of world social progress.
Bourgeois nationalism is a transient phenomenon, for it has private property as its source and material basis. It grows out of private-enterprise competition and is designed to perpetuate the exploitation of the working masses by splitting their ranks.
Racism is an extreme form of nationalism, and gives the fullest expression to the claims of one's nation to 246 exclusiveness and superiority, to its ``right'' to dominate other nations. Racism was used by the nazis to start the Second World War.
Racism is a reactionary expression of the biological trend in sociology. All brands of racism are based on the false premise that races and nations are unequal. In actual fact, racial distinctions have appreciable social importance. Science has fully refuted the racists' speculations on men's anatomical and physiological features.
Racism has suffered a fiasco not only in science but also in social life. The main blow at racism was dealt by the epoch-making achievements of the peoples which have taken the socialist path and also by the successes of the national liberation movement.
All of this has necessarily had an effect on the forms in which racist ideas are being spread.
These main aspects have been suggested by bourgeois ideologists for tackling the ``racial problem'': 1) re-- establishment of biological racism which says that mankind has always consisted of ``superior'' and ``inferior'' races; 2) `` modernisation'' of racial theories expounding historical and social instead of biological arguments to prove the `` inferiority'' of some nations and races; 3) switching of the accent from assertion of ``inferiority'' to an allegedly `` instinctive'' hatred which inevitably makes for hostile relations between different races. Psychoracism has also acquired considerable importance in the present conditions.
The neoracists seek to perpetuate racial oppression. Any brand of racism rests on socio-economic factors, and this is most evident from the racist domestic policy pursued by US imperialism. Black people, who make up a sizable section of the US labour force, are paid much less than the white people for their work. The winning of civil rights and the abolition of the segregation practised against the black people would markedly strengthen the democratic movement in the USA. No wonder, therefore, that the reactionary forces have been doing their utmost to prevent any cohesion between black and white working people. Racist propaganda has also had some effect on the blacks. Some groups (for instance, Black Muslims) have started to preach an ``inside-out'' racism, spreading a bellicose attitude of racial hatred for the whites. This is in fact a reflection of the fiercest persecution and racial hatred originated by 247 the whites, but it can do no more than weaken black emancipation movement and help the reactionaries throw dirt on the civil rights movement.
The fight against racism is an important task for all progressive forces. What Lenin said at the turn of the century is still meaningful today: ``The duty of all class-conscious workers is to rise with all their might against those who are stirring up national hatred and diverting the attention of the working people from their real = enemies.''^^1^^ Lenin branded the men who organised the Black Hundreds, those who set Tatars against Armenians, and mounted pogroms. Lenin condemned the slave-holding traditions, and the persecution and economic and cultural oppression practised against the black people. He wrote: ``The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races ... the rich in all countries are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers. ... Shame on those who foment hatred towards other nations.
``Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital.''^^2^^
Uniting the international ranks of the working people for the struggle against international capital continues to be a pressing task of the day.
The Main Document of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties says: ``Imperialism makes use of racialism to divide the peoples and maintain its rule. Wide sections of the people reject racialism and can be drawn into active struggle against it. In such action they will come to realise that eradication of racialism is closely connected with the struggle against imperialism and its ideological = foundations.''^^3^^
``We Communists again call on all honest men in the world to unite their efforts in the struggle against the manhating ideology and practices of racialism. We call for the broadest possible protest movement against the most ignominious phenomenon of our time, the barbarous persecution of the 25 million Negroes in the USA, the racialist terror _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 377.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, pp. 252, 253.
~^^3^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, 1969, p. 33.
248 in South Africa and Rhodesia, the persecution of the Arab population in occupied territory and in Israel, against racial and national discrimination, against Zionism, and antiSemitism, all of which are fanned by reactionary capitalist forces and which they use to mislead the masses politi- cally.''^^1^^Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USA, addressing a meeting at the Kremlin Palace of Congresses on April 22, 1970, to mark the Lenin Centenary, declared: ``Because the US policies of imperialist aggression and its domestic policies are sustained by the ideology of racism, chauvinism and brutal genocide, Lenin's sharp stand and insistence upon the need to carry on a sustained struggle against all manifestations of this ideological narcotic has a very special = meaning.''^^2^^
Bourgeois nationalism, an ideological trend expressing the class interests of the imperialist reactionaries, is not only an instrument of imperialist domestic policy, but also of its foreign policy, where blatantly nationalistic and chauvinistic ideas are usually interwoven with cosmopolitan ideas.^^3^^
Cosmopolitanism springs from extreme bourgeois nationalism. The bourgeois nationalists, who claim their own bourgeoisie to be a perfect model in every sense, in fact lay claim to the spread of their influence across the world. Denying other nations the right to an existence of their own, bourgeois nationalists claim their own national features to be worthy of universal, cosmopolitan application.
Bourgeois cosmopolitanism and chauvinistic nationalism are two sides of the same imperialist view of the national question. Cosmopolitanism, like aggressive bourgeois nationalism, helps the imperialists to enslave other nations, just as bourgeois nationalism helps to undermine the class-- consciousness of the working people. The cosmopolitan idea of a ``world spiritual community'', of a ``universal ideological homogeneity'' is closely connected with bourgeois national propaganda of the ``class peace'' within each nation. %
The bourgeoisie has always sought to use the nationalistic ideology in its efforts to undermine the class consciousness _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, 1969, p. 35.
^^2^^ Daily World, April 25, 1970.
~^^3^^ ``Cosmopolitan'' means citizen of the world, and ``cosmopolitanism'' is the ideology of so-called world citizenship.
249 of the workers in the individual countries, so as to strengthen its positions in the fight against the working class. The bourgeoisie has used the idea of a ``national community'' to cover up the class contradiction between itself and the proletariat and to divert the latter from the class struggle. In the new historical conditions, the bourgeoisie seeks to undermine the class consciousness of the working people by spreading the idea not only of a national but also of a ``supra-national'' community. In view of the growing influence exerted by the ideas of world socialism, the bourgeoisie now finds it especially necessary to fall back on cosmopolitanism with its ``universal'' apology of man's exploitation of man and of the power of capital.In actual life, cosmopolitans or bourgeois nationalistimperialists are never to be found in any ``pure state''. Thus, for instance, depending on the situation German bourgeois nationalist-imperialists either trumpet chauvinistic and racist slogans or hoist the supra-national flag of ``European ideal''. Spokesmen for the French financial oligarchy, who are connected with US capital, have pursued a cosmopolitan policy of national betrayal, a fact which has not prevented them from remaining bourgeois nationalist-- imperialists.
One of the most active propagandists of cosmopolitanism, the reactionary US sociologist and technocrat, James Burnham, has admitted that cosmopolitan slogans have served US imperialist reactionaries as a cover for US racism. He wrote: ``It goes without saying that the attempt at World Empire will not be carried out under the open slogan of 'World Empire'. More acceptable phrases, such as 'World Federation', 'World Republic', 'United States of the World', 'World Government', or even 'United Nations' will be used. ... The truth is that the growing belief in, and propaganda for, various sorts of World Government are in historical actuality both a symptom of the need for a World Empire, a support for the attempt to achieve such an Empire, and a psychological preparation for its acceptance, if it = comes.''^^1^^
It is for the purpose of this psychological preparation, for the purpose of deceiving the masses, that the demagogic _-_-_
~^^1^^ James Burnham, The Struggle for the World, New York 1947 pp. 54--55.
250 catchwords of cosmopolitanism and its pseudo-scientific arguments are being used.Modern bourgeois cosmopolitanism is, consequently, a brand of imperialist, aggressive, reactionary bourgeois nationalism.
The world balance has tilted in favour of socialism, and the ideology of ``supra-national'' cosmopolitanism was expressed in the narrower framework of such doctrines as ``Atlantic community'', ``European community'', etc. A specific feature of the new approach as compared with the open claims to world domination by propagandists of the ``Pax Americana'' like James Burnham, is the ever more demagogically liberal and democratic camouflage, which goes hand in hand with an ever more restrained assessment of the forces and potentialities of the capitalist West.
Imperialist rivalry has gone forward behind the screen of various regional (mainly European) ``supra-national'' plans, each variant bearing the stamp of the imperialist interests ranged against each other and masking the revengeseeking nationalistic aspirations of West German imperialism. The ideologists of neofascism hope that the establishment of ``supra-national'' united Europe would make them masters of the situation in Western Europe and help them to realise their aggressive aspirations.
The schemes for establishing a ``united Europe'' produced by American, British, or West German reactionary circles are geared to the aims of the various imperialist groupings and are designed to help them consolidate their positions within the framework of imperialist rivalry.
The contradictions reflecting deep-going and ineradicable clash of economic interests between the imperialists have had a considerable part to play in the fact that all the projects for setting up a monolithic ``European political community'' remain on paper. However, there has been no relaxation of efforts to cobble a united ``supra-national'' imperialist front in Western Europe. The various measures for ``European unification'' through the establishment of diverse close ``communities'' testify to the enhancement of the uniting tendency among the imperialists in face of the successes scored by socialism and the national liberation movement, once again bearing out Lenin's profound analysis of the United States of Europe slogan.
Lenin emphasised that on the present, that is, capitalist, 251 basis, a United States of Europe can be no more than an organisation of reaction set up for exerting joint pressure on socialism in Europe and jointly defending their enslaved colonies. That is why the idea of ``supra-national European union'' is being plugged so vigorously in all its variants. The main purpose of all these measures in ``unifying'' Europe is to try to stamp out socialism in Western Europe and create a striking force for aggressive attempts at restoring capitalism in the socialist countries.
The progressive forces of the world are doing everything to safeguard mankind from the threat of another world war and to eliminate the hotbed of war on the globe.
The struggle for peace and against the threat of a world thermonuclear war is closely connected with the need to expose the ideologists of blatant aggressive imperialist nationalism and the ideologies of hypocritical ``supra-national'' cosmopolitanism, whatever its form.
The Marxist-Leninist class analysis of nationalism which starts from its social content, is combined with the concrete historical approach which rejects the abstract view of nationalism as a national ideology ``in general'', outside the socio-historical context and the particular period.
When the modern European nations were in the making, when capitalism was on the upgrade in its early period, bourgeois nationalism was a very different thing from the present-day aggressive nationalism of the imperialist bourgeoisie. Even today, the content of nationalism tends to differ with the conditions. Lenin wrote: ``A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small = nation.''^^1^^ ``The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support. At the same time we strictly distinguish it from the tendency towards national = exclusiveness.''^^2^^
The contradictory content of the nationalism of oppressed nations creates the possibility of evolution (depending on the balance of class forces at home and abroad) of national ideology in these countries in different directions either _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 36, p. 607.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 412.
252 towards the ideology of socialist internationalism, which blends the defence of truly national interests and the interests of social progress, or towards national .exclusiveness, isolation and national egoism. Because of the fairly rapid socio-political developments in the emergent countries today, they reveal an ever more pronounced law of the reactionary aspects of nationalism being gradually supplanted by an ideology meeting the true national interests of these countries, interests which are alien to the idea of national exclusiveness. The struggle to consolidate the political and economic independence of the emergent countries and establish a socialist orientation has given the progressive revolutionary-democratic circles in these countries a growing awareness of the need for the utmost strengthening of international anti-imperialist ties, thereby leading them up to an understanding of the importance of proletarian internationalism as a key principle consolidating the positions of the peoples in the fight against imperialism.In the present-day conditions, proletarian internationalism is not only a great and inspiring slogan of the international communist movement; it has also been embodied in the practice of socialist construction and in the all-round co-operation between the socialist countries.
The world socialist community is advancing, overcoming numerous difficulties on its way. It is confronted with the constant striving of imperialism to exert economic, political and ideological pressure on the socialist world. Nationalism is a dangerous weapon wielded by imperialism in its subversive activity against the socialist countries.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. BOURGEOIS NATIONALISMIn its fight against the world socialist system, the international working-class movement and the theory of Marxism-Leninism, the imperialist ideologists, like reactionary politicians, speculate on the problem of national relations, putting their stake on bourgeois nationalism, and doing their utmost to spread, praise and encourage 253 nationalistic hostility and exclusiveness. Needless to say, this line is covered up with false claims to defence of the national interests and national independence of the socialist countries.
The hopes of undermining the unity and cohesion of the communist and working-class movement and of the socialist community has become a, if not the, main means used by international imperialism in resisting social progress.
Lenin wrote: ``It is in the interest of capital to destroy its enemy (the revolutionary proletariat) bit by = bit.''^^1^^ This is an exact expression of the hopes of imperialism in its fight against the world socialist system.
In his speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Max Reimann, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany, declared: ``The imperialists have pinned special hopes on nationalism, which, as they themselves say, they are using as a means to undermine our = movement.''^^2^^
At the same meeting, Janos Kadar, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, said: ``Our enemies, the imperialists, are well aware that their counter-revolutionary plans aimed against the world socialist system can succeed only if they manage to divide the socialist countries and incite contradictions between = them.''^^3^^
The anti-communist reactionaries of the world now pin their main hopes on the use of nationalism to promote the spread of so-called polycentrism. One collection of papers says: ``Every Western government favors a 'policy of movement' in Eastern Europe, a policy which implies the encouragement of East European = polycentrism.''^^4^^ Cyrus Sulzberger, the well-known American commentator, says that the ``initial US goal is to loosen up the bloc'' (meaning the community of socialist countries). He adds: ``Our first aspiration is to split the USSR's European empire into individual = segments.''^^5^^ This is a typical imperialist propaganda _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 333.
~^^2^^ Pravda, June 11, 1969.
~^^3^^ Pravda, June 12, 1969.
~^^4^^ Eastern Europe in Transition, p. 327.
~^^5^^ C. L. Sulzberger, The Big Thaw, New York, 1956, pp. 252--53, 255.
254 statement and it exposes one of the main lines along which bourgeois ideologists have been working in their efforts to undermine the unity of the socialist countries.The tattered anti-communist myth of ``Soviet imperialism'', a myth based on brazen distortion of actual Soviet foreign policy, is used on every occasion in an effort to blow up any minor point that may weaken the friendship and co-operation of the socialist countries and the Soviet Union. It was the height of cynicism to talk of the establishment of a Soviet empire and to contemplate the possibility of ``successful revolts'' against its authority in the future, just after the end of the Great Patriotic War, when the Soviet Union had scored its victory over fascism, which helped to liberate many nations from the fascist bondage, a victory which cost the Soviet people 20 million lives, the lives of its best sons. But that is exactly what George F. Kennan was doing as early as May = 1945.^^1^^
However, not all the ideological opponents of socialism are so outspoken. In the recent period, they have concentrated on theoretical exercises. It is no easy thing to fulfil their social order, namely, to move the ideological influence of imperialism into the socialist countries. And so we find imperialist propaganda of bourgeois nationalism running on new lines: there is the effort to emasculate the social, class content of national ideology, to treat proletarian internationalism as a principle hostile to national interests, to ascribe national nihilism to Marxism, to contrast international and national interests, and to support pettybourgeois nationalism.
``The emergence of a plurality of sovereign Communist powers'' was a basic factor in making the disintegration of the organisation and doctrine of world communism possible, says a conference organised at Stanford University by the Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace, on the general subject of ``One Hundred Years of Revolutionary Internationals''. Professor J. H. Billington writes: ``What is common to nationalism in Eastern Europe ... is a shared feeling of having been treated as semi-colonial, faintly inferior and---worst of all---historically irrelevant secondclass Europeans.'' In the next breath, the Professor makes quite clear the purpose of all these inventions. He writes: ('. 1-f, < _-_-_
~^^1^^ George Kennan, Memoirs, 1925--1950, Boston, 1967, p. 533.
255 ``Each East European country is anxious to exercise full self-determination for a time, in order to feel fully able to participate in the broader European = community.''^^1^^We find that the ostensible champions of the socialist countries' national sovereignty are not really worried about their true national independence, and the demagogic talk on the national issue is designed for one purpose only, namely, to undermine the strength of socialism and the authority of Marxist-Leninist theory, and to change the balance of forces in Europe and the world.
The same purpose is served by the bourgeois ideologists' idea that ``international communism, ever since its birth as a political movement, has borne within it the seeds of inevitable conflict between central control and national auton- omy''.^^2^^ To substantiate the Communists' ``national nihilism'', bourgeois ideologists frequently quote the Communist Manifesto which says that the ``working men have no country''. Professor Billington pretends that the Communist Manifesto takes an attitude of national nihilism, and declares: ``Communists have been underestimating the appeal of nationalism ever since Marx wrote in his 'Communist Manifesto' ... 'the working men have no = country'.''^^3^^ In actual fact, the well-known Marxist formula---``the working men have no country''---does not at all mean that the proletariat is indifferent to the country's fortunes. What it means is that under capitalism the working class, deprived of land, means of production and state power, and consequently not being master of the country but only an object of exploitation, does in fact have no country, which he gains only through socialist revolution and the establishment of its own state. The workers' hostile attitude to bourgeois `` fatherlands'', that is, ``fatherlands'' in the bourgeois sense, in fact sprang from its deprived position, so that the worker of another country was more akin to the worker of this country than any of his exploiter compatriots. The Communist Manifesto says that the proletariat must become the leading force of the nation and rise to political supremacy. Lenin emphasised the class and concrete historical approach to _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. H. Billington, ``Force and Counterforce in Eastern Europe'', Foreign Affairs, October 1968, p. 31.
~^^2^^ John G. Campbell, Tito's Separate Road. America and Yugoslavia in World Politics, New York, 1967, p. 95.
^^3^^ J. H. Billington, Op. cit., p. 31.
256 this question of country, which is the only way to understand the dialectics of the national and the internationalist.The social content of the national interests is the key to the real balance between national interests and proletarian internationalism.
Lenin said that patriotism and internationalism were blended in the working-class struggle for emancipating the masses of people from the yoke of wage slavery, in the fight against every form of imperialist oppression, and in the development of the best progressive national traditions of their country. In his famous article, ``On the National Pride of the Great Russians'', Lenin showed that the national interests of the Russians, correctly understood, were completely identical with the socialist interests of the Russian and all other proletarians.
Engels wrote that ``the truly national ideas in the working-class movement ... are always simultaneously truly international = ideas''.^^1^^ History has borne out his conclusion.
Today, it is the working class that represents and expresses truly national ideas and interests.
The working class, fighting for socialism at the head of the democratic forces, simultaneously tackles both internationalist and truly national patriotic tasks. The revolutionary working-class movement, which is international, is of necessity national in form.
A man's country, that is, a given political, cultural and social environment, is a powerful factor in the proletariat's class struggle. Lenin wrote: ``The proletariat cannot be indifferent to the political, social and cultural conditions of its struggle; consequently it cannot be indifferent to the destinies of its country. But the destinies of the country interest it only to the extent that they affect its class = struggle.''^^2^^ Lenin remarked on the connection between the truly national and the class interests in the context of the proletarian struggle under capitalism. This connection naturally becomes even more obvious and direct under socialism. The socialist state, whose existence and development embodies the principal, class interests of all the oppressed, has become a true
25& _-_-_~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 374 (Russ. ed)
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 195.
17---1245
257 country of the working people, where the true national interest is identical with the internationalist.The Soviet Union, with its 15 national Union Republics, has become a great epoch-making example of the identity of the internationalist and the truly national tasks and interests of all the peoples. Subsequently, with the emergence of the world socialist system, the development of socialist construction, which embodies the people's principal national interest, is simultaneously that people's contribution to the common internationalist cause of strengthening the positions of socialism throughout the world.
Thus, the relation between the national and the international may be summed up as follows: the truly national interests of the proletariat of each country are identical with the international interests of the working class of all countries. On the other hand, international achievements in the revolutionary transformation of society are the more considerable the more important are the victories scored in this sphere by the national contingents of the working class.
Is it right to distinguish the international importance of the Communists' revolutionary struggle and the national importance of their heroic endeavours? No, it is not. One is deeply stirred by the boundless patriotism expressed by Ernst Thalmann, the leader of the German working class, in a message he wrote in prison in January 1944, and first published in October 1950 by Neues Deutschland. He said: ``I am not a rootless man. I am a German with much national and international experience. My people, to whom I belong and whom I love is the German people, and my nation of which I am proud is the German nation, a gallant, proud and staunch nation. I have my roots in the German working class. That is why, as a son of the revolutionary class, I subsequently became its revolutionary leader. My life and my work were aimed only at the welfare of the German working people, and my knowledge, strength and experience, my activity---my whole being---was dedicated to the struggle for Germany's future, for the triumph of socialism, for freedom, for a fresh flourishing of the German = nation.''^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ Neues Deutschland, October 22, 1950.
258The practice of the peoples of the socialist countries has confirmed that their fraternal unity and co-operation accord with the loftiest national interests of each country, because each socialist country's supreme national interests are defence and safeguarding of its socialist gains, consolidation and development of socialism, and the country's further advance along the socialist path. But success on this path can be scored only on the basis of the fraternal internationalist unity of all the national contingents of the communist movement, of all the countries of the socialist system. Consolidation of the unity of the socialist community on the basis of proletarian internationalism is a necessary condition for the further successes of all the states within it.
Consequently, the socialist countries' true national interests are embodied above all in the people's struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system.
The wealth and diversity of the historical creative effort of the peoples both building socialism and communism and engaged in preparing the socialist revolution demonstrate in practice the diversity of ways and forms of transition to socialism, the specifically national and concrete approaches by each country to the solution of the general internationalist tasks.
But as soon as the ``national'' is turned into an absolute and is separated from the international or is contrasted to it, the ``national'' ceases to be the truly national interest and clashes with the international, beginning to run counter to the truly national interests, which is inconceivable outside the context of international aims and interests.
Is it for instance possible to contrast the national sovereignty of any socialist country to the interests of the socialist community, and what would be the result of such a contrast? True national sovereignty is popular rule. Popular rule in each socialist country is consolidated and defended by the joint efforts of the mighty socialist camp. The bonds with the fraternal socialist countries facilitate a country's material and cultural progress and ensure reliable protection against imperialist aggression. Relaxation of these bonds jeopardises not only the country's socialist gains but also its national independence.
To depart from internationalism is to abandon the class stand, to abandon the supreme interests of socialism and revolution, which cannot be assured otherwise than on the __PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* 259 basis of implacable struggle against imperialism, on the basis of strong socialist brotherhood, the unity of the world communist movement. Genuine and supreme national interests are the interests of the revolution and socialism, and the only way of safeguarding them successfully is the way of internationalist solidarity and joint action, the way of complete and consistent consideration of all the principles of proletarian internationalism in their concrete historical development.
Nor is it right to separate some single element from the objectively determined system of principles and laws of proletarian internationalism. That is the approach of pettybourgeois nationalism, which, Lenin pointed out, amounts to calling ``internationalism the mere recognition of the equality of nations, and nothing = more''.^^1^^
The principle of equality of nations like the other democratic principles of international relations, is a part of ideology of proletarian internationalism, but is not included in it mechanically. It is included in its developed form at a high level and---what is equally important---in aggregation and inter-relation with the main principles of proletarian internationalism. The policy of equality of nations on the basis of socialism and proletarian internationalism results in their actual equality (that is, the establishment of a fraternal family of nations in which mutual assistance and support ensure accelerated development for each member). Let us bear in mind that successes in developing socialist relations cannot be maintained, safeguarded or multiplied without conscious consideration and observance of the general laws of socialist construction and principles of proletarian internationalism.
That is precisely what petty-bourgeois nationalism ignores, because as a rule it links up with Right-opportunist revisionism and Trotskyism.
The one-sidedness, inconsistency and narrowness of pettybourgeois nationalism is literally a godsend for imperialism. Bourgeois ideologists and politicians seek and make use of any breach in the socialist countries, any departure from the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, because these departures help them to consolidate their class positions.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 148.
260The claims of petty-bourgeois nationalism to be loyal to the ideas of patriotism, national welfare and independence are profoundly erroneous.
The attitude which reduces the internationalism to the equality of nations alone does harm to national interests because it ignores the unity of the national and the internationalist interests and impels a country to strike out on its own, in isolation from the other socialist countries. This attitude is ``theoretically untenable because it conflicts with the objective laws governing the development of socialist society. It is harmful economically because it causes waste of social labour, retards the rates of growth of production and makes the country dependent upon the capitalist world. It is reactionary and dangerous politically because it does not unite, but divides the peoples in face of the united front of imperialist forces, because it nourishes bourgeoisnationalist tendencies and may ultimately lead to the loss of the socialist = gains''.^^1^^
In their effort to contrast the national and the internationalist, bourgeois ideologists frequently refer to the national traditions and cultures in the socialist countries. Thus, one-time US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, said that better use must be made of the ``concepts of independent nationhood, of national interest and of national culture'' which ``are day to day asserting themselves = strongly''^^2^^ within the socialist countries. Professor Billington says: ``There is a near-universal search for national identity throughout Eastern Europe. After nearly twenty years of Soviet-enforced uniformity, people are discovering traditions in their pasts as different as the economic resources they possess in the = present.''^^3^^
This question arises: have the authors of these lines truly never heard about the real attitude taken by the Soviet Union and the Communists to national culture, national identity and national tradition in general? Their attitude has long since become more than a matter of theory, for it has been translated into the living practice of the Soviet socialist national republics, which have amazed the world by the flourishing of their national culture, their solicitude _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 466.
~^^2^^ W. Rostow, View from the Seventh Floor, New York, 1964, p. 32
~^^3^^ Foreign Affairs, October 1968, p. 32.
261 for the truly great and progressive national traditions. The Communists put a high value on national traditions, but there are traditions and traditions.The matter was succinctly put by Maurice Thorez, a remarkable son of the French people. In his book, Fits du peuple, he wrote that the patriots of France ``had always taken a legitimate pride in the past greatness of their country, pride in their great ancestors of 1793, pride in the fighters of February and June 1848, pride in the heroes of the Commune... . The French Communists are the heirs of the 18-century Encyclopaedists, the materialist philosophers Diderot, Helvetius and Holbach.... Our love for our country is love for our people whom we want to see free and = happy.''^^1^^
But not all traditions deserve to be continued. Hardly any honest American will take pride in the annihilation of the Indians, the segregation of the Blacks, or the aggressive interventions and monstrous and systematic destruction of Vietnamese merely because these people want to be masters of their own country (in much the same way that progressive Americans wanted to be masters in theirs).
What then are the traditions the bourgeois ideologists suggest for revival in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe? Professor Billington explains, as he engages in some wishful thinking: ``The Czechs have rediscovered Masaryk and a national democratic tradition; the Poles, on the other hand, have in a sense rediscovered = Pilsudski.''^^2^^ Those are the traditions of the East European countries that the imperialists cherish and that is what they extol in place of the hated proletarian internationalism and friendship with the Soviet Union.
But what have these traditions to do with real national interests and sovereignty? Everyone knows that the policies pursued by Eduard Benes and Tomas Masaryk led up to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia's sovereignty and her enslavement by the nazi invaders. Everyone knows that Czechoslovakia's sovereignty was re-established in the heroic battles fought by the Soviet Army against the nazi plunderers and oppressors. Lubomir Strougal was quite right when he stressed in a report at a meeting to mark the 99th _-_-_
~^^1^^ Maurice Thorez, Fils du peuple, Paris, 1949, pp. 96, 97, 118.
^^2^^ Foreign Affairs, October 1968, p. 32.
262 anniversary of the birth of V. I. Lenin, held in Prague, that ``the question of sovereignty and independent development should be seen by us and solved in practice in such a way as to prevent any fragmentation of our forces and thereby of any weakening of our resistance to the common enemy. ... Our Republic's sovereignty can be assured only in alliance with the socialist countries, on the basis of the all-round cooperation and mutual friendship with the Soviet Union and other socialist = countries.''^^1^^The Soviet Union's attitude to national sovereignty is clear. Throughout its history, the USSR has in fact stood up for the principle of national sovereignty of all the peoples of the world. Among the incontrovertible historical facts are the granting of state independence to peoples enslaved by tsarism, the repudiation of unequal treaties, the selfless heroic struggle against fascism, which was invaluable assistance to many peoples in restoring their independence and in strengthening their sovereignty on a new, socialist basis, and assistance to peoples fighting against imperialist oppression.
Consistent respect for national sovereignty, far from clashing, in fact implies all-round close co-operation and mutual assistance of the fraternal parties and socialist countries in their joint defence against the schemes of imperialism and the anti-socialist forces. ``The socialist states,'' said L. I. Brezhnev, ``stand for strict respect of the sovereignty of all countries. We resolutely oppose intervention in the affairs of any states and violation of their sovereignty.
``What is of especial importance for us, Communists, is the establishment and defence of the sovereignty of states taking the path of socialist construction. The forces of imperialism and reaction seek to deprive the peoples of this or that socialist country of the sovereign right they have won to ensure the flourishing of their own country, the welfare and happiness of broad masses of the working people, by building a society free from any oppression and exploitation. Whenever encroachments on this right are given a solid rebuff by the socialist camp, bourgeois propagandists raise a hue and cry about `defence of sovereignty' no and 'non-interference'. On their part this amounts to no _-_-_
~^^1^^ Izvestia, April 25, 1969.
263 more than fraud and demagogy. In actual fact, these squallers are concerned not about preserving socialist sovereignty, but about destroying = it.''^^1^^National sovereignty and proletarian internationalism are closely connected with each other. Consistent practice of proletarian internationalism is the main guarantee and criterion of defence of truly national interests.
``The evidence of history,'' says James Jackson, Secretary of the National Committee of the Communist Party of the USA, ``is that the national interest of a particular people cannot be really advanced through any weakening of ties on the part of its vanguard leading force with the world working class and communist movement. On the contrary, the evidence is that the stronger the bonds of proletarian internationalism, the greater are the national = attainments.''^^2^^
The Communists do not merely express national interests ``in general''. Because national interest does not exist as anything homogenious until such time as a nation ceases to be a socially mixed entity, national interest may be viewed and interpreted from different, sometimes opposite, class angles.
Marxists-Leninists never consider national interest in the abstract, ``in general'', but only the interest of a nation's development along the path of social progress, which in the present conditions means struggle for socialism, communism, freedom and democracy for all working people, for a progressive peaceable foreign national policy. That is the objective basis for the indissoluble unity of proletarian internationalism and the struggle for national interests, the unity of the international and the national. Of course, considering the complex and contradictory nature of the present epoch, this objective law makes headway by overcoming resistance on the part of hostile class forces and ideological trends. That is why the subjective factor is of the utmost importance in promoting the victory of the progressive trend in the development of the national question, in the triumph of ideology and practice of proletarian internationalism; the subjective factor is the scientific Marxist-Leninist view of the dialectics of the national and _-_-_
~^^1^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Speech at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers Party, November 12, 1968, p. 9.
~^^2^^ Daily World, June 11, 1969.
264 the international, conscious struggle for implementing the principles of proletarian internationalism, for the unity of all the national contingents of the world revolutionary working-class movement, for a united front of struggle of all the progressive forces against imperialism. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. THE IDEOLOGYThe political map of the world has been changed out of all recognition. Over 1.5 thousand million men have escaped from colonial and semi-colonial dependence, and over 70 new national states have been established. After the First World War two-thirds of mankind languished in colonial bondage; today only scraps of once great colonial empires remain, while Belgium, Italy and Japan have lost all their colonies. Today, one per cent of the globe's population remains in overt colonial dependence.
The disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism has run not only in breadth but also in depth, in the sphere of socio-economic relations, a process that is increasingly anti-capitalist.
The liberation struggle of the peoples against imperialism and colonialism is gaining in intensity, complexity and sharpness. The imperialists are undertaking feverish attempts to stem the advance of the national liberation movement, to block the way towards a strengthening of national statehood, and to prevent fundamental socio-economic change in the developing countries.
The imperialists have taken high-handed action, sometimes with the use of armed force, to intervene in the internal affairs of the emergent countries. In the recent period, they have intensified their subversive action, especially against governments implementing deep-going social changes. The new life of the sovereign states is taking shape in fierce battles against a treacherous imperialist enemy, and the forces of domestic reaction which rely on imperialist support in their efforts to push the young states on to the capitalist way. However, the peoples have been displaying ever more determination in opting for the non-capitalist way as they look to the full victory of the national liberation revolution, elimination of their age-old backwardness and improvement of their living conditions.
265The tasks facing the emergent countries are complex and difficult. They need to consolidate their newly gained independence, to establish an independent national economy, to overcome their legacy of backwardness. For its part imperialism seeks to slow down the movement towards independence and social progress, and to retain the old colonies within the capitalist system of exploitation, even if in modified forms.
All of this constitutes a great threat to the future of the (emergent countries, whose peoples are coming to Realise that neocolonialism is no less dangerous than colonialism.
The substance of neocolonialism as a system of indirect imperialist control and exploitation was exposed by Lenin, who wrote: ``Finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, are typical of this = epoch.''^^1^^
In present-day conditions, indirect imperialist control of exploited nations has become the prevailing form of imperialist enslavement.
The advocates of imperialism distort the true nature of processes going forward in the world. Speculating on the achievements of the national liberation movement and on the winning of political independence by a majority of the oppressed nations, the ideologists of imperialism deny the existence of neocolonialism, claiming it to be an invention ``circulated by Moscow''.
The reactionary ideologists try hard to cover up the connection between politics and economics, and present imperialism as being no more than a system of foreignpolicy relations. Whatever the version of this view, the very essence of colonialism and neocolonialism---the economic exploitation of the countries oppressed by imperialism---is obscured. By reducing the concept of colonialism to one aspect---overt political control---bourgeois ideologists cover _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 263.
266 up and justify the plunderous actions of the imperialists who are prepared to go to any length to keep the emergent countries within the system of capitalist exploitation.Now and again they managed to do so. Relying on reactionary circles of the economically underdeveloped countries, and playing up the immaturity of, or contradictions within, the national liberation movement, the imperialists establish veiled forms of political control and continue economically to exploit a sizable part of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Different groups of countries with different foreign policies have taken shape in the so-called Third World. Among them are countries pursuing an independent policy (some of these have already taken important steps along the non-capitalist way), and countries nominally independent but still under considerable influence of the imperialist powers.
Historically speaking, neocolonialism is colonialism in the period of the disintegration of the colonial system of imperialism, when the comprehensive system of relations of exploitation and oppression by the imperialist powers of economically underdeveloped countries has suffered a decisive defeat. In content, neocolonialism is colonialism seeking to adapt itself to the new situation of independent statehood, won by the overwhelming majority of once oppressed nations, colonialism which seeks to maintain (even if on a smaller scale) relations of domination and subordination, and especially of economic exploitation.
Neocolonialism is a system of economic, political and ideological instruments and methods of struggle used by the imperialist powers and the capitalist monopolies to maintain and extend their domination in countries that have won state independence. Neocolonialism has not dropped from the sky, but has developed out of classic colonialism.
The ideology of neocolonialism is in essence also a continuation and adaptation of the ideology of colonialism to new conditions in the epoch of disintegration of the colonial system. The neocolonialists' armed interventions are just as savage as the treacherous campaigns of the conquistadores, although the methods of indirect control and oppression have become more veiled and refined.
The ideologists of imperialism have been spawning new doctrines in their efforts not only to set up a propaganda 267 smokescreen to cover up the new imperialist policy in the emergent countries, but also to lay the ideological foundation (``recommendations'' and even recipes) of this policy, and to make them an instrument of practical activity.
The imperialists' indirect political control of the young sovereign states is practised in many ways, including their involvement in aggressive blocs, the use of some regional organisations to promote the interests of imperialism, the conclusion of unequal bilateral treaties, modification of the constitutional structure of the young national states, like the establishment of artificial federations, installation of puppet governments, and so on.
The old overt economic exploitation is also being increasingly supplanted by more veiled forms of economic enslavement (the policy of ``association'', mixed companies, ``guidance'' in economic development, credits, loans, nonequivalent exchange, and so on).
The social policy of neocolonialism is characterised by a pooling of imperialist efforts against the interests of the peoples and social progress, together with the efforts of local reactionaries. The colonialists have always used the support of national anti-popular forces. Assistance to the imperialists by reactionary circles is the only way for the latter to maintain their privileges at home. Neocolonialism cannot exist otherwise than by supporting local reaction. This predetermines various other essential features of neocolonialism. The pro-imperialist national minority, constituting the social mainstay of the modern colonialists, act in betrayal of their people's interests. At the same time, in order to foster men willing to do their will and to advance their puppets to positions of power, the imperialists make wide use of an extensive network of agents and intelligence agencies. When this also fails to work, they doff their masks and appear before the world as the plunderers and oppressors that they are.
The ultimate aim of the imperialist monopolies has not changed, for they still seek to obtain superprofits through ruthless exploitation of the peoples of Asia and Africa. That is why they should like to turn their political independence into a scrap of paper, and to keep the emergent nations within the capitalist economy, preventing them from making any fundamental socio-economic changes and taking the non-capitalist way of development.
268I
In order to lull the vigilance of the peoples, the ideologists of imperialism have circulated two neocolonialist ideas.
First, considering the obvious fact that many countries once within the colonial system of imperialism have won independence without resorting to armed struggle, they insist that the imperialist powers had allegedly granted their colonies freedom of their own accord. They want the peoples to forget that just after the war the continents of Asia and Africa were swept by a tide of liberation revolutions, under the pressure of which the colonial powers were now and again forced hastily to grant political freedom to their colonies in order to retain their economic domination. Of course, the ideologists of neocolonialism say nothing about the vast assistance and support of the Soviet Union and the whole socialist system, whose very existence help to revolutionise millions upon millions of people in the emergent continents, frustrating the plans of the imperialists to return to the epoch of colonial seizures.
Second, the advocates of neocolonialism seek to create the impression that colonialism is dead. Separating economics from politics, they present colonialism only as a system of foreign-policy oppression (expansion), claiming that once this has been eliminated colonialism is gone. They ignore the essence of colonialism---economic exploitation---and try to lay the foundation for a new policy of enslavement of the countries once within the colonial system.
The ideology of neocolonialism is above all an ideology of anti-communism, trampling on democracy, and undermining the unity of the anti-imperialist forces within the national framework and on an international scale. It is directed against the socialist prospects of the development of the emergent countries, and seeks to justify and substantiate new forms of political control, advertising various forms of economic ``interdependence'' and private enterprise in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, from which the monopolies stand to gain, so as to prevent the developing countries from taking the non-capitalist way with the economic support of the socialist countries. The attempts to find a common ``positive'' ideological platform with the members of the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, with special emphasis on pseudo-democratic social demagogy, religious ideology and diverse reactionary and 269 nationalistic theories constitute one of its characteristic features.
The national liberation movement is bound to put an end to neocolonialism and to complete the final break-up of the colonial system of imperialism, for which all the objective prerequisites have matured in the world.
However, having put the more refined and veiled methods of plunder and oppression in the service of its expansionist purposes, neocolonialism has not abandoned extensive armed intervention in the internal affairs of young states in Asia, Africa and Latin America, direct intervention, as in the case of Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, the Congo, the ARE and a number of other states. The export of counterrevolution has not ceased to be a component part and an instrument of modern imperialism.
The neofascist theory of resistance to ``communist conspiracy'' is used to justify this policy. Anyone fighting for national independence and against the dictates of the imperialist monopolies, against the involvement of the young states into imperialist military blocs and alliances, is labelled a ``communist'' and ``conspirator''. Thus, the ideologists of neocolonialism claimed that the US intervention in the Dominican Republic was a blow at a ``communist scheme''.
Bourgeois propaganda seeks to camouflage plunderous wars into ``liberatory'' action, and barbarous bombings and massive annihilation of civilians as a policy designed to ensure ``peace and freedom''.
The policy and ideology of the export of counter-- revolution is a manifestation of the substance of imperialism which, in Lenin's words, constitutes a ``~'negation' of democracy in general, of all democracy'' in the political = sphere.^^1^^ The imperialists have trampled on democracy while claiming to be its champions. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. The advocates of US imperialism present the USA as a ``model'' for the young national states, and do not blush to appeal to the authority of Lincoln and Jefferson. Indeed, the experience of the US struggle for independence is highly instructive, but when compared with the present-day US policy it shows up the US imperialists as having trampled on all the progressive traditions of their country.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 43.
270What then are the ``arguments'' that the ideologists of imperialism use to justify their interventions? The first is the unscientific, neofascist idea that history is a series of conspiracies, so that any progressive popular movement springs from the scheming of evil-minded plotters. Accordingly, the US aggression in Vietnam is designated as `` assistance'' to the people of South Vietnam in the fight against ``subversive activity'', so-called internal aggression.
In order to camouflage the anti-popular substance of their piratical actions, the imperialists claim that all their interventions are battles against communism. In 1965, a ``new'' doctrine was officially issued in the USA which proclaimed as legitimate any armed intervention provided it flew the anti-communist flag. This was followed by a resolution of the US House of Representatives which vested US imperialism with the ``right'' to invade any Latin American country under the pretext of fighting communism. This attempt to legalise intervention by references to fighting communism is hypocritical and hostile to democracy.
The Communists have never been on the sidelines of the general democratic anti-imperialist struggle. If the US aggressors have faced, in their anti-popular wars, democratic fronts in which Communists ranked together with other patriotic forces or act as their vanguard, this merely means that the Communists are the most dedicated and steadfast fighters for the freedom and independence of nations.
The neocolonialist doctrine of US imperialism scraps the democratic principles of national sovereignty. By cynically arrogating to themselves the ``right'' to mount armed aggression, the US colonialists have violated not only the spirit of democratic principles, but also the letter of international law. They have trampled on the UN Charter, although they have signed the document, undertaking to ``refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations'' (Article 2, point 4).
The international gendarme doctrine has not only been proclaimed in theory, but also in practice, involving the massive training of so-called counter-insurgency forces. This is being done by the CIA, the State Department, the US Army and the Air Force. In many countries, the USA has special military missions training local armies to `` 271 suppress'' communism, that is, to wage war against their own peoples.
The main ``accomplishments'' of this policy are wellknown: by mounting the intervention in Vietnam, US ruling circles have covered themselves with lasting ignominy.
The address ``Independence, Freedom and Peace for Vietnam'' issued by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, on June 10, 1969, stresses that ``in fighting to defend their homeland the Vietnamese people exercise the sacred and inviolable right of all peoples to self-defence. . . .
``By undertaking armed intervention in Vietnam the imperialist forces of the USA made an attempt to destroy one of the outposts of socialism in Asia, bar the road of the peoples of Indochina to peace, freedom and progress, strike a blow at the revolutionary national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and test the solidarity of the socialist countries and all anti-imperialist forces.
``These plans of US imperialism are doomed to = failure.''^^1^^
Neocolonialism has attacked not only communism but also the socio-economic reforms undertaken by the peoples at the general democratic stage of their liberation revolutions as soon as they win political independence. The neocolonialists regard their fight against communist ideas and fundamental socio-economic change as a single whole. They realise that if these changes are to succeed, there must be a broad solid national front, with the people united against imperialism. A split-up of anti-imperialist unity of the peoples and a separation of the young states from the Soviet Union and other socialist states are two aspects of the same neocolonialist tactics, because friendship with the socialist countries and reliance on their selfless assistance are decisive for preserving the true independence of the young states.
A group of leading US ideologists of neocolonialism declare: ``Our psychological offensive should clearly point up the unyielding conflict between communism and true nationalism.''^^2^^
Francis Low, one-time editor of The Times of India, _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 42, 43.
~^^2^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. R. Kintner, S. T. Possony, A Forward Strategy for America, New York, 1961, p. 275.
272 says that it is necessary to convince the nation that `` communism, not colonialism, is the enemy.... The real struggle is not Asian nationalism versus the West; it is Asian nationalism versus = communism.''^^1^^ These assertions easily reveal an urge to make extensive use of nationalism. The wellknown US historian and sociologist, Hans Kohn, said that this was an age of nationalism.Theoretically, these ``scientific'' researches are based on an effort completely to separate present-day liberation movements from the world revolutionary process, and to kill the class content of these movements. The fact is, however, that these are deeply popular and not elitist revolutions whose tasks include not only the political but also the economic and social emancipation of the peoples. With the broad sweep of these movements and the existence of the world socialist system these tasks of the liberation revolutions have become quite feasible.
The nation is not an abstract category and cannot exist without classes, so that the working class is an integral part of it. That is why it is futile to try to present nationalism as an extra-class category. As for the working class and its parties, their ideology on the national question is based not on ideas of the national exclusiveness, not the propaganda of national oppression, not national hostility and national enslavement, but emancipation, equality and prosperity of nations, and national and international unity on the basis of socialism. That is why contrasting communist ideas and national interests amount to a crude attempt to shuffle the historical facts.
Because the backbone of the nation consists of the working class and the toiling peasants, whose objective interests are expressed by the Communists, it is quite wrong to claim that the socialist ideals of the working class clash with the general democratic ideals. On the contrary, the working class is a consistent fighter for democracy, it raises democratic demands to a qualitatively new level, and involves all the democratic sections of the people in the movement.
The advocates of neocolonialism have been most conspicuous in their attempts at ideological adaptation on problems of political independence of nations, on the young _-_-_
~^^1^^ Francis Low, Struggle for Asia, London, 1955, pp. 132, 159.
__PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18--1245 273 nations. Some 15 or 20 years ago, blatant racism was a dominant concept of imperialism, but now this has been supplanted by psychoracism. While paying lip service to the equality of races, the apologists of imperialism insist that some races, in virtue of their mental make-up are in need of paternalism and patronage. Apart from the main purpose of this idea---to present the imperialist powers as benefactors of the old colonial peoples---the psychoracists should like to rewrite the whole history of colonial domination. Thus, P. Griffiths declares: ``Self-government is the only proper end of the colonial = system.''^^1^^Not very long ago, bourgeois writers said the sovereignty of nations---of nations in Asia and Africa, to be sure---was immoral. Today, they are saying the same thing but in somewhat more refined and veiled terms. They say that sovereignty is an obsolete intellectual construction. They have deliberately separated the problem of nations from the concrete historical context, the actual community of men, and tried to present the problem as lying in the sphere of ``collective and individual consciousness'', an obscure formula which becomes quite concrete when it comes to making actual recommendations and conclusions.
The American Professor William Elliot says that the obsolete idea of the national sovereignty poses the greatest threat to the preservation of resources vital to ``the most civilised peoples.... Outmoded international law is based upon the concept of 'sovereignty', a quasi-fiction when that concept is applied to states which have by no stretch of the imagination real capabilities for the development and conservation of their own resources.... The NATO countries, at the very least, should develop a new conception of the legitimacy of ownership and control of the basic vital resources of the world such as oil = reserves''.^^2^^
The international oil cartel, which like a giant octopus has its tentacles stifling the economy of many independent young states, has been pumping out millions of dollars in profits out of these countries. The Middle East countries have over 29 thousand million tons or almost 70 per cent of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Percival Griffiths, The British Impact on India, London, 1952, p. 356.
~^^2^^ W. Elliot, ``Colonialism: Freedom and Responsibility,'' The Idea of Colonialism, New York, 1958, pp. 445, 447, 451.
274 the world crude oil deposits. The extraction of oil in this area has grown as follows: in 1937, 15.7 million tons; in 1946, 34.3 million tons; and in 1966, 468.3 million tons. According to the most conservative estimates, considering that one ton of oil costs the monopolies less than one dollar, their net profit comes to at least $5-6 per ton. Thus, in 1937 the oil monopolies earned slightly more than $100 million in net profits, and in 1966---close to $3 thousand million. These are figures which help to understand all this talk about sovereignty being an outmoded notion.What is more, many bourgeois ideologists (among them M. Adler, Hans Morgenthau, W. Friedmann, Norman Angell) have attacked sovereignty in the purely political plane. They have distorted the idea of ``sovereignty'', identifying it with anarchy and force and declaring it to be the root source of wars. This is nonsense, because wars have been fought on the globe long before the emergence of nations, and wars have always been caused by the plunderous interests of the exploiting classes. To identify sovereignty and force is to regard force as a self-contained factor in international relations, and this is disproved by the whole course of historical development.
The ideologists of neocolonialism propose the substitution of a ``supra-national'' community, regional alliances and ultimately a world government to replace national sovereignty. They say that the vast development of international economic ties, spurred on by the current scientific and technical revolution, not only makes possible but in fact inevitable the establishment of a cosmopolitan ``world federation''. Of course, they say nothing at all about the exploiting character of the international ties of monopoly capital or of the obvious fact that up to now the fruits of the scientific and technical revolution have been chiefly reaped by the major monopoly giants, while the economic gap between the emergent states and the leading imperialist powers has been steadily growing.
When attacking the sovereignty principle, the apologists of imperialism concentrate on the right of nations freely to choose their form of government, and to decide on the ways for their economic, political and social development, a choice that has become fully meaningful only in our own epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.
It has now become quite clear that the winning of __PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275 political independence does not automatically ensure the solution of the burning problems in the progressive development of the emergent countries. What is more, independence may become a figment, unless the revolution also brings with it deep-going changes in the social and economic life of the developing countries, and unless they abandon the role the imperialists want to impose on them.
The ideology of imperialism has always tried to justify the economic exploitation of the colonial peoples. Today, as in other spheres of imperialist ideology and politics, there is also evidence that more refined and veiled forms are being used to defend the interests of the monopolies.
The main meaning of the theories propounded by the bourgeois ideologists on the general problems of the economic development facing the emergent countries is to keep these countries within the system of the world capitalist economy as agrarian and raw material appendages. Some of these theories are openly aimed against industrialisation by the young nations and suggest that the colonial and agrarian nature of the economy of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America should be preserved for all time. Such, for instance, is the theory of ``comparative costs'' (which takes the consideration of labour productivity and the costs of production outside the socio-economic context) and the theory of the ``vicious circle of poverty'' (where the main stake is on getting the underdeveloped countries to seek foreign capital investments). However, theories of ``development'' whose advocates claim to favour ``progress'' in the emergent countries have been circulated most widely.
The practical recommendations suggested by these theories boil down to proposals to develop agriculture and the light industry, while giving free access to foreign manufactured goods and private capital. These theories are essentially directed against the very possibility of non-capitalist development.
Another prominent theory is that of foreign economic ``aid'', which the ideologists of imperialism quite openly regard as an instrument of foreign policy.
This theory is advocated by various writers, and the only difference between them appears to be about whether, to put it briefly, political compensation for this ``aid'' should be required right away or whether one should wait until this ``aid'' yields its fruits. Some revealing admissions have 276 been made on this score in The Conservative Papers, a collection of papers by diehard US ideologists. In his paper, the sociologist Edward Banfield says that ``the doctrine of indirect influence asserts that national security will be promoted by using aid to transform fundamentally the cultures and institutions of the recipient countries'', while ``the doctrine of direct influence'' is designed to obtain political ``advantages'' right away, like the promise on the part of the recipients to abstain from establishing relations with the Soviet Union and duly to condition public opinion at = home.^^1^^
Leo Tansky writes: ``Our aid program has become a major instrument of our foreign policy directed toward furthering our national = interests.''^^2^^ He spells out these interests. Eight countries---South Korea, South Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey and Brazil---were given $19.5 thousand million in US aid by the end of 1965, or almost as much as the other 80 odd states taken together. The main purpose of this aid, says Tansky, is to sustain military efforts, and this ``may even have inflationary effects if the country's economy cannot absorb such assistance. Moreover, the diversion of resources and manpower to military and defense supporting activities hampers over-all economic = development.''^^3^^
The concept of economic aid is supplemented by active proposals to set up mixed companies whose purpose is not to develop the productive forces of the young states but to serve as a cover for their exploitation by foreign capital. This propaganda by the ideologists of modern colonialism has a twofold task: on the one hand, it is designed to establish ever closer business ties with reactionary circles of the local bourgeoisie; and on the other, the establishment of mixed companies is regarded by the bourgeois ideologists as the best way to safeguard the profits of the capitalist monopolies in the developing countries. The World Today (an organ of the Royal Institute of International Affairs) has published recommendations designed to ensure the interests of foreign companies in Africa. It says: ``It is now the case that local Africans are invited to join European-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Conservative Papers, New York, 1964, pp. 78, 87.
~^^2^^ Leo Tansky, US and USSR Aid to Developing Countries. A Comparative Study of India, Turkey and the UAR, New York, 1967, p. 1.
~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 20--21.
277 controlled committees and to become directors of companies. ... Overseas companies will gain much more benefit if they have African = directors.''^^1^^There is no doubt that this new form, adapted to the changing conditions, shows the monopolists' efforts to continue plundering the young national states, and consent to set up partnerships with local capital in order to safeguard their vast profits. In the economically underdeveloped countries, the rate of profit of US corporations is 100--150 per cent higher than it is in the USA. Of the $38.9 thousand million in profits received by US corporations abroad since the war, the underdeveloped countries account for $22.7 thousand million, or over 55 per cent. Needless to say, the funnel of this money out of the economy of the young national states does great harm and slows down their economic development.
It has been estimated that in 16 postwar years, direct private foreign investments in Latin America came to $13 thousand million, and earnings on all the investments to $17 thousand million. From 1960 to 1967, $1.5 thousand million was invested and $7.7 thousand million repatriated.
This is not only an effort to establish closer bonds between these countries' economy and imperialism and to retain them as a source of superprofit, but also to establish closer business ties with the most reactionary sections of society in the newly liberated states and to provide a national front for their capital investments. The appeal issued by Friedrich Lorken, leader of a group of economic studies by the Common Market, that there should be systematic recruitment of the local elite for participation in management of new enterprises and also the enlistment of local capital, is designed not only to guarantee foreign capital against nationalisation, but also to foster ideological allies in these countries.
Until recently, Nigeria was considered to be a showwindow for Western aid and private enterprise in Africa, where ``models of co-operation'' between the United States and the African countries were tried out. One of those who advocated such ``co-operation'' was Robert Fleming, who worked in Nigeria under the Rockefeller Brothers' Fund programme. A collection published by the Duke University _-_-_
^^1^^ The World Today, Vol. 19, 1963, No. 1, pp. 46, 47.
278 says: ``He is a missionary for the idea of private enterprise. For over two years he has been conducting feasibility studies of business. Thus far his efforts have been almost entirely devoted to identifying those business enterprises that would appear profitable in Nigeria and that could be set up by combining local financing with help from abroad. He stands for integrated ownership and direction, with the directing power in the hands of the = Nigerians.''^^1^^These theoretical studies by the ideologists of imperialism, which are, besides, financed by the monopolies, are designed to back up their own operations. US investments abroad are nearing $100 thousand million, a roughly 9-fold increase over the prewar period. Almost one-half of this amount is made up of private investments. Private and government US credits under so-called aid programme total more than $100 thousand million with the bulk of this amount naturally falling as a heavy burden on the US tax payers.
An important task before the developing countries is to overcome economic backwardness, eliminate the legacy of colonialism, and bridge or reduce the great gap in the levels of productive forces and incomes per head of the population between the industrialised countries and the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Bourgeois ideologists seek to use this legitimate urge to impose on the peoples the capitalist way of development. This end is served by the latest theory of ``modernisation'', which is clearly connected with Walt Rostow's ``stages of economic growth'' theory, for it is just as deliberately abstract, considering the technicoeconomic development problems outside the social context and ignoring the fundamental social problem, namely, the problem of the relations of production and the nature of ownership.
Of great interest in this connection is the report given by the US sociologist Reinhard Bendix at the Sixth World Congress of Sociology at Evian. For all practical purposes, he identified the process of modernisation with the development of capitalism, and said that technical and economic backwardness could be overcome through imitation of the capitalist West. He also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the economic functions of the state, which, given _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Nigerian Political Scene, London, 1962, p. 245.
279 the right conditions, can and does become the material basis for a cohesion of the anti-imperialist forces. At the worst, Bendix recommends that the state should be offered a partnership in private-capitalist enterprise.This was stated even more explicitly by David A. Shepard, Director and Executive Vice President of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), in a speech delivered at Columbia University Graduate School of Business. He stressed that the urge for higher living standards and material welfare in the underdeveloped countries provided excellent ground for development of private enterprise, and attacked the factors which he saw as constituting the main obstacles to the development of capitalism in these countries, namely, ``statism'', ``anti-foreignism'' (meaning anti-imperialism). These, he added, gave ``the foreign businessman some of his worst = headaches''.^^1^^
Consequently, the ideologists of neocolonialism propose that the young states should take the way of a modernisation which has nothing in common with genuine national independence. Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield declared: ``The next vital American interest is in winning the battle of modernisation in the developing societies. Here is one place where 'winning over communism' has clear and specific meaning.. . . Our investment today in these countries is in many ways a great gamble, with very real costs of which the financial is only = one.''^^2^^
The imperialists' reliance on alignment with local reactionaries results in attempts to lay a common ideological foundation for this class alliance. Having taken the line of adapting themselves to the changing conditions, bourgeois ideologists are forced to review some of their old ideas. Today they make much less frequent use than in the past of slogans about ``the white man's great civilising mission''. The old neglect of oriental religious systems has been abandoned. The task the theorists of imperialism are now working hard to solve is to find and build ``bridges'' linking or combining the ideological concepts of East and West.
Of course, there is no unanimity among bourgeois ideologists over the concrete ways of tackling this task. Their _-_-_
~^^1^^ David A. Shepard, ``The Problem of Progress'', Vital Speeches of the Day, 1966, No. 6, p. 179.
^^2^^ American Defence Policy, Baltimore, 1965, p. 18.
280 statements on the practical aspects of relations with the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia in these countries (that is, the very circles imperialism would like to rally on a common pro-imperialist ideological platform) reveal various elements of flirtation and high-handedness, a restrained politeness and instruction with undue familiarity. However, this patchwork reveals several characteristic tendencies.The ideologists of imperialism pin great hopes on the use of the religious outlook and some versions of ``national socialism''. The devil is in fact prepared to quote the Scriptures for his own purpose in the hope that faith in God will help to rally Europe, Asia and Africa against materialism.
In the struggle to democratise social life in the developing countries there is a differentiation of the social forces, a natural process which the imperialists want to direct and use in their own interests, putting their political stake on definite circles of the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia in the developing countries and their ideologies.
The attitude of the ideologists of neocolonialism to nationalism in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America is a reflection of the political line pursued by the imperialist powers in these countries. It includes the sharply negative evaluation of the ``dynamism'' of nationalism, which is usually taken to mean anti-imperialist, democratic attitudes among the oppressed peoples, and condescending and patronising talk about nationalism being an infantile disorder and its ``imitative'' character. Hence the calls to overcome this ``infantile disorder'' and accept the fashionable Western ideas of ``interdependence'' which are fully mature.
The attempts to introduce ideas of ``interdependence'' rest on the view of nationalism as the spiritual product of a small elite. The bourgeois ideologists devote much attention to the problem of developing relations with this elite, of fostering and shaping it, and exerting an influence on it to enlist it on the side of imperialism. ``The only effective role for white liberals in the transition between European and African rule is to ally themselves with the forces of nationalism with which they are in = sympathy''^^1^^ (meaning the _-_-_
~^^1^^ The World Today, Vol. 19, 1963, No. 1, p. 4.
281 members of the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia who look to the imperialist circles and are shaped under their influence).Even before they were forced by massive pressure to grant independence to Asian and African countries, the imperialist powers started to display much concern to foster and ``domesticate'' the national elite in these countries. For a long time, tribal chiefs, feudal lords, compradors, junior civil servants in the colonial administration had been the social and political mainstay of the colonialists in the old colonies. Following independence, there has been some regrouping of the forces looking to foreign capital and the ``old'' masters, with the imperialists pinning especially great hopes on the so-called bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, the new elite in the Asian and African countries.
Considering the slight class differentiation, above all, the weakness of the national bourgeoisie, the ideologists of imperialism make haste to provide historical evidence of common goals with the emergent national intelligentsia and to prove that bureaucratic capital is the basis for the growth of commercial and industrial capital.
One way the formation of bureaucratic capital is encouraged is the unusually high salaries paid to government officials, members of parliament, senior civil servants, and technical specialists in the young states (on the one hand, these high salaries have come down from the colonial administration period, and on the other, new ones are being introduced because of the shortage of well-educated men in these countries). In the Cameroon, for instance, where annual income per head of population averages 25,000 francs, a member of parliament is paid a monthly salary of 185,000 francs. In Nigeria, £5,000-6,000 a year is the usual salary among senior civil servants, whereas workers' wages and rank-and-file salaries come to no more than £80--90 a year. The corruption inherited from the colonial period helps to widen the material and social gap which now exists between the ruling elite and broad sections of the population.
It is the ruling elite that is the target of the theory that the educated men in African and Asian society have a common ideological, cultural and spiritual make-up with men in the West. Most of the members of the senior generation in this elite did in fact graduate from universities 282 in London, Paris, Brussels and other European capitals. They, are the target of the theory of ``synthesis'', `` interaction'' and ``cross-fertilisation'' of cultures, and also of the ideological unity of West and East on the basis of fideism. Bourgeois theorists insist that any African or Asian intellectual has more in common with Western man than with the farmers and workers of his own country. Simultaneously, a powerful propaganda apparatus is trying to condition African and Asian intellectuals to the idea of a ``dolce vita''. Finally, it is suggested that modern African and Asian elite owe their promotion to the West (knowledge, first appointments to office, etc.).
Professor of international politics at Georgetown University in the USA, who specialises in relations with the Third World countries, had relations with this elite in mind when he wrote: ``The right course for the West is not to retreat or 'get out', but to find acceptable solutions in order to stay; not to reduce co-operation but to enlarge it; not to embark on policies of political divorce but to create greater = unity.''^^1^^
The deepening social and political differentiation in the developing countries may undoubtedly induce a section of the local bourgeoisie and intelligentsia to intensify their ties with the imperialists. Reactionary, anti-democratic nationalism has never been in accord with genuine national interests and truly patriotic feelings. However, these are not the main processes in the life of these countries.
A section of the local intelligentsia, especially that part of it which comes from the landed aristocracy, and from the bourgeoisified and corrupt officialdom, is in fact a reserve on which imperialism can draw for loyal agents. However, in the last few years considerable shifts have taken place in the sections of the Asian and African intelligentsia, with deep-going democratisation running both by origin and by ideological and political views. Revolutionary and liberatory tendencies among broad sections of the population in the young states are being intensified by enlistment in active anti-imperialist struggle, the influence of socialist ideas, the changing mental attitudes under the impact of the vast successes in building absolutely new society in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
_-_-_~^^1^^ S. T. Possony, ``Colonial Problems in Perspective'', The Idea of Colonialism, New York, 1958, pp. 42--43.
283The present-day national liberation movement is an organic part of the world revolutionary process; it is a series of anti-imperialist revolutions which are popular and democratic. They are being carried on not for the purpose of consolidating capitalism, but of fighting imperialism and taking the non-capitalist way of development.
In a speech at the Kremlin Palace of Congresses on April 22, 1970, President Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado of the Republic of Cuba emphasised: ``The practical implementation of Lenin's ideas on proletarian internationalism acquires especial importance in the expression of solidarity with the peoples carrying on their struggle in Asia, Africa and Latin = America.''^^1^^
The ideology of neocolonialism, which is no more than a refined form of justification of plunder and violence in the new conditions, may delay but not entirely prevent the complete liberation of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The collapse of the colonial system of imperialism is a fact. Its disintegration is becoming an important element of the world-wide revolutionary process. Despite the temporary retreats, zigzags and difficulties, the liberation movement of the peoples is gathering momentum.
Mankind is witness to an unprecedented activity of masses of people, of a consolidation of the national forces and the ever growing role of the working class (even while it remains numerically small), of the discreditation of capitalism as an alternative way of development and the ever broader popularity of the ideas of restructuring society on socialist lines, of the growing unity of the young independent states of Asia, Africa and Latin America with the Soviet Union and the other socialist states and the revolutionary forces of our day.
Speakers at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in June 1969 said that in the recent period the imperialists, conspiring with domestic reactionary forces, had launched a broad counter-offensive in many young states of Asia and Africa. As a result of plots and reactionary military putsches progressive and anti-imperialist governments were overthrown in some countries and a fierce reign of terror was started against the Communists and other progressive leaders. The sharpness of the situation _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, April 23, 1970.
284 shows the urgent need to intensify the struggle against neocolonialism and its ideology.Despite the difficulties, the peoples will triumph over imperialism and its henchmen. History itself has foreordained the inevitable defeat of the ideological champions of imperialism and neocolonialism. The strength of the national liberation movement, as a part of the general worldwide anti-imperialist revolutionary process, has been growing. The future of the peoples of the young sovereign national states lies along the way of democratic renewal, social progress and socialist transformations.
Consolidation of their alliance with the socialist community and the international working-class movement is of primary importance for the prospects of the anti-- imperialist struggle of the developing nations.
[285] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter Seven __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE IDEOLOGY OF MODERN REFORMISM __ALPHA_LVL2__ [introduction.]The international working-class movement is one of the main streams of the present-day revolutionary process. Antimonopoly feelings have been maturing among broad sections of the working people, while the working class, playing an ever greater role and displaying a militant spirit of revolutionary struggle, has been staging ever more powerful and protracted strikes and taking other action in defence of its economic interests and political rights. In the course of the class struggle, the influence of bourgeois ideology on the working people is being increasingly undermined, anticommunist preconceptions and ideas of class collaboration implanted by bourgeois propaganda and Right-socialist and reformist leaders are being blasted.
``In its actions against the working-class movement imperialism violates democratic rights and freedoms and uses naked violence, brutal methods of police persecution and anti-labour legislation. Moreover, it has recourse to demagogy, bourgeois reformism and opportunist ideology and policy, and is constantly in quest of new methods to undermine the working-class movement from within and ' integrate' it into the capitalist = system.''^^1^^
With the changing balance of forces on the world arena and the sharpening class struggle in the capitalist countries it is of especial importance to the bourgeoisie to spread the illusion that the working people can secure their aspirations without any revolutionary transformation of society, within the framework of the existing system. These illusions are being spread among the workers by the ideologists of modern reformism, an ideological-political trend which is hostile to Marxism-Leninism, which splits the working class, and which exerts a political and ideological influence on sizable sections of the population in the capitalist coun- tries.^^2^^ Right-wing Social-Democrats continue to be the main _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, 1969, pp. 42--43.
~^^2^^ According to official data, the Socialist International had as of April 1966 50 parties and organisations among its members, totalling 15,163,505 persons (Socialist International Information, Vol. XVI, 1966, No. 6-7, p. 84).
286 vehicles of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. Its policy objectively helps the monopolies and the capitalist state to restrain the proletarian revolutionary action, slows down its struggle for social progress, supports the foreign policy of imperialism, and pursues the anti-communist line.During the revolutionary upswing of 1917--23, the working class was split up into two sections: the communist and revolutionary section, and the Social-Democratic and reformist section. This was the result of the long influence exerted by the imperialist bourgeoisie on the upper sections of the working class and the then Right-wing leaders of international Social Democracy, who had long been suborned and corrupted by imperialist hand-outs from their monopoly superprofits.
The leading workers' contingents of all countries directed by Lenin, united under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, in contrast to the opportunism which ruined the Second International, and the ultra-Leftist tendencies which have also done the working-class movement much harm.
Lenin carried on a relentless struggle against all forms and stripes of opportunism, whether Social-Democratic reformism, the vehicle of bourgeois influence within the working-class movement, or revisionism, which helps to undermine the Communist Parties from inside.
There is much fundamental meaning today in Lenin's warning that it is impossible to carry on a successful fight against imperialism without a principled fight against opportunism. Lenin's rich legacy continues to be the sharpest weapons in the struggle against opportunist trends even today.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE STRUGGLE FOR UNITYCriticism of theoretical and socio-political conceptions of reformism is a vital necessity in the light of the struggle for the fundamental interests of the working class and for its unity. The struggle for the unity of the working class has been central to the working-class movement for many years, and continues to be so today.
287Lenin wrote: ``The working class needs unity----- Disunited, the workers are nothing. United, they are = everything.''^^1^^ ``We adopted united front tactics ... in order to help . . . masses to fight capitalism ... and we shall pursue these tactics to the = end.''^^2^^
In his ``Left-wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder and his speeches at the Comintern congresses, Lenin repeatedly pointed to the need of carrying on work among broad masses of the working people, within reformist trade unions and other non-communist organisations so as to rally the working class for the sake of its fundamental interests. In putting forward the task of working for the unity of the working-class movement, Lenin warned that ``such unification cannot be decreed; neither can it be established immediately. ... It must be prepared and developed systematically and = gradually.''^^3^^ He believed the practice of revolutionary struggle was the most important way towards unity.
Lenin's propositions were subsequently elaborated in the decisions and practice of the Comintern, notably the decisions of the 7th Congress of the Comintern, which gave a comprehensive substantiation of the line towards strengthening unity of action by all the revolutionary and democratic forces.
The 7th Congress of the Comintern decided that the starting point and the main content of proletarian front unity was to be ``defence of the immediate economic and political interests of the working = class''.,^^4^^ Georgy Dimitrov said this meant joint struggle, first, to improve the working people's material conditions, to shift the burden of the economic crisis on the shoulders of the bourgeoisie; second, to consolidate the working people's forces in face of the fascist offensive against the gains and political rights of the working class, and against the elimination of bourgeois democratic freedoms; and third, against the growing danger of imperialist = war.^^5^^ In his report at the Congress Dimitrov _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 519.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 334.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 6, pp. 309--10.
~^^4^^ ``Resolutions of the 7th World Congress of the Comintern'', Moscow, 1935, p. 15 (in Russian).
~^^5^^ G. Dimitrov, The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle for the Unity of the Working Class, and Against Fascism. Report and summing-up speech, Moscow, 1935, p. 36 (in Russian).
288 said: ``We stand for Soviet democracy, a democracy for the working people, the most consistent democracy in the world. But we defend and will continue to defend in the capitalist countries every inch of bourgeois-democratic freedoms, on which fascism and the bourgeois reactionaries are encroaching.''^^1^^This attitude was based entirely on Lenin's teaching. Lenin warned that it would ``be a radical mistake to think that the struggle for democracy was capable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding, overshadowing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practise full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for = democracy.''^^2^^
The decisions of the 7th Congress of the Comintern continue to be fully meaningful today.
The Moscow Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969 have made a new contribution to the development of the struggle for the unity of the working-class movement. Taking account of all the experience of the world working class, the Communists emphasise that the general democratic and the socialist aims of the proletarian movement are interwoven into a single whole.
The united-front policy is now closely connected with the struggle for peace, for improvement of the living conditions of the working people, for preservation and extension of their democratic rights and liberties, and for preparing conditions for the revolutionary overthrow of monopoly rule.
In his speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, L. I. Brezhnev declared: ``Our stand in relation to Social-Democracy could not be clearer. We are combating and shall continue to combat our ideological and political opponents in its ranks from the principled positions of Marxism-Leninism. At the same time, we agree to co-operation, to joint action, with those genuinely prepared to fight imperialism, for peace, for the interests of the working = people.''^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ G. Dimitrov, Op. cit., p. 33.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 144.
~^^3^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 165.
__PRINTERS_P_289_COMMENT__ 19---1245 289The working people's real interests, the further sharpening of contradictions within state-monopoly capitalism help to advance the internal struggle within the international socialist movement. These processes have invigorated Leftwing trends within the Socialist parties of a number of countries, and there is a clear and growing urge for workingclass unity among rank-and-file members of Socialist parties.
Analysing the objective conditions of struggle of the working class in each individual country, the Communists bring out fresh concrete possibilities for joint action by all contingents of the working class in the fight against the internal and external reaction.
The application of the line formulated by the 7th Congress of the Comintern has never been more urgent. Dimitrov said: ``We want to take account of the concrete situation at each given moment and in each given place, instead of acting according to a definite pattern everywhere and at all times, so as not to forget that the Communists may take a different stand in different conditions. We want to take a sober account of every stage in the development of the class struggle and the growth of the class consciousness of the masses themselves, to be able to find and tackle at every stage the concrete tasks of the revolutionary movement relevant to that stage.
``We want to find a common approach with the broadest masses for the purpose of fighting against the class enemy; we want to find ways of finally overcoming the isolation of the revolutionary vanguard from the masses of the proletariat and all the working = people.''^^1^^
In each individual instance, the peculiar features of the situation and the concrete conditions of the struggle for socialism determine the forms assumed by the Communists' efforts to achieve unity of the working-class action.
But is the line for unity of action by so different contingents and organisations of the working class, pursued by the Communists, compatible with criticism of bourgeois reformist, opportunist ideology? The Marxist-Leninist parties say it is. Fundamental, concrete, deep-going and convincing criticism of reformist opportunism is a key _-_-_
~^^1^^ G. Dimitrov, Op. cit., p. 98.
290 condition for successful struggle for unity of action by the working people.Lenin said that the only correct, Marxist tactics was never to ``miss the opportunity, however slight, of supporting real reforms and partial improvements and explaining to the masses the sham of = reformism'',^^1^^ while simultaneously explaining to the masses the falsehood of reformism. Lenin gave especially detailed substantiation of this line in his ``Left-wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder where he stressed the need to make use of ``any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and condition- al'',^^2^^ while allowing possibility of compromise with individual mixed-bag Social-Democratic organisations, provided it was a compromise that would ``in no way hamper the Communists in their ideological and political struggle against the opportunist Right = wing''.^^3^^ Considering the possibility of an electoral agreement with the hopelessly reactionary Henderson and Snowden, Lenin explained: ``The Communist Party should propose the following 'compromise' election agreement to the Hendersons and Snowdens: let us jointly fight against the alliance between Lloyd George and the Conservatives; let us share parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of workers' votes polled for the Labour Party and for the Communist Party (not in elections, but in a special ballot), and let us retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity. Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years---1903-- 17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks.''^^4^^
That is also the view taken by the Communist Parties today.
The Marxist-Leninist parties intend to continue, said the Declaration issued by the Communist and Workers' Parties in 1960, ``to criticise the ideological positions and _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 70--71.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
^^3^^ Ibid., p. 74.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 86.
__PRINTERS_P_291_COMMENT__ 19* 291 Right-opportunist practices of Social Democracy ... to continue their activity inducing the Social-Democratic masses to switch to the positions of consistent class struggle against capitalism, and for the triumph of socialism. The Communists are firmly convinced that the ideological differences existing between them and the Social Democrats should be no obstacle to an exchange of opinion on mature problems of the working-class movement and joint struggle, especially against the danger of = war.''^^1^^Speakers at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in June 1969 noted the successes scored in the struggle for the unity of the working-class movement. There is growing differentiation within the Social-- Democratic movement, with a section of it abandoning anticommunist attitudes. Relations between trade unions of different trends in some countries and on an international scale have been growing more active. There have been more instances of joint action by trade unions taking a different orientation. There are also some burning issues, like questions connected with the prevention of world war, establishment of a European security system, struggle against the threat of fascism, which suggests an especially urgent need for unity of action by workers' parties, including those which are responsible for the policies of their states. However, these sound tendencies have been coming up against stubborn resistance on the part of many Social-Democratic leaders.
A well-grounded critical analysis of reformist ideology is a highly important element in the struggle for united working-class action, because this ideology hampers working-class unity, diverts the working class from the struggle against capitalism for its class interests, and helps to spread the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie among the working people.
Lenin repeatedly stressed the close connection between the ideology of reformism and imperialism.
He wrote: ``The victory of the proletarian revolution calls for the complete confidence, the closest fraternal alliance and the greatest possible unity of revolutionary action on _-_-_
~^^1^^ Programme Documents in the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism. Documents of the Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties Held in Moscow in November 1957, in Bucharest in June 1960 and in Moscow in November 1960, Moscow, 1964, p. 75.
292 the part of the working class of all the advanced countries. These conditions cannot be created without a determined, principled rupture with, and a relentless struggle against, those bourgeois distortions of socialism that have gained the upper hand in the top echelons of the vast majority of official 'Social-Democratic' and 'socialist' parties.... The opportunists and social-chauvinists, being servants of the bourgeoisie, are real class enemies of the = proletariat.''^^1^^The connection between the ideology of reformism and imperialism depends above all on the socio-economic roots of reformism. ``The receipt of high monopoly profits by the capitalists ... makes it economically possible for them to bribe certain sections of the workers, and for a time a fairly considerable minority of them. ... And so there is created that bond between imperialism and opportunism, which revealed itself first and most clearly in Great Brit- ain.''^^2^^
In his report at the 2nd Congress of the Comintern on July 19, 1920, Lenin stressed: ``In America, Britain and France we see a far greater persistence of the opportunist leaders, of the upper crust of the working class, the labour aristocracy; they offer stronger resistance to the communist movement. That is why we must be prepared to find it harder for the European and American workers' parties to get rid of this disease than was the case in our country.... Opportunism in the upper ranks of the working-class movement is bourgeois socialism, not proletarian socialism. It has been shown in practice that working-class activists who follow the opportunist trend are better defenders of the bourgeoisie than the bourgeois themselves. Without their leadership of the workers, the bourgeoisie could not remain in = power.''^^3^^
At that time, Lenin cited the Social-Democratic government in Germany, the attitude taken by Albert Thomas to the bourgeois government in France, and similar experience in Britain and the United States to back up his conclusions.
History has left many similar pages in the practice of the Right Socialist parties. Everyone has heard about such practices as the policy pursued by Harold Wilson's Labour _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, pp. 103--04.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 301.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 230--31.
293 government, the policy of the Right-wing leaders of the Italian Socialist Party, which struck a political alliance with the Christian Democratic Party, a party closely connected with Big Business.In present-day conditions, even bourgeois writers frequently report the switch by the reformist leaders to the defence of the interests of imperialism. Thus, a Swiss bourgeois paper wrote that Social-Democratic leaders were allowed to take over the helm of the ship of state in several European countries ``on a broad scale, following their acceptance of the democratic rules of the game, and their consequent repudiation of the idea of any revolutionary transformation of the social = system''.^^1^^ The British bourgeois publicist Henry Fairlie says that the Right-wing Labour leaders have long since discarded the idea of working any changes in the country's parliamentary system. ``Indeed, when Wilson eventually won power, he proceeded to govern as if he were a pillar of both Crown and = constitution.''^^2^^ Another British publicist, William Davis, stresses the Wilson Government's continued orientation on Washington. Harold Wilson himself is quoted as saying that the Anglo-American alliance was of the utmost importance. Despite the grave economic and financial difficulties faced by Britain, the Wilson Government supported the USA and ``continued to spend vast sums on playing policeman in other parts of the = globe''.^^3^^
The facts of modern life fully confirm Lenin's assessment of the principal class meaning of opportunism, which ``lies in certain elements of present-day democracy having gone over (in fact, though perhaps unconsciously) to the bourgeoisie, on a number of individual issues. Opportunism is tantamount to a liberal-labour policy.... The fundamental idea of opportunism is an alliance or a drawing together ( sometimes an agreement, bloc, or the like) between the bourgeoisie and its = antipode.''^^4^^
Lenin demanded the ``explanation of the bourgeois character of all reformism'' which ``in fact exerts the bourgeoisie's influence on the proletariat from = within''.^^5^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Neue Zuricher Zeitung, January 15, 1967.
~^^2^^ Henry Fairlie, The Life of Politics, London, 1968, p. 108.
~^^3^^ William Davis, Three Years Hard Labour. The Road to Devaluation, London, 1968, p. 171.
~^^4^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 153--54.
~^^5^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 191, 281.
294There is vibrant meaning in Lenin's ideas today about the attitude the working class should take to reforms. He wrote: ``Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of = capital.''^^1^^
Lenin's approach to the working-class unity in the fight against capital is of vast and vital importance. ``The workers are tired of splits.... The workers are disgusted at the fact that the split sometimes even takes the form of brawling----- Unity cannot be 'promised'---that would be vain boasting, self-deception-----Unity must be won, and only the workers, the class-conscious workers themselves can win it---by stubborn and persistent effort.... Unity can be furthered only by the efforts and organisation of the advanced workers, of all the class-conscious = workers.''^^2^^
Only in fighting imperialism will the broad masses of the workers be able to sort out the ideological differences and to decide whom they are to follow and along which path; only in the class struggle itself have the workers always seen the truth of the Marxist-Leninist line, which has been tested and is being constantly confirmed by the course of the revolutionary movement.
Lenin's proposition that the proletariat's class policy was incompatible with the reformist liberal line is of exceptional international importance today, because of the specific features of the ideology of present-day reformism, and also the shifts to the Left which are to be observed within the international working-class movement.
It would be wrong to judge all members of reformist parties by the yardstick of the behaviour of their Right socialist leaders and theorists.
While sharply condemning reformist policy and ideology, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 372.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 319.
295 Lenin drew a marked distinction between the Communists' attitude to the ``leaders'', or ``responsible representatives'', who are very often hopelessly beset with petty-bourgeois and imperialist prejudices---such ``leaders'' must be ruthlessly exposed---and to the masses to whom he demanded to ``learn to approach .. . with particular patience and caution so as to be able to understand the distinctive features in the mentality of each stratum, calling, etc., of these = masses''.^^1^^In 1922, Lenin said that there was need to make criticism of reformist policy more explanatory. Socialist workers should not be scared away by sharp words, but should be given concrete proof of the gap between reformist slogans and the whole of reformist policy, and to explain why it was wrong.^^2^^
Lenin's ideas on this subject are of exceptional importance today, considering the growing polarisation of the class and political forces of capitalism.
The gulf between capitalist monopolies, on the one hand, and the broad masses of people oppressed by the monopolists, on the other, has never been wider. The social forces which are to ensure the triumph of socialism are multiplying within the entrails of the capitalist society.
As the sway of the monopolies continues to grow, the social basis of the capitalist system in the West is narrowed down, massive dissatisfaction is mounting, the scientific and technical revolution undermines the positions of various social sections which had once been firmly entrenched, specifically the privileged sections of the working class. This is undoubtedly a highly important factor which objectively helps to overcome this split within the working-class movement.
However, together with these tendencies there is also evidence that the Right-wing reactionary forces are becoming ever more active.
In this age of deep-going socio-economic changes, in this epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, with the capitalist system on the whole mature for the social revolution of the proletariat, the ideology of reformism is of especial value for imperialism.
_-_-_^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 192.
^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 42, p. 416.
296 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. SPECIFIC FEATURESWhat are the main features of the present-day ideology of reformism?
Compared with the first few decades of the 20th century, the ideology of reformism has now moved further to the Right, having abandoned Marxism not only in deed, but also in word. The main policy-making documents of the Socialist International and its parties openly repudiate Marxism and the traditional socialist demands of the working-class movement.
In a speech at a symposium in Trier in May 1968, to mark the 150th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx, Julius Braunthal, a one-time Secretary of the Socialist International and a theorist of Right-wing Social-Democracy, declared that Marxism used to be the predominant ideology of the Second International. He added: ``In the Socialist International which came into being again after the Second World War, Reformism became the predominant ideology. Almost all its Member Parties had entered into government after the war, either governing alone, or sharing power in coalition with bourgeois parties. . .. The ideology which guided the policies ... was based on Reformism---the theory of a gradual development of the social order through the nationalisation of key industries, through a system of social planning and control of productivity to ensure full employment and through a comprehensive system of social security. Therefore, in the European democracies, Marxism is no longer a really effective force as a theory of the proletarian class struggle and the social revolution. . .. But it is no longer the theory of Marxism---the theory of class warfare as a conscious struggle for a classless society---which inspires the workers and their intellectual leaders. ... But it is the theory of evolutionary Socialism and not revolutionary Marxism which guides these endeavours.''^^1^^
We find the theorists of reformism openly acknowledging their break with Marxism. The Programme of the CPSU says: ``The Right wing of Social-Democracy has completely _-_-_
~^^1^^ Julius Braunthal, ``Karl Marx and the Present Day'', Socialist International Information, Vol. XVIII, 1968, No. 9, p. 100.
297 broken with Marxism and contraposed so-called democratic socialism to scientific socialism. Its adherents deny the existence of antagonistic classes and the class struggle in bourgeois society; they forcefully deny the necessity of the proletarian revolution and oppose the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. They assert that capitalism is being 'transformed' into socialism.``The Right-wing Socialists began by advocating social reforms in place of the socialist revolution and went as far as to defend state-monopoly capitalism. In the past they impressed on the minds of the proletariat that their differences with revolutionary Marxism bore not so much on the ultimate goal of the working-class movement as on the ways of achieving it. Now they openly renounce socialism. Formerly the Right-wing Socialists refused to recognise the class struggle to the point of recognising the dictatorship of the proletariat. Today they deny, not only the existence of the class struggle in bourgeois society, but also the very existence of antagonistic classes. ... Even when reformist parties come to power they limit themselves to partial reforms that do not affect the rule of the monopoly = bourgeoisie.''^^1^^
It is this class, socio-economic content of present-day Right Socialist opportunism that makes it necessary to criticise its ideology and policies.
What are the most general features of present-day reformism?
First, it is abandonment of Marxism under the pretext that it is ``obsolete'' and ``irrelevant'' to the realities of the day, marking the final switch by reformist ideology to criticism of Marxism from bourgeois positions. This abandonment of Marxism goes hand in hand with attempts to formulate the subtlest and most refined anti-communist line of argument claiming championship of man's interests and spiritual values.
Second, it is abandonment of the basic social demands, specifically the socialisation of the means of production, and the switch to the bourgeois theory of the ``mixed economy'', which is supplemented by a view of the bourgeois state as being a ``supra-class'' organ.
Third, it is the reformist form of anti-communism which, for all its specifics, is a direct continuation and species of bourgeois imperialist anti-communism, and which has the _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, pp. 501--02.
298 ~I same functions of deceiving men and keeping their minds fettered by bourgeois lies.Fourth, it is the reformists' attitude on a number of vital political problems (disintegration of the colonial system, analysis of the problems of war and peace, etc.) which fully suits the imperialists (like the proposal to extend peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems to ideology; attempts to present aggressive imperialist blocs as ``peaceable'' and ``democratic'' agencies of so-called Atlantic solidarity, etc.).
Despite the proclaimed neutrality on world outlook, the reformists have in fact fully adopted the bourgeois ideology, and bourgeois social science: in economics---bourgeois Keynesianism and neoliberalism, in sociology---the bourgeois theory of ``deproletarisation''; in constitutional law---the mechanism of power of state-monopoly capitalism; in morals and ethics---fideism and clericalism; in international affairs ---anti-communism, anti-Sovietism, militarism and neocolonialism.
This means that reformist ideology today fulfils its old social function, that of carrying bourgeois influence into the working class, even more openly than in the past.
Characteristically, bourgeois ideologists themselves now regard reformist ideology as a component part of bourgeois ideology. One collection ranks ``democratic socialism'' together with ``conservatism'', ``liberalism'' and ``nationalism'' among the main varieties of democratic thought. One author says: ``Socialism is detaching itself from its Marxist foundations, and is becoming, in Hook's phrase, 'a broad movement of social = reform'.''^^1^^
The philosophical foundations of the reformist view of various pressing problems continue to be abstract, idealistic and metaphysical, and this tends to distort the reflection of reality and inexorably results in the support of positions which are hostile in class terms to the interests of the working people. Thus, the metaphysical and abstract antithesis between democracy and dictatorship, which drains these concepts of their social content, results in an apology of bourgeois democracy; the abstract idealistic view of international and national problems leads to the reactionary condemnation of the true interests of the national independence of the peoples _-_-_
~^^1^^ Political Thought since World War II, p. 292.
299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/LBI363/20061215/364.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2006.03.0) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil fighting against imperialism and an apology of supra-national policies pursued under the flag of ``internationalism'' and also in condemnation of true socialist internationalism under the pretext of championing national interests of the socialist countries, it leads to neglect of the qualitative antithesis between the two main socio-economic systems---capitalism and socialism---and results in a denial of the principal contradiction of the present epoch and the main line of social development today.The connection between the ideology of reformism and revisionism has assumed a new aspect in the present conditions.
Let us recall that reformism sprang from revisionism in the international Social-Democratic movement at the end of the 19th century, and that it split and undermined the unity of the working class.
Today, the reformist parties united under the leadership of the Socialist International constitute the organisational basis for an ideological and political trend which is hostile to Marxism-Leninism and which is essentially a brand of bourgeois socio-political ideology. However, reformist ideology has not severed its ties with revisionism, for it provides ideological fuel for Right-opportunist revisionism within the communist movement now and again interacting with it in the plane of practical politics. The Right-opportunist version of the ``new models of socialism'' are in many respects directly connected with the notorious ``democratic socialism'', while the Right-revisionist interpretation of the ``economic models of socialism'' reveals reformist sympathies for the anarchy of the capitalist commodity market. In its anti-communist policies aimed against the socialist countries, Right Social Democracy works hand in hand with imperialist anti-- communism, specifically its attempts to undermine socialism from inside, attempts based on the hope of eroding communism and bringing nationalist and revisionist elements to the fore.
Thus, the old splitting function of reformism within the working-class movement is supplemented by the new function of undermining the world socialist community from inside.
However, the fact that reformist ideology has been moving to the Right does not mean that it has managed to carry with it all the socialist movement, all the working people within 300 the Socialist and Social-Democratic parties united in the Socialist International.
The truth of life is making its way to the hearts and minds of men despite the obstacles being thrown up in its way by reformist and revisionist propaganda. The social processes developing in capitalist society, the contradictions deepening within capitalism under the impact of the scientific and technical revolution, the growing oppression of the overwhelming majority of the population in the capitalist countries by a handful of monopolies, and---the main thing---the steady development of the socialist community and the growth of its real successes and achievements have been raising to an ever higher level the initiative and energy of the working people of the capitalist countries, and strengthening the progressive tendencies within their midst, their urge for unity, for internationalism, for cohesion in the struggle for their basic class interests and for the radiant socialist future of all mankind. As the Right-wing leaders and theorists of reformism advance in their betrayal of the working-class cause more and more honest men are repelled from them, a process which helps to accelerate the shaping of class consciousness among the broadest masses of people, who constitute the principal and decisive factor of the historical process.
Under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, the working people of the whole world are uniting in the struggle against imperialism, and for peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. THE PRINCIPALThe ideological activity of the reactionary Right-Socialist leaders is doing the international working-class movement much harm. They style themselves as Socialists, but in fact help to smuggle bourgeois ideology into the midst of the working people, spreading the illusion that capitalism is being ``transformed'', that a ``welfare state'' over and above classes is being established, defending capitalism, fighting against real socialism, and substituting for it illusory ``ethical socialism'' or a ``new humanism''.
The theory that ``world outlook is neutral'' is a demagogic platform which the reformist leaders and theorists have 301 adopted in place of scientific socialism and the proletarian ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It is a theory which is presented as spiritual freedom which gives members of the Social-Democratic parties the chance to opt for any system of views, whether scientific or religious, any system of ideas. This principle has been written into the documents of the Socialist International and into the programmes of many Right Socialist parties.
What are the reformists' arguments in favour of this theory?
The reformist leaders say that any outlook is subjective and even individual, which is why no party can claim to express an outlook which is common to all its members. This argument completely ignores the materialist, dialectics of social development, and consequently, the truth of life itself. Social being is objectively reflected in men's minds and in a society divided into classes appears in the form of class consciousness. Refusal to recognise the class character of world outlook in fact helps to cover up the reformists' adoption of bourgeois ideology.
Another reformist argument in favour of the neutralism of world outlook is that socialism as an ideal is a common goal of all men, one which is accepted by men from different walks of life. This is an effort to obliterate the distinction between broad democratic circles who take a positive view of socialist ideals (frequently without duly understanding them) and the revolutionary vanguard which cannot win in the struggle for socialism unless it has a theory of scientific socialism, namely, the Marxist-Leninist outlook.
The reformist concept of the ``transformation'' of capitalism falls in with the bourgeois theories of ``transformation''. Whereas bourgeois ideologists say that this ``transformation'' will gradually result (or has already resulted) in the establishment of a ``mass consumption society'', an ``affluent society'', a ``technocratic system'', a ``formed society'', etc., the reformist theorists declared that it is resulting (or has already resulted) in the establishment of a ``democratic'' or `` humanistic'' socialism.
A great many books have been written since the war by Right Socialist leaders and theorists, among them British Labour theorists John Strachey (The Modern Capitalism, 1956), C.A.R. Crosland (The Future of Socialism, 1956), G. D. H. Cole (Capitalism in the Modern World, 1957), 302 French Right Socialists Georges Bourgin and Pierre Rimbert (Le Socialisme, 1962), all trying to prove that capitalism has been ``growing'' into socialism, and that Marxism has, in consequence, been ``outdated'' and that the theory of socialist revolution and proletarian dictatorship should be discarded.
They differ in their interpretation of the alleged `` transformation'' of capitalism into socialism mainly in assessing the extent to which capitalism has gone through this process. Thus, Benedikt Kautsky, the main writer of the Programme of the Socialist Party of Austria, says that capitalism has already become democratic socialism, while others say that capitalism is at various other stages of its transformation.
All their arguments designed to back up this thesis are based on a distorted characteristic of capitalism, above all, of its productive forces and relations of production, which are said to be undergoing a ``second industrial revolution''. They also make great play of state ownership and joint-stock companies.
What is this theory of ``second industrial revolution''?
Bourgeois sociologists and reformist theorists see it not only as a scientific and technical revolution (something the Marxists do not deny) but also as an automatic transformation of capitalism as a result of it into ``neocapitalism'', or, as the reformists insist, socialism. This is an attempt to throw a false light on the social consequences of technical progress in the capitalist countries. Some insist---like Harold Wilson at the 63rd Congress of the British Labour Party at Scarborough in 1963---that a third industrial revolution is already on its way. The third industrial revolution characterised by the use of automation, atomic energy, electronic machines, etc., is to combine with ``socialist planning'', and this, Wilson believes, will bring triumph to the cause of ``democratic socialism''. The leader of the Austrian Right Socialists, Karl Czernetz, said that Wilson ``outlined the concept of a new scientific socialism'' for the whole international working-class = movement.^^1^^
Mankind has indeed entered a period of the greatest scientific and technical change connected with the mastering of nuclear energy, exploration of outer space, development of chemistry and automation of production. However, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Die Zukunft, 1963, No. 21, S. 3.
303 relations of production under capitalism are too narrow for the scientific and technical revolution, which can be fully used, with the fruits going to the whole of society, only under socialism.The reformist theory of the ``second industrial revolution'' clearly follows in the wake of bourgeois theories which tend to absolutise the role of technical progress, and regard technology outside the social context, irrespective of the system of social relations. Among the more prominent bourgeois theorists in this area is the French economist Jean Fourastie, who ignores the actual relations under capitalism, whose motive force is profit. He declares the main purpose of technical progress to be the raising of living standards and boosting of the purchasing power of wages. Accordingly, he denies the existence of surplus value and the exploitation of labour by capital.
Right Socialist theorists, following bourgeois sociologists, like Jean Fourastie, Helmut Schelsky, Peter Drucker and John Diebold, claim technical progress to be a means of overcoming all the contradictions of capitalism. Thus, Carlo Schmid says, for instance, that technical progress in modern production amounts to a ``second industrial revolution'' which will result in the transformation of capitalism into a socialist system.^^1^^
The Programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, adopted at Bad Godesberg, says: ``The second industrial revolution creates unprecedented prerequisites for raising the general standards of living and eliminating poverty and = need.''^^2^^
In actual fact, however, technical progress and the automation of production under the sway of monopoly capital run against the working class, increasing unemployment, and pressing down the working people's living standards. Technical progress in the capitalist countries results in a sharpening of all the social contradictions and does not, as the ideologists of reformism say, lead to their moderation, let alone their solution.
Why is it wrong to designate the present scientific and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Leo Brandt, Die zweite industrielle Revolution; Carlo Schmid, Mensch und Technik. Die sozialen und kulturellen Probleme im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution, Berlin-Hannover, 1956.
~^^2^^ Vorwarts, November 20, 1959.
304 technical revolution in the capitalist countries as a second or third industrial revolution? The first industrial revolution, which marked the ripening of the bourgeois mode of production within the entrails of feudalism, was not only a technical but also a social revolution characteristic of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. This was a very natural course of development, because feudalism and capitalism are similar-type formations. Socialist relations of production cannot take shape spontaneously within the entrails of capitalism. In this sense, technical progress cannot of itself or automatically transform the moribund capitalist system into a new social system. This transformation requires not only a scientific and technical revolution, but also a revolution in social relations, that is, it requires a socialist revolution and a victory for the dictatorship of the working class.The reformist theorists do not confine themselves to distorting the consequences of technical progress. Their `` concept'' of ``transformation'' of capitalism into socialism also includes the story that capitalist relations of production are being fundamentally transformed and that private property is being converted into ``public'' and ``collective'' property which allegedly emerges on the basis of joint-stock companies. They say that the economic functions of the capitalist state are the lever through which private property is converted into ``public'' and ``collective'' property. Two French Right Socialist theorists say: ``The state economy is a stage on the way to socialism.... In effect, it transforms private property into public = property.''^^1^^
Actually, however, this amounts to no more than a development of state-monopoly capitalism which has nothing in common with social property.
The theorists of reformism insist that socialism as a system emerges entirely within the entrails of capitalism: `` Capitalism having led to joint-stock companies lays the foundation of socialism, the collective form of property.... Thus, the socialist economy is clearly outlined within the entrails of capitalism = itself.''^^2^^
This praise of ``socialisation'' of capital and the economic functions of the state by the reformist theorists has been clearly borrowed from the bourgeois theorists who advocate _-_-_
~^^1^^ G. Bourgin et R. Rimbert, Le Socialisme, Paris, 1962, pp. 115, 116.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 35--36.
__PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20---1245 305 a ``people's capitalism'', notably, the well-known bourgeois sociologist Joseph A. Schumpeter, whose book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, was openly advertised in an official pamphlet issued by the French Socialist Party, Decline and Succession of = Capitalism.^^1^^ In a preface to the pamphlet, this party's leader, Guy Mollet, said the book was ``a fundamental work'' which would play its role by becoming a standard work for every activist of the Socialist Party. What did Guy Mollet find in Schumpeter's book that was so valuable? He says: ``Having made a study of the USA, a country of free enterprise, Schumpeter arrived at the conclusion that it was moving towards = __NOTE__ '' missing from original. socialism.'' = The same view was spread by La Revue socialiste, the theoretical organ of the French Socialist Party. It said: ``The first stage of the socialist formation is not a gross collapse of capitalist society.... It is a complete realisation of capitalism ... limited, planned and under the constant control of the masses. The United States gives us an illustration of this theory which has been fundamentally formulated by the liberal Schumpeter, among others.''^^2^^In actual fact, the various forms of state-monopoly regulation of the economy, which the reformist theorists claim to be socialism,, have done nothing at all to modify the nature of imperialism. State-monopoly capitalism is ``far from altering the position of the principal classes in the system of social production, it widens the rift between labour and capital, between the majority of the nation and the monopolies. Attempts at state regulation of the capitalist economy cannot eliminate competition and anarchy of production, cannot ensure the planned development of the economy on a nation-wide scale, because capitalist ownership and exploitation of wage labour remain the basis of = production.''^^3^^
Of course, the Marxists do not deny that capitalism changes and that the prerequisites of socialism mature within its entrails, but none of these changes are fundamental.
We should brush aside the tall story that the Marxists hold capitalism to be ``immutable''. Neither the founders of Marxism, nor their followers have ever said that capitalism was frozen solid. Marx and Engels gave a profound analysis _-_-_
~^^1^^ E. Weill-Raynal, Declin et succession du capitalisme, Paris, 1954.
~^^2^^ La Revue socialiste, 1957, No. 106, p. 371.
~^^3^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, pp. 471--72.
306 of the historical process of the emergence and development of capitalism. Lenin continued this analysis and showed the specific features of capitalism at its highest imperialist phase, pointing out that imperialism was the epoch in which monopoly capitalism grew into state-monopoly capitalism.Today, capitalism continues to change in that direction, bearing out the objective tendencies of its development as discovered by Marx and Lenin. But for all its changes, capitalism does not lose its qualitative features as a socio-- economic formation: it remains an exploitative system, the capitalists continue to derive surplus value by exploiting wage labour, they continue to hold the means of production, while the workers continue to sell their labour-power, the state continues to be an apparatus for oppression, suppression and exploitation in the hands of the ruling class.
The contradictions of imperialism have accelerated the growing over of monopoly into state-monopoly capital, but this means only that the strength of the capitalist monopolies has increased, and that they have broader opportunities for using the state for their own ends.
What do the changes in capitalism amount to? They amount to a greater concentration of capital, a growing enrichment of the financial oligarchy, a strengthening of state-monopoly capitalism and a sharpening of the class struggle.
``The scientific and technical revolution,'' says the Main Document issued by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``accelerates the socialisation of the economy; under monopoly domination this leads to the reproduction of social antagonisms on a growing scale and in a sharper form. Not only have the long-standing contradictions of capitalism been aggravated, but new ones have arisen as well. This applies, in particular, to the contradictions between the unlimited possibilities opened up by the scientific and technological revolution and the roadblocks raised by capitalism to their utilisation for the benefit of society as a whole. Capitalism squanders national wealth, allocating for war purposes a great proportion of scientific discoveries and immense material resources. This is the contradiction between the social character of present-day production and the state-monopoly nature of its regulation. This is not only the growth of the contradiction between capital and labour, but also the deepening of the antagonism between __PRINTERS_P_307_COMMENT__ 20* 307 the interests of the overwhelming majority of the nation and those of the financial = oligarchy.''^^1^^
All of this shows that the nature of capitalism, the relations of production under capitalism, have not changed. The internal contradictions of capitalism have not relaxed or disappeared, but have on the contrary deepened and sharpened. The basic contradiction of capitalism---the contradiction between social production and private capitalist appropriation---is still there and has become much more acute. So long as it is there, it is fraud, pure and simple, to talk of ``a democratisation of the economy'', of ``a diffusion of property'' and various other demagogic ideas being spread by the reformists to the purpose of undermining the class consciousness and the struggle of the workers.
The reformist theory of the ``transformation'' of capitalism is ultimately a new version of the present-day bourgeois ``mixed economy'' version, which is covered up with demagogy and socialist catchwords. The fundamental flaw both of the bourgeois and of the reformist theory of the ``mixed economy'' is the idea that it allegedly combines two different, fundamentally distinct types of economy. Actually, both private capitalist economy and bourgeois state economy fall under the same head of capitalist economy, where state property is merely a brand of capitalist property. The reformist theory of the ``mixed economy'' differs from the bourgeois version in that it presents this economy as evidence that capitalism has been ``peacefully growing into socialism''. The combination of so-called free enterprise and elements of state regulation of planning, so characteristic of state-- monopoly capitalism is the objective basis reflected by the reformist version of the advocacy of capitalism which is presented as the ``transformation'' of capitalism into socialism.
The switch by reformist theorists to the bourgeois view of the ``mixed economy'' and its spread in the specifically reformist form are closely bound up with another version characteristic of the ideology of present-day reformism, namely, the claim that the class struggle in the capitalist countries has been fading out. This conclusion is naturally covered up with presentations of diverse distortions of the socialist structure of capitalism contained in the writings of bourgeois sociologists.
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 19.
308However, contrary to the reformist illusions about the class struggle in the capitalist countries fading out, it has in fact become sharper than ever before. This is so because the fundamental basis of the class struggle---the exploitation of the working class---is still there, and because the condition of the working class has been growing worse. It has in fact grown worse in social terms even when wages have nominally grown. The speed-up, industrial accidents, the unemployment which is a permanent feature of capitalism, the working people's uncertainty in the future, the growing demands on workers as a result of the scientific and technical revolution, which increases the value of labour power but does not increase real wages---all of this is an indication of the worsening of the working people's social conditions.
The mounting strike movement shows that there is no ``fading out'' of the class struggle. In the last few years, the strike movement has been on a sharp upgrade.
``The instability of the capitalist system has increased. Socio-political crises are breaking out in many countries, in the course of which the working masses are becoming aware of the necessity of deep-going and decisive = changes.''^^1^^
The reformist concept of the ``transformation'' of capitalism is most closely connected with the ``welfare state'' myth, which the reformists have been spreading long and far. On the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the First International, one-time Secretary of the Socialist International, J. Braunthal, declared: ``Today development everywhere is running from the capitalist state, which is guided by the profit motive, to the social welfare state. The capitalist fabric is shot through with a multiplicity of socialist threads and there is transition from capitalism to a socialist = society.''^^2^^ The reformist apology of the bourgeois state leads directly to a denial of the socialist revolution. Andre Philip says: ``There is increasingly decisive intervention by the state into the economy.. .. We live in a system . .. which is undergoing a complete transformation. We are no longer in a capitalist system, but neither are we in a socialist system; the successes of planning and public intervention carry us into a society of the transition period, which is in a state of extremely rapid = evolution.''^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 19.
~^^2^^ Neuer Vorwdrts, October 22, 1954.
~^^3^^ Christianisme social, 1959, No. 1--2, p. 61.
309All of this merely serves to confirm once again how right Lenin was when he said that it was impossible to work for the release of the working people from bourgeois influence in general and the imperialist bourgeoisie in particular, without fighting the opportunist preconceptions about the state. The idea that the bourgeois state is ``above class'' is one of the oldest and most entrenched with reformist illusions, which frequently goes hand in hand with peans for the latter. Socialisme, organ of the Belgian Right Socialists, says: ``Perhaps the state is an instrument of emancipation serving the working people? In effect, in our Western democracies the state is already no longer at the service of one class. It has become the conciliator of antagonistic = interests.''^^1^^
The reformist illusions about the ``supra-class'' nature of the bourgeois state today and about its ability to play the role of arbiter and to establish social harmony are being fed by bourgeois economic conceptions. The US bourgeois economist, J. K. Galbraith, in his book The Affluent Society, presents the bourgeois state precisely as this kind of instrument for balancing out contradictions. The realities of the capitalist countries refute the various inventions about the ``welfare state'' and the ``affluent society''. ``Even in the most developed capitalist countries, millions of people suffer the torments of unemployment, want and insecurity. Contrary to assertions about the 'revolution in incomes' and 'social partnership', capitalist exploitation is in fact increasing. The rise in wages lags far behind the growth rates of labour productivity and the intensification of labour, behind the social needs and even more so behind the growth of monopoly profits. The position of the small farmers continues to deteriorate and the living conditions of a considerable part of the middle strata are becoming more = difficult.''^^2^^
As to the role of the state, its economic functions do not at all serve any ``supra-class'' purposes of promoting ``general welfare'', but the interests of monopoly capital. The resources mobilised by the bourgeois state through the exaction of taxes usually go into the pockets of the monopolies, who are awarded major government contracts, mostly arms contracts. State monopoly capitalism combines the strength of the monopolies with that of the state for the purpose of further _-_-_
~^^1^^ Socialisme (Bruxelles), 1960, No. 38, pp. 165, 166.
~^^2^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 19.
310 enriching the monopolies, suppressing the working class and national liberation movement and starting aggressive wars.The so-called military-industrial complex is increasing its influence in the most advanced capitalist countries. This is an alliance of the leading monopolies and the militarists in the administration, and it makes government policy even more reactionary and aggressive.
What in that case is the famous ``democratic socialism'' considering that the reformist theorists have been rehearsing bourgeois conceptions on all the main questions: in assessing the capitalist mode of production, in analysing social processes, in characterising the bourgeois state, and in setting out ideology?
``Democratic socialism'' is defence of capitalism in the guise of socialism. The reformist interpretation of socialism has nothing in common with the scientific view of socialism.
The reformist repudiation of the objective law of social development and consequently of the scientific concept of socialism as a socio-economic formation is indissolubly connected with the view of socialism as no more than an ethical ideal. The French Right Socialist, Jules Moch, says that = __NOTE__ Missing `` in original. ``socialism is morality, almost a lay religion ... an ideal, perhaps, rather than an economic = doctrine.''^^1^^ The theoretical journal of the Austrian Right Socialists declares: `` Democratic socialism brings to the fore its socio-ethical = purposes.''^^2^^ A publication by the reformist Socialist Union also declares socialism to be ``socialist ethics applied to the sphere of economic = organisation''.^^3^^ They add: ``... socialism is at bottom a question of ethics or morals. It has mainly to do with the relationships which should exist between a man and his fellows.''^^4^^ The reformist theorists present class solidarism in the spirit of the same ``human'' terms. Guy Mollet, for instance, declares: ``Our main concern is to promote the evolution of relations within the enterprise, between the employer and his workers.... The regulation of relations between employers and workers helps without any spectacular measures to lay a more solid foundation for social peace.''^^5^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ J. Moch, Confrontations, Paris, 1952, p. 457.
~^^2^^ Die Zukunft, 1957, No. 4, S. 103.
~^^3^^ 20th Century Socialism, London, 1956, p. 7.
~^^4^^ Ibid.
~^^5^^ Guy Mollet, Bilan et perspectives socialistes, Paris, 1958, p. 77.
311These views are almost identical with the religious concepts of class solidarism, with the bourgeois sociological theories of ``human relations'', of ``humanisation of labour'', etc., which are likewise designed to ``regulate'' relations between employers and workers. In methodological terms, the spreading of the idea of an ``ethical socialism'' rests on the scientifically flimsy approach which tends to turn one aspect of social life into an absolute. In this instance it is not technology but ethics, which is besides presented in abstract and metaphysical terms. Just as the reformist theorists tend metaphysically to separate technology from relations of production, converting technology into a magic source of ``universal welfare'', so they deal with ethics. They fail ,to see the material, socio-economic basis and its concrete historical and class content.
Human ethics as an ideal is quite attainable, but before this can happen there is need to destroy the system of private property and exploitation. Any calls for the establishment of a universal human ethics without the elimination of the foundations of capitalism amount to a fraud. The famous ``democratic socialism'' is the same capitalism all over, because the reformists have no intention at all of seeing it changed qualitatively in any way.
By jettisoning Marxism, the reactionary theorists of reformism have also jettisoned the scientific substantiation of socialism. Erich Ollenhauer told a congress of the SocialDemocratic Party of Germany in Bad Godesberg in 1959: ``Our programme is not a scientific document.... Our congress is not a scientific = congress.''^^1^^ Their achievement of the ``socialist ideal'' is not connected with the operation of objective laws but with man's moral improvement outside the class struggle and the socialist revolution.
The way to socialism, the reformist theorists declare, does not run through a revolutionary destruction of capitalism--- the elimination of private property and exploitation---but through the fostering of men in the spirit of socialism. Consequently, their way does not provide for any change of the social system, but implies that the capitalist order is to remain intact.
The origins of the term ``democratic socialism'' go back to the struggle which the old leaders of reformism, Karl Kautsky and Otto Bauer, carried on against the Great October _-_-_
~^^1^^ Vorw\"arts, November 20, 1959, S. 19.
312 Socialist Revolution, when they contrasted their ``democratic socialism'' and Leninism, creative revolutionary Marxism. They claimed to stand for socialism, but only without a proletarian dictatorship, because they favoured a `` democratic'' and not a ``dictatorial'' socialism. Consequently, from the very outset ``democratic socialism'' had an anti-communist, anti-Soviet tenor.The anti-communist orientation of Right Social-Democrats today is a cover for their complete abandonment of socialist aims and their surrender to state-monopoly capitalism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. THE SPECIFICSThe anti-communism of the ideologists and leaders of Right socialist reformism is the main obstacle in the way of joint action by the working class in the fight against monopolies.
The Marxists-Leninists, carrying on an implacable struggle against the ideology of anti-communism, make a distinction between Right Social-Democratic leaders and ideologists, who deliberately spread anti-communism, and the masses of Social-Democrats, to whom the ideology and policy of anti-communism is organically alien and who accept some anti-communist myths mostly under the influence of propaganda.
The anti-communist views of the Right theorists and leaders of reformist Social-Democracy took shape as a logical effect of their actual switch to the defence of the interests of the bourgeoisie on the main aspects of present-day social development. These views also resulted from their negative attitude to the Great October Socialist Revolution, a turning point in world history and the start of a new historical epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. These views were given their final shape when the ideologists of reformism openly broke with Marxist-Leninist theory and when the Right reformist leaders began to pursue a policy of collaborating with the reactionary forces.
In content, the anti-communist ideology of Social-- 313 Democracy is close to the anti-communism of the imperialist ideologists. Whereas the main content of the latter is slander on the socialist system, and falsification of the policies and purposes of the Communist Parties and the theory of Marxism-Leninism, the reformist brand of anti-communism also contains, even if in a curious form, slander on the practice of socialism and the communist movement, and distortions of Marxist-Leninist theory. It is widely known that anticommunist minded Right Socialist leaders collaborate with the Right-wing bourgeois political leaders in foreign and domestic policy. Right Social-Democrats take an active part in setting up a united international anti-communist front. Thus, for instance, they take part in the activity of an international committee for information and social action, an anti-communist outfit engaged in the collection of provocative material, mounting of subversive activity from inside the socialist parties and the socialist countries, spying among the workers, etc. However, it would be wrong to say that the anti-communist ideology of Social-Democratic reformism and the anti-communism of the imperialist politicians and ideologists were identical, and to fail to see their distinctions. Anti-communism is a complex and many-faceted phenomenon. To ignore the specific features of its various brands would not only run counter to the Marxist-Leninist principles of the concrete analysis of the social phenomena but could do damage in practice, because lack of the differentiated approach in the struggle against anti-communism could weaken its effectiveness.
The specific features of reformist anti-communism arise mainly from the fact that the Right Social-Democrats try not to present their anti-communism under patently imperialist slogans. Their anti-communist ideas are camouflaged as socialist ones, to facilitate their penetration into the minds of masses of people.
The ``democratic socialism'' concept is the most important piece of camouflage, for it is presented as a ``pluralistic society'', which synthesises, according to the bourgeois advocates of convergence, the ``best'' that is in capitalism and in socialism. The Right Socialist theorists say that this society must retain private capitalist property, competition and even monopolies, provided that they do not ``threaten'' freedom and justice, bourgeois political parties, etc., while social property and the Communist Party are either excluded 314 altogether or pushed into the background. This concept is anti-communist for all practical purposes, but up until recently the Right Social-Democrats had been more or less successful in playing up ``democratic'' catchwords and the ``third way'' slogan in covering up the true meaning of ``democratic socialism'' and to smuggle this `` democratic'' variant of anti-communism into the working-class ideology.
Anthropological camouflage, which falsifies the MarxistLeninist interpretation of the individual and man's condition under socialism, has a growing part to play in the ideology of Social-Democratic anti-communism. The Right Socialist theorists have tried to present Marxism-Leninism as being a Utopian doctrine of a ``dictatorship of inhumanity'' which ignores the ``anthropological'' factor, the ``greatest force behind historical development''. Quite naturally, they present themselves and their own theory as championing and expressing the true ``human'' = substance.^^1^^
The Social-Democratic and Socialist parties, which are members of the Socialist International, have mostly arrived at reformism by abandoning Marxism-Leninism, but they continue to use it for anti-communist purposes. A typical instance is the artificial contrast between Marxism and Leninism, and the ``criticism'' of communist practices on the strength of the ``authority'' of Marx. These attempts have been more frequent in connection with the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Soviet State, the 150th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx and the centenary of the birth of V. I. Lenin. Neue Gesellschaft, theoretical organ of the SocialDemocratic Party of Germany, carried an article urging a ''more serious study of Marxism so as the better to use it against---communism.''^^2^^ The curious thing is that in their efforts the Social-Democratic ideologists have tried to spread the ideas of Karl Kautsky, Otto Bauer, Leon Trotsky and similar other men, whose views they present as being the ``true Marxism''. When using the contrast between Leninism and communist practices, on the one hand, and ``non-- communist Marxism'', on the other, to promote their anti-- communist purposes, the Social-Democratic ideologists also bank on the fact that rank-and-file Social-Democrats and broad _-_-_
~^^1^^ Neues Forum, 1966, No. 154, S. 589.
~^^2^^ Neue Gesellschaft, 1968, No. 3, S. 207.
315 masses of workers are to some extent under the influence of anti-communist propaganda, and have a poor knowledge of Marxism and the history of the working-class movement.Another characteristic feature of the ideology of reformist anti-communism is its skill in adapting itself to the situation. Social-Democratic anti-communists seek to use every turn and new element in the life of capitalist society, on the one hand, and in the world communist movement and the world socialist system, on the other, to promote their anti-- communist ends. They speculate on the difficulties within the international communist movement, displaying an efficiency that deserves better application. An example is the Right Social-Democrats' response to the 1968 events in Czechoslovakia, when five socialist states, in fulfilment of their internationalist duty, took resolute steps to prevent the triumph of what is known as creeping counter-revolution, which incidentally operates under the slogans of ``democratic socialism''. The Bureau of the Socialist International sent the United Nations a resolution ``condemning'' this internationalist act and mounted a campaign of anti-communist hyste- ria.^^1^^ The Right Social-Democrats played up nationalism and revisionism, whose advocates they claimed to be `` revolutionaries'' seeking to ``complete the incomplete revolution in the communist countries'' in accordance with the ideas of Karl Marx.^^2^^
The imperialist ideologists are fully aware of the essence and tenor of anti-communist reformism, and have recently been advocating that ruling circles of their countries should make greater use of ``social democratic ideas'' in order to ``erode socialism from inside''. Such proposals were put forward in the summer of 1968 by prominent anti-communists like the Director of the Institute for Communist Affairs at Columbia University, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the West German professor Klaus Mehnert, a one-time member of the nazi Abwehr.
The repudiation of Marxism by Right-wing leaders and theorists of Social-Democracy has gone hand in hand with their falsification of Marxist-Leninist theory, a line of reformist anti-communism which has, in content, run in the main stream of bourgeois falsification of Marxism. The reformist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Die Zukunft, 1968, No. 18, S. 1-3.
~^^2^^ Ibid., No. 9, S. 3-4.
316 theorists have been most assiduous in rehearsing such widely advertised bourgeois propaganda ideas as that Marxism is ``outdated'', having allegedly been refuted by the presentday development of capitalism, as the denial that Marxism is scientific, and in their efforts, undoubtedly constituting the main line in the reformist falsification of Marxism, to excommunicate Lenin and his followers from Marxism and to contrast Leninism and Marxism.Let us bear in mind that the bourgeois falsifiers of Marxism spearhead their fight against Marxist-Leninist theory, accentuating their fight against Leninism and on the claim that Lenin had allegedly switched to voluntarist attitude when he abandoned the ``economic determinism'' of Karl Marx (see Chapter Four of this book). Many bourgeois anti-communist experts have also suggested that Lenin ``departed'' from Marxism when he discarded its democratic traditions.
The theorists of reformism joining in this loud chorus of falsifications spouted by bourgeois ideologists, also claim that there are two concepts of Marxism, one of which, according to Julius Braunthal, is ``the version which the Communists call = Marxism-Leninism'',^^1^^ and which they resolutely condemn, and the other, Marxism proper, which is also discarded as having outlived itself in historical terms.
In his report at a meeting in Trier to mark the 150th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx in May 1968, Braunthal contrasted Marxism-Leninism and the ``non-communist Marxism of Plekhanov, Martov, Kautsky and Otto Bauer'' and especially brought out the differences on the question of the Party's structure and its functions, the problem of dictatorship and democracy, and the various views of revolution.
The falsification of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution by the ideologists of Right Socialist reformism links up with the stand taken on this question by the bourgeois ideologists. Braunthal declares: ``Leninism can therefore be characterised as the theory of social revolution for pre-capitalist socie- ties.''^^2^^ George Sabine claims: ``Leninism can therefore best be defined as an adaptation of Marxism to non-- industrialised economies and to societies with a prevailingly peasant _-_-_
~^^1^^ Socialist International Information, Vol. XVIII, 1968, No. 9, p. 98.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 99.
317 population.''^^1^^ Let us note that this version, which is common to the reformists and the bourgeois theorists, is, on the one hand, an attempt to deny the great international importance of Leninism and, on the other, an attempt to claim that the advanced capitalist countries are beyond the threat of socialist revolution. This version is characteristically close to the Leftist views propounded by spokesmen of petty-bourgeois revolutionism, who say that in the present-day conditions the international working class can no longer play its revolutionary role, and that only the peasants are a revolutionary class. These views have nothing in common with Leninism. Lenin put a high value on the role and prospects of the peoples' national liberation struggle, and never contrasted it with the struggle of the working class and the international working-class movement. The pledge of further successes of socialism lies only in strengthening the alliance and interaction of all the main streams of the world revolutionary process: the world socialist system, the working-class movement in the capitalist countries and the national liberation struggle of the peoples.The anti-communist propaganda of the Right Social-- Democrats is geared mainly to falsifying the substance of socialism as a social system, for they are very well aware of the tremendous revolutionary impact the practice of socialist construction is having on the development of the working-class movement throughout the world. That is why they have been trying so hard to denigrate the socialist countries, to erode the importance of socialism in the minds of masses of men and to spread the illusion that the capitalist system is sound and has the future before it.
Let us note that all the anti-communist distortions 'of socialism, as a social system, by the Right SocialDemocrats appear to constitute a logically coherent system of views.
The Right Social-Democrats start by distorting the content of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the democratic people's revolutions in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia. They claim that these countries, Russia specifically, were either at a pre-capitalist stage of development or in the initial phase of capitalism and for that reason did not have _-_-_
~^^1^^ George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, London, 1963, p. 806.
318 the material conditions which Marx had seen as necessary for the triumph of = socialism.^^1^^ As a result in place of the expected socialist system of society what was established in these countries was a ``state capitalism'' with new class antagonistic distinctions and a ``totalitarian'' order requiring ``humanisation''.^^2^^Such views will be found in any official document of the Socialist International (notably, its 1951 Frankfort Declaration and the Declaration of the Council of the Socialist International, The World Today: The Socialist Perspective (1962), in the ``new'' programmes of the Socialist Party of Austria (1958), the Social-Democratic Party of Germany (1959), the French Socialist Party (1962) and others, and the writings of Right Socialist theorists like Fritz Sternberg, John Strachey, Willi Eichler and C. A. R. Crosland, Carlo Schmid and Fritz Klenner, Christian Broda, Norbert Leser, and many others). At first sight their views appear to differ from the views of socialism and capitalism taken by the imperialist ideologists themselves, most of whom say that the antagonistic systems are either the ``free'' (Western) world confronting to totalitarianism, or as species of the ``one industrial society'' moving closer to each other. By contrast, the Right Socialist theorists set up an antithesis between real socialism and capitalism, on the one hand, and ``democratic socialism'', on the other. However, there is no profound distinction between these views because both seek to deny the fundamental superiority of socialism over capitalism, and to safeguard the foundations of capitalism.
The Right Socialist myths and inventions about socialism are based on diverse methods of distorting actual events and processes going forward in the socialist countries, with downright lies and slander ranking high among these methods. An example is provided by Braunthal's report, ``Marx and the Present'' at a symposium arranged by UNESCO's German Commission at Trier on May 5, 1968. He restated the view that socio-economic relations in Russia on the eve of the October Revolution were non-capitalist, and claimed that Lenin ``saw clearly that in Russia the material _-_-_
~^^1^^ F. Sternberg, Anmerkungen zu Marx-Heute, Frankfurt (M), 1965; J. Braunthal, ``Marx und Gegenwart'', Die Zukunft, 1968, No. 9.
~^^2^^ J. Braunthal, ``Marx und Gegenwart'', Die Zukunft, 1968, No. 9; Das Gesellschaftsbild des Sozialismus, Wien, 1966, S. 16, 117, 119, 161.
319 conditions necessary for a transition to socialism had not yet de- veloped''.^^1^^His assertions are refuted by a careful reading of Lenin's works on the eve of the October Revolution and an analysis of the specific features of capitalism in Russia. Firmly rebutting the statements which appeared in the bourgeois, SR and Menshevik press, declaring, like present-day anti-- communists, that it was ``too early to introduce'' socialism in Russia, Lenin wrote in his The Immediate Catastrophe and How to Combat It: ``That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly = capitalism.''^^2^^ It is true that in many of his articles, notably, ``Political Notes'' written in February 1908, Lenin said that the main feature of socio-economic relations in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was a combination of the most advanced industrial and finance capitalism with the most backward land tenure, and the wildest rural conditions. There is no doubt that at the turn of the century, Russia was relatively backward in economic terms, as compared with countries like Britain, Germany and the USA, whose capitalist development had begun much earlier. But this backwardness was in no sense an insuperable obstacle on the country's way to socialism even if, as experience showed, it did have a definite effect on the pace and forms of Russia's transition to socialism. But the fact that until the October Revolution Russia remained a predominantly agrarian country did not prevent the formation, in the first 15 years of the 20th century, of capitalist monopolies controlling key industries, above all heavy industry connected with the banks. Russia already had highly industrialised areas. The concentration of workers at the large enterprises led to a high level of organisation among them. Moreover, it is a wellknown fact that the strength of the proletariat in any capitalist country is much greater than its share of the population.
Criticising Bukharin, who believed that the collapse of the world capitalist system would start with the weakest _-_-_
~^^1^^ Die Zukunft, 1968, No. 9, S. 2.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 357.
320 national-economic systems, with the less developed state capitalist organisations, Lenin wrote: ``This is wrong: it will start with the 'middle-weak'. We should never have succeeded without an appreciably high level of = capitalism.''^^1^^ Before the revolution, Russia was a veritable centre of social and national oppression. It was turned into a central ganglion of contradictions of the world imperialist system, and its weakest link, by the fierce exploitation of the workers, the peasants' land hunger and poverty, the people's political rightlessness, the oppressed conditions of the national minorities, the feudal, serf and patriarchal survivals and the country's dependence on international capital.The unjustified denial that the material conditions for socialist revolution had in fact been present in Russia appeared to give the Right-wing Socialist theorists something like the ideological possibility to go on denying that the Soviet economy was socialist as well, thereby producing the story that the system in the Soviet Union was ``state capitalism''.
Thus, the Address of the Chairman of the Socialist International, Bruno Pittermann, to the 23rd ordinary Congress of the Swedish Social-Democratic Party in June 1968, recommends that capitalist society should be reformed in the spirit of the ``third way'', and censures those who advocate an unlimited policy of force, as well as those who ``want to replace capitalist society by a dictatorship of state capital- ism''.^^2^^
The assertion that the system in the socialist countries is ``state capitalism'' is based on a purely outward similarity of phenomena and processes, specifically state forms of property under capitalism, on the one hand, and under socialism, on the other. An unbiased view of the situation shows that state property under socialism, far from being identical, is in fact fundamentally opposite in nature to state property under capitalism, but this purely outward similarity has not prevented the Right Social-Democrats from drawing their false conclusion that the etatisation of the means of production is in itself socially neutral, which means that there is no imperative necessity to establish a socialist system or to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin Miscellany XI, p. 397.
~^^2^^ Socialist International Information, Vol. XVIII, 1968, No. 12, p. 134.
__PRINTERS_P_321_COMMENT__ 21--1245 321 demand a revolutionary change of the economic and political relations prevailing under capitalism.This distortion of the essence of the economic foundations of socialism by the Right Social-Democrats is combined with inventions about ``new class distinctions'' in the socialist countries. In an effort to discredit social property in the means of production, they claim that far from being able to ensure the establishment of a class-free society it does in fact, under certain conditions, help to bring about a ``new social differentiation'', new antagonistic social groups, between whom there is a struggle which is ``just as sharp as it is in the world of classic = capitalism''.^^1^^ The Right Social-Democrats make an absolute of the fact that under capitalism property distinctions in the main coincide with the fundamental antagonistic class distinctions, and this is artificially applied to the state of affairs in socialist society, where class distinctions are vestigial and not fundamental.
Of course, under socialism there are distinctions between income groups of working people and individuals, but these are inevitable distinctions so long as there remained distinctions between skilled and unskilled, and mental and manual labour. But these are distinctions which have nothing in common with class antagonisms. Under capitalism, the great gap between the income of the workers and the bourgeois springs from the qualitative distinctions between the exploited and the exploiter, expressing their fundamentally different relations to the means of production, but under socialism there is nothing of the kind. Socialism put an end to the division of men into those who have and those who have no means of production in their possession, thereby taking the most decisive step towards overcoming any social inequality. Exceptional importance also attaches to the further tendencies in the development of socialism in this respect. Socialism, the first phase of communist society, cannot reject the principle of distribution of material values by labour, the principle of differentiated remuneration for labour, the principle of personal material incentives for the working people. But there is an alignment in the levels of incomes in the advance towards communism, as the productive forces develop, the cultural and technical level of the working people is raised, and the productivity of labour is increased. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Das Gesellschaftsbild des Sozialismus,^. 18.
322 Moreover, the development of various forms of social satisfaction of the working people's requirements narrows down the distinctions in the material security of various families. The same purpose is served by the steady improvement in the system of wages, as a result of which, for instance, several tens of millions of industrial and office workers in the Soviet Union have received wage rises in the last few years.The vestigial inequality under socialism is being evened out through a boosting of the welfare of the whole people, for as Marx had predicted in his day, ``What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.''^^1^^ Only ``in a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly---only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his = needs.''^^2^^
The arguments of the Right Social-Democrats about class antagonisms allegedly arising under socialism because of different incomes and status within the system of `` administrative power over the means of production'' are based on the unscientific administrative and organisational theories of classes, and a distortion of the actual relations under socialism between the working people in the sphere of material production and those who direct and manage social production, that is, workers of the state apparatus.
Very frequently, the Right Socialist theorists distort the nature of the socialist system in the USSR and other socialist countries along lines which are typical of bourgeois, imperialist propaganda, which claims that their system is `` totalitarian''.
_-_-_~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 17.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 19.
__PRINTERS_P_323_COMMENT__ 21* 323The Right Social-Democrats link up their myth of the ``totalitarian'' nature of the social system under socialism with its criticism in the light of ``freedom'', ``democracy'' and ``humanism'', a line in which it is virtually impossible to distinguish between Social-Democratic and imperialist anti-communism, because their conceptions are so close to each other. The Right Socialist advocacy of such positive concepts as ``freedom'', ``democracy'', ``humanism'', and so on, becomes grossly anti-communist because of their unscientific and abstract approach to these concepts.
The anti-communist views of the Right Social-Democratic leaders and theorists were most pronounced in the attitude taken by the leaders of the Socialist International to the 1968 events in Czechoslovakia and the tactics of the antisocialist forces in the country.
One of the key ideological lines along which the activity of the anti-socialist reactionary forces in Czechoslovakia developed was propaganda of democratic socialism in a specific, Czechoslovakian ``model'' which was advertised as a most important ``historical experiment'', and as something to be imitated. In their efforts to poison the minds of the working people with ideas of ``pure democracy'' and `` absolute freedom'', the anti-socialist forces strove to prove that socialist democracy was allegedly not genuine democracy.
All the main arguments trotted out by the anti-socialist propagandists in Czechoslovakia revealed a close connection with Right Social-Democratic concepts. Thus, writing in the newspaper Prace, L. Sochor in his article entitled ``Marx and the Present'', contrasted the ``proletarian dictatorship'' concept and the ``democracy'' concept, claiming that the proletarian dictatorship was an organisation of state power which was alien and hostile to democracy.
In an article entitled ``Proletarians, Unite'', which appeared in Literarni Listy, Zdenek Pochop said that the proletarian dictatorship had given the workers = nothing.^^1^^ An article by V. Pysk in Lidova Democratic proposed that the `` outdated'' Marxist definition of socialism should be supplanted by the concept of ``pluralistic = socialism'',^^2^^ in accordance with which there was a thoroughly prepared plan for restoring the parliamentary system under which the bourgeois parties _-_-_
~^^1^^ Concerning the Events in Czechoslovakia, Part I, p. 41 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 37.
324 would be enabled to oust the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia from government.One of the ideologists of the anti-socialist forces, the philosopher Ivan Svitak, who at one time worked at the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences (and is now a member of the Institute of Communist Affairs at Columbia University in the USA, of which the director is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a well-known anti-communist ideologist) wrote in the magazine Student: ``Our Social-Democratic movement has almost a century of traditions behind it. ... The present-day SocialDemocrats are truly overjoyed at the prospect of democratic socialism as a real possibility of the Czechoslovakian experiment and its contribution to the world socialist = movement.''^^1^^
The Social-Democratic Party was declared to be the only force which could, by tradition and make-up, guarantee both democracy and socialism. Jan Siska, a member of the Czechoslovakian Social-Democratic Party, stressed that a situation had allegedly arisen in Czechoslovakia in which the Communists could be removed from power. He said that the Social-Democratic Party was just the right party to ``inflict on the Communists the coup de grace'' with the support of its ``international = leadership''.^^2^^ Svitak wrote in Student: ``The Social-Democrats are not alone in the world. . . . They have many friends in Europe and = elsewhere.''^^3^^
Bruno Kreisky, Chairman of the Socialist Party of Austria, and a former owner of a sausage factory in Czechoslovakia, used all the means at his disposal to exert an influence on the events in Czechoslovakia. His party worked actively to revive the Social-Democratic Party in Czechoslovakia.
Klaus Mehnert declared on West German television: ``If Czechoslovakia and the other East European countries move towards Social-Democracy, there is no doubt that we shall find it much easier to talk to a Social-Democratic even if nominally perhaps still communist Czechoslovakia. Moreover, there is need increasingly to isolate East = Berlin.''^^4^^
The ideologists of reformism have been spreading the ideals of political ``pluralism'' on the pages of their theoretical periodicals and, as the anti-socialist forces in _-_-_
~^^1^^ Concerning the Events in Czechoslovakia, Part I, p. 43.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 77.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 78.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 106.
325 Czechoslovakia became more active, gave the latter vigorous support.A characteristic instance of the spread of ideas of political ``pluralism'' by the Right Socialist ideologists is the article by the ideologist of reformism, Karl Czernetz, entitled Pluralism, Democracy and = Socialism,^^1^^ which was published in March 1967 by Die Zukunft, the theoretical organ of the Socialist Party of Austria, and reprinted in January 1968 by Socialist International Information. Claiming to follow the traditional reformist ``third way'' line, Czernetz elaborates on the idea of the ``autonomy of groups'' and ``diffusion of power''. Vilem Bernard, Secretary of the Socialist Alliance for Central and Eastern Europe, shortly observed in the same periodical that a substantial turning point had been reached in Czechoslovakia opening up a new era of `` enlightened socialism'', that it was now allowed for groups with different interests to exist and to ``defend the right to voice different views'', so that important spheres of national life were being released from Party interference (he also stressed that this applied in particular to the mass media and the judiciary). He also drew the conclusion that ``the pattern of society emerging from the sweeping changes and exciting debates of the past weeks increasingly conforms to Social Democratic principles and = ideas''.^^2^^
An even broader picture of connections between the reformist leaders and the anti-socialist forces in Czechoslovakia was revealed in the so-called ``Austro-Czechoslovak Television Dialogue'', the text of which was published in Socialist International Information.
``Czernetz, Karl---You in Czechoslovakia have only one leading political party; if that party could be democratised so as to make possible the expression of all shades of political opinion within it and allow the formation of organised groups, then surely there would emerge a free and democratic system of society. Whatever name you would care to call such organised groups---they would be political parties. . . . The decisive factor is freedom to express opinions and freedom to form groups.
``Goldstucker, Eduard---What the party must do is to _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Czernetz, ``Pluralism, Democracy and Socialism'', Socialist International Information, Vol. XVIII, 1968, No. 1-2, pp. 11--13.
~^^2^^ Socialist International Information, Vol. XVIII, 1968, No. 7, p. 68.
326 achieve a transition from a revolutionary dictatorship to a democratic socialist regime ... our system did not meet the demands of our time. . ..``Huebl, Milan---We expect the non-Communist parties to reactivate their work and hope that they will turn into something other than just nominal partners in our = society.''^^1^^
The anti-socialist attacks on the unity of the party ranks in Czechoslovakia expressed the urge to establish in the Rules of the Communist Party ``right of minority and group views'', that is, the right to attack the Party decisions or the fundamental Leninist principles underlying the Party's organisation. The revisionist elements were preparing a plan to create an atmosphere in the Communist Party that would help to turn it into an organisation with legalised factions, a loose, helpless and incompetent organisation, a sort of debating society. At the same time, the non-communist parties were in fact carrying things to the point at which a legal political opposition would appear in the country. By splitting the ranks of the working class and giving the most active support to the reactionaries in their fight against the Communists, the Right-wing leadership of the Czechoslovakian Social-Democratic Party served as a reliable support of all those who hoped for a restoration of the bourgeois system in Czechoslovakia.
These processes were reflected and directly supported by the Right Socialist press in the capitalist countries.
The turning point of the developments in Czechoslovakia, according to Gustav Husak, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, was marked by the April and May 1969 Plenary Meetings of the CPCz's Central Committee. ``The majority of our Party and the working people of Czechoslovakia support the new leadership of our Party, and its political = line.''^^2^^
Anti-communism is alien not only to the working class as a whole, but also leads the Social-Democratic movement itself to ideological and political bankruptcy. It was anticommunism that led the Social-Democrats finally to abandon Marxism and scientific socialism, which they had used to cover up their betrayal of the basic interests of the working class up until the Second World War. Today, anti-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ Socialist International Information, Vol. XVIII, 1968, No. 11, p. 121.
~^^2^^ Pravda, June 13, 1969.
327 communism has doomed the Social-Democratic movement to virtually complete subordination to state-monopoly capitalism.The economic, political, scientific, technical and similar other successes scored by the Soviet Union and the socialist camp as a whole have demonstrated the advantages of the socialist system, the socialist way of life, and have blasted all manner of inventions and stories spread by the anti-- communists about socialism and the condition of man under it. The growing economic instability, the spread of anti-- democratic tendencies and aggressive action within imperialism itself are also having an eroding effect on the illusions about the ``free world'' and the ``welfare state'', refuting any apologies of the capitalist system. The theoretical and practical activity of the Communist Parties in the advanced capitalist countries also help to expose these theories and illusions. The creative elaboration of Marxism-Leninism in application to present-day social conditions, and the explanation of the relationship between socialism and democracy, the possibilities of peaceful transition to socialism, the multiparty form of the proletarian dictatorship, etc., knock down the Right Socialist leaders' assertion that the Communists are hostile to democracy, and undermine their positions in opposing working-class unity. Joint participation by rankand-file Social-Democrats and Communists in practical struggle against the monopolies, and for better conditions for the working people also helps to bring them closer together in practice.
The facts of the last few years show that the masses of the working people have been voicing with increasing frequency their dissatisfaction over the anti-communist, splitting orientation of the reformist parties and trade union centres, over their inadequate activity fighting the monopolies and the aggressive imperialist circles. It is not surprising therefore that there is growing polarisation of forces within the socialist parties, the emergence of Left-wing trends, and growing class awareness that class interests are irreconcilable and that there is need for fundamental social change.
``In the new situation, the need for working-class unity has become even more urgent. Facts and the experience gained by the working class in the course of their struggles, and the sharp criticism of opportunist views by the Communist Parties---which remains a constant task---deepen the crisis of reformist concepts. A differentiation is taking place 328 in the ranks of Social-Democracy, and this is also reflected in the leadership. Some of the leaders came out in defence of monopoly capital and imperialism. Others are more inclined to reckon with the demands of the working masses in the economic and social fields, and in the questions of the struggle for peace and progress ... it is, of course, necessary for the Socialist parties and other political organisations favouring socialism resolutely to break with the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and to pursue a policy of effective struggle for peace, democracy and = socialism.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 24, 25.
[329] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Chapter Eight __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE IDEOLOGY OF PRESENT-DAY REVISIONISM __ALPHA_LVL2__ [introduction.]The Leninist principle that the struggle against imperialism and the struggle against opportunism are bound up with each other, and the Leninist implacable stand against revisionism, in every form and manifestation, were broadly reflected in the speeches at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, and in the decisions it adopted.
``The policy of joint anti-imperialist action demands that the ideological and political role of the Marxist-Leninist Parties in the world revolutionary process should be enhanced. Marching in the front ranks of the revolutionary, liberation and democratic movements, Communists will continue to fight uncompromisingly against bourgeois ideology... they will consistently uphold their principles ... in accordance with the concrete situation, fight against Right and Leftopportunist distortions of theory and policy, against revisionism, dogmatism and Left-sectarian = adventurism.''^^1^^
Addressing the Meeting on June 7, 1969, L. I. Brezhnev said: ``We cannot afford to ignore the divergences existing in the communist movement today and pretend they do not exist. These differences have been largely caused by the penetration into the communist movement of revisionist influences both of a Right and of a ``Left'' nature. And these influences are making themselves felt not only in the sphere of 'pure' theory. Revisionism in theory paves the way to opportunist practices, which inflict direct harm on the antiimperialist struggle. Revisionism is a departure from proletarian class positions, a substitution for Marxism-Leninism of all sorts of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois concepts, old and modernistic.
``We share the stand of the fraternal Parties which in their decisions draw attention to the need for resolutely combating this danger. The Communist Parties justly believe that the interests of their own cohesion, the interests of the whole anti-imperialist movement insistently demand an intensification of the struggle against revisionism and both Right and ``Left'' opportunism. A principled stand on this _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 156.
330 issue has always been a most important condition for strengthening a Party's political positions and has always mobilised and enhanced the activity of Communists in the class struggle.''^^1^^L. I. Brezhnev also gave a clear-cut definition of the substance of present-day revisionism, whether Right or ``Left''. He said: ``Right-wing opportunism means a slide-down to liquidationist positions and to conciliation with Social Democracy in policy and ideology. In socialist countries, Rightwing opportunism goes to the length of repudiating the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist Party, and this can lead to surrender of the positions won by socialism and to capitulation to the anti-socialist forces.
``~`Left-wing' opportunists, behind a barrage of ultra-- revolutionary verbiage, push the masses into adventurist action, and the Party onto a sectarian path, which paralyses its ability to rally the fighters against = imperialism.''^^2^^
Lenin's ideological legacy, and the concrete analysis of the specific features of revisionism, whether Right or ``Left'', are of invaluable importance for successful struggle against every brand of revisionism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. LENIN ON THE CLASSThroughout his activity as leader and theorist of the international communist movement, as leader and head of the working class and broad masses of the working people in the Soviet Republic, Lenin carried on a consistent and relentless struggle against every brand of revisionism.
In his brilliant work, Marxism and Revisionism, and in many other writings, Lenin showed the main content of revisionism: its class, petty-bourgeois roots, its social function of conducting the influence of the bourgeoisie in the communist movement, its ideological content, and its two main forms---revisionism on the Right and revisionism on the ``Left''.
Revisionism is an attempt to revise the fundamental propositions of revolutionary theory and practice, which _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 38.
^^2^^ Ibid.
331 have stood the test of time, either on the plea of giving Marxism-Leninism a ``creative'' development, or taking a dogmatic stand which is incompatible with the spirit of the theory.Lenin wrote: ``Bernstein, a one-time orthodox Marxist, gave his name to this trend by coming forward with the most noise and with the most purposeful expression of amendments to Marx, revision of Marx, = revisionism.''^^1^^ This line was subsequently given support by the opportunist elements of the other parties of the Second International, and produced reformism, an opportunist trend in the workingclass movement pursuing the policy of the class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, abandonment of the revolutionary struggle, and betrayal of the interests of the toiling classes (see Chapter Seven).
Exposing the class roots of revisionism, Lenin observed that there were definite social reasons for the emergence of revisionist vacillations. He wrote: ``The inevitability of revisionism is determined by its class roots in modern society. ... In every capitalist country, side by side with the proletariat there are always broad strata of the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors.... It is quite natural that the pettybourgeois world outlook should again and again crop up in the ranks of the broad workers' = parties.''^^2^^ Among the roots of revisionism is also the corrupting influence exerted by the bourgeoisie on the proletariat. ``The deviations from Marxism are generated by 'bourgeois counter-revolution', by 'bourgeois influence over the = proletariat'.''^^3^^
The social roots of revisionism ultimately determine its bourgeois ideological content, which is normally a rehash of bourgeois theories and an endless succession of diverse borrowings from the ideological and theoretical views of bourgeois scientists. Lenin said that the revisionists followed in the wake of bourgeois science, that in the sphere of philosophy they rehearsed the bourgeois platitudes about materialism and dialectics, and in the sphere of political economy sought to influence the public by ``new data on economic development'',^^4^^ ignoring the basic features of the capitalist _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 32.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 38, 39.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 154.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 34.
332 system. In the scientific sphere they are given to ``superficial generalisations based on facts selected one-sidedly and without reference to the system of capitalism as a = whole''.^^1^^ In the sphere of scientific communism, they revised the theory of the class struggle. Lenin gave the following general characteristic of revisionist policy: ``To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment---such is the policy of revision- ism.''^^2^^In 1908, Lenin pointed to two forms of revisionism: revisionism on the Right and revisionism on the ``Left''. However, the latter ``is far from having developed to the same extent as opportunist revisionism; it has not yet become international, has not yet stood the test of a single big practical = battle''.^^3^^ Lenin subsequently continued to do a distinction between these two forms of revisionism, these two streams of ``petty-bourgeois wavering, which always occurs alongside the proletariat, and which, in one degree or another, always penetrates its = midst''.^^4^^ Revisionism on the Right was characterised by Lenin as a ``petty-bourgeois reformism, i.e., servility to the bourgeoisie covered by a cloak of sentimental democratic and 'Social'-Democratic phrases and fatuous wishes'', and revisionism on the Left as a `` pettybourgeois revolutionism---menacing, blustering and boastful in words, brainlessness in = deeds''.^^5^^
Lenin headed not only the theoretical but also practical struggle against every form of revisionism in Russia and in the international working-class movement. The theoretical and political defeat of economism (1895--1902), of Menshevism (1903--1908) and of liquidationism (1908--1914), that is, of the Russian brands of opportunism and revisionism, was the result of the struggle against the Right opportunist and revisionist trends.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 35.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 37--38.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 38.
~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 21.
~^^5^^ Ibid.
333As to the petty-bourgeois revolutionism and political adventurism within the Bolshevik Party, Trotskyism was the most dangerous enemy with which Lenin and the Party had to carry on a hard struggle.
Trotsky said the success of the revolution in Russia depended on whether or not it would be supported by a simultaneous uprising of the European proletariat. He erected a dogmatic antithesis between Lenin's conclusion that the proletariat could initially win out in a few countries or even in one individual country, and the views expressed by the founders of the scientific communism. He ignored the diversity of the contradictions under imperialism and the importance of the struggle for democratic demands. He insisted on the adventurist attitude of starting instant revolutionary war, thereby objectively promoting the ends of the imperialists. He repeated the arguments of the Mensheviks, who rejected, as a matter of principle, the possibility of building a socialist society in a backward country, slandered the Party, undermined its unity, ranged the senior men in the Party against its young members, treated military methods of directing the masses as an absolute, ignored the study of mass experience, ignored material incentives combined with ideological education, did not believe in the possibility of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, and advocated a harmful policy in respect of the peasantry.
Upon Lenin's death, Trotsky started ideological subversion in an effort to supplant Leninism with Trotskyism. The Party and its Central Committee, headed by J. V. Stalin, safeguarded Leninism and, in face of tremendous difficulties, ensured the victory of socialism in the Soviet Republic.
Without the long and energetic struggle of the Party under the leadership of V. I. Lenin and J. V. Stalin, against the Right-wing deviationists and Trotskyites, it would have been impossible to win in the Great October Socialist Revolution, to consolidate this victory, to build socialism and to safeguard it during the Great Patriotic War.
In the international arena, Lenin headed the struggle against the Right-opportunist revisionism of Bernstein and then of Kautsky. Lenin helped the ``Left'' Social-Democrats to understand the need for breaking with the revisionists and establishing a new type of Marxist party. Later he was to 334 give a rebuff to Austro-Marxism as represented by Otto Bauer, F. Adler and others who rejected Marxism as an international theory and spread the idea of a ``peaceful socialisation of capitalism''.
Lenin did very much to help the fraternal Communist Parties overcome Right opportunism, Trotskyism and ``Left'' communism, and his book ``Left-wing'' Communism--- an Infantile Disorder had a great part to play in this matter.
The whole of this activity of V. I. Lenin's is still of exceptional importance today. Many tendencies characterising the situation in Russia in the period before the Great October Socialist Revolution (mounting political activity of the working class, growing general-democratic upswing, involvement of ever great masses of people in the revolutionary process, and intensification of the bourgeois fight against Marxism), have now assumed world-wide proportions, and so made the task of overcoming the trends hostile to Marxism one of especial importance.
Referring to the situation in Russia in 1910, Lenin said that ``sections that in many cases are now for the first time beginning to acquaint themselves with Marxism in real earnest...''^^1^^ had risen to consciously participate in public life. ``We must again explain the fundamentals of Marxism to these masses; the defence of Marxist theory is again on the order of the = day.''^^2^^ ``The theory of Marxism, 'the fundamental principles' of our entire world outlook and of our entire Party programme and tactics, is now in the forefront of all Party life not by mere chance, but because it is inevit- able.''^^3^^
It is quite clear that in the present epoch the involvement of ever greater masses of people (peasants and middle sections in the developing countries; workers by hand and by brain in the imperialist countries; broad sections of the young people and intellectuals; nations oppressed by monopoly capital) in the revolutionary process and the carrying of the truth about socialism and Marxism-Leninism to these masses is one of the most important tasks. This task is made considerably more complicated by the fact that anti-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 43.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 35.
~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 34--35.
335 communist propaganda daily, hourly, ceaselessly poisons the minds of broad masses of people.Lenin wrote: ``The bourgeois press is creating far more fallacious ideas on this score than ever before, and is spreading them more widely. Under these circumstances disintegration in the Marxist ranks is particularly dangerous. Therefore, to understand the reasons for the inevitability of this disintegration at the present time and to close their ranks for consistent struggle against this disintegration is, in the most direct and precise meaning of the term, the task of the day for = Marxists.''^^1^^
In this period of long, stubborn and hard struggle against imperialism, the line of joint anti-imperialist action calls for a further enhancement of the ideological and political role of the Marxist-Leninist parties in the revolutionary process.
There is profound meaning in the conclusions drawn by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties concerning the need of loyalty to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. In his speech at the meeting, L. I. Brezhnev stressed: ``To apply a consistent class line, firmly adhere to principles, be flexible in tactics, consider the concrete conditions from every angle, to undertake bold and at the same time well-conceived actions, to be able to utilise all the diverse means of fighting imperialism---this is what Lenin taught us, and what we learn from = Lenin.''^^2^^ The Appeal of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties ``Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin'' said: ``Communists regard it as their task firmly to uphold the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism in the struggle against all enemies, steadfastly to make them a living reality, constantly to develop Marxist-Leninist theory and enrich it on the basis of present experience of waging the class struggle and building socialist society. Communists will always be true to the creative spirit of = Leninism.''^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 43.
~^^2^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 172.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 41.
336 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. LENIN ON THE REASONSLenin's considerations concerning the concrete reasons for the emergence of revisionist vacillations are of tremendous value in the light of the analysis of the present-day difficulties faced by the international communist movement.
Lenin connected these reasons with objective processes. He wrote: ``These departures cannot be attributed to accident, or to the mistakes of individuals or groups, or even to the influence of national characteristics and traditions, and so forth. There must be deep-rooted causes in the economic system and in the character of the development of all capitalist countries which constantly give rise to these depar- tures.''^^1^^
Analysing these reasons, Lenin laid special accent on these four factors: 1) the growth of the working-class movement; 2) differences in the levels of the economic development of the individual countries; 3) contradictions in the development of capitalism; and 4) the diversity of the bourgeoisie's tactics of fighting for its class interests and domination.
``One of the most profound causes that periodically give rise to differences ... is the very growth of the labour movement. ... The enlistment of larger and larger numbers of new 'recruits', the attraction of new sections of the working people must inevitably be accompanied by waverings in the sphere of theory and tactics, by repetitions of old = mistakes.''^^2^^
Lenin returned to this idea again and again, and wrote, for instance, that ``the growth of the workers' party often attracts many opportunists to its ranks.... It is also true that in our day socialists of bourgeois origin most often bring to the proletariat their timidity, narrow-mindedness and love of phrase-mongering rather than firmness of revolutionary = convictions.''^^3^^
These remarks of Lenin's are of very great importance today.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 347.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 348.
~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 17, p. 94. However, Lenin also repeatedly stressed that some of those who come from the ranks of alien classes consistently side with the working class and become well-seasoned revolutionaries.
__PRINTERS_P_337_COMMENT__ 22---1245 337The growing scope of the socialist revolution and its tangible successes, the rapid growth of the ranks of the international communist movement (from 400,000 during the October Revolution to almost 50 million today) have inevitably resulted in the fact that the communist ranks have been joined by men and women lacking the necessary experience, immature and untempered in the flames of class battles. It is among these newcomers with origins in different social groups, that the vacillations, which have petty-bourgeois class roots, arise and assume the form of diverse revisionist streams reflecting influences which are bourgeois in ideological content.
L. I. Brezhnev observed: ``Fresh millions of people belonging to various social strata are being drawn into vigorous political action. Many of them enter politics with a great store of revolutionary energy, but with rather hazy ideas about how to solve the problems agitating them. Hence the vacillations, the swings from stormy political explosions to political passivity, from reformist illusions to anarchic im- patience.''^^1^^
Another factor observed by Lenin, which objectively has an effect on the emergence of revisionist vacillations, is the diverse social structure which is determined by different levels of development of social production in the various countries. He wrote: ``The rate at which capitalism develops varies in different countries and in different spheres of the national economy. Marxism is most easily, rapidly, completely and lastingly assimilated by the working class and its ideologists where large-scale industry is most developed. Economic relations which are backward, or which lag in their development, constantly lead to the appearance of supporters of the labour movement who assimilate only certain aspects of Marxism, only certain parts of the new world outlook, or individual slogans and demands, being unable to make a determined break with all the traditions of the bourgeois world outlook in general and the bourgeois-democratic world outlook in = particular.''^^2^^
Different countries in various parts of the globe are involved in the great world-wide battle against imperialism. _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 155.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 348.
338 Their uneven social structure and local experience, which now and again obscures the many-faceted picture of the world's advance towards the new social system, may, rather cannot but, produce some weaknesses and mistakes, and feed the revisionist vacillations.Lenin said that a constant objective source of differences was also the ``dialectical nature of social development, which proceeds in contradictions and through = contradictions''.^^1^^ Explaining this idea, Lenin wrote that capitalism ``develops, organises and disciplines the workers'', while oppressing them, capitalism itself ``creates the elements of a new system, yet, at the same time, without a 'leap' these individual elements change nothing in the general state of affairs, and do not affect the rule of capital''. It was the inability to take a dialectic view of all the contradictions of living reality, which included different tendencies, and the view that these tendencies were mutually exclusive, that led to such one-sided revisionist trends which either ``regard reforms as a partial realisation of socialism'' or rejected the ``petty work, especially the utilisation of the parliamentary = platform''.^^2^^ ``In practice, the latter tactics amount to waiting for 'great days' along with an inability to muster the forces which create great = events.''^^3^^
Applying this theoretical analysis to the practice of the revolutionary movement in Russia, the CPSU saw as an expression of bourgeois influence on the proletariat the denial that it was possible to combine legal and illegal forms of working-class struggle. It was expressed, on the one hand, in the denial of the illegal Social-Democratic Party, in minimising its role and importance, in the attempts to curtail the programme and tactical tasks and slogans of revolutionary Social-Democracy, etc., and on the other, in the denial of parliamentary work by the Social-Democrats and their use of other legal opportunities. Both revisionist trends did harm to the cause.
Lenin wrote: ``Both of them hinder the thing that is most important and most urgent, namely, to unite the workers in big, powerful and properly functioning organisations capable of functioning well under all circumstances, permeated with _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 348.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 348, 349.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 349.
__PRINTERS_P_339_COMMENT__ 22* 339 the spirit of the class struggle, clearly realising their aims and trained in the true Marxist world = outlook.''^^1^^The practice of imperialism in our day breeds numerous similar contradictions, and revisionist tendencies are objectively fed by their one-sided interpretation.
Thus, it is well known that the economic, scientific and technical successes of socialism and the class struggle have forced the capitalists to make definite concessions to the working people in the social sphere, so as to cover up the growing intensity of their exploitation. Uncritical and onesided use of such phenomena as allegedly being voluntary concessions on the part of imperialism to the working class, tends to produce Right opportunist, revisionist illusions. In actual fact, the greater the attempts by imperialism to adapt itself to the situation the deeper are its antagonisms. Today, more than ever before, imperialism has exposed itself as a system of social and national inequality and oppression.
``Finally, an extremely important -cause of differences among those taking part in the labour movement lies in changes in the tactics of the ruling classes in general and of the bourgeoisie in = particular.''^^2^^ ``The zigzags of bourgeois tactics intensify revisionism within the labour movement and not infrequently bring the differences within the labour movement to the point of an outright = split.''^^3^^ Elsewhere Lenin said that realistic-minded politicians must see the ideological and political trends which spring from the counter-- revolutionary influences on the working-class movement.
This source of revisionist vacillations has become especially dangerous. L. I. Brezhnev said at the International Meeting: ``The tremendous social break-up of the pillars of the old world taking place under the onslaught of socialism and all the revolutionary forces is meeting with growing resistance from the bourgeoisie. To safeguard its positions it strives to use all the economic and political possibilities of state-monopoly capitalism. In the capitalist countries, anticommunism has been elevated to the status of state policy. To erode the communist and the whole revolutionary movement from within is now one of the most important directions of the class strategy of = imperialism.''^^4^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 349.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 350.
~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 351.
~^^4^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 155.
340The imperialist bourgeoisie also seeks to exert its corrupting influence on the communist movement within the world socialist community. Imperialism tries to put pressure on the socialist world in the economic, political, ideological and every other sphere.
The involvement in revolutionary action of more and more millions of men who come from different social sections, the involvement in the revolutionary process of broad masses of peasants in countries lagging in their economic development through the fault of imperialism---all of this makes it imperative that the new and complex political tasks in each individual country should be tackled on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, creatively and in the light of principle.
In view of the successes of the communist movement---the rapid growth of the Communist Parties in the socialist countries, the overcoming of the split within the working-class movement and the alliance of Socialists and Communists in a number of countries---there arises the need constantly and persistently to work to foster the new Party members in the Marxist-Leninist spirit. Underestimation of this work may and does lead to the most undesirable consequences.
Equally serious tasks in the ideological and political education of the Communists arise in view of the intensified subversive activity of the imperialists. A knowledge of the main lines of present-day ideological subversions by imperialism makes it necessary to take due measures to ward them off, and to organise an offensive against bourgeois ideology, as otherwise the less steadfast and mature men may fall captive to bourgeois falsifications and slide into revisionist vacillations and betrayals.
Ideological subversions clearly designed to inflate revisionism include denigration of the Soviet people's heroic past, distortions of the genuinely democratic nature of the socialist political system, speculation on the national interests of the socialist countries, and use of peculiarities of different social and age groups (intelligentsia, youth) to undermine their ideological principles.
More active ideological work by the Communist Parties along these lines should preempt the development of revisionist tendencies and frustrate the efforts of bourgeois propaganda.
341 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. THE BASIC CONCEPTIONSRight opportunist revisionism, which tends to slide down to liquidationist Social-Democratic positions in politics and ideology, is concentrated on a number of acute political and ideological problems of the international communist movement.
At the present stage, these problems in the development of socialism are its past, present and future. Let us look in the most general terms at the principal revisionist concepts, bringing out the elements which are most characteristic of the ideologists of Right opportunist revisionism in the various countries.
The fundamental issues of our day, which are directly connected with massive action by millions of men---the view of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the view of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the role of the working class in society, the doctrine of the Party of the working class, of proletarian internationalism, and of the role and substance of Marxist-Leninist theory---all these are the problems on which the Communists and the revisionists are fundamentally divided.
It is characteristic of Right opportunist revisionism to deny the historical necessity of the socialist revolution and the proletarian dictatorship.
The revisionists switch to the stand taken by the Right Socialists and urge attainment of socialism through evolution and reform. The point is, however, that the reforms they advocate do not go to the roots of the capitalist system. It is well known, too, that the ruling classes do not give up their power of their own accord.
Right opportunist vacillations are also now and again expressed in the failure to understand the need for the leading role of the Communist Party in the socialist revolution, in underestimation of the Leninist propositions concerning the break-up of the military-police machine of the bourgeois state, and in turning peaceable forms of struggle into absolute, whereas only life, the actual balance of strength, the behaviour of the bourgeoisie in this or that country can alone enable the proletarian vanguard to decide on the concrete ways and forms of socialist revolution.
342Present-day conditions introduce many new elements into the preparation of the socialist revolution in various countries. The broadest sections of the working people are being involved in the fight against monopoly capital, and under the impact of the scientific and technical revolution the percentage of wage-workers in the population of the capitalist countries has been growing. The Communist Parties have adopted as their weapon Lenin's thesis that the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism are one, and they seek to use it as a means helping to advance towards revolutionary transformations. The fundamental propositions of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution are just as important today, as they were at the turn of the century.
The methodological basis on which the revisionists have abandoned the theory of socialist revolution are metaphysical, vulgar, evolutionary views of social development in which gradualness is one-sidedly brought to the fore, while the importance of leaps and radical qualitative changes is ignored.
The revisionist slander of socialism is harmonised with the general chorus of the ideologists of bourgeois and reformist anti-communism, who deny the socialist nature of the social system in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
Socialism, which Lenin said was a social order higher than capitalism, requires the solution of the fundamental problem of raising labour productivity and in this connection (and for this purpose) its higher organisation.
The Right opportunist view of socialism cuts across the scientific view of socialism because it implies the transfer of large-scale industry into the ownership of separate labour collectives; this also applies to the Leftist reduction of socialism to a single act of socialisation, regardless of the material and technical basis.
`` 'Left' revisionism attacks the theory and practice of scientific communism, and tries to replace it with a reactionary utopian and military drillground 'socialism'. Its pettybourgeois nationalistic substance is exposed by the preaching of the messianic role of certain countries, mass-scale brainwashing in the spirit of hegemonism, chauvinism and bellicose anti-Sovietism.
``On the other hand, the Right-wing revisionists preach the concept of so-called 'liberalised' socialism which denies 343 the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist parties, substitutes for socialist democracy political liberalism of a bourgeois type, negates centralised planning and management of the national economy, and is designed to unleash the blind forces of the market and cutthroat = competition.''^^1^^
Lenin's scientific view of socialism also hits at the revisionist inventions that there is some kind of Soviet standardised ``model'' of socialism. Life has fully borne out Lenin's scientific prediction that each nation introduces ``something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social = life''.^^2^^
Of course, the immense diversity of forms in socialist construction implies loyalty to its principles and its general laws.
It is in fact against the general laws of the socialist revolution and socialist construction that revisionists from Right and ``Left'' direct their attacks.
Thus, the Yugoslav journal Praxis (Zagreb) says that society based on state property in the means of production and centralised planning cannot be regarded as a socialist one. Svetozar Stojanovic in an article entitled ``Etatist Myth of Socialism'' says such a society should be designated = as ``etatist''.^^3^^ An article by R. Muminovic in the same journal designates the state forms of economic management under socialism as ``administrative socialism'' and the ``technocratic society'', while the task of strengthening the socialist state system is regarded as a grave theoretical error.
The contributors to the journal, following in the wake of the main ideas expounded by bourgeois theorists of the socalled industrial society, who obscure the fundamental distinction between socialism and capitalism, keep writing about a ``general'' tendency towards a strengthening of bureaucracy and technocracy in the modern world, and connect this tendency with the development of science and technology ``in general''. In this spirit, R. Supek, in an article entitled ``Technocratic Scientism and Socialist Humanism'', draws the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin's Ideas and Cause Are Immortal, Moscow, p. 37.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, pp. 69--70.
~^^3^^ Y. Y. Yefremov, V. M. Ivanova, ``Paging through the Journal Praxis for 1967'', Filosofskiye nauki, 1968, No. 5.
344 conclusion that the ``struggle against bureaucracy constitutes one of the key problems in the progressive transformation of society, whether capitalist or socialist''.``The socialist countries have many different critics,'' Janos Kadar, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, said in his speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. ``Our enemies are ceaselessly attacking our system under the most diverse pretexts. It has now become the fashion to identify the concept of the socialist state with bureaucracy. Naturally we still have bureaucratic manifestations and tendencies. We are fighting them by improving the work of the civil service, developing socialist statehood and socialist democracy, actively drawing ever new strata of the working people into social life, enlisting their help in solving various problems. We do not idealise the attained development level in any sphere of social life and are constantly striving to enhance it.
``This is one side of the matter. The other side is that the socialist state, the power of the working people, is the most democratic state in history, one that has ended the exploitation of man by man and serves the people. Experience shows that the withering away of the socialist state has not yet set in, that in the divided world of today there is a need for its defence function, while its economic, cultural and organisational activity is needed for building a socialist = society.''^^1^^
Underestimation of the role of the socialist state, distortion of its class character, its equalisation with the bourgeois state is nothing but a departure from Marxism. The social consequences of technical progress under capitalism and under socialism are fundamentally distinct. Both Marx and Lenin gave a theoretical substantiation for the vital necessity of the socialist state throughout the whole period of socialist construction up until the highest phase of communism. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx wrote about the future state system of communist = society.^^2^^ Lenin pointed out that ``for the state to wither away completely, complete communism is = necessary''.^^3^^ These theoretical conclusions are _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 330.
~^^2^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (in three volumes), Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 26.
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 468.
345 confirmed by the international experience of socialist construction.The Theses of the CPSU Central Committee for the Centenary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin stressed the importance of Lenin's theory of the state and, what is most important, of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Theses say: ``The dictatorship of the proletariat means the replacement of democracy for exploiters by socialist democracy for the working people, the beginning of the epoch of genuine government by the people.... The dictatorship of the proletariat is the main instrument in the building of socialism. It enables the working class, all working people, to counter the power of capital, the many connections of the bourgeoisie, its experience in administration, its private-property ideology and psychology with the power of proletarian conviction, class-consciousness, organisation and = discipline.''^^1^^
Denial that the socialist state is a fundamentally and qualitatively new type of state is the root not only of the revisionists' theoretical distortions, but also their slanderous assertions that under socialism man is allegedly ``alienated''.
Thus, at a symposium on ``Marx and the Present Day'' held at Novi Sad in June 1964, the Yugoslav philosopher Predrag Vranicki presented a set of theses entitled `` Socialism and the Problem of Alienation'', which reduced the task of creatively developing Marxism to applying the category of alienation to socialist relations. He insisted: ``We must resolutely advance the thesis that the problem of alienation is the central problem of = socialism.''^^2^^
With their active spread of the idea of ``man's alienation'' in the socialist countries the revisionists join the general campaign by bourgeois and reformist theorists over the alleged inhumanity of Marxism-Leninism and socialism.
The revisionist ``models'' of socialism are aimed against the political organisation of society under socialism, and their slander on socialism develops into practical political struggle against the fundamental principles of socialism.
The main elements of the so-called ``new'' models of socialism are: revision of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Lenin's Ideas and Cause Are Immortal, Moscow, pp. 21--22.
~^^2^^ M. B. Mitin, ``Concerning the so-called 'New Variants' of Marxism'', Inostrannaya Literatura, 1969, No. 3, p. 223.
346 mission of the working class in world history and its theory of the party; substitution of the bourgeois concept of `` pluralistic democracy'' for the theory of proletarian dictatorship and socialist democracy; and substitution of ``market socialism'' concept for socialist economic principles.These revisionist views were strongly criticised at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. In his speech at the meeting, L. I. Brezhnev stressed: ``The practice of the socialist countries has reaffirmed the significance of the ideas of Marx and Lenin that the development of socialist society proceeds on the basis of general laws, that in one form or another the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., state leadership of the building of socialism by the working class, is inevitable during the entire period of transition from capitalism to socialism.
``The whole experience of the political struggle proves again and again that the victory of the trend towards consolidating fraternal relations between socialist states and the progress of the socialist system itself are indissolubly linked with the strengthening of the leading role of the Communist Parties in the building of socialism and communism. Our Party highly values the determined struggle which the Communists of fraternal countries wage against any attempts to weaken the leading role of the Communist Parties, replace socialist democracy with political liberalism of the bourgeois type and erode the positions of socialism. To be as firm as Lenin in defending and upholding the principles of socialism is a lesson life itself teaches = us.''^^1^^
This was also strongly accentuated in their speeches at the Meeting by many leaders of the fraternal Communist Parties.
``The content of socialism and its basic principles became an object of ideological and political speculation,'' Gustav Husak, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, said about the 1968 events in his country. ``Some associated the concept of socialism with pluralist bourgeois democracy and the reformist model of so-called democratic socialism from the programmes of Right Social-Democratic = parties.''^^2^^
_-_-_ ^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp.
147--
48.
^^2^^ Ibid., p. 408.
347``The suppression in 1919 of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, the first workers' state in Hungary, by the armed forces of world imperialism, the troops of the Entente, was an instructive lesson to be constantly remembered from the history of the Hungarian working class and our people,'' Janos Kadar said at the Meeting. He also gave a reminder of the 1956 bloody counter-revolutionary putsch in Hungary, which had been started by the forces of domestic reaction, incited and supported by international imperialism. These forces used ``the now well-known mistakes that really occurred, exploited the confusion in the ranks of the adherents of socialism, coupled with the subversion by the revisionists''.
``Hungary's example shows clearly that the imperialists are continuously striving, by various means and methods, to subvert and weaken, and if possible to crush, the new developing socialist countries, t» crush their political = system.''^^1^^
In fact the revisionist attempts to substitute some form of bourgeois democracy for socialist democracy are one of the ways of undermining the state system of the socialist countries.
Todor Zhivkov, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, also dealt in detail with this question in his speech at the Meeting. He said: ``The key issue of socialist power is the leading role of the working class, the leading role of the Communist Party as the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat. There is no socialist society, nor can there be one, without the leading role of the Communist Party, and this truth has been substantiated by mankind's entire experience, whether successful or unsuccessful, positive or negative, of the past half century. It is also proved by the fact that all attempts undertaken to alter the nature of the socialist system in this or that country begin with an open offensive against the leading role of the Communist = Party.''^^2^^
The revisionists usually mount their attacks against the Communist Party in two directions: first, they question its role as the highest form of political organisation of the working class, and as the country's leading force, and second, they revise the principles of democratic centralism.
_-_-_^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 327, 328.
^^2^^ Ibid., p. 297.
348It is Party discipline and democratic centralism that hinder the revisionists in undermining the Party from inside by spreading anti-Marxist views. That is why the revisionists always do their utmost in order to have the Communist Parties abandon the Leninist principles of Party construction and develop into something like debating societies.
The grave danger presented by these tendencies was brought out at the Meeting by Gustav Husak, who said: ``After January 1968 the leadership of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia lacked unity in evaluating the situation and in the question of programme, aims and perspectives, and still less unity as regards concrete and vitally urgent measures.... The working class and its Party were not mobilised in time to defend the gains of the socialist revolution in Czechoslovakia; quite the reverse, the Party leadership gave way before the increasingly aggressive pressure exerted by the anti-socialist and opportunist forces inside the country connected with Western bourgeois circles and supported by them in one form or another.
``Due to the corrupting activity of Right opportunist forces there was no unity in the Party leadership concerning the degree of danger presented by these phenomena and concerning the way of eliminating them. Often we encountered the desire to thrash out by discussion matters that conflicted with our socialist legality and required immediate intervention by government organs.. ..
``The fact that Right opportunist and partly anti-socialist forces seized control of the bulk of the mass media tended to paralyse the influence of the Party, to mislead Communists and the population, and gradually vitiate the main values and principles of socialism. The threat from the anti-- Socialist and counter-revolutionary forces thus became more pronounced. Many fraternal Parties did not receive sufficiently objective information at that time. On the contrary, they had to proceed from evaluations that underplayed or obscured our class and international duties as regards uncompromising struggle against the anti-socialist and opportunist forces in order to safeguard the revolutionary gains of social- ism.''^^1^^ The April and May (1969) Plenary Meetings of the
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 409--10.
349 CPCz Central Committee marked the turning point in the development of the situation within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the country.The schemes of domestic and external reaction and the efforts of the Right opportunist elements in the socialist countries are aimed at undermining the theory and practice of the proletarian dictatorship. The main method of distorting the Marxist-Leninist teaching of the proletarian dictatorship is the abstract approach, which ignores the class essence of political power, and construction of a metaphysical antithesis between dictatorship and democracy, a denial of the dialectic connection between the two, all of which Lenin had exposed in his lifetime. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a new type of dictatorship, that is, a dictatorship with respect of a minority, and a new type of democracy, that is, democracy for the overwhelming majority of the people, the working people. Under the most diverse forms of political order (one-party and multi-party) the proletarian dictatorship rules out freedom for the enemy, for the opponents of socialism.
That is why the Communist Parties resolutely condemn and reject the revisionist attempts to pave the way for a political legalisation of the anti-socialist forces. Todor Zhivkov said at the Meeting: ``Evidently the crux of the matter is not whether a given country has one or several parties. Obviously, the apologists of the multi-party system under socialism do not just want several parties. They want to see parties with a programme differing from that of the Communist Party. They need opposition parties which would fight against the Communist Party, weaken the socialist countries by their political and social demagogy, disrupt the unity of the working people.
``What we need is not formal democracy, but the conditions necessary for the development of real socialist democracy, that is, an increasingly broader participation of the working class, of all working people, in running the country, in guiding socio-political, economic and cultural life, which are, indeed, the serious questions that the Communist Parties are working on in the socialist countries.... We are convinced that it is the dictatorship of the proletariat that is the highest form of democracy both because it is the power of the majority of the people, and also because its ultimate objective is riot perpetuation of domination by the working 350 class, but elimination of the class division itself and the construction of classless communist = society.''^^1^^
The revisionists' attempts to change the political organisation of society in the socialist countries undermine the positions of socialism and constitute a repudiation of all the general laws of socialist construction, primarily the laws of:
1) leadership of the working masses by the working class, whose core is the Marxist-Leninist party;
2) proletarian revolution and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship in one form or another;
3) solidarity of the working class of the given country with the working class of other countries: proletarian internationalism.
History has confirmed the importance of these general laws. Ignoring them may inflict (and has already inflicted on many occasions) the greatest harm on the revolutionary communist movement and the cause of socialist construction.
The principles of proletarian internationalism, first proclaimed in The Manifesto of the Communist Party, essentially boil down to a recognition of the common class interests and aims of workers of all countries, and to their effective class solidarity in the struggle for these interests and aims. Proletarian internationalism is, first, an ideology establishing the unity of interests and aims of the working class of different nations within each country and throughout the world, and second, the policy which springs from this ideology and which is aimed at uniting the working people of all countries and nations in the practical struggle for communism both at home and throughout the world.
Lenin always emphasised the connection between declarations of internationalism and internationalism in deed. He wrote: ``The sad experience of the Second International has clearly demonstrated the immense damage caused by combining, in actual practice, 'general' revolutionary decisions, formulated in general phrases, with reformist actions---when professions of internationalism are attended by refusal jointly to discuss, in a truly internationalist manner, fundamental problems of the tactics of each individual = party.''^^2^^ In another work, he said: ``Recognition of internationalism in word, _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 296, 299.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 215.
351 and its replacement in deed by petty-bourgeois nationalism and pacifism, in all propaganda, agitation and practical work, is very common, not only among the parties of the Second International, but also among those which have withdrawn from it, and often even among parties which now call themselves communist.... Petty-bourgeois nationalism proclaims as internationalism the mere recognition of the equality of nations, and nothing more. Quite apart from the fact that this recognition is purely verbal, petty-- bourgeois nationalism preserves national self-interest intact.. . . The urgency of the struggle against this evil, against the most deep-rooted petty-bourgeois national prejudices, looms ever larger with the mounting exigency of the task of converting the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i.e., existing in a single country and incapable of determining world politics) into an international one (i.e., a dictatorship of the proletariat involving at least several advanced countries, and capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a = whole).''^^1^^ In the light of Lenin's prediction, and in the light of subsequent political practice, the need to fight revisionist departures from internationalism becomes especially understandable.Much harm is inflicted on the cause of socialism by the revisionists' abandonment of solid class unity, international solidarity, fraternal co-operation and mutual assistance in the struggle for the common interests and aims of the working class.
Right opportunist revisionists neglect the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism. They revise its philosophical foundation---dialectical materialism---and supplant it with the so-called universal-humanistic philosophy which is based on a concept of abstract man. The revisionists deny the principle of the unity of the Party spirit and the scientific approach, and the internationalist character of Marxism-Leninism.
In actual fact, the real way to a truly humane social system runs only through the class struggle, through the proletarian dictatorship, and not through abstract reasoning about liberty and humanity ``in general''.
The revisionist ``anthropological-humanistic'' line in philosophy, which has taken shape in recent years, following _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 148.
352 in the wake of the bourgeois falsifiers of Marxism, has been extensively spreading the slogan of ``Back to Marx'', whose purpose is to bring to the fore Marx's early writings, which allegedly express the true humanistic essence of Marxism, something that was allegedly lost in the subsequent writings of Marx and Engels, and later of Lenin as well. It has already been said above that the abstract humanistic views the revisionists ascribe to Marx were criticised by the founders of Marxism themselves in The Manifesto of the Communist Party and other works of theirs.By turning the theory of alienation into the central problem of Marxist philosophy, the revisionists throw out of this theory its cornerstone, namely, the theory of reflection, and together with it the materialist substance of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy.
Like the bourgeois philosophers seeking to undermine the authority of Lenin's theory of reflection (among them A. James Gregor, H. B. Acton and Henry B. Mayo), revisionist-minded philosophers (Gajo Petrovic, Mihailo Marcovic), opposing the Marxist-Leninist view of the process of reflection, discard or question this theory, which is the truly scientific basis of Marxist-Leninist theory of = knowledge.^^1^^
Philosophical revisionism also distorts the Marxist-- Leninist approach to the question of truth, the key category of the theory of knowledge. The revisionists (Henri Lefebvre, Leszek Kolakowski, Mihailo Marcovic, Gajo Petrovic) also distort the Marxist view of practice, and put forward arguments which identify the object with the cognising subject, thereby essentially sliding into subjective = idealism.^^2^^
Back in 1956, one-time Marxist and now the renegade H. Lefebvre declared materialist dialectics to be ``vulgar Marxism''. He wrote: ``Materialism appears to be a desperate platitude; why demand that it should be interesting if it is a complete system or a mere weapon in the struggle of the working = class.''^^3^^
Like many bourgeois and reformist falsifiers of Marxism the Right revisionists contrast the Party spirit of MarxismLeninism and the scientific approach and separate philosophy from politics.
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Leninist Theory of Reflection and the Present Day, Sofia, 1969, pp. 158--71.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 360--72.
~^^3^^ Cahiers du communisme, 1958, No. 4, p. 572.
__PRINTERS_P_353_COMMENT__ 23---1245 353``WR*
The Czechoslovakian philosopher Milan Prucha, for instance, in an article entitled ``Marxism and Trends in Phi- losophy''^^1^^ suggests that philosophy cannot be regarded in the direct context of the tasks of any concrete political movement, and believes it to be possible and in fact advisable to ``integrate'' with Marxism the various philosophical trends by withdrawing them from the ``ideological context''. This is essentially an attempt to separate the philosophy of Marxism from its political, class substance, from revolutionary politics (that is, an attempt to make Marxism cease being Marxism, so as to bring this emasculated ``Marxism'' closer to various trends in bourgeois philosophy. That is the way taken by the revisionists. For instance, Vladimir Filipovic, writing in the same journal Praxis, establishes a `` community'' of views on philosophy in the works of Marx and of Edmund Husserl.
Whereas the bourgeois ideologists have circulated the myth that Marxism is ``disintegrating'', slanderously insisting that Marxism no longer exists as a coherent internationalist teaching, whereas the ideologists of reformism have essentially repeated this = version,^^2^^ the Right revisionist elements seek every way to back up this lie with their version about the ``pluralism of Marxism''. Thus, writing in Praxis No. 6, 1965, R. Supek says that there is no coherent Marxism, just as there is no coherence of thinking in Marx himself; it would be more correct allegedly to speak not of the principles of Marxism, but also of some sort of ``horizon of Marxist thinking''.
This idea of the ``pluralism'' of Marxism was set out by P. Vranicki in a report ``On the Necessity of Different Variants in Marxist Philosophy'', which he presented at the 14th International Philosophical Congress in Vienna on September 1968. He said that Leninism was only one of the variants of Marxism.
Vranicki, like other advocates of this line, seeks mechanically to invest Marxism with the pluralistic character of bourgeois philosophy, which depends on its idealistic nature, a philosophy which rejects monism and objective truth. Let _-_-_
~^^1^^ Praxis, 1967, No. 4, p. 439.
~^^2^^ The resolution of the llth Congress of the Socialist International, held at Eastbourne on June 16--20, 1969, ``Developments in Communist Countries and Parties'' draws this conclusion: ``There is now no common concept of Communism.''
354 us recall that the pragmatist William James declared that there were as many truths as there were standpoints.These assertions that Marxist philosophy is ``pluralistic'' and that there are ``national forms'' of Marxism amount to no more than an attempt to cover up the different variants of the revisionist distortion of Marxism, which has from the outset differed and continues to differ qualitatively from bourgeois philosophic systems in being a coherent scientific world outlook. It remains a coherent internationalist theory, based on the sound theoretical foundation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism, an instrument in the struggle for the revolutionary transformation of the world. Lenin wrote: ``The controversy over the question as to what is philosophical materialism and why deviations from it are erroneous, dangerous and reactionary always has 'a real and living connection' with 'the Marxist social and political = trend'.''^^1^^
Dialectical materialism, an organic component part of Marxism as a whole, is not just another philosophical science, but an ideological science with the Party spirit. It is a theory and a method not only for cognition but also for the transformation of the world, which is why it naturally rests on analysis not only of objective laws of nature, but also on the laws governing social development.
Marxism-Leninism, the ideological weapon of the working class in its world-wide historical struggle, is internationalist, that is, it is designed for the emancipation of the working class and of all the other working people on the globe.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. THE IDEOLOGY OF MAOISMThe ideology of Maoism emerged on the basis of ``Left'' revisionism. In contrast to the Right revisionists, which claim to be critical Marxists, spokesmen for ``Left'' revisionism usually claim to be the keepers of revolutionary traditions. However, behind their loud revolutionary catchwords there is dogmatism, which ignores the changing situation, and one-sidedness. Now and again, the Leftists switch to extreme Rightist political positions.
An analysis of such trends in Leftist revolutionism, as Trotskyism, and the Narodnik and S-R. petty-bourgeois _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I, Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 75.
__PRINTERS_P_355_COMMENT__ 23* 355 socialism, suggests the conclusion that they have a number of common features which are also to some extent proper to Maoism as well.Spokesmen for ``Left'' trends underestimate the constructive principles of the socialist revolution; they fail to understand the objective laws of social development; they overestimate the role of the subjective factor; they display an inability correctly to assess the role and the balance of class forces; they make claims to national exclusiveness; they hold that the less developed, agrarian countries are closer to socialism; they extol petty-bourgeois egalitarianism and levelling; they deny the need for the leading role of the proletariat in the revolutionary movement; they display adventurism and subjectivism.
Leftist revisionism and nationalism have assumed the most extreme and acute character in China. Pressure of the pettybourgeois element may be regarded as the objective social basis for these phenomena, and the betrayal by the political leadership of China of the principles of proletarian internationalism and Marxism-Leninism as the subjective factor, which far from resisting these pressures, in fact helps to aggravate the situation in the country. By the time the revolution won out in China, the industrial workers constituted less than one per cent of the population, while workers constituted only two per cent of the membership of the CPC. Lenin wrote: ``The more backward the country, the stronger is the hold of small-scale agricultural production, patriarchalism and isolation, which inevitably lend particular strength and tenacity to the deepest of petty-bourgeois prejudices, i.e., to national egoism and national = narrow-mindedness.''^^1^^
The peasantry is a mighty revolutionary force, but the most reliable way of involving it in the fight against imperialism and in socialist construction is the establishment of a sound alliance between it and the working class under the latter's leadership, and the closest ties with the world socialist community.
In a country like China, it is of special importance to pursue a consistent Leninist policy helping to overcome the objective difficulties.
However, the domestic and foreign policies of the Maoists, _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 150.
356 who are in power in China, ran in a direction away from Marxism-Leninism and internationalism.Maoist ideology now constitutes more than a departure from Marxism. It is increasingly becoming an aggressive, anti-socialist, nationalistic, petty-bourgeois ideology, an eclectic mixture of a number of trends alien and hostile to Marxism. While paying lip service to some Marxist propositions, Maoism has adopted ideas which are akin to Trotskyism (reckless stepping-up of social processes, reliance on artificial whipping-up of history, militarisation of domestic life, unprincipled flirting with the young), Anarchism ( apology of violence and destruction, lack of the constructive principle), Narodism (underestimation of the role of the working class and absolutisation of the role of the peasantry in the revolution), Utopian petty-bourgeois socialism ( egalitarian theories of universal levelling, the preaching of asceticism), and the old Chinese reactionary philosophy (Asia-- centrism, the idea of the racial superiority of the Chinese and the cult of the supreme ruler). This eclectic mixture of ideas hostile to Marxism is being used as a weapon of political struggle.
In his speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, L. I. Brezhnev dealt mainly with the international aspect of the Chinese leadership's policy, which testifies that the Chinese leadership only talks about fighting imperialism but is in fact helping it directly or indirectly. Indeed, in practice we find ``attack on the Soviet Union all along the line; specious propaganda; slander of the Soviet people, our socialist state, our Communist Party; fanning hatred against the USSR among the people of China and now also resort to arms; intimidation and blackmail in relation to other socialist states and the developing countries; flirting with the big capitalist powers, including the Federal Republic of Germany---such are the guidelines of China's present foreign = policy!''^^1^^
At the same time, L. I. Brezhnev stressed the Soviet people's friendly feelings for the Chinese people. He said: ``Our policy with regard to China is consistent and based on principle. The Central Committee of the CPSU and the Soviet Government chart their policy on the long-term perspective. We are conscious of the fact that the basic _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 159.
357 interests of the Soviet and Chinese peoples coincide. We have always persevered and will continue to persevere in our efforts to keep alive the friendly feelings which exist among the Soviet people for the fraternal Chinese people, and we are certain that the Chinese people, too, have the same feelings towards the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. ... We do not identify the declarations and actions of the present Chinese leadership with the aspirations, wishes and true interests of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people. We are deeply convinced that China's genuine national renascence, and its socialist development, will be best served not by struggle against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, against the whole communist movement, but by alliance and fraternal co-operation with them.''^^1^^Mao's policy and ideology were sternly criticised at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, which gave convincing evidence that the foreign policy line pursued by the present CPC leadership, and its splitting policies are meeting with resolute rebuff from the overwhelming majority of the fraternal parties.
Todor Zhivkov declared: ``Our delegation feels it must share its sense of alarm over the developments in China, and the present line and actions of the Chinese leadership.
``The 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China essentially set itself the task of legitimising the destructive undertaking of the so-called cultural revolution. The new Rules adopted by it are a complete revision of the MarxistLeninist principles of Party building and activity and officially lay down Mao Tse-tung's thoughts as the theoretical basis of the Communist Party of China. Under the new Rules, the CPC is virtually eliminated as a class organisation and is transformed into a 'party of the leader' and his successor, Lin Piao.
``Ideologically the Party of China is now being built as Maoist-Trotskyite, anti-Leninist; organisationally, centralisation has been carried to a point of absurdity. In methods of leadership it is a para-military organisation; in composition it is petty-bourgeois; in aims and tasks it is nationalistic and chauvinistic, and in foreign policy actions it is adventurist and anti-Soviet.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 160.
358``Having legalised the revision of the Party's programme and practice, the 9th Congress of the CPC has clearly created a new situation both in China and in the international arena.
``The present Chinese leaders seek to turn China into a force openly hostile to the socialist community and to the security of nations. The efforts of the present Chinese leadership, who pursue an anti-Soviet policy and, by their actions, inject demoralisation into the international communist movement, objectively blend with the efforts of imperialism in its struggle against socialist countries, against the liberation cause of the peoples.
``All this deeply affects us Communists of the whole world. We cannot remain indifferent to these facts.. . . We have deep faith in the sound, Marxist-Leninist forces in China, who despite the heavy blows inflicted on them and despite the present difficult situation will be able to uphold Marxism-Leninism and preserve the Communist Party of China to help it occupy a worthy place in our Communist = family.''^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 5. COALESCENCEAt the turn of the century, Lenin foresaw the inevitable extension of the scale of the struggle by the Communists against revisionism. He wrote: ``What we now frequently experience only in the domain of ideology, namely, disputes over theoretical amendments to Marx; 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.''^^2^^ We are living in this period today.
On all the key problems of present-day development _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 290, 292.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 39.
359 which are central to political and ideological struggle there is a coalescence of the positions of the revisionists and the main line of the attacks by the bourgeois ideologists. Let us briefly consider these problems once again.The working class is the leading force of all the anti-- imperialist forces of our day, and the main motive and mobilising contingent of the revolutionary struggle. It alone is capable of ensuring the destruction of the power of capital and securing the triumph of socialism. Bourgeois ideologists quite naturally deny that the working class has this world historic mission, while the reformists echo them by spreading the idea that the class struggle is fading out and the working class is being ``deproletarianised''. They join the bourgeoisie in directing their main propaganda attacks against the vanguard of the working class, the Communist Parties. What is the role revisionism on the Right and on the ``Left'' has to play on this question? Right opportunist revisionism tries to unhinge the parties from inside, and to undermine their combat capacity, while the so-called ``Left'' revisionists, like those in China, destroy mature Party cadres and supplant the leading role of the working class with a military-bureaucratic machine.
The socialist system has become the bulwark of the worldwide anti-imperialist revolutionary movement. Imperialism and its ideologists resort to diverse methods in their efforts to weaken and undermine the world socialist community. Reformist and revisionist slanders of socialism objectively serve as an instrument of imperialism in its subversive activity.
An earnest of success in the fight against imperialism lies in the undeviating practice of the principles of proletarian internationalism: fraternal assistance and mutual support of the national contingents of the working class and socialism. After all, the common feature of the tactical efforts of all the ideological trends hostile to Marxism is their attempt to divide the revolutionary forces, and to isolate the Soviet Union, the first country of triumphant socialism. Nationalism is not the least of the weapons used in these reactionary attempts. L. I. Brezhnev observed: ``A frequent feature of both 'Left' and Right-wing opportunism is concessions to nationalism, and sometimes even an outright switch to nationalistic positions. Lenin showed up this connection a long time ago. He wrote: The ideological and political 360 affinity, connection, and even identity between opportunism and social-nationalism are beyond doubt!'~''^^1^^
Organisation of collective resistance to the acts of the aggressors is a most important form of struggle against the starting of another world war by imperialism. But are these efforts not being undermined by those who equate aggressive blocs of imperialists and the defensive measures taken by the socialist community, a reliable instrument in the defence of socialism and peace? What is there in common between the fundamental interests of the peoples and leaders who regard war as a positive historical phenomenon?
Socialist orientation by a number of young states in Africa and Asia is an important achievement of the revolutionary forces, and a serious defeat for imperialism. This provides fresh practical confirmation of Lenin's conclusion that the peoples are able to advance along the way of social progress, bypassing capitalism.
Bourgeois ideologists and the reformists and Right revisionists echoing them speculate on the difficulties arising from the movement of the emergent countries towards socialism and try to compromise the idea of the non-- capitalist way. They are matched by the Leftists attacking ``from the Left'' Lenin's proposition concerning the possibility for economically backward countries, with a predominantly peasant population, to bypass the capitalist stage of development with the support of the socialist states. Questioning the Marxist-Leninist proposition on the leading role of the international working class in the liberation of nations, Maoist theorists in fact thereby give support to bourgeois propaganda aimed at undermining the efforts of the socialist states to help the emergent countries in creating the prerequisites for socialist construction.
The Main Document of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties says: ``Recent class battles have struck a blow at the illusions spread by partisans of neocapitalism and reformism, and have given fresh proof of the basic propositions of Marxism-Leninism. In contrast to the Right and 'Left' opportunists, the Communist and Workers' Parties do not counterpose the fight for deep-going economic and social demands, and for advanced democracy to the struggle for socialism, but regard it as a part of the struggle _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 156.
361 for socialism. The radical democratic changes which will be achieved in the struggle against the monopolies and their economic domination and political power will promote among the broad masses awareness of the need for social- ism.''^^1^^In these, conditions, both the Right revisionist overestimation of democratic measures and the ``Left'' revisionist underestimation of broad democratic action merely serve to help the bourgeoisie which seek to ward off the offensive of the revolutionary forces fighting for national liberation and social emancipation of nations, for peace, democracy and socialism.
It is not surprising that the attention of the participants in the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties was drawn by the acute and intricate ideological battles which are being fought all along the line in the political class struggle. The participants in the Meeting exposed the danger and harm of revisionism both on the Right and on the ``Left''. They also mapped out the ways of working for the cohesion of the Communists on the basis of the prin^ ciples of Marxism-Leninism. In the most general terms, these ways boil down to organising joint practical action by the revolutionary forces in the struggle against imperialism and an extension of international ties and contacts.
Fundamental importance attaches to the Appeal adopted by the Meeting, ``Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin'', which confirms the invariable loyalty of the Communists to Leninism and emphasises its universal international importance. Leninism is the ideological basis for the unity of the international communist movement.
The coalescence of bourgeois ideologists and opportunists on the basis of their fight against Leninism was well dealt with by Todor Zhivkov in his speech in the Kremlin Palace of Congresses on April 21, 1970. He said: ``The old world has mobilised all its strength for the fight against the advance of communist ideas. Together with the avowed apologists of capitalism the opportunists are also fighting against us. ... They seek to prove that Lenin distorted Marx, and undertake to 'defend' Marxism against Leninism. Others do not refuse Leninism the right to exist as a purely 'Russian' phenomenon, which may perhaps be good for Russia, but _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., p. 24.
362 which is unsuitable for other countries. Others still are inclined to allow that Leninism suits the undeveloped countries but can never be applied to the developed capitalist countries. Still others go even farther and say that Leninism was good in its day, but that now times have changed and so Leninism is allegedly in need of being 'modernised'. Another group do not like the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading role of the Communist Parties, and they demand a 'democratic' and 'humane' socialism. Finally, there are those who do not reject socialism but neither do they reject capitalism. They engage in theoretical exercises about a gradual 'convergence of capitalism and socialism', and discourse on the 'de-ideologisation' of modern = society.''^^1^^A most important conclusion drawn by the Meeting is the need for the utmost scientific effort in in-depth theoretical studies of present-day problems, general laws and specific features of the world revolutionary movement, formulation of the key theoretical problems in the construction of socialism and communism, and the struggle of the world communist and working-class movement against imperialism.
The work of the Meeting was key-noted by growing attention to questions of ideological struggle in the modern world.
__*_*_*__This has been no more than a concise outline of the main directions in the ideological struggle along which the hottest and most difficult battles are being fought today.
The problems dealt with here undoubtedly deserve to be further elaborated, especially in view of the fact that ideological struggle is daily and hourly becoming ever more visibly the sharpest front in the class battles.
For a successful ideological offensive there is especial need to have a good knowledge of one's opponent, and consequently of a systematic study of present-day bourgeois ideology, above all its main ideological trends which are hostile to socialism and Marxism-Leninism, of its centres and institutes, and its propaganda machine.
It is as important today to study bourgeois ideology as it is, for instance, to study the economics of modern capitalism. What should also be borne in mind is that hundreds of _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, April 22, 1970.
363 research institutes have been specially set up in many countries to study socialist ideas.A study of modern bourgeois ideology is necessary for criticism, for instant and resolute rebuffs to all anti-scientific, reactionary, anti-communist, man-hating views and conceptions, which are being spread by the ideological centres of imperialism, by its heralds, by its arms bearers and theorists.
An offensive against these reactionary ideas is being carried on by the united front of the communist movement, and by workers in Marxist-Leninist science, but there are still very many potentialities and reserves for an even more extensive and more effective conduct of this offensive.
To destroy lies and slanders is just as positive a cause as to discover the truth. Today, every fundamental Marxist-Leninist proposition is being distorted and falsified by its enemies, and this is true no matter how hard they may try to cover up the true nature of their reactionary ideology with a ``scientific'' aura. All this requires more active use of our critical weapons and further consolidation of all the progressive forces.
[364] __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.
[365] ~ [366]Progress Publishers (Moscow) will soon bring out the following books in English:
The Struggle of Lenin and the CPSU Against Trotskyism
Lenin's articles and the resolutions passed by the Bolshevik Party congresses, conferences, and the plenary meetings of its Central Committee, which have been included in this volume define Trotskyism as an anti-Marxist, opportunistic movement. The book exposes its subversive activity against the Communist Party, its links with the opportunist leaders of the Second International, with revisionist, anti-Soviet movements and groups in the workers' parties in different countries.
The decisions of the Communist International are included in the form of a supplement. The book is annotated.
Cloth 13 X 20 cm 336 pp.
[367] Marxism-Leninism on Proletarian
~ Internationalism
In view of the fact that in recent years certain difficulties have arisen in the international communist and workers' movement, and that in many cases right- and left-wing opportunism is involved with nationalistic tendencies, the question of proletarian internationalism, unity and solidarity in revolutionary struggle, acquires a special importance in our present day.
The present book gives a substantiation of proletarian internationalism, and shows how the idea is given practical effect in the struggle against imperialism. The book contains the thoughts of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the subject, and also the statements of Communist and workers' party leaders. The essence and significance of proletarian internationalism in the past and the present is explained, and also its importance for the future development of separate countries and the international liberation movement as a whole.
Cloth 13 X 20 cm 336 pp.
[368]