165

p The cardinal question of any revolution is that of power. The victory of the socialist revolution is inconceivable without the replacement of the power of the bourgeoisie by the power of the working class. Engels called the political rule of the proletariat “the only door to the new society”.  [165•*  It is objectively vital to establish the power of the proletariat, otherwise it is not possible to achieve society’s revolutionary transformation and build socialism and communism.

p The political form in which the change of power takes place may be different. It depends, on the one hand, on the form of bourgeois power, the strength of the institutions of 166 state, the situation in the repressive organs, and the nature of the political regime as a whole. In a letter to August Bebel in 1892 on Hans Miiller’s book The Class Struggle in the German Social-Democratic Movement, Engels wrote: “He (the author.—K. Z.) goes so far as to assert that under all circumstances violence is revolutionary and is never reactionary; the fathead does not understand that where there is no reactionary violence against which one must fight there can be no question of revolutionary violence; one cannot accomplish a revolution against what there is even no need to overthrow.”  [166•*  On the other hand, the forms in which power changes hands are linked with the organisational strength of the working class, the methods of its struggle, the reliability of its alliance with other strata of society and the general balance of class forces in the given country and in the World.

p These factors determine whether the change of power is to be peaceful, without the use of armed force, or takes the shape of an armed clash, of war. “For me as a revolutionary,” Engels wrote, “any means that leads to the goal, both the most violent and what seems to be the most peaceful, are suitable.”  [166•**  Marx wrote: “We shall act against you (i.e., the bourgeois governments.—K. Z.) peacefully where this proves to be possible for us, and with weapons when that becomes necessary.”  [166•*** 

p What are the fundamental demands which every Marxist should make of an examination of the forms of struggle? Lenin asked, and replied:

p “In the first place, Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not ‘concoct’ them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class- 167 consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under n6 circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation changes. In this respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass practice, and makes no claim whatever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by ‘systematisers’ in the seclusion of their studies....

p “In the second place, Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of the forms of struggle. To treat this question apart from the concrete historical situation betrays a failure to understand the rudiments of dialectical materialism. At different stages of economic evolution, depending on differences in political, national-cultural, living and other conditions, different forms of struggle come to the fore and become the principal forms of struggle; and in connection with this, the secondary, auxiliary forms of struggle undergo change in their turn. To attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given moment at the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position.”  [167•* 

p Lenin thus approached the question of the forms of struggle dialectically, making it dependent on concrete conditions, place and time.

p The fact that the question of the ways of achieving revolutionary change has to be decided concretely is stated also in the documents of the communist movement and in the decisions of the different parties. In the Statement of the 1960 Meeting it is noted: “The actual possibility of the one or the-other way of transition to socialism in each individual country depends on the concrete historical conditions.”  [167•**  The Document of the 1969 Meeting stresses that 168 each party, “depending on the circumstances, chooses the peaceful or non-peaceful way of transition to socialism.”  [168•* 

p Today, by virtue of a number of reasons, which we examined in Chapter 2, in many capitalist countries the possibility exists for a relatively peaceful transition to socialism.  [168•** 

p After analysing the development of their respective countries, some parties are of the opinion that in their case peaceful development is practically out of the question, that the only prospect for them in the foreseeable future is that of an armed struggle.  [168•***  In any case, whether the struggle is to be peaceful or non-peaceful, the parties regard it, strictly in line with Leninism, as a struggle for society’s reorganisation by revolution, through the overthrow of bourgeois rule.

p Bourgeois society is a dictatorship of the ruling class in one form or another. To keep it in power various institutions have been set up which employ compulsion—from spiritual to violence by armed force. The proletariat cannot, therefore, replace the bourgeois state machine without opposing it with the corresponding force, without exerting effective pressure leading to the fall of capitalist rule. “No party, unless it has had recourse to lies, has ever repudiated the right to armed resistance under certain circumstances" Engels wrote. “None of them has ever been able to renounce this extraordinary right.”  [168•****  Lenin wrote that a nation cannot be delivered from tyrants without using coercion against them. “Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of the exploiters.”  [168•***** 

p True as this was in the lifetime of Marx, Engels and 169 Lenin, it is even truer today. International imperialism is prepared to use every means to strengthen the weak links in its system and render armed assistance to reactionary regimes.

p In the concept of the non-peaceful road of revolution a special place is accorded to the armed uprising. Lenin regarded it as the inevitable culminating moment of the struggle for power against the resisting bourgeoisie, a means of radically changing the balance of forces in society in favour of the revolutionary proletariat. Present-day revolutionary Marxists have no better exposition of the fundamental principles than that left by Lenin as the guideline in preparing the armed uprising. These principles underlie their practical activities and are broadly reflected in party documents. Small wonder that the enemies of Marxism so vehemently attack Lenin’s views and seek to distort and discredit them. However, the fact that Lenin was right is borne out by the practice of the revolutionary movement.

p He taught the workers to make careful preparations for the armed uprising and to keep in sight the entire range of factors making for the success of the uprising.

p He always regarded the uprising as a broad action by the working masses, writing: “an armed uprising is the highest method of political struggle. Its success from the point of view of the proletariat, i.e., the success of a proletarian uprising under Social-Democratic leadership, and not of any other kind of uprising, requires extensive development of all aspects of the workers’ movement.”  [169•*  Denouncing those who in connection with the uprising spoke of a conspiratorial exaggeration of the role of technology, Lenin called it a kind of retreat, an adaptation to imperialism. An uprising, he said, was the political result of quite concrete historical reality, and it had to be approached from that position.

p He stressed that an armed struggle should not be started until a revolutionary situation had taken shape or until there were signs that such a situation was emerging. On the eve of the October Revolution he wrote: “If the revolutionary party has no majority in the advanced contingents of the revolutionary classes and in the country, insurrection 170 is out of the question. Moreover, insurrection requires: (1) growth of the revolution on a country-wide scale; (2) the complete moral and political bankruptcy of the old government, for example, the ‘coalition’ government; (3) extreme vacillation in the camp of all middle groups, i.e., those who do not fully support the government, although they did fully support it yesterday.”  [170•* 

p On the other hand, Lenin noted that the existence of the objective conditions for an uprising was not yet the guarantee that the uprising would be successful. “It would be a mistake to think that the revolutionary classes are invariably strong enough to effect a revolution whenever such a revolution has fully matured by virtue of the conditions of social and economic development.”  [170•**  And further, “... it is best, of course, to answer oppression by a revolutionary war, by an uprising, but, unfortunately, history has shown that it is not always possible to answer oppression by an uprising. But to refrain from an uprising does not mean refraining from the revolution.”  [170•*** 

p Lenin minutely examined all the aspects of an armed uprising and his advice to revolutionaries was:

p “(1) Never play with insurrection, but when beginning it realise firmly that you must go all the way.

p “(2) Concentrate a great superiority of forces at the decisive point and at the decisive moment, otherwise the enemy, who has the advantage of better preparation and organisation, will destroy the insurgents.

p “(3) Once the insurrection has begun, you must act with the greatest determination, and by all means, without fail, take the offensive. ’The defensive is the death of every armed rising.’

p “(4) You must try to take the enemy by surprise and seize the moment when his forces are scattered.

p “(5) You must strive for daily successes, however small (one might say hourly, if it is the case of one town), and at all costs retain ‘moral superiority’.”  [170•**** 

p Lenin’s teaching of the armed uprising was proved to 171 be correct by the experience of the revolution in Russia and by the course of the revolutionary struggle in other countries. For instance, an armed uprising in OctoberNovember 1918 paved the way to the formation of a republic in Hungary. During the Second World War the Communists were active in preparing and effecting uprisings aimed at overthrowing fascist rule and carrying out democratic and socialist reforms. In Bulgaria the uprising of September 9, 1944 led to the establishment of popular rule, although this did not signify that the power of the bourgeoisie was finally broken. In Rumania a key role in establishing the people’s democratic power was played by the anti-fascist uprising in Bucharest on August 23, 1944. During the Second World War armed uprisings against the invaders which created the prerequisites for further progressive development took place under Communist leadership in Italy, France and other countries.

p In view of the present conditions of struggle against capitalist rule, the Communist parties, naturally, strive to use non-peaceful means of struggle for power. This can be appreciated. Since the days when Lenin worked out the questions of the non-peaceful road of struggle for power, there has been a change not only of the alignment of forces but also of the means, including armed means, used by the bourgeoisie to preserve its power. For its defence the bourgeoisie can use the most up-to-date armaments, the latest means of conducting hostilities and powerful intelligence services. Far-reaching changes have also taken place in the tactics of armed struggle. All these factors are taken into consideration by the Communist parties steering towards an armed uprising. In their programme documents the fraternal parties emphasise that Lenin’s fundamental tenets on insurrection remain in force.

p However, non-peaceful means of struggle include not only insurrection. The practice of the revolutionary struggle allows regarding as non-peaceful forms of struggle certain elements of civil war, guerrilla action, the coercive although not necessarily armed seizure of various state institutions, mass media, factories, and so forth.

p Lenin said that under certain historical conditions it was possible and necessary to wage the struggle for socialism by civil war. “Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a 172 form of class struggle,”  [172•*  he wrote. This was his point of departure when he put forward the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war. He underscored that socialism could not be achieved “in time of war without civil war against the arch-reactionary criminal bourgeoisie, which condemns the people to untold disaster".  [172•**  Criticising Kautsky, who maintained that for the defeated side civil war held out the threat of total destruction, Lenin pointed out that Kautsky had forgotten that “civil war steels the exploited and teaches them to build a new society without exploiters”.  [172•*** 

p In a letter to Alexandra Kollontai in the spring of 1915 he wrote that the Scandinavian Left Social-Democrats were petty bourgeois who had “tucked themselves away in their little countries”. “How can one ‘recognise’ the class struggle,” he insisted, “without understanding its inevitable transformation at certain moments into civil war?”  [172•**** 

p At a congress of the Czech Left Social-Democrats in Prague in May 1921 it was decided, by a majority vote, to join the Third, Communist International. Their leader Bohumir Smeral declared that the Communists were prepared to accomplish a revolution but it should not be too violent. Some of the speakers supported Smeral, saying that this would make it possible to avoid a civil war. At the Third Congress of the Comintern Lenin criticised Smeral for this stand, saying that Smeral was wrong when he asserted that “every revolution entails enormous sacrifice on the part of the class making it”.  [172•***** 

p Civil war, it will be recalled, flared up in many instances in the course of the proletariat’s struggle for democracy and socialism. The counter-revolution forced a civil war on the proletariat of Russia, Finland, Hungary, Spain, China and other countries. Various forms of coercive action have been employed in recent years by the working people of many Latin American countries.

p Experience has shown that in our epoch an armed struggle that includes elements of civil war can take place 173 even in the absence of a world war. This is what we read in the theses “The Struggle Against Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Communists" adopted at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern: “The lessons of the October Revolution are of paramount importance in determining the attitude of the proletariat towards war. . . . The civil wars in Germany in 1920 and 1923, in Bulgaria in 1923, in Estonia in 1924, and in Vienna in July 1927, prove that proletarian civil war may break out not only in times of bourgeois imperialist wars, but also in the present ‘normal’ conditions of capitalism; for present-day capitalism intensifies the class struggle to an acute degree and at any moment may create an immediate revolutionary situation. The proletarian uprisings in Shanghai in March 1927 and in Canton in December 1927 contained important lessons for the proletariat, especially in the nationally oppressed colonial and semi-colonial countries.”  [173•* 

p The Communist parties appreciate the importance of the different means of struggle and do not renounce working out its non-peaceful forms. This is all the more necessary since imperialism is uninterruptedly strengthening its military machine, its machine of compulsion, and brutally suppresses the masses. It is determined to preserve its system and uses the most diverse channels for the export of counter-revolution.  [173•** 

p Important as armed actions are in the strategy of revolutionary reforms, they constitute only one of the elements of the struggle for socialism. Marxist revolutionaries are well 174 aware that all forms of the revolutionary struggle cannot be reduced solely to armed insurrection. These tactics would inescapably turn into putschism, which is remote from understanding the real conditions of social development and fails to take the maturity level of the material and subjective prerequisites of revolution into account. Putschist tactics doom the revolution to inevitable defeat. This has been demonstrated by the disaster suffered by the Indonesian Communist Party. Some of its leaders gave their backing to a conspiracy by a group of officers against reactionary generals, pinning their hopes on an armed uprising at a time when no revolutionary situation existed in the country and the masses were not prepared for the struggle. As a result, the armed action failed, and the Indonesian Communist Party was subjected to monstrous repressions.  [174•* 

p The communist movement advocates non-peaceful means of struggle for power certainly not because it considers them most convenient and effective. As we have made it clear, there are no grounds whatever for the attempts to portray the Communists as proponents of violence under all circumstances. The profound humanism of the Communists induces them to spare human and material values during turbulent historical upheavals. They seek to achieve the revolution by relatively peaceful means. But the Communists understand that the laws of social development inevitably compel them to prepare the working class for a struggle against the machine of suppression and oppression guarding capitalist society.

p Marx, Engels and Lenin invariably looked for ways leading to the most painless forms of revolutionary change. 175 “Insurrection would be madness,” Marx said, “where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work.”  [175•* 

p However, they saw that the bourgeoisie would not relinquish its rule without a fierce battle. “Will it be possible,” Engels asked, “to bring about the abolition of private property by peaceful methods?" And to this he replied: “It is to be desired that this could happen, and Communists certainly would be the last to resist it. The Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only futile but even harmful. They know only too well that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they were the essential outcome of circumstances quite independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes. But they likewise perceive that the development of the proletariat is in nearly every civilised country being forcibly suppressed.”  [175•**  “The working class would, of course, prefer to take power peacefully,”  [175•***  Lenin emphasised. He wrote: “... in general, war runs counter to the aims of the Communist Party.”  [175•****  Such are the pronouncements of Marx, Engels and Lenin. All of them refute the arguments of the critics of Marxism- Leninism that the idea of a peaceful road to revolution has been put forward by the Communists only today. The only reason that for a long time the world communist movement has been putting the accent on an armed struggle is that this has been dictated by concrete historical circumstances.

p One cannot agree with the argument that the possibility of achieving socialism peacefully had been rejected by Joseph Stalin. In 1946 he oriented, in particular, the Communists in Czechoslovakia on this possibility.  [175•*****  The 176 programme The British Road to Socialism, which likewise speaks of the peaceful road, was drawn up and adopted in 1951, during Stalin’s lifetime. He read the draft of this programme and spoke approvingly of it.  [176•* 

p Neither can one agree with the assertion of the dogmatists that at no time in history has power been won by the proletariat peacefully. Power has been seized by the proletariat by peaceful means as well. This is demonstrated, for instance, by the experience of the Hungarian revolution of 1919, when the balance of forces tipped heavily in favour of the proletariat. During the struggle against the bourgeois dictatorship, exercised by the Social-Democratic government, the working people took over the management of more and more factories, in the countryside the poorest sections of the peasants seized the large estates, and in many towns and a number of regions administrative power passed to the Workers’ Soviets.  [176•**  Unable to cope with the mounting revolutionary crisis, the Hungarian Government voluntarily resigned. The new government was headed by Bela Kun, leader of the Hungarian Communists.

p “Comrade Bela Kun,” Lenin noted, “our comrade, and a Communist who had trodden the whole practical path of Bolshevism in Russia, said to me when 1 spoke to him by wireless: T have not got a majority in the government, but I shall win because the masses are behind me, and we are convening a congress of Soviets.’ This is a revolution of world-historical importance.”  [176•*** 

p Lenin warmly welcomed the Hungarian revolution, attaching special importance to the fact that Soviet power was proclaimed in Hungary peacefully. “In Hungary the 177 transition to the Soviet system, to the dictatorship of the proletariat, has been incomparably easier and more peaceful.”  [177•* 

p The unfavourable balance of strength between the revolution and the counter-revolution, the treachery of the Right-wing Social-Democrats and the fact that it was impossible to receive assistance from Soviet Russia, which was herself repulsing the onslaught of counter-revolutionary hordes, doomed the Hungarian Republic to defeat.

p The possibility of winning power peacefully has been demonstrated by the People’s Democracies of Central and Southeastern Europe, where, led by the Communist and Workers’ parties, the proletariat in the main ensured the peaceful growth of the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution.

p If it was possible for the revolution to develop peacefully 50 and 20 years ago, it is all the more possible today.

p This possibility exists, first, because the forces of socialism and democracy throughout the world have grown and become substantially stronger. With the Marxist- Leninist parties at its head, the working class is able to rally round itself millions of people disappointed in the policy of the monopolists, who have seized control of the bourgeois countries, and, having built up a preponderance of strength, force the bourgeoisie to capitulate without armed resistance. Secondly, a major factor sustaining the working people of the capitalist countries is the existence and growth of the strength and might of the world socialist system. The working people know that after taking over power in one country or another they can at once rely on the economic and moral support of the socialist states. This assistance is a reliable mainstay against counter-revolution.

p When people speak of the peaceful development of the, revolution they mean, above all, the utilisation of the parliament in the interests of the revolution. This is recorded in the documents of many parties and has been underscored at the international meetings of Communist and Workers’ parties.  [177•**  The Communists hold that where possible the working class should strive to win a firm majority in parliament and turn it from an institution of bourgeois democracy into an 178 instrument expressing the real will of the people, into an institution of genuine democracy, of democracy for the people. A stable majority in parliament relying on the mass revolutionary movement would create for the working class the conditions for fundamental social reforms.

p Naturally, this possibility exists in far from all countries. Where the bourgeoisie has a strong military-police state machine it will unquestionably force an armed struggle on the proletariat. Moreover, even where the parliament is used the possibility of armed clashes is not ruled out if the bourgeoisie resists the measures which the proletariat will carry out through parliament in the interests of the people.

p Lenin stressed time and again that the party of the revolutionary proletariat should participate in the parliamentary struggle and use parliament as solely an arena of the class struggle. He categorically criticised the Communists who ignored the parliamentary forms of struggle. But, at the same time, he considered that to confine the struggle of the proletariat to a struggle in parliament or to regard it as the highest and decisive relative to all other forms of struggle was, in fact, to go over to the side of the bourgeoisie. “We are obliged to carry on a struggle within parliament for the destruction of parliament,”  [178•*  he said. “... We must work against it both from without and within.”  [178•**  “...Only a liberal can forget the historical limitations and conventional nature of the bourgeois parliamentary system.”  [178•*** 

p Lenin’s stand was similar on the question of elections to bourgeois organs of power. In the article “Platform of the Reformists and Platform of the Revolutionary SocialDemocrats" he wrote: “... as far as the Social-Democrats are concerned, elections are not a special political operation, not an attempt to win seats through all sorts of promises and declarations, but merely a special occasion for advocating the basic demands and the principles of the political world outlook of the class-conscious proletariat.”  [178•****  It was necessary to explain, he said, “in connection with the elections, on the occasion of the elections, and in debates on 179 the elections—the need for, and the urgency and inevitability of, the revolution. ... To use the elections in order again to drive home to the masses the idea of the need for revolution.”  [179•* 

p These propositions were correct in the historical conditions obtaining during Lenin’s lifetime, and they have lost none of their significance to this day. However, under present-day conditions it has become possible to use parliament not only as an arena of the class struggle but as a vehicle for the conquest of power by the proletariat.  [179•** 

p The peaceful development of the revolution does not mean solely the utilisation of parliament. The winning of parliament cannot be the decisive act because in capitalist society there are other, more important centres of power that can paralyse parliament. The Communist parties, therefore, provide for the possibility of using other peaceful ways of winning power.

p History has proved that a revolution can be accomplished peacefully without using parliament. A case in point is the peaceful revolution in Hungary in 1919. In Russia the revolution developed peacefully in March-July 1917 likewise without use of parliament.

p The Communist parties regard changes in the composition of the state apparatus and its gradual penetration by forces championing the interests of the working class as one of the spheres of struggle for the peaceful development of the revolution. In this connection the Communist parties put forward slogans calling for the democratisation of state institutions and the system of education, the extension of 180 the rights of civil employees and control over police, the army and the intelligence service.

p Another area of the struggle for the peaceful conquest of power is, the Communists hold, the extension of workingclass influence in the economy through greater control over the various forms of activity by the entrepreneurs and their agencies. Here the Communists endeavour to establish a practical link between day-to-day tasks and the end objectives. They champion the socialist alternative in every, even the smallest, practical issue.

p The third area is the struggle against the anti-popular and anti-national policies of the ruling classes and the moulding of public opinion which would restrict the possibility of putting reactionary measures into effect and narrow down the activity sphere of repressive and other anti-popular organs of state. An important role is played here by the struggle for a peaceful foreign policy, the diminution of war production and military expenditures, the reduction of the army and the contraction of its importance in the life of society. A successful struggle in this area can help to create more favourable conditions for the activity of the democratic and progressive forces and limit the sphere in which the champions of capitalism can manoeuvre freely.

p All this is evidence of the close link between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism and of the certain convergence of the tasks of the period preceding the conquest of power and in the struggle for power. This fully bears out Lenin’s thesis on the intertwining of aims of the struggle in the course of the revolution. He said that some democratic reforms can be effected before the bourgeoisie is deposed, others in the course of its overthrow, and still others after it.

p As the experience of the revolutionary movement demonstrates, in the concrete conditions of the class struggle it is sometimes not easy to distinguish the borderline between the revolutionary and the reformist understanding of the peaceful road. Those who lose sight of the class aspect of the peaceful actions by the masses can easily lose the correct orientation. “Revolutionaries,” Lenin wrote, “are the leaders of those forces of society that effect all change; reforms are the 181 byproduct of the revolutionary struggle.”  [181•*  He pointed out time and again that the bourgeoisie can use reforms in order to undermine the revolutionary movement and achieve “the partial patching up of the doomed regime with the object of dividing and weakening the working class, and of maintaining the rule of the bourgeoisie, versus the revolutionary overthrow of that rule”.  [181•**  He emphasised that where the level of capitalist development is high and bourgeois rule is more clear-cut, the more political freedom there is and the bourgeoisie has a wider field for using reforms against the revolution.

p Marxists-Leninists do not see peaceful development of the revolution as capitalism’s gradual growth into socialism. They regard it as a socialist revolution involving qualitative changes of the economic, political and ideological relations in society characterised by the transfer of power into the hands of the working people and the implementation of far-reaching reforms in all spheres of social life. The success of the peaceful road to socialism may be ensured only if the masses are prepared to use the most diverse forms of struggle, including non-peaceful means. On this point the Statement of the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties says: “In the event of the exploiting classes resorting to violence against people, the possibility of non-peaceful transition to socialism should be borne in mind. Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the ruling classes never relinquish power voluntarily. In this case the degree of bitterness and the forms of the class struggle will depend not so much on the proletariat as on the resistance put up by the reactionary circles to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, on these circles using force at one or another stage of the struggle for socialism.”  [181•*** 

p Moreover, the experience of the revolutionary movement shows that if the power of the proletariat can be established by relatively peaceful means, it will be much harder to retain this power peacefully. Take the example of the Paris Commune. As soon as it was proclaimed, the counter- revolutionary bourgeoisie, supported by interventionists, forced 182 a civil war on the proletariat and drowned the revolutionary movement in blood. This is shown also by the example of Hungary in 1919. There too, the revolution that had taken place peacefully was attacked by external and internal enemies and crushed despite heroic resistance. There are and can be other examples of this kind in our day.  [182•* 

p The peaceful or non-peaceful development of the revolution presupposes that in individual sectors of the revolution its forms may be more peaceful or more violent, more in the nature of compulsion, accompanied by the use of armed force. Lenin pointed out that “the legal struggle, parliamentarism and insurrection are interlinked, and must inevitably pass into each other according to the changes in the conditions of the movement".  [182•**  It would be wrong to proclaim the peaceful way as democratic and the non-peaceful way as anti-democratic. The non-peaceful way is also democratic because it is pursued in the interests of the majority. The peaceful way likewise necessarily includes elements of violence. Further, as the experience of history has shown, the peaceful way may evolve into the non-peaceful way and vice versa. There has never been and, evidently, never will be a pure revolution.

p The fraternal parties are clear on the point that the division into peaceful and non-peaceful ways concerns only one aspect of the revolutionary struggle, namely, the form in which revolutionary compulsion manifests itself. It must 183 be borne in mind that this division cannot be rigid because the concept of violence in the class struggle is very conditional. For instance, a peaceful demonstration of the proletariat’s strength, determination and organisation can, in a definite situation, have a larger effect than an armed clash entailing great loss of life.

p The question of revolutionary changes by no means boils down to the secondary problem of the peaceful or nonpeaceful means of achieving these changes. Priority should be given to the content of the transformations, the qualitative characteristic of the changes in society and the correlation between revolutionary reforms and the revolution.

p Marxists do not identify the forms of the revolutionary struggle with its content. They do not equate the armed struggle or civil war, as a form of revolutionary progress, with the socialist revolution itself, with its substance. At the same time, they cannot think of the “peaceful way" to socialism being non-violent. Whatever its form, the revolution relies on the strength of the revolutionary masses, on the pressure brought to bear by these masses on the exploiters, in other words, the revolution invariably includes coercion with regard to the exploiters. It must be remembered that the ruling classes do not relinquish power voluntarily. In some cases, under some conditions, the struggle acquires the form of direct suppression of the armed resistance of the exploiters, and in others it manifests itself in various forms of non-military compulsion.

The Marxist-Leninist concept of the non-peaceful and peaceful ways to socialism is founded on its generalisation of the vast experience of the revolutionary movement. It warns against a one-sided or stereotyped use of this experience in the choice of the ways of struggle. Success was achieved by revolutionaries only in cases where they were prepared to employ all means of struggle and made skilful use of these means.