KONSTANTIN ZARODOV
__TITLE__ LeninismProgress Publishers
•Moscow
[1]Translated from the Russian by David Skvirsky Designed by Elga Dorokhova
K. SAPOflOB
J1EHHHH3M H COBPEMEHHblE OPOBJlEMbl HEPEXOflA OT KAnHTAJTM3MA K COUHAJIH3MV Ha anaAuficKOM »3biKe
__COPYRIGHT__ First printing 1972Nothing is more momentous in the life of mankind than the birth of a new social system. Under the impact of the revolutionary hammer the practices that had taken shape over the centuries are crumbling, hated institutions and traditions are disappearing and the face of society is being transformed and renewed. The road is opening for an upsurge of the productive forces, and human genius is engaging nature in a new battle with the promise of greater successes than at any other time in history.
How is a new system born? What roads lead to it in the labyrinth of social processes?
These problems have stirred and still are stirring the finest minds.
Our generation is both the witness and the prime mover of an exciting, eventful period of history. The grandiose revolutionary transformations that have taken place in social life and in science and technology have affected social development in all the continents. The last of the exploiter systems---capitalism---is moving towards inescapable collapse. Translated from a beautiful dream into tangible reality, socialism has become a powerful accelerator of the historical process, a force exercising an increasingly decisive influence on the course of world development.
After the first Russian revolution (1905--1907), Vladimir Lenin wrote that the coming epoch would see Marxism blaze 5 into greater triumph than ever before. His prophetic words have come true.
The Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 in Russia marked the commencement of a new epoch in world history---the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism and communism. Supported by the proletariat of the whole world, the working people of Russia built the first socialist state in history. As a result of fascism's defeat in the Second World War and the growth of the working-class and national liberation movements the working people have scored monumental achievements. Thanks to aid from the Soviet Union, new socialist states have sprung up. A world socialist system has come into being. It is steadily growing stronger and crowding capitalism in all spheres of present-day .society. At the same time, capitalism is being eroded by other powerful torrents of the global revolution: increasing momentum is being acquired by the working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries and by the national liberation movement in countries of the Third World.
The teaching of scientific socialism is penetrating all parts of the globe. Millions upon millions of people in all the continents see the practical achievements of socialism in economic, scientific and cultural development, in the rising standard of living and in the promotion of all the capabilities and talents of the individual. These advantages of the new society---of socialism and communism---are today visible to more and more millions of ordinary people on our planet. The economic, socio-political and spiritual relations in contemporary society are such that mankind cannot advance without sweeping away imperialism and establishing socialism and communism. This is the demand of history.
These conditions accentuate the question of how the various countries are to achieve the transition from capitalism to socialism and of the means ensuring the consolidation of socialist relations. It is, therefore, not accidental that the world communist movement attaches such immense importance to precisely these problems of the struggle for socialism.
Problems related to the transition from capitalism to socialism acquired prominence at the initial period of the emergence of Marxist theory, from the very first steps of the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Naturally, 6 they received increasing attention with the development of the revolutionary theory itself and its practical realisation in socialist and communist construction.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were the first to adopt a scientific approach to the ways and forms of achieving the transition from capitalism to socialism.
An outstanding role in developing the teaching on the transition to socialism and in its practical application was played by Lenin.
It was Lenin who analysed the new epoch---the epoch of imperialism---and evolved a new theory of the socialist revolution. Under his leadership this teaching was given practical embodiment in the Russia of 1917 with her multistructural economy and intricate intermingling of class and political problems. It was under Lenin's leadership that the building of the world's first socialist state of workers and peasants was started. Drawing upon the experience of the revolution and the initial years of socialist construction, Lenin showed other countries the way to effect the transition from capitalism to socialism. Leninism is the supreme achievement of scientific thinking and socialist practice. A great international teaching, it is the Marxism of the contemporary epoch.
Using the ideas propounded by Lenin, the Communist and Workers' parties, the whole world communist movement, are creatively enlarging on his teaching, using it as the guide-line of their theoretical and practical-- revolutionary work.
Many books dealing with the transition from capitalism to socialism were published in the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s. Most of them are devoted to the philosophical, economic or political aspects of the subject. This book reviews the subject chiefly from the historical and party aspects on the basis of works by Marx, Engels and Lenin, documents of the CPSU, particularly of its 20th-24th congresses, documents of the Comintern and of the 1957, 1960 and 1969 International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties, and other documents of the communist and working-class movement. Furthermore, it examines the works of prominent figures in the communist movement.
The author critically scrutinises the views propounded by bourgeois and social-democratic researchers, and also 7 Right and ``Left'' opportunist and revisionist notions on the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism. He has striven not only to lay bare the scientific untenability of anti-Marxist concepts but to show that the entire history of the international communist movement, the whole history of the struggle for the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the building of socialist society strikingly demonstrates that in revolutionary activity success attends those who faithfully, abide by the theory of Marxism-Leninism and uncompromisingly oppose distortions of that theory, and, conversely, that failure and error are the inevitable lot of those who depart from Marxism-Leninism or pervert it.
One of the author's aims was to trace the practice of the class struggle and the course of society's socialist transformation, and examine current problems of the revolutionary, transformative activity of the Marxist-Leninist parties. For that reason this book is chiefly an exposition and a study of general theoretical and general methodological problems. Hence the relatively limited use of concrete historical material, which only bears out the general theoretical and methodological propositions put forward by the author. This approach is consistent with the Marxist-Leninist requirement that phenomena must be studied in all their wealth, diversity, multiform links and manifestations. Another reason making this approach important is that fairly extensive experience has been accumulated which requires a systematic generalisation and analysis.
[8] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 1 __ALPHA_LVL1__ FORMULATIONThe task of overthrowing the capitalist system by revolution and replacing it with the socialist system came to the fore when as a social and economic formation capitalism began to lose its progressive significance and became a hindrance to social advancement. However, it took decades of revolutionary struggle by the working people and dedicated creative labour by mankind's finest minds before the historical need for socialism was clearly and scientifically substantiated and converted into the invincible theory of the socialist revolution. The foundation of this theory was laid by the great creators of scientific socialism---Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Vladimir Lenin brilliantly enlarged on this theory in the conditions of imperialism and evolved an integral teaching of the socialist revolution, of the struggle for socialism and of its triumph on a world-wide scale. Today, while rejecting the efforts of the opportunists to distort the actual trends of world development and conceal the revolutionary nature of our epoch, the world communist movement is creatively enriching Lenin's concept. In their turn, the successes of the revolutionary movement, which are changing the face of the modern world, are introducing corrections into revolutionary theory and helping to perfect and develop it.
Thus, the evolution of the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism has gone through several phases 9 inseparably linked with the elaboration and historical development of the entire theory, strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. MARX AND ENGELSMore than a hundred and twenty years have elapsed since Marx and Engels laid the foundation of their teaching. These years have borne out the correctness and strength of this teaching. Enriched and enlarged by the great Lenin, Marxism is today exercising a growing influence on the entire course of human history.
Marx and Engels gave the working people an unconquerable weapon in the battle against exploiters, for socialism. It is not fortuitous that though it has been repeatedly ``buried'' by its enemies, Marxism continues to remain in the centre of the ideological struggle, stirring revolutionary enthusiasm in the working people and evoking the rage and hate of their class enemies.
The basic problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism are propounded in many works of the founders of Marxism, including Manifesto of the Communist Party, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, The Class Struggles in France, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and The Civil War in France, and in the documents of the First and Second Internationals, most of which were written personally by Marx and Engels, with their direct participation or on their initiative.
The founders of Marxism regarded the socialist revolution as a process entailing the forcible overthrow of capitalist power and the transfer of power to the proletariat, the dismantling of the bourgeois state machine and the settingup of institutions through which the proletariat could exercise its political power. In the broad sense, the words socialist revolution imply the establishment of socialist relations of production, the gradual abolition of class society and its contradictions, the removal of the existing division of labour and the eradication of the contradictions between town and countryside.
Marx and Engels worked out the theory of two stages 10 of communist society. They indicated that the transition from capitalism to the first stage of communism, i.e., socialism, would embrace a certain period of history. This period of fundamental social changes could only be one of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a period in which society's economic, political and cultural life would be characterised by a number of specific features.^^*^^
Brilliant practicians and skilful organisers of the working-class movement, Marx and Engels headed the first international associations of the proletariat. They devoted much of their energy and time to the publication of newspapers, thereby helping to prepare the working class for the revolutionary battles. They took a direct part in class battles, helping the revolutionary workers to organise. They wrote a vast number of works on the tactics of the workingclass movement at different stages of the revolutionary struggle and in the specific conditions of different countries, profoundly analysing the practical revolutionary activity of the masses and their organisations. This analysis of practice enabled them to enrich revolutionary theory. Yet the adversaries of Marxism assert that Marx and Engels were only theoreticians far removed from the real problems of revolutionary practice.^^**^^
The revolutionary theory evolved by Marx and Engels mirrored the experience of the struggle of the working class in different countries and this made it invincible.
Let us examine the attitude of Marx and Engels to the _-_-_
^^*^^ Revising the scientific concept of socialism, some Czechoslovak philosophers asserted that Marx did not give a thorough-going definition of socialism but made it dependent on the specific conditions of social development. For instance, Vitezslav Gardavsky wrote that ``for him socialism meant the realities and the. historical process of the contemporary world" (Nova mysl, 1969, No. 2, p. 157). This is a glaring falsification of Marxism.
^^**^^ A stinging rebuff was given to these adversaries of Marxism by Lenin, when in 1907, having in mind Marx's attitude to the revolution of 1848, he wrote: ``No, gentlemen, this is the combination of revolutionary theory and revolutionary policy.'' And further: ``Ah, how our present `realist' wiseacres among the Marxists, who in 1906--07 are deriding revolutionary romanticism in Russia, would have sneered at Marx at the time! How people would have scoffed at a materialist, an economist, an enemy of Utopias, who pays homage to an `attempt' to storm hcavenl" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 12, p. 107).
11 revolutionary potentialities of Russia. This is important because in foreign countries efforts are being made to pass over or distort their views on this question.Marx and Engels searchingly analysed the prospects for the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia, examining the situation in Russia in the light of the general laws of the revolutionary struggle as discovered by them and taking into account the specifics of Russian reality. They stressed the revolutionary significance of the struggle for the abolition of serfdom and for the national rights of the peoples enslaved by tsarism. As early as 1858 Marx wrote that in Russia ``inflammable material has accumulated under her own feet which a strong blast from the West may suddenly set on fire''.^^*^^ In connection with the Polish national liberation uprising in 1863 he drew the conclusion that ``in Europe the era of revolution has broadly re-opened''.^^**^^
Later, in the mid-1880s, Engels repeatedly noted that Russia was the key to the successful accomplishment of the revolution in Europe and that, possibly, the first European revolution would take place in Russia. In a letter to August Bebel on December 11--12, 1884, he wrote that ``as things are at present, an impulse from outside can scarcely come from anywhere but Russia''.^^***^^
``What I know or believe I know about the situation in Russia makes me think that the Russians are approaching the 1789. The revolution must break out there in a limited period of time; it may break out any day. In these circumstances the country is like a charged mine which only needs a match to be applied to it"^^****^^ (from a letter from Engels to Vera Zasulich on April 23, 1885). To Paul Lafargue Engels wrote on October 25--26, 1886: ``If a revolution were to break out in Russia it would create a whole complex of the most favourable conditions.''^^*****^^ Some months later he said he believed that ``it really looks like the beginning of the end in Russia, and this will be the beginning of the end in Europe.''^^*)^^ ``A revolution in Russia today would save Europe _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 12, p. 520.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 266.
^^***^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 381
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 384.
^^*****^^ Ibid., p. 477.
^^*)^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 36, p. 536.
12 from the calamity of a world war and lay the beginning of a world-wide social revolution,''^^*^^ he wrote to Nadejde on January 4, 1888.Engels' conclusion that in Russia revolution was approaching was testimony of his splendid understanding of the conditions obtaining in Russia: ``To me the important thing is that the impulse in Russia should be given, that the revolution should break out whether this or that faction gives the signal, whether it happens under this flag or that matters little to me. If it were a palace conspiracy it would be swept away tomorrow. There where the situation is strained, where the revolutionary elements have accumulated to such a degree, where the economic conditions of the enormous mass of the people become daily more impossible, where every stage of social development is represented, from the primitive commune to modern large-scale industry and high finance, and where all these contradictions are violently held in check by an unexampled despotism, a despotism which is becoming more and more unbearable to a youth in whom the dignity and intelligence of the nation are united ---there, when 1789 has once been launched, 1793 will not be long in following.''^^**^^
The theoretical and practical work accomplished by Marx and Engels was important not only because it was founded on the practical experience of the proletarian struggle in different countries. The potency of the Marxist teaching of revolution also lies in the fact that it was the supreme expression of all preceding and contemporary concepts of social development and was, moreover, indivisible from the other aspects of Marxism, which had creatively absorbed all the achievements of human thought and raised it to a qualitatively new level. ``... The genius of Marx,'' Lenin wrote in an article headed ``The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism'', ``consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism.''^^***^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 37, pp. 5-6.
^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 385.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 23.
13Socialist ideas had been propounded long before Marx and Engels and they had become most widespread in the form of various schools and orientations of Utopian socialism, which produced entire socialist and communist concepts containing not only blissful dreams but daring forecasts of the society and man of the future. The exponents of these Utopian concepts may be divided into three main groups: Utopian Communists, Utopian Socialists and pettybourgeois Socialists.
The Utopian Communists demanded social equality through the abolition of private ownership. Proponents of revolutionary action like Francois Emile Babeuf, Theodore Dezamy and Louis-Auguste Blanqui accentuated the importance of propaganda and organisational work among the proletariat and of conspiracies against the existing regime. Failing to understand the entire spectrum of social relations, the Utopian Communists, for instance, Etienne Cabet (whom Marx described as a popular though very superficial exponent of communism), regarded ``human nature" itself as the foundation for communist society. They began to see the need for eradicating class distinctions and for a class struggle only after the revolutions of the end of the 18th and the middle of the 19th century. By the time Marxism came on the scene, the Utopian Communists had come to the realisation that the road to social equality lay through revolution and a dictatorship of the people, which had to be established to repulse possible counter-revolutionary intrigues.
Claude Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, the classical exponents of Utopian socialism, likewise believed that the ideals of freedom and equality were unrealisable under capitalism. In their comprehensive and argumented criticism of the capitalist system they showed that it had to be replaced by socialism. Some of their ideas were later adopted by scientific socialism: planned economy, work by all members of society, abolition of hired labour, the conversion of the state into an instrument regulating economic life, and so on. However, not having a scientific method of analysing social processes, the Utopian Socialists could not understand the laws governing historical development, did not see the ways and means of remaking capitalist society into a socialist society and failed to appreciate the revolutionary role of 14 the proletariat. ``One thing is common to all three,'' Engels wrote of Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Owen. ``Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once.''^^*^^ The Utopian Socialists hoped to achieve their socialist ideal gradually, by persuasion. Their message was addressed not to the workers but to the ruling classes. Saint-Simon, for instance, believed that the improvement of scientific knowledge, morals and religion was the basis for social advancement.
The petty-bourgeois Socialists formulated their views later, when capitalist relations had reached a higher development level. They mirrored the sentiments of the small producers who were hit by the growth of large-scale capitalist production. They rejected revolutionary methods in favour of reforms. They urged the abolition of large-scale production through the enlargement of co-operatives, with state assistance. One of their most outstanding spokesmen, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, created a school that for many years opposed Marxism.
When the question of Utopian or petty-bourgeois socialism comes up, some researchers are inclined to regard them as a past stage of the development of socio-political thought, a stage now belonging to history. But it is not as simple as that. The unscientific theories of Utopian socialism and of the petty-bourgeois Socialists continue to be revived by some spokesmen of the petty-bourgeois strata that have been drawn into the vortex of the class struggle. That is why, far from having lost its significance today, Marx's and Engels' profound and all-sided criticism of the Utopian and petty-bourgeois concepts of social development serves Marxists-Leninists as a dependable guide in the struggle for the revolutionary remaking of modern social life.
The theory of revolution, of the transition from capitalism to socialism, evolved by Marx and Engels, showed the road for the then incipient working-class movement and illumined the prospects for a revolutionary struggle with the bright light of a scientific analysis.
_-_-_^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 3, Moscow, 1970, p. 117.
15The teaching of Marx and Engels and their concrete revolutionary practice facilitated the development of a massive working-class movement and the establishment and consolidation of its first communist organisations. The struggle of the working class in the lifetime of Marx and Engels was a crucial stage of the world revolutionary movement, witnessing the bourgeois revolutions in Europe in 1848, the national movements in Germany and Italy and the revolutionary situation in Russia in 1859--1861. The class struggle was crowned by the world's first proletarian revolution in France in 1871.
Marx and Engels sought to give the working-class movement correct guidelines and an understanding of its objectives, and direct the spontaneous enthusiasm of the masses into the channel of revolution. As a result of their theoretical and practical work the nascent working-class movement received an invincible weapon. The Marxist theory of revolutionary struggle gradually spread to the workers' organisations and won thousands upon thousands of adherents.
The fundamental laws of revolutionary development, of transition from capitalism to socialism, revealed by Marx and Engels, have been strikingly confirmed in our day. The successes achieved by socialism have demonstrated that these laws are truly universal. That is why Marxism is called an eternally living, ageless teaching. That is why the references of its enemies to the ``new features" of our times, to the changed character of the epoch are nothing but pitiful and untenable attempts to refute the laws of revolution.
The enemies of socialism and communism aspire to prove that Marxism is a product of the 19th century, when capitalism was quite different. Today, they declare, capitalism has changed, and many of its past vices have vanished: the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, they claim, has disappeared, and capitalism has become democratic with many ``socialist'' elements; it is, they say, becoming a ``welfare state''. This, the champions of capitalism maintain, makes it unnecessary to turn the capitalist into the socialist system by means of revolution. Therefore, it is claimed, Marxist theory is obsolete.
In a conversation with the author of this book, West German Social-Democrats, notably Helmut Schmidt, tried to prove that of the teaching of Marx only his economic 16 theory has retained some importance. They asserted that the Marxists ignored the changes taking place in the capitalist world. Here is what Willy Brandt said in Trier on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Marx: ``Marx could not foresee that the unity between theoretical knowledge and political practice would change the destiny of the workers in the highly developed industrial countries so radically as has indeed happened. What he gave were not patented recipes valid for all time.''^^*^^
However, it was not Brandt, leader of the Social-- Democrats and Chancellor in that part of the country of the great Marx, where some of the world's most powerful monopolies function today, who was right, but the Communist Walter Ulbricht, leader of the first socialist state created in Marx's homeland, who said that the analysis made by the author of Capital ``gives not only an analysis of a specific stage of capitalist development but an analysis of basic processes and laws that are valid in relation to the whole of capitalism, to its substance. For that reason, in many respects Marx's analysis conforms even more to present-day capitalism than to the capitalism of a hundred years ago."^^**^^
As a science Marxism does not and cannot grow old. It can be enriched, developed and augmented with a new content. But in the same way that the latest discoveries of modern physics cannot cancel the laws of motion formulated by Isaac Newton, no new experience of the class struggle can cancel the basic laws governing the development of human society, the revolutionary replacement of capitalism by communism, discovered by Marxism.
Formulated by Marx and Engels, the general laws of social development, of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, retain their full significance to this day. Whatever aspect of the theory of revolution we may study, we always proceed from the propositions of Marxism: for example, the historic mission of the working class, consistent champion of revolution and the principal and decisive force in the struggle to remake capitalist society into socialist and communist society; the need for the proletariat's alliance with other exploited classes, particularly _-_-_
^^*^^ Vorw\"arts, May 9, 1968.
^^**^^ Neues Deutschland, September 13, 1967.
__PRINTERS_P_18_COMMENT__ 2---1157 17 with such a numerous class as the peasantry, and also with the intelligentsia and other strata; the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.These and other pivotal tenets of Marxism help the Communist parties to frame a correct strategy for the struggle even when considerable changes have taken place in society's social structure as a result of the development of statemonopoly capitalism.
The conclusions of the founders of Marxism underlie the strategic thesis of the communist movement that as any other social revolution the socialist revolution is a long process affecting all facets of the life of society. The teaching of Marx and Engels underlies the concept that the victory of socialism in individual countries influences the development of the world revolution and that the entire world revolutionary process is inter-dependent. The proposition on the leading role of the Communist Party in the period of preparation for and accomplishment of the socialist revolution and during the building of socialism also rests on the ideas propounded by the founders of Marxism.
And does not the slogan of the unity of the working class, a unity demanded by Marx and Engels, remain the overriding slogan of the communist movement? Implementation of this slogan makes it possible to achieve success in the revolutionary struggle in capitalist countries and in the building of socialism, and it opens up prospects for the triumph of the working people throughout the world.
Even when it just appeared and took shape, Marxism displayed its superiority over other theories of social development, winning the ideological battle forced on it. Marx and Engels proved that the Right and ``Left'' varieties of opportunism were untenable. From the Right, it will be recalled, the revolutionary theory was attacked by Lassalleanism. This form of opportunism is linked with the name of Ferdinand Lassalle, a leader of the German working-class movement, whom to this day the Social-Democratic Party of Germany regards-as its teacher. Lassalle called for the creation of an independent organisation of the working class that would fight for universal suffrage by equal, direct and secret ballot. Contending that there was no sense in the workers' struggle for higher wages, Lassalle saw the 18 solution in workers' producers' associations, in which the proletariat would be an entrepreneur. Created on the basis of universal suffrage, the ``people's state" would, according to Lassalle, lead to progress and freedom. On this basis the Lassalleans co-operated with the reactionary Chancellor Leopold von Bismarck against the liberal bourgeoisie in the hope of winning suffrage in exchange. Everybody knows what came of this.
While subscribing to the idea of an independent organisation of the working class, Marx and Engels fought Lassalle's theories, which were unscientific and hostile to the interests of the proletariat. Lassalleanism is most fully exposed in Critique of the Gotha Programme, which subjects to a scathing scientific criticism Lassalle's specious interpretation of the laws of the movement of wages, his idealistic assessment of the role of the class state, and so on.^^*^^
Marx and Engels waged a resolute struggle also against anarchism, one of whose spiritual fathers was Pierre-- Joseph Proudhon. A major result of this struggle was the more profound elaboration of the political teaching of Marxism and of the tactics of the proletarian class struggle. The focal issue was linked with the attainment of socialist objectives: the ways of abolishing the bourgeois state, the revolutionary transformation of society, the forms of collective ownership as the foundation for absolute liberty and equality, and the ways of organising society after the victory over the bourgeoisie. In the First International the anarchists, led by the Russian petty-bourgeois revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin who was their leading ideologist, were opposed to the authoritarian principle in the organisation of society and, above all, to the teaching on the political party of the working class.
The struggle which Marx and Engels waged against opportunism in the working-class movement was subsequently continued in two directions---against Right and against _-_-_
^^*^^ The Czechoslovak revisionists made an attempt to give a new interpretation also of such an important period of the history of Marxism as that which witnessed Marx's struggle against Lassalleanism. In the journal Dejiny a soucasnost, 1969, No. 7, it was described as a ``struggle between socialism and democracy''. This ``interpretation'', whose aim is to associate the crassly unscientific contrapositioning of democracy to socialism with the name of Marx, fully coincides with the researches into this question produced by Right Social-Democrats.
__PRINTERS_P_20_COMMENT__ 2* 19``Left" opportunism. To this day the communist movement has to fight the reformists among the Social-Democrats and the revisionists in their own ranks, against petty-bourgeois pseudo-revolutionism that leads to anarchism and adventurism. In this struggle the communist movement draws on the experience of Marx and Engels. Their uncompromising attitude towards any deviation from proletarian theory and their passion and argumentation in proving the truth teach the Communists to be flexible and, at the same time, principled in firmly and consistently upholding the general line of our movement.
For more than a century historical development has been following the path foretold by Marxist theory. The Marxism of the modern epoch is Leninism, the legitimate successor and continuer of the entire revolutionary-theoretical and revolutionary-practical cause left to mankind by Marx and Engels.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. LENIN ON THE WAYS OFCapitalism entered the last stage of its development--- imperialism---at the close of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. That marked the end of the relatively peaceful phase of capitalist development, and the clouds of the first revolutionary storms began to gather. The socialist revolution appeared on the agenda.
The new epoch confronted Marxists with a series of acute problems. On the solution of these problems depended their understanding of the substance of the revolutionary process and their choice of the way to liberate the proletariat and all other working masses from capitalist tyranny.
But it was precisely in this period that a sharp debate flared up in the working-class movement over the future of the movement and over the question of strategy and tactics. The theoreticians of the Second International failed to understand the new processes in the development of capitalism and to chart the ways and means for the struggle of the working class. They regarded the new elements of social development as confirmation of their dogmatic tenets and used these elements for conclusions that were prejudicial to 20 the proletariat and benefited the exploiting classes. In effect, the leaders of the Second International betrayed the working class, and Marxism became the main object of their attacks, which were intensified after the death of Frederick Engels.
This assault was conducted in two directions. First and foremost, the opportunists tried to ignore the Marxist teaching or to give prominence to those of its aspects that had no direct significance for concrete revolutionary practice. They adopted purely revisionist attitudes and distorted the creative nature of Marxism.
One of the favourite methods of the enemies of Marxism was, as it is today, to pit the views of the young Marx against the teachings of the mature Marx. They argued that Marx's early works were more valuable and correct than works like Capital. This theory was combated back in those years by leading exponents of Marxism, in particular, by Franz Mehring in Germany and Georgi Plekhanov in Russia. A scientific study of Marx's creative and spiritual evolution was made by Lenin, chiefly in the article ``Karl Marx''.
The revisionists, on the other hand, began to falsify Marxism and revise it in all its aspects. In Germany Eduard Bernstein and, after him, Karl Kautsky, Karl Legien, Philipp Scheidemann, Max Schippel and Werner Sombart, and also Emile Vandervelde (in Belgium), Karl Hjalmar Branting (in Sweden), the Mensheviks (in Russia) and other revisionists in the different parties tried to revise Marx's teaching of the inevitable downfall of capitalism, asserting that capitalism was daily showing greater ``adaptability'' and that production was becoming increasingly more ``differentiated''.
Bernstein and others suggested a programme for the ``gradual introduction of socialism''. According to the theory behind this programme, a professional and political struggle for social reforms would give society greater control of the conditions of production, while through legislation the role of the owner of capital would be steadily reduced to that of an administrator until finally the direction and management of production was wrested away from the capitalist. The revisionists argued that it was possible to `` introduce socialism" through the trade unions, which were called upon to ``take over industrial profits'', through associations 21 of workers ensuring the abolition of trade profit, and also through the ``democratisation of the state''. Bernstein made an attempt to give ``theoretical'' grounds for the policy of adapting the working-class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie. He gave the gist of his views in the phrase: ``The end, whatever it may be is, so far as I am concerned, nothing, movement is everything.''
Revisionist distortions were a serious threat to Marxism and the working-class movement for they obscured the prospects for the class struggle.
At the time the danger of revisionism was appreciated by many leading exponents and theoreticians of Marxism, among whom were Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin,'Dimitr Blagoyev and Georgi Plekhanov.
Here reference may be made to two historical examples, which are perhaps the most vivid: they are Rosa Luxemburg and Georgi Plekhanov.
Recently, in connection with the 50th anniversary of the foul murder of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, bourgeois propaganda came out with a spate of works misrepresenting the role played by Rosa Luxemburg in the revolutionary movement. In an effort to contrapose Rosa Luxemburg to Lenin, bourgeois theoreticians maintain that there was uncompromising hostility between them, that Rosa Luxemburg did not criticise Bernstein and the -other revisionists while Lenin was unfoundedly and excessively harsh towards them.
Assertions of this kind distort the facts. Rosa Luxemburg was extremely active in the struggle against Bernstein and his associates. Summing up her review of Bernstein's economic and political views, she wrote: ``...he who favours the legal way of reforms instead of and in opposition to the conquest of political power and a social revolution, in fact chooses not a calmer, more reliable and slower road to the same aim but an utterly different aim, namely, inconsequential modifications of the old social system instead of attaining a new one.''^^*^^
Lenin's principled attitude to Rosa Luxemburg is shown, _-_-_
^^*^^ Rosa Luxemburg, Sozialreform oder Revolution?, Leipzig, 1899. p. 50.
22 for example, by the following lines from Notes of a Publicist: ``Paul Levi now wants to get into the good graces of the bourgeoisie---and, consequently, of its agents, the Second and the Two-and-a-Half Internationals---by republishing precisely those writings of Rosa Luxemburg in which she was wrong. We shall reply to this by quoting two lines from a good old Russian fable: `Eagles may at all times fly lower than hens, but hens can never rise to the height of eagles....' But in spite of her mistakes she (Rosa Luxemburg---Ed.} was---and remains for us---an eagle. And not only will Communists all over the world cherish her memory, but her biography and her complete works... will serve as useful manuals for training many generations of Communists all over the world.''^^*^^The other example is the eminent Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov. He did much to spread and explain the new revolutionary teaching. He left brilliant models of criticism of revisionism. Revolutionary Marxists cherish in Plekhanov his ability to make revolutionary theory understandable, and precisely for that reason a knowledge of his works, of all that he wrote on Marxism helps in the struggle against present-day ``Marxologists''.
Not only at the close of the 19th century but even during the first assault launched by the proletariat of Russia against tsarism early in the 20th century, it seemed to many revolutionaries that Plekhanov was destined to become the Marxist who would answer the new problems.
However, although Plekhanov was a militant materialist Marxist and fought bourgeois idealist philosophy, he took the road of opportunism and opposed Lenin's line towards a socialist revolution in Russia. His Menshevik views adversely affected his philosophical concepts as well.
Lenin proved to be the only Marxist who was able, by virtue of his theoretical and practical work, to answer the questions that confronted the revolutionary movement. He alone proved to be equal to the new tasks and played a distinguished part in the creative development of Marxism. His services are so immense that with full grounds we now call our teaching Marxism-Leninism. In its Address Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir llyich Lenin, the 1969 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 210.
23 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties recorded: ``Lenin was an eminent man of thought who developed in every -aspect the science which Marx and Engels established: dialectical materialism, political economy, the theory of the socialist revolution and the building of communist society.''^^*^^In this work it is not our purpose to show Lenin's entire contribution to revolutionary, creative Marxism. We shall only deal with the forms of the transition from capitalism to socialism as charted by him and show the new elements introduced by him into these problems.
The dialectical method typical of all of Lenin's theoretical and practical work was brilliantly applied in the elaboration of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism. Lenin never tired of pointing out that in his work a revolutionary was obliged to apply general principles depending on the concrete conditions of the struggle. In 1907 Lenin wrote: ``The duty to safeguard revolutionary traditions demands, at the same time, an analysis of the conditions in which they are applied and not simply a repetition of revolutionary slogans that have a meaning under definite conditions.''^^**^^ The essence, ``the living soul of Marxism,'' he stressed, was ``a concrete analysis of a concrete situation''.^^***^^ He wrote: ''. ..a Marxist must take cognisance of real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday.''^^****^^ A Marxist, he held, had to be able to adapt patterns to life. But a Marxist had never to depart from ``the ground of careful analysis of class relations''.^^*****^^
Lenin was uncompromising in his stand against the dogmatism of some Communists, who indulged in ``slavish'' imitation of the past. ``They call themselves Marxists,'' he wrote, ``but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics.''^^*)^^
He criticised those who bowed and scraped before Marx, _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 40.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 16, p. 474.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 166.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 24, p. 45.
^^*****^^ Ibid., p. 46.
^^*)^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 476.
24 extolled him and, at the same time, completely lost sight of the cardinal content of the doctrine. He quoted Gotthold Lessing, who said: ``We would like to be exalted less, but read more diligently.''^^*^^Profoundly and all-sidedly analysing the practice of social development and the class struggle in different countries, Lenin based his conclusions on facts drawn from real life. He took into account the latest achievements of world science, including the contribution of progressive thinkers towards the elaboration of social problems. His teaching is international and his propositions reflect the regularities of world development as a whole. ``Lenin's teaching,'' L. I. Brezhnev said in a report dedicated to the centenary of Lenin's birth, ``incorporated everything that had been produced by mankind's best minds, generalising and fusing into a single whole the world-wide experience of the working people's class struggle.''^^**^^
The international character of Leninism is seen~
---in the fact that having arisen on the solid foundation of Marxism it expressed and generalised the experience not only of the Russian but of the entire communist movement, of all its contingents;~
---in the fact that under new historical conditions of world development it opened the road to fusion in a single revolutionary process: the building of socialism and communism and the growth of the communist and working-class movement and the national liberation struggle;~
---in the fact that it raised on high the banner of internationalism in opposition to chauvinism and nationalpatriotism and saved Marxism from degeneration, which was desired (and sought in practice) by the leaders of the Social-Democratic parties in the Second International;~
---in the fact that it is the ideological basis of the education of the proletariat and all other working people in the spirit of fidelity to the lofty principles of internationalist solidarity and the cause of communism.
Leninists have never been slaves to the letter of Leninism, but they have always checked their thoughts, _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 134.
^^**^^ L. I. Brezhnev, Lenin's Cause Lives On and Triumphs, Moscow 1970, p. 16.
25 conclusions and practical work with the attitudes and views left to them by Lenin. They have always taken counsel, and continue to do so, with Lenin in the same way as Lenin had always taken counsel with Marx. The Communists regard the teaching of Lenin not only as a method (regrettably, this definition of Leninism's significance is still to be encountered) but as a theory, as a guide to action in the present-day revolutionary struggle.In this connection we cannot overlook views that have become widespread even among some Communists abroad, according to which the international character of Leninism is confined to chronological or geographical boundaries. In particular, the international significance of the outstanding works written by Lenin when the Bolshevik Party was only emerging is being rejected, and voices are heard urging a return to ``original'', ``pure'' Leninism, to which is attributed the character of an insipid abstraction and which is divorced from the creative experience of revolution intrinsic to it.
Lenin evolved the theory of socialist revolution, a teaching of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism. His conclusions form the treasure-store of the communist movement. Many students of this subject are right when they say that Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution cannot be considered as static, that it can be fully understood and mastered only when it is examined in development, enriched by the latest revolutionary experience of the masses and of the revolutionary parties.
Lenin was the creator and organiser of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the practician of the early years of socialist construction in Soviet Russia. He formulated the guidelines of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, the first country to embark on socialist development. On the basis of new revolutionary experience he comprehensively charted the general laws of the socialist revolution, worked out the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in many countries and defined the prospects of the world revolutionary process.
Lenin's key concepts are given in works like What Is To Be Done?, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International, The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present 26 Revolution, The State and Revolution, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, the Revolutionary Phrase, `` Left-Wing" Communism---an Infantile Disorder, and in many speeches at Comintern congresses. Vital propositions are to be found in Lenin's articles, written during the last years of his life. These include ``Our Revolution'', ``How We Should Reorganise the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection'', ``Pages from a Diary'', ``Better Fewer, but Better" and ``On Cooperation''.
Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution is the theory of the world socialist revolution. In historical and philosophical literature it is sometimes regarded only as the theory of the direct accomplishment of the socialist revolution. In fact, Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution embraces not only the direct struggle for power but the prerequisites for the socialist revolution and the building of socialism and communism, the very process of socialist and communist construction and the interaction of the revolutionary forces in different countries.
Without one or some of these components Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution would be incomplete and, consequently, distorted. It is precisely on the basis of these general theoretical premises that the author strives to consider the entire spectrum of problems linked with the study of the ways and forms of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Lenin's teaching of the transition from capitalism to socialism is an integral concept, all of whose elements are inter-related and inter-dependent. It begins with a thoroughgoing analysis of imperialism as the highest and last stage of capitalism, as the eve of the socialist revolution, and ends with the unravelling of the laws of transition from capitalism to socialism, the ways of achieving the socialist revolution on a global scale and the ways of building communism. In Lenin's theory of revolution the Communists find the scientific grounds for the conclusion that socialism can triumph in one country, and the propositions on the growth of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, on the allies of the proletariat at the various stages of the revolution, the significance of the national liberation movement to the development of the proletarian 27 revolution, the revolutionary situation, the role of the party in the revolution, and other issues. The range of problems covered by the theory of revolution is wide and all-- embracing. It is not limited geographically or chronologically and does not make theory dependent on various issues.
The history and specific content of Lenin's teaching of the socialist revolution give the lie to assertions that this teaching was created only in the period of the First World War. This approach, which misrepresents the history of the theory of revolution, can create the impression that Lenin linked the possibility of revolution only with war. Moreover, it reduces to naught Lenin's preceding and subsequent theoretical work.
Also untenable are the attempts of some researchers to show that Lenin's development of the theory of socialist revolution, of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism was limited to the solution of practical tasks, including the tasks of the revolutionary process in 1917. In some works very little attention is given to an analysis of works which profoundly substantiate the development of the socialist revolution in Russia after the conquest of power by the proletariat and in the light of the world revolutionary process that was unfolding at the time. To close this gap means to give a full and truthful picture of the history and content of Lenin's concept of socialist revolution.
Further we shall deal in greater detail with individual aspects of the teaching of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism. At this point we should like to draw attention to one question: the link between Lenin's theory of the victory of socialism initially in one country and the prospects for the development of the world revolution. This is a basic issue, and in many ways the mastering of all the other propositions of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution depends on how correctly it is understood. Another reason for underscoring the importance of this problem is that in stating it some researchers have simplified Lenin's views.
The conclusion that socialism can triumph initially in one country and cannot be victorious simultaneously in all countries was finally drawn by Lenin in the works On the Slogan for a United States, of Europe and The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution. ``Uneven economic and political development,'' Lenin wrote in 1915, ``is an 28 absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone.''^^*^^ In 1916 he enlarged on this conclusion: ``The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.''^^**^^
The conclusion that socialism could triumph initially in one country was reached by Lenin gradually, and later he repeatedly substantiated it, accentuating that the experience of Russia and the course of the struggle between the first socialist state and the capitalist countries bore out this conclusion and showed that the Mensheviks were wrong when they maintained that socialism could not triumph in Russia. In an article headed ``Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" he wrote: ``... in spite of the lies and slanders of the bourgeoisie of all countries and of their open or masked henchmen (the `socialists' of the Second International), one thing remains beyond dispute---as far as the basic economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat is concerned, the victory of communism over capitalism in our country is assured.''^^***^^ At the Seventh All-Russia Congress of Soviets in December 1919, in a speech devoted to the struggle against imperialism, he pointed out that in Russia the people had ``won a tremendous victory, so great a victory that I think we may say without exaggeration that our main difficulties are already behind us.''^^****^^
Uneven economic and political development under capitalism was understood by Lenin in the broadest sense: as the uneven and disproportionate development of the capitalist countries, as the uneven development of individual factors within each of them with consequences for the maturing of the objective and subjective factors of revolution. He pointed out that the unending contradictions and clashes between antagonistic forces were shattering and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 342.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 79.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. SO, p. 110.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 208.
29 undermining the front of imperialism. The chain of world imperialism had to be smashed in its weakest links---in countries where the objective and subjective conditions had matured for a socialist revolution. A combination of all these conditions is needed.Lenin never considered that only a developed country could be a weak link or, on the contrary, that a weak link necessarily meant a low level of capitalist development. Bukharin's assertions that the imperialist system was likely to break where the economic development level was low clashed with Lenin's views.
While distorting the meaning of Lenin's theory of the victory of socialism initially in one country, bourgeois theoreticians declare that this theory had been propounded not by Lenin but by Stalin. Indeed, Stalin had given much attention to this theory, upholding it against the attacks of the Trotskyites and other opportunists, but it was evolved by Lenin. This was stated by Stalin himself time and again.^^*^^
Another distortion of this theory is that it is attributed to Marx and Engels, thus belittling Lenin's contribution to the theory of socialism's victory in one country and the creative nature of the theory itself.^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ For instance, in the article ``On Problems of Leninism" Stalin used the propositions advanced by Lenin before and after the October Revolution to prove the viability of the thesis that socialism could triumph in one country. In particular, quoting from Lenin's article ``On the Slogan for a United States of Europe'', Stalin wrote that it spoke of the possibility of the proletariat of the victorious country organising socialist production. ``What does it mean 'to organise socialist production'? It means to build socialist society. It is hardly necessary to prove that this lucid and quite definite proposition of Lenin's requires no further comment" (J. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1952, p. 147).
^^**^^ This is exactly the approach of the authors of the book During and After the Revolution that was published in Czechoslovakia in 1967 (V revoluci a po revoluci, Praha, 1967). They argue that in Lenin's article ``The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution" a reference is made to Engels' letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882 which mentions the possibility of a ``defensive war" by victorious socialism against the bourgeoisie (``Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage 'defensive wars'. What he had in mind was defence of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries"---V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 79). This reference, it is alleged, meant that Lenin himself acknowledged the existence, before him, of a thesis on the victory of socialism initially __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 31. 30
Lenin had at one time expressed the opinion that the revolution would be accomplished first in one of the most developed countries, pinning his hopes notably on Germany. However, his was a strictly concrete-historical approach and he saw that the real course of history was indicating that that country would inevitably be Russia and he directed the efforts of the Bolshevik Party and Russia's revolutionary masses towards the preparation of the socialist revolution.
He believed that Russia would be followed by other countries and had full grounds for saying that ``our banking on the world revolution, if you can call it that, has on the whole been justified''.^^*^^
He did not associate himself with any deadline for the revolution, emphasising that ``no decree has yet been issued stating that all countries must live according to the Bolshevik revolutionary calendar; and even if it were issued, it would not be observed''.^^**^^ He noted that ``West-European revolutions will perhaps proceed more smoothly; nevertheless, very many years will be required for the reorganisation of the whole world, for the reorganisation of the majority of the countries''.^^***^^ In an article headed ``Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution" he wrote: ``We have made the start. When, at what date and time, and the proletarians of which nation will complete this process is not important. The important thing is that the ice has been _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 30. in one country. However, as the entire concept of the founders of scientific communism shows, Engels' mention of a struggle by the victorious proletariat could only refer to the proletariat of several countries. This is obvious from the text of the letter. Here is the extract to which Lenin probably referred: ``As soon as Europe and North America (my italics.---K, Z.) are reorganised, the colossal impact and example will be such that the semi-civilised countries will themselves follow us; this will be taken care of by economic requirements alone. As regards the social and political phases which these countries will then have to surmount until they likewise achieve socialist organisation we can only offer fairly vague hypotheses. Only one thing is indisputable: the victorious proletariat cannot force any happiness on a foreign people without undermining its own victory. It goes without saying that this by no means rules out defensive wars of various kind" (Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 35, p. 298).
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30 p. 208.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, pp. 174--75.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 169.
31 broken; the road is open, the way has been shown.''^^*^^ Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the revolution in the West was developing at a slower rate than had been expected. At the Third Congress of the Comintern he said: ``...events did not proceed along as straight a line as we had expected. In the other big, capitalistically more developed countries the revolution has not broken out to this day.... We must now thoroughly prepare for revolution and make a deep study of its concrete development in the advanced capitalist countries.''^^**^^He saw the specifics of the West in the maturity of the economic prerequisites for socialism, in the high development level of democratic institutions which influenced the outlook and forms of struggle of the working class, and in the wide dissemination of reformist illusions among the working people. In this connection he stressed that precisely in industrially developed capitalist countries it was more difficult to start a socialist revolution. One of the reasons for this, he said, was that in these countries the working class was confronted by an enemy who not only had powerful economic, political and ideological means of pressuring the masses but had, from vast experience, learned to make skilful use of various methods to split the working class. Lenin noted that for its ability to deceive, corrupt and bribe the workers the monopoly bourgeoisie of the USA and Britain had no equals in the world. He called on Communists to look for ways of approaching the socialist revolution.
While noting the specific nature of the revolutionary changes in different groups of countries, Lenin regarded these countries as co-participants in the single world revolutionary process. He declared that prior to the epoch of world revolution the national liberation movement was part of the world democratic movement, but that after the Great October Socialist Revolution it had become part of the world socialist revolution.
He wrote: ``We would be very poor revolutionaries if, in the proletariat's great war of liberation for socialism, we did not know how to utilise every popular movement against every single disaster imperialism brings in order to intensify _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 57.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, pp. 480--81.
32 and extend the crisis.''^^*^^ The growth of the national liberation movement weakened capitalism in the metropolises and, on the other hand, strengthened and augmented the revolutionary forces in the undeveloped countries. In its turn, the socialist revolution rendered economic and political assistance to the countries fighting for liberation. Lastly, Lenin regarded assistance from socialist countries to facilitate the direct transition of the young states to socialism as the third aspect of the relationship between socialism and the national liberation movement. He noted that in countries where the proletariat was numerically weak and could not be the dominant force of the revolution, its role would be carried out by the proletariat of the countries where socialism had already triumphed.On the basis of revolutionary practice Lenin elaborated on the problems of internationalism in the epoch of world revolution, and defined the principles underlying the relations between the socialist state and the revolutionary working-class movement, and between the Communist parties of socialist and capitalist countries. These principles were the guidelines of the Communist International created by Lenin. They remain immutable in our day, too, despite the changed forms of relations between the parties and the absence of a single international organisation of the world communist movement.
A major element of Lenin's theory of the possibility of socialism being triumphant in one country was the thesis on the armed defence of the socialist state, on just wars against the bourgeoisie seeking to crush triumphant socialism. On the other hand, Lenin was categorically opposed' to the Trotskyite concept of export of revolution, against ``making happy" countries that were not ready for revolutionary changes.
Socialism's ideological adversaries aim their main attack on the international aspect of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution, against the question of the laws governing the world revolutionary process. This is not accidental: it is the international character of the socialist revolution that threatens the capitalist system.
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 357.
__PRINTERS_P_34_COMMENT__ 3---1157 33Lenin's theory of socialist revolution is attacked from several angles.
First, it is asserted that this theory holds true solely for Russia and cannot be applied to other countries, that Leninism is a purely Russian phenomenon.^^*^^
Second, it is alleged that Lenin was a pragmatist, that he did not take the prospects of revolutionary development into account, and so on. These are the very assertions that were used by Trotsky and his followers.^^**^^
_-_-_ ^^*^^ For instance, in 1968 the Czech ``theoretician'' Cestmir Cisar
bluntly declared that ``one cannot deny certain negative aspects of the
fact that a generalisation of the experience of the Soviet Communists
was always portrayed as the only possible orientation of Marxist
thinking and Marxist policy, that Leninism was sometimes turned into a
monopoly interpretation of Marxism" (Rude prdvo, May 6, 1968). This,
in effect, is the argument of the Spanish bourgeois author Jose Diaz de
Villegas, who, quoting MacLaurin, says that ``Lenin adapted Marxism
to the specific Slav soil, utilising all the negative aspects of Marxist
thinking" (Jose Diaz de Villegas, La guena politico, Madrid, 1966,
p. 29).
^^**^^ Trotsky disputed Lenin's conclusion that it was possible to build socialism in the USSR before the victory of the world revolution and waged a struggle against the Soviet power. As is noted by R. Palme Dutt, the eminent British historian and a leading figure of the international communist movement, Trotsky made an attempt, as early as November 7, 1927, after failing to win support in the Party, to incite the working masses to demonstrate in the streets against the party leadership and the Soviet Government in Moscow. Already then he had passed over to counter-revolution (see R. Palme Dutt, The Internationale, London, 1967, p. 246). Later, characterising the building of socialism in the Soviet Union as ``Thermidorianism'' or ``Bonapartism'', Trotsky came to the conclusion that the Soviet Government had to be deposed by force. After fascism came to power in Germany he maintained that the coming war would inevitably see the defeat of the USSR and the downfall of the Soviet system (inasmuch as a proletarian revolution had not taken place in the Western countries). He regarded this as a possibility for forcibly overthrowing the Soviet Government, declaring: ``Can we expect that the Soviet Union will come out of the coming great war without defeat? To this frankly posed question we will answer as frankly. If the war should remain only a war, the defeat of the Soviet Union would be inevitable. In a technical, economic and military sense imperialism is incomparably more strong. If it is not paralysed by revolution in the West, imperialism will sweep away the regime which issued from the October Revolution" (ibid., p. 247). Trotsky considered that even in the event of victory in the war the Soviet Union would inevitably perish if imperialism remained in power in the rest of the world. For that reason the question of the Soviet Union's victory or defeat in the war had no significance in his line of thinking, which was based on the ``permanent revolution" theory, according to __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 35. 34
Third, specific propositions of Lenin's theory of revolution are distorted and falsified and it is asserted that they were at variance with the developments in Russia and other countries.
Fourth, one of the basic lines of the criticism of Lenin's theory of socialist revolution is in setting it off against the views of Marx and Engels. Though made under the guise of fidelity to Marxism and with the object of ``purifying'' it of subsequent distortions, this criticism is, in fact, an attack on Marxism-Leninism as an integral international teaching.
All these ``critics'' of Leninism are at one in passing over in silence or misrepresenting the fundamental propositions of Lenin's teaching of the transition from capitalism to socialism. However, the assertions of the bourgeois `` theoreticians" are refuted by the entire practice of the revolutionary movement. They are refuted by the Great October Socialist Revolution, by the socialist revolutions in 13 other countries and the achievements of the peoples of these countries in the building of socialism, and by the successes of the world communist movement, the international working class and the forces of national liberation.
``All the experience of world socialism and of the working-class and national liberation movements,'' states the Address Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir llyich Lenin adopted by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``has confirmed the world significance of Marxist-Leninist teaching----Today we have every justification for saying about Lenin's teaching what he himself said about Marxism: it is omnipotent, because it is true. Marxist-Leninist theory and its creative application in specific conditions permit scientific answers to be found to the questions facing all contingents of the world revolutionary movement, wherever they are active.''^^*^^
_-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 34. which every revolution was only the combustible matter of the world revolution, while until the accomplishment of the world revolution the attempts at building socialism in any country were regarded as a betrayal of that revolution.Singing Trotsky's tune, the notorious Trotskyite theoretician Isaac Deutscher wrote in The Unfinished Revolution. Russia 1917--1967 ( published in London in 1968) that the concept of socialism in one country was the product ``of the national narrowness of its authors" and signified ``a betrayal of proletarian internationalism''.
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 41.
__PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. THE COMMUNIST PARTIES ON THE FORMS. Lenin's teaching of the forms of transition to socialism is a powerful weapon of the contemporary communist movement. Guided by this teaching many Communist parties have been conspicuously successful in the struggle against capitalism, for the socialist remaking of society. Communists aspire to apply Lenin's theory creatively to the specific conditions of their countries, and they enlarge on it on the basis of their own experience, which takes cognisance of the new factors of social development. It was Lenin's rule that revolutionary theory ``cannot be thought up. It grows out of the sum total of the revolutionary experience and the revolutionary thinking of all countries in the world.... One cannot be a socialist, a revolutionary Social-Democrat, without participating, in the measure of one's powers, in developing and applying that theory.''^^*^^
Lenin's theory of revolution, above all, the teaching of the forms of transition, was the guideline of the Communist International. ``For a quarter of a century the Communist International, guided by Lenin's ideas, provided clear answers to the basic questions posed before the working class and all humanity---the question of war and peace, of the fight for democracy, against fascism; the question of the development of the national liberation movement, of the role of socialism and the ways leading the masses to the socialist revolution,'' it is stated in the Theses of the CC CPSU under the heading On the Centenary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin. ``Many of the ideas put forward by the Comintern found a lasting place in the arsenal of Marxism-Leninism.''^^**^^ The Comintern helped to establish many parties, armed them with revolutionary theory, placed the experience of the class struggle at their disposal and taught them to understand the lessons of the October Revolution creatively.
On the basis of Lenin's theory of revolution the Comintern framed the strategy of the world communist movement _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 354.
^^**^^ On the Centenary of the Birth of V. 1. Lenin, Moscow, p. 51.
36 and defined the place of the various contingents of the socialist revolution. This was a major prerequisite of the subsequent triumph of the revolution in the People's Democracies, the growth of the revolutionary movement in the industrialised capitalist countries and the development of the national liberation movement.The enemies of the communist movement continue, as they have always done, to decry the Comintern's contribution to the revolutionary movement and defame its work. The Comintern was again attacked in connection with its 50th anniversary. The fundamental principles of the communist movement and the teaching of the socialist revolution and of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism were distorted under the guise of criticising the Comintern's errors.
Nobody denies that the work of the Comintern was free of shortcomings, but nothing can compare with its.immense positive contribution to the theory and practice of the communist and revolutionary movement, to the development of the strategy and tactics of the struggle for socialism.
The Communist International consistently upheld the teaching of Marx and Engels of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism against the attacks of the opportunists, and developed this teaching in line with the conditions that took shape in the world in the 1920--40s.^^*^^ It took into consideration new factors affecting the revolutionary struggle such as the far-reaching economic upheavals in the capitalist countries, the more uneven nature of capitalist development, the extension of state-monopoly tendencies and the rise of fascism. In working out the details of the question of transition from capitalism to socialism close attention was _-_-_
^^*^^ In De Vanatheme au dialogue and Marxisme du XX-eme siecle, the French renegade Roger Garaudy sees only three stages of the development of Marxism: the stage of Marx, the stage of Lenin and the stage after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. He thus strikes out all the achievements of Marxist thought in the period prior to the 20th Congress and entirely ignores the colossal contribution that was made to revolutionary theory by the Comintern and the entire communist movement of that period.
37 paid to new features such as the successful building of socialism in the Soviet Union, the creation of a common working-class front against fascism in a number of countries, and so on.^^*^^The Comintern summarised the experience of individual parties in the struggle for democracy and socialism and the experience of the ``proletariat's class battles throughout the world. It amplified Lenin's teaching of the struggle for socialism. At its 5th Enlarged Plenary Meeting, held in 1925 after Lenin's death, the Comintern Executive probingly analysed Lenin's contribution to the theory of socialist revolution and the teaching of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism. Questions of importance to the teaching of the forms of transition were studied at subsequent sittings of the Comintern Executive and at Comintern congresses. These questions included the international character of the socialist revolution, the role of the Soviet Union in the development of the world revolution, the fundamental features of the Bolshevik Party, the united front tactics in the struggle against fascism and in the defence of democracy, the relationship between the struggle for democracy and for socialism, the character and specifics of the national liberation movement, the essence of the anti-colonial revolution and the significance of the struggle for peace to the development of the revolutionary movement.
A major contribution to defining the ways of the world revolutionary process was made by the 7th Enlarged Plenary Meeting of the Communist International. It denounced _-_-_
^^*^^ The theoretical and practical work of the Comintern is analysed at length in the book The Communist International. A Concise History (Russ. ed., Moscow, 1969), compiled by the Institute of Marxism-- Leninism at the Central Committee of the CPSU jointly with presently living personalities who were prominent in the Comintern. Also see the following works by former leaders of the Comintern: Klement Gottwald, Selected Works, Vols. 1-2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1957; Georgi Dimitrov, The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle for Working-Class Unity, Against Fascism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1935; Georgi Dimitrov, Selected Works, Vols. 1-2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1957; Palmiro Togliatti, Selected Articles and Speeches, Vols. 1-2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1965; Maurice Thorez, The United and Popular Front in France, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1935; William Z. Foster, The Twilight of World Capitalism, New York, 1949; William Z. Foster, History of the Three Internationals, New York, 1955.
38 the Trotskyite argument that it was not possible to build socialism in one country and that the socialist construction in the USSR was evidence of ``national narrowness" and a ``betrayal of the world revolution''. The plenary meeting's resolution stated that objectively the Soviet Union was the principal organising centre of the international revolution. It placed on record that ``in its past and in its present work the CPSU has proved its internationalism not in words, but in deeds, and has set brilliant examples of internationalism. The Enlarged Plenary Meeting considers the charges of narrow nationalism brought against the CPSU as slander.''^^*^^The USSR's significance to the world revolution was stressed in other Comintern documents. In the resolution of the 12th Plenary Meeting of the Comintern Executive, for instance, it is stated: ``Victorious socialist construction in the Soviet Union is more and more becoming a mighty force, assisting the revolutionary upsurge, and accelerating the maturing of a revolutionary crisis in capitalist and colonial countries.~"^^**^^
Incidentally, let us make the point that at no time had the Comintern recommended that the experience of the Soviet Union should be copied blindly. The 6th Comintern Congress, for example, made it plain that in determining the forms of building socialism it was imperative to take into account the specifics of the development of individual capitalist countries. In the Comintern Programme drawn up at this congress it was stated that the different socio-- economic conditions of the development of individual countries ``make it historically inevitable that the proletariat will come to power in different ways and at a different rate; that a number of countries must pass through certain transition stages leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and that socialist construction will take different forms in the different countries''.^^***^^
Farther down in this book we shall show the Comintern's _-_-_
^^*^^ Ways of the World Revolution, 7th Enlarged Plenary Meeting of the ECCI. Verbatim Report, Vol. 2, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1927, p. 447.
^^**^^ The Communist International in Documents, 1919--1932, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1933, p. 995.
^^***^^ Programme of the Communist International, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1928, pp. 76--77.
39 contribution towards the elaboration of concrete problems of the theory of transition from capitalism to socialism.New factors appeared in the development of the world revolution after World War II. The socialist camp had been formed and strengthened and socialism had begun to act on the international scene as a system of friendly states. The strengthening of socialism meant that the world balance of forces had changed radically: the capitalist world had entered a new phase of its general crisis, and, on the whole, the positions of the capitalist countries had grown relatively weaker. The colonial system had disintegrated. Moreover, socialism's victory in the war against fascism had greatly enhanced the prestige of the new social system and acted as a powerful stimulus for the entire world revolutionary proletariat, leading to the activation and rapid growth of democratic and revolutionary forces.
Guided by Marxism-Leninism and utilising the favourable conditions, the communist movement fought for society's progressive development, entered into broad alliances with other advanced forces and actively participated in the work of democratic state institutions. In 18 countries, including France, Italy, Finland, Denmark and Norway, the Communists accepted portfolios in the post-war governments.
The new, post-war situation confronted the revolutionary movement with the problem of its further strategy, of the advance of the socialist revolution.
In the very first post-war years the Communist parties devoted much of their attention to charting the ways and means of their further struggle for socialism. The Communist parties of a number of European countries came to the conclusion that in the new situation stemming from the increased might of socialism and the upsurge of the democratic and socialist movement it was possible to adopt an orientation towards the peaceful development of the revolution, i.e., the gradual conquest of power in the course of a prolonged struggle jointly with other democratic forces. This was precisely the programme that was mapped out by the Communists of France, Britain, Norway and other countries. In line with the new strategy and tactics, the Communists helped to promote a broad democratic movement aimed at the foundations of capitalist society.
40Feeling the real menace to its rule, imperialism launched a broad counter-offensive against the revolutionary movement, giving rise to the cold war, a period of savage anticommunism and economic and political pressure on the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies. In some countries, notably in Greece, Indonesia and Vietnam, imperialism had recourse to war in order to crush the revolutionary movement. In 1949 the USA and its allies set up the aggressive North Atlantic bloc, with the result that reaction managed somewhat to stave off the revolutionary and democratic forces.
But imperialism could not achieve more. By the mid1950s there were obvious signs of the failure of the imperialist policy of suppressing the revolutionary movement, of its policy of ``liberating'' the People's Democracies from communism and restoring capitalism in these countries. The forces of socialism imposed their own conditions of struggle on imperialism. The Communist parties learned much during this period of struggle, which revealed the main directions of imperialist strategy and the capabilities and potentialities of the Communists' allies in the struggle for socialism.
At their congresses in the mid-1950s some Communist parties introduced new propositions into their programmes, in which account was taken of the vast experience of the struggle against imperialism. These congresses were milestones in the elaboration of the strategy and tactics of the world communist movement. They made a further contribution to the theory of socialist revolution, indicated more effective ways of fighting for peace, democracy and socialism, and stimulated creative thought in the Communist parties. The fraternal parties noted that the decisions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, which stressed the need for the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory, had given enormous impetus to their work.
The international meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969 were of tremendous theoretical and practical importance in furthering the elaboration of the problems of the revolutionary movement. The following, for instance, is how the 1969 Meeting was assessed by the CC CPSU at its plenary meeting in June 1969: ``The 41 documents of the Meeting and the speeches of the participants summed up the extensive experience of the communist movement, profoundly analysed present-day world development and made an important contribution to MarxistLeninist theory.''^^*^^
All the three international meetings supplemented and enlarged on the basic propositions of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution. Their documents show a clear-cut succession and consistency in working out the problems of the revolutionary struggle. One cannot, therefore, agree to the contrapositioning of one meeting to another, with the view that the propositions advanced at the different meetings do not dovetail.
The meetings specified and enlarged on many of the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
The historic conclusions drawn at the international meetings mirror not only the practical experience of the struggle of the working class but also the results of extensive theoretical work in the Communist parties. In the theoretical debates argumented criticism was levelled at the attempts to inject opportunism into the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution. It was demonstrated that the periodic outbursts of opportunism in some parts of the communist movement have their source in new phenomena in the development of modern capitalism, in the changes of the tactics employed by imperialism. Parallel with its brutal use of the repressive apparatus against the revolutionary forces, imperialism is more and more frequently having recourse to more subtle forms of exploitation and oppression, to concessions and to retreat in certain sectors with the aim of preserving and strengthening its influence. Among a section of the working-class movement, the refined stick and carrot tactics are, on the one hand, sowing uncertainty and fear of repressions and, on the other, the hope for better conditions of life under capitalism. A new stimulus has been given to the Social-Democratic illusions that socialism can be achieved through evolution, with the minimum effort, without sharp collisions with capitalism. This only reaffirms the urgency of Lenin's injunction, made at the Second Comintern Congress, that the cardinal task of the Communist parties was _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, June 27, 1969.
42 the struggle against Right opportunism, that ``compared with this task, the rectification of the errors of the `Left' trend in communism will be an easy one''.^^*^^The conclusions of the communist movement issued from the sharp theoretical struggle against the exponents of opportunism in some Communist parties and also against Social-Democratic and bourgeois vilifiers of Marxism. Here, too, we find two extremes---Right and ``Left''---in the interpretation of theoretical problems.
The Right opportunists give their own interpretation of the changes taking place in the world.^^**^^ Employing the battered methods of the former revisionists, they contend that the main distinctions between capitalism and socialism have disappeared, that class criteria have grown obsolete, and so on. They offer the thesis that the working class has lost its revolutionary significance in social life. They identify the possibility of a peaceful road to socialism with parliamentarism and seek to justify the unscientific contrapositioning of the ``democratic'' road to the road of revolution. They deny that imperialism has grown more aggressive and belittle its anti-democratic and anti-popular tendencies. They set the national tasks of the revolutionary movement off against its internationalist tasks. They mechanically identify developing socialist democracy with bourgeois democracy.
The offensive of Right opportunism was of the most violent nature in Czechoslovakia, where it threatened the socialist system. The Czechoslovak events were a further reminder of the importance of consistently fighting Right opportunism, which under the guise of ``improving'' socialism seeks to divest Marxism-Leninism of its revolutionary _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 231.
^^**^^ For example, the Czechoslovak philosopher M. Soukup, one of the authors of 50 Years of Socialism. Impressions and Reality (50 let socialismu. Pfedstavy a skutecnost, Praha, 1968), asserts that the changes that have taken place in the world since Lenin's death were no less profound than the changes that took place in the course of 40 years after the death of Marx, and suggests, under the guise of ``not limiting oneself to the mechanical application of Leninist concepts'', reappraising these concepts in the same way as Lenin had reappraised the ideas of Marx, and modifying the notions about socialism. At the same time, he urges the restoration of concepts of socialist development, which, he alleges, had been distorted after Lenin's death (ibid., p. 187).
43 substance and clear the way for the penetration of bourgeois ideology. Right opportunism exercises quite a lot of influence in the Communist parties of some capitalist countries.Communists, it goes without saying, do not deny that since Lenin's death there have been momentous economic, social and political changes in the modern world. During the past few decades the deepening general crisis of capitalism, the class struggle and the scientific and technological revolution have given rise to new elements in capitalism's economic and social structure and in its political methods. New factors also appeared in the struggle of capitalism and socialism on a global scale. However, these changes have not modified the substance of capitalism, they have not eradicated the contradictions and laws of development intrinsic to it, and neither have they put an end to its exploiting nature nor made it more ``humane'' and ``progressive''. The contradictions of capitalism have only grown in number and partially assumed a different form. Imperialism remains the enemy of progress, democracy and socialism, and its objective is still to strangle the struggle of the peoples for social and national liberation.
Today, as during the first decades of imperialism's existence, there is only one force that can destroy capitalist rule. It is the revolution of the proletariat led by its vanguard--- the Marxist-Leninist Party. This cannot be refuted by any attempts of the revisionists to revise the laws of socialist revolution in the epoch of imperialism revealed by Lenin.
Left-opportunist views are preached by extremist forces, by the Trotskyites. In their efforts to provide theoretical arguments for their policy they belittle the significance of new phenomena in society's development, run down the role of the socialist camp and the achievements of socialist construction, and maintain that in the capitalist countries the working class is degenerating and acquiring bourgeois features. The Left revisionists repudiate the specifics of the development of the revolutionary struggle in individual countries and fail to appreciate the importance of the peace movement. They accuse others of departing from MarxismLeninism and pose as the only continuers of the cause of Marx and Lenin.
44The fraternal parties reject all distortions of MarxistLeninist theory.
At recent congresses and Central Committee plenary meetings a number of Communist parties have reiterated the need for a determined struggle against opportunist tendencies, against the revisionist attempts to distort the party strategy and tactics and the Leninist teaching of the forms of struggle for socialism.^^*^^ In the documents adopted by them the party organs have reaffirmed their fidelity to the principles of the internationalist solidarity of all contingents of the communist movement.
Theoreticians of the fraternal parties creatively develop individual propositions in the concept of revolution, applying them to the conditions obtaining in their countries. In recent years many interesting studies have been published, which theoretically interpret a wide range of problems of the socialist revolution and the transition from capitalism to socialism.^^**^^ These problems are studied at the scientific institutions of the Communist parties. Much of the research is conducted collectively, with the participation of representatives of different parties.
The 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties set all Communists the task of creatively enlarging on the problems of the world revolutionary movement and looking for new forms of transition from capitalism to socialism.
_-_-_^^*^^ Cases in point are the denunciation of Roger Garaudy's opportunist activities by the 19th Congress of the French Communist Party and his subsequent expulsion from the party; the decision of a plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party to expel an opportunist group that published the journal Manifesto; the expulsion from the Communist Party of Austria of the Right `` theoretician" Ernst Fischer; the expulsion of Petkov from the Communist Party of Venezuela.
^^**^^ See, for example: Rodney Arismendi, Problemas de una revolution continental, Montevideo, 1962; La marche de la France au socialisme, Paris, 1966; Friedl Furnberg, 50 Jahre. Die Sozialistische Oktobert-evolution und 'Osterreich, Vienna, 1967; Ren£ Andrieu, Les communistes et la revolution, Paris, 1968; Georges Cogniot, Karl Marx, notre contemporain, Paris, 1968; Janos Kadar, Hazafisdg es internacionalizmus, Budapest, 1968; Ib Norlund, Det kommunistiske synspunkt, Copenhagen, 1968; Georges Cogniot, L'Internationale Communiste, Paris, 1969; Waldeck Rochet, L'avenir du Parti communiste franfaise, Paris, 1969.
45Since that Meeting the fraternal Communist parties have been actively continuing their work of analysing the problems confronting the revolutionary movement and developing the Marxist-Leninist ideas of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism. The most pressing problems of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism are thoroughly examined at congresses, Central Committee plenary meetings and theoretical conferences. The 24th Congress of the CPSU added substantially to the further creative elaboration of the theory, strategy and tactics of the world revolutionary movement.
[46] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 2 __ALPHA_LVL1__ SUBSTANCE AND CONTENTThe sharp turn and momentous revolutionary changes in all spheres of social life, the defeats suffered by capitalism---the last exploiting system---the mounting victorious advance of socialism; the marked changes of the world's political map showing the formation of countries of the socialist community and the rise of developing countries, and the downfall of imperialism's colonial system; the growing scope and intensity of the class battles in the capitalist countries, the active involvement of tens of millions of people in social and political activity, and the scientific and technological revolution are some of the features characterising the development of the modern world.
Naturally, to achieve greater success, the Communists, who have been fighting for more than a hundred years to remake society by revolution, must constantly take the trends of the epoch and its motive forces into account. They must correctly understand the basic economic, social and political factors underlying the far-reaching reorganisation that is being accomplished in the life of mankind.
It is not easy to give a scientific answer to the question of the substance and character of the present epoch. This requires an exhaustive study of the cardinal laws determining present-day socio-political, economic, spiritual and other processes. In other words, the nature of the present epoch is a complex problem with numerous facets. It is a dialectical 47 combination of the economic, social, political, military and ideological trends of an extraordinarily turbulent period of modern history.
A correct definition of the epoch makes it possible, on the one hand, to understand the complexity and diversity of the processes in all spheres of social life and serves, as Lenin put it, as ``the foundation for an understanding of the specific features of one country or another'',^^*^^ and, on the other, to map out effective strategy and tactics for the struggle of the working masses and attain the programme objectives of the Communist and Workers' parties with the greatest speed and the least sacrifice.
Now that the Communist and Workers' parties are charting the direction and ways for social advancement in the socialist countries, that they are working towards the revolutionary transformation of the socio-political system in the imperialist states and influencing the policies of the progressive forces in the young developing countries, a correct definition of the substance of the epoch and the conclusions deriving from this definition affect the destinies of mankind, serve as the point of departure for an analysis of the key problem of modern times---the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism---and give the masses a prospect.
Another reason why it is necessary to define the present epoch is that a bitter theoretical struggle is raging round this problem and the ideological adversaries of socialism are resorting to various subterfuges in order to conceal or distort the real meaning of the pivotal problems of modern times. Instead of making a scientific, class analysis, they engage in scholastic exercises with arbitrarily selected, frequently secondary, criteria and in this way seek to pervert the meaning of the main trends of today, whitewash capitalism and foretell a sunny future for it.
The CPSU and other Marxist parties hold that unremitting attention has to be focussed on the laws governing the development of the contemporary epoch. All the programme documents of the Communist parties begin with an analysis of our epoch. A scientific definition of the epoch that pinpoints the main trends of social development and the alignment of class forces in the world is the starting point _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 145.
48 for framing the strategy of the communist movement. The elaboration of the entire range of problems related to the substance and character of the contemporary epoch merits the close attention of Marxist researchers. This concerns historians and also philosophers, economists, jurists, experts on international affairs and so on. Yet there are not so many studies on this subject in Marxist literature. Besides, this literature contains a number of muddled definitions of the essence and main contradictions of the epoch: the approach to the very concept ``epoch'' is not uniform and it is given a wide variety of meanings. We feel, therefore, that it is necessary to make a closer analysis of this important problem of theory and practice and to state our opinion on some disputed questions. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATIONSSocial development is a process governed by laws. As mankind forges ahead this process grows steadily faster.
When the founders of Marxism analysed diverse facts from the life of mankind they established that in any society the various aspects of its activity combine not accidentally but in accordance with definite laws. Every society is, at one stage or another, an integral organism with its own peculiar combination of economic, political and ideological relations. Lenin noted that ``the analysis of material social relations at once made it possible to observe recurrence and regularity and to generalise the systems of the various countries in the single fundamental concept: social formation. It was this generalisation alone that made it possible to proceed from the description of social phenomena (and their evaluation from the standpoint of an ideal) to their strictly scientific analysis, which isolates, let us say by way of example, that which distinguishes one capitalist country from another and investigates that which is common to all of them.''^^*^^
The concept of socio-economic formation reflects one or _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 140. 4-1157
49 another phase of mankind's development from pre-class to communist society. It allows us to understand a definite society as a concrete community, as a totality of economic, social, political and ideological relations and institutions, as a totality with its own laws of development. A new system appears on the basis of the changes in the preceding formation. One system replaces another as a result of a social revolution.Every socio-economic system represents the unity between a certain level of development of the productive forces and the corresponding relations of production.
Historically, the birth of a socio-economic system on a world-wide scale has always taken place more or less simultaneously. But this holds true exclusively on the historical plane, because the transition from one system to another is a long process and is not accomplished everywhere at one and the same time. It would be impossible to name periods in history which belonged solely to some one social formation. Moreover, every system has definite stages---birth, consolidation, maturity and so forth.
The Marxist-Leninist understanding of the character of the laws governing the development of a socio-economic system helps to give a scientific definition of the essence of a historical epoch. How does Marxism-Leninism determine the content and boundaries of historical epochs? Let us examine Lenin's method of determining the substance of a historical epoch, its boundaries, duration and so on.
Characterising the concept of epoch, Lenin wrote: ``...in each of them there are and will always be individual and partial movements, now forward now backward; there are and always will be various deviations from the average type and mean tempo of the movement. We cannot know how rapidly and how successfully the various historical movements in a given epoch will develop, but we can and do know which class stands at the hub of one epoch or another, determining its main content, the main direction of its development, the main characteristics of the historical situation in that epoch, etc.''^^*^^
He not only defined the substance of the epoch but concretely characterised the features of different historical _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 145.
50 epochs. For instance he divided the period of new and latest history into three epochs.The first epoch covered the period from the Great French Revolution of 1789 to the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune. Lenin described it as the epoch of the rise and complete victory of the bourgeoisie, ``of the bourgeoisie on the upgrade, an epoch of bourgeois-democratic movements in general and of bourgeois-national movements in particular, an epoch of the rapid breakdown of the obsolete feudal-- absolutist institutions.''^^*^^ The leading class of that epoch was the bourgeoisie, and its main contradiction was between dying feudalism and consolidating capitalism.
The second epoch---from 1871 to the outbreak of the First World War and the Great October Socialist Revolution--- witnessed the transition to imperialism. It was characterised by mounting inner contradictions of capitalist society, when ``the day-by-day life of the working masses was undergoing an internationalisation---the cities were attracting ever more inhabitants, and living conditions in the large cities of the whole world were being levelled out; capital was becoming internationalised, and at the big factories townsmen and country-folk, both native and alien, were intermingling. The class contradictions were growing ever more acute; the employers' associations were exercising ever greater pressure on the workers' unions; sharper and more bitter forms of struggle were arising, as, for instance, mass strikes; the cost of living was rising; the pressure of finance capital was becoming intolerable, etc., etc.''^^**^^ It was an epoch that saw the conversion of the bourgeoisie from a revolutionary into a reactionary force and the upsurge of a new class, the proletariat.
Lenin dated the third epoch, the epoch of our day, as beginning from the First World War and the socialist revolution in Russia. After the victory in October 1917 Lenin characterised the new epoch as follows: ``The abolition of capitalism and its vestiges, and the establishment of the fundamentals of the communist order comprise the content of the new era of world history that has set in. It is inevitable that the slogans of our era are and must be: abolition of classes; _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 146.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 151.
__PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 51 the dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of achieving that aim; the ruthless exposure of petty-bourgeois democratic prejudices concerning freedom and equality and ruthless war on these prejudices.''^^*^^ He described this new epoch of world history as one of the ``rule of a new class, a class which is oppressed in every capitalist country, but which everywhere is marching forward towards a new life, towards victory over the bourgeoisie, towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, towards the emancipation of mankind from the yoke of capital and from imperialist wars''.^^**^^The definition given by Lenin thus embraces all the principal features characterising the various epochs. It shows the leading trend of social development, the predominant class and its main content, orientation and tasks.
Lenin's definition of the third, i.e., the contemporary epoch is of particular importance for our analysis. It discloses the substance of the qualitatively new epoch, whose commencement conformed to the objective conditions of social development and the interests of the overwhelming majority of people in all countries of the globe. Lenin's definition of the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism underlies all subsequent definitions of the present epoch in the documents of the CPSU, of the 1957, 1960 and 1969 International Meetings, and of the fraternal parties.
The following are excerpts from some of these definitions.
In the Programme of the CPSU, adopted at the 22nd CPSU Congress, it is stated: ``Our epoch, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism, is an epoch of struggle between the two opposing social systems, an epoch of socialist and national liberation revolutions, of the breakdown of imperialism and the abolition of the colonial system, an epoch of the transition of more and more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world-wide scale. The central factor of the present epoch is the international working class and its main creation, the world socialist system.''^^***^^ In the resolution adopted by the 23rd Congress of the CPSU on the report of the CC CPSU, it is underscored that ``world development has _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 392.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 55.
^^***^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 449.
52 confirmed the conclusion of our Party and of the communist movement as a whole that the main trend of the historical process in our time is determined by the world socialist system, the forces fighting against imperialism, for the socialist reorganisation of society''.^^*^^In the documents of the international conferences of Communist and Workers' parties it is recorded:~
1957: ``The main content of our epoch is the transition from capitalism to socialism, which was begun by the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. Today more than a third of the population of the world---over 950 million people---have taken the road of socialism and are building a new life. The tremendous growth of the forces of socialism has stimulated the rapid extension of the anti-imperialist national movement in the post-war period.... The progress of socialism and of the national liberation movement has greatly accelerated the disintegration of imperialism. With regard to the greater part of mankind, imperialism has lost its onetime domination. In the imperialist countries society is rent by deep-going class contradictions and by antagonisms between those countries, while the working class is putting up increasing resistance to the policy of imperialism and the monopolies, fighting for better conditions, democratic rights, for peace and socialism.''^^**^^
1960: ``Our time, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism initiated by the Great October Socialist Revolution, is a time of struggle between the two opposing social systems, a time of socialist revolutions and national liberation revolutions, a time of the breakdown of imperialism, of the abolition of the colonial system, a time of transition of more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of socialism and communism on a world-wide scale.
``It is the principal characteristic of our times that the world socialist system is becoming the decisive factor in the development of society."^^***^^
1969: ``The events of the past decade bear out that the Marxist-Leninist assessment of the character, content and _-_-_
^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, p. 281.
^^**^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, pp. G-7.
^^***^^ Ibid, p. 38.
53 chief trends of the present epoch is correct. Ours is an epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.''^^*^^Let us now see how the present epoch was defined at the June 1969 International Meeting by the leaders of some of the fraternal parties.
Leonid Brezhnev: ``...a realistic assessment of the present state of affairs in the world, a comparison between the development of imperialism, on the one hand, and all the forces opposing it, on the other, warrants only one conclusion: the main lines of world development continue to be determined by the activity of the forces of revolution and socialism, of the peace forces and the national liberation movement.~"^^**^^
Walter Ulbricht (Socialist Unity Party of Germany): ``...the 20th century is an epoch of the general crisis of capitalism and the downfall of the capitalist system, an epoch of struggle between the two world systems, an epoch of democratic and national revolutions, an epoch of social revolution of the working class and the victory of the socialist social system.''^^***^^
Waldeck Rochet (French Communist Party): `` Imperialism as a world system has definitely weakened in the past ten years as compared with the socialist system, as compared with the forces of peace, independence and progress.''^^****^^
Gus Hall (Communist Party of the USA): ``The transition from capitalism to socialism is history's greatest happening. . .. This turning point has given rise to, and is propelled by a world-wide, three-pronged revolutionary development that is now converging into a single process. There are periods when the process does not produce a shift of state power in any country. There are setbacks, frustrations, and periods when the process levels off to a new plateau. There are moments of explosions and periods of revolutionary development. There are violent transfers of class power and some transitions that are not so violent.
``Through all this, the revolutionary process goes on, _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 12.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 154.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 217.
^^****^^ Ibid., p. 108.
54 the maturing and gathering of the forces of the revolution.''^^*^^Shripad Amrit Dange (Communist Party of India): ``The decisive force in world development was no longer imperialism but the forces of socialism, of the working class and national liberation. Rightly was the present epoch characterised as an epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism.''^^**^^
There is a number of general propositions in the definitions of the modern epoch as given by the Marxist-Leninist parties and in the documents of the international communist movement. Briefly, they may be reduced to the following:
First, a complete identity of views on the character, assessment and motive trends of the epoch with the views expressed by Lenin. This is further testimony of the viability and unfading significance of Lenin's analysis of the epoch and of the greatness of his genius.
Second, the Communist parties and the communist movement as a whole creatively approach the new phenomena of the past few decades and analyse them scientifically, in other words, they enlarge on Lenin's definition of the epoch.
Third, the entire period from the Great October Socialist Revolution to our day is characterised by the parties as an unbroken epoch. True, like every other epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism has its own stages and periods. Three such periods may be named conditionally.
The first is the period of the establishment and development of a national dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., of a proletarian dictatorship in one country---the Soviet Union. In that period socialism influenced the course of world development and the growth of the revolutionary struggle in the countries of the capitalist world mainly by force of its own example, through the consolidation of socialist ideals and relations. Already then the class struggle was raging in individual capitalist countries, where it was headed by Marxist-Leninist parties, and, at the same time, a struggle was waged between the two opposing social and state systems. The Soviet Union's influence over the revolutionary process spread in depth and breadth, being expressed in direct _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 425--26.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 468.
55 military assistance to fighters against imperialism and fascism, in the defence of the national interests of the oppressed peoples, in material assistance and the provision of political asylum to political fighters, revolutionaries, anti-fascists, democrats, and so on. But, on the whole, the course and character of international relations were determined by imperialism. The second is the period of the formation of the world socialist system. It is characterised by a frontal breach of the chain of imperialism and the conversion of the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national into an international force. However, there have been not only qualitative changes. Capitalism and its laws ceased to be the dominant factor in the world and imperialism irrevocably lost its positions in many countries of Europe and Asia.One cannot accept as tenable the assertion that the formation of the world socialist system signified that mankind had entered the fourth historical epoch. This assertion is wrong because the creation of the socialist community does not change the substance of the present epoch in world history. Its main contradiction has been and remains the contradiction between socialism and capitalism, and the working class and its creation, world socialism, continue to remain in the centre of the epoch.
The third period witnesses the strengthening of socialism's position on a global scale: the successful building of communism in the USSR, the triumph of socialism in a group of European and Asian countries, the victory of the Cuban revolution, the collapse of the colonial system, the choice of the non-capitalist road of development by a number of African and Asian countries, and the further serious erosion of imperialism's positions in its own citadels.
In our day the revolutionary process has become worldwide. The revolutionary changes have acquired greater depth and maturity. Various revolutionary torrents have converged and economic, social and political revolutionary changes have become more rapid. In the world today it would be hard to find an area unaffected by the struggle for social and national liberation.
The principal and decisive feature of the present epoch is that the course of world history is determined no longer by world capitalism but by world socialism. This concerns all its spheres and trends.
56 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. FEATURES OF OUR EPOCHThe definition of the present historical epoch, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism, gives its principal features. At various periods these features unquestionably manifest themselves in different ways, but their substance has been and remains unchanged. They may be conditionally reduced to the following.
Our epoch is one of struggle between two opposing social systems. This struggle is being waged in the economic, political, ideological and military fields and it is being convincingly won by the new, socialist system.
Take economics. In 1917 socialism only accounted for 3 per cent of the world industrial output. In 1937 its share rose to approximately 10 per cent, in 1950 to nearly 20 per cent and in 1968 to almost 40 per cent. But there is more to this than the socialist countries' growing share of world industrial production. Importance attaches to trends characterising the growth of the total social product, the rate of development and the efficiency of production.
Let us begin with the national income. In 1968 as compared with 1950 it grew 360 per cent in the Soviet Union, more than 350 per cent in Bulgaria, 170 per cent in Hungary, 260 per cent in the German Democratic Republic, over 240 per cent in Poland and nearly 190 per cent in Czechoslovakia.^^*^^ In this period the national income in the Common Market countries increased roughly 170 per cent and in the US less than 100 per cent.
Or take the rate of growth of industrial output. It averaged 7.2 per cent throughout the world in the period 1951-- 1965. In countries outside the world socialist system, the growth rate averaged 5.6 per cent, coming to 5.3 per cent in the developed capitalist states (4.4 per cent in the USA). The annual rate of growth in the socialist countries averaged 11.5 per cent, the CMEA countries showing 10.6 per cent (the USSR 10.7 per cent). This was achieved despite the certain slowing of the growth rate in the socialist countries during the five-year period from 1961 to 1965 (7.4 per cent _-_-_
^^*^^ These and other figures given here have been computed according to official CMEA statistics, documents of recent congresses of Communist parties, and articles and materials published in the journal World Marxist Review.
57 for the socialist community as a whole, 8.5 per cent in the CMEA countries, 8.6 per cent in the Soviet Union). The drop was due to a number of reasons, one of which lay in the grave difficulties in the development of agriculture. Nonetheless, during that five-year period the rate of growth of industrial production in the socialist countries exceeded the world level (6.5 per cent) and the level achieved in the developed capitalist states (5.7 per cent, with the USA showing 5.6 per cent).Industrial production grew rapidly in the CMEA countries in 1965--1970, the increase adding up to 49 per cent.
The socialist countries have achieved high rates of economic development and built a highly efficient national economy based on the most advanced science and technology. Labour productivity is growing through the use of new machinery and the pattern of industry is changing as a result of the accelerated expansion of branches such as chemistry, radio electronics, instrument-making, precision machinery and heavy engineering, which determine technological progress. True, in the socialist countries much still remains to be done in this field, but the prerequisites are already on hand, making it possible to achieve considerably more progress during the next few years and to strengthen the economic positions of socialism as the most advanced social system.
In the economic competition an important factor is that socialism is an incomparably more perfect system as regards the mode of production and the distribution and consumption of goods. It is well known that in capitalist society there is glaring inequality in the social position of its members and in the distribution of various blessings. In The Future of the French Communist Party, the General Secretary of the FCP Waldeck Rochet writes that the income of 10 per cent of the richest section of the French population is 74 times greater than the share of 10 per cent of the poorest section.^^*^^
The Soviet Union gets more out of production for the people than does the United States of America. Although the USSR is still behind the USA in the volume of output it uses it more effectively for the promotion of science, culture, _-_-_
^^*^^ Waldeck Rochet, L'avcnir dv Parti communiste frangais, Paris, 1969, p. 36.
58 education, health and key branches of the economy. Lastly, and this is the most important point, even with a smaller volume of per capita production cultural and spiritual requirements are more fully satisfied in the USSR. When the Soviet Union reaches the US level of production it will be considerably ahead in all spheres of social life.In its efforts to avoid defeat in the economic sphere capitalism is compelled to adapt itself to the new conditions of the struggle between the two systems and look for ways of improving production and management. It is integrating the monopolies with the state apparatus, forming mammoth monopoly associations (conglomerates), making ever broader use of programming and forecasting in production, utilising the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution by financing technological progress and research out of the state budget, and making attempts to limit the market element and utilise elements of planning; on the international level it uses various forms of economic integration to set up international associations of monopolies. However, imperialism by no means abandons some traditional forms of sustaining economic conjuncture (carefully camouflaged intensification of exploitation, militarisation of the economy, the pillaging of undeveloped countries, and so on). In some capitalist countries this is bringing about a certain increase of social production and some improvement of the standard of living. But this concerns only some countries and only leads to a certain increase and a certain improvement. As a matter of fact, Marx, Engels and Lenin wrote of such a possibility.
However, as a system imperialism cannot ensure, in the historical plane, steady and even economic development, curb the sporadic forces of the capitalist market and use the potentialities of the scientific and technological revolution for the benefit of society as a whole. Imperialism has all the essential attributes laid bare and formulated by Lenin in the brilliant work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lately, imperialism has displayed new features, which have been profoundly dealt with in the documents of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, the 24th Congress of the CPSU and congresses of the fraternal parties. The parasitical nature and rottenness of imperialism are today more in evidence than ever before.
59Reproduction retains its cyclic nature under imperialism as a system. As was noted at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, almost no capitalist state has escaped considerable fluctuations and declines in its economy; periods of high rates of industrial growth in individual countries have alternated with low growth rates and, frequently, with production declines. Since the Second World War there have been four economic crises in the USA (1948--1949, 1953--1954, 1957--1958 and 1960--1961). For more than two years the USA has been in the grip of its fifth crisis. To some extent this is affecting the world capitalist economy. True, since the war the phases of the cycle have not concurred in time in the different countries. These crises are augmented by crises in individual industries. Lastly, an acute currency and financial crisis is shaking the capitalist system.
Discovered by Karl Marx, the universal law of capitalist accumulation remains in operation. According to this law wealth accumulates in the capitalist world and a reserve army of labour takes shape.
Despite the unparalleled possibilities being opened up by the present development of science and technology, capitalist society cannot deliver itself from unemployment, need and uncertainty of the morrow. In the capitalist world more and more people are finding that instead of narrowing, the gap between the growth of the volume of production and labour productivity, on the one hand, and the level of real wages is growing steadily wider, and that all the assertions of the apologists of capitalism about a ``revolution in incomes" and ``social partnership" are humbug. In the USA, for example, 40 per cent of the wages of all workers are swallowed by direct and indirect taxes, with the result that real wages have been declining for three years in succession. President Nixon has admitted that in the USA millions of people are living in penury and there are poverty belts. But this is the lot not only of the USA, but of other capitalist countries as well. Unemployment remains the constant companion of imperialism. In the developed capitalist countries the total unemployment figure has now reached almost 8 millions.
This is striking evidence of capitalism's impotence in the economic competition with socialism. But capitalism is fighting socialism not only in the economic sphere but also 60 politically, ideologically and by force of arms. Let us briefly review the results of the struggle in these spheres.
After the October Revolution in Russia the class enemies made an attempt to suppress the revolution militarily. ``The country,'' Lenin wrote to Gorky on July 31, 1919, ``is living in a feverish struggle against the bourgeoisie of the whole world, which is taking a frenzied revenge for its overthrow. Naturally. For the first Soviet Republic, the first blows from everywhere. Naturally.''^^*^^ Soviet Russia was attacked by the armies of 14 imperialist countries. We all know how that struggle ended. During the Second World War nazi Germany used the military potential of virtually the whole of Europe against the Soviet Union. But socialism withstood the onslaught and emerged victorious. Hence the indisputable historical conclusion: if imperialism's attempt to crush socialism had failed then, they are all the more doomed to failure today when the forces of socialism have grown and become immeasurably stronger. This is appreciated by the imperialists themselves, who frankly admit that today they have no military advantage over the socialist camp. This, properly speaking, is the main obstacle preventing imperialism from starting another world war.
Now let us briefly consider the political aspect of our problem. Socialism defeated capitalism politically as early as 1917, and with the formation of the world socialist system it consolidated and developed this victory.^^**^^ This by no means signifies that the political struggle between capitalism and socialism has ended. It is continuing to this day and is _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 413.
^^**^^ At the 7th All-Russia Congress of Soviets in December 1919, Lenin said: ``... the victory of the socialist revolution, therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries" (Collected Works, Vol. 30, pp. 207--08). Referring to these words of Lenin, some ``theoreticians'' in the revisionist and Social-Democratic camp assert that inasmuch as the revolution had not triumphed in the countries indicated by Lenin, one cannot speak of the final victory of the socialist revolution. This is a glaring example of dogmatism. In the course of the past 50 years the Soviet Union has covered the distance separating it economically and militarily from the leading capitalist countries and today it is ahead of them in the political, ideological and cultural fields. The immense economic and military potential of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries dependably safeguards the new system and rules out the possibility of a capitalist restoration in socialist countries.
61 expressed, above all, in the struggle between the two systems on the international scene. The socialist community aspires to strengthen the new, socialist international relations within the framework of the world socialist system; to facilitate the progressive development of the Asian and African countries that have won national liberation; to promote the further development of the communist movement and the national liberation struggle, deepen the general crisis of capitalism and consolidate the principles of peaceful coexistence. Another aspect of socialism's political struggle against capitalism is to abolish its survivals in the socialist countries, strengthen the socio-political system of socialism and cut short the attempts of the counter-revolution to restore capitalism. Lastly, by supporting progressive, socialist movements, the socialist countries are helping the political struggle against capitalism in the capitalist countries themselves.The far-reaching positive changes in the revolutionary process are accompanied by the expansion and aggravation of the ideological struggle. The ideological factors of the revolutionary process, as Marx pointed out, acquire a steadily greater significance because ideas become a material motive force of social development as soon as they capture the minds of the people. Hundreds of millions of people are guided by the teaching of Marxism-Leninism in their day-to-day activities and are advancing along the road opened and tested by the Communists.
Marxism's historical strength is seen by its enemies as well. Back in 1950 the French anti-communist Jean Lacroix wrote: ``Marxism lives in the hearts and minds of millions of people and is the most important social movement of our epoch.''^^*^^ The well-known West German apologist of Catholicism Innocent Maria Bochenski said in one of his lectures: ``Marxism-Leninism has a magical influence on millions of people.... This teaching is so attractive that it seems: communism with the aid of its spiritual weapon, Marxism-- Leninism, wins a new country every few years and ... in all countries it is followed by many, including highly educated, people.''^^**^^ A typical statement is to be found in an article in the _-_-_
^^*^^ Jean Lacroix, Marxisme, existentialisme, personnalisme, Paris, 1950, p. 7.
^^**^^ Der Marxismus-Leninismus---die Wahrheit unserer Zeit, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1967, p. 172.
62 American journal Time when the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties was in session. ``So the attraction of the Marxist vision,'' the article said, ``may persist until modern society finds a more effective way of explaining itself and its direction. And that could be a long, long time.''^^*^^This is an admission not only of the majesty and invincibility of the Marxist-Leninist teaching but also of the helplessness of bourgeois ideology, which has ceased to be attractive to millions of people, to the vast majority of mankind.
As in the day of Marx and in the day of Lenin, bourgeois propaganda attacks the great revolutionary teaching. Thousands of newspapers and radio stations are trying to defend capitalism, which is withering. The bourgeoisie is shamelessly lauding a rotten system and painstakingly concealing its ulcers. It crudely indoctrinates the masses in anti-- communism.
Notwithstanding all its shifts and dodges, bourgeois ideology is losing the battle of ideas. It cannot provide the answer to acute problems of the development of modern society. It is unable to offer ideals to young people. It cannot halt the degradation of culture and of the whole spiritual world of bourgeois society.
We are living in the epoch of class battles of the proletariat, in the epoch of socialist revolutions. It is not the road of reforms but the road of active revolutionary change that is indicative of social development. The communist formation is engendered in revolutionary struggle, in a clash between the forces of reaction, of imperialism, and the forces of socialism. Fundamental changes and the break-up of the entire structure of exploiting society pave the way to victory in this struggle. ``Socialism,'' Marx said, ``cannot be achieved without revolution.''^^**^^ Nothing has come or is coming of the attempts of the opportunists to prove that socialism can be achieved by some other, evolutionary way, by capitalism's gradual ``transformation''.
The first attempt to accomplish a proletarian revolution was made by French workers. In 1871 they set up the Paris _-_-_
^^*^^ Time, June 13, 1969, p. 35.
^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 1, p. 448.
63 Commune, whose centenary was marked by progressive people throughout the world. But the era of socialist revolutions was started by the victory of the workers and peasants of Russia in October 1917. By breaking the chain of imperialism and establishing the first socialist state in history it fundamentally changed the conditions for the struggle for socialism in the world. A proletarian revolution broke out in Finland early in 1918. In September of the same year there was a soldiers' uprising in Bulgaria aimed at overthrowing the monarchy and forming a people's republic. In Hungary, Bavaria and Slovakia, the bourgeois-democratic revolutions that began in October and November 1918 grew into socialist revolutions. At the close of 1918 and the beginning of 1919 power in Germany was virtually in the hands of the working class. The proletarian movement developed swiftly in Italy. A revolutionary struggle was launched by the proletariat of Yugoslavia, Poland and Austria, and a revolution broke out in China. This was a period when bourgeois power hung by a thread in many countries, when for some time only a semblance remained of the erstwhile might of the imperialist state machine. Unfortunately, all these revolutions (as later, in 1936--1939, the revolution in Spain, which grew into a socialist revolution) were crushed by the numerically superior forces of reaction.Lenin, who had searchingly analysed the course of the revolutions in different countries, saw several reasons for their defeat. These included the , overwhelming military strength of the imperialist powers (``... Germany, which helped to crush the Finnish revolution'', ''. . .those giants of capitalism, Britain, France and Austria, which crushed the revolution in Hungary"^^*^^); the treachery of the ``socialists'', who in Hungary, for example, ``went over to Bela Kun verbally and proclaimed themselves Communists, but who actually did not pursue a policy consonant with the dictatorship of the proletariat; they vacillated, played the coward, made advances to the bourgeoisie, and in part directly sabotaged and betrayed the proletarian revolution"^^**^^; the lack of a firm alliance between the working class and the peasants (``In Hungary the peasants failed to help the Hungarian _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 400.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 353.
64 workers and fell under the power of the landowners"^^*^^). The objective conditions for the victory of the revolution existed in many other countries at the time but were missed on account of the weakness of the subjective factor---the absence of revolutionary proletarian parties.For almost three long decades the Soviet Union was encircled by capitalist countries, building socialism under incredibly difficult conditions.
Capitalism gave rise to fascism and to the Second World War for which mankind had to pay an appalling price. The war accelerated the disintegration of capitalism and the triumph of socialism. It intensified the people's hatred of imperialism, which had started the war, and of its most monstrous creation---fascism. The defeat of the nazi hordes, in which the principal role was played by the Soviet Union, immensely enhanced the prestige of the socialist state in the eyes of progressive people throughout the world. Favourable conditions were created in the world for the growth of the powerful forces of peace, democracy and socialism.
Socialist revolutions triumphed in a number of countries, which together with the Soviet Union and Mongolia formed the world socialist system embracing vast territories in Europe and Asia. Despite imperialism's efforts to strangle the revolutionary movement, a socialist revolution was consummated in Cuba, near the frontiers of the United States of America. As a matter of fact, the experience of the Cuban revolution is evidence that today the victory of the revolution is by no means linked with a country's geographical location or its economic level.
The main front of the class struggle has shifted to the world scene, to the scene of the struggle between the imperialist and socialist systems. However, the class battles are continuing and growing in intensity in the capitalist countries. This is borne out by the steady growth of the strike movement: the strikes in 1919--1939 involved 74.5 million people, in 1946--1959 150 million, and in 1960--1968 300 million. Strikes are a constant factor of social life in the USA, Italy, France, Japan, Britain, Canada, Spain and other countries. From 1963 to 1967 the number of _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 111.
__PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5---1157 65 nationwide strikes more than doubled as compared with the 80 in the preceding five-year period.^^*^^Since 1917 the history of social development has thus been one of unceasing class battles by the proletariat and its allies. This was clearly shown in the 1960s, which began with the general strike of 1959--1960 in Belgium and ended with massive action by the people in 1968--1969 in France and other countries.
The ground for the powerful movement of May-June 1968 in France was prepared by the long struggle of the working class and the Communist Party against the Gaullist regime and the monopolies. A highlight of the 1968 movement, in which 9 million people took part only in the strikes, was, as Waldeck Rochet said at the 1969 Meeting, that ``in addition to advancing its immediate economic demands, it directed a blow against the domination of national life by the monopolies and their state power. It sought deep-going democratic change in the social, economic and political spheres. It showed that the ideas of socialism have been accepted by broad sections of the working people.''^^**^^
In Italy the mounting strike struggle on a nation-wide scale, the great political battles and the success of the Leftwing forces at the elections were a severe blow to the attempts of the ruling class to stabilise capitalism. In Spain the struggle of the masses is increasingly undermining the _-_-_
^^*^^ The dynamics of the strike movement is also shown by the following figures on the number of participants in strikes (in millions) in the capitalist countries:
Year Capitalist world Industrialised countries 13 16 44 42 41 42 35 20 27 30 43 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 26 36 56 51 55 57 56 36 44 46 57
(Leninism and the World Revolutionary Working-Class Movement, Moscow, 1971, p. 334.)
^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 112.
66 Franco regime. By their scale and the number of participants the latest strikes in Britain may be compared only with the general strike of 1926. The class battles of the working people, students and other social strata are gaining momentum in Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, the Federal Republic of Germany, Uruguay, Belgium, Portugal, the Scandinavian and other countries. The mass struggle is on the upswing in the United States of America, the mainstay of world imperialism.This aggravation and expansion of the class struggle, which has acquired an international character, is eroding and shaking capitalism. Pressure by the masses is fettering the forces of imperialism,- forcing it to go over to the defensive, and weakens its influence on the course of the struggle in the world. ``The big battles of the working class in a number of capitalist countries,'' states the Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``are undermining the power of the monopolies, intensifying the instability and contradictions of capitalist society. These struggles foreshadow new class battles which could lead to fundamental social change, socialist revolution, and the establishment of the power of the working class in alliance with other segments of the working people.''^^*^^
The present is the epoch of democratic and national revolutions, of the abolition of the colonial system. A glance at the political map of the world shows the results of the liberation struggle of the peoples against imperialism.
In 1900 the colonial possessions of all the imperialist powers occupied a territory of 73 million square kilometres (roughly 55 per cent of the earth's land area) and had a population of 530 millions (35 per cent of the world's population at the time).^^**^^ In addition, many countries, while formally retaining state independence, had in fact been turned into semi-colonies. At the time of the Great October Socialist Revolution 77 per cent of the world's territory and 66 per cent of its population were under colonial and imperialist rule. Imperialism used its colonial possessions as sources of farm products and raw materials. For centuries the capitalist system had relied on its colonies, tapping reserves from _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 24.
^^**^^ A. G. Shiger, A Political Map of the World (1900--1965). A Reference Book, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1966, p. 14.
__PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 them for its own growth and enrichment and for the struggle against the revolutionary movement. The peoples of the colonial countries were denied rights and kept in a state of destitution.As a result of the liberation movement after the Second World War more than 1,500 million people broke away from colonial captivity and over 70 countries achieved national independence. But colonial slavery has not yet been totally uprooted: it is still the lot of several tens of millions of people.
The change of the political map has deprived capitalism of its source of fabulous profit and cheap raw materials, and of its buttress against the revolutionary movement. Take India. On the admission of the British bourgeoisie itself, India was a goldmine for Britain. The British imperialists annually wrung 150--180 million pounds sterling from that colony; ten colonial slaves worked for every Englishman. Belgium netted an annual colonial profit of hundreds of millions of dollars from the exploitation of the Congo. Immense wealth flowed to the financial magnates from other colonial countries. True, in the former colonies and semi-colonies the imperialists still have strong economic positions, but these countries are increasingly ousting the foreign monopolies and building up their own industry.
The new states are playing a steadily larger role as a factor of the world revolutionary movement. The new economic conditions taking shape in the young sovereign states and the new international conditions as a whole are enabling them to establish increasingly more active economic and political relations not only within the capitalist system but also with countries belonging to the world socialist system.
This explains why imperialism is so fiercely striving to preserve its influence in the former colonial and dependent countries and employs neocolonialist methods to hinder economic and social progress in the countries that have won political independence. The imperialists are imposing on these countries economic treaties and military-political pacts prejudicial to their sovereignty, exploiting them by exporting capital, dictating unequal terms in trade, manipulating prices and the exchange rate, extending loans and various forms of so-called aid and pressuring these countries through international financial organisations. This is widening the 68 gulf between the highly developed capitalist states and most of the Asian, African and Latin American countries. By encouraging reactionary nationalism, the imperialists seek to cause friction within these countries and provoke a split between them. Although this policy of imperialism has had some success, the main trend of the national liberation movement has not changed and it is establishing itself as an important feature of our epoch. ``In the past decade" states the Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``the role of the anti-imperialist movement of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the world revolutionary process had continued to grow.''^^*^^
The present epoch witnesses the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of communism on a global scale. This springs directly from preceding features and is their concentrated expression. Therefore, without repeating what we have said, let us turn to some concrete examples of recent years which show that imperialism cannot stop the development of the forces of socialism.
First of all, mention must be made of the war in Vietnam and in Cambodia and Laos. The fact that the United States of America, the most powerful imperialist state, cannot win that war is distinctive proof that there is a flagrant contradiction between imperialism's aggressive plans and its ability to carry out these plans. The reasons for the failure of US policy in Vietnam are the unparalleled heroism of the Vietnamese people, the skilful leadership by their vanguard---the Working People's Party of Vietnam and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam---the massive assistance to the Vietnamese people by socialist countries, above all by the Soviet Union, and the growing world-wide solidarity with the people of Vietnam.
The imperialists have been unable to destroy the progressive regimes in Arab countries, crush the Arab liberation movement and preserve or restore their positions in the Middle East. The aggression launched by Israel, creature of world imperialism, against Arab states has broken down politically.
Incontrovertible evidence of imperialism's weakness is its total inability to crush heroic Cuba, the first bastion of _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 27.
69 socialism in the Western Hemisphere. Neither the economic blockade nor various provocations and subversion are preventing the courageous Cuban people from building socialism 90 miles away from the USA.World imperialism's plans have suffered a complete fiasco in Czechoslovakia. The socialist gains in that country have been upheld thanks to the determined action by five socialist countries, and the courageous and uncompromising struggle of the internationalist forces in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia supported by the working class, the peasants and all other honest people in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.
The attempts of the imperialists to revise the results of the Second World War have ended in hopeless failure. Their intrigues are being successfully cut short in the German Democratic Republic and the Korean People's Democratic Republic.
Such are the salient facts of present-day history and they eloquently show that imperialism is unable to recover the positions it has lost or to stop or even hold up the revolutionary process.
Does this signify that for the revolutionary movement imperialism is no longer a serious and dangerous adversary? Not at all. Imperialism remains aggressive and has not abandoned (with a risk to itself) its preparations for a war against socialist countries, particularly against the Soviet Union. Through its policy of ``building bridges" and `` softening up" individual socialist countries, imperialism seeks to tear them away from the socialist community. It is sparking local conflicts, each of which is a menace to world peace. It is redoubling its efforts to maintain a neocolonialist hold on countries that have recently liberated themselves from colonial tyranny. It organises reactionary coups in countries bent on independent development. It has recourse to the most subtle means to obstruct the struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries and halt the irreversible decline of capitalism.
Not all of imperialism's efforts have been abortive, however. During the past few years it has succeeded in forcing a number of setbacks on the anti-imperialist forces in the different continents: But these are temporary setbacks. They have no strategic significance and affect only individual 70 sectors of the international class struggle. It would, therefore, be damaging for the revolutionary forces to underrate or overrate the imperialist threat; extremes hamstring the Communists and the working people in their anti-- imperialist struggle. The 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties stressed that it was vital to activate this struggle and clearly charted its main directions: ``The working class, the democratic and revolutionary forces, the peoples must unite and act jointly in order to put an end to imperialism's criminal actions which can bring still graver suffering to mankind. To curb the aggressors and liberate mankind from imperialism is the mission of the working class, of all the anti-imperialist forces fighting for peace, democracy, national independence and socialism.''^^*^^
The salient features of the present epoch thus fully bear out the conclusion drawn by the Communists that this is the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, that the most progressive social system is moving from triumph to triumph, convincingly demonstrating its superiority over capitalism, opening new vistas for mankind and calling upon the peoples to fight for social and national liberation.
Capitalism is doomed. It has no solution for acute social and political problems. It cannot deliver people from the threat of famine and poverty, from the threat of new wars.
A few years before the October Revolution 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. It has solved the most complicated technical problems---and has blocked the application of technical improvements....
``Civilisation, freedom and wealth under capitalism call to mind the rich glutton who is rotting alive but will not let what is young live on.
``But the young is growing and will emerge supreme in spite of all.''^^**^^
These words of Lenin, penetrating and full of faith in the future, inspire Communists in their revolutionary struggle for the social reshaping of the world.
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 21.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 389.
71 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. DYNAMISM OF THE EPOCHAn analysis of the basic features of the present epoch not only brings us round to the general conclusion that the downfall of capitalism and its replacement by socialism are inevitable. It helps us to explain correctly the key sociopolitical laws and phenomena of our day.
For the force, breadth, depth and rate of economic, social and ideological revolutionary changes the modern epoch has no precedent. It is characterised by unparalleled dynamism, swift development, rapid change of events and a considerable acceleration of progressive processes.
It took several thousand years to replace the clan system by slave-owning society, and nearly 700 years to oust the slave-owning system in favour of feudalism. Some 300 years went by before feudalism was finally superseded by capitalism. The process of the capitalist system's displacement by socialism has been going on for a little over 50 years. Although this process has not been consummated, the reforms that are taking place are much broader and more far-- reaching than the changes that marked the appearance of preceding systems. Since the Great October Socialist Revolution the socialist system has been established in 14 countries. Today the socialist states have 26 per cent of the world's land area and 35 per cent of its population. These figures are evidence of capitalism's rapid supplanting by the socialist system. But this is only one side of the issue. The other side is that the rate of growth of socialist productive forces and of the qualitative improvement of the socialist mode of production is steadily gaining increasing momentum and is further aggravating all the contradictions between the new and the old world, and steps up the revolutionary movement aimed at resolving these contradictions. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that on the historical level the speed with which capitalism is being supplanted by socialism is inexorably growing, not slackening.
To understand the dynamism of the present epoch correctly we must analyse the contradictions intrinsic to it. Why? Because contradictions are the motive forces of social development. Society develops through the solution of the 72 contradictions in it and through the surmounting of the conflict between contradictions.
The whole history of mankind is a history of the birth, exacerbation and solution of the most diverse contradictions. In a class society these are contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production, between the basis and the superstructure, between the ruling classes and the oppressed masses, the contradictions in the ruling elite, the contradictions between elements of the superstructure, and so forth. Acquiring the form of a social conflict, contradictions are always resolved only as a result of an acute class struggle.
After the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia and then in other countries, new kinds of contradictions appeared in the world and, at the same time, changes took place in the scale and form of the contradictions inherent in capitalist society.
Our epoch witnesses a complex intertwining of the most violent contradictions, among which are the contradictions between socialism and capitalism, between individual capitalist countries, in imperialist society itself, between the social nature of production and the private mode of appropriation, between the exploiters and the exploited, between peoples fighting for national independence and the oppressors, between free and oppressed peoples, between the forces of war and peace, and so on. These are economic, social and political contradictions. What, under these conditions, is the main contradiction, which determines the entire course of historical development?
For the bourgeois system the main contradiction is that between the social nature of production and the private mode of appropriation. This contradiction is unremittingly aggravated as capitalism increasingly socialises production and centralises management. On the international level the main contradiction is between the socialist and the imperialist system.
As a whole, capitalist society represents, at the given stage, the solution of the contradiction between labour and capital in favour of the latter. Socialist society, on the contrary, incarnates the triumph of labour over capital. We thus see two contradictions. While retaining their old relations within the capitalist system, labour and capital are 73 emerging on the world scene and acquiring a new character and a new form.
The new character of the contradiction between labour and capital lies in the radical change of the balance of strength between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie on a world-wide scale and in the fact that the proletariat has qualitatively new possibilities of pursuing the struggle for its aims. The relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has also changed: the struggle now also manifests itself as a struggle between states, a struggle between the two systems---the socialist and the capitalist---in which the socialist system gains the upper hand more and more frequently. Therefore, with its emergence on the world scene the contradiction between labour and capital acquired considerably more force and significance than the same contradiction within capitalist society, and has become the decisive contradiction of world development.
As soon as the contradiction between socialism and capitalism appeared on the international stage after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia it began to influence the class struggle throughout the world. At the Second Comintern Congress Lenin pointed out that ``in the present world situation following the imperialist war, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet, states headed by Soviet Russia''.^^*^^ In a document prepared for that Congress he wrote: ``World political developments are of necessity concentrated on a single focus---the struggle of the world bourgeoisie against the Soviet Russian Republic, around which are inevitably grouped, on the one hand, the Soviet movements of the advanced workers in all countries, and, on the other, all the national liberation movements in the colonies and among the oppressed nationalities.''^^**^^
At its initial stage, when the socialist state was still weak, the main contradiction of the modern world could not operate in full strength. But with the consolidation of socialism the role of this contradiction grew. It is particularly _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 241.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 146.
74 vigorous today. ``Global in scale, the basic contradiction between imperialism and socialism is growing deeper,''^^*^^ it is noted in the Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The dependence of all contemporary problems on the struggle between the two social systems has sharply mounted.This is due to the following circumstances.~
---The world socialist system plays an immense role in settling the main contradiction between capitalism and socialism. Its achievements speed up the process of development, and enhance the dynamism of the epoch inasmuch as they aggravate the contradiction between socialism and capitalism on a world scale. Marxism-Leninism is the predominant ideology in the building of socialism and communism and is the guideline of millions of people waging a struggle in the capitalist countries. It allows utilising society's efforts in a most rational manner to eradicate outworn social relations.
---The struggle between the two systems objectively draws into the movement the broadest masses, who are the makers of history. The masses now play a considerably larger role as the subject. Far-reaching changes have taken place in the social, political and national life of many tens of countries since the Second World War, in the lifetime of a single generation. These changes were of a clearly-- expressed anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist nature. They gave great scope and opened up further possibilities for the struggle against capitalism. The scale of this struggle is growing---for the forces taking part in it and for the problems it is resolving. Its subjects are no longer individual revolutionary parties but large states. It not only influences the home policies of individual groups of ruling circles but determines the basic issue of international politics and the development of capitalism as a whole.
---The scientific and technological revolution, which requires socialist relations of production for its full development and which is being used with increasing skill in the socialist countries, is sharply exacerbating the contradiction between the social nature of labour and the private form of appropriation and, on this basis, it aggravates other _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 12.
75 contradictions of capitalist society. By fundamentally changing many aspects of the production process and accelerating it, this revolution is profoundly affecting the whole of social life. It is speeding up various social processes, including society's stratification into classes. Moreover, it is showing more and more convincingly that as a class the bourgeoisie is unnecessary and parasitical.This accentuation of the main contradiction of the present epoch by no means signifies that other contradictions are slackening or disappearing. The main contradiction is fundamental only in the sum total of contradictions, in their existing combination. Take the contradiction between labour and capital. It is not being overshadowed by the main contradiction, but remains a key element eroding capitalism and must be resolved. This is very important and one should not make the mistake of thinking that since the main contradiction is between the two systems, the proletariat in the capitalist countries may relax its active struggle and calmly wait for its liberation by the socialist countries. On the other hand, it is also dangerous to underrate the main contradiction of the epoch and rely solely on ``one's own strength" in the struggle against the capitalists. This can only divorce the class struggle in the capitalist countries from the global struggle between the two systems and weaken the revolutionary contingents in each country and the revolutionary movement as a whole.
The same may be said of the other contradictions. For instance, the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism in the epoch of imperialism remains in full force and intensifies inter-imperialist contradictions. ``The principal centres of imperialist rivalry,'' L. I. Brezhnev said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``had distinctly taken shape by the beginning of the 1970s: they are the USA ---Western Europe (chiefly the Common Market Six)---- Japan. The economic and political competition between them is steadily growing sharper.''
The Communists cannot afford to underestimate all these contradictions, and they must make proper use of them in the class struggle. The most deep-rooted laws of social development are mirrored by the main contradiction of our epoch. Marxism-Leninism's knowledge of this contradiction enables the revolutionary movement to chart its strategy 76 correctly and find the most effective ways and means of struggle to resolve the conflicts of modern society and hasten the triumph of socialism.
The enemies of socialism seek to dismiss the substance of social processes and conceal from the people the significance of social contradictions and the ways of resolving them. Imperialism cannot count on success by openly proclaiming its real aims. It is, therefore, compelled to set up a whole system of ideological myths obscuring the true purport of its intentions and lulling the vigilance of the peoples. Bourgeois social science champions the decaying capitalist system, distorts the picture of our epoch, uses various theories to camouflage the main contradiction of the modern world and falsifies the political objectives of the capitalist states and the trends of the class struggle.
Anti-communist propaganda, which misrepresents the scientific definition of the modern epoch and its main contradiction, is conducted in three key directions.^^*^^
The first embraces the bourgeois concepts interpreting history not as a transition from one socio-economic system to another but as movement through numerous stages. The proponents of these ``theories'' single out external indications common to all epochs and draw formal parallels between slave uprisings and socialist revolutions, between the policies of Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte, between Buddhism and Stoicism. Some of them simplify or exaggerate some one factor of social development, for example, production. They do not wish to or cannot see the distinctions in the socio-economic conditions of the different epochs and peoples, in the motives and results of historical processes, and ignore the relationship between the productive forces and the relations of production. As a result, they see no progress in history or recognise progress only in science and technology. They repudiate the need for an expediency of the class struggle, holding that it has no prospects and is not in keeping with the laws of history.
Underlying these ``theories'' is the concept of ``culture _-_-_
^^*^^ It was not the author's purpose to deal at length with all the anti-Marxist concepts of this problem because he feels that many of these concepts have been analysed comprehensively from the Marxist standpoint in scientific literature. Especially as this section is of a general methodological nature.
77 cycles" evolved by Oswald Spengler, a reactionary German philosopher and one of the ideological predecessors of fascism. According to Spengler, the same forms of social organisation are constantly repeated in the history of society. History, he says, represents the coexistence or sequence of cultures, each of which is inimitable and has nothing in common with other cultures. He maintains that in history it is impossible to trace the succession of individual phenomena and that it is utterly devoid of progress. He used the similarity of the external forms of various phenomena to draw unscientific conclusions and forecasts about the society of his day.Identical views are propounded by Arnold Toynbee, an English historian and philosopher, who is one of the present-day spokesmen of the bourgeoisie. He says that mankind has gone through a number of civilisations, which are equivalent in importance and ``simultaneous from the philosophical point of view''. Instead of making a concrete analysis of the various socio-economic systems and phenomena in history, Toynbee looks for common features in them and endeavours to deduce from them laws operating regardless of space and time. In this pattern a place is reserved for the ``higher being'', God, who ``charted the general outline of history''. In examining the problems of the modern world, Toynbee rejects communism although he recognises its force and attraction for the rural masses of the economically undeveloped countries. According to him history proves nationalism's inevitable triumph over any ideological theories.
The ``stages'' theory of the American bourgeois scholar Walt Rostow is currently in fashion in some circles in the West. The concept propounded by Rostow is that the whole history of the world has witnessed five stages of development: traditional society, society with prerequisites for an upsurge, ascending society, mature society and mass consumer society. This classification is arrived at by comparing the development level of specific elements of production such as machinery, technology and the application of scientific discoveries in production. According to Rostow all countries were at a low stage of development approximately until 1780. Today, he says, this is still the level of most of the so-called developing countries. In the second stage, he argues, are countries whose development level conforms to 78 the level preceding the industrial revolution. He characterises the third stage by the swift development of new machinery and the beginning of intensive industrialisation. At the ``mature'' stage, he writes, modern industrial technology is applied in all spheres of production and this allows for the transition to the stage of mass consumption, when society focuses its effort on social welfare and the well-being of every citizen. Here Rostow's ``theory'' rubs shoulders with various concepts of so-called welfare states.
All these theories have a clear-cut objective, namely, to supplant the Marxist-Leninist concept of society's dialectical development by a vulgar pattern of development, which ignores the real factors of human history.
This pseudodialectical pattern excludes from the life of society not only elements of revolution but also classes and the class struggle. The diverse variants of the ``stage'' theory are thus an ideological barrier to understanding the actual laws governing society's development.
The second direction of the theoretical struggle against the laws of the modern epoch is to hide the fundamental distinction between socialism and capitalism and advance various concepts, according to which the two opposing systems are ``coming together'', ``merging'' and ``converging''.
Some bourgeois and reformist theoreticians argue that the antithesis between capitalism and socialism is living itself out, that the two systems gradually become alike, and in future will merge into a single ``integrated'' system. They hold that the distinctions between the socio-political systems are no longer fundamental as a result of the scientific and technological revolution and the development of the mass media and that this makes the coexistence of ideologies possible.''^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ It is interesting to note that similar views are offered by Toynbee. In his introduction to The Impact of the Russian Revolution, 1917--1967, he writes that in an age when technicians, scientists and executives ``play the leading role'', the USSR and the USA are drawing closer together. ``By the end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' second half-- century, the terms `Soviet' and `Socialist' will have become meaningless, because the de facto constitutions of the Soviet Union and the United States will have become virtually identical" (The Impact of the Russian Revolution, 1917--1967, London, New York, Toronto, 1967, p. 26). The Japanese bourgeois philosopher K. Okochi likewise assures his readers that capitalism has changed greatly since the war and would change __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 80. 79
Characterising all these views, Dominique Urbany, Chairman of the Communist Party of Luxembourg, said at the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties: `` Attempts are being made to prevail on the working class that if a bit of water is added to the wine of Marxism-Leninism and a bit of socialist flavouring to the vinegar of capitalism, they will get a beverage suitable and acceptable for all. In scientific terms this concoction is called `convergence', politically it is named 'humane socialism' and in practice it connotes collaboration with capitalism for the purpose of saving it.''^^*^^
The ``convergence'' theory is a bid to demonstrate that socialism is historically ``unnatural'' not by repudiating it as a socio-economic phenomenon but by proving that it is unnecessary, wrong, accidental and inconsistent with the true course of history. It distorts the history of socialism and the laws governing it.
Abutting upon the theory of ``convergence'' is the `` industrial society" theory, according to which fundamentally similar processes take place in the economy of all industrially developed countries and this draws these countries together. Rostow, for instance, brackets socialism and capitalism in one and the same ``industrial society" and says that the only difference between them is that socialism is a _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 79. even faster in future. ``One fine morning you will possibly see that it is hard to say whether you are living under capitalism or socialism.'' Okochi calls the ``argument over the choice"---capitalism or socialism--- ``abstract'' (K. Okochi, Vatakushi no keikuron, Tokyo, 1967). And this is what Hans Mayrzedt and Helmut Rome write in their book Coexistence Between East and West. Conflict, Co-operation and Convergence: ``As a consequence of industrialisation as a whole and as a result of the narrowing gap in the levels of economic development between East and West European countries in particular, the similarity between them will grow more pronounced, while the distinctions will diminish. . . . The more this process progresses and grows in intensity the wider will be the gap in the level of economic development between the industrial countries of the Northern Hemisphere and the developing countries of the Southern Hemisphere. Against this background the identity between the two principal industrial types of society in Europe will become increasingly evident as a result of the diminution of the distinctions between them" (Hans Mayrzedt und Helmut Rome, Koexistenz zwischcn Ost und West. Konflikt, Kooperation, Konvergenz, Vienna, 1967, pp. 231-- 33).
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 502.
80 less acceptable road of transition from traditional to mature society. Communism, he writes, ``is a kind of disease which can belall a transitional society if it fails to organise effectively those elements within it which are prepared to get on with the job of modernisation''.^^*^^One of the leading proponents of the ``industrial society" theory, the West German bourgeois philosopher Eric Voegelin, maintains that ``on the borderline between the 19th and the 20th century the highly developed capitalist countries were at the phase of structural social reforms, which could serve as the source of the Marxist thesis of the uncompromising .class struggle and of the revolution springing from it, of the thesis that all preceding history is a history of the class struggle''.^^**^^ The present stage of the development of industrial society is, according to Voegelin, such a ``high phase of changing inter-dependence in society" that the assertions about distinctions between employers and workers and, thereby, the whole social problem are an `` outworn clich\'e''.
In all its variants the ``convergence'' theory is designed, above all, to laud capitalism as a system, and its aim is to undermine the revolutionary determination of the Communists arid pacify the working-class movement.
Lastly, the third line of the unscientific interpretation of the modern epoch is to divide the world into two groups of countries---``poor'' and ``rich''. Its purpose is to conceal the growing distinction between the highly developed capitalist states and the majority of other countries of the capitalist world. To this end all countries are classified in accordance with one indicator---their level of economic development. The differences in their socio-economic organisation, the class substance of their policies and the nature of the relations between the ``poor'' and the ``rich'' states are ignored entirely. As a result, the socialist and leading capitalist countries find themselves in one and the same group.
The ``model'' for such views is set by Michael Harrington, Chairman of the Socialist Party of the USA. He recognises the existence of socialist and imperialist countries _-_-_
^^*^^ Walt Whitman Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth. A NonCommunist Manifesto, Cambridge University Press, 1960, p. 164.
^^**^^ Gesellschajtspolitische Kommentare, 1965, No. 11, p. 10.
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---1157 81 and the struggle between them, but, in fact, brackets them together by examining them within the framework of the more general division into ``poor'' and ``rich'' nations. The relations between ``poor'' and ``rich'' countries, he writes, are just as unequal and unjust as the relations between the American workers and businessmen. The current trend of international economics, he opines, is widening the gulf between rich and poor countries. His forecast of the future is: ``... the struggle between East and West, communism and capitalism, which has dominated international politics since the end of World War II, could come to an end---and be replaced by a conflict between the North, both Communist and capitalist, and the South, which is poor.''^^*^^A variant of the ``poor'' and ``rich'' countries theory is the ``modernisation'' theory, which divides all countries into modern and non-modern. The non-modern category embraces economically backward countries, countries of the Third World and also the socialist countries. According to this theory all countries will be gradually modernised after the pattern of the developed capitalist states and thereby draw closer to the ``modern'' countries. The authors of this theory---Jean Fourastie, Raymond Aron and others---regard the present stage of development as the ``second industrial revolution'', which makes the socialist revolution the `` problem of yesterday''.
The concept of ``poor'' and ``rich'' countries does not hold water. The supplanting of class distinctions by welfare distinctions does not conform to the situation in the different countries or on the international scene. The workers of the capitalist countries live in vastly different conditions. However, this does not alter the fact that in face of capitalist exploitation they have basic common interests. On the other hand, the rulers of backward countries have interests in common with foreign monopolies though the standard of living in these countries is quite different. This division into ``poor'' and ``rich'' countries pursues the aim of diverting the workers from the struggle against the capitalists and sidetrack the struggle of the peoples of the developing countries. They thereby seek to demolish the unity between the _-_-_
^^*^^ Michael Harrington, Toward a Democratic Left, New York, London, 1968, p. 193.
82 national liberation and the working-class movements and conceal the fact that the distinction must be sought not between ``rich'' and ``poor'' nations but between monopoly capital in the old and new countries, on the one hand, and the anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist forces, including and above all, the socialist countries, on the other.This absence of a class approach in defining the nature of our epoch and the ways of social development also characterises the ``works'' of the Right-wing leaders of the Social-Democratic parties. Having slid into the positions of capitalism, they slur over the substance of the main contradiction of the epoch and calumniate the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. In their writings they preach the bourgeois concept of ``poor'' and ``rich'' countries. While recognising factors of world development like the national liberation movement and the disintegration of the colonial system, they close their eyes to the causes and trends of these processes, to their anti-capitalist orientation. The thesis that modern capitalism has acquired a new character, that it has become ``democratic'' and serves the people is widespread among Social-Democrats. This thesis is the foundation for their theory of the ``transformation of capitalism'', of its ``peaceful growth" into socialism. The SocialDemocrats openly declare that the ``democratic socialism" they are striving for has its roots mainly in ``Christian ethics, humanism and classical philosophy''. This is recorded, for example, in the programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. However, Social-Democratic ideology preaches far from abstract ideals, which turn socialism into an incorporeal ethical symbol. Its class content is obvious: renunciation of the revolutionary changes in modern society.
In promoting their views of the nature of the modern epoch and of the principal trends of its development, Marxists-Leninists encounter not only clearly hostile interpretations but also misunderstanding and distortion of these problems in the communist movement. Among the Communists there are theoreticians who underrate imperialism's aggressiveness, fail to see the aims of its global strategy and even deny that such a strategy exists. Others abandon the class approach in their analysis of the anti-imperialist camp and make no distinction between the Communists and the broad democratic forces although there are marked political and __PRINTERS_P_82_COMMENT__ 6* 83 ideological distinctions between them. Sometimes, when they speak of the contradictions between socialism and capitalism, they take socialism to mean the socialist camp and all other forces acting under socialist slogans, although many of these forces, despite the progressive significance of their struggle, cannot be the motive force of socialist development.
The attempt to measure the processes of present-day world development with the non-class yardstick of ``blocs'', and the refusal to see the fundamental difference between the aggressive imperialist groups and the alliance of socialist states fighting against imperialist oppression of peoples, for peace, democracy and socialism, likewise clash with the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the epoch. Regrettably, in some countries there are Communists, who, echoing the bourgeois apologists, speak of the widening gulf between developed and undeveloped countries without differentiating between socialist and capitalist countries, without drawing a distinction between countries that have started out on noncapitalist development and countries with a capitalist and, in some cases, a pro-fascist orientation.
Distorting the laws of development of the modern world in the interests of the chauvinistic policies pursued by the Chinese leaders, the official press in the People's Republic of China gives a grossly unscientific definition of the contradictions and character of our epoch which has nothing in common with reality. The theoretical and political dotage into which the authors of some articles have lapsed is shown by the fact that they regard the Soviet Union, whose entire policy from the very first day of its existence has been directed against imperialism, towards the struggle for the social liberation of peoples, friendship among nations and peace on earth, as belonging to the same camp as imperialism. The other Maoist definitions of the epoch are likewise untenable, but regrettably they are being accepted by `` Leftist" groups in some Communist parties. In the literature put out by Peking it is stated that the main contradiction of the modern epoch is between imperialism and the national liberation movement. One cannot, of course, deny the strength of this contradiction and the fact that it actuates the masses in the struggle against colonial tyranny. But the settlement of this contradiction does not lead to socialism.
84It leads only to the downfall of the colonial system, and thus, however great its significance, only prepares the conditions for socialism. Neither can one agree with the attempts to apply mechanically to the modern epoch the definition that it is the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.^^*^^
But life pitilessly demolishes all the theoretical constructions of the critics of the revolutionary epoch who champion an historically doomed class and offer eclectic arguments instead of a scientific analysis.
The dynamism of our epoch will be intensified with the further change of the alignment of forces between the new and old social systems and with the aggravation of the main contradiction. The growth of the powerful torrents of the revolutionary movement and the enhancement of socialism's influence as a result of the acceleration of the rate of social development create favourable conditions for the revolutionary struggle, give rise to new and richer combinations of objective and subjective factors of revolution and of the ways and means of accomplishing changes, and open new possibilities for creatively carrying out the specific tasks of the transition from capitalism to socialism in individual countries.
The great achievements of our epoch bear out the definition given of it by Marxism-Leninism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. DECISIVE FORCE IN THE STRUGGLEThe new stage of the modern epoch has opened for the working class and all mankind new possibilities in the struggle for peace, national liberation and socialism. The social basis of the revolutionary movement has grown larger. Conditions have arisen favourable to more or less painless _-_-_
^^*^^ The Marxist definition that the post-October epoch was the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions accurately mirrored the alignment of the class forces of its day and was a reliable orientation for the then emergent Communist parties. But this definition does not take into account the new facts of history and the present-day conditions of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, when a new factor, the socialist system, exercises the decisive influence.
85 forms of transition from capitalism to socialism. However, none of this can, in itself, lead to the victory of the revolution. These are only the objective conditions for socialist transformations that can only be accomplished through the operation of the subjective factor, of the class-conscious vanguard of the revolutionary masses. This vanguard consists of the Communist and Workers' parties.``The historical experience of many countries, the experience of the class struggle,'' L. I. Brezhnev told the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``has given convincing evidence of how necessary the activity of the Communist parties is for mankind and how fruitful this activity is for social development. Guided by MarxistLeninist theory, the Communist parties show the peoples the road to the communist future. They rally the peoples to the struggle and steadfastly march in the van of the mass movements for the great goals of social progress. Communists are always in the front rank of the fighters for the vital rights of the working people, for peace. They carry high the invincible banner of the socialist revolution.''^^*^^
The communist movement is a powerful political movement, a force without which the proletariat and all other working people cannot successfully fight for their interests and aims.
The first organisations of the working class were set up, above all, to champion its economic rights. However, the economic struggle could not substantially change the condition of the toiler. More and more advanced workers, therefore, came round to the thought that it was necessary to wage a political struggle against capitalism and change the alignment of forces in society. The experience of the class struggle showed the proletariat that it could achieve its aims only with the aid of a revolutionary political organisation. In the resolution of the London Conference of Delegates of the International Working Men's Association (1871), written by Marx and Engels, it is stated: ``...against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act as a class except by constituting itself into a political party distinct from and opposed to all old parties formed by the propertied classes ... this constitution of the working class into a political _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 155.
86 party is indispensable for ensuring the triumph of the Social Revolution and its ultimate end---the abolition of classes.''^^*^^ Enlarging on the conclusions of the founders of Marxism, Lenin wrote: ``In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organisation. Disunited by the rule of anarchic competition in the bourgeois world, ground down by forced labour for capital, constantly thrust back to the 'lower depths' of utter destitution, savagery and degeneration, the proletariat can, and inevitably will, become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the material unity of organisation, which welds millions of toilers into an army of the working class.''^^**^^Lenin evolved an all-embracing teaching of the party of the proletariat as the proletariat's principal ideological and political weapon in the struggle for power, for socialism and communism. He regarded the party of the proletariat as the force showing the true road of struggle and victory. Under Lenin's leadership, only 15 years after its formation and passing through only two victorious revolutionary rehearsals of mass action by the working class and the toiling peasants, the Bolshevik Party, which gave the world the model for a political party of the proletariat, led the peoples of a huge country like Russia to the triumph of the Great October Socialist Revolution that ushered in a new era, the era of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks repelled all the attempts to turn the party into a debating club, into a conglomerate of factions and groups. They held that monolithic unity and intolerance of actions aimed at undermining this unity and weakening its iron discipline were the decisive conditions for the party's strength.
The Bolshevik Party was founded, grew and developed as a party of genuine proletarian internationalists. It is profoundly internationalist for its ideology, organisation and activity. With a membership representing the proletariat of a multinational country, the Bolshevik Party has, ever since its foundation, been an inalienable part of a single whole, a militant _-_-_
^^*^^ The General Council of the First International, 1870--1871, Minutes, Moscow, 1967, p. 445.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 415.
87 contingent of the international communist movement. ``The establishment of the Bolshevik Party marked the beginning of a new stage in the Russian and international working-class movement. For the first time, the proletariat received an organisation capable of successfully guiding its struggle for social emancipation in the new historical conditions.''^^*^^In the course of history there have been many parties which had called themselves workers', socialist, advanced, progressive and so forth. However, most of their slogans, even the finest of them, remained a dead letter. Without accepting the revolutionary, Marxist world outlook these parties were unable to break out of the vicious circle of petty-bourgeois notions of the laws of social development and of the place of the working class in modern history. Guided by MarxistLeninist theory and maintaining close ties with the people, the Marxist-Leninist parties, which are parties of a new type, have been and remain the only political organisations successfully fulfilling the functions of fighters leading the masses forward.
Let us recall the history of the working-class movement in Russia. There were many of the most diverse parties, from ``people's" to ``labour'', and all sought to win the people. But the people accepted only one party, the Communist Party, and placed the administration of the country and their destiny into its hands. In the other socialist countries, too, experience showed the people that the Communist parties were the only consistent fighters for their interests, and therefore even with the existence of many parties the working masses gave their support to and sided mainly with the Communists. The people themselves placed the Communists in power in the socialist countries, denying their trust and support to the other parties which refused to acknowledge the leading role of the Communist parties.
The whole history of the modern communist movement is evidence of that movement's growing influence among the working masses. In some capitalist countries the Communist parties enjoy very high authority and the support of a considerable section of the working class.
Furthermore, the growing influence of the Communist parties is evidence of the shrinking positions of the Social-- _-_-_
^^*^^ On the Centenary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin, p. 12.
88 Democratic parties in the working class. In October 1917 the number of Communists in the world hardly exceeded 400,000. At the time the Social-Democratic parties had a total of over 3 million members. In 1928 there were 1,600,000 Communists and 6,500,000 Social-Democrats. Today there are 50 million Communists and 17 million Social-Democrats.Other indicators are similarly significant. In the course of half a century the Communists have come to power in 14 countries with an aggregate population of over 1,000 millions. Today the Social-Democrats govern only two European countries---Austria and Sweden. In some European countries they participate in coalition governments. At the beginning of 1970, according to official data of the Socialist International, there were Social-Democrats in the governments of Britain, Belgium, West Berlin, Israel, Iceland, Mauritius, Madagascar, San Marino, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, the Federal Republic of Germany and Finland.^^*^^
One cannot, of course, deny that reforms and measures improving the life of the people and extending their rights have been carried out in some countries on the initiative and through the pressure of Social-Democrats. However, in the period that they have been in power the Social-Democrats have not so much as shaken the positions of capitalism, to say nothing of abolishing it. More than that, during sharp class collisions the Right-wing leaders of the Social-Democratic parties have openly sided with the capitalists and faithfully protected them.
Social-Democracy promised to lead the working people to socialism by an easy road---without social upheavals, without revolution, by winning the majority in parliaments. However, the policy pursued by the Social-Democrats in practice has led them far away from socialist objectives. On basic ideological issues the leaders of present-day Social-Democracy are much farther on the Right than Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky had been.
The policies followed by Right-wing Social-Democracy doom it to the role of servitor of a decaying system and weaken its influence on the course of the social struggle.
The communist movement, which follows the path of _-_-_
^^*^^ Socialist International Information, No. 1, 1970, p. 11.
89 revolutionary struggle, has become the most influential force of modern times. This is expressed by the fact that:---The Communists have translated socialist theory into practice. Today they are more than an opposition force demolishing outworn practices. They have proved that they can successfully administer society and build socialism. Holding high the banner of Marxism-Leninism, the Communist parties of the socialist countries have made colossal headway in promoting economic, scientific and cultural development and creating new forms of genuine popular rule. Indeed, it is difficult to overrate the significance of this activity, which provides the prototype of mankind's future.
---The Communists are in the van of the struggle of the working people in the capitalist countries. The multiform reality of these countries bears out the Communist parties' assessment of capitalist society and shows that the Communists are marking out and steadfastly leading the working masses along the correct path. In many countries the Communist parties have been conspicuously successful in rallying the working people round anti-monopoly programmes and are playing a larger role as the militant vanguard of the working class.
---The Communists influence the orientation and ways of the national liberation movement. The struggle waged by them makes it possible to effect consistently democratic reforms, promote and consolidate national independence and fight neocolonialism. They champion the freedom, national independence and socialist future of their peoples. In young states where the Communist parties have not yet gathered sufficient strength, communist policy influences the course of the national liberation movement through the impact of world socialism.
The role being played by the Communist parties throughout the world is rapidly growing by virtue of the fact that the tasks of the present revolutionary epoch can only be carried out by parties that know the ways and laws of the revolutionary struggle and are capable of carrying that struggle through to victory. It is only the Communist parties who are able to give a scientific analysis of the many-faceted phenomena and processes of the contemporary period, apply the results of this analysis to life correctly and lead the peoples to the triumph of socialism and communism.
The strength and viability of the communist movement 90 have been further demonstrated by the June 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow. This Meeting was convened to reinforce the unity of the world communist movement in the struggle against imperialism, give a Marxist-Leninist answer to many new phenomena deriving from the rapidly developing political and economic processes and the scientific and technological revolution, start a determined struggle against resurgent Right and ``Left'' opportunism, raise a barrier to centrifugal tendencies in the communist movement and cement its ranks.
Many difficulties came to the fore during the preparations for the Meeting. However, as a result of the colossal political, theoretical and organisational work of the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties, the numerous consultations between representatives of the fraternal parties, the efforts of the preparatory and working commissions and the overall striving of most of the fraternal parties for unity, it was found possible to discuss the general tasks of the communist movement in a businesslike atmosphere, bring the positions of individual parties closer together and unite them round the fundamental theoretical and political problems examined at the Meeting.
History has placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the Communists.
In the socialist countries they lead the way, direct the building of a new society, guide the building of a developed socialist society or accomplish the transition to communism on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory creatively developed by them and with account of the scientific and technological revolution, in other words, they provide the scientific leadership in the building of socialism and communism. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that in some socialist countries they still have to deal with furious, unremitting attacks by forces left behind by the old, capitalist system and also with enormous economic, military, ideological and other pressure from monopoly capital in the USA and other imperialist countries.
In the capitalist states the communist movement encounters mounting resistance from the bourgeoisie, and the work of the Communist parties grows increasingly manifold due to the fact that millions of people representing various social strata are being drawn into active politics. In about half of the capitalist countries the Communist parties function 91 illegally or semi-legally. Economic and political discrimination, prison, hard labour and, frequently, assassination have been and remain the lot of the Communists in many capitalist countries. Thousands of Communists and other democrats and revolutionaries have fallen victim to the bloody repressions and terror in Indonesia, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Iraq, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, Paraguay, Guatemala, South Africa, Thailand, Haiti, Malaysia, Pakistan, Iran, the Philippines and many other countries. Even in the most democratic capitalist states the Communists are subjected to various forms of discrimination. The secret police keep the activities of the Communist parties under surveillance and keep special files on Communists and other progressive activists.
In recent years the membership of a number of parties has somewhat diminished on account of brutal persecution and also errors. Some parties have been smashed, for instance, the Communist Party of Indonesia. Enormous damage is inflicted on the communist movement by the different splinter groups directed and supported by the Chinese extremists. Revisionism, which has infected some parties, is weakening the communist movement.
However, surmounting the numerous obstacles, the communist movement is advancing inexorably. In the socialist countries the Communists are the leading force in society. They organise the historical work of reshaping social relations, work that has turned the socialist community into the decisive force of modern history. There are tens of millions of Communists in the socialist countries. The ruling Communist parties which pursue a Marxist-Leninist policy enjoy growing prestige.
The parties fighting imperialism in its citadels have become a strong contingent of the communist movement. The largest of these parties in the capitalist countries are the Communist Parties of France, Italy, Chile, India, Spain, Finland and Japan. The smaller parties are also contributing to the common cause. The Communist parties are active in the struggle against monopoly rule, for the social and democratic rights of the working people, and against imperialist foreign policy. The Communists of the capitalist countries never lose sight of the end goal of the working class and steer a line towards the socialist revolution.
92The fact that the Communist parties are guided by firmset norms and general laws, which they creatively apply in the specific conditions obtaining in individual countries, is the reason for the successes scored by them and the guarantee of further victories. What are these general laws?
The Communist parties are the advanced, organised vanguard and leader of the working class and all other working people. Without their leadership the peoples could not wage a successful struggle for social rights and for power and could not build socialism. They head the masses and rely on various organisations---trade unions, youth organisations and so on. Under socialism there may be several parties, but the leading role is fulfilled by only one party---the MarxistLeninist party, which directs the development of socialist society. However, the Communist parties remain true to the Leninist postulate that the leading role is not bestowed upon them once and for all, that this role must be constantly won and maintained by furthering the interests of the people.
An important law is that the Communist and Workers' parties are a great creative and patriotic force in their countries. The critics of the Communist parties have frequently accused them of ``destroying'' the economy and the political foundations of the given country and of lacking patriotism. At one time a great deal had been written and said about the Bolsheviks of Russia being incapable of creative activity and having no patriotic feelings for their country. But life has given the lie to these critics and shown that all the Russian parties from the monarchists to the Mensheviks, who shouted of their love of Russia, were her sworn enemies, not her champions, and that they represented the interests not of the working people but of the capitalists, landowners and foreign imperialists. The CPSU was the only party that came forward as a genuinely creative and patriotic force. The same may be said of the Communist parties of other socialist countries and of the Communists of the capitalist states. It is they who are the real patriots and who fight most consistently for progress and the development of their natiqns and countries.
The cardinal law governing the life of the Communist parties is their fidelity to Marxism-Leninism. MarxistLeninist theory enables the parties profoundly to analyse and understand the domestic and international situation, map out, in accordance with concrete conditions, the most 93 correct decisions satisfying the demands of the day and the requirements of the masses, and determine the future course of events. Marxism-Leninism is a powerful instrument in the hands of the parties. The Communists safeguard the purity of their great teaching, develop and enrich it in accordance with the changing situation and link it up with the practice of the revolutionary struggle and their own creative work.
One of the principal laws of the development of the Communist and Workers' parties is that they represent the alliance of like-minded Communists, who are cemented by their unity of views and action, their rigid self-control and iron discipline and their intolerance of deviations and groups within their ranks. The unity of the Communist parties is the key condition for the success of their work. They see the guarantee of this unity, above all, in further cohesion on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and in the strict observance of the principle of democratic centralism. In a speech in 1930 Sergei Kirov pointed out that ``in the life, work and revolutionary struggle of the Bolshevik Party organisational questions continue, as they have always done, to play a colossal role''.^^*^^ The demand for party unity, formulated by Lenin and adopted by the 10th Congress of the RCP(B), is a paramount precept of Leninism.
Another law of the Communist and Workers' parties is that they are a living and active organism governed by definite laws of development. These laws include the successiveness of the general line, a constant analysis of the party's own activities, criticism and self-criticism, collective leadership and continual improvement of the party's structure and of all its work.
The forms and content of the party's activities are not unchangeable. They are modified and developed at different stages and under different conditions. The party reorganises its ranks flexibly and skilfully. However, the fundamental principles remain immutable. Therein lies the party's great strength, viability and unconquerable might. In its work the party draws on experience, takes from the past everything progressive and positive, is not afraid to discard what has _-_-_
^^*^^ S. M. Kirov, Selected Articles and Speeches, 1912--1934, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1957, p. 513.
94 grown obsolete and analyses its work critically and profoundly.An important law of the Communist and Workers' parties is that proletarian internationalism has been and remains the guideline of their theory and practice. They intimately combine the interests of their country with the interests of the working people of all countries and of the entire international communist movement. This is fundamental for all parties. ``For us Communists,'' Waldeck Rochet writes, ``the strains of the Marseillaise and of the Internationale fuse into one, and we hold the tricolour of the nation aloft alongside the red banner of struggle of the workers.''^^*^^
The history of the communist movement has shown how important it is for the Communist parties to abide strictly by the laws of their development. Attempts to establish non-Marxist-Leninist principles of the life and work of the communist movement weaken the parties, lead to serious setbacks and threaten the parties with degeneration.
That is why the enemies of the Communist parties are so eager to secure transgressions of the general laws governing party life and activity and to this end they turn Right and ``Left'' opportunism to account. They make use of the Chinese extremists, too, who are doing much to split the communist movement. The 1969 International Meeting, at which representatives of 62 fraternal parties emphatically denounced the Chinese stand, clearly showed the harm that the Peking splitters are inflicting on the communist movement. In fact, they are saboteurs who are trying to undermine the communist camp from within. The enemy lauds the Rights and the ``Lefts'' not because he likes them ( particularly the ``Lefts'') but because they are hitting the communist movement.^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Waldeck Rochet, L'avenir du Parti communiste franfais, p. 161.
^^**^^ The following roots of opportunism and adventurism in the communist movement may be pointed out: the existence of capitalism, which is still strong, and the intensification of the ideological influence of the bourgeoisie (chiefly in indirect, disguised forms); the infiltration of representatives of the intermediate strata into the working class and the working-class movement; bribery of the upper echelon of workers and employees; difficulties in the building of socialism; the failure of theory and the organisational forms of the revolutionary working-class movement to keep abreast of the requirements of the __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 96. 95
Particularly indicative in recent years was the example of Czechoslovakia, where the enemies of socialism---both external and internal---made their main assault upon the Communist Party in an effort to remove it from the leadership of the country's socialist development.
First an attempt was made to divest the party of its advanced, vanguard role. This was started under a slogan calling for the demolition of the existing political system as being allegedly at variance with society's requirements during the period of the economic reform. Another thesis envisaged turning the party into an element of the political system which would include opposition parties, a Rightwing Social-Democratic Party among them. In cases where the would-be reformers of the socialist system in Czechoslovakia found it necessary to mention the leading role of the Communist Party they limited its activity to the ideological and political sphere, rejecting the need for its organisational leadership.
The revisionists cast slurs on the party's constructive and patriotic role. They assiduously sought to make people believe that for Czechoslovakia socialism was a period of nothing but mistakes and setbacks. They accused the Communist Party of subordinating the interests of the nation ``to the interests of the Soviet Union'', deliberately misrepresenting the substance of the economic and political relations between the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. Demagogically using so-called non-partisanship as a screen, they demanded the transfer of power to non-party people, whom they described as people with ``unsullied hands'', but who, in fact, were enemies of socialism insisting on Czechoslovakia's breakaway from the socialist camp.
A concentrated attack was made also on Marxism-- Leninism, the party's theoretical foundation. An attempt was made to effect a sweeping revision of the key tenets of Marxism, its philosophical and economic teaching and the fundamentals of socialist theory. Leninism was subjected to a particularly ferocious attack on the pretext that it is a purely _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 95. practical struggle. The general features of opportunism and adventurism are its petty-bourgeois, unscientific character, empiricism, adaptation to backward strata of the working people, pessimism, nationalism (which is particularly pronounced today), organisational looseness and indiscipline.
96 Russian phenomenon. The history, strategy and tactics of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were revised. The Leninist principles underlying the build-up and functioning of the Marxist-Leninist Party and of its leadership of socialist construction were denigrated and rejected.The party's enemies went to all lengths to dismantle it as an alliance of like-minded people and turn it into a debating club. The principle of democratic centralism was savagely attacked. New party Rules were drafted in which the party's ability to function was undermined on the pretext of defending the rights of the minority.
The opportunists sought to paralyse the party as an active organism and compel it to renounce its general line for an ``action programme" signifying a departure from many of the fundamental provisions of party policy. They pressed for an extraordinary congress in order to give embodiment to the party's degeneration into opportunism. Hypocritically distorting the principles of criticism and selfcriticism, the mass media controlled by the opportunists gave a biased, one-sided picture of the situation in the party. The Right-wing forces set up closed groups oriented on opportunist and nationalistic elements for whom demagogy and blackmail were a standard practice.
Lastly, the reactionaries demanded the renunciation of internationalism in favour of petty-bourgeois nationalism and whipped up chauvinistic passions. They did their utmost to misrepresent the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
At the plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in September 1969, First Secretary of the CC Gustav Husak noted that ``by their propaganda the Right opportunists in the party called in question such principles of our Marxist-Leninist teaching as the Leninist norms of the party's organisation and life, the implementation of the party's leading role in society, its political leadership, the internationalist character of the party and its international relations, and some basic issues concerning the economy, the socialist state and so on. From petty-bourgeois, Social-Democratic and even anarchist positions they criticised and denounced the theoretical and practical experience of the world communist movement and our own party, and used the mass media to drum these views __PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---1157 97 into the minds of people and party members under the demagogic slogans of abstract freedom, democracy, humanism and so forth.''^^*^^
At the 24th Congress of the CPSU Gustav Husak said that ``the deviation from fundamental Leninist principles, from the general laws of socialist construction was the cardinal reason for the crisis development and cumulative offensive of the counter-revolutionary forces in Czechoslovakia in 1968''. The reasons behind the events in the CPC and Czechoslovakia are comprehensively analysed in a document headed ``Lessons of the Crisis Development in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and in Czechoslovak Society After the 13th Congress of the CPC" adopted by the CC at its plenary meeting in December 1970 and approved by the party.
Such are the lessons not only of Czechoslovakia but also of the experience of Hungary in 1956, when the flouting of the laws of party life seriously harmed the party. The leaders of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party stress that that crisis was precipitated in the party by flagrant violations of the principles of the proletarian dictatorship and the teaching of the party, above all, democratic centralism. The fact that errors of this kind lead to grave consequences is shown by the experience of other socialist countries, for instance, Poland, where difficulties sprang up in December 1970 for a number of reasons, one of which was the disruption of the party's ties with the working class, with the working masses. At the 24th Congress of the CPSU Edward Gierek, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party, stressed that in Poland they were ``surmounting these difficulties thanks to the support of our working class, which is deeply linked with socialism, thanks to our party's internal strength, and thanks to the assistance of all our friends''.
The practice of the communist movement in the capitalist countries, too, shows that in the activities of the Communist parties it is essential to apply the Leninist norms unswervingly. A wrong understanding of the role played by the party in the political struggle has always been damaging to the communist movement. In recent years the _-_-_
^^*^^ Rud\'e pr\'avo, September 29, 1969.
98 attempts to spread the concept of ``democratic pluralism'', i.e., of a large number of equal political parties, has had a particularly harmful effect on the activities of the Communists. This concept belittles the role of the Communist party and calls for the abandonment of the struggle for the leadership of social development.^^*^^The current stage of the revolutionary movement sets the Communist parties immense problems. The ways and means of solving these problems have been clearly defined by the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. One of the prime conditions is that the communist movement must cement its ranks. ``The existing situation demands united action of Communists and all other anti-imperialist forces so that maximum use may be made of the mounting possibilities for a broader offensive against imperialism, against the forces of reaction and war.''^^**^^
The 1969 Meeting charted the tasks of all the contingents of the communist movement at the contemporary stage of the revolutionary struggle.
It delineated the specifics of the work of the Communist and Workers' parties of the socialist countries. The principal task of these parties is to make considerably fuller use of the vast potentialities of the socialist system. Socialism provides all the possibilities for bringing the economic and political patterns into line with the requirements of mature socialist society and securing a further upsurge of science and culture and of the standard of living. The consolidation of socialism strengthens its positions in the global struggle against imperialism. The Communists of the socialist countries strive to promote all-round co-operation between _-_-_
^^*^^ As a matter of fact, ideas of this kind are sometimes encountered in socialist countries as well. For instance, they were widely circulated by many of the opportunist ``leaders'' in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. While these ideas are injurious to the Communist parties in the capitalist countries, they are incomparably more harmful to the Communist parties in the socialist countries, where they undermine the very foundations of socialism.
Incidentally, ``pluralism'' is by no means the invention of the present-day revisionists. In the USSR, for example, it was expounded by Zinoviev, who declared that he would like to be in an opposition party and that an inter-party struggle could go on for 50 or even 100 years.
^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 11.
__PRINTERS_P_98_COMMENT__ 7* 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/LCPT354/20070630/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.06.30) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+[)]? __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ their countries, ensure further successes in the decisive sectors of the economic competition between the two systems, facilitate progress in science and technology, strengthen the unity of the socialist states as the principal guarantee of peace, and secure social progress and further revolutionary changes in modern society. They are rendering increasing assistance to peoples fighting for freedom, independence, peace and international security.With the class, battles unfolding more actively and on a growing scale in the developed capitalist countries, the Communists are waging a struggle for economic and social demands and for advanced democracy. They regard this struggle as part of the struggle for socialism.
In the present situation the need for working-class unity is growing increasingly more obvious. The attainment of this goal is favoured by the mounting crisis of reformist concepts and by the differentiation among Social-Democrats, including their leadership. In the Document of the 1969 Meeting it is underscored that ``Communists, who attribute decisive importance to working-class unity, are in favour of co-operation with the Socialists and Social-Democrats to establish an advanced democratic regime today and to build a socialist society in the future. They will do everything they can to carry out this co-operation''.^^*^^ It is imperative, however, that the forces siding with socialism should make a resolute break with the policy of class co-operation with the bourgeoisie and fight effectively for peace, democracy and socialism.
In the Asian and African countries the Communists are concentrating on achieving a further activation of the masses, enhancing the role of the proletariat and the peasantry, uniting all patriotic, progressive and democratic forces and establishing co-operation with them, because this is the only foundation on which the task of national and social development can be carried out. In Latin America the Communists are working to set up broad democratic associations fighting for important economic and political aims: the overthrow of dictatorial regimes, the democratisation of social life, the implementation of agrarian reforms and the curbing of the aggressiveness of imperialism and internal reaction.
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 24.
100Many difficulties have been encountered by the international communist movement in recent years. These difficulties have been searchingly analysed by the 1969 Meeting, which indicated realistic ways of surmounting them, showed that the international working class had common ultimate aims and interests and spelled out the ways and means of attaining both national and international objectives. The development of the communist movement since the Meeting shows that the Communists of different countries are working to ensure the unity of their ranks on a world scale.
The present immense expansion of the front of the revolutionary struggle is bringing into that struggle new contingents of working people representing different political trends and orientations. This accentuates the importance of united action on the part of the different anti-monopoly groups and revolutionary-democratic parties. Unity has been in many ways promoted by the 1969 Meeting's appeal to all organisations representing workers, peasants, office employees and intellectuals, to all democratic parties, to national and international progressive public organisations to join forces with the Communist parties in the struggle against imperialism. The progressive movements are utilising every possibility for joint anti-imperialist action. This requires an enhancement of the ideological and political role played by the Marxist-Leninist parties in the world revolutionary process. The Communists, who are in the front ranks of the revolutionary, liberation and democratic movements, are determined to continue their unremitting struggle against bourgeois ideology, to show the working people the significance of their struggle and the conditions for victory, propagate the ideals of scientific socialism in the working-class movement and among the broad masses, including young people, uphold their principles undeviatingly, work for the triumph of Marxism-Leninism and, in accordance with the concrete situation, expose Right- and Left-opportunist distortions of theory and policy, and fight revisionism, dogmatism and Left-sectarian adventurism.
In our epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism the communist movement unites all torrents of the world revolution.
101 __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 3 __ALPHA_LVL1__ LAWS OF THE REVOLUTIONThe teaching of revolution evolved by Marx, Engels and Lenin and developed by the modern communist movement affects the most diverse aspects of the life of human society.
The science of revolution is the science of creative work. In every concrete situation revolutionaries are able to map out correct strategy and tactics of the struggle for socialism and determine the surest way of transition to socialism only if they take general laws and the specific forms in which these laws manifest themselves scrupulously into account.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. OBJECTIVE FACTORSThe socialist revolution combines the operation of the most diverse factors: objective factors stemming from the development of the economic, social and political contradictions of the capitalist system; and subjective factors embodied in the conscious revolutionary activity of the masses and their communist vanguard. The objective prerequisites of the revolution mature according to laws beyond the control of man. In this sense ``revolution can never be forecast; it cannot be foretold; it comes of itself''.^^*^^ However, by analysing the socio-economic aspects of social development scientifically it is possible, in many ways, to foresee the basic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 83.
102 features and trends of the future revolution, its motive forces and the forms of the revolutionary struggle. This analysis provides the foundation for the strategy and tactics of the Communist and Workers' parties. Disregard of the conditions in which the revolutionary movement develops and of historical laws dooms the revolution to defeat.For an analysis of the economic conditions of any social revolution the point of departure is the Marxist-Leninist tenet that the material prerequisites for the new society are created in the depths of the old society. This conclusion holds true for socialism as well. Lenin regarded state-- monopoly capitalism as the full material prerequisite of socialism. The larger the economic basis of capitalism and the fuller and deeper the process of socialisation of labour, the simpler, in a certain sense, becomes the process of socialist transformation, the less energy and means are required from the socialist power for the building of the material and technical basis of the new society, and the easier, clearer and more well-regulated becomes the creation of socialist relations of production and the building of the socialist superstructure consolidating these relations.
On the other hand, during the development of statemonopoly capitalism, the monopolies acquire unprecedented power. In the developed countries about 70--80 per cent of the national industry is in their hands and they control public and state institutions and economic and social policy.
Lenin made a brilliant analysis of imperialism, showing that socialism is the ultimate outcome of its further development. He condemned the assessment of imperialism offered by Karl Kautsky, who considered that ``the time is not too far off when these magnates of capital will unite on a world scale in a single world trust, substituting an internationally united finance capital for the competition and struggle between sums of finance capital nationally isolated''.^^*^^
Lenin noted that ``with Kautsky, in particular, his clear break with Marxism has ... taken the form of a dream of `peaceful' capitalism''.^^**^^ ``There is no doubt,'' he wrote, ``that the trend of development is towards a single world trust absorbing all enterprises without exception and all _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 105.
^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 105--06.
103 states without exception. But this development proceeds in such circumstances, at such a pace, through such contradictions, conflicts and upheavals---not only economic but political, national, etc.---that inevitably imperialism will burst and capitalism will be transformed into its opposite long before one world trust materialises, before the 'ultra-- imperialist', world-wide amalgamation of national finance capitals takes place.''^^*^^The concrete factors of the development of the objective material prerequisites of socialism determine the distinctive features of the objective and subjective conditions of the revolution. There is a very clear-cut dependence between the development level of the material basis and the forms of the revolutionary transformations. A revolutionary situation may arise even when the material prerequisites of socialism have not completely matured. To some extent the material prerequisites of the socialist revolution influence the demands, slogans and tactics of the revolutionary forces and the forms of the class alliances.
The material and organisational prerequisites of the socialist revolution taking shape within the framework of capitalism fall into the following main groups:
1. The material framework of the new economic management, and the concentration and centralisation of the means of production allowing for a regulated process of labour. In the economically developed capitalist countries the concentration and monopolisation of production expressing the social nature of labour have reached an exceedingly high level.^^**^^ However, the fruits of socialised labour are _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 107.
^^**^^ In US industry in 1947 firms operating two or more enterprises employed 56 per cent of the factory and office workers and accounted for 59 per cent of the net product. In 1958 these firms had 65.6 per cent of the total number of factory and office workers and produced 73 per cent of the net output. The largest of the monopolies run scores of enterprises: General Motors---128 factories; Ford---57; General Electric---175; and so on (see Problemy sovremennogo imperializma, Moscow, 1968, pp. 9-10). No joint-stock companies with a capital of over 1,000 million marks existed in nazi Germany in 1938 or in West Germany in 1954, but by June 30, 1966 there were three such giants with a total capital of 3,552,000 million West German marks. From 1938 to 1966 the number of joint-stock companies with a capital of over 100 million marks increased from 30 to 92 (3.7 per cent of the jointstock companies in West Germany), while their fixed capital increased __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 105. 104 enjoyed by the capitalist monopolies. Under capitalism the huge material and technical basis is fettered by private ownership and used to preserve the supremacy of the relatively small exploiting class and protect the imperialist system.
As Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USA, pointed out, in the United States of America, which is the most highly developed capitalist country, the ``financial-industrial capitalist complex, interlocked with the powers of the state machinery at its service, with the new scientific breakthroughs at its command, organised and controlled through monopolies and ever greater monopolies known as conglomerates, has developed into history's most brutal, inhuman, fiendishly efficient, cold-blooded exploiter and devourer of resources---both nature's and man's''.^^*^^
2. The proletariat as the proponent of the social character of labour. The proletarian mass, i.e., the overwhelming majority of wage earners deprived of the means of production, are prepared, by the nature of production, for the establishment of socialist relations of production. In the developed capitalist countries the number of factory and office workers grows steadily. At the close of the 1960s they comprised 75 per cent of the population in Western Europe (93 per cent in Britain, 80 per cent in Denmark, 65 per cent in Italy), 85 per cent in the USA, 56 per cent in Japan, and so forth.
3. Elements of administration and scientific organisation of production expressed in the activity of the technical intelligentsia and the institutions directing and controlling the process of production. In the drive to gain the upper hand in the competitive struggle the monopoly associations are compelled to plan production and regulate technological and managerial processes in accordance with scientific data. This is forced on them by the existence of socialist states _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 104. from 5,344,000 million to 28,485,000 million marks (60.3 per cent of the fixed capital of all the joint-stock companies in West Germany) (Der Marxismus-Lcninismus---die Wahrhcit unserer Zeit, p. 211). In France in 1963 of the 7 million factory and office workers employed in industry, 30 per cent were working at 500 private enterprises. As many workers were employed at 100 of the largest of these as at the remaining 400 (Waldeck Rochet, L'avcnir du Parti communiste franfais, ]'. 43).
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 429.
105 and the achievements of these states in economic development and in the utilisation of scientific data. The measures of regulation applied by the monopolies, if turned over to the working class, could be used to uphold the interests of the people and not of the monopolies.4. Workers' organisations which could serve as the nucleus of management under socialism. Under developed capitalism there are numerous well-organised trade unions, co-operatives and other labour organisations, which are linked on many issues with the organisation and management of production. In the developed capitalist countries the trade unions unite over 70 million or upwards of 35 per cent of all factory and office workers. Workers' organisations train cadres with a good understanding of production problems and able to protect the interests of the workers in various spheres.^^*^^ Thanks to the struggle of the working class, in many countries the trade unions have won some rights in controlling factory managements. True, this control concerns only technological, organisational, and sanitary aspects of production and has nowhere affected private ownership. But participation in control helps the workers to get a clearer picture of the vices of capitalist management and see the ways of development of the socialist economy.
The scientific and technological revolution and the expansion of state-monopoly capitalism expedite the growth of these elements and enhance their significance in production. In the developed countries the number of true proletarians, i.e., above all industrial workers, is relatively or even absolutely diminishing. As a whole, however, the number of wage earners, whose condition is steadily equalising, is growing. Economically and socially office workers are drawing closer to the proletariat and adopting its forms of struggle.^^**^^ The working people, whose interests diverge _-_-_
^^*^^ See, for example, the interesting data on the training and activity of workers' representatives in upholding the interests of working people as reported at a meeting of workers of the West German town of Mannheim with the editorial board of the journal World Marxist Review (No. 12, 1968, pp. 42--60).
^^**^^ In the USA at the close of the 19th century office employees were making almost twice as much money as factory workers. Thirty years ago the gap narrowed down to 30 per cent, and today the factory worker earns more than an office employee (see Problemy sovremennogo imperializma, p. 233).
106 fundamentally from those of the capitalist class, represent the social force which is united by the aspiration to abolish capitalist relations of production and put socialist reforms into effect.In this connection the views of the Right and ``Left'' revisionists are quite unfounded. The Right revisionists argue that the maturity of the material and technical basis is the principal condition for socialist reforms and that, therefore, these reforms can be carried out gradually on the basis of capitalism's ``integration'' with socialism. The ``Lefts'' say that the maturity of material prerequisites is quite sufficient grounds for starting a revolution at any time without taking other essential conditions into account.
Marxists-Leninists consider that although the maturity of the material and technical conditions for socialism is of tremendous significance to the struggle for socialist reforms it is not a sufficient or the only prerequisite for the revolution. For the socialist revolution to be successful the objective socio-political factor must mature and the revolutionary masses must achieve a high level of political consciousness. No matter how mature the material prerequisites are, the socialist revolution will not take place without the existence of the above-mentioned factors. This is borne out by the present situation in the developed capitalist countries.
On the other hand, it would be wrong to consider that the creation of all the material prerequisites of socialism in the capitalist system is an indispensable condition for the socialist revolution in every situation and in every country.^^*^^ The fact that revolutionary reforms can follow another course has been demonstrated by the Great October Socialist Revolution. The revolution triumphed when the material, cultural and social prerequisites of socialism had not attained full maturity. Criticising the stereotyped thinking of the _-_-_
^^*^^ A group of Czechoslovak philosophers, historians and economists wrote in Rude prdvo that ``democratic socialism can be consummated only in a highly developed country, where industrialisation is not necessary" (July 18, 1968). This clashes with the experience of socialist construction in the USSR, which took the road to socialism before a high level of industrialisation was reached (other examples are a number of people's democracies which had been agrarian or agrarianindustrial countries). Moreover, this theory closes the road to socialism for developing countries that have not yet begun to industrialise.
107 ``heroes" of the Second International, who held that the victory of the working people in Russia was ``illegitimate'', Lenin wrote in the article ``Our Revolution": ``What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, by stimulating the efforts of the workers and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilisation in a different way from that of the West European countries? Has that altered the general line of development of world history? Has that altered the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries that are being, or have been, drawn into the general course of world history?''^^*^^The conditions for the socialist revolution may thus arise where a certain middle level of economic development has been attained. If the revolutionaries had linked the transition to socialist transformations and the change of power solely with the existence of an economy that had fully matured for socialism they would have doomed the peoples of many countries to passive waiting and fettered their revolutionary energy.
Under present-day conditions, when the world revolutionary movement is receiving considerable material, technical and other assistance from the socialist countries, the fallacy of this standpoint is transparently clear. Today, more than ever before, the possibility exists of starting revolutionary changes before the building of the material foundation of socialism is completed. This is proved by the experience of many countries that have embarked on socialist development.
The different ways of approaching the socialist revolution in the different countries depend on the specific economic situation in these countries. However, the present-day inter-relation and inter-dependence of the economic development of the different capitalist countries do not make it any less important to take the situation in each country into account in the context of the situation in the world economy as a whole.
Suffice it to mention some examples of recent years. The monopolists of Britain, whose economy is experiencing immense difficulties, receive considerable support from the imperialist circles of the USA and the Federal Republic of _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 478.
108 Germany. Although there are many contradictions between France and other Western countries, the latter jointly helped her to avoid economic collapse when a crisis hit the franc. Lastly, the major Western powers are acting in concert to save the international currency system from breaking down. International and national banks and monopolies invariably hasten to the assistance of a partner, whose position evokes alarm due to the aggravation of the class struggle and to pressure from the working class. ``Under conditions where the struggle between the two world systems is becoming sharper,'' states the Document of the 1969 Meeting, ``the capitalist powers seek, despite the growing contradictions dividing them, to unite their efforts to uphold and strengthen the system of exploitation and oppression and regain the positions they have lost.''^^*^^Of course, the internationalisation of the economy of the capitalist countries is not an unimpeded process. It encounters resistance from the national bourgeoisie, which relies on international state-monopoly capitalism in its struggle against the world socialist system and in face of the mounting revolutionary movement in the world and the expansion of the national liberation movement.
A deep-going socio-political crisis, i.e., a revolutionary situation, is the key objective factor of the socialist revolution. The tactics of the revolutionary movement are founded on the need to make a correct assessment of the situation and the features of the development of this crisis and to utilise it. All socialist revolutions began in a revolutionary situation.
Lenin pinpointed three cardinal indications of a revolutionary situation: ``(1) when it is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their rule without any change; when there is a crisis, in one form or another, among the 'upper classes', a crisis in the policy of the ruling class, leading to a fissure through which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. For a revolution to take place, it is usually insufficient for 'the lower classes not to want' to live in the old way; it is also necessary that 'the upper classes should be unable' to live in the old way; = (2) when the suffering and want of the oppressed classes have grown more acute than usual; = (3) when, as a consequence _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 12.
109 of the above causes, there is a considerable increase in the activity of the masses, who uncomplainingly allow themselves to be robbed in `peace-time', but, in turbulent times, are drawn both by all the circumstances of the crisis and by the 'upper classes' themselves into independent historical action.''^^*^^This proposition holds good today. From time to time a situation arises in individual capitalist countries which is more or less reminiscent of or, in fact, is a revolutionary situation. The specific way in which such a situation manifests itself in each individual case differs in many respects from the revolutionary situation that took shape, for instance, in Russia in October 1917. In the past, a revolutionary situation usually stemmed from grave economic crises, bloody repressions by the ruling classes, wars or famine. The conditions giving rise to a revolutionary situation today have broadened out considerably and become much more diverse. This is due to the complex nature of the socio-- political relations and the emergence of new contradictions affecting new strata of society. Capitalism is having more and more frequent recourse to repressions, reactionary measures and the further curtailment of democracy.
The tactics employed by capitalism today continue to be characterised by concessions to the working people with the aim of muffling their dissatisfaction and diverting them from politics. But this does not eradicate the deep-rooted contradictions intrinsic to capitalist society. The constant threat of war, the deprivation of sovereignty and the threat of fascism are the serious factors of the day-to-day reality of many capitalist countries and they aggravate the political situation in these countries and lead to clashes between the working people and the authorities, to conflicts that may give rise to a revolutionary situation. The threat of a resurgence of fascism was precisely what, above all, caused the revolutionary crisis in Greece in the summer and autumn of 1965. In that country the popular movement reached an unprecedented scale. It mounted as a result of the exacerbation and intertwining of the crises in the ``upper'' and ``lower'' strata. The mass movement unfolded under slogans _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 213--14.
110 calling for a struggle against fascism and for the termination of the American occupation of the country.Even in the most highly developed capitalist countries many of the social gains of the people remain unstable. The condition of large groups of the population continues to be characterised by utterly exhausting exploitation and an inadequate standard of living. As in past decades, social problems such as unemployment, famine, and poverty remain unresolved in many countries. The struggle round these problems is likewise fraught with numerous complications and sometimes leads to major social conflicts, during which the bourgeoisie resorts to the most diverse means to avert a revolutionary outburst.
The fact that in some capitalist countries no sharp economic crises have been witnessed in recent years and a section of the workers enjoy a relatively high standard of living does not mean that where these countries are concerned the second indication of a revolutionary situation pinpointed by Lenin is losing its significance. A Marxist analysis of the conditions of life of the working people in the capitalist countries shows that exploitation has not diminished, that only its forms have been changed. While formerly exploitation consumed nearly all of the worker's physical strength, now it places an additional stress on man's nervous system.
To assess the present political situation correctly it is important to take the diversity of economic, social, military and moral factors into account. This is the only way correctly to determine the ways of changing every concrete situation. Consequently, one cannot be a revolutionary without closely analysing and carefully weighing all the circumstances and conditions of the class struggle.
The fraternal parties are enlarging on the question of the revolutionary situation in the specific conditions obtaining in their countries. In some developed capitalist countries (the USA, France) the upswing of the working-class movement has brought Leftist elements round to the hasty conclusion that a revolutionary situation has matured. The Communists are, therefore, devoting much of their attention to analysing the actual situation and exposing Leftist adventurism. At the 1969 Meeting Waldeck Rochet noted that the ``Left-wing deviation, which is characteristic of the 111 groupings belonging to Maoism and Trotskyism, is wishful thinking which turns impatience into a strategy".^^*^^
There is a school of thought which argues that under present-day enlargement of the social basis of the revolution a revolutionary situation may not acquire sharp forms. Actually, this notion of a calm, quiet and inconspicuous revolutionary situation, which has not been borne out by the experience of history, can only lead to accepting a nonrevolutionary state for a revolutionary situation. Any attempt to outdistance the course of events and accomplish a revolution in the absence of a revolutionary situation dooms the working people to defeat.
Some people interpret Lenin's teaching of the revolution much too broadly and even identify it with the subjective factor. Such an interpretation can hardly be accepted. The masses and the party's policy, naturally, play their role in creating a revolutionary situation. But the subjective factor of revolution can only be the purposeful activity of the masses and of their vanguard, the revolutionary party of the working class. Without this a revolutionary situation cannot be turned into a revolution.
Another school of thought makes the revolution dependent on the subjective factor's level of maturity. It is hardly worth complicating the very concept of the subjective factor. It is much more simple to regard an immature subjective factor as no subjective factor at all. Lenin put it quite plainly when he said that the subjective factor is the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action.^^**^^
The objective factor of the revolution, i.e., the revolutionary situation, is thus a complex of issues concerning the material and spiritual life of society---from the level of development of specific branches of technology to the psychology of the various social groups. The prospects for a socialist revolution cannot be correctly assessed unless all social processes and the changes in the political situation and in the conditions of the development of capitalism and the working-class movement are constantly kept within the field of vision.
_-_-_^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 116.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 214.
112 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. SUBJECTIVE CONDITIONSThe emergence of a revolutionary situation in one country or another is evidence that in the given country capitalism has been caught in the vice of unresolvable contradictions and can be supplanted by the socialist system. A revolutionary crisis manifests itself in a tense struggle between various class forces, in a sharp aggravation of acute contradictions, in stagnation, in anarchy in various spheres of social life, and in the destruction of the material values created by human labour. However, capitalism will not fall or die of itself. It may gradually iron out the crisis by intensifying the exploitation of the working people, adopting reactionary measures and suppressing the popular movement.
The revolutionary forces have the historic duty of utilising the revolutionary situation to demolish the capitalist system, of turning the revolutionary situation into revolution. As Lenin emphasised, an indispensable element for this is the subjective factor, namely, ``the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass action strong enough to break (or dislocate) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crisis, `falls' if it is not toppled over''.^^*^^
This ability of the working class is built up through long years of struggle for its interests under communist leadership. As the Communist parties see it, their task is not only to determine the correct road of revolutionary changes but to make the masses see the need for these changes, to convince and organise them.
In The Collapse of the Second International, Lenin pointed out that a revolutionary situation obtained in most of the advanced countries and great powers in Europe, writing: ``Will this situation last long; how much more acute will it become? Will it lead to revolution? This is something we do not know, and nobody can know. The answer can be provided only by the experience gained during the development of revolutionary sentiment and the transition to revolutionary action by the advanced class, the proletariat.''^^**^^ Further, he underscored: ``...no Socialist has ever _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 216.
__PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---1157 113 guaranteed that this war (and not the next one), that today's revolutionary situation (and not tomorrow's) will produce a revolution. What we are discussing is the indisputable and fundamental duty of all Socialists---that of revealing to the masses the existence of a revolutionary situation, explaining its scope and depth, arousing the proletariat's revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary determination, helping it to go over to revolutionary action, and forming, for that purpose, organisations suited to the revolutionary situation.''^^*^^The importance of the subjective factor was constantly stressed by the Comintern as well. ``The objective conditions for the victory of socialism in Europe are becoming more mature. More and more significance is acquired by the subjective factor, i.e., the question as to what extent the working class is becoming consolidated, to what extent the Communist parties are becoming strengthened, the degree in which they are becoming really Bolshevik parties, and as to how they will be able to prove equal to the historic situation,''^^**^^ states the decision of the sixth session of an enlarged plenary meeting of the Comintern Executive in 1926. Fortyfive years ago the Comintern attached immense importance to the subjective factor, and this is even more true today when the actual objective conditions for revolution are maturing not only in Europe but throughout the world.
The maturity of the subjective factor is the cardinal condition for turning a revolutionary situation into revolution. In many countries revolutionary situations petered out precisely because the subjective factor was not ripe for revolution. One can cite, for instance, the revolutionary situations in Germany in the 1860s, in Russia in 1859--1861 and then in 1879--1880. Why was there no revolution in these cases? The answer is given by Lenin, who writes: ``...because it is not every revolutionary situation that gives rise to a revolution; revolution arises only out of a situation in which the above-mentioned objective changes are accompanied by a subjective change.''^^***^^ One may make another reference to the crisis in Greece in 1965. The mass democratic movement _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, pp. 216--17.
^^**^^ International Press Correspondence, Vol. 6, No. 40, May 13, 1926, p. 620.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 214.
114 changed the alignment of forces in the country and led to a revolutionary situation. However, there was no explosion because the Communist Party, which was functioning underground, had been weakened and had no possibility of heading and influencing the movement.The impact of external political factors may also prevent a revolutionary situation from turning into revolution. Historians do not always give sufficient attention to the external political factor. Yet this factor has been crucial in past centuries as well. Revolutions have been strangled not only by imperialists but also by feudal lords.
In modern times there have been several cases of a revolutionary situation failing to develop into revolution only because the crisis-hit ruling classes were saved by assistance from the imperialists of other countries. Such ``mutual assistance'', naturally, does not imply the disappearance of contradictions between individual capitalist countries. Presentday political reality offers many examples of such contradictions. Nonetheless, the imperialists are prepared to help each other when the fate of the capitalist system is at stake.
Developments in a number of West European countries after the Second World War show the role of the external political factor. After liberation from the nazis the possibility of a revolution was precluded in France and Italy by United States troops entering these countries. In Greece, the revolution, which had turned into a civil war, was crushed by the reactionaries with the help of British and United States troops. In subsequent years United States troops were used to strangle the revolutions in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic.^^*^^
In Italy a revolutionary situation was precipitated in 1948 by the attempt on the life of Palmiro Togliatti. The entire country was controlled by the Communists. ``The general strike which was staged after the events of July 14 _-_-_
^^*^^ Indicative in this connection is the admission of Professor Herbert J. Spiro of the United States: ``And even when the United States used the pretext of protecting its citizens ... in order to rescue them or to introduce its own armed forces into another country, as in the Congo... and in the Dominican Republic ... its operative motive, admitted soon after intervention, was neither the protection of its individual citizens, nor the assertion of national honour, but the prevention of increased communist intervention" (World Politics: The Global System, Homewood, Illinois, 1966, p. 22).
__PRINTERS_P_114_COMMENT__ 8* 115 would not have reached such a large scale and would not have had such consequences if the majority of the people of the whole country had not participated in it or, at least, had not supported or sympathised with it,''^^*^^ Palmiro Togliatti said at the time. However, United States war ships were anchored in Italian ports and in face of the possibility of United States troops quashing the revolution the Communists held the revolutionary situation from developing into revolution. ``Had it not been for the assistance and the threat from the United States, the present Italian Government would not have remained in power another 48 hours,''^^**^^ Togliatti said in the Italian parliament quoting the words of an American journalist.Imperialism does not conceal its claim to the role of champion of capitalist practices throughout the world. NATO assumes the right to engage in counter-revolution in any capitalist and even socialist country. This right is usually asserted on the pretext of safeguarding democracy, which in fact signifies protecting the interests of the capitalists to the detriment of the interests of the working class and preserving imperialist rule.
Conspicuously indicative in this respect is the war in Vietnam. In order to stifle the revolution in that country the Americans are using the illegally proclaimed South Vietnamese ``state'' to fight a dirty colonial war.
In the formation of the subjective factor of revolution increasing importance is being acquired by the ideological struggle. The bourgeoisie are using ideological means in an effort to halt the maturing of the subjective factor, falsify revolutionary ideas, weaken the vanguard of the working class and brainwash the working people. Today this ideological subversion by the bourgeoisie against the working class takes the form of well-organised and heavily financed campaigns directed with the aid of state agencies. The most modern mass media, which have been undergoing a real revolution in recent years, have been placed in the service of bourgeois ideology. Particularly wide use is made of the radio and television.
The forms of capitalist propaganda have also grown _-_-_
^^*^^ Palmiro Togliatti, Contro la politica internet del governo democrutiano, p. 7.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 6.
116 more sophisticated. Preference is being given to information which presents a digest of current events in a manner advantageous to the ruling circles. This information fosters hatred of the socialist countries and communist ideals. Ever greater efforts are being made to camouflage as subtly as possible the bourgeois substance of this propaganda, particularly in philosophy, art, literature and morals. Every sphere of life is used to promote the bourgeois world outlook beginning with broadly advertised pop-music and ending with spectacular research which is far from always dictated by expediency.Symbolic changes are taking place also in political propaganda. As was shown, for example, by the events in Czechoslovakia, the direct anti-communist indoctrination of the people is accompanied by the preaching of ``pure socialism" rid of elements of a ``dictatorship'' and of the Communist Party. The fact that bourgeois propaganda is using new methods in its fight against the revolutionary movement testifies to its awareness of the role played by the socialist states and the socialist community as a whole, of their significance as the external political factor of the socialist revolution in other countries.
In view of the external political factor's importance in the socialist revolution, revolutionary strategy should, evidently, give more attention to elements such as the relations between various countries and the situation in international blocs and organisations, and utilise the cracks in the imperialist alliances. Moreover, the slogans under which revolutionary changes are being accomplished in some countries should find a response among people in other countries. It is also exceedingly important to take into account whether the proletariat of other imperialist countries is able to stay the hand of the imperialists of their countries and throttle an armed counter-revolution. Lastly, it should be ascertained whether at the given moment the world socialist system is in a position to give the fighting proletariat all the assistance it needs. A correct assessment of the external political factor is thus crucial to the choice of the time of the revolution and to the charting of the ways of its development.
Reinforced as a result of increasing political awareness on the part of the working people, the strengthening of their revolutionary vanguard and the growing influence of the 117 socialist countries, the subjective factor can help to form some objective prerequisites of the socialist revolution. In this connection Ib N0rlund, a leader of the Communist Party of Denmark, raises an interesting point in his book The Communist Point of View, writing that ``the implementation of a broad programme of anti-monopoly reforms may, if it gets sufficiently wide support from the people, create a situation in which the 'upper classes', i.e., the monopolies, will be unable 'to continue administering in the old way'. This means that a revolutionary situation affecting the ' upper' and the `lower' classes may be created in a different way than before---- The new element here is that it is created chiefly on the initiative of the masses themselves and not only when a catastrophe engendered by the old system hits society.''^^*^^
Touching on the problems of Latin America, Rodney Arismendi, First Secretary of the CC of the Communist Party of Uruguay, had every feason to assert that ``both the objective conditions on the continent and the general peaceful course of development determined by the enhanced role of the socialist camp and the deepening of the crisis of capitalism make the maturing of the revolutionary situation more and more dependent on the ability of the vanguard to lead the masses in struggle, on the flexibility of its tactics, the energy and militancy of its actions''.^^**^^
The value of pronouncements of this sort is that they show an important aspect of the strategy employed by the Marxist-Leninist parties, namely, that in strict conformity with the changing conditions of socio-political life and faithfully expressing the interests of the masses, they do not adapt themselves to the given situation but, in view of the fact that the world balance of strength is now tipped in favour of socialism, take the initiative into their own hands and pursue an energetic revolutionary policy.
The subjective factor of revolution is thus not inextricably tethered to objective conditions. It has a certain independence with regard to these conditions. Within the framework of more or less mature objective conditions the subjective factor has sufficient leeway in which to manoeuvre and for the creative utilisation of these objective conditions. _-_-_
^^*^^ Ib Nerlund, Del kommunistiskc synsfniskt, p. 150.
^^**^^ World Marxist Review, No. 10, 1967, p. 16.
118 If the subjective factor can exercise a certain influence on the development of objective conditions, it is all the more able to make use of the changing conditions and to prepare the masses for these changes. As a result, a change of the objective conditions does not necessarily lead to the eradication of a revolutionary crisis, the diminution of the revolutionary energy of the masses or the abandonment of revolutionary transformations.The Communists are not at all predisposed to wait for an ideal, thoroughly mature revolutionary situation. Under the concrete conditions of socio-economic development some elements of the revolutionary process develop more rapidly than others. Favourable external political factors may arise before all the elements of a revolutionary crisis distinctly manifest themselves, before all the strata of the people fully realise that revolutionary changes are necessary and before the ruling classes finally lose the ability to administer in the old way. The task of the revolutionary vanguard is to determine correctly whether the conditions are ripe for a successful revolution.
The immaturity of some elements of the revolutionary situation naturally makes its mark on the revolutionary process and on the tactics of the communist movement. In the course of the revolution much has to be completed and the results of the revolutionary explosion that has led to a change of power have to be deepened and consolidated.
In their attacks on the Marxist-Leninist assessment of the objective and subjective factors of revolution, the ``Left'' theoreticians declare that a ``push from without" is the main factor of revolution. They argue that during a war the revolutionary forces have better possibilities for an assault on capitalist rule, that war weakens the positions of capitalism. To back up this thesis they point out that almost all the socialist revolutions were linked with war.
Arguments of this sort are untenable. The wars during which revolutions were accomplished expressed an aggravation of the contradictions between the capitalist countries (often, undoubtedly, linked with acute internal contradictions). They were by no means evidence of the maturity of the objective and subjective factors of revolutionary change. On the contrary, in time of war the democratic forces find their sphere of activity sharply curtailed, while 119 nationalistic passions which hinder class demarcation blaze up.
The prerequisites of revolution are by no means linked with war. They derive from the objective laws governing society, from the situation created by the class struggle, by the actions of the working people of the given country and by the forces and might of world socialism. To regard war as indispensable for the triumph of the revolution, as a bridge along which ``mankind will cross into a new historical epoch" (to quote Mao Tse-tung) means to whittle down the role of the working class, of the working masses and to provide grounds for the imperialist propaganda about the ``export of revolution" and the ``designs of international communism''. Bourgeois ideologists smear the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and represent them as aggressors, and, at the same time, try to justify their own pseudoscientific assertions that capitalism is ever-lasting, that the threat to it comes not from internal forces but from without, from the socialist countries.
Marxists-Leninists have always made it plain that revolution is a matter of the masses, that the proletariat and other working people of each country prepare and accomplish the revolution solely on the basis of the revolutionary experience of struggle. That is why Marxists-Leninists oppose, as they have always done, the so-called theory of pushing revolution, especially with the help of war. In his time Marx said that ``with the best intentions in the world the English cannot accomplish this (revolution---Ed.} for them" (the Irish---Ed.).^^*^^ In his criticism of the ``Left Communists" who wanted to speed up the course of history by a ``revolutionary war'', Lenin wrote: ``... the authors believe that the interests of the world revolution require that it should be given a push, and that such a push can be given only by war, never by peace, which might give the people the impression that imperialism was being `legitimised'? Such a `theory' would be completely at variance with Marxism, for Marxism has always been opposed to `pushing' revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions.''^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, pp. 196--97.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 71--72.
120Lenin disproved and demolished the ``revolutionary war" theory evolved by the Trotskyites to push the revolutionary process. He called it ``the vile itch of phrase-making'', writing that any peasant would say to its author: ``... you, sir, ought not to be managing the state but should join the company of wordy buffoons or should simply put yourself in a steam bath and get rid of the itch''.^^*^^
Communists are not afraid of revolution or a people's war. During revolutionary storms they courageously march at the head of the working people and accept the challenge to fight. They take up arms if reaction declares war on the revolution. They are prepared to lay down their lives for the ideals of the revolution. Millions of Communists have given their lives in the revolutionary battles. However, an armed struggle by revolutionaries is justified only if it helps them to achieve their aims, if it conforms with the objective conditions of revolutionary development and with the class education of the proletariat and broad sections of other working people.
The increasing internationalisation of the class struggle likewise gives the problem of the revolutionary situation a new context. This has been noted earlier, and in this connection we should like to accentuate the fact that in the present epoch the class struggle is taking place not only in individual capitalist countries but also between the two opposing social systems, between socialism and capitalism.
Thus, when we speak of subjective factors we have in mind chiefly two cardinal principles: the vigorous and welltimed revolutionary policy of the Marxist-Leninist parties and the open-eyed scientific analysis of the obtaining alignment of political forces, the ability to see the fundamental trends of their development and on that basis frame revolutionary policy.
The teaching of the subjective factors of revolution mirrors the profoundly dialectical, creative nature of the revolutionary process. It shows that proletarian parties and leaders can exercise a decisive influence on the revolution. But being linked with the teaching of objective factors, it clearly defines the boundaries of historic determinism, the will of individuals and the initiative of political parties, and _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 36--37.
121 determines their inter-relation and inter-dependence. However, this teaching does not offer mandatory recipes. In this, as in no other question, it is exceedingly important to take the experience of the entire revolutionary movement into account, and to have the ability to analyse the concrete situation quickly and accurately. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. GENERAL LAWSIn Marxism-Leninism a place of paramount importance is occupied by the question of the general and specific features of the transition of different countries to socialism.
The fundamental propositions on this question were worked out by Marx and Engels. Underlying their views was their dialectical understanding of the link between the general and the specific in social development, and their profound study of the concrete conditions of the existence of the capitalist system as a whole and in individual countries, and of the struggle of the working class. Dealing with the laws of the building of communism, Engels wrote as far back as 1845 that ``there are different ways of attaining this goal. The English probably will begin with the establishment of individual colonies and let every person decide for himself whether to join or not; the French, on the contrary, will probably prepare and achieve communism on a national scale. It is difficult to say how the Germans will begin because in Germany the social movement is a new phenomenon.''^^*^^
Lenin enlarged on and concretised the teaching of the general and specific features of the transition to socialism. His point of departure was that since ``the development of world history as a whole follows general laws it is by no means precluded, but, on the contrary, presumed, that certain periods of development may display peculiarities in either the form or the sequence of this development''.^^**^^
A large contribution towards elucidating the question of the general laws governing all countries taking the road of socialism and of the distinctive character of the forms of _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 2, p. 543.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 477.
122 transition to socialism in different countries was made by the Communist International. For instance, at its fifth extended plenary meeting in 1925 the Comintern Executive pointed out that an essential condition for the development of the Communist parties along the Leninist road was the ``ability to apply the general principles of Leninism to the given concrete situation in one country or another''. The main ``link'' by which the entire chain may be pulled out, the decision of this plenary meeting stated, ``cannot be the same in each country in view of the diversity of the socio-political situation that we observe today''.^^*^^The 7th Congress of the Comintern, held in 1935, noted that in the basic political and tactical propositions of the world revolutionary movement the ``point of departure for the decision of all questions must be the concrete conditions and features in each country" and that ``a mechanical transfer of the experience of one country to another and the supplanting of a concrete Marxist analysis by a stereotype and by general formulas"^^**^^ should be avoided.
At the present stage of development, which witnesses the existence of a socialist community and the expansion and deepening of the world revolutionary movement, the CPSU and other fraternal parties are furthering the theoretical and practical elaboration of the problem of the general and specific features of the transition to socialism. This problem was dealt with at length at the International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969.
The Communist parties of different countries accentuate the need to take the general laws of the transition to socialism into account, and militate against neglect of these laws, overestimation of the peculiarities of the development of individual countries and the non-dialectical, unscientific counterposing of the specific to the general.
Why is the communist movement giving so much of its attention to the correlation between the general and the specific during the transition to socialism? Because this is _-_-_
^^*^^ Extended Plenary Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (March 21-April 6, 1925), Verbatim Report, Russ. ed., Moscow-Leningrad, 1925, p. 502.
^^**^^ Resolutions of the 7th World Congress of the Communist International, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1935, p. 4.
123 the key problem in fashioning the strategy and tactics of the Communists in each country and on a global scale. A correct understanding of general laws and of the distinctions in economic, political and ideological issues of the transition period underlies the strategy and tactics of the world revolutionary movement, fruitful exchanges of experience and effective mutual assistance between individual contingents of the world communist movement.The following circumstances explain the existence of general laws governing the transition to socialism.
1. The countries accomplishing the transition to socialism belong to the same social type, i.e., have a similar class structure. In developed capitalist countries, for instance, the overwhelming majority of the population are wage workers, and the number of capitalists is steadily diminishing. In all these countries there is a tendency towards a sharp growth of the urban middle strata and a reduction of the number of peasants. This determines the similarity in the content and volume of social ties, the alignment of opposing class forces and the tasks of reshaping social relations.
2. The countries moving towards socialism have a similar economic and political system. The economic system and the social and political relations are founded on private ownership of the means of production.
All these countries are characterised by the development of state-monopoly capitalism, by a steadily closer intertwining of the activities of various state and public institutions in the interests of the monopolies, and by attempts to integrate the working-class movement into the mechanism of the capitalist state. The political system of the developed capitalist countries represents some form of a bourgeois dictatorship. Even in countries with the broadest bourgeois freedoms and with a developed parliamentary system the working masses have little influence on the policy pursued by the ruling circles. Whatever political changes occur under the exploiting system the institutions of state remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
In the developed capitalist countries the system of political parties tends to narrow down to or is already a twoparty system and, in many ways, this determines the political combinations, strategy and tactics of the class struggle. The massive working-class movement with strong 124 organisations is a salient common feature of the political scene in the developed capitalist countries.
3. The nature of the main contradictions which the socialist revolution is called upon to resolve is similar in the countries moving along the road of transition to socialism. These contradictions determine the largely similar alignment of class forces and the direction of the struggle waged by them. The main contradiction of capitalist society---the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private-capitalist form of appropriation---is growing increasingly more acute and objectively facilitates the unity of the broad masses. In the developed capitalist countries the contradiction between the monopolies and the majority of the nation is mounting, bringing the socialist revolution closer through the stage of democratic, anti-monopoly struggle.
Let us now examine the principal laws inherent in all countries entering the road of socialism. These consist of three inter-related and indivisible groups of laws, governing, respectively, society's political, economic and spiritual life.
The general laws operating in the political sphere include: the leadership of the working masses by the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party; the consummation of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship; the alliance of the working class with the bulk of the peasantry and other strata of working people; the abolition of national oppression and the establishment of equality and fraternal friendship between peoples; the defence of the gains of socialism against attack by external and internal enemies; proletarian internationalism.
In the Manifesto of the Communist Party Marx and Engels wrote: ``Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class.''^^*^^ The proletariat's revolutionary nature is not only due to the fact that it is an exploited class interested in overthrowing capitalism. Other strata of the population--- small peasants, intellectuals, artisans, urban poor and so on ---likewise suffer under capitalism. They are antagonistic to and wage a struggle against the bourgeoisie. However, as distinct from other groups of the exploited population, the _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969, p. 117.
125 proletariat is linked with the most modern, machine production, and with the development of machine production the working class itself grows and develops. The conditions of labour unite the working class, teach it to be disciplined and organised and mould it into the grave-digger of capitalism. Besides, all the preceding classes that had won supremacy had sought to consolidate their rule and impose on society conditions ensuring their mode of appropriation. The proletariat, on the other hand, has to destroy everything that has hitherto safeguarded and ensured private ownership.The proletariat's strength lies not only in its revolutionary character, class consciousness, organisation and steady numerical growth but also in its community of vital interests with all working people. The masses therefore accept the leadership of the working class and this increases its might tenfold and makes its victory possible even in countries where it does not constitute the majority of the population.
The socialist revolution is the condition ensuring the victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie. MarxismLeninism teaches that social revolution is the binding law of the change of socio-economic systems, for it is only by revolution that the old system can be swept away and replaced by a new formation, and power transferred from the hands of the outworn class into the hands of the progressive class. In this respect the socialist revolution does not differ from the feudal or the bourgeois revolution. However, as distinct from all other revolutions, the socialist revolution is the first that abolishes all exploiting classes, all exploitation of man by man. While in the period of the bourgeois revolution the feudal lords had, by modifying the form of exploitation, the possibility of adapting themselves to the new conditions and preserving part of their incomes, the bourgeoisie does not have that possibility because the socialist revolution puts an end to all exploitation of man by man. This changes the nature of the revolution, turning it into the most sweeping upheaval in history.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is the basic content of the proletarian revolution. In Critique of the Gotha Programme Karl Marx wrote: ``Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is 126 also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."^^*^^ This thesis was repeatedly underscored by Lenin, who considered that without the dictatorship of the proletariat mankind could not be delivered from capitalist oppression, and that this would be a major issue in all countries.
The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the cardinal laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism; without this dictatorship socialism cannot take shape and develop. Socialist relations of production do not mature in the bosom of capitalism. They can only be established through the expropriation of capitalist private property. The capitalists, naturally, will not voluntarily accept such expropriation.
History teaches that having concentrated in its hands the factories, the railways, trade and finances, in fact, all the key positions in the economy, and possessing state power, including the machinery of coercion (the army, the police, jails), and the means of exercising ideological influence, the bourgeoisie tenaciously fights for the retention of its `` sacred" property, political rule and privileges in society. To defeat the exploiters the proletariat has to establish its own dictatorship, i.e., its own power resting on strength. The task before this power is to safeguard the gains of the working class against internal and external enemies. The successful fulfilment of this task is vital to the victory and existence of the new society and is one of the principal laws operating in all countries during the transition from capitalism to socialism.
However, as Lenin said, the substance of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not solely or chiefly in violence. Its main essence is in the building of the new social system, in the ability of the working class to lead the other sections of the working people, above all the peasants, and secure the building of classless socialist society.
Important general laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism include the eradication of national oppression, the establishment of equality and fraternal friendship between peoples, and the implementation of proletarian internationalism.
_-_-_^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 3, p. 26.
127Marxism-Leninism teaches that the national question is part of the general question of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The appearance of nations is linked with the emergence of capitalism. With its private property and exploitation, capitalism inevitably intensifies national discord and the oppression of nationalities, and seeks to disunite the proletariat and other working masses of different countries. This fragments the proletariat, undermines its position and strengthens the position of the exploiting classes. The bourgeoisie fans nationalistic sentiments in order to dull the proletariat's class consciousness. History has shown that nationalism is one of the most sinister weapons used by capitalism to safeguard its power.
Socialist social relations cannot be set up without abolishing national oppression and establishing complete equality between all nations. The correct solution of the national question is of the utmost importance to the successful building of socialism. As was shown by the recent experience of Czechoslovakia, nationalism taken to extremes can, under certain conditions, serve as a medium for the dissemination of various ugly opportunist ideas and for the restoration of capitalism.
Trust and friendship are the key prerequisites for the internationalist cohesion of the working people.
During the transition of different countries from capitalism to socialism there are general features and laws not only in politics but also in the economic sphere. Socialism cannot be built without the successful solution of cardinal problems, namely, the abolition of capitalist ownership and the establishment of public ownership of the means of production, the gradual reorganisation of agriculture along socialist lines, and the planned development of the entire national economy.
All the class social formations preceding the socialist system had one and the same foundation---private ownership of the means of production, which was preserved during and after the revolutions. The socialist revolution ushers in a radical change. It replaces one form of ownership (private) by another (public), which did not and could not develop in the preceding (bourgeois) society. ``As soon as our Party is in possession of political power,'' Engels wrote, 128 ``it has simply to expropriate the big landed proprietors just like the manufacturers in industry.''^^*^^
This expropriation is indispensable because private ownership is the source of the exploitation of the majority by the minority, the source of the poverty of the masses, of piratical wars that enrich only the capitalists. It is imperative because private ownership of the basic implements and means of production is incompatible with the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which signifies the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, i.e., of the majority over the minority.
The replacement of private ownership by public ownership is, therefore, a key condition and law of the proletarian revolution and the building of socialism in all countries.
Under capitalism industry achieves a high level of development and concentration. In some of the countries moving towards socialism the level of industrial development may be adequate for the creation of the material basis of socialism. Therefore, industrialisation as a decisive condition for the building of socialist society will not be a mandatory law in some industrially developed countries. Incomprehension of this proposition has led, for example, to serious errors in the development of Czechoslovakia's economy, to the disproportionate enlargement of the country's already large heavy industry to the detriment of other branches of the economy.
In agriculture the situation is different. Fragmented peasant husbandries predominate numerically in most of the capitalist countries. After the victory of the proletarian revolution in any country, a. contradiction therefore arises between large-scale industry, which becomes socialist as a result of expropriation, and the petty peasant economy. This contradiction can only be resolved by switching the small peasant economy to large-scale socialist agriculture. ``Our task relative to the small peasant,'' Engels pointed out, ``consists, in the first place in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to co-operative ones.''^^**^^ Lenin regarded co-operatives as expressing this _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 3, p. 474.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 470.
__PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9---1157 129 association of ownership. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat the co-operative is for the peasants the most accessible, understandable and profitable form of transition from scattered individual farms to large production associations--- collective farms. On this point Lenin wrote that ``given social ownership of the means of production, given the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the system of civilised co-operators is the system of socialism''.^^*^^ Of course, the task of paving the road to socialism for the peasants will be easier in countries where a large co-operative movement had been built up under capitalism.The founders of Marxism-Leninism indicated not only the ways of achieving the socialist reorganisation of agriculture but also the methods of accomplishing this task. They stressed that while the big landowners and industrialists could be expropriated, this was impermissible in the case of peasants and artisans. The methods here were concrete agitation and persuasion, otherwise the peasants might turn away from the working class, and this would irreparably damage the building of socialism and even lead to the fall of the proletarian dictatorship.
In order to allow industry and agriculture to develop under socialism proportionately and purposefully, without anarchy, it is necessary to plan their development. No social system can exist without definite proportions in the distribution of labour and of the means of production. However, this proportionality is achieved in different ways. Under capitalism the constantly arising economic disproportions are surmounted temporarily only as a result of periodic crises of overproduction. Under socialism, where social ownership of the implements and means of production predominates, the necessary proportionality in economic development and the rational and economical utilisation of material resources and labour are achieved through planning. In the same way as capitalism is inconceivable without anarchy, competition and crises, so socialism is inconceivable without planned economic and cultural development. This is one of the fundamental laws of socialism.
Ideology occupies an important place among the general laws of the transition of different countries from capitalism _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 471.
130 to socialism. The founders of Marxism-Leninism showed that the socialist revolution is a revolution not only in sociopolitical and economic relations but in ideology as well. Concretely, this is manifested in the following.First, a process takes place in which the proletariat and other working masses become aware that they can deliver themselves from the chains of exploitation only by replacing the power of the bourgeoisie by the power of the working class, only by building a socialist society. The masses do not at once arrive at this conclusion. It is only through the influence of socialist ideas spread by the revolutionary party and by their own experience that the masses come round to seeing the need for socialism. With the triumph of socialism, the Marxist-Leninist ideology becomes predominant among the working people.
Second, the revolution in ideology presupposes a change in people's attitude towards labour and property, in their morals, habits, psychology and so forth. It signifies the liberation of people's minds from the ``birthmarks'' of capitalism and the conversion of Marxism-Leninism into the general theoretical, scientific foundation of all forms of social consciousness.
Third, a cultural revolution takes place and a numerous army of intellectuals devoted to the working class and to socialism is created. Under capitalism, by virtue of their position in society, most intellectuals are compelled to serve the bourgeoisie. After the proletarian dictatorship is set up there takes place, on the one hand, a differentiation of the intelligentsia during which its advanced segment is won over to the side of the working class and, on the other, the formation of a new, people's, socialist intelligentsia that differs fundamentally from the old intelligentsia by its composition and its socio-political position. In some form, degree and volume all these problems have been or will be resolved in all countries during their transition from capitalism to socialism.
Leadership by the Marxist-Leninist party is a mandatory condition of the victory of the socialist revolution and the building of communist society. No socio-political, economic or cultural changes can be effected without such a party, which knows and applies all the laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
__PRINTERS_P_133_COMMENT__ 9* 131The general laws of the transition to socialism are thus founded on objective trends of social development, which are inherent in all countries regardless of their specifics. The application of these laws predetermines the success of the working-class movement which is fighting for socialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERThe existence of general laws of the transition to socialism by no means implies that in all countries the revolution and the socialist transformations will follow a set pattern. This notion was emphatically rejected by Marx and Engels. ``It would be absurd to aspire to give the movement the same form in all countries,''^^*^^ Engels emphasised in a letter to August Bebel. Marxism-Leninism teaches that while having the same substance and the same content ``the revolution is developing in different countries in different forms and at different tempos (and it cannot be otherwise)''.^^**^^
``All nations will arrive at socialism---this is inevitable,'' Lenin wrote in A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, ``but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute 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. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory, or more ridiculous from that of practice, than to paint, 'in the name of historical materialism', this aspect of the future in a monotonous grey. The result will be nothing more than Suzdal daubing.''^^***^^
In the Party's very first programme, adopted at its 2nd Congress, it is stated that ``on the road to their common end goal, arising from the domination of the capitalist mode of production throughout the civilised world, the Social-- _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx, Engels, Lenin, On Proletarian Internationalism, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1968, p. 203.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 74.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 70.
132 Democrats in the different countries are compelled to set themselves dissimilar immediate tasks because this mode is not similarly developed everywhere and because in different countries it develops in a different socio-political atmosphere''.^^*^^Lenin taught the Communists that in spelling out strategy and tactics they have to take the features of development in their countries strictly into account. He wrote: ``Marx's theory is to investigate and explain the evolution of the economic system of certain countries, and its `application' to Russia can be only the INVESTIGATION of Russian production relations and their evolution EMPLOYING the established practices of the MATERIALIST method and of THEORETICAL political economy.''^^**^^ He stressed that if the study of Russia's economic and political development, while leading ``from different angles to the acceptance of the common position which undoubtedly dictates joint political action and consequently confers on all who accept it the right and duty to call themselves 'SOCIAL-- DEMOCRATS'---still leaves a wide field for differences of opinion on a host of particular problems open to various solutions, it merely demonstrates, of course, the strength and vitality of Russian Social-Democracy''.^^***^^
The unity of the international tactics of the communist and working-class movement, Lenin wrote, requires not the elimination of variety, the removal of national distinctions but such an application of the fundamental principles of communism as would correctly change their form in particulars and correctly adapt and apply them to the national and national-state distinctions. Under modern imperialism, Lenin pointed out, even trusts and banks, while being equally unavoidable under developed capitalism, take a different shape in the different countries. All the more is this true of the political forms in the capitalist countries, despite their basic similarity. ``The same variety will manifest itself also in the path mankind will follow from the imperialism of today to the socialist revolution of tomorrow.''^^****^^
_-_-_^^*^^ 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, July-August 1903, Minutes, Russ. cd., Moscow, 1959, p. 420.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, pp. 266--67.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 268.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 69.
133The distinctive features of the transition of different countries to socialism spring from the following factors.
The development of different countries proceeds unevenly under capitalism. ``There never has been and never could be even, harmonious, or proportionate development in the capitalist world,'' Lenin wrote. ``Each country has developed more strongly first one, then another aspect or feature or group of features of capitalism and of the working-class movement. The process of development has been uneven.''^^*^^ Hence, even if the socialist revolution takes place at one and the same time in several countries it will find them at different levels of economic, political and cultural development. In particular, each country has its own political system, and the alignment of class forces, the relations between the classes and so forth take shape differently. In some countries the proletariat is relatively united and organised, in others it is divided.
The bourgeoisie, too, is organised dissimilarly in the different countries: in some it is at the helm, relies on a powerful police force and has the means allowing it to flirt with the working class; in others it may be considerably undermined, its power of resistance sapped to the extent that it is compelled to make one concession after another to the people. Lastly, the role played in the class struggle by the peasantry, urban petty bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia and even various segments of the bourgeoisie depends on the given country's specific historical development. Moreover, national traditions, the people's way of thinking and so forth differ in the different countries. All this makes its mark on the forms and methods of the working-class struggle for socialism.
An intimate knowledge of the given country's level of economic development is imperative for determining the concrete ways and means of achieving socialism. Lenin made it clear that the road to socialism cannot be the same in countries with a highly developed industry and in countries with a backward industry, in countries with a large-scale agriculture and in countries with predominantly small peasant farms. He wrote that ``the transition from capitalism to socialism is conceivable in different forms, depending _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 308.
134 upon whether big capitalist or small production relationships predominate in the country.''^^*^^ In his analysis of the conditions for. building socialism in Russia Lenin noted that in countries with small peasant economies like Russia there would be many difficulties in drawing the peasants into the building of socialism. These countries would have to put into effect a series of transitional measures which were unnecessary in countries with a higher level of capitalist development, where wage workers in industry and agriculture constituted the vast majority of the population. He named Britain as one of the countries with a particularly small class of tenant farmers. But Britain, he said, would have other difficulties in the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat due to the fact that a large section of factory and office workers had a petty-bourgeois mentality.A key factor accounting for the diversity of the forms of transition to socialism is the creative role of the masses in building the new society. As the real makers of history, the people introduce many innovations into the forms and methods of the class struggle and into the economic and political organisation of the new society. All this cannot be anticipated but it must be taken into account.
In each country the forms of the struggle for socialism, Lenin pointed out, depend on the international situation and on internationalist proletarian solidarity. ``Tactics,'' he wrote, ``must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular state (and of the states that surround it, and of all states the world over) as well as of the experience of revolutionary movements.''^^**^^ It is all the more necessary to bear this in mind since, as Marxism-Leninism teaches, in the epoch of imperialism the socialist revolution cannot triumph in all countries at one and the same time. Examining the peculiarities of socialist construction in Russia in this context, Lenin pointed out that this construction would have to proceed in a situation where Russia had as her neighbours not a socialist France or a socialist Britain that would have helped her with their modern technology and industry, but capitalist countries seeking to destroy the world's first state of workers and _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 233.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 63.
135 peasants. This situation also gave rise to the distinctive forms and methods of struggle for socialism in Russia. The situation, Lenin said, would be different in countries that would take the road of socialism after Soviet Russia. They would have the possibility, first, of relying on her assistance and, second, of drawing on her rich experience.Comparing the RSFSR with the then newly proclaimed Soviet republics of the Transcaucasus, Lenin wrote in 1921: ``We fought to make the first breach in the wall of world capitalism. The breach has been made. We have maintained our positions in a fierce and superhuman war against the Whites, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, who were supported by the Entente countries, their blockade and military assistance.
``You, Comrades Communists of the Caucasus, have no need to force a breach. You must take advantage of the favourable international situation in 1921, and learn to build the new with greater caution and more method. In 1921, Europe and the world are not what they were in 1917 and 1918.''^^*^^
In practice the specifics and diversity of the ways of transition to socialism manifested themselves in the following:
---The different ways of establishing the proletarian dictatorship, for instance, the use of non-peaceful means through an armed uprising, or the employment of more peaceful forms of struggle, the utilisation of the parliament, in particular.
---The different forms of political power and class alliances during the period of transition.
---The different ways of replacing private ownership by social ownership, of abolishing the exploiting classes, and so on.
---The dissimilar time limits for carrying out reforms in the various spheres of the life of society.
In the following chapters we shall examine these problems in detail.
The development of the revolution in accordance with general laws operating on a world-wide scale proceeds through nationally and historically shaped forms and under _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 317--18.
136 specific conditions, and is influenced by specific and inimitable phenomena, traditions and so on. The strength of Marxism-Leninism as a scientific theory of social development lies in the fact that it organically combines profound knowledge of the general laws of socialist reorganisation with a thorough analysis of all the features of the historical situation in which this reorganisation is carried out. Any repudiation of general laws leads to revisionism in theory and to unprincipled wavering and vacillation in practice. Disregard of the features of the historical situation leads to sectarianism and undermines the revolutionary movement.An analysis of the specific conditions of the struggle for socialism is a complex process of scientific cognition and demands an intimate knowledge of the given country's economic, social and political development, history and national traditions; it must take into account the influence of various external factors, and many other circumstances. Neglect to make such an analysis, failure to carry out exhaustive creative research and attempts to confine oneself to copying the experience of other parties blindly not only clash with the requirements of the revolutionary method but ignore objective reality, which is always concrete and unique.
As the fraternal parties point out, they have not always managed to strike a balance between the general and the specific in their revolutionary work. Some parties had laid heavy stress on general laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism, underrating the specific conditions of the struggle. This approach exposed the building of socialism to considerable injury as, for example, in Poland and Hungary. Drawing practical conclusions from this experience the Communist parties stress that the question of combining the general with the specific has to be approached creatively, that no party should blindly adopt the experience of another party or try to force its own experience on others. This concerns the experience of socialist construction and also the experience of the struggle in countries that have not yet embarked on the road of socialism.
At the same time, the Marxist parties are careful to avoid the least underestimation of general laws or any overestimation of specific features. This is of particularly great importance at the present stage and merits closer study.
The various theories expounding ``national communism" 137 accentuate the diversity of the ways of development and underrate its general laws. ``National communism" is a nationalistic pseudo-theory, which rejects Marxism-Leninism as an international teaching of the working class. Its object is to engineer the breakaway of individual socialist countries and Communist parties from the socialist community and destroy the international ties of the proletariat of different countries. The proponents of ``national communism" ignore the experience of revolutionary transformations in other countries, including the considerable experience of the Soviet Union, oppose the unity of the socialist countries, reject the general laws of transition from capitalism to socialism, propagate their own ``special'' way of achieving this transition, and allege that the Communist and Workers' parties are satellites of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. All this is done on the specious pretext of taking the specific national features of the different countries ``into account''.
The ``national communism" theory is not the invention of the present-day revisionists. Attempts to play on the national feelings of the proletariat of a given country and counterpose it to the working class of other countries have been made before. Such attempts were denounced by Lenin. In a work entitled Notes on P. Levi's Suggestions to the Theses on the National and Colonial Questions, he wrote to this German Communist (who was later expelled from the Communist Party of Germany): ``Excuse me, but in regarding Germany as the only nation in the world you are lapsing into `national-Bolshevism'.''^^*^^
Some revisionists mask their rejection of the general laws of revolution with the assertion that these laws are the product of the ``Russian experience'', which, they allege, the Soviet Communists are forcing on other parties. This `` argument" was produced by the revisionists soon after the October Revolution. Lenin exposed these lies.
Polemising with Giacinto Serrati, a leader of the Italian Socialist Party, Lenin said at the 3rd Congress of the Comintern: ``What is the meaning of the tales told by Serrati and his party about the Russians only wanting everyone to imitate them? We want the very opposite.''^^**^^ In the same _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 41, p. 459.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 464.
138 speech he stressed that ``fundamental revolutionary principles must be adapted to the specific conditions in the various countries''.^^*^^ ``The revolution in Italy will run a different course from that in Russia. It will start in a different way. How? Neither you nor we know.''^^**^^ ``We never wanted Serrati in Italy to copy the Russian revolution. That would have been stupid. We are intelligent and flexible enough to avoid such stupidity.''^^***^^Encouraged by the imperialists, the present-day revisionists go to all ends to give themselves out for national `` heroes'', for ``champions'' of the national interests of the working people of their countries. The meaning of ``national communism" was shown in practice by the ``National Communist" Imre Nagy. His pronouncements against the socialist camp during the Hungarian events of the autumn of 1956 were a betrayal of the Hungarian people and signified defection to the bourgeoisie. The same may be said of the activities of the ``National Communists" in Czechoslovakia in 1968--1969.
Dogmatic overestimation of the features of one country and the elevation of that country's specifics to the level of a general law of revolution are prejudicial to the revolutionary movement. The ``theoreticians'' of the Communist Party of China argue that in all countries the revolution will take place solely as a result of an armed struggle, of war. In fact, the ``Left'' revisionists are seeking to subordinate the revolutionary movement to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, repudiate the leading role of the working class, deny the existence of objective laws of social development and propound subjectivism, adventurism and undisguised nationalism. Maoism is described as a new stage in the development of revolutionary theory. In the new Constitution of the CPC, adopted at the 9th Congress, it is stated that the thought of Mao Tse-tung ``is the Marxism-Leninism of the epoch when imperialism is moving towards a general collapse while socialism is advancing towards victory throughout the world''.^^****^^
Also dogmatic and springing from the present situation _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 41, p. 465.
^^**^^ Ibid.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 466.
^^****^^ Quoted from a Hsinhua News Agency text.
139 in Chinese society, where the building of socialism has not been completed, is the thesis that classes, class contradictions and the class struggle exist throughout the period of socialism. The Marxist-Leninist teaching of the conditions for the socialist revolution is misrepresented in the thesis about building socialism ``in a spirit of independence and self-- sufficiency, with reliance on own strength''. The CPC's `` independence" of the world communist movement has in fact turned it against the socialist camp and the Communist parties of other countries and into a virtual ally of imperialism.A form of repudiating the general laws of the transition to socialism as worked out by Marxism-Leninism is the argument that various ``models'' of socialism can be built, in other words, that a socialism characterised by other laws can be evolved.^^*^^ They are thus offering ``models'' of ``humane socialism'', ``democratic socialism'', ``socialism with a human face'', ``market socialism'', ``co-operative socialism" and so on. An analysis of all these ``models'' shows that they partially or wholly reject the laws revealed by MarxismLeninism. Small wonder that none of these ``models'' has been or can be successful.
In the socialist community the idea of special ``models'' of socialism has been propounded in recent years in Czechoslovakia. Some of these ``models'' reject centralised planning and the concentration of public property, repudiate the leading role of the Communist Party, violate the principles of internationalism, and so on.
The proponents of the ``models'' theory venomously attack the principle of a single model of socialism. They argue that such a model does not embrace all the laws of social development, that it sees these laws as unchanging and makes no allowance for contradictions in social life, and so forth. On the other hand, it is asserted (for instance, in the journal Cechoslovackije Profsojuzy} that socialism had, in effect, been already in existence in the shape of several models (the author of the article in question held that there were several ``models'' of socialism in the USSR, for instance, ``models of a partially decentralised society in the second _-_-_
^^*^^ This is not a new way of rejecting the laws of transition to socialism. In the book Attack Bukharin maintained that in future there would be various types of socialism.
140 half of the 1950s, and in the 1960s---models in which the accent was laid on consumption and the living standard''^^*^^). Arguments of this kind clearly confuse general with specific features in the development of socialism and, in the final analysis, give out the particular for the general.The use of the term ``model'' is also untenable in designating the aggregate concrete experience of socialist construction in a given country on the basis of general laws, because in this case an attempt is being made to lump together the general and the specific within the framework of one ``model'' with the result that the dialectical link between the general and the particular is broken.
The experience of the communist movement, the experience of the struggle for power and for the transition to socialist construction, and the experience of the socialist countries show the dangers accompanying any violation of the dialectical correlation between the general and the specific. The revolutionary movement is harmed equally by the overrating of general laws and by the absolutisation of national features. The Communists are successful in their work only when they take specific features into account correctly and scientifically.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 5. THE ROLE OF HISTORICAL EXPERIENCEIn order to chart the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle correctly it is vital to know the general laws of revolution and the way in which these laws manifest themselves. This knowledge becomes an effective instrument only when it is augmented with a knowledge of the concrete forms of the manifestation of these laws, their dynamics and their various combinations. Concrete historical experience makes it possible to apply general laws in the day-to-day struggle. No problem of the theory of revolution can be solved unless historical experience is taken into account. This is particularly true of the teaching of the ways of transition from capitalism to socialism. Any determination of the forms of struggle without studying past experience is fraught with the danger of immense difficulties and errors. It is only by studying historical experience that one can make a _-_-_
^^*^^ Cechoslovackije Profsojuzy, No. 3, 1969, p. 3.
141 generalised analysis of the specific situation and consider it from the standpoint of general laws.Had this method not been mastered, it would have been impossible, for instance, to use the theory that socialism can triumph initially in one country to come to any conclusion about what country would be the first to break the chain of imperialism. Without this method it would have been impossible to make a correct analysis of such historical phenomena as the dual power in Russia in the summer of 1917, war communism and the New Economic Policy. Without taking the concrete experience of historical development into account, the Communist parties of the People's Democracies would have been unable to map out correct tactics during the first years after the war. Without this experience the policy of peaceful coexistence would not have been correctly assessed. The list of these examples could be continued.
On the other hand, concrete experience must be studied in order to understand the laws of social development. These laws are not immutable. They change as society develops. Revolutionary theory, especially the teaching of the forms of transition from capitalism to socialism, cannot do without a constant study of the historical experience of the struggle, without constantly returning to the cognised laws on the basis of new information and new discoveries.
Another crucial aspect of the study of historical' experience is that without making this study it is impossible to form and train the army of the revolution or devise comprehensible and acceptable slogans of struggle for power. However well the Bolsheviks knew the laws of the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the ways leading to it, they went to the masses not with abstract, theoretical appeals but with concrete slogans that the ordinary person, the worker and the soldier, could understand. The answer to the tremendously important question of how to talk to the masses and what tasks to set them on the eve of the revolution and on the day .after its victory can only be given on the basis of knowledge of the history of the revolutionary struggle.
Marxism-Leninism devotes much attention to the study of historical experience and to taking this experience into account in the practical and theoretical work of the fraternal parties. Its point of departure is that objective historical 142 truth exists and that every fact of history may be regarded as an element of a single process governed by its own laws.^^*^^ The Marxist-Leninist understanding of history gives the Communist parties an exceptionally effective instrument of scientific and political analysis.
The founders of Marxism have left many interesting pronouncements on the need for using the experience of history. They write of this in a number of works, including the Manifesto of the Communist Party, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and Capital.
In this book we feel we should deal in some detail with Lenin's pronouncements on the subject.
He said that Marx had never tried to invent a utopia, to venture a guess of what could not be known, that his theoretical propositions and political slogans and the strategy spelled out by him for the communist movement were always founded on known concrete historical experience. Lenin, too, abided by this rule. He considered that the principal aim of an analysis of historical experience was to ascertain the cardinal laws of the class struggle. He repeatedly made the point that it was important to study historical experience and take it into consideration, stressing that unless this was done no advance could be made and Communists could not carry on with their work.
He said that a Communist Party could fashion scientific strategy and tactics only when it takes into account past experience---the experience of its own country, the experience of the revolutionary masses of that country and its own experience, and also the experience of other countries, parties and revolutionary peoples, of other contingents of the international communist movement. Lenin offered brilliant examples of such an analysis of the political _-_-_
^^*^^ The various trends of bourgeois historical science regard history as a simple compilation of facts, as the fruit of the human mind, and so forth. It is contended that history has no significance or that there is an infinite diversity of meaning in it. The reactionary German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued, for instance, that historical facts were of no importance; the thing that mattered was how these facts were interpreted.
The objective content of history is rejected also by the school of thought which says that ``history is politics reversed into the past''. According to this formula, historical facts may be modified in any way to suit a definite policy.
143 experience of other parties, other revolutions, other popular movements and other countries. ``One cannot help admiring how deeply Lenin went into the essence of the problems of the international working-class movement with all their individual specifics in the different countries,'' B. N. Ponomaryov, Secretary of the CC CPSU, noted at the international theoretical conference on ``Leninism and Contemporaneity''. ``While fighting for the victory of the revolution in Russia, he was well informed on the problems of the working class in France and Britain, in Germany and Austria-Hungary, in Italy and America, in Belgium and Switzerland, in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, in Ireland, the Balkan and other countries.``He knew the strong and weak points of the different contingents of the working-class movement, their place and potentialities in the common front of revolutionary forces. Allowing for the uneven development of the revolutionary struggle, he analysed its causes and possible consequences. He kept the political and social changes in the life of the millions of the East---from China and India to Persia and Turkey---constantly in his field of vision.
``As a great revolutionary and internationalist Lenin thought in terms of the whole planet, in terms of the epoch''.^^*^^
This, in fact, was what enabled him to make a profound analysis of the Bolshevik Party's experience and scientifically formulate its strategy, tactics and programme. At the same time, he called on foreign comrades to adopt a correct approach to the use of the Russian experience, stressing that not all of this experience was suitable in the specific conditions of other countries, that foreign Communists should `` assimilate part of the Russian experience''.^^**^^
This approach to an analysis of the historical experience of his own and other countries, of world history, enabled Lenin confidently to assess events that were still in the process of development and correctly show their basic trends. This is precisely what allowed him to acquire a keen understanding of historical experience, separate the regular from the casual, fight errors and attempts to give out the _-_-_
^^*^^ Leninism and the Revolutionary Process, Prague, 1970, p. 10.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 431.
144 casual or narrow-national for manifestations of general laws, and oppose efforts to impose narrow national experience on the international communist movement. This is what helped him to expose the bourgeois and opportunist falsifications of the revolutionary struggle.In analysing historical experience, Lenin always considered it from a broad social angle. Such was his approach to the experience of past and contemporary major mass actions, and to the activities of political parties and of their theoreticians and leaders. Such was his approach to the historical lessons of crucial socio-political changes and social revolutions, to the new elements introduced by the revolutionary creativity of the masses. He examined economic crises, political upheavals, the consequences of wars and so forth against a broad social background. He made all his analyses from the viewpoint of the direct practical activity of the masses, never confining himself to definite continents or leading countries, regardless of the role they played in world politics. Lenin's study of the trends specific to the class struggle in all continents, in all countries, big and small, was a major aid to him in framing the strategy and tactics of the revolution and in drawing theoretical conclusions. He made it plain that nowhere could Communists and the revolutionary masses count on success if they failed to take the experience of the past into account.
He did not counterpose historical laws to historical experience, but examined them as being closely inter-related. He never separated concrete historical facts from the general process of historical development and he did not absolutise individual phenomena and trends. He saw their dialectical link and interaction with various aspects of social life.
He devoted much of his attention to analysing and generalising the experience of the direct revolutionary practice of the working class and its party. This analysis, important for the elaboration of specific questions of the struggle of the working class and its general strategy (examined in the subsequent chapters from the standpoint of its significance to the question of the forms of transition to socialism), is interesting also because it shows the general principles of Lenin's method and his attitude to historical experience. It is therefore important to know how Lenin analysed, in particular, the Paris Commune and the work of Marx and Engels. __PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10---1157 145 This is of immense interest in the sense that, on the one hand, it shows the role of Marxist theory, the direct activity of the revolutionary leaders, of the Marxist party and of the masses, and, on the other, lays bare the reasons for the weakness and defeat of the Paris Commune. Also of paramount importance is that this analysis allows us to reveal the untenability of the assertions of bourgeois historians, who are seeking to vilify the first attempt of the proletariat to take power into its hands or, in an effort to draw a certain analogy between the present socialist revolutions, between the building of socialism, and the Paris Commune, prove that the attempts to accomplish the socialist reorganisation of society are doomed to failure in the same way that the Paris Commune had failed.
Lenin devoted many of his works to a generalisation of the experience of bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the epoch of imperialism, above all of the popular revolution of 1905--1907 in Russia. In that revolution he saw many important new features and showed how it differed from the bourgeois revolutions. In it he detected not only specific conditions deriving from the fact that it took place within definite historical boundaries but also such laws that have more than purely Russian significance. He showed that these laws were important to subsequent revolutionary actions. Already then his works contained an analysis of the working-class actions in Western Europe and of the national liberation struggles in Asian countries that took place under the impact of the revolution of 1905--1907.
Lenin made a searching analysis of the revolutions in February and October 1917, of their driving forces, of the specific conditions in which they were accomplished, and so forth. Showing that the socialist revolution in Russia was a classical type of socialist revolution and, at the same time, taking into account the vast experience of the social actions stimulated by it in a number of European and Asian countries, he analysed the general laws that would underlie future socialist revolutions. His analysis of the 1917 revolutions in Russia retains its significance to this day when the working-class and communist movement has grown to immense proportions and real conditions have been created for the peaceful development of the revolution in many capitalist countries.
146As early as the first anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution Lenin stressed that it was important to study the experience of the initial years of the existence and work of the Soviet state and Communist Party. In the work of the party, which had taken power into its own hands, he emphasised time and again, and was now guiding the life of millions of workers and peasants and fighting to win over the intelligentsia, accomplish a cultural revolution and effect changes in the economic and political spheres and in national relations, there were not only specifically national but also general features and laws which the fraternal contingents preparing to carry out a socialist revolution would inevitably have to take into consideration. He showed that the historical experience of the Soviet people and the Communist Party had introduced many essential corrections into Marxist notions about the objective meaning and character of socialist construction. He wrote that Marxism gave a knowledge of the general direction of this road, of the class forces that lead to it, but that in practice all this could be shown or opened ``only through the experience of the millions when they take things into their own hands''.^^*^^
The experience of history, of the masses has demonstrated (as has been time and again emphasised by the leaders of the socialist countries) that it is easier to accomplish a revolution than to build the new society. Plans for building socialism, devised before power is conquered, may prove to be a distant dream if they do not soberly reckon with the practical experience of socialist construction and the international situation.
Lenin constantly studied the various aspects of the direct historical experience of the masses engaged in socialist construction. Suffice it to recall his assessment of the importance of communist enthusiasm, of labour in a communist spirit, of the role of material and moral incentives, and his interest in facts concerning direct revolutionary creativity during the building of the new society.
Lenin's analysis brought to light aspects of the direct historical experience of the masses linked with specific conditions of the struggle and the party's concrete activity which the founders of the revolutionary teaching had not _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 281.
__PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 foreseen. In this analysis Lenin showed the importance of the activity of the masses as the subject of history, the subject of the socialist revolution and the building of socialism and communism. This analysis gives the masses a deeper insight into the meaning of their creative work, of their direct practical activity. It enables the fraternal parties to make an attentive study of the activity of the masses, to see the new that has to be developed and advanced in order to ensure the success of the socialist revolution. It reveals the meaning of the grandiose revolutionary achievements of the masses. At the same time, it is of great importance to the further socialist and communist education of the masses.When we speak of Lenin's analysis of historical experience and the importance that Lenin attached to this experience, we must emphasise that it was Lenin who profoundly analysed the activity of the First International, which was set up by Marx and Engels, and of the Second International both at the first stage of its development and when it was taken over by opportunist leaders. Lenin not only created the new, Third International, but in his writings, speeches at Comintern congresses and in its programme documents cogently analysed its activity, meaning and significance to the communist movement. He combined this analysis with a scrutiny of the activities of the then emergent Communist and Workers' parties. His study of the experience of the entire international communist movement and of the experience of individual parties enabled many of them to avoid errors, take the road of consistently revolutionary struggle, strengthen their ties with the masses, creatively use revolutionary theory as their guide and firmly combat opportunist vacillation and wavering.
Lenin convincingly showed that the very emergence of Communist parties presupposes an ideological and organisational rupture with opportunism. He exposed opportunism as a trend that adapts Marxism to the interests of the bourgeoisie with the objective of strangling the working-class movement. He wrote: ``The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled.''^^*^^ He denounced the opportunists for _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 372.
148 ignoring or distorting historical experience. At the same time, at the Third Congress of the Comintern, he warned against any exaggeration of the danger of revisionism and opportunism, saying that in a number of cases this exaggeration injures the communist movement and only serves opportunism.He taught that history is not a straight path of social development, that the communist movement should not be regarded as a road marked solely by victories, as a triumphal procession. Temporary setbacks and defeats, he said, should not be the cause of despondency and despair, for they were inevitable in such a great cause as the socialist revolution and socialist construction, and in no way belittled the significance of socialist reforms. If these defeats, he emphasised, were to be compared with the defeats suffered, for instance, by the bourgeoisie, it would be seen that for the proletariat even defeat was a big thing. He noted that the revolution sometimes developed in zigzags owing to compromises between the forces of the old and the new society, when the new forces were still not strong enough to crush the resistance of the old society. Lenin believed, however, that these zigzags in history, in the development of the communist movement, and their duration were not a fatal predestination, that the Communists and the masses were not helpless in face of history, in face of its zigzags. On the contrary, in the class struggle, the socialist revolution and socialist construction they can influence the course of history and the communist movement itself, that the real course of history is influenced by the level of their maturity, activity and knowledge of Marxism, by the scale of their struggle against opportunism.
This approach to the historical past enabled Lenin to formulate reliable criteria, which Communists use as their guideline in assessing the experience of the historical past in order correctly to see what is transient, what must be retained and what has to be followed, in order correctly to see what errors and trends have to be combated, in order to be objective in evaluating historical events. This is what explains the fact that although today historical science has much more data on many facts than it had during the lifetime of Lenin (this is equally true of Marx and Engels), Lenin's analysis of historical developments of the remote 149 and relatively near past is the basis for an assessment of these events. His evaluations and analysis arm Communists with the ability to map out their strategy and tactics correctly and scientifically, and resolve the new problems confronting the world communist movement.
[150] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 4 __ALPHA_LVL1__ PROBLEMSAs we have already said, the transition from capitalism to socialism by means of the socialist revolution is the substance and content of the modern epoch. This is a natural and inevitable process. Imperialism does not have the forces to halt the advance of history. The problem is in the time, forms and features of the revolution.
For the communist movement the elaboration of this problem is, therefore, of the utmost importance. It had received much attention from Marx, Engels and Lenin. At present it is being exhaustively studied by the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties, which are generalising the experience of socialist revolutions and the building of socialism. This problem holds the attention of politicians and ideologists, of representatives of all the social sciences.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE THEORY OF THE DEVELOPMENTAn examination of the problems of the socialist revolution must begin with the development of the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution into the socialist revolution. Interest in this problem is by no means purely historical. Although the idea of the development of the revolution had been put 151 forward by Marx and Engels and later comprehensively dealt with by Lenin and embodied in the practice of the revolutionary struggle, it continues to be the subject of fierce debates. Those who keep to the letter of Marxism argue that the theory of development is dated because many new problems have arisen in the more than 60 years since Lenin had amplified it. Moreover, it is argued that in many countries the revolution did not exactly follow the path predicted by Lenin.
Indeed, more than 60 years have passed since the theory of the development of the revolution was enlarged on by Lenin. Indeed, the revolutions that have taken place did not confirm some of the concrete ideas expounded by Lenin. But this in no way refutes the substance of Lenin's theory. It must be remembered that Lenin worked out a concrete plan applicable to Russia, and we would be going against the spirit of Leninism if we expected an exact repetition of the Russian revolution in other countries. It would be a disservice to Leninism if the Communists of other countries were to copy the Russian experience exactly.
That is why the fraternal parties unfailingly stress that Lenin's ideas have to be applied creatively, and .their entire wealth must be used in analysing the present-day/conditions for the development of the revolution. It was not accidental that at the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties the speakers named Lenin's Two Tactics of SocialDemocracy in the Democratic Revolution an inestimable aid in charting the strategy and tactics of the struggle under present-day conditions.
Lenin's elaboration of the theory of the development of the revolution was a scientific and political achievement in the true sense of the word. It opened a revolutionary prospect for the working masses of Russia and the whole world and inspired them to fight the exploiting classes until final victory. It was precisely this theory that helped to determine the strategy and tactics of the Bolsheviks at various stages of the revolutionary movement.
In framing the theory that the bourgeois-democratic revolution grows into a socialist revolution Lenin based himself on the teaching of Marx and Engels on the proletarian revolution and, in particular, on their brilliant thesis of continuous revolution and the importance of combining 152 the peasant revolutionary movement with the proletarian revolution.
The continuous revolution thesis was formulated by Marx back in the 1840s. In an article levelled at the German pettybourgeois democrat Karl Heinzen, he wrote that the workers ``can and should take part in the bourgeois revolution inasmuch as it is the prerequisite of the proletarian revolution. But at no time can the workers regard the bourgeois revolution as their end objective''.^^*^^ The same idea, drawn from the experience of the revolutions of 1848--1849, was re-emphasised by Marx and Engels in the ``Appeal of the Central Committee to the Communist League" in March 1850: ``While the democratic petty bourgeois wish to bring the revolution to a conclusion as quickly as possible ... it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, until all the more or less possessing classes have been forced out of their position of dominance, until the proletariat has conquered state power.''^^**^^
For the Communists, the founders of Marxism wrote, it is not a matter of modifying private ownership but of abolishing it, not of glossing over class contradictions but of destroying classes, not of improving the existing society but of establishing a new society. The militant slogan of the working class, Marx and Engels underscored, must be: ``Permanent revolution.''
Further, the experience of the revolutions of 1848--1849 led Marx and Engels to the conclusion that the peasant revolutionary movement had to be combined with the proletarian revolution. In a letter to Engels in 1856 Marx wrote that in Germany everything would depend on the possibility of supporting the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the peasant war. Later, when they analysed the lessons of the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels drew the conclusion that had the leaders of the Commune appreciated the full significance of the need for an alliance between the proletariat and the working masses of peasants and had they actively pursued this aim ``the peasants would soon have acclaimed the urban proletariat as their own leader _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 4, p. 313.
^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in (hree volumes, Vol. 1, pp. 178--79.
153 and elder brother''.^^*^^ And lastly, shortly before his death Engels wrote in the article ``The Peasant Question in France and Germany" that in order to conquer political power the party of the working class ``must first go to the country, must become a power in the countryside''.^^**^^Though their significance was colossal, the propositions on the continuous revolution and on the need to combine the peasant revolutionary movement with the proletarian revolution were not concretely enlarged in the works of Marx and Engels. The founders of scientific communism lived in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism and could not clearly and distinctly see the new conditions of the development of capitalism which had set in at the close of the 19th century, when capitalism entered its last, imperialist stage of development. It fell to Lenin to elaborate the theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.
He came to grips with this problem as early as the 1890s and the beginning of the 1900s. In What the ``Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats he wrote: ``... the Russian WORKER, rising at the head of all the democratic elements, will overthrow absolutism and lead the RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT (side by side with the proletariat of ALL COUNTRIES) along the straight road of open political struggle to THE VICTORIOUS COMMUNIST REVOLUTION.''^^***^^ In the same work he pointed, for the first time, to the alliance between the working class and the peasants as a vital condition of the victory of the revolution.
In subsequent works, particularly in The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats, Draft of a Declaration of the Editorial Board of ``Iskra'' and ``Zarya'' and To the Village Poor, Lenin drew on the concrete experience of the revolutionary struggle in Russia to show that after its victory in the bourgeois-democratic revolution the proletariat had to lead the working people to the socialist revolution, that the Russian revolutionaries would inevitably have to resolve both the democratic and the socialist tasks of the revolution. He _-_-_
^^*^^ The Marx and Engels Archives, Russ. ed., Vol. III (VIII), p. 339.
^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 3, p. 458.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 300.
154 put it clearly that the support of the Russian rural proletariat was necessary for a successful struggle against the bourgeoisie, that this was ``an essential condition for the victory of the working class''.^^*^^The theory of the development of the bourgeois-- democratic revolution into a socialist revolution was expounded by Lenin most exhaustively and comprehensively in his famous Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution and other works written during and after the first Russian revolution. His propositions on strategy and tactics in the bourgeois-democratic revolution and on its growth into a socialist revolution were endorsed at the Third Congress of the Bolshevik Party in the spring of 1905.
The following ideas found expression in Lenin's works and in the decisions of that congress: first, the working class had to be the hegemonic force at both the first and the second stage of the revolution; second, there should be no barrier, no Chinese Wall between the bourgeois-democratic and the socialist revolution, and the first must grow into the second, with the tasks of the general democratic and the socialist revolution frequently intertwining and leading to a considerable shortening of the period of transition; third, the forces round the proletariat were to be regrouped (as suggested by an analysis of the class struggle in Russia during the first revolution) towards the end of the bourgeois-democratic revolution for the direct transition to the socialist revolution; fourth, they indicated the concrete ways and means ensuring the successful development of the revolution.
Lenin wrote: ``The proletariat must carry the democratic revolution to completion, allying to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush the autocracy's resistance by force and paralyse the bourgeoisie's instability. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution, allying to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the population, so as to crush the bourgeoisie's resistance by force and paralyse the instability of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie.''^^**^^
In one of the resolutions adopted by the 3rd Congress _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 291.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 100.
155 it was noted that ``the proletariat being, by virtue of its position, the foremost and only consistently revolutionary class, is therefore called upon to play the leading role in the general democratic revolutionary movement in Russia''.^^*^^Lenin explained the need for two stages of the revolution as follows:~
``Imagine. .. that I have to remove two heaps of rubbish from my yard. I have only one cart. And no more than one heap can be removed on one cart. What should I do? Should I refuse altogether to clean out my yard on the grounds that it would be the greatest injustice to remove one heap of rubbish because they cannot both be removed at the same time?
``I permit myself to believe that anyone who really wants to clean out his yard completely, who sincerely strives for cleanliness and not for dirt, for light and not for darkness, will have a different argument. If we really cannot remove both heaps at the same time, let us first remove the one that can be got at and loaded on to the cart immediately, and then empty the cart, return home and set to work on the other heap... .
``To begin with, the Russian people have to carry away on their cart all that rubbish that is known as feudal, landed proprietorship, and then come back with the empty cart to a cleaner yard, and begin loading the second heap, begin clearing out the rubbish of capitalist exploitation!"^^**^^
Let us take a closer look at the principal theses of Lenin's theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution.
The bourgeoisie, it will be recalled, was the leader of all the bourgeois revolutions in the West. The proletariat, willy-nilly, played the role of its helper, its adjunct, because it lacked development and organisation, was not armed with an advanced revolutionary theory and had no political party of its own. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, was better organised, had its own parties and could attract the peasants to its side in the struggle against feudalism. Such, in particular, was the case during the revolution of 1789--1794 in France, and during the bourgeois revolutions of 1848--1849. In view _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 357.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 12, pp. 282--83.
156 of the fact that in Russia the revolution was of a bourgeoisdemocratic nature, the Mensheviks and all the opportunists of the Second International drew the dogmatic conclusion that, as in the West, only the liberal bourgeoisie could be the leader of that revolution. Lenin completely demolished the rotten Menshevik policy and tactics, showing that this was a policy of tail-endism, that it only bewildered, disorganised and confused the proletariat, and belittled the Social-Democratic tactics.He noted that in Russia the revolution was taking place under a sufficiently high level of capitalist development, which had created a united industrial proletariat in the country and given rise to a working-class movement on a nation-wide scale, and that this was one of the reasons that the revolutions of the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th century in the West could not be equated to the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia as the Mensheviks did. Although the revolution was of a bourgeois-democratic nature, Lenin pointed out, its leader could and should be solely the proletariat as the only thoroughly revolutionary class, and that the peasants were the natural allies of the proletariat. The liberal bourgeoisie, who were a counterrevolutionary force, had to be isolated.
Another reason the proletariat could be the principal driving force of the bourgeois-democratic revolution was, above all, that its interests had merged with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Lenin pointed out that although in Russia the proletariat did not comprise the majority of the population, this could not be regarded as an obstacle to its final victory, first, because the strength of the working class was immeasurably greater than its numbers, and, second, in its revolutionary struggle for socialism the proletariat would have reliable allies in the broad mass of the working peasants.
The forces accomplishing the democratic revolution---the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants---were capable of prolonging it to the socialist revolution and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. Lenin taught that as the hegemonic force of the bourgeois-democratic revolution the working class had to use its leading role in the revolution to advance it as far as possible, win the greatest possible freedom, destroy the remnants of serfdom 157 and tackle purely proletarian class tasks. He stressed: ``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.''^^*^^
The proletariat needed the bourgeois-democratic revolution as a means of clearing the ground for the socialist revolution because the abolition of the remnants of serfdom ensured a much faster development of society's productive forces, and this, naturally, led to the accelerated maturing of the prerequisites for the socialist revolution, the eradication of capitalist practices and the creation of the conditions for the development of the proletariat's class organisations. On this point Lenin wrote: ``We Social-Democrats always stand for democracy, not 'in the name of capitalism', but in the name of clearing the path for our movement, which clearing is impossible without the development of capitalism.''^^**^^ Writing of the first stage of the revolution, of the struggle against absolutism, Lenin warned the Social-Democrats that they should not for a moment lose sight of the fact (which they had to bring home to the working class) that the struggle against these institutions was ``necessary only as a means of facilitating the struggle against the bourgeoisie, that the worker needs the achievement of the general democratic demands only to clear the road to victory over the working people's chief enemy, over an institution that is purely democratic by nature, capital".^^***^^
In the struggle for the bourgeois-democratic revolution the working class acquires political training and steeling, and after the triumph of that revolution, which sweeps away the remnants of feudalism, the proletariat is brought face to face with the bourgeoisie, which until then has been employing semi-feudal practices against it. The working class, which moves in the van of the bourgeois-democratic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 144.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 249.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 291.
158 revolution has, therefore, one objective, namely, to complete that revolution as quickly as possible and at once, unswervingly and with determination, begin the liberation of labour from capitalist oppression and commence the building of a communist society.When we speak of what draws the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions close together, we must reckon with the fact that the bourgeoisie and the feudal nobility become allies against the proletariat. Feudalism cannot, therefore, be abolished without a revolutionary struggle against capitalism.
An objective factor bringing the bourgeois-democratic revolution close to the socialist revolution is that it does not end the given country's dependence on foreign capital because it does not abolish the local bourgeoisie, which is interested in foreign capital. The experience of Russia has shown that only the victory of the socialist revolution brings deliverance from the pressure of foreign capital.
To have a correct understanding of Lenin's theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution it is of the utmost importance to bear in mind his postulate about the regrouping of the class forces in the countryside in the course of the revolution. He taught that in the period of the democratic revolution, in the period of the struggle for its growth into the socialist revolution, the rural poor would rally round the working class and would together with it and under its leadership go on to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He thoroughly exposed the anti-Marxist ``theory'' of the stability of the small-peasant economy, showing that the stratification of the peasants takes place as a result of the growth of capitalism in the countryside: the middle strata steadily diminishes, while the poorest section grows; the vast majority of the peasants are ruined, become impoverished and join .the ranks of the proletariat, and only a small section grows rich and joins the ranks of the bourgeoisie. The existence of this process is borne out by facts from the history of many capitalist countries. This process took place in prerevolutionary Russia, too. It creates favourable conditions for drawing the working peasants over to the side of the proletariat in its struggle against the remnants of feudalism and against capitalism, for the establishment of the 159 proletarian dictatorship and the building of the new, socialist system.
The success achieved during the development of the revolution was linked by Lenin directly with the formation of a provisional revolutionary government, which was and could only be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. The purpose of this dictatorship was not to complete the victory over tsarism and end the revolution there, but to prolong the revolution, break the resistance of the counter-revolution and begin the direct transition to the socialist revolution. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat apd the peasantry it would have been impossible to put all the revolutionary changes into effect because being in the interests of the proletariat and the peasants these changes provoked desperate resistance from the landowners, the big bourgeoisie and foreign imperialism.
Communists had to adopt a correct attitude to the provisional revolutionary government. This, he said, was of immense importance. He considered that at the height of the revolution participation in such a government, even if it was bourgeois, was quite permissible, and even mandatory under favourable conditions. However, while participating in such a government the Communists had always to remember the proletariat's class objectives and steadfastly champion its interests. Their task was to advance the bourgeois-democratic revolution as far as possible. The Communists in the provisional government had to preserve complete independence with the Party exercising undisputed control over their work.
In showing that it was necessary for Communists to participate in the provisional revolutionary government, Lenin repeatedly stressed that led by the Marxist party the armed proletariat had constantly to pressure this government ``from below''. This was necessary, first, in order to compel the provisional government to carry out all democratic reforms consistently and resolutely, and, second, in order to make full use of political freedoms to promote the revolutionary education of the working people, strengthen and enlarge working-class organisations and awaken the lower classes to conscious political life.
Lenin attached immense importance to the revolutionary 160 army as a means of bringing the bourgeois-democratic revolution to completion successfully and ensuring its growth into the socialist revolution. He held that alongside the provisional government the working people had to set up a revolutionary army consisting of: (1) the armed proletariat and peasantry, (2) organised advanced detachments of representatives of these classes, (3) army units prepared to go over to the side of the people. He specified the tasks of the detachments of the revolutionary army as follows: to proclaim the uprising; provide the masses with military leadership and set up strongpoints for an open nation-wide struggle; spread the uprising to neighbouring localities; ensure, first at least in part of the country, complete political freedom and, in this connection, give full scope to the revolutionary creativity of the masses. The successful solution of all these problems would create the conditions for a provisional revolutionary government.
Noting the distinctions between democratic and socialist tasks, Lenin said that it was necessary to combine these tasks skilfully: ``One should know how to combine the struggle for democracy and the struggle for the socialist revolution, subordinating the first to the second. In this lies the whole difficulty; in this is the whole essence.''^^*^^
He stressed that democratic demands had to be put forward without losing sight of the main thing---the socialist revolution: ''. . . the struggle for the main thing may blaze up even though it has begun with the struggle for something partial.''^^**^^
He insisted that democratic and socialist slogans should be concretely tied in with each other. Here, he wrote, ``each proposition should be considered (a) only historically, (P) only in connection with others, (7) only in connection with the concrete experience of history''.^^***^^ He added that ``in a certain sense for a certain period, all democratic aims . . . are capable of hindering the socialist revolution. In what sense? At what moment? When? How? For example, if the movement has already developed, the revolution has already begun, we have to seize the banks, and we are being _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 267.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 268.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 250.
__PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11---1157 161 appealed to: wait, first consolidate, legitimise the republic, etc.!"^^*^^The theory that the bourgeois-democratic revolution should be developed into the socialist revolution was evolved by Lenin in a bitter struggle not only with Russian but with international opportunism. Bernstein, Kautsky and other Social-Democratic leaders flatly refused even to entertain the idea that the working class could head the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution and lead it to the socialist revolution. They held that the working class had no role save that of blindly following the bourgeoisie and helping it to put the bourgeois-democratic slogans into effect. The opportunists propounded the idea that there was a Chinese Wall between the two revolutions and did not believe the peasants could become allies of the proletariat.
Trotsky's theory of ``permanent revolution" was also a variety of opportunism. He argued that the peasants were incapable of revolutionary action, believing that the working class could not head the peasantry and should seize power without delay and in future count solely on the internationalist support of the proletariat of other countries. He said that the only way to the victory of the revolution in Russia was to turn it into a world revolution, declaring that it was absurd to raise the question of building socialism in Russia before the world revolution was accomplished. The arguments of Trotsky and other opportunists were completely refuted by developments, which have borne out Lenin's ideas about the course and development of the bourgeois-- democratic revolution and its growth into the socialist revolution.
Socialism's ideological adversaries are endeavouring to revive the idea of ``permanent revolution''. That is why Lenin's criticism of this theory has lost none of its cogency and practical and theoretical value.
Lenin's theory of the development of the revolution has played an incalculably important role in the history of the revolutionary movement.
From the theoretical standpoint it was a new word in Marxism. The proposition on the hegemony of the proletariat at the two stages of the revolution and the thesis that _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 267.
162 the proletariat's social basis steadily expands provided all or almost all the elements of the conclusion, drawn by Lenin ten years later, that socialism could initially triumph in one or several countries.From the viewpoint of strategy and tactics Lenin's theory of the development of the revolution was, to put it metaphorically, not only a reliable compass but a programme of action. It helped to determine the alignment of forces at various phases of the revolution and the possibilities of forming class alliances, and provided the foundation for drawing up concrete slogans of struggle.
Lastly, this theory is of unfading international significance. Evolved in the specific conditions of Russia, it mirrored the laws governing the development of all revolutions in the epoch of imperialism.
Basing themselves on this theory, the Communist parties continue using as their point of departure the fact that the working class can and must be the hegemonic force of the revolution at both its stages; that no time-gap exists between the bourgeois-democratic and socialist stages, that these stages intermingle and merge; that a successive regrouping of the participating forces takes place in the course of the revolution; that many of Lenin's concrete propositions on questions of strategy and tactics in the period of the development of the revolution retain their significance.
Naturally, in working out questions of the strategy and tactics of the struggle, the Communist parties act on the principle that the present epoch demands the concretisation of Lenin's teaching of the development of the revolution in accordance with the new conditions and the specifics of individual countries.
In this connection let us note three factors.
The socio-economic conditions obtaining in Russia and a number of other countries when Lenin evolved his theory cannot be exactly the same today. In many countries elements of feudalism, the forms of national oppression, and economic development have undergone substantial transformations. As a result, the nature of the democratic struggle has changed. Currently the general democratic tasks of the working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries stem from the anti-monopoly content of the popular struggle. We are witnessing a situation in which the __PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 11* 163 development of capitalism, begun under the slogan of a struggle for democracy, has brought about a sharp curtailment of democratic rights and liberties and has brought the question of extending democracy back to the agenda. The big monopoly bourgeoisie is opposing any extension of democracy, seeking to cut it down, while the working class, the peasantry and some segments of the petty and middle bourgeoisie are pressing for broader democratic rights.
The second new factor is that under present-day conditions the social base of the socialist revolution is expanding. The most diverse sections of the working people can be allies of the proletariat in the revolution. Not only the peasantry, but also large groups of white-collar workers, intellectuals and other urban middle strata are actively participating in the struggle. The proletariat is more and more frequently taking action side by side with other forces oppressed by the monopoly bourgeoisie. This is not only influencing the character of the socialist revolution but hastening it.
Lastly, the question of the time in which the revolution develops now poses itself differently. While in Lenin's lifetime the period of the revolution's development could be considerably shortened, today both the general-democratic and the socialist tasks may be carried out more or less simultaneously. This has been made possible because the imperialist system has, as a whole, matured for socialism, while the countries that have won liberation from colonial oppression can, while they are working on general democratic tasks, rely on assistance from the socialist world and go over to the achievement of socialist tasks through noncapitalist development.
True, this does not mean that the period between the bourgeois-democratic and the socialist revolution will necessarily be short in all countries. In view of the complex conditions under which state-monopoly capitalism develops and as a result of the aggravation of the class struggle between socialism and capitalism on the world scene, the social and political aspects of pre-revolutionary and revolutionary development are growing complicated and intertwining in some countries, and new factors are emerging which are accelerating or slowing down revolutionary development. Therefore, the specific situation in each given country must 164 be taken into account when the question of the time in which the bourgeois-democratic revolution grows into the socialist revolution is considered.
In many countries, chiefly in Europe, bourgeois revolutions have taken place long ago while socialist revolutions have not even begun. This concerns countries like the United States of America, Britain, France and the Scandinavian countries. Nonetheless, it cannot be said that in these countries we observe a process of the consolidation of capitalism and see no sign of the possibility of a socialist revolution. On the contrary, one can unquestionably draw the conclusion that there are many objective and subjective prerequisites of revolution. The Communist parties of these countries are scientifically analysing numerous factors determining the development of the present situation and, on that basis, mapping out correct strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. ^
Lenin's theory of the development of the revolution is a sure instrument of cognition making it possible to avoid errors of both Left and Right nature. It orients Communists on work among the masses, on preparing a general democratic assault on the monopolies. The success of this assault will open for the working people the road to socialist reforms. Lenin's theory lives and is just as topical today as it was half a century ago.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. FORMS OF REVOLUTIONThe 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''.^^*^^ 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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 409.
165 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.''^^*^^ 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.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.''^^**^^ 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.''^^***^^
What are the fundamental demands which every Marxist should make of an examination of the forms of struggle? Lenin asked, and replied:
``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-- _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 38, pp. 419--20.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 37, p. 275.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 17, p. 649.
166 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....``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.''^^*^^
Lenin thus approached the question of the forms of struggle dialectically, making it dependent on concrete conditions, place and time.
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.''^^**^^ The Document of the 1969 Meeting stresses that _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works. Vol. 11, pp. 213--14.
^^**^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 75.
167 each party, ``depending on the circumstances, chooses the peaceful or non-peaceful way of transition to socialism.''^^*^^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.^^**^^
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.^^***^^ 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.
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.''^^****^^ 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.''^^*****^^
True as this was in the lifetime of Marx, Engels and _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 37.
^^**^^ The programme documents of the Communist parties and the statements made by their representatives at the 1969 Meeting show that many of them feel that it is possible to achieve socialism peacefully and they frame their strategy and tactics accordingly. These are principally the Communist parties of Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan and India.
^^***^^ These are some parties of Latin America, Asia and Africa and also the Portuguese Communist Party.
^^****^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 36, p. 207.
^^*****^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 170.
168 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.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.
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.
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.''^^*^^ 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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 34, p. 357.
169 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.''^^*^^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.''^^**^^ 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.''^^***^^
Lenin minutely examined all the aspects of an armed uprising and his advice to revolutionaries was:
``(1) Never play with insurrection, but when beginning it realise firmly that you must go all the way.
``(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.
``(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.'
``(4) You must try to take the enemy by surprise and seize the moment when his forces are scattered.
``(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'.''^^****^^
Lenin's teaching of the armed uprising was proved to _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, 134.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 368.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 46.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 180.
170 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.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.
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.
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 171 form of class struggle,''^^*^^ 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".^^**^^ 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''.^^***^^
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?''^^****^^
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''.^^*****^^
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.
Experience has shown that in our epoch an armed struggle that includes elements of civil war can take place _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 317.
^^**^^ Ibid.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 110.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 189.
^^*****^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 488.
172 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.''^^*^^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.^^**^^
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ International Press Correspondence, Vol. 8, No. 84, November 28, 1928, p. 1589.
^^**^^ Among the ``military operations" of the USA after the Second World War, official American sources include the war in Korea, the sending of the US Navy to the Mediterranean, the dispatch of troops to the Lebanon, the naval ``patrolling'' of the shores of Guatemala and Nicaragua, the sending of troops to Vietnam in 1961 and the resultant outbreak of war, the Cuban crisis, the intervention in the Dominican Republic. This list would be considerably lengthened if to it are added actions of a military character undertaken by US intelligence agencies. This is accentuated by the authors of The American Dilemma, published in Stockholm in 1968. Moreover, they pointed out that ``since the war the political influence of the military authorities has grown formidably and, it seems, in some periods, above all during the war in Vietnam, they did not submit to civilian control by the President and Congress" (Dilcmmat Amerika, Stockholm, 1968, p. 72).
173 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.^^*^^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.
Marx, Engels and Lenin invariably looked for ways leading to the most painless forms of revolutionary change. _-_-_
^^*^^ After analysing the causes and consequences of the adventurist tactics that brought about the Party's defeat, the Marxist-Leninist group of the CPI declared that ``it had been premature to launch armed action before painstaking revolutionary work of a preparatory nature was completed, before a clear-cut revolutionary crisis that would bring about a revolutionary situation had emerged, before an organised and highly influential Marxist-Leninist Party had been formed as the nucleus capable of heading the armed struggle and ensuring it with the mass support of the forces allied to the working class. This is an indispensable condition of the success of revolutionary action" ( Information Bulletin. Documents of the Communist and Workers' Parties, Articles and Speeches, Peace and Socialism Publishers, Prague, 1969. No. 7, pp. 27--28).
174 ``Insurrection would be madness,'' Marx said, ``where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work.''^^*^^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.''^^**^^ ``The working class would, of course, prefer to take power peacefully,''^^***^^ Lenin emphasised. He wrote: ``... in general, war runs counter to the aims of the Communist Party.''^^****^^ 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.
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.^^*****^^ The _-_-_
^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. 17, p. 635.
^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 1, p. 89.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 276.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 492.
^^*****^^ At a sitting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in late September 1946 Klement Gottwald passed on Stalin's views on the question of the transition to socialism in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe and his idea that under conditions witnessing post-war co-operation among the Allies and the support for socialist ideals on the part of a considerable majority of the working class, under conditions in which the transition to socialism had actually commenced in a number of European countries, the transition to socialism was possible without the Soviet form of proletarian __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 176. 175 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.^^*^^
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.^^**^^ 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.
``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.''^^***^^
Lenin warmly welcomed the Hungarian revolution, attaching special importance to the fact that Soviet power was proclaimed in Hungary peacefully. ``In Hungary the _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 175. dictatorship, on the basis of a gradual peaceful implementation of socialist reforms (see the conversations between J. V. Stalin and K. Gottwald as reported by Rude prdvo on September 26, 1946).
^^*^^ Harry Pollitt, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, who had had a talk with Stalin, informed some British Communists of this. One of them was John Gibbons, subsequently representative of the CPGB on the journal World Marxist Review, who related to the author of this book what Pollitt told him.
^^**^^ See ``Report by Comrade Janos Kadar to a Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party'', Pravda, November 25, 1968.
^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 269.
176 transition to the Soviet system, to the dictatorship of the proletariat, has been incomparably easier and more peaceful.''^^*^^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.
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.
If it was possible for the revolution to develop peacefully 50 and 20 years ago, it is all the more possible today.
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.
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.^^**^^ 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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 387.
^^**^^ See Chapter 6.
__PRINTERS_P_178_COMMENT__ 12---1157 177 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.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.
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,''^^*^^ he said. ``... We must work against it both from without and within.''^^**^^ ``...Only a liberal can forget the historical limitations and conventional nature of the bourgeois parliamentary system.''^^***^^
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.''^^****^^ It was necessary to explain, he said, ``in connection with the elections, on the occasion of the elections, and in debates on _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 254.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 268.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 246.
^^****^^ Ibid., Vol. 18, p. 379.
178 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.''^^*^^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.^^**^^
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.
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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., pp. 384, 385.
^^**^^ Communist members of parliament, ministers or members of local organs of power underscore the special character and class foundation of their work. The striving to pursue a policy in the interests of the working people is inevitably and constantly restricted by the framework of bourgeois society. In the decision of various problems the Communists have to display an exceptionally principled stand and flexibility in order to prevent themselves from being diverted from the class position. This was stated, in particular, by Jacques Duclos, member of the Politbureau of the French Communist Party, in a talk with representatives of the journal World Marxist Review on the work of French Communists in municipal councils. He stressed that the French Communist Party never loses sight of the interest of the class it represents (see World Marxist Review, 1970, No. 2).
__PRINTERS_P_179_COMMENT__ 12* 179 the rights of civil employees and control over police, the army and the intelligence service.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.
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.
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.
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 180 byproduct of the revolutionary struggle.''^^*^^ 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''.^^**^^ 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.
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.''^^***^^
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 127.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 229.
^^***^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 75.
181 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.^^*^^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".^^**^^ 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.
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 _-_-_
^^*^^ Cheddi Jagan, leader of the People's Progressive Party of Guyana, noted that the imperialists go to all extremes to obstruct the peaceful development of the revolution. ``During the course of its 19-year attempt to gain pow.er through the ballot box, it has learnt the ways of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Red witch-hunting, force, bribery, terror, victimisation and gerrymandering were resorted to by imperialism.'' (International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow, 1969, Prague, 1969, p. 617.) He went on to describe the methods of unarmed, ``peaceful'' counter-revolution employed by the USA: ``...The late President Kennedy justified his attacks against the PPP government on the ground of fear that we would not have respected constitutional guarantees and parliamentary democracy. But since the US imperialists and their puppets seized power by force and fraud in 1964, they have not only slashed living standards, but also deliberately set upon a course to divide our people and deny them their basic human rights. In 1966, a National Security Act ... gave the puppet regime the right to detain and restrict without trial. The right to peaceful demonstration has been denied" (ibid., p. 619).
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 392.
182 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.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.
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.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. LESSONS OF THE REVOLUTIONS IN RUSSIARussia was the first country where, in alliance with the working peasants, the working class consummated a socialist revolution and established the proletarian dictatorship. The 183 mission of being the first to break the chain of imperialism and break away from its hold fell to the Bolshevik Party and the working people of Russia, and this, naturally, attracts the attention of the Communist and Workers' parties of all countries to the experience of the working people of Russia and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. They regard the October Revolution as a major fount of revolutionary ideals and a treasure-store of experience of the strategy and tactics of the proletarian struggle.
What makes the struggle of the working class for power in Russia of world-wide importance?
In ``Left-Wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder, Lenin wrote that the international importance of the October Revolution must be understood in both its broad and narrow sense. In the broad sense its importance is that by breaking through the chain of imperialism it had repercussions in all countries. The socialist revolution, he said, kindled sparks in all the countries of the world and brought imperialism closer to the edge of the abyss, showing the bourgeoisie that its rule was coming to an end. ``Follow the road blazed by the Russians" became the catchword of the proletariat throughout the world.
In the narrow sense Lenin meant ``the international validity or the historical inevitability of a repetition, on an international scale, of what has taken place in our country''. He held that ``on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done''.^^*^^
Anybody studying the experience of the October Revolution will find that the concrete events and facts of the revolutionary movement, the activity of individual parties, the struggle of the proletariat, the mass actions of the working people, the armed collisions and strikes, the drastic changes in the tactics employed by the Bolsheviks and their occasional setbacks and ultimate triumph are of international significance. The actions of the Communist Party and the peoples of Russia during the historic year of 1917 were an expression of the processes which have been and will be inevitably repeated in other countries.^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 21 and 31.
^^**^^ Between February and October 1917 Lenin wrote more than 250 theoretical works on the problems of the revolution and the ways __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 185. 184
At the turn of the century Russia was the focal point of the typical socio-economic contradictions of world imperialism: between labour and capital, between developing capitalism and considerable survivals of feudalism and serfdom, between highly developed industrial areas and the backward outlying regions. These contradictions were sharply accentuated by the political, spiritual and national oppression instituted by the tsarist autocracy. The social problems confronting Russia---abolition of landowner oppression, deliverance of the working people from capitalist slavery and national oppression, the need for socialist reforms---were crucial for many other countries as well.
The importance of the October Socialist Revolution to the world is precisely that it not only resolved the national contradictions in Russia but laid the beginning for the eradication of the contradictions rending modern imperialism. The basic contradiction in Russia, as in other countries with all their distinctions, was between the aspiration of a small minority, representing finance capital, to perpetuate exploitation and aggression and the striving of the masses for peace, democracy and social justice. This contradiction, which remains the principal contradiction of all imperialist states, was resolved in Russia through the overthrow of the rule of the exploiters and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. This showed the working people of every country the way to the solution of their cardinal problem.
Lenin considered that it was of immense importance for the communist movement to study the experience of the October Revolution, noting that in the course of the struggle for socialism we were ``paving the way for the art of making revolution without mistakes''.^^*^^ He often said that the West European revolutionaries frequently lauded the Bolsheviks but rarely studied their experience. Yet a study of the history of the struggle for power in Russia gives a deeper understanding of the laws of the development of socialist revolutions in our day. It helps to foresee and surmount difficulties and obstacles in the way of these revolutions, and to determine more realistically and accurately the _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 184. of its development, the armed uprising, the peaceful conquest of power by the proletariat, the forms of establishing the new system, and so on. They are a vast treasure-store for the present-day communist movement.
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 82.
185 strategic line of the revolution, and display flexibility in putting this line into effect. Lastly, it teaches revolutionaries to see the substance of Right and ``Left'' opportunism and how to fight this opportunism.It is vital to study the experience of the revolution also because in recent years, particularly in connection with the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution and the centenary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, bourgeois historians and philosophers have written many books and articles in which they distort the basic problems of the history and theory of the October Revolution. Anti-Soviet writers repudiate the socialist character of the October Revolution, portraying it as a ``peasant'' or even a ``bourgeois'' revolution; they characterise the revolution as a ``coup'' accomplished by the Bolsheviks in order to seize power; they go to all lengths to belittle the historic impact of the revolution, asserting that it was of ``local importance''.
Bourgeois historians misrepresent the role played by the Bolshevik Party, distort its tactics at the various stages of the revolution, pass over in silence the efforts of the Bolsheviks to secure the peaceful development of the revolution, and misinterpret their various slogans. Moreover, they deliberately distort the nature of the inner-party struggle. In particular, many of them make a hero out of Trotsky and whitewash his opportunist, counter-revolutionary activities.^^*^^
In the circumstances, Soviet scholars feel in duty bound to fight this falsification of the Bolshevik experience of revolution and combat the attempts of bourgeois science and propaganda to undermine the influence of this experience on the revolutionary movement.
Let us consider some aspects of the Bolshevik Party's activities during the revolution of 1905--1907, the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution of February 1917 and the October Revolution of 1917.
_-_-_^^*^^ The attempt to whitewash Trotsky and use him as a counterbalance to Lenin is to be found in a number of works published in Czechoslovakia in 1967--1968. These works offer the version that Trotsky was close to Lenin and Leninism, at least much closer than Stalin, who is accused, directly or indirectly, of departing totally from Leninism. This concept is propounded, for instance, by V. Veber in K Leninovu pojeti socialismu (Prague, 1967) and M. Reiman in Ruskd revoluce (Prague, 1967).
186The bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905--1907 in Russia was the first people's revolution of the epoch of imperialism. It differed basically from all preceding bourgeois-democratic revolutions in other countries in that, first, although its nature was bourgeois-democratic it was proletarian on account of the leading role played in it by the working class and of the means of struggle used against the autocracy (strikes and armed uprising). Second, the abolition of the landed estates was one of its major issues. Besides, as one of the driving forces of that revolution, the peasantry was allied to the proletariat and not to the bourgeoisie, as was the case in the bourgeois revolutions in the West. Third, whereas in the preceding bourgeois revolutions the fight for power was between two principal classes---the feudal nobility and the bourgeoisie, in Russia, on account of new socioeconomic conditions there were, as Lenin pointed out, two social wars: one was for land, freedom and democracy, and the other was fought within the developing bourgeois system for society's socialist reorganisation. Both these wars were headed by the proletariat. Fourth, the working class of Russia had its own party, which was a revolutionary party of a new type created and led by the genius of the revolution Vladimir Lenin.
All this made the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia a people's revolution which could not stop in midstream but had to move on to the proletarian revolution.
``The victory of the bourgeois revolution,'' Lenin wrote, ``is impossible in our country as the victory of the bourgeoisie. This sounds paradoxical, but it is a fact. The preponderance of the peasant population, its terrible oppression by the semi-feudal big landowning system, the strength and class-consciousness of the proletariat already organised in a socialist party---all these circumstances impart to our bourgeois revolution a specific character.''^^*^^
Above we noted that one of the distinguishing features of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia was that it was proletarian for the means of struggle that were employed. However, the arsenal of the working class provides for several forms of struggle for power, both nonpeaceful and peaceful. In the situation prevailing in Russia _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 56.
187 at the time the autocracy could be overthrown only by force of arms. This was due to internal and international factors.Tsarist Russia had a backward and reactionary political system. Lenin called it one of the oldest, most powerful, barbarous and brutal monarchies, a prison of nations, a tyrannised country where arbitrary rule prevailed, a country which had not had any representative institutions prior to 1905 and where the four Dumas set up after the revolution had no real power because this power was in the hands of the autocratic government. Lenin wrote that ``the struggle in the Duma ... cannot be the main form of the struggle, because this `parliament' is admittedly not recognised by either of the combatants---either the Durnovos, Dubasovs and Co. or the proletariat and the peasantry''.^^*^^ The Russian landowners and bourgeoisie served tsarism faithfully. Regarding the autocracy as the best champion of their privateproprietor interests and as the most effective instrument helping them to hold the masses in leash, they went to all ends to safeguard it, proclaiming that the throne was ``sacred'' and ``inviolable''.
In Russia the bourgeois-democratic revolution matured and took place at a time when capitalism was developing rapidly. In her economy many of the key positions were in the hands of the imperialists of other countries, who were interested in the preservation of the tsarist system^^**^^ and gave their utmost assistance to the exploiting classes of Russia against the revolution.
These internal and international factors compelled the proletariat to use force against the autocracy. An armed uprising, Lenin wrote, was the only way the proletariat could root the tsarist autocracy out of Russian soil and establish the autocracy of the people.
He not only raised the question of the armed uprising as the only means of overthrowing tsarism but worked out in detail the methods of preparing for this uprising, putting forward and substantiating political slogans which the people _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 274.
^^**^^ True, in February 1917 the Entente imperialists incited the Russian bourgeoisie to seize power, but in this they were motivated by their fear that having become completely bankrupt during the war tsarism would sign a separate agreement with Germany, thereby depriving them of an ally who was pinning down considerable enemy forces.
188 could accept and understand and which led them directly to an uprising. These slogans were: immediate institution of an eight-hour working day by revolutionary means; the setting up of revolutionary peasant committees to implement democratic reforms in the countryside up to the confiscation of the landed estates; the staging of mass political strikes, the arming of the workers and the formation of a revolutionary army.In the resolution of the Third Party Congress, which closely examined the question of an armed uprising, it was stated that the party had to explain the course of the revolution to the working class. Declaring that the armed uprising was one of the main urgent tasks of the party at that revolutionary moment, the Congress instructed the party organisations to explain to the proletariat: (a) by means of propaganda and agitation, not only the political significance, but the practical and organisational aspect of the impending armed uprising; (b) the role of mass political strikes, which may be of great importance at the beginning and during the progress of the uprising; (c) the necessity to take the most energetic steps towards arming the proletariat, as well as drawing up a plan of the armed uprising and of direct leadership thereof, for which purpose special groups of party workers should be formed as and when necessary.''^^*^^
Taking as their guideline Lenin's propositions on the means of struggle against the autocracy as outlined in works written on the eve and during the first Russian revolution, and also the decisions of the Third Party Congress, the Bolsheviks made ready for the uprising which took place in December 1905. Although the uprising was crushed, Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not relinquish their view that there would have to be an uprising in the future. In reply to Plekhanov, who declared that the workers should not have taken up arms in December 1905, Lenin said that, on the contrary, they had to take up arms with more determination and energy. He insisted that the masses should be made to see that ``the December struggle was the most essential, the most legitimate, the greatest proletarian movement since the Commune''.^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 8, pp. 373--74.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, p. 61.
189Lenin regarded the revolution of 1905--1907 as the prologue to new battles, as the rehearsal of a really triumphant revolution. The first Russian revolution did not lead to bourgeois-democratic reforms but it by no means showed that the line towards such reforms was futile. ``As to what you say about it being time to 'liquidate the belief in a second coming of the general-democratic onset','' Lenin wrote to a Bolshevik on December 2, 1909, ``I definitely do not agree with you there. You would only be playing into the hands of the otzovists (who are very prone to such `maximalism': the bourgeois revolution is behind us---ahead is the 'purely proletarian' one) and the extreme Right-wing Menshevik liquidators.''^^*^^ The general-democratic struggle, he said, would remain on the agenda until its aims were achieved. He demonstrated this with examples from the history of France and Germany, where the ``general-- democratic onset" ended only after a decade of revolutionary struggle.
Lenin's profound analysis of the lessons of the revolution of 1905--1907 was of immense assistance to the Bolsheviks in mapping out the tactics designed to bring the socialist revolution to victory. This analysis was made in many of the works written by him in the decade after the revolution. He took the new experience of the post-revolution period into account.
As Tim Buck, Chairman of the Communist Party of Canada, wrote, Lenin's insistence on theoretical clarity concerning the aims of the revolution and the role played by the working class and its party in 1905 is a ``striking example of the importance to the working class of Lenin's emphasis upon the indestructible relationship between correct theory and correct practice.. . . The lesson of that struggle against the Right-wing deviation and petty-bourgeois anarchist confusion is particularly dramatic because, carried through by Lenin to ideological victory, it played a major part in preparing the Great October Revolution. Without the correct political line and understanding for which Lenin's long struggle had won authority, the revolution would have been diverted and the fruits of its victories would have been dissipated.''^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 34, pp. 407--08.
^^**^^ World Marxist Review, No. 6, 1969, p. 1.
190An evaluation of the world war that had broken out was of immense importance for a correct assessment of the prospects for revolution. The Bolsheviks considered that the war had to be used to overthrow capitalist rule, and they supplemented the slogan calling for an armed uprising by urging that the imperialist war should be turned into a civil war. This was fully consistent with the situation obtaining at the time because the only way to halt the world-wide slaughter and secure the victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie was to turn the imperialist war into a civil war.
Lenin concentrated on activating the party and on mustering and preparing the forces for a new revolution. The tactics of the Bolsheviks were directed towards establishing links with different strata of the population and towards winning more influence in the mass organisations. Without this preparatory stage the party would not have been ready for the period of revolutionary storms.^^*^^
The efforts of the Bolsheviks, who were pursuing correct tactics, bore fruit. Thanks to their quick reaction to the least changes in the situation, the masses understood the need for carrying out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Tsarism was deposed in February 1917.
In their distorted picture of the revolution of February 1917, bourgeois ``sovietologists'' play down the significance of the organising role played by the Bolsheviks. For example, Marcel Liebman, a French bourgeois historian, writes that the revolution ``was not organised by any party or political leader'', but took place as a result of a spontaneous outburst of popular discontent.^^**^^ Liebman distorts the correlation between the spontaneous and the conscious in a revolution. In the February revolution, as in any other revolution, there were elements of spontaneity, but the Bolshevik Party was in all respects prepared for it and headed the revolutionary movement.
_-_-_^^*^^ In foreign literature one frequently finds the assertion that in Russia the objective and subjective conditions for a social revolution matured only during the world war, that that was when a national crisis had set in. This assertion ignores the actual facts and the immense work that was accomplished by Lenin, who elaborated on the question of the growth of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution long before the revolution of 1905--1907.
^^**^^ Marcel Liebman, La revolution russe, Verviers, 1967, p. 110.
191While implementing bourgeois-democratic slogans, the February revolution ushered in the beginning of the growth into the socialist revolution as foreseen by Lenin. It was namely in this period that the Bolsheviks showed how to achieve the hegemony of the proletariat, work for an alliance with all the revolutionary forces and secure the solution of the problems arising during the period of the revolution's development. This brings a whole range of major issues into focus. We shall deal with only four of them, which are crucial to the present-day communist movement.
The problem of the choice of the moment for the beginning of the revolution is unquestionably important. The party with Lenin at its head chose the moment for the revolution after closely considering the general and specific factors determining the development and maturity of the revolutionary situation. This analysis enabled Lenin to draw the conclusion that ``it was easier for the Russians than for the advanced countries to begin the great proletarian revolution''.^^*^^ Here he pointed out the following circumstances: ``It was easier for us to begin, firstly, because the unusual---for twentieth-century Europe---political backwardness of the tsarist monarchy gave unusual strength to the revolutionary onslaught of the masses. Secondly, Russia's backwardness merged in a peculiar way the proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie with the peasant revolution against the landowners. That is what we started from in October 1917, and we would not have achieved victory so easily then if we had not. As long ago as 1856, Marx spoke, in reference to Prussia, of the possibility of a peculiar combination of proletarian revolution and peasant war. From the beginning of 1905 the Bolsheviks advocated the idea of a revolutionarydemocratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. Thirdly, the 1905 revolution contributed enormously to the political education of the worker and peasant masses, because it familiarised their vanguard with 'the last word' of socialism in the West and also because of the revolutionary action of the masses. Without such a 'dress rehearsal' as we had in 1905, the revolutions of 1917---both the bourgeois, February revolution, and the proletarian, October _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 310.
192 revolution---would have been impossible. Fourthly, Russia's geographical conditions permitted her to hold out longer than other countries could have done against the superior military strength of the capitalist, advanced countries. Fifthly, the specific attitude of the proletariat towards the peasantry facilitated the transition from the bourgeois revolution to the socialist revolution, made it easier for the urban proletariat to influence the semi-proletarian, poorer sections of the rural working people. Sixthly, long schooling in strike action and the experience of the European mass working-class movement facilitated the emergence---in a profound and rapidly intensifying revolutionary situation--- of such a unique form of proletarian revolutionary organisation as the Soviets."^^*^^Immediately after the February revolution Lenin most certainly did not undertake to determine accurately, to the day or even month, when the socialist revolution would triumph in Russia. The possible time of the revolution became clearer with the maturing of the situation for it. Before adopting the decision to start the revolution it was necessary to assess the situation soberly and all-sidedly. Revolutionary courage, perseverance, confidence that the analysis was correct and a high sense of responsibility were also needed. In the article headed ``The Crisis Has Matured" (September 29 [October 12], 1917) Lenin wrote: ``The whole future of the Russian revolution is at stake. The honour of the Bolshevik Party is in question. The whole future of the international workers' revolution for socialism is at stake.''^^**^^ There had to be unerring accuracy in determining the time for resolute action in a situation that was changing quickly. An error of one day could be catastrophic. Lenin took this task on himself without hesitation.
In the ``Letter to Members of the CC'', written in the evening of October 24 (November 6), he stressed that it was no longer possible to wait, that ``the matter must be decided without fail this very evening, or this very night'', that the Kerensky government had to be arrested, the military cadets disarmed and the power taken over. ``History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 310.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 82.
__PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13---1157 193 victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, they risk losing everything.''^^*^^Another aspect of the experience of the October Revolution was the ability of the Bolsheviks to analyse the alignment of class forces perspicaciously and resolve intricate problems linked with the assessment of the situation.
The programme charted by Lenin in the April Theses and then adopted by the party, was a creative application of the Bolshevik line under new conditions. The attempts to show, as Trotsky^^**^^ and other falsifiers of the history of Bolshevism have endeavoured to do, that this was something quite new and unexpected have no leg to stand on. Their aim is to ``prove'' that the party was inconsistent and unprepared, and on that basis give out that the October Revolution was ``accidental''. Actually, the April Theses concretised and developed the ideas that were propounded by Lenin in works like Several Theses (1915), On the Two Lines in the Revolution, Draft Theses, March 4 (17), 1917, Letters From Afar and others.
Later, in polemics with Kautsky, Lenin wrote the following about the stages of the revolution in Russia:
``Yes, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution as long as we march with the peasants as a whole. This has been as clear as clear can be to us; we have said it hundreds and thousands of times since 1905, and we have never attempted to skip this necessary stage of the historical process or abolish it by decrees. Kautsky's efforts to `expose' us on this point merely expose his own confusion of mind and his fear to recall what he wrote in 1905, when he was not yet a renegade.
``Beginning with April 1917, however, long before the October Revolution, that is, long before we assumed power, we publicly declared and explained to the people: the revolution cannot now stop at this stage, for the country has marched forward, capitalism has advanced, ruin has reached fantastic dimensions, which (whether one likes it or not) will demand steps forward, to socialism. For there _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 235.
^^**^^ For instance, in a footnote in Trotsky's book on the revolution of 1905 it is asserted that ``the Bolsheviks were ideologically rearmed in the spring of 1917''.
194 is no other way of advancing, of saving the war-weary country and of alleviating the sufferings of the working alid exploited people.``Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the `whole' of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (and to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chinese Wall between the first and second, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants, means to distort Marxism dreadfully, to vulgarise it, to substitute liberalism in its place. It means smuggling in a reactionary defence of the bourgeoisie against the socialist proletariat by means of quasi-scientific references to the progressive character of the bourgeoisie in comparison with medievalism.''^^*^^
The victory of the February revolution did not lead to the establishment of absolute rule by the proletariat and the peasantry. None of the classes that came to power almost simultaneously had that power firmly in their hands. Alongside the Provisional Government, which was a dictatorship of the exploiting classes, Soviets, whose class content was the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, were set up by the insurgent workers and soldiers. However, on account of the petty-bourgeois element that swept over the class-conscious proletariat and due to the changes that had taken place in its composition during the war and some other reasons, many of the Soviets found themselves controlled by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who voluntarily ceded power to the bourgeois Provisional Government.
After taking stock of the complex and contradictory situation in the country, Lenin came to the conclusion that the bourgeois-democratic revolution had ended, although it did not bring about the implementation of the Bolshevik _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, pp. 299--300.
__PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195 slogan of a ``revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry'', and that from now on the task was to move farther to the socialist revolution, which would place the power in the hands of the working class and the poorest strata of the peasants.Lenin held that the slogan ``All power to the Soviets!" had to become the party's principal slogan. It did not signify a simple reshuffle of the government---the removal of the bourgeois ministers and their replacement by representatives of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who held the majority in the Soviets at the time. It meant the establishment, from top to bottom, of the absolute and complete rule of a new type of state authority, the Soviets, and the dismantling of the old state machine.
As we noted earlier, Trotsky held different views on the character and prospects of the October Revolution. In August 1917 he wrote that it was ``futile to think ... that, for example, revolutionary Russia can withstand conservative Europe''. In the foreword to the book 1905 he maintained that after seizing power the proletariat ``will come into conflict not only with all the bourgeois groups that supported it at the early phases of its revolutionary struggle but also with the broad masses of the peasants with whose assistance it came to power''.
Georgi Plekhanov, too, was opposed to the line of action proposed by Lenin. In his ``May Day" letter to the `` Association of Socialist Students'', which was printed on one and the same day by three bourgeois newspapers---Rech, Dyelo Naroda and Yedinstvo---he wrote that even the international socialist congress of 1889 comprehended that ``the social, or more exactly---the socialist, revolution presupposes prolonged educational and organisational work within the working class''.^^*^^ He said that this is forgotten by people who ``call on the Russian working masses to seize political power, an act which would make sense only if the objective conditions necessary for a social revolution prevailed. These conditions do not exist yet.''^^**^^
This plainly revealed Plekhanov's formal, dogmatic approach in assessing the situation, his renunciation of _-_-_
^^*^^ Quoted from V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 192.
^^**^^ Ibid.
196 creative Marxism and his incomprehension of the correlation of the objective and subjective factors of revolution. Developments showed that Lenin was right.Flexibility of tactics, swift and timely changes of revolutionary slogans, promptness in deciding the concrete tasks of the revolutionary struggle and in choosing the ways of carrying them out, and combination of peaceful and nonpeaceful means of struggle are the third lesson which the international revolutionary movement draws from the experience of the revolution in Russia.
The Bolsheviks framed their tactics in accordance with the situation in Russia. Lenin enjoined that in view of the dual power that had emerged after the February revolution armed force could not be used to overthrow the Provisional Government because it would mean attacking the Soviets, too, which, with the Mensheviks and SocialistRevolutionaries in control, had come to terms with the Provisional Government and were supporting it. In Russia, he said, ``by way of an exception" power could pass from the Provisional Government to the Soviets peacefully. He wrote: ''. . . in Russia power can pass to existing institutions, to the Soviets, immediately, peacefully, without an uprising.''^^*^^
What made it possible for the revolution in Russia to develop peacefully after the February bourgeois-democratic revolution?
---The proletarian dictatorship was already in existence in the form of the Soviets. At the time the Soviets were in the hands of the Mensheviks and Socialist-- Revolutionaries. Therefore, had all power in the country been transferred to the Soviets after the February revolution, this would not have signified the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship. It would have been a dictatorship of the working class and peasants, but unquestionably it would have facilitated the preparation of the conditions for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
---The armed workers and the army were on the side of the Soviets.^^**^^ The capitalists did not venture to attack the Soviets and had to submit to them.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 55.
^^**^^ This was of immense importance because nearly 14 million peasants were drafted into the army during the war.
197---More democratic freedoms existed in the country than in even the most democratic bourgeois republics of the day. This allowed the Bolsheviks to step up their work among the masses and openly organise them for the struggle to continue the revolution and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
---The existence of broad democratic freedoms created the conditions not only for the peaceful transfer of power from the Provisional Government to the Soviets but also for the most peaceful and painless struggle by the party in the Soviets after all power had passed to them. ``There is a degree of freedom now in Russia,'' Lenin wrote, ``that enables the will of the majority to be gauged by the makeup of the Soviets. Therefore, to make a serious, not a Blanquist, bid for power, the proletarian party must fight for influence within the Soviets.''^^*^^
There was, thus, every possibility for the peaceful development of the revolution following the victory of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution and the rise of dual power in Russia.
At the same time, the Bolsheviks made ready for another way of struggle, for an armed uprising. Lenin considered the arming of the proletariat an indispensable condition ensuring the peaceful development of the revolution (through pressure from below), and a precaution against the event such development became impossible and the proletariat would have to adopt different tactics and forcibly overthrow capitalist rule, as in fact was the case. Therefore, in addition to revolutionising the army the Bolsheviks made every effort to set up fighting units of the Red Guard and a workers' militia and to organise the proletarian and semiproletarian elements in the countryside. The worker and peasant masses sided with the Bolsheviks. This was not a spontaneous process but the result of the Bolsheviks' persevering organisational activity.
Having adopted tactics calling for the peaceful development of the revolution, the Bolsheviks had temporarily to postpone the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war. Lenin wrote that in that period of the revolution _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 217.
198 ``civil war, so far as we are concerned, turns into peaceful, prolonged, and patient class propaganda''.^^*^^The period in which the revolution in Russia developed peacefully lasted until the forcible dispersal of the demonstration of workers and soldiers in Petrograd on July 3, 1917. This peaceful period ended through the fault not of the Bolsheviks but of the bourgeoisie aided by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who had turned the Soviets into an instrument of the Provisional Government and done nothing to prevent the shooting down of the July demonstration.
These shots put an end to dual power; the power was seized by the reactionary bourgeoisie, to whom the Soviets, i.e., the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries predominating in them, transferred the country's administration.
The new political situation made it necessary for the Bolsheviks to adopt tactics other than those they had been employing until July. This responsible task was carried out by the 6th Party Congress held at the close of July and the beginning of August 1917.
The Congress endorsed Lenin's line aimed at achieving socialism in one country and his practical programme for the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution. Guided by the propositions formulated by Lenin in The Political Situation, On Slogans and other works, the Congress resolved that the violence of the bourgeoisie had to be answered with violence by the revolutionary people and that power had to be seized by means of an uprising. Due to the fact that the Soviets with their Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leadership had lost all authority and become an instrument of the counter-- revolution, the slogan ``All power to the Soviets!" was temporarily dropped. This was a line aimed at turning the imperialist war into a civil war. As we can see, the Bolsheviks did not for a moment cease their painstaking preparations for an armed uprising, and Lenin's works and the documents of the 6th Congress completely refuted Trotsky's allegation that in the summer of 1917 the party ``did not have a clearcut plan for the seizure of power by an armed uprising" and that ``a wait-and-see attitude was predominant''.
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., p. 236.
199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/LCPT354/20070630/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.06.30) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+[)]? __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+The 6th Congress showed the principled stand and determination of the Bolsheviks to put the party's policy into effect. It categorically rejected the Trotskyite ideas voiced by Bukharin, who regarded the peasantry as a closeknit stratum and said that after receiving land the ``satiated'' peasant would back out of the revolution and the working class would have to fight alone and rely on ``the proletariat of Western Europe''. He argued that in the event it was victorious the proletarian revolution would declare a `` revolutionary war" on the imperialists and that that war would ``kindle the fire of the world socialist revolution".^^*^^ This argument showed that he did not believe the socialist revolution could triumph in Russia.
After the 6th Congress the Bolsheviks got down to energetic preparations for the uprising. The defeat of the Kornilov revolt through the efforts of the Bolsheviks was a powerful stimulus to the creation of the political army of the socialist revolution. The masses saw that the Bolsheviks were the only force of the revolution capable of heading the struggle against the counter-revolution. After the revolt was suppressed the Soviets started turning Bolshevik and there was a sharp swing to the Left, to the side of the Leninist Party, by the urban and rural masses. The Kerensky administration discredited itself by failing to live up to its promises to the people. No land law was passed, and the land committees set up by the peasants to divide the land among the landless and land-hungry were arrested.
The swift Bolshevisation of the Soviets enabled the Bolsheviks to bring the slogan ``All power to the Soviets!" back to the agenda. However, Lenin time and again said that the peaceful development of the revolution was preferable. For instance, in the article ``The Russian Revolution and the Civil War'', published on September 29 in the newspaper Rabochii Put he wrote: ``If an alliance between the city workers and the poor peasantry can be effected through an immediate transfer of power to the Soviets, so much the better. The Bolsheviks will do everything to secure this peaceful development of the revolution.''^^**^^ In the article ``The Tasks of the Revolution" printed a few days later by _-_-_
^^*^^ 6th Congress of the RSDLP (Bolsheviks), Minutes, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, pp. 104--05.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 41--42.
200 the same newspaper, he re-emphasised: ``Our business is to make sure of the `last' chance for a peaceful development of the revolution, to help by the presentation of our programme, by making clear its national character, its absolute accord with the interests and demands of a vast majority of the population.''^^*^^ And further: ``... the proletariat would support the Soviets in every way if they were to make use of their last chance to secure a peaceful development of the revolution.''^^**^^Twenty-four days before the armed uprising broke out Lenin wrote for the last time that it was desirable to use peaceful means to attain victory. In the famous letter to the Central Committee, the Moscow Committee, the Petrograd Committee and Bolshevik members of the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets dated October 1 (Old Style) the great leader of the proletariat pointed out: ``It may very well be that right now power can be achieved without insurrection, for example, if the Moscow Soviet were to take power at once, immediately, and proclaim itself (together with the Petrograd Soviet) the government. Victory in Moscow is guaranteed, and there is no need to fight. Petrograd can wait. The government cannot do anything to save itself; it will surrender.''^^***^^
This is further evidence of Lenin's flexibility in charting revolutionary tactics, of his avoidance of set patterns. It shows how much he desired a bloodless victory of the socialist revolution. In spite of everything the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries did everything to concentrate power in the hands of the bourgeoisie, which took all measures to suppress and crush the revolution. To achieve its aims and acting in the interests of the vast majority of the population, the proletariat had therefore no alternative but to resort to armed force and establish Soviet power by insurrection. True, the October Revolution was accomplished without much bloodshed. From reminiscences and documents we know that there was very little loss of life during the storming of the Winter Palace.^^****^^
_-_-_^^*^^ Ibid., p. 60.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 68.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 141.
^^****^^ Felix Dzerzhinsky wrote that ``in Petrograd the revolution took plac^ almost without bloodshed and the Civil War broke out only when Kerensky led the troops he had befuddled against Petrograd" __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 202. 201
This relatively easy and bloodless victory of the proletariat was made possible by the Bolshevik Party's extensive work at the preceding stages. Organised in the Soviets the masses acted consciously, resolutely and courageously, while the enemy, the bourgeoisie, as Lenin said, had been undermined and eroded by the long political period from February to October, and like ice melted by spring waters no longer had the inner strength to resist.^^*^^
The fourth lesson of the October Revolution is that democratic and socialist tasks have to be combined in the socialist revolution. During the October Revolution it was found necessary to carry out not only socialist tasks but also many tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which neither the revolution of 1905--1907 nor the bourgeois-democratic revolution of February 1917 had been able to fulfil. Lenin wrote: ``In a matter of ten weeks, from October 25 (November 7), 1917 to January 5, 1918, when the Constituent Assembly was dissolved, we accomplished a thousand times more in this respect than was accomplished by the bourgeois democrats and liberals (the Cadets) and by the petty-bourgeois Democrats (the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries) during the eight months they were in power.''^^**^^
The October Socialist Revolution overthrew the bourgeois Provisional Government and established the power of the working people---the dictatorship of the proletariat. It _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 201. (F. E. Dzerzhinsky, Selected Works, Vol. 1, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1967, p. 254). In a speech at the Petrograd City Duma on October 25 (the day the Winter Palace was taken), Mikhail Kalinin said that ``not a single drop of blood was spilt" (see Istorichesky Arkhiv, No. 1, 1957, p. 249). Anatoly Lunacharsky wrote that the revolution ``took place absolutely without bloodshed" (A. V. Lunacharsky, Former People. An Outline History of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1922, p. 31). According to some researchers, the casualties during the uprising were 8-10 killed and roughly 50 wounded (see I. I. Mints, ``The October Revolution and the Bolshevik Tactics'', Sovetskaya Nauka, No. 11, 1939, p. 42).
^^*^^ Even the bourgeois press cannot help but recognise the genuinely popular character of the October Revolution. ``The present administration in the Soviet Union replaced tsarist rule as a result of a revolution which was indisputably supported by a huge majority of the Russian people,'' the Norwegian Right-wing newspaper Verdens gang wrote on August 23, 1967.
^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 52.
202 strikingly bore out Leninist theory of the socialist revolution and demonstrated that the Bolsheviks had pursued correct strategy and tactics. The revolution owed its success to the colossal theoretical, political and organisational work of the Bolsheviks.^^*^^ In the CPSU Central Committee's Theses ``50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution" it is stated: ``At the different stages of the revolution the Party applied flexible and diverse tactics, utilising peaceful and non-- peaceful as well as legal and illegal means of struggle, and demonstrating its ability to combine these means and to move from om form and method of struggle to another.''^^**^^The Bolsheviks won because, as Lenin said, they did not repeat v ords learned by heart but closely studied the new historical conditions and took note of every change. They won because, unlike the opportunists, they shouldered the entire responsibility for the revolution. It was none other than Lenin, who, in reply to the words of the Mensheviks that ``there is no party in Russia that can take power'', retorted: ``There is such a party!''. More important still, that party had an action programme which Lenin had mapped out long before October 1917.
The experience of 1917 teaches that a revolution cannot be successful if its leaders waver and are irresolute, if supreme tenacity, circumspection and presence of mind are not displayed, if it is not firmly decided to carry the struggle to final victory in unity, purposefully, with dedicated heroism, and if waverers are not relentlessly shaken off.
Such are some of the issues that characterise the specifics of the party's struggle to overthrow tsarism and capitalism.
The revolutions in the People's Democracies demonstrated that the Communist and Workers' parties concerned had taken this experience of the Bolshevik Party int< account. If _-_-_
^^*^^ Misrepresenting the history of the revolution, thepieticians like the Yugoslav revisionist M. Djilas allege that only the direction of the revolution and of the armed struggle was consciously planned, while the forms which the revolution took were determined directly by the course of events and the action that was put into effect (M. Djilas, The New Class, New York, 1957, p. 32). Facts completely refute these fabrications, whose purpose is to belittle the role of the party and, generally, the laws of the revolutionary process.
^^**^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Moscow, p. 7.
203 we single out the general features in the revolutions in these countries we shall find that they are similar to the general features characterising the experience of the bourgeoisdemocratic and socialist revolutions accomplished by the Bolshevik Party. This shows that the experience of Leninism and its theory of revolution have common characteristics which will undoubtedly manifest themselves in future revolutions regardless of how they are carried out.The present significance of the experience gained in the 1917 revolution in Russia is constantly underscored also by the fraternal parties in the capitalist countries. ``The October Revolution,'' Waldeck Rochet noted in a speech at the colloqium headed ``The October Revolution and France" sponsored by the Maurice Thorez Institute, ``showed there were universally applicable common principles of the socialist revolution. In particular, it showed that the working class has to conquer political power in alliance with other working people victimised by capitalism, that it is necessary to establish a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat and promote socialist democracy, nationalise the basic means of production and build a socialist economy serving the people, that there is a need for a party which is, in fact, the revolutionary vanguard of the working class.''^^*^^
The experience of the Great October Socialist Revolution is an inexhaustible source of strength for the entire communist movement fighting for the triumph of socialism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. SPECIFICS OF THE REVOLUTIONSAs in Russia, in all the countries that have taken the road to socialism, the hegemonic force of the revolution was the proletariat, which acted in alliance with other strata of the working people, above all the peasants, under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist parties. As a result of the revolution power passed from the exploiters to the working class. Moreover, the experience of revolutions has shown _-_-_
^^*^^ L'Humaniti, October 16, 1967.
204 that at the time the particular revolution is accomplished the specifics of the development of the country concerned and the new phenomena in the international situation must be taken into consideration. There were three main factors underlying these new conditions and phenomena.In the first place, the revolutions unfolded at a time when the Soviet Union was already in existence and its peoples had by their practical work demonstrated the superiority of socialism over capitalism. This had a tremendous impact on all social development in the world and led to the consolidation of the democratic forces and the unity of the working masses round socialist ideals.
Further, the revolutions took place after the Soviet Army had smashed the nazi troops in Europe and the Japanese militarists in Asia.^^*^^ This undoubtedly facilitated the triumph of these revolutions. In particular, the presence of Soviet troops in these countries fettered the reactionary forces and prevented them from starting a bloody civil war. The existence of a powerful socialist neighbour was the safeguard against imperialist interference. Furthermore, the Soviet Union rendered the People's Democracies extensive economic, political, diplomatic, military and moral assistance.
The specifics of these revolutions also sprang from the economic and political changes that had taken place in the capitalist world itself. These changes were characterised by the intensifying crisis of capitalism, the aggravation of interimperialist contradictions and by the contradictions between the monopoly bourgeoisie and the masses, with the result that the adversary's position was substantially undermined.
All these circumstances affected the course and character of these revolutions, the alignment of the class forces operating in them, their duration, and so on. In every continent and in each country the revolution had its own features.
Let us consider the features of the revolutions in the European countries.
One of them was that from the very outset the _-_-_
^^*^^ The exceptions were Mongolia, where the revolution broke out under the direct influence of the October Revolution, and Cuba, which took the road of socialism under the new balance of forces that had taken shape in the world by the 1960s.
205 democratic revolutions were of an anti-fascist, national liberation character. In Russia, it will be recalled, the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution was mainly an anti-feudal movement. Anti-feudal aims were also pursued by the democratic revolutions in the European countries (with the exception of Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, where these aims had been achieved earlier). However, because these countries were under nazi German rule, the sharp edge of the struggle was directed chiefly against the nazis. This process developed simultaneously: inasmuch as the landowners and the financial-industrial bourgeoisie were the mainstay of German imperialism, the popular struggle against fascism was, at the same time, a struggle against the landowners. Anti-feudal tasks were thus carried out by the revolution as part of the principal task, that of deposing nazi rule.The objectives facing the proletariat in the democratic revolution determined the forms of the struggle. The nazi dictatorship could not be destroyed by peaceful means. The issue was decided in favour of the working people by a fierce class struggle and its highest form---an armed uprising.
The uprisings in these countries were prepared and carried out in the course of the national liberation struggle against fascism in a situation witnessing the defeat of the nazi armies at the fronts of the world war. In the summer of 1944 Georgi Dimitrov told Marshal Georgi Zhukov that ``the Soviet victories played an immense role in intensifying the people's liberation movement in Bulgaria. Our Party heads this movement and has steered a firm line towards an armed uprising, which will be started when the Red Army approaches''.^^*^^
The armed uprisings triumphed in 1944--1945. In these violent revolutions, which were in the nature of democratic, national liberation struggles, the hegemonic force was the working class headed by the Communist parties. The uprisings were directed against the nazi enslavers and their mainstay in these countries---the local monopoly bourgeoisie and the big landowners. Not only the working class and the peasants, but the intelligentsia and also the petty bourgeoisie _-_-_
^^*^^ G. K. Zhukov, Reminiscences and Reflections, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1969, p. 580.
206 and some segments of the middle bourgeoisie were oppressed by the nazis and this brought them into the struggle for national liberation, widening the social basis of the revolutions and in many respects distinguishing these revolutions from the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, where the liberal bourgeoisie was a counter-revolutionary force seeking conciliation with the tsarist autocracy.In analysing the features of the people's democratic revolutions, it must be noted that they were not identical in all the European countries. For instance, as distinct from the revolutions in the other countries, the people's democratic revolution in Bulgaria was socialist in character. This was due to the specifics of that country's historical development and the fact that the bourgeoisie was unable to participate in the democratic movement. As Academician T. Pavlov, member of the Political Bureau of the CC BCP, noted, ``the Bulgarian bourgeoisie, which had relinquished its hegemony in its own bourgeois-democratic revolution as far back as during the struggle for the independence of the church, agreed to its second historical capitulation during Bulgaria's liberation in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877--1878, which in our country objectively played the role of a bourgeoisdemocratic upheaval''.^^*^^ As a result, Bulgaria suffered not so much from the development as from the backwardness of capitalism. The uprising of September 9, 1944, which pursued anti-fascist, anti-imperialist, national liberation objectives, could not, as Georgi Dimitrov stated at the 5th Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party in 1948, help but smash the foundations of the capitalist system and go beyond the framework of bourgeois democracy. In effect, the power in the centre and in the localities passed to the proletariat allied with the working masses, to the Fatherland Front committees, in which the leading role was played by the Bulgarian Communist Party. The revolution replaced the fascist dictatorship by a people's democratic power, which, in effect, performed the functions of a proletarian dictatorship. In Bulgaria the dictatorship of the proletariat was consolidated gradually, in the course of a sharp class struggle, which in 1947 ended with the nationalisation of _-_-_
^^*^^ T. Pavlov, Character and Significance of the Socialist Revolution in Bulgaria, Bulgarian ed., Sofia, 1958, p. 10.
207 industry.^^*^^ This did not change the substance of the course of events, but, as Todor Zhivkov, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, stated in his report to the 7th Party Congress ``was a distinctive feature of the development of precisely a socialist and no other revolution, which, it is alleged, only grew into a socialist revolution.''^^**^^The socialist revolutions in the European countries likewise had a number of specifics of their own.
A feature in common is the mainly peaceful establishment of the proletarian dictatorship (except in Bulgaria). After the revolution that took place as a result of the defeat of the nazi German invaders, the working class with the Communist Party at its head occupied a firm position in its country. Relying on the popular movement, strengthening its alliance with the working peasants and using part of the state apparatus, which had passed to its control as a result of the democratic revolution, the working class skilfully won one position after another and ensured the peaceful growth of the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution. This growth was achieved in a bitter class struggle. As the people's democratic regime gained strength, the enemy engaged in wrecking, sabotaging all the measures taken in the interests of the people. The capitalists constantly conspired against the working class, using the links of the state apparatus controlled by them. (The Rightopportunist, counter-revolutionary forces active in Czechoslovakia in 1968--1969 likewise operated under the slogan, ``The worse, the better".) However, lacking the support of the people the enemy failed to divert the revolution's development and start a civil war.
The triumph of the socialist revolutions in Central and Southeastern Europe was further evidence that the _-_-_
^^*^^ The old forms of state administration remained in existence for some time in the course of this revolutionary process, for instance, the Regent's Council, which had been set up during the war. One of the regents was T. Pavlov, currently a member of the Political Bureau of the CC BCP. He told the author that while he held that post he regarded himself, first and foremost, a member of the Party's Central Committee and did not sign any decision without the sanction of the Central Committee.
^^**^^ Kommunist, No. 8, 1958, p. 106.
208 proletariat has every possibility of overcoming its bourgeoisie by peaceful means, provided the capitalists of other countries do not go to the assistance of the bourgeoisie.However, the peaceful character of the revolution in some respects complicates the process of future socialist transformations. Although the bourgeoisie is deprived of its economic foundation and is limited politically, it retains its position in social and political life for a long time and resists the building of socialism. This was vividly demonstrated by the events in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968--1969.
An extremely important feature common to the revolutions in the European People's Democracies was that some socialist tasks were carried out not after the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship, as was the case in the Soviet Union, but directly after the democratic revolution. These tasks included the nationalisation of some industries and the introduction of elements of planning, the institution of control over the commercial activity of capitalist enterprises and various reforms in the judiciary, the taxation system and the electoral law.
Also a specific of the revolutions in the People's Democracies was that the dismantling of the old state machine and the creation of a new state apparatus proceeded gradually. In many cases use was made of the old forms of state organisation, into which the working class injected a new content. In Poland, for example, during the initial period after the country's liberation the institution of voivodes and elders existed side by side with the people's councils. Some links of the old state apparatus, including the crown, were preserved in Rumania for a number of years after the overthrow of fascism.
In the concrete conditions prevailing when the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe were liberated from fascism, which had abolished the national independence of these countries and all democratic freedoms, the restoration of the legal norms that had been in operation earlier accentuated the national liberation angle and the restoration of state independence and basic democratic freedoms.
The socialist revolutions in the European countries differed also as regards the composition of the class forces involved. In Russia the socialist revolution was effected by __PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---11157 209 the working class in alliance with the poorest peasants, who comprised the bulk of the population. In the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe the working class accomplished socialist revolutions in alliance with the working peasantry, including the middle peasants. This affected the character of the agrarian reforms in these countries, distinguishing them from the agrarian reforms in Soviet Russia.
Lastly, while speaking of the features common to the revolutions in the European countries, we must mention an extremely important circumstance, namely, that the success of these revolutions was ensured by the unity of the working class. During the war co-operation was established in all nazi-occupied countries between the Left and democratic parties and groups in the form of national associations. In Poland, for instance, they set up a National Front which made it possible to institute an underground parliament---the Krajowa Rada Narodowa. Under socialism in Poland the National Front grew into the Popular Unity Front embracing allied political parties and mass public organisations.
In the European countries the proletariat was the backbone and leading force of the national fronts. In the course of the struggle the Communists exposed the reactionary Right-wing Social-Democratic leaders and isolated them from the working class, paving the way for and then forming a union with the Social-Democratic parties on the principled foundation of Marxism-Leninism. An immensely important step in uniting the working class was the integration of the trade union movement, which was led by Communist and Workers' parties.
The fact that there were some features in common in the victorious revolutions in European countries by no means implies that revolutionary changes took place in the same way in all these countries. On the contrary, each had their own specifics. It was by taking these specifics into account that the Communists were able to chart the correct road for the socialist revolution. In so doing they made creative use of the experience of the October Revolution without the least attempt to copy it blindly.
In Czechoslovakia, too, the revolution had many features of its own. Already before World War II Czechoslovakia 210 was a developed industrial country with a numerous and organised working class that had a high cultural level and was closely linked with the countryside politically and economically. There were deep-rooted parliamentary traditions. All this determined the forms and methods used by the Czechoslovak working class in its struggle to set up a proletarian dictatorship. As a result of the national and democratic revolution, the power in Czechoslovakia passed to the National Front Government led by the Communists. However, in that period the working class temporarily had to share power with the bourgeoisie. ``We,'' Klement Gottwald said in April 1945, ``cannot govern alone and neither can they (representatives of the bourgeoisie.---K. Z.) govern alone. They cannot govern without us, and we cannot govern without them, but they cannot do without us more than we cannot do without them''.^^*^^
In this situation the Communist Party took resolute steps to unite all the patriotic forces round the working class, promote the growth of the people's democratic revolution into a socialist revolution and secure the transfer of all power to the working class. On Communist initiative the government passed a law nationalising the banks, mines and big factories. This placed more than 60 per cent of the industry under state control. A land reform, in which agricultural workers and small and middle peasants united in peasant commissions took an active part, was carried out in the countryside. The old state apparatus was gradually dismantled and the key elements of the new, people's apparatus of power were formed. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia implemented these and other measures by peaceful means, making wide use of the National Assembly. However, this use of the National Assembly did not mean that Czechoslovakia advanced towards socialism through a parliamentary struggle. The struggle for socialism went on chiefly in the shape of revolutionary changes that were put into effect by the people after the country was liberated from fascism. In its work the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia relied on the proletariat, the working peasants _-_-_
^^*^^ Klement Gottwald, Selected Works, Vol. 2, KHSS. ed., Moscow, 1957, p. 85.
__PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211 and other strata of working people, organising and mobilising them for the struggle to establish a proletarian dictatorship.Despite all its efforts, reaction was unable to start a civil war. Fearing that the people would finally turn away from them at the elections, the reactionaries attempted to carry out a counter-revolutionary coup in February 1948. But this attempt was foiled by the Communist-led working class without firing a single shot. Acting in the spirit of the parliamentary norms and traditions that had existed earlier in bourgeois Czechoslovakia, the Communist Party secured the National Assembly's approval of a programme formulated by the government headed by Klement Gottwald. This victory in the main consummated the growth of the people's democratic revolution into a socialist revolution and opened the way for socialist construction.
A feature of the revolution in Poland was that the solution of socio-economic and political problems was closely linked with ensuring the country's independence and sovereignty. The Soviet Army's decisive contribution to Poland's liberation helped to overcome age-old Polish hostility for Russia cultivated by the ruling classes and to strengthen the conviction that the nation's independence and prosperity were linked with socialism. An important role was played by the economic and political development of the western areas that were returned to Poland. This was an argument in favour of the patriotism of the Marxist-Leninist Polish Workers' Party.
The growth of the people's national consciousness in the struggle for democratic reforms enabled the working class to gain the upper hand over reaction. This was expressed, above all, by the success of the PWP and its allies at the elections. However, the class struggle time and again took the form of armed clashes with the counter-revolutionary underground. Decisive in effecting the transition to socialist construction in 1948 was the merging of the working-class parties to form the Polish United Workers' Party.
In the eastern part of Germany the development of the revolution intertwined with the struggle against fascism. Inasmuch as large segments of the middle and petty bourgeoisie had been influenced by the nazis for many years, an extremely sharp struggle had to be waged in order to 212 win the majority of the people to the anti-fascist, democratic bloc. At the elections in the autumn of 1946 the Socialist Unity Party of Germany won nearly half of the total votes.^^*^^
The revolutionary changes that removed the foundations of imperialism and militarism and led to the establishment of an anti-fascist, democratic system were completed by the spring of 1948. The most important of these changes were the land reform, the transfer of enterprises owned by war criminals and active nazis to public ownership, and the denazification of all spheres of life. These changes were the first phase of the people's democratic revolution. Its further development and growth into the socialist revolution was achieved by strengthening the state sector of the economy, the transition to long-term planning, the extension of democratic organs of administration and other measures of a democratic nature.
In Hungary the people's democratic revolution unfolded in the autumn of 1944 in liberated territory. The power of the workers and peasants, resting on a large network of national committees, was established in December 1944 with the formation of a provisional national government. The political parties united in the Hungarian National Independence Front, which was, in effect, a broad class alliance of the proletariat, the peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie, democratic intellectuals and part of the bourgeoisie, which had opposed the nazi invaders. Subsequently, when reactionaries infiltrated into the National Front, the Communists formed a Left-wing bloc in March 1946, which strengthened the unity of the working class and its alliance with the peasants. The National Front was used to expose and isolate the bourgeoisie.
Reaction was quickly suppressed after a conspiracy was uncovered at the close of 1946. The Left-wing forces carried the elections in 1947, and the integration of the workingclass parties in June 1948 led to the triumph of the socialist _-_-_
^^*^^ ``This was, first and foremost, a defeat of the reactionary forces, who sought to use the elections to restore the capitalist and imperialist alignment of forces and to this end planned to use their positions in the Christian-Democratic Union and the Liberal Democratic Party of Germany,'' notes the historian Stefan Doernberg of the Democratic Republic of Germany (Kurze Geschichte der DDR, Berlin, 1968, p. 102).
213 revolution in the political sphere. The power of the working class was established.The revolution had distinctive features in Rumania. The democratic revolution in that country began with an armed uprising of the people, as a result of which the militaryfascist dictatorship was deposed on August 23, 1944 and a determined struggle was launched against bourgeois-- landowner rule. A National Democratic Front, uniting the democratic parties and groups and headed by the Communists, was set up in the course of that struggle, which was directed by the Communist Party. Led by the Communists the people seized the local organs of power (prefectures and local councils) by force and installed their own representatives in the key posts. The Communists used the actively operating factory and peasant committees to block the reactionary measures of the bourgeois-landowner organs of state and put into effect important political and economic measures of a democratic character, one of which was the seizure and division of the landed estates. As a result of broad popular action headed by the working class, a people's democratic regime was established in Rumania on March 6, 1945. The Communists had the decisive say in the democratic government set up on this basis. In the course of 1946 and 1947 the parliament, in which were represented the Communist Party, the Social-Democratic Party, the Agrarian Front, the National People's Party, the Hungarian Popular Union, the Liberal Party and various political groups, was the vehicle of the new power. This period witnessed the institution of workers' control in industry in the shape of industrial administrations, a monetary reform, which abolished the cash funds which the bourgeoisie had not invested in industry, the adoption of a law forbidding the purchase of land by kulaks, the transfer of the national bank to the state, the expulsion of reactionary elements from the army and the Ministry for the Interior, a reform of the election law, and other reforms.
At the elections in November 1946 the Left Democratic Front won 341 seats in the parliament, and 36 seats went to representatives of reactionary circles. This allowed the new regime to abolish the reactionary forces. A new, socialist stage of the revolution began in Rumania in 1948 after the last of the bourgeois representatives were removed from the 214 government, the monarchy was deposed and a people's republic was proclaimed.
In Yugoslavia new organs of power were set up in the course of the national liberation struggle, which was headed by the Communists. The victorious national liberation struggle placed the power in the hands of the working class and the peasants. Basic socio-economic reforms, including the nationalisation of industry, the banks and transport, were carried out in 1945--1946, and this laid the foundation for the country's socialist development.
In Albania the national liberation struggle during the Second World War was in some respects a civil war with a distinct class character. The defeat of the reactionaries brought the democratic forces to power. The first stage of the people's democratic revolution was in the main consummated towards the beginning of 1946.
The revolutions in the European countries are evidence of the diversity of the ways and methods of achieving change, and this shows that the peoples and Communist parties of these countries have contributed greatly to the practice of revolution. However, this practice has not repudiated the general laws of revolution. On the contrary, it has confirmed them. This, too, is of immense theoretical significance.
In the Asian countries and also in Cuba the revolutions had their own specifics.
Take China. As distinct from the European socialist countries, China was a semi-colonial, semi-feudal state with the peasants comprising five-sixths of the population.
The people's democratic revolution triumphed in China in 1949, and the proclamation of the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949 meant that the bourgeois-- democratic revolution had been in the main consummated. With the formation of the PRC the democratic dictatorship of the people in effect became a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The people's revolution in China was preceded by a long armed struggle (lasting nearly a quarter of a century) against foreign imperialism, the feudal lords and the compradore bourgeoisie. The aim of this struggle was to achieve a democratic revolution. In cases where the Communist 215 Party of China regarded itself part of the united antiimperialist front of the proletariat of all countries and the oppressed peoples of the East forming a close alliance with the world's first country of the dictatorship of the proletariat its successes were tangible. However, during the Chinese ' revolution the CPC departed time and again from correct strategy and tactics. These were chiefly errors of the Leftist type and were expressed in an underestimation of the united front of Communist and national revolutionary forces and in the refusal to work in the Kuomintang. One of them was the attempt, in 1929--1930, to start a nation-wide uprising and get the workers and the then numerically small Chinese Red Army to seize the country's main centres. It was contended that a revolutionary situation had matured throughout the world and that China was the centre of the world revolution. There were other extremes, notably, inadequate or no attention to work in the towns.
In China the peasants were the main driving force of the revolution. The revolutionary war affected not the entire country but individual areas. Revolutionary bases were set up in rural localities, and from there armed forces were sent to liberate towns. A democratic dictatorship, whose social foundation consisted of two classes---the working class and the peasants---was established in territory liberated by the revolutionary people. This was a bourgeois-democratic dictatorship because it only changed the feudal system of land tenure and did not abolish private ownership (of the national bourgeoisie) of the means of production and the individual ownership of the peasants.
A major distinctive feature of the people's revolution in China was that besides the working masses its participants were the national bourgeoisie and various democratic elements and groups. The discontent of these strata with the tyranny of the foreign imperialists and local compradores and feudal lords was utilised by the Communist Party to draw them to the side of the revolutionary peoples. This unquestionably helped to develop the revolution and enhance its scale.
In China the bourgeois-democratic revolution grew peacefully into a socialist revolution, i.e., in the same way as in the European People's Democracies. The national bourgeoisie was won over to the side of the people and this 216 helped to strengthen the political alliance with it in the struggle for the socialist revolution.
Three other Asian countries are advancing along the road of socialism. They are the Mongolian People's Republic, which was the second country in the world to begin building socialism, the Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Like China, they were colonial or semi-colonial countries. The relations of production were predominantly feudal and for that reason the revolutions in these countries were of an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal nature with the agrarian problem taking precedence over all others. However, they were not the usual kind of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. They differed from the anti-colonial revolutions in countries like, say, India or Indonesia, in that the hegemonic force was not the national bourgeoisie but chiefly the working strata---the working class and the peasants---and that millions of peasants and other democratic strata discontented with the colonial and feudal regime were united under the leadership of the Communist parties.
The existence of common features in the development of the revolution in these countries does not mean that they have been or are advancing towards socialism in one and the same way. In each country there has been an intricate process of revolutionary transformations.
On the basis of the experience of non-capitalist development in the Soviet eastern republics, Lenin told the 2nd Congress of the Comintern in 1920: ''. .. with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist stage.''^^*^^
Guided by the experience of the Soviet eastern republics, its analysis of the political and economic situation in Mongolia and the enormous significance of Mongolia's close ties with the Soviet Union, the 3rd Congress of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party, held in 1924, found that non-capitalist development was the surest and only acceptable way of advancement for Mongolia. This conclusion _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 244.
217 underlay the Party's second programme, adopted at the 4th Congress in 1925.In Mongolia, where a working class was non-existent, only one party was formed. This was a people's party, which initially consisted solely of peasants. The Mongolian experience has shown that if such a party champions the vital interests of the oppressed class and correctly understands and skilfully applies the Marxist-Leninist teaching to precapitalist relations it can become the leading and organising force of its country's development towards socialism.
The experience of Mongolia has demonstrated that peasants who have won state power can thoroughly master the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and apply it under the leadership of their Marxist Party even under the most complex specific conditions of a country's historical development.^^*^^ In the 1920s and 1930s the dictatorship of the working peasants successfully grew into a dictatorship of the working class simultaneously with the growth of the democratic revolution into a socialist revolution.
Japanese militarism's defeat at the hands of the Soviet Army opened the road to freedom, democracy and socialism for the people of Korea. However, that country's partition determined the nature and sequence of the solution of the problems of revolutionary development. The Korean Party of Labour ``with the purpose of building a fully independent democratic state has put forward the militant task of utilising the favourable conditions created by the great Soviet Army in the northern part of the country to turn that part of the country into a powerful revolutionary democratic base and mobilise all the patriotic democratic forces of South Korea against the policy of the United States imperialists to secure the country's colonial enslavement''.^^**^^
An expression of this guideline was the establishment of the Provisional People's Committee of North Korea in February 1946. This organ of power was founded on the alliance between the workers and peasants led by the working ctess and relying on the united democratic national front, which consisted of anti-imperialist and anti-feudal _-_-_
^^*^^ B. Shirendyb, Bypassing Capitalism, Russ. ed., Ulan Bator, 1967, p. 63.
^^**^^ Documents of the 3rd Congress of the Korean Party of Labour, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1957, pp. 13--14.
218 democratic forces. This authority fulfilled the functions of a people's democratic dictatorship.With the working people in power it was possible to enforce anti-feudal and socialist reforms at the very first stage of the revolution. Reforms which eradicated feudalism, promoted democracy and created the material conditions for building the foundations of socialism were put into effect under the guidance of the Party of Labour. A land reform was carried out and industry was nationalised, with the result that the state sector became predominant in the economy and socialist relations of production were established.
Of colossal importance to the development of the revolution was the creation, in February 1948, of the People's Army as an instrument strengthening and safeguarding the people's democratic system. The Supreme People's Assembly---the all-Korea legislative organ which adopted the Constitution of the Korean People's Democratic Republic and formed an all-Korea government---was elected in August 1948 as a result of elections held in South and North Korea. As was noted in the report of the CC to the 3rd Congress of the Korean Party of Labour, ``the creation of the Korean People's Democratic Republic was a new historic event in the struggle for our country's unity, independence and democratic development''.^^*^^
A people's democratic revolution took place in Vietnam in August 1945. It swept away the colonialists and feudal lords and led to the formation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. This revolution was the result of three stages of a nation-wide revolutionary movement^^**^^: the bourgeois democratic movement of 1930--1931, whose objectives were to drive out the imperialists, overthrow the feudal lords, achieve national independence, transfer the land to those who tilled it, and establish a workers' and peasants' power; the broad democratic movement of 1936--1939 aimed at wresting power from the colonialists, the crown and the bureaucracy, achieve democratic freedoms, improve the life of the people and defend peace; the national liberation movement of the anti-imperialist united national front and _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 16.
^^**^^ 3rd Congress of the Working People's Party of Vietnam, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1961, p. 12.
219 the democratic front for the independence of Vietnam (Viet Minh) in 1939--1945.The August revolution decided the question of power, but the war of aggression started by the French colonialists halted the implementation of democratic tasks. For eight years the Vietnamese people fought a heroic war of Resistance, finally defeating the French invaders in 1954. Important democratic reforms, notably an agrarian reform aimed at restricting and then abolishing the landowner class and improving the life of the working people, were carried out during the war. As was noted in the CC report to the 3rd Congress of the Working People's Party of Vietnam: ``... having victoriously ended the war of Resistance, our Party completed the agrarian reform in the northern part of the country, abolished feudal land ownership once and for all and translated into life the slogan 'Land to those who till it'. The attainment of the two basic objectives of the people's democratic revolution in North Vietnam has been an historic triumph of the Vietnamese people. It has opened the road for a new stage of the Vietnamese revolution.''^^*^^
The character of the revolution in Cuba was very specific. The objective conditions for revolution matured as a result of an acute exacerbation of the contradictions under the reactionary Batista regime. The basis of the national liberation revolution was enlarged also by the discontent of the national bourgeoisie with United States domination in the country's economy and socio-political life. On the other hand, the subjective factors of revolution had also matured, this being manifested chiefly in the activities of the Popular Socialist Party and the revolutionary July 26 Movement.
The armed struggle against the dictatorship began as a guerrilla war. In the course of the struggle, which grew to massive proportions, the bourgeois opposition organisations made every effort to isolate the revolutionary vanguard of the people. However, in face of the growing revolutionary pressure they were compelled to declare for a broad front that included the Popular Socialist Party. In the night of January 1, 1958, following decisive victories by the Insurgent _-_-_
^^*^^ 3rd Congress of the Working People's Party of Vietnam, p. 16.
220 Army, Batista resigned the presidency and fled to the Dominican Republic.^^*^^ A government was formed with Fidel Castro at its head after a short period of virtual dual power, when the bourgeois opposition parties made an attempt to halt the further development of the revolution, contending that the aims of the movement had been attained and the struggle was at an end. Following the fundamental social and political reforms of 1959--1960, the power finally passed to the working people.A feature of the Cuban revolution was that armed action by the Insurgent Army was the principal form of the revolutionary struggle, that ``the driving forces of the revolution were the working class, the peasants, the intelligentsia and the urban middle strata'', and that the revolutionary movement was headed by two political forces: the July 26 Movement and the Popular Socialist Party, which had set their sights on an anti-imperialist, agrarian, people's revolution.^^**^^
The experience of revolutionary changes in European and Asian countries and in Cuba thus shows that the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism remain in force in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. Fidelity to these principles was what led to the conspicuous successes of the Communist and Workers' parties in the struggle for the proletarian dictatorship. Moreover, this experience strikingly bears out Lenin's pronouncements on the diversity of the ways of transition to socialism in the different countries.
_-_-_^^*^^ Addressing Havana University students on March 13, 1966, First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba Fidel Castro stressed that in Cuba the revolution triumphed in the only possible way, through an armed struggle, that it triumphed because of the determined militant support of the oppressed masses of workers, peasants and students, who comprised the invincible force of the revolution (Granma, March 14, I960).
^^**^^ Cuba. 10th Anniversary of the Revolution, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1968, p. 91.
[221] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 5 __ALPHA_LVL1__ PROBLEMSAs the first phase of the communist formation, socialism is a complex system of socio-economic relations springing from historical development. In order to understand modern socialism it is necessary not only to study current specific phenomena and relations but to trace how they took shape and were consolidated. Moreover, a retrospective view of the history of socialism helps to determine and ascertain the content of some categories of historical and other sciences that make it possible to subject the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism to a sufficiently thorough examination.
Inasmuch as in all countries moving from capitalism to socialism the principal forms of production (capitalism, small-commodity production) and the chief social classes (bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasants) are basically identical, they are all governed by common objective laws of the formation of the socialist mode of production. The features deriving from the concrete historical conditions of socialist construction in each country do not contravene general laws. Socialism can be built successfully only if these laws and features are taken into account.
The practice of the transition from capitalism to socialism brings to the fore many new, including historical, problems. On the other hand, the more headway and experience is gained in socialist construction, and the firmly the socialist 222 system becomes established, the greater become the efforts of the enemies of socialism to distort the experience of socialist construction and the theory of transition from capitalism to socialism. Besides, even in the fraternal parties of the capitalist countries there are scholars who do not always treat these problems with adequate competence. As a result, there is much confusion and even distortion over some issues of the struggle for the transition to socialism under working-class power.
In this connection we should like to analyse some of the pressing problems of socialist construction over which the ideological struggle is particularly sharp.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. INEVITABILITY AND SUBSTANCEThe entire experience of socialist construction demonstrates that the transition period is historically inevitable. Soviet science wages a struggle against all who refute this thesis or misrepresent the substance of the transition period. In this struggle it is guided by the theoretical propositions concerning the period of transition from capitalism to socialism formulated by Marx and Engels as a result of their analysis of capitalist society and study of the contradictions of bourgeois economic relations and the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.
In determining the laws of the transition period Marx and Engels proceeded from the assumption that the socialist revolution would triumph in all the leading countries of the world in relatively one and the same time. They therefore spoke of the transition period as of a more or less simultaneous process for all peoples, as of the concluding period of the epoch of the world-wide socialist revolution. They considered that in this case the victorious revolution would create a world dictatorship of the proletariat, a world republic uniting all socialist countries.
In a new historical situation Lenin used the ideas of Marx and Engels to evolve his teaching of the transition period. According to this teaching the transition period must, at a certain stage, be regarded as a process of transition from capitalism in one or several countries. This has 223 been fully borne out by the experience of the contemporary epoch. The transition to socialism constitutes an historical epoch embracing different countries---from countries with capitalist or even pre-capitalist relations to countries at different stages of socialist development.
The CPSU and other Communist parties have enlarged on the Marxist-Leninist teaching of the transition period and worked out a number of new propositions which mirror the experience of socialist construction. Valuable ideas are to be found in numerous documents of the fraternal parties of the socialist countries on the theory and practice of the transition period. The programme documents of the Communist parties of the capitalist countries also deal at length with the problems of the transition from capitalism to socialism. The collective experience in the study of these problems is generalised and deepened in the documents of the 1957, 1960 and 1969 International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties.
Each new socio-economic system was consolidated in the course of a more or less long period of transition, in which the relations and features of the old formation were destroyed and the new system gained strength.
This fully concerns socialism. Rejecting Rykov's assertion that no transition period existed between capitalism and socialism, Lenin said at the 7th All-Russia Conference of the RSDLP(B) in April 1917: ``That is not so. It is a break with Marxism.''^^*^^
A period of transition to socialism is inevitable because many of the prerequisites of socialism cannot take shape even in the most developed capitalist society. They arise only in the process of transition from capitalism to socialism. Among them are radical changes in the forms of ownership and social relations, in the relations between classes and nations, the abolition of exploiters and of unemployment, and so on.
Lenin by no means limited socialism to the one act of socialisation of production regardless of concrete material and technical conditions, as some Leftist elements are trying to do. For Lenin socialism was always a system of social relations, and its substance was the transfer of the means _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 246.
224 of production to public ownership, the organisation of production in accordance with a general plan in the interests of all members of society, and the guarantee of their welfare and free, all-round development.Formerly operating laws of social development undergo a certain modification and new laws appear during the transition period. The destiny of the revolution and the prospects for the development of all mankind depend on how correctly these laws are understood and applied, and on the content and forms of society's economic, political and other activity.
The transition period is characterised by a sharp struggle between different social forces. For instance, capitalism was established in the course of a relentless struggle against the classes upholding feudalism. The cardinal task of this struggle was to demolish feudal social relations, which were fettering the development of the already existing capitalist social relations. The period of transition from capitalism to socialism is needed to uproot the old capitalist social relations and suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie. In 1916 Lenin wrote: ``And from a scientific point of view it would be utterly wrong---and utterly unrevolutionary---for us to evade or gloss over the most important thing: crushing the resistance of the bourgeoisie---the most difficult task, and one demanding the greatest amount of fighting, in the transition to socialism.''^^*^^
In their desperate resistance to the revolution the exploiters use all the means at their disposal, including armed violence. History has convincingly shown that nowhere has the exploiting class voluntarily relinquished power. On the contrary, it continues, as it has always done, to do everything to preserve and perpetuate its rule, not scrupling to resort to the most extreme measures. This is all the more true in the imperialist epoch when the bourgeoisie has a powerful apparatus of class suppression, namely, an army, a gendarmerie, a police force and so on. That is why power can be wrested from the exploiters and the transition from capitalism to socialism started only as a result of a persevering and bitter class,struggle, which in some cases is _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 79.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15---1157 225 protracted and entails bloodshed. This struggle is crowned by the socialist revolution.After the October Revolution the capitalists and landowners unleashed a civil war against the power of the working class. In this they were helped by foreign capital. Following the defeat of the counter-revolution some two million members of the former ruling classes left Russia and continued their fight against her. The world bourgeoisie waited (it is still waiting) for an opportune moment to strike a blow at socialism. ``It is not dead; it is alive. It is lurking nearby and watching,''^^*^^ Lenin wrote. To this day, despite the fact that socialism's frontiers have been extended and its forces have grown stronger, the world bourgeoisie does not relinquish its hope of restoring capitalism and uses every opportunity to attack the gains of the proletariat.
In the transition period the principal constructive task is to create the relations of production and other social relations of socialism. The fact that power is taken over by the people for the first time fundamentally alters the content of the transition period. Lenin wrote: ``To defeat capitalism in general, it is necessary, in the first place, to defeat the exploiters and to uphold the power of the exploited, namely, to accomplish the task of overthrowing the exploiters by revolutionary forces; in the second place, to accomplish the constructive task, that of establishing new economic relations, of setting an example of how this should be done. These two aspects of the task of accomplishing a socialist revolution are indissolubly connected, and distinguish our revolution from all previous ones, which never went beyond the destructive aspect.''^^**^^
By resolving the task of transferring state power to the workers and peasants, the socialist revolution thereby does not achieve the replacement of capitalism by socialism. From the very beginning, it will be remembered, Soviet Russia called herself a socialist republic. This, as Lenin emphasised, signified ``the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 506.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 417. To the old specialists who saw only an ``iron hand" in the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin wrote: ``You stubbornly refuse to see that the iron hand that destroys also creates" (Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 389).
226 system is recognised as a socialist order''.^^*^^ A more or less long period, in fact, an entire transition period is required for the socialist remaking of the economy after the dictatorship of the proletariat is established. As Lenin put it, this transition period signified that in the economy there were elements, particles and fragments of both capitalism and socialism.^^**^^ In that period the main contradiction and struggle is between incipient socialism and dying capitalism. This contradiction is resolved when capitalism is completely uprooted in the given period and socialism becomes the universal and mature form of social production.In each country the historical complexity and forms of the transition period are naturally different and are determined by the substance of the historical process itself, the extent of the people's participation in the building of socialism, the strength of the party and its leaders, and the degree to which the laws governing the building of the new society are understood. Moreover, they depend on the development level of the productive forces and on other factors, and also, of course, on developments in the world. Taken together these factors determine the duration of the transition period in each country. When the Soviet Union was the only country building socialism and had to withstand the pressure of the capitalist states encircling it, the problem of the duration of the transition period was different from what it is today when a country building socialism can count on assistance from the socialist community.
The duration of the transition period is, of course, different for an industrially developed and ^n economically undeveloped country. In principle, the higher the development level of a country and the greater the maturity of the material prerequisites of socialism, the less is this country in need of special state transitional measures. This was stressed by Lenin in his notes on the theses of the French Communist Party on the agrarian problem. He wrote that in the case of France, where the small peasants were predominant in the countryside, there was a need for a ``~`programme of transitional measures' ... to communism, adapted to the peasants' voluntary transition to the _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 335.
^^**^^ Ibid.
__PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 227 socialisation of farming, that will, at the same time, ensure an immediate improvement in the condition of the vast majority of the rural population, the hired labourers and small peasants''.^^*^^ He made the point that ``the vast majority of the rural population of France would gain at once, immediately and very considerably from a proletarian revolution''.^^**^^For each country the duration of the transition period is unquestionably linked with the specifics of its development, with the features intrinsic to it. The distinctions in the duration of this period mirror the diversity of the political forms of transition, although the historical content of the transition remains immutable.
The possible length of the transition period has been prompted by history.
In the Soviet Union socialism was built by 1936, i.e., in twenty years. In the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe, where the building of socialism proceeded under more favourable conditions, with support from the USSR, the transition period was shorter. For instance, it ended by 1958 in Bulgaria, by 1960 in Czechoslovakia and Rumania and by 1962 in the German Democratic Republic.
The Marxist-Leninist teaching of the transition period is attacked from two sides. The reformists reject the need for fundamental changes in all spheres of social life and for the conquest of power by the proletariat. It regards the transition period as a gradual reorganisation of capitalism into socialism while retaining all the basic attributes of capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, political ``pluralism'' under which the working class and its party are accorded solely the role of an equal partner with other social forces and, lastly, ``coexistence'' of socialist and bourgeois ideology. As a matter of fact, the Social-- Democrats of a number of countries, where they have been or are in power (and where they have not even touched the foundations of capitalism), consider that under their rule society is no longer capitalist, but is in the stage of transition from capitalism to socialism.
The Left extremists, on the other hand, hold that as long as there are countries that have not shaken off the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 131.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 136.
228 chains of capitalism, neither socialism nor communism can be built in countries where a revolution has already taken place. This tenet is at variance with objective historical laws and shows incomprehension of the substance of the transition from capitalism to socialism and communism. It reflects an aspiration to hold up the development of other countries artificially, to slow down the inexorable course of history and keep all countries and peoples at one stage, at the stage of transition. This is a reactionary stand, of course, because far from encouraging it only keeps the energy and initiative of the masses in the capitalist and dependent countries in check. This is nothing but historic pessimism because the Left extremists have no desire to go beyond the transition period with its prospect of building socialism.The thesis of a simultaneous period of transition, of a simultaneous triumph of socialism turns upside down the theory of the simultaneous triumph of the revolution in an epoch and under historical conditions when no objective prerequisites exist for accomplishing the revolution. The theory and practice of the extremists run counter to the interests of most nations, the interests of all the Communist parties.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is unquestionably prominent among the problems of the transition period over which the ideological struggle is particularly sharp. This is not accidental. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the chief instrument for carrying out all the tasks of the transition period. Socialism cannot be built without such a dictatorship. ``World history,'' Lenin wrote, ``is leading unswervingly towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, but is doing so by paths that are anything but smooth, simple and straight."^^*^^
No sooner was the idea of the proletarian dictatorship expounded by Marxism than it was attacked by bourgeois ideology. It is precisely in this issue that the bourgeoisie glaringly reveals its class positions and interests. It hurls a torrent of accusations at socialism, alleging that it is not democratic, that Marxist ideology is anti-democratic and anti-humane and that the Marxist parties represent a _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 309.
229 dictatorship of a narrow circle of persons standing above the party, above the class and above the people. The debate and struggle between revolutionary, creative MarxismLeninism and opportunism is most bitter precisely over the questions of democracy and dictatorship. The answer to these questions is the criterion for determining who is an opportunist and who a Marxist-Leninist. These were the questions that were in the centre of the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968--1969.The idea of the proletarian dictatorship is most intensively criticised on two counts. In the first place, attempts are being made to repudiate the proposition on the leading role of the working class. It is asserted that the scientific and technological revolution has modified the proletariat's role in society, that it is no longer a revolutionary class and there is, therefore, no reason for raising the question of its political power. Moreover, it is maintained that in the epoch of the scientific and technological revolution increasing importance is acquired by the leadership of all social processes by an elite consisting of technocrats, that classes, the class division, the class struggle and society's leadership from class positions are losing their significance.''^^*^^
The reason that in the transition period the dictatorship of the proletariat and no other class is established is because it is the leading class numerically and for its place in production and social life. After the October Revolution Lenin underscored the special role of the proletariat, noting that ``classes can be abolished only by the dictatorship of that oppressed class which has been schooled, united, trained and steeled by decades of the strike and political struggle against capital---of that class alone which has assimilated all the urban, industrial, big-capitalist culture and has the determination and ability to protect it and to preserve and further develop all its achievements, and make them available to all the people, to all the working people---of that class alone which will be able to bear all the hardships, trials, _-_-_
^^*^^ For instance, the Swedish bourgeois theorist Jorgen Westerstol calls the capitalist system a ``service democracy''. He says that today political parties do not propound ideas but come forward as the producers and sellers of ``services'' wanted by the electors. Political elections are now reminiscent of ``choosing commodities in a shop" (S. Bjorklund, Politisk teori, Stockholm, 1968, p. 95).
230 privations and great sacrifices which history inevitably imposes upon those who break with the past and boldly hew a road for themselves to a new future---of that class alone whose finest members are full of hatred and contempt for everything petty-bourgeois and philistine, for the qualities that flourish so profusely among the petty bourgeoisie, the minor employees and the `intellectuals'---of that class alone which 'has been through the hardening school of labour' and is able to inspire respect for its efficiency in every working person and every honest man''.^^*^^Lenin showed that it was necessary to consolidate the role of the working class, saying that socialism could not triumph without working-class leadership. He enlarged on the Marxist proposition on the need for a strong alliance between the proletariat and the peasants with the working class playing the chief role in that alliance. Class-conscious and disciplined, the proletariat is the only class that can win over the majority of the working and exploited people, the majority of the poor to the building of socialist society. Moreover, Lenin pointed out that the proletariat would not be satisfied with just any alliance with the peasants, that it needed an alliance that would give it the leading role and enable it to strengthen its position in regard to the bourgeoisie, build socialism and abolish classes.
Another method used by the enemies of socialism in their attacks on the theory of the proletarian dictatorship is to set it off against the democratic dictatorship with the assertion that the proletarian dictatorship signifies the end of all democracy. These were the arguments of Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky and others, and they were utterly disproved by the Marxists-Leninists. As the dictatorship of any class, the proletarian dictatorship is of a class nature and thereby signifies the limitation of democracy for those who go against the power of the working people, against socialism. ``All talk of independence or democracy in general, no matter what sauce it may be served up with, is a sheer fraud and a downright betrayal of socialism,''^^**^^ Lenin wrote.
Bourgeois and socialist society cannot be compared _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 390.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 217.
231 mechanically or abstracted from the class nature of society. Socialist democracy is not a formal category. It is a democracy for the workers, peasants and intellectuals. Its aim is to draw millions of people into the administration of the state, into economic management, into the direction of all social affairs. Bourgeois democracy is, in fact, a democracy for -the select and accords the real right to administer society only to those who have economic power. ``Freedom of speech'', ``freedom of assembly" and other ``rights'' proclaimed by the bourgeoisie are formal categories (and even they are being constantly curtailed) because they are implemented according to the ``rules of the game'', which safeguard the power of the capitalists and ward off any threat to private ownership, the holy of holies of capitalism. The thousands of volumes written by Western propagandists about the blessings of their democracy cannot obviate the fact that the working people, who comprise the overwhelming majority of the population in capitalist countries, do not play the decisive role in the socio-political life of these countries.Lenin had, therefore, every reason for declaring that proletarian socialist democracy is a thousand times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy. This is borne out by the flourishing socialist democracy in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
In their attacks on the proletarian dictatorship the enemies of Marxism-Leninism seek to drive a wedge between the party and the class. They assert that the party does not mirror the interests of the proletariat, that it stands above the working people, that there is an abyss between the party's policy and the will of the working class, and so on. Assertions of this kind have been convincingly refuted by the entire history of the communist movement. By playing the leading role in socialist society the party makes it possible to achieve the efficient organisation of socialist construction, foster economic and cultural development and promote broad democracy as a vital element strengthening the power of the people.
Todor Zhivkov, First Secretary of the CC of the Bulgarian Communist Party, told the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties: ``What we need is not formal democracy, but the conditions necessary for 232 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 sociopolitical, economic and cultural life, which are, indeed, the serious questions that the Communist parties are working on in the socialist countries.''^^*^^
Advocates of ``pure'' democracy are trying to bring into the theory of the transition period a thesis calling for a ``free play" of political forces and for the renunciation by the Communist party of its leading role. They contend that in the socialist countries the political system lags behind the level of economic development.
The attempts to change the policy of a socialist state in accordance with these views conform, as the experience of Czechoslovakia has shown, with the interests of the reactionary forces and menace all the achievements of socialism.
The duration of the transition period is also a bone of contention. On this point there are two extremes. One is the tendency, unfoundedly, to shorten the transition to socialism, to leap over unavoidable stages of development. This tendency is manifested in hasty statements about the complete triumph of socialism, the abolition of all antagonistic contradictions, the homogeneity of society and the establishment of a socialist state of the whole people. These misguided views were propounded by some theorists in Czechoslovakia. At a plenary meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in September 1969 Gustav Husak said that as a result of a subjectivist approach ``social development was idealised and unrealistic slogans were proclaimed which anticipated a whole stage of historical development in substance and time. And all this was done in a period when the problems and difficulties lying on the shoulders of rank-and-file party members and other honest citizens were still awaiting their solution.''^^**^^
The other extreme is to lengthen the transition period indefinitely. The Chinese ``theorists'' say that the transition period must last ten thousand or tens of thousands of years, or even a hundred thousand years. But this understanding _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 299.
^^**^^ Rude prdvo, September 29, 1969.
233 of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism has nothing in common with the Marxist-Leninist theory of the socialist revolution, with the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the transition period. It is an expression of petty-bourgeois confusion and fear of the difficulties of the transition period, of the complexities involved in the building of socialism.The various deviations from the Marxist-Leninist teaching of the transition period are prejudicial to the practice of socialist construction and obstruct the Communist Party's leadership of social development. History has shown that Communists achieve their greatest successes only when they steadfastly follow the teaching of the transition period. The substance of that period is inevitably the dictatorship of the proletariat, which builds a new society and cuts short the intrigues of its enemies.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. SCIENCE OF SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTIONThe science of socialist construction, like the practice of building socialism, is indivisibly associated with Lenin's name. Lenin mapped out the programme for the building of socialist society covering its economic, political, ideological and international aspects, and for more than six years guided the building of socialism in the USSR.
In his work as Chairman of the first Soviet Government and of the Council for Labour and Defence he set a brilliant model for the leadership of the proletarian dictatorship. The experience of this work and the many articles and documents written by Lenin and his pronouncements in this period are of immense value to the development of the theory and practice of the transition period.
Among the principles of statesmanship by which Lenin was guided mention must be made, first of all, of the party spirit, devotion to the interests of the working class and fidelity to the party's policy; a profoundly scientific approach, loyalty to national roots, links with the broad masses; ability to concentrate on central tasks and determine the main line of activity; efficiency and intolerance of any signs of bureaucracy; strict control of the work of state organs by the party and the masses.
234A striking feature of Lenin's work was his scientific approach to the leadership of the state. He was both a scientist and a statesman. All his plans were profoundly scientific. He sought to achieve broad contacts between scientific institutions and the state apparatus and to bring leading scientists into state activity. The scientific approach enabled Lenin to determine unerringly the principal guidelines of the development of Soviet society, correctly chart pressing and long-term tasks and ensure their timely fulfilment.
In the functions of government Lenin did not reject methods of suppression but he stressed the importance of methods of state leadership and administration in carrying out the tasks of the transition period. In 1918 he wrote: ``We achieved victory by methods of suppression; we shall be able to achieve victory also by methods of administration.''^^*^^ Underlying these methods were efficiency, responsibility and strict discipline. On this point Lenin wrote: ''. . . govern without the slightest hesitation; govern with a firmer hand than the capitalist governed before you. If you do not, you will not vanquish him. You must remember that government must be much stricter and much firmer than it was before.... Whoever now departs from order and discipline is permitting the enemy to penetrate our midst.''^^**^^
Lenin linked state discipline with intolerance of bureaucracy and red tape. As Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars he was uncompromising in his attitude to bureaucracy. He considered that executive control and the correct selection of cadres were the most effective means of combating bureaucracy. In February 1922 he wrote to A. D. Tsuryupa: ``... check up on their work, get down to rock-bottom, school them, teach them, give them a proper trouncing. Study people, search for able workers. This is now the essence.''^^***^^
Democratic centralism, which makes it possible to combine planned centralised leadership with broad democracy and stimulate activity by the masses, was regarded by Lenin as the fundamental principle of administration. He attached _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 247.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, pp. 70, 71.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 538.
235 great importance to the combination and precise delimitation of the functions of state, party and public organisations. In view of the fact that there was only one governing party, he insisted that it was necessary ``to delimit much more precisely the functions of the party (and of its Central Committee) from those of the Soviet government; to increase the responsibility and independence of Soviet officials and of Soviet government institutions''.^^*^^Lenin's creative and practical work found expression in his plan for the building of socialism. Founded on the general laws of socio-economic and political development, this plan is of international importance for it takes into account not only the specifics of Russia but the general trends of socio-economic and political development throughout the world.
It embraces four aspects: economic, political, ideological and international. Let us consider it in its economic aspect.
Lenin's point of departure was that during the transition period private ownership of the means of production is abolished, the leadership and planning of the economy pass to society as a whole, and the pattern and capacities of the national economy begin to change in such a way as to ensure socialist reproduction, the distribution of material blessings in accordance with the interests of society's development arid remuneration according to work.
The transitional nature of the relations of production in the period of socialist construction derives not only from the fact that for some time (a span that is different in each country on account of its historical, economic and other features) the economy remains multi-structural but also from the fact that survivals of preceding economic relations are to be found in the state sector of the economy. The law of the uneven development of social production is most strikingly seen during the socialist reorganisation of agriculture. These contradictions are gradually surmounted thanks to state assistance, above all, in the provision of machinery for agriculture, and to other important measures.
Lenin considered that in view of the 20th-century scientific and technological revolution industrialisation was the only way to achieve the re-equipment of all branches of the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 255.
236 national economy, a rapid upswing of the productive forces and a steady rise of the living standard and cultural level of society as a whole. His argument was that only industrialisation could turn Russia, then destitute and weak, into a flourishing socialist republic.Lenin directed the compilation of the plan for the electrification of Russia (known as GOELRO), which ranged far beyond the set task of building a network of power stations, becoming in fact a plan for the comprehensive development of the entire national economy, a plan of industrialisation. He wrote: ``Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.'' This formula combines the economic and political tasks of communist construction. Lenin worked out the problem of the material and technical basis of socialism and communism, showing that the pivotal tasks were electrification, mechanisation of production, and the promotion of technology and science. His approach to economic development thus combined economic and political considerations.
He drew a clear distinction between the material and technical basis of socialism and the material and technical basis of communism, stressing that there was a considerable difference between them, that it would be much more difficult to build the latter.
He considered that the second task in the economic building of socialism was the collectivisation of agriculture, i.e., the transfer of the individual isolated small peasant husbandry to large-scale socialised socialist farming. He worked out the problem of the principles, forms and methods of co-operation, of the principles of large-scale socialised farming, of the ways and methods of the socialist re-- education and education of the peasants and the eradication of the contradictions between town and countryside. He showed that socialism had to be built and developed 6n the basis of an agriculture that kept abreast of the achievements of modern science and technology. In short, Lenin charted the ways and means of resolving the peasant problem during the building of socialism and during the subsequent transition to the building of communism.
When we speak of Lenin's plan for the economic building of socialism and communism we must bear in mind that the main conditions for building the new society were, in his 237 opinion, the implementation of the principle of distribution according to the quality and quantity of work and the principle of material incentives combined with moral incentives. He repeatedly made the point that socialism could not be built on enthusiasm alone even if this enthusiasm sprang from the great purpose of effecting the socialist revolution and building socialism. He stressed that in addition to a worker's personal interest in the results of his work it was necessary to take moral incentives into account. This, he said, was the only way to build socialism and lead the people to communism. The practice of many socialist countries has shown that violation of these principles leads to errors in the leadership of society, to economic miscalculations, and so on.
Lenin's plan for political reorganisation embraced a wide range of problems linked with the building of socialist society's political superstructure. Among these problems were the formation of society's socio-political structure, the determination of the aims, functions and methods of state and party institutions and various public organisations (trade unions, youth, creative, sports, and others), the forms of expressing national interests in a multi-national state, the determination of the place occupied in this system by institutions which, by virtue of many circumstances, are preserved under socialism, notably, the Church. It goes without saying that in some countries it is possible to use individual institutions of the old system in the new political system, but, on the whole, a new structure arises. Its task is to ensure the functioning of socialist democracy and the implementation of the norms of socialist society through political and organisational measures.
Lenin held that the successful building of socialism and communism required the party's further organisational and ideological strengthening and the growth of its role as the leading force in the building of the new society. It was for this reason that he attached particularly great importance to the utmost promotion of inner-party democracy, the enhancement of the ideological and political level of Communists, the improvement of the party's qualitative composition and the efficient functioning of its leading organs. The fundamental norms of party development under socialism, by which the CPSU and the fraternal parties of other 238 socialist countries are guided, were drawn up during the initial years of the transition period, when the party was headed by Lenin.
Lenin showed that the administration of Soviet society and the structure of the state apparatus had to be attuned to the attainment of the economic and political objectives in the building of socialism and communism. He defined the socialist state's principal tasks in economic development, in the organisation of social life and in the socialist and communist education of the people. He never hesitated to renounce those forms of state activity that had become obsolete and did not meet with the new requirements, and unconditionally rejected bureaucratic considerations. He insisted that in all its aspects the functions of government had to be economically and politically expedient and conform to the requirements of life, which dictated concrete forms of administration and concrete tasks in the work of the state apparatus. Here his point of departure was that economic development was the principal policy of a socialist state.
Further, Lenin determined the ways of solving the national problem during the transition period. He attached immense importance to this problem and devoted much of his time to it.
His teaching rested on the proposition, profoundly substantiated by him, that every nationality had the right to selfdetermination. Although for the proletariat, which is fighting to build a classless society, the national problem is of a secondary nature, Lenin considered that only the full and unconditional solution of this problem could facilitate the cause of the revolution. In this he differed with some theorists in his own party and in the international communist movement, one of whom was Rosa Luxemburg.
From the principle of self-determination stemmed the question, raised by Lenin, of the forms of relations between nations after the triumph of socialism and of the state system of a multi-national country like Russia. In one of its very first acts, the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia published on November 16, 1917, the Soviet Government declared that the following principles of the programme of the Communist Party underlay its national policy: recognition of the right of nations to self-- determination up to and including secession and the formation of an 239 independent state; recognition of the equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia; abolition of all national privileges and restrictions; free development of the national minorities and ethnical groups inhabiting the country.
The Leninist line in the national question, embodied in the decisions of many party congresses, envisages a close alliance of the independent Soviet republics and an uncompromising struggle against great-power chauvinism and local nationalism. In this connection Lenin regarded as inacceptable the unification of the republics on the basis of ``autonomisation'' as proposed by Stalin, i.e., through the accession of independent Soviet republics to the RSFSR with the status of autonomous republics. Lenin insisted on-a higher form of federation---a union state in which each republic had the right freely to secede.
He held that a correct national policy and its combination with the policy of socialist and communist construction had to be founded on the Communist Party's leading role and authority exercised throughout the country.
He showed that during the transition period an immense role was to be played by the trade unions as the media for drawing the masses into the building of socialism. In the struggle against all sorts of distortions of the role and place of the trade unions during the transition period and under socialism, Lenin determined their tasks in the economy and all other spheres of social life, making it clear that they were an organisation designed to train people, a school of economic management, a school of communism.^^*^^ He thus not only saw in the trade unions an element of socialist society but linked them with the communist future.
The aim of the trade unions is to mobilise the people for the drive to promote economic development, to carry out the plans of socialist and communist construction. They are closely linked with the party and the government and actively participate in the decision of economic, political and cultural problems.
They educate the people in the spirit of a communist attitude to work and draw the masses into active participation in the management of production. Moreover, they safeguard the labour rights and health of all factory and office _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. I.enin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 20. 240
240 workers. They make sure labour legislation is observed and combat mismanagement and bureaucracy.Lenin established the norms governing the relations between the party and the trade unions. He considered that while being formally non-communist, the trade unions had to be, in effect, a communist organisation. In the resolution of the 9th Party Congress (1920) ``On the Trade Unions and Their Organisation" it is stated: ``It is only to the extent the trade unions, while formally remaining non-party organisations, become communist and in fact implement the policy of the Communist Party that the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction are ensured.''^^*^^
Society's organisation during the transition period envisages the active enlistment of young people into the building of socialism. Work with young people thus becomes an important function of the party, and it is precisely this function that for its aims and methods goes far beyond the transition period. The work of the Young Communist League is likewise wholly directed towards moulding the man and the social relations of the future communist society.
An independent youth mass organisation is an effective instrument for influencing young people and drawing them into social and political affairs. It brings young people into the building of socialism, helps the party to educate the rising generation in a spirit of devotion to communist ideals and trains them to work and defend their socialist motherland.
Lenin's postulates on the role and forms of youth organisation under socialism are attacked chiefly where they concern the functions of the youth league and its attitude to the Communist Party. The revisionists contend that the youth organisation must steer clear of politics and that it should be totally independent of the party. The idea of a united youth organisation is also frequently rejected. Young people are counterposed to the party. The experience of the socialist countries, of Czechoslovakia, in particular, has completely refuted these arguments and shown that attempts to translate them into life prejudice the interests of young people and hinder socialist construction.
_-_-_^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences mid CC Plenary Meetings, Russ. cd., Part 1, Moscow, 1954, p. 491.
241Lenin regarded ideology as the third aspect of the building of socialism and communism.
After the power of the bourgeoisie is broken its ideology continues to influence many groups of working people for a long time. This is due to the existence of its direct proponents---remnants of the bourgeois class, the influence of the ideology of capitalist countries and the relative independence of ideology itself, which mirrors the economic basis mediatively. Hence the need for the Communist Party's active and purposeful ideological re-education of the masses on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, which expresses the vital interests of the proletariat and all other working people. As Lenin put it: ``We can only build communism out of the material created by capitalism, out of that refined apparatus which has been moulded under bourgeois conditions and which---as far as concerns the human material in the apparatus---is therefore inevitably imbued with the bourgeois mentality.''^^*^^
The victorious working class uses the economic possibilities and its own political power in the transition period to train and temper itself as a force capable of governing the country, and to re-educate wide strata of society, chiefly and particularly the petty-bourgeois strata in order to draw the masses, the lowest of the lower strata, as Lenin described them, into the building of socialism.
During the transition period the central place in the party's ideological work is occupied by the cultural revolution. Lenin regarded it as a sort of dual process. On the one hand, its purpose is to make all the values of world science and art, including those created by socialism, accessible to the people, and, on the other, to enable socialist science, technology, art and culture to move into a leading place in the world so that socialism becomes the greatest achievement of civilisation. The cultural revolution must abolish illiteracy and surmount cultural backwardness---a legacy of exploiting society. It must turn the school from a weapon of class rule into an instrument of socialist re-education and create a new, socialist culture and a socialist intelligentsia.
Lenin worked out the principles and methods of working with intellectuals and showed the ways of re-educating the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 388.
242 old, bourgeois intellectuals whom socialism wins over and induces to serve the interests of the people. Moreover, Lenin charted the ways, methods and principles of creating the new, socialist intelligentsia recruited from among the workers, peasants and working intellectuals.Lenin linked the cultural revolution with society's social organisation. He understood the concept of culture in the broad sense and stressed that it had to become part and parcel of social life and habits.^^*^^ ``In matters of culture,'' he wrote, ``haste and sweeping measures are most harmful. Many of our young writers and Communists should get this well into their heads.''^^**^^
He devoted much attention to building up a knowledgeable and efficient administrative apparatus, condemning bureaucracy and working on problems of control over cadres and combining party and government work.
It is sometimes forgotten that the cultural revolution has a class content aimed at the ideological re-education of the people and reorganising the way of life along socialist lines. The peoples who have achieved a high cultural level under capitalism are by no means sufficiently cultured from the standpoint of the requirements of socialism. An attempt was made to distort this tenet by the revisionists in Czechoslovakia who declared that the culture and maturity of the Czechoslovak people called for some special ``European'' form of socialism.
On the other hand, the theory and practice of the recent ``cultural revolution" in China have nothing in common with Lenin's theory of cultural development or with the practice of carrying out a cultural revolution. In fact, the events in China were a drive against veteran proletarian revolutionaries devoted to the working class and socialism with the object of setting up a regime of personal power.
Lenin worked out the problem of the international conditions for the building of socialism and communism. He regarded socialist construction in each country as part of the world revolution and saw in the foreign policy of the socialist states a means of ensuring the conditions needed _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 488.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 487.
243 for the development of socialism in these countries and of helping the world revolutionary movement.He substantiated not only the principles of peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems but also the principles of inter-state relations between socialist countries, showing their basic difference from the international legal relations existing between capitalist countries. He indicated the principles that have regulated and continue to regulate socialist international relations and, at the same time, consolidate and promote economic, political, cultural and other links between socialist countries, links which actively influence the entire system of international relations. In effect he worked out socialist international law, which gives shape to and consolidates the relations between socialist countries.
Lenin's conclusions about the principal tasks of socialist construction have been confirmed in the practice of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. They are recorded in the decisions of the 1957, 1960 and 1969 international communist forums. As L. I. Brezhnev said at the 1969 Meeting, ``none of the difficulties arising during the building of socialism in one country or another have been able to or can cancel the general principles underlying socialist development. 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.''^^*^^
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTIONThe communist movement has the extremely valuable experience of socialist and communist construction in 14 different countries. This experience makes it possible to provide the development of socialist society with able _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 147--48.
244 leadership. ``World socialism,'' L. I. Brezhnev noted at the 1969 Meeting, ``absorbs all the wealth and diversity of the revolutionary traditions and experience deriving from the creative activity of the working people of different countries. In this connection we should like to say that our Party constantly studies that experience and utilises everything of value that may be applied in the conditions obtaining in the Soviet Union, everything that really helps to strengthen the socialist system and embodies the general laws of socialist construction, which have been tested by international experience.''^^*^^The history of socialism fully bears out the fundamental propositions of Lenin's theory of the transition period, of the building of socialism. Concrete historical experience is the most conclusive argument against those who, for one reason or another, have no liking for the policy of the socialist states. No experience is ``more pure'', ``more revolutionary'', ``more democratic" and ``more humane" than that of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, for underlying it is the teaching of Marxism-Leninism and the concrete practice of building a new society.
Let us examine how Lenin's plan of building a socialist society was put into effect in the USSR.
When the Bolshevik Party came to power it energetically set about consolidating the gains of the revolution and building the foundations of socialism. This work proceeded under incredibly difficult conditions, which are mentioned by Lenin in many works, particularly The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and Economics and Politics in the Epoch of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. What sort of conditions were they?
Russia was the first country where the chain of imperialism was broken and Marxist theoretical propositions on socialism were translated into practical deeds. The Soviet people had to move along unexplored paths and blaze the trail to a society that was known only in general outline, in theory.
This colossal work had to be accomplished in a technologically and economically backward country, in a country where the peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 148.
245 comprised the bulk of the population, where there was a shortage of trained cadres and most of the people were illiterate. Lenin noted that there was glaring backwardness in tsarist Russia, that it was ``four times worse-off than Britain, five times worse-off than Germany and ten times worse-off than America in terms of modern means of production''.^^*^^ Neither had the party cadres the necessary training. Lenin wrote: ``We know about socialism, but knowledge of organisation on a scale of millions, knowledge of the organisation and distribution of goods, etc.---this we do not have. The old Bolshevik leaders did not teach us this. The Bolshevik Party cannot boast of this in its history. We have not done a course on this yet.''^^**^^World War I, the Civil War and the foreign intervention threw the country's economy still further back. In 1920 the country produced only half as much pig iron as in 1862, somewhat more coal than in 1898, as much oil as in 1890 and roughly the same amount of cotton fabrics as in 1857.
Initially, because the revolution triumphed in only one country, the Russian bourgeoisie had a number of advantages over the proletariat, the chief of which was that it had world-wide economic links. ``If the exploiters are defeated in one country only,'' Lenin pointed out, ``... they still remain stronger than the exploited, for the international connections of the exploiters are enormous.''^^***^^ Moreover, the bourgeoisie still had a certain position in the economy, the experience of organising and managing production, and ties with engineering personnel, military experts and so on.
All this, undoubtedly, placed enormous difficulties in the way of reorganising society. Besides, the difficulties were aggravated by the fact that for a long time the Soviet Union was the only country where the workers and peasants were in power. It was like a fortress besieged on all sides by imperialist states. Soon after the October Revolution the imperialists of the whole world together with the capitalists of Russia began a war against the young Soviet state. After the Civil War they went on planning new ``crusades'' against the USSR, forming various anti-Soviet blocs, setting _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 292.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, pp. 296--97.
^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 253.
246 up so-called axes and signing military pacts. Many capitalist countries refused to recognise the USSR, while some of those that did frequently broke off diplomatic and trade relations with it. The United States of America, for instance, did not recognise the Soviet Union for 16 years, and Britain and France for seven years.Taken together, this compelled the Soviet people to be constantly prepared for war, allocate enormous funds for the country's defence and reduce the funds for the satisfaction of material requirements.
The intrigues of international reaction were all the more dangerous in view of the fact that a bitter class struggle was raging in the country with the question of ``who will win" in the balance. The Russian bourgeoisie refused to reconcile itself with the loss of its dominating position, did not believe the Soviet system was durable and fought furiously to recover the privileges wrested away from it and restore capitalism. At the same time, the Communist Party had to wage an unremitting struggle against the enemies of Leninism---Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Right opportunists and bourgeois nationalists who repudiated Lenin's theory that socialism could triumph in one country and by their capitulatory tactics provided encouragement and support to the class enemies.
All this made its mark on the forms of struggle and methods employed by the working masses of the Soviet Union to reorganise society along socialist lines.
The working class had to resort to a series of extreme political measures against the bourgeoisie: under Soviet law it was deprived of the franchise and its attempts to wage an active political struggle were sternly suppressed. Moreover, the class struggle assumed acute forms, such as a civil war which lasted over three years. The Civil War and the economic dislocation compelled the Soviet power to pursue a policy that became known as ``war communism''. The state took over not only the large-scale and medium industry but also a considerable portion of the small-scale industry; a surplus food requisitioning system was instituted under which the peasants had to deliver their food surpluses to the state; private trade in staple foodstuffs was banned; a term of labour conscription was made compulsory for all citizens, and so on. The difficult international and internal 247 situation made it necessary to introduce some restrictions on democracy. For instance, until the Constitution was adopted in 1936 suffrage was unequal (at the Ail-Union Congress of Soviets the urban population was represented by one delegate per 25,000 electors and the rural population by one delegate per 125,000 electors), elections were conducted by stages, voting was by a show of hands, and so forth.
These and other peculiarities of the policy pursued by the Soviet power were due to the concrete conditions obtaining in the country. Lenin did not consider the denial of the franchise to exploiters, civil war, ``war communism" and so on as mandatory during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism in other countries. These measures were forced on the young Soviet state by the imperialists, who started the Civil War and furiously resisted the policies of the Soviet power. Lenin stressed that ``the question of depriving the exploiters of the franchise is a purely Russian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in general''.^^*^^
Some determined measures against the exploiting classes were taken by the Soviet power also in the economic sphere. Immediately after the October Revolution the working class, together with the peasants, expropriated all the means of production and other wealth from the landowners and the big capitalists without compensation. The land, big factories, railways, banks, means of communication, the merchant marine and the large river merchant fleet were nationalised and foreign trade was declared a state monopoly. Lenin called these measures the Red Guard assault on capital. However, he considered that such an assault on capital was not appropriate under all circumstances, that the working class had other means of fighting capitalism. The Bolsheviks tried to use these means. As soon as the Brest Peace Treaty was signed and the country won a respite, Lenin mapped out a peace-time programme of action. The party and the Soviet power, he said, had to surmount the petty-bourgeois element, strengthen the socialist economic system, and make it the predominant and then the only and all-embracing system in the country. This could be achieved _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 255.
248 by peaceful means chiefly as a result of the victory of the working class in October 1917 and the crushing of the first capitalist offensive in October 1917-February 1918. Under these conditions, alongside the relentless measures against the capitalists, there was the possibility of---and, by virtue of the grave economic dislocation, the need for---a compromise or, as Lenin put it, redemption with regard to ``the cultured capitalists who agree to `state capitalism', who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises''.^^*^^Lenin suggested granting concessions to foreign capitalists and setting up enterprises of the state-capitalist type. He did not regard state capitalism dangerous to the working class which was in power. However, state capitalism did not become widespread in Soviet Russia, again through the fault of the bourgeoisie, and not of the Bolsheviks. ``The bourgeoisie,'' Lenin wrote, ``sneered at the Bolsheviks and said the Soviet government would scarcely hold out for a fortnight; so they not only shirked co-operation, but wherever they could and with every means in their power put up resistance to the new movement, the new construction which was destroying the old order.''^^**^^ Relative to the exploiting classes, the proletariat therefore had to resort to the most extreme measures not only in politics but also in the economy.
In our examination of the conditions under which socialism was built in the USSR, a noteworthy point concerns the methods that were used to abolish the kulaks as a class. Enemies have filled many volumes in an effort to prove that in the Soviet Union the kulaks were physically exterminated. This is barefaced slander. In the USSR the kulaks, as a class, were expropriated, the reason for this being that in their blind hatred of socialism and their confidence that collectivisation would fail they waged an uncompromising struggle against the socialist system in the countryside. Their attacks on the Soviet power were particularly furious in the period of nation-wide collectivisation, which led to the abolition of the kulaks as a class. The kulaks refused to _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., Vol 27, p. 345.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 133.
249 sell surplus grain to the state, had recourse to terrorism and incendiarism and engaged in subversion. In this they had the support of Right-wing capitulationists and international imperialism. Kulak actions roused the anger of the peasants, who demanded their expropriation and expulsion from their villages. Hence the determined measures against the kulaks up to and including resettlement in other areas with the confiscation of all means of production and the institution of court action. However, the forcible abolition of the kulaks did not lead to their physical extermination. The overwhelming majority was given every opportunity to work.^^*^^Another feature distinguishing socialist construction was that it had to be accelerated to the utmost and conducted without any economic assistance from without and in such a way as to develop all branches of the economy simultaneously, particularly all the industries. This, of course, gave rise to appalling difficulties. But there was no other way out, for it was a matter either of rapidly creating a largescale industry and a mechanised agriculture and strengthening the country's political and defensive might, or perishing under pressure from the imperialist powers.
Lastly, it must be noted that at no time had the Soviet Union sought isolation from the external world, as enemies are wont to allege. True to Lenin's principles of peaceful coexistence it made every effort to establish relations with all countries. The monopolists, however, fought the Soviet Union overtly and covertly.
Such were some of the features of socialist construction in the USSR springing from concrete historical conditions and from the logic of the struggle for the new society in a country encircled by capitalist states.
All the difficulties of the struggle for socialism were surmounted because the people, liberated from oppression and exploitation, tackled the tasks before them with tremendous enthusiasm, energy, boundless devotion to their country and immense resourcefulness and initiative. They were surmounted also thanks to the peerless, democratic form of state power---the Soviets---which was linked directly with _-_-_
^^*^^ In Kazakhstan and other areas there are flourishing collective farms that had once been kulak settlements. The kulaks' way of thinking changed as a result of extensive educational work and their enlistment into socialist labour.
250 the people and carried out their will. The Soviet people owe all their achievements to the leadership of the Communist Party.Today the Soviet Union is at the stage of full-scale communist construction. We are witnessing the realisation of Lenin's forecast in April 1917 that ``socialism must inevitably evolve gradually into communism, upon the banner of which is inscribed the motto, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'~''.^^*^^
At its 20th-24th congresses the CPSU drew up a concrete plan of communist transformations in all spheres of life in line with Lenin's theoretical propositions. Founded on past achievements in socialist construction, this plan is a natural continuation of the basic policy of the country's development in the period of transition.
During the building of socialism in the USSR the CPSU has accumulated rich experience which is used by the fraternal parties of the socialist camp. Take, for instance, the new economic policy in the USSR. It was adopted with the purpose of strengthening the worker-peasant alliance, which is an indispensable condition for successful socialist construction. Its aim was thus to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and promote the building of socialism. Under this policy the surplus food requisitioning system was replaced by a smaller tax in kind (the poorest sections of the peasants had been exempt from many and, in exceptional cases, all forms of the tax in kind), the peasants were allowed to sell their surpluses in the market, the ban on private enterprises was lifted, concessions were allowed, and so on.
The Communist Party believed these measures would promote the initiative of the peasants and give them the incentive to produce more foodstuffs. In its turn the upsurge in agriculture would help to restore and develop state industry. However, the party did not close its eyes to the fact that the new economic policy might lead to a certain revival of capitalism. But with the key positions in the hands of the proletarian state, this revival did not harbour much danger.
The new economic policy fully justified itself. It helped to strengthen the socialist system. The experience gained _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 85.
251 from this is of international significance, a fact borne out by the practice of socialist construction in the People's Democracies.Also of immense international importance is the experience of socialist industrialisation. The conditions under which socialism was built in the USSR left its mark on the way in which industrialisation was achieved. In view of tsarist Russia's huge backwardness, many industries (heavy engineering, machine-tool, automobile, metallurgical, tractor, and so on) had to be built anew. The rate of industrial development had to be rapid enough to make it possible to surmount the disparity between the world's most advanced political system and its backward material and technical basis, make the country economically independent of the capitalist states and have the means to repulse an imperialist attack.
The means for industrialisation were provided in a unique way. The Soviet Union could not, like the bourgeois countries, build a heavy industry by robbing colonies or at the expense of indemnities and the exploitation of the working people. Moreover, it could not count on loans from foreign countries. The Communist Party found the resources in the country itself. These consisted of the profits of the state-run factories, transport, trade and banks, of the taxes paid by the peasants, and so on.
Moreover, the CPSU has considerable experience of organising the production process at socialist enterprises and training executives for industry and solving other problems posed by industrialisation.
The forms and methods that have been used in the USSR to build the material and technical basis of socialism are closely studied by the Communist and Workers' parties of other countries. The practice of other socialist states shows that the following has international significance: industrialisation as a powerful means of strengthening the alliance between workers and peasants; socialist planning and the utilisation of state finances, credits and foreign trade to promote socialist industry; cost accounting and the economic laws of distribution according to work; production training and improvement courses for workers and the training of engineers and technicians; socialist emulation and the promotion of creative activity by the working class.
252The Soviet experience of agricultural co-operation is likewise of world-wide importance. In fulfilment of Lenin's co-operation plan, the CPSU brought nearly 25 million peasant farms into producers' co-operatives within a short span of time despite the difficulties caused by the internal and international struggle. This was a far-reaching revolution in Soviet agriculture. Principles of co-operation, worked out and applied in the Soviet Union, such as voluntary membership, a differentiated approach to the various socioeconomic groups of peasants during the organisation of cooperatives, the multi-stage process of setting up collective farms (from lower to higher), the provision of personal incentives to co-operative members, the forms and methods of leadership of the co-operative movement by the party, the government and the working class, and so forth, have been and are being successfully applied in the People's Democracies.
The creation of history's first multi-national state founded on friendship, fraternity and equality of all the peoples inhabiting it is a vast treasure-store of experience. Having united the different nations on a voluntary basis, the Communist Party has proved that in its entirety the national problem can only be resolved under the dictatorship of the proletariat, under socialism. Vital importance attaches to the Soviet experience of resolving a problem like the transition of formerly backward peoples to socialism, bypassing the capitalist stage of development.
The CPSU has gained internationally significant experience in areas such as the creation, development and strengthening of the socialist state during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, the abolition of the exploiting classes, the eradication of exploitation of man by man, the consummation of a cultural revolution, the promotion of socialist science, and the education of the new man in the communist spirit.
The huge scale and novelty of the tasks that had to be fulfilled gave rise to many difficulties, which in some cases led to errors and miscalculations. At certain stages, events were unnecessarily anticipated. A number of errors were due to the personality cult and to a subjectivist approach to the solution of problems. But this cannot eclipse the successes in building socialism and, unquestionably, does not 253 spring from the nature of the Soviet system. It is therefore wrong, both in practice and theory, to strike out (as is sometimes done) entire stages from the history of socialist construction. This is wrong in practice because all the elements of socialist policy are closely inter-related, and each new practical step is founded on the step preceding it. On the theoretical level any repudiation of an analysis of real facts is prejudicial to the process of generalising and developing socialist policy.
The experience of socialist construction in the Soviet Union enables the fraternal parties of socialist countries to build socialism with lesser difficulties and to avoid many mistakes in this new, difficult and great cause.
At the same time, they quite correctly consider that to draw on the experience of the USSR does not mean to copy it blindly. Such copying contravenes the spirit of Leninism and can only inflict considerable harm. Lenin had always been categorically opposed to any mechanical application of the Soviet experience to other countries and enjoined Bolsheviks to refrain from imposing their experience on others. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union strictly abides by this injunction of its great leader and teacher. It does not force its experience on anybody. Each fraternal party contributes towards the elaboration of the forms and methods of the proletariat's struggle for power and to the forms and methods of building socialism.
As the experience of the working class of any other country, the Soviet experience of building socialism is available to the entire world working-class and communist movement. The Marxist-Leninist parties draw extensively on this experience and, at the same time, take the specific situation in their own countries into account. This is indispensable as a condition ensuring a correct policy and the triumph of peace and socialism.
The peculiarity of the historical situation in which the revolutions took place in the Central and Southeast European countries and in which the building of socialism was started determined not only the methods used by the working class in the revolutionary struggle for power but also the character of the political system, the forms and methods of state development, the drive for industrialisation and 254 collectivisation, and so on. Let us briefly examine some of these points.
Due to its class substance, the people's democracy, like the Soviets in the USSR, became a form of the proletarian dictatorship after the victory of the socialist revolutions and, as experience shows, successfully fulfils this function. However, while having the same substance as the Soviets, it has some features of its own.
In the first place, in a number of countries the people's democracy carries out the functions of the proletarian dictatorship when there are several parties. For instance, in Poland in addition to the Polish United Workers' Party there are the United Peasants' Party and the Democratic Party; in Bulgaria, besides the Bulgarian Communist Party there is the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union; in the German Democratic Republic, in addition to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany there are the Christian-Democratic Union, the Liberal-Democratic Party, the National-- Democratic Party and the Farmers' Democratic Party.
In countries where several parties exist their representatives hold posts in the government and occupy leading positions in the local organs of power. At their meetings, conferences and congresses these parties examine current political issues and questions of economic development. However, they recognise the leading role played by the Communist and Workers' parties in social and political life.
The existence of a multi-party system for a certain period under the proletarian dictatorship is not unforeseen by Marxism-Leninism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not against the participation of representatives of other parties in the first Soviet government. ''. .. We wanted a coalition Soviet government,'' Lenin wrote. ``We did not exclude anyone from the Soviet.''^^*^^ Furthermore, it will be recalled that at the close of 1917 and the beginning of 1918 the Bolsheviks had formed a bloc with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, whose representatives held leading posts in the Council of People's Commissars, which passed unanimous decisions on most of the issues before it. However, the coalition _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 270.
255 government was short-lived. The blame for this does not rest with the Bolsheviks. After the Brest Peace was signed, the Socialist-Revolutionaries dissolved their bloc with the Leninist Party, started an armed uprising against the Soviet power and the Bolsheviks, and took part in the Civil War on the side of the enemies of the Soviet power.A different situation took shape in the European People's Democracies. The parties uniting various sections of the peasants, the working intelligentsia and the artisans recognise the leading role of the Marxist parties of the working class and mobilise their members for the building of the new society. In this situation co-operation between the Communist and other parties is not only possible but necessary.
The experience of this co-operation in the People's Democracies between the Communist and other parties supporting the- line of socialist construction completely refutes the slander that the Communists cannot be good partners and do not permit the existence of other parties after they come to power.
A specific of the people's democracy, intimately related to the feature we have mentioned above, is that the Communist and Workers' parties exercise their leading role in the state not only through organs of power, the trade unions, the youth organisations, the co-operatives and so forth, as in the USSR, but also through an organisation like the Popular Front, which is a form of alliance between the working class, the peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. The principal object of the Popular Frontcalled the National Front in Czechoslovakia, the Fatherland Front in Bulgaria, and so on---is to concert the people's effort in the building of socialism. It is not a state but a mass socio-political organisation with a centralised leadership and with committees in the localities. It has its own programme, acts as the medium through which co-operation between the different parties is organised, and puts up its own candidates during elections to the organs of power.
One of the features distinguishing the people's democracy is that some of the restrictions imposed in the USSR were not applied. For instance, in the European People's Democracies suffrage rights were received by all citizens, including exploiting elements (with the exception of war 256 criminals and their accomplices), as soon as the proletarian revolution triumphed.
Note must be taken of one more feature of the people's democracy, namely, that in a number of countries use is being made of some forms of the old state system which have now been given a new, socialist content. In Czechoslovakia, for instance, the office of President has been retained. The President is elected by the Federal Assembly for a term of seven years. Under the Constitution he has the right to appoint and -dissolve the government and to convene and dissolve the Federal Assembly.
Such are some of the specifics distinguishing the people's democracy from the Soviet system.
Let us now analyse the basic distinctions between the forms and methods of socialist construction in the European People's Democracies and in the Soviet Union.
Take socialist industrialisation. In the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe industrialisation proceeded in a totally different situation than in the USSR. Each of the People's Democracies could utilise the Soviet experience of socialist construction and draw also on the experience of other countries building socialism. Moreover, it received material and technical assistance from the Soviet Union and also from other People's Democracies. An exceedingly important factor was the co-operation among the socialist countries in charting the most rational ways of utilising economic resources and production capacities, in specialisation and co-operation of industries, and in the co-ordination of current and long-term plans. This co-operation allowed for a judicious division of labour in the socialist community with the purpose of securing the maximum development of each country in accordance with its natural and economic conditions, national features and the interests of the socialist community as a whole. The socialist countries promoted not all branches of industry but only those for whose development they had the most favourable conditions (raw material resources, equipment, production experience, manpower, and so on). All this greatly facilitated and expedited economic development in the People's Democracies and allowed them to allocate additional funds to raise the living standard and cultural level of the people. Moreover, through mutual assistance it became possible to __PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17---1157 257 bring the economically less developed socialist countries up to the level of the advanced states.
In the People's Democracies the socialist reorganisation of agriculture likewise had features of its own. It will be recalled that in the USSR all the land was nationalised in 1917 and that this was a powerful factor promoting collectivisation. In the People's Democracies this task was not set either during or after the revolution. This was due to the conditions obtaining in these countries, notably, to the fact that the peasants had long ago received the ownership of the land and were attached to their plots. In view of this circumstance and in line with Lenin's tenet relative to the middle peasants, namely that in ``most capitalist countries, however, the proletarian state should not at once completely abolish private property'',^^*^^ the Communist and Workers' parties nationalised only that part of the land that was earmarked for experiment centres, model state farms, the satisfaction of social requirements, and so forth. Most of the estates confiscated from the landed gentry and big landowners were divided up among farm labourers and landhungry peasants. The agrarian reform was put into effect under the slogan, ``Land belongs to those who till it''. In Hungary, for example, the poor and middle peasants received nearly 2,000,000 hectares of land, in Poland--- more than 6,000,000 hectares. The existence of private land ownership accounts for a certain development of private proprietor tendencies in the countryside. Besides, this introduced specifics of its own into the peasant co-operatives.
Alongside features common to the socialist transformations in the People's Democracies of Central and Southeastern Europe, there are distinctive peculiarities. One of them is the character of socialist industrialisation. For example, in some countries (Rumania, Bulgaria), which were mostly agrarian states prior to the people's democratic revolution, many industries had to be built from scratch. In industrial countries (Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic) the task in industrial development was to eradicate the disproportion in the industrial pattern inherited from the capitalist relations of production and secure a further considerable expansion and modernisation of all _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 157.
258 branches of industry. These countries had to build new factories and reorganise industry in such a way as to satisfy the steadily growing material requirements of socialist society and enable industry to develop in accordance with the requirements of modern scientific and technological progress.There were distinctive features, too, in the rural cooperatives. For instance, three types of co-operatives were formed in Rumania and only one type in Czechoslovakia. A specific of the co-operative in Czechoslovakia was that its members received not only remuneration for work but also compensation for the livestock, implements, buildings and so on turned over to the co-operative. There were distinctive types of co-operatives also in Poland, Hungary and other countries.
The rate of the transition of the individual peasant husbandries to collective farms was different in the various countries. Thanks to a number of features peculiar to it, Bulgaria was the first of the European People's Democracies to complete this extremely difficult task. The Bulgarian Communist Party had sunk very deep roots in the countryside. Even before the people's revolution in Bulgaria there was hardly a single large village that did not have a Communist Party organisation with several score of members. With the aid of rural Communists the Communist Party skilfully organised the leadership of the co-operative movement, turning it into a mass, nation-wide movement. A major contributing factor was the existence of long-- established progressive co-operative traditions. Prior to September 9, 1944 the consumers', credit and marketing co-- operatives in Bulgaria had an aggregate membership of 900,000 peasants. Producers' co-operatives had been set up in 28 villages. The Communists were active in the co-operative movement. A very important circumstance accelerating cooperation in Bulgaria was that together with and under the leadership of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the Agrarian National Union, whose democratic, progressive activities in the pre-war period had won for it the esteem of the peasants, was active in the drive to set up co-operatives. The Bulgarian Communist Party found in the co-operative farms the most suitable way of achieving the socialist reorganisation of agriculture. The peasants saw the advantages of __PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* 259 these farms, which combined public interests with the individual interests of their members, and willingly joined them.
Immense headway in co-operating agriculture was registered in the other European People's Democracies. In Czechoslovakia, for instance, the socialist sector embraced more than 90 per cent of the cultivated land (1966),^^*^^ and in Rumania 94.1 per cent (29.9 per cent in the state sector and 61.2 per cent in the co-operative sector^^**^^); in the German Democratic Republic all the peasants who had individual husbandries voluntarily joined producers' co-operatives by the spring of 1960.^^***^^
In the People's Democracies there are many distinctive features in the forms of working-class organisation, in the approach to the shopkeeper and the kulak, in the ways of regulating the relations between the people's democratic power and the church, and so on.^^****^^ However, all this diversity manifests itself within the single process of the advance towards communism, in the course of which the Communist and Workers' parties strictly abide by the general principles of socialist development.
The socialist countries of Central and Southeastern Europe have achieved much in the building of socialism. These achievements are striking testimony of the fact that the people's democratic system has withstood the test of time and proved its viability as a system consistent with the basic interests of the people. Moreover, the experience of these countries shows that to accomplish the socialist revolution and build socialism requires the maximum effort by _-_-_
^^*^^ Hospoddhky a spolecensky vyvoj Ceskoslovenska, Prague, 1968, p. 62.
^^**^^ Development of Agriculture and Co-operation in the CMEA Countries, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1965, p. 9.
^^***^^ Developed Social System of Socialism in the German Democratic Republic, Russ. ed., Dresden, 1969, p. 21.
^^****^^ In all the socialist countries steps are being taken to draw the remnants of the leisured strata, including small and middle entrepreneurs, into socialist construction. In the German Democratic Republic, for instance, there are semi-state enterprises which partially belong to capitalists. The Socialist Unity Party of Germany implements its policy of alliances under the slogan ``You need socialism, socialism needs you" (see the study prepared by the Institute of Social Sciences at the Central Committee of the SUPG: Gemeinsam zum Sozialismus. Zur Geschichte der Biindnispolitik der SED, Berlin, 1969).
260 the working class and all other working people and skilful and flexible leadership by the Marxist parties. As in any other big, new task, it is attended by many difficulties.Noting that there may be shortcomings and errors during the transition period, Lenin wrote that the ``toiling classes who for centuries have been oppressed, downtrodden and forcibly held in the vice of poverty, brutality and ignorance cannot avoid mistakes when making a revolution''.^^*^^ Lenin saw another reason for errors in the fact that the ``corpse of capitalism is decaying and disintegrating in our midst, polluting the air and poisoning our lives, enmeshing that which is new, fresh, young and virile in thousands of threads and bonds of that which is old, moribund and decaying''.^^**^^ He stressed that the new world ``does not come into being ready-made, does not spring forth like Minerva from the head of Jupiter''.^^***^^
The lessons of the counter-revolutionary conspiracy in Hungary in the autumn of 1956 were, Janos Kadar said, that the socialist revolution, accomplished by relatively peaceful means, had some deceptive aspects. Although the economic foundation of the power of the Hungarian bourgeoisie had been demolished, the bourgeoisie had managed to preserve many of its cadres and retain an active political role and, in particular, its influence over the state administration and over economic and cultural affairs. The party had failed to take this into account and, after the revolution, relaxed its political vigilance and its struggle against the class enemy. As a result, during the counter-revolutionary conspiracy the Hungarian bourgeoisie had been able, in a matter of days, to organise and come forward as an active political force.
In Czechoslovakia, too, one of the reasons for the political crisis was that, on the one hand, the Party did not take into account the existence of remnants of the exploiting classes and their counter-revolutionary activity and, on the other, it overestimated the process of the convergence of different strata of society. At a plenary meeting of the CC CPC in September 1969 Gustav Husak noted that there were ``subjectivist, opportunist illusions that all antagonistic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 72.
^^**^^ Ibid.
^^***^^ Ibid., p. 74.
261 class contradictions had been surmounted in our society, and voluntaristic notions to the effect that as a result of internal affinity, the gradual knitting of social classes and strata and the emergence of a classless state of the people no class struggle was being waged in our society. From this stemmed the view that in our country the forces hostile to socialism had ceased to exist and that there was class antagonism only on an international scale.''^^*^^In some People's Democracies there have been individual blunders and errors in the decision of economic problems and in the leadership of the state apparatus; historic and other features of the country concerned and the traditions of the peoples were not always taken into account. Among a certain section of the people this gave rise to discontent which was at once used by class enemies in an effort to stir the masses against the people's democratic system.
In Asian countries and in Cuba socialist construction also has some features of its own on account of the specific development of the economic, social and political structure of these countries, where long colonial dependence on imperialism had obstructed national and social emancipation, and also on account of the way in which the socialist revolution was accomplished. It is important to bear in mind that some measures of a socialist character were launched when the revolution in these countries was growing from its democratic into the socialist stage.
In the Mongolian People's Republic the democratic stage of the revolution ended in 1940. The 10th Congress of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party, held in 1940, mapped out the main tasks in the building of the foundations of socialism. These tasks were carried out, in the main, by 1960, after which Mongolia entered the stage witnessing the completion of socialist construction.
The state and co-operative sectors of the economy were further strengthened at the socialist stage of the revolution. ``The gradual building of the industrial foundations of the key branches of the economy, the steady growth of socialist industry and the building of new branches, and the development of modern means of transport and communications _-_-_
^^*^^ Rud\'e pr\'avo, September 29, 1969.
262 with decisive economic and technical assistance from the Soviet Union and then with the assistance and co-operation of other socialist countries have helped to turn Mongolia from an agrarian into an agrarian-industrial country,"^^*^^ states the Programme of the MPRP adopted at the 15th Party Congress in 1966. The individual herders' economies were united in socialist co-operatives, the herders joining these co-operatives en masse at the close of the 1950s. A feature of this process was that co-operatives were set up without dispossessing the kulak elements, who became members of these rural co-operatives voluntarily.In the Korean People's Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam socialist changes continue to take place in a specific situation: the working class and working peasants have triumphed in the north of these countries, the south still languishing under the oppression of the exploiting classes and international imperialism. Moreover, after the revolution both these countries had to expend much of their strength on a war against the imperialists: the people of North Korea had to repulse the attack of the Syngman Rhee regime and its United States overlords in 1950--1953, while the people of North Vietnam had to fight an almost ten-years' war (1945--1954) forced on them by the French colonialists, and since 1965 they have been waging a bitter struggle against US aggression. All this has unquestionably affected the entire character of socialist construction.
In the northern part of Korea, where the power is in the hands of the people, the revolutionary reforms were, in the main, completed in 1946--1949. The agrarian reform, the decree on which was adopted on March 5, 1946, did much to rally the people. Article 1 of the decree stated that the principal objective was ``to abolish Japanese landownership, the estates of the Korean landowners and the rent system. The right to own land shall be enjoyed by those who till it. In North Korea the agrarian system shall consist of peasant farms that are independent and free of landowners and constitute the private property of their owners.''^^**^^
_-_-_^^*^^ 15th Congress of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1966, pp. 172--73.
^^**^^ Collection of Documents and Decisions of the Provisional People's Committee of North Korea on the Agrarian Reform, Russ. ed., Pyongyang, 1946, p. 7.
263As a result of the reform, nearly one million hectares of arable land were turned over gratis to 720,000 landless and land-hungry peasants. Simultaneously, the state nationalised large and medium factories that belonged to the Japanese colonialists and traitors to the nation, and also the banks and transport. In 1949 the resultant state sector embraced 85.5 per cent of the industry.
Economic reconstruction was started in 1953 upon the termination of the war, which had caused immense destruction and loss of life. Fulfilling a three-year plan, the Korean people not only restored the pre-war level of industrial production but went far beyond it.
Economic construction proceeded with priority for the heavy industry and the parallel expansion of the light industry and agriculture. In 1967 industrial output was 22 times above the 1948 level. In the countryside development is accompanied by an ideological, technological and cultural revolution. Compulsory primary, secondary and general 9-- year technical education is being successively introduced.
In the Democratic Republic of Vietnam the people could start building the new, socialist society on a massive scale only in 1954, when an end was put to the military operations of the colonialists against Vietnam. The major achievement since then has been the agrarian reform. An agrarian reform was started during the war, but it envisaged only a limitation of feudal exploitation. At the close of 1953 a course was set towards the complete abolition of landed proprietorship. This policy has been successfully implemented. Some 8,000,000 peasants received land from the people's power. Land was confiscated from the landowners differentially. Those who had fought in the war on the side of the people or had not committed crimes against the people received compensation for the land. Gradual co-operation was started after the land reform. The first co-operatives were temporary and permanent labour mutual-aid groups. The first experimental agricultural producers' co-operatives were set up in 1956. At present most of the peasant farms are united in peasant mutual-aid groups or producers' cooperatives.
Fundamental changes have taken place also in the towns of North Vietnam. Under colonial rule there had been practically no national industry in Vietnam. New industrial 264 enterprises have been built or are under construction parallel with the restoration and enlargement of the enterprises confiscated from foreign capitalists.
A three-year plan of economic reorganisation and cultural development was put into effect in the period from 1958 to 1960, the main target being to enforce socialist reforms in agriculture, handicrafts, trade and industry, build industrial and other projects and promote industry and agriculture. As a result of the fulfilment of this plan, the share of the state sector in the total industrial output increased 43 per cent. Co-operatives, semi-co-operatives and mixed state-private enterprises were set up in most of the private sector.
Economic development was accompanied by a modification of the social structure, the numerical growth of the working class and an enhancement of its role in the country. The dictatorship of the working class was established in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1960.
In the DRV socialist construction was disrupted by the war of aggression started by US imperialism. The strong socialist foundation of the republic's economic and political system and assistance from friendly socialist countries enabled it to put up effective resistance to the invaders.
In Cuba the people's democratic revolution was, in the main, consummated and the transition to the socialist revolution was started by mid-1961.
Phenomena typical of the transition period in other countries were observed in the course of this process. Society's political structure was strengthened. Of paramount significance was the amalgamation in 1963 of the revolutionary organisations into a United Party of the Socialist Revolution, which in October 1965 was renamed the Communist Party of Cuba.
The principal organs of state and economic administration, subsequently strengthened and improved, were set up in the early 1960s.
A specific of the Cuban political system was the broad application of direct democracy (mass rallies and meetings). Committees for the defence of the revolution were formed in Cuba in 1960 with the purpose of organising the masses and forming a closer link between the people and the organs of state. As Fidel Castro noted, these committees were 265 consistent with the style of the Cuban revolution, a style springing not from abstract schemes and diagrams but from reality.
Socialist reforms have made considerable headway in the Cuban economy.
The Cuban Government pays particular attention to industrial development. A Ministry for Industry was formed in 1961.
The industrialisation programme rests on the development of the power engineering, chemical, machine-tool and metallurgical industries.
The second land reform was put into effect in December 1963. It put a limit on the size of private estates, placed over 70 per cent of the cultivated land in the hands of the state and finally demolished the economic foundation of the big and middle rural bourgeoisie.
Nation-wide measures were taken to abolish illiteracy and promote culture. All educational institutions were nationalised as early as 1961.
A feature of socialist construction in Cuba is the planned development of all aspects of social life with emphasis on the solution of the most pressing problems. This finds expression in annual nation-wide campaigns.
In Cuba socialist changes are taking place under the difficult conditions of a constant struggle against pressure and blackmail from US imperialism, which has repeatedly had recourse to actions of a military character.
In the People's Republic of China tasks such as the socialist reorganisation of capitalist industry and trade, agriculture and the artisan industry were carried in a very specific manner.
During the initial years following the proclamation of a people's republic a large part of the property in the hands of the foreign imperialists and compradore bourgeoisie was expropriated and nationalised. This made it possible to create a strong socialist sector in the economy.
A different approach was taken to the property of the national bourgeoisie, which supported the democratic dictatorship of the people, the common programme and the new constitution, approved the agrarian reforms, and so on. This attitude of the bourgeoisie was not due, of course, to any modification of its class outlook. As the bourgeoisie of any other country, it championed private ownership and 266 the exploitation of the labour of others. Various circumstances compelled it to support the people's power and the earlier democratic revolution. It saw that with the vast majority of the people rallying to the new power any resistance would be futile. Moreover, it remembered the bitter experience of the Russian bourgeoisie in its struggle against the Soviet power.
In this situation, capitalist property was not confiscated, and capitalist industry and trade underwent a peaceful socialist reorganisation. In view of China's economic backwardness this helped to extend production, accumulate funds and sustain employment.
Capitalist industry and trade were reorganised peacefully in China through a policy of utilising, restricting and reforming private capitalist industry and trade. There were two aspects to this political line: the first was the redemption of the means of production from the bourgeoisie, with the result that through various forms of state capitalism capitalist property was gradually converted into public property, the second was the ideological re-education of the bourgeoisie, the conversion of the bourgeois into a wage-earner.
The peaceful ways of reorganising industry and trade justified themselves. By the close of 1956 some 70,000 private industrial enterprises, which accounted for 99.6 per cent of the gross output (in terms of cost) of all private enterprises, were reorganised into state-private establishments, and 1,990,000 private trade enterprises employing 85 per cent of the total number of the personnel of all private operations became state-private, state or co-operative trade enterprises. Under the first five-year plan (1953--1957) the annual average rate of growth of output was 18 per cent in industry and 4.5 per cent in agriculture, while the national income grew at a rate of 8.9 per cent.^^*^^
This was a major achievement in the drive to establish socialist relations of production in industry and trade.
The socialist reforms in agriculture made it possible to draw the bulk of the individual peasant husbandries into co-operatives by the middle of the 1950s. A total of 120 million (or 96 per cent) peasant households joined the _-_-_
^^*^^ Y. Yarcmenko, The ``Big Leap" and the People's Communes in China, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1968, p. 10.
267 cooperatives by the end of 1954; at the beginning of 1958 this percentage rose to over 98.Although there were serious miscalculations, the reorganisation of industry and agriculture could, on the whole, facilitate the establishment of socialist relations in different spheres of social life. Started in those years, the movement to regulate the style of work and the struggle against Rightwing elements should have, as was proclaimed, ensured the further consolidation of the socialist system and secured a large-scale upsurge in production and a radical change of the balance of class forces in favour of socialism.
Regrettably there was a departure from the creative Marxist-Leninist line. ``In its numerous statements on questions of theory,'' L. I. Brezhnev noted at the 1969 International Meeting, ``the CPC leadership has step by step revised the principled line of the communist movement. In opposition to this it has laid down a special line of its own on all the fundamental questions of our day.''^^*^^
This line was particularly striking in the ``big leap" policy proclaimed in 1958 and in the ``cultural revolution" started in 1966. It led to serious complications in socialist economic construction and had grave consequences. Until 1963 China's economy showed a steady decline. In 1965 agricultural output drew close to the level of 1957, the year the ``big leap" was launched, while industrial output exceeded this level by approximately 30 per cent.^^**^^ At the root of the difficulties that hindered socialist construction was the CPC leadership's disregard of the laws of the development of socialism, violation of the principles of proletarian internationalism and replacement of Marxism-Leninism by Maoism.
A survey of socialist construction in different countries shows that socialist reforms have been successful only when general laws were observed. The basic propositions of Lenin's plan of socialist reforms have proved to hold true for all countries. The specifics of socialist development in individual countries do not range beyond the framework of general laws. At the same time, socialist construction has an _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 157.
^^**^^ Y. Yaremenko, op. cit., p. 135.
268 immense wealth of forms and methods in different spheres of social life and demonstrates that there are unlimited possibilities for revolutionary creativity. __ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. LAWS OF WORLD SOCIALISMThe socialist system's leading role in the development of the world revolutionary process and in international politics accentuates the importance of the question of how the socialist system itself develops and what laws determine the processes taking place in it. Today when socialism exists as a world system uniting many countries in three continents--- Europe, Asia and America---we know its salient features and specifics, many of which have been spelled out scientifically. The theory and practice of world socialism have embodied and borne out the forecasts of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.
When Marx, Engels and Lenin drew their picture of the future development of world socialism their point of departure was that the relations between socialist states, united by the common aim of eradicating capitalism and building socialism, would differ qualitatively from the relations between capitalist countries. Lenin advocated the broadest cooperation and alliance between countries committed to socialism. In an article entitled ``Slogan for a United States of Europe" he wrote: ``The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever.
``A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism---until the time when the complete victory of communism brings about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic.''^^*^^
Lenin did not, of course, elaborate widely on the question of the relations between the future socialist states for the simple reason that no concrete experience of such relations existed in his day. This problem acquired its full stature only in subsequent decades, with the appearance of a group of socialist countries.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 342.
269The Communist and Workers' parties closely analyse the various aspects of the joint struggle, interaction and reciprocal assistance of the socialist countries and their influence on the course of the revolutionary process. In recent years the fraternal parties of the socialist countries have been dealing broadly with the problem of a developed socialist society, the scientific and technological revolution under socialism, the full-scale building of communism, and so forth.
Problems connected with the development of world socialism received close attention at the international meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969.
Generalising the then 15 years' experience of the socialist countries and the trends of their development, and generalising the theoretical conclusions of the fraternal parties and the practice of their leadership of socialist construction, the 1960 International Meeting noted that the world socialist system had entered a new stage of its development. Some socialist countries had started building a developed socialist society, while the Soviet Union was making successful headway in the full-scale building of communism. The complete victory of socialism was ensured within the socialist system, whose advantages were being strikingly demonstrated to the peoples oppressed by capitalism. The major tasks of the economic development of world socialism were outlined in the Meeting's Statement. These were the consistent application of the law of planned and proportionate development in the building of socialism; the encouragement of the creative initiative of the masses; the steady improvement of the international division of labour through the co-ordination of economic development plans and the specialisation and co-operation of production within the framework of the system as a whole; the study of collective experience; the attainment of closer co-- operation and fraternal mutual assistance; the gradual erasure, on this basis, of the historically shaped distinctions in the levels of economic development and the creation of the material foundation for the more or less simultaneous transition of all peoples of the socialist system to communism. At the new stage of development the socialist countries were improving all aspects of economic, political and 270 cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality, mutual benefit and comradely reciprocal assistance. The Statement stressed that in the sphere of politics the principles of socialist internationalism had to be correctly combined with socialist patriotism.
The 1969 Meeting pinpointed a number of new features in the formation and development of a mature socialist society, namely:~
(a) The elaboration and application of improved economic and political patterns. For a number of years most of the European socialist countries, including the Soviet Union, had been successfully effecting reforms in the management and planning of the national economy, and this has been influencing all aspects of the life of socialist society. Many factors had combined to make these reforms necessary: the scientific and technological revolution and the higher level of sophistication attained by production and by production links, the full utilisation of the sources of extensive growth, the need for a closer co-ordination of state interests with those of enterprises and individuals, and the need for mobilising additional reserves in order to win time in the competition with capitalism. The purpose of these reforms is to improve centralised planning, achieve a transfer to planning on a self-supporting basis, give greater independence to enterprises, set up self-supporting associations, extend the sphere of socialist commodity-money relations, provide greater material incentives, and so on.
(b) An enhancement of the leading role of the working class and its vanguard, the Communist Party. This stems from the proletariat's higher level of organisation and consciousness and from the important changes in its composition as a result of the scientific and technological revolution and of the increased impact of the subjective factor on social development.
(c) Extension of the rights of the individual and the all-round development of socialist democracy as a result of successful economic and cultural development and the abolition of forces hostile to socialism.
(d) Greater vigilance with regard to the enemies of socialism, who do not relinquish their attempts to undermine the foundations of socialist state power. Anti-- socialist activity is nourished by elements of nationalism sustained 271 by backward consciousness and the viability of prejudices, including national prejudices; by people who had formerly belonged to the bourgeoisie and are, as Lenin pointed out, the most nationalistic; by imperialist and revisionist propaganda; by the activities of the Church, and so on.
The formation of the new, socialist type of international relations is analysed in all its complexity in the Document of the 1969 Meeting, which indicated the reasons for the non-coincidence of the direct interests of individual socialist countries. Among these reasons are the distinctions in the level of economic development, in the social structure, and in the international position of the various countries, and also distinctions springing from national specifics, and so forth. At the same time, the transient nature of these distinctions is noted in the Document, which stresses the coincidence of the basic interests and aims of the socialist countries and points out that comradely discussion and voluntary fraternal co-operation are the basic means for settling disagreements.
In the socialist countries much is being done to study the different aspects of the life of the socialist community, analyse the new principles governing the relations between the socialist countries and the principles underlying their economic relations and foreign policy, and study the experience of co-operation within the framework of the Warsaw Treaty and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
The socialist community's development gives rise to new theoretical and practical problems. Research is making headway in bringing to light deep-rooted laws of world socialism linked with the solution of the problems of the economic, political and ideological .development of the system of socialist states.
We feel that the accumulated experience of the development of international socialism makes it possible to single out a number of characteristic laws reflecting the new level of development, which is higher than the development level of socialism within national boundaries. These laws show that following socialism's emergence on the international scene its economic and political might has increased while the substance of its basic economic and political laws remained unchanged.
The fundamental law of world socialism is that the 272 principles of internationalism underlie the national policy of the socialist states. In both internal and external policy the actions of the socialist countries are determined by the interests of the socialist community as a whole. This law derives from the following circumstances.
---Socialism is, by its very nature, an international phenomenon. Its ideals are friendship and fraternity among peoples, mutual assistance and the creation of a single brotherhood of people. Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of all socialist countries. An advantage of the socialist social system is that socialist internationalism is the foundation on which the national interests of each socialist country may be co-ordinated with the common interests of the socialist community. As it is understood by Marxism-Leninism, socialism combines the national and international interests of the proletariat and other working people.
---Socialism is an international phenomenon by its economic laws. Competition that divides the capitalist countries does not exist under socialism. Socialism does not harbour objective obstacles to the broadest economic cooperation or to the abolition of class, political and national barriers.
---From the very moment of its emergence socialism has been standing opposed to capitalism. Socialism is the antipode of capitalism and inevitably constitutes an international force. Ever since the October Revolution the world has been split into two camps. Each new socialist country cannot fail to become a member of the socialist community if its ideals are not distorted and deformed by nationalism and opportunism.
---Socialism acts in concert in defence of its achievements, in repulsing the pressure of the international counterrevolution and in helping revolutionary forces throughout the world.
The birth of the socialist system was an objective need and the result of the powerful revolutionary upsurge during the Second World War, when the efforts of the working class were directed towards winning liberation from fascist oppression and carrying out far-reaching reforms restricting the power of the capitalists.
The socialist countries developed under conditions in which the balance of economic strength was unfavourable __PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18---1157 273 to socialism. During the Second World War the Soviet Union's industrial capacities had suffered considerable loss while the USA's industrial potential increased by 50 per cent and its agricultural output rose by one-third.^^*^^ The USA sought to win over the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe by promising them massive economic aid. Rejection of this aid led to a virtual trade blockade of these countries. True to its internationalist duty and concerned for the interests of socialism, the Soviet Union has rendered and continues to render these countries extensive assistance in economic development and in surmounting post-war difficulties. Czechoslovakia's political leaders, for instance, have acknowledged that supplies of Soviet wheat in 1947 averted famine in their country. This was a time when due to the crop failure there was an acute shortage of grain in the Soviet Union itself. A further manifestation of internationalism was the assistance to Czechoslovakia in 1969 when, as a result of the actions of Right-wing forces, that country's economy experienced serious difficulties.
Many examples of this kind may be given. Worker, organ of the US Communists, wrote that Soviet assistance had enabled Cuba, the courageous builder of socialism in Latin America, to repulse her powerful imperialist neighbour and embark on the building of the new society.^^**^^
The concept of an integral socialist system acquired prominence in the relations between the people's democratic states as early as 1947, when the question of political power had been decided in most of the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe liberated by the Soviet Army. The principles which later underlay the unity of the socialist countries emerged and took shape in the process of the formation of a system of alliances. Considerations of foreign policy alone made solid international unity a vital need for all the People's Democracies. Without such unity and cooperation no People's Democracy could seriously contemplate successful economic development or a secure international position. In face of the policy of economic blockades pursued by the West no People's Democracy could build socialism successfully without co-operating with the Soviet _-_-_
^^*^^ D. Thomson, Varldshistoria 1914--1961, Stockholm, 1964, p. 151.
^^**^^ Worker, August 4, 1967.
274 Union. For the USSR, too, the consolidation of the emergent system of socialist states was a key issue of foreign policy.The unity of the socialist countries, the strengthening of all the links between them and their conversion into a single force on the world scene were an objective law of the development of the world socialist revolution and of the intensification of the world-wide struggle between capitalism and socialism.
Each socialist country regarded its interests as part of the common interests of the socialist camp. With international relations more and more acquiring the nature of a struggle between the two systems there is, as there has been, a steadily growing need for unity among the socialist countries.
Closer economic integration of the socialist countries is another law of world socialism. This integration is an objective process that takes place with the demolition of the barriers, which are intrinsic to capitalism and hamper the operation of general economic laws. One of these laws is the growth of the volume and scale of production and its steady improvement on the basis of up-to-date equipment. The efficacy of economic development increases in proportion to the growth of production capacities and the expansion of assembly-line production. Socialist integration creates a sufficiently wide and profitable market for the economies of all socialist countries. Scientists have computed that in the light of the scientific and technological revolution the development of branches of large-scale production is economically profitable only if it is programmed for a population of at least 100 million. The scale of the socialist market provides the most favourable opportunities for the development of all branches of the modern economy.
Taking place under optimally favourable political conditions, socialist integration accelerates the development of individual countries through a rational division of labour and fraternal mutual assistance and by making the experience of each country available to all. As distinct from capitalist integration, socialist integration envisages the harmonious economic development of each country and creates every possibility for promoting social relations and resolving pressing political problems.
__PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275Lastly, economic integration makes the socialist countries more independent of the capitalist world and guarantees their independent development and national sovereignty. As Todor Zhivkov said at the 1969 International Meeting in Moscow, ``socialist economic integration is essential for promoting the economic development of our countries and of our entire community; it is an important factor of our independence from the capitalist economy''.^^*^^
Economic co-operation among the fraternal socialist countries is fostered through the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which was set up in 1949. There have been several stages in the operation of this agency. The first stage, embracing the period up to the second half of the 1950s, witnessed the development of foreign trade and the formation of individual industries. Co-operation was effected primarily in trade, and comradely assistance was rendered in economic development.
The expansion of the economies of the socialist countries and the appearance of new industries made it possible to widen co-operation from the end of the 1950s onwards. The CMEA members began to co-ordinate their economic development plans more closely and to sign five-year trade agreements with each other.
The harmonious combination of the interests of all countries and nations, big and small, and the consolidation of friendship among peoples likewise constitute a law of the development of the socialist community.
This is determined by the character of the relations and aims of the socialist countries, by the nature of these countries, by the absence of objective contradictions between them and by socialism's objective need for the promotion of broad economic, political and cultural links on the basis of mutual assistance and respect for the interests of each country. This is manifested by the fact that in the process of co-operation account is taken of all the possibilities and requirements of individual socialist countries. Mutual benefit in economic relations is gauged not only by purely economic _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 296.
276 but also by political and moral criteria. The policy of the socialist countries is aimed entirely at establishing genuine equality among themselves. This eliminates elements of distrust and hostility and establishes lasting friendship.The attainment of a uniform level of economic and cultural development is yet another law, which expresses itself in the fact that under equitable and mutually beneficial co-operation the less developed countries receive relatively more assistance and support from the more developed countries than their own contribution to such cooperation. They are able to surmount their backwardness at a much more rapid rate than the rates characterising th^ economy and culture of the more developed countries. Cooperation and specialisation of production between more and less developed socialist countries allow the latter to advance more rapidly.
The constant exchange and accumulation of collective experience, which forms an international and national treasure-store, are an important law of world socialism This exchange covers the most diverse spheres and is effected in many forms: exchange of documentation, scientific and other conferences, the broad dissemination of scientific and political literature, and so on. The experience of each country is placed at the disposal of all the others voluntarily and in its full volume. Its analysis and application by other countries facilitate and expedite socialist construction. Collective experience helps to ascertain laws of socialist construction common to all countries and governing the concrete experience of each country.
The leading role of the Communist parties in regulating all the processes taking place in the socialist countries is among the laws of the development of world socialism. This role is implemented through constant contacts and cooperation at the level of the Central Committees of the fraternal parties and through the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, This co-operation provides for regular and exhaustive analyses of the basic problems of the development of the socialist community, the determination of policy in the various spheres of the life of socialist society, consideration for mutual interests and the settlement of possible disputes. 277 ``This co-operation,'' L. I. Brezhnev said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``enriching us with each other's experience has enabled us jointly to work on the fundamental problems of socialist and communist construction, to find the most rational forms of economic relations, collectively to lay down a common line in foreign affairs, and to exchange opinion on questions relating to the work in the sphere of ideology and culture.''^^*^^
Lastly, an operating law of world socialism calls for close co-operation between socialist countries in foreign policy and in military matters. Such co-operation is qualitatively different from the co-operation between capitalist countries belonging to various economic and military blocs. It rests on a class foundation, mirrors the interests of the proletariat and, therefore, represents inter-state relations of a new type.
Enlarging on Lenin's teaching of internationalist unity and co-operation for the repulsion of aggressors, the socialist countries utilise a system of collective defence. A major phase in the establishment of this system was the conclusion, in 1955, of the Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance, which reliably safeguards the gains of socialism and is a powerful factor of security in Europe and other continents.
Imperialism's policy towards the socialist countries aims to disunite them, isolate them from the USSR and destroy socialism as a world system. The independence and very existence of the Communist and Workers' parties and the sovereignty, national independence and development potentialities of the socialist states are unremittingly attacked and threatened by the reactionary circles of the capitalist countries, by world imperialism. The imperialists are well aware that they can achieve their counter-revolutionary plans against the world socialist system only if they form a breach and provoke contradictions between the socialist countries. This is the objective of the strategy of ``selective coexistence'', ``bridge building'', ``new Eastern policy" and so on.
US foreign and military policy, which seeks to utilise differences and contradictions in the socialist camp, never had and has no prospect of success.
_-_-_^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 10.
278In face of imperialism's preparations for war and the formation of aggressive blocs the socialist countries have had to take steps to improve co-operation in the sphere of defence. Joint military exercises with the involvement of all arms of the service, exchanges of knowhow in military and political training and mutual assistance in the training of military cadres have become a standing rule of the Warsaw Treaty armies. This is helping to further the might of the socialist community. The world socialist system's military strength is today an important factor of international politics. It exercises a restraining influence on the aggressive circles of imperialism and thereby creates favourable conditions for the development of the world revolution.
The attempts of some theoreticians to counterpose socialist development in one country to the development of the entire community and pursue a ``neutral'' course cannot but weaken the influence of world socialism. Moreover, these attempts jeopardise socialism in their own country, reduce the possibilities of defending and improving it and open the door to action by non-socialist forces. It was not accidental that in Czechoslovakia counter-revolutionary and revisionist elements sought gradually to weaken socialism with the aim, above all, of tearing that country away from the socialist camp. Relations with neighbouring socialist states were deliberately aggravated and the principal object was to secure a detente with the Federal Republic of Germany. The interests of the German Democratic Republic were openly ignored.
Practice has shown that economic and political cooperation between socialist countries does not always develop smoothly. Contradictions may arise when concrete tasks of socialist construction are being resolved with the view of combining national and international interests. However, as was emphasised in the Document of the 1969 International Meeting, socialism is free of the contradictions intrinsic to capitalism. All divergences between socialist countries can and must be successfully settled on the basis of proletarian internationalism, through comradely discussion and voluntary, fraternal co-operation. They cannot be allowed to break the united front of socialist states against imperialism.
279Communists see the difficulties in the development of the world socialist system, but, as L. I. Brezhnev noted at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``the common social system, and the identity of basic interests and purposes of the peoples of the socialist countries make it possible successfully to overcome these difficulties and steadily to advance the cause of developing and strengthening the world socialist system''.^^*^^
_-_-_^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, p. 10.
[280] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ CHAPTER 6 __ALPHA_LVL1__ PROSPECTSThe world revolution is steadily spreading, involving new social strata and new countries. At present revolutionary changes are taking place in different parts of the world in the form of the building of socialism and communism or a struggle against capitalism, colonialism and even feudal and pre-feudal relations. 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.''^^*^^
However, in spite of their diversity the revolutionary movements develop in dialectical unity and are inter-related directly or indirectly. The community of these movements springs above all from the fact that they are opposed to imperialism. Lenin stressed that revolutionary movements were a single international force objectively directed against capitalism and that it was necessary to ``regard the international revolution as one process''.^^**^^
The world-wide anti-imperialist front, which unites the socialist countries, the working class and all other _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 60.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 484.
281 democratic, progressive forces of the developed capitalist countries and the peoples who have won or are fighting for national independence, is growing increasingly more active on the international scene.On the other hand, as a result of the mounting pressure brought to bear on society by the monopolies, a united antimonopoly front is taking shape in the capitalist countries. This front embraces the working class, the peasants, large segments of the intelligentsia and the middle strata.
The existing favourable objective prerequisites for the development of the world socialist revolution enhance the role of the subjective factor, and place a greater responsibility on the Communists for the policies they adopt. In other words, the situation requires that they study the conditions of the struggle creatively and on that basis continuously improve their strategy and tactics, their political work as a whole. The following proposition, propounded in a resolution of the 3rd Congress of the RSDLP, namely, that ``the working class must be given a concrete picture of the most probable course of the revolution'',^^*^^ unquestionably holds good to this day.
The Communist and Workers' parties stress the importance of analysing the prospects for the development of each leading contingent of the revolutionary forces and determining the ways and means of achieving its aims within the shortest possible time and with the least sacrifice.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. THE PRINCIPAL REVOLUTIONARY FORCEThe world socialist system decisively influences the development of the world revolution and the struggle against imperialism, for peace and democracy. The course of history and every new advance of the world revolutionary movement depend mainly on the strength of the socialist system, and within that system on the Soviet Union, and on how far the socialist countries influence the destinies of peace and progress in the world. In order to frame the strategy and tactics of the working-class movement, _-_-_
^^*^^ 3rd Congress of the RSDLP, Russ. ed., p. 451.
282 understand the trends of the anti-imperialist struggle and correctly determine the ways and means for this struggle in the specific conditions obtaining in each country it is vital to ascertain the role played by the world socialist system, particularly by the Soviet Union, in the revolutionary process. Moreover, this is necessary because the enemies of socialism are aware of the socialist community's importance and direct their main attacks against it. Imperialism has recourse to economic, ideological, military and other methods in its efforts to disunite the socialist countries and ``soften'' their socio-political system. World socialism's leading role in the revolutionary process is attacked also by opportunist forces in the communist movement who seek to revise the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism on this question.Let us concretely examine what gives the socialist system its significance, why it is the principal revolutionary force of modern times, and the areas in which it exercises its greatest influence on the world revolutionary process.
The socialist system is the decisive factor of the revolutionary movement because the peoples in it have accomplished the socialist revolution. It has the bulk of that movement's material, political and ideological means. In the socialist system the world proletariat now has a political, economic, ideological and military force organised on a state and international level.
The world socialist system exercises its influence chiefly through the attractive example of the new socio-economic relations and conspicuous economic achievements.
Engels noted that future socialist countries would exert a revolutionary influence on other peoples mainly through the creation of a social system that would attract the gaze of the peoples of all countries and especially of the peoples of the colonies. The impact of the new system would be so great that the undeveloped countries would themselves reach out for socialism. This, Engels said, would be expedited by economic requirements.
Lenin's pronouncements on the significance of the example of socialist construction are also well known. He noted that the habitual attitude of ridicule and scorn towards the importance of example in the national economy was sometimes evident among people who had not thoroughly analysed the radical changes that had occurred from the time of 283 the conquest of political power by the proletariat.^^*^^ The masses judge a revolution chiefly by the real improvements it brings to their condition. That was why Lenin stressed the point that we would exercise our ``main influence on the international revolution through our economic policy. . .. The struggle in this field has now become global. Once we solve this problem, we shall have certainly and finally won on an international scale.''^^**^^
``The contribution of the world socialist system to the common cause of the anti-imperialist forces is determined primarily by its growing economic potential. The swift economic development of the countries belonging to the socialist system at rates outpacing the economic growth of the capitalist countries, the advance of socialism to leading positions in a number of fields of scientific and technological progress, and the blazing of a trail into outer space by the Soviet Union---all these tangible results, produced by the creative endeavours of the peoples of the socialist countries, decisively contribute to the preponderance of the forces of peace, democracy and socialism over imperialism.''^^***^^
The international prestige of the world socialist system and its influence on the political processes taking place in the world have grown immeasurably. The ideals of socialism, progress and peace are receiving increasing recognition and winning new strata of society.
More than half a century ago, when the building of socialism was started in the Soviet Union, which showed all mankind the prospect of deliverance from imperialism, the enemies of socialism claimed that the experience of the USSR, a country that was ``Eastern'', ``backward'', and so on, could not be an example for other countries and that it did not reflect the general laws of development. Life has put these prophets to shame. Today the road of socialism is followed by undeveloped and developed countries and this fact demolishes all the arguments about the laws of socialism being unacceptable to all mankind. Through the efforts of the peoples of the socialist community the road to _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 205.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 437.
^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 22.
284 the new social system has been in the main opened and tested for all the peoples of the world.However, the example of socialism is more than the prototype of the future development of countries where capitalism exists. This example enables the people to concretise the aims and methods of struggle. ``Since the socialist countries, in particular the German Democratic Republic, have solved many of the workers' problems better than the Federal Republic,'' said a working-class activist in the West German city of Mannheim, ``we naturally take advantage of this. We often say that the GDR 'sits in' on many talks on wages. The fact is that both employer and employee take account, each in his own way, of how social problems are solved in the GDR. The influence of the GDR is felt in the campaign to improve the educational system, promote social security, medical care and vocational training, win co-management, etc.''^^*^^
Socialism's attractive force and influence would have been incomparably greater had it not been for the certain abuses in socialist construction called forth; in particular, by the nationalist and hegemonistic policy of the Left extremists in Peking and used by bourgeois propaganda to discredit socialist ideals. To a large extent the actions of the extremists hindered ``the utilisation of ripe opportunities for considerably enhancing the influence of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, for the winning of the broad masses to our positions,''^^**^^ noted Rodney Arismendi, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uruguay.
The Communist parties of the socialist countries are conscious of the immense international impact of their actions and therefore seek to avoid distortions in the building of socialism, surmount errors more actively and make every effort to strengthen the socialist system.
Second, the course of the world revolutionary movement is influenced by world socialism through the fact that the socialist countries fetter the forces of imperialism, prevent them from exporting counter-revolution and create for the working, people in the capitalist and former colonial _-_-_
^^*^^ World Marxist Review, No. 12, 1968, p. 28.
^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 202.
285 countries more favourable conditions for the struggle against imperialism and internal reaction.The gains of the working people of the capitalist countries, notably in the standard of living and democratic rights are indissolubly linked with this activity of the socialist camp. The existence of the world socialist system, its strength and its force of attraction are of major significance in that the proletariat of some countries gets the possibility of accomplishing the socialist revolution peacefully.
The liberated countries, too, receive considerable material and other assistance from the socialist community. Lenin said that in the historical perspective the victorious proletariat of Russia would promote co-operation with liberated peoples and make every effort to ``help them pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to democracy, to socialism''.^^*^^ These words today apply to the socialist community as a whole.^^**^^
The Soviet Union and other socialist countries help the revolutionary struggle and the national liberation movement also through their trade and other economic relations with capitalist countries, particularly with Latin American countries, for this lessens their dependence on the USA and undermines the influence of imperialism.
For the liberated peoples who have decided to achieve socialism without going through the capitalist stage of development, the socialist community is the force that helps them to attain this transition even in countries where the proletariat is numerically small. By its example and its concrete assistance the socialist system multiplies tenfold the strength of the proletariat and of all other democratic forces in these countries.
Third, the world socialist system influences the revolutionary process through its peace-loving foreign policy, which in many ways helps to avert another world war and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 67.
^^**^^ The colossal assistance of the socialist countries to the revolutionary movement throughout the world is, of course, in some ways holding up the economic advance and the rate of growth of the living standard in the socialist countries themselves. These countries regard this assistance as their internationalist duty and a necessary means of promoting the world revolution.
286 settle international issues in the interests of the progressive forces. The socialist countries come forward actively in defence of victims of imperialist aggression and press for general disarmament. This is precisely what makes the existence of small states possible. ``It is obvious from the Cypriot example,'' said Ezekias Papaioannou, General Secretary of the Progressive Party of the Working People of Cyprus, ``that in our time, with the existing balance of forces, a small country, too, can be successful in maintaining its independence if its national liberation forces attain anti-imperialist unity and if it has the aid and support of the socialist countries and the international anti-imperialist camp.''^^*^^The proposition that the world socialist system plays the leading role in the development of the world revolutionary process is constantly attacked by both Right and ``Left'' opportunists, whose theories are prejudicial to the revolutionary movement.
Right-wing criticism of the socialist community is extremely subtle and stems from incomprehension of the role played by the working-class movement of the developed capitalist countries. Although the proponents of this criticism correctly hold that the socialist community cannot be considered in isolation from the international working-class movement and its struggle for socialism, they misrepresent the principal distinctions between the socialist system and the international working-class movement, between the forms and methods of their struggle against capitalism, between their contribution to the world revolutionary process. In the light of these distortions they want the socialist countries to subordinate their strategy and tactics to the specific and frequently special interests of the working-class movement of one country or another. Yet it is perfectly obvious that the successes of the working-class movement are achieved on the basis of the successes of the socialist countries, whose very existence paralyses the bourgeoisie in the economic field and in social and military policy. It goes without saying that for its part the struggle of the working class of the developed countries creates the prerequisites _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 124.
287 for the successes of the socialist system in foreign policy and for the growth of socialism's international prestige. But this neither is nor can be the factor determining the development of the world revolutionary process.The above-said shows that founded on comprehension of the real role of the various contingents of the world revolutionary movement, the interaction between the socialist countries and the communist and working-class movement, which is influenced by the Marxist-Leninist parties, is a vital condition of the success of each contingent of the world -revolutionary movement. The Communist parties in the capitalist countries achieve success only when far from isolating themselves from the common front of struggle they chart their strategy in such a way as to take account of the common strategy of the revolutionary movement in which the socialist countries form the decisive force.
Neither is there any foundation for the assertions of the Chinese extremists contained, in particular, in the decisions of the 9th Congress of the Communist Party of China, to the effect that the socialist community does not exercise a decisive influence on world development. The Maoists flagrantly distort reality when they argue that the working class of the socialist countries ``has turned bourgeois" and ``betrayed the cause of socialism'', while the socialist countries ``have entered into a conspiracy with United States imperialism''. The Maoists hold that the course of the struggle on the world scene is influenced primarily by the development of the national liberation movement. However, without in the least denying the great significance of the national liberation movement as one of the torrents of the world revolution, one cannot fail to see that the main material, military and other potentialities are concentrated in the socialist countries and that these countries are in the forefront of the struggle against capitalism. By virtue of objective reasons the national liberation movement at its present stage is still largely dependent on world capitalism and does not represent a military threat to imperialism; the struggle for the social advancement of the countries involved in this movement is not everywhere consistent.
The influence which the socialist system exercises on revolutionary development in the world is due in decisive measure to the role played by the Soviet Union, the leading 288 socialist state, a great power, the first country to accomplish the socialist revolution and the first to begin the building of communism.
Lenin pointed out on many occasions that the October Revolution, representing the beginning of the world-wide proletarian revolution, had objectively turned Soviet Russia into the centre and mainstay of the world revolution. In July 1918 he said: ``We have done our revolutionary duty as no revolutionary government in any country has ever done on an international, world-wide scale,... And when we came to power, our task as the proletarian Communist Party, at a time when capitalist bourgeois rule still remained in the other countries---our immediate task, I repeat, was to retain that power, that torch of socialism, so that it might scatter as many sparks as possible to add to the growing flames of socialist revolution.''^^*^^
The Comintern reiterated in its Programme that ``the USSR inevitably becomes the base of the world movement of all oppressed classes, the centre of international revolution, the greatest factor in world history''.^^**^^
The Soviet Union's influence on the development of the revolutionary process became tangible not only because it broke away from the world capitalist system and created a new, socialist economic system but also because it played an immense role as the international motor of the proletarian revolution inspiring the proletarians of all countries to fight for power. It became the living example of the proletariat's ability not only to destroy capitalism but to build socialism, and it provided the prototype of fraternal relations between the peoples of all countries.
The Soviet Union exercised the decisive influence on the course and outcome of the Second World War by defeating German and Japanese imperialism. It thereby helped to weaken the world imperialist system, form the world socialist system, step up the revolutionary movement of the working class in the capitalist countries and lay the beginning for the abolition of the colonial system.
Today the Soviet Union's role is bigger than ever _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, pp. 24--25.
^^**^^ The Programme of the Communist International. Together with the Statutes of the Communist International, London, 1929, Modern Books Limited, p. 47.
__PRINTERS_P_289_COMMENT__ 19---1157 289 before, chiefly on account of the social nature of the society that is pioneering progress and is the first in the world to begin the building of communism. The USSR today plays a bigger role as the bulwark of the socialist community because in it are most of the material and military resources of socialism. Experience shows that socialist countries can develop their economy successfully only in alliance with the USSR. The Soviet Union makes the largest contribution to the defence of socialist countries against encroachment by international imperialism. In view of the revolution in military equipment and science, the Soviet Union's defensive might is, more than ever before, the decisive guarantee of the security of all socialist countries and also of progressive states that have won national liberation; it is the guarantee of world peace.In international relations the Soviet Union's stand and its powerful influence in the world help to create favourable conditions for the development of all the torrents of the world revolutionary process.
Regrettably, there are people, even among Communists, who seek to belittle the Soviet Union's role in the modern revolutionary process. They argue that with the emergence of the world socialist system no country should be singled out because that violates equality. Therefore, when the services of the Soviet Union are mentioned these people reduce things to the significance of the October Revolution and sometimes to the defeat of fascism in the Second World War. Small wonder, therefore, that many of the speakers at the 1969 International Meeting emphatically rejected views of this kind. Gustav Husak noted: ``The strength of the socialist camp and the anti-imperialist movement, its hopes and possibilities for development depend primarily on the strength and development of the Soviet Union.''^^*^^ Luis Corval\'an, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Chile, stressed: ``The fact cannot be ignored that the Soviet Union is the bulwark of the liberation cause of peoples and that it and its Party have played and continue to play the decisive role in the history of our epoch.''^^**^^
The leaders of almost all the delegations attending the _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 405.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 268.
290 24th Congress of the CPSU spoke of the Soviet Union's role in the modern world. Le Duan, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Working People's Party of Vietnam, said: ``The Soviet Union's magnificent achievements in all fields still further increase its economic and defence potential, make an important contribution towards strengthening the forces of socialism and the international revolutionary movement, which are on the offensive, and are a powerful factor inspiring the peoples in their struggle against imperialism, for the cardinal aims of our epoch: peace, national independence, democracy and socialism.'' Edward Gierek, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers' Party, noted: ``The Soviet Union bears the main burden of the struggle against imperialism and war on a world-wide scale. It is the guarantor of the socialist system's security and renders decisive support and assistance to the peoples fighting for freedom.''Aware of the USSR's significance in the revolutionary process and remaining true to its internationalist duty, the CPSU bends every effort to strengthen the Soviet Union's political, economic, ideological, military and international position. While continuing the line aimed at maintaining a high rate of overall economic growth, the CPSU consistently pursues its policy of building up an economy with the highest economic efficacy and scientific and technological level in the world. Particular attention is given to speeding up scientific and technological progress.
The socialist countries play a notable historical role. The successes of all the revolutionary forces in the world depend largely on their achievements, on the ability of the ruling parties to utilise the potentialities of the new social system and on the unity of the socialist system. A policy aimed at cementing the solidarity of the socialist community is, therefore, what primarily meets with the interests of the entire communist and working-class movement, of all the anti-imperialist forces. The utmost importance attaches to the movement to consolidate unity and co-operation among the Communist parties of the socialist countries. This unity is the only foundation making it possible to achieve a further upswing of the economy and culture of socialism, of its defence capability and its impact on the world. This is precisely what creates the prerequisites for enhancing the __PRINTERS_P_290_COMMENT__ 19* 291 socialist community's influence on the world revolutionary process.
The might of world socialism depends not only on the efforts of the socialist countries themselves but also on the support it receives from the international communist and working-class movement and from the national liberation movement. This is always taken into consideration by the Communist and Workers' parties of the socialist countries. Their support for the working-class and national liberation movements is designed to strengthen not only the corresponding sectors of the world revolution but also their natural allies, whose assistance, for its part, strengthens the socialist community. The relations between the socialist community and other contingents of the revolution mirror the dialectics of present-day social life.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. CLASS BATTLESThe developed capitalist countries form the backbone of world capitalism and a key base of its struggle against the world revolution. In these countries imperialism has its largest economic and military resources and holds the strongest positions in economic and political life.
The revolutionary struggle of the working class, of the working masses in the citadels of imperialism, is, therefore, a major torrent of the world revolutionary process and plays an essential role in undermining the positions of the dying system. This struggle~
---erodes the economic foundations of imperialism, reduces its possibilities of receiving larger profits and forces it to make concessions to the detriment of its own class interests;~
---fetters the reactionary institutions of the capitalist states, prevents the wide enforcement of anti-popular measures in politics and secures the extention of democracy and the creation, thereby, of more favourable conditions for the drive towards socialism;~
---exposes the anti-popular, parasitic nature of capitalism and the narrowness of bourgeois democracy, and shows that it is necessary to replace the bourgeois system;~
292---limits the sphere of reactionary foreign policy and, thereby, facilitates action by other torrents of the world revolutionary movement---the socialist system and the national liberation movement;~
---helps to form the political army of the revolution and to educate and temper the working class, which is the grave-digger of capitalism.
At the modern stage the struggle of the proletariat is characterised by trends showing that new prospects are opening for this torrent of the world revolutionary movement, that there are increasing possibilities for effective action by the working people aimed at achieving the socialist reorganisation of society. Let us briefly examine these trends. The scale of the actions by the working people is now larger and more massive than ever before; the social composition of the participants in the class battles is steadily changing (along with the proletariat these battles are involving the peasants, intellectuals, young people, women and believers); a differentiation, which is not always consistent, is taking place in the working class and other Left-wing forces; the tactics of the strike movement are becoming more flexible and effective---more cases occur of strikers seizing factories and offices and clashing with the police and other organs of the capitalist state; the class struggle is increasingly growing into a struggle against the monopolies, and economic demands intertwine with political demands directed against the very foundations of the capitalist system; the course of the struggle is marked by unexpected developments which make it difficult to foretell the time, scale and consequences of popular actions; the working people are more and more frequently achieving their aims, compelling employers and the authorities to accede to their demands.
The course of the social struggle in capitalist society during the 1960s has shown that changes, favourable to the revolutionary forces and difficult to overestimate, are in the making and that a large quantity of combustible material has accumulated for a revolutionary explosion against the exploiting system.
The vast experience of struggle gained by the working class in recent years shows a great diversity of ways and means of pressuring capitalism, a multiform approach to the question of allies and the inimical nature of the concrete 293 political situations that arise in the course of the struggle. This diversity of the forms of struggle unquestionably influences the ways and means of starting the socialist revolution and on the course of the revolutionary changes themselves.
A pressing problem, in this connection, is the further elaboration of the strategy and tactics of the socialist revolution under present-day conditions in each country separately and on an international scale.
Where capitalism develops ``tranquilly'' and a sharp revolutionary crisis is non-existent, in other words, where the working class can secure concessions from the capitalists, the line of the Communists is aimed at enabling the working class to secure the largest possible concessions and to strengthen its position in society's economic life and political structure. The stronger these positions become the more hope will there be for the success of the working-class movement during the period of direct revolutionary actions. In the course of the struggle for their vital demands the masses receive the necessary political training and revolutionary steeling.
The present strategy of the communist movement is to turn every specific advance of the working class into the starting line for the next assault on capitalism, into the starting line of the struggle to limit the power of the monopolies. It lies with the Communists to tie present-day tasks up with the socialist perspective and to put forward demands which inevitably entail more deep-going social changes and require a struggle against reactionary, antidemocratic forces in political institutions, and so on.
The attention of the Communist and Workers' parties of the capitalist countries has always been focussed on the question of the concrete forms and methods of the struggle for socialism. During the past few decades the fraternal parties have enriched and are enriching their programme documents with new propositions. In working out strategy and tactics the Marxist parties emphatically reject the revisionist theories that the transition to socialism takes place by evolution and expose all the arguments claiming that capitalism ``grows'' into socialism or that capitalism and socialism are ``converging''. The Communist parties continue, as they have always done, to be guided by the 294 Marxist-Leninist theory of the socialist revolution, by the revolutionary experience of Russia and by the experience of the revolution in other European and Asian countries, and also in Cuba. They hold that renunciation of the general laws of the transition of different countries from capitalism to socialism leads to the mire of opportunism, to disunity in the working class, to the subordination of the interests of the proletariat to those of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, they take strict account of the socio-economic and political conditions obtaining in the given country and of that country's role and place in the world capitalist system. They consider that a revolution is the affair of the masses, that revolution cannot be called forth artificially, imported or forced on the people. They act in line with the overall international situation and on the principle that in the event the people are victorious world imperialism will try to interfere in the country's affairs and hinder the development of the revolution. An account of these and other circumstances enables the Communist and Workers' parties to map out correct strategy and tactics which conform to the situation, meet with the interests of the people, define the tasks of the proletariat and show the ways and means of achieving these tasks.
However, no strategy and no programme can provide for all contingencies. In them only the general contours, the general features of socialist changes can be outlined. The Communist or Workers' Party of each country has its own immediate and long-term tasks, on the basis of which it frames its strategy and tactics.
Let us see how under the concrete conditions obtaining in their various countries the Communists raise the problem of the struggle for the socialist future.
The French Communist Party is one of the largest contingents of the communist movement. It courageously and consistently upholds the interests of the working class and its country and wages an uncompromising struggle against the offensive of the monopolies, for unity of action by the working class, for the purity of the great teaching of Marxism-Leninism, for the consolidation of proletarian internationalism, for peace and for the socialist future of France. In the course of that struggle it works out the concrete ways and means for the country's advance to 295 socialism and for the conquest of political power by the proletariat.
As early as 1946 Maurice Thorez showed what stimulated the appearance in post-war France of factors facilitating that country's peaceful transition to socialism. ``We have always thought and said,'' he told a correspondent of The Times of London, ``that the French people, who are rich in great traditions, would find for themselves their way to greater democracy, progress and social justice.''^^*^^
A theoretically substantiated analysis of the French proletariat's struggle for socialism was made at the 14th Congress of the French Communist Party in 1956. At that congress it was shown that for France the new, peaceful road of transition to socialism opened soon after the Second World War, when the Socialists and the Communists won the majority of votes at the elections to the Constituent Assembly. At the time the Communist Party suggested to the Socialist Party the formation of a government consisting of Communists and Socialists which would give democracy a new content, consolidate it and, with the support of the mass movement, shake off the tutelage of the monopolies. However, the Socialist Party did not accept this proposal and subsequently supported the imperialist actions of the government.
The experience of the struggle in the capitalist countries vividly shows that the split in the working class is the chief obstacle to socialism, progress, democracy and peace. Taking this into account, the 14th Congress of the French Communist Party stressed that the advance to socialism could be successful only through the joint actions of the working people, provided they displayed more initiative and the popular movement achieved a higher level. This movement had to be headed by the working class led by its party. This would give it the political leadership of society, which was the decisive condition for the transition to socialism.
At its 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th congresses the French Communist Party pointed to the appearance of increasingly more favourable conditions for the peaceful _-_-_
^^*^^ The Times, November 18, 1946.
296 transition to socialism. The French Communists hold that it is quite possible to use the parliament if it is genuinely democratic. Their point of departure is that in France socialism must emerge as the indispensable consummating link of democracy. Under present-day conditions the struggle for democracy is the basic task in the people's progress towards the socialist revolution. ``To abandon the struggle for advanced democracy. . . does not mean moving faster towards socialism. On the contrary, it means betraying it. On the other hand, in the struggle for advanced democracy the Communist Party fights most effectively for a socialist France,''^^*^^ writes Waldeck Rochet.At the same time, the FCP accentuates the distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary understanding of the peaceful road of the socialist revolution. Consistently combating the revisionist, Right-opportunist interpretations of this road, interpretations which reduce it to `` parliamentarism'', the FCP declared in the decisions of its most recent congresses and in the Manifesto adopted at a plenary meeting of its Central Committee in December 1968, that the peaceful transition to socialism is likewise accompanied by qualitative changes. The Manifesto, in particular, states that whatever its forms and means, the transition from capitalism to socialism would always be a qualitative change, a revolutionary leap, a change in the nature of ownership of the means of production and in the character of exchange, a transition of political power from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the hands of the working class and its allies. This transition may be peaceful but it always presupposes a bitter class struggle. ``At the given moment nobody can say how the transition to socialism will take place in France, but the French Communists are firmly steering towards the creation of conditions favouring a peaceful transition to socialism and act in such a manner as to draw the majority of the people into the struggle for this prospect,''^^**^^ states the Manifesto.
In France the parliamentary system and municipal rights have always been important elements of political life. The _-_-_
^^*^^ Waldeck Rochet, L'nvenir du Parti commnniste franfais, p. 83.
^^**^^ Cahiers du communisme, No. 1, 1969, p. 131.
297 Communists press for their democratic development in the course of the struggle for socialism.^^*^^Immense importance is attached by the French Communists to changes in the economy. ``In order to be real,'' Waldeck Rochet writes, ``political democracy must embrace high standards of economic democracy.''^^**^^
The cardinal task set in the economic section of the FCP's Programme is the gradual nationalisation of the largest monopolies controlling the key sectors of the economy and all the large banks. Such nationalisation, accompanied by the full democratisation of the system of management and by greater trade union participation, can move the social sector into the leading role in the economy. The basic condition for co-operation between the Communist Party and parties representing other working strata of the population and advocating socialism, is that the latter should discontinue their class co-operation with the bourgeoisie. In the opinion of the French Communists, the possibility of several parties engaging in the building of socialism does not imply that the Communist Party should stop criticising the ideological positions of the Social-Democrats, give up its struggle against opportunism and revisionism, or relinquish its leading role. ``Fidelity to the principles of Marxism-Leninism in all fields---ideological, political and organisational---is the sole guarantee of a correct policy,''^^***^^ states The French Road to Socialism, a work written by a team of theoreticians of the French Communist Party.
The specifics of the road to socialism are profoundly analysed in the documents of the Communist Party of the USA.
The task of fighting the monopolies underlies the programme adopted by the Communist Party of the USA at its 19th Congress in May 1969. This task occupies the _-_-_
^^*^^ For the policy pursued by the FCP in the municipalities see World Marxist Review, No. 2, 1970, pp. 47--56. The French Communists are particularly sharp in their denunciation of the theory and practice of so-called ``municipal socialism''. In a conversation on this question with representatives of the journal, one of whom was the author of this book, FCP activists cited many examples showing the tactics employed by the class enemy, who uses every means in an effort to divert the attention of the Communists away from the class aspect of their work in the municipal councils.
^^**^^ Waldeck Rochet, op. cit., p. 66.
^^***^^ La marche de la France au socialisme, Paris, 1966, p. 93.
298 central place in the party's strategy and, as Gus Hall declared at the party Congress, it is not a static task. As more experience is gained in the course of concrete developments, its formulation becomes more clear-cut and precise.The Communist Party of the USA indissolubly links the struggle for democracy with the struggle for socialism, stressing that the transition to socialism is both an historical process and a process taking place at the given moment. Therefore, an anti-monopoly coalition cannot be formed without a powerful Left-wing movement and a strong Communist Party, without enhancing the class consciousness of the workers and the creation, in their ranks, of a nucleus inspired by socialist awareness.
In fighting for the masses, the party's principal aim is to win stronger positions in the working-class and the Negro movement. At the present stage the most important element is the radicalisation of the working class, of the trade union movement. The Communist Party of the USA pays particular attention to the movement of rank-and-file trade unionists who constitute the key link in the class struggle, in the struggle for social progress. This struggle is waged round questions concerning the state of the trade union leadership, democracy in the trade unions and the programme of safeguarding the interests of the workers. It is unfolding also round the struggle of the Negro workers for equality, the drive to place automation under trade union control, and so on. The US Communists are bending their efforts to form a united front at all levels of the trade union movement.
The Communist Party of the USA seeks to strengthen the Left wing as a form of a united front of the more advanced sections of the working class. In view of the new problems posed by the class struggle, the Communists believe that the Left wing can grow into a leading force within a very short time.
They are in the front rank of the struggle against oppression of the Negro population in the USA, seeing the triple nature of this oppression: racial and class oppression, and oppression of a national minority. The CPUSA accentuates its fidelity to the class position in the struggle for unity of white and black working people.
299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/LCPT354/20070630/354.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.06.30) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+[)]? __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+On the question of the forms of the struggle for socialism in the USA, the party Programme states that ``today it is impossible to say what form---non-peaceful or peaceful---will be taken by the socialist revolution in the USA. The tactics of that revolution will be charted when a revolutionary situation really arises. Such a situation does not yet exist in the USA.''^^*^^
The specifics of the road to socialism in Italy are broadly substantiated by the Communists of that country. ``We face the task of working out an Italian road,'' Palmiro Togliatti, the late General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, said at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. ``It must take into account the country's historical development, its social structure and the mood and aspirations of the broad masses and their organisations.''^^**^^ Togliatti stressed that this road must enable the Italian Communists to achieve, in forms suitable to their country, an alliance between the working class, the peasants and the middle strata and, consequently, secure the support of the majority of the people for society's socialist reorganisation.
In the report delivered by Luigi Longo, General Secretary of the ICP, at the party's 12th Congress in February 1969, it is stated that ``in fighting today... for the positive solution of the problems confronting the working masses and the country, we are not only unfolding a movement that can surmount the contradictions within the majority, but facilitating the process of bringing together and promoting co-operation and agreement between the Left-wing, Socialist, Catholic and other democratic forces and of the maturing of the conditions for creating a new majority and a new political trend in the country. Along this road, which is the road of a big and sharp massive, democratic struggle, we shall advance towards socialism. This is our line, and our strategy and tactics are founded on this understanding of the development of Italian society.''^^***^^
At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of Canada _-_-_
^^*^^ Pravda, May 5, 1969.
^^**^^ 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Verbatim Report, Russ. ed., Vol. 1, Moscow, 1956, p. 349.
^^***^^ Luigi Longo, Un'alternativa per uscire dalla crisi, Rapporto al XII Congresso del Partito comunista italiano, Editor! Riuniti, 1969, p. 29.
300 (April 1969) it was stressed that the struggle for socialism in that country was indivisible from the democratic movement in defence and for the extension of the gains of the people. In the course of the struggle for greater democratic rights the question would arise of the need for a fundamental reorganisation of Canada's social system.The Canadian Communists consider that in their country they have to work for a new alliance---a national, democratic, anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist coalition headed by the working class. This springs from the specifics of the popular movements in Canada, where, alongside the struggle of the working class against the monopolies, the national struggle of the French Canadian people is gaining momentum; there is mounting resistance to US domination in the economic, political, military and cultural spheres; there is a growing movement for peace and the cessation of the war in Vietnam; increasingly broader action is taken by farmers, housewives, tenants, and national minorities; the scale of the struggle waged by the students is expanding.
At the international theoretical conference devoted to Leninism and Contemporaneity, held in Prague in November 1969, Tim Buck noted that in some ways the present general situation in Canada was reminiscent of the situation which Lenin had characterised as a stage in the history of Bolshevism marked by ferment and preparation in all classes.^^*^^
In a programme statement adopted by the German Communist Party at its congress in Essen in April 1969 it is stated that the party ``aspires for a road to socialism that would be of the greatest advantage to the working people of the Federal Republic, a road without civil war. It was the ruling reactionary classes who, to safeguard their power and privileges, had had recourse to bloody violence against the people.''^^**^^ The German Communist Party declares its determination to promote the broad democratic struggle of the workers and other working people for socialist changes. On the road to socialism the GCP aspires to co-operate with _-_-_
^^*^^ Leninism and Problems of the Revolution, Prague, 1970, p. 30.
^^**^^ Grundsatzerkliirung der Deutschen Kommunistischen Partei beschlossen auf dem Essener Parteitag der DKP 12/13 April 1969, Hamburg, I960, p. 46.
301 all socialist and anti-monopoly parties, organisations and forces in extra-parliamentary actions and to obtain stronger representation of the interests of the working people in parliament. The party's point of departure is that such cooperation will continue during the building of socialism.We have referred to concrete documents of the Communist parties of five developed capitalist countries. They give a general picture of the approach of the Communists of these countries to problems of the struggle for socialism. Many other parties likewise analyse these problems profoundly, and in line with the changes in conditions and the forms of struggle specify their positions on the basis of new experience.^^*^^
What are the general conclusions to be drawn from an examination of the programmes of the Communist parties of developed capitalist countries?
We have earlier mentioned and should like to reemphasise that the Communist and Workers' parties of many capitalist countries consider that the proletariat can win power by peaceful means, through the parliament. However, as was quite correctly noted by the fraternal parties, the peaceful conquest of power does not rule out individual elements of an armed struggle. If the bourgeoisie resists, if it uses weapons against the working class, the proletariat is compelled to answer violence with violence, to wage a bitter struggle in order to establish its rule, which is the condition for delivering society from capitalist oppression. The Communist and Workers' parties consider that parallel with the possibility of winning power _-_-_
^^*^^ See, for instance, the Programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain (The British Road to Socialism, London, 1968) supplemented at the 30th Congress of the CPGB in 1968 and also the `` Resolution on Left Unity in Action for the Alternative Policy" passed by the same congress (Information Bulletin, Prague, 1968, No. 1, pp. 19--25); also see John Gollan, The Case for Socialism in the Sixties, London, 1966; Statement of the Executive of the Communist Party of Spain (Mundo Obrero, December 1968); resolution of the 6th Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Japan (Akahata, March 6, 1968); Statement of the 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of Denmark under the heading ``The Road of the Left to Democracy and Socialism" (Land og folk, February 22, 1969), and so on. At the 1969 International Meeting the leaders of all the fraternal parties of the capitalist countries spoke of their parties' attitude to problems linked with the struggle for socialism.
302 peacefully it is necessary to bear in mind the possibility of a non-peaceful transition to socialism.^^*^^ However, both roads, peaceful and non-peaceful, require that the MarxistLeninist parties should step up their organisational work among the masses, because in all cases the revolution demands mass action, the growth of initiative and a high level of political consciousness. This question was, naturally, closely considered at the 1969 International Meeting. Lately, the press of the Communist parties of some European capitalist countries has carried criticism of Communists who pay little attention to extra-parliamentary methods of struggle, concentrate on current aims and neglect the historic tasks of the proletariat and the political and ideological education of the masses. In some instances tasks are set which subordinate the struggle for the socialist objective to current interests. Here sight is lost of the fact that some actions which appear irrational in the context of present-day developments are rational from the long-term point of view, from the standpoint of history. Errors of this kind are frequently due to the narrowness of the methods employed in the struggle, to the use of purely parochial methods. On the other hand, developments are analysed not in their inter-relation, in their movement on a global scale but only on the scale of a country, a city or even a factory. This is made all the more dangerous by the fact that in many capitalist countries a certain gap exists between the level _-_-_^^*^^ The necessity for the non-peaceful road to socialism is noted, in particular, in the programme documents of the Portuguese Communist Party. This conclusion was drawn by the PGP from its analysis of the specific conditions of its country's development. Portugal is an economically backward country where, nonetheless, capitalist relations of production have reached a very high level of development. Evidence of this is that a small number of monopoly groups predominates in the economy and that the proletariat is numerically larger than any other stratum of the population. The country is ruled by a fascist dictatorship, which does not have a mass basis and is abysmally distant from the Portuguese people. The struggle against the fascist dictatorship has scored some partial successes and is accompanied by growing unity among the democratic forces. As was pointed out at the 1969 International Meeting by Alvaro Cunhal, General Secretary of the PGP, the day of the final battle is drawing near in Portugal. ``In the conditions prevailing in our country,'' he said, ``we think that battle will take the form of an armed popular rising" (International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 399).
303 attained by the class struggle of the proletariat and the influence exercised on the masses by Marxist-Leninist ideology. This is largely so because the workers continue to be held captive by an ideology expressing, in the last analysis, the interests of state-monopoly capitalism. They hope to change their condition under capitalism, failing to understand its exploiting nature. For the Communists it is imperative to win over this, as Lenin called it, ``theoretically helpless, but living, and powerful mass working-class movement''.^^*^^Earlier we mentioned the ways and means used by the bourgeoisie and the Social-Democrats to influence the working people. At this point let us consider the following elements.
The bourgeoisie attracts part of the working people through unbridled demagogy about a community of interests between the workers and the capitalists, by stirring up nationalism and chauvinism, by making some material concessions. The scientific and technological revolution gives the bourgeoisie greater possibilities for pursuing a policy of concessions and for allocating a large portion of its profits for these aims. This policy dovetails with subtle social demagogy, with the preaching of an alliance between labour and capital, with the propagation of the ideals of philistine well-being.''^^**^^
In some countries the Social-Democrats have the support of large sections of working people by virtue of their efforts to secure the satisfaction of the people's day-to-day economic requirements and put minor reforms into effect, their _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 12, p. 363.
^^**^^ Bourgeois ideology is today compelled to don a revolutionary disguise. This is excellently illustrated by its use of the theories of Herbert Marcuse, who preaches a ``third'' road, which in effect leads away from the struggle against capitalism, from the socialist revolution. Manipulating with the concepts of capitalism, the class struggle, socialism and revolution, Marcuse distorts the actual meaning and correlation of these concepts. In his criticism of capitalism he ignores the role of the working class and accepts the myth of a ``welfare society" at its face value. He rejects the possibility of creating, under present-day conditions, a socialist society, regarding it from a purely ethical point of view and condemning existing socialism. He argues that basic social conflicts can be resolved not through a socialist reorganisation of the relations of production but through a change of the existing ``pattern of instincts''.
304 dissemination of theories claiming that ``democratic socialism" can be attained by ``evolution'', and, in a number of instances, their adoption of anti-imperialist slogans. The fact that reformist traditions are widespread in the workingclass movement of the West also plays a big role. An analysis shows that those who fall under Social-Democratic influence are mostly middle-aged workers who, when they were politically active, had received some concessions from the bourgeoisie and the Social-Democrats, had not acquired the necessary class tempering and were not prepared to take part in a decisive struggle.The Communist parties would unquestionably have had more success with the masses had they been united, had not some of them been weakened by Right- and Left-- opportunist deviations. Today, as has always been the case in the history of the working-class movement, opportunism endeavours to divert the working people from the revolutionary struggle for socialism. As 100 and as 50 years ago, the political content of opportunism is ``class collaboration, repudiation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, repudiation of revolutionary action, unconditional acceptance of bourgeois legality, confidence in the bourgeoisie and lack of confidence in the proletariat''.^^*^^ Citing cases of indecision, lack of political awareness, dependence on the bourgeoisie and the numerical and political weakening of some parties, the revisionists insist on adapting the tactics of the struggle to the conditions prevailing at the given moment. They argue that power can be won only ``from above'', through parliament, and so on. Moreover, while insisting on the creation of a ``party of a new type" they call for the repudiation of the operating principles of party development, above all, the principle of democratic centralism.
A manifestation of revisionism is its exaggeration of the importance of the struggle for short-term objectives. Subordination of the party's policy to such a struggle can and does lead to a departure from the main direction of the struggle for socialism, to the loss of perspective. Minor current issues obscure the cardinal, fundamental aims of the communist movement. The following words, written by Lenin more than 60 years ago, apply fully to the modern _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 112.
__PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20---1157 305 revisionists: ``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 revisionism.''^^*^^Common to all revisionists is the attempt to reshape the Marxist-Leninist theory of the leading role of the working class. The revisionists who have wormed themselves into some parties, both in capitalist and in socialist countries, offer various ``arguments'' in an attempt to prove that in the present epoch the working class cannot be the leading force of social development, that it is incapable of heading the revolutionary struggle, while in the socialist countries it cannot direct socialist construction.^^**^^
Many revisionist theories are founded on the argument that under ``neocapitalism'' the working class has itself become bourgeois. Exponents of petty-bourgeois radical trends contend that the force capable of changing the existing order is outside the process of production. On this point, Gus Hall writes: ``This concept, of course, rules out the 65 million workers in the US 'production process' and their families who make up the majority of our people. But in a basic sense it rules out exploitation at the point of production as the heart, as the incubator, as the root of classes and the class struggle. To do this is to rule out classes, the class struggle, and of course, the working class. It is a rejection of the class nature of capitalism-----Others say `the working class has become a part of the establishment'. Others add that 'the working class has become a partner ... of imperialism'. Still others speak about the 'new working class'. But they do so in such terms that, to say the least, it leaves the door open to an interpretation _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, pp. 37--38.
^^**^^ The idea that the working class has lost its historic importance is propounded by the renegade Roger Garaudy. In a book entitled The Great Turn of Socialism he argues that the scientific and technological revolution will bring about the fusion of labour by hand and by brain and that the working class, as understood by Marxism, will cease to exist, that it will ``integrate'' with the ``organised intelligentsia''. A ``new historical bloc" will thus emerge.
306 that the changes are so `fundamental', the 'new working class' is so `different', that one should have some doubts and questions whether it can fulfil its historic mission. They make a slight concession and say that maybe there are no questions about the world working class in general, but there must be at least some doubts about the US working class because it is so `new'---so `different'.''^^*^^Lack of confidence in the working class is a distinctive feature not only of Right but of ``Left'' opportunism, which finds fertile soil in periods when the class struggle grows in intensity and the offensive on capitalism is stepped up. This form of opportunism, as Waldeck Rochet noted, ``is wishful thinking which turns impatience into a strategy''.^^**^^ ``Left'' opportunism contends that there is no connection _-_-_
^^*^^ Gus Hall, The Path to Revolution, New York, 1968, pp. 13--14. Ernst Fischer, who has been expelled from the Communist Party of Austria, has in recent years become one of the fashionable theorists of revisionism. His writings clearly show the areas in which modern revisionism attacks Marxism-Leninism.
Fischer's attacks are levelled chiefly at the Marxist-Leninist proposition on the dictatorship of the proletariat. He declares that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be translated into life within the framework of modern capitalist society. On the whole, he repudiates the need and possibility for the proletarian dictatorship and considers as ``unhappy'' the very term ``dictatorship of the proletariat''.
Further, he ``demolishes'' the proposition on the revolutionary role of the working class, declaring that in modern industrial society no proletariat exists in the initial meaning of the word, that there is a new working class, in which Fischer classifies all factory workers and all office employees. This reassessment of the condition of the working class has been made in order to repudiate its leading role in the revolution. As regards the revolution itself, Fischer emphatically rejects all forms of violence by the working class, declaring that the main thing is the ``revolution in culture and in the way of thinking''. He asserts that under capitalism even the gradual transformation of private ownership into public ownership constitutes a revolutionary process. This assertion has nothing in common with Marxist theory or with the facts of life. In many countries, notably in Austria, the state sector embraces a large section of the economy, but this is no grounds for speaking of the revolutionary significance of this sector.
Moreover, Fischer rejects concepts such as ``dictatorship'' and ``power''. He holds that no power, no dictatorship should exist under socialism, that it is necessary to ``fight the myth of power" and uphold the right of heresy against orthodoxy of any kind. This pseudo-- scientific rubbish, as all the other theoretical arguments of the Austrian renegade, hold not a grain of Marxism.
^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 116.
__PRINTERS_P_307_COMMENT__ 20* 307 between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism. It repudiates the need for an alliance of the working class with other social groups. It overrates the role of the young people and their readiness to join in the antiimperialist struggle. It rejects the need for organisation in the class struggle.Both Right and ``Left'' opportunism underrate the possibility of drawing the masses into the struggle against imperialism, for democracy and socialism. They repudiate the vanguard role of the Communist Party. Both engage in inflammatory anti-Sovietism.
The activities of the opportunists hinder the struggle waged by the Communist and Workers' parties. This is particularly true in the capitalist countries, where the parties encounter many other objective difficulties, among which are the gap between the level of the people's consciousness and the objective requirements of development; the immaturity of the subjective conditions in a situation where mature objective factors of revolutionary development exist; the complication of the structure and composition of the working class and the temporary growth of the ideological influence of the intermediate social strata, that are increasingly joining the ranks of the proletariat; the appearance of such important but extremely difficult allies as the massive strata of students and intellectuals, whose enlistment to the side of the Communists requires particularly wellconsidered work; the extremely well-organised state-- sponsored ideological indoctrination of the people through all modern mass media, which imperialism uses on an international scale.
There is an ominous menace from centrism, which Lenin had always fought energetically. Although the centrists use pseudo-Marxist terminology, they are in fact virulently hostile to revolutionary Marxism and seek to adapt the interests of the proletariat to those of the bourgeoisie. Being an eclectic trend, centrism joins forces now with ``Left'' and now Right opportunism. The centrists are bringing some groups of the working class under their influence. A consistent struggle against the opportunism of the centrists is a standing task of the communist movement.
It goes without saying that the Communists will not achieve their programme aims unless their parties become 308 more active, expose anti-communism, reformism and opportunism and step up their ideological and organisational work among the masses. At the 1969 International Meeting, for instance, it was shown that most of the Communist parties were aware of this and were bending every effort to organise their work among the masses correspondingly.
In fighting for the masses the Marxist-Leninist parties are showing them that the policy of the bourgeoisie and the Social-Democrats is not consistent with their vital interests, that it leads them away from society's socialist reorganisation. The prime objective of this struggle is to expose all forms of anti-communism and anti-Sovietism and all departures from Marxist-Leninist principles. The Communists try to take a differentiated approach to the various groups of working people. While waging an uncompromising struggle against bourgeois and Social-Democratic ideology, they seek to pattern their policy in such a way as to enable the masses to see for themselves that the line of the Communist parties is the only correct line. The Communists' approach to the struggle against revisionist views is likewise flexible. In the communist movement erroneous views are sometimes propounded by those who, in spite of this, remain in the ranks of fighters against capitalism. The Communists regard the struggle against such views chiefly as a struggle to return comrades-in-arms to correct positions. They therefore urge comradely, friendly criticism and restraint.
While attaching decisive importance to the unity of the working class, the Communists urge co-operation with the Social-Democrats in the struggle for an advanced democratic system prior to the abolition of capitalism and for the building of a socialist society in future. The Communists are prepared to co-operate with other progressive parties and organisations, stressing that the forces coming out in favour of socialism can contribute effectively to the struggle for the new system only when they renounce their policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie.
Experience has shown that the consistent and principled line of the Communists aimed at achieving unity with the Social-Democrats is yielding results. There is increasing differentiation in the Social-Democratic movement, in which the healthy trends are steadily growing stronger.
309The 1969 International Meeting gave a powerful impulse to the struggle of the Communists for the masses, against anti-communism, for the exposure of reformism and Right opportunism.
In pursuance of their line of winning the masses over to their side, the Communists urge trade union unity in each country and on the international level. This strengthens the proletariat and paves the way to success in its struggle, thereby helping it to see the correct way of waging the struggle. The decisions of the 7th Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions, held in Budapest in October 1969, are going a long way towards strengthening the links between the Communists and the proletarian masses.
The Communists are doing much to form and consolidate the alliance between the working class and the peasantry.
Today when the small and middle peasants, who are sinking steadily deeper into ruin, are putting up a growing resistance to the actions taken against them by the monopoly-ruled state, they are more and more frequently receiving assistance from the urban proletariat.
Communist influence is also growing among the urban middle strata, who, to protect their interests, are having steadily greater recourse to proletarian methods of struggle. They are beginning to see more clearly the vital importance of joint action with the working class.
The Communists are using the favourable objective conditions to win more influence in intellectual circles as well. The crisis of bourgeois ideology and socialism's force of attraction are bringing the intelligentsia into the antiimperialist struggle. The alliance between workers by brain and by hand is acquiring increasing importance.
Activation of the youth movement is also creating the prerequisites for drawing young people into the antiimperialist struggle. Large segments of young workers and students are more and more frequently taking action not only in defence of their interests but also against the policy of the ruling classes, for democracy, peace and socialism. In the youth movement the Communists are disseminating the ideas of scientific socialism, exposing pseudo-- 310 revolutionary concepts and helping the young people to follow the correct road of struggle.
Women actively participate in production and public life and the Communist parties are doing everything to draw them into the class struggle, supporting their demands for the removal of all wage discrimination, complete equality in civil rights, maternity protection, and so on.
In many capitalist countries the exacerbation of social contradictions has opened up possibilities for an alliance between the revolutionary working-class movement and large sections of believers on an anti-monopoly and an anti-imperialist basis. In a number of countries the Communists are enlisting the co-operation of democratic masses of Catholics and other believers. A dialogue has been started between them on urgent questions concerning the development of the modern world. As a result of the close contacts that have been established and of the joint actions that have been taken, masses of believers are becoming an active force in the struggle against imperialism, for social reforms.
An analysis of various aspects of the struggle of the working class in the developed capitalist countries and of the activities of the Communist parties shows that essential changes are taking place along this front of the revolutionary battles. These changes are indicative of the increasing potential of the proletariat and of the growing role of this torrent of the world revolutionary movement. Developments are leading towards an aggravation of the class battles.
The large-scale class battles in the developed capitalist countries have time and again shaken the rule of the bourgeoisie, striking examples of this being the years of revolutionary crisis following the October Revolution, the massive working-class movement of the 1930s, the period of the Popular Front, which witnessed a powerful upsurge of the democratic movement and of the class battles of the proletariat, and the years of the anti-fascist Resistance. The revolutionary movement of the masses grew into an immense force during the years following the defeat of hitlerism. Today it has entered a new phase of development, and it is becoming particularly urgent to co-ordinate the struggle of the working masses with the actions of other 311 contingents of the world revolutionary movement for a concerted assault on the positions of capitalism.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTThe communist movement emphasises, more strongly than ever before, the importance of the national liberation struggle to the world revolutionary process. This is only natural.
Between 1950 and 1960 the national liberation movement had a period of triumphs that led to the rapid disintegration of the colonial system. At that stage new phenomena had not yet emerged in the national liberation movement and the young states had not determined the ways of their development. The 1960s showed the basic trends of the national liberation movement and saw Asia, Africa and Latin America acquire increasing influence in world politics. Today we are witnessing a further aggravation of the contradictions between imperialism and national capitalism in the liberated countries, and between the reactionary and progressive forces of these countries. ``The main thing,'' L. I. Brezhnev said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``is that the struggle for national liberation in many countries has in practical terms begun to grow into a struggle against exploitative relations, both feudal and capitalist.''^^*^^
All this determines the need for a probing scrutiny of the problems confronting the national liberation movement. The need for a correct scientific analysis becomes all the more pressing because having drawn lessons from the recent events in the zone of the national liberation movement, the imperialists are seeking to gain control of the situation and recover the positions they have lost. With this aim in view they are continuously modifying their tactics, adapting them to the concrete conditions in the various countries. They resort to the most diverse methods ---from veiled flirtation with the governments of the young states to reactionary coups and brutal suppression of centres of the liberation movement.
_-_-_^^*^^ 24th Congress of the CPSU, Documents, Moscow, 1971, p. 23.
312An extremely wide range of problems confronts the national liberation movement. These problems are studied at special scientific institutions in socialist countries, discussed in special periodicals, and have been analysed in many monographs. They have been the subject of many international Marxist conferences.
In this book the author reviews some of these problems, particularly the problem of the influence exercised by the national liberation movement on the world revolutionary process and the approach of the Communist and Workers' parties of Asia, Africa and Latin America to the problem of the ways of revolutionary development.
In political and scientific literature all the Asian, African and Latin American countries fighting for national liberation are classified in a single group known as the Third World. This mirrors, above all, the common struggle of these countries against imperialism and their common trend towards anti-imperialist development. At the same time, between the continents of the Third World and between many of the countries in these continents there may be and are considerable differences as regards their economic and social development levels, their political regimes, their foreign policy and so on. The non-- differentiated approach adopted towards the Third World in some scientific literature, an approach that ignores the distinctions of these countries, is not accepted by the Communists of these countries, particularly of Latin American countries, whose history and present-day problems differ substantially from the history and problems of Asian and African countries.
The author believes there are ample grounds for this non-acceptance and feels it would be expedient to study separately the problems of the Afro-Asian group and those of the Latin American group of countries.
Let us first examine the general features and specifics of the national liberation movement in Asian and African countries.
The general features include:~
1. The continuing anti-imperialist revolution as shown by the relatively recent developments in Libya and other countries. A struggle is being waged against imperialism, for the liberation of countries and peoples still carrying 313 the burden of colonial dependence. Particular importance attaches to the liberation struggle in South Africa. The peoples of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa are fighting for freedom with arms in hand. A prominent role in the struggle against world imperialism is played by the Arab liberation movement.
2. The deepening socio-political changes in the liberated countries. Social differentiation is growing more distinct and there is a mounting conflict between the working masses and the democratic forces, including patriotic sections of the petty bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and imperialism, the forces of internal reaction and elements of the national bourgeoisie inclined to come to terms with imperialism, on the other.
3. The growing number of factory and other wageworkers in some countries (in the Asian countries there were approximately 120--150 million wage-workers in 1968). The proletariat is rapidly taking shape even in the most backward countries (People's Republic of South Yemen, Bakhrein, Saudi Arabia and so on). The rate of growth of the working class is approximately three times higher than the general population increment. On the whole, according to UN statistics, the employment index in industry in India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Egypt and other countries rose 1.5-2-fold in the period from 1956 to 1968. In the Lebanon, which has a population of about 2,500,000, the industrial proletariat already numbers over 65,000: the number of workers engaged in the non-productive sector exceeds 85,000 while the number of agricultural workers is nearing 100,000.^^*^^ A very important factor is that parallel with the numerical growth of wage-workers there is a steady increase of the number of workers employed at factories being built not in traditional industrial centres but in new areas. The sphere of the proletariat's influence over the peasants and other sections of the population is thus widening.
4. As they tackle socio-economic problems the peoples of the newly independent countries are increasingly seeing the need for far-reaching revolutionary changes, _-_-_
^^*^^ World Marxist Review, No. 2, 1969, p. 42.
314 democratic agrarian reforms in the interests and with the participation of the working peasants, the eradication of antiquated feudal and pre-feudal relations, the expulsion of the foreign monopolies from their positions of predominance, the radical democratisation of socio-political life and the state apparatus, the rejuvenation of national culture and the promotion of its progressive traditions, the strengthening of the revolutionary parties and the establishment of such parties where they do not yet exist. There is growing gravitation towards Marxism-Leninism, which is showing the road of development for the Third World countries as well. Speaking at the 1969 International Meeting of the significance of Marxism-Leninism to the developing countries, Mohammed Harmel, a member of the Tunisian delegation, noted that ``the entire course of events is a remarkable confirmation of Marxism-Leninism, which has furnished the only correct explanation of this phenomenon (the revolutions in the Third World countries.--- K. Z.), enlightened the Communist parties of Asia and Africa and shown them the way. It has been wielding growing influence on other revolutionary and progressive forces.''^^*^^ ``Africa indeed needs this only correct revolutionary theory---Communist thought.. . as dry and thirsty soil needs rain,''^^**^^ wrote The African Communist, organ of the South African Communist Party.Co-operation with socialist countries is a vital condition for the advance of the liberated states along the path of social progress. This co-operation helps to promote their national economy and make it independent of imperialist economy. It helps to strengthen the progressive, revolutionary-democratic forces in these states and, thereby, to reinforce the common anti-imperialist front.
The friendly relations between the socialist and liberated countries cover a wide field. Political co-operation is being fostered on the international level and this makes it possible to foil many of imperialism's intrigues and resolve important international problems in the interests of the social progress of nations and the consolidation of socialism's positions in the world. Many of the liberated _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, p. 186.
^^**^^ The African Communist, No. 39, 1969, p. 13.
315 countries are being helped to build up their defence capability. Active support and assistance of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries of Egypt, Syria and other Arab states plays the key role in the struggle against Israeli aggression, which has been inspired by the imperialist powers against the progressive regimes in these states.Cultural, scientific and other links are expanding between the socialist and developing countries. There is steadily widening contact between the Communist parties of the socialist countries and the revolutionary-democratic parties of the liberated countries and this is enhancing the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology in the revolutionarydemocratic parties.
The peoples and leaders of the Asian and African countries are seeing for themselves that co-operation with socialist countries is consistent with the vital interests of their own countries, helping them to surmount their socioeconomic backwardness and consolidate their independence.
The growing links with the socialist countries, the impact of the socialist principles of international relations and knowledge of the experience of the socialist countries help to create conditions for and stimulate the progressive development of Asian and African countries.
Non-capitalist development, which creates the possibility of building a socialist society in future, is the most promising for Asian and African states.^^*^^
When Marx was writing Capital and had defined the basic laws of the development and downfall of capitalism, he pondered over the problem of a road of development for non-capitalist countries which would allow them to bypass capitalism. This problem was studied also by Engels and Lenin. Lenin noted that for backward peoples capitalist development was by no means unavoidable. He wrote: ``If the victorious revolutionary proletariat conducts systematic propaganda among them, and the Soviet governments come to their aid with all the means at their disposal ---in that event it will be mistaken to assume that the backward peoples must inevitably go through the capitalist stage _-_-_
^^*^^ The concept of non-capitalist development has been included in the programme documents of the ruling parties in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Tanzania and other countries.
316 of development.''^^*^^ And further: ''. . .with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist stage.''^^**^^Lenin pointed out that it was impossible to indicate the ways and means in advance. This, he said, would be prompted by practical experience. Indeed, practical experience has specified the ways and forms of the progress of undeveloped countries towards socialism.
``Under the impact of the revolutionary conditions of our time,'' states the Document of the 1969 International Meeting, ``distinctive forms of progressive social development of the newly free countries have appeared, and the role of revolutionary and democratic forces has been enhanced. Some young states have taken the non-capitalist path, a path which opens up the possibility of overcoming the backwardness inherited from the colonial past and creates conditions for transition to socialist development. In these countries the socialist orientation is making headway, overcoming great difficulties and trials. These states are waging a determined struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism.''^^***^^
There is, undoubtedly, a vast difference between how this process developed in the USSR, when the backward feudal and even semi-feudal Central Asian states united in a single state and achieved socialism without going through the stage of capitalism, and how it proceeds in the concrete conditions obtaining in the developing countries.
These countries are not part of a single developed multi-national state and, a very important point, to this day some of them are compelled to preserve economic and political relations with states that had subjected them to imperialist oppression.
What concretely characterises the non-capitalist road of development?
First and foremost, the diminishing influence of the ruling capitalist elements, including the bureaucratic _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 244.
^^**^^ Ibid.
^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 28.
317 bourgeoisie, and the establishment of a national-democratic regime or some form of national democracy. This was dealt with in detail in the Statement of the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Indisputable elements of this road of development are the economic restriction and gradual dislodgement of foreign capital and of the big compradore or even of the trade and industrial national bourgeoisie, and the development of the state sector and its conversion into an influential and decisive pillar of economic development.Non-capitalist development involves anti-feudal agrarian reforms, which at a definite stage enable the nationaldemocratic regime to rely on the state sector to resolve the peasant problem as a whole and build up a large-scale agriculture as a result of the bourgeoisie being deprived of its monopoly of state power.
The very concept of non-capitalist development is an expression of the leading role of the working class. Pettybourgeois, national democracy experiences the influence of proletarian leadership in the world socialist revolution and, to a certain extent, takes it into account in spite of the fact that it sometimes puts up a resistance, acquires the features of anti-communism and even persecutes Communists. However, it cannot avoid the influence of proletarian leadership in the world liberation movement.
Considerable problems face the countries that have taken the road of non-capitalist development. In some of them the economic situation is extremely difficult.^^*^^ Their _-_-_
^^*^^ Imperialist propaganda contends that the abolition of colonialism has only increased the hardships of the population of the developing countries. Facts indicate that in many of these countries labour productivity has dropped and there has been a diminution of the assortment of consumer goods. However, these are temporary setbacks. They are by no means due to these countries' liberation from the colonialists and can in no way eclipse the great advantages gained by the liberated countries. The reason for the setbacks is that at the present stage when the central task is to put economic and social changes into effect and reorganise the entire national economy many difficulties have come to the fore. One will see more clearly why these difficulties have appeared if one takes into account the complexity of the unfolding class struggle, the pernicious consequences of imperialist subversion, the weakness of the links of some national-patriotic leaders with the masses, the arduous conditions for the activities of the Communist parties, and so on.
318 progressive regimes are looking for a way out of the interlacing of numerous economic, social and political problems.These countries constitute the most progressive, advanced contingents of the national liberation movement and their significance as pioneers of a new road is particularly great for the historical destinies of Asia and Africa.
However, many Asian and African countries are still either looking for a road of development or have linked their destiny up with capitalism. The processes taking place in them are substantially affecting the course of the national liberation movement as a whole.
In most Asian and African countries the national liberation movement has led to an accelerated development of capitalist relations of production. In some countries (Turkey, Pakistan) the concentration and centralisation of capital have given rise to monopoly-type economic associations, which are, as a rule, closely linked with foreign capital. On the other hand, in countries like Afghanistan and Yemen, despite the relatively swift development of capitalism small-commodity production is still predominant and the national bourgeoisie is still very weak.
Understandably, the countries that have adopted the capitalist road have been unable to resolve any of the basic problems confronting them. They have not put an end to economic backwardness and have not eradicated acute social diseases. Famine, poverty, illiteracy and unemployment are the constant features of their social life. That is why class battles frequently flare up and there is growing pressure from the masses, who want a progressive solution of the problems facing society.
Favourable, promising trends of development are thus clearly shaping out at the present stage of the national liberation movement. This creates better conditions for the functioning of the Communist parties.
Before going over to the strategy and tactics of these parties, a few words must be said about their activities and programme documents.
The Communist parties of the developing countries formulate their programmes in the course of their struggle with difficulties of a dual kind---revisionist and dogmatic attempts to misrepresent the prospects of the revolutionary struggle. Revisionist attacks are particularly strong in 319 countries ruled by fascist regimes. The difficulties of the struggle give rise to revisionist slogans repudiating revolutionary action and renouncing the struggle for power up to the abolition of Communist parties. Dogmatism manifests itself most strongly in countries with progressive regimes and is expressed by the aspiration to leap over necessary stages of progressive development, by calls for the overthrow of the existing regimes, by accusations to the effect that the Communist parties are inclined towards liberalisation, and so on.
In drawing up their programmes the Communist parties use as their guideline the fact that the revolutions that have triumphed in their countries are of a nationaldemocratic character. Led by the national bourgeoisie and the national intelligentsia, these revolutions have dealt a blow at the imperialist system, liberated the given countries from colonial bondage and opened the road for anti-feudal, democratic reforms. The Communist parties support the governments of their countries in their democratic actions designed to achieve national rejuvenation, win complete political and economic liberation from colonial oppression, improve the people's standard of living and avert another world war. At the same time, the Communist parties make no secret of the fact that their objective is to create a popular system headed by the proletariat and build the new, socialist society. To this end they are intensifying their work among the masses, winning more influence, and uniting the working class, the peasants and all democratic strata under the banner of Marxism-Leninism.
For the working class and the Communist parties it is vital to resolve a number of urgent problems stemming from the vanguard role of the proletariat in the revolutionary process and linked with the charting of new tactics in order to step up the political activity of the masses and draw them into the drive to complete the socio-economic reforms started by the governments. These are extremely complex tasks because frequently the revolutionary process acquires new, specific forms. The party programmes therefore mirror the specifics of the various countries and the conditions of the struggle.
Take, for example, the action programme of the Communist Party of India, the largest country in the Third 320 World. At the congress in Bombay held at the close of 1964 the Communist Party of India amended its programme to include a point on non-capitalist development. This point is interpreted in conformity with the concrete conditions obtaining in India, which is drawing close to the medium level of capitalist development. In India today there are 10 million factory proletarians, 20 million home industry proletarians and about 60 million farm and plantation workers, in other words, nearly 100 million wageworkers. The CPI programme presupposes a struggle for the creation of a national-democratic front leading to the formation of a national-democratic government, which, with the support of the progressive section of society, would take steps to remove the monopoly upper crust of big capital, nationalise monopoly property and prevent India from entering the phase of monopoly capitalism. Further, it is intended to use the state sector to scale down the possibilities for capitalist accumulation by the middle bourgeoisie without coming into conflict with it but drawing it into increasingly more progressive and democratic participation in the development of the national economy on the basis of the state sector.
The experience of recent years shows that this policy of the CPI is yielding fruit. ``We are happy to inform you,'' R. Rao, General Secretary of the CPI's National Council, said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``that at the recent parliamentary elections the people of our great country inflicted a crushing defeat on the reactionary alliance of the Right-wing forces backed by the monopolists, former princes and imperialists---- I hope this is not taken for a piece of immodesty, but we should like to state from this lofty rostrum that our Party has played an important role in all these developments.''
The work of the Communists of Syria, who are an experienced and steeled contingent of Arab Communists, likewise has its own specifics. At its 3rd Congress (May 1969) the Syrian Communist Party characterised the present stage of the country's development as that of the completion of the anti-colonial and anti-feudal national-- democratic revolution and, at the same time, of a struggle to consolidate, enlarge and deepen the economic and social reforms in order to create the prerequisites for progress __PRINTERS_P_321_COMMENT__ 21---1157 321 towards socialism. The party holds that in order to prevent the development of big capital and encourage and support the development of elements of socialism in all spheres, the workers, peasants and all other working people must be granted democratic liberties, that their initiative must be promoted, that control must be established over production and distribution, and that freedom must be granted to the forces and parties devoted to socialism; that there is a pressing need for a progressive national front as an organisation embracing the Left Baathists, the Communists and other Left-wing elements in all progressive national movements; that the authority and influence of the working class, which acts in alliance with the peasants and other working people, must grow and help to determine the country's policy and the line of the existing regime on the basis of the theory of scientific socialism, on the basis of MarxistLeninist theory.^^*^^
For our examples we have taken programme propositions of two Communist parties. Most of the Asian and African parties function under extremely difficult conditions. Some are persecuted by reactionary regimes and compelled to work deep underground.
In a number of countries ruled by progressive regimes the Communist parties are excluded from social life and subjected to one form of discrimination or another, while the leadership of some of them are forced to live abroad. Despite this, they strive to find ways and means for active participation in social and political life and facilitate the progressive development of their countries. At the 1969 International Meeting the leaders of these parties spoke of the specifics of their tactics and of the forms and methods of the struggle waged by them.
The South African Communists consider that in a country ruled by a terrorist racist regime, which constantly uses violence against the people and imprisons and destroys fighters for freedom, and where the vast majority of the people is bitterly opposed to enslavement, the only way to achieve liberation is to wage an armed revolutionary struggle. The Communist Party of Turkey accentuates the _-_-_
^^*^^ See speech by Khaled Bagdash at the 1969 International Meeting (International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 574--75).
322 need for a national-democratic front against imperialism and reaction. In Tunisia the Communists support the positive measures that have been undertaken by the ruling circles in spite of pressure from reactionary elements, and try to find points of contact with progressive elements in the Socialist Constitutional Party. In Iraq the Communists are striving to establish close and sincere co-operation with other national forces, set up a national front, win democratic freedoms for the people and put an end to political oppression.In a few Asian countries the Communist parties have been unable to find the correct road of struggle. In Thailand, Burma and Malaysia, for instance, they are guided by Left-wing extremists. This frequently leads to sectarianism, perniciously affects the actions of these parties and threatens their very existence.
In the Asian and African countries the communist movement is only beginning its long struggle for genuine revolutionary changes. Nonetheless, it has registered some success. Indicative of this success is that while at the initial stage of development the ruling circles in many of the countries that were fighting for national independence ignored the Communists and even excluded them from public life and persecuted them, today the facts show that efforts are being made to establish contact and co-operate with the Communists. In particular, this applies to the situation in a number of Arab countries. This is a natural development. On the one hand, it reflects the objective changes that are taking place in these countries and, on the other, is further evidence that the Communists are the most consistent patriots and champions of the people.
Reactionary elements use every possibility in an attempt to reverse the course of history. This is demonstrated by the reactionary coups in Asian countries and by the overthrow of the progressive regimes in Ghana and Mali. In this situation the Communists have to be vigilant and tirelessly mobilise the masses to combat the intrigues of the reactionaries and secure a happier future for their countries.
This general conclusion, drawn from an analysis of the position and struggle of the Communists in Asia and Africa, fully applies to the third continent in the zone of the national liberation movement, namely, Latin America.
__PRINTERS_P_323_COMMENT__ 21* 323The development of the revolutionary movement in Latin American countries, the specifics of its present phase and the concrete tasks of the Communist parties are questions that have long been attracting widespread attention in that continent and are being discussed in other countries. Interest in these questions soared after the first socialist revolution in Latin America had taken place in Cuba.
The central question of the discussion is about the nature of the Latin American revolution. The theories that have been suggested may be classified in two main groups. Some claim that the continent has matured for the immediate accomplishment of the socialist revolution, others hold that it has to be preceded by anti-feudal, agrarian reforms. Most of the Latin American Communist parties are inclined to the conclusion that developments must inevitably pass through the phase of the maturing of the socialist revolution.
At the present stage it seems to us that in Latin America there are some indisputably common features of development which differ from the common features of development in Asia and Africa and unquestionably affect the course of the revolutionary process. What are these features?
1. Most of the Latin American countries achieved state independence at the beginning of the 19th century and have had a long period of independent development and struggle against attempts to deprive them of independence; they have traversed a long road of capitalist development.
2. The peoples of Latin America are fighting a common oppressor and exploiter---US imperialism. In the Latin American countries the struggle for national sovereignty and economic independence intertwines very closely with the struggle against foreign monopolies and Yankee latifundistas. A question acquiring increasing urgency at the present stage is that of the continent's economic integration as a means promoting independent development.
3. The Latin American countries have a large urban and rural proletariat that has gone through the school of a long class struggle. The numerical strength of the working class is growing steadily. In Colombia, for instance, the ratio between the rural and urban population in 1938 324 was 71 and 29 per cent respectively; in 1951 it was 61 and 39 per cent; while in 1964 it was approximately equal. Nearly 6 million people live in only 10 of the largest cities. According to the 1964 census there were 3 million factory and office workers, making up 58 per cent of the total economically active population.
4. The revolutionary movement in the Latin American continent develops under the impact of the victorious Cuban revolution, which led to the creation of the first socialist state in the Western Hemisphere. It stimulates the development of militant democratic and anti-imperialist movements that will open the road to socialism.
Today Latin America is not only a continent over which the wind of revolution is blowing but an active bridgehead of the world revolutionary process, a bridgehead that is making a growing contribution to the development of that process. Latin America is increasingly turning from an outskirt of the revolution into one of its epicentres.
``The events in Chile, Peru and Bolivia are evidence of the fundamental change in the balance of forces,'' Rodney Arismendi, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uruguay, said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU. ``Although the nature and social level of these victorious movements are different and the degree of working-class participation in the leadership of the struggle differs, it is obvious that we are witnessing a turning point in the onward development of the Latin American revolution.''
The features of development in Latin America make their imprint on the strategy and tactics of the Communist parties and on the forms and methods of their activities.
There is a Communist Party in every Latin American country. Some of these parties are growing numerically and winning wider influence. For instance, the membership of the Communist Party of Chile doubled in the period between the two latest congresses, i.e., in the period from 1965 to 1969. Almost one-third of its members are women. This party has consolidated its positions in the countryside. At its 14th Congress the First Secretary of the Central Committee Luis Corvalan noted that ``the majority of the working people regard the Communist Party as their own 325 party which champions their interests''.^^*^^ In recent years the Communist Party of Uruguay has grown 14-fold. With 78 per cent of its membership consisting of workers, this party has increased its influence among students, believers and in democratic circles.
Most of the Latin American parties function in a very difficult situation. Where the regime is openly dictatorial the Communist parties are banned and the Communists are brutally persecuted.
Despite many common features in the development of the Latin American countries, each is influenced by factors predicating distinctions in the course of the revolutionary struggle. Uneven capitalist development, which in some cases stands out in very strong relief, the differences in the level of economic and social development and in the form and scale of dependence on imperialism, the specifics of the political structure and the alignment of class forces determine the form of the democratic and revolutionary struggle in each concrete situation and in each concrete country. The Latin American Communist parties take the general laws of social development into account and also the specifics of their own countries when they map out their programmes of struggle.
As an example, let us take the programme adopted by the Communist Party of Chile at its 12th Congress in 1962 and enlarged at its 14th Congress in 1969. This programme did not set the task of a direct struggle for socialism. The immediate objectives were far-reaching democratic, antiimperialist and anti-feudal reforms, and the formation of a democratic government of national liberation. It was stressed that these objectives could be achieved through the united action of all men and women, parties, classes and social strata whose interests were infringed upon or menaced by US imperialism and the ruling oligarchy. The programme, therefore, called for the creation of a broad united anti-imperialist and anti-feudal front as the only force capable of establishing a people's democratic system and delivering Chile from US domination.
The programme envisaged the formation of a new type of government with the working class undertaking the _-_-_
^^*^^ El Siglo, November 24, 1969.
326 leading role in the country's administration. Other social forces were to be represented in the government, in other words, the ``government had to be formed by a bloc of people's parties interested in the fulfilment of a common programme''.^^*^^As stated in the programme, the principal aims of the democratic, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal reforms are: the creation of a democratic republic where state power would be exercised through a single chamber of deputies elected by direct and secret ballot on the basis of universal suffrage regardless of sex, status or education; the confiscation of all enterprises and capital belonging to North American monopolies and their transfer to the state; the promotion of broad foreign trade on the basis of mutual benefit, complete equality and respect for national sovereignty; industrialisation and an agrarian reform; improvement of the people's living conditions, promotion of education and national culture; the democratisation of the Central Bank and the removal from its management of representatives of the pro-imperialist oligarchy; a foreign policy committed to uphold Chile's sovereignty and interests, friendship and solidarity with all the fraternal peoples of Latin America and the preservation of world peace.
The Chilean Communists, who are a large contingent of the working-class movement, use all forms of struggle. They work in the trade unions, in the countryside, among young workers and students, writers, actors, and teachers at institutions of higher learning.
A new political situation took shape in Chile in November 1970 following the Popular Front victory at the elections. ``There, for the first time in the history of the continent,'' L. I. Brezhnev noted at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``the people have secured, by constitutional means, the installation of a government they want and trust.'' The Communists are an important force in this government, which is resolutely pursuing an anti-oligarchy and anti-imperialist policy. ``Today,'' Luis Corvalan said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``the task is to consolidate the victory and move to the conquest of new positions, _-_-_
^^*^^ Programme Documents of the Communist and Workers' Parties of America, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1962, p. 326.
327 see to it that our revolutionary process is irreversible and make socialism our destination.''Revolutionary changes are taking place in Peru and Bolivia as result of the powerful national liberation struggle.
The Peruvian Communist Party considers that socioeconomic reforms of a revolutionary nature were put into effect in Peru as a result of the measures following the military coup in October 1968. ``The increasingly sharper clash with imperialism and with the oligarchy,'' Jorge del Prado, General Secretary of the Peruvian Communist Party, said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``is intensifying the class struggle and deepening the transformative processes. The proletariat and other large sections of the people are playing a steadily bigger political role and taking a more organised part in the revolutionary struggle. This has found expression in signal triumphs like the official recognition of the General Confederation of the Working People of Peru, the release from prison of people jailed for participation in the partisan movement in 1965, and the adoption of a more independent and democratic line in foreign policy. Participation in all these moves in a constructive and critical spirit is tempering and strengthening our Party.''
The Communist Party of Bolivia attaches decisive significance to the struggle against imperialism and to the attainment of organisational and political unity by the masses, its guideline being that with its important place in social production and militant and revolutionary traditions the working class is the main force in this struggle. Allied with the working class in the anti-imperialist movement are peasants who have been freed from bourgeois influence, politically conscious students, intellectuals and other exploited middle strata. At the 1969 International Meeting Jorge Kolle, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Bolivia, said that the party was striving ``for unity of action with all the forces prominent in'the anti-imperialist, popular and democratic movement, irrespective of their ideology''.^^*^^ At the 24th Congress of the _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 651.
328 CPSU he said: ``In the struggle for a popular anti-- imperialist government the policy of the Communist Party of Bolivia is oriented on broad popular unity under the leadership of the working class and revolutionary political forces.''New and important propositions are to be found also in the programme documents of other Latin American Communist parties. In Uruguay, for example, the Communist Party presses for a democratic solution of vital problems of social life, which witnesses, above all, a sharp struggle by the working class and other sections of the working people against US imperialism and the ruling classes. The CPU is sparing no effort to strengthen the alliance of the workers with other anti-imperialist sections of the population and form a broad front of popular forces.
The Communist parties functioning underground in countries ruled by dictatorships likewise consider that democratic reforms are an indispensable condition for a mass struggle. In a resolution passed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Brazil in September 1968 it is stated: ``The events confirm the correctness of our tactics, which is to ensure that the struggle of the masses should be based on defence of their specific demands, their rights and concrete interests. Only in this way is it possible to achieve unity of action by the masses and draw various strata into the struggle, which is growing in scope and intensity. .. . The struggle for concrete demands tends to develop into a struggle against the policy of the government and against the regime.''^^*^^
The Brazilian Communists acknowledge that they had been wrong in setting their sights exclusively on the peaceful development of the revolutionary struggle. Luis Carlos Prestes, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Brazilian Communist Party, noted that ``we inaccurately assessed the possibilities of the peaceful path, seeing revolution as an idyllic process, free of clashes and conflicts.''^^**^^
In Argentina the Communists are pursuing a line formulated at their 13th Congress in 1969. The party is fighting to abolish the fascist-type military dictatorship and create a national-democratic front that will open the prospect of _-_-_
^^*^^ Information Bulletin, No. 21--22, Prague, 1968, pp. 55--56.
^^**^^ World Marxist Review, No. 6, 1968, p. 17.
329 forming a provisional government on the basis of a broad democratic coalition and advancing towards socialism.In Colombia the Communists consider that it is necessary to wage the struggle for national and social liberation in the most diverse forms. At its 10th Congress in 1968 the Communist Party of Colombia declared that in Colombia the revolution would not be peaceful. Armed guerrilla actions are unfolding in the country in reply to the punitive actions of the authorities against the peasant movement. Various sections of the population are campaigning for economic reforms. In order to have the possibility of working in the state apparatus, the Communists participate in the elections held on the basis of a non-democratic system. ``In Colombia it is possible to combine all forms of struggle because the armed struggle is not something foreign and, besides, our Party has never regarded this form as immutable.''^^*^^
``Under these conditions,'' Jilberto Vieira, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Colombian Communist Party, said at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, ``our Party is working unremittingly to form a broad popular, patriotic front headed by the working class. Its foundation may be the presently shaping opposition coalition, which is an expression of an understanding between the broad antioligarchal and anti-imperialist forces.''
The programme documents of the Latin American Communist parties show that the Communists have creatively applied the Marxist-Leninist teaching on the forms of the revolutionary struggle to map out a concrete plan of action aimed at unfolding a broad movement of the masses for genuine national liberation, a movement that is steadily intertwining with the struggle for social reforms, for a transition to the stage of the maturing and consummation of the socialist revolution.
Thus, the national liberation movement plays a notable role in the world revolutionary process, developing in breadth and depth, embracing more and more countries and social strata and acquiring an increasingly more clear-cut anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist character. In a number _-_-_
^^*^^ Documentos politicos. Revista del Partido Communista, No. 81, Bogota, 1969, p. 77.
330 of countries it is steadily shifting towards an orientation on socialist ideals and accepting Marxist-Leninist theory as its guide.All this makes the national liberation movement a formidable adversary of capitalism and is the guarantee of the further intensification of the blows struck at imperialism in that zone of revolutionary storms. Facts are piling up to show that there is mounting resistance to US domination, that wide support is being rendered to the heroic peoples of Vietnam and Cuba and to the struggle of the Arab peoples against Israeli aggression, and that the struggle of the working people for an extension of their rights has acquired a massive scale. These facts confirm the enormous revolutionary potentialities of the developing countries.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. SOCIALIST FOREIGN POLICYEach of the three torrents of the world revolutionary process contributes to the development of the world revolution. On the international level this interaction of the revolutionary torrents and their struggle against the common enemy is also expressed in the foreign policy pursued by the revolutionary contingents standing at the helm of power or still fighting for power.
The principles of socialist foreign policy formulated by Lenin are an inseparable part of the theory of socialist revolution. For more than half a century the course of events has been more and more fully showing the historic significance of the Leninist foreign policy as a major factor of present-day social development. Even many bourgeois politicians, diplomatists and statesmen now admit that socialist foreign policy, above all the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, is a powerful ferment and factor exercising a growing influence on world development. This, they acknowledge, is precisely the policy that enables the peoples living in the imperialist camp and the developing countries to go over to the road of new social development much more quickly and with the least sacrifice.
It is not a simple matter to lay bare the objective laws of social development, because in most cases the essence of 331 a social phenomenon or process does not clearly reveal itself at once and is sometimes seen in a distorted light or as a trend. Actually, international relations and foreign policy are mediated by numerous factors, to say nothing of their deliberate distortion by secret diplomacy and bourgeois politicians and ideologists in the capitalist world. Socialist foreign policy draws its strength precisely from the fact that it skilfully brings to light deep-rooted historical factors, unveils the laws of the epoch, correctly determines the situation and combines a world-historic view with an examination of concrete circumstances.
This scientific approach makes it possible to determine the alignment of all forces correctly. Thanks to it the Communist parties are able to map out the basic line, the fundamental orientation of their policy, which takes the operation of the objective laws of history into account and helps to speed up the historical process and the advance of socialism throughout the world.
As everybody knows, foreign policy is both a science and an art. To it we can fully apply Lenin's words that ``politics is more like algebra than arithmetic, and still more like higher than elementary mathematics''.^^*^^ The success of the Communist Party's foreign policy is predetermined by and presupposes qualities such as flexibility, manoeuvrability, and ability to use the situation in the camp of the enemy, in short, to use every possibility for speeding up the advance towards the set goal.
Lenin was always careful to point out that Communists are by no means indifferent to the way their basic problems are settled. Like the aim, their method and means must be clean in conformity with their teaching and the ultimate objective---communism. The struggle for the triumph of the Communist Party's foreign policy line therefore presupposes a struggle over foreign policy issues with the opportunists, because it is only by exposing and defeating their hostile and erroneous views that Leninist principles can be consolidated in theory and in practice. This is the only way to untangle the most complicated international problems and find the realistic way to settling them. Realism, initiative and the _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 102.
332 ability to see the new are the prime features of the Leninist foreign policy of socialism.The Leninist foreign policy of the Communist parties calls for resolute support for the struggle of the peoples for independence, freedom and democracy, against monopoly rule. It strengthens the political supremacy of the socialist countries over the capitalist powers and helps to create external international conditions for the victory of socialist revolutions.
The destiny of the world revolution and of the revolutionary movement in the various countries is closely linked with the foreign policy of the socialist countries. The general revolutionary struggle that leads also to the fulfilment of national tasks, only gains when the -struggle of the Communists in the capitalist countries is combined with the foreign policy actions of the socialist camp to paralyse imperialism's global strategy aimed against all the progressive forces in the world. This gives expression to the revolutionary dialectics of our time.
The Leninist foreign policy helps the Communist parties and the peoples to understand their community of basic interests and induces them to act in close unity. This internationalist alliance makes it possible to safeguard the existence of the socialist countries, which have to wage an unremitting economic, political, ideological and foreign policy struggle against powerful imperialist states. This policy is vital to the close economic alliance of the socialist countries, without which it would have been difficult to secure the further advancement of the national economy and of the productive forces, ensure the welfare of the working people, promote cultural and scientific development, and so on.
The Leninist foreign policy is an instrument of struggle against the national hatreds fanned by imperialism, against national oppression, i.e., against everything that not only internal but also international reaction uses in the most diverse ways to disunite the peoples. Naturally, survivals of the reactionary, nationalistic heritage live on for some time after socialism triumphs in one country or another, but the correct orientation of the Communist parties can do much to uproot them.
With its aim of preserving peace and supporting the 333 forces of revolution, the Leninist foreign policy is a powerful ideological and political means enabling the Marxist-Leninist parties to organise new relations between peoples and nations not only in countries where they have won power and are building a new society but also in countries where they are still engaged in a struggle to begin building socialism.
The very concept of Leninist foreign policy implies much more than merely the establishment of correct interstate relations between countries where the capitalist system still reings. In this respect, the Leninist foreign policy is closely linked with the Leninist understanding of proletarian internationalism as a new way of co-ordinating common interests and specific national interests on the basis of a common policy.
It goes without saying that the Communists were confronted with foreign policy tasks not only after the emergence of the first socialist state. The Communist Party had a clearly formulated foreign policy programme long before it seized power. The Bolsheviks had always given their own assessment of the foreign policy pursued by the tsarist government and fought to create favourable external political conditions for the revolution, for the victory of the oppressed peoples. Foreign policy action has been and remains part of the general struggle of the other Communist parties, and it is indivisibly linked with their home policy. In foreign policy the efforts of the Communists are directed first and foremost at furthering the revolution in their own country and promoting the world revolutionary process.
One of the key principles of socialist foreign policy is the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. It is with this principle that the determination of the main issues of the strategy and tactics of the communist movement is linked. The various forms of transition to socialism, as charted by revolutionaries, are likewise linked in many ways with the prospect for peaceful coexistence. That is why an examination of the fundamental aspects of this principle of socialist foreign policy forms an important element of the subject treated in this book.
The concepts of revolution and peace, of struggle and coexistence frequently have been and are counterposed and regarded as incompatible. But this is a superficial 334 contra-position. Our epoch and the practice of the revolutionary movement show the inter-relation between these social phenomena.
In questions concerning peaceful coexistence there has been a great deal of confusion and vagueness.
The principle of peaceful coexistence as a whole and the concrete forms in which it is manifested have often been wrongly interpreted. This is widely used by the enemies of socialism and made the most of by the Right and ``Left'' opportunists. They deliberately misconstrue the conditions for the development of the world revolutionary process, put a false construction on the relations between capitalist and socialist countries and flagrantly distort the dialectical nature of the principle of peaceful coexistence.
In working out the problems of peaceful coexistence, the Communist parties have the possibility of utilising the entire wealth of Lenin's propositions. His approach logically stemmed from the teaching that socialism can triumph initially in one country. The fact that some time would pass before socialism became a world force meant that this would necessarily be a period running in parallel with the existence of socialist and capitalist countries. Lenin stressed that peaceful co-operation between states with different socioeconomic systems was inevitable. As early as 1920 he noted that the Soviet state wanted peaceful coexistence with all peoples and an alliance with all countries. The only obstacle to peaceful international co-operation was the policy of the imperialist powers.^^*^^ Lenin ridiculed those who held that the interests of the world revolution ruled out any sort of peace with the imperialists. ``A socialist republic surrounded by imperialist powers could not, from this point of view, conclude any economic treaties and could not exist at all, without flying to the moon.''^^**^^
Lenin considered that peaceful coexistence of different countries must embrace many areas, notably economic. He regarded peaceful coexistence as a way to strengthen socialism under conditions where it had not yet triumphed on a world-wide scale, and a way to further the revolutionary movement.
_-_-_^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 365.
^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 71.
335The international communist movement has made a large contribution towards the elaboration of the problem of peaceful coexistence. Touching on questions of the period of transition from capitalism to communism, the Comintern Programme noted that this was ``a period in which capitalist and socialist economic and social systems exist side by side in `peaceful' relationships as well as in armed conflict''.^^*^^ During the years when there was only one socialist state in the world the balance of strength between it and imperialism excluded any possibility of averting war and eliminating it from the life of society.
After the Second World War, when the forces of socialism had gained considerable strength, it became possible to set the task of averting another world war. This gave a new context to the question of peaceful coexistence. In the Programme of the CPSU it is stated: ``Peaceful coexistence implies renunciation of war as a means of settling international disputes, and their solution by negotiation; equality, mutual understanding and trust between countries; consideration for each other's interests; non-interference in internal affairs; recognition of the right of every people to solve all the problems of their country by themselves; strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; promotion of economic and cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit.''^^**^^
The entire course of world developments has borne out Lenin's ideas on peaceful coexistence. After beating off the onslaught of the world counter-revolution the Soviet state was able to ensure a fairly long period of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist countries. Since the Second World War, thanks to the increased might of socialism, it has been possible to avert another world war and thereby create favourable conditions for the development of the world revolution.
What is the significance of peaceful coexistence to the world revolutionary process?
For the socialist countries peaceful coexistence makes it possible to further the development of socialism. Every year _-_-_
^^*^^ The Programme of the Communist International, p. 21.
^^**^^ The Road to Communism, p. 506.
336 of peace helps to change the balance of forces in the world in favour of socialism, to promote the growth of its productive forces, achieve a higher cultural level and living standard, and enhance the international prestige of socialism.For the working class of the capitalist countries peaceful coexistence brings the possibility of changing the balance of strength between the capitalists and the working people in favour of the latter and fosters the unfolding of the class struggle. It prevents the capitalist state from using the most reactionary methods, and fetters its huge military machine that has been created for conquest and for the suppression of other peoples. The struggle for peaceful coexistence shows that all the forces of democracy should fight reaction and militarism.
Under peaceful coexistence there is mounting resistance to all attempts at settling international disputes by force. The ``gunboat policy" arouses widespread indignation in all countries. The attempts to circumvent peaceful coexistence by ``local wars" are likewise strongly resisted by the forces of democracy and peace. An example of this is the war waged by US imperialism in Indochina. It has sparked a huge protest movement throughout the world and has greatly undermined the prestige of the USA and of capitalism, generally, especially among the peoples of the young states.
As international tension relaxes under peaceful coexistence, the peoples are seeing more clearly the parasitical nature, senselessness and undemocratic character of the institutions of the bourgeois state and the class nature of the policy pursued by the ruling circles.
Peaceful coexistence is of supreme importance to the national liberation movement as well. The countries of this zone can promote their economic development and strengthen their national independence only in a situation marked by peace and comprehensive international co-- operation. Peaceful coexistence is the sole condition allowing for the development of progressive regimes and making it possible to neutralise the attempts of the imperialists to stop the national liberation struggle.
Peaceful coexistence is thus a profoundly revolutionary factor and a key prerequisite of the success of the struggle to abolish capitalism and build a socialist society. On the __PRINTERS_P_337_COMMENT__ 22---1157 337 other hand, every advance of the revolution helps to strengthen the foundations of peaceful coexistence. To play off peaceful coexistence against the struggle for the national and social emancipation of the peoples is to commit a gross theoretical and practical error.
At the 1969 International Meeting William Kashtan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Canada, noted: ``There is a direct relationship between the struggle against imperialism and the struggle for peaceful coexistence. Some see the struggle for peaceful coexistence as a rejection of the struggle against imperialism; others see the struggle against imperialism as a rejection of the struggle for peaceful coexistence. In reality, there can be no such contradiction.''^^*^^ To ensure peaceful coexistence and a relaxation of tension the policy of imperialist aggression has to be throttled. The struggle against imperialism, for peaceful coexistence, opens the possibility for strengthening the unity of the Communist and Workers' parties and all other revolutionary forces. This struggle mirrors the objective internationalist character of the revolutionary process.
Peaceful coexistence cannot, of course, change the nature of socialism or the substance of capitalism. These opposing systems coexist and, in some measure, even co-operate in the economic, scientific and cultural fields, but they cannot achieve a semblance to each other or, much less, mutually penetrate or grow into each other.
While declaring their approval and support of the principle of peaceful coexistence, the Right opportunists crudely distort it. They argue that the imperative need for peaceful relations with capitalist countries demands a revision of the basic questions of the communist movement's strategy, above all a line aimed at the gradual evolution of capitalism into socialism and the renunciation of militant revolutionary methods that might ``provoke'' capitalism and induce it to start a war.
This argument has nothing in common with the MarxistLeninist concept of peaceful coexistence. On the contrary, it grossly contravenes it inasmuch as it presupposes the _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of. Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 351.
338 renunciation of the very idea of the struggle for peace, against militarism and violence. The aggressive nature of imperialism and its methods of suppressing the revolutionary struggle are accepted as something that cannot be changed, as something against which no effective methods of struggle exist, and, as a result, peaceful coexistence is interpreted as reconciliation with imperialism.A further distortion of the principle of peaceful coexistence is that it is regarded as a transient phenomenon, as a tactical move with another world war ultimately inevitable. The thesis that another world war is inevitable is barren theoretically and fruitless politically. Acceptance of the prospect of a world war under present-day conditions would be, in effect, an expression of want of faith in the strength of the socialist system and the strength of the international working-class and national liberation movements, and an exaggeration of the potentialities of imperialism. This theory clashes with the hopes and aspirations of the broad masses.
Peaceful coexistence represents a broad offensive on capitalism and a sharp economic, political and ideological struggle. This is the only context in which it is understood by Communists.
Marxists-Leninists consider that peaceful coexistence in no way signifies a limitation of the means of struggle of the peoples oppressed by imperialism. It is the right of all oppressed peoples to decide for themselves the question of whether to use armed force for their liberation and any form of the class struggle for the overthrow of the monopolies. At the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties it was stated that the policy of peaceful coexistence was incompatible with support for reactionary regimes. Far from ruling out, this policy presupposes massive action by the people against imperialism. ``This policy does not imply either the preservation of the socio-political status quo or a weakening of the ideological struggle. It helps to promote the class struggle against imperialism on a national and a world-wide scale.''^^*^^
Marxists-Leninists reject the view that there can be peaceful coexistence without a sharp class struggle. They _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 31.
339 clearly delineate the framework of the class struggle under peaceful coexistence. While fighting for peace and peaceful coexistence, the Communists by no means reject the possibility of revolutionary wars. On the contrary, they always support such wars if their objective is to liberate the peoples from imperialist oppression.Peaceful coexistence between states does not mean the renunciation of the ideological struggle, in the same way as ideological struggle does not mean that war is necessary between states. History knows of a host of examples where peaceful relations were maintained for a long time between states with different ideologies. There is, therefore, no foundation for the attempts of the revisionists, who absolutise peaceful coexistence, to declare ideological peace as a condition for coexistence between states.
Peaceful coexistence benefits the revolutionary forces and is, therefore, disadvantageous to the imperialists. Why, in that case, do we hear them declaring their support for peaceful coexistence? Declarations of this kind do not reflect the substance of imperialist policy. They are dictated solely by a desire to conceal the failure of the imperialist strategy of settling political issues by force, by war. Circumstances have compelled the imperialists to recognise the principle of peaceful coexistence; in other words, they have been compelled to accept this principle by the forces of socialism and peace, having no alternative to offer in opposition to the policy of peaceful coexistence.
The Soviet Union and other socialist countries have not only proclaimed the principle of peaceful coexistence but are vigorously putting it into effect.
They are doing their utmost to curb the imperialist aggressors while helping the latter's victims. They are using their best endeavours to halt the imperialist aggressions in various parts of the world and remove the flashpoints of tension. In their joint actions on the international scene and in their own special foreign policy tasks they are guided by the principle of peaceful coexistence. The socialist countries use their economic and political might and their considerable international prestige to promote peaceful relations and co-operation with other states. They are aware that peaceful coexistence and the other aims of socialist foreign policy can be achieved only if they act in concert. 340 Any isolation from the co-ordinated foreign policy of socialism and any attempt to regard it solely as the sum of the foreign policy lines of individual socialist countries diminish its effectiveness and contravene the interests of the socialist system as a whole and of the individual countries in that system.
In the capitalist countries a large contribution is being made to the struggle for peaceful coexistence by the progressive forces, notably by the Communists, who are pressing for the establishment of equal, mutually beneficial relations with the socialist countries and the renunciation of the policy of military blocs and blockades of countries belonging to the socialist community. They are organising mass protest against reactionary tendencies in the foreign policy of the ruling circles. The powerful peace movement, which today embraces the whole world, was brought into being through the efforts of the Communists.
The foreign policy of socialism and its key principle--- peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems--- are thus a major means and condition for the development of the revolutionary movement. Peace and peaceful coexistence are the desire of all the forces of revolution and progress and the object of the joint struggle of the broadest strata in society. The further growth and intensification of this struggle can cement the unity of the democratic forces and prepare them for the struggle against capitalism, for society's revolutionary reorganisation, for the building of socialism and communism throughout the world.
341 __ALPHA_LVL1__ IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSIONThe 20th century is an age of the rapid development and sophistication of social life, an age of the scientific and technological revolution, atomic energy and the exploration of outer space, the age of communism.
On the eve of the Revolution of October 1917 Lenin metaphorically said that socialism was looking at us out of every factory window. Today socialism has become a reality for one-third of the world's population. Throughout the capitalist world a struggle is raging for revolutionary changes, to bring social relations into line with the development level attained by the productive forces.
The social basis of revolutionary changes has been greatly enlarged. History has demonstrated that today revolutions can be effected much more quickly and on a broader scale, and that they can occur not only in direct geographical proximity to socialist countries.
Communists have never regarded history as an automatic process. They fight for their ideals, displaying a clear understanding of their mission and an awareness that their work is leading to society's socialist reorganisation. The Communist parties are doing everything in their power to utilise the objective and subjective factors of revolution, ensure the victory of the revolution on a world-wide scale and secure the swiftest transition from capitalism to socialism.
True to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, they are 342 unswervingly and consistently fighting for the happiness of their peoples, for peace, democracy and socialism. In this struggle proletarian internationalism is their most effective weapon. Joint efforts, unity and mutual assistance have been and will be the only factors assuring the Communist parties of success. Conversely, national narrowness and priority for national tasks over international objectives have been and will be prejudicial to the communist movement.
No problem of the revolutionary movement can be raised and solved today without taking internationalism into account. Internationalism is a major part of the theory of socialist revolution and the building of socialism and is inseparably linked with the ways and means of the struggle for socialism. The author regards it as the key in the approach to all aspects of the subject examined in the preceding pages and has therefore given it prominence by examining it in this concluding chapter.
The internationalist character of the communist movement is determined by a number of objective and subjective factors.
The objective foundation of internationalism lies in the fact that capitalist exploitation, which vitally affects the lives of working people, exists \outside the boundaries of individual countries. All working people have a common enemy---imperialism. In the programme adopted at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP it was stated: ``The development of exchange has established such a close link between all the peoples of the civilised world that the great liberation movement of the proletariat had to and has long ago become international.''^^*^^
The idea of proletarian internationalism is most closely connected with the very substance of the class struggle, stems from its requirements and expresses the profound significance of the proletariat's epoch-making liberative mission. With the development of capitalism and the growth of the working-class movement the class struggle becomes increasingly more international. This is accompanied by the heightening of proletarian internationalism's significance as an important prerequisite for uniting the working class on a global scale.
_-_-_^^*^^ 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, Russ. ed., p. 418.
343The subjective foundation of internationalism lies in the fact that in the same way as the imperialists have a common ideology, which determines the substance of the imperialist policy of suppressing and oppressing the working peoples of dependent countries, the proletariat has its own common ideology that expresses its striving to achieve liberation from capitalist tyranny. The imperialists and the working class have fundamentally different aims. The founders of Marxism emphasised that the overthrow of world capitalism is not the national task of the proletariat of some one country but the international, common task of all working people.
In our epoch internationalism's role has been greatly enhanced and its further consolidation remains one of the most important tasks. The circumstances determining this are:
1. There has been a sharp intensification of the interdependence of the revolutionary movement in the various countries and a massive growth of the scale of this movement. Today the world revolution embraces not only the socialist revolutions in different capitalist countries but also the national liberation revolutions which are opening the road for socialist changes. We are thus witnessing the numerical growth and diversification of the revolutionary movement's subjects to whom the principle of internationalism applies.
2. Internationalism's social base has expanded substantially and its ideas and practical activity have acquired a deeper content. At the dawn of the working-class movement only foremost workers were internationalists. Today internationalism is the slogan of the entire revolutionary working-class movement of the world.
3. Socialism, which is the principal source of diverse international assistance to the revolutionary movement, has greatly increased its economic, political, ideological and military potential. Today every international action has a higher effect and a broader response.
4. Imperialism, against which the working class is fighting, has framed a global strategy aimed, as before, chiefly against the Soviet Union and the world socialist system as a whole.
Lenin wrote that the ``more the revolution develops, the 344 more the bourgeoisie rally together''.^^*^^ Today we distinctly see that capitalism is rallying its forces in proportion to socialism's growth and the strengthening of the socialist countries and of the anti-imperialist movements. The imperialists are rallying together ever more closely against the forces of revolution and resorting to increasingly more subtle methods.
Imperialism seeks to strike at the revolutionary movement in the economic, social, political, military, ideological and cultural spheres. Imperialist strategy must be regarded as an integral, global strategy affecting all spheres of the life of society.
It is obvious, therefore, that the international working class can nullify the efforts of the imperialists only by countering its strategy with united action, with a common strategy. But this is only one side of the issue. The other circumstance amplifying the importance of the international unity of the revolutionary forces is that without such unity no headway can be made by revolutionary action aimed at achieving society's socialist reorganisation.
5. The content and forms of proletarian internationalism are today determined by the enlarged basis of anti-- imperialist and anti-war unity in face of the threat of another world war. The struggle for peace cannot be confined to the boundaries of individual countries. It grows into a broad international movement, whose significance is heightened by the participation in it of the socialist community.
6. In the revolutionary process the role of the subjective factor has grown immeasurably due to the deepening of our knowledge of the laws of social development and to the increased ability of the revolutionary forces to direct development in accordance with these laws. Actions by the revolutionary forces have acquired a sharply heightened significance because today they involve enormous material and manpower resources and decide the destiny of peoples and continents. The revolutionary process has become more governable, as it were. In turn, this means that the objective conditions enabling the revolutionary movement to employ a common internationalist strategy are now more favourable. On the other hand, the implication is that history has _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 120. 23---1157
__PRINTERS_P_345_COMMENT__ 23---1157 345 devolved a greater responsibility on the communist movement.We have mentioned only some of the elements which, in our view, favour international co-operation among the working masses. However, this by no means implies that such cooperation can be achieved automatically. The realisation of possibilities depends on the actions of the Communist parties themselves, on how successfully they meet the objective demand of the day, namely, accentuate proletarian internationalism in their practical policy, especially as in the communist movement certain difficulties obstruct the attainment of united action. Facts pointing to manifestations of nationalism and to an underestimation of the threat from imperialism have been brought to light in some parties (both in socialist and capitalist countries). This only leads to disunity in the Communist ranks and to attempts on the part of some theoreticians to ``modernise'' proletarian internationalism, give it a ``national'' basis and reconsider some of its propositions.
The trends towards isolation from the world communist movement and from the socialist countries have nothing in common with national interests and clash with the aims of the anti-imperialist struggle. This was underscored by William Kashtan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Canada, who said at the 1969 International Meeting: ``Any thought of `going it alone' in face of imperialism's 'bridge building' and subversion, on the assumption that it would bring some immediate gains-to this or that party, is indeed a shortsighted policy which will help neither the party concerned in the long run, nor the anti-imperialist struggle.''^^*^^
What is the explanation for the present divergences in the communist movement, notably on questions of proletarian internationalism?
A scrutiny of these divergences indicates that they are due to the influence of a number of factors, the most important of which is the development and enlargement of the revolutionary movement itself, the inclusion in it of new groups of working people. In his time Lenin had noted _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 350.
346 that ``one of the most profound causes that periodically give rise to differences over tactics is the very growth of the labour movement. If this movement is not measured by the criterion of some fantastic ideal, but is regarded as the practical movement of ordinary people, it will be clear that 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, by a temporary reversion to antiquated views and antiquated methods, and so forth''.^^*^^Further, differences in the interpretation of proletarian internationalism derive from the objective difficulties involved in the formation of the world socialist system and the need for close co-operation between countries that had no firm links between each other in the past.
An essential factor is the uneven development of the world revolutionary process. Some parties have traversed a long road of revolutionary struggle and acquired extensive experience that has been tested in class battles. Others have been formed recently, do not yet have the necessary experience, are in some cases still groping their way, as it were, in mapping out their strategy and tactics and have not yet reached a sufficiently high level of political, organisational and ideological development.
Lastly, the danger of divergences that lead to errors is harboured in the very process of devising new forms of relations between parties. At present when no single centre exists in the communist movement, the sense of responsibility that the Communists have for their parties is growing sharply. Under certain conditions this sense is counterposed to the feeling of internationalism.
The Communist parties are, of course, independent and equal. Each party determines its policy and the forms of its struggle on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and with account of national conditions. At the same time, proletarian internationalism is a component of the teaching and struggle of every Communist Party. At the 1969 International Meeting Waldeck Rochet stressed that ``diversity should not mean division, just as the requisite independence of each party _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 16, pp. 347--48.
__PRINTERS_P_347_COMMENT__ 23* 347 should not lead to isolation or nationalism''.^^*^^ Each party's independence is manifested, firstly, by the fact that it determines its own political line on the basis of a concrete assessment of the situation in its country, on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist teaching and on the basis of the experience of the communist movement as a whole, and, secondly, by the fact that it bears an historical responsibility for its policy to its own people and to the international working class.The main difficulty is in surmounting nationalism, which springs from the objective conditions of the modern revolutionary process. Here the following elements may be indicated.
The world revolutionary movement is growing chiefly through the involvement of new countries and peoples. Nations and states are the principal subjects of the struggle (political, economic, ideological or military) on the international scene. During the past decade the number of subjects of international relations appearing on the world scene under nationalistic slogans with the demand for a place in the system of existing relations and for a change of these relations has doubled. The national attribute has become the most general, frequent and stable concept of international politics.
In view of society's swift development, when all the characteristic elements of human collectives are growing increasingly more pronounced, the national attribute, as the most stable and emotional, is particularly sensitive.
The development of science, culture and languages and the rise of the literacy level in many of the formerly backward countries are likewise whipping up national feelings.
In addition to these reasons for the intensification of nationalism, there are local factors in each torrent of the revolutionary movement.
The growth of national consciousness in socialist countries and the upsurge of national pride, in themselves natural and justified products of the development of socialism, may become the source of nationalistic distortions if no account is taken, in good time, of the international features _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 119.
348 of the national development of each people and of the importance of a joint struggle by the different contingents of the world revolutionary movement. This is heightened by the fact that most of the socialist states had formerly been oppressed countries and for that reason are extremely cautious in establishing relations with other countries, including socialist countries. Lastly, it must be borne in mind that in most of these countries, by virtue of the convergence and intertwining of two stages of the revolution, the national problem, whose solution is one of the requirements of the bourgeois revolution, was resolved only in the course of socialist transformations.In capitalist countries nationalism has its roots in the very nature of social relations. An aggravation of the contradictions between different classes and also between individual capitalist countries impels the ruling classes to propagate unbridled nationalism as an aid in building up their policy. In this they are helped by US imperialism, which endeavours to deprive the bourgeois states of their national independence.
In the young states nationalism is a fellow-traveller of the struggle for national liberation. It has been fostered by the long, bloody battles with imperialism. On the other hand,, in these countries social differentiation has not gone so far as to enable class feelings and class consciousness to compete with national feelings. Another important point that has to be taken into account is that in the struggle for national liberation nationalism was a vehicle uniting the people against the oppressors and played a progressive role.
Thus, manifestations of nationalism are today becoming more multiform and complex and are influencing the course of the revolutionary process more than ever before. This makes it imperative for the communist movement to intensify its struggle against nationalism. We are witnessing confirmation of Lenin's words that ``the struggle... 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 349 advanced countries, and capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole)''.^^*^^
Lenin never rested content with a verbal acknowledgement of internationalism. He regarded genuine internationalism as concrete revolutionary practice, as concrete norms of relations between parties.
In line with this he stressed that ``it is the duty of any party . . . selflessly to help any Soviet republic in its struggle against counter-revolutionary forces''.^^**^^
The internationalist support of the working people of the whole world was of great significance to the peoples of the USSR for it reinforced their confidence in the righteousness of their historic mission. Highly valuing manifestations of solidarity with the October Revolution, the peoples of the Soviet Union have always honourably discharged their duty to the international working class. Today the socialist community has become a reliable bastion of the world revolutionary movement.
As was pointed out by Janos Kadar, ``the leaders of socialist countries cannot separate questions of proletarian internationalism from the state interests of the socialist countries. Should the leaders of any socialist country consider internationalism and the state interests of their country in isolation from each other, they would merely inflict harm both on our common cause and on the interests of their own country.''^^***^^
It is therefore absurd to assert that the socialist countries counterpose their own state interests to those of the communist movement and use them for their own purposes.
No less mistaken is the point of view that the unity of the socialist community signifies that the countries belonging to that community enjoy only a limited sovereignty. Bourgeois propaganda is trying in vain to convince the world of the existence of a ``doctrine of limited sovereignty" of the socialist countries. Its purpose is to discredit the norms governing the relations between the socialist countries and their right and duty jointly to defend socialism. These _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 148.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 210.
^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 329.
350 norms, rights and duties are inalienable from socialist policy as a whole and are recorded in many bi-lateral and multilateral documents.In the development of the world revolution today the main thing is to ensure the utmost strengthening of world socialism, of the socialist system. This is the objective of consistent proponents of proletarian internationalism. Those who belittle the world socialist system and disparage its role lapse unwittingly into nationalism.
Lenin wrote: ``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, whereas proletarian internationalism demands, first, that the interests of the proletarian struggle in any one country should be subordinated to the interests of that struggle on a world-wide scale, and, second, that a nation which is achieving victory over the bourgeoisie should be able and willing to make the greatest national sacrifices for the overthrow of international capital.''^^*^^
The communist movement seeks to abide by this precept of Lenin's, fights for genuine internationalism and denounces diehard nationalism.
The fraternal parties hold that internationalism must be regarded not as a mechanical sum total of the national policies of individual parties but as a single policy which gives each party wide scope for tackling the concrete tasks confronting it. As the French Communist Party puts it, ``diversity in unity" must be the principle of internationalism.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union steers consistently towards the unity of the communist movement and correctly applies the Leninist principles of proletarian internationalism. It advocates a healthy combination of national features in the activities of a party with its international tasks, and is against any party playing a hegemonic role in the communist movement.
The CPSU holds the view that the existing divergences between Communists can be surmounted. This view is based on the experience of the world communist movement and _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 148.
351 on the Leninist principles of the struggle for the unity of that movement.Where the unity of Communists was concerned Lenin was relentlessly firm. He insisted that in analysing differences the main issue should be separated from the secondary and that the emphasis should be on questions on which there is unanimity. ``Given agreement on the basic issue. .. unity, in my opinion, is possible and necessary,''^^*^^ he wrote in the ``Letter to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany Regarding the Split''. Elsewhere he stressed that having agreed on the main issue Communists could and should act in unity. ``In my opinion, differences on less important issues can, and unfailingly will, vanish; this will result from the logic of the joint struggle against the really formidable enemy, the bourgeoisie.''^^**^^ He saw that differences could disappear as a result of a thoughtful discussion and exchange of views on an international scale, as a result of an exchange of ideas and the mapping out of common tactics.^^***^^
In concert with other fraternal parties the CPSU is taking concrete steps to cement the unity of the international communist movement. Here an important role was played by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties that was held in Moscow in 1969. The main objective of that Meeting was to chart a joint strategy of struggle against imperialism. In its Main Document it is stated that ``the most important prerequisite for increasing the Communist and Workers' parties' contribution to the solution of the problems facing the peoples is to raise the unity of the communist movement to a higher level in conformity with present-day requirements. This demands determined and persistent effort by all the parties. The cohesion of the Communist and Workers' parties is the most important factor in rallying together all the anti-imperialist = __NOTE__ Error in original: three asteriks instead of four below. forces.''^^****^^
At the Meeting it was declared that the efficacy of the policy of each Communist Party depended on its successes in its own country, on the successes of other fraternal parties _-_-_
^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 87.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 89.
^^***^^ Ibid.
^^****^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, p. 36.
352 and on the extent of the co-operation between them. ``Each Communist Party is responsible for its activity to its own working class and people and, at the same time, to the international working class. The national and international responsibilities of each Communist and Workers' party are indivisible. Marxists-Leninists are both patriots and internationalists; they reject both national narrow-mindedness and the negation or 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. The winning of power by the working class and its allies is the greatest contribution which a Communist Party fighting under capitalist conditions can make to the cause of socialism and proletarian internationalism.''^^*^^At the Meeting many of the speakers profoundly analysed the problems of internationalism, showing its unbreakable link with the entire struggle of the communist movement. For example, Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USA, said that ``we do not view internationalism as a burden, a concession or a cross to bear. It is not as if it is a frosting on a cake that you add to improve its taste and appearance. It is a basic ingredient that adds indispensable, revolutionary content to the class struggle.''^^**^^
The problem of relations between parties was exhaustively and profoundly discussed at the Meeting, which expressed the confidence that the obstacles to the development of cooperation between Communists would be removed. `` Communists are aware that our movement, while scoring great historical victories in the course of its development, has recently encountered serious difficulties. Communists are convinced, however, that these difficulties will be overcome. This belief is based on the fact that the international working class has common long-term objectives and interests, on the striving of each party to find a solution to existing problems which would meet both national and international interests and the Communists' revolutionary mission; it is _-_-_
^^*^^ Ibid., p. 37.
^^**^^ Ibid., p. 426.
353 based on the will of Communists for cohesion on an international scale.''^^*^^Life has borne out and continues to bear out the Meeting's conclusions and assessments. The Communist parties are actively pressing for the cohesion of the entire movement and for the triumph of the principles of proletarian internationalism.
This is proceeding in three directions. The joint actions of the Communists against imperialism are unfolding on a steadily wider scale; in the communist movement unity and co-operation are naturally enhanced in the course of these actions. The links and contacts between the fraternal parties are being strengthened and used to co-ordinate their actions and work out common views. More is being jointly done to generalise the theoretical contribution of individual parties and to advance Marxist-Leninist theory on that basis; the ways and means of exchanging information and views between parties are being improved. The 24th Congress of the CPSU, which was attended by 102 delegations from Communist, national-democratic and Left Socialist parties, was a striking demonstration of the internationalist solidarity of the world's revolutionary forces.
Imperialism is seeking to prolong its existence and halt and reverse the inexorable course of history. To this end it is prepared to use any means, up to a world thermonuclear war. In one way or another all developments in the world are linked with the great struggle between the forces of imperialism and war and the forces of peace and socialism. The struggle of the peoples is headed by Communists who have undertaken a great responsibility before history. They are the only ones who can carry out this task, because they alone are armed with the teaching of Marxism-Leninism that is embodied in a mighty revolutionary movement, and they alone have the invincible weapon of proletarian internationalism.
Three slogans mirror the irrepressible growth of the communist movement. The movement itself was engendered by the inspiring slogan, ``Workers of all countries, unite!" coined by Marx and Engels. Lenin welcomed a new stage _-_-_
^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, pp. 37--38.
354 of the world revolution with the militant slogan, ``Workers of all countries and oppressed peoples, unite!''. Today on the banners of the communist movement is inscribed the new slogan of the epoch formulated at the 1969 International Meeting: ``Peoples of the socialist countries, workers, democratic forces in the capitalist countries, newly liberated peoples and those who are oppressed, unite in a common struggle against imperialism, for peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialism!''These slogans express the strength and invincibility of socialism and communism. Under the banner of proletarian internationalism the communist movement will achieve further conspicuous success and honourably carry out its historic mission.
Imperialism is an international force and can only be defeated if the contingents of the world revolution are united.
However difficult and tortuous it may have been as a result of the complexity of historical conditions, of modern objective and subjective factors, the road to communism is the only correct road for mankind. It will inevitably be followed by all peoples. The Marxist-Leninist parties, which constitute the most progressive and advanced force of our epoch, have been and will continue to be in the van of the struggle of the masses.
[355] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]REQUEST TO READERS
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[356]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS WILL BRING OUT IN 1972 THE FOLLOWING BOOKS IN ENGLISH:
TRAPEZNIKOV S. Crucial Turning Points in History (Lessons of the Struggle of Marxists-Leninists Against Revisionism)
Today mankind has entered the decisive phase of the struggle between two opposite socio-political systems--- capitalism and socialism---and two opposite ideologies. Developments on the world political arena have posed as sharply as never before the basic question: which system will take the upper hand?
The Soviet Union has achieved tremendous success in all spheres of material and spiritual life and is now a vast source of inspiration for other nations. Therefore the ideologists of anti-communism are trying with might and main to distort the Marxist-Leninist theory which illumines the path for revolutionary practice.
The present book exposes the twaddle of anti-- communism and revisionism, both ``Left'' and Right.
Cloth 13 X 20 cm 300 pp.
[357]SLEPOV L. CPSU---the Party of Proletarian Internationalism
The book is devoted to problems of proletarian internationalism, and its role in the communist, working-class and national liberation movement. Using comprehensive historical material, the author shows the struggle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for international proletarian solidarity, for a mergence of the national and the international in the construction of socialism and in the interrelations of countries belonging to the world socialist system, and also the international contribution made by the Soviet people to the world revolutionary process.
Professor Lazar Slepov (Dr. Hist.) is one of the authors of the History of the CPSU (in several volumes), the book Lenin and the International Workers' Movement and other works.
Cloth 13X20 cm 288 pp.
[358]MODRZHINSKAYA Y. Leninism and the Battle of Ideas
The book deals with the acute ideological battles fought in the modern world. It elucidates the significance of Lenin's legacy in the battle of ideas, and also the main directions and problems of this struggle.
The author---Professor Y. Modrzhinskaya (Dr. Phil.)--- shows the ideological pauperism of the falsifiers of Marxism-Leninism, explodes the myth of Marxism's alleged obsolescence, explains the peculiarities and the ideology of reformism, and criticises the conceptions of revisionism and Maoism.
Cloth 13 X 20 cm 320 pp.
[359]