p Meanwhile, the relatively peaceful period for the working-class movement from the uprising of the Paris proletariat in 1871 to the Russian revolution of 1905 was marked by growing bourgeois influence 199 on the working class in the advanced capitalist countries. This was expressed in the growing danger of opportunism, which used Marxist terminology to cover up its attempts to smuggle in the idea of capitalism’s “growing into" socialism.

p The German bourgeois Professor Werner Sombart characterised the state of social thought and social movement by the turn of the century, following the death of Frederick Engels, as follows: “The social movement—and I find this point to be the most important and significant aspect of this whole change—has become above all evolutionist, to use once again a well-known expression for the sake of brevity: the revolutionism, which had ruled undivided up to then, that is, the idea that revolution could be made, was in principle abandoned. Now that the dependence of the social movement on economic development, and consequently, the economic dependence of all revolution has been understood, the masses had to be seized, to be sure, with a sense of confidence that their ‘emancipation’ had to arrive as a ’natural necessity’, but then, on the other hand, every urge to secure emancipation by means of uprisings and street fighting was suppressed."  [199•1 

p Sombart said that the revolutionary attitude remained only among the anarchists and “putschists”, whose outlook was closely connected with idealism. Actually, however, with the domination of opportunism, the anarchists and Leftist phrase-mongers claimed a monopoly of revolutionary activity and sought to present adventurism and voluntarism as revolutionism. But Sombart, true to his bourgeois conception, declared that the old revolutionary tendencies in the social movement were dying out, just as they had allegedly been “overcome” in social thought, in “the theoretical understanding of social processes”. He claimed that even in the outlook of Marx and Engels revolutionary elements remained no more than relicts of mid-century revolutionary storms. Unfortunately, many theorists of the Second International agreed with the bourgeois professor.

p Sombart believed that “Marxism” (actually, opportunism), having abandoned idealism and revolutionism, and introduced an “economic view of history”, had, in effect, fulfilled its mission in the history of social thought and social movement. Sombart wrote: “The ideological content of Marxism seems to be exhausted for further development. There is need for new men with fresh ideas. But are they there?" Urging the need for “new ideas" in Marxism, Sombart stressed: “On the threshold of the peasantry it will have to decide its future destiny. While the solution may not be as simple as some agrarian professors imagine: industry is socialistic, agriculture is individualistic (in Italy, Hungary and 200 elsewhere we find a very strong collectivist agrarian movement), still it seems that the old Marxist wisdom needs to be vigorously rejuvenated if the old stock of ideas is not to lose its importance."  [200•2  In a way, Sombart was right, for opportunism had in effect fulfilled its “mission” and its distinction from bourgeois theories was becoming ever more tenuous. Among the many other problems which the opportunists ignore, Sombart was correct in groping his way to the peasant question that was of tremendous importance for a number of countries in Europe, to say nothing of the colonies. On the whole, this bourgeois theorist had a fairly clear sense of the weakness of social opportunism, his closest ally.

p The effort to deny all credit to this opportunist trend in social thinking, and to show that at root it contradicted Marxism and its effective revolutionary substance, that opportunism signified complete degradation of social thought itself, became an important task in mankind’s ideological life. This called for new men capable of making a resolute break with centrism and conciliation with opportunism, the attitudes which distinguished the leaders of the Second International, men capable of characterising the new historical situation and new revolutionary prospects for the activity of the working class and all the other working people.

p In an article, written in 1899 and entitled “Our Programme”, Lenin stressed that the creative development of Marxism was a historical necessity: “We do not regard Marx’s theory as something completed and inviolable; on the contrary, we are convinced that it has only laid the foundation stone of the science which socialists must develop in all directions if they wish to keep pace with life."  [200•3  But it was revisionism and opportunism that presented a barrier in the way of creative development of Marxist thought. Revisionism did not issue a call to advance but to retreat. “Back to Kant!" the revisionists declared, for instance, seeking to reverse the development of social thought and to revive various doctrines that had already become things of the past.

p Social thought breaking with revolutionary social action was deprived of any possibility of development. Social thought could develop only by indicating the way for mass action and by summing up the historical experience in the struggle of the working class. There was no other way forward. All other ways led into the past, to a revival of the somewhat modified and refurbished theories of the social process which had already outlived themselves.

p The ground for the development of social thought changed when social conditions had developed to a point at which the working class appeared in the historical arena to carry on a consistent struggle for its emancipation and for the emancipation of all mankind from exploitation, 201 from the bourgeois mode of production, the last possible form of oppression in the history of society. The strengthening of the bonds between social thought and the revolutionary, struggle of the working class meant broader possibilities for the development of social thought itself. Retrogression towards different forms of petty-bourgeois socialism was also possible, because there remained in capitalist society the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry, while sizable sections of the working class were infected with petty-bourgeois attitudes. But then social thought would have ceased to express the progressive tendencies of social development. The development of social thought along that line would not have helped to separate the petty-bourgeois sections from the influence of powerful capital, but would have strengthened the latter’s influence on these sections. The separation of social thought from the tasks of the revolutionary struggle of the working class would inevitably have meant only a strengthening of the reactionary influence of bourgeois ideology, a spread of the dogmas of bourgeois social philosophy, a dead end for the development of social thought itself and its inevitable degradation. For the working class, stagnating social thought would have meant the gravest trials, much blundering about and a loss of orientation in the struggle. That is why Lenin vigorously opposed any attempts, as he wrote in 1899, to “conduct the workers’ struggle ... and not attempt to combine it with socialism; ...not strive to turn the working-class movement into the essential, advanced cause of all mankind".  [201•4  The conjunction of the working-class cause with socialism was the guarantee for the development of social thought and social movement.

p “Tailism" presented a growing danger to the working-class movement as the importance of action by the masses and their high level of consciousness and organisation increased. In the history of the Social-Democratic movement in Russia, as Lenin pointed out, this danger appeared as early as 1901 and 1902. In that period, “tailism” assumed the form of “Economism”, involving a denial of the importance of political struggle. The “Economists”, and also the Mensheviks and the Liquidators, who subsequently succeeded the former in the political arena, were moving towards a theory of spontaneous movement, making irrelevant references to the objective uniformity of the historical process and ignoring the fact that the activity of the masses was a key factor in the process of social development. In this way “tailism” inevitably became revisionism, a “revision” of the key tenets of Marxism.

p The revisionists speculated on the fact that the revolutionary storms of 1848 had subsided, and that new historical conditions had taken shape, which meant that Marxism had to be supplemented with new propositions in accordance with the new period. The revisionists’ 202 references to the changing historical scene showed that revisionism could be defeated only by creative Marxism, with its profound scientific analysis of new phenomena emerging in the life of society, with an indication of the importance of these phenomena for the activity of the masses, for their struggle against the exploitative system, and for the prospects for social development from capitalism to socialism.

p Concerning the revisionists themselves, Lenin wrote: “And we now ask: Has anything new been introduced into this theory by its loud-voiced ‘renovators’ who are raising so much noise in our day and have grouped themselves around the German socialist Bernstein? Absolutely nothing. Not by a single step have they advanced the science which Marx and Engels enjoined us to develop; they have not taught the proletariat any new methods of struggle; they have only retreated, borrowing fragments of backward theories and preaching to the proletariat, not the theory of struggle, but the theory of concession—concession to the most vicious enemies of the proletariat, the governments and bourgeois parties who never tire of seeking new means of baiting the socialists."  [202•5 

p Here Lenin shows very well what developing Marxist theory truly means. It means, first of all, developing the theory of struggle, and teaching the proletariat new methods of struggle which spring from the new situation. That is the only way Marxist theory, which is a guide to action, can develop. The revisionists insisted that the struggle should be folded up, and worked to eliminate the revolutionary historical activity of the masses. For social thought to develop it was necessary relentlessly to combat bourgeois objectivism, the reactionary and unscientific idea that the objective laws of social development themselves would lead society to socialism through gradual change and reform, without vigorous revolutionary action by the working class. Let me emphasise that had the idea won the day, social thought would have gone into reverse.

p By then, the Marxist propositions showing the uniformities of historical development were spreading ever wider among the bourgeois intelligentsia as well. Marxism was reflected in bourgeois literature, a largely new phenomenon as compared with developments during the lifetime of Marx and Engels. The “legal Marxists" did not mind borrowing some propositions from Marx’s social theory, but flatly refused to accept socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin’s struggle against “legal Marxism" was of fundamental international importance. Marxist ideas were also reflected (and still are reflected) in bourgeois writings in the capitalist countries. Lenin taught the Communists to distinguish these “reflections” from true Marxism and showed the danger of killing the revolutionary content of Marx’s 203 theory. Theories borrowing snatches from Marxism were designed to paralyse the will of the working people for struggle. Opportunists of various stripes were also closely allied with bourgeois theorists spreading such ideas. The former made use of some Marxist tenets but refused to recognise the revolutionary activity of the masses as being necessary and law-governed.

p Some of them also dabbled in “economic materialism”, and referred to the self-movement of the productive forces, while discarding the working class, the masses of the working people and their active revolutionary struggle, in their analysis of the historical process. That was a return from Marx to the traditions of mechanistic materialism.

p The history of social thought shows that the attempts to apply mechanistic materialism to an analysis of social phenomena fail to produce any profound explanation of these phenomena or to show the self-movement of the social whole, and ultimately result in surrender to idealism. That is what happened to the opportunists, who held metaphysical views, took the mechanistic attitude and adopted the “economic view of history”. These men flung wide open the gates to idealism in explaining historical phenomena.

p The claim was that Marx and Engels had not produced a philosophy and that their political doctrine could be combined with whatever bourgeois philosophical system happened to be in vogue. The opportunists, who were sliding down to idealism, rejected the fundamental materialist tenet that in order to change man there was need to change his conditions. They held that it was quite enough to restructure men’s consciousness. The advocates of ethical socialism insisted that morality should be changed first of all. The opportunists, who were infected with neo-Kantianism, held that the ideals of socialism were unattainable and were no more than tantalising visions which would never be realised.

p Bourgeois theorists used the favourable situation to intensify their propaganda of idealism which did not meet with sufficiently strong and staunch adversaries on its way. The revival of idealistic trends among the intellectuals and the urge to carry idealism into the masses of the working people were most pronounced not only in the West but also in Russia. Everywhere social phenomena were given an idealistic interpretation. The journal, Severny Vestnik (Northern Herald), which was started in the 1890s and engaged in the spread of idealism and mysticism, on one occasion declared: “We believe that the mechanism of human life is wound up inside, from the human spirit. Action through external legislative measures amounts to no more than moving back with your finger the hand of a clock that is late."  [203•6 

However, the point was not to advance the hands of a late clock by means of reforms, nor was it to start the “self-improvement” of every cog in the clockwork. The point was to install a new clockwork in place of the old one that had run down, implying a fundamental transformation of social relations. The struggle for materialism, and against idealism, for dialectics and against metaphysics and mechanicism entered a new phase, a struggle that was closely connected with scientific communism, its creative development and its triumph in theory and practice.