p RODNEY ARISMENDI

p FIRST SECRETARY OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF URUGUAY

p Comrades, Comrade Mikhail Suslov’s speech and Comrade Boris Ponomarev’s report are a major contribution to the question under discussion.

p The teaching of Marx and Engels transformed socialism from a utopia into a science. Lenin and the October Revolution made socialism mankind’s concrete alternative to capitalism. Today, socialism determines the life of all peoples, and in the past 60 years has made the Soviet Union the historical centre of all revolutionary and transformation processes taking place in the world.

p Within a comparatively brief period marked by the horrors of war against German fascism mankind’s advance to socialism and communism has become irreversible. During this complicated period revolutions and liberation processes taking place under the impact of the October Revolution intertwine, at times achieving successes, at times retreating, then advancing once again, and now no one will ever succeed in changing the course of historical development.

p As Luigi Longo correctly said, "In the facts of today, as in the main tendencies of social development, no matter how different and unique the forms of their expression may be, we find confirmation that the October Revolution 164 has been and remains the cornerstone of the development of modern civilisation.”

p On the ideological, theoretical, and practical plane the victory of the October Revolution signifies a triumph of Marxism and places the name of Lenin, author of the creative development of that science-Leninism-next to the names of its founders. Lenin evolved the theory of socialist revolution in conditions of imperialism, he guided the Russian revolution, and developed the Marxist theory of the state in accordance with the conditions of the transition period, and also elaborated the teaching on the party. And Lenin outlined the main directions of building socialism. In this colossal work he foresaw the destiny of mankind and the character of our epoch, i.e., the twentieth century-a work that in many ways predetermined the course of history. On the subject of socialist construction there existed originally only the general theoretical guidelines of Marx and Engels, including the famous Critique ot the Gotha Programme, and with regard to the character of the state in the transition period one could turn to the glorious, but shortlived experience of the Paris Commune. Moreover, the bold Soviet initiative was hindered by the traditional, mechanistic, and economist concepts of the Second International, according to which the working class had to wait for revolution to take place only in advanced capitalist countries or as a result of the quantitative growth of the productive forces.

p Strange as it may seem, there are still historians and publicists who accuse Lenin of bringing about a socialist revolution in conditions of old Russia, of outlining the perspectives of socialism in one individual country, without asking permission of those learned gentlemen. This reminds one of the accusation concerning the "original sin" mentioned in the Scriptures.

p The name of Lenin is linked with the rise and development of the international communist movement. MarxismLeninism supplies a theoretical basis and an opportunity 165 for creative work. Far from obstructing creative thinking, Marxism-Leninism presupposes it. Lenin himself always followed Engels’ precept that Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. These two qualities-affirmation of the fundamental principles of Marxism and keeping constant and creative contact with reality-expressed in terms of modern practice, have made Leninism a teaching reflecting the essence of our epoch. Lenin defended what he termed the "purity of Marxism" and resurrected Marx’s works which had been quietly ignored by “luminaries” of the Second International, and at the same time vigorously opposed dogmatism, the abject worship of quotations out of context and the use of such quotations as a substitute for reality. Methodologically this is expressed in his wellknown principle calling for concrete analysis of concrete situations and in his profoundly philosophical thesis, which he had defended passionately, that "the truth is always concrete"-

p Lenin was against distortion of Marxism, against revisionism, and opportunist adjustment which amounts to rejecting revolution, against vulgarisation and voluntaristic concepts. Lenin makes a profound study of philosophy and physics in his book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, in which he developed in a creative manner the Marxist world outlook and dialectical and historical materialism. In his Philosophical Notebooks, besides setting forth a number of new propositions, Lenin defended Marx’s teaching from the positivist, pseudoscientific, and sociological interpretations of various epigones. He used the exceptional dynamism of dialectics "to put Hegel on his feet”. He approached questions of war and revolution with the help of the dialectical method, making a creative study of the facts and processes of reality. He came to the conclusion, both in theoretical and practical terms, that a socialist revolution is historically inevitable at the imperialist stage of development. Proceeding from this basic dialectical thesis he evolved the theory on the role of the party and the role 166 of politics as a science and an art. From February to October 1917, Lenin revealed his talent both as a theorist and a politician. In his Blue Notebook he summarised the ideas of Marx and Engels on the state, but theory was to him inseparable from the changes that accompanied revolution. Thus, Lenin was true to his idea which he expressed in 1905 that revolution quickly unites and quickly educates.  [166•*  It took a truly far-sighted political leader and revolutionary to defend with such fervour the necessity for concluding the Brest Peace. Here are more examples: the book " LeftWing" Communism-an Infantile Disorder, his speech in defence of the tactics of the International, all his theses on the relationship between the hegemony of the working class and the policy of alliances, his approach to the national question and colonial problems, and his formulation of the foreign policy of the new socialist state-all this testifies to Lenin’s political perspicacity which was free from empty theorising, abstract reasoning, and sectarianism. A severe critic of German Social-Democracy, he, nevertheless, valued the parliamentary activity of some of its representatives and their ability to unite the masses at certain moments.

p Thus, Leninism is not "Marxism of the Third International”, not "Marxism for underdeveloped countries”, not "a source which runs dry when certain historical conditions disappear”, but a great revolutionary theory of our epoch.

p Obviously, Lenin had no ready recipe for every case, not even for the further development of Soviet society. The CPSU, inspired by Lenin, had to carry out extensive and complex theoretical and practical work in order to find the solutions to problems of developed socialism and to problems of application of the scientific and technological revolution in the state of the whole people, including the writing of the new Constitution and the working out of new initiatives connected with peaceful coexistence, and 167 many others. No one should consider this process completed.

p Lenin said: "We take our stand entirely on the Marxist theoretical position”, but "we do not regard Marx’s theory as something completed and inviolable"- This theory, he said, "has only laid the foundation stone of the science which Socialists must develop in all directions”.  [167•*  It was also Lenin who noted that taking anything on trust, exclusion of critical examination and development is a grave sin, and "simple interpretation" is obviously insufficient for examination and development.

p In other words, Lenin rejected dogmatism, but, at the same time, he never accepted relativism, still less empiricism. The truth is always concrete, but it is neither the pitiful truth of the empiricists nor the dismal truth of the relativists. Marx said that the concrete is a unity of multiformity.

p It is from this viewpoint of Lenin that one should regard certain contradictions and problems which at times arise in our world communist movement. The 60 years that have elapsed since the October Revolution have not only "shaken the world”, but have also changed it radically. Socialist and national liberation revolutions accompanied by infinitely varied, sometimes unusual, progressive movements become widespread, pass through many different stages, and take most diverse revolutionary paths. The international communist and workers’ movement is a tremendous force and the range of its allies continues to broaden rapidly. Every day something new occurs. As was foreseen by Lenin, the socialist revolution covers an entire historical epoch; everywhere it advances in an open or hidden manner, from countries with tribal structures to advanced capitalist states dominated by state monopoly capital. This process also involves Latin American countries with their specific conditions. One should take into 168 account differences in the levels and rates of development, and differences in institutions, traditions, and social psychology of each country or area. The revolutionary camp is being joined by broad masses of the middle strata and the intelligentsia, as well as employees working in new fields that have come into being as a result of the scientific and technological revolution. It is only natural that there should arise new approaches, contradictions, and arguments. These reflect complex social processes and different approaches to prospects and directions of the revolution. There may even appear plausible theories in the ideological and political field, sometimes with various kinds of ideological overtones. It is easy to see that strategy and tactics change depending on the components of the revolutionary process. And it seems logical that all that makes a real contribution to the tortuous course of national liberation, democracy, and socialism becomes part of the overall experience of the movement, or develops into theory and criticism or, at least, becomes a methodological premise. But who would maintain that this means that scientific truths are defective and that there exist only relative truths which are without absolute value and are good only for a given region of the world, or that theoretical reasoning is merely a piling up of parallel truths?

p The absence of guiding centres and organisational ties of an international character imparts special importance today to a combination of internationalism with recognition of independence and freedom of choice of each party. But at the same time, independent theoretical search which can enhance the role of each party on a national scale and provide methods for building correct relations between parties must not be reduced to the elaboration of new, legal norms. Critical study of the revolutionary movement’s theoretical assets stimulates the growth of parties into a real political force since it presupposes a party’s ability critically to regard its own experience, open the way to progress for the masses, and fulfil its vanguard role. 169 However, this is obviously insufficient for satisfying another requirement-to raise experience to the level of scientific generalisations capable of enriching the theory and practice of the entire movement. One victorious revolution is said to be worth a thousand arguments. But the connection between theory and practice remains as indispensable as in Lenin’s time.

p We are aware that not infrequently theoretical studies and findings lag behind life and do not correspond to the party’s historical role. Even the evaluation of new phenomena is sometimes made too late. One example is the underestimation of the danger of fascism in Latin America and on an international plane. Many more such examples can be cited.

p Furthermore, at this moment, when the role of subjective factors has greatly increased, it is obvious that in conditions in which the world as a whole has historically ripened for socialism the disparities and different levels within the movement itself pose a variety of theoretical and political questions. And the specific difficulties of a particular case cannot always be attributed to difficulties of a general character.

p Lenin pointed out that dialectics includes an element of relativism, though it is not limited to it.  [169•*  History is not a chase after grand myths with which the immediate aims of every generation are masked, as Sorel, inspired by Bergson’s ideas, would have us believe.

p Therefore, to deny the existence of general, or " cornerstone" principles of Marxism-Leninism, as Lenin called them, to believe that each stage, even each particular direction a revolution takes, leads to a negation of these principles or that there are no general laws governing the transition to socialism and its construction, is to slide into relativism.

p We should be understood correctly for we by no means believe that these general laws are logical categories applicable to the dynamics of the socio-historical process. Following Lenin, we hold that anything particular is (in one way or another) general and vice versa. As Lenin aptly put it, "appearance is richer than law”, and law is "the reflection of the essential in the movement of the universe”.  [170•* 

p When Lenin writes that the October Revolution "reveals to all countries something-and something highly significant-of their near and inevitable future”,  [170•**  he is far from mechanically transferring the experience of the Russian revolution to every country or region regardless of place and time- And not only because everything changes, but also because all victorious revolutions-as was also foreseen by Lenin-have taken different forms. But the distinctive character of a process evidently confirms, in the final count, certain general laws. Since the most important of these laws have often been discussed there is no need to speak of them here again.

p It goes without saying that general laws cannot be squeezed into the framework of a “model” which, incidentally, is a word artificially imposed by our enemies; what is permissible in the sphere of thought and philosophical categories is impermissible in life. General laws are always expressed in concrete terms; that is, they are inseparable from the particular. That is precisely why nothing is more fallacious from the polemical point of view than contraposing national or distinctive roads of socialist revolution, to the world historic experience of the October Revolution, to the global role of the USSR and the CPSU, and the practice of the victorious socialist revolutions. It has been correctly said that new roads which the socialist revolution may take are directed against and are antagonistic to capitalism and, it seems to us, it is dangerous, to say the least, 171 to contrapose them to the experience of triumphant socialism. This would mean dancing to the enemy’s tune.

p The teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin is basically confirmed even by the newest of new developments. But we must always be on our guard against theological interpretations or the habit of making the sign of the cross before every trick of history. Lenin was right to repeatedly refer to the "man in a muffler”, the character from a story by Chekhov. Our time, which is turbulent and fiery, is a time of constant challenge, a time full of acute problems awaiting solution. It is difficult to penetrate into these unexplored areas without fraternal, businesslike, constructive, and collective discussions. Even polemics is impossible without a profound study of the question at hand. Let us recall what Lenin said about idealist philosophers in his work On the Question oi Dialectics or about bourgeois scholars and economists in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, whose concepts should not be accepted at all, but whose concrete scientific studies deserved every attention. Even in the so-called Marxology one should see not only mystifying manipulations-and this does happen at times-but also a reflection of the broadest spreading of Marxist thought in the 60 years since the October Revolution.

But let us be frank and admit that certain internal difficulties of our movement are a factor obstructing creative activity. At a time of broad discussion China’s departure from the common standpoint has, among other things, become a negative factor in the development of creative work. The justifiable and constant concern today for the movement’s unity based on respect for each party’s independent choice of the road it wishes to follow has its negative side in that it makes it difficult to arrive at a broad, collective, and international approach to problems, which, in Lenin’s words, is the only way of overcoming exclusiveness. We cannot substitute for scientific investigation (and science has no national borders) certain 172 diplomatic devices, though these are at times necessary to avoid offending someone or causing a clash. Let us have diplomacy by all means which helps find ways to secure joint action and cut short divisive trends! Respect for each party’s right to elaborate its own line of action is a principle of unity, but scientific truth and theoretical conclusions cannot always be stated in cut-an-dried formulas. A characteristic feature of any viable theory consists in that it affords an opportunity to generalise, as far as possible, different experiences. But theory becomes fruitful to the full extent when it is a result of collective creative work. The common efforts of the communist and working-class movement and through it of all progressive forces definitely supplies life-giving water to the evergreen tree of Marxist-Leninist creative activity. This is also a manifestation of internationalism. Herein lies the great lesson taught by Lenin, the Marxist theorist and thinker, the creative scientist, and revolutionary genius.