Yu.Krasin
__TITLE__ THE CONTEMPORARY REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS __TEXTFILE_BORN__ 2008-05-28T06:18:28-0700 __TRANSMARKUP__ "Y. Sverdlov" __SUBTITLE__ Theoretical EssaysProgress Publishers Moscow
[1]Translated from the Russian by Yuri Sdohnikov
by (lennady Gubnnnv
K). Kpacini ~
PEBOJIIOUHOHHMtt npOHEC.C II CORPRMEIIHOCTI.
TeopeTiiuecKHO o Ha
__COPYRIGHT__ © MaAaiejii.CTno nojiHTH'iecKoii jnnopaTypw, 19810302030000---44'.
10--85
K
014(01)-85
[2] CONTENTS Introduction Kssay One. Essay Two. Essay Three. Essay Four. Essay Five. Essay Six. Essay Seven. Essay Eight. Essay Nine. Essay Ten. Kssay Eleven. Conclusion . Subject Index The Revolutionary Renewal of the World: The Ways................ 9 Democracy, the State, and Revolution .... 28 The Role of the Subjective Factor in the Struggle for Socialism.......... 50 The Majority in a Socialist Revolution ... 67 Class and Political Alliances....... 83 The Vanguard of the Working Class .... 104 The Transitional Type of Social Transformations ................ 120 Ideology and Policy in the Revolutionary Movement.............. 140 The International and the National in the Revolutionary Process.......... 155 The General and the Particular in the Revolutionary Process............ 174 Socialism and World Progress....... 197 ................... 215 ................. 218 [3] ~ [4] __ALPHA_LVL1__ INTRODUCTIONOver the past several years, many books and articles have been written on the problems in contemporary social revolutions, and it is a subject that continues to command much interest even today, because of the profound revolutionary restructuring of the very foundation of human existence that is under way in our epoch. It is the process that Marx described as transition from the pre-history of the human society to its true history---communist civilisation.
Hardly a year goes by without revolutionary changes occurring in some spot on the globe, and these always produce new phenomena and processes. Revolution always generates mass energy, creating original forms of social relations.
The 1970s were ushered in by the victory of the Chilean revolution. It did not manage to fulfil the tasks it set itself and was strangulated by fascist reaction. But its rich experience still provides much food for thought. In-depth studies of the lessons of the Chilean revolution are being made by Marxists all over the world.
The Chilean revolution was followed by the April 1974 Revolution of the Carnations in Portugal. It ran its own unique course, demonstrating the organic bonds of the working-class and democratic movement with the national-liberation movement, and became a factor which accelerated the collapse of the last colonial empire in Africa.
The 1970s were also marked by the Vietnamese people's outstanding victory in their war against the US aggressors, a victory which opened up before the country the prospect of fulfilling the creative (asks of the socialist revolution. Changes also occurred in the whole of Southeast Asia. The national democratic revolution in Laos came to 5 a triumphant end, paving the country's way to socialism. Pol Pot's bloodstained regime in Kampuchea was overthrown.
In 1978, there was the remarkably peculiar phenomenon of the Iranian revolution, with its quaint pattern of farfrom-lransparent socio-economic, political and religious motivations. Diverse social and political forces merged in a tempestuous anti-imperialist tide which swept away the shah's regime.
In 1979, there was the victory of the Nicaraguan revolution, which demonstrated an exceptionally original form of broad alliance of left-wing and democratic forces, and their unity in implacable struggle against the Somoza dictatorship. On that way of armed struggle for freedom, Nicaragua was followed by the people of small El Salvador, which issued a challenge not only to the right-wing militarists, but also to US imperialism.
The 1970s also included the experience of the Afghan revolution, with its unexpected ups and downs, advances and retreats, and contest between the revolutionary forces and the counter-revolution, which glaringly revealed the relation between internal processes and the class struggle in the international arena.
The 1970s were marked by social transformations in Africa: Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia, the emergence of a group of advanced revolutionary-democratic states and vanguard parties of a new type adopting Marxism-Leninism as their ideology.
The 1970s presented a wide panorama of the interaction between the world revolutionary process and the development of the system of international relations. First, the switch from cold war to detente focussed attention on the problem of social progress in time of peace. The offensive then mounted by the reactionary imperialist circles against the detente highlighted its defence and cohesion for that purpose of the progressive and democratic forces, with the Communists and other working people in the van. One could say that the 1970s provided much historical experience in the development of the world revolutionary process, experience that is original and multifaceted. Theoretical thinking was provided with ample material for study and generalisation.
These essays lay no claim to providing a comprehensive analysis of the revolutionary events of our day. Nor are they 6 bound by any strict logic in presenting the problems of the theory of socialist revolution. I have merely brought out some of the key problems and set forth some considerations which remain open for further discussion and deeper analysis.
[7] ~ [8] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay One __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE REVOLUTIONARY RENEWALOur epoch is known as the October epoch after the Great October Revolution, which took place in Russia in 1917, and the whole practical record since then shows that this is the right term for it. For all the wealth and diversity of forms which social transformations throughout the world have assumed since then, they have all followed the trail of the main tendencies generated by the October Socialist Revolution. That is why one has to turn to its experience if one is to comprehend the revolutionary events of our day. The passage of time reveals ever more fully the scope of the influence exerted by that event on the whole of world development.
In his work, ``Left-wing'' Communism---an Infantile Disorder, Lenin wrote about the international significance of the October Socialist Revolution in the broad and narrow sense of the word. With mankind's advance, ever new facets of the influence exerted by that revolution of world history are brought to light. In the broad sense on the word, that is, in the sense of its direct influence on the world revolutionary process, the October Revolution gave an impetus to the changes in the world without which it is impossible to imagine the new potentialities that have now been opened up before the working class and the national liberation movement. In the narrow sense, that is, in the sense of the basic features of the October Socialist Revolution being inevitably repeated in other countries, its international significance is now also manifested with fresh force.
There is, of course, a need to take into account what actually roused the new forces to historical creativity after they had been no more than an object of history, so that they have invested the world revolutionary process and the whole of world development with exceptional diversity. That is why the general features and uniformities manifested in the October Socialist Revolution do not now recur literally, as a mirror image of Ilie past, but in a peculiar and often highly unusual way.
The events and new experience of revolutionary struggle 9 in the 1970s and 1980s provide abundant material for theoretically comprehending the meaning of the epoch ushered in by the October Revolution and for a deeper insight into the uniformities of the world revolutionary process. On the one hand, these uniformities are common to all the stages of the present epoch. They connect the October Revolution with our own time, expressing the general in the international process in which a communist civilisation is taking shape. On the other hand, the general uniformities need to be comprehended through the prism of the new specific conditions. In addition, the principles and laws manifested in the October Socialist Revolution are enriched with new experience. This induces a deeper comprehension of the experience of the October Revolution from the angle of the dialectics of the general and the particular. Some features of the revolutionary process are common to definite theoretical stages, while others appear as general uniformities for the whole epoch, although they manifest themselves differently in different historical conditions.
That is why in order to bring out the dialectics of the general and the particular there is a need for a concrete analysis of the concrete situation. However, such an analysis becomes altogether meaningless, unless one takes account of what could be called the world-wide system of coordinates which has taken shape, and which reflects the general uniformities of class struggle and revolution.
The coherence of the world-wide revolutionary process is demonstrated by our own day. For all its diversity, fragmentation and complexity, it is an indivisible and integral process. It has its own inherent objective laws characterising the condition, role and inter-relations of the chief revolutionary forces, the interaction of the international and the national in the liberation movement, and the main tendencies of this epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. However specific the situation in a country may be, these general laws will ultimately manifest themselves, and a fresh reminder of this has come from the above-- mentioned revolutionary events of our day. Their common fundamental features have stood out in the peculiarity and dissimilarity of their forms: everywhere the question of power has been central to the revolutionary struggle, and the law of the contest between revolution and counter-revolution has made itself known everywhere.
There is not a single country in the world that has 10 remained impervious to the influence of the international processes, such as the changing balance of forces in the world arena, the contest between socialism and capitalism, and the struggle for peaceful coexistence and detente. Consideration of these global parametres is a necessary element of internationalist revolutionary policy in any country. Whenever these parametres are ignored and national peculiarities one-sidedly accentuated, national experience is absolutised, and limited schemes invented and artificially rated as being of universal significance.
There is no doubt that the experience of the revolutionary movement in each country is a valuable asset for the creative development of the revolutionary theory. It is a sort of laboratory in which answers are sought for the new questions generated by social practice. The theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism are enriched with the historical experience of the working class and other revolutionary and democratic forces in any country. But, one must realise that each country's experience is a part of the greater whole which is the international experience of the world's working class. Whenever a part is contrasted to the whole or even substituted for the whole, narrow regionalist policies are bound to appear, cutting across the main tendencies of the world revolutionary process. The impression is created that there has been no October Socialist Revolution, no radical change in the balance of forces in the world, and no victory of socialism in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
That is why it is so important to establish the true significance and place of the unquestionably valuable experience of the working-class movement of each country within the system of international experience as a whole. That is why in working out the internationalist approach it is so important to compare the experience of various countries and to make a comparative analysis of the revolutionary forces' strategy and tactics.
These problems are all the more pressing because they are central to the sharpest ideological struggle. The experience of the October Revolution is under ceaseless attack from bourgeois ideologists, whose main drive is directed against Leninism because it mirrors the internationalist substance and general uniformities of socialist revolution and socialist construction. These critics not only deny the universal validity of Leninism, but also seek an alternative to 11 Leninism. In the light of the lessons of history, some of Ihem offer an alternative: the reformist theory of renovation and modernisation of contemporary capitalism. That is why in the ideological struggle raging over the legacy of the October Revolution, it is important not only to beat back these attacks, but also to carry on an offensive and to expose the flimsiness of bourgeois-reformist conceptions and of social-democratic reformism. These problems are also at issue in a struggle on another front, namely, the struggle against diverse leftist and Trotskyite theories, which are spearheaded above all against Leninism. For all these reasons, Marxist theoretical thinking is faced with the questions of the significance of Leninism for world history.
If one were to define philosophy, as Hegel did, as an epoch expressed in thought, one could say that Leninism is the philosophy of the present epoch, for it is a theoretical summing-up reflecting the main content of the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. That is why Leninism is a world view enabling one to take a revolutionary approach in comprehending the advances of the whole social practice of our day. It is not only a doctrine explaining the world, but also a factor of its revolutionary transformation. To realise that this is so, one need do no more than compare the picture of the world at the beginning of the 20th century with its present state. A radical change has taken place in the world: the process of revolutionary transformations has become world-wide.
Today, the world is exceptionally dynamic. There arc changes in the very foundations of mankind's social being, and in its social consciousness. Peoples entering upon the path of socialist transformation later than Russia find themselves acting in a different and changing situation and effecting revolutionary changes in different forms and by means of other methods. The socialist revolutions carried out in a group of European and Asian countries after the Second World War markedly differed in form from the 1917 Socialist Revolution in Russia. They also differed from each other.
In none of the now existing socialist countries were the forms, methods and ways of socialist revolution a mechanical repetition of the experience of others. The GDR and Poland, Hungary and Cuba, Mongolia and Yugoslavia, and all the other socialist countries as well carried out their revolutions in their own way, in forms that were dictated 12 by the balance of class forces within each of these countries, by the national way of life and the external situation. Some had armed struggle, other advanced to the new social system in peaceful forms; in some, the working classes swiftly took over the power, iu others these processes were extended in time. In some countries, the revolution had to defend itself against foreign intervention, in others, there was no invasion from outside.
But for all the diversity of forms, all the socialist revolutions proceeded in accordance with the general uniformities of revolutionary development which iirst manifested themselves in the October Socialist Revolution.
Lenin's prediction was realised as a result of profound changes in the world balance of forces: having triumphed in a group of countries, socialism has become a crucial factor of history. This qualitative leap also opened up fresh potentialities for the world revolutionary process both in the capitalist countries and in the developing countries, where a real prospect of advance along the socialist way has appeared.
The qualitative changes have also affected the subjective factor of socialism: its structure has become more complex, and the inter-relations between its constituent elements have become more intensive and multifaceted. The struggle for socialism was joined by social and political forces once incapable of doing so. While enlarging the scope of the revolutionary process, they have also brought in their own notions and views. It has become more difficult to form class and political alliances. Nevertheless, wherever that masses have taken revolutionary action, there have invariably arisen the same fundamental issues of revolution which had to be tackled in October 1917.
Bourgeois ideologists, and reformists and revisionist theorists are in the habit of considering the peculiarities and the new potentialities of the present stage outside the context of the contemporary epoch, seeking to contrast them to the experience of the October Revolution and socialist construction in the USSR in an effort to prove that Leninism is obsolete. Such arguments are based on a dogmatic interpretation of Leninism, which is alleged to be a set of eternal rules or a collection of recipes providing answers to all possible questions. This is at odds with the creative spirit of Lenin's doctrine, for he most emphatically objected to the urge to seek answers to vital questions through the 13 expedient of logically elaborating tho general truth.
Answers to concrete questions can be found only in a creative quest, with a formulation and practical testing of hypotheses and propositions based on a comparison of the general truth of Marxism-Leninism and the actual reality. That is the only way to learn to make creative use of Leninism.
Nowadays, there are many phenomena and processes which did not and could not exist in Lenin's lifetime. But these new conditions and new potentialities are a direct outcome of the transformative activity of the working class, the Communists and the progressive forces of our epoch under the banner of Leninism.
Attempts to contrast the present and Lenin's legacy betray a misunderstanding of the dynamics of world history, which has been advancing under the direct impact of the ideas and practices of Leninism.
The entire experience of the revolutionary movement of our day has shown that Lenin's theory of revolution is correct and that it meets the requirements of a radical renewal of the world. Lenin's theory is a true weapon in the struggle of the working class and the international communist movement in fulfilling the mankind's advanced revolutionary tasks.
The progress of existing socialism is the chief result and simultaneously the main indicator of the significance of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Lenin used to emphasise the crucial importance of constructive tasks for the victory of the socialist revolution, adding that unless these tasks are fulfilled, "nothing will follow from our successes, from our victories in overthrowing the exploiters, and from our military rebuff to international imperialism, and a return to the old system will be inevitable".^^1^^ Building the new society means solving the problem of realising the socialist ideal. Had the constructive tasks proved to be intractable, that would have signified that the communist ideal was no more than a pretty utopia. The world revolutionary movement would have been demoralised and deprived of its goal.
The formation and development of socialism are an intricate and difficult process. Socialism is born in torments of struggle and creative quest along an uncharted course of _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31 (here and elsewhere Progress Publishers, Moscow), p. 417.
14 historical activity. That being so, it cannot run a straight and narrow path towards its goal. Its historical way abounds in zigzags and sharp turns. If one ponders all this, one will realise how dramatic the birth of socialism is in parts of the world where it is burdened by archaic structures, customs, prejudices and nationalistic ideas, which frequently distort the essence of the new system.One will also realise the tremendous historical responsibility which fell on Russia's working class and Lenin's party, as they blazed the trail to socialism. Their difficulties were further compounded by the fact that the socialist revolution initially won out in a capitalist country that was not among the most developed ones, and in the grave situation caused by the First World War and its attendant material, spiritual and moral losses. The first socialist country had to perform a truly international feat in order to break what appeared to be a vicious circle of apparently insurmountable obstacles. Lenin said: "We began our revolution in unusually difficult conditions, such as no other workers' revolution in the world will ever have to face."~^^1^^ This great feat was performed under the leadership of Lenin's party. Socialism has now become a reality. But even today no one has claimed that it is an ideal society free from any flaws whatsoever. The socialist society has to tackle a great many problems. An incisive analysis of these problems is made by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), which outlines the ways and means for improving the socialist society. But the main thing is that the world's first socialist society has been built, and that the contours of the new, communist civilisation are already in evidence.
In one of his last articles---"Better Fewer, but Better"--- Lenin wrote with bitterness that socialism, the new system, had been unable all at once to blazon its superiority and advantages. Not so today: socialism is now developing on its own basis, demonstrating its vast potential.
The economy of developed socialism is an integral national-economic complex. As it is perfected, ways will be sought and found for making the most rational use of the potentialities of the socialist economy. The system of production relations and economic management is to be brought into accord with the requirements of the new stage of development so as to enhance the efficiency of social _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 137.
15 production, accelerate scientific and technical progress, boost economic growth and raise Jiving standards.The social relations established in the contemporary socialist society signify progress in tackling the task of obliterating the essential social-class distinctions. Socialism has helped to do away with class and national antagonisms and to ensure Hie socio-political unity of the society, and this lias led to the emergence of a new historical entity, the Soviet people. There are ever broader prospects for making that society socially ever more homogeneous.
The political and juridicial relations under socialism, as established by the new Constitution of the USSR, mark a new qualitative stage on the way to popular democracy under communism. Under socialism, the masses of working people are ever more deeply involved in the administration of the state and the society, so creating the prerequisites for communist social self-administration.
Under socialism, a high level of development has been attained in the spiritual and ideological sphere: social consciousness, science, culture and the arts. Lenin said that socialism tends to increase "a million-fold the `differentiation' of humanity in the sense of wealth and variety in spiritual life, ideological trends, tendencies and shades".^^1^^ The Soviet society's ideological unity does not imply any standardisation of spiritual life, such as that induced by the "mass culture" of the contemporary capitalist society, but, on the contrary, generates a diversity of modes, forms, styles and methods in expressing the spiritual wealth of the socialist society.
The Communist Party founded by Lenin has been developing together with the Soviet society. Historically shaped as a party of the working class, the CPSU has now become the party of the whole Soviet people, its vanguard coping with the difficult tasks of guiding the socialist society.
Socialism is now also an international reality. Within the framework of the community of socialist countries, conditions are being gradually shaped for the formation of that integrated international socialist economy which is regulated under a common plan, and whose emergence was predicted by Lenin. For the first time in history relations in the socialist world have truly become relations between peoples involving millions and millions of men and women.
_-_-_^^1^^ V. I. Lonin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 274.
16It takes a great effort to switch the economy from extensive to intensive development., to carry out large-scale social programmes and to shape I he communist consciousness. But il is a fact that the socialist countries which are members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) constitute the most dynamic developing group in the world. The socialist countries are striding confidently forward in developing their economy and culture, in perfecting their social relations and socialist democracy.
The radical changes under way within the system of international relations are also connected with the October Revolution and with Leninism.
The first decree issued by the Soviet Government---the Decree on Peace---proclaimed the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems as the fundamental principle of the Soviet state's foreign policy. Indeed, October 1917 ushered in a qualitatively new stage in the development of international relations: "The Bolsheviks are establishing completely different international relations which make it possible for all oppressed peoples to rid themselves of imperialist oppression.''~^^1^^
The peaceful coexistence principle could not be realised fully right away in the face of imperialist foreign policy principles. After all, imperialism continued to dominate the international arena, and the balance of forces was not in favour of the fledgling Soviet Republic. Still, a transitional epoch began in tho history of international relations, opening up for mankind the prospect of peaceful relations between states throughout the whole period in which "there remain two property systems".^^2^^ Whether this prospect would be realised depended on a change in the balance of forces in the international arena in favour of socialism.
The policy of peace and peaceful coexistence has developed in the light of the theory and practice of Leninism, and it is on the basis of Lenin's ideas that the CPSU and the other communist parties of the socialist countries have elaborated the fundamental theoretical questions in maintaining stable peace. Indeed, the social forces which have created the conditions for implementing the policy of peaceful coexistence emerged and gained in strength as a result of the victories of Leninism. The history of the foreign-policy _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, ]i. 177.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 357.
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---01528 17 activity of the CPSU and the Soviet state, from Lenin's Decree on Peace lo the Peace Programme of the 24th, 25th and 26th congresses of the CPSU, is a record of persevering and consistent struggle Lo realise Lenin's conception of peace and peaceful coexistence.The struggle for stable peace has proceeded in the difficult situation of the present transition epoch, with its system of international relations that is inherently heterogeneous and contradictory, for it consists of dissimilar foreign-policy tendencies. Alongside I lie progressive tendencies generated by socialism, there are aggressive ones coming from imperialism arid the military-industrial complex it spawns. That is why in the struggle for peaceful coexistence there are bound to be advances along the way to detente and temporary reLrcals caused by a revival of the aggressive tendencies of imperialism.
Imperialist reaction has bitterly resisted the positive shifts in international development. The aggressive militaristic circles allied with the military-industrial complex oppose the detente, step up the arms race, meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and strive to reverse the tide of the in-depth objective processes.
The reactionary imperialist circles seek to justify the cold war on the false ideological ground that the detente should signify a social status quo.
``Adventurism and a readiness to gamble with the vital interests of humanity for narrow and selfish ends---this is what has emerged in a particularly bare-faced form in the policy of the more aggressive imperialist circles. With utter contempt for the rights and aspirations of nations, they are trying to portray the liberation struggle of the masses as `terrorism'. Indeed, they have set out to achieve the unachievable---to set up a barrier to progressive changes in the world, and to again become the rulers of the people's destiny.''~^^1^^
The imperialists' aims are unattainable, because no one can halt social progress. Detente and peaceful coexistence do not contradict the society's progressive development, which is a law-governed process.
The imperative need for social-emancipation and national liberation revolutions is determined by the objective laws _-_-_
^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1981, p. 27.
18 governing the development of capitalism. The soil for such revolutions is provided by the internal economic, social and political antagonisms of the capitalist world itself. The people of every country have the right lo fight for their national liberation and social emancipation, and revolution is the outcome of their struggle.Detente promotes social progress because it creates favourable conditions for strengthening the international solidarity of the peoples of the socialist countries with the working class and progressive forces of the whole world, and makes it more difficult for imperialism to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, thereby giving the peoples an opportunity to choose their own way of development. But detente is not a one-way street. It meets the interests of all countries, regardless of their social system. Today Ihere is simply no reasonable alternative to detente. Indeed, detente itself does not at all decide whether changes are to occur in a social system. This is an inescapable question under detente as well, but it assumes forms which rule out war and armed confrontation between states.
The theory and practice of Leninism shows that socialism and peace are indivisible, because Leninism has most fully and consistently formulated these two cardinal ideas which embody the most vital requirements of the modern world.
The history of social thought contains many political and philosophical doctrines which were the most acute issues in the lifetime of their authors, but which subsequently sank into oblivion and ceased to interest anyone except historians. Nothing of the sort has happened with Lenin's ideological legacy. Years have gone by, but the assessments of Leninism and its historical importance are still burning issues. The whole history of Leninism is iilled with ideological struggle. It emerged as an ideological and political trend in the struggle against the opportunist vulgarisation of Marxism by the ideologists of the liberal bourgeoisie, the ``Economists'' and opportunists of the Second International, and against petty-bourgeois revolutionist conceptions. The struggle began in Lenin's lifetime and it is still going on.
This means thai Lenin's doctrine affects the vital interests of the main social and political forces of our day. No one can remain indifferent, l,o Lenin's ideas, which have now been translated into the practice of deep revolutionary __PRINTERS_P_19_COMMENT__ 2* 19 transformations that have established a new direction in Ids lory.
One will easily understand why the ideological contest is i'ocusscd on the doctrine which has been the spiritual weapon of the international working class and the other revolutionary forces of our day.
One might say that this contest demonstrates what could be described as a uniformity: the broader and deeper the influence of Leninism, the more important its practical gains in the revolutionary transformation of the world and in the building of the new, socialist society, the more persistent the claims by the ideologists of anti-communism, reformism and revisionism that Lenin's ideological legacy is outdated and lias ceased to be relevant.
Once Leninism got hold of the consciousness of mankind's forward-looking social forces, it became a mighty material factor of social progress. That Leninism is a true doctrine expressing ihe vital requirements of the contemporary epoch is proved by the victory of the socialist revolution in a group of countries, by the emergence of the world socialist system, by the gains of the working-class movement in the capitalist countries, by the appearance in the arena of independent socio-political activity of the peoples of the former colonies and semi-colonies, and by the unprecedented upsurge of the anti-imperialist struggle.
That is why there is no corner on the globe where Leuin's ideas are not having a revolutionising influence on the working people's consciousness. Lenin's name and doctrine have become synonymous with the revolutionary renewal of life, symbolising the formation of the advanced communist civilisation. The growing influence of Lenin's ideas explodes the ideological myth of bourgeois propaganda and reformist illusions, and that is why the ideologists of anticommunism and the apologists of the capitalist system have such a hatred for Leninism and strive to neutralise or, at any rate, to reduce its influence on the development of the social consciousness.
The opponents of communism believe that this doctrine poses the main danger to their apologetic conceptions, which cater for the interests of the reactionary forces in their efforts to drive history from the road opened up by the de-; velopmcnt of socialism. In defiance of the facts, some critics of Leninism stubbornly claim that Lenin's ideas have not been borne out. Others take a more ``flexible'' attitude and 20 resort to subtler methods of polemics against Leninism. But all the ideological adversaries of Leninism, whatever their angle of attack, want to purge it of its revolutionary-- internationalist content.
What is common to all the critics of Leninism is their denial that it is the universal ideology and policy of the working class. They keep repeating the tattered assertions that Leninism is a reflection of Russia's specific and unique conditions at Ihe turn of the century. Once again they have taken out of the archives and dusted off the "doctrine of backwardness" claiming that Leninism is the ideology of the revolutionary forces of underdeveloped countries and that it is inapplicable to the countries of slate-monopoly capitalism. They have issued a call for a return to the `` origins'', to a revival of the "Western traditions" of Marxism. Leninism is being contrasted with Marx's ``original'' doctrine, while Lenin's legacy is arbitrarily depicted as a " voluntarist interpretation" of Marxism, and as its ``adaptation'' to the peripheral regions of the capitalist world.
The methodological roots of these biased interpretations of Leninism will be found in a distortion of the intricate dialectics of continuity and innovation in the development of Marxism-Leninism as the revolutionary ideology of the international working class. The critics of Leninism have claimed that its creative character amounts to a ``break'' with Marx's doctrine and an abandonment of its main ideas. They have denied the organic continuity of the revolutionary internationalist, principles of Marx's legacy and Lenin's doctrine.
Leninism has organic bonds with its ``origins'', with the ideological legacy of Marx and Engels. Lenin's legacy sets forth the same principles of revolutionary theory as do the founders of Marxism: the historically inevitable decline of capitalism and transition to socialism, the proletariat's role as the revolutionary class creating the new society, the alliance of the working class and the peasantry and other strata of Ihe working people, the winning of power by the working class and its allies as the necessary condition for the victory of the socialist revolution, and internationalism as the law of development of the revolutionary working-class movement and the principle of activity of the workingclass party.
But Lenin did not simply reiterate the principles of Marx's theory. He applied them to the conditions of the 21 epoch in which the proletariat's social revolution came to a head and advanced. Nor did he apply them as a stereotype that is superimposed on the historical reality, so obscuring everything that is peculiar and specific and not provided for by the standard. Lenin applied Marx's principles creatively, without shielding himself against the new reality, but studying and comprehending it on the basis and with the aid of these principles, concentrating on the specific features of the new epoch, thoroughly considering and determining which of these specific features were essential and, consenquenlly, which should become a part of these principles and enrich them.
Lenin made a comprehensive analysis of the specific features of the epoch of imperialism in the light of Marxist principles, bringing out and raising to the level of the general that which had a substantial influence on the content and character of the socialist revolution. In this way, while remaining (rue to Marx's theory Lenin raised it to a qualitatively higher stage. That was the only way of remaining true to the principles of Marxism, which are historical and which require a constant comparison and verification with developing social practice.
The new elements which Lenin introduced into Marxism did not amount to any ``departure'' from Marx's ideas, but their creative development through a Marxist comprehension and summing-up of the historical experience of the new epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. Marxism-Leninism is a coherent international doctrine in which the revolutionary experience of the working class, the experience of mankind's transition from the capitalist socio-economic formation to the new, communist formation is being constantly and creatively absorbed. This doctrine quite naturally goes on developing and passes through definite stages. To limit ils content to a single and initial stage would mean impoverishing Marxism and converting it into a scheme irrelevant to practice.
Objectively, the idea of a "return to the origins" undermines the cornerstone of the foundation of the Marxist world view, which is its organic conned ion with the practice of the revolutionary movement. It converts Marxism into something like a reformist-type bourgeois-liberal doctrine.
Indeed, what would a ``return'' to 19th-century Marxism signify today? It would be an admission that Marxism has 22 not developed in the 20th century, and that it has missed an entire epoch of revolutionary bailies, an epoch of creative effort, which has resulted in (he emergence of the existing socialist society. Let us imagine what would be left of Marxism, if it had actually remained on the sidelines of the turbulent revolutionary practice of the 20th century. Would I hat not confirm the inventions of the critics of Marxism, who represent it as a great social utopia? That is exactly what the adversaries of Marxism want it to be. Instead of a militant revolutionary doctrine for changing the world, they would like to see it turned into an abstractphilosophical, Utopian doctrine.
To remove Leninism from Marxism would literally amount to depriving the latter of its life, because Leninism is a direct continuation of Marxism. It is Marxism of the contemporary epoch, transforming the world and itself developing through a generalisation of revolutionary experience.
Let us note, by the way, that the "return to the origins" is, as a rule, used to kill the ideas of Marxism-Leninism which express ils revolutionary substance. Those who seek to do so do riot have much use for logic. Thus, they connect Leninism with the idea of proletarian dictatorship and assert that this idea reflects the conditions in the underdeveloped countries. But the fact is that the idea of the proletariat's political domination was formulated at the very `` origins'' of Marxism, arid above all in the light of conditions in the West European countries.
Sometimes, the "Western tradition of Marxism" is linked with Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci, and the proponents of this view are not at all put out by the fact that neither Rosa Luxemburg, nor Antonio Gramsci ever laid claim to having created a special trend in Marxism. What is more, Gramsci emphasised his adherence to Leninism and connected his notions of the peculiarities of the class struggle and social revolution in the West European countries with Lenin's ideas. It was Lenin who kept reiterating at the congresses of the Comintern that it was not right literally to copy the experience of Bolshevism in the West European countries, where there was a different situation, a different social-class structure and a different balance of class forces. That is why these countries must have their own revolutionary strategy, although its basic principles would be similar to those of the Bolshevik's strategy. If 23 this peculiarity is to be designated as the "Western tradition of Marxism'', it turns out that this tradition will have to be traced from Lenin.
The "plurality of Marxisms" is a concept that is highly popular among the critics of Leninism, and it is also designed to deny the universality of Lenin's doctrine, which is, at best, treated as a version of Marx's legacy. In view of Marxism's tremendous influence in our day, even some of its opponents are not averse to using this influence for their own interests. They have tried to "suffocate Marxism in their embrace" by spelling it out in a way that totally distorts its meaning. Marxism has been and continues to be a coherent science reflecting the objective laws of social development; it has been and continues to be the integral ideology of the vanguard class of our epoch. As science and revolutionary ideology, Marxism-Leninism is one and indivisible, although it does require creative application in the various concrete-historical conditions.
This is why futile attempts have been made to represent Leninism as a rigid ideological scheme which does away with the diversity of social development. Let us recall that such oversimplifications by left-wing doctrinaires were subjected to criticism by Lenin, who ridiculed their schemes and predicted that each country would introduce its own specific elements into the socialist transformations of various 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.''~^^1^^
Leninism is the most profound and comprehensive presentation of the dialectics of the general and the particular in world history, which makes it possible to comprehend, from the standpoint of the vanguard class, the inexhaustible diversity of the world revolutionary process and the forms of the new, socialist society.
The subterfuges to which the critics of Leninism resort are countless. Even the outstanding features of Lenin's per- ( sonality are used to deny the universal significance of his doctrines. The idea is to create the impression that Leninism is unique and exceptional, a piece of sophistry in which _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Leuiu, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 70,
24 Lenin's personality is unjustifiably contrasted with the general uniformities of the contemporary epoch that are reflected in his activity and doctrine.Lenin was, indeed, a genius of theoretical thinking and political action of the 20th century, and his vigorous individuality has left an indelible mark on all the events in which he took part arid on the whole revolutionary history of our century. But Lenin's genius was expressed precisely in the fact that his doctrine and practical activity revealed with exceptional depth the uniformities of transition from capitalism to socialism. Therein lies the abiding international importance of Leninism. When studying Lenin's rich ideological and political legacy, one cannot help thinking that many of the revolutions of our century could have benefited from Lenin's brilliant thinking and political action; indeed, a great many failures and defeats could have been avoided, had these revolutions been led by political leaders of Lenin's stature.
Another tendency is to try to reduce Leninism to a method for evaluating reality, while stripping it of the right to provide a theoretical reflection of the fundamental features and uniformities of the contemporary epoch. Whether those who take this approach want to or not, they effectively deprive Leninism of its real content. One need merely ask this question: what would be the significance of a ``pure'' method without the theory? There is only one answer: such a method would be a verbal soap bubble. The strength of Lenin's method consists in the fact that within the framework of the coherent doctrine, it is connected with a theory which shows the uniformities of the present epoch. That is why the method is capable of providing revolutionaries with points of support in analysing present-day realities and creatively elaborating and applying the strategy and tactics of revolutionary struggle.
Another favourite method used by the opponents of Leninism is to try to canonise Lenin's doctrine and to reduce it to a sot of quotations from his writings. This artificially deadens the doctrine and robs it of dialectics, which is the living soul of Marxism. Such a doctrinaire distortion of the substance of Leninism cuts across its creative spirit. Lenin never regarded the Marxist theory as being consummate, believing lhat it is constantly enriched witli the practice of revolutionary development. Theory, he said, "is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection 25 with Ilio practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement".^^1^^
Leninism is not the past: it is the present and the future. "Leninism is the theory of the revolutionary renovation of the world. Relying on materialist dialectics, on a system of fundamental principles that have been tested in practice many times, Lenin's theory continues to live and to develop, reflecting all new processes and phenomena, and new twists of history.''~^^2^^
As the scientific ideology of the working class and all the oilier working people, Leninism cannot be considered nowadays outside the context of the large-scale creative theoretical work being carried on by the CPSU and the other Marxist-Leninist parlies. The generalisation of the practice of the revolutionary transformation of the world in the present conditions in the documents of the CPSU arid the other Marxist-Leninist parties has raised Leninism to a higher stage.
Even more refined methods are used to minimise Unimportance of Leninism for our day. Some say that the expansion of the socio-political forces involved in the contemporary revolutionary process allegedly makes it necessary lo go beyond the framework of Leninism and to combine it with other trends of social work. Marxism-Leninism theoretically sums up the revolutionary experience of the international working class. This class approach, which some find to be too ``narrow'', gives the Marxist-Leninist theory great scope and makes it scientific, because the vital interests of the working class are most eminently in accord with the advance of history, so that its experience provides the greatest potentialities for producing a scientific explanation of the revolutionary process.
Marxism-Leninism has been developing in acute ideological struggle against bourgeois and revisionist theoretical conceptions: such is the law of ideological development in the class society, where social phenomena are inevitably assessed from the class standpoint. But the Marxists do not take a purely negative attitude to non-Marxist progressive trends in social thinking. While polemicising with them and criticising their limitations, the Marxists seek to _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works. Vol. 31, p. 25.
^^2^^ Yuri Andropov, Selected Speeches and Articles, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1984, p. 211.
26 understand their meaning and their logic, and to respond from their own positions to the problems they formulate.Intricate processes of ideological ferment are under way in the modern world. Non-Marxist trends of socialist and dcniocralic social Ihinking come on the scene and acquire imporlance. The origins of these processes go back to the beginnings of Ihe radical revolutionary change effected not only in the material conditions of the society's being, but also in its spiritual and ideological life. Shifts in social consciousness within the non-proletarian strata of Ihe populalion tend lo occur under the influence of Marxist-- Leninist ideas and the practice of existing socialism, and these shifts need to he explained in Marxist terms.
History inexorably marches on. New generations regard the great revolutionary events of the past as legends. But they are not mere historical events: they are Ihe vibrant reality of our own day. They are alive in the communist and working-class movement, in the revolutionary liberation struggle, which has continued the endeavour of the Communists of Russia, who in 1917 solved the international problem of effecting a breakthrough in the world imperialist system, the breakthrough to a new civilisation. They are alive in the creative effort of the peoples of the countries of existing socialism. They are alive in Leninism, a creative and developing doctrine, which sums up the practice of world history.
Attempts to prognosticate mankind's future have been made in the numerous futurological conceptions of the West. There is no shortage of gloom-and-doom predictions for human civilisation, while some theories paint a radiant prospect. But they all have the common weakness of bourgeois futurology, which is that it is Utopian and clashes with the main historical trends of Ihe contemporary epoch. That is why such predictions are here today and gone tomorrow, leaving no marked trace. Leninism alone, as the ideology of the vanguard class of Ihe epoch---the international working class---relying on the dynamic experience of existing socialism, gives a scientific perspective of the revolutionary renewal of the world, of mankind's way into the future.
[27] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Two __ALPHA_LVL1__ DEMOCRACY, THE STATE,The concept of ``democracy'' is multi-tiered and so itfairly often used in different, senses. It usually means the political form of the state. In this sense, Lenin said that democracy is a phenomenon which will wither away together with the withering of the state. Sometimes, by democracy is meant the set of norms in social life, like equality, participation in the affairs of the society, freedom of choice, subordination of the minority to the majority, and so on. In oilier words, it is a set of norms underlying human relations which in one form or another will be preserved even in the; most developed communist society. In such a broad interpretation, democratic norms are frequently regarded as some kind of primeval, everlasting forms of human relations, so that the class content of democracy is ohscured. But the fact is lhat any democracy, any of its norms are historical and in a class society are always filled with a class content.
The social-class substance of democracy is also now and again obscured when the problems of the theory of socialist revolution are considered. For instance, some speak of a "democratic way to socialism'', contrasting it with the already triumphant socialist revolutions and accentuating the need to observe democratic rights and freedoms. What are the rights and freedoms these people have in mind? If they mean the rights and freedoms of monopoly capital to exploit the working class and the other working people---and such is the class substance of bourgeois democracy---these cannot be observed in the transition to socialism.
Let us ponder the relation of the concepts of `` democracy'' and ``revolution''. There have been no revolutions in history that did not encroach on the rights and freedoms of the ruling classes against which they were directed. At the same lime, democracy literally means popular power, and in this sense it is inseparable from social revolution, which brings broad masses of people into the arena of socio-political activity for direct and active participation in the revolutionary creation of new and progressive forms of 28 social development. Lenin remarked: "At no other time are the mass of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order, as at the time of revolution. At such times the people are capable of performing miracles, if judged by the limited, philisline yardstick of gradualist progress."~^^1^^
In bourgeois revolutions, the bourgeoisie has succeeded in limiting the political creativity of the masses, but in socialist revolutions such creativity is the fullest and most vivid expression of the popular power. That is why, in content, every socialist revolution is profoundly democratic. With such an approach, one could speak of various forms of revolution depending on the extent of the coercive measures applied with respect to the exploiter classes being overthrown. In the October Revolution, says Lenin, the working class was forced to exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat in its most severe form, something that would evidently not occur in subsequent revolutions. As the world revolutionary process in the various capitalist countries deepens, potentialities may arise for advancing to socialism in relatively soft and peaceful forms, without civil war and withoul depriving the former exploiters of their electoral rights.
For years, Marxist theoretical thinking on the basis of Lenin's legacy lias carried on a creative quest for the specific way of transition from capitalism to socialism in industrialised capitalist countries, and the main problem here is the attitude of the revolution to democracy and the state. In countries with a developed bourgeois-democratic system, this problem undoubtedly has a specific solution, which is that this system, the form of the political domination of monopoly capital, as it appears today, was shaped under the influence of the working-class and democratic movement.
That is why the working class can use some of the democratic institutions of the political system of the bourgeois society as bridgeheads in the struggle against the domination of big capital within the society itself. Success in this struggle depends on the balance of forces in the society and on the scope of the class struggle by the masses.
The founders of Marxism allowed that the balance of _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lonin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, p. 113.
29 forees could change in such a way that some elements of the hourgeois-domocratic system would start ``working'' against Hie bourgeoisie, so that it will want to have them abolished. That is precisely what Engels had in mind, when he said: "Shoot first, gentlemen of the bourgeoisie."^^1^^ Elaborating on this idea, Lenin wrote: "The irony of history has brought it about that the ruling classes of Germany . . . are now most unmistakably coming to a point when this legality, their legality, will have to be shattered---so that the domination of the bourgeoisie may be preserved.''^^2^^ In the struggle against this anti-democratic tendency, the working class, as the loader of the working people, has to take a stand in defence of democratic forms and institutions of the bourgeois society against attacks by right-wing reactionary pro-fascist forces.The struggle is carried on not only against the blatantly reactionary sections of the bourgeoisie. On every occasion, the pro-fascist forces rush into the political vacuum which takes shape in the capitalist countries in time of socio-- political crisis. But one must realise that that is not the only way of filling the vacuum. There is another way, and it is bourgeois-democratic reformism. That is the way along which the monopoly bourgeoisie tries to find a way out of the critical situation, by pursuing a more flexible social policy, a policy of concessions to sizable sections of the working people. The meaning of this kind of policy was characterised by Lenin when he wrote: "Reformism versus socialist revolution is the formula of the modern, ' advanced' educated bourgeoisie.''^^3^^ Without in any way minimising the fascist danger, one should also give equal attention to the bourgeois-reformist variant in filling the vacuum through the adoption of palliative decisions within the framework of the bourgeois society's democracy. Such decisions do not, of course, rid capitalism of its contradictions, but they do give it an opportunity of pulling out of the sharpest situations of crisis.
Whether a country pulls out from a socio-political crisis the revolutionary or the reformist way depends on the scope and depth of the class struggle carried on by the working class and its allies, and on their readiness and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx, Friodricli Engels, Werl-e, Dielz Vorlag, Berlin, Bd. 22, S. 251.
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, p. 310.
^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 17, p. 229.
30 capability of changing the class content of democracy.The working class has a stake in developing democratic political institutions, rights and norms as it carries out radical social transformations. But there must be a clear-cut demarcation between the form and content of democracy. However developed the form of democracy and whatever the opportunities it holds out to the working class, it is through this form that the bourgeoisie realises its political domination.
Unless the economic roots of monopoly capital's domination have been clipped, it will adapt itself to any form of democracy and find ways of bending it to its own interests. "In general, political democracy is merely one of the possible forms of superstructure above capitalism (although it is theoretically the normal one for `pure' capitalism). The facts show that both capitalism and imperialism develop within the framework of any political form and subordinate them all."~^^1^^ In the capitalist society, democracy is a political superstructure over the system of the basis relations of the capitalist property and exploitation. This state of things can be altered only by revolutionary intervention in these basis relations and their radical transformation. That is the purpose for which the working class needs to hold the instruments of power.
The prospect of continuity in the development of democracy cannot obscure the problem facing the socialist revolution, which is to change the class content of democracy, and this requires radical transformations within the system of the organs of state power and a break-up of the ramified bourgeois state-machine used to keep down the masses.
There is a deep internal contradiction within democracy under capitalism. On the one hand, it is a form of the bourgeoisie's political domination; on the other, it enables the working class to fight for its interests and objectives in an atmosphere of legality and with (lie use of the rights and freedoms it has won. The bourgeoisie seeks to whittle down these potentialities to the utmost, but, given a favourable balance of forces, the working class is capable of starting a drive to invest democratic rights and freedoms with real significance and to use them to curb the power of monopoly capital. This struggle does not in itself contain any socialist elements, but it involves broad masses of working people _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 326.
31 in politics, shows them the class substance of the bourgeois stale and convinces them of the need for ever deeper social transformations. "To develop democracy to the utmost, to find the forms for this development, to test them by practice, and so forth, all this is one of the component tasks of the struggle for the social revolution. Taken separately, no kind of democracy will bring socialism. But in actual life democracy will never be 'taken separately'; it will be 'taken together' with other things, it will exert its influence on economic life as well, it will stimulate its transformation; and in its turn it will be influenced by economic development, and so on.''~^^1^^Despite its bourgeois class content and limitations, democracy under capitalism ultimately results from struggle by the masses. But for the people, who have to be reckoned with, capital would intrinsically prefer an overt despotic dictatorship. That is why at every step, the monopolies' domination inevitably runs into contradiction with the norms and principles of bourgeois democracy itself, whereas the working class acts as the chief champion of democracy, for consistently developing and deepening it, and for carrying on a revolutionary offensive against the system of state-monopoly domination, which is essentially undemocratic. In defending the democratic rights won by the people against encroachments by reaction and acting for their practical implementation and spread to new spheres of social relations, the working-class party rallies all the strata of the people in an anti-monopoly coalition. This turns the working class into the herald of the whole nation's interests and opens up before it the prospect of taking power and carrying out socialist transformations in a nation-wide revolution against the anti-people's dictatorship of monopoly capital.
At the same time, the contradictory nature of bourgeois democracy now tends to pose; complicated problems before the working class, the Communists and all the other democratic forces. While making use of the opportunities for entering the system of bourgeois-democratic institutions--- parliament, local organs of power, municipalities, and even governments---the Communists are confronted with a problem that has not been solved either theoretically or practically: on the one hand, they represent the interests of the _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, pp. 457--58.
32 working class and the other working people, and on the other, they are forced to abide by the "rules of the game" of the whole political superstructure, which functions in accordance with the laws determined by the logic of the capitalist society's development that tend to conflict with the interests of the working class and its socialist objectives. The result is a tangible danger that involvement in the system of bourgeois-democratic institutions could lead to a loss of revolutionary perspective and generate a tendency of integrating with the system.That is precisely what bourgeois and reformist theorists want the working class to do, claiming that the contemporary capitalist state has ceased to be an instrument of the ruling class. They keep attacking the Marxist-Leninist theory of the state as an "instrumentalist conception'', and declare the bourgeois state to be a ``condensation'' of social relations allegedly reflecting the real balance of forces in the society and, accordingly, the interests of all its classes and social strata. That is essentially a petty-bourgeois notion embodying the philistine belief that the state is able to remedy all the social ills.
Elaborating on this idea, these theorists assert that up to now the socialist revolution has had to deal with a capitalist state that was opposed to the society as a whole, which is why there was a need to break it up from outside. But in the Western society, the state has allegedly coalesced with the civil society and rests on an intricate system of social alliances and spiritual and ideological relations. That is why there is no point in "breaking up" the state-machine, because it allows the working class to win power "from within" the state.
It would be unhistorical to deny the differences between the stale which the revolution had to deal with in Russia, and the contemporary capitalist state. It is obvious that because of these differences the strategy for winning power must be different, but it is not right to lose sight of the general element which constitutes the substance of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary strategy.
It would be unhistorical to fail to see the changes undergone by the capitalist state: the balance of forces within the contemporary capitalist society has left its mark on it. The growing political weight of the working class and the other democratic forces to some extent limits the statemachine's freedom of action for the benefit of big capital. __PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3--01528 33 The influence of the working class and its allies within some seel ions of I lie bourgeois slate system has become much stronger, and the aLlempls by the ruling elite to block this influence are confronted with a broad movement in defence of democratic rights and freedoms. Given an unstable political equilibrium, it is quite possible for the working class lo take important positions within state institutions even before a socialist revolution, enabling it to curb the power of the monopolies and to use these institutions to defend the working people's interests even within the framework of the capitalist system.
Quantitative and qualitative changes favourable to the working class are also under way among the functionaries of the state apparatus. The numerical growth of government officials and employees tends to deprive them of their erstwhile public-servant privileges, and there is a spread of opposition attitudes and views in their midst. None of these processes, of course, changes the class substance of the state, because rank-and-file government officials and employees virtually have no influence on the formulation of state policy. They are mere functionaries, have countless bonds with the ruling class and are captive to bourgeois views, notions and interests. The system of hierarchical relations, official procedures, posts and ranks, written and unwritten rules and regulations, and actual and imaginary privileges fetters the army of government officials and employees and chains them to the monopoly bourgeoisie, which effectively lays down the domestic and foreign policy of the state with the help of the senior civil servants, whose mentality and life-style are bourgeois.
Still, hotbeds of discontent tend to take shape even within the state system, and the monopoly, bourgeoisie finds it ever harder to safeguard this "holy of holies" of its political domination from attacks by the revolutionary forces.
That is so. But the working class and its allies do not win bridgeheads within the state sphere in order to collaborate with the bourgeoisie or to establish a class peace. They seek to extend the front of the class struggle by combining offensive mass action against the power of the monopolies "from below" with action "from above'', on the part of units of the state system to which the influence of the democratic forces is spreading. But this influence does not at all prove thai the bourgeois state stands over and above class. On the contrary, the more persevering the 34 aclion by ihe representatives of the working class within slate bodies in formulating the demands of the masses, the more obvious il is that the bourgeois state-machine is unfit for consistently fulfilling Ihe pressing democratic tasks. After all in class substance this machine is geared, both in function and structure, lo defending the interests of big capital. As ihe bourgeois state evolves, there is not only an increase in the democratic forces' influence on it, but also ils flexible adaptalion to every new situation, as a result of which the syslem of slate-monopoly domination has become more complex, more mediated and more refined.
The syslem of poiilical lies and relations, the system in which poiilical power funclions in Ihe capitalist society has become much more complicated, with the emergence of new features in the interaction of the state and the society, in realising the political domination of monopoly capital, which means also the modes in which the working class and its democratic allies have lo carry on their struggle lor political power.
There is also a distorted reflection in bourgeois theoretical thinking of Ihe changes in Ihe relations between the stale and the society. The conservatives see these changes as a case for a strong state, while the liberals hold forth about a merger of the slale and the society as offering ever broader opportunities for public control over the activity of Ihe state without any radical restructuring of the existing socio-economic relations. Anarchist-minded theorists propound Utopian schemes for cultivating some kind of a new syslem of free social relalions outside the framework of slale control and inlerference.
In acluai fact, Ihese changes have given the contemporary bourgeois slale, which remains a political superstruclure of Ihe capilalisl sociely, a deep and ramified root system in various spheres of public life. Together with the economis basis, the slale creales for itself additional artiiicial props in the social, spiritual and ideological spheres.
The concrete forms of capilai's political domination naturally differ from one capilalisl counlry lo another. Indeed, there is evidence of two opposite trends in this arena: a liberal-rei'ormisl Irend and a conservative-totalitarian trend which stem from the sharp internal contradictions in the social substance of Ihe capitalist slate itself.
On Ihe one hand, state-monopoly regulation and the __PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 policy of bourgeois and social-democratic reformism connected with it help to strengthen the positions of capitalism to some extent, but lend to carry it much too close to that dangerous line beyond which the pressing need for a revolutionary transformation of the society and transition to socialism more or less clearly stand out. Hence the urge on the part of the most reactionary section of the monopoly bourgeoisie to return to blatantly totalitarian methods of domination.
On the other hand, the balance of class forces in the capitalist society is now such that capital cannot retain its domination by totalitarian methods alone. This cannot be done without relatively broad social support which is built up by means of the bourgeois state's reformist social policy and the large-scale ideological activity which is based on it and which is designed lo cultivate a conformist consciousness within the working-class and democratic movement. It is this line of development that is undermined by the policy of imperialist reaction, as conducted in Britain by the Conservatives, or in the United Slates by the present US administration.
What then is the way oul of the contradictions faced by the bourgeois stale? There is, in fact, no way out. There are only palliatives resulting from swings from Ihe more rigid conservative policy to the more flexible reformist policy, and back again. Some bourgeois economists already suggest a revival of Keynesianism at a higher twist in the development spiral of stale-monopoly capilalism.
While Ihe concrete forms of monopoly capital's political domination differ widely from country to country, some general features, which are typical for present-day conditions could be brought out.
Among the main ones is the urge of the slate-monopoly elite lo consolidate ils hegemony in Ihe slate by crealing what could be called a secondary system of alliances which do not coincide with the class division of Ihe socioly.
Il would seem that under the existing class slruclure, the social base of slate-monopoly domination in the capitalist society should have been rapidly eroded by the deepening polarisation of its social-class forces. This polarisation stems from the antithetical intcresls of the state-- monopoly elite and Ihose of the vast majority of the people and its constituent social slrala. The slate-monopoly elite embodies Ihe power of big capilal and seeks to spread ils 36 undivided control over every sphere of social relations, ranging from the economy to spirilual lift;. This Irend inevilably engenders a counter-lrend which is directed against the total power of monopoly capital.
In the contemporary capitalist society, there is virtually not a single mass social group, including the working class and the ``old'' and ``new'' middle strata that do not, in one form or another feel the heavy burden of the state-- monopoly system of polilical dominalion. The deep contradiction belween that system and the vital inleresls of Ihe bulk of Ihe people is closely interlaced with the contradiction between labour and capilal, which is inlrinsic to capitalism. It is the sharp aggravation of these contradiclions that determines the polarisation of social forces in the political development of Ihe capilalisl socioly.
It is quite nalural to ask the following question: why is it that, despite the sharpening of these deep contradictions and the polarisalion of social forces which they stimulate, the slate-monopoly system of dominalion conlinues to exist and funclion? The facl is that the polarisation of the social forces on the social-class level, to say nolhing of the political level, is not a one-way process automatically stemming from the fundamental opposilion of Ihese forces' social interests. This polarisation is a trend which is determined by the opposition of interests, but which has to make headway through an intricate and contradictory system of olher processes that tend to hamper or slur the polarisation. In the contemporary capitalisl sociely there is, in particular, an intensive process of social differentiation producing fairly deep differences within the make-up of classes and social strata which are objectively ranged against the state-monopoly elite. The popular majority is itself most heterogeneous, a state thai tends to become more pronounced, instead of abating.
The differentiation is well exemplified by the working class, the chief social force opposed to monopoly domination. Let us bear in mind that the working class is not homogeneous, and the differentiation within its ranks is markedly intensified under present-day state-monopoly capitalism. Together with the industrial working class, there is an intensive growth of (lie ``peripheral'' slrala of Ihe working class connected above all with the sphere of Ihe services. These have their own specific interests, which are more liable to the influence by the petty-bourgeois ideology 37 and mentality. Now contingents of the working class have also emerged at the interface with the middle strata of the society that have been growing rapidly under the scientific and technical revolution, which is why it is hard to draw a clear-cut line of demarcation between these contingents of the working class and some sections of the scientific and technical intelligentsia directly engaged in the sphere of material production. Both in terms of objective status within the system of social production, and in relation to the means of production, a sizable part of this intelligentsia differs little, if at all, from the working class. Now and again these differences tend to shift into the subjective sphere of values, judgements, views, mental attitudes, etc.
The differentiation also tends to involve the middle strata of the society: alongside the traditional middle strata, which are petty-bourgeois in status---traders, shopkeepers, owners of small enterprises, etc.---there is a growth of new middle strata connected with scientific and technical progress--- various layers of the scientific and technical intelligentsia, persons doing other than manual labour, and office workers. They have their own approach to the surrounding reality, their own value judgements, their own mentality and specific interests.
The differentiation of the working class and the middle strata, and the differences in their views, positions and interests enable the state-monopoly elite to some extent to blunt the sharp edge of the fundamental contradiction between its interests and those of the democratic majority of the people. By means of its reformist social policy and inflated apparatus of ideological influence, the monopoly bourgeoisie manages to win over a section of the strata of the population that are objectively opposed to it, and on that basis to create a system of social-class alliances as props for its domination. This superimposes on the class structure of the capitalist society something like a matrix of secondary socio-political structures artificially cultivated by the ruling class.
The distinctive feature of the contemporary bourgeois state is that it has deeper roots within the social-class structure and rests on a system of social alliances knocked together by the monopoly bourgeoisie, on a system of social-class compromises effected by means of reformist policy and the manipulation of llie consciousness of sizable sections of the population by means of the ideological 38 machine. As a result illusions about the contemporary bourgeois stale being over and above class are rooted in the minds of a definite section of the population. These illusions are kept alive and the political domination of the monopoly bourgeoisie ensured by a well-adjusted mechanism of the means of spiritual production.
Such a ``unity'' of the stale and the civil society helps to preserve and consolidate the power of monopoly capital. The state, a political superstructure over the capitalist basis, is alienated from the society more than ever before and towers about it. From the standpoint of class content, there is no evidence here of the state coalescing with the society. That is why the illusions that the working class can win power only from ``within'' the slate, and exclusively within the framework of bourgeois-democratic forms and instilulions are allogelher unfounded.
Can one expect the bureaucratic machine of the contemporary capilalisl stale to become an inslrumenl of socialist transformations? That would require a radical change in its functions and objectives, its structure and make-up. But those are precisely the qualilalive changes that constitute the gist of the break-up of Ihe bourgeois state-machine, and they require that the full plenlilnde of power should pass lo Ihe working class. They cannol take place smoothly, because they are bound to arouse fierce resistance from Ihoso in power. Praclice shows lhat the ruling class will resort to all the available means in order to preserve the instruments of its power: fraud, subterfuge, polilical manoeuvring and outright suppression of the masses with the help of the police and the army. That is why the bourgeois state-machine can be abolished and replaced by a socialist-type state only through revolution.
The form of abolition depends on the concrete historical conditions and on the balance of class forces. In Russia, where the revolution made the first broach in the citadel of imperialism and where the class struggle was, for that reason, especially bitter, this process ran a sharp and tempestuous course. Within a short lime, the old system of stale institutions and organisations was completely replaced by a new system, the Soviets. Things look a different turn in the countries of Eastern and Southeastern Europe after Ihe Second World War, when socialism was already an existing reality, a fact which had an effect on the balance of social-class forces in those countries. In the course of 39 these revolutions, the organs of coercion of the old state were liquidated, and many stale forms, purged of bourgeois limitations, were filled with a new class content and were made a part of the system of state power, the system of socialist democracy, undergoing profound qualitative changes in the process.
With the growth of state-monopoly capitalism, the bourgeois state's functions of economic regulation are extended, which means an increase in the share of the agencies and institutions performing these fuctions. They are an organic part of the bourgeois state apparatus. This results, on the one hand, in a growth of the forms and institutions of state power which do not have to be broken up, but need to be subordinated to the proletarian power and broadened, so as to become institutions of the whole people and to be included within the system of socialist democracy, thereby facilitating the fulfilment of the tasks of socialist construction. On the other hand, for that reason the dismantling of the old state-machine tends to become a matter of greater complexity, since the elements of state power useful for the working people are imbedded in the state organism. They cannot be cut off from the elements which need to be broken up. This calls for filigree work and much political skill, so as to balance out the destructive and constructive tasks of the revolution, carefully handling the democratic gains and rights which the working people acquired under the capitalist system.
But whatever the peculiarities of the methods used in breaking up the bourgeois state-machine, and however specific the forms in which this is done, the act itself is a necessary attribute of the socialist revolution.
Is it right, therefore, for the working class and its revolutionary vanguard to seek to win and use bridgeheads within the existing bourgeois-democratic state system? The Leftists insist that it is not right to do so, because the bourgeois state has powerful means of either integrating the opposition forces or crushing them. Could anything be more in the interests of big capital than this anarchistic call to abandon the field of battle and leave politics to the bourgeoisie?
By contrast, the Marxists advocate the establishment of bridgeheads within the bourgeois state system, but care must be taken to prevent this from becoming an end in itself. Such action must be tied in with the perspective of 40 the socialist revolution. Revolutionary policy is always aimed at using any opportunities for action, for struggle. In this sense, democratic goals are a necessary bridgehead in the proletariat's class struggle. "Not lo neglect a single opportunity, however slight, for open activity, for open action, for widening the base of the movement, continually enlisting new sections of the proletariat, using every weak point in the capitalist position for launching an attack and winning some improvement in daily life---and at the same time permeating all these activities with the spirit of revolutionary struggle, explaining at every step and turn in the movement the full substance of the objectives.''~^^1^^
Consequently, the need to use the institutions and forms of the bourgeois-democratic system springs from the principles of revolutionary policy, but the way they are used should always be related to the stage of the revolutionary process. The gravest errors can result from a confusion of stages in this matter. There are also many stages in the relatively long perspective of the peaceful transition to socialism. At the earlier stages, the minimum programme for democratic transformations is carried out to pave the way for radical changes in the relations of property and power. Some of the more important stages are connected with major shifts in the balance of forces and, accordingly, with qualitative changes both in the property relations and in the power relations which bring the society close to the need for social transformations. Finally, there are the stages of the socialist revolution itself, and it always represents broader popular power, the broadest mass democracy which inherits all the valuable elements acquired at the preceding stages of democratic struggle, but which does not stop at that point, and goes on to create real guarantees of democratic development for all.
The altitude of tin- working class to the institutions and norms of democracy in a capitalist society naturally to a great exlent depends on I he stage of the revolutionary process. The question is whether or not to adopt these institutions and norms, and I here is no answer to it outside the context of the concrete historical situation.
So long as they have to act within the framework of bourgeois democracy, the Communists quite naturally abide by (he norms of that democracy. When Bolsheviks in _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Loniii, Collected Works, Vol. 16, p. 170.
41 Russia were elected deputies to the Stale Duma (parliament), Iliey acled within it in accordance with its rules and procedures. When Communists are elected to parliament or municipal councils, or take part in the government in capitalist countries, they act within the framework of the state structures of the capitalist society, and so have to reckon with the rules and norms inherent in these structures. No one, except anarchists, will object to this kind of political behaviour.Bourgeois-reformist and social-democratic forces frequently want to push the Communists into integrating with the existing system, which is why it is important for the Communists to refrain from such integration, while actively using the instruments of power for the benefit of the working class. This is a contradiction of the existing reality, of capitalism's political development in a situation in which I lie balance of forces has changed in favour of the working class. The communists' participation not only in government but also in the whole activity of state institutions should be aimed to mount a broad offensive against the power of capital. Of course, if they are taking part in a non-socialist government, they cannot do so without observing the established rules of bourgeois democracy, but even then the Communists should seek to muster forces to establish norms of democracy meeting the interests of the working class and serving to mobilise the masses for deep and revolutionary transformations.
The Marxist-Leninist theory of the state rejects the idea advocated by bourgeois and reformist ideologists that transition to socialism can be effected according to the rules laid down by bourgeois democracy. They claim that bourgeois democracy is a ``pluralistic'' one, which is why it helps to bring out the will of the masses and their readiness to accept socialist transformations.
Indeed, why should not the people's will for fundamental social change be determined by means of the democratic forms existing under capitalism, through referendums and polls? And that is the crux of the matter. No social revolution can be effected by means of a general election, however important this method of bringing out the will of the majority may be. Social revolution is the culmination of the class struggle in the society, and it is a struggle that has its own objective logic. Sooner or later, the working people's interests clash with the class content of 42 bourgeois democracy and require not just an enlargement of its framework, hut action beyond the limits of the established norms and a change in the social-class substance of democracy itself. Indeed, the ruling class itself tends to abide by the democratic norms and procedures only so long as its political hegemony is not in question.
The people's will, the will of the majority is brought out through the activity of the masses, notably the working class, which represents the vital interests of all the working people. Of course, election returns are an essential factor in determining the trends in the development of the consciousness and mood of the masses. An election, says Engels, "allowed us to count our numbers ... it, accurately informed us concerning our own strength and that of all hostile parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion for our actions second to none, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness''.~^^1^^ But under bourgeois democracy, elections cannot serve as the sole indicator of the people's will. A formal poll frequently gives preference to the ``conservatives'' who fear innovation and change generally. This is true even with respect to partial reforms, and it is even truer of radical revolutionary transformations. The role of the party of the vanguard class, of the revolutionary vanguard, which takes action in the light of scientific principles, consists precisely in that, while making use of the various means and not only voting alone, or even a formal public opinion poll, it strives lo bring out the will of the majorilv and fonnnlales its policy accordingly.
The mechanism by means of which the people's will is brought out and shaped is much more intricate than election returns. These must be viewed in a complex with other indicators characterising the positions of the vanguard forces of the society, the trends of economic and political development, international factors, and so on.
Two examples from the history of the CPSU are indicative in this respect.
The first relates to the period after the victory of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia in 1917. At that time, many people, including some Bolsheviks, were wrong in deciding what the people's will meant. Many believed that it was still too early to look to a socialist _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Kngcls, Selected Works in three volumes, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976, Vol. 1, pp. 195--96.
43 revolution. However, Lenin gave a precise definition of the main trend in the regrouping of the mass political forces of the revolution and proposed the line of preparing for a socialist revolution.The other example is taken from the struggle carried on by Lenin and the Bolsheviks against the dcfence-of-- thecountry idea during Ihe imperialist world war. At that time, sizable strata of the people were swayed by their emotions as the bourgeoisie and the social-chauvinists spread the idea of defending the country. The Bolsheviks looked to the vanguard section of the working class and were alone in advocating the principled approach of having the tsarist government defeated in the imperialist war. They swam against the defend-the-country tide, and they turned out to be right. It was not the petty-bourgeois parties, which were infected with social-chauvinism, but the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, who most fully expressed the people's will.
The concept of ``pluralism'' by means of which bourgeois ideologists and reformists intend to bring out the will of the people is untenable because they abstract it both from the stages of the revolutionary process and from the substance of the social system, operating witli everlasting categories that are irrelevant to space and time.
The term ``pluralism'' is itself highly vague and indefinite, for it can be used to suggest totally different things. Socialist democracy reckons with the interests, requirements, views and notions of various strata and groups of the population and accumulates them. In the socialist countries, both those which have a one-party and those which have a multi-party system, there is a flexible political mechanism which is being perfected to express and coordinate the diverse interests of every stratum of the population.
If by ``pluralism'' is meant freedom of action for opposition forces, it is not right to apply this notion to a socialist society that has already taken shape. There has never been, and there can never be, a revolution that has not been confronted with resistance from the opposition. A revolution must be able to defend itself. That is why in the process of their development, revolutions have always---and inevitably---produced rules and laws limiting the activity of hostile forces. When the forces hostile to socialism violate the new socialist legality, which is taking shape, they force the new power to resort to political limitations as well.
44It is methodologically wrong to abstract oneself from an analysis of the substantive aspect of this process and to consider the problem only from the standpoint of form, proceeding from the abstract principle of compensation: you allowed us to act as the opposition within the framework of bourgeois democracy, and so we shall also allow you act in such a capacity under socialist democracy. There is a definite logic in the class struggle which makes the adversaries of revolution inevitably violate the rules which the revolution lays down to safeguard its gains. It is important to bear in mind this point of content when considering the problem of continuity of forms.
It is quite another matter when some actual theoretical problems requiring a Marxist comprehension will be found behind the far-fetched conceptions of ``pluralism''. Let us recall that in many capitalist countries it is not only the Communists, but also other democratic parties commanding influence in the masses that advocate fundamental social transformations. This raises the question of mutual relations and cooperation between parties in the transition to socialism and in the socialist society itself. This problem has already been tackled in certain forms in some of the socialist countries where multi-party systems have evolved.
Other peculiarities in the formation of multi-party political systems of the transition-to-socialism type will perhaps also be found in the peaceful and more or less gradual transition to socialism towards which the communist parties of the industrialised capitalist countries are oriented. One could well imagine that at the stages in which anti-- monopoly programmes for democratic transformations are implemented various parties taking a progressive stand will also alternate in power as their policies are tested in practice. It is quite probable that in some countries this principle will operate within the system of transition-type power, at the first stages of the approach and transition to socialism, and at the initial stage of the society's political and ideological consolidation. With the transition to socialism and the establishment of a socialist political superstructure, the principle of the alternation of parties in power becomes altogether meaningless. The political system is consolidated as a system of the working people's power. Under a multiparty system, this power is not realised through rivalry, but through cooperation among the friendly parties rallied round the Marxist-Leninist parly, the political vanguard of 45 the working class. A socialist society is the outcome of the class struggle through which the exploiter classes are eliminated, and the anti-socialist potential of parties in opposition to socialism is exhausted. Consequently, the very question oi' "power alternation" is removed from the agenda as the principles and rules of political life appropriate to socialism begin to operate.
The ''pluralistic model" of socialism exemplifies the confusion of stages in the revolutionary process. Features of the political system of the period of approach and transition to a socialist revolution are unjustifiably projected to the political system of the socialist society itself.
The use by the working class of forms, institutions and rules of the capitalist society's democracy paves the way for a revolutionary leap forward to socialism. But if it is to be executed, the society needs to be freed from the old power-structure, whose class substance must be changed, together with the substance of democracy and law. Assuming that a socialist revolution and transition to socialism can be effected within the framework of bourgeois democracy and the capitalist society's system of state and law, what is left of the revolution? The qualitative leap from one socio-economic system to another disappears, and the change boils down to a reformist adaptation to the existing system. A socialist revolution is not just a break with the capitalist economic system, but also with the capitalist political superstructure.
In terms of class content, the dividing line between bourgeois and socialist democracy cannot disappear under any conditions. Continuity in the development oi' some i'orms of democracy during transition from capitalism to socialism, which was already in evidence in the European socialist countries, does not obviate the need for a revolutionary leap involving the establishment of the power of (he working class, which means radical changes in the class substance of democracy.
Power born of the revolution always rests on the popular will as personified by the vanguard class. This fully applies to the socialist revolution, which is profoundly popular and democratic in content. Whatever its form, the socialist revolution is always authoritarian in its democracy. Forcing the overthrown classes to submit to the will of the vanguard class, which expresses the interests and will of the vast majority of the working people, it 46 estabiishes the socialist-type power, socialist democracy and law. The form of transition Iroin (lie political and juridical system asserting the will of the exploiters to a system asserting the will of the revolutionary class depends on the concrete historical conditions and the actual balance of class forces. It does not necessarily signily a complete break with the system of democratic norms and relations established under capitalism. Theory and practice show that it is possible to have a continuity under which democratic norms, institutions and I'orms are inherited by the state-organised proletariat, arc freed from the obstacles and impediments creeled by capital, and are developed ami included in the system of socialist democracy.
Two extremes need to be avoided when tackling this problem. The first is total rejection of the democratic I'orms won under capitalism, for this inevitably leads to Leftist, extremist and anarchist tendencies. The other extreme' is absolntising gradnalness and obliterating the crucial qualitative leap in the transition to socialism which is called revolution. This is a gradnalness which tends to dissolve the revolution. However gradual the transformations may be, whatever the extent to which the old institutions are used, there is always the crucial point beyond which power passes entirely into the hands of the working class and the content of all democracy is altered.
No transition to socialism, even a gradual one, can be conceived only within the framework of the state institutions of the capitalist society. Together with them, a revolutionary process always engenders various grass-roots political organisations of the masses outside the state system. Ihese organisations exert pressure---which is ultimately decisive---on the whole process of transition to socialism. Such organisations tend to emerge even in bourgeois; revolutions. One need merely recall the important role which the Jacobin clubs had to play in the French bourgeois revolution of 1789--179/1.
It is quite natural for grass-roots political organisations of the masses to emerge in socialist revolutions, which are profoundly popular in character and motive forces. Such organisations have arisen in all the socialist revolutions carried out up to now. In Russia, such were the Soviets, the creative product of the masses themselves. In the people's democratic revolutions, various forms of organisations of popular and natural fronts emerged as the grass-roots 47 political organisations, in Cuba, apart from the insurgent Army, committees in defence of the revolution emerged at iliu point of transition from llie democratic stage of the revolution to its socialist stage.
Tlie trend towards the formation of grass-roots political organisations also manifested itself in the course of the Chilean revolution, despite its incompleteness. Among them were popular unity committees, which fell apart after the installation of the Allendc Government, workers' teams, communal commandos and vigilance committees. None of these organisations were adequately developed, and some of them fell under the influence of Leftist forces, which pitled them against the Popular Unity Government. The destiny of the Chilean revolution could have been different, if the Left-wing forces had succeeded in setting up an integral network of grass-roots organisations and involving them in the activity of broad masses of people, so turning them into a bulwark of the Popular' Unity Government.
Grass-roots political organisations are the organs of the working people's political initiative and spontaneous activity as the architects of revolution. While keeping in touch with and leading them, the revolutionary vanguard acquired an inexhaustible source of the political force which is the main instrument of fundamental transformations.
The forms in which these grass-roots organisations mesh with the new system of power may differ with the conditions. The classical example of one is provided by the Soviet power. The old power was swept away, and on the basis of the grass-roots political organisations themselves--- the Soviets - altogether new slate institutions emerged. Under some forms, the new system of power is to a certain extent shaped with the use of the existing institutions. This was partially practised in a number of East European countries, and the scale of the process depends on the preponderance of forces in favour of the working class, and on its capacity to effect a break-up of the bourgeois state machine through a fundamental transformation of the existing institutions, which are filled with a new class content.
In that case, grass-roots political organisations may either be directly included within the system of organs of slate power set up by the working class and its allies, or may remain outside it (as the Jacobins did in the 1789--1794 revolution in France, or the popular front organisations in 48 the people's democratic revolutions), as the mass support of the new revolutionary power.
The main thing is that the emergence and activity of these organisations is an expression and indicator of the involvement of mass forces in the political revolutionary struggle. That is a necessary condition for settling the fundamental issue of the revolution: the issue of power.
There are ultimately only two approaches: it is either asserted that the power of the advanced class emerges as a result of a poll of the population within the framework of the rules and procedures of the juridical and political order existing in the capitalist society (such is the typical illusion of reformism), or it is accepted that this kind of power springs from the mass movement, as a result of a major shift in the balance of forces, a shift which is unprecedented and connected with a powerful upswing in the revolutionary movement. Revolution is always unusual. It is revolution that engenders a new power, and a new political superstructure. In any case, the revolutionary power springs from the people's initiative. It is the revolution itself, i.e., a fundamental break-up of the society's socio-economic and political structure.
That is the origin of socialist democracy, which differs qualitatively from bourgeois democracy not only in socialclass substance, but also in depth and consistency. The sphere of socialist democracy is very much wider than that of bourgeois democracy. It exemplifies the case in which the old quantity changes into a new quality. Under socialism, democracy signifies a basic transformation of the whole social environment in which men live and act. It gives the masses real guarantees not only of political but also of social rights.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4--01528 [49] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Three __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE ROLE OF THE SUBJECTIVEThe formal ion and development, of socialism is now the high road of history. Socialism has become not only an imperative of humanity's progress, hut also its leading material and spiritual propellanl. The struggle for socialism is now involving social forces which in the past had no inkling of socialist goals or ideals. These forces' activity and struggle are a manifestation of the creative power of the subjective factor in the socialist transformation of the society.
If one is to sort out the checkered pattern of social and political forces, to understand the role and potentialities of each, and to find the ways for uniting and coordinating their actions in the struggle against imperialism and reaction, one must have an understanding of the content of the subjective factor of the socialist revolution and of the logic of its development.
There is a fairly wide range of views concerning the concept of "subjective factor of social development'', but reason and will are, as a rule, usually listed as the two necessary components.
There is no doubt that consciousness and aclivcnoss are necessary attributes of the quality of the subjective factor in social development.
In contrast to Utopian socialist conceptions, the theory of scientific socialism is based on the materialist view of history and emerged as a reflection of the actual conflict in the development of the capitalist mode of production between the social nature of production and the system of capitalist relations of production. Thus the very possibility of socialism derives from the objective requirements in the development of a society which has reached the stage of the capitalist socio-economic formation, when conditions take shape for the emergence and functioning of the subjective factor in the build-up and development of socialism.
What then are the indicators of the maturity of objective conditions for transition to socialism which also provide favourable soil for the development of Hie subjective factor of the socialist revolution?
50First, there is the gigantic socialisation of production, which evolves to a high level under stale-monopoly capitalism, and which converts all the sectors of the national economy into interconnected elements of the economic system. What is more, these interconnections run beyond the national framework, and Ibis is manifested in the processes of international economic integration. The economy increasingly evolves into an integrated economic complex. All of Ibis makes for the possibility and for the need of social regulation and control over the production and distribution of the social product.
Second, there is the majority of the objective conditions for social ism, which are manifested in the mounting internal contradictions of capitalism as a social system. As a result, despite capitalism's attempts to solve the problem by means of (he stale-monopoly regulation of production, the conflicts in its development are intensified and I lie prerequisites created for liquidating capitalism the revolutionary way. It is this material basis that ultimately makes the substitution of socialism for the capitalist socio-economic formation historically inevitable. The maturity of the objective conditions for transition to socialism becomes the objective factor of social progress which impels the forward-- looking social forces to light for socialism.
I low does the maturity of the objective conditions for transition to socialism generate the urge of mass social forces for change? To answer this question, one has to examine the mechanism by means of which the objective conditions influence the formation of the subjective factor, developing the consciousness, political activity and organisation of the advanced social forces and intensifying their readiness to fight for socialism.
Of key importance in the examination of this mechanism is the category of "social-class interests''. Whatever the ideological form in which class interests may he veiled, I hey are ultimately determined by the condition of each class or social group within the system of the relations of production. In this context, Engels says: "The economic relations of a given society present themselves in the first place as interests.''^^1^^ Interests arc the medium through _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx and Frederick fingois, Selected Works in throe volumes, Vol. 2, p. 363.
__PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 51which the connection is established between the social being oi' a class or social group and the development of their consciousness, ideology and socio-political activity.
Social-class interests conslilute something of a bridge between the objective and the subjective, and help to understand the relation between these categories in the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. Interest is, in general, one of the fundamental concepts of politics, because politics is always engendered by the interests of definite classes. Reflecting, as they do, the condition of a class or social group within the system of material relations of production, interests, for their part, exert a crucial influence on the development of consciousness, will and political activity, and determine the line and, consequently, the socio-historical activity of the social forces.
It is not right, therefore, to define the role of the subjective factor in the society's socialist transformation and its real potentialities without considering the objective social-class interests, that is, the interests of the classes and social groups carrying on the struggle for socialism.
That is the philosophical and methodological premise which enabled Marxism to show the world-wide historical mission of the working class. Its vital interests, determined by its status within the system of the relations of production in the capitalist society, require the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a new, socialist society. On the strength of the same premise, the MarxistLeninist theory has proved that the revolutionary party of the working class has a vanguard role, because, in a sense, it epitomises the consciousness and will of the working class, comprehends its historical experience and makes its struggle for socialism conscious and purposeful.
The subjective factor is, therefore, determined not only by the maturity of the objective economic prerequisites for the socialist transformation of a society, but also by the emergence and development of the social forces whose objective interests demand the advance to socialism. There should, of course, be no simplistic interpretation of the fundamental conclusion drawn by the theory of scientific socialism concerning the world-wide historical role of the working class in the struggle for socialism. It does reflect the general tendency towards the formation and development of the subjective factor of socialism, but that does not moan that the very existence of a working class in any given 52 country in itself makes it the decisive motive force of a socialist revolution. This general tendency makes headway through intricate contradictions in actual social life, in which there arc also contending (rends that hamper the working class in realising its mission. This point is clarified by Marx as follows: "It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do.''^^1^^ Under present-day capitalism, we find examples of such a discrepancy between the actual condition of the working-class movement and the rolo which the working class has to play. In some countries, it is under the dominant influence of reformist ideology and politics, and is inclined to conformist attitudes cultivated by the monopoly bourgeoisie by means of its strategy, which is designed to integrate the opposition forces with the capitalist system. However, the objective status of the working class under capitalism is such that it induces more and more of its members to go over to revolutionary, socialist positions.
\or does the conclusion concerning the world-wide historical role of the working class imply a denial of the potentialities and role of other social forces in the struggle for socialist objectives. The practice of the revolutionary movement shows that other strata of the working people can join the working class in fighting for socialism. The socialist system objectively meets the interests of the overwhelming majority of mankind, because it creates the most favourable conditions for the free development of all. Consequently, participation by social and political forces opposed to capitalism in the struggle for socialism is above all n matter of their comprehension, on the strength of their own experience, of the fact thai the objectives of socialism and its perspectives are in accord with their own objective interests. Their attitude to socialism ultimately depends on the extent of mankind's experience in transforming social relations on socialist lines. What matters, of course, is not only the growing number of countries taking the socialist way of development but also the perfection and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Kitrl Marx, Frederick Engols, Collected Works, Progress Publishers. Moscow, 1975. Vol. 4, p. 37.
53 development of existing socialism itself in every sphere ol social life. The more extensive and wide-ranging (his experience, the broader the social forces that are involved in conscious slruggle for socialism.To say that Ibis subjective factor of the socialist revolution is objectively determined by economic and social conditions does not at all amount lo saying thai Ihe altitude of all the social-class and political forces lo socialism is (hereby determined once and for all. There is never such a rigid connection between the condition of classes and social groups and their stand in politics. Indeed, the historical approach is a principle that fully applies to its evaluation.
One should hear in mind that the shifts in the positions of social forces with respect lo socialism have definite li mils which are determined by the material, economic and social conditions in which they live. Despite some cases of temporary ``deformities'', Ihe social experience of (he working class impels il lo join in revolutionary activity and carries it forward to the role of the most consistent and resolute fighter for socialism, which is what determines its special status among the other progressive social forces. That is why the political forces connected with Ihe revolutionary working-class movement are also enabled to advance lo vanguard positions in Ihe struggle for socialism. The social conditions and experience of Ihe other social forces opposed to the exploiter system and dissatisfied with the existing slate of things are contradictory, and Ibis is exemplified by the pelly bourgeoisie.
The petty bourgeois, says Marx, "is at one and Ihe same time bourgeois and man of Ihe people".~^^1^^ This contradictory status of the petty-bourgeois and middle strata of the society inevitably limits the potentialities for their participation in the slruggle for socialist transformations, even when changes in historical experience lend lo draw them into the slruggle for socialism. All of this emphasises tbe revolutionary role of the working class as the crucial force capable of Ihe most consistent and resolute slruggle for the socialist restructuring of the society. The working class is not identified among the other mass revolutionary forces in Ibis way for the purpose of asserting ils monopoly lo socialism or repelling the oilier forces from Ihe struggle for socialism _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 105.
54 but of helping to gain a clearer awareness of the fundamental tasks for the working class in establishing its leadership within the broad and steadily growing tide of diverse forces fighting for socialism.The leader-class and its political vanguard, the Communists, constitute the nucleus of a broad alliance of these forces. In Lenin's legacy we find a profound and allround development of the idea of the leadership of the working class, as opposed lo the a I tern pis lo equate all the socialclass forces involved in tbe struggle for socialist goals. Those who try to equate these forces ignore the objectively determined differences in their potentialities and try to work out some kind of averaged out vector of political strategy in the struggle for socialism. This kind of equalising approach lends to weaken Ihe most consislent revolutionary tendency in the alliance of Ihe anti-imperialist forces.
But it is also important to note that the idea of the proletarial's leadership does not signify an encroachment on the democratic principles and rules by which the various anti-imperialist forces should be guided in their relations with each other. An equalising approach to the subjective forces of socialism, and respect for the independence and uniqueness of each of them are not the same thing at all. The principle of democracy in the relations between the anti-imperialist forces was specifically emphasised in the final document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist, and Workers' Parlies, and reaffirmed in the documents of the 1976 Berlin Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties.
The inherent potentialities of the subjective factor in the struggle for socialism spring from the fact that, in contrast lo the development of nature, the development of the society is necessarily effected through the activity of human beings: classes, social groups, parlies and other subjects of Ihe historical process endowed with will and consciousness. All the changes in social life result from the creative efforts of social forces, although these forces are far from always clearly aware of the actual meaning and consequences of their acts.
Objective conditions do, undoubtedly, set definite limits to tbe activity of social forces. The noblest schemes and the boldest acts yield no results when the conditions for them are not ripe. The concrete historical environment mainly determines not only the line, but also the forms of 55 the social forces' historical activity. These are not limits of steel and reinforced concrete. They can be widened by the courage, will, dedication, enthusiasm and consciousness of the subjective forces of social progress. In any historical situation, there is a measure for realising the potential that tends to vary within definite limits. In revolutionary periods, when there is a sharp increase in the masses of people involved in politics, those limits are also widened. In such periods, both choice of way and speed and actual advance along it crucially depend on the direct contest between the forces of revolution and counter-revolution.
Nothing either occurs of itself or is fatally predetermined. At every turn of history, there is a multiple choice of alternatives which are realised through the social forces' struggle. Its ultimate outcome over the long historical perspective is determined by objective conditions and requirements, but in every concrete situation the outcome of the struggle cannot be determined in advance with absolute certainly. There is a clash of forces suggesting their own solutions for the pressing social problems. Which of these solutions gains the upper hand largely depends on the struggle of these forces and on the capacity and readiness of each to put through its own solution.
In its development, the subjective factor is relatively independent. It is only within the framework of the fundamental epistemological question, i.e., the question of what is definitive and primary in the historical process, that the subjective factor is antithetical to the objective factor as some kind of dependent system is antithetical to its substantive basis. As soon as one goes beyond the fundamental epistemological question as applied to the society, one instantly discovers that the dividing line between the objective and the subjective in historical development is a relative one, and that it is impossible to explain the laws of that development without the subjective factor. Indeed, the subjective factor is incorporated in the mechanism of the law as a necessary component.
For some years now, Marxists have debated the question of whether or not the subjective factor is included in the concept of revolutionary situation. This debate reflects the unity and interpenetration of the objective and the subjective in social development. To the extent that human brings themselves create their own history, everything in history is, to some extent, the product of the subjective factor. But 56 in Lenin's well-known defmilon of the characteristics of the revolutionary situation, this situation is examined within the framework of fundamental epistemological question: what is primary and definitive in the development of the revolutionary process? Having listed the characteristics of the revolutionary situation, Lenin adds: "Without these objective changes, which are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties, but even of individual classes, a revolution, as a general rule, is impossible. The totality of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation.''~^^1^^
Lenin's definition stresses that a revolution does not start at will, in accordance with some arbitrary subjective desire, but, in virtue of the operation of powerful factors setting the masses in motion. In this context, a revolutionary situation, as objective prime-cause, is absolutely antithetical to the subjective factor, which is secondary to it. But when we go beyond the framework of this basic system of coordinates, we discover right away that the limits between the objective and the subjective in the revolutionary process are relative and fluid. Their interconnection comes to the fore.
In the actual historical process, the objective and the subjective interpenetrate and frequently develop into each other. This dialectic was well reflected in the logic of concepts by Hegel, who said that it was "wrong to regard subjectivity and objectivity as some kind of rigid and abstract antithesis'', and that "subjectivity itself being dialectical, it breaks through its limits . . . and opens up in the objectivity".^^2^^ But Hegel's dialectic of the objective and the subjective is no more than guess work within his idealistic conception of the self-movement of the Absolute Idea. The actual historical process lays bare its inherently dialectical inversion of the objective and the subjective. This inversion is characteristic of revolutionary periods, in which the objective socio-economic contradictions are transformed into the revolutionary energy of mass action, while ideas, having gripped the minds of the masses, become a material force intruding into the objective process of the society's transformation.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. T. Lonin, Collected Works. Vol. 21, p. 214.
^^2^^ Georg Hegel, Werke in zwanzig B\"anden. 8. Knzi/I;lopfidip drr plnloaophischcn Wisscnschaften. 1. Theorie Wcr/causgabc, Sulirkamj) Vi-rlaK, Fnuikfurt am Main, 1970, S. 351, 345.
57In a revolutionary situation, the subjective factor becomes of crucial importance in realising the objective potentialities of a socialist revolution. Among the objective changes creating these potentialities, Lenin said, should be added the readiness of llic subjective factor, i.e., "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'~".^^1^^
Mill what happens if, by the time a revolutionary situation arises, the subjective factor has not yet reached the necessary level of maturity for tackling the revolutionary (ask set before it by social development? "In that case,'' Lenin said, "the society decays, and this process of decay sometimes drugs on for decades.''^^2^^ The development of capitalism in this epoch shows that even the most acute sociopolitical crises that it lias to face do not result in a spontaneous disintegration of the capitalist system. When the subjective factor of the revolution is weak, the ruling class find's ways and means of exiting from situations of crisis by using the repressive or adaptive mochanism provided by the stale-monopoly system of domination.
New social requirements stem from the objective conditions and prerequisites of transition to socialism, and these are variously perceived and comprehended by definite classes and social groups. But these requirements can be realised only through the activity of living social forces, which is why the subjective factor has such a great role to play in the socialist transformation of the society. The broad and constantly widening potentialities for transition to socialism cannot be realised apart from the subjective factor.
Lenin's ideological legacy contains an in-depth elaboration of the problem of the subjective factor in a socialist revolution. Hie adversaries of Leninism claim that Lenin's attention to clarifying the role of consciousness, will, organisation, revolutionary initiative and political activity of socio-political forces in a revolution means a repudiation of historical materialism and (he adoption of an attitude of ``voluntarism''. They assert that Lenin lost the Marxist, faith in the objective laws of history and switched the mission of effecting revolutionary changes to the subjective _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 214.
^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 308.
58 factor, to the proletariat's political party. There is, of course, not a grain of truth in these speculations. Lenin's entire conception of revolution is based on the consistent materialist Marxist world view. Lenin derived the need for a revolutionary transition to socialism from the objective conditions, from (lie maturity of the material, technical and social prerequisite? of the new system. He stressed that the socialisi transformation of (he society was possible "only on the condition lhal (he basic economic, social, cultural and political prerequisites for this have been created in a sufficient degree by capitalism".^^1^^Lenin deduced the necessity of socialist revolution from the objective logic of capitalist development, from Ihe growth of its internal contradictions which, ranging as they do over the sphere of social-class relations, create the soil on which the working class can carry out the socialist, revolution. Lenin's works contain a profound analysis of (he laws governing (ho development of imperialism, which carry the society to the point of radical change. "The extent to which monopoly capital has intensified all the contradictions of capitalism is generally known. It is sufficient to mention the high cost of living and the tyranny of the cartels. This intensification of contradictions constitutes the most powerful driving force of the transitional period of history, which began from the lime of Ihe final victory of world finance capital.''~^^2^^ Could anything more precise be said abonl the mainspring behind the ripening of the revolutionary process in the epoch of imperialism? Could the connection between Ibis process and the objective mechanism underlying the development of the capitalist mode of production be characterised more accurately and concisely? Those are the materialist positions from which Lenin resolutely opposed the simplistic petty-bourgeois conceptions of vulgar revolutionism that reduced the meaning of social revolution to the activity of small groups of revolutionaries carrying the truth to the people.
There are naturally some distinctions between Marx's and Lenin's approach lo the problem of Ihe relation between the objective and the subjective in the revolutionary process, but these do not affect the principles of Marxism. Marx and Lenin, both consistent materialists, analysed the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lnnin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p 71.
^^2^^ Ibid.. Vol. 22, p. 300.
59 natural-historical laws of the proletariat's social revolution. Marx and Lenin, both most consistent dialecticians, are well aware that the revolutionary process does not run some fatally predetermined course, but is creatively shaped by the multifaceted activity of the peoples, the working class and its allies, and is formed through political struggle, through the play of seething passions and ideological clashes. All of this makes for the tremendous role of the subjective factor, for the activity of the revolutionary class and its parly, and for the role of consciousness and initiative. But there is undoubtedly a difference of accent, and it is determined by the specific concrete problems which the founders of Marxism-Leninism had to solve.Marx had to work in the epoch of pre-monopoly capitalism, when the problem was to assert the fundamental ideas of the Marxist world view. His main task was to assert the materialist view of history. It is quite natural, therefore, that the accent made by Marx and Engels was to show the operation of Hie mechanism of social development as a natural-historical process proceeding in accordance with the objective laws. Lenin had to act in the epoch of imperialism, when the basic objective prerequisites for transition to a new socio-economic formation had fully malured. He was faced with a different historical task, that of mobilising the forces of the international working class for tackling the objectively mature task. It was quite natural for him to bring to the fore the problem of clarifying the role of the subjective factor in the historical process, the role of the revolutionary party as the bearer of socialist consciousness.
The ideologists of opportunism justified their political passiveness and unwillingness to join resolutely in open revolutionary struggle because the historical process was objectively determined, while Lenin set this forth as an argument emphasising the historical role of the working class and its revolutionary vanguard. Lenin saw the objective need for socialism as the need to bring to the fore the conscious activity of the revolutionary class and its political party.
As a dialectician, Lenin knew well that history does not run along a beaten path, but is a most complicated and multi-liered process propelled by the contest between actual- i ly existing social and political forces, classes and parlies. II- ' was just as harmful lo lake the passive, contemplative, 60 objectivist, attitude to this problem as to engage in subjectivist voluntarism. The working class Lends to be politically demobilised by the objectivist approach, which is expressed in this formula: the objective laws are on our side, so the case has already been won. With this approach, the transition to socialism looks like an advance along a straight line as a result of the automatic operation of some mechanism of objective laws. The role of the social forces is reduced to being the cogs and wheels of that mechanism, which lias no subjective creative spirit.
Meanwhile, the general crisis of capitalism carries it to the point of socialist revolution, which means that history confronts Ihe vanguard class and its party with a crucial choice. In these conditions, insufficiency of creative potential and inadequacy of consciousness and will, i. e., the immaturity of the subjective factor, results in missed opportunities, and enables the counter-revolutionary forces to effect reactionary or reformist alternatives, so pushing the society onto a protracted and zigzag course of development.
Thai is whal makes for the historical responsibility of Ihe progressive social forces, above all of the political vanguard, which expresses their interesls, in Ihe struggle to realise the pressing need for transition to socialism. Once the role of the immanent potentialities of the subjective forces of socialism is clarified, the revolutionary initiative and activily of these forces are developed in their conscious quest for correct theoretical and political decisions and unity in the struggle for common goals.
The formation and cohesion of these forces is an exceptionally difficult and contradictory process. After all, socialism is an endeavour of the vast majority of the people. The spectrum of the forces looking to the socialist transformation of the sociely is a broad and heterogeneous one, and the ways in which they come to realise the need for socialism also frequently tend not to coincide. The presentday reality shows imperialism's tremendous capacity to adapt itself lo Ihe changing condilions and to promote the integration into its own system of opposition forces which vacillate in conducting the revolutionary line of the vanguard class. All of this further emphasises the role and responsibility of the forward contingents of the fighters for socialism---the working class and its revolutionary political vanguard---in shaping broad class and political alliances capable of effecting fundamental social transformations.
61The subjective factor in socialist transformations may differ in Llie degree of maturity. Even spontaneous action by the working class was regarded by Lenin as " consciousness in an embryonic form . . , the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent".^^1^^ But spontaneous activity is much like a blind man's groping his way: it produces multiple results which sometimes conflict with the socialist objectives and hamper their attainment. That is why the degree of maturity o? the subjective factor and its effectiveness are directly proportional to the share in the class struggle of conscious activity in accordance with the uniformities of the socialist revolution.
The vanguard role of the working class among the other social forces involved in the struggle for socialism consists in forming a revolutionary party on the basis of the proletarian movement, a party making it purposeful. The conjunction of socialist consciousness with the workingclass movement invests Ihe working class with the role of vanguard fighter for socialism and the leader of all the other social forces involved in the struggle for socialism. The stability of the revolutionary line of the working-class movement depends on whether the working class does or does not have a revolutionary party, which consistently conducts I he revolutionary line of struggle. This gives the party an indispensable role in the revolutionary process.
Today, the role of the revolutionary party is a question of pressing importance. Contemporary capitalism is entangled in a web of economic, social and political contradictions, so that a revolutionary transition to socialism has objectively matured in every respect. The point is to have the revolutionary class make the right choice and consistently conduct a revolutionary line in all its policy. This way is indicated by the revolutionary parties of the working class, which is why they pose the greatest threat to the ideologists and political leaders of capitalism. For that reason, the revolutionary parties of the working class are the main target of direct and camouflaged political and ideological attacks, which have the far-reaching aim of getting these parties to accept social partnership or consensus.
The ultimate purpose of the adversaries of Leninism is to undermine the revolutionary party of the Leninist type. These attempts are dangerous not so much because the _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 374.
62 enemy is strong, as because the situations in which the communist parties have to act are extremely complicated. Contemporary capitalism has at its disposal effective and flexible political, social and ideological instruments for influencing the activity of the working class and its parties. It is especially difficult to neutralise these instruments when seeking ways for a peaceful transition to socialism, with its growing danger of falling into the reformist trap which the monopoly bourgeoisie cunningly sets up.One of the most acute problems of the subjective factor is the historical responsibility of the vanguard political forces where the internal objective conditions for transition to socialism have yet to ripen, for this creates exceptional difficulties in maintaining a stable socialist orientation over a long period. In these conditions, it is vitally important to establish international lies with socialist forces tackling more advanced tasks, to absorb all the international experience in socialist transformations, and to make creative use of its positive results in the light of specific national and historical conditions.
An even greater responsibility falls on the socialist forces which have already effected a breakthrough to socialism and are building the new society. The creative activity of Communists and all the other working people in the socialist-community countries helps lo translate into life the same ideals which are at issue in the struggle in other countries. One could say that they are blazing mankind's trail to the future.
The role of theoretical consciousness, of socialist theories is a question that needs to be specially examined. Theoretical consciousness is one of the key components of the subjective factor of socialism.
Theory has two functions in the social forces' political struggle. On the one hand, theory is of ideological significance as the generalised expression of the social interests of a given class or social group, and as the ideological substantiation of the political stand in defence of these interests. On the other hand, it has a cognitive role to play. Every class sets before its theorists the task of evaluating the historical situation and the trends in its development in order to determine the lines of its political activity. It goes without saying that these evalualions always have a class character, which means lhal they bear the imprint of subjective class views. The theoretical conceptions of 63 reactionary classes, whose interests run counter to the forward march of history, present a distorted picture of the social reality. But even then, if it is to be of any use, theory must to some extent reflect the objective social processes as well. The theoretical conceptions of progressive social forces with a stake in social progress present a fuller and deeper reflection of the objective processes of social development.
A contradiction between the ideological and the cognitive function of theory tends to arise to the extent to which social-class interests diverge from the course and prospects of historical development. Social-class interests ``force'' theorists to ``correct'' the actual picture of the reality in their conceptions. But such ``corrections'' tend to distort the picture of social life and the laws of its development.
A distinctive feature of the theory which expresses the interests of the working class is that its ideological and cognitive functions constitute a dialectical identity. The social interests of the working class, which wants to have a radical and consistent revolutionary solution to the problems of social progress, accord with the main tendencies of historical development in the contemporary epoch.
It is this fundamental feature of the theoretical consciousness of the working class which has enabled Marxism to carry out its revolution in the views on society. That is why ideological compromises or attempts to combine the theory of scientific socialism with petty-bourgeois socialist conceptions are intolerable. At the same time, this feature of the theory of the working class cannot in any sense provide a pretext for sectarian opposition of the vanguard class to other social forces, whose consciousness reflects the objective requirements of the transition to socialism in a one-sided, limited or distorted form.
The fact that the Communists are guided by the MarxistLeninist theory, which sums up the historical experience of the working class and most adequately reflects the laws of social development, certainly gives breadth and integrity of vision of the complicated problems of our day. But this again does not warrant any sectarian isolation or refusal to contact other democratic social and political forces or to engage in a dialogue with them. What is more, such a dialogue is made imperative by the theoretical comprehension of the diverse, unusual and exceptionally complicated historical experience of the contemporary epoch by the vanguard class.
64The composition of the social and political forces fighting for socialism has been unusually broadened under the influence of the tremendous achievements of socialism and the maturity of the material and social prerequisites for transition to the new social system. Deep changes are under way in the social consciousness of mass non-proletarian social strata and groups. Diverse non-Marxist theoretical conceptions also tend to crystallise within this broadening tide, and these frequently reflect, in one form or another, the actual problems in the struggle for socialism and the quest for their solution. Now and again, because of their specilic experience, some of the social forces which advocate these conceptions may he ahead of the others in probing the new problems or aspects of already well-known problems which had earlier escaped theoretical comprehension. Dialogue can help to comprehend this experience in the light of Marxism and may promote the quest I'or solutions to the new problems. Such an approach is in line with Lenin's warning: "Communists must not stew in their own juice."~^^1^^
But for all that the Communists keep their own identity and remain true to the principle of Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary working-class policy. The involvement of new forces in the struggle for socialism and the diversity of their experience and theoretical views do not mean that it is time to dissolve the principles of the working-class ideology and policy in some broader and amorphous ideological process of comprehension of present-day reality without any class criteria. That would merely result in an eclectic confusion and make it more difficult to find solutions for the sharp problems of our day. The real task is to comprehend this diverse experience and to take account of the interests of all the revolutionary and democratic forces in the light of the theory of scientific socialism.
The urge to dissolve the Marxist-Leninist theory in an amorphous ``neo-Marxism'' is now and again justified through a false interpretation of Marxism as a closed and complete theory and policy which allegedly tries to provide a priori answers to all the questions of the revolutionary movement and the formation and development of socialism. That amounts to speculation on the dogmatic interpretation of the theory of scientific socialism, which, in fact, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. T. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 333.
__PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5--01528 65 devolops together with historical practice, absorbing the ever more diverse experience ot the peoples' struggle for social emancipation and national liberation.Marxism-Leninism is not a cut-and-dried system of concepts, but a living and developing doctrine offering the broadest potentialities I'or creatively assimilating and using the great wealth of historical experience in the contemporary epoch through the correct reflection of the laws of social development.
[66] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Four __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE MAJORITY IN A SOCIALISTA social revolution always springs from the activity of broad masses of people, and that is why the formation of mass revolutionary forces is a key problem in the theory of socialist revolution. It is also the object of practical policy.
The shaping of mass revolutionary forces is a socio-- political process which has its own objective laws constituting the subject-matter of theory. At the same time, the formation of mass revolutionary forces is the goal and result of vigorous activity by the political vanguard of the working class in the capitalist countries. That is why there is an interconnection between the theoretical and the political aspects oi this problem, which means that if political programmes meeting the situation and the requirements of the working-class movement, and the political line of unity of the left, democratic forces is to be worked out, there must )>e theoretical clarity on the composition of the revolutionary forces, on their mutual relations and potentialities, and on tiie changes in their structure and political behaviour in the course of the struggle.
The formation of mass revolutionary forces requires a knowledge of the objective situation and also of the evolution of the classes and social strata capable of acting as the driving force in tiie socialist revolution; a knowledge of the make-up of the proletariat's class alliances and the left, democratic forces' political blocs and ways of uniting them; and there is a need to determine the mutual relations between the Marxist-Leninist parties and the broad masses. These aspects and facets of the intricate process in which mass revolutionary forces take shape were manifested in the period of preparation and carrying out of the October Revolution in Russia, and were comprehensively analysed in Lenin's writings and embodied in the strategy and tactics of the Bolshevik Party.
The conditions of the revolutionary movement both on a world scale and in the individual capitalist, countries have, of course, substantially changed since then, but one needs __PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 merely to ponder the lessons of the Chilean revolution, the logic of development of the Portuguese or Nicaraguan revolution and the record of the intense class and inter-party relations in other capitalist countries to realise that some of the fundamental problems and laws in the formation of mass socio-political forces of the revolutionary movement in our day are identical. These problems and laws are, of course, manifested on every occasion in specific forms bearing the imprint of the unique conditions of time and place.
The winning of the majority of the people for the revolution is one of the main problems in the formation of mass revolutionary forces. It was a question that faced the working class of Russia and Lenin's party in 1917. It still faces the working class and the communist parties of the capitalist countries today, even if in a different form.
The well-known Marxist thesis on the crucial importance of material force in effecting deep social transformations helps to answer the question concerning the majority in a socialist revolution. Lenin used to say that great historical issues are ultimately decided by force alone.~^^1^^ What he had in mind was not just the physical force of coercion, but also political magnitudes. The material force required for deciding the issue of power in a socialist revolution is ensured by the involvement of broad masses of working people and the sympathies and support of the vast majority of the people.
This general law of the socialist revolution is ignored both by the right-wingers and by the ``leftists''. In the first case, this results in a naive belief that the issue of power can be decided only by polling and parliamentary combinations. In the second case, it results in the inevitable leftist adventurism and an urge to win power through the efforts of an active minority. The founders of MarxismLeninism fought both the right-opportunist and the anarchist-adventurist conceptions, for they saw the socialist revolution as a revolution of the vast majority led by the working class in the interests of the majority.
The objectives and tasks of a socialist revolution require conscious participation in it of the broadest popular masses. Engels says: "The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question _-_-_
~^^1^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 539.
68 of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for, body and soul.''~^^1^^ Elaborating on this idea, Lenin wrote that the socialist revolution "can be successfully carried out only if the majority of the population, and primarily the majority of the working people, engage in independent creative work as makers of history".^^2^^The principle that the revolutionary vanguard must win over the majority also applies to the question of power in a socialist revolution. The support and sympathy of the majority of the people is a necessary condition for establishing [he power of the working people. That is why Lenin opposed the adventurist attempts of a revolutionary vanguard seizing power without the support of the majority. He emphasised: "We do not want a `seizure' of power, because the entire experience of past revolutions teaches us that the only stable power is the one that has the backing of the majority of the population. `Seizure' of power, therefore, would be adventurism, and our party will not have it. If the government is a government of the majority, it may perhaps embark on a policy that will prove, at first, to be erroneous, but there is no other way out.''^^3^^
That drives home the fact that Lenin did not allow of any alternative to the power of the majority. Even if the majority government, relying on a broad, socially and politically heterogeneous mass base, is not consistently revolutionary right away, and even if its line is initially erroneous, the only way for the revolutionary vanguard of the working class to power is still with the majority.
The adversaries of Leninism have created the ideological myth that in October 1917 the Bolsheviks allegedly ``seized'' power without relying on the will of the majority. In actual fact, the winning of power by the working class in Russia was a logical effect of the intricate regrouping of social-class forces in the country, which culminated in the siding of the vast majority of the working people with the proletariat's revolutionary vanguard, that is, with Lenin's parly. A deep analysis of these processes will be found in Lenin's works, notablv in "Can the Bolsheviks Retain State _-_-_
~^^1^^ Km-] Mnrx nnd Frederick Engels, Selected Works in three volumes. Vol. I. ]>|>. (90--200.
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 241.
~^^3^^ V I. Lenin. Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 418.
69 Power?" His iinnlysis led to the Following conclusion: on tlio key issues that are on Hie agenda, "(lie Bolsheviks already have a majority in the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, a majoriti/ of the people, a majority of the petty bourgeoisie."~^^1^^The taking of power by the working class always implies the winning over of the majority of the people, irrespective of the way in which it is done. But Hie categories of `` majority'' and ``minority'' are much too general and abstract to be of any help in showing the intricate median ism of the winning of power in a socialist revolution. The fact that the lerm ``majority'' is used with numerous attributes (`` formal'', ``political'', ``arithmetical'', ``active'', ``passive'', etc.) shows that this concept is in no sense a simple one. Its abstract use essentially signifies a departure from the concrete historical analysis of the problem in all its complexity and contradictory aspects, with an eye to the social-class composition of the political forces which can and must decide the issue of power, and taking account of the regrouping of these forces in the process of revolutionary development. ``Majority'' is not some static or solid magnitude. The popular majority in a revolution is a complex and dynamic formation.
There is always a need for the concrete social-class analysis of the popular majority in accordance with the nature of the revolutionary process, the stage of its development, and the interests and positions of the classes, social strata and political parties involved. In every popular majority there are different and frequently diverse elements both in terms of class origin, in depth of demands, and extent of socio-political activity.
In the class society, the revolutionary majority takes shape as a system of alliances between the proletariat and the non-proletarian strata of the working people. In Russia, it was above all the alliance of the working class and the peasantry. At the present stage in the capitalist countries, the popular majority entails an alliance of the working class not, only with Ihe peasantry, but also with the urban petty bourgeoisie, with the progressive intelligentsia and the middle strata. Because the allies differ in social-class origins, the volume and content of their interests and demands are not identical. Nor are they quite identical _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 97.
70 within the working class (even among various categories of the working class there are substantial distinctions in this respect) and the non-proletarian strata of the working people. It goes without saying that socialist goals and demands cannot instantly be accepted as the starting platform for uniting the majority of the people, although they are essentially in line with the vital interests of the working people, i.e., the vast majority.The point is that the masses come to realise their class interests and goals through their own political experience acquired in the struggle for the people's general democratic tasks which are mature and which the majority can understand. The way to the ultimate goals lies through such intermediate goals which help to unite the majority. Any intention to unite the majority on a purely socialist platform from the very beginning can merely result in sectarianism. The forces (the petty bourgeoisie of town and country) which are incapable of at once fighting for socialism because of their condition have to travel a long and hard way and to overcome their doubts and vacillations under the instruction of practice. The lessons of the Chilean revolution make it especially obvious that, these strata need to be drawn into the revolutionary struggle under the proletariat's leadership.
If one assumes an abstract ``pure'' socialist revolution in which only two antagonistic classes---the bourgeoisie and the working class---confront each other, one could well imagine the working class winning power on a purely socialist platform. However, no such ``pure'' revolutions have ever taken place or can be expected to take place. Consequently, at every stage in the development of the socialist revolution, the popular majority is shaped on a compromise political platform taking account of the content and level of the actual demands of the allies of the working class reflecting their condition and experience. Such is, one could say, the general law which has clearly stood out in all the socialist revolutions that have been carried out to this day.
In the October Revolution, the majority of the people was on the side of the working class, because the political experience of the masses in the events from February to October 1917 had convinced them that the revolutionary proletariat was alone capable of satisfying their vital demands: peace, land and an end to national oppression. When jt took power, the working class of Russia had the vast 71 majority of the people on its side, because its struggle for socialist goals had merged into a single tide with the whole people's urge for peace, with the general democratic peasant movement against the after-effects of serfdom, and with the peoples' struggle in the national outskirts of the country for their liberation. In the matter of its socialist goals, the revolutionary proletariat initially relied on its alliance with Ihe poorer peasantry.
The shaping of mass revolutionary forces should not be seen as a straightforward process, because it has different dimensions and various cross-sections. That is why the concept of popular majority is itself frequently used in different senses. Lenin saw two strands within the ``majority''. First, there is the working class plus its democratic allies (the whole peasantry), who assure it of the whole people's sympathies, because the October Revolution also tackled the pressing genera] democratic tasks. Second, (here is the formation of a stable majority constituting the social basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a socialist type of power.
This twofold nature of the popular majority supporting the October Socialist Revolution for various motives (the alliance of the working class with the whole peasantry on a platform of general democratic goals, and the alliance of the working class with the poorer peasantry on a socialist platform) also had an effect on the returns in the November elections to the Constituent Assembly, in which the Bolshevik Party did not win a majority. The reasons for this were several, and their analysis helps to see some of the specific aspects of the development of the revolution, in the course of which the Soviets had already been established as the political foundation of the state, by the time the Constituent Assembly was convened. It was the Soviets that expressed the will of the revolutionary majority, and this shows the difference between a formal majority which is brought out through polling---and the polling for the Constituent Assembly was not representative---and the real majority which takes shape as a result of the interaction of mass forces moved by their socio-economic requirements.
The real majority takes shape under the predominant influence of the common vital interests and demands of the immediate stage in the revolutionary struggle already absorbed through the people's own political experience. In a formal canvassing of opinion, the choice of political stand 72 by the social forces in an election is influenced by differences with respect to I lie more distant objectives, which lie beyond the actual experience of a large part of the mass allies of the working class.
In this context, we find Lenin expressing some highly interesting thoughts about the dialectical concept of majority in his "Letter to Comrades'', which he wrote on the eve of the October Revolution. He ridicules the pedants "who want an advance guarantee that throughout the whole country the Bolshevik Party has received exactly one-half of the votes plus one, this they want at all events, without taking the least account of the real circumstances of the revolution. History has never given such a guarantee, and is quite unable to give it in any revolution''. He adds that the main thing is to determine the leading trend in the positions and behaviour of the mass forces, and it is that "the majority of the people began quickly to go over to the side of the Bolsheviks."~^^1^^ When the switch of the majority to the side of the working class became a fact, the line of taking power was pursued steadfastly and consistently, regardless of the vacillation in the mood of a section of the masses constituting that majority. "The Party could not be guided by the temper of the masses because it was changeable and incalculable; the Party must be guided by an objective analysis and an appraisal of the revolution. The masses had put their trust in the Bolsheviks and demanded deeds from them and not words, a decisive policy both in Uie struggle against the war and in the struggle against economic ruin.''~^^2^^
Consequently, the views, attitudes and political behaviour of a socially heterogeneous majority arc subject to change and fluctuation, and what is of fundamental importance here is the distinction between the changes stemming from the objective condition of the basic mass forces constituting the majority, and temporary vacillations resulting from socio-psychological factors which can be compensated by the revolutionary vanguard's firm policy.
Any popular majority lends to be heterogeneous both in the degree of activity and in the role played by its constituent social-class forces in social and political life. The concept of majority in a way averages out the positions of _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 190.
^^2^^ Ibid.. Vol. 26, np. 191--192.
73 these heterogeneous forces, and reduces them to a common denominator of support, For (ho revolutionary vanguard of the working class in its struggle for power. But as soon as one inquires into the motives and the extent, one finds that the majority is instantly stratified into far from equivalent groups.The majority includes an amorphous mass of vacillating neutrals, a kind of political ``bog'' vaguely sensing the need for change and taking a wait-and-see attitude. The majority includes mass forces sympathising with the vanguard class and giving it passive support, but not yet prepared for active struggle. The majority includes socio-political forces actively joining in the struggle under the impact of the conditions of their social existence, but not yet aware either of its objective content and goals, or of the actual political consequences of their acts, which are spontaneous and frequently even rebellious. The majority includes the vanguard strata of the working class and its allies consciously fighting for socialist goals. Finally, the political vanguard of the working class, with its theoretical consciousness and scientific political programme, also acts within the framework of the majority.
In any socialist revolution, the popular majority rests on intricate mutual relations between social forces which are heterogeneous in make-up and whose formation and functioning are marked by mutual dependence and unevenness. The vanguard forces of the revolution may be eager to go into action, while the bulk of the masses could still be in the rearguard awakening to the struggle. The task before the Marxist-Leninist party in revolutionary periods is to find out the will of the majority, and to establish a point at which it is capable of giving the utmost support to the vanguard of the working class in the struggle for power.
That can, obviously, never be done by means of a mere vote, a poll, or a counting of some arithmetical majority. In view of the marked heterogeneity in the make-up of the mass forces of the revolutionary movement, the advantage in any poll on the basis of formal equality is virtually bound to be on the side of those who are numerically predominant but who express doubts, hesitation and indecision in the face of the looming abrupt changes, instead of those who express most clearly and consistently the overall progressive line of development. In any general poll, the 74 significance of every position is determined in purely quantitative terms. The position of the politically active and the most conscious majority expressing the leading trends in the revolutionary process is frequently dissolved in the arithmetical mean of opinion. That is why the question of power, the crucial issue in any revolution, cannot be decided by voting alone.
Antonio Grnmsci held Ihe view that ''no revolutionary movement can be decreed by a workers' national assembly".~^^1^^ What is always important in revolutionary struggle is the initiative of the vanguard forces of the working class carrying the masses with them on to new boundaries in political experience and overcoming the doubts of the vacillating. To prologue any revolutionary action with a poll is to doom the working-class movement to inaction.
At the same time, it is not right to underestimate the importance of election returns, which could be a true indicator of the main (rends in the development of the popular majority's consciousness and political positions.
The masses' own political experience is crucial to the popular majority's comprehension of the community of their vital interests with those of the working class in the struggle for power. Without such experience, even the most democratic elections cannot bring out Ihe will of that majority or rally it round the revolutionary vanguard, the champion of the interests of all the working people. "Propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the broad masses of the working people, (hose oppressed by capital, to take up such a stand. For that, the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all great revolutions.''~^^2^^
Political experience shaping (he revolutionary majority is acquired by the masses in practical struggle, of which broad massive movements and actions are the main field. Parlicipation in voting and elections is also a form of the masses' political education, but in the political enlightenment of the masses it is always the mass movements that have Ihe edge on elections. Indeed, the election returns are themselves determined by the scope and depth of the mass political slruggle of Ihe working class and its allies.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Antonio dnunsoi. TSOrAinc Nuovo, 1019 1020, C.inlio Einaudi Ivlitoro, 107(1. p. \T£.
^^2^^ V. I. Lonin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 93.
75One of Ihe most difficult problems in the peaceful winning of [lower by the working class is, perhaps, the working out and adjustment of a sufficiently slable and flexible political mechanism capable of providing reliable links between mass movements and (lie functioning of Ihe legislatively formalised system of democracy in Ihe capitalist society, including the electoral system.
On the one hand, the political and ideological results of mass movements (shifts in the social consciousness of various social strata) need lo be asserted through this mechanism by means of voting within the framework of the existing electoral system. On the other hand, the election returns which are positive for the working class need to be given the broadest support of the mass movement through the same mechanism, so as to invest them with a real content that goes beyond the framework of the formal principles of bourgeois democracy.
Let us also note that the winning over of the popular majority by the revolutionary vanguard in the absence of a mass movement creating socio-political tensions tends to run up against an additional obstacle: the relative stability of the masses' ideological, political and psychological attachments to definite parties. These attachments, reproduced in elections, are not just a reflection of the social-class structure of the capitalist society. On the contrary, the social composition of the mass basis of political parties in the capitalist countries as a rule tends to be patchy and uneven. Indeed, in elections even a considerable pad. of the working class frequently supports bourgeois political parties.
In order to alter the false tenets implanted in the mass consciousness and to transcend the quantitative thresholds of support for left-wing parties, there is a need for a broad socio-political movement participation in which would give the masses their own political experience.
The shaping of a popular majority, of its positions and behaviour are largely- and at the turning points of development, crucially---determined by the activity and initiative of the more advanced forces within that majority which most consistently express and stand up for its vital longterm interests.
In any popular majority, when it has begun to look to the working class, but does not yet have adequate political experience to carry on a resolute light for objectively mature goals, there are the most active forces, the politically 76 active majority, one could say, which by its acts draws in the still passive allies into politics and Jays Ihe groundwork for their acquiring the necessary experience. The problem of uniting the politically active forces, or the political army of the revolution, acquires a relatively independent importance within the framework of the more general task of winning the majority. It is the main condition for solving the problem, because the tone of the whole revolutionary process is set, by Ihe attitude and behaviour of the politically active forces. The political army of the socialist revolution acts as the shock force which directly effects the winning of power under the leadership of the revolutionary vanguard of the working class. That part of the majority which has yet, Lo overcome its vacillation and hesitation is convinced in practice that the proletariat's state direction of the society meets its interests. Lenin says: "These strata of the working and exploited people provide the vanguard of the proletariat with allies and give it a slable majority of the population, but the proletariat can win these allies only with the aid of an instrument like state power, that is to say, only after it has overthrown the bourgeoisie and has destroyed the bourgeois slate apparatus.''~^^1^^
There is, of course, nothing mandatory in the sequence of events as they occurred in the Great October and many other socialist revolutions: first comes the political revolution, which is followed by actual socio-economic measures to win over the popular majority for socialism. But whatever the way to socialism, there must be an organic combination of the working-class struggle for its leadership ( hegemony) in Ihe society, and its struggle for state power, which is the crucial instrument of political hegemony.
Lenin formulated the general uniformity of the socialist revolution, which in modified form also applies to the peaceful winning of power by the working class. It is impossible to imagine any advance along this way unless there is also a politically active majority within the popular majority which is always striving to advance, which moves in the vanguard, winning one forward political position after another and, relying on these, demonstrates in practice to its vacillating potential allies that the working class alone is capable of freeing them from oppression by capital.
The distinction between peaceful and non-peaceful ways _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 274.
77 does not at all consist in the extent to which the masses come lo be aware of socialist goals. The distinction lies in the fact that the peaceful way of establishing the socialist type of slate power is preceded by transitional types of revolutionary-democratic power, in which the working class already has dominant positions. That is why, at these stages it already has the possibility of using the instruments of power lo this or lhat extent in order to win over for socialism ever broader masses of working people. In other words, even before the working class wins full power, the masses liave ever wider opportunities for gaining the political experience which is necessary for llie comprehension and acceptance of the socialist goals. One might assume ilial tin's could become the reason for some essential peculiarities of the process in which llie mass forces of the sociaJist revolution are formed. A much more; intricate and ramilied system of class and political alliances emerges, and it, lakes very much more time for the masses' own experience to erode the stable stereotypes of political thinking and behaviour established in the capitalist society. But all of this merely goes to enhance the responsibility of the politically active section of the popular majority as its revolutionary nucleus.What then is the numerical strength of the politically active forces of Ihe revolution? One can hardly estimate any uniform figures thai would apply in any conditions, because they are determined by the need to create a decisive preponderance of forces over reaclion in the process of the winning of power. Lenin saw this as a political law of the revolution: "An overwhelming superiority of forces at the decisive point at the decisive moment---this `law' of military success is also the law of political success, especially in that fierce, seething class war which is called revolution."~^^1^^ The indicators of active political forces can, of course, be quite different in the various concrete-historical situations, especially in the peaceful winning of power, when Ihe decisive moment is preceded by a phased working-class offensive on the power of monopoly capital.
In revolutionary periods, the relations belwcen classes, social groups and polilical parlies are exceptionally fluid. In an atmosphere of intense national crisis, for instance, Ihe initiative of a small minority is quite capable of _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 258.
78 touching off an avalanche mass movement developing into a revolulion. Engels says: "This is one of Ihe exceplional cases where il is possible for a handful of people lo make a revolution, i.e., with one liltle push lo cause a whole system, which ... is in more than labile equilibrium, to come crashing down, and thus by an action in ilself insignificant to release explosive forces that afterwards become uncontrollable . . . National energy has been transformed from potential into kinetic." ^^1^^ In a sense, that was what happened in the Cuban revolulion, where Ihe bold inilialive of revolutionaries led by Fidel Caslro sparked off Ihe chain reaction of mass aclivily which developed into the movement of the popular majority againsl the Balisla regime.The Marxist-Leninist parly always looks lo the mass political forces, but Ihe concept of ``mass'', as Lenin stressed, tends to change with the conditions in which il has lo act. At the start of the struggle, even a few Ihousand revolutionary workers could constitute the mass, but when the revolution is mature, ``mass'' tends to have a somewhat differenl meaning: "The concept of `masses' undergoes a change so that it implies the majority, and not simply a majority of the workers alone, but the majority of all the exploited. Any other kind of interpretalion is impermissible for a revolutionary, and any other sense of the word becomes incomprehensible.''~^^2^^
However, the dialectic of this process is such lhat the expansion in the volume of the mass to the absolute majority tends to complicate the relations between the class and political forces within it. The unity of the working class and its non-proletarian allies in the struggle for their common interests does not do away with the diversity of their economic and polilical interests or with the ideological distinctions between them. Thai is why unity within the framework of Ihe revolutionary majority is a dynamic unity implying a comparison and even collision of different positions and views, and a search for compromises which do not encroach on the independence of the allies and which consolidate the majority round the working class. The difficulty of overcoming the centrifugal trends within the alliance of revolutionary and democratic forces was fully _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 19P>5, p. 384.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lonin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 476.
79 revealed in the Chilean revolution. The struggle between the ideological and political trends within the Popular Unity, which was sometimes most acute, tended to disrupt this unity itself, thereby weakening the positions of the Salvador Allende Government in the lace of the counter-- revolutionary offensive.By contrast, the Nicaraguan revolution of 1979 provides positive experience of flexible dynamic of political structures ensuring not, only the preservation, but also the strengthening of the Popular Unity as the revolutionary process deepened. The vanguard political forces heading the revolution are united in the Sandinista National Liberation Front (SFLN), which together with the broader democratic and progressive forces in the country are united in the Patriotic Revolutionary Front. This rests on mass organisations: the Socialist Working People's Trade Union Centre, the Association of Nicaraguan Women, the Socialist Youth League, and the committees in defence of the revolution. Virtually the whole spectrum of political and social organisations in the country is represented on the government of national revival and the State Council, a consultative and legislative body. This elaborate popular majority system creates favourable conditions for ensuring the unity of the diverse democratic forces in the process---inevitable in any revolution---of a regrouping of classes and parties, in the process of changes in their programmes and positions with the advance through the consecutively higher stages.
The unity of the popular majority on a revolutionary platform largely depends on the stand and activity of the Marxist-Leninist party. The capacity to unite broad democratic forces round the working class is one of the chief criteria of a party's readiness to play the vanguard role in the revolutionary process. The final document of the Berlin Conference of European Communists says that they "will act in such a way that their policies and the ideals of justice and progress, whose champions they are, become ever more a force promoting the broadest unity of the working people and of the mass of the people.''~^^1^^ Bui within the framework of this broad unity, the communist parties have the task of representing the most consistent revolutionary line expressing the vital interests of the working class and _-_-_
~^^1^^ For Peace, Security, Cooperation tind Social Progress in Kurope. Novosti Press Agoncy Publishing Housn, Moscow, 1976, p. 42.
80 of all the other working people. It was stressed at the Berlin Conference thai, while uniting with other democratic trends, the Communists' remain revolutionaries and convinced advocates of replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system.The revolutionary vanguard's formulation of a clear socio-economic programme taking account of the interests of all the classes and social groups involved in the struggle is one of the crucial factors in uniting the majority of the working people round the revolutionary vanguard. Such a programme instils in the allies of the working class the confidence that the revolution will not harm them and will satisfy their demands. The lack of such a programme breeds doubt among Ihe pelty-bourgeois strata of town and country, hampers the conduct of an economic policy aimed to salisfy the vital requirements of the masses, and impedes the efforts to overcome sabotage by reaction, and to implement radical social transformations.
In the course of the revolution itself, the popular majority on which the revolutionary vanguard of the working class relies does not remain unchanged. The succession of the revolutionary changes keeps posing the task of ensuring Ihe majority, and creating Ihe necessary preponderance of forces over the counter-revolution in the new conditions, in the light of the requirements of the situation and the high level of political experience acquired by the masses. This is a most burning issue today, because reaction also strives to mobilise its forces, seeking to find ever trickier ways of resisting the working class.
If tliis contradiction of the revolutionary process is to be resolved without any loss of the gained positions and wilh a steady advance towards the goal, there must be constant cohesion of the motive forces of the revolution, political isolation of its actual and potential adversaries, and neutralisation of the vacillating and unstable elements. This also requires a constant renewal of the economic and political platform of popular unity. One of the conditions of Ihe sustained revolutionary process is timely consideration of on-going changes and efforts to unite the forces which are capable of carrying on a struggle to fulfil the tasks of the given stage of the revolution so as to maintain its forward momentum.
The Communists have no need to conceal the fact that their goal is socialism, because it is a goal that meets the __PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6--01528 81 interests and aspirations of (lie vast majority of tho people. The point ol' the transition stages is to enable the allies ol the working class to become convinced from their own experience ol' the need to move in that direction. The Communists advance to socialism together with the people^ There is no other way, because socialism is the result ot popular creative effort.
[82] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Five __ALPHA_LVL1__ CLASS AND POLITICAL ALLIANCESClass and political alliances are an important aspect of the Marxist-Leninist parties' strategy and tactics. The policy of alliances is designed to rally round the revolutionary vanguard of the working class a majority of the working people without whose support no socialist revolution can conceivably triumph.
The theoretical and political aspects of the problem of class and political alliances are closely interwoven. On the one hand, theory provides policy with a knowledge of some of the general laws determining the interrelations of class and political forces. On the other hand, theory is constantly enriched by a policy which springs from life, from real class interests and the actual balance of forces. On the one hand, policy without theory is doomed to pragmatism. On the other, theory without policy tends to degenerate into doctrinaire and scholastic exercises. That is why in Marxism, the theory and policy of alliances are two aspects of the same problem.
Social-class and political alliances naturally amount to different problems in various countries and regions of the world. The formation of alliances by class and political forces in the struggle for common goals is one of the most dynamic social processes. If one is to discover in it some constant magnitudes characterising objective laws of social development and political laws, one must reckon both with the specific features of the epoch and the peculiarities of the individual revolutionary stages, and also with the concrete arrangement of forces in the given country when tackling purely concrete tasks. The Communists' attitude to historical experience as embodied in Marxist theory and policy is also of fundamental importance. Loyalty to principles in which that experience is compressed, and creative application and development of these principles in the light of new experience---those are the two main criteria of the Marxist political methodology that are also necessary in considering the problem of class and political alliances in present-day conditions.
The strategy of unity is rooted in the fundamental principles ol' Marxism. The proletariat expresses the vital __PRINTERS_P_83_COMMENT__ 6* 83 interests of all the working people because it works to fulfil its world-wide historical mission as the liberator of the society from capitalist exploitation and the architect of the communist system. That is why the peasantry and the urban petty-bourgeoisie regard the proletariat as a natural ally capable of emancipating them from oppression by big capital. These ideas were formulated by Marx and Engels in the light of the experience o!' the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of 1848, and have since then been the basis of Marxist policy.
The founders of Marxism also Formulated the cardinal principles of the revolutionary proletarian parties' policy with respect Lo the other political parties. They wrote: "The Communists light for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of the movement."~^^1^^ On the strength of that general stand, Marx and Engels formulated two requirements in the relations with other political forces. First, Communists everywhere support any revolutionary movement aimed against the existing exploiter system and everywhere work to unite the efforts of the democratic parties. Second, Communists uphold the proletarian party's political and ideological independence in its consistent revolutionary struggle for the vital class interests of the proletariat and all the other working people. Marx and Engels worked hard to spread these principles of policy in the period in which social-democratic parties emerged in the individual countries, and insisted on these principles when directing the First and Second Internationals.
In the new historical epoch, the ideas of Marx and Engels on class and political alliances were elaborated by Lenin in his summing-up of the experience of the international working-class movement and of the three Russian revolutions. Lenin's ideas were translated into practice through the Bolshevik Party's strategy and tactics.
The idea of the proletariat's leadership in the revolutionary movement in the epoch of imperialism is central to Lenin's strategic conception, which reflects the most important uniformity of the contemporary revolutionary process in accordance with which the working class stands at the centre of the epoch and determines its content, orientation _-_-_
^^1^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Ungels, Selected Works in Ihveu volumes, Vol. 1, p. 136.
84 and main trends of development. The proletariat exercises its leadership within the system of alliances between the working class and the other class and social strata oppressed by capitalism, which for various reasons join in the revolutionary struggle both in I ho citadels of imperialism and in the colonial periphery.In the conditions which prevailed in Russia in 1917, the proletariat's leadership in the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions took the shape of an alliance of the working class and the peasantry. The historical experience of this alliance is of international significance for the Communists' theory and policy not only because the peasantry continues to be an important ally of the working class in the revolutionary struggle, but also because that experience manifested the general laws of the formation and development of the proletariat's class alliances: community of the allies' vital interests; consideration of these interests in the economic and political platform of unity; the masses' own experience as the basis for the alliances; unity and struggle in the framework of the alliances; democratic methods of relations between the allies, etc.
Lenin also worked out the question of the proletarian party's political blocs with petty-bourgeois democratic parties. Since the revolution in Russia was the first break in the imperialist chain, and since there was as yet no practical experience of socialism, the history of the Russian revolution revealed a discrepancy between the breadth of the class alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, on th(> one hand, and the limited nature of the proletarian party's political alliances with the petty-bourgeois parties, on the other. The fact is that the petty-bourgeois parties frequently expressed the prejudices of the peasantry and other strata of the petty bourgeoisie, rather than their actual class interests.
In tho course of the revolution, the mass of peasants tended to move away from tho petty-bourgeois parties, so that the alliance of the working class and the peasantry look shape mainly round one party---the communist party--- which took a resolute stand for the interests of the masses against the petty-bourgeois parties' inclination to compromise. So relations of contest tended to prevail between the proletarian and the potty-bourgeois parlies on the political level, but even so the Bolsheviks practised the principles of Left-bloc policy which are still highly meaningful.
85Lenin's ideas of Ihe unity of (lie left-wing foir.es, above all those of working-class unity, were further developed after the Great October Socialist Revolution in Ihe activity of the Communist International (Comintern), with special importance attaching to Ihe record of its Third and Fourth congresses. Its united-front tactic was designed to win over the majority of the working class and the other working people l,o the communist parlies as the necessary condition for approaching and advancing towards a socialist revolution. The unity strategy was hammered out in sharp struggle against left-doctrinaire and sectarian views. The important idea of a workers' and workers`-aml-peasanls' government as a transitional type of power was seen by the `` leftists'' as a purely tactical ploy and another name for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Lenin's united-front tactic was creatively developed in the documents of the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, which expressed the requirements of the struggle against the fascist danger and substantiated the strategy of a popular front of which the united workers' front was to be the nucleus. The Congress tied in the tasks of the antifascist struggle with the socialist perspective by expressing in concrete terms Lenin's ideas about the transitional forms of transformations and the transitional type of power.
The strategic line formulated by the Seventh Congress of the Comintern was translated into practice by the Communist parties' activity during the Second World War in the form of the broad popular Resistance movement. As a result of the rout of fascism, this line led to victorius people's democratic revolutions in some countries, which ensured their advance to socialism. The mass Resistance movement in some West European countries helped to unite the left-wing forces for putting through deep democratic transformations which could ultimately become anti-capitalist. But these trends were not developed because of Ihe external imperialist intervention and also for a number of internal reasons, including some subjective factors, such as the undeveloped nature of Ihe strategic conception of the left forces' unity, the vacillation of the mass allies of the working class, the anti-communism of the right-wing leaders of social-democracy, and so on. But the experience of the alliances of democratic forces in the war period was of great significance for the creative development of Ihe communist movement's strategy and tactics in the subsequent period.
86The conditions for the development of the present-day strategy of the unity of democratic, anti-imperialist forces took shape by the mid-1950s. This was due to the changes in the balance of forces in the world arena, the further evolution of state-monopoly capitalism, the deepening of the contradiction between the monopolies and the people, and the fresh upswing in the general democratic and national-liberation movements. The strategic conception expressing in concrete terms Lenin's principles of the strategy of class and political alliances in application to present-day conditions was substantiated in the documents of the International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties of 1957, 1960 and 1969, and in the programmatic and theoretical documents of the CPSU and the other Marxist-Leninist parlies. Of especial significance in this respect were the documents of the 1969 Meeting, which put forward a concrete platform for united action by the anti-imperialist forces at the present stage.
The Communists' attention is constantly focussed on the problems of the strategy of class and political alliances, on a national, regional and world scale. These problems were discussed by the Berlin Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties, which came out for "a constructive dialogue with all other democratic forces, each of these forces fully retaining its identity and independence, so as to arrive at fruitful cooperation in the struggle for peace, security and social progress."~^^1^^
Class and political alliances were at issue in the sharp ideological disputes within the communist movement in the 1970s including a discussion of the "historical compromise" strategy put forward by the Italian Communist Party, the polemics on the complicated problems in the alliance of left-wing forces in France, and the debates about the causes of its disintegration, and the ideological struggle on the unity of the working-class and democratic movements virtually in all the developed capitalist countries. In other regions of the world, these problems were also vigorously discussed in the quest for strategic and tactical solutions. In the 1970s, much experience in the alliance policy was gained by the Communist Party of India and the communist parties of the Arab countries, which needs to be seriously analysed and understood. Alliance problems are also _-_-_
~^^1^^ For Pence, Sccurili/, Cooperation and Social Progress in Europe, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1976, p. 59.
87 of much importance for the countries of Africa and Latin America.Why is there a need for alliances between the working class and other classes and social strata?
There is a need for such alliances because the working class is the liberator of the society from every form of social and national oppression, and the architect of the new, communist civilisation. In order to win power, the progressive class must act in the course of a certain period as the representative of the interests of the society as a whole. Such is the general uniformity of social revolution. It was clearly manifested in bourgeois revolutions from the 16th to the 18th centuries, when the rising bourgeoisie acted on behalf of the society as a whole. But that was a temporary state, for it soon transpired that the bourgeoisie's interests were fundamentally at variance with those of the toiling masses that acted as the chief strike-force of the bourgeois revolutions.
Socialist revolution is a different matter. For the first time in history, the working class acts as a class representing the interests of the whole society not just for a short interval of time, but throughout the whole period in which the communist civilisation takes shape, and until the abolition of classes and class distinctions. This stems from the status of the working class in the system of social production. As it emancipates itself, it also emancipates the whole of the society. This is made evident by the humanistic content of Marxism, which sums up not only the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the working class, but also the | whole of the historical experience of mankind.
What kind of conclusion does this suggest? The working class is the true champion of the interests of the whole nation, which means that in its revolutionary struggle it tends to accumulate the interests, requirements and demands of the other classes and social strata in opposition to capitalism. Of course, the political strategy and tactics of Marxism, and Marxism as the proletariat's ideology itself is not a storehouse in which diverse ideas and principles propounded by any social and political forces coming out against the defects of capitalism are heaped together. The multi-faceted experience of revolutionary struggle is qualitatively reworked in depth in the light of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, which express the vital interests of the working class and its allies.
88Let us note in this context that the concept of the proletariat's leadership (hegemony) does not in any sense signify some claim by the working class to a monopoly in the revolutionary struggle for socialism. On the contrary, the leadership of the working class consists in the fact that, through its consistent struggle for the interests of all the working people and for socialism, it galvanises the revolutionary energy of the other exploited classes and social strata, involving them in the revolutionary process and striving to unite them on one political platform.
The Communists' place and role within the broad coalitions of democratic and anti-imperialist forces is a question of especial significance in any discussion of this problem. On the one hand, the communist parties must initiate the creation and consolidation of broad alliances in the fight against the common enemy; on the other hand, the MarxistLeninist parties must always maintain their revolutionary principles and look to the main goal for which the Communists work: the transformation of the society on socialist lines.
Since the Second World War, changes have taken place in the social structure of the societies in the capitalist and in the developing countries, and these changes are having a great influence on the approach to and solution of the problems of class and political alliances. Changes in the social structure tend to introduce essential correctives into the Communists' strategy and tactics in the struggle for broad alliances. In the past, the peasantry was the chief mass ally of the working class in the fight for democratic and socialist transformations, but today the share of the peasantry in the total population of developed capitalist countries tends constantly to shrink. In a number of countries, it comes to no more than 3-5 per cent of the gainfully employed population. By contrast, the peasantry constitutes the overwhelming majority of the population in the developing countries, but even there the peasantry has its peculiarities, which make it different from the peasantry of Russia at the turn of the 20th century.
The policy of struggle for the alliance of the working class and the peasantry requires a consideration of the social-class realities in each country, for tho differences in our day tend lo be so great lhat they evidently require a development of the conceptual apparatus itself. This also applies to the concept of peasantry.
89In the strict sense of the word, peasantry is taken to mean a class that is one of the main classes in the feudal society. When we speak of the peasantry in a capitalist society, we mean a class undergoing essential changes under the impact of changes in its social being and consciousness. Feudal social structures are no longer to be found in the developed capitalist society today. Accordingly, the peasantry is no longer a peasantry in the old sense of the word, hut a social stratum of the capitalist society itself. It comprises farmers, most of whom represent the rural bourgeoisie, and agricultural labourers, i.e., one of the contingents of the working class.
There is also a highly peculiar situation in many of the countries which have escaped from colonialism. There, especially on the African continent, pre-feudal social-class structures tend to prevail and often even to be dominant. Consequently, even there it is not the classical peasantry of the feudal society, but a peasantry consisting of a set of social strata engaged in agriculture whose nature and make-up are determined by the pre-feudal and tribal relations.
When using one and the same term---``peasantry''---to characterise all these social-class realities, one must bear in mind the profound distinctions that actually exist between them. In the liberated countries, these are peculiar transitional social forces, which have yet to escape from the system of pre-feudal relations, but which have already felt (lie influence of colonial capitalism, of national capitalist relations and, in some countries, also of the practice of non-capitalist development. This specific species of peasantry in most cases has a central place within the social structure of the liberated countries.
New allies of the working class also emerge, and they are just as important as the peasantry. The practice of the revolutionary process shows that the role of the urban middle strata has increased. One of the main reasons for the defeat of the Chilean revolution was the failure to establish a solid alliance between the working class and the political parlies represenling it with the urban middle strata and the political forces expressing their interests. The mistaken views and actions within the Popular Unity pushed broad sections of the middle strain into the camp of Ihe counterrevolution. When the crunch came, the urban middle strata---a sizable section of them at any rate---turned out to be 90 on the other side of the barricades. That produced a typical counter-revolutionary situation in the country which the reactionary militarists were quick to use for mounting a fascist coup.
In the countries of highly developed state-monopoly capitalism, the urban middle strata also have an important role as allies of the working class. It is no longer true that as capitalism develops, the size of the middle strata diminishes while the society begins to approximate to some model of the social structure of the capitalist society divided only into two opposite classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Years ago, Lenin warned that monopoly capitalism stimulates the emergence of new middle strata: "A number of new 'middle strata' are inevitably brought into existence again and again by capitalism (appendages to the factory, work at home, small workshops scattered all over the country to meet the requirements of big industries, such as the bicycle and automobile industries, etc.).''^^1^^
Present-day practice bears out Lenin's point: indeed, while the process may be very uneven, it is certain that in most capitalist countries the size of the middle strata does not diminish, and has, in fact, increased in many countries. For instance, in France and Italy, where the peasant stratum is fairly large, the urban middle strata are already much more numerous than the population engaged in agriculture.
In Marxist literalure, the urban middle strata are usually divided into new and traditional ones. Among the traditional middle strata is the urban petty bourgeoisie: the petly traders, shopkeepers, owners of small enterprises, artisans, and so on. The core of the new urban middle strata is made up of various layers of the intelligentsia, workers by brain in industry and state administration, and large layers of those employed in the sphere of the services.
It is the new urban middle strata that have an especially important role to play. Many of them, above all the seienlific and technical intelligentsia, whose numbers and influence in social life have been steadily growing, tend to draw closer to the working class under state-monopoly capitalism. The working class and this section of the urban middle strata are very close to each other in some of the basic indicators of Ihe class division: in status within the system of social production, and in relation to the means of _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 39.
91 production. Let us add that a considerable section of the new middle strata is not separated from tlio working class by the barrier of private property, which tended to be erected in the relations between the working class and the smallholders: the peasantry and the traditional middle strata of the capitalist society.The Final Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties says that ever broader opportunities are now being opened up for a solid alliance between workers by hand and workers by brain. This is an alliance based not just on a coincidence of interests of different classes, but on a deeper community of the vital interests of the working class and the new middle strata approximating to it which are directly exploited by monopoly capital and which are not fettered with the shackles of small-scale property.
It is especially important to clarify these questions in view of the ideological struggle which is under way over the assessment of the role of the middle strata and also of the political struggle which is being carried on to win them over.
Some reformist-minded ideologists and political leaders of the state-monopoly bourgeoisie are aware of the importance of attracting these middle strata to their side as a most important prop in preserving their domination. They have tried to formulate and put through a policy of alliance between the monopoly bourgeoisie and the urban middle strata, an alliance that could provide a stable social basis for present-day capitalism.
The winning over of the urban middle strata to the side of the working class in the fight for democratic, and then also for socialist transformations is the fundamental issue in the policy of alliances in the countries of state-monopoly capitalism.
It is highly important for the Communists to reckon with the specific interests of the various middle strata in the towns. These are highly differentiated, which is why it is very difficult to lake into account their specific requirements and demands. It is also a difficult problem to help these strata to learn from their own political experience, because at every given moment the diverse groupings of these strata lend to bring into the forward line of the struggle totally different practical interests.
However, the working class, as the leading class, has the 92 duty to stand up for the interests of its allies and to integrate these specific interests in the broad programme of general democratic transformations, for on this depends success in realising anti-monopoly democracy and in ensuring favourable conditions for the advance to socialism.
The ideologists of anli-comuiunisui have spread the myth that the Communists' policy of alliances is machiavellian and is allegedly designed lo use an ally and then to throw him out like a squashed lemon. This anti-communist myth has no basis. The Communists' alliance policy is based on the principles of high communist morality, which are an organic part of the political principles by which the Marxist-Leninist parties are guided in their behaviour. The historical record shows that the Communists remain loyal to Lheir allied obligations, but, like political alliances generally, these obligations are not based on some abstract notions of universal justice which have no relevance to time and place, but on a precise consideration of the objective interests of various classes.
Marxists argue that one cannot talk about alliances without considering the interests of the various classes and social strata. There can be an alliance only where there is a community of interests. Indeed, the boundaries of every alliance are determined by the extent to which the interests of the classes and social groups coincide. Accordingly, in the forefront are the allies whose vital interests are at root identical to those of the working class. Alliances with them are durable, and are possible not only at the stage of struggle for socialism, hut also within the framework of a socialist society. Such allies can advance with the working class to the ultimate goal. There can also be temporary allies, and alliances with them are based on a coincidence of interests at a given historical stage. The historical aspect here is that the interests of classes themselves tend to develop and are comprehended as classes and social strata acquire political experience. That is why in the course of historical development, in the transition from one stage of the revolution to the next, the basis of social-class alliances as a rule tends to change, either narrowing down or becoming broader.
Let us note that revisionist writers of every stripe keep saying that the positive elements of the interests of the urban middle strata differ at root from those of the working class, so that the broad anti-monopoly alliance is depicted 93 as a "discordant cartel''. That conclusion floes not reflect the realities of the contemporary capitalist society. However, the problem of concerting the interests of the working class and of the various layers of the middle strata is a very difficult one.
How can and must this problem be solved? We believe that its solution is connected with the dynamic of the system of relations between the working class and the urban middle strata in the course! of the practical struggle at various levels. There is no doubt about the divergence of the interests of the working class and those of the middle strata in any positive programme. Even the urban non-- proletarian strata which are akin in condition to the working class are fairly remote from it in their ideology and social mentality, and are frequently imbued with private-property interests. But in the process of solving the immediate, and mainly anti-monopoly tasks, which reveal a community of interests between the working class and the urban middle strata, the latter will gain political experience which will convince them of the need to go on advancing together with the working class. Through a number ol' intermediate stages, this movement can and must ultimately result in a fulfilment of socialist tasks.
The Cuban revolution partially provides a picture of this dynamic model of alliances. In that revolution, the alliance of the working class and the middle strata of town and country was maintained and consolidated as the revolution steadily gained in depth. Such an alliance-dynamic helped to overcome the emerging contradictions. The learning from one's own experience was a school of unity which led to the victory of the socialist revolution.
The unity of the anti-monopoly forces is, consequently, formed through a constant overcoming of contradictions, and carries within itself internal contradictions between the constituent political forces which preserve their own specific group interests. From these spring the contradictions in the political assessments and positions of the social forces constituting the anti-monopoly coalition.
The concept of unity of the diverse social and political forces ranged against monopoly capital must be dialectical. It is not a homogeneous structure, but a fluid system of alliances, blocs and agreements which are partially formalised in the common programme, but which, for the most part, remain unformalised and which develop as joint or even 94 parallel action by the various anti-monopoly political forces. Here, one can hope for success and even advance to more stable forms of unity only if the independence and uniqueness of each of the democratic force involved in the political process are taken into account and respected.
One could say that the formation and functioning of the anti-monopoly forces' unity is a dynamic and multi-stage process, with the platform of immediate demands providing the initial basis for unity. These demands coincide to the greatest extent among all the democratic socio-political forces and are comprehended by these forces through their own political experience before anyone else does so. There could bo divergent views of the remoter goals both for objective reasons and because of inadequate political experience which frequently makes it hard to understand the common motivations behind these goals.
Of course, in such circumstances the anti-monopoly unity-platform is always a compromise, but it is one which does not involve subordination of one group of democratic forces to another or the foisting of ideological principles by one force on all the other forces taking part in the political process. The compromise means that the principles on which there are marked differences are not included in the common unity-platform for the short term. They remain in the programmes of the political parties and organisations, and are the object ol ideological disputes and discussions, but are not contrasted to the programme of the immediate common demands on which a common stand has been worked out.
What then are the prospects for the democratic forces' unity? Is it not a short-lived and unstable unity which lends to fall apart when the first few steps forward are taken?
There is, indeed, such a danger, if one takes the static model of unity. Any stable unity of the democratic forces requires the working out of a dynamic unity-model taking into account the practice of the political process. The dynamic model implies that the entry upon a new and more forward line of the revolutionary process also opens up broader potentialities for hammering mil an advanced unityplatform, which takes shape as the interests which markedly diverged at the earlier slages are drawn closer logether. As the political forces faking part in the democratic alliance are tutored by practice, there is an evolution 95 towards the higher stages of unity. It is the practice of political struggle, Iho practice of united action that brings the standpoints and positions closer to each other, eliminating from the agenda many of the issues on which serious differences had earlier existed.
This process in which contradictions are overcome in the course of joint practical activity is reflected in Lenin's political thinking. He says: "Differences within or between political parties are usually resolved not only by polemics over principles, but also by the course of political developments. In particular, differences on a party's tactics, i.e., its political conduct, are often resolved by those with incorrect opinions going over in fact to the correct path of struggle, under the pressure of the course of development that simply brush aside erroneous opinions, making them pointless and devoid of any interests.''^^1^^
In actual practice, of course, this matter is not confined to spontaneous developments alone. There is a constant exchange of experience and ideas between the political forces united under a common platform of anti-monopoly action. Of tremendous importance here is the responsibility of each of the political forces and their constant readiness to engage in a conscious search for common interests and goals over a much longer period.
The dynamic model of the democratic socio-political forces' unity provides wide opportunities for assimilating the whole spectrum of all the political experience gained in fighting against the state-monopoly system of domination. This is a way which provides opportunities for shaping democratic unity not only from the basis of opposition to the existing system, but also on the constructive basis of identical vital interests of the working class and other democratic forces in the contemporary capitalist society.
The difficulties and contradictions in shaping the proletariat's social-class alliances are also due to the fact that the interests of classes and social groups in actual life in any society do not appear in their pure form, but are reflected through the multi-faceted prism of socio-political aclivity, which is a whimsical mix of interests. The social-class structure of a society does not yet explain the complicated processes under way iii politics. In addition, peculiar sociopolitical entities tend to arise on the basis of joint activity _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1), p. 140.
96 or even a common approach. These are definite coalitions and movements which deserve study in greater depth. At the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the United States, Gus Hall spoke of the emergence in his country of diverse democratic coalitions without any explicit class or party structure, and urged the Communists to support these on-the-whole progressive coalitions and to digest their experience.Political attachments in the capitalist society are shaped as a result of intricate interaction between various aspects and elements of the individual's way of life. One of the key factors of this interaction, though far from the only one, is class affiliation. Along with it, there are other political, ideological, social and psychological factors in operation. The monopoly bourgeoisie, whose domination does not rest on force alone, makes use of these factors so as artificially to create a system of spiritual and political attachments among various strata of the society, including a section of the working class, to the capitalist system and the bourgeois way of life. By means of a flexible social policy and concessions to some strata of the society, including a section of the working class, and through a far-flung state system of ideological influence and manipulation of the mass consciousness, monopoly capital builds up the socio-- political basis for its domination.
The system of socio-political alliances serving as the social support of the monopolies' power does not coincide with the society's division into classes, because both workers and members of the middle strata are involved in these alliances in various ways. The working class and its vanguard face the task of breaking up this system of sociopolitical community which the ruling elite builds up.
Socio-political entities emerge in the sphere of superstructural relations and are, for that reason, secondary with respect to the society's division into classes. This means that class interest ultimately makes headway through the socio-political entities, providing the Marxist-Leninist parties with ever wider opportunities lor winning the strata of the working people involved over to the revolutionary positions of the working class.
Just because such coalitions do arise, some leftist theorists have denied the vanguard role of the communist parties and even insist that the communist parties are useless. But because the socio-political coalitions and movements __PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7--01528 97 emerging in Ihe general democratic struggle arc helerogeiK-oiis and have limited aims, they cannot substitute i'or the revolutionary party of the working class. The emergence ol such entities makes the struggle I'or the Communists' vanguard role in these coalitions even more meaning!ul.
In the same context, there is the pointed question of how one is to see the role of the working class and of the Communists as the vanguard of the revolutionary process. Lenin repeatedly stressed- and this idea was elaborated at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern---that the vanguard role of the communist party is not declared or hxed a priori. Its vanguard role is a process of struggle for allies and for ideological, political and moral influence on them.
As the documents ol the international communist movement, notably those of the 19(59 Meeting and the 1976 Berlin Conference, have repeatedly emphasised, an alliance implies equality and respect I'or the allies' independence and identity. The leadership of the working class and the Communists' vanguard role within the system of class and political alliances are not set as a preliminary condition, but have to be won in action. This vanguard role is expressed in the steadfast pursuit of the most consistent and revolutionary line expressing the interests of the working class. These tactics are applied in the maze of political struggles: implying cooperation and interaction with other political parties, and also rivalry between (hem for influence in the broad masses of the working class itself and its allies.
Let us note the difference which exists in this respect between the historical situation in which the October Socialist Revolution was carried out, and the situation which is characteristic of our day. The socialist revolution in Russia triumphed under the leadership of one party, Lenin's Communist Party. It alone took a revolutionary stand, and that ultimately led to a one-party system. It is true that the Bolsheviks did not insist on such a prospect as the only one. On the contrary, Lenin strove to involve the other leftwing parties in the fulfilment of socialist tasks. But at the time there was only limited experience in the practical struggle I'or socialism, and in those conditions only one parly---the revolutionary party of the working class---proved equal to the historical responsibility of carrying on the struggle for socialism. The burden of conciliation prevented Hie other left-wing parties from joining in thai struggle. 98 Many of those parties eventually sided with the Bolsheviks. Lenin says (hat Bolshevism "drew lo itself all that was best in the trends of socialist thought''.~^^1^^
Today, the problem is a different one. There is vast experience in the struggle for socialism, which has now been a reality I'or more than six decades. The experience of existing socialism has been firmly established in the mass political consciousness and has become a mass asset. This naturally has an effect on the programmatic views and practical behaviour of the democratic parties involved in the mass movement. All of this goes to create more favourable opportunities for the Communists' cooperation with the other democratic and left-wing parties not only in the struggle I'or democracy, but also for the victory of the socialist revolution and even for the building of a socialist society. In this situation, the communist parties' leading role in the revolutionary movement is realised through their relations with other parties within the broad alliance of left-wing and democratic forces. These relations are based on the principles of equality and respect I'or the independence of all the parties and organisations.
It depends on the concrete balance of forces in a country which way the Communists have to advance lo their vanguard positions in the working-class and democratic movement, and how many stages it will take to do so. The balance in some countries of the capitalist world is such that it is hard to imagine the communist parties taking up vanguard positions at (he early stages of the revolutionary process. One could assume that the Communists in these countries will win the role of vanguard in the workingclass and democratic movement through long and persevering struggle. Whatever the conditions, the communist parties' own capability of playing the vanguard rale depends on their skill in rallying and uniting the broadest possible spectrum of forces capable of taking part in the revolutionary process. That is the aspect of the matter Lenin accentuated when lie said that the Communists should not slew in their own juice.^^2^^
In Ihis conlexl, one musl also consider the role of Marxism in the modern world. Marxism is the only scientific theory which helps to understand the complicated processes _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, pp. r>5-,)6.
~^^2^^ Set- V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 333.
99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1985/CRP221/20080528/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.05.28) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ going on in the world and to mark out the stages on the way to attaining the ultimate goal of the working class. That is certainly true, but it is not right to lake a haughty attitude to one's political allies who hold different views. That kind of approach hampers the consolidation of alliances. Any parly or organisation refusing to lake a close look at the theoretical conceptions propounded by its allies and declaring that they have no value erodes alliance principles like equality and trust, and also hampers the exchange of opinions, and ideological discussions, which provide effective opportunities for demonstrating the superiority of Marxism-Leninism over the other socialist theories.Marxism is a universal theory which gives a picture of the contemporary world in all ils complexity and with all ils contradictions. This universality implies close study of other trends in social thinking, which may---however onesidedly or even distortedly---reflect actual economic and socio-political processes under way in the surrounding world.
Marxism is universal because il demonstrates in fact the superiority of the theory of scientific communism in solving the problems confronted by a society. Marxism-- Leninism displays its universality through its profound theoretical assimilation of the whole of historical experience of our day, including various trends in social thinking.
This aspect of the matter was indicated by Luigi Longo in his report to the 12th Congress of the Italian Communist Party in February 1969, when he said: "Comrade Togliatli wrote in 1961 that the Marxist doctrine is a crucible in which the following process of exceptional historical importance takes place: various civilisations, diverse cultures and world views, diverse traditions and social structures are subjected to analysis and compared on the common basis that is created by the building of a new society which does away with exploitation and human alienation and guarantees to everyone well-being, freedom, peace and full individual development. It is this capacity of Marxism to be a universal doctrine Ihat we must demonstrate in practice. We are working to have this great fusion take place within Marxism and with Marxism.''~^^1^^
One could also indicate a number of factors to show that _-_-_
~^^1^^ Luigi Longo, Un 'alternaliva per Uscirc dalla Crisi. Rapporlo nl XII Congrcsso del Partita communista italiano, Bologna, Editor! Riunili, 1969, pp. 88--89.
100 some of Ihe new problems in tho course of whose solution Marxisl thinking has been enriched were initially---even if incompletely and one-sidedly---formulated within Ihe framework of non-Marxist theoretical conceptions.Marxists have repeatedly and with good reason criticised tho theoretical views of the ideologists of the so-called "new left''. Still, the writings of the "new left" theorists contain a very sharp critique of some aspects of contemporary capitalism, its spiritual poverty and the consumer ideology and mentality which it cultivates. Attention has been drawn to the intricate socio-psychological and ideological mechanism by means of which artificial requirements are foisted on human beings for the purpose of ``integrating'' them with the capitalist system and cultivating a way of life and frame of mind that do not go beyond tho boundaries of that system. That critique was, of course, limited and laced with anti-communist inventions. But one cannot deny that it did contain a grain of truth. Subsequently, a profound and comprehensive critique of "consumer capitalism" was given in Marxist writings.
Add to this yet another circumstance. In the modern world, the influence of Marxist ideas and Ihe experience of existing socialism is so great that it markedly magnifies the trends towards an unconscious acceptance of various aspects of the Marxist methodology by a number of major scientists and political leaders in the non-socialist world.
The universality of Marxism implies an assimilation of the whole wealth of human practice, which means also the critical assimilation and digestion of the positive content of other theoretical conceptions in the light of Marxist principles. The superiority of Marxism over the other socialist theories is not merely declared, but is proved through a more profound and comprehensive solution of the pressing problems of our day.
One has to note especially the deep-sealed contradictions within the system of alliances which are to be found in the developing countries. That is due to the patchy and multilayered social structure in these countries, the incompleteness of many processes of social development, and the vagueness of the boundaries between classes and social strata and layers. In these countries, one will find a great number of transitional social types.
The ideas of socialism are not in any sense alien to the bulk of the population in these countries. What is more, it 101 is socialism which mods their vital interests, and socialism alone can lead (hem out of Ihe dead-end economic and cultural backwardness, the grave legacy of centuries of colonial oppression. But one must see that the socialist ideals .entering the minds of broad masses of people and rinding their way into the programmatic documents of vanguard political forces in this region are under slrong pressure from the undeveloped social structure of the society, which is reflected on the level of political culture. This results in diverse distortions of socialist ideas. They arc frequently confused and interwoven with various Utopian and religious notions, so thai in the practical struggle for socialist transformations in these countries, one finds a broad spectrum of vacillation in the behaviour of the main social forces, and consequently also in the behaviour of the political parlies and organisations expressing their interests.
One has to take into account the fact that in most of these countries the working class itself has yet to break all or some of the bonds of the system of backward social relations. In these countries, there is still no clear-cut demarcation between the social-class forces which is characteristic of the capitalist society. Various strata of the working class still have a thousand bonds and points of contact with numerous petty-bourgeois layers and with pre-capitalist social structures, and are sometimes even merged with them. This brings us to a specific feature of the socio-political development that is of great importance in understanding the processes of struggle for advance towards socialism in these countries. Under the influence of the Marxist ideology and the experience of existing socialism, the development of party-and-political structures in a number of newly-free countries tends frequently to outrun the development of social-class structures. On the one hand, this is an indicator of the increased influence of Marxism-Leninism in the modern world. But ou the other, it means that the progressive parlies and organisations fighting for a socialist orienlalion still need to build up a broad and solid social base for the struggle, making its orientation towards socialism stable and reliable.
Both from the methodological and political standpoint, there is a need to discern this contradiction between the vanguard and far advanced party-and-political structures, which are oriented towards Ihe progressive ideology and the socialist ideal, and Ihe instability of the social base in 102 the struggle for socialist goals. There is a vast potential of struggle for socialism in these countries, but the amorphous and embryonic social structure', which is fettered with a web of tribal relations, results in a situation in which highly diverse petty-bourgeois strata, each with its own set of peculiarities, provide the main mass base for the activity of the revolutionary-democratic parties looking to socialism. These strata are in no sense akin to the petty bourgeoisie which is characteristic of the countries of developed statemonopoly capitalism.
Such a social base naturally makes for a wide range of alternatives for development. There is the possibility of advancing towards socialism, with new potentialities created as the social base is ever more profoundly differentiated and as it brings out the working class and the social strata close to it, that is, the most stable forces in the struggle for socialism. There is also the opposite prospect of reverse movements and counter-revolutionary coups with the development of conservative trends inherent in this undifferenlialed social base which are fuelled by the ideological and cultural backwardness of broad masses of the population and which are used to the utmost by imperialism.
The problems of alliance in the developing countries are certainly different from those in the developed capitalist countries. But at the same time, the activity of the communist parties in that region also manifests some of the general principles of the Marxist-Leninist strategy of broad class and political alliances.
[103] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Six __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE VANGUARD OF THE WORKINGIf the working class is to win out in the socialist revolution and go on to building socialism, it needs a vanguard in the form of a political party of the Marxist-Leninist type. That has been proved by the whole record of the international working-class movement. Communist parties now have the leading role to play in the struggle for a revolutionary renewal of the world. The Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 26th Congress of the Party said: " Communists, armed with the Marxist-Leninist teaching, see the essence and perspective of the processes in the world more profoundly and more correctly than anybody else, and draw the right conclusions from them for their struggle for the interests of the working class, the working people of their countries, and for democracy, peace and socialism."~^^1^^
The revolutionary party is a natural product of the development of the liberation struggle carried on by the working class as it is faced with the need to become aware of its place in the historical process and of its role in the struggle for emancipation from capitalist exploitation. This is an objective requirement of the working-class movement which is realised through the creation of a party as the political representative of the working class.
The revolutionary party is the vehicle of the scientific doctrine which substantiates the proletariat's historical mission and its class goals. This theory is the product of a scientific summing-up of the living conditions of the international working class and its experience in struggle. It is the party, the vanguard of the working class, that carries the theoretical consciousness into the working-class movement. The party also formulates the programmatic goals of the proletariat's revolutionary movement.
But the functions of a political party are not, confined to cultural activity and enlightenment which cannot---however _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1981, p. 24.
104 extensive its scale---give the mass working-class movement a conscious character. It is prevented from doing so by the entire system of capitalist relations, by the system of ideological views, connections and institutions, and the way of life they shape. In order to break out of the web of bourgeois notions there is a need not just for education, but for revolutionary action in order to break out of the circle of views and relations that are habitual for the capitalist society. That is why the working-class party cannot be an enlightenment society or an information centre. It is a militant political organisation capable of leading the working class and its allies to revolutionary struggle, making use of the working people's own practical experience for their enlightenment.Within the working-class movement, the party has ideological, political and organisational functions. It recruits and trains cadres of able guides and leaders of the masses; it directs and coordinates working-class action in various parts of the country and at different enterprises in accordance with the general goals of the movement; it ensures unity of action by the working class and its allies in the revolutionary struggle; and it represents the working class in its relations with other classes, social strata and political parties. The activity of the political party of the working class ensures the stability and continuity of the proletariat's class struggle and helps it to gain revolutionary experience and establish revolutionary traditions. The party's activity organically blends scientific thinking and revolutionary mass action, analysis of the objective situation and skill in taking responsible decisions at the right moment and joining most vigorously in the revolutionary process, so as to carry broad masses of people with it.
The working-class party is the chief ideological, political and organisational centre of mass socialist struggle. To deprive the working class of its political party is to deprive it of the prospect of winning power and going on to socialism. Lenin says: "In its struggle for power, the proletariat lias no other weapon but organisation . .. the proletariat can, and inevitably will, become an invincible force only through its ideological unification on the principles of Marxism being reinforced by the mall-rial unity of organisation, which welds millions of toilers into an army of the working class.''~^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 415.
105As tlie centre of scientific theoretical thinking and political leadership of the revolutionary working-class movement, the Marxist-Leninist party strives to comprehend and realise (he potentialities which are opened up before the working class in the struggle for socialism. This shows each parly's great political responsibility for always being equal to the tasks which it has to face at every historical slage and in the concrete conditions of each country.
The contemporary epoch is one of profound and dynamic change in every sphere of the society's being and consciousness. The revolutionary parties of the working class are themselves influenced by this tempestuous process. They are not political formations cast in a rigid mould and defying the influence of sharp social shifts. They also develop together with the revolutionary transformations. MarxistLeninist parties have their own history and stages of development which depend on Ihe peculiarities of the historical stage. As a political organisation, each party acquires new features at every new stage, while maintaining the basic revolutionary principles in its organisation and activity.
The changes taking place in the capitalist society are directly connected with the forms of organisation and activity of working-class parties. There have been many such changes in the economy, in social relations, in politics and in Ihe way of life in recent decades.
The rapid growth of state-monopoly capitalism has led to marked changes in the forms of capitalist property. The ongoing depersonalisalion of capital tends to complexify the system of capitalist exploitation of the working class. Alongside the qualitative shifts in the technical basis of social production, the scientific and technical revolution has brought about major changes in the society's social structure, tapping new sources for the growth of the working class and enlarging its boundaries through the inclusion of a section of office workers and other categories of men and women doing other than work by hand. The material condition of the working class has also changed, and its cultural standards and skill training have grown. The peasantry, which has traditionally been the source of the growth of the working class, has in many countries effectively run out of reserves for proletarisation. The Communists must also reckon with the growing social activity of the intelligentsia, a big part of which seeks to establish contacts with the working-class movement. At the same time, some 106 intellectuals are still inclined to shun discipline and organisation, to claim a leading place in politics, etc.
An evolution of the working people's requirements and system of values is under way in the capitalist countries. In the material sphere, the demands of most workers relate mainly to safeguarding that which the working people have won in their long struggle and which is being jeopardised by the economic crisis, the growing inflation and unemployment. At the same time, ever greater importance attaches to demands relating to the quality of life, working conditions and the nature of work, and the possibility of having an influence on decision-making at every level, of receiving an education, enjoying the benefits of culture and meaningful leisure pursuits. Environ mental protection, housing, and public health are of increasing importance in their social demands.
All of Ibis confronts the communist parties with the need to know how to voice the demands not only of the most deprived strata of the population, but also of those whose interests go beyond the purely economic ones. The shift from purely economic to social and cultural demands reflect the marked expansion of the sources of social discontent and revolutionary attitudes. That is why there is a need considerably to widen the circle of problems which the party daily has within its field of vision.
Changes in the socio-psychological situation in which the communist parties have to act require the party's multifaceted activity and taking into account the interests of various strata of the working people in its programme. The parties can no longer afford to engage mainly in exposing the evils of capitalism, as they did in the past, It is no longer enough even lo put forward positive and constructive demands, because these must be seriously substantiated and backed up with relevant arguments. This requires fundamental preliminary study, the utmost use of the party's intellectual resources, and an extension of the field of its theoretical interests in economics, politics, law, social psychology and sociology. An indicator of the party's serious character comes from its capability to work out a knowledgeable and concrete alternative on all the problems of economic, social and political life, for this largely determines its authority and influence on the masses.
The conditions of the communist parlies' mass work have changed. As the labour process is intensified and leisure 107 depoliticised, Iho working people's interest in political functions after working hours tends to wane, while the spread of television has markedly lowered their interest in meetings and rallies. In their leisure time, people prefer to stay at home and watch television, which has effectively been monopolised by the state and the ruling parties. Rallies and meetings involving ``loss'' of time cannot vie with the more flexible modern forms of propaganda being carried on by the state's ideological machine, which has vast material resources and the latest technical gadgets at its disposal.
At the enterprises, the working people are being extensively brainwashed with the aid of a hand-picked staff of psychologists, sociologists and journalists, so that party organisations find it ever harder to resist this pressure from monopoly capital.
The importance of the international factor in the communist parties' activity increases immensely. The struggle for peace, and against the arms race and the danger of a nuclear war for the whole of mankind has become central to the communist parties' activity. Some problems can now no longer be tackled within the framework of individual countries, among them protection of the environment, rational use of natural resources, the drive against hunger and disease, and so on. The strengthening of the transnational monopolies and the development of regional economic and political associations also serve to alter the traditional conditions in which the communist parties have to carry on their struggle, and require a coordination of their positions, a pooling of their efforts with the communist parties of other countries, and an enhancement of the internationalist element in their activity. Hence the danger posed in the present conditions by national narrow-mindedness and seclusion, passivcness and indifference to the struggle for mankind's common goals.
Such is the complicated new situation in which the communist parties of the capitalist countries have to work. Life impels them to adapt to the changing environment. That is why it is quite natural to raise the question of new forms of organisation and activity and of the need for the revolutionary parties of the working class to change their very face. Creative quest along these lines, with an eye 1o changes in the social structure of the contemporary capitalist society and in the balance of class and political forces is imperative for the Communists.
108A communist party is a living and developing political organism, whose vital activity is a reflection of the intricate contradicLions of the class struggle in the ongoing revolutionary process. In the communist parties there is creative effort along many lines to assimilate arid ``digest'' the wealth of available experience in the revolutionary transformation of the world. Acting in the midst of the masses and accumulating their experience, the communist parties face the specilic manifestations of the general uniformities of the revolutionary process in the various regions and countries.
This explains the diversity and richness of the MarxistLeninist parties' ideological and political life. Their activity proceeds in constant struggle against right and ``left'' revisionism and entails the needs for perfect clarity on the pseudo-novelty of the revisionist attempts to recast the principles of the Marxist-Leninist theory and distort the actual movement of theoretical thinking in the party. New ideas and propositions summing up experience of revolutionary struggle need to be made a part of the system of Marxism's theoretical ideas. Indeed, it would be harmful to confuse this movement of thought with the pseudo-innovations to be found in diverse revisionist conceptions.
Let us recall what Engels said about the need for constant creative work in the party and for constant self-- criticism and ideological discussion: "The working-class movement is based on the sharpest critique of the existing society; criticism is its vital element, so how can it itself avoid criticism and seek to prohibit discussion?"~^^1^^
This creative effort implies unfettered theoretical thinking with constant orientation towards what is new.
13ut tho Communists' creative quest has to be carried on in a very difficult situation. They have to overcome strong opportunist trends. In the past, big capital used to bribe the upper layer of the working class---the "worker aristocracy'---by giving it handouts from its superprofits and so creating the social basis for opportunism in its midst. Even today, the bourgeoisie in many capitalist countries strives in various ways to bribe some layers of the working class and to convert them into its social support within the working-class movement.
However, it should also be borne in mind that the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx, Friedrioh Engels, Wcrke, Diclz Verlag, Berlin, 1967, 1UI. 37, S. 328.
109 working-class movement is now advancing along a new twist of its development spiral, which is why in explaining the social roots of opportunism one can no longer confine oneself lo the ''worker aristocracy''. The monopoly bourgeoisie now lias a more powerful and intricate system for influencing the working-class movement, and this poses a much graver danger to it. It is the concept of "social consensus'', which is aimed lo integrate the working class with the capitalist social system. This is not just an effort to bribe the upper layer of the working class, but to create a ramified media nism of socio-political and ideological* influence on the positions, consciousness and behaviour of the working class as a whole. Within this system, a great role is assigned to bourgeois and social-democratic reformism, and the influence of the ideological apparatus, which relies on the consumer way of life to shape a conformist consciousness, conformist ideals and values in the rnidsl of the working class.The efforts to build up broader social support within the working-class movement are expressed in the bourgeois ideologists' stepped-up offensive against existing socialism. That is quite natural because existing socialism is the living embodiment of the ideals and goals of socialism, and if the ideologists of anti-communism are to clear the ground for implanting the "social consensus" idea, they have to smear and discredit the revolutionary ideals. The bourgeois ideologists set themselves this goal quite consciously, and they are followed by the theorists of revisionism, who try to produce some abstract ``anti-model'' of socialism in contrast to existing socialism. Unfortunately, the influence of these bourgeois and revisionist theories seeps into the ranks of some communist parties and is expressed in their efforts to ``distance'' themselves from existing socialism.
Such ``distancing'' exercises inevitably cast doubt on the revolutionary ideals and values of the communist movement. Removed from the soil of existing socialism, these ideals and values are turned into abstractions, lose their solid basis in life and are stripped of their inspiring power. Without existing socialism, the communist movement would truly be confronted with a "crisis of ideals''.
Whether the advocates of ``distancing'' from existing socialism want it or not, the effort inevitably pushes them towards the social-democratic theory of "democratic socialism" and towards ideological ``convergence'' with 110 social-democracy, it is not at all accidental lhat the advocates of this line speak about some possibility of a political merger of the left-wing forces.
In other words, for the Communists of the capitalist countries, the ``distancing'' from existing socialism is tantamount to giving up their historical roots and traditions, and losing their substantive features which characterise the communist party as a revolutionary party of the working class. One could say that this is a tendency to disavow oneself.
The pressure exerted on the Communists by the gigantic ideological apparatus set up by monopoly capital is designed precisely lo divert the working-class parties from (lie revolutionary way. That is why it is so important for the Communists to make sure that in their creative quest for answers to the questions posed by life, they do not lose their revolutionary substance, and preserve intact the fundamental principles of the ideology, policy and organisation of the new type of party.
One side-effect of the qnesl for answers lo questions posed by life takes the form of ``renovator'' theories which try lo lead the parties' quest into the dead-end of liquidalionism. They propound the idea of a radical `` transformation'' of the communist parties, a ``transformation'' which boils down to a repudiation of the principles of democratic centralism and a conversion of the communist party concerned into a "pluralistic association" of diverse ideological and political trends. The idea is to ``transform'' the revolutionary party of the working class into a kind of socially faceless parly of "workers, middle classes and intelligentsia''.
The activity of the revisionist-minded ``renovators'' puts the duty on the Communists lo give a correct evaluation of any claims lo new conceptions of the party which differ from Lenin's conception. This is especially necessary because such claims, as a rule, lack clarity in defining the substance and features of ihe parly which, they insist, is the modern ``model''.
One proposal, for inslance, is lo review democratic centralism, Ihe basic principle underlying the Marxisl-- Leninisl party's organisation and activity, on the plea that there is allegedly a need to transfer the accent from centralism to democracy. There is evidently a need to take the historical approach in assessing democratic centralism, like the 111 oilier principles of the parly's activity. The norms of innerparly life are influenced by l.ho changes occurring in social development. Their forms are altered and improved. That is something one will lind in the record of any MarxistLeninist parly. But the development of democratic centralism does not at all run in accordance with some artificial or primitive scheme: from centralism to ever broader democracy. According lo lhal scheme, centralism and democracy are mechanically opposed lo each other, whereas in fact both are simultaneously perfected as the communist party develops, because both arc organically connected components of democratic centralism.
In the Marxist-Leninist theory of the party, centralism lias never been regarded as an impediment to or limitation of inner-party democracy, ll is a standard anti-communist myth, which has nothing in common with the activity of the Marxist-Leninist party, to regard the communist party as some kind of petrified monolith, within which there are no differences of view and opinion, and where all the political decisions are dictated from above.
Democratic centralism ensures the party's unity and strict party discipline, while implying the broadest participation by all the members of the party in working out its political line. Those who oppose democratic centralism claim lhal discipline rules out democracy. They think that democracy boils down to ceaseless discussions and debates, and that it is an end in itself. By contrast, the Marxist-Leninist view is that, far from being opposed to party discipline, democracy is, in effect, the necessary condition for making party discipline a voluntary, conscious readiness to fight selflessly for the parly's cause and its decisions.
Another idea is that the parly is some kind of "replica of the sociely" in which all Hie ideological and political trends existing in the capitalist socioly are reproduced. This approach clashes al root with the class approach. No revolutionary party can be a mirror reflection of the society. Every revolutionary party consciously expresses the interests and objectives of the working class. The party is not, of course, isolated from the society, which is why ideas expressing the interests of other classes seep into it. But it would be wrong to say thai the party's task is to sum up or synthesise these ideas. On the contrary, consistent struggle against alien ideological and political influences and implacable struggle on two fronts---against right-wing 112 opportunism and leftism---is a law which governs the development of the working-class party.
Some theorists put erroneous interpretations on problems relating to the communist parties' ideological principles. Now and again, for instance, there is a tendency towards "ideological pluralism''. A party reconciling itself to different ideologies does not have a solid ideological basis and has given up its ideological commitment.
Ideological ``pluralism'' extends primarily to the philosophical world view. It is claimed that what is important for the party in Marxism's ideological and cultural patrimony is above all its political programme, so that there is no need to be bound by a definite philosophy---dialectical and historical materialism.
This is, in effect, the idea of the party being neutral with respect to world view, and the significance of the ideological and cultural palrimony of Marxism is reduced to its political programme. Let us recall in this context the consistency with which Lenin stood up for Marxism's philosophical patrimony as an organic component part of the communist party's ideology. Marxism, the ideological foundation of the revolutionary working-class party, is indivisible: it is cast from a single piece of steel. It is impossible to exlracl philosophy from il without breaking its mould on which depends the revolutionary substance of the doctrine as expressed in its political programme. Dialectical and historical materialism and the materialist view of history provide the philosophical basis for the conclusion concerning the world-wide hislorical role of the working class and its revolutionary party. It is naive to think that consistently revolutionary programmes and policies can be realised without a theoretical philosophical grounding.
``Ideological pluralism" cannot be confined to the sphere of philosophical abstractions. Il tends to erode the party and to push it into political ``pluralism'', which casts doubt on Ihe cardinal principles on which the Marxist-Leninist party is organised, carries on its activity and plays its vanguard role in the revolutionary movement.
What are Ihe rools of Ihese trends? They are evidently connected with the actual changes in the society's social struclure and in the political behaviour of non-proletarian socio-political forces. New socio-political movements have arisen in many capitalist countries, and most are unstable, are ideologically, politically and organisationally __PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8--01528 113 amorphous, and have a checkered composition. Many of them are short-lived, but they are manifestations of the historical uniformity leading to the entry of new social forces into the struggle for democracy and socialism. The working-class parties are faced with the task of spreading their influence to these new participants in the struggle.
The sweep of the anti-monopoly movement and the emergence of new socio-political movements now and again produce the temptation for the communist parties' extending the ambit of their influence at the price of obliterating the party's definite class and ideological character. Hence the pragmatic trends, the neglect of theory and some carelessness with respect to the party's ideological principles.
However, this relates to the substance of the new type of revolutionary party. Let us recall that it is impossible to advance from capitalism to socialism without a conscious element. It is the working-class party that helps to blend the socialist consciousness and the theory of scientific communism with the working-class movement, and that is the whole point of a communist party's existence and activity. The new, Leninist type of party always proceeds from the theory which is a comprehension and compression of the international experience of the working-class movement. Without its theory, the party becomes a mere recorder of ongoing events. Such a party could, of course, enlarge its electoral body by attracting socio-political forces which do not accept the conclusions of the revolutionary ideology. But will this strengthen the party's political positions over the long term? Of course, it will not.
Experience shows that any exacerbation of the class struggle quickly erodes that kind of unstable social base. The winning of new forces for the working class and the communist parties' consideration of their interests and summing-up the experience of their activity are certainly a necessary task, but it should not be fulfilled by merely adding the ideology and policy of the working class and the ideology and policy of non-proletarian strata of the population. Their experience and interests should be refracted through the prism of the ideology and policy of the vanguard class, which most consistently expresses the interests of all the working people. That is the only stand for the communist party to take, for otherwise its revolutionary substance is dissolved in a ``pluralistic'' mix of petty-- bourgeois ideas, notions and attitudes.
114Pragmatic tendencies objectively tend to obliterate one of the most essential distinctions between the MarxistLeninist type of parly and the social-democratic parlies, which emphasise their indifference lo theory. Il is a characteristic feature of social-democracy to be ideologically omnivorous out of a fear that theoretical principles could hamper its freedom to conduct a policy of compromise. Abandonment of the theory which establishes the revolutionary attitude to the reality is fraught with the danger of converting a militant political organisation with a socialist perspective into an ordinary conformist party confining its activity to the framework of the existing system.
The social-democratic type of party is a respectable party integrated with the system of state-monopoly capitalism. This type of party can function and even obtain some positive results only in the humdrum atmosphere of bourgeois constitutionalism. In situations of acute crisis, the socialdemocratic-type parlies are, as a rule, incapable of taking a clear-cut stand, and are beset by disagreements, discussions and factional fights, all of which rules out any effective and purposeful political action. The mechanism of inner-party life in such parties is unfit for exercising the role of the political vanguard of the working class in revolutionary periods. Such a role calls for militant revolutionary parties with a clear theoretical consciousness and capacity consistently to lead Ihe masses to revolution.
A well-defined ideological and political class stand is a necessary and permanent feature of the revolutionary working-class party. In this matter, there can be no ``pluralism'', because there is a need for consistent monism. Whatever the ``renovators'' of the revisionist stripe may say, such monism does not signify either dogmatism or sectarianism. On the contrary, it creates a solid platform for extending ties with other democratic forces, for comprehending the diversity of their experience, and for reckoning with their specific interests so as to unite them for the common struggle. These problems can be solved only with ideological and political monism, and from the standpoint of the leader-class, whose interests are expressed by the Communists.
In this context, there also arises another question: the balance between class and national tasks in the revolutionary parties' policy. The communist party cannot, of course, ignore the overall national interest, for it represents a __PRINTERS_P_115_COMMENT__ 8* 115 class which is a part of the nation, the class which has the leading role in its progressive development.
But one should not forget that bourgeois and reformist parties also adopt national-interest conceptions and slogans, over which there is a sharp struggle. The monopoly bourgeoisie and its ideologists strive for the "social integration" of the working class with the capitalist system, and want not just a part of the working people but the whole mass of them to accept objectives and principles which are alien to those of the working class. Here frequent use is also made of the "national interest" slogan to pull out of the crisis from which the whole nation suffers, a slogan designed to damp down the class struggle and put the burdens of the crisis on the shoulders of the working people.
In the fight against the theory and policy of class cooperation on the basis of a "national consensus'', it is exceptionally important to have a clear understanding that, in the platforms of the communist parties, national interests are always seen in the light of the ideology and policy of the working class, the vanguard class of the epoch. That is the only kind of line the revolutionary party can follow. And it is the only kind of class line that most fully meets the class interest, because in the contemporary world national problems can be solved only through struggle for deep fundamental transformations eventually paving the way to socialism.
That is precisely why the Communists cannot afford to merge with other social trends involved in the struggle for the solution of pressing national problems. While working for broad anti-imperialist unity, they champion the socialist transformation of the society to meet the vital interests of the working class and all the other working people.
The revolutionary party of the working class, its political vanguard, is at the head of the mass movement. Such is the axiom of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the party, which has been hammered out in sharp struggle on two fronts: against opportunistic ``tailism'' which reduces the party's role to the level of a recorder of events, and against leftist voluntarism, which separates the party from the masses and ascribes to it the mystical role of creator of social development. The ideologists of anti-communism and revisionism have spread a great many inventions about the vanguard parly, claiming that the communist view of it amounts to a revision of historical materialism, as an 116 expression of voluntarism and vanguardism, as a denial of the objective laws of social development and as a communist claim to absolute truth.
The vanguard position for which the communist parties are working is an ideological, political and organisational expression of the historical role of the working class as the leader of the modern revolutionary epoch. It is not only the communist party that operates within the working-class movement, but other working-class parties and various working-class organisations. The vanguard role is not some a priori claim to the communist party's pre-eminence among other working-class organisations, but its urge most fully and consistently to express the proletariat's general class interest and to be the most conscious, most organised and far-sighted unit of the working-class movement.
The communist party's vanguard role in the revolutionary movement is no bar to participation by other social forces and parties in the struggle for socialism. Indeed, while consistently conducting the political line of the leader-class within the movement, the Marxist party strives to unite all the forces capable of taking part in the revolutionary struggle.
The question of the communist party's vanguard role has become most acute in view of the influx of new democratic forces into the movement, and the growth in the number of parties and socio-political organisations taking part in the struggle for peace and social progress. Here, two dangerous trends have appeared. One is the trend to level down the communist party among the other democratic parties and organisations and to deny or minimise its vanguard role. The other trend is a much too ``strict'' interpretation of vanguard role, which hampers the communist party in arranging relations and alliances with other political parties on the basis of democratic principles.
The principle of the communist party's vanguard role in the working-class movement stems from the objective uniformities governing the development of this movement. There is a need for the revolutionary vanguard, whose activity is based on the theory of scientific communism, to enable the working class to fulfil its main task, which is to effect the transition from capitalism to socialism. But there is no easy or straight way to the solution of this problem. The vanguard role in the working-class movement has to be won. Most of the communist parties in the capitalist 117 countries have not ye I clone so. On the way to lhat goal the communist parties inevitably have to halt at intermediate stations, so that, while striving to win the vanguard role, they are forced to play a second or even a third role, leaving the first role to other democratic parties and supporting them for the sake of the common advance of the left-wing and democratic forces.
The vanguard role of the working-class party depends on its capacity and skill in keeping abreast of the times, ceaselessly accumulating and theoretically summing up the revolutionary experience of the masses, and formulating programmatic demands to meet their interests. Lenin says that ''. . . it is not enough to call ourselves the `vanguard', the advanced contingent; we must act in such a way that all the other contingents recognise and are obliged to admit that we are marching in the vanguard".^^1^^ Still, the difficulties in the party's winning the leading role in the mass working-class and democratic movement cast no doubt on the general law governing the development of the movement: the historical initiative of the working class and its allies cannot rise to a truly revolutionary level so long as the forward, most active and conscious section of the class has not united in a political organisation capable of standing at the head of the mass movement.
Vanguard role is not a preliminary condition for entry into an alliance. To seek to play the vanguard role means working for recognition and support from the masses by one's activity, consistency and resolution. If a party succeeds in doing so, not only it itself but all the other democratic organisations stand to benefit from its vanguard role, because then they have to pull themselves up so as not to lose their positions in the midst of the masses. This paves the way for fresh advances by the working-class and democratic movement as a whole.
One pressing matter is what the revolutionary party is to be in the developing countries, where the ways of the formation and development of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary parties are specific. On the one hand, the politically organised revolutionary force in these countries has tremendous potentialities. Political development can be markedly accelerated because their socio-political structures have not yel crystallised, provided the liberation movement is led _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 426.
118 by a revolutionary party which is guided by the ideas of scientific socialism. This is well illustrated by the countries which have opted for the way of socialist development. On the other hand, in accordance with the general laws of historical materialism, social consciousness and political structures in these regions are also determined by social being, by the economic basis and the corresponding social structure. In particular, the revolutionary parties continue to be dependent on the undeveloped economic and social-class relations, and this explains why the vanguard parties frequently have a loose social base. It also explains the existence of numerous channels through which bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalistic views penetrate into the parties. Hence the difficulties in consolidating these parties on the basis of Marxist-Leninist positions.Nevertheless, political practice in the developing countries shows that vanguard working people's parties can act with success in these countries, and are capable of leading them along the socialist way of development. This proves that in these countries there is a possibility of gradually shaping revolutionary Marxist-Leninist type of parties on the basis of the vanguard parties, with membership and activity adapted to the specific conditions of the developing countries.
The improvement of the forms of the communist parties' organisation and activity, and adaptation of these forms to the new conditions constitute a problem whose solution calls for great boldness and much theoretical effort on the part of the Communists. But no solution can be regarded as a success if it entails the loss of principle. In defending the principles of the new type of party against attacks by the liquidators, Lenin says: "This organisation, while preserving its basic type, has been able to adapt its form to the changing conditions, has been able to vary that form to meet the requirements of the moment.''~^^1^^ That is the kind of flexibility and capacity to adapt to the new conditions, while preserving its basic type, its fundamental principles of organisation and activity, that the revolutionary party of the working class needs even today.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 401.
[119] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Seven __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE TRANSITIONAL TYPE OF SOCIALThe meaning and content of the social revolution in the 20th century and the main lines and main tendency in present-day social development are mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism. This development proceeds in a multifarious and contradictory world with its characteristic tangle of diverse socio-political and economic relations and layer upon layer of social structures from different historical epochs. In these conditions, transitional forms of revolutionary transformations paving the way for socialism are of especial importance.
This problem is considered in principle in the writings of the founders of Marxism. With the abolition of the right of inheritance in mind, Marx says that such measures can apply "to a state of social transition, where, on the one hand, the present economic base of society is not yet transformed, but where, on the other hand, the working masses have gathered strength enough to enforce transitory measures calculated to bring about an ultimate radical change of society''.~^^1^^
The problem was fundamentally elaborated by Lenin in the theory of development of the democratic revolution into a socialist revolution, in his propositions on the "combined types" of social development, and on the transitional type of revolutionary-democratic state.
This question is a part of the theory of social revolution. Since the revolution is a system of transitional measures and entails a break-up of the old social order and the formation of a new social system, the analysis of transitional forms and types of social transformations coincides with the analysis of the revolutionary process itself. But in our day, this problem also confronts many capitalist countries in the narrower sense of the word, as the problem of the peaceful development of the socialist revolution, the possibilities for which have been very greatly enlarged in the present conditions. The peaceful way entails the passage of _-_-_
~^^1^^ The General Council of the First International, 1868--1870. Minutes, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974, p. 324.
120 the revolutionary process through a number of stages. Along this way there are bound to be intermediate stages with inherently transitional types of economic and socio-political relations.The growth of state-monopoly capitalism in the developed capitalist countries creates all the main material prerequisites for fundamental transformations of the economy and social relations, for the passage of power into the hands of the working class, and for implementation of socialist transformations. With these prerequisites in mind, Lenin remarked that "socialism is now gazing at us from all the windows of modern capitalism".^^1^^
Contradictions inevitably build up between the system of state-monopoly domination and the various strata of the working people, which means not only the working class, but also all the other intermediate strata of the urban and the rural petty bourgeoisie. In these circumstances, the working class has fresh opportunities for effecting fairly important social transformations both in the economy and in politics even before getting down to the fundamental tasks of the socialist revolution.
Some opportunities appear in the economic sphere for intrusion by the working-class and democratic movement into property relations, capital's holy of holies. This includes various measures of workers' control and the working people's participation in management at various levels. One could say that some advances have already been made in this direction by the working-class movement. Thus, a special participation law was passed in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1976. It is true that the parity participation of workers and entrepreneurs in management, as provided for by the social-democratic project, did not materialise, but some advances have been made: working people were given some opportunities for influencing the adoption of various decisions at the enterprise level. Another example is offered by France, where there are enterprise committees in which working people are involved and which have a say in deciding on the hiring and dismissal of personnel. Under pressure from the working-class movement, an economic and social council has been set up and, with active participation by the trade unions, it exerts some influence, however limited, on economic decision-making at the national _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 363.
121 level. In Italy, there are factory committees enabling the I trade unions to influence the solution of many economic j problems, including investment decisions. Similar gains will ' also be found in the other capitalist countries.One has to bear in mind that these measures are not of crucial significance. The vital decisions on economic development are still being taken at the headquarters of the monopolies, which have the final say on the economic policy of the bourgeois state. However, some changes characterising the role of the working class in this sphere have taken or are taking place. The point is to what extent these changes lead to fundamental qualitative changes within the relations-of-production system. One thing is perfectly clear: in the developed capitalist countries, state regulation of the economy is the crucial area of economic development, so that the question of intervention in property relations and the relations-of-production system meshes with politics and effectively becomes a political issue.
Indeed, why is it that, given a high degree of maturity of the objective prerequisites for transition to socialism, such a transition does not take place and the capitalist system remains intact? The point is above all that radical revolutionary transformations require power, and to win such power the working class and its revolutionary vanguard must remove the monopoly bourgeoisie from power. But it is a fact that in the countries of developed state-monopoly capitalism, and especially in those which have an elaborate system of bourgeois democracy, the power of the monopolies is being maintained not just through the use of physical force, but also through a definite social mechanism, a system of alliances created by the ruling class. If the working class is to take power, it has to destroy this social mechanism of state-monopoly domination.
It is true that definite shifts have also been taking place in the political sphere of the state-monopoly capitalist countries, and these seem to throw a new light on many aspects of the working-class attitude to the bourgeois state. First of all, there is a marked extension of the functions of the state, which now actively intervenes not only in political relations proper, but also in economic regulation, and in the sphere of social relations and social policy. There is a simultaneous enlargement of the channels along which the working class exerts an influence on the bourgeois state, and on its various functions and agencies. Many important 122 agencies, functions and units of the stale system are drawn into the orbit of the class confrontation between the monopoly bourgeoisie and the working class.
All of this throws a new light on some aspects of the altitude of the revolution to the state. It seems to be no longer right to imagine the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeois state as a simple storming of it by class forces hostile to it. The working class has succeeded in winning some positions within the state, above all in its representative bodies---parliament and the municipal councils---and the main thing is that it has considerable prospects before it in this direction. This does nothing to alter the class nature of the state, but it does make it possible not just to overthrow it and to replace it with a totally new organisation external to it, but to effect such a radical political break---the winning of power by the working class---through a fundamental restructuring of many existing state forms and institutions and filling them with a new class content.
One should, of course, take care not to entertain any of the illusions which are typical of reformist ideologists, who depict the state as some neutral field in which different class interests and social forces vie with each other. This produces the false notion that the monopoly bourgeoisie can be ousted from the state system gradually, step by step. Such a notion is at odds with the present capitalist reality, to put it mildly, for there the slate remains an instrument of the political domination of big capital, despite the growing influence of the working class. But these notions also imply forgetfulness of the substance of the socialist revolution, which always signifies a break of continuity, a transfer of power to the working class, and a radical qualitative change in the whole state system.
Social development in the capitalisl countries where the political strenglh of Ihe working class is very great shows that any "transformation from within" tends to run up against insuperable difficulties.
The fact is that the ``transformation'' of the state system is secondary to and derivative of the shifts in the balance of class forces. Any radical ``transformation'' requires radical shifts, i.e., the entry of broad masses of people into the arena of political activity and social revolution. Such is the revolutionary approach lo the stale. By contrast, there is the reformist approach, which lends to idealise the bourgeois slale. Those who advocate it claim that the political 123 system in the West European countries does not need any radical restructuring, for it is essentially viable and effective, so that it only remains to mount it on a socialist economy.
Consequently, when considering the specific attitude of the revolution to the contemporary bourgeois state, the first thing is to beware of the reformist attitude. However, the problem of specifics does exist. The concrete situation in the developed capitalist countries differs substantially from that in Russia on the eve of the October Socialist Revolution. There are wider potentialities for action by the democratic forces and the working class from within the state, making use of parliament, and participation in government and local organs of power. There is the prospect of effecting transitional type of political transformations as transitional stages in establishing the political domination of the working class.
What was specific about the dictatorship of the proletariat in the October Revolution was that the power of the working class was embodied in the totally new political form of the Soviets, which had no continuity connection with the political institutions and forms of the old power.
Subsequent socialist revolutions showed that the dictatorship of the proletariat can also be established in a different way: after the Second World War, this process assumed different forms in the people's democracies. This was a more or less protracted process which ran through the stages of establishment and development of transitional types of revolutionary-democratic power. This specific form has been designated by its own name: people's democracy.
In view of the much greater weight of the working class and the other democratic forces in the political life of the countries of state-monopoly capitalism, there is good ground for the assumption that the continuity of political forms in the process of a revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism will be further developed. The peaceful way of development of the revolution towards which a majority of the communist parties in that region are oriented entails a succession of intermediate stages and profound democratic transformations characterised by transitional types of antimonopoly power.
It is logicaly quite correct to say that the winning of power by the working class is the main criterion of transition to socialist transformations. If there is no socialist 124 type of power, it means that there az'e no socialist transformations either; if there is such a power, it means that there are also socialist transformations. But the logic of revolution is a dialectical logic of an intricate and contradictory process, and here account must be taken of the dialectics of the formation of the working people's power through transitional types of power. It is altogether impossible to designate with absolute certainty the point in time at which the full plentitude of working-class power was established in the socialist revolutions which took place in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe. Even at the initial stages of these revolutions, when in many countries there was as yet no question about the dictatorship of the proletariat, whose initial outlines were just appearing, some socialist type of transformations were already partially being effected alongside the democratic transformations. The social process in the Cuban revolution developed in a similar way.
The definitive establishment of the working people's power can, therefore, range over a fairly long period of time. Throughout that period, democratic transformations may be closely interwoven with socialist transformations, and the connection between the two can also be manifested in various forms.
There are many difficult problems in the way of effecting transitional type of political transformations, among them one which consists in the following: how is one to break up the bourgeois state-machine and radically ``break'' with the capitalist system, while acting on the basis of that system, i.e., under the norms of bourgeois democracy and within the framework of the bourgeois state system? Lenin stressed that ''. .. the revolution is a transformation which breaks up the most essential and fundamental elements of the old, instead of remaking it cautiously, slowly, gradually, trying to break as little as possible".^^1^^ For all the peculiarity of the socio-economic and political conditions in the countries of developed state-monopoly capitalism, this idea is still valid. Even in our day, the socialist revolution entails a resolute break-up of the socio-economic and political system, a ``break'' with the capitalist system.
What is more, the qualitative content of the revolution _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. Vi, p. 222 (in Russian).
125 tends lo be an especially acute issue precisely with the orientation lowards Iho peaceful way of Iransition from capitalism lo socialism. Just because of the gradual, multistage and transitional forms of development along this way, there is the much greater danger of a gradualist approach lo the revolution as an uninterrupted process, without any revolutionary leap. It is the peculiarities of the peaceful way that the theorists of revisionism usually speculate upon in order to purge the revolution of the whole of its revolutionary content.Whichever way it runs, a revolution necessarily signifies a break of continuity. The use of transitional forms and types of social transformations does not at all obviate the need for a revolutionary leap. The question of the transitional types of transformations is itself considered in the overall context of the approach and transition to this crucial point. Even with peaceful development, when there is a natural enlargement of the potentialities for transitional types of transformations, there is slill a need to cross the Rubicon, the great divide which separates the bourgeois slate from the transitional type of stale resting on an antimonopoly alliance of left-wing and democratic forces rallied the working class.
State-monopoly capitalism is a tangle of diverse contradictions layered upon each other. Depending on the mode of their resolution, there could be two conditions for a revolutionary leap. The first entails a deep socio-political crisis which lays bare all the layers of contradictions in contemporary slate-monopoly capitalism. In that case, revolutionary transformations will probably be explosive, but it does not mean that the revolution will then necessarily develop into an armed struggle. But this kind of acerbity and concentration of contradictions is most probably attended with lurbulent forms of their resolution, which makes a direct advance to socialism quite possible. Along this way, the democratic transformations which are overdue in the developed capitalist countries could well be effected in passing. It is quite probable that then no independent democratic stage of development of the socialist revolulion will be required.
However, the uneven developmenl of the various layers of contradictions within stale-monopoly capitalism is characlerislic of mosl industrialised capilalist countries. Partially for this reason, broad masses of working people, 126 including some strata of the working class, are incapable of instantly comprehending Ihe whole spectrum of Ihese contradiclions. The firsl thing they become aware of is the need for deep democratic transformations.
All of this makes feasible a mode of transition in which the socio-political crisis preceding the revolutionary transformations first exposes only the upper layer of the contradictions characterising the relations between monopoly capital and various strata of the people. That is the contradiction between the monopolies and the people. Resolution of contradictions of this type does not yet signify transition to socialism, but it is of crucial significance for the victory of the working class, for its winning of political power, and for advance to radical democratic transformations. The resolution of these contradictions is connected with the stage of anti-monopoly democracy.
11 is important to draw a distinction between two types of democratic transformations. The first of these is realised before the advance from bourgeois domination to a transilional type of revolutionary-democratic state. In these circumstances, the transformations are confined to the framework of the capitalist system and do not effect its root structures. There could also be some "combined types" of government with the participation of the Communists in view of the deep cracks within the bourgeoisie's politicaldomination system, which is forced to compromise and reckon with Ihe strength of the working class. But because of its make-up and condition, this kind of ``combined'' power is still incapable of going beyond the framework of capitalism. The only thing it can do is make state-monopoly development run along a course which blocks the road to fascism, takes more account of the interests of the working class and its allies, and to a certain extent curbs the wantonness of the monopolies.
Transformations of this type accelerate the ripening of prerequisites and elements of socialism within the entrails of the capitalist system, but they cannot bring about any radical change in its basic quality. Deep democratic transformations paving the way for a solution of the fundamental problems necessarily require an overall restructuring of the whole stale syslem.
This aspect of the mailer was emphasised by Lenin when he objecled to the reformist notions that salami tactics could be used in establishing socialism: "The dialectical 127 process of development really does intrude elements of the new society, elements both material and spiritual, even under capitalism. But socialists should he able to distinguish the part from the whole; they should demand the whole in their slogan, and not a part; they must contrapose to bits of patchwork, which often divert fighters from the truly revolutionary path, the basic requisites for a real revolution.''~^^1^^
The second type of transitional transformations is realised when a resolute leap has been made, for that is when there arises a state which, on the eve of the October Revolution, as Lenin described as not yet socialism, but no longer capitalism.^^2^^ It is transformations of the second type that are so deep as to be objectively oriented towards transition to socialism, going to the root of the economic and political structure of the capitalist society and undermining the basis of the power of monopoly capital. They cannot be carried out in an ordinary situation, by means of conventional reforms, but require a radical shift in the balance of forces. Only that kind of shift in the mass forces can create the conditions for the emergence of a "combined type" of transitional revolutionary-democratic power in which the lino of the working class is dominant and which is capable of carrying the society to the threshold of a socialist revolution, which effects a radical change in the property and power relations.
It goes without saying that there is nothing automatic even about this kind of development, so that it could take a number of alternative ways. There could also be half-way halts and retreats. The establishment of anti-monopoly democracy does not yet signify the triumph of socialism, and is not irreversible. Which of the possible alternative ways of development is realised depends on the arrangement of class and political forces, on the scope of the class struggle, on the initiative and activity of the Marxist-Leninist parties and on their capacity to mobilise the masses to struggle for the socialist perspective. It was said at an international discussion by Marxists of the problems of revolution and democracy that anti-monopoly democracy "will cover a whole period of revolutionary struggle, when the _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, Vol. 9, pp. 371--72
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 25, p. 364.
128 remaining elements of capitalism will be coupled with incipient elements of socialism".^^1^^It is important to note that anti-monopoly democracy opens up a perspective of many alternatives. Can one not imagine, for instance, an alternative of anti-monopoly democracy with social-democracy having dominant positions within the working-class movement? At any rate, anti-- monopoly democracy implies an alliance of the left-wing parties, so that further development depends on the dynamics of the political influence of the parties. It is also quite possible that a section of social-democracy taking the rightwing pro-capitalist orientation could, at some point in the development of the revolutionary movement, hamper the advance from anti-monopoly democracy to socialist transformations, to a socialist revolution.
With this diversity of prospects for anti-monopoly democracy it is important to stress the main thing: the deep democratic transformations outlined in the programmatic documents of the communist parties in countries ot developed state-monopoly capitalism inevitably entail a radical shift in the balance of class forces, also bringing about a qualitative shift in the content of power. These democratic transformations can be realised only with the establishment of a transitional type of anti-monopoly power relying on the will of the working class and of the majority of the people. The Programme of the German Communist Party defines anti-monopoly democracy as a stage of radical transformations at which the working class and the other democratic strata do have enough political power and parliamentary influence to form a coalition government representing their common interests. With the powers vested in it by the people, such a government would get down to radical transformations. "In the course of such development, an anti-monopoly, democratic state power based on the working class and other democratic forces would be created.''^^2^^
Consequently, some reforms, while even being considerable, could well fit into the framework of the capitalist system, and could be effected in the usual, ``tranquil'' situation, with the observance of the basic rules on which the political system of the capitalist society functions. But there can also be transitional transformations of another type _-_-_
~^^1^^ World Marxist Review, Vol. 22, No. 8, 1979, p. 61.
~^^2^^ Mannheim.fr Parteitag der Deulschen Kommunistischen Partei. Programm., Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1979, p. 80.
__PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9--01528 129 involving an upsurge of tho mass revolutionary movement and a socio-political crisis affecting nol only the ``upper'' but also the ``lower'' layers of the society. These transformations rupture the framework of the traditional political relations in the capitalist society and require the establishment of a transitional type of anti-monopoly democracy and the winning of the instruments of political power by the majority of the people. This requires a massive upswing in the revolutionary movement and the entry of the masses into the political arena, which means a nation-wide sociopolitical crisis. Only beyond this crucial boundary line runs the multistage ladder of radical democratic transformations which are capable of leading to socialist transformations.Anti-monopoly democracy is an offensive against the power of capital with all its contradictions. It is true that in some capitalist countries this concept has not worked because it has been too rigidly oriented towards a relative stability of the anti-monopoly regime. But in many capitalist countries the whole point is not to stabilise but to bring about a mounting escalation of deep democratic transformations. In a sense, this process will, of course, always be discrete, and for that reason will run through definite stages of development. But the boundary line for the approach and advance to radical revolutionary transformations could well be blurred because of the speed of the process.
It seems that the conception of anti-monopoly democracy needs to be corrected and expressed in more definite terms from that angle. It is also important to avoid any extremes in which all the stages tend to disappear altogether, while the escalation of socio-economic transformations is regarded as an uninterrupted succession of conventional reforms. Such an approach can hardly help to understand the perspective of socialist transformations, which in a capitalist society always entail a revolutionary leap.
The strategy of the struggle for the transitional type of democratic transformations within the framework of the political system of developed capitalist countries must evidently be synchronised with the mass movement of the working class and its allies outside the slate system, a movement which creates potentialities for radical democratic transformations.
Is it right, for instance, to describe the democratic gains of the working people in the developed capitalist countries 130 as already signifying steps towards socialism or as being elements of socialism? Those who make such assumptions now and again propose the inclusion in anti-crisis programmes framed by Marxists of measures which call for considerable sacrifices and limitations for the working class. It is said, for instance, that if the problems of unemployment are to be solved, there is a need for ``austerity''. This at once makes one ask: austerity for whom? In what kind of conditions, and at which stage of political development? Or does this imply the present situation when power is in the hands of the monopolies? In that event, the austerity will inevitably benefit the big monopolies. Or is it the exercise of austerity at the stage of anti-monopoly democracy, after deep anti-monopoly transformations have been implemented and power has been wrested from the hands of the statemonopoly elite and is in the hands of the working people? In other words, when a revolutionary-democratic type of power has been established, it is possible to speak of "steps towards socialism" and "elements of socialism''.
The phased fulfilment of intermediate democratic tasks and the rallying of mass forces, the majority of the people, round the working class on that basis is the most probable way along which the revolution will run a peaceful course. This tactic is dictated both by the objective conditions--- the pressing need for democratic transformations---and by the tasks of shaping the mass socio-political forces of the revolution. Hence the importance of democratic reforms as necessary intermediate boundary lines in the development of the revolutionary process towards its culminating point--- the winning of power by the working class. Democratic reforms are the means for fulfilling these immediate tasks, the means for neutralising or winning over to the side of the working class those who vacillate, who have not yet comprehended the importance of the ultimate tasks of the revolution and who do not yet accept them.
Reforms which do not cut at the roots of the capitalist system and contain no socialist elements are also a part of the system of democratic transformations. Under capitalism, the revolutionary working-class party is faced with the following actual contradictions. On the one hand, before a revolutionary situation arises, the class struggle, including the political struggle, proceeds on the actual basis of the existing system, and is centred on the everyday demands which the masses understand. On the other hand, __PRINTERS_P_131_COMMENT__ 9* 131 revolulionaries have the duly lo find ways to prevent the movement I'rom being bogged down in the slimy soil of reforms thai are quite acceptable for capitalism, and to create the potentialities for developing the struggle for the everyday vital demands into much deeper transitional type of democratic transformations on the way to a revolutionary leap. That is not an artificial contradiction, but one that is rooted in life itself, in the condition of the working class in the capitalist society. 11 requires lhat on every occasion the revolutionary vanguard should find the best alternative solution, without going beyond the boundary line separating revolutionary Marxism from gradualist reformism and leftist revolutionism.
The 1970s provide ample material for analysing the problems of transitional forms and types of social transformations in the revolutionary process. There is good ground to say that the Chilean revolution provided a mirror reflection of all the main problems in effecting transitional type of revolutionary transformations.
Some assessments of the course of the Chilean revolution include an outright denial of the importance of transitional type of transformations and do not recognise the need for intermediate boundary lines in the advance of the revolution. Former General Secretary of the Socialist Party of Chile Carlos Altamirano said in an open letter to Luis Corvalan that the socialist party "sees the revolutionary process as an uninterrupted advance, without stages or premature consolidations within the existing capitalist system''.^^1^^ Such an ultra-leftist view of the revolutionary process entails the recognition of only one form of its development: an instant break-up of the bourgeois system through a frontal clash between Ihe working class and Ihe bourgeoisie. That was the one-sided conception on which the political strategy of the left wing of the Socialist Party of Chile was based. For its part, the Communist Party adopted a strategy of Ihe mulli-stage revolutionary process in a peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. The Chilean revolution revealed the main problems and difficulties which arise along this way of revolution.
The first of these is the balance between legality and transition to a qualitatively new system of legality. This _-_-_
~^^1^^ El Sigh, Santiago, February 13, 1973, p. 3.
132 calls for a well-considered system of Iransilions. On the one hand, it looks to continuity in the development of the democratic forms and institutions of bourgeois democracy which have been effectively won by the working class and which are under attack by the monopoly bourgeoisie. On the other hand, it is aimed to effect a break with bourgeois legality and with bourgeois law in terms of class content. The Chilean revolution formulated the problem but for various reasons did not manage to solve it.One thing is certain: a revolutionary-democratic type of power stemming from the people's revolution cannot stand still, but has to develop into a socialist type of state power. Schafik Handal, CC General Secretary of the Communist Party of El Salvador, says: ''. . .the democratic power established as a result of struggle by this broad coalition of forces can be nothing but a transitional democratic power. . . .Its stabilisation will depend on the direction of its development: on whether the way out is consistently and finally bourgeois, and therefore dependent on imperialism, or whether the solution of the structural crisis is anti-imperialist, which is just as consistent and final, and for that reason leading on to socialism, . . .The winning of a democratic power cannot be regarded as the ultimate goal, let alone as the completed stage of the revolution, but can and must be regarded as the starting point for Ihe following stage of the revolutionary process tackling democratic, anti-- imperialist and socialist tasks.''~^^1^^
The second group of problems is connected with the programm,e for transitional type of economic transformations. The weakness of the Chilean revolution lay in its failure to find a realistic programme for phased economic transformations taking account of the interests not only of the working class, but also of the various strata of the petty bourgeoisie, the urban middle strata, while giving a clear perspective for advance to socialist goals. The solution of that problem was made even more difficult by the fact that extremist elements in the Socialist Party, proceeding from their own notions of the frontal clash between the two classes, effectively strove to torpedo the realistic policy of transformations in the economic sphere which would take a sober view of Iho arrangement, of socio-political _-_-_
^^1^^ World Miirj'isi Review, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1978, pp. 11--12.
133 forces within the country and of the international situation.The third group of problems is connected with the strategy of class and political alliances. The Chilean revolution showed very well the essential importance of putting forward and realising in due time a programme of transitional transformations expressing the requirements and aspirations of the middle strata of the society. In the absence of a common stand on this issue within the Popular Unity, with the extremist statements by leftist elements and the skilful use of these contradictions by reaction, the interests of sizable strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie were not adequately reflected in the government's programme, so that they eventually moved away from the revolution.
The strategy of alliances is unfeasible without a search for transitional forms of political ties and relations based on common interests perceived by the different classes and social groups representing the mass forces of the revolution. Let us note that these interests have to be perceived, and it is important to emphasise this because the objective interests of these mass forces could run well beyond those they have become aware of from their own political experience. But the democratic forces' political decisions and political platform should rest not only on the interests which have been perceived by a conscious minority, but also on the interests perceived by the majority of the people, by the majority of the allies of the working class. Such is the general requirement for the development of the socialist revolution, especially when it runs a peaceful way. Lenin urged that in no case should efforts be made "to endeavour to outrun the people's development, but to wait until a movement forward has occurred as a result of their own experience and their own struggle''.~^^1^^
Indeed, Lenin formulated the general law governing the formation of class and political alliances during socialist revolutions. In the October Socialist Revolution, the Bolsheviks deliberately refrained from putting forward a socialist programme for agrarian transformations as the platform for an alliance with the peasantry. On the eve of the revolution, they advanced a programme of transitional _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 141.
134 intermediate measures. The October Revolution won out on a compromise which the revolutionary vanguard of the working class concluded with the whole peasantry, adopting as the alliance platform a programme for socialising the land which objectively did not contain any socialist demands. But that programme did not contradict the socialist goals and assured the revolution of support by the majority of the peasantry, thereby creating the conditions for settling the main issue of the revolution: the winning of power by the working class.The theoretical elaboration of transitional forms and types of social transformations in the revolutionary process is also of positive significance in the struggle for the unity of the working-class movement. This does not, of course, have anything to do with the conception of a "historical meeting" of Communists and Social-Democrats, a conception which implies that both should equally give up a part of their demands and meet each other half way. Such an eclectic objectivist approach is unacceptable for the Marxist-Leninist parties.
The point is that a discussion of the transitional forms and types of social transformations and their testing in practice create a platform for an ideological offensive against social-reformism in a period in which the reformist ideology and policy have demonstrated their inability to solve the fundamental problems facing the working class in the developed capitalist countries. At the same time, a platform of immediate demands is formulated to provide the basis for unity of action by the Communists and the Social-Democrats, despite their profound ideological contradictions.
That was the assumption of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, when it put forward its realistic programme for united anti-imperialist action. Its final document said: "Communists favour the most democratic methods of preparing for and carrying out united action with all progressive patriotic and peace-loving forces on a national regional and international scale. They will do all they can to bring about greater mutual understanding between the numerous and diverse anti-imperialist trends and movements, taking into consideration their specific features and showing respect for their independence. Forms of cooperation, chosen freely and by common consent, will make it possible to raise the anti-imperialist struggle to a 135 new level to meet the requirements of the present situation.''~^^1^^
The problem of transitional forms of social transformations has its own peculiar solutions in developing countries which have opted for the way of socialist development. A succession of transitional stages of development has been proposed in these countries to enable them gradually to build up the economic, social and political prerequisites for advancing to socialism.
One of the serious difficulties along this way is that the forces fighting for socialism, notably the communist parties, which represent the interests of the working class, have to act in the inadequate social environment existing in these countries. After all, the communist parties are working-class parties, but in these countries the working class is just taking shape, just rising to its feet, and its political organisation and unionisation are still inadequate.
At the same time, unprecedented potentialities for advancing towards socialism are opening up at the present stage before the countries which have thrown off the colonial yoke, but which have yet to escape from the fetters of economic and cultural backwardness, with this orientation advocated not only by the Communists but also by the forward-looking sections of the revolutionary-democratic forces.
So, on the one hand, there is socio-economic backwardness and weak positions of the working class; on the other, there is the possibility of advancing towards socialism. That is the basic contradiction of the revolutionary process in this region.
The connection between the basis and superstructural elements in the developing countries is looser than it is in the developed capitalist countries, because the basis structures there are themselves unstable. This allows more leeway for free action by the political superstructure, and by the state and political-party structures. In these circumstances, the development of the superstructural elements could outrun that of the economic basis.
The pronounced contradictions in the development of the states themselves in this region leap to the eye. That the _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Peacn and Socialism Publishers, Prague, 1969, p. 36.
136 political superstructure depends on the basis is a general uniformity of historical development, and it cannot be evaded. That is why the backwardness of basis relations in virtually all the developing countries in one way or another effects the condition of the superstructure. The impact of a backward basis and the backward social relations connected with it is manifested in the constant struggle against bureaucratic and bourgeois trends emerging within the revolutionary-democratic states and creating many difficulties in their development.In this kind of situation, the role of the subjective factor is brought out in great relief. A great deal depends on the subjective factor, for it is capable of creating a definite continuity of revolutionary development and imparting to it a definite stability. But for this the revolutionary-democratic forces must have advanced forms of organisation and an international alliance with existing socialism and the international working-class movement.
The doctrinaire approach to assessing the prospects for political development in these countries is altogether unfounded. It denies the very possibility of preserving progressive state structures in these countries because of the lack of economic and social conditions. Pointing to these difficulties, Lenin objected to any hasty assessments of the character of the political parties emerging there, and to any premature declaration of them as Marxist parties, while urging utmost support for the nascent communist parties. In this process, the advanced traditions stemming from the emergent working-class movement and from the borrowing of the international experience of the socialist countries and the working-class movement in the developed capitalist countries can be preserved.
In order to realise the progressive potentialities in the countries opting for the socialist way of development, exceptional importance attaches to Lenin's idea that in radical revolutionary transformations politics has priority over economics.
A consistent progressive policy expressing the interests of the forward-looking forces in the liberated countries could secure the line of creating in stages the socio-- economic prerequisites for development along the socialist way, so paralysing hoslile activity by local feudal and tribalist reaction and spontaneously emerging pro-capitalist elements. The point is who can conduct such a progressive policy. 137 Efforts to do so are made by the revolutionary vanguard of the national-liberation movement which looks to scientific communism and fights for a socialist orientation. But the revolutionary vanguard is not shaped in a vacuum. It is affected by all the contradictions of revolutionary development, and this is reflected in the inconsistencies, vacillations and contradictory positions taken up by revolutionarydemocratic forces oriented towards socialism.
For the countries in which there are Marxist-Leninist communist parties, there arises the sharp problem of relations between the Communists and the revolutionary democrats, relations which are not free from contradictions. Practical experience has now been gained for a critical analysis and summing-up to shed light on the difficulties and prospects for the development of communist parties in the newly-free countries.
The experience of existing socialism undoubtedly gives a great deal for understanding the substance and concrete forms of transitional type of revolutionary transformations. It is quite understandable that in the history of the Russian revolution these transformations were effected in a peculiar way, now and again going forward with kaleidoscopic speed, while the objective potentialities opening up along this way frequently remained fully or partially unrealised. But this commands even closer attention to the historical experience of the October Revolution and socialist construction for a comparison with the revolutionary experience of our day, and an analysis of the general trends manifested in the development of the revolutionary process in the contemporary epoch.
There is no substance, from this standpoint, in the attempts to contrast the experience of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the peaceful way of transition to socialism, in which the revolution is carried out more or less gradually, with the application of transitional types and forms of social transformations and revolutionary power. This calls for a dialectical understanding of the general uniformities governing the development of the socialist revolution and the specific forms in which they are manifested in the various historical conditions. The experience of the present epoch all goes to show lhat, however peculiar the forms of social transformations in this or that country may be, the socialist revolution cannot sidestep the fundamental general problems. This means the problem of 138 power for the working class, and the problem of effecting a radical change in the property relations. It also means the problem of broad class alliances, with the working class and communist parties in the van, and the problem of defending the revolution against internal and external enemies.
[139] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Eight __ALPHA_LVL1__ IDEOLOGY AND POLICYThe relation between ideology and policy in the revolutionary struggle of the working class is a problem of exceptional importance in bringing out the intricate and fine mechanism connecting theoretical thinking and practical action, revolutionary ideas and revolutionary practice.
Ideology is a system of views, convictions and ideals expressing the interests of a definite class. Marxism-- Leninism, the scientific expression of the vital interests of the working class, is the ideology of that class.
``Ideology" is a concept whose very definition indicates the organic connection between ideology and policy. After all, every type of policy covers the sphere of ideological relations, i.e., social relations which must pass through human consciousness before they take shape. That is why there can be no policy without ideology. Lenin repeatedly said that there can be no revolutionary movement without a revolutionary theory. That is why the problem of carrying the socialist consciousness into the working-class movement is such an acute one, and it is the revolutionary party of the working class that provides the connection between the theory of scientific socialism and the working-class movement.
Some theorists in the international working-class movement have recently tried to introduce into everyday use the concept of "secular party'', and have spoken of a " secularisation of the party''. What do they mean by "secular party"? This turns out to be a party not committed to any definite doctrine. Consequently, the idea is to have a party without a doctrine. In other words, a political party without a theory. To have that kind of party would amount to theoretical disarmament in the face of the class antagonists, and that is totally at variance with the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
The point is that it is hard to find two other concepts that are so closely interconnected with revolutionary practice in our day as theory and policy are. The theory of scientific communism emerged and has been developing on 140 the basis of the summed-up and multi-faceted experience of political struggle by the working class and its vanguard. For its part, the revolutionary policy of the working class is inconceivable without a scientific theory, which, in accordance with the laws of social development, determines the communist parties' objectives, strategy and tactics. Every time there was a break between theory and policy in the history of the working-class movement, the result was invariably either a fruitless doctrinaire approach, or opportunistic pragmatism, and frequently both at the same time, which is why Marxists have always attached much importance to the unity of theory and policy.
Why does the revolutionary policy of the working class and its vanguard need to have a theory? It is because the tasks of revolutionary policy cannot be fulfilled otherwise than with a knowledge of the objective laws of social development. In the light of the materialist view of history one has to recognise the fact that behind policy stands a theory which is based on the science of society and the laws governing its functioning and development.
The Marxist-Leninist theory, as a unity of all its component parts---philosophy, political economy, and scientific communism---provides the world view which serves as the basis for the revolutionary policy of the working class with its main orientations, without which it is impossible to make any scientific analysis of the concrete political situation or to take any correct political decisions.
Revolutionary policy also has a need of theory in the narrower sense of the word. Marxist-Leninist policy relies on a knowledge of the laws of political life and political development. That is why policy requires a scientific approach. Lenin defined policy as a science and urged the Communists to act on a scientific basis: "Science demands, first, that the experience of other countries to be taken into account, especially if these countries, which are also capitalist, are undergoing, or have recently undergone, a very similar experience; second, it demands that account be taken of all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses operating in a given country, and also that policy should not be determined only by the desires and views, by the degree of class consciousness and the militancy of one group or party alone.''~^^1^^ Consequently, policy as a science takes _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 80--81.
141 into account and sums up the international experience of the revolutionary movement, comprehensively analysing the interests and the balance of socio-political forces.While political phenomena and processes may have their peculiarities and may closely depend on the subjective factor, they have their objective logic and are ultimately determined by economic interests and factors. Any political action is woven into the objective fabric of historical development and is, in that sense, an object of political theory. Lenin once said that revolution was "a profound, difficult and complex science''.~^^1^^ The revolutionary policy of the working class should be formulated in accordance with the laws of that science which constitute the content of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the revolution. In a given set of concrete conditions these laws will naturally be manifested in different ways, so that they have to be applied in policy creatively, with an eye to the peculiarities of each country and the ongoing historical stage. Nevertheless, there are some general principles of revolutionary policy reflecting the objective laws of revolution. These principles are determined by the status of the working class within the system of social production and by its historical mission.
The class approach to policy, the revolutionary spirit and internationalism are among the general political principles resting on the theory, which analyses the uniformities of capitalist development, the class struggle and the world revolutionary process.
The Communists' revolutionary policy is also formulated on the basis of some more general principles which are rooted in the methodology and philosophical theory of Marxism-Leninism. One example is the principle of comprehensive analysis of actual processes in social life taken in a historical perspective. Lenin says: "Only an objective consideration of the sum-total of the relations between absolutely all the classes in a given society, and consequently a consideration of the objective stage of development reached by that society and of the relations between it and other societies, can serve as a basis for the correct tactics of the advanced class. At the same time, all classes and all countries are regarded, not statically, but dynamically, i.e., not in a state of immobility, but in motion (whose laws are determined by the economic conditions of existence of each _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 198.
142 class).''^^1^^ This shows the organic connection which strategy and tactics have not only with political and economic theory, but also with the philosophy of Marxism, that is, dialectical and historical materialism. Any working-class party which displays indifference to philosophical theory will inevitably lose its scientific methodology, the instrument for a concrete analysis of the situation, and this, for its part, will make policy unstable and unprincipled.But perhaps in the day-to-day political struggle for the solution of particular problems one could avoid general philosophical and theoretical questions, leaving them for scientists to discuss? Unfortunately, that cannot be done. Lenin says: "Anybody who tackles partial problems without having previously settled general problems, will inevitably and at every step 'come up against' those general problems without himself realising it. To come up against them blindly in every individual case means to doom one's policy to the worst vacillation and lack of principle."~^^2^^
The policy of the working class and its vanguard is revolutionary only when it is closely bound up with scientific theory, because revolutionary policy implies a clear programme for revolutionary action by the advanced class, its comprehension of its objectives, and ways and means for attaining them, and its understanding of the nature of the situation. None of this is conceivable without a theory which equips policy with a knowledge of the laws of social development and with the principles of the methodology of revolutionary thought and revolutionary action.
The connection between ideology and policy goes beyond the latter's need for theoretical thinking. In content and function, ideology is broader than theory. Ideology is an organic part of socio-historical practice. It would be wrong to regard ideology simply as a reflection of the social reality in the social consciousness. The connection there is very much more intricate. Ideology is a reflection of the reality which passes through the pores of social practice. In that social practice, ideology has a great many different functions to perform.
First of all, it provides orientation in the surrounding social reality. That is, one could say, the cognitive function of ideology, which helps to sort out the numerous facts and _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 75.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 489.
143 events in the reality and to compare them for a prognostication of the course of historical development. Another function of ideology is to unite and mobilise the forces of the class and its allies for attaining the class objectives they set themselves. Ideology also has the function of legitimising, or justifying, political action and setting forth the ideas vindicating the need of it. Ideology has the function of motivation, that is, it explains the need for various objectives and is the prerequisite for programming political action by a class or party. The axiological function of ideology is also important, for it substantiates the values for which the given class carries on its struggle. Of considerable importance also is the function of combating the other ideologies, which also seek to win over for their cause the broadest possible strata of the society.The social reality is reflected in the consciousness of classes and social groups through the multi-faceted prism of socio-historical practice, and through the medium of the diverse functions which ideology has to exercise in the course of practical actions. Let us note that the adequacy of the reflection always depends on the historical role and place within the system of social relations of the social class whose interests the ideology expresses.
Every ideology has two aspects. First, the ideological aspect proper: it expresses the interests of a given class. Second, the theoretical and cognitive function: it helps to find one's bearing in the surrounding social reality. No set of social ideas can be free from the ideological function, for these ideas lose their actual validity unless they rest on social-class interests. In this context, Marx says: "The `idea' has always disgraced itself insofar as it differed from the `interest'."~^^1^^
Contradictions may also arise between the two aspects of ideology: the ideological aspect proper, and the Iheoretico-cognitive aspect. The nature and acerbity of these contradictions again depend on the place of the classes concerned within the system of social relations. The contradiction may not be an acute one if the ideology expresses class interests which to some extent coincide with the forward march of history. But whenever the class interest cuts across social progress, the contradiction assumes the form of conflict: ideology distorts the reality to suit the interest. _-_-_
^^1^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 81.
144 Marx clearly demonstrated this fact when analysing bourgeois political economy, which could remain scientific only up to the point at which a sharp class antagonism appeared between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. From that point on "it sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. .. .In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic.''~^^1^^The bourgeois critics of Marxism speculate on the actual contradictions between the ideological and the theoreticocognitive aspects of ideology in an effort to find the contradiction in Marxism itself. This is exemplified by the efforts of Alvin W. Gouldner, a prominent US political scientist, who tries to find in Marxism a fatal contradiction between the science, which demonstrates the inevitable downfall of capitalism, and the philosophy of practice, which starts from the proletariat's class interests and mobilises the working class for the attainment of its objectives. As a science, he claims, Marxism can do without the human material, because capitalism is moving towards a downfall that is objectively inevitable. As a policy, Marxism inevitably turns to human beings and to the philosophy of practice. "At times Marx looks to science as his paradigm of knowledge, but at other times he looks to `critique' born of philosophy.''~^^2^^ He suggests that "Marxism ... is thus the great modern synthesis of religion and science".^^3^^ The idea that Marxism-Leninism has a religious content is echoed by the assertions of critics of Marxism who identify it with mythology and religion, and call it a "secularised religion'', a "secular doctrine of salvation'', and so on.
The ideologies of all the exploiter classes need a mythological content precisely because of the profound contradiction between them and the reality. Every exploiter-class ideology, without exception, contains some kind of myth which distorts and obscures the objective reality whenever it is at odds with the objectives and tasks of these ideologies.
Marxism is the only ideology which has no need of myths, and which provides broad opportunities for shedding all _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974, p. 25.
~^^2^^ Alvin W. Gouldner, The Two Marxisms: Contradictions and Anomalies in the Development oj Theory, New York, 1980 u 04
~^^3^^ Ibid, p. 117.
__PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10--01528 145 kinds of ideological mythology. This is because the interests oi the working class are in tune with the progressive course of historical development, which is why the working class has no need for any distorted perception of the surrounding reality or for any kind of fantastic notions.Like other ideologies, Marxism has two functions: the ideological and the cognitive. However, there is no insoluble contradiction between the two. A contradiction can, of course, arise in the actual development of the revolutionary movement. A contradiction does, for instance, appear whenever ideology fails to rise over and above the immediate practical interest, to the level of the world-wide historical experience of the working-class movement. Thus, with the advance of the scientific and technical revolution, attitudes of protest against ``rationalisation'' tend to spread within the working-class movement of some capitalist countries because scientific and technical progress under capitalism leads to a growth of unemployment. But the Marxist ideology cannot afford to remain on the level of the workers' immediate interest. It has to rise to the level of a theoretical generalisation of the practice of scientific and technical progress to show its connections with the dominant production relations and with the interests of the working people. On that higher level it is possible to formulate a democratic alternative to contemporary state-monopoly capitalism, an alternative aimed at democratic transformations ensuring the use of the fruits and achievements of the scientific and technical revolution for the benefit of the working class and broad strata of the working people, instead of monopoly capital. With such an approach, the scientific aspect of ideology does not contradict its ideological aspect proper.
That is the angle from which one should apparently view Engels' well-known advice to August Bebel that the party "needs a socialist science, and this cannot exist without freedom of development".^^1^^ By "freedom of development" Engels means the capacity of theory to rise over and above immediate practice and the immediate interests of the workers to the level of truly theoretical generalisation of the experience of the international working-class movement.
But then a contradiction may stem from the dogmatic approach to theory. Whenever theory loses touch with the _-_-_
^^1^^ Karl Marx, Fricdrich Engels, Werke, Bd. 38, p. 194.
146 practical class struggle and withdraws into the sphere of lifeless abstractions, a contradiction tends to arise between the ideological and the theoretico-cognilive aspects of ideology.However, in Marxism there can be no fatal conflict between these two aspects. When contradictions do arise, they are resolved in the course of social development, through a more profound comprehension of the vital interests of the working class, and a creative development of theory itself. In Marxism-Leninism, the ideological and the cognitivetheoretical aspects of ideology on the whole constitute a unity, because the correctly understood interests of the working class are in tune with the forward development of history. That is why the historical experience of the workingclass movement makes it possible objectively to set forth the laws of social development, without distorting their actual meaning.
In revolutionary struggle, ideology and policy are dialectically interconnected, with policy having an exceptionally important role to play in the development of ideology. One could say that political practice is the generator behind the development of ideology. On policy also depends the orientation of theoretical thinking and its main content. Through policy, the class interest is transformed into ideas. In a sense, policy is at the interface of the objective and the subjective, at the point of transition from practice to theory. That is why policy provides the antidote to the doctrinaire approach and dogmatism.
The mechanism by means of which theory meshes with policy is a highly intricate one, and includes a great many interacting intermediate elements. Policy cannot proceed only from general theory, hut also from the social-class interests and the political reality. If it is to blend with theory, the latter must not lose touch with llie reality. That is the point at which theory and policy are coupled. They blend organically in the concrete analysis of the concrete situation which shows the condition, dynamics and potentialities of the social-class and political forces. The analysis implies not only general methodological principles but also general ideological reference points which help to understand the logic of the concrete situation and to comprehend it as a stage in the historical process, as a link within the system of world-wide concatenations. The concrete analysis has the purpose of clarifying the particular through the medium __PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 of the general, which is itself a summing-up of earlier revolutionary experience reflecting tne laws of revolution. Experience summed up in theory is the prerequisite and component of analysis. Neglect of theory tends to reduce analysis to a fact-recording exercise.
General theory can do very little for revolutionary policy with the doctrinaire approach, for then policy inevitably loses its revolutionary content. This means that there is a need to abandon the doctrinaire approach and to adopt the dialectical view of the general uniformities of revolution which induce the concrete analysis. These uniformities are not a code of abstract rules, but reference points for action which have been tested in practice and which require creative application General uniformities should not he taken in isolation, but should be creatively applied, for that is the only approach which helps to understand the dialectics of the Marxist-Leninist theory and the revolutionary policy of the working class.
Theory provides orientations for policy, but the principles of theory need to be rediscovered again and again within the inner logic of the development of the object itself, as otherwise theory tends to be reduced to a set of examples and so ceases to be an instrument of the theoretical analysis of practice. But when there is a quest for theoretical principles within the inner logic of the object's development, the incompleteness of theory at once stands out. Theory reflecting the reality is, of course, also an aspect, a part of life. But because of its specific character, theory sums up facts, phenomena and events, thereby inevitably narrowing down the panorama of life. That is why the practice of life is much ampler than the fullest theory.
This can be illustrated by the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a fundamental tenet of Marxism. Lenin held it to be the touchstone of the Marxist standpoint which brought out its distinction from the revisionist, opportunist standpoint. But in the present conditions, this principle of the Marxist theory is manifested in a different way, as compared with that of the socialist revolutions which have already taken place. Today, new tasks arise and there is a quest for new ways in establishing the political power of the proletariat, for new forms of it to lake account of the diverse make-up and peculiarities of the allies of the working class in the struggle for democratic and socialist transformations.
148In a sense, policy invests theory with immortality, for it keeps reproducing theory in its creations, giving it fresh life and probing for the main centres through which thought moves. In a way it signals the inadequacy of development in this or that theoretical tenet and keeps putting forward new problems.
Failures, miscalculations and mistakes in political practice should not he simply ascribed to a poor knowledge of theory. There are any number of examples to show that while a party was guided by an elaborate theory and while its theoretical programmatic documents and articles looked very well, it failed in practice to achieve any significant results simply because policy is not just a science resting on theory. Policy is also an art. It is impossible scientifically to calculate all the possible lines along which policy could develop, for, as Lenin repeatedly emphasised, apart from theory there is also a need for intuition, which importantly helps now and again to divine the turn political events may take.
If history developed in a straight line, theory could indicate in advance all the turns and twists of development. But at every given moment, the reality offers different alternative ways for the revolutionary movement.
Revolutionaries always have to act in the changing reality, a situation which makes it impossible to calculate in advance the impending actions by all the social forces in every noss'blo detail. In his article entitled "Our Revolution''. Lenin wrote that in 1917 there was a real chance in Russia to effect a breakthrough in the capitalist system. Contrary to the doctrinaires, who loudly proclaimed that victory was impossible, Lenin and the Bolsheviks put their whole stake on this real potentiality. Only later wore such new salutory potentialities for the development of the revolution as the Peace of Bresl-Litovsk and the New Economic Policy brought to light. It was impossible to anticipate these in advance, at the time of the October breakthrough, for Ihey took shape in the course of the practical revolutionary action by the working class and its party.
An examination of world history from this angle suggests that in 1917 none of (he revolutionaries was able, at the time, to foresee the emergence in the world arena of such a sinister force as fascism. It did not then occur to anyone that the drive by fascism would produce a situation in which the working class would have to defend bourgeois 149 democracy against the offensive of the fascist forces engendered by imperialism.
In short, political practice is that mobile matter which allows theory no respite. It compels a constant comprehension and re-appraisal of theoretical conclusions in the light of the concrete historical development of practice itself.
The interrelation between policy and theory clearly shows the relation of the abstract and the concrete, and of j the general and of the particular in its theoretical development. While theory and its categories record the abstract and the general, practical policy is always oriented towards the concrete, and always has to do with the specific historical situation. Policy is inseparable from the concrete analysis of specific situations, which is why it provides a basis for the movement of theoretical thought and matter in summing up the new concrete historical experience which appears in the practice of revolutionary struggle.
When considering the question of the relation between ideology and policy as applied to the problems now arising in the international communist movement, it is most neces-- sary to take a more panoramic view of the contemporary social reality.
One could say that the Communists themselves have let the genie out of the bottle with their revolutionary breakthrough along a new historical direction. The world is now a turbulent place, for the Communists' world-wide historical initiative has aroused non-communist forces now capable of taking an active part in the solution of the cardinal problems in the renewal of the world. To this should be added another important factor, namely, the spreading awareness that in the present conditions a world war would bo an unmitigated disaster, and that it is imperative to preserve peace, if mankind is to continue on its road of progress.
In the light of this, some have; suggested the existence of a "planetary consciousness'', a "global consciousness" or a "consciousness of the human race''. This kind of talk can breed illusions about the formation of some kind of supraideological consciousness in the spirit of the reactionary Utopias of "the sociology of knowledge" propounded by the German sociologist Karl Mannheim, who tried to substantiate the need for a supra-ideological "sociology of knowledge" free of any class-ideological framework. He said that the bearer of this non-class or supra-class knowledge was 150 a socially free and hovering intelligentsia whose mission was to express the spiritual interests of the whole.
What is widely known in the West as "technological ideology" is similarly oriented. Its advocates say that current technical development and Ihe scientific and technical revolution imperatively demand some kind of integral rational knowledge to substitute for the one-sided class-- ideological trends.
That is why, although it is highly important to realise the disastrous consequences of a nuclear war for the whole of mankind and for all the strata and classes of the contemporary society, it is also important to avoid having any illusions about the emergence of some supra-class "global consciousness" which is allegedly designed to substitute for the rival ideologies.
The point is not that the ideologies are giving way to some kind of "planetary consciousness'', but that the greatest historical responsibility for the interests and destinies of mankind now falls on the international working class, the vanguard class of our epoch.
The policy of peace and social progress requires of the working class and the Communists a broader approach to all spiritual and ideological processes, an approach which includes the ability to engage in a dialogue with those who think differently. That does not at all amount to convergence, for it does not mean any blending of Marxism with some other non-Marxist theoretical conceptions. While retaining one's ideological independence, one must be able to carry on a dialogue with other social forces so as to involve them in the joint struggle for peace and to reckon with these forces' specific interests when formulating the policy of the Marxist-Leninist parties. While standing up for their own ideological principles, the Marxists must not succumb to the temptation of lecturing and preaching to others. Being the representatives of the vanguard class of our epoch, they have the duty to shoulder the responsibility for solving the problems which agitate the whole of mankind. It is important, therefore to have the ability to be ahead of the other social forces in formulating and providing theoretical and practical solutions for the new problems generated by life.
Unfortunately, now and again theory tends to lag behind practice. Thus, in some capitalist countries, life keeps driving home the point that the Communists should participate 151 in the government. This entails a whole string of theoretical problems which still have to he solved. Consider, for instance, Ihe problem of the balance between the immediate and the ultimate goals of the class struggle. Can one regard reforms tinder capitalism effected by a government with the Communists' participation and meeting the immediate goals of the proletariat's class struggle as already being socialist? If they are not, what are the conditions in which deep democratic reforms marking steps towards socialism can be implemented? Answers to these questions require a clear understanding of the sequence of the stages in the working-class struggle for democracy and socialism, and the connection between these stages.
The novelty of present-day political practice dictates the need for a creative approach to the solution of theoretical problems, but at the same time this novelty creates the danger of liquidationism with respect to the available historical experience and to the theoretical legacy of MarxismLeninism.
Such a danger is clearly discerned in theoretical innovations purporting to discover some "third way" to socialism, and "new models" of socialism. These ideas, which are unproved, untested and highly dubious, are frequently and frankly contrasted to the accumulated experience of existing socialism and the gains which the international working class has won in practice in its struggle to realise the socialist ideal.
What is the outcome of such a liquidationist approach? It is a rejection of the positive legacy of the revolutionary movement and amounts to theoretical disarmament. Indeed, all this talk about a "third way" to socialism turns out to be a string of hazy words. And so it must be, because in the contemporary world one simply cannot speak of some positive content of the socialist ideal or of socialist `` models'', while neglecting the practice of existing socialism. That is why it turns out that those who take the liquidationist attitude with respect to existing socialism, which assorts the ideals of socialism in practice, hold forth at length about what socialism must not be, but have no clarity at all about what it must be.
These facts show that loss of touch with the actual soil on which the international communist movement has grown up inevitably cuts at the very root of the communist movement and deprives the socialist ideas of any real content.
152What is the role of ideology in the policy of the revolutionary forces' unity? Here, it is important to avoid two extremes. First, there is the doctrinaire and sectarian line which tends to erode the foundation of the alliance policy, because ideology is regarded as an insuperable barrier separating one class from all the others. Such an approach effectively means the abandonment of any alliance policy in practice. With that kind of approach, no alliance is possible at all, for it implies a sect of confederates closed in i upon their own narrow circle.
The other extreme is the pragmatic-opportunist line which is characteristic, in particular, of social-democracy. It is a line of de-ideologising policy for the sake of adapting to the situation. There is good reason why the philosophy of "critical rationalism" is the theoretical platform of socialdemocracy, for it is highly convenient for pursuing a pragmatic policy, because it recommends a different set of theoretical instruments for every historical situation. In other words, it always gives one a free hand. Policy is released from every principle and commitment to theory, and this offers unlimited opportunities for arbitrary action in any concrete situation.
The Marxist position consists in avoiding both these extremes and remaining loyal to the principles of the scientific ideology, while being flexible in relations with other political forces capable of being allies in the struggle for common goals. The Marxists, characteristically, give priority to the political approach to any ideological questions, which means that in order to unite the socio-political forces on a revolutionary platform the accent should be made on that which unites these forces rather than on that which divides them.
Whenever disagreements arise between the communist parties and they differ in their assessments, priority should not be given to the disputed issues, hut to political unity on the main problems, above all in the struggle for peace.
One should also bear in mind that neutral areas in definite spheres of ideology may emerge only temporarily. In structure, ideology is similar to a ladder: it has a graduation of steps or ideological platforms, some of which are organically fused with policy and cannot be separated from it. That is why only some of the remoter steps down that ladder can be designated as neutral ones, while others are simply impossible to decouple from policy.
153Take the struggle for peace as an example. The documents of the 26th Congress of the CPSU say that the struggle for peace is that which unites all the Communists, irrespective of any differences they may have on other problems. The struggle for peace is the platform for the broadest alliance of democratic and progressive forces in our day, however deep their ideological differences may be. But then the very concept of peace and of the ways to preserve and strengthen it are also an issue in the ideological slruggle. There are various approaches to peace. Some apologists of the cold war pay lip service to what they call ``peace'' and pretend that they, too, are fighting for peace. That is where political practice is a leading criterion, for it helps to draw a distinction between those who truly stand for peace, and those who are on the other side of the barricades and who are trying to distort the very concept of peace by means of diverse ideological tricks.
It is also exceptionally important to comprehend the ideological views of other democratic and progressive forces through political cooperation with them. That is also a form of ideological struggle. The dialogue throws a light on the ideological and theoretical weaknesses of the democratic and progressive allies of the working class, but it also enriches the Marxist ideology by giving a clearer view of some now facets of the contemporary historical experience as manifested in the activity of other democratic and progressive forces.
Such a dialogue does not, of course, have anything in common with "ideological pluralism'', which effectively means an eclectic mix of different standpoints. The Marxist-Leninist ideology is not an old curiosity shop containing a collection of every possible view and standpoint. It is an expression of the vital interests of the working class. It is only taking this as a point of departure that the relations between Marxists and other democratic and progressive forces should be regarded.
The relation between ideology and policy in the revolutionary struggle is a highly complicated problem, but whichever of its aspects are considered, it always reveals an organic interconnection between the revolutionary ideology and revolutionary policy. They are inseparable from each other in Hie contemporary revolutionary process.
[154] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Nine __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE INTERNATIONALThe dialectics of the international and the national is the key problem of the Marxist-Leninist methodology which is of great importance not only for the theory but also for the practice of the world revolutionary process.
Proletarian internationalism reflects the common vital interests of the working class and all the other working people of all the countries, and their solidarity in the struggle for a revolutionary renewal of the world. Proletarian internationalism originates and develops together with the development of the international working-class movement, is gradually filled with ever richer content, and acquires an ever greater number of facets. The thing to bear in mind is that proletarian internationalism is not a principle that is realised automatically. It has to make headway in the revolutionary working-class movement through difficulties and contradictions, because the international reality is an intricate mosaic of national and state distinctions.
The relation between the international and the national in the revolutionary process of our day is made difficult above all by the unusual diversity of the contemporary world and the numerous lines along which the process itself runs. That is not a new theoretical approach to the problem. In his article "Our Revolution'', Lenin remarks that it did not occur to the European philistine doctrinaires even in their dreams that the subsequent revolutions in the Eastern countries, which are immensely more rich in population and have a much vaster diversity of social conditions, will undoubtedly present them with even greater peculiarities than the revolution in Russia did.^^1^^ The unusual diversity of the revolutionary process in our day creates considerable difficulties in determining both the content and the criteria of proletarian internationalism, and in practising its political and moral principles.
What is peculiar about our world is that in various regions of it different epochs and formations are superimposed _-_-_
^^1^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 480.
155 on each other in a whimsical pattern, and in many countries this tends to produce---from the standpoint of the traditional theoretical notions---an unusual combination of economic, political, cultural and ideological features. Our world has entered upon the epoch in which the communist civilisation is taking shape, but it has retained, in its stratified content, virtually the whole of the historical graduation of the economic and social structures of earlier epochs. Now and again it turns out that the superstructural categories, especially in the sphere of ideology, including the internationalist consciousness of the vanguard forces leading (he revolutionary process, still lack an adequate basis in the economic conditions and the social structure of the society. This relates primarily to the developing countries which have thrown off the colonial yoke, but which have yet to surmount their socio-economic and cultural backwardness.Meanwhile, the accumulation of advanced social experience by existing socialism has a growing role to play in the uneven but coherent tide of world history. As MarxistLeninist ideas are embodied in this experience, they have a crucial impact on the whole course of contemporary history.
All of this has an effect not only on the peculiarities of the ongoing revolutionary process, but also on the content of internationalism itself. Its framework is being steadily enlarged, but at the same time contradictions arise in its practical realisation, that is, in the development of the international solidarity of the revolutionary forces of our day. If these contradictions are to be overcome and the movement is to advance, a consistently historical approach must be taken to proletarian internationalism and to the problem of the relation between the international and the national in the revolutionary process.
A concrete-historical approach needs to bo taken not only when examining the ways and means of realising the internationalist ideal, but also in determining the content of proletarian internationalism, which is in (he process of historical development.
Proletarian internationalism is a concept of many facets and dimensions. It permeates every aspect of the social being and the social consciousness of the working class, and is manifested in various spheres of social life: morality, psychology, politics, ideology, and culture. That is why as 156 the revolutionary process gains in breadth and depth and becomes more diverse, the principles of internationalism themselves are developed and the sphere of their operation enlarged. The concept itself is filled out with historical experience. Proletarian internationalism tends to develop along several different lines.
The first line is practical solidarity action by the working class of various countries. At the early stages of the working-class movement, this action was spontaneous and limited, and did not go beyond the confines of individual enterprises in which workers of different nationalities were united by the common conditions of their life and work in opposition to their capitalist employer. The spontaneous sense of solidarity broke through the nationalistic barriers and impelled workers to take joint action in defence of their economic demands. The framework of this action was markedly enlarged by the growth of unionisation within the working class, so that membership of the same trade union brought workers of different nationalities together on a larger scale. This provided the basis for a sense of sympathy for workers of the same or allied occupations in their struggle in other countries. This was followed by direct support for that struggle both through overt expressions of solidarity and financial assistance to strikers.
As the class antagonism between labour and capital sharpened, and as the awareness of these antithetical interests by the advanced sections of the workers grew, conditions were created for international political action by the working class. The crucial milestone along this way was the emergence of the political party of the proletariat which, as Marx and Engels put it, identifies and stands up for "the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality".^^1^^ The emergence of a political party of the working class signified that the class had begun to comprehend its revolutionary mission, which is international in its very substance. From there on, proletarian internationalism became a political principle of the revolutionary working-class movement.
This principle is developed and assimilated by the advanced contingents of the international proletariat in sharp struggle against opportunism and nationalism, a struggle which frequently attains a high level of intensity, as will _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 6, p. 497.
157 be seen from the collapse ot the Second International during the First World War. Proletarian internationalism is raised to the level of a Irue class policy in the activity of the CPSU, a new type of revolutionary proletarian party, and in the activity of the world communist movement. It is the Communists that have linked internationalism and the revolutionary spirit together as two aspects of the proletariat's class policy designed for the socialist renewal of the world. In their activity, proletarian internationalism has become an instrument for practical revolutionary action.The victory of the October Revolution in Russia was simultaneously a triumph for proletarian internationalism. The first socialist state became the mainstay of the world socialist revolution, and an instrument of proletarian internationalism, which the Soviet Union adopted as a principle of its state policy. Proletarian internationalism was embodr ied in the practical fulfilment of the advanced revolutionary task: the building of socialism. It was embodied in Lenin's policy of fighting for peace and for the peaceful coexistence of states, and in the international support given by Soviet Russia to the working class and the other revolutionary forces of the capitalist countries. The class intuition of the working masses of the world helped them to sense the internationalism of the Soviet Union's policy, and they mounted a powerful movement of solidarity with it.
The fresh tide of socialist and national liberation revolutions after the Second World War gave proletarian internationalism even greater scope. The revolutionary forces' international solidarity helped socialism to win out in a group of countries. The colonial system was destroyed, and a general upswing in the working-class and general democratic movement followed. The emergence of socialism beyond the borders of one country and the formation of the world socialist system ushered in a new line in the development and content of proletarian internationalism: it became the principle of relations between states within the socialist community. It is the basis for the political and military alliance of equal sovereign socialist states. It is an alliance set up to defend the gains of socialism against imperialist encroachments and to rebuff imperialism's policy of war and aggression. Cultural and ideological ties are developed, and the socialist countries' economic community is 158 strengthened on the basis of the principle of socialist internationalism.
The second line in the development of proletarian internationalism is the shaping of the proletariat's internationalist class consciousness. Every significant stage in the development of proletarian internationalism includes a qualitative shift in the political consciousness of the working class, which is the basis for the further development of the internationalist content of the proletarian ideology.
The advance from the perception of the common class interests of the workers of different nations on the level of feelings and emotional motivations to a comprehension of the meaning and substance of this class solidarity on the level of political thinking marked the first major stride in that direction. It testified to the shaping of a socialist consciousness, with proletarian internationalism an organic component part. This required a systematic and scientific elaboration of the socialist theory by the proletariat's ideologists and its introduction into the working-class movement. This called for the establishment of political parties of the working class and their vigorous and relentless struggle against the bourgeois ideology and revisionist trends.
The internationalist consciousness is introduced into the working-class movement in contest with other ideologies, and efforts to overcome the bourgeois mentality and nationalistic preconceptions. Bourgeois nationalism is one of the ideological instruments by means of which capitalism seeks to subordinate the working-class movement to itself spiritually and politically. The divide between proletarian internationalism and bourgeois nationalism coincides with that between the revolutionary and the reformist ideology. The reformist-compromise approach is confined to the national framework and to a search for common national interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which is why it is always limited nationally, and, as the record of the Second International showed, it leads to nationalism and socialchauvinism. The revolutionary approach is always a class approach. It includes the working people's international solidarity and is, consequently, alloyed with internationalism.
This alloy of internationalism and the revolutionary spirit is an organic feature of Leninism, whose triumph over the reformism and social-chauvinism of the Second 159 International opportunists, and the emergence of the communist movement on thai basis marked a i'resh advance in the development of the internationalist consciousness of the working class.
The subsequent milestones in the history of the world liberation movement also went hand in hand with major shifts in the internationalist consciousness of the working class. The formation of the world socialist system helps the working class of each socialist country to realise that it belongs not only to its own nation, but also to an international community. This takes place through the resolution of contradictions and struggle against flare-ups of nationalistic feelings and notions, which sometimes assume the dangerous forms of isolationism and hegemonism.
Equally complicated problems in the development of the internationalist consciousness are produced by the headlong advance of the scientific and technical revolution, which has accelerated the international integration of the productive forces, science and culture, and by the growing spectrum of the mass revolutionary forces fighting against imperialism.
The third line in the development of proletarian internationalism is characterised by the growing spectrum of social forces under its influence.
In the epoch of imperialism, the oppressed masses of the colonies came under the influence of internationalism. Today, it exerts its influence on I'resh social forces and groups joining in the world revolutionary process. Through their own experience, and in participation with the working class in the anti-imperialist struggle, the need for international solidarity in the fight against imperialism is being realised by the peasant masses, the petty bourgeoisie, the scientific and technical intelligentsia, office workers, workers in culture, public health and the services, and radical-minded members of the armed forces. These strata absorb the principles of internationalism in sharp struggle against the nationalistic prejudice still to be found in their consciousness and mentality. Nevertheless, as they join in the liberation movement, they come to comprehend the principles of internationalism.
With the expansion of the sphere of proletarian internationalism, the ties between the communist parties and the revolutionary-democratic parties in the zone of the national liberation movement are being ever more intensively 160 developed. As the revolutionary democrats come to realise the power and effectiveness of international solidarity among all the revolutionary contingents, they seek to strengthen their ties with the socialist world and to study the experience in constructive work by the communist parties of the socialist countries.
The fourth line in the development of proletarian internationalism is the formulation and improvement of the rules governing relations between working-class organisations and political parties in various countries. These relations depend both on the changing political situation, and on the growth of the international communist movement itself. The concrete-historical approach to proletarian internationalism helps to show more fully the meaning of `` socialism'', a concept which is profoundly international. The content of socialism is shaped and enriched by the historical experience of the revolutionary movement in all the countries of the world. Socialism does not originate in a sterile vacuum, nor does it emerge in full splendour from the ocean waves, as did Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and beauty. Socialism results from sharp class struggle and stems from the historical reality, which is multifarious and far from simple (there is even a clash of different civilisations, to say nothing of national distinctions).
The task of Marxist-Leninist theorists is to trace all these lines of development of proletarian internationalism and to show how they enrich the content of the activity of the international working class, which is revolutionary both in transformative and constructive terms. This ensures the historical approach to proletarian internationalism and sheds the correct light on the fusion within it of the political and moral values of the international working-class and communist movement with the creative assimilation of new experience in the world revolutionary process. Without the historical approach attempts may be made to contrast past and present experience, and this is illustrated by the conception of a so-called new internationalism. Its advocates assert that present-day global problems transcend the framework of proletarian interests and affect the destinies of all the strata of the population, of all the peoples, and of mankind as a whole. That is why, it is claimed, there is a need for a broader internationalism with a general human content. Since international solidarity now involves __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11--01528 161 the most diverse anti-imperialist forces, the Communists, it is said, should work not so much to strengthen ties with each other, as to arrange relations with other political parties and organisations. This is just a short step to suggesting thai the international communist movement should be dissolved in a broader anti-imperialist unity of left-wing and democratic forces.
The notion concerning the imaginary narrowness of proletarian internationalism comes from a dogmatic and unhistorical interpretation of this multidimensional concept. The content of proletarian internationalism tends to develop with that of the international working-class movement and is enriched with new historical experience. Some analysts assume that the expanding orbit of international solidarity and the ever more complex ties between the revolutionary and democratic forces indicate a crisis of proletarian internationalism, and they suggest the following simple way out: to do away with the "old internationalism''. In this simplistic approach, a mechanical nihilism with respect to historical experience---and this also means to the MarxistLeninist theory, which accumulated that experience in the logic of its categories---is substituted for Marxism's dialectics of historical continuity. If one continues to think diar lectically, one will realise that there is no ``crisis'' of proletarian internationalism. As internationalism develops, it reflects the diversity and contradictory nature of the contemporary world. However, proletarian internationalism, solidarity among the various national contingents of the vanguard class of the contemporary epoch continues to be the nucleus of the broad international solidarity of the antiimperialist forces. Nowadays, the working class is not only the representative of the vibrant forces of national development, but is also the bearer of the internationalist consciousness. The responsibility of the forward class of our epoch and its revolutionary vanguard---the communist and workers' parties---for mankind's destiny has never been greater Lhan it is today. This enjoins the Marxists to take a broad approach in assessing the potentialities of and prospects for relations with various social and political forces.
The Communists and the working class are faced with a strong and crafty enemy: imperialism and monopoly capital. This should always be borne in mind. But another thing one should not forget is that the vast majority of mankind are potential friends and allies of the working 162 class and the Communists. That is why they must be heard out, and an attempt made to understand the peculiarities of their views, positions, needs, interests, and mentality. Nowadays, the internationalist approach is materialised in the broad unity of the international working class with other progressive and democratic forces on the basis of an anti-imperialist platform clearly reflecting the interests of all these forces.
The Marxists resolutely oppose the "new internationatism'', which is contrasted to proletarian internationalism, but advocate a broad and unbiased approach to international solidarity, which the theorists of the "new internationalism" are trying to rid of class content. Past experience and present-day practice in political struggle testify that the class character of proletarian internationalism does not in any way reduce the possibilities for fruitful cooperation between the communist parties and the other parties and organisations. Indeed, it is proletarian internationalism that helps to strengthen in every way and gives purpose to the broader anti-imperialist solidarity. No one has done more than the Communists to reach a mutual understanding and unity of action by the numerous anti-imperialist trends and movements, while displaying respect for their uniqueness and independence.
The working class is faced with the highly important task of uniting mankind in solving the main problem: preserving peace and preventing a thermonuclear catastrophe which threatens to undermine the very basis of social progress and life itself.
``To safeguard peace---no task is more important now on the international plane for our Party, for our people and, for that matter, for all the peoples of the world."~^^1^^
The working class is also faced with other global problems, which are of general human concern. It is to the fore of the search for their solution, linking this activity with the quest for the best forms of social relations which take shape with the development of existing socialism.
That is why it is futile to try to contrast mankind's interests with those of existing socialism, but attempts to do so are still being made. Isn't that, after all, testified by the position of ``equidistance'' from the United States and the Soviet Union, which is used to justify the preservation of _-_-_
^^1^^ Documents and Resolulions. The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 40.
__PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 11* 163 the US "nuclear umbrella" over Europe as some kind of guarantee of its independence? Isn'l that also the basis for the one-sided view of the place and role of the non-aligned movement, as some kind of counterweight not only to imperialism, but also to existing socialism? It is also the justification for the non-class theory of the "two superpowers'', which tends to blur every distinction between the foreign policy of imperialism and that of existing socialism, between the United States and the Soviet Union. Repudiation of the revolutionary patrimony of the communist movement in the light of a "new internationalism" is unacceptable. The communist movement cannot be allowed to dissolve itself in some kind of boundless and amorphous internationalism, for that would also weaken the broad general democratic international solidarity, making it amorphous as well and depriving it of its militant, anti-imperialist content. But it is not right either to contrast proletarian internationalism, and international solidarity with a wider spectrum of anti-imperialist forces. The prospect of a further strengthening of the positions and influence of the communist movement crucially depends on the Communists' ability to establish contacts and display patience in helping these forces to understand---in the light of their own political experience---the pressing revolutionary tasks and the need lor joint action with the revolutionary workingclass movement.That is what determines the importance of having a clear understanding of the relation between the international and the national in the revolutionary process. These two aspects of the process are organically interwoven and constitute a dialectical unity. However, such a unity always has a leading side, and in this case it is evidently the international element, for it embodies the vital class interests and socialist goals of the workers of all the nations and countries. An internationalist, says Lenin, is someone who ".. .must not think only of one's own nation, but place above it the interests of all nations, their common liberty and equality. .. .he must fight against smalt-nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the whole and the general, subordinate the particular to the general interest.''^^1^^
It is hardly fruitful to speak of some ``priority'' or `` primacy'' of either side of the dialectical unity of the _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 347.
164 international and the national, but it is important to bring out in this unity the movement of the two sides, and not just to declare their equality. The assumption of an arithmetical equality makes it difficult to show the dialectics of the international and the national. It is sometimes said, for instance, that the truly national interests coincide with international interests, and there is no doubt about it. But how is one to determine which interests are truly national? Some have presented narrowly-taken national interests as a specimen of internationalism. There is a need for clear-cut criteria of truly national interests. In order 1o determine them, one has to bring out the leading side of the unity of the international and the national, and 1o understand its role and importance.The point is not which side is more important or significant, but that priority should be given to the internationalist approach in solving the problems of revolutionary struggle. After all, if one is to understand the peculiarity of concrete national conditions and the forms of revolutionary action by the working class and its party which correspond to these conditions, one must know the laws governing the development of the whole, understand the meaning and content of the contemporary historical epoch. Lenin says: ''. . .Only a knowledge of the basic features of a given epoch can serve as the foundation for an understanding of the specific features of one country or another.''~^^1^^ Tho point is, consequently, to determine the internationalist class system of coordinates for formulating strategy and tactics in the revolutionary struggle, in accordance with the national conditions of this or that country.
Here, the leading role of the international in the revolutionary process is not some kind of additive to the national peculiarities and characteristics of the revolutionary movement in a given country, but is the result of an organic, imaginative absorption of international experience. That is why the international appears as the content of the revolutionary process, which always unfolds in a specific national form. The international is refracted through the prism of national experience, the prism of national-state distinctions, and the prism of the class struggle on national soil. The international has the role of leading side in the contradiction, because it helps to understand the place of _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 145.
165 national experience in the world revolutionary process and to pursue the consistently revolutionary working-class policy through the national conditions and factors behind historical development in each country.It is important to note that the dialectics of the international and the national is also characteristic of all the countries of existing socialism. Their international policy has an internationalist class character, but it is also refracted through the prism of national-state relations, and through the actually existing international relations. It is important to emphasise this because some theorists characterising the development of the revolutionary movement in the capitalist countries invariably lay the main accent on national distinctions and peculiarities. When it comes to the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, these theorists demand a "pure internationalism" which is free from every national specific and national interest, and even from the interests of existing socialism as the leading force in the world revolutionary process. In this way, internationalism is torn away from its actual historical soil, from the actual relations between states in the world arena, and from the concrete tasks of defending the gains which existing socialism has already won.
With such an approach, the principles of proletarian internationalism in the Soviet Union's foreign-policy activity are unjustifiably cut away from the actually existing system of international relations, which is marked by national-slate distinctions. Consequently, no state---and this also applies to the socialist states---can conduct a foreign policy which ignores national-state interests. The internationalism of the socialist countries' foreign policy is manifested in the unity of their international and national interests.
At every stage of the revolutionary process there arises a real contradiction: the revolutionary working-class movement always goes forward on the national soil, while proletarian internationalism requires advance beyond the national framework. How is this actual contradiction to be resolved, considering that it is not a contradiction in logic, but in life itself? The solution is offered by the Marxist-- Leninist parties' exetnsive exchanges of experience of revolutionary struggle in the various countries and their comparison of ideas and standpoints.
The exchange of experience and ideas makes it easier to assimilate the international experience of the international 166 working-class movement, which helps to resolve the contradictions between the national and the international in the development of the revolutionary movement in each country. The contradiction keeps being reproduced at every new twist of the historical spiral, and is once again resolved by the same method. That is what keeps the revolutionary process developing. There is no reason to fear such dialectical contradictions. One need merely constantly look to their resolution through a comparison of national experience and the experience of the international working-class struggle, and the conclusions drawn by the Marxist-Leninist theory, which sums up the historical experience of the world revolutionary movement.
The fact that the world is now a global, well-knit whole has an influence on the dialectics of the international and the national in the revolutionary process. This makes for interdependence between all the spheres of social life: economics, politics, culture and ideology. The importance of this factor is made known by the international response to any situation of conflict, in whatever region of the world it may occur. And this poses a tremendous danger, considering the world's oversaturation with the means of destruction. According to UN estimates, the nuclear weapons stockpiles are close to 1.5 million Hiroshima-type bombs, while their total explosive power is more than 50 billion tons of ``conventional'' explosives. That is enough to destroy all living beings on the Earth 15 times over.
That is why the revolutionary forces' international responsibility is such an exceptionally acute problem. Their responsibility is an important aspect and criterion of internationalism. The question of peace today is the point at which the proletariat's internationalism organically blends with the general human concern for preserving life on the Earth, for defending the very right to life.
The integral nature of the world and the growing weight and scale of its global problems also have an ever greater impact on the development of existing socialism, for it cannot afford to remain aloof from the ever more complicated and intensive world-wide connections. It is in a process of constant change, and so feels their growing influence. All of this has an effect on the content of socialist internationalism and on its ties with the general democratic solidarity of all the progressive forces concerned with the acuteness of global problems.
167The dialectics of the international and the national has its specific features in application to the newly-liberated countries. In most of these countries, nationality is still in the process of formation, and a stable internal social base for proletarian internationalism has not yet taken shape either. But it would be wrong to assume that the relation of the international and the national in the revolutionary process is a problem that is irrelevant to these countries. The world is now an integrated whole, and all the conntries feel the influence of the basic content of our epoch. The historical experience of the peoples in the liberated countries keeps driving home to them that their advances along the way of progress would have been inconceivable but for the existence of socialism, which has become the crucial factor behind the changing balance of forces in the world, behind the development of the world situation along lines which are favourable for the development of the liberated countries. What happens to these countries from hcreon is a global problem, a problem for the whole of mankind. One can hardly conceive of any solution to that problem through some parallel development of industrialised and developing countries. The results of the economic growth of the countries of state-monopoly capitalism and of the developing countries show that, far from diminishing, the gap in incomes per head of the population in the two groups of countries has, in fact, been growing and is expected to go on growing. That is why there is a need for another `` model'' of world economic development than the one the imperialist powers have imposed on the newly-liberated countries. These countries can rise from their economic and cultural backwardness only given more and more peoples choose the socialist way.
While justice is important and necessary here as in any other effort, it would be Utopian to expect some kind of universal justice to descend upon the developing countries in the solution of their problems. It would be even more Utopian to expect these problems to be solved through economic sacrifices by the working class in the industrialised capitalist countries. Indeed, why should the price be paid by the working class, which is itself ruthlessly exploited by monopoly capital? Besides, complicated economic problems in world development cannot be solved by means oj charitable donations. Anyone who advocated theories and programmes of sacrifice ?nd belt-tightening could not 168 expect to meet with understanding from Ilio working class, and would find himself in isolation. There are economic laws which cannot be sidestepped by means of any moral sermonising.
The prospect for a solution of the developing world's most difficult problems is organically connected with mankind's transition to the socialist way of development and the arrangement of a world order in accordance with democratic and socialist principles. A great deal has already been achieved by now along this way of consolidating the alliance of the world's revolutionary forces. Of course, this problem calls for a sober approach, because there are no magic-wand solutions for swiftly carrying the newly liberated peoples to the way of social progress. But then, it is not right either to underestimate the tremendous historical importance of the new perspective, including the perspective of non-- capitalist development, which has arisen because of the radical changes brought about by the impact, of existing socialism, the crucial factor of world history.
The dialectics of the international and the national is also manifested in (he development of the international communist movement. Over the past several years, it has had to face a number of acute problems in further developing internationalism and communist-party solidarity.
The spreading activity of the transnational corporations is a fact to bo reckoned witli in capitalist development today. The scale of their activity is being rapidly increased, and they already account for a quarter of the capitalist countries' gross national product. They have been growing at a rate of 10 per cent a year. Making use of their international status and connections, the transnationals are fighting the national contingents of the working class on a world scale. They have been transferring production from one country to another, closing down plants or withholding new investments in countries where it is unprofitable to invest for economic or political reasons. Those are the means they have been using ever more frequently against the tradeunion movement. National trade unions can no longer resist the transnationals with the usual methods, and there is an acute need for international solidarity of the working class and trade unions in various countries in the fight against the transnationals.
One has to admit that the level of this solidarity leaves much to be desired as yet. It is true that on the level of 169 the trade unions international strikes have already been held and solidarity action taken by trade unions in various countries, while international trade-union secretariats have been set up in some industries. This is a new form of international trade-union association. But that is no more than a beginning. The need for international solidarity action is' very much greater but the response by the working-class movement to the transnational monopolies' global policies still falls short of it.
The lag is even greater on the political level. Here, an acute contradiction has arisen between the internationalisation of the economy and the policy of the leading capitalist countries, monopoly capital's internationalisation of its strategy in its fight against the working class, on the one hand, and the slow pace at which the working class has tackled the problem of formulating a common strategy in the struggle against world capital, a contradiction which has been deepening from year to year, on the other.
Some say that this contradiction can be resolved through the establishment of a system of supra-national sovereignty in Western Europe, but this approach appears to be highly dubious. Given the present balance of political forces, the supra-national organs of power in Western Europe would become vehicles of the will and interests of big capital. The influence of the Left-wing forces, above all of the revolutionary vanguard of the working class---the Communists ---on a European scale would be significantly reduced, as compared with their present influence in some leading West European countries.
Besides, the idea of supra-nationality is frequently oriented not only against imperialism, but also against existing socialism, for then Western Europe is seen as lying outside the system of world contradictions, and beyond the sphere of influence of the basic contradiction of our epoch. Some have spread the illusion that Western Europe could develop untouched by the struggle between the two world social systems. That is not the way out of the contradiction. The way out lies through the unification of the international communist movement on an international scale.
A great effort has been underway within the communist movement for some time now to hammer out, in theory and in practice, a sufficiently universal and flexible mechanism to ensure the international unity of the communist parties. At one time, this unity was realised within the 170 framework of the Communist International, a centralised international body. The concept of centre and the concomitant notions of international unity were a reflection of the historical realily in which Ihe international communist movement took shape. Our day presents a different set of realities, and they suggest other notions concerning the forms of the Communists' international unity.
Today the problem is to establish relations between independent parties working out their own policies in the light of the concrete conditions of their own countries, and this tends to produce some differences in their views and positions.
The CC Report to the 2fith Congress of the CPSU says in this context: "As the influence of the communist parties grows, the tasks facing them are becoming more and more complex and diverse. And sometimes that gives rise to divergent appraisals and differences in approach to concrete issues of the class struggle, and to discussions between parties.
``As we see it, this is completely natural. Communist parties have had dissimilar opinions on some issues in the past as well. The facts have proved convincingly that even in the presence of differences of opinion it is possible and necessary to cooperate politically in the fight against the common class enemy. The supreme arbiter in resolving the problems is time and practice."~^^1^^
There is a much more intricate mechanism of the revolutionary parties' international unity, ruling out the establishment of any kind of centre that accords with the present, more mature stage in the development of the communist movement. Such a mechanism has its advantages as compared with a centralised one. It is based on a recognition of differences (sometimes substantial) in the views and positions of the communist parties. These differences are a reflection of the diversity of the world revolutionary process. They can neither be avoided nor eliminated simply by the establishment of some kind of centre. There is a need for different means to overcome them.
``The international revolutionary movement of the proletariat does not and cannot develop evenly and in identical forms in different countries. The full and all-round _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 22.
171 utilisalion of every opportunity in every field of activity comes only as the result of the class struggle of the workers in the various countries. Every country contributes its own valuable and specific features to the common stream; but in each particular country the movement suffers from its own one-sidedness, its own theoretical and practical shortcom-" ings of the individual socialist parties.''~^^1^^Let us note that Lenin speaks of the one-sidedness and shortcomings of the revolutionary working-class movement "in each particular country'', i.e., not of some kind of accidental deviations, but of a general feature of the workingclass movement reflecting the contradictory dialectics of the international and the national. This means that if one is to overcome such limitations and shortcomings, one must look to international experience and have a well-geared system of democratic exchanges of opinion and ideas between the communist parties.
As much was said at the Berlin Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties, and these ideas were elaborated at the 26th Congress of the CPSU, which declared: ''. . . When Communists fight for the common revolutionary cause, we believe that patient comradely discussion of differing views and positions serves their common aims best of all.''^^2^^
That is the way in which the international experience of the communist and working-class movement is being summed up in the present multifarious conditions which are connected with national-state distinctions. This summing-up of experience and comparison of views results in a development of Marxist-Leninist theory, a point emphasised by Lenin, when he said that revolutionary theory "grows out of the sum-total of the revolutionary experience and the revolutionary thinking of all countries in the world".^^3^^
In view of the diversity of the world communist movement, it would be wrong to lay down unanimity on every question as a preliminary condition for united action and initiatives. The hammering out of common positions and views within the world communist movement is a process which also has its contradictions. It is not the solid unity of a monolith, which rules out any differences whatsoever, _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lonin, CoUccled Works, Vol. 15, p. 187.
^^2^^ Docnincnls and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the Cominniiist. 1'arti/ oj the Soviet Union, p. 24.
~^^3^^ V, I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 354,
172 but a dynamic system of views and positions taken by the communist parlies, which may differ on this or thai concrcic issue, but which are closely uniled by the common principles of the revolutionary theory and policy of the working class.A democratic system of unity of the revolutionary working-class parties lias taken shape and is developing within the international communist movement, and it accords with the generally accepted rules of relations between them--- equality, independence, and respect for each other's positions-while simultaneously according with the principles of proletarian internationalism, and voluntary observance of the international commitments undertaken by the Communists in the struggle for their common goals.
[173] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Ten __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULARThe Marxist-Leninist theory oi' revolution emerged and has been developing through the comprehension oi the practice of the ongoing revolutionary processes in the world. This means that the theory of revolution is closely bound up with the theory of cognition of dialectical materialism and its application to the multifaceted and dynamic process, which is the world social revolution. A study of this process helps to discover a number of epistemological problems and difficulties, which arc caused above all by the exceptional rapidity of the revolutionary process, and which are specific to this sphere. One could say that within this process everything is in ceaseless motion, so there naturally arises the following question: are there any constant magnitudes in the rapid stream of revolution? After all, only the existence of such magnitudes would allow one to speak of objective laws, without which no science is conceivable.
There is no doubt that constant magnitudes shaping the objective logic of the revolutionary process do exist. But if one is to bring them out from the dynamic avalanche of rapid change, one must use the dialectico-materialist method of analysis, a dialectical mode of thinking, which reveals the intricate dialectics of the general and the particular in the unique diversity of the revolutionary process.
The relation between the general and the particular is one of the everlasting problems in the philosophy of history which keeps confronting mankind at every turn in the historical process, and it is an especially pressing one in our revolutionary epoch for two reasons. First, the revolutionary process now abounds in phenomena and events which cannot be slotted into conventional notions and general theoretical categories. Second, the ideological polemic within the working-class and democratic movement is now focussed on the problem of the general and the particular. One could say that this problem is the knot in which the most important methodological problems in the theory of revolution arc tied together.
174Indeed, if one clarities the relation between the general and the particular in the checkered pattern of current events, one will be able to understand the uniformities of the revolutionary process. These uniformities accumulate the general features which are inevitably manifested in all the fundamental revolutionary transformations of the society, whatever the peculiarities of the liberation movement in the various countries. From time to time, theoretical views have been expressed within the working-class and democratic movement casting doubt on the very existence of general uniformities in the revolutionary process. The methodological arguments behind this sceptical approach are not new: they were set forth at the turn of the century by the members of the Freiburg school of neo-Kantianism. It is worthwhile to recall the half-forgotten works of Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert and other philosophers of that school, because their arguments are trotted out as theoretical innovations.
These philosophers drew a distinction between the natural and social sciences, holding that the former dealt with general laws, and the latter, with individual historical facts and events. Windelband wrote: "The experimental sciences seek in the cognition of the real world either the general, in the form of a law of nature, or the individual, in a historically conditioned form; they examine, on the one hand, the invariable form of real events, and on the other, their single and within themselves determined content. The former are sciences of laws, the latter, sciences of events.''~^^1^^ The neo-Kantians' main argument is that historical events are so unique that there is nothing common about them to constitute the basis for the operation of a law. Virtually the same argument is being used by present-day theorists who deny that the laws of the revolutionary process are objective, or who minimise their role.
The neo-Kantians ultimately take the teleological approach to history. Since history has no laws, they argue, it can be described in a generalised way only by relating unique phenomena and events to the system of values and purposes taking shape in the minds of men. Rickert says: "It is never laws, but only values that must be applied as the guiding principle in interpreting any single series of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Wilhelm Windelband, Prdludien. Aufsiitze und Reden zur Philosophic und ihrer Geschichte, Bd. II, Tubingen, 1924, S. 145.
175 development stages, because it is only with respect to them that the individual can become substantial.''~^^1^^The latter-day neo-Kautiaas use the same methodology to arrive at the same teleological positions. On the assumption that there are no general laws governing the formation and development of socialism, and that every region and even every country requires its own type of socialism which has nothing in common with existing socialism, nothing remains of the materialist view of the society. Socialism is not seen as a reality and a pressing requirement in the development of the society, but only as a very distant goal, as some kind of abstract system of. values.
The Marxists have fought the neo-Kantians on the basic questions of the philosophy of history. Guided by dialectics, they have proved that the uniqueness of historical events does not mean that there are no connections in social development. The general objective laws of history make their way through any diversity of historical and national peculiarities, and this should be borne in mind because even today similar methods are used in similar attempts to refute the basic premises of the materialist view of history.
The ideological adversaries of Marxism usually have a distorted notion of the dialectics of the general and the particular, and ascribe to the Marxists an idealistic, Hegelian view according to which the general is independent of the actual social relations. It turns out that it is not concrete history that invests the general with content but, conversely, it is the general that allegedly invests history with life, and is primary with respect to it. But in contrast to the Hegelian view, the Marxists believe that the general is always organically connected with the particular, and exists only in it and through it. In his Philosophical Notebooks, Lenin specifically emphasised that the general, taken in an abstract form, is dead and incomplete. He quotes Hegel as saying: ".. .not abstract, dead and immobile, but concrete'', and remarks: "This is characteristic! The spirit and essence of dialectics!''~^^2^^
The general becomes viable and complete only when it ceases to be an "abstract universal" and "comprises in itself the wealth of the particular, the individual, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Huiniich Rickert, Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen IJegrilfsbildung. Einc logische Einleitung In die hislorlschen Wissvnschajlen, Tubingen, 1921, S. 478.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 100.
176 single''.~^^1^^ The general itself develops and is enriched with practice. That is why dialectics demands such an application of the general principles of revolutionary theory "which will correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and apply them to national and nationalstate distinctions".^^2^^Let us note that Lenin speaks of modified principles in certain particulars, and that is understandable, because the most essential element has already been ``caught'' in the general, and consequently, is already expressed in the principles of theory. The particular does not relate to the most important element, but has to do with details and particulars of development. In this context the following remark of Lenin's, relating to socialist construction, is instructive: "The unity of essentials, of fundamentals, of the substance, is not disturbed but ensured by variety in details, in specific local features, in methods of approach.''^^3^^ There is, therefore, no disappearance of the general in the stream of particular phenomena and events, but development of the principles of theory and their enrichment with the historical experience of the liberation movement proceeding in the turbulent tide of social practice which keeps changing both the scenary and the protagonists of the revolutionary drama.
With the doctrinaire approach, the general appears as an isolated "thing in itself" which cannot be organically tied in with actual practice. But the point is that the general is not something that is purely external with respect to the concrete and the particular. It is always in a process of vibrant revolutionary creativity. It is not enough to know the substance of the general theoretically, it is always necessary to probe for it and to comprehend it in its specific concrete form.
No attempt should be made to impose from above abstract elements constituting the content of the uniformities of the historical process; concrete reality should not be made to fit into abstract schemes, otherwise one will find nothing in it except the old abstractions. The content of general uniformities always has to be found in its specific form and traced in the development of actual processes in living history. Any other approach amounts to a construction of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 99.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 92.
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenini Collected Works, Vol. 20,' p. 413.
__PRINTERS_P_177_COMMENT__ 12--01528 177 artificial schemes hampering the use ol the potentialities offered by the concrete situation. The general uniformities of historical development are in no sense dead or frozen; they are embodied in the diversity of actual life, are subjected to the influence of social development, modified in form and enriched.When emphasising the importance of the general for an understanding of social development, one should also indicate the need gradually to comprehend the diversity of the existing reality, of that particular which keeps appearing in the revolutionary process. If one were to abstract oneself from the particular, one would find it altogether impossible to understand how social development proceeds. Explaining his view of the general-particular relation, Marx says that "this general concept, or the common aspect which has been brought to light by comparison, is itself a multifarious compound comprising divergent categories''. From this it follows that one of the most important tasks of theory is to study specifics of every revolutionary stage and of the national peculiarities arising from conditions in this or that country. Consequently, the right approach is always to try to tie in the particular with the general uniformities of development, instead of ignoring or minimising the importance of the particular. That is the only way to avoid absolutising the particular, the nationally specific, and to understand its meaning as a manifestation, a moment, a stage, an aspect of the coherent historical process.
The coherence of the world revolutionary process is demonstrated by our day. For all its diversity it is an integral mechanism of revolutionary development, with definite objective laws characterising the status, role and relations of the chief revolutionary forces, the interaction of the international and the national in the liberation movement, and the main trends of the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. However specific the situation in this or that country, these general laws are manifested through any web of peculiarities.
An understanding of the general uniformities of our revolutionary epoch helps to comprehend it as a unity, despite its extreme diversity and paves the way for a solution of the complex tasks of elaborating a typology of the various forms of the world revolutionary process.
The foundation of the scientific typology of revolutions is made up of the theory of cognition and the methodology 178 of Marxism-Leninism. Its elaboration presents great difficulties because current revolutionary processes are diverse, unusual and dynamic. It is natural, therefore, that there should be fairly sharp discussions on the various aspects of the typology of revolutions.
Marx's proposition on the movement of thought from the abstract to the concrete is highly important in finding the right approach to the solution of this problem. Marx said that when examining social production it is, of course, possible to bring out the general definitions which apply to all the concrete types of social production: "However, the socalled universal conditions of any production are nothing but the abstract moments by means of which it is impossible to understand a single truly historical stage of production."~^^1^^ Marx goes on to speak of the need to apply "the method of advancing from the abstract to the concrete" which is simply "the way in which thinking assimilates the concrete and reproduces it as a concrete mental category".~^^2^^
Some general abstract elements are also inherent in the diversity of revolutionary processes, but without a concrete analysis of actual revolutions they become unviable, a dead letter. Abstract elements need to be found and traced in concrete processes, for only then can they help to elaborate a scientific typology of social and political revolutions.
The concept of socio-economic formation is the general initial concept of the Marxist typology of revolutions. This general category of historical materialism constituting the cornerstone of the materialist view of history helps to understand the meaning and content of social revolutions, and is, for that reason, the basis of their typology.
Some bourgeois sociologists have tried to construe a typology of revolutions from their immanent assessment. They start by isolating a revolutionary process from the whole range of social processes and then try to determine its character, an approach which loads nowhere. It is impossible to determine the character or type of revolutionary transformation unless it is tied in with the objective logic of the whole historical process. Historical practice as a whole shows that this logic is development and succession of socio-economic formations. Indeed, that is what _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, p. 193.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 206.
__PRINTERS_P_179_COMMENT__ 12* 179 determines the main criteria in classifying revolutions. These criteria require an answer to the following question: which system is objectively established as a result of the victory of the revolution, and against which social system is it objectively aimed?There is a need above all to clarify the content of the economic and social contradictions in the existing system which make a revolution historically inevitable. These contradictions manifest the pressing need for advancing to a i new socio-economic formation. Then comes the question of the content of the socio-economic relations for which the revolution clears the ground.
These objective criteria help to formulate a scientific typology of social revolutions. Crucial here is an analysis of i material relations---the production relations---although this does not rule out the importance of analysing the ideological relations. The whole diversity of social revolutions known to history ultimately comes under three main types: 1) antislave-holding revolutions; 2) anti-feudal, or bourgeois, revolutions; and 3) socialist revolutions.
Such is the overall line in formulating the typology of present-day revolutions. But that does not, of course, eliminate the difficulties of concrete analysis. These spring, in particular, from the fact that ``pure'' formations do not exist in actual life: the various types of socio-economic relations appear to be layered upon each other, so that it is far from easy to decide which of them determines the character of a concrete revolution. For all practical purposes, social revolutions of the "classical types" will now no longer be found anywhere. In actual life, we find an interlacing and an independence of various types of revolutionary social transformations. This fact expresses the complexity and contradictory nature of the world revolutionary process.
But for all the diversity of the modern world, the main content of our epoch is transition from capitalism to socialism. There is a vast process in which the very foundation--- mankind's social being---is transformed with the advance to the communist socio-economic formation. This constitutes the content of the present epoch, which has the crucial influence on the whole world revolutionary process. In each country, the revolution naturally proceeds on the basis of its internal conditions and stems from its internal contradictions. But in the presentrday conditions, no country can escape from the course of world history and remain aloof 180 from the general course of mankind's development. That is why any revolution, wherever it may occur, and however peculiar the forms it may assume, is influenced by the world-wide process in which the new, communist civilisation is taking shape. Even in the revolutions proceeding in countries where the socio-economic conditions for transition to socialism have not yet matured, powerful social trends make headway under the impact of the main content of our epoch.
There is a need to concretise the main objective criterion for the typology of present-day revolutions connected with the main content of our epoch in application to the conditions in various regions and countries of the world. Socialist trends stimulated by the advance of the society towards socialism and communism also come up against the countervailing trends engendered by the socio-economic heterogeneity of the modern world. Accordingly, it is wrong and simplistic lo try to reduce all present-day national liberation revolutions lo a common denominator. The realities of the national liberalion movement show with increasing clarity thai there is an ever more intensive and substantial divergence in development.
The point is that under the general term of national liberation movemenl, which is fully justified from the standpoint of the origins of the oppressed peoples' struggle against colonialism and imperialism, one will find different types of social Iransformations, and these distinctions tend to stand out with the passage of time. Some national liberation revolutions acquire a more pronounced socialist orienlalion, carrying Ihe peoples onto the way of socialist development; others merely gravitate to such an orientation; still others take the way of social transformations paving the way for capitalist development; while a fourth group has already firmly taken the way of capitalism. The typology of the national liberation revolutions is also complicated by the fact that in most cases they are incomplete.
It is also difficult to produce a typology of present-day revolutions because, apart from the socio-economic factors of the revolutionary process, it is also influenced by other factors: the composition and stand of their motive forces and the relations between them.
Let us recall that the working class is the locomotive in socialist transformations. Its world-wide historical mission as the grave-digger of capilalism and the architect of 181 the new, socialist society is determined by its status within the syslem of social production. However, the diversity of the world, which naturally also has an effect on the working class, introduces its own correctives into this general proposition. The working class does not have leading positions in the revolutionary process everywhere. In some countries, there is virtually no working class, or it is jusl in the initial stages of formation and organisation, is just being converted from a "class in itself" into a "class for itself'', and is acquiring a political consciousness. In other countries, the working class constitutes a majority of the population, but its political consciousness, characterising the maturity of the subjective factor of the revolution, has yet to rise to a level that would enable it to act as the locomotive of a socialist revolution. This applies, in particular, to the capitalist countries where a majority of the working class still takes a reformist attitude. It is quite understandable also that in such countries the revolutionary process, despite the maturity of the objective prerequisites for socialism, cannot all at once assume an explicit socialist character.
The working class in the capitalist countries itself tends to change with the historical development of capitalism, the emergence of existing socialism and the growth of its role in the world. There are shifts in its consciousness, mentality and notions about its mission. All of this likewise has a multifaceted effect on the revolutionary processes and on the typology of revolutions.
There are other forces alongside the working class which are now capable of playing a positive role in the socialist transformation of the society. The working class has allies. But the general trend inherent in the present epoch is that there is a widening of the spectrum of forces capable of taking part in a socialist revolution and making a positive contribution to it. The classes and social strata which were once incapable of taking part in the revolutionary struggle and displayed vacillation frequently begin to advocate socialism and act as potential allies of the working class under the influence of existing socialism and of the ideas of scientific socialism. This applies not only to the semi-proletarian strata of the countryside, but also to many urban middle strata and intermediate layers, to sizable categories of workers by brain, progressive intellectuals, and others. The social forces which have become capable of taking part in the struggle for socialist transformations bring in with them 182 their own views and notions, their own mentality, their own approach and with all this also their own prejudices. This has an effect on the revolutionary process and so also on the typology of revolutions.
In some newly liberated countries, revolutionary democrats representing the interests of the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, the progressive strata of the intelligentsia and the army, and also the emergent working class assume leadership in the pursuit of socialism. The result is that the revolutionary process also acquires unusual forms and fails to fit into the habitual classical typology. It is frequently an interlacing of socialist and general democratic trends, and even also of capitalist, trends, so that the socio-- economic content of the revolution does not remain stable, but tends to change with the ups and downs in the struggle of diverse forces and trends.
The dynamism and change of forms of political struggle throughout the given historical epoch has an effect on the character and type of revolutions.
Thus, the epoch of bourgeois revolutions lasted for centuries. Throughout that long period, great changes occurred both in the social structure of the society and in the condition of the various classes and strata of the feudal society, experience in revolutionary struggle was accumulated, the lessons of earlier revolutions were taken into account, and the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary and counterrevolutionary forces underwent change. That is why revolutions which were bourgeois in terms of the character of the movement tended to assume different forms: spontaneous peasant wars, uprisings of the urban lower orders, religious movements, joint action by the peasantry, the urban pettybourgeois strata and the emergent proletariat, with the bourgeoisie in the leadership. At a later stage there emerged a type of bourgeois-democratic revolutions, with the proletariat subsequently assuming the leadership in these revolutions, as it did in the 1905--1907 revolution in Russia. Consequently, there is a whole scale of different types and forms within the framework of the bourgeois revolutions, a diversity largely determined by the relative independence of the political history of these revolutions with respect to their socio-economic content.
The French bourgeois revolution, for instance, took something like a half-century, from 1789 up until 1848, to deal with its main tasks, when several political upheavals, took 183 place on the basis of one bourgeois social revolution. Similar processes are also under way in the world today. In tackling objective socio-economic tasks, many contemporary revolutions pass through definite political stages connected with deep clianges in the balance of mass social-class forces, with political shifts and revolutions. Many political processes may carry the social revolution to a qualitatively higher level, or may peter out, so making the revolution mark time or even move in reverse.
The impact of political changes on the revolutionary process in the 1970s was most pronounced in the Portuguese revolution, which went through a number of political ! stages. At some of these, the struggle for democratic transformations acquired such a scope that there was a real pros- j pect for tackling socialist tasks, and at one time an ap- j proach was oven made to their fulfilment. It was difficult to I decide to which type that revolution belonged because the revolutionary process was complex, multidimensional and incomplete. But while it went beyond the framework of a democratic revolution on a capitalist economic basis, it did not yet acquire an explicit socialist character. It could not be clearly defined before the end of the contest between the social and political forces involved, but that struggle was not completed either. The revolution entered upon the stage of defending its gains, and regrouping and accumulating forces for a fresh upsurge.
The Chilean revolution is another incomplete revolution. It contained within itself the shoots of different trends, among them some which were undoubtedly socialist ones. These were ensured by the leading role of the working class and its revolutionary vanguard, which was, it is true, weakened by the lack of unity. But the struggle for the socialist way of development was still in the offing. The revolution carried out a number of deep general democratic transformations, which laid the foundation for its further development towards socialism. However, the revolution was cut short by the reactionary military coup.
The character of a revolution largely depends on the volume of the masses involved. On the strength of this, Lenin drew a distinction between democratic people's revolutions, and ``elitist'' revolutions. The first, Lenin says, has the distinction that the majority of the people in them rises and leaves on the entire course of the revolution the imprint of its own demands, its attempts to build in its own way a 184 new society in place of the old society that is being destroyed.~^^1^^ In the course of ``elitist'' revolutions, the dominant strata of the bourgeoisie manage to keep the revolutionary process under their control. That is what happened in the incomplete revolution of 1867--1868 in Japan, in the Young Turk revolution of 1908, and in the Portuguese revolution of 1910. The ``elitist'' revolution usually runs halfway, is incomplete and abounds in compromises.
In contemporary conditions, "revolution from above" is fairly widespread in regions where mass involvement in politics is impeded by the archaic social structures. This enables the sober-minded ruling elite to tackle some of the objectively mature tasks in the society's development with a minimum involvement of the mass forces. As a rule, " revolution from above" tends to run in the upper reaches as an effective expression of compromise between the ruling classes. Such "elitist revolutions" are carried out at the expense of the interests of the popular masses, and their weakness is that the fundamental problems remain unsolved.
The contemporary world revolutionary process demonstrates an exceptionally wide range of alternatives in the main classical types of revolutions.
Transitional features and forms of revolutionary transformations have become typical for revolutionary processes in the modern world because the vast diversity of conditions in which revolutionary movements and revolutions proceed, the different degrees of maturity of the objective and subjective prerequisites of socialism, ranging from virtually total absence to a state of ``rotten-ripeness'', are shot through with inexorable socialist trends fueled by the main content of the present epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. Wherever the soil is not yet ripe for realising these trends, there arise highly peculiar combined forms of social transformations, shaped by the impact of the specific national and historical conditions.
Much significance now also attaches to the question of transitional types of revolutionary transformations in the countries of developed state-monopoly capitalism. The point is that within the system of contradictions of contemporary capitalism, the most acute contradictions between the monopolies and the majority of the people tend to come to the _-_-_
^^1^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 421.
185 fore, and their resolution has now become a most acute need which is being comprehended by ever greater masses of people. What is the character of revolutionary processes stemming from this imperative need? What do they signify in terms of typology of revolutions? These transformations do not yet lead to socialism, and can only result in the establishment of anti-monopoly democracy and give power to an alliance of left-wing, democratic forces under the leadership of the working class. While they cannot be regarded as socialist revolutions, they no longer fit into the framework of capitalism, because they undermine its very foundations: the domination of monopoly capital.Such revolutionary transformations, like the power of the democratic forces' alliance itself, come under the head of transitional revolutionary transformations whose end-result allows for various alternatives. These deep democratic changes can be a prologue to or oven the initial stage of a socialist revolution. But then they can also stop half-way, if the working class is not strong or mature enough to complete what it has begun. Nor is the subsequent restoration of a modernised version of state-monopoly capitalism entirely ruled out.
The typology of revolutions is made more difficult by the wide spread of transitional types of revolutionary transformations, but by the same token the importance of solving the problem tends to increase not only from the theoretical, but also from the standpoint of practical policy. A scientific typology of revolutions is required for a correct orientation in the diversity of revolutionary processes under way in various regions and countries, and for the formulation of a strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle adequate to the conditions and objective tasks.
Let us also note that every type of social revolution comes under numerous alternative versions, some of these being due to the peculiarities of the socio-economic and political structures in various countries, while others depend on the historical stage of the contemporary epoch: after all, revolutions are enriched by past experience and are modified under its impact.
Consequently, alongside the general typology of revolutions, independent significance attaches to the classification of the socialist type of revolutions as the main line of development in the world revolutionary process.
An attempt to work out a single typology of socialist 186 revolutions is contained in the Programme of the Comintern. It was based on one feature: the degree of maturity of the socio-economic prerequisites for a socialist revolution. Accordingly, three basic types of revolutions were brought out: for the developed capitalist countries, where direct advance to the dictatorship of the proletariat was allowed; for countries with a medium level of capitalist development, where it was assumed that bourgeois-democratic revolutions would grow into socialist revolutions, or where socialist revolutions would begin with a large proportion of bourgeoisdemocratic tasks; and for colonial and semi-colonial countries, where transition to socialism required a period of preparatory stages. There could also be, it was said, non-- capitalist ways of development for underdeveloped countries, which had no wage workers and where the struggle for national liberation was of central importance.
The grouping of countries by the degree of maturity of the objective prerequisites for transition to socialism made it possible to bring out some features of the revolutionary process which were common to each group of countries. However, this typology was somewhat schematic, because it failed to take into account other important features in the classification of revolutions.
The spread of the world revolutionary process since the Second World War has set before the Marxist theory the task of producing a fuller and more comprehensive typology of socialist revolutions. A comparison of the peculiarities of the revolutionary process in various countries indicates several features of such a typology. Along with the level of socio-economic development, N which is an important indicator, there is also a need to reckon with several other factors on which the community of some essential features of the revolutionary process largely depends. It is especially important to take into account the peculiarities of the historical stage at which a revolution begins. By that token, the Great October Socialist Revolution differs from the socialist revolutions in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe after the Second World War, which took place at a later stage of our epoch, a fact which determined their peculiarities. The main features of these revolutions were determined not so much by the similarity of their socio-economic development, as by the common situation and balance of forces in the world which took shape at that stage of historical development.
187The people's democratic revolutions in the Eastern European countries ran a different, course, and were characterised by different combination of revolutionary stages. In some countries, the socialist revolutions stemmed directly from the liberation struggle against fascism, and in others, they were preceded by a special democratic stage at which some socialist, tasks were also tackled. But for all the peculiarities of the individual revolutions, their common content clearly stood out. It consisted in the fact that from the very outset it was the working class and its revolutionary vanguard, the Communists, that had the crucial role to play. This also produced a common result: everywhere the people's democratic revolutions ensured these countries' transition to socialist construction. It is this common content that makes it possible to classify these people's democratic revolutions as a single type of post-war socialist revolution.
The further progress of world history and the dynamics of latter-day capitalism warrants the assumption that in the industrialised capitalist countries a new type, of socialist revolution will emerge with its own characteristic features, but within the framework of the general uniformities of transition from capitalism to socialism.
Socialist revolutions also differ in the composition and relation of their motive forces. These factors tend to change depending on the historical stages and levels of socioeconomic development in the various countries. In Russia, the socialist revolution was a worker-and-peasant revolution in terms of motive forces; in China, it was mainly a peasant revolution, which created the social prerequisites for deep-going collisions at the later stages; in the Eastern European countries, the socialist, revolutions proceeded on the basis of a broad alliance of democratic forces rallied round the working class. In many developed capitalist countries, ever greater importance in the revolutionary transformation of the society attaches to the alliance of the working class with the middle strata of the society and with the progressive layers of the intelligentsia. The composition of the motive forces in socialist, revolutions in the zone of national liberation will be highly peculiar.
An imprint on the revolutionary processes is also left by the location of countries in one and the same zone of the world. Thus, some common features clearly stand out in the revolutionary movements in the Latin American 188 countries, and these zonal features are bound to be manifested in socialist revolutions on the Latin American continent. Any typology oi socialist revolutions must also take into account the legacy of pre-capitalist social formations, which determines their specific ways to the socialist transformations of the society.
There is also a need to reckon with the different forms assumed by present-day revolutions, bearing in mind that there is no hard-and-fast boundary-line between differences in type and differences in form. The peculiarity of a revolution's form may be such that it could suggest a new version or another type of revolution.
The Marxist typology of revolutions reveals the coherence of the contemporary world revolutionary process. Relying on the dialectics of the general and the particular, it presents fairly clear-cut objective criteria and is sufficiently flexible in order to take into account the whole diversity of revolutions in the contemporary world, without trying to fit them into the Procrustean bed of simplistic and rigid schemes.
Difficult epistemological problems arise not only in trying to produce a typology of revolutions, but also at every step in the study of revolutionary processes today.
The connection between theory, on the one hand, and practice and revolutionary policy, on the other, is a tenet of the Marxist theory of cognition which is of cardinal methodological importance in analysing these processes. This general philosophical proposition acquires specific features in application to the revolutionary process, because the object of analysis in this case is inseparable from the subjective factor, since the revolution always means historical creative effort and political activity by masses, classes and parties. Indeed, theory is incapable of comprehending the wide range of variations and turning-points in this activity, unless it is organically connected with revolutionary practice.
Theory can and does, of course, determine the substance and main trends in the development of the revolutionary process, but it cannot reveal all the alternatives opening up in the revolutionary struggle, because life, struggle and revolutionary action always turn out to be more complicated than the finest theoretical analysis.
Theory, says Lenin, "at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes near- to embracing life in all its 189 complexity''.^^1^^ A reliable way of tying in theory and the wealth of the actual diversity of the revolutionary process is the concrete analysis of "the given phenomenon in its concrete setting and development".^^2^^
The analysis of the concrete situation is the medium through which general theory is connected with revolutionary practice. For only then are general propositions of theory fleshed out in the political reality and translated into the language of the revolutionary policy, so becoming its theoretical basis. Only then does theory become a guide to action. If theory is to be connected with the practical revolutionary struggle, theory has to be based on the concrete realities of the revolutionary process. This feed-back connection is ignored by the doctrinaire approach, so that sight is lost of the fluid system ol the interaction between theory and practice. As a result, the theoretical conception is left as a dead abstraction at the one pole, while political pragmatism, devoid of objective logic and long-term goals, remains at the other. On the one hand, there is an enumeration of general uniformities, and on the other, a woolly diversity of events and phenomena in the revolutionary process.
Of fundamental importance for understanding the revolutionary process is Marx's well-known dictum: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.''^^3^^ Revolution is changing the world, for it is not contemplation, but historical action. A comprehension of this change itself organically includes action. The standpoint of practice is the primary and fundamental standpoint in the theory of cognition. Such is the general conclusion of the Marxist epistemology. In application to the revolutionary process, theoretical analysis is fused with the practical activity of the advanced class and its revolutionary vanguard on the level of policy. Theory serves as the methodological and ideological basis for active, purposeful, and flexible revolutionary policy. For its part, political action provides theory with material and gives it constant impulses for theoretically comprehending the reality in all its wealth, complexity and contradictory nature, in all the diversity of its revolutionary manifestations.
_-_-_^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 45.
^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 309.
^^3^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 5.
190Even if ``pure'' theory has correctly summed up revolutionary experience, so reflecting objective uniformities, in isolation from practice it leads to historical inactivity and impotence in solving many of the problems of the social revolution. As soon as the theoretical analysis relying on practice has established the objectively ripe requirements for revolutionary transformations, the crucial say belongs to the practical policy of the vanguard class and its party. Theory helps to formulate requirement as a practical task, but this is fulfilled outside the bounds of theory, in the sphere of political struggle, which amplifies and corrects theoretical notions and which frequently creates new objectives and directions for theoretical thinking.
Theory alone cannot help to establish the true measure of what is possible in the revolutionary process, because there is a need for revolutionary initiative by the vanguard class, which in practice effects the pressing revolutionary transformations. The greater the politically active mass of the population involved in the struggle, the greater the role of the subjective factor, the broader are the potentialities of the struggle, which cannot be anticipated, and the lesser the reliance on the general conclusions of abstract theoretical analysis. The initiative and vigour of active socio-political forces in revolutionary periods enlarge the boundaries of the possible. Practical quest carries to the logical end the theoretical analysis of the practical struggle, bringing out the actual potential of all the classes and parties involved in the revolutionary process, and the extent of their readiness to fulfil the objectively mature tasks. This quest does not lie beyond the bounds of theoretical analysis, as the Marxists see it, but is a part of its content.
The fluidity of the revolutionary process tends to produce a number of epistemological difficulties in cognising its objective laws.
One of these difficulties is, in effect, a general problem of social cognition. It is that in any diversity of social life there are always exceptions to any objective historical laws. Lenin says: "Are there historical laws relating to revolution which know of no exception? And the reply would have been: No, there are no such laws. Such laws only apply to __ERROR__ Footnote that was here obviously goes at bottom of next page. 191 the typical. . .''~^^1^^ Consequently, one can always find in the intricate concatenation of social events facts and phenomena which do not fit into the scheme of the law and what is more, contradict it. It is these facts and phenomena thai the revisionist elements in the working-class and communist movement use to question the existence of laws.
They take, for instance, facts characterising the existence of socialist trends in countries where the objective conditions and the subjective factor are not yet ripe, and where, for that reason, it is non-proletarian political parties and organisations that promote these socialist trends. These facts are taken out of the general historical context as a basis for drawing the overall conclusion that Marxism, with its orientation towards the working class, is outdated, that it is much too narrow, and that present-day realities are more correctly reflected in other socialist theories. But the issue here is an altogether different one, and calls for a concrete analysis of the connection between the cited facts and the general course of historical development. That done, it becomes instantly clear that the very emergence of the new forces taking part in the struggle for socialism is a result of the development of the revolutionary process precisely in accordance with the laws discovered by Marxism-Leninism. These new forces display a capacity to participate in socialist transformations precisely because there is the practice of existing socialism, the practice of triumphant socialist revolutions, and the experience of translating the ideas of Marxism-Leninism into the reality. All of this has an effect on the consciousness and political behaviour of the social forces akin to the working class and makes it possible to enlarge the framework of their historical action, generating socialist trends where, from the standpoint of the internal situation, there should be none. Thus, in order to explain these facts, the general law of the leading role of the working class in the socialist revolution needs to be considered not in the narrow national or regional framework, but in the much broader international context on a world-wide scale.
Events and facts which at first sight conflict with the laws of the revolutionary process should not be considered in isolation from the whole process, but in close connection with it, for this reveals the objective logic behind these facts which fits into the framework of the law.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 238.
192There are also contesting trends in the revolutionary process which could be erroneously accepted or consciously declared to bo general laws. Thus, the trend towards the ever greater' use of planning in the development of statemonopoly capitalism is as a rule used by the reformist ideologists for their conclusion that the capitalist society is evolving towards socialism. In other words, the revolutionary process keeps producing various deviations from the typical. The true significance of all these deviations can be understood only in the context of the world-wide process. Consequently, there is a need to bring out not just the logic of some series or aggregation of facts, but the objective logic underlying the development of the revolutionary process on a world-wide scale, for that is when the contradictory facts and trends are given a rational explanation.
It is difficult to cognise the laws of the revolutionary process also because they are not always easily discerned in the immense diversity of the kaleidoscopic revolutionary development in our day. Any general law of transition to socialism in this dynamic process always appears in a special concrete form, and theoretical thinking is not always capable of immediately discerning it in its new guise, and bringing out from the glaring peculiarity the general element which constitutes the content of the law itself.
Let us recall that after the Second World War, the people's democratic revolutions in the Eastern European countries had great peculiarities through which the Marxists did not at once see some of the general features of the socialist revolution, notably the need for the dictatorship of tlie proletariat, which originated in those countries in a different way than it did in Russia, and assumed different concrete historical forms. This was repeatedly pointed out in 1946 and 1947 by Klement Gottwald, Georgi Dimitrov and Maurice Thorez, among other prominent leaders of the communist movement. Only alter a certain time---in 1948--- the experience gained in the people's democratic revolutions made it possible to draw the conclusion that they did not entail any disappearance of the general feature, of the general law of transition from capitalism to socialism, but produced a new political form of such transition---people's democracy---as a special form of the political power of the working class.
__PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13--01528 193Let us bear in mind that in the countries of highly developed slate-monopoly capitalism, both the forms of the future power of the working class, and the mode of its establishment will have their specilic features. Marxist theoretical thinking is faced with the task of making a deep and all-round study of the shaping, in the specific conditions of contemporary capitalism, of the political domination of the vanguard class of our epoch and the peculiar political forms of its domination. So, the task is to discover and understand the general law in its new and once unknown forms.
A comparative analysis of socialist revolutions is an effective way for establishing the general uniformities of the development of the revolutionary process, for it helps to discover in the uniqueness and specific features of individual revolutions recurrent, stable and deep-seated ties. This method is, of course, most fully applicable to completed revolutions, and that is reason enough to say that the method of comparative analysis is incomplete and inadequate. But this method can also be applied to the group of countries which have the transition to socialism before them. So conclusions suggest themselves which bear out the general law concerning the need for an alliance between the working class and non-proletarian strata of the working people in a socialist revolution.
Yet another epistemological problem connected with the dialectics of the revolutionary process consists in precisely relating theoretical conclusions concerning the peculiar manifestations of this or that law of revolution to the stages of historical development. The point is that at different stages of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the same set of laws of revolution may appear in a different form, and what is true of the immediate stages, does not apply to the whole process of transition.
That is illustrated by so-called political pluralism, which includes the parties' taking turns in power. This idea reflects the reality of present-day bourgeois democracy in many countries of developed state-monopoly capitalism. If a peaceful transition to socialism is realised there will also probably remain---at its initial stages---that which is known as political pluralism, expressed in the rivalry of political parties representing different classes, including the bourgeoisie. At these stages on the way to a socialist revolution, the working class, in virtue of the existing state of 194 affairs, will use the democratic institutions of the capitalist society in its class struggle, and will also have to reckon with the rule of the various parties' taking turns in power. But it would be a mistake to apply these features of the immediate stage (before the socialist revolution) to the whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism, which, it will be recalled, entails a break with the capitalist system and the transfer of the whole of power to the working class and its allies. By asserting the will of the working class and all the other working people, the revolution establishes socialist democracy, which breaks through the limited framework of the formal requirements of bourgeois democracy and becomes a democracy for the majority. At this point, the rules and principles of socialist democracy which accord with the interests of that majority evidently take over.
Here is yet another example of how the peculiarities of the present stage of the class struggle in the capitalist countries with a developed bourgeois-democratic system are extrapolated to the whole long period of transition from capitalism to socialism. At the present stage, the working class succeeds in enlarging its class struggle bridgeheads within the framework of the state system, so opening for the working class and its allies fresh opportunities for winning definite positions within the system of state power. Now and again this creates the illusion that it is possible in this way to travel the whole road, without any revolutionary situation, or without a mass revolutionary upsurge which any great revolution must have.
But this illusion springs from an unwarranted transfer of the immediate stages to more distant ones. Even a peaceful-way revolution is bound to reach the crucial point at which the vanguard class assumes the whole of political power. It is impossible to go beyond this point without involving the broadest masses of the people in the movement, and without a revolutionary situation which draws the lower strata of the society into the struggle and creates mass support for the revolutionary vanguard in winning political power.
In drawing the general conclusion, let us note that the development of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution and its answers to the questions posed by the revolutionary practice of our day demonstrate the organic and intrinsic connection between this theory and the philosophy of __PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195 Marxism-Leninism---dialectical and historical materialism. The philosophy of Marxism equips the theory of socialist^ revolution with the materialist view of history and with the dialeclico-materialist method for analysing the on-going world-wide revolutionary process. This gives the Marxist Leninist theory of revolution a scientific basis and enables it to reveal the uniformities of social revolution in our day.
[196] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Essay Eleven __ALPHA_LVL1__ SOCIALISM AND WORLD PROGRESSThe social revolution of our day, a world-wide process, ranges over an entire historical epoch, the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. Existing socialism, with its origins in 1917, constitutes the main outcome of the victorious socialist revolutions, while operating as the most important factor in further deepening and developing the world revolutionary process.
The formation and development of existing socialism is a natural-historical law-governed process leading to the emergence of the communist socio-economic formation. This process is not confined to the borders of the socialist countries, which are engaged in building the new society. It is connected with mankind's vital interests and blazes its trail into the future. That is why the dialectics of the development of the socialist society is organically interwoven with the dialectics of world social progress.
It is the international scale which most fully reveals the complexity and contradictory nature of the process in which the new, communist civilisation emerges and clearly shows the deep connection between the national ways to socialism and the destinies of mankind as a whole.
Socialism has emerged as a result of the revolutionary resolution of contradictions of the capitalist socio-economic formation in a number of countries. Stemming from the resolution of the contradiction between labour and capital, acquiring independence and its own basis for development, socialism becomes the leading force and the vanguard of the world-wide social revolution, which blazes the trail of progress for mankind as a whole.
The dialectical interaction between existing socialism and the world liberation movement is based on a close interlacing of two processes: on the one hand, a deepening of the basic contradiction in the contemporary world---that between socialism and capitalism---and on the other hand, the sharpening of the internal antagonisms of capitalism as a world social system, which is heterogeneous both in terms of nar tional states and in the compass of the various social 197 structures, ranging from the latest state-monopoly system to precapitalist relations.
The main contradiction of our epoch is organically connected, both genetically and in social substance, with the phenomena and processes under way within the entrails of the capitalist system. This conlradiction is, in effect, the shift of the antagonism between labour and capital into the sphere of international and inter-state relations. Following the revolutionary breakthroughs of the capitalist system, this contradiction is being reproduced in the world arena as a contest between the two social systems, one of which is backed by the state-organised working class, and the other, by monopoly capital. That is why the development of existing socialism, as the leading progressive force in the basic contradiction of our epoch, exerts a profound influence on revolutionary processes in the non-socialist part of the world. Each of the contending social systems continues to develop in accordance with its internal laws, but not just in isolation from each other, or each along its own way. The one is emerging from the other and in succession to it. Between them there is inevitable contest within the framework of the world-wide contradiction. Their mutual influence cannot be regarded as purely external in the society's transition from one stage of historical progress to the next, higher stage. Socialism's every stride forward has strong repercussions within the capitalist system, laying bare and sharpening its contradictions and causing it to react in resistance. Being the leading force of the world-historical revolutionary process, existing socialism also has an effect on the internal uniformities and mechanism of the capitalist system, on the qualitative specific features of the world revolutionary process, and on the whole of world development.
The basic contradiction of our epoch has a strong impact on the dynamics of the antagonism between labour and capital in the capitalist countries. The contest between the two systems and socialism's achievements in the economic, social and spiritual spheres of life force capitalism to make social concessions to the working class and enable the latter to fight for and win social and political rights and freedoms which had once been inconceivable. In many capitalist countries, these changes have opened up before the working class fresh opportunities in the struggle for profound democratic transformations which carry it close to the point of fundamental change in politics and economics.
198The main world contradiction undoubtedly has a complicated and multifaceted impact on capitalism. It is not right to consider the capitalist social system merely as the passive side of this contradiction. Actively responding lo tho development of socialism and the growth of its influence, capitalism evolves, adapting itself to the situation of contest against existing socialism. This applies not only to the superstruclural, but also to the basis relations of the capitalist society. Property relations are becoming more complicated, with state property, in particular, acquiring fairly large proportions, various social funds are set up, and the development of state-monopoly regulation is accelerated and attains a high level. These new features do not change the substance of capitalism but help it to be more elastic and mobile in the fight against the socialist system. It also borrows from socialism some methods of economic management which are alien to its nature, and resorts to planning and programming of economic development, with big capital naturally keeping its grip on all the main instruments of control.
In short, the main conlradiction of our epoch---that between socialism and capitalism---cannot be considered as a manifestation of their purely external relations. Without a consideration of this contradiction it is impossible to understand the logic and forms in which the internal contradictions of the contemporary capitalist mode of production, that is, of capitalism as a whole, move.
The emergence and development of existing socialism has a qualitative influence on the contradictions between the imperialist powers and their former colonies, the newly liberated countries. The very existence of socialism and its resistance to imperialism and solidarity with the newly liberated peoples signify the end of the ``closed'' relations between the imperialist and the developing countries. In these conditions, the developing countries become relatively more independent, as their dependence on the main centres of the capitalist system is reduced, and their gravitation towards socialism increased. These countries have before them much broader opportunities for conducting an independent policy and freely choosing their way of historical development. The contest between the two opposite social systems lends to differentiate and polarise the developing counIries, although this process still has a long way to run. A sizable group of developing countries has yet to make its 199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1985/CRP221/20080528/221.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2008.05.28) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ final choice in favour of cither system, while the political line of some liberated countries is marked by sharp turns and zigzags.
Because the main contradiction of the epoch is closely meshed with the internal contradictions of the capitalist system, existing socialism exerts a steadily growing influence on the world revolutionary process.
How is this done?
Existing socialism operates as a factor of progressive change in the balance of forces in the world arena in favour of the international working class and the forces of peace and democracy, thereby creating a favourable international situation for democratic and revolutionary movements and limiting imperialism's potentialities for " exporting counter-revolution''.
Furthermore, in tackling the creative tasks of the social revolution, socialism operates as a factor in the revolutionary transformation of the world. On the successes scored by socialism crucially depend the outcome of the social revolution, and the attractive power of that ideal for which revolutionaries in various parts of the world carry on their struggle. Relying on the strength of the socialist economy and state power, existing socialism shoulders the main burden of the struggle against imperialism, so making it easier for the other revolutionary forces to solve the internal problems they face.
Through the power of its example, existing socialism demonstrates in practice the advantages of the new social system, carrying other countries with it along this way, above all countries which have thrown off the yoke of colonialism.
Existing socialism helps and supports the revolutionary forces in the non-socialist part of the world. Its assistance is above all moral and political, inspiring the working class in the capitalist countries and its allies in their struggle against state-monopoly domination.
Let us note that the complexities and contradictory nature of world development are also reflected on the shaping of the world socialist system.
The realities of the modern world are diverse and heterogeneous, and this is reflected in the socialist world as well, for it includes societies with different economic levels, social structures, specific national and regional traditions and ties, unique cultures, and national mentality. All of 200 this tends to produce not only a diversity of social forms in the countries of the socialist world, but also differences in the character of relations between them. Socialism, as a world reality, does not take shape or develop in a straight line: its way is one of struggle and contradictions.
Alongside the natural difficulties stemming from the growth of the new social system, there are difficulties of another type which are generated by the acute class struggle under way in the world. Socialism has to develop in contest with imperialism, which sets in motion a whole system of economic, political, military and ideological instruments designed lo undermine the socialist world and to erode it. Nor is socialism guaranteed against subjective mistakes and miscalculations, especially where the social soil exists for right-wing opportunism, petty-bourgeois anarchism and nationalism. Practice shows that any distortion of principles of socialism has grave consequences. The complex and contradictory process in which the socialist world develops bears out this conclusion drawn by the 26th Congress of the CPSU: "New life is not born easily. The road of social progress is hard and sometimes painful. This makes the achievements of the socialist society all the more significant and vivid, and the feats of its builders and defenders all the more impressive."~^^1^^ For all the difficulties, contradictions and even zigzags in the historical development of some socialist countries, the main achievement of world socialism is that the contours of the new international communist civilisation are being brought out on the Earth in ever greater relief.
The growth and strengthening of existing socialism contrast with the stale and development of the capitalist system, which is in the throes of a deepening general crisis. It is a crisis which testifies that capitalism has outlived itself as a type of social relations. How obsolete and decrepit that economic system has become is well illustrated by inflation, unemployment, uncertainties of existence, and the cruel waste of the society's material and spiritual resources.
As a social system, socialism increasingly demonstrates its superiority over capitalism. The future belongs to socialism. In the contest between the two systems, socialism has _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 103.
201 been steadily winning over more and more hearts and minds. The development of existing socialism in the USSR and other socialist countries has a growing influence on the dialectics of the world revolutionary process.The working class in the capitalist countries has the possibility of advancing towards socialism along a road that is not as hard as the one the working class of Russia and the other socialist countries has had to tread. Of course, even along the peaceful way of transition to socialism there is a hard fight ahead and difficult problems tend to arise. But the trail towards socialism has already been blazed for the international working class, and this makes it easier to surmount the difficulties and obstacles that lie ahead. The potentialities of the revolutionary movements in the developing countries are also much wider because of the impact of existing socialism on world development.
Socialism certainly does not exert any mechanical influence on the world revolutionary process, and it has nothing in common with the vulgar adventurist "export of revolution" concepts. The influence of socialism is dialectically refracted through the prism of the internal socio-economic, political and ideological conditions of the countries in the non-socialist world, and is manifested in the various countries in different ways, depending on the objective conditions, and on the maturity and state of the social forces fighting for social progress.
But the internal contradictions of the capitalist system are not only influenced by the main contradiction of the epoch, but also have a reciprocal influence on world development, on the contest between the two social systems, and so also on the internal development of the socialist countries. Imperialism's aggressive urges, in particular, compel the socialist countries to spend a part of their resources on defence and on efforts to block the expansionist imperialist policy, all of which makes for a slower pace in fulfilling certain tasks of social progress.
The resolution of the main contradiction of our epoch ultimately depends on the resolution of the internal antagonisms of the capitalist system. It is impossible to carry out fundamental social transformations in the capitalist countries from outside, for that is the business of the working class and the other progressive forces of these countries. However great the influence of existing socialism, it cannot on its own resolve all the contradictions of world 202 development, without active participation by all the revolutionary and democratic forces of the world.
Mankind's international life is profoundly influenced by the development of existing socialism and its foreign policy. The very emergence of the socialist state signified a qualitative shift within the system of international relations. This gave the working class a powerful instrument for conducting its own internationalist and humanistic foreign policy. Marx says that this kind of policy involves efforts "to vindicate the simple laws of morals and justice, which ought to govern the relations of private individuals, as the rules paramount of the intercourse of nations. . . . The fight for such a foreign policy forms part of the general struggle for the emancipation of the working classes.''~^^1^^
The emergence of socialism has made this policy a reality of international relations. It was vividly expressed in the Decree on Peace, which proclaimed the principles of the socialist state's foreign policy. In the early years after the socialist revolution in Russia, the balance of world forces was not favourable for practising the principles of socialist foreign policy, because imperialism dominated the international arena, blocking the foreign-policy initiatives of the socialist state. But even then, analysing the deep-seated historical trends, Lenin said that socialism, still a force " incapable of determining world politics'', was bound to become an international force "capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole".~^^2^^
A comparison of the beginning of the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism and the present period shows very well the law-governed connection of the dialectics underlying the formation of existing socialism and the dialectics of international development. These are essentially two inseparable aspects of a single process in which the communist socio-economic formation lakes shape. It is not only a process in which socialist social relations are built and improved in the countries breaking away from capitalism, but also a process in which the system of international relations is fundamentally restructured.
The epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism is simultaneously a transitional epoch in the development of international relations. In the past, the dominant system _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 2, p. 18.
~^^2^^ V, I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 148.
203 of international relations was that inherent in imperialism, for they were based on dictates and the use of force, the subordination of weak slates by the strong, national oppression and colonial dependence. When this transitional epoch draws to the end, it will signify the creation of higher forms of human community-living, under which "the legitimate needs and progressive aspirations of the working masses of each nationality will, for the iirsl lime, be met through international unity".^^1^^The transitional epoch in the development of international relations is a period in whicli these relations are bound to be conlradiclory: the lype of relations inherenl in imperialism is still there, while the new lype of relations characteristic of the socialist counlries is jusl emerging. The resull is a sel of diverse lypes of relations: between socialist and capilalisl counlries, between socialist and newly liberated countries, and between capilalisl and newly liberated countries. These various types of inlernalional relalions are linked in one world-wide dynamic syslem, exerling a mutual influence on each other, and changing under the impact of shifts in Ihe balance of forces in the world arena.
It stands lo reason thai Ihe overall line in Ihe development of this system of international relations is ultimately determined by the main content of our epoch. The mainspring of Ihis development is the main contradiction of the epoch, the conlradiction belween socialism and capitalism. Its dynamics has an indirect effect on inlernalional development operating through the inleraclion of economics and politics, ideology and politics, social-class and international-law relations, and national and international relations.
Bourgeois sociologists and political scien lists are inclined to construct oversimplified ``models'' of the contemporary system of international relations, Ihe most lypical one being the "bipolar model" which reduces the gist of the problem to the interaction of two polar forces---Ihe United Stales and the USSR---and to a division of spheres of influence between them. There are also ``tripolar'', ``quadripolar'' and ``polycenlric'' models. But all of these originate from the general methodology of formalising international relations and reducing the mechanism of world development to an _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 39.
204 arithmetical "balance of forces''. Il goes without saying that the balance of forces needs to be reckoned with, but only on the basis and in the context of a social-class analysis.Socialism asserls its role by establishing a fundamentally new lype of relations belween countries. These are fraternal inlernaliorialisl relations which lake shape between the stales of Ihe socialist communily and which are the prototype of the relations belween Ihe peoples which will characterise the communist social formation until all the nations merge inlo a single inlernalional human community.
The establishment of international relalions of the new lype is a process involving the resolution of contradictions, a quest of the correct solutions to problems in the economic, political and spirilual cooperation between Ihe countries and peoples taking the socialist way.
Bui existing socialism also has another role in restructuring the syslem of inlernalional relations: it also has an effect on the still existing international relations of the old type, on their manifestations, and on their system as a whole through highly diverse ways and channels.
As a social system, socialism creates a solid basis for the policy of peace. It does away with class and national antagonisms, which are Ihe sources of wars and the danger of war. Il establishes a social structure within which there is no room for classes or social groups whose objective condition gives them a slake in war as an instrument of policy. Indeed, it was repeatedly slated in the CPSU's programmatic documents that for its successful development socialism needs lasting peace and cooperation between the peoples and slates, regardless of their social system.
Socialism's foreign policy is a highly important instrument by means of which it exerts an influence on the system of international relations.
With the economic and political growth of socialism, there is a change in the balance of forces in the world, as its foreign policy increases ils influence on the development of the syslem of inlernalional relations, which does not occur spontaneously, as a mere outcome of the internal growth and strengthening of socialism. These relations have their own internal logic, which is determined by an inlricate interaction of all Iheir constituent elements and acute struggle between the social-class forces representing different social systems.
205The potentialities which socialism creates for establishing stable and lasting peace are realised through the medium of the contradictory international reality, in which aggressive trends generated by imperialism are manifested alongside the peaceful trends. The beginnings of peaceful coexistence are interwoven with the rudiments of the cold war, which imperialist reaction seeks to revive in every possible way. That is why the principles of peaceful coexistence cannot be asserted in the practice of inter-state relations as some kind of balanced straightforward or uninterrupted process. The deepening and extension of the detente proceeds in sharp struggle, with periods of upswing alternating with revivals of the cold war and retreats. Thus, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the situation in the world was sharply exacerbated by the most bellicose groupings in the West, as their class hatred for socialism gained the upper hand over their sense of reality and even over their common sense.
The experience of the foreign-policy activity of the CPSU and the other ruling parties in the socialist states shows the indispensable role of the subjective factor in the development of international relations: the parties' political initiative, their ability to evaluate new opportunities, and realistically to relate them to the international situation, their capacity to discern in due time the dangers threatening peace, and to mobilise the forces to neutralise them.
The relation between detente and the class struggle, between peaceful coexistence and social revolution is a question that is of much importance in the ideological struggle over the role of socialism in restructuring international relations. Bourgeois ideologists frequently claim that class struggle and social revolution contradict detente and peaceful coexistence, which they say should be some kind of social status quo. By contrast, some leftist theorists assert that the policy of detente and peaceful coexistence allegedly signifies repudiation of class struggle and social revolution.
Methodologically, the attempts to contrast detente and social progress are rooted in a one-sided and metaphysical approach to the problem of peaceful coexistence and a failure to understand its dialectics. There are various contradictory aspects to the concept of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. There are the democratic principles of international relations, the contest between capitalism and socialism by non-military means, and 206 international cooperation despite the antithesis of the two social systems. Such is the actual contradiction in international life in the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism, a contradiction which, instead of being ignored, should be taken into account in the form in which it exists in the reality itself.
Detente, however deep it may run, does not and cannot eliminate the contradictions within the system of international relations which spring from the main contradiction of the epoch, from its transitional character. Peaceful coexistence does not remove the antithesis between the socialist and the capitalist social systems, let alone the antithesis between the interests of labour and capital in the capitalist world; it does not do away with the contest between the two systems, the class struggle and the imperative need for a social revolution, all of which stem from the objective laws of capitalist development.
Detente and peaceful coexistence are designed to create a stable system of peace ruling out any military confrontation between states. But even under such a system, the social-class contradictions---which means also the class struggle---remain in the world arena and also within the framework of the capitalist system. Besides, peaceful coexistence does not apply to ideology.
It is not only in the interests of socialism to restructure international relations on the basis of peaceful coexistence. By averting the threat of a thermonuclear catastrophe, it meets the interests of all the slates, irrespective of their social system. The preservation of peace is the paramount task of our epoch in which the interests of the international working class and socialism organically blend with those of mankind as a whole.
When the main trends of the present epoch are realised, there will also be a deeper transformation of international relations on the basis of the socialist type of relations, but this can be effected on a global scale only after all the peoples adopt the socialist type of social relations.
The role of socialism as a factor in restructuring international relations on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence does not minimise the importance and necessary role of the other progressive forces of our day: the working class of the capitalist countries, the newly liberated states, the non-aligned countries, democratic public opinion, and so on. Lasting peace throughout the world can be 207 established and the threat of a thermonuclear war removed only through united action by all the peace forces.
Our epoch is revolutionary, contradictory and transitional. One part of the world has taken the socialist road and is developing in accordance with the laws of the new, emergent communist formation. The other part is still governed by the laws of capitalism. Despite this deep contradiction now dividing the world, it is more of a "one world" than it has ever been in the past, and it is sharply confronted with global problems which are those of mankind as a whole. Among them are the ecological, energy, food and population problems. The problem of doing away with the economic and cultural backwardness of the group of developing countries is highly important, while the issue of war and peace is the most burning problem of our day.
Many of these problems in the past were mainly local and their scale rarely transcended the framework of individual countries or regions. They have now become global, and it is no mere coincidence that they have become so acute in this epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism. The point is that the emergence of the new socio-economic formation requires a high degree of internationalisation of social life. That is why it is far from accidental that the epoch of transition to communism has brought to the fore a spectrum of global problems in social progress affecting all the countries and peoples of the world.
The imperative need to solve these problems is enhanced by the rapid pace of historical development, which compels the society constantly to adapt to the kaleidoscopic situation. However, this imperative need keeps running into a contradiction with the backwardness of capitalist and precapitalist socio-economic and political structures and the heterogeneous make-up of the contemporary world. This is yet another indication that there is an intrinsic, law-- governed connection between the acerbity of the global problems and the transition to socialism. These problems cannot be solved without a fundamental restructuring of social relations, and the advance in this direction is already determined by the qualitative changes in international relations which occur under the impact of existing socialism.
The ecological problem is a manifestation and outcome of the contradiction between Nature and the society. As man changes his environment, he is apt to disrupt its natural bonds. In pre-socialist societies, this occurs 208 spontaneously and frequently has harmful consequences for the environment.
The ecological problem has now become especially acute in view of I lie gigantic growth of social production. In some countries and regions, the natural environment is being destroyed, posing the danger of irreversible processes affecting not only the flora and fauna, but also the oceans, outer space and the subsoil of the Earth. Protection of the environment becomes a vital task, requiring a rational location and functioning of the productive forces, and a rational distribution of economic resources and sources of energy. But under capitalism this is hampered by private-property interests, which are antithetical to those of the society as a whole. The predatory use of natural resources by monopolies and transnational corporations creates the danger of depletion of natural resources.
The solution of ecological problems is indicated by the socialist society. Even under socialism, there is a contradiction between Nature and the society, but the principles on which the socialist economy is run and the thoughtful attitude to natural resources provide broad opportunities for taking well-considered measures to protect them. Much is being done along these lines by the Soviet Union. The facts show that socialism is capable of preventing the destruction of the environment. At the same time, ecological problems now require global measures if the most dangerous consequences for Nature are to be averted. The preservation of natural resources requires international cooperation between capitalist and socialist states, and this can be done only under peaceful coexistence, which the countries of existing socialism are working to assert.
The energy problem is closely bound up with the ecological problem. For centuries, the imperialist powers ruthlessly exploited the colonial periphery and regarded the countries lying there as sources of raw materials. Imperialism lias continued with this practice even today. Although the former colonies have thrown off colonial oppression and set up independent slates trying to develop an independent economy, the imperialist powers strive to retain their privileges in international economic relations and to keep the developing countries as their sources of raw materials and energy. The monopolies keep speculating on the difficulties of solving the problem of mankind's rational use of its energy resources.
__PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14--01528 209This problem is quite soluble in principle within the framework of international cooperation, rational planning of the use of energy resources, and the creation of new sources of energy. The difficulties are produced by the attitudes of imperialism. Consequently, the solution of the problem is connected with the dynamics of the main contradiction of our epoch, the changing balance of forces in the world, and the curbing of imperialist trends in international economic relations.
The food and population problems are now highly acute. It has been estimated that by the end of this century more than six billion people will be inhabiting our globe. However, the growth of its population is uneven, with so-called demographic explosions occurring mainly in economically and culturally backward regions, for which the population problem is especially acute.
The record of history shows that the laws of population depend on the laws of social development, so that the demographic problem is mainly a social one, requiring the elimination of economic and cultural backwardness in the developing countries. Again, the human resources required to achieve these results can be mobilised only with the development of progressive social processes.
The population problem is connected with the food problem. Poverty and hunger continue to reign precisely in the regions which have rapid population growth. The food problem could be solved by the pooling of resources by various countries and international cooperation. The food problem has been produced not just by economic backwardness or the "demographic explosion'', but by the inequitable international economic relations and imperialism's efforts to use poverty and disaster in the backward countries for its own interests and to implant a neocolonialist order.
The population and food problems are essentially a part of one of the central global problems of our day, the problem of eliminating the developing countries' economic and cultural backwardness.
The deep contradiction between the developing countries and the industrialised capitalist countries does not lie in the spurious North-South face-off, but in the imperialist exploitation of the developing countries and in capitalism's inability to use the powerful productive forces it has created for developing economically lagging regions.
210The developing countries can be raised to the modern level of economic and cultural progress only by the concerted efforts of mankind as a whole. In other words, the problem is connected with the general orientation of historical development in our epoch and the changing balance of forces in favour of socialism. That is why real steps can already be taken to solve the complicated problems of the developing countries (the total elimination of the remaining enclaves of colonialism and racism, the neocolonialist policy of imperialism). Success here once again evidently depends on the growing role of socialism in world development.
War and peace is now the most vital global problem facing mankind.
Mankind was most gravely harmed by the two imperialist world wars, which led to an unprecedented destruction of the productive forces and the loss of tens of millions of lives. The current development of military technology poses a threat to mankind's very existence.
But for the development and strengthening of existing socialism, mankind would not be able to prevent the outbreak of war, and that is what creates an ever broader basis for averting a thermonuclear catastrophe and opens up the prospect of the human society living in its natural state of peace.
The positive changes in the solution of global problems spring from the dynamic development of the main contradiction of our epoch and the strengthening of its progressive side. Nothing can be done by trying to change the system of distribution, or by re-distributing resources, territories or incomes, because all these imply the maintenance of the status quo. Meanwhile, the acerbity of the global problems points to the need for great changes in mankind's life, with the objective logic now pointing in one direction, towards socialism.
As the dialectics of the development of the socialist society exerts an influence on the whole material and spiritual life of the contemporary humanity, it creates the basis for broad international cooperation in tackling many global problems, and the socialist countries are bending their efforts to make use of these opportunities.
Bourgeois futurologists have wasted much effort in producing pessimistic prognostications of mankind's future, and their pessimism is a reflection of the crisis of __PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211 capitalism. Recent events provide fresh confirmation that capitalism is a society without a future.
Mankind's future is connected with the other historical line---the emergence of the new, communist civilisation--- and that makes it possible to solve any problems which face mankind now or in the future.
The trail to this new civilisation is being blazed by the nations of existing socialism, whose historical experience shows ever more fully the dialectics underlying the development of the socialist society, experience which is of tremendous international importance for ail the countries and peoples.
The new line in world history is embodied in the dialectics of existing socialism, as the dialectics governing the development of the human society first begins to be manifested in cooperation between social groups and nations in tackling pressing problems, instead ot antagonistic struggle between opposite social forces. The development of the socialist society is a new type of social progress free from social and national conflicts, upheavals and crises.
The record of existing socialism shows the flimsiness of the bourgeois and revisionist theoretical conceptions claiming that socialism ultimately arrives at the same values and criteria of social development as those inherent in the capitalist socio-economic formation. These conceptions are a transparent effort to present the capitalist society as the summit of historical progress, a system of human relations that is permanent and everlasting.
Such conceptions provide the basis for numerous bourgeois and revisionist theories of the convergence of capitalism and socialism. These theories reduce everything to the development of science and technology, ignoring the fundamental distinctions between the social conditions in which they are developed and applied. Those who advocate these conceptions claim that the two opposite systems can converge precisely because they are both allegedly based on common vital social and spiritual values.
The leftist extremists similarly assert that in the course of the peaceful coexistence with capitalism socialism is gradually integrated within the existing system of values prevailing in the capitalist society. They herald some kind of "great negation" which should result in a complete break with the very foundation of the existing human civilisation, so that socialism will have to be built on a piece of 212 wasteland. These anti-dialectical conceptions deny that (here is any continuity in historical development, and reject all the new elements that are created in the emergence and development of the communist socio-economic formation.
The whole record of existing socialism proves that there are new qualities to the dialectics of the socialist society, which has new values, as a specific manifestation of general laws and principles. That is what ultimately invests development itself with a new character and new features that are the embryo and prototype of the future dialectics of the international communist civilisation.
Even today, the dialectics of socialism is marked by an acceleration of social progress, as mankind ceases to waste its efforts and resources in class struggle and wars, and uses them to create new social relations. The society's development proceeds as a muHifaceled and balanced process involving the productive forces, the relations of production, the sphere of spiritual production, and the development of every individual. The new nature of the contradictions and the new ways and means for their resolution not involving class struggle or social revolution arc an essential feature of the dialectics of the socialist society.
The development of the new society is profoundly revolutionary and entails its constant renewal and dialectical leaps which, however, do not require the substitution of one socioeconomic formation for another, but are effected within the framework of the one communist formation and constitute the progressive perfection of communist social relations. In the sphere of the society's spiritual life there is a growing mutual enrichment and interpenetration of the cultures of the various big and small nations which are shaped into a single international culture of the communist society with new content and forms.
The dialectics of the development of socialism is, finally, a new relation between the subject and the object, and the society's conscious use of the laws and categories of dialectics extending the potentialities and raising and modifying in kind the role of the subjective factor in social development.
The laws and categories of dialectics constitute a single set, accumulating the universal from the rich and highly diverse process in the development of Nature, the society and human consciousness. This moans that the same laws and categories of dialectics which operate and function in 213 any other society also operate in the existing socialist society, and will continue to operate in the future communist society. But the forms in which these laws and categories are manifested depend on the concrete historical conditions. The dialectics of the socialist society is rich in form and content because of the wealth of the social relations under existing socialism. This dialectics clearly brings out the contours and features of the social development of the international communist civilisation of the future fully enriched with the experience in building the new society gained by all the peoples and countries.
[214] __ALPHA_LVL1__ ConclusionThe problems of the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution are organically linked with the revolutionary policy of the international working class and its vanguard, Ihe communist and workers' parties.
Those who hold vanguard positions in the world revolutionary process also have the duty to be in the forefront in the theoretical comprehension of the international experience of liberation movements and revolutions in our day. Lenin regarded ideological and theoretical work as the revolutionary party's necessary and organic attribute: ''. . .The absence of theory deprives a revolutionary trend of the right to existence and inevitably condemns it, sooner or later, to political bankruptcy.''~^^1^^
This idea of Lenin's is elaborated in the CC Report to the 26th Congress of the CPSU, which says: "The MarxistLeninist Party cannot fulfil its role if it does not give due attention to putting into proper perspective all that is taking place, to generalising new phenomena, to creatively developing the Marxist-Leninist theory."~^^2^^
No wonder the ideologists of anti-communism and socialreformism, and the right and ``left'' opportunists are trying to push the communist parties into thoughtless pragmatism and empirical time-serving. This way, even if it is embellished with ultra-revolutionary slogans, ultimately leads to a loss of revolutionary ideals and objectives and to a compromise with and acceptance of the exploiter system.
What then does Marxist theoretical thinking give the revolutionary movement? Why do the Marxist-Leninist parties attach so much importance to the scientific theory of social development, including the theory of socialist revolution?
---The Marxist-Leninist theory gives an understanding of the uniformities underlying the revolutionary _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. G, p. 186.
~^^2^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 100.
215 transformation of the reality, which is why the maslery of theory is a necessary component of Ihe revolutionary attitude. This does not consist in blind riotous behaviour, bnt in consistent and knowledgeable struggle against every type of exploitation and oppression. Theory shows Ihe reality of the revolutionary objectives and sheds light on the ways to their attainment, establishing the correspondence between the forms of historical action by the vanguard class and the objective requirements and prerequisites of social change which are necessary for success in the struggle.---The Marxist-Leninist theory carries the policy of the revolutionary vanguard of the working class beyond the mere art of political manoeuvring, setting it on Ihe basis of a scientific analysis of class interests and the actual balance of socio-political forces. This makes the political thinking and political action of the working-class party scientific. For the first time, politics becomes a science.
---The Marxist-Leninist theory sums up the historical experience of the international revolutionary movement, enabling the working class in each individual country to become aware of the international character of the proletariat's class struggle and social revolution, to overcome the inevitable limitations of any national experience, and to rise to the level of the internationalist approach to politics. Theory is an organic component of proletarian internationalism.
---The Marxist-Leninist theory is a factor which helps to strengthen the unity of the international communist movement. An important sphere of cooperation between the communist parties is their pooling of efforts in enriching their revolutionary experience and in further developing the theory of scientific communism.
---The Marxist-Leninist theory and its constant creative development are an effective instrument in the struggle against right and ``left'' revisionism, which always feeds on any lag of theoretical thought behind practice. While the right-wing revisionists regard the new problems generated by life as vindication of their pseudo-innovative betrayal of the principles of Marxism-Leninism, the left-wing doctrinaires do not generally notice these problems, so betraying the creative spirit of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. That is why, it was stressed in the CC Report to the 26th Congress of the CPSU, when ''. . .fundamental differences between revolutionaries and reformists, between creative Marxism 216 and dogmatic sectarianism or ultra-left adventurism" arise, ''. . .there can be no compromises---today just as in Lenin's lifetime".^^1^^ The timely theoretical comprehension of new phenomena and processes in the revolutionary movement of our day cuts the ground from under revisionism and dogmatism, whatever the form they may assume.
In the 1980s, the practice of the world revolutionary process has set before the working class and the MarxistLeninist parties a great many new problems, confronting them with a new and dynamic situation. The pace of social development is accelerating, the scientific and technical revolution is gaining in depth, and mankind has to face vitally important global problems. Changes are under way within the system of international relations and the character and forms of the contest between socialism and capitalism in the world arena. This makes a high demand on the Marxist-Leninist theory of socialist revolution. The rich ideological patrimony of Marxism-Leninism provides a reliable basis for meeting these demands and further creatively developing Lenin's conception of the world revolutionary process.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions..., p. 24.
[217] __ALPHA_LVL1__ SUBJECT INDEX142, 150--52, 158, 163--64. 170--74. 188
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)-M
Counter-revolution---10, 56, 80, 81. 90, 103, 183, 200
Crises (in capitalist countries)---W. ,)8. 61, 78, 107. 115, 116, 126, 127. 129, 130, 133. 201, 211
D
Democracy---28, 29, 31. 32, 47.
99. 112/114, 128, 129, 152, 200
---bourgeois---28, 30--32. 41--43.
46, 49. 76, 122, 125, 133, 149.
150, 194
---people's---124, 193 ---socialist---17, 40, 41, 45, 47,
49, 195
Democratic centralism---111, 112
Detente---8, 11, 18, 19, 206, 207
Dialectics---10, 21, 24--26, 57, 79,
125, 127, 147. 148, 155, 162,
164--69, 171, 174. 176. 178, 189,
194, 197, 202. 203, 206, 211--14
E
Economics:
---capitalist^), 122. 169, 201 ---socialist---15--17, 158, 200
Elections (in bourgeois society)-42, 43, 74--76
Exploited classes---11, 79, 89
Exploiter classes---14, 29, 46, 47, 145
F
Fascism, struggle against it---
30, 86, 91, 127, 149, 150, 188
I
Idea!:
---communist---14 ---internationalist---156 ---socialist---14, 50, 102, 110, 152
Imperialism---8, 17--19, 22, 27,
31, 39, 50, 59--61, 85, 103, 133, 135, 150, 158, 160, 162, 170, 181, 199--204, 209--11; see also: Capitalism
Inflation---107, 201
Integration, international economic---51
International (class) solidarity of the revolutionary antiimperialist forces---19. 156, 158--60, 164, 169
Internationalism: ---proletarian---21, 142, 155--64,
166--68. 172, 216 ---socialist---158, 167
Antagonism---16, 19, 145. 157,
198, 199, 203, 206 Anti-communism---20, 80, 93,
101, 110, 112, 116, 215
B
Basis, economic---31, 35, 39, 119, 136, 200
Rolshcvil;s---il, 22. 41. 43, 44, 67, 69, 70. 72, 73. 84, 85, 98, 99, 134, 151
Bourgeois ideology---11, 13, 20-- 27, 33, 35--38, 40, 42, 44, 45. 47, 59, 03--65, 97, 101. 110--13, 116, 117. 119, 132, 135. 144. 145, 150--54, 159, 101--63, 106, 176--78, 180, 202, 203. 205, 207, 212--14; see also: Anti-- communism, Opportunism, Revisionism, Reformism
Bourgeois nationalism---157, 159, 160, 202
Bourgeoisie---29--31, 44, 71, 77, 88, 91, 109, 127, 132. 145, 159, 184, 186, 195
---monopoly---30, 34, 36, 38, 53, 63, 92, 97, 110, 116, 122, 123, 133
---petty---54, 60, 71, 83, 85, 91, 121, 133, 160, 184
Capitalism:
---historically inevitable decline of capitalism and transition to socialism---10. 12, 13, 18, 21, 22. 25, 2931, 36, 37, 42, 46, 51--53. 58--02. 85, 88, 91, 92, 101. 103, 111 117. 120--29, 132. 142, 146, 152, 159, 179, 182, 183, 186--90, 194--200. 202, 205, 208--12
---state-monopoly---36, 37, 40. 51, 59. 87. 01, 92. 106, 115. 121, 122, 124--27, 129. 116. 168. 186, 187. 194. 195. 199; , see also: Imperialism Civilisation:
---communist---7. 10. 15, 20, 88, 156, 182, 198, 202. 213--15 Cold war---8, 78, 154, 207 Colonialism:
---its decay in contemporary epoch---7, 8, 20. 102, 155, 156, 158, 160, 182, 188. 200. 201, 204, 210, 212 Communism---182; see also: Socialism
Communist parties: ---of capitalist countries---20. 45, 63, 68. 80, 86, 89, 97, 99^ 100. 104, 107--10, 114--18, 124. 128, 129, 154, 163 ---of developing countries--- 26, 87, 103. 104, 108, 114--18, 136--38, 163
---of socialist countries---17.
18, 26, 80, 104, 109, 114, 115,
117, 129, 153, 162--63
Communists, their participation
in social trnnsformation---8,
14, 27, 32, 41, 42, 45, 55, 63--65,
80, 81, 83--85, 87, 89, 92, 93,
97--99, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111,
115, 119, 127,135,136,138,141,
218Laws (objective) of social development---10. 19. 24. 60, 66, 83, 141. 143, 147. 176, 178. 191, 199, 210
M
Marxism-Leninism---a theory explaining the world, a factor of its revolutionary transformation and a part of the ideology of communist parties---8, 11--13, 17--27, 29, 30, 33, 40, 42, 52. 55, 58--60, 64--66, 08. 83. 84. 88. 99--102, 104. 105, 109. 112. 113, 116. 120, 132, 139--43, 145--48, 151--56, 159, 161, 162, 167, 172. 174. 176, 179, 187, 189--93, 195, 215--17 "Mass culture" of bourgeois
society---16 Materialism: -dialectical---113, 143, 174,
195 ---historical---24. 113, 119, 143.
179, 195
Military-industrial complex---18 Monopolies---32, 34, 37. 87, 97,
108, 122. 127. 131, 186. 210 Movement:
---anti-imperialist---135, 164 ---anti-monopoly---114 ---democratic---99. 118. 121,
158. 174, 175, 200 ---international communist--- 14. 27, 86, 87, 98, 110, 150, 152, 158, 160, 162, 164, 169--74, 192, 193, 216 ---international working-class -11, 20, 21, 27, 29, 36, 53, 54, 62, 67, 84, 87, 99, 104--06,
Capital---29, 32, 33, 35, 30, 40, 42, 47, 59, 77, 84, 106, 109, 121, 123, 130, 157, 170, 198--201 ---monopoly---28, 31, 32, 35--37, 39, 78, 92, 94, 97, 108, 111, 127, 128, 146, 161, 168, 170, 187, 199 -world-170
219109. 110. 114, 117, 118, 121, 120, 131. 137, 140. 141, 146, 147, 155, 157--59, 162, 164, 166. 169. 172--76, 192
---national-liberation---9. 10, 87, 118. 137. 160, 175, 178, 181, 197, 215
---revolutionary---11, 14. 26. 49. 53, 67. 75. 84, 99, 104. 106, 117, 129, 130, 132, 140. 142, 146, 149, 152, 157. 161, 164. 167, 200, 202, 215--17
N
Nation---32, 116, 160, 204 Nuclear, thermonuclear war, struggle against the danger of if---108, 150, 151, 163, 167, 207. 208. 211
Productive forces---160. 209, 210.
213Progress, scientific and technical---IK, 146 Proletariat, dictatorship of the
proletariat---21. 29. 41, 47, 53.
55, 60--67. 69--72, 77, 83--86, 88.
89, 91. 96, 104. 105, 117. 124.
145, 148, 152. 157. 159. 183.
187, 193. 216
R
Reformism---12, 13, 20. 30, 33.
36, 42, 44. 45, 53, 92. 110, 116.
123, 124, 127. 132. 135, 159.
193, 215 Revisionism---13, 20, 22, 26, 93,
109--11. 115, 116, 126, 148, 159.
192, 212, 216, 217 Revolution, general uniformities, variety of types and
forms--7, 8', 10. 13, 14. 19, 28,
29, 32. 39, 40. 42, 44, 47--49.
56--60, 67, 68, 71, 73--75, 78--82.
88, 90, 93, 94, 115, 120, 122.
123, 125, 126, 128, 132--34, 148.
155, 174. 179--91, 194--96, 200.
206, 207, 213. 215, 216
---bourgeois-democratic---29. 43. 47, 48, 84, 85. 88, 183. 187
---national-liberation---158. 181, 186
---people's democratic---7, 47.
49, 86, 186, 193 ---Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia (1917)--- 9, 10. 12--15, 17, 29. 39, 67, 71, 72, 77, 86, 98, 124, 134. 138, 149. 155, 158. 187, 188. 193, 203
-socialist---7, 12--14, 20, 21 28, 30, 31, 34, 40, 41, 44. 46, 47, 53, 58, 59, 61. 62. 67--71. 74, 77, 78, 83, 85. 86. 88, 97, 99. 104. 123--26. 128 129, 135. 138, 148. 158. 182. 186--89, 192--97, 215--17 ---subjective factor in socialist revolution---50, 53, 58--61. 137, 182
---peaceful transition to socialist revolution---13, 29, 41, 45, 63, 76--78, 120, 124, !
220126, 131, 132, 134, 138, 194, 195, 202
Heuotiitionary situation---56--58, 195
S
Scientific and technical revolution---38, 106, 146, 160, 217
Scientific communism---50, 53, 04, 05, 100, 114, 117, 118, 137, 140, 141, 182, 216; see also: Marxism-Leninism
Self-administration, communist
---16
Social, being---12, 27, 52, 90, 100, 119, 156, 177
Social consciousness---12, 20, 52, 106, 119, 143, 156 ---class internationalist---156,
159, 160, 162 ---non-proletarian strata's---
27, 65, 90 -socialist---16, 60, 62, 114,
140, 159 ---communist---17
Socialism---10--17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 21), 32, 36, 39, 41, 45--47, 19-5,'), 58--63, 65, 71, 77, 78, 81, 82, 86, 89, 93, 98, 99, 101--00, 110, 114, 116, 117, 120--22, 124--29, 131--32, 136--38, 152, 150, 158, 163, 166, 108, 170, 178, 181--85, 187, 188, 192--209, 211--14
---role of lite subjective factor in tin; struggle for socialism---13, 50--53, 55, 50, 58, 02, 63
Society:
---capitalist---16, 29, 30, 33, 35--38, 42, 47, 49, 52, 54, 76, 78, 90--94, 96, 102, 105, 100, 108. 112, 128--30, 132, 198, 199
---socialist---15, 16, 20, 24, 27, 45--46, 52, 93, 99, 182, 197, 201, 209, 211--14 ---communist---28, 213, 215 Socio-economic formal ion---179, 180
---capitalist---22, 50, 51, 197 ---communist---22, 180, 197,
203, 205, 207, 213 Soviets---39, 47, 48, 70, 72, 124 Sliite.-28, 29, 42, 122--24, 136
---bourgeois---32--30, 3840, 122--24, 120, 127, 209
--socialist---10, 39, 158, 166, 20 i, 205, 209
---transitional type of revolutionary-democratic state--- 8, 120, 120, 127, 129, 137 Struggle:
---anti-imperialist---20, 100
-class---8, 10, 29, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 62, 105, 109, 114, 116, 128, 131, 141, 140. 152, 165, 171, 194, 195, 201, 206, 207, 213, 216
-ideological---11, 19, 26, 87, 92, 151, 206
-liberation---18, 27, 104, 141
---political---92, 90, 98, 141, 143, 163, 183, 191
---revolutionary---10, 25, 49, 72, 75, 81, 85, 88, 89, 105, 109, 117, 128, 140, 147, 150, 154, 165--00, 182, 183, 180, 189, 190 Superstructure, political---19,
119, 136, 156
---of bourgeois state---31, 33, 35, 39, 198
---of socialist state---15
OOpportunism, "left-wing"
and
right-wing---60, 68, 109,
110,
112, 113, 116. 141, 148,
153, 158, 160, 201, 215
Peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, Leninist conception, its realisation. Peace Programme of the 24th. 25th, 26th congresses of the CPSU---ii, 17-- 19, 158. 203. 205--07 Peasantry---2\, 70, 72, 84--85,
89--92, 106, 134, 160, 183 Political practice---143, 149, 154,
177, 179, 190, 191, 210 Political unity---153 Power:
---popular---16, 28, 35 ---the winning of power by the working class and its allies as the necessary condition for the victory of the socialist revolution---13, 21, 32, 35, 39, 40, 46--48, 68--71, 73--75, 77, 86, 105, 121--31, 134, 135, 193, 195 Production relations---15, 50--52, 122, 146, 180, 213
Transnational corporations---
169, 209 Trends of present t'/iocli:
---anti-democratic, aggressive ---18, 30, 47, 136, 181, 183, 206, 209
---progressive, peaceloving--- 18, ISO, 183--85, 192, 205, 200
W
IVorking class---[.he vnngunrd class of our epoch; Us funditmrnlal interests; its ideology; its historical experience and opportunities; its allies--- 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20--22, 21, 26--39, 41--44, 46--50, 52--55, 59-- 65, 67--94, 96--98, 100, 102--06, 108--09, 121--36, 138--13, 116--49, 151, 152, 154--03, 166--70, 172,
221181--84, 18(5, 188, 192--95, 107.
199, 201, 202, 207, 215--17 Working people:
---in capitalist, class society-- 8, 20, 21, 2(i, 29, 30, 32/34, 10, 42. 53, 69--71, 75, 77, 78, 81, 84, 80, 88, 89. 97, 104, 105, 107, 108, 114, 116, 121, 126, 130, 146, 155, 158, 194
---in developing countries--- 20, 2(1. 104, 119, 146, 155
---in the Countries of socialist community---20, 26, 40, 45, 40, 63, 81,' 104, 146, 150 World revolutionary /iroccsn---
8-11. 13, 24, 27, '29, 95, 98.
132, 135, 138. 142, 155, 156.
160, 101, 164, 167, 171, 175,
178, 180. 185--88, 192, 195--97.
200, 202, 216, 218 World socialist community---10 World socialist system---20, 158.
100, 201
[222] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]REQUEST TO READERS ~
Progress Publishers would he glad to have your opinion of this hook, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send your comments to 17. Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[223]