The revolutionary movement currently sweeping North America is very similar to the situation which existed in Czarist Russia in the late nineteenth – early twentieth century, during the time in which Lenin lived and worked. Of course, we are faced with the same theoretical confusion which Lenin faced. He dealt with this confusion at length in his excellent book, What Is To Be Done?
This requires a little explanation. As for those who want nothing to do with boring history lessons, I can only point out that we can choose to learn from the mistakes of the past or we can choose to repeat those mistakes. I prefer to learn from previous mistakes.
I can also point out that Lenin led the first revolution of workers and peasants to a successful conclusion, against all the odds, I might add. If nothing else, this should persuade people of the correctness of his theories. And yet to this day there is no shortage of well meaning people who are determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The fact is that the rise of revolutionary scientific socialism in Russia, which the Marxists of the time referred to as Social Democracy, can be divided into several distinct periods. The first period covers the years of approximately 1884 to 1894. This was the time of the rise and consolidation of Social Democracy, and existed completely independent of the labor movement. It is to be stressed that all of the earliest Marxists, in Russia, were middle class intellectuals, or intelligentsia, as is the scientific term.
The second period covers the several years of 1894 to 1898, and was far more interesting. The well educated, middle class intellectuals went into the labor movement, bringing with them their knowledge of the existence of classes, of which the working class knew nothing, and their crumbs of knowledge of Marxist revolutionary theory. The fact is that their knowledge of Marxism was limited, and this is completely understandable. Marxist literature was severely limited and for the most part, equally forbidden. The mere possession of such literature could result in an arrest, followed by a rather lengthy prison sentence or even execution. It is to their credit that a great many intellectuals persevered and this resulted in the formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in the spring of 1898. This Party was led by Lenin.
This led of course to the third period, after 1898, in which almost all of the Marxist intellectuals, those who were involved in the Russian working class revolutionary movement, which is to say the Social Democrats, were thrown into prison. That of course included Lenin, who was first exiled to Siberia and later allowed to leave the country. As a result of this, the Russian working class was deprived of their Marxist intellectual, Social Democratic leaders.
Perhaps the ruling class in Russia thought this would put an end to the revolutionary motion. More accurately, there were two classes who were ruling Russia, as at that time the country was an autocracy, so that the Czar had absolute power. He and his family were part of one class, the nobility, while the capitalists formed a class of people which we refer to as the bourgeoisie, and they shared power with the nobility. As a result of this, Russia was crushed by the nobility and the capitalists.
The immediate problem in Russia, at that time, was to overthrow the autocracy and establish a democratic republic, so that the people could at least have some democratic rights. No doubt the members of the ruling classes, which is to say the nobility and the capitalists, thought there was no chance of this, as the working class had no leaders. They were mistaken.
The working class revolutionary movement continued to grow, even without leaders, until it exploded into full scale revolution in 1905. The autocracy was shaken but did not collapse. In 1907 the revolution died down and the Czar remained firmly in charge.
Part of the reason for the failure of the first Russian Revolution, in 1905, was the fact that the working class was, for the most part, deprived of leaders. There were a few Social Democrats working secretly within Russia, but many of them were revisionists. Then there were a great many Social Democrats in exile, including Lenin, and he was doing his best to give direction to the revolution, but from a distance.
After the revolution died down, reaction set in, as it always does under such circumstances, and lasted for several years. In a time of reaction, people become apathetic, and show little interest in any political issues. The Russian working class was in retreat, as it were, and the powers of reaction were in their glory. The reactionaries are those who want to keep everything precisely the way it is, opposed to any progressive change. The goal was to keep the nobility and the capitalists in power and keep the working people, the proletariat and peasantry, crushed and exploited.
But then the working class revolutionary movement picked up again, as it always does, and within several years gave birth to the second Russian revolution in February of 1917. As a result of this revolution, the autocracy, which is to say the Czar, was overthrown, and the capitalists, which is to say the bourgeoisie, came to undisputed power. We can only stress that all of this happened without the assistance of the Social Democrats, which is to say the Marxists. The reason for this is quite simple. Almost all of the Marxists were either dead, exiled or in prison.
Without the leadership of Lenin and the other Marxists of the time, the Russian revolution would have ended right there, with the capitalists in undisputed power. The conditions of life of the working class, the proletariat, does not lead to the awareness of itself as a class. As that is the case, it stands to reason that the awareness of the other side of the coin, the class opposite to it, the capitalist class, the bourgeoisie, is also absent. So to suggest, as so many self proclaimed socialists say, that the working class can spontaneously overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize political power, is utterly absurd.
It may be objected that at that time, in Russia, the majority of the people were peasants. That is true, and in fact three quarters of the people were peasants, and peasants are aware of themselves as a class. It is also a fact that every peasant is a small time capitalist. Their ambition in life is to own the land they are tilling and the land of their neighbours. For that reason, they could not lead the revolution against the capitalists.
But then Lenin returned to Russia, after the Czar was removed from power. He and other Marxists, most notable Stalin, were able to lead the Russian revolution to a successful conclusion, which is to say that the capitalists were overthrown and crushed under the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat.
This was only possible because the revolutionaries followed the correct revolutionary theories of Marx. We say this in order to drive home the point that the revision of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin is a very serious matter. Without a correct revolutionary theory, there can be no successful revolution. The revisionists have to be exposed and kicked out of the revolutionary movement. They are agents of the capitalists within the working class.
Lenin waged a merciless war with these revisionists. In the year 1902, he wrote a book titled What Is To Be Done?, in which he exposed the fallacy of revisionism. True, he also provided some very practical advice concerning the organization of the Social Democratic Party, with a view to carrying on Social Democratic work within autocratic Russia. The problem was that the people carrying on such work were frequently thrown into prison and executed. It is this organizational work which modern day revisionists have seized upon, while completely ignoring the importance Lenin stressed upon raising the level of awareness of working people to the level of Social Democratic consciousness, which is to say Communist consciousness.
The fact remains that modern day revisionists, just as in autocratic Russia, continue to maintain that they are Marxists, but at the same time they maintain that the revolutionary theories of Marx have to be revised. By that they deny the necessity of revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. They are convinced that it is simply a matter of working within a democratic republic. Under such a republic, they argue, it is majority rule, so it is merely a matter of organizing the working class so that the working class can seize political power, led of course by the intellectuals.
They could not possibly be more mistaken. It was in this state of theoretical confusion that Lenin wrote What Is To Be Done?
The current situation in North America is similar, to the extent that we are ”blessed” with a great many leftist groups and organizations. Some claim to be political parties while others claim to be mere organizations. Some claim to be socialist, others claim to be merely leftist, while still others claim to be Marxist Leninist or Communist. There are some political parties which claim to be Marxist, while admitting to being revisionist, while still others are revisionist, but deny this.
If this sounds confusing, it is only because it is confusing. As for those who consider revision of Marxism not to be a serious matter, bear in mind that it means denying the necessity of revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. It means reducing Social Democracy, now referred to as Marxism Leninism, to a struggle for social reform, no different from a liberal party.
Need I add that this is perfectly acceptable to the capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie. In fact, this makes them very happy. Such people are supremely well aware of the existence of classes, just as they are well aware that they are in charge and fully intend to remain in charge. They are also well aware that the working class is not aware of itself as a class, and that is fine by them.
As such people tend to be well educated, they are also well aware of the Marxist Leninist theory of revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. In fact, it is their greatest nightmare. The last thing they want is for the working class to be made aware of itself as a class, complete with its own class interests, which include revolution and the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. That is where the Marxist Leninist revisionists play a key role, in that they are determined to keep the working class unaware of such things.
To return to the present situation, the working class movement, here in North America, has also developed separately from the movement for scientific socialism, which of course in Czarist Russia was referred to as Social Democracy. Here too the middle class intellectuals, those who consider themselves to be Marxist Leninists, are flocking to the working class movement, becoming involved in the struggles of the working class.
For its part, the working class has now spontaneously gravitated towards socialism, but that does not mean that socialism is right around the corner. The fact is that the bourgeois ideology is much older than the Social Democratic ideology, and as such is deeply entrenched, well established and is constantly being preached from countless sources. As a result, it reasserts itself, time and time again. If anyone has any doubt, feel free to watch the news.
The problem now, as it was in Czarist Russia, is to merge the working class movement with the Social Democratic movement, which is to say the working class movement must become the movement for scientific socialism, for revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. It is therefore imperative to persuade the middle class intellectuals, those who have decided to join the working class, to bring to the working class the awareness of itself as a class, with its own class interests, and to raise the consciousness of the workers to the level of Marxist Leninists. This can best be done by becoming involved in the struggles of the working class. The main thing is not to secure paltry reforms, but to use this as a platform to drive home the point that our interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie. The ultimate goal of course is a socialist revolution and then to establish the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat.
We stress that it is of paramount importance to raise the consciousness of the workers to the level of the consciousness of Social Democrats, or Marxist Leninists, as that is now the politically correct term. Of course, not all workers can be expected to rise to this level, but the more advanced workers can and will rise to the occasion. Bear in mind that the advanced workers lead, while the less advanced follow.
At the same time we can encourage workers, or at least the most advanced workers, to study key works of Marx and Lenin, such as the Communist Manifesto, State and Revolution, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, and What Is To Be Done? This will provide them with a fine grounding in the theories of Marx and Lenin, of the necessity of revolution and the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. They in turn will carry the message to the less advanced.
It is only in this manner that the members of the working class, the proletariat, will become aware of themselves as a class, with their own class interests, and they can, and will, overthrow the capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie, and establish the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. This will happen only through revolution, not paltry reforms, and not through the democratic republic.
As for the Social Democrats, those who now refer to themselves as Marxist Leninists, it is necessary to distinguish those who are the true revolutionaries from those who are social chauvinist, which is to say those who are socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds. The true Marxist Leninists are those who become involved with workers and take part in their struggles, with a view to raising the level of consciousness of those workers to the level of Marxist Leninists, and not merely in order to secure paltry reforms.
Lenin makes it quite clear that the struggle for improved living and working conditions, however important in their own right, are merely trade union work, or Economism, and that is a far cry from Marxist Leninist work.
Sadly, there is no shortage of such people. These self styled Marxist Leninists are concerned only with paltry reforms, and are careful to avoid any mention of revolution or the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. Their rationale is that workers are not talking of such things. To this I can only respond – Of course the workers are not talking of such things, for the very fine and simple reason that they are not aware of such things!
Lenin made it very clear that it is the duty of class conscious people, by whom he meant Social Democrats, to raise the level of awareness of working class people to that of Social Democrats. Yet to this day there are people who preach – in the name of Lenin, no less!- that Marxist Leninists must not mention such things as revolution or -especially not!– the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat.
Now in North America, there are a great many people who are becoming politically aware and are anxious to become involved in the working class struggles and make a difference. Such people can choose to become involved in the struggle for paltry reforms or they can choose to become involved as Social Democrats, which is to say Marxist Leninists. Those who are content to be ruled by the capitalists, the billionaires, which is to say the bourgeoisie, will no doubt join the battle for reforms and make no mention of revolution. Such a course of action is safe, as the bourgeoisie have no problem with people who demand paltry reforms. Such demands do not pose a threat to their rule.
As for those who have higher standards, by which I mean those who are class conscious and are aware of the necessity of revolution, aware that the bourgeoisie have to be overthrown and subsequently crushed under the iron heel of the proletariat, I can only suggest that you pay strict attention to Marx and Lenin. We can take their advice and lead the coming revolution to victory, or flounder in the quagmire of revision.
It remains to be seen if the parties which currently exist in North America, those which claim to be Marxist Leninist, are truly focused on raising the consciousness of the workers to that of Social Democratic consciousness, or if they are merely trying to secure paltry reforms. That is the touchstone of a true Marxist Leninist.
If there is one thing we can all agree upon, it is that we now have better tools of communication than ever before. Of course I am referring to computers and the internet. With these new and improved tools, we can all study the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Some people are even forming study groups on the internet, in chat rooms, whatever that is. That is excellent, and should help to separate the wheat from the chaff.
This also makes it much easier for individuals, those who desire to get involved with the revolutionary workers movement, to decide just which political party or organization they should choose to become involved with, if any.
With that in mind, I read an article published by The Left Wind, with a rather strange title: Where’s the Winter Palace? On the Marxist – Leninist Trend in the United States.
I mention this article because it is typical of a trend in North America, that of becoming focused on ”organizing”, while making no attempt to raise the level of consciousness of the members of the working class. The article was filled with analysis concerning the revolutionary trend within America, as that is the common name of the United States. It was clearly written by an assortment of middle class intellectuals. These people are wildly enthusiastic concerning their right to criticize, but live in constant fear of criticism. There is a reason for this. They do not want working people to understand that their goal is to use the working class to seize political power.
Perhaps the most clear cut statement was given by Avery, who stated that ”Socialists win over workers by organizing alongside them to improve material conditions and build institutional power.”
It is not clear just what Avery meant by ”win over workers”, but perhaps it just means that workers should agree that socialism is a good idea. As a great many workers already agree that socialism is indeed a good idea, to ”win them over” in this manner is not a great accomplishment.
That brings us to ”organizing alongside them to improve material conditions and build institutional power.”
Compare this to that which Lenin says: ”our very first and most imperative duty is to help to train working class revolutionaries who will be on the same level in regard to Party activity as intellectual revolutionaries”. That is very clear and stands in stark contrast to ”improving material conditions”, by which is very likely meant working and living conditions. As for ”institutional power”, it is very likely a reference to the winning of political office.
It is clear that Avery is working towards reforms and securing political offices under capitalism, and is not interested in revolution or the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. This is perfectly acceptable to the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, and has nothing to do with scientific socialism, Social Democracy, that which is now referred to as Marxism Leninism.
It also helps to explain the reason such people are wildly enthusiastic about the young lady who won a seat in Congress. As someone who is young, female, and a member of a minority, she has become the poster child for their campaign to ”build institutional power”.
This begs the question: Why does Avery refer to himself as a Marxist Leninist?
An individual very much like Avery once mentioned to me, in a rare moment of candour, that as we, meaning the working class, have the capitalists out numbered, it is merely a simple matter of organizing the working class and ganging up on the capitalists. We can then seize political power. Further, every organization needs a leader. Who better to lead that organization than the person who organized the revolution?
If only it were that easy! The people who adopt that course of action are completely devoid of principle, technically referred to as opportunists. They are concerned only with themselves, focused on seizing political power. Of course they are afraid of criticism, as they do not want anyone to determine their goals.
To return to the time of Czarist Russia, all of the revisionists were pretty well agreed that Social Democracy had to change from a party of social revolution to a democratic party of social reforms. The necessity of putting socialism on a scientific basis was denied and also, the necessity of revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat was most emphatically rejected. It was denied that there is any difference between socialism and liberalism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society.
That is quite similar to the situation we now face in North America. The same old revisionist garbage is still being dished up, but now these revisionists refer to themselves as Marxist Leninists. Many of them are merely more subtle in their distortion of Marxism.
It was in this state of theoretical confusion that Lenin, in 1902, wrote What Is To Be Done?, in an attempt to straighten out this tangled web. It is a book which deserves careful study, especially as it is so relevant.
It is frequently objected that this haggling over details is tiresome, and we should all just get along. That could well prove to be a great mistake.
As Lenin points out, ”without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement”. He goes on to say that ”the role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced theory.” It follows that the only way the coming revolution can hope to be successful is if it is led by a Marxist Leninist party which follows a correct revolutionary theory. That which at first sight appears to be an unimportant detail could lead to most deplorable consequences. It is also true that Marxism Leninism is an international movement, so that it is vitally important that it assimilate the experience of other countries. In the case of North America, this means that we must learn from the third Russian Revolution of November, 1917, as it closely resembles our own coming revolution.
Last but certainly not least, the American workers, and in particular the American working women, have assumed a leading role in the vanguard of the international working class Marxist Leninist movement. They are now spearheading the revolutionary movement against the bourgeoisie, at least in North America, and very likely in South America.
This gives it a greater sense of urgency and I have no doubt that the American workers will rise to the occasion. The American working class has a history of revolution, of which they can well be proud. They have risen to the occasion before, and no doubt will do so again. I have complete confidence in them.
To finish off our history lesson, after the Czar was overthrown in the second Russian revolution of February 1917, Lenin returned to Russia and led the people in the third Russian revolution in October of 1917. The capitalists were overthrown and the workers established a socialist society, in the form of the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. The bourgeoisie was crushed but with insufficient enthusiasm, as they were able to return to power after the death of Stalin. That is a lesson we should all take to heart.
The November Russian revolution of 1917 was successful, but only because it was led by Lenin and a proper revolutionary theory.
Those who are class conscious and are just now becoming politically active would do well to bear that in mind. Each and every one of us can choose to fight for paltry reforms, or we can choose to fight the good fight, the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, the working class against the capitalists. In addition, those who choose to stand on principle, as fine Marxist Leninists, will have to determine if the self styled Marxist Leninist parties are authentic, or merely revisionists who have adopted Marxist Leninist terminology. These parties will have to be judged by their actions, not their words.
If in fact there is no true Marxist Leninist party in North America, then one will have to be created. That is a tall order, but then I am sure we can all rise to the occasion.
Gerald McIsaac Science Project 