The international movement of the working class, towards a state of Scientific Socialism, has now spread to various countries of the world, and not just those which are highly industrialized. A considerable number of countries that are largely agrarian are also experiencing revolutionary motion. This is excellent news, as previous experience has revealed that such revolutions tend to spread to other countries. For that reason, it is reasonable to expect that the next revolution will spread to numerous countries, possibly a great many countries, around the world.
Yet it is one thing to have a revolution, to have the working class rise up in open revolt, against the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, and something else entirely to succeed, to give rise to a state of Scientific Socialism. Of necessity, that requires a certain ‘’level of awareness’’ of the working class, a ‘’class consciousness’’. At the very least, the most advanced workers must be made aware of the fact that the goal is one of Scientific Socialism. That is the purpose of this article.
It is safe to say that the vast majority of common people, by whom I mean workers and family farmers, are of the opinion that socialism is a good idea. After all, it makes ever so much more sense to provide for the ‘’common good’’, rather than for the benefit of the ‘’chosen few’’, those who are commonly referred to as the ‘’super rich’’, or the ‘’Class of Oligarchy Billionaires’’. So it is only natural that such people spontaneously gravitate towards socialism.
The key word here is ‘’spontaneous’’. Even though it is certainly ‘’natural’’, that is not enough. It is equally ‘’natural’’ that the ruling class of ‘’super rich’’, the multi billionaires, take a ‘’dim view’’ of socialism, with good reason. They see it as a threat to their wealth and power, as indeed it is. No one ever accused those people of being entirely stupid!
For that reason, they ‘’badmouth’’ socialism, at every opportunity, to phrase it in popular terms. Possibly their two favourite ‘’whipping boys’’, are the formerly socialist republics of the Soviet Union and China. The fact of the matter is that the capitalists were able to return to power in both the Soviet Union, and in China, after the deaths of Stalin and Mao. And that calls for a little explanation.
The reason I say this, is because of that which Lenin wrote, in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder: ‘’Symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses- hitherto apathetic- who are capable of waging the political struggle.’’
It stands to reason that these ‘’hitherto apathetic’’ workers, those who are ‘’capable of waging the political struggle’’, are completely unaware of the Scientific Socialist Revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, and have to be ‘’brought up to speed’’. It is for the benefit of those workers- Welcome, My Brothers and Sisters, My Comrades!- that this article is being written. Having said that, let us now proceed to the gist of the matter.
Karl Marx lived and worked during the mid to late nineteenth century, at a time of early, competitive, ‘’pre monopoly’’ capitalism. He conducted a thorough, detailed, systematic examination of capitalism, and proved, that it would, of necessity, give rise to a state of Scientific Socialism. Here is the manner in which Marx phrased it, in a letter to Weydemeyer, in 1852. As Marx stated:
‘’And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; 3) that this Dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.’’ (my italics)
Now that is a paragraph that I would love to see in poster form! I would be the first to buy a copy!
Bear in mind that it was Friedrich Engels who worked closely with Marx. The two of them wrote the Communist Manifesto, the CM, in 1848. Perhaps it is best to quote that which they stated, at the beginning of the CM:
‘’A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre…. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.’’
The work of Marx and Engels remained strictly theoretical, until 1871. That was the year in which the workers of Paris, France, rose up, threw out their capitalist rulers, and established the first workers state, which they referred to as the ‘’Paris Commune’’. They referred to themselves as ‘’Communards’’. The Commune was brief, as the workers controlled Paris from March 18 to May 28, 1871, just over two months, before being crushed, with the utmost brutality.
It is significant that Marx was, at that time, living in Britain, and closely following the events in France. He kept in close contact with the leaders of the Commune, offering them advice, which, for the most part, they did not follow. To their everlasting regret, I might add.
Yet that brief experience, meagre that it was, provided Marx with very valuable information. He summarized the lessons learned in his landmark work, The Civil War In France. He documented the fact that the workers attempted to seize control of the existing state apparatus, that which had been set up by the capitalists, in order to crush the working class, and use that same apparatus, for their own purposes. That was a huge mistake. Marx concluded that the existing state apparatus has to be smashed, at the time of the revolution, and replaced with a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, must be stressed. We will return to this subject, later on in this article. For the moment, our focus is on the term Scientific Socialism, which is to say the state of socialism which was first forecast by Marx, as a result of his scientific analysis of capitalism.
It was Lenin, a student of Marx and Engels, a fellow Scientific Socialist, who conducted a further scientific examination of capitalism, in its highest stage, that of monopoly, otherwise known as imperialism. He published his conclusions in his fine work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
This scientific examination of capitalism, by both Marx and Lenin, stands in stark contrast to the beliefs of those who are of the opinion that socialism is merely a ‘’good idea’’, as indeed it is. These people are referred to as ‘’utopian socialists’’. The vast majority of such people are honest, hard working, law abiding people, and deserve our utmost respect, as they have merely been misled.
By way of contrast, there are utopian socialists who scoff at Scientific Socialists, and in fact, have no use for ‘’theory’’. They tend to have a very high opinion of themselves, and consider any ‘’stray thought’’ that crosses their mind, to be a ‘’stroke of genius’’.
Such people refuse to face the fact that the correct theory is nothing other than the proper evaluation of previous experience. Scientific Socialism is an expression of the correct revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. We can learn from the experience of previous revolutions, their successes as well as their failures- especially their failures!- or we can repeat their mistakes!
It is of the utmost importance to distinguish between the utopian socialists who are honest, merely misinformed, as opposed to those who are devoid of principle, technically referred to as ‘’opportunists’’. The honest utopian socialists are the natural and desirable allies of the Scientific Socialists, while those who are devoid of principle are our bitter enemies. Such people, also known as ‘’social chauvinists’’, those who are ‘’socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds’’, are determined to go to great lengths to distort the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, in an attempt to divert the revolutionary movement of the working class. These distortions are referred to as ‘’revisions’’, and the people who propagate these distortions are referred to as ‘’revisionists’’.
Although it may sound ‘’paradoxical’’, there are two diametrically opposed ‘’types’’ of people who closely study the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. These include those of us who are true Scientific Scientists, and the revisionists.
The Scientific Socialists, otherwise known as Marxist-Leninists or Communists, study those theories with a view to applying them to our current situation, to determine the correct course of action, in our war with the monopoly capitalists. By contrast, the revisionists study those same theories, with a view to distorting, to revising, those same theories.
Lenin covers this in his excellent work, What Is To Be Done? As it is so important, I have decided to quote it, at some considerable length. Bear in mind that, at the time this article was written, Marxists referred to themselves as ‘’Social Democrats’’, as we fight for socialism as well as democracy. But then, as the Social Democratic Party split, the majority, led by Lenin, became known as the Bolsheviks, and still later, the name was changed to Communists. Different names for Scientific Socialism.
As well, I should also add that the term ‘’bourgeois’’ is a reference to the capitalists. The ‘’monopoly capitalists’’, our current crop of multi billionaires, are technically referred to as the ‘’bourgeoisie’’, while the ‘’small time’’ capitalists, or ‘’middle class’’, is referred to as the ‘’petty bourgeois’’.
Now to the heart of the dispute. Lenin laid out the substance of the dispute, among the members of the Social-Democratic Party:
‘’Social-Democracy must change from a party of the social revolution into a democratic party of social reform….The possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of proving that it is necessary and inevitable from the point of view of the materialist conception of history was denied, as also were the facts of growing impoverishment and proletarianization and the intensification of capitalist contradictions. The very conception, ‘ultimate aim’, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was absolutely rejected. It was denied that there is any difference in principle between liberalism and socialism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected, on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society, governed according to the will of the majority, etc.
‘’Thus, the demand for a definite change from revolutionary Social-Democracy to bourgeois social-reformism, was accompanied by a no less definite turn towards bourgeois criticism of all the fundamental ideas of Marxism. As this criticism of Marxism has been going on for a long time now, from the political platform, from university chairs, in numerous pamphlets and a number of scientific works, as the younger generation of the educated classes has been systematically trained for decades on this criticism, it is not surprising that the ‘new, critical’ tendency in Social-Democracy should spring up, all complete, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter. The content of this new tendency did not have to grow and develop, it was transferred bodily from bourgeois literature to socialist literature.’’ (italics by Lenin)
To think that this article, which described the situation in Russia, 1905, is also an accurate description of our current situation! To this day, the ‘’younger generation of the educated classes’’, is being ‘’systematically trained’’ in the criticism of all of the fundamental tenets of Scientific Socialism, especially the revolutionary theories. They, in turn, carry this revisionist belief to various ‘’Leftist’’ organizations.
At first glance, this seems to make no sense, or is ‘’counter intuitive’’, to state it in scientific terms. Yet there is a ‘’method to their madness’’, to phrase it in popular terms. These people, the ‘’younger generation of the educated classes’’, dedicated capitalists, one and all, have learned the distortion of the Scientific Socialist Revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Which in no way changes the fact that they are well aware of the correctness of those same theories! They know that both Marx and Lenin were correct! The working class, the proletariat, is destined to rise up in open revolution! So their ‘’solution’’ to this little problem, is to set themselves up, as leaders of the working class, and to seize control of the existing state apparatus, at the time of the revolution, and set themselves up, as the new rulers!
This is to stress the importance of raising the level of awareness of the working class, or at least the most advanced workers. Bear in mind that the less advanced pay strict attention to the opinion of the most advanced. For that reason, the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, at the time of the revolution, must be stressed.
Now that we have covered the importance of Scientific Socialism, as opposed to utopian socialism, it is necessary to examine the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But first, it is necessary to give a brief history of the working class movement, towards Scientific Socialism.
It was Lenin who led the Great October Soviet Socialist Russian Revolution to victory, in 1917, but only because he followed the revolutionary theories of Marx and Engels. After the death of Lenin, it was Stalin who carried on his work, that of building a state of Scientific Socialism. This enabled the Soviet Union to withstand the Nazi juggernaut. Yet after the death of Stalin, in 1953, the capitalists were able to return to power, as Stalin made a few rather serious mistakes.
As well, it was Mao Tse Tung who led the Chinese Revolution to success, in 1949. Yet he too made a number of mistakes, which enabled the Chinese capitalists to return to power, after the death of Mao, in 1976. As I have documented this in previous articles, there is no need to repeat it here.
It is the goal- or more accurately, the duty!- of Scientific Socialists, to learn from previous revolutionary experience, in order to build upon their successes, while avoiding their mistakes. After all, we are all human, so that we all make mistakes.
Perhaps it is best to view the success of the capitalists, in their return to power, in the Soviet Union and in China, as ‘’temporary’’, as ‘’reversals’’, as ‘’part of the learning curve’’, which the international working class has to surmount, in order to secure a true, international Scientific Socialist Republic. After all, this is a world war, proletarians versus capitalists, and in such a war, it is reasonable to expect the occasional defeat. Yet there can be no doubt of ultimate victory.
This brings us to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Yet what is the Proletariat? It is the working class, the members of whom work for wages, hourly employees, proletarians. And once again, this calls for a little explanation.
It may come as something of a surprise to learn that classes did not always exist. There was a time, commonly referred to as the ‘’Stone Age’’, or a time of ‘’primitive society’’, in which there were no classes. People lived as nomads, moving from place to place, taking advantage of the crops as they became ripe, as well as following the herds. Everyone lived ‘’hand to mouth’’, constantly on the verge of starvation, as there was never a surplus. For that reason, everyone had to ‘’pull his own weight’’. Those who chose to ‘’dog it’’, to expect others to do all the work, were quickly expelled from the group. That generally amounted to a death sentence, as no one could survive alone, in such a hostile environment.
That all changed, and quite dramatically, with the cultivation of crops, both plants and animals. People were then blessed with a surplus. In honour of the occasion, certain individuals chose to separate other individuals from their property, or at least their freedom, preferably both. This gave rise to the first classes, slaves and slave owners. Welcome to civilization!
The slave owners viewed their slaves as ‘’livestock’’, no different from other animals, such as horses and cattle, aside from the fact that they could speak. For that reason, they treated their slaves the same way they treated other animals. Slaves were given just enough food, clothing and shelter, as was sufficient for their survival, and were also bred, just as other animals were bred.
The trouble was that slaves were more intelligent than other livestock, although the slave owners saw this as being more ‘’treacherous’’. Not content with their lot in life, they had a rather ‘’annoying’’ habit of rebelling. In response to this, the slave owners devised a ‘’system’’ of keeping the slaves under control. In short, the first ‘’state apparatus’’ was created.
Lenin covered this supremely well in his article, State and Revolution. As he stated, ‘’The state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises when, where and to the extend that class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable….According to Marx, the state is the organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it creates ‘order’, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collision between the classes’’. (italics by Lenin)
This begs the question: What is the state apparatus? The earliest state apparatus consisted of armed men, frequently on horseback, complete with spears and swords, which they used to crush any slave revolts. Later, other classes were created, such as the nobility and commoners, land owners and family farmers, otherwise known as peasants.
The point is that no class can exist in isolation. A class can exist only with its ‘’antipode’’, the class opposite to itself. This is to say that the class of nobility can exist only with a corresponding class of ‘’commoners’’, and the land owners can exist only with a corresponding class of peasants, family farmers, or ‘’share croppers’’.
This brings us to the industrial revolution. Historians view this as the greatest thing to happen to humanity, since the cultivation of crops. In this, they are absolutely correct. It not only made possible mass production, but it created two new classes, a class of capitalists, referred to as the ‘’bourgeois’’, and a corresponding class of workers, hourly employees, referred to as ‘’proletarians’’. Two new revolutionary classes. The Communist Manifesto covers this supremely well.
As is well known, the newly created class of capitalists set themselves up as the new ruling class, largely displacing the previous ruling class of nobility. At the same time, the method of rule, of the nobility, also had to change. That which was sufficient to crush the ‘’commoners’’, was no longer sufficient to crush the newly created, revolutionary class of workers, the proletariat. For that reason, the current ‘’state apparatus’’ was created. This consists of police, courts, jails, prisons and various ‘’correctional institutions’’, all of which must be smashed, at the time of the approaching revolution.
Yet as classes will continue to exist, even after the revolution, a state apparatus is still required, as the monopoly capitalists, the former multi billionaires, will not resign themselves to their fate. For that reason, a state apparatus is still required. Lenin covered this supremely well, in State and Revolution:
‘’It is often said and written that the core of Marx’s theory is the class struggle; but it is not true. And from this error, very often, springs the opportunist distortion of Marxism, its falsification to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie. The theory of the class struggle was not created by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and generally speaking it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; those may be found to have gone no further than the bounds of bourgeois reasoning and bourgeois politics. To limit Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something which is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. A Marxist is one who extends the acceptance of the class struggle to the acceptance of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is where the profound difference lies between a Marxist and an ordinary petty (and even big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and acceptance of Marxism should be tested. …Opportunism does not carry the recognition of class struggle to the main point, to the period of transition from capitalism to Communism, to the period of the overthrow and complete abolition of the bourgeoisie. In reality, this period inevitably becomes a period of unusually violent class struggles, in their sharpest possible forms and, therefore, during this period, the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie).
‘’To proceed. The essence of Marx’s doctrine of the state is assimilated only by those who understand that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but for the entire historical period between capitalism and ‘classless society’, Communism….The transition from capitalism to Communism will certainly create a great variety and abundance of political forms, but in essence there will inevitably be only one: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’’ (italics by Lenin)
The preceding should provide our ‘’hitherto apathetic’’ worker, with a basic understanding of Scientific Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The next item on our ‘’Hit Parade’’, is that of ‘’Soviet Power’’. The word ‘’Soviet’’ is Russian, and simply means ‘’Council’’. Contrary to popular belief, it is not an invention of the Russian Marxists, those who referred to themselves as Social Democrats. They could not possibly have created the Soviets, as the Soviets did not appear until 1905, during the First Russian Revolution, quite reasonably referred to as the Revolution of 1905. By that time, the Russian secret police had arrested almost all of the Social Democrats, and had either executed them or sent them into exile. Lenin had been sent into exile.
This is to stress the fact that the Soviets, or Councils, appeared spontaneously, as a result of the revolutionary movement of the working class. The ‘’common people’’, by whom I mean workers and family farmers, otherwise known as peasants, got together and elected leaders, in the form of Soviets. For that reason, there were Soviets of Workers, Soviets of Peasants, and Soviets of Soldiers.
As the Revolution of 1905 was crushed, in 1907, the Soviets went ‘’underground’’. This is to say that they continued to exist, illegally, secretly, working for the benefit of the common people, as best they could. We know this for a fact, because ten years later, at the time of the Russian February Revolution of 1917, the Soviets reappeared, much stronger than ever. This too, requires a little explanation.
At the beginning of 1917, the First World War was raging. Russia was in an alliance with Britain and France, against Germany and her allies. Russia was also taking some terrible losses, and the common people of the country were suffering terribly. People were starving, especially those in the cities, everyone wanted peace, and the family farmers wanted to own the land they were tilling, rather than having to pay rent to the landlords. For that reason, the slogan was: Peace! Land! Bread!
Also at that time, the Romanovs had been ruling Russia, for three centuries. The Emperor, or Czar, was Nicholas II, and he ruled ‘’with an iron hand’’. He was also married to a German princess, Empress Alexandra, born Princess Alix of Hesse. Not too surprising, she wanted no part of war with her native Germany. From all accounts, she thought Russia was fighting the wrong enemy, and frequently expressed her opinion to her husband Nicholas, the Czar of Russia.
The British and French imperialists were well aware of her sentiments. They were afraid that Czar Nicholas would listen to his wife, make a separate peace with Germany, and worse, Russia could even join Germany in her war with Britain and France. God forbid!
For that reason, the British and French diplomats, working through their embassies in the capital of Petrograd, set to work, with the goal of deposing Czar Nicholas. With their immense wealth, they were able to bribe high ranking Russian officials, both civilian and military. Bear in mind that they wanted Nicholas removed from the throne, because they wanted to continue the war!
At the same time, the common people of Russia, both workers and peasants, also wanted Nicholas removed from the throne, because they wanted peace! Same goal, opposite reasons!
At that time, Lenin was living in Switzerland, closely following the Revolution in Russia, as best he could. He then wrote a series of articles, referred to as ‘’Letters From Afar’’. In his first letter, he referred to the ‘’Soviet of Workers Deputies’’, as being one of the ‘’three fundamental political forces’’. He went on to state,
‘’That the revolution succeeded so quickly and- seemingly, at the first superficial glance- so radically, is only due to the fact that, as a result of an extremely unique historical situation, absolutely dissimilar currents, absolutely heterogeneous class interests, absolutely contrary political and social strivings have merged, and in a strikingly harmonious manner. Namely, the conspiracy of the Anglo- French imperialists, who impelled Milyukov, Guchkov and Co. to seize power for the purpose of continuing the imperialist war, for the purpose of conducting the war still more ferociously and obstinately, for the purpose of slaughtering fresh millions of Russian workers and peasants, in order that the Guchkovs might obtain Constantinople, the French capitalists Syria, the British capitalists Mesopotamia, and so on. This on the one hand. On the other, there was a profound proletarian and mass popular movement of a revolutionary character (a movement of the entire poorest section of the population of town and country), for bread, for peace, for real freedom.’’ (italics by Lenin)
It is important to note that there was no ‘’alliance’’, between the common people of Russia, the workers and peasants, with the imperialists of Britain and France. Instead, there was a ‘’merger’’, of ‘’absolutely contrary political strivings’’. This is to say that the common people of Russia wanted Nicholas deposed, because they wanted peace, while the imperialists of Britain and France wanted Nicholas deposed, because they wanted war! Truly, ‘’truth is stranger than fiction’’!
Lenin then went on to say:
‘’There has arisen the chief, unofficial, as yet undeveloped and comparatively weak workers’ government, which expresses the interest of the proletariat and of the entire poor section of the urban and rural population. This is the Soviet of Workers Deputies in Petrograd, which is seeking connections with the soldiers and peasants, and also with the agricultural workers, with the latter particularly and primarily, of course, more than with the peasants….
‘’The Soviet of Workers Deputies is an organization of the workers, the embryo of a workers’ government, the representative of the interests of the entire mass of the poor section of the population, i.e. (that is), of nine tenths of the population, which is striving for peace, bread, and freedom.’’ (italics by Lenin)
It is significant that these Soviets, or Councils, represent a ‘’workers government’’, or more accurately, the ‘’embryo of a workers government’’, as Lenin phrased it. It was not by chance that they appeared in the capital of Petrograd, as they tend to be a creation of the industrial proletariat. From the industries, they attempted to ‘’seek connections’’ with the soldiers, agricultural workers and family farmers, peasants. All workers are well aware that there is strength in numbers!
Lenin then proceeded to give some fine advice, as he considered the abdication of Nicholas, the overthrow of the monarchy, as merely the first ‘’stage’’ of the revolution, and it needed to ‘’transition’’ to the second stage:
‘’Workers, you have performed miracles of proletarian heroism, the heroism of the people, in the civil war against czarism. You must perform miracles of organization, organization of the proletariat and of the whole people, to prepare the way for your victory in the second stage of the revolution.’’ (italics by Lenin)
There can be no doubt that Soviets have also appeared here, in North America, although they are called Councils. Recently, a portion of the city of Seattle, that of Capital Hill, elected a Council, and declared itself to be Autonomous. Of course the federal government quickly crushed that Zone. Yet it is doubtful that the Council was crushed. It very likely that it just went underground. It is also very likely that there are a great many other Councils, all across the country, especially in areas which are highly industrialized.
May I suggest that it is now appropriate for those Councils to take the advice of Lenin, and ‘’seek connections’’ with the broad mass of the population, including the military personnel, the rural agricultural workers and the family farmers. After all, these Councils are the ‘’embryo of a workers government’’.
Bear in mind that, after the Russian Czar Nicholas II was removed from office, a Provisional Government was created. Yet the Soviets were so powerful, that government was forced to share power with the Soviets! In fact, the Soviets were so powerful, the Provisional Government did not dare to arrest Lenin, at the time he returned from exile, in April of 1917. Much as they wanted to ‘’throw him in the slammer’’, as soon as he set foot on the railroad platform, in Petrograd.
We can draw a parallel between our current situation, and that of Russia, immediately after the February Revolution, which removed the Czar from the throne. Lenin referred to this as the ‘’first stage of the revolution’’, as indeed it was. The Czar was a ‘’monarch’’, so that he had almost unlimited power, while the people had almost no democratic rights. So of course the ‘’first stage’’ had to be his overthrow. As the Russian February Revolution succeeded in removing Nicholas from the throne, it ‘’paved the way’’ for the ‘’next stage’’ of the Russian Revolution. That ‘’next stage’’ was the overthrow of the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, and the establishment of a state of Scientific Socialism, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The revolutionary movement of the working class, at least here in America, has made great strides. As recently as 2011, at the time of the Occupy Movement, the working class people referred to themselves as being the ‘’99 percent’’, which the class of multi billionaires, the monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, was referred to as the ‘’1 percent’’. Devoid of class content!
Yet now the members of the working class are referring to themselves as just that, working class people. Further, the multi billionaires, the monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, are being referred to as the ‘’Oligarchy Class’’. Class content! The working class is becoming class conscious! More aware of themselves as a class!
Further, the recent ‘’No Kings’’ protest, in which many millions of people ‘’took to the streets’’, from ‘’coast to coast’’, from all cities and towns, marks a ‘’turning point’’ in the revolutionary motion. It means that the Revolution is now ‘’broad and deep’’, extending to all strata of the population. As well, not one protester was arrested! This means that the local police have ‘’backed off’’, or ‘’adopted a position of neutrality’’, to phrase it in diplomatic terms. It also means that the local police are one step away from joining the Revolution!
We must now prepare for the ‘’next stage’’ of the American Revolution, just as the workers and farmers of Russia prepared for their ‘’next stage’’, after the overthrow of the Czar. That ‘’next stage’’ consists of ‘’organization’’, that of the working class, and of the ‘’whole people’’, which is to say family farmers and farm labourers, in rural areas, as happened in Russia, in preparation for the next stage of the American Revolution! Councils must also be established in rural areas.
All Americans must be made aware that the Scientific Socialist Revolution is about to take place, starting with an Insurrection. Workers must be armed, equipped and trained, in preparation for that Insurrection. As well, after the Revolution, certain workers will be placed in positions of authority, under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The training they receive now, will prove to be most valuable.
This brings us to our final subject, that of Communism. By definition, a Communist society is a classless society. Yet after the Scientific Socialist Revolution, after the class of monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, is overthrown, after the existing state apparatus is smashed, and replaced with Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, classes will continue to exist! For that reason, a state apparatus is still required, in order to crush them, as they make every effort to restore capitalism, to return to power.
Lenin covers this supremely well, in his article, Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder. As he stated:
‘’The Dictatorship of the Proletariat means a most determined and most ruthless war. waged by the new class, against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by their overthrow (even if only in one country), and whose power lies, not only in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international connections, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small scale production. Unfortunately, small scale production is still wide spread in the world, and small scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. All these reasons make the Dictatorship of the Proletariat necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate life and death struggle, which calls for tenacity, discipline, and a single and inflexible will.’’ (italics by Lenin)
This is to say that the state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will be necessary, for a considerable time after the revolution, until classes are wiped out. This period of time is referred to as a state of ‘’Scientific Socialism’’. It is only after all classes are wiped out, that we will enter a state of Communism, a classless society.
Lenin covers this ‘’transition period’’, this state of Scientific Socialism, between that of capitalism and a true classless society of Communism, in his article, State and Revolution.
In conclusion, it is reasonable to assume that a great many ‘’hitherto apathetic’’ workers, will find these technical terms to be tiresome, to put it politely. Be that as it may, it cannot be helped. Rest assured, if workers are not aware of the meaning of those terms, the capitalists will not hesitate to use our lack of awareness against us. And yes, I speak from experience.
In the work by Lenin, that of What Is To Be Done?, he states, in reference to ‘’discussing our duties to the workers’’:
‘’This fact proves that 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 (we emphasize the words ‘in regard to Party activity’, because although it is necessary, it is not so easy and not so imperative to bring the workers up to the level of intellectuals in other respects). Therefore, attention must be devoted principally to the task of raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries, and not to degrading ourselves to the level of the ‘labour masses’, as the Economists wish to do, or necessarily to the level of the average worker….I am far from denying the necessity for popular literature for the workers, and especially popular (but of course, not vulgar) literature for the especially backward workers.’’ (italics by Lenin)
In previous articles, I have compared the class war to a boxing match, in which one boxer is blindfolded, swinging wildly in all directions. On occasion, he is bound to strike a crushing blow, but this is more by chance than skill. By contrast, his opponent strikes blow after blow, as he can see very well.
Of course, in my imaginary boxing match, the boxer with the blindfold represents the working class, while the boxer who can see so well represents the capitalist class of multi billionaires. The blindfold represents the lack of class awareness among the working class, and must be removed. The act of raising the level of awareness of the working class, the proletariat, or at least the most advanced workers, to the level of Scientific Socialists, is to ‘’remove the blindfold’’, so to speak.
It may be objected, quite reasonably, that we do not currently have a Communist Party. True! Yet that is not to say that I am ‘’putting the cart before the horse’’! The act of raising as many workers as possible, to the level of Scientific Socialists, revolutionary intellectuals, is an important step towards the creation of a Party!
Lenin wrote an article in 1918, titled The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky. At the end of that article, he made a statement which is extremely relevant today:
‘’Europe’s greatest misfortune and danger is that it has no revolutionary party. It has parties of traitors…but it has no revolutionary party.
‘’Of course, a mighty, popular revolutionary movement may rectify this deficiency, but it is nevertheless a serious misfortune and a grave danger.
‘’That is why we must do our utmost to expose renegades like Kautsky, thereby supporting the revolutionary groups of genuine internationalist workers, who are to be found in all countries. The proletariat will very soon turn away from the traitors and renegades and follow these groups, drawing and training leaders from their midst. No wonder the bourgeoisie of all countries are howling about ‘world Bolshevism’.
‘’World Bolshevism will conquer world bourgeoisie’’. (italics by Lenin, at that time Communism was referred to as Bolshevism)
Without doubt, we currently do not have a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. We certainly have no shortage of ‘’parties of traitors’’! Equally without doubt, we are now experiencing a ‘’mighty, popular revolutionary movement’’, which ‘’may rectify this deficiency’’.
Clearly, it is up to us, Scientific Socialists, to ‘’rise to the occasion’’, to ‘’expose renegades’’, those who are ‘’revisionists’’, as a means of supporting the ‘’revolutionary groups of genuine internationalist workers’’, who are located in ‘’all countries’’. This will hasten the day that the ‘’proletariat turns away from these traitors and renegades’’, and subsequently ‘’follow these groups’’. In this way, we can help to at least ‘’pave the way’’ for a true Communist Party.
It is also a fact that, as is stated in the Communist Manifesto:
‘’Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole .’’
There can be no doubt that the ‘’class struggle’’ is indeed ‘’near the decisive hour’’, as the ‘’process of dissolution going on within the ruling class’’, in this case the bourgeoisie, has assumed a ‘’violent, glaring character’’. Now we can expect a ‘’portion of the bourgeoisie’’, and in particular the ‘’bourgeois ideologists’’, those who have ‘’raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole’’, to ‘’come over to the proletariat’’, the ‘’class that holds the future in its hands’’.
It is reasonable to expect those bourgeois ideologists to take part in the creation of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Their education and training makes this well within their ability. As well, it is in their best interests to do so. After all, working people need leaders, and it is only a Communist Party that can provide that leadership.
Under the leadership of a true Communist Party, the approaching Insurrection, which will ‘’kick start’’ the next American Revolution, will be far more likely to succeed. As well, under a state of Scientific Socialism, the skills of those bourgeois intellectuals will be put to good use.
In anticipation of their arrival, allow me to say, Welcome, My Brothers and Sisters, My Comrades! You have a bright future under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
As for those members of the working class, who are prejudiced against intellectuals, may I suggest that you get over it! After all, both Marx and Lenin were middle class intellectuals.
I can only hope that this article proves to be helpful. We will know that we are being successful, when such expressions as Scientific Socialism, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and Soviet Power, are common place, among the working class.
With Most Sincere Communist Greetings,
Gerald McIsaac
Gerald McIsaac Science Project 