Author: Gerald Mcisaac

Allow me to start this article, by stressing the fact that now is the time for revolutionary actions, not reformist actions. The current ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the multi billionaires, technically referred to as the bourgeoisie, are determined to abolish the democratic republic, and establish the rule of ‘’those most qualified to rule’’, an ‘’Oligarchy’’, by whom they of course mean themselves. They must be overthrown, the existing state apparatus must be smashed, and replaced with a different state apparatus, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Absolutely and without doubt, that calls for revolutionary action, and not the paltry reforms which so many social chauvinists are demanding. 

Having said that, it is also a fact that there is a time and a place for reforms. That time is after the Scientific Socialist revolution, as the victorious proletariat attempts to build a new socialist society. 

Lenin covered this in an article written in November of 1921, four years after the successful Scientific Socialist October Revolution of 1917. It was titled:

THE IMPORTANCE OF GOLD NOW AND AFTER THE COMPLETE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM

Lenin: ‘’What is new for our revolution, at the present time, is the need for a ‘reformist’, gradual, cautious and roundabout approach, to the solution of the fundamental problems of economic development. This ‘novelty’ gives rise to a number of questions, perplexities and doubts, in both theory and practice.

‘’A theoretical question. How can we explain the transition from a series of extremely revolutionary actions, to extremely ‘reformist’ actions, in the same field, at a time when the revolution as a whole is making victorious progress? Does it not imply a ‘surrender of positions’, an ‘admission of defeat’, or something of that sort? Of course, our enemies… say that it does. They would not be enemies if they did not shout something of  the sort on every pretext, and even without any pretext. The touching unanimity that prevails on this question among all parties, from the feudal reactionaries to the Mensheviks, is only further proof that all these parties constitute ‘one reactionary mass’, opposed to the proletarian revolution…

‘’But there is ‘perplexity’, shall we say, among friends, too. 

‘’Restore large scale industry, organize the direct exchange of its goods for the produce of small peasant farming, and thus assist the socialization of the latter. For the purpose of restoring large scale industry, borrow from the peasants a certain quantity of foodstuffs and raw materials by requisitioning- this was the plan (or method, system) that we followed for more than three years, up to the spring of 1921. This was a revolutionary approach to the problem- to break up the old social economic system completely, at one stroke, and to substitute a new one for it.’’

In the preceding, Lenin documented a revolutionary approach to the problem of ‘restoring large scale industry’. As I have documented in a previous article, it was necessary, immediately after the October Revolution, to separate the family farmers of all their surplus, and even part of their necessities, in order to provide the workers and army with the bare necessities. But once the White Army was defeated, the Civil War was over, so that the situation had changed dramatically. That, in turn, called for a different approach, one that was not revolutionary, but reformist.

Lenin: ‘’Since the spring of 1921, instead of this approach, plan, method, or mode of action, we have been adopting… a totally different approach, a reformist type of method: not to break up the old social economic system- trade, petty production, petty proprietorship, capitalism- but to revive trade, petty proprietorship, capitalism, while cautiously and gradually getting the upper hand over them, or making it possible to subject them to state regulation, only to the extent that they revive.

‘’That is an entirely different approach to the problem.

‘’Compared to the previous revolutionary approach, it is a reformist approach (revolution is a change which breaks the old order to its very foundations, and not one that cautiously, slowly and gradually remodels it, taking care to break as little as possible).’’ (italics by Lenin)

Under the exceptional circumstances which existed, within Soviet Russia, immediately after the successful Scientific Socialist October Revolution of 1917, it was necessary to ‘’revive capitalism’’, while making sure it was ‘’subject to state regulation’’. That called for certain reforms.

Lenin: ‘’The question that arises is this. If, after trying revolutionary methods, you find they have failed, and adopt reformist methods, does it not prove that you are declaring the revolution to have been a mistake in general? Does it not prove that you should not have started with the revolution, but should have started with reforms and confined yourselves to them?

‘’That is the conclusion which the Mensheviks and others like them have drawn. But this conclusion is either sophistry, a mere fraud perpetrated by case hardened politicians, or it is the childishness of political tyros. The greatest, perhaps the only danger to the genuine revolutionary, is that of exaggerated revolutionism, ignoring the limits and conditions in which revolutionary methods are appropriate, and can be successfully employed. True revolutionaries have mostly come a cropper when they began to write ‘revolution’ with a capital R, to elevate ‘revolution’, to something almost divine, to lose their heads, to lose the ability to reflect, weigh and ascertain, in the coolest and most dispassionate manner, at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere of action you must act in a revolutionary manner, and at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere, you must turn to reformist action. True revolutionaries will perish (not that they will be defeated from outside, but that their work will suffer internal collapse) only if they abandon their sober outlook and take it into their heads that the ‘great, victorious, world’ revolution can and must solve all problems in a revolutionary manner, under all circumstances, and in all spheres of action. If they do this, their doom is certain.

‘’Whoever gets such ideas into his head is lost, because he has foolish ideas about a fundamental problem; and in a fierce war (and revolution is the fiercest sort of war) the penalty for folly is defeat.’’

Here we have another example of ‘’Left Wing Communism’’, in which well meaning communists ‘’exaggerate the importance of revolutionism’’, while ignoring the ‘’limits and conditions in which revolutionary methods are appropriate, and can be successfully employed’’. There are times when reformist methods are called for, especially after the revolution, under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Yet the deep passions aroused by revolutions can give rise to sentiments which cloud their ‘’sober outlook’’, resulting in misguided beliefs in ‘’revolutionary actions’’, as a solution to all problems. This invariably leads to ‘’defeat’’. 

In my opinion, this was one of the mistakes committed by the Chinese Communists, which led to their defeat, and the return to power of the capitalists. We must be careful not to become too infatuated with revolution, not to spell it with a capital R, not to consider revolution as something ‘’divine’’, but as a tool to be used, when appropriate.

On the other hand, certain words and expressions should be emphasized, with capital letters, when appropriate. Bear in mind that in 1891, Engels wrote an introduction to the work by Marx, titled The Civil War In France. He chose to write the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, with that capitalization, as a means of stressing the importance of that fundamental tenet of Marxism. May I suggest that a similar punctuation be adopted with Soviet Power and Scientific Socialism, as a means of stressing their importance. This may help to raise the level of awareness of the working class.

Lenin: ‘’What grounds are there for assuming that the ‘great, victorious, world’ revolution, can and must employ only revolutionary methods? There are none at all. The assumption is a pure fallacy; this can be proved by purely theoretical propositions, if we stick to Marxism. The experience of our revolution also shows that it is a fallacy. From the theoretical point of view- foolish things are done in time of revolution, just at any other time, said Engels, and he was right. We must try to do as few foolish things as possible, and rectify those that are done as quickly as possible, and we must, as soberly as we can, estimate which problems can be solved by revolutionary methods, at any given time, and which cannot. From the point of view of our practical experience, the Brest peace was an example of action that was not revolutionary at all; it was reformist, and even worse, because it was a retreat, whereas as a general rule, reformist action advances slowly, cautiously, gradually, and does not move backward. The proof that our tactics in concluding the Brest peace were correct is now so complete, so obvious to all and generally admitted, that there is no need to say any more about it.’’

The ‘’Brest peace’’ is a reference to the Treaty of Brest- Litovsk, by which Soviet Russia secured a peace treaty with Germany and the Central Powers, and exited the First World War. It came at a very high price, in that Russia lost a third of her population, half of her industry and almost all of her coal mines. Yet the alternative was complete defeat. 

Lenin: ‘’It is not enough to be a revolutionary and an adherent of socialism or communism in general. You must be able, at each particular moment, to find the  particular link in the chain, which you must grasp, with all your might, in order to hold the whole chain, and to prepare for the transition to the next link; the order of the links, their form, the manner in which they are linked together, their difference from each other in the historical chain of events are not as simple and not as senseless as those in an ordinary chain, made by a smith’’.

This is referred to as the ‘’key link’’ in the chain. Of course, the ‘’chain’’ is a reference to the political situation, which changes constantly, so that the key link also changes. Incidentally, the preceding paragraph is one which I would like to see in poster form, as I consider it to be of the utmost importance. 

This ‘’begs the question’’: What is the current ‘’key link’’? As our current situation closely resembles the situation in Russia, immediately before the October Revolution of 1917, it stands to reason that the ‘’key link’’ today, is the same as the ‘’key link’’ of Russia, at that time.

In the article by Lenin, titled Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, written three years after the October Revolution of 1917, he stressed the importance of certain fundamental tenets of Marxism: ‘’The chief thing- though, of course, far from everything- the chief thing, has already been achieved: the vanguard of the working class has been won over, has ranged itself on the side of Soviet government and against parliamentarianism, on the side of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and against bourgeois democracy.’’

The ‘’chief thing’’ now, or the ‘’key link’’, is to ‘’win over’’ the ‘’vanguard of the proletariat’’, to the side of ‘’Soviet Power’’ and the ‘’Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’, against ‘’bourgeois democracy’’. At the same time, it amounts to drawing a clear distinction between ourselves, communists, and all utopian socialists. The best way to do that is to stress the fact that we are Scientific Socialists, hence the capitalization.

It is only after the ‘’vanguard of the proletariat’’ is ‘’won over’’, so that they embrace Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that we can proceed to the ‘’next step’’. In that same article, Lenin outlined the ‘’next step’’. Allow me to stress the fact that this article was written three years after the October Revolution.

Lenin: ‘’All efforts and all attention should now be concentrated on the next step, which may seem- and from a certain viewpoint actually is- less fundamental, but on the other hand, is actually closer to a practical accomplishment of the task. That step is: the search after forms of the transition or the approach to the proletarian revolution.

‘’The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a position, either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least of sympathetic neutrality towards it, and of precluded support for the enemy, would be, not merely foolish but criminal. Propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the  broad masses of the working people, those 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….To turn resolutely towards communism, it was necessary…to realize from their own bitter experience, the absolute impotence and spinelessness, the absolute helplessness and servility to the bourgeoisie…they had to realize that a dictatorship of the extreme reactionaries…is inevitably the only alternative to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’. (italics by Lenin)

As regards our current situation, it is reasonable to assume that the most advanced workers are certainly at least open to the ideas of Scientific Socialism, even if they have not embraced those basic tenets of Marxism. But then they have not been exposed to those revolutionary theories. It is up to intellectuals, whether working class or middle class, to bring the awareness of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, to the working class. Or to phrase it in popular terms, ‘’the ball is in our court’’. 

On the other hand, it is also ‘’reasonable to assume’’ that the ‘’less advanced workers’’, the ‘’broad masses’’, are not in ‘’direct support of the vanguard’’, or even in a ‘’position of sympathetic neutrality’’. For the vast majority of common people, ‘’propaganda and agitation’’ alone, are ‘’not enough’’. They require their own ‘’political experience’’. 

Lenin: ‘’As long as it was (and inasmuch as it still is) a question of winning the proletariat’s vanguard over to the side of communism, priority went and still goes to propaganda work….But when it is a question of practical action by the masses, of the disposition, if one may so put it, of vast armies, of the alignment of all the class forces in a given society for the final and decisive battle, then propagandist methods alone, the mere repetition of the truths of ‘pure’ communism, are of no avail. In these circumstances, one must not count in thousands…one must count in millions and tens of millions. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves, not only whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but also whether the historically effective forces of all classes- positively of all classes in a given society, without exception- are arrayed in such a way that the decisive battle is at hand- in such a way that: 1) all the class forces hostile to us have become sufficiently entangled, are sufficiently at loggerheads with each other, have sufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle which is beyond their strength; 2) all the vacillating and unstable, intermediate elements- the petty bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeois democrats, as distinct from the bourgeoisie- have sufficiently exposed themselves in the eyes of the people, have sufficiently disgraced themselves, through their practical bankruptcy, and 3) among the proletariat, a mass movement favouring the most determined, bold and dedicated revolutionary action against the bourgeoisie, has emerged and begun to grow vigourously. Then revolution is indeed ripe; then, indeed, if we have correctly gauged all the conditions indicated and summarized above, and if we have chosen the right moment, our victory is assured.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Now it is a matter of convincing the vast majority of working people, and not merely the most advanced workers, of the correctness of our position. That requires ‘’practical action’’, on the part of ‘’millions and tens of millions’’ of workers, as such people are not impressed by propaganda alone. In previous articles, I have suggested such ‘’practical action’’, in great detail, to there is no need to go into it here, in any great detail. But perhaps a brief summary is in order. 

I have identified twelve huge species, which the scientists insist are extinct. They are not extinct, and the directions for locating those animals are clear and simple. Workers who take part in proving their existence, will take part in a major scientific breakthrough, thus building up their confidence and exposing the incompetence of the scientists, those who take great delight in kowtowing to the members of the Oligarchy class.

Several of these animals are commonly referred to as ‘’Lake Monsters’’. Perhaps the most famous such ‘’Monster’’ is that of ‘’Nessie’’, the ‘’Loch Ness Monster’’. As well, the most famous ‘’Monster’’ in North America is commonly referred to as ‘’Ogopogo’’, the animal in Okanagan Lake. As there is a reported two million dollar reward for proving the existence of this animal, that should provide more than sufficient motivation for proving that it exist.

This brings us to an animal which is most wide spread, located on all six continents. In most parts of the world, it is referred to as a ‘’dragon’’. The Chinese have even named a year after this animal. Quite reasonably, they call it the Year of the Dragon. It is also mentioned in the bible, and for hundreds of years, scholars have speculated on the identity of this animal. They can quit speculating, as the animal in question is a pterosaur, commonly referred to as a pterodactyl. It is also famous for releasing a so called ‘’cloud of smoke’’, which is not smoke, but poison gas. It uses this poison gas to kill livestock, including cattle and horses. It then rips the flesh from the face, genitals and tears out the large intestine. It prefers to prey upon the males, for obvious reasons. 

In America, the FBI has seen this so often, they refuse to respond to any such complaints. Not that it is a matter for any law enforcement agency, as no laws have been broken, but this does not resolve the problem. So I am suggesting that workers draw out a sample of blood, from the carcass of an animal which has been killed and mutilated, and send that sample to a lab, to determine the poison gas that was used to kill the animal. As well, swab around the wound sites, and send those swabs to the lab also, for a DNA test. Or better yet, three labs, as the results will certainly be contested. Those labs will confirm that it is the DNA of a reptile, an animal not known to science. Then it is a matter of opening up an old logging road, referred to as the ‘’Ten Thousand Road’’, because the caves in those mountains, which are the nesting ground of the pterodactyl, open up onto that Road. 

In this way, workers will take part in a major scientific breakthrough. Their self confidence will increase, as well as their class awareness, as they realize that the scientists are aware of the existence of these animals, but remain silent, so as not to offend the monopoly capitalists, the multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie, the members of the Oligarchy class. 

This brings us to ‘’Gigantopithecus’’, the largest species of ape ever to walk the earth, and still does. They are bipedal apes, which means that they walk on two legs, and have the opposable thumb, which means that they are able to touch their finger tips, with their thumb. As all species of human have been, and are now, bipedal apes, complete with the opposable thumb, it means that they are human. What is more, they live among us, here in North America.

They are commonly referred to as ‘’Sasquatch’’ or ‘’Bigfoot’’, although I refer to them as ‘’Giants’’, for obvious reasons. They generally make a supreme effort to avoid us, because they know what a vicious bunch we are. 

The exception is that of the First Nations people, whom they trust. For that reason, the Giants go onto the beaches of the Reserves on the West Coast, after sundown. At that time, the people who live on the Reserves stay off the beach. 

My suggestion is that workers get in touch with the Chief and Council of a Reserve, arrange a meeting with the Elders, and explain that we want to prove the Giants exist, so as to pass laws to protect them. The best way to do this is to place food and gifts on the beach, just before sundown. Gifts can include steel mirrors, cosmetics, and burlap bags. As they trust the First Nations people, we can expect them to respond, sooner rather than later. 

On the ‘’political front’’, so to speak, may I suggest that workers join the two mainstream political parties, as card carrying members, and run for office, if only against themselves. The experience gained will convince them, and their supporters, that the ruling class of monopoly capitalists are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge.

Also on that same ‘’political front’’, may I suggest that workers hire, or better yet persuade, an attorney, an expert on Constitutional law, to challenge the 2024 Presidential Election, on the grounds that it was Unconstitutional, as it did not follow the procedure outlined in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution. Bear in mind that our goal is to raise the level of awareness of the working class. Should this challenge result in the removal from office of Trump and Pence, that is to be regarded as a mere bonus.

It is also a fact that Councils, otherwise known as Soviets, have also made an appearance. These Councils are a spontaneous creation of the working class, and make a point in assisting working people, in various ways. Not all of these ways are strictly within the ‘’letter of the law’’. In fact, some of them are down right illegal. These may include arming, equipping and training workers, for the approaching insurrection, which will ‘’kick off’’ the Second American Revolution.

In the interests of learning the fundamentals of Scientific Socialism, may I suggest either buying or downloading, from the internet, the Essential Works of Marx and Lenin. A careful perusal of those works, either alone or as a member of a group, will provide all advanced workers with a fine grounding in communism.

Finally, it is imperative that workers take part in the creation of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The preceding was a brief summary of tasks that workers can attempt, as a means of raising their level of awareness. Granted, these suggestions are somewhat unconventional. Yet each and every one of them is well within the ability of all advanced workers. Allow me to stress the fact that the main thing is to raise their level of awareness. Any scientific breakthrough is to be viewed as merely a bonus, just as any ruling, by the Supreme Court, to the effect that Trump is a fraudulent President, can also be seen as a bonus.

As soon as the level of awareness of the vast majority of workers is raised to that of ‘’direct support for the vanguard’’, which is to say the most advanced workers, or even of ‘’sympathetic neutrality’’, then the ‘’stage is set’’ for the next ‘’act’’ in our revolution, that of the overthrow of the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the smashing of the existing state apparatus, and the establishment of a new state apparatus, that of Scientific Socialism, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. At that point, we can begin to build a new, more equitable society, through a process of gradual, reformist measures. 

With Most Sincere Communist, Scientific Socialist Greetings, Gerald McIsaac  

As is well known, it was the Russian Great Soviet Socialist Revolution of October 25, old style calendar, or November 7, 1917, new style calendar, which gave birth to the first Soviet Socialist Republic. Yet Soviet Russia remained at war with Germany and the Central Powers, until March 3 of 1918, at which time, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed. 

This was followed by a three year civil war, in which various ‘’counter revolutionary’’ armies, otherwise known as the ‘’Whites’’, tried to restore the rule of the capitalists, nobility and landlords. They were opposed by the Soviet Red Army. The ‘’wits’’ of the day joked that the ‘’White Army was an army of officers, but without enlisted men, while the Red Army was an army of enlisted men, but without officers’’. There was an element of truth to this joke! The White Army was composed mainly of former officers of the Russian Army, as it existed under the rule of the Tsar. All of these men were members of one of the ‘’propertied classes’’, which is to say the landlords, nobility or capitalists. Each was determined to restore the rule of their respective class. By contrast, the Red Army was composed of the former enlisted personnel, of that same Russian army, all of whom were members of the class of either the family farmers or workers. They were determined to maintain the Soviet Socialist Republic, if only because the farmers owned the land they tilled, and the workers were allowed to work a mere eight hours a day, instead of the usual eleven to twelve. 

As those efforts were unsuccessful, the leaders of the Allied countries changed tactics. In 1919, the British Minister Churchill, speaking in the House of Commons boasted, ‘’that a campaign of fourteen nations against Soviet Russia had been organized, and that this would result in victory over Russia by the New Year.’’ Of course, this never happened, as those forces were defeated. Yet the fact remains that after seven years of war, Soviet Russia was in very bad shape. To phrase it in popular terms, ‘’Desperate times call for desperate measures’’. 

For that reason, in March 15 of 1921, Lenin wrote an article titled, 

REPORT ON THE SUBSTITUTION OF A TAX IN KIND FOR THE SURPLUS-GRAIN APPROPRIATION SYSTEM

Lenin: ‘’Russia emerged from the war in a state that can most of all be likened to that of a man beaten to within an inch of his life; the beating had gone on for seven years, and its a mercy she can hobble about on crutches! That is the situation we are in! To think that we can get out of this state without crutches is to understand nothing! So long as there is no revolution in other countries, it would take us decades to extricate ourselves, and in these circumstances we cannot grudge hundreds of millions’ or even thousands of millions’ worth of our immense wealth, our rich raw material sources, in order to obtain help from the major capitalists. Later we shall recover it all and to spare. The rule of the proletariat cannot be maintained in a country laid waste as no country has ever been before- a country where the vast majority are peasants who are equally ruined- without the help of capital, for which, of course, exorbitant interest will be extorted. This we must understand. Hence, the choice is between economic relations of this type and nothing at all. He who puts the question otherwise, understands absolutely nothing in practical economics and is side stepping the issue by resorting to gibes. We must recognize the fact that the masses are utterly worn out and exhausted. What can you expect after seven years of war in this country, if the more advanced countries still feel the effects of four years of war?!’’

In the preceding statement, Lenin faced the fact that Soviet Russia, at that time, was not only severely mauled, but also one hundred years behind the most highly industrialized country of the world, which is to say, the United States. The industrial level of Soviet Russia was at the level of development of America, at the time of Jefferson! Lenin further faced the fact that the ‘’rule of the proletariat’’, which is to say the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, within Soviet Russia, ‘’cannot be maintained’’, without the ‘’help of capital’’. That was because the country was surrounded by enemies, those who were determined to crush the first Scientific Socialist Republic in the world. They were afraid that the ‘’contagion might spread’’. Their fears were well grounded! 

Yet Lenin called for ‘’economic relations’’ with the ‘’major capitalists’’, which is to say the countries of Britain, France, Italy, Germany and America, the same countries which were so determined to destroy Soviet Russia. He did this by appealing to their sense of greed. As a return on their invested capital, they would charge ‘’exorbitant interest rates’’, and make a great fortune. But as Soviet Russia had ‘’immense wealth’’, in the form of ‘’raw material resources’’, this they could afford, and ‘’down the road’’, they would ‘’recover it all to spare’’. There was no other way!

This brings us to the question of ‘’concessions’’, and an article Lenin wrote in December of 1921:

REPORT ON CONCESSIONS DELIVERED TO THE R.C.P.(B) GROUP AT THE EIGHTH CONGRESS OF SOVIETS 

Lenin: ‘’To the best of our knowledge, the question of concessions has everywhere aroused considerable concern and even anxiety….we have driven out our own capitalists, and now we want to admit others. I believe that this apprehension, this widespread interest in concessions….is a good sign….Yet I think that we shall come to the conclusion that, in the question of concessions, we cannot be guided by this revolutionary instinct alone.’’

Lenin clearly found it most encouraging, that so many common people were afraid of a return to capitalism. So it was necessary to explain to them that concessions was a necessary form of ‘’retreat’’, as so often happens in war, in order to ‘’regroup’’ and once again, go on the offensive.

Lenin: ‘’Any war is merely the continuation of peacetime politics by other means, and second, that the concessions which we are giving, which we are forced to give, are a continuation of war in another form, using other means. To prove these two premises, or rather to prove only the second because the first does not require any special proof, I shall begin with the political aspect of the question. I shall dwell on those relations existing between the present day imperialist powers, which are important for an understanding of present day foreign policy in its entirety, and of our reasons for adopting this policy.’’

The ‘’war’’ to which Lenin was referring, is the class war, between the common people, both workers and family farmers, against the monopoly capitalists, the imperialists. He was also careful to specify the ‘’present day’’ conditions, which called for that particular policy. The point is that such conditions are constantly changing, which frequently calls for a change in tactics.

This was followed by the report of a letter by the ‘’American Vanderlip’’, a well known imperialist, who was convinced of an approaching ‘’clash with Japan’’. So the Americans wanted oil, but they also wanted to make sure that the Japanese did not get any. For that reason, they wanted concessions near Kamchatka. 

Lenin: ‘’Vanderlip’s letter is quite outspoken; with unparalleled cynicism he outlines the point of view of an imperialist who clearly sees that war with Japan is imminent, and poses the question openly and directly- enter into a deal with us and you will get certain advantages from it.’’

It is not very often that the imperialists are so openly cynical. They are generally more ‘’bashful’’, trying to hide their predatory motives. Lenin then explained that the area in question was under the control of the Japanese.

Lenin: ‘’Nevertheless, we cannot go to war with Japan, and must make every effort, not only to put off a war with Japan but, if possible, to avert it because, for reasons known to you, it is beyond our strength….we are a Socialist Republic surrounded by imperialist countries that are far stronger than us in the military sense, are using every means of agitation and propaganda to increase hatred for the Soviet Republic, and will never miss an opportunity for military intervention, as they put it, e.g., to strangle Soviet power….we have been able to hold out and have been able to defeat the Entente powers- an alliance of unparalleled might that was supported by our White Guards- only because there has been no unity among these powers….The deeper and more formidable the communist movement grows, the greater will be the number of new attempts to strangle our Republic. Hence our policy of utilizing the discord among the imperialist powers so as to hamper an agreement or to make one temporarily impossible. This has been the fundamental line of our policy for three years….This political line of conduct enjoins us to grasp at a proposal on the granting of concessions. Today we are giving America Kamchatka, which in any case is not actually ours, because it is held by Japanese troops. At the moment, we are in no condition to fight Japan. We are giving America, for economic exploitation, a territory where we have absolutely no naval or military forces, and where we cannot send them. By doing so, we are setting American imperialism against Japanese imperialism….Thus, our main interests were political at the concessions negotiations….It follows, therefore, that in this matter the economic interest is secondary, its real value lying in its political interest.’’

Remarkably enough, the tactic of granting a certain concession, served a dual purpose, the primary purpose being political, the secondary purpose being economic. This led to that which Lenin referred to as a ‘’terrific aggravation of the enmity between Japan and America, and thus an undoubted slackening of both Japanese and American pressure on us’’. 

This led to a rather strange question, but one which I suspect is rather common place, so it must be addressed:

Lenin: ‘’At the meeting of executives in Moscow, where I had to mention the fact, the following question was asked. ‘It appears,’ one of the comrades wrote, ‘that we are driving Japan and America to war, but it is the workers and peasants who will do the fighting. Although these are imperialist powers, is it worthy of us socialists to drive two powers into a war against each other, which will lead to the shedding of workers’ blood?’ I replied that  if we were really driving workers and peasants to war, that would be a crime. All our politics and propaganda, however, are directed towards putting an end to war, and in no way towards driving nations to war. Experience has shown sufficiently that the socialist revolution is the only way out of eternal warfare. Our policy, therefore, is not that of involving others in a war. We have not done anything justifying, directly or indirectly, a war between Japan and America….Socialists should think, not of defending their respective countries, but of overthrowing the power of the capitalists; they should think of the workers’ revolution. Is it the correct policy for us to use the discord between the imperialist bandits, to make it more difficult for them to unite against us, who are doing everything in our power to accelerate that revolution, but are in the position of a weak socialist republic, that is being attacked by imperialist bandits? Of course, it is the correct policy.’’ 

That explanation is perfectly clear, and requires no further comment. Concerning trade negotiations with Britain, Lenin had the following to say:

‘’We are, however, proposing maximum concessions, and we believe it to be in our interests to sign a trade pact and purchase with all possible dispatch some of the essentials for the restoration of the railways (e.g., locomotives), for the rehabilitation of industry, and for electrification. This is more important to us than anything else. If we achieve that, we shall become so strong in a few years that even, if the worst comes to the worst and there is armed intervention in a few years time, it will fail, because we are stronger than we are now.’’

History has proven the previous statement to be most emphatically true! The highly industrialized, capitalist countries of Western Europe were unable to withstand the Nazi juggernaut of 1939 and 1940. They were crushed with relative ease. Yet the Soviet Union was able to rise to the occasion, to withstand the Nazi invasion and emerge victorious, in part because they were highly industrialized, as a result of the concessions granted to the foreign capitalists. This brings us to the labour laws.

Lenin: ‘’The fifth clause in the agreement deals with the code of labour laws. In the original draft of the agreement, which was discussed with Vanderlip, provision was made for the withdrawal of the application of the labour code in localities inhabited by under developed tribes, we cannot say which. In such places, no code of labour laws is possible. The labour code was to be replaced in such areas by a special agreement on guarantees for the workers.’’

This calls for a little clarification. In a speech Lenin gave earlier, on April 11, 1921, titled, ‘’Report On Concessions’’, Lenin stated that:

‘’1. The concessionaire shall improve the condition of the workers employed at the concession enterprises (as compared with that of other workers employed at similar enterprises in the area) up to the average standard abroad.’’

Clearly, in most cases of concessions, the workers stand to receive a rather handsome wage. Areas in which ‘’underdeveloped tribes’’ existed, were exceptional. 

This is followed by a listing of the three main groups of concessions, timber concessions in the Far North, mining concessions in Siberia, and agricultural concessions. 

Lenin: ‘’Our economic interest in timber concessions in the Far North of European Russia is obvious; there are tens and even hundreds of millions of dessiantines of forest land which we are quite unable to exploit, because we lack the railways, the means of production, and the possibility of providing the workers there with food, but which could be exploited by a country that owns a big merchant fleet, and could fell and saw timber properly, and export it in tremendous quantities.’’

Instead of allowing all that timber to rot, the Soviets offered a great deal of it as concessions to foreign capitalists. And in return:

Lenin: ‘’Our chief interest is in obtaining as quickly as possible, from the capitalist countries, the means of production (locomotives, machinery and electrical equipment) without which we cannot more or less seriously rehabilitate our industry, or perhaps may even be unable to do so at all, because the machinery needed by our factories cannot be made available. It is with the motive of extra profit that we must attract the capitalist. He will get surplus profit- well, let him have that surplus profit; we shall obtain the fundamentals that will help strengthen us; we shall stand firmly on our own feet, and shall win in the economic field.’’

Soviet Russia set themselves the goal of doing in ten years, that which it took the highly industrialized countries of the world, one hundred years! By and large, they succeeded in this goal! In no small part due to the New Economic Policy which Lenin had initiated, years before. But then industry needs electricity:

Lenin: ‘’You will see from the special plan for the electrification of Russia, drawn up for several decades, that this plan, together with the additional work for the rehabilitation of industry, will involve an approximate expenditure of something like 17,000 million gold rubles. Electrification alone will require the direct expenditure of more than 1,000 million rubles in gold. We cannot cover this with our gold reserves.’’

Clearly, the electrification of Russia, which was absolutely essential for such industries as mining and factories, was made possible, at least in part, through timber concessions.

Lenin: ‘’The second type is agricultural concessions. With the exception of West Siberia with its vast expanses of excellent land, inaccessible to us because of its great distance from railways, there are in European Russia and along the River Ural alone…excellent lands that must be brought under the plow, but which we cannot cultivate because of the shortage of draught animals and our weakened productive forces…. At present, we have two tractor plants functioning, in Moscow and Petrograd, but in consequence of the difficult conditions that obtain, they cannot produce tractors in large numbers. We could ease the situation by purchasing a greater number of tractors. Tractors are most important means of effecting a radical change in the old farming methods, and of extending the area cultivated. By such concessions, we shall show a large number of countries that we are able to develop the world economy on a gigantic scale.’’

Tractors can cultivate far more land than any draught animal. The more land cultivated, the more crops grown, the more food for people. 

Lenin: ‘’Mining concessions are the third type. These are indicated on the map of Siberia, with details of each area in which concessions are being considered. Siberia’s mineral wealth is literally boundless, and at best, even given significant progress, we cannot exploit even a hundredth part of it for many years. The minerals are to be found in conditions that demand the best machinery. There are such products as copper ore, which the capitalists need badly for their electrical industry, because it is in such short supply. It is possible to rehabilitate the world economy, and improve the world’s technology, if they enter into regular relations with us.’’

As mining equipment must be of the ‘’best machinery’’, it stands to reason that it is exceptionally expensive. Or as the capitalists would state, it requires a ‘’major capital investment’’. Far beyond the limited ability of Soviet Russia, at that time. But well within the financial range of concessions.

Of course, there was strong opposition to the New Economic Policy, so that Lenin had to argue passionately for its necessity. On December 21, 1920, at the Eighth All Russia Congress of Soviets, he addressed certain concerns, as expressed by a non Party peasant, who was afraid that the granting of concessions would result in ‘’selling out Mother Russia’’. 

Lenin: ‘’I heartily welcome such sentiments, which are very wide spread. I think it is highly indicative that during these three years, the masses of non Party working people- not only industrial workers but peasants as well- have acquired the political and economic experience, which enables and compels them to value their liberation from the capitalists above all else, which compels them to exercise redoubled caution, and to treat with extreme suspicion, every step that involves the possibility of new dangers of the restoration of capitalism. Of course, we give the greatest consideration to all declarations of this kind, but we must say that there is no question of selling out Russia to the capitalists. It is a question of concessions; any concession agreement is limited to a definite period and by definite terms. It is hedged around with all possible guarantees, by guarantees that have been carefully considered, and will be considered and discussed with you again and again, at the present Congress and at various other conferences. These temporary agreements have nothing to do with any selling out. There is not a hint in them of selling Russia. What they do represent is a certain economic concession to the capitalists, the purpose of which is to enable us, as soon as possible, to secure the necessary machinery and locomotives, without which we cannot effect the restoration of our economy. We have no right to neglect anything that may, in however small a measure, help us to improve the conditions of the workers and peasants.’’

The key wording here involves ‘’limited’’ to a ‘’definite period’’ and by ‘’definite terms’’. The capitalists were bound by contract, allowed to build their factories, mills, mines and electric generating plants, while employing local workers, in order to make their huge profits, while paying a certain rent, and then at a certain time, to vacate the premises, leaving behind all their equipment. It was only in this way that Soviet Russia was able to become highly industrialized, within a few short years. 

Lenin went into more details, concerning the New Economic Policy, in his article of April 21, 1921, titled The Tax In Kind, (The  Significance of  the  New Policy and  Its  Conditions)

Under the section titled, Tax In Kind, Freedom to Trade and Concessions

Lenin: ‘’In a very large number of cases, the peasant ‘poor’ (proletarians and semi proletarians) have become middle peasants. This has caused an increase in the small proprietor, petty bourgeois ‘element’. The Civil War of 1918-20 aggravated the havoc in the country, retarded the restoration of the productive forces, and bled the proletariat more than any other class. ….

‘’As a result, the political situation in the spring of 1921 was such that immediate, very resolute and urgent measures had to be taken to improve the condition of the peasants, and to increase their productive forces.

‘’Why the peasants and not the workers?

‘’Because you need grain and fuel to improve the conditions of the workers. This is the biggest ‘hitch’ at the present time, from the standpoint of the economy as a whole. For it is impossible to increase the production and collection of grain, and the storage and delivery of fuel, except by improving the condition of the peasantry, and raising their productive forces. We must start with the peasantry. Those who fail to understand this, and think this putting the peasantry in the forefront is ‘renunciation’ of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or something like that, simply do not stop to think, and allow themselves to be swayed by the power of words. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the direction of policy by the proletariat. The proletariat, as the leading and ruling class, must be able to direct policy in such a way as to solve first the most urgent and ‘vexed’ problem. The most urgent thing, at the present time, is to take measures that will immediately increase the productive forces of peasant farming. Only in this way will it be possible to improve the condition of the workers, strengthen the alliance between the workers and peasants, and consolidate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The proletarian, or representative of the proletariat, who refused to improve the condition of the workers in this way would in fact prove himself to be an accomplice of the white guards and the capitalists….(italics by Lenin) 

The ‘’tax in kind’’ was a ‘’retreat’’ from Scientific Socialism, but a necessary retreat. The one and only way, in which the living conditions of the common people, the workers and farmers could be improved, was by enacting this tax in kind. This would serve to motivate the farmers to grow more crops, as well as raise more draught animals, so that more food and fuel could be delivered to the workers in the cities. Yet in precisely what manner would the farmers be effected? Lenin addressed this in the same article

Lenin: ‘’Thus, the first thing we need is immediate and serious measures to raise the productive forces of the peasantry.

‘’This cannot be done without making important changes in our food supply. One such change was the replacement of the surplus appropriation system by the tax in kind, which implies a free market, at least in local economic exchange, after the tax has been paid.

‘’What is the essence of this change?….Under this peculiar War Communism, we actually took from the peasant all his surpluses- and sometimes even a part of his necessaries- to meet the requirements of the army and sustain the workers.’’

Immediately after Soviet Russia secured peace with Germany and the Central Powers, there ensued a three year civil war. This gave birth to that which Lenin refers to as a ‘’War Communism’’, in that all of the surplus crop of the farmer, and sometimes a little more, was taken and given to the workers and the army. What choice did they have? Yet the farmer had no reason to grow more than he needed, as he knew that he would merely lose it all.

Lenin: ‘’The correct policy of the proletariat exercising its dictatorship, in a small peasant country, is to obtain grain in exchange for the manufactured goods the peasant needs. That is the only kind of food policy that corresponds to the tasks of the proletariat, and can strengthen the foundations of socialism and lead to its complete victory.

‘’The tax in kind is a transition to this policy. We are still so ruined and crushed by the burden of war….that we cannot give the peasant manufactured goods in return for all the grain we need. Being aware of this, we are introducing the tax in kind, that is, we shall take the minimum of grain we require (for the army and the workers) in the form of a tax, and obtain the rest in exchange for manufactured goods.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is significant that, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in a ‘’small peasant country’’, the ‘’correct policy’’ is to ‘’exchange grain for the manufactured goods the peasant needs’’. Yet under the conditions that existed in Soviet Russia, after seven years of war, this was simply not possible. So a ‘’transitional’’ measure was adopted,  which is to say a temporary measure, in the form of a ‘’tax in kind’’, in that a portion of the grain the farmer grows was taken as a tax, and the remainder was ‘’exchanged for manufactured goods’’. Not money! Yet that ‘’remainder’’ served as an inducement to grow a surplus, so that it could be exchanged for manufactured goods. Yet where were those manufactured goods to be produced?

Lenin: ‘’There is something else we must not forget. Our poverty and ruin are so great, that we cannot restore large scale socialist state industry at one stroke. This can be done with large stocks of grain and fuel in the big industrial centres, replacement of worn out machinery, and so on. …Hence, it is necessary, to a certain extent, to help to restore small industry, which does not demand of the state machines, large stocks of raw materials, fuel and food, and which can immediately render some assistance to peasant farming and improve its productive forces right away. 

‘’What is to be the effect of all this?

‘’It is the revival of the petty bourgeoisie and of capitalism on the basis of some freedom of trade (if only local). That much is certain, and it is ridiculous to shut our eyes to it.

‘’Is it necessary? Can it be justified? Is it not dangerous?

‘’Many such questions are being asked, and most are merely evidence of simple mindedness, to put it mildly.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Certain individuals, those who might be classified as ‘’Ultra Left’’, were quick to object that the ultimate goal of Scientific Socialism is a ‘’classless society’’, and that this ‘’tax in kind’’, as part of the ‘’New Economic Policy’’, which included a return to ‘’small industry’’, to ‘’local capitalism’’, was completely unacceptable. 

As if we live in an ideal world! We most certainly do not! We have to start with what we have on hand, and proceed from there. To even suggest that we should attempt to ‘’skip over’’ various stages of development, is at best, ‘‘simple minded’’. 

Lenin: ‘’What is the policy the socialist proletariat can pursue in the face of this economic reality? Is it to give the small peasant all he needs of the goods produced by large scale socialist industries in exchange for his grain and raw materials? This would be the most desirable and ‘correct’ policy- and we have started on it. But we cannot supply all the goods, very far from it…

‘’The alternative (and this is the only sensible and the last possible policy) is not to try to prohibit, or put the lock on the development of capitalism, but to channel it into state capitalism. This is economically possible, for state capitalism exists- in varying forms and degrees- wherever there are elements of unrestricted trade and capitalism in general.’’ (italics by Lenin)

To think that under a state of Scientific Socialism, which is to say Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we could also have  ‘’state capitalism’’. Remarkable! Even if only under the conditions of a ‘’small peasant country’’. 

In a ‘’small peasant country’’, as was Russia, immediately after the Revolution, with no highly industrialized neighbouring socialist countries to offer assistance, there was no alternative to ‘’state capitalism’’. It is very likely that after the approaching World Scientific Socialist Revolution, the highly developed countries will offer assistance to the agrarian countries, which will also be experiencing revolution, thus eliminating the need for state capitalism, in those countries.

Lenin: ‘’Can the Soviet state and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat be combined with state capitalism? Are they compatible?

‘’Of course they are. …Those who compare state capitalism only with socialism commit a host of mistakes, for in the present political and economic circumstances, it is essential to compare state capitalism also with petty bourgeois production.

‘’The whole problem- in theoretical and practical terms- is to find the correct methods of directing the development of capitalism (which is to some extent and for some time inevitable) into the channels of state capitalism, and to determine how we are to hedge it about with conditions to ensure transformation into socialism, in the near future.’’ 

Lenin made it quite clear that, under the conditions then existing, within Soviet Russia, state capitalism held no terrors for him. It was simply a matter of ‘’directing the development’’ of that capitalism, while surrounding it with ‘’conditions’’, or controls, if you prefer, to ‘’ensure its transformation into socialism’’. Under no circumstances was state capitalism to be allowed to evolve into monopoly capitalism!

This is followed by a rather lengthy section concerning the ‘’cooperatives’’, which are also a form of state capitalism, ‘’but a less simple one’’, ‘’more intricate’’.  

Lenin: ‘’Take the cooperatives. It is not surprising that the tax in kind decree immediately necessitated a revision  of the regulations governing the cooperatives and a certain extension of their ‘freedom’ and rights. The cooperatives are also a form of state capitalism, but a less simple one;  its outline is less distinct, it is more intricate and therefore creates greater practical difficulties for the government. The small commodity producers’ cooperatives (and it is these, and not the workers’ cooperatives, that we are discussing as the predominant and typical form in a small peasant country) inevitably give rise to petty bourgeois, capitalist relations, facilitate their development, push the small capitalists into the foreground and benefit them most. It cannot be otherwise, since the small proprietors predominate, and exchange is necessary and possible. In Russia’s present conditions, freedom and rights for the cooperative societies mean freedom and rights for capitalism. It would be stupid or criminal to close our eyes to this obvious truth.

‘’But, unlike private capitalism, ‘cooperative’ capitalism, under the Soviet system is a variety of state capitalism, and as such it is advantageous and useful for us at the present time- in certain measure, of course. Since the tax in kind means the free sale of surplus grain (over and above that taken in the form of the tax), we must exert every effort to direct this development of capitalism- for a free market is development of capitalism- into the channels of cooperative capitalism. It resembles state capitalism in that it facilitates accounting, control, supervision and the establishment of contractural relations between the state (in this case the Soviet state) and the capitalist. Cooperative trade is more advantageous and useful than private trade, not only for the above mentioned reasons, but also because it facilitate the association and organization of millions of people, and eventually of the entire population, and this in its turn is an enormous gain from the standpoint of the subsequent transition from state capitalism to socialism….

‘’Cooperatives are based on small, handicraft, and partly even on patriarchal industry….Cooperative societies embrace many thousands of and even millions of small proprietors….The transition from small proprietor cooperatives to socialism is a transition from small to large scale production, i.e., it is more complicated, but, if successful, is capable of embracing wider masses of the population, and pulling up the deeper and more tenacious roots of the old, pre socialist and even pre capitalist relations, which most stubbornly resist all ‘innovations’. …The cooperative policy, if successful, will result in raising the small economy and in facilitating its transition, within an indefinite period, to large scale production, on the basis of voluntary association.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Allow me to stress the fact that the New Economic Policy of Lenin, was necessary and exceptional. The concessions, the tax in kind and the cooperatives, were forced upon Soviet Russia. The country was vast, largely agrarian, and surrounded by capitalist countries, all of whom were determined to crush this upstart Soviet Socialist Republic. It was absolutely necessary to become highly industrialized, and quickly, as otherwise, they were sure to be defeated. It is highly unlikely that such an event will take place again.

The current revolutionary motion, which is sweeping the world, is bound to give rise to Scientific Socialist revolutions, in numerous countries, and not just those which are highly industrialized. Equally without doubt, the more developed socialist countries will assist the common people in the less developed socialist countries. For that reason, there will be no need to develop ‘’state capitalism’’ in those countries.

As for those who may suggest that I am being wildly optimistic, in that I am predicting successful Scientific Socialist revolutions, in so many countries of the world, allow me to respond that I am merely basing my opinion upon the writings of Marx and Lenin. In those people, I have complete confidence.

Now it is up to us, Scientific Socialists, Communists, true followers of Marx and Lenin, to do our part, by raising the level of awareness of the common people, both workers and family farmers, making them aware of those revolutionary theories. Of course, this requires the creation of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As well, the existence of the internet makes our task so much easier. 

With Most Sincere Scientific Socialist Greetings, 

Gerald McIsaac

Even after the two successful Scientific Socialist Revolutions, in Russia and China, the capitalists were able to return to power. No one in his right mind is about to argue that point. It is also a fact that the capitalists in Russia, or more accurately the Soviet Union, were able to return to power after the death of Stalin, in 1953. It is to the credit of the Chinese Communist Party, that they conducted a proper criticism of Stalin, at that time, and concluded that Stalin was a fine Communist, but had made some serious mistakes. Yet as best I can gather- because I have been unable to get my hands on that ‘’proper criticism’’, due to the unofficial censorship by the capitalists- the Chinese made no mention of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

I consider this to be a significant oversight, which needs to be addressed. As Lenin stated, in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, written in 1920:

‘’In Russia today, the connection between leaders, Party, class and masses, as well as the attitude of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and its Party to the trade unions, are concretely as follows: the Dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organized in the Soviets; the proletariat is guided by the Communist Party of Bolsheviks….The Party, which holds annual Congresses.…is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen elected at the Congress, while the current work in Moscow has to be carried on by still smaller bodies, known as the Organizing Bureau and the Political Bureau, which are elected at plenary meetings of the Central Committee, five members of the Central Committee to each Bureau. This, it would appear, is a full fledged ‘oligarchy’. No important political or organizational question is decided by any state institution in our republic, without the guidance of the Party’s Central Committee’’.

The astute reader may well have noticed that Lenin made no mention of the role of any ‘’President’’ or ‘’Prime Minister’’, if only because there was none! In fact, as the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and as the head of the government of the Soviet Union, his title was that of ‘’Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars’’. He was no doubt a Member of the Central Committee, and possibly also a Member of the Political Bureau, or of the Organizing Bureau, if not both. Yet he held no office independent of the Central Committee. Further, all Members of the Central Committee are elected ‘’annually’’, including the Chairman!

This brings us to his successor, Josef Stalin. Officially, his title was ‘’General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’’, as well as ‘’Premier of the Soviet Union’’, and ‘’Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars’’.

After the Nazi invasion of 1941, he was referred to as ‘’Supreme Leader of the USSR’’, as well as ‘’Marshall of the Soviet Union’’. It is very likely that these titles were ‘’honorary’’, for purposes of negotiating with foreign powers, which is to say Britain and America, in the interests of winning the ‘’Great Patriotic War’’, as that is the official name by which the Soviet Union referred to the Second World War.  

This in no way changes the fact that Stalin was a Member of the Central Committee, and as such, was subject to a vote, held ‘’annually’’, which means once a year, at the Congress of the Communist Party. It also means that the other Members of the Central Committee were his ‘’closest advisors’’. It was the duty of all Members of the Central Committee, to point out any serious mistakes being made, by the ‘’General Secretary’’. Further, it is also the duty of all Members of the Central Committee, to remove from office any General Secretary, who persists in such inappropriate behaviour. Clearly, this never happened, and the Central Committee was never held accountable.

It is also a fact that upon the death of Stalin, in 1953, it was Khrushchev who became General Secretary of the Communist Party, and promptly restored capitalism in the Soviet Union. Here too, the Central Committee failed to perform their duty.

As is well known, the Chinese Communist Party responded to this, by launching the Chinese Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. As a result of that Cultural Revolution, the common people were well schooled in the class struggle. As well, the capitalists who were hiding in various fields of culture, were ‘’rooted out’’. Yet as the Cultural Revolution was largely confined to culture, merely touching upon science, the capitalists who were hiding in various fields of science, remained hidden, biding their time.

The members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, were negligent in their duty to advise their Chairman, Mao Tse Tung, that the Cultural Revolution should have expanded to include all fields of science! As well, they should have further advised him to conduct a proper purging of the Party. 

The reason I mention this lack of a proper purging of the Party, is because Mao chose to ‘’patiently struggle’’ with the revisionists, those who had ‘’weaselled’’ their way into the Party, pointing out to them the ‘’error of their ways’’. Not that there was any need to point out these ‘’errors’’, as they were deliberate revisions! This was generally followed by a fake ‘’self criticism’’, possibly complete with ‘’waterworks’’, which is to say ‘’tears of repentance’’, and a ‘’return to duty’’.

As a result, numerous revisionists remained embedded within the Party, even within the Central Committee. The true Communist Members of the Central Committee should never have allowed this to happen. They should have pointed out to Mao his mistakes, and if he persisted, they should have removed him from office, a true purging. The periodic purging of the Communist Party, as recommended by Lenin, must not be limited to the low ranking members of that Party.

Yet this never happened, and as a result, after the death of Mao, the revisionists ‘’made their move’’, and were able to restore capitalism in China. As I have documented this, in a previous article, there is no need to repeat it here.

As for those who may object, quite reasonably, that there is ‘’strength in numbers’’, may I suggest that applies to such mass organizations as trade unions and ‘’Associations’’, not to the Communist Party. 

In the interests of stressing the importance of a proper periodic purging of the Communist Party, I have chosen to include a related article, by Lenin.

In June of 1919, Lenin wrote an article titled, A Great Beginning, Heroism of the Workers In the Rear, ‘’Communist Subbbotniks’’

For the benefit of those who have just recently become politically active, I should mention that it was only in June of 1919, almost two years after the successful October Revolution of 1917, that Soviet workers felt motivated to volunteer to go to work, generally on a weekend, on their own time. This was referred to as a ‘’subbotnik’’. They did this in the interests of building a proper Scientific Socialist Republic. Hence, the title of the article. 

I mention this for a reason. The fact of the matter is that certain advanced workers will soon be taking part in the creation of a Scientific Socialist Communist Party. As that is the case, it is necessary to bring them ‘’up to speed’’, to the level of ‘’Conscious People’’, at least in regard to Party activity, and this must be done immediately. As well as becoming aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, a certain knowledge of our revolutionary history is helpful. 

Lenin: ‘’The heroism of the workers in the rear is no less worthy of attention. In this connection, the communist subbotniks, organized by the workers on their own initiative, are really of enormous significance. Evidently, this is only a beginning, but it is a beginning of exceptionally great importance….for it is a victory over our own conservatism, indiscipline, petty bourgeois egoism, a victory over the habits left as a heritage to the worker and peasant by accursed capitalism.’’ (italics by Lenin)

In honour of that ‘’momentous occasion’’, Lenin called for the purging of the Communist Party:

‘’In the early period following the revolution…when the bourgeois intellectuals ….played the lackeys to the bourgeoisie and carried on sabotage, it was absolutely inevitable that adventurers and other pernicious elements, should hitch themselves, to the ruling party. There has never been, and there never can be, a revolution without that. The whole point is that the ruling party should be able, relying on a strong and advanced class, to purge its ranks….The mobilization of Communists for the war helped us in this respect; the cowards and scoundrels fled from the Party’s ranks. Good riddance! Such a reduction in the Party’s membership means an enormous increase in its strength and weight. We must continue the purge, and that new beginning, the ‘communist subbotniks’, must be utilized for this purpose.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Such a purging is commonly referred to as ‘’clearing out the deadwood’’. We need dedicated Scientific Socialists, true Communists, in our Communist Party, not people who are merely trying to ‘’get ahead’’. Such ‘’career seekers’’, tend to view membership in the Party as merely a ‘’stepping stone’’, as part of ‘’climbing the ladder of success’’. Then too, there are loyal, dedicated, die hard flunkies of the Oligarchy, technically referred to as ‘’sycophants’’, who will join the Party, in an effort to sabotage any and all revolutionary work. They seem to take great delight in degrading themselves, as they make every effort to serve the Oligarchy. Both types must be purged from the Party, at the earliest opportunity. 

As for those who consider it important to ‘’struggle’’ with those who are considered to be ‘’centrists’’, who tend to ‘’vacillate’’, I can only respond that you should struggle with such people outside the Communist Party! We need dedicated revolutionaries, not members who are unreliable. Bear in mind that the Chinese capitalists were able to return to power in China, partly because many of their agents had infiltrated the Party, and succeeded in rising to high ranking positions. 

Now to return to Soviet Russia, at the time of Lenin. An individual, by the name of Karl Kautsky, earned the dubious distinction of incurring the wrath of Lenin. In fact, Lenin referred to Kautsky as his ‘’bitterest enemy’’. He said that there was no point in fighting with Kautsky, it was merely a matter of ‘’exposing his apostasy’’. 

I should mention, for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the term- as I was not- that an ‘’apostasy’’ is defined as ‘’an abandonment of a religious or political belief’’. There can be no doubt that, at one time, Kautsky was a fine Marxist theoretician. His early writings leave no room for doubt, in that department. Yet once he ‘’turned his coat’’, and became a traitor, a renegade, he became a superb revisionist! To this day, the capitalists are ‘’singing his praises’’! His distortions of the revolutionary theories of Scientific Socialism remain a masterpiece of deception.

It has been suggested, by various well meaning Communists, that Kautsky was a centrist, and that Lenin never broke with him, but patiently struggled with him. Such is hardly the case. Kautsky was a master of ‘’illusion’’. He ‘’appeared’’ to ‘’take a stand’’, he ‘’implied’’, he ’’led people to believe’’ something, which was not true. For example, he would say, ‘’If that were true…’’, which is not a denial, nor is it an admission! Yet people would tend to believe that it was a denial!

In 1918, Kautsky wrote an article titled, ‘’The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’, in which he distorted and revised this key revolutionary theory of Marx. Lenin responded to this in 1919, with his own article, ‘’The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky’’. As Lenin stated, in his Preface to that article, ‘’By means of patent sophistry, Marxism is stripped of its revolutionary living spirit; everything is recognized in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of struggle, the propaganda and preparation of these methods, and the education of the masses in this direction’’. (italics by Lenin)

As we take part in the creation of a true Scientific Socialist Communist Party, we can expect ‘’career seekers’’ and ‘’revisionists’’, to attempt to ‘’weasel’’ their way into the Party. It is best to ‘’stop them cold’’, to ‘’nip this in the bud’’. Those who do succeed in penetrating, must be purged, at the earliest opportunity. Party members who insist in ‘’struggling with centrists’’, with a view to ‘’bringing them into the fold’’, must also be purged. The members of the Central Committee must also be held responsible for advising the General Secretary, assuming that is the title given. Any and all members of the Party must be held responsible for their actions. In this way, we can ensure that the Oligarchy will never return to power.

With Most Sincere Scientific Socialist Communist Greetings, Gerald McIsaac

Lenin wrote this article, two and one half years after the successful Russian Great October Soviet Socialist Revolution, of 1917. He summarized the lessons learned from the experience gained, under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

The article begins with Section I:

IN WHAT SENSE WE CAN SPEAK OF THE INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

Lenin: ‘’In the first months after the proletariat in Russia had won political power (October 25, old style calendar, or November 7, new style calendar), it might have seemed that the enormous differences between backward Russia and the advanced countries of Western Europe, would lead to the proletarian revolution in the latter countries, bearing very little resemblance to ours. We now possess quite considerable international experience, which shows very definitely that certain fundamental features of our revolution have a significance that is not local, or peculiarly national, or Russian alone, but international. I am not speaking here of international significance in the broad sense of the term: not merely several but all the primary features of our revolution, and many of its secondary features, are of international significance in the meaning of its effects on all countries. I am speaking of it in the narrowest sense of the word, taking international significance to mean the international validity or the historic inevitability of a repetition, on an international scale, of what has taken place in our country. It must be admitted that certain fundamental features of our revolution do possess that significance.’’

Without doubt, the forth coming international revolutions, and not just here in North America, will closely resemble the October Revolution of Soviet Russia. We are well advised to learn the lessons of that Revolution. Lenin goes on to say:

‘’At the present moment in history, however, it is the Russian model that reveals to all countries something- and something highly significant- of their near and inevitable future. Advanced workers in all lands have long realized this; more often than not, they have grasped it with their revolutionary class instinct, rather than realized it.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Now it is up to those of us who are Scientific Socialists, which is to say Communists, to raise the level of awareness, of the most advanced workers, to a state of ‘’Conscious People’’, in that they are aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin.

This brings us to Section II:

AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF THE BOLSHEVIKS’ SUCCESS

‘’It is, I think, almost universally realized at present, that the Bolsheviks could not have retained power for two and a half months, let alone two and a half years, without the most rigorous and truly iron discipline in our Party, or without the fullest and unreserved support from the entire mass of the working class, that is, from all thinking, honest, devoted and influential elements in it, capable of leading the backward strata, or carrying the latter along with them.

‘’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 a single 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 bourgeoise 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.

‘’I repeat the experience of the victorious Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in Russia, has clearly shown even to those who are incapable of thinking, or have had no occasion to give thought to the matter, that the absolute centralization and rigorous discipline of the proletariat, are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Allow me to stress the fact that the class struggle, or more accurately the class war, will not end with a successful Scientific Socialist Revolution, one which gives rise to Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. On the contrary, the resistance of the Oligarchy class will ‘’increase tenfold’’, and we can count on them to take full advantage of their ‘’international connections’’. As well, there is the fact that ‘’small scale production’’, which is still wide spread, ’’engenders capitalism’’. This calls for a ‘’single inflexibly will’’, which is only possible through the actions of a true Scientific Socialist Communist Party.

Lenin went on to state: 

‘’The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and- if you wish- merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people- primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end in phrase mongering and clowning.’’ (italics by Lenin)

In the preceding paragraph, Lenin makes clear that the successful Scientific Socialist Revolution is possible, only if led by a true Communist Party. The ‘’political leadership exercised by the vanguard’’, is a reference to the actions of the Communist Party.

This brings us to Section III:

THE PRINCIPLE STAGES IN THE HISTORY OF BOLSHEVISM

‘’The years of revolution (1905-07). All classes came out into the open. All programmatical and tactical views were tested by the action of the masses. In its extent and acuteness, the strike struggle had no parallel anywhere in the world. The economic strike developed into a political strike, and the latter into insurrection. The relations between the proletariat, as the leader, and the vacillating and unstable peasantry, as the led, were tested in practice. The Soviet form of organization came into being, in the spontaneous development of the struggle. The controversies of that period over the significance of the Soviets anticipated the great struggle of 1917-20.’’

The Revolution, to which Lenin is referring, has gone down in history as the First Russian Revolution of 1905. It first gave birth, spontaneously, to that which is known as Soviets, or Councils in English. We now know that it is the industrial proletariat, those who work in industry, who first create Soviets, and then those Soviets spread to rural areas, to farm worker, to family farmers, and to the military. These Soviets have since spread around the world, including North America, and are largely working ‘’underground’’, largely illegally, in service to the common people, the workers and family farmers.

Lenin: ‘’The years of reaction (1907-10). Tsarist was victorious. All the revolutionary and opposition parties were smashed. Depression, demoralization, splits, discord, deflection, and pornography took the place of politics. There was an ever growing drift towards philosophical idealism; mysticism became the garb of counter revolutionary sentiments. At the same time, however, it was this great defeat that taught the revolutionary parties and the revolutionary class a real and very powerful lesson, a lesson in historical dialectics, a lesson in an understanding of the political struggle, and in the art and science of waging that struggle. It is at moments of need that one learns who one’s friends are. Defeated armies learn their lesson. …The revolutionary parties had to complete their education. They were learning how to attack. Now they had to realize that such knowledge must be supplemented with the knowledge of how to retreat in good order.’’

In modern day North America, and not just in North America, the Occupy Movement died down, so that the working class had to conduct an ‘’orderly retreat’’. In my opinion, they managed that quite well. This can be considered to be a matter of ‘’tempering’’ the common people, which can only result in a stronger working class, more class conscious, fully aware of what to expect. 

Lenin: ‘’The years of revival (1910-14). At first progress was incredibly slow, then following the Lena events of 1912, it became somewhat more rapid. Overcoming unprecedented difficulties, the Bolsheviks thrust back the Mensheviks….But the Bolsheviks would never have succeeded in doing this, had they not followed the correct tactics of combining illegal work, with the utilization of ‘legal opportunities’, which they made a point of doing.’’

After every mass movement dies down, there always follows a period of reaction. But then, the mass movement always flares up again, ever stronger, as the working people become ever more aware, if only on an instinctive basis, of the class conflict. Now it is up to Scientific Socialists to raise the level of awareness, of the most advanced workers, to that of Conscious People.

Lenin: ’’The First Imperialist World War (1914-17). Legal parliamentarianism, with an extremely reactionary ‘parliament’, rendered most service to the Bolsheviks, the party of the revolutionary proletariat. …One of the principle reasons why Bolshevism was able to achieve a victory in 1917-20 was that, since the end of 1914, it had been ruthlessly exposing the baseness and vileness of social chauvinism and ‘Kautskyism’…the masses later becoming more and more convinced, from their own experience, of the correctness of Bolshevik views’’.

The Communists, at that time referred to as ‘’Bolsheviks’’, made use of ‘’parliamentarianism’’, which is to say that they ran candidates for office, and a few were even elected, as a means of exposing the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. In this way, the common people learned, ‘’from their own experience’’, of the ‘’correctness’’ of Communist views. This is to say that they became convinced that Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, were superior to bourgeois democracy. Now it is up to us to persuade the American working class of that very same thing.

Lenin: ‘’The second revolution in Russia (February to October 1917)….Within a few days, Russia was transformed into a democratic bourgeois republic, freer- in war conditions- than any other country in the world. The leaders of the opposition and revolutionary parties began to set up a government, just as is done in the most ‘strictly parliamentary’ republics; the fact that a man had been a leader of an opposition party in parliament- even in a most reactionary parliament- facilitated his subsequent role in the revolution.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Any people we may manage to send to Washington now, will receive valuable training, in preparation for their ‘’subsequent role in the revolution’’. 

Lenin: ‘’Today, the idea of Soviet Power has emerged throughout the world, and is spreading among the proletariat of all countries with extraordinary speed….Experience has proved that, on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done.’’ (italics by Lenin)  

There can be no doubt that the Soviets, known as Councils in North America, have already made an appearance. Recently, a section of the city of Seattle, known as ‘’Capital Hill’’, declared itself to be ‘’Autonomous’’, and established the ‘’Capital Hill Autonomous Zone’’. It was led by a Council. 

As state power is the ‘’fundamental question of every revolution’’, according to Lenin, this amounted to a direct challenge to the authority of the ruling Oligarchy class. So of course, it was crushed, with considerable brutality. It is also reasonable to assume that the Capital Hill Council merely went ‘’underground’’, continuing to work in the service of the working people, but illegally.

Lenin: ‘’At the beginning of the period mentioned, we did not call for the overthrow of the government, but explained that it was impossible to overthrow it without first changing the composition and the temper of the Soviets. …We said… that a bourgeois republic with a Constituent Assembly would be better than a bourgeois republic without a Constituent Assembly, but that a ‘workers and peasants’ republic, a Soviet republic, would be better than any bourgeois democratic, parliamentary republic. Without such thorough, circumspect and long preparations, we could not have achieved victory in October 1917, or have consolidated that victory.’’ (italics by Lenin)

At the time in question, immediately after the February Revolution, the Soviets were a force to be reckoned with. They were almost as powerful as the Provisional Government. The problem was that they were anxious to surrender their power to that bourgeois Provisional Government! So when there was a spontaneous uprising in early July, Lenin ordered his party members to call for calm, and to instead focus on raising the level of awareness of the working people, as the time was not yet ‘’ripe’’, to sieze power. The party members did just that, and within a few short months, succeeded in preparing the working people for the October Revolution of 1917.

If they can do it, we can do it! Especially as we are now blessed with a cultured working class, and the internet. 

This brings us to Section IV:

THE STRUGGLE AGAINST WHICH ENEMIES WITHIN THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT HELPED BOLSHEVISM DEVELOP, GAIN STRENGTH, AND BECOME STEELED

Lenin: ‘’First and foremost, the struggle against opportunism, which in 1914 definitely developed into social chauvinism, and definitely sided with the bourgeoisie, against the proletariat….It was, however, different with Bolshevism’s other enemy, within the working class movement. Little is known in other countries of the fact that Bolshevism took shape, developed and became steeled, in the long years of struggle against against petty bourgeois revolutionism, which smacks of anarchism, or borrows something from the latter and, in all essential matters, does not measure up to the conditions and requirements of a consistently proletarian class struggle….A petty bourgeois driven to frenzy by the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries….Anarchism is not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist sins of the working class movement. The two monstrosities complement each other.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Clearly, our enemies within the working class include the opportunists, those who are completely devoid of principle, and the anarchists, those who want no part of  any form of government.

Lenin: ‘’Bolshevism took over and carried on the struggle against a party which, more that any other, expressed the tendencies of petty bourgeois revolutionism, namely, the ‘Socialist Revolutionary’ Party, and waged that struggle on three main fronts. First, that Party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or, it might be more accurate to say: was unable) to understand the need for a strictly objective appraisal of the class forces and their alignment, before taking any political action. Second, this Party, considered itself particularly ‘revolutionary’, or ‘Left’, because of its recognition of individual terrorism, assassination- something that we Marxists emphatically rejected. It was, of course, only on grounds of expediency that we rejected individual terrorism….Third, the ‘Socialist Revolutionaries’ thought it very ‘Left’ to sneer at the comparatively insignificant opportunist sins of German Social Democratic Party, while they themselves imitated the extreme opportunists of that Party, for example, on the agrarian question, or on the question of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’’

True Scientific Socialists reject any individual acts of terrorism, or assassinations, on grounds of ‘’expediency’’, which is to say that it is not morally acceptable. This stands in stark contrast to the act of subjecting the Oligarchy class to terror, after the Revolution, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Under those circumstances, the use of terror in not only morally acceptable, it is required. It is the only way to prevent that monopoly capitalist class, from returning to power.

Lenin then documented a correct boycott of Russian parliament in 1905, as the Revolution was raging, and as he stated, ’’the ‘parliament’ was in fact swept away by the Revolution of October 1905.’’ He went on to state:

‘’The boycott proved correct at the time, not because non participation in reactionary parliaments is correct in general, but because we accurately appraised the objective situation, which was leading to the rapid development of the mass strike, first into a political strike, then into a revolutionary strike, and finally into an uprising….When there was not, and could not be, any certainty that the objective situation was of a similar kind, and when there was no certainty of a similar trend and the same rate of development, the boycott was no longer correct.’’ 

There are times when it is correct to boycott parliament, as at a time of revolution, as opposed to times when there is no chance of a revolution, in which case it is correct to participate in parliament. 

Incidentally, Lenin added as a footnote, no less, the following: ‘’What applies to individuals also applies- with necessary modifications- to politics and parties. It is not he who makes no mistakes that is intelligent. There are no such men, nor can there be. It is he whose errors are not very grave, and who is able to rectify them easily and quickly that is intelligent.’’

Lenin: ‘’The Bolsheviks could not have preserved (let alone strengthened and developed) the core of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, had they not upheld, in a most strenuous struggle, the viewpoint that it was obligatory to combine legal and illegal forms of struggle, and that it was obligatory to participate even in a most reactionary parliament and in a number of other institutions, hemmed in by reactionary laws.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Once again, Lenin stresses the importance of a Communist Party. As well, the use of legal and illegal methods is required.

In March of 1918, Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, in which they ceded to Germany and the Central Powers, a third of their population, half of their industry, and almost all of their coal mines, in return for peace. This was most bitterly opposed by numerous ‘’Leftist’’ people. In response, Lenin then gave a popular example, which even the least advanced workers are capable of understanding: 

‘’Imagine that your car is held up by armed bandits. You hand them over your money, passport, revolver and car. In return you are rid of the pleasant company of the bandits. This is unquestionably a compromise. (I ‘give’ you money, firearms and a car ‘so that you give’ me the opportunity to get away from you with a whole skin). It would, however, be difficult to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise to be ‘inadmissible on principle’, or who would call the compromiser an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits might use the car and the firearms for further robberies). Our compromise with the bandits of German imperialism was just that kind of compromise’’. 

Lenin went on to draw the comparison to the social chauvinist, who ‘’entered into compromises with the bandits of their own bourgeoisie, and sometimes of the ‘Allied’ bourgeoisie, and against the revolutionary proletariat of their own countries, all these gentlemen were actually acting as accomplices in banditry.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Lenin: ’’The conclusion is clear: to reject compromises ‘on principle’, to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously. A political leader who desires to be useful to the revolutionary proletariat, must be able to distinguish concrete cases of compromises that are inexcusable and are an expression of opportunism and treachery; he must direct all the force of criticism, the full intensity of merciless exposure and relentless war, against these concrete compromises, and not allow the past masters of ‘practical’ socialism and the parliamentary Jesuits, to dodge and wiggle out of responsibility, by means of disquisitions on ‘compromises in general’. …There are different kinds of compromises. One must be able to analyze the situation and the concrete conditions of each compromise, or of each variety of compromise. One must learn to distinguish between a man who has given up his money and firearms to bandits, so as to lessen the evil they can do, and to facilitate their capture and execution, and a man who gives his money and firearms to bandits, so as to share in the loot. In politics, this is by no means always as elementary as it is in this childishly simple example. However, anyone who is out to think up for the workers some kind of recipe that will provide them with cut and dried solutions for all contingencies, or promises that the policy of the revolutionary proletariat will never come up with against difficult or complex situations, is simply a charlatan.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Or to state this in simple, ordinary terms, which most people can understand, ‘’a little common sense goes a long way’’!

For the benefit of those who have just recently become politically active, I have included the following statement by Lenin, as a response to those who claim that the Soviets made a separate peace with Germany and the Central Powers. 

Lenin: ‘’After making public and repudiating the imperialists’ secret treaties, this Party proposed peace to all nations, and yielded to the violence of the Brest- Litovsk robbers, only after the Anglo-French imperialists had torpedoed the conclusion of a peace, and after the Bolsheviks had done everything humanly possible to hasten the revolution in Germany and other countries. (italics by Lenin) 

This brings us to Section V:

’’LEFT-WING’’ COMMUNISM IN GERMANY, THE LEADERS, THE PARTY, THE CLASS, THE MASSES

In this Section, Lenin deals with the mistakes of certain well meaning ‘’Leftist’’ people, as they managed to talk themselves into a state of confusion. First, he quotes a pamphlet by those people, and then responds:

Lenin: ‘’The mere presentation of the question- ‘dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of the class; dictatorship (party) of the leaders, or dictatorship (party) of the masses?’-testifies to most incredibly and hopelessly  muddled thinking. These people want to invent something quite out of the ordinary, and, in their effort to be clever, make themselves ridiculous. It is common knowledge that the masses are divided into classes; that the masses can be contrasted with classes only by contrasting the vast majority in general, regardless of division according to status in the social system of production, with categories holding a definite status in the social system of production; that as a rule and in most cases- at least in present day civilized countries- classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders. All this in elementary. All this is clear and simple. Why replace this with some kind of rigmarole, some new Volapuk?’’ (italics by Lenin)

The previous paragraph is especially valuable for those who live in North America, as the very existence of classes, is denied! As well, it is all too common place to seek to be ‘’creative’’, to ‘’invent’’ something new, and ‘’in their efforts to be clever’’, end up being ‘’ridiculous’’. 

Lenin: ‘’The opportunist parties have become separated from the ‘masses’, i.e., (that is-GM) from the broadest strata of the working people, their majority, the lowest paid workers. The revolutionary proletariat cannot be victorious unless this evil is combatted, unless the opportunist, social traitor leaders are exposed, discredited and expelled.

‘’To go so far, in this connection, as to contrast, in general, the dictatorship of the masses with a dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd, and stupid. What is particularly amusing is that, in fact, instead of the old leaders, who hold generally accepted views on simple matters, new leaders are brought forth (under cover of the slogan ‘Down with the leaders!) who talk rank stuff and nonsense’’….It all goes to drive home the truth that a minor error can always assume monstrous proportions if it is persisted in, if profound justifications are sought for it, and if it is carried to its logical conclusion.’’ (italics by Lenin)

That which Lenin just described, is an all too common human failing!

Lenin: ‘’Repudiation of the Party principle and of Party discipline- that is what the opposition has arrived at. And this is tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie. It all adds up to that petty bourgeois diffuseness and instability, that incapacity for sustained effort, unity and organized action, which, if encouraged, must inevitably destroy any proletariat revolutionary movement….Classes still remain, and will remain everywhere for years after the proletariats conquest of power….The abolition of classes means, not merely ousting the landowners and capitalists- that is something we accomplished with comparative ease; it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be ousted, or crushed; we must learn to live with them….The strictest centralization and discipline are required, within the political Party of the proletariat, in order to counteract this, in order that the organizational role of the proletariat (and that is its principle role) may be exercised correctly, successfully and victoriously. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat means a persistent struggle- bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative- against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit in millions and tens of millions, is a most formidable force. Without a Party of iron that has been tempered in the struggle, a Party enjoying the confidence of all honest people in the class in question, a Party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, such a struggle cannot be waged successfully….Whoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the Party of the proletariat (especially during its Dictatorship) is actually aiding the bourgeoisie, against the proletariat.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This is to stress the fact that the existence of a true Scientific Socialist Communist Party is essential! Without such a Party, ‘’such a struggle cannot be waged successfully’’. This is to say the the Oligarchy will then return to power!

With that in mind, Lenin ends this Section with a warning:

‘’In many countries, including the most advanced, the bourgeoisie are undoubtedly sending agents provocateurs into the Communist Parties, and will continue to do so. A skilful combining of illegal and legal work if one of the ways to combat this danger.’’ (italics by Lenin)

We have been warned, so that we now know what to expect. 

This brings us to Section VI:

SHOULD REVOLUTIONARIES WORK IN REACTIONARY TRADE UNIONS?

Lenin: ‘’The German ‘Lefts’ consider that, as far as they are concerned, the reply to this question is an unqualified negative….However firmly the German ‘Lefts’ may be convinced of the revolutionism of such tactics, the latter are in fact fundamentally wrong, and contain nothing but empty phrases….In Russia today, the connection between leaders, Party, class and masses, as well as the attitude of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and its Party to the trade unions, are concretely as follows: the Dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organized in the Soviets; the proletariat is guided by the Communist Party of Bolsheviks…The Party, which holds annual congresses….is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen, elected at the Congress, while the current work in Moscow has to be carried on by still smaller bodies, known as the Organizing Bureau and the Political Bureau, which are elected at plenary meetings of the Central Committee, five members of the Central Committee to each Bureau. …No important political or organizational question is decided by any state institutions in our republic, without the guidance of the Party’s Central Committee. 

‘’In its work, the Party relies directly on the trade unions…formally non Party….Thus, on the whole, we have a formally non Communist, flexible and relatively wide and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the class and the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the class dictatorship is exercised. …We consider that contacts with the ‘masses’ through the trade unions are not enough. In the course of our revolution, practical activities have given rise to such institutions as non Party workers’ and peasants’ conferences…Then, of course, all the work of the Party is carried on through the Soviets, which embrace the working masses, irrespective of occupation….Such is the general mechanism of the proletarian state organization, viewed ‘from above’, from the standpoint of the practical implementation of the Dictatorship. We hope that the reader will understand why the Russian Bolshevik …..cannot help regarding all this talk about ‘from above’ or ‘from below’, about the dictatorship of leaders or the dictatorship of the masses, etc., as ridiculous and childish nonsense….We cannot but regard as equally ridiculous and childish nonsense the pompous, very learned, and frightfully revolutionary disquisitions of the German Left, to the effect that Communists cannot and should not work in reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to turn down such work, that it is necessary to withdraw from the trade unions, and create a brand new and immaculate ‘Workers Union’, invented by very pleasant (and, probably, for the most part very youthful) Communists, etc., etc.’’ (italics by Lenin)

That response, by Lenin, is a most emphatic yes to the question of working in ‘’reactionary trade unions’’! As well, there is no point in creating ‘’Workers Unions’’! He expanded upon this fact, in his following statement:

Lenin: ‘’We can (and must) begin to build socialism, not with abstract human material, or with human material specially prepared by us, but with the human material bequeathed to us by capitalism. True, that is no easy matter, but no other approach to this task is serious enough to warrant discussion.

‘’The trade unions were a tremendous step forward for the working class, in the early days of capitalist development, inasmuch as they marked a transition from the workers’ disunity and helplessness to the rudiments of class organization. When the revolutionary Party of the proletariat, the highest form of proletarian class organization, began to take shape….the trade unions inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary features…However, the development of the proletariat did not, and could not, proceed anywhere in the world otherwise than through the trade unions, through reciprocal action between them and the Party of the working class. The proletariat’s conquest of political power is a gigantic step forward for the proletariat as a class, and the Party must more than ever and in a new way, not only in the old, educate and guide the trade unions, at the same time bearing in mind that they are and will long remain an indispensable ‘school of Communism’, and a preparatory school that trains proletarians to exercise their dictatorship, an indispensable organization of the workers for the gradual transfer of the management of the whole economic life of the country, to the working class (and not to the separate trades), and later to all the working people.’’ (italics by Lenin)

As regards trade unions, it is significant that Lenin refers to them as an ‘’indispensable school of Communism’’. They preform the most valuable role of training workers for the ‘’management of the whole economic life of the country’’. It is also significant that Lenin refers to the Communist Party as the ‘’revolutionary Party of the proletariat’’, which is the ‘’highest form of proletarian class organization’’. As that is the case, it is imperative that we create this ‘’proletarian class organization’’, this Scientific Socialist Communist Party. 

As regards determining the proper time that the proletariat should seize power, Lenin states:

‘’The art of politics (and the Communist’s correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it is able- during and after the seizure of power- to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule, by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people.’’

As previously mentioned, in July of 1917, there was a spontaneous uprising of the Russian working class. Yet as Lenin was of the opinion that the ‘’vanguard of the proletariat’’ could not successfully ‘’assume power’’, as they did not have ‘’adequate support’’, from the ‘’broad strata of the working class and of the non proletarian working masses’’, by whom he of course meant the family farmers, the peasants. For that reason, he appealed for calm, and instructed his Party members to prepare for a successful insurrection, by raising the level of awareness, of all common people, in preparation for the October Revolution. 

Lenin then issued a word of caution to Communists in more advanced countries, such as our own:

Lenin: ‘’Further. In countries more advanced than Russia, a certain reactionism in the trade unions has been, and was bound to be manifested in a far greater measure, than in our country….there the craft union, narrow minded, selfish, case hardened, covetous, and petty bourgeois ‘labour aristocracy’, imperialist minded, and imperialist corrupted, has developed into a much stronger section than in our country. That is incontestable. …Political power cannot be captured (and the attempt to capture it should not be made) until the struggle has reached a certain stage. This ‘certain stage’ will be different in different countries and in different circumstances; it can be correctly gauged only by thoughtful, experienced and knowledgeable political leaders of the proletariat, in each particular country.’’ (italics by Lenin)

The reactionary features, within certain trade unions, especially in the more advanced capitalist countries, meaning our own, are more ‘’manifested’’, than in less developed countries. They are quite powerful. The struggle against them has to reach a ‘’certain stage’’, different in each country, before any attempt can be made, to ‘’capture political power’’. This can be determined only by ‘’knowledgeable’’ political leaders, of the proletariat, which is to say the members of a true Communist Party.

As for those who were opposed to working within the ‘’reactionary’’ trade unions, Lenin made his position abundantly clear:

Lenin: ‘’We are waging a struggle against the ‘labour aristocracy’, in the name of the masses of the workers, and in order to win them over to our side; we are waging the struggle against the opportunist and social chauvinist leaders, in order to win the working class over to our side. It would be absurd to forget this most elementary and most self evident truth. Yet it is this very absurdity that the German ‘Left’ Communists perpetuate when, because of the reactionary and counter revolutionary character of the trade unions top leadership, they jump to the conclusion that….we must withdraw from the trade unions, refuse to work in them, and create new and artificial forms of labour organization! This is so unpardonable a blunder that it is tantamount to the greatest service Communists could render to the bourgeoisie. …To refuse to work in the reactionary trade unions, means leaving the insufficiently developed or backward masses of workers under the influence of the reactionary leaders, the agents of the bourgeoisie, the labour aristocrats, or ‘workers who have become completely bourgeois’, as per Engels letter to Marx in 1858, about the British workers.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This applies especially to our situation, as so many union leaders are in the service of the Oligarchy class. All the more reason to oppose them, to win over the rank and file union members.

Lenin stressed this in the following statement:

‘’It would be hard to imagine any greater ineptitude or greater harm to the revolution, than that caused by the ‘Left’ revolutionaries!…The task devolving on Communists, is to convince the backward elements, to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them, with artificial and childishly ‘Left’ slogans.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This brings us to Section VII:

SHOULD WE PARTICIPATE IN BOURGEOIS PARLIAMENTS?

Lenin: ‘’It is with the utmost contempt- and the utmost levity- that the German ‘Left’ Communists reply to this question, in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above, we read:’’

‘’…All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected….’’

Lenin: ‘’This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. ‘Reversion’ to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of ‘reversion’? Is this not an empty phrase?

‘’Parliamentarianism has become ‘historically obsolete’. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared- and with full justice- to be ‘historically obsolete’ many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is ‘historically obsolete’ from the standpoint of world history, i.e., (that is-GM) the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history, it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is significant that Lenin states ‘’world history is measured in decades.’’ The reason I say this, is because the members of the Oligarchy class, the multi billionaires, are gloating over the fact that the first Scientific Socialist republic, the Soviet Union, ‘’failed miserably’’, as they phrase it. As well, the formerly Scientific Socialist republic of China has ‘’followed suit’’. They point this out as ‘’proof’’ that the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin are bogus, that Scientific Socialism is merely a ‘’pipe dream’’, that capitalism is ‘’eternal’’. They really want to believe this!

In fact, both formerly Scientific Socialist republics of the Soviet Union and China, will go down in history as ‘’anomalies’, which is to say, something which is ‘’not normal’’. They were unusual in the fact that both were under developed countries, primarily ‘’agrarian’’, which is to say ‘’related to cultivate land’’, as opposed to highly industrialized countries. As well, the monopoly capitalists of both countries were able to restore capitalism, to return to power, due to the mistakes made by the Communist leaders. 

It is now our duty, that of Scientific Socialists, to learn from the mistakes of those fine revolutionaries. After all, we are all human, so that we all make mistakes. In this way, we will avoid making those same mistakes, and make sure that the Oligarchy class is overthrown, and completely crushed, under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In this way, we will make sure that the Oligarchy class never returns to power. 

Lenin: ‘’A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how earnest the party is, and how it fulfills in practice its obligations towards its class and the working people. Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analyzing the conditions that have led up to it, and thrashing out the means of its rectification- that is the hallmark of a serious party; that is how it should perform its duties, and how it should educate and train its class, and then the masses. By failing to fulfill this duty, and give the utmost attention and consideration to the study of their patent error, the ‘Lefts’ in Germany (and in Holland) have proved that they are not a party of a class, but a circle, not a party of the masses, but a group of intellectualists and of a few workers, who ape the worst features of intellectualism.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is one thing to point out the mistakes of others, it is something else entirely to face the fact that we also make mistakes. Yet to acknowledge our own mistakes is the ‘’hallmark of a serious party’’. Just as we can learn from the mistakes of others, we can also learn from our own mistakes.

Lenin: ‘’How can one say that ‘parliamentarianism is politically obsolete’, when ‘millions’ and ‘legions’ of proletarians are not only in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright ‘counter revolutionary’!?…It is obvious that the ‘Lefts’ in Germany have mistaken their desire, their politico ideological attitude, for objective reality. This is a most dangerous mistake for revolutionaries to make….Parliamentarianism is of course ‘politically obsolete’ to the Communists in Germany; but- and that is the whole point- we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses. Here again we find that the ‘Lefts’ do not know how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are- prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its Communist vanguard) and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements)…participation in parliamentary elections, and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat, specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them, because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise, you risk turning into nothing but windbags.’’ (italics by Lenin)

There are several points that are of particular concern to us. The first is that we are obligated to participate in Parliament, which is to say Congress, as so many working people still have faith in the bourgeois democratic system. We can support Leftist candidates for office, for example. I have suggested, in previous articles, that such people join both mainstream political parties, Democratic and Republican, as card carrying members, and run for Congress, against themselves. After all, the capitalists say that if we do not like the way things are, we should ‘’change the system from within’’. Watch how fast they ‘’change their tune’’! In this way, the common people will learn, from their own experience, that the ruling Oligarchy class, are nothing but liars and hypocrites.

As well, the use of vulgarity, by so many Leftist people, should be condemned. Do not ‘’sink to the level of the backward strata of the working class’’. It is our goal, our duty, to raise them to a higher level, not to sink the a lower level. Besides, the mainstream press is careful to not video record any posters or signs which contain vulgarity. Properly so, I might add.

Lenin: ‘’It has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic, and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses, why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism ‘politically obsolete’.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This is a fine example of revolutionary experience, proving the correctness of revolutionary theory!

Lenin next addressed the topic of combining legal and illegal work: ‘’This question is of immense importance both in general and in particular, because in all civilized and advanced countries, the time is rapidly approaching when such a combination will more and more become- and has already partly become- mandatory on the part of the revolutionary proletariat, inasmuch as civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is maturing and is imminent, and because of savage persecution of the Communists by republican governments and bourgeois governments generally, which resort to any violation of legality.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is necessary to combine legal and illegal work, in preparation for the civil war, between the capitalists, the Oligarchy class, and the working class, the proletariat.

As concerns the presence, within Parliament, of an opposition. Lenin: ‘’The authors of the thesis are engaged in muddled thinking; they have forgotten the experience of many, if not all, revolutions, which shows the great usefulness, during a revolution, of a combination of mass action outside a reactionary parliament, with an opposition sympathetic to (or, better still, directly supporting) the revolution within it….The surest way of discrediting and damaging a new political (and not only political) idea is to reduce it to absurdity, on the plea of defending it. For any truth, if ‘overdone’…if exaggerated, or if carried beyond the limits of its own actual applicability, can be reduced to an absurdity, and is even bound to become an absurdity, under these conditions.’’ (italics by Lenin)

In the preceding, there are two ideas. One is the importance of revolutionary action outside parliament, while maintaining sympathetic members inside it. The other idea, is to discard ideas that are clearly irrational.

Lenin then documented the conditions which gave rise to the successful October Revolution:

‘’It is far more difficult to create a really revolutionary parliamentary group, in a European parliament, than it was in Russia. That stands to reason. But it is only a particular expression of the general truth that it was easy for Russia, in the specific and historically unique situation of 1917, to start the socialist revolution, but it will be more difficult for Russia, than for the European countries, to continue the revolution, and bring it to its consummation.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This is to say that it is more difficult to start a revolution, in a highly industrialized country, as currently exist in Western Europe and North America, but once the revolution takes place, will be easier to carry through.

That brings us to Section VIII

NO COMPROMISES?

Lenin: ‘’Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced ‘compromises’ with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work, either without having achieved anything, or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian- as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among- sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)- a compromise that in no way minimizes the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle, on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise- and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors, who try to ascribe to objective causes their self interest (strike breakers also enter into ‘compromises’!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists.’’

It is clear that Lenin just ‘’hit the nail right on the head’’! That is a very clear, detailed, accurate description of the struggle of workers, for better wages and working conditions!

Included as a footnote, strangely enough, is the following bit of advice by Lenin: ‘’Within every class, even in the conditions prevailing in the most enlightened countries, even within the most advanced class, and even when the circumstances of the moment have aroused all its spiritual forces to an exceptional degree, there always are- and inevitably will be as long as classes exist, as long as a classless society has not fully consolidated itself, and has not developed on its own foundations- representatives of the class who do not think, and are incapable of thinking, for themselves. Capitalism would not be the oppressor of the masses that it actually is, if things were otherwise. (italics by Lenin)

That explains the reason so many apparently intelligent people appear to be so ‘’clueless’’. Because they are clueless! They simply are not capable of thinking for themselves!

Lenin: ‘’Of course, in politics, where it is sometimes a matter of extremely complex relations- national and international- between classes and parties, very many cases will arise, that will be much more difficult than the question of a legitimate ‘compromise’ in a strike, or a treacherous ‘compromise’ by a strike breaker, treacherous leader, etc. …One must use one’s own brains, and be able to find one’s bearings in each particular instance. It is, in fact, one of the functions of a party organization, and of party leaders worthy of the name, to acquire, through the prolonged, persistent, variegated and comprehensive efforts of all thinking representatives of a given class, the knowledge, experience and- in addition to knowledge and experience- the political flair necessary for the speedy and correct solution of complex political problems.’’

Once again, the necessity of a true Communist Party, to acquire the ‘’political flair’’, to determine the ‘’correct solution’’ of ‘’complex political problems’’. There are times when ‘’common sense’’ alone, is simply ‘’not enough’’!

Lenin: ‘’To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tact, or any utilization of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)- is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain, and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others?’’ 

In short, we must be flexible, constantly prepared to change tactics, without violating principle, in order to reach our goal of overthrowing the international bourgeoisie.

Lenin: ‘’After the first socialist revolution of the proletariat, and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in some country, the proletariat of that country remains for a long time weaker than the bourgeoise, simply because of the latter’s extensive international links, and also because of the spontaneous and continuous restoration and regeneration of capitalism and the bourgeoisie, by the small commodity producers, of the country which has overthrow the bourgeoisie. The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skillful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries, and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunities of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this, reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern Scientific Socialism in general. Those who have not proved in practice, over a fairly considerable period of time, and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice, have not yet learned to help the revolutionary class, in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has won political power.’’ (italics by Lenin)

There are no ‘’natural born’’ political leaders! This is a skill that must be learned! And the most advanced workers must learn this skill, in order to vanquish ‘’a more powerful enemy’’, not just now, but also after the successful Scientific Socialist Revolution.

Lenin: ‘’Capitalism would not be capitalism, if the proletariat pur sang (means pure blood- GM) were not surrounded by a large number of exceedingly motley types, intermediate between the proletarian and the semi proletarian (who earns his living in part by the sale of his labour power), between the semi proletarian and the small peasant (and petty artisan, handicraft worker and small master in general), between the small peasant and the middle peasant, and so on, and if the proletariat itself were not divided into more developed and less developed strata, if it were not divided according to territorial origin, trade, sometimes according to religion, and so on. From all this follows the necessity, the absolute necessity, for the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, its class conscious section, to resort to changes of tact, to conciliation and compromises with the various groups of proletarians, with the various parties of the workers and small masters. It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise- not lower – the general level of proletarian class consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Once again, Lenin stresses the need for flexible tactics, as well as the necessity of a true Communist Party.

This is followed by a lengthy reference to the Treaty of Versailles. For the benefit of workers who  are just now becoming politically active, I should mention that it was theTreaty that Germany was forced to sign, at the end of the First World War. 

Lenin: ‘’It is folly, not revolutionism, to deprive ourselves in advance of any freedom of action, openly to inform an enemy, who is at present better armed than we are, whether we shall fight him, and when. To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the enemy, and not to us, is criminal; political leaders of the revolutionary class are absolutely useless, if they are incapable of ‘changing tack, or offering conciliation and compromise’, in order to take evasive action in a patently disadvantageous battle.’’

This brings us to Section IX

‘’LEFT WING’’ COMMUNISM IN GREAT BRITAIN 

This refers to a political state of unrest, in Great Britain, which is very similar to our current situation. As Lenin stated: ‘’There is no Communist Party in Great Britain as yet, but there is a fresh, broad , powerful and rapidly growing communist movement among the workers, which justifies the best hopes. There are several political parties and organizations….which desire to form a Communist Party, and are already negotiating among themselves, to this end….The Workers Dreadnought….carried an article by the editor, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, titled ‘Towards a Communist Party’. The article outlines the progress of the negotiations between the four organizations mentioned, for the formation of a united Communist Party, on the basis of affiliation to the Third International, the recognition of the Soviet system instead of parliamentarianism, and the recognition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It appears that one of the greatest obstacles to the immediate formation of a united Communist Party, is presented by the disagreement on the questions of participation in Parliament, and on whether the new Communist Party should affiliate to the old, trade unionist, opportunist and social chauvinist Labour Party, which is mostly made up of trade unions.’’

That which Lenin described in Great Britain, in 1920, in which there was a ‘’fresh, broad, powerful and rapidly growing communist movement among the workers’’, accurately describes our current situation, and not just here in North America. The only difference is that, as yet, there are no ‘’political parties and organizations’’, which ‘’desire to form a Communist Party’’. That will very likely change, in the immediate future.

No doubt, the working class reader who recently became politically active, may well wonder about the ‘’Third International’’. That calls for a little explanation. 

The ‘’First International’’, formally known as the International Working Men’s Association, IWA, was created in 1864, in London. As can be well imagined, Karl Marx was intimately involved in its creation. It was disbanded in 1876.

The Second International, also known as the Socialist International, was created in Paris, in 1889. At first, it was an organization of principle, highly respected, but at the time of the First World War, most of the members became social chauvinists, calling for ‘’defence of the motherland’’. It effectively collapsed in 1920.

The Third International, or Communist International, also known as the ‘’Comintern’’, was created by Lenin, in Moscow, in 1919. That is the organization to which Lenin was referring. 

As regards the British organizations which desired to create a Communist Party, a couple of them were opposed to ‘’taking part in parliamentary elections and in Parliament’’, as well as being opposed to ‘’affiliation with the Labour Party’’. A letter, by Comrade Gallacher, who was writing in the name of the Scottish Workers Council in Glascow, is provided, in which he clearly expresses his opposition to any participation in parliament.

Lenin responded to this letter, in the following manner:

‘’In my opinion, this letter to the editor expresses excellently the temper and point of view of the young Communists, or of rank and file workers, who are only just beginning to accept communism. This temper is highly gratifying and valuable; we must learn to appreciate and support it for, in its absence, it would be hopeless to expect the victory of the proletarian revolution in Great Britain, or in any other country, for that matter. People who can give expression to this temper (which is very often dormant, unconscious and latent) among the masses, should be appreciated and given every assistance. At the same time, we must tell them openly and frankly that a state of minds is by itself insufficient for leadership of the masses in a great revolutionary struggle, and that the cause of the revolution may well be harmed by certain errors, that people who are most devoted to the cause of the revolution are about to commit, or are committing. Comrade Gallacher’s letter undoubtedly reveals the rudiments of all the mistakes that are being made by the German ‘Left’ Communists, and were made by the Russian ‘Left’ Bolsheviks in 1908 an 1918.

‘’The writer of the letter is full of a noble and working class hatred for the bourgeois ‘class politicians’….In a representative of the oppressed and exploited masses, this hatred is truly the ‘beginning of all wisdom’, the basis of any socialist and communist movement, and its success. The writer, however, has apparently lost sight of the fact that politics is a science and an art, that does not fall from the skies or come gratis, and that, if it wants to overcome the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must train its own proletarian ‘class politicians’, of a kind in no way inferior to bourgeois politicians.’’ (italics by Lenin)

The ‘’point of view’’ expressed in this letter, is most ‘’gratifying and valuable’’, and is perhaps characteristic of so many workers who are just now becoming politically active. This hatred of all ‘’bourgeois class politicians’’ is indeed the ‘’basis of all wisdom’’. Yet this hatred can ‘’blind’’ people to the fact that, in order to ‘’overcome’’ the Oligarchy class, we must train our own, proletarian ‘’class politicians’’, to the level of ‘’bourgeois politicians’’.

Lenin goes on to say: ‘’But the writer of the letter does not even ask- it does not occur to him to ask- whether it is possible to bring about the Soviets’ victory over parliament without getting pro Soviet politicians into parliament, without disintegrating parliamentarianism from within, without working within parliament for the success of the Soviets, in their forthcoming task of dispersing parliament. Yet the writer of the letter expresses the absolutely correct idea that the Communist Party in Great Britain, must act on scientific principles. Science demands, first, that the experience of other countries be taken into account, especially if these other 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.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Here in America, parliament is of course referred to as the Congress and the Senate. We currently have one Senator who refers to himself as an ‘’Independent Socialist’’, and several members of the House of Representatives, otherwise known as the ‘’Congress’’,  who are considered to be ‘’Leftists’’. Those members are commonly referred to as the ‘’Squad’’. This proves that it is possible to elect Leftist candidates, even to a completely reactionary Congress. 

The second idea that Lenin addressed, was that the Communist Party must act upon correct scientific principles. The ‘’experience’’ of previous revolutions must be ‘’taken into account’’, especially that of the October Revolution, as that so closely resembles our own. As well, in an alliance of various groups, which will very likely form our next Communist Party, it may be a mistake to listen to the ‘’loudest’’ voices, rather than a concensus.

Lenin then suggested the possibility of supporting certain reactionary politicians, in their quest for political office, as a means of exposing them, thus raising the level of awareness of the common people. 

Lenin also gave the example of the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, a ‘’very intelligent man’’, but one who made a statement which made no sense. As Lenin said: ‘’It may be said, in passing, that this argument shows in particular, how muddled even the most intelligent members of the bourgeoisie have become, and how they cannot help committing irreparable blunders. That, in fact, is what will bring about the downfall of the bourgeoisie. Our people, however, may commit blunders (provided, of course, that they are not too serious and are rectified in time) and yet, in the long run, will prove the victors.’’ 

The next few paragraphs in this Section are of particular interest to us, because it goes into the problem which the American Oligarchy may soon have to face, which is the abandonment of the two party system.

Lenin: ‘’Thus the liberal bourgeoisie are abandoning the historical system of ‘two parties’ ( of exploiters), which has been hallowed by centuries of experience and has been extremely advantageous to the exploiters, and consider it necessary for these two parties to join forces against the Labour Party. A number of Liberals are deserting to the Labour Party, like rats from a sinking ship. The Left Communists believe that the transfer of power to the Labour Party is inevitable and admit that it now has the backing of most workers. From this they draw the strange conclusion which Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst formulates as follows:’’

‘The Communist Party must not compromise….The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism in inviolate; its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, to the direct road to the communist revolution.’

Lenin: ’’On the contrary, the fact that most British workers still follow the lead of the British Kerensky’s or Scheidemanns, and have not yet had experience of a government composed of these people- an experience which was necessary in Russia and Germany, so as to secure the mass transition of the workers to communism- undoubtedly indicates that the British Communists should participate in parliamentary action, that they should, from within parliament, help the masses of the workers see the results of a Henderson and Snowden government in practice…To act otherwise would mean hampering the cause of the revolution, since revolution is impossible without a change in the views of the majority of the working class, a change brought about by the political experience of the masses, never by propaganda alone….It is as though 10,000 soldiers were to hurl themselves into battle, against an enemy force of 50,000, when it would be proper to ‘halt’, ‘take evasive action’, or even effect a ‘compromise’, so as to gain time until the arrival of the 100,000 reinforcements, that are on their way, but cannot go into action immediately. That is intellectualist childishness, not the serious tactics of a revolutionary class.’’ 

In previous articles, I have suggested that Leftist people challenge the 2024 presidential election, on the grounds that it did not follow the procedure laid out, in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution. That makes far more sense than trying to remove Trump from office, based on the Twenty Fifth Amendment, which is a long shot at best. Besides, even if successful, it would merely result in the appointment of Vance, to the presidency. Better to conduct a ‘’clean sweep’’, of both President and Vice President. 

Even if unsuccessful, such a challenge would attract the attention of countless working people, thus raising their level of awareness. Assuming the Supreme Court ruled against the challenge, or even refused to consider the challenge, it would serve to illustrate the fact that the Courts are not impartial, but in the service of the ruling Oligarchy class. 

This brings us to the following statement by Lenin, as he sums up the experience of two and one half years of a successful Scientific Socialist Revolution: 

‘’The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions, and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place, it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realize the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place, it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the ‘lower classes’ do not want to live in the old way, and the ‘upper classes’ cannot carry on in the old way, that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation wide crisis (affecting both the exploiters and the exploited). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class conscious, thinking, and politically active workers), should fully realize that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (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), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.’’ (italics by Lenin)

In my opinion, the preceding paragraph precisely describes our current situation, and not just here in North America. The ‘’common people’’ are deeply dissatisfied, and are demanding changes. They simply cannot carry on, as before. As well, the ruling class of Oligarchs can no longer rule in the old way. Their efforts to change their method of rule, are being hampered by the actions of one of their own, Donald Trump. In short, the situation is truly revolutionary.

This brings us to Section X, SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS

This Section is of such vital importance, that I seriously considered writing a separate article on this Section alone. Yet it is best to consider this Section within the context of Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder. As Lenin stated, in the first paragraph:

‘’Under the influence of a number of unique historical conditions, backward Russian was the first to show the world, not only the growth, by leaps and bounds, of the independent activity of the oppressed masses in time of revolution (this had occurred in all great revolutions), but also that the significance of the proletariat is infinitely greater than its proportion to the total population; it showed a combination of the economic strike and the political strike, with the latter developing into an armed uprising, and the birth of the Soviets, a new form of mass struggle and mass organization of the classes oppressed by capitalists.’’ (the ‘’latter’’ being a reference to the second, while the ‘’former’’ is a reference to the first)

The fact that ‘’backward Russia’’ became the first Soviet Socialist Republic to come into existence, will no doubt go down in history as an ‘’anomaly’’, which is to say, ‘’something that deviates from what is standard, normal or expected’’, according to the internet. We can expect the next Scientific Socialist Revolutions, which are rapidly approaching, to take place in a number of highly developed, industrialized countries. Of course, we can also expect these Revolutions to take place in countries which are not too highly industrialized. 

The fact that the Chinese Revolution of 1949 also gave birth to a state of Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Poor Peasants, can be explained by the fact that, even though the vast majority of people were peasants, there was a small working class, a proletariat, which led the Revolution. Or as Lenin stated, ‘’the significance of the proletariat is infinitely greater than its proportion to the total population’’. That Revolution was not, as the bourgeois scholars would have us believe, strictly a ‘’peasant revolution’’, as it was led by the working class, the proletariat. Another ‘’historic anomaly’’!

It is also a fact that ‘’backward Russia’’ was the first to give birth to ‘’Soviets’’, at the time of the Russian Revolution of 1905. This ‘’mass organization’’, of the ‘’oppressed classes’’, has since spread around the world. Here in North America, they are referred to as ‘’Councils’’. It remains to be seen if they continue to be referred to as Councils, or if the Russian term ‘’Soviet’’ will be adopted. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to them as Soviets.

Revolutionary experience has revealed that it is the ‘’industrial proletariat’’, which is to say workers who are employed in industry, who first spontaneously give birth to Soviets. From industry, these Soviets spread to workers in rural areas, such as farm labourers, as well as family farmers, otherwise known as peasants, and to various branches of the military. Or as Lenin went on to state:

‘’The Revolutions of February and October 1917, led to the all round development of the Soviets on a nation wide scale, and in their victory in the Proletarian Socialist Revolution. In less than two years, the international character of the Soviets, the spread of this form of struggle and organization, to the world working class movement and the historical mission of the Soviets as the grave digger, heir and successor of bourgeois parliamentarianism and of bourgeois democracy in general, all became clear.’’ (In America, parliament is referred to as ‘’Congress’’)

The Russian February Revolution of 1917, succeeded in overthrowing the nobility, so that Tsar Nicholas II was forced to step down, and a democratic republic was established. This was followed by the Russian Great October Soviet Socialist Revolution, within the same year. Those are the two Revolutions of 1917, to which Lenin is referring. 

Those same two Revolutions also revealed the exceptional power of the Soviets, or their ‘’all round development on a nation wide scale’’, especially in their ‘’victory in the Proletarian Socialist Revolution’’. It quickly became clear that these Soviets have an ‘’international character’’, that they have a ‘’historical mission’’, to be the ‘’grave digger’’ of ‘’bourgeois parliamentarianism’’ and ‘’bourgeois democracy’’. This is to say that various forms of bourgeois democracy, including the parliamentary republic, are soon to be abolished, and replaced with the Soviets. Proletarian democracy! Soviet Power under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

Lenin then proceeded to give a description of the revolutionary movement, of the working class, as it was then developing:

‘’But that is not all. The history of the working class movement now shows that, in all countries, it is about to go through (and is already going through) a struggle waged by Communism- emergent, gaining strength, and advancing towards victory- against, primarily, Menshevism, i.e., opportunism and social chauvinism (the home brand in each particular country), and then as a complement, so to say, Left wing Communism. The former struggle has developed in all countries, apparently without any exception, as a duel between the Second International (already virtually dead) and the Third International. The latter struggle is to be seen in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, America (at any rate, a certain section of the Industrial Workers of the World and of the anarcho- syndicalists  trends uphold the errors of Left Wing Communism, alongside of an almost universal and almost unreserved acceptance of the Soviet system), and in France (the attitude of a section of the former syndicalists towards the political party and parliamentarianism, also alongside of the acceptance of the Soviet system); in other words, the struggle is undoubtedly being waged, not only on an international, but even on a world wide scale.’’ (italics by Lenin, i.e. means ‘’that is’’, and syndicalism means ‘’a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers’ unions’’, while anarchy is a ‘’state of disorder due to absence or non recognition of authority or other controlling systems’’, according to the internet.)

Without doubt, there are a considerable number of workers who consider the preceding to be about as exciting as arguing over shades of the same colour. At what point does the colour blue become grey? And who really cares?

Such an attitude may be completely understandable, but it is fundamentally flawed. As Lenin stated in What Is To Be Done?, 

‘’Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. This cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism is combined with absorption in the narrowest form of practical activity. The importance of theory for Russian Social Democracy is still greater for three reasons, which are often forgotten.

‘’The first is that our Party is only in the process of formation, its features are just becoming outlined, and it has not yet completely settled its accounts with other tendencies in revolutionary thought, which threatens to divert the movement from the proper path. …What at first sight appears to be an ‘unimportant mistake’, may give rise to most deplorable consequences, and only the short sighted would consider factional disputes and strict distinction of shades to be inopportune and superfluous. The fate of Russian Social Democracy for many, many years to come, may be determined by the strengthening of one or the other ‘shade’’’. (at that time, Communism was referred to as Social Democracy)

As our International Communist Party is also ‘’still in the process of formation’’, it is best that we ‘’settle accounts’’ with ‘’other tendencies in revolutionary thought’’, preferably before the ‘’outbreak of hostilities’’. The anticipated Insurrection will give rise to open class warfare, between the Oligarchy class of multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie, and the working class, the proletariat. 

May I suggest that the articles I have written, over the last few years, all of which are based upon the Scientific Socialist Revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, be considered to be ‘’Features of the Party’’, that which is still in the ‘’process of formation’’. Naturally, I encourage anyone who is of the opinion that any of  my Scientific Socialist theories are incorrect, to point out my mistake. Such criticism I welcome. 

That being said, I fully expect someone to point out that the ‘’materialist conception of history’’ does not allow for the existence of God. For that reason, they tend to conclude that all Communists should be atheists.

I am anything but an atheist, so if the previous paragraph is true, then I am a terrible Communist. What is more, I am not alone. There are a great many fine Scientific Socialists, Communists, who also have strong religious beliefs, as do I. Further, to limit membership in the Party to atheists, would be a serious mistake. The vast majority of common people believe in God, or at least a Higher Power of their understanding, and have different names for this, based upon the religious body of which they are affiliated. We have got to respect the personal beliefs of all common people. To take a stand of atheism, as the official policy of the Party, would result in considerable damage. 

Lenin goes on to say: 

‘’The second reason is that the Social Democratic movement is essentially an international movement. This does not merely mean that we must combat national chauvinism. It also means that a movement that is starting in a young country, can be successful only on the condition that it assimilates the experience of other countries. In order to assimilate this experience, it is not sufficient merely to be acquainted with it, or simply to transcribe the latest resolutions. A critical attitude is required towards this experience, and ability to subject it to independent tests. Only those who realize how much the modern labour movement has grown in strength, will understand what a reserve of theoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary) experience is required to fulfill this task.’’ 

Lenin wrote this article in 1902. At that time, the revolutionary movement, of the working class, was referred to as a ‘’Social Democratic movement’’. As well, the name of the Party, which was ‘’still in the process of formation’’, was that of the Social Democratic Labour Party. It is also significant that the revolutionary movement, even at that time, was ‘’essentially an international movement’’. Further, such a movement, in a ‘’young country’’, ‘’can be successful only on the condition that it assimilates the experience of other countries.’’ As the Russian Great October Soviet Socialist Revolution closely resembles our own, it is absolutely necessary that we ‘’assimilate that experience’’. 

Lenin: ‘’The third reason is that the national tasks of Russian Social Democracy are such as have never confronted any other Socialist Party in the world….At the moment, we merely wish to state that the role of the vanguard can be fulfilled only by a Party that is guided by an advanced theory…

‘’Let us quote what Engels said in 1874, concerning the significance of theory in the Social Democratic movement. Engels recognizes not two forms of the great struggle Social Democracy is conducting (political and economic), but three, adding to the first two the theoretical struggle.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This is followed by a rather lengthy quote from Engels, concerning the importance of theory. Clearly, Lenin considered the theoretical struggle to be of the utmost importance!

With regards to our own forth coming revolution, we can expect it to start with that which is commonly referred to as an ‘’Insurrection’’. It remains to be seen whether that Insurrection will be spontaneous, or well organized, presumably by a Scientific Socialist Communist Party. The better organized the Insurrection, the greater the chances of a successful Proletarian Revolution.

At that point, we can also expect both the anarchists and the syndicalists to make their positions clear, in no uncertain terms, at ‘’great length’’, and at ‘’high volume’’. We had best be prepared for them!

The anarchists are fully prepared to support us in smashing the existing state apparatus. They are equally determined to oppose us, in setting up a new state apparatus, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists want no part of any state apparatus. If they have their way- God forbid!- the existing state apparatus will indeed be smashed, but not replaced with an apparatus to crush the resistance of the Oligarchy class, as they make every effort to restore their ‘’paradise lost’’. Without such a state apparatus, watch how fact the Oligarchy returns to power!

By contrast, the syndicalists want the ‘’means of production’’, meaning the factories, mills, mines and such, as well as the ‘’means of transportation’’, which is to say the railroads, shipping lines and trucking companies, placed under the control of the trade unions. As well, they also want the ‘’financial institutions’’, such as the banks and credit unions, also placed under trade union control.

This is a sure fire recipe for financial disaster! There are a number of things that workers do very well. Running a business in not one of those things! Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it is up to the Communist Party to appoint competent administrators, in order to manage the business properly. Otherwise, the Oligarchy class is sure to ‘’swoop in’’ and once again, seize power.

Lenin went on to state, in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder:

‘’But while the working class movement is everywhere going through what is actually the same kind of preparatory school for victory over the bourgeoisie, it is achieving that development in its own way in each country. The big and advanced capitalist countries are travelling this road far more rapidly than did Bolshevism, to which history granted fifteen years to prepare itself for victory, as an organized political trend. In the brief space of a year, the Third International has already scored a decisive victory; it has defeated the yellow, social chauvinist Second International, which only a few months ago was incomparably stronger than the Third International, seemed stable and powerful, and enjoyed every possible support- direct and indirect, material (Cabinet posts, passports, the press) and ideological- from the world bourgeoisie.’’ (italics by Lenin)

We can expect our latest international working class movement to proceed quite rapidly, especially in the most advanced countries. We can further expect that movement to develop in a different manner, in different countries. As well, the revolutionary movements in the highly developed countries will almost certainly encourage a similar development in the less developed countries. All the more reason for the creation of a true International Communist Party, to coordinate that revolutionary motion. 

Lenin went on to state:

‘’It is now essential that Communists of every country should quite consciously take into account both the fundamental objectives of the struggle against opportunism and ‘Left’ doctrinairism, and the concrete features which this struggle assumes, and must inevitably assume, in each country, in conformity with the specific character of its economics, politics, culture, and national composition (Ireland, etc.), its colonies, religious divisions, and so on and so forth. Dissatisfaction with the Second International is felt everywhere and is spreading and growing, both because of its opportunism, and because of its inability or incapacity to create a really centralized and really leading centre, capable of directing the international tactics of the revolutionary proletariat, in its struggle for a World Soviet Republic. It should be clearly realized that such a leading centre can never be built up on stereotyped, mechanically equated, and identical tactical rules of struggle. As long as national and state distinctions exist among peoples and countries- and these will continue to exist for a very long time to come, even after the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has been established on a world wide scale- the unity of the international tactics of the Communist working class movement in all countries demands, not the elimination of variety of the suppression of national distinctions (which is a pipe dream at present), but an application of the fundamental principles of Communism (Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat), which will correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and apply them to national and national state distinctions. To seek out, investigate, predict and grasp that which is nationally specific and nationally distinctive, in the concrete manner in which each country should tackle a single international task: victory over opportunism and Left doctrinairism within the working class movement; the overthrow of the bourgeoisie; the establishment of a Soviet Republic and a Proletarian Dictatorship- such is the basic task in the historical period that all the advanced countries (and not they alone) are going through. The chief thing- though, of course, far from everything- the chief thing, has already been achieved: the vanguard of the working class has been won over, has ranged itself on the side of Soviet government and against parliamentarianism, on the side of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and against bourgeois democracy. All efforts and all attention should now be concentrated on the next step, which may seem- and from a certain viewpoint actually is- less fundamental, but, on the other hand, is actually closer to a practical accomplishment of the task. That step is: the search after forms of the transition or the approach to the Proletariat Revolution.’’ (italics by Lenin)

I have chosen to quote the preceding lengthy paragraph in its entirety, as it is so important. Just as in 1920, there is currently a need to create a ‘’really centralized and really leading centre, capable of directing the international tactics of the revolutionary proletariat, in its struggle for a World Soviet Republic.’’ But then, that was clearly the reason for the creation of the Third International, in 1919.

Just because the creation of the Third International served as a ‘’centralized and leading Centre’’, in 1919, does not mean that we are obligated to create another such International. It does mean that it is our duty, that of Scientific Socialists, to create such a ‘’Centre’’. As long as it serves the purpose of ‘’directing the international tactics of the revolutionary proletariat, in its struggle for a World Socialist Republic’’, then it serves the purpose!

It is also significant that Lenin referred to a ‘’World Socialist Republic’’. Singular! It stands to reason that one Republic, even if it composes many countries of the world, requires but one Communist Party. After all, there is but one working class. 

May I suggest that the creation of an International Communist Party, will serve to ‘’unite the international tactics of the Communist working class movement, in all countries’’, while ‘’correctly modifying’’ certain principles, in each particular country. Bear in mind that the fundamental principle is that of ‘’Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’.   

In earlier articles, I suggested that the name be that of Communist Party, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or CP,DP. The addition of the title Dictatorship of the Proletariat, was an attempt to distinguish ourselves from all the other revisionist Communist Parties, all of whom avoid any mention of Soviet Power, or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

Yet to this day, even fifty years after the Chinese capitalists were able to return to power in China, the politicians in China still refer to themselves as the ‘’Chinese Communist Party’’. So perhaps a more forceful name is required, in order to draw a clear distinction between ourselves, and the revisionists, the social chauvinists. May I suggest that the name of the Party be that of the Scientific Socialist Communist Party, SSCP. 

This proposed name change, even to a Party which as yet, is still in the process of formation, is not something which I take lightly. With that in mind, I considered the reasons Lenin chose to change the name of his Party, in 1918. 

On March 8, 1918, Lenin wrote an article titled, REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM AND ON CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PARTY 

At that time, the name of the Party was the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, which had been created in 1898. Yet from the very beginning, the Party was deeply divided, between those who demanded the ‘’revision’’ of the revolutionary theories of Marx, as opposed to those of principle, led by Lenin. The ‘’revisionists’’, also known as opportunists, wanted no part of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They were determined to ensure a peaceful transition to socialism, through the democratic process. Lenin covers this difference of opinion quite well, in his article, What Is To Be Done?

This led to a split in the Party, in 1903, into a principled, Marxist faction, led by Lenin, referred to as a ‘’Bolshevik’’, which means majority, and an unprincipled, or opportunist, a ‘’Menshevik’’ faction, which means minority, those of ‘’revisionists’’. 

Yet in 1918, Lenin decided to change the name of the Party, in order to draw a clear distinction between the true Marxists, and the revisionists. He chose the name of the Russian Communist Party, (Bolsheviks).

In this article, Lenin explained the reason for the name change: ‘’It has already been explained in our press that the name ‘Social Democratic Party’ is scientifically incorrect. When the workers set up their own state, they realized that the old concept of democracy- bourgeois democracy- had been surpassed in the process of the development of our Revolution. We have arrived at a type of democracy that has never existed anywhere in Western Europe. It has the prototype only in the Paris Commune.’’ 

As for the addition of the word ‘’Bolsheviks’’, in brackets, it merely means Majority, so that it is rather pointless. Yet the fact remained that the word ‘’has not only acquired right of citizenship in the political life of Russia, but also throughout the entire foreign press.’’ That is the reason he maintained the word, but placed it in brackets.

Lenin then went on to state: 

‘’On the other hand, as we begin Socialist reforms, we must have a clear conception of the goal towards which these reforms are in the final analysis directed, that is, the creation of a Communist society that does not limit itself to the expropriation of factories, the land and the means of production, does not confine itself to strict accounting for, and control of, production and distribution of products, but goes further towards implementing the principle ’From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. That is why the name of Communist Party is the only one that is scientifically correct.’’ 

As that is the case, we certainly cannot change the name ‘’Communist Party’’, as it is the ‘’only one that is scientifically correct’’. Yet in order to draw a clear distinction, between ourselves and the revisionists, I recommend the term Scientific Socialist Communist Party, as a means of stressing the fact that all true Communists are Scientific Socialists.  

This is more accurate, as both Marx and Lenin were Scientific Socialists. Marx conducted a thorough, detailed, scientific analysis of capitalism, in its early, pre competitive stage, while Lenin conducted a similar analysis of capitalism, in its monopoly stage. As well, it draws a clear distinction between ourselves and the Utopian Socialists, of various descriptions.

As regards the ‘’chief thing’’, which is that the ‘’vanguard of the working class’’, must ‘’range itself on the side of Soviet government, and against parliamentarianism’’, which is to say ‘’on the side of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and against bourgeois democracy’’, we can say, that is no longer the case! That which was true in 1920, is no longer true! The working class has regressed, through no fault of its own, I might add. 

This is no cause for despair, on our part. After all, we are fighting a class war, on a world wide scale. As Lenin stated, it is a ‘’war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex, than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states’’. Just as it is not reasonable to expect to win each and every battle, in an ‘’ordinary’’ war between states, so too, we can also expect to suffer the occasional reversal, in our class war. 

Now we have to persuade the ‘’vanguard of the working class’’, which is to say the most advanced workers, of the superiority of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as opposed to parliamentarianism and bourgeois democracy. As the working class is now quite cultured, with access to digital devices, this task is far less difficult than it once was.

For that reason, I am now confident that the most advanced workers will soon come around to ‘’our way of thinking’’, that of Scientific Socialists. That brings us to the ‘’next step’’, which is to ‘’search after forms of the transition or approach to the Proletarian Revolution’’.

Now to return to Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder. Lenin:

‘’The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a position either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least of sympathetic neutrality towards it, and of precluded support for the enemy, would be, not merely foolish but criminal. Propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the broad masses of the working people, those 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, which has been confirmed with compelling force and vividness, not only in Russia, but Germany as well.’’ 

The level of awareness of the ‘’common people’’ of America- I prefer that term to that of ‘’masses’’- is perhaps best illustrated by the ‘’No Kings’’ protests of March 28, 2026. The mainstream press reported that it was the ‘’largest single day demonstration in American history, with more than 8 million participants across more than 3,300 locations nation wide.’’ They further report that the protests were organized to ‘’oppose the second term of President Donald Trump’’, especially as regards ‘’his administration’s authoritarian policies, immigration crackdowns, and the ongoing Iran war.’’ 

It is significant that the protest was largely coordinated by such groups as 50501 Movement, Indivisible, Move On,  Black Lives Matter, Me Too, and various other groups. 

The largest rallies occurred in major cities, but also spread to almost all towns and rural communities, across the country. As well, ‘’parallel protests’’ were also held in other countries, such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. By and large, these protests were largely peaceful, although police did use tear gas in the city of Los Angeles, which resulted in a number of arrests. That was exceptional.

The fact that there were so few people arrested, is an indication of the strength of the revolutionary movement. It means that the vast majority of local police have ‘’backed off’’, so to speak, no longer actively opposing the revolutionary movement, and have effectively adopted a position of ‘’sympathetic neutrality’’, to use the expression of Lenin.

The sheer size of the protest, is an indication that the common people are deeply dissatisfied with the current situation, that they are no longer willing to ‘’live in the old way’’, and are ‘’demanding change’’. They are clearly dissatisfied with the democratic republic. But of course, they are not calling for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as an alternative to bourgeois democracy, because they are not aware of this!

It is quite reasonable to assume that, among the groups which organized that protest, most of the leaders are middle class intellectuals. They have very likely been to University, and been exposed to the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Or more accurately, the distortion of those theories, as that is the only version that is taught in University. To those individuals, I can only suggest that you face the fact that the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the Oligarchy is in charge, and must be overthrown.

With that in mind, may I further suggest that you read, once again, the Essential Works of Marx and Lenin, but this time, with an open mind. Feel free to face the fact that the proletariat is the ‘’class which holds the future in its hands’’, the class which is ‘’destined to overthrow the ruling class of capitalists’’, and crush the Oligarchy, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

As for those who are skeptical, bear in mind that it was Karl Marx who first conducted a thorough, scientific examination of society in general, and capitalism in particular. As I have previously stated, based on that study, Marx proved that capitalism would give rise to Socialism. This is to stress the fact that Marx was a Scientific Socialist. In fact, he spelled it out quite clearly, in his 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)

The preceding paragraph is one I would love to see in poster form!

Allow me to stress the fact that, as Marx stated so clearly, the class struggle necessarily leads to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! No ‘’two ways about it’’! The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is ‘’on the horizon’’! 

Bear in mind that it is one thing to be destined to establish a state of Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and it is something else entirely to be conscious of this fact! The conditions of life, of the working class, the proletariat, do not lead to the awareness of itself, as a class! This ‘’class consciousness’’ must be brought to the proletariat, from an outside source. That ‘’outside source’’ is of course, middle class intellectuals.

As can be well imagined, that is my less than subtle hint, to all leaders of the Leftist groups who organized that protest, that they should become actively involved in raising the level of awareness of the working class. The most advanced workers must be raised to the level of ‘’Conscious People’’, of Scientific Socialists, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. As such workers are highly respected, they will in turn, lead the less advanced.

May I further suggest that the best way to do this, is by taking part in the creation of a true International Scientific Socialist Communist Party. The leaders of those Leftist organization can become members of the Party. The basis for uniting, for forming a true Scientific Socialist Communist Party, must be recognition of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as an alternative to bourgeois democracy, in the form of parliamentarianism.

As for persuading the vast majority of the population, which is to say the less advanced workers, of the superiority of the Soviet system, we can then support various progressive people, for any and all political offices. Once elected, their most sincere efforts, to ‘’change the system from within’’, will ‘come to naught’’! We can count on the Oligarchy class to allow no substantive change, regardless of how many Leftist people are elected to Congress, or any other political office. In this way, all common people will learn, ‘’from their own political experience’’, that ‘’bourgeois parliamentarianism’’, in the form of the Senate and House of Representatives, is merely a farce, and that Proletarian Democracy, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is far superior. 

Lenin went on to state, in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder:

‘’The immediate objective of the class conscious vanguard of the international working class movement, i.e., the Communist Parties, groups and trends, is to be able to lead the broad masses (who are still, for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention ridden) to their new position, or, rather, to be able to lead, not only their own party, but also these masses in their advance and transition to the new position. While the first historical objective (that of winning over the class conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Working Class) could not have been reached without a complete ideological and political victory over opportunism and social chauvinism, the second and immediate objective, which consists in being able to lead the masses to a new position, ensuring the victory of the vanguard in the revolution, cannot be reached without the liquidation of Left doctrinairism, and without a full elimination of its errors.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Even though the ‘’first historical objective’’, that of ‘’winning over the class conscious vanguard of the proletariat’’, to the side of ‘’Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’, has yet to be reached, I am confident that we are ‘’on the threshold’’. The deep dissatisfaction of the working class, and the strength of the revolutionary movement, is a clear indication of this. The only thing lacking is the awareness of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Now it is up to true Communists, Scientific Socialists, to bring that awareness to the working class. After the most advanced workers are convinced of the correctness of those revolutionary theories, then the whole of the common people, proletarians, farmers and lower strata of the middle class, can be led to a ‘’new position’’, which will ‘’ensure the victory of the vanguard in the Revolution’’. At least here in North America, all other classes have been all but wiped out.

Lenin: ‘’As long as it was (and inasmuch as it still is) a question of winning the proletariat’s vanguard over to the side of Communism, priority went, and still goes to propaganda work; even propaganda circles, with all their parochial limitations, are useful under these conditions, and produce good results. But when it is a question of practical action by the masses, of the disposition, if one may so put it, of vast armies, of the alignment of all the class forces in a given society for the final and decisive battle, then propagandist methods alone, the mere repetition of the truths of ‘pure’ Communism, are of no avail. In these circumstances, one must not count in thousands, like the propagandist belonging to a small group, that has not yet given leadership to the masses; in these circumstances, one must count in millions and tens of millions. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves, not only whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but also whether the historically effective forces of all classes- positively of all the classes in a given society, without exception- are arrayed in such a way that the decisive battle is at hand- in such a way that: (1) all the class forces hostile to us have become sufficiently entangled, are sufficiently at loggerheads with each other, have sufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle which is beyond their strength; (2) all the vacillating and unstable, intermediate elements- the petty bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeois democrats, as distinct from the bourgeoisie- have sufficiently exposed themselves in the eyes of the people, have sufficiently disgraced themselves through their practical bankruptcy, and (3) among the proletariat, a mass sentiment favouring the most determined, bold and dedicated revolutionary action against the bourgeoisie has emerged and begun to grow vigorously. Then revolution is indeed ripe; then, indeed, if we have correctly gauged all the conditions indicated and summarized above, and if we have chosen the right moment, our victory is assured.’’ (italics by Lenin)

The revolutionary motion of the working class, the proletariat, and not just here in North America, is becoming ever stronger. Various strata of the population is ‘’taking to the streets’’, and not just the working class, but also farmers and professional people, members of the middle class, the ‘’petty bourgeois’’. Without doubt, a ‘’popular uprising’’, technically referred to as an ‘’Insurrection’’, is imminent, ‘’right around the corner’’! ‘’So far, so good’’, so to speak! This Insurrection will ‘’kick off’’ the revolution. Yet in order for the revolution to be successful, the existing state apparatus must be smashed, and replaced with a new state apparatus, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! Without that new Proletarian state apparatus, the Oligarchy class is sure to return to power.

This new proletarian state apparatus can and must be created, but in order to accomplish that, the working class must first be made aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. The vast majority of working people must embrace those scientific revolutionary theories. Then, and only then, when working people, by the ‘’tens of millions’’, are demanding Scientific Socialism, will we be prepared for the ‘’decisive battle’’. 

As for the other requirements for a successful revolution, it is safe to say that, among the Oligarchy class, they are ‘’at loggerheads’’, to phrase it politely. More accurately, they are ‘’at each others throats’’! That leaves the middle class, the petty bourgeois. As regards that class, the Oligarchy has recently ‘’laid down the law’’, which is that ‘’all businesses but five’’, are ‘’Too Small To Succeed’’. The Oligarchy just ‘’declared war’’ on the middle class! They are determined to ‘’wipe out’’ the middle class! Effectively forcing them into an ‘’alliance’’ with the working class! The Oligarchy is their own worst enemy!

In the next paragraph, Lenin makes reference to bourgeois politicians, who were well known at that time,  but very likely, not known at all, to most modern day workers. As for the differences between these ‘’political types’’, which ‘’exist in all countries’’, Lenin stated that they are: 

‘’Quite minor and unimportant from the standpoint of pure (i.e., abstract) Communism, i.e., Communism that has not yet matured to the stage of practical political action by the masses. However, from the standpoint of this practical action by the masses, these differences are most important.To take due account of these differences, and to determine the moment when the inevitable conflicts between these ‘friends’, which weaken and enfeeble all the ‘friends’ taken together, will have come to a head- that is the concern, the task, of a Communist who wants to be, not merely a class conscious and convinced propagandist of ideas, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution. It is necessary to link the strictest devotion to the ideas of Communism, with the ability to effect all the necessary practical compromises, tacks, conciliatory maneuvers, zigzags, retreats and so on, in order to speed up the achievement and then loss of political power by the Hendersons… to accelerate their inevitable bankruptcy in practice, which will enlighten the masses in the spirit of our ideas, in the direction of Communism; to accelerate the inevitable friction, quarrels, conflicts and complete disintegration among the…(various leaders of the bourgeois-GM); to select the proper moment when the discord among these ‘pillars of sacrosanct private property’ is at its height, so that, through a decisive offensive, the proletariat will defeat them all and capture political power.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is of the utmost importance to pay strict attention to detail! These details, technically referred to as ‘’particulars’’, can be used to expose the lies and hypocrisy of the class of monopoly capitalists, the Oligarchy. We can then use these details, as examples, in order to drive home the point we are trying to make- otherwise known as the ‘’general’’- which is that the ruling class of Oligarchy has to be overthrown, and replaced with a state of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And rest assured, the working class pays strict attention to the squabbles taking place, within the ruling class. 

Lenin: ‘’History as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most class conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This can readily be understood, because even the finest of vanguards express the class consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of thousands, whereas at moments of great upsurge and the exertion of all human capabilities, revolutions are made by the class consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of  classes. Two very important practical conclusions follow from this: first, that in order to accomplish its task, the revolutionary class must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception (completing after the capture of political power- sometimes at great risk and with very great danger- what it did not complete before the capture of power); second, that the revolutionary class must be prepared for the most rapid and brusque replacement of one form by another.’’ (italics by Lenin)

On the one hand, the working class, led by Scientific Socialists, must be flexible, prepared to exercise different forms of the class struggle, legal and illegal. We must also be prepared to rapidly change tact, especially when the revolutionary motion ‘’moves into high gear’’, or experiences a ‘’great upsurge’’, as Lenin phrased it.

Lenin: ‘’One will readily agree, that any army which does not train to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of war. In politics, it is even harder to know in advance which methods of struggle will be applicable and to our advantage, in certain future conditions. Unless we learn to apply all the methods of struggle, we may suffer grave and sometimes even decisive defeat, if changes beyond our control in the position of the other classes bring to the forefront a form of activity in which we are especially weak. If, however, we learn to use all the methods of struggle, victory will be certain, because we represent the interests of the really foremost and really revolutionary class, even if circumstances do not permit us to make use of weapons that are most dangerous to the enemy, weapons that deal the swiftest mortal blows. Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal methods of struggle are opportunist because, in this field, the bourgeoisie has most frequently deceived and duped the workers (particularly in ‘peaceful’ and non revolutionary times), while illegal methods of struggle are revolutionary. That, however, is wrong. The truth is that those parties and leaders are opportunists and traitors to the working class, that are unable or unwilling (do not say, I can’t; say, I shan’t’) to use illegal methods of struggle in conditions such as those that prevailed, for example, during the imperialist war of 1914-18, when the bourgeoisie of the freest democratic countries most brazenly and brutally deceived the workers, and smothered the truth about the predatory character of the war. But revolutionaries who are incapable of combining illegal forms of struggle with every form of legal struggle, are poor revolutionaries indeed. It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is in spate, when all people are joining the revolution just because they are carried away, because it is the vogue, and sometimes even from careerist motives. After its victory, the proletarian has to make most strenuous efforts, even the most painful, so as to ‘liberate’ itself from such pseudo-revolutionaries. It is far more difficult- and far more precious- to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist, to be able to champion the interests of the revolution (by propaganda, agitation and organization) in non revolutionary bodies, and quite often in downright reactionary bodies, in a non revolutionary situation, among the masses who are incapable of immediately appreciating the need for revolutionary methods of action. To be able to seek, find and correctly determine the specific path or the particular turn of events that will lead the masses to the real, decisive and final revolutionary struggle- such is the main objective of Communism in Western Europe and in America today.’’ (italics by Lenin)

The preceding passage is quite self explanatory, and requires no further explanation. His next paragraph was written in reference to Great Britain. Lenin: 

‘’We cannot tell-no one can tell in advance-how soon a real Proletarian Revolution will flare up there, and what immediate cause will most serve to rouse, kindle, and impel into the struggle the very wide masses, who are still dormant…We are not discussing the kind of struggle that will determine the fate of the Proletarian Revolution in Great Britain….what we are discussing is the immediate cause that will bring into motion the now dormant proletarian masses, and lead them right up to revolution.’’ (italics by Lenin)

No doubt, all Americans can relate to the fact that President Richard Nixon was guilty of various war crimes, in Viet Nam and all of Southeast Asia. Yet that which brought about his downfall, forcing him to resign from the Presidency, was a bungled burglary! There is simply no telling what ‘’immediate cause’’ will ‘’lead the dormant masses right up to revolution’’. 

Lenin then proceeded to give advice to all Communists:

‘’Communists ….in all countries, exist for the purpose of changing-all along the line, in all spheres if life-the old socialist, trade unionist, syndicalist, and parliamentary type of work, into a new type of work….In Western Europe and in America, the Communist must learn to create a new, uncustomary, non-opportunist, and non-careerist, parliamentarianism; the Communist Parties  must issue their slogans; true proletarians, with the help of the unorganized and downtrodden poor, should distribute leaflets.…they should go into the the public houses, penetrate into unions, societies and chance gatherings of the common people, and speak to the people, not in learned (or very parliamentary) language; they should not at all strive to ‘get seats’ in Parliament, but should everywhere try to get people to think, and draw the masses into the struggle, to take the bourgeoisie at its word and utilize the machinery it has set up, the elections it has appointed, and the appeals it has made to the people; they should try to explain to the people what Bolshevism is….It is very difficult to do this in Western Europe, and extremely difficult in America, but it can and must be done, for the objectives of Communism cannot be achieved without effort. We must work to achieve practical tasks, ever more varied and ever more closely connected with all branches of social life, winning branch after branch, and sphere after sphere from the bourgeoisie.’’ (italics by Lenin, and at the time this article was written, the Russian Communist Party was called Bolshevik)

Now that the working classes of both Western Europe and America are cultured, with access to the internet readily available, our task is much easier. The necessity of ‘’distributing leaflets’’ is much reduced. As for slogans, I will once again remind all Leftist people, to avoid the use of vulgarity. I also highly recommend that we ‘’take the bourgeoisie at their word’’, and make every attempt to ‘’change the system from within’’. As I have gone into this, in considerable detail, in previous articles, there is no need to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that workers should be encouraged to become card carrying members of both mainstream political parties, and to run for offices as such. As well, the 2024 presidential election should be challenged, as it did not follow the procedure outlined in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution.

Lenin went on to state:

‘’We do not and cannot know which spark…will kindle the conflagration, in the sense of raising up the masses; we must, therefore, with our new and Communist principles, set to work to stir up all and sundry, even the oldest, mustiest and seemingly hopeless spheres, for otherwise we shall not be able to cope with our tasks, shall not be comprehensively prepared, shall not be in possession of all the weapons, and shall not prepare ourselves either to gain victory over the bourgeoisie…or to bring about the impending Communist reorganization of every sphere of life, following that victory….when the American bourgeoisie, which has completely lost its head, seizes thousands and thousands of people on suspicion of Bolshevism, creates an atmosphere of panic, and broadcasts stories of Bolshevik plots… we must salute and thank the capitalists. They are working for us. They are helping us to get the masses interested in the essence and significance of Bolshevism, and they cannot do otherwise, for they have already failed to ignore Bolshevism and stifle it.’’  (italics by Lenin)

As Russian Bolshevism is now called Communism, and as the favourite insult of Donald Trump, is to label his political opponents as Communists, we can only ‘’salute and thank him’’! He is getting the common people interested in Communism! Way to go, Mister President!

Lenin: ‘’Communism is emerging in positively every sphere of public life; its beginnings are to be seen literally on all sides. The ‘contagion’ (to use the favourite metaphor of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois police, the one most to their liking) has very thoroughly penetrated the organism and has completely permeated it. …Communists should know that, in any case, the future belongs to them; therefore, we can (and must) combine the most intense passion in the great revolutionary struggle, with the coolest and most sober appraisal of the frenzied ravings of the bourgeoisie….But in all cases in all countries, Communism is becoming steeled and is growing; its roots are so deep that persecution does not weaken or debilitate it, but only strengthens it. Only one thing is lacking to enable us to march forward more confidently and firmly to victory, namely, the universal and thorough awareness of all Communists, in all countries, of the necessity to display the utmost flexibility in their tactics. The Communist movement, which is developing magnificently, now lacks, especially in the advanced countries, this awareness, and the ability to apply it in practice.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This was followed by a passage in which Lenin documents the errors of various previously fine Communist, those who were not capable of ‘’flexible’’ tactics. As Lenin stated, ‘’The principle reason for their bankruptcy was that they were hypnotized by a definite form of growth of the working class movement and socialism’’. As a result, they went from being outstanding Marxists, to contemptible revisionists. That is at least part of the reason the working class has regressed. Their leaders betrayed them.

Lenin went on to state:

‘’We must see to it that Communists do not make a similar mistake, only in the opposite sense, or rather, we must see to it that a similar mistake, only made in the opposite sense by the ‘Left’ Communists, is corrected as soon as possible and eliminated as rapidly and painlessly as possible. It is not only Right doctrinairism that is erroneous; Left doctrinairism is erroneous too.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Once again, Lenin stresses the importance of the proper revolutionary theory of Scientific Socialism. He elaborated on this topic, in the following statement:

‘’The Communists must exert every effort to direct the working class movement and social development in general, along the straightest and shortest road to the victory of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, on a world wide scale. That is an incontestable truth. But it is enough to take one little step further-a step that might seem to be in the same direction-and truth turns into error.’’

This helps to explain the fact that the most advanced strata of the working class, no longer embraces Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as opposed to bourgeois parliamentarianism. The Scientific Socialist leaders of yesteryear, took that ‘’one little step further’’, in one direction or another, to the Right or perhaps to the Left, and ‘’truth turned into error’’. Now it is up to us to correct that error.

This brings us to the APPENDIX of Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, starting with Section I, THE SPLIT AMONG THE GERMAN COMMUNISTS

Lenin: ‘’The split among the Communists in Germany is an accomplished fact….There is reason to fear that the split with the ‘Lefts’, the anti parliamentarians (in part anti politicians too, who are opposed to any political party and to work in the trade unions), will become an international phenomenon….Let that be so. At all events, a split is better than confusion, which hampers the ideological, theoretical and revolutionary growth and maturing of the Party, and its harmonious, really organized practical work, which actually paves the way for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’’

This makes it clear that the ‘’Left’’ is a broad term. It includes those who consider themselves to be Socialists, Democratic Socialists, Anarchists, Syndicalists and Scientific Socialists, although we refer to ourselves as Communists. Yet a split with those who are opposed to any work within Congress, or any trade union, is ‘’better than confusion’’, as such confusion ‘’hampers’’ the growth of the Party.

Lenin went on to say:

‘’Let the ‘Lefts’ put themselves to a practical test on a national and international scale. Let them try to prepare for (and then implement) the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, without a rigorously centralized Party, with iron discipline, without the ability to become masters of every sphere, every branch, and every variety of political and cultural work. Practical experience will soon teach them.’’

Once again, Lenin stresses the importance of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Without such a Party, Scientific Socialism remains a mere ‘’pipe dream’’. 

Yet in the following paragraph, Lenin advises caution:

‘’Only, every effort should be made to prevent the split with the ‘Lefts’ from impeding- or to see that it impedes as little as possible- the necessary amalgamation into a single Party, inevitable in the near future, of all participants in the working class movement, who sincerely and conscientiously stand for Soviet government and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat….In Europe and America, the same work has now to be done by forced marches, so to say. Certain individuals, especially among unsuccessful aspirants to leadership, may (if they lack proletarian discipline and are not honest towards themselves) persist in their mistakes for a long time; however, when the time is ripe, the masses of the workers will themselves unite easily and rapidly and unite all sincere Communists, to form a single Party, capable of establishing the Soviet system and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’’

Allow me to stress the fact that the creation of a true Communist Party is ‘’inevitable’’, to be formed by those who ‘’sincerely and conscientiously’’ stand for Scientific Socialism, and are ’’participating in the working class movement’’. Also to stress the fact that in Europe and America, the creation of such a Party has to be done quickly, or ‘’by forced marches’’, as time is not on our side. Yet, when the ‘’time is ripe’’, the working people will not only ‘’themselves unite’’, but also ‘’unite all sincere Communists’’, to form a ‘’single Party’’. In my opinion, that time is now.

This brings us to Section II, THE COMMUNISTS AND THE INDEPENDENTS IN GERMANY 

In this brief Section, Lenin provides us with an example of a proposed official statement, of a true Communist Party, as opposed to an unofficial statement, to be used in ‘’everyday mass agitation’’. First the official statement: ‘’As long as the majority of the urban workers follow the Independents, we Communists must do nothing to prevent those workers from getting rid of their last philistine democratic illusions, by going through the experience of having a government of their ‘own’’’. 

Workers must learn from their own experience! If they actually believe that the Independents will serve them and their class, then by all means, support them in their attempts to get these people elected. Once elected, the Independents will ‘’show their true colours’’! Or as Lenin phrased it: ‘’That is sufficient ground for a compromise, which is really necessary, and should consist in renouncing, for a certain period, all attempts at the forcible overthrow of a government which enjoys the confidence of a majority of the urban workers.’’

That ‘’official’’ statement stands in stark contrast to the ‘’unofficial’’ statement, as per Lenin: ‘’Let scoundrels …. and philistines…reveal by their deeds how they have been fooled themselves, and how they are fooling the workers; their ‘clean’ government will itself do the ‘cleanest’ job of all in ‘cleansing’ the Augean stables of socialism, Social Democracy and other forms of social treachery.’’

In popular terms, ‘’give a man enough rope, and watch how fast he hangs himself!’’ Lenin concluded this Section with the bourgeois is the failure to understand the revolutionary role of strikes, which are spreading spontaneously!’’

It is significant that Lenin used one of the most highly respected, of the bourgeois newspapers, in order to expose the lies and hypocrisy, of the bourgeois! 

This brings us to Section IV, FALSE CONCLUSIONS FROM CORRECT PREMISES

Lenin: ‘’However, Comrade Bordiga and his ‘Left’ friends draw from their correct criticism of Turati and Co., the wrong conclusion, that any participation in Parliament is harmful in principle. The Italian ‘Lefts’ cannot advance even a shadow of serious argument, in support of this view. They simply do not know (or try to forget) the international examples of really revolutionary and Communist utilization of bourgeois Parliaments, which has been of unquestionable value in preparing for the Proletarian Revolution. They simply cannot conceive of any ‘new’ ways of that utilization, and keep on repeatedly and endlessly vociferating about the ‘old’ non Bolshevik way.

‘’Herein lies their fundamental error. In all fields of activity, and not in the parliamentary field alone, Communism must introduce (and without long and persistent effort it will be unable to introduce) something new in principle, that will represent a radical break with the traditions of the Second International (while retaining and developing what was good in the latter).’’  (italics by Lenin)

We need to develop something ‘’new in principle’’, as a means of exposing the lies and hypocrisy of the Oligarchy class. In previous articles I have documented the existence of various huge animals, which the scientists insist are extinct. They most definitely are not extinct, and the directions for proving their existence are given in my articles. As well, I have previously suggested that all Leftist Americans join the two mainstream political parties, Democratic and Republican, as card carrying members, and run for office, as members of both parties. And lest we forget, an attorney, or perhaps better yet, several attorneys, who are experts in Constitutional law, should challenge the 2024 Presidential Election, on the grounds that it is Unconstitutional, as it did not follow the procedure to be followed, in all federal elections, as laid out in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution. 

Bear in mind that the important thing, is to raise the level of awareness of the working people. Any success we may achieve, as a result of the afore mentioned endeavours, such as removing Trump and Pence from office, is merely to be considered as a bonus.

Lenin next turned his attention to the field of journalism:

‘’Let us take, say, journalistic work. Newspapers, pamphlets and leaflets preform the indispensable work of propaganda, agitation and organization. No mass movement in any country at all civilized, can get along without a journalistic apparatus. No outcries against ‘leaders’, or solemn vows to keep the masses uncontaminated by the influence of leaders, will relieve us of the necessity of using, for this purpose, people from a bourgeois intellectual environment, or will rid us of the bourgeois democratic, ‘private property’ atmosphere and environment, in which this work is carried out, under capitalism.’’

The creation of the internet, has proven to be a true blessing, providing us with a most valuable tool, in our war with the ruling Oligarchy class. It does not completely eliminate the necessity of newspapers, pamphlets and leaflets, but it certainly supplements them. As well, amateur journalists are now able to record videos and transmit them to a wide audience. Yet the services of professional journalists are most valuable, even though such journalists tend to come complete with bourgeois prejudices. 

Lenin: ‘’Parliamentarianism is one form of activity; journalism is another. The content of both can and should be Communist, if those engaged in these two spheres are genuine Communists, really members of a proletarian mass party.

‘’Yet in neither sphere- and in no other sphere of activity under capitalism, and during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism- is it possible to avoid those difficulties which the proletariat must overcome, those special problems which the proletariat must solve so as to use, for its own purposes, the services of people from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, eradicate bourgeois intellectualist prejudices and influences, and weaken the resistance of (and, ultimately, completely transform) the petty bourgeois environment.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It is a comfort to know that there are only two ‘’spheres of activity’’, in which it is not possible to avoid certain ‘’difficulties’’, ‘’special problems’’, which the proletariat ‘’must overcome’’, to ‘’solve’’, so that the ‘’services of people from the ranks of the bourgeoisie’’, can be used in the service of the working class. Those two spheres are those of parliamentarianism and journalism. Yet those two spheres cannot be avoided. The use of the internet merely alleviates these problems. 

As regards the difficulties involved in parliamentarianism, Lenin had a few choice words:

‘’The childishness of those who ‘repudiate’ participation in parliament, consists in their thinking it possible to ‘solve’ the difficult problems of combatting bourgeois democratic influences within the working class movement, in such a ‘simple’, ‘easy’, allegedly revolutionary manner, whereas they are actually merely running away from their own shadows, only closing their eyes to difficulties, and trying to shrug them off with mere words. The most shameless careerism, the bourgeois utilization of parliamentary seats, glaringly reformist perversion of parliamentary activity, and vulgar petty bourgeois conservatism are all unquestionably common and prevalent features, engendered everywhere by capitalism, not only outside, but also within the working class movement. But the selfsame capitalism and the bourgeois environment it creates (which disappears very slowly, even after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, since the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie) give rise to what is essentially the same bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty bourgeois vulgarity, etc.- merely varying insignificantly in form- in positively every sphere of activity and life.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Lenin did not ‘’paint a pretty picture’’, with good reason. It is not a pretty picture! Which in no way changes the fact that it has to be faced! Not just now, but also after the overthrow of the Oligarchy! Even under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, there will still exist people who are determined to pursue bourgeois careerism! He then went into this in more detail:

‘’You think, my dear boycottists and anti parliamentarians, that you are ‘terribly revolutionary’, but in reality you are frightened by the comparatively minor difficulties of the struggle against bourgeois influences within the working class movement, whereas your victory- i.e., the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the conquest of political power by the proletariat- will create these very same difficulties on a still larger, an infinitely larger scale. Like children, you are frightened by a minor difficulty which confronts you today, but you do not understand that tomorrow, and the day after, you will still have to learn, and learn thoroughly, to overcome the selfsame difficulties, only on an immeasurably greater scale.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, classes will continue to exist, for some considerable time. For that reason, as the resistance of the Oligarchy will ‘’increase tenfold’’, as they make a supreme effort to ‘’recover’’ their ‘’paradise lost’’. For that reason, their ‘’bourgeois influence’’ will increase accordingly. We had best be prepared to counteract this influence, or suffer the same fate as the Russians and Chinese, after their successful Scientific Socialist Revolutions. And rest assured, that is not about to happen here! Lenin went on to state:

‘’Under Soviet rule, your Proletarian Party and ours will be invaded by a still larger number of bourgeois intellectuals. They will worm their way into the Soviets, the courts, and the administration, since Communism cannot be built, otherwise than with the aid of the human material created by capitalism, and the bourgeois intellectuals cannot be expelled and destroyed, but must be won over, remoulded, assimilated and reeducated, just as we must- in a protracted struggle, waged on the basis of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat- reeducate the proletarians themselves, who do not abandon their petty bourgeois prejudices at one stroke, by a miracle, at the behest of the Virgin Mary, at the behest of a slogan, resolution or decree, but only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle, against mass petty bourgeois influences. Under Soviet rule, these same problems, which the anti parliamentarians now so proudly, so haughtily, so lightly and so childishly brush aside with a wave of the hand- these selfsame problems are arising anew within the Soviets, within the Soviet administration, among the Soviet ‘pleaders’…Among Soviet engineers, Soviet school teachers and the privileged, i.e., the most highly skilled and best situated, workers at Soviet factories, we observe a constant revival of absolutely all the negative traits peculiar to bourgeois parliamentarianism, and we are conquering this evil- gradually- only by a tireless, prolonged and persistent struggle, based on proletarian organization and discipline.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Fair warning, by Lenin, that our soon to be created Communist Party, will be ‘’invaded’’ by ‘’bourgeois intellectuals’’. They must be ‘’won over, remoulded, assimilated and reeducated’’, whenever possible. Of course, that is not always possible. In much the same manner, certain proletarians also will have to be dealt with, as the ‘’negative traits peculiar to bourgeois parliamentarianism’’ are ‘’revived’’ among the most highly skilled workers, even after the approaching Revolution.

Lenin: ‘’Of course, under the rule of the bourgeoisie, it is very ‘difficult’ to eradicate bourgeois habits from our own, i.e., the workers’, Party; it is ‘difficult’ to expel from the Party, the familiar parliamentary leaders who have been hopelessly corrupted by bourgeois prejudices; it is ‘difficult’ to subject to proletarian discipline the absolutely essential (even if very limited) number of people coming from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; it is ‘difficult’ to form, in a bourgeois parliament, a Communist group fully worthy of the working class; it is ‘difficult’ to ensure that the Communist parliamentarians do not engage in bourgeois parliamentary inanities, but concern themselves with the very urgent work of propaganda, agitation and organization among the masses. All this is ‘difficult’, to be sure; it was difficult in Russia, and it is vastly more difficult in Western Europe and in America, where the bourgeoisie is far stronger, where bourgeois democratic traditions are stronger, and so on.

‘’Yet all these ‘difficulties’ are mere child’s play, compared with the same sort of problems which, in any event, the proletariat will have most certainly to solve in order to achieve victory, both during the Proletarian Revolution, and after the seizure of power, by the proletariat. Compared with these truly gigantic problems of reeducating, under the Proletarian Dictatorship, millions of peasants and small proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office employees, officials and bourgeois intellectuals, of subordinating them all to the proletarian state, and to proletarian leadership, of eradicating their bourgeois habits and traditions- compared with these gigantic problems, it is childishly easy to create, under the rule of the bourgeoisie, and in a bourgeois parliament, a really Communist group, of a real Proletarian Party.’’ (italics by Lenin)

The work of true Communists, which is to say Scientific Socialists, will not end with the anticipated Revolution. Under Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the ‘’bourgeois habits and traditions’’ of countless people, will have to be ‘’eradicated’’. Yet it is also true that, at least in the most highly industrialized countries of the world, there are very few family farmers, otherwise known as peasants. As well, a great many small business owners have also been ‘’wiped out’’. But then, that is the reason it is easier to ‘’carry through’’ the revolution, as opposed to an under developed country.

Lenin: ‘’If our ‘Left’ and anti parliamentarian comrades do not learn to overcome even such a small difficulty now, we may safely assert that either they will prove incapable of achieving the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and will be unable to subordinate and remould the bourgeois intellectuals and bourgeois institutions on a wide scale, or they will have to hastily complete their education, and, by that haste, will do a great deal of harm to the cause of the proletariat, will commit more errors than usual, will manifest more than average weakness and inefficiency, and so on and so forth.

‘’Until the bourgeoisie has been overthrown and, after that, until small scale economy and small commodity production have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work, both outside and within the working class movement, not only in a single field of activity- the parliamentary- but, inevitably, in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political fields, without exception. The attempt to brush aside, to fence oneself off from one of the ‘unpleasant’ problems or difficulties in some one sphere of activity, is a profound mistake, which will later most certainly have to be paid for. We must learn how to master every sphere of work and activity, without exception, to overcome all difficulties and eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere. Any other way of presenting the question is just trifling, mere childishness.’’ (italics by Lenin)

I chose to quote the Appendix of Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder, at such length, as it is of such great importance. That concludes our perusal of Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder. I can only hope that the reader will find that to be helpful.

With most sincere Communist Greetings,

Gerald McIsaac

The year 1917 gave rise to a number of events, which stunned the world, especially the monopoly capitalists, the imperialists, the bourgeoisie. The First World War was raging, as the leaders of the so called ‘’Great Powers’’, the most highly industrialized countries of the world, squabbled over their colonies. 

The ‘’Central Powers’’, which is to say Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire, attempted to separate the leaders of Britain, France and Russia of ‘’their’’ colonies. Of course, the slaughter of countless common people, workers and family farmers, was of absolutely no concern to the imperialists. 

First, the Russian February Revolution managed to overthrow the Romanov dynasty, led by Czar Nicholas, which had been ruling Russia for three centuries. All of the European nobility was completely appalled. As it is the opinion of the nobility that it is ‘’God’s will’’ that they should rule over the rest of us ‘’commoners’’, their astonishment is completely understandable. 

As if that was not ‘’bad enough’’, the second Russian Revolution of 1917 took place. This has gone down in history as the Great October Soviet Socialist Revolution. The common people, the workers and family farmers, led by the Bolsheviks, rose up and overthrew the Provisional Government, that which represented the landlords and capitalists. The existing state apparatus was destroyed, and a state of Scientific Socialism was established, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Poor Peasants.

As leader of the newly created Russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Lenin proposed peace terms to all of the warring countries. Of course these terms were rejected, and the ‘’great slaughter’’ of the working people continued. As well, the huge Russian Army simply disintegrated, and had to be rebuilt, but as a Socialist Army. So Lenin was forced to sue for peace terms, from the Central Powers, on behalf of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. 

Peace was finally concluded, on March 3, of 1918, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The peace terms were harsh. Soviet Russia was forced to concede a third of her population, half of her industry, and almost all of her coal mines. Yet the Bolsheviks accepted these terms, as the alternative was complete destruction. Further, in August of that year, Russia was forced to pay an additional six billion marks in ‘’war reparations’’ to Germany. 

Incidentally, the treaty was ‘’short lived’’, which is to say ‘’annulled’’, following the defeat of Germany and the Central Powers in the Armistice of November 11, 1918.

The preceding brief ‘’history lesson’’ is well known to all middle class readers, and of course they find such ‘’trivia’’ to be most tiresome. Yet my focus is upon the members of the working class, hourly employees, proletarians, those who were previously ‘’apathetic’’, and have now ‘’woken up’’, as they phrase it, as a result of the revolutionary motion, and are ‘’capable of waging the political struggle’’, as Lenin stated, in Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder. 

Bear in mind that it is the working class, the proletariat, and only the proletariat, which is capable of reversing the decline of our civilization, of overthrowing the ruling class of completely reactionary monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, of smashing the existing state apparatus, and replacing that apparatus, with a new state apparatus, that of Scientific Socialism, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Without doubt, the time immediately following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was quite exciting. For the first time in several years, the country was not at war. Further, the Czar was no longer in power, and the capitalists and landlords had been overthrown. The workers and family farmers, referred to as ‘’Poor Peasants’’, were firmly in charge, determined to build a Scientific Socialist society. Yet the country was in ruins, surrounded by enemies who were far stronger, and the army was practically non existent. As well, the nobility, landlords and capitalists were still a power to be reckoned with, determined to return to power. For that reason, it was necessary to ‘’establish priorities’’. Lenin referred to this priority as the ‘’Key Link’’. 

In fact, in March of 1918, Lenin wrote an article, titled: The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government:

‘’It is not enough to be a revolutionary and an adherent of socialism, or a Communist in general. You must be able, at each particular moment, to find the particular link in the chain, which you must grasp with all your might, in order to hold the whole chain, and to prepare firmly for the transition to the next link; the order of the links, their form, the manner in which they are linked together, the way they differ from each other in the historical chain of events, are not as simple and not as meaningless as those in an ordinary chain, made by a smith.’’

Our current situation is also ‘’exciting’’, so to speak. Without doubt, the revolutionary motion of the working class, in various countries of the world, and not just the most advanced countries, is approaching a ‘’peak’’. This is to say that a revolution is bound to break out, in one country of the world, and almost certainly spread to other countries. This ‘’begs the question’’: Will those revolutions be truly Scientific Socialist? 

To a large extent, that depends upon us, which is to say Scientific Socialists. The conditions of life, of the working class, do not lead to the awareness of itself, as a class. They are certainly not aware of the Revolutionary Scientific Socialist theories of Marx and Lenin. After all, those theories are taught only in Universities, mainly to the children of the ‘’propertied classes’’, the bourgeois, and then only with a view to distorting those theories. 

For that reason, it is up to Scientific Socialists to bring this awareness to the working class, or at least the most advanced members of that class. This is nowhere near as difficult as it used to be, as the working people are now quite cultured, with access to various digital devices, as well as the internet. As I have covered this in previous articles, there is no need to repeat it here. 

The ‘’Key Link’’ now, in the class struggle, is to prepare the working class, the proletariat, for the approaching world revolution. They must be made aware of the difference between utopian socialism, and Scientific Socialism. They must further be made aware that they are destined to overthrow the monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, smash the existing state apparatus, and replace it with a new state apparatus, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Yet there are those who may object, quite reasonably, that ‘’time is not on our side’’, as the revolution could break out at any time, and quickly spread around the world. To such people I can only respond that, you are so right. But bear in mind that in July of 1917, there was a spontaneous uprising in the capital of Petrograd, in Russia. From July 3 to 7, the workers and military personnel of Petrograd were demonstrating, demanding the overthrow of the bourgeois Provisional Government. They were demanding that the Soviet of Workers and Soldiers Deputies assume power. 

Yet Lenin was of the opinion that it was too soon to seize power, as at that time, an insufficient number of workers and farmers were supporting the Bolsheviks. So the Party members were ordered to increase the level of awareness among the workers and family farmers, in preparation for the approaching Revolution. Within a few short months, they succeeded. 

Our situation is far more favourable, as so many common people are cultured, with access to the internet. Now we can and must use the internet to raise the level of awareness of the working class, so that at least the most advanced workers embrace Scientific Socialism, in the form of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Bear in mind that the ‘’social chauvinists’’, those who are socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds, also known as ‘’revisionists’’, those who revise the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, are determined to seize control of the existing state apparatus, at the time of the Revolution, and set themselves up, as the new rulers.

They must be stopped. The only way in which this can be done is by raising the level of awareness of the proletariat. That is the current ‘’Key Link’’. I have chosen to conclude this article with that which Lenin ended his article, in 1918:

‘’The only class that can lead the working and exploited people is the class that unswervingly follows its path without losing courage and without giving way to despair, even at the most difficult, arduous and dangerous stages. Hysterical impulses are of no use to us. What we need is the steady advance of the iron battalions of the proletariat.’’

We will know we are being successful, in our goal of raising the level of awareness of the working class, when banners and posters read:

Workers of the World, Unite!

Scientific Socialism! 

Soviet Power!

Dictatorship of the Proletariat!