This article was written by Lenin, in 1920, three years after the successful Great Russian October Socialist Proletarian Revolution. In this article, he sums up the lessons learned from the experience of the Bolshevik (Communist) Party, as well as that of three Russian Revolutions.
First, a few definitions, for the benefit of those who are not Philadelphia lawyers:
Soviet- means Council, in that working people come together and elect a group of leaders
Kautsky- At one time a fine Marxist, and leading theoretician. Later turned his coat, distorted the revolutionary theories of Marx. Lenin considered Kautsky to be his bitterest enemy
Treaty of Brest Litovsk- a peace treaty signed on March 3, 1918, between Soviet Russia and Germany. Russia lost a third of her population, half of her industry, ninety percent of her coal mines, and was forced to pay a great fortune in indemnities
Treaty of Versailles- the peace treaty that Germany was forced to sign, at the end of World War 1. The Germans were forced to take full responsibility for the war, which resulted in the loss of a great deal of territory, reduction in their military forces, and reparation payments
Second International- Otherwise known as the Communist International, at first promoted world revolution, then at the approach of the First World War, the members turned their coats, called for defence of the motherland, became traitors to the working class
Third International- also known as the Comintern, founded in 1919 by Lenin, as the Second International no longer represented the working people
Anarcho Syndicalism- means the idea that control of the industrial unions could lead to the control of a country
Menshevism- means a reference to those who are completely devoid of principle, otherwise referred to as opportunists
Volapuk- meaning an artificial languange
Plenary- meaning to be attended by all
Autocracy- A system of government by one person with absolute power, such as Czar Nicholas of Russia
Agrarian- means related to the cultivation of land
Rural- means relating to the countryside
Urban- means relating to a town or city
Paladin- means a warrior fighting for a cause
Dogma- means a set to principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true
Ideology- means a system of ideas which form the basis of political or economic theory
Fundamental- means base or core, of central importance
Primary- means of chief importance
Apathetic- means showing no interest
Gratis- means free
Parochial- means only local
Metaphor- means a figure of speech
Dialectics- means to determine the truth through logic
Reactionary- means against reform or change
Opportunism- means unprincipled, completely devoid of principle, absolutely dishonest
Peasant- means family farmer
Artisan- means a worker in a skilled trade
Bourgeois- means capitalist
Petty bourgeois- means small time capitalist, middle class
Bourgeoisie- means monopoly capitalist, billionaire, also imperialist. At the time Lenin wrote this book, the multi millionaires of Russia qualified as the bourgeoisie
Requisite- means made necessary by particular circumstances or regulation
Scientific theory- is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be tested and corroborated
Validity- means logically or factually sound
Inevitable- means certain to happen
Engenders- means causes or gives rise to
Centralization- means concentration of control of an activity or organization, under a single authority
Bolshevik- means a follower of Marx, also a Party led by Lenin, which later changed its name to Communist
Czar- means Emperor, head of the nobility
i.e.- means that is
Now to the matter. Perhaps it would be best to begin with the original subtitle of the article:
An Attempt to Conduct a Proper Discussion on Marxist Strategy and Tactics
I
In What Sense We Can Speak of the International Significance of the Russian Revolution
In this first section, Lenin points out that, at the time of the October Revolution, Russia was a ”backward” country, at least compared to the ”advanced” countries of Western Europe. By ”advanced”, he meant that countries such as France, Britain and Germany, were highly industrialized. On the other hand, Russia he referred to as ”backward”, because it was predominantly an ”agrarian” country. This is to say that three quarters of the population were peasants, family farmers. For that reason, it was thought that the proletarian revolution, in those ”advanced” countries, would bear little resemblance to the Russian revolution. Yet Lenin goes on to state:
”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 historical 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.”
II
An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks’ Success
In this section, Lenin explains the ”secret” of the success of the Bolsheviks:
”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 widespread in the world, and small scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. All these reasons make the Dictatorship of the Proletariat necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate life and death struggle, which calls for tenacity, discipline, and a single 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 absolute centralization and rigorous discipline of the proletariat, are an essential condition of victory over the bourgeoisie.” (italics by Lenin)
This ”absolute centralization” and ”rigorous discipline”, did not happen by chance, and not overnight! As Lenin went on to explain:
”Only the history of Bolshevism during the entire period of its existence can satisfactorily explain why it has been able to build up and maintain, under most difficult conditions, the iron discipline needed for the victory of the proletariat.
”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 invariably fall flat and end up in phrase mongering and clowning. On the other hand, these conditions cannot emerge at once. They are created only by prolonged effort and hard won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.” (italics by Lenin)
The Great Russian October Socialist Proletarian Revolution was successful, for a reason. It was based on a firm foundation of Marxist revolutionary theory, the one and only correct revolutionary theory.
As Lenin stated: ”Russia achieved Marxism– the only correct revolutionary theory- through the agony she experienced in the course of half a century of unparalleled torment and sacrifice, of unparalleled revolutionary heroism, incredible energy, devoted searchings, study, practical trial, disappointment, verification, and comparison with European experience. Thanks to the political emigration caused by tsarism, revolutionary Russia, in the second half of the nineteenth century, acquired a wealth of international links and excellent information of the forms and theories of the world revolutionary movement, such as no other country possessed.
”On the other hand, Bolshevism, which had arisen on this granite foundation of theory, went through fifteen years of practical history (1903-17), unequalled anywhere in the world in its wealth of experience. During those fifteen years, no other country knew anything even approximating to that revolutionary experience, that rapid and varied succession of different forms of the movement- legal and illegal, peaceful and stormy, underground and open, local circles and mass movements, and parliamentary and terrorist forms. In no other country has there been concentrated, in so brief a period, such a wealth of forms, shades, and methods of struggle of all classes of modern society, a struggle which, owing to the backwardness of the country and the severity of the tsarist yoke, matured with exceptional rapidity, and assimilated most eagerly and successfully the appropriate ”last word” of American and European political experience”. (italics by Lenin)
Just as Russia learned from their own bitter experience, as well as from the experience of the revolutionary movements of other countries, so too, we can learn from such experience. The only difference is that we do not have to travel to various other parts of the world, as the internet makes possible instant communication, all over the world. That makes so much more sense than repeating the mistakes of previous revolutionaries.
Without doubt, there are countless Socialists, including self proclaimed Marxists, who disagree with that previous statement. They are of the opinion that we should merely ignore all previous revolutionary experience, including the theories of Marx and Lenin. Whether they know it or not- and many of them do not know this!- they are in the service of the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie.
III
The Principle Stages In the History of Bolshevism
Perhaps the most significant thing that happened, at the time of the Revolution of 1905, was the creation of Soviets. As Lenin stated, ”The Soviet form of organization came into being in the spontaneous development of the struggle.”
We can only stress that Soviets, or Councils, are not a creation of Marxist intellectuals. They first made an appearance, ”spontaneously”, during the first Russian Revolution of 1905. For that matter, they could not possibly have been a result of Bolshevik- Marxist- influence, if only because all the revolutionary Marxists had been arrested, and either executed or first sent to Siberia, and later exiled.
The point being that revolutionary motion frequently, but by no means always, gives birth to Soviets, otherwise known as Councils. It remains to be seen if the word Soviet starts to be used, in North America, or if the English translation, that of Council, continues to be used. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to them as Councils, in reference to North America.
Without doubt, the revolutionary motion in North America is giving rise to these Councils. We know this for a fact, because in the city of Seattle, one of those Councils took shape. In a touching display of starry eyed optimism, the revolutionary protesters declared a section of that city, to be ”autonomous”. They referred to it as the ”Capital Hill Autonomous Zone”.
As I documented in a previous article, the fact is that ”State power is the fundamental question of every revolution”, according to Marx. By declaring that part of the city to be ”Autonomous”, they directly challenged the authority of the capitalists. So of course the capitalists wasted no time in crushing this challenge to their authority.
This is not to say that Councils no longer exist in the country. I suspect that numerous Councils have been created, in various parts of the country, but have learned from the experience of the Seattle Council. That lesson is to maintain a ”low profile”, at least for the moment, while engaging in legal, as well as illegal activities.
That was the very policy the Russian revolutionaries pursued, under the rule of the Czar!
It is important to remember that, under the rule of the Czar, there were numerous classes in existence. In addition to the nobility, led by the Czar, there were the landlords, those who owned most of the land. They generally rented it out to the peasants, family farmers, at very high rates. This frequently took the form of ”share cropping”, in which a ”share” of the crop the peasant grew, went to the landlord. As well, there were the monopoly capitalists, at that time multi millionaires, referred to as the bourgeoisie. They owned the large factories, mills, mines, railroads and banks, among other things. Then there were the small time capitalists, those who owned small businesses, referred to as the middle class, or petty bourgeois. Lest we forget, there was the working class, or proletariat, those who sold themselves by the hour.
Now in North America, the capitalists have thoughtfully simplified the class struggle. At least in the United States, the nobility was given their ”walking papers”, many years ago. Canada still recognizes the British monarch, as the head of state, at least for the moment. The middle class small business owners have been almost wiped out, due to the monopolies, with whom they cannot compete. As well, the family farmers are few and far between. They too, cannot compete with the monopoly farms. The landlords and share croppers went the way of the dodo bird, many years ago.
In the first paragraph of this section, Lenin mentions that the years 1903-05 were the ”years of preparation for revolution. The approach of a great storm was sensed everywhere. All classes were in a state of ferment and preparation”.
That is very similar to our current state of affairs! The only difference is that now, there are far fewer classes involved! That serves to simplify the class struggle. On the one hand, we have the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, we have the working class, the proletariat. A fight to the finish. Open class warfare. No quarter. No holds barred. Victory or death! The rule of the capitalists is about to be replaced by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin mentions that in Russia, at that time, only the press of the political exiles, those who were living abroad, mentioned the theoretical aspects of all of the fundamental problems of the revolution. The reason for this is because the press in Russia was completely muzzled. The censures allowed no criticism of the autocracy, to be printed.
This was followed by the years of revolution, that of 1905-07. As formerly mentioned, this was the first time that Soviets made an appearance. Even though the revolution was not successful, the fundamentals of political science were taught, to the common people, workers and peasants, as well as leaders. Lenin refers to this as a ”dress rehearsal” for the successful October Revolution of 1917.
In my opinion, the Occupy Movement in North America, may have served a similar purpose. Even though it did not rise to the level of a full scale revolution, it did serve to drive home the ”fundamentals of political science”, to put it politely. More accurately, the working people learned that the monopoly capitalists are in charge, their democratically elected leaders serve that same class, and further, any challenge to their authority will not be tolerated.
In each case, honest, hard working, law abiding, tax paying, patriotic citizens got into motion. In 1905 Russia, the citizens of the capital of Saint Petersburg, led by a priest, decided to present a petition to their monarch, Czar Nicholas. As they were his loyal subjects, they thought that His Majesty was not aware of their suffering. They were merely asking him to offer them some relief.
HIs Majesty responded by turning loose his personal bodyguard. Countless people, unarmed civilians, were killed and wounded. This day has gone down in history as ”Bloody Sunday”. That was the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1905.
In North America, on September 11, 2011, in New York City, a number of people staged a protest. These Americans too, were honest, hard working, law abiding, tax paying, patriotic citizens. They were merely exercising their democratic right to protest, as is guaranteed in the Constitution. They honestly thought that their democratically elected leaders, were not aware of the fact that they were suffering terribly. They too, were asking for some assistance.
The response of the government, with police in riot gear, clubs, pepper spray and water cannons, made it quite clear that such protests are not to be tolerated.
This resulted in that which Marx refers to as ”class consciousness in embryonic form”. The ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie, were referred to as the ”1%”, one percent, while the working people referred to themselves as the ”99%”, ninety nine percent.
That same painful lesson is currently being learned by those taking part in our present revolutionary movement, including the students taking part in the Pro Palestinian protests.
After the unsuccessful Russian Revolution of 1905, there followed the years of reaction, of 1907-10. As Lenin stated, ”Depression, demoralization, splits, discord, defection and pornography took the place of politics.” (Sound familiar?) This is characteristic of a time of reaction. Yet as Lenin went on to state, ”Defeated armies learn their lesson”.
During that time of reaction, the defeated armies, or at least the revolutionary parties, had to learn how to retreat. It was the Bolsheviks who were able to effect the most orderly retreat. They did this by exposing and expelling the revolutionary phrase mongers, those who either did not, or could not, understand that there are times when it is necessary to retreat. At such times, it is necessary to work within the most reactionary Parliaments (Congress), and trade unions, among others.
This was followed by the ”years of revival, 1910-14”. It is significant that the Russian capitalists supported the social chauvinists, referred to as the Mensheviks, against the Bolsheviks. These he referred to as ”bourgeois agents in the working class movement”.
We currently have no shortage of social chauvinists, in our working class movement. I am of course referring to those who claim to be Marxists, Scientific Socialists, while denying the necessity of revolution, of smashing the existing state apparatus, and setting up a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. These Marxist revisionists are supported by the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires.
This was followed by the First Imperialist World War, 1914-17. The social chauvinists of all countries proved to be the worst enemies of the working class, calling for ”defence of the fatherland”, rather than calling for transforming the imperialist war into a civil war. In February of 1917, the Russian nobility, the Romanovs, were overthrown. This allowed the capitalists to take undisputed power, although they were supported by the landlords.
There followed the successful October Revolution, in that same year. As Lenin stated, ”One of the principle reasons why Bolshevism was able to achieve 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”.
Contrary to popular opinion, as Lenin stated, after the February Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks ”did not call for the overthrow of the government, but explained that it was impossible to overthrow it without first changing the composition and temper of the Soviets. We did not proclaim a boycott of the bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, but 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)
As a means of explanation, at that time, the Soviets were largely under the influence of the Socialist Revolutionaries, the S.R.s. They were anxious to surrender that power to the capitalists! That is why it was first necessary to ”change the composition and temper of the Soviets”.
IV
THE STRUGGLE AGAINST WHICH ENEMIES WITHIN THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT HELPED BOLSHEVISM DEVELOP, GAIN STRENGTH, AND BECOME STEELED
In this section, Lenin makes it clear that those who are devoid of principle, opportunists, have flocked to ”social chauvinism”, in that they are Marxists in words only, chauvinists in deeds. They are determined to revise the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, especially denying the need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Lenin considers them to be the ”principle enemy within the working class movement”. As they are now the rule, and not the exception, it is safe to say that they remain the ”principle enemy”. We have our work cut out for us, fighting these people.
Lenin also mentioned petty bourgeois revolutionism, in that so many members of the middle class become revolutionary, in the process of becoming ruined, but are not resolute. He compares this to anarchism, and states that the ”two monstrosities complement each other”.
Although this was certainly a huge problem in Russia, at the beginning of the twentieth century, it may not be so significant here and now, in North America. After all, the monopoly capitalists have done a fine job of wiping out the middle class. Only the remnants of that class remain in existence.
Lenin also had a few words to say concerning terror: ”It was, of course, only on grounds of expediency that we rejected individual terrorism, whereas people who were capable of condemning ‘on principle’ the terror of the Great French Revolution, or in general, the terror employed by a victorious revolutionary party, which is besieged by the bourgeoisie of the whole world, were ridiculed and laughed to scorn…”
This is followed by a passage concerning the frequent necessity of compromise. An example was given of the time, in 1905, when the Russian Revolution was in ”full swing”, and the Bolsheviks refused to participate in the most reactionary parliament. At that time, such a boycott was correct, because the Revolution was taking place. By contrast, during a time of reaction, after the revolutionary movement died down, it was correct to participate in the same reactionary parliament, that of 1908. After all, there are times when it is necessary to combine legal with illegal activities.
Yet the Left Bolsheviks were determined not to take part in any reactionary parliament, and that was a mistake. As Lenin stated, ”In 1908-14 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 the struggle, and that it was obligatory to participate even in a most reactionary parliament”. (italics by Lenin)
This was followed by another example of a ”Left” Bolshevik, being mistaken. It concerned the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Truly, it was a terrible treaty, as Russia was forced to surrender perhaps a third of her population, half her industry, and ninety percent of her coal mines. In addition, she had to pay indemnities for many years. Yet as Lenin stated, ”It was indeed a compromise with the imperialists, but it was a compromise which, under the circumstances, had to be made”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin gave a simple and popular example. ”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. …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”.
This stands in stark contrast to the ”compromises” of the social chauvinists, those who, in 1914, ”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 then proceeds to summarize the occasions upon which it is obligatory to enter into compromises, as opposed to the occasions when to enter into such compromises, is nothing short of a betrayal of the working class:
”The conclusion is clear: to reject compromises ‘on principle’, to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter what kind, is childishness, which 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 compromise 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…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…In politics, this is by no means always as elementary as in this childishly simple example” (italics by Lenin)
He then proceeded to give the example of the Bolshevik Party, which indeed entered into a compromise with the German imperialists, by signing the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that, before they entered into that particular compromise, as early as 1914, they called for the overthrow of the Russian monarchy, and condemned all of those ”social chauvinists” who called for ”Defence of the Fatherland”. Even after the February Revolution, which overthrew the Czar and established a democratic republic, the Bolsheviks still called for the overthrow of the new bourgeois, capitalist government.
After the October Revolution, that same Bolshevik Party proposed peace to all nations. It was only after those peace proposals were flatly turned down, that the Bolsheviks entered into a compromise with the German imperialists. Events after that compromise, proved the correctness of that policy.
V
”LEFT WING” COMMUNISM IN GERMANY. THE LEADERS, THE PARTY, THE CLASS, THE MASSES
In this section, Lenin uses the example of the Communist Party of Germany, to point out the error of moving ”too far to the Left”, referred to, quite reasonably, as ”Left Wing Communism”. As Lenin stated:
”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 incredible 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 is elementary. All this is clear and simple. Why replace this with some kind of rigmarole, some new Volapuk? On the one hand, these people seem to have got muddled when they found themselves in a predicament, when the party’s abrupt transition from legality to illegality upset the customary, normal and simple relations between leaders, parties and classes. …When…it became necessary, because of the stormy development of the revolution and the development of the civil war, to go over rapidly from legality to illegality, to combine the two, and to adopt the ‘inconvenient’ and ‘undemocratic’ methods of selecting, or forming, or preserving ‘groups of leaders’- people lost their bearings and began to think up some unmitigated nonsense. ..The opportunist parties have become separated from the ‘masses’, i.e., from the broadest strata of the working people, the 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….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”.
It was made clear in a footnote, of all places, that ”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.” (italics by Lenin)
The fact of the matter is that all classes of people have leaders. That includes the working class. The leaders of the capitalist class are well aware of this. For that reason, they make every effort to establish ”social traitor” leaders, within the working class. These include union leaders who are ”bought off”, as well as those who claim to be Marxist revolutionaries, while denying the necessity of revolution, and of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
As there is no truly Communist Party in existence, at least in the western world, it is safe to say that the capitalists have been successful, at least for the moment. That is about to change!
At the time of Lenin, there was a true Communist Party, at that time referred to as the Bolshevik Party, which served the interests of the working people. The loyal and devoted servants of the capitalists, the social chauvinists, were constantly calling for ”repudiation of Party discipline”, which is ”tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie”. (italics by Lenin)
He went on to point out that even after the revolution, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, classes will continue to exist. Especially in countries with a significant number of peasants, or a great many small business owners, they will continue to exist for a great many years. Hence the need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Under Scientific Socialism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we will have to learn to live with the small business owners, as well as the family farmers. They are not the enemy! As Lenin stated, ”They can (and must) be transformed and reeducated only by means of very prolonged, slow and cautious organizational work…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. It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralized big bourgeoisie than to ‘vanquish’ the millions upon millions of petty proprietors; however, through their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive and demoralizing activities, they produce the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie. 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)
After we establish a true Marxist Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we can expect the bourgeoisie to send their ”confidential informers” our way. These filth are politely referred to as ”agents provocateurs”. They are more commonly referred to as rats. They are paid quite handsomely to cause as much trouble as possible, within the Party.
Even after the successful proletariat revolution, we will still have our work cut out for us. In addition to the billionaires, as Lenin pointed out, we will also have to deal with the middle class small business owners, as they will have to be reeducated.
VI
SHOULD REVOLUTIONARIES WORK IN REACTIONARY TRADE UNIONS?
To this question, from the most ”Leftist” of Communists, Lenin responded with a most emphatic absolutely right! As he stated:
”To make this clear, I shall begin with our own experience, in keeping with the general plan of the present pamphlet, which is aimed at supplying to Western Europe whatever is universally practicable, significant and relevant in the history and the present day tactics of Bolshevism.
”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 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 institution in our republic without the guidance of the Party’s Central Committee.
”In its work, the Party relies directly on the trade unions, ….which are formally non Party….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, and we strive by every means to support, develop and extend this institution ….
”Then of course, all the work of the Party is carried on through the Soviets, which embrace the working masses, irrespective of the occupation….
”Such is the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed ‘from above’, from the stand point of the practical implementation of the Dictatorship. We hope that the reader will understand that …all this talk about ‘from above’ or ‘from below’, about the Dictatorship of the leaders or the Dictatorship of the masses, etc., as ridiculous and childish nonsense, something like discussing whether a man’s left leg or right arm is of greater use to him.” (italics by Lenin)
After the approaching proletarian revolution, both here in North America, as well as in Europe, that is the form of organization that will take shape. It was supremely effective in the Soviet Union, and it will no doubt be equally effective, once again.
As mentioned in a previous article, the intellectuals of North America may prefer to form their own organizations, Councils, which are of course Soviets. These may or may not include scholars and scientists. Or they may be separate. Their choice. As well, the same applies to the students, of both Universities and high schools. The small business owners, including the ”owner operators”, such as truckers, may also want to form ”Associations”, and be represented in Councils. The members of the military must also be represented, as they were in Soviet Russia. Different branches of the military may prefer to have their own Councils, or they may prefer to unite. That is entirely up to them. All of this is to be encouraged.
Without doubt, the Councils which have formed, here in North America, are keeping a ”low profile”, of necessity, combining legal with illegal activity. This is the very thing that took place in autocratic Russia, under the rule of the Czar.
After that, Lenin also had a few words to say concerning the subject of ”not working within reactionary trade unions”. In fact, he expressed himself quite clearly, on this point also:
”We cannot help but regard as equally ridiculous and childish nonsense the pompous, very learned, and frightfully revolutionary disquisitions of the German Lefts, to the effect that Communists cannot and should not work in reactionary trade unions, that it is permissible to 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.
” Capitalism inevitably leaves socialism the legacy, on the one hand, of the old trade and craft distinctions among the workers, distinctions evolved in the course of centuries; on the other hand, trade unions, which only very slowly, in the course of years and years, can and will develop into broader industrial unions with less of the craft union about them (embracing entire industries, and not only crafts, trades and occupations), and later proceed, through these industrial unions, to eliminate the division of labour among people, to educate and school people, give them all round development and an all round training, so that they are able to do everything. Communism is advancing and must advance towards that goal, and will reach it, but only after very many years. To attempt in practice today, to anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully stabilized and constituted, fully comprehensive and mature Communism would be like trying to teach higher mathematics to a child of four.
”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 not 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 that 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.
”In the sense mentioned above, a certain ‘reactionism’ in the trade unions is inevitable under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Not to understand this means a complete failure to understand the fundamental conditions of the transition from capitalism to socialism. It would be egregious folly to fear this ‘reactionism’ or to try to evade or leap over it, for it would mean fearing that function of the proletarian vanguard which consists in training, educating and enlightening and drawing into the new life the most backward strata and masses of the working class and peasantry. On the other hand, it would be a still graver error to postpone the achievement of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, until a time when there will not be a single worker with a narrow minded craft outlook, or with craft and craft union prejudices. 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.” (italics by Lenin)
Lenin then proceeded to give an accurate description of the current state of the trade unions, in the more highly developed industrialized countries, including our own: ”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.
”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. …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’…
”If you want to help the ‘masses’ and win the sympathy and support of the ‘masses’, you…must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found. You must be capable of any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, perseveringly, persistently and patiently in those institutions and associations- even the most reactionary- in which proletarian or semi proletarian masses are to be found.” (italics by Lenin)
This was followed by a description of events, taking place at that time, which closely matches our own. This is to say that countless working people, those who were formerly apathetic, are now becoming politically active. At least, they are questioning the system that has crushed them, all their lives. As Lenin stated, ”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 childish ‘Left’ slogans.” (italics by Lenin)
In autocratic Russia, under the rule of the Czar, it was not always easy to enter the trade unions. Yet it was important to do so, as that was where the more advanced workers were. For that reason, Lenin advised that Communists ”resort to various strategies, artifices and illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges”, in order to get into the trade unions. That is an indication of the importance he placed on the trade unions!
VII
SHOULD WE PARTICIPATE IN BOURGEOIS PARLIAMENTS?
This section was written in response to a number of ”Left” Communists, who thought that as bourgeois parliaments had become ”historically obsolete”, it was incorrect to work within them. Lenin most emphatically disagreed with this position.
As Lenin stated: ”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., 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 reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics”. (italics by Lenin)
As regards our current situation, it is certainly true that the capitalists of both Russia and China have succeeded in- temporarily!- restoring capitalism in those countries. It is also true that ”world history is counted in decades”. Without doubt, the Communists in both of those countries will soon rectify that problem. After all, a few decades, as ”measured with the yardstick of world history”, makes no difference.
Our duty now, is to learn from the mistakes of the leaders of those two formerly socialist countries. As I have covered this in previous articles, there is no need to repeat it here. It is also our duty to support the working people of those countries, in their struggle against their capitalists.
Lenin then proceeded to make a statement, which I consider to be of the utmost importance: ”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 obligation towards it’s 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.” (italics by Lenin)
As the ”Left” Communists did not do this, that proves 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)
That provides us with a most useful means of determining the earnestness of those who claim to be leaders of the working class!
Lenin then proceeded to make a second point: ”How can one say that ‘parliamentarianism is politically obsolete’, when ‘millions’ and ‘legions’ of proletarians are not only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright ‘counter revolutionary’!? (italics by Lenin)
The mistake the ”Lefts” made, was in confusing their honest desire, with ”objective reality”. This is a ”most dangerous mistake for revolutionaries to make…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 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).” (italics by Lenin)
The lesson here is that, no matter how much we may hate the current state of affairs, which includes the fact that we have no true Communist Party, we have got to face it. All of the existing political parties, which claim to be Marxist, are in fact social chauvinists. For the moment- strictly for the moment!- they are successful. That is just a fact, and that is something we have to change.
Lenin went on to make the following statement: ”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, down trodden 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)
Clearly, we have to get involved in elections, and not just on a federal level. We must put forward candidates on state, local and provincial levels. These candidates need not necessarily be fellow Communists. It is perfectly acceptable that they be merely Leftist, perhaps utopian socialists, but certainly not social chauvinists, those who say they are Marxists, but are not. As long as we are able to put forward our own belief, in the necessity of revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we can support such candidates.
As a means of driving home this point, Lenin went on to state: ”In September-November 1917, did we, the Russian Bolsheviks, not have more right than any Western Communist to consider that parliamentarianism was politically obsolete in Russia? Of course we did, for the point is not whether bourgeois parliaments have existed for a long time or a short time, but how far the masses of the working people are prepared (ideologically, politically and practically) to accept the Soviet system and to dissolve the bourgeois democratic parliament (or allow it to be dissolved)….The Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before and after the proletariat conquered political power.” (italics by Lenin)
This is an indication of the importance, which Lenin placed, in taking part in the bourgeois elections. It is absolutely essential to raise the level of awareness of the less advanced members of the proletariat. Their belief in that particular democratic system must be respected.
This is summed up in the following manner: ”It has been proven that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois democratic 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 followed by making reference to a statement by another ”Left” Communist, one which is mistaken. Lenin pointed out the mistake: ”The authors completely ignore both the general European experience …and the Russian experience of the importance of combining legal and illegal struggle….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)
This is of particular importance to those members of Councils, which have recently taken shape in North America, and very likely, in other parts of the world. As Lenin stated, it is mandatory to combine legal and illegal methods of struggle. Bear in mind that the capitalists do not hesitate to break their own laws, in the interests of crushing any challenge to their authority.
As regards participating in the most reactionary parliaments, the experience of the Bolshevik Party was instructive. The fact that the Party participated in the Russian Duma, after the 1905 Revolution, was ”not only useful but indispensable” in ”paving the way for the second bourgeois revolution of February 1917, and then for the socialist revolution of October 1917”, according to Lenin.
The class struggle, of the proletariat against the capitalists, necessarily involves that of dissolving Parliament, by the Soviets. The presence of revolutionaries, within that same Parliament, can only facilitate that dissolution. Previous revolutionary experience has confirmed that a revolutionary presence within Parliament, can serve only to benefit the revolutionary forces.
Lenin then proceeded to make a most important remark, concerning a common mistake: ”The surest way of discrediting and damaging a new political (and not only political) idea, is to reduce it to an absurdity, on the plea of defending it.”
It is also a fact that there are occasions when it is correct to boycott bourgeois Parliaments. During the 1905 Revolution, the boycott of the Russian Duma, the Russian Parliament, was correct. On the other hand, the boycott of that same Duma in 1908, was incorrect. Each situation must be assessed individually. Lenin went on to state: ” Tactics must be based on a sober and strictly objective appraisal of all the class forces in a particular state … as well as of the experience of revolutionary movements. ..It is far more difficult to create a really revolutionary parliamentary group in a European parliament than it was in Russia. …It was easy for Russia…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)
Lenin then proceeded to document the four specific conditions, which existed in Russia 1917, so that the October Revolution could be successful:
1)The possibility of linking up the Soviet revolution with the ending, as a consequence of this revolution, of the imperialist war, which had exhausted the workers and peasants to an incredible degree;
2)The possibility of taking temporary advantage of the mortal conflict between the world’s two most powerful group of imperialist robbers, who were unable to unite against their Soviet enemy;
3)The possibility of enduring a comparatively lengthy civil war, partly owing to the enormous size of the country and to the poor means of communication;
4) The existence of such a profound bourgeois democratic revolutionary movement among the peasantry, that the party of the proletariat was able to adopt the revolutionary demands of the peasant party
Lenin they pointed out that such conditions, at that time, did not exist in Western Europe. For that reason, among others, it is ”more difficult for Western Europe to start a socialist revolution, than it was for Russia”. (italics by Lenin)
He went on to state that ”In Western Europe, the backward masses of the workers and- to an even greater degree- of the small peasants, are much more imbued with bourgeois democratic and parliamentary prejudices than they were in Russia; because of that, it is only from within such institutions as bourgeois parliaments that Communists can (and must) wage a long and persistent struggle, undaunted by any difficulties, to expose, dispel and overcome these prejudices”. (italics by Lenin)
As the workers and farmers of Western Europe have recently been very active, it is safe to say that the situation has changed, quite dramatically. Yet the necessity remains of Communists to work within the existing Parliaments, whenever possible.
Lenin concludes this section with the following: ”In conditions in which it is often necessary to hide ‘leaders’ underground, the evolution of good ‘leaders’, reliable, tested and authoritative, is a very difficult matter; these difficulties cannot be successfully overcome without combining legal and illegal work, and without testing the ‘leaders’, among other ways, in parliaments. Criticism- the most keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism- should be directed, not against parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those leaders who are unable- and still more against those who are unwilling- to utilize parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary and Communist manner. Only such criticism- combined of course with the dismissal of incapable leaders and their replacement by capable ones- will constitute useful and fruitful revolutionary work, that will simultaneously train the ‘leaders’ to be worthy of the working class and of all working people, and train the masses to be able properly to understand the political situation and the often very complicated and intricate tasks that spring from that situation.” (italics by Lenin)
VIII
NO COMPROMISES?
This was the slogan put forward by a number of ”Left” Communists. As they stated, ”We want to attain our goal without stopping at intermediate stations, without any compromises, which only postpone the day of victory and prolong the period of slavery.”
If only it was that simple! These well meaning people have presented their own impatience as a ”theoretically convincing argument”, according to Engels. Such is hardly the case!
Lenin then proceeded to explain that there are times when compromises are necessary, such as when striking workers are forced to go back to work, without achieving all of their demands. This may be due to practical matters, such as hunger, for example. Or it may be due to treachery, on the part of the union leaders.
In politics, it is not always so clear cut. There is simply no way to formulate a general rule, to suit all cases. As Lenin stated, ”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 for the speedy and correct solution of complex political problems.”
Lenin also mentioned, in a footnote, that ”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)
It is clear that leaders of the working people must be required to think clearly, to find a quick and correct solution for complex political problems. We can also expect to find people who have managed to set themselves up as leaders, who are simply not capable of thinking.
Lenin goes into this in more detail, explaining the danger in placing restrictions on ourselves: ”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…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?…
”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 bourgeoisie, 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 overthrown the bourgeoisie. …
”Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action, said Marx and Engels….We must strive at all costs to prevent the Left Communists and West European and American revolutionaries that are devoted to the working class from paying as dearly as the backward Russians did to learn this truth”. (italics by Lenin)
Even though the billionaires have done a most impressive job of ruining countless small business owners, there are still a considerable number of middle class people in existence. That being said, even among those who have been forced into the ranks of the proletariat, through bankruptcy, many of those former middle class people still have the ideology of the petty bourgeois.
This is followed by documenting the various compromises, including alliances, the Bolsheviks -Communists- made over the years, during the time the Czar was in power, alliances during World War 1, alliances during the time of the Kerensky Regime, at the time of the October Revolution, and even after the Revolution. These alliances were largely temporary. At the same time, they never quit their ideological and political struggle with the social chauvinists.
A very important point Lenin makes, is that a true Communist Party must admit any mistakes they make, and learn to rectify it. This can only be to the benefit of the Party.
Lenin also made the point that the proletariat is surrounded by an assortment of ”motley types”, including peasants and artisans, as well as being divided into various strata. For that reason, it is necessary to ”resort to changes of tact, to conciliations 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)
As a result of the actions of the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, this assortment of ”motley types” is no longer quite so wide spread. The vast majority of workers and family farmers have been impoverished, scraping by as best they can.
This was followed by a bit of advice, to the German ”Left” Communists. He advised them to not ”tie their hands” beforehand. Of course, at that time, the ”bone of contention” was the Treaty of Versailles. It was a truly terrible Treaty, imposed upon Germany. True. On the other hand, to promise to repudiate that Treaty, should the German Communists come to power, would only serve to empower their enemies.
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, but 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.”
IX
”LEFT WING” COMMUNISM IN GREAT BRITAIN
In the first paragraph, Lenin states: ”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.”
That is a rather accurate description of our current state of affairs, in North America, Europe and various other parts of the world. The reference to ”best hopes”, is that a true Communist Party would soon be created in Great Britain.
Lenin went on to document the fact that, ”several political parties and organizations” were in the process of ”negotiating among themselves”, to form a Communist Party. This was to be based on ”affiliation to the Third International, the recognition of the Soviet system instead of parliamentarianism, and the recognition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”.
He went on to say that one of the greatest obstacles to the formation of a united Communist Party, concerned the disagreement on the question of participation in Parliament, as well as affiliation with the bourgeois Labour Party.
He then refers to an article, written by a leader of one of those British parties. As Lenin stated: ”In my opinion, this letter to the editor expresses excellently the temper and point of view of the young Communists, or of the rank and file workers who are 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 mind 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. ..
”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.
”The writer of the letter fully realizes that only workers’ Soviets, not parliament, can be the instrument enabling the proletariat to achieve its aims; those who have failed to understand this are, of course, out and out reactionaries, even if they are most highly educated people, most experienced politicians, most sincere socialists, most erudite Marxists, and most honest citizens and fathers of families. 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 forth coming 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, or 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 self consciousness and the militancy of one group or party alone.”
This is followed by a reference to various British political leaders, members of different parties. Several of these politicians claimed to be ”Leftist”, supporters of the working class, even though they were ”hopelessly reactionary”. Yet Lenin suggested that, ”in the interests of the revolution, working class revolutionaries should give these gentlemen a certain amount of parliamentary support”.
The point Lenin makes, is that these self described ”progressives”, have the support of a great many working people. The best way- if not the only way- to prove to the common people, that they are no different from any other bourgeois politician, is to assist them, in achieving political power. Once they get their hands on that power, they will behave exactly like all other bourgeois politicians. In this way, the working people, will learn from their own experience, that the Communists are right.
As Lenin stated: ”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. ‘To lead the way without compromises, without turning’- this slogan is obviously wrong if it comes from a patently impotent minority of the workers”.
Incidentally, Lenin also points out ”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”.
This is followed by a paragraph, which I consider to be of vital importance. I would love to see it placed in posters, and hung in all the homes of advanced workers, as well as union halls: ”The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions, and especially by all three Russian revolutions of 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 change; 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 exploited and the exploiters). 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)
This is followed by a paragraph which refers to a number of British politicians, those who were well known, at that time. For the sake of readers who are not familiar with those people, Lenin was merely driving home the point that it is the duty of Communists, to help those who are well respected by the working people, to achieve political power. Of course, once they are in positions of power, then they will ‘‘show their true colours”. In this way, the working people will learn, from experience, that the Communists are correct.
Lenin went on to say that the British Communists should unite their groups and parties, into a single Communist Party, ”on the basis of the principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in parliament.” (italics by Lenin)
He also suggested a certain ”alliance” with certain bourgeois ”progressives”, but only on the condition that the Communists retain ”complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity. Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery”. (italics by Lenin)
Lenin also pointed out that the number of parliamentary seats is of no importance. The main thing is to be able to carry on agitation among the working people. It is of vital importance to raise their level of awareness. An alliance could serve this purpose. Of course, if an alliance is rejected, the Communists will still benefit, as they will win the sympathy of the working people.
For our purposes, the idea is to offer every assistance to any and all utopian socialists, who are running for office, while maintaining the right to express our Communist convictions. At the same time, we should run our own candidates for office, but only in districts in which no utopian socialist is running. The idea is to raise the level of awareness of the working people. The winning of any seats, in any political office, is a mere bonus.
X
SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS
Lenin: ”The Russian bourgeois revolution of 1905 revealed a highly original turn in world history: in one of the most backward capitalist countries, the strike movement attained a scope and power unprecedented anywhere in the world. In the first month of 1905 alone, the number of strikers was ten times the annual average for the previous decade….Under the influence of a number of unique historical conditions, backward Russia 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 in 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 capitalism.”
This first paragraph, of the Conclusion, is of the utmost importance. As Lenin stated, ”the significance of the proletariat is infinitely greater than its proportion in the total population”. (my italics) This is my way of stressing the importance of the proletariat! In North America, Great Britain and parts of Western Europe, the proletariat form the vast majority of the population. Yet there are a great many other countries of the world, in which the proletariat is the minority. Yet their significance is far greater than their proportion!
This point was driven home in the Chinese Revolution of 1949. In that case, there were far more peasants than proletarians. Yet, contrary to popular belief, it is incorrect to say that it was a ”peasant revolution”. Even though the peasants formed the vast majority, it was the proletarians that led the Chinese Revolution.
Incidentally, as both the Russian and Chinese Revolutions took place in countries which were, at that time, not highly industrialized, the bourgeois scholars can now maintain that a socialist revolution can be of benefit, only in under developed countries. Such is hardly the case! The fact that the first proletarian socialist revolutions took place in under developed countries, will go down in history, no doubt, as a mere curiosity.
The ”birth of the Soviets” was also of great significance. For the first time in history, these organizations of the ”classes oppressed by capitalism”, made an appearance. These Soviets, or Councils, have since appeared in North America and Western Europe, and deserve our unqualified support.
Lenin then 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 to 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 grave digger, heir and successor of bourgeois parliamentarianism and of bourgeois democracy in general, all became clear”.
As previously stated, the February 1917 Russian revolution, was a bourgeois revolution, one which forced the abdication of Czar Nicholas, and overthrew the nobility. This led to the democratic republic of the capitalists, supported by the landlords. This was referred to as the Kerensky Regime.
Then the October revolution, of that same year, gave birth to the first Scientific Socialist republic, the first Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in Soviet Russia. The Soviets spread first across Russia, and then internationally. Lenin refers to this as ”the historical mission” of the Soviets, to be ”successors” to ”bourgeois parliamentarianism and of bourgeois democracy in general”. This is a ”mission” we can all embrace!
This was followed by: ”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”.
We can only stress the fact that Communism is ”emergent, gaining strength, and advancing towards victory”. The fact that there have been temporary setbacks in formerly socialist countries, such as the Soviet Union and China, does not change that fact. As Lenin stated, ”world history is counted in decades’‘. (my italics)
It is certainly not reasonable to expect every proletarian revolution to be successful, in every country, for all time. It is quite reasonable to expect current Communist leaders to learn from the mistakes of previous Communist leaders. As I have gone into the mistakes of Stalin and Mao, in previous articles, there is no need to repeat it here.
In the under developed countries of Russia and China, it took many years for Communism to grow and develop. This is not to say that it will also take many years for Communism to develop in the ”big and advanced capitalist countries”, such as are in North America and Europe. Lenin points out that they are ”travelling this road far more rapidly”!
Lenin then pointed out that what is needed, is ”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 stereotypical, 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 naturally 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 proletarian revolution.” (italics by Lenin)
Since Lenin wrote this, the working class has regressed, in that the vanguard is no longer even aware of Soviet government, or of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Through no fault of its own, I might add. The problem is that so many of the Marxist leaders ”turned their coats”, becoming ”Benedict Arnolds” of the revolutionary movement, instead serving the class of monopoly capitalists. Then too, the capitalists have managed to return to power- for the moment!- in Russia and China.
That in no way changes the fact that a ”centralized leading centre” is needed, in order to create a ”world Soviet republic. This is to say that an international Communist Party is required. I will go into that in more detail, in a later article.
For the moment, we must focus on the ”chief thing”, which is to raise the level of awareness of the proletariat, so that they embrace Soviet (Council) Power, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I consider this to be the ”key link” in the struggle.
This involves exposing those leaders of the working class, who are completely devoid of principle, referred to as opportunists. As well, the social chauvinists, those who claim to be Marxists, while denying Soviet power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, must also be exposed.
I am also of the opinion that this is quite manageable, and should not take long. At least in the most highly industrialized countries, the proletariat is quite cultured, has access to digital devices and to the internet. It is just a matter of supplying them with the appropriate material. This book is being written with that in mind.
The following paragraph, by Lenin, is also of vital importance: ”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 foolishness 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 in Germany as well. To turn resolutely towards Communism, it was necessary, not only for the ignorant and often illiterate masses of Russia, but also for the literate and well educated masses of Germany, to realize from their their own bitter experience the absolute impotence and spinelessness, the absolute helplessness and servility to the bourgeoisie, the utter vileness of the government of paladins of the Second International; they had to realize that a dictatorship of the extreme reactionaries …is inevitably the only alternative to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”.
With that in mind, in previous articles, I have encouraged all citizens to become politically active. As the capitalists have suggested that we should strive to ”change the system from within”, I can only suggest that we take them at their word. In America, I am suggesting that all citizens join the two mainstream political parties, as card carrying members, for example. In other countries, there are no doubt other ways of becoming active, quite legally. As well, there are ways of becoming politically active, which are not legal. Both kinds of activity must become widespread. Much of this activity involves work within Soviets, or Councils, as they are referred to in North America.
There is no other way of persuading the vast majority of working people, of the fact that the billionaires are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge. ”Bitter experience”! It is a painful lesson, but one that cannot be avoided.
Lenin: ”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 positions, 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 examination of its errors”. (italics by Lenin)
As the revolutionary motion becomes ever more intense, we can expect to see a great many more people, embrace the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. This is certainly to be welcomed, although we can also expect certain individuals to ”go too far to the Left”. This ”Left doctrinairism” must also be combatted.
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 proletarian 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 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)
This spells out quite clearly, the task of true Communists. We have to first win over the most advanced members of the proletariat. A careful reading of the most essential works of Marx and Lenin, should go a long way towards reaching that goal. As well, it is very likely that middle class intellectuals, those who are aware of the revolutionary theories of Communism, can work together with working class intellectuals, in order to create a true Communist Party. Then it is a matter of persuading the vast majority of working people, of the correctness of our belief, that the only alternative to the rule of the capitalists, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
This is followed by a reference to high ranking British politicians of the period. Lenin pointed out that ”these political types exist in all countries. (italics by Lenin) The differences are ”quite minor and unimportant”, from the ”standpoint of pure Communism”. On the other hand, from the standpoint of the common people, these differences are ”most important”.
To put this in modern terms, it means that in America, the Republican Party is commonly seen as the Party of ”big business”, while the Democratic Party is considered to be the Party of the ”middle class”.
In Canada, the Conservative Party is considered to be the Party of ”big business”, the Liberal Party is thought to be the Party of the ”middle class”, and the New Democratic Party is considered to be the Party of the ”little guy”.
Such is hardly the case, as all mainstream political parties serve the same class, the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie. Yet the beliefs of all common people have to be respected. They have got to learn, from their own experience- bitter experience!- that the Communists are correct.
With that in mind, I can only suggest supporting Leftist candidates for any and all political offices. Those who consider themselves to be Independent Socialists, or Progressive Democrats, should be encouraged to run for office. Communists may also put forward their own candidates, but only in districts where no such candidates are running. The idea is to flood the capitals, of both countries, states and provinces, with Leftist people, to attempt to ”change the system from within”, as is recommended by the capitalists.
Of course, the class of monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, will not stand for this. They are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge. They will regard this as a threat to their authority, as indeed it is, and take action to crush it. In this way, the vast majority of common people will become convinced that the Communists are correct. The only alternative to the rule of the billionaires, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin then goes into considerable detail, in stressing the point that it is of the utmost importance to use all methods of struggle, both legal and illegal. In North America, this may include having Councils equip and train working people, for an insurrection. It could also include challenging the presidential election, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. As I have gone into this in previous articles, there is no need to repeat it here.
Lenin: ”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 …should ….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, in a way that was never possible (under bourgeois rule) outside of election time”.
The internet makes this task so much easier! As I have previously mentioned, we can also use Leftist celebrities, as common people pay strict attention to their opinion. Then too, the members of the military can quite easily be reached.
Numerous common people, members of the public, have noticed that America, in particular, is a ”powder keg”, in that ”any spark can set off an explosion”. Just what that ”spark” could be, Lenin had a few words to say: ”We do not and cannot know which spark- of the innumerable sparks that are flying about in all countries as a result of the world economic and political crisis- will kindle the conflagration, in the sense of rising up the masses; we must therefore, with our new and Communist principle, 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 (which arranged all aspects of social life- and has now disarranged them- in its bourgeois fashion), or to bring about the impending Communist reorganization of every sphere of life, following that victory”.
As concerns the lies and slanders, of the billionaires, which is directed against the Communists, Lenin says that ”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)
Perhaps it is best to consider all of this slander as free advertising! After all, the common people are aware, with their class instincts, that if the mainstream press is so dead set opposed to Communists, then we must be doing something right!
Lenin went on to say: ”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. If special efforts are made to block one of the channels, the ‘contagion’ will find another one, sometimes very unexpectedly. Life will assert itself. Let the bourgeoisie rave, work itself into a frenzy, go to extremes, commit follies, take vengeance on the Bolsheviks in advance….In acting thus, the bourgeoisie is acting as all historically doomed classes have done. 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. …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)
Lenin then went on to explain the reason that so many- formerly- fine Marxists, had committed ”such an error”, in the ”application of dialectics”, that they were unable to ”take into account the rapid change in forms”. They became traitors to Marxism.
With that in mind, he issued the following warning: ”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. Of course, the mistake of Left doctrinairism in Communism is at present a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than that of Right doctrinairism ….but after all, that is only due to the fact that Left Communism is a very young trend, is only just coming into being. It is only for this reason that, under certain conditions, the disease can be easily eradicated, and we must set to work with the utmost energy to eradicate it.
”The old forms burst asunder, for it turned out that their new content- anti proletarian and reactionary- had attained an inordinate development. From the standpoint of the development of international Communism, our work today has such a durable and powerful content (for Soviet power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) that it can and must manifest itself in any form, both new and old; it can and must regenerate, conquer and subjugate all forms, not only the new, but also the old- not for the purpose of reconciling itself with the old, but for the purpose of making all and every form- new and old- a weapon for the complete and irrevocable victory of Communism.” (italics by Lenin)
It is a well known adage, that it is best to ”nip problems in the bud”. That is so much easier than allowing them to ”blossom” and ”bear fruit”.
Lenin has further advice: ”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. We have only to say, as the German and British Left Communists do, that we recognize only one road, only the direct road, and that we will not permit tacking, conciliatory manoeuvres, or compromises- and it will be a mistake which may cause, and in part has already caused and is causing, very grave prejudice to Communism. Right doctrinairism persisted in recognizing only the old forms, and became utterly bankrupt, for it did not notice the new content. Left doctrinairism persists in the unconditional repudiation of certain old forms, failing to see that the new content is forcing its way through all and sundry forms, that it is our duty as Communists to master all forms, to learn how, with the maximum rapidity, to supplement one form with another, to substitute one for another, and to adapt our tactics to any such change that does not come from our class or from our efforts.
”World revolution has been so powerfully stimulated and accelerated by the horrors, vileness and abominations of the world imperialist war, and by the hopelessness of the situation created by it, this revolution is developing in scope and depth with such splendid rapidity, with such a wonderful variety of changing forms, with such an instructive practical refutation of all doctrinairism, that there is every reason to hope for a rapid and complete recovery of the international Communist movement from the infantile disorder of ‘Left wing’ Communism”.
Gerald McIsaac Science Project 