Blog

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”.

This is a very important work by Lenin, and one that is difficult to understand, for a number of reasons. Therefore, an explanation is required. We can start with the scientific terms, followed by their popular meanings.

Social Democrat- A Marxist, as a true Marxist is constantly fighting for Democracy as well as Socialism. In later years, they changed their name, first to Bolsheviks and later to Communists

Scientific Socialist- Someone who is a true follower of Marx and Lenin, thus calling for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Utopian Socialist- Someone who thinks that Socialism is merely a good idea

Revisionist- Someone who claims to be a Marxist, while maintaining that those revolutionary theories have to be revised

Social Chauvinist- Someone who is a Socialist in words, but a chauvinist in deeds

Leftist- A person with ”Left Wing” political views, those which favour the working people

Right Wing- A person who favours the monopoly capitalist class, the billionaires

Ubiquitous- Found everywhere

Omniscient- Knowing everything

Anti- Semetic- means being hostile or prejudiced against Jewish people

Hamas- A militant political group dedicated to establishing an independent state in Palestine.

Autocracy- A system of government by one person with absolute power. This is to say that Russia was an autocracy, because Czar Nicholas, as Emperor, had absolute power.

Czar- Means ”Emperor”

Opportunist- Means ”devoid of principle”, ”unprincipled”

Pedagogic- means ”related to teaching”

Masses- Means ”members of the public”, or ”common people”, or ”working people”, or ”little guy”. Many people may find the word ”masses” to be mildly offensive, so I try to avoid that term

Bourgeois- Means ”Capitalist”

Bourgeoisie- Means ”Monopoly Capitalist”, a ”Billionaire”

Petty bourgeois- Means ”middle class”, or ”small time capitalist”

”Imperialist”- is a monopoly capitalist, a billionaire

Proletariat- Means ”Worker”, someone who has only their labour power to sell, sells themselves by the hour

Peasant- Means ”Farmer”

Heterogenous- Means ”Diverse”

Genocide – means the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group, with the aim of destroying that nation or group

Zionist – Someone who belongs to, or supports a political movement, that has as its original aim, the creation of a country for Jewish people, and that now supports the state of Israel

Topical- means ”current”, or ”up to date”, or ”recent”, or ”contemporary”

Inter alia- means ”among other things”

Former- means the ”first”

Latter- means the ”second”

Famine – the most severe kind of hunger crisis

Intelligentsia- means an intellectual, or highly educated group of people

Reactionary- someone who is opposed to any political or social liberalization or reform

Progressive- Happening or developing gradually or in stages

Soverign- a state that has the highest authority over a territory

Misogny- Prejudice against women

Faculty- the term for academic staff at an institution of education, such as teachers and professors

Demagogue- a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people, rather than by using rational argument

Gendarme- means ”police officer”

Agent provocateur- means a police informer, someone who has been paid to infiltrate an organization, and encourage the members to commit a crime

Corpus delicti- means the ”body of the crime”

Narcissist- a self loving person, who feels unique

Vademecum- a hand book, constantly kept close

 i.e.- An abbreviation which means ”that is”

En passant- A French expression, means ”in passing”

Profession de foi- A French expression, means ”Profession of faith”

Embarassment de richness- A French expression, means a super fluidity of something, more than one needs or wants

There are also some Russian names, with their English translation

Soviet- Means ”Council”

”Rabocheye Dyelo”- means ”Workers Cause”

‘’Iskra’’ means ”Spark”, and it was the name of the newspaper that was edited by Lenin

 ‘’Zarya’’ means ”Sunrise” or ”Dawn” 

‘’Rabocheya Mysl’’ means ”Workers Thoughts” 

Narodniks- A Russian movement of the 1860’s and 1870’s of the Russian intelligentsia, against the rule of the Czar

‘’Narodnaya Volya’’ means ”Peoples Freedom”, and was the news paper of a terrorist organization. They thought they could inspire people with acts of terror. 

In the following article, in certain cases, I have chosen to place popular words in brackets next to the scientific terms.

As previously mentioned, in 1898, Lenin and several other middle class intellectuals formed the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, the RSDLP. The members of that Party referred to themselves as Social Democrats, as those who fight for Socialism, also fight for Democracy. At a later date, the true Marxists were referred to as Bolsheviks, and still later, they become known as Communists. 

At first, it was a truly Scientific Socialist Party, as it was based upon the revolutionary theories of Marx and Engels. The Party platform made that perfectly clear. Yet it soon became apparent that there were a considerable number of people, members of that Party, who were of the opinion that the Party should become a ”Party of democratic social reform”. 

The differences were deep and irreconcilable, so that the Party soon split into two factions, a majority, or bolsh, and a minority, or mensh. This gave rise to the terms Bolshevik and Mensheviks. As Lenin was a member of the majority faction, that faction became known, quite reasonably, as the Bolsheviks. 

As a result of this split, there emerged two Parties, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, both of whom claimed to be Marxists. Of course, this led to considerable confusion among the common people, the workers and peasants (farmers) of Russia. 

Among those whom Lenin referred to as ‘’opportunists’’, or ”unprincipled”, are Bernstein and Millerand. Bernstein was a leading theoretician of the German Social Democratic Party. He rejected the Marxist concepts of class struggle and inevitable world revolution. He called for class collaboration, and was a Marxist ‘’revisionist’’, one who thought that the revolutionary theories of Marx should be revised. Lenin considered him to be one of the worst enemies of the working class. 

Millerand was a French socialist leader and ‘’disciple’’ of Bernstein, so to speak, He took the revisionist theories of Bernstein to heart, so that while claiming to be a Marxist, he became a cabinet member of the liberal, bourgeois, capitalist government of France.  

At that time, Russia was an autocracy, ruled by a Czar (Emperor), Nicholas II. He had almost unlimited power, and used that power extensively. The common people had almost no rights, not even a Constituent Assembly. The press was completely muzzled. All newspapers and magazines reported only that which was approved by the censors. All literature which was thought to be ‘’Leftist’’, was banned. 

In response to this, the Bolsheviks were able to print leaflets, and distributed them, at great personal risk. Those who were caught performing such ‘’acts of subversion’’, risked being arrested, and subsequently, possibly even shot.

The Bolsheviks also published a newspaper abroad, and smuggled it into the country. This newspaper was titled ‘’Iskra’’, meaning ‘’Spark’’. Lenin was in exile at this time, but frequently wrote for this paper. Yet the Mensheviks also wrote for a newspaper abroad, and smuggled that too, into the country. That was titled ‘’Rabocheye Dyelo’’, meaning ‘’Workers Cause’’. Hence the confusion.

For that reason, Lenin wrote What Is To Be Done? It was an attempt to straighten out the confusion. Now to the matter:

What Is To Be Done?

1. Dogmatism and Freedom of Criticism

A. What Is ‘’Freedom of Criticism’’?

In this first section, Lenin points out that, in the late nineteenth century, bourgeois literature was filled with criticism of the revolutionary theories of Marx. This was referred to as a ”new” tendency, one which adopted a ”critical” attitude towards ”obsolete doctrinaire” Marxism. As Lenin summed up this revisionist tendency:

”Social Democracy must change from a party of the social revolution, into a democratic party of social reforms….The possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of proving that it is necessary and inevitable from the point of view of the materialist conception of history was denied, as also were the facts of growing impoverishment and proletarianization and the intensification of capitalist contradictions. The very conception, ”ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was absolutely rejected. It was denied that there is any difference in principle between liberalism and socialism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society, governed according to the will of the majority, etc.” (italics by Lenin)

This revision of the revolutionary theories of Marx, was first taught in the Russian Universities. For that reason, the members of the ‘’younger generation of the educated classes’’, those who were able to attend University, were ‘’systematically trained on this criticism’’. Certain members of that same ‘’younger generation’’ then proceeded to join the Social Democratic Party, and brought these revisionist theories with them. They were determined that ‘’Social Democracy’’ (Marxism) should change from a ”Party of Social Revolution”, into a ”liberal Party of social reform”. 

With that in mind, the very idea of Scientific Socialism was denied. They denied that there is any difference between liberalism and socialism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected, on the grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society. They absolutely rejected the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

Lenin makes the point that the ‘’socialist consciousness of the working class’’, is the only basis that can guarantee our victory! That is the very consciousness that the self proclaimed Marxists, in fact revisionists, are determined to corrupt. Lenin refers to these people as ‘’opportunists’’. (devoid of principle)

For many years, Lenin fought against these people, those who were determined to revise the revolutionary theories of Marx and Engels. He was quite successful in this, so that at the time of the Great Russian Proletarian Socialist Revolution, of 1917, working people, around the world, embraced Soviet (Council) Power, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

Such is no longer the case! That just means that we have our work cut out for us.

Just as the distortion of the revolutionary theories of Marx were taught in Russia, in the late nineteenth century, so too those same distortions, of those same theories, are also taught in this, the twenty first century. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that now, the distortions of the revolutionary theories of both Marx and Lenin are being taught in University. Not a vast improvement!

In Russia, at that time, it was the ”younger generation of the educated classes”, who were exposed to these theories, and subsequently brought those revisionist theories into the class struggle. So too, in modern times, it is also mainly the ”younger generation of the propertied classes” who are able to go to University, and are exposed to those revisionist theories. Further, certain of those young members have brought those revisionist theories into the class struggle.

There is an important difference in modern day North America, in that we have no true Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Yet in much the same way, as in Czarist Russia, certain young members of the ”educated classes” of North America, are also determined to lead the current revolutionary mass movement, onto a harmless path of ”social reform”.

Those same young intellectuals, who are aware of the existence of classes, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, aware that the state apparatus has to be smashed and replaced with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, should be focused on creating a true Communist Party. (formerly referred to as a Social Democratic Party) They are not, or at least not yet!

As I write this, the mass movement of the working class is now strong, and growing in intensity. The students, of both Universities and high schools, are protesting in support of the people of Palestine. There are even reports of ”faculty members” (teachers and professors), joining in those protests.

This is most significant, as the student protest movement of the ‘sixties, never reached the members of the faculty, at least not in any great numbers. The fact that the movement has spread to far and so fast, is an indication of the strength and breadth of the movement.

The focus of the protest is on the ”Israeli- Hamas War”, also known as the ”Gaza War”. For that reason, the mass movement is being referred to as the ”Anti – Gaza War” movement. It is also being referred to as a ”Pro – Palestinian Movement”.

Among the list of demands of the students, is that the Universities divest in any companies that do business with Israel. The students are accusing Israel of engaging in an act of genocide, in their war with Hamas, in Gaza.

Of course, there are also ”counter protests”, by students who are carrying the flag of Israel, in support of that country. The implication is that those who are supporting the people of Palestine are ”Anti- Semitic” (prejudiced against Jewish people). Such is hardly the case! The war in Gaza is a war between Hamas, and the Zionist state of Israel.

It is also a fact that there is a considerable number of Jewish students, among others, who are also protesting, against the war in Gaza. To be Jewish, is not necessarily to be Zionist!

Incidentally, the press is reporting that possibly thirty five thousand people have already been killed in Gaza, mainly women and children. The survivors are now facing famine, according to the United Nations. There are allegations that Israel is committing an act of genocide. There is a good reason for those protests!

This is not to say that Hamas is a humanitarian organization. It is not! In fact, the leaders of both Hamas and Israel could soon be facing charges of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, by the International Criminal Court, the ICC. That remains to be seen.

Of course, among the protesters, there are a great many signs and posters. It is encouraging that one sign called for ”Revolution”, while another sign called for ”Class Warfare”. It remains to be seen whether this mass movement will continue to remain spontaneous, or whether it will focus on class struggle, leading to revolution, the overthrow of the billionaires, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

It is significant that the American Universities are leading this protest movement, which has spread to numerous campuses, in various countries of the world. Bravo, American students!

It is only reasonable to expect those same students, as well as others, to look into Leftist political Parties. As I have documented, in previous articles, the fact that all such political parties, at least here in North America, which claim to be Marxist, are nothing but revisionists, social chauvinists, there is no need to repeat it here.

It is also a fact that there are a number of groups which claim to be Socialist, but not Marxist. Such people are referred to as Utopian Socialists. They are the natural and desirable allies of those who are true Marxists, Communists.

The fact is that previously, certain members of the ”educated classes”, have succeeded in -temporarily- corrupting the consciousness of the working class, the proletariat. As a result of this, the common people are now largely unaware of the true Marxism, Scientific Socialism. This includes the theory of the class conflict, the necessity of revolution, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Now we can expect many of the students, those who are taking part in this protest movement, to face the fact that they have been lied to, all their lives. As the police tear down their tents, assault them with clubs and arrest them, this point is being driven home. They will learn the same lesson that was learned by the members of the Occupy Movement.

Very quickly, they will learn that there is no truly revolutionary, Marxist organization, in the country. Such a Communist Party has to be created, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Equally without doubt, certain members of the most advanced students will take part in the creation of that Communist Party.

That is a fact, just as it is a fact that the modern day working class, the proletariat, is now quite cultured. Almost all have access to various digital devices, and know how to use those devices!

Now it is up to true Marxists, those who are determined to establish Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, to get together and form a true Communist Party. That includes the students, who are just now becoming politically active. This involves getting in touch with the most advanced workers, as well as other members of the middle class, those whom are involved in their own movements. Their level of consciousness too, must be raised to the level of Marxists. It will likely not take a great deal of persuasion, to convince them that the billionaires are not about to submit to ‘’majority rule’’. To even suggest that, as part of majority rule, the billionaires should pay their ‘’fair share of taxes’’, starting with a tax rate of ninety percent of income, is something to which they would never agree. The billionaires are in charge, do not pay any taxes, and fully intend to remain in charge! 

Now to return to, What Is To Be Done?

In the final paragraph, Lenin makes reference to the unprincipled, the opportunists, being ‘’in the swamp’’. They have chosen the ‘’path of conciliation’’. They do not want to antagonize the ruling class of billionaires! They are also anxious to drag others, Marxists, down to their level, into that same swamp! 

For the benefit of those who are considering the principled method of fighting for Scientific Socialism, allow me to point out the warning of Lenin: ‘’We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult trail, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and are under their almost constant fire. We have combined voluntarily, precisely for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not to retreat into the adjacent swamp’’. 

Fair warning! Those who choose to adhere to principle, to fight for scientific socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will find themselves under extreme pressure, and not merely from the monopoly capitalists. All too many people on the ”Left”, including those who claim to be Marxists, are focused on ”class collaboration”, rather than class struggle. They would have us believe that the billionaires are about to ”turn over a new leaf”, to become ”sweetly reasonable”, to submit to ”majority rule”. Not likely!

Lenin refers to these people, the unprincipled, as being ”in the swamp”. Yet it seems to bother them when people of principle do the proper thing, that of preparing the working class for revolution, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Why else would they encourage us to stoop to their level, to join them in the swamp?

 

B. The New Advocates of ‘’Freedom of Criticism’’

Under the reign of Czar Nicholas II, in Russia, no dissent was allowed. Anyone who challenged the authority of the Czar (Emperor) was promptly thrown into prison. The best these unfortunates could hope for, was to be allowed to leave the country. Many Marxists did just that, and some of them created the League of Russian Social Democrats Abroad. Their newspaper was Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers Cause), and they demanded ‘’freedom of criticism’’. They maintained that this was the only way to unite the Russian Marxists, referred to as Social Democrats, who were living abroad. 

This demand may appear to be quite reasonable and harmless. Such is hardly the case! In fact, their idea of ”criticism” was nothing less than the revision of the revolutionary theories of Marx!

They were the followers of Bernstein, those who wanted to convert the Marxist Social Democratic Party, into a liberal party of social reform. Their newspaper, Rabocheya Mysl, (Workers Thoughts), maintained that the Bernsteinists ‘’stand on the basis of the class struggle for the political and economic emancipation of the proletariat’’. Yet as Lenin pointed out, that is merely the opinion of the representatives of the Bernsteinists! Yet their actions were far different! They really wanted to work with the capitalists! Class collaboration!

Lenin then gives several examples of the manner in which opportunists (unprincipled) operate, in different countries. 

C. Criticism In Russia

In this section, Lenin refers to a time in Russia, which is very similar to our current situation. On the one hand, there was a spontaneous labour movement, along with a ‘’change in progressive public opinion towards Marxism’’. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that in North America, the public opinion has changed towards socialism. 

In both cases, that which Lenin refers to as ‘’heterogenous (diverse) elements’’, came together for the purpose of fighting the common enemy, that of ‘’obsolete social and political views’’. A great many of those people he referred to as ‘’bourgeois democrats’’. 

As regards North America, many of those who are demanding change, refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists, or Social Democrats, or just plain Socialists. Just as in Russia, at the beginning of the twentieth century, a great many of them are of a middle class (petty bourgeois) background, have been to university, and have been exposed to the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. 

More accurately, they have been exposed to the distortions of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. They tend to bring these distortions into the working class revolutionary movement. This has created a considerable amount of confusion. 

It is up to true Marxists, to straighten out this confusion. We have to explain to the working people, that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the ”touchstone” of a true Marxist. Those who claim to be Marxists, while denying the necessity of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, are in the service of the capitalists. Such people are referred to as ”revisionists”, as they want to revise the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin.

These revisionists, social chauvinists one and all, completely deny the necessity of revolution, of smashing the existing state apparatus, and establishing Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Such people are completely devoid of principle.  

At the same time, we must draw a clear distinction between the Marxist revisionists, and the ”Utopian Socialists”, those who consider themselves to be Socialists, but not Marxists. These ”Utopian Socialists” are in a completely different category. They are not the enemy! On the contrary, they are the natural and desirable allies of the Marxists.

That being said, it is also a fact that it is sometimes necessary to enter into temporary alliances with unreliable people. No political party can exist without such alliances.

Bear in mind that ‘’an essential condition for such an alliance must be complete liberty for Marxists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie (billionaires)’’, according to Lenin. 

Which brings us to the title of the section, Criticism In Russia. This apparently harmless slogan, is a reference to revising the revolutionary theories of Marx. In particular, the revisionists teach that there is no need of a social revolution, no need to smash the existing state apparatus, and certainly no need for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They want to restrict the labour movement and the class struggle to narrow trade unionism, and to a struggle for paltry reforms. Lenin refers to these demands as ‘’Economism’’.

He went on to point out the fact that Economists demand ‘’freedom of criticism’’, but are afraid of criticism! In fact, they disapprove of all theoretical controversies, factional disagreements, of broad political questions, and of organizing. That is precisely the problem we are facing today, and we must oppose it.

The level of awareness of the common people, the members of the public, must be raised. The most advanced members of the working class, must have their consciousness raised to the level of true Marxists, Communists. They must be made aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. These advanced workers will in turn, lead the less advanced workers. In this way, the working class, will prepare for Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

D. Engels On the Importance of the Theoretical Struggle

Here too, a little explanation is required. As previously mentioned, the word ”eclecticism” is a reference to the practice of deriving ideas from a diverse range of sources. As well, the Russian Emancipation of Labour Group was the first Russian Marxist revolutionary organization, formed in 1883. The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, the Party of Lenin, was formed several years later, in 1898. By 1902, the Party was still in the process of formation, and being attacked by those who were concerned with ”ossification of the Party”. This particular section was written with that in mind.

Lenin first makes the point, that the slogan ”freedom of criticism”, which sounds so harmless, ”implies not the substitution of one theory for another, but freedom from any complete and thought out theory; it implies eclecticism and absence of principle”.

As for those who may think that there is no harm in ”picking and choosing”, acquiring different ideas from different sources, otherwise known as eclecticism, Lenin is of a different opinion. He pointed out that Marx ”sharply condemned the eclecticism in the formulation of principles….do not haggle over principles, do not make ‘concessions’ in theory”.

Lenin began the following paragraph with a strongly worded statement:

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

”First, our Party is only in the process of formation, its features are but just becoming outlined, and it has not yet completely settled its accounts with other tendencies in revolutionary thought which threaten to divert the movement from the proper path…Under such circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an ‘unimportant’ mistake may give rise to most deplorable consequences, and only the short sighted would consider factional disputes and strict distinction of shades to be inopportune and superfluous. The fate of Russian SocIal Democracy for many, many years to come may be determined by the strengthening of one or the other ‘shade’.

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

”The third reason is that the national tasks of Russian Social Democracy are such as have never confronted any other socialist party in the world. Further on we shall deal with the political and organizational duties which the task of emancipating the whole people from the yoke of autocracy imposes upon us. At the moment, we merely wish to state that the role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced theory”. (italics by Lenin)

This was followed by examples, from Russian history, of revolutionary movements which were not guided by a proper revolutionary theory.

Without doubt, the situation which Lenin described, in 1902 Russia, almost exactly matches the current situation in North America, and very likely, in various other parts of the world. The difference is that in 1902 Russia, the working people had to first overthrow the autocracy, in the form of a Czar, or Emperor, Nicholas II. As well, the people of Russian had a true Communist Party, led by Lenin.

Lenin then proceeded to stress the importance of theory in the revolutionary movement: ”Engels recognizes not two forms of the great struggle Social Democracy is conducting (political and economic), as is the fashion among us, but three, adding to the first two the theoretical struggle”. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin then referred to an article written by Engels, in 1874. As he considered this article to be of such vital importance, he quoted it at some considerable length. As Engels pointed out, the German workers had ”two important advantages over those of the rest of Europe”. The first advantage was that they ”belong to the most theoretical people of Europe”. The second advantage was that they ”were almost the last to appear in the labour movement”. For that reason, the German workers were able to profit from the experience of previous working class movements, avoiding their mistakes.

Engels then explained that, as a result of these advantages, the German workers were able to make great strides, so to speak:

”It must be said to the credit of the German workers that they exploited the advantages of their situation with rare understanding. For the first time in the history of the labour movement, the three sides of the struggle, the theoretical, the political and the practical economic (resistance to the capitalists), are being conducted in harmony, coordination and in a planned way. It is precisely in this, as it were, concentric attack, that the strength and invincibility of the German movement lies…

”the German workers for the moment form the vanguard of the proletarian struggle. How long events will allow them to occupy this post of honour cannot be foreseen. But as long as they occupy it, let us hope that they will discharge their duties in the proper manner. To this end, it will be necessary to redouble our energies in every sphere of struggle and agitation. It is the specific duty of the leaders to gain an ever clearer insight into all theoretical questions, to free themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases inherited from the old conception of the world, and constantly keep in mind that socialism, having become a science, must be pursued as a science, i.e. (that is), it must be studied. The task will be to spread with increased enthusiasm, among the masses of the workers, the ever clearer insight thus acquired, to knit together ever more firmly the organization both of the Party and of the trade unions.

”If the German workers proceed in this way, they will not march exactly at the head of the movement- it is not in the interests of the movement that the workers of any one country should march at its head- but they will occupy an honourable place in the battle line, and they will stand armed for battle when either unexpected grave trials or momentous events demand heightened courage, heightened determination and power to act”.

Engels was correct, in that the German workers were soon forced to face ”grave trials”, in the form of the Anti Socialist Law. Yet as Lenin stated, they were ”fully armed”, and were ”able to emerge victoriously”.

It is not too surprising that Lenin expected the first successful socialist revolution, to take place in Germany. The German workers were so well advanced, and led by such a fine Social Democratic (Marxist) Party! He had no way of anticipating that, under extreme pressure, the majority of German Marxist leaders would collapse, turn their coats, and call for ”defence of the fatherland”.

In my opinion, this is perhaps the most important section of the whole book. Lenin makes it clear that we have to learn from the experience of previous revolutionary movements. We must avoid their mistakes. This includes the mistakes made by the Marxist leaders of the Soviet Union, as well as the mistakes made by the Marxist leaders of China. In both cases, capitalism has been restored in those previously socialist countries. As I have covered this in a previous article, there is no need to repeat it here.

II 

The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Class Consciousness of Social Democracy

At the time Lenin was writing this, in 1902, the common people of Russia, the workers and peasants, those whom he referred to as the ‘’masses’’, were in the midst of a strong revolutionary uprising. The problem, as Lenin saw it, was that of the ‘’lack of consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders’’. Does that sound familiar? It should. It describes precisely the current situation, at least here in North America, and very likely, in other parts of the world. 

Lenin was determined to raise the level of awareness of the common people, the workers and farmers, referred to as peasants. Yet there was strong opposition to this, from other middle class intellectuals, even within the Party. These Marxist revisionists thought that the spontaneous uprising was all important, while the level of awareness of those taking part in the uprising was of no significance. 

The revisionists, especially the Mensheviks, were quite vocal in their beliefs, and expressed this in their newspaper, Rabocheye Dyelo, (Workers Cause). By contrast, the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, had their own newspaper, Iskra, (Spark).

This disagreement involved ‘’’belittling the importance of the objective, or spontaneous, element of development’’. (italics by Lenin) He then proceeded to state that the relation between ‘’consciousness and spontaneity is of enormous general interest’’. 

A. The Beginning of the Spontaneous Revival

In this section, Lenin uses the example of Russian workers going on strike, to point out that the ‘’spontaneous element’’, represents class consciousness in an ‘’embryonic form’’. As he stated, ‘’there could not yet be Social Democratic consciousness among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from without’’. (italics by Lenin, Social Democratic means Marxist, now referred to as Communist)

In the case of North America, the Occupy Movement of recent years can be thought of as being similar to the early workers strikes in Russia. During the Occupy Movement, those taking part in the protests were not class conscious. Yet there was a vague awareness of ‘’us versus them’’, in that the protesters referred to themselves as the ‘’ninety nine percent’’. They referred to the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie, as the ‘’one percent’’. This is an example of ‘’class consciousness in embryonic form’’.  

Lenin then proceeded to point out that such class consciousness must be brought to the workers, but can come only from an outside source. The experience of all countries shows that the working class, by itself, is able to develop only ‘’trade union consciousness’’. The condition of life, of the working class, do not allow it to go beyond these narrow limits. 

On the other hand, the theory of Scientific Socialism came from two middle class intellectuals, Marx and Engels. It was Lenin, another middle class intellectual, who built upon the work of those two pioneers. Now it is up to us to follow in their footsteps.

As best I can gather, almost all of the existing modern day political parties, which claim to be Marxist, deny the necessity of revolution, and of Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is to say that such Parties are ‘’revisionists’’, or ‘’social chauvinists’’. For that reason, they can not, and will not, bring ‘’class consciousness’’ to the working class. Yet the working class must become class conscious, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. But how?

That ‘’outside source’’ is available on the internet! The revolutionary works of Marx and Lenin can quite easily be downloaded! At least, the Essential Works of Lenin are readily available. They are also available in paperback form, and can be easily ordered. 

The vast majority of working people, in North America, are now quite well cultured! Most of them have access to ‘’digital devices’’, of various sorts, and know how to use them! Or at least, they have children who can assist them.

In the absence of a true Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the members of the working class must, and will, educate themselves. They will become ‘’class conscious’’, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, by themselves, if need be! It is to be hoped that the students who are currently in revolutionary motion will assist in this noble endeavor!

They, the most advanced members of the working class, as well as students, will soon be raised to the level of Marxist intellectuals, true Communists! The most advanced workers will, in turn, lead the less advanced! The same is true of the students!

It is to be hoped that this article, which I am writing, can help them to better understand those Revolutionary Works. 

At the time Lenin wrote What Is To Be Done?, as now, there were a great many self proclaimed Marxists who called for ‘’bowing down’’ to the spontaneous element. Lenin condemned this, in no uncertain terms.

B. Bowing To Spontaneity

Rabocheya Mysl (Workers Thought)

In this section, Lenin documents the fact that, right from the very beginning, there was a big division, within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In fact, there was a bitter struggle between those who are referred to as ‘’Economists’’, and the true Marxists. 

As Lenin stated, ‘’All subservience to the spontaneity of the labour movement, all belittling of the role of the ‘conscious element’, of the role of Social Democracy, (Marxism), means, whether one likes it or not, the growth of influence of bourgeois ideology among the workers’’. All those who talk about ‘exaggerating the importance of ideology’, about exaggerating the role of the conscious element, etc., imagine that the pure and simple labour movement can work out an independent ideology for itself, if only the workers ‘take their fate out of the hands of the leaders’. But this is a profound mistake….Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of workers in the process of their development, the only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for humanity has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms, there can never be a non class or above class ideology). Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree means strengthening bourgeois ideology. There is a lot of talk about spontaneity, but the spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology, leads to its developing according to the program of the Credo, for the spontaneous labour movement is pure and simple trade unionism….and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie. Hence our task, the task of Social Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement from its spontaneous, trade unionist striving to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Lenin considered this to be of the utmost importance. He went on to explain the reason that the spontaneous movement, the ”movement along the line of least resistance”, necessarily leads to the domination of bourgeois ideology: ”For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than Social Democratic ideology; because it is more fully developed, and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for being distributed’’. (italics by Lenin)

Strangely enough, Lenin made an important point in a footnote, no less. As he stated, ”The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism, but the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class still more”.

Now it is up to those who are protesting, to become familiar with the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Instead of focusing on paltry reforms, focus on revolution. We will know that we are being successful, when the banners and posters read:

Dictatorship of the Proletariat! 

Scientific Socialism!

Workers of the World, Unite!

C. The Self Emancipation Group and ‘’Rabocheye Dyelo’’ (Workers Cause)

This section is a response to a group of Russian intellectuals, who were living abroad, and created a ‘’Russian Self EmancipatIon Group’’. This Group then published a Manifesto, titled quite reasonably, the ”Manifesto of the Self Emancipation of the Workers Group”. In that Manifesto, they quite correctly pointed out that ‘’the workers of Russia are only just awakening, are only just looking around, and instinctively clutch at the first means of struggle that come to their hands’’. Yet from this correct observation, they came to the incorrect conclusion that this wlll ‘’determine the tasks’’ of the Marxists, in the sense that the Marxists must be subservient to that labour movement. 

Precisely the opposite is the case! According to Lenin, it is up to Marxists, Communists, to raise the level of awareness of the working people! They must be made aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, of the necessity of revolution, of smashing the existing state apparatus, and establishing Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

It is the role, the duty, of Marxists, to raise the level of awareness of the working people! It is our duty to divert the movement from the path of ‘’spontaneous development’’! To focus on the immediate goals of the movement is referred to as ‘’dragging at its tail’’! There is no point in telling common people, that which they already know!

Here too, we have another example of a very important statement, placed in a footnote. As Lenin stated, ”The fact that economic interests are a decisive factor does not in the least imply that the economic (i.e. trade union) struggle must be the main factor, for the essential and ‘decisive’ interests of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes in general. In particular, the fundamental economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will substitute the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” (italics by Lenin)

There is one very interesting paragraph, in which Lenin compared the function of Social Democracy to that of a ”spirit”, one that is ”hovering over” the spontaneous movement, but also ”raising the movement to the level of its program”. (italics by Lenin)

He then proceeded to say the following: ”It must be admitted that those who have determined always to follow behind the movement like a tail are absolutely and forever ensured against ‘belittling the spontaneous element of development”’.

Lenin summed this up in the following statement: ‘’The greater the spontaneous uprising of the masses, the more widespread the movement becomes, so much the more rapidly grows the demand for greater consciousness in the theoretical, political and organizational work of Social Democracy’’. 

As regards out current situation, the revolutionary movement is very broad and deep, not only here in North America, but also in other parts of the world. Further, those who claim to be Marxists are not performing their duty. So now it is up to working people and students, those who are protesting, to raise their own level of consciousness. A careful reading of What Is To Be Done?, will go a long way towards that goal. It is to be hoped that this article may be of some service. 

III

Trade Union Politics and Social Democratic Politics

In this section, Lenin documents the differences between Marxists, whom he refers to as Social Democrats, now referred to as Communists, and the Economists, concerning the ‘’political struggle’’. The Economists do not altogether repudiate ”politics”, but they are constantly deviating from the SocIal Democratic conception of politics to the trade unionist conception.

A. Political Agitation and Its Restriction By the Economists

Lenin first documents the fact that the mass movement of the Russian workers, gave rise to the creation of ‘’literature’’, in the form of leaflets, mainly exposing factory conditions. As a result of this, even the most ‘’backward’’- less advanced- workers embraced this literature. Even they were roused from their usual state of apathy, anxious to ‘’go into print’’. They wanted people to know about the working conditions within ‘’their own’’ factory! 

As a ‘’bonus’’, the mere appearance of these leaflets ‘’made them effective’’! In many cases, the mere appearance of such a leaflet proved to be sufficient to secure the satisfaction of all or part of the demands. Such is the power of the printed word!

It is important to remember that this work, in and of itself, is merely ‘’trade union’’ work, or ‘’Economist work’’, not Marxist, Communist, work. As Lenin stated, Social Democrats, Communists, ‘’lead the struggle of the working class not only for better terms for the sale of labour power, but also for the abolition of the social system that compels the propertyless to sell themselves to the rich. Social Democracy represents the working class, not in relation to a given group of employers, but in its relation to all classes in modern society, to the state as an organized political force. Hence, it not only follows that Social Democracy must not confine itself entirely to the economic struggle; they must not even allow the organization of economic exposures to become the predominant part of their activities. We must actively take up the political education of the working class and the development of its political consciousness.” 

Naturally, this begs the question, of the precise meaning of ”political education”. It is something more than explaining to the working class, that which they already know! True, it must be explained to them that they are politically oppressed, and that their interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of their employers. More than that, ”Advantage must be taken of every concrete example of this oppression for the purpose of agitation (in the same way that we began to use concrete examples of economic oppression for the purposes of agitation). And inasmuch as political oppression affects all sorts of classes in society, inasmuch as it manifests itself in various spheres of life and activity…is it not evident that we shall not be fulfilling our task of developing the political consciousness of the workers if we do not undertake the organization of the political exposure of (capitalism) in all its aspects? (italics by Lenin, I merely replaced the word autocracy with capitalism)

He then proceeded to document the manner in which various groups, while claiming to be Marxist, were focused only on the economic struggle, which is Economism.

In summary, Lenin made it quite clear that ‘’Revolutionary Social Democracy always included, and now includes, the fight for reforms in its activities….it considers it to be its duty to present this demand to the government, not on the basis of the economic struggle alone, but on the basis of all manifestations of public and political life. In a word, it subordinates the struggle for reforms to the revolutionary struggle for liberty and for socialism, as the part is subordinate to the whole.’’ (italics by Lenin)

B. A Tale of How Martynov Rendered Plekhanov More Profound

We should start by mentioning the fact that, at one time, Plekhanov was a fine Marxist theoretician. It was only in later years, that he ‘’turned his coat’’, becoming a traitor to the working class, and ended up defending the capitalists, the bourgeoisie. 

That being said, at the time Lenin was writing this article, Plekhanov was still a Marxist. He drew the following distinction between propagandists and agitators: ‘’A propagandist presents many ideas to one or a few persons; an agitator presents one or a few ideas, but he presents them to a mass of people’’.

As Lenin pointed out, a propagandist must present many ideas, which will be understood as a whole, by only a relatively few people. On the other hand, an agitator will present a single idea to countless people. For that reason, the propagandist operates chiefly by the printed word, while the agitator operates mainly with the living word.

But then Martynov came up with a ‘’third sphere’’, a ‘’more profound’’ terminology. According to him, agitation is a matter of ‘’calling the masses to certain concrete actions that would facilitate the direct revolutionary intervention of the proletariat in social life’’.  

As Lenin stated, the ‘’call…quite naturally and inevitable supplements the theoretical tract, propagandist pamphlet and agitational speech’’. It follows that those who ‘’carry the petition lists around are agitators’’. Pure nonsense!

Apparently Martynov created this confusion in order to criticize Lenin and his  newspaper, Iskra. 

It is my personal experience that certain well meaning people, in an effort to create something new and theoretical, end up making great fools of themselves. 

C. Political Exposures and ‘’Training In Revolutionary Activity’’

In this section, Lenin points out the error, which is characteristic of so many Economists, of focusing on the economic struggle, as a means of ”raising the activity of the masses of workers”.

As he phrased it: ”it is possible to ‘raise the activity of the masses of the workers’ only provided this activity is not restricted entirely to ‘political agitation on an economic basis’. And one of the fundamental conditions for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organization of all sided political exposure. In no other way can the masses be trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activity except by means of such exposures. Hence, to conduct such activity is one of the most important functions of international Social Democracy as a whole, for even the existence of political liberty does not remove the necessity for such exposures; it merely changes the sphere against which they are directed.…Working class consciousness cannot be genuinely political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected. Moreover, that response must be a Social Democratic response, and not one from any other point of view. The consciousness of the masses of the workers cannot be genuine class consciousness, unless the workers learn to observe from concrete, and above all from topical, political facts and events, every other social class and all the manifestations of the intellectual, ethical and political life of these classes. …Those who concentrate the attention, observation and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even mainly, upon itself alone are not Social Democrats…These universal political exposures are an essential and fundamental condition for training the masses in revolutionary activity….Our business as Social Democratic publicists is to deepen, to expand and intensify political exposures and political agitation”.

This was followed by an imaginary response from working people, those who were ”sick and tired” of hearing the same old ”sermon”, from the same old Economists:

”The ‘economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government’, about which you make as much fuss as if you had made a new discovery, is being carried on in all parts of Russia, even the most remote, by the workers themselves who have heard about strikes, but who have heard almost nothing about socialism. The ‘activity’ you want to stimulate among us workers, by advancing concrete demands promising palpable results, we are already displaying and in our every day, petty trade union work we put forward concrete demands, very often without any assistance whatever from the intellectuals. But such activity is not enough for us; we are not children to be fed on the sops of ‘economic’ politics alone; we want to know everything that everybody else knows, we want to learn the details of all aspects of political life, and to take part actively in every political event. In order that we may do this, the intellectuals must talk to us less of what we already know, and tell us more about what we do not know and what we can never learn from our factory and ‘economic’ experience, that is, you must give us political knowledge. You intellectuals can acquire this knowledge and it is your duty to bring us this knowledge in a hundred and a thousand times greater measure than you have done up to now; you must bring us this knowledge, not only in the form of arguments, pamphlets and articles which sometimes- excuse our frankness!- are very dull, but in the form of live exposures of what our government and our governing classes are doing at this very moment in all spheres of life. Fulfill this duty with greater zeal, and talk less about ‘increasing the activity of the masses of the workers’! We are far more active than you think, and we are quite able to support, by open street fighting, demands that do not promise any ‘palpable results’ whatever! You cannot ‘increase’ our activity, because you yourselves are not sufficiently active. Be less subservient to spontaneity, and think more about increasing your own activity, gentlemen! (italics by Lenin)

As regards our current situation, there are various political parties and organizations, all of whom ‘’worship spontaneity’’. They too, take great delight in telling working people, that which they already know! They write volumes concerning the fact that workers are over worked and under paid! As if they do not know! 

The working class has to be made aware of the existence of classes! Of class conflict! Of the necessity of revolution! Of the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus! Of the necessity of crushing the billionaires, after the revolution! Of the necessity of setting up a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! That is what they need!

There are a great many socialist political parties and groups in North America, most of which make no claim to be Marxist. We refer to these as ‘’utopian socialists’’. Almost all of the members, of such groups and parties, are of a middle class background. For that reason, they have been to university, and there exposed to the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Bear in mind that the universities teach only the revision of those revolutionary theories. Strangely enough, countless middle class people believe that nonsense. For that reason, they tend to believe that socialism may be a ‘’good idea’’, but just does not work. 

Then too, there are the self proclaimed socialists, who claim to be Marxists. Some of them maintain that Marxism must be ‘’revised’’, so that the revolutionary theories must be discarded. Others may not openly call for revision, but refuse to mention any revolutionary theories. Both are dead set opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As true Communists, we can work with the utopian socialists, as they are merely misled. We cannot work with the Marxist revisionists, as they are completely devoid of principle.

That in no way changes the fact that the working class must become ‘’class conscious’’, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. At least, the most advanced workers must become raised to the level of true Communists, those who call for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But how?

The answer is with the internet. As most working people are now cultured, owners of digital devices, they can now download Marxist works, or order them online. The Essential Works of Lenin are readily available, and it is hoped that this article will assist in understanding those writings. 

D. What Is There In Common Between Economism and Terrorism?

In this section, Lenin makes reference to Svoboda Revolutionary Group, in that Svoboda means Freedom. It was a terrorist organization. 

Lenin gets right to the heart of the matter, when he states that ”Economists and the modern terrorists spring from a common root, namely, subservience to spontaneity…At first sight, our assertion may appear paradoxical, for the difference between these two appears to be so enormous: one stresses the ‘drab every day struggle’, and the other calls for the most self sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is not a paradox. The Economists and terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity: the Economists bow to the spontaneity of the ‘pure and simple’ labour movement, while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of the intellectuals, who are either incapable of linking up the revolutionary struggle with the labour movement, or lack the opportunity to do so….Let the workers carry on their ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’…and let the intellectuals conduct the political struggle by their own efforts- with the aid of terror, of course! This is an absolutely logical and inevitable conclusion which must be insisted upon- even though those who are beginning to carry out this program did not themselves realize that it is inevitable. Political activity has its logic quite apart from the consciousness of those who, with the best intentions, call either for terror or for giving the economic struggle itself a political character. The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin then proceeds to list the two arguments put forward in defence of terrorism. First, so many terrorists admit that it has ”no deterrent value”, but that it does have ”excitative significance”. As Lenin said, ”To admit now that the government cannot be ‘terrified’, and therefore disrupted, by terror, is tantamount to condemning terror as a system of struggle….Secondly, it is still more characteristic as an example of the failure to understand our immediate task of ‘training the masses in revolutionary activity’. Svoboda advocates terror as a means of ‘exciting’ the labour movement, and of giving it a ‘strong impetus’. …Are there not enough outrages committed in Russian life that a special ‘stimulant’ has to be invented?”

That which was true in Russia, in 1902, is just as true in twenty first century North America!

He goes on to say that our most ”pressing duty” now is to organize ”all sided political exposure”. ..as ”no other work can serve as a substitute for this work, either at the present time or at any other time”. (italics by Lenin)

E. The Working Class As Champion of Democracy 

In order to prepare the working class for revolution and the subsequent Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it is necessary to develop the political consciousness of the working class. This is to say that we have to raise the level of awareness, of at least the most advanced workers, to that of true Marxists, Communists. We cannot accomplish this by focusing on the purely economic aspects, as that is too narrow. 

Lenin makes the point that political consciousness can be brought to the workers, but only from outside the economic struggle. He is referring to the relationships between all the various classes, and strata within those classes, as they pertain to the various levels of government. 

At the time this was written, a true Russian Communist Party existed, which was referred to as the Social Democratic Party. That same Party was blessed with a great many members, and they were at first working only with the workers who were engaged in industry. Quite reasonably, these workers were referred to as the ”industrial proletariat”. Yet as ever more young intellectuals joined the Party, they ended up with a ‘’surplus’’, so to speak.

As the situation had changed, Lenin decided that it was necessary to change tactics, with the changing times. For that reason, he thought it best to send ‘’agitators’’ into all social strata. Bear in mind that, at that time in Russia, there were far more classes than we have now, in North America.

Lenin: ”We must ‘go among all classes of the people’ as theoreticians, as propagandists, as agitators and as organizers. No one doubts that the theoretical work of Social Democrats should be directed towards studying all the features of the social and political position of the classes. But extremely little is done in this direction as compared with the work that is done in studying the features of factory life….The principle thing, of course, is propaganda and agitation among all strata of the people. …We must also find ways and means of calling meetings of representatives of all classes of the population that desire to listen to a democrat; for he who forgets that ‘the Communists support every revolutionary movement’, that we are obliged for that reason to expound and emphasize general democratic tasks before the whole people, without for a moment concealing our socialist convictions, is not a Social Democrat. He who forgets his obligation to be in advance of everybody in bringing up, sharpening and solving every general democratic problem is not a Social Democratic…We must take upon ourselves the task of organizing a universal political struggle under the leadership of our Party in such a manner as to obtain all the support possible of all opposition strata for the struggle and for our Party. We must train our Social Democratic practical workers to become political leaders, able to guide all the manifestations of this universal struggle, able at the right time to ‘dictate a positive program of action’ for the discontented students, for the discontented religious sects, for the offended elementary school teachers, etc”. (italics by Lenin)

By contrast, we have no true Communist Party -as yet!-, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A surplus of young, university educated members of the ”upper classes”, is one problem we do not have. What we do have, is a highly cultured working class. 

More accurately, we have a great many common people, who work for a living, and are highly cultured. For the most part, but by no means all, they work for wages, as hourly employees. Some of these people are family farmers. Others are ‘’owner-operators’’, those who own a machine and run it themselves. Still others are small business owners. 

While it is true that many of these working people are technically classified as ‘’petty bourgeois’’, or middle class, I still refer to them as ”working people”, or ”common people”. After all, the family farmer frequently also works at an hourly job. That person is both a worker, a proletarian, and a farmer. Part time farmer, part time worker. Then too, the owner-operators frequently have to declare bankruptcy, and subsequently also work for wages. The distinction between working class and lower middle class becomes blurred.

All of these working people are quite cultured. Almost all have digital devices, and know how to use them. What is more, it is safe to say that many of them are taking a leading role in the upcoming revolution. 

In particular, the truckers protest is being carried out, very likely by working people who own their own trucks. They are being joined by family farmers, in their tractors. Both independent truckers and family farmers are being squeezed by the monopoly corporations. It is essential that they become aware that they are fighting a class war, and not just a fight for paltry reforms. 

We can only hope that they too, read the Essential Works of Lenin.

While it is true that the lack of a proper Communist Party is a ”grave misfortune”, it is also true that a powerful revolutionary motion may motivate a number of middle class people, those who are aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, to form such a Party. Of course, advanced workers can assist in this worthy cause. More on that objective, later on in this book.

Lenin went on to state that ‘’only a Party that will organize real, public exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in our time.’’ He went on to state that ‘’sober politicians and cool businessmen’’, are well aware of how dangerous it is to ‘’complain’’ about even a minor government official. Yet those same people will ‘’come to us’’ with their complaints, if we in fact ‘’represent a political force…The ideal audience for these political exposures is the working class, which is first and foremost in need of universal and live political knowledge, which is most capable of converting this knowledge into active struggle, even if it does not promise ‘palpable results’. The only platform from which public exposures can be made is an all Russian newspaper”. (italics by Lenin)

That was very true, at the time Lenin wrote this article. Since that time, advances in technology have given birth to the internet, as well as various web sites. We can use these to our advantage. It is very likely much faster, easier and cheaper, to post on the internet, rather than publishing a newspaper. The importance of these exposures cannot be under estimated. As Lenin stated:

”Political exposures are as much a declaration of war against the government as economic exposures are a declaration of war against the employers. And the wider and more powerful this campaign of exposure is, the more numerous and determined the social class, which has declared war in order to commence the war, will be, the greater will be the moral significance of this declaration of war. Hence, political exposures in themselves serve as a powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose, the means for diverting from the enemy his casual or temporary allies, the means of spreading enmity and distrust among those who permanently share power with the autocracy.

”Only a Party that will organize real, public exposures can become the vanguard of the revolutionary forces in our time. The word ‘public’ has a very profound meaning. The over whelming majority of the non working class exposures (and in order to become the vanguard, we must attract other classes) are sober politicians and cool businessmen. They know perfectly well how dangerous it is to ‘complain’ even against a minor official, let alone against the ‘omnipotent’ Russian government. And they will come to us with their complaints only when they see that these complaints really have effect, and when they see that we represent a political force. In order to become this political force in the eyes of outsiders, much persistent and stubborn work is required to raise our own consciousness, initiative and energy. For this, it is not sufficient to stick the label ‘vanguard’ on rearguard theory and practice….But in what way will the class character of our movement be expressed?…We Social Democrats will organize these public exposures; in that all the questions that are brought up by the agitation will be explained in the spirit of Social Democracy, without any concessions to deliberate or unconscious distortions of Marxism; in the fact that the Party will carry on this universal political agitation, uniting into one inseperable whole the pressure upon the government in the name of the people, the revolutionary training of the proletariat- while preserving its political independence- the guidance of the economic struggle of the working class, the utilization of all its spontaneous conflicts with its exploiters, which rouse and bring into our camp increasing numbers of the proletariat.” (italics by Lenin)

Even though we do not, as yet, have a true Communist Party, we are quite capable of coming together, as an organization of working people, and setting up a proper web site, on the internet. On this web site, we can expose the lies and deception of the ruling class of billionaires. All articles will be written in the spirit of Scientific Socialism, true Communism, without any concessions to any distortions of Marxism. 

Under those circumstances, it is entirely possible that a great many well educated intellectuals may join us. The same it true of the students. That is precisely what we need.

F. Again ‘’Slanderers’’, Again ‘’Mystifiers’’

This section was written in response to the newspaper, Rabocheye Dyelo, (Workers Cause). They accused Iskra, the newspaper of Lenin, of slandering them!

The ‘’bone of contention’’, so to speak, was that of the necessity of raising the level of awareness of the working class, to the level of ‘’conscious people’’. This is to say that at least the most advanced workers, had to become true Marxists, Communists, aware of the necessity of revolution, in order to give birth to Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This requires something more than focusing merely on the economic struggles, of the working people. 

As Lenin responded, ”with only a little reflection, it would have understood why all subservience to the spontaneity of the mass movement and any degrading of Social Democratic politics to trade union politics means precisely preparing the ground for converting the labour movement into an instrument of bourgeois democracy. The spontaneous labour movement by itself is able to create (and inevitably will create) only trade unionism, and working class trade union politics are precisely working class bourgeois politics. The fact that the working class participate in the political struggle and even in political revolution does not in itself make its politics Social Democratic politics”. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin made the point that there is a big difference between trade union politics, and Communist politics. Trade union politics is precisely working class bourgeois politics. The fact that the working class participates in the political revolution, does not, in itself, make its politics Communist politics.

This is followed by a reference to a mass movement, within Russia, the previous spring. Lenin admits that the Social Democratic Party did not respond properly, and that there was a reason for this: ”The masses of workers proved to be more active than we; we lacked adequately trained revolutionary leaders and organizers, aware of the mood prevailing among all the opposition strata and able to march at the head of the movement, convert the spontaneous demonstration into a political demonstration, broaden its political character, etc. Under such circumstances, our backwardness will inevitable be utilized by the more mobile and more energetic non Social Democratic revolutionaries, and the workers, no matter how strenuously and self sacrificingly they may fight the police and troops, no matter how revolutionary they may act, will prove to be merely a force supporting these revolutionaries, the rearguard of bourgeois democracy, and not the Social Democratic vanguard”.

Clearly, without that class consciousness, any working class involvement in the revolution, will result only in supporting the ‘’rearguard of bourgeois democracy’’. 

Lenin then proceeded to give the example of the German Social Democratic Party, at that time, a true Communist Party. It set the standard for being at the head of any and all mass movements.

It is entirely possible that those who claim to be Marxists, but in fact are social chauvinists, may become leaders of the revolution, manage to overthrow the existing government, take over the existing state apparatus, and set themselves up as the new rulers. With the help of the working people! That is very likely the goal of so many social chauvinists!

IV

The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of Revolutionaries

In this section, Lenin makes the argument that a national centralized organization is needed. It must consist of professional revolutionaries, led by the real political leaders of all the people. Such an organization is not about to take shape spontaneously! It has to be created by conscious people, those who are devoted to revolution! As Lenin stated:

”The ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’ does not in the least require- and therefore such a struggle can never give rise to- an all Russian centralized organization that will combine, in a general attack, all the numerous manifestations of political opposition, protest and indignation, an organizarion that will consist of professional revolutionaries, and be led by the real political leaders of the whole of the people. And this can be easily understood. The character of the organization of every institution is naturally and inevitably determined by the character of the activity that institution conducts….But it is precisely at the present time, when the wave of spontaneous indignation is, as it were, washing over us, leaders and organizers of the movement, that a most irreconcilable struggle must be waged against all defence of sluggishness, against any legitimization of restrictions in this matter, and it is particularly necessary to rouse in all those participating in the practical work, in all who are just thinking of taking it up, discontent with the primitive methods that prevail among us, and an unshakeable determination to get rid of them”. (italics by Lenin)

The creation of a web site, by those who are devoted to Scientific Socialism, would go a long way towards the creation of such a centralized organization. 

1. What Are Primitive Methods?

In this section, Lenin documents the manner in which the university students, those who were absorbed in Marxism, first became active. As he stated:

”They marched off to war, like peasants from the plough, snatching up a club. A students circle, having no contact the old members of the movement, no contacts with circles in other districts, or even in other parts of the same city, (or with other schools), without the various sections of the revolutionary work being in any way organized, having no systematic plan of activity covering any length of time, established contacts with the workers and sets to work. The circle gradually expands its propaganda and agitation; by its activities it wins the sympathies of a rather large circle of workers and of a certain section of the educated classes, which provide it with money and from which the ‘committee’ recruits new groups of young people….And usually the first action ends in immediate and wholesale arrests”.

This detailed, accurate description, by Lenin, of the earliest work of young Russian Marxists, he refers to as ”primitive methods”. As he pointed out, ”the lack of training in and narrow outlook on theoretical, political and organizational questions were all the inevitable result of the conditions described above…these primitive methods at last began to be recognized as a disease by all thinking Social Democrats”.

 

From this, it is clear that leaders are required, to order to coordinate the activities of the various groups, to provide direction, to focus their goals. They need to get organized.

In modern times, the situation is quite similar. The difference is that those who have gone to university, appear to believe the lies and distortions, concerning the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. That in no way changes the fact that the various movements, by different sections of the population, have to be brought together. It is not enough to fight for paltry reforms. Nothing of substance will change, until the ruling class of capitalists are overthrown. This is to say that we need an organization of Marxist, professional revolutionaries. We need a true Communist Party.

B. Primitive Methods and Economism

Lenin begins this section with a question which naturally arises, as a result of the previous sections: ”Have these primitive methods, which are a complaint of growth affecting the whole of the movement, any connection with Economism, which is only one of the tendencies in Russian Social Democracy?” (italics by Lenin)

Lenin was certainly of the opinion that such was the case! As he stated, ”The lack of practical training, the lack of ability to carry on organizational work is certainly common to us all, including those who have stood unswervingly by the point of view of revolutionary Marxism from the very outset. And, of course, no one can blame the practical workers for their lack of practical training. (italics by Lenin)

As this was clearly a very serious problem, he had a very serious solution: ”Our primary and most imperative practical task, namely, to establish an organization of revolutionaries capable of maintaining the energy, the stability and continuity of the political struggle.…The principle cause of the present crisis in Russian Social Democracy is that the leaders …lag behind the the spontaneous rising of the masses….The most serious sin we commit is that we degrade our political and organizational tasks to the level of the every day economic struggle”. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin also had a few harsh words for the Economists, middle class intellectuals, one and all, those who had a rather low opinion of the working class: ”If you are not amateurs enamoured of your primitive methods, what are you then? You boast that you are practical, but you fail to see what every Russian practical worker knows, namely, the miracles that the energy, not only of circles, but even of individual persons is able to perform in the revolutionary cause. Or do you think that our movements cannot produce heroes like that were produced by the movement in the seventies? If so, why do you think so? Because we lack training? But we are training ourselves, will train ourselves, and we will be trained!…Average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and self sacrifice in strikes and in street battles with the police and troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of determining the whole outcome of our movement- but the struggle against the political police requires special properties; it requires professional revolutionaries.” (italics by Lenin)

Now we are facing a very similar situation, in that our modern day Economists, including those who consider themselves to be Marxists, are making every effort to limit the working class movement, to the goal of paltry reforms. True, we lack training, but we are training ourselves! Some workers are studying the revolutionary works of Marx and Lenin in private, while others are coming together in groups, and discussing this. There is no law that says that a university degree is required to be a Communist revolutionary!

As regards the struggle with the political police, that requires an organization of professional revolutionaries. Such a struggle is clearly beyond the ability of the vast majority of common people. As Lenin stated: ”The fact that the masses are spontaneously entering the movement does not make the organization of this struggle less necessary. On the contrary, it makes it more necessary; for we Socialists would be failing in our duty to the masses if we did not prevent the police from making a secret of (and if we did not ourselves sometimes secretly prepare) every strike and every demonstration. And we shall succeed in doing this, precisely because the spontaneously awakening masses will also advance from their own ranks increasing numbers of ‘professional revolutionaries’ that is, if we are not so foolish as to advise the workers to keep on marking time.” (italics by Lenin)

C. Organization of Workers and Organization of Revolutionaries

At the very start of this section, Lenin makes clear that an organization of revolutionaries, is far different from an organization of workers. Yet he also makes clear that a typical Economist is of a different opinion. Lenin:

”It is only natural that a Social Democrat, who conceives the political struggle as being identical with the ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’, should conceive of an ‘organization of revolutionaries’ as being more or less identical with an ‘organization of workers”’.

In fact, there is a big difference between the two, of necessity. The typical Economist is completely incapable of understanding this. As Lenin stated, ”On questions of organization and politics the Economists are forever lapsing from Social Democracy into trade unionism. The political struggle carried on by the Social Democrats is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle the workers carry on against the employers and the government. Similarly (and indeed for that reason), the organization of a revolutionary Social Democratic Party must inevitably differ from the organizaton of the workers designed for the latter struggle. A workers organization must in the first place be a trade organization; secondly, it must be as wide as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow….On the other hand, the organization of revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people whose profession is that of a revolutionary (that is why I speak of organizations of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social Democrats). In view of this coming feature of the members of such an organization, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, and certainly distinctions of trade and profession, must be obliterated. Such an organization must of necessity be not too extensive and as secret as possible”. (italics by Lenin)

Of course, whenever possible, the relations between the two must be very close and simple. Whenever possible, every Social Democratic worker should work inside these trade union organizations. That is a fact. It is also a fact that, as Lenin stated, ”Every worker who understands the need for organization, in order to carry on the struggle against the employers and the government, join the trade unions. The very objects of the trade unions would be unattainable unless they were extremely wide organizations. The wider these organizations are, the wider our influence over them will be, and this influence will be exercised not only through the ‘spontaneous’ development of the economic struggle, but also by the direct and conscious effect the Socialist members of the union have on their comrades.” (italics by Lenin)

At the time Lenin was writing this, Russia was under the rule of the Czar, so that all organizations were banned, both trade unions and Socialists. For that reason, he gave some advice on that subject. As that is no longer an issue, I have chosen not to go into that.

There follows an instructive section, in which Lenin makes reference to ”tares” versus the ”wheat”. By the tares, or ”weeds”, he is referring to the ”agents provocateurs”, the ”rats” hired by the government, in order to infiltrate and cause trouble, within the labour movement. On the other hand, he also refers to the ”wheat”, and explains this: ”By the wheat, we mean attracting the attention of still larger and more backward sections of the workers to social and political questions …our task is to fight down the tares. It is not our business to grow wheat in flower pots. By pulling up the tares, we clear the soil for the wheat….Trade union organizations may not only be of tremendous value in developing and consolidating the economic struggle, but may also become a very important auxillary to political agitation and revolutionary organization.”

That is far different from a true Communist Party, which was then referred to as a ”Social Democratic Party”, which is ”capable of guiding the whole proletarian struggle for emancipation. ..it is necessary to conduct the widest possible political agitation among the masses…If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organization of revolutionaries, we can guarantee the stability of the movement as a whole and carry out the aims of both Social Democracy and of trade unionism”. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin then proceeds to issue a warning against demagogues, as he considers them to be the ”worst enemies of the working class”. These are the political leaders who appeal to the prejudices of the less advanced members of the working class. These workers may be encouraged to distrust those with university degrees, as well as anyone who is considered to be an intellectual. Bear in mind that Marx and Engels were well educated, middle class intellectuals!

As he said, such people ”arouse the bad instincts in the crowd, because the ignorant worker is unable to recognize his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely represent themselves, as his friends. They are the worst enemies of the working class, because in this period of dispersion and vacillation, when our movement is just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to side track the crowd, which can realize its mistake only by bitter experience”.

It is of the utmost importance for the working people, to have proper leaders. Such people are not ”naturally born”. He goes on to state that ”If we begin with the solid foundation of a strong organization of revolutionaries, we can guarantee the stability of the movement as a whole and carry out the aims of both Social Democracy and of trade unionism.” These leaders must be ”professionally trained, schooled by long experience and working in perfect harmony,” as per Lenin.

The demagogues respond to this by attempting to set the workers against their leaders, to undermine the confidence of the common people in their true leaders. They seem to be well aware that, in the absence of such leaders, no class in modern society is capable of conducting a determined struggle. It matters not in the slightest, if those professional revolutionaries are middle class intellectuals, or self educated working people.

As a means of stressing the importance of professional revolutionaries, Lenin made the following statement: ”I assert:

”1) that no movement can be durable without a stable organization of leaders to maintain continuity

”2) that the more widely the masses are spontaneously drawn into into the struggle and form the basis of the movement and participate in it, the more necessary is it to have such an organization, and the more stable must it be (for it is much easier for demagogues to side track the more backward sections of the masses)

”3) that the organization must consist chiefly of persons engaging in revolutionary activities as a profession.

”4) that in a country with an autocratic government, the more we restrict the membership of this organization to persons who are engaged in revolutionary activities as a profession and who have been professionally trained in the art of combatting the political police, the more difficult will it be to catch the organization, and

”5) the wider will be the circle of men and women of the working class or of other classes of society able to join the movement and perform active work in it” (italics by Lenin)

Granted, most countries of the world, but by no means all, now allow certain democratic rights, such as a right to organize in trade unions. Lenin then proceeded to explain that ”to concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean the latter will ‘do the thinking for all’, and that the crowd will not take an active part in the movement. On the contrary, the crowd will advance from its ranks increasing numbers of professional revolutionaries, for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and workingmen, waging economic war, to gather together and form a ‘committee’, but that it takes years to train professional revolutionaries; the crowd will ‘think’ not of primitive ways, but of training professional revolutionaries. The centralization of the secret functions of the organization does not mean the centralization of all of the functions of the movement….The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a ‘dozen’ experienced revolutionaries, no less professionally trained than the police, will centralize all the secret side of the work….The centralization of the more secret functions in an organization of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and the quality of the activity of a large number of other organizations intended for wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and public as possible, such as trade unions, workers’ circles for self education and the reading of illegal literature, and socialist and also democratic circles for all other sections of the population, etc. We must have as large a number as possible of such organizations having the widest possible variety of functions, but it is absurd and dangerous to confuse these with organizations of revolutionaries, to erase the lines of demarcation between them, to dim still more the masses’ already incredibly hazy appreciation of the fact that in order to ‘serve’ the mass movement, we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social Democratic activities, and that such people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries…our task is not to degrade the revolutionaries to the level of an amateur, but to exalt the amateur to the level of a revolutionary”. (italics by Lenin)

That was a summary of the tasks of the Russian Social Democratic (Communist) Party, in 1902. Our tasks are similar, in that we do not- as yet!- have a true Communist Party. I will devote a later article to that rather serious shortcoming. For the moment, the major differences are that we have the internet, as well as a working class that is cultured. For that reason, there is no need to print leaflets. As well, the workers, or at least the most advanced workers, can educate themselves, preferably with the help of the students, and raise their level of revolutionary awareness to that of true Marxists. This can be accomplished by carefully reading the key works of Marx and Lenin.

The same is true of the students. As they are also now in motion, at least in opposition to the war in Gaza, they too can self educate. As previously mentioned, at the same time, they can assist the workers in understanding the key works of Marx and Lenin.

It should be easier for the students, as the distortions of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, are taught in University. It matters not in the slightest if the professional revolutionaries emerge from the working classes, or from the students. We must not allow any prejudice against intellectual revolutionaries, from any class whatsoever.

D. The Scope of Organizational Work

In reading this section, it is best to bear in mind that at the time it was written, in 1902, Russia was an autocracy, ruled by a Czar (Emperor). Also, a Communist Party existed, referred to as the Social Democratic Party. Naturally, all true Marxists, Communists, were referred to as Social Democrats. As that is the manner in which they referred to themselves, that is the terminology I have used in this article.

It is also a fact that the problem which Lenin addressed, in this section, is not exactly a problem that we currently have, but is one that we will soon have to face. First, we will have to form a true Communist Party, train a number of professional revolutionaries, from among workers, students and intellectuals, and then put them to work. As we now have the internet, as well as a cultured working class, such a task is quite manageable.

Lenin begins this section with an open and honest admission that there is a ”lack of revolutionary forces fit for action”, across all of Russia. Yet he also made it clear that the Economists are mistaken, when they say that ”society advances few persons from its ranks fit for ‘work’. It advances very many, but we are unable to make use of them all. The critical, transitional state if our movement in this connection may be formulated as follows: there are no people- yet there are enormous numbers of people. There are enormous numbers of people, because the working class and the most diverse strata of society, year after year, advance from their ranks an increasing number of discontented people who desire to protest, who are ready to render all the assistance they can in the fight against absolutism, the intolerableness of which is not yet recognized by all, but is nevertheless more and more acutely sensed by increasing masses of the people.

”At the same time, we have no people, because we have no leaders, no political leaders, we have no talented organizers, capable of organizing extensive and at the same time uniform and harmonious work that would give employment to all forces, even the most inconsiderable. …The scope of revolutionary work is too narrow compared with the breadth of the spontaneous basis of the movement. It is too hemmed in by the wretched ‘economic struggle against the employers and the government’ theory. And yet, at the present time, not only Social Democratic political agitators, but also Social Democratic organizers must ‘go among all classes of the population”’….it is necessary to have a strong organization of tried revolutionaries. The more secret such an organization would be, the stronger and more wide spread would be the confidence of the masses in the Party, and as we know, in time of war, it is not only of great importance to imbue one’s own army with confidence in it’s own strength, it is important also to convince the enemy and all neutral elements of this strength; friendly neutrality may sometimes decide the issue. If such an organization existed on a firm theoretical basis, and possessed a Social Democratic journal, we would have no reason to fear that the movement would be diverted from its path by the numerous ‘outside’ elements that are attracted to it. ..In a word, specialization necessarily presupposes centralization, and in its turn imperatively calls for it”. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin next faced the problem of the most advanced, intellectual Russian worker, who was forced to work eleven hours a day in the factories. As he stated: ”Not only are revolutionaries lagging behind the spontaneous awakening of the masses generally, but even working class revolutionaries are lagging behind the spontaneous awakening of the working class masses….This fact proves that our very first and most imperative duty is to help to train working class revolutionaries, who will be on the same level in regard to Party activity as intellectual revolutionaries (we emphasize the words ‘in regard to Party activity’, because although it is necessary, it is not so easy and not so imperative to bring the workers up to the level of intellectuals, in other respects). Therefore, attention must be devoted principally to the task of raising the worker to the level of revolutionaries, and not to degrading ourselves to the level of the ‘labour masses’, as the Economists wish to do, or necessarily to the level of the average worker…I am far from denying the necessity for popular literature for the workers, and especially popular (but of course not vulgar) literature for the especially backward workers….We can and must educate workers (and university and high school students) so as to enable them to understand us when we speak to them about these questions….In order to become fully prepared for his task, the working class revolutionary must also become a professional revolutionary….our duty to assist every capable worker to become a professional agitator, organizer, propagandist, literature distributor, etc. …try to place every capable workingman in such conditions as will enable him to develop and apply his abilities to the utmost…As the spontaneous rise of the working class masses becomes wider and deeper, they not only promote from their ranks an increasing number of talented agitators, but also of talented organizers, propagandists and ‘practical workers’ in the best sense of the term…no political police in the world will be able to contend against them, for these detachments of men, absolutely devoted and loyal to the revolution, will themselves enjoy the absolute confidence and devotion of the broad masses of the workers. The sin we commit is that do not sufficiently ‘stimulate’ the workers to take this path, ‘common’ to them and to the ‘intellectuals’, of professional revolutionary training, and that we too frequently drag them back by our silly speeches about what ‘can be understood’ by the masses of workers, by the ‘average workers’, etc.

”In this, as in other cases, the narrowness of our field of organizational work is directly due….to the fact that we restrict our theories and our political tasks to a narrow field. Subservience to spontaneity seems to inspire a fear of taking even one step away from what ‘can be understood’ by the masses, a fear of rising too high above mere subservience to the immediate requirements of the masses. Have no fear, gentlemen! Remember that we stand so low on the plane of organization, that the very idea that we could rise too high is absurd!” (italics by Lenin)

E. ”Conspirative” Organization and ”Democracy”

In this Section, Lenin responds to criticisms that the organization, which the Social Democrats had established, smacked of ”Narodovolism”, and further, was not democratic. This calls for a little historical background.

As all Russians were well aware, in the 1870’s, many members of the Russian intelligentsia were involved in a movement against the autocracy, which is to say the Czar. As Lenin pointed out, it is to their credit that they tried to recruit, to their organization, all the discontented, in their attempt to destroy the autocracy. On the other hand, they relied on a theory which was not revolutionary, certainly not Marxist. Either they did not know how, or perhaps they were unable, to link up their movement with the class struggle, that was taking place.

The point that Lenin was trying to make, is that ”the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become a genuine ‘class struggle’ until it is led by a strong organization of revolutionaries”.

Lenin then went on to state: ”We have always protested, and will of course continue to protest against restricting the political struggle to conspiracies. But this does not of course mean that we deny the need for a strong revolutionary organization….an organization so strong as to be able to ‘resort to rebellion’ and to ‘every other form of attack’, in order to ‘deliver a smashing blow against absolutism…Secrecy is such a necessary condition for such an organization that all the other conditions …must all be subordinated to it.” (italics by Lenin)

We can only stress the fact, that this was written at the time when Russia was an autocracy. The people had absolutely no rights, so secrecy was a necessity. On the other hand, under the rule of monopoly capitalism, which is imperialism, within certain countries, the situation is quite similar. The people may have democratic rights, but only ”on paper”.

Lenin then responded to the criticism that ”such a powerful and strictly secret organization…. an organization which of necessity must be a centralized organization, may too easily throw itself into a premature attack…To this we reply, speaking abstractly, it cannot be denied, of course, that a militant organization may thoughtlessly commence a battle, which may end in defeat, which might have been avoided under other circumstances. But we cannot confine ourselves to abstract reasoning on such a question, because every battle bears within itself the abstract possibility of defeat, and there is no other way of reducing this possibility than by organized preparation for battle….a strong revolutionary organization is absolutely necessary precisely for the purpose of giving firmness to the movement and of safeguarding it against the possibility of its making premature attacks...Only a centralized, militant organization that consistently carries out a Social Democratic policy, that satisfies, so to speak, all revolutionary instincts and strivings, can safeguard the movement against making thoughtless attacks and prepare it for attacks that hold out the promise of success”.

This was followed by his response, to the criticism, that such an organization violated the ”broad democratic principles”. Of course, the implication is that of ”full publicity”, and ”elections to all functions”. Without doubt, that publicity extends beyond the membership of the organization. Under the autocracy, which then existed in Russia, that publicity extended to the government agents, those who were devoted to crushing that organization! For that reason, public elections were out of the question! The organization had to remain secret!

Then Lenin considered the ”principle of election”. That is completely out of the question, because ”no revolutionary organization has ever practiced broad democracy, nor could it, however much it desired to do so. It is a harmful toy, because any attempt to practice the ‘broad democratic principle’, will simply facilitate the work of the police in making big raids, it will perpetuate the prevailing primitiveness, divert the thoughts of the practical workers from the serious and imperative task of training themselves to becoming professional revolutionaries, to that of drawing up detailed ‘paper’ rules for election systems”. (italics by Lenin)

So much for democracy, within an organization which must remain secretive! The two are incompatible.

Lenin then proceeded to drive home this point: ”The only serious organizational principle the active workers of our movement can accept is strict secrecy, strict selection of members and training of professional revolutionaries. If we possessed these qualities, something even more than ‘democracy’ would be guaranteed to us, namely complete, comradely, mutual confidence among revolutionaries…they have a lively sense of their responsibility, because they know from experience that an organization of real revolutionaries will stop at nothing to rid itself of an undesirable member.” (italics by Lenin)

This is followed by an instructive example of British trade unions, which first thought that all members should manage the unions. All official duties were performed by all members in turn. It was only after a number of cases of bankruptcy, that the workers were able to realize that there are times when experts are necessary. A painful lesson!

F. Local and All-Russian Work

This Section was written, in response to the fear that a centralized organization would work to the detriment of the local organizations. To this, Lenin responded that a central organization could only be of benefit to the local groups. In fact, local workers were too absorbed in local work. To focus more on national work, would serve to strengthen the ties to local groups. Instead of having a great many local newspapers, each group could contribute to a national newspaper. If nothing else, it is far more efficient.

Lenin went on to elaborate: ”A well organized secret apparatus requires professionally well trained revolutionaries and proper division of labour, but neither of these requirements can be met by separate local organizations, no matter how strong they may be at any given moment. Not only are the general interests of our movement as a whole (training of the workers in consistent socialist and political principles) better served by non local newspapers, but so also are even specifically local interests.”

For our purposes, there is no need to worry about publishing newspapers, either local or national, as the internet provides us with the opportunity to post articles on web sites. As most workers, or at least the most advanced, now have digital devices, capable of downloading any articles we wish to publish, it is safe to say that newspapers have gone the way of the rotary telephone.

Yet Lenin makes another point, which is very important. In order to publish, whether a newspaper or a web site, ”it is necessary to have a staff of expert writers, expert correspondents, an army of Social Democratic reporters that has established contacts far and wide, able to penetrate into all sorts of ‘state secrets’…find its way ‘behind the scenes’, an army of men and women whose ‘official duty’ it must be to be uniquitous and omniscient. And we, the party that fights against all economic, political, social and national oppression, can and must, collect, train, mobilize and set into motion such an army of omniscient people”. (italics by Lenin)

This is followed with some practical advice, concerning leaflets for purely trade union work. This was relevant, at the time it was written. As well, he suggested having a section of the Social Democratic newspaper devoted to the trade union struggle.

Conclusion

In this, Lenin summarizes the three distinct periods, in Russian Social Democracy. The first period, that of 1884 to 1894, was that of the ”rise and consolidation of the theory and program of Social Democracy”. It existed ”without a labour movement”.

The second period covered the years 1894 to 1898. Social Democracy appeared as a ”social movement, as the rising of the masses of the people, as a political party…The movement made enormous strides…The struggle compelled them to educate themselves, to read the illegal literature of all the tendencies….The formation of the Party in the spring of 1898 was the most striking and at the same time the last act of the Social Democrats in this period.” (italics by Lenin)

This gave rise to the ”third period”, in which ”The proletarian struggle spread to new strata of the workers over the whole of Russia and at the same time indirectly stimulated the revival of the democratic spirit among the students and among other strata of the population. The consciousness of the leaders, however, yielded to the breadth and power of the spontaneous rising…Scientific Socialism ceased to be an integral revolutionary theory and became a hodge podge idea ‘freely’ diluted…the slogan ‘class struggle’ did not impel them forward to wider and more strenuous activity but served as a soothing syrup…the idea of a party did not serve as a call for the creation of a militant organization of revolutionaries, but was used to justify some sort of a ‘revolutionary bureaucracy’ and infantile playing at ‘democratic’ reforms”.

That covers the three rather lengthy periods, within Russia, concerning the development of Communism. That in no way implies that the development of Communism, in our time, must also be a rather long, drawn out process. On the contrary, we can learn from the experience of previous revolutionaries. The existence of a cultured proletariat, as well as the internet, make that simpler.

Lenin had a few final words to say: ”When this third period will come to an end, and the fourth begin, we do not know….But we firmly believe that the fourth period will see the consolidation of militant Marxism, that Russian Social Democracy will emerge from the crisis in the full strength of manhood, that the place of the rearguard of opportunists will be taken by a genuine vanguard of the most revolutionary class”.

The final paragraph is of particular importance for us, now that the revolutionary motion is raging, not just in North America, but also around the world.

”In the sense of calling for such a ‘new guard’ and summing up, as it were, all that had been expounded above, my reply to the question: ‘What is to be done?’, can be put briefly: Liquidate the Third Period.”

Introduction

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, capitalism reached the stage of monopolies. The monopoly capitalists of the day, referred to as multi millionaires, were aware that certain changes were taking place, within their beloved system of capitalism. They did not understand these changes, but embraced them, as this gave rise to huge profits. They referred to this new system of monopoly capitalism as imperialism. 

It was not until 1916, while Lenin was still in exile in Switzerland, that he decided to conduct a thorough analysis of capitalism, in its new monopoly stage, that of imperialism. The result was titled, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

As mentioned in a previous article, this is another work of Lenin, which I consider to be required reading, especially for those who are taking part in various ‘’protest movements’’. Soon, those same protests will expand, into a full scale revolution. As I am mainly concerned with common people, those who have just recently become politically active, I will explain certain technical expressions. The figures presented need no explanation.

It is significant that this work was based on the figures which the capitalists had gathered, for their own purposes. It is also significant that Lenin paid little attention to the analysis of those figures, which was frequently provided by the bourgeois economists. 

Chapter 1

Concentration of Production and Monopolies

In the first paragraph, Lenin states that the ‘’enormous growth of industry and the remarkably rapid process of concentration of production in ever larger enterprises represent one of the most characteristic features of capitalism’’. He goes on to say that ‘’censuses of production’’ provide us with ‘’complete and exact information’’. 

It is important to bear in mind that Lenin based this book upon the facts and figures of the capitalists, those which were gathered by the ‘’concientious’’ bourgeois economists. These he refers to as ‘’censuses of production’’, and he describes them as ‘’complete and exact’’. They were clearly gathered by those same economists, for their own purposes.

This is followed by a detailed list of ‘’industrial enterprises’’ in Germany, in which ‘’production is concentrated’’. As a result of this, ‘’labour in the large enterprises is much more productive’’. In conclusion, Lenin states: ‘’Less than one- hundredth of the total enterprises utilize more than three-quarters of the steam and electric power!’’ (italics by Lenin) 

I should add that ‘’one-hundredth’’ is ‘’one in a hundred’’, or ‘’one percent’’. Also, ‘’three-quarters’’ is ‘’seventy five out of a hundred’’, or ‘’seventy five percent’’. 

From these figures, Lenin concluded the following: ‘’Tens of thousands of large-scale enterprises are everything; millions of small ones are nothing….millions of small, medium and even some big ’masters’ are in fact in complete subjection to some hundreds of millionaire financiers’’. 

Lenin then examined ‘’another advanced country of modern capitalism, the United States’’. His conclusion? ‘’Almost half the total production of all the enterprises of the country was carried on by a hundredth part of those enterprises!…From this it can be seen that, at a certain stage of its development, concentration itself, as it were, leads right to monopoly; for a score of so of giant enterprises can easily arrive at an agreement.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This was followed by an example of that which is very important in an industrialized country, the manufacture of steel goods. This involves first mining iron ore, which is a metal. This is followed by ‘’smelting’’, or heating that metal, until ‘’pig iron’’ is extracted. Then steel can be produced from this pig iron.

As well, Lenin refers to ‘’combines’’. In business terms, this involves the merger of two or more businesses. In different countries, these can take different forms. A ‘’corporation’’ is defined as ‘’a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners’’. If a corporation combines with other businesses, then the result is a ‘’conglomerate’’. This same conglomerate may be referred to as a ‘’trust’’. A ‘’cartel’’ is defined as ‘’an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition’’. Possibly the most famous Cartel is OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. 

From the examples of these two industrialized countries, Germany and America, Lenin was able to draw some conclusions: ‘’At a certain stage of its development, concentration itself, as it were, leads right to monopoly; for a score or so of giant enterprises can easily arrive at an agreement, while on the other hand the difficulty of competition and tendency towards monopoly arise from the very dimensions of the enterprises. This transformation of competition into monopoly is one of the most important- if not the most important- phenomena of modern capitalist economy’’.

Lenin goes on to state that not all branches of industry contain ‘’large- scale enterprises’’. He also stresses the importance of ‘’combines’’. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin then proceeded to give a summary of the effect of monopoly, on all capitalist countries: ‘’Differences between capitalist countries …only give rise to insignificant variations in the form of monopolies or in the moment of their appearance, and that the rise of monopolies, as the result of the concentration of production, is a general and fundamental law of the present stage of development of capitalism’’. 

He then proceeded to give the business practices of cartels: ‘’Cartels come to agreement on the conditions of sale, terms of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. They fix the quantity of goods to be produced. They fix prices. They divide the profits among the various enterprises, etc.’’ 

No wonder the capitalists so love cartels! 

As a result of this, in all capitalist countries, without exception, competitive capitalism is replaced by monopoly. As Lenin stated: ‘’Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialization of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialized’’. 

Monopoly capitalists are able to hire the finest engineers and scientists, in order to estimate the sources of raw material, for a country or even a group of countries. Then with their great wealth, they are able to take control of those raw materials. Then it is a rather simple matter of estimating the markets for those goods, and dividing it up among themselves. 

Lenin concludes with the following: ‘’Capitalism in its imperialist stage arrives at the threshold of the most complete socialization of production….Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few.’’

The ‘’means of production’’ is a reference to the factories, mills, mines and so forth. The ‘’private property of the few’’ is a reference to the fact that they continue to belong to the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, technically referred to as the ‘’bourgeoisie’’.

These monopolies are becoming ever stronger, ever more complete. In the interest of securing ever greater profits, the capitalists resort to that which they refer to as ‘’business practices’’, or as ‘’organization’’. Lenin gives a list of these ‘’practices’’, all of which are perfectly legal!

Incidentally, the term i.e. means ”that is”.

‘’(1) stopping supplies of raw materials … “one of the most important methods of compelling adherence to the cartel”);

 ‘’(2) stopping the supply of labour by means of “alliances” (i.e., of agreements between the capitalists and the trade unions by which the latter permit their members to work only in cartelized enterprises); 

‘’(3) stopping deliveries; 

‘’(4) closing trade outlets; 

‘’(5) agreements with the buyers, by which the latter undertake to trade only with the cartels; 

‘’(6) systematic price cutting (to ruin ‘outside’ firms, i.e., those which refuse to submit to the monopolists. Millions are spent in order to sell goods for a certain time below their cost price; there were instances when the price of petrol was thus reduced from 40 to 22 marks, i.e., almost by half!); 

‘’(7) stopping credits; 

‘’(8) boycott.” 

Lenin goes on to say: ‘’Here we no longer have competition between small and large, between technically developed and backward enterprises. We see here the monopolists throttling those who do not submit to them, to their yoke, to their dictation. 

‘’At the basis of these swindles and manipulations lies socialized production; but the immense progress of humanity, which achieved this socialization, entirely goes to benefit the speculators’’. 

This is not to say that monopolies, in the form of cartels, corporations or trusts, can abolish crises. By no means! Our current crisis in capitalism, which involves several crises, at one time, is proof of that! As Lenin stated, ‘’when monopoly appears in certain branches of industry, it increases and intensifies the anarchy inherent in capitalist production as a whole. The disparity between the development of agriculture and that of industry which is characteristic of capitalism, is increased’’. 

That may help to explain our current uprising -protests!- on the part of the farmers!

Lenin concludes this chapter with that which I consider to be most important: ‘’Crises of every kind- economic crises more frequently, but not only these- in their turn increase very considerably the tendency towards concentration and monopoly’’. 

Chapter II

The Banks and Their New Role

The first paragraph of this Chapter is of vital importance, so that I have decided to re-produce it:

‘’The principal and primary function of banks is to serve as middlemen in the making of payments. In so doing they transform inactive money capital into active, that is, into capital yielding a profit; they collect all kinds of money revenues and place them at the disposal of the capitalist class. As banking develops and becomes concentrated in a small number of establishments, the banks grow from modest middlemen into powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small businessmen and also the larger part of the means of production and sources of raw materials in any one country and in a number of countries. This transformation of numerous modest middlemen into a handful of monopolists is one of the fundamental processes in the growth of capitalism into capitalist imperialism; for this reason we must first of all examine the concentration of banking.’’

It is not just businesses and corporations that become transformed into monopolies, under imperialism. Banks also become monopolies! The big banks ‘’squeeze out’’ the small ones! Often these ‘’small banks’’ are absorbed, bringing the small banks into the ‘’concern’’ of the big banks, to use the stilted jargon of the capitalists. 

This is followed by a most impressive list of very large banks, complete with their numerous ‘’affiliated’’ banks, which control a huge amount of capital. There follows a paragraph which I consider to be of vital importance:

’These simple figures show perhaps better than lengthy disquisitions how the concentration of capital and the growth of bank turnover are radically changing the significance of the banks. Scattered capitalists are transformed into a single collective capitalist. When carrying the current accounts of a few capitalists, a bank, as it were, transacts a purely technical and exclusively auxiliary operation. When, however, this operation grows to enormous dimensions we find that a handful of monopolists subordinate to their will all the operations, both commercial and industrial, of the whole of capitalist society; for they are enabled-by means of their banking connections, their current accounts and other financial operations—first, to ascertain exactly the financial position of the various capitalists, then to control them, to influence them by restricting or enlarging, facilitating or hindering credits, and finally to entirely determine their fate, determine their income, deprive them of capital, or permit them to increase their capital rapidly and to enormous dimensions, etc.’’

Clearly, the power of the banks, under imperialism, once they achieve the status of monopoly, is most impressive. 

This is followed by a statement, by a German journalist, which did not impress Lenin. In fact, Lenin gave this as a ‘’very good example of the impotence of bourgeois journalism, which differs from bourgeois science, only in that the latter is less sincere and strives to obscure essential things, to conceal the wood by the trees’’. 

As Lenin stated, ‘’To be ‘surprised’ at the results of concentration, to ‘reproach’ the government of capitalist Germany, or capitalist society (‘ourselves’), to fear that the introduction of stocks and shares might ‘hasten’ concentration…is not this impotence?’’

As someone who has a passion for science, this statement is of particular significance. To say that ‘’bourgeois science’’ is ‘’less sincere’’ that bourgeois journalism, is absolutely correct! I can testify to that fact! I sometimes wonder if bourgeois scientists even know the meaning of the word sincere!

This was followed by a quote from Marx, a half century earlier: ‘’The banking system possesses, indeed, the form of universal book-keeping and distribution of means of production on a social scale, but solely the form”.

Lenin then proceeded to draw some conclusions from the figures he just quoted:

‘’The figures we have quoted on the growth of bank capital, on the increase in the number of the branches and offices of the biggest banks, the increase in the number of their accounts, etc., present a concrete picture of this “universal book-keeping” of the whole capitalist class; and not only of the capitalists, for the banks collect, even though temporarily, all kinds of money revenues—of small businessmen, office clerks, and of a tiny upper stratum of the working class. Universal distribution of means of production—that, from the formal aspect, is what grows out of the modern banks, which, numbering some three to six of the biggest in France, and six to eight in Germany, control millions and millions. In substance, however, the distribution of means of production is not at all ‘universal’, but private, i.e., it conforms to the interests of big capital, and primarily, of huge, monopoly capital, which operates under conditions in which the masses live in want, in which the whole development of agriculture hopelessly lags behind the development of industry, while within industry itself the ‘heavy industries’ exact tribute from all other branches of industry. ‘’

It is note worthy that in America today, there are a mere eight banks that are classified as ‘’Too Big To Fail’’. It follows that the thousands of other banks are ‘’Too Small To Succeed’’.

Lenin then gives some more figures, as well as valuable admissions of bourgeois economists.  His conclusions are listed below.

‘’Again and again, the final word in the development of banking is monopoly. As regards the close connection between the banks and industry, it is precisely in this sphere that the new role of the banks is, perhaps, most strikingly felt. When a bank discounts a bill for a firm, opens a current account for it, etc., these operations, taken separately, do not in the least diminish its independence, and the bank plays no other part than that of a modest middleman. But when such operations are multiplied and become an established practice, when the bank ‘collects’ in its own hands enormous amounts of capital, when the running of a current account for a given firm enables the bank—and this is what happens—to obtain fuller and more detailed information about the economic position of its client, the result is that the industrial capitalist becomes more completely dependent on the bank.

‘’At the same time a personal link-up, so to speak, is established between the banks and the biggest industrial and commercial enterprises, the merging of one with another through the acquisition of shares, through the appointment of bank directors to the Supervisory Boards (or Boards of Directors) of industrial and commercial enterprises, and vice versa.’’

The distinction between the corporate executive and the bank managers, are becoming ever more blurred, under monopoly capitalism. It is safe to say that in many cases, they are now the same.

At the end of the chapter, Lenin summed up the transition, from competitive capitalism, to monopoly capitalism, imperialism:

‘’The old capitalism has had its day. The new capitalism represents a transition towards something. It is hopeless, of course, to seek for ‘firm principles and a concrete aim’ for the purpose of ‘reconciling’ monopoly with free competition. The admission of the practical men has quite a different ring from the official praises of the charms of ‘organised’ capitalism sung by its apologists, Schulze-Gaevernitz, Liefmann and similar theoreticians’.‘’Thus, the twentieth century marks the turning-point from the old capitalism to the new, from the domination of capital in general to the domination of finance capital.’’

Chapter III

Finance Capital and Financial Oligarchy

For the benefit of those readers who may not know, ‘’Finance Capital’’ is defined as the ‘’monetary assets required for a business to provide goods and services’’. 

‘’Financial Oligarchy’’ is defined as ‘’having the largest private owners in the country. It also possesses sufficient political power to promote its own interests. The owners control multiple businesses, and they intensively coordinate their activities. ‘’

Strangely enough, Lenin begins this Chapter, with a quote from a ‘’conscientious’’ bourgeois economist, by the name of Hilferding. This economist pointed out that ever more ‘’industrial capital’’ comes from the banks,  so that the banker is being ‘’transformed into an industrial capitalist’’. The ‘’bank capital’’ is thus transformed into ‘’industrial capital’’, which Hilferding calls ‘’finance capital’’. 

Lenin then states that Hilferding ‘’stresses the part played by capitalist monopolies’’. (italics by Lenin) 

Lenin then proceeded to elaborate: ‘’The concentration of production; the monopoly arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of banking with industry: this is the history of finance capital and what gives the term ’finance capital’ its content.’’

The fact of the matter is that, under monopoly capitalism, the ‘’domination’’ of capitalist monopolies inevitably becomes the ‘’domination of a financial oligarchy’’. Lenin then documented this procedure. In fact, he quotes a bourgeois economist, who described the procedure rather well: ‘’The executive director controls the parent company; the latter reigns over the subsidiary companies which similarly control still other subsidiaries’’.

Lenin goes on to explain: ‘’Thus it is possible with a comparatively small capital to dominate immense spheres of production…. the executive director needs only one million to control eight millions in the second subsidiaries. And if this ‘interlocking’ is extended, it is possible with one million to control sixteen, thirty two or more millions’’. 

Yet there is more to the ‘’holding system’’ than that. The monopolists who are in control, are also able to cheat the public in any number of ways. After all, the directors of the parent company are not legally responsible for the subsidiary companies. A couple of examples are thoughtfully provided. 

Lenin then sums up the situation: ‘’Finance capital, concentrated in a few hands and exercising a virtual monopoly, exacts enormous and ever increasing profits from the floating of companies, issue of stock, state loans, etc., tightens the grip of the financial oligarchies and levies tribute upon the whole of society for the benefit of the monopolists.’’

This is followed by more helpful examples, and another summary: ‘’A monopoly, once it is formed and controls thousands of millions, inevitably penetrates into every sphere of public life, regardless of the form of government and all other ‘details’’’.  (italics by Lenin)

There follows a fine paragraph, which first calls for a little explanation. A ‘’rentier’’ is defined as a ‘’person who lives on income from property or investments’’. Also, an ‘’entrepreneur’’ is defined as ‘’a person who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks, in order to do so’’. 

As Lenin stated, ‘’Generally speaking, under capitalism, the ownership of capital is separate from the application of capital to production; money capital is separate from  industrial or productive capital; the rentier, living entirely on income obtained from money capital, is separated from the entrepreneur and from all those directly concerned in the management of capital. Imperialism, or the rule of finance capital, is that highest stage of capitalism, in which this separation reaches vast proportions. The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of capital means the rule of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy’’. (italics by Lenin)

It is significant that Lenin refers to the ‘’entrepreneurs’’ as those who are ‘’managers’’ of a business. If nothing else, they are performing a useful, productive service. This stands in stark contrast to those whom he refers to as ‘’rentiers’’, those who ‘’live entirely’’ on income obtained from their invested capital. These people, rentiers, monopoly capitalists, billionaires, the bourgeoisie, perform no useful service! Regardless of what they say about themselves, they are not entrepreneurs! They are rentiers! Parasites!

Incidentally, after the forth coming Scientific Socialist Revolution, after the ruling class of billionaires are overthrown and crushed, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we will still need specialists of every sort. This includes business managers, those whom Lenin refers to as ‘’entrepreneurs’’. They can, and they will, be quite happy to work for us. They will show certain advanced workers the finer points of running a business, and in turn, will be paid quite handsomely for this. 

I would even expect these business managers, ‘’entrepreneurs’’, to be anxious to work for us! Just as the military cannot force anyone to do anything they do not want to do, they can force everyone to wish they had!

This stands in stark contrast to the ‘’rentiers’’, the billionaires, the parasites, those who merely refer to themselves as ‘’entrepreneurs’’. They are not! They have no idea how to run a business! In fact, they have no useful skills! 

Yet as we want everyone to be useful, we are going to have to find something for them to do.  Aside from plot and scheme some way to return to power! That is a given! For that reason, I can only suggest putting them to work, performing unskilled manual labour, in a remote location. At the same time, they must be denied all access to digital devices. Bear in mind, that after the revolution, the bourgeoisie will remain very strong! They will still have international connections! They will be only too anxious to secure those connections! The results could be disastrous!

Chapter IV

The Export of Capital

This chapter also calls for a little explanation. We can start by facing the fact that it was the industrial revolution, which gave birth to capitalism. Further, in giving birth to capitalism, it also gave birth to two new classes, the bourgeois, or capitalist, and the proletariat, or the worker. 

Scholars are generally agreed that this revolution started around 1760, in Great Britain. Up until that time, everything was made by hand. But then, by using machines, production ‘’sky rocketed’’. The industrial revolution was born. 

At the same time, the merchants, or burghers, who lived in town, wasted no time in securing all the factories, mills, mines and other ‘’means of production’’. They also secured all the banks and other ‘’financial institutions’’. As well, they bought railroads and shipping lines, the ‘’means of transportation’’. These are the technical terms the capitalists use. 

In the process, these merchants, or burghers, became transformed into ’bourgeois’’, or ’’capitalists’’. They also needed people to run those machines, so that a working class was created. The capitalists were forced to hire people to run those machines. Those people become known as workers, or ‘’proletarians’’, those who work by the hour.

This brings us to terms with which many common people may not be familiar. That which is referred to as ‘’goods’’, are considered to be ‘’items that satisfy human wants’’. A commodity is a ‘’good sold for production or consumption just as it was found in nature’’. Then there is capital, which is ‘’anything created by exploiting the living labour provided by workers’’.

While these definitions may not be terribly precise, it does give us a place to start. 

Lenin also referred to ‘’usury’’, which is defined as ‘’lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest’’.

The first paragraph is critical: ‘’Under the old type of capitalism, when free competition prevailed, the export of  goods was the most typical feature. Under modern capitalism, when monopolies prevail, the export of capital has become the typical feature.’’ (italics by Lenin)

At first, as the industrial revolution started in Britain, the British had a monopoly in trade, and used it, to great advantage. They sold manufactured goods all around the world, and in turn, expected the rest of the world to supply them with raw materials. This is to say that they exported such goods as shoes and clothing, while expecting the under developed countries to supply them with raw materials, such as leather and cotton. 

The trouble was that capitalism spread to other countries, despite the finest efforts of the British capitalists. What is more, capitalism develops unevenly, within different branches of industry, as well as within individual countries. As a result of this, by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the British monopoly in trade, was undermined. At about the same time, capitalist monopolies, in business, began to take shape. 

The end result was that within a few highly industrialized countries, there emerged an enormous ‘’superfluidity of capital’’, as Lenin phrased it. This to say that there was a great surplus of capital. Not that it would ever occur to the capitalists to invest in such things as agriculture, or anything else that could raise the standard of living of the common people. 

As Lenin stated, ‘’As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will never be utilized for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists; it will be used for the purpose of increasing those profits by exporting capital abroad to the backward countries’’. 

In other words, capital is exported, mainly to the colonies. The reason is that in those colonies, as in all under developed countries, capital is scarce, wages are low, the price of land is also low, and raw materials are cheap. Profits tend to be high. 

So on the one hand, capitalists in a highly industrialized country, generally invest their capital in an under developed country, preferably a colonial country. This results in the acceleration of the development of capitalism, within those colonial countries. At the same time, the country that is exporting capital, may experience an ‘’arrested development’’. 

The country of France was somewhat exceptional, in that they specialized in exporting capital, in the form of government loans, at very high interest rates, referred to as ‘’usury’’. They tended to avoid investing in industrial development. 

Yet there is a bit more to those loans, than collecting high interest. The capitalists are not about to do this out of the goodness of their hearts! There are ‘’strings attached’’! 

As Lenin pointed out, ‘’monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist methods…The most usual thing is to stipulate that part of the loan that is granted shall be spent on purchases in the country of issue, particularly on orders for war materials’’. In popular terms, this is referred to as ‘’skinning the cat twice’’. 

Lenin concludes by stating that ‘’finance capital…spreads its net over all countries of the world. Banks founded in the colonies, or their branches, play an important part in these operations.

‘’The capital exporting countries have divided the world among themselves in the figurative sense of the word. But finance capital has also led to the actual division of the world.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Chapter V

The Division of the World Among Capitalist Combines

This is a chapter which is quite straight forward. The first paragraph gets right to the heart of the matter: ‘’Monopolist capitalist combines -cartels, syndicates, trusts- divide among themselves, first of all, the whole internal market of a country, and impose their control, more or less completely, upon the industry of that country. But under capitalism, the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial relations, the ‘spheres of influence’ of the big monopolist combines expanded, things tended ‘naturally’ toward an international agreement among those combines and toward the formation of international cartels.’’

He then proceeded to give a few examples of how this ‘’super monopoly’’develops, starting with the electrical industry.

At around the beginning of the twentieth century, two huge electrical monopolies took shape, one in Germany, and the other in America. Each of these monopolies was referred to as a ‘’trust’’, by Lenin. In 1907, those two trusts came to an agreement, by which they divided the world between themselves. Of course, all of this took place secretly, and the two trusts agreed to exchange inventions and experiments. 

This had the effect of throttling almost all competition, at least temporarily. But as Lenin pointed out, ‘’the division of the world between two powerful trusts does not remove the possibility of re-division, if the relation of forces changes as a result of uneven development, war, bankruptcy, etc.’’ (italics by Lenin)

Lenin followed this example, within the electrical industry, with another example, also between Germany and America, but in the oil industry. He refers to this as a struggle for ‘’re-division’’. 

On the American side, the Rockefeller trust was determined to conquer everything. They were focused on establishing a world monopoly, on the oil market. To a large extent, they succeeded, in that the German Deutsche Bank was forced to submit. In 1907, the Deutsche Bank agreed ‘’not to attempt anything which might injure American interests’’. Although provision was made for the annulment of the agreement in the event of Germany establishing a state oil company. 

That ‘’provision’’ was the very ‘’loophole’’ the German capitalists seized upon! One of the ‘’German finance kings’’, a director of the Deutsche Bank, began a campaign for state oil monopoly. Thus began a serious attempt, by the German capitalists, to ‘’cut the throat’’ of the American capitalists, to use the expression of those same capitalists. But the German capitalists quarrelled among themselves, concerning the division of the spoils. The German state oil monopoly fell apart.

This was followed by the ‘’valuable admission’’, of a well respected bourgeois economist, writing in a German magazine, to the effect that: ‘’In Germany, monopolies have never pursued the aim, not have they had the result of benefitting the consumer, or of handing over to the state part of the entrepreneurs’ profits; they have served only to sanitate, at the expense of the state, private industries which were on the verge of bankruptcy’’. 

This economist could have added that this is true of all monopolies, in all parts of the world, and not just in Germany!

Lenin then added: ‘’Such are the valuable admissions which the German bourgeois economists are forced to make. We see plainly here how private monopolies and state monopolies are bound together in the age of finance capital; how both are but separate links in the imperialist struggle between the big monopolists for the division of the world’’.

This is followed by several instructive examples. One is in mercantile shipping, in which ‘’German giants’’ came to an agreement with an ‘’Anglo American trust’’. The contract was concluded for twenty years, with ‘’a prudent provision for its annulment in the event of war’’. 

Another example was that of the International Rail Cartel, a mixture of British, Belgian and German rail manufacturers. This was created in 1884, at a time of a ‘’severe industrial depression’’. This cartel collapsed in 1886, and as Lenin stated, ‘’It is characteristic that agreement could not be achieved in the period of industrial prosperity which followed’’.

The International Steel Syndicate of 1904 was quite impressive, at least in terms of all the countries that were involved. These included Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Austria, Spain and America. 

This was followed by listing the International Zinc Syndicate, and the International Dynamite Trust. 

Lenin provided those preceding examples in order to make a point: ‘’International cartels show to what point capitalist monopolies have developed, and they reveal the object of the struggle between the various capitalist groups. …for the forms of the struggle may and do vary in accordance with varying, relatively particular and transitory causes, but the essence of the struggle, its class content, cannot change while classes exist…it is in the interests of the German bourgeoisie…to obscure the content of the contemporary economic struggle (the division of the world) and to emphasize one or another form of the struggle…Of course, we have in mind not only the German bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie all over the world’’. (italics by Lenin)

Later in the article, Lenin points out that the ‘’forms of the struggle’’, between the ‘’international cartels’’ may be ‘’today peaceful, tomorrow warlike, the next day peaceful again’’. At the time this article was written, in 1916, the struggle was definitely warlike!

He also made a statement which I consider to be quite significant: ‘’The capitalists divide the world, not out of malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to get profits. And they divide it in proportion to capital, in proportion to ‘strength’, because there cannot be any other system of division under the system of commodity production and capitalism. But strength varies with the degree of economic and political development.’’

This is to say that as capitalists in certain industrialized countries become stronger, or think that they are stronger, then it is just a matter of time before they challenge other capitalists, in other countries, for a larger share of the ‘’spoils’’. 

Lenin then summed this up, in the last paragraph:

‘’The epoch of modern capitalism shows us that certain relations are established between capitalist alliances, based on the economic partition of the world; while parallel to this fact and in connection with it, certain relations are established between political alliances, between states, on the basis of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of the ‘struggle for economic territory’’’. (italics by Lenin)

Introduction

Without doubt, the revolutionary motion is growing and spreading, in various parts of the world. Equally without doubt, a full scale revolution could break out, at any day. It is just a matter of time. Of course, we have no way of knowing just when or where this will happen. Yet the experience of previous revolutions has revealed that such revolutions tend to spread, first across the country, and then to neighbouring countries. We had best be prepared!

For that reason, as I have suggested in previous articles, those working people who are currently involved in the protests, should carefully read the Essential Works of Lenin. Bear in mind that when I refer to ‘’working people’’ or ‘’common people’’, I am referring to those who work for a living. Those who work for wages, by the hour, are technically referred to as proletarians. Then there are the family farmers, although in other parts of the world they are commonly called peasants. As well, the small business owners, including those who are owner-operators, I also include as working or common people.

It may help to think of these ”protests” as a build up to full scale revolution, as that is precisely the case. The protesters of today, will soon be the revolutionaries of tomorrow! For that reason, it is essential that they prepare themselves for the approaching revolution. This is to say that they must become at least familiar with the revolutionary writings of Marx and Lenin. In this way, they will know what to expect, and how to respond.

The vast majority of those working people have just recently become politically active. Many of them are veterans of previous mass movements. Yet, very few of them are ”Philadelphia lawyers”, so that it is not reasonable to expect them to understand completely, that which Lenin wrote. For that reason, I have decided to provide the historical back ground, as well as explain certain terms and expressions which Lenin used.

No doubt, those readers who are of a middle class background, supremely well educated and aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, will find this to be quite tiresome. To this, I can only respond that my main concern is with our newly awakened Comrades. They have to be ”brought up to speed”, to the level of conscious Marxists. There is no other way.

In my opinion, the revolutionary work of Lenin which is supremely relevant, is State and Revolution. He wrote that in early 1917, in anticipation of the approaching Scientific Socialist Revolution of November 7, new style calendar, or October 25, old style calendar, 1917. This has gone down in history as the Russian Great Proletarian October Socialist Revolution. 

That Revolution stands in stark contrast to the earlier Russian February Revolution of 1917, which was a ‘’bourgeois democratic revolution’’, in that the word ‘’bourgeois’’ refers to the capitalists. This calls for a little explanation.

At that time, the Russian Empire was vast, and had been ruled by the Romanovs, for over three centuries. The Emperor, or Czar, was Nicholas the Second, commonly referred to as ”Nicholas the Bloody”, and he had almost unlimited power.

Yet in February of that year, the Russian capitalists got together with the capitalists of France and Britain, and decided to ”mount a coup”, as it is called, and overthrow the Czar! At that time, Lenin was in exile, living in Switzerland, but following closely the events in Russia. He wrote several articles on this subject, referred to as Letters From Afar. I will not go into this in detail, but I have covered it in a previous article.

With the nobility out of the way, the capitalists and landlords were able to seize power, and establish that which is referred to as a ‘’democratic republic’’. It was certainly a republic, as it no longer recognized any monarch, as the head of state. As for being democratic, it was also a democracy, but only for the capitalists and landlords! Bear in mind that democracy is merely a method of class rule!

Incidentally, Lenin refers to the democratic republic as the ”ideal political shell for capitalism”.

A Provisional Government was then established, with a self proclaimed socialist fool, by the name of Kerensky, placed in charge. Of course, the resulting government was referred to as the Kerensky Regime.

I should add that the landlords owned huge tracts of land, and rented out that land to the peasants. In fact, in Russia at that time, three quarters of the people were peasants.

Perhaps we can compare this to that which was referred to as ”share cropping” in North America, in days gone by. In that case, the farmer, or ”share cropper”, was forced to give a high percentage of any crop he grew, to the landlord. Bear in mind that the peasants of Russia hated their landlords, just as passionately as the American farmers hated their landlords!

Now to return to the February Russian Revolution. The whole world was shocked, as Czar Nicholas, in charge of one of the biggest, most powerful monarchies in the world, was no more!

For the common people of Russia, this meant that they had some democratic rights, if only ”on paper”. Yet they remained poverty stricken, cold and hungry. Russia remained at war with Germany and the Central Powers, and the Russian troops continued to be killed and maimed.

The point is that, after the Russian February Revolution, the suffering of the common people continued. They noticed no change in their standard of living. They also continued to be denied even their most basic democratic rights. They were even denied their long promised Constituent Assembly. Further, the war continued, so that the soldiers continued to be used as cannon fodder. The only thing the new government gave them, and that in abundance, was promises!

Yet the overthrow of the nobility was an important step, the first step, towards a Scientific Socialist Revolution, and the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It allowed Lenin to return from exile, and prepare for that Revolution.

As part of that preparation, the common people of Russia had to be made aware of the fact that, at the time of the approaching Russian Socialist Revolution, the existing state apparatus had to be destroyed, smashed, and replaced with a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That new state apparatus is necessary to crush the capitalists and landlords, as they make every effort to return to power, to regain their ”paradise lost”, after the Revolution.

With that in mind, Lenin wrote State and Revolution. I should mention that the main difference between Russia of 1917 and America of today, is the fact that there are almost no landlords or peasants in America. There are a few family farmers, but almost no share croppers. This serves to simplify the class struggle! Billionaires versus working people! Same state apparatus, which must be smashed, and replaced with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

Happily, the common people of Russia read that book, and took the advice of Lenin. On October 25, old style calendar, or November 7, new style calendar, the Provisional Government was overthrown. The existing state apparatus was smashed, and the first truly Scientific Socialist Republic was established, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Poor Peasants. The Russian Great Proletarian Socialist Revolution was successful!

I gave that very brief history lesson for a reason. The point I am trying to make, is that the only reason that Revolution was successful, is because it followed the advice of Lenin!

I can only stress the fact that, as a Scientific Socialist, Lenin built upon the work of two previous great Scientific Socialists, Marx and Engels.

I mention this as a means of stressing the difference between Scientific Socialism, and Utopian Socialism. Those who are utopian socialists generally think that socialism is a good idea, but will probably never happen. They are generally involved in fighting for paltry reforms, under capitalism. As long as these utopian socialists make no claim to be Marxists, then they are the natural and desirable allies of the Marxists.

By contrast, Scientific Socialists, or Communists, build upon the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Those three great revolutionaries examined capitalism, from a scientific viewpoint. In fact, it was Marx who proved that capitalism necessarily leads to socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I should also mention that Lenin was a supremely well educated man, a lawyer by profession, and of course, did that which we all do. He wrote with people such as himself in mind. This leads to a little problem, in that a great many common people are not familiar with the time in which he lived, or with certain technical words and expressions. For that reason, I have chosen to explain those things. 

State and Revolution

Chapter 1

Class Society and the State

1. The State As the Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms

In this section, Lenin goes into the origin of the state apparatus. Quite simply, the first classes consisted of slaves and slave owners. As the slaves had a rather ‘’annoying’’ habit of rebelling, it was necessary to discourage this behaviour. For that reason, the slave owners got together and organized the first ‘’state apparatus’’, in the form of armed men, frequently mounted on horses, armed with whips, clubs, spears and swords. Their sole purpose was to prevent any slave uprising. 

Since that time, different classes have come into existence. The state apparatus has changed in form, but only in form. It remains a body of people, mainly men, whose duty it is to subjugate the ‘’lower classes’’, to keep them ‘’in their place’’.

Under our current system of monopoly capitalism, this means that the billionaires, as the ruling class, technically referred to as the bourgeoisie, have a state apparatus in the form of police, National Guard, jails, prisons and other ‘’correctional institutions’’. Their main duty is to crush any working class uprising. 

It is also most significant that Lenin refers to the ‘’opportunists in the labour movement’’. These include the ‘’class traitors and renegades’’, those workers who have betrayed their class, sided with the capitalists, in crushing the working class.

Incidentally, the word ‘’opportunist’’ is used in reference to a person who is completely devoid of principle. I prefer the word ‘’unprincipled’’, but to each his own. The point is that we can have nothing to do with such people, as they are strictly out for themselves. They are not to be trusted. 

As Lenin stated, ‘’the bourgeoisie and the opportunists in the labour movement…omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side’’ of Marxism. ‘’They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie’’. 

This ”distortion” of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, is referred to as ‘’revisionist’’. The social chauvinists, those who claim to be Marxists, are merely socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds. They make every effort to distort those theories, so as to make them acceptable to the capitalists. In particular, they deny the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, and replacing it with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

This brings us to those whom Lenin refers to as ‘’petty bourgeois ideologists’’. A petty bourgeois is a reference to a middle class person, while an ideology is defined as ‘’a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy’’.  It stands to reason that a petty bourgeois ideologist is a middle class person who has their own ideas of political theory and policy. 

It is such people who attempt to ‘’correct’’ Marx, by stating that the state apparatus exists, in order to ‘’conciliate’’ classes. They can be quite persuasive in this respect, because many of them actually believe their own nonsense! Which in no way changes the fact that it is simply not true!

As well, there is the more subtle distortion, attributed to a gentleman by the name of Kautsky. Such people do not deny the fact that the state is an organ of class rule, but tend to deny or merely avoid the topic of smashing the existing state apparatus, at the time of the revolution. 

Lenin goes on to say, ‘’The state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises when, where and to the extent that class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This is to say that there can be no peace between the capitalists, in our case the billionaires, and the working people. We absolutely cannot live together in peace! We are class enemies! The fact that the state apparatus exists, is proof of that. The capitalists have created a state apparatus, solely for the purpose of crushing the working people. Billionaires and workers cannot live together in harmony!

2. Special Bodies of Armed Men, Prisons, Etc. 

The title is a none too subtle reference to the state apparatus, set up by the capitalists, in order to keep the working people in ‘’their proper place”.  Lenin points out that ‘’every revolution, by destroying the state apparatus, demonstrates to us how the ruling class strives to restore the special bodies of armed men which serve it, and how the oppressed class strives to create a new organization of this kind, capable of serving not the exploiters but the exploited’’. (italics by Lenin)

It was Engels who pointed out that the state apparatus, or the ‘’public power’’, grows stronger, ‘’in proportion as the class antagonisms within the state become more acute…We have only to look at our present day Europe, where class struggle and rivalry in conquest have screwed up the public power to such a pitch that it threatens to devour the whole of society and even the state itself’’. 

Lenin then pointed out that, by 1914, the ‘’rivalry in conquest’’ had made ‘’great strides’’, to the point that the ‘’devouring of all the forces of society by the rapacious power to the verge of complete catastrophe’’. Of course, Lenin was referring to the First World War. 

In response to this, the social chauvinists, those who merely claim to be Marxists, defend ‘’their’’ capitalists, with calls for such things as the ‘’defence of the fatherland’’, and other such nonsense.

3. The State As An Instrument For the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class

The state apparatus must be maintained, and this gives rise to taxes. Further, laws are passed ‘’proclaiming the sanctity and immunity of the officials’’. These official now stand above society.

Engels points out that the modern state is an ‘’instrument of exploitation of wage labour by capital. By way of exception, however, periods occur when the warring classes are so nearly balanced that the state power, ostensibly appearing as a mediator, acquires, for the moment, a certain independence in relation to both’’.

Remarkably enough, this was precisely the situation in 1917 Russia, immediately after the February Revolution. The common people of Russia formed Soviets, or Councils, in English, and these Soviets were roughly as powerful as the Karensky government. This enabled Lenin to return from exile, as the Russian officials dared not arrest him. The Soviets were simply too powerful! For a very short time, the state appeared as a ‘’mediator’’. 

Engels also pointed out that in a democratic republic, ‘’wealth wields its power indirectly, but all the more effectively’’, by means of the ‘’direct corruption of officials (America)’’, and also by means of the ‘’alliance between the government and the Stock Exchange (France and America)’’.

Lenin also made an observation that I consider to be of the utmost importance. As he stated, ‘’The omnipotence of ’wealth’ is thus more secure in a democratic republic, since it does not depend on the faulty political shell of capitalism. A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained control of this very best shell….it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change, either of persons, or institutions, or of parties in the bourgeois democratic republic, can shake it’’. (italics by Lenin)

The implication is that it does not matter which political party is in power, Republicans or Democrats. Nor does it matter who is President, Biden or Trump. Or Senator Sanders, for that matter. As Lenin stated, any change of ‘’persons or parties’’, is unable to ‘’shake’’ the democratic republic. The billionaires are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge!

This is not to say that we should surrender the existing government apparatus to the capitalists. By no means! On the contrary, we should take the capitalists ‘’at their word’’, and attempt to ‘’change the system from within’’. For that reason, I am encouraging all Americans to join the two mainstream political parties, preferably as card carrying members. It is such members who determine the candidates for each and every political office. In this way, Washington can be flooded with those who represent the common people. Leftist people! 

It is in this way that working people, those who still have faith in the democratic process, will come to realize, through their own experience, that Marxists are correct. Regardless of how many Leftist politicians are sent to Washington, the billionaires are determined to remain in charge!

Lenin went on to say that the ‘’petty bourgeois democrats…all expect ‘more’ from universal suffrage. They themselves share and instill into the minds of the people the wrong idea that universal suffrage ‘in the modern state’, is really capable of expressing the will of the majority of the toilers and of ensuring its realization’’. (italics by Lenin)

At that time, in Russia, the ‘’petty bourgeois democrats’’ to whom Lenin was referring, were the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. Both of those political parties rejected the need to smash the existing state apparatus, and establish the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They thought that the capitalists would submit to the will of the majority of common people. Not likely! They were about as anxious to part with their wealth and power, as are our modern day billionaires! None whatsoever!

It is also a fact that those same ‘’petty bourgeois democrats’’, are the utopian socialists. Many of them actually believe that ‘’universal suffrage’’ is ‘’capable of expressing the will of the majority’’! What is more, they ‘’share’’ that belief! In fact, they preach to the working people that capitalism can be fundamentally changed, by simply sending Leftist people to Washington! 

Our focus is mainly upon the common people who have been misled by these utopian socialists. As the vast majority are honest, law abiding, tax paying citizens, they must be respected. 

4. The ‘’Withering Away’’ of the State and Violent Revolution

This section deals with the confusion spread by those who deliberately distort a fundamental tenet of Marxism, that of the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, that which has been set up by the capitalists, for the purposes of crushing the working class. 

Yet classes will still exist, so that a different state apparatus must be established, in order to crush the capitalists, as they make every effort to return to power. This new state apparatus, to be set up after the revolution, after the existing state apparatus is smashed, is known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

Lenin makes it clear that this new state apparatus, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will not last forever. Indeed not! This will be necessary only as long as classes exist! As the bourgeois, the capitalists, are gradually wiped out, so too, the state apparatus which was set up to crush them, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will gradually become redundant. As Engels referred to it, this state apparatus will ‘’wither away’’. 

Lenin then proceeds to draw a clear distinction, between the bourgeois state apparatus of the capitalists, which has to be destroyed, and the new state apparatus of the working class, to be created after the revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

To quote Lenin, ‘’According to Engels the bourgeois state does not ‘wither away’, but is ‘put an end to’ by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after the revolution is the proletariat state or semi-state’’. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin stresses the fact that the existing bourgeois state apparatus, which is used to crush the working class, must be destroyed, at the time of the revolution. Only then can the new state apparatus be established, in order to crush the capitalists. This new state apparatus, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will then gradually ‘’wither away’’, as classes gradually fade away. 

This section also contains a valuable example of how ‘’a great revolutionary doctrine is imperceptible falsified and adapted to prevailing philistinism’’! In particular, in 1891, Engels was critical of the expression ‘’free people’s state’’. As Lenin pointed out, ‘’The only political content of this slogan is a pompous philistine description of the concept democracy. In so far as it hinted in a lawful manner at a democratic republic, Engels was prepared to ‘justify’ its use ‘for a time’ from an agitational point of view. But it was an opportunist slogan, for it not only expressed an embellishment of bourgeois democracy, but also a lack of understanding of the socialist criticism of the state in general. We are in favour of a democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism; but we have no right to forget that wage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. Furthermore, every state is a ‘special repressive force’ for the suppression of the oppressed class. Consequently, no state is a ‘free’ or a ‘peoples state’. Marx and Engels explained this repeatedly to their party comrades in the ‘seventies’’. (italics by Lenin)

Chapter II

 The State and Revolution. The Experience of 1848-51

1. The Eve of the Revolution

In this Chapter, Lenin documents the process that led Marx and Engels to come to the conclusion that, after the revolution, the working class must create a state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

There follows a paragraph which I consider to be of vital importance: ‘’The overthrow of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, as the particular class whose economic conditions of existence train it for this task and provide it with the opportunity and the power to perform it. While the bourgeoisie breaks up and disintegrates the peasantry and all the petty-bourgeois strata, it welds together, unites and organizes the proletariat. Only the proletariat-by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production- is capable of acting as the leader of all the toiling and exploited masses, whom the bourgeoise exploits, oppresses and crushes not less, and often more, than it does the proletarians, but who are incapable of waging an independent struggle for their emancipation.’’ (italics by Lenin) 

This is to stress the importance of the working class, the proletariat. This is not to denigrate the importance of the farmers and the middle class, the petty bourgeois, including the owner operators. Certainly, in the ”protests” of today, they are doing a superb job!

2. The Revolution Summed Up

Lenin refers to a most important matter, the state apparatus. He comes to a remarkable conclusion: ”all the revolutions which have occurred up to now have helped to perfect the state machine, whereas it must be smashed, broken”. He refers to this conclusion as ”the chief and fundamental thesis in the Marxian doctrine of the state”.

As a means of stressing the importance of smashing the existing state apparatus, that which has been set up by the capitalists, in order to crush the ”lower classes”, Lenin went on to state, ”This course of events compels the revolution ‘to concentrate all its forces of destruction’ against the state power, and to regard the problem, not as one of perfecting the state machine, but one of smashing and destroying it.” (italics by Lenin)

Lenin did not mince words in expressing his opinion of the existing state apparatus: ‘’The bureaucracy and the standing army are a ‘parasite’ on the body of bourgeois society- a parasite created by the inherent antagonisms which rend that society, but a parasite which ‘chokes all its pores’ of life’’. Note that the words which Lenin placed in quotation marks, were written by Marx.

That pretty well covers the importance of smashing the existing state apparatus!

3. The Presentation of the Question By Marx in 1852

The letter which Marx wrote, is of great importance. For that reason, I have copied it here:

”And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat 3) that this Dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society”. (italics by Lenin)

Lenin went on to explain the origins of the ”opportunist distortions” of Marxism, its ”falsifications to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie”. As he stated, ”The theory of the class struggle was not created by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and generally speaking, it is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists….A Marxist is one who extends the acceptance of the class struggle to the acceptance of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat…This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and acceptance of Marxism should be tested.” (italics by Lenin)

He goes on to state that ‘’educated liberals’’ recognize the class struggle, if only ‘’in principle’’. Yet those who are devoid of principle, or ‘’opportunists’’, to use the scientific expression, ‘’does not carry the recognition of the class struggle to the main point, to the period of transition from capitalism to Communism, to the period of the overthrow and complete abolition of the bourgeoisie. In reality, this period inevitably becomes a period of unusually violent class struggles in their sharpest possible forms and, therefore, during this period, the state must inevitably be a state that is democratic in a new way (for the proletariat and the propertyless in general) and dictatorial in a new way (against the bourgeoisie)’’. (italics by Lenin)

The overthrow of the monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, is absolutely necessary, and this can be accomplished only through revolution. At the time of that revolution, the existing state apparatus has to be smashed! True! Yet classes will continue to exist! For that reason, we will still need a state apparatus, to crush the capitalists, the billionaires, as they make every effort to ‘’restore their paradise lost’’! It is only after all classes are abolished, that we will enter a truly classless society, referred to as Communism. This state apparatus, to be established after the revolution, is known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

I can only stress the fact that the acceptance of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is here referred to as the ”touchstone” of a true Marxist! All of those who claim to be Marxists, Communists, but deny, or even evade, the necessity of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, are in fact revisionists, in the service of the capitalists, the billionaires. Rest assured, that Dictatorship is the worst nightmare of every billionaire! With good reason, I might add!

Chapter III

The State and Revolution. Experience of the Paris Commune of 1871. Marx’s Analysis

1. Wherein Lay the Heroism of the Communards’ Attempt?

This Chapter also calls for a little historical background.

The first true historic revolt, of the working class, against the capitalists, took place in Paris, in March of 1871. A Proletarian Revolution! The workers of Paris threw out the capitalists, and established that which they referred to as the ”Paris Commune”. They in turn, referred to themselves as ”Communards”. In honour of those heroic workers, Marxists now refer to themselves as Communists.

At that time, Marx was living in Britain, but was following events in France very closely. In his letters to the French revolutionaries, he offered important advice. This advice was largely ignored, to the regret of the Communards.

As Lenin stated, Marx ”regarded the mass revolutionary movement as a historic experiment of gigantic importance, as an advance of the world proletarian revolution, as a practical step that was more important than hundreds of programs and discussions. Marx conceived his task to be to analyze this experiment, to draw lessons in tactics from it, to re-examine his theory in the new light it afforded”.

Indeed, one lesson in particular was so important, that Marx and Engels added it as a vital ”correction” to the Communist Manifesto! As they stated, ”One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes”’.

(Bear in mind that the abbreviation viz. simply means, ”that is to say”.)

Lenin goes on to say that, ”Marx’s idea is that the working class must break up, smash the ‘ready made state machinery’, and not confine itself to merely laying hold of it”. (italics by Lenin)

Once again, Lenin stresses the importance of ”smashing” the ”ready made state machine”, that which has been set up by the capitalists, for the purposes of crushing the working people. It must be destroyed! Then replaced by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

Yet Lenin noted that it was not always necessary to ”smash the existing state apparatus”! In certain cases, when the country is ”without militarism and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy”, a revolution is possible, without first destroying the ”ready-made state machinery”.

In fact, he went into this in more detail, in a later writing. In particular, Lenin stated that there were four conditions necessary to have a successful revolution, without first smashing the existing state apparatus. First, the proletariat must form the majority of the population. Second, the proletariat must be cultured. Third, the unions must be powerful. Fourth, the ruling class must be accustomed to a method of rule, which involves compromise.

I mention this because it is so important. It is my opinion that in Canada, it is currently possible to have a socialist revolution, without first smashing the existing state apparatus. This stands in stark contrast to our neighbour, America. Our Comrades in that country, will definitely have to smash their existing state apparatus!

2: What Is To Supersede the Smashed State Machine?

First, Lenin reproduces an article by Marx, concerning the lessons learned, from the Paris Commune. He then summarizes those lessons:

”Thus the Commune appears to have substituted ‘only’ fuller democracy for the smashed state machine: abolition of the standing army; all officials elected and subjected to recall. ..This is a case of ‘quantity being transformed into quality’: democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is generally conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois democracy into proletarian democracy…It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush its resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. But the organ of suppression is now the majority of the population, and not the minority”.

Perhaps the most ”outrageous” aspect of ”proletarian democracy” -at least from the standpoint of the capitalists!- is the fact that all state officials have to work at ‘’workingmen’s wages”. (italics by Lenin)

The fact is that, under capitalism, all officials, elected as well as appointed, consider higher wages to be nothing other than ”privileges of rank”. As if it is a God given right! Such is not the case! Under Scientific Socialism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, all officials, regardless of their rank, work for the wages of working people!

Lenin then goes on to make the point that, under capitalism, almost everyone ”longs for cheap government”. He goes on to state that this ”can be achieved only by the proletariat; and by achieving it, the proletariat at the same time takes a step towards the socialist reconstruction of the state”. (italics by Lenin)

3. The Abolition of Parliamentarism

This section starts with a passage from Marx, concerning the role of parliament, within the Paris Commune, as compared to parliaments under capitalism.

”The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time… Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business.”

Lenin went on to state: ”To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to misrepresent the people in parliament is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism….the actual work of ‘state’ is done behind the scenes”.

The fact that the ”actual work of state is done behind the scenes”, is a point that must be made clear to the working people. The various speeches, given by the politicians, are meant merely to mislead the public. The people in charge, the ”Party bosses”, lay down the law to the politicians, and in turn, those politicians ”dance to their tune”.

Lenin also mentions ”anarchy” and ”anarcho-syndicalism” in this passage. This too, requires a little explanation. First, let us consider anarchy.

According to the internet, it is defined as ”a form of society without rulers”.

It may come as a surprise to many people to find that in 1917, at the time Lenin was writing this article, that the anarchists-those who call for no government- were a potent political force! For that matter, they still are! Anarchists are not to be under estimated!

Lenin also mentions ”anarcho-syndicalism”. Here too the internet provides a helpful definition: ”A political philosophy and anarchist school of thought that views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and thus control influence in broader society”.

From these definitions, it is clear that there is a slight difference between anarchists, and anarcho-syndicalists. Anarchists want to abolish all government, which necessarily involves smashing the existing state apparatus. As do Communists! Yet the Communists want to set up a new state apparatus, after the revolution, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as a means of crushing the capitalists. The anarchists are opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as it is a form of government.

Then there are those who advocate ”anarcho-syndicalism”. Such people evade the question of the state apparatus entirely. They do not oppose or advocate for a state apparatus, under capitalism or socialism. This is to say that they do not oppose or advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! It is a subject upon which they have no opinion!

Lenin refers to anarcho-syndicalism as the ”twin brother of opportunism”! And no wonder! Under anarcho-syndicalism, there is no need to overthrow the capitalists, and smash the existing state apparatus! Revolution disappears! As does the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! It is simply a matter of focusing upon the ”industrial unions”, as a means of ”gaining control of an economy”. All of which is completely acceptable to the capitalists! They would have us believe that the ”Age of Aquarius is at hand”! The ”lion shall lie down with the lamb”! Billionaires shall ”labour with workers”! The only thing required is to ”organize the industrial union workers”! Such nonsense!

This brings us to a few Russian terms, with which few readers may be familiar. An understanding of those terms may help to make comprehensible, that which Lenin stated.

Dyelo Naroda was a newspaper, published by the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Narod is a word which apparently means People. The Socialist Revolutionaries, or SR’s, had the support of a great many peasants, at least in 1917. For that reason, they were a force with which to be reckoned. They were also Right Wing.

The Cadets, an apparent abbreviation of Constitutional Democrats, were a political party which promoted a constitutional monarchy. They wanted to place a Romanov back on the throne of Russia. They were considered to be ultra Right Wing

The Mensheviks were a political party which broke away from the party which was formed by Lenin, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. They merely claimed to be Marxists, but in fact were revisionists, Right Wing, just not as far to the Right as the Cadets

Lenin stresses that the only way to abolish parliamentarism, is to ”organize the whole of national economy on the lines of the postal system, so that the technicians, managers, bookkeepers, as well as all officials, shall receive salaries no higher than ‘workmen’s wages’, all under the control and leadership of the armed proletariat….This is what will rid the labouring classes of the prostitution of these institutions by the bourgeoisie”.

4. The Organization of National Unity

This starts with a quotation from Marx: ”In a rough sketch of national organization which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet…The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by the Communal constitutions, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was a parasitic excrescence”.

Lenin goes on to state that ”The communes were to elect the ‘National Delegation’ in Paris”.

Lenin then proceeds to point out that Marx was referring to ”smashing the old bourgeois state machine which exists in all bourgeois countries”. He adds that Marx was not referring to ”federalism as opposed to centralism”.

This begs the question: What is federalism, and what is centralism?

According to the internet, ”centralists advocate strong direction from the centre of all activities of the enterprise, allowing only minimal delegation of responsibility for operational matters to the various parts of the organization.” On the other hand, ”Federalists believe in delegating responsibility and accountability to the lowest possible echelons, leaving the centre to concentrate on overall strategy and key corporate issues.”

Lenin then points out that the opportunists ”attribute federalism” to Marx and confuses him with the founder of anarchism, Prondhon”. In fact, Marx agreed with the anarchists, only so far as smashing the existing state machine. Marx then called for establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, another state apparatus, opposed by the anarchists.

Marx was not a federalist, but a centralist. The smashing of the bourgeois state apparatus is not to be confused with federalism!

Lenin stressed this point, when he wrote: ”But will it not be centralism when the proletariat and the poorest peasantry take political power in their own hands, organize freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, in transferring the ownership of the railways, factories and so forth, to the entire nation, to the whole of society? Will that not be the most consistent democratic socialism? And proletarian centralism at that?” (italics by Lenin)

In my opinion, that is perfectly clear. Not that it matters, as Lenin went on to say, ”But no one is so deaf as he who will not hear. And the very thing the opportunists of present-day Social-Democracy do not want to hear about is the abolition of state power, the excision of the parasite”.

I can only add that, at the time this article was written, Marxists referred to themselves as Social-Democrats, as they were fighting for democracy as well as socialism. Although after the Social Democratic Party split, they sometimes referred to themselves as Bolsheviks, to distinguish themselves from the break away Mensheviks. It was only after the October Revolution, that they adopted the name Communists, in honour of the heroic Paris Communards.

5. The Abolition of the Parasitic State

Lenin begins this section, with a quote from Marx. He then summarizes, in reference to the state apparatus which was smashed by the Paris Commune: ”Breaks the modern state power”, which was a ”parasitic excrescence”; the ”respective organs” of which were to be ”amputated”; the ”destruction” of ”the now superseded state power”- these are the expressions used by Marx concerning the state in appraising and analyzing the experience of the Commune.

This is then followed by another quote by Marx: ”The Commune… was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labour. Except on this last condition, the Communal constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion.”

Lenin then uses this to drive home the point that Communism differs from anarchism, in that we call for a state apparatus, after the revolution, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists want no state apparatus, before or after the revolution.

Then there are the utopian socialists, who ”busy themselves with ‘inventing’ the political forms under which the socialist transformation of society was to take place”, as Lenin stated. They disregard all previous revolutionary experience!

That brings us to the revisionists, the opportunists, those who are completely devoid of principle, claiming to be Marxists, while ”accepting the bourgeois political forms of the parliamentary democratic state as the unsurpassable limit”. They then proceed to ”denounce every attempt to smash these forms as anarchism”. (italics by Lenin)

In fact, the only way to overthrow the capitalists and crush them, is by first smashing the existing state apparatus, and them replacing it, with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

We know this for a fact, because of the experience of previous revolutions. Scientific Socialists, Marxists, have certain theories, based upon this experience! We then base our current tactics, plan a course of action, accordingly.

Lenin pointed this out, quite clearly, when he stated: ”The Commune is the first attempt of a proletarian revolution to smash the bourgeois state machine and it constitutes the political form, ‘at last discovered’, which can and must supersede the smashed machine.” (italics by Lenin)

Chapter IV

Continuation. Supplementary Explanations By Engels

1. The Housing Question

In this Chapter, Lenin considers the work done by Engels, based upon the conclusions drawn by Marx, concerning the experience of the Paris Commune. 

As Engels pointed out, under capitalism, the ”housing question” is to be ”solved” by the ”gradual adjustment of supply and demand, a solution which ever reproduces the question itself anew and therefore is no solution”.

Yet what is meant by the ”law of supply and demand?”

This is an expression the capitalists have ”coined”. It simply is a reference to the fact that prices fluctuate wildly, and with good reason. If the price of any commodity is low, then the capitalists will cut down or even halt the production of that particular item. This is because it is not profitable to produce that commodity. On the other hand, if the price of a commodity is high, then the capitalists will produce that item, in great abundance.

Incidentally, according to the internet, a ”commodity” is ‘’a good sold for production or consumption, just as it was found in nature’’.

As an example, we can take the commodity of coal. In 1981, the price of coal was very high, so that the capitalists decided to open up a coal mine, in a very remote area. In fact, it was about 100 kilometres, or 60 miles, from the nearest highway. So a highway and rail line was built, as well as a town. Then the coal mine went into operation, a great deal of coal was produced, and soon, there was a surplus of coal. For that reason, the price of coal dropped, so that it was no longer profitable to run that mine. Around twenty years later, the mine closed down, along with the town. 

The people who worked at that mine were of course forced to re-locate. They merely grabbed a few personal items, and along with their families, left everything behind. They drove away. The capitalists who owned that mine, merely lost a little capital. The workers who were laid off, lost not only their jobs, but in many cases, also their lifes savings. 

With so many coal mines closed, it was just a matter of time before stocks of coal were exhausted, and the price of coal rose once again. So the mine was re-opened, and the cycle repeats itself. 

As Engels pointed out, this ”solution” is no solution at all! It merely ”reproduces the question anew”! 

Under Scientific Socialism, the answer lies with ”planned production”. That involves a professional estimate of the amount of commodities required, over a period of several years, and then adjusting production to meet those requirements. This method is far superior to the capitalist method of ”supply and demand”!

It was Stalin who adopted this method of planned production, in the form of Five Year Plans. He faced the fact that the Soviet Union, in the years immediately following the October Revolution, was one hundred years behind the most highly industrialized countries of the world. This is to say that they were at the level of development, as was America, at the time of Jefferson. He also faced the fact that the Soviet Union had to accomplish, in ten years, that which it had taken the American capitalists, one hundred years to manage. It was either that or perish!

To the absolute astonishment of the whole capitalist world, the Soviet Union managed just that! In the nineteen thirties, while the world of capitalism was in the midst of a Great Depression, the Scientific Socialist world of the Soviet Union, was thriving! In this way, they were prepared for the invasion, in 1941, of Nazi Germany.

Now to return to the Housing Question.

This is of particular concern today, due in no small part to the recent influx of immigrants, those who are merely looking for a better life. It should not be a major problem, for as Engels stated, ”there are already in existence sufficient buildings, dwellings in the big towns to remedy immediately any real ‘housing shortage’, given rational utilization of them. This can naturally only take place by the expropriation of the present owners and by quartering in their houses the homeless or those workers who are excessively overcrowded in their old houses’’. (italics by Engels)

Of course, under capitalism, this is not about to happen! Bear in mind that there is currently a great surplus of empty buildings in the country. Possibly more empty buildings than homeless people! Yet it is the banks who own them, and the banks are determined that those houses are to remain empty!

2. Controversy With the Anarchists

Lenin referred to anarchists earlier in this book, but as he considered them to be such a threat, he covered this in more detail. In particular, he used this passage to stress the fact that the working people will have to use force to crush the resistance of the capitalists, both during the revolution, and immediately afterwards!

As Lenin pointed out, Marx did not ”combat the theory that the state would disappear when classes disappeared, or that it would be abolished when classes are abolished; he opposed the proposition that the workers should renounce the use of arms, the use of organized force, that is, the use of the state, in order to ‘crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie”’. (italics by Lenin)

I should add that the state apparatus to which he was referring, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Lenin further goes on to state: ”The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as an aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources and methods of the state power against the exploiters, just as the Dictatorship of the oppressed class is temporarily necessary for the abolition of classes.” (italics by Lenin)

In particular, Engels ridiculed the ideas of the Prondhonists, those who referred to themselves as ”anti-authoritarians”, those who are against ”every sort of authority, every sort of subordination, every sort of power”. As Engels stated, ”Have these gentlemen never seen a revolution? A revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, which are authoritarian means if ever there were any. And the victorious party, if it does not wish to have fought in vain, must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed population against the bourgeoisie? Should we not on the contrary reproach it for not having made more extensive use of this authority?”

Here we have one more example of the method that Scientific Socialists use, that of learning from previous revolutionary experience. This stands in sharp contrast to the lack of method the utopian socialists use. They just assume that their ideas must be one stroke of genius after another! Such is hardly the case!

We can expect more anarchists and utopian socialists to ”spring up”, to make their voices heard, as the revolution unfolds. They will naturally see this as an opportunity to put their half baked ”theories” into practice! We must be prepared for them. If the revolutionaries take their advice, the revolution is sure to fail!

3. Letter To Bebel

This too, calls for a little explanation. At that time, August Rebel was a highly respected Marxist, one of the founders of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Also at that time, the German Social Democratic Party was perhaps one of the finest in the world, at least in terms of membership and policy. Yet Engels noticed a serious problem with that policy, and pointed this out, in a letter to Bebel. 

At that time, as now, there were people who claimed to be followers of Marx, but those same people were determined to revise the theories of Marx. In particular, this rather subtle distortion involved reference to a ”free peoples state”.

As Engels put it: ”As therefore the ‘state’ is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, in order to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is pure nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still uses the state, it does not use it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the state, as such, ceases to exist.’’ (italics by Engels)

Lenin had a few words to say about this: ”In revising the program of our Party, we must unfailingly take the advice of Engels and Marx into consideration in order to come nearer to the truth, to restore Marxism by purging it of distortions, to guide the struggle of the working class for its emancipation more correctly.”

Notice that Lenin here referred to ”revising the program of the Party”, not revising the Marxism! If the program of the Party is different from the Marxism, it must be corrected! All distortions must be purged! That is the only correct way to ”guide the struggle of the working class for its emancipation’’!

As for those who dispute that previous statement, bear in mind that the German Social Democratic Labour Party, at the time Engels wrote this letter to Bebel, was one of the finest in the world. Yet their views upon the ‘’free people’s state’’ was incorrect, so that Engles tried to correct it. This correction never took place, so that other ‘’distortions’’ of Marxism took place. As a result of this, by the time of the outbreak of World War 1, in 1914, the formerly fine German Social Democratic Labour Party was completely devoid of principle. Instead of calling for the overthrow of the German capitalists, they called for the ‘’Defence of the Fatherland’’.

One of the finest German Communists, who stood on principle, was Rosa Luxembourg. As she stated, in 1914, ’’the German Social Democratic Labour Party, is now a stinking corpse’’.

It should be mentioned that Bebel chose to ‘’pigeon hole’’ that letter from Engels, for thirty six years! Even though a fine Communist, the fact that he refused to admit his mistake, for so many years, will forever mar his legacy. Further, as Lenin pointed out, ‘’these opportunist views on the state were absorbed by German Social Democracy, especially as Engel’s revolutionary interpretations were safely pigeonholed, and all the conditions of everyday life were such as to ‘wean’ the people from revolution for a long time!’’

4. Criticism of the Draft of the Erfurt Program

Here too, a little historical background is in order. At the time this letter was written, in 1891, Germany was not a republic, but recognized a monarch, or king, referred to as Kaiser Wilhelm. Germany did have a Reichstag, or Parliament, but this government agency had no power, as the Kaiser had the final say, in all matters of state.

As previously mentioned, at that time, Germany also had a very fine Social Democratic Party. Bear in mind that at that time, Marxism was referred to as Social Democracy. This made the German Social Democratic Party a world leader, in the international working class movement.

Yet Engels was critical of the Erfurt Program, the Program put forward by that same German Party. As Lenin said, ”this criticism is mainly concerned with the opportunist views of Social-Democracy on questions of state structure. (italics by Lenin) 

The main criticism that Engels had for the Erfurt Program, was that ”What actually ought to be said is not there’’. (italics by Engels)

By that, Engels was referring to the demand of transforming Germany into a republic. Of necessity, that involved removing the Kaiser, as head of state. Such a demand would certainly threaten the legal status of the Party, in that the German government would almost certainly declare the Party to be an illegal organization. For that reason, the leaders of the German Social Democratic Party chose to remain silent, in order to maintain their legal status.

Engels called this ‘’opportunism’’, and ‘’as there was no republic and no freedom in Germany, the dreams of a ‘peaceful’ path were absolutely absurd’’,

Not that Engels limited himself to that criticism. As Lenin noted, ”Engels also makes an exceedingly valuable observation on questions of economics, which shows how attentively and thoughtfully he watched the changes in modern capitalism, and how he was able to foresee to a certain extent the tasks of our own, the imperialist epoch”.

This too, requires a little explanation. Contrary to popular belief, the term ”imperialism” was not ‘’coined’’ by the Marxists. It was ”created” by the capitalists themselves, as a means of describing the changes that were taking place within their beloved system of capitalism. These changes started to take place at around the end of the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth century. In short, at the time this letter was written, the age of competitive capitalism was in the process of being transformed into the age of monopoly capitalism.

In particular, as Engels stated, ”When we pass from joint-stock companies to trusts which control and monopolize whole branches of industry, it is not only private production that ceases, but also planlessness”.

Lenin had a few words to say about this: ”Here we have what is most essential in the theoretical appraisal of the latest phase of capitalism, i.e., imperialism, viz., that capitalism becomes monopoly capitalism. The latter must be emphasized because the erroneous bourgeois reformist view that monopoly capitalism or state monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can already be termed ‘state socialism’, or something of that sort”. (italics by Lenin)

I should add that the term ”i.e.” means ”that is”, while the word ”latter” means ”nearer to the end of something”. As for ”state capitalism”, that is defined as ”an environment where the state intervenes in the economy to protect large monopolistic businesses from competition from small firms”.

Without doubt, that is precisely the current state of affairs! State capitalism! Corporate welfare! Our government donating billions of tax payer dollars to the biggest banks and businesses! In America, there are only eight banks and five businesses that are classified as ”Too Big To Fail”. As every coin has two sides, it stands to reason, that the thousands of other banks, and tens of thousands of small businesses, must be ”Too Small To Succeed”.

Lenin went on to state: ”The trusts, of course, have not created, do not create now, and cannot create full and complete planning. But to whatever extent they do plan, to whatever extent the capitalists magnates calculate in advance the volume of production on a national and even on an international scale, and to whatever extent they systematically regulate it, we still remain under capitalism- capitalism in its new stage, it is true, but still, undoubtedly capitalism. The ”proximity” of such capitalism to socialism should serve the genuine representatives of the proletariat as proof of the proximity, ease, feasibility and urgency of the socialist revolution.” (italics by Lenin)

After those initial remarks, Engels returned to the question of the state. As Lenin stated, he made ”three valuable suggestions: first, as regards the republic; second, as regards the connection between the national question and the form of state, and, third, as regards local self government”.

This was followed by a statement, by Engels, that I consider to be of the utmost importance: ”This forgetfulness of the great main stand point in the momentary interests of the day, this struggling and striving for the success of the moment without consideration for the later consequences, this sacrifice of the future of the movement for its present may be ‘honestly’ meant, but it is and remains opportunism, and ‘honest’ opportunism is perhaps the most dangerous of all…If one thing is certain it is that our Party and the working class can only come to power under the form of the democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’.

The German Social Democratic Party chose not to call for a republic in Germany, which means the overthrow of the Kaiser, so as not to call down the wrath of the German government, onto that same Party. Yet it was the duty of that Party to call for Germany to become a republic! By not calling for Germany to be transformed into a republic, the Social Democratic Party failed to perform their duty! They failed to stand on principle! That is what Engels was condemning!

Lenin then mentioned the fact that Engels pointed out the ”fundamental idea…of Marx’s works, namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. For such a republic….inevitably leads to such an extension, development, unfolding and intensification of that struggle that, as soon as the possibility arises of satisfying the fundamental interests of the oppressed masses, this possibility is achieved inevitably and solely in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”.

Lenin made it clear that both Marx and Engels insisted on ”democratic centralism, on one indivisible republic”. By ”democratic centralism” is meant that ”political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the political Party.”

As opposed to this, a ”federal republic” is a ”state in which powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts, states, colonies or provinces, retain a degree of self government’’.

Engels proposed the following wording for the clause in the program on self government: ”Complete self government for the provinces” (districts and communities) ”through officials elected by universal suffrage. The abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the state’’.

As regards the ‘’national question’’, perhaps I should point out that within the country of Canada, Quebec is officially classified as a ‘’province’’. It is not a province, it is a French country, and should be recognized as such. It should be granted independence, but as long as Canada recognizes the British monarch as the head of state, that is not about to happen. 

All true Canadian Communists should be calling for Canada to become a republic, to separate from the British Crown, for as Lenin stated, ‘’the democratic republic is the nearest approach to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’. The possibility of achieving national independence for Quebec, is highly unlikely, as long as Canada remains a Constitutional Monarchy. As soon as Canada breaks away from the Crown, and becomes a democratic republic, then national independence for Quebec is far more likely. Of course, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it becomes a certainty.

5. The 1891 Introduction to Marx’s ”Civil War In France”

Lenin points out that this Introduction was ”directed particularly against the ‘superstitious belief in the state”’. Engels also pointed out that in France, ”the workers were armed after every revolution…therefore, the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois at the helm of the state. Hence after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers’’.

Lenin also mentions, almost incidentally, on ‘’the question of the state (has the oppressed class arms?), is here remarkably well defined’’. (italics by Lenin)

All the more reason for Americans to defend their Second Amendment ”right to bear arms”! The ruling class of billionaires would love to see the working class disarmed!

Engels also touched upon religion, which is a ”private matter’’. This is to say that each and every one of us has the right to our own personal beliefs. Engels pointed out that ‘’in relation to the state religion is a purely private matter’’. (italics by Engels)

The problem was that those who were devoid of principle, ‘’twisted’’ this to say that it was a private matter ‘’even for the party of the proletariat’’! Lenin went on to add that this effectively ‘’renounces the Party struggle against the religious opium which stultifies the people’’. (italics by Lenin)

Engels also stressed the fact that the existing state apparatus has to be smashed, and replaced by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Just as in the Paris Commune, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, all officials are to be paid the wages of workers, and are subject to recall at any time. 

He also pointed out that in both a democratic republic, as well as a monarchy, the state remains a ‘’machine for the oppression of one class by another’’. Yet the democratic republic is much preferred, as a ‘’wider, freer and more open form of the class struggle and of class oppression greatly assists the proletariat in its struggle for the abolition of all classes’’. 

Incidentally, in this Introduction by Engels, he uses the capitalization which I have adopted, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, no doubt in recognition of its vital importance.

6. Engels On Overcoming Democracy

The title of this chapter may sound quite strange, until we remember that democracy is a method of class rule! After the revolution, classes will continue to exist, so that a state apparatus will still be required, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in order to crush the capitalists. Democracy for the working class, but a Dictatorship for the capitalists.

Lenin started this Section with a reference to the opinion of Engels, that the term ”Social Democrat” was ”scientifically” wrong. Engels went on to say that even though the name was ”unsuitable”, it would ”perhaps pass muster…for a party whose economic program is not merely socialist in general, but directly Communist, and whose ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and therefore democracy as well. The names of genuine (Engels italics) political parties, however, are never wholly appropriate; the party develops while the name persists”.

Lenin then proceeded to explain that he was prepared to change the name of his Social Democratic Party to the Communist Party, (Bolsheviks). Bear in mind that he placed the name Bolsheviks in brackets, as it was a ”meaningless and ugly term”. In fact, the word ‘’bolsh” in Russian just means majority, as opposed to ”mensh”, which means minority. Truly meaningless!

This brings us to a problem we are currently facing. There are numerous political parties currently in existence, which claim to be Marxist, or Marxist Leninist, or Communist, or Social Democrat, or just plain Socialist. As true Communist Parties take shape, we have to come up with a name with which to distinguish ourselves, from the other fraudulent Marxist Parties. The name which I am suggesting is the name of the country, followed by Communist Party, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or CP, DP. I do not suggest placing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in brackets, as it is of such vital importance. In fact, it is the ”touchstone” of a true Communist.

Lenin then mentioned that ”the abolition of the state means the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy’’. Allow me to stress the fact that he was referring to the state apparatus which will be set up after the revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which will ‘’wither away’’. This stands in stark contrast to the existing state apparatus, set up by the capitalists, which must be smashed!

Bear in mind that our ultimate goal is to eradicate all classes. To wipe them out! No nobles, no proletarians, no farmers, no capitalists! That is not about to happen any time soon!

Even after the approaching Scientific Socialist Revolution, the capitalists will continue to exist. For that reason, it is necessary to crush them, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As long as that Dictatorship is exercised properly, the capitalists will be gradually wiped out. At the same time, the working class, the proletariat, will also be gradually wiped out. After all, it was capitalism which gave birth to the proletariat. No capitalism, no proletariat. 

As the capitalists are gradually wiped out, it stands to reason that the state apparatus, which has been set up for the sole purpose of crushing them, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will also gradually fade away. Or as Engels put it, it will ”wither away”. The final state apparatus will be no more.

As Lenin pointed out, ‘’it is constantly forgotten that the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy….We set ourselves the ultimate aim of abolishing the state, i.e., all organized and systemic violence… But in striving for socialism we are convinced that it will develop into Communism and hence, that the need for violence against people in general, the need for the subjection of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish, since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without force and without subordination. (italics by Lenin)

Incidentally, the period of time in which the capitalists are crushed under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is referred to as Socialism. It is only after the capitalists are wiped out, and all classes along with them, that society will enter a true classless, Communist society.

Chapter V

The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

Lenin begins this chapter by making the point that this Chapter is based upon a work by Marx, that of his Critique of the Gotha Program. In particular, Lenin was concerned with his ‘’analysis of the connection between the development of Communism and the withering away of the state’’. 

1. Marx’s Presentation of the Question

Lenin started by pointing out that ‘’there can be no question of defining the exact moment of the future withering away – the more so since it must obviously be a rather lengthy process. That still raised the question of the ‘’development’’ of Communist society.  (italics by Lenin) 

This gave rise to an interesting question: ‘’On the basis of what data can the question of the future development of future Communism be raised?’’ (italics by Lenin)

He then proceeded to answer that question: ‘’On the basis of the fact that it has it origins in capitalism, that it develops historically from capitalism, that it is the result of the action of a social force to which capitalism has given birth.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This was followed by a rather lengthy quote by Marx, in which he points out that ‘’present day society is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries’’. Marx went on to point out that ‘’present day state changes with a country’s frontier…The ‘present day state’ is therefore a fiction’’. Yet all are ‘’based on modern bourgeois society’’, so that all have ‘’certain essential features in common’’. So in that limited sense, it is possible to speak of ‘’present day state’’, as opposed to its future development, under Communism, when ‘’bourgeois society will have died away’’.

Lenin then proceeds to stress the fact that ‘’to arrive at a scientific answer, one must rely only on firmly established scientific data’’! That ‘’first fact’’ is that ‘’historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage or epoch of transition from capitalism to Communism’’. (italics by Lenin)

2. The Transition From Capitalism to Communism

This section starts with a quote from Marx: ‘’Between capitalist and Communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’. (italics by Marx)

We simply cannot go directly from capitalism, with all of its classes, to Communism, in which there are no classes. Between the two societies ‘’lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other’’. I should add that this ‘’transition period’’, between capitalism and Communism, is referred to as Socialism. During this ‘’transition period’’, of Socialism, in which classes will continue to exist, the capitalists will be crushed, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

Lenin goes on to state that ‘’In capitalist society, under the conditions most favourable to its development, we have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always restricted by the narrow frame work of capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich….Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation the modern wage-slaves are so crushed by want and poverty that ‘they cannot be bothered with democracy’, ‘they cannot be bothered  with politics’…democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich -that is the democracy of capitalist society’’. 

These are simply facts, stated by Lenin. He then goes on to state that ‘’development – towards Communism- proceeds through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; it cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist exploiters cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way’’. (italics by Lenin

This is to say that under Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the vast majority of working people will experience democracy. By contrast, the former exploiters, the capitalists, will be suppressed by force. 

It is only when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken, that society will enter a true classless state, referred to as Communism. As there will be no classes, there will be no need for a state apparatus. For that reason, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will gradually ‘’wither away’’. 

This is not to say that there will be no excesses on the part of individuals. This we can expect. But there will be no need for a state apparatus to crush them. We can expect the armed people to straighten out those misguided souls, just as even today, people interfere to prevent a woman from being assaulted. We know for a fact that the ‘’fundamental social causes of excesses’’ is the poverty of common people. Once we remove that fundamental cause, we can expect such behaviour to also ‘’wither away’’.

3. The First Phase of Communist Society

This section is further based upon an article of Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program. In that article, Marx points out that under socialism, ‘’from the whole of the social labour of society it is necessary to deduct a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, for the replacement of ‘worn out’ machinery…a fund for the expenses of management, for schools, hospitals, homes for the aged and so on’’.

Lenin pointed out that Marx then made a ‘’concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there is no capitalism’’. (italics by Lenin)

As Marx stated: ‘’What we have to deal with here is a Communist society not as it has developed on its own foundations, but no the contrary as it emerges from capitalists society; which is thus in every respect economically, morally and intellectually still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges’’. (italics by Marx)

Marx refers to this as the ‘’first’’, or ‘’lower’’, stage of Communist society. We tend to refer to this, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as Scientific Socialism. 

Marx then proceeded to point out that at that time, classes will still exist! For that reason, we will have ‘’bourgeois right’’. The conclusion which Marx draws is instructive: ‘’with an equal output and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on.’’

Lenin went on to explain that ‘’the first phase of Communism cannot produce justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still exist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible, because it will be impossible to seize the means of production, the factories, machines, land, etc., as private property…Marx shows the course of development of Communist society, which, at first, is compelled to abolish only the ‘injustice’ of the means of production having been seized by private individuals and which cannot at once abolish the other injustice of the distribution of articles of consumption ‘according to the amount of work performed’ (and not according to needs).’’ (italics by Lenin)

This is to say that in the ‘’first phase of Communist society’’, which we commonly refer to as Socialism, ‘’that which we refer to as ‘bourgeois right’ is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part’’, according to Lenin. 

He goes on to say that: ‘’He who does not work, neither shall he eat, is already realized; the other socialist principle: ‘An equal amount of labour for an equal amount of of products ‘, is also already realized. But this is not yet Communism, and it does not abolish ‘bourgeois right’, which give to unequal individuals, in return for an unequal (actually unequal) amount of work, an equal amount of products.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This ‘’defect’’ is unavoidable in the first stage of Communism, or Socialism, for as Lenin states, ‘’the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change’’. (italics by Lenin)

4. The Higher Phase of Communist Society

Lenin begins this section with a quote from Marx: 

‘’In a higher phase of Communist society after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not merely a means to live but has become itself the primary necessity of life; after the productive forces have also increased with the all round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: 

‘’From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!’’ (my italics)

There followed an elaboration by Lenin, which I consider to also be of vital importance:

‘’This expropriation will facilitate the enormous development of the productive forces. And seeing how capitalism is already retarding this development to an incredible degree, seeing how much progress could be achieved even on the basis of the present level of modern technique, we have a right to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in the enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labour, of removing the antithesis between mental and physical labour, of transforming work into the ‘primary necessity of life’- we do not and cannot know.

‘’This is why we have a right to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state; we must emphasize the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of Communism; and we leave the question of the length of time, or the concrete forms of the withering away, quite open, because no material is available to enable us to answer those questions.’’ (italics by Lenin)

This is to say that as long as classes exist, we will still need the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in order to crush the capitalists. We commonly refer to this as a state of Scientific Socialism, although Marx referred to it as the ‘’lower stage of Communism’’. This stands in contrast to the period after classes disappear, which will take some considerable time. We have no way of knowing how long, because as yet, we have ‘’no available material’’.

That was true, at the time the book was written. Now we have the experience of two formerly Socialist countries, the Soviet Union, as well as China. That ‘’material’’ tells us that the capitalists were able to return to power, even after being crushed for several decades. As I have documented in previous articles, this was mainly due to the fact that the great leaders of those two countries made several serious mistakes. Now it is up to us to learn from those mistakes, and not repeat them. After the next revolution, the capitalists will be completely crushed, so that they will not be allowed to return to power. 

Chapter VI

The Vulgarization of the Marxism By the Opportunists

Lenin begins this chapter with the statement that ‘’evasiveness on the question of the relation of the proletarian revolution to the state- an evasiveness which was to the advantage of opportunism and fostered it- resulted in the distortion of Marxism and in its complete vulgarization’’. (italics by Lenin)

As previously mentioned, I prefer the word ‘’unprincipled’’ to opportunist. I suspect a great many common people feel the same way. 

However, it was this ‘’evasion’’, on the question of the state, ‘’in relation to the proletarian revolution’’, which had very serious consequences. In fact, it led to the collapse of the Second International, in 1914.

This is a case where the expression ‘’serious consequences’’, is perhaps an under statement. The Second International Workingmen’s Association, was just that! An International Association of working people! International! As such, it was dedicated to representing all working people, all around the world! They ‘’took to heart’’ the slogan of Marx, ‘’Workers of the World, Unite!’’ More accurately, at first, they embraced that slogan!

But then, over a period of perhaps twenty years, the leaders of that Association gradually compromised their principles. Once they started down this ‘’slippery slope’’, to put it in popular terms, there was no turning back. As a tragic result of this, the once proud International abandoned its Marxist position of working class international solidarity, in favour of ‘’Defence of the Fatherland’’! 

Instead of calling for the workers of various countries to overthrow their capitalist rulers, for a Socialist Revolution, the International was calling for workers to kill workers of other countries!

Those who were formerly fine Marxists, such as Plekhanov and Kautsky, became class traitors! They turned their coats!

Lenin traces this utter betrayal of the working class, to the initial evasion on the question of the state, many years earlier. They should have taken a stand! It was a matter of principe!

For our purposes, we have to face the fact that we do not have a true Communist Party. At least, not yet. When we do create that Party, it cannot compromise on any question of principle. That which may appear to be an unimportant matter today, could have very serious consequences tomorrow. 

The astute reader may have noticed that Lenin here refers to the ‘’Second International’’, so that it stands to reason that there must have been a ‘’First International’’. 

In fact, it was Marx who was mainly responsible for the creation of the First International Workingmen’s Association, in 1864. 

At that time, it stated: ‘’That all societies and individuals adhering to it will acknowledge truth, justice and morality as the basis of their conduct toward each other and toward all men, without regard to colour, creed or nationality; That it acknowledges no rights without duties, no duties without rights’’

From this, it is clear that the Association was meant to be broad based, concerned with working people, from around the world, who were honest. Then at some point, an anarchist, by the name of Bakunin, joined the Association. He is referred to as an opportunist, or devoid of principle, as I prefer to say, and caused a great deal of trouble. This led to a split in the Association, as Marx kicked Bakunin out in 1872. Yet by 1876, that Association ceased to exist.

This led to the creation of the Second International, in 1889. At first, it was led by two superb Marxist theoreticians, Plekhanov and Kautsky. But then, as capitalism gradually reached the stage of monopoly, the pressure mounted, or in scientific terms, the contradictions became more acute, and those two gradually began to compromise their principles. Eventually, they managed to ‘’turn their coats’’, becoming traitors to Marxism, and to the working class. In particular, Kautsky has gone down in history as the ‘’Benedict Arnold’’ of Marxism. His distortions of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, are considered to ‘’set the standard’’ in revision. 

As a result of this gradual compromise of principle, the Second International sank into complete opportunism, so that by the beginning of the First World War, the Communist Parties of each country were calling for ‘’Defence of the Fatherland’’. The beginning of that great slaughter of working people, was also the end of the Second International.

With that in mind, perhaps this chapter may make more sense.

1. Plekhanov’s Controversy With the Anarchists

As Lenin pointed out, the collapse of the Second International did not happen over night. It was a gradual process, starting with ‘’evasiveness’’ on the question of the proletarian revolution, to the state. Of course, Marx made it very clear that the existing state apparatus must be smashed, and replaced with a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Those who claim to be Marxists, while evading this fact, are in fact, in the service of the capitalists. He pointed out that Plekhanov did this quite well.

He further pointed out that ‘’to speak of ‘anarchism and socialism’ and evade the question of the state, to fail to take note of the whole development of Marxism before and after the Commune, inevitably means slipping into opportunism. For the very thing opportunism needs is that the two questions just mentioned should not be raised at all. This is already a victory for opportunism’’. (italics by Lenin)

2. Kautsky’s Controversy With the Opportunists

On the other hand, Kautsky did not so much evade the question, as distort that which Marx said. In fact, Marx made it quite clear that ‘’the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes’’. He stressed the fact that this state apparatus had to be smashed!

One of the ‘’leading lights’’ of the revision of Marxism, was a man by the name of Bernstein. He insisted- in the name of Marx, no less!- that there was no need to smash the existing state apparatus. Bernstein was of the opinion that Marx was warning the working class ‘’against excessive revolutionary zeal when seizing power’’. Nonsense!

In response to this distortion, this ‘’revision’’ of a most important revolutionary theory of Marx, Kautsky carried it one step further! He maintained that ‘’according to Marx the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machine, but generally speaking, it can lay hold of it!” Still more nonsense! In fact, Marx said precisely the opposite!

Writing ‘’in opposition’’ to Bernstein, Kautsky said: ‘’We can safely leave the solution of the problem of the proletarian dictatorship to the future’’. 

The response of Lenin was quite instructive: ‘’This is not an argument against Bernstein, but in essence, a concession to him, a surrender to opportunism; for at present the opportunists ask nothing better than to ‘safely leave to the future’ all fundamental questions of the tasks of the proletarian revolution’’. (italics by Lenin)

That is just as true now as when it was first written! Those who are devoid of principle, do not want to face the fact that at the time of the revolution, the existing state apparatus must be smashed! It must then be replaced with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat! 

3. Kautsky’s Controversy With Pannekoek

In this section, Lenin goes into considerable detail, concerning the revisionist theories of Kautsky. But then Lenin considered Kautsky to be his ‘’bitterest enemy’’. The reason for this is really quite simple. Kautsky was an ‘’expert’’ in revising the revolutionary theories of Marx. To this day, the capitalists sing his praises! He knew how to avoid the question of revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

Here Lenin goes into more detail, concerning the differences between Marxists and anarchists. Bear in mind that the word ‘’former’’ means the first, while the word ‘’latter’’ means the second.

The anarchists want to merely do away with all state apparatuses, immediately. They also disagree with the Marxist belief in using the existing state apparatus, in preparation for the revolution. As so many working people have faith in the capitalist state apparatus, it is necessary that they learn, from their own experience, that it is simply not possible to ‘’change the system from within’’. In this way, they will learn that Marxists are correct. The anarchists disagree with this. 

Lenin sums it up rather well, when he says that ‘’We shall go forward to a split with these traitors to socialism, and we shall fight for the complete destruction of the old state machinery in order that the armed proletariat itself shall become the government’’. (italics by Lenin)

As Lenin stated, ‘’Revolution must not mean that the new class will command, govern with the aid of the old state machine, but that this class will smash this machine and command, govern with the aid of a new machine’’. (italics by Lenin)

Bear in mind that the ‘’old machine’’, to which Lenin refers, is the old state apparatus, which must be destroyed. As for the ‘’new machine’’, that is nothing other than the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

As for those who may think that these differences are not important, may I point out that at the time of the revolution, we can expect countless people to come forward, with their own ideas. Most of them will try to divert the revolution onto some harmless path of social reform. Some will claim to be Marxists, while denying the necessity of smashing the existing state apparatus, and replacing it with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

We had best be prepared for them. 

The mainstream press is quite cheerfully reporting that the Republican Party, otherwise known as the Grand Old Party, GOP, is disintegrating, allegedly due to the efforts of Donald Trump. Perish forbid that such a fine American establishment, with such a fine tradition, should go the way of the dodo bird! The least we can do is offer some desperately needed assistance!

Their website makes it clear that they are a fine democratic organization, as their leaders, the members of the Republican National Committee, RNC, are elected by the ‘’rank and file’’ members. As for those who may question that previous statement, I have chosen to copy it from the internet:

‘’The Republican National Committee is the primary committee of the Republican Party of the United States. Its members are chosen by the state delegations at the national convention every four years.’’

This is followed by a thoughtful paragraph which provides a little history, as well the principles upon which they stand:

Who we are:

Initially united in 1854 by the promise to abolish slavery, the Republican Party has always stood for freedom, prosperity and opportunity. Today, as those principles come under attack from the far-left, we are engaged in a national effort to fight for our proven agenda, take our message to every American, grow the Party, promote election integrity, and elect Republicans up and down the ballot. The principles of the Republican Party recognize the God-given liberties while promoting opportunity for every American.

To think that the GOP was initially ‘’united’’ in the interests of ‘’abolishing slavery’’. They certainly have good reason to be proud of their history! To this day, they stand for the ‘’principles’’ of ‘’freedom, prosperity and opportunity’’. Good to know.

Yet these principles, or ’’God-given liberties’’, are ‘’under attack from the far-left’’. It is commonly alleged that a certain  ex-President, a proud Republican, is responsible for the deep divide within the GOP. That lad has been accused of a great many things. Being ‘’far-left’’ is not one of them! 

The website goes on to say:

‘’Our Platform

‘’Republicans believe in liberty, economic prosperity, preserving American values and traditions, and restoring the American dream for every citizen of this great nation. As a party, we support policies that seek to achieve those goals. 

‘’Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America’s greatness for our children and grandchildren.

‘’The Republican Party’s legacy — we were originally founded in 1854 for the purpose of ending slavery — compels us to patriotically defend America’s values. As the left attempts to destroy what makes America great, the Republican Party is standing in the breach to defend our nation and way of life.’’

Outstanding! Who can argue with this platform? Certainly, no honest, tax paying, law abiding, patriotic American! An organization which is committed to ‘’protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections’’, deserves our whole hearted support!

On the subject of ‘’ensuring the integrity of our elections’’, there is the not so little matter of our federal elections. The proper procedure to be followed, in all federal elections, as per the Constitution, is being ignored. This procedure is laid out quite clearly, in the Twelfth Amendment. As that is the case, and as the Republican Party is committed to ‘’protecting constitutionally guaranteed freedoms’’, it follows that the Party should be anxious to correct this grave abuse of power. 

With that in mind, and as I consider the matter to be of such great importance, I have chosen to re-produce that Amendment, from the internet, complete with an introduction:

Amendment Twelve to the Constitution was ratified on June 15, 1804. It revises and outlines the procedure of how Presidents and Vice Presidents are elected, specifically so that they are elected together. The original text is written as follows:

‘’The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.’’

Even though this Amendment has been in place since 1804, the procedure to be followed, in all federal elections, has been ignored, since the days of the Civil War! Shameful!

To this day, each mainstream political party selects an individual to run for President. That individual then selects a ‘’running mate’’, an individual to run for the office of Vice President. A team! 

Then in November of the ‘’presidential election year’’, a ‘’popular vote’’ takes place. In each state, as well as the District of Columbia, the candidate who wins the majority of votes, is entitled to all of the Electoral Votes, for that state or District. That candidate then becomes the ‘’President Elect’’, and the ‘’running mate’’, becomes the ‘’Vice President Elect’’. 

There is only one little problem with this. It is completely Unconstitutional! It is in direct violation of the Twelfth Amendment!

No doubt, the Republican Party will be only too anxious to correct this mistake, once it is brought to their attention. 

With that in mind, I can only suggest that all patriotic Americans join the GOP, in order to unite the Party, and fight for our democratic rights, including the right to a Constitutionally legal federal election.  

I can also suggest that such citizens join as card carrying members, as such members determine policy, that of ‘’defending America’s values’’. 

Such members also elect the members of the Republican National Committee, RNC. 

On that subject, the current Chairman is Michael Whatley, and the Co-Chair is Lara Trump. The daughter in law of Donald Trump!

Now numerous members of the press, both mainstream and Leftist social media, are reporting that Trump has allegedly taken over the RNC. The following is merely a little sample:

‘’Endorsed by her father-in-law to help take over the Republican National Committee, Lara Trump said multiple times this week she will reshape the Republican Party to funnel cash to former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign and possibly help pay millions in ballooning legal expenses across his four criminal and slew of civil cases.’’

That remains to be seen. That which does not remain to be seen, is the fact that numerous journalist are alleging that the RNC has been taken over by Donald Trump! As one journalist reported, 

‘’Donald Trump cemented his grip on the Republican National Committee on Friday after his daughter-in-law and another ally assumed top leadership posts amid a debate among members over whether the organization should help pay his legal bills.’’

That is putting it rather politely. Another journalist was less polite:

‘’Bloodbath at RNC: Trump team slashes staff at committee

‘’Trump’s takeover of the RNC also seems poised to make the party’s central organizing committee a glorified legal defense fund for his many alleged crimes. The RNC has already paid some of Trump’s legal bills, but an increasing number of RNC members have recently backed the idea of having the RNC’s campaign arm pay for them continuously. Those members also blocked a resolution proposed by one member of the RNC to prohibit those expenditures once Trump officially becomes the nominee. ‘’ 

Still less polite was this journalist, although  perhaps more accurate:

Trump’s takeover of the RNC also seems poised to make the party’s central organizing committee a glorified legal defense fund for his many alleged crimes. The RNC has already paid some of Trump’s legal bills, but an increasing number of RNC members have recently backed the idea of having the RNC’s campaign arm pay for them continuously. Those members also blocked a resolution proposed by one member of the RNC to prohibit those expenditures once Trump officially becomes the nominee.

Yet another journalist was even more straight forward:

The RNC is supposed to support Republicans running for every level of office across the country and help the party grow. It should be expected to achieve its goals through rapid-fire messaging, financially backing candidates up and down the ballot, promoting voter registration and sharing policy information and other kinds of support. But Trump’s hand-picked RNC leaders have suggested that the RNC be nothing but a vehicle for Trump’s re-election. “Every single penny will go to the No. 1 and the only job of the RNC — that is electing Donald J. Trump as president of the United States and saving this country,” Lara Trump said in February.

That pretty well covers the conflict within the Republican Party. Now in the interests of avoiding accusations of discrimination, perhaps it would be best to examine the other mainstream political party, the Democratic Party. It is safe to say that they too are deeply divided. There are allegations that certain members of the Democratic National Committee, DNC, are concerned with the age and cognitive ability of President Biden. This is to say that they suspect that Biden is suffering from dementia. The same is true of the other presidential candidate, Donald Trump! American voters are being presented with a choice of two elderly men, each of whom may be suffering from a mental illness!

Having said that, perhaps it is best to go to their website, and  consider that which they say for themselves:

‘’The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal committee of the United States Democratic Party. The committee coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office, as well as works to establish a “party brand”.

‘’We’re fighting for a brighter, more equal future: rolling up our sleeves and organizing everywhere to build a better America for all.

‘’The DNC is dedicated to building on our wins from 2020 and 2022. We’re working hard to elect Democrats up and down the ballot by empowering grassroots activists, mobilizing voters, and organizing in every ZIP code.’’

From this statement, it is clear that the Democratic Party is determined to ‘’organize’’. Aside from that, it is not at all clear just what the DNC is focused on. For that matter, it is not at all clear just what the DNC is organizing! They go on to say:

‘’President Biden is working to build a better America by investing in the middle class and bringing down costs for working families. Together, we’ll build our economy from the bottom up and the middle out.’’

If nothing else, this shows that President Biden is supremely ambitious! He is determined to ‘’invest in the middle class’’, a class which is being wiped out! As for ‘’bringing down costs for working families’’, that involves wiping out inflation! Not about to happen!

This is followed by a ‘’Where we stand’’:

 ‘’Democrats believe that the economy should work for everyone, health care is a right, our diversity is our strength, and democracy is worth defending.’’

Democrats may believe this, but the fact is that the economy works only for the billionaires. Further, health care is far too expensive for a great many working people, so that they have little or no coverage. As for defending democracy,  the Democratic Party is not demanding federal elections take place, that abide by the Constitution, as required by the Twelfth Amendment. 

This is followed by a preamble to the party platform:

‘’Protecting Americans and recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic

‘’Building a stronger and fairer economy

‘’Achieving universal, affordable, quality health care

‘’Protecting communities and building trust by reforming our criminal justice system

‘’Healing the soul of America

‘’Combatting the climate crisis and pursuing environmental justice

‘’Restoring and strengthening our democracy

‘’Creating a 21st century immigration system

‘’Providing a world-class education in every zip code

‘’Renewing American leadership’’

This is the mere preamble to the Party platform! Nothing more than a series of vague references! It says nothing! The political platform of the Democratic Party is no platform! No wonder they are floundering! They too are in desperate need of assistance!

As that is the case, may I suggest that all patriotic Americans, or at least those who are concerned with our democratic rights, join the two Parties, Republican and Democratic, as card carrying members. 

It is such members who have considerable power. Party bosses. They determine the candidates for all political office, and set Party policy. They can demand that the forth coming federal election follow the procedure laid out in the Twelfth Amendment, as required by Constitutional law. Defending our democratic rights!

At the same time, Americans will not be forced to choose to vote for the candidates of the two mainstream political parties, for the office of President and Vice President. They will not be forced to choose between two men, both of whom may be suffering from dementia. In fact, they will not be forced to vote at all, as that is the role of the Electors. Constitutional law!

I have chosen to document the strategy of the two mainstream political parties, for a reason. It is to raise the level of awareness of the common people, by whom I mean the workers, family farmers, and at least the lower strata of the middle class. My goal is to prepare such people for the approaching revolution, and the subsequent Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Without doubt, there are countless working people who are not convinced of the necessity of revolution. We must respect their beliefs. At the same time, we must make them aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, especially the fact that the existing state apparatus must be smashed, and replaced with a state apparatus, to crush the billionaires. This state apparatus is known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

As these honest, skeptical working people become politically active, and attempt to ‘’change the system from within’’, they will quickly learn, from their own bitter experience, that the capitalists, the billionaires, are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge. 

We know that there are a great many of them, because Lenin advised us of this. In 1920, he summed up the experience of the three Russian revolutions, in his excellent article, Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder:

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

Today, it is clear that the ‘’exploited and oppressed masses’’, the common people, are well aware that they can no longer live in the old way. Working people are demanding change! As well, the ‘’exploiters’’, in our case the capitalists, the billionaires, are unable to ‘’live and rule in the old way’’. 

Further, the ruling class of billionaires are facing a series of crises. Not one crisis after another, but all at the same time. Washington is in a state of gridlock, so that no meaningful legislation can be passed into law. The Democrats control the White House, and the Senate, by the slimmest of margins. On the other hand, the Republicans control the House, also by the slimmest of margins. The country is deeply in debt, to the tune of $34 trillion, and rising. Yet the government cannot pass an annual budget. Both Parties are deeply divided. Each Party has a candidate for the presidency, of which many members disapprove. Then there is Trump, one of their own, a ‘’loose cannon’’, determined to set himself up as dictator. 

 This is the very definition of a revolutionary situation. In such a case, there is a ‘’tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses…who are capable of waging the political struggle’’. It is these working people, those who were ‘’previously apathetic’’, that I am mainly focused upon. They have got to be ‘’brought up to speed’’. 

It stands to reason that a careful reading of key works of Lenin, such as State and Revolution, along with political activity, such as joining one or the other Party, will drive home the point that the billionaires must be overthrown. We can count on the billionaires to persuade those working people, of the correctness of our theories!

This is technically referred to as combining theory and practice, although I prefer to think of ‘’practice’’ as experience. There could well be others who feel the same way. 

The important thing is that people become politically active. The precise form of that activity is not terribly important. As long as working people are attempting to ‘’change the system from within’’, as recommended by the capitalists, they will soon realize that it cannot be done! At least, not if the billionaires have anything to say about it!

We will know that we are getting our message across, when a certain expression becomes commonplace:

Dictatorship of the Proletariat!