Blog

Monopoly capitalism has now reached a state of crisis, in all of the highly industrialized countries of the world. Even the bourgeois journalists, those who are paid- and paid most handsomely!- to present the news in a manner which most flatters their capitalists employers, are referring to a ”revolutionary movement”. As such ”heretical speech” was formerly forbidden, it serves as an indication of the strength of the revolutionary uprising. Even the less advanced, among the working class, the proletariat, are currently talking of the necessity of revolution.

We have even witnessed two of the most dedicated, ”die hard” of the bourgeois economists, speaking out of the deepest sense of frustration and despair, literally ”waving around” a copy of the Communist Manifesto. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to this more as ”raving”, rather than speaking. In anticipation of the approaching collapse of the stock market, they have bought articles of gold and silver, and placed them in safety deposit boxes. Foresight!

Such an act goes against everything the bourgeois economists have been preaching. To place ”capital” in storage is madness! It is meant to be invested! Yet here the most vocal of the bourgeois economists, are breaking their own rules! It is their way of admitting that Marx was correct! That is the last thing they want to do!

Yet these capitalists can see the ”writing on the wall”. In the interest of self preservation- principles be damned!- they are aware that they are about to be ”reduced to the ranks of the surplus population”, as Engels phrased it. For that reason, they are ”preparing for the inevitable”. By putting aside some personal wealth- capital– they are thoughtfully delaying the day that they will be forced into the ranks of the ”industrial reserve army”. In other words, the day they will be forced to look for a job!

Such a ”stopgap measure” merely postpones the inevitable. Nor does it get to the root of the problem. Which is the fact that capitalism has to be destroyed!

This is to stress the importance of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Council- Soviet- Power, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The proletariat need leaders. That leadership can come only from a Communist Party, one which serves the best interests of the working people. That calls for the correct application of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin.

Incidentally, for the purposes of this article, I have chosen to use the word Soviet, in reference to the Councils which appear in times of revolutionary motion, as that is the word which is commonly used, in most parts of the world. It is very likely that the word Soviet will soon replace the word Council, here in North America.

The current situation is similar to that which existed, in Russia, around the time of the two Revolutions of 1917. This is to say that the revolutionary movement is wide spread and powerful, with working people rising up, in various parts of the world. Without doubt, we are on the eve of a world socialist revolution.

No doubt, there are those who may object, quite reasonably, that there was no ”world socialist revolution”, immediately after the October Revolution. True. Yet that is due, in no small part, to the fact that Lenin was murdered.

This is to drive home the point that working people need leaders. The capitalists are supremely well aware of this. For that reason, they consistently ”buy off”, which is to say ”bribe”, such leaders, whenever possible. This is considered to be ”standard practice”, the ”price of doing business”. On the rare occasions that this is not feasible, then stronger measures are required. This is politely referred to as ”terminate with extreme prejudice”, more accurately referred to as ”murder”. Lenin was murdered.

Without doubt, Lenin was one of the finest leaders, of the working people, ever to have lived. No one can replace Lenin, but we can all follow in his footsteps. That which he taught us, in writing, can be thought of as our ”roadmap”.

In the interest of ”following that roadmap”, bear in mind that in October 1918, just a year after the October Revolution of 1917, Lenin was writing in polemic with one of the great traitors to socialism, the formerly fine Marxist, Karl Kautsky. That which Lenin wrote is just as relevant today, as when it was first written. Bear in mind that Kautsky was one of those who ”turned his coat”, becoming a superb, dedicated servant of the bourgeoisie. Such traitors are largely responsible for the- temporary!- victory of the monopoly capitalists. Bear in mind that, at that time, the true followers of Marx, Communists, were referred to as Bolsheviks.

At that time, the great slaughter of the working people, that which has gone down in history as World War 1, was just ”winding down”. It was a war to decide which one, of two groups of international imperialist butchers, would succeed in subjugating and robbing the various countries of the world. As long as they were focused on annihilating each other, their attention was diverted from their chief enemy, the ”international proletariat”, according to Lenin.

For that reason, in a speech given at that time, by Lenin, within Soviet Russia, he mentioned that ”never before have we been so near the world workers’ revolution, and secondly, that never have we been in such a perilous position”. He did not downplay the danger! He could see that very soon, the ”victors”, the British, French and American imperialists, were about to attack their ”chief enemy”, and in particular, Soviet Russia.

As Lenin stated, at the end of his article against Kautsky,:

”Europe’s greatest misfortune and danger is that it has no revolutionary party. It has parties of traitors…But it has no revolutionary party.

”Of course, a mighty, popular revolutionary movement may rectify this deficiency, but it is nevertheless a serious misfortune and a grave danger.

”That is why we must do our utmost to expose renegades like Kautsky, thereby supporting the revolutionary groups of genuine internationalist workers, who are to be found in all countries. The proletariat will very soon turn away from the traitors and renegades and follow these groups, drawing and training leaders from their midst. No wonder the bourgeoisie of all countries are howling about ‘world Bolshevism‘.

”World Bolshevism will conquer the world bourgeoisie.” (italics by Lenin)

That ”great misfortune and danger” of Europe, that it ”has no revolutionary party”, has now spread to North America, and no doubt, to various other parts of the world. Yet we are now blessed with a ”mighty, popular revolutionary movement”, one which ”may rectify this deficiency”. It is up to us- Communists- to make sure that this ”deficiency” is ”rectified”. We have got to create a ”revolutionary party”, a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As I have mentioned in previous articles, at the time Lenin wrote that article, the most advanced workers, in the most highly industrialized countries of the world, embraced Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Such is no longer the case. The working class has ”regressed”, through no fault of its own. They have got to be ”brought up to speed”, and that is the duty of Communists.

Yet the fact remains that ”genuine groups of internationalist workers”, those who are commonly referred to as ”advanced workers”, have taken shape in all countries. It is up to Communists, to ”draw and train leaders from their midst”. This book has been written, with those advanced workers in mind.

This is not to say that middle class intellectuals, complete with university degrees, have been ”written off”, because that is not the case. I fully expect a considerable number of them to join us.

As regards to ”revolutionary groups of genuine internationalist workers”, those who ”are to be found in all countries”. May I suggest that the group of politicians, within the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., commonly referred to as ”The Squad”, qualifies as one such ”group”. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to them as the ”Proletarian Headquarters”, within the Congress, because that is precisely the case. It is also very likely that they are not aware of this fact.

Yet we are once again close to a ”world workers’ revolution”, so it is imperative that we prepare for that revolution. It is up to ”conscious people”, those who are aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, Communists, to raise the level of awareness of the working class, the proletariat, in all countries. I consider this to be the ”key link” in the chain, to which Lenin referred. How best to do this?

The experience of previous revolutions, has also shown that revolutionary motion gives rise to Soviets. One such Soviet appeared within the city of Seattle, and formed the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone. It was also quickly crushed. This is not to say that the Soviet was crushed, just the Zone.

Soviet power is a direct challenge to the authority of the capitalists. No doubt, numerous other Soviets have taken shape, in various other parts of the country. For the moment, they are keeping a ”low profile”, working ”behind the scenes”, combining legal and illegal activity. In this way, they are able to assist the working people. For the moment, the Soviets are not strong enough to challenge that authority, at least not directly. We can expect the power of these Soviets to grow.

The reason I say this, is because of previous revolutionary experience. The overthrow of Czar Nicholas of Russia, in March of 1917, was due, in part, to the activity of the Soviets. As the revolutionary motion grew stronger, the Soviets grew stronger.

The March revolution overthrew the Czar and placed state power in the hands of the ”new class”, that of the ”bourgeoisie and the landowners who had become bourgeois”, according to Lenin. Yet the power of the Soviets enabled Lenin to return to Russia, which he did, in April of that same year.

The political situation was quite surprising, and no less disturbing. The Soviets were strong enough to be a challenge to the authority of the Karensky Regime, yet the leaders of the Soviets were determined to surrender that power, to the capitalists!

With that in mind, Lenin wrote an article, titled:

”The Tasks of the Proletariat In Our Revolution, Draft Platform For the Proletarian Party:

”The Peculiar Nature of the Dual Power and Its Class Significance

”1) In our attitude towards the war, which under the new government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war, owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to ‘revolutionary defencism’ is permissible.

”The class conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

”In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism, who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary, with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience, to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

”The most wide spread campaign for this view must be organized in the army at the front.

”Fraternisation.

”2)The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the revolution- which, owing to the insufficient class consciousness and organization of the proletariat, placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie- to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasantry.

”This transition is characterized, on the one hand, by a maximum of legally recognized rights (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism.

”3) No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion breeding, ‘demand’ that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government.

”4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Worker’s Deputies, our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, against a bloc of all the petty bourgeois opportunist elements, from the Popular Socialists and the Socialist Revolutionaries down to the Organizing Committee…who have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.

”The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.

”As long as we are in the minority, we carry on the work of criticizing and exposing the errors, and at the same time, we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets and Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience.

”5) Not a parliamentary republic- to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, would be a retrograde step- but a republic of Soviet of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, form top to bottom.

”Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy. (The standing army to be replaced by the arming of the whole people)

‘‘The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.

”6) The weight of emphasis in the average agrarian program to be shifted to the Soviet of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

”Confiscation of all landed estates.

”Nationalization of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organization of separate Soviets of Deputies and Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies), under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account (A dessiante is approximately one hectare- GM)

”7) The immediate amalgamation of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.

”8) It is not our immediate task to ‘introduce’ socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

”Party tasks:

”Immediate convocation of a Party congress;

”Alteration of the Party program, mainly;

”(1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war;

”(2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a ‘commune state’;

”(3) Amendment of our out of date minimum program;

”(c) Change of the Party’s name;

” 10) A new international (italics by Lenin)

I have chosen to present this ”Draft Platform” in its entirety, as a model for a Political Platform, for a new International Communist Party, Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Granted, not all of this applies to our current situation. The First World War is ancient history, but numerous other wars are being fought. As well, at least in North America, there are few family farmers, and there may not be any ”large estates”. Yet in other countries of the world, that may still be a major problem.

As North America breaks apart, and several separate Soviet Socialist Republics take shape, each may prefer to form their own separate Communist Party. Excellent. But in the mean time, as we have no true Communist Party, I can only suggest an International Communist Party, or a North American Communist Party. Or possibly both.

Only a true Communist Party is capable of coordinating the various revolutionary movements, currently taking place, within North America. At the moment, they are isolated, spontaneous. The same is true of the Soviets. We have got to bring them together, coordinate their activities, focus on the common goal, that of Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

This requires the raising of the level of awareness of the working class, the proletariat. The conditions of life, of the proletariat, do not lead to the awareness of itself, as a class. That in no way changes the fact that the interests of the proletariat, and that of the monopoly capitalists, are diametrically opposed. This is to say that the two classes are at war. The problem being that the proletariat is not aware of this. That gives the capitalists a huge advantage!

In previous articles, I have compared this to a boxing match, in which one boxer is blindfolded. Of course the match is between the capitalists and the proletariat, with the proletariat blindfolded. The proletariat is striking out wildly, in all directions, occasionally landing a ”lucky blow”. This is completely unacceptable.

The role of the Communist Party is to raise the level of awareness of the proletariat, to make all workers class conscious, to ”remove the blindfold”. They must become aware of the importance of Soviet Power, and of the fact that they are destined to overthrow their class enemies, the capitalists, and crush them, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As I write this, the working people are focused on the trials of the former president, Donald Trump. The first trial just ended, with a guilty verdict on all of the thirty four charges against him. Yet he can still, once again, run for president, and fully intends to do so!

The reason this is so important, is because the working people are focused upon this. We can use this as a means of raising their level of awareness. In particular, we can point out that the presidential election is Unconstitutional.

As I have documented in a previous article, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, lays out the procedure to be followed, in all federal elections. The election of the President, as well as the election of the Vice President, is decided by the Electors, who are appointed by the states. The states have no right to meddle in a federal election.

Under the current ”two party” system, a popular vote is held in November. Based upon the results of that vote, each state forces the Electors to vote for the candidates of one party, or the other. This is completely Unconstitutional!

It is up to attorneys, preferably experts in Constitutional law, to present the arguments, in court, to that effect. Without doubt, the working people will be paying strict attention.

As soon as all state laws are struck down, which meddle in a federal election, then it will not matter if the Republican Party nominates Trump for president. The Electors are free to vote for the candidate of their choice for President, as well as the candidate of their choice for Vice President!

The two mainstream political parties, Republican and Democratic, have nothing to say about this. By Constitutional law, it matters not who they put forward for candidates. For that matter, the American citizens also have nothing to say about this. The popular vote is a mere formality, completely pointless. A mere waste of time and money.

In the interests of taking part in the formation of a true Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Soviet Power, may I suggest that all those who are interested, get in touch, with myself and each other. There is no need to get together in person, as the internet makes such gatherings possible, without any physical contact.

As for the name of the Party, may I suggest we go with the term International Communist Party, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, ICP,DP. The reason for this is that Lenin refers to a world socialist revolution, which is no doubt ”on the horizon”. The revolution is not about to be confined to the United States and Canada. If it was, then the term ”North American” would be appropriate. It is certain to include many countries in Europe, as well as Asia, and possibly elsewhere. They too, may prefer to join the Party.

Both the United States and Canada are about to break up, and form separate independent socialist republics. It is only reasonable to expect each republic to create their own independent Communist Party. It is also reasonable to expect each Communist Party to come together, in the form of an International Communist Party. After all, that is the very thing that happened in the former Russian Empire, immediately after the October Revolution. Lenin also referred to a World Socialist Republic. There is strength in numbers! Of course, each separate Party is free to withdraw from the Union, at any time.

With Fraternal Communist Greetings,

Gerald McIsaac

This is a book which was first published by Engels, in 1880. It is most important, as it traces the development of Scientific Socialism, as opposed to utopian socialism.

A proper understanding of this article, pre supposes an awareness of Western European history. With that in mind, perhaps a brief history lesson is in order, as well as an explanation of a few terms.

The German Reformation of 1525, was a religious reformation movement, that arose out of local dissatisfaction with the performance of the Catholic Church.

The English Civil War, otherwise known as the War of the Three Kingdoms, was fought between 1642 – 1651.

The Rousseau ”contrat social” was a social contract, in which the collective grouping of all citizens, was to be considered as an individual.

Pro tempore means for the time being

Fraternity is a reference to people sharing a common profession or interest.

A Guild is a medieval association of craftsmen or merchants.

A burgher is a reference to a citizen of a town.

Commodities are basic goods that make up everyday life

Napoleonic despotism is a reference to a method of rule by a wise leader.

Antitheses is a contrast between two things.

Feudal is a reference to a time when landholders rented out their land to tenants, in exchange for their loyalty and service.

The Great French Revolution is a reference to the years of 1789-1799, in which the nobility was overthrown.

The industrial revolution first took place in Great Britain, between 1760 and 1840. This made possible mass production, in that machines were used to produce goods, for the first time in history. Yet it also gave birth to two new classes, both revolutionary, at least at first. The merchants of town, referred to as burghers, took advantage of this new technology, bought the factories, mills, mines and other ”means of production”, as well as the banks and other ”financial institutions”. As well, they bought the railroads and shipping lines, the ”means of transportation”, to use the correct scientific terms. These are the terms which Engles uses in his article.

In the process, these town merchants became transformed into ”capitalists”. From the word ”burgher”, they became known as the ”bourgeois”. Yet as no class can live in isolation, these newly created capitalists had to hire people to run their machines. These people, who work by the hour, are referred to as ”proletarians”.

Almost immediately, these two newly created classes came into conflict with the established class, that of the nobility. In particular, the capitalists, or bourgeois, became ever more wealthy. The nobility saw this as a threat to their authority, as indeed it was.

Yet the origins of socialism date to a time before the industrial revolution. With that in mind, Engels refers to the German Peasants War, of 1525, the English Revolution of 1642, and the Great French Revolution of 1789.

As well, at least in France, at that time, the First Estate was a reference to the clergy, a very powerful force. The Second Estate was a reference to the nobility of France. The Third Estate was a reference to everyone else, from the poorest peasant farmer, to the richest capitalist. None of these people, those who composed the vast majority of the population, had any rights. The first two Estates were referred to as the ”privileged classes”, or the ”idle classes”, as opposed to the vast majority of people, those who worked in production and trade.

In fact, the landlords provided land to the peasants, in exchange for their ”loyalty and service”. In return, the landlords claimed the ”right of first night”, in that they had the right to have sex with any female subject, at any time, even on the night of her wedding.

The Great French Revolution gave birth to that which is referred to as the ”Reign of Terror”. This is to say that all those referred to as the ”Third Estate”, which included peasants, workers and capitalists, rose up and overthrew the nobility. These members of the Third Estate, ”commoners”, expressed their hatred of the nobility in no uncertain terms. The nobility was separated from their heads.

Now to the subject. Engels got right to the heart of the matter, with his first paragraph:

”Modern socialism is, in its essence, the direct product of the recognition, on the one hand, of the class antagonisms existing in the society of today between proprietors and non proprietors, between capitalists and wage workers; on the other hand, of the anarchy existing in production. But in its theoretical form, modern socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the eighteenth century. Like every new theory, modern socialism had at first to connect itself with the intellectual stock in trade ready at hand, however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts.

”The great men who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionists. They recognized no external authority of any kind whatsoever. Religion, natural science, society, political institutions- everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism: everything must justify its existence before the judgement seat of reason or give up existence. Reason became the sole measure of everything….everything in the past deserved only pity and contempt. Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, the kingdom of reason; henceforth, superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal right, equality based on nature and the inalienable rights of man.

”We know today that this kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie; that this eternal right found its realization in bourgeois justice; that this equality reduced itself to bourgeois equality before the law; that bourgeois property was proclaimed as one of the essential rights of man; and that the government of reason, the contrat social of Roussseau, came into being, and could only come into being, as a democratic bourgeois government. The great thinkers of the eighteenth century could no more than their predecessors go beyond the limits imposed upon them by their epoch.”

From this, it is clear that the bourgeoisie have a very high opinion of themselves. Those who have even a passing acquaintance with those same people, can testify to the accuracy of that statement. As well, Engles made the point that all ”great thinkers” of their time, were restricted by ”their epoch”.

The fact is that people of ancient times, were every bit as intelligent as people of today. It is also a fact that the ancient Greeks were aware of steam power. They noticed that when water boiled, in a kettle, the top of the kettle would rise. Yet they never took advantage of steam power.

Even though there was no shortage of Greek intellectuals, ”great thinkers”, none of them could go beyond ”their epoch”. This includes such people as Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. The conditions of life, of the Greeks, at that time, did not allow for this.

Now to return to Engels:

”But side by side with the antagonisms of the feudal nobility and the burghers, who claimed to represent all the rest of society, was the general antagonism of exploiters and exploited, of rich idlers and poor workers. It was this very circumstance that made it possible for the representatives of the bourgeoisie to put themselves forward as representing not one special class, but the whole of suffering humanity. Still further. From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage workers, and in the same proportion as the medieval burgher of the guild developed into the modern bourgeois, the guild journeyman and the day labourer outside the guild developed into the proletarian. And although, upon the whole, the bourgeoisie, in their struggle with the nobility, could claim to represent at the same time the interests of the different working classes of that period, yet in every great bourgeois movement there were independent outbursts of that class that was the forerunner, more or less developed, of the modern proletariat. For example, at the time of the German Reformation and the Peasants’ War, the Anabaptists and Thomas Munzer; in the great English revolution, the Levellers; in the Great French Revolution, Babeuf.

”There were theoretical enunciations corresponding with these revolutionary uprisings of a class not yet developed; in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, utopian pictures of ideal social conditions; in the eighteenth, actual communist theories (Morelly and Mably). The demand for equality was no longer limited to political rights; it was extended also to the social conditions of individuals. It was not simply class privileges that were to be abolished, but class distinctions themselves. A communism, ascetic, denouncing all the pleasures of life, Spartan, was the form of the new teaching. Then came the three great utopians: Saint Simon, to whom the middle class movement, side by side with the proletarian, still had a certain significance; Fourier; and Owen, who in the country where capitalist production was most developed, and under the influence of the antagonisms begotten of this, worked out his proposals for the removal of class distinction systematically and in direct relation to French materialism.

”One thing is common to all three. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of the proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as heaven from earth, from that of the French philosophers.

”For, to our three social reformers, the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and therefore finds its way to the dust hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not hitherto ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chain of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born five hundred years earlier, and might have spared humanity five hundred years of error, strife and suffering.

”We saw how the French philosophers of the eighteenth century, the forerunners of the revolution, appealed to reason as the sole judge of all that is. A rational government, rational society, were to be founded; everything that ran counter to eternal reason was to be remorselessly done away with. We saw that this eternal reason was in reality nothing but the idealized understanding of the eighteenth century citizen, just then evolving into the bourgeois. The French revolution had realized this rational society and government.

”But the new order of things, rational enough as compared with earlier conditions, turned out to be by no means absolutely rational. The state based upon reason completely collapsed. Russseau’s contrat social had found its realization in the Reign of Terror, from which the bourgeoisie, who had lost confidence in their own political capacity, had taken refuge first in the corruption of the Directorate, and finally under the wing of the Napoleonic despotism. The promised eternal peace was turned into an endless war of conquest. The society based upon reason had fared no better. The antagonism between rich and poor, instead of dissolving into general prosperity, had become intensified by the removal of the guild and other privileges, which had to some extent bridged it over, and by the removal of the charitable institutions of the Church. The ‘freedom of property’ from feudal fetters, now veritably accomplished, turned out to be, for the small time capitalists and small proprietors, the freedom to sell their property- crushed under the overmastering competition of the large capitalists and landlords- to these great lords, and thus, as far as the small capitalists and peasant proprietors were concerned, became ‘freedom from property’. The development of industry upon a capitalistic basis made poverty and misery of the working masses conditions of existence of society. Cash payment become more and more, in Carlyle’s phrase, the sole nexus between man and man. The number of crimes increased from year to year. Formerly, the feudal vices had openly stalked about in broad daylight; though not eradicated, they were now at any rate thrust into the background. In their stead, the bourgeois vices, hitherto practiced in secret, began to blossom all the more luxuriantly. Trade became to a greater and greater extent cheating. The ‘fraternity’ of the revolutionary motto was realized in the chicanery and rivalries of the battle of competition. Oppression by force was replaced by corruption; the sword as the first social lever, by gold. The right of the first night was transferred from the feudal lords to the bourgeois manufacturer. Prostitution increased to an extent never heard of. Marriage itself remained, as before, the legally recognized form, the official cloak of prostitution, and, moreover, was supplemented by rich crops of adultery.

”In a word, compared with the splendid promises of the philosophers, the social and political institutions born of the ‘triumph of reason’ were bitterly disappointing caricatures. All that was wanting was the men to formulate this disappointment, and they came with the turn of the century. In 1802 Saint Simon’s Geneva letters appeared; in 1808 appeared Fourier’s first work, although the groundwork of his theory dated from 1799; on January 1, 1800, Robert Owen undertook the direction of New Lenark.

”At this time, however, the capitalist mode of production, and with it the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, was still very incompletely developed. Modern industry, which had just arisen in England, was still unknown in France. But modern industry develops, on the one hand, the conflicts which make absolutely necessary a revolution in the mode of production, and the doing away with its capitalistic character- conflicts not only between the classes begotten of it, but also between the very productive forces and the forms of exchange created by it. And, on the other hand, it develops, in these very gigantic productive forces, the means of ending these conflicts. If, therefore, about the year 1800, the conflicts arising from the new social order were only just beginning to take shape, this holds still more firmly as to the means of ending them. The ‘have nothing’ masses of Paris during the Reign of Terror were able for a moment to gain the mastery, and thus to lead the bourgeois revolution to victory, in spite of the bourgeoisie themselves. But in doing so they only proved how impossible it was for their domination to last under the conditions then obtaining. The proletariat- which then for the first time evolved itself from these ‘have nothing’ masses as the nucleus of a new class, as yet quite incapable of independent political action- appeared as an oppressed, suffering order, to whom, in its incapacity to help itself, help could, at best, be brought in from without or down from above.

”This historical situation also dominated the founders of socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalist production and the crude class conditions corresponded crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order, and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure fantasies.

”These facts once established, we need not dwell a moment longer upon this side of the question, now wholly belonging to the past. We can leave it to the literary small fry to solemnly quibble over these fantasies, which today only make us smile, and to crow over the superiority of their own bald reasoning, as compared with such ‘insanity’. For ourselves, we delight in the stupendously grand thoughts and germs of thought that everywhere break out through their fantastic covering, and to which these philistines are blind”.

Engels then documents the fact that three great utopian socialists appeared. The first was Saint-Simon, a ”son of the Great French Revolution”. He noticed that the Revolution was a victory of the Third Estate, the working people, over the ”privileged idle classes”, the nobility and clergy. As far as he was concerned, this meant that ”the idlers had lost the capacity for intellectual leadership and political supremacy”. He was further of the opinion that the role of leadership should fall to ”science and industry”, in that ”science” was the scholars, while ”industry” was the ”working bourgeois, manufacturers, merchants, bankers”.

Engels went on to point out that, ”This conception was in exact keeping with a time in which modern industry in France, and with it the chasm between bourgeoisie and proletariat, was only just coming into existence.” Yet that which most concerned Saint-Simon was the ”class that is most numerous and poor”, the proletariat.

As Engles went on to state, ”To recognize the French Revolution as a class war, and not simply one between nobility and bourgeoisie, and the nonpossessors, was in the year 1802, a most pregnant discovery. In 1816, he declares that politics is the science of production and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics. The knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo. Yet what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production- that is to say, the ‘abolition of the state’, about which recently there has been so much noise.

”Saint-Simon shows the same superiority over his contemporaries when in 1814, immediately after the entry of the allies into Paris, and again in 1815, during the Hundred Days’ War, he proclaims the alliance of France with England, and then of both these countries with Germany, as the only guarantee for the prosperous development and peace of Europe. To preach to the French in 1815 an alliance with the victors of Waterloo required as much courage as historical foresight”.

A second great utopian socialist of his day was Fourier. As Engles stated, ”We find in Fourier a criticism of the existing conditions of society genuinely French and witty, but not upon that account any the less thorough. Fourier takes the bourgeoisie, their inspired prophets before the revolution, and their interested eulogists after it, at their own word. He lays bare the material and moral misery of the bourgeois world. He confronts it with the earlier philosophers’ dazzling promises of a society in which reason alone should reign, of a civilization in which happiness should be universal, of an illimitable human perfectibility, and with the rose coloured phraseology of the bourgeois ideologists of his time. He points out how everywhere the most pitiful reality corresponds with the most high sounding phrases, and he overwhelms this hopeless fiasco of phrases with his mordant sarcasm.

”But Fourier is at his greatest in his conception of the history of science. He divides its whole course thus far into four stages of evolution- savagery, barbarism, the patriarchate, civilization. This last is identical with the so called civil, or bourgeois, society of today- i.e., with the social order that came in with the sixteenth century. He proves that ‘the civilized stage raises every vice practiced by barbarism in a simple fashion into a form of existence, complex, ambiguous, equivocal, hypocritical’- that civilization moves in ‘a vicious circle’, in contradictions which it constantly reproduces without being able to solve; hence it constantly arrives at the very opposite to that which it wants to attain, or pretends to want to attain, so that e.g., ‘under civilization poverty is born of superabundance itself’.

”Fourier, as we see, uses the dialectical method in the same masterly way as his contemporary, Hagel. Using these same dialectics, he argues against the talk about illimitable human perfectibility, that every historical phase has its period of ascent and also its period of descent, and he applies this observation to the future of the whole human race”.

As for those who are skeptical, concerning the last point made, that ”every historical phase has its period of ascent and also its period of descent”, may I point out that all previous civilizations rose to a peak, and then fell into decline. In the western world, the most famous of these is that of the Roman Empire. Regardless of how great it was, it could not save itself.

Our civilization too, has passed its peak, and is now in decline. This is not to say that our civilization is ”doomed”, because it is not! Our civilization differs from all previous civilizations, in the fact that the Industrial Revolution has given birth to two new revolutionary classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. More accurately, the capitalist class, the bourgeoisie, was at first revolutionary, at the time of its appearance. At the point that capitalism reached the stage of monopoly, otherwise known as imperialism, around the beginning of the twentieth century, the capitalist class became completely reactionary.

That leaves the other class, created by the Industrial Revolution, the working class, the proletariat, as the only completely revolutionary class. It is the proletariat that is destined to prevent the collapse of our civilization. This can be done- and will be done!- by overthrowing the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie. The existing state apparatus will be smashed, and replaced by a new state apparatus, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In this way, the collapse of our civilization will be forestalled. There is no other way!

Engels then proceeded to document the attempts of another great utopian socialist, to establish a socialist world, under capitalism:

”While in France the hurricane of the revolution swept over the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new toolmaking industry were transforming manufacture into modern industry, and thus revolutionizing the whole foundation of bourgeois society. The sluggish march of development of the manufacturing period changed into a veritable storm and stress period of development. With constantly increasing swiftness, the splitting up of society into large capitalists and non possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of the former stable middle class, and unstable mass of artisans and small shop keepers- the most fluctuating portion of the population- now led a precarious existence.

”The new mode of production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of production- the only one possible under existing conditions. Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses- the herding together of a homeless population in the worst quarters of the large towns; the loosening of all traditional moral bonds, of patriarchal subordination, of family relations, overwork, especially of women and children, to a frightful extent; complete demoralization of the working class, suddenly flung into altogether new conditions, from the country into the town, from agriculture into modern industry, from stable conditions of existence into insecure ones that changed from day to day.

”At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a manufacturer twenty nine years old- a man of almost sublime, childlike simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of the materialistic philosophers: that man’s character is a product, on the one hand, of heredity; on the other, of the environment of the individual during his lifetime and especially during his period of development. In the industrial revolution, most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making a large fortune quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of putting into practice his favourite theory, and so bringing order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as superintendent of more than five hundred men in a Manchester factory. From 1800 to 1829 he directed the great cotton mill at New Lenark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success that made him a European reputation. A population, originally consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very demoralized elements, a population that gradually grew to 2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness, police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of infant schools and introduced them first at New Lenark. At the age of two, the children came to school, where they enjoyed themselves so much that they could scarcely be got home again. While his competitors worked their people thirteen or fourteen hours a day, in New Lenark the working day was only ten and a half hours. When a crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers received their full wages all the time. And with all this the business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded large profits to its proprietors.

”In spite of all this, Owen was not content. The existence which he secured for his workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human beings. ‘The people were slaves at my mercy’. The relatively favourable conditions in which he had placed them were still far from allowing a rational development of the character and of the intellect in all directions, much less of the free exercise of all their faculties. ‘And yet, the working part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century before, it would have required the working part of a population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?’

”The answer was clear. It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5 percent on the capital they had laid out, in addition to over 300,000 pounds clear profit. And that which held for New Lenark held to a still greater extent for all the factories in England. ‘If this new wealth had not been created by machinery, imperfectly as it had been applied, the wars of Europe, in opposition to Napoleon, and to support the aristocratic principles of society, could not have been maintained. And yet this new power was the creation of the working classes.’ To them, therefore, the fruits of this new power belonged. The newly created gigantic productive forces, hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction of society; they were destined, as the common property of all, to be worked for the common good of all.

”Owen’s communism was based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to speak, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this practical character. Thus in 1823 Owen proposed the relief of the distress in Ireland by communist colonies and drew up complete estimates of costs of funding them, yearly expenditures, and probable revenue. And in his definite plan for the future, the technical working out of details is managed with such practical knowledge- ground plan, front and side and bird’s eye views all included- that the Owen method of social reform once accepted, there is, from the practical point of view, little to be said against the actual arrangement of details.

”His advance in the direction of communism was the turning point in Owen’s life. As long as he was simply a philanthropist, he was rewarded with nothing but wealth, applause, honour, and glory. He was the most popular man in Europe. Not only men of his own class, but statesmen and princes listened to him approvingly. But when he came out with his communist theories, that was quite another thing. Three great obstacles seemed to him especially to block the path to social reform: private property, religion, the present form of marriage. He knew what confronted him if he attacked these- outlawry, ex communication from official society, the loss of his whole social position. But nothing of this prevented him from attacking them without fear of consequences, and what he had foreseen happened. Banished from official society, with a conspiracy of silence against him in the press, ruined by his unsuccessful communist experiments in America, in which he sacrificed all his fortune, he turned directly to the working class and continued working in their midst for thirty years. Every social movement, every real advance in England on behalf of the workers, links itself onto the name of Robert Owen. He forced through in 1819, after five years fighting, the first law limiting the hours of labour of women and children in factories. He was president of the first congress at which all the trade unions of England united in a single great trade association. He introduced as transitional measures to the complete communist organization of society, on the one hand, cooperative societies for retail goods and production. These have since that time, at least, given practical proof that the merchant and the manufacturer are socially quite unnecessary. On the other hand, he introduced labour bazaars for the exchange of the products of labour through the medium of labour notes, whose unit was a single hour of work; institutions necessarily doomed to failure, but completely anticipating Proudhon’s bank of exchange of a much later period, and differing entirely from this in that it did not claim to be the panacea for all social ills, but only a first step towards a much more radical revolution of society”.

Engles just provided us with a detailed description of an honest man, a member of the middle class, a man of principle, by the name of Robert Owen. Possibly the finest of the utopian socialists.

It is people of this calibre that we need now, to be sent to the various capitals. Such an individual- male or female, it makes no difference- can serve the working class, as well as all common people, in ways they cannot imagine! Of course, when I say capitals, I am referring to not just Washington, but also Ottawa, as well as the state and provincial capitals.

As mentioned in a previous article, this is not as difficult as it may at first appear. In America, all adult citizens are eligible to become card carrying members of the two mainstream political parties, Republican and Democratic. As such, they get to decide the individuals to run for any and all political offices. As soon as tens, or better yet, hundreds of thousands of Americans, join those two parties, then they can nominate Leftist people to run for all offices, preferably as both Democrats and Republicans. The advantage of running for office on behalf of both parties is two fold. On the one hand, victory is almost guaranteed, as the person has no competition. On the other hand, campaign expenses are kept to a minimum. There is no point in investing in expensive ads, because it makes no difference which candidate wins. It is the same individual. It matters not if they go to Washington as a Democrat or as a Republican.

It is in this way that honest, hard working, law abiding, tax paying, patriotic citizens can be elected to office. These people must be nominated by their own kind. They can then be counted upon to go to the capitals, and attempt to pass laws that will benefit all working people.

Just imagine: Washington flooded with Leftist politicians. The Squad now a majority. These Leftist politicians proposing laws that allow free medical for all, as it is a human right. Free education for all, as it is another human right, with all student loans annulled. An increase to the pensions of seniors, tax free, as they are living on a fixed income. An increase to the minimum wage. All vacant buildings to be seized by the government and repaired, to be given to the homeless. Soup kitchens and free food for the hungry. The statute of limitations to be abolished, with those accused of various crimes, to be held accountable. Those convicted of serious crimes, to be sent to work camps, forced to perform useful, productive labour. The electoral college to be abolished, as it is a remnant of slavery, and replaced by a popular vote. All officials to work at the wages of working people, subject to recall at any time. This is to be paid for, by raising the tax rates of the wealthy. The millionaires can pay at a rate of ninety percent, rising to ninety nine percent for the billionaires.

In short, we can only make every effort of taking the capitalists at their word, of attempting to ”change the system from within”. And fail miserably!

That last statement, in italics, was meant to be a bit of a joke. Mind you, not everyone appreciates my sense of humour. So if you do not think it is funny, you are not alone.

Seriously, such Leftist individuals, those who are elected to political office, to perhaps go to Washington, with the best on intentions, that of passing laws to assist the working people, are about to receive a rude awakening. This is precisely what we need!

Such people, those who are admired and trusted by the working people, can be counted upon to make every effort to pass laws, that can only be of benefit to those same working people. They can ”follow in the footsteps” of Robert Owen. They can join the members of The Squad, a small minority of Congress. If sufficient people are sent to Washington, they will cease to be a minority. They will become the majority. Then they will ”put to the test” this fairy tale of democracy being ”majority rule”.

Without doubt, these Leftist politicians will then report to their constituency, those who voted them into office, the true situation in Washington. Both parties serve the same class. That class is the monopoly capitalist class of billionaires, the bourgeoisie. Regardless of the number of Leftist politicians sent to Washington, the billionaires are in charge, and fully intend to remain in charge. If sufficient pressure is placed, then they are bound to respond by changing their method of rule. They will then be more exposed.

It is in this way, and only in this way, that the vast majority of working people will come to realize that the Communists are correct. After all, we can expect them to listen to one of their own.

As well, just as Owen continued to serve the working class, as an elected official, passing through various reforms, so too, Leftist politicians in Washington can also serve the American working class. Then at the time of the revolution, we can expect them to assist in the abolishment of Congress, to be replaced by Soviet (Council) Power, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Engles went on to state: ”The utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed the socialist ideas of the nineteenth century and still governs some of them. Until very recently, all French and German socialists paid homage to it. The earlier German communism, including that of Weitling, was of the same school. To all these, socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason, and justice and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is developed. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding, his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they should be mutually exclusive, one of the other. Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mishmash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion; a mishmash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mishmash which is the more easily brewed the more the definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.

”To make a science of socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.”

This was written in the late nineteenth century. Remarkably enough, it is also an accurate description of our current situation, in this, the twenty first century. To this day, we still have a ”mishmash” of various ideas of socialism, all of them utopian, ”like rounded pebbles in a brook”.

Yet as Engles stated, socialism must be made a science, ”placed upon a real basis”. That was the subject of the second part of his book. In this section, he first documents the fact that changing conditions, advances in science, gave birth to advances in the field of philosophy. This is important, but beyond the scope of this article. For that reason, I have chosen to ”skip over it”, and proceed to that which most concerns us.

Engles: ”The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past history. Then it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange- in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions, as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period. Hagel had freed history from metaphysics- he had made it dialectical; but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; now a method found of explaining man’s ‘knowing’ by his ‘being’, instead of, as heretofore, his ‘being’ by his ‘knowing”’. (italics by Engels)

The preceding paragraph is of the utmost importance. In particular, Engels statement, to the effect that ”these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and exchange- in a word, of the economic conditions of their time…the real basis…from which we can alone work out …the superstructure”.

The economic basis of our current society is socialized production! It is the ”real basis”! It follows that our superstructure should also be socialized! Scientific Socialism!

It is to be hoped that numerous self proclaimed socialists, those who consider socialism to be a good idea, but simply not practical, consider that statement. In a nutshell, it sums up the difference between utopian socialism, and Scientific Socialism. Scientific Socialists start from the ”real basis”, that of ”socialized production”. That is the ”economic conditions” of our time. That is also the ”real basis” of Scientific Socialism.

Without doubt, a great many utopian socialists, but by no means all, are of a middle class background, have been to University, and ”learned” that the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, are merely ”radical”, not to mention ”anti democratic”. The experience of the Soviet Union and China may be presented, as examples of the ”failure of Communism”.

To such misguided people, I can only respond that the Universities are in the service of the ruling class of monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie. For that reason, they teach only the distortion of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. They neglect to mention that democracy is nothing more than a method of class rule, and that we live under the rule of the monopoly capitalists. The one and only alternative to that rule, is that of Scientific Socialism, in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

It is also a fact that both the Soviet Union and China were, at one time, socialist countries. It is further a fact that both Stalin and Mao were fine Marxists, Scientific Socialists. Yet both made some serious mistakes, which enabled the capitalists to return to power, after their deaths. As I have covered that in previous articles, there is no need to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that as Scientific Socialists, we learn from the experience of previous revolutions, and revolutionary leaders. That includes learning from their mistakes. But then, that is what separates us from the utopian socialists.

Engels goes on to state: ”From that time forward, socialism was no longer an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes- the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine the historico – economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions thus created, the means of ending the conflict. But the socialism of earlier days was as incompatible with this materialistic conception, as the conception of nature of the French materialist was with dialectics and modern natural science. The socialism of earlier days certainly criticized the existing capitalistic mode of production, and its consequences. But it could not explain them and therefore could not get the mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad. The more strongly this earlier socialism denounced the exploitation of the working class, inevitable under capitalism, the less able was it clearly to show in what this exploitation consisted, and how it arose.

”But for this it was necessary, 1), to present the capitalistic mode of production in its historical connection, and its inevitableness during a particular historical period, and therefore, also, to present its inevitable downfall; and 2), to lay bare its essential character, which was still a secret. This was done by the discovery of surplus value. It was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labour is the basis of the capitalist mode of production, and of the exploitation of the worker that occurs under it; that even if the capitalist buys the labour power of the labourer at its full value, as a commodity on the market, he yet extracts more value from it than he paid for; and that in the ultimate analysis this surplus value forms those sums of value from which are heaped up the constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands of the possessing classes. The genesis of capitalist production and the production of capital were both explained.

”These two great discoveries, the materialist conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus value, we owe to Marx. With these discoveries, socialism became a science. The next thing was to work out all its details and relations.” (italics by Engels)

This is to stress the fact that Karl Marx placed socialism on a scientific basis, through his materialist conception of history, and his discovery of surplus value. Which is precisely the reason we now refer to it as Scientific Socialism.

This brings us to the third section. Engels: ”The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders, is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in man’s better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought not in their philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch. The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong, is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange, changes have silently taken place with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping. From this it also follows that the means of getting rid of the incongruities that have been brought to light must also be present, in a more or less developed condition, within the changed modes of production and exchange themselves. These means are not to be invented by deduction from fundamental principles, but are to be discovered in the stubborn facts of the existing system of production”. (italics by Engels)

Without doubt, numerous ”intellectual giants”, mainly of the middle class, will dispute that previous statement. They are all too fond of telling us- frequently, at great length and high volume!- that socialism may be a good idea, but simply does not work! This is something they have learned in university, and accept as fact. They are also determined that everybody else should agree with this.

These misguided souls, poor unfortunates, one and all, are best left to their own devices. It is really not their fault that they are not capable of facing reality. It is entirely possible that they were born this way. Perhaps in due time, as the revolution unfolds, as working people rise up and overthrow the ruling class of billionaires, the heretical thought may cross the minds of these people, that they may not be the smartest people in the world. Or perhaps I am being wildly optimistic. Only time will tell.

For the rest of us, mere mortals, one and all, we can take some consolation in the fact that Marx has given birth to Scientific Socialism. The ”stubborn facts of the existing mode of production”, reveal to us the solution to our problem.

Engles: ”What is then, the position of modern socialism in this connection?

”The present structure of society- this is now pretty generally conceded- is the creation of the ruling class of today, the bourgeoisie. The mode of production peculiar to the bourgeoisie, known since Marx, as the capitalist mode of production, was incompatible with the feudal system, with the privileges it conferred upon individuals, entire social ranks, and local corporations, as well as with the hereditary ties of subordination which constituted the framework of its social organization. The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society, the kingdom of free competition, of personal liberty, of the equality before the law of all commodity owners, of all the rest of the capitalist blessings. Thenceforward the capitalist mode of production could develop in freedom. Since steam, machinery, and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry, the productive forces that evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before. But just as the older manufacture, in its time, and handicraft, becoming more developed under its influence, had come into collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds, so now modern industry, in its more complete development, comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalist mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalist mode of using them. And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions, even of the men that have brought it on. Modern socialism is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first of the class directly suffering under it, the working class.”

There we have it. Scientific Socialism, that which Engels refers to as ”modern socialism”, is nothing other than the ”reflection” of the conflict, between the ”productive forces” and the ”modes of production”, within the minds of the working class.

This is followed by a summary of the method of production of the Middle Ages, along with its effect on the various classes, then in existence. This changed dramatically at the time of the industrial revolution, as that revolution gave birth to two new classes, the capitalist class, the bourgeois, and the working class, the proletariat. As Engels stated: ”Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the producers in large workshops and manufacturies, their transformation into actual socialized means of production and socialized producers. But the socialized producers and means of production and their products were still treated, after this change, just as they had been before, i.e., as the means of production and the products of individuals. Hitherto, the owner of the instruments of labour had himself appropriated the product, because, as a rule, it was his own product and the assistance of others was the exception. Now the owner of the instruments of labour always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer his product, but exclusively the product of the labour of others. Thus, the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities, but by the capitalists. The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialized. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, everyone owns his own product and brings it to market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation, although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.

”This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalist character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today. The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries, the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum, the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation….The contradiction between socialized production and capitalist appropriation manifested itself as the antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie.” (italics by Engels)

Production is socialized, yet the product of socialized production is appropriated by the capitalists. This ”contradiction” gives rise to the ”antagonism between proletariat and bourgeoisie”. It can hardly be otherwise, as the interests of the two classes are diametrically opposed.

Engels then proceeds to document the completely unexpected effects, which take place, as a result of the sale of commodities:

”We have seen that the capitalistic mode of production thrust its way into a society of commodity producers, of individual producers, whose social bond was the exchange of their products. But every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social interactions. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production, or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production.

”But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has its peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social interrelations, i.e., in exchange, and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producer.”

Under the capitalist system, we have the ”reign of anarchy”. No capitalist knows for sure whether or not his product will meet a demand, whether he can sell it for a profit, or if the market is about to be ”flooded” by numerous other capitalists, producing the same item. Yet at the same time, within the ”anarchy of production”, there are ”inherent laws”. These laws are gradually revealed to the capitalists, as a ”result of experience”. Surprise!

This is followed by a comparison to an earlier, ”simpler time”, in medieval society. As most people were hard pressed to satisfy their immediate wants, there was generally a severe shortage of excess, to be sold as a ”cash crop”, as ”commodities”. That is not a problem that we currently face, under capitalism.

Engels: ”But with the extension of the production of commodities, and especially with the introduction of the capitalist mode of production, the laws of commodity production, hitherto latent, came into action more openly and with greater force. The old bonds were loosened, the old exclusive limits broken through; the producers were more and more turned into independent, isolated producers of commodities. It became apparent that the production of society at large was ruled by absence of plan, by accident, by anarchy; and this anarchy grew to greater and greater height. But the chief means through which the capitalist mode of production intensified this anarchy of socialized production was the exact opposite of anarchy. It was the increasing organization of production, upon a social basis, in every individual productive establishment. By this, the old, peaceful, stable condition of things was ended. Wherever this organization of production was introduced into a branch of industry, it brooked no other method of production by its side. The field of labour became a battle ground. The great geographical discoveries, and the colonization following upon them, multiplied markets and quickened the transformation of handicraft into manufacture. The war did not simply break out between the individual producers of particular localities. The local struggles begat in their turn national conflicts, the commercial wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

”Finally, modern industry and the opening of the world market made the struggle universal, and at the same time gave it an unheard of virulence. Advantages in natural or artificial conditions of production now decide the existence or non existence of individual capitalists, as well as of whole industries and countries. He that falls is remorselessly cast aside. It is the Darwinian struggle of the individual for existence, transferred from nature to society with intensified violence. The conditions of existence natural to the animal appear as the final term of human development. The contradictions between socialized production and the capitalist appropriation now presents itself as an antagonism between the organization of production in the individual workshop and the anarchy of production in society generally.”

At the time that Engles wrote this, the world was in the process of becoming completely divided up, between the ”Great Powers”. This is to say that the most highly industrialized countries of the world had ”staked out” their very own ”spheres of influence”. These consisted of countries that were little more than colonies, to be exploited by the ruling class of capitalists, within those same industrialized countries.

Engels went on to state: ”The capitalist mode of production moves in these two forms of the antagonism immanent to it from its very origin. It is never able to get out of that ‘vicious circle’, which Fourier had already discovered. What Fourier could not, indeed, see in his time, is that this circle is gradually narrowing; that the movement becomes more and more a spiral, and must come to an end, like the movement of the planets, by collision with the centre. It is the compelling force of anarchy in the production of society at large, that more and more completely turns the great majority of men into proletarians; and it is the masses of the proletariat again who will finally put an end to anarchy in production. It is the compelling force of anarchy in social production that turns the limitless perfectibility of machinery under modern industry into a compulsory law by which every individual industrial capitalist must perfect his machinery more and more, under penalty of ruin.”

There are countless people, former members of the middle class, who can testify to the accuracy of that statement. A great many others, owners of small businesses, are ”fighting a losing battle”, each month going ever deeper into debt. It is simply not possible to compete with the monopolies.

Welcome to the proletariat, my Brothers and Sisters, my Comrades! Now is not the time to get mad! Now is the time to get even! Working together, we can destroy the class of people who destroyed you! At least, they destroyed your comfortable middle class lifestyle. Despair not! Under Scientific Socialism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, your training and skills will be in demand. You will be rewarded accordingly. Even now, those same skills can prove to be useful. Do yourself a favour. Join the revolutionary movement.

Engels goes on to say: ”But the perfecting of machinery is making human labour superfluous. If the introduction and increase of machinery means the displacement of millions of manual by a few machine workers, improvement in machinery means the displacement of more and more of the machine workers themselves. It means, in the last instance, the production of a number of available wageworkers in excess of the average needs of capital, the formation of a complete industrial reserve army, as I called it in 1845, available at the times when industry is working at high pressure, to be cast out upon the street when the inevitable crash comes, a constant dead weight upon the limbs of the working class in its struggle for existence with capital, a regulator for the keeping of wages down to the low level that suits the interests of capital. Thus it comes about, to quote Marx, that machinery becomes the most powerful weapon in the war of capital against the working class; that the instruments of labour constantly tear the means of subsistence out of the hands of the labourer; that the very product of the worker is turned into an instrument for his subjugation. Thus it comes about that the economizing of the instruments of labour becomes at the same time, from the outset, the most reckless waste of labour power, and robbery based upon the normal conditions under which labour functions; that machinery, the most powerful instrument for shortening labour time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the labourer’s time, and that of his family, at the disposal of the capitalist, for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital. Thus it comes about that the overwork of some becomes the preliminary condition for the idleness of others, and that modern industry, which hunts after new consumers over the whole world, forces the consumption of the masses at home down to a starvation minimum, and in doing thus destroys its own home market. ‘The law which always holds the relative surplus population or industrial reserve army in equilibrium with the extent and energy of accumulation rivets the worker to capital more firmly than the wedges of Hephaestus held Prometheus to the rock. It makes an accumulation of misery a necessary condition, corresponding to the accumulation of wealth. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, the torment of labour, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, mental degradation at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product as capital.’ And to expect any other division of the products from the capitalistic mode of production is the same as expecting the electrodes of a battery not to decompose acidulated water, not to liberate oxygen at the positive, hydrogen at the negative pole, so long as they are connected with the battery.”(In that last paragraph, Engels quoted a passage from the book of Marx, titled Capital)

Next he proceeded: ”We have seen that the ever increasing perfectibility of modern machinery is, by the anarchy of social production, turned into a compulsory law that forces the individual industrial capitalist always to improve his machinery, always to improve its productive force. The bare possibility of extending the field of production is transformed for him into a similar compulsory law. The enormous expansive force of modern industry, compared with which that of gasses is mere child’s play, appears to us now as a necessity for expansion, both qualitative and quantitative, that laughs at all resistance. Such resistance is offered by consumption, by sales, by the markets for the products of modern industry. But the capacity for extension, extensive and intensive, of the markets is primarily governed by quite different laws, that work much less energetically. The extension of the markets cannot keep pace with the extension of production. The collision becomes inevitable, and as this cannot produce any real solution so long as it does not break in pieces the capitalist mode of production, the collisions become periodic. Capitalist production has begotten another ‘vicious circle”’. (italics by Engels)

This ”collision”, that of the ”extension of markets”, with the ”extension of production”, this cycle of ”boom to bust”, this periodic ”market crash”, is now referred to as a ”recession”, or as a ”depression”, or even as a ”crisis in capitalism”.

Engels then went on to explain that when this happens, ”Commerce is at a standstill, the markets are glutted, products accumulate, as multitudinous as they are unstable, hard cash disappears, credit vanishes, factories are closed, the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much means of subsistence; bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy, execution upon execution. The stagnation lasts for years; productive forces and products are wasted and destroyed wholesale, until the accumulated mass of commodities finally filter off, more or less depreciated in value, until production and exchange gradually begin to move again. Little by little the pace quickens. It becomes a trot. The industrial trot breaks into a canter, the canter in turn grows into a headlong gallop of a perfect steeplechase of industry, commercial credit, and speculation, which finally, after breakneck leaps, ends where it began- in the ditch of a crisis. And so over and over again….In these crises, the contradiction between socialized production and capitalist appropriation ends in a violent explosion. The circulation of commodities is, for the time being, stopped. Money, the means of circulation, becomes a hindrance to circulation. All the laws of production and circulation of commodities are turned upside down. The economic collision has reached its apogee. The mode of production is in rebellion against the mode of exchange.” (italics by Engels)

Strangely enough, this cycle of ”boom to bust”, this ”law of supply and demand”, is one that the capitalists embrace! At the time of the bust, they may be able to ”write off” those losses, and thus recover their money, at tax payer expense, of course. The workers who are out of work have no such recourse. But of course, that is of no concern to the capitalists.

Engels goes on to state: ”The fact that the socialized organization of production within the factory has developed so far that it has become incompatible with the anarchy of production in society, which exists side by side with and dominates it, is brought home to the capitalists themselves by the violent concentration of capital that occurs during crises, through the ruin of many large, and a still greater number of small, capitalists. The whole mechanism of the capitalist mode of production breaks down under the pressure of the productive forces, its own creation. It is no longer able to turn all this mass of means of production into capital. They lie fallow, and for that very reason the industrial reserve army must also lie fallow. Means of production, means of subsistence, available labourers- all the elements of production and of general wealth- are present in abundance. But ‘abundance becomes the source of distress and want’ (Fourier), because it is the very thing that prevents the transformation of the means of production and subsistence into capital. For in capitalistic society the means of production can function only when they have undergone a preliminary transformation into capital, into the means of exploiting human labour power. The necessity of this transformation into capital of the means of production and subsistence stands like a ghost between these and the workers. It alone prevents the coming together of the material and personal levers of production; it alone forbids the means of production to function, the workers to work and live. On the one hand, therefore, the capitalistic mode of production stands convicted of its own incapacity to further direct these productive forces. On the other, these productive forces themselves, with increasing energy, press forward to the removal of the existing contradiction, to the abolition of their quality as capital, to the practical recognition of their character as social productive forces.

”This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognized, forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tend to bring about that form of the socialization of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint stock companies. Many of these means of production and of distribution are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation. At a further stage of evolution, this form also becomes insufficient. The producers on a large scale in a particular branch of industry in a particular country unite in a ‘trust’, a union for the purpose of regulating production. They determine the total amount to be produced, parcel it out among themselves, and thus enforce the selling price fixed beforehand. But trusts of this kind, as soon as business becomes bad, are generally liable to break up, and on this very account compel a yet greater concentration of association. The whole of the particular industry is turned into one gigantic joint stock company; internal competition gives place to the internal monopoly of this one company…

”In the trusts, freedom of competition changes into its very opposite- into monopoly; and the production without definite plan of capitalistic society capitulates to the production upon a definite plan of the invading socialist society. Certainly this is so far still to the benefit and advantage of the capitalists. But in this case the exploitation is so palpable that it must break down. No nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so barefaced an exploitation of the community by a small band of dividend mongers.

”In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society- the state- will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. This necessity for conversion into state property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication- the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.”

In modern society, at least in America, a handful of banks and businesses have been declared to be ”Too Big To Fail”. By implication, all of the rest of the thousands of banks, and tens of thousands of businesses, are ”Too Small To Succeed”. Even General Motors is Too Small To Succeed!

The ”state”, in this case the American government, props up those banks and corporations, which it considers to be ”Too Big To Fail”, with massive ”cash infusions”, whenever necessary. This is a polite reference to ”corporate welfare”, in that the American tax payer donates countless billions to these monopolies.

Incidentally, recently the Secretary of the Treasury donated forty billion dollars to a bank, which was failing, in an attempt to ”prop it up”. The bank failed anyway, so she donated a further seventy billion dollars to an even bigger bank, which was also failing. Of course, that bank also failed.

Numerous people have speculated that she merely took that money from the FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. That money was earmarked to cover the deposits of all those who place their money in the banks, so that if the bank goes broke, the deposits are insured, up to a limit of $250,000, for each individual. Or at least, that used to be the case. We will know for sure, at the time of the next bank failure.

Engles goes on to state: ”If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint stock companies, trusts, and state property show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist are now performed by salaried employees. The capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the stock exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first the capitalist mode of production forces out the workers. Now it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.”

The same capitalists who worked so tirelessly to ”mechanize”, as they phrase it, as a means ‘of increasing production, by laying off workers, are now also unemployed. The word ”ironic” comes to mind. The reason they are first ”reduced to the ranks of the surplus population”, but not ”immediately into the industrial reserve army”, is because they bring with them a considerable amount of wealth, in the form of personal belongings, such as vehicles, artwork, jewelry, cash and perhaps gold and silver, possibly hidden away in safe deposit boxes.

Engels: ”But the transformation, either into joint stock companies and trusts, or into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint stock companies and trusts this is obvious. And the modern state, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments of the workers as well as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wageworkers- proletariats. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head. But brought to a head it topples over. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

”This solution can consist only in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing of the modes of production, appropriation, and exchange with the socialized character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces, which have outgrown all control except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodic collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.”

That which Engles rather politely refers to here as, ”taking over by society of the productive forces”, is nothing other than revolution. The only way that the capitalists are about to allow ”society” to ”take over the productive forces”, is with the use of brute force. This is to say that the government, the state apparatus which has been set up, by the capitalists, to crush the working class, must be smashed, and replaced by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. At that point, ”society”, in the form of the working class, the proletariat, can ”take over the productive forces”.

Engels: ”Active social forces work exactly like natural forces: blindly, forcibly, destructively, so long as we do not understand and reckon with them. But once we understand them, once we grasp their action, their direction, their effects, it depends only upon ourselves to subject them more and more to our own will, and by means of them to reach our own ends. And this holds quite especially of the mighty productive forces of today. So long as we obstinately refuse to understand the nature and the character of these social means of action- and this understanding goes against the grain of the capitalist mode of production and its defenders- so long do these forces work in spite of us, in opposition to us, so long do they master us, as we have shown above in detail.

”But once their nature is understood, they can, in the hands of their producers working together, be transformed from master demons into willing servants. The difference is as that between the destructive forces of electricity in the lightning of the storm and electricity under command in the telegraph and voltaic arc; the difference between a conflagration, and fire working in the service of man. With this recognition, at last, of the real nature of the productive forces of today, the social anarchy of production gives place to a social regulation of production upon a definite plan, according to the needs of the community and of each individual. Then the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, a means to the maintenance and extension of production- on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment.

”While the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. While it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into state property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into state property. (italics by Engels)

”But in doing this it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as a state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state. That is, of an organization of the particular class which was pro tempore the exploiting class, an organization for the purpose of preventing any interference from without, with the existing conditions of production, and therefore especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the conditions of oppression, corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage labour). The state was the official representative of society as a whole; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for the time being, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses rising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society- the taking of possession of the means of production in the name of society- this is at the same time its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free state’, both as to its justifiable use at times for agitational purposes and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.” (italics by Engels)

After the revolution, after the monopoly capitalist class of billionaires are overthrown, their hatred and fury will increase tenfold, as they make every effort to ”regain their paradise lost”. They will resort to every subterfuge, every lie, every deception, in order to return to power. For that reason, a state apparatus is required to crush them. Not the old state apparatus, which was set up by the capitalists, in order to crush the working class. That state apparatus must be destroyed, at the time of the revolution. The new state apparatus is that of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Then, in due time, as classes are gradually abolished, as all people learn to live in peace, to work together, there will no longer be any need for a state apparatus, because there will no longer exist a class to be subjugated. Engles refers to this as the ”withering away of the state”.

Engels: ”Since the historical appearance of the capitalist mode of production, the appropriation of society of all the means of production, has often been dreamed of, more or less vaguely, by individuals as well as sects, as the ideal of the future. But it could become possible, could become a historical necessity, only when the actual conditions for its realization were there. Like every other social advance, it becomes practicable, not by men of understanding that the existence of classes is in contradiction to justice, equality, etc., not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions. The separation of classes into an exploiting and an exploited class, a ruling and an oppressed class, was the necessary consequence of the deficient and restricted development of production in former times. So long as the total social labour yields only a produce which but slightly exceeds that barely necessary for the existence of all; so long, therefore, as labour engages all or almost all the time of the great majority of the members of society- so long, of necessity, is this society divided into classes. Side by side with the great majority, who are no more than bond slaves to labour, which looks after the general affairs of society; the direction of labour, state business, law, science, art, etc. It is, therefore, the law of division of labour that lies at the basis of the division into classes. But this does not prevent this division into classes from being carried out by means of violence and robbery, trickery and fraud. It does not prevent the ruling class, once having the upper hand, from consolidating its power at the expense of the working class, from turning its social leadership into an intensified exploitation of the masses.

”But if, upon this showing, division into classes has a certain historical justification, it has this only for a given period, only under given social conditions. It was based upon the insufficiency of production. It will be swept away by the complete development of modern productive forces. And in fact, the abolition of classes in society presupposes a degree of historical evolution at which the existence not simply of this or that particular ruling class, but of any ruling class at all- and therefore, the existence of class distinction itself- has become an obsolete anachronism. It presupposes therefore, the development of production carried out to a degree at which appropriation of the means of production and of the products, and with this of political domination, of the monopoly of culture, and of intellectual leadership by a particular class of society, has become not only superfluous, but economically, politically, intellectually a hindrance to development.

”This point is now reached. Their political and intellectual bankruptcy is scarcely any longer a secret to the bourgeoisie themselves. Their economic bankruptcy recurs regularly every ten years. In every cycle, society is suffocated beneath the weight of its own productive forces and products, which it cannot use, and stands helpless, face to face with the absurd contradiction that the producers have nothing to consume, because consumers are wanting. The expansive force of the means of production bursts the bonds that the capitalist mode of production had imposed upon them. Their deliverance from these bonds is the one precondition for an unbroken, constantly accelerated development of the productive forces, and therewith for a practically unlimited increase of production itself. Nor is this all. The socialized appropriation of the means of production does away not only with the present artificial restrictions upon production, but also with the positive waste and devastation of the productive forces and products that are, at the present time, the inevitable concomitants of production, and that reach their height, in the crises. Further, it sets free for the community at large a mass of means of production and of products, by doing away with the senseless extravagance of the ruling classes of today and their political representatives. The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties- this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.

”With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and simultaneously the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence, into real human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the domination and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become the master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding and so mastered by him. Man’s own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history- only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity, to the kingdom of freedom.

”Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution.

”I. Medieval society- lndividual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or of his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.

”II. Capitalist revolution- transformation of industry, at first by means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production- a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.

”A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage labour for life. Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

”B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and the social anarchy in production as a whole.

”C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of labourers. Industrial reserve army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, overproduction, glutting of the markets, crises every ten years, the vicious cycle: excess here, of means of production and products- excess there, of labourers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital- which their very super abundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange. The bourgeoisie are convicted of incapacity to further manage their own social productive forces.

”D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint stock companies, later on by trusts, then by the state. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.

”III. Proletarian revolution- Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes public power; and by means of this, transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their social character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the state dies out. Man, at last the master of his own forms of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over nature, his own master- free.

”To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, Scientific Socialism.”

In the interest of ”accomplishing the act of universal emancipation of the modern proletariat”, it is necessary to face the fact that those same ”modern proletarians”, need leaders. The conditions of life, of the proletariat, do not lead to the awareness of themselves, as a class. This class awareness must come from an outside source. The ”full knowledge of the conditions” must be explained to them, in terms they can understand. The ”momentous act it is called to accomplish”, is nothing short of a revolution. The completely reactionary class of monopoly capitalists, the billionaires, the bourgeoisie, must be overthrown. The existing state apparatus, which is used to crush the proletariat, must be smashed, and replaced with a different state apparatus, in order to crush those parasites, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This can best be accomplished with the use of Councils- Soviets.

In other words, the working people need leaders. The only true leaders, of the working people, are those who have embraced the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, and are determined to bring that awareness to those same working people. Such Scientific Socialists must come together and form a true Communist Party, one which calls for Council Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That is the subject of our next chapter.

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)