Introduction
August 1, 2021. E Day. Eviction Day. The day that an estimated eleven million more Americans are scheduled to join the ranks of the homeless, at least if the landlords have their way. That is the day the moratorium on evictions expires, so that is the day the landlords plan to evict all the tenants who cannot pay their rent.
The wits among the working people respond to this news with that which passes for humour. ”The good news it that the federal government has set aside $46 billion for rental assistance. The bad news is that only $3 billion is being spent.”
The fact that the tenants are unemployed and also hungry, due in part to the Covid Virus, is of no concern to the landlords. But then the landlords are small time capitalists, ”petty bourgeois”. The buildings they own represent their invested capitol, and they are determined to harvest the largest possible profit from their investment. That means collecting rent. Those who cannot pay the rent are free to live on the street. Nothing personal. Just business. Just capitalism.
Capitalism is precisely the problem. The capitalists are concerned with their profit, their ”bottom line”. Their goal in life is to make some ”serious money”, as they phrase it. The health and general well being of the ”common people”, the ”little guy”, the ”rank and file”, the working class, the ”masses” -a term I hate, as it sounds so impersonal- are of no concern to the capitalist. For precisely that reason, it is capitalism which has to be abolished and replaced with socialism.
This is not to say that the capitalists are indifferent, concerning the eviction of so many working people. On the contrary, they are quite excited about this. They see this as an ”opportunity”, and the capitalists are constantly looking for opportunities. It is an opportunity to make a huge profit, so that many capitalists are now investing their capital in real estate. The evictions of so many working people can only work in favour of the capitalists!
The fact of the matter is that capitalism crushes and exploits all common people. Many such people are completely degraded, reduced to the level of beggars, relying on hand outs, merely to survive. All too often, they ”self medicate”, through the use, and abuse, of alcohol and drugs. That is ”one side of the coin”, so to speak.
The other side of the coin is the fact that, every so often, people get into motion. Serious motion, if you will excuse the expression. Revolutionary motion, to be precise. This is to say that millions of common people rise up and demand change. We are currently living in a time of revolutionary motion. People are fed up. There are limits. Those who were formerly apathetic are now ”waking up”, as they phrase it. Now is the time for change. Now is the time for socialism.
It is for the benefit of those who are just now ”waking up”, taking an interest in their lives, becoming politically active, demanding change, that I have chosen to write this little article. For that reason, certain important scientific terms are explained. Those who are already familiar with those terms may find this tiresome. Bear in mind that due to the revolutionary motion, from among the countless people who are just now becoming politically active, leaders are bound to emerge. It is necessary to prepare them for socialism. After all, it is the most advanced workers, who will form the vanguard of the proletariat, and we can count upon them to lead the proletariat to socialism.
I say this because the one and only alternative to capitalism is ”scientific socialism”, in the form of the ”Dictatorship Of the Proletariat”. Common people just have to be made aware of that.
Chapter 1
Definition of Classes
Perhaps the first thing our freshly minted revolutionaries are going to have to learn, is that of the existence of classes. In North American, it is customary to deny the existence of classes, or at least that used to be the custom. No doubt the more advanced workers will check for a proper definition, on the internet. It is a wonderful invention, so why not use it?
With that in mind, our rising revolutionary star will learn the following: ”Social classes are hierarchial groupings of individuals that are usually based on wealth, educational attainment, occupation, income or membership in a sub culture or social network.” It goes on to say that ”Many Americans recognize a three tier model that includes the upper class, the middle class, and lower or working class”. In scientific jargon, we refer to this as the capitalist, or ”bourgeois”, definition of classes.
This stands in contrast to that which the internet defines as the ”Marxist” definition of a class, which is defined as ”a group with intrinsic tendencies and interests that differ from those of other groups within society”. If nothing else, it gives common people a place to start.
The internet also reports that most Americans believe that there are three classes in America, as previously listed. This is no doubt a step forward from several years ago, at which time the existence of classes was denied. Then, at around the time of the Occupy Movement, the working people began to sense the existence of classes. They began to refer to themselves as the ”99 percent”, as opposed to the ”1 percent”. The understanding, at that time rather vague, was that the working people formed the vast majority of the population, the 99 percent, while the ”super rich”, the 1 percent, formed the tiny minority. There is some truth to this, and it was a step on the road to class consciousness.
Since that time, the working class has advanced a little farther. Now it is widely understood that working people who are able to make ends meet are ”middle class”, the poverty stricken are ”lower” or ”working class”, while the ”super rich” or billionaires, are ”upper class”. Although still not completely accurate, it is a step forward from the understanding of ”99 percent” versus ”1 percent”. The latest ”three tier model” at least acknowledges the existence of classes.
Much as I personally hate to refer to members of the working class, the proletariat, as ”lower class”, it is a term which is deeply entrenched in literature, as well as in common usage. In much the same way, I hate to refer to the ”super rich”, the monopoly capitalists, the ”bourgeoisie”, as members of the ”upper class”. Yet that expression also is deeply entrenched, so that there is nothing I can do about it. That merely leaves the middle class, or ”petty bourgeois”.
In fact, those of us who work for wages are working class, or ”proletarians”. We have nothing to sell but our labour power. By contrast, the people who own all the factories, mills, mines, railroads, airlines, shipping lines and everything else of any considerable value, are referred to as capitalists, and they are members of a class of people known as the ”bourgeoisie”. The capitalists make their profit from our labour, so it is in their interests to pay their workers as little as possible, while forcing us to work as hard as possible. It is in the interest of the workers to sell ourselves for the highest possible price. This is to say that the interests of the capitalists, the bourgeois, and the interests of the workers, the proletariat, are ”diametrically opposed”. That which is in the best interest of one class, is in the worst interest of the other class.
These scientific terms I have placed in quotation marks, as it is important that all working people should learn their meaning. Otherwise, the capitalists will not hesitate to use our lack of awareness of these terms, against us.
That leaves only the members of the middle class, referred to as ”petty bourgeois”. These people tend to be owners of small businesses, in that such a business is not part of a corporate monopoly. By and large, they are living on ”borrowed time”, as the corporations have yet to drive them into bankruptcy. Such businesses could include the corner store, for example, or the family owned farm. All are about to go the way of the dodo bird. The monopoly capitalists, the bourgeoisie, working through their corporations, are doing a fine job of eliminating all competition.
If nothing else, this simplifies the class struggle, especially in America, which is the name by which all citizens of the United States refer to themselves. Out of respect for those people, I have chosen to also refer to them as such.
This is to say that Americans have long since given the nobility, otherwise known as the monarchy, their walking papers. The Queen of England is of no concern to Americans. The peasants, otherwise known as family farmers, are now few and far between. Formerly, at the point where the farmer was no longer able to work the farm, the children would take over. That is no longer the case. The children of farmers know better. There are easier ways to work themselves into bankruptcy. Likewise, the small business owner cannot compete with the monopolies, so that they too are being ruined.
This is another way of saying that the class struggle is now sharp and clear. Very simple. Us against them. The workers versus the capitalists. The proletariat battling the bourgeoisie. No holds barred. No quarter. Winner takes it all. War to the finish.
Chapter 2
Scientific Socialism
Now we have established the fact of the existence of two main classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as well as the fact that there is a war raging between them. This war has been raging for perhaps three hundred years, ever since the industrial revolution gave birth to those two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. After all, one class cannot exist without the class opposite to it, or ”antipode”, as is the correct scientific term. Sometimes this war in hidden, simmering, as it were, and sometimes it flares up into open rebellion. We are very close to the point that the class war will explode into armed conflict. We had best be prepared. This is to say that we had best focus on our goals.
This calls for a little explanation. Some people may find such details tiresome, but bear with me, as it is important.
At the time of the industrial revolution, which started in Great Britain, the class of people known as the burghers, saw an opportunity to invest in factories, mills, mines, railroads, shipping lines and such, and make some money. They succeeded, beyond their wildest dreams. In the process, they became known as bourgeois, a possible corruption of the word burgher, and hired people to work for them, mainly peasants and artisans. These people were transformed into workers, or proletarians, so that two new classes were created.
The capitalists, or bourgeois, knew that they were making a huge profit. They did not know how this was happening, and they really did not care. That is largely true to this day! Their one and only concern is with their profit, their ”bottom line”, as they phrase it. Yet the economists of the day were concerned, but could not figure it out. With the exception of Karl Marx.
It was Marx, along with his friend and fellow scientist Fredrich Engels, who first conducted a scientific examination of capitalism. This stands in stark contrast to several other ”utopian socialists” of the time, fine fellows one and all, who attempted to create socialism, in their own way, under capitalism.
Perhaps the most famous, at least in Great Britain, was Robert Owen, a British industrialist, who lived from 1771 to 1858. He truly cared about people, especially the folks who worked for him. He believed, as all utopian socialists believe, that the best way to enact change, is by first changing moral values and external conditions. With that in mind, he set up a textile manufacturing plant in a place referred to as New Lenark, in Scotland. His goal was to create a community in which ”workers were paid what they were worth, and shared everything”.
No one can find fault with his ambition. Such a cause is to be admired. There were several other individuals, also utopian socialists, who conducted similar experiments in Europe, at around the same time. All of these experiments ended in failure, through no fault of the socialists. It is simply not possible to create socialism, under capitalism.
This has not stopped other utopian socialists from attempting to create similar socialist societies. Senator Sanders of Vermont, who describes himself as an Independent Socialist, is perhaps the most famous, and certainly well respected. He is also just as mistaken as Owen. In time, he and his followers will find that we can live under capitalism or socialism, but not both, not at the same time.
My point is that it was Marx who conducted a scientific examination of capitalism, and explained how the capitalists made their profit. More than that, he determined a few other things, but perhaps it would be best to allow Marx to explain this, in his own words. In a letter to Weydemeyer, dated March 5, 1852, he stated: ”And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society, nor yet the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle, and bourgeois economists the economic anatomy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: 1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production; 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
I should add that I have chosen to place capitols on the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, as I consider it to be of such vital importance. After all, it is the ”touchstone” of a true Marxist.
So now we have a goal upon which to focus. This is vitally important, as there are a great many socialists, including those who claim to be Marxists, who maintain that the class struggle is at the core of Marx’s theory. It is not. But from this error springs the distortions, the falsifications, in order to make it acceptable to the bourgeoisie. The people who distort the Marxism are completely devoid of principle, referred to as ”opportunists”. They are careful to call for only that which the bourgeoisie find to be acceptable. The class struggle is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. The Dictatorship Of the Proletariat is absolutely not acceptable.
Lenin made this quite clear in his work State And Revolution. As he stated. ”The theory of the class struggle was not created by Marx, but by the bourgeoisie before Marx, and generally speaking is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; these may be found to have gone no further than the boundaries of bourgeois reasoning and bourgeois politics. To limit Marxism to the theory of the class struggle means curtailing Marxism, distorting it, reducing it to something which is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. A Marxist is one who extends the acceptance of the class struggle to the acceptance of the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. This is where the profound difference lies between a Marxist and an ordinary petty (and even big) bourgeois. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and acceptance of Marxism should be tested.” (italics by Lenin)
No doubt the members of the working class who have just recently ”woken up”, become politically active, are bound to be confused by the numerous ”Leftist” organizations and political parties. Incidentally, the term Leftist is used in reference to anything which is thought to favour the working class. Also, some political parties claim to be Marxist, while others may claim to be socialist, but not Marxist.
The important thing to remember is that the political parties which claim to be Marxist, but deny the necessity of the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, are ”social chauvinists”, socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds. They are defending the bourgeoisie, not to be trusted. We cannot work with them, although there is hope for the rank and file members. The leaders of such parties are almost certainly well aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, and equally well determined to distort those theories. There is no point is trying to reason with them, as they are devoted servants of the bourgeoisie.
By contrast, the parties and groups which claim to be socialist, but not Marxist, we can work with. It matters not if they call themselves Independent Socialists, or Social Democrats, or Democratic Socialists or just plain socialists. They are fighting for socialism, or at least reforms under capitalism. Bear in mind that reforms ”strengthen and further the revolutionary movement”, according to Marx, so that we can absolutely work with them. But then again, we must still be allowed to put forward our own beliefs in revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. That is a necessary condition for our involvement with them.
Chapter 3
Democracy: Bourgeois and Proletarian
Perhaps we should start by stating that the state apparatus, commonly referred to as the government, came into existence only with the appearance of the first classes. Of course those two classes were slaves and slave owners. As the slaves had a rather annoying habit of rebelling, it was necessary for the slave owners to devise a system of keeping the slaves in their place. With that in mind, the slave owners created a body of armed men. It was their duty to hunt down and capture any escaped slaves, and to crush any slave uprising. In this manner, the first state apparatus was formed. For the slaves it was a dictatorship, as they had no rights, but for the slave owners, it was a democracy.
Over the years, different forms of state apparatus have evolved, as different classes have evolved. Yet all forms of state apparatus serve the same purpose. It is the method one class, the ruling class, uses to suppress all subordinate classes. That is true to this day. In America, the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, are the ruling class, and their method of rule is that of the democratic republic.
As anyone who has recently watched the news can testify, the journalists are focused on the ”events of January 6”, which they refer to as the ”one six insurrection”. As I have previously documented, it is certainly true that a window was broken, and apparently a police officer was knocked to the ground. If that is their idea of an insurrection, then they are about to receive a rude awakening! Of course, the capitalists are terrified, as on that day, a great many peaceful protesters -along with a few vandals- marched on the capitol, walked into the government building, almost unopposed, and terrified the politicians. In the process, they exposed the weakness of the capitol.
Of course the journalists are giving their own ”spin” to the story. At first, the protesters were accused of being ”anarchists”, in the service of Donald Trump, as they are convinced that ”Trump won the election”. The journalists refer to this as the ”Big Lie”. They could not make that ”stick”, as it was pointed out to them that anarchists are determined to have no government. As the protesters were determined to reinstate Trump as president, they could not possibly be anarchists.
So now the journalists have ”changed their tune”. They are now saying that the ”one six insurrection” was a ”threat to democracy”. This is closer to the truth. In fact, it is a threat to democracy, the democracy of the capitalists, ”bourgeois democracy”. Such little details the journalists neglect to mention.
I am sure our ”newly awakened”, politically active members of the working class are suspicious -or at least I so hope and pray- and I am equally sure you will be checking with the internet. I too conducted such a search. The response of my search for a definition of democracy was much as I anticipated: ”a system of government by the whole population or all the elegible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”. That is very close to the definition of democracy which is taught in schools, that of ”majority rule”.
The Marxist understanding of democracy is not quite so ”cut and dried”. Lenin explains this quite well in his work, State and Revolution: ”In capitalist society, under the conditions most favourable to its development, we have more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always restricted by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in reality, a democracy for the minority, only for the possessing classes, only for the rich. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves are also so crushed by want and poverty that ‘they cannot be bothered with democracy’, ‘they cannot be bothered with politics’; in the ordinary peaceful course of events the majority of the population is debarred from participating in social and political life.”
That is, without doubt, a more accurate, detailed description of democracy, a far cry from the ”majority rule” of popular belief. The discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the capitalists own the internet, just as they own all the major news outlets, so that all information, including breaking news as well as definitions, are biased in favour of the capitalists.
Yet the fact remains that under the ”democratic republic”, we have ”more or less complete democracy”. This democracy is ”restricted by the narrow framework of capitalist exploitation”, so that it remains a democracy ”for the rich”. We refer to this democracy, under capitalism, as ”bourgeois democracy”. It is a democracy for the bourgeois, but a dictatorship for the proletariat.
It should also be pointed out that there is a big difference between a republic and a country which recognizes a monarch. A republic does not recognize any monarch, which is to say a king or queen, so that the United States is a democratic republic. By contrast, Canada does recognize the Queen of England as the Head of State, the Queen of Canada. Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy.
As I have documented, in a previous article, some of the ways in which democracy is curtailed in America, there is no need to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that it is the members of the Electoral College who elect the President and the Vice President, not the voters. Democracy is also curtailed in Canada, only in a different manner.
As previously mentioned, Queen Elizabeth of England is our Head of State. She is in turn represented in Canada by a Governor General, in this case Mary Simon. It is Mary Simon whom in turn chooses the Canadian head of government, in our case the Prime Minister, and she has the power to act as a restraint on the power of the Prime Minister. According to the internet -a most valuable source of information, however biased- her responsibilities include ”carrying out constitutional duties, serving as Commander in Chief, representing Canada at home and abroad, encouraging excellence, and bringing Canadians together”.
Perhaps there is some confusion concerning the ”state”, as opposed to the ”government”. Most people consider them to be the same, different names for one entity. But as Her Majesty is the Queen of Canada, our Head of State, but not part of our government, they cannot be the same.
In order to provide some clarity, I checked with the internet. They provided their own definition: ”The state is the organization, while the government is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy that controls the state apparatus at a given time. That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed”. Now we know.
In the case of Canada, the state organization, or ”machine”, has been set up by the nobility and the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, in order to crush and exploit the common people, the working class. The precise individuals who serve in any capacity, at any given time, may vary from one year to the next, or at best from one election to the next. They form the ”government”, but regardless of the name of the political party, all serve the same class or classes, in our case the nobility and the bourgeoisie.
As an example, let us assume that the Conservatives have a majority in Parliament, so that the Prime Minister is a member of the Conservative Party. Let us further assume that at the time of a federal election, a different political party, perhaps the Liberals, managed to achieve a majority in Parliament. At that point, it is the duty of the Governor General to appoint a new Prime Minister, a member of the Liberal Party, as the new Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister could then be expected to appoint her cronies, ”party faithful”, to key positions within the ”new government”. This includes members of the Cabinet, for example. Different government, different faces, same state apparatus, serving the same capitalist class, crushing the same working class.
As Marx phrased it, federal elections allow the working class to ”decide once in every three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in parliament”. Which in no way lessens the importance of the federal elections. It stands as an ”index of maturity of the working class.” For that reason, if for no other, it is of vital importance to vote in all elections.
Here we have another fine example of democracy which is ”restricted”. Just as Americans do not elect their President, so too Canadians do not elect their Prime Minister. That little detail is covered by the Governor General, the same lady whose job it is to ”bring us together”. Now that is a tall order! If there is any group of people who are more divided than the Americans, it is the Canadians!
This is significant, because it is just a matter of time before the revolution breaks out in America. Then it will almost certainly spread to Canada. The two countries have a great deal in common. It is very likely that both countries will form separate independent socialist republics, so that Canadians will finally kiss the British Queen good bye! It cannot happen too soon! It is also quite possible that areas of both countries will unite. That remains to be seen, and is completely up to the people who live in those areas. Yet two examples come immediately to mind. The fact is that northern New England has a great deal in common with the Maritime Provinces, just as Alaska has a great deal in common with the Yukon Territory. The idea that those areas could merge, into separate socialist republics, is quite conceivable.
This brings us to the subject of our next chapter, that of paving the way for the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, through the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus.
Chapter 4
The Smashing of the Existing State Apparatus
In the last chapter we documented that democracy under capitalism, the rule of the bourgeoisie, is always restricted, twisted, distorted. Our goal, the goal of Marxists, is to establish democracy for the vast majority, the common people, the working class, the proletariat. This can only be accomplished through the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat.
This may at first sound like an ”oxymoron”, a contradiction in terms. How can a dictatorship be democratic? Yet we have already established that a democracy is merely a method of class rule, that of one class over another class. Under the current American bourgeois democratic republic, it is the bourgeois that rule, so that it is a democracy for the bourgeoisie, but a dictatorship over the proletariat.
The state apparatus which has been set up by the bourgeoisie, with the express purpose of crushing and exploiting the vast majority of people, the working class, the proletariat, must be smashed. This state apparatus includes the police, the standing army, the bureaucracy, the prisons and other coercive institutions. It must be replaced by a different state apparatus, a proletarian state apparatus, with the goal of crushing the desperate and determined resistance of the bourgeois. Rest assured, after the socialist revolution, the resistance of the bourgeoisie will be increased ten fold, as they attempt to restore their ”paradise lost”. They will resort to any subterfuge, any lie, any deception, to subvert the newly created democratic republic- the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat- and return to power.
Marx was supremely well aware of this, as he was born into the middle class, the petty bourgeois. As was Engels, for that matter. Yet both turned their backs upon a comfortable middle class life style and devoted their lives to the service of the common people. Those who are prejudiced against the middle class intellectuals would do well to bear this in mind!
As social scientists, they determined that society develops according to certain laws. After years of careful study of capitalism, Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, in 1848. It gave the working class people of all countries a proper direction. Yet it was not until 1871 that the working people of Paris rose up and formed the Paris Commune. For the first time in history, a working class, proletarian government took shape. This provided Marx with the information he needed, as he had no idea, until that time, of the precise form that the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat should take. But perhaps it would be best to allow Lenin to explain the significance, that of the Paris Commune, as he stated in State and Revolution:
”Marx, however, was not only enthusiastic about the heroism of the Communards who ‘stormed the heavens’, as he expressed it. Although it did not achieve its aim, he regarded the mass revolutionary movement as a historic experiment of gigantic proportions, as an advance of the world proletarian revolution, as a practical step that was more important than hundreds of programs and discussions. Marx conceived his task to be to analyze this experiment, to draw lessons in tactics from it, to reexamine his theory in the light it afforded.
”Marx made the only ‘correction’ he thought it necessary to make in the Communist Manifesto on the basis of the revolutionary experience of the Paris Communards.
”The last preface to the new German edition of The Communist Manifesto, signed by both its authors, is dated June 24, 1872. In this preface the authors, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, say that the program of the Communist Manifesto ‘has in some details become antiquated ‘ now, and they go on to say: ‘One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes’”(italics by Lenin)
This is of vital importance, especially now that the American revolution could break out at any day. The American revolutionaries must not repeat the mistakes of the revolutionary workers of Paris, those who took part in the Paris Commune! The biggest mistake they made was in not smashing the existing state machine! Instead, they tried to take over the existing state machine, and use it for their own purposes! Yet the state machine has been carefully designed by the capitalists, for the express purpose of crushing the working class. It stands to reason that the people who manage to take control of that state machine, will inevitably end up using it, for that same purpose! Unless that state machine is smashed, the revolution will succeed only in replacing one set of rulers with another! Out of the frying pan, into the fire!
This helps to explain the rather ”peculiar” behaviour of the social chauvinists. They claim to be Marxists, and in fact, tend to be supremely well educated, aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. They are also well aware that those revolutionary theories are correct, that revolution is about to break out, and soon. As they also have the ideology of the capitalist, they see the revolution as an ”opportunity”. It is simply a matter of pretending to be a Marxist, establishing themselves as leaders of the working class, and at the time of the revolution, setting themselves up as the new rulers, perhaps even as the first ”Marxist” President! We already had a first Black President, so why not a Marxist President?
Yet if the working people, those who are taking part in the revolution, manage to mount a successful insurrection, storm the capitol and smash the existing state apparatus -God forbid!- then the juicy political plums, such as the presidency, will be lost forever! For that reason, the working people must not be made aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Logic of the social chauvinists! There is a method to their madness!
No doubt there are a great many people who scoff at revolutionary theory. They tend to take great pride in their actions, properly so. Yet perhaps they should take to heart the advice of Engels, which is that ”without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary motion”.
It may help to think of the working class, the proletariat, as an army at war, which is precisely the case. The enemy is the capitalists, the bourgeoisie. They are also very strong, deeply entrenched. But then they have had many years to prepare their defences. Now the general in charge of the attacking proletarian forces would do well to focus on a clear objective. Otherwise the proletarian forces would end up scattered, disorganized, possibly even fighting each other! By contrast, the proletarian general who focuses her attacks, sending her troops against a specific target, is far more likely to be successful. The ultimate goal is of vital importance. It is important to ”keep your eye on the ball”. In this case, the ”ball”, the ultimate goal, is the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. This goal can only be reached by first smashing the existing state apparatus.
Chapter 5
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautksy
Lenin also had his hands full with the social chauvinists. Immediately after the Russian revolution of November 7, 1917, the most advanced strata of the proletariat, in many countries of the world, embraced the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. In response to this, the capitalists and social chauvinists launched a most vicious campaign of slander and distortion. Perhaps the most skillful of these was a former Marxist, a highly respected individual by the name of Karl Kautsky. His pamphlet, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, stands to this day as a masterful distortion of Marxism. As the American working class becomes familiar with the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, we can expect the American bourgeoisie, as well as the American social chauvinists, to sing the praises of Kautsky. For that reason, it is best to give a little historical background.
In his early days, Kautsky was a superb Marxist. Yet that was at a time of relative peace, in the sense that the so called ”Great Powers”, by which was meant the most highly industrialized countries of the world, were preparing to destroy each other.
These ”great predatory powers” were involved in a ”rivalry in conquest”, as by the second decade of the twentieth century, the whole world had been divided up between them. The British were quite proud of the fact that ”the sun never sets on the British Empire”. They bragged of this constantly. This merely had the effect of ”rubbing salt into the wound”, as the Germans, in particular, felt cheated. They had far fewer colonies than Britain, and thought it best to ”level the playing field”. With that in mind, two huge world alliances took shape, one led by Britain, and the other led by Germany. Britain and her friends became known as the Allied Powers, and included France, Italy, America, Russia, Romania, Japan and their colonies. The opposing world power, led by Germany, included Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, and their colonies. They became known as the Axis Powers. The Axis was determined to secure more colonies, while the Allies were determined to hang on to the colonies they had, and preferably add to them. It was a war to redivide the world, and has gone down in history as World War 1. Caught in the middle were the common people, the workers and peasants. They were the ”cannon fodder”, and were sacrificed, by the millions.
In 1914, at the outbreak of the ”Great Imperialist Slaughter”, the tension reached a fever pitch. The monopoly capitalists, the ”imperialists”, the bourgeoisie, of each warring country, were calling for the ”defence of the fatherland”. Most of the Marxists, those whom had previously been so zealously calling for revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, collapsed under pressure. They largely converted to social chauvinism, those who are socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds. That included Karl Kautsky, a man who has since gone down in history as the ”Benedict Arnold” of Marxism. As mentioned earlier, his pamphlet, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, was widely praised by the capitalists of the time. As very soon the American proletariat will also be discussing the forth coming revolution and the subsequent Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, no doubt the American capitalists will also be singing the praises of Kautsky. For that reason, it is perhaps best to discuss his pamphlet in more detail.
It was Lenin who responded to the ”revisionist” efforts of Kautsky, with his own pamphlet, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.
As an aside, we should add that a ”revisionist” is one who attempts to revise the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. Bear in mind that both Marx and Engels lived in the age of competitive capitalism, at a time in which capitalism had certain progressive features. The age of monopoly capitalism, referred to as ”imperialism”, appeared at around the beginning of the twentieth century, and has absolutely no progressive characteristics. The characteristics of imperialism were documented by Lenin, quite clearly, in his landmark work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
Lenin documented the revisionist heresies of Kautsky in the following manner: ”Kautsky’s pamphlet, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat…is a most lucid example of that utter and ignominious bankruptcy of the Second International about which all honest socialists in all countries have been talking for a long time. The proletarian revolution is now becoming a practical issue in a number of countries, and an examination of Kautsky’s renegade sophistries and his complete renunciation of Marxism is therefore essential.”
It is also a fact that the ”proletarian revolution” is once again a ”practical issue in a number of countries”, and it is once again ”essential” to examine his ”renegade sophistries and his complete renunciation of Marxism”. The reason for this is quite simple. The social chauvinists are quite predictable. They can be expected to rehash the same old garbage which has been spewed out many years ago. They will extol the book of Kautsky as a model of Marxist literature, as a ”clarification” of the scientific theories of Marx.
Lenin make this quite clear when he went on to state: ”Kautksy… is a most typical and striking example of how a verbal recognition of Marxism has led in practice…into a bourgeois liberal theory recognizing the non revolutionary ”class” struggle of the proletariat…By means of patent sophistry, Marxism is stripped of its revolutionary spirit; everything is recognized in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of struggle, the propaganda and preparation of those methods, and the education of the masses in this direction. Kautsky ‘reconciles’ in an unprincipled way the fundamental idea of social chauvinism…The working class cannot play its world revolutionary role unless it wages a ruthless struggle against this backsliding, spinelessness, subservience to opportunism, and unparalleled vulgarization of the theories of Marxism”
As is well known, at the time this article was written, a number of countries, especially in western Europe, were ripe for revolution. Yet that revolution never took place, if only because the working people were deprived of their leaders. Most of the Marxists took the lead of Kautsky and became social chauvinists, devoted servants of the capitalists. There were notable exceptions, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht of Germany, fine Marxists, people of principle. As such, the capitalists recognized them as the threat they were, and had them murdered.
Modern day Marxists, otherwise known as Communists, would do well to bear this in mind. While putting forth the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin, they would be well advised to take reasonable precautions.
It is true that in various countries of western Europe, numerous uprisings took place. These were isolated and scattered incidents, lacked focus and direction, as there were no Marxist leaders to provide the proper direction. This merely confirms the advice of Engels, to the effect that ”without a proper revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary motion”. Americans would do well to bear that in mind!
We now have some fine tools, as modern technology has provided us with various electronic digital devices, as well as the internet. We can use these to communicate with each other, as well as countless working people. The ”perverts”, including child molesters and human traffickers, manage to stay in touch, using something referred to as the ”dark net”, so it can clearly be done.
We can expect the capitalists to perpetuate the myth of ”pure democracy”, as opposed to a dictatorship, and in particular the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. It is the duty of true Marxists, Communists, to make the working class aware that of the fact that pure democracy is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Democracy is merely a state apparatus, a method by which one class suppresses, crushes, another class. There is nothing ”pure” about a class being crushed! Under bourgeois democracy, the tiny class of the minority, the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, rules. They in turn crush the vast majority, the working class, the proletariat. They also exploit the proletariat. It is democracy for the bourgeoisie, but a dictatorship for the proletariat.
By contrast, under the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, the working class, the proletariat, rules. They in turn crush the tiny minority of capitalists, the bourgeoisie. For the vast majority, the proletariat, it is a democracy, but for the tiny minority of former exploiters, the bourgeoisie, it is a dictatorship.
As explained in a previous article, most American working people can read, and have access to digital devices. This is not to say they those same workers are ”Philadelphia lawyers”, as they are not. So this has to be explained to them, in terms they can understand.
Now when the capitalists refer to democracy, which is a method of class rule, our response must be, ”democracy for which class?”
Bear in mind that Lenin refers to the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat as the ”very essence of proletarian revolution”. He goes on to say that ”This is a question that is of the greatest importance for all countries, especially for the advanced ones, especially for those at war, and especially at the present time. One may say, without fear of exaggeration, that this is the key problem of the entire proletarian class struggle. It is therefore, necessary to pay particular attention to it.”
We can expect the modern day journalists, devoted servants of the bourgeoisie, one and all, to compare the two ”methods”, ”democratic” with the ”dictatorial”. We can count on them to not distinguish between the social chauvinists and the true Marxists, the Communists. Just because the social chauvinists refer to themselves as Marxists, does not make it true! Yet no doubt the journalists will sing the praises of the social chauvinists, the Benedict Arnolds of Marxism. They will be praised as the more ”moderate elements”, ”true democrats”, as opposed to those who call for the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat.
Our response, in every possible situation, must be to stress the fact that democracy is a method of class rule. There is no ”pure democracy”, any more than there is any ”democracy in general”.
Further, proletarian democracy is far superior to bourgeois democracy. The one and only form of proletarian democracy lies in the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. At each and every situation, we must raise the question of democracy for which class? At every rally, every demonstration, every political gathering, our posters and banners must raise this question! It is in this manner, and only in this manner, that the working class will become aware of the fact that democracy is a matter of class rule. They will also become aware of the fact that the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat is the very essence of the doctrine of Marx!
We can also expect the capitalists, working through their journalists and possibly their social chauvinists, to contrast democracy with a dictatorship. After all, they tend to be completely predictable! Our response must be to point out the obvious, which is that in ancient times, the state of the slave owners was a dictatorship. The slaves had no rights, but of course it was a democracy for the slave owners. Then, as now, a democracy for one class is nothing more than a dictatorship over another class. A democracy is a dictatorship! Under bourgeois democracy, it is democracy for the bourgeois, but a dictatorship over the proletariat. Under proletarian democracy, the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, it is a democracy for the working class, but a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie.
The social chauvinists may also insist that a dictatorship implies the rule of a single person. It most certainly does not, so it is up to the true Marxists to draw the attention to the existence of classes. It is only in such a manner that the awareness of the working class, the proletariat, can be raised to that of the level of Marxists.
In desperation, they may even resort to accusing the Marxists of threatening to use force to stay in power, as dictatorship implies a rule unrestricted by any laws. This is most emphatically true. In fact, Lenin expressed himself quite clearly on this very point:
”Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any law. The revolutionary Dictatorship Of the Proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any law…dictatorship presupposes and implies a ‘condition’, one so disagreeable to renegades, of revolutionary violence of one class against another”.
The social chauvinists refuse -or are unable?- to face the fact that the capitalists must be overthrown, and that this can only be accomplished through revolution. In no other way can the bourgeois state machine be smashed, and replaced with a proletarian state apparatus, one which has the sole aim of crushing the bourgeoisie. That proletarian state machine is referred to as the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, and it is violence against the bourgeoisie. The necessity of such violence is particularly called for by the existence of militarism and bureaucracy!
Another popular argument of the social chauvinists, the traitors to Marxism, is that as we have such a huge majority, far more workers than capitalists, then there is no need to crush the bourgeoisie. So why do we need a dictatorship? They would have us believe that after the revolution, all workers and -former- capitalists can unite as brothers. They would have us embrace the fable of ”the lion shall lie down with the lamb”. Mankind will then enter an ”Age of Aquarius”, in that ”peace and tranquility, equality and understanding” shall reign supreme. That would be so nice! It is not about to happen! It may be written in the stars, according to astrologers, but no where is it engraved in stone, here on planet earth! Even if it is engraved in stone, it remains a barefaced lie!
Feel free to face reality! The fact is that it is possible to defeat the oppressors at one stroke, possibly by a successful uprising in the capitol, similar to that which happened on January 6, or ”one six”, as is the common expression. In such a manner the capitalists will be overthrown, but not destroyed! Even after the capitalists are deposed, they will still remain stronger than the proletariat! Face the facts! Unless they are suppressed, absolutely crushed, they will most certainly return to power!
All working people are well aware that no one wants to lower their standard of living. The billionaires are no exception! They are accustomed to living in the ”lap of luxury”. Servants wait on them ”hand and foot”. They own houses that can only be described as mansions, regular palaces. As well, they have fleets of luxury vehicles, yachts and even jet aircraft, so that they can fly to any place in the world, at any time, to satisfy any whim. They have never done an honest days work in their lives, certainly not manual labour, and have no intention of starting! Their idea of a joke is to say that ”manual labour” is a Spanish peasant! Yet the social chauvinists would have us believe that those are the same people who are going to embrace the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat! Fat chance! There is no way on Gods green earth that they are about to get their hands dirty!
On the contrary, at this moment, meaning before the revolution, the billionaires are not even concerned! It is characteristic of any and all ruling classes, and the capitalists are no exception, to believe that their rule will last forever! It just never occurs to them that they can be overthrown! Such thoughts never cross their mind! And no wonder! They pay their flunkies to worry about such little details!
These flunkies, belly crawling boot lickers, one and all, are paid quite handsomely, to tell the billionaires that which the billionaires want to hear! They earn their pay! They assure the capitalists that ”all bases are covered”, ”there is nothing to worry about”, ”everything is under control”, the sounds from the streets are merely ”loud noises”. The capitalists believe them!
In fact, the ”loud noises” from the streets, are the sounds of revolution! The protests, the marches and demonstrations, are the sound of the working class rising up! The Autonomous Zones, which are springing up across the country are the equivalent to the Soviets, councils of workers! The states which are uniting, in various parts of the country, are about to declare independence and form separate socialist republics! They are also about to tell Washington what they can do with their national debt!
We can expect the American revolution to take the shape of an Insurrection, much as happened on November 7, 1917, in the Russian capitol of Saint Petersburg. At that time, the first socialist republic was formed, a true Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, although in that case they were assisted by the poor peasants. We can also expect the forth coming American revolution to be led by women, as the American proletarian men have not fulfilled their duty. By contrast, the women have proven themselves to be excellent organizers. We can only hope that the men will follow their lead. On that day, the capitalists will learn the meaning of the word Insurrection! It involves something more than breaking a window and knocking down a cop!
On the day of the Insurrection, the first day of the revolution, we can expect the flunkies of the capitalists to have a ”conversion”, so that they will instantly be converted into die hard revolutionaries. They will abandon the capitalists in droves! They will approach us with outstretched hands, warm smiles on their faces! We in turn must embrace them as the brothers and sisters, the comrades that they are! Their past service to the capitalists must not be held against them! We can use all the help we can get! Besides, the capitalists have trained them well! They have certain skills which, no doubt, will prove to be quite useful!
By contrast, on that day the capitalists will be completely stunned, alone and isolated, for perhaps the first time in their lives. They will cry out in vain for their servants. Slowly, the horrible, sickening realization will dawn on them, the fact that the unimaginable has happened. The unthinkable. The ”plebians” have rebelled. The lower classes have revolted. Their whole world, that of luxury and decadence, has just come crashing down.
Most will resist the first mad impulse to end it all, to commit suicide, although a few will succumb to temptation, just as so many Nazis ended their own lives, as the Third Reich came crashing down. The more stalwart will brace themselves for the coming battle, against the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. They will be determined to restore their ”paradise lost”, to return to their life of luxury. It is simply a matter of overthrowing the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat.
Lenin had a few words to say, concerning the social chauvinist Kautsky, and his nonsense of ”majority rule”. As Lenin stated: ”In these circumstances, to assume that in a revolution which is at all profound and serious the issue is decided simply by the relation between the majority and minority is the acme of stupidity, the silliest prejudice of a common liberal, an attempt to deceive the people by concealing from them a well established historical truth. This historical truth is that in every profound revolution, the prolonged, stubborn and desperate resistance of the exploiters, whom for a number of years retain important practical advantages over the exploited, is the rule. Never -except in the sentimental fantasies of the sentimental fool Kautsky- will the exploiters submit to the decision of the exploited majority, without trying to make use of their advantages in a last desperate battle, or series of battles.” (italics by Lenin)
That is precisely the reason we need the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat! Either we crush the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, or they will return to power!
Lenin goes on to state: ”The transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope turns into attempts at restoration. After their first serious defeat, the overthrown exploiters- whom had not expected their overthrow, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it- throw themselves with energy grown ten fold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundred fold, into the battle for the recovery of the ‘paradise’, of which they were deprived, on behalf of their families, whom had been leading such a sweet and easy life, and whom now the ‘common herd’ is condemning to ruin and destitution”.
Chapter 6
Preparing For the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat
Revolutionary situations call for revolutionary measures. The current situation is revolutionary, and this is no exception. No doubt there are countless things which should be done, but it is important to ”keep your eye on the ball”, or as Lenin phrased it, to focus on the ”key link”. The key link now is to prepare for the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat.
The level of awareness of the working class must be raised, to the level of that of a true Marxist. More accurately, the most advanced workers must be made aware of the revolutionary theories of Marx and Lenin. These workers are the ”vanguard” of the working class, as the less advanced pay strict attention to the opinion of the more advanced.
Marxists must work as closely as possible with the utopian socialists, those who consider themselves to be socialists, but not Marxists. At the same time, we must distinguish ourselves from the social chauvinists, the Benedict Arnolds of Marxism.
All American citizens should be encouraged to become card carrying members of the two mainstream political parties, Democrat and Republican. As such, they can then run for any and all political office, hopefully flooding Washington with socialists. In the process, they will learn the meaning of ”bourgeois democracy”. Experience is such a fine teacher!
The creation of ”Autonomous Zones” is to be encouraged, but not in the geographical sense. The experience of the Seattle Autonomous Zone has proven that the capitalists will not tolerate any Zones which claim to be Autonomous. They see such Zones as a threat to their rule, which is precisely the case. So such Zones must work ”underground”. The members must receive military training, including the use of firearms, and prepare for an Insurrection, the first step of the revolution.
The creation of a true Marxist political party is essential, American Communist Party, Dictatorship Of the Proletariat, ACP,DOP. Without such a Party to give the proper direction, it is doubtful that the revolution can succeed.
Make full use of the internet. Take every reasonable precaution. Remember that Rosa Luxemburg was a martyr, and we do not need any more martyrs.
Prepare revolutionary literature for working people. Most such literature is a crashing bore, so try to be entertaining, but by no means vulgar. Bear in mind that the best way to educate people, is by entertaining them at the same time. They are also interested in more than just wages and working conditions, so bear that in mind.
Tailor the literature for the audience. The more advanced workers must receive more advanced literature, while the less advanced must receive more popular literature. No workers must be neglected.
Organize more marches and demonstrations. Harass the capitalists wherever they are. That includes their offices, places of business, homes, vacation resorts and banks. Allow them no peace. Carry posters and banners which call for the Dictatorship Of the Proletariat. As soon as that becomes a popular expression, we will know that it is time to organize an Insurrection.
Gerald McIsaac Science Project 