Forgot your password?
Long Live Leninism!
[Communist Party of China]
LONG LIVELENINISMFirst Edition April 1960 | .gif)
|
Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, djr@cruzio.com (February 1998)
- PUBLISHER'S NOTE
Certain translation and typographical errors in the first and second editions have been corrected in this edition.
[Transcriber's Note: In the printed edition of the following documents, quoted passages of any length appear in the same size type, but are indented as a block. In the following on-line version, these passages are NOT indented as a block, but appear in a smaller point font.-- DJR]
|
LONG LIVE
LENINISM! FORWARD ALONG THE
PATH OF THE GREAT LENIN! UNITE UNDER
LENIN's REVOLUTIONARY BANNER! |
|
page 1
In Commemoration of the 90th Anniversary of April 22 of this year is the 90th anniversary of the birth of
Lenin.
1871, the year after Lenin's birth, saw the heroic uprising
of the Paris Commune. The Paris Commune was a great, epoch-making revolution,
the first dress rehearsal of worldwide significance in the proletariat's
attempt to overthrow the capitalist system. When the Commune was on the verge
of defeat as a result of the counter-revolutionary attack from Versailles,
Marx said:
If the Commune should be destroyed, the struggle would only
be postponed. The principles of the Commune are eternal and indestructible;
they will present themselves again and again until the working class is
liberated.[2] What is the most important principle of the Commune?
According to Marx, it is that the working c]ass cannot simply lay hold of the
ready-made state machincry, and use it for its
page 2
own purposes. In other words, the proletariat should use revolutionary
means to seize state power, smash the military bureaucratic machine of the
bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat to replace the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Anyone familiar with the history of the
struggle of the proletariat knows that it is precisely this fundamental
question which forms the dividing line between Marxists on the one hand and
opportunists and revisionists on the other, and that after the death of Marx
and Engels it was none other than Lenin who waged a thoroughly uncomomising
struggle against the opportunists and revisionists in order to safeguard the
principles of the Commune.
The cause in which the Paris Commune did not succeed finally
triumphed 46 years later in the Great October Revolution under Lenin's direct
leadership. The experience of the Russian Soviets was a continuation and
development of the experience of the Paris Commune. The principles of the
Commune continually expounded by Marx and Engels and enriched by Lenin in the
light of the new experience of the Russian revolution, first became a living
reality on one-sixth of the earth. Marx was perfectly correct in saying that
the principles of the Commune are eternal and indestructible.
In their attempt to strangle the new-born Soviet state, the
imperialist jackals, acting in league with the counter-revolutionary forces in
Russia at the time, carried out armed intervention against it. But the heroic
Russian working class and the people of the various nationalities of the
Soviet Union drove off the foreign bandits, put down the counter-revolutionary
rebellion at home and thus consolidated the world's first great socialist
republic.
Under the banner of Lenin, under the banner of the October
Revolution, a new world revolution began, with the prole tarian revolution
playing the leading role, and a new era dawned in human history.
Throughout the October Revolution, the voice of Lenin quickly
resounded throughout the world. The Chinese people's anti-
page 3
imperialist, anti-feudal May 4 Movement in 1919, as Comrade Mao Tse-tung
put it, "came into being at the call of the world revolution of that time, of
the Russian revolution and of Lenin."[1]
Lenin's call is powerful because it is correct. Under the
historical conditions of the epoch of imperialism, Lenin revealed a series of
irrefutable truths concerning the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship
of the proletariat.
Lenin pointed out that the oligarchy of finance capital in a
small number of capitalist powers, that is, the imperialists, not only exploit
the masses of people in their own countries, but oppress and plunder the whole
world, turning most countries into their colonies and dependencies.
Imperialist war is a continuation of imperialist politics. World wars are
started by the imperialists because of their insatiable greed in scrambling
for world markets, sources of raw materials and fields for investment, and
because of their struggle to re-divide the world. So long as
capitalist-imperialism exists in the world, the source and possibility of war
will remain. The proletariat should guide the masses of people to understand
the source of war and to struggle for peace and against imperialism.
Lenin asserted that imperialism is monopolistic, parasitic or
decaying, moribund capitalism, that it is the final stage in the development
of capitalism and therefore is the eve of the proletarian revolution. The
emancipation of the proletariat can be arrived at only by way of revolution,
and certainly not by way of reformism. The liberation movements of the
proletariat in the capitalist countries should ally themselves with the
national liberation movements in the colonies and dependent countries; this
alliance can smash the alliance of the imperialists with the feudal and
comprador reactionary forces in the colonies all dependent countries,
page 4
and will therefore inevitably put a final end to the imperialist system
throughout the world.
In the light of the law of the uneven economic and political
development of capitalism, Lenin came to the conclusion that, because
capitalism developed extremely unevenly in different countries, socialism
would achieve victory first in one or several countries but could not achieve
victory simultaneously in all countries. Therefore, in spite of the victory of
socialism in one or several countries, other capitalist countries still exist,
and this gives rise not only to friction but also to imperialist subversive
activities against the socialist states. Hence the struggle will be
protracted. The struggle between socialism and capitalism will embrace a whole
historical epoch. The socialist countries should maintain constant vigilance
against the danger of imperialist attack and do their best to avert this
danger.
The fundamental question of all revolutions is the question
of state power. Lenin discussed in a comprehensive and penetrating way the
fundamental question of the proletarian revolution, that is, the question of
thc dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the prolelariat,
established by smashing the state machine of the bourgeois dictatorship by
revolutionary means, is an alliance of a special type between the proletariat
on the one hand and the peasantry and all other working people on the other;
it is a continuation of the class struggle in another form under new
conditions; it involves a persistent struggle, both sanguinary and bloodless,
violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative,
against the resistance of the exploiting classes, against foreign aggression
and against the forces and traditions of the old society. Without the
dictatorship of the proletariat, without its full mobilizalion of the working
people on these fronts to wage these unavoidable struggles stubbornly and
persistently, there can be no socialism, nor can there be any victory for
socialism.
page 5
Lenin considered it of prime importance for the proletariat
to establish its own genuinely revolutionary political party which completely
breaks with opportunism, that is, a Communist Party, if the proletarian
revolution is to be carried through and the dictatorship of the proletariat
established and consolidated. This political party is armed with the Marxist
theory of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Its programme is
to organize the proletariat and all oppressed working people to carry on class
struggle, to set up proletarian rule and passing through socialism to reach
the final goal of communism. This political party must identify itself with
the masses and attach great importance to their creative initiative in the
making of history; it must closely rely on the masses in revolution as well as
in socialist and communist construction.
These truths were constantly set forth by Lenin before and
after the October Revolution. The world reactionaries and philistines of the
time thought these truths revealed by Lenin terrifying. But we see these
truths winning victory after victory in the actual life of the world.
In the forty years and more since the October Revolution,
tremendous new changes have taken place in the world.
Through its great achievements in socialist and communist
construction, the Soviet Union has transformed itself from an economically and
technically very backward country in the days of tsarist Russia into a country
with the best and most advanced technology in the world. By its economic and
technological leaps the Soviet Union has left the European capitalist
countries far behind and left the United States behind, too, in technology.
The great victory of the anti-fascist war, in which the
Soviet Union was the main force, broke the chain of impelialism in
page 6
Central and Eastern Europe. The great victory of the Chinese people's
revolution broke the chain of impelialism on the Chinese mainland. A group of
new socialist countries was born. The whole socialist camp headed by the
Soviet Union has one quarter of the earth's land space and over one-third of
the world's population. The socialist camp has now become an independent world
economic system, standing opposed to the capitalist world economic system. The
gross industrial output value of the socialist countries now accounts for
nearly 40 per cent of the world's total, and it will not be long before it
surpasses the gross industrial output value of all the capitalist countries
put together.
The imperialist colonial system has been and is
disintegrating. The struggle naturally has its twists and turns, but on the
whole the storm of the national liberation movement is sweeping over Asia,
Africa and Latin America on a daily broadening scale. Things are developing
towards their opposites: there the imperialists are going step by step from
strength to weakness, while the people are going step by step from weakness to
strength.
The relalive stability of capitalism, which existed for a
time after World War I, ended long ago. With the formation of the socialist
world economic system after World War II, the capitalist world market has
greatly shrunk. The contradiction between the productive forces and relations
of production in capitalist society has sharpened. The periodic economic
crises of capitalism no longer occur as before once every ten years or so, but
come almost every three or four years. Recently, some representatives of the
U.S. bourgeoisie have admitted that the United States has suffered three
"economic recessions" in ten years, and they now have premonitions of a new
"economic recession" just after it has pulled through the one in 1957-58. The
shortening of the interval between capitalist economic crises is a new
phenomenon. It is a further sign that the world capitalist system is drawing
nearer and nearer to its inevitable doom.
page 7
The unevenness in the development of the capitalist countries
is worse than ever before. With the imperialists squeezed into their
ever-shrinking domain, U.S. imperialism is constantly grabbing markets and
spheres of influence away from the British, French and other imperialists. The
imperialist countries headed by the United States have been expanding
armaments and making war preparations for more than ten years, while West
German and Japanese militarism, defeated in World War II, have risen again
with the help of their former enemy -- the U.S. imperialists. Imperialist West
Germany and Japan have come out to join in the scramble for the capitalist
world market, are now blabbing once again about their "traditional friendship"
and are engaging in new activities for a so-called "Bonn-Tokyo axis with
Washington as the starting point." West German imperialism is looking brazenly
around for military bases abroad. This aggravates the bitter conflicts within
imperialism and at the same time heightens the threat to the socialist camp
and all peace-loving countries. The present situation is very much like that
after World War I when the U.S. and British imperialists fostered the
resurgence of German militarism, and the outcome will again be their "picking
up a rock only to drop it on their own feet." The U.S. imperialists' creation
of world tension after World War II is a sign not of their strength but of
their weakness and precisely reflects the unprecedented instability of the
capitalist system.
The U.S. imperialists, in order to realize their ambition for
world domination, not only avidly resort to all kinds of sabotage and
subversion against the socialist countries, but also, under the pretext of
opposing "the communist menace," in their self-appointed role of world
gendarme for suppressing the revolution in various countries, set up their
military bases all around the world, seize the intermediate areas and carry
out military provocations. Like a rat running across the street while everyone
shouts "Throw something at it!" the U.S. imperialists run into bumps and
bruises everywhere and, contrary to their
page 8
intentions, everywhere arouse a new upsurge of the people's revolutionary
struggle. Now, even they themselves are becoming aware that, in contrast with
the growing prosperity of the socialist world headed by the Soviet Union, "the
influence of the United States as a world power is declining." In their
country, one "can only see the decline and fall of ancient Rome."
The changes that have taken place in the world in the past
forty years and more indicate that imperialism is rotting with each passing
day while with socialism things are getting better and better. It is a great,
new epoch that we are facing, and its main characteristic is that the forces
of socialism have surpassed those of imperialism, and that the forces of the
awakening peoples of the world have surpassed those of reaction.
The present world situation has obviously undergone
tremendous changes since Lenin's lifetime; but all these changes, far from
proving that Leninism is obsolete, have more and more clearly confirmed the
truths revealed by Lenin and all the theories he advanced during the struggle
to defend revolutionary Marxism and develop Marxism.
In the historical conditions of the epoch of imperialism and
proletarian revolution, Lenin carried Marxism forward to a new stage and
showed all the oppressed classes and peoples the path along which they could
really shake off capitalist imperialist enslavement and poverty.
These forty years have been forty years of victory for
Leninism in the world, forty years in which Leninism has found its way ever
deeper into the hearts of the world's people. Leninism not only has won and
will continue to win great victories in countries where the socialist system
has been established, but is also constantly achieving new victories in the
struggles of all oppressed peoples.
The victory of Leninism is acclaimed by the people of the
whole world, and at the same time cannot but incur the enmity of the
imperialists and all reactionaries. The im-
page 9
perialists, to weaken the influence of Leninism and paralyse the
revolutionary will of the masses, have launched the most barbarous and
despicable attacks and slanders against Leninism, and, moreover, bought up and
utilized the vacillators and renegades within the workers' movement, directing
them to distort and emasculate the teachings of Lenin. At the end of the
nineteenth century when Marxism was putting various anti-Marxist trends to
rout, spreading widely throughout the workers' movement and gaining a
predominant position, the revisionists represented by Bernstein advanced their
revisions of the teachings of Marx to meet the needs of the bourgeoisie. Now,
when Leninism has won great victories in guiding the working class and all
oppressed classes and nations of the world in onslaughts against imperialism
and all kinds of reactionaries, the modern revisionists represented by Tito
have advanced their revisions of the teachings of Lenin (that is, modern
Marxist teachings), to meet the needs of the imperialists. As pointed out in
the Declaration of the meeting of representatives of the Communist and
Workers' Parties of the socialist countries held in Moscow in November 1957,
"The existence of bourgeois influence is an internal source of revisionism,
while surrender to imperialist pressure is its external source." While the old
revisionism attempted to prove that Marxism was outmoded, modern revisionism
attempts to prove that Leninism is outmoded. The Moscow Declaration said:
Modern revisionism seeks to smear the great teaching of
Marxism-Leninism, declares that it is "outmoded" and alleges that it has lost
its significance for social progress. The revisionists try to kill the
revolutionary spirit of Marxism, to undermine faith in socialism among the
working class and the working people in general. This passage of the Declaration has put it correctly; such is
exactly the situation.
page 10
Are the teachings of Marxism-Leninism now "outmoded"? Does
the integrated whole of Lenin's teachings on imperialism, on proletarian
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, on war and peace, and on
the building of socialism and communism still retain its full vitality? If it
is still valid and does retain its full vitality, does this refer only to a
certain portion of it or to the whole? We usually say that Leninism is Marxism
of the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, Marxism of the epoch
of the victory of socialism and communism. Does this statement remain correct?
Can it be said that Lenin's original conclusions and our usual conception of
Leninism have lost their validity and correctness, and that therefore we
should turn back and accept those revisionist and opportunist conclusions
which Lenin long ago smashed to smithereens and which have long since gone
disgracefully bankrupt in actual life? These questions now confront us and
must be answered. Marxist-Leninists must thoroughly expose the absurdities of
the imperialists and modern revisionists on these questions, eradicate their
influence among the masses, awaken those they have temporarily hoodwinked and
further arouse the revolutionary will of the masses.
The U.S. imperialists, the open representatives of the
bourgeoisie in many countries, the modern revisionists represented by the Tito
clique, and the right-wing social-democrats, in order to mislead the people of
the world, do all they can to paint an utterly distorted picture of the
contemporaly world situation in an attempt to confirm their ravings that
"Marxism is outmoded," and that "Leninism is outmoded too."
A speech by Tito at the end of last year referred repeatedly
to what the modern revisionists call the "new epoch." He said, "Today the
world has entered an epoch in which nations
page 11
can relax and tranquilly devote themselves to their internal construction
tasks." Then he added, "We have entered an epoch when new questions are on the
ugenda, not questions of war and peace but questions of co-operation, economic
and otherwise, and when economic co-operation is concerned, there is also the
question of economic competition."[1] This
renegade completely writes off the question of class contradictions and the
class struggle in the world, in an attempt to negate the consislent
interpretation of Marxist-Leninists that our epoch is the epoch of imperialism
and proletarian revolution, the epoch of the victory of socialism and
communism.
But how do things really stand in the world?
Can the exploited and oppressed people in the imperialist
countries "relax"? Can the peoples of all the colonies and semi-colonies still
under imperialist oppression "relax"?
Has the armed intervention led by the U.S. imperialists in
Asia, Africa and Latin America become "tranquil"? Is there "tranquillity" in
our Taiwan Straits when the U.S. imperialists are still occupying our
country's Taiwan? Is there "tranquillity" on the African continent when the
people of Algeria and many other parts of Africa are subjected to armed
repressions by the French, British and other imperialists? Is there
"tranquillity" in Latin America when the U.S. imperialists are trying to wreck
the people's revolution in Cuba by means of bombing, assassination and
subversion?
What kind of "construction" is meant by saying "(nations)
devote themselves to their internal construction tasks"? Everyone knows that
there are different types of countries in the world today, and principally two
types of countries with social systems fundamentally different in nature. One
type belongs to the socialist world system, the other to the capitalist world
system. Is Tito referring to the "internal construction" of armament expansion
which the imperialists are carrying
page 12
out in order to oppress the peoples of their own countries and oppress the
whole world, or to the "internal construction" carried out by socialism for
the promotion of the people's happiness and in the pursuit of lasting world
peace?
Is the question of war and peace no longer an issue? Is it
that imperialism no longer exists, the system of exploitation no longer
exists, and therefore the question of war no longer exists? Or is it that
there can be no question of war even if imperialism and the system of
exploitation are allowed to survive for ever? The fact is that since World Was
II there has been continuous and unbroken warfare. Do not the imperialist wars
to suppress national liberation movements and the imperialist wars of armed
intervention against revolutions in various countries count as wars? Even
though these local wars do not develop into world wars, do they not still
count as wars? Even though they are not fought with nuclear weapons, do wars
using what are called conventional weapons not still count as wars? Does not
the U.S. imperialists' allocation of nearly 60 per cent of their 1960 budget
outlay to arms expansion and war preparations count as a bellicose policy on
the part of U.S. imperialism? Will the revival of West German and Japanese
militarism not confront mankind with the danger of a new world war?
What kind of "co-operation" is meant? Is it "co-operation" of
the proletariat with the bourgeoisie to protect capitalism? Is it
"co-operation" of the peoples in the colonies and semi-colonies with the
imperialists to protect colonialism? Is it "co-operation" of socialist
countries with capitalist countries to protect the imperialist system in its
oppression of the peoples in the capitalist countries and its suppression of
national liberation wars?
In a word, the assertions of the modern revisionists about
the so-called "epoch" challenge Leninism on the foregoing issues. It is their
aim to obliterate the contradiction between the masses of people and the
monopoly capitalist class in the imperialist countries, the contradiction
between the peoples in
page 13
the colonies and semi-colonies and the imperialist aggressors, the
contradiction between the socialist system and the imperialist system, and the
contradiction between the peace-loving people of the world and the warlike
imperialist bloc.
There have been various ways of defining the distinctions
between different "epochs." Generally speaking there is one way which is
merely drivel, concocting and playing around with vague, ambiguous phrases to
cover up the essence of the epoch. This is the old trick of the imperialists,
the bourgeoisie and the revisionists in the workers' movement. Then there is
another way, which is to make a concrete analysis of the specific
circumstances with regard to the overall situation of class contradictions and
class struggle, put forward strict scientific definitions, and thus bring the
essence of each epoch into full light. This is what every serious-minded
Marxist does.
On the features that distinguish an epoch, Lenin said:
. . . We are speaking here of big historical epochs; in every
epoch there are, and there will be, separate, partial movements sometimes
forward, at other times backwards, there are, and there will be, various
deviations from the average type and average tempo of the movements. We cannot know how fast and how successfully certain
historical movements of the given epoch will develop. But we can and do know
which class occupies a central position in this or that epoch and determines
its main content, the main direction of its development, the main
characteristics of the historical situation in the given epoch, etc.
Only on this basis, i.e., by taking into consideration first
and foremost the fundamental distinctive features of different "epochs" (and
not of individual episodes in the history of different countries) can we
correctly work out our tactics. . . .[1]
page 14
An epoch, as referred to here by Lenin, presents the question
of which class holds the central position in it and determines its main
content and the main direction of its development.
Faithful to Marx's dialectics, Lenin never for a single
moment departed from the standpoint of analysing class relations. He held
that: "Marxism judges The method of Marx consists first or all, in taking into
consideration the objective content of the historical process at the given
concrete moment, in the given concrete situation, in order to understand first
of all which class it is whose movement constitutes the mainspring of possible
progress in this concrete situation. . . .[2] Lenin always demanded that we examine the concrete process of
historical development on the basis of class analysis, instead of talking
vaguely about "society in general" or "progress in general." We Marxists must
not base proletarian policy merely on certain passing events or minute
political changes, but on the overall situation of the class contradictions
and class struggle of a whole historical epoch. This is a basic theoretical
position of Marxists. It was by taking a firm stand on this position that
Lenin, in the new period of class changes, in the new historical period, came
to the conclusion that the hope of humanity lies entirely in the victory of
the proletariat and that the proletariat must prepare itself to win victory in
this great revolutionary battle and thus establish the dictatorship of the
proletariat. After the October Revolution, at the Seventh Congress of the
Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1918, Lenin stated:
page 15
We must begin with the general basis of the development of
commodity production, the transition to capitalism and the transformation of
capitalism into imperialism. Thereby we shall be theoretically taking up and
consolidating a position from which nobody who has not betrayed socialism will
dislodge us. From this follows an equally inevitable conclusion: the era of
social revolution is beginning. This is Lenin's conclusion, a conclusion which up to the
present still requires deep consideration by all Marxists.
The formulation of revolutionary Marxists that ours is the
epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the epoch of the victory of
socialism and communism is irrefutable, because it grasps with complete
correctness the basic features of our present great epoch. The formulation
that Leninism is the continuation and development of revolutionary Marxism in
this great epoch and that it is the theory and policy of the proletarian
revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat is also irrefulable,
because it is precisely Leninism that exposes the contradictions in our great
epoch -- the contradiction between the working class and monopoly capital, the
contradiction among the imperialist countries, the contradiction between
peoples in the colonies and semi-colonies and imperialism, and the
contradiction between the socialist countries, where the proletariat has
triumphed, and the imperialist countries. Leninism has, therefore, become our
banner of victory. Contrary, however, to this series of revolutionary Marxist
formulations, in what the Titos call the "new epoch," there is actually no
imperialism, no proletarian revolution and, needless to say, no theory and
policy of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In short, with them, the fundamental focal points of the class contradictions
and class struggles of our epoch are nowhere to be seen, the fundamental
questions of Leninism are missing and Leninism is missing.
page 16
The modern revisionists claim that in what they call the "new
epoch,' because of the progress of science and technology, the "old
conceptions" advanced by Marx and Lenin no longer apply. Tito said: "We are
not dogmatists, for Marx and Lenin did not predict the rocket on the moon,
atomic bombs and the great technical progress."[1] Not
dogmatists, that's fine. Who want them to be dogmatists? But one may oppose
dogmatism in the interests of Marxism-Leninism or one may actually oppose
Marxism-Leninism in the name of opposing dogmatism. The Titos belong to the
latter category. On the question of what effect scientific and technological
progress has on social development, there are people who hold incorrect views
because they are not able to approach the question from the viewpoint of the
materialist conception of history. This is understandable. But the modern
revisionists, on the other hand, are deliberately creating confusion on this
question in a vain attempt to make use of the progress in science and
technology to throw Marxism-Leninism to the winds.
In the past few years, the achievements of the Soviet Union
in science and technology have been foremost in the world. These Soviet
achievements are products of the Great October Revolution. These outstanding
achievements mark a new era in man's conquest of nature; and at the same time
they have played a very important role in defending world peace. But, in the
new conditions brought about by the development of modern technology, has the
ideological system of Marxism-Leninism been shaken, as Tito says, by the
"rocket on the moon, atomic bombs and the great technical progress" which Marx
and Lenin "did not predict"? Can it be said that the Marxist-Leninist world
outlook, social-historical outlook, moral outlook and other basic conceptions
have therefore become so-called stale "dogmas" and that the law of class
struggle henceforth no longer holds good?
page 17
Marx and Lenin did not live to the present day, and of course
could not see the specific details of technological progress in the
present-day world. But what, after all, does the development of natural
science and the advance of technology augur for the capitalist system? Marx
and Lenin held that this could only augur a new social revolution, and
certainly not the fading away of social revolution.
We know that both Marx and Lenin rejoiced in the new
discoveries and progress of natural science and technology in the conquest of
nature. Engels said in his "Speech at the Graveside of
Karl Marx":
Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary
force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some
theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite
impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the
discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in
historical development in general. Engels added: "For Marx was before all else a revolutionist."
Well said! Marx always regarded all new discoveries in the conquest of nature
from the viewpoint of a proletarian revolutionist, not from the viewpoint of
one who holds that the proletarian revolution will fade away.
Wilhelm Liebknecht wrote in Reminiscences of Marx :
Marx made fun of the victorious European reaction which
imagined that it had stifled the revolution and did not suspect that natural
science was preparing a new revolution. King Steam, who had revolutionized the
world in the previous century, was coming to the end of his reign and another
incomparably greater revolutionary would take his place, the electric spark.
. . . The consequences are unpredictable. The economic
revolution must be followed by a political one, for the latter is only the
expression of the former.
page 18
In the manner in which Marx discussed this progress of
science and mechanics, his conception of the world, and especially what has
been termed the materialist conception of history, was so clearly expressed
that certain doubts which I had hitherto still maintained melted away like
snow in the sunshine of spring. This is how Marx felt the breath of revolution in the
progress of science and technology. He held that the new progress of science
and technology would lead to a social revolution to overthrow the capitalist
system. In Marx's opinion, the progress of natural science and technology
further strengthens the position of the entire Marxist conception of the world
and the materialist conception of history, and certainly does not shake it.
The progress of natural science and technology further strengthens the
position of the proletarian revolution and of the oppressed nations in their
fight against imperialism, and certainly does not weaken it.
Like Marx, Lenin also viewed technological progress in
connection with the question of revolution in the social system. Thus Lenin
held that "the age of steam is the age of the bourgeoisie, the age of
electricity is the age of socialism."[1]
Please note the contrast between the revolutionary spirit of
Marx and Lenin and the modern revisionists' shameful attitude of betraying the
revolution!
In class society, in the epoch of imperialism,
Marxist-Leninists can only approach the question of the development and use of
technology from the viewpoint of class analysis.
Inasmuch as the socialist system is progressive and
represents the interests of the people, the socialist countries seek to
utilize such new techniques as atomic energy and rocketry to serve peaceful
domestic construction and the conquest of nature. The more the socialist
countries master such new techniques and the more rapidly they develop them,
the
page 19
better will they attain the aim of high-speed development of the social
productive forces to meet the needs of the people, and the more will they
strengthen the forces for checking imperialist war and increase the
possibility of defending world peace. Therefore, for the welfare of their
peoples and in the interest of peace for people the world over, the socialist
countries should, wherever possible, master more and more of such new
techniques serving the well-being of the people.
At the present time, the socialist Soviet Union clearly holds
the upper hand in the development of new techniques. Everybody knows that the
rocket that hit the moon was launched by the Soviet Union and not by the
United States, the country where capitalism is most developed. This shows that
only in the socialist countries can there be unlimited prospects for the
large-scale development of new techniques.
On the contrary, inasmuch as the imperialist system is
reactionary and against the people, the imperialist countries seek to use such
new techniques for military purposes of aggression against foreign countries
and intimidation against their own people, for making lethal weapons. To the
imperialist countries, the emergence of such new techniques only means pushing
to a new stage the contradiction between the development of the social
productive forces and the capitalist relations of production. What this will
bring about is not by any means the perpetuation of capitalism but the further
rousing of the revolution of the people in those countries and the destruction
of the old, criminal, cannibalistic system of capitalism.
The U.S. imperialists and their partners use weapons like
atom bombs to threaten war and blackmail the whole world. They declare that
anyone who does not submit to the domination of U.S. imperialism will be
destroyed. The Tito clique echoes this line; it takes up the U.S. imperialist
refrain to spread terror of atomic warfare among the masses. U.S. imperialist
blackmail and the chiming in of the Tito clique can only temporarily dupe
those who do not understand the real situation, but cannot cow the people who
have awakened. Even
page 20
those who for the time being do not understand the real situation will
gradually come to understand it with the help of the advanced elements.
Marxist-Leninists have always maintained that in world
history it is not technique but man, the masses of people, that determine the
fate of mankind. There was a theory current for a time among some people in
China before and during the War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression, which
was known as the theory of "weapons decide everything"; from this theory they
concluded that since Japan's weapons were new and its techniques advanced
while China's weapons were old and its techniques backward, "China would
inevitably be subjugated." Comrade Mao Tse-tung in his work On the Protracted War
published at that time refuted such nonsense. He made the following analysis:
The Japanese imperialists' war of aggression against China was bound to fail
because it was reactionary, unjust, and being unjust lacked popular support;
the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japan would certainly win
because it was progressive, just, and being just enjoyed abundant support.
Comrade Mao Tse-tung pointed out that the most abundant source of strength in
war lay in the masses, and that a people's army organized by awakened and
united masses of people would be invincible throughout the world. This is a
Marxist-Leninist thesis. And what was the outcome? The outcome was that the
Marxist-Leninist thesis triumphed and the "theory of national subjugation"
ended in defeat. After World War II, the triumph of the Korean and Chinese
peoples in the Korean war over the U.S. aggressors far superior in weapons and
equipment once again bore out this Marxist-Leninist thesis.
An awakened people will always find new ways to counteract
the reactionaries' superiority in arms and win victory for themselves. This
was so in past history, it is so at present, and it will remain so in the
future. As a result of the supremacy gained by the socialist Soviet Union in
military techniques, and the loss of their monopoly of atomic and nuclear
page 21
weapons by the U.S. imperialists, and as a result of the awakening of the
people the world over and of the people in the United States itself, there is
now in the world the possibility of concluding an agreement on the banning of
atomic and nuclear weapons. We are striving for the conclusion of such an
agreement. In contrast to the bellicose imperialists, the socialist countries
and peace-loving people the world over actively and firmly stand for the
banning and destruction of atomic and nuclear weapons. We are always
struggling against imperialist war, for the banning of atomic and nuclear
weapons and for the defence of world peace. The more broadly and intensively
this struggle is waged and the more fully and thoroughly the brutish faces of
the bellicose U.S. and other imperialists are exposed the more will we be able
to isolate these imperialists before the people of the world, the greater will
be the possibility of tying their hands and the more will it benefit the cause
of world peace. If, on the contrary, we lose our vigilance against the danger
of the imperialists launching a war, do not strive to arouse the people of all
countries to oppose imperialism but tie the hands of the people, then
imperialism can prepare for war just as it pleases and the inevitable result
will be an increase in the danger of the imperialists launching a war and,
once war breaks out, the people may not be able quickly to adopt a correct
attitude towards it because of complete lack of preparation or inadequate
preparation, thus being unable to effectively check the war. Of course,
whether or not the imperialists will unleash a war is not determined by us; we
are, after all, not their chief-of-staff. As long as the people of all
countries enhance their awareness and are fully prepared, with the socialist
camp also possessing modern weapons, it is certain that if the U.S. or other
imperialists refuse to reach an agreement on the banning of atomic and nuclear
weapons and should dare to fly in the face of the will of all the peoples by
launching a war using atomic and nuclear weapons, the result will only be the
very speedy destruction of these monsters themselves
page 22
encircled by the peoples of the world, and certainly not the so-called
annihilation of mankind. We consistently oppose the launching of criminal wars
by imperialism, because imperialist war would impose enormous sacrifices upon
the peoples of various countries (including the peoples of the United States
and other imperialist countries). But should the imperialists impose such
sacrifices on the peoples of various countries, we believe that, just as the
experience of the Russian revolutiom and the Chinese revolution shows, those
sacrifices would be rewarded. On the debris of imperialism, the victorious
people would create very swiftly a civilization thousands of times higher than
the capitalist system and a truly beautiful future for themselves.
The conclusion can only be this: whichever way you look at
it, none of the new techniques like atomic energy, rocketry and so on has
changed, as alleged by the modern revisionists, the basic characteristics of
the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution pointed out by Lenin. The
capitalist-imperialist system definitely will not crumble of itself. It will
be overthrown by the proletarian revolution within the imperialist country
concerned, and the national revolution in the colonies and semi-colonies.
Contemporary technological progress cannot save the capitalist-imperialist
system from its doom but only rings a new death knell for it.
The modern revisionists, proceeding from their absurd
arguments on the current world situation and from their absurd argument that
the Marxist-Leninist theory of class analysis and class struggle is obsolete,
attempt to totally overthrow the fundamental theories of Marxism-Leninism on a
series of questions like violence, war, peaceful co-existence, etc.
There are also some people who are not revisionists, but
well-intentioned persons who sincerely want to be Marxists,
page 23
but get confused in the face of certain new historical phenomena and thus
have some incorrect ideas. For example, some of them say that the failure of
the U.S. imperialists' policy of atomic blackmail marks the end of violence.
While thoroughly refuting the absurdities of the modern revisionists, we
should also help these well-intentioned people to correct their erroneous
ideas.
What is violence? Lenin said a great deal on this question in
his book The State and
Revolution. The emergence and existence of the state is in itself a
kind of violence. Lenin introduced the following elucidation by Engels:
. . . It (this public power) consists not merely of armed
men, but of material appendages, prisons and coercive institutions of all
kinds. . . . Lenin tells us that we must draw a distinction between two types of states
different in nature, the state of bourgeois dictatorship and the state of
proletarian dictatorship, and between two types of violence different in
nature, counter-revolutionary violence and revolutionary violence; as long as
there is counter-revolutionary violence, there is bound to be revolutionary
violence to oppose it. It would be impossible to wipe out
counter-revolutionary violence without revolutionary violence. The state in
which the exploiting classes are in power is counter-revolutionary violence, a
special force for suppressing the exploited classes in the interest of the
exploiting classes. Both before the imperialists had atomic bombs and rocket
weapons, and since they have had these new weapons, the imperialist state has
always been a special force for suppressing the proletariat at home and the
people of its colonies and semi-colonies abroad, has always been such an
institution of violence; even if the imperialists are compelled not to use
these new weapons, the imperialist state will of course still remain an
imperialist institution of violence until it is overthrown and replaced by the
people's state, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat of that
country.
page 24
Never since the dawn of history have there been such
large-scale, such utterly brutal forces of violence as those created by the
present-day capitalist-imperialists. Throughout the past ten years and more,
the U.S. imperialists have, without any scruples, adopted means of persecution
a hundred times more savage than before, trampling upon the outstanding sons
of the country's working class, upon the Negro people, upon all progressives;
and moreover, they have all along been declaring brazenly that they intend to
put the whole world under their rule of violence. They are continuously
expanding their forces of violence, and at the same time the other
imperialists are also taking part in the race to strengthen their forces of
violence.
The bloated military build-up of the imperialist countries
headed by the United States has appeared during the unprecedentedly grave
general crisis of capitalism. The more frantically the imperialists carry the
expansion of their military strength to a peak, the more it signifies that
they are drawing near to their own doom. Now even some representatives of the
U.S. imperialists have premonitions of the inevitable extinction of the
capitalist system. But will the imperialists themselves put an end to their
violence and will those in power in the imperialist countries abandon of their
own accord the violence they have set up, just because imperialism is drawing
near to its doom?
Can it be said that, compared with the past, the imperialists
are no longer addicted to violence, or that there has been a lessening in the
degree of their addiction?
Lenin answered such questions on many occasions long ago. He
pointed out in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage
of Capitalism : ". . . For politically imperialism is always a
striving towards violence and reaction." After the October Revolution, in his
book The Proletarian
Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky he made a special point of
recounting history, comparing the differences between pre-monopoly capitalism
and monopoly capitalism, i.e., imperialism. He said:
page 25
. . . Pre-monopoly capitalism, which reached its zenith in
the seventies of the nineteenth century, was, by virtue of its fundamental
economic traits (which were most typical in England and America) distinguished
by its relative attachment to peace and freedom. Imperialism, i.e., monopoly
capitalism, which finally matured only in the twentieth century, is, by virtue
of its fundamental economic traits, distinguished by the least attachment to
peace and freedom, and by the greatest and universal development of militarism
everywhere. Of course, these words of Lenin were said in the early period
of the October Revolution, when the proletarian state was newly born, and its
economic forces still young and weak, while with the lapse of forty years and
more, the face of the Soviet state itself, and of the whole world has
undergone a tremendous change, as we have already described. Then, can it be
said that the nature of imperialism has changed because of the might of the
Soviet Union, the might of the forces of socialism and the might of the forces
of peace, and that, as a result, the foregoing theses of Lenin have become
obsolete? Or, can it be said that imperialism will no longer resort to
violence although its nature has not changed? Do these views conform to the
real situation?
The socialist world system has obviously gained the upper
hand in its struggle with the capitalist world system. This great historic
fact has weakened the position of imperialist violence in the world. But will
this fact cause the imperialists never again to oppress the people of their
own countries, never again engage in external expansion and aggressive
activities? Can it make the warlike circles of the imperialists from now on
"lay down the butcher's cleaver" and "sell swords to buy oxen"? Can it make
the groups of munitions makers and dealers in the imperialist countries
henceforth change over to peaceful pursuits?
page 26
All these questions confront every serious Marxist-Leninist,
and require deep consideration. It is obvious that whether these questions are
viewed and handled correctly or not has a close bearing on the success or
failure of the proletarian cause and the destiny of humanity.
War is the most acute form of expression of violence. One
type is civil war, another is foreign war. Violence is not always expressed by
war, its most acute form. In capitalist countries, bourgeois war is the
continuation of the bourgeois politics of ordinary times, while bourgeois
peace is the continuation of bourgeois wartime politics. The bourgeoisie
always alternately adopt the two forms, war and peace, to carry on their rule
over the people and their external struggles. In what is called peace time,
the imperialists rely on armed force to deal with the oppressed classes and
nations by such forms of violence as arrest, imprisonment, hard labour,
massacre and so forth, while at the same time, they are also prepared to use
the most acute form of violence -- war -- to suppress the revolution of the
people at home, to carry out plunder abroad, to overwhelm foreign competitors
and to stamp out revolutions in other countries. Or, peace at home may exist
side by side with war abroad.
In the initial period of the October Revolution, the
imperialists resorted to violence in the form of war against the Soviet Union,
which was a continuation of their imperialist politics; in World War II, the
German imperialists used violence in the form of large-scale war to attack the
Soviet Union, which was a continuation of their imperialist politics. But on
the other hand, the imperialists also established diplomatic relations of
peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union in different periods, which was
also, of course, a continuation of imperialist politics in another form under
specific conditions.
True, some new questions have now arisen concerning peaceful
coexistence. Confronted with the powerful Soviet Union and the powerful
socialist camp, the imperialists must at any rate carefully consider whether,
contrary to their
page 27
wishes, they would hasten their own extinction, as Hitler did, or bring
about the most serious consequences for the capitalist system itself, if they
should attack the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
"Peaceful co-existence" -- this is a new concept which arose
only after the emergence of the socialist state in the world following the
October Revolution. It is a new concept formed under the circumstances Lenin
had predicted before the October Revolution, when he said:
Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all
countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while
the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time.[1] This new concept is one advanced by Lenin after the great
Soviet people defeated the imperialist armed intervention. As was pointed out
above, at the outset the imperialists were not willing to co-exist peacefully
with the Soviet Union. The imperialists were compelled to "co-exist" with the
Soviet Union only after the war of intervention against the Soviet Union had
failed, after there had been several years of actual trial of strength, after
the Soviet state had planted its feet firmly on the ground, and after a
certain balance of power had taken shape between the Soviet state and the
imperialist countries. Lenin said in 1920:
We have won conditions for ourselves under which we can exist
alongside the capitalist powers, which are now forced to enter into trade
relations with us.[2] It can be seen that the peaceful co-existence for a certain
period between the world's first socialist state and imperialism was achieved
entirely through struggle. Before World War II, the 1920-1940 period prior to
Germany's attack on the
page 28
Soviet Union was a period of peaceful coexistence between imperialism and
the Soviet Union. During all those twenty years, the Soviet Union kept faith
with peaceful co-existence. However, by 1941, Hitler no longer wanted to
maintain peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union; the German imperialists
perfidiously launched a savage attack on the Soviet Union. Owing to the
victory of the anti-fascist war in which the great Soviet Union was the main
force, the world saw once again a situation of peaceful co-existence between
the socialist and capitalist countries. Nevertheless, the imperialists have
not given up their designs. The U.S. imperialists have set up networks of
military bases and guided missile bases everywhere around the Soviet Union and
the entire socialist camp. They are still occupying our territory Taiwan and
continually carrying out military provocations against us in the Taiwan
Straits. They carried out armed intervention in Korea, conducting a
large-scale war against the Korean and Chinese peoples on Korean soil, which
resulted in an armistice agreement only after their defeat -- and up to now
they are still interfering with the reunification of the Korean people. They
gave aid in weapons to the French imperialist occupation forces in their war
against the Vietnamese people, and up to now they are still interfering with
the reunification of the Vietnamese people. They engineered the
counter-revolutionary rebellion in Hungary, and up to now they are continually
making all sorts of attempts at subversion in the socialist countries in East
Europe and elsewhere. The facts are still just as Lenin presented them to a
U.S. correspondent in February 1920: on the question of peace, "there is no
obstacle on our side. The obstacle is the imperialism of American (and all
other) capitalists."[1]
The foreign policy of socialist countries can only be a
policy of peace. The socialist system determines that we do not
page 29
need war, absolutely will not start a war, and absolutely must not, should
not and cannot occupy one inch of a neighbouring country's territory. Ever
since its founding, the People's Republic of China has consistently adhered to
a foreign policy of peace. Our country together with two neighbouring
countries, India and Burma, jointly initiated the well-known Five Principles
of Peaceful Co-existence; and at the Bandung Conference of 1955, our country
together with various countries of Asia and Africa adopted the Ten Principles
of Peaceful Co-existence. The Communist Party and Government of our country
have in the past few years consistently supported the activities for peace
carried out by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Government
of the Soviet Union headed by Comrade N. S. Khrushchov, considering that these
activities on the part of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the
Government of the Soviet Union have further demonstrated before the peoples of
the world the firmness of the socialist countries' peaceful foreign policy as
well as the need for the peoples to prevent the imperialists from launching a
new world war and to strive for a lasting world peace.
The Declaration of the Moscow Meeting of 1957 states:
The cause of peace is upheld by the powerful forces of our
era: the invincible camp of socialist countries headed by the Soviet Union;
the peace-loving countries of Asia and Africa taking an anti-imperialist stand
and forming, together with the socialist countries, a broad peace zone; the
international working class and above all its vanguard -- the Communist
Parties; the liberation movement of the peoples of the colonies and
semi-colonies; the mass peace movement of the peoples; the peoples of the
European countries who have proclaimed neutrality, the peoples of Latin
America and the masses in the imperialist countries themselves are firmly
resisting plans for a new war. An alliance of these mighty forces could
prevent war. . . . page 30
So long as these mighty forces are continuously developed, it is possible
to maintain the situation of peaceful co-existence, or even to formally reach
some sort of agreement on peaceful co-existence, up to and including the
conclusion of an agreement on the prohibition of atomic and nuclear weapons.
That would be a fine thing in full accord with the aspirations of the peoples
of the world. However, even in that case, as long as the imperialist system
still exists, war, the most acute form of violence, will not disappear from
the world. The fact is not as described by the Yugoslav revisionists, who
declare[1] obsolete
Lenin's definition that "war is the continuation of politics," a definition
which he repeatedly explained and upheld in combating opportunism.
We believe in the absolute correctness of Lenin's thinking:
War is an inevitable outcome of the systems of exploitation and the
imperialist system is the source of modern wars. Until the imperialist system
and the exploiting classes come to an end, wars of one kind or another will
still occur. They may be wars among the imperialists for redivision of the
world, or wars of aggression and anti-aggression between the imperialists and
the oppressed nations, or civil wars of revolution and counter-revolution
between the exploited and exploiting classes in the imperialist countries, or,
of course, wars in which the imperialists attack the socialist countries and
the socialist countries are forced to defend themselves. All kinds of war
represent the continuation of the politics of definite classes.
Marxist-Leninists absolutely must not sink into the mire of bourgeois
pacifism, and can only adopt the method of concrete class analysis to appraise
all kinds of war and accordingly draw conclusions on policies to be followed
by the proletariat. As Lenin put it in his article The Military Program of
the Proletarian Revolution : theoretically, it would be quite
page 31
wrong to forget that every war is but the continuation of politics by other
means."
To attain its aim of plunder and oppression, imperialism
always has two tactics: the tactics of war and the tactics of "peace";
therefore, the proletariat and the people of all countries must also use two
tactics to deal with imperialism: the tactics of exposing imperialism's peace
fraud and striving energetically for a genuine world peace, and the tactics of
being prepared to use a just war to end the imperialist unjust war if and when
imperialism should unleash it.
In a word, in the interests of the peoples of the world, we
must thoroughly shatter the falsehoods of the modem revisionists and uphold
the Marxist-Leninist viewpoints on the questions of violence, war and peaceful
co-existence.
The Yugoslav revisionists deny the inherent class character
of violence and thereby obliterate the fundamental difference between
revolutionary violence and counter-revolutionary violence; they deny the
inherent class character of war and thereby obliterate the fundamental
difference between just wars and unjust wars; they deny that imperialist war
is a continuation of imperialist politics, deny the danger of imperialism
unleashing another world war, deny that only after doing away with the
exploiting classes will it be possible to do away with war, and even
shamelessly call the chieftain of U.S. imperialism Eisenhower "the man who
laid the cornerstone for eliminating the cold war and establishing lasting
peace with peaceful competition between different political systems;"[1] they deny that under the conditions of peaceful
co-existence there are still complicated, acute struggles in the political,
economic and ideological fields, and so on. All these arguments of the
Yugoslav revisionists are aimed at poisoning the minds of the proletariat and
the people of all countries, and are helpful to the imperialist policy of war. page 32
The modern revisionists seek to confuse the peaceful foreign
policy of the socialist countries with the domestic policy of the proletariat
in the capitalist countries. They thus hold that peaceful co-existence of
countries with differing social systems means that capitalism can peacefully
grow into socialism, that the proletariat in countries ruled by the
bourgeoisie can renounce class struggle and enter into "peaceful co-operation"
with the bourgeoisie and the imperialists, and that the proletariat and all
the exploited classes should forget about the fact that they are living in a
class society, and so on. All these arguments are also diametrically opposed
to Marxism-Leninism. The aim of the modern revisionists is to protect
imperialist rule, and they attempt to hold the proletariat and all the rest of
the working people perpetually in capitalist enslavement.
Peaceful co-existence of different countries and people's
revolutions in various countries are in themselves two different things, not
one and the same thing; two different concepts, not one; two different kinds
of question, and not one and the same kind of question.
Peaceful co-existence refers to relations between countries;
revolution means the overthrow of the oppressing classes by the oppressed
people within each country, while in the case of the colonies and
semi-colonies, it is first and foremost a question of overthrowing alien
oppressors, namely, the imperialists. Before the October Revolution the
question of peaceful co-existence between socialist and capitalist countries
simply did not exist in the world, as there were as yet no socialist countries
at that time; but there did exist the questions of the proletarian revolution
and the national revolution, as the peoples in various countries, in
accordance with the specific conditions in their own countries, had long ago
put revolutions of one kind or another on the order of the day to determine
the destinies of their countries.
page 33
We are Marxist-Leninists. We have always held that revolution
is each nation's own affair. We have always maintained that the working class
can only depend upon itself for its emancipation, and that the emancipation of
the people of any given country depends on their own awakening, and on the
ripening of revolution in that country. Revolution can neither be exported nor
imported. No one can forbid the people of a foreign country to carry out a
revolution, nor can one make a revolution in a foreign country by using the
method of "helping the rice shoots to grow by pulling them up."
Lenin put it well when he said in June 1918:
There are people who believe that the revolution can break
out in a foreign country to order, by agreement. These people are either mad
or they are provocateurs. We have experienced two revolutions during the past
twelve years. We know that revolutions cannot be made to order, or by
agreement; they break out when tens of millions of people come to the
conclusion that it is impossible to live in the old way any longer.[1] In addition to the experience of the Russian revolution, is not the
experience of the Chinese revolution also one of the best proofs of this? We
Chinese people, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, have also
experienced several revolutions. The imperialists and all the reactionaries,
like lunatics, have always asserted that our revolutions were made to order
from abroad, or in accordance with agreements. But people all over the world
know that our revolutions were not imported from abroad, but were brought
about because our people found it impossible to continue to live in the old
China and because they wanted to create a new life of their own.
page 34
When a socialist country, in the face of imperialist attack,
is compelled to wage a defensive war and launch counter-attacks, is it
justified in going beyond its own border to pursue and eliminate its enemies
from abroad, as the Soviet Union did in the war against Hitler? Certainly it
is completely justified, absolutely necessary and entirely just. In accordance
with the strict principles of communists, such operations by the socialist
countries must absolutely be limited to the time when imperialism launches a
war of aggression against them. Socialist countries never permit themselves to
send, never should and never will send their troops across their borders
unless they are subjected to aggression from a foreign enemy. Since the armed
forces of the socialist countries fight for justice, when these forces have to
go beyond their borders to counter-attack a foreign enemy, it is only natural
that they should exert an influence and have an effect wherever they go; but
even then, the emergence of people's revolutions and the establishment of the
socialist system in those places and countries where they go will still have
to depend on the will of the masses of the people there.
The spread of revolutionary ideas knows no national
boundaries. But it is only through the efforts of the masses of people under
the specific circumstances in a given country that these ideas will yield
revolutionary fruit. This is not only true in the epoch of proletarian
revolution, but also invariably true in the epoch of bourgeois revolution. The
bourgeoisie of various countries in the epoch of their revolution took
Rousseau's Social Contract as their gospel, while the revolutionary
proletariat in various countries take as their gospel Marx's Communist Manifesto
and Capital and Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
and The State and
Revolution, and so on. Times vary, the classes vary, the ideologies
vary and the character of the revolutions varies. But no one can hold back a
revolution in any country if there is a desire for that revolution and when
the revolutionary crisis there has matured. In the end the socialist system
will
page 35
replace the capitalist system. This is an objective law independent of
human will. No matter how hard the reactionaries may try to prevent the
advance of the wheel of history, revolution will take place sooner or later
and will surely triumph. This applies to the replacement of one society by
another throughout human history. The slave system was replaced by the feudal
system which, in its turn, was replaced by the capitalist system. These, too,
follow laws independent of human will. And all these changes were carried out
through revolution.
That notorious old revisionist Bernstein once said, "Remember
ancient Rome, there was a ruling class that did no work, but lived well, and
as a result, this class weakened. Such a class must gradually hand over its
power."[1] That the
slaveowners as a class "weakened" was a historical fact that Bernstein could
not conceal, any more than the present U.S. imperialists can conceal the hard
fact of their own steady decline. Yet Bernstein, shameless, self-styled
"historian" that he was, chose to cover up the basic fact of ancient Roman
history that the slave-owners never "handed over power" of their own accord
and that their rule was overthrown by protracted, repeated, continuous slave
revolutions.
Revolution means the use of revolutionary violence by the
oppressed class, it means revolutionary war. This is true of the slave
revolution as well as of the bourgeois revolution. Lenin has put it well:
History teaches us that no oppressed class ever achieved
power, nor could achieve power, without going through a period of
dictatorship, i.e., the conquest of political power and suppression by force
of the most desperate, frenzied resistance always offered by the exploiters. .
. . The bourgeoisie . . . came to power in the advanced countries through a
series of insurrections, civil wars, the suppression by force
page 36
of kings, feudalists, slave-owners and their attempts at restoration.[1] Why do things happen this way?
In answering this question, again we have to quote Lenin. In
the first place, as Lenin said: "No ruling class in the world ever gave way
without a struggle."[2]
Secondly, as Lenin explained: "The reactionary classes
themselves are usually the first to resort to violence, to civil war; they are
the first to 'place the bayonet on the agenda. . . . page 37
The Great October Revolution is the best material witness to
the truth of these propositions of Lenin.
So is the Chinese revolution. No one will ever forget that it
was only after going through twenty-two years of bitter civil war that the
Chinese people and the Chinese proletariat won nationwide victory and captured
state power under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
The history of the proletarian revolution in the West after
World War I teaches us: even when the capitalist gentlemen do not exercise
direct, open control of state power, but rule through their lackeys -- the
treacherous social-democrats, these despicable renegades will surely be ready
at any time, in accordance with the dictates of the bourgeoisie, to cover up
the violence of the bourgeois White Guards and plunge the proletarian
revolutionary fighters into a blood bath. This is just the way it was in
Germany at that time. Vanquished, the big German bourgeoisie handed over state
power to the social-democrats. The social-democratic government, on coming to
power, immediately launched a bloody suppression of the German working class
in January 1919. Let us recall how Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, whom
Lenin called "outstanding representatives of the world proletarian
International" and "the immortal leaders of the international socialist
revolution," shed their blood as a result of the violence of the
social-democrats of the day. Let us also recall, in Lenin's words, "the
vileness and shamelessness of these murders"[1]
perpetrated by these renegades -- these so-called "socialists" -- for the
purpose of preserving the capitalist system and the interests of the
bourgeoisie! Let us, in the light of all these bloody facts both of the past
and of the present capitalist world, examine all the nonsense about the
"peaceful growth of capitalism into socialism" mouthed by the old revisionists
and their modern counterparts.
page 38
Does it follow, then, that we Marxist-Leninists will refuse
to adopt the policy of peaceful transition even when there exists the
possibility of peaceful development? No, decidedly not.
As we all know, Engels, one of the great founders of
scientific communism, in the famous work Principles of
Communism answered the question: "Can private property be eliminated
by peaceful means?" He wrote:
One would wish that it could be thus, and communists, of
course, would be the last to object to this. Communists know very well that
all plots are not only futile, but even pernicious. They know very well that
revolutions cannot be thought up and made arbitrarily as one wishes and that
revolutions have always and everywhere been the necessary result of existing
conditions, which have absolutely not depended on the will and leadership of
separate parties and whole classes. But at the same time, they see that the
development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries is being
violently suppressed and that in this way the opponents of the communists are
working as hard as they can for the revolution. . . . This was written over a hundred years ago, yet how fresh it
is as we read it again!
We also know that for a time following the Russian February
Revolution, in view of the specific conditions of the time, Lenin did adopt
the policy of peaceful development of the revolution. He considered it "an
extraordinarily rare opportunity in the history of revolutions"[1] and grasped tight hold of it. The bourgeois Provisional
Government and the White Guards, however, destroyed this possibility of
peaceful development of the revolution and drenched the streets of Petrograd
in the blood of the workers and soldiers marching in a peaceful mass
demonstration in July. Lenin, therefore, pointed out:
page 39
The peaceful course of development has been rendered
impossible. A non-peaceful and most painful course has begun.[1] We know too that when there was a widespread and ardent
desire for peace among the people throughout the country after the conclusion
of the Chinese War of Resistance to Japanese Aggression, our Party conducted
peace negotiations with the Kuomintang, seeking to institute social and
political reforms in China by peaceful means, and in 1946 an agreement on
achieving internal peace was reached with the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang
reactionaries, however, defying the will of the whole people, tore up this
agreement and, with the support of U.S. imperialism, launched a civil war on a
nationwide scale. This left the Chinese people with no option but to wage a
revolutionary war. As we never relaxed our vigilance or gave up the people's
armed forces in our struggle for peaceful reform but were fully prepared, the
people were not cowed by the war, but those who launched the war were made
to-eat their own bitter fruit.
It would be in the best interests of the people if the
proletariat could attain power and carry out the transition to socialism by
peaceful means. It would be wrong not to make use of such a possibility when
it occurs. Whenever an opportunity for "peaceful development of the
revolution" presents itself, Communists must firmly seize it, as Lenin did, so
as to realize the aim of socialist revolution. However, this sort of
opportunity is always, in Lenin's words, "an extraordinarily rare opportunity
in the history of revolutions." When in a given country a certain local
political power is already encircled by revolutionary forces or when in the
world a certain capitalist country is already encircled by socialism -- in
such cases, there might be a greater possibility of opportunities for the
peaceful development of the revolution. But even then,
page 40
the peaceful development of the revolution should never be regarded as the
only possibility and it is therefore necessary to be prepared at the same time
for the other possibility, i.e., non-peaceful development of the revolution.
For instance, after the liberation of the Chinese mainland, although certain
areas ruled by slave-owners and serf-owners were already surrounded by the
absolutely predominant people's revolutionary forces, yet, as an old Chinese
saying goes, "Cornered beasts will still fight," a handful of the most
reactionary slave-owners and serf-owners there still gave a last kick,
rejecting peaceful reforms and launching armed rebellions. Only after these
rebellions were quelled was it possible to carry out the reform of the social
systems.
At a time when the imperialists in the imperialist countries
are armed to the teeth as never before in order to protect their savage
man-eating system, can it be said that imperialism has become very "peaceable"
towards the proletariat and the people at home and the oppressed nations, as
the modern revisionists claim, and that therefore, the "extraordinarily rare
opportunity in the history of revolutions" that Lenin spoke about after the
February Revolution, will henceforth become a normal state of affairs for the
proletariat and all the oppressed people the world over, so that what Lenin
referred to as a "rare opportunity" will hereafter be easily available to the
proletariat in the capitalist countries? We hold that these views are
completely groundless.
Marxist-Leninists should never forget this truth: the armed
forces of all ruling classes are used in the first place to oppress their
people at home. Only on the basis of oppression of the people at home can the
imperialists oppress other countries, launch aggression and wage unjust wars.
In order to oppress their own people they need to maintain and strengthen
their reactionary armed forces. Lenin once wrote in the course of the Russian
revolution of 1905: "A standing army is used not so much against the external
enemy as against the internal
page 41
enemy."[1] Is this
proposition valid for all countries where the exploiting classes dominate, for
all the capitalist countries? Can it be said that it was valid then but has
become incorrect now? In our opinion, this truth remains irrefutable and the
facts are confirming its correctness more and more. Strictly speaking, if the
proletariat of any country fails to see this clearly it will not be able to
find the way to its own liberation.
In The
State and Revolution Lenin centred the problem of revolution on
the smashing of the bourgeois state machine. Lenin quoted the most important
passages from Marx's The Civil War in
France, in which it is stated: "After the Revolution of 1848-49, the
State power became 'the national war engine of capital against labour.'" The
main machine of the bourgeois state power to wage an anti-labour war is its
standing army. Therefore, ". . . The first decree of the Commune . . . was the
suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed
people. . . ."
So in the last analysis, in tackling our question we have to
go back to the principles of the Paris Commune which, as Marx put it, are
eternal and indestructible.
In the seventies of the nineteenth century Marx took Britain
and the United States to be exceptions, holding that as far as these two
countries were concerned there existed the possibility of "peaceful"
transition to socialism, because militarism and bureaucracy were not yet much
developed in these two countries at that time. But in the epoch of
imperialism, as Lenin put it, "this qualification made by Marx is no longer
valid," for these two countries "have today completely sunk into the
all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which
subordinate everything to themselves and trample everything underfoot."[2] This was one of the focal points of the debate Lenin had
with the opportunists of
page 42
the day. The opportunists represented by Kautsky distorted this "no longer
valid" proposition of Marx, in an attempt to oppose the proletarian revolution
and the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, to oppose the revolutionary
armed forces and armed revolution which are indispensable to the liberation of
the proletariat. The reply Lenin gave to Kautsky was as follows:
The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence
against the bourgeoisie; and the necessity for such violence is
particularly created, as Marx and Engels have repeatedly explained in
detail, by the existence of militarism and bureaucracy. But it is
precisely these institutions that were non-existent in England and America in
the seventies of the nineteenth century, when Marx made his observations (they
do exist in England and in America now).[1] It can thus be seen that the proletariat is compelled to
resort to the means of armed revolution. Marxists have always been willing to
bring about the transition to socialism by the peaceful way. As long as the
peaceful way is there to adopt, Marxist-Leninists will never give it up. But
the aim of the bourgeoisie is precisely to block this way when it possesses a
powerful, militarist-bureaucratic machine of suppression.
The above quotation was written by Lenin in November 1918.
How do things stand now? Is it that Lenin's words were historically valid, but
are no longer so under present conditions, as the modern revisionists allege?
As everybody can see, the present situation is that the capitalist countries,
particularly the few imperialist powers headed by the United States, with
hardly an exception, are frantically strengthening their
militarist-bureaucratic machines of suppression, and especially their military
machines.
page 43
The Declaration of the Moscow Meeting of the Representatives
of the Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries of November
1957, states:
. . . Leninism teaches, and experience confirms, that the
ruling classes never relinquish power voluntarily. In this case the degree of
bitterness and the forms of the class struggle will depend not so much on the
proletariat as on the resistance put up by the reactionary circles to the will
of the overwhelming majority of the people, on these circles using force at
one or another stage of the struggle for socialism. This is a new summing up of the experience of the struggle of
the international proletariat in the few decades since Lenin's death.
The question is not whether the proletariat is willing to
carry out a peaceful transformation; it is rather whether the bourgeoisie will
accept such a peaceful transformation. This is the only way in which followers
of Lenin should approach this question.
So, contrary to the modern revisionists who seek to paralyse
the revolutionary will of the people by empty talk about peaceful transition,
Marxist-Leninists hold that the question of the possibility of peaceful
transition to socialism can be raised only in the light of the specific
conditions obtaining in each country at a given period. The proletariat must
never allow itself to one-sidedly and groundlessly base its thinking, policy
and its whole work on the assumption that the bourgeoisie is willing to accept
peaceful transformation. It must, at the same time, prepare for alternatives:
one for the peaceful development of the revolution and the other for the
non-peaceful development of the revolution. Whether the transition will be
carried out through armed uprising or by peaceful means is a question that is
fundamentally different from that of peaceful co-existence between the
socialist and capitalist countries; it is an internal affair of each country,
one to be determined only by the relative strength of class forces in that
page 44
country in a given period, a matter of policy to be decided only by the
Communists of that country themselves.
After the October Revolution, in 1919, Lenin discussed the
historical lessons to be drawn from the Second International. He said that the
growth of the proletarian movement during the period of the Second
International "was in breadth, at the cost of a temporary fall in the
revolutionary level, a temporary increase in the strength of opportunism,
which in the end led to the disgraceful collapse of this International."[1] What is
opportunism? According to Lenin, "Opportunism consists in sacrificing
fundamental interests in order to gain temporary, partial benefits."[2]
And what does a fall in the revolutionary level mean? It
means that the opportunists try by all means to induce the masses to focus
their attention on their day-to-day, temporary and partial interests, and
forget their long-term, fundamental and overall interests.
Marxist-Leninists hold that the question of parliamentary
struggle should be considered in the light of long-term, fundamental and
overall interests.
Lenin told us about the limitations of parliamentary
struggle, but he also warned communists against narrow-minded, sectarian
errors. In his well-known work "Left-Wing" Communism,
an Infantile Disorder
the Birth
of Lenin
OF
"HONGQI"[1]
I
[1] Hongqi
(Red Flag ) is the fortnightly magazine published by the Central
Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. This article appeared in its No. 8
issue, April 16, 1960 --Tr.
[2] Speech by K. Marx on The Paris Commune.
[1] On New Democracy.
[1] Tito's speech
in Zagreb, December 12, 1959.
[1] Under a
False Flag.
interests by the class antagonisms and the class
struggles which manifest themselves in millions of facts of everyday
life."[1] He stated:
[1] The Collapse of the Second
International.
[2]
Under a False Flag.
[1] Tito's speech
in Zagreb, December 12, 1959.
[1] Report on
the Work of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of
People's Commissars.
[1] The Military Program of the
Proletarian Revolution.
[2] Our Internal and External Situation and the
Party's Tasks.
[1] Answer to
the questions of the Correspondent of the American Newspaper, "New York
Evenings Journal."
[1]
Cf. "Active Co-existence and Socialism," Narodna Armija of
Yugoslavia, November 28, 1958.
[1]
Cf. "Eisenhower Arrives in Rome," Borba of Yugoslavia,
December 4, 1959.
[1] The Fourth
Conference of Trade Unions and Factory Committees of Moscow.
[1]
Cf. article by E. Bernstein: Different Forms of Economic
Life.
"<FONT size=-2>[<A
href="http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/LLL60.html#fnp36">3</A>]</FONT>
<P> In the light of this how shall we conceive of the proletarian
socialist revolution?
<P> In order to answer this question we must quote Lenin again.
Let us read the following passage by him: <FONT size=-1>
<P> Not a single great revolution in history has ever been
carried out without a civil war and no serious Marxist will believe it
possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a civil
war.<FONT size=-2>[<A
href="http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/LLL60.html#fnp36">4</A>]</FONT> </FONT>
<P>These words of Lenin here explain the question very clearly. And here is
another quotation from Lenin: <FONT size=-1>
<P> <I>If</I> socialism had been born peacefully -- but the
capitalist gentlemen did not wish to let it be born thus. It is not quite
enough to put it this way. Even if there had been no war, the capitalist
gentlemen would still have done all they could to prevent such a peaceful
development. Great revolutions, even when they began peacefully, like the
great French Revolution, have ended in desperate wars which have been started
by the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.<FONT size=-2>[5]</FONT> </FONT>
<P>This is also very clearly put. <A name=fnp36>
<HR align=left width="12%" noShade SIZE=1>
<FONT size=-1> <SUP><FONT size=-2>[1]</FONT></SUP> <I><A
href="http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/FCCI19.html">The First Congress of the
Communist International</A>.</I><BR> <SUP><FONT
size=-2>[2]</FONT></SUP> <I>Speech at the Workers Conference of Presnia
District.
[3] Two Tactics of
Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.
[4] Prediction.
[5] The First All-Russian Conference on
Social Education.
[1] A Letter to
the Workers of Europe and America.
[1] The Tasks
of the Revolution.
[1] On
Slogans.
[1] The Army
and the Revolution.
[2]
The State and Revolution.
[1] The Proletarian Revolution and
the Renegade Kautsky.