Full text of "Facts on communism"

See other formats

I
I

/ I ^ vv/y»

-,^ I n v/A /

V. l-r

86th Congress, 2d Session

House Document No. 336

Facts

Communism

VOLUME I
THE COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY

86th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 336

FACTS ON
COMMUNISM

VOLUME I
THE COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 1959

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
«1436o WASHINGTON : 1960

For sale by the Suporintondent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OIHce
Washington 25, D.G. - Piico 45 cents

"-7' '

J -June <^ /

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
United States House of Representatives

FRANCIS E, WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri DONALD L. JACKSON, California

CLYDE DOYLE, California GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana WILLIAM E. MILLER, New York

WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia AUGUST E. JOHANSEN. Michigan

Richard Arens, Staff Director

H. Con. Res. 449 Passed February 9, 1960

^ijfitpiith Congress of the Bnitecl States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the sixth day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and sixty

Concurrent l\Cso[iitian

Resolved hy the House of Representatives {the Senate concurring)^
That the publication entitled "Facts on Communism — Volume 1, The
Communist Ideology" prepared by the Committee on Un-American
Activities, House of Eepresentatives, Eighty-sixth Congress, first ses-
sion, be printed as a House document ; and that there be printed
thirty thousand additional copies of said document of which sis thou-
sand shall be for the use of said committee and twenty-four thousand
copies to be prorated to the Members of the House of Eej)resentatives.

Attest :

Ralph R. Roberts,
Cleric of the House of Representatives,

Attest :

Felton M. Johnston,
Secretary of the Senate.

CONTENTS

Page

Preface 1

Introduction 3

v^ The Communist Ideology 15

^ Chapter I. The Communist View of History 15

^V^ 1. Classes and Class Struggle 15

"* Property as the basis of class struggle 15

nS Classes as conscious agents in history 16

^ Facts, analysis, and dogma 16

Communist explanation of evil 19

2. Class Struggles and Historical Change 19

\; Class struggles as the form of historical change. ... 19

dS Knowledge of the "laws" of historical change 21

^ 3. The Destination of History 22

^ Five phases of human society 2

X Significance of the "five phases" theory 23

Weaknesses of the "five phases" theory 24

4. The Laws of History 25

Dialectical materialism 25

Dialectic 26

Materialism 27

5. "Scientific" Socialism 29

"Utopian" socialism rejected 29

Attention focused on the laws of change rather than

the goal 30

Chapter II, The Communist View of the Present Society 32

1 . The Communist World View 32

Two incompatible approaches 32

Marx's indictment of capitalist society 33

Commodity production and contractual labor 34

"Surplus value" 35

The significance of the concept of "surplus value". . 35

The "labor theory of value" 36

Criticism of the theory of "surplus value" 37

2. Marx's View of the Dynamics of Capitalist Society. ... 38

The "law of accumulation" 39

"Concentration" and "centralization" 39

"Increasing misery" 40

Crises and revolution 40

3. Lenin's Views on Capitalism 41

False predictions 41

The consequences of the failure of Marx's predic-
tions 42

•'Monopoly capitalism" 43

The "need for foreign markets" 44

Division and redivision of the world 45

The new image of capitalism 46

4. Lenin's Views About the Dynamics of Capitalism 47

The politics of "imperialism" 47

"Inherent contradictions of imperialism" 48

Weaknesses of Lenin's concept 49

5. Communists in "Present-day Society" 50

Communist attitudes toward "present-day society" . . 50

(III)

The Communist Ideology — Continued Page

Chapter III. The Socialist Revolution 55

1. Difference Between "Socialist Revolution" and Other

Revolutions 55

Meaning of the Marxist concept of revolution 56

2. "Bourgeoisie" and "Proletariat" 56

"Revolutionary" and "really revolutionary" 57

3. Marx's and Engels' Idea of the Revolution 59

When 60

Where 61

Who 61

How 62

4. Effects of the Revolution 63

5. The "Period of Transition" 65

6. Lenin's Views of Communist Revolution 66

Chapter IV. Communist Organization and Strategy 75

1 . The Communist Party 75

Consciousness 76

Opportunism 78

The party and the masses 81

"Propaganda" and "agitation" 82

"Democratic centralism" 84

The party as the priesthood of "truth" 85

2. Principles of the Communist Minority Strategy 87

"Neutralization" 89

Alliances 90

The "two revolutions" 91

Legal and illegal activities 93

Duration of the minority situation of the party. ... 94

3. The Communist Teaching About the State 95

Communist dogma about the nature of the state ... 96

The "natural order" 96

The state as a symptom of humanity's basic ills .... 97

Communist concept of any non-Communist state . . 100

The Soviet state 101

Functions of the state 103

State power 105

Official definitions 106

4. The Role of the Soviet Union 107

Socialism in one country 108

"Peaceful coexistence" 110

"Inevitability" of war 113

"Just" and "unjust" wars 116

The "socialist fatherland" 117

The Soviet Union and the "interests of mankind". . 119

Chapter V. Communist Philosophy 121

1. The Philosophical Basis of Communism 122

Hegel 122

Feuerbach 123

2. Materialism and Dialectic 125

3. Dialectical Materialism 130

4. Religion and Ethics 133

Public Law 601, 79th Congress

The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter
753, 2d session, which provides:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, * * *

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Rule X

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES
*******

18. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.

Rule XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES
*******

(q)(l) Committee on Un-American Activities.

(A) Un-American activities.

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit,
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent-
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,
(ii) the diffusion v/ithin the United States of subversive and un-American propa-
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attaclis
the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and
(iii) ail other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary
remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi-
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such
times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting,
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person
designated by any such chairman or member.

*****••

Rule XII

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT BY STANDING COMMITTEES

Sec. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces-
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdic-
tion of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports
and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch of
the Government.

(V)

RULES ADOPTED BY THE 86TH CONGRESS
House Resolution 7, January 7, 1959

* * * * * 0 0

Rule X

STANDING COMMITTEES

1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Con-
gress,

****** ^

(q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.

****** m

Rule XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES

* * * * * 0 m

18. Committee on Un-American Activities.

(a) Un-American activities.

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee,
is authorized to m.ake from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char-
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American prop-
aganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu-
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress
in any necessary remedial legislation.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or any subcomm.ittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and
to take such testimon}', as it deems necessary', Subpenas may be issued under
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person
designated by any such chairman or member.

*******

26. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and In
developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary,
each standing committee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness
of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject
matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that
purpose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by
the agencies in the executive branch of the Government.

(VI)

PREFACE

The Committee on Un-American Activities herewith presents the first
of a series of volumes designed to give a comprehensive survey of commu-
nism in both its theoretical and practical aspects.

This volume and succeeding volumes to be published are the fruit of
collaboration between the Committee's research staff and a number of
eminent scholars with specialized knowledge of certain aspects of
communism.

Volume I of the Facts on Communism is published with the Commit-
tee's special acknowledgment to Dr. Gerhart Niemeyer, professor of
political science at the University of Notre Dame, for taking the respon-
sibihty of analyzing and interpreting Communist ideology.

Francis E. Walter, Chairman.

(1)

INTRODUCTION

Communism is called, by its own followers, a "philosophy in action."
As a philosophy, it is characterized by a basic attitude of uncompromising
hostility to all non-Communist societies and the ideas held in them.
Beyond this, however, it is a philosophy armed with means of power.

First, it is armed with the strength and resources of a big country and
the more than 200 million people living there. Using this country's
might, it has added to itself the further strength of an empire of over
700 million more people. Second, this philosophy is the guiding motive
for a network of organized adherents in all countries whose loyalties are
basically alienated from their respective nations and fellow citizens and
committed to the overthrow of the existing social order in favor of the
Communist alternative.

At present, comm.unism has concentrated its hostility on the United
States as the most powerful among the nations not yet under its sway.
The United States thus finds itself under attack by an enemy whose
motive for hostility is not any practical grievance or limited aspiration but
rather the basic will to destroy the order of life in the United States in
order to make room for a Communist rule.

The enemy has engaged us on many fronts at once. In the field of
international power relations, he has pursued an aggressive policy
seeking to isolate the United States in order to destroy our power, an
objective toward which he has pressed with or without war, by means
of diplomacy, propaganda, trade, and subversion. In the framework
of internal political and social order, the enemy has sought to influence,
paralyze, or disintegrate the processes of our common life, operating
under the facade of ostensibly responsible citizenship. In the realm of
ideas, finally, the enemy has attempted to use many kinds of intellectual
and cultural activities (education, science, literature, art) in order to
destroy all loyalties other than those to Communist leadership.

This multifarious attack, unprecedented in history, differs so much
from the normal pattern of relations between nations or political groups
within nations that many people fail to grasp the full extent of the threat.
Some tend to mistake communism for a mere part of what it is and
does. Others are not informed about the concealed aspects of com-
munism. Still others find the Communist philosophy strange and in-
comprehensible.

Ignorance of communism in all its aspects is a dangerous weakness in
this struggle. The committee has therefore considered it one of its

(3)

most urgent tasks to assemble all the salient facts about communism
for a full, undistorted, and revealing picture of communism's true
nature. This is no small undertaking. It amounts to a comprehen-
sive and intelligible, as well as fully documented, description of the Com-
munist philosophy, the rise of the Communists to power in Russia, the
regime they have established there, the expansion of Communist rule
from Russia, and the methods used by Communist imperialism.

By way of an introduction to the more detailed treatments of these
various topics, it behooves us briefly to identify the political movement
with which we are dealing, the men who originated it, and the place
they and their ideas occupy in contemporary history.

The term "communism" is now commonly confined to the organiza-
tion and ideology of the revolutionary movement centering in the Com-
munist Party of the So\iet Union. This party, in turn, acknovv'ledges as
its undisputed authority Vladimir Il'ich Lenin. Lenin confessed him-
self a faithful pupil of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and he began
to organize his Communist Party within the framework of the larger
organized movement initiated by Marx and Engels. Lenin, however,
was also influenced by a specific Russian revolutionary tradition which
had its own thinkers — notably Nechaev and Tkachev — and its own suc-
cession of revolutionary organizations, which indirectly affected the
Russian Marxists.^ The ideology of communism, as finally elaborated
by Lenin, formally adopted all of the thoughts of Marx and Engels, even
though in substance these ideas were developed and revised by Lenin.
Its organizational and operational methods are, however, strongly influ-
enced by non-Marxist revolutionary traditions in Russia.

In the following we shall briefly identify the men, ideas, and organi-
zations that contributed to communism in its present form.

Marx and His Time

For a brief survey of the biographical data of Karl Marx, we rely on
the following sketch by Sidney Hook :

. . . Marx was bom in 1818 in the little Rhenish town of Trier which
boasted of its origins as a distinguished Roman outpost of early times. On
both sides of his family he was descended from a long line of Jev/ish rabbis.
For social reasons, Marx's father became converted to Protestantism and his
son grew up without any consciousness of himself as being Jewish. After a
conventionally brilliant career at school, Marx attended briefly the Univer-
sity of Bonn and then the University of Berlin where he developed strong
intellectual interests in law, philology, and theology. Upon the completion
of his doctorate he was made editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, which was
shortly suppressed because of its advanced liberal views. In 1843, Marx
married. He then moved to Paris where he plunged into a study of

* Eugene Pyziur, The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin (Milwaukee:
Marquette University Press, 1955), especially chapter 6.

French communism and political economy. While in Paris he met Friedrich
Engels and forged a lifelong friendship with him. Engcls, son of a wealthy
manufacturer, shared, helped develop, and popularized Marx's ideas. He
also relieved tlie burden of crushing poverty on Marx's family. Exiled from
Paris, Marx went to Brussels where he joined the Communist League and
on the eve of the Revolution of 1848 wrote the Communist Manifesto. He
took a lively part in helping to organize the Revolution of 1848 in Western
Europe, was banished from Brussels, arrested, tried, and freed in Gennany,
and compelled to leave France again. He finally found political asylum
in London, where he spent the rest of his life in research, writing, emigrant
squabbles, political journalism of the highest level, and in organizing the
First International Workingmen's Association. He published comparatively
little during this period aside from the first volume of Capital, although he
left behind the draft of several other volumes.

Fame and acknowledgment came slowly to Marx, and when he died in
1883 few outside of the circle of his political followers were aware of his
work and stature.^

Who were the French Communists whom Marx went to Paris to study,
and what place does Marx occupy in comparison with them? Socialist
movements had taken form in the wake of the French Revolution ( 1 789 )
which had powerfully propagated the ideas of freedom and equality.
In the framework of the developing industrial society, people began to
ask how these ideas applied to the industrial workers.

. . . The workingman was told by respected economists that he could not
hope to change the system in his own favor. . . . He was told by the
Manchester School, and by its equivalent in France, that the income of labor
was set by ineluctable natural lavv's. . . .

*******

There were two means of escape. One was to improve the position of
labor in the market. This led to the formation of labor unions. . . .
The other means of escape was to repudiate the whole idea of a market
economy. It was to conceive of a system in which goods were to be pro-
duced for use, not for sale; and in which working people should be com-
pensated according to need, not according to the requirements of an em-
ployer. This was the basis of most forms of socialism.

Socialism spread rapidly among the working class after 1830. In France
it blended with revolutionary republicanism. There was a revival of in-
terest in the great Revolution and the democratic republic of 1793. . . .
In Britain, as befitted the different background of the country, socialistic
ideas blended in with the movement for further parliamentary reform.'

It was in the Western countries where socialist ideas had been de-
veloped by various schools of thought and various political movements
that Marx found men v.ith revolutionary minds akin to his own.

^Sidney Hook, Marx and the Marxists, The Ambiguous Legacy (Princeton: D.
Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1955), pp. 12, 13.

' R. R. Palmer, A History of the Modern World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.,
1950), pp. 475-477.

Marx was a revolutionary, and his mission to prepare the proletariat for
revolution. This is the simple and important fact about him which is the
clue to all his public life. The real difference between him and such social-
ists as Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier — the Utopians, as he called them,
although he also spoke of them with considerable respect — ^was not that
he was scientific and they were not. That was only the difference as he
and Engels conceived it. Saint-Simon had a theory of history at least as
intellectually respectable as Marx's. . . . Marx compared Saint-Simon's
theory with his own and found it unccientific ; but the impartial student,
looking at the two theories, finds one characteristic common to them:
they both claim to be scientific*

The three "Utopians" mentioned in the above-quoted passage were
contemporaries of Marx. Robert Owen (1771-1858) was a British
reformer and socialist who reconstructed a community into a model
town with nonprofitmaking stores and advanced working conditions.
He also pioneered a number of cooperative societies and instigated the
Factory Act of 1819. Saint-Simon (1760-1825) was a French social
philosopher of noble birth. His writings foreshadowed socialism, Euro-
pean federation, and the positivism of Comte. His pupils constructed
a political program calling for public control of the means of produc-
tion, abolition of inheritance rights, and the emancipation of women.
Fourier ( 1772-1837) was also a French social philosopher. He called
for small economic units based on common property."

As soon as Marx, in polemical discussion with other socialists, had
defined and proclaimed his own "scientific" socialism another revolu-
tion broke out, spreading from France to all of Europe (1848).

. . . Governments collapsed all over the Continent. Remembered hor-
rors appeared again, as in a recurring dream, in much the same sequence as
after 1789 only at a much faster rate of speed. Revolutionaries milled in
the streets, kings fled, republics were declared, and within four years there
was another Napoleon. Soon thereafter came a series of wars.

. . . only the Russian Empire and Great Britain escaped the revolution-
ary contagion of 1848, and the British received a very bad scare.^

This revolution, coming in little more than half a century after the
Great Revolution in France, seemed to confirm Marx's theory of revolu-
tions as the driving force in history. Together with other revolution-
aries, Marx now began to prepare systematically the ground for further
revolutionary upheavals. He was, however, to see only one more, and
that a minor one: During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, an
uprising occurred within the walls of besieged Paris and a revolutionary
regime established itself in the city for a few months. This was the

* John Plamcnatz, German Marxism and Russian Communism (London, New York,
Toronto: Longmans, Green & Co., 1954), p. 118.

"The above data based on The Columbia Encyclopaedia (2d ed.; New York:
Columbia University Press, 1950).

• Palmer, op. cit., pp. 479, 480.

so-called Paris Commune, a movement first rejected and then eagerly
espoused by Marx who succeeded in incorporating this event into the
revolutionary tradition acknowledged and venerated by his own
adherents/

To turn back again to the relation between Marx and other contem-
porary socialists :

What really distinguishes Marx from the socialists falsely called Utopian
is therefore not science but revolutionary zeal; and what distinguishes him
from the other socialists who believed in the class war, from Blanqui,
Proudhon and Bakunin, is again not science but the peculiarities of the
dieory he invented to explain his faith in the proletariat. Proudhon had
no developed philosophy of history; his theory of exploitation was different
from Marx's; he wanted to abolish private capitalism without substituting
for it the public ownership of the means of production and exchange; and
he did not believe that the workers should try to capture political power.
He was a more confused thinker than Marx, but just as determined an
enemy of capitalism. Bakunin was an anarchist, an almost incoherent
doctrinaire, and an irresponsible political leader, but as much a friend of
the proletariat and as ardent a fighter as Marx. It is his immense learning,
the greater coherence of his theories, his ability to work hard, his tenacity
of purpose, his sense of responsibility and — dare I say it? — his bourgeois
morality, that distinguish Marx from Bakunin.*

Here we meet three more contemporaries of Marx. Blanqui (1805-
8 1 ) was a French revolutionist and radical thinker, as well as a leader
in the Revolution of 1848. The Commune of Paris in 1871 was largely
controlled by his followers. Proudhon (1809-65) was a French social
theorist who achieved prominence through his pamphlet What Is Prop-
erty? He sought a society of loosely federated groups in which the gov-
ernment might become unnecessary. Bakunin ( 1 8 14-76 ) was a Russian
anarchist who was exiled to Siberia from where he escaped. In the First
International he was opposed by Marx who had him expelled. He be-
lieved "anarchism, collectivism, and atheism" would give man complete
freedom and advocated violent revolution.®

. . . Blanqui, the most famous active revolutionary leader of the nine-
teenth century, was not really a theorist at all; he merely invented a social
philosophy to justify his practice long after he had adopted it, and then only
because it was the fashion to do so. Blanqui, like Marx, had nothing to say
about the future society, it would emerge of itself and no one could know
beforehand what it would be like. His business was merely to destroy
bourgeois society; and to that business he devoted his whole life.^°

^R. N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (New York: the
Macmillan Co., 1957), p. 104.

* Plamenatz, op. cit., p. 119. The phrase "bourgeois morahty" obviously intends
to indicate that Marx was governed by certain scruples which Bakunin had entirely
shed.

' The above data based on The Columbia Encyclopaedia, op. cit.

*" Plamenatz, op. cit., p. 120.

There were, in other words, besides Marxist socialism a number of
other similar ideas which had gathered unto themselves social move-
ments, mainly in France. There was Fourierism, and Saint-Simonism;
there was the anarchism inspired by Proudhon, and the conspiratorial
revolutionary movement led by Blanqui. Marx was certainly influ-
enced by all of these movements and yet developed the main features
of his own thought in the effort to define the difference between himself
and them. Thus he fought a running battle against the anarchists, he
separated his own brand of socialism sharply from what he called the
"Utopian" variety, and kept at some distance from Blanquism. These
efforts took shape above all in the long-drawn-out struggles to impose his
ideas on various revolutionary organizations. After the original Com-
munist League, which soon dissolved, the earliest of these organizations
was the First International.

The First and Second Internationals

What was the First International? In 1864, at a meeting attended
by French, German, Italian, Swiss, and Polish Socialists, an international
association was formed. It was called an "International Federation of
Working Men" and "pledged to destroy the prevailing economic sys-
tem." The association comprised many heterogenous elements, whose
general agreement on some revolutionary mood could not cover their
profound disagreement on the nature, time, occasion and aim of the
revolution. The drafting of its constitution was entrusted to Marx who
also became a member of the Executive Committee."

From 1866 to 1869 the First International held annual congresses either
in Switzerland or Belgium. Marx and Engels did not attend them, for
neither thought such gatherings of much importance as long as they them-
selves controlled the General Council in London. ... the elements of
which the International was composed were too heterogeneous to render
possible agreement on any positive policy. . . .

None the less, the First International . . . grew yearly in numbers.
By the end of the sixties it was believed to have a regular dues-paying
membership of 800,000. . . . Marx . . . saw in the International
great possibilities. ... he wrote to Engels in September 1867. "By the
time of the next revolution, which may perhaps be nearer than it seems,
we (that is you and I) will have this powerful engine in our hands. . . ."

The revolution came at last with the Paris Commune of 1871, but its
result was to destroy the International . . .

The final dissolution of die First International was due to Marx's con-
troversy with Michael Bakunln. . . ,

"Hunt, op. cit.,p. 113.

. . . His personality dominated the Basle Congress of 1869 — which
Marx did not attend — and a resolution drafted by Marx was voted down by
a large majority. Marx therefore became persuaded that Bakunin was out
to capture the International; and thus he and Engels attended the next
congress, held at The Hague on September 2nd, 1872, where they succeeded
in getting him excluded. But his [Bakunin's] influence in the Inter-
national was still dangerously strong; and rather than allow it to come under
his control, Marx carried a resolution transferring its headquarters to the
United States . . . where it was finally dissolved at the Congress of
Philadelphia of 1876.^2

Marx and Engels themselves did not attempt to revive the Interna-
tional. Before a successor organization was founded, there took place a
remarkable growth of socialist parties in the major countries of Europe,
particularly in Germany, parties in which Marx's principles often played
a dominating role.

... in Germany ... at the Reichstag elections of 1890, the Social
Democrats polled nearly a million and a half votes. ... It was by far
the largest political labour group in Europe, and its leaders were regarded,
even by the Russians, with an extreme I'espect. In England the "Demo-
cratic Federation" was founded in 1881 by H. M. Hyndman, and became
known in 1884 as the "Social Democratic Federation". ... In France
the Parti Ouvrier Francais had been founded in 1879 by Jules Guesde, and
Marx had drawn up its statutes. . . .

In 1889 two congresses were held in Paris, the one attended by Marxists,
and the other by non-Marxists. The two, however, were persuaded to com-
bine; and thus on July 14th . . , there was founded . . . the Second
International, which held congresses every two or three years up to the
First World War. It formally adopted Marx's basic principles — the class
struggle, international unity, proletarian action and the socialization of
the means of production; . . .^^

The Second International had put great hopes in international labor
solidarity as an effective barrier to international war. When it was not
able to prevent the outbreak or continuation of the World War in 1914,
its prestige suffered a fatal blow from which it never recovered. How-
ever, even before this time, its ranks had been badly split by disagree-
ment over the character of the coming revolution.

Reformism and Revolutionism

Between approximately 1900 and 1917, a split produced itself within
the Second International, or rather within the parties affiliated with
the Second International. It took place in the foiTn of violent discus-
sions over party strategy, particularly in the German Social-Democratic
Party, and particularly as a result of the Russian Revolution of 1905.

''Ibid., pp. 113-118.
"ifcid., pp. 125, 126,

That revolution raised the question whether Marxists should proceed
to make a revolution by direct mass action or should rather work for
increasing influence of the party's parliamentary representation. An-
other issue was raised by the prospective European war, which posed
the question whether Marxist parties should unconditionally refuse to
support the military establishments of their nations, or should rather
press for social improvements as the price for socialist support of miUtary
appropriations.^*

... In the German Social Democratic Party the 1905 revolution in
Russia was the parting of the ways. The leader of the Marxist faction
was then Karl Kautsky [1854-1938] ... in ... 1906 he published
an article . . . suggesting . . . the necessity of a change of tactics
within the Party. . . . "It is," he said, "of course an error to say that
the Social Democrats are working to bring about a revolution. That is
not at all the case. What interest have we in producing catastrophes in
which the workers will be the first to suffer?" Thereafter the Party split
into three groups — the reformist right-wing, whose doctrine every congress
condemned in theory but increasingly applied in practice; the Centre, led
by Bebel and later joined by Kautsky; and the Marxist left-wing under
Rosa Luxemburg, and Karl Liebknecht who were to be the founders of the
German Communist Party.^^

It turned out that Marxism could produce two courses of action which
were mutually exclusive even though they sprang from the same founda-
tions. Kautsky's position, sketched in the above passage, is that of a
Marxist who challenges the capitalist society in the name of a higher
morality which, of course, induces him to compete with the rulers of
that society for better solutions to current political problems. The oppo-
site course, eventually formulated in its sharpest consistency by Lenin,
is for ^.larxists to consider themselves as utter strangers in the present
society, to put all their eggs in the single basket of the socialist future,
and therefore to hasten the historical cataclysm of the Revolution by
all the means at their disposal. The latter course came to be called
revolutionary, and the former reformist. The split between adherents
of these two courses resulted from the political choices they had to make
when Marxist parties became poNvcrf ul enough to influence the politics of
their countries and had to make up their minds what they should do in
matters of military appropriations, credits for colonial rule, and how they
would behave in the case of a general war. It is from this spHt between
two wings of Marxism that eventually resulted the two different and
antagonistic party systems of Communists and Social-Democrats, the
former organized in the Third International and the latter continuing
in the Second International.

"Carl E. Schorske, German Social Democracy 1905-1917 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1955), particularly parts I and IV.
"Hunt, 0/). cit.,p. 133.

Lenin and Bolshevism

The above passage mentions a "reformist" right wing of the German
Party. This "reformism" actually, in a negative way, produced much
of the impulse for Leninism. "Reformism" was started by the ideas of
Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932), the first leading Marxist daring pub-
licly to admit that Marx's predictions had not come true, and to draw
from this the conclusion that Marx's principles should be revised.
Thence his approach is also called "Revisionism."

Bernstein called attention to the fact that the reforms achieved as a result
of the pressure of trade unions, and the Socialist Party had altered in some
ways the grim economic prospects of capitalism as predicted by the orthodox
Marxists. He inferred from this and other social phenomena that the work-
ers could gain both more allies and more victories by the extension of demo-
cratic methods than by preaching and practicing class war. Class struggles
were endemic to the economic system. But they need not take violent form.
Bernstein in efTect made the sociaHst program subordinate to the democratic
process and the interest of class a means of furthering the good of the
community.^®

Bernstein's main work was published in 1898, and from then on a
violent discussion rent the ranks of the Marxist Sociahst parties. One of
those who reacted very strongly against Bernstein's revisionist ideas was
the young Russian Marxist \Qadimir Il'ich Ulianov, who later adopted
the cover name N. Lenin (1870-1924). He had been introduced to
Marxism by Georgi Plekhanov (1856-1918) who had founded, in
1883, a Marxist group among Russian exiles in Switzerland. At a con-
gress in Minsk in 1898, the Social Democratic Party of Russia was
founded, but, since the party v/as illegal in Russia, its leaders operated in
Switzerland. It was among this group that Lenin, in 1903, developed
the principles of the Communist Party.

In Russia, the impact of Western ideas on a rigidly autocratic regime
had produced a revolutionary tradition which had developed inde-
pendently of the Western revolutionary movements, even though West-
ern socialist notions had from time to time inspired its leaders.

. . . The first revolutionary effort made by the Decembrists, in 1825,
was fomented by circles of officers and aristocrats without popular sup-
port. In the second half of the reign of Alexander II (1855-1881) the
radicals realized that a literary movement addressed to intellectuals, par-
ticularly students, could not obtain practical results. Instead, they pinned
their hopes on terror and on the peasants. Some expected that attempts
against the lives of high officials and the Tsar himself would be a signal
for a revolution of the masses. Others held the romantic belief that the
Russian peasant for whom village communities without individual land
property were characteristic, had a particular affinity for socialism. . , .

" Hook, op. cit., p. 67.
51436'— 60— vol. 1-

This sentimental-Utopian attitude was opposed from the 1880's on,
especially by Russian Marxism (spread first among emigres) of which
Plekhanov was the most outstanding representative."

Among these Russian Marxists, ideas resembling the revisionism of
Bernstein made headway. Like Marx in earlier times, Lenin worked
out his own position in bitter ideological and organizational fights against
the "revisionists." In addition, however, he had been strongly in-
fluenced by some ideas about the coming revolution which were devel-
oped by the Russian terrorist revolutionists Nechaev and Tkachev.

"Neither now nor in the future," Tkachev had written in 1874, "will the
common people by its own power bring on a social revolution. We alone,
the revolutionary minority, can and should do that as soon as possible." ^^

At the Second Congress ^® of the new Russian Social-Democratic Party,
Lenin advanced these ideas against the other Marxists who had more
conventional notions about party organization.

. . . Only if professional revolutionaries devoted their whole lives to
the fight against Tsarism, could they achieve the collapse of absolutist de-
fenses, and only a careful organization could secure and guarantee a con-
tinuity of the revolutionary movement. This conception of the party as a
kind of military organization, based upon orthodox Marxian doctrine, as
interpreted by Lenin (whose views were regarded as the truth), resulted
in a split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the London Social-Demo-
cratic Party congress of 1903.^°

Thus was born not only the nucleus of the Communist Party, but also
a new version of Marxism, later called Leninism. The party existed for
a long while as a mere faction of the Social-Democratic Party of Rus-
sia until, in 1912, it became a party with its own organization."^

Communism as we know it today — an organized and armed ideo-
logical enterprise — was bom at the 1 903 Congress of Russian Marxists.
Here took place the merging of the characteristic elements which in
their combination since then have identified communism: a dogmatic,
exclusive, and aggressive ideology, a centralized, quasi-military and
totalitarian combat organization, the unquestioned intellectual author-
ity of Lenin, and the conspiratorial, dictatorial, and disingenuous atti-
tudes toward fellow men which are peculiar to Communists. In the
complex and yet unified phenomenon of communism, the ideas of Marx
and Engels have actually played no more than a partial role within
Communist ideology which, as such, is Lenin's brainchild.

" WaWcmar Gurian, Bolshevism (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1952), p. 28.

"David Shub, Lenin (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1949), p. 54.

"The Second Congress took place in Brussels and London and was attended not
only by the Russian Marxists in exile but also by a number of delegates from Russia
who came to the West in order to be able to meet without fear of arrest.

^ C-iir ian, op. cit., p. 30.

•* Guiian, op. cit., p. 31.

There is little worthy of note in Lenin's life before 1917. He was
the son of a district school inspector in Simbirsk, one of sk children.
His father was a member of the minor nobility. When he was 1 6, his
older brother Alexander was executed for taking part in a conspiracy
against the Tsar. At this time, according to Lenin's later testimony,
he "ceased to believe in God." In 1887, he entered Kazan University
from which he was soon expelled for student disorders. He took his law
degree at the University of St. Petersburg in 1891. In 1893 he once
more returned to that city and joined an underground Social Democratic
circle. A few years later, on a trip abroad, he met Plekhanov. Back in
Russia, he was arrested in 1895 and sent to exUe in Siberia. After the
end of his punishment, he left Russia in 1900 and joined Plekhanov's
group in Geneva."

Together with the Marxian emigres around Plekhanov, who later became
his most bitter enemy, Lenin, as co-editor of the Iskra (Spark) (1900-1903) ,
fought all reformist or revisionist Russian socialists. . . .

From 1903 to 1917 Lenin appeared to be only a more or less isolated
leader of a political sect which needed not to be taken too seriously. His
demand for an armed uprising did not play an important role during the
revolution of 1905-1906; the uprising in Moscow remained a local affair.
Such men as Bogdanov, with whom he cooperated for a time, were soon
repudiated; he explained all conflicts with his friends and followers in terms
of their defection from true Marxism. Any interpretation of Marxism
that difTered from his was denounced with the utmost bitterness. In numer-
ous conferences and congresses he continued his struggle with the Men-
sheviks, who formed various groups in opposition to him.

»**»♦♦*

After 1903 Lenin openly established a group of his own, though it was not
until 1912 that the Bolsheviks ofhcially established a separate organization.
However, the factions of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks claimed even after-
wards that they belonged to one paity. . . .

*******

After a brief stay in Russia during the Revolution of 1905 he lived
abroad, but, although an emigre, he remained leader of the party. From
Western Galicia, which at this time belonged to Austria, he determined
the policies of the Bolshevik deputies in the Duma of 1912 and directed
the editors of the Bolshevik party organ, Pravda. . , . After the outbreak
of World War I Lenin moved into Switzerland, . . .

While in Switzerland Lenin participated in the Socialist international
conferences at Zimmerwald (1915) and Kienthal (1916). . . .

*♦♦*♦♦«

After he heard about the end of Tsarism, Lenin . . . succeeded, de-
spite all the difficulties created by the Allies, in returning to Russia; . . .^^

The events after his return — the seizure of power by the followers of
Lenin in the fall of 1917, their suppression of all other parties, and the

" Shub, op. cit., pp. 20, 22, 25, 27, 29, 41.
* Gurian, op. cit., pp. 29-31. 34. 35. 37.

beginnings of dictatorial rule by Lenin and his colleagues — are treated
in the appropriate sections of the present work. Lenin died in 1924,
and control of the world Communist movement then passed into the
hands of StaHn, whose present successor is Khrushchev.

The sharp division between Communists and social-democratic Marx-
ists which had its roots in the debates of 1903 was perpetuated by the
foundation of the Third International (Comintern) as a rival organiza-
tion to the Second International which had survived the World War.

. . . The Third International, founded in Moscow in 1919, aimed to
prepare and organize revolution outside Russia by unifying the various pro-
Communist groups and directing the development of the various Commu-
nist parties. The Comintern imposed 21 points upon parties wishing to
join; it kept authority in its own hands and excluded socialist leaders it
regarded as untrustworthy.^'*

With the help of this international authority, Leninism and the lead-
ership of the Soviet Union became the elements that unified the Com-
munist movement all over the world. With all the complexity of poli-
tical, personal, and organizational factors, communism henceforth con-
stituted a unified whole in which Marxist-Leninist ideology, the power
of Soviet Russia, the organization of the Communist Party, and the
specific and typical attitudes and operations of Communists combine
to constitute a movement with a single aggressive purpose. It is to the
various aspects of this unified whole that the different volumes of Facts
on Communism are devoted.

Volume I is meant to present a survey of the entire body of ideas that
make up Communist ideology. A systematic presentation of this kind
cannot be made except in the form of an interpretation of the Commu-
nist "classical" authorities. This interpretation of Communist doctrines
also includes criticism of at least the fundamental ideas. The system and
the interconnection of the various parts of Communist ideology have been
analyzed and interpreted by Dr. Gerhart Niemeyer, and extensive quota-
tions from Communist "scriptures" are provided to document the
analysis.

A professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, Dr.
Niemeyer's competence in the field of Communist doctrine is attested by
the fact that he teaches graduate courses on Communist ideology. Dr.
Niemeyer was bom in Germany but left that country on the advent of
Hitler to power. Educated in England and Germany, he has taught in
the United States at Princeton, Oglethorpe, Yale, and Columbia Univer-
sities. He has served as Planning Adviser in the Department of State,
research analyst in the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of
the resident faculty of the National War College. He is co-editor of the
Handbook on Communism, published in a German edition in 1958 and
about to appear in its English edition.

•* Gurian, op. cit., p. 44.

THE COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY

Chapter I. The Communist View of History

Communist ideology was originally derived from a philosophy of
history. And a view of history is still the very core of communism.
What Marx took over from the philosopher G. W. F. Hegel and made
the center of his own ideology is not a set of mere observations about
historical events, but a complete theory about how history moves, why
it moves, and the direction in which it moves. Since history is the en-
tire field of human activities, such a theory of history supplies an ex-
planation of the meaning of all human efforts (the direction of history),
instruction on what people should be doing next (the "laws" of historical
development), and a yardstick by which the value of men and things
should be judged (foiward — good; backward — bad). It can be readily
seen that a comprehensive theory of history like that offers guidance simi-
lar to that provided by rehgion, and thus can be used as a substitute for
religion by people who no longer beUeve in God.

1. Classes and Class Struggle

The centerpiece of the Communist view of history is the doctrine which
says that all societies above the primitive level are split into classes
engaged in an unceasing and irreconcilable struggle : the doctrine of the
class struggle. This is the concept that serves as a guiding criterion to all
Communist thinking about society and politics. Communist ideology
assumes that the basic reality of anything social is the class struggle. It
thus explains in terms of the class struggle all salient events of history, the
evils of human hfe, pohtics and the state, revolutions, ideas and religions,
and many other phenomena. In presenting here the details of this
doctrine, it will be pointed out that the doctrine consists of a characteris-
tic mixture of scientific analysis, myth and prophesy, a mixture which
enables it to impress men with the appeals of science along with those of
religion.

Property as the basis of class struggle

If some men are able to wield oppressive power over others. Com-
munists say, it is private property, and property alone, which enables
them to do so. Property is what has brought about the division of so-
ciety into classes. Property gives people exclusive control over things.

(15)

Those who have exclusive control of the means of economic production
can use their ownership as power over their fellow beings who do not
own meaas of production. Thus we have classes, and power, both
explained in terms of property.

Classes as conscious agents in history

Marx analyzed society by distinguishing in it several classes of people,
according to the type of relationship which linked people with the process
of production. As a mere observation, this is, of course, a valid method
of scientific classification, just as scientists group plants and animals
according to certain characteristics. But Marx went beyond mere
obser\'ation. He claimed that the classes into which he had grouped
people are real social and political forces vvhich can and do act in his-
tory— nay, v/hich are the chief actors in Iiistory. This is a bold thesis.
Since classes have no external organization to act on their behalf, they
can "act" as a unit only if the people grouped together in a class are
themselves conscious of being parts of a "class." Classes can be actors
in history only if people's minds are fully aware of their class interests
and determined to promote them. This is indeed what communism
claims. It asserts that people form different classes not only by virtue
of the fact of their economic existence, but also because people living in
similar circumstances also think alike. In a similar way, Hitler alleged
that people with the same kind of physical build had the same kind of
soul. Hitler believed men belonging to different races to be essentially
different creatures. Marx taught that men belonging to different classes
had no common values or ideas; that they had essentially differing con-
sciousnesses. Let us note here that to classify phenomena — including
people — for the purpose of observation, is one thing; to attribute to
such classes will, purpose, and a common consciousness is quite another.
To say that the classes into which one has divided people are authors
of action, is an assertion which requires elaborate and hard-to-obtain
proof.

Facts, analysis, and dogma

Marx went beyond scientific methods in another respect. He described
property as a source of power in society. But then he went beyond this
analysis and claimed that property is, has been, and forever will be the
sole root of oppressive power. In order to maintain this, he must, of
course, discount such sources of power as bureaucracies, police machin-
eries, military forces, taxation, or else he must claim that all these are
merely derived from the power that flows from property. This indeed is
the claim of Communists, It is another assertion that requires proof, a
proof which no Communist thinker has ever attempted to offer.

In the following quotations, it will be possible to trace both the ele-
ments of scientific observations and the elements of dogma in the Marxist
doctrine of class division. First, a dogmatic assertion :

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Next, a mixture of historical fact and dogma:

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master
and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant op-
position to one another, carried on an uninteniipted, now hidden, now
open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-con-
stitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
classes.^

Then, based on dogma, a diagnosis and a prediction:

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinc-
tive feature : it has simplified tiie class antagonisms. Society as a whole is
more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great
classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.^

Back to sober historical reporting, but tied into the myth :

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foun-
dation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At
a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of
exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and ex-
changed, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing indus-
try, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer
compatible with the already developed productive forces: they became so
many fetters. They had to be biu"st asunder; they were burst asunder.

A purely factual statement follov/s:

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and
political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political
sway of the bourgeois class.^

From here we move on to a piece of sociological analysis designed to
arouse the reader's sympathy and indignation :

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same
proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class
of labourers, who Hve only so long as they find work, and who find work
only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must
sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of com-
merce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition,
to all the fluctuations of the market.*

*Karl Marx and Frederick Engcls, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party"
(December 1847-January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages
Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 34.

* Ibid., pp. 34 and 35.

* Ibid., p. 39.

* Ibid., p. 40.

Finally, the analysis furnishes a prediction that the "two camp situa-
tion" will surely be realized :

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers,
and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all
these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive
capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried
on, and is swamped in the competition with large capitalists, partly be-
cause their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of pro-
duction. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.^

Here a bit of sociological analysis is used to justify a total rejection of
the entire social order of the present, its ideas, culture and political
authority :

In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are al-
ready virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation
to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bour-
geois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to
capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has
stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion,
are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just
as many bourgeois interests.®

. . . Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your
bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is
but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential
character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of
existence of your class.''

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual produc-
tion changes its character in proportion as material production is changed?
The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.®

. . . The cohesive force of civilized society is the state, which in all
typical periods is exclusively the state of the ruling class, and in all cases
remains essentially a machine for keeping down the oppressed, exploited
class.^

And now we are emotionally and intellectually prepared for this frank
proclamation of a dogma :

. . . Then it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its
primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes
of society are always the products of the modes of production and of
exchange — in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the

'Ibid., p. 41.

• Jbid., p. 44.
' Ibid., p. 49.

• Ibid., p. 52.

•Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884).
Mnr.x and Ev.^els Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. II, p. 323.

economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from
which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole super-
structure of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious,
philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period.^"

In these statements we find thrown together facts, analysis, and dogma.
It is a fact that there are classes. The analysis of power in terms of
relations other than legal authority has validity. But beyond facts and
analysis, it is nothing but dogma to assert (a) that all human actions
are motivated by class struggles; {b) that there are no classes except
those based on property distinctions ; {c) that the ownership of the means
of production is the root of oppressive class rule; and {d) that the
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is entirely splitting
all the people into two hostile camps.

Communtsi explanation of evil

Other dogmatic beliefs of Communists flow from the basic dogma
of the class struggle. Thus they assert that the root of all evil in the
w'orld is the exploitation of one class by another by means of privately
owned land or capital. But for private property, there would be no
exploitation. Communists claim. But for exploitation, there would be
no oppressive power. But for oppressive power, there would be no
crime.

The Communist doctrine of evil in human life is somewhat more
complicated than this (particularly through the concept of man's "aliena-
tion" from other men, his work, and himself) but it basically amounts to
the dogma that most evil is the consequence of private property, and
that, with exploitation and oppression, it will vanish when private prop-
erty of land and capital is abolished.

2. Class Struggles and Historical Change

This concept of class struggle furnishes the Communists with an ex-
planation of history. They say about recorded history {a) that every-
thing that happened has ultimately been an aspect of class struggles; (b)
that one can distinguish in these class struggles certain major phases; [c)
that history moves along a certain line through these phases and cannot
move otherwise; and [d) that this forward movement of history must
culminate in communism. Let us take up each of these doctrines in
turn.

Class struggles as the form of historical change

History, a series of dramatic political changes, has happened, accord-
ing to Communist ideology, because the division of society into classes

"Engels, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, pp. 134, 135.

makes the establishment of political power necessary, and political power
rises, declines, and falls as its basis changes. The basis of political power,
according to the Communist thesis, has been the ownership of the means
of production. In the development of society the techniques of produc-
tion have periodically changed, so that the means of production which
were powerful yesterday gave way to new means of production today.
The owners of these new means of production then were the up and
coming class. But the owners of the old means of production still held
sway by means of the machinery of political power they had estabHshed.
It is political power which prevented a gradual change of peaceful prog-
ress from the rule of one class to that of another. So the up and coming
class slowly gained influence and economic strength %vithin the frame-
work of political rule established by the old class, until one day this
framework would be violently broken and the new class would take over
political power. This theory has been laid down by Marx in a well-
known passage :

. . . The general result at which I arrived and which, once won, served
as a guiding thread for my studies, can be briefly formulated as follows:
In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that
are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production
which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material
productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production con-
stitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which
rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life
conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It
is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the
contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a
certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society
come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is
but a legal expression for the same thing — with the property relations
within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of develop-
ment of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then
begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic
foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly trans-
formed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always
be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions
of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science,
and the legal, political, religious, esthetic or philosophic — in short, ideo-
logical forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.
Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of him-
self, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own
consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather
from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between
the social productive forces and the relations of production. No social
order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room
in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear

before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb
of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such
tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always
be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for
its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.^^

Knowledge of the "laivs" of historical change

On the strength of this theory, the Communists beheve that they are in
possession of the key to history. They believe that the concept of classes,
class struggle, forces of production, relations of production, and revolu-
tion, enable them not only to explain the past, but understand the pres-
ent and recognize the du'ection events are taking into the future. In
the realm of history, the process of change seems to them to have become
as clear as that of mutation has as a result of Darwin's theories :

... It was precisely Marx who had first discovered the great law of
motion of history, the law according to which all historical struggles, whether
tiiey proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological
domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social
classes, and that the existence and thereby the collisions, too, between these
classes are in turn conditioned by the degree of development of their
economic position, by the mode of their production and of their exchange
determined by it. This law, which has the same significance for history as
the law of the transformation of energy has for natural science — this law
gave him here, too, the key to an understanding of the history of the Second
French Republic. He put his law to the test on these historical events, and
even after thirty-three years we must still say that it has stood the test
brilliantly.^^

This is a theory of material causation of all history :

In modern history at least it is, therefore, proved that all political strug-
gles are class struggles, and all class struggles for emancipation, despite their
necessarily political fonn — for every class struggle is a political struggle —
turn ultimately on the question of economic emancipation. Therefore, here
at least, the state — the political order — is the subordinate, and civil society —
the realm of economic relations — the decisive element. . . .
... If the state even today, in the era of big industry and of railways,
is on the whole only a reflexion, in concenti'ated form, of the economic
needs of the class controlling production, then this must have been much
more so in an epoch when each generation of m.en was forced to spend a
far greater part of its aggregate lifetime in satisfying material needs, and
was therefore much more dependent on them than we are today. An ex-

" Marx, Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy"
(January 1859), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages
Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, pp. 362, 363.

" Engels, Preface to the Third German Edition of Marx's "The Eighteenth
Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" (1885), Marx and Engels Selected Works (,Moscow:
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 246.

aminatlon of the history of earlier periods, as soon as it is seriously under-
taken from this angle, most abundantly confirms this."

, . . Now Marx has proved that the whole of previous history is a history
of class struggles, that in all the manifold and complicated political struggles
the only thing at issue has been the social and political rule of social classes,
the maintenance of domination by older classes and the conquest of domina-
tion by newly arising classes. To what, however, do these classes owe their
origin and their continued existence? They owe it to the particular ma-
terial, physically sensible conditions in which society at a given period pro-
duces and exchanges its means of subsistence."

This view of history is called historical materialism. It is the special
philosophy of Marx who developed it and applied it in his writings. Note
that it attributes the ultimate moving power in human affairs to material
factors, viz., the "forces of production," but insists that the actual move-
ments are political, and, at the decisive points, violent. "Force is the
midwife of history," said Marx.

3. The Destination of History-
Marx thought he had discovered the secret of social and political
change and how it happens in history. His followers, particularly Lenin
and Stalin (in most cases following Engels rather than Marx) went much
further. They mapped out the entire course of human history, from the
earliest beginnings, to what they believed m.ust be the ultimate end.
Engels, in a very superficial book called The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State, had distinguished certain phases of social de-
velopment. Engels' already too simplified classification was reduced to
even simpler terms, and now all Communists are taught that the history
of mankind passes through five phases. These phases are distinguished
in terms of the techniques of economic production and the relations of
production with their corresponding social classes.

Five phases of human society

In the first and primitive phase, there was supposedly no private prop-
erty, no class division and no state. With the introduction of private
property, there came, according to the theory, the first division into
classes. The first class society was a slaveholding society, with slaves
owned as private property. When that society had run its course, and
slavery was no longer profitable, a new class of feudal landowners sup-
posedly emerged from the ruins and became the ruling class of the next
type of society — feudal society.

"Engels, "Ludwig Feucrbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy"
(1886), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1955), vol. II, pp. 393, 394.

"Engels, "Karl Marx" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow:
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 163.

In the frame^•vork of feudal society, in turn, the class of merchants grew
into a revolutionary force which eventually overthrew feudal power and
set up a new regime favorable to its own type of property — bourgeois or
capitalistic society. And finally, capitalistic society is expected to
nurture in its bosom its own gravediggers, the proletariat. The vic-
torious revolution of the proletariat then would usher in the fifth phase —
socialist society. Here the proletariat would be the ruling class, but, for
reasons to be discussed later, there would be no more class struggles, no
oppression, and no further revolutions.

What this amounts to is a complete outline of the course which human
history, propelled by class struggles, must take. This theory is the most
important piece in the entire structure of Communist ideology. For
on it depends the Communist idea of the meaning of history (and,
consequently, of politics), the Communist confidence in ultimate vic-
tor)% the Communist attitude towards people, classes and nations, the
Communist ethic (in-sofar as one can speak of an ethic here), and the
Communist insistence on ideological conformity.

Significance of the ''five phases" theory

The five-phases theory goes far beyond Marx's analysis of revolution-
ary change through class struggle, because it pretends to give a com-
plete and exhaustive list of the types of human society through which
mankind must develop. It extends the theory of the class struggle to a
comprehensive view of what past, present, and future of human society
must be. Marx had left an analysis of capitalism, with positive assur-
ance that capitalist society would engender the proletarian class which,
in turn, would by its revolution abolish all classes and the class struggle.
Now Communist ideology teaches that all roads of development in the
world must eventually lead to capitalism and thus set up the proletarian
revolution. That revolution is therefore seen as the destiny of all man-
kind. Not only is it bound to come about as the result of inevitable his-
torical development, but it is also supposed to do away with the class
struggle, the main source of evil, according to Communist thought. So
the proletarian revolution is envisaged as something that is both neces-
sary and good, both destiny and hope. To Communists, then, men are
divided into those who ultimately help the revolution and those who
oppose it. This is the basis of Communists' "ethics," and of the relation
between the Communists and mankind. "Revolution" and "revolu-
tionary" to the Communists are what Richard Weaver has called god-
words. Those who oppose the proletarian revolution and its agents, the
Communists, are not only oriented toward a past that is swept away by
the powerful currents of histor}% but also opposed to the fulfillment of
that destiny which holds the only hope for mankind. They stand con-
demned, in Communist eyes, on two counts : opposition to the march of

histor)', and refusal to serve the good. Communists, on the other hand,
draw from their view of histoiy the double assurance that they are
morally justified by their service to the redeeming cause of the proletarian
revolution, and also are in accord with the movements of history toward
a Communist future. Their struggle and the growth of their power is
both good and necessary, because of the view which they have of history.
One can therefore hardly exaggerate the importance of the Communist
teaching of history, as the main foundation of Communist attitudes to-
ward the world and toward people.

Weaknesses of the ''five phases" theory

But the theory, powerful as it may seem, has weak foundations. We
have already seen that it rests on the assumption that the struggle between
classes is what drives people to act in history. This assumption, in
turn, is based on what Engels termed "... the palpable but previ-
ously totally overlooked fact that men must first of all eat, drink, have
shelter and clothing, therefore must work, before they can fight for
domination, pursue politics, religion, philosophy, etc. . . ." ^° When it
comes to the five phases, however. Communist ideology cannot even rely
wholly on the authority of Marx and Engels. For they, when they dis-
tinguished between various phases of society, recognized ". . . Asiatic,
ancient, feudal, and modem bourgeois modes of production. . . ." ^®

What is this "Asiatic" mode of production? Marx referred here to
a pattern of social and economic order that was found mostly in Asia.
It had been intensively studied by scholars contemporary with Marx,
who had described this type of society as being radically different from
our own in the sense that instead of a ruling class of powerful property
owners, an all-powerful class of state officials held sway.

Now the "Asiatic" mode of production is a sixth phase. As Marx
knew through detailed studies, it was not based on private property of the
means of production, but on state property and the sway of a ruling
class of state officials over a generally powerless populace.^^ Asiatic soci-
ety had been characterized by an absence of "class" revolutions. It had
not given rise to feudalism. It thus did not fit into the stepladder scheme
of history. This reference to Asiatic society was in effect eliminated from
Communist ideology by Lenin. Under Stalin, since 1938, every refer-
ence to Asiatic society was authoritatively frowned upon. For if Asiatic
society were recognized as a type of society, the chain of class-struggle

/6i<i.,p. 164.

Marx, preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy"
(1859), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1955), vol. I, p. 363.

"Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1957), pp. 374, 375, gives a more detailed and precise account of the role of "Asiatic
society" in Marxist thinking than is possible here.

progressions would be upset by a society which had not engendered the
sequence feudalism-capitalism-socialism.

Moreover, Engels in his already mentioned work had said that "The
social classes of the ninth century had taken shape not in the bog of a
declining civilization, but in the travail of a new".^' This meant, of
course, that the "feudal society," which was then forming, had not
"emerged" from the previous, or "slave-holding," society. From this
one could only conclude that, if there are such universal patterns of
society as Marx and Engels assume, it is not provable that there is a
necessary progression from one to another. If a new "phase" can
start by itself, apart from the debris of the previous society, then history
is not predictable, and all kinds of societies may arise when an old
order has run its course. Marx's acknowledgment of a sixth type of
society, which was later ignored, and Engels' admission of self-starting
forces in the succession of societies, remove the props from under the
Communist theory of history. But these views of Marx and Engels
are not taught in Sovietland. Communists are reared in the belief
that history moves forward through five phases, with inexorable necessity,
and that the future of mankind is inevitably Communist.

4. The Laws of History

If Communist ideology consisted of nothing but the teachings of Karl
Marx, it would not have the view of history which has been here de-
scribed. The main work of Marx, Capital, consisted of an analysis of
modern society and its inner laws of development. It was based on the
premise that the relations of men in the process of production contain
the key to the structure of a society and the forces that make for change.
This, as has already been mentioned, is a materialistic explanation of
society, and the theory is called Historical Materialism. Historical
materialism is as far as Marx himself went.

Dialectical materialism

Modem Communist ideology, however, goes much further. It has
developed a theory called Dialectical Materialism}^ This theory goes
back largely to the writings of Engels, whose chief characteristic was that
he generalized every concept that Marx developed. Marx appHed the
concept of the class struggle to one society: the industrial society of 19th
century Western Europe. Engels wrote a brief book in which he
claimed that the same concept applied to all societies ever known. Marx,
in his earlier writings, reflected some\vhat the influence of Hegel and
Hegel's dialectic. Engels took these elements and, again in a short book,

" Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Marx and
Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955),
vol. II, p. 304.

" To be more systematically explained in chapter V, below.

expanded them into a principle that explained everything in nature as
well as in history. Lenin, following Engels more than Marx, developed
a complete philosophy underpinning the Communist view of history,
which is now taught under the name of Dialectical Materialism.

Dialectic
First, what is dialectic? In its modern use, the meaning of the term
goes back to Hegel. It is a philosophy saying that all things are related
with each other, that everything is in continuous flux, and that the flux
occurs according to certain laws. In these laws, the concept of "oppo-
sites" plays a great role. Change occurs because there are opposites
opposing each other. But in the course of the change it turns out that
the opposites are not really opposed, but are really united. The "unity
of opposites" is the name of this principle. It actually says that whenever
we see struggle, there is hidden in it the meaning of unity on a higher
level. Or, to turn it the other way around: struggle is the necessary
form of progress, and all existing things carry in themselves the seed of
something opposing them. Finally, this philosophy claims that all
changes ultimately occur by way of a sudden leap, after the tension
between opposites has been growing for a certain while ; and in the leap
something new is born, a new quality or essence.

. . . The principal features of the Marxist dialectical method are as
follows:

(a) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature ... as
a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena, are . . .
determined by, each other.

4: * « * * * *

(b) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is ... a
state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and devel-
opment. . . .

*******

(c) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of
development as a simple process of growth . . . but as ... a develop-
ment in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and
abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another. . . .

*******

(d) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradic-
tions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature . . . and that
the struggle between these opposites . . . constitutes the internal content
of the process of development. . . .-"

This goes far beyond anything Marx had taught and even far beyond
an extension of the principle of class struggle to all of history. For this is
a philosophy claiming knowledge about the way ever)'thing moves and

^History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course
(New York: International Publishers, 1939), pp. 106, 107, 109. Also Stalin, Prob-
lems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp. 714-
717.

exists — not merely societies and classes, but all of life. Engels expressly
extended the philosophy of dialectic to the realm of nature. It is thus a
philosophy of being, as comprehensive as any philosophy that has ever
existed. Communists now represent not merely a political aspiration, or
even the revolution of a social class, but an entire view of life which has
become indissolubly linked with their poUtical power. Communist power
is used now, not only to bring about certain social changes or attain cer-
tain political goals, but also to impose authoritatively a world view with
all its implications in art, science, Hterature, philosophy, and education.

Materialism

The dialectic, i.e., a philosophy about the movement of all things in
terms of opposites-in-unity, was combined with materialism, i.e., the
explanation of all things in terms of matter. This combination does go
back to Marx in the sense that Marx had been brought up in the dia-
lectic of Hegel who said that the movement in terms of opposites-in-
unity was a movement of ideas, and that history was nothing but the un-
folding of ideas rooting in something he called Absolute Mind. Marx
went on from there to say that Hegel's view of the world and history was
upside down, in that ideas were but a reflection of material conditions.
Marx undertook to put it "rightside up," that is, he asserted that the
dialectic movement of history was ultimately a movement of matter rather
than ideas. We have already seen how he carried out this proposition in
his concept of the class struggle. As far as society is concerned, he said
"matter" is the process of economic production. Thus matter moves, and
its movement is dialectic — i.e., each condition already contains in it-
self the forces that oppose it, but from the opposition flows change and
unity on a higher level. Capitalist society supposedly engenders within
itself the tendency toward socialization and the proletarian class which
opposes it and struggles with it. At one time, violent change will occur
(the Revolution), and then the progressive elements of capitalist society
(technology) and the proletarian forces will unite on a higher level
(Communist society). As we have already seen, Marx himself dwelt al-
most exclusively on the materialistic explanation of history. It was Lenin
who, following Engels, strongly emphasized the dialectic element and thus
founded what is now known as Diamat (dialectical materialism.)

. . . The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?)
conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and
increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the di-
vision of the one into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal
relation) .

In the first conception of motion, j^//-movement, its driving force, its
source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external —
God, subject, etc.) . In the second conception it is to the knowledge of the
source of "self" -movement that attention is chiefly directed.

51436'— 60— vol. 1 3

The first conception is lifeless, poor and dry. The second is vital. The
second alone furnishes the key to the "self-movement" of everything in
existence; it alone furnishes the key to the "leaps," to the "break in con-
tinuity," to the "transformation into the opposite," to the destruction of the
old and the emergence of the new.^^

Nowadays, the idea of development, of evolution, has penetrated the
social consciousness almost in its entirety, but by different ways, not by
way of the Hegelian philosophy. But as formulated by Marx and Engels
on the basis of Hegel, this idea is far more comprehensive, far richer in
content than the current idea of evolution. A development that seem-
ingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a
higher basis ("negation of negation") , a development, so to speak, in spirals,
not in a straight line; — a development by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions; —
"breaks in continuity"; — the transformation of quantity into quality; — the
inner impulses to development, imparted by the contradiction and con-
flict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within
a given phenomenon, or within a given society; — the interdependence and
the closest, indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon (while
history constantly discloses ever new sides), a connection that provides a
uniform, law-governed, universal process of motion — such are some of the
features of dialectics as a richer (than the ordinary) doctrine of develop-
ment.^'

Of the two component parts, materialism carries more evolutionary
overtones, while the dialectic emphasizes the sudden, revolutionary
change, the struggle of opposites. Lenin's stress on dialectic thus has
profound influence on the character of communism.

The materialistic component of the philosophy is, however, all-impor-
tant in the following respect: Matter, being inanimate, can be observed
and known by man, while ideas are creative and unpredictable. If his-
tory is a dialectic movement of material elements rather than of ideas,
history can be known as much as material evolution can be known.
One of the most important points in Communist ideology is the asser-
tion that as history moves forward according to the laws of "matter,"
the laws of history can be known, and that Marxism-Leninism is the key
to their knowledge.

Marx's philosophy is finished philosophical materialism, which has pro-
vided humanity, and especially the working class, with powerful instru-
ments of knowledge.^'

. . . Marxism pointed the way to an all-embracing and comprehensive
study of the process of rise, development, and dechne of social-economic for-

"V. I. Lenin, "On Dialectics" (1915), Selected Works (London: Lawrence &
Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 82.

"Lenin, "Karl Marx" (July-November, 1914), Selected Works (London:
Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, pp. 17 and 18.

** Lenin, "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism" (March
1913), Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 5.

matlons. People make their own history. But what determines the mo-
tives of people, of the mass of people; that is: what gives rise to the clash
of conflicting ideas and strivings; what is the ensemble of all these clashes
of the whole mass of human societies; what are the objective conditions of
production of material life that form the basis of all historical activity of
man; what is the law of development of these conditions — to all this Marx
drew attention and pointed out the way to a scientific study of history as
a uniform and law-governed process in all its immense variety and con-
tradictoriness.^*

It is on this pretension of the knowability of history that the claim of
the Communist Party to leadership is based, as we shall see. In Leninism,
the "laws of history" and their knowledge become more and more the
key to revolutionary and organizational policy. While Marx would
say that the full development of capitalist society was the prerequisite for
revolution, Lenin would claim that the existence of a group of people
having the "consciousness" of the laws of history is the decisive factor.

5. "Scientific" Socialism

The principle that history follows certain laws which, thanks to Marx-
ism can now be known, is what Communists claim to be their mark of
distinction from the so-called "utopian" socialists. Utopian socialists, in
Communist definition, are those who dream of an ideal society, a regime
of justice and equality, and in whose eyes "Future history resolves itself
. . . into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social
plans." ^^ In other words, they are people who envisage a socialist
society and beUeve that they can bring it into being by a direct action
of their will.

"Utopian" socialism rejected

Communists consider t\m a childish attitude, because it leaves out of
consideration the "laws of history". Utopian socialists, they say, care
for "the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the
point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist
for them".^° The correct attitude, according to Communists, would be
to regard the proletariat not merely as the most sufTering, but as the "most
advanced," the "only really revolutionary" class, in other words, the class
which is destined to bring about the fulfillment of history's scheme.
What distinguishes communism from Utopian socialism is that the latter
is motivated by feelings of compassion and the will to realize justice,
whereas the former is motivated by historical analysis and the will to help

** Lenin, "Karl Marx" (July-November, 1914) Selected Works (London:
Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 20.

*" Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. I, p. 62.

" Ibid.

the movement of history. Since knowledge of history's laws is considered
possible on the basis of the "science" of Marxism-Leninism, the history-
motivated Communist calls himself a "scientific" socialist.

. . . To all these Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and
justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its
own power. . . . And as each one's special kind of absolute truth,
reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding,
his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual
training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths
than that they shall be mutually exclusive one of the other. Hence, from
this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as
a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most
of the Socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash al-
lowing of the most manifold shades of opinion; ?. mish-mash of such critical
statements, economic theories, pictures of futi're society by the founders of
different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is
the more easily brewed the more the definite sharp edges of the individual
constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles
in a brook.

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

What is the "real basis" of the "science of socialism"? The analysis of
history with the help of Hegelian dialectic applied to the developing
material conditions of society.

. . . Hegel had freed history from metaphysics — he had made it dialec-
tic; but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now idealism
was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; now a materialistic
treatment of history was propounded, and a method found of explaining
man's "knowing" by his "being," instead of, as heretofore, his "being" by
his "knowing."

From that time forward Socialism was no longer an accidental discovery
of this or that Ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle
between two historically developed classes — the proletariat and the bour-
geoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect
as possible, but to examine the historlco-economic succession of events from
which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung. . . .^

These two great discoveries, the materialistic conception of history and
the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value,
we owe to Marx. With these discoveries Socialism became a sclence.^^

Attention focused on the laws of change rather than the goal

The term "scientific," as applied to Communist ideology, is in itself
a jargon term connoting Communist insistence on the difference between
their revolutionary cause, which is based on the alleged "laws of history,"

"Engels, 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 128.

^^ Ibid., -p. 135.
*'Jbid.,p. 136.

and other revolutionary causes based on ideas of justice, sociai order,
etc. In terms of what is generally known as science, Communist ide-
ology can of course not be called scientific. It is not scientific insofar
as it indiscriminately mixes social analysis with prophesy, ignores facts
that could refute its tenets, and prohibits critical examination of its
basic propositions.

A "scientific" socialist refuses to fix his mind on the conditions of an
ideal society. Instead, he keeps his eyes on the class struggle and its
historical development. He firmly believes that the class struggle, if
energetically pursued, will lead to the victory of a social force whose
ascendancy will emancipate all mankind. Ultimate freedom is not a
direct product of the human will but of historical development: the
development of the poHtical class struggle and of the forces of produc-
tion. It is a mistake to say that communism is a blueprint for future
society. It is rather the pretense of a foreknowledge of history, a trust
in a beneficent outcome of a ruthless struggle for revolutionary power.

Chapter II. The Communist View of the Present Society

1. The Communist World View

The Communist world view stakes everything on its pretended knowl-
edge of the ultimate destination of history. This orientation toward
the future raises for Communists the problem of what to think of the
"present-day society," and how to act in it. Marx's chief work, Capital,
was an analysis of "present-day society," which he called "bourgeois
society." The significance of Marx's analysis may be summarized as
follows: (a) Marx left for his followers his explanation that the present
society is ruled by the capitalist class that "owns the factories;" (b)
Marx morally judged the present social system and concluded that it
deserved to be destroyed in its totahty; (c) Marx taught that the
capitalist society had laws of development which would inevitably lead
to its collapse and set up the proletarian revolution. In other words,
Marx, in his study of the present society, supplied communism with a
target (the ruling class and the foundations of its power), a moral
ground for irreconcilable hatred of today's society, and "scientific"
prediction of that society's coming collapse.

The substance of Marx's teachings on these matters has been re-
placed by new doctrines propounded by Lenin. But Lenin, while often
changing Marx's analysis into its very opposite, did not depart from
Marx's general scheme. Like Marx, he pointed out to Communists the
target at which they should shoot, a reason for total condemnation of
the present society, and the forces moving irresistably toward victory
of "the Revolution." Both Marx's and Lenin's ideas about present
society will be presented below.

Two incompatible approaches

A note about the development of Marxist ideas may be in order here.
The Communists think about "present-day society" both in terms of
moral judgment and necessary historical development. These two ideas
mutually exclude each other. Moral judgment makes sense only if there
is free choice, and free choice is barred by inescapable historical neces-
sity. An inexorable succession of historical phases, on the other hand,
would imply that everything that exists is necessary as a preparation
of the next phase, and so would render moral judgment superfluous.

The inner conflict between these two Marxist ideas became the root
of a spht of Marx's followers into two main movements: the social-

(32)

democratic and the Communist movement. By and large, the Social-
Democrats were originally those followers of Marx who emphasized the
moral aspects of Marxist ideology. Translated into action, this means
positive work for improvement, as well as cooperation with the "best"
elements of the present society in all efforts toward progress. Commu-
nists, by contrast, are Marxists who have put all their reliance on the idea
of an historically necessary collapse of the present society. In practice,
this amounts to a rejection of any cooperation with the present society,
except for the purpose of hastening its destruction. The split between
these two branches of Marxism occurred only when Marxist parties had
grown numerous and powerful enough to influence legislation and thus
had to make up their minds whether they wanted to use their influence
to reform or to destroy the present society. It was then that they found
out that Marx had left them with two motives which both in theory and
practice were incompatible with each other.

Marx's indictment of capitalist society

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same
proportion is the proletariat, the modem working class, developed — a class
of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work
only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must
sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of com-
merce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition,
to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the
work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently,
all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine,
and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired
knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a work-
man is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he re-
quires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the
price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of
production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work in-
creases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of ma-
chinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden
of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by in-
crease of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the
machinery, etc.

Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal
master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of la-
bourers, crowded into the factor)', are organised like soldiers. As privates
of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect
hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bour-
geois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved
by the machine, by the over-looker, and above all, by the individual bour-
geois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims

gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more
embittering it is.^

In this passage, Marx states what he considers the central feature of
bourgeois society : The enslavement of the workers by the factory owners.
The class that owns the machines rules "despotically" over their prop-
ertyless subjects. But this despotic power, Marx adds, does not stem
so much from a power-lusting will of each capitalist, nor does it depend
on the whip and the bludgeon. Rather, it is an integral feature of the
entire economic system called capitalism. In this system, which de-
pends on property and freedom of contract as its legal framework, every-
thing is produced as a commodity, i.e., for the purpose of sale rather
than use. Profit is therefore its dominant motive. Labor, too, figures
in this system as another commodity, to be bought and sold.

The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a com-
modity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most
embryonic forai of bourgeois production.^

If we . . . consider only the economic forms of (the circulation of com-
modities), we find its final result to be money: this final product of the
circulation of commodities is the first form in which capital appears.'

Commodity production and contractual labor

Now the capitalist and the laborer enter into their relation of "despot"
and "slave" through a free contract:

But in order that our owner of money may be able to find labour-power
offered for sale as a commodity, various conditions must first be ful-
filled . . . labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity only
if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour power it is, offers
it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that he may be able to do
this, he . . . must be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour,
i.e. of his person. He and the owner of money meet in the market, and
deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights . . . this . . . demands
that the owner of the labour-power should sell it only for a definite
period. . . .

The second essential conditions ... in this — that the labourer instead
of being in the position to sell commodities in which his labour is incorpo-
rated, must be obliged to offer for sale as a conamodity that very labour-
power, which exists only in his living self.*

* Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (De-
cember 1847-January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub-
lishing House, 1955), vol. I, pp. 40, 41.

* Marx, Capital (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1906), p. 94.

* Ibid., -p. 163.
•/tid., pp. 186, 187.

"Surplus valu^'

Commodity production, along with money as its characteristic re-
sult, is the first principal basis of the capitalist system of power. The
second, already indicated in the passage above, is the capacity of people
with money to hire, in a free contract, the services of others who have to
offer their labor-power for sale. To these two, Marx adds, as the most
essential, another feature : The "exploitation" of the worker in the form
of the capitalist's extraction of "surplus value" from labor. "Surplus
value" is Marx's formula for the difference between what workers pro-
duce in the coui-se of one day, and what they get paid. He assumes that
they will be paid only as much as it costs to keep them in existence, and
that this corresponds in value to only a part of what a worker creates
in full-time work.

. . . The value of a day's labour-power amounts to 3 shillings, because
on our assumption half a day's labour is embodied in that quantity of
labour power, "i.e.," because the means of subsistence that are daily re-
quired for the production of labour-power, cost half a day's labour. . . .
The fact that half a day's labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive
during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from working a whole
day. Therefore, the value of labour-power, and the value which that
labour-power creates in the labour process, are two entirely different
magnitudes. . . .'

During the second period of the labour-process, that in which his labour
is no longer necessary labour, the workman . . . creates no value for him-
self. He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms
of a creation out of nothing. . . . The essential difference between the
various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based
on slave labour, and one based on wage labour, lies only in the mode in
which this surplus-labour is in each case extracted from the actual pro-
ducer, the labourer.

**♦•♦♦♦

The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree
of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of the labourer by the
capitalist.®

The significance of the concept of "surplus value"

We must here distinguish several thoughts from each other. Marx
first explains the production of a surplus over the mere necessities of
existence. He then attributes both authorship and sole right to this
surplus to the manual laborer, and finally claims that the capitalist, with
the help of the system of commodity production, takes the surplus value
from the worker in order to use it for himself as well as for more capital

•/fciVf., pp. 215, 216.
•/6;rf.,pp. 240, 241.

and more "exploitation." The creation of surplus value is itself no
mystery: all civilization depends on it. There can be no education,
government, science, art, or any refinement of life without the produc-
tion of some surplus over and above what is needed to keep oneself
alive. The question is how this surplus is collected and distributed for
the purposes of civilization.

Marx's theory amounts to the assertion that surplus value belongs
only to the factory laborer who is robbed of it by the factory owner,
by means of a contractual purchase of labor-power. In order to make
this assertion plausible, Marx had to assert first that all value results
solely from labor.

. . . that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article
is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially neces-
sary for its production.''

This passage is found on the very first pages of Capital and states, as
it were, the assumption on which the entire theory rests. The assump-
tion is that, since it is labor which alone creates value and surplus value,
the laborer who has sold his labor-power to the capitalist is robbed of
the fruits of his effort; the capitalist, since he has money, obtains control
over something that of right is not his; therefore the entire system is
one of exploitation and despotic power.

The "labor theory of value"

It is obvious that all this hinges on the assumption that the worker is
the sole author and rightful master of surplus value. Marx established
this assumption with the help of the so-called labor theory of value, a
theory then current among economists as an explanation of the eco-
nomic phenomenon of value. As a tool of economic analysis, it has
long since been found utterly useless and has been universally discarded.
The truth is that value does not arise from labor alone, but also from
organization, invention, capital, the efficient use of machines, coordi-
nation of production with the market, etc. In Marx's system, how-
ever, the labor theory of value serves not merely for purposes of economic
analysis, but as a basis for establishing moral title and rightful claim to
the goods produced in a complicated system of market-oriented factory
work. Marx slides, without making this clear to the reader, from an
analytical concept of economic value to an assertion of the social cause
of value, and from there to moral conclusions. It is as if he had passed
from a scientific analysis of cooking to the finding that since in a family
the mother does the cooking, the mother is the sole provider of the
family's food, and from there to the conclusion that the mother has the
right to go and sell the family dinner for pocket money.

' ii^i^f., p. 46.

Marx's view appears clearly in the following messages :

Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living
labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks. The time during
which the labourer works, is the time during which the capitalist consumes
the labour-power he has purchased of him.

If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the
capitalist.

The capitalist then takes his stand on the law of the exchange of
commodities.^

. . . Hence, it is self-evident that the labourer is nothing else, his whole
life through, than labour-power, that therefore all his disposable time is by
nature and law labour-time, to be devoted to the self-expansion of capital.
Time for education, for intellectual development, for the fulfilling of social
functions and for social intercourse, for the free-play of his bodily and
mental activity, even the rest time of Sunday (and that in a country of
Sabbatarians) — moonshine! . . .

The capitalistic mode of production (essentially the production of sur-
plus value, the absorption of surplus-labour), produces thus, with the ex-
tension of the working day, not only the deterioration of human labour-
power by robbing it of its normal, moral and physical, conditions of de-
velopment and function. It produces also the premature exhaustion and
death of this labour-power itself.®

In other words, the system is by its nature inhuman and destructive
of human life. (Cause for hatred.) It is also a system of despotic
capitalist power :

. . . the cooperation of wage labourers is entirely brought about by the
capital that employs them. . . . Hence the connexion existing between
their various labours appears to them ... in the shape of the powerful
will of another, who subjects their activity to his aims. ... As co-opera-
tion extends its scale, this despotism takes forms peculiar to itself. . . .

. . . Being independent of each other, the labourers are isolated per-
sons, who enter into relations with the capitalist, but not with one another.
This co-operation begins only with the labour process, but they have then
ceased to belong to themselves.^"

Criticism of the theory of "surplus value"

Marx's theory of surplus value, which is the core of his Capital, has
been criticized along the following lines :

Marx says that capitalism depends on the production of surplus
value. — This is true, but the same is true of any other civilized society,
including the Soviet society.

'Ibid., p. 257.
'Ibid., pp. 29], 292.
"^ Ibid., pp. 364, 355.

Marx says that the workers alone produce surplus value. — This he
has failed to prove, since Alarx does not even consider other producers
beside workers, for instance farmers, whose production of surplus value
enables other people to move into the cities.

Marx says that the workers, who alone produce surplus value, are
being robbed of it by the capitalists. — Actually, it is in the nature of sur-
plus value that someone in society produces it not to benefit by it di-
rectly, but to make his contribution to a rising scale of existence.

Marx says that control of the surplus value is the decisive factor. —
But surplus value created in a society cannot be kept by any group.
What is decisive is not who controls it at any given phase but what use
is made of it and how human beings ultimately fare under the system
by which it is distributed throughout society.

Marx says that those who collect surplus value from the worker have
power to rule all of society. Surplus value, regardless of who produces
it, must of course be collected in order to be passed on, if it is to be
socially useful. Those who collect it, undoubtedly have some power in
the social system, but, unless they are the government, they have only
a certain kind of power, and only over a certain aspect of society.
They, in turn, are subject to the rigors of a system of distribution, and
above all, to political power — which has no trouble in imposing ex-
tremely heavy taxes on the collectors of surplus value.

2. Marx's View of the Dynamics of Capitalist Society

Having described capitalist society as a system of robbery by means
of the law of exchange of commodities, a system in which the capitalist
wields despotic and dehumanizing power over the workers and all the
rest, Marx goes on to predict that in the course of the development of
capitalism, things will not get better, but worse.

Capitalist production, therefore, of itself reproduces the separation be-
tween labour-power and the means of labour. It thereby reproduces and
perpetuates the conditions for exploiting the labourer. It incessantly forces
him to sell his labour-power in order to live, and enables tlie capitalist to
purchase labour-power in order that he may enrich liimself. ... It is
the process itself that incessantly hurls back the labourer on to the market
as a vendor of his labour-power, and tliat incessantly converts his own
product into a means by which another man can purchase him. . . .

Capitalist production, therefore, under its aspect of a continuous con-
nected process, of a process of reproduction, produces not only commodities,
not only surplus-value, but it also produces and reproduces the capitalist
relation; on the one side the capitalist, on the otlier the wage-labourer.^'

" Ibid., pp. 632, 633.

39
The "law of accumulation"

The growth of capitalist production is called accumulation. Marx
defined a "law of capitalist accumulation" and uses this law to predict
future social developments :

. . . The law of capitalist accumulation ... in reality merely states
that the very nature of accumulation excludes every diminution in the
degree of exploitation of labour. . . }'^

At the same time, the whip that drives the capitalistic system forward
on its path of development, is competition. Competition compels each
capitalist to increase productivity. In the course of competition, "con-
centration" and "centraUzation" of capital occurs:

. . . Two points characterise this kind of concentration which grows di-
rectly out of, or rather is identical with, accumulation. First: The
increasing concentration of the social means of production in the hands of
individual capitalists is . . . limited by the degree of increase of social
wealth. Second: The part of social capital domiciled in each particular
sphere of production is divided among many capitalists who face one
another as independent commodity-producers competing with each other.
. . . Accumulation, therefore, presents itself on the one hand as increasing
concentration of the means of production, and of the command over labour;
on the other, as repulsion of many individual capitals one from another.

This splitting-up ... is counteracted by their attraction. This last . . .
is concentration of capitals already formed, destruction of their individual
independence, expropriation of capitalist by capitalist, transformation of
many small into few large capitals. . . . Capital grows in one place to a
huge mass in a single hand, because it has in another place been lost by
many.^^

''Concentration" and "centralization"

Accumulation means faster and faster growth of the whole of capital-
ist production. Concentration means more and more power over all of
social wealth in the hands of capitalist. With this goes "centralization,"
the possibility of controlling more and more from a single center. And
wealth, power, control are gathered in fewer and fewer hands.

All the time, the masses of labor are becoming more and more help-
less. On the one hand, they are growing in numbers. On the other,
capitalism is predicted to produce an "industrial reserve army" of un-
employed or half-employed people on whom it can draw for cheap
labor.

On the one hand, therefore, the additional capital formed in the course
of accumulation attracts fewer and fewer labourers in proportion to its
magnitude. On the other hand, the old capital periodically reproduced

" Jhid., p. 680.

" Ibii., pp. 685, 686.

with change of composition, repels more and more of the labourers for-
merly employed by it.^*

. . . The labouring population therefore produces, along with the ac-
cumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which itself is made
relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative surplus population; and it
does this to an always increasing extent.^^

. . . this surplus population becomes, conversely, the lever of capitalistic
accumulation, nay, a condition of existence of the capitalist mode of pro-
duction. It forms a disposable industrial reserve army, that belongs to
capital quite as absolutely as if the latter had bred at its own cost. Inde-
pendently of the limits of the actual increase of population, it creates, for
the changing needs of the self -expansion of capital, a mass of human mate-
rial always ready for exploitation.^^

''Increasing misery"

Whatever makes for the growth of this "industrial reserve army" also
makes for lower real wages, harder work, and all-round misery:

. . . The same causes which develop the expansive power of capital,
develop also the labour-power at its disposal. The relative mass of the in-
dustrial reserve-army increases therefore with the potential energy of
wealth. But the greater this reserve-army in proportion to the active
labour-army, the greater is the mass of a surplus population, whose misery
is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, finally,
the lazarus-layers of the working-class, and the industrial reserve-army,
the greater is official pauperism. This is the absolute general law of cap-
italist accumulation.^''

. . . The law, finally, that always equilibrates the relative surplus-popu-
lation, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumula-
tion, this law rivets the labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges
of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of
misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of
wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery,
agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the op-
posite pole, i.e. on the side of the class that produces its own product in the
form of capital.^*

Crises and revolution

Capitalism thus is supposed to breed vast and concentrated wealth
in the hands of a few, and increasing misery for ever larger masses of
exploited people. In addition, its repeated crises are supposed to mount
in intensity, the rate of its profits is predicted to drop lower and lower,
and the entire system presumably is heading for collapse resulting from

»• Ibid., p. 689.
" Ibid., p. 692.
" Ibid., p. 693.
" Ibid., p. 707.
" Ibid., p. 709.

its own inner contradictions. The combination of these inner difficulties
with the ever-sharpening social antagonism is ultimately supposed to
lead to the catastrophe in which capitalism is bound to be supplanted
by socialism, the system in which the workers collectively are expected
to be masters of their own product :

... in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it
under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the
period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as
the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to de-
velop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of
rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the con-
ditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism
develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes
evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in
society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-
riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an exist-
ence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink
into such a state that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. . . .

. . . The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under
its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appro-
priates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is
its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally
inevitable.^"

3. Lenin's Views on Capitalism

Marx had influence as a thinker whose mind penetrated into hitherto
hidden recesses of society which he succeeded in illuminating through
analytical thought. On the other hand, Marx's predictions about the
development of capitalistic society have turned out to be monumentally
wrong.

False predictions

Marx, wishing to analyze the inner laws of capitalism, concluded that
real wages must go further down. In reality, wages in capitalist society
have steadily risen not only in terms of money but also in terms of pur-
chasing power.

Marx predicted worse and worse misery of the masses under capi-
talism. Instead, increasing welfare and well-being has been the lot of
the people in capitalist societies.

Marx foresaw that the differences between rich and poor would
steadUy widen, and more and more formerly well-to-do groups would
be drawn into a proletarian existence, while wealth would be concen-

"Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
1955), vol. I, p. 45.

trated in the hands of fewer and fewer immensely rich people. Ac-
tually, capitalism has produced a steadily growing class of people in the
middle income groups, people with comfortable salaries, financial re-
serves, higher education, and more leisure time.

Marx was sure that capitalism would entangle itself in the contradic-
tions of its own system so that eventually it could not longer function
according to its own laws, would bog down in a fundamental crisis of
production, and become "unable to feed its own slaves." What has
happened instead is a continuous rise of productivity in capitalist coun-
tries, a steadily improving distribution of wealth throughout all layers of
the population, and a developing ability to cope with maladjustments
and crises.

Marx anticipated that the workers would become more and more
embittered and revolutionary, and that the class struggle between them
and the capitalists would grow in sharpness and tempo. Neither predic-
tion has come true. The bulk of the working classes in capitalist coun-
tries have shown less and less inclination to support a revolution, and
their relation with capitalist management has evolved along the lines of
orderly bargaining within the confines of a mutually accepted system.

The consequences of the failure of Marx's predictions

Why was Marx so wrong in his predictions? This question cannot
be discussed here. The reader must instead be referred to the literature
about Marx and the discovery of basic errors in Marx's thought by many
critics. In looking back over the very summary statement of Marx's
main ideas on the preceding pages, the reader may be struck by the fact
that Marx based his entire analysis and ensuing prediction on the
theoretical model of a commodity economy and the laws of exchange.
He saw the entire structure of power in a capitalist society as a "golden
chain," a system in which the workers arc "enslaved" to the capitalists
by nothing more than the simple logic of trading in an open market on
the basis of personal freedom and private property.

What Marx did in Capital was to "discover" the inherent logic of a
theoretical model of a society. This model was an intellectual con-
struction which, he asserted, actually represented the real system of mod-
em capitalist society. He assumed a system in which the bourgeois
class ruled by means of private property, free contract, and the laws of
exchange, and he proceeded to prove that this kind of a system was
necessarily headed for increasing misery, collapse, and proletarian revo-
lution. In reality, as we have seen, modem capitalism developed quite
differently. By the turn of the century, this was plain to ever)'one.
From the failure of Marx's predictions one could, then, draw the con-
clusion that the logic he unfolded was not that of the real modem
fcociety, but merely that of his theoretical model which did not actually

represent the reality of capitalism. Those who drew this conclusion,
could, of course, not remain Marxists. There were others, though, who
were too deeply impressed with the basic Marxian picture of the world
(a class society engaged in class struggle moving from present exploita-
tion of the workers to justice through a proletarian revolution) to
abandon it just because Marx was wrong in his analysis of the present
society. They proceeded, instead, to re-think the analysis of capitalism
in order to allow for the developments that were at variance with Marx's
forecast. This "revision" resulted in two divergent branches of Marxist
thought. On the one hand, Edward Bernstein (main work: Die
Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus, 1899) concluded that in present so-
ciety the increase of wealth would not necessarily entail the increasing
misery of the workers and therefore the bourgeois and proletarian
classes were not doomed to irreconcilable struggle. Bernstein's view of
the present society, which became the pattern of actual policies of social-
democratic parties, endorsed collaboration between the classes insofar
as it can produce social improvement. In sharp opposition to this view,
Lenin stuck to Marx's assertion that the class struggle is, in the very
nature of the system, irreconcilable. It then became necessary to ex-
plain why the workers' lot in modem capitalist nations had improved,
why capitalism had not yet collapsed, and why people were in no mood
to stage a revolution against their capitalist exploiters. Lenin's answer
to these questions is contained in his book Imperialism, The Highest
Stage of Capitalism (1916), which will be presented here in its main
points.

"Monopoly capitalism"

Lenin, in his revised description of the present society, derived key
ideas from two books : Imperialism by J. A. Hobson ( 1 902 ) , which dis-
cussed the division of the world among the leading European nations,
and Finanzkapital by Rudolf Hilferding (1910), which showed how
huge banking enterprises controlled vast economic processes. These
two ideas Lenin combined into the following picture of the present
capitalist society.

The salient feature of modem capitalism is the rule of monopoly.
Competition (which Marx said was the basic law of capitalist de\'elop-
ment) has given way to the concentration of enormous wealth in a few
hands.

. . . This transformation of competition into monopoly is one of the
most important — if not the most important — phenomena of modern cap-
italist economy. . . .

*******

Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is im-
mense progress in the socialisation of production. , . .

51436'— 60— vol. 1 4

. , . The framework of formally recognised free competition remains,
but the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a
hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable.^"

Marx asserted that power in capitalist society belonged to the factory
owner who could buy the worker's labor power and employ it to produce
surplus value. Lenin says that power now is in the hands of the
financier:

. . . the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, al-
though commodity production still "reigns" and continues to be regarded
as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the
big profits go to the "genius" of financial manipulation.^^

. . . the concentration of capital ... is radically changing the signifi-
cance of the banks. Scattered capitalists are transformed into a single
collective capitalist.^"

The concentration of production; the monopoly arising therefrom; the
merging or coalescence of banking with industry: this is the history of
finance capital and what gives the term "finance capital" its content.^^

Monopoly, in the form of finance capital, governs the present society
in all its aspects :

A monopoly, once it is formed and controls thousands of millions, in-
evitably penetrates into every sphere of public life, regardless of the form
of government and all other "details".^*

The "need for foreign markets"

The driving power of capitalism, as Lenin describes it, is no longer
the need of one capitalist to compete with the other, but the need of the
banker-monopolist to export excess capital, obtain more foreign markets,
and get them under his exclusive control.

Under the old type of capitalism, when free competition prevailed, the
export of goods was the most typical feature. Under modem capitalism,
when monopolies prevail, the export of capital has become the typical
feature.^'

This tendency, according to Lenin, explains not only the political sys-
tem under which modern (capitalistic) nations Uve, but also the inter-
national political developments on a world scale :

Monopolist capitalist combines — cartels, syndicates, trusts — divide among
themselves, first of all, the whole internal market of a country, and impose

eo '

V. I. Lenin, "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (January- July
1916), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. V, pp. 15,
21,22.

" Ibid., p. 23.
"/fcid., p. 31.
" Ibid., p. 42.
Ibid., pp. 51, 52.
' Ibid., p. 56.

their control, more or less completely upon the industry of that countiy.
But under capitalism, the home market is inevitably bound up with the
foreign market. ... As the export of capital increased, and as the for-
eign and colonial relations, the "spheres of influence" of the big monopolist
combines, expanded, things tended "naturally" toward . . . the formation
of international cartels,^^

A struggle began which ... is fittingly called "the struggle for the divi-
sion of the world." "

Division and redivision of the world

Now, this division of the world is not merely a division of economic
spheres of influence, but of political control. This is where imperialism
enters.

The principal feature of modem capitalism is the domination of mo-
nopolist combines of the big capitalists. These monopolies are most dur-
able when all the sources of raw materials are controlled by the one
group. . . . Colonial possession alone gives complete guarantee of success
to the monopolies. . . .^^

This leads to a double concentration of capitalist power:

. . . First, there are monopolist capitalist combines in all advanced
capitalist countries; secondly, a few rich countries in which the accumula-
tion of capital reaches gigantic proportions, occupy a monopolist position.^'

[Hence, the world is divided] . . . into two principal groups — of colony-
owning countries on the one hand and colonies on the other. . . .^°

. . . Imperialism . . . means the partition of the world, and the ex-
ploitation of other countries . . . which means high monopoly profits for
a handful of very rich countries. . . .^^

And these rich countries, Lenin continues, do not even produce any-
thing, but lead a parasitical existence by merely "clipping coupons.'*

, . . The export of capital, one of the essential economic bases of im-
perialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers [the people who live
by clipping coupons] from production and sets the seal of parasitism on
the whole country that lives by the exploitation of the labour of several
overseas combines and colonies.^^

. . . for this very reason the parasitic character of modem American
capitalism has stood out with particular prominence.

"Ibid., p. 61.
" Ibid., p. 64.
*• Ibid., p. 75.

* Ibid., p. 56.

* Ibid., p. 78.
" Ibid., p. 95.
"Ibid., p. 92.
''Ibid., -p. 116.

In such a "parasitic" state, even parts of the working class are
corrupted and stop being revolutionary :

. . . Imperialism has the tendency of creating privileged sections even
among the workers, and of detaching tliem from the main proletarian
masses.^*

. . . Imperialism . . . creates the economic possibility of corrupting
the upper strata of the proletariat, and thereby fosters, gives form to, and
strengthens opportunism.^^

Opportunism ... in a number of countries . . . has grown ripe, over-
ripe, and rotten, and has become completely merged with bourgeois policy
in the form of "social-chauvinism".^®

The new image of capitalism

Now Lenin has just about exchanged all the parts of the Marxist
structure for new ones and still retained the structure ! The "exploiters"
are, in addition to factory owners, the rich countries; the "exploited"
are, in addition to industrial workers, the colonies. The "chain of
bondage" is no longer the sale of labor-power on the commodity mar-
ket, but the political control of territory, and the economic control of mar-
kets. The ruHng power is to be morally condemned, not for "pocketing
the product of his employee's labor," bui for idly chpping coupons while
other people work.

Thus, without giving up Marx's idea of the irreconcilable class
struggle and Marx's condemnation of the present (capitalist) society
Lenin managed to explain why capitalism has not yet collapsed, why
the lot of the people under capitalism has improved, and why workers
in capitalist countries are not revolution-minded. His answer is that
capitahsm has not yet collapsed because the advanced capitalistic so-
cieties found a new field of expansion which yielded them new wealth,
that the lot of the people under capitalism has improved at the expense
of the colonial populations, and that the upper part of the working class
has allowed itself to become "corrupted" into preferring this shared
wealth to the cause of the revolution. The latter observation served
Lenin also as a means to read his opponents, the social-democratic
parties, out of the "proletarian movement." Lenin himself character-
ized the significance of his reinterpretation of capitalism :

. . . the forms of the struggle may and do vary in accordance with vary-
ing, relatively particular and transitory causes, but the essence of the strug-
gle, its class content, cannot change while classes exist.*'

'* Ibid., pp. 97, 98.
•" Ibid., p. 95.
" Ibid., p. 99.
•" Ibid., pp. C7, 63.

In other words, the "class struggle" is for Lenin no longer an object
of scientific inquiry — it is a dogma into which one tries to fit the chang-
ing facts of history.

4. Lenin's Views About the Dynamics of Capitalism

Among Marx's basic concepts was also that of the inevitably cata-
strophic development of capitalism. Lenin did not abandon this con-
cept, either, but gave it a new content that seemed compatible with the
all but catastrophic course which capitalism had taken since Marx wrote.
Monopoly capitalism, Lenin said, is the "highest stage" of capitalism.

. . . Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation
of tlie fundamental attributes of capitalism in general. But capitalism
only becomes capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high state of its
development, when certain of its fundamental attributes began to be trans-
formed into their opposites, when the features of the period of transition
from capitalism to a higher social and economic system began to take
shape . . . Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.

. . . imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.^*

In other words, the "higher system," socialism, is at hand. But will
it grow organically out of capitalism? Will it emerge peacefully? No,
ansNvers Lenin, it will come as the result of "inner contradictions" in the
capitalist system in combination with a violent struggle between the rul-
ing powers of that system and the "gravediggers" the system has pro-
duced within itself. According to Marx, the "inner contradictions" of
capitalism were those inherent in its economic production, as the pro-
ducers were driven on by the whip of competition to seek cheaper and
cheaper ways of making commodities.

The politics of "imperialism"

Lenin, writing in 1916, could no longer explain the facts of capitalistic
development in these economic terms, because Marx's concepts had
turned out to be wrong. Instead, Lenin pointed to political contradic-
tions produced by imperialism.

... the characteristic feature of this period is the final partition of the
globe — not in the sense that a new partition is impossible — on the con-
trary, new parutions are possible and inevitable — but in the sense that the
colonial policy of the capitalist countries has completed the seiziue of the
unoccupied territories on our planet. For the first time the world is com-
pletely shared out, so that in the future only re-division is possible. . . .^^

One would think that, since monopoly control of markets and raw
materials is supposed to be the motive behind the foreign policy of the

'^ibid.,-pv- 80,81.
**/titf.,p. 69.

powers, their international quarrels would be confined to colonial ter-
ritories. But Lenin reduces all of international politics to his formula:

. . . The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives
to annex not only agricultural regions, but even highly industrialized re-
gions . . . because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned ob-
liges those contemplating a new partition to stretch out their hands to
any kind of territoiy, and (2) because an essential feature of imperialism
is the rivalry between a number of great powers in the striving for
hegemony. . . .*°

"Inherent contradictions of imperialism"

There are thus two kind of "contradictions" which, according to
Lenin, contribute to the downfall of the system: the "contradictions"
between the leading industrial powers, and that between the rich coun-
tries and the emerging power of the formerly colonial areas.

Capitalism is growing with the greatest rapidity in the colonies and in
trans-oceanic countries. Among the latter, new imperialist powers are
emerging {e.g., Japan). The struggle of world imperialism is becoming
aggravated. . . .

**♦♦♦**

We ask is there under capitalism any means of remedying the disparity
between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of
capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and "spheres of in-
fluence" by finance capital on the other side — other than by resorting to
war? *^

. . . imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic
system, as long as private property in the means of production exists."

Thus, Lenin has now combined "war" with "exploitation" as the evil
for which he indicts capitalism.

In the Marxist concept of history, the reader will remember, it ap-
peared inevitable that capitalist society be supplanted by socialist so-
ciety. Lenin here adds, as it were, that what is inevitable is also good
and desirable. This leads him to ask the rhetorical question :

. . . whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether
to go forward to the aggravation of the antagonisms which it engenders,
or backwards, towards allaying these antagonisms ....*'

*> Ibid., pp. 83, 84.

" Ibid., pp. 89, 90.

" Lenin, Preface to the French and German editions of "Imperialism, The Highest
Stage of Capitalism" (July 6, 1920), Selected Works (New York: International
Publishers, 1943), vol. V,p. 8.

*• Lenin, "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (January-July 1916),
Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. V, p. 101.

Lenin's answer is implicit in the form in which the question is asked.
He makes it even clearer when he defines imperialism as —

i . . capitalism in transition, or more precisely, as moribund capitalism.**

He puts the "Revolution" — which Marx had described as the action
of the "overwhelming majority of the people" — on a new worldwide
basis;

. . . Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression
and of the financial stranguladon of the overwhelming majority of the peo-
ple of the world by a handful of "advanced" countries.*^

The downfall of capitalism, he predicts, will be hastened by the revolu-
tionary action of all the colonial peoples :

The tens of millions of dead and maimed left by the war . . . and the
two "peace treaties" . . . open the eyes of the millions and tens of mil-
lions of people who are downtrodden, oppressed, deceived, and duped by
the bourgeoisie, with a rapidity hitherto unprecedented. Thus, out of the
universal ruin caused by the war an international revolutionary crisis is
arising which, in spite of the protracted and difficult stages it may have to
pass, cannot end in any other way than in a proletarian revolution and
in its victory.

* * * * « • •

Imperialism is the eve of the proletarian social revolution.**

Weaknesses of Lenin's concept

Lenin's picture of the world as an imperialist, predatory, oppressive
system torn by conflict and wars, is, in its way, as impressive at first
glance as is Marx's picture of spiralling capitalistic production of wealth
and misery. Both have enough support in observable facts to appear
plausible. But Lenin's explanation, no less than that of Marx, has been
refuted by actual developments, and more and more people realize
that there is a fundamental flaw in his basic analysis. The world has
not been further divided. On the contrary, most of the formerly
colonial areas have now obtained their independence. Capitalism has
raised the standard of Uving of the people, which Lenin declared im-
possible unless it developed agriculture, which he also considered im-
possible in the nature of the system. Agriculture is now producing huge
surpluses precisely in some of the most advanced capitalistic countries,
and the dependence of these countries on "underdeveloped" areas for
raw materials and markets has diminished rather than increased.

**lbid.,p. 117.

*" Lenin, Preface to the French and German editions of "Imperialism, The Highest
Stage of Capitalism" (July 6, 1920), Selected Works (New York: International
Publishers, 1943), vol. V, p. 9.

^^ Ibid., pp. 9, 12.

The leading industrial countries have developed policies and inter-
national institutions to promote international peace, and it is the So-
viet Union which rather has been the cause of international conflict in
the last fifteen years. The trend toward concentration of capital has
not gone unchecked. Big business, though powerful, has turned out
to be simply one of several centers of power in democratic society, and
it has not been able to check either labor unions or farm organizations,
just as it has neither escaped heavy taxation nor had its way in foreign
policies. Democratic and capitalistic countries, far from being domi-
nated by a few monopolists, have seen the rise of vigorous labor and farm
organizations, as well as of political parties whose competition for voters'
attention has secured a diffusion of power among many groups and sec-
tions of the people. It is in the Soviet Union, on the other hand, that
a monopoly of management, ideological control, and poHtical power has
been concentrated in the hands of a small group of Communists. In
other words, Lenin's Imperialism is — just as little as that of Marx's
Capital — a true picture of democratic industrial society and its develop-
ment.

5. Communists in "Present-day Society"

It is now becoming more and more clear that the end of the sway of
capitalism is drawing near in other countries, too, and that capitalism is a
system that has outlived its age and is bound to perish. The fumre is ours!
The future is for Marxism-Leninism! The future is for communism! . . .*''

This view of "present-day society" is not new for Communists. It has
been implicit in Communist doctrine from the beginning.

"Present-day Society" is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized
countries. ...

... In this sense it is possible to speak of the "present-day state", in
contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will
have died off.*^

Communist attitudes toward "present-day society"

Communist ideas about "present-day society" determine the attitude
which Communists take toward their fellow-citizens, with whom they
share existence in "present-day society." The proper attitude of Marx-
ists toward "present-day society" has been the chief issue between Com-
munists and democratic socialists. In Germany, for instance, socialists
debated at the beginning of this century whether (a) their cause should

*' Excerpts from Khrushchev speech November 3, 1958; New York Times, Nov. 5,
1958, p. 2.

"Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (May 1875), Marx and Engtls
Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p.
32.

be promoted by revolutionary mass actions or rather by working for
increased influence of the party in the legislature; and (b) whether so-
cialists should flatly refuse to support the military establishment or
rather obtain social improvements as the price of voting for certain mili-
tary appropriations." The alternative of cooperation looks toward a
gradual reformation of society through the political power of the so-
cialist party. The revolutionary alternative looks upon "present-day so-
ciety" as something that is utterly corrupt as well as utterly doomed, so
that one need take no interest in its problems other than to the end of
hastening its collapse and of detaching the masses from its authorities.
This view is the one on which Lenin insisted as the core of communism.
On this issue, he bitterly attacked the "reformists" whom he accused of
treason.

. . . the new "critical" tendency in socialism is nothing more nor less
than a new species of opportunism.^^

. . . The theory of the class struggle was rejected on the grounds that
it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society. . . .^^

Thus, the Communist doctrine forbids any bona fide participation in
"present-day society" for the purpose of improving conditions in that
society. But it treats reforms as a means to "utihze economic agitation"
for the fight against the entire structure of society.

... it subordinates the struggle for reforms to the revolutionary
struggle. . . .^^

The Communist assumption is that "present-day society" as a whole
is worthless.

... we must make it our business to stimulate in the minds of those who
are dissatisfied only with [particular] . . . conditions the idea that the
whole political system is worthless.^'

Marx, who had but disdain for the "Utopian Socialists," nevertheless
approved of one element in their literature which "contained most valu-
able materials for the enlightenment of the working class." This "valu-
able" aspect of Utopian literature was, to Marx, their attack on "every
principle of existing society." ^* By contrast, Marx chided the Utopian
Socialists for their endeavor to "deaden the class struggle and to reconcile
the class antagonisms," in other words, to improve and reform "present-

*" Cf., Carl E. Schorske, German Social Democracy, 1905-1917 (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1955), particularly part I.

*> Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York: In-
temational Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 32.

'^ Ibid., p. 31.

" Ibid., p. 83.

**Ibid.,p. 103.

"Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Conomunist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. I, p. 63.

day society" rather than to look for its destruction, in accordance with
the "progressive historical development of the proletariat." "

Lenin's writings are full of expressions of a total rejection of the
whole "present-day society".

. . . the rottenness, mendacity, and hypocrisy of capitalism.^*

. . . the /orf/zcommg collapse of capitalism. . . .^^

... in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched,
false. . . .^«

Bourgeois democracy . . . remains . . . restricted, truncated, false and
hypocritical. . . .^°

W^hat is more, in "present-day society" no reconciliation of the classes
is possible, and therefore the class-struggle must be fanned rather than
mitigated.

. . . For us the issue cannot be the alteration of private property but
only its annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the
abolition of classes, not the improvement of existing society but the founda-
tion of a new one.*"

. . . The state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilabil-
ity of class antagonisms. , . .

« ***** *

. . . According to Marx, the State could neither arise nor continue to
exist if it were possible to conciliate classes.®^

. . . preaching collaboration of classes and "social peace" between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie. It is ridiculous to think that such a posi-
tion . . . could lead to anything but disgraceful failure.®^

Thus the Communist sees himself in "present-day society" :

. . . surrounded on all sides by enemies . . . under their almost con-
stant fire.®^

" Ibid.

"Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (Nov. 10,
1918), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p.
133.

"Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (August-September 1917), Selected Works
(New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 77.
Ibid., p. 82.

Lenin, "TheProletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky'* (Nov. 10,
1918), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p.
130.

'" Marx and Engcls, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist
League" (March 1850), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1955), vol. I, p. 110.

*■ Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (August-September 1917), Selected Works
(New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, pp. 8, 9.

" Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (Nov. 10,
1918), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p.
151.

"Lonin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York: In-
temational Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 33.

The surrounding society engulfs him with its influences:

. . . They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois
atmosphere, which penneates and corrupts the proletariat. . . .®*

There is no common ground between the Communists and their fel-
low-citizens :

, , . the only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There
is no middle course. . . .^

For the Communists do not regard themselves as citizens of "present-
day societies" and do not share with others the desire to solve "present-
day" problems. They have put all their eggs in the basket of the future.

. . . our people may do stupid things . . . and yet, in the last resort,
they will prove die victors.^°

... if, however, we are able to master all means of warfare, we shall
certainly be victorious, because we represent the interests of the really ad-
vanced, of the really revolutionary class. . . ."

Communists should know that at all events the future belongs to
them. . . .®^

AlthouEch ideas Uke these were stated at different times and in differ-
ent contexts, the appraisal and evaluation of "present-day society" which
they contain have become axioms of Communist ideology. Capitalism is
the "present-day society." It is the last historical stage before socialism;
as a society, it is considered worthless; as a system, it is believed about
to tumble down. Revolution is the cause of the future; its adherents
look to the future alone and to the present as a mere condition for has-
tening the advent of the future. It is from these ideological dogmas
that Communists derive that characteristic attitude one can describe as
"absence of public faith," an attitude which resorts —

... to all sorts of stratagems, manoeuvres and illegal methods, to eva-
sion and subterfuges. . . .®^

which works within public institutions with the ultimate end of destroy-
ing them because :

The surest way of discrediting a new political . . . idea, and of damag-
ing it, is to reduce it to absurdity while ostensibly defending it.'

"Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (Apr. 27, 1920), Se-
lected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 84.

•= Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York:
International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 62.

*> Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, An Infantile Disorder" (Apr. 27, 1920),
Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 125.

''Ibid., p. 139.

"Ibid., p. 144.

" Ibid., p. 95.

* Ibid., p. 103.

According to this recipe :

. , . loyalty to the ideas of Communism must be combined widi the abil-
ity to make all the necessaiy practical compromises, to "tack," to make
agreements, zigzags, retreats and so on, in order to accelerate . . . the in-
evitable friction, quarrels, conflicts and complete disintegration . . . and
properly to select the moment when the disintegration among these "pillars
of the sacred right of private property" is at its highest, in order, by a de-
termined attack of the proletariat, to defeat them all and capture political
power /^

""Ibid., p. 138.

Chapter III. The Socialist Revolution

Together with the philosophy of history, the Marxist doctrine of the
Socialist Revolution is the core of Communist ideology. Revolution
has been a perennial human reaction to intolerable social conditions.
Particularly in the modem world there have been many revolutions, and
many among these are celebrated as acts of justice and liberation. The
United States originated in a revolt against arbitrary rule. Modem
France is still devoted to the Revolution of 1789. Because such ex-
amples are frequent and familiar, one is often tempted to assume that
the "Socialist Revolution" is another concept of a spontaneous popular
uprising against intolerable suffering and injustice. This is not so.

1. DiiFerence Between "Socialist Revolution" and Other

Revolutions

Marx, Engels, and Lenin, when speaking of "Socialist Revolution,"
were not thinking primarily of a people's aspirations for higher justice
and redress of grievances. If they were, they would have dwelt upon
such notions as "the people," "suffering," "justice," "right mle," etc.
Actually, the Marxist doctrine of the Social Revolution operates chiefly
with such notions as "class," "historical development," "political move-
ment." It is a doctrine of revolution as a "necessary" event in the
process of history, rather than in terms of human suffering and people's
hopes. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx indignandy rejected the
views of those who —

. . . are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class,
as being the most suff"ering class. Only from the point of view of being
the most suff"ering class does the proletariat exist for them.^

By contrast, Marx himself is interested in the proletariat as a "class
with historical initiative." Thus the Communist doctrine of Socialist
Revolution is something quite different from the doctrines or ideas of
revolution that are familiar to us from the examples of America, France,
Italy and other modem European nations.

*Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "The Manifesto of the Conrununist Party"
(December 1847-January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages
Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 62.

(55)

56
Meaning of the Marxist concept of revolution

The doctrine of the Socialist revolution, as a part of the Communist
theory of history, is three things at the same time. It is: (a) an ap-
praisal of present conditions and trends, together with a prediction of
necessary historical developments; (b) a call to a social class to unify
for the purpose of seizing power; and, (c) a justification for the power
wielded by this class or, rather, wielded in the name of this class.

The doctrine predicts, first of all, that in capitalist society the prole-
tarian class will grow into an ever-increasing revolutionary force which
will struggle with the ruling bourgeoisie, eventually overthrow it, and set
up its own proletarian rule. Next, the doctrine contains a call to action
meant to bring about this historical development, by means of organiza-
tional, conspiratorial, combative, and political activities aiming at the
unity of the revolutionary masses and their dictatorial power. Finally,
the doctrine justifies not only the Communist Party as a new type of legal/
illegal combat organization, but also all power that is wielded on behalf
of the revolution, both before and after the overthrow of the bourgeois
rulers, by predicting that from the ruthless use of "proletarian" power
will eventually arise a universal realm of freedom. The "Socialist Revo-
lution" must be understood as a concept that centers above all in the
necessity and the course of history — by contrast with the revolutions with
which we are familiar from our past which center abo\'e aU in the rights
and hopes of people. "Socialist Revolution" conveys, to Communists,
not so much an idea of what people strive for, but an idea of what must
certainly happen as societies move forward. In addition to this idea
of necessity, the concept also contains the idea that from the consumma-
tion of the necessary course of events, ultimate good will result. And
on this double count, it appeals to men to devote their lives to the cause
of the Socialist Revolution, regardless of whether or not that revolution
would satisfy their needs or improve their condition.

Thus, the concept differs fundamentally from that underlying the
American, the French, and other modem revolutions which were con-
sidered a justifiable expression of what the people wanted and hoped for.
In Communist doctrine, the revolution is not justified because people
will it, but rather the will of the people is justified insofar as it aims
at the revolution. In the eyes of Communists, "the Revolution" is a
"hallowing" concept, a quality that converts into "good" everything it
enters, an overriding demand on humans in the name of an "Absolute,"
a yardstick by which men and things are ultimately "judged."

2. "Bourgeoisie" and "Proletariat"

In keeping with the Communist view of "the Revolution" as an ex-
pression of "History's Great Design," rather than the aspirations of
suffering human beings, is the Communist description of the proletariat

as a class which in its very nature must be "revolutionary." In other
words, rather than inquiring whether workers, in actual fact, do have
revolutionary aims, Communist ideology from the outside defines them,
first, as a "class" and, second, as a "revolutionary" class.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinc-
tive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is
more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great
classes direcdy facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.^

By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modem Capitalists, owners of the
means of social production and employers of wage-labour. By proletariat,
the class of modem wage labourers who, having no means of production of
their own, are reduced to selling their labour-power in order to live.'

Having first defined a number of people as a "class," Marx then
proceeds to deckre that they are necessarily engaged in struggle with a
certain other class :

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its
birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie.*

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the
proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay
and finally disappear in the face of modem industry; the proletariat is
its special and essential product.'

'^Revolutionary" and "really revolutionary"

What does this mean, a "really revolutionary class"? The concept
plays a great role in Communist thinking, and should be thoroughly
understood. Marx himself elaborates as follows :

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the
artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie. . . .°

In other words, classes other than the proletariat also are revolution-
ary. But their revolutionary activities are different in that they merely
defend their present interests, they want —

... to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle
class.'

That means that someone who revolts against a threat to his existence
and his interests, is not "really" revolutionary.

. . . .They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more,
they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by

•/tzU.pp. 34, 35.

• Ibid., p. 34. [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888.]

* Ibid., -p. 41.

• Ibid., p. 43.
'Ibid., p. 44.

* Ibid.

chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending
transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their
future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at
that of the proletariat.*

What Marx says here is that "revolutionary" is not a matter of one's
intention, dedication, or strength of character. The proletariat alone is
the "class that holds the future in its hands"; therefore one can be "really
revolutionary" only by fighting for the interests of the proletariat which
are "the future interests" of all other classes. "Revolutionary" here
means thoroughgoing orientation toward the future, rather than the
present.

In this sense, "revolutionary" is incompatible with any inclination to
reform the "present-day society," because this would be tantamount to
an attempt to maintain "present-day society," rather than to hasten its
downfall and the advent of the future society.* The proletariat is con-
ceived to be a "really revolutionary" class because it is described as
having no share at all in "present-day society."

. . . The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and
children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-
relations; modem industrial labour, modem subjection to capital, the same
in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of
every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so
many bourgeois prejudices. . . .

. . . They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify. ,, . .^^

Since the proletariat is thus divorced from any interest in the benefit
of "present-day society" as well as from any future property interests, its
rising therefore is supposedly guided not by self-interest, but by a sense of
its historic mission.

. . . The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of
society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and
thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. . . . their mission
is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual
property.^^

This is of great importance. Marx says that the proletariat will make
a revolution in which it will not "secure and fortify" its own interests but
rather carry out a forward movement of history with beneficial effects
for all. While other classes may be "revolutionary" for a while, the
proletariat will go on with the revolution after the others have become

• Ibid.

•For clarification of the concept of "reform" in Communist ideology, see foot-
note 112, p. 110.
» Ibid.
" Ibid.

satisfied with what has been attained. For the proletariat, the revo-
lution is a "permanent" assignment.

, , * While the democratic petty bourgeois wish to bring the revolution
to a conclusion as quickly as possible, and with the achievement, at most,
of the above demands, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution
permanent, until all more or less possessing classes have been forced out of
their position of dominance, until the proletariat has conquered state power,
and the association of proletarians, not only in one country but in all the
dominant countries of the world, has advanced so far that competition
among the proletarians of these countries has ceased and that at least the
decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians.
For us the issue cannot be the alteration of private property but only its
annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the abolition
of classes, not the improvement of existing society but the foundation of a
new one."

What the proletariat requires to play this role is therefore, above all,
a view of history (the Marxist view of history). It cannot be "really
revolutionary" as long as it ignores this view and thinks of immediate
benefits for itself. This point is so important because it is on it that
Lenin bases his concept of the "Vanguard Party," the history-conscious
minority group that would lead all others toward the future.

If the proletariat is necessary for the Socialist Revolution as a free
and unattached agent of the Future, the bourgeoisie is no less required
as the class whose rule engenders the proletariat.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bour-
geois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for
capital is wage-labour. . . . The advance of industry, whose involuntary
promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to
competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. . . .
What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave diggers.
Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.^'

3. Marx's and Engels* Idea of the Revolution

The revolution is such a central idea in Communist ideology that the
utmost attention has been given to all kinds of concrete questions as to
this event. Foremost among these questions are: When, Where, By
Whom, How is the revolution to be made? These questions were an-
swered differently by Marx and Engels on the one hand, and Lenin on
the other.

" Marx and Engels, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"
(March 1850), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. I, p. 110.

"Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (Deceinber 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. I, p. 45.

5143e'— 60— Tpl. 1 5

60
Wben

The question When? is answered by Marx by a reference to the de-
velopment of "productive forces.'* When "productive forces," i.e. tech-
niques and tools of production, get out of step with "relations of prop-
erty," i.e. the legal forms under which production goes on, the explosion
occurs. Speaking of feudalism, Marx says :

... At a certain stage in the development of these means of production
and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and
exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing in-
dustry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer
compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so
many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder."

Something similar is then predicted for "bourgeois society."

A similar movement is going on before our eyes.^"

But the collapse of the bourgeois order cannot occur before capitalism
has developed to its full maturity:

. . . No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for
which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of
production never appear before the material conditions of their existence
have matured in the womb of the old society itself.^®

Both Marx and Engels thought at first that this moment had come in
1848.

Looking back in 1895, Engels saw more clearly that "the Revolution"
could not have taken place then, because capitalism had by no means
attained its greatest development:

History has proved us, and all who thought like us, v^nrong. It has made
clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that
time was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist produc-
tion. . . ."

In other words, the prerequisite of the Socialist Revolution is the
completion of the capitalist cycle. It is the fuU development of capital-
ism which alone brings forth within bourgeois society the revolutionary
forces :

, . . Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of
capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of trans-

** Ibid., p. 39.

•» Ibid.

" Marx, Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (Janu-
ary 1859), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publish-
ing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 363.

"Engels, Introduction to "Tlie Class Struggles in France 1843 to 1850 by Karl
Marx" (Mar, 6, 1895), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Lan-
guages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 125.

formation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, ex-
ploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class
always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very
mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. . . . Centralisa-
tion of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach
a point where they become incompatible with the capitalist integument.
This integument is burst asimder. The knell of capitalist private property
sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.^*

Where

These passages also answer the question Where the Socialist Revolu-
tion is to take place. The place is that of the most "advanced" civiliza-
tion and capitalism.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that
country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried
out imder more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with
a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seven-
teenth, and of France in the eighteenth century. , . .^'

Addressing himself to the question whether the Socialist Revolution
could succeed in a backward country like Russia, Engels wrote :

1 , . no more in Russia than anywhere else would it have been possible to
develop a higher social form out of primitive agrarian communism unless
that higher form was already in existence in another coimtry. . . . That
higher form being, wherever it is historically possible, the necessary conse-
quence of the capitalistic form of production and of the social dualistic
antagonism created by it, it could not be developed directly out of the

agrarian commune. . . .^°

Who

On the question of Who makes the revolution, Marx leaves no doubt:
the proletariat as a class :

• . . the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled,
by the force of circimistances, to organise itself as a class, and, by means of
a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class. . , .*^

"Marx, "Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation" (1867), Marx and
Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol.
I, p. 460.

"Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955),vol. I, p. 65.

"Engels, in a letter "Engels to N. F. Danielson" (Oct. 17, 1893), Marx and
Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955),
vol. II, p. 503.

"Marx and Engels, 'The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House
1955), vol. I, p. 54.

What is more, at the time of the revolution, this class comprises the
vast majority of all people :

The lower strata of the middle class . . . sink gradually into the prole-
tariat. . . . Thus the proletariat a recruited from all classes of the
population.^^

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or In
the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious,
independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the
immense majority.^^

How

And How would, according to Marx and Engels, the revolution be
made? This turned out to be a complicated matter in which it is diffi-
cult to detect clear lines of thought in Communist ideology. A few
things about Marxist thought on the manner of the revolution are,
however, quite clear. It is clear, above all, that Marx envdsaged the
revolution as a violent event, an act of force.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly
declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of
all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Com-
munistic revolution."

Or again :

... we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing
society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and
where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the
sway of the proletariat.^'

The establishment of proletarian rule, however, is not the end of the
use of brute force. Rather, it is the beginning of a period in which the
government would be used as an instrument of force against the "ex-
ploiters."

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working
class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the
battle of democracy.^®

And what happens then?

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all
capital from the Bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in
the hands of the State, i.e. of the proletariat organised as the ruling class;
and to Increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.''

"Ibid., p. 41.
" Ibid., p. 44.
•* Ibid., p. 65.
* Ibid., p. 45.
•• Ibid., p. 53.
■^ Ibid.

In other words, the mission of the proletarian power is not to satisfy
human aspirations and needs, but to bring about the destruction of the
old society and the development of the means of production.^* It was
realized from the beginning that this could not be accomplished except
by lawless force.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of
despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bour-
geois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economi-
cally insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement,
outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order,
and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of
production.^^

Marx here recognizes that the beginning of "despotic inroads on the
rights of property" will lead to "further inroads upon the old social
order," that these measures will "appear untenable" but are neverthe-
less "unavoidable." What he envisages is dictatorial government apart
from popular consent and from the restrictions of law, the "dictatorship
of the proletariat."

Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolu-
tionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to
this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but
the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.^"

Marxists are taught that the rule of force after the seizure of power is
the most important phase of the Socialist Revolution :

... A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is
the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other
part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon — authoritarian means, If such
there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought
in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms
inspire in the reactionaries.^*

4. Effects of the Revolution

There is a widespread misconception to the effect that communism
is based on the blueprint of an ideal society. In actual fact, the ad-
vocates of a blueprint of a future society were bitterly criticized by Marx
as "Utopians." He accused them of substituting their "personal inven-
tive action" for "historical action," of thinking in terms of "fantastic

28 Cf. also above, p. 58.

" Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955),vol. I, p. 53.

"Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (May 1875), Marx and Engels
Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II,
pp. 32, 33.

"Engels, "On Authority" (October 1872), Marx and Engels Selected Works
• (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 638.

conditions of emancipation" rather than "historically created ones," and
of looking to an "organization of society specially contrived by these in-
ventors." They are, to him, dreamers of ideals and not students of
history.

, . . Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and
the practical carrying out of their social plans.^*

The objection of Marx and Engels to this "utopian" socialism is that
it overlooks the struggle itself, the development of wliich is bound to
lead to as yet unpredictable conditions.

. . . The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in un-
developed economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of
the human brain. ... It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more
perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from with-
out by propaganda. . . . These new social systems were foredoomed as
Utopian. . . .^^

By contract, Marx and Engels dwelt above all on the continuing strug-
gle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. To conduct this strug-
gle energetically, effectively, and victoriously, was their concern. Out of
the triumph of Communists in this struggle a new society would arise by
way of economic and social development, rather than as the result of a
blueprint.

. . . While tlie democratic petty bourgeois wish to bring the revolution
to a conclusion as quickly as possible ... it is our interest and our task to
make the revolution permanent, until all more or less possessing classes
have been forced out of their position. . . .**

Out of the continuing struggle of the classes would, "in the course of
development" (rather than by an attempt to realize the blueprint of an
ideal order ! ) grow a society without classes and without a state.

When, in the coui'se of development, class distinctions have disappeared,
and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast asso-
ciation of the whole nation, the public power will lose its pohtical
character. . . .

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antago-
nisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each
is the condition for the free development of all.^'

"Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Part>'" (December 1847-
Januai-y 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955),vol. I, p. 62.

•'Engels, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected

Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. H, p. 121.

"* Marx and Engels, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"
(March 1850), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. I, p. 110.

** Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
i955),vol. I,p. 54.

5. The "Period of Transition"

One delicate question in Communist ideology is how long this
"course of development" will take. While the Communist Manifesto
and other wiitings by Marx refer to a "period," Engels commits him-
self to the confident prediction of an almost immediate change of social
order as a result of the seizure of power:

... As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection;
as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon
our present anarchy in production . . . are removed, nothing more remains
to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary.
The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the rep-
resentative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of
production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last inde-
pendent act as a state. . . . The state is not "abolished". It dies out}^

. . . We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of
production at which the existence of . . . classes not only will have ceased
to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They
will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them, the
state will inevitably fall. The society that will organize production on the
basis of a free and equal association of the producers will put the whole
machinery of the state where it will then belong : into the Museum of An-
tiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.*^

Marx, more cautious, predicted that after the seizure of power there
would be a slow development, in which he distinguished two phases.
The first one would be a society in which everyone obtained a fair share
of the total product, corresponding to the labor which he had put into
it. The distribution of goods in this phase would still be based on rights
and could therefore not do justice to all the factual inequalities of in-
dividual persons. The second phase would not longer rely on rights as
a basis of distribution, because material abundance would allow every-
one to have as much as he needed. (In later Communist ideology, the
first phase came to be called "sociaHsm" and the second, ".commu-
nism.")

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has
developed on Its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as It emerges
from capitalist society. . . . Accordingly, the individual producer receives
back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he
gives to It. , . .

"Engels, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, pp. 150,
151. The more familiar translation of the last sentence says: It withers away.

"Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (March-
June 1884), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub-
lishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 321.

. . . The right of the producers is proportional to the labour they sup-
ply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an
equal standard, labour.

. . . This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labour. , » , It is,
therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. . . .

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist
society. . . .

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordina-
tion of the individual to the division of labour . . . has vanished . . ,
after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around develop-
ment of the individual . . . only then can the narrow horizon of bour-
geois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! ^*

One may sum up the Communist expectations as to the results of the
revolution as follows ( although care must be taken at this point to dis-
tinguish between the views of Marx and Engels) : The decisive act
would be the seizure of power by "the proletariat" and the turning of
the means of production (land, factories, etc.) into state property. From
its vantage point as the new ruling class, the proletarian power would
then proceed to remove, one by one, all the traces of the former society
and its s)'stem of production. At the same time it would seek to de-
velop production, under government administration, by means which
Marx characterized as "despotic." This is as far as Marxism envisages
plans for a deliberate revolutionary action. The rest is "development,**
that is, something which is expected to occur by itself as a result of the
steps taken by the revolutionary forces. There are three key develop-
ments that are envisaged : The disappearance of classes, the elimination
of the "division of labor," and the "withering away" of the state. Once
these developments are consummated, the "realm of freedom" would
supposedly have arrived.

6. Lenin's Views of Communist Revolution

What Marx left to his followers was the myth of the Socialist Revolu-
tion : a gieat convulsive crisis, a political explosion of the oppressed class
of proletarians, which would at one fell swoop end the rule of the bour-
geoisie and thus all class societies. It is true, Marx insisted that the new
society would be slow in taking shape, that it ^vould evolve in the midst
of social patterns left over from capitalism. Nevertheless, his idea of the
revolution created the image of a decisive insurrection which, coming at
the fullness of capitalism's time, would sweep away the obsolete political
superstructure and usher in a new world. As a m) th, this image still

"Mane, "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (May 1875), Marx and Engels
Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, pp.
23, 24.

plays a key role in Communist ideology. As a working concept, how-
ever, it has been entirely replaced by Lenin's ideas about the revolution
which, along with his ideas on capitalism, have substituted new contents
while retaining the formal structure of Marx's concept.

Briefly, Lenin, while still making full use of the myth of the revolu-
tion, saw in practice not one single threshold event that would separate
two ages from each other, but rather a protracted struggle extending
over an entire epoch, a struggle in which no single event or explosion
could accomplish the passage from one age to the other. In keeping
with this idea, he did not speak of the "fullness of time" at which capi-
talism, wholly ripe, would be ready to be knocked down to make room
for the new growth. Rather he looked for recurrent favorable situa-
tions that permitted an advance of Communist forces. The period of
the struggle extends, in Lenin's views, from the time at which Commu-
nist forces organize, through both the bourgeois and socialist revolu-
tions, into an indefinite duration of proletarian dictatorship. Thus,
"the Revolution" connotes a continuous conflict including not only the
proletariat's seizure of power, but also the so-called bourgeois-demo-
cratic revolution (which is supposed to precede the former), and the
period of dictatorial rule by the Communist Party in control of the state.
Since to Lenin the revolution means not so much a liberating explosion
occurring at the point of highest development of capitalism, but rather
a protracted class struggle, he made a number of statements which
seemed to favor more backward countries as the most suitable theater
in which to carry forth this struggle. At any rate, Communist doctrine,
evolving from Lenin's concepts, now calls for a concentration of the
revolutionary blow on the "weakest link" of the entire "chain" of
"imperialism." ^^

Quite logically, then, Lenin expected the revolution in Russia to be
decided not solely by the social forces of the proletariat, but rather by
the proletariat combined with the peasantry, both led by the party.
There are other differences between Lenin's concept of the revolution
and that of Marx. All of them, howe\'er, center in the decisive distinc-
tion between Marx's notion of a single, epoch-making political event,
and Lenin's notion of a protracted struggle. The latter, grown out of
the revolutionary problems peculiar to Russia, has become the criterion
now governing all of contemporary Communist ideology.

The crucial concept in Lenin's view of the revolution is that of an
entire period of "transition," a period, that is, of protracted fighting.

. . . The first fact that has been established with complete exactitude by
the whole theory of development, by science as a whole — a fact which the
Utopians forgot, and which is forgotten by present-day opportunists who

"J. Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscowl
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 37.

are afraid of the socialist revolution — is that, historically, there must un-
doubtedly be a special stage or epoch of transition from capitalism to com-
munism.*'*

This transitional period is seen by Lenin essentially as a period of
Communist dictatorship, which he calls, in keeping with Marx's revolu-
tionary myth, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

. . . the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for class society
in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bour-
geoisie, but for the entire historical period between capitalism and "classless
society," communism. . . . The transition from capitalism to communism
will certainly create a great variety and abundance of political forms, but
in essence there will inevitably be only one: the dictatorship of the
proletariat.^

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is thus a phase of class struggle,
a struggle between the Communists and their enemies which continues
after the Communist seizure of power, for an indefinite time to come.

. . . The dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle — sangui-
nary and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educa-
tional and administrative — against the forces and traditions of tlie old
society.*^

The dictatorship of the proletariat Is the most determined and most ruth-
less war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy, against
the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by its over-
throw. . . *^

Stalin states the same idea more emphatically:

, . . the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition from capitalism to
communism, must not be regarded as a fleeting period of "superrevolu-
tionary" acts and decrees, but as an entire historical era, replete with civil
wars and external conflicts, with persistent organizational work and eco-
nomic construction, with advances and retreats, victories and defeats.**

Thus Lenin projects the revolution far into an indefinite future even
beyond the Communist seizure of power.

. . . Classes have remained, and everywhere they will remain for years
after the conquest of power by the proletariat.**

But the revolution is also extended into the "past" in the sense that
Lenin has it begin with the "bourgeois-democratic" revolution. This

'"V. I. Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (August-September 1917), Selected
Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 78.

" Ibid., p. 34.

*■ Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (Apr. 27, 1920),
Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 84.

" Ibid., p. 60.

" Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 49.

"Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, an InfantOe Disorder" (Apr. 27, 1920),
Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 83.

revolution, according to the Communist Manifesto, is the emancipa-
tion of the rising bourgeois class from feudal rule; it is a revolution
made and led by the bourgeoisie itself, in which the proletariat would
at most play a subordinate role. Lenin, however, developed, for Russia
and Asiatic countries, the plan that the proletariat should take the lead
even in what Marxism calls the "bourgeois-democratic revolution."
This is a conclusion which one cannot escape if one assumes that the
revolution can be started more easily in countries which have not yet
become capitalist and which may even never have had a feudal society.
According to the Marxist dogma about the "necessary" sequence of
historical events, a "bourgeois-democratic" revolution would always
have to take place before there could be a "socialist" revolution. Lenin,
significantly, includes the "bourgeois-democratic" revolution in the over-
all design of the revolutionary struggle to be fought by the Communists.

. . . our revolution is a bourgeois revolution so long as we march with
the peasantry as a whole. . . ,

, . . First, with the "whole" of the peasantry against the monarchy, the
landlords, the mediaeval regime (and to that extent, the revolution re-
mains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic) . Then, with the poorest peasants,
with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited; against capitalism, in-
cluding the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the
revolution becomes a socialist one. To attempt to raise an artificial Chi-
nese wall between the first and second revolutions, to separate them by
anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the
degree of unity with the poor peasants, is monstrously to distort Marx-
ism. . . .*'

Thus, instead of a single climactic event that would terminate the
capitalist and usher in the socialist society we have in Leninism the con-
cept of a continuous class struggle in which one can distinguish various
phases only in the sense that the Communists may dispose at certain
times of different bases and means of their fighting power. The entire
world is now pictured as one single system of "imperialist" capitalism
in which all countries hang together as by a chain. The fight against
this system might concentrate on any point of the chain. No point is
decisive. Every attack is an attempt to weaken the system as a whole.
This is an entirely new concept of the revolution, as different from
Marx's idea as the atom bomb from the battle axe. Stalin acknowledges
this:

Formerly it was the accepted thing to speak of the existence or absence
of objective conditions for the proletarian revolution in individual countries,

** Lenin, "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" (Nov. 10,
1918), Selected Works (New Yo'k: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII,
pp. 190, 191.

or, to be more precise, in one or another developed country. Now this
point of view is no longer adequate. . . .

• «•••••

. . . Now we must speak of the world proletarian revolution; for the
separate national fronts of capital have become links of a single chain. . , .
*******

. . . not necessarily where industry is more developed, and so forth.
The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is
wealicst. . . .*'

The concept of a decisive revolution has here given way to the con-
cept of an interminably ongoing war. As a result, Leninist thought is
frequently expressed in military terms. The conditions for revolutionary
success are, in this view, not historical-evolutionary, but rather strategic
ones. As early as 1902, Lenin spoke of the class struggle as a mihtary
problem :

Before us, in all its strength, towers the fortress of the enemy from which
a hail of shells and bullets pours dov/n upon us, mowing down our best
v/arriors. \Ve must capture this fortress. . . .**

We have never rejected terror on principle, nor can we do so. Terror
is a form of military operation that may be usefully applied, or may even
be essential in certain moments of the battle, under certain conditions, and
when the troops are in a certain condition.*'

Consequently, the question of the seizure of power is to him also some-
thing to be decided on military-strategic rather than on historical-evolu-
tionary grounds. Marx saw the proletarian revolution coming when
"capitalism had fully matured." Lenin sees it when "the decisive battle
has fully matured" :

... in such a way that ( 1 ) all the class forces hostile to "us have become
sufficiently confused . . . have sufficiently weakened themselves in a
struggle beyond their strength; that (2) all the vacillating, wavering, un-
stable intermediate elements . . . have sufficiently disgraced themselves
through their practical bankruptcy; and that (3) among the proletariat a
mass mood in favour of supporting the most determined, unreservedly bold,
revolutionary action against tlie bourgeoisie has arisen. . . .^°

These conditions can obviously be fulfilled in any country, as Lenin
himself points out :

. . . Only when the "lower classes" do not want the old and when the
"upper classes" cannot continue in the old way, then only can revolution

"Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp. 36, 37.

"Lenin, "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement" (December 1900), Selected
Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 14.

"Lenin, "Where to Begin?" (May 1901), Selected Works (New York: Interna-
tional Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 17.

"Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Conununism, an Infantile Disorder" (Apr. 27, 1920), Se-
lected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 137.

conquer. This truth may be expressed in other words : revolution is im-
possible without a national crisis affecting both the exploited and the
exploiters."^

Since there are "upper" and "lower" classes everywhere, this recipe
does not depend on a highly developed capitalism. As a matter of fact,
says Lenin:

... it is easier for the movement to start in those countries which are
not exploiting countries. . . ."

... we must be able to reckon with the fact that the world socialist
revolution cannot begin so easily in the advanced countries as the revolu-
tion began in Russia. . . ."'

Once Communist power is established, the fight, however, does not
stop. The revolution then continues in the form of the "Dictatorship
of the Proletariat." The fight goes on against the class enemy, the
bourgeoisie :

, . . whose resistance is increased tenfold by its overthrow . . . and
whose power lies, not only in the strength of international capital . . . but
also in the force of habit, in the strength of small produccion. . . . For
all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, and victory
over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate
war of life and death. . . .^*

Here Lenin changes the last of Marx's concepts which he has still
retained, that of the bourgeoisie. For Marx, the bourgeoisie was the
capitalistic class, the class which, with the help of capital, developed
large-scale production and employed wage laborers. Lenin has shifted
the "proletarian" revolution from advanced capitalist countries to back-
ward countries, he has substituted for the proletariat first the combina-
tion of proletariat and peasantry and then "all toilers," and now he pins
the label of bourgeoisie on the "small producers," which is Communist
jargon meaning, in this context, the peasantry."

. . . The abolition of classes not only means driving out the landlords
and capitalists ... it means also abolishing the small commodity-pro-
ducers. . . . They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bour-
geois atmosphere. . . . The force of habit of millions and of tens of mil-
lions is a very terrible force. ... It is a thousand times easier to vanquish
the centralised big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" millions and millions of
small proprietors. . . .^°

"Ibid., p. 127.

■Lenin, "The Activities of the Council of People's Commissars" (Jan. 24 [11],
1918), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII,
p. 281.

"Lenin, "War and Peace" (Mar. 7, 1918), Selected Works (New York:
International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 294.

"Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (Apr. 27, 1920),
Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 60.

" For a definition of the peasantry see p. 94, footnote 67.

" Ibid., pp. 83, 84.

Here Lenin uses the concept of "class struggle" in his own typical
way. In the view of Marx, "class struggle" meant the political fight
for power of the proletarian class against their bourgeois rulers. For
Lenin, the "class struggle" goes on even after the "proletarians" (i.e.,
Communists) have seized power, as long as the former order of society
still continues to mold the habits of people. In the "force of habit,"
certain elements of hostile class rule persist. So Lenin conceives the task
of Communists in power as ongoing "class struggle," which he justifies
by the assertion that "classes continue long after the seizure of power."
The dictatorial use of power by the Communists is called "class struggle,"
thus evoking all the morally supporting emotions that used to be asso-
ciated with Marx's notion of the valiant struggle of the exploited.

... A Marxist is one who extends the acceptance of the class struggle
to the acceptance of the dictatorship of the proletariat.'^''

If the "class struggle" continues after the seizure of power, the state
and the government must become the main instrument of revolution :

The proletariat needs state power, the centralised organisation of force,
the organisation of violence, for the purpose of crushing the resistance of
the exploiters and for the purpose of leading the great mass of the popula-
tion ... in the work of organising socialist economy.^^

But the state is to be an instrument of lawless force in the service of
the "class struggle," rather than an instrument for the common good
of the people.

. . . the dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule — unrestricted by law
and based on force — of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. . . .^^

How long must the "class struggle" continue? When can the revolu-
tion be considered accomplished? Lenin does maintain the vision of a
society without state which Engels had, somewhat raslily, conjured up.
But he emphasized that

. . . Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect [i.e. the
withering away of the state] . . . .®°

Moreover, there must also be an abundance of goods :

The state will be able to wither away completely when society can apply
the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs," i.e. when people have become so accustomed to observing the
fundamental rules of social life and when their labour is so productive that
they will voluntarily work according to their ability.'

"Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (August-September 1917), Selected Works
(New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 33.

•^ Ibid., p. 26.

•"Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 51.

•"Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (August-September 1917), Selected Works
(New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 82.
"' •" Ibid., p. 82.

In other words, the end of the revolution will come as a "gradual and
spontaneous process" of people acquiring perfectly social habits. As
long as this has not happened — and no one can make it happen by de-
sign— the revolutionaiy class struggle must continue even where Com-
munists have already ruled for a long time.

Lenin's doctrine of the revolution is thus essentially a theory of —

. . . the period of transition from capitalism to communism . . . the
period of the overthrow and complete abolition of the bourgeoisie.^^

By "bourgeoisie" Lenin means, as we have seen, not only capitalists,
but also "small commodity producers," and by "complete abolition" he
means the breaking of the "force of habit of millions and tens of mil-
lions." Thus he is driven to the conclusion that the "period of transi-
tion"—

. , . inevitably becomes a period of unusually violent class struggles in
their sharpest possible forms. , . .®^

Consequently, the state must, in the hands of its Communist rulers,
remain a ruthless dictatorship for an indefinite period.

As in the revision of Marx by Lenin on the question of capitalism, we
have here the substitution of an entire set of new concepts for the old
ones without giving up the structure. Marx created a concept of "the
revolution" which evoked, and still evokes, strong emotional powers of
devotion among its adherents. The essence of Marx's idea is the vio-
lent and climactic upthrust of a hitherto oppressed part of a people, an
upthrust that would Hberate not only the oppressed from their masters,
but also society as such from the very root causes of all oppression and
injustice. This vision of a world-liberating deed held out such hope
that it became, in the eyes of Marxists, a touchstone of value. What-
ever is "revolutionary" is considered good, whatever "reactionary," evil.
The revolution is a "holy" cause that alone can justify political action
and political power. It is, above all, the sole justification advanced for
the dictatorial regime of the Soviet and its deeds. Communist ideology
has therefore refused to abandon the Marxist concept of the "proletarian
revolution" even though not one single element of that concept has re-
mained unchanged. Instead of industrial workers revolting against
factory owners, there are two hostile camps of nations; instead of a
climactic upthrust — a protracted struggle; instead of liberation from op-
pression— an indefinitely prolonged dictatorial regime. All this is still
passed off as the "proletarian revolution." In one sense alone is the
"proletarian" element a still decisive concept: all of the population ruled
by Communist power is slated to be subjected to the work discipline of
the factory before Communists will feel that they have achieved their

" Ibid., p. 34.
''Ibid.

goal of "socialist transformation." Thus what is left as an effective
residue of Marx's ideas about the proletarian class is no longer a concept
of an active historical mission but rather of a passive role of the
proletariat as the support of the party, and also as the class whose exist-
ence serves as the mold into which all citizens are to be eventually
pressed.

Chapter IV. Communist Organization and Strategy

Before Lenin, socialist theory concerned mainly such problems as the
analysis and development of capitalism, and the general features of the
class struggle. Because Lenin conceived of the revolution as a pro-
tracted struggle, the bulk of Communist doctrine at present consists in
ideas about this struggle, its laws, and the organization required for
the struggle. These ideas are not mere rules of expediency, but have
become ideological dogmas. They took shape in bitter fights between
Lenin and other Russian revolutionaries. Every question of organiza-
tion and of strategy became an issue of ideology, so that every practical
decision also scttied a dogma that was henceforth embodied in Com-
munist ideology. One may broadly distinguish between ideological
dogmas concerning the Communist Party itself — its organization, rela-
tion to the masses, and tasks — and dogmas concerning the revolutionary
strategy.

1. The Communist Party

The definition of the nature and function of the Communist Party
by a whole series of ideological concepts is the central Leninist idea.
Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, had declared that "the Commu-
nists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat
as a whole." Those working class parties which had formed during
Marx's and Engels' lifetime by and large resembled other political parties
which operated in the setting of representative democracy: they had
mass membership represented by elected leaders and were loosely held
together by platforms and programs.

Lenin insisted on a new type of organization. Although this organ-
ization is still called a "party," it is not a genuine political party in the
sense of considering itself a part of a whole, nor in the sense of func-
tioning mainly for the purpose of organizing voters in a competitive sys-
tem of politics. Rather, it was from the beginning envisaged as a combat
organization, a kind of ideological-military army designed to destroy,
conquer and hold positions of power with means ranging from terror to
trickery. As he rammed his ideas through against the opposition
of other Russian Marxists, he imposed on his followers not merely a
certain type of party organization, but also the ideological principles
implied therein, particularly principles regarding the position and role
of Commmiists in their non-Communist environment. Basically, the

(75)

B1436*— 60— vol. 1 e

Leninist concept of the party reflects the underlying idea that the revo-
lution is required by the laws of historical necessity rather than by actual
desires or aspirations of living people. It is the remote historical future
which is to be realized by the revolution, and, looking toward this fu-
ture, the party is supposed to be more "advanced" than the more short-
sighted interests of the masses ever could be. The party is conceived as
the executor of the "laws of history" rather than any actual "wUl of the
people." Its function is to act not in accordance with popular wishes
but in accordance with what the "advanced" Communist understanding
of history dictates.

As an organization, the party should be set up so as to serve for any
conceivable task of political or military combat, it should insist on
ideological unity and quasi-military discipline. In other words, the
Communist Party thus conceived became a combination of a religious
hierarchy, a combat-ready army, and a high-pressure sales organization,
all at the same time. The commitment to this kind of party was justified
in terms of certain ideological concepts: for instance, the either-or choice
between bourgeois and socialist ideologies, between which there could
be no middle ground; the idea that the party is most advanced in its
insight into unfolding historical truth and therefore infallible; the idea
that support of the party is the measure of progressiveness, etc. All of
these ideological concepts emerged out of practical struggles within the
Russian Social-Democratic Party and are nowhere systematically pre-
sented. They must rather be found in the many pamphlets written on
the occasion of such struggles.

Consciousness

A key concept that emerged early is that of "consciousness." It is
tied to Marx's frequent emphasis that the proletariat must gradually
acquire consciousness of its "historical mission." Lenin insisted that
there is a fundamental distinction between "revolutionary conscious-
ness" and "spontaneity." "Consciousness" is in his view almost tanta-
mount with "theoretical understanding of the laws of history," and
"spontaneity" reflects the desires of people to improve their conditions.

We said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic consciousness
among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from
without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclu-
sively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union conscious-
ness. . . .*

. , . the "spontaneous element," . . . represents nothing more nor less
than consciousness in an embryonic form.^

*V. I. Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New
York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 53.
'Ibid., p. 52.

Only "consciousness" is revolutionary because it is future-minded.
"Spontaneity" represents essentially tlie influence of the still dominant
"present society" and is therefore bourgeois.

. . . this worshipping of spontaneity, i.e. worshipping what is "at the
present time." . . .'

... all subservience to the spontaneity of the labour movement, all be-
littHng of the role of "the conscious element," . . . means, whether one
likes it or not, the growth of influence of bourgeois ideology among the
workers.*

The party, by contrast, must not be motivated by the spontaneous
wishes of the masses, but rather by the advanced theoretical understand-
ing of history. In this sense, the party is the "vanguard," i.e., it is fur-
ther ahead in socialist consciousness than the masses of the proletariat.

, . . the role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided
by an advanced theory.'

Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary move-
ment.^

The same idea was later restated by StaHn :

. . . The Party must be, first of all, the vanguard of the working
class. . . . But in order that it may really be the vanguard, the Party must
be armed with revolutionary dieory, with a knowledge of the laws of the
movement, with a knowledge of the laws of revolution. Without this it
will be incapable of directing die struggle of the proletariat, of leading the
proletariat. The Party cannot be a real party if it limits itself to registering
what the masses of the working class feel and think, if it drags at the tail
of the spontaneous movement, if it is unable to overcome the inertness and
the political indifTerence of the spontaneous movement, if it is unable to
rise above the momentary interests of the proletariat. . . . The Party must
stand at the head of the working class ; it must see farther than the working
class; it must lead the proletariat, and not follow in the tail of the spon-
taneous movement.'^

In other words, the party is in a category by itself because, by defini-
tion, it is the "conscious element," whereas the masses cannot of them-
selves have "socialist consciousness." The masses are always subject to
the appeals and seductions of "what is present," while the party alone is
correctly guided by its awareness of the "laws of history" and thus alone
is "really revolutionary." This doctrme puts the party necessarily above
all other people in a position where it cannot and must not consider

• Ibid., p. 45.

• Ibid., p. 61.
' Ibid., p. 48.

• Ibid., p. 47.

'J. Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp. 97, 98.

itself either responsive or accountable to the people's wishes. The sole
motive of the party must be its own understanding of the "laws of the
struggle." By virtue of this understanding — ^supposedly guaranteed by
"scientific" Marxism-Leninism — the Communist Party can see what no-
body else can see. Since it alone is guided by "knowledge" of the un-
folding dialectic of history rather than by interests anchored in the pres-
ent situation, it alone has purely revolutionary motives. Seeing further
ahead than others, being more revolutionary than others, the party alone
is entitled to leadership and power.

According to the myth of the revolution deveteped by Marx, the
proletarian class is supposed to be the "only really revolutionary" class
which through its revolutionary elan will Uberate all mankind from the
curse of the class struggle. According to the Leninist doctrine, the
proletarian masses are by their nature enslaved to the "momentary in-
terests" of the present and tend to fall back into "bourgeois ideology"
unless firmly led by the party. The party alone, the "conscious element"
is "really revolutionary," because it is not motivated by "momentary in-
terests" but by "revolutionary theory." In Leninist doctrine, the party
thus actually takes the place assigned to the proletarian class in the teach-
ing of Marx.

^^Opportunism"

Another concept by which Lenin defined the ideas of his opponents is
"opportunism." "Opportunism," in Communist jargon is, like "spon-
taneity," the opposite of systematic, theoretically understood, and his-
torically oriented revolutionary activity. As applied to questions of or-
ganization, "opportunism" is Lenin's term of contempt for the idea of
a loose party organization, open to all who want to join it, and built up
from below.

. . . the entire position of the opportunists in questions of organisation
began to be revealed in the course of the controversy over point 1 : their
advocacy of a diffuse and loose Party organisation ; their hostility to the idea
of building the Party from above . . . their tendency to proceed from be-
low, a tendency which would allow every professor, every schoolboy and
"every striker" to register himself as a member of the Party . . . their incli-
nation towards the mentality of the bourgeois intellectual who is only pre-
pared "platonically to recognise organisational relations" . . . their par-
tiality for autonomism as against centralism. . . .*

As against this "opportunist" concept of party organization, Lenin
set up the Communist Party as an "organisation of professional revolu-
tionaries." Such an organization is required, according to Lenin, be-
cause the class struggle is above all a "political struggle." Therefore

•Lenin, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" (1904), Selected Works (New
York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, pp. 408, 409.

one must not confuse an "organisation of revolutionaries" with an
"organisation of workers." *

... A workers' organisation must in the first place be a trade organisa-
tion ; secondly, it must be as wide as possible. . . . On the other hand, the
organisations of revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people
whose profession is that of a revolutionary. ... In view of this common
feature of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between
workers and intellectuals, and certainly distinctions of trade and profession,
must be obliterated. Such an organisation must of necessity be not too ex-
tensive and as secret as possible.^"

The party therefore must be —

... A small, compact core, consisting of reliable, experienced and
hardened workers, with responsible agents in the principal districts and con-
nected by all the rules of strict secrecy with the organisations of revolu-
tionaries. . . ?^

It must consist of people —

, . . who will devote to the revolution not only tlieir spare evenings, but
the whole of their lives. . . .^^

The party is thus essentially an organization of the select few.

... I assert : ( 1 ) that no movement can be durable without a stable or-
ganisation of leaders to maintain continuity; (2) that the more widely the
masses are spontaneously drawn into the struggle and form the basis of the
movement and participate in it, the more necessary is it to have such an
organisation. ... (3) that the organisation must consist chiefly of persons
engaged In revolutionary activities as a profession. . . .^^

This kind of party must be organized "from the top down," strictly
centralized and disciplined Kke an army.

. . . The latter [the "opportunists"] want to proceed from the bottom
upward and, consequently . . . supports autonomism and "democracy,"
which may ... be carried as far as anarchism. The former [revolutionary
socialists] proceed from the top, and advocate the extension of the rights
and powers of the centre in respect of the parts.^*

, . . the opportunists are all for autonomism, for a slackening of Party
discipline, for reducing It to nought. . . .^°

•Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York:
International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 126.

'^ Ibid., p. 127.

'^ Ibid., p. 133.

"Lenin, "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement" (December 1900), Selected
Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 14.

"Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York:
International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, pp. 138, 139.

"Lenin, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" (1904), Selected Works (New
York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, pp. 447, 448.

»/fciJ.,p.451.

One of the most intolerable demands of the "opportunists" is, to
Lenin, freedom of criticism. This is one of the points at which the
ideological significance of organizational issues is clearly mentioned by
Lenin:

■ I , the notorious freedom of criticism implies, not the substitution of
one theory for another, but freedom from any complete and thought-out
theory; it implies eclecticism and absence of principle.^*

. . . Those who are really convinced that they have advanced science
would demand, not freedom for the new views to continue side by side v^ddi
the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.^^

Since the "Vanguard Party" is supposed to embody the most ad-
vanced "scientific" knowledge of history, it is clear that it cannot tolerate
any competing views either within or without its ranks. Intolerance
here is clearly a matter of principle. It is based not merely on the no-
tion that the party possesses the most "advanced" science, but further-
more on the notion that there are only two ideologies, and any devia-
tion from one is in fact a support for the other :

. . . the only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is
no middle course (for humanity has not created a "third" ideology, and,
moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-
class or above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any
way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree means strengthening bour-
geois ideology.^*

Again, Stalin repeats the same theme many years later:

, . . the parties of the Communist International, whose activities are
conditioned by the task of achieving and consolidating the dictatorship of
the proletariat, cannot aflford to be "liberal" or to permit freedom of
factions.

The Party represents unity of will, which precludes all factionalism and
division of authority In the Party.^'

In other words, the party as an organization is not set up mainly to
accommodate workers or represent their interests. It is set up solely for
the sake of the revolution, the "persistent struggle," the revolutionary
regime "based on force and unlimited by law." It is guided and held
together by "revolutionary theory." It is, in sum, a disciplined and
militant group committed to act in history along the lines of a certain
well-defined idea of history. No ideal of justice, no humanitarian pur-
pose, no sense of obligation to others enter into this concept of the party.
Its conscience is its own theory. Revolution is its profession. It defines

"Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York:
International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, pp. 46, 47.

" Ibid., p. 33.

" Ibid., p. 62.

" Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 107.

itself as tlie only really revolutionary force and the most advanced of
all human groups. Morally, theoretically, politically, it is a group wholly
and irremediably centered in itself.

The party and the masses

What is the relation of the party to the masses, particularly the "pro-
letarians"? The task of the party was once defined by Lenin as one of
imbuing the masses with the "ideas of socialism." Soon, however, he
spoke of the party as a cadre army which, in order to develop striking
power, had to attract to itself the fighting support of "the masses" — all
the masses.

... the immediate task of our Party Is ... to call for the establish-
ment of a revolutionary organisation capable of combining all the
forces ... an organisation that will be ready at any moment to support
every protest and every outbreak, and to utilise these for the purpose of
increasing and strengthening the military forces fit for the decisive battle.^

. . . This network of agents will form the skeleton of the organisation
we need, namely, one that is . . . sufficiently wide and many-sided to effect
a strict and detailed division of labour; sufficiently tried and tempered
unswervingly to carry out its own work under all circumstances, at all
"turns" and in unexpected contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able to
avoid open battle against the overwhelming and concentrated forces of the
enemy, and yet able to take advantage of the clumsiness of the enemy and
attack him at a time and place where he least expects attack. . . . This
degree of military preparedness can be created only by the constant activity
of a regular army.^^

This "combat party" is not a mere part, among others, of the prole-
tarian class, as it should have been according to Marx's ideas. Rather,
it is alone the agent of "World History" and its task is to attract to itself
whatever support it can get, from whatever social class or group.

. . . We must take upon ourselves the task of organising a universal
political struggle under the leadership of our Party in such a manner as to
obtain all the support possible of all opposition strata for the struggle and
for our Party. We must train our Social-Democratic practical workers to
become poUtical leaders, able to guide all the manifestations of this uni-
versal struggle, able at the right time to 'dictate a positive programme of
action" for the discontented students ... for the discontented religious
sects, for the offended elementary school teachers, etc., etc.^^

The party, in other words, turns to the masses not with words of its
own convictions, but with words designed to recruit the masses into an

*» Lenin, "Where To Begin?" (May 1901), Selected Works (New York: Interna-
tional Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 18,

"/fcfd., pp. 21, 22.

"Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York: In-
ternational Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 103.

army of discontent that can be exploited by the party. For the causes
of "religious sects," of "school teachers," etc., are not causes that Com-
munists themselves believe in.

"Propaganda" and "agitation"

The party, Lenin explained, can present itself to the masses in two
ways: by "propaganda" or "agitation."

... a propagandist . . . must explain the capitalist nature of crises, the
reasons why crises are inevitable. ... In a word, he must present "many
ideas," so many indeed that they will be understood as a whole only by a
(comparatively) few persons.^*

Therefore, propaganda is good for recruiting party members. For
enlisting mass support, however, "agitation" is the right method :

. . . An agitator . . . will take ... a fact that is most widely known
and outstanding among his audience . . . and utihsing this fact, which is
known to all and sundry, will direct all his efforts to presenting a single
idea to the "masses," ... he will strive to rouse discontent and indigna-
tion among the masses. . . .^*

These "discontents" may have nothing to do with the Communist
idea of society and its class evUs, but they nevertheless can all be chan-
neled into the Communist cause.

. . . our task is to utilise every manifestation of discontent, and to col-
lect and utilise every grain of even rudimentary protest.^'

. . . Fulfill this duty with greater zeal, and talk less about "increasing
the activity of the masses of the workers"! We are far more active than
you think, and we are quite able to support, by open street fighting, de-
mands that do not promise any "palpable results" whatever! ^^

For the party : The revolutionary theory. For the masses : The emo-
tional appeal of "agitation." This basic idea is reflected in the concept
of the "transmission belts" which was originated by Lenin and later
elaborated by Stalin. Lenin demanded that the small core of the tightly
organized party be surrounded by a great number of other organizations.

. . . The centralisation of the more secret functions in an organisation of
revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and the
quality of the activity of a large number of other organisations intended
for wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and as public
as possible, for example, trade unions, workers' circles for self-education
and the reading of illegal Hterature, and socialist and also democratic cir-
cles for all other sections of the population. « . . We must have as large a

*' Ibid., pp. 85, 86.
" Ibid., p. 86.
''Ibid., p. 105,
" Ibid., p. 93.

number as possible of such organisations having the widest possible variety
of functions, but it is absurd and dangerous to confuse these with organisa-
tions of revolutionaries. . . ."

While this was written in 1902, Stalin confirmed the principle in
1924 and 1926.

. . . The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. However,
it exercises it not directly, but with the help of the trade unions, and
thi-ough the Soviets and their ramifications. Without these "transmission
belts," a dictatorship to any extent durable would be impossible.

"It is impossible to exercise the dictatorship," says Lenin, "without hav-
ing a number of 'transmission belts' from the vanguard to the mass of the
advanced class, and from the latter to the mass of working people."

"The Party, so to speak, absorbs into itself the vanguard of the prole-
tariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. With-
out a foundation like the trade unions the dictatorship cannot be exer-
cised, state functions cannot be fulfilled. These functions, in their turn,
have to be exercised through the medium of special institutions also of a
new t)'pe, namely through the Soviet apparatus." **

In other words, the will of the party is "transmitted" to large masses
of people by means of organizations which are not Communist organiza-
tions or even political organizations. People from "all sections of the
population" belong to various groups, associations, clubs, etc. These
organizations exist for speciaJ purposes and needs of various people, for
instance, the trade unions in order to get higher wages, educational asso-
ciations in order to promote knowledge among the members, etc. As
far as the Communists are concerned, all these organizations, however,
are mere "transmission belts" enabling a small party of revolutionary
theorists to enlist the support of unsuspecting large masses. The masses,
then, are manipulated by means of their own needs and aspirations and
the institutions created to satisfy those needs. The party, rather than
trying to guide the masses by direct ideological appeal, steers them by
means of organizations to which people belong and adhere for purpose
other than those the party has in mind. It is nevertheless tlirough these
"other" and "normal" purposes that the party handles the masses as it
wills. Note that the Soviets, i.e., the governmental organizations, are
expressly mentioned among the other "transmission belts." This means
that government, too, is considered by the Communists as an organiza-
tion which people generally support because of a recognized need and
which Communists therefore regard as a suitable tool for "transmitting"
their direction to the unwitting masses.

" Ibid., p. 140.

"Stalin, "On the Problems of Leninism" (Jan. 25, 1926), Problems of Lemnism

(Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 168.

84
"Democratic centralism"

It follows from the entire concept of the party, its purpose as a combat
organization, its foundation of "true" theory, its position as the vanguard
of history's movement, that there can be no question of democracy with-
in the party. Lenin, as has already been shown, conceived the party as
built "from above" rather than "from below." He coined the term
"democratic centralism" to denote the combination of two features al-
ready foreshadowed in the relation between the party and the masses;
strict guidance from a small center and broad "participation" of large
numbers of people in the activities flowing from this guidance.

... in order to unite all these tiny fractions into one whole ... in or-
der to imbue those who carry out these minute functions with the convic-
tion that their work is necessary and important ... it is necessary to have
a strong organisation of tried revolutionaries. ... In a word, specialisa-
tion necessarily presupposes centralisation. . . .^®

... a powerful and strictly secret organisation, which concentrates in
its hands all the threads of secret activities, an organisation which of neces-
sity must be a centralised organisation. . . .^^

The only serious organisational principle the active workers of our move-
ment can accept is strict secrecy, strict selection of members and the train-
ing of professional revolutionaries.^^

The principle of party democracy is condemned by Lenin as an ex-
pression of "opportunism" and thus opposed to "revolutionary
principle."

. . . the same struggle between the opportunist wing and the revolution-
ary wing of the Party on the question of organisation, the same conflict be-
tween autonomism and centralism, between democracy and "bureaucracy,"
, . . between intellectual individualism and proletarian cohesion.*'

Centralized discipline of a bureaucratically organized party is thus
described not merely as a desirable expedient, but as the expression of
correct ideological attitudes.

, . . Bureaucracy versus democracy is the same thing as centralism versus
autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary political
democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of the opportunists of
Social Democracy."

. . . the class conscious worker must learn to distinguish the mentality
of the soldier of the proletarian army from the mentality of the bourgeois
intellectual who flaunts anarchist phrases. . . .'*

•Lenin, "What Is To Be Done?" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York: In-
ternational Publishers, 1943), vol. II, pp. 143, 144.

•"/iiJ., p. 151.

"7iiJ., p. 155.

"Lenin, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" (1904), Selected Works (New
York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 453.

''Ibid., p. 447.

•* Ibid., p. 446.

Later, the principle of "democratic centralism" was made a world-
wide requirement for any party that wanted to call itself Communist:

13. The parties affiliated to the Communist International must be built
up on the principle of democratic centralism. In the present epoch of
acute ci\il war the Communist Party will be able to perform its duty only
if it is organised in the most centralised manner, only if iron discipline
bordering on military discipline prevails in it, and if its party centre is a
powerful organ of authority, enjoining \vide powers and the general con-
fidence of the members of the party .^

Again, StaUn states the same principle In Its most concise and sys-
tematic form :

. . . The achievement and maintenance of the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat is impossible without a party which is strong by reason of its solidarity
and iron discipline. , . ,

*******

... It need hardly be proved that the existence of facdons leads to the
existence of a number of centres, and the existence of a number of centres
connotes the absence of one common centre in the Party, the breaking up
of the unity of will, the weakening and disintegration of discipline, the
weakening and disintegration of the dictatorship. . . . the parties of the
Communist International, whose activities are conditioned by the task of
achieving and consolidating the dictatorsliip of the proletariat, cannot af-
ford to be "liberal" or to permit freedom of factions.

The Party represents unity of will, which precludes all factionalism and
division of authority in the Party .^®

The party as the priesthood of "truth"

The logic of all these ideas points to one final conclusion about the
party, a conclusion which has not so much been expHcitly stated as a
theory, but has been implied as a principle in action : The party alone
is the possessor of truth. We must recall that truth, for a Communist,
is the unfolding movement of social forces, according to the "laws" of
history. "Scientific" socialism is based not on a vision of the best pos-
sible world, but on the supposed knowledge of "the objective laws gov-
erning the development of the system of social relations" (Lenin). It
follo'.vs that for a Communist, as Lenin puts it —

, . . there Is no such thing as abstract truth, truth is alwa^'S concrete.^^

In other v/ords, in every given situation, there is one "correct" way
of "revolutionary struggle" which is the "truth" of history. Since the

"Lenin, "The Conditions of Affiliation to the Communist International" (July
1920), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 204.

"Stalin, 'The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp. 106, 107.

"Lenin, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" (1904), Selected Works (New
York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 463.

party is the "vanguard" of the "most advanced" class, and since the
party is squarely based on "socialist consciousness" and "revolutionary
theory," it follows that the party's action or "line" must be the most ad-
vanced foraiulation of the truth. No one can be more "correct" than
the paity.

In its struggle for power the proletariat has no other weapon but organ-
isation. . . . the proletariat can become, and will inevitably become, an
invincible force only when its ideological unity round the principles of
Marxism is consolidated by the material unity of an organisation, w^hich
unites millions of toilers in the army of the working class.^

The party represents "truth" and "science" because there is no such
thing as objective science, and the party consists of the most advanced
elements of the most advanced class.

, . . there can be no "impartial" social science in a society based on class
struggle.^*

. . . classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a gen-
eral rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed of the most
authoritative, influential and experienced members. . . .*"

. . . Bolshevism arose in 1903 on the very firm foundation of the theory
of Marxism. And the correctness of this — and only this — revolutionary
theory has been proved. . . .*^

The Communist Party, in other words, possesses, in Marxism-
Leninism, that "science" which reflects historical mission of the prole-
tarian class. And this "science" is believed to be powerful.

The Marxian doctrine is omnipotent because it is true.*'

And its sole alternative is "reaction" :

. . . the only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology.*'

Putting two and two together, we arrive now at the logical conclu-
sion:

Repudiation of the Party principle and of Party discipline , , , is tanta-
mount to completely disarming the proletariat for the benefit of the
bourgeoisie.^*

•' Ibid., p. 466.

"Lenin, "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism" (March
1913), Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 3.

*• Lenin, "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (May 12, 1920), Se-
lected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 81.

" Ibid., p. 62.

** Lenin, "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism" (March
1913), Selected Works (London. Lawrence & Wishart Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 3.

"Lenin, "What Is To Be Done" (1901-1902), Selected Works (New York: In-
ternational Publishers, 1943), vol. II, p. 62.

** Lenin, " 'Left- Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (May 12, 1920), Se-
lected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 83.

No matter how much and how often the party changes its "line," it
must be obeyed ;

. , . The strictest loyalty to the ideas of Communism must be combined
with the ability to make all the necessary practical compromises, to "tack,"
to make agreements, zigzags, retreats and so on. . . .*'

That this is not a matter of majority decision, but actually of "truth"
claimed by the party as its sole possessor, comes out in the following
passage :

, . . but must we always agree with the majority? Not at all . . . it
has not yet imderstood which tactics are right,*'

Hence, people who disagree with the party leadership are not Com-
munists who happen to have different ideas about party tactics, but
"opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists,
social-patriots and social-pacifists," of whom the party must "purge
itself." On the other hand :

. . . the confidence of the working class is gained not by force . . . but
by the Party's correct tlaeoiy. . . ."

The party, in the eyes of Communists, is thus not a mere political
expedient but a kind of priesthood administering the truth of history.
It is, for Communists, not just an organization but also a spiritual home.
At any rate, there can be no other spiritual home for someone committed
to the doctrines of the class struggle, the socialist revolution, and the
laws of history, as Lenin teaches them.

2. Principles of the Communist Minority Strategy

Since Lenin, strategy has become part and parcel of Communist
ideology and certain of its principles have been fixed as dogmas. The
most important of these is the basic assumption (which Lenin devel-
oped in 1917) that the revolutionists will not, as Marx believed, be
the "overwhelming majority" of the population, but rather a perpetual
minority.

... in the epoch of capitalism . . . the most characteristic feature of
working class political parties is that they can embrace only a minority of
their class. Political parties can organise only a minority of the class in the
same way as the really class-conscious workers in capitalist society can con-
stitute only a minority of all the workers. That is why we must admit that
only this class-conscious minority can lead the broad masses of the workers.*^

•ZfctU, p. 138.

•Lenin, 'The Role of the Communist Party" (July 23, 1920), Selected Works
(New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol, X, p. 217.

"Stalin, "On the Problems of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languges Publishing House, 1953), p. 173.

•Lenin, ^The Role of the Communist Party" (July 23, 1920), Selected Works
(New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 214.

When Marx spoke of the forces of the revolution as the "over-
whelming majority," he implied not only numbers but also the power
that comes with numbers. Lenin, in assuming that the forces of the
revolution would constitute a minority, also had to assume that they
were weak, at any rate considerably weaker than their "enemy." What
is remarkable is that Lenin expected this basic power inferiority of the
forces of the revolution to continue even after the seizure of power by
the Communists. Even in the period of the "dictatorship of the prole-
tariat," the "enemy" is supposed to be "more powerful."

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most determined and most
ruthless war waged by the new class against a more powerful enemy. . . .*'

After the government and the factories have been taken over by the
Communists, who precisely is this more powerful enemy? It is the
"force of habit," the way of thinking and feeling of all kinds of people
who think and feel differently from Communists. Lenin singles out
two groups (the intellectuals and the peasants) but indicates that the
proletarians themselves still entertain "petty-bourgeois prejudices" :

Under the Soviet power, your and our proletarian party will be invaded
by a still larger number of bourgeois intellectuals. ... It is impossible to
expel and to destroy the bourgeois intelligentsia, it is necessary to vanquish
this intelligentsia, to remould, to assimilate and to re-educate it, just as it
is necessary to re-educate — in a protracted struggle, on the soil of the dicta-
torship of the proletariat — the proletarians themselves, who do not abandon
their petty-bourgeois prejudices at one stroke. . . .'"'

The peasants are the "small commodity producers" whose influence
Lenin feared more than that of the big capitalists.

, . . For, unfortunately, very, very much of small production still re-
mains in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the
bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale.'*

. . . They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois
atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat and causes con-
stant relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, dis-
integration, individualism, and alternate moods of exaltation and dejec-
tion. . . . The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a very
terrible force. ... It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralised
big bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" millions and millions of small proprie-
tors, who by their everyday, imperceptible, elusive, demoralising activity
achieve the very results desired by the bourgeoisie and which restore the
bourgeoisie."'

"Lenin, " 'Left- Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (April 27, 1920), Se-
lected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 60.
^ Ibid, -p. 155.
•' J bid., p. 60.
"/6irf.,p. 81.

In other words, the Communists conceive of themselves as a small
minority of people with attitudes and ideas radically different from those
prevailing in the present society, who regard as their enemies all those
whose attitudes and ideas still show the influence of the present society.
They know that their enemies outnumber them and are superior in
strength.

*'NeutfaUzaHon**

In view of this basic assumption, the first strategic requirement is the
"iron discipline" and "strict centralization" of the party itself.

The second principle divides the masses to be conquered into those
that must be destroyed, those can be won over, and those that will have
to be "neutralized."

, , . First — overdirow the exploiters, primarily the bourgeoisie . . .
utterly rout them; suppress their resistance. . . . Second — win over and
bring under tlie leadership of the . . . Communist Party, not only the
whole of the proletariat, or the overwhelming . . . majority of the latter,
but also the whole mass of tollers . . . tear this overwhelming majority
of tlie population . . . from its dependence on the bourgeoisie. . . .
Third — neutralise. . . . the inevitable vacillation between . . . bourgeois
democracy and Soviet power, of the class of small proprietors in agricul-
ture. Industry and commerce ... as well as the stratum of Intellectuals,
office employees, etc., which corresponds to this class.*'

"Neutralization" is a recipe by which a large part of a potentially
hostile population is induced to maintain neutrality while the Commu-
nists deal with another part whom they consider an implacably hostile
force. The "neutral" part, if added to to the Communists' opponents,
would increase the latter's power to the point where they cannot be con-
quered. The Communists assume that the pecuUar consciousness, or at-
titude, of this "neutral" part bars them from siding wholeheartedly with
the Communists. Hence to "neutralize" them is to induce them to stay
on the sidelines while the Communists vanquish that part whom they
have selected as their most immediate victim.

The principle of "neutralization" is here stated as a recipe for deal-
ing with hostile classes, but it has entered Communist ideology as a
general principle that applies every time when Communists aim at
"vanquishing" enormous masses of human beings among whom the
Communists are a small minority. For instance :

. . . The working class cannot consolidate its victory unless It has behind
it at least a section of the agricultural labourers and the poor peasants, and

** Lenin, "Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Com-
munist Internationa!" {\^20), Selected Works (New York: Internaticnal Publishers,
1943),vol. X, pp. 163, 164.

unless it has by its policy neutralised a section of the rest of the rural
population. ^*

Or, in another context :'

The revolutionary proletariat cannot set itself the task . i , of winning
this stratum to its side, but must confine itself to the task of neutralising it,
i.e., to make it neutral in the struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie.'"

Alliances

From the premise that the Communists are a minority flows the con-
clusion that in their struggle they must have allies. The idea of stra-
tegic alliances of the proletariat was already mentioned by Marx, but
it was given a new and significant turn by Lenin. Marx said in the
Communist Manifesto:

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for
the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the
movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future
of that movement. In France, the Communists ally themselves with the
Social-Democrats, against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie. . . .

In Switzerland they support the Radicals. . . .

In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolu-
tion. . . .

In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolu-
tionary way. . . .

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class
the clearest possible recognition of tlic hostile antagonism between bour-
geoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straight-
way use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and po-
litical conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with
its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in
Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie may immediately begin.^'

The strategic principle laid down by Marx was restated by Lenin as
follows :

A Social-Democrat must never, even for an instant, forget that the pro-
letarian class struggle for socialism against the most democratic and re-
publican bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie is inevitable. This is beyond
doubt. From this logically follows the absolute necessity of a separate, in-
dependent and strictly class party of Social-Democracy. From this logi-
cally follows the provisional character of our tactics to "strike together"

"Lenin, "The Conditions of Affiliation to the Communist International" (1920),
Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 202.

^ Lenin, "Preliminary Draft of Theses on the Agrarian Question" (1920), Selected
Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943). vol. X, p. 222.

•"Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party'*
(December 1847-January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Pub-
lishing House, 1955), vol. I, pp. 64, 65.

with the bourgeoisie and the duty to carefully watch "our ally, as if he were
an enemy," etc.*^

The "two revolutions"

1 The new turn which Lenin gave to this strategy is embodied in his
slogan of the "two revolutions." According to the table of successive
class societies and revolutions set up by Historical Materialism, the pro-
letarian (or socialist) revolution is supposedly preceded by a bourgeois
society which in turn is preceded by a feudal society. The "fetters'* of
the feudal society are broken by the "bourgeois-democratic revolution,"
as those of the bourgeois society are burst subsequently by the "socialist
revolution." According to this pattern of successive revolutions, the
bourgeois-democratic revolution would, of course, be made by the bour-
geoisie as the driving revolutionary force. What Marx had pointed out
was that the proletariat, in its desire to hasten the progress of history,
should support the bourgeoisie in this phase. Lenin went further than
this. He laid down, as has already been explained above, that the pro-
letariat (i.e., the Communists) should not merely support the bour-
geoisie in its revolution against feudalism, but that they should actually
lead parts of the bourgeoisie in this revolution. The principle applies
also to the peasantry. The Communists, in other words, would seek to
be the leading element in a revolutionary movement which, by their own
definition, is not socialist but pre-capitalist and therefore cannot usher
in a socialist but rather only a bourgeois-democratic society. By being
the leaders of a nonsocialist revolution, the Communists would thus
seize power with the help of nonsocialist forces :

... we Marxists must know that there is not, nor can there be, any
other . . . means of bringing socialism nearer than by ... a democratic
republic, a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and
the peasantry ... we must present to the whole of the people the tasks of
a democratic revolution as widely and as boldly as possible. . . . The
degradation of these tasks ... is tantamount to delivering the cause of
the revolution into the hands of the bourgeoisie. . . .^

. . . We have a new slogan: the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship
of the proletariat and the peasantry. . . .

. . . There is nothing more naive and futile than attempts to set forth
conditions and points, which, if satisfied, would enable us to regard bour-
geois democracy as a sincere friend of the people. Only the proletariat
can be a consistent fighter for democracy. It may become a victorious
fighter for democracy only if the peasant masses join it in its revolutionary

'" Lenin, "The Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution"
(1905), Selected Works {Nevf York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. Ill, p.
100.

'* Ibid., p. 122,

61436'— 60— vol. 1 T

struggle. If the proletariat is not strong enough for this, the bourgeoisie
will put itself at the head of the democratic revolution. . . . Nothing but
the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peas-
antry can prevent this from happening."

Thus, not only in the period of coming to power but also in the
exercise of power after a victorious battle are the Communists to be
allied to class forces other than the proletariat. But these allies are to
be treated "as if they were enemies," and, when their usefulness has
passed, to be liquidated in turn.

... In the struggle against this past, in the struggle against counter-
revolution, a "united will" of the proletariat and the peasantry is possible,
for there is unity of interests.

Its future is the struggle against private property, the struggle of the
wage worker against his master, the struggle for socialism. In this case,
unity of will is impossible.*"

Lenin sums up the combination of the principles of alliance and
neutralization in the followmg formula :

The proletariat must carry out to the end the democratic revolution^
and in this unite to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by
force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyse the instability of the
bourgeoisie. The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution and
in this unite to itself the mass of the semi-proletarian elements of the popu-
lation in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to
paralyse the instability of the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie.^^

It is Stalin who again formulates the entire principle in its most suc-
cinct and dogmatic form :

This does not mean, however, that the power of one class, the class of
the proletarians, which does not and cannot share power with any otlier
class, does not need the support of an alliance witli the labouring and ex-
ploited masses of other classes for the achievement of its aims. On the con-
trary. This power, the power of one class, can be firmly established and
exercised to the full only by means of a special fonn of alliance between
the class of proletarians and the labouring masses of the petty-bourgeois
classes, primarily the labouring masses of the peasantry.

* « * * 4> * <»

This special form of alliance consists in that the guiding force of this
alliance is the proletariat. This special form of alliance consists in that
the leader in the state, the leader in the system of the dictatorship of the
proletariat is one party, the party of the proletariat, the party of the Com-
munists, which does not and cannot share that leadership with other
parties."

•-/fc/J., pp. 85-87.
• Ibid., p. 99.
"/fctV., pp. 110, 111.

•" Stalin, "On the Problems of Leninism" (Jan. 25, 1926), ProbUms of Leninism
(Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 160.

Communist strategy, in other words, relies on the power and force en-
gendered by the movements of classes other than the proletariat, and
uses the hopes and aspirations of these other people to come to power
and to pursue its own ends.

Legal and illegal activities

Another aspect of Communist minority strategy is the deceptive use of
legal activities. The Communists from the very beginning operated il-
legally and by conspiratorial methods. Terror, concealment, clandes-
I tine printing, covert propaganda and similar activities had from the
outset been so much the Communist stock in trade, that illegality would
be the first thing to come to a Communist's mind. What would not go
without saying is that legal methods are as much part of the Communist
strategic arsenal as illegal ones. The reason is the same as in the case
of alliances: The party is too weak to be able to win its struggle by its
own force and must draw on forces and influences created by others.
In its illegal activities, the party operates essentially with its own
strength. Its legal activities, however, consist in making use of institu-
tions that have not been established by party ideology and for open
party purposes, so that the party here operates by using for its own pur-
poses the quite different aims and needs of other people. Obvious cases
in point are parliaments and trade unions, but the principle applies
whenever the Communists exploit for their own power ends such in-
stitutions as people have been maintaining for normal, everyday needs,
as, e.g., theaters, sport clubs, museums, etc. (though, obviously, the
possibihties of exploiting such "neutral" institutions for Communist ends
are difierent ones in the Soviet Union and in countries where Commu-
nists do not rule).

... it is also necessaiy, in all cases without exception, not to restrict
oneself to illegal work, but also to carry on legal work, overcoming all ob-
stacles that stand in the way of this, forming legal organs of the press and
legal organisations under the most varied titles, which may often be
changed in the event of necessity. . . ,

The absolute necessity in principle of combining illegal with legal work
is determined . . . also by the necessity of proving to the bourgeoisie that
there is not, nor can there be, a sphere or field of work that cannot be won
by the Communists. . . .®'

In its work the Party relies directly on the trade unions which . , .
formally, are non-Party. Actually, all the controlling bodies of the over-
whelming majority of the unions . . . consist of Communists and carry
out all the instinactions of the Party."*

^ Lenin, "Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Com-
munist International" (1920), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers,
1943),vol. X, p. 173.

"Lenin, "'Left-Wing* Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (1920), Selected
Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 88.

... As long as you are unable to disperse the bourgeois parliament and
every other type of reactionary institution, you must work inside
them. . . .«»

The strategic premise of this work is the continuing weakness of the
proletariat :

. . . after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in one country, the prole-
tariat of that country for a long time remains weaker than the bour-
geoisie. ... It is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy only by
exerting the utmost effort, and by necessarily, thoroughly, carefully, atten-
tively and skillfully taking advantage of every, even the smallest "fissure"
among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie
of the various coimtries ... by taking advantage of every, even the
smallest opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be tem-
porary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional.®*

Duration of the minority situation of the party

This condition of weakness of the proletariat will continue wherever,
and as long as, there is a peasantry.'^ For the existence of people who
work in order to sell for profit means the continued existence of classes,
even though these people work by their own hands :

. . . Classes have remained, and every^vhere they will remain jar yean
after the conquest of power by the proletariat. Perhaps in England, where
there is no peasantry . . . the period will be shorter. The abolition of

•/fcid.,p. 100.

"/fciU, p. 112.

" "Peasantry" is a term used by Marxists to connote the mass of farmers whose
production is based on private property but not on the large-scale employment of
wage labor. Marx described this class in the following terms :

"The small-holding peasants form a vast mass, the members of which live in
similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with one another.
Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them
into mutual intercourse. . . . Their field of production, the small holding, admits
of no division of labour in its cultivation, no application of science and, therefore,
no diversity of development, no variety of talent, no wealth of social relationships.
Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient; it itself directly produces
the major part of its consumption and thus acquires its means of life more through
exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. ... In so far as millions
of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of
life, their interests and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them
in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. In so far as there is merely a
local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their
interests begets no community, no national bond and no political organization among
them, they do not form a class" (Marx, "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bona-
parte" (December 1851-March 1852), Marx and Engels Selected Works, (Moscow:
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, pp. 334, 335).

Lenin assumes that as long as agricultural production continues in forms that
essentially differ from those of factory production, it will perpetuate the existence of
a peasant class apart from the proletariat, and that from the "mode of life" of the
peasantry a "bourgeois consciousness" as well as tendencies toward the renewal of
capitalism will continue to emerge.

classes not only means driving out the landlords and capitalists — that we
accomplished with comparative ease — it means also abolishing the small
commodity producers. . . ."•

By "small commodity producers," Lenin had reference to the peasants.
At this point it is interesting to see that Lenin confesses that the peasants
of Russia are too strong to be driven out, from this concludes that the
Communists have to live in peace with them, and then defines this
"peace" in terms of a silent and concealed battle against a deadly enemy.
He continues the above quoted passage:

. . . and they cannot be driven out, or crushed; we must live in harmony
with them. . . . They encircle the proletariat on every side with a petty-
bourgeois atmosphere. . . . The strictest centralisation and discipline are
required in the political party of the proletariat in order to counteract
this. ... It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralised big
bourgeoisie than to "vanquish" millions and millions of small propri-
etors. . . .^'

The net effect of this minority strategy of the Communist Party is to
eliminate from Communist thinking every trace of what we call public
faith, which the different parts of a nation keep with one another. The
Communists have allies only in order to obtain with the allies' help the
power that is needed to destroy these same allies, they use public in-
stitutions and normal activities for purposes that have nothing to do
with these institutions or activities, they espouse the revolutionary aims
of suffering people not to end these people's sufferings but to obtain
these people's support for their own (the Communists) ends, they con-
ceive of "living in harmony" in terms of "vanquishing a terrible enemy
whom one cannot crush right away," they seek to destroy established
institutions by corrupting them from the inside. This deviousness in
Communist behavior is, as the above-quoted passages show, by no means
a subjective criminal disposition. Rather, it is a mode of behavior that
is rooted in Communist ideology, as the ideology defines the longterm
relations between a totally revolutionary minority party and the environ-
ment of social groups, classes, peoples, institutions, and activities that is
unresponsive to the party's direct persuasion. This environment is so
strong that, if directly attacked, it will break the Communist Party.
Hence it must be conquered on the sly, by attacks in disguise, by fake
professions of friendship and community, and by a false fagade of peace.

3. The Communist Teaching About the State

What the Communists say and think about the state is the most con-
fused, inherently contradictory, and hypocritical part of their doctrine.

* Lenin, " 'Left- Wing' Communism, An Infantile Disorder" (1920), Selected
Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 83,
"/6Jd., pp. 83,84.

In spite of this, it is one of the most significant parts, for it is all the
Communists have developed by way of political doctrine. One should
clearly distinguish between three aspects of the Communist teachings
about the state: first, the dogma defining the nature of the state and its
relation to human history; second, the doctrine guiding Communist
attitudes toward the state in non-Communist societies; and third, the
doctrine underlying the Communist state. The logical connection be-
tween these three parts is but loose, because these parts of the doctrine
have to some extent developed independently and thus got out of touch
with each otlier. What is remarkable is that, in spite of this, one does
not encounter in this field the usual break between the teachings of
Marx on the one hand, and those of Lenin on the other: All of these
ideas about the state are found, at least in some measure, in Communist
scriptures from Marx on down to Stalin.

Communist dogma about the nature of the state

The dogmatic definition of the state stems from the basic distinction
between "state" and "society." "Society" is seen as the naturally de-
veloping system of human activities, determined by the methods of eco-
nomic production. These activities are supposed to have their own
inherent order.

Thus the social relations within which individuals produce, the social
relations of production, change . . . with the . . . material means of
production, the productive forces. The relations of production in their
totality constitute what are called the social relations, society. , . .''**

What is society, whatever its form may be? The product of men's re-
ciprocal action. Are men free to choose this or that form of society? By
no means. . . . Assume particular degrees of development of production,
commerce and consumption and you will have a corresponding form of
social constitution, a corresponding organization of the family, of orders or
of classes, in a word, a corresponding civil society.^*

The "natural order"

Society, in other v/ords, is the "natural" order of human life. It is
to be noted that this concept of a natural order is by no means the only
possible one. Western, and particularly Christian, political doctrine has
for many hundred years maintained that the natural order of human
social life is a moral one, an order comprised in the "natural law."
Marx, by assuming that economic relationships alone constitute the
natural social order, is driven to assign to the moral order the function

"Marx, "Wage, Labour and Capital" (1847), Marx and Engels Selected Works
(Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 90.

"Marx, "Letter to P. V. Annenkov" (Dec. 28, 1846), Marx and Engels Selected
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 442.

of an artificial "superstructure." Along with morality, the state is seen
as something not only artificially superimposed, but as something that
has become separated and alien from the underlying "natural order."

At a certain, very primitive stage of the development of society, the need
arises to bring under a common rule the daily recurring acts of produc-
tion. . . . This rule, which at first is custom, soon becomes law. With
law, organs necessarily arise which are entrusted with its maintenance —
public authority, the state. . . . The more intricate this legal system be-
comes, the more is its mode of expression removed from that in which the
usual economic conditions of the life of society are expressed. It appears
as an independent element. . . .^"

On the basis of a long dissertation of questionable accuracy about
the development of social institutions, Engels traced the state back to
the rise of class divisions :

, . , Only one thing was missing: an institution that would not only
safeguard the newly acquired property of private individuals . . . but
would also stamp the gradually developing new forms of acquiring prop-
erty . . . with the seal of general public recognition; an institution that
would perpetuate . . . the right of the possessing class to exploit the non-
possessing classes and the rule of the former over the latter.

And this institution arrived. The state was invented.'^'

On the basis of this myth about the origin of the state, Engels then
proceeds to define the dogma of the state:

The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from with-
out; just as little is it "the reality of the ethical idea," ... as Hegel main-
tains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development;
it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble
contradiction with itself. . . . But in order that these antagonisms, classes
with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and
society in sterile struggle a power seemingly standing above society became
necessary . . . and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above
it, and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.'^*

. . . The state presupposes a special public authority separated from the
totality of those concerned in each case. . . .""^

The state as a symptom of humanity's basic ills

The state, in Communist thought, is thus a symptom of what is supH
posed to be wrong with human society. What is more, this symptom in

"Engels, 'The Housing Question" (1873), Marx and Engels Selected Works
(Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, pp. 622, 623.

"Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884),
Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. II, p. 262.

"/fctV., pp. 317, 318.

'•Ifc»</.,p. 251.

itself has become a power that is "alienated" from men and their nor-
mal purposes of life, so tliat the state itself is seen as an evil to be re-
moved. This much the Communists share with the anarchists. The
anarchists, at this point, draw the conclusion that the state must be
abolished. The Communists, however, insisting on their "scientific"
analysis of state and society, claim that one cannot abolish the state ex-
cept by abolishing the conditions of class division and class rule that
gave rise to the state. Hence they count on the state as an institution
that will exist during the revolutionary period, until the task of the
revolution is fully accomplished and all traces of class division have been
eliminated.

From this root develop now tliree branches; first, the ultimate vision
of the "realm of freedom" which is described as a society ruled only by
its own natural order and without a state; second, the complete and
utter rejection of any obligation to the state in any non-Communist
country and the determination to destroy this kind of state root and
branch; third, the concept of the state as an instrument of the Com-
munist struggle against the class enemy.

The ultimate vision of freedom is the formula of hope on which
communism depends. It is based mainly on three or four texts in the
classical scriptures.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared,
and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association
of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Po-
litical power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class
for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bour-
geoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstanceSj to organise itself as a
class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as
such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will,
along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the ex-
istence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have
abolished its own supremacy as a class.

The opening words of this passage indicate that Marx and Engels
here speak of something that will come to pass of its own accord, rather
than as the result of political action. What precisely do Communists
expect to take place? They are not too clear on this point, but it seems
that in some way the old tension between "society" and "state" will
disappear, as a result of which the state will become "unnecessary."

. . , The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of pro-
duction into state property.

" Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847-
January 1848), Selected yVorhs (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955),vol. I,p. 54.

But, in doing tliis, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class dis-
tinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. . . . The
state was the official representative of society as a whole. . . . But it was
tliis only in so far as it was the state of that class which itself represented,
for the time being, society as a whole. . . . When at last it becomes the
real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unneces-
sary. . . . The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself
the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the
means of production in the name of society — that is, at the same time, its
last independent act as a state. . . . The state is not "abolished." It dies
out."

. . . The society that will organize production on the basis of a free and
equal association of the producers will put the whole machinery of state
where it will then belong: into the Museum of Antiquities, by the side of
the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.'^*

Lenin differed from Engels on one important point. He did not ex-
pect classes and class antagonisms to disappear as a result of the na-
tionalization of the means of production. Even after the bourgeoisie
had been overthrown and the "proletariat" established itself as the "rul-
ing class," classes would continue to exist for a long time, he believed,
and the class struggle would, if anything, become more violent. Hence
it is all the more remarkable that he, nevertheless, took over Engels vi-
sion of an ultimate condition in which society would live by its own in-
herent order and would not have need of a state.

Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has
been completely broken . . . when there are no classes . . . only then
does "the state . . . cease to exist," and it "becomes possible to speak of
freedom" . . . only then . . . people will gradually become accustomed to
observing the elementary rules of social life that have been knov^Ti for cen-
turies . . . they will become accustomed to observing them without force,
without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus
for compulsion which is called the state.

, . . Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect. . , .''^

Thus, Communist theory culminates in an ultimate vision of freedom,
and freedom is not considered compatible with the state.

. . . While the state exists there is no freedom. When freedom exists,
there will be no state.^

"Engels, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, pp. 150, 151.
The usual translation of the last sentence says : It withers away.

"Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (1884),
Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955), vol. II, p. 321.

"Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (1917), Selected Works (New York: Inter-
national Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, pp. 81, 82.

*> Ibid., p. Q7.

100
Communist concept of any non-Communist state

The "withering away" *^ of the state is a matter that will occur "in
the course of development" of social conditions, particularly the condi-
tions supposed to give rise to social classes. Pending the disappearance
of these conditions, the state will exist. But Communist ideology makes
a fundamental difference between a state that is ruled by Communists
and one that is not. Even though both are considered necessary, in
view of the conditions of society, and even though both are considered
to be instruments of class rule, one is accorded value and the other is not.
A non-Communist state is considered so utterly devoid of value that its
machinery is not even good to be conquered and used by the Commu-
nists. It must under all circumstances be radically destroyed. Marx
said the "preliminary condition for every real people's revolution" is no
longer to "transfer the bureaucratic machinery from one hand to an-
other, but to smash it." *" Engels agreed that "the working class can-
not simply lay hold of the readymade State machinery and ^vield it for
its own purposes." ®' Lenin emphasized the same point :

. . . tlie current vulgar "interpretatiou" of . . . Marx . . . emphasises
the idea of gradual development in contradistinction to the seizure of
power, and so on.

As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite is the case. Marx's idea is
that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state ma-
chinery," . . .^*

The state that is not ruled by Communists does not represent any
kind of obligation for the Communist. "The working men have no
country" (Communist Manifesto). Public institutions, including the
state, are for Communists but opportunities to advance the class struggle
under the guise of apparent cooperation but void of "public faith" with
the rest of the citizenry.

To a revolutionary . . . the main thing is revolutionary work and not
reforms; to him reforms are by-products of the revolution. That is why,
with revolutionary tactics under the bourgeois regime, reforms are naturally
transformed into instruments for disintegrating this regime, into instruments
for strengthening the revolution, into a base for the further development of
the revolutionary movement.

The revolutionary will accept a reform in order to use it as an aid in
combining legal work with illegal work. . . ,

" See p. 99, footnote 77.

"Marx, "Letter to L. Kugelmann" (London, Apr. 12, 1871), Marx and Engels
Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II,
p. 463.

" Engels, Preface to the English Edition of 1888, "The Manifesto of the Commu-
nist Party" (1847-1848) Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Lan-
guages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 29. [Here Engels quotes Marx to the same
effect].

*• Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (1917), Selected Works (New York: Inter-
national Publishers. 1943). vol. VII. p. 36.

101

That is what making revolutionary use of reforms and agreements under
the conditions of imperialism means.^'

The Soviet state

The most confused and unrealistic teaching of communism concerns
the state in Communist-ruled countries. The confusion is deeply rooted
in the Communist classics, insofar as they deal with the problem of how
to produce a "realm of freedom" from a violent revolution. Marx
himself mentioned two contradictory aspects of the political rule to be
set up after the seizure of power by the proletariat: a necessity for vio-
lent, lawless measures aimed at subverting all existing social order, and a
necessity for administering society according to rules of law.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all
capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in
the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class;
and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of
despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bour-
geois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear econom-
ically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement,
outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order,
and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of
production.®^

Obviously, law is to be disregarded in the accomplishment of revolu-
tionary tasks. The same idea is expressed more bluntly in the following :

In the same pamphlet, however, Marx speaks of this revolutionary
regime as one based on the recognition of certain rights. Obviously a
state is required as long as rights must be administered and enforced :

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has
developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges
from capitalist society. . . . Accordingly, the individual producer receives
back from society . . . exactly what he gives to it. . . .

*«♦«««♦

Hence, equal right here is still in principle — bourgeois right. . . .

♦ «♦♦**»

...Itis, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.

^Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 94.

•^Marx and Engcls, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1847-1848),
Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 53.

"Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (1875), Marx and Engels Selected
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, pp. 32, 33.

"/tiJ., pp, 23. 24.

102

Only in a hoped-for "higher" phase of development can society rely
completely on the inner discipline of people and do without formal
rights. In this phase, then, there is no more need for a state machinery
to enforce rights.

In a higher phase of communist society . . . can the narrow horizon of
bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its ban-
ners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! ^

What Marx laid down in these passages was, needless to say, not a de-
scription of any existing socialist regime but his vision of what one would
be like. It is aU the more significant that even in this vision, he tries to
bring together elements which exclude each other. He wants his future
state to be both "dictatorial" and a respecter and dispenser of "rights."
He grants to this state the power to make "despotic inroads" on rights,
admits that these inroads "outstrip themselves" and produce the need
for "further inroads" — and at the same time expects it to maintain and
secure the rights of aH citizens to a fair share in the total product of so-
ciety. In other words, on the one hand the future state is supposed to
have it all its way, the way of dynamic revolutionary power, and on the
other hand, the future citizen in that state is assured that he, too, will
have it all his way, the way of individual rights to a fair share of wealth.
A similar contradiction exists between Lenin's insistence on the "dic-
tatorship of the proletariat" and "democracy." Following the example
of the so-called Paris Commune, a temporarily successful workers' rebel-
lion in 1 87 1, both Marx and Engels began to point to the example of
this regime as a model for the future Communist state. They insisted
particularly on certain democratic features of the Paris Commune, for
instance, the right of the people to recall its elected representatives, etc.
Following these leads, Lenin laid down the core of the present Com-
munist doctrine about the Soviet state in 19 17. Like Marx, he insisted
on the paradox that the proletarian state was both a regime of dicta-
torial force unlimited by law, and a regime of greatly increased
democratic freedom.

. . . Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy which
for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people,
and not democracy for the rich, the dictatorship of the proletariat im-
pose a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters,
the capitalists. , . .

Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by
force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the
people — this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from
capitalism to communism.

•'Ibid.,p.2i.

103

Only in communist society , , * when tHere are no classes . . . only
then does "the state . . , cease to exist," and it "becomes possible to speak
of freedom." «"

He specified the "expansion of democracy" in terms of the example
set by the Paris Commune:

All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time,
their salaries reduced to the level of "workmen's wages" — these simple and
"self-evident" democratic measures. , . .^^

Nevertheless, the state is an instrument of class struggle :

Until the "higher" phase of communism arrives, the Socialists demand
the strictest control, by society and by the state, of the amount of labour
and the amount of consumption. . . .®*

"Democracy," in other words, is a regime that strictly tells its citizens
where and when to work and how much and what to consume.

The necessity of planning itself leads to the imposition of the "strictest
controls." Apart from that, the regime is supposed to use force sys-
tematically and ruthlessly "not ... in the interests of freedom but in
order to hold down its adversaries," as Engels put it in a letter to Bebel.
But since all this is done in the name of "democracy for the majority" it
is supposed to be an advance over "bourgeois democracy" which Com-
munists define as "democracy for the rich." It is clear that here two
strands of thought have become hopelessly tied into knots: On the one
hand the idea of all people's participation in public power (democ-
racy— rule of the people), and on the other hand, a regime fit to make
"despotic inroads" on the social order and to "hold down its adver-
saries." The stark requirements of a total revolution are ruthlessly up-
held, while on the other hand the prospect of a harmony between in-
dividual freedom and freedom for zJl is used as justification. As a re-
sult, Communist teaching about its own pohtical regime is the most
hypocritical, word-spUtting, unreal part of the entire ideology. Keeping
the various strands of this teaching apart, one may, however, distinguish
between the function of the state, state power, and official definitions.

Functions of the state

The Communist-ruled state has three functions: repression, eco-
nomic-organizational rule, and cultural-educational rule.®' The repres-
sive function of the state is expressed in the concept "dictatorship of the
proletariat."

•"Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (1917), Selected Works (New York: Inter-
national Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 81.

•" Ibid., p. 42.

" Ihid., p. 89.

"G. Glezerman, Soviet Socialist State (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1955). These functions can be found summarized in any Soviet textbook.
Wo have shoscn here * pamphlet by Glezerman, for purposes of illustration.

104

The state is a machine in the hands of the ruling class for suppressing
the resistance of its class enemies. In this respect the dictatorship of the
proletariat does not differ essentially from the dictatoi-ship of any other
class, for the proletarian state is a machine for the suppression of the
bourgeoisie.®*

The repressive function calls for a state that is uninhibited by the
notion of law:

• , . the dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule — unrestricted by law
and based on force — of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a rule enjoy-
ing the sympathy and support of the labouring and exploited masses.^^

In the light of other statements by Lenin, etc., we must, however,
remember that the dictatorship is an element of struggle against a "class
enemy" who is defined not merely in terms of having property of fac-
tories and land, but also in terms of "bourgeois ideology," in terms, that
is, of any kind of opposition to tlie "correct" ideology as contained in the
official party line as formulated by the narrow circle of party leaders.

The economic-organizational or managerial function follows from
the prescription in the Communist Manifesto that the task of "prole-
tarian" rule is "to centralize all instruments of production in the hands
of the State," and "to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly
as possible." To this function was added the cultural-educational or
tliought-controlling one, stemming from Lenin's decision that:

... In the Soviets workers' and peasants' republic, the whole system of
education, in the political-educational sphere in general as well as in the
special sphere of art, must be imbued with the spirit of the class struggle of
the proletariat for the successful achievement of the aims of its dictator-
ship. . . .*^

This means that, contrary to the function of the state in a normal
society, the Soviet state directly organizes all activities of human Hfe. It
is this aspect which makes it totalitarian, while the basis of "force, un-
limited by law" makes it dictatorial. Glezerman speaks of:

... a new function of the socialist state, a function which no previous
state fulfilled: that of economic-organizational and cultural-educational
work. This function had for its purpose the laying of the foundation of
the new, socialist economy and re-educating of the people in the spirit of
socialism. In the very first montlis of Soviet rule V. I. Lenin pointed out
that tliis function would acquire increasing significance with the growth and
consolidation of socialism. ". . . The conversion of the entire state eco-
nomic mechanism into one big macliine, into an economic organism func-
tioning in a way that hundreds of millions of people will be guided by a

** Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 51.

" Ibid.

"Lenin, "Proletarian Culture" (October 8, 1920), Selected Works (New York:
International Publishers, 1943), vol. IX, p. 434.

105

single plan — this is the titanic organizational task which has been placed
on our shoulders!" ®'

State power

The tendency of development of the socialist state is a double one : as
long as the Soviet state is supposed to be threatened by enemies, its
power will be strengthened rather than weakened. Nevertheless, the
ultimate vision of a society unencumbered by any state power is still
maintained as the predicted result of the victorious struggle against the
enemies of the Soviet power.

... In his Anti-Duhring, Engels wrote that the state must wither away
after the victory of the socialist revolution. On this basis, the textualists
and Talmudists in our party began to demand, after the victory of the
socialist revolution in our country, that the Communist Party should take
steps to bring about the speedy withering away of our state, to dissolve
state institutions, to give up a permanent army.

But the Soviet Marxists, on the basis of the study of the world situation
in our time, came to the conclusion that, under conditions of capitalist
encirclement, when the victory of the socialist revolution has taken place
in only one country, while capitalism rules in all the other countries, the
country of the victorious revolution must not weaken, but in every way
strengthen its state. . , .®'

The tendency to strengthen the state would continue even into the so-
called second phase of socialist development, when the final social condi-
tions for communism have been realized :

• . , We are moving ahead, towards communism. Will our state remain
in the period of communism also?

Yes, it will, if the capitalist encirclement is not liquidated. . . .

No, it will not remain and will wither away ®^ if the capitalist encircle-
ment is liquidated and is replaced by a socialist encirclement.^^*

The concept of the Soviet state that emerges from the official writings
is thus one in which the state power reUcs on force unlimited by law and
embraces, besides the public-order aspects of life, all other aspects of
life as well, with particular emphasis on economic, educational, cultural
activities, and this dictatorial-totalitarian structure is expected to be
continuously strengthened as long as there are any countries that are
not yet subject to Communist rule.

*^ Glezerman, op, cit., p. 30.

"Stalin, "Reply to A. Kholopov** (July 28, 1950), Marxism and Linguistics (New
York: International Publishers, 1951), p. 43.

*" See above, p. 99, footnote 77.

^"Stalin, "Report to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U. (B.) on the Work
of the Central Committee" (Mar. 10, 1939), Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 797.

106
Official definitions

The official definition given to this regime is something else again.
The Communists cannot escape the promise of eventual stateless free-
dom, of the "withering away" that has been made by the founders of
their movement. Hence they officially define their totaUtarian, dicta-
torial, and ever increasing state power as something that is more free,
more democratic, and closer to the people than other regimes.

. . . The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to com-
munism, will, for the first time, create democracy for the people, for the
majority. . . , Communism alone is capable of giving really complete
democracy. . . .^°^

. . . Only under the dictatorship of the proletariat are real liberties for
the exploited and real participation of the proletarians and peasants in the
administration of the country possible.^"'

Tlie Soviet form of state alone, by drawing the mass organizations of the
toilers and exploited into constant and unrestricted participation in state
administration, is capable of preparing the ground for the withering away
of the state, which is one of the basic elements of the futiure stateless com-
munist society.^"^

The use of the term "democratic" here is based on dogmatic defini-
tions of the character of a state in a given society, rather than on any
test as to what extent a regime actually reflects the preferences and
values of the people. By definition of historical materialism, a capitalist
state cannot be democratic, whereas a Soviet state must be democratic.

Whereas development of the capitalist states proceeds along the lines of
curtailing an already truncated democracy . . . the development of the
Soviet state proceeds along the lines of extending socialist democracy. . . ^''*

Thus, "democratic" means, in Communist terminology, a regime in
the phase of history that succeeds bourgeois society by revolution.

Right at its very inception, the Soviet state was far more democratic than
any of the most "democratic" bourgeois states."'

In trying to find out whether a state is democratic, a Communist thus
will not ask the people who live in it in order to find out whether their
will is respected by the authorities. Instead he will consult his Marxist
history book.

The vast superiority of tlie genuinely popular socialist democracy over
bourgeois democracy, restricted by the narrow confines of capitalist rela-
tions, springs from the specific features of the economic system. . . ,

""^ Lenin, "The State and Revolution" (1917), Selected Works (New York: Inter-
national Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 82.

Stalin, "Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninistn (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 52.
"* Ibid., p. 57.

*°* Glezerman, op. cit., p. 68.
" Ibid., p. 69.

107

True democracy is possible only in a society where tlie means of produc-
tion are the property of the people.^°°

A number of other official definitions (or rather, fictions) are main-
tained to characterize state power in terms of acceptable dogma. It may
suffice to mention one of these, the fiction that it is "the proletariat"
rather than the party (or even tlie Party Presidium) which rules in a
Soviet state.

, . . The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. "The Party
is the direct governing vanguard of the proletariat; it is the leader."
(Lenin.) In this sense the Party takes power, the Party governs the coun-
try. But this must not be understood in the sense that the Party exercises
the dictatorship of the proletariat separately from the state power. . . .
The Party is the core of this power, but it is not and cannot be identified
with the state power.

, . . Tlierefore, whoever identifies "dictatorship of the Party" with the
dictatorship of the proletariat tacitly proceeds from the assumption that
the prestige of the Party can be built up on force employed against the
working class. . . .

The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be contrasted to die leadership
(the "dictatorship") of the Party. This is inadmissible because the leader-
ship of the Party is the principal thing in the dictatorship of the prole-
tariat. . . .^o''

Thus, the Soviet state is defined in terms of fictitious and dogmatic
concepts, by means of which it is praised as "most democratic," "rep-
resenting the vast majority," "most internationalist," "most advanced,"
"most progressive," etc., all of which leads to the conclusion that, for
the people of the U.S.S.R. — ■

. . . strengthening the Soviet state is their patriotic duty and also a
sacred international obligation.^"^

4. The Role of the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union is one of the "great powers" in the world. This
particular "great power" plays a role in Communist ideology. It
figures in that ideology as an instrument of the Communist revolution.
It assumed that role when the Communists, having seized control in
Russia, decided to consolidate their regime in that country rather than
move on toward a chain reaction of revolutions in other countries. Had
they chosen to do the latter, the revolution would have been propelled

^Jhid.

'•^ Stalin, "On the Problems of Leninism" (Jan. 25, 1926), Problems of Leninism
(Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp. 171-173, 177.
^ Glezennan, op. cit., p. 6.

51436''— 60— vol. 1 8

108

by the combination of Communist parties in all the industrial countries
in the world, and Soviet Russia would not have occupied a specially
prominent position as the foremost instrument of the revolution. The
decision of the Communist leaders first to develop the Russian base
rather than to fan out came to be embodied in the doctrine called
"socialism in one country," which is now part and parcel of the Com-
munist ideology. By virtue of this doctrine, the "first socialist country"
now has a unique ideological significance. Its national existence, na-
tional interests, and national strength have been assigned an integral
role in the historical process of the Communist revolution.

Political strategic objectives pertaining to Communist ideology and
objectives pertaining to Russian expansion have thus become inter-
twined. Once Russia as a basis of power was given a place of promi-
nence in the achievement of Communist ideological ends, "nationalistic"
and "ideological" motivations have in practice become indistinguishable.

Socialism in one country

"Socialism in one country" is a formula characterizing a new situa-
tion and a new doctrine of the revolution. Marx and Engels, who
thought in terms of "society" asserting itself against the distorting and
oppressive action of the state, could not see how a socialist society could
replace bourgeois society except on a worldwide scale. They did en-
visage national revolutionary action but felt that socialism would be
possible only insofar as national revolutions overthrew bourgeois regimes
everywhere. Lenin, too, for most of his political life had looked for
revolutions in the industrial countries of the West and had often ex-
pressed his conviction that the Bolsheviks could not succeed in their
revolution unless helped by successful revolutions elsewhere. Never-
theless, he gave in fact top priority to tlie problem of consolidating the
Bolsheviks' power in Russia. Hence the new thesis which commits
Communist ideology to the model of the Russian revolution and to
Russia as the model country.

. . . Formerly, the victory of the revolution in one country was con-
sidered impossible, on the assumption that it would require the combined
action of the proletarians of all or at least of a majority of the advanced
countries to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie. . . . Now we must pro-
ceed from the possibility of such a victory, for the uneven and spasmodic
character of the development of the various capitalist countries under the
conditions of imperialism, the development, within imperialism, of cata-
strophic contradictions leading to inevitable wars, the growth of the revolu-
tionary movement in all countries of the world — all this leads, not only to
the possibility, but also to the necessity of the victory of the proletariat in
individual countries. . . .

109

. . . After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake
the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build up a socialist
society. But does tliis mean tliat it will thereby achieve the complete and
final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean tliat with tlie forces of only one
country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country
against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does
not. For this the victor}' of the revolution in at least several countries is
needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other
countries is an essential task of die victorious revolution. ^"^

This passage contains the main elements of the doctrine concerning
the significance and international relations of the Soviet Union. So-
cialism can be achieved there, but it is still insecure until other countries
have also come under the rule of the Communists. Thus the Soviet
Union is (a) the most advanced country from the point of view of Com-
munist ideology, (b) a country that is endangered by external enemies,
and (c) a country which is interested not only in protecting itself in the
conventional way but also in providing diplomatic cover for the cause
of the Communist re-'olution in other countries. The national foreign
policy of Russia and the revolutionary strategy of communism thus enter
into an indissoluble union. Here is how Stalin described that complex
of motives and interests :

. . . Objective: to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in one
country, using it as a base for the defeat of imperialism in all countries.
The revolution is spreading beyond the confines of one country; the epoch
of world revolution has commenced. The main forces of the revolution:
the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, the revolutionary move-
ment of the proletariat in all countries. Main reserves: the semlprole-
tarian and small-peasant masses in the developed countries, the liberation
movement in the colonies and dependent countries. Direction of the main
blow: isolation of the petty-bourgeois democrats, isolation of the parties of
the Second International, which constitute the main support of the policy
of compromise with imperialism. Plan for the disposition of forces: alli-
ance of the proletarian revolution with the liberation movement in the
colonies and the dependent countries.^^°

Note that Stalin now identifies the "main force of the revolution'*
with the "dictatorship of the proletariat in one country," i.e. with Soviet
Russia. Marx said that the "main force of the revolution" is the prole-
tariat, Lenin emphasized above all the party, Stalin adds to this Soviet
Russia. That means that to the relations between Soviet Russia and
other countries are now applied the same general principles of revolu-
tionary strategy which Lenin developed with respect to the party. Those
principles, as we have seen, begin with the axiom that the party for a

""Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow:
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp. 44, 45.
"^ Ibid., p. S3.

110

long time will be in a minority position and weaker than its opponents,
that it must maintain alliances, must enter into a certain amount of
strategic cooperation with its enemies, and must be prepared to fight
inconclusive battles over a long period of "protracted struggle."

"Peaceful coexistence"

Applied to the foreign relations of the Soviet Union, this adds up to
a strategy of "peaceful coexistence" in a period in which the Soviet
Union is still in a "minority position," or, better, "peaceful coexistence"
in foreign relations coupled with the exploitation and active promotion
of "inherent contradictions" and "fissures" in the non-Communist
world.

The principle of "peaceful coexistence" was implied in Lenin's pol-
icies, recognized and mentioned by Stalin, and explicitly formulated by
Khrushchev.

, . . Dictatorship is a state of acute war. We are precisely in such a
state. . . , Until the final issue is decided, the state of awful war will con-
tinue. . . . Our point of view is: for the time being — important conces-
sions and the greatest caution, precisely because a certain equilibrium has
set in, precisely because we are weaker than our combined enemies. . . .^^^

In the midst of an "awful war," which is bound to continue "until
the final issue is decided," the party is here advised to take advantage
of a "certain equilibrium." This it is to do by way of "important con-
cessions," because it is "weaker" than its combined enemies. In other
words, a period of coexistence in a continuing struggle for a "final deci-
sion" is welcome to the party in its condition of relative weakness. Co-
existence is a strategy, a needed respite, an aspect of the "awful war."

Before the victory of the proletariat, reforms ^" are a by-product of the
revolutionary class struggle. After the victory (while remaining a "by-
product" on an international scale) they are, in addition, for the country in
which victory was achieved, a necessary and legitimate respite in those
cases when, after the utmost exertion of effort, it is obvious that sufficient
strength is lacking for the revolutionary accomplishment of this or that
transition. Victory creates such a "reserve of strength" that it is possible
to sustain oneself even in a forced retreat, sustain oneself materially and
morally. Sustaining oneself materially means preserving a sufficient supe-

^ Lenin, "The Tactics of the R.C.P. (B)" (July 5, 1921), Selected Works
(New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. IX, pp. 242, 243.

"*The term "reforms" in Communist jargon means a policy of improving the
relations between the revolutionary masses and the regime they are eventually to
destroy. As an alternative to revolution, "reforms" is of course a policy wholly un-
acceptable to Communists. As a byplay of genuine revolutionary strategies, Com-
munists have always deliberately used — and misused — the policy of "reforms" without,
however, being seriously interested in any real and long-range "improvement" of
their relations with the "class enemy."' The entire issue of reforms has, of course,
an important if indirect bearing on the notion of "coexistence." See also above, pp.
100, 101.

Ill

riority of forces to prevent the enemy from Inflicting utter defeat. Sus-
taining oneself morally means not allowing oneself to become demoralised
and disorganised, preserving a sober estimation of the situation, preserv-
ing vigour and firmness of spirit, even making a long retreat, but within
limits, stopping the retreat in time, and returning again to the offensive.^"

Lenin insisted on a policy of "compromise" that stemmed from a
spirit of irreconcilable struggle together with an appreciation of tem-
porary weakness. He contrasted this with "fake compromise" in which
the principle of struggle itself was sacrificed. His principle of com-
promise is the real root of what is now called, in Soviet foreign policy,
"peaceful coexistence."

... all this makes it necessary — absolutely necessary — for the vanguard
of the proletariat, for its class-conscious section, the Communist Party, to
resort to manoeuvres and compromises with various groups of proletarians,
with the various parties of the workers and small proprietors. The whole
point lies in knowing how to apply these tactics in such a way as to raise
and not lower the general level of proletarian class consciousness, revolu-
tionary spirit, and ability to fight and to conquer. . . . The proper tactics
for the Communist to adopt is to utilise these vacillations [of non-Com-
munists] and not to ignore them; and utilising them calls for concessions
to those elements which are turning towards the proletariat in accordance
with the time and the extent they turn towards the proletariat — while
simultaneously fighting those who turn towards the bourgeoisie.^^*

All this is seen against the prospect of the "final battle" which will
"decide tlie issue."

... To accept battle at a time when it is obviously advantageous to the
enemy and not to us is a crime; and those political leaders of the revolu-
tionary class who are unable "to tack, to manoeuvre, to compromise," in
order to avoid an obviously disadvantageous battle, are good for nothing.^^'

Stalin defined the issue similarly, but not with explicit reference to
the foreign relations of the Soviet Union. The general background Is,
just as in the case of Lenin, the concept of a long drawn-out period of
conflict in which a decisive battle cannot be expected soon :

. . . the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition from capitalism to
communism, must not be regarded as a fleeting period of "superrevolu-
tlonary" acts and decrees, but as an entire historical era, replete with civil
wars and external conflicts, with persistent organizational work and eco-
nomic construction, with advances and retreats, victories and defeats.^^*

"* Lenin, "The Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of
Socialism" (Nov. 5, 1921), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers,
19«),vol. IX, p. 302.

"* Lenin, " 'Left- Wing* Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (Apr. 27, 1920),
Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 116.

"^ Ibid., p. 119.

""Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscew: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 49.

112

As early as 1927, Stalin insisted that this notion of a protracted
struggle implied, as far as the Soviet Union was concerned, the concept
of "peaceful coexistence."

We must not forget Lenin's statement that as regards our work of con-
struction very much depends upon whether we succeed in postponing war
with the capitalist world, which is inevitable, but which can be postponed
either until the moment when the proletarian revolution in Europe matures,
or until the moment when the colonial revolutions have fully matured, or,
lastly, until the moment when the capitalists come to blows over the divi-
sion of the colonies.

Therefore, the maintenance of peaceful relations with the capitalist
countries is an obligatory task for us.

Our relations with the capitalist countries are based on the assumption
that the coexistence of two opposite systems is possible.^^^

"Coexistence" thus is not a relationship of live-and-let-live, but rather
a relationship of hostility coupled with cautious restraint, comparable
to the "coexistence" of two boxers who feel each other out while look-
ing for a chance to land their most damaging blows. "Coexistence" is
a Communist term for a relationship short of overt war in which a final
showdown is being prepared. Stalin said in 1927 :

Thus, in the further course of development of the international revolu-
tion and of international reaction, two world centres will be formed: the
socialist centre, attracting to itself the countries gravitating towards so-
cialism, and the capitalist centre, attracting to itself the countries gravi-
tating towards capitalism. The struggle between these two camps will de-
cide the fate of capitalism and socialism throughout the world.^^^

Khrushchev thus was right when he said at the Twentieth Congress
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union :

. . . The Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with
different social systems has always been and remains the general line of our
country's foreign policy.

It has been alleged that the Soviet Union advances the principle of
peaceful coexistence merely out of tactical considerations, considerations of
expediency. Yet it is common knowledge that we have always, from the
very first years of Soviet power, stood with equal firmness for peaceful co-
existence. Hence it is not a tactical move, but a fundamental principle of
Soviet foreign policy.^^'

*^' Stalin, "Political Report of the Central Committee to the Fifteenth Congress of
the C.P.S.U. (B.)" (Dec. 3, 1927), Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1954), vol. 10, p. 296.

"• Stalin, "Interview With the First American Labour Delegation" (Sept. 9, 1927),
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954), vol. 10, pp. 140, 141.

"•Leo Gruliow, ed., Current Soviet Policies II (New York: Frederick A. Praeger,
Inc., 1957), p. 36.

113

"Coexistence," in other words, is an aspect of "protracted struggle."
It is a part of the minority strategy of communism based on the assump-
tion that the forces of the Communist revolution will be weaker than
their opponents for a long time to come. As a part of that minority
strategy, it is undoubtedly traceable to Lenin who conceived and elabo-
rated tlie entire strategy of the protracted conflict. For that reason, it
must never be separated from the Leninist principle of the "irreconcil-
able struggle," expressed, for instance, in the words:

... As long as capitalism and socialism exist, we cannot live in peace:
in the end, one or the other will triumph — a funeral dirge will be sung
either over the Soviet Republic or over world capitalism.^^"

Our country's enemies are now guessing about whether a Communist
society will be built in our country. We do not wish to frighten them, but' it
should be said that the victory of Communism is historically inevitable,
whether they like it or not. We are confidently going along our direct road,
which was pointed cut by Marx, Engels and Lenin. , . .^^^

"Inevitability" of war

The attitude of Communists with respect to war must be seen m this
context of "irreconcilable struggle" and "protracted conflict." More-
over, one must here distinguish between the doctrine regarding war
among "imperialist countries" and war between the Soviet Union and
its enemies. It is the latter which is the corollary of the doctrine of
force in the struggle of the Conmiunist Party to power and to victory
over its enemies. Basically, the doctrine of the "irreconcilable strug-
gle" implies the doctrine of force, either in fighting between citizens, or
in wars between the Soviet Union and other countries.

, , . We have always said that there are wars and wars. We condemned
the imperialist war, but we did not reject war in general. ... As though
history has ever known a big revolution that was not involved in war! Of
course not. We are living not merely in a state, but in a system of states,
and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist
states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in
the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions
between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable."'^

""Lenin, "Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Nuclei Secretaries of the Moscow
Organisation of the R.C.P. (Bolsheviks)" (Nov. 26, 1920), Selected Works (New
York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VIII, p. 297.

"* Nikita S. Khrushchev, "Speech at the June 2, 1956 meeting in Moscow of Young
Communist League members," as quoted by Soviet Affairs, Notes, (October 14, 1957),
No. 215, p. 2.

^ Lenin, "Report of the Central Committee of the R.C.P. (Bolsheviks) at the
Eighth Party Congress" (Mar. 18, 1919), Selected Works (New York: International
Publishers, 1943), vol. VIII, p. 33.

114

The inevitability of war was stressed repeatedly by Stalin, who justi-
fied not only Soviet foreign policy but also Soviet domestic organization
in terms of the inevitability of war. At the Twentieth Party Congress,
Khrushchev appeared to have abandoned this idea. He said :

As we know, there is a Marxist-Leninist precept diat wars are inevita-
ble as long as imperialism exists. This thesis was evolved at a time when
(1) imperialism was an all-embracing world system and (2) the social and
political forces which did not want war were weak, insufficiently organ-
ized, and hence unable to compel the imperialists to renounce war.
*******

For that period, the above-mentioned thesis was absolutely correct. At
the present time, however, the situation has changed radically. Now there
is a world camp of socialism which has become a mighty force. . . . The
movement of peace supporters has sprung up and developed into a power-
ful factor.

In these circumstances, of course, the Leninist thesis remains valid: As
long as imperialism exists, the economic base giving rise to wars will also
remain. . . . But war is not a fatalistic inevitability. Today there are
mighty social and political forces possessing formidable means to prevent
the imperialists from unleashing war and, if they try to start it, to give a
smashing rebuff to the aggressors and frustrate their adventurist
plans. . . ."'

The probability of war is estimated now in terms of the possibiUties for
a "peaceful victory of socialism," in which estimate the likelihood of civil
wars and that of international wars are closely linked with each other.
This appears from the following passages:

It will be recalled that in the conditions that arose in April 1917 Lenin
granted the possibility that the Russian Revolution might develop peace-
fully, and that in the spring of 1918, after the victory of the October Revolu-
tion, Lenin drew up his famous plan for peaceful socialist construction. It
is not our fault that the Russian and international bourgeoisie organized
counterrevolution, intervention, and civil war against the young Soviet state
and forced the workers and peasants to take to arms. It did not come to
civil war in the European People's Democracies, where the historical situa-
tion was different.

Leninism teaches us that the ruling classes will not surrender their power
voluntarily. And the greater or lesser degree of intensity which the struggle
may assume, the use or the non-use of violence in the transition to socialism,
depends on the resistance of the exploiters. . . .

In this connection the question arises of whether it is possible to go over
to socialism by using parliamentary means. No such course was open to the
Russian Bolsheviks. . . ,

Since then, however, the historical situation has undergone radical
changes which make possible a new approach to the question. The forces of

'Gruliow, op. cit., p. 37.

115

socialism and democracy have grown immeasurably throughout the world,
and capitalism has become much weaker. . . .

... In these ciicimistances the working class, by rallying around itself
the toiling peasantiy, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces ... is in a
position to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the popular interest, to
capture a stable majority in parliament, and transform the latter from an
organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the people's
will. . , .

* • • * * * •

In the countries where capitalism is still strong and has a huge military
and police apparatus at its disposal, the reactionary forces will of course
inevitably offer serious resistance. There the transition to socialism will be
attended by a sharp class, revolutionary struggle.^^*

There is some change in doctrine here, although not in the sense in
which wishful thinking about Soviet peacefulness would have it. Wcir
is considered no longer "inevitable" because the relative power of the
Soviet camp is considered strong enough to bring about revolutionary
changes "peacefully" or to discourage resistance to Communist revolu-
tionary advances. This change does not, however, affect the basic as-
sumption that there is a conflict which can end only in complete triumph
of one or the other side, and that, moreover, there is a continuing
tendency toward war inherent in the system of "imperialism." In other
words, what has changed is not the Communist concept of the basic
conflict between the "Soviet camp" and the "camp of Imperialism,"
but rather the estimate of the probabihty of an open battle between the
two. This estimate is nothing but a calculation of the chances of ef-
fective resistance. Even Stalin found it possible to combine his thesis
of the "inevitability of war" with an estimate that the goals of the Com-
munist revolution could be attained by "a peaceful path of develop-
ment" in "certain capitalist countries" —

, , . whose capitalists, in view of the "unfavourable" international situa-
tion, will consider it expedient "voluntarily" to make substantial conces-
sions to the proletariat.^^'

In the same vein the Sixth Congress of the Communist International,
meeting in 1928 under Stalin's leadership, maintained that "there is no
contradiction bet^veen the Soviet government's preparations for defense
and for revolutionary war and a consistent peace policy," for —

. . . Revolutionary war of the proletarian dictatorship is but a continua-
tion of revolutionary peace policy, "by other means." ^^®

^ Khrushchev, "Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union to the Twentieth Party Congress," New Times (February 16, 1956),
No. 8, p. 23.

^ Stalin, "The Foundations of Leninism," Problems of Leninism (Moscow: For-
eign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 54.

^International Press Correspondence, vol. 8, No. 84 (Nov. 28, 1928), p. 1590.

116

Thus the Communist doctrine of the "inevitability of war" admitted
even in Stalin's time of certain possibilities of "peaceful" victory, and it
has presented, both before and after the Twentieth Congress, "peace"
in terms of military threats and military action on the part of the "power-
ful camp of socialism."

"Jusf* and "unjust' wars

The Communist doctrine, moreover, has taken great pains to make
distinctions between "just" and "unjust" wars, the former by definition
being wars fought by the Soviet Union and its allies.

, . . We are not pacifists. We are opposed to imperialist wars for the
division of spoils among the capitalists, but we have always declared it to
be absurd for the revolutionary proletariat to renounce revolutionary wars
that may prove necessary in the interests of socialism}^''

War, as well as all policies, is justified not even in terms of the end
result but rather in terms of who conducts it. If the "exploiting class"
conducts it, it is bad; if the "proletariat," it is "holy."

, . . Legitimacy and justice from what point of view? Only from the
point of view of the socialist proletariat and its struggle for emancipation.
We do not recognise any other point of view. If war is waged by the ex-
ploiting class with the object of strengthening its class rule, such a war is a
criminal war, and "defencism" in such a war is a base betrayal of socialism.
If war is waged by the proletariat after it has conquered the bourgeoisie
in its own country, and is waged with the object of strengthening and ex-
tending socialism, such a war is legitimate and "holy." ^^^

At present this doctrine is taught throughout all Communist lands in
the official textbook as follows :

. . . The Bolsheviks held that there are two kinds of war:

(a) Just wars, wars that are not wars of conquest but wars of liberation,
waged to defend the people from foreign attack and from attempts to
enslave them, or to liberate the people from capitalist slavery, or, lastly, to
liberate colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism;
and

(b) Unjust wars, wars of conquest, waged to conquer and enslave for-
eign countries and foreign nations.^^^

One must conclude, therefore, that the Communist doctrine both ex-
pects and justifies the use of war between the "country of the proletarian
dictatorship" and the outside world, even though it hopes for the possi-

"" Lenin, "Farewell Letter to the Swiss Workers" (Apr. 8 (Mar. 26), 1917),
Selected Works (Moscow: Co-Operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in
the U.S.S.R., 1935), vol. VI, p. 16.

"•Lenin, " 'Left- Wing* Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality" (May 3-5,
191S), Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VII, p. 357.

**■ History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course
(New York: International Publishers, 1939), pp. 167, 168.

117

bility of a "voluntary" admission of defeat by its opponents. It is quite
different, though, with respect to wars between "imperialist" countries
tliemselves. These are wars which the Communists not only do not
hope to avoid but which they are directed to foment and instigate.

, , . the rule . . . which will, until socialism finally triumphs all over
the world, remain a fundamental rule with us, namely, that we must take
advantage of the antagonisms and contradictions between two capitalisms,
between two systems of capitalist states, inciting one against the other.^^**

... If we are unable to defeat them both, we must know how to dispose
our forces in such a way 'that they fall out among themselves. . . . But as
soon as we are strong enough to defeat capitalism as a whole, we shall im-
mediately take it by the scruff of the neck.^^^

The ''socialist fatherland"

The place of the Soviet Union in the world revolutionary movement
is not merely a matter of the degree of prestige and influence which the
Soviet leaders manage to establish as a result of their country's military
and material strength. In Communist doctrine, the significance of the
Soviet Union is also ideologically defined. The Soviet Union is, first,
the "fatherland" of all proletarians and toUers all over the world, second,
the constitutional leader of the "socialist camp" and leader-ally of all
movements directed against imperialism, and, third, the country whose
interests are identical with the interests of mankind.

The Communist Manifesto had stated that "the working men have
no country." In 1928, the Communist International declared:

Being the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of Socialist con-
struction, the land of great working class achievements, of the union of the
workers with the peasants and of a new culture marching under the banner
of Mar^dsm — the U.S.S.R. inevitably becomes the base of the world move-
ment of all oppressed classes, the centre of international revolution, the
greatest factor in world history. In the U.S.S.R., the world proletariat for
the first time acquires a coimtry that is really its own, and for the colonial
movements the U.S.S.R. becomes a powerful centre of attraction.^^^

This imposes, of course, on "proletarians" everywhere the duties that
noiTnally go with allegiance to country, above all the duty of defense.

... In the event of an attack upon the Soviet Union the Communists
in oppressed nations, as well as those in imperialist countries, must exert
all their efforts to rouse rebellion or wars of national liberation. . . .

^^ Lenin, "Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Nuclei Secretaries of the Moscow
Organisation of the R.C.P. (Bolsheviks)" (Nov. 26, 1920), Selected Works (New
York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. VIII, p. 279.

^ Ibid., p. 282.

"" Programme of the Communist International [adopted at the forty-sixth session
of the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International, Sept. 1, 1928] (New
York: Workers Library Publishers, Inc., 1929), p. 63.

118

. i . In view of the fact that the "enemy" in such a war is the Soviet
Union, i.e. the fatherland of the international proletariat. . . .

. . . The proletariat in the imperialist countries must not only fight for
the defeat of their own governments in this war, but must actively strive to
secure victory for the Soviet Union.

♦ ♦»*»♦»

, . . The Red Army is not an "enemy" army, but the army of the inter-
national proletariat. In the event of a war against the Soviet Union, the
workers in capitalist countries must not allow themselves to be scared from
supporting the Red Army. . . .^"

Remembering the peculiar quality of the term "revolutionary" as the
designation of everything that is progressive, courageous, principled, and
praiseworthy, one can appreciate the appeal of the following passage:

A revolutionary is one who is ready to protect, to defend the U.S.S.R.
without reservation, without qualification, openly and honestly . . . for
the U.S.S.R. is the first proletarian, revolutionary state in the world. . . ."*

The Soviet Union, however, is described by the ideology as more
than the "fatherland of the world proletariat." It is the leader not only
of proletarians, i.e. industrial workers, but of "all toilers," and, beyond
that, of "all oppressed people." It is, in the ideology, considered to be
in a kind of historically necessary alliance with even bourgeois elements,
as, for instance, the bourgeois nationalistic movements of colonial coun-
tries. For all of them, the Soviet Union is held to be the inevitable
rallying point.

. . . The world political situation has now placed on the order of the
day the dictatorship of the proletariat, and all events in world politics are
inevitably concentrating around one central point, viz., the struggle of the
world bourgeoisie against the Soviet Russian Republic, which is inevita-
bly grouping around itself the Soviet movement of the advanced workers
of all countries, as well as all the national liberation movements in the
colonies and among the oppressed nationalities which have become con-
vinced by their bitter experience that there is no salvation for them ex-
cept the victory of the Soviet power over world imperialism.^^'

The Soviet Union as such is proclaimed the hope not only of workers
but all kind of people in the world :

. . . The victory of socialism in the Soviet Union . . . strengthens the
cause of peace among peoples. ... It sets in motion throughout the

'^ The Struggle Against Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Communists, Reso-
lution of the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International, July-August
1928 j(2d ed.; New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1934), p. 31.

"* Stalin, "Speech Delivered at Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Cen-
tral Control Commission of the C.P.S.U. (B.)" (Aug. 1, 1927), Works (Moscow:
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954), vol. 10, p. 53.

"* Lenin, "Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions."
For the Second Congress of the Communist International (June 1920), Selected
Works (New Yorkj International Publishers, 1943), vol. X, p. 233.

119

whole world not only the workers, who are turning more and more to Com-
munism, but also millions of peasants and fanners, of the hard-working
petty townsfolk, a considerable proportion of the intellectuals, the enslaved
peoples of the colonies. It inspires them to struggle, increases tlieir at-
tachment for the great fatherland of all the toilers, strengthens their deter-
mination to support and defend the proletarian state against all its
enemies.^*^

The Soviet Union and Its Communist Party is assigned the role of
undoubted authority in this camp :

The further consolidation of the Land of the Soviets, the rallying of the
world proletariat around it, and the mighty growth of the international
authority of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union . . . are all ac-
celerating and will continue to accelerate the development of the world
socialist revolution}^''

The Soviet Union and the "interests of mankind"

The Soviet Union thus is considered "advanced" in the same sense
in which the Communist Party Is "advanced." It is furthest along
on the road which history is thought to prescribe inexorably to all man-
kind. All human development supposedly is moving forward in the di-
rection marked by the "progress" of the Soviet Union, and all human
hope is also alleged to lie in that same direction. On this basis, Com-
munists look upon the interests of the Soviet Union as those of a nation
that represents the best hope of zJl people and cannot have interests op-
posed to those of all men. This concept can, of course, not be pro-
claimed by Soviet leaders who are directly responsible for policymaking
in Russia, but it has been voiced frequently by others who are in a po-
sition to say tliis without violating the exigencies of tact.

• . . The U.S.S.R, has no interests which are at variance with the in-
terests of the world revolution, and the international proletariat has no in-
terests which are at variance with those of the Soviet Union.^^^

. . . This is a concrete manifestation of the unity between the interests
of the Soviet Union and those of the majority of mankind. . . }^

"■ Georgi Dimitroff, "Speech Delivered at the Close of the Seventh Congress of
the Commumst International on August 20, 1935," Resolutions, Seventh Congress
of the Communist International, Including the Closing Speech of G. Dimitroff
(New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1935), pp. 5, 6.

""'Resolution on the Report of Georgi DimitrofiF, Adopted Aug. 20, 1935,"
Resolutions, Seventh Congress of the Communist International, Including the Clos-
ing Speech of G. Dimitroff (New Yorki Workers Library Publishers, 1935), p. 38.

** V. Knorin, Fascism, Social-Democracy and the Communists: Speech to the 13th
Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, December 1933 (Moscow:
Co-Operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R., 1934), p. 46.

"* Mao Tse-tung, 'The Unity Between the Interests of the Soviet Union and the
Interests of Mankind" (Sept. 28, 1939), Selected Works (New York: International
Publishers Co., Inc., 1955), vol. Ill, p. 50.

120

Among the various Communist parties in the world, the Soviet Union
and its party has consistently been conceded the place of authority, by
virtue of having been the "first" socialist country. This was recon-
firmed as recently as 1957 :

The cause of peace is upheld by powerful forces of our times: the in-
vincible camp of socialist states, headed by the Soviet Union. . . .
*******

. . . The working class, the democratic forces and the working people of
all countries are interested in tirelessly strengthening fraternal contacts in
the interests of the common cause, in defending, against all encroachments
by the enemies of socialism, the historic political and social gains effected
in the Soviet Union, the first and mightiest socialist power. . . ?*°

On the grounds of this ultimate identity of the national interests of
Soviet Russia with the hopes of mankind, support of the power of
Russia is thus declared something that has universal moral significance
and ought to be the bounden duty of every "right-minded" person in
the world :

. . . Assistance to the U.S.S.R., its defense, and cooperation in bringing
about its victory over all its enemies must therefore determine the actions
of every revolutionary organization of the proletariat of every genuine revo-
lutionary, of every Socialist, Communist, non-party worker, toiling peasant,
of every honest intellectual and democrat, of each and every one who de-
sires the overthrow of exploitation, fascism, and imperialist oppression, de-
liverance from imperialist war, who desires that there should exist brother-
hood and peace among nations, that socialism should triumph throughout
the world}^^

Communist ideology, in other words, so defines the role of the Soviet
Union that it demands the detachment of people's loyalties from their
own countries and governments and the betrayal of their civU and
patriotic duties.

'*' "Declaration of the conference of 12 Communist Parties," Moscow: Nov. 14-16,
1957, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, vol. IX, No. 47 (Jan. 1, 1958), p. 4.

'" "Resolution on the Report of D, Z. Manuilsky, Adopted Aug. 20, 1935," Reso-
lutions, Seventh Congress of the Communist International, Including the Closing
Speech of G. Dimitroff (New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1935), p. 56.

Chapter V. Communist Philosophy

There Is a widespread misconception that Marxism, elaborate though
it is, has grown from the simple root of a sense of injustice and com-
passion for the sufferings of the poor. In reahty, it was the strong im-
pulse of a philosophical idea that drove Marx to develop his doctrine.
Marx was powerfully influenced by two philosophers : G. F. W. Hegel,
and L. Feuerbach. From them he derived concepts which made him
feel that he had found the intellectual key to the future and, indeed, to
all that happens in the world of history. Marx was not the first socialist.
Other socialists before him (Babeuf, Fourier, Proudhon) had begun
with the vision of an ideal world, a world without poverty and injustice.
Even a superficial glance at Marx's writings shows that this kind of
vision, which flows from a sense of indignation at present injustice, is
not what prompted Marx's thoughts. Those who dream of perfection
and then set out to correct the world earned but his scorn for their
"utopianism." Marx was first and foremost concerned with what and
who causes the development of society and the "laws of history." If he
espoused the cause of working people, he did so because in v/orking peo-
ple he saw the force that would bring about the future, rather than a
suffering part of humanity. Though he was not insensitive to human
misery, he did not allow this sentiment to govern his ideas, which sprang
above all from philosophical speculation about what moves history for-
ward and what changes society. His program for social action came
only as a second thought. He related that :

Frederick Engels, with whom ... I maintained a constant exchange of
ideas by correspondence, had by another road . . . arrived at the same
result as I, and when in the spring of 1845 he also setded in Brussels, we
resolved to work out in common the opposition of our view to the ideo-
logical view of German philosophy, in fact, to settle accounts with our erst-
while philosopliical conscience.^

The Communist Manifesto was not written until after this work was
done, and Capital was merely an attempt to prove through detailed
studies the truth of the already stated philosophical principles.

Philosophy is thus the beginning, and, down to this day, the real basis
of Communist ideology. In its present form it has, however, gone far
beyond the scope of Marx's ideas and has expanded into a comprehen-

*Karl Marx, Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy"
(January 1859), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languagei
Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 364.

(121)

122

sive system which pretends to have answers for all questions and guiding
principles for all fields of human action. Within the limits of this brief
survey, one cannot do more than barely mention the main component
parts of this system, and one cannot even begin to subject it to adequate
criticism.

1. The Philosophical Basis of Communism

The first philosophical impulse of Marxism derived from Hegel.
Hegel was influential above all as a philosopher of history. He lived at
a time (i 770-1 831) when many thinkers tried to find a "scientific
analysis" of history as a substitute for a religious approach to life. They
were looking in the sequence of historical events for "laws" which, if
discovered, could then be used as guides to human action. Hegel suc-
ceeded more than others in developing systematically a method of
analyzing history, a philosophy of the meaning of history, and a com-
prehensive philosophical system tying his historical methods zind findings
to all other problems. History, according to Hegel, is the unfolding of
Reason itself. In the sequence of events, he saw the movement of an
"Absolute Mind" from less to more and ever more rational forms of
existence.

Hegel

One of the results of this concept was the conclusion that philosophy
as a mere intellectual activity had come to an end, and that, thanks to
Hegel's discovery, the philosopher, instead of contemplating the world,
should now become an active participant in history and discover truth
in the process of the actual self-manifestation of Reason in events. In
Marxist philosophy, this is called the principle of the "unity of theory
and practice."

... As soon as we have once realized — and in the long run no one has
helped us to realize it more than Hegel himself — that the task of philos-
ophy thus stated means nothing but the task that a single philosopher
should accomplish that which can only be accomplished by the entire
human race in its progressive development — as soon as we realize that,
there is an end to all philosophy in the hitherto accepted sense of the
word. ... At any rate, with Hegel philosophy comes to an end: on the
one hand, because in his system he summed up its whole development in
the most splendid fashion; and on the other hand, because, even though
unconsciously, he showed us the way out of tlie labyrinth of systems to real
positive knowledge of the world.'

What Engels meant is that philosophy as abstract speculation about
the absolute meaning of things has come to an end with Hegel. This

' Frederick Engels, "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philoso-
phy" (1886), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow; Foreign Languages Pub-
lishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 364.

123

was the task of philosophy as conceived by the classical philosophers of
cur civilization. Hegel, he felt, 'had not only summed up the entire de-
velopment of philosophy until his day but also, by his philosophy of
history, pointed to the "progressive development" of the "entire human
race" as the source from which answers to general questions can alone
be expected, while men, actively participating in this "progressive de-
velopment," would seek "real positive knowledge about the world,"
rdative and concrete knowledge, in <preference to abstract philosophical
truth. Reason in its most general form, in other words, unfolds in the
actual events of history rather than in the philosopher's mind. Knowl-
edge is thus linked inseparably with historical action.

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human think-
ing is not a question of theory but is a practical question. In practice
man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the this-sidedness
of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking
which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."

For a follower of Hegel this meant that the philosopher's place was
henceforth in the arena of historical action. He would know only as
he actually helped reason to unfold, through participating in active
change. For Marx this meant revolution as a philosopher's vocation.
For him revolution was therefore not primarily an emotional reaction to
suffering or injustice, but rather the v/ay of life of a thinking man.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the
point, however, is to change it.*

Hegel thus supplied the philosophical impulse that made Marx turn
to revolutionary change as the proper field of a thinking man's activity.

Feuerbacb

The impulse did not take its socialistic shape, however, until it re-
ceived direction from the ideas of Ludwig Feuerbach ( 1 804-1 872 ) . In
1841, Feuerbach published a book called The Essence of Christianity.
It said, in brief, that religion had falsely attributed to a "fictitious" God
the noblest qualities of man himself. Thus, he concluded, it is not God
who created man, but rather man who in his imagination created God.
In reality, there is nothing beyond man and nature. Now that this had
been recognized, man should reclaim for himself the attributes of noble-
ness which so far he had mistakenly bestowed on God and should move
forward to realize his destiny in the here and now. Feuerbach, was,
in other words, a materialist, i.e. a philosopher who claimed that matter
(nature) is all the reality there is. He denied the reality of the spirit.

•Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach" (1845), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Mos-
cow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 402.
*/fcjrf.,p. 404.

51436»— 60 — ToL 1-

124

Feuerbach's rejection of the spiritual was turned by Marx into a funda-
mental criticism of Hegel. Hegel had said that history is the self -mani-
festation of an "Absolute Mind," in other words, of an ultimate spiritual
reality. Feuerbach, however, asserted that matter is the only reality.
Marx combined Feuerbach's and Hegel's ideas and concluded that his-
tory had indeed "laws" of rational development, but that these were to
be found in the unfolding of material conditions of life rather than in
the unfolding of "Absolute Mind.'*

Then came Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity. With one blow it pul-
verized the contradiction, in that without circumlocution it placed mate-
rialism on the dirone again. . . . Nothing exists outside nature and man,
and the higher beings our religious fantasies have created are only the fan-
tastic reflection of our own essence. . . . One must himself have experi-
enced the liberating effect of this book to get an idea of it. Enthusiasm
was general; we all became at once Feueibachlans."

, . . With irresistible force Feuerbach is finally driven to the realiza-
tion . . . that oiu: consciousness and thinking, however suprasensuous
they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Mat-
ter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product
of matter.*

Marx thus derived his ideas from a combination of Hegel's notion of
history as a rational process of progressive change with Feuerbach's
concept that matter, rather than mind, is the ultimate mover of every-
thing.

... To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of
thinking, which, under the name of "the Idea," he even transforms into
an independent subject, is the demiur^os of the real world, and the real
world is only the external, phenomenal form of "the Idea." With me, on
the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by
the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.^

The "hberating effect" of Feuerbach thus came from his thesis that
it is not God or an "Absolute Spirit" who moves the world, but matter,
something which, after all, man can know and control. He opened the
vista of the illusion that man can grasp the ultimate "laws" of what
causes history and thus become his own master. Hegel had said : The
process of historical change is the gradual unfolding of truth. Feuer-
bach said; Everything is ultimately nothing but matter. Marx con-
cluded : The process of material change in society is man's truth. From
this in turn follows that the thinking man must take an active part in

' Engels, "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy" (1886),
Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,
1955),vol. II,pp. 366, 367.

•/fiid., p. 371.

* Marx, "From the Afterword to the Second German Edition ©f the First Volume
of Capital" (Jan. 24, 1873), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 456,

125

the change of the material conditions in hfe — in other words, that he
must seek to revolutionize the entire economic order.

. . . Hegel had freed history from metaphysics — he had made it dialec-
tic; but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now ideal-
ism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; now a mate-
rialistic treatment of history was propounded, and a method found of ex-
plaining man's "knowing" by his "becoming," instead of, as heretofore,
his "being" by his "knowing."

From that time forward Socialism was no longer an accidental discovery
of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle
between two historically developed classes — the proletariat and the bour-
geoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as per-
fect as possible, but to examine the historico-economic succession of events
from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and
to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending
the conflict.'

The root of Marxist revolutionary aims is thus neither a sense of in-
justice nor an ideal of a perfect society. It is rather the conviction that
in the change of man's material existence is where man's truth can alone
be grasped. The wUl to change, i.e., to destroy and again rebuild, the
entire social order is a result of this philosophical premise. Communist
revolution and materialist philosophy are thus inseparable. By its com-
bination of a program of action with a philosophy the Marxist world
view became a substitute for religion to many who reject religion and
still want a system explaining fully the meaning of life.

2. Materialism and Dialectic

(a) Materialism, as we have seen, flows from the deliberate rejec-
tion of God. Rejecting God means rejecting the idea that the material
world is the creation of a divine Spirit.

, . . Did God create the world or has the world been in existence
eternally?

The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into
two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and,
therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or
other . . , comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded
nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.'

One should note that here, again, Communists see two "camps" at
struggle with each other: "idealism" and "materialism." "Idealists"
here are meant to be all those who do not accept the view that matter is

*Engek, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected
Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 135.

• Engels, "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy"
(1886), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1955), vol. II, p. 369.

126

the only reality there is; they are also supposed to further, by their philo-
sophical views, the interests of the bourgeoisie and are therefore the
Communists' irreconcilable enemies.

. , . Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment
of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philo-
sophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material,
that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of
matter in motion, that Interconnection and Interdependence of phenomena,
as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of
moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of
movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit." ^^

Materialism is, in other words, a kind of metaphysics (although the
term "metaphysics" is anathema in the Communist jargon ) , because it
says something about the ultimate origin and nature of all existing
things. It says that they are not created, and that everything is, ulti-
mately, matter and matter-in-motion. In the whole of life, nature is
the true substance of everything, there is no spiritual world distinct from
nature. As appHed to history and things human, materialism means
that the basis of everything that man does, thinks, feels, etc. is to be
found in his material existence. The material existence of society is the
social production of material life, or economic production.

. , . Marx became convinced of the necessity of "bringing the science of
society . . . into harmony with the materialist foundation, and of recon-
structing it thereupon." Since materialism in general explains conscious-
ness as the outcome of being, and not conversely, materialism as applies to
the social life of mankind had to explain social consciousness as the outcome
of J06 fa/ being."

Marx's application of materialism to the explanation of history is
called "historical materialism." It is claimed that historical materialism
has provided social scientists with a tool of unfailing accuracy where
formerly they had only subjective opinion to guide them.

, , , Pre-Marxian "sociology" and historiography at best provided an
accumulation of raw facts, collected at random, and a depiction of certain
sides of the historical process. By examining the ensemble of all the op-
posing tendencies, by reducing them to precisely definable conditions of
life and production of the various classes of society, by discarding subjec-
tivism and arbitrariness in the choice ef various "leading" ideas or in their

^History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course
(New York: International Publishers, 1939), p. HI. Chapter IV of this textbook,
entitled "Dialectical and Historical Materialism," was written by Stalin and is also
published in the anthology of Stalin's works Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1953). The above quotation can be found there on
pp. 720, 721.

"V. I. Lenin, "Karl Marx" (July-November 1914), Selected Works (London:
Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, g. 18.

127

interpretation, and by disclosing that all ideas and all the various tendencies,
witliout exception, have their roots in the condition of the material forces
of production, Marxism pointed the way to an all-embracing and compre-
hensive study of the process of rise, development, and decline of social-
economic formations. People make their own history. But what deter-
mines the motives of people, of the mass of people; that is: what gives rise
to the clash of conflicting ideas and strivings; what is the ensemble of all
these clashes of the whole mass of human societies; what are the objective
conditions of production of material life that form the basis of all historical
activity of man; what is the law of development of these conditions — to
all tliis Marx drew attention and pointed out the way to a scientific study
of history as a uniform and law-governed process in all its immense variety
and contradictoriness.^^

The actual content of the Communist materialistic pliilosophy of his-
tory has alrea.dy been described in the first chapter of this study: ^^ it
is the analysis of history as a series of class struggles, and of the progress
of mankind as the alleged succession of five dogmatically asserted types
of society, each shaped by its characteristic techniques of economic
production. There is no need here to repeat this account. One should
note, then, that "materialism" in Communist ideology means not what
this tenn connotes in everyday language: a preference for material
possessions over treasures of the soul and the mind. It rather means
the explanation of all things and happenings in terms of a supposedly
ultimate material reality. In the minds of Communists, it is therefore
quite compatible with what we might colloquially call "idealism," i.e.
dedication to a cause, appeal to feeUngs and aspirations of men, and
the preference of distant goals over immediate advantages.

(b) Dialectic is a part of Communist philosophy that analyzes the
laws of change in the v/orld." It is derived from Hegel who analyzed
the process of human thought to explain the motion of history. Hegel,
as we have seen, sought to understand the laws of history. He believed
that history was the unfolding of "Absolute Mind." He assumed that
the motions of this unfolding of "Absolute Mind" and the movements
of human thought followed the same laws. Hegel found that human
thought moves forward through "opposites," that is, it rises to higher
insights by opposing its own position on a lower level. History, he said,
moves forward in the same way. Dialectics thus became, in Hegel's
view, the key to the understanding of history and the sole reliable guide
to man's action in history. Hegel emphasized that everything is essen-

"^ Ibid., pp. 19, 20.

" Chapter I, section 3, above.

" Cf. also the discussion of dialectic in chapter I, section 4, above. Dialectics,
originally a method of thought seeking to grasp reality by the successive use of seem-
ingly contradictory insights, became through Hegel an explanation of the very nature
of reality. It is, in this sense, a formula for the principle of perennial transformation
of everything and thus no longer a mere method but rather a philosophy.

128

tially a process of growth through contradiction, and that everything
that grows contains its own opposite within itself. This is the principle
of the "unity of opposites." It differs from another philosophical ap-
proach which defines the nature of things in such a way that some-
thing is defined once and for all and thus can never be considered its
own opposite. This other approach is called, in Communist jargon,
"metaphysics," and is considered "unscientific," and "reactionary."

, . , The great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended
as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in
which the things apparently stable ... go through an uninterrupted
change of coming into being and passing away . . . this great fvmdamen-
tal thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated
ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contra-
dicted. . . .

. . . The old metaphysics . . , accepted things as finished objects. . . .*'

. . . this dialectical philosophy dissolves all conceptions of final, absolute
truth and of absolute states of humanity corresponding to it. For it
(dialectical philosophy) nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the
transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure
before it except the iminterrupted process of becoming and of passing
away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical
philosophy itself Is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process
in the thinking brain.^°

. . . Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws of
motion, both of the external world and of human thought. . . ."

How, then, does the world move, according to this philosophy? The
key to motion is, as has already been said, contradiction. Everything
that exists is challenged by its opposite. It is "negated." Eventually,
the "negation" (or the opposite) will prevail, only to be challenged in
turn. On this new level of "negation," the original position will reap-
pear, but changed, made over, elevated. The changes of "negations"
occur first imperceptibly; i.e. opposition against something that exists
will gradually mount under a seemingly smooth surface. But at one
point the sum total of these negative forces will amount to a complete
and substantive reversal : at this point then a kind of "leap" occurs and
out of a great "quantity" of modifications arises an entire new "quality."
Thus we have here a kind of myth about the process of change and
growth, a myth that again has a powerful attraction for many who
want something to replace the notion of Providence and divine
judgment.

" Engels, "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy"
(1886), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1955), vol. II, pp. 386, 387.

" Ibid., p. 362.

" Ibid., p. 386.

129

... A development that seemingly repeats the stages already passed,
but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis ("negation of negation"), a
development, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line; a dev^opment
by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions; "breaks in continuity"; the transforma-
tion of quantity into quality; the inner impulses to development, impai-ted
by the contradiction and conflict to the various forces and tendencies act-
ing on a given body, or within a given phenemenon, or within a given so-
ciety; the interdependence and the closest, indissoluble connection of all
sides of every phenomenon ... a connection that provides a uniform,
law-governed, universal process of motion — such are some of the featuies
of dialectics. . . .^*

Dialectics is, as one can see, a most complicated and somewhat
nebulous philosophy. As now taught in all Soviet-ruled schools, it
comprises the following f»ur propositions:

(a) Contrary to metaphysics," dialectics does not regard nature as an
accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, iso-
lated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral
whole, in which things, phenomena, are organically connected with, de-
pendent on, and determined by, each other.

*♦***»*

(b) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state
of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of con-
tinuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development,
where something is always arising and developing, and something always
disintegrating and dying away.

»»*♦*«*
The dialectical method ^^ regards as important primarily not that which
at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to
die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the
given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method
considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.

(c) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of
development as a simple process of growth^ where quantitative changes do
not lead to qualitative changes, but as a development which passes from
insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open, fundamental
changes, to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative
changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form
of a leap from one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the
natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantita-
tive changes.

"Lenin, •'Karl Marx" (July-November 1914), Selected Works (London: Law-
rence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, pp. 17, 18.

"For the meaning of metaphysics in Communist jargon, see p. 128.

* Dialectics is here falsely called a "method" when actually the sense in which the
term is here used is that of a philosophy. Cf. above, footnote 14, p. 127.

130

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development
should be tmderstood not as a movement in a circle, not as a simple repeti-
tion . , . but as an onward and upward movement. . . .

(d) Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradic-
tions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have
their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away
and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites,
the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying
away and that which is being bom, between that which is disappearing
and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process
of development. . . .^

In considering everything a connected and integral whole, dialectics
places the emphasis entirely on society as a whole matter tlian the in-
dividual person. In stressing the changeability of everything, dialectics
considers as more real that which is expected to come than that which
now exists. In insisting on the rapid and abrupt nature of change,
dialectics points to the inevitability of violent revolutions. And the con-
cept of contradictions puts forward the idea of struggle.

3. Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical Materialism ("Diamat") is, as the term implies, the com-
bination of the two ideas of materialism and dialectics. In other words,
the laws of change, as formulated by dialectics, are considered the laws
of material changes, or, reversely, material conditions are conceived as
constantly changing according to dialectic laws.

. . . Marx and Engels considered the fundamental limitations of the
"old" materialism, including the materialism of Feuerbach . . . to be : ( 1 )
that this materialism was "predominantly mechanical," ... (2) that the
old materialism was non-historical, non-dialectical (metaphysical, in the
sense of anti-dialectical), and did not adhere consistently and comprehen-
sively to the standpoint of development; (3) that it regarded the "hmnan
essence" abstractly and not as the "ensemble" of all concretely defined
historical "social relations," and therefore only "interpreted" the world,
whereas the point is to "change" it; that is to say, it did not understand
the importance of "revolutionary, practical-critical, activity." ^

In this combination of philosophical elements, each component
makes its own peculiar contribution. The most significant contribution

'^History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevdks), Short Course
(New York: International Publishers, 1939), pp. 106, 107, 109. Also Sulin, Prob-
lems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp.
714-717.

"Lenin, "Karl Marx" (July-November 191^), Selected Works (London: Lawrence
& Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, pp. 15, 16.

131

of the materialistic component is the idea that the laws of change of
social conditions can be fully known.

, . . Contsary to idealism, which denies tlie p9ssibility of knowing the
world and its laws, which does not believe in the authenticity of our
knowledge, does not recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is
full of "things-in-themselves" that can never be known to science, Marxist
philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully know-
able, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and
practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and
that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only
things which are still not known, but which will be disclosed and made
known by the efforts of science and practice.^

It is this claim to the knowabUity of all things, and to Marxist mate-
rialism as the key to such knowledge, which is the basis for the assertion
of communism that it is a "science." Actually, since it relies on fLxed
dogmas which it refuses to subject to scientific tests, communism does
not proceed by the methods of science. It does, however, draw much
of its confidence from the illusion that the materialistic analysis of society
suppHes "authentic knowledge."

The discovery of the materialistic conception of history, or rather, the
consistent extension of materialism to the domain of social phenomena, re-
moved two of the chief defects of earlier historical theories. In the first
place, they at best examined only the ideological motives of the historical
activity of human beings, without investigating what produced these mo-
tives, without grasping the objective laws governing the development of
the system of social relations, and without discerning the roots of these
relations in the degree of development of material production; in the
second place, the earlier theories did not cover the activities of the masses
of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the
first time to study with the accuracy of the natural sciences the social con-
ditions of the life of the masses and the changes in these conditions.^*

The characteristic contribution of the dialectic component is the
emphasis on change, flux, revolution, and struggle.

. . . The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in
their "self-movement," in their spontaneous development, in their real life,
is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the
"struggle" of opposites. , , .

**♦♦♦«♦

"History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course
(New York: International Publishers, 1939), p. 113. Also Stalin, Problems of Len-
inism (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), p. 722.

»* Lenin, "Karl Marx" (July-November 1914), Selected Works (London: Law-
rence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 19.

132

The unity ... of opposltes is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative.
The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as develop-
ment and motion are absolute.^'

Many of the typical Oommunist attitudes flow directly from the char-
acteristic views of dialectical philosophy.

... if the world is in a state of constant movement and develop-
ment . . . then it is clear that there can be no "immutable" social sys-
tem. . . .

Hence the capitalist system can be replaced by the Socialist system. , . .

Hence we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are
no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predomi-
nant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future be-
fore them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant
force.

*******

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not back-
ward.

Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and
abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that
revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable
phenomenon.

Hence the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the liberation of
the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow
changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitaHst sys-
tem, by revolution.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a
reformist.

Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal
contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis
of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it
is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and in-
evitable phenomenon.

Hence we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist sys-
tem, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class
struggle but carry it to its conclusion.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising
proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests
of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of "the
growing of capitalism into Socialism." ^"

Even though Communist ideology has combined materialism and
dialectics into one pliilosophy, these two elements have turned out to be

"Lenin, "On Dialectics'* (1915), Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart,
Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, pp. 81, 82.

^History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Coursa
(New York: International Publishers, 1939), pp. 110, 111. Also: Stalin, Problems
of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953), pp. 719, 720.

133

quite incompatible with each other. Materialism, maintaining that
everything is matter, emphasizes the evolutionary aspects of things, for
the motion of matter is naturally conceived in evolutionary terms.
Dialectics, with its insistence on "contradictions" and "abrupt changes,"
stresses sti'uggle, destruction, revolution. Those followers of Marx and
Engels who have given greater emphasis to the materialistic component
of their philosophy have by and large tended to expect more from the
natural evolution of economic conditions than from revolution. They
have sometimes predicted the "growing of capitalism into Socialism."
Lenin and his followers, by contrast, have tended to lean more to the
dialectic component and have, as the above quotation from Stalin's
works shows, chosen to emphasize above all the contradictions and strug-
gles, the violent changes, and the power of the classes of "the future."
But the same passage also shows that the tension between the mate-
rialistic and the dialectic components of Communist philosophy has a
tendency to lead to party splits over policy.

4. Religion and Ethics

As we have seen, the root of the Marxist philosophy is Feuerbach's
idea that God is man's own invention and that in reality there is noth-
ing beyond nature (matter). The rejection of religion is thus of the
very essence of Communist thinking. The Communist reliance on
dialectical materialism as a "science" capable of providing the party
with "authentic knowledge" stands and falls with the thesis that there
is ultimately nothing but matter-in-motion, and that things spiritual
are merely a reflection of things material. The Communists have self-
assurance and confidence because of their belief that they can know
and eventually control everything because there is no God and no
Creation.

• , . The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly
declared, is dialectical materialism, which fully embodies the historical
traditions of the materialism of the eighteenth century in France and of
Feuerbach ... in Germany — a materialism which is absolutely atheistic
and resolutely hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels'
Anti-Diihring ... is an indictment of the materialist and atheist Diihring
for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion
and religious philosophy. . . . Religion is tlie opium of the people — this
dictum of Marx's is tlie cornerstone of the whole Marxist view on religion.
Marxism has always regarded all modem religions and churches and all
religious organisations as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to
defend exploitation and to drug the working class.^'

''Lenin, "The Attitude of the Worker's Party Towards Religion" (May 1909),
Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, pp. 663, 664.

134

Lenin himself went considerably beyond Marx and Engels in his
hostility to religion.

, . . Every religious idea, every idea of god, even every flirtation with
the idea of god, is unutterable vileness. . . .

. . . Any person who engages in building a god, or who even tolerates
tfie idea of god-building, disparages himself in the worst possible
fashion. . . .'*

What goes for ethics in communism follows from the totality of the
philosophical positions already explained. Engels, in describing dia-
lectic philosophy, had said :

» . . For it [dialectical philosophy] nothing is final, absolute, sacred.'"

He had further concluded that in this continuous flux, all morality
is relative to class interests:

... In reality every class, even every profession, has its own
morality. . . .'*

Lenin had stated that nothing is absolute except the "struggle of
mutually exclusive opposites" (see above, p. 132). Stalin had attached
value mainly to the "strata which are developing and have a future be-
fore them." What does all this amount to? First, since everything
including right and wrong "is in flux," it amounts to the rejection not
merely of a particular standard, but of any intrinsic standard of right
and wrong. Secondly, since the only acknowledged value is that of the
eventual Communist future, progression in history becomes the standard
of judgment: whatever points "forward" in time is the equivalent
of "good," and whatever is considered to point "backward" is the
equivalent of "bad." Thus, certain social forces and certain organiza-
tions of power are as such endowed with value, regardless of the nature
of their actions. Thirdly, since "nothing is absolute except struggle,"
the requirements of struggle are substituted for requirements of in-
trinsic excellence in conduct.

As a result, what Communists call their "morality" is actually not a
standard of conduct in intrinsic terms but a relatlvistic demand that
conduct conform to the shifting requirements of the party's strategy.
The "class struggle" as a substitute for human virtue — that is the mean-
ing of Lenin's formulation of Communist "morality" :

. . . The whole object of the training, education and tuition of the
youth of today should be to imbue them with Communist ethics.

"Lenin, "Letter from Lenin to A. M. Gorky" (Nov. 14, 1913), Selected Works
(London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, pp. 675, 676.

* Engels. "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy"
(1886), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House, 1955), vol. II, p. 362.

^ Ibid., p. 383.

,135

But is there such a thing as Communist ethics? Is there such a thing
as Communist morality? Of course there is. Often it is made to appear
that we have no ethics of our own; and very often the bourgeoisie accuse
us Communists of repudiating all ethics. . . .

In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality?

In the sense that they were preached by the bourgeoisie, who declared
that ethics were God's conmiandments. We, of course, say that we do not
believe in God. . . .

We repudiate all morality that is taken outside of human, class
concepts. . . .

We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the
class struggle of the proletariat. Our morality is deduced from the class
struggle of the proletariat.

The class struggle is still proceeding, and our task is to subordinate
everything to the interests of this struggle. And we subordinate our Com-
munist morality to this task. We say: Morality is that which serves to de-
stroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the toilers around the prole-
tariat, which is creating a new Communist society.

Communist morality is the morality which serves this struggle. . . .^^

The struggle of the proletariat — that is nothing but the ceaseless pur-
suit of power by the Communist Party. This is the only cause which, in
Communist eyes, can justify human action, because in the Communist
world view, there is nothing else that could possibly justify anything.
Having rejected God, having discarded any notions of good that men as
such have in common, having proclaimed the class struggle as the basic
reality, and the laws of historical change as absolute, only that which
in their scheme appears to "have a future" can be considered as having
any kind of value. The "future", according to Communists, is inevita-
bly Communist. Hence the struggle for Communist victory is for them,
as one of them put it, "the law of laws."

" Lenin, "The Taslcs of die Youth League" (Speech Delivered at the Third AII-
Russian Congress of the Russian Young Communist League, Oct. 2, 1920), Selected
Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. IX, pp. 474, 475, 477.

INDEX

Page

"Activities of the Council of People's Commissars, The" (Lenin) 71

"Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" (Marx and
Engels) 52, 59, 64

Alexander II (Tsar) 11

Anarchists and Communists 98

Anti-DUhring (Engels) -— 105, 133

Asiatic mode of production, ignored in Communist ideology 24

"Attitude of the Worker's Party Towards Religion, The" (Lenin) 133

Babeuf, Francois N 121

Bakunin, Michael A 4, 7-9

Bebel, August 10, 103

Bernstein, Edward, and "Reformism" or "Revisionism" 11,12,43

Blanqui, Auguste 7, 8

Bogdanov (pseudonym for A. A. Malinovsky) 13

Capital (Marx) 5, 25, 32, 34-40, 50, 121, 124

Carew Hunt, R. N 7-10

Commune of Paris (1870-71) 7, 102, 103

Communism. See Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Dimitroff, Knorin, Mao Tse-

tung and table of contents.
Communist International, Sixth World Congress; demands world proletarian

loyalty to U.S.S.R 117,118

Communist League 5, 8

"Communist Manifesto." See "Manifesto of the Communist Party, The".
Commimist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks). See also Lenin, Stalin,

Russian Social Democratic Party, Soviet Union 4

11,14,107,108,113-116,118,119

Comte, Auguste 6

"Conditions of Affiliation to the Communist International, The" (Lenin) — 85,90

"Critique of the Gotha Programme" (Marx) 50,63,66, 101

Current Soviet Policies II (Gruliow) 112

Darwin, Charles 2 1

Decembrists H

"Declaration of the Conference of 12 Communist Parties" (Moscow, Novem-
ber 1957) , on the duty of working people to the Soviet Union 120

Dimitroff, Georgi 119

"Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The" (Marx) 94

Engels, Frederick:

about dialectic philosophy 128, 134

about state and society 18, 19, 21, 65, 72, 97-100, 103, 105, 108

admits self-starting forces in the succession of societies 25

and Bebel 1 03

and Feuerbach 124, 130

and Hegel 122-125, 128

and Lenin 4, 22, 24, 27, 72, 75, 99-102, 130, 133, 134

and Marx 4, 5, 8, 9, 25, 121

and the Paris Commune (1870-71) 102

and Russia ^1

and Stalin 22, 105

and the Utopians 6, 30, 64

defines bourgeoisie and proletariat **

fi INDEX

Engels, Frederick — Gentinued Pae*

dictatorship of the proletariat 98, 99, 103

discusses "basis" and "superstructure" of society 18, 19

discusses conditions of proletariat 17

discusses property 18, 97

ethics and law 18,63,97, 103, 134

his requirements for "scientific" socialism 30

historical materialism 18-25, 125

on dialectical materialism 25-28, 128, 130, 133

on revolution 55-57, 59-61, 63, 65

"period of transition" 65,98-101,103

rejection of God in his concept of materialism 124, 125

"Engels to N. F. Danielson" (Engels) 61

Factory Act (1819 in England) 6

"Farewell Letter to the Swiss Workers" (Lenin) 116

Feuerbach, Ludwig 121, 123-125, 130, 133, 134

Finanzkapital (Hilferding) 43

Fourier, Charles. See also Socialism in France, Utopian Socialism 6, 8, 121

Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) 6

French Communism. See Socialism in France.

"From the Afterward to the Second German Edition of the First Volume of

Capital" (Marx) 124

German Communist Party 10

German Social Democracy (Schorske) 51

German Social Democratic Party 10, 11

Glezerman, G 103-107

Gruliow, Leo 112, 114

Guesde, Jules and the Parti Ouvrier Francais 9

Gurian, Waldemar 12-14

Hegel, G. W. F 15, 25, 27, 28, 30, 121-125, 127, 128

Hilferding, Rudolf 43

"Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation" (Marx) 61

History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short

Course (Stalin) 26, 116, 126, 130-132

Hitler, Adolf 1 6

Hobson, J. A 43

Hook, Sidney 4, 5, 11

"Housing Question, The" (Engels) 97

Hyndman, H. M., and the "Social Democratic Federation" 9

Imperialism ( Hobson ) 43

"Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (Lenin) 43-50

"Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of Socialism, The"

(Lenin) 111

"Industrial reserve army". See Marx.

International, First (International Workingmen's Association) 5,7-9

Basle Congress (1869) 9

Hague Congress (1872) 9

Philadelphia Congress (1876) 9

International, Second 9, 10, 14

International, Third (Comintern) 10, 14

"Interview With the First American Labour Delegation" (Stalin) 112

Introduction to "The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 by Karl Marx"

(Engels) 60

Iskra 13

Japan (mentioned by Lenin) 48

"Karl Marx" (Engels) 22

"Karl Marx" (Lenin) 28,29,126,127,129-131

Kautsky, Karl i 10

INDEX 111

Pagre

Khrushchev, N. S 14, 50, 110, 112-115

at the Twentieth Party Congress on the inevitability of war 114

Kienthal, Socialist international conference 13

Knorin, V 119

"Kulaks" (term used by Lenin) 69

" 'Left- Wing' Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality" (Lenin) 116

" 'Left- Wing' Communism, An Infantile Disorder" (Lenin) 53,54

68,70,71,86-88,93-95,111
Lenin, V. I.:

agreement with Marx's theory:

in attacking reformists 51,53

on the importance of materialism 28, 126, 127

on the inevitability of class conflict 43, 46, 47, 52

on the total critique of society 32, 46, 50, 52, 53

and Bogdanov 1 3

and Plekhanov 1 1-13

and Russian terrorism 4, 12

attacks "opportunism" 67,68, 78-81,84

biography 11-14

causes Bolshevik-Menshevik split 1 2

concept of class alliance 48, 49, 67, 69, 90-95

concept of class struggle 43, 47,

52, 67-72, 78, 86-89, 94, 95, 103, 104, 134, 135

concept of the dialectic 129, 131, 132

concept of historical materialism 28, 29,91, 126, 127, 131

concept of revolution 49-51, 53, 66-73, 88, 108, 109, 113

necessary connection with war 113

the "two revolutions" 91,92

concept of the state 52,72,73,99-106,117

cultural-educational function of the Soviet State 104

describes imperialism 45-50, 116, 117

inherent contradictions in 48,49, 116, 117

weakness of Lenin's concept 49, 50

describes monopoly capitalism 43-45

distinguishes between proletarian and bourgeois democracy 52, 84,

89,91,92,102,103,106, 107

distinguishes propaganda from agitation 82, 83

founds Communist Party in Russia 12

identifies "intellectual" with "bourgeois" element 84-86, 88, 89

influenced by Hobson and Hilferding 43

modification of Marx's theory:

eliminates reference to Asiatic society 24

emphasizes "consciousness" 29, 76, 78-82

emphasizes imperialist wars 48, 49

emphasizes military character of class struggle 70, 81, 84, 85

emphasizes "monopoly" in capitalism rather than "competition,"

and "finance" rather than "factory" 43, 44, 47

emphasizes political, rather than economic contradictions in cap-
italism 47, 116

extension of functions of proletarian rule 104

extension of term "bourgeoisie" 71, 73

follows Engels in elaborating dialectical materialism 26, 27, 130, 133

greater hostility toward religion 133, 134

on the corruption of part of the proletariat 46, 53

en the protracted struggle in the "transition"— 67-69, 88, 90-92, 111, 113
on the role of colonies 45,46,67,69-71, 118

|y INDEX

Lenin, V. I.— Continued ^^^^

notion of ethics —

entirely within class concepts 1-3*. j'^^

on "just" and "unjust" wars ^^o" oa

on the need for subterfuge 53, 54, 93, 94

on the utility of terror ^J^'^lu.

v'ileness of religion co ^i

on the dictatorship of the proletariat, the "transition" period 68, 71,

72,88,89,102-106,116-118

on the nature and tactics of the party ^h^f'

67, 68, 71, 72, 75-95, 110-113, 116, 117

and the Communist International 85

coexistence with the enemy 110-113,117

combination of legal and illegal activities 93, 94

"democratic cenk-alism" 84-87

guardian of "truth" and "science" 85-87

neutralization of opposition 89, 90, 92, 95

relation to bourgeoisie 89-91

relation to the masses 81-83, 87-90, 93-95

on the peasantry and agriculture 49, 67, 69, 71, 88-92, 94, 95

existence prolongs the weakness of the proletariat 94

on the place of reforms 51, 110

on the Soviet Union, its war against world capitalism inevitable 113,

-114,116-118

•JLetter from Lenin to A. M. Gorky" (Lenin) 134

"Letter to L. Kugelmann" (Marx) 100

"Letter to P. V. Annenkov" (Marx) 86

"Ludwie Feuerbach and the End of Classioal German Philosophy" (Engels)

22, 122, 124, 125, 128, 134

Liebknecht, Karl 1 0

Luxemburg, Rosa 1 0

Manchester School ^

18, 29, 34, 41, 51, 55, 57-64, 75, 90, 98, 100, 101, 104, 117, 121

Manuilsky, D. Z 120

Mao Tse-tung 1 19

Marx, Karl:

analysis and indictment of capitalism 23, 32-42, 47

and Bakunin r '""

and Blanqui °

and Engels 5, 8, 9, 21, 22, 30, 121

and Feuerbach 121, 123, 124, 130, 133

an^ the First International '""

and Hegel 15, 27, 28, 121-124

and Lenin. See also Lenin 4, 12,22,26,

28, 29, 32, 43, 44, 46-59, 52, 59, 66-73, 75, 76, 78, 87, 88,
90, 91, 94, 96, 100, 102, 108, 109, 126, 130, 131, 133, 134.

and the Utopians 6-8,51,63,121

as a philosopher 121-126, 130, 133

as a prophet 11,17,28,29,32,41,42,47

attacks religion 58, 124, 125, 133

biography ^"

concept of alienation 19> 37, 40

concept of commodity 33-38, 42

concept of concentration and centralization 39,61

concept of "consciooisne'ss" 16,20,76,126

concept of democracy 31

concept of "increasing misery" ^0

INDEX y

Marx, Karl — Continued Page

concept of internationalism 108, 109

concept of labor theory of value 36

concept of majority 62, 87

concept of morality and law 32, 36, 58, 73, 96, 97

concept of the party and its tactics 75,81,90

concept of revolution 32, 49, 55, 56,

59-64, 66, 69, 70, 73, 78, 98, 100, 108

concept of rights and equality 65, 66, 101, 102

concept of the state 33, 52, 59, 62-66, 95-102

distinguished from society 95-99, 101, 108

concept of surplus value 35-38

weakness of the concept 37, 38

defines law of acciunulation 39, 40

dialectical materialism 25-28, 130-133

discusses bourgeoisie (capitalists) 17,24,33,

35-41, 56-64, 68-70, 90, 98, 101

discusses dictatorship of the proletariat 23, 59, 62-66, 98, 101, 102

distinguishes two phases within it 65, 66

discusses feudal society 17, 24, 41, 60, 69

discusses the future Communist society and its freedom 63-66, 98, 102

discusses the peasantry 57, 94

discusses the petty-bourgeoisie 18,41,57,59,64

discusses the proletariat 17, 18, 23,

35-41, 55-64, 66, 69, 75, 78, 90, 98, 101

discusses property 16, 20, 52, 58, 60, 63

discusses structure and superstructure 20, 97

distinguishes between "revolutionary" and "really revolutionary" 57, 58

historical materialism 15-25, 28, 29, 126

"industrial reserve army" 33, 39, 40

mentions ancient mode of production 24

mentions phases of society, including Asiatic phase 24, 23

split of Marx's followers 32, 33, 43, 44

treatment of classes and class struggle 15-23, 33, 34,

36, 38, 41, 42, 52, 55-65, 71, 72, 90, 98, 100, 101

Marxism and Linguistics (Stalin) 105

Nechaev, S. G 4, 12

"On Authority" (Engels) 63

"On Dialectics" (Lenin) 28, 132

"One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" (Lenin) 76, 78, 79, 84-86

"Opportunism" (term used by Lenin) 46, 51, 67, 78-80, 84

Oriental Despotism (Wittfogel) 24

"Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, The" (Engels) 18, 22,

25, 65, 97, 99

Owen, Robert. See also Utopian Socialism 6

Palmer, R. R 5, 6

Plamenatz, John 6-8

Plekhanov, Georgi 1 1-13

founds Russian Marxism 11

"Political Report of the Central Committee to the Fifteenth Congress of the

C.P.S.U. (B.)" (Stalin) 112

Pravda 1 3

Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (Marx). 21, 24, 60
Preface to the English Edition of 1888 of "The Manifesto of the Communist

Party" (Engels) 100

Preface to the French and German editions of "Imperialism, The Highest

Stage of CapitaUsm" (Lenin) 48,49

Preface to the Third German Edition of Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire of
Louis Bonaparte" (Engels) 21

yi INDEX

Page

"Preliminary Draft of Theses on the Agrarian Question" (Lenin) 90

"Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions"

tLenin) 118

Problems of Leninism (Stalin) 26,

67, 68, 70, 72, 77, 80, 83, 85, 87, 92, 101, 104-107, 109, 111, 115,
126, 130-132.

"Proletarian Culture" (Lenin) 104

"Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, The" (Lenin) 52, 69

Proudhon, P. J. See also Socialism in France 7,8, 121

Pyziur, Eugene 4

Red Army, the "army of the international proletariat" 118

"Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet

Union to the Twentieth Party Congress" (Khrushchev) 115

"Report of the Central Committee of the R.C.P. (Bokheviks) at the Eighth

Party Congress" (Lenin) 113

"Report to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U. (B.) on the Work of the

Central Committee" (Stalin) 105

Revolution in France (1789) 5,6

Revolution of 1848, European 5, 7

Rheinische Zeitung 4

"Rale of the Communist Party, The" (Lenin) 87

Russia (before November 1917) 4,6,9-11,13,14,61,75,76

Revolution of 1905 9, 13

Russian Social Democratic Party 11,12,76

founded at Minsk 1 1

split at London 12, 13

Saint-Simon, Claude. See also Socialism in France, Utopian Socialism 6, 8

Schorske, Carl E 10,51

"Semiproletarian" (terra used by Lenin) 69,92

used by Stalin 109

Shub, David 12, 13

"Social-chauvinism" (term used by Lenin) 46

Social Democrats and Communists 32, 33, 46, 50, 90

Socialism in France. See also Saint-Simon and Fourier 5, 30

"Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (Engels) 19, 30, 64, 65, 99, 125

Soviet Union 3, 14,37,50, 102-120

"Speech at the June 2, 1956, meeting in Moscow of Young Communist League

members" (Khrushchev) 113

"Speech Delivered at Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central

Control Commission of the C.P.S.U. (B.)" (Stalin) 118

"Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Nuclei Secretaries of the Moscov/ Organi-
zation of the R.C.P. (Bolsheviks)" (Lenin) 113,117

Stalin, J. v.:

and Engels 1 05

as leader of world communism 14, 80, 85

concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the "transition" period 68,

72, 80, 82, 83, 85, 92, 104-107, 109, 111, 115

concept of the state in the "transition" period 104-107

concept of world revolution 67-70, 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116

possibility of peaceful achievement 115

condemns all who differ on party tactics 87, 104

particularly "textualists" and "Talmudists" 105

demands world revolutionary loyalty to U.S.S.R 118

describes imperialism 67,69,70, 108, 109

its allies, petty bourgeois democrats and the Second International 109

just war against it 116

INDEX Til

Stalin, J. v.— Continued Page

describes Marxist dialectics as contrary to metaphysics 26, 129, 130

describes role of Soviet Union 109-112

discourages ideological references to Asiatic society 24

on the peasantry 92, 106, 109

on proletarian alliance with other classes 92, 106, 109

on the tasks of the party and revolutionaries 67,

77, 80, 83, 85, 87, 92, 105, 107, 118, 132

on the use of reforms and agreements 100, 101, 132

policy of coexistence and war 100, 105, 108-112, 114-116

relation of minority to majority will 77, 104-107

"State and Revolution, The" (Lenin) 52, 68, 72, 73, 99, 100, 103, 106

"Tactics of the R.C.P. (B.), The" (Lenin) 110

"Talmudists." See Stalin.

"Tasks of the Youth League, The" (Lenin) 135

"Textualists." See Stalin.

"Theses on Feuerbach" (Marx) 123

"Theses cm the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist

International" (Lenin) 89, 93

"Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, The" (Lenin) 28, 86

Tkachev, P. N 8, 12

Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union 112, 114

"Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, The"

( Lenin ) 91,92

Ulianov, Vladimir Il'ich. See Lenin.

United States 3, 9, 18, 45, 55, 56, 58

"Urgent Tasks of Our Movement, The" (Lenin) 70, 79

Utopian socialism:

distinguished from Marxism 6-8

criticized by Marx and Engels 29, 30, 51, 121

criticized by Lenin 67, 68

Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus, Die (Bernstein) 43

"Wage Labour and Capital" (Marx) 96

"War and Peace" (Lenin) 71

Weaver, Richard 23

What Is Property? (Proudhon) 7

"What Is To Be Done?" (Lenin) 51-53, 76, 77, 79-84, 86

"Where to Begin?" (Lenin) 70,81

Wittfogel, Kari A 24

Zimmerwald, Socialist international conference 13

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05445 3178

JUL

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Facts on communism"

See other formats