THE ESSENTIAL CONTINUITY OF THE COMMUNIST

MOVEMENT

A. THE THEORETICAL CONTINUITY

WHY MARXISM-LENINISM IS NOT OBSOLETE

[From the World Marxist Review, July 1971]

"The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true."-V. I. Lenin.

THE VOICES OF REVOLUTION

[From The Guardian, July 7, 1971, p. 9]

LENIN

The following selections on the necessary conditions for a revolutionary situation are from Vladimir I. Lenin's "Collapse of the Second International" and "Left Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder."

For a Marxist there is no doubt that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution. What are, generally speaking, the characteristics of a revolutionary situation? We can hardly be mistaken when we indicate the following three outstanding signs:

(1) It is impossible for the ruling classes to maintain their power unchanged; there is a crisis of the "upper classes" taking one form or another; there is a crisis in the policy of the ruling class; as a result, there appears a crack through which the dissatisfaction and the indignation of the oppressed classes burst forth. If a revolution is to take place, it is usually insufficient that "the lower classes do not wish," but it is necessary that "the upper classes be unable" to continue in the old way.

(2) The wants and sufferings of the oppressed classes become more acute than usual.

(3) In consequence of the above causes, there is considerable increase in the activity of the masses who in "peace time" allow themselves to be robbed without protest, but in stormy times are drawn both by the conditions of the crisis and by the "upper classes" themselves into independent historic action.

Without these objective changes, which are independent not only of the will of separate groups and parties but even of separate classes, a revolution, as a rule, is impossible. The co-existence of all these objective changes is called a revolutionary situation.

... A revolution emerges not out of every revolutionary situation, but out of such situations where, to the objective changes mentioned above, subjective ones are added, namely, the ability of the revolution

ary class to carry out revolutionary mass actions strong enough to break (or to crack) the old government, which never, not even in a period of crises, "falls" unless it is "dropped."

Revolution is impossible without a national crisis affecting both the exploited and the exploiters. It follows that for revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully understand the necessity for revolution and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it; secondly, that the ruling classes be in a state of government crisis which draws even the most backward masses into politics (a symptom of every real revolution is the rapid tenfold and even hundred fold increase in the number of hitherto apathetic representatives of the toiling and oppressed masses capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly.

In these circumstances one must count, not up to a thousand-as is really done by the propagandist who belongs to a small group which does not yet lead the masses--but one must count in millions and tens of millions. In these circumstances one must not only ask oneself whether the vanguard of the revolutionary class has been convinced, but also whether the historically effective forces of all classes-positively of all the classes in the given society without exception-are aligned in such a way that the decisive battle is fully matured, in such a way that:

(1) All the class forces hostile to us have become sufficiently confused, are sufficiently at loggerheads with each other, have sufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle beyond their capacities.

(2) All the vacillating, wavering, unstable, intermediate elementsthe petty bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois democracy as distinct from the bourgeoisie-have sufficiently exposed themselves before the people and have sufficiently disgraced themselves through their practical bankruptcy.

(3) Among the proletariat a mass mood in favor of supporting the most determined, unreservedly bold, revolutionary action against the bourgeoise has arisen and begins to grow powerfully.

The main task of contemporary communism in Western Europe and America is to acquire the ability to seek, to find, to determine correctly the concrete path, or the particular turn of events that will bring the masses right up to the real, decisive, last and great revolu tionary struggle.

It is necessary to organize in a new way, not in a socialist manner but in a communist manner, not in a reformist manner but in a revolutionary manner, the work of propaganda, agitation and organization among the armed forces and among the oppressed and disfranchised nationalities in "one's own" state. Because in all these spheres of social life, in the epoch of imperialism generally, and particularly now, after the war which tortured nationalities and quickly opened their eyes to the truth-all these spheres of social life are particularly becoming filled with inflammable material and create numerous causes of conflict, crises and the intensification of the class struggle.

We do not know and we cannot know which spark-out of the innumerable sparks that are flying around in all countries as a result of the political and economic world crises-will kindle the conflagration,

in the sense of specially rousing the masses. We must, therefore, with the aid of our new, communist principles, set to work to "stir up" all, even the oldest, mustiest and seemingly hopeless spheres, for otherwise we shall not be able to cope with our tasks, we will not be allsided, we will not be able to master all weapons and we will not be prepared either for victory over the bourgeoisie (which arranged all sides of social life in a bourgeois way) nor for the forthcoming communist reorganization of the whole of social life after the victory.

[From Freedom at Issue, May-June 1971]

LIBERAL MARX IS NOT DEMOCRACY

(By Milovan Djilas)

The essence of Communist teaching has remained completely unaltered from the time of Marx, except for questions of tactics on how to gain and hold power. The essence of this teaching, moreover, cannot change for the very reason its alteration would lead to its destruction. Contemporary knowledge and experience deny a scientific validity of the dialectic and materialistic schemes. The longer it endures, the more inevitable Communist teaching drifts deeper and deeper into dog

In no Communist country has reform been the result of a deliberate and conscious action of the leadership. The so-called liberalization of Communism is a very imprecise, unreliable expression invented by the Western press in order to produce a simplified explanation of the departure from the madness of "Stalinism." Even Stalinism was invented by the Western press out of "practical" needs for simplification. "Stalinism" is actually Marxism realized-under Russian conditions. Thus, in the same way in which "Stalinism" cannot exist apart from Marxism, there cannot be, and there does not exist, a liberal Communism. There are today Communist regimes and Communist leaders who became compelled to abandon more or less "Stalinistic" methods.

"Liberalism" penetrates the consciousness of Communists only when they are left with no other alternatives: it does not originate from their own good will but from imposed dire necessity-from the chaos of social conditions, and primarily from the fear of loss of power and the struggle for power. Relaxation in the cultural life, decentralization of the economy, the introduction of a minimum degree of legality, and tolerance of situations with regards to religions-all these are a consequence of the resistance to totalitarian madness, to the assaults on life, and the wastefulness of maintaining dead dogma.

B. THE CONTINUITY OF SOVIET FOREIGN POLICY

[From the testimony of Professor C. Leonard Shapiro before the Senate Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations, April 16, 1970]

It follows that we are dealing with a fairly constant type of Politburo leadership, whoever the dominant incumbent may happen to

459-595 - 72-2

be. The mediocrity of the present incumbent and of his immediate associates has the effect of making conduct of policy even less individual, and therefore more predictable, because a mediocre personality is the more dependent on the traditions and limits of the institutionin the Soviet case, the party apparatus and its ideology.

In sum, the profile of Soviet foreign policy has in essential features remained quite constant since 1917, notwithstanding the great differences which characterized the leading personalities over the yearsLenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev. The two essential features are: (a) Soviet policy is unremittingly dynamic. It is not directed towards achieving equilibrium, or balance of forces, or peace, or collective security, or certain specific concrete objectives: its ultimate aim is "victory," which means Communist rule on a world scale. However unrealistic this aim may seem, it is the case that it has been thoroughly inculcated into the minds of all Soviet leaders from Lenin onwards for over 50 years by the ideology. There is no time factor attached to this ultimate ideological aim-in contrast in this respect, say, to Hitler, or Genghis Khan. And so, within it, the Soviet Union seeks to advance wherever this is possible, to gain one advantage here, and another there, and to move forward or halt as advantage dictates: in other words, ideology determines the constant, ultimate aim, it does not affect tactics or strategy. Again, unlike the case of Hitler, the Soviet Union has never acted according to a "master plan": on the contrary, it is characteristic of its foreign policy to keep as many options open as possible and to vary them as circumstances dictate.

(b) The second essential feature, ever since the Treaty of BrestLitovsk in 1918, has been the preoccupation with defense of the territory of the Soviet state as a first priority. Traditionally, on the European continent, this has always taken the form of seeking to "trade space for time," and, clearly, whenever this has been possible, other people's space. Stalin's expansion into Europe after the war was essentially a continuation of Lenin's abortive policy towards Poland in 1920-incorporation of bordering territory by a combination of force and political subversion. From the Soviet point of view it is difficult to see any logical limit to this search for territorial security in Europe other than the Atlantic Ocean; **

C. THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTINUITY

[From the World Marxist Review, August 1969, pp. 98-99]

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL

(By Gus Hall)

Fifty years ago, the leading revolutionary figures and thinkers, representing the revolutionary Marxist-oriented working-class organizations, met in the founding convention of the Communist International. This marked the opening of the historic stage of the passage of civilization from capitalism to socialism.

The founding Congress of the Communist International was a reflection of the historic fact that the Communist movement was now a

world reality. The birth of the Comintern embodied and symbolized the new meaning of proletarian internationalism. The struggle against world imperialism had risen to a new level.

*

The birth of the C.I. struck terror into the hearts of the forces of world capitalism. The vilifications, the attacks, the slanders, the provocations against the C.I. were never-ending. Revolutionary leaders in all parts of the world were "Comintern agents." The later dissolution of the C.I. did not stop the attacks because obviously, it was not the structure they were afraid of; what they feared was the ideas it represented.

*

The C.I. was a most effective tribunal of proletarian internationalism. Its very existence was a buffer against the influence of divisive, narrow bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalism within the workingclass movement. It was itself a product of the concept of proletarian internationalism. It initiated worldwide movement of working-class solidarity.

The C.I. was a working-class instrument of struggle. It fought with working-class stubborness and tenacity against all ideas of "classlessness." It firmly held on to the Marxist-Leninist concept that the class struggle is the pivot around which all the forces of social progress revolve. It fought against all illusions regarding the forces of capitalism. It recognized the irreconcilable contradictions between the two classes. The setting has changed but challenges to these ideas persist.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 7, 1960, p. C17]

TEXT OF STATEMENT BY LEADERS OF 81 COMMUNIST PARTIES AFTER MEETING IN MOSCOW

Communists throughout the world are united by the great doctrine of Marxism-Leninism and by a joint struggle for its realization. The interests of the Communist movement require solidarity in adherence by every Communist party to the estimates and conclusions concerning the common tasks in the struggle against imperialism, for peace, democracy and socialism, jointly reached by the fraternal parties at their meetings.

[From Speech of Nikita Khrushchev, Jan. 6, 1961, before the party organization of the Higher Party School, the Academy of Social Sciences, and the Institute of MarxismLeninism Attached to the Central Committee of the CPSU.]

FOR NEW VICTORIES OF THE WORLD COMMUNIST MOVEMENT

Participating in the conference were prominent leaders of MarxistLeninist parties which are waging under difficult conditions a heroic struggle against capitalism, the fighting leaders of the national liberation movement-in other words, the elite of the international Communist movement.